A Traditional perspective on Ṛtvik-initiation

                                                                           Namo Nārāyāṇāya

Asmad Gurubhyo Namaḥ

Hariḥ Oṃ

rādhā-govindau tato vande brahmāṇaṁ sa-putrakān 

dvaipāyanaṁ tato vande madhvam ṛṣyam anukramāt  

mādhavendraṁ mahātmānaṁ pañcadaśyaṁ samāgatam   

yena premnā parā bhūmir bhaktir yā sā sudurlabhā

vande ’haṁ śrī-guroḥ śrī-yuta-pada-kamalaṁ śrī-gurūn vaiṣṇavāṁś ca

śrī-rūpaṁ sāgrajātaṁ saha-gaṇa-raghunāthānvitaṁ taṁ sa-jīvam

sādvaitaṁ sāvadhūtaṁ parijana-sahitaṁ kṛṣṇa-caitanya-devaṁ

śrī-rādhā-kṛṣṇa-pādān saha-gaṇa-lalitā-śrī-viśākhānvitāṁś ca

rādhākānta-samārambhāṁ madhva-mādhava madhyamām

asmad-ācārya paryantām vande guruparaṁparāṁ

jayati parāśarasūnuḥ satyavatīhṛdayanandano vyāsaḥ

yasyāsyakamalagalitaṃ vāṅmayamamṛtaṃ jagat pibati

ihāmnāyamukhenaiva sarvaṃ vyākhyāyate mayā, 

nāmūlaṃ likhyate kiñcinnānapekṣitamucyate.

Pramāṇa—

Śrīla Rūpa-gosvāmi writes — ‘ādau śraddhā tataḥ sādhu-saṅgo’tha bhajana-kriyā |’ ‘First śraddhā, then sādhu-saṅga, then bhajana-kriyā…’ [1.4.15 BRS], Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes ‘ādau prathame sādhu-saṅge śāstra-śravaṇa-dvārā śraddhā tad-artha-viśvāsaḥ |’ ‘In the beginning, through association with sādhus and by hearing śāstra, faith (śraddhā), which is trust in the meaning of that (śāstra), arises.’ In commentary to 1.2.17 ‘śāstre yuktau ca nipuṇaḥ…’ Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes ‘pūrvaṁ śāstrasya śāsanenaiva pravṛttir ity uktatvāc chāstrārtha-viśvāsa eva ādi- kāraṇaṁ labdham | ataḥ śraddhā-śabdas tatra prayuktaḥ | tasmāc chāstrārtha-viśvāsa eva śraddheti labdhe śraddhā-tāratamyena śraddhāvatāṁ tāratamyam āha—śāstra iti dvābhyām |’, "Since it has been stated earlier that action is initiated only by the injunctions of the scriptures, it follows that faith in the meaning of the scriptures is the primary cause. Therefore, the term śraddhā (faith) is used in this context. From this, it is established that faith means conviction in the meaning of the scriptures. Recognizing this, the gradation among the faithful is explained based on the degrees of faith, as indicated by the mention of 'śāstra' (scripture).”

Śrīla Viśvanātha-ṭhākura writes— ‘tatra bhakty-adhikāriṇaḥ prathamaṁ śraddhā | sā ca tat-tac-chāstrārthe dṛḍha-pratyaya-mayī, prakramyamāṇa-yatnaika-nidāna-rūpa-tad-viṣayakatvaika-nirvāha-rūpa-sādara-spṛhā ca | sā ca sā ca svābhāvikī kenāpi balād utpāditā ca ||’ ‘In the case of a person eligible for bhakti, the first qualification is faith (śraddhā). This faith consists of firm conviction in the meanings of various scriptures, takes the form of being the sole cause for commencing deliberate spiritual effort, and includes a respectful eagerness focused solely on attaining the object described in those scriptures. This faith may arise naturally, or be produced by the influence of some powerful external cause.’[2.5]

Vedavyāsa is the ultimate authority , Śrīpāda Baladeva Vidyābhuṣaṇa has said “vyāsānuyāyino hi vayaṃ tanmatamevānusarāmaḥ, na tadviruddhāvahelanādbibhīma”; “We are followers of Vyāsa and abide by his opinion. We have no fear of rejecting what is contradictory to it.”, No one can question the authority of Śrī Vyāsa, Śrī Vījayendera tīrtha in his Śaiva sarvasvakhaṇḍanam has quoted Taittirīya āranyaka “kiñca 'sahovāca vyāsa: pārāśarya: ityādiśrutyā vyāsavacanānāṃ prāmāṇyāvedanāt, ityādiśrutyā vyāsavacanānāṃ prāmāṇyāvedanāt” “Moreover, according to the statement in the scriptures, 'Then Vyasa, the son of Parāśara, spoke, [TA]' the authority of Vyasa's words is established.” The padma purāṇa says — ‘dvaipāyanena yad buddhaṃ brahmādyais tan na budhyate | sarva-buddhaṃ sa vai veda tad buddhaṃ nānya-gocaraḥ ||’, ‘That which was understood by Dvaipāyana (Vyāsa) is not understood by even Brahmā and others. He (Vyāsa) knows everything that is to be known — the Veda knows that which is known by him, and that knowledge is not accessible to anyone else.’ “autpattikas tu śabdasyārthena saṃbandhas tasya jñānam upadeśo 'vyatirekaś cārthe 'nupalabdhe tatpramāṇaṃ bādarāyaṇasyānapekṣatvāt”[Jaimini 1.1.5] “Certainly there is eternal connection between the word and its meaning ; its knowledge is upadeśaḥ it is never erroneous in matters invisible ; it is authoritative in the opinion of Bâdarâyana by reason of its not depending on others.”

Because Śāstras are independent ‘tīrthī-kurvanti tīrthāni su-karmī-kurvanti karmāṇi sac-chāstrī-kurvanti śāstrāṇi’ means ‘Devotees make the glories of tīrtha, good-deeds and śāstra known’. One may argue to put Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books at the same place with smṛti, but such endeavour is futile what matches with the siddhānta of the actual śāstra is wholeheartedly acceptable that which are not are simply not, also Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books do not mention or describe the ṛtvik system of initiation in the famous San Francisco press conference we hear him saying “I shall live for my books, and you will utilize.” (Press Conference – July 16, 1975, San Francisco).

One may say that the same applies to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi and others as well, to that we say No, as we find in the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa ‘tadājñayā ṣaṭsandarbhaṃ jīvānandaścakāra vai’ [Pratisarga parva]. We find in the Manu-saṁhitā ‘yā vedabāhyāḥ smṛtayo yāśca kāśca kudṛṣṭayaḥ | sarvāstā niṣphalāḥ pretya tamoniṣṭhā hi tāḥ smṛtāḥ ||’ ‘Those ‘artificial texts’ that are in conflict with the Veda, as also all the false theories, are useless, even when carried to perfection; as they have been declared to be founded on ‘darkness.’’ What are the Vedas ? ‘ṛgyajuḥsāmātharvākhyā bhārataṃ pañcarātrakam, mūlarāmāyaṇaṃ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ.’[Bhaviṣya Purāṇa]

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhupāda says in his Laghubhāgavatāmṛtam “nirbandhaṃ yukti-vistāre mayātra parimuñcatā | pradhānatvāt parmāṇeṣu śabda eva pramāṇyate .  yatas taiḥ śāstra-yonitvāt iti nyāya-pradarśanāt | śabdasyaiva pramāṇatvaṃ svīkṛtaṃ paramarṣibhiḥ . kiṃ ca tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt iti nyāya-vidhānataḥ | amībhir eva suvyaktaṃ tarkasyānādaraḥ kṛtaḥ .” “Among all the types of proof, I have accepted the chief one, scripture, while vehemently rejecting indulgence in logic. That is because the greatest sages have accepted śabda as the ultimate proof, while showing the place of logic, as shown in the statement śāstra-yonitvāt: logic is not the means of knowing the Lord, because knowledge of the Lord is produced from scripture. Moreover from the statement tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt: logic is insubstantial, the sages have clearly shown disregard for tarka.”

One may say that only 6% śāstra is available, actually they draw it from the Tattva-sandarbha commentary of Satyanārāyaṇa-bābājī where he quoted kūrma-purāṇa and did some basic maths.

Śrīla Sārvabhaumabhaṭṭācārya answers this beautifully — ‘śākhāḥ sahasra-nigama-drumasya pratyakṣa-siddho na samagra eṣaḥ | purāṇa-vākyair avigīta-śiṣṭācāraiś ca tasyāvayavo’numeyaḥ ||’ ‘The branches of the thousand-branched tree of the Vedas are not entirely known through direct means. Its remaining limbs must be inferred through the statements of the Purāṇas and the conduct of realized authorities (śiṣṭas), especially where the Vedas are silent’ This is supported by the pūrva-mīmāṁsā sūtra “virodhe tv anapekṣyaṃ syād asati hy anumānam” “When there is contradiction it is not to be accepted ; when there is none then there is the presumption.”, who are the ‘śiṣtas’ as per him [Sārvabhaumabhaṭṭācārya] ? he answers ‘śiṣṭās tu sāttvatāḥ’ [same idea of validating an practise based on śiṣṭācāra is adopted in Annam bhaṭṭa’s Tarka saṁgraha], the sāttvatās are śiṣṭas, now what is the characteristic of sāttvata ? that is answered in the śāntiparva ‘eṣa dharmo [pañcarātra-dharma] jagannāthātsākṣānnārāyaṇānnṛpa. evameva mahāndharme ādyo rājansanātanaḥ, durvijñeyo duṣkaraśca sātvatairdhāryate sadā.’ ‘This most esoteric and complete dharma [pañcarāta], received from Jagannātha Himself, was properly obtained by sage Nārada, O King. Thus is this great, eternal dharma — supreme and ancient, difficult to comprehend and harder still to practice, yet upheld always by the Sātvatas.’ [the entire context has been quoted in due course of the document], also we find in the pādma-saṁhitā ‘sūri suhṛdbhāgavata sātvata pañcakālavit, ekāntikastanmayaśca pāñcarātrika ityapi. evamādibhirākhyābhirākhyeyaḥ kamalāsana.’ ‘Sūri, suhṛt, bhāgavata, sātvata, knower of the five times (pañcakālavit), ekāntika (single-minded), absorbed in Him (tanmaya), and also pāñcarātrika—by such names is the follower of Pañcarātra to be described, O Brahmā !.’ Śrīla Vedānta-vāgīśa gives another definition of śiṣṭa in the commentary to prameya-ratnāvali — ‘śiṣṭatvaṁ vedapramāṇyābhyupagantṛtvam’ ‘śiṣṭa is the One who accepts vedas as authentic source of knowledge and acts according to it.’ Pañcarātrikas due to being the servitor of the Lord, their conduct is a valid source of knowledge. Pañcarātrika is One who accepts the rules of Pañcarātra in entirety, thus can’t teach something different than what is already available in the Pañcarātras and given by the Pūrvācāryas as said ‘duṣkaraśca sātvatairdhāryate sadā’, ‘even though the Pañcarātrika dharma is very difficult to follow, the sātvatas [pañcarātrins] always adhere to it [don’t invent easy practises as per time etc.]’ otherwise the paraṁparā ends due to the end of śiṣtatva ‘śiṣṭānuśiṣṭagurūpadiṣṭo mārgaḥ sampradāyaḥ’. The previously quoted sūtra [virodhe...] denies unrightful assumption of an vedic text when an express vedic text says otherwise like “tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet” etc. Also in the Hāritadharma-sūtra— “śrutipramāṇako dharmaḥ, śrutiśca dvividhā, vaidikī tāntrikī ceti.”[Quoted by Śrīla Kullūkabhaṭṭa in his commentary to Manusmṛti 2.1] Thus the Pañcarātras also take effect as śrutis, an Naiyāyīka Jayanta Bhaṭṭa from Kāśmira quotes Pañcarātras as ‘śruti’ even Bhāgavatam is a śruti as said “yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ” etc. In the same Bhāgavata, Śrī Bhagavān who is the embodiment of Sanātan Dharma “ye ca vedavido viprā ye cādhyātmavido janāḥ | te vadanti mahātmānaṃ kṛṣṇaṃ dharmaṃ sanātanam ||” says “vaidikī tāntrikī dīkṣā madīya-vrata-dhāraṇam”. yadbrāhma̱ṇānītihā̱sānpurā̱ṇāni̱ ॥ The Itihāsas and the Purāṇas are just like the Brāhmaṇas. [explanatory texts of Yajñas and other things explained in the Saṁhitā bhāga as in ‘śeṣe brāhmaṇaśabdaḥ’]~ [Taittiriya aranyaka 2.9]. 

Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi and all other Ācāryas of past and present [śiṣṭas] and the Pañcarātras have already described the process of dīkṣā; any addition or subtraction is just an apasiddhānta.

Thus this idea [of 6% śāstra] doesn’t work in the ṛtvik favour, in the very next verse of kūrma-purāṇa we find ‘ekaviṃśatibhedena ṛgvedaṃ kṛtavān purā śākhānāṃ tu śatenaiva yajurvedamathākarot sāmavedaṃ sahastreṇa śākhānāṃ prabibheda saḥ atharvāṇamatho vedaṃ bibheda navakena bhedairaṣṭādaśairvyāsaḥ purāṇaṃ kṛtavān prabhuḥ  so 'yamekaścatuṣpādo vedaḥ pūrvaṃ purātanāt’ ‘In ancient times, he (Vyāsa) divided the Ṛgveda into twenty-one recensions. The Yajurveda he arranged into a hundred branches, And the Sāmaveda he split into a thousand divisions. The Atharvaveda he parted into nine sections. With eighteen divisions, the Lord composed the Purāṇa. Thus, this one Veda of four parts existed from primordial antiquity.’ [Pūrva 50, 18-20].

Also in the Mahābhāṣya we find ‘ekaśatam adhvaryuśākhāḥ sahasravartmā sāmavedaḥ ekaviṃsatidhā bāhvṛcyam navadhā ātharvaṇaḥ vedaḥ vākovākyam itihāsaḥ purāṇam’ ‘The Yajurveda has one hundred branches (adhvaryu-śākhās), the Sāmaveda has a thousand paths (sahasra-vartmā), the Ṛgveda (bāhvṛca) is divided into twenty-one parts, and the Atharvaveda into nine divisions. Speech (śabda) is used in various domains such as mantras and counter-mantras (vākovākya), Itihāsa (epics), Purāṇa (mythical and historical lore)’. 

