ISKCON
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
Founder-Acharya His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

July 11th 1977

My dear Kirtanananda Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada has just received the latest issue of Brijabasi Spirit, Vol.IV,No.4, which brought Him great joy. As He looked at the cover showing Kaladri performing a fire ceremony, He said, "Just see his face how devotee he is, so expert in everything". When Srila Prabhupada opened the first page, His eyes fixed on the picture of Radha- Vrindavana Chandra, and He said, "Vrindavana Bihari - so beautiful. There is no danger wherever Vrindavana Chandra is." After enjoying the whole magazine throughly Srila Prabhupada said, "It is printed on their own press. It is very good progress." His Divine Grace very much appreciated the article "How I Was Deprogrammed" by the young devotee boy. Prabhupada was feeling great sympathy when he heard his story and said, "If one man is turned like this boy then this movement is successful. There is good prospect, good hope. You all combine together and push this movement on and on. Now I am assured that it will go on." While going through the magazine, Srila Prabhupada also saw your good photo on the page "Istagosthi" and Srila Prabhupada bestowed a long loving look upon your good self expressing his deep appreciation for how you have understood this Krishna Consciousness.

A letter has been sent to all the Temple Presidents and GBC which you should be receiving soon describing the process for initiation to be followed in the future. Srila Prabhupada has appointed thus far eleven representitives who will initiate new devotees on His behalf. You can wait for this letter to arrive (the original has been sent to Ramesvara Maharaja for duplicating) and then all of the persons whom you recommened in your previous letters can be initiated.

In this second paragraph Tamala Krishna Goswami Maharaj is informing Kirtanananda Maharaja about the letter and the process of initiations that will be followed in the future. Unfortunately ritvik-vadis peck out a line "to be followed in the future" and extend it to eterntity; should this letter not to be understood in connection to the "actual letter that they refer to" ? If we closely, look at the statement "to be followed in the future", it means, that since Prabhupada is still living that time, it says about the future of Prabhupada while Prabhupada was still present.

Again, in this world, has any one referred to his "future" after his death?? Suppose we generally ask friends---what do you want to become in future?? What are your future plans?? If I say "future" it means my future in the material world as long as I live on earth, and not the "future" after I depart from the material body. And when the letter says "initiations for the future", it means, initiations during Prabhupada's presense, his future as long as he is in this material world.

Caitanya Mahaprahu has come to revive KC after 5000 years of Kali-Yuga. Material world is a place where the actual religious principles get faded, and they need to be revived again and again to maintain the purity of the divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge; otherwise the transcendental knowledge can be watered down in the current of time; THIS IS KALI YUGA AND THESE ARE THE DAYS WHERE IT WILL HAPPEN OFTEN AND PREACHING IS MORE THAN OFTEN REQUIRED TO DISPELL THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

Maya has captured the ritvik-vadis because they have taken to the "indirect" interpretations, neti-neti (not this, not this) process, that is adopted by the impersonalist philosophers. And this is very unfortunate position for some follower of Prabhupada and Bhagavad Gita, to take to indirect techniques--which are dry and useless and that mislead people.

His Divine Grace has been maintaining His health on an even course and most amazingly has doubled His translation work keeping pace with the doubling of book distribution. Hoping this meets you well.

Your servant,
Tamala Krsna Goswami
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
(signature appears on original)


July 19th, 1977 Room Conversation...

Tamala Krsna Maharaja:
"Upendra and I could see it far last...(break)."

Srila Prabhupada:
"And nobody is going to disturb you there. Make your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on my charge. People are becoming sympathetic there. The place is very nice."

Whereever there is a term "ritvik", they quote it blindly & expect every body to blindly accept that somehow or other it will prove ritvik-vada; but the plain fact is that it does not in any way support ritvik-vada.

Tamala Krsna Maharaja:
"Yeah. He says: 'The introduction of Bhagavad Gita has been translated into Tamil, and I will have the second chapter due next, then publish a small booklet for distribution'".


July 21st, 1977

BBT
THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST
Founder - Acarya: His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedannta Swami Prabhupada

July 21st, 1977

ALL GLORIES TO SRI GURU AND GOURANGA!

Dear GBC Godbrother Prabhus,

Please accept my most humble obeisances in the dust of your feet. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I have just received some letters from Tamal Krishna Maharaja, and am enclosing herein two documents: 1) Srila Prabhupada's final version of his last will, and 2) Srila Prabhupada's initial list of disciples appointed to perform initiations for His Divine Grace. This initial list is also being sent to all centers.

From Tamal's letter it seems that Srila Prabhupada is enthusiastic despite poor health, and is translating full force. He especially becomes enthused when reports arrive from different GBC men and temples with preaching results, general good news, etc. and Tamal Krishna Maharaja has stressed that we should all be sending such reports, as His Divine Grace often asks, "What is the news?" An outstanding example of Srila Prabhupada's mood was shown after receiving an encouraging preaching report from Hansadutta Swami in Ceylon. Srila Prabhupada said, "I want to go to Ceylon. I can go. I can go anywhere by chair. It is difficult only in the imagination. The swelling is touching the skin, not my soul.

This an important letter to look at. This is on 21st July, after the July 9th letter. In this it is more clear to us that Prabhupada's health is not very good, and he is getting more enthused by the good news from his disciples about preaching, book distribution, etc. A significant point to note is if one is happy, it is very good for health too. So, Rameswara Swami is encouraging devotees to send more good news so that his health becomes good, and Prabhupada is also putting more time into translating Srimad Bhagavatam, despite not very good health.

But ritivks do not in their best sensibilty, consider or care about Prabhupada's health while trying to run disputes with ritvik-theory. These are the important reasons why Prabhupada is unable to perform personal initiations, and certainly not for setting up a new method of initiation.

IT IS ALREADY MADE CLEAR IN BHAGAVAD GITA THAT establishing any princple on one's personal merit or pride, without any reference to the guru, sadhu & sastra is in the mode of IGNORANCE. Dharmam tu saksad Bhagavat Pranitam, the principles of religion are set up by God, and should not be adulterated or changed.

Ritviks fail to take note of this that---they ARE THE SOLE BASIS OF THE ritvik THEORY. ritvik THEORY IS BASED ON ritvik vadi, and not on sastra, GURU & SADHU.

More than anything else, Tamal has stressed the genuine need for a visiting GBC member to come every month for personal service. Since Srila Prabhupada has recently said that now this regular visiting is very important, all GBC members should be anxious to do this, as it not only involves important work which will help relieve Prabhupada from management, but also involves attending Srila Prabhupada personally, giving him massages and many other nectarian services, and in general affords an unusual amount of personal association, even more than in the past. Out of over 23 GBC members there should never be one month not filled up.

One final news report is that Srila Prabupada has appointed a new GBC member for North India (including Delhi but not Vrndavana) - His Holiness Bhakti Caitanya Swami. Tamal Krsna Maharaja said that His divine Grace appointed him to encourage him for the outstanding preaching work he is doing in Punjab.

Jai, I hope this finds you all well, and fully absorbed in preaching and thus satisfying Srila Prabhupada fully.

Your most unworthy servant,
(signature appears on the original document)
Ramesvara dasa Swami



July 31st 1977


My Dear Hansadutta Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. I have been instructed by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada to thank you for your letter dated July 25th 1977.

You have written to Srila Prabhupada saying you do not know why Srila Prabhupada has chosen you to be a recipient of his mercy. His Divine Grace immediately replied, 'It is because you are my sincere servant. You have given up attachment for a beautiful and qualified wife and that is a great benidiction. You are a real preacher. Therefore I like you. (Then laughing) Sometimes you become obstinate, but that is true of any intelligent man. Now you have a very good field. Now organize it and it will be a great credit. No one will disturb you there. Make your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.'

This is the phase of ritvik initiations happening during Prabhupada's time. Prabhupada is asking his disciples to act as ritivk- not independently but on his behalf - on his order, and not whimsically. But the author has done some interpretations and derived THE FINAL ORDER, which is actually THE FINAL DIS-ORDER, for the reasons presented in this article.

Srila Prabhupada listened with great enthusiasm as I read to him the newspaper article. His Divine Grace was very pleased: 'This article will increase your prestige. It is very nice article. Therfore the newspaper has spared so much space to print it. It is very nice. It must be published in Back to Godhead. Now there is a column in Back to Godhead called 'Prabhupada Speaks Out'. Your article may be entitled 'Prabhupada's Disciple Speaks Out'. Yes, we shall publish this article certainly. Let this rascal be fool before the public. I have enjoyed this article very much. I want my disciples to speak out...backed by complete reasoning. 'Brahma sutra sunisthita', this is preaching. Be blessed. All my disciples go forward. You have given the challenge. They cannot answer. This Dr. Kovoor should be invited...For Dr. Svarupa Damodara's convention on 'Life comes from Life'. He can learn something at this scientific convention."

Yes, you should certainly get some ISKCON Food Relief money. For your program American money collected and sent for food distribution. That is my proposal. Three hundred people coming is no joke. You mentioned so many nice preperations. I would like to eat but I cannot. At simply hearing these names (of preperations) it is satisfying. Just thinking this morning of you, and now you have written me.

(last paragraph illegible)
Your Servant
Tamala Krsna Goswami
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
(signature appears on the original)



October 22nd 1977 -- Room conversation

Srila Prabhupada: "Hare Krishna. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?" (One man had traveled from New York to be initiated by Srila Prabhupada.)

Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Yes, Srila Prabhupada. Mr Sukamoy Roy Choudry."

Srila Prabhupada: "So I have deputied some of you to initiate?"

Tamla Krsna Maharaja: "Yes."

Srila Prabhupada: "So, I think Jayapataka can do that. If you like, I have already deputed. Tell him, some deputies, that Jayapataka's name was there? So, I depute him to do this at Mayapur and he may go with him. I have stopped for the time being. Is that alright?"

Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "What Srila Prabhupada?"

Srila Prabhupada: "This initiation I have deputed my disciples, is that clear or not?"

After writing the July 9th letter, it is clear that Prabhupada wanted his disciples to handle the initiations on this behalf. Here Prabupada is stressing on the same.

Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "It is clear"

Srila Prabhupada: "You have got a list of names? And if by Krsna's grace I recover from this condition then I shall begin or I may not but in this condition to initiate is not good".

This is a very important quote from Prabhupada to note, that his health condition is not so well. If by reading this article the Ritivk supporters can open their eyes to see the light, they would be benefited, otherwise, they will remain misled and mislead others. I pray once again for the causeless mercy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to make the ritviks understand their fallacy, and start practicing the teachings of Prabhupada without adulteration.

November 2nd, 1977 -- Room conversation

Srila Prabhupada: "...So after you, who will take the leadership, and (I said) everyone will take. All my disciples. If you want you can take also. (Laughter) But if you follow. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. They'll take the leadership. I may, one, go away. But there will be hundreds. Hundreds will preach. If you want you can also be leader. We have no such thing that here is leader. Anyone who follows the previous leadership. He's leader.

Tamal Krsna Maharaja: "Hmm"

Srila Prabhupada: "Indian! We have no such distinction. Indian. European.

Devotee: "They wanted an Indian to be leader".

Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. Everyone. All my disciples they're leaders. As purely as they follow, they'll become leaders. If you want to follow, you can become leader. But you don't follow. I told that. (pause)

Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Yeah. They probably wanted to propose someone who would take over our movement."

Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. Hmm. (pause) 'Leader'...all nonesense. (pause) Leader means one who has become first-class disciple. He's leader, 'evam parampara praptam', one who is perfectly following our intsructions, he's leader. Hmm. To become leader is not very difficult, provided one is prepared to follow the instructions of a bona fide guru.

This is the most important conversation because the qualification of guru is clearly presented here by Prabhupada. Prabhupada is not giving any mystical criteria, which are not verfiable. He is clearly saying here about the next acarya, as one who is perfectly following instructions of previous acarya. Then he is qualified to become guru.

Unfortunately ritvik-vadis do not try to understand what is the actual qualification to become a guru. Instead they concot some theories (without basis of sastra, but basing on faulty logic) and create disturbances in the ocean of bhakti-yoga. It is already indicated by verse "smrti sastra puranadi, pancaratriki vidhim vina, aikantiki haree bhakti, utpata eva upapadyate", ritvik-vadis are nothing but disturbance to path of bhakti; because they lack support from sastra.

December 3rd 1980 -- PYRAMID HOUSE CONFESSIONS

Tamla Krsna Maharaja: "I've had a certain realization a few days ago.(...) There are obviously so many statements by Srila Prabhupada that his Guru Maharaja did not appoint any successors.(...) Even in Srila Prabhupada's books he says guru means by qualification.(...)

The inspiration came because there was a questioning on my part, so Krishna spoke. Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.

Here Tamal Krishna Maharaja is confessing the point that Prabhupada has never said "Who is the next guru?" But amazingly the ritvik-vadis say that no one is qualified to be a guru, because he is not personally authorized by Prabhupada. This is one of the fallacies of the ritvik-vadis. Prabhupada or his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had never appointed a person as guru, they always maintained guru as self-effulgent, and one becomes a bonafide guru by sincerely following the instructions of his bonafide guru. This was discussed in the previous conversation. But the ritvik-vadis fail to look at this point. Their idea is equivalent to "rubber stamping" of guru, which Srila Prabhupada NOR Srila Bhaktisiddhanta ever did.

What actually happened I'll explain. I explained it but the interpretation is wrong. What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons, and they went to Prabhupada, five or six of us. (This refers to the meeting of May 1977,). We asked him, 'Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?'

Later on there was a piled up list of people to get initiated, and it was jammed up. I said, 'Srila Prabhupada, you once mentioned about ritviks. I don't know what to do. We don't want to approach you, but there's hundreds of devotees named, and I'm just holding all the letters. I don't know what you want to do'.

Srila Prabhupada said, 'All right, I will appoint so many...' and he started to name them. He made it very clear that they are his disciples. At that point it was very clear in my mind that they were his disciples. Later on I asked him two questions, one: 'What about Brahmananda Swami?'. I asked him this because I happened to have an affection for Brahmananda Swami.(...) So Srila Prabhupada said, 'No, not unless he is qualified'. Before I got ready to type the letter, I asked him, two: 'Srila Prabhupada is this all or do you want to add more?'. He said, 'As is necessary, others may be added.'

Now I understand that what he did was very clear. He was physically incapable of performing the function of initiation; therefore he appointed officiating priests to initiate on his behalf. He appointed eleven, and he said very clearly, 'Whoever is nearest can initiate'. This is very important because when it comes to initiating, it isn't whoever is nearest, it's wherever your heart goes. Who (you) repose your faith on, you take initiation from him. But when it's officiating, it's whoever is nearest, and he was very clear. He named them. They were spread out all over the world, and he said, 'Whoever your nearest, you just approach that person, and they'll check you out. Then, on my behalf, they'll initiate.' It is not a question that you repose your faith in that person - nothing. That's a function for the guru.

'In order for me to manage this movement', Prabhupada said, 'i have to form a GBC and I will appoint the following people. In order to continue the process of people joining our movement and getting initiated, I have to appoint some priests to help me because(...) I cannot physically manage everyone myself.'

Here Tamal Krishna Maharaja is confessing that since Prabhupada was not able to perform initiations physically due to health problems & because the prospective disciples are from different parts of the world and there were too many of them; so he appointed officiating priests, ritviks, who will act on behalf of Prabhupada & initiate discples on his behalf. This is the clear cause of 'ritvik initiations during Prabhupada's time', and not for the purpose of continuing these initiations after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada.

This is a bogus idea manufactured by the ritvik-vadis, who are in the dress of Vaisnavas in the Krishna Consciousness movement. Vaishnavas will honor truth and honesty in all dealings, and what to speak of devotional principles? They never mis-interpret or present their own conclusions and they do not whimsically present any thing, but they present with proper logic, argument, sense and support them by statements of sastras.

What the ritvik-vadis want to achieve by basing themselves on FALSITY, asastra-viddi (without following sastric injunctions). Just good wishes of ritvik-vadis will not help. Right things done for the right cause will help. If the ritvik-vadis go wrong, they need to correct themselves.

One of the symptoms of the mode of goodness, is feeling embarrassed for doing wrong acts. This is a quality of the mode of goodness, given by Lord Krishna. If they have faith in Lord Krishna, then ritvik-vadis should come out clean, accept mistakes and correct themselves. There is NO LOSS OF FACE in this. Indeed they will be noted by Lord Krishna for having followed and trusted His injunction.

We have been making mistakes in millions of births and what is the DISGRACE in accepting this simple mistake before the Lord, for the sake of Truth? Honor and dishonor should be accepted by us if they can give pleasure to the Lord. Now the ritvik-vadis can give pleasure to Lord Krishna if they can understand and accept their mistake publicly.

And that's all it was, and it was never any more than that, you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, because he had already said it a million times. He said: My Guru Maharaja did not appoint anyone. It's by qualification.' We made a great mistake. After Prabhupada's departure what is the position of these eleven people?(...)

Prabhupada showed that it is not just sannyasis. He named two people who were grihastas, who could at least be ritviks, showing that they were equal to any sannyasi. So anyone who is spiritually qualified - it's always been understood that you cannot accept disciples in the presence of your guru, but when the guru disappears, you can accept disciples if you are qualified and someone can repose their faith. Of course, they (prospective disciples) should be fully appraised at how to distinguish who is a proper guru. But if you are a proper guru, and your guru is no longer present, that is your right. It's like a man can procreate(...) Unfortunately the GBC did not recognise this point. They immediately (assumed, decided) that these eleven people are the selected gurus. I can definitely say for myself, and for which I humbly beg forgiveness from everybody, that there was definitely some degree of trying to control(...) This is the conditioned nature, and it came out in the highest position of all, 'Guru, oh wonderful! Now I am guru, and there is only eleven of us'(...).

I feel that this realization or this understanding is essential if we are to avoid further things from happening, because, believe me, it's going to repeat. It's just a question of time until things have a little bit faded out and again another incident is going to happen, whether it's here in L.A. or somewhere else. It's going to continuously happen until you allow the actual spiritual force of Krishna to be exhibited without restriction.(...) I feel that the GBC body, if they don't adopt this point very quickly, if they don't realize this truth. You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: 'I appoint these eleven as gurus'. It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.(...) The day you got initiated you get the right to be come a father when your father disappears, if you are qualified. No appointment. It doesn't require an appointment, because there isn't one.

Below two are the WILLs OF Prabhupada, about how ISKCON properties will be managed. Prabhupada was very intelligent, in writing a new WILL after the first will, and in the second will Prabhupada has said that some amount of money should go to his wife and children for the family maintenance. And he gave clear injunctions how much money should go to them, so that in a later stage no one from Prabhupada's family can claim the properties of ISKCON un-lawfully. So Prabhupada, made things very clear in HIS WILL so that things will NOT GET MISUSED in any possible way after his departure.

Srila Prabhupada's Declaration of Will

Tridandi Goswami A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami
Founder-Acharya:International Society for Krishna Conciousness
CENTER: Krsna-Balarama Mandir
Bhaktivedanta Swami Marg
Ramanareti, Vrndavana, U.F.
DATE; 5th June 1977.

I, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder-acarya of the International Society for Krishna consciousness, Settlor of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and disciple of Om Visnupada 108 Sri Srimad Bhaktsiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvama Maharaja Prabhupada, presently residing at Sri Krsna-Balarama Mandir in Vrndavana, make this my last will:

The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.

Properties in India will be managed by the following executive directors:

Properties at Sri Mayapur Dhama, Panihati, Haridaspur and Calcutta: Gurukrpa Swami, Jayapataka Swami, Bhavananda Gosvami and Gopal Krsna das Adhikari.
Properties at Vrndavana: Gurukrpa Swami, Akahoyananda Swami, and Gopal Krsna das Adhikari.
Properties at Bombay: Tamala Krsna Gosvami, Giriraj das Brahmahary, and Gopal Krsna das Adhikari.
Properties at Bhubaneswar: Gour Govinda Swami, Jayapataka Swami, and Bhagawat das Brahmachary.
Properties at Hyderbad: Mahamsa Swami, Sridhar Swami, Gopal Krsna das Adhikari and Bali Mardan das Adhikari.
The executive directors who have herein been designated are appointed for life. In the event of death or failure to act for any reason of any of the said directors, a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple following strictly all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books, and provided that there are never less than three (3) or more than five (5) exeutive directors acting at one time.

I have created, developed and organized the International Society for Krishna Consiousness, and as such I hereby will that none of the immovable properties standing in the name of ISKCON in India shall ever be mortgaged, borrowed against, sold, transferred, or in any way encumbered, disposed of, or alionated. This direction is irrevoable.

Properties outside of India in principle should never be mortgaged, borrowed against, sold, transferred or in any way enumbered, disposed of, or alionated, but if the need arrises, they may be mortgaged, borrowed against, sold, etc., with the consent of the GBC committee members associated with the particular property.

The properties outside of India and their associated GBC committee members are as follows:

Properties in Chicago, Detroit and Ann Arbor: Jayatirtha das Adhikari, Harikesh Swami, and Balavanta das Adhikari
Properties in Hawii, Tokyo, Hong Kong: Guru Krpa Swami, Ramesvara Swami and Tamal Krishna Gosvami.
Properties in Melbourne, Sydney, Australia Farm, (unreadable): Guru Krpa Swami, Hari Sauri, and Atreya Rsi.
Properties in England (London Radlett), France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweeden: Jayatirtha das Adhikari, Bhagavan das Adhikari, Harikesa Swami.
Properties in Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa: Jayatirtha das Adhikari, Brahmananda Swami and Atreya Rsi)
Properties in Mexico, Venezuala, Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, Ecquador, Colombia, Chile: Hrdayananda Gosvami, Panca Dravida Swami, Brahmanananda Swami.
Properties in Georgetown, Guyana, Santo Domingo, St. Augustine: Adi Kesava Swami, Hrdayananda Gosvami, Panca Dravida Swami.
Properties in Vanouver, Seattle, Berkeley, Dallas: Satsvarupa Gosvami, Jagidisa das Adikari, Jayatirtha das Adikari.
Properties in Los Angeles, Denver, San Diego, Laguna Beach: Rameswara Swami, Satsvarupa Swami, Adi Kesava Swami.
Properties in New York, Boston, Puerto Rio, Port Royal, St. Louis, St Louis Farm: Tamal Krishna Gosvami, Adi Kesava Swami, Rameswara Swami.
Properties in Iran: Atreya Rsi, Bhagavan das Adhikari, Brahmanananda Swami.
Properties in Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Montreal and (unreadable): Rupanuga das Adhikari, Gopal Krishna das Adhikari, Jagadisa das Adhikari.
Properties in Pittsburg, New Vrndavana, Toronto, Cleveland, Buffalo: Kirtanananda Swami, Atreya Rsi, Balavanta das Adhikari.
Properties in Atlanta, Tennessee Farm, Gainsville, Miami, New Orleans, Mississippi Farm, Houston: Balavanta das Adhikari, Adi Kesava Swami, Rupanuga das Adhikari.
Properties in Fiji: Hari Sauri, Atreya Rsi, Vasudev.


I declare, say and confirm that all the properties, both movable and immovable which stand in my name, including current accounts, savings accounts and fixed deposits in various banks, are the properties and assets of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and the heirs and successors of my previous life, or anyone claiming through them, have no right, claim or interest in these properties whatsoever, save and except as provided hereafter.

Although the money which is in my personal name in different banks is beiing spent for ISKCON and belongs to ISKCON, I have kept a few deposits specifically marked for allocating a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000/- (unreadable addition) to the members of my former family, these specific deposits (corpus, interest, and savings) will become the property of ISKCON for the corpus of the trust, and the descendants of my former family or anybody claiming through them shall not be allowed any further allowance.

I hereby appoint Guru Krpa Swami, Hrdayananda Gosvami, Tamal Krishna Gosvami, Rameswara Swami, Gopal Krsna das Adhikari, Jayatirtha das Adhikari and Giriraj das Brahmachary to act as executors of this will. I have made this will this 4th day of June, 1977, in possession of full senses and sound mind, without any persuasion, force or compulsion from anybody.

Witnesses:

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

The above will was signed by Srila Prabhupada and sealed and witnesses by the following,

Tamal Krsna Goswami
Bhagavan das Adhikari
and several other witnesses. (signatures on original document)


Codicil 5th November 1977

I, A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, a sannyasi and Founder- Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Settlor of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and disciple of Om Visnupada 108 Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja Prabhupada, presently residing at Sri Krsna-Balarama Mandir in Vrindavana do hereby make this last will and codocil to give vent to my intention, and to clarify certain things which are to a certain extent a liitle vague in my previous Will dated 4th June, 1977, as follows:

I had made a Will on 4th June, 1977, and had made certain provisions therein. One of them being a provision of maintainance allowance to Sri M.M. De, Brindaban Chandra de, Miss Bhakti Lata De and Smt. Sulurmana Dey, who were born of me during my grhastha ashram, and Smt. Radharani De, who was my wife in the grhastha ashrama for their lives as per para.8 of the said Will. Since on careful consideration I feel that the said paragraph does not truly depict my intentions, I hereby direct that as regards Smt. Radharani De, she will get Rs. 1,000/- per month for her life out of interest to be earned from a fixed deposit of Rs. One Lakh Twenty Thousand to be made by ISKCON in any bank that the authorities of the said society think proper for a period of seven years in the name of ISKCON, which amount shall not be available to any of her heirs and after her death the said amount be appropiated by ISKCON in any way the authorities of ISKCON think proper looking to the objects of this society.

As regards Sri M.M. De, Sri Brindaban Chandra De, Smt. Sulurmana Dey and Miss Bhakti Lata De, the ISKCON will deposit Rs. One Lakh Twenty Thousand under 4 seperate Fixed Deposit receipts, each for Rs. 1,20,000/- for seven years in a bank to earn interest at least Rs. 1,000/- a month under each receipt. Out of the said sum of Rs. 1,000/-, only Rs. 250/- will be paid to each of them from the interest of their Fixed Deposit receipts. The remaining interset of Rs. 750/- will be deposited again under new fixed Deposit receipts in their respective names for seven years. On the maturity of these Fixed Deposit receipts created from Rs. 750/- monthly interest for the first seven years, the said sums shall be invested by the above named persons in some Govt. Bonds, Fixed Deposit recepits or under any Govt. Deposit scheme or shall be used to purchase some immovable property so that the amount may remain safe and may not be dissipated. In case, however, the aboved named persons or any of them violate these conditions and use the said sum in purpose or puposes other than those described above, the ISKCON authorities will be free to stop the payment of the monthly maintainance of such person or persons from the original Fixed Deposits of Rs. 1,20,000/- and they shall instead give the amount of interest of Rs. 1,000/- per month to Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trust. It is made clear that the heirs of the said persons will have no right to anything out of the said sums and that these sums are only for the personal use of the said persons of my previous life during their respective lifetimes only.

I have appointed some executors of my said Will. I now hereby add the name of Sri. Jayapataka Swami, my disciple, residing at Sri Mayapur Chandrodoya Mandir, Dist. Nadia, West Bengal, as an executor of my said Will along with the previous already named in the said Will dated 4th June, 1977. I hereby further direct that my executors will be entitled to act together or individually to fulfill their obligations under my said Will.

I therefore hereby extend, modify and alter my said Will dated 4th June, 1977, in the manner mentioned above. In all other respects the said Will continues to hold good and shall always hold good.

I hereby make this Will codocil this 5th day of November, 1977, in my full conscience and with sound mind without any persuasion, force or compulsion from anybody.

A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami

Witnesses: (signatures on original document)



3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3A. Foreword by Kim Knott Back

Foreword to The Final Order
by Dr Kim Knott,
Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies,
University of Leeds, UK.

Whilst researching a recent paper on 'Insider and Outsider Perceptions of Srila Prabhupada', I found myself trying briefly to do justice to the different views held by devotees concerning disciplic succession and the role of gurus following Prabhupada's disappearance in 1977. Naturally, I had been aware before this of the periods of crisis surrounding the fall of individual gurus and the waves of shock and sadness experienced by their initiated disciples, godbrothers and godsisters. I had hoped like many, that guru-reforms in the late-1980s would solve ISKCON's leadership and initiation difficulties. Looking again at the issue when preparing the paper, I read some of the arguments for and against the present system, as well as the work of other scholars on questions of guru and succession. It was clearly still a live issue. In the very latest scholarship on 'The parampara Institution' in volume 5 of Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Jan Brzezinski discusses various aspects of this, stressing the importance of qualified, charismatic leadership in the future of ISKCON. His is just one view, but it is indicative of the power of this subject to motivate interest inside and outside the Movement.

Late in 1996 I was asked to read The Final Order, to give my opinions and to discuss the questions posed within it. Reading it, I was left in no doubt that this was a matter of very great significance to ISKCON and about which many devotees felt deeply. It seemed to me that it raised important theological questions concerning spiritual authority and its transmission, the relationship of the disciple and Krishna's representative, the guru, and the proper objects of devotional worship.

Of course the conception of "guru" is of major importance to ISKCON. Because it is one of the fundamental precepts in bhakti-yoga that one should approach a spiritual master for spiritual enlightenment. And that spiritual master must come in the parampara-line (disciplic succession of Vaishnava Sampradayas) because they only can transmit the message of Lord Krishna without any adulteration. ritviks fail to see the clear point that a "bonafide guru" is also at one time a "bonafide disciple". Otherwise, one who has not received spiritual knowledge from parampara or "bonafide succession of disciples", he will be misled on the path of bhakti. The idea behind the "bonafide succession of disciples" is to keep the message of Lord Krishna intact, and not for becoming a so-called "big" man with many followers/bank balance/cars, etc.

How come in the name of sincerely working for Prabhupada, ritviks are now trying to break this disciplic-succession, the parampara system, which is coming down for 5000 years? It is a temporary problem when many 'so-called' gurus fall down due to their own misdeeds; but instead of applying the scriptural injunctions properly, ritviks try to change the standard parampara-system, and they don't remember that "that bonafide disciple" will be the next acarya, who is not appointed or rubber stamped, but he is self-effulgent and "that bonafide disciple" is capable of transmitting the message of Sri Krishna without adulteration. They forget the fact that even Srila Prabhupada is never recognized by his god brothers. He is all alone and preached single-handedly and Sri Krishna was with Prabhupada.

As an outsider, I am quite unable to judge the matter (and unable to weigh the evidence presented here against the evidence for the present acharya system).

Here Kim Knott agrees that she cannot judge the matter, because they don't have basis in sastra nor proper logic and argument. She is a professor in religious studies, and THIS IS HER OPINION about this book, THAT SHE CANNOT JUDGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE MATTER.

However, I am able to commend what is presented here as a serious attempt to argue the case that Srila Prabhupada established a system of ritvik gurus whom he intended would initiate disciples on his behalf.

I hope it will be read carefully and discussed widely, not because I support or condemn its position, but because the profound issues it raises demand consideration at all levels. Every devotee has a real stake in the matter.

This kind of approach is precisely the brahminical way to solve a problem. Brahmanas or learned-scholars discuss the matter, to find out the truth rather than to WIN their way. They care more for truth rather than whether their understanding is correct or not. If many brahmana-vaishnavas disucss the matter, they can come to a proper understanding. So the solution to guru issue should be a very open disucssion among the brahmanas/scholarly (whom we consider head of society) devotees of our ISKCON society and their inputs must be taken care with great regard by those in the ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION, WHICH INCLUDE GBC as well. ALL Brahmanas need not be A GBC, nor ALL GBCs need not be BRAHMANAS. So there is great need to invite all scholarly devotees in an OPEN FORUM and take their inputs. THIS is the beginning of VARNASRAMA-SYSTEM, WHICH WAS Prabhupada'S DREAM. And the management of ISKCON/IRM is supposed the follow the conclusions that brahmanas give.

But the ritvik-vadis always assume that they are correct even without any discussion. So it is very difficult to have an open discussion, and even if they agree to discuss for the sake of discussing, they always want it their way. This is my personal experience: even after I showed the logical fallacies, they still try to argue, and if arguments fail, the next phase is threatening with "offenses against Prabhupada", while the facts are that I just disagreed with the ritviks.

No doubt it is unwise for an outsider to involve herself by writing such a foreword, but my motives remain my interest in the movement and goodwill to all its devotees.

Kim Knott is very sane to accept this. Of course, people without a devotional sentiment for Lord Krishna may never fully comprehend the meaning of what Sri Krishna wants nor what Prabhupada wants.

Kim Knott, February 1997


3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3B. Introduction Back

INTRODUCTION

This booklet is a humble attempt to present the instructions Srila Prabhupada left the Governing Body Commission on how he intended initiations to continue within the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Although we will refer to several papers and articles that have been published by senior ISKCON devotees on this subject, the main points of reference will be the GBC's most recent official handbook on initiation entitled. 'Gurus And Initiation In ISKCON' (to be referred to henceforward as GII), and the paper 'On My Order Understood' which is mentioned under section 1.1 of the 'Laws of ISKCON':

"The GBC approves of the paper entitled 'On My Order Understood' which establishes as ISKCON law the final siddhanta on Srila Prabhupada's desire for continuing the disciplic succession after the departure of His Divine Grace. [See Part II:GBC Position Papers in this volume.]" (GII, p.1)

In GII it is the GBC's clearly stated intention to remove incoherence and contradiction from ISKCON's codes and laws surrounding gurus, disciples and guru tattva in general, thus establishing a final siddhanta: We sincerely pray that this paper is in pursuance of those very same aims.

In the final order book, I never found the details of "On My Order Understood". This paper name is present ONLY in the above two paragraphs.

In the interest of ever-greater consistency and philosophical chastity, we feel there are still one or two discrepancies, not fully addressed in GII that might benefit from further investigation and discussion. Although some of the issues thrown up in confronting these discrepancies may seem quite radical, even painful to deal with, we feel that tackling them now will greatly minimise future confusion and potential deviation. It is not unprecedented that guru systems in ISKCON have come under quite radical review. In the past, symbols have been removed, ceremonies curtailed and paradigms shifted - all without too much long-term disruption.

Yes certainly, there may be issues with the guru system practiced in ISKCON. As against the standard parampara idea that the guru is self-effulgent and strictly following previous acarya, in ISKCON the gurus are "approved" (in raw words 'rubber stamped' ). And these practice needs to be questioned by all concerned devotees. And if the ritvik-supporters separate themselves from ISKCON then they lose the chance of questioning such practices. Instead of separating out as IRM, they should stay with ISKCON and put more stress on following the instructions of Prabhupada. And if anyone is deviating from the standards set by Srila Prabhupada then such GBC's should be immediately removed from the position--as this is the desire of Prabhupada.

In the whole scheme of things ISKCON is undoubtedly the most important Society on the planet. It is therefore imperative that constant vigilance is maintained in ensuring it does not stray even one millionth of a hair's breadth from the managerial and philosophical parameters set out by our Founder-Acarya. Srila Prabhupada constantly stressed that we must not change, invent or speculate; but simply carry on expanding that which he so carefully and painstakingly established. What better time to closely scrutinise the way we are carrying on Srila Prabhupada's mission than this, his Centennial year?


When ritivk vadis say "Prabhupada did not want change", they are trying to use the statement of Prabhupada's Cocodil (WILLS) on the property of ISKCON that "I therefore hereby extend, modify and alter my said Will dated 4th June, 1977, in the manner mentioned above. In all other respects the said Will continues to hold good and shall always hold good.(Codicil 5th November 1977 ) ". Now the ritviks stretch this statement of "must not change", to their 'manufactured ritvik-theory (based on word `henceforward`) must not be changed'. And why can't ritivk-vadis also look at Prabhupada's other statement: "What ever I had to say, I said in my books". Why can't you READ Prabhupada's books if you honor Prabhupada so much? No. ritviks CANNOT USE everything in BOOKS, for that may prove fatal to the ritvik theory.

Again to look afresh on: "Prabhupada did not want change" ---ritviks take Prabhupada's statement from "cocodil, wills" made on ISKCON properties and use this statement of "no change" to "bring change" to the standard parampara system of approaching a realized soul to take lessons for spiritual guidance. It is good to approach Prabhupada's books and mp3 audios, to take lessons in spiritual science, and thus Prabhupada can be our siksa-guru (Teaching spiritual master), but how can Prabhupada be our diksa-guru (Initiating Spiritual master)? ritviks try to merge siksa and diksa into 'one' using indirect interpretations like the mayavadis, who love indirect neti-neti (not this, not this, negative) process.

And ritviks try to avoid some statements of Prabhupada, where Prabhuapda says that the success of his preaching is because of "not changing" the standard scriptual injunctions. Please look at this lecture of Prabhupada.

It is our strong conviction that the present guru system within ISKCON should be brought fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's last signed directive on the matter ; his final order on initiation, issued on July 9th, 1977 (please see appendices ). Sometimes people question the stress placed on this letter over and above other letters or teachings. In our defence we shall simply repeat an axiom the GBC itself uses in the GII handbook:

The author admits his "STRONG CONVICTION", that the WHOLE parampara-Guru-SYSTEM, has to be based ON ONE LETTER OF PRABHUPADA. Why one letter? WHY can't he have the strong conviction that THEY SHOULD BRING ISKCON fully in LINE with ALL BOOKS & ALL INSTRUCTIONS OF Prabhupada? Why one letter? Why not everything provided by Prabhupada, all his books, all his lectures, all conversations, & all letters? There is no scarcity of scholarly devotees who can offer proper feedback after going through all the instructions given by Prabhupada; but such devotees are not welcome in IRM. IRM accepts only those who agree with them; no matter whether their point is valid or not.

It is not that only the author has to read everything, because even till now he has not completed reading the important things which Prabhupada said in lectures and in his books. There are many scholarly devotees of Prabhupada, who can read every book, hear every lecture, read every conversation , letter & can give a thorough FEEDBACK on how ISKCON & IRM can improve.

IRM(ISKCON revival movement), (I felt name sounded good) started by few members inside ISKCON for reviving ISKCON. It alarmed me to find out that IRM is based on final order, ritvik-vada! It is good to solve problems, but NOT GOOD to become the problem itself while trying to solve issues.

"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance." (GII, p.25)

Since the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON, addressed as it was to the entire Movement, it must be viewed in a category of its own. It will be shown that the full acceptance and implementation of this order does not in any way clash with the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

There are so many things in Vedas which contradict logic. So simply logic without proper basis of sastra is dry and imperfect. Of course the science of soul, Supreme Soul, material nature, etc. are all explained by Prabhupada in logical way, that does not mean logic has super-seeded the sastra. Unortunately ritviks try to base themselves on logic, and rarely use sastra. This is sufficient to refute the ritvik theory.

Oh! then some worry, if ritvik vada is logically correct, then it could be true. But sorry, the logic employed in proving "ritvik-vada" is "indirect" (neti-neti process -- not this, not this). Such indirect logic is used by the impersonalists.

We have no interest in conspiracy theories, nor do we intend to dredge up the gory details of unfortunate individuals' spiritual difficulties. What is done is done. We can certainly learn from previous mistakes, but we would rather help pave the way for a positive future of re-unification and forgiveness, than dwell too long on past scandal. As far as the authors are concerned, the vast majority of devotees in ISKCON are sincerely striving to please Srila Prabhupada; thus we consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our Founder-Acarya. Nevertheless, somehow or other, it does seem as though certain aberrations of epistemology and managerial detail have found their way into general ISKCON currency over the last nineteen years. In identifying these grey areas we pray we may be of some assistance in rooting out unnecessary obstructions to our devotional service to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna.

It seems the author is CLOSED to hear opinions of other devotees because he has "no interest in conspiracy theories". Does Prabhupada stopped discussing with the "conspirers"? Prabhupada was very enthusiastic to meet every one to destroy the ignorance with knowledge presented with proper logic & argument. Prabhupada never CLOSED discussions with any one. That is the heart of Vaishnava, he wants to HELP every one, no one is barred; just like Nityananda never stopped to SHOW MERCY TO THE OFFENDERS. We are all bound to follow the principle of Nityananda, and not just CLOSE ourselves but try to help others as much as one can help.

Next he goes on to say that whoever does not agree with him is A CONSPIRER AGAINST PRABHUPADA by "deliberately disobeying Prabhupada". This is just a sheer assumption, that if any one disagrees with the author, then he is against Prabhupada. Why can't they get the idea that if any one disagrees, may be Sri Krishna is trying to convey the author, which he missed out?

Then he goes on to say, if any one is against author's idea ("the final order" as termed by author) then, that "disobedience of the direct final order" is also "disobedience of order of Prabhupada". Disobedience to spiritual master is an offense. Every one knows that offense to pure devotees is the most serious offense. From the beginning they try to use even "Prabhupada" to prove their theory. They assume that Prabhupada declared "Final order" in july 9th letter, and then go on to assume to whoever does not accept this "final order" is going against the will of Prabhupada and thus ritviks intimidate the innocent devotees to accept the final dis-order.

Does any one has to use "offense against Prabhupada" to preach Krishna consciousness? Say, before preaching Krishna consciousness to any non-devotee, should we start with "offenses against pure devotees"? We always preach Krishna-bhakti using proper logic & argument and convince others. We do not start invoking "offense against pure devotees".

In this booklet we shall be presenting as evidence signed documentation, issued personally by Srila Prabhupada, and conversation transcripts, all of which are accepted as authentic by the GBC. We shall then look carefully at both the content and the context of these materials to see if they should be taken literally, or whether modifying instructions exist which might reasonably alter their meaning or applicability. We shall also discuss all relevant philosophical issues raised in connection with this evidence, and answer all of the most common objections raised against a literal acceptance of the July 9th initiation policy document. And finally we shall look at how the 'officiating acarya system', as outlined in the July 9th order, might be implemented with the minimum disturbance.

The author EMPHASIZES that he is now going to look at July 9th letter, from which he wants to derive ritvik-theory and then "implement his ideas with minimum disturbance". Why to create disturbance with the already disturbed movement of Prabhupada? Why the author does not want to get feedback from all the scholarly devotees of Prabhupada? At this point I want to share this quote from a letter of Prabhupada:

"(The) Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No."(1972 letter to one former GBC man)

We shall base all our arguments solely on the philosophy and instructions given by Srila Prabhupada in his books, letters, lectures and conversations. We humbly beg the mercy of all Vaisnavas that we may not cause offence to anyone or in any way disrupt the vital mission of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.

This is amazing. I already gave so many quotes from books, letters, lectures, conversations, etc., which are not in Final Order. It means ritviks use only those quotes which can be indirectly used to prove ritvik-vada; this is well evident while reading the arguments found in the final order. Instead of reading books to find out the actual truth, ritviks search books only to prove ritvik-vada. This mode of reading or discussing is called vitanda-vada, a discussion in which the opposite party uses whatever means to prove their own ideas rather than to find out the actual facts or conclusions.


3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3C. The Evidence Back

THE EVIDENCE

Anyone who knew Srila Prabhupada would often note his meticulous nature. His fastidious attention to every detail of his devotional service was one of Srila Prabhupada's most distinguishing characteristics; and for those who served him closely, was profound evidence of his deep love and devotion to Lord Sri Krsna. His whole life was dedicated to carrying out the order of his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and in that duty he was uncannily vigilant. He left nothing to chance, always correcting, guiding and chastising his disciples in his effort to establish ISKCON. His mission was his life, he even said ISKCON was his body.

The author looks contradictive here, because while claiming that Prabhupada "fastidious attention to every detail of his devotional service" and "left nothing to chance", still think that ritvik-theory is correct. Because there was no detailed description of ritvik-theory given by Prabhupada as ritviks claim here. Ritvik-vadis don't even understand that they interpreted the July 9th Letter, and not the "Detailed description of ritvik-theory" given by Prabhupada.

It would certainly have been entirely out of character for Srila Prabhupada to leave an important issue, such as the future of initiation in his cherished society, up in the air, ambiguous, or in any way open to debate or speculation. This is particularly so in light of what happened to his own spiritual master's mission, which, as he would often point out, was destroyed largely through the operation of an unauthorised guru system. Bearing this in mind, let us begin with facts that no-one disputes:

It is unfortunate that the author is questioning about the character of Prabhupada for the sake of his theory. It is really unfortunate on their part. There is no need for these kind of arguments, if they are clear of what Prabhupada wanted. Why can't they just explain what Prabhupada wanted with proper logic and argument? Actually this final order is a result of "speculation and an unnecessary debate". This is not the way to solve guru-issues in ISKCON.

On July 9th 1977, four months before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada set up a system of initiations employing the use of ritviks, or representatives of the acarya. Srila Prabhupada instructed that this 'officiating acarya' system was to be instituted immediately, and run from that time onwards, or 'henceforward' - (please see Appendices). This management directive, which was sent to all Governing Body Commissioners and Temple Presidents of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, instructed that from that time on new disciples would be given spiritual names and have their beads and gayatri mantras from the 11 named representatives. The representatives were to act on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, new initiates all becoming disciples of Srila Prabhupada.. Srila Prabhupada thus handed over to the representatives total power of attorney over who could receive initiation, he made it clear that from that time onwards he was no longer to be consulted. (for further details of a representatives duties, please see the section entitled 'What is a ritvik? in Appendices)

All true, Prabhupada has appointed ritviks to do initiations on his behalf, on his order, not whimsically.

ritviks don't have any personal consideration/sympathy even for Prabhupada! They don't care about Prabhupada's health! They are acting like impersonalists forgetting any consideration on personal level even for pure devotee of Sri Krishna! "Impersonalism" can be refuted in Bhagavatam Classes, but it does not mean, "impersonalistic" mentality is not practiced. It is practiced in IRM, by not considering the "persons" and "their opinions". Those "persons"(or impersonal "things") either will have to accept them, otherwise suffer by being cast away from their group.

