By Bhakta Alex
Myth: Ritviks were appointed until Srila Prabhupada’s physical disappearance only, and in the opening exchange, Srila Prabhupada didn’t fully express his thought which he clarified later in the conversation.
From “The Final Order” (1996) by Krishnakant:
“Here Srila Prabhupada answers Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s question. He says he will be appointing some disciples to act as “officiating acarya”, or “ritvik”. Having clearly answered the question, Srila Prabhupada remains silent.
He offers no further elaboration at this point, nor does he qualify, nor attempt to qualify his answer. We therefore must assume that this was his answer. The only alternatives to this view are either:
1) Srila Prabhupada deliberately answered the question incorrectly or misleadingly,
Or
2) He did not hear the question properly and thought that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was only asking about what was to be done whilst he was still present.
No disciple of Srila Prabhupada would even consider option 1), and if option 2) were the case, then the conversation can tell us nothing about the future of initiation for after his departure; hence we would still be left with an unmodified July 9th order as his only statement on future initiations.
Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. The problem with this proposition is that, in issuing instructions in such a manner, Srila Prabhupada would only correctly answer the original question posed by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami if the following conditions were satisfied:
- That somebody took it upon himself to ask more questions.
- That by sheer luck they would happen upon the right questions to get the correct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja’s original question.
This would be an eccentric way for anyone to answer a question, not to speak of direct a worldwide organization, and was certainly not Srila Prabhupada’s style. Indeed if, as is being proposed by the GBC, he went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole Movement with instructions on initiation which were only to have relevance for four months, surely, he would not have dealt in such an obscurist manner with instructions which could run for as long as ten thousand years.
Clearly if we are looking to this transcript to incontrovertibly support modifications a) & b) [above mentioned key myths of the ant-ritvik position] we are not doing very well so far. Srila Prabhupada is asked what will happen about initiations, particularly when he leaves: he answers he will be appointing ritviks. This completely contradicts both of the GBC’s proposed modifications and simply reinforces the idea that the July 9th order was meant to run “henceforward”. (End of excerpt from TFO)
Any sincere person will clearly see/hear that Srila Prabhupada was asked what arrangement he was going to make in regards to initiations in the future, particularly when he is “no longer with us”, and His Divine Grace answered that he would appoint officiating acaryas or ritviks (“Ritvik, yes”). As will be shown below, the closing part of the conversation doesn’t refute this opening part and doesn’t prove that ritviks were going to be appointed until Srila Prabhupada’s departure only.
Note how the beginning of July 9th letter says: “Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupad indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “rittik”—representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity”.
Now, please step back from the text of the conversation for a while and think about the situation at large: ISKCON Governing Body delegation approached Srila Prabhupada, and there was a discussion of certain issues. Srila Prabhupada promised to finally resolve the issue we are analyzing in the future. And what was the final outcome of the meeting, other discussions, etc.? The directive that officially established the ritvik initiation system in ISKCON to be functioning henceforward without Srila Prabhupada’s physical participation.
There is not a word in the directive that this is a temporary measure or that ritviks will become diksa gurus. And there is no other final directive establishing future multiple diksa guru system in ISKCON. But anti-ritviks insist that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada said that after his departure, the ritviks would certainly become diksa gurus in ISKCON (which, of course, cannot be proved from the text of the conversation itself), but somehow it allegedly remained on tape only, and as a result of the conversation, the document appeared that says that recently, when GBC members met with Srila Prabhupada, he said he would appoint ritviks, and not a word about future diksa gurus in ISKCON? How can anyone seriously believe this??
Myth: By designating ritviks as officiating acaryas Srila Prabhupada meant they are diksa guru acaryas
From “Srila Prabhupada: Our DIKSA GURU” (A reply to the Sivarama Swami Paper – ‘Continuing the Parampara’) by Krishnakant:
“SECTION 3.3 & 3.4 (p19-21)
Not Appointed
The author asserts that the evidence for the appointment of the eleven-diksa gurus is contained in the opening lines. However, upon closer examination, one finds that the only functionaries that Srila Prabhupada appoints are not diksa gurus, but officiating acaryas, a term highlighted and approved by the author. It is significant that the author concedes that they were selected on the understanding that they would continue to function in this capacity after Srila Prabhupada’s apparent departure.