In the Chāndogya-upaniṣad— ‘ṛgvedaṃ bhagavo'dhyemi yajurvedagͫ sāmavedamātharvaṇaṃ caturthamitihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ vedaṃ...ekāyanaṃ...etadbhagavo'dhyemi’, ‘O revered one, I study the Ṛgveda, The Yajurveda, the Sāmaveda, and the Atharvaveda as the fourth. I study Itihāsa and Purāṇa as the fifth Veda...The Ekāyana (i.e., Pāñcarātra)...all this, O revered one, I study.’ From the Pañcarātras ‘ekāyanaśākhādhyāyināṃ mukhyoʼdhikāraḥ, ādyamekāyanaṃ vedaṃ sadbrahma pratipādakam.’ [Pādma saṁhitā], ‘vedamekāyanaṁ nāma vedānāṁ śirasi sthitam, tadarthakaṁ pāñcarātraṁ mokṣadaṁ tatkriyāvatām.’ [Śrī Praśna Saṁhitā], 'mokṣāyanāya vai panthā etadanyo na vidyate, tasmādekāyanaṁ nāma pravadanti manīṣiṇaḥ' [Īśvara saṁhitā], ‘śrīpāñcarātrāgama śabdārtha nirūpaṇaṃnāmanirdeśānica ekāyanaṃ, śruṇudhvaṃ munayassarve vedamekāyanābhidam.’ [Puruṣottama saṁhitā], ‘tasyavaikṛpayāsmākaṃ ekāyanamahāśruteḥ, vijñānaṃ prāpitokiṃcittasyācaraṇadīkṣitāḥ.’ [Paramapuruṣa saṁhitā] Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa—‘puruṣo ha nārāyaṇo'kāmayata atitiṣṭheyaṃ sarvāṇi bhūtānyahamevedaṃ sarvaṃ syāmiti sa etam puruṣamedham pañcarātram’. 

Vaiṣṇavāgamas are of two types— 1. Pañcarātra [affiliated to the ekāyana śākhā of the maitrāyaṇīya group of śukla yajurveda, ‘mānavā, dundubhā, vārāhakā, ekeyā, hāridraveyā, śyāmāyanīyāśceti. iti ṣaṭ maitrāyaṇīyaśākhāgaṇā ityarthaḥ’ ~ Mahīdāsa’s commentary on Śaunaka’s Caraṇavyūha Sūtras]. 2.Vaikhānasa [Affiliated to the Vaikhānasa / Aukheya Śākhā of the Yajurveda]. Āgamas of both the types are available to us now, both of them order the candidate to take dīkṣā from a Guru present in the world. Thus we understand that ṛtvik dīkṣā is totally absent even in the Vedas. By the rule “virodhe tv anapekṣyaṃ syād”. One may ask if Pañcarātras are Vedas as well then how come they be used in the saṁskāra of women and śudras etc. the answer is given by Śrīla Vidyābhuṣaṇa Prabhupāda in his commentary to Laghubhāgavatāmṛta “tathāpi tadbhāge śudrādhikāraḥ, tannideśāt yathā "varṣāsu rathakāro'gninādadhīta" iti rathakārasya saṁkarasyāpyagnyādhānāṁge mantramātre vidhisāmarthyāt saḥ” “The śudra is qualified for some portions of the Veda, for it is said “varṣāsu rathakāro ‘gnīn ādadhīte”:  “the carpenter should light the sacrificial fires in the monsoon season.” According to this mantra,  the carpenter or low class person is qualified for lighting the fire.” This is accepted in the mīmāṁsa sūtra “vacanād rathakārasyādhāne 'sya sarvaśeṣatvāt”. The prominence of Āgama Mārga in Kaliyuga will be shown later in this document.

In the Mahābhārata’s Śāntiparva— ‘pañcarātrasya kṛtsnasya vaktā tu bhagavān svayam, jñāneṣveteṣu rājendra sarveṣvetadviśiṣyate. jñāneṣveteṣu rājendra sāṅkhyapāśupatādiṣu, yathāyogaṃ yathānyāyaṃ niṣṭhā nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ. idaṃ mahopaniṣadaṃ caturvedasamanvitam, sāṃkhyayogakṛtaṃ tena pañcarātrānuśabditam. nārāyaṃṇamukhodītaṃ nāradoʼśrāvayatpunaḥ, tairekamatibhirbhūtvā yatproktaṃ śāstramuttamam, vedaiścaturbhiḥ samitaṃ kṛtaṃ merau mahāgirau.’ ‘(Rṣi Vaiśampāyana said): “The narrator of the Pāñcarātra philosophy, in its entirety, is Śrī Nārāyaṇa Himself. Among the sources of knowledge, this is superior and the best, O Rājendra. O King! The other philosophies like Sāṅkhya, Pāśupata and the rest are acceptable only to the extent where they are in accordance (with Pāñcarātra) and are interpreted with reference to the Supremacy of Śrī Nārāyaṇa. This great Upaniṣad takes one close to Brahman, explains the purport of the four Vedas harmoniously. It is based on Sāṅkhya (jñāna) and Yoga (bhakti). It is known as Pāñcarātra. It appeared from the face of Śrī Nārāyaṇa and was explained by Devarṣi Nārada once again. This lofty Śāstra (the Pāñcarātra) has been expounded unanimously (by Śrī Viṣṇu), has been declared equal to the four Vedas on the great mountain Meru.” ’ 

There itself — ‘dharmaṃ ca matto gṛhṇīṣva sātvataṃ nāma nāmataḥ, tena sṛṣṭaṃ kṛtayugaṃ sthāpayasva yathāvidhi. tato brahmā namaścakre devāya harimedhase, dharmaṃ cāgryaṃ sa jagrāha sarahasyaṃ sasaṃgraham. āraṇyakena sahitaṃ nārāyaṇamukhodgatam, upadiśya tato dharmaṃ brahmaṇeʼmitatejase. taṃ kārtayugadharmāṇaṃ nirāśīḥ karmasaṃjñitam, jagāma tamasaḥ pāraṃ yatrāvyaktaṃ vyavasthitam. tatoʼtha varado devo brahmā lokapitāmahaḥ, asṛjatsa tato lokānkṛtsnānsthāvarajaṅgamān. tataḥ prāvartata tadā ādau kṛtayugaṃ śubham, tato hi sātvato dharmo vyāpya lokānavasthitaḥ. tenaivādyena dharmeṇa brahmā lokavisargakṛt, pūjayāmāsa deveśaṃ hariṃ nārāyaṇaṃ prabhum..... nāradena susaṃprāptaḥ sarahasyaḥ sasaṃgrahaḥ, eṣa dharmo jagannāthātsākṣānnārāyaṇānnṛpa. evameva mahāndharme ādyo rājansanātanaḥ, durvijñeyo duṣkaraśca sātvatairdhāryate sadā.’ ‘Take from Me the eternal dharma, O Brahmā — it is called Sātvata by name. By that dharma, establish the age of Kṛta according to scriptural order. Then Brahmā offered obeisance to the Lord, Harimedhas, the source of all. He received that supreme dharma — secret, complete, and full of essence. With the Āraṇyaka portion, sprung from the mouth of Nārāyaṇa Himself, that dharma was taught to Brahmā, possessed of immeasurable effulgence. That dharma of the Kṛta age, marked by action without desire for fruit, led him across the darkness to the transcendental realm of the Unmanifest. Thereafter, the boon-giving Deity, Brahmā — Grandfather of all beings — created all the worlds, filled with moving and non-moving entities. At that time the auspicious age of Kṛta was inaugurated, and the Sātvata dharma pervaded all the worlds, firmly established. By that very original dharma, Brahmā, the progenitor of beings, worshiped the Lord of gods — Śrī Hari, the master Nārāyaṇa. This most esoteric and complete dharma, received from Jagannātha Himself, was properly obtained by sage Nārada, O King. Thus is this great, eternal dharma — supreme and ancient, difficult to comprehend and harder still to practice, yet upheld always by the Sātvatas.’ 

In the Bhāgavata— ‘tṛtīyam ṛṣi-sargaṃ vai devarṣitvam upetya saḥ, tantraṃ sātvatam ācaṣṭa naiṣkarmyaṃ karmaṇāṃ yataḥ.’ ‘And thirdly, He, having become the Divine Sage (Nārada) in the Ārṣa Creation (pertaining to sages), expounded the religio-mystical treatise pertaining to the Sātvalas (the devotees of Viṣṇu) namely Pañcarātrāgama by following which actions become void of their binding force.’ Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi comments ‘nāradāvatāram āha—tṛtīyam iti, ṛṣi-sargam upetya, tatra ca devarṣitvam upetyety arthaḥ, sātvataṃ vaiṣṇavaṃ tantraṃ pañcarātrāgamam ācaṣṭoktavān, yatas tantrāt nirgataṃ3 karmatvaṃ bandhu-hetutvaṃ, yebhyas tāni niṣkarmāṇi, teṣāṃ bhāvo naiṣkarmyam, karmaṇām eva mocakatvaṃ yato bhavati, tad ācaṣṭety arthaḥ.’ ‘The verse beginning with ‘tṛtīyam’ refers to the descent (avatāra) of Nārada. It relates to the ṛṣi-sarga (the creation of sages), wherein he [Kṛṣṇa] attains the status of a devarṣi — this is the intended meaning. He proclaimed the Sātvata tantra, the Vaiṣṇava system, namely the Pañcarātra Āgama. From this tantra emerges the concept of karma (ritual action) as being distinct from bondage and kinship — that is, it negates the karmic implications of social and ritual entanglement. Those for whom these karmas are rendered inactive (niṣkarmāṇi), their condition is termed naiṣkarmya — the transcendence of action. It is this tantra which frees even from karma itself, and this is the essence of what he taught (ācacṣṭa) — that liberation comes not through renunciation of action alone, but through the divine system which bestows freedom within devotionally aligned action.’ Also in an appendix śloka of the 10th canto ‘trivakrāyām upaślokaḥ putraḥ kṛṣṇam anuvrataḥ | śiṣyas sākṣān nāradasya dadau cittam akhaṇḍitam || tenoktaṃ sāttvataṃ tantraṃ yat jñātvā mokṣabhāg bhavet | yatra strīśūdradāsānāṃ saṃskāro vaiṣṇavaḥ smṛtaḥ ||’ ‘Lord Kṛṣṇa begat Upashloka in Trivakra. He was the sincere disciple of Devarshi Narada and learnt from him the Sāttvata Tantra which gives mokṣa to its knower. The Sāttvata Tantra narrates the Vaiṣṇava saṃskāras for strī, śūdra, and dāsa.’

In the Mahābhārata, Padma purāṇa, Bhaviṣya purāṇa, Vāyu purāṇa Śiva purāṇa, Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa, Kūrma Purāṇa we find — ‘itihāsapurāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabṛṃhayet, bibhety alpaśrutād vedo mām ayaṃ pratariṣyati.’ ‘By the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, the meaning of the Veda should be fully supported and explained; For the Veda fears that one with little scriptural knowledge may deceive or misunderstand it.’, In the Nāradīya Purāṇa ‘vedārthād adhikaṃ manye purāṇārthaṃ varānane | vedāḥ pratiṣṭhitāḥ sarve purāṇe nātra saṃśayaḥ || purāṇam anyathā kṛtvā tiryag-yonim avāpnuyāt | sudānto'pi suśānto'pi na gatiṃ kvacid āpnuyāt ||’ ‘O Lord of the Best Faces, I consider the meaning of the Purāṇas to be higher than even that of the Vedas; All the Vedas are established in the Purāṇas, there is no doubt about this. If one interprets the Purāṇas otherwise, one attains a crooked path; Even the virtuous and peaceful do not attain liberation thereby.’ In the Bhaviṣya, Vāyu, Skanda Purāṇas — ‘yo veda caturo vedān sāṅgopaniṣado dvijāḥ | purāṇaṃ naiva jānāti na ca sa syād vicakṣaṇaḥ ||’ ‘A brāhmaṇa (twice-born) must know the Veda along with its aṅgas (limbs) and the Upaniṣads. But if he does not also understand the Purāṇas, he cannot truly be considered wise.’ Same idea is found in Yajñavalya smṛti ‘purāṇanyāyamīmāṃsādharmaśāstrāṅgamiśritāḥ vedāḥ’ ‘The Vedas are to be studied and understood in conjunction with the Purāṇas, the science of logic (Nyāya), the discipline of Vedic interpretation (Mīmāṃsā), Dharmaśāstra (codes of law like Manu), and the six auxiliary disciplines (Vedāṅgas).’ The Mitākṣarā commentary goes ‘purāṇaṃ brāhmādi | nyāyas tarkavidyā | mīmāṃsā vedavākyavicāraḥ | dharmaśāstraṃ mānavādi | aṅgāni vyākaraṇādīni ṣaṭ | etair upetāś catvāro vedāḥ |’ ‘The Purāṇa means texts like the Brāhma Purāṇa and others. Nyāya is the science of logic (tarka-vidyā). Mīmāṃsā is the inquiry into the meaning of Vedic sentences. Dharmaśāstra refers to texts like Manu-smṛti and similar works. The Vedāṅgas are six, beginning with Vyākaraṇa (grammar). Endowed with these, the four Vedas are complete.’ In a later verse ‘vākovākyaṃ purāṇaṃ ca nārāśaṃsīś ca gāthikāḥ | itihāsāṃs tathā vidyāḥ śaktyādhīte hi yo 'nvaham ||’ ‘He who daily studies, to the extent of his capacity, the vākovākya (dialogical texts), the Purāṇas, the nārāśaṃsīs (hymns of praise), the gāthikās (traditional verses), the itihāsas (epics or historical narratives), and various vidyās (branches of knowledge)…’ the commentary goes ‘itihāsān mahābhāratādīn’.