People have "fear of being thrown away" from groups, so many accept the groups ideals to stay with group, which is now happening in IRM. Even they can accept suffering to stay in group, but never leave the group because of social or economic pressures. Many people unknowingly fall into this trap & believe that they are doing fine & "all is well" despite having conflicts with their conscience, Supersoul. One need not stick and stay in such groups, but leave such groups for performing real service for Sri Krishna and associate with genuine devotees of the Supreme Lord Krishna. To do this, devotees must become independently thoughtful, by not believing any thing at FACE VALUE, but with care and caution, apply their intelligence to see if things tally with the teachings of Lord Krishna and Prabhupada, and finally by making a firm resolve that "from now onwards, I shall not deceive, and not get deceived", which is the definition of a "simple person", given by Jesus Christ. So if devotees start using "Intelligence", then Lord Sri Krishna says "I will give more intelligence" (dadami buddhiyogam tam), actually Lord Sri Krishna in His Supersoul (Paramatma) feature is always giving us Intelligence (also conscience) in our everyday activities, so we just have to do the same, but now with awareness of Lord Sri Krishna in our heart.

Immediately after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, on November 14th 1977, the GBC suspended this system.

Ofcourse, people with common-sense and having sense of time, place and circumustance do that.

By Gaura Purnima 1978, the 11 representatives had assumed the roles of zonal acarya diksa gurus, initiating disciples on their own behalf. Their mandate for doing so was an alleged order from Srila Prabhupada that they alone were to succeed him as initiating acaryas. Some years later this zonal acarya system was itself challenged and replaced, not by the restoration of the original system, but by the addition of dozens more gurus, along with an elaborate system of checks and balances to deal with those that deviated. The rationale for this change being that the order to become guru was not, as we had first been told, only applicable to the 11, but was a general instruction for anyone who strictly followed, and received a two-thirds majority vote from the GBC body.

The above account is not a political opinion, it is historical fact, accepted by everyone, including the GBC.

Yes. It may be a fact. But this does not in any way support ritvik-vada.

If we clearly see that Prabupada & Bhaktisiddhanta never appointed/rubberstamped the next acarya. If the GBC has made such a mistake of rubber stamping then that should be corrected. A guru--as described by Srila Prabhuapda is always self-effulgent and does not need anyone's rubber stamping.

But how all this historical facts support ritvik theory is another thing! "One wrong" by GBC will not be undone by "another wrong" of the ritvik-vadis. Facts will not change; people should learn the root cause of the problem, address them, even take feedback from the learned devotees and work on those issues, just like Lord Sri Ramacandra did, He used to stroll the streets incognito at night to personally hear what people think about His rule. These personal dealings will help everyone.

As mentioned above, the July 9th letter was sent to all GBCs and Temple Presidents, and remains to this day the only signed instruction on the future of initiation Srila Prabhupada ever issued to the whole Society. Commenting on the July 9th order, Jayadvaita Swami recently wrote:

"Its authority is beyond question [...] Clearly, this letter establishes a ritvik-guru system." (Jayadvaita Swami 'Where the ritvik People are Wrong' 1996)

This is irrationality par excellence. Jayadvaita Swami has presented to tell "where ritvik people are wrong", but the author likes to take only the "head" of the chicken, and not the "back part" of the chicken. The author carefully avoids what is said later.

The source of the controversy arises from two modifications, which were subsequently superimposed over this otherwise clear and authoritative directive

* Modification a) : That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
* Modification b) : Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.

This need not be a mistake if done by the Ritviks appointed by Srila Prabhupada--as Srila Prabhupada himself has chosen these 11 devotees to perform initiations. However, in the due course of time, if some of those self-appointing gurus fell-down from the standard practices set by Prabhupada, then they should be removed from the position of GBC and then they should appoint a sincere devotee in that place. This is the standard set by Prabhupada.

The reforms to the zonal acarya system, which took place around 1987, kept intact these two assumptions. The same assumptions, in fact, that underpinned the very system it replaced. We refer to a) and b) above as modifications since neither statement appears in the July 9th letter itself, nor in any policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada subsequent to this order.

This is another irrational argument that "everything should appear in one letter". Since ritviks expect that there should be some statements in the July 9th letter which state "The ritvik initiations must stop on departure". Since such a statement is not there, so continue the ritvik system after departure of Prabhupada. They fail to question that there is also no statement like "Continue ritvik system after departure". They carefully avoid this kind of questioning. Also, what sane disciple (Tamal Krishna maharaja) would write about the "Departure of spiritual master", while typing the letter. This is discussed again at length down in this article.

The GBC's paper, GII, clearly upholds the above mentioned modifications:

"When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after his physical departure he stated he would "recommend" and give his "order" to some of his disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards as "regular gurus", whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples." (GII, p.14)

Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions. For many, they have never been properly substantiated, and hence an uneasy sense of doubt and mistrust has grown both within and outside the Society. At present, books, papers, E-Mailouts and Internet Web Sites offer almost daily updates on ISKCON and its allegedly deviant guru system. Anything, which can bring about some sort of resolution to this controversy has got to be positive for anyone who truly cares about Srila Prabhupada's Movement.

True. This assumption by GBC is questionable. Prabhupada said he would recommend ritviks, and not the gurus for future, as it is clear that Prabhupada never appointed any one, he said that guru is always by qualification and not by rubber-stamping. He certainly ordered all his disciples to become bonafide gurus & preach. Certainly being a "guru" will bring many things money, followers, etc.etc. May be initially they are not after money, followers, etc.. but later, if one is not honest in practicing the instructions of Prabhupada, he can fall down. So it is a grave duty for being a guru, one should not be whimsical, nor one should accept "guru position" because others want it. In ISKCON it is actually a "position", an "upadhi", automatically. Lord Sri Krishna claims "my MAYA is insurmountable" and it came to be true; those without real qualification tried to become guru, and failed. MAYA will not stop kicking the rascals; as it is HER SERVICE to Lord Sri Krishna.

This is the reason why pure devotees are always humble, trnad api sunicena, lower than straw in street, because they know MAYA can award them the body of worm in stool or lesser, and MAYA is insurmountable, so they remain always humble and serve Lord Krishna. But mostly in ISKCON or IRM, this "humility" is sometimes misused in the name of "humiliation". "Humiliation" causes one to shrink, but "humility" causes growth. "Humiliation" is impersonal because it causes one to shrink, to become ZERO, to neglect personal feelings of self, to accept irrational dealings and cursing ourselves all the time, and such events cause them to neglect the personal feelings of oneself & others as well. So we should NOT allow ourselves to be "humiliated", that is not good both for the sufferer and for the perpetrator, it promotes "impersonalism".

One point everyone is agreed on is that Srila Prabhupada is the ultimate authority for all members of ISKCON, so whatever his intended order was, it is our duty to carry it out. Another point of agreement is that the only signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the Society's leaders, was the July 9th order.

It is significant to note that in GII the existence of the July 9th letter is not even acknowledged, even though this is the only place where the original eleven 'acaryas' are actually mentioned. This omission is puzzling, especially given that GII is supposed to offer the 'final siddhanta' on the entire issue.

It seems the author is not getting the point. Prabhupada never appointed any "acaryas". They are not acaryas, they are Prabhupada's representatives to perform ritvik initiations. I DON'T SEE ANY PUZZLES HERE! May be the author is puzzled because the GBC is not making mistake of putting forward the author's liking "July 9th letter" & make some comments "to the author's liking" about this letter. He only worried about his "one letter" and NOT THE SO MANY instructions of Prabhupada! This is puzzling!

Let us then look closely at the July 9th order to see if there is indeed anything that supports assumptions a) and b) above:

The Order Itself

As previously mentioned, the July 9th order states that the ritvik system should be followed 'henceforward'. The specific word used, 'henceforward', only has one meaning, viz. 'from now onwards'. This is both according to Srila Prabhupada's own previous usage of the word and the meaning ascribed to it by the English Language. Unlike other words, the word henceforward is unambiguous since it only possesses one dictionary definition. On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used the word 'henceforward', nobody raised even the possibility that the word could mean anything other than 'from now onwards'. 'From now onwards' does not mean 'from now onwards until I depart'. It simply means 'from now onwards'. There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure, neither does it state that the system was to only be operational during his presence. Furthermore the argument that the whole ritvik system 'hangs' on one word - henceforward - is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure, with no subsequent instruction to terminate it. Without such a counter instruction, this letter would still remain intact as Srila Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation.

This paragraph is worthy to be deconstructed, having so many logical fallacies , not to worry about philosophical fallacies.

a) The author starts to explain the "hencefoward" to mean "from now onwards", which is perfectly true. Later he adds new meaning to say "'From now onwards' does not mean 'from now onwards until I depart'." Is the author giving new meaning to "hencefoward" ? I feel the author is trying to give new meaning to the "hencefoward" apart from "from now onwards". It is author's initiative and no-body's. We can agree since there is "always a benefit of doubt". This is sign of intelligence, we can doubt, and that doubt can lead to either sanity or insanity. We can doubt insanely! It is OK since it is still a doubt.

b) Next the author tries to extend the meaning to next level "There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure", How does not mentioning in the letter automatically makes it valid or invalid? He does not want to question this way, because he does not want it that way from the beginning of this book. It shows the author is not OPEN , not BROAD-MINDED. It is a display of narrow minded thinking.

c) Just because it is not ordered to stop, after departure of Prabhupada, the author says the system should continue perpetually. Now, this is a new meaning manufactured by the author based on logic. This sounds illogical & insane. Because there is also no statement in the letter to continue ritvik initiations after departure! This option is carefully avoided because it does not help the ritvik cause. One more thing to consider is Tamal Krishna Maharaja is typing the letter for Prabhupada. And any sane disciple will not say in the letter about the departure of pure devotee like Prabhupada while Prabhupada is still living. Where is sanity & loyality & personal consideration given for Prabhupada & his disciples "to expect such statements to appear in the letter"?

Conclusion: Here the author starts with a benefit of doubt that "henceforwad" may not mean "to stop later", and finally ends with insane arguments; which does not consider people on personal level. This shows impersonal attitude to get whatever they want, by manipulating any "thing" or any "one" through indirect logic.

Supporting Instructions

There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his secretary, in the days following the July 9th letter, which clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation:

• "...the process for initiation to be followed in the future." (July 11th)
• "...continue to become ritvik and act on my charge." (July 19th)
• "...continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf." (July 31th) (please see Appendices)

In these documents we find words such as 'continue' and 'future' which along with the word 'henceforward' all point to the permanency of the ritvik system. There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada that even hints that this system was to terminate on his departure.

Now, what happened to the "heads" of the chicken. Now, it seems ritviks are interested in the "back pack" of chicken for the time being--the second part of the story. Here are quotes without "heads", and I would not like to repeat the concept...Please refer to "half-chicken" - search for this in this doc, you will find ample details on half-chicken logic.

Apart from the half-chicken quotes the author is interested in dictionary meaning of words "continue", "future" & "henceforward"; he should have rather shown interest in the books / hundreds of lectures & conversations. That would help devotees, and NOT HIS EMPHASIS ON FEW WORDS & their dictionary meanings. Everyone knows the meaning of these words and how to apply them. He should have the sense of time, place & circumustance (desa, kala, patra) and also have some sympathy for "persons" as living beings, not as dead material things, that can be manipulated.

Regarding what "future" means is also discussed in detail in the disucssion below. But any way, let me briefly explain it now. The ritviks take, just one-sided interpretation of the "future" & "continue"--meaning to continue ritvik initiations after the departure of Prabhupada. In this world, my future means my future in this world, and not the future after my death. So future mentioned above can also mean the future till Prabhupada is present in the material world, and need not neceesarily point to future after the departure of Prabhupada from this world. But common sense of thinking from all angles of vision is missing out in the final order, but only one-sided interpretations are taken in to account.

Subsequent Instructions

Once the ritvik system was up and running, Srila Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it, nor did he ever state that it should be disbanded on his departure. Perhaps aware that such a thing may mistakenly or otherwise occur, he put in the beginning of his final will that the system of management in place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed - an instruction left intact by a codicil added just nine days before his departure. Surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to disband the ritvik system had that been his intention (please see Appendices). That the use of ritviks to give initiates' names was a system of management can be illustrated by the following:

a) The author says "Srila Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it". Suppose any devotee is offering service to Prabhupada, say body massage, preparing food for Prabhupada, or washing his clothes, is there need to give any "subsequent instruction to stop" & "should be disbanded on his departure". So, is the ritviks, they are just appointed representatives of Prabhupada, who are doing initiations on his behalf. The author cannot think like this! Where is the use of "benefit of doubt" if he is thinking only ONE-SIDED way, that he can prove his ritivk-theory and not otherwise? Why? Why can't they think like this "Prabhupada also never issued a comment to continue after departure?" Why not think like this? Why only one way ? Because these are only thoughts!

b) Next the author continues to say: "he put in the beginning of his final will that the system of management in place within ISKCON". True. If it is a new service, which Prabhupada is asking from his disciples, should it not be told to them? And the "final" is the term, which the author has "put for the purpse of" squeezing it for his "own use". There is no one particular "final" instruction of Prabhupada. He said "Whatever I had to say, I said it in my books"---and Prabhupada stressed it hundreds of times since 1968. Prabhupada requested all his disciples and followers to read his books regularly and understand philosophy from all angles of vision.

c) Then the author is intelligent to add "must continue and could not be changed". This is a part of the COCODIL/WILL on the property of ISKCON. Prabhupada never wanted that his property to be misused, so he maintained that whatever he wrote in regard to ISKCON PROPERTY must not be changed, to save from misuse. That "statement to stop misue" is now misused by the author to prove his theory. And the author does not like to quote from this lecture regarding spiritual life. This is the amazing power of Maya, the unsurmountable energy of Sri Krishna. Maya always finds some ways & means to cheat people of the real things. That is the reason bhakti is sometimes described as "the path on razer's edge". A small mishap and Maya will capture the insincere or in-diligent follower of bhakti-process.

Conclusion: There is no proper link in the author's explanation. He uses "half quote" from one place and "half quote" from a totally different TOPIC and ADDS them to support his theory. Even, from introduction itself the author puts more stress on LOGIC than sastra.

In 1975 one of the preliminary GBC resolutions sanctioned that the 'GBC would have sole responsibility for managerial affairs'. Below are some of the 'managerial' issues the GBC dealt with that year:

"In order to receive first initiation, one must have been a full time member for six months. For second initiation there should be at least another one year after the first initiation." (Resolution No. 9, March 25th, 1975)

"Method of initiating Sannyasis." (Resolution No. 2, March 27th, 1975)

These resolutions were personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. They demonstrate conclusively that the methodology for conducting initiations was deemed a system of management. If the whole methodology for conducting initiations is considered a system of management by Srila Prabhupada, then one element of initiation, viz. the use of ritviks to give spiritual names, has to fall under the same terms of reference.

During Prabhupada's time, he never wanted any strict managerial responsibilities with GBC, but mostly with temple presidents. He always maintained that if the managerial things remain with TPs locally with each temple, then there would be lesser bureaucracy. According to Prabhupada--GBC (and other gurus) are expected only to look over and advice the devotees in the local temples to follow spiritual standards of Krishna Consciousness and regularly check that temple members upkeep the standards and not deteriorate in anyway; ofcourse the Temple Presidents (TPs) are supposed to take advice from GBC or the gurus or senior members, when there are issues in any temple. But this main concern of Prabhupada was neglected, hence this caused chaos in ISKCON at some centers. Now Ritivks are using these facts of chaos, to prove their ritivk-theory, which would result in another chaos, simply because it is not the authentic, nor backed up with sastra.

Thus changing the ritvik system of initiation was in direct violation of Srila Prabhupada's final will.

This is madness. It was never Prabhupada's will. Now author wants to play the game, that somehow or other if the people knew Prabhupada wanted it, then they will blindly follow because of their love for Srila Prabhupada. But readers, please don't accept blindly, nor reject blindly, which is what Prabhupada wanted. The author tactfully leads people to 'what he wants', by using "Prabhupada wanted it", forgetting the truth and sanity of his "own" opinion. These are nothing but mind-games & tricks of author, and Prabhuapda termed it as "jumping-over the predecessor acaryas"--and this jumping would not lead anyone to the meaningful purpose of serving Krishna Consciousness. Krishna Consciousness cannot be based on falsity and "jumping-over" the opinions of predecessor acaryas.

Another instruction in Srila Prabhupada's will which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples:

"...a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple,..." (Srila Prabhupada 's Declaration of Will, June 4th, 1977)

These statements of Prabhupada are from COCODIL/WILL regarding the management of properties of ISKCON, and not linked to ritvik-iniitiations that Prabhupada was conducting during 1976's or later.

This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up.

I could not find any link between ritvik-vada and the above statements on management of ISKCON properties. These are examples of INDIRECT interpretations. The author cannot produce any direct statements supported by sastra. Generally mayavadis use indirect statements to prove that Supreme Truth is impersonal, and thus cannot be personal.

Furthermore, every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of initiations after July 9th he simply reconfirmed the ritvik system. He never gave any hint that the system should stop on his departure or that there were gurus, waiting in the sidelines, ready to take on the role of diksa. Thus, at least as far as direct evidence is concerned, there appears to be nothing to support assumptions a) and b) referred to above. As stated, these assumptions - that the ritvik system should have stopped at departure and that the ritviks must then become diksa gurus - form the very basis of ISKCON's current guru system. If they prove to be invalid then there will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC.

a) This is nonsense. Prabhupada also never told "you should continue ritvik-initiations, even after my departure"; what does the author say to this? If he is broad minded he has to take this option as well. Because it is also a valid thought! Why not think this way too? No, because it does not help ritvik-theory. So, this option was carefully avoided.

b) It is very clear from this that the author cannot think broadly, rather he is NARROW in his thinking, and can say or write whatever, never considering valid or invalid nor direct or indirect, to prove his point. This is similar to a blind-man leading all other blind-men that only leads to a ditch or disaster.

c) And finally the author makes a statement "If they prove to be invalid then there will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC.", So, considering my case, the points that I am presenting before the author, should NOT HE FOLLOW HIS OWN RULE that he should also do the "radical re-thinking on the validity of ritvik-vada (which I would like to call ritvik-vitanda-vada --- passionate mode of discussion to win the game)"?

The above sets the scene. The instruction itself, supporting instructions and subsequent instructions only support the continuation of the ritvik system. It is admitted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did not give any order to terminate the ritvik system on his physical departure. It is further accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to operate from July 9th onwards. Thus we have a situation whereby the acarya:

1) has given a clear instruction to follow a ritvik system.

2) has not given an instruction to stop following the ritvik system upon his physical departure.

I have also concluded two points till now

1) The author uses his "benefit of doubt" in a way only to suite his theory, which are all one-sided arguments and not reflect broad-mindedness.

2) Now, the author needs to do some "radical re-thinking" based on my comments.

Consequently, for a disciple to stop following this order, with any degree of legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing so. The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could only follow it in his physical presence. The onus of proof will naturally fall on those who wish to terminate any system put in place by our acarya, and left to run henceforward. This is an obvious point; one can not just stop following the order of the guru whimsically:

"...the process is that you cannot change the order of the spiritual master." (SP C.c. Lecture, 21/12/73, Los Angeles)

Now, the same story is repeated. The author now should stop thinking in narrow minded way, he should start thinking broadly and I "demand he provide some solid grounds for NOT doing so".

A disciple does not need to justify continuing to follow a direct order from the guru, especially when he has been told to continue following it. That is axiomatic - this is what the word 'disciple' means:

"When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the spiritual master." (SP Bg. Lecture, 11/2/75, Mexico)

Now, the author starts using some quotes of Prabhupada that are not relevant to "Ritvik-theory", to make people believe in his new theory. This is a basic logical flaw.

Since there is no direct evidence stating that the ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, the case for abandoning it could therefore only be based on indirect evidence. Indirect evidence may arise out of special circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. These extenuating circumstances, should they exist, may be used to provide grounds for interpreting the literal instruction. We will now examine the circumstances surrounding the July 9th order, to see if such modifying circumstances might indeed have been present, and whether there is inferentially anything to support assumptions a) and b).

Now, it is the most foolish statement that the author could have ever made in this final order book that "the case for abandoning it (ritvik-theory) could therefore only be based on indirect evidence". Dear author, if you dislike INDIRECT-INTERPRETATIONS SO MUCH, don't you see Sir, that the basis of ritvik-theory is indirect-interpretations! How foolish to again claim 'that you cannot refute it using "indirect interpretations". Don't you see that there is no direct evidence -- "to continue ritvik initiations even after departure of Prabhupada". It is you who have used INDIRECT arguments everywhere in Final order book: that "There is nothing in the July 9th letter that says 'stop initiations on departure of Prabhupada, so continue it...'. Is your way not INDIRECT and ONE-SIDED NARROW thinking? Why can't you also consider that there is also nothing in the letter that says 'continue ritvik-initations even after departure'--this is logic for the broad-minded.


3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3D. Objections Relating Directly to the Form and Circumstances of the Order Back

OBJECTIONS RELATING DIRECTLY TO THE FORM AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FINAL ORDER

1) "The letter clearly implies that it was only set up for whilst Srila Prabhupada was present."

There is nothing in the letter that says the instruction was only meant for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. In fact, the only information given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure. It is significant to note that within the July 9th letter it is stated three times that those initiated would become Srila Prabhupada's disciples. The GBC in presenting evidence for the current guru system have argued vigorously that Srila Prabhupada had already made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, it was an inviolable law that no one could initiate in his presence. Thus the necessity to state Srila Prabhupada's ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have been an issue, namely after his departure.

a) The author likes to argue that "There is nothing in the letter that says the instruction was only meant for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present.". He fails to see that there is also nothing in the letter that says, the instruction was meant to continue after Srila Prabupada's departure, and that too Prabhupada is going to accept disciples in material world, without a physical body. This is but author's concoction & one-sided thinking.

b) The pitiable thing is that author assumes that he is automatically right! by saying "In fact, the only information given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure." What is the basis for this statement? How did he arrive at it this conclusion? It is derived from one-sided indirect thinking without basis of sastra.

c) This statement " Thus the necessity to state Srila Prabhupada's ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have been an issue, namely after his departure."
is particularly amazing to me, because the author points that "time periods" need not be considered, but the fundamental approach to understand any situation at hand, is also to consider the given "time, place & circumustance". One need not be a devotee to understand that "desa, kala, patra", are necessary in trying to understand any given situation. But now the author wants to eliminate "time consideration", in his own way, to achieve his "own goals".

For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one had ever questioned whom such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning of the July 9th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are 'representatives' of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become fully-fledged diksa gurus. Srila Prabhupada's emphasis on disciple ownership would therefore have been completely redundant were the system to operate only in his presence, especially since as long as he was present he could personally ensure that no one claimed false ownership of the disciples. As mentioned above, this point is hammered home three times in a letter which itself was quite short and to the point:

"So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final." (SP Bg. Lecture, 27/11/68, Los Angeles)

I agree with first 4 statements. These are facts, that Prabhupada only appointed representatives to act on his behalf, and not the gurus, because it already said a 1000 times that "gurus" are never appointed/rubber-stamped.

Now the author takes a turn from facts, and goes to blah blah, the "ownership" of disciples. People are not "things" (spoons, watches, etc) to have ownership of. Prabhupada wanted independently thoughtful men & women, not cattle. Prabhupada wanted everyone to take responsibility for everything that goes on in his institution. The author's view appears to be "cattle" kind of "ownership"; since his brain is made from "cattle" he thinks others are also like that, and because he believes this idea as truth, he is now fighting for the true cause ("cattle ownership") of Prabhupada. While making so many statements out of his mind, sastra is not presented to support his ideas, and he thinks others are blind men to accept his ideas, just because he is blind why think all others are blind to accept any nonsense without proper sastric basis? Lack of blindness means "broad minded thinking from all angles of vision (absence of one-sided thinking)", "sanity", "honesty to accept mistakes", etc. other qualities from mode-of-goodness.

Now after the cattle business, the author starts to hammer with "harer nama, harer nama, harer nama" from a lecture of Prabhupada which is not at all linked with our current issue. It is understood that during Prabhupada's time, whoever is ritvik initiated is disciple of Prabhupada, and if the same is mentioned in July 9th letter in 3 different places what is the mistake? It still cannot support that ritvik initiations must continue after departure of Prabhupada. There is no link between the arguments provided in the final order, and it is amazing that so many so-called educated intelligent M.techs, B.techs have taken to ritvik-vada. This sufficiently proves that modern technical education is creating assess and animals. Without proper training and practice in spiritual principles of Bhagavad gita no one can be called a truly intelligent person, prajna.

So, MAYAVADA, in the disguise of 'indirect way of thinking' has already captured the ritvk-vadis, because everything & everyone have become "tools" for "use". MAYAVADA, is not a new thing for conditioned souls, since 99.99% population thinks, they are their body (wihch is but matter & impersonal), and do not worry about the spirit soul (personal), which is encaged in this body like a "bird a in a golden cage".

The July 9th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were to be sent 'to Srila Prabhupada' - Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the ritvik system must therefore be invalid.

Now the author is trying to refute the arguments said against ritivk-vada. The only wonder I face here is "on what point is the author trying to refute?" How does sending names or not being able to send names to Prabhupada help him to prove ritvik-vada? Again, if we try to understand why this is happening with the author, we already know the author is placing much stress on few words like "henceforward", "continue", "future" , taken from different quotes. Now in the same pace of mind, the author now uses a statement called "sending names to Prabhupada" from the letter and uses it to refute against 'invalidity of the ritvik-theory'. But fortunately we could see, he is trying to refute something which really does not need any refutation. Thus his refutation here cannot help to prove ritvik-vada.

Why is the author only interesed in one July 9th letter to understand the principles of "who should be initiating-Guru? who can act as initiating-Guru?", etc. Why can't he go to books of Prabhupada and read them to understand the matter more clearly if he respects Prabhupada and his books so-much. I complain this because I never saw analysis on these questions from the sastra & books of Prabhupada.

While questioning "Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present?", the author carefully avoids to question like this: "Could this indicate the system was to run even after departure of Prabhupada?" He cannot think like this, while trying to put his statement in one-sided way, that only will help to prove his theory. This final-dis-order book is full of such logical fallacies.

The first point to note is the stated purpose behind the names being sent to Srila Prabhupada, ie., so they could be included in his "Initiated Disciples" book. We know from the July 7th conversation (please see Appendices) that Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with entering the new names into this book, it was done by his secretary. Further evidence that the names should be sent for inclusion in the book, and NOT specifically to Srila Prabhupada is given in the letter written to Hansaduta, the very next day, where Tamala Krishna Goswami explains his new ritvik duties to him:

"...you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada's 'Initiated Disciples' book." (Letter to Hansaduta from Tamala Krishna Goswami, 10/7/77)

Their is no mention made here of needing to send the names to Srila Prabhupada. This procedure could easily have continued after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. Nowhere in the final order does it state that if the "Initiated Disciples" book becomes physically separated from Srila Prabhupada all initiations must be suspended.

a) The author is now sincerely concerned about "sending names to Prabhupada to include in the book". First of all, he does not consider how does this act of getting names & saving them in a book is going to help the ritvik theory that "Prabhupada remains sole diksa guru for next 10,000 years".

b) Next he is sincerely trying to prove that, one need not send the names to Prabhupada, because his secretaries can note them down in the book of Prabhupada.

c) How can writing names in a book help ritvik-vada?

d) There is one more link to see here, the author says that "such a satement is not there" in the July 9th letter, so his statement must be valid. How foolish? to expect everything in one letter? Does not Prabhupada spend several days and nights to write books? Does the author care to read books & hear lectures of Prabhupada? If he cannot do that, why not take the opinions to solve ISKCON's problems from the learned & scholarly devotees? Why not invite all the scholarly devotees to give their suggestions in AN OPEN FORUM? If the real brahmanas (intellectual class) are not invited, to offer thorough feedback, how can we expect to get the right guidance and direction? The only solution now left is for the ordinary devtoees to stop co-operating with such irrational authorities by following these statements of Prabhupada:

A mundane person in the dress of a Vaisnava should not be respected but rejected. This is enjoined in the sastras (upeksa). The word upeksa means neglect. One should neglect an envious person. A preacher's duty is to love the Supreme Personality of Godhead, make friendships with Vaisnavas, show mercy to the innocent and reject or neglect those who are envious or jealous. There are many jealous people in the dress of Vaisnavas in this Krsna consciousness movement, and they should be completely neglected. There is no need to serve a jealous person who is in the dress of a Vaisnava. When Narottama dasa Thakura says chadiya Vaisnava seva nistara payeche keba, he is indicating an actual Vaisnava, not an envious or jealous person in the dress of a Vaisnava.(Cc.Mad.1.218 purport)

Here we need to know what "jealousy" means in our context---"NOT CO-OPERATING" with Krishna Conscious understanding, but doing things in one's own way, by neglecting good instruction, which is based on sastra, logic & argument. There is already a warning from Prabhupada "There are many jealous people in the dress of Vaisnavas in this Krsna consciousness movement." So, first of all those jealous people must be identified and rejected. Identifying an envious person, is not such a tough job. It gets easy by practice. Just imagine, if that person is asked to leave his position in ISKCON, and asked to take up a pot-washers job or another job that is not involved with personal profits, would he do that? Would he be willing to take valid suggestions by fellow devotees? Can they follow their own suggestions to others? And there is no offense in informing the other devotees to neglect such envious people. All the ordinary devotees, have a role to play; they must help each other to follow the teachings of Prabhupada sincerely.

"(The) Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No."(1972 letter to one former GBC man)

This is not only for the leaders of the movement, but to everyone, down till the pot-washers. They should feel responsible for whatever happens within the walls of ISKCON. They should question irrational dealings when they happen in ISKCON. Leaders should know "To lead is to serve, and not to take service". To serve others, one must know what is real service, which is to help others advance in Krishna Consciousness. So, the leaders should always need to take feedback from learned devotees to cross-check that management is in line in Krishna Consciousness. These kind of personal dealings in ISKCON, would please Prabhupada very much. This is what Prabhupada wanted from the management of ISKCON.

One more problem is that people fear of being considered "revengful, comeback, retaliation, etc" when they report any irrational dealings of authorities. So they fear and stop reporting "irrational dealings" against them or anyone else. So, it is the duty of the leader or senior devotees to make everyone let know their concerns, even if it is against them, just like a brahmana could give a honest feedback against Lord Ramacandra, the Supreme Lord and based that complaint on sastras. First of all the authorities should validate the truth of the matter, by consulting learned devotees and sastras, rather than holding the reporter of the problem, the "trouble maker".

So, if the authorities do not follow such principled life of truth & harmony, then the best thing for common-mass-of-devotees is to reject them and work to remove such envious people from the posts that require honest people. Because if people protest against such envious people, then such envious leaders can be easily dethroned. Why should the people follow a fool, as their leader? If people accept fools, out of fear of reprisal or socio-economic problems, then fools continue to ravage their dependents, in our case mass-of-iskcon devotees. The only solution is to reject them and do things in a "Krishna Conscious" way.

The next point is that the procedure of sending the names of newly initiated disciples to Srila Prabhupada in any case relates to a post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend or in any way interrupt pre-initiation, or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik's role being already fulfilled well before the actual initiation ceremony takes place). Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent, the initiation has already occurred.

The last point is that if sending the names to Srila Prabhupada were a vital part of the ceremony, then even before Srila Prabhupada's departure, the system would have been invalid, or at least run the constant risk of being so. It was generally understood that Srila Prabhupada was ready to leave at any time, thus the danger of not having anywhere to send the names was present from day one of the order being issued. In other words, taking the possible scenario that Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated through the ritvik system, according to the above proposition, the disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada's books that the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service. Certainly there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being entered into His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book even now. This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time.

It is the same blah, blah! It seems the author puts more stress on "entering names in a book" rather than whether one is initated by Prabhupada or not. It is clear that entering names is only for the sake of "maintaining record". There is no point to USE THIS activity, as the valid reason to be refuted or by strengthening its case, to support the ritvik-theory which assumes "Prabhupada is sole diksa guru for next 10,000 years".

This is an example of word-jugglery, that is used by the Mayavadis, and not by the Vaishnavas, who always support themselves with logic & argument by basing on sastra, rather than on just logic without sastric reference.

2) "The letter does not specifically say 'this system will continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure'; therefore, it was right to stop the ritvik system at Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Please consider the following points:

1. The July 9th letter also does not specifically state: 'The ritvik system should end on Srila Prabhupada's departure'. Yet it was terminated immediately on his departure. 2. The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system should run while Srila Prabhupada is still present'. Yet it was run while he was still present. 3. The letter also does not state :'The ritvik system should only run until the departure of Srila Prabhupada'. Yet it was only allowed to run till his departure. 4. The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system must stop'. Yet it was stopped.

In summary, the GBC insists on the following:

• the ritvik system must stop.

• the ritvik system must stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Neither of the above stipulations appears in the July 9th letter, nor any other signed order; yet they form the very foundation of both the zonal acarya system and the current 'Multiple Acarya Successor System,' or M.A.S.S. as we shall refer to it. (In this context we use the word acarya in its strongest sense, that of initiating spiritual master, or diksa guru).

This point is already addressed before:

1) The author wants a few statements to be present in the July 9th letter, to disprove prove his theory. This is an absurd request from the author.

2) Those few statements are very insane, because during living presence of Prabhupada, why any sane disciple will write about the "departure / death" of their guru, a pure devotee?

3) First of all, the author should not ask for something which is not present, but use what he already got in the letter, and next thing is don't expect insane statements from the disciples, particularly "death of spiritual master" to be referred in the letter.

4) Everyone should know that it is the "author" who is putting more stress on the July 9th Letter to understand about the "guru" and initiation (diksa)! All sane devotees will look for what Prabhupada said about the guru from the books, lectures, conversations, etc, etc.

To argue that since the letter is not specific about the time period in which it is to run, it must therefore stop on departure is completely illogical. The letter does not specify that the ritvik system should be followed on July 9th either, so according to this logic it should never have been followed at all. Even accepting that 'henceforward' can at least stretch to the end of the first day of the order being issued, it does not say it should be followed on July 10th, so perhaps it should have stopped then.

The demand for the ritvik system to only operate within a pre-specified time period is contradicted by accepting its operation for 126 separate 24 hour time periods (i.e. four months). Since none of these 126 separate time periods is specified in the letter, yet everyone seems quite happy that the system ran during this time frame. Unless we take the word 'henceforward' literally to mean 'indefinitely', we could stop the system at any time after July 9th, so why choose departure?

Are these arguments on time periods required? The author says "such & such" statements ARE NOT PRESENT in the letter. He uses something WHICH IS NOT PRESENT to support his theory! Where is the sense in such arguments? It simply lacks sense.

Why can't the author use statements that are already present in that letter, rather than imagining whatever he likes? Also why can't he imagine something that is based on sastra? Doesn't he know, logic without sastra is dry speculation?

There is no example, either in Srila Prabhupada's 86 recorded uses, nor in the entire history of the English language, where the actual word 'henceforward' has ever meant:

'Every time period until the departure of a person who issued the order'

Yet according to current thinking this is what the word must have meant when it was used in the July 9th letter. All the letter states is that the ritvik system is to be followed 'henceforward'. So why was it stopped?

Why is the author only interested in this particular meaning of 'henceforward'? I feel the era of sanskrit word-jugglery of mayavadis is replaced with the era of English-word jugglery.

Author also states "Prabhupada's 86 uses" of that word. But why and where Prabhupada used that word should be considered. Without understanding why & where, simply a word cannot really make difference. I 'henceforward' request author to not use 'henceforward' in what ever way he likes.

Now why "departure" should only mean death, why not "depart" from ritvik-vada and his "next life" can mean the later part of his life now? We can keep on juggling words like this... I have no doubt that there are much better word-jugglers than me. But how does this help me in refuting ritvik-vada ? Whenever there is argument, we should always explain with logic & argument and show basis in sastra. This is the simple truth to be followed by Vaishnavas.In the same way, the author does not understand how his refuting or strengthening certain words can prove or disprove the ritvik-theory, without any reference to the sastra!

3) "Certain instructions obviously can not continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure, and thus it is understood that they could only have been intended to operate in Srila Prabhupada's presence; e.g. someone may have been appointed 'henceforward' to give Srila Prabhupada his regular massage. Maybe the ritvik order is of that type?

If an instruction is impossible to perform, for example giving Srila Prabhupada his daily massage after his physical departure, then obviously there can be no question of doing it. The duty of a disciple is simply to follow an order until it is impossible to follow any longer, or until the spiritual master changes the order. The question then is whether it is feasible to follow a ritvik system without the physical presence of the person who set it up.

In fact, the ritvik system was set up specifically to be operational without any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada whatsoever. Had the ritvik system continued after his departure, it would be identical in every respect to how it was practiced whilst Srila Prabhupada was present. After July 9th, Srila Prabhupada's involvement became non-letter existent, and so even at that stage it was operating as though he had already left. This being the case, we cannot classify the ritvik system dysfunctional, or inoperable, on the grounds of Srila Prabhupada's departure, since his departure does not in any way affect the running of the system. In other words, since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet, his leaving the planet can not in itself render the system invalid.

a) The author starts with a logic: "follow an order until it is impossible to follow any longer".
Are these also not the orders of Prabhupada: "Blind acceptance and blind rejectance is condemned",
"Even if there is duty, the devotee is not blind".

Suppose, after Aswatthama killed the sons of Pandavas while they were asleep, and later when Arjuna captured him and bound him in ropes, Sri Krishna suggested Arjuna to kill Aswatthama. But Arjuna used his discretion, and avoided killing the son of his teacher on religious grounds. So Prabhupada comments here that "Even if there is duty, a devotee is not blind". Actually inciting Arjuna is a test from the Lord, to see if Arjuna acts responsibly or not, so as to teach others the quality of a pure devotee of Krishna, that a devotee is not blind, but very responsible and makes decisions that are in line with sastra, not on the basis or word-jugglery.

b) One more defect is, " Prabhupada's departure does not in any way affect the running of the system", as a valid reason to support theory. This is nothing but presumption. Initially the author has made up his mind to manufacture ritvik vada and then that case is presented like this.

c) Till now I am trying to find one good/sensible reason, as to why I can accept ritvik theory. But I could not get one good reason. Because it has no sastric basis nor common-sense, ritvik-theory loses to stand.

e) Slowly the author is getting in to insane arguments : "since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet". If he has to follow his own logic, this idea should have been mentioned any where in the letter or in his so called "Subsequent instructions". Why did not the author think like this? Amazingly the author cannot follow his own suggestions!

We should remember Prabhupada's own words: "Everything should be accepted with care & caution", and reject the ritvik theory.

4) " The fact that the order was 'only' issued in a letter, and not in a book, gives us a license to interpret it."

This 'letters v books' argument does not apply in this case since this was no ordinary letter. Generally, Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter in response to a specific query from an individual disciple, or to offer individualised guidance or chastisement. Naturally, in these cases the devotee's original query, situation or deviation may give grounds for interpretation. Not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied universally (for example in one letter he advised a devotee, who was not good with spices, to just cook with a little salt and tumeric; clearly this advice was not meant for the entire Movement). However, the final order on initiation is not open to any such interpretation since it was not written in response to a specific query from a particular individual, or to address a disciple's individual situation or behaviour. The July 9th letter was a procedural instruction, or management policy document, which was sent to every leader in the Movement.

The letter follows the format of any important instruction that Srila Prabhupada issued and wanted followed without interpretation - he had it put in writing, he approved it, and then sent it to his leaders. For example, he had one sent on April 22nd, 1972, addressed to 'ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS':

a) The statement from the author that Prabhupada's letter to be "followed without interpretation", does not make sense, with the view what went until now in this Final Order book. The whole final order book is full of indirect interpretations, and so, I have taken up the task of exposing indirect interpretations. Dear reader, can you see absurdity in author's appeal?

Even while interpreting, sastra is not used. Mahaprabhu interpreted the Atmarama verse of Bhagavatam in 64 different ways, and all are valid, because He supported them all by sastric verses. But how is the author presenting his theory, except his stress on certain words & their meanings? Where ever some quotes are used, they are not linked to each other...and there is NOT ONE FULL QUOTE presented in the book for proving ritvik theory.

b) For the author, suppose when one says "ignore letter 'A' against books" is NOT OK. But he is very liberal & free to ignore books of Prabhupada for a "July 9th letter"? Amazingly, such LICENSES TO IGNORE are only licensed to the author by himself to serve his own purpose!

"The zonal secretary's duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting." (SP Letter to All Temple Presidents, 22/4/72)

Srila Prabhupada did not publish a new book each time he issued an important instruction, regardless of whether the instruction was to continue past his departure. Thus, the form in which the instruction was issued does not make it prey for indirect interpretations, nor in any way diminishes its validity.

It looks like everything about ritvik vadis is twisted, indirect logic.

1) These are such self-contradictory statements by the author. The author has done lot of "indirect interpretations", and even in that, he is not open, he indirectly interpreted in ONE-SIDED WAY, and

2) Again he says "nor in any way diminishes its validity"; How does one right statement can be used to confirm that "another statement is right", when there is NO LINK BETWEEN the two statements as such? In this quote Prabhupada speaks of the spiritual duties of the zonal secretary, which are valid for all time. Where is the link between "validity period of ritvik-vada and a duty to see that all spiritual principles are upheld in all the temple zones"? there is no link between these two items as such by considering items; the only link author finds is "both letters are addressed to all temple presidents". It is amazing that many people are accepting ritvik vada---but I am only concerned with the genuine and innocent devotees to understand these fallacies and understand the true meaning and intent of Srila Prabhupada.

5) "Maybe there was some special background surrounding the issuing of the order that precludes its application after Srila Prabhupada's departure?"

If such circumstances did exist, Srila Prabhupada would have stated them in the letter, or in an accompanying document. Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives which would later be made sense of telepathically. For example, had Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to stop on his departure he would have added the following seven words to the July 9th letter - "This system will terminate on my departure". A quick look at the letter tells us he wanted it to continue 'henceforward'. (please see Appendices)

While claiming: "Prabhupada always gave enough information", they fail to see "there is NO enough information to prove ritvik-theory"; so the author had to interpret the letter, using a statement ('to stop ritvik-initiations after departure'), which is not present in the letter. He wants to let us look at "henceforward" ONLY, but he does not want to see what is said before & after 'henceforward'! Is it logical to take one word 'henceforward' and saying 'there is no such & such statement' in the letter, to prove ritivk-theory. Why can't the author see what is already present and consider all words of that letter as they are instead of using indirect arguments?

Sometimes it is argued that the ritvik system was only set up because Srila Prabhupada was sick.

Devotees may or may not have been aware of the extent of Srila Prabhupada's illness; but how could they possibly be expected to deduce from a letter that says nothing about his health, that this was the only reason it was issued? When did Srila Prabhupada say that any instruction he issued must always be interpreted in conjunction with his latest medical report? Why should the recipients of the final order on initiation not have assumed the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation?

a) Now the author is going off-rails. Prabhupada's health is not good at that time: is a known fact. The author says:
"deduce from a letter that says nothing about his health".
First of all, everyone knows Prabhupada's health is not good, that is the reason Prabhupada is in Vrindavan and taking rest to improve. So, why should any one write the already known knowledge of Prabhupada's health in the letter for the sake of proving author's theory? Please look at this conversation.

b) Why is the author always trying to complain: "this statement is not the letter", "that satement is not present in the letter", etc. Why can't he go and look at books to understand if he has any questions.

c) Next, the author wants everyone to "assume the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation"; which means "to follow ritvik-theory", but WHY CAN'T he see that he is the one
1) who is interpreting the LETTER, without considering sastra, previous conversations, books, etc. AND
2) trying to prove "ritvik-theory" from his one-sided interpretations.

Srila Prabhupada had already announced that he had come to Vrindavan to leave his body. Being tri-kala-jna he was most likely aware of his departure in four months time. He had set in motion the final instructions for the continuation of his Movement. He had already drawn up his will and other documents relating to the BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) and GBC, specifically to provide guidance for after his imminent departure. The one matter that had not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left. At this point, no one had the faintest clue how things were to run. The July 9th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his absence.

a) The author starts with assuming some "final" instructions, by using his one-sided interpretations, as I have already proved.

b) Next the author goes on to say: "The one matter that had not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left" It is the author's idea, not Prabhupada's. It is the author, who is ONLY concerned to prove his theory. Then again he continues to say: "At this point, no one had the faintest clue how things were to run." Just because the author has no CLUE does not mean the whole world is clueless. This is Dr. Frog's mentality.

c) Finally the author comes to his own point, after "assumptions"--that "The July 9th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his absence." It is all but author's own initiatives; ofcourse, we can allow initiatives of devotees if they are broad-minded, and follow sastric injunctions. But the author has failed these basic requirements, so we cannot trust his conclusions.

