Rittvik is a New (Apa) Sampradaya

by bhakta Eric Johanson

In recent years the rittvik advocates have come up with a new philosophical term for those who disagree with them. They call them “living guru” devotees. Take for example this characterization of Kailasa Candra dasa, a longtime opponent of rittvik, as found on p576 of book 1 of Srila Prabhupada’s Hidden Glories: “By 1989 he had become a living guru radical who had become an apologist for the living guru argument. He remains antagonistic to the rittvik order of Srila Prabhupada.”

The thing is, and this also spotlights a big dishonesty of most rittvik advocates, in 1989 most devotees had never heard of rittvik, including them. Previous to that virtually all followers of Srila Prabhupada assumed that when one talked about getting initiated by a guru, it meant approaching a person who was physically manifest, what they now call a “living guru.” That’s because that is how Srila Prabhupada always framed it in his books and talks.

“Krishna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master. That is enjoined in the next verse.
tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadekshyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah” Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.34, New York, August 14, 1966

Rittvik advocates often get dodgy when you ask if they had this same physical “living guru” conception before 1989 or whenever they first heard of rittvik. In any case, that’s because the “living guru argument” is the rule in all the sastras. There we don’t find any instances of disciples surrendering to or taking initiation from gurus who are physically departed. And there certainly are departed devotees who are at least on the same level as Srila Prabhupada, like Srila Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya Himself.

It was Lord Chaitanya who established our Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, and it was He who ordered everyone therein to become a physical “living guru” themselves.

yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa

āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa
“Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.” Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 7.128

The fact that rittvik advocates have no use for this order means that they are following something else. They think it is wrong to follow this order because then one would be trying to replace Srila Prabhupada as the only diksa guru. This means they aren’t any longer in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. They reject one of the big orders of its founder, who is also the supreme Lord. They also reject the example of all the previous acaryas who were all “living guru” advocates.

Categorically rejecting such an order in such a manner is completely different from someone who is just too weak or fallen to be guru. It means you are creating a new siddhanta or philosophy. You are then in a different or new sampradaya.

The idea of becoming a guru entails completely transforming oneself by getting beyond all ones anarthas, or materialistic habits, and becoming fixed in Krishna thought. One of those bad habits is the ambition to be guru. One thus becomes dhira or brahma-bhuta, self-realized.

“Those who are dhira – dhira means sober, thoughtful – they are not bewildered. But those who are not dhira, adhira . . . There are two classes of men: dhira and adhira. Dhira means one who is spiritually situated. He is called dhira or brahma-bhutah prasannatma, dhira.” Lecture on Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta, Madhya-lila 20.101-104, Bombay, November 3, 1975

When Srila Prabhupada was physically manifest it was a common conception among his followers that they were in the process of transforming themselves to become pure devotees so that they could fulfill the above order of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and follow in Srila Prabhupada’s footsteps by taking disciples. That’s why so many, including many current rittvik advocates, believed it in 1978 when the zonal acaryas lied that they had become so qualified.

So what happened to cause so many to give up this key pursuit of following the above order of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu? It was all the cynicism generated by the faithless bad example, the pretence, of the zonal acaryas. Of course, those zonals also ran the lion’s share of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples out of the temples and the crucible purifying environment that previously was enabling their transformation.

Anyway, faithlessness is contagious. The zonals didn’t believe the process Srila Prabhupada gave us would eventually produce a self-effulgent pure devotee, so they jumped up like monkeys and lied about their level of advancement. The cynicism of seeing “the best” devotees fall so quickly to such a level engendered more faithlessness in those who served them in their mischief after 1978. Part of that faithlessness manifested in the en-mass giving up of the above order that is rittvik.

Conclusion

It is pointless to go through any more of the rittvik rationalizations and “proofs.”  Their renunciation of Mahaprabhu’s order puts them all “outside of the sampradaya.”

“In the parampara system, the instructions taken from the bona fide spiritual master must also be based on revealed Vedic scriptures. One who is in the line of disciplic succession cannot manufacture his own way of behavior. There are many so-called followers of the Vaishnava cult in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who do not scrupulously follow the conclusions of the sastras, and therefore they are considered to be apa-sampradaya, which means ‘outside  of the sampradaya.’” Purport, Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi 7.48

Absolutely nothing herein is intended to be an apology for what has been done by the corrupt ISKCON institution since 1978 along with their sudra-like ecclesiastical “gurus.”