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes ‘pūraṇāt purāṇam iti cānyatra | na cāvedena vedasya bṛṃhaṇaṃ sambhavati | na hy aparipūrṇasya kanaka-valayasya trapuṇā pūraṇaṃ yujyate |’ ‘It is said elsewhere: ‘From pūraṇa (filling or completing), it is called Purāṇa.’ And the Veda cannot be completed (or expanded) by something non-Vedic. Just as it is not fitting to fill a gold bracelet with tin, something incomplete cannot be completed by something of lesser value.’ Śrīla Baladeva Prabhu comments ‘samupabṛṃhayed iti vedārthaṃ spaṣṭīkuryād ity arthaḥ | purāṇād iti vedārthasyeti bodhyam’ ‘samupabṛṃhayed’ means ‘should clarify or make the meaning of the Veda explicit.’ The phrase ‘from the Purāṇa’ (purāṇād) should be understood as referring to the meaning of the Veda [makes the meaning of the veda complete].’. One may feel then what is the difference between these two. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes ‘nanu yadi veda-śabdaḥ purāṇam itihāsaṃ copādatte | tarhi purāṇam anyad anveṣaṇīyam | yadi tu na, na tarhītihāsa-purāṇayor abhedo vedena | ucyate - viśiṣṭaikārtha-pratipādaka-pada-kadambasyāpauruṣeyatvād abhede'pi svarakramabhedād bheda-nirdeśo'py upapadyate | ṛg-ādibhiḥ samam anayor apauruṣeyatvenābhedo mādhyandina-śrutāv eva vyajyate evaṃ vā are'sya mahato bhūtasya niśvasitam etad yad ṛg-vedo yajur-vedaḥ sāma- vedo'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam ity ādinā [BṛhadU 2.4.10] ||’ ‘But, one might object, if the literatures we know as ltihāsas and Purāṇas are actually part of the Vedas, there must exist other literatures which go by the same name but are not part of the Vedas; otherwise the literatures we call Itihasas and PuMnas cannot be accepted as nondifferent from the Vedas. To this we reply that the ltihāsas and Puranas are nondifferent from the Vedas inasmuch as both kinds of literature have no human author and present the same object of knowledge. Nonetheless, there is some difference between them with regard to intonation and word order.’ The only difference is the phonetics and special word orders both are apauruṣeya and have the same object of knowledge that is the Lord.

Another important verse quoted by Śrīla Baladeva Prabhupāda from the skanda purāṇa in the tattva sandarbha commentary is ‘yan na dṛṣṭaṃ hi vedeṣu tad dṛṣṭaṃ smṛtiṣu dvijāḥ | ubhayor yan na dṛṣṭaṃ hi tat purāṇaiḥ pragīyate ||’ ‘What is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smṛtis, O twice-born; But what is not found in either is revealed in the Purāṇas [it means meanings are clear and straightforward in purāṇas].’ In the Varāha-purāṇa— ‘idaṃ pañcarātraṃ me śāstraṃ paramadurlabham, tadbhavān vetsyate sarvaṃ matprasādānna saṃśayaḥ. vedaiśca pañcarātraiśca bhaktyā yajñaistathaiva ca, dṛśyoʼhaṃ nānyathā dṛśyo varṣakoṭiśatairapi.’ ‘(Śrī Varāha said): “You will know that this Pañcarātra Śāstra belongs to Me, in its entirety, which is the highest means and easy to follow, through My grace. There is no doubt about this. I am to be seen through the Vedas, the Pañcarātra Āgamas, bhakti and yajñas, not by any other means, even in crores of years.”’

The conclusion is that it is only the śruti [saṁhitā, āraṇyaka, brāhmaṇa, upaniṣad] part which is lost, we still have a well maintained tradition of major Purāṇic texts like Śrīmad Bhāgavata with 24+ commentaries, Mahābhārata etc. along with the Pañcarātras which are the Law book of Vaiṣṇavas. Later in the document we will see that in the age of Kali, Tantra-mārga (Pañcarātra) is the path to be followed even by the Brāhmaṇas ‘āgamoktena mārgeṇa bhagavān brāhmaṇair api | sadaiva pūjyo ’to lekhyaḥ prāya āgamiko vidhiḥ ||’ [Haribhaktivilāsa]. 

Also the Vedas are non contrary to each other, what is found in one recension is non contrary to the other recension thus even knowing the 6% we can firmly affirm that the other 94% as well doesn’t contain the system of Ṛtvik initiation as popularised by some. Just tasting a little bit of sea water gives the knowledge of its entire composition. 

If we consider the verse ‘tarko ’pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ’, ‘Logic is inconclusive, and the scriptures are diverse. Every ṛṣi or sage seems to propose a different view. The truth of dharma is hidden in the cave. The path that the mahājanas (great souls) have followed — that is the proper path.’ Notice ‘mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ’ ‘The path that the mahājanas (great souls) have followed — that is the proper path.’, who are the Mahājanas in this regard ? Śrī Yamarāja says — ‘svayambhūr nāradaḥ śambhuḥ kumāraḥ kapilo manuḥ prahlādo janako bhīṣmo balir vaiyāsakir vayam dvādaśaite vijānīmo dharmaṁ bhāgavataṁ bhaṭāḥ guhyaṁ viśuddhaṁ durbodhaṁ yaṁ jñātvāmṛtam aśnute’ ‘We twelve—god Brahmā, (the heavenly sage) Nārada, god Śiva, Sanatkumāra, Kapila (the founder of the Sāṅkhya doctrine), Manu, Prahlāda, Janaka, Bhīṣma, the demon Bali, Śuka (the son of Vyāsa) and we ourselves—know the essence of the Dharma (the esoteric doctrine) as expounded by the Lord. It is extremely sacred, pure, secret and difficult to comprehend. One who knows it attains immortality (Final Liberation—Mokṣa).’ All of these twelve were initiated by a tangible spiritual master in their realm. Śrīmad Nārada one of the twelve Mahājanas have propagated the way of pañcarātra which he got from Śrī Brahmā and some from Śrī Brahmā to Śrī Śiva or from Brahmā to Kumāras to Himself ‘tantraṃ sātvatam ācaṣṭa naiṣkarmyaṃ karmaṇāṃ yataḥ.’ Also we find in the Bhāgavata ‘etāṁ sa āsthāya parātma-niṣṭhām adhyāsitāṁ pūrvatamair maharṣibhiḥ ahaṁ tariṣyāmi duranta-pāraṁ tamo mukundāṅghri-niṣevayaiva’, ‘I shall cross over the insurmountable ocean of nescience by being firmly fixed in the service of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. This was approved by the previous ācāryas, who were fixed in firm devotion to the Lord, Paramātmā, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.’ Anything must be approved by the previous Ācārya‘s’ to be authentic. One can’t speak anything in the name of the current link, One must remember when Brahmā was deluded his sons had asked the Lord to intervene. Dharma is not dependent on any jīva, Śāstra is the yardstick. Whatever system is there it must be authenticated by all the previous ācāryas ‘pūrvatamair maharṣibhiḥ’, otherwise it is a mere apasiddhānta ‘siddhāntamabhyupetyāniyamātkathāprasaṅgoʼpasiddhāntaḥ’, ‘Having accepted a settled doctrine [in form of a saṁpradāya], if one allows unrestricted deviations or exceptions (aniyama), it leads to unnecessary discussions (kathā-prasaṅgaḥ) and ends in a contradiction to the original doctrine (apasiddhāntaḥ)’. Śrīla Narottamadāsa Ṭhākura says in this regard ‘mahājanera yei patha  tāte haba anurata pūrvapara kariẏā vicāra’  "I shall remain devoted to the path shown by the great souls (mahājanas), considering both the former and the later ones with careful deliberation." [Premabhakticandrikā], thus deliberation should be made with consideration of both previous and recent Ācāryas.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa directly says ‘tasmāc chāstraṃ pramāṇaṃ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau | jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṃ karma kartum ihārhasi ||’, ‘Therefore, let the Śāstra be your authority for determining what should be done and what should not be done. Having learnt what is enjoined in the  Śāstra, you should act .’ One may ask what will happen if I do not follow this, Śrī Bhagavān had already cautioned the outcomes of not doing so ‘yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ | na sa siddhim avāpnoti na sukhaṃ na parāṃ gatim ||’ ‘Whoever disregarding the ordinances of the Scriptures, acts under the influence of personal desire, attains neither perfection nor happiness, nor the Supreme Goal.’ ‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe yas te ullaṅghya vartate ājñā-cchedī mama dveṣī mad-bhakto ’pi na vaiṣṇavaḥ’ ‘The śruti and smṛti literatures are to be understood as My injunctions, and one who violates such codes is to be understood as violating My will and thus opposing Me. Although such a person may claim to be My devotee, he is not actually a Vaiṣṇava.’

In the Bhāgavata— ‘dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītaṁ na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devāḥ na siddha-mukhyā asurā manuṣyāḥ kuto nu vidyādhara-cāraṇādayaḥ’ ‘True dharma is that which is directly established by the Supreme Lord Himself. Neither the revered sages nor the celestial deities truly comprehend it; Nor do the foremost of the perfected beings, nor demons, nor mortals grasp its fullness— How then could the lesser supernatural beings such as the Vidyādharas and Cāraṇas possibly know it?’ What is this dharma ? Śrīnātha Cakravarti explains ‘bhagavatpraṇītaṃ bhagavatā bhagavatprāptyarthaṃ praṇītaṃ bhāgavatadharmam ity arthaḥ’ ‘That dharma which is established (praṇīta) by the Supreme Lord (Bhagavat) Himself, for the purpose of attaining the Supreme Lord (Bhagavat), is called Bhāgavata-dharma.’ In the Mahābhārata we find ‘pañcarātrasya kṛtsnasya vaktā tu bhagavān svayam’, ‘eṣa dharmo jagannāthātsākṣānnārāyaṇānnṛpa. evameva mahāndharme ādyo rājansanātanaḥ, durvijñeyo duṣkaraśca sātvatairdhāryate sadā.’

dharma-śāstreṣu mukhyeṣu vidyamāṇeṣu durbudhāḥ | buddhim ānvīkṣikīṁ prāpya nirarthaṁ pravadanti te || “[Even] In the presence of the principal dharma-śāstras, the ignorant take to logic [i.e., purely logic inquiry] and profess meaningless assertions.” [Rāmāyaṇa: Ayodhya-kāṇḍa, 100.36] 

Śrīla Jīva gosvāmi in the sarva samvādini of paramātmā sandarbha quotes ‘bhaviṣyapurāṇe— ṛgyajuḥsāmātharvākhyā bhārataṃ pañcarātrakam, mūlarāmāyaṇaṃ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ. purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ, svataḥprāmāṇyam eteṣāṃ nātra kiñcid vicāryate.’ “The Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva Vedas, along with the Mahābhārata, the Pañcarātra scriptures, and the original Rāmāyaṇa, are all referred to as ‘Veda.’” “And the Purāṇas that are recognized as Vaiṣṇava by the wise are also considered self-evidently authoritative. Their validity is not subject to any further deliberation.”

The Śrutis declare ‘tad-vijñānārthaṃ sa gurum evābhigacchet samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṃ brahma-niṣṭham’ [Muṇḍakopaniṣad 1.2.12] ‘In order to acquire the knowledge of the eternal, let him Samid (sacrificial fuel) in hand, approach a perceptor (preceptor?) alone, who is versed in the Vedas and centered in the Brahman.’ ‘madabhijñaṃ guruṃ śāntamupāsīta madātmakam’ [ŚB 11.10.5] ‘Ultimately, however, one should approach a bona fide spiritual master who is full in knowledge of Me as I am, who is peaceful, and who by spiritual elevation is not different from Me.’

Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s teachings codified by Śrīnātha-cakravartī [a senior disciple of Śrīla Advaitācārya [From whom our parivāra comes], the spiritual master of Śrīla Kavikarṇapūra] is as follows — ‘ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa-tanayas tad-dhāma vṛndāvanaṁ ramyā kācid upāsanā vraja-vadhū-vargeṇa yā kalpitā | śāstraṁ bhāgavataṁ pramāṇam amalaṁ premā pumārtho mahān itthaṁ gaura-mahāprabhor matam atas tatrādaro naḥ paraḥ ||’, ‘It is the conclusive opinion of Lord Caitanya that Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is Vrajendra-nandana, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, the topmost worshipable Deity; Vṛndāvana-dhāma which is an expansion of Kṛṣṇa and is nondifferent from Him is the highest worshipable abode; the gopīs are the highest example of the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa; Śrīmad-bhāgavatam is the accepted evidence which is free of all human defects; kṛṣṇa-prema is the fifth and highest goal of life. These are the teachings of Śrī Caitanya in a nutshell.’

In the same Śrīmad Bhāgavata in the characteristics of the devotees of the Lord we find — ‘vaidikī tāntrikī dīkṣā madīya-vrata-dhāraṇam’, ‘One should also observe religious vows such as Ekādaśī and take initiation by the procedures mentioned in the Vedas, Pañcarātra and other, similar literatures.’[ŚB 11.11.37B]. ŚrīVīrarāghavācārya glosses ‘tāntrikī bhagavacchāstroktā dīkṣā pañcasaṁskāra sampattiḥ vaidikīti pāṭhe adhvaryugṛrhayatiṁ dīkṣayitvā yajmānaṁ dīkṣayetetyuktavidhā yajñārthadīkṣā.’ ‘By the term ‘tāntrika dīkṣā’ the one mentioned in the Bhagavad-śāstras are meant endowed with the pañcasaṁskāras. The Vedic initiation (vaidikī) is to be conducted in the prescribed Vedic recitation (pāṭha), where the priest (adhvaryu) performs the rite. The initiation (dīkṣā) should be given to the yajamāna (the sacrificial master) according to the prescribed method. This is known as initiation for the purpose of the yajña (yajñārthadīkṣā).’ 

Dṛk-darśini— ‘yadyapi pūrvaṁ likhitāyāḥ śrī-gurūpasatter nityatayā dīkṣāyā api nityatā siddhaiva tathāpy upasatter āśrayaṇ-mātratā-vivakṣayā dīkṣāyāś ca savidhi-mantra-grahaṇādi-rūpatayā pṛthag ullekha iti dik’ ‘Even though it follows from what has earlier been stated about the mandatoriness of approaching a preceptor (1.36–37; tad-vijñānārtham.. ādi) [it follows] that also initiation is mandatory, still, since one might think that approaching [the preceptor] might entail only taking shelter of  him, initiation, that is, accepting a mantra in the correct way, and so on, is separately mentioned. This is the explanation.’