In summary, you can not modify an instruction with information that those to whom the instruction was given did not have access. Why would Srila Prabhupada purposely issue an instruction that he knew in advance no one could follow correctly, since he had not given them the relevant information within the instruction? If the ritvik system was only set up because he was ill, Srila Prabhupada would have said so in the letter or in some accompanying document. There is no record of Srila Prabhupada ever behaving in such a purposely ambiguous and uninformative manner, especially when instructing the entire Movement. Srila Prabhupada never signed anything in a cavalier fashion, and when one considers the magnitude of the instruction in question, it is inconceivable that he would have left out any vital information.

In summary, I propose the author:
1) Not to interpret the letter, to suite his needs.
2) Don't try to question as to why Prabhupada never said "to stop ritvik initiations after his departure"?
3) Expect all statements to be in one letter, even about Prabhupada's illness to disprove his case.
4) Stop Questioning about Prabhupada's character like:
"Prabhupada ever behaving in such a purposely ambiguous and uninformative manner"
"Prabhupada never signed anything in a cavalier fashion"!
"It is inconceivable that Prabhupada would have left out any vital information"
This is a clear case of insanity from the author.
5)Why can't you present something with logic & argument and support your staements with sastra? Have you done this before questioning Prabhupada?

6) "Does not the 'Appointment Tape' contain relevant information that clearly frames the July 9th order as being only applicable whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet?"

In the GBC's handbook GII, the sole evidence offered in support of modifications a) & b) is extracted from a conversation, which took place on May 28th, 1977. The paper appears to concede that there is no other instructional evidence, which directly relates to the function of ritviks after Srila Prabhupada's departure:

"Although Srila Prabhupada did not repeat his earlier statements, it was understood that he expected these disciples to initiate in the future." (GII, p.14, emphasis added)

Since it is the sole evidence, there is a section exclusively dedicated to the May 28th conversation. Suffice to say it was not referred to in the July 9th letter, nor did Srila Prabhupada demand that a copy of the taped conversation be sent out with the final order. From this we can deduce, with absolute confidence, that it cannot contain a scrap of modifying information vital to the understanding of the final order. As a point of fact, the May 28th conversation was not released till several years after Srila Prabhupada's departure. Thus once more we are expected to modify a clear written instruction with information, which was not accessible to the very people who were issued the instruction. As will be seen later, the May conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order.

a) Why is the auhor worried about only "future" word? Why is he only licensed to interpret that "future" to mean it can continue even "after departure" of Prabhupada ? Why can't "future" mean during the presence of Prabhupada? Suppose, if I ask a friend: "What do you want to do in future?", does this future mean also his future after death? Generally when we use future, it means, future in this world, and not "future" after leaving physical body.

b) If we look at the May 28th conversation (search for "May 28th, 1977" in this doc), there Prabhupada confirms that you "be actually guru", since in his presence his disciples should not become guru. There are many other quotes, guru is by qualification. It is the task of his disciples to acquire qualification and later act as bonafide gurus. Becoming "guru" is not meant for gaining a great worldly position, but to carry the message of Lord Sri Krishna without adulteration, with a character consistent as stated in the Vedic principles.

c) Dear author, by looking at all your HOLLOW arguments NOW & BEFORE, I can see why your claim "May conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order", (indirect/negative way of arguing) does not support your ritvik theory.

As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always supersede previous instructions: The final order is the final order, and must be followed:

"I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to you, you do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue - 'Sir you said to me do like this before', no that is not your duty, what I say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue." (SP S.B. Lecture, 14/4/75, Hyderabad)

Just as in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna gave so many instructions to Arjuna, he spoke of all types of yoga from Dhyana to Jnana, but all this was superseded by the final order:

"Always think of Me and become My devotee"- should be taken as the final order of the Lord and should be followed." (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, chapter 11)

The final order given by Sankaracarya,'bhaja Govinda', was also meant to supersede many of his earlier statements - all of them, in fact. As mentioned in the introduction, the GBC itself recognises this as an axiomatic principle of logic:

"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance." (GII, p. 25)

It is not possible to have a 'later' statement than the last one. Therefore we must follow the ritvik system by the GBC's own logic.

a) It is the author who started "ritvik theory", and because "he believes the July 9th letter", to be "the final order", everyone has to believe it. Dr. Frog can never imagine anything outside his own well!

b) In regard to the final order, Sri Krishna has already delcared "Always think of Me and become My devotee and surrender unto Me". Why would Prabhupada declare any other order final than the FINAL ORDER of Lord Sri Krishna? Whether said, before or later 1977, this instruction of Lord Sri Krishna should be taken as the FINAL ORDER, and not the author's ritvik-theory. Even Lord Sankaracarya confirms it. Actually Prabhupada taught this principle again(After june 1977), while he was on the bed, to always depend on Krishna, and never to forget Him, that He is the cause of all causes, everything is working under His direction. This is his final order----to always remember Sri Krishna & and surrender to Krishna and serve Krishna with love.

7) "Srila Prabhupada stated many times that all his disciples must become gurus, surely this proves that Srila Prabhupada did not intend the ritvik system to be permanent.

Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa guru for after his departure. Evidence for this claim has never been produced, indeed many senior leaders within ISKCON have conceded the point:

"And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said "Alright here is the next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorised gurus for the Movement, for the world". He did not do that." (Ravindra Svarupa das, San Diego debate, 1990)

Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata (most advanced stage of God-realisation) and be specifically authorised by his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorised. We quote below the only passage in Srila Prabhupada's books where the qualifications of the diksa guru is stated.

When the author says "Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa guru for after his departure." , is he expecting that the next acarya must have been personally instructed or appointed by Prabhupada? Did the author not know the Prabhupada's idea that a guru, is not made by rubber stamp or appointed? An acarya is always self-effulgent.

What does the author mean: "and be specifically authorised by his own spiritual master". I feel the author means that the next acarya must have been physically (personally rubber stamped) authorized by Prabhupada? And expecting this case to happen is like expecting rubber stamping from Acaryas. But Prabhupada says a guru is not made by rubber stamp, but he is self-effulgent. A really bonafide discipe, who is strictly following Prabhupada, will automatically become the next acarya. Why is the author confusing people with "authorizations"? Has the author failed to see this quote:

"So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire. Just like father wants every son to be as qualified or more qualified than the father. But it is up to the student or to the son to raise himself to that standard." (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

Maha-bhagavata-srestho brahmano vai gurur nrnam sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih maha-kula-prasuto' pi sarva-yajnesu diksitah sahasra-sakhadhya yi ca na guruh syad aVaisnavah

"The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone could act as a diksa guru:

"On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krsna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities." (SP Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)

If the author looks at the previous quote of Prabhupada, which he missed out, then it would be clear to him, what authorization means?

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

Indian man: When did you become spiritual the leader of Krsna Consciousness?

Srila Prabhupada: What is that?

Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?

Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.

Indian man: Did it...

Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru. (SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru when both the qualification and authorisation are in place. Srila Prabhupada had not authorised any such gurus, nor had he stated that any of his disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather, just prior to July 9th, he agreed that they were still 'conditioned souls', and that vigilance was essential lest persons pose themselves as guru. (please see Appendices April 22nd 1977)

True, both authorization and qualification are required. The authorziation is already in place, Prabhupada authorized all his disciples to become bonafide gurus. But it is upto his disciples to raise themselves to the standard of bonafide gurus.

And if we at all truly care about ISKCON and the movement of Prabhupada, then we should learn from the past mistakes, and never let history to repeat itself. This is in the hands of each & every devotee of Sri Krishna and follower of Prabhupada.

Evidence used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic categories :

This is ignorance cum foolishness. First of all, the author strongly believes in this own theory without valid basis. And now, he feels that the "standard parampara-system" is but alternative to his "ritivk-theory". What a HOAX! This is so far, the most crazy statement, I ever saw in this book. Now he is trying to "VALIDATE" the standard parampara-system, which is established by the Vedas.

1. Srila Prabhupada's frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the 'amara ajnaya guru hana' verse from the Caitanya-Caritamrta. 2. The half dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure. 3. Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru are mentioned.

Looking first at category 1

The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in the Caitanya-Caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada:

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)

However, the type of guru, which Lord Caitanya is encouraging everyone to become, is clearly established in the detailed purports following this verse:

"That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)

"One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)

We can see that these instructions do not demand that the gurus in question first attain any particular level of realisation before they act. The request is immediate. From this it is clear everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know, and in so doing become siksa, or instructing, gurus. This is further clarified by the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position, and not then go on to become a diksa guru:

Should we accept instructions from Srila Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami, or our author, in regard to instruct others to follow principles of devotional service. Did not Prabhupada say "Whoever opens your eyes is your guru"? Can't the author see that Guru means a bonafide guru, whoever knows the science of Krishna, and can instruct others to follow Krishna Consciousness. That guru can be "diksa" or "siksa", because these TWO are just functions of a bonafide guru, but first of all we need to know what is a bonafide guru. Fundamentally one who can 'open the eyes of disciple or learner to see himself in relation with the Supreme Lord and defines one's action towards the Lord', he is guru, then the disciple can accept him out of faith produced by logic & reason based in sastra. It is said by Prabhupada, that generally , siksa guru, who ever instructs in the science of Krishna, will naturally become the diksa guru; suppose if the diksa has not happened, it does not mean, siksa guru is not guru, and that there is no link to parampara. Once a disciple or a learner understands the science of Krishna, and is resolved to follow the parampara knowledge, then he is atonce a bonafide member of the disciplic-succession. Taking "diksa" is just a formality; but real essence is understanding & propagating the message of Lord Sri Krishna without adulteration. This is THE ONLY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISCIPLIC-SUCCESSION or SUCCESSION of DISCIPLES.

We should always remember these quotes while searching for guru :
"One who is expert in logic and understanding of revealed scriptures, and who always has firm conviction and deep faith that is not blind, is to be considered a topmost devotee in devotional service."(Caitanya-Caritamrta)

"One who is expert in logic, argument, and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krishna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world."(Caitanya-Caritamrta)

One more ignorance from author is : he wants some one to "attain any particular level of realisation before they act as diksa gurus"; this level who will decide? Will the author decide for the world? or should the devotees decide for themselves by hearing from the prospective guru, and can see that his character is consistent with sastric principles, and he can clear our doubts with appeal to logic & reason based in sastra? I would suggest author to comment straight forwardly on the quotes of Srila Krsna Das Kaviraj Goswami, and not propose new sub-theories.

"It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)

To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krsna Consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's purports that in the above verse Lord Caitanya is actually authorising siksa gurus, not diksa gurus.

It is the author who is assuming, only "siksa" gurus are authorized in the above quotes by Lord Caitanya. Does he forget that Prabhupada gave both and diksa and siksa? Lord Caitanya is referring to a bonafide guru, and "diksa", "siksa" are but functions of a bonafide guru.

It is the "author", who is trying to create differences between "siksa" and "diksa" gurus. Either one is guru or not, Guru means "authentic" guru.

This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru:

"yare dekha, tare kaha, krsna-upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krsna has already said, you repeat. Finish. Don't make addition, adulteration. Then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krsna. Then it will act [...] Anyone can do. A child can do." (SP Evening darsan, 11/5/77, Hrsikesh)

"Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is, [...] He said that "Everyone of you become guru." (SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)

"You simply say [...] "Just always think of Me", Krsna said, "And just become My devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances." Kindly do these things." So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?" (SP Conversation, 2/8/76, Paris)

"Real guru is he who instructs what Krsna has said....You have simply to say, 'This is this.' That's all. Is it very difficult task?" (SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)

"...'But I have no qualification. How can I become guru ?' There is no need of qualification...Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said. That's all. You become guru." (SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)

(Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a justification for 'minimally qualified diksa gurus'*(1), an entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures or conversations).

One has to become qualified to act as Guru. These qualifications are clearly given in Nectar of Instruction, Nectar of Devotion, etc. Any sincere disciple of Prabhupada can achieve those qualifications, and can act as bonafide link to disciplic succession.

One more wonder is, the author is concerned only about "diksa", why he is so much concerned? Actually "diksa" process is nothing but a formality, to accept one as bonafide member of parampara, it would take only a few hours to take "formal diksa". Also, just by formality one does not become a bonafide member of parampara, one should follow principles & achieve the required qualifications, if he fails, then he is not considered a bonafide disciple, even though he has undergone the "formal diksa" process.

If one has the required qualifications of a guru, then what is the problem with giving diksa to his prospective disciples? The verse: "guru krsna prasade paya bhakti lata bija" says: by mercy of Krishna one gets a guru and by mercy of Guru one gets Krishna. If a prospective guru has opened the eyes of his prospective disciple, then the disciple can choose to take diksa from him; ofcourse there many so-called gurus, who are rubber stamped, and many prospective so-called disciples who approach a guru, because a guru is popular, and because his friends say so; and most certainly not because, the guru has opened the eyes of the disciple, and the disciple out of deep regard for this very act of "opening his eyes" has taken him to be his guru.

The solution to this problem is to come back and look at the Krishna Consiousness Philosophy and apply the philosophy with vigilance, so that we don't commit the same mistake again. If one realizes that his guru is unqualified then that guru can be rejected and another bonafide guru can be accepted, please look at this statement of Prabhupada :

"karya akaryam ajanatah (Jiva goswami)", one who does not know "who to do, and what not to do", then that kind of guru can be rejected, and another bonafide guru can be accepted. (lecture, Srila Prabhupada on BG 2.4-5, Aug 5, 1973)

There is no need to panic while rejecting a bogus guru. We have all been committing mistakes for many millions of lifetimes, when we got a chance to correct our mistakes, we should gladly do so; so, panic will not help, just like when there is fire, panic will not help, but we need to be very cautious and try to work how to get out of fire safely & quickly; in a similar way, we need to clearly understand what Prabhupada wants, not by panicking, but by clearly understanding his instructions from many angles of vision, by being independently thoughtful and applying his instructions in our daily life, and the most important thing is to make friendship with the like-minded devotees, and discussing philosophy with them from many angles of vision, in that way our mind slowly becomes free from doubt and delusion. We all need to become "independent self-reliant & self-trusting" men & women to give a good fight against maya & mayavadis. Otherwise, MAYA will do its job perfectly, non-stop kicking with its allurements. MAYA does not care whether one is "guru"(so-called) or "humble disciple" (so-called) or any one, its job is to kick those who are allured by Maya irrespective of any designations. MAYA will not allow any non-sense to go to spiritual world, Vaikuntha, it will keep non-sense here in this world, and leave those who are truly devoted to Sri Krishna and serve the instructions of Sri Krishna with all their heart.

An example of a guru who has no qualification other than repeating what he has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON. It is perfectly clear therefore that the above are actually invitations to become instructing spiritual masters, siksa gurus. We know this since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru:

"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

Is Prabhupada speaking of "diksa" gurus here? Whether one is bonafide guru or not, is the only thing that matters.

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

From this quote, it is clear that a spiritual master, guru, must come in disciplic succession. So it means, we can take initiation /instructions(siksa) from those who are bonafide disciples of Prabhupada.

As it has been shown Srila Prabhupada stated that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru. The general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider 'amara ajnaya guru hana' to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya? This general instruction from Lord Caitanya must be referring to siksa not diksa guru. diksa guru is the exception, not the rule. Whereas Srila Prabhupada envisaged millions of siksa gurus, comprising of men, women and children.

The author states: "As it has been shown Srila Prabhupada stated that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru.". It looks like author expects that Prabhupada must have appointed someone as diksa guru. But Prabhupada said, gurus are not rubber stamped by previous acaryas. Being, a disciple of Prabhupada, means, he has already got authorization, but he needs to acquire required qualifiations to become guru.

And there is one more erroneous logic, by which author differentiates "diksa" and "siksa" guru. Either one is a bonafide guru or not. If one is not bonafide siksa guru, he cannot become a bonafide diksa guru, in the same way, if one is not a bonafide diksa guru, he cannot become a bonafide siksa guru. Basically the point to consider is whether one is a bonafide guru or not. If we look at ISKCON's history, we find some "bogus" gurus, not "bogus" siksa gurus or "bogus" diksa" gurus. If one is bonafide guru, he should be respected as good as God, and that bonafide guru can act as both diksa & siksa.

Looking now at category 2

There were a handful of overly confident devotees, anxious to initiate their own disciples in Srila Prabhupada's presence, who Srila Prabhupada wrote letters to. These letters are used to support the M.A.S.S. Srila Prabhupada had a fairly standard approach when dealing with such ambitious individuals. Generally he told them to keep rigidly trained up, and in the future, after his physical departure, they may accept disciples:

"The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] Don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do not be in a hurry." (SP Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)

"Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work." (SP Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72)

"I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master, it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions." (SP Letter to Hansadutta, 1/10/74)

"Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide 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 bonafide spiritual master and spread Krsna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krsna very happy." (SP Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2/12/75)

Here we can see, Prabhupada is only worried to make his disciples bonafide. That's all. Not categorizing in to "siksa", "diksa". If one is bonafide guru, then he can act in both ways, siksa guru and diksa guru, because diksa or siksa are just the functions of "bonafide" guru, we first need some one bonafide, then we can worry about diksa or siksa.

(It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above 'law' in support of the M.A.S.S. doctrine, in the very SAME document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all) : "There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initition in the presence of the guru, [...] In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present." (GII, p. 23)

Eagerness to accept worship and followers is actually a disqualification for a spiritual master. We can only marvel at the power of the false ego, that even in the presence of the most powerful acarya the planet has ever seen, some personalities still felt amply qualified to initiate their own disciples right under Srila Prabhupada's nose! *(2)

This is a problem with Prabhupada's disciples; but how does this problem can be used to create another disturbance, ritvik-theory?

It is apparent that in writing to these devotees, telling them they could take disciples if they just held on a little longer, Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to keep them in devotional service. In so doing there was at least the possibility that, in time, their ambitious mentalities might become purified:

Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have received a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus. Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified?

Does it look like Prabhupada promising disciples of "diksa guru posts"? He is only encouraging his disciples to get required qualification, and not be in a hurry to become gurus prematurely.

As far as statements to the effect that they would be free to initiate after his departure, that is true. Just as in England one is free to drive a car once he is 17 years old. However, we must not forget those two little provisos. First, one must be qualified to drive, and second one must be authorised by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own parallels.

True, if the "guru" is rubber stamped by GBC, then innocent devotees might feel that the rubber stamped guru might be bonafide. But Prabhupada has left his instructions to identify a bonafide guru. Salt & sugar look alike, but their taste is entirely different. We need to look for the symptoms of guru and then accept.

Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:

"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krsna Consciousness population." (SP Letter to Kirtanananda, 12/1/69)

Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on initiation?

This is again non-sense. It is the author who is trying to prove his ritvik-theory. Not us. There is no proper link between the current issue and above statements of Prabhupada. These are neti-neti (negative, not this -not this) processes to prove ritvik-theory. Generally mayavadis use this neti-neti process and Prabhupada strongly objected against this approach in his books and lectures.

Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's 'law of disciplic succession'.

Dear sir, it is you who are attempting to start ritvik system. And all sincere devotees should oppose the practice of ritvik-system which is based on falsity.

The first part of the 'law' states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence. Since this was the 'law', clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiating on their own behalf: Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of 'officiating' initiation system as early as 1969. By 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed 'empowered', or authorised, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation. Later he called these representatives ' ritviks', and formalised their function in the July 9th order. Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorising Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams.

a) According to the law, a disciple must not initiate in the living presence of spiritual master. This is law. Very simple. Since it is only initiation, and there are disciples all over the world, Prabhupada can contemplate the ritvik-initiations from 1969, to reduce his task & time, to use it for better purposes of translation of Srimad Bhagavatam. Of course, but Prabhupada did start initiations, from 1975, because his health was not very good & he needed time to recover, tranlsate , etc.

b) Yes, we also don't agree that Prabhupada is appointing acaryas. He is using his disciples to initiate on his behalf.

c) But how all these facts support ritvik-theory, which says, "ritvik-initiations" can continue even after departure of Prabhupada! I cannot get this idea from the quotes of Prabhupada.

"Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of His bona fide representative can become a spiritual master, and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world." (SP Letter to Madhusudana, 2/11/67)

Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus. However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual masters also in his absence. There is definitely no mention in the above quote of his disciples initiating or accepting their own disciples. The term 'bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world' is equally applicable to a siksa guru.

From the quote, I see Prabhupada is speaking of bonafide spiritual master, not a "diksa", or "siksa" guru. The author is not considering that "diksa" and "siksa" are but functions of the bonafide spiritual master. He cannot consider, if one is not a bonafide guru, he cannot become either siksa or diksa guru. And if one is bonafide, he can act as siksa or diksa guru.

Even if such letters as these did allude to some other type of guru system, they still could not be used to modify the final July 9th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the Movement. The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is occasionally alleged that some of these personal letters were leaked out to other members of the Society. This may or may not have been the case, but the important point to note is that the mechanics of such distribution appears never to have been set up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private correspondence to be distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be published 'if there was time', but he never intimated that without these documents no one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure.

a) Dear author, it is you, who are trying to "allure" people into accepting your ritvik-system.
b) You feel that standard disciplic-succession is "some other type of guru system"; this shows that ritvik-vada is a non-sense interpretation.
c) I request the author to present atleast few points with common-sense, and base himself on sastra. Why allure people without proper sastric basis or quotes of Prabhupada?
d) Why assume everything based on July 9th letter & expect everything to be present in one letter? Where is the link between that letter and this quote of Prabhupada? Why assume things when Prabhupada made them very clear in his many books?

To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an authorised form at that time. If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for up to ten thousand years, surely Srila Prabhupada would have made their publication, and mass distribution, a matter of utmost urgency. There was, after all, the reasonable possibility that not all his leaders had read his private correspondence, and as a result gained a clear understanding of precisely how initiations were to run after his departure. We know this to be more than a possibility since the entire GBC still had no idea what Srila Prabhupada was planning as late on as May 28th, 1977. (please see Appendices)

a) Now the author assumes, there might be "such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for up to ten thousand years". --> But there are no such letters or statements of Prabupada. Nor are these so-called statements expected by our author do not find support in sastra.
b) Next assumption, that "not all his leaders had read his private correspondence and as a result gained a clear understanding of precisely how initiations were to run after his departure.". So assumption (a) is basis for this (b).
c) Now the author is complaining that the above (a), (b) have not happened and still the GBC have NO IDEA ON ritvik VADA. Why should anyone have any idea on ritvik-vada? It is you, author, who are having this idea & trying to propapate without any basis except yourself & few blind followers.
Conclusion: The author starts with assumptions, and using his assumptions on "ritvik-initiations", he tries to question that GBC had not idea on initiations, meaning "ritivk-initations" to happen in future. This is absurd to start with assumptions & then start criticizing those who did not catch-up with his assumptions.

In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of these handful of letters can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certainly have made that clear in the order itself or in some accompanying document.

a) I cannot find light here in this Final Order book. I see only darkness. No one need to modify the July 9th letter. Why should they? It is you, author, who is coming up, with some theories, using that letter, but by not being able to base your arguments properly, you start criticizing those who question your assumptions!

b) First of all, it is you, author, who consider, the letter to be "the final order", and since you consider it, you feel Prabhupada must have added some appendices (which is mere assumption). I doubt the author can think straight, for no one who thinks straight uses his own assumptions to prove the same assumptions.

In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was as representatives of the acarya, ritviks.

I advice author to go find a pure devotee of Sri Krishna, and learn how to think straight, and give up indirect/one-sided way of thinking.

Finally we shall look at category 3

There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures which have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We shall now examine this evidence.

In Srila Prabhupada's books, all we find are the qualifications of a diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and authorised before even attempting to become diksa guru:

a) The author claims "There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus". From the way, this author is thinking, he has not seen any "specific mention of names", so no one is a diksa guru. The author does not know that gurus are not rubber stamped.

b) Is it not clear that any acarya will not give "specific names of his own disciples for becoming diksa guru". A guru is by qualification, not rubber stamping. I must have repeated this statement for many times, and when needed I need to repeat it; so dear reader, please bear with me.

c) I doubt whether the author understands about what "highly qualified and authorized" disciples mean ? I doubt this in the "dim light" of his statements above.

"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorised spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master." (S.B. 2.9.43, purport)

Here Prabhupada is very clear. parampara is called disciplic-succession, a succession of bonafide disciples, but not called as guru-succession. A bonafide guru, must have been at one time a bonafide disciple. And the parampara will only be continued only by the bonafide disciples, just like Prabhupada has succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.

The above injunction hardly gives carte blanche for anyone to initiate just because their guru has left the planet. The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here. Only the idea that they must be authorised and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must have first attained the platform of maha-bhagavata.

a) Now the author questions Prabhupada "The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here.". He wants this concept to be included with Prabhupada's explanation, because he needs to prove his theory.

b) In truth, one who is a uttama-adhikari, maha-bhagavata, he will come down to the platform of madhyamadhikari, because he has to discriminate between truth and illusion, and teach people to learn to discriminate between the truth and illusion.

c) One more wonder, is even if there is a maha-bhagavata among us, can the author recognize him? For example consider Pundarika Vidyanidhi, who smears his body with fragrant oils, sleeps on soft bed, with all luxuries, and whom Mahaprabhu considered in position of His father, can he be really understood by this author? Consider Santana Goswami, who in his earlier life, was very rich? Can the author recognize such devotees? Think about Ramananda Raya, who is a governer, from whom Mahaprabhu inquired about the highest topics of serving Sri Krishna in separation. So, can the author recognize such devotees? Can he? considering all the above illogical & hollow head presentations.

d) So, first of all one should atleast start discriminating between truth and illusion, using his intelligence. We need to use intelligence in the service of Sri Krishna by discriminating between truth and illusion & teaching others the same. That is the proper use of intelligence in Krishna Consciousness, to discrimante between truth and illusion, in every day , every hour of our lives. This is confirmed in the second verse of Bhagavatam :
"The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all.(SB.1.1.2)"

e) So the act of discriminating TRUTH from illusion is itself the highest welfare activity. So Maha-Bhagavatas come down to the Mahdyamadhikari-plaform for this precise reason, to teach people to make them distinguish reality from illusion. Prabhupada termed it "independently thoughtful men & women". So, we should not give up intelligence, and discrimination considering, it can cause offenses, actually those who cannot discriminate truth from illusion can cause offenses. When we use intelligence, to distinguish reality from illusion, Sri Krishna promises us to give more of it, "dadami buddhi(intelligence) yogam tam", so that ultimately one goes back home, back to Godhead.

Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journey to Other Planets (p.32) dealing with monitor 'gurus' as evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However, this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa, not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher, but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru). A monitor guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform of maha-bhagavata, and then been authorised by his predecessor acarya , there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa guru, the siksha guru may gradually rise to the platform at which he may at least become qualified to be a diksa guru. Furthermore, a monitor merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again is at variance with the 'law' of disciplic succession that is used to support the M.A.S.S. system. A monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside the teacher.

Has the author considered about the teacher in this explanation? Is the "teacher" has always been a teacher ? A "teacher" at one time is also a "bonafide monitor", I mean a "bonafide student", and being stricly trained like that he can become a "bonafide teacher". Why not the same rule apply to disciples of Prabhupada? Just because some of them have fallen down from their so-called guru positions, it does not mean ALL disciples are not bonafide. "diksa" or "siksa" are just functions of a real "bonafide guru", who at one time is also a "bonafide disciple".

I feel, we all have a need for "bonafide disciples", and the functions like "diksa" and "siksa" are secondary. First we need to find out a "bonafide disciple".

We do not see how this description supports the GBC's a) and b) assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically become diksa gurus.

Regarding (a), how that assumption came up? I cannot make it out. It is only one "thought" of the author. Why can't he think about my assumption "Prabhupada also never told to continue the ritvik-system after departure".

There are other occasions, outside of Srila Prabhupada's personal letters, which are quoted as giving authorisation for his disciples to become diksa gurus:

"Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge." (SP Arrival Lecture, 18/5/72, Los Angeles)

"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master . Every one of you should be spiritual master next." (SP Vyasa-Puja address, 5/9/69, Hamburg)

The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are already the twelfth - 'you ARE the twelfth'. Thus this is not some authorisation for them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that they are already carrying on the message of the parampara. The second quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place by dint of the disciples vigorous preaching. Either way, there is no clear explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation. In fact, we know it is wrong since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act as representatives of the acarya, and not in any type of initiating or diksa capacity.

Dear author, it you who are putting these ideas
1) "Either way, there is no clear explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach."

2) "Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next."

3) "To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation."

WHOSE THOUGHTS ARE THESE ? WHO IS INSISTING THAT A BONAFIDE SPIRITUAL MASTER CANNOT INITIATE?
AND WHO CONSIDERS IT "SPECULATION" that a bonafide spiritual master can initiate?

Who is thinking that July 9th letter is "the final order"? and by this assumption, the author is trying to speculate, and while speculating, he complains that those who think against his ideas are "speculating"? Are these statements from the author not his speculations?

To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable, and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, specifically in relation to what would happen after his departure, which completely contradict the proposition being made:

Who has renamed the July 9th Letter as "The Final Order"? And who is complaining against renaming business? Is this not hypocrisy? Alas! Kali-yuga lives up to its name!

Reporter: What will happen to the movement in the United States when you when you die?

Srila Prabhupada: I will never die

Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! (laughter)

Srila Prabhupada: I will live from my books and you will utilise. (SP Press Conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco)

Here was a clear opportunity for Srila Prabhupada to lay out his plans for the M.A.S.S. were that to be his intention. But instead of saying his disciples will succeed him as diksa gurus he says he shall never die. From the above exchange it can be understood Srila Prabhupada is a living spiritual master who continues to impart transcendental knowledge (the main constituent of diksa) through his books; and that this will continue for as long as ISKCON exists. The role of his disciples being to facilitate the process.

a) It is already well know fact that "Vaishnavas never die", as said before by Bhaktivinoda Thakura. But how does that statement, can be used by our "author" to continue "ritvik-intiations", which are only supported by the author, and not by sastra?

b) Next thing is, author is assuming, that "Prabhupada might have a plan for M.A.S.S., but did not do that?". What if "this plan" is not in the mind of Prabhupada? Who is assuming that Prabhupada might have this plan? Did not Prabhupada say, that gurus are self-effulgent, and does not need anyone's rubber stamping.

c) Instead of understanding Prabhupada's statement about guru as self-effulgent coming in disciplic-succession, who is trying to prove that "Prabhupada as the initiating guru even after Prabhupada has left the material body"?

"Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya. Even if he is complete he should not, because the etiquette is, if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to bring that prospective candidate to his acarya." (SPC.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)

Prabhupada has always cautioned his disciples against the attack of MAYA; indeed he is helping them, but not trying to restrict them. He always wanted "LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON". He wanted all his disciples to become bonafide acarayas. Is it not well-wishing? Is is not a good wish to have many bonafide acaryas to propagate the mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Why should we restrict having many bonafide acaryas like Srila Prabhupada? Ofcourse, to become bonafide acarya is different thing, but considering the Prabhupada desire, it is a Vaishnava's wish to deliver the whole world, with many bonafide representatives, who will act as agents of Sri Krishna, to cut away the ignorance of deep seated materialism & impersonalism by preaching.

The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to become acarya. However the whole emphasis is that they should not do it now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his disciples becoming acarya, if he is cautioning them not to do it in his presence. This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above. This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle. As will be seen later, on the 'Appt. tape' (p.21), which is used in GII as principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977 ("On my order, [...] But by my order, [...] When I order"). And this situation remained unchanged until his departure. Furthermore, later on in the same lecture, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya ambitions in the following manner:

a) The author says : "This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples". This is non-sense. Because the author's idea is equivalent to appointment or rubber-stamping, which Prabhupada never did nor Prabhupada never appointed any particular individuals or a set of individuals as Guru, nor his guru Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddanta did this.

b) Next author continues his same rhetoric: "Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977". Has not Prabhupada made clear that guru is self-effulgent, they are not appointed, not rubber stamped. So, why should he give anyone ORDER to become "diksa guru", if a guru has to be self-effulgent after following strictly the acarya & acquiring required qualifications of guru?

"And to become acarya is not very difficult. [...] amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa, yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa: "By following My order, you become guru." [...] Then, in future... suppose you have got now ten thousand. We shall expand to hundred thousand. That is required. Then hundred thousand to million; and million to ten million." (SP C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)

It is really the desire of Prabhupada, to create thousands of bonafide acaryas to deliver the whole world! Does the author think, Prabhupada wanted to create only 1 or 2 "diksa gurus, the way that 'author' likes"? He wanted the whole world to become devotees of Krishna, for that we really need many many bonafide acaryas for preaching. So, he left all instructions for everyone how to become bonafide acaryas.

We can realize the dream of Prabhupada if every ISKCON devotee from TOP profile, down to the pot washer follow these simple principles:

For this all of us must become independently thoughtful, and this includes these 7 orientations:

1) The ability to finely distinguish reality from illusion, to distinguish soul from the material body, mind and intelligence.

For this one needs to use intelligence and discriminate on the basis of three qualities of material nature (qualities of goodness, passion and ignorance), which is already told by Lord Krishna to be the supreme wisdom. We need to identify & keep away from all the propensities, which are in passion & ignorance using the wisdom of three qualities of material nature, always keep ourselves in the qualities of mode-of-goodness, which will purify us.

By practice one comes to the point of the mode of goodness, and by surrendering or fixing the mind upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one becomes a very great personality, or mahatma. In Bhagavad-gita it is clearly said, sa mahatma su-durlabhah, "Such a great soul is very rare." (Bhag. 3.26.31, purport)

When consciousness becomes clear and the senses are detached from matter, one experiences fearlessness within the material body and detachment from the material mind. You should understand this situation to be the predominance of the mode of goodness, in which one has the opportunity to realize Me." (Bhag. 11.25.16)

When the living entity becomes strongly situated in the mode of goodness, then religious principles, characterized by devotional service to Me, become prominent. One can strengthen the mode of goodness by cultivation of those things that are already situated in goodness, and thus religious principles arise. Religious principles, strengthened by the mode of goodness, destroy the influence of passion and ignorance. When passion and ignorance are overcome, their original cause, irreligion, is quickly vanquished. (Bhag. 11.13.2-3)

2) The integrity not to deceive, and not be deceived.

We are being deceived in many ways, starting from advertising industry, politics, government, etc. We should start practicing discrimination, for not getting deceived; not only in our devotional life, it should be applicable in all events in our life; I mean daily , every minute of our life. We also need to discriminate among devotees, by basing on the facts of what they "speak" & "do", to see who is a kanistha devotee, who is a madhyama devotee and who is a uttama devotee by symptoms. By looking at activities & words of people, we can clearly understand who is in which mode by using the wisdom given by Sri Krishna in chapter 14 of Bhagavad Gita. It will get easy by practice; if we understand others, then we can also understand ourselves; We need to use philosophy in our practial life like this, because MAYA will give dangers at every step, there is no way but remain vigilant that we or others may not be overcome by the lower modes of nature. And we need to start helping each other to start practicing discrimination, which is the function of intelligence; and this is the best use of intelligence and when use this intelligence that we follow and live as per scriptural injunctions for service of Krishna, then Krishna promises that "He would give more intelligence" to reach Him.

3) The courage to resist authority when it is abused.

Unless we start discriminating, we may really never know if the authority is abusing people in one way or the other. If we really care about the movement of Prabhupada, we cannot let any one abuse or be abused. We need to gather courage and question authorities to explain their acts! And such unfit authorities can be removed from his position. Authorities must be held accountable for what they say & do? Otherwise, why are they authorirites if they cannot keep up to the standards of Vasinava-acara (practice)? Why & WHO made them authorities in the first place? All sincere well-wishers of Prabhupada must not allow this to happen in this movement. In this way we can save ourselves & the movement, considering all that happened after Prabhupada left this world! EVERY ONE NEEDS TO BE CAUTIOUS & CAREFUL. Not that HOPING ONE GREAT DEVOTEE will come as deputy general of Krishna and set the matter right & we all enjoy the benefits of his work! No, Sri Krishna & Prabhupada wants every one of us to be His deputy generals and be responsible for each and every thing that goes in ISKCON! If people change, then leaders change. Ofcourse, a good leader can lead and guide many other good devotees--and be an example for all others.

"(The) Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No."(1972 letter to one former GBC man)

We have many authority figures in our movement, like temple presidents, senior preachers, so-called gurus, etc. And one should know how to identify the miscreants among the authority figures. For example, they want people to submit to them irrationally, and innocent devotees submit to them out of "emotion as senior advanced Vaishnava", not because, they display fine qualities of teaching the member-devotees how to discriminate between truth and illusion themselves, rather, the authorities want to decide what is best for the submissive devotees; but these authorities cannot submit themselves to other "authorities", who are in lesser position than themselves in administrative hierarchy; in this way, the "innocent devotees" give away their "discerning powers" to the "irrational" authorities, based on "emotion", and not based on the true experience of Krishna consciousness, which is empowering, which will free him from any doubts and delusion, with a heart filled with enthusiasm to serve Sri Krishna, which will enable him to see the truth from illusion, finally being independently thoughtful, who can act as very balanced human being & devotee on behalf of the parampara.

So we can quickly make, out , that the relation ship is abusive, irrational, which makes one doubt himself, which generates self-mistrust, by taking "humiliation" in the name of humility, no sense of personal feelings, etc. If you feel this way, then you are caught up with "irrational" authorities, who themselves submit to other superior "irrational" authorities in hirerarchy. In this hierarchy those members of hierarchy respect "power" (impersonal) and not rationality & dedication to truth, mercy, honesty etc. (personal).

The only solution to this problem is "you take your power back" from the authorities, which you have given to them. This only "you" can do, NO ONE ELSE can do that for you. You can only free yourselves. It is you who can take your power back, and only submit to rational devotees, who can teach you how to become "independently thoughtful", thinking for yourself, instead of the irrational people thinking for you. Finally in bhakti-yoga, a guru can only teach and direct a disciple, and it is the disciple's business to walk and live the teachings. A bonafide guru will not promise that he will do that walking & living and such decisions for the disciple; it is the disciple who will have to live and experience Krishna Consciousness. This is life. This is the way of our parampara. Sri Krishna will not empower you at the end of your life, it is you who can empower yourself to live & experience Krishna consciousness, which is so clear path, to distinguish between truth and illusion for the benefit of all, it you who can do this by using whatever intelligence Sri Krishna has given you; if you have already used your intelligence, then Sri Krishna promises to give you more intelligence (dadami buddhi yogam), so this way of living is itself the empowerment in Krishna Consciousness.

4) The capacity to listen to one's conscience (Supersoul) and be guided by it.

I would like all devotees to read Srimad Bhagavatam 2.2.35 and purport. Here Prabhupada equates conscience (inner voice of right and wrong), with Supersoul, Paramtma, for devotees it is Sri Krishna, who is guiding everyone in thinking, feeling, willing, from one's heart.

Sri Krishna is not ONLY in Goloka, but He is also in our hearts, if we can start feeling Him inside. Infact intelligence is given by Krishna, so if we trust our own intelligence & conscience (but those conclusions should be based on sastra), then it is as good as trusting Sri Krishna. Some people say, don't trust yourself, that is not good. That is not what Prabhupada wanted. He wanted every one to become self-reliant, self-trusting, self-confident, independent unit, just like the brothers of Pandavas, who are uniquely gifted, not one of them is "self-mistrusting, or self-loathing", but they have all pooled their individual skills so wonderfully.

In the same pace of mind, we should never dis-respect ourselves in any way, because Sri Krishna is in our hearts, so we should always have self-respect, and also respect all others because Sri Krishna is also present in others hearts. So, never allow yourself to get humiliated in the name of "humility". This is farse, and the result is that both the humiliator and the humiliated keep losing touch with conscience. So, we should all practice to be guided by conscience , by Sri Krishna from our Heart. Everyone can start practicing from this minute onwards.

5) The ability to discern what is nonsense and what is genuinely Krishna Conscious and cooperate with the latter.

If we first start discriminating on the basis of three modes of nature, to be vigilant of lower modes of passion and ignorance overthrowing mode of goodness, because there is always fight between the three modes in this world; so we should always remain vigilant that we not overpowered by lower modes, and as we get practiced to it, we can reach a stage where we can instinctively know what is non-sense and what is genuinely Krishna Conscious.

If we start using intelligence like this to distinguish truth from illusion, goodness from passion and ignorance, then Sri Krishna promises us to give more of it "dadami buddhi (intelligence)yogam tam, yena mam upayanti te". Actually such intelligence is given by Sri Krishna from our hearts, and this is His UNIQUE GIFT to His pure devotees. They are always taking guidance from Sri Krishna through buddhi (intelligence, conscience) , and to follow the foot-steps of our acaryas, we should also start trusting our conscience and using intelligence by basing on sastra, to start with the three modes of material nature (chapter 14), in this way we can advance in Krishna bhakti.

If we do this, then we can feel that JOY of devotional service to Sri Krishna from the beginning. We don't have to wait, to see the results of that JOY at some far end of our life. That is why it is said that devotional service to Sri Krishna is JOYFULLY performed from the beginning, and this JOY is not a result at the END. This verse confirms it :

This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (BG 9.2)

6) The courage to reject irrational authorities and cooperate with the rational ones.

If we detect irrationality in the authorities, Temple Presidents, any leaders, etc. first we should not participate in their irrational actions, but question them about their irratinality and ask for explanation; this shows responsibility on our part and accountability on the part of the leaders, or if they don't agree, better don't co-operate with them. If devotees are encouraged by leaders, to question any acts of them and explain on the basis of sastra, then that would create a very good atmosphere, and improve relationships between the devotees. And if the authorities reject to explain or show their accountability, and if we cooperate with them, we slowly lose touch with Supersoul, conscience. So cooperation, means not blind, but rational. Then the authorities cannot bend us to their irrational demands by saying "Cooperate for Prabhupada". Prabhupada did not want irrational submissions to authority figures from us.

7) The ability to choose one's association on the basis of character rather than socio-economic or hierarchical status in the institution.

All this is possible once we start discriminating properly, not to be deceived by imposters. Such cheaters, act more than an average devotee, so that others will not recognize them. And most certainly such cheaters will not be pot-washers, because those who have personal interests will not try to remain as pot-washers, but they want to grow in hierarchy to get BIG positions in the instituion, and if they get somehow or other to some BIG position, then they can get what THEY WANT. They will be dressed very nicely and act more than average devotee. This makes our task little more competent. But if we practice we can recognize materialistic people even among the devotee association in ISKCON. And such people should be totally neglected. But poor innocent devotees, think that a "big" position in institution is a result of "spiritual-growth" and are thus cheated. And the so-called "big" man starts preaching in his own way, and will later call the true preachers of Krishna consciousness, envious, because true preachers will reveal his "nakedness" before the world. Just like a small boy in the fairy tale of "Naked Emperor", that boy was simply truthful, to call the emperor "naked" in the public, certainly the gaurds & minsiters of the emperor will be in trouble in they also address the emperor "Here goes the naked emperor!" Check this quote of Prabhupada :

A mundane person in the dress of a Vaisnava should not be respected but rejected. This is enjoined in the sastras (upeksa). The word upeksa means neglect. One should neglect an envious person. A preacher's duty is to love the Supreme Personality of Godhead, make friendships with Vaisnavas, show mercy to the innocent and reject or neglect those who are envious or jealous. There are many jealous people in the dress of Vaisnavas in this Krsna consciousness movement, and they should be completely neglected. There is no need to serve a jealous person who is in the dress of a Vaisnava. When Narottama dasa Thakura says chadiya Vaisnava seva nistara payeche keba, he is indicating an actual Vaisnava, not an envious or jealous person in the dress of a Vaisnava.(Cc.Mad.1.218 purport)

Bhaktivinoda Thakura refers to the mundane person in the dress of a Vaishnava as "kali chela," an agent of Kali. Kali chelas appear in disguise, as a Vaishnava, he will have tilaka, kanti-mala, dhoti, shaved head, etc. all meticulously maintained. He will know the philosophy and can speak cleverly on it. He can appear as committed and dedicated as a truly committed devotee. He will make sure he is taken for "a Prabhupada man" or "a dog of Srila Prabhupada." An agent behind enemy lines is careful to appear natural in his enemy's environment. He tries to be more conforming as much as possible in dress and actions, with proper accent and so forth. Similarly, the mundane person in the dress of a Vaishnava, goes to great lengths to appear as an average or even better than average devotee. Still, Srila Prabhupada’s advice is "upeksha," he should be completely neglected.(Kundali Dasa, Supersoul Realization)

More than any other scheme, implementing these 7 orientations will transform our society. And implementing them require no confirmation from outside of yourself. All it takes is a personal decision, resolve from heart. No approvals from anyone, outside of ourselves is needed to start practicing these.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura gives us a very good advice on how to start independent thinking, how to use intelligence to discriminate in mode of goodness:

In fact, most readers are mere repositories of facts and statements made by other people. But this is not study. The student is to read the facts with a view to create, and not with the object of fruitless retention. Students like satellites should reflect whatever light they receive from authors and not imprison the facts and thoughts just as the Magistrates imprison the convicts in the jail! Thought is progressive. The author’s thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development. He is the best critic, who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of Nature. “Begin anew,” says the critic, because the old masonry does not answer at present. Let the old author be buried because his time is gone. These are shallow expressions. Progress certainly is the law of nature and there must be correction and developments with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher. Now, if we are to follow our foolish critic, we are to go back to our former terminus and make a new race, and when we have run half the race, another critic of his stamp will cry out: “Begin anew, because the wrong road has been taken!” In this way our stupid critics will never allow us to go over the whole road and see what is in the other terminus. Thus the shallow critic and the fruitless reader are the two great enemies of progress. We must shun them.
(Bhaktivinoda Thakura: The Bhagavata)

Generally, many devotees, read Prabhupada's books only to "save knowledge in brain", or "for preaching in a class to impress the public with his amazing logical presentation", so that kind of reader read books and stores like "racks of books in a library" in mind or brain; this is fruitless retention, and it does not help the reader; the reader should read books to create, to apply in real life, to realize the knowledge, by "practicals", just like we do "practials" of Physics, Chemistry in laboratory, we need also to do "practicals" of the knowledge of Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam. We can do this every hour and minute of our life. This will help us attain vijnana ---practial(realized) knowledge. This can only happen if we make a resolve "to always distinguish between truth and illusion in this world", using our discrmination power.