1) There is one question. How will initiation be conducted, especially in Srila Prabhupada’s absence?
2) Prabhupada says he will ‘recommend devotees to act as officiating acaryas.
3) This understanding of “ritvik acarya” is consistent with Srila Prabhupada’s use of officiating acarya. In addition, it explains that upon his disappearance the devotees performing initiation are ‘officiating gurus’.
Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p20
At this point it is clear that there is an admission that Srila Prabhupada selected officiating acaryas to act on his behalf, both before and after his departure. In making this startling admission, the author has chosen to diverge from the official GBC position that Srila Prabhupada did not select officiating acaryas for after his departure, but only for the duration of his physical presence.
EVASION
“As a final point we would like to give a new definition of the word rtvik or rtvik acarya.”
Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p20
Manoeuvres
Until this point, argument has revolved around whether or not Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks or diksa gurus. However, choosing to approach the problem from a rather novel perspective, the author casually asserts that the officiating acarya and diksa guru are one and the same. It would appear that the author, unable to sustain an otherwise untenable position, has decided, by dint of some remarkable semantic manoeuvres, to evade the issue by redefining the question. Indeed, he provides for his unfortunate reader an entire section (section 3.4) in which the term ritvik is exhaustively redefined.
Honorific
The rationale for this amazing claim is as follows: ‘Srila Prabhupada used the word acarya, which means guru, in conjunction with the word officiating, so he was really appointing diksa gurus’. However, the author omits to mention that in Vedic culture it is conventional to give any priest the honorific title of acarya.
The following excerpts from sastra demonstrate this quite clearly:
“Sri Raghunatha das was the son of Govardhana Majumdara. Their family priest was Balarama acarya. ” CC (BBT 1975) Madhya 16.217
“Candapura is just east of the house of the two brothers Hiranya and Govardhana, the father and uncle of Raghunatha das Goswami. In Candapura lived Balarama Acarya and Yadunandana Acarya, the priests of these two personalities. ” CC (BBT 1975) Antya 3.165
It is the custom that any person expert in a particular field is honoured by the title acarya. For example, Dronacarya was given this title for his expertise in military science. Thus, the priest is also considered a type of guru, or teacher, The ritviks, being expert priests, would naturally be called acarya. For example, in the Krishna Book, a ritvik is described as a ‘learned performer of sacrifices’.
Definition of Ritvik
There are similar references to ritviks in the Srimad Bhagavatam: […] Each time it is always translated as a priest. From this it is quite clear that ritvik means a priest only, a definition confirmed by standard works dealing with Sanskrit grammar:
Ritv-ij. Priest. (Literally, Sacrificing in season).
SGS (OUP 1927) 79b
There is no mention of such functionaries being diksa gurus or themselves accepting disciples. Thus, the use of the word acarya after the terms officiating or ritvik does not mean diksa guru, but refers only to a qualified priest. Indeed, as the author himself explains, officiating means to discharge priestly or divine service.
The dictionary meaning of the word ‘officiating’ is ‘to discharge priestly or divine service, or act in an official capacity’.
Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p19
It is therefore clear that a person who functions as an officiating acarya, simply performs these duties and does not accept disciples.
So, Acarya yes, but the key is what kind of Acarya? As we have conclusively demonstrated, the acarya in question is he who discharges priestly service, not he who accepts disciples. The word officiating or ritvik, gives this meaning only to the word Acarya, as has been admitted by the author himself.
Interchangeable
It is clear that Srila Prabhupada himself never made any such distinction between ritvik acarya and ritvik. A brief selection of examples will suffice:
On the ‘appointment tape’ itself he indicates that ritvik acarya is the same as ritvik.
On July 9th, 1977, when a letter naming the eleven ritviks is sent out to all Temple Presidents and members of the Governing Body Commission, the word used is ritvik, not ritvik acarya.
On July 10th, 1977, Tamal Krishna, when informing Hamsadutta of his appointment, refers to him only as a ritvik, not ritvik acarya.
On July 19th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada dictates a letter in which he again uses the term ritvik and not ritvik acarya.
One may therefore conclude that since Srila Prabhupada used the word officiating acarya once, ritvik acarya never, but ritvik at least three times, the terms are therefore interchangeable, and any assertion by the author to the contrary is nonsense.