In the Viṣṇu-yāmala [quoted in Haribhaktivilāsa] we find ‘kṛte śruty-ukta-mārgaḥ syāt tretāyāṃ smṛti-bhāvitaḥ | dvāpare tu purāṇoktaḥ kalāv āgama-sambhavaḥ || aśuddhāḥ śūdrākalpā hi brāhmaṇāḥ kali-sambhavāḥ | teṣām āgama-mārgeṇa śuddhir na śrauta-vartmanā || [5.4-5]’, ‘In the Kṛta age,there was the path of the Śruti [in saṁskāra]; in the Tretāage,that promoted by the Smṛti; in the Dvāpara age, that given in the Purāṇas; and in the Kali age, that which has come from the Āgama. Brāhmaṇas born in the Kali age are impure, almost like Śūdras; there is purification for them by the path of the Āgamas, not by the way of the Śruti.’

In the commentary Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi draws from the commentary of Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi — ‘tatra śrīdhara-svāmi-pādāḥ— nānā-tantra-vidhāneneti kalau tantra-mārgasya prādhānyaṃ darśayati iti’ ‘By the words according to the procedure of the various Tantras, the supremacy of the Tantric path in the age of Kali is demonstrated.’

The Sāttvata saṁhitā, Jayākhya saṁhitā, Jñānamṛtasāra saṁhitā,  Nāradīya saṁhitā, Śrīpraśna saṁhitā, Paramasaṁhitā, Vaśiṣṭha saṁhitā, Viśvāmitra saṁhitā, Viṣvakṣena saṁhitā and Śānḍilyasaṁhitā etc. contains chapters on dīkṣā. Purāṇas like Varāha purāṇa etc. also deal with vaiṣṇava-dīkṣā. Śrīla Sanātana gosvāmi’s Vaiṣṇava Law book Śrī Haribhaktivilāsa which was written as per the order of Mahāprabhu as we find in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta madhya-līlā — ‘“prabhu ājñā dilā ‘vaiṣṇava-smṛti’ karibāre...prabhu kahe, — “ye karite karibā tumi mana kṛṣṇa sei sei tomā karābe sphuraṇa. tathāpi ei sūtrera śuna dig-daraśana sakāraṇa likhi ādau guru-āśrayaṇa. guru-lakṣaṇa, śiṣya-lakṣaṇa, doṅhāra parīkṣaṇa sevya — bhagavān, sarva-mantra-vicāraṇa.  mantra-adhikārī, mantra-siddhy-ādi-śodhana dīkṣā, prātaḥ-smṛti-kṛtya, śauca, ācamana...’ ‘Folding his hands, Sanātana Gosvāmī said, “My Lord, You ordered me to write a directory about the activities of Vaiṣṇavas... Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “Whatever you want to do you will be able to do correctly by Lord Kṛṣṇa’s favor. He will manifest real purport. “Because you asked me for a synopsis, please hear these few indications. In the beginning describe how one must take shelter of a bona fide spiritual master. “Your book should describe the characteristics of the bona fide guru and the bona fide disciple. Then, before accepting a spiritual master, one can be assured of the spiritual master’s position. Similarly, the spiritual master can also be assured of the disciple’s position. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, should be described as the worshipable object, and you should describe the bīja-mantra for the worship of Kṛṣṇa, as well as that for Rāma and for other expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.  “You should discuss the qualifications necessary for receiving a mantra, the perfection of the mantra, the purification of the mantra, initiation, morning duties, remembrance of the Supreme Lord, cleanliness and washing the mouth and other parts of the body...’ [Madhya 24.324-331]

In the Pañcarātras and Gosvāmi literature we find —

Meaning of Dīkṣā—

divyaṃ jñānaṃ yato dadyāt kuryāt pāpasya saṅkṣayam | tasmād dīkṣeti sā proktā deśikais tattva-kovidaiḥ || ato guruṃ praṇamyaivaṃ sarvasvaṃ vinivedya ca | gṛhṇīyād vaiṣṇavaṃ mantraṃ dīkṣā-pūrvaṃ vidhānataḥ || [HBV 2.9-10] ity āgamāt [Viṣṇu-rahasya] |

Because it bestows divine knowledge and brings about the destruction of sin, therefore it is called dīkṣā, as explained by teachers who are experts in tattva (spiritual truth). Thus, after offering obeisance to the guru and fully submitting everything, one should receive the Vaiṣṇava mantra initiation [dikṣā] according to the proper procedure as described earlier [in the daikṣikaḥ-vilāsa]. [Bhaktisandarbha]

Other definition of Dīkṣā — ‘yad dyati kleśakarmādīnīkṣayatyakhilaṃ padam. kṣapayitvā malaṃ sarvaṃ dadāti ca paraṃ padam, dīkṣeti tena tattvajñairvarṇyate vedapāragaiḥ.’ ‘That which destroys afflictions and karmas, reveals the entire true state, eliminates all impurities, and grants the supreme goal — such a process is called dīkṣā. Thus it is described by those who know the truth and are well-versed in the Vedas.’ [Lakṣmi tantra], ‘īkṣate karmaṇā yena tadviṣṇoḥ paraṁ padam, dyati saṁsāramakhilaṁ tena dīkṣeti bhaṇyate.’ ‘That by which, through sanctified action, one perceives the supreme abode of Viṣṇu and cuts asunder the entirety of material existence — that is called dīkṣā.’ [Viṣvaksena saṁhitā]

**Note : kamala-patra-śata-vedha-nyāyena kiṁcit-kāla-vilambo jñeya iti, ‘By the analogy of piercing through a hundred lotus petals, a slight delay (in realization) is to be understood.’**

This [divyaṃ jñānaṃ yato dadyāt kuryāt pāpasya saṅkṣayam...] proves that the qualification for Śikṣā is Dīkṣā — ‘kṛṣṇa- dīkṣādīti dīkṣā-pūrvaka-śikṣaṇam ity arthaḥ’, ‘In the phrase kṛṣṇa-dīkṣādi-sikṣaṇam the word ādi has the sense of “in the beginning.” Thus the phrase means “acquiring knowledge after or accompanied by initiation with Kṛṣṇa mantra.”’ [Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu pūrvabhāgaḥ, 2.74, Jīva Gosvāmi’s commentary]. In the Bhāgavata, Śīkṣā has been called the prayojana ‘goal’ of guru-disciple relation ‘dīkṣā’, ‘puruṣasya ca saṁsthānaṁ svarūpaṁ vā parasya ca jñānaṁ ca naigamaṁ yat tad guru-śiṣya-prayojanam’, ‘Please describe knowledge concerning the Lord’s form and jīva’s position, and the knowledge of the Upaniṣads which is necessary for the student to learn from the guru.’

There are many types of Dīkṣā conjoined in the Pañcarātras, the one of our concern has 3 parts to it — ‘ata ūrdhvaṁ pravakṣāmi dīkṣāyā lakṣaṇaṁ param, yāmavāpya viśuddhātmā vaiṣṇavaḥ siddhimṛcchati. apratiṣṭhasya manasaḥ śreyomārga mavindataḥ, upāyaṁ bandhanasyāhu dīkṣāṁ dīkṣāviśāradāḥ. sātu bhaktivaśānnṛṇāṁ triṣu karmasu niṣṭhitā, prathamaṁ samaye paścāt tantrajñāne tato'rcane.’[Parama-saṁhitā,8.1-3] ‘I shall hereafter expound to you the character of the supreme Dikṣā by the attainment of which a pure-souled Vaiṣṇava gains siddhi. Those well versed in the system of initiation recommend consecration [dīkṣā] as the best means of concentration to those of infirm mind, and, as yet, unacquainted with the means by which to gain emancipation. That Dīkṣā is to be gained by performing with devotion three duties; the first of these three is Samaya [principles], the rule of the community; the next knowledge of what is laid down to be one (discipline, Tantra or śāstra) and then which confers qualification of actual practise of worship.’

All this happens in the very day of Dīkṣā, via Dīkṣā alone one gets the right to Śikṣā as in the Parama-saṁhitā ‘tisro dīkṣāḥ kṛtā yena vaiṣṇavena tapasvinā, sa eva vaiṣṇavaṁ jñānamakhilaṁ śrotumarhati.’ ‘He who, being a Vaiṣṇava and an austere person (tapasvī), has undergone the three steps of dīkṣā, he alone is qualified to hear the entirety of Vaiṣṇava knowledge.”’

Now this Dīkṣā can be of 3 types depending on the financial condition of the recipient they are listed in the Jayākhya saṁhitā and also the Lakṣmi tantra — ‘āḍhyānāḍhyabhedena dīkṣāprakāre bhedaḥ mahāmaṇḍalayāgena vittāḍhyānāṃ tu kārayet. vittayogavimuktasya svalpavittasya dehinaḥ, saṃsārabhayabhītasya viṣṇubhaktasya tattvataḥ. agnau cājyānvitairbījaiḥ satilaiḥ kevalaistathā, dravyahīnasya vai kuryādvācaivānugrahaṃ guruḥ.’ ‘Due to the distinction between the wealthy and the poor, there is a variation in the method of initiation (dīkṣā). 1. For the wealthy, it should be performed through a great sacrificial rite (mahāmaṇḍala-yāga). 2. For one who is devoid of wealth, of little means, a mortal who is deeply afraid of material bondage (saṁsāra), and is a true devotee of Viṣṇu, the guru should perform the initiation using sesame seeds and sacred substances (bījās) mixed with ghee in fire—or, 3. if completely devoid of resources, even by the mere utterance of words (vācā), the guru should bestow grace (anugraha).’’

Now this entire practise contains five features to be complete ‘vaiṣṇavaiḥ pañcasaṁskāraiḥ saṁskṛto vaiṣṇavo bhavet’ [Hārita Smṛti] these are ‘tāpaḥ puṇḍrastathā nāma mantro yāgaśca pañcamaḥ pañcasaṁskāradīkṣaiṣā devadevapriyāvahā pañcasaṁskāradīkṣāvān mahābhāgavatasmṛtaḥ’ [īśvara saṁhitā, viṣṇutilaka saṁhitā, padma-purāṇa] ‘The five-fold sacramental initiation (pañcasaṁskāra) consists of: branding (tāpaḥ), applying sacred marks (puṇḍra), receiving a spiritual name (nāma), mantra initiation (mantra), and sacrificial offering or worship (yāga). This initiation, which pleases the Lord of all gods (deva-deva), is called pañcasaṁskāra-dīkṣā. One who has undergone this pañcasaṁskāra initiation is remembered as a great devotee (mahābhāgavata).’

Each limb is described in Prameya-ratnāvali—

1. tāpaḥ; ‘tāpo’tra tapta-cakrādi-mudrādhāraṇam ucyate | tenaiva harināmādi-mudrā cāpy upalakṣyate ||’ Here, "tāpa" refers to the bearing of heated symbols like the cakra (disc) and others. Along with that, it also implies the mark or imprint of names of Hari and similar symbols [harināmākṣarair gātram aṅkayec candanādinā...]. **Note: ‘taptacakrādidhṛtiṁ kalimalina manasāṁ duṣkarāṁ manvānaḥ patitānudidadhīrṣur bhagavān śrīkṛṣṇacaitanyaś candanādinā śrībhagavannāmamudrādhṛtiṁ prācāpi svīkṛtāmupādikṣat ||’ Considering the bearing of the heated cakra and other symbols (taptacakra-ādidhṛtiṁ) too difficult for those whose minds are tainted by the impurities of Kali (kalimalina-manasām) and desiring to uplift the fallen, Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya instructed (upādikṣat) the acceptance of the mark of the Lord’s name (śrī-bhagavat-nāma-mudrā-dhṛtim), applied with sandalwood and similar substances (candanādinā), which was already accepted in former times (prācā api svīkṛtām). [kāntimālā ṭīkā]**
   
   

2. puṇḍraḥ; ‘puṇḍraṁ syād ūrdhva-puṇḍraṁ tac chāstre bahuvidhaṁ smṛtam | hari-mandira-tat-pādākṛtyādy-atiśubhāvaham ||’ ‘The puṇḍra (sacred mark) is the ūrdhva-puṇḍra (vertical tilaka), which is remembered in many forms in the śāstras. It is extremely auspicious, as it represents the Lord’s temple, His lotus feet, and other divine symbols.’
   
   

3. nāmaḥ; ‘nāmātra gaditaṁ sadbhir hari-bhṛtyatva-bodhakam ||’ ‘The nāma (divine name) is given by the Ācārya as indicating one’s identity as a servant of Hari.’
   
   

4. mantraḥ; ‘mantro’ṣṭādaśa-varṇādiḥ sveṣṭadeva-vapur mataḥ ||’ ‘The mantra, is the 18-syllable mantra or others, which are considered the very form of one's worshipable deity.’
   
   

5. yāgaḥ; ‘śālagrāmādi-pūjā tu yāga-śabdena kathyate | pramāṇānyeṣu dṛśyāni purāṇādiṣu sādhubhiḥ |’ ‘Yāga, or sacrifice, refers to the worship of Śālagrāma and similar forms. The scriptural evidences for all of these are seen throughout the Purāṇas and other sacred texts by saintly persons.’

The mantra must be heard from the Guru’s mouth as in the previous reference ‘dravyahīnasya vai kuryādvācaivānugrahaṃ guruḥ.’ and another reference from the sanata-kumāra saṁhitā — ‘aṣṭadaśākṣaraṁ mantra yo'gṛhitvā gurormukhāt, ācaran sarvakarmāṇi na kriyāphalamāpnuyāt.’