It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction was for everyone to preach vigorously, make lots of Krsna conscious followers, but not to take disciples. This point is re-inforced where Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. It is significant that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand..." (i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence). From this it is clear he is talking about Krsna conscious followers, not 'disciples of his disciples', since the main point of the lecture was that they should not initiate in his presence. The implication being then, that just as at that time there may have been around ten thousand followers of Krsna Consciousness, so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik system was to ensue that when these followers became suitably qualified for initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just as they could when he gave the above lecture.

1) Has not Prabhupada fulfilled the prophecy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu? And if any disciple(s) of Prabhupada preach in line with Sri Caitanya Maharprahbu, why should they not take disciples? Why the author says "one can preach but not take disciples"? This is his own interpretation, and the basis for interpretation is himself. Wonderful "basis"! Check this quote from NECTAR OF DEVOTION:
However, Lord Caitanya’s causeless mercy is such that He advised all bona fide spiritual masters to speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere. Therefore, in the line of Lord Caitanya even the sannyäsis can speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere, and if someone is seriously inclined to become a disciple, the sannyäsi always accepts him. (NOD)

2) The author says: ",so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik system was to ensue that when these followers became suitably qualified for initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada". ritvik-vada is basis for these statements, so these statements also fall-down with ritvik-vada.

3) Prabhupada wanted everyone to preach all over the world and ask everyone to become a devotee of Krishna; Prabhupada is not worrying about "how many gurus?", "How many disciples each guru can have?" Since if his disciples act as bonafide gurus, then they can also take any number of disciples. But again, people should not accept an imposter as a bonafide guru. They should discriminate and take responsibility for their own decision. Everyone should understand, gurus are not made by rubber stamp; and if any one is not finding guru, he need not hurry to get initiated by an imposter, he can wait, and honestly follow the process of devotional service till Krishna takes him to a guru.
So, by the mercy of both the spiritual master and Krsna, one takes up devotional service. How is that? Their mercy runs on parallel lines. If you have not yet found a spiritual master but are sincere, Krsna will direct you to a bona fide spiritual master. And if you get a bona fide spiritual master, he will take you to Krsna. Krsna is always sitting in your heart as the caitya-guru, the spiritual master within. It is that caitya-guru who manifests Himself externally as the spiritual master. Therefore the spiritual master is the direct representative of Krsna. (Nectar Of Instruction)

Prabhupada says here that spiritual master is a "direct representative" of Sri Krishna. So, if we are sincerely and pray to Krishna and be guided by Him through conscience, He will surely lead us to a bonafide guru. Till then we can feel safe, and be guided by our conscience and always be alert using intelligence so that we may not get deceived by Maya in any way. In this way, we should start applying the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness in our practical life.

In Conclusion: Srila Prabhupada has not issued specific orders for his disciples to become diksa gurus; he always maintained that a guru is self-effulgent and not made by rubber stamp.

1) Expecting Prabhupada to "issuing specific orders for his disciples to become diksa gurus", is not supported by Prabhupada nor his guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Gurus are not appointed, they are always self-effulgent.

2) Next the author foolishly thinks "thus setting up an alternative to the ritvik system", he is a joker because he feels that standard paramapra-system is an "alternative" to the ritvk-system. On what grounds? Who is the basis for this, except for our "dear author"?

What we do have is a handful of (at the time) unpublished personal letters, sent only to individuals who were desiring to become diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's presence, sometimes having only recently joined the Movement. In such cases they are told to wait until Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet before they fulfil their ambitions. The very fact that they were unpublished at the time of the July 9th letter means that they were not intended to have any direct bearing on the future of initiation within ISKCON.

Why is the author linking everything to July 9th letter, which he thinks "final"? This is just like Dr. Frog who can never imagine something outside of his own 4-foot well. The "personal letters asking Prabhupada to make them diksa guru" is a different topic, and is not related to ritvik-theory, nor even related to the July 9th letter. July 9th letter is about appointing some ritivks who would act on behalf of Prabhupada. Prabhupada is teaching his disciples, to wait, because his disciples should not take disciples for themselves in the presence of Srila Prabhupada, and at the same Prabhupada is also cautioning his disciples not be over-enthusiastic to become gurus.

Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada's books and conversations only contain instructions for his disciples to be siksa gurus. Though the general principle of a disciple becoming a diksa guru is mentioned, Srila Prabhupada does not specifically order his disciples to initiate and take their own disciples.

1) If one is a bonafide "siksa" guru, why can't he initiate disciples? Where is that restriction from Prabhupada? Only our author has "that restriction".

2) And Prabhupada, has not ordered any disciples to become diksa gurus, because he said, he cannot appoint gurus, for gurus are self-effulgent, not rubber stamped. Here the author expects rubber stamping from Prabhupada, ONLY FOR diksa gurus. He does not care about "siksa" gurus, yet "siksa"(teaching, which can take years) is comparatively more important than formal "diksa"!

The above then does not represent grounds for supplanting the explicit instruction of July 9th, an order that was distributed to the whole Movement as a specific policy document. There is clearly no equivalent document outlining the M.A.S.S.

Can the author also provide some "ground" for ritvik-theory to stand upon - I request grounds for:

Assuming ritvik-system from July 9th letter.

All devotees must be educated in the science of Krishna, properly, and the decision should be left to those WHO take initiation by using their discretion and help may be provided by experienced devotees by basing on sastra. Because "GBC" has "approved" few gurus, many innocent devotees think that they "should" take initiation from those "approved set of gurus" after "6 months or later".

People should be taught how to discriminate, be responsible, be independently thoughtful, take responsibility for their own decisions, let them decide their own guru by looking at who is inspiring them to practice Krishna consciousness (whoever is opening their eyes), etc. Without this training to the members, they will be misguided to accept few "approved" gurus. Those who are sanyasis should freely move around and preach Krishna consciousness with logic and argument, and who ever gets inspired by him, let them take initiation. This would create a spiritually competent atmosphere in ISKCON.

This is how Prabhupada, made disciples. He first presented Krishna Consciousness with logic and reason, and slowly people got faith in Prabhupada and they took initiation from him. Let us also follow the same process. Let there be no appointments nor approvals from anyone. This way, gurus also can start "commanding" respect , instead of "demanding" for it due to institutional designations.

Thus the idea that Srila Prabhupada had taught far and wide that all his disciples should become diksa gurus, immediately on his departure, shortly after or indeed ever, is nothing but a myth.

Prabhupada had already taught all his disciples to become bonafide acarayas. And it is upto the disciples to attain that qualification. Prabhupada did not succeed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, immediately after departure, but after 35 years,very long time. These times limits no body can set; of course the GBC has misapplied and made ZONAL ACARYAs, but that was proved failure, because of lacking qualifications, and after that M.A.S.S. is also mass-APPROVING (too many rubberstamps, but still a rubber-stamp) of gurus and it failed. There is nothing to wonder about it, if we clearly understand Prabhupada's instructions.

But how all this is linked to prove ritivk-vada? It looks like passionate attempt to look for some immediate solution for a problem. It is also in the mode of ignorance because it defies the sastric injunctions.

It is commonly stated that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the final July 9th letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already explained again and again in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations precisely what he wanted to happen. Sadly this assertion, apart from being totally false, merely raises further absurdities:

1) Who is thinking the July 9th letter as "final"?
2) Who is concerned here about "future" initiations after departure of Prabhupada? Where is such a hint in the July 9th letter?
3) How "absurdities" are raised & who is raising them, even after Prabhupada's explanation in letters, lectures and books?
Answer: The author of the Final Order book.

If Srila Prabhupada's previous teachings on how he wanted to continue initiations in his absence were really so crystalline clear that he saw no need to issue a specific directive on the matter; then why did the GBC send a special delegation to his bedside in the first place? A delegation whose principal objective it was to find out what was to be done about initiations 'particularly' at that time when he was no longer with them! (Please see 'Appt. tape', p.21). Srila Prabhupada was in ill health, about to leave his body, and here we have his most senior men asking him elementary questions which he had supposedly already answered scores of times over the preceding decade.

1) Now the author considers that before July 9th 1977, Prabhupada's teachings are NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR about initiations. Now, I have a question to the author "Dear sir, who is thinking, that the July 9th letter is 'specific directive' for initiations in Prabhupada's absence?" Where is that kind of indication from that letter?

2) It may be that the author is NOT CLEAR about Prabhupada's instructions on 'initiations in his absence', as he claims to be; indeed it is the truth; if he DOES NOT have a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, WHY NOT ASK OTHERS TO get things CLEARED UP? WHY assume things like this? Just because he never understood Prabhupada's desires, it does not mean nobody has understood.

3) I really don't know what to say when the author considers that "Prabhupada's most senior men asking him elementary questions"; WHY NOT? Why should not the disciples put questions before their Guru? It is amazing that author considers them "elimentary questions"; particularly when Prabhupada was about to leave his body, and certainly Prabhupada is concerned about the movement, and what will go on after his departure, so WHY SHOULD not his disciples ask questions about that?

The problem that the author does not understand is that, even after Prabhupada made everything very clear, still people have gone off-track by taking up guru role, without necessary qualification; and the result is known, they failed. The solution to this problem is for his disciples to achieve necessary qualifications, and NOT ANY AMOUNT OF GBC APPROVALS can give them qualifications. It is by one's personal effort to sincerely follow Prabhupada's instructions will make one qualified.

If Srila Prabhupada had clearly spelled out the M.A.S.S. system, why did he leave so little instruction on how to set it up that shortly after his departure his most senior men felt compelled to question Sridhar Maharaja on how to operate it?

Gurus/Acaryas are never appointed or approved . They are self-effulgent. So, why should Prabhupada set that up?

If it really was so clear to everyone precisely how Srila Prabhupada wanted everyone to become diksa guru, then why did the GBC set up the '11 diksa gurus only' zonal acarya system, and allow it to run for an entire decade?

While counting everyone else's mistakes the author never consider the mistakes committed with his own Final Order book. The true Vaishnavas will not behave like this. We should always be very vigilant, so that we are not taken in by irrationality, lack of logic,sense and human dignity; this is possible if we are always in touch with our conscience. We should not wait till some other person will come and show us the spots on our face. So we should now understand HOW MAYA is very powerful, it really can make us think "we don't have not any spots", and we believe it thoroughly. So we should always remain humble, even lesser than straw in the street, because MAYA can award us A BODY of a WORM IN STOOL; so never try to play with Maya, be humble and serve Sri Krishna. MAYA will never stop kicking and alluring us away from Sri Krishna. It is Her duty for Krishna.

Although we have been somewhat critical of the GBC's paper GII, there is one passage in it relating to this issue which we feel totally encapsulates the mood that will re-unite Srila Prabhupada's family:

"A disciple's only duty is to worship and serve his spiritual master. His mind should not be agitated over how he may become guru. A devotee who sincerely wants to make spiritual advancement should try to become a disciple, not a spiritual master." (GII, p. 25, GBC 1995)

Dear author, is this ALL you have got to try to prove that no one can become "diksa" guru from now onwards, because everyone must remain disciple and not guru?

We could not agree more.

I would like to say, I would not read any more. But I cannot do it, unfortunately, I need to read it to de-construct this for the benefit of author and everyone else.

*(1) - This interpretation is advocated in Ajamila das's paper 'Regular or ritvik', published in the GBC's ISKCON Journal 1990.

*(2) - We would like to point out that most of the devotees mentioned above have since recognised their faults, and thus we apologise for any offence or embarrassment we may have caused. Perhaps they may appreciate the fact that personal letters sent by Srila Prabhupada, to specifically address their individual anarthas are currently being used to support the M.A.S.S. within ISKCON.

8) "Maybe there is some sastric principle in Srila Prabhupada's books that forbids the granting of diksa when the guru is not on the same planet as the disciple?"

There is no such statement in Srila Prabhupada's books, and since Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, such a restriction simply can not exist in our philosophy.

The use of a ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure would actually be in line with Srila Prabhupada's many instructions stating the immateriality of physical association in the guru-disciple relationship (please see Appendices). After reading these quotes one can see how some members of the GBC have presented a somewhat different picture over the years:

Why is the author linking those statements of Prabhupada with "ritvik-theory"? Here we can see the NEGATIVE use of LOGIC, by using some quotes of Prabhupada to prove something else, totally irrelevant to the TOPIC.

"Srila Prabhupada has taught us that the disciplic succession is a living affair [...] The law of disciplic succession is that one approaches a living spiritual master - living in the sense of being physically present." (Sivarama Swami ISKCON Journal, p.31, Gaura Purnima 1990)

It is hard to reconcile the above assertion with statements such as:

Why is the author trying to reconcile between above one statement or below two statements? Can't you reconcile them individually on the merit of the statements? If we understand above statement, it is fact that Prabhupada was a living link to the parampara, which is translated by Prabhupada as "disciplic-succession"? Can't the bonafide succession of disciples remain alive if they continue to pass on the true message of parampara?

"Physical presence is not important." (SP Room conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan)

or

"Physical presence is immaterial." (SP Letter, 19/1/67)

Here Prabhupada is replying to one letter, that devotees are asking for personal association of Prabhupada. So, Prabhupada says that "vapu"(bodily) association is not so important as "vani" (instruction of guru) association. He is encouraging his disciples to follow instructions sincerely to attain the mercy of Sri Sri Radha and Krishna.

Of course, we must have a guru who is external, since in the conditioned stage pure reliance on the Supersoul is not possible, but nowhere does Srila Prabhupada teach that this physical guru must also be physically present:

"Therefore one must take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence." (C.c. Antya, concluding words)

Here, negative arguments are used here to prove the ritvik-theory. The author does not say what is said, but he uses "what is not said". This way, we cannot come to perfect conclusions.

Srila Prabhupada practically demonstrated this principle by initiating large numbers of his disciples without ever meeting them physically at all. This fact in itself proves that diksa can be obtained without any physical involvement from the guru.

1) Did Prabhupada demonstrate this principle for the purpose of "ritvik-initiations after his departure from this world" ?
2) Dear author, it is you who are trying to prove your theory...by hook or by crook...by manipulation.

Instead of doing whatever it takes to understand the mind of Prabhupada, here our author is trying to use what ever quote he like to prove "his theory"; if this much effort could have been spent on reading books and by practicing independent thinking; the author could have understood these principles in truth.

There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with physical presence. Therefore, the continuation of the ritvik system is perfectly consistent with both sastra and the example our acarya set whilst he was physically present.

1) We have seen these kind of arguments earlier: "this statement is not present in the 'sastra'", "that statement is not present in 'sastra'", etc. to prove the ritivk theory. This is indirect way to prove a point. But Vaishnavas use only direct interpretations.

2) Just because the author cannot find statements from 'sastra', proves that ritvik-theory is correct; if he can't find why don't he ask other devotees who can tell him about them. Is it not clear that sastra says that one should take diksa from the bonafide guru coming in disciplic succession?

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

Regarding "authorization" we have seen previously Prabhupada has authorized all his disciples, but it is up to the disciples to raise themselves upto the standard of bonafide guru.

In one of the main sections on diksa in Srila Prabhupada's books, it is stated that the only requirement for receiving it is the agreement of the guru. This agreement was totally delegated to the ritviks:

"So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will depend on discretion." (SP Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)

ritvik-initations have happened during Prabhupada's time, and this is an instruction in regard to that; but how those are linked to the "ritvik-initiations after departure of Prabhupada from this world" is another thing!

Srila Prabhupada instructs us that: "As far as the time of diksa (initiation) is concerned, everything depends on the position of the guru.[...] If the sad-guru, the bona fide spiritual master agrees, one can be initiated immediately, without waiting for a suitable time or place." (C.c. Madhya, 24.331, purport)

Prabhupada clearly says that the "bonafide spiritual master" should agree first, so that a person can take initiation from him. So, I am asking the author, has Prabhupada agreed for "ritivk-initiations" that you propose? or "ritvik-initiations after departure of Prabhupada" based on your indirect interpretations!

It is significant to note that there is no stipulation that the diksa guru and the prospective disciple must have physical contact. Or that the diksa guru has to be physically present to give his agreement (it is also interesting that Srila Prabhupada equates the term sad-guru with the term diksa guru). Srila Prabhupada has stated many times that the requirement for being initiated is simply to abide by the rules and regulations he had taught over and over again:

1) WHO IS proposing this idea sir: "It is significant to note that there is no stipulation that the diksa guru and the prospective disciple must have physical contact." How come did the author NOTE THIS IDEA? What is the basis for this except for our author?

2) How did you get to this :"Or that the diksa guru has to be physically present to give his agreement" ? What agreement have you found from Prabhupada?

3) Can't the author see that sad-guru means "bonafide guru", and not just "diksa guru". "diksa" is but one function of a bonafide(sad) guru.

"This is the process of initiation. The disciple must admit that he will no longer commit sinful activity [...] He promises to execute the order of the spiritual master. Then, the spiritual master takes care of him and elevates him to spiritual emancipation." (C.c. Madhya, 24.256)

Devotee: How important is formal initiation?

Srila Prabhupada: Formal initiation means to accept officially to abide by the orders of Krsna and his representative. That is formal initiation. (SP Lecture, 22/2/73, Auckland)

Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules.

Disciple: As long as one is following, then he is...

Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right. (SP Morning walk, 13/6/76, Detroit)

"...unless there is discipline, there is no question of disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline." (SP Morning walk, 8/3/76, Mayapur)

Does the definition of the word diksa imply a connection with the guru being physically present on the planet?

Dear author, before asking this question, did you consider, what Prabhupada meant? Can you understand what Prabhupada meant here? He means that diksa is just "officially accepting to follow the orders of guru and Sri Krishna". But even if not done officially, it means that actual initiation has already taken place. Actually, even before the "official" initiation, the diksa process, the faithful disciple must have already "accepted to follow the orders of guru and Sri Krishna", but with diksa, it is just making "official", to make the world know; but the point is, even before the "official diksa" , the "actual diksa", which is accepting to follow the orders of Sri Guru and Sri Krishna must have already taken place, otherwise there is no meaning to "official diksa".

Considering the author's question, I have already said this before: instead of trying to understand directly from the quotes, he is asking questions, "is there indication of physical connection between guru and disciple?". The important thing to note is: there is no link between the author's question & Prabhupada's comments. Just because our author's point is not defeated in Prabhupada's comment, his idea must be true. Again, Dr. Frog is trying to insist using his idea based on 4-foot well! This way of understanding is indirect, not straight thinking and he is misusing the quotes of Prabhupada to prove his own point, and there is no link between "ritvik-theory" and the quotes of Prabhupada here.

" diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport) (please see ' diksa' diagram, in book )

There is nothing in this definition of diksa that in any way implies that the guru needs to be on the same planet as the disciple in order for it to work properly. Conversely, Srila Prabhupada's instructions and personal example prove categorically that the elements, which constitute diksa, can be utilised without the need for the guru's physical involvement:

Again the same blind teaching: "this statement is not here", "that statement is not here"---so my statement must be true; and I need not repeat the same story of Dr. Frog.

"Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material condition." (S.B. 7.7.1, purport)

"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent." (S.B. 2.9.8, purport)

Dear reader, can you see, what kind of quotes the author is using? He uses some statements like "never checked my material condition", "because the vibrator is apparently absent", because the author gives more credibility to GRAMMAR & MEANINGS of English Words in these statements, rather than the import of the statements.

Prabhupada meant that "even though a spiritual master is absent from our material eyes", his words remain potent and if anyone follows the instructions then one can achieve the result. Now, what are Prabhupada's instructions? He said that he did not invent any new thing which is not present in sastra. So, we should understand things in TOTO and not take any one-part separately and give it full significance without basis of sastra. This mindless approach will not lead one to perfection.

We should pass each day and hour, with vigliance, by being more aware of things happening around us, by looking at our inner motives whether they match with Krishna Consciousness. The more awareness we achieve, the more chances that we can remain Krishna conscious. We should be aware of water (energy of Krishna), flower (the art of Krishna), earth (again energy of Krishna), people (parts and parcels of Krishna), etc, etc, no end to this, we should keep distinguishing between truth and illusion like this way. We should try to remain more aware and alert to conscience & intelligence provided by Sri Krishna. This is the life of Krishna Consciousness, which is empowering from the beginning, and not something which will flash in a second from the sky at the end of our life. Even after Arjuna saw the universal form of Sri Krishna, still, he did not stop asking more questions, nor did Sri Krishna told Arjuna to stop asking questions, rather Sri Krishna empowered Arjuna by slashing his doubts and delusions, by enabling Arjuna to distinguish between truth and illusion. Arjuna became free from doubts and able to distinguish truth from illusion himself; and Arjuna finally said "Now my doubts and delusion are over. I shall now act as You say." This is empowerment in Krishna Consciousness. This is the true freedom of spirit soul, to independently become able to distinguish between truth and illusion, and act for the sake of Absolute Truth, Sri Krishna; and enabling others likewise is the ULTIMATE welfare activity.

"The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all.(SB.1.1.2)"

Here the idea is not to "think" for others, but to teach others how to "think for themselves". Meaning teach them "Krishna Consciousness", and don't practice Krishna Consciousness "for others". In this way Guru will teach disciple, and if the disciple is bonafide, he will learn this from his master and later by becoming independently thoughtful, he will also later succeed his spiritual master, by teaching others in similar way. This is how parampara - disciplic succession will go on, and not like the way manufactured by the ritviks.

Thus, all the elements of diksa -, transcendental knowledge, the receiving of the mantra etc., can be effectively delivered without the guru's physical presence.

Thus, henceforward, I request the author, to give up indirect interpretations on the quotes of Prabhupada. He should interpret when things are not clear, when things are clear like sun-shine, why should he interpret them? and confuse oneself and others?

Does the author not know that "one must receive transcendental knowledge by hearing from a bonafide representative of the disciplic succession?" How can he give out transacendental knowledge without first being a bonafide member of disciplic succession? If one is a bonafide member in disciplic succession, then why preach with dry indirect logic? This is a misuse of sastra.

In summary, it is shown conclusively that there is no sastric principle mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books that precludes the granting of diksa once the guru leaves the earth planet. Although historical precedent is sometime cited as an objection, historical precedent is not a sastric principal. Our philosophy is based on following sastric injunctions not historical tradition. This is the very thing that distinguishes ISKCON from virtually every other so-called religious groups. There are many influential smarta brahmins in India who strongly criticise the lack of adherence to tradition exhibited by Srila Prabhupada.

In summary :

1) I request the author to stop indirect interpretations on the quotes of Prabhupada.
2) While saying " Our philosophy is based on following sastric injunctions not historical tradition." Does the author have one sastric quote to support his theory. No. The way he explains is "ritvik-theory cannot be refuted from this quote", "ritvik-theory cannot refuted from that quote", etc. These are indirect arguments. He does not want to understand direct meaning! Why one quote of Prabhupada cannot refute his ritvik-theory if there is no link in-between?
3) Ofcourse smarta brahmins have some traditions like: brahmanas are brahmanas by birth, but it is clear from Bhagavad gita that one is brahmana by qualification. Not by birth. Dear author, what do you have in stock, in sastra, that will support your theory? You have none sir.

Conclusion: It seems here, that the author is trying to write in whatever way he likes and whatever quote he finds; the aim is to win rather than to understand the truth in the matter. If the ritvik-theory has some worth in it, why then is our author doing all indirect interpretations ?

Sastric statements, along with the practical example of Srila Prabhupada himself, fully support the principle that diksa is not dependent in any way on the guru's physical presence.

Dear author, Prabhupada in the above quotes is not instructing on "diksa-guru", he is teaching his disciples to give more importance to the spiritual instructions ("vani") than physical ("vapu") association. There is no point about "diksa"; Prabhupada's quotes actually DOES NOT NEED to refute your theory NOR SUPPORT your theory. It is you, who are creating everything by yourself, just like people create big big buildings with gold and diamonds in dreams; they don't have worth, neither any consideration is given to them. So is the ritvik-theory, worthless, full with imaginations and mental concoctions.

9) "Since this instruction would lead to the setting up of a system that is unprecedented, and has no historical basis, it should be rejected.

This can not be a reason to reject the July 9th order since Srila Prabhupada set many precedents - (reducing the number of required rounds of japa from sixty-four to sixteen, performing marriages, allowing women to live in the temples, giving gayatri mantra by tape, etc). Indeed, it is a distinguishing feature of acaryas in our line that, practically without exception, they set their own historical precedents. As acaryas, it is their prerogative to do this; albeit in accordance with sastric principles.

First of all, dear author
1) It is you, who have added "final order" to July 9th letter in your theory. I already have shown you how you concocted one-sided assumptions on that letter. Whatever arguments you wrote, are all based on few assumptions that you made.
2) You have no sastric grounds for your conclusions, which is the basic requirement for a Vaishnava preacher. Sastric ground means direct interpretations, not "indirect interpretations like you did in this final order book".
3) Also, there is no sastric principle, that an acarya can accept disciples after he has left the material body. It is you, who have tried by hook or crook to prove to ritvik theory using indirect interpretations!

As already stated, the use of ritviks without the guru's physical presence on the planet does not violate any sastric principle. Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, and since there is no mention in his books of the guru needing to be on the planet at the time of initiation, it can not be a principle. Thus the historical precedent of continuing to use ritviks after his departure can only be a change in detail, not in principle.

Dear author
1) You could state, any thing you like, does it mean we should hear you BLINDLY? Why can't you hear once to us?
2) Whatever quotes you used, first you tried to look at a sastric quote, but understand that, that quote is NOT INTENDED TO REFUTE ritvik-THEORY. AS a LOGICIAN, you should use your own logical statements on your own theory, and then support by sastra which has direct interpretations. But your method is ODD FOR ANY LOGICIAN, you assume your theory to be right in the first place, and then LOOK AT SASTRIC QUOTE TO SIMPLY SAY, that "this sastric quote has nothing to refute any points from your theory". These are nonsensical interpretations.

Srila Prabhupada did many things, particularly connected with initiation, which were unprecedented, yet we do not reject them (please see box on page 29, in book). It may be argued that he explained some of these changes in his books. This is true, but there were many he did not explain in his books. Besides, there was no need to give detailed explanations of the ritvik system in his books since he had practically demonstrated prototypes of it for many years, with the final touches of how it was to continue fully elucidated in the July 9th order. Srila Prabhupada never taught us to just blindly follow tradition.:

Surely, Prabhupada never deviated from the parampara-system, understanding of disciplic-succession. What ever he did, he could explain things with IRREFUTABLE LOGIC & ARGUMENT and can support by sastra, which are clearly direct-sun-shine interpretations.

And the author fails in two things if I compare author with Prabhupada
1) The logic used by author is narrow and indirect, and can be easily questioned and refuted.
2) sastra is also used in indirect ways. Not one single direct interpretation is available.
3) The author says: "Besides, there was no need to give detailed explanations of the ritvik system in his books since he had practically demonstrated prototypes of it for many years" and he says, there was no detailed explanation of ritvik-system in his books, SO HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT PRABHUPADA WANTED? During Prabhupada's time ritvik-initiations happened on the order of Prabhupada; but now whatever ritvik-initiations are happening at IRM, they are based on assumptions, indirect interpretations and falsity.
4) After reading the final order book, I decided NOT TO FOLLOW the author blindly. Because by tradition, followers of Prabhupada preached from his books, made sense, there was appeal to common-sense logic, etc. But the so-called followers are now corrupt and use irrational arguments which don't follow broad-minded logic & not supported by sadhu or sastra.

"Our only tradition is how to satisfy Visnu." (SP Bg. Lecture, 30/7/73, London)

"No. Tradition, religion, they are all material. They are also all designations." (SP Room conversation, 13/3/75, Teheran)

Whether precisely the same orders we received from Srila Prabhupada were ever issued by a previous acarya is utterly irrelevant. Our only duty is to follow the orders given to us by our own acarya.

Dear author, these are not the orders of Prabhupada. It is you, who assume ritvik-theory to be final order, and July 9th letter to be final order, but till now I did not get one direct explanation of how you can support your theory. Everything in the book is one-sided logic, indirect interpretations and blind assumptions.

If a system of initiation can be rejected solely on the grounds that it has no exact historical precedent, then we would certainly be forced to reject the current guru system within ISKCON by the same token.

Never before has a plethora of diksa gurus been subordinate to a committee, which could suspend or terminate their initiating activities. No previous initiating acarya in our line has ever been voted into office with a two-thirds majority vote, nor subsequently fallen prey to gross sinful activity and as a consequence been hastily withdrawn from the 'disciplic succession'. We reject such irregular practices, not on the grounds of historical precedent, but because they clash violently with many of the basic tenets of Vaisnava philosophy found in Srila Prabhupada's books, and are in blatant violation of Srila Prabhupada's final order.

True. These may be wrongs done by ISKCON GBC, and this "wrong" cannot be substituted with "another wrong"(ritvik-theory). These is nothing complex about guru principle. The problem comes when common mass of devotees start accepting imposters, because they are not properly practiced to discriminate between truth and illusion. The solution lies in educating devotees not to accept their Guru blindly, nor to reject blindly. Let there be no "gurus" by appointment or approvals, let the sannyasis, move freely in ISKCON and preach purely for the spiritual upliftment of the ISKCON devotees.

If devotees start to distinguish between truth and illusion, by using the knowledge of the 3 modes of material nature, and see that guru is minimum in the mode of goodness, and that he does not attract people by charm and discussion on esoteric topics, (if he does these he should be suspect immediately); the true guru will appeal to the logic and reason of his audience to convince them of the importance of the message of Sri Krishna. Hear any lecture of Srila Prabhupda, and you can know it, how to present philosophy with logic & argument.

I reject ritvik-theory, not because it has no historical precedent, but because it deviates from the parampara understanding, and presented with refutable & one-sided logic, and finally no basis from sastra.

The fact that the identical system to ritvik is not directly mentioned in sastra, or ancient Vedic texts, is also not pertinent. According to some Vedic rules, sudras and women should not even receive brahmin initiation at all:

" diksa cannot be offered to a sudra [...] This initiation is offered not according to Vedic rules, because it is very difficult to find out a qualified brahmana." (SP Bg. Lecture, 29/3/71, Bombay)

Thus, strictly speaking, Srila Prabhupada should not have initiated any of his western disciples since they were all born lower than the lowest Vedic caste. Srila Prabhupada was able to over-rule such Vedic laws through the invocation of higher order sastric injunctions. He sometimes exercised these injunctions in ways that had never been applied before:

The author says : "Thus, strictly speaking, Srila Prabhupada should not have initiated any of his western disciples"; if the author really feels that Prabhupada did a mistake, the author is mistaken, because the qualification for devotional service is NOT BIRTH, but sraddha, faith, firm conviction--- which is gained after hearing philosophy from Srila Prabhupada. This faith is not blind, because, a pure devotee will preach with logic & argument and will appeal to the reasoning faculty of the audience to convince them.

One who is expert in logic and understanding of revealed scriptures, and who always has firm conviction and deep faith that is not blind, is to be considered a topmost devotee in devotional service. (Caitanya Caritamrta)

And also three classes of devotees are classified only on the basis of "faith", if the author did not know this, may be he should start reading Nectar of devotion to understand, how three classes of devotees are distinguished by their degree of "faith".

Next the author says : "Srila Prabhupada was able to over-rule such Vedic laws through the invocation of higher order sastric injunctions", By this argument, he feels Prabhupada, as great acarya, can change the Vedic laws; but this argument is based on AN IDEA, initiation of western disciples, which we have already explained that, that "faith" is the required qualification, and not birth. So Prabhupada did not deviate from the Vedic principles, but the author wants people to understand that Prabhupada as great acarya can deviate from Vedic laws. But sorry, the author is proved wrong now, so now people should stop believing blindly in author's or my arguments. We should follow only rational people, and reject irrational ideas.

"As Hari is not subject to the criticism of mundane rules and regulations, the spiritual master empowered by Him is also not subjected." (C.c. Madhya, 10.136, text and purport)

"Therefore the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Isvara Puri is not subjected to any Vedic rules and regulations" (C.c. Madhya, 10.137)

The important point is that although the ritvik system may be totally unique, (at least as far as we know), it does not violate higher order sastric principles. It is testament to Srila Prabhupada's genius that he was able to apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways according to time, place and circumstance.

The author agrees that "ritvik-system is unique", new system; it is funny to see "as fas as we know", because no one except the author knew this. The author says: "it does not violate sastric principles"; well, fine, so can you prove it, use proper logic and reason, and support by sastra in direct way? Then why in this book I did not get any sastric principle to provide it? I am not asking for narrow logic, but broad-minded.

One more significat point to note here. The above quote on Isvara Puri says, that by the mercy of Sri Krishna, he is not subjected to any Vedic rules and regulations. It means, that he does not have to stricly follow ALL rules and regulations, may be, here, those rules and regulations, refer to some strict duties to be followed by sannyasis; so being a pure devotee Isvara Puri got the concession from Sri Krishna to leave out certain duties & regulations. This does not mean that Isvara Puri can change any Vedic rules & regulations; it is just that he need not follow everything minor detail daily.

After saying that Prabhupada can "rule-over" or "change" or "add" to Vedic laws, he makes people believe that ritvik-theory is also "new" implementation of Vedic laws, given by Prabhupada. By this argument, he just wants make people to believe in his arguments. Because in India, no one questions Vedas, they just accept its authority without question. But, did not Prabhupda teach to not accept things blindly, but make everything clear by asking questions and clearing doubts? Thus it is a mistaken idea of the author that Prabhupada can "add or change", "rule-over", the Vedic Laws, we have already proved that Prabhupada never deviated from Vedic laws by initiating his western disciples.

So, we can understand, that now the eternal Vedic Knowledge is being questioned here, because of Kali-Yuga, where people have manda-buddhi (lower brain substance).

Perhaps we have yet to fully grasp just how unique Srila Prabhupada is. There has never been a world acarya before. No previous acarya has ever stated that his books would be the law books for ten thousand years. Here there has never been anything like ISKCON before. Why should we be so surprised that such an unprecedented personality might decide to set a seemingly unusual initiation system?

While prasing Prabhupada, the author misleads his readers to accept his "idea" in the "name of Prabhupada". If author actually wants to love Prabhupada, he should try to understand Prabhupada's intentions directly, and stop using indirect interpretations and manipulations.

10) "Since there is no specific mention of the ritvik system prior to July 9th, 1977, it could not possibly have been intended to continue past Srila Prabhupada's disappearance."

This objection rests on the premise that Srila Prabhupada would never spring anything new on the Movement. Taken literally, this objection is absurd, for it means that any order from the guru can be rejected if it is new, or even just a bit different from ones issued previously. It infers that in his final months Srila Prabhupada should not have delivered far-reaching instructions regarding his Society, unless everyone was already familiar with them.

1) The objection is OK, since, we cannot restrict Prabhupada not to give us new assignments, new means which we are not aware of, like, we can be ignorant of any sastric principle, which Prabhupada can point out. Just like, after preaching in 1966, later when Prabhupada told that Guru must be worshipped as good as God, then the devotees were surprised, and later Prabhupada explained clearly about the Guru principle.

2) Now after making this valid point, the author misleads that Prabhupada has delivered far-reaching instructions using July 9th letter, for the author it means his manufactured "final order". But how does the act of delivering instructions can be a proof of the validity of his manufactured theory? What about understanding those instructions first?

As we have explained, the ritvik system was not 'new' anyway. Prior to the July 9th letter, the experience of diksa initiation in the Movement would have predominantly been through the use of representatives. Srila Prabhupada was the diksa guru in ISKCON, and most initiation ceremonies, particularly in the later years, were performed by a Temple President or some other representative or priest.

True. Prabuapda has some reasons why he used ritviks to initiate his disciples. And did Prabhupada point out "that these initiations are intended even after his departure" also? Did he give any such indication--atleast one time? No, so it is manufactured by the author.

The most notable difference after July 9th, 1977 was that the acceptance of new disciples would now be done by representatives without recourse to Srila Prabhupada. The letter, which was sent out to new initiates, would no longer be signed by Srila Prabhupada, and the selection of all the initiates' names would be done by the ritviks. Also the procedure was now linked with the relatively unfamiliar word - ' ritvik'.

Yes sir. Prabhupada has already told his the senior devotees, "Whom ever you consider deserves!", it means that Prabhupada trusted his disciples to behave as matured intelligent devotees (prajna), who can properly discriminate between the qualified and unqualified persons eligible for initiation.

These are done on the order of Prabhupada. But where is the order, for the ritvik-theory? Can't the author see, that he has indirectly interpreted the "final order-ritivk-theory" using a letter from Prabhupada? Can't the author see that Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become bonafide gurus? Can the author interpret or understand these quotes of Prabhupada with the same intensity of logic & intelligence that he used for interpreting ritvik-theory?

"So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire. Just like father wants every son to be as qualified or more qualified than the father. But it is up to the student or to the son to raise himself to that standard." (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

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 Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (New Delhi, 2 December, 1975)

What would be the result of author's interpretations for these quotes?

To get connected to the bona fide acarya through the use of representatives was the experience of initiation that was familiar for thousands of disciples. The July 9th letter defines the word ' ritvik' as meaning: 'representative of the acarya'. Clearly the system of being initiated by Srila Prabhupada through the use of representatives was nothing 'new' at all. It was merely the continuation of what Srila Prabhupada had taught and put in practice as soon as his Movement reached a state of rapid growth.

The author is really serious to show people that the ritivk-system is not "new", because it is already practiced using the "ritviks" during Prabhupada's time. So, how does THIS TRUTH (that Prabhupada used ritviks, "direct order") support his "new" manufactured theory (that ritivk-initiations can be even after departure of Prabhupada, indirectly interpreted "final order") is another thing?

Both LOOK SIMILAR, it does not MEAN both are SAME. If ritivks wear a clean Vaisnava dress, with tilaks, etc., will that make them bonafide? What is the basis for being bonafide? Is it LOOKS of person or BEING a person that Prabhupada wanted?

We need to see one more point by our author : "It was merely the continuation of what Srila Prabhupada had taught and put in practice as soon as his Movement reached a state of rapid growth", from this the author considers that the reason Prabhupada did the ritvik-initiations is "rapid growth" of the movement. Certainly this is one of the reason, and can't the author also consider that Prabhupada was not very healthy, that he needs some rest to recover, needs time for translation & preaching, free from normal duties , etc. Why can't the author see ANY ONE REASON, which I expressed? Did he NOT ALSO SEE THIS CONVERSATION, where Prabhupada said, if his health becomes better, he wanted to initiate personally?

Why should it have come as such a great shock that this system would continue beyond November 14th, 1977?

It is not a shock, but foolishness. Initially, I was little curious to hear what ritiviks have to say, because I want to be open, but after hearing, I understood, the ritvik theory is hollow & based on indirect interpretations.

Although unfamiliar to many, the word ' ritvik' was not new either. The word and its derivatives had already been defined 32 times by Srila Prabhupada in his books. What was 'new' was that the system which had already been in existence for many years was now put in writing with the necessary adjustments for the future. Hardly suprising, since Srila Prabhupada was at this time issuing many documents in writing regarding the future of his Movement. This arrangement was actually a re-endorsement of a system that everyone had already come to consider as standard practise.

1) How does the meaning of "ritvik" help his theory, even if it mentioned by Prabhupada 32 times? I remember a similar hollow logic, he used to say how many times "hencefoward" is used by Prabhupada, if I remember that figure is 86 times.

2) Don't we have to see, why & where the word is said & how it is used ?

3) Next the author continues : "What was 'new' was that the system which had already been in existence for many years was now put in writing with the necessary adjustments for the future." Since that something 'new' that is presented by the author is not based on the sastra, that 'new' idea is rejected.

4) And there goes the author : "Hardly suprising, since Srila Prabhupada was at this time issuing many documents in writing regarding the future of his Movement."; Just because Prabhupada is making other documents for the "future" of the movement, how come the author assume from these acts of Prabhupada that "ritvik-theory is also for the future"; can't the author see that he made indirect interpretations?

5)And finally author tries to ENDORSE his theory : "This arrangement was actually a re-endorsement of a system that everyone had already come to consider as standard practise. ". The proof & basis of this endorsement is: The author himself .

Ironically what was 'new' was the curious metamorphosis of the ritviks into the 'material and spiritual pure successor acaryas' to Srila Prabhupada. This particular innovation came as such a shock that many hundreds of disciples left the Movement shortly after its implementation, with thousands to follow them.

Now the author accepts that his ritvik-thoery is "innovation". Good, if you have anything to innovate, can't you also take help and acceptance from other Vaisnavas? Why did you neglect the opinions of others while "innovating" ritvik-theory and creating disturbances in the bhakti-yoga-principles? Because the author has never let scholarly devotees to take part in his innovation, automatically, people feel shock; because in the movement of Prabhupada, he wanted every eligible person to participate; but the author has not ALLOWED any eligible devotee to participate in his "innovation", hence the SHOCK. The author also needs to know why people are SHOCKED! Can't he?

It is not because of ritvik-thoery HUNDREDS & thousands of devotees left ISKCON, it is due to many other reasons, like ZONAL-ACARYA blunder, M.A.S.S., etc; basically those who are at leader ship level, they practiced impersonalism against their own Godbrothers and Godsisters. There is not even humanitarian relation between leaders and common devotees, what to speak of spiritual relation as parts and parcels of Sri Krishna, so they left.

So, let's co-operate for what Prabhupada desired, and let us not WASTE PRABHUPADA'S LIFE'S WORK SO SOON. Let us become independently thoughtful men & women, the way Prabhupada wanted, question those in authority if they act irrationally. We are all parts & parcels of Sri Krishna, so are the authorities, & common devotees are fundamentally the parts & parcels of Sri Krishna even though some are little ignorant & some are more ignorant; still the facts remain: every one is a part and parcel of Sri Krishna; so, by not trying to understand this meaning, if authorities disrespect people, humiliate people, etc. Is "trnad api sunicena" only for the common-devotees? Not for the leaders? Let us not agree to hear or associate with such authorities, who cannot follow what they preach, we must follow Srila Prabhupada and completely NEGLECT THEM. It is good for you, and good for the authorities also, for they should also learn from their mistakes. We must never support irrational behaviour in Prabhupada's movement. If you really want to serve Prabhupada, this is the way to go. Let us make a resolve to truly serve Prabhupada, in his 111th Anniversary. "Don't accept any thing blindly nor reject blindly" - for this we need to use our intelligence, and see if the actions of authorities match with the Krishna Conscious understanding. Not that we accept what ever authorities say & do are "transcendental" - this is blind following and causes degradation for both parties. Let us not repeat these mistakes if you love Prabhupada. We need to remember that bhakti-Yoga is called "buddhi (intelligence)-yoga".

Summary:

We have demonstrated that there is no direct evidence supporting the termination of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure, nor the subsequent transformation of the ritviks into diksa gurus - assumptions a) and b) . Even if there was extremely strong indirect evidence supporting a) and b) , it would still be debatable whether it could actually supplant the direct evidence, since this usually takes precedence. However, as just demonstrated, there is not even a shred of indirect evidence supporting the discarding of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure. Thus:

1. An instruction was issued to the whole Movement to be followed - Direct evidence
2. An examination of the instruction itself, as well as other supporting and subsequent instructions, only supports the continuation of the ritvik system - Direct evidence
3. There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering the termination of the ritvik system upon his departure
4. There is also no indirect evidence on the basis of the instruction, sastra, other instructions, special circumstances, the background, the nature and the context of the instruction, nor anything else we can conceive of, that gives valid grounds for stopping the ritvik system at the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure. Interestingly, in examining these other factors we find only further indirect evidence supporting the continued application of the order.

