Judges Rule Ritviks Lose Debate
Who are the judges anyway? Who will judge what Srila Prabhupada intended for ISKCON
post-samadhi initiations? The judges with whom both debaters agree are guru,
sadhu, and sastra! And since both arguments are mutually exclusive only one can be right.
So who is wrong?
Our judges position of ultimate authority is confirmed by our pre-eminent
siksa-guru Srila Prabhupada in Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352 purport as follows:
"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru- vakya, cittete kariya
aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the
spiritual master and the sastra. The actual centre is the sastra, the revealed scripture.
If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be
accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not
a saintly person. The sastra is the centre for all."
So on that basis our supreme judges gave either their support or
falsification of both post-samadhi initiation arguments, which are as follows:
1. (NPD) is a new posthumous diksa system argued by the ritvik people, a
completely new idea which would entail initiates supposedly becoming direct diksa
disciples of Srila Prabhupada in his physical absence by way of an unauthorised ritvik
2. (TRG) is the traditional regular guru system being practised somewhat
successfully by eighty or so gurus in ISKCON, defined in sastra as an unbroken Vaisnava
tradition or the law of disciplic succession, a timeless law which authorises a
sufficiently qualified disciple to accept his own disciples without restriction after his
gurus physical departure.
Here are the results of the conclusive test conducted
by our esteemed judges Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra:
Click here to view evidence chart.
The Judges scored:
NPD zero out of 100
TRG 100 out of 100
SB 7.7.30-31 purport; Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75; Los Angeles lecture, 18 May
1972; BG 4-34; Srila Prabhupada 2 December 75; (Srila Prabhupada 2 Nov 67;
Srila Prabhupada 25 Jan 69; Srila Prabhupada Mayapura 1976; Srila Prabhupada 2 Dec
75; Srila Prabhupada 18 July 71; Srila Prabhupada 28 May 77; Srimad
Bhagavatam 2.9.7 purport; and so on.
Satoh vriteh: Rupa Goswami instructs in Updesamrita that we MUST follow in the
footsteps of the previous acaryas, and therefore everyone must take initiation from a
living diksa-guru. This evidence from our topmost SADHU Rupa Goswami is irrefutable proof
from our judge sadhu.
Bhakti Ratnakara 14.190-191; SB 7.7.30-31 purport; C.C. Antya 2.96;
Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75; Los Angeles lecture, 18 May 1972; BG 4-34; SP 2 December
75; SP lect 2 Nov 67; SP lect 25 Jan 69; Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.3.21p; SP
Mayapura 1976; SPL to Hamsadutta, 3rd December, 1968; SPL to Kirtanananda, 12th January,
1968; SPL to Kirtanananda, 25th January, 1969; SP lect 2 Dec 75; SP 18 July
71; SP London, 22nd August, 1973; SP Lilamrta VI, page 167; SP letter to Tusta
Krishna, Dec. 2, '75; SP 28 lect May 77; Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7 purport; SP Conv.
July 18, 1971; SP New York, 26 April, 1968; SP lect, August 14th 1966; and there is much
Teachings of Lord Caitanya: Historical evidence or tradition is called aitihya. The
historical evidence we find in sastra and in own line of disciplic succession is that
every acarya in our line took diksa from a living guru. Diksa has never been taken
posthumously in our line. This evidence from histories given in sastra is a rock solid
example that cannot be broken even by Srila Prabhupada or any other guru and is sufficient
evidence in itself to prove the TRG case.
Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352
Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.39 sruti-smriti- puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhis vina...
Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti then it is simply a disturbance in
The nature of the evidence found in the unbroken Vaisnava tradition of
taking diksa from a living guru is equal in its unchangeableness to the
principle that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The proof of this statement
is the example of Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya Who both needlessly took diksa from a
living guru to teach us by example. This example from sastra is irrefutable.
Thus our three judges unanimously rejected NPD and approved TRG.
Unfortunately the ritvik people have clearly demonstrated that they will reject ANY
decision that disagrees with their fixated NPD idea, even if their idea places Srila
Prabhupada in a bogus position of breaking the law of disciplic succession, and even if it
means undermining the authority of our esteemed judges guru (Srila Prabhupada), sadhu
(Rupa Goswami etc.), and sastra (SB, BG, C.C. and so on). Thus the Ritviks position
is indefensible and most inauspicious.
Adridharans defence of his NPD idea in this debate contains over 100 deviations.
Here Ill present a few of the most ostentatious:
1. Head in the sand philosophy.
I said: "You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so powerful as a guru, sadhu, and
Founder Acarya that he could change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly
upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself!"
Adri said: "We have never argued this. We challenge you to show where we
Adri bravely denies that he never argued Srila Prabhupada wanted to change a major
principle like the law of disciplic succession, but if the result of his NPD
idea clearly breaks that law then how can he irresponsibly disown the illegitimate
consequences? This is head in the sand philosophy.
Unfortunately the limit of this summary was restricted to 1,000 words and so the
expanded explanations of the following have been withheld.
2. A rebounding absurdity
3. Illegitimately hijacking the onus of proof.
4. Scepticism for Vaisnava tradition's own adjudication process
5. Legalistically monopolising acceptable evidence
6. Confusion about parameters of legitimate/relevant evidence
7. Dodging the Vaisnava rationale of guru, sadhu, and sastra
8. Ritvikism is infested with guru and Vaisnava aparadha
9. Dishonestly arguing for arguments sake
10. Chewing the chewed
11. Absurdity upon absurdity
12. A self-refuting argument
13. Agreeing out of confusion
14. Foolish logic
15. Ritvikism is mayavada
The list goes on and up past 100 such errors.
No matter how many mistakes the GBC has made, is making or makes in the future; no
matter how many gurus have fallen down, are falling now or will fall in the future; no
matter what other issues may come to pass, none of it gives actual meaning to, nor
establishes as a viable true option a concocted posthumous ritvik initiation system that
is rejected by Vaisnavisms own adjudication process of guru, sadhu, and sastra.
Consume ritvikism at your own peril!
Ajamila Dasa Adhikari