‘One who has not received the aṣṭādaśākṣarī [Gopāla] mantra from the mouth of a bona fide guru, even if he performs all scriptural duties, will not obtain the fruit of any of his religious acts.’ Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi writes in Digdarśini of Haribhaktivilāsa chapter 10 — mantraḥ śrīguroḥ sakāśāt mantragrahaṇaṁ “'mantraḥ' [in ‘tāpaḥ puṇḍrastathā nāma mantro yāgaśca pañcamaḥ...’] means receiving the mantra directly from the spiritual master (śrī-guru),”, Śrīla Viśvanātha Ṭhākura in his commentary on the verse “10.87.23” writes — kalyāṇa-guṇa-maya-tanu-mānātmā śrī-bhagavān draṣṭavyaḥ, tasya sādhanāny āha—śrotavya iti | śrī-guror mukhāt tan-mantra-śravaṇaṁ mantra-maya-vapuṣaḥ iti krama-dīpikādy uktes tan- mantrasya tat-svarūpatvokteḥ | mantavya iti mantra-śabdārthayoḥ samyaṅ-manana-lakṣaṇaṁ smaraṇam | nididhyāsitavya iti—nirvarṇanaṁ tu nirdhyānaṁ darśanālokanekṣaṇam ity amarokter nirdhyānaṁ darśanaṁ tasyecchā nididhyāsanaṁ mantrārtha-samyaṅ-manana-pūrvaka- japābhyāsād draṣṭavya iti | “Bhagavān, whose personal form is constituted of auspicious qualities (kalyāṇa-guṇa-maya-tanu-mānātmā), is the one to be seen (draṣṭavyaḥ). The means for realizing Him are now stated—“It must be heard” (śrotavyaḥ). That is, one must hear the mantra from the mouth of the śrī-guru, because the Krama-dīpikā and similar texts state that Bhagavān’s form is of the nature of the mantra itself (mantra-maya-vapuḥ), and the mantra is declared to be identical with His svarūpa. “It must be contemplated” (mantavyaḥ)—this refers to smaraṇa (remembrance), which consists in proper contemplation (samyaṅ-manana) of the meaning of the mantra and its words. “It must be meditated upon” (nididhyāsitavyaḥ)—this means nirvarṇana, that is, nirdhyāna (deep meditation), which according to the Amarakośa is defined as “gazing, beholding, perceiving” (darśana-āloka-anekṣaṇa). Thus, meditation (nirdhyāna) is the seeing (darśana), and the desire for that is nididhyāsana—the realization (draṣṭavya) arises by the repeated practice of japa (recitation) which is preceded by proper contemplation (samyaṅ-manana) of the meaning of the mantra (mantrārtha).””

‘sampradāya-vihīnā ye mantrās te niṣphalā matāḥ’ ‘Any mantra that does not come in disciplic succession is considered to be fruitless.’ [Padma-purāṇa], explanation of the term sampradāya by Śrī Viśvanātha Ṭhākura— ‘saṃ-śabdo ’tra samyag-arthaḥ pra-prakṛṣṭārtha eva ca | dayāḥ saṃparka ity uktaḥ saṃpradāyo vicakṣaṇaiḥ ||’ ‘The prefix saṃ here means 'complete' (samyak), and pra means 'excellent' (prakṛṣṭa). The word daya means 'bestowal' or 'giving', and saṃparka means 'connection'. Thus, the word sampradāya is explained by the wise as the proper and excellent transmission (of mantra and then knowledge etc.)through connection.’ Śrīla Vedāntavāgīśa explains the term ‘ityatra pādmavākyamāha sampradāyeti [sampradāya vihīnā ye...] śiṣṭānuśiṣṭagurūpadiṣṭo mārgaḥ sampradāyaḥ | śiṣṭatvaṁ vedapramāṇyābhyupagantṛtvam’ ‘Therefore, here, by the word 'sampradāya' is meant the path prescribed by the disciplined and the disciples, as instructed by the guru. The qualification of being 'disciplined' (śiṣṭatva) is arrived at by the authority of the Vedas.’ Lexicons like Amarakoṣa, Śabda-kalpadrūma glosses the word ‘sampradāya’ as ‘guruparamparāgatasadupadeśaḥ, śiṣṭaparamparāvatīrṇopadeśaḥ.’ “The authentic upadeśa received through the unbroken disciplic succession (guru-paramparā), the upadeśa descended through the line of exemplary and realized persons (śiṣṭa-paramparā).” The meaning of ‘upadeśa’ is found in the Rāmārccanacandrikā — ‘candrasūryyagrahe tīrthe siddhakṣetre śivālaye, mantramātraprakathanamupadeśaḥ sa ucyate’ ‘During a lunar or solar eclipse, at a tīrtha (holy place), at a siddha-kṣetra (a place of spiritual attainment), or in a Śiva temple— merely reciting a mantra is called upadeśaḥ (initiation or instruction).’, In the Parama saṁhitā ‘śrāvaye dupadeśaṁca rahasyaṁca kramāgatam’ ‘One should transmit the upadeśa [mantra] and the esoteric teachings [dhyāna etc.] as they have been received through the proper disciplic succession, and in the correct order, without distortion.’ by the rule 'rūḍhiryogampaharati', 'custom supersedes etymology' the word ‘upadeśa’ primarily refers to Mantra. As per Laghu-siddhānta-kaumudi, Upadeśa is the first utterance ‘upadeśa ādyoccāraṇam’. This first utterance ‘ādyoccāraṇam’ means the mantra uttered first by Bhagavān to the first Ācārya of a paraṁparā. That self same ‘upadeśa’ is transmitted down the line via Guru-śiṣya paraṁparā.

In the Bhāgavata as well the necessity of Paraṁparā is seen— ‘svayaṁ samuttīrya sudustaraṁ dyuman bhavārṇavaṁ bhīmam adabhra-sauhṛdāḥ bhavat-padāmbhoruha-nāvam atra te nidhāya yātāḥ sad-anugraho bhavān’, "O radiant Lord! Having crossed over the most difficult and terrifying ocean of material existence by themselves, those who possess unwavering compassion place the boat of Your lotus feet in this world so that others may also cross. Indeed, such persons are truly Your great mercy manifest.", Śrīman Baladeva Prabhu comments ‘svayaṃ samuttīrya bhavat-padāmbhoruha-rūpaṃ nāvam atra sampradāya-rūpeṇa nidhāya tat-pāraṃ tvad-dhāma yātāḥ, yatas te’bdhiṃ bahu-sauhṛdaṃ bhūteṣu dayā yeṣāṃ tādṛśāḥ’ ‘Having themselves crossed over the ocean (of material existence) by means of the boat in the form of Your lotus feet, they (the great devotees), out of deep compassion for others, have left behind that very boat in the form of the sampradāya [mantra connection], so that others may also cross. Such compassionate beings, whose hearts are filled with affection for all living beings, have reached Your supreme abode.’

Because of the loss of ‘śiṣṭatva’, ‘faith in veda as pramāṇa’ in the general mass of  Dvāparayuga due to the curse of Gautama ‘gautamasya ṛṣeḥ śāpārjjñāne tvajñānatāṃ gate’, the Rāja-yoga which Kṛṣṇa had taught to the Sungod went extinct, ‘sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa’, Śrī Madhusudana Sarasvati comments ‘sa evaṃ mahā-prayojano 'pi yogaḥ kālena mahatā dīrgheṇa dharma-hrāsa-kareṇehedānīm āvayor vyavahāra-kāle dvāparānte durbalān ajitendriyān anadhikāriṇaḥ prāpya kāma-krodhādibhir abhibhūyamāno naṣṭo vicchinna-sampradāyo jātaḥ |’, ‘Though this discipline (yoga) had the highest goal, over a long stretch of time—being subject to the influence of that which causes the decline of dharma—at present, in our time, at the end of the Dvāpara-yuga, it has fallen into the hands of the weak, those without self-control, and the unqualified. Overwhelmed by lust, anger, and the like, the process has been lost, and the sampradāya has become broken.’ As we see that knowledge is not self-sufficient it requires a qualified ‘living’ propagator thus the unqualification of the dvāparayuga people have been stated. The knowledge was still flourishing in the higher planetary system, the deterioration was only perceptive in bhūloka as Śrī Baladeva comments ‘iha loke naṣṭo vicchinna-sampradāyaḥ ||’. But it was still there with the Sun god then why do we say ‘vicchinna-sampradāyaḥ’ there is no answer from the ṛtviks.

Some may quote sporadic occurrence of the term ‘ṛtvik’ to prove their legitimacy, but such occurrence is totally different from them. It is just like a person with the name ‘Rudra’ reading 'eko hi rudro na dvitīyāya tasthur’ thinks Himself to be the supreme Lord. The Ṛtvik mentioned in the Manusaṁhitā must be duly requested and installed via the vidhi prescribed in śāstra but such is not seen in the case of Prabhupāda appointing those 11 ‘vṛtaḥ prārthitaḥ śāstrīyeṇa vidhinā kṛtavaraṇaḥ.’ However even if we consider their appointment as bonafide we find in a the Bhāradvāja saṁhitā ‘ācāryaḥ svayam ādāya niyukto vātha mantravit’, ‘The Ācārya may himself apply the tāpa-mudras or appoint a knower of the same mantra [of dīkṣā]’, here the word ‘vā’ shows physical presence of both.

In the caryāpada of Pādma-saṁhitā we find a pramāṇa ‘kutaścidasamartho vā mṛto vā deśikottamaḥ | śeṣaṁ samāpayedanyaḥ putro vā tadanujñayā | śiṣyo vā yadi vā brātā ṛtvikvā guṇavattaraḥ’ ‘If the foremost spiritual teacher is unable to continue the proceedings or has passed away for some reason [amidst the dīkṣā process], then another qualified person should complete the remaining duties. This could be his son, disciple, brother, or an officiating priest—provided they have the necessary qualifications and act with his permission.’ Notice the word ‘śeṣaṁ samāpayedanyaḥ’, ‘what is left should be completed by others’. What is left in that particular dīkṣā, they can’t begin another sattra of dīkṣā. 

From the Bhāgavata we can infer from the verses ‘kurv adhvarasyoddharaṇaṁ hatasya bhoḥ tvayāsamāptasya mano prajāpateḥ na yatra bhāgaṁ tava bhāgino daduḥ kuyājino yena makho ninīyate’, but earlier ṛtviks had been mentioned ‘sarva evartvijo dṛṣṭvā sadasyāḥ sa-divaukasaḥ tair ardyamānāḥ subhṛśaṁ grāvabhir naikadhā ’dravan’ then why should the yajña be considered ‘asamāpta’; ‘Incomplete’ if the ṛtviks could carry it on after the death of the yajmāna ?, the answer is ṛtviks can’t do so. Aparārka (p. 66) as meaning that the title ‘Ṛtvik’ applies to that man whose services are paid for by a sacrificer for the performance of the sacrificial rite.

Now, for the sake of argument, let us consider an extreme hypothetical concession — that Śrīla Prabhupāda himself explicitly authorized a permanent ṛtvik system. Even then, such a system cannot be accepted, because it lacks sanction in śāstra. Guru-vākya cannot override śāstra-pramāṇa, as established in the Gītā (16.24): tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau — “Therefore, let śāstra be your authority in determining what is to be done.”

Some may quote ‘ājñā gurūṇāṁ hy avicāraṇīyā’, ‘nirvicāraṁ guror ājñā’ these are indeed true but we must also remember ‘yukti-yuktaṁ vāco grāhyaṁ na grāhyam guru-gauravāt, sarva-śāstra-rahasyam tad yājñavalkena bhāṣitam.’ ‘Whatever is said must be supported by appropriate logic from the scriptures, then only it is acceptable. It is not acceptable, just only because of the eminence of any famous Guru even. The summary and mysteries of all scriptures, is said herein by Śrī Yājñavalkya.’ [Yājñavalkya śīkṣā], ‘ārṣaṃ dharmopadeśaṃ ca vedaśāstrāvirodhinā, yastarkeṇānusandhatte sa dharmaṃ veda naitaraḥ.’ "One who analyzes and follows the teachings of dharma, derived from the sages (ārṣa) and teachings on dharma, without contradicting the Vedic scriptures, with the help of reasoning—such a person truly understands dharma, not anyone else." [Manu-saṁhitā] The translation “If a man explores, by ratiocination, the Vedic teaching regarding Dharma, he alone, and no other, understands Dharma.” is wrong because it doesn’t capture some nuances and goes against prior verses like “yoʼvamanyeta te mūle hetuśāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ, sa sādhubhirbahiṣkāryo nāstiko vedanindakaḥ.” ‘A twice-born who disregards those two sources [of instruction, i.e., the Śruti and Smṛti] on account of adherence to hetu-śāstra [i.e., logic] is an unbeliever (nāstika), a defamer of the Veda, and to be shunned by sādhus.’ ‘ājñā gurūṇāṁ hy avicāraṇīyā’ means the instruction of the Guru must be taken without any material consideration like money or lethargy but must always be tallied with śāstra as shown above. ‘yad vai manuravadat tad bheṣajam’ ‘Whatever Manu has said is medicine [correct].’ [Kṛ, Yaj, Tai, Saṁhitā]

There must be precedence to everything a person acts upon ‘mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ’, that by which the Mahājanas themselves went must be accepted. Ṛtvik could have been accepted if Śrīla Prabhupāda was an ṛtvik initiated by Śrila Bhakti-siddhānta Sarasvati ṭhākura himself. We see Lakṣmaṇa finding precedence in Parśurāma’s act ‘sa śuśruvān mātari bhārgaveṇa pitur niyogāt prahṛtaṁ dviṣad-vat’. Did Paraśurāma did something wrong as per śāstra, No we find in the remains of ancient niti-śāstra in the compilation of cāṇakya paṇḍita ‘śatrur mātā ca vyabhichāriṇī’ but actually Mother Reṇukā was misunderstood by her husband thus he rejuvenated her realising his mistake or at the appeal of Śrī Paraśurāma. Śrīla Sārvabhauma says ‘bhaṭṭa kahe, — gurura ājñā haya balavān guru-ājñā nā laṅghiye, śāstra — pramāṇa’ ‘Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya said, “The order of the spiritual master is very strong and cannot be disobeyed. That is the injunction of the śāstras, the revealed scriptures.’ The proof of Guru’s word and its execution also comes with śāstra one can’t say Guru is not bound by Śāstra. Apparent transgression of Varnāśrama seen in Śrī Īśvara pūri’s dealing with Govinda isn’t against śāstra as we find precedence of this in the dealing of Śrī Bhagavān with Śrī Vidūra also we see it in case of Nārada’s previous birth and the Munis ‘te mayy apetākhila-cāpale ’rbhake dānte ’dhṛta-krīḍanake ’nuvartini cakruḥ kṛpāṁ yadyapi tulya-darśanāḥ śuśrūṣamāṇe munayo ’lpa-bhāṣiṇi’ also we see in the Āpastambha gṛhya-sūtra ‘antardhine vā śūdrāya ||’, ‘ārya adhiṣṭhitā  vā śūdrāḥ saṃskartāraḥ syuḥ ||’ etc. also in the Hārita smṛti ‘ato niṣedhakaṁ yad yad vacanaṁ śrūyate sphuṭam avaiṣṇava-paraṁ tat tad vijñeyaṁ tattva-darśibhiḥ’ “Therefore, wherever restrictive statements are to be found in scriptures [regarding śūdras or women], those statements are understood by the learned souls as applicable to non-vaiṣṇavas only.” quoted in Haribhaktivilāsa by Śrīman Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi he further quoted 'na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktaṃ niṣādaṃ śvapacaṃ tathā | vīkṣate jāti-sāmānyāt sa yāti narakaṃ dhruvam ||' [itihāsa-samuccaya], 'na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktās te tu bhāgavatā narāḥ | sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā ye na bhaktā janārdane ||' [Padmapurāṇa] etc.