In Summary:

The author first says that there is NO direct evidence for "terminating the ritvik-system after departure of Prabhupada" -- and thus the theory is supported. Is there sense? Just because there is NO direct evidence, how does it make it true? Can't the author see that there is ALSO NO direct evidence to "continue the ritvik system after Prabhupada's departure"; why can't he see this option? Ofcourse, the assumption (b) is wrong, that ritviks become diksa gurus, as we have already seen that Guru is by qualification and not rubber stamping. Next the author goes on to say: "there is not even a shred of indirect evidence supporting the discarding of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure"; first of all there must be some kind of theory to terminate it, if there is no such "ritvik-theory after departure of Prabhupada", why should any "indirect evidence" discard it? Are we, Vaishnavas, supposed to take things directly or by indirect interpretations? If we use indirect interpretations to support some "manufactured" theories, without considering from all angles of vision, then it is nothing different from the Mayavadi practice, which they do with Vedanta Sutra, using neti-neti process to prove God is ultimately impersonal.
THUS :

1) In the first point, after doing indirect interpretations the author is asking us to accept his indirect interpretations as "direct" -- like Mayavadis.
2) How did he examine July 9th letter? Directly? How about the "Subsequent instructions" - did he understand them in Direct ways? After all this, the author insists that because he thinks his assumptions must be true, so everyone should accept his assumptions. Why can't he take help from scholarly devotees, who can help him out if he does not how to read books and letters? Did Prabhupada wanted devotees to work alone or work by qualification or work based on competency?
3) In this point the author says : "There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering the termination of the ritvik system upon his departure"; Can the author also consider this : "There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering to continue the ritvik system upon his departure"? This is also a kind of "indirect" option---not but this thought is carefully avoided by the author due to selfish interests.
4) In 4th point the author says "There is also no indirect evidence on the basis of the instruction, sastra"; Now I got the point. He cannot understand sastra directly, BUT ONLY BY INDIRECT METHODS. Can the author give us any "direct" evidence that Prabhupada used INDIRECT METHODS? Or any other Vaisnava Acaryas? Then how is that, in the guise of Vaishnava devotee, the author is relying so much on "INDIRECT" interpretations & evidences? Why? "Indirect" method is supposed to be the life and soul of Mayavadis, not the Vaishnavas.

In view of the above analysis, we humbly submit that the revoking of Srila Prabhupada's final instruction regarding initiation on November 14th 1977, was at best an arbitrary and unauthorised act. We can find no evidence to support assumptions a) and b), which, as we have said, form the very foundation of ISKCON's current guru policy. To re-comply with Srila Prabhupada's original order is our only option as disciples, followers and servants of Srila Prabhupada.

In direct view of above analysis, I am humbly requesting everyone not to blindly accept nor blindly reject any thing. Please become independently thoughtful men & women as Prabhupada wanted. If devotees act like this, Prabhupada will be more pleased than any thing else; if we can create an atmosphere where rational dealings are allowed, irrationalities are freely questioned , where the authorities become accountable for what they say and do, where authorities reason with devotees rather than force them, where authorities command respect rather than demand it; this is what Prabhupada wanted, a spiritually competent atmosphere, which primarily thrives only on the growth of the "individual" rather than the "institutional or some other materialistic goals". Please co-operate for Prabhupada by living this way. This primary focus on the growth & optimial atomsphere for the individual to develop into pure devotee of Sri Krishna, and if this primary need is taken care of, then all secondary things like achieving for the instituion is not a big problem, as we have seen during the time of Prabhupada, when the movement was expanding and dealing with many problem efficiently. So we can now understand why Prabhupada said, "Boil the milk", he did not want too many recruits, but to develop the already recruited members of ISKCON. But this spirit is lost, now a days devotees are encouraged only for institutional goals like book distribution, getting funds, donations, etc. and if any one achieves more in these, then he is awarded a higher position and facilities. So, instead of material desires, people have substituted them with "so-called spiritual" desires, this is an illusion. The greatest illusion here is that devotees think that achieving and getting higher positions in management hierarchy is "spiritual advancement" . This is the effect of Kali-Yuga, age of hypocrisy. THIS IS NOT WHAT Prabhupada wished to create after suffering 2 heart attacks and undergoing hard struggle to preach Krishna Consciousness at a very old age and on continuous travel.


To further assist with this compliance we will now go through the May 28th conversation and a number of related objections that appear to have given rise to confusion.





3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3E. The Appointment Tape Back

THE 'APPOINTMENT TAPE'

The GBC claims in GII that the sole justification for modifications a) & b) to the final July 9th order comes from a taped room conversation which took place in Vrindavan on May 28th, 1977. These modifications are given below for reference:

Modification a) : That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.

Modification b) : Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.

a) If we see May 28th Converstation, Prabhupada is ordering his disciples to become gurus, it means to become bonafide gurus. So how to become gurus? Prabhupada has already told before this conversation that a guru is by qualification, Prabhupada desired that all his disciples become qualified gurus, so that they can continue parampara, AND Prabhupada is NOT worried about "diksa" or "siksa", because these are just functions of bonafide gurus, so Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become bonafide guru, and he ordered them to become qualified. It is up to the sincerity of disciples to achieve that qualification. But Prabhupada desired that all his disciples become qualified acaryas. It does not LOOK LIKE Prabhupada is giving some inidication to "terminate or continue ritivk system after departure"; only our dear author is concerned about his "ritvik-theory", not Prabhupada nor his disciples.

b) If we understand the basics, then we know GBC did a mistake to "appoint" 11 acaryas, by mental concoctions. But our author is trying to use this "mistake of GBC" as an impetus for innocent devotees to accept his ritvik-theory. One wrong cannot be undone by another wrong.

This section therefore will be dedicated to a close scrutiny of the May 28th conversation to see if it can be legitimately used to modify the final order in terms of a) and b) above.

I don't see any "legitimacy" in this. Because Prabhupada is not concerned about "terminating or continuing the ritvik-system after his departure". Why can't the author consider if he is "legitimate" in trying to write books like this?

Since the entire GBC position rests on just this one piece of evidence it is quite worrying that they have already published at least four different versions, or transcripts, of this very same evidence. These differing transcripts appeared in the following publications:

• 1985: Under My Order (Ravindra Svarupa das)

• 1990: ISKCON Journal (GBC)

• 1994: Continuing The parampara (Sivarama Swami)

• 1995: Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON (GII) (GBC)

To be presented with four different versions of the same taped conversation in itself raises a number of serious questions. For example, it would not be unreasonable to ask, which is the correct version? Why are their differing versions in the first place? Is the transcript a composite of more than one conversation? Has the tape itself been edited from more than one conversation? Has there been more than one version of the tape released? If so, can we be sure that any version is true to any actual conversation? Thus already, even before the evidence is examined, we are placed in the invidious position of being expected to modify a signed letter through the analysis of a tape transcript, over which hang serious questions of authenticity.

Here the author is very "serious about authenticity". Can't the author see that these papers are submitted in different years, so possibly by different devotees? Can't the devotees have different angles of vision? Can't one devotee have different angles of vision in different times? Will everyone has to follow the HOLLOW understanding of our author? Where is personalism (variety) in author's expectations? Devotees can have diverse opinions, but if they all can be explained with proper logic and argument and based on sastra "directly", then they can be accepted. Every one should think ONLY in one way--this idea is veiled Mayavada, or monism. Did not the author know Mahaprabhu has explained atmarama verse of Srimad Bhagavatam in 64 different ways? And all are accepted as truth because they are all supported by sastra.

However since a large part of the transcript is common to all versions, we shall allow a composite of the four different transcripts, to be considered as evidence. So here is the conversation, with the variations in brackets:

(1) Satsvarupa Goswami: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future,

(2) particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how

(3) first and second initiation(s) would be conducted.

(4) Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up

(5) I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya(s).

(6) Tamal Krsna Goswami: Is that called ritvik acarya?

(7) Srila Prabhupada: ritvik. Yes.

(8) Satsvarupa Goswami: (Then) What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and ...

(9) Srila Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

(10) Satsvarupa Goswami: But he does it on your behalf.

(11) Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru,

(12) so on my behalf. On my order, amara ajnaya guru hana, (he is) (be) actually guru.

(13) But by my order.

(14) Satsvarupa Goswami: So (then) (they) (they'll) (may) also be considered your disciples?

(15) Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples, (but) (why) consider ... who

(16) Tamal Krsna Goswami: No. He is asking that these ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa,

(17) (there)... the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?

(18) Srila Prabhupada: They are his disciples.

(19) Tamal Krsna Goswami: They are his disciples (?)

(20) Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating ... (his) (he is) grand-disciple ...

(21) Satsvarupa Goswami: (Yes)

(22) Tamal Krsna Goswami: (That's clear)

(23) Tamal Krsna Goswami: (Let's go on)

(24) Satsvarupa Goswami: Then we have a question concerning ...

(25) Srila Prabhupada: When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru.

(26) That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. (That's it). (Just see).

As we have previously mentioned neither the July 9th order, nor any subsequent document signed by Srila Prabhupada, ever refers back to the above conversation. This is quite peculiar since the central argument of GII is that this brief exchange of words is absolutely crucial to the proper understanding of the July 9th order.

1) Can I question the author: "Why the author considers Prabhupada should have referred his "subsequent instructions" to July 9th letter?" Why? Because our author wants to prove his theory?

2) Why is this conversation so "peculiar" to our author is "peculiar to me". I am not getting any hints of peculiarity in this.The author should also say why it is peculiar; without that the author becomes "peculiar" to everyone else.

This was not the regular way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions to his vast world-wide organisation, i.e., by releasing incomplete and misleading written directives which could only be properly understood by rummaging through old taped conversations.

There is nothing misleading about July 9th letter. Dear author, why don't you understand that you are trying to mislead others into accepting your "ritivk-theory" by using "indirect arguments" & indirect methods?

And why does the author consider "old taped conversations"; why can't devotees also hear from Prabhupada of what he said in that regard?. May be our author could have liked, if it would have been an MP3. BBT had already worked on them to restore all old tapes of Prabhupada and convert them to MP3 from 1966; I suggest everyone to get MP3 audio CDs of Srila Prabhupada, and load them to your computer OR IPod and hear lectures of Prabhupada daily. Then you will know how Prabhupada preached.Unfortunately devotees are not very much encouraged to hear the lectures of Prabhupada, which count more than 1700 LECTURES FROM 1966-1977.Along with distributing books of Prabhupada, ISKCON / IRM should also make a huge propaganda of distributing Prabhupada's AUDIO CDs.

When one considers the magnitude of the order in question, namely the continuation of the Sankirtan mission for up to ten thousand years, and what happened to the Gaudiya Math over precisely this issue, it seems inconceivable that Srila Prabhupada would have managed things in this way. However this is what we must believe if we are to accept the present GBC position. Let us now proceed carefully through the composite transcript, paying particular attention to all the lines which GII claim support the above mentioned modifications to the July 9th order.


Lines 1-3: Here Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks Srila Prabhupada a specific question regarding how initiations will run in the future - 'particularly at that time when you are no longer with us'. Whatever answer Srila Prabhupada gives we know it will be particularly relevant to after his departure, since that is the time frame Satsvarupa is clearly concerned with, i.e. - 'when you are no longer with us'.

Lines 4-7: Here Srila Prabhupada answers Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's question. He says he will be appointing some disciples to act as 'officiating acarya', or ' ritviks'. Having clearly answered the question Srila Prabhupada remains silent. He offers no further elaboration at this point, nor does he qualify, nor attempt to qualify his answer. We therefore must assume that this was his answer. The only alternatives to this view are either:

1) Srila Prabhupada deliberately answered the question incorrectly or misleadingly,

2) Or he did not hear the question properly and thought that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was only asking about what was to be done whilst he was still present.

Bhaktivonda Thakura said in his book "The Bhagavata: It Philosophy, Its Ehics & Its Theology" says: "In the Bhagavata, we are advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words". Because we try to express the spirit using "words"; we should try to understand the spirit from "words", but our author is only concerned about "words", and then he starts adding QUALIFIERS to this conversation "He offers no further elaboration at this point,nor does he qualify, nor attempt to qualify his answer.", and next he goes on to prove his ritvik-theory using "We therefore must assume that this was his answer ".. this is all guess work, indirect methodology from the author.

At this point I would like to point out one quote of Prabhupada from Morning Walk conversations (15 Dec 1973 LA), when Prabhupada asked his disciple: "What does it mean by athiest?", one disciple answered: "without theism"; then Prabhupada said "No. That is not explanation", then later another disciple told "who is not a believer in God". Then Prabhupada said: "Say like that, don't say in a negative way, in a positive way." If author considers himself a follower of Prabhupada, then I request him to give up his indirect interpretations, and start using direct interpretations. Don't say: "This quotes does not refute ritivk theory", "may 28th conv does not have any thing to refute theory", etc. Does the author consider his arguments direct or indirect , "positive way" or "negative way"?

And to further mislead people, he is giving his own options 1) & 2)..... Are these options not INDIRECT WAYS of trying to prove his point ? They all boil down to "may", "might" way of explaining; if any one has read "Life comes from Life", Prabhupada clearly questions the scientists who say they "might" create life from chemicals in future.... they are all like post dated cheques with no real value.

One more point to see here is:
1) It is a fact that Prabhupada never appointed "future-gurus" or "future-acaryas", because acaryas are not rubber stamped, but self-effulgent.
2) When Prabhupada is speaking of the "ritvik-acarayas" here, we should understand that, he is appointing ritivk who will act during his presence, which is also the "future" at that time. Because, he cannot recommend or appoint any "gurus" during his presence.
3) We should all know Prabhupada's desire, that all his disciples become qualified gurus themselves to spread Krishna Consciousness, and it is the disciple's business to achieve that qualification.

Considering all this, it is clear that the author of final order is misleading people by his indirect and negative arguments.

No disciple of Srila Prabhupada would even consider option 1), and if option 2) were the case, then the conversation can tell us nothing about the future of initiation for after his departure; hence we would still be left with an un-modified July 9th order as his only statement on future initiations.

If the author wants to know the spirit, behind Prabhupada's words, should not he consider to hear more of what is said, after the "first" reply of Prabhupada? Or should he stop at that "line" or "words that he likes", and prove his theory? But don't worry, we will go down and see the rest of Prabhupada's words to correctly assess the spirit of the matter.
Next, the author author slowly tries to add "future initations after departure" to JULY 9TH letter in his own way, even though the letter does not mean it.

Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. The problem with this proposition is that, in issuing instructions in such a manner, Srila Prabhupada would only correctly answer the original question posed by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami if the following conditions were satisfied:

* That somebody took it upon themselves to ask more questions.
* That by sheer luck they would happen upon the right questions to get the correct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja's original question.

Sir, this is a conversation; should not we go through the whole conversation and see what Prabhupada meant as a whole? Or should we take a "piece" from the "front part" of the conversation and stop? It seems the author has "internalized" the half-chicken tricks. Earlier in this book, he used to cut sentences, now he is cutting statements! No wonder to me!! Advancement in Maya, indirect methods!

This would be an eccentric way for anyone to answer a question, what to speak of direct a world-wide organisation, and was certainly not Srila Prabhupada's style. Indeed if, as is being proposed by the GBC, he went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole Movement with instructions on initiation which were only to have relevance for four months, surely he would not have dealt in such an obscurest manner with instructions which could run for as long as ten thousand years.

Now the author starts criticizing Prabhupada as "eccentric (which means: odd, unconventional, peculiar, unusual, strange, weird, etc.)", for not giving him what he wanted! Should I place this into mad-elephant criticism (or offense)? And now the author is trying to criticize Prabhupada more with: "surely he would not have dealt in such an obscurest manner with instructions which could run for as long as ten thousand years"; Why? Because Prabhupada did not tell certain "words", which would satisfy the author! This is an INSANE request from the author. Did the author ever try to understand the "spirit" behind Prabhupada's "words"?

Clearly if we are looking to this transcript to incontrovertibly support modifications a) & b) we are not doing very well so far. Srila Prabhupada is asked what will happen about initiations, particularly when he leaves: he answers he will be appointing ritviks. This completely contradicts both of the GBC's proposed modifications and simply reinforces the idea that the July 9th order was meant to run 'henceforward'.

These are "half-chicken" tricks of author. Dear reader, if you read the whole article, you can practice how to identify different kinds of "half-chicken logic". We also need to look at the dark side, not only the brighter side of life. In Isopanishad, it is recommended to study "vidya" and "avidya" side by side; it means, not to practice "avidya" but to identify "avidya" in all its manifestations; Maya always tries to trick people some way or other to get them away from Sri Krishna. So, as aspiring Vaishnavas, we need to declare war against maya, and use our intelligence to identify ignorance & passion among us and keep away from the lower modes. If we do this, by trusting Sri Krishna in our Heart & His wisdom (BG 14th chapter), then Sri Krishna promises us to give more intelligence to reach Him (dadami buddhi-yogam). So bhakti yoga is called buddhi-yoga, and it calls all the bhaktas to use intelligence more & more, in one sense always, to discriminate between truth and illusion, to always keep matching the experiences in our life with the Krishna Conscious understanding.

This is the way to remember Sri Krishna always, who in our Hearts, and Who is guiding us through intelligence and conscience (Super soul). It is deepest desire of Srila Prabhupada to creat bonafide Vaishanvas like himself, by "boiling the milk", because if we add too much water, then it will dilute the milk. But anyway, as long as we stick to the principles, without being mis-guided, we shall please Prabhupada wherever we are. And all good (honest) people must preach the truth among devotees, this would please Sri Krishna.

Let us read on:

Lines 8-9: Here Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks what relationship the initiator has with the person being initiated. Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami does not quite finish his question when Srila Prabhupada immediately answers 'he is guru'. Since ritviks, by definition, are not the initiators, Srila Prabhupada can only have been referring to himself as the 'guru' of those being initiated. This is confirmed in the July 9th letter where it states three times that those being initiated were to be the disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

Sometimes the curious theory is put forward that when Srila Prabhupada says 'he is guru', he is really talking about the ritviks themselves. This is quite bizarre since Srila Prabhupada has only just defined the word ritvik as 'officiating acarya'- literally a priest who conducts some type of religious or ceremonial function. In the July 9th letter Srila Prabhupada clarifies precisely what ceremonial function these priests will conduct. They were supposed to give spiritual names to new initiates, and in the case of second initiation, chant on their gayatri thread - all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. That was it. There is no mention of them being diksa gurus, initiating their own disciples or being Spiritual Masters on their own behalf. The letter specifically defines ritvik as 'representative of the acarya' They were to act on behalf of the acarya, not as acaryas in their own right. This being the case why would Srila Prabhupada cloud the issue by calling the ritviks 'guru'? If they were initiating gurus all along, why not just call them that to save confusion?

When Prabhupada said "He is guru" ==> The author here considered 2 options that "guru" could mean Prabhupada, and another opinion that "guru" refers to ritviks. Can he look at my 3rd opinion that "guru" means "guru". For example when Prabhupada says : "acaryas are self-effulgent" does it mean he refers to himself? Or does he refer to all bonafide acaryas in principle? In a similar way, Prabhupada could be referring to "guru" as concept, but not necessarily referring to himself. How about this understanding? This is also a logical way, OR does the author think I am offending Prabhupada by NOT THINKING exactly like the author?

When discussing philosophical or managerial issues surrounding his position as Acarya, Srila Prabhupada would often speak of himself in the third person. It is particularly understandable that he should do so here since Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's questions at this point are posed in that tense.

Thus the conversation can only make sense if we take it that Srila Prabhupada is the 'guru' who was initiating new disciples, through his representatives, the ritviks.

Now, the author, since he does not have a 3rd opinion, he tries to proves his ritvik-theory, now I request the author to look at my third opinion and do a "radical-rethinking". And does he still want to insist everyone to reject my opinion and follow his 1st opinion? How can he not consider my 3rd opinion if he is working on so much logic here?

Although Srila Prabhupada's answers are quite clear and consistent, it does seem as though there is some confusion in the mind of the questioner at this point. This is where Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks on Line 10 - 'But he does it on your behalf'. The 'he' Satsvarupa dasa Goswami is referring to is the ritvik, whereas the 'he' that Srila Prabhupada was referring to, as we have shown, could only have been himself, since he is the only initiator within the ritvik system. Despite his disciples apparent confusion Srila Prabhupada deftly adapts his next answer to match Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's actual concern, namely the status of these future ritviks.

Can the author consider my 4rth opinion now? What if Prabhupada is explaining "guru" concept and the use of "ritviks" at the same time? Since it is clear later, Prabhupada says that, in his presence his disciples must not become "guru" (which is a concept), so during the presence of Prabhupada they must act as ritiviks. Both CONCEPT of Guru and ritvik-initiations are combined here. WHAT is the difficultly for the author if he considers my 3rd and 4rth opinions together, how does it contradict with Prabhupada's words "Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf. On my order, amara ajnaya guru hana, be actually guru". And Prabhupada is not necessarily "appointing" the gurus because it is clear that guru is self-effulgent, and not rubber-stamped, he wanted all his disciples to become "qualified" gurus. If many of them don't try to become qualified gurus how does it effect the "guru concept" as such? Even if the leaders had made mistakes, should everyone follow the leaders blindly? One major problem is with common-devotees as well, because they don't want to think within Krishna Consciousness, thinking/discriminating is such a difficult work (this is actual laziness, even if they are bodily-very-active), they want leaders to think for them, and they want to take a free-ride; this mentality is EASY-going (preyas), but not right (sreyas). So they will have to reap bitter results; well evident if we look at ISKCON history. And again should we repeat the same mistake : accepting "new" theories proposed by "new" blind leaders? Why should not we go back and apply the guru & disciple principles properly? Why not everyone be taught to think for himself & become independently thoughtful by basing on sastra? Why should a few unqualified people dominate and give benefits to the millions & thus creating havoc in the devotional lives of many people?

"(The) Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No."(1972 letter to one former GBC man)

Lines 11-13: This is where it is claimed in GII that there is evidence for modification b) . Before considering whether or not these lines do constitute such evidence, we should first remember the analysis of lines 1-7.

If lines 11-13 do establish modification a) , this will only be at the expense of contradicting lines 1-7 where Srila Prabhupada has already clearly answered that ritviks were to be appointed 'particularly' for after his departure.

Now, can the author consider this conversation of Prabhupada on 13 May 73 LA,

Devotee: "When you are not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions, for example, that questions that may arise'
Prabhupada: Well the Questions and answers are there in my books
Devotee: other than that....for example, we would ask you.. you direct us also through heart, besides the paramatma?
Prabhupada: Yes. if the heart is pure, everything depends on purity

So considering, our authors way, the immediate answer that Prabhupada gave to an important question, which is not very different from the May 28th conversation, this seems to be a more befitting answer. This question is higher than the May 28th question, in the sense that this question is very general, which includes all specific questions like initiations, management, preaching, etc. So we should take this answer of Prabhupada to be the most be-fitting answer; and also this makes most sense in the world to follow this instruction of Prabhupada.

And if we see the next question, "Will you guide us through heart?", then Prabhupada says "Yes", does it mean Prabhupada is in the heart of the devotee? How does our author take, in his indirect way? I wonder, he is quite capable to present again a new theory using this! But we should understand, that paramatma is always present in our heart, and paramatma is guiding us in our normal daily material activites, & our spiritual activities as well, so we should try to use our intelligence and trust him, trust in Sri Krishna in this way. But any way, we still need to validate our intelligence with the sastra, sadhu and guru. It is not that we should give up intelligence, and let our so-called gurus think for us, instead a bhakti-yogi will use his intelligence more & more (buddhi-yoga), and this is the way we become more & more dependent on Sri Krishna. Not that at the time of death, we automatically depend on Sri Krishna, without practicing this dependence on Sri Krishna our entire life.

Please look at this Conversation on 17 May 73, with Prabhupada:

Prabhupada : "You prayed for this facitlity to Krishna, then Krishna will give intelligence". Otherwise, we cannot work. 'mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca' -- Everything is coming from Krishna, remembrance, knowledge, forgetfulness
Devotee: Krishna did not give me proper steps to do experiement
Prabhupada: Yes. He will give you. Otherwise, how you are doing it? Krishna will favour you, as much as you deserve, not more than that. 'ye yatha mam prapdyante tams tadaiva' -- As much proportionately, you surrender to Krishna, the intelligence will come. If you fully surrender, then full intelligence will come.

Another Conversation 10 Feb 76, MA
Prabhupada: My father was inviting many saintly persons.
Devotee: You are not impressed by them, why ?
Prabhupada: NOt all of them are real Vaishnavas. That was the discrimination from the beginning of my life. I never liked the bogus swamis & yogs.

Later Prabhupada continues to say, these are the basics of Krishna Consciousness, to understand that intelligence is coming from Krishna, so if we all use our intelligence, to discriminate between truth and illusion, each hour and minute of our lives, this is the beginning of surrendering to Sri Krishna. So, by practicing this more and more, one day we will reach full surrender to Sri Krishna; at which time Sri Krishna will take full charge of devotee; it does not mean devotee then gives up intelligence, but indeed, he completely uses his intelligence in Sri Krishna's service. Bhakti-Yoga is a process of taking-up the the process of bhakti, and giving-up of materialistic tendencies automatically happen, if we are engaged in positive way. So, in bhakti-yoga a devotee has more responsibility on behalf of Sri Krishna, and he can act without hesitation.

Let us look at another conversation of Prabhupada 13 Dec 1973, LA:

"Puffed up in illusion, he thinks he is boss, but he is being pulled by ear by material nature. People might be amazed why I say rascal. Anyone who thinks he is boss, he is rascal. Scientist wants to stop the action of prakrti, material nature. You cannot become boss of prakrti, the boss is Krishna. You are getting different bodies on account of different modes of material nature. Everything is done by nature like this. Now in this human form of body, you get discrimination what should I do? If you act like dog, then you do not take advantage of the power of discrimination. Next body I can get dog's body. In human form of life, you have discrimination power not to get the dog's body, but you can get body of god.. Now, my discrimination whether I am going to get a dogs body or gods body, that you can do, this is human form of body. A dog cannot do this. He does not have discrimination power. But you can do, if you do not do that then you are missing the opportunity of human form of life.

Scientists are thinking to get body strong, like elephant; but what is the use? he will get dog's body in next life.

If humans, don't get proper knowledge , that means he is missing the point of life. So, long one does not come to understand the spirit soul, he is failure. A dog cannot be told what is the goal of life or about spirit soul. Mission is to save human being from being spoiled like animal. That is greatest welfare work. Every one thinks he is proprietor, but he think boss, this is the position, that is reason for the chaos. The stronger is stealing from weak. But only Krishna is the proprietor, and everyone else should accept whatever Krishna gives; and don't encroach upon others property. Everything is God's property, you take your share.

We have all come to material world, because we want best profit, by taking advantage of others. So, we suffer in this world."

So, by all this we know that every devotee should start practicing discrimination based on the knowledge presented in Bhagavad Gita, using intelligence and discrimination, we need to apply the knowledge of BG & SB in our life. If we don't apply / practice through discrimination; then we will fall prey to modes of passion and ignorant modes of life, and thus can get a cat or dog's body in next life. So, through discrimination, we need to detect all kinds of cheating, swindles, passion, selfishness, envy, etc. and keep away from them, or alert others, in this way, we can help each other. This kind of discussions, help everyone to distinguish between truth and illusion, this way, our mind gets strengthened in Sri Krishna.

If we don't discriminate and keep away from dangers, that will cause mental-ill health, which is not a good sign for healthy devotional life. Rather a healthy devotional life, means, one wages war against maya, and keeps addressing & solving the problems in his front. It does not matter whether we win over or solve problems, but the success is we have addressed them in the best way & in an unambiguous manner and work our best to solve. We should not just close our eyes, like rabbit, but open our eyes to problems in front of us and then face them, by properly addresssing them---keep truth in front of everyone as unambiguously as possible; let there be no consideration of sweet-speech to come in front of the simple-truth. This is dedication to truth, and this will lead us to dedication to the Absolute Truth, Sri Krishna.

So if indeed modification a) is established in lines 11-13, the implication is that Srila Prabhupada contradicted a statement he himself made just moments before. Should this be the case it would once more render the transcript useless for determining anything about future initiations, since two totally contradictory positions would be equally validated in the same conversation. Again we would be forced to refer back to the final July 9th order in an un-modified condition.

Dear author, there is no contradiction, because you have not tried to take "spirit" from Prabhupada's words, but only "words", and thus you have reached wrong conclusions.

Let us see if this did in fact happen. Remember we are looking for a specific statement that the ritviks must cease their duties once Srila Prabhupada departs. In other words that they can only operate in his presence.

Dear author, have you not tried to look for a specific statement: "that the ritviks must continue their duties once Srila Prabhupada departs"? Why you always think in one-sided way? Just because you have not found, your "specific statement", how does that make your ritvik-theory true? This is neti-neti method: "This is not it, this is not it, etc."; but what is the positive direct truth? How can you understand truth, without going back and looking at all the books of Prabhupada?

On reading lines 11-13 we see that all that is stated is that the ritviks must operate in his presence because in his presence they can not be guru. Thus Srila Prabhupada is simply re-stating a principle he occasionally invoked in his dealings with ambitious disciples: that in the presence of the guru one must act only on his behalf. However what Srila Prabhupada does not say is that this 'acting on his behalf' must cease once he leaves the planet. He also does not say that 'acting on his behalf' can only happen whilst he is present. Indeed nowhere thus far has he directly linked his physical presence in any way with the concept of acting on his behalf, but rather simply states it as a reason that prevents his disciples from being guru, and it is this 'not being guru' which is linked to acting as a ritvik.

Dear reader, if you want to understand what type of reasoning is used to prove ritivk-theory, this is one of the best places to look at. Just because, Prabhupada has not said any thing, which dis-proves the ritvik-theory, so the ritvik-theory must be true. Why can't the author think Prabhupada need not refute his theory in any manner? First of all prove ritvik-theory, by proper direct logic and reason, and then support it by sastra, then we can accept. We cannot accept this reasoning, that your theory cannot be refuted from "this quote", "that quote" of Prabhupada. This is indirect, negative way --we cannot accept this reasoning.

In other words, at the time of this conversation, one of the reasons they could not be diksa guru was Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. But this is not the only hurdle preventing his disciples from taking on the diksa guru mantle, as we learn on the very next line.

The author thinks that Prabhupada is preventing his disciples from taking on the guru role; but we already have seen a quote where Prabhupada authorized all his disciples to become bonafide guru, and if one actually becomes bonafide guru by strictly following instructions of Prabhupada, what problem is there is if he gives "siksa" & "diksa", since these two are nothing but functions of a bonafide guru. Does not Prabhupada want his disciples to become bonafide gurus after him? When Prabhupada says "Don't be in a hurry to become guru!", does it mean that Prabhupada does not desire his disciples to become bonafide Acarayas? His words are only to caution the grave duty of a guru, but not to prevent them from becoming qualified & thus bonafide gurus. The fact is: unless one becomes a qualified devotee, he cannot go back to home, back to Godhead. So, if one is qualified devotee of the Lord, why can't he become guru and preach the message of Sri Krishna?

On line 12 we see that being guru also depends on receiving a specific order from Srila Prabhupada - 'On my order'. He repeats this condition on line 13 - 'But by my order', and once more on line 25 - 'When I order'. It is quite clear then that this cannot be the order proper, otherwise why say 'When I order'? If this was the actual order to become guru after his departure, as the GBC maintains, then surely he would have said something like: 'I am now ordering you, that as soon as I leave, you stop being ritviks and become diksa gurus'. Such a statement would certainly lend some credibility to the current GBC position and the M.A.S.S. doctrine. However, as can be seen, nothing even remotely resembling such a statement can be found anywhere in the May 28th conversation. It is further argued that the use of the 'amara ajanya' verse at this point means that the order to be diksa guru had already been given, since this order from Lord Caitanya had been repeated many times by Srila Prabhupada. However the 'amara ajnaya' order, as we have seen, refers only to siksa guru; we know that the order to become diksa guru had not yet been given since Srila Prabhupada states 'When I order'. Therefore Srila Prabhupada's use of the verse at this point is simply to convey the notion of an order needing to be given before guruship, of whatever type, is taken up.

I have bolded few statements from the author above. Here the author tried to refute the GBC's position "that ritvik should become diksa guru after departure of Prabhupada". Even though the position of the GBC can be refuted with 3 statements that:
1) Guru is self-effulgent, and does not need appointment
2) Prabhupada mentions the concept of Law of Disciplic succession, that in presence of guru, the disciple must not become guru or take disciples for himself.
3) When Prabhupada said 'When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru.', we should understand this Prabhupada in connection to Prabhupada's words that a guru is by qualification, and not by appointment. So, we can take that he ordered his disciples to become qualified, and act as guru--- and diksa, siksa can be taken from bonafide guru.

The three arguments that I presented above are direct way of refuting the GBC's position.

But we now see how the author refutes the GBC's position, by using indirect arguments. First the author needs Prabhupada to make a statement like this: "I am now ordering you, that as soon as I leave, you stop being ritviks and become diksa gurus", later he goes on to say that this statement is not found in the May 28th conversation, hence disproves the GBC's case. Next he goes on to interpret 'amara ajnaya' to mean that it should only refer to siksa guru, but not 'diksa' guru, how is that?

Now the author uses his own logic that Caitanya Mahaprabhu must have said 'amara ajnaya become diksa guru' to prove his own ideas! This is a nonsensical request from the author. I have already proved before that this "amara ajnaya become diksa guru" is arrived at by using negative and indirect arguments.
When one becomes a qualified/bonafide guru, what is the problem to accept him either siksa or diksa guru? Just because the author cannot find bonafide guru, he thinks there is NO bonafide guru in this world, and hence he manufactured this ritvik theory.

There is certainly nothing on lines 11-13 which in any way modifies Srila Prabhupada's clear reply to Satsvarupa's original question - (lines 1-7) Thus our understanding of lines 1-7 remains intact. Srila Prabhupada did not contradict himself, the July 9th order stands so far unmodified

What lines 11-13 do establish is that the ritvik system was to operate whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present., but not that it can only operate whilst he is present. The July 9th letter makes this clear anyway by the use of the word 'henceforward'. The word 'henceforward' encompasses all time frames from that day onwards, regardless of Srila Prabhupada's physical proximity.

By indirect means, the author proves that Prabhupada did not contradict himself; not by direct ways. How does the law of disciplic succession that "Because in my presence one should not become guru", can be linked to a word 'henceforward' in July 9th letter (which author likes to articulate as ' July 9th order'), and later the author deftly 'eliminates' the physical proximity of Prabhupada to prove his theory. Thus the author has given manufactured methods of Avidya, a negative example, how not to write books instead of how to write books. We can also learn from these mistakes and practice discrimination, which is hailed as the Queen of All Virtues (Viveka Cudamani) by Adi Sankaracarya, for it is the virtue of discrimination, which will safeguard and properly apply all other virtues like humility, tolerance, etc. The virtues like humility, tolerance, etc can be abused without the virtue of discrimination; rather discrimination is a kind of guardian for all other virtues. So, we should never think that we can make offenses if we practice discrimination; but the truth is we commit offenses because we do not discriminate; Simple example is : there are sins of commission like meat eating, illicit sex, gambling, intoxication, etc. and there are also sins of omission, like not questioning irrational authorities, following blindly the popular opinion, giving up discrimination thinking it is offensive, mistaking humiliation for humility, etc. actually now a days common devotees commit more sins of omission, rather than sins of commission, and this is the reason for so much chaos in ISKCON. And some new devotees in a temple think that, since first class maha-bhagavata does not discriminate, so he want to become a maha-bhagavata by giving up discrimination; this is a wrong approach to bhakti. First of all one must progress from neophyte stage to intermediate stage by practicing discrimination, between truth and illusion. Even if one is a maha-bhagavata, a first class devotee, he will come down to madhymadhikari platform to discriminate and teach people to distinguish between truth and illusion.

Let us read on:

Lines 14-15: Interestingly at this point Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks a question in the first person: 'So then they'll also be considered your disciples?' Srila Prabhupada answers 'Yes, they are disciples...' Once more confirming the ownership of any future disciples. Although it is not clear what Srila Prabhupada is going on to say, his initial answer is quite definite. He is asked a direct question, in the first person, and he answers 'Yes'.

If the GBC had any hope of upholding modifications a) & b) Srila Prabhupada would have had to answer this question something along the lines of: 'No, they are not my disciples' Whatever Srila Prabhupada was going on to say is irrelevant since no-one can ever know. We only know that when asked whether future initiates were to be his disciples, he answered 'Yes'. Again not a good sign for the modifications a) & b).

In lines 11-13, Prabhupada made it clear, that since in his presence his disciples should not become guru, so he is putting ritvik-acarya system to initiate disciples, which is not intended for the "future disciples" after departure of Prabhuapda but only to initiate prospective disciples during Prabhupada's presnece due to reasons like health, needed time for translation of Bhagavatam & continuous travel, and ritviks are nothing but priests who help in formalities. Nothing more than that. So, when Prabhupada was asked, whose disciples will be ritvik-initiated disciples? Then Prabhupada said "yes", which is clear, since Prabhupada used priests to initiate on his behalf, but not that priest become gurus.

But in the second paragraph, the author misleads people, that Prabhupada was talking about "future" disciples (after departure of Prabhupada which is author's own theory); But our author cannot take it that since Prabhupada is still living, Prabhupada is talking of his future disciples in his living presence, because any reasonable man says "my future" -- meaning my "future" in this world, and not my future after death. Even if given a thought, future, could mean "future after the departure" -- it is absurd, since, in an eternal life after death, there is not question of past, present & future. The effects of "Time" (past, present, future) apply to the material world, for in the spiritual world (as far as Prabhupada is concerned) there is no question of future, since the life is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge.

Lines 16-18: Tamal Krsna Goswami seems to sense some confusion here and interrupts Srila Prabhupada. He further clarifies Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's question by asking Srila Prabhupada whose disciples are those who are being given diksa by the ritviks. Once again Srila Prabhupada answers in the third person (having been asked the question in the third person): 'They are his disciples'. As we have discussed he can only be referring to himself since ritviks do not, by definition, possess their own disciples. Furthermore we know that he was definitely referring to himself since he answers the question in the singular ('his disciples...who is initiating'), having been asked the question about the ritviks in the plural ( 'these ritvik-acaryas').

Here Prabhupada is speaking about two things
1) about ritvik-initiations, to which he said "Yes", when asked, so, they may be considered your disciples, and
2) he expected his disciples to become qualified acaryas/gurus, who can act as gurus, after departure of Prabhupada from this world, when he said "Because in my presence one should not become guru".
3) That is the reason, Prabhupada says "Consider, who is initiating?", during Prabhupada's time, Prabhupada is initiating using priests, and after departure of Prabhupada, we should "consider" the bonafide guru, and it is clear that Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become bonafide gurus.
4) Even when Prabhupada said "consider, who is initiating?", he says that the "ritviks" are initiating on the order of Prabhupada, so it means that Prabhupada himself is initiating using ritvik priests.

Unfortunately, the author cannot reason like this, he is bent on proving his own theory using one-sided interpretations and he cannot consider opinions of other devotees. This is evident from the indirect reasoning presented in many ways & means through out the final order book.

One idea, which is sometimes put forward, is that at this point in the conversation Tamal Krsna Goswami is asking the question in some vaguely futuristic sense, about an unspecified time frame in which the ritviks have somehow transformed themselves into diksa gurus. According to this theory when Srila Prabhupada, who is now presumably mystically attuned to Tamal Krsna Goswami's mind set, answers that future initiates are 'his disciples', what he actually means is that they are disciples of the ritviks, who are now not ritviks at all, but diksa gurus. Leaving aside the fact that this fanciful 'meeting of minds' is both unlikely and highly speculative, there is at least one other problem with this hypothesis:

Up till this point Srila Prabhupada has not stated that the ritviks, which he has yet to appoint, will ever act in any capacity other than as ritviks. So why would Tamal Krsna Goswami have assumed their status was to change?

First of all the author starts with an IDEA; I don't know who can put forward such 'fanciful' ideas except our dear author; that TKG is asking Prabhupada in futuristic sense ("meaning after departure of Prabhupda ) , and later he is trying to 'tune Prabhupada'(like radio) using TKG (the tuner), to accept this theory. This is certainly 'faniciful' theory. No doubt. And later author questions TKG, why he was thinking in a wrong manner? We should know this 'wrong manner of questioning' is only but ANOTHER FANCIFUL INDIRECT IDEA of our author, because TKG need not be asking that question about himself or Prabhupada's disciples, he could be asking just as a concept of understanding, or even asking about the next guru, who can take over the movement after Prabhupada. But Prabhupada repeatedly asserted that "A Guru is by qualification", which applies to all gurus and for all times to come.

Lines 19-20: Tamal Krsna Goswami repeats the answer, and then Srila Prabhupada continues; 'who is initiating ... his grand-disciple.' We have chosen the transcript version 'his grand-disciple' over the version 'he is grand-disciple' since it most closely resembles the tape, and seems to flow best with the sense of the conversation. (Otherwise the person initiating would simultaneously become a grand-disciple! - 'who is initiating ... he is grand-disciple.')

The author now begins to take 'half-chicken' sentences in the words of Prabhupada, because in that way, he can support his theory---and not exactly to bring out the truth of what Prabhupada really wanted. And he cannot see that it does not make sense to everyone else. It means the author is blind and whoever follow him will also be lead in a blind direction that leads to some ditch. And if we propose straight forward thinking, instead of indirect interpretations, the author has CLOSED his doors & ears for discussion.

The argument that when speaking here in the third person, Srila Prabhupada must be referring to the ritviks and not himself, can be tested by modifying the conversation in accordance with this view, replacing third person with first person statements (shown in brackets), for lines 17-20 :

TKG: Whose disciples are they?

S. Prabhupada: They are (the ritvik's) disciples.

TKG: They are (the ritvik's) disciples.

S. Prabhupada: (The ritvik) is initiating ... (The ritvik's) grand-disciple ...

Given the premise that ritviks are only officiating, and that their role is only representational, it should be self-evident to the reader that this interpretation of lines 17-20 is nonsense. It is a contradiction in terms for a ritvik to have their own disciples, what to speak of grand-disciples.

The accusation has been made that we are in some way twisting Srila Prabhupada's words by taking third person to be first person statements. However we feel our interpretation is consistent with the function Srila Prabhupada assigned to his ritviks. There appears to be just two possible options for interpretation in considering this conversation:

1) Future new disciples were to belong to ritvik priests, who by definition are not diksa gurus, but officiators who have been set up specifically to act as proxies.

2) Future new disciples were to belong to the diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada.

Option 1) is just absurd. Therefore we have gone for option 2) as the only rational choice, and have thus interpreted the tape accordingly.

Since the author has re-formed the discussion, by replacing the third person with the first person, let me also do one more thing: keep third person, first person and conceptual person of guru, in proper places for another relevant understanding, which is supported by sastra:

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples, (but) (why) consider ... who (is initiating?)

TKG: No. He is asking that these ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa, (there)... the "people", who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?

S. Prabhupada: They are his(people, who give diksa, which is a conceptual person of guru) disciples.

TKG: They are his(ritvik's) disciples?

S. Prabhupada: Who('conceptual person of guru') is initiating? ... (He is) grand-disciple ...

If we try to understand this, Prabhupada could be guru by asking "to consider, who is initiating". When Prabhupada is talking of concept, that is general meaning and does not necessarily mean he is pointing to first or third person as our author claims & based one that giving his options 1) and 2). Priests are nothing but helpers, they do not actually initiate any one. So, in this mood, we need to see 'Who' is initiating? So, those who initiate they must always be guru or by the order of guru the priests initiate. So, Prabhupada has already said before, in his presence one should not try to become guru, it clearly means that they can act as gurus, after his departure, but it is disciple's sincerity to achieve required qualification before they act as gurus. And naturally, after departure of Prabhupada, the new-initiate by a bonafide-guru (who is disciple of Prabhupada) becomes grand-disciple of Prabhupada. This understanding perfectly confirms to sastra (parampara system).

Lines 25-26: Srila Prabhupada concludes with the unequivocal stipulation that only when he orders will anyone become guru. At such a juncture new initiates would be 'disciple of my disciple'.

A great deal is made of the use of the term 'grand-disciple'. For many, the use of this phrase by Srila Prabhupada acts as a clincher, since you can only have grand-disciples if there are diksa gurus. This is true. Unfortunately the words following the term 'his grand-disciple' are usually ignored. Srila Prabhupada goes on to state that a grand-disciple and hence a diksa guru will only exist when Srila Prabhupada orders his disciple to become a diksa guru. In other words Srila Prabhupada is simply saying that when a guru orders his disciple to become a diksa guru, he will have grand-disciples ('his grand- disciple'), since the new diksa guru will then be initiating in his own right ('he becomes disciple of my disciple').

This seems straightforward enough, a point nobody could dispute. But where is the order for this guruship to occur? Certainly not on lines 25-26, nor for that matter anywhere else in the conversation.

