08/28/98 - 2085

Why We Became Ritviks

Editorial (VNN) - by Kesava dasi and (name withheld) das

Following the departure of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami the process of initiation in ISKCON has been much debated. Much of the controversy centers on the question of qualification, namely, whether one who is not yet free from the four defects of the conditioned soul can legitimately assume the post of diksa guru.

Concerns over the practical failures of the previous and current processes are also widely expressed, and such pragmatic considerations form a second element of the debate. We have witnessed the spiritual falldowns of many ISKCON gurus and how this has resulted in much confusion and distress for their disciples. The spiritual health and reputation of ISKCON as an institution have also been adversely affected (as well as a host of other related problems) by said diksa gurus abandoning their vows and devotional practices.

The third prong of the controversy involves sorting out the correct understanding of Srila Prabhupada's communications in the matter of future initiations, specifically the July 9th letter and the preceding conversations. On one hand, we have the original (GBC) conclusion that Srila Prabhupada desired what has become the moribund "zonal acarya" system. Presently, this interpretation has been revised, but the undergirding concept (that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become diksa gurus after his departure) still remains in tact. On the other hand, there is the (increasingly accepted?) interpretation that Srila Prabhupada's naming of eleven disciples as rittvik initiators was to continue after his physical departure. No one disputes that he intended to establish rittvik initiations, the argument divides over the term of this authorization, i.e., was it his plan to have it continue after his final samadhi?

In the spirit of love and trust, we request momentarily setting aside this third component of the debate. The reason is simple, if anyone knows the answer to the third component, the other two issues (qualification and practical results) are subsumed by that knowledge. For example, if Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to be diksa gurus, who are we to turn his translations and purports against him and claim that they (we) are unqualified? The second issue also becomes moot if we know that Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations carried out this way, and any reform on our part should be restricted to "tinkering at the margins" in order to smooth out any rough spots. Based on this reasoning, continuing the discussion while suspending the claim to perfect authority (based on incontrovertible insight into Srila Prabhupada's desire in this matter) is a legitimate request. Again, we work from the premise that any fair-minded person must admit that some measure of ambiguity exists in both the conversations and the letter. The thoughtful arguments made by sincere parties on both sides of the debate are testament to this fact. If we are to reach any workable understanding it is imperative that we appreciate the sincerity of those standing on both sides of the issue. This does not mean that no one has an agenda or a score to settle, some probably do. But to demonize devotees based on their divergent view on this issue is inappropriate and "behavior unbecoming a Vaishnava."

Agreeing to temporarily set aside our conviction that Srila Prabhupada's final conversations and letter are unambiguous (in either direction), we are left with the first two issues (qualification and practical results) as the terms under which a choice must be made as to how to carry out initiations in ISKCON.

To begin with the latter (practical results), it is an understatement to say that the fruits of the "non-liberated guru program" have been bitter. Hope springs eternal, but to imagine still that "this scandal will be the last" seems hopelessly naïve. Sparing ourselves the disheartening details, let us agree that the last twenty-plus years have been no picnic. Srila Prabhupada was supremely transcendental, but also eminently practical. It is hard to imagine that the current trouble-plagued program elicits his enthusiastic support. If we were to evaluate the general outcome of such a system (which places non-liberated persons in the position diksa guru) we would have to conclude that it "does not pass."

Turning to the former issue of qualification, we are reminded of one blissful afternoon in Srila Prabhupada's apartment in Los Angeles, when His Divine Grace responded to a tentative plan with the admonishment, "When in doubt, don't!" The issue of initiations is of crucial importance, and in all honesty, we should begin by acknowledging our humble status as aspiring devotees. The Srimad Bhagavatam defines itself as the scripture specifically intended for listeners who have set aside dishonesty. Is it not a reckless error in judgment to consider that receiving an "A" in high school algebra equips one to take the position of Professor of Mathematics? We should all be proud of and pleased with any Godbrother or Godsister who is becoming learned and renounced, but let us not lose perspective and turn a scientific process into an arbitrary one. If we are to err in our understanding of how to proceed with the initiation process, how much better to err on the side of caution and humility? Just as one can properly chant the holy name in a humble state of mind, aren't we more likely to understand the desires of our beloved gurudev by putting straw in our teeth and waiting for his direct order, which would surely be personally communicated via a direct transcendental exchange?

Krishna consciousness is a scientific process for realizing the Absolute Truth. A critical component of that process is the status of the guru as one who is free from the four defects of conditioned life, namely, imperfect senses, sure to commit mistakes, subject to illusion, and propensity to cheat. One who is not liberated from these defects by virtue of his/her direct perception and communication with the Supersoul should not accept the post of guru. No amount of "finessing" this point will alter the simple, straightforward standard it invokes.

Interestingly, some have proposed allowing conditioned souls to initiate by reducing the status of diksa guru and directing the disciples attention and worship more to the siksa guru (Srila Prabhupada). However, such ideas are attenuated by their failure to appreciate several key points. One, a

disciple cannot really be deterred from worshiping his/her diksa guru. Shastra enjoins it, and, knowing it to be a fundamental injunction, most

devotees will be uncomfortable or unable to satisfactorily "juggle" the two relationships. Inevitably, because we are conditioned to take our sense perceptions as reality, the vapu will become more important and they will relegate Srila Prabhupada to the position of their guru's guru. In addition, while the notion that some sort of "less-diksa, more-siksa" has a superficial allure, its claim to being a "sattvic" resolution unjustifiably presumes that both rittvik and the current system are "extreme" positions. However, such definitions "assume facts not in evidence." Where is it said that the sattvic or "balanced position" between a good idea and a bad idea is a half-bad idea? Clearly, any form of "hybrid" system must stand on its own merits as per the above mentioned two criteria and cannot simply "define away" opposing positions by characterizing them as "extreme." While compromise solutions are not inherently wrong, neither are they inherently right or "balanced." What we are looking for is the ideal program for continuing initiations, not a gracious-sounding but essentially flawed concept.

The above summary of our views on the initiation controversy in ISKCON have been presented in the hope of further clarifying the debate and promoting the program of rittvik initiation. The more formal arguments have been carefully presented elsewhere, and thus we make no attempt to repeat them here. It is instead a simple and straightforward statement of why we find the rittvik system an elegant solution to the current "mess" that haunts our society, and on that basis we see it as the program devised by Srila Prabhupada for keeping the corporate body of ISKCON united around its Founder-Acharya throughout its ten-thousand-year lifetime.

As we learn from the First Law of Holes, "When you are in a hole, stop digging." In the same way, since "jumping up" on Vyasasanas has created so many difficulties, why not settle back into the sure and certain path of having all devotees worship Srila Prabhupada without distraction. There is no controversy over his qualifications, and there is no doubt that any and all will advance without obstruction by taking direct shelter of him and his physically present books. As Srila Prabhupada writes in his Bhagavatam purports, an intelligent person only needs a hint. No one can deny we have had a bushel load.