‘prabhu kahe, — īśvara haya parama svatantra īśvarera kṛpā nahe veda-paratantra’, Here Mahāprabhu is referring to Bhagavān and not Śrī-īśvara puri as we know from the Jayākhya saṁhitā [quoted in Haribhaktivilāsa], ‘yathā tathā yatra tatra na gṛhṇīyāc ca kevalam abhaktyā na guror nāma gṛhṇīyāc ca yatātmavān praṇavaḥ śrīs tato nāma viṣṇu-śabdād anantaram pāda-śabda-sametaṁ ca nata-mūrdhāñjali-yutaḥ’ ‘One should never, under any circumstances speak the sacred name of his spiritual master. A self-controlled will never speak the name of his spiritual master without respect and devotion." "When uttering His Spiritual Master's name one should fold one's hands, bow one's head, and preface his spiritual master's name with the words Oṁ Śrī [Name] Viṣṇupāda or other such honorfic titles’

Here [īśvara haya parama svatantra īśvarera kṛpā nahe veda-paratantra] Mahāprabhu wants to say that, Bhagavān’s kṛpā is without any cause ‘na medhayā na bahunā śrutena . yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūm svām’, ‘tanū’ also means ‘śakti’ [Bhavārtha-dīpikā etc. ‘tanū śakti’ [11.11.3]] which śakti ? ‘tanūm svām’, that is ‘svarūpa śakti’ , that is bhakti. This means Bhakti isn’t dependent on the study of the vedas, because the śudras are incapable of studying the vedas it doesn’t mean the lord will not show his mercy upon them we see in his own word ‘striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās te 'pi yānti parāṃ gatim’ Śrīdhara Svāmi comments ‘striyaḥ śūdrāś cāpy adhyayanādi-rahitāḥ | te 'pi māṃ vyāpāśritya saṃsevya parāṃ gatiṃ yānti | hi niścitam’, ‘Women and Śūdras, though devoid of study of the Vedas and such (adhyayanādi-rahitāḥ), even they, by fully taking shelter of Me and rendering devoted service, attain the supreme destination — this is certain.’

Logically if Mahāprabhu meant that Śrī Īśvara Pūri was beyond the jurisdiction of veda etc. then why would he later contemplate on the decision of accepting service from Śrī Govinda or not even though his Guru had sent him for that ? ‘tāṅhāre āpana-sevā karāite nā yuyāya guru ājñā diyāchena, ki kari upāya’ then Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācarya says ‘gurura ājñā haya balavān guru-ājñā nā laṅghiye, śāstra — pramāṇa’, ‘That is the injunction of the śāstras, the revealed scriptures is that — “The order of the spiritual master is very strong and should not be disobeyed”. ’

Similar thing happened in the case of Śrī Mahāpūrṇa, the guru of Śrī Rāmānujācārya who performed the last rites of a Devotee Māraneri Nambi who belonged from apparent lower caste. Rāmānujācārya went to his house and asked him what was the reason for such transgression. This is recorded in the Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇa commentary of Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, Śrī Mahāpūrṇa said this is not unprecedented same was done by Lord Rāma for an apparent scavenger bird Śrī Jaṭāyu, Śrī Yudhīṣṭhira for Śrī Vidura etc. 

In the case of Draupadī’s marriage to the five pāṇḍavas, Drupada says ‘na cāpy ācaritaḥ pūrvair ayaṃ dharmo mahātmabhiḥ’ ‘Moreover, this principle of dharma has never been followed by noble persons of earlier times.’ In answer to that Yudhiṣṭhira cites two examples ‘śrūyate hi purāṇe 'pi jaṭilā nāma gautamī tasya putrī mahāprājñā gautamasya yaśasvinī ṛṣīn adhyāsitavatī sapta dharmabhṛtāṃ vara tathaiva munijā vārkṣī tapobhir bhāvitātmanaḥ saṃgatābhūd daśa bhrātṝn ekanāmnaḥ pracetasaḥ’ ‘It is indeed heard in the Purāṇas that there was a woman named Jaṭilā Gautamī, the wise and renowned daughter of Gautama, who was associated with seven sages—the foremost among the upholders of dharma. Likewise, the sage-born Vārkṣī, whose mind was purified through austerities, became united with ten brothers, all named Pracetas.’

Some may cite the example of Yāmunācārya and Rāmānujācārya, then as well they are wrong because Yāmunācarya wasn’t the dīkṣā guru of Rāmānujācārya rather he was initiated by Śrī Mahāpurṇa. Even if we still persist on acceptance of Yāmunācārya as Rāmānuja’s guru we must also remember that Yāmunācārya did have a resolve and contemplation before his death of initiating Śrīmad Rāmānuja, which is a valid mode of dīkṣā as in the Haṁsapārameśvara saṁhitā [Pañcarātra, quoted in spandapradipikā of Vaiṣṇava-utpalācārya] ‘sparśadīkṣā vaidhadīkṣā dṛgdīkṣā ceti ced ataḥ, dīkṣā tu trividhā proktā pārvatyai śaṅkareṇa vai. yathā pakṣī svapakṣābhyāṃ śiśūn saṃvardhayec chanaiḥ, sparśadīkṣopadeśas tu tādṛśaḥ kathitaḥ priye. yathā kūrmaḥ sva-tanayān dhyānamātreṇa poṣayet, vaidhadīkṣopadeśas tu mānasaḥ syāt tathāvidhaḥ. svāpatyāni yathā matsyo vīkṣaṇenaiva poṣayet, dṛgdīkṣāyā upadeśas tādṛśa kathitaḥ śive.’ ‘O Pārvatī, initiation (dīkṣā) is declared by Śaṅkara (Śiva) to be of three kinds: sparśa-dīkṣā (initiation by touch), vaidha-dīkṣā (initiation by ritual), and dṛg-dīkṣā (initiation by sight). Just as a bird gradually nurtures its young with its wings, so is initiation by touch described, O beloved. Just as a turtle nourishes its offspring merely through concentration, so too is vaidha-dīkṣā, the mental/ritual instruction. And just as a fish sustains its young merely by looking at them, so is the initiation by sight, O Śivā, described as dṛg-dīkṣā.’

Thus, it is proven that every valid act must have a precedence somewhere or other in the vast sea of śāstras. One may say where do the śāstras mention that the śudras and others get sacred thread ?, indeed it is present in Pañcarātrika saṁhitās like Parama-saṁhitā, Kapiñjala saṁhitā, Mārkaṇḍeya saṁhitā, Tattva-sāgara-saṁhitā etc. this was present in practise among all vaiṣṇavas even till the time of Jayanta bhaṭṭa who mentions this in āgama-āḍambara [based in kāśmira] also Yamunācārya who mentioned this in his āgama-prāmāṇya. However this didn’t confer the right to do karmakāṇḍa as prescribed in the vedas, Ācāryas say it is the other way round as the vedic rights are binding the vaiṣṇavas naturally possess distaste for them. 

We can’t say that there is such precedence found in our paraṁparā by quoting the example of Narottama-dāsa-ṭhākura and Viśvanātha-cakravartī. The 32 Ācārya list is mainly that of śīkṣā paraṁparā [after Mahāprabhu] not mantra-dīkṣā as we find at the very beginning ‘śrī-mādhva-śrī-padmanābha-śrīman-narahari-mādhavān’, Śrī Padmanābha, Śrī Narahari and Śrī Mādhava were all disciples of Madhvācārya because one was śikṣā guru to another this hierarchy is seen. In Stavāmṛta-laharī Śrīla Cakravarti ṭhākura explicitly takes the name of his guru ‘śrī-rādhā-ramaṇaḿ mudā guru-varaḿ vande nipatyāvanau’ that is Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Cakravartīpāda, in the next stava he glorifies his parama-guru let’s see who is he — ‘sa kṛṣṇa-caraṇaḥ prabhuḥ pradiśatu sva-pādāmṛtam’, Śrī Kṛṣṇacaraṇa Cakravartī, later he prays to Śrī Gaṅgānārāyaṇa Cakravartī and then to Śrī Narottamadāsa ṭhākura then to Śrī Lokanātha Gosvāmi, then to Śrīman Mahāprabhu. This is the mantra lineage of Śrīla Cakravartī Ṭhākura. Our Mantra lineage however comes from Śrī Advaitācārya, As Śrīla Bhakti-siddhānta Sarasvatī ṭhākura writes in 'Āmāra Prabhura Kathā' republished in Māsika Gauḍīya Patrikā, 8th year, 9th issue [describing the mantra lineage of Śrīla Gaurakiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja] —

‘tini gṛhastha-jīvane advaitācārya prabhura vaṁśa pāñcarātrika mantre dīkṣita hana’ ‘While being in his householder life, Gaura Kiśora dāsa Bābājī got initiated in the lineage of Advaitācārya Prabhu with Pāñcarātrika mantras.’[end of quote]. Thus we understand that the 32 personality list is a mixture of mantra and śīkṣā lineages.

 

Pushing the hypothetical further — even if one claims that such a system [ṛtvik] did exist in some śāstra now lost, that too would be inconsequential, since the principle of practical dharma remains unaltered. As codified in the Dharma-sindhu, a standard compendium of smṛti injunctions: yadyapi śuddhaṁ loka-viruddhaṁ na ācaraṇīyam —

“Even if something is pure or valid (śuddha), if it goes against public convention (loka-ācāra), it should not be practiced.” Also in the Yājñavalkya smṛti— ‘asvargyaṁ loka-vidviṣṭaṁ dharmam apy ācaren na tu. “One should not execute religious injunctions if they will obstruct one’s journey to heaven, or if they are odious to human society.” Since no known bona fide tradition — whether Vaiṣṇava, Śākta, Śaiva, or Smārta — accepts posthumous ṛtvik-based initiation as a valid system, it remains loka-viruddha, and thus cannot be adopted even under the garb of hypothetical purity. It is said in the Paraśurāma Kalpa-sūtra ‘sampradāyaviśvāsābhyāṁ sarvasiddhi’, ‘By faith in the sampradāya, all success is attained.’, in the commentary sampradāya is defined as 'sampradāyaḥ guruparamparācarānusaraṇam' ‘Saṁpradāya means the following of the conduct (ācāra) of the disciplic succession (guru-paramparā).’ suppose A, B, C are in succession, ‘B’ cannot ‘introduce’ something new to ‘C’ which he didn’t receive from ‘A’. Thus precedence is very important.

Hence, both assumptions — that it was either (1) authorized by Śrīla Prabhupāda or (2) present in now-lost śāstra — fail to establish legitimacy, being devoid of śāstra-prasiddhi and loka-anugata-ācāra. This makes the ṛtvik-vāda a mere apasiddhānta, born of imagination rather than tradition.

Thus there may be a doubt on what is to be done in such an ambiguous state, The Taittīriya Upaniṣad says what needs to be done in case of doubt it says— atha yadi te karmavicikitsā vā vṛttavicikitsā vā syāt, ye tatra brāhmaṇāḥ saṃmarśinaḥ, yuktā ayuktāḥ, alūkṣā dharmakāmāḥ syuḥ, yathā te tatra varteran, tathā tatra vartethāḥ, “Now if to thee a doubt as to a deed, or a doubt as to conduct, should occur, as the brāhmaṇas there—who are thoughtful, zealous, well-versed in vedas, not hard (at heart), desirous of Dharma [Kṛṣṇa]—would act in such matters, so there shalt thou act”.  Thus due to the absence of formal installation as a mantropadeṣtra as mentioned ‘puraścaraṇānantaraṃ nijaguruṇābhiṣiktaḥ’ since two recent generation of our paraṁparā, that of Śrīla Sarasvati Ṭhākura Prabhupāda, Śrīla Prabhupāda why do we expect that to suddenly appear in the third one ?

Still, In the letter to Śrī Tuṣṭa-Kṛṣṇa-svāmi, Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote—

Every student is expected to become Acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples....Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bona fide Spiritual Masters and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy. [December 2nd, 1975]

This can be a substitute of the ‘abhiṣeka’ to be done by Guru to authorize his disciple as a Guru. As found in the Haribhaktivilāsa ‘ācāryatve mantropadeṣṭṛtve | puraścaraṇānantaraṃ nijaguruṇābhiṣiktaḥ anyathopadeśe’dhikāra-anupapatteḥ |’, This same mood [Prabhupāda letter quoted above] is paraphrased in Paramasaṁhitā ‘yaṁ tu śiṣyaṁ guṇopetamācāryaṁ kartumicchati...ācāryo vaiṣṇave trante tvaṁ bhava prāṇināṁ priyaḥ... śiṣyā stvāmupasarpantu teṣu vartasva śāstrataḥ...’ ‘Whichever of his disciples, the teacher wishes to install as ācārya...Become an ācārya in the Vaiṣṇava disciplic succession and be beloved by all living beings...May disciples approach you, and may you conduct yourself among them according to the śāstra.’, Now that this statement of Prabhupāda is supported by Śāstra it holds better authenticity than before as explained in the Garuḍa-purāṇa ‘pramāṇasya pramāṇaṃ ca balavad vidyate mune’ ‘O sage, a proof backed by a powerful supporting proof is more authoritative.’ 