May be I should show the author the wishes of Prabhupada, in regard to disciplic succession, and the future of disciplic-succession, I feel I need not elaborate more on this:
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 Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (New Delhi, 2 December, 1975)

In actuality the May 28th conversation is not ordering any specific person to do anything at all. Srila Prabhupada is simply making known his intention to appoint ritviks at some point in the future. He then goes on to answer slightly muddled questions about guru-disciple relationships within the ritvik system. He then concludes with a statement about what would happen should he ever decide to give the relevant order to someone to become a diksa guru. It is clear though that the specific order naming specific people to perform specific functions was first made on July 7th (please see Appendices), and then confirmed in the signed letter of July 9th. But as can be seen from reading the July 9th letter, there is no mention whatsoever of the eleven appointed ritviks ever becoming diksa gurus; or for the ritvik system to ever stop.

Before saying that May28th conversation does not order any thing, it does not mean that Prabhupada has never ordered at any other time, please look at the above words of Prabhupada in New Delhi. Then our author goes on to prove his theory using "Prabhupada said" or "Prabhupada simply making known his intention"--these are tricks using "Prabhupada said", because people love Prabhupada, author tries to indirectly bend others will to accept his theory.

Then the author goes on to expect an "order" ---a written statement or specific people's names----for becoming "diksa gurus", and because there is no such "letter" or "order" of "Who will be the next (one or set of) diksa guru(s)? and also there is nothing in the July 9th letter to stop; author feels that, there cannot be any bonafide diksa gurus, after the departure of Prabhupada. Did he not see the words of Prabhupada in New Delhi above? Or did the author not know, that a guru is not voted or appointed by any one?, rather a bonafide guru is always self-effulgent, just like Prabhupada or Bhaktisiddhanta or Bhaktivinoda Thakura. None of them are appointed or voted by previous acaryas, rather their actions showed the world, that they are bonafide spiritual masters.

After our exhaustive analysis of the May 28th conversation, it is clear that what the GBC is presenting is a classic circular argument:

In order to support modifications a) and b), which are absolutely vital to the current position on gurus within ISKCON, we are told we must modify the July 9th letter using an 'order' which Srila Prabhupada gave in the May 28th transcript. However, having read the transcript carefully we see that Srila Prabhupada says they can only be gurus 'When I order'. So how can it be asserted that this 'When I order' was the same 'order' that was finally put in place on July 7th and 9th, since this 'order' is purely for the creation of ritviks, and is the very same 'order' which was required by the GBC to be modified in the first place in order to support their crucial a) and b) modifications?

It is well known fact, the GBC and everyone knows, that the Zonal-Acarya system was a blunder, but they have created a new problem, like M.A.S.S, by mass-approval-voting---- this is not recommended by Prabhupada. This is clear issue. But our author tries to MIX THIS ISSUE with his ritivk theory, and uses this blunder of GBC as a temptation for others to take his side, these are 'cheap tricking methods' which generally go undetected by innocent devotees. Just because author can shout 'Jai Prabhupada' in high intolerable-pitch, innocent devotees think that this author is a sold-out servant of Prabhupada. But sorry, the author here tries to show one wrong, and covers his own wrong. Before trying to show & clear spots on others faces, it is a good idea first to clean spots on our own face ourselves. This is good practice. First practice and then preach.

Unfortunately, in adopting the line of reasoning championed in GII, we find ourselves drawn inexorably towards the above absurd dialectical impasse.

As an aid to understanding the above impasse please see the flow chart in 'Diagrams'. (in book only)

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the whole 'modification' theory, apart from the obvious absence of any supportive evidence, is that you cannot legitimately modify an instruction with information which was not available to the very people who were supposed to carry out the instruction.

If it was indeed the case that the May 28th conversation had contained clear instructions supporting modifications a) and b) , then surely the final letter should have contained at least some hint of them. Indeed the main purpose of the meeting on May 28th was to clearly establish what was to be done about initiations after Srila Prabhupada left the planet. And yet it is being proposed that when Srila Prabhupada finally releases his last written directive on initiation, he somehow only addressed what was to be done before he left the planet.

In other words the subject Srila Prabhupada was not being asked about he supposedly gave clear and emphatic directives on; whilst the really important matter, the one which everyone did want to know about, i.e. the future of initiations for up to ten thousand years, he entirely omitted to address in his last signed instruction on the issue.

Now the author is regretting: why Prabhupada has not done nor said any thing that will directly support his ritvik-theory? This is not the way of discussion. The author first believes his theory to be true, and then finding out all other quotes of Prabhupada to prove his point indirectly, rather than trying to understand the quotes & books to ascertain the truth of guru-principle. Rather he is confused, and confusing all others. Innocent/in-discriminate devotees will fall to his trap; but by the mercy of Mahaprabhu if we can try understand the desire of what Prabhupada by scrutinizingly studying sastra and discussing with like minded devotees we can get out of this mess. And the author goes on criticizing Prabhupada below:

We can find no example of Srila Prabhupada ever directing his Society in the following manner:

1. Issuing important directives which fail to even address the main purpose of their being issued.

2. Deliberately withholding vital information pertaining to an important new system of management.

3. Expecting the recipients of his instructions to be mystic mind readers in order to correctly follow an instruction.

Now, the author being not very successful in his attempts, starts questioning Prabhupada, of what he should have done & what he should not have done. Before questioning that, has the author explained with proper direct logic? or indirect ways? This is an example of foolishness or Dr. Frog, who can never think outside of his 4-foot well.

The common defence: that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the final letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already clearly explained in his books and lectures how he wanted everyone to become a diksa guru, has already been disproved in objection 7 above (p.9 in book).

I request the author (readers if they like) to go back and look at objection 7 and how I countered the author's arguments.

There is one further attempt made in GII to extract something from the May 28th conversation in support of a) and b) when it points to Srila Prabhupada's use of the verse 'amara ajnaya guru hana' on line 12. The verse is also repeated further along in the May 28th conversation after discussion relating to the translation of his books. According to this view the ritvik order is identical to the order to be a diksa guru, simply by merit of Srila Prabhupada mentioning this famous instruction of Lord Caitanya for 'everyone to become guru' in the same conversation as he discusses ritviks. But all Srila Prabhupada states is that:

"...one who understands his guru's order, the same parampara, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you." (May 28th Conversation)

We can understand that when Prabhupada mentions 'amara ajnaya', we should take it as an order to become qualified first and then preach the message of Sri Krishna; this was the clear order of Sri Caitnya Mahaprabhu to all Indians, but Prabhupada ordered everyone who is sincere. Why can't the author understand this simple principle, and yet trying to pen books? He is only interested in manufacturing his new theory, rather than understanding the spirit behind 'amara ajnaya'.

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they are given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."

           +

"All Indians should seriously take up the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and should perfect their lives by adopting the process of devotional service. After perfecting their lives, they should broadcast this message all over the world for the welfare of all human beings (para-upakara)." (Cc. Adi 9.41)

           =

Bonafide Gurus that Prabhupada wanted to create. Any one can follow this and become guru, by the order of Mahaprabhu. We don't need approvals from our author or the GBC.

The essential points to consider here are:

1. What was the 'guru's order' they had to understand? - To act as ritviks. ( "I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.")
2. What are they eventually selected to do? - To act as ritviks. (please see the July 9th letter in Appendices)
3. And by following the order of the guru, what sort of guru do they become? - As was seen earlier from the analysis of Lord Caitanya's order to 'become guru', anyone who faithfully executes this order is automatically qualified as a siksa guru.

In essence:
1) The author misleads people, into thinking his ritvik-theory to be the order of Prabhupada. But we should look at the above Equation for the actual order of Prabhupada, which is not different from the order of Mahaprabhu.
2) True. Rtviks are priests who help in formality, like assisting in preparing altar for sacrificial fire, putting fire, getting wood & pouring ghee and chanting mantras on someone's behalf.
3) Again, if anyone follows the above equation, then one can become bonafide guru, but author makes mistake that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is referring to 'siksa' guru and not 'diksa guru'. But the author fails to see that if one is a bonafide guru, on behalf of Sri Caitanya, then 'siksa', 'diksa' are but functions of bonafide guru. Why should our author bar a bonafide guru from giving diksa? Is a bonafide guru limited by our author's rubber-stamp?

G11 presents the contradictory proposition that in following the guru's order to act as ritvik only (not as a diksa guru), one should automatically act as a diksa guru.

By this logic anyone who follows any order given by the guru, has also somehow automatically received a specific order to become a diksa guru! Unfortunately GII does not offer any evidence to support this thesis. As shown previously, the use of the 'amara ajnaya' verse is simply an order for everyone to become a siksa guru only ("It is best not to accept any disciples.").

The author sarcastically remarks that "anyone who follows any order of Prabhupada can become diksa guru!", this is one-sided thinking. Why should NOT anyone follow the essence of all orders of Prabhupada? Will not Prabhupada be happy if his followers understand the essence of what he taught? If author has really understood the final order of Prabhupada in above equation, why should he use indirect methods to condemn the GBC position! Along the way, he tries to restrict the order of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to become only 'siksa guru' by indirect arguments. First of all, we should find a bonafide guru, then we can think of diksa or siksa. To find out a bonafide guru, we must all be sufficiently trained up how to identify a bonafide guru, just like to buy a gold, we should know first what is gold, what are its symptoms? We should be vigilant to always match our experience with the information present in the books of Prabhupada, and keep validating in every stage of our life; but never blindly accept any imposter gurus.

In Conclusion:
1. On July 9th 1977 Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 ritviks to carry out first and second initiations 'henceforward'.
2. There is no evidence in the May 28th conversation, which can be used to modify the July 9th order, such that the appointed ritviks must cease their duties on Srila Prabhupada's departure.
3. There is also nothing in the May 28th conversation, which can be used to modify the July 9th order such that the ritviks were to metamorphose into diksa gurus as soon as Srila Prabhupada left the planet.
4. The one thing clearly established in the May 28th conversation is that the ritviks were to operate after Srila Prabhupada's departure.

To conclude:
1) Now the author has cut the head and tail of 'henceforward'. May be he is trying to take the 'heart of chicken-quote', instead of the understanding 'heart of Prabhupada', the spirit behind the words of Prabhupada.
2) Indirect & one-sided reasoning. I would not comment more. Just understand the bolded text above.
3) True.
4) Again, here author is worried about the "words" and not the "spirit"; he should look at the same question of a devotee at another time on "13 May 73 LA" above.

It should be noted that there are at least four different transcripts, and four differing 'official' GBC interpretations of this very same conversation. Many devotees feel that for this reason alone the conversation cannot be considered as conclusive evidence. Should this be the readers conclusion then he will have no choice but to return once more to the July 9th letter as the final order, since it is a signed letter, clearly written and sent to the entire Movement. This would certainly be the conclusion in a court of law; signed written evidence always takes precedence over tape recordings. The only reason we have examined the May 28th conversation so carefully here is because the GBC have put forward as the only piece of evidence in support of modifications a) and b).

I would like to question the author now:
1) Can't different devotees think in different angles of vision at different times, in regard to the same order, and can't they submit their understanding by basing themselves on sastra? Why should everyone has to think exactly in the same way? Is this idea personalism(variety, unity in diversity) or veiled impersonalism (monism, merging into one).
2) So, for the differences of opinions, which are not considered if they are supported by sastra or not, the author, automatically rejects this conversation and the opinion of other devotees on this conversation. This is not becoming of a follower of Vaishnavism--which promotes broad-minded thinking---mahatmanah.
3) Even in the "court of law", they may consider the signed-evidence, but it does not mean, you can blindly prove any thing from it, the judge still has to hear the opinions of both the jury and the defense lawyers, and then the judge gives more credence to "better reasoning" by hearing the opinions and explanation of both.

I ask my readers to become judges and if they find the truth, they also have a responsibility to inform the truth to other devotees about their judgement. The problem is discussions with IRM do not follow conventions of direct arguments based on sastra, but the so-called leaders give judgement and innocent devotees should swallow their judgement as mercy and get misled. Even Sri Krishna, the ultimate authority, never scolded Arjuna for asking questions, but took time and cleared all the questions of Arjuna. By professing to be devotee of Sri Krishna, should we also not follow the principles shown by Sri Krishna? (exemplary practice of Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita) Without a discussion, how can the truth come out? I would like to quote an unknown author who said:

"What kind of institution tries to silence the opposition? If the institution has the right goods, why not out-debate the opposition in free & logical arguments?"

We are forced then to reject totally modifications a) and b), the very foundations of the GBC's current position on initiation within ISKCON, since there is no evidence to support them. Consequently, the instructions given in the July 9th policy document do indeed constitute Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation.

I reject the ritivk-theory because, it is one-sided. Can't the author think in this way: "Prabhupada did not state in the July 9th letter to continue ritvik-initiations after the departure"? Where is broad minded thinking by not considering this option? Since this statement also did not exist in the July 9th letter or the May 28th conversation. I am not using this indirect argument to disprove ritvik-theory, but I am just questioning the author, why can't he think like this if he is broad-minded? Since the thoughts are narrow minded, the final order is full of indirect, negative and one-sided interpretations and without basis of sastra.



3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3F. Other Related Objections Back

OTHER RELATED OBJECTIONS

There follows some related objections which we thought it would be helpful to address.

1) Srila Prabhupada has not mentioned the use of ritviks in his books."

1) The word ' ritvik' (meaning priest) and its derivatives actually have 32 separate references in Srila Prabhupada's books, only slightly less than the word diksa and its derivatives, which has 41 separate references in Srila Prabhupada books. Certainly, the use of ritvik priests to assist in ceremonies is a concept fully sanctioned in Srila Prabhupada's books:

ritvik : 4.6.1 / 4.7.16 / 5.3.2 / 5.3.3 / 5.4.17 / 7.3.20 / 8.20.22 / 9.1.15 .

Rtvijah : 4.5.7 / 4.5.18 / 4.7.27 / 4.7.45 / 4.13.26 / 4.19.27 / 4.19.29 / 5.3.4 / 5.3.15 / 5.3.18 / 5.7.5 8.16.53 / 8.18.21 /8.18.22 / 9.4.23 / 9.6.3 .

Rtvijam : 4.6.52 / 4.21.5 / 8.23.13 / 9.13.1 .

Rtvigbhyah : 8.16.55 .

Rtvigbhih : 4.7.56 / 9.13.3 . (all these references are from the Srimad-Bhagavatam)

I have looked at different quotes (from 4rth canto), which were mentioned above, and in all cases, "Rtivik" term is mentioned in connection with the priests. In similar way, Prabhupada used "the priests" to initiate on his behalf (on his order), and not for the purpose of continuing "after departure from this world". We should question: Are they "priests" by their own right? Just because "rtvik" is mentioned in Bhagavatam, it does not help the case of the ritvk-vadis. We also need to know when & why the words are used.

Here are some few quotes where "ritvik" term is used:

The great sage Maitreya said: Thus being pardoned by Lord Siva, King Daksa, with the permission of Lord Brahma, again began the performance of the yajna, along with the great learned sages, the priests and others. (No purport)

All the priests and other members of the sacrificial assembly and all the demigods, having been defeated by the soldiers of Lord Siva and injured by weapons like tridents and swords, approached Lord Brahma with great fear. After offering him obeisances, they began to speak in detail of all the events which had taken place. (No purport)

At that time, all the persons assembled in the sacrificial arena--the priests, the chief of the sacrificial performance, and the brahmanas and their wives--wondered where the darkness was coming from. Later they could understand that it was a dust storm, and all of them were full of anxiety.

Almost all quotes are like this, where "ritvik" is mentioned as "priest"; but they have no significance in supporting the "ritvik-theory".

2) Although spiritual principles were covered extensively by Srila Prabhupada in his books, the specifics concerning those principles would often not be given (for example in the area of Deity worship). These specific details would usually be communicated by other means such as letters, and practical demonstration. Thus, one needs to distinguish between the principle of diksa or initiation, and the details of its formalisation. Srila Prabhupada never defined diksa in terms of any ritualistic ceremony, but as the receipt of transcendental knowledge that leads to liberation:

"In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness." (C.c. Madhya, 9.61, purport)

"diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)

"diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)

Can the author consider this quote from Nectar of Instruction?

The conclusion is that if you want genuine spiritual knowledge you have to approach a bona fide spiritual master who has realized the Absolute Truth. Otherwise you will remain in darkness. You cannot think, “Oh, I may or may not accept a spiritual master. In any case, there are books that I can learn from.” No, the Vedic injunction is tad-vijïänärthaà sa gurum eväbhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. The word gacchet means “one must go,” not that one may or may not go. To understand transcendental knowledge, one must go to a spiritual master. That is the Vedic injunction. (NOI)

So, how these instructions from NOI, are different from those above from CC. Madhya Lila? If we try to understand the quotes together, we can only make out that we "approach" a spiritual master coming in "disciplic-succession", after approaching the spiritual master there is enquiry and submission, then the guru will impart transcendental knowledge to the sincere disciple, and the sincere disciple will make every thing clear by service and enquiries.

So how does this understanding get to an idea that we need not approach any disciple of Prabhupada for instruction & initiation? Just because many of the disciples have fallen down, it does not mean every one has fallen down. We should always remember that he is the bonafide representative of the parampara, who is following & preaching the same message of Sri Krishna & Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. ritvik-vadis only seem to take HALF-OR-ONE-SIDED quotes from Prabhupada's books and converstations and try to prove their case. THIS IS AN ABSURD METHOD.

diksa normally involves a ceremony, but it is not absolutely essential, more a formality:

"So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja." (SP Lecture, 10/12/76, Hyderabad)

"Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation." (BTG, Search for the Divine)

"...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." (SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)

"The chanting of Hare Krsna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there." (SP Letter to Tamal Krsna, 19/8/68)

"Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing." (SP Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)

This is perfect understanding of real initiation, if one is serious & has accepted to follow the parampara, then he is already initiated. So, if the author wants to be initiated, then he must try to understand Prabhupada's words directly and stop indirect interpretations, by saying that he wants to take FORMAL diksa(indirect) from Prabhupada, without worrying about the REAL diksa (which is understanding principles directly) by hearing, sruti, from an expert devotee of the Lord or from Prabhupada's MP3 audio library.

Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules.

Disciple: As long as they are following, then he is...

Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right. (SP Morning walk, 13/6/76, Detroit)

"...unless there is discipline, there is no question of disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline." (SP Morning walk, 8/3/76, Mayapur)

"If one does not observe the discipline, then he is not disciple." (SP S.B. Lecture, 21/1/74)

Now the author assumes that he is following instructions of Prabhupada, and so the author can take "diksa"(Here we mean formal initiation) from Prabhupada. Is it the disciple who "takes" diksa or the spiritual master who "gives" diksa to disciple? Has he no sense of respect & submissiveness to the teachings of Prabhupada? Why should he "use" Prabhupada's instructions (hence Prabhupada) for meeting his own ends?

Thus the ceremonial initiation is a formality performed to solidify in the mind of the disciple the serious commitments he has made to the process of diksa. Such commitments include:

• Receiving transcendental knowledge which will purify him of all contamination.
• Maintaining the determination to always follow the order of the diksa guru.
• To begin enthusiastically executing the spiritual master's orders.

This is an example of misuse of instructions using one-sided logic. For example, we know devotees are intelligent & guru is transcendental. So, by this if we try to understand, because I am intelligent I am devotee & because a person's activities are transcendental he is a guru -- this understanding is clear & sane; but if we try to understand this in round-about manner: like because I am "devotee", I am intelligent, and because I am "guru", I am transcendental. We should never get misleaded by these kind of indirect theories. We should look for symptoms of a "devotee" and "guru" to know that one is a bonafide "devotee" or "guru".

Even understanding the real meaning of "diksa", which involves initiation by knowledge from a bonafide guru, the author thinks that because he has all books of Prabhupada, he feels he can be initiated by Prabhupada (formally), but sorry, that is not parampara way. We should understand knowledge from a person, who has heard/understood from Prabhupada, a bonafide guru or atleast understand the instructions of Prabhupada clearly from his books or mp3 audio files and take Prabhupada as siksa guru. Otherwise, Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam are not understood by scholarships in sanskirt or english, but they should be understood by hearing from bonafide guru by submission and service, who has properly understood from another bonafide-guru coming in disciplic succession. THIS IS THE BONAFIDE METHOD GIVEN BY VEDAS. We cannot create methods, that are against VEDIC principles, srutis, which are supposed to be learnt by hearing from the bonafide members of the disciplic succession.

diksa actually means "initiation in transcendental knowledge" and "siksa" also means "instruction in transcendental knowledge"; so when we use Prabhupada's books or MP3, it means we are taking instruction (siksa) from Prabhupada and not foolishly accept Prabhupada as "diksa" guru (meaning that Prabhupada chants on his beads and offers formal initiation to the prospective disciple). It is a misunderstanding that a "disciple takes initiation"; but actually it is "guru giving initiation to a qualified disciple". Is it not the duty of prospective disciple to clearly understand what Prabhupada wants from his books or lectures, and also practice devotional service in the association of like-minded devotees in temple or at home?

Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated that the formality of the ceremony is just that, a formality, not an essential. Furthermore, this formalisation of initiation through a ceremony, itself involves a number of elements:
1. Recommendation by an official of the institution, usually the Temple President.
2. Acceptance by acting ritvik.
3. The participation in a fire yajna.
4. The taking of a spiritual name.

It is only points two and four which necessarily involves a ritvik priest. The other two are usually carried out by the Temple President or some other qualified brahman.

I doubt if any qualified "brahmin/intellectual" can come to do "ritvik-initiations" now, because if any one is a brahmin/independently thoughtful man, how could he accept "indirect interpretations"?

As mentioned previously, nowhere is it ever stated that the guru and disciple must co-exist on the same planet in order for the disciple to receive any element of diksa, such as transcendental knowledge, annihilation of sinful reactions, a fire yajna ceremony and a spiritual name. On the other hand, every element of diksa (knowledge transmission, the yajna, etc.), can be given quite easily without the guru's physical presence. This was demonstrated practically by Srila Prabhupada, as he gave all the elements of diksa through intermediaries such as his disciples and books. Thus, no spiritual principles are changed through the use of ritviks. Only a change of detail is involved.

Dear readers, I have bolded some statements of author above & below, to show his indirect methods to prove ritvik thoery.

Thus, to put into perspective the use of ritviks, it has been shown that we are dealing with the details of a formalisation ceremony; a ceremony which itself constitutes but one element, and an unnecessary element at that, of the transcendental process of diksa. (please see ' diksa' diagram below)

Now the author goes on to "rule-over" the formal ceremony, by saying that diksa Initiation Ceremony is an unnecessary element; but in fact, even though it is minor, when there is an opportunity to personally take initiation from bonafide spiritual master, why anyone not consider it? Prabhupada said once: "During Formal Initiation Ceremony, you promise to guru before the Deity of Sri Krishna, before Fire, before all the Vaisnavas, that you follow the rules and regulations, and if you don't follow your promise, then that is not good, you must follow what you have promised". If the disciple neglects the instructions, then how can guru help his disciple? So we must know that even though it is a formality, we cannot say that it is "un-necessary element". Instead people can accept Prabhupada as siksa guru without any such bogus ceremonies like the current ritvik-vadis are performing.

We note that Srila Prabhupada dealt with all these elements in a manner proportional to their importance:

ITEM	EXPLAINED IN BOOKS?	FOLLOWED TRADITION?	MAJOR CHANGES TO TRADITION?	CHANGES TO TRADITION EXPLAINED IN BOOKS?
diksa	YES	NO	Knowledge given primarily through vani and not physical contact. Personal pariksa little used. New initiation standards.	SOME
Initiation ceremony process	NO	NO	Use of deputies to chant on initiates beads. Giving gayatri mantra by magnetic tape.	NO
Name giving process	NO	NO	Name given at time of harinama diksa. The use of deputies to give the name.	NO

Thus the lack of specific mention in Srila Prabhupada's books, or previous historical application, regarding the use of ritviks in initiation procedures, is consistent with Srila Prabhupada's general approach to matters surrounding initiation; specific mention in his books being directly proportional to the significance of the innovations involved.

Why is our author so much interested in "innovations" that are "indirect methods" and not based on sastra? Why can't he read & understand books of Prabhupada, rather than writing all this mess? Has he considered to hear opinions from other learned devotees? Even if he innovates, can't he also take help from other learned devotees, and confirm with them? Is guru, sadhu, and sastra not our standard method of getting to conclusions?

2) "How can pariksa (mutual examination between disciple and guru), an essential element of diksa, be achieved without physical contact?"

This question arises from the stated requirement that a disciple must 'approach', 'inquire from' and 'render service to' a guru (Bg. 4.34), and that the guru must 'observe' the disciple (C.c. 24.330). If we examine these verses carefully the following points become apparent:

* There is no mention that this 'inquiring', 'rendering service to' and 'observing' necessitates direct physical contact.
* The purport speaks of these activities as being essential for a disciple. Thus, if these activities absolutely require the guru to be on the same planet, then no-one has been Srila Prabhupada's disciple since November 14th, 1977.
* The 'inquiring' is done so the 'spiritual master' can 'impart knowledge'. However, to 'impart knowledge' is also the definition of siksa, and it is already accepted that in order to impart siksa, or to accept inquiries pertaining to siksa, the guru does not need to be on the planet - (please see Appendices). And as explained above, by the logic of this proposition no one had had any 'knowledge imparted' to them since November 14th 1977.


Is it not true that Srila Prabhupada, has met Srila Bhaktisiddhanta not more than 20 times? The "expectation of our author for the disciple should always remain with the guru for 'inquiring', 'service'" is ill-gotten idea & this need not be "argued against"; because a guru will clear all the doubts and delusion of the disciple by proper logic & argument by supporting on sastra. A guru, by teaching a sincere disciple, trains him, to become like guru-himself; so that he can act independently for the service of Sri Krishna, without hesitation, and for this the guru will clear all doubts & delusion of his disciple by imparting knowledge to a sincere and submissive disciple.

But our author's idea is like 'spoon-feeding-a-child', but are Vaishnavas supposed to act like prajna (intelligent in all kinds of dealings) OR children (who need care of guardians in every step)?

The point is, one should take knowledge from a self-realized soul, who is in disciplic succession. This is meaning of evam-parampara-praptam. praptam means, one should receive knowledge from 'parampara' -- from disciplic succession.

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. (BG 4.2)

This is the basic philosophy of the "guru" -- who is also a bonafide disciple in the parampara. We have lot of instructions how to identify bonafide guru; it is not that one should accept an imposter guru, who is rubber stamped by single stamp, or multiple-stamps (mass-approvals of many similar 'gurus'); but one should look for the symptoms. We cannot blindly follow any one to be guru, but one should look that the prospective guru is meeting the symptoms of bonafide-guru. If we don't adopt these processes we will accept guru by sentimentality.

* The 'observing' is simply the agreement by the prospective disciple to follow the regulative principles and can be monitored by representatives of the guru:

"In our Krsna Consciousness Movement the requirement is that one must be prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life [...] In western countries especially we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

It is good that one should observe the all devotees of temple follow spiritual standards, but still at the same time we should be cautious whether we are on the right path, and not be misled by blind leaders.

This facility to use representatives is again repeated a few lines later when discussing the observation required for prospective second initiation candidates:

"In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representatives for at least six months to a year." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

A few lines later we see how vital the use of representatives really is:

"The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no less then six months or a year." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

* Bearing in mind the way in which Srila Prabhupada had set up the society, the above stipulation would have been impossible to follow. He could not possibly have observed every one of his thousands of disciples for a full 6 months. Thus, the use of representatives was not just a matter of choice, but totally unavoidable if the above requirement was to have been fulfilled by Srila Prabhupada. If personal (as in him being physically involved) pariksa by the guru was an inviolable sastric principle, why would Srila Prabhupada have purposely set up a preaching mission (with disciples and centres all around the world) that rendered such personal examination impossible? One is, in effect, arguing that Srila Prabhupada only achieved his preaching success at the expense of violating sastra, an argument commonly used by other 'Gaudiya Vaisnava' groups in India.

* All the above points are further substantiated by the strongest evidence possible - extensive practical example from the acarya himself: Srila Prabhupada initiated the majority of his disciples without any personal pariksa. Thus, Srila Prabhupada instituted a system whereby approaching his representatives for diksa was the same as approaching him directly.

I will answer the author here: this 6 month period is a regulation, which need not be strictly followed by EVERY OTHER BONAFIDE GURU after Prabhupada. Also Prabhupada is trusting his disciples to use their "discretion for new initiates" - as we have seen previously.

It may be argued that the elimination of personal pariksa was justified because the guru was still present on the planet. Thus, at least personal pariksa could theoretically have occurred. However this argument has no basis since:

* There is no mention of this special get-out clause for personal pariksa in any scripture. It would simply be an invention to fit the circumstances after the fact
* When describing the use of representatives for personal pariksa, Srila Prabhupada never states that they can only exist if he is on the planet. What hitherto unmentioned sastric principle forces a limitation on the use of representatives in certain circumstances?

Just because Prabhupada "never stated that they can only exist if he is on the planet", makes author's argument true? What if Prabhupada never wanted to state that? Is this not indirect way of arguing? Did Prabhupada wanted direct (positive) or indirect (negative) ways of discussing philosophy?

* As demonstrated, the need for personal pariksa is not a sastric requirement. The use of representatives, such as his disciples and books, as a substitute for personal pariksa is supported by Srila Prabhupada. So the question of when personal pariksa may or may not be eliminated does not even arise

Is this "demonstration" not based on indirect methods?

* That diksa was given without physical contact is itself proof that diksa can be achieved without personal pariksa.

As we move far away from earlier arguments, the later arguments of our author look to be true; just because his head is hollow, everyone's heads' have to be hollow. These arguments have no basis of sastra. During diksa Prabhupada is doing this personally or ritvik-way, but who is that bonafide 'guru' trying to do initiations after departure of Prabhupada? Actually what ever happend at during 1975-1977 were by orders and under supervision of Prabhupada, but in the so-called ritvik-diksas (after 1996), only blind leaders and followers are around and conducting them.

* The very fact that personal pariksa was not always undertaken, even when it was possible to do so, proves that it can not be necessary to the process of diksa.

So finally our author concludes that personal interaction between guru & disciple is also "un-necessary element" like he has assumed with formalized diksa. I wonder how the author can interpret these words of Prabhupada:

"The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no less then six months or a year."(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

We can now understand that our author is trying to disprove the statement of Prabhupada by indirect logic. Yes, Prabhupada said many times that it may not be possible all the time to have personal association of a pure devotee. Whether a disciple is near or far from the pure devotee, the disciple must always follow the instructions of the spiritual master.

Srila Prabhupada made it very clear what standards he expected in a disciple; the Temple Presidents and ritviks were meant to see them continued. The standards for initiation today are identical to those established by Srila Prabhupada whilst he was present. So if he requested not to be consulted whilst he was present, what makes us think he would urgently want to intervene now? The only concern for us is to ensure that the standards are rigidly maintained without change or speculation.

This is an excellent piece of speculation with a disclaimer "without change or speculation". One standard which Prabhupada expected from disciples is "Don't blindly accept anyone nor reject anyone blindly, but we should take everything with care and caution", which is in the purport of BG 4.2, in regard to accepting a guru. So with this standard, I question the author how he thinks that Prabhupada wanted to continue ritvik-initiations even after his departure from the world? Why the author thinks, Prabhupada never wants to intervene now? I feel if Prabhupada was present, he would strongly protest against this new theory, I have no doubt about this.

3) "We may accept Srila Prabhupada, but how do we know he has accepted us as his disciple even in his physical absence?

On July 7th, when setting up the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada states that the ritviks could accept devotees as his disciples without consulting him. Thus, Srila Prabhupada was not involved in the process of screening, or approving new disciples. The ritviks had full authority and discretion. Srila Prabhupada's physical involvement was not required.

Why don't the author consider the reasons why Prabhupada did not want to be consulted for initiation for some period of time? Did not the author know Prabhupada's desire, that if his health gets better (see October 22nd 1977 -- Room conversation), he wanted to initiate personally?

Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will depend on discretion.

Tamal Krsna: On discretion.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. (SP Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)

Furthermore, the names given by the ritviks would be entered by Tamal Krsna Goswami into the 'initiated disciples' book. Thus, externally at least, Srila Prabhupada would not even have been aware of the disciple's existence. Consequently, the process now would be the same as it was then, since the ritvik has full power of attorney.

How does the act of "entering names in a book", makes the author's ideas true? Just because certain activities are done without the presence of Prabhupada, is not a reason that this become a rule that we continue to do it on behalf of Prabhupada even after his departure blindly. Where is broad-minded thinking in this? This thinking is foolish and nonsensical.

4) "Only if diksa initiation has occurred before the guru leaves the planet is it possible to carry on approaching, enquiring and serving him in his physical absence."

At least the above assertion concedes the point that it is possible to approach, enquire from and serve a physically absent spiritual master.

We need to understand in what sense the author makes statements like "it is possible to approach, enquire from and serve a physically absent spiritual master".The author wants to take diksa from Prabhupada with these ideas. But the real idea is that one can approach Prabhupada from his books and have all his questions answered if he researches the books. But, this spirit is misused by the author to encourage ritvik-initiations.

The injunction that this is only possible - 'if the diksa link is made before the guru leaves the planet' - is pure invention, with no reference in Srila Prabhupada`s books, and thus can be ignored. diksa does not even require a formal initiation ceremony to make it function; it is the transmission of transcendental knowledge from guru to receptive disciple (along with the annihilation of sinful reactions):

"...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." (SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69

"Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing." (SP Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)

Would the author care to give, word to word translation for these statements of Prabhupada :

The conclusion is that if you want genuine spiritual knowledge you have to approach a bona fide spiritual master who has realized the Absolute Truth. Otherwise you will remain in darkness. You cannot think, “Oh, I may or may not accept a spiritual master. In any case, there are books that I can learn from.” No, the Vedic injunction is tad-vijïänärthaà sa gurum eväbhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. The word gacchet means “one must go,” not that one may or may not go. To understand transcendental knowledge, one must go to a spiritual master. That is the Vedic injunction. (NOI)

In the second quote that the author presented above, it says, knowledge is more important than formality. The question is where does the disciple inquire knowledge from? From whom? Is Bhagavatam not recommended to be learned from devotee Bhagavata? or does the author feel he can "ignore" this statement of Bhagavatam as "pure invention" and depend on his scholarship in English language to become a devotee of Sri Krishna? No. It is not possible to attain devotion to Sri Krishna without practicing devotional service in the association of other learned devotees. Just because the auhor is a scholar in English, is not the criteria for receiving knowledge of the parampara, it must be learned from a devotee Bhagavata, who comes in disciplic succession. The author cannot ignore this fact because he has not yet seen any Bhagavatas. Just because he has not seen any Bhagavata, it does not mean there are no Bhagavatas; also I don't recommned him or any one to accept imposters, made of rubber-stamping or mass-approvals. We must take instructions of Prabhupada directly, and no indirect interpretation is necessary.

It is irrational to assert that the transcendental process of diksa cannot work properly if the guru is not physically present during a non-essential fire yajna; particularly since:

* Srila Prabhupada was often not physically present during initiation ceremonies. They were frequently carried out by his representatives, i.e. Temple Presidents, senior sannyasis and ritviks.
* It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefiting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been physically absent for nearly two decades).

Where is irrationality in considering all the statements & all quotes of Prabhupada? And where is rationality in indirect interpretations?

It might be argued that although Srila Prabhupada was not present at these initiations, still he was physically present on the same planet at the time they took place. So is the guru's physical presence on the planet during initiation essential to diksa? In order to lend weight to this argument we would need to find an injunction in Srila Prabhupada's books to the effect that:

' diksa can only take place if the guru is within a distance, not greater than the earth's diameter, of his disciple during a formal initiation ceremony.'

To date no one has been able to locate such an injunction. Rather as the quote below shows, a well-known example of diksa in our philosophy (Bg. 4.1)actually contradicts the above proposition:

"So there was no difficulty in communicating with Manu or Manu's son, Iksvaku. The communication was there, or the radio system was so nice that communication could be transferred from one planet to another." (SP Bg. Lecture, 24/8/68)

It would appear that diksa is not affected by the physical distances between gurus and disciples.

After trying to prove that Guru's physical presence is "un-necessary element", now the author is seriuos about the "distance between the Guru and Disciple". And he feels that it is a valid reason to be refuted to prove his theory. Even if there is great distance between Manu & Ikshvaku, the point is: there is authentic sruti, hearing, between these two members in the disciplic succession. So, this hearing from the disciplic succession, sruti, should never be avoided; the purpose of this authentic succession is to retain the purity of the message, which generally gets filtered, so the message always needs to be refreshed in the minds of the people in a fresh way, by the bonafide members of the disciplic succession, otherwise, Bhaktivinoda should not have said these words: "These great souls (members of the disciplic succession) were not mere luminaries like comets appearing in the firmament for a while and disappearing as soon as their mission is done. They are like so many suns shining all along to give light and heat to succeeding generations. Long time yet to roll on when they will be succeeded by others of sublime mind, beauty and calibre.".

5) "What you are proposing sounds suspiciously like Christianity!"

1. We are not proposing the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada is - in the final order. Thus even if it is like Christianity, we still have to follow it, since it is the order of the guru.

Now the author plays tricks that he is not proposing ritvik-theory, but it is actually Prabhupada who is proposing ritvik-vada. This is in one way of criticizing Prabhupada indirectly. Who wrote all the interpretations on the July 9th letter and May 28th conversation? Who is deducing this ritvik-theory, by indirect interpretations? After doing all this, how can the author say he is not proposing? I propose everyone, not to blindly accept nor reject blindly, not also because Prabhupada said, but because it makes most sense in material world, which is a danger at every step. So, even Prabhupada's instructions should not be accepted blindly; because that is not what Prabhupada wanted; we should get a clear understanding in different angles of vision. In this way, our mind gets strenghthened by open-eyed faith in Sri Krishna.

When Prabhupada said: "I blindly followed my guru-maharaja"; he means that he followed the instructions, after having a clear understanding; and not without a clear understanding. If we try to imitate to blindly follow, without a clear understanding, it does not lead us to liberation from birth and death, but to more entanglement with the material world. This is the precise reason why humans beings are awarded intelligence by the Lord, Paramatma (Supersoul in everyone's heart), to make right decisions, and to make right choice basing on scriptural injuctions is the actual freedom for the soul. If we use freedom or will-power for the cause of Lord, we will be liberated in due course from entanglment in this material world of repeated birth & death.

2. Srila Prabhupada clearly sanctioned the idea of the Christians continuing to follow the departed Jesus Christ as their guru. He taught that anyone who followed Christ's teachings was a disciple, and would achieve the level of liberation that was being offered by Jesus Christ:

Madhudvisa: Is there any way for a Christian to, without the help of a Spiritual Master, to reach the spiritual sky through believing the words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings?

Srila Prabhupada: I don't follow.

Tamal Krsna : Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the...

Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow Spiritual Master. How can you say without? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means that you are following Spiritual Master. So where is the opportunity of being without Spiritual Master?

Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living Spiritual Master.

Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of...Spiritual Master is eternal. Spiritual Master is eternal...So your question is 'without Spiritual Master'. Without Spiritual Master you cannot be at any stage of your life. You may accept this Spiritual Master or that Spiritual Master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible", when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ. (SP Morning walk, 2/10/68, Seattle)

Even here Prabhupada is clearly explaining the same parampara-system. When Prabhupada says "Spiritual Master is eternal", then we should understand the "spirit" from these words, and not take just "words & their dictionary meanings". Just like Prabhupada received the "spirit of devotion" from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta by his instructions, vani, in a similar way, we need also to get the "spirit" of devotion from the disciplic succession after Prabhupada by hearing, sruti, and get a clear understanding of principles of Bhakti. First of all one should find a bonafide disciple of our parampara-system, by knowing the symptoms, and not that he has to come from ISKCON or Gaudiya-Matha. Just like Prabhupada is never got support for preaching from Gaudiya-Matha, in the same way, may be, the next self-effulgent guru might also have been driven away by their God-brothers ISKCON; because it is fact that many Godbrothers and Godsisters have been driven away by GBC. Now, to find a disciple of Prabhupada in ISKCON is very rare. But, if we are sincere, then Sri Krishna in our heart, will give us intelligence and conscience & help us to find the right guru at the right time. Till then we need not panic, but be content to chant 16 rounds and follow 4 regulative principcles.

"Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go to heaven, that is all. That is a planet in the material world. A devotee of Lord Jesus Christ is one who is strictly following the ten commandments. [...] Therefore the conclusion is that the devotees of Lord Jesus Christ are promoted to the heavenly planets which are within this material world." (SP Letter to Bhagavan, 2/3/70)

"Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation." (Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9)

"...Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, great personality [...] You follow one acarya, like Christians, they follow Christ, acarya. The Mohammedans, they follow acarya, Mohammed. That is good. you must follow some acarya [...] evam parampara-praptam." (SP Room conversation, 20/5/75, Melbourne)

Should we not understand these statements in line with this statement of Prabhupada: "Thus, in our mental activities we should always try to think of Krsna and try to plan how to please Him, following in the footsteps of the great äcäryas and the personal spiritual master. (NOD)" Or should we only look at our author, and take his merciless benefits? May be he thinks we are poor fools & rascals and cannot think for ourlseves properly. But our author can think independently, write books, to illuminate the path of devotion to the whole world, without caring for any inputs from the fellow thoughtful devotees. But I question the author, that we also chant the same holy names of Sri Krishna, take the same prasadam offered to the Lord, and read the same books of Prabhupada; if such is the case, why should we also not think independently like our author within the parameters of sastric injunctions? So, we should all start thinking independently, within parameters of sastra, and take our life in our own hands, and train ourselves, using whatever little intelligence we have got. Then Sri Krishna will help us more by giving more intelligence, buddhi-yoga.

3. This objection to being 'Christian' is ironic, since the current guru system in ISKCON has itself adopted certain Christian procedures:

* The theology behind the GBC voting in gurus is similar to the system of the College of Cardinals voting in Popes in the Catholic Church:

"Voting procedures [...] for guru candidate [...] who will be established by the voting members [...] voting for guru process [...] by a two third vote of the GBC [...] all GBCs are candidates for appointment as guru." (GBC Resolutions)

* Similarly the GBC calls itself "the highest ecclesiastical body guiding ISKCON" (Back To Godhead 1990-1991): again 'Christian' terminology.

These particular 'Christian' practices were never taught by Jesus, and were totally condemned by Srila Prabhupada:

"Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment." (C.c. Madhya, 1.220, purport)

"Srila Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social, and ecclesiastical conventions." (C.c. Adi, 1.35, purport)

Prabhupada's words are clear, and I need not elaborate more on this; that we cannot take a bonafide guru by vote. And when Srila Jiva Goswami says we should not accept guru by following popular opinions, which is blind approach, and Prabhupada wants every devotee to be open-eyed, to always cross-check the actions & words of the prospective guru, with the teachings of Krishna Consciousness. Every prospective disciple must cross-check the prospective guru, by matching with whatever the (p) guru says & does are in line with Krishna Consciousness. The blind approach that many devotees follow is: take a popular opinion and then think that what ever the so-called popular guru, says & does are transcendental, which is a blind method. In this way, the so-called guru cheats and common devotees get cheated. Let us not repeat the same mistakes again. Let us stop this blind approach and take a clear & open-eyed path of Krishna Consciousness.

In the same pace, we should also not blindly accept nor blindly reject the final order book. Let us validate if everything is said and written is in line with the Krishna Conscious understanding. This book is a very good example to train ourselves how to detect the fallacies of indirect methods, logical faults, misleading symptoms, etc. Thus we can start practicing to detect "avidya- modes of passion & ignorance" in our life and keep away from the lower modes.

6) "The ritviks give a type of diksa. Srila Prabhupada is only our siksa guru."

1. The function of the ritvik is distinct from that of the diksa guru. His only purpose is to assist the diksa guru in initiating disciples, not take them for himself.
2. The ritvik only oversees the initiation procedure, gives a spiritual name, but he does not even necessarily perform the fire yajna. This was normally done by the Temple President - and he is certainly not the diksa guru.
3. Why not allow Srila Prabhupada to be what he wants to be? He is certainly our siksa guru, but as he clearly indicated on July 9th, he was also to be our diksa guru.
4. Since Srila Prabhupada is our predominant siksa guru, he is our de facto diksa guru anyway, since:

· He gives the divya jnana or transcendental knowledge - definition of diksa.

· He plants the bhakti lata bija - definition of diksa.

Devotees can also assist in the above two activities (by preaching, book distribution etc.), but they are vartma-pradasaka gurus, not diksa gurus.