The author asserts that not only does officiating acarya mean acting on behalf of the acarya, but that the officiating acarya has his own disciples. However, absolutely no evidence to substantiate this assertion is presented.
Clear Evidence
Srila Prabhupada however, does provide clear evidence, but not, unfortunately, for the claim made by the author:
Tamal Krishna: These men. They can also do second initiation. So, there is no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who would give initiation is doing so on your behalf.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
(Room Conversation July 8th 1977)
“After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The above eleven senior devotees are acting as his representative.
(Letter July 9th, 1977)
Also interesting, is what his secretary, Tamal Krishna Goswami, says when he communicates this information over the next few days:
“His divine grace said: ‘You are a suitable person and you can give initiation to those who are ready for it. I have selected you among eleven men as ‘ritvik or representative of the acarya, to give initiations, both first and second initiations, on my behalf’ (A newsletter is being sent to all Temple Presidents and GBC in this regard, listing the eleven representatives selected by His Divine Grace. Those who are initiated are the disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and anyone who you deem fit and initiated in this way, you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada’s ‘initiated disciples book’.”
(Letter July 10th, 1977)
Conclusive Evidence
This proves conclusively that Srila Prabhupada selected ritviks and that those disciples so initiated belonged to Srila Prabhupada. Although the author might respond that this arrangement was of a ‘temporary nature’, and only intended whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. He would be extremely unwise to do so, as he has already admitted that on the appointment tape the selection of Ritvik-Acaryas was made for after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
The author is accordingly caught in a logistical trap of his own creation.
It is abundantly clear that ritviks were selected to act for after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. It is equally clear that the disciples so created are Srila Prabhupada’s. There is no mention of the disciples belonging to the ritviks.
The remarkable simultaneous Ritvik/Diksa Guru hybrid entity proposed by the author may therefore be discarded.” (End of excerpt from “Srila Prabhupada: Our DIKSA GURU”)
So, Srila Prabhupada didn’t promise to appoint diksa gurus or ritvik/diksa guru hybrid, but ritviks – priests acting on behalf of the actual acarya/diksa guru of ISKCON – Srila Prabhupada. July 9th 1977 letter approved by Srila Prabhupada clarified what he was authorizing:
“Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “rittik”-representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.”
So, officiating acarya or ritvik is not an initiating acarya, just like parivrajaka-acarya is the third stage of sannyasa but it’s not that all parivrajaka-acaryas are diksa gurus. They are monks who travel, preach, and teach by their example. In this sense, they are all “acaryas”. By calling ritvik as “officiating acarya” Srila Prabhupada, most probably, tactfully tried to sugar-coat the truth which was bitter for the ambitious disciples: instead of successor diksa gurus they are appointed as ritviks to act on his behalf.
For example, Hansadutta dasa, one of the first eleven ritviks, admitted many years later: “I distinctly remember when I received the July 9th, 1977 letter in Sri Lanka that it was clear to me that this letter was Srila Prabhupada’s arrangement for initiations for the future. I also remember feeling some disappointment with the obvious conditional authority that the “Rittvik representative of the Acharya” designation implied, because I actually had a great desire to be a Guru like Srila Prabhupada, and I think many of the leaders did have similar desires.” (Hansadutta dasa’s letter to Veda Guhya dasa https://www.harekrsna.org/gbc/black/hans-ritvik.htm)
Finally, it’s worth noting that in the first section of May 28th conversation, Satsvarupa does not try to clarify what the term ‘ritvik’ means, but moves on to the next question from the preconceived list of questions.
Section 2:
Let’s continue the analysis of the conversation:
From ‘Initiations After 1977’, v.2.0 by ISKM:
5. Satsvarūpa: “What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and…”
6. Śrīla Prabhupāda: “He’s guru. He’s guru.”
At point #5, Satsvarūpa is asking about the relationship between the ṛtvik and the disciple but he did not phrase his question correctly. He asked the relation between the initiator and the disciple. It is important to note here that the initiator or guru is Śrīla Prabhupāda and the ṛtvik is only an officiating representative. Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda answered in point #6 that the initiator (Śrīla Prabhupāda) is the guru of the new disciple. (End of excerpt from IA77)