It is very clear that Prabhupāda indeed have a desire that all of his disciples become Ācāryas in the future, it is said in the Bhāgavatam ‘satyaṁ vidhātuṁ nija-bhṛtya-bhāṣitaṁ vyāptiṁ ca bhūteṣv akhileṣu cātmanaḥ...’ ‘To prove that the statement of His servant Prahlāda Mahārāja was substantial — in other words, to prove that the Supreme Lord is present everywhere...’ elsewhere Bhagavān says ‘madbhaktayorvaco'satyaṃ na kadācidbhaviṣyati | mayāpi nānyathā kartuṃ śakyate tatkadācana || prahlādavacanātstaṃbha'pyāvirbhūto hyahaṃ purā | tathāṃbarīṣavākyena jāto mārge svayaṃ kila ||’ ‘The words of my devotees shall never be untrue. I too can never change it. Formerly due to Prahlāda’s words I appeared in a pillar. In the same way, due to Ambarīṣa’s words I arose on the way.’ Now the thing to be noted is that impossible things like starting of Jīvas to Fall from Vaikuṇṭha etc. can’t happen by the mere words of a devotee. But whatever is possible and sanctioned by the scriptures can certainly happen as Prabhupāda rightly translates ‘To prove that the statement of His servant Prahlāda Mahārāja was substantial’ notice that he proved that Prahlāda’s words were already substantial he didn’t ‘substantialise’ it upon utterance. Thus this wish of Śrīla Prabhupāda that his Śiṣyas should become Ācāryas is not obstructed by Śāstra hence Bhagavān certainly made his devotee; Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words come true. 

The GBC had done the same they went to the Godbrothers of Prabhupāda who were learnt and of brahminical nature, also they had consulted Brahmins of other saṁpradāya etc. who accepted the system of Guru as maintained now in ISKCON. One may say then why do the chosen Gurus fall in Iskcon, that is a genuine question but the objector must take a look into the scriptural texts where it is mentioned that what is to be done if someone’s guru deviates from the vaiṣṇava principles As quoted in the Bhaktisandarbha — ‘yaḥ prathamaṃ śābde pare ca niṣṇātaṃ [BhP 11.3.21] ity ādy ukta-lakṣaṇaṃ guruṃ nāśritavān tādṛśa-guroś ca matsarādito mahābhāgavata-satkārādāv anumatiṃ na labhate sa prathamata eva tyakta-śāstro na vicāryate | ubhaya- saṅkaṭa-pāto hi tasmin bhavaty eva | evam-ādikābhiprāyeṇaiva - yo vakti nyāya-rahitam anyāyena śṛṇoti yaḥ | tāv ubhau narakaṃ ghoraṃ vrajataḥ kālam akṣayam || iti nārada-pañcarātre | ata eva dūrata evārādhyas tādṛśo guruḥ | vaiṣṇava-vidveṣī cet parityājya eva | guror apy avaliptasya kāryākāryam ajānataḥ | utpathapratipannasya kāryaṃ bhavati śāsanam || [Mbh 5.178.24] iti smaraṇāt | tasya vaiṣṇava-bhāva-rāhityeṇāvaiṣṇavatayā avaiṣṇavopadiṣṭenety ādi- vacana-viṣayatvāc ca |’. ‘One who does not take shelter of a bona fide guru — as described in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (11.3.21) as one who is deeply versed in both the Vedic sound (śabda-brahma) and the Supreme Reality (para-brahma) — and instead accepts a teacher who is driven by envy and does not honor great devotees (mahābhāgavatas), such a person is to be regarded as having abandoned the śāstra from the very outset and is not worthy of engagement or consideration. He falls into a dual calamity — deviation in both understanding and conduct. As the Nārada Pañcarātra states: “He who speaks without proper reasoning, and he who listens to such unreasonable talk — both fall into a dreadful hell for an immeasurable time.” Therefore, a guru possessing such disqualifications is to be honored only from a distance. However, if such a guru is antagonistic to Vaiṣṇavas, then he must be completely rejected. Even if one bears the title of guru, if he is arrogant, ignorant of dharma and adharma, and has deviated from the proper path, then he is to be corrected or restrained, as stated in the Mahābhārata (5.178.24): “Even a guru who is conceited and unknowing of right and wrong, and who walks the wrong path, must be subject to discipline.” Due to lacking the disposition of a Vaiṣṇava, such a person is to be considered non-Vaiṣṇava, and thus, according to scriptural injunctions, no success arises from receiving mantras or teachings from such a person.’ If the Guru hasn’t become a non-vaiṣṇava he is not to be given up as found in the Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta— ‘sakala-vaiṣṇavā eva guravaḥ | tatra dīkṣā-guravaḥ śikṣā-guravaś ca viśeṣataḥ santi tayor eva kāryam | yadi tāv alpa-balau tathāpy anya-mahatām mukhāc chikṣā viśeṣaṁ jñātvāpi gurave deyam | tad eva guruṣu paṭhanīyaṁ na tu gurau helā kartavyā, yathā sneha-bhājana-putro’rthopārjanaṁ pitre dattvā prārthya ca svayaṁ bhuṅkte | yadi svayam ānīya khādati, tataḥ kuputraḥ pāpī syāt |’ ‘All Vaiṣṇavas are indeed to be regarded as gurus. Among them, there are especially two types — the dīkṣā-guru and the śikṣā-guru — and one should act accordingly toward both. Even if one’s own gurus possess only limited strength, still, if one learns something special from the mouth of some greater mahātmā, that knowledge should still be offered first to one’s own guru. This is the proper etiquette in relation to the guru — never should there be negligence or disrespect toward him. It is just like a loving son who, upon earning wealth, gives it to his father and then requests to enjoy a portion himself. But if he simply takes and eats the earnings himself without offering them to the father, he is considered a sinful and wicked son.’

This proves that this system of living guru has a well defined error management system there is no need for any new man-made concoction to be added to keep up this bonafide system “āgamastamupāsīno hetuvādairna bādhyate ||”, ‘One who has recourse to Tradition cannot be diverted therefrom by mere reasoning.’ The Ritvik system fundamentally depends on the modern world’s technology and organizational structures, which exposes its inherent lack of tangibility as a genuine spiritual system. Unlike traditional guru-paramparā, where a living guru personally initiates and guides disciples, Ritvik initiations are performed by proxies on behalf of a deceased guru. This breaks the essential continuity of an unbroken disciplic succession, which is crucial in Vedic and Vaiṣṇava traditions for authentic transmission of knowledge and spiritual empowerment. Without a living guru’s direct presence, followers become reliant on recorded teachings, virtual interactions, and institutional frameworks, reducing the spiritual process to a mediated experience rather than a living, personal relationship. Hence, the Ritvik system’s dependence on modern tools underscores its failure to establish itself as a tangible, authentic spiritual path. 

Also another point to be noted is most of the ṛtvik philosophy are dependent on the testimonial of the disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda, if they can accept these testimonials as proof then why can’t they accept the testimonials of Śrīla Gour Govinda Mahārāja, Śrīla Rādhāgovinda Mahārāja who were personally ordered by Prabhupāda to make disciples ? This is the logic of the half hen. 

Śrīla Prabhupāda, indeed says in a conversation that he was authorized by his spiritual master. He met Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta sarasvati ṭhākura prabhupāda twice once in prayāgarāja and in śrīdhāma vṛṇdāvana and once via correspondence ‘How may I serve you’. In all of the above instances he received general instructions, like ‘print books, if you get money’ etc.

This authorization as a dikṣā guru came via dreams, as found in ‘681021DK-SEATTLE - October 21, 1968’— “sometimes I was dreaming my spiritual master, that he's calling me, and I was following him. When my dream was over, I was thinking—I was little horrified—"Oh, Guru Mahārāja wants me to become Sannyāsī. How can I accept Sannyāsa?" At that time, I was feeling not very satisfaction that I have to give up my family and have to become a mendicant. At that time, it was a horrible feeling. Sometime I was thinking, "No, I cannot take Sannyāsa." But again I saw the same dream.”

Just as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s testimony is accepted as a proof the testimonies of the above mentioned Mahārājas must also be taken as true, this is called ‘aitihya pramāṇa’, ‘paramparāprasiddham aitihyam’, ‘A tradition (aitihya) that is well-known or established through an unbroken lineage (paramparā)."’ In the case of Śrīla Gour Govinda Mahārāja and Śrīla Gurumahārāja many learned vaiṣṇavas and scholars like Śrī Lakṣmaṇarāmānuja Jīyara [as found in the books 'The Acarya, The Brahmana, The Shilpi', 'In the association of pure devotees' both by tattvavicāra publication] accepted them to be authentic ācāryas as described by Śrī Yaskācārya in Nirukta ‘niśamya yad-giraṁ prājñā avicāryaiva tat-kṣaṇam , saṁbhāvayanti śirasā tam ācāryaṁ pracakṣate . "Having heard the words of the wise (ācārya), the learned ones immediately, without doubt or deliberation, bow their heads in respect and recognize him as an ācārya." [Nirukta]’

The subject of verses portraying Śrī Guru as being same with the Lord must be accepted as praises to samaṣṭi-guru, he is mentioned in the Bhakti sandarbha— ‘yathā ya eva bhagavān atra vyaṣṭi-rūpatayā bhaktāvatāratvena śrī-guru-rūpo vartate, sa eva tatra samaṣṭi-rūpatayā sva- vāma-pradeśe sākṣād-avatāratvenāpi tad-rūpo vartata iti |’, ‘Just as the very same Bhagavān manifests here in an individual form (vyaṣṭi-rūpa) as the Śrī-Guru—an avatāra of the devotee—so also, in the collective (samaṣṭi) form, He manifests as that very same form of the Lord situated directly on His own left side as an actual avatāra’ Vyāṣṭi-guru is pervaded by Śrī Bhagavān, ‘sarva-deva-mayo guruḥ ||’, ‘idaṃ nāmātisāmīpyāt sarvaṃ pūrṇaguṇatvataḥ, bhūmāʼhamātmeti haristrividhoʼpi hi sarvadā.’ explained in the Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya ‘agamyatvāddharistasminnāviṣṭo muktido bhavet,’ ‘Because Śrī Hari is imperceptible to ordinary perception, He enters (becomes manifest) in the Guru, and through him, bestows liberation.’ Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmi writes the same ‘tasya sanātana-tanor mad-īśasya’, ‘tanū’ means body it’s śaktyāveśa. ‘sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair uktas tathā bhāvyata eva sadbhiḥ kintu prabhor yaḥ priya eva tasya vande guroḥ śrī-caraṇāravindam’, ‘The guru is described by all the scriptures as being directly like Hari Himself, and the wise understand him to be so. but actually he is, in truth, the dearest servant of the Lord [Thus he is sometimes identified with the Lord himself]. I offer my respectful obeisance unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master.’ In the Bhakti-sandarbha ‘śuddha-bhaktāḥ śrī-guro śrī śivasya ca bhagavatā saha abheda-dṛṣtiṃ-tat-priyatamatvenaiva manyante’, ‘Whenever the scriptures describe the spiritual master and Lord Śiva as nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa, pure devotees understand this is because of their being the most beloved of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.’, A principle shown in the Priti sandarbha also explains the same ‘evaṃ tat tvam asi [ChU 6.8.7] ity-ādi-śāstram api tat-prema-param eva jñeyam | tvam evāmuka itivat |’ "Thus, the scripture 'tat tvam asi' (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7) and others like it are also to be understood as ultimately referring to love for Him (tat-prema-param). ‘You are that very person’ (tvam eva amuka iti-vat) — just as in that kind of usage." 

In the tale of Uddhava sending Vidura to Maitreya we find ‘nanu te tattva-saṁrādhya ṛṣiḥ kauṣāravo ’ntike sākṣād bhagavatādiṣṭo martya-lokaṁ jihāsatā’ ‘Śrī Uddhava said: You may take lessons from the great learned sage Maitreya, who is nearby and who is worshipable for reception of transcendental knowledge. He was directly instructed by the Personality of Godhead while He was about to quit this mortal world.’ Śrīla Prabhupāda comments ‘Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryādā-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality.’ In the verse we find ‘martya-lokaṁ jihāsatā’, When the Lord was leaving this world [aprakaṭa, Lord never leaves any place as he is all pervasive, he is all pervasive yet localised everything is harmonized by his acintyaśakti], by the principle the ṛtviks Kṛṣṇa is eternally present everywhere which is cent percent true yet as he became aprakaṭa he was not approached for instruction rather a person who was taught by him was prescribed to be approached ‘sākṣād bhagavatādiṣṭo martya-lokaṁ jihāsatā’.

Some may ask if everyone is capable of taking away someone’s karma etc. on themselves during dīkṣā ? This question is incorrect No one can take someone else’s karma on themselves as it would bring ‘kṛta-hānya-kṛtābhyāgamadoṣa’ (loss of accrued merit or attainment of unearned merit). In the tattva-viveka Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura while refuting the Christian theory writes ‘The idea that other jīvas were absolved of sin by the punishment accepted by the Lord’s expansion as a jīva does not make sense to natural intelligence.’ [1.25]. Also ‘rājñi cāmātyajā doṣāḥ patnī-pāpaṃ sva-bhartari | tathā śiṣyārjitaṃ pāpaṃ guruḥ prāpnoti niścitam ||’, Here again ‘Pāpa’ can have different meanings as in the Amarakoṣa ‘paṅkaḥ pumānpāpmā pāpaṃ kilbiṣakalmaṣam’, ‘paṅkaḥ’ lit. ‘Dirt’ is used in substitution to ‘ill-reputation’ matching with the context. Pāpa here means the Guru receives ill reputation for accepting a worthless śiṣya that is why they must examine him thoroughly, Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi comments ‘guruṇā tv avaśyam eva śiṣya-parīkṣā kāryety atra hetum āha—rājñīti’ The guru should definitely examine the disciple. The reason for this is in the verse above. ‘kuryāt pāpasya saṅkṣayam’ isn’t a one day thing, after dīkṣā just as one gets śīkṣādhikāra similarly destruction of karma happens step by step with a slight delay not instantaneously as assumed relative to the beginningless material existence. Now the Guru doesn’t have to wash the pāpas of the śiṣya with a dishwasher entering into his heart rather the initiation into Bhagavat-mārga will gradually cleanse him ‘ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanaṁ bhava-mahā-dāvāgni nirvāpaṇaṁ’ as he proceeds further in bhakti. Also just as the fire ignited doesn’t depend on the igniter similarly these features of dīkṣā like cleansing of sins is not dependent on the Guru rather on the Dikṣā, just as fire burns it doesn’t matter who ignited it.