Basing on his deductions using July 9th Letter, the author now tries to strongly present that "rtvik-initiations" is what Prabhupada wanted to continue even after his departure (future - author's definition of future in this case)! Later he goes on to prove, since Prabhupada is our siksa guru, he is automatically our diksa guru using july 9th letter. We need to see how the author misleads people using the definition of diksa in sastra. First let us take a look at these statements from CC Madya Lila:

diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination. (CC Madhya)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura also states that although one is situated as a brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, sudra, brahmacari, vanaprastha, grhastha or sannyasi, if he is conversant in the science of Krsna he can become a spiritual master as vartma-pradarsaka-guru, diksa-guru or siksa-guru. The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life is called the vartmapradarsaka- guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the sastras is called the diksa-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the siksa-guru. (CC Madhya)

According to such caste gurus, birth and family ties are considered foremost. However, the hereditary consideration is not acceptable to Vaisnavas. The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, this Krsna consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. (CC Madhya)

Here we can see clear cut definition on the vartmapradaska guru, siksa and diksa gurus. No where Prabhupada says, that diksa and siksa gurus are one and same, although they are must be respected on an equal level. And we need to clearly look at what siksa guru means. siksa-gurus is one who gives instructions for spiritual elevation. So Prabhupada should be accepted as siksa guru, and not diksa guru. Both diksa and siksa are not same. But author wants to JUGGLE with words and confuse people. Let us not fall into the trap. We need to look at one more statement:

This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness. (CC Madhya)

We should also know the purpose of diksa. It is giving & receiving the pure knowledge of Krishna. But it does not mean that since we get pure knowledge from Prabhupada, so Prabhupada is diksa guru. This would be an indirect approach. It is just like saying "since I am pure devotee, whatever I do is transcendental". But the real understanding is "since whatever I do is transcendental, I am pure devotee". But the author, very finely uses ROUND-ABOUT logic to prove his point. But we can now understand how to understand things in a direct manner, and detect the indirect or ROUND-ABOUT ways of the author. Just because there are many cheater / imposter gurus, it is not the reason the change the philosophy to our needs, rather we should start applying properly.

5. The predominant siksa guru usually becomes the diksa guru anyway:

"Srila Prabhupada is the foundational siksa guru for all ISKCON devotees [...] Srila Prabhupada's instructions are the essential teachings for every ISKCON devotee." (GBC Resolutions, No. 35, 1994)

"Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on." (C.c. Adi, 1.35, purport)

"It is the duty of the siksa guru or diksa guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa guru and diksa guru, and generally the siksa guru later on becomes the diksa guru."
(S.B. 4.12.32, purport)

This is not a direct way of explaining, anyway! Please look above how ROUND-ABOUT LOGIC can be used & how to detect such logic.

7) "If Srila Prabhupada is everyones siksa guru, then how can he be diksa guru too?

The confusion between diksa and siksa gurus occurs because their titles are confused with their functions. Thus it is sometimes assumed that only the siksa guru can give siksa, not the diksa guru. However, as the last verse just quoted demonstrates, the diksa guru also instructs. This should be obvious, otherwise how else will he transmit divya jnana?:

It seems the author is trying to confuse people, while claiming that people sometimes get confused. First of all, we need to understand who is a "Guru" == who is expert in the science of Krishna, and whose character is consistent with his teachings. So, if one is Guru, bonafide guru, then diksa or siksa are just his functions. This is direct way of understanding. But our author, in a round-about manner, tries to prove that "diksa guru" can also give "siksa"== when there is no need for it. Because if one is bonafide guru, why should anyone not take instruction from him by service and submission? But now, we have many un-qualified gurus, it does not mean we should twist our understanding.

Pradyumna: Guru-padasrayah. "First one must take shelter of the lotus feet of a spiritual master." Tasmat Krsna- diksadi-siksanam. Tasmat, "from him", Krsna- diksadi-siksanam, "one should take Krsna- diksa, initiation, and siksa."

Srila Prabhupada: diksa means divya-jnanam ksapayati iti diksa. Which explains the divya-jnana, transcendental, that is diksa. Di, divya, diksanam. diksa. So divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge... If you don't accept a spiritual master, how you'll get transcen... You'll be taught here and there, here and there, and waste time. Waste time for the teacher and waste your valuable time. Therefore you have to be guided by an expert spiritual master. Read it.

Pradyumna: Krsna- diksadi-siksanam.

Srila Prabhupada: siksanam. We have to learn. If you don't learn, how you'll make progress? Then?
(SP Room conversation, 27/1/77, Bhubaneswar)

That transcendental siksa is the essence of diksa, is evident from the most well known verse on the guru-disciple relationship (Bg. 4.34). In this verse the word 'upadeksyanti' is translated in the word for word as meaning 'initiate'. The verse however states that this 'initiation' requires the guru to 'impart knowledge', and that this is assisted through the disciple 'inquiring'. Consequently the 'Prabhupada is siksa not diksa' advocates are caught in a logistical trap of their own making. If Srila Prabhupada is capable of 'imparting knowledge' when he is not on the planet - then he must, by definition be giving divya jnana - transcendental knowledge. Thus, if Srila Prabhupada can be a siksa guru without the need for physical interaction, then why not diksa also? It is ludicrous to argue that Srila Prabhupada can give siksa when not on the planet if acting as a siksa guru, but he can not give siksa if we change his title. The very fact that he can be a siksa Guru whilst not on the planet, is itself evidence that he simultaneously can give diksa.

Now the author is trying to create a logical trap for us. Let us face this trap and get out of it. We know transcendental-knowledge is given by a diksa guru=bonafide guru. So, also we get transcendental knowledge from siksa-guru==bonafide guru. It does not mean that siksa guru and diksa guru are same because they give transcendental knowledge== but what is similar is both are bonafide and can impart transcendental knowledge.

But author uses ROUND-ABOUT LOGIC, first by saying
"diksa means to receive transcendental knowledge",
"Srila Prabhupada gives transcendental logic in his books",
so Prabhupada is diksa guru. This is called PARALLEL-INDIRECT-BLIP-FLIP LOGIC, to name it.
As Prabhupada said, some times, diksa guru is not always present, so we can accept bonafide siksa guru for spiritual guidance. Basically, we accept a spiritual master for guidance. This understanding is clear from above conversation when Prabhupada says:

Therefore you have to be guided by an expert spiritual master.(SP Room conversation, 27/1/77, Bhubaneswar)

Before going down, let me create a trap for the author, and see if he can get out of it. If the author believes in his own logic, then it should also apply for Bhaktisiddhanta, Bhaktivinoda, etc. So people can also take diksa from them; but our author has another explanation for this: "Bhaktisiddhanta did not order rtvik-initiations." But he cannot under stand that Prabhupada never meant such ritvik intiations to be continued after his departure from the world.

Some individuals have gone the next step; arguing that Srila Prabhupada can not even give transcendental siksa without a physical body. If this were the case, one wonders why Srila Prabhupada went to such effort to write so many books and set up a trust with the sole purpose of propagating them? If it is no longer possible to receive transcendental instruction from Srila Prabhupada's books, why are we distributing them, and why are people still surrendering purely on the strength of them?

Yes, it is by the strength of Prabhupada's books that people join ISKCON to find shelter, but after joining ISKCON, they get different experience, which is not found in the books of Prabhupada, and many leave. The leaders should ask themselves: why people come in? and also why people go out? if some people are staying back, why they stay back? Is it out of real understanding or they found right-place to become "Yes" men to irrational authorities, and grow in hirearchy, which is equated with spiritual advancement in our society by innocent devotees? If any one experiences true spirit of Krishna Consciousness who would anyone leave? But our blind leaders think the problem is always with the common-devotees, and never with them, as they have already assumed absolute authority to define truth and harmony for all others==and the world. Are humitlity, tolerance, etc not applicable to leaders? Only to the common-devotees? Is humility & tolerance only for preaching, not for practicing?

8) "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure devotees?"

No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to allow initiations to continue. Whether or not Srila Prabhupada created pure devotees is not relevant to his clear and unequivocal final order. As disciples our duty is simply to follow the instructions of the guru. It is inappropriate to abandon the guru's instruction and instead speculate as to how many pure devotees there are now, or will be in the future.

The author starts claiming that ritvik-system is the desire of Prabhupada, using his ROUND-ABOUT arguments above; and he continues to argue against "speculation". But I ask the author, what he has done in this book? Is this not his speculation or his thinking?

Even taking a worst case scenario, that there are in fact no pure devotees at present, one should consider the situation that existed after the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. After almost 40 years, Srila Prabhupada indicated that there was only one authorised initiating acarya produced from the Gaudiya Matha:

"Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya*. [...] instead of inspiring our students and disciple they may sometimes pollute them. [...] they are very competent to harm our natural progress." (SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

(Srila Prabhupada used the terms 'acarya' and 'guru' interchangeably):

"I shall produce some guru. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become acarya.' [...] You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to be guru. A small temple and 'guru'. What kind of guru?" (SP Morning walk, 22/4/77)

This could be seen as a damning indictment of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's preaching work. However, it would be extremely unwise to argue that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a 'failure'. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is known to have said that if his mission only produced one pure devotee he would have considered it a success.

Furthermore, the implementation of a ritvik system does not rule out, a priori, the possible existence of pure devotees. There are various scenarios that could easily accommodate both ritviks and pure devotees, e.g.:

* Srila Prabhupada may have created many pure devotees who have no desire to become diksa gurus. There is no evidence to suggest that the most advanced devotees in ISKCON must necessarily be those individuals who put themselves up for election each year. These pure devotees may simply wish to humbly assist Srila Prabhupada's mission. It is nowhere stated that it is mandatory for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru. Such persons would be delighted to work within the ritvik system if that was their guru's order.

* Srila Prabhupada's desire may be for large numbers of instructing gurus, but not necessarily for more initiating ones. This would be consistent with the earlier quoted instruction for everyone to become a siksa guru, and Srila Prabhupada's caution not to take disciples.

First our author, is defining "what pure devotees desire" and "what they do not desire". Next, our author is painting his desire as the desire of pure devotees, and the proof :"It is nowhere stated that it is mandatory for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru.", and after this IN-glorious INDIRECT PROOF, the author is now doing "easy accommodation" for "pure devotees" to work with his ritvik-theory and ritvik-system. After going through this book, I do not get why any "pure devotee", who is expert in logic and argument by basing himself on sastra will ever come to work with our author.

After playing with "unknown pure devotees", now our author is defining what is the desire of Prabhupada: "That Prabhupada wanted to create instructing gurus and not initiating gurus." OK, considering the desire of Prabhupada to create instructing gurus, I mean bonafide siksa-gurus, so if one is bonafide guru, then why is the bonafide guru not interested to give diksa, initiation, to his sincere aspiring disciples. But the current problem is there are so-many cheating gurus and fanatic disciples, group of cheaters and the cheated, both in ISKCON (unqualified diksa gurus) & IRM (unqualified siksa gurus). WHO IS WORRYING ABOUT "QUALIFIED GURUS"? THEN WE CAN WORRY OF siksa OR diksa.

It would also be consistent with the fact that Srila Prabhupada had single-handedly already put in place the success of his mission:

Guest: Are you planning to choose a successor?

Srila Prabhupada: It is already successful.

Guest: But there must be somebody you know, needed to handle the thing.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle.

Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will...

Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there.
(SP Room conversation, 12/2/75 Mexico)

"After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost ended. So you have to carry on, and these books will do everything."
(SP Room conversation, 18/2/76)

"So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue your endeavour. Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter."
(SP Arrival conversation, 17/5/77, Vrindavan)

Reporter: What will happen to the movement in the United States when you die?

Srila Prabhupada: I will never die

Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! (laughter)

Srila Prabhupada: I will live from my books and you will utilise.
(SP Press Conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco)

Reporter: Are you training a successor?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, my Guru Maharaja is there.
(SP Press conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco) "Only Lord Caitanya can take my place. He will take care of the Movement."
(SP Room conversation, 2/11/77)

Interviewer: What happens when that inevitable time comes a successor is needed.

Ramesvara: He is asking about the future, who will guide the Movement in the future.

Srila Prabhupada: They will guide, I am training them.

Interviewer: Will there be one spiritual leader though?

Srila Prabhupada: No. I am training GBC, 18 all over the world. (SP Interview, 10/6/76, Los Angeles)

Reporter: Do you expect to name one person as your successor or have you already?

Srila Prabhupada: That I am not contemplating now. But there is no need of one person.
(SP Interview, 4/6/76, Los Angeles)

Interviewer: I was wondering if he had a successor to do...Do you have a successor to take your place when you die?

Srila Prabhupada: Not yet settled up. Not yet settled up.

Interviewer: So what process? Would the Hare Krsnas...

Srila Prabhupada: We have got secretaries. They are managing.
(SP Interview, 14/7/76, New York)

The fact that Srila Prabhupada did not authorise any of his disciples to act as diksa guru does not necessarily mean that none of them were pure devotees. It could just be that Krsna's plan did not require them to take up such a role.

I have already mentioned many times that Prabhupada has authorized all of his disciples to become future acaryas, gurus, but it is upto the disciples to raise themselves up to that standard. So our author expects rubber-stamping from Prabhupada, but Prabhupada says, acaryas are not made by rubber stamp. So our author is misleaded in expecting some "physical authorizations or rubber stamps". After meddling with the "desires of Prabhupada", now the author is presenting his plan as Krishna's plan for the world! So, finally Sri Krishna has also been "used" by our author to prove his theory. Instead of using everything and everyone is Sri Krishna's service, now our author is "using" even Sri Krishna in proving his ritvik-theory! What can I say? New definition of Bhakti, using "Krishna" in the service of ritvik-theory?

Nevertheless followers of Srila Prabhupada do have an important role to play, just as when he was physically present on the planet. That is to act as his assistants, not successor acaryas:

"The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing." (SP Letter to Madhudvisa, 4/8/75)

"Sometimes a diksa guru is not present always. Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the siksa guru." (SP Bg. Lecture, 4/7/74, Honolulu)

Thus the issue is not whether Srila Prabhupada created any pure devotees, but the fact that he did set up the ritvik system. Although the diksa guru at this time is not physically present, that does not mean he is not the diksa guru. In his absence we are expected to take instruction from bona fide siksa gurus, of which there may eventually be millions.

It would have been better to say: Although Prabhupada (diksa guru for his disciples) is not physically present, that does not mean, he is not siksa guru, because his books are always present. Now, the author considers that siksa gurus can be in millions, if ritvik-theory is followed! First of all, it is very rare to find few bonafide siksa gurus, then what to speak of millions of bonafide siksa gurus? But according to our author, the siksa gurus are very cheaply available, because, they cannot act as diksa gurus, as per the theory of the author. So gurus are conditioned by our author. Imagine what kind of gurus can accept our author, who are incapable of giving diksa? Let us look at these statements from Nectar of Devotion:

However, Lord Caitanya’s causeless mercy is such that He advised all bona fide spiritual masters to speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere. Therefore, in the line of Lord Caitanya even the sannyäsis can speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere, and if someone is seriously inclined to become a disciple, the sannyäsi always accepts him. (NOD)

9) "As long as a guru is following strictly it does not matter how advanced he is, he will eventually become qualified and take his disciples back to Godhead."

As discussed previously, in order to act as a diksa guru one must first attain the highest platform of devotional service namely maha-bhagavata, and then be authorised to initiate by one`s predecessor acarya. The above post-dated cheque guru-philosophy is an offensive speculation as the following quote illustrates:

"Although Prthu Maharaja was factually an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he rejected those praises because the qualities of the Supreme Person were not yet manifest in him. He wanted to stress that one who does not actually possess these qualities should not try to engage his followers and devotees in offering him glory for them, even though these qualities might be manifest in the future. If a man who does not factually possess the attributes of a great personality engages his followers in praising him with the expectation that such attributes will develop in the future, that sort of praise is actually an insult." (S.B. 4.15.23, purport)

Just as it would be an insult to address a blind man as `lotus eyed one', to address partially conditioned souls as being 'as good as God' (GII, p.15, point 8) is similarly offensive; not only to the person being falsely flattered, but also to the pure disciplic succession of factually realised souls, on up to the Supreme Lord Himself.

To 'strictly follow' is the process by which a disciple advances, not a qualification in and of itself. Devotees often confuse the process with the qualification, sometimes even preaching that they are one and the same. Just because someone is following strictly does not mean he is a maha-bhagavata, or that he has been asked to initiate by his own spiritual master; and if a disciple does start initiating before he is properly qualified and authorised , he is certainly not 'strictly following' either.

Sometimes, devotees quote text 5 of The Nectar of Instruction (purport) to prove that 'a neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples...' For some reason they do not notice that the rest of the sentence warns disciples of such gurus that 'they cannot advance very well towards the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.' It then states:

"Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."

Unqualified gurus are also warned: "One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari." (The Nectar of Instruction, text 5, purport)

If a guru is only offering 'insufficient guidance' he cannot, by definition, be a diksa guru, since this requires the transmission of full divya-jnana. 'Insufficient' means - not enough. It is self-evident that initiating gurus who cannot help one 'advance very well' are probably best avoided altogether.

While saying that bonafide guru should be uttama adhikari or maha-bhagavata, no effort is done what does it mean by uttama-adhikari or maha-bhagavata. Anyway, let us look at what these terms mean:

"One who is expert in logic and understanding of revealed scriptures, and who always has firm conviction and deep faith that is not blind, is to be considered a topmost devotee in devotional service."(Caitanya-Caritamrta)

"One who is expert in logic, argument, and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krishna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world."(Caitanya-Caritamrta)

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world. (NOI Verse 1)

If I have to address point 9, I shall do it like this: A qualified guru, will teach his disciples, and give guidance, so that his disciples practice and achieve all qualifications and finally become qualified to become transfered to the Supreme Goloka Planet. A guru will not fly for the disciple, a guru can only instruct, advice & direct a disciple, but he will not carry the disciple (like children) on his shoulders to Goloka, but he will teach them and lets the disciples to work and learn to fly solo (to become completely engaged in Sri Krishna's service). It is by one's own sincerity in following the instructions of bonafide guru that a disciple will stand or fall. No one else is responsible for his fall or growth but for the disciple. Otherwise, there is no point of having "little independence" for all spirit souls, if Sri Krishna cannot interfere with that "little independence", why should a Guru interfere with that "little independence"; a guru will teach and lets the disciple decide to act as servant of Sri Krishna. Just like Sri Krishna finally told Aruna :

Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. (BG 18.63)

Similary a bonafide guru, will only teach and leaves it to the disicples to act as servant of Sri Krishna. And it is disciples' business to "use" or "misuse" their independence. So, by understanding this, we should understand why Prabhupada can never "authorize", "name" certain disciples, who will become future gurus? because that is not the parampara philosophy. We should also take that way, we should study the guru is confirming to the above understanding, and then accept him as guru, but not blindly going with popular opinions. We should always question popular opinions, because most of the people are materialistic by nature (in this kali yuga), so how can we depend upon the popular opinions?

10) "The ritvik system by definition means the end of the disciplic succession."

The disciplic succession, or guru parampara, is eternal; there is no question of it stopping. According to Srila Prabhupada, the Sankirtan Movement, (and hence ISKCON), will only exist for the next 9,500 years. Compared with eternity 9,500 years is nothing, a mere blip in cosmic time. This would appear to be the time period during which Srila Prabhupada shall remain the 'current link' within ISKCON, unless he or Krsna countermands the July 9th order, or some external circumstance renders the order impossible to follow (such as total thermo-nuclear annihilation). Previous acaryas have remained current for long periods of time, thousands (Srila Vyasadeva) or even millions of years (see quote below). We see no reason why the duration of Srila Prabhupada's reign as 'current link', even if it extends right till the end of the Sankirtan Movement, should pose any particular problem.

1) It may be true that Sankirtan Movement can go for 9500 years more, it does not mean only ISKCON will be the medium. We should understand this directly: "If ISKCON propagates pure devotional service to Sri Krishna, then it will continue to be the place for real Sankirtan Movement, otherwise, if ISKCON or IRM miss the point, then there will be NO REAL LIFE to preach." Srila Bhaktisiddhanta used to say "One who has life can preach!", it means, that one who is carrying the spirit of parampara can preach, not others. If ISKCON/IRM miss the point of paramapara-understanding and try to do what ever they like and still claim to be real Sankirtan Movement, then it is hyprocrisy. Nothing more.

2) First of all it is only July 9th letter, and not "July 9th Order (this is our author's creation)"; so why should Prabhupada or Sri Krishna countermand this foolish order; it does not need Srila Prabhupada or Sri Krishna to intervene; a beginner who has started in practicing Krishna Consciousness can do this job on behalf of the parampara and Sri Krishna.

3) Now the author feels, the planet earth might have to be annihilated to disprove his theory. Wonderful theory! Why can't they just speak in simple & commonsense words? By speaking these foolish words, only fools get attracted to this ritvik-theory. We should know why people are attracted to this theory: Since this is material world, 99% of population is foolish & not interested in reality, and those who are interested they are misled by rascals; this is a lesson to learn & understand, a nature of this world; so there is always a necessity to bring out the truth always, year after year, afresh! This is the meaning of Bhaktivinoda's words:

We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from inside “ No, Vyasa! you can’t rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of by-gone days! You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the Fountain-head of truth where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind. Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so. Liberty then is the principle, which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the 23rd text 21st Chapter 11th skandha of the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the sastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love.
(Bhaktivinoda Thakura: THE BHAGAVATA ITS PHILOSOPHY, ITS ETHICS, AND ITS THEOLOGY)

"Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps [...] we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krsna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system - namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from him [...] We have to pick up from the authority of the acarya in whatever sampradaya we belong to." (SP Letter to Dayananda, 12/4/68)

The July 9th order is significant since it means that Srila Prabhupada shall be the prominent acarya, at least for members of ISKCON, for as long as the Society exists. Only the direct intervention of Srila Prabhupada or Krsna can revoke the final order (such intervention needing to be at least as clear and unequivocal as a signed directive sent to the entire Society). Thus until some counter-instruction is given, the science of devotional service shall continue to be transmitted directly by Srila Prabhupada to successive generations of his disciples. Since this is a common phenomenon in our disciplic succession, there is no cause for alarm. The succession can only be considered 'ended' if this science of devotional service is lost. On such occasions, Lord Krsna Himself usually descends to re-establish the principles of religion. As long as Srila Prabhupada's books are in circulation, this 'science' shall remain vigorously intact, and perfectly accessible.

1) The author starts his proclamation: that ritvik-theory has to be accepted, but because he has made July 9th letter, the July 9th Order by indirect ways his request can be rejected.
2) And, the author cautions us that the only way, that ritvik-theory can be dis-mantled, is the divine-intervention of Srila Prabhupada or Sri Krishna, personally, and that too, Sri Krishna may have to give our author a "signed" directive. Alas! In Kali-Yuga, even Sri Krishna has to "sign", His words from Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam are not sufficient :-) In this way, our author is protecting his own theory. This is a foolish way to say "Why one cannot argue against ritvik-theory? or how one has to argue against ritvik theory, by showing our author a "signed" directive of Sri Krishna or Prabhupada."
3) Now after building a breakable wall-for-protection for his ritvik-theory, the author continues to assume his theory "as the process of devotional service"! In this way, the author is creating disturbances on the path of bhakti --smrti sastra puranadi, pancaratriki vidhim vina (without basis of sastra, scriptural injunctions), aikantiki (own ways) harer bhaktir (of devotion to Sri Krishna) utpata eva (only disturbance) upapadyate (create).
4) After doing all this our author assures that "bhakti science" will remain intact & accessible! Dear Sir, what is accessible and "science" is===which is filtered & watered down version; we have many such people in India who have authentic books of Vaishnava Acaryas, but still they are not considered pure, because they deviate from the truth and don't learn the science from parampara, but learn from cheaters, who have imitate pure devotees; and innocent people generally don't try to see what goes on undercover! The solution to this problem is simple: We need to learn to identify the duplicious people from the honest ones. The duplicious people have two or more faces, but honest people live with only one face, inside and outside. Transparent and equal in words and actions. Honest people say and do the same thing, nothing different, but duplitious people say one thing and does another, so to identify the duplitious people, we need to study their actions and see if they the Vaishnava way, the truthful way. Let us not identify Vaishnava way with softness, but Vaishnvas always speak the TRUTH, even though it is going to HURT others; it does not matter, but Vaishnavas stick to Truth & Absolute Truth, Sri Krishna, without any ambiguity in their words & actions. But the blind people, being misled by the duplitious people, believe their blind beliefs are truth, and that they are on the way to progress out of illusion; thus maya presents our ritvik-vadis "the illusion of 'progress out of illusion'".

11) "The ritvik system means an end to the guru-disciple relationship which has been the tradition for thousands of years."

The ritvik system involves linking potentially unlimited numbers of sincere disciples with the greatest acarya who ever blessed the earth, namely Srila Prabhupada. These disciples will have a relationship with Srila Prabhupada based on studying his books and serving him within his Society wherein there is ample opportunity for unlimited numbers of siksa guru-disciple relationships to exist. How is this ending the tradition of guru disciple relationships?

First of all, the point 11, is a foolish statement, it seems instead of people becoming a member of parampara, they want to control the parampara --- which is the jurisdiction of Sri Krishna. The parampara has come down from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to Srila Prabhupada, and certainly , it will go down through some of his sincere disciples. So, there is no point in arguing against, saying that there is possibility of "unlimited siksa guru-disciple" relation-ships, as if a "siksa guru" is a cheap commodity in ISKCON / IRM.

The details of how diksa guru-disciple relationships are formally bonded may be adapted by an acarya, according to time place and circumstance, but the principle remains the same:

"Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that candalas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than sudra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them Vaisnavas." (S.B. 4.8.5, purport)

Prabhupada never said, to forego the formalities, but only slight changes to make them qualified members of disciplic succession. Even considering the import of this quote, this is to give opportunity to the low-born people, to make them Vaishanvas, but not for changing/amending the devotional principles of disciplic-succession. This should be taken in the spirit of the verse that "stri, sudra, dwija-bandhu"----that anyone, women, labour class, everyone can take to devotional service, if they have sraddha, faith in bhakti, that is not blind.

But our author uses anything, any quote, that has some grammaitcal meaning to his theory, he keeps it in his book to mislead people. He sees the "words" and not the "spirit" behind the words. This is regrettable for a leader in the Krishna Consciousness Movement. Blind leader must have blind followers, there is no other way, group of cheaters and the cheated. "Blind following" means the blind men believe and have firm faith in their "blind leader", otherwise why they applaud blind leaders? Why they give their life, time and money to them? This is another kind of MAYA, just like a hog truly likes stool, similar way, blind men truly like their blind leader, otherwise, they cannot follow, just like a hog should love the stool to enjoy it. And who ever follows the blind leader is patted by him as a great Vaishnava! This is not amazing phenomena, if we start discriminating truth from illusion. Blind men don't understand that being a Vaishnava, means, to be able to discriminate between truth & illusion himself, and act for Sri Krishna, assuming full responsibility for their actions & offer everything to Sri Krishna in service, not by giving up intelligence and thinking power, etc. Rather they USE everything, mind, body, intelligence in Sri Krishna's service. But, blind people think, they are advanced, because some one else, their blind leader & his followers, say that he is advanced, so he is advanced, and not because of the above reason. They take their material emotions as spiritual, and cheat themselves, always assuring themselves that they are on the way to Goloka-Vaikuntha, but being blind they don't get to understand that they are moving away from Sri Krishna.

Similarly this principle of accepting initiation from a bona fide spiritual master is in no way diminished or compromised by the ritvik system.

Again, indirect explanation, negative ways, neti-neti process. This is not , that is not, but what it is? There is no such thing in this book.

Some people point to traditional gurus living in villages in India as a model for ISKCON. Each guru has a few disciples who he personally trains. However cosy this may sound it has nothing remotely to do with the worldwide mission Lord Caitanya predicted, and Srila Prabhupada established. Within that mission Srila Prabhupada is the world acarya with thousands, and potentially millions, of disciples. Srila Prabhupada set up a world Movement through which anyone can 'approach', 'serve' and 'inquire from' him anywhere in the world. Why should we want to introduce a village guru system into ISKCON, when it was not what Srila Prabhupada ordered or set up?

Prabhupada wanted that the movement of Sri Caitanya be spread to all villages, towns and cities of the world. If that has to happen, there should be atleast one devotee who completely spends time to preach within a village or town or a city. In this way, who ever knows the science of Krishna, can go back to his own village or town and start preaching Krishna Consciousness within his own jurisdiction, and not just confine themselves to big cities and limit themselves. This is a certain way of progress and prosperity all over the world! to have atleast one preaching devotee in every town and village of the world.

If everyone is meditating on hundreds of different gurus of differing viewpoints, opinions and levels of realisation, how can there be unity? Rather than this lucky-dip approach to spiritual life, as we have demonstrated, Srila Prabhupada gave us a tried and tested system that facilitated surrender directly to himself, who is one hundred percent guaranteed. We know he shall never let us down, and in this way ISKCON will remain united, not just in name, but in consciousness.

First of all, a bonafide guru is a Jagad Guru, and it is understood that there are not many-many bonafide gurus in this material world. Even if there are many bonafide gurus, basically they are all FOR ONE, Sri Krishna, Absolute Truth, every one of them will support to discriminate truth from illusion. Prabhupada said many times, a Guru is One; when saying this Prabhupada indicates that the opinion of all bonafide gurus is ONE, not that there can be ONLY ONE bonafide guru. We need to understand principles, spirit, but not the words.

Also we need to understand the diversity of devotees, the personality of Bhaktivionda (who married twice) is quite opposite to the personality of Bhaktisiddhanta (who never married), and the personality of Prabhupada is different from them. But if we look closely, all devotees of Sri Krishna (Ramananda Raya, Arjun, Vritrasura, Prahlad, etc) are unique, and one thing is common, they all act for Sri Krishna without any hesitation, completely engaged in service of Sri Krishna with body, mind, words, intelligence, wealth, everything etc.

And it is impersonal attitude, to assume that everyone must never differ on their view-points, as long as they can base themselves on sastra. This is to be understood from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's act of explaining atmarama verse in 64 different ways; if we try to understand, Krishna Consciousness is PERSONAL (conception of God Head), DIVERSE (God having variegated energies), EVERYONE IS UNIQUE, and thus everyone can be engaged in Krishna's service with all their unique capabilities. And we should know that IMPERSONALISM is right with US from the beginning of our lives, if we identify self with material body made of earth, water, air, etc. Being impersonal, so long, the blind leaders will mislead their followers with their IMPERSONAL WAYS.

We should also not forget the fact that Bhaktisiddhanta, especially praised Srila Prabhupada, for his glorifying the spiritual master, who has delivered many people from IMPERSONALISM and VOIDISM. Being in this world, one way or other, we are IMPERSONAL, and bhakti is the medicine, to cure this IMPERSONALISM. But MAYA will cheat people by trying to mix IMPERSONAL attitudes to bhakti, thus creating disturbances for the path of bhakti yoga. Thus the initially PERSONAL bhakti yoga, is watered down by IMPERSONAL ways, and thus MAYA is successful to keep the souls in this world! She is perfect in doing her job; Maya is insurmountable. But again, we should take bhakti as war against MAYA, and fight, forgetting about winning or losing, but we should give our best fight to the MAYA, by making a resolve to always discriminate truth from illusion all days of our life, and teach others likewise.

Some devotees feel that without a succession of living, physically present, initiating diksa gurus, the science of devotional service will be lost. However, this principle is never once stated by Srila Prabhupada, and thus cannot exist in our philosophy. As long as the ritvik system remains in force (once it is re-instituted of course), there will be a succession of living siksa gurus acting on behalf of a living, though not physically present, maha-bhagavata. As long as these siksa gurus do not change anything, invent philosophy, disobey important orders, and unauthorisedly pose themselves as diksa gurus, the science of devotional service shall remain perfectly intact. If such misbehaviour were to obstruct the imperishable science of bhakti, then Krsna would certainly intervene in some way, perhaps by sending again a resident of Goloka to establish a new bona fide Society. Let us work together to make sure this will not be necessary.

I like this paragraph. There is so much to deconstruct.

1) First of all, we need a bonafide guru, siksa or diksa are just his functions; the author is mistakenly considering only "diksa-guru", as if "siksa-guru" is cheap. A "Guru" (meaning bonafide guru) is not cheap. The author is wrong, because the disciplic-succession will be broken if there are no bonafide gurus, and not just "diksa-guru", the author is CONFUSED and confusing others in regard to "diksa".

2) Even though the author is assuming, that there is NO QUALIFIED diksa Guru, he has no problem saying that there will be many siksa gurus. Because if one is Guru (bonafide guru), then why should he not give diksa or siksa to his prospective disciples.

3) The author assumes that if a siksa guru commits mistake of giving diksa to anyone, or inventing philosophy, disobey ritvik-order of our author, etc. I have 2 questions for the author :
a) If he has accepted anyone as "siksa guru", then if that "guru" makes mistake, then whose folly is it? If the "guru" is not bonafide why accept him as guru? If the guru is bonafide why reject him if he gives diksa?
b) What science of devtional service he is talking about? If we look at all the previous arguments of our author, does it look like science? Is it broad minded? So, who is misbehaving?
c) Yes, Sri Krishna's personal intervention should be un-unnecessary, but the intervention should come from all devotees. In that way, Sri Krishna's intervention would come because, if devotees start using intelligence to match the actions & words of our author, with the philosophy from the books of Prabhupada, then Sri Krishna, being as Supersoul, caitya-guru of our heart, will give intelligence to us. This indeed should be taken as Sri Krishna's intervention. It is devotees who should use whatever intelligence they have in Krishna's service, not that Sri Krishna should personally come and serve us when we make mistakes; because Krishna's is already doing that, it is because of Krishna, we have remembrance, forgetfulness, knowledge, so Sri Krishna can certainly give good intelligence, if we use that, if we don't use intelligence, then how can Sri Krishna help us, He helps us through intelligence; so we should be enthusiastic to use intelligence to discriminate between truth and illusion at all times. This discrimination of using intelligence should be taken as Krishna's personal guidance, and be grateful to Him.

12) "ritvik is not the regular way of conducting the disciplic succession. The proper way to do it is for the guru to teach the disciple everything he needs to know about Krsna while he is physically present. Once the guru leaves the planet it is the duty of all his strict disciples to immediately start initiating their own disciples, thus carrying on the disciplic succession. That is the 'regular' way of doing things."

The purpose is to pass on the un-adulterated message of Sri Krishna through the generations parampara-system. But as we read this "final order" book, it seems the message is already adulterated & confused. The bonafide members of the disciplic-succession does not need approval or rejection from GBC/IRM to continue the disciplic succession; they are all self-effulgent and act on behalf of Sri Krishna and the parampara. They simply act for the purpose of Sri Krishna, to bring out the truth and preach truth, even though the truth hurts others. Even if one person has understood the paramapara-message, then he is successful as a link to the parampara-chain, because he knows what to preach & propagate truth at all costs.

Leaving aside the two important pre-conditions to anyone initiating, it is clear that diksa activity within our parampara is enormously diverse. We have observed that violations of the so-called 'regular' system fall into five basic categories, though we do not deny there could be many others:

a) Gaps: These are all the occasions when an acarya in the parampara leaves, and there is no next link to immediately start initiating. Or the person who is to become the next link does not immediately receive authorisation from his spiritual master to initiate on, or directly after, his departure. For example, there was a gap of some twenty years between the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and the next bona fide initiation in our sampradaya. Gaps of more than one hundred years are not uncommon between members of the disciplic succession.

Did not Prabhupada say, a guru is self-effulgent? So, Bhaktisiddhanta has never appointed his successor personally, nor Prabhupada did this. So this argument of "gaps" is foolish because the question should not be "gaps", but how to identify the "authentic pure devotees". This is lacking, not the gaps.

b) Reverse gaps: These are all the occasions where an acarya has not yet left his body before his disciples start initiating. Lord Brahma, for example, has not yet left his body, and yet generations of successor gurus have initiated millions upon millions of disciples. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta initiated when both Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Gaura Kisora were still physically present. According to GII (p. 23) this is a common phenomenon in our sampradaya.

I can call this "reverse gaps" as "reverse of sanity"---insanity and misuse of logic. We should use direct logic to prove our points, not negative, indirect ways.

We should also understand the reason behind the actions, not just the actions, when Bhaktisiddhanta started giving initiations, I don't excatly know what was the situation, but if my instincts are right I can guess, that Gaur Kisora Maharaja (great renunciate), is totally into Bhajana (chanting of Hare Krishna Mantra), not into preaching for making devotees, and even Bhaktivinoda Thakura has become very old (engaging mostly in bhajana--chanting Hare Krishna) and has given the responsibility of preaching to Bhaktisiddhanta; and Bhaktisiddhanta is a sannyasi and is liberal to accept disciples just for the purpose of preaching Krishna Consciousness--as per the order of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Vaishnavism supports liberty, and for this reason, Bhaktisiddhanta does not have to wait to initiate until Bhaktivionda or Gaur Kisora Maharaja to leave this material world.

Even such expectations are insane. And the author is expecting that Bhaktivinoda Thakura / Gaur Kisor Maharaja---they have to leave material body for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to initiate. To prove his theory, the author has done a big mistake, and there is NO LIBERAL consideration given to pure devotees like Bhaktivionda Thakura and Gaur Kisora Babaji.

Even talking, "reverse gaps" as such, what does this have to do with ritvik theory? The author should not have made this mistake of judging the acts of pure devotees.

c) siksa / diksa links: There are instances of a disciple accepting an acarya as his principal spiritual master after he has left the planet. Whether the departed acarya is a siksa or a diksa guru to the disciple is often difficult to discern. Srila Prabhupada does not generally specify the precise nature of these spiritual interactions. For example, the exact nature of the relationship between Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Narottama dasa Thakura who lived over a hundred years apart, is not detailed by Srila Prabhupada. We may wish to call it a siksa relationship, but that is speculation, since Srila Prabhupada simply says :

"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his servitor." (C.c. Adi,1)

"...Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. He accepted his guru, Narottama dasa Thakura." (SP S.B. Lecture 17/4/76, Bombay)

If the author cannot discern, discriminate, it does not mean others cannot do that.

Let me explain that precise nature of relation between Srila Viswanatha Chakavarthi & Sri Narottama Dasa Thakura. Srila Viswanatha Chakravarthi Thakura, has accepted Srila Narottama Dasa thakura as his "guru", a direct link of the disciplic-succession coming from Mahaprabhu; and Srila Viswantha is not concerned about the "diksa" , personal initiation from Srila Narottama, but just the bonafide link, a pure devotee guru, by understanding the teachings of Srila Narottama Das Thakura. So, this is a siksa-relationship, which is unique & cannot be used in generic sense. It should be taken as exception, and NOT TO BE IMITATED in mass-scale for hunderds and thousands of common-devotees.

Let us look at the actual comments of Prabhupada on Srila Viswanatha:

He is the life of those devotees who strictly follow in the footsteps of Srila Rupa Gosvami. Srila Rupa Gosvami and Srila Sanatana Gosvami are the two principal followers of Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami, who acted as the most confidential servitor of Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, known as Visvambhara in His early life. A direct disciple of Srila Rupa Gosvami was Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami. The author of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, stands as the direct disciple of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami.

The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was Srila Narottama dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his servitor. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila J agannatha dasa Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the divine master of our humble self. Since we belong to this chain of disciplic succession from SriCaitanya Mahaprabhu, this edition of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta will contain nothing newly manufactured by our tiny brains, but only remnants of foodstuff originally eaten by the Lord Himself. (CC Adi Chapter 1)

Here Prabhupada is giving us the chain of disciplic succession only, and not explaining what happened between Srila Narottama & Srila Viswanatha. But our author is ready to use the statement, to prove his theory. But Prabhupada here is not concerned about how the relation between Srila Narottama & Srila Viswanatha is significant, since Srila Narottama is not physically present; he is ONLY concerned about the message of Sri Krishna coming down through the bonafide succession of disciples. One can become bonafide member of disciplic succession by perfectly following siksa of previous acarya and take his orders as one's duty in life. Even if the formal diksa has not taken place, it does not mean that disciple has not understood the message of Sri Krishna. When King Pariksit was cursed and he had 7 days more to live, he perfectly submitted himself as disciple to Sukadev Goswami and heard from him with perfect attention and submission. This should be relation between a guru and disciple. If diksa function has not happened, that will not diminish the relation between such a guru and such a bonafide disciple as Sri Viswanatha Chakravarthi Thakura. We should not be blind readers, but should take everything with care & caution, especially, in Kali-Yuga, any non-sense can write any thing. So we should use our discrimination to detect non-sense and keep away from it & help others how to detect non-sense. So we can now understand when Isopanishad says "learn vidya and avidya side by side"---because this is necessary in this material world. This world is already full of ignorance, we need to be cautious to detect non-sense within us and without us, to keep away from it, and thus walk straight on the path of bhakti.

Overall this boils down to half-chicken tricks from the author.

Although such disciples normally go through some sort of ceremony with someone who is physically present, that still may not preclude(PREVENT, STOP, RULE OUT) the departed acarya from being his diksa guru ; just as a ritvik ceremony does not mean that the ritvik or Temple President is the eternal diksa guru. Also such disciples normally obtained permission from an authority who was physically present, to accept a sad-guru who was not. In a similar way, were the ritvik system re-instated, new disciples of Srila Prabhupada would first gain the approval of the Temple President and the ritvik before they were initiated.

1) I purposefully added the meaning of "preclude" in blue color above in brackets. The author is impersonal, in trying to paint his desires as EQUAL to the desires of pure devtoees. But where is an acarya, who wanted to remain diksa guru even after his departure from the world? If there is direct proof of this desire of any acarya, then the author might have used that instead of writing this book. Again he has shown indirect cunning ways to prove his theory.

2) And after the painting business, the author now EXTRAPOLATES to his ritvik-theory, I don't know what is the basis even to write such statements, expect himself? Now, I need to write a short story to explain the words of author, otherwise, it would be difficult for the undiscerning:

Short Story:
Author: Hello Guru Dasa. What is the matter ?
Guru Dasa: Dear Sir, I would like to take initiation from Srila Prabhupada, since you are more than the temple president, and TP cannot say NO to you, I am requesting for this. Please accept me as disciple of Prabhupada & initiate me as disciple of Prabhupada.
Author: Yes, approved.
Guru Dasa: Thank you very much Sir. You have been very merciful to me.

This is what I understood from the last two lines of the author. A good example to understand the concept of: the cheaters and the cheated. Andha-yadhandhair Upaniyamanah---blind leading the blind.

d) Mode of initiation: These are anomalous forms of initiation where unique, or inconceivable forms of diksa transmission take place. For example, Lord Krsna to Lord Brahma; or Lord Caitanya whispering into a Buddhist's ear. Interplanetary diksa might also come under this category. This is where personalities initiate, or transmit diksa to a disciple who resides on a different planet, for example Manu to Iksvaku in Bhagavad-gita (4.1).

The author starts with saying that there are anomalous (unusal) ways of initiation. Let's do some analysis on the author's explanation:
1) Lord Krishna to Brahma: This happened at the beginning of creation, that Lord Brahma was taught Vedic Knowledge by Sri Krishna through the heart. How is this unusual or anomalous for Sri Krishna or Lord Brahma?
2) Lord Caitanya whispering into a Buddhist's ear: Where is unusual in this? This is interaction between a Guru and Disciple, initially Sri Krishna instructed Brahma through heart, and now Lord Caitanya is instructing Buddhist by whispering. The similarity is that, there is Guru and Disciple in both cases, and both cases, there is authentic transfer of pure knowledge to the disciple.
3) Interplanetary diksa: I am not sure, what is the case with Manu and Iksvaku. But the knowledge transfer has happened, that Iksvaku has taught to Manu, his disciple, and after the pure knowledge has been instructed, Manu & Iksvaku might have gone to their own planet (home place) to live their life. Similar way, Prabhupada took instruction from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and he left to his own home place Calcutta or whatever place to live his life, engaged in the service of Sri Krishna and the parampara. So, where is unusual that Manu & Iskvaku live in different places, the point is Disciple is always instructed by authentic Guru, and after instruction, every one has to live their life in their own place and serve Sri Krishna. This, in one way explains the liberty principle all the way from Manu till Prabhupada.

So, finally we can conclude that the author is anomalous, in trying to confuse people, with his unusual ways. What ever is the mode, it is upto to Guru and Disciple to decide whether to whisper or to sit in a room and discuss. But how does it help the ritvik theory? This is unusual.

e) Successor systems: This refers to differing successor acarya systems within our sampradaya. For example Srila Bhaktivinoda adopted a 'powerful Vaisnava son' successor system. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta envisioned a 'self-effulgent acarya' successor system. As far as we can determine, Srila Prabhupada left in place a " ritvik - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations" system, whereby "the newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada." The present system favoured by the GBC is a 'multiple acarya successor system'.

It is clear that the approach of each acarya is fairly unique;so to talk about a 'regular' system for continuing the parampara is practically meaningless.

It looks like author has not grasped, on the successors of disciplic succession. A previous acarya can never decide, who will become next acarya, because by principle an acarya is self-effulgent, it is not just Prabhupada's idea but also of all acaryas, because, by self-effulgent, it means that a disciple who has sincerely followed the instruction of his acarya; thus he becomes qualified to become acarya.

We need to understand this from these statements of Prabhupada:

Morning Walk Coversation 04 Jan 1977 BO
Prabhupada : I do't say I am liberated, I am conditioned. but because I am following the instruction of Bhaktisddhanta, I am liberated. This is distinction between condtioned & liberated. When one is under the direction of liberated person, the same thing electricity, copper is not electricity, if it is charged, it is electricity Similarly the parampara system, the electricity is going, if you cut the parampara-system then there is no electricity. Therefore it is stressed so much, sa-kaleneha-mahata-- the electricity is lost. These people, they do not know.