It is found in the Mādhūrya-kādambini and the Bhaktirasāmṛta commentary of Śrīla Viśvanātha Ṭhākura— ‘athātra bhaktānāṁ prārabdha-sāmānya-nāśe’pi yat sukha-duḥkhaṁ dṛśyate, tatra tu sukhaṁ bhakter ānusaṅgikaṁ phalam | yathā nārada-pañcarātre— hari-bhakti-mahā-devyāḥ sarvā mukty-ādi-siddhayaḥ | bhuktayaś cādbhutās tasyāś ceṭikāvad anudrutāḥ || iti | duḥkhaṁ tu kutracid bhagavad-dattam | yathā śrī-daśame— yasyāham anugṛhṇāmi hariṣye tad-dhanaṁ śanaiḥ | tato ‘dhanaṁ tyajanty asya sva-janā duḥkha-duḥkhitam || [bhā.pu. 10.88.8] iti | kutracid vaiṣṇavāparādhādi-phalam iti vivecanīyam’ ‘However, happiness and distress are also seen in the devotee, even with the destruction of all prārabdha-karmas. Happiness is one of the incidental results of practicing bhakti. ‘All the perfections such as liberation and wondrous enjoyments pursue the great goddess of devotion to the Lord like maidservants.’ [Nārada Pañcarātra] The distress experienced by the devotee is sometimes given by the Lord (not karma); “If I especially favor someone, I gradually deprive him of his wealth. Then the relatives and friends of such a poverty-stricken man abandon him. In this way he suffers one distress after another.” [SB 10.88.8] Sometimes however the suffering is a result of offense to the Vaiṣṇavas.’ Thus these are not due to taking someone else’s karma.

If whatever the Guru said was śāstra then there would have been no injunctions present in śāstra which says that a guru who speaks contrary to śāstra must be given up. Songs of Ācāryas like ‘guru-mukha-padma-vākya, cittete koribo aikya’ is directed towards Kṛṣṇa as samaṣṭi guru ‘vede gāy jāhāra carito’, ‘vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo’. Verses like ‘ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyān’ doesn’t give authenticity to each and every word of the Guru for here the word is Ācārya which is defined as ‘ācinoti yaḥ śāstrārthaṁ ācare sthāpayatyapi svayaṁ ācarate yasmad ācāryastena kīrtitaḥ’ “The Ācārya is one who knows the import of all the Vedic literatures, abides by their rules and regulations (i.e. personally follows or practices), and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.” Ācārya’s word is substantial only because it is based on śāstra that is the import, For we do not even accept the lord when he speaks against the śāstras Śrīla Vidyābhuṣana writes— na ca buddhasyāpīśvaratve sati tad-vākyaṁ ca pramāṇaṁ syād iti vācyam;  'And it must be understood that, even though Buddha is lord (īśvara), his words cannot be accepted as authoritative (pramāṇa).'

Śrīla Prabhupāda exemplifies this in an anecdote [731216MW-LOS ANGELES - December 16, 1973]—

Actually, I have seen. There was a snake in our Māyāpur temple. So Guru Mahārāja was standing on the . . . while some devotees were waiting. "Yes, kill it." So at that time I could not understand that, "Such a saintly person, why he is ordering to kill a snake?" Then when I found in Bhāgavata, modeta sādhur api vṛścika-sarpa-hatyā (SB 7.9.14): "A saintly person also becomes engladdened when a snake is killed." Because it is very harmful. He said that, "He will do so many harmful activities. Better kill him." Because his business is to create harm. That's all.

Thus Śrīla Prabhupāda validated Śrīla Sarasvati Prabhupāda’s activity from śāstra. It is said ‘anekasaṃśayocchedi parokṣārthasya darśakam | sarvasya locanaṃ śāstraṃ yasya nāstyandha eva saḥ ||’ ‘The scripture is the eye of all; it dispels many doubts and reveals the indirect (hidden) meanings. He who does not have the scripture as his eye is indeed blind.’ Our First Ācārya even though his Vāṇi is never wrong as he himself says due to holding Bhagavān's feet in his heart "na bhāratī meʼṅga mṛṣopalakṣyate na vai k‍vacinme manaso mṛṣā gati:, na me hṛṣīkāṇi patantyasatpathe yanme hṛdautkaṇṭhyavatā dhṛto hari:.", Still he quotes Śāstra to prove something which he saw himself in pratyakṣa "jagat trayāntodadhisamplavode nārāyaṇasyodaranābhinālāt, vinirgatoʼjastviti vāṅ‍‍‍‍ na vai mṛṣā kin‍tvīśvara tvanna vinirgatoʼsmi.", He doesn't say that my eyes are not wrong, rather he says "vāṅ‍‍‍‍ na vai mṛṣā", Which statements of scriptures ? "ajasya nābhāvadhyekamarpitam" "yannābhipadmādabhavanmahātmā prajāpatiḥ" "sa prajāpatirekaḥ puṣkaraparṇe samabhavat", On the authority of these Vāks, He speaks not by his own mental concoction as said in the Śruti "tasmai nūnamabhidyave vācā virūpa nityayā,", this is the standard set by the Ācāryas.

While describing the offence of neglecting Śruti and smṛti, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi writes in the Bhaktisandarbha— ‘atha śruti-śāstra-nindanam - yathā pāṣaṇḍa-mārgeṇa dattātreya-rṣabha- devopāsakānāṃ pāṣaṇḍinām | tathārtha-vādaḥ stuti-mātram idam iti mananam | kalpanaṃ tan-māhātmya- gauṇatākaraṇāya gaty-antara-cintanam | yathoktaṃ kaurme vyāsa-gītāyāṃ - deva-drohād guru-drohaḥ koṭi-koṭi-guṇādhikaḥ | jñānāpavādo nāstikyaṃ tasmāt koṭi-guṇādhikam ||’ ‘Now criticizing scriptures is discussed. This refers to pāsandas, such as worshippers of Dattātreya and Rsabhadeva. They become pāșandas by not accepting the Vedic conclusions. Artha-vāda means to think that the statements concerning the powers of the name are merely exaggerated praise. Kalpanam means to give other meanings to the name in order to minimize the name's glories. Vyāsa says in Kūrma Purāņa: deva-drohād guru-droha koți-koți-guņādhikaḥ | jñānāpavādo nāstikyam tasmāt koți-guņādhikam |. Offending the guru is billions of times worse than offending the Lord. Denying scriptural knowledge and not accepting the authority of the Vedas is ten million times worse than offending the guru.’

In the same sandarbha Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi analyses whether a Bhaktiyogi of any sort can ‘fall’ or not, He writes — ‘pūrvaṃ ye'nye'ravindākṣa [BhP 10.2.26*] ity ādinā muktānām api bhagavad- anādareṇa pāramārthiko bhraṃśa uktaḥ | bhaktānāṃ sa nāstīty āha tatheti | tathā pūrvaṃ ārūḍha-parama-padatvāvasthāto'pi bhraśyanti tathā tāvakā mārgāt sādhanāvasthāto'pi na bhraśyantīty arthaḥ | śrī-vṛtra-gajendra- bharatādīnāṃ saj-janmato bhraṃśe'pi bhakti-vāsanānugati-darśanāt |’ ‘In the earlier verse beginning with “O lotus-eyed one (pūrvaṁ ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa…)”, a spiritual fall (pāramārthika bhraṁśa) is described even for those who are liberated [Jīvan muktas not Videha muktas as found in the Bhagavata-pariśiṣṭa ‘jīvan-muktāḥ prapadyante punaḥ saṃsāra-vāsanām | yady acintya-mahā-śaktau bhagavaty aparādhinaḥ ||’, Jivan mukta is described in Bhaktisandarbha ‘tataś ca jīvata evāvidyā-kalpita-māyā-kārya-sambandha- mithyātva-jñāpaka-jīva-svarūpa-sākṣātkāreṇa tādātmyāpanna-brahma- sākṣātkāro jīvan-mukti-viśeṣa ity arthaḥ’, ‘Therefore, through the direct realization of the self (jīva-svarūpa) as distinct from the false connection with the effects of māyā created by ignorance—while still living— and through the consequent identification with the realized Brahman, the special condition known as jīvan-mukti (liberation while living) is attained. This is the meaning.’], due to their disregard for Bhagavān. But such a fall does not occur for devotees—that is stated by the word “tathā” (in contrast). Just as others fall even from the position of having attained the supreme state (parama-pada), in contrast, Your devotees do not fall even from the stage of practice (sādhana). This is the intended meaning. This is seen in the cases of Vṛtrāsura, Gajendra, Bharata, and others—although they appeared to fall from their higher birth, they clearly followed the impressions (vāsanās) of bhakti.’, In the Commentary to BG 9.31 Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmi writes ‘katham ? me parameśvarasya bhaktaḥ sudurācāro 'pi na praṇaśyati | api tu kṛtārtha eva bhavatīti |’ ‘How (is it so)? Even if My devotee—though extremely ill-behaved (sudurācāraḥ)—does not perish. Rather, he indeed becomes successful (kṛtārtha).’

‘gurur na sa syāt sva-jano na sa syāt pitā na sa syāj jananī na sā syāt daivaṁ na tat syān na patiś ca sa syān na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum’ ‘He who would not, or is incompetent to, liberate a person (whether he/she be a pupil, relative, an offspring or a wife or a devotee) from involvement in saṃsāra, is not a real preceptor (even though he may claim to be so) or a real, relative, father or mother or husband or a deity.’, How does the Guru liberate one ? Is it by literally taking their sins or literally cutting their bondage with some scissor? The answer is No, Śrīdhara Svāmi explains ‘tato bhakti-mārgopadeśena yo na mocayet, sa gurv-ādir na bhavatīty arthaḥ,’ ‘Therefore, one who does not deliver (liberate) by instructing the path of bhakti, is not to be regarded as a guru or spiritual authority—this is the meaning.’ This verse only denies the acceptance of non-devotee gurus. We also find in a smṛti ‘guru-prasādo balavān na tasmād balavattaram | tathāpi śravaṇādiś ca kartavyo mokṣa-siddhaye ||’ ‘The grace of the Guru is powerful—there is nothing more powerful than that. Even so, practices like hearing (śravaṇa) and others must still be performed for the attainment of liberation.’

This system doesn’t collapse if the Guru falls or turns averse to Vaiṣṇavas the śāstras say— “guror apy avaliptasya kāryākāryam ajānataḥ utpatha-pratipannasya parityāgo vidhīyate”, ‘One is ordained to give up a guru who is self-conceited, who does not know what is to be done and what is to be avoided, and who has stumbled down the wrong path.’, what should be done then ? the answer is given — “avaiṣṇavopadiṣṭena mantreṇa nirayaṁ vrajet punaś ca vidhinā samyag grāhyed vaiṣṇavād guroḥ” ‘One goes to hell by receiving a mantra from a guru who is not a Vaiṣṇava. Such a person should again accept a mantra from a Vaiṣṇava guru, in conformity with the prescribed principles.’ Thus it is well explained in the scriptures when to give up a guru and accept a new one. No additional innovation is needed to the fully equipped vedic system.

yad atra skhalitam kiñcid vidvāṁsaḥ pūrayantu tat

yad atra sauṣṭhavaṁ kiñcid tad guror eva me na hi

vaiṣṇavo bhūya icchen yaḥ sa yathāśāstramācaret,

viparīte svecchayā tu vartate na tu tattvavit.

pañcarātraśrutīsmṛtyāḥ pramāṇānyāhṛtāni yaḥ,

saṃkalya raṅganāthena racitaṃ śāstramadbhutam.

Appendix: Mantra Paraṁparā of prominent Ācāryas

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) —> Śrīla Mādhavendra Pūrī —> Śrīla Īśvara Pūrī —> Śrīman Mahāprabhu —> Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi —> Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmi —> Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi. [Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi in Dāmodarāṣṭaka ṭīkā — "sarvaṁ caitanyadevāya gurave’rpitam eva me", Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmi in Laghubhāgavatāmṛta "śrīmat-prabhupādāmbhojaiḥ śrīmad-bhāgavatāmṛtam", Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi's in sādhanadīpikā "atha śrī-jīva-gosvāmi-pādaḥ śrīmad-rūpa-pādasya bhrātuṣputras tasmāt taṃ mantra-sevakaṃ kṛtavān" ]

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) 

—> Śrīla Mādhavendra Pūrī —> Śrīla Īśvara Pūrī —> Śrīman Mahāprabhu —> Śrīla Prabodhānanda Sarasvati —> Śrīla Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi. [bhakter vilāsāṃś cinute prabodhānandasya śiṣyo bhagavat-priyasya gopāla-bhaṭṭo]

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) 

—> Mādhavendra Puri —> Śrīla Advaitācārya —> Śrīla Yadunandanācārya —> Śrīla Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmi. [śrī-vilāpa-kusumāñjaliḥ : prabhur api yadunandano ca eṣa priya-yadunandana unnata-prabhāvaḥ svayam atula-kṛpāmṛtābhiṣekaṁ mama kṛtavāṁs tam ahaṁ guruṁ prapadye]

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) 

—> Śrīla Mādhavendra Pūrī —> Śrīla Īśvara Pūrī —> Śrīman Mahāprabhu —> Śrīla Tapaṇa Miśra —> Śrīla Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi —> Śrīla Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmi. [Caitanya Bhāgavata]

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) 

—> Śrīla Mādhavendra Pūrī —> Śrīla Īśvara Pūrī —> Śrīman Mahāprabhu —> Śrīla Lokanātha Gosvāmi —> Śrīla Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura —> Śrīla Gaṅgā Nārāyaṇa Cakravartī —> Śrīla Kṛṣṇa Caraṇa Cakravartī — Śrīla Rādhāramaṇa Cakravartī —> Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākurapāda. [stavāmṛtalaharī]

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) 

—> Śrīla Mādhavendra Pūrī —> Śrīla Nityānanda Prabhu —> Śrīla Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍīta —> Śrīla Hṛdayānanda Prabhu —> Śrīla Śyāmānanda Prabhu —> Śrīla Rasikānanda Prabhu —> Śrīla Nayanānanda Prabhu —> Śrīla Rādhādāmodara Gosvāmi —> Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu.

(Śrī Kṛṣṇa —> Brahmā —> ... —> Śrīla Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha) —> Śrīla Mādhavendra pūri —> Śrīla Advaitācārya —> Śrī Kṛṣṇa Miśra —> Śrī Dola Govinda Miśra —> Śrī Gopīnātha Gosvāmi —> Śrī Rādhāgovinda Gosvāmi —> Śrī Keśava Gosvāmi —> Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmi —> Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Gosvāmi —> Śrī Nimāicāṁda Gosvāmi —> Śrīla Goura Kiśora Dāsa Bābājī —> Śrī Śrīmad Yaticakracūḍāmaṇi Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda [madīya paramparā, Collected from Māṇikgañja, Dhākā from Śrī Hīrālāla Gosvāmi]