Morning Walk Conversation 20 November 1975 BO
Devotee: The ideal established so high that it is dfficut for common folk.
Prabhupada: It is not for the common folk. This is for the rajarsis, NOT FOR THE LOFER CLASS, so whole population was trained how to become rajarsis, but now lofer class are taking palce of rajarsi, that is difficulty. Krishna says this science is meant for the rajsarsi,imam rajarsayo viduh, The system (parampra-system) became nasta, lost, because the lofer calss became student of BG. Anyone , any rascal is commenting on BG, but it is meant for the rajarsi ( thoroughly honest men, nirmatsaraman satam SB 1.1.2).

From these words of Prabhupada it is quite clear that we can identify WHO IS A GURU ?==who follows the instructions of previous acarya. Who is to decide WHO IS my GURU? Is it the author, who can decide for others, or is it the GBC, by mass approvals or temple president? It is the sincere disciple, who is hankering for spiritual knowledge to perfect his life, will decide this. To buy Gold, one should know the Gold by symptoms atleast, similar way, to decide if one can accept anyone as Guru one should be sufficiently educated that he can see that prospective Guru is authentic and has all the required symptoms. But the process of IRM or ISKCON takes wrong way if they decide for others, who should be their Guru? By vote one never becomes a Guru. An acarya is one who is following the instructions of previous acarya. This is a simple test. One party (ISKCON) rubber-stamps and other party (IRM) un-stamps---and both need to correct themselves.

Even considering the argument of author's regarding, "successor system", until he supports the "ritvik" claim by proper sastric arguments they remain invalid. Should we follow straight forward sastric principles or indirect and negative derivations of the author which lack common-sense.

13) "If we adopted the ritvik system, what would stop us taking initiation from any previous acarya, such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta?

Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:
1. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and other previous acaryas, did not authorise a ritvik system to run 'henceforward'.
2. We must approach the current link:
"...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession." (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)

It is self-evident that Srila Prabhupada is the sampradaya acarya who succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada is therefore our current link, and is thus the correct person to approach for initiation.

Let me present counter arguments for two points above:
1) To disprove point 13, the author is expecting 'henceforward' WORD (signed document) and the ritviks for initiation from Bhaktisiddhanta, since Bhaktisiddhna has not done so, hence Bhaktisiddhanta cannot initiate. I question : Prabhupada never wanted any rtivik-system to run after his departure from the world. This theory is manufactured using indirect ways.
2) The author cannot decide for others who should be their diksa guru? It should be the prospective disciple's business first to have clear understanding of who is a guru and then look for a preacher who has those symptoms.

Otherwise, who will know that the author is even preaching pure Krishna Consciousness? Who will decide? He may be cheating, or may be he is speaking truth. But how to know if one is pure preacher or a cheater? For this we should look at the symptoms and see, whether one is cheater or pure. As per symptoms, rtvik-theory is not a honest broad-minded preaching of Krishna Consciousness.

14) "In order to be the current link you must be physically present."

Srila Prabhupada never states the above injunction.

This neti-neti (not this, not this) nonsense is all-over the book. This is not said, that is not said. Why does not he look to "What is said?" It is said that one should approach a bonafide member of disciplic succession to learn about Krishna Consciousness.

So, I doubt if the author is a bonafide preacher at all, to learn anything from him. This I have decided by looking at this book and his arguments above. So how can we believe his statements? So, let us not blindly accept anyone, nor blindly reject anyone.

So let us consider: Can a spiritual master be 'current' if he is physically absent?

1. The term 'current link' is only used in one passage in all of Srila Prabhupada's books; there is no reference to physical presence adjacent to the term. Were physical presence essential it would certainly have been mentioned.

1) Again the author is working on the word "current link", just as he has worked with "henceforward", instead of getting the spirit behind what it meant.
If I am asked to explain, I should explain current link like this: The current link, means, a copper wire which is connecting to the electricity of the parampara. Being in touch with the electricity of parampara, that current link can transmit the same message without adulteration. This is direct approach.

Using indirect approach the author says, there is no "physical presence" mentioned right next to the word "current link"===Is this science or ne-science?

2. The dictionary definitions of the word 'current' do not refer to physical presence.

Again the author is going for dictionary meaning of "current". Why should any dictionary contain meaning of "current" in relation to physical presence? Why is he interested in things which are "anyway not said"? These are nonsensical indirect arguments from the author.

3. Dictionary definitions of the word 'current' can be readily applied to a physically absent spiritual master and his books:

'most recent', 'commonly known, practised or accepted', 'widespread', 'circulating and valid at present'. (Collins English Dictionary)

As far as we can see all the above definitions can be applied to Srila Prabhupada and his books.

Yes true. Similary they can also be applied to the books of all Vaisnava Acaryas. Why just Prabhupada? They ALL have full fame as pure devotees of Sri Krishna. This fame of pure devotees gives pleasure to Sri Krishna. Bhaktivinoda Thakur mentions that devotees never die, they always live by their instructions.

4. The very purpose of approaching a 'current link' can be fully satisfied by reading Srila Prabhupada's books:

"...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession." (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)

Can I ask a question:
If Prabhupada is the current link, then
a) why did not the author understand the philosophy directly from books?,
b)why does he not know that using indirect means is wrong?
c) Why should he not think before criticizing Prabhupada for not giving clear statements to support ritivk-theory?
d) Why use half-chicken logic?
e) Why take "words" and not the "spirit" behind the words?
f) Why interpret in one-sided way?
g) Why expect Sri Krishna's direct intervention or Prabhupada NOW, and that too signed order from THEM?

So, there is a great need to go back and look afresh at the books of Prabhupada and follow them by resolving to become thoroughly honest & revise the understanding by proper sattvic discussion, using proper logic & argument and directly supported by sastra.

5. Srila Prabhupada also uses the term 'immediate acarya' as synonymous with 'current link'. The word 'immediate' means:

'Without intervening medium', 'closest or most direct in effect or relationship'. (Collins English Dictionary)

These definitions lend validity to a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada without the need for intermediaries, again all regardless of physical presence/absence.

'Now, as per author, the meaning of "immediate" does not have any relation to "physical presence". So,the ritvik-theory is true.' These are totally nonsense arguments.
If we see the meaning of "acarya", it means "one who follows", so one who follows the previous leadership is an acarya, irrespective of his being approved by GBC or IRM or anyone else NOR does it depend on the social status of that person, whether he is sannyasi, grhastha, vanaprastha or brahmacari. But who-ever follow the previous leadership becomes a leader. This understanding is present in one of the Prabhupada's discussions.

6. Since there are examples of disciples initiating when their guru was still on the planet, there would appear to be no direct relationship between current link status and physical presence/absence. In other words if it is possible to be the next current link even whilst your own guru is physically present, why should it not be possible for a departed acarya to remain the current link?

In conclusion, we see no evidence to suggest that the emergence of a current link is based on physical or non-physical considerations.

Dear Sir, we need Acaryas for guidance and not for cattle-ownership. Just because Srila Bhaktisiddhanta initiated in the presence of Bhaktivionda & Gaura Kisora, people need not imitate him, and we should also see the reasons why Bhaktisiddhanta acted in that way. But the wonder is: How is it that this act of Bhaktisiddanta, is used to prove ritvik-theory, that Prabhupada can initiate even after departure from the world? Where is COMMON-SENSE here?

15) "Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers all became initiating acaryas after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so what is wrong with Srila Prabhupada's disciples doing the same?"

In posing as initiating acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples acted in direct defiance of their spiritual master's final order (to form a GBC and await a self-effulgent acarya). Srila Prabhupada roundly condemned his Godbrothers for their insubordination, describing them as useless for preaching, what to speak of initiating:

"Amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya." (SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

"On the whole you may know that he (Bon Maharaja) is not a liberated person, and therefore he cannot initiate any person to Krsna Consciousness. It requires special benediction from higher authorities." (SP Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)

"If everyone just initiates there will be contradictory result. As long as it goes on, there will be only failure." (SP Phalgun Krishnan Pancami, verse 23)

We can see from recent experience what havoc just one of these personalities can cause to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We would suggest respect from as great a distance as possible. Certainly we cannot afford to use them as role models for how a disciple should carry on their spiritual master's mission. They destroyed their spiritual master's mission, and are more than capable of doing the same to ISKCON if we were to allow them.

With regards to the Gaudiya Matha's guru system, this may be the only historical precedent the M.A.S.S. can lay claim to, i.e. that it was also set up in direct defiance of clear orders from the Founder-acarya.

It is true that, if people become gurus, without necessary qualification, it would certainly lead to his misfortune, and create misfortune for all others who accept him as guru. But the author did not get the idea that a guru is not made by rubber stamp, and this is a principle that can be equally applied to the next self-effulgent acarya after Srila Prabhupada. Why should Prabhupada have a different opinion than his guru, Bhaktisiddanta, in regard to the principles?

16) "When Srila Prabhupada said they should not be acaryas, he meant acarya with a big 'A'. That is, an acarya who heads up an institution."

Where does Srila Prabhupada ever differentiate between big 'A' and small 'a' initiating acaryas? Where does he ever talk about a specific breed of initiating acarya who can head up institutions, and indicate that there is an inferior species who, through some disablement, cannot?

Point 16 is foolish. Acarya means bonafide Acarya, who follows previous acarya faithfully. There is no point discussing on small 'a' and big 'A'.

17) "It is just common knowledge that there are three types of acarya. Everyone in ISKCON accepts that."

Where there is common knowledge, it does not mean, we should swallow that "common-knowledge", but should take that with intelligence and always cross-check with sastra for finding out the truth.

But this idea was never taught by Srila Prabhupada, it was introduced by Pradyumna dasa in a letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami dated 7/8/78. This letter was later re-printed in the paper Under My Order, and was used as one of the corner stones of that paper's thesis on how the guru system within ISKCON should be reformed. In turn it is this paper 'Understood', that forms the basis of GII's doctrine on initiation (as mentioned in the Introduction). This paper led to the transformation of the zonal acarya system into the present day M.A.S.S.:

"I have taken this definition of acarya from the letter of August 7th 1978, from Pradyumna to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. The reader should now turn to this letter (which I have appended) for careful study." (Under My Order, Ravindra Svarupa dasa, August 1985)

In his letter, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya may be taken in three senses:

1. One who practices what he preaches.

2. One who grants initiation to a disciple.

3. The spiritual head of an institution who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor.

Let's look at these duties again:
1) True for Acarya.
2) An Acarya can give initiation to an aspiring disciple.
3) May be true in exceptional cases like Bhaktisiddhanta. But this is not a necessary condition to be Acarya. In general case, we cannot expect rubber-stamping from the pure devotees for authorizing the next self-effulgent acarya.

We accept definition 1, since it was used by Srila Prabhupada. This definition would automatically apply to any effective preacher, be he siksa or diksa guru.

Moving on to definition 2: Pradyumna explains that this type of acarya can initiate disciples and be referred to as acaryadeva, but only by his disciples:

"Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "acaryadeva", etc - by his disciples only. Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples." (Pradyumna 7/8/78)

This is a concoction. Nowhere does Srila Prabhupada ever describe an initiating guru whose absolute nature must only be recognised by his disciples, but not by the world at large, or even other Vaisnavas in the same line. Let us see how Srila Prabhupada defines the word acaryadeva. The following are excerpts from Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-Puja offering printed in The Science of Self Realisation (chapter 2) where he uses the term in relation to his own spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta:

"The guru, or acaryadeva, as we learn from bona fide scriptures, delivers the message of the absolute world,..."

"...when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva, or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application."

"The acaryadeva for whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the Jagad-Guru, or the guru of all of us..."

Srila Prabhupada's use and definition of the word acaryadeva is diametrically opposed to that of Pradyumna. Implicit in what Pradyumna says is that the term acaryadeva can be falsely applied to persons who are not actually on that highly elevated platform. Thus, he relativises the absolute position of the diksa guru.

Is Prabhupada speaking about Guru (meaning bonafide acarya) or "diksa Guru"? Who is relativizing here?

The term acaryadeva can only be applied to someone who is factually 'the guru of all of us'; someone who should be worshipped by the entire world:

"...he is known to be the direct manifestation of the Lord and a genuine representative of Sri Nityananda Prabhu. Such a spiritual master is known as acaryadeva." (C.c. Adi, 1.46)

In definition 3, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya indicates the head of an institution, and that this meaning is very specific:

"It does not mean just anyone. It means only one who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor above all others to the seat of the spiritual institution which he heads. [...] This is the strict tradition in all of the Gaudiya Sampradaya." (Pradyumna's letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, 7/8/78)

We certainly agree that to initiate one must first be authorised by the predecessor acarya (a point which is not even mentioned in the elaboration of definition 2) :

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

Our author considers "authorization" EQUAL TO= "declaring some names", or "physical authorization by previous acarya". So, our author's idea is "An acarya must be rubber-stamped by the previous acarya, by Prabhupada". The same concept is followed in ISKCON that they do "mass-rubber-stamping", and the similar idea is held by our author, that the "rubber-stamping" must be done by a pure devotee, an acarya, instead of being rubber stamped by unqualified-gurus. Fundamentally, both ISKCON & IRM promote rubber stamping, while Prabhupada does not:
"Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment." (C.c. Madhya, 1.220, purport)

As far as authorization is concerned, Prabhupada has already given that to all of his disciples:
"So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire. Just like father wants every son to be as qualified or more qualified than the father. But it is up to the student or to the son to raise himself to that standard." (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

However, what this has got to do with taking over the 'seat of the spiritual institution' is rather baffling, since Srila Prabhupada is the Acarya of an entirely separate institution from that of his Guru Maharaja. According to Pradyumna's philosophy therefore, Srila Prabhupada might only come in as a definition 2 acarya. Whatever 'strict tradition' Pradyumna is referring to, it was certainly never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, and thus we can safely discard it.

It seems the author is concerned with "seat of institution", while the measure should be how pure one is? What is the measure of success? Purity or Position?

Let us take a look at how our author tries to disprove the point "This is not stated by Prabhupada." Is this the way to disprove a point, why can't he say what Prabhupada said and then explain the truth? Did Prabhupada not say that reason for success is purity in carrying the message of Sri Krishna as it is?

Further down the page, we see exactly from where Pradyumna's insidious ideas originated:

"Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one Godbrother is in the position of acarya, he usually, out of humility, takes only a thin cloth asana, not anything higher."

None of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were authorised acaryas. One would think that genuine humility should translate into giving up one's unauthorised activity, whatever it may be, recognising Srila Prabhupada's pre-eminent position, and then surrendering to the true Jagad-Guru. Unfortunately, few members of the Gaudiya Matha have ever done this. The fact that Pradyumna cites these personalities as bona fide examples means he is once more denigrating the position of the true acaryadeva.

"Regarding Bhakti Puri, Tirtha Maharaja, they are my Godbrothers and should be shown respect. But you should not have any intimate connection with them as they have gone against the orders of my Guru Maharaja." (SP Letter to Pradyumna, 17/2/68)

It is a shame Pradyumna prabhu ignored this direct instruction from his Guru Maharaja, and quite remarkable that his deviant views were allowed to shape ISKCON's current guru 'siddhanta'.

Thus, when Srila Prabhupada said none of his Godbrothers were qualified to be become acarya, whether he meant definitions 1 or 3 acarya is irrelevant. If they were not qualified for definition 1 then that meant they did not teach by example, which would automatically disqualify them from definition 3, and hence from initiating altogether. And if they were not qualified as per definition 3, then they were not authorised, and hence once more they could not initiate.

We have already proved that definition 3, that "an acarya must be authorized(with name name & addres) by previous acarya" is an ill-gotten idea. How come that by not following definition one "One who follows, teaches by example", will make definition 3 untrue? If def 1 is not followed by someone, how is it making an ill-gotten definition 3 nullified? Even though our author is nullifying the ill-gotten idea, we should see what way he is using to nullify that? This is not even in-direct way, but whimsical way.

Next the author is using definition 3 (no one has been authorized in name as BIG leader of spiritual organization), as proof that one cannot initiate. But what is qualification to initiate? is not even considered by our author in this whole "final order" book. He should have noted the verse:

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world. (NOI verse 1)

In Conclusion:

1. All preachers should aspire to become a definition 1 acarya, or siksa guru.
2. The elaboration of Definition 2 by Pradyumna Dasa is completely bogus. It is forbidden for anyone, disciple or not, to regard the bona fide guru, or acaryadeva, as an ordinary man. And if he is, in fact, an ordinary man then he cannot initiate anyone and be referred to as acaryadeva. Furthermore there is no mention of the need to receive specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya in disciplic succession, without which no one can initiate.
3. Definition 3 is the only type of acarya who may initiate; i.e. one who has been authorised by his own sampradaya acarya- spiritual master. Having been so authorised he may or may not head up an institution, that is irrelevant.

Within ISKCON all devotees are instructed to become definition 1 acaryas, teaching through example, or siksa gurus. A good start on the path to becoming this type of acarya is to begin strictly following the orders of the spiritual master.

To conclude 17:
1) The author is already confused with diksa guru; now let us see, how he wants all preachers to become only "siksa guru". If one is a bonafide guru in disciplic succession, why can't he be accepted as the Jagad Guru, since Guru is always one in principle with the parampara? and if one is a truly bonafide guru, why the author puts conditions that he should not give diksa? diksa is just one function of a guru. Without a Guru there cannot be diksa or siksa! Is diksa ceremony more important than a Guru?
2) It is true that Pradymna explained in a wrong way; but how does that stop a bonafide guru, who follows what he preaches following parampara to initiate?
3) Truly, the definition 3 by Pradyumna is AN ILL-GOTTEN idea of Rubber-Stamping. But our author believes that only Prabhupada (A pure devotee) can do rubber-stamping and not the others, just like it happens now as "mass-approval" (too many stamps, not just one) process by GBC. And the author truly supports rubber-stamping in indirect way, never directly :-)

Finally the author is too hyprocrite to say that to become siksa guru, one must strictly follow the order of spiritual master. Why he has neglected so many instructions or orders of Prabhupada, that I presented here?

18) "It seems a small point, so how could these ideas regarding the acarya have had any noticeable adverse effect on ISKCON?"

In fact, the relativisation of the initiating diksa guru has led to all kinds of confusion within ISKCON. Some ISKCON gurus claim they are taking their disciples back to Godhead by acting as current links to Srila Prabhupada who is the Founder-acarya; and some say they are simply introducing disciples to Srila Prabhupada who is the actual current link who is taking them back to Godhead (almost ritvik philosophy). Some gurus say Srila Prabhupada is still the current acarya, others say that he is not; whilst a couple have claimed themselves to be the sole successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada. Some ISKCON gurus still believe Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 successor acaryas (a myth which was recently reported as fact in the LA Times); others that he appointed 11 ritviks who were to turn into small 'a' acaryas immediately on his departure; others that it was not just the 11 who should have turned into small 'a' acaryas on departure, but all Srila Prabhupada's disciples (except the women it seems).

I feel things are getting worse...
1) First of all the author thinks "relativisation of initiating diksa guru", as if siksa guru can be relativised. A guru means bonafide guru, so where is the point in relativising Guru into diksa guru or a siksa guru?
2) Another blunder is that, the author expects Prabhupada to take all his ritivk-disciples back home to Godhead; while some others in ISKCON claim that they take all their disciples back home to Godhead. This again needs a:
Short story:
Guru Dasa: Dear Sir, since you have intiated me as disciple of Prabhupada, let me know what should I do?
Author: You serve Prabhupada's instructions (ritvik-theory) and stay in IRM. Prabhupada will take you back to home, back to Godhead.
Guru Dasa: Thank you very Sir for your mercy.
Author: Sorry, I cannot give any mercy, only Prabhupada can.
Guru Dasa (thinks): Oh! great, how merciful he is, so humble. Yes, if I stay in IRM, then Prabhupada will take me back home, back to Godhead, I will be free from all material miseries. Later I will enjoy in Goloka with Krishna.
(Purport: Guru Dasa thinks sincerely, that he just have to stay in IRM/ISKCON and follow the leaders and then Prabhupada will be obliged for his service and take him back to Godhead. This understanding seems to be OK for many devotees, but under the clear light of reason, it seems that many does not want too much hard work of self-analysis, and neglect to uproot their weeds of envy, jealousy, fame, intolerance, anger, etc. in heart, thinking that their daily service will oblige Prabhupada. Indeed such people are lazy to do this work of self-analysis, even though they are bodiy very active. Many forget that Sri Krishna has given us the knowledge of 3 modes of material nature, to help us discriminate; Krishna has not given this knowledge just to remember & preach; but also to use in practical life.

Because people are intellectually (which is given by Sri Krishna)-lazy they want less work, 4 regs, 16 rounds & service, for going back to Godhead. Unless, our heart is purified of all material modes of passion and ignorance, whatever we do does not help us get out of the cycle of birth and death. And our heart does not automatically gets purified of passion & ignorance, even after chanting, because one of the problems in Chanting is that Chanting can water the weeds. And it is the duty of the sincere devotee to detect and uproot those weeds. Otherwise weeds can disrupt our devtion & our mission of human life will fail. )

Cc.Madhya 19.160
If one does not distinguish between the bhakti-lata creeper and the other creepers, the sprinkling of water (chanting) is misused because the other creepers are nourished while the bhakti-lata creeper is curtailed.

Some unnecessary creepers that grow with the bhakti creeper are the creepers of behavior unacceptable for those trying to attain perfection, diplomatic behavior, animal killing, mundane profiteering, mundane adoration, and mundane importance. All these are unwanted creepers.

All these obstructions have been described in the verse as unwanted creepers. They simply present obstacles for the real creeper, bhakti-lata-bija. One should be very careful to avoid all these unwanted things. Sometimes these unwanted creepers look exactly like the bhakti-lata creeper. They appear to be of the same size and the same species, when they are packed together with the bhakti-lata creeper, but in spite of this, the creepers are called upasakha. A pure devotee can distinguish between the bhakti-lata creeper and a mundane creeper, and he is very alert to distinguish them and keep them separate.

There is nothing automatic in devotion. We cannot be automatically purified. That is why it is called devtional service, where a sincere devotee will serve, and do whatever it takes to become purified, and be established in pure service to Sri Krishna, for that is our natural position. If we have created computers, created sky-scraper buildings, created jet flights, created satellites, it has taken lot of EFFORT, it is not automatic. Even Yogis take lot of effort to concentrate mind upon the Supersoul, Vishnu; similar way, it takes EFFORT by devotees to keep away from modes of passion & ignorance of all sorts, using their intelligence, by discriminating and detecting lower modes in all sorts. Can't we. devotees, lovers of Sri Krishna, give our ultimate effort to discriminate between bhakti-lata and un-wanted creepers, just for remaining a servant of Krishna? Because it is already cautioned by Prabhupada, that such un-wanted creepers look exactly like Bhakti-creeper, just like ritvik-vada seems like some philosophy, but still such un-wanted creepers must be detected and neglected, or cut-off from our standnig ground of services in devotion. Actually to become pure devotee, we must start discriminating between truth & falsity of all sorts. This is the import of the verse above. But many people think that only after becoming a pure devotee, we can be alert to distinguish between bhakti-lata and unwanted-creeper, but the real fact is that by being alert in distinguishing between bhakti & unwanted creepers in our service, we start becoming a pure devotee. All this will be present in the making of a pure devotee. Not that one becomes a pure devotee in FLASH of second by SOME MERCY. We may criticize the scientists when they say, the cause of material world is a chunk of matter or it has emerged out of a POINT, but again when it comes to devtional service, we think similar way, that we become pure devotee in FLASH of second, by MERCY. This is an ill-gotten idea; just like there is a gradual creation of material world by Lord Brahma, similary there will also be a gradual development of Bhakti in the heart of conditioned souls by service, by discriminating between truth and illusion and be always attached to Sri Krishna. One's heart slowly becomes purified in stages and if one is fixed in determination then he is sure to reach higher stages of devtion to Sri Krishna. We should always keep in mind that we are servants of Sri Krishna, we should be ready to do, give everything to Sri Krishna in service, not that we expect Sri Krishna to purify us in a second; actually by serving Sri Krishna we purifying ourselves, and we should be determinted to do whatever it takes to remain a servant of Sri Krishna.

This is possible if we become independently thoughtful, persons of integrity. Otherwise, this will never happen. It is we who should walk, not that Guru will carry us OR walk for us. Guru can only give direction, but is we, who should walk.

As per the Bhagavatam , verse 1.1.2, this is possible only for nirmatsaranam satam ---those who are thoroughly honest. It means that we should be honest to accept our mistakes, and correct them when we got a chance for that. Otherwise, there is no question of honesty, and no question of going back to home, back to Godhead, & no question of service to Sri Krishna, but Maya is powerful enough to cheat us, by letting us think that we are on the way back to home, back to Godhead, so that we don't remain unhappy :-), just like Maya makes a pig think he is quite well & doing fine.

If we return once more to GII, we can see that the GBC is highly ambivalent towards the gurus it 'authorises'.

Whilst acknowledging the rubber-stamping of sampradaya acaryas is bogus (GII, p.15, point 6), the GBC nevertheless, in effect, performs precisely this function every Gaura-Purnima at Mayapur, year after year. We now have close to a hundred initiating gurus, all anointed with the 'no objection' stamp of approval. All these gurus are being worshipped as saksad hari (as good as God) in accordance with the GBC's own directives for disciples (GII, p.15, point 8). These initiating acaryas are heralded as current links to a disciplic succession of maha-bhagavatas stretching back thousands of years to the Supreme lord Himself:

"Devotees should take shelter of the representatives of Srila Prabhupada who are the 'current link' in the disciplic succession." (GII, p. 34)

While it is true, that we should approach the current link, it does not mean we should do blindly, basing oneself on indirect arguments, but should approach by basing himself directly on sastra.

I agree with author's point that GBC's process boils down to rubber-stamping, by mass-approval.

At the same time however the aspiring disciple is sternly warned that ISKCON approval...

"...is not automatically to be taken as a statement about the degree of God-realisation of the approved guru." (GII, p.9, section 2.2)

This statement looks like a caution, good caution, but still we need to see what is behind this. First of all it is a mistake to rubber-stamp a guru; and then to guard themselves against responsibility for the resultant fall downs (of so-called gurus, in future), this caution is a disclaimer note that: is it not mistake of GBC to approve gurus, but scape-goat the fallen "guru", whom GBC has appointed. And Prabhupada says, Guru is never made by rubber stamp or by a mass-approval of group of asses, cows & camels.

Elsewhere we are further cautioned:

"When a devotee is allowed to carry out the "order" of Srila Prabhupada to expand the disciplic succession by initiating new disciples it is not to be taken as a certification or endorsement of his being an "uttama adhikari", "pure devotee", or to having achieved any specific state of realisation." (GII, p.15)

These gurus are not to be worshipped by everyone in the temple, but only by their own disciples in a separate place. (GII, p.7) - (Pradyumna's acaryadeva definition).

Here Pradyumna is trying to save ISKCON from the future problems created by gurus, who are approved by GBC, and it an extension of the Disclaimer Note.

We have shown that the only type of bona fide diksa guru is an authorised maha-bhagavata; (we have also shown that the actual "order" was for ritviks and siksa gurus). Thus, to describe anyone as a current link or initiator guru, is synonymous with claiming he is a large 'A' or definition 3 acarya, an 'uttama adhikari' or a 'pure devotee'.

1) Who will decide who is a maha-bhagavata? Our author or GBC? Who will decide this for a common devotee? Should his eyes not be opened (ajnana-timirandhasya) by a guru, before he decides to take diksa, initiation?
2) Author is confused again by big 'A' and small 'a' in Acarya. :-) Earlier, he used to show interest in words, now in alphabetic letters, it shows advancement of indirect thought, which is not approved by pure devotees.

We would venture that it is infelicitous to approve, or 'not object' to, the creation of diksa gurus, and simultaneously disavow any blame or responsibility should they deviate. This is what's termed 'living in denial' according to modern psychological parlance. We are sure Srila Prabhupada did not intend ISKCON to be a type of lottery, or Russian roulette, where the stake is someone's spiritual life. Perhaps the GBC should refrain from further rubber stamping until they can stand one hundred percent behind those they approve. After all, every one of us stands one hundred percent behind Srila Prabhupada as a bona fide spiritual master; so such consensual recognition of personal qualification is not impossible.

Now the author is directly supporting, for the first time(instead of indirect method), that GBC can rubber-stamp any one if they all stand behind him. Suppose what if, all the GBC's are cheated by that so-called candidate for guru, who is applying for Guru post by good looks & good manner & knows some philosophy?

Rubber-stamping is not ALLOWED means, NOT ALLOWED. We cannot make any adjustments to this rule. Guru is not made by rubber-stamp.

Just because we all agree that Prabhupada is a maha-bhagavata, it does not mean that we accept him as diksa guru (initiating guru), as he is not present in material world with us. But Prabhupada is only present through instructions (siksa guru). We cannot allow ourselves to be cheated by blind-presentations, which are indirect, and not based on sastra.

GBC guru ambivalence was recently summed up quite succinctly by Jayadvaita Swami:

"The word appointed is never used. But there are "candidates for initiating guru", votes are taken, and those who make it through the procedures become "ISKCON-APPROVED" or "ISKCON-authorised" gurus. To boost your confidence: On one hand the GBC encourages you to be initiated by a bona fide, authorised ISKCON guru and worship him like God. On the other, it has an elaborate system of laws to invoke from time to time when your ISKCON-authorised guru falls down. One might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that for all the laws and resolutions the role of guru is still a perplexity even for the GBC."

('Where the ritvik People are Right', Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)

Is "voting" not as good as rubber-stamping? One will become guru, if he can enlighten others, by removing darkness of ignorance and showing him the light of knowledge, ajana-timirandhasya jnana anjana salakaya. Should not we follow this vedic injunction to decide who is our Guru==he who opens our eyes?

How can the author say, our eyes are opened? It is the sincere aspirer, who gets eye-opening experience from the prospective guru. Any amount of management or manufacturing will not give a sincere seeker that experience.

When we look at the appalling track record of gurus in ISKCON it is hardly surprising that such mistrust should exist. To quote once more from Jayadvaita Swami's paper:

I also had the same appalling and misguided experience after going through this final order book.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have opposed, oppressed and driven out many sincere Godbrothers and Godsisters.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and men, and possibly children as well.

FACT: ..... (...etc, etc... ) ('Where the ritvik People are Right, Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)

Facts & past cannot be changed, but we can change our future by our present actions. Otherwise we remain animals and time factor will eventually kill our bodies and award us the next bodies according to our activities.

Newcomers to ISKCON are told that the onus is on them to carefully examine ISKCON gurus on the basis of Srila Prabhupada's books and instructions, to make sure for themselves that they are qualified to initiate. However, should such a prospective disciple come to the conclusion that none of the 'physically present' gurus on offer are up to standard, and that he wishes instead to repose his faith in Srila Prabhupada as his diksa guru, he is ruthlessly hounded from the Society. Is this really fair? After all, he is only doing what the GBC has told him to do. Should he be punished for not coming to the 'right' conclusion, especially since there is such clear and unequivocal evidence that this choice is precisely what Srila Prabhupada wanted all along?

1) It is good for all devotees, new comers as well, to carefully examine the "actions" of the gurus & all others in society, to see if "their actions" match with what books say, otherwise, we all will be misled. But I don't know why the author cannot see importance in this. This is the only way to detect duplitious so-called devotees in our society. Duplitious people cannot do what they say. This is quite simple.
2) I don't see why a new comer, should decide after reading Prabhupada's books that he will try to see Prabhupada as his diksa, initiating, guru. I feel a new comer will assume that he should approach a bonafide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession; new comers can be easily misled by charm, cleanliness, tilak, kanti-mala, etc; since new comers are coming from material world, it is their nature to get cheated by FORM, and not by CONTENT. They cannot see the spirit, but just material body. They come to ISKCON for higher understanding & higher life as presented in Prabhupada's books; and unfortunately if they are cheaters in ISKCON/IRM, they get easily cheated of the actual philosophy, and finally be misled.
3) It is hypocrisy, to assume that July 9th letter is a clear & unequivocal evidence. If that is so clear, there would not have been so many indirect interpretations to derive the ritvik theory.

Is it reasonable to expect someone to have unflinching faith in a current ISKCON guru, when he sees that the GBC themselves have felt it necessary to construct a rigorous penal system just to keep them in line? A penal system which itself is never once mentioned in the very books and instructions the prospective disciple is being asked to base his decision on. A clearer case of self-referential incoherence it would be hard to find.

What we understand is that if 'leaders' are elected based on corrupt policy of voting, then what to speak of many others who are onboard in ISKCON/IRM, who are ready to go up in hierarchy for position & money?

Rather, let us follow Srila Prabhupada's clear order to keep him as the only initiator within ISKCON. Who could object to that?

I object. It means the author should try to defeat my arguments against Final Order book. There was no 'clear order' of Prabhupada on ritvik-vada.

19) "According to the ISKCON Journal 1990, some of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were actually acaryas.

Who said this?
* The same person who said there was no such word as ritvik in the Vaisnava dictionary (ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23), even though the term is used repeatedly in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, and in the July 9th letter which Srila Prabhupada personally signed.

Even if that person is wrong, implying "ritvik" is not present in books, we have already proved that "words" are not sufficient in themselves, but also the context and the spirit behind the words. We have already seen this before.

* The same person who implied that Srila Prabhupada was not specifically authorised to initiate:

"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has not said or given any document that Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada) will be guru." (ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23)

* The same person who said that Tirtha, Madhava and Sridhar Maharaja were bona fide acaryas, even though Srila Prabhupada had said none of them were qualified:

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta need not give certificate or "name" Prabhupada as the future acarya. Acaryas need not be rubber-stamped by previous acaryas, but they are all self-effulgent.

"But there is a system in our sampradaya. So Tirtha Maharaja, Madhava Maharaja, Sridhar Maharaja, our Gurudev, Swamiji - Swamiji Bhaktivedanta Swami - they all became acaryas." (ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23)

Contrast the above with what Srila Prabhupada thought of one of these 'acaryas':

"Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is very much antagonistic to our Society and he has no clear conception of devotional service. He is contaminated." (SP Letter to Sukadeva, 14/11/73)

Even though the author may be right in his statement that Tirtha Maharaja is not a pure devotee; we need to know if this is used in the right context. In the Journal of 1990, they are naming some disciples of Prabhupada who are all authorized by Bhaktisiddhanta to become spiritual master; but the problem we can understand is that not all of them achieved the required qualification; so they cheated people. Is this understood by the author? Instead of trying to understand the context, the author is making un-necessary allegations.

Also one more point is that only one line is presented from ISKCON Journal 1990, so how do we exactly know in what context it has been written. So, it should not be accepted blindly as truth , nor rejected. This is my standing on this Journal statement.

and with what he said of the rest:

"Amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya." (SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

* The same person who recently claimed that Srila Prabhupada had not given everything, and that it was time for a rasika guru to gain higher knowledge.

People are after sense gratification and they extend sense gratification to become 'rasika bhakta' prematurely, without first trying to understand what is in the books of Prabhupada and following them, and wihtout clearing out all the weeds that hamper the progress of the bhakti-creeper.

20) "Srila Prabhupada spoke well of his Godbrothers sometimes."

It is true that on occasion Srila Prabhupada dealt with his Godbrothers diplomatically, referring to Sridhar Maharaja as his siksa guru etc. Srila Prabhupada was also a warm person who had genuine care and affection for his Godbrothers, always trying to find ways of engaging them in the Sankirtan Movement. We must realise however that had these been genuine acaryadevas, Srila Prabhupada would never have spoken ill of them, not even once. To speak of bona fide diksa gurus as disobedient, envious snakes, dogs, pigs, wasps etc., would itself have been a serious offence, and thus not something Srila Prabhupada would have done. To illustrate the way in which Srila Prabhupada viewed his Godbrothers, we shall offer excerpts below from a room conversation in which Bhavananda is reading a pamphlet put out by Tirtha Maharaja's matha:

We need to take a look this verse and the purport:
"Some unnecessary creepers growing with the bhakti creeper are the creepers of behavior unacceptable for those trying to attain perfection, diplomatic behavior, animal killing, mundane profiteering, mundane adoration and mundane importance. All these are unwanted creepers. (CC Madhya verse 159)

There is a certain pattern of behavior prescribed for those actually trying to become perfect. In our Krsna consciousness movement we advise our students not to eat meat, not to gamble, not to engage in illicit sex and not to indulge in intoxication. People who indulge in these activities can never become perfect; therefore these regulative principles are for those interested in becoming perfect and going back to Godhead. Kutinati, or diplomatic behavior, cannot satisfy the atma, the soul. It cannot even satisfy the body or the mind. The culprit mind is always suspicious; therefore our dealings should always be straightforward and approved by Vedic authorities. If we treat people diplomatically or duplicitously, our spiritual advancement is obstructed.

Here I am not trying to point finger to author, but showing how directly author is accusing Prabhupada of diplomatic behaviour. A pure devotee is affectionate to all conditioned souls, so he criticized them to bring them to their senses, it is not out of diplomatic behaviour. And also, while in preaching field, it is good to neglect those who are envious and jealous. Prabhupada did this with any one, either Godbrother or non-Godbrother; so how is this diplomatic on the part of Prabhupada? Prabhupada hated the sin, not the sinner. This is why he is sometimes affectionate to his Godbrothers and sometimes criticized them, showing all their faults to teach us how 'not to behave', by detecting avidya.

Bhavananda: ' It starts off in big print, "Acaryadeva Tridandi Swami Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja. All learned men are aware that in the dark ages of India when the Hindu religion was in great danger..."

Srila Prabhupada: (laughs)...This is nonsense.

It is obvious what type of 'acaryadeva' Srila Prabhupada considers Tirtha Maharaja (the same Tirtha who is hailed as a bona fide acarya in the 1990 ISKCON Journal mentioned earlier). Later on the pamphlet describes how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was so fortunate to have a wonderful personality to carry on the mission.

Bhavananda: "...In proper time, he (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) got a great personality who readily shouldered the..."

Srila Prabhupada: 'Just see now. "He got a great personality". He is that personality. He'll also prove that. ..(later)...No one accepts him...Where is his greatness? Who knows him? Just see. So he is making a plan to declare himself a great personality...(Tirtha Maharaj b) is very envious about us...These rascals they may create some trouble.' (SP Conversation, 19/1/76, Mayapur)

Bona fide acaryas can never be described as envious rascals who just want to cause trouble. Sadly, even to this day, some members of the Gaudiya Matha are still causing trouble. Respect from a distance has to be the safest policy.

21) "We know that bona fide acaryas do not have to be so advanced because sometimes they fall down."

Srila Prabhupada states the precise opposite:

"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord." (Bg. 4.42, purport)

22) "But previous acaryas even describe what one should do when one's spiritual master deviates."

Those deviant gurus being described could never, by definition, have been members of the eternal disciplic succession. Rather, they were non-liberated, self-authorised family priests posing as initiating acaryas. Bona fide members of the disciplic succession never deviate:

"God is always God, Guru is always Guru." (The Science of Self Realisation, chapter 2)

"Well if he is bad, how can he become a guru?" (The Science of Self Realisation, chapter 2)

"The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of Maya and her influence." (S.B. 5.3.14)

"There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall down." (C.c. Madhya, 22.71)

"A spiritual master is always liberated." (SP Letter to Tamal Krsna, 21/6/70)

There is not a single example in Srila Prabhupada's books of a formally authorised diksa guru, in our disciplic succession, ever deviating from the path of devotional service. The rejection of Sukracarya is sometimes used to validate the view that acaryas fall down, or can be rejected, but this example is highly misleading since he was never an authorised member of our disciplic succession. Lord Brahma's pastimes with his daughter are sometimes mentioned. Yet it is clearly stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam that these incidents occurred before Lord Brahma became the head of our sampradaya. Indeed, when the disciple Nitai referred to the pastime as an example of an acarya falling down, Srila Prabhupada became most displeased. According to Srila Prabhupada only unauthorised gurus can be carried away by opulence and women

The author tries to mislead people by saying that "No formally authorized diksa guru ever deviated". Actually an acarya "formally introduces (authorizes) disciple" to parampara system. An acarya is not authorizing "diksa guru". After authorizing disciple, by diksa ceremony (and also after proper instruction, siksa), it is up to his disciples to raise themselves to the standard of pure devotees by following instructions of their guru.

And it is also wrong to say "unauthorized gurus can be carried away by women", because, they have never been "authorized disciples of their guru". Prabhupada once said that they are his disciples as long as they strictly follow 4 regulative principles and chant 16 rounds. Thus, the problem lies with mass-of-ignorant people who accept such fools as "gurus". Unless one becomes a bonafide disciple (who follows perfectly) they can never raise themselves to the position to teach others by example, or in other words, an acarya.

In one instance Prabhupada spoke of rejecting a spiritual master who has deviated from principles:
"karya akaryam ajanatah (Jiva goswami)", one who does not know "who to do, and what not to do", then that kind of guru can be rejected, and another bonafide guru can be accepted. (lecture, Srila Prabhupada on BG 2.4-5, Aug 5, 1973)
This is material world! and it is rare to find too many pure devotees, so we should always be cautious before accepting anyone as guru. The principle is more important. For example, Romaharshana, who did not show respect to the Personality of Godhead, Sri Balarama, had to be killed by the Lord, not with a sword, but a blade of grass, because he is a brahmana.

So, from this incident, even great sages in that assembly could not recognize the status of Romaharshana. Yet the Lord detected the unqualified person, taking on the role of Guru; and so Lord killed Romaharshana.

The similar things are happening even now. Maya is an agent of Sri Krishna. So all unqualified people will be attracted by Maya and are being kicked by Maya. Instead of Lord directly punishing the unqualified people, His energy, Maya will kick them. So, why should we worry until we are truthful, honest & men of integrity? Lord will protect all those who are thoroughly honest and sincere in service to Sri Krishna, and to be thoroughly honest one should discriminate between truth and illusion, by basing on sastra.

Despite a total absence from Srila Prabhupada's books of bona fide gurus deviating, the GBC's book GII has a whole section on what a disciple should do when his previously bona fide guru deviates! The chapter begins by asserting the importance of approaching a current link, and not 'jumping over' (GII, p. 27). However, the authors proceed to do precisely this by quoting numerous previous acaryas in an attempt to establish principles never taught by Srila Prabhupada.

The author again uses indirect statements to prove a simple point. I would say like this: one who is bonafide and strict follower of parampara cannot deviate; so the conclusion is that: one who is deviating is not bonafide. And this is not just problem with the so-called gurus, but also those who accept that so-called guru. It is no big problem that there are many so-called gurus, trying to cheat people, but the major problem is innocent or misguided people accept that so-called guru as bonafide. So, if we are accepting un-qualified gurus, then how can we be called devotees in first place? If we are accepting un-qualified gurus, then we are being cheated. So-called gurus cheat, and we get cheated. Devotees are not part of cheaters and cheated. So, those who accept that so-called gurus are not qualified enough to be called even a devotee.

And the fact is to become a devotee, one should be a simple person, and simple means "One who does not deceive, and cannot be deceived."--this definition given Jesus Christ of a simple person. So, if we being deceived by so-called gurus, so, are we devotees in the first place?

There is only one way that we will not be cheated. We need to start using intelligence(buddhi-yoga) and always be vigilant that our actions are in line with scriptural injunctions.

The gurus described by these previous acaryas could never have been bona fide members of the parampara:

"Narada Muni, Haridasa Thakura and similar acaryas especially empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord cannot be brought down to the material platform." ( S.B. 7.7.14, purport)

The danger of 'jumping over' in the manner prevalent in GII is clearly demonstrated in the chapter on 're-initiation', (itself a term never once used by Srila Prabhupada, nor any previous acarya). In the question and answer section (GII, p.35, question 4) the conditions under which one may reject a guru and take 're-initiation' are described. The 'explanation' follows:

"Fortunately, the crux of this issue has been clarified for us by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Jaiva Dharma and by Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Bhakti Sandarbha." (GII, p35)

The word 'fortunately' rather unfortunately implies that since 'Srila Prabhupada neglected to tell us what to do when a guru deviates, it's just as well we can jump over him to all these previous acaryas'. But Srila Prabhupada told us that everything we needed to know about spiritual life was in his books. Why are we introducing systems never mentioned by our acarya?

May be the author should first look at this statement of Prabhupada, how to act when a bogus guru deviates:
"karya akaryam ajanatah (Jiva goswami)", one who does not know "who to do, and what not to do", then that kind of guru can be rejected, and another bonafide guru can be accepted. (lecture, Srila Prabhupada on BG 2.4-5, Aug 5, 1973)

23) "But what is wrong in consulting previous acaryas?"

Nothing, as long as we do attempt to use them to add new principles which were not mentioned by our own acarya. The idea that a bona fide guru can deviate is totally alien to anything Srila Prabhupada taught. The problems over the 'origin of the jiva' issue, all stem from this propensity to jump over:

"...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous acaryas." (Our Original Position, p. 163, GBC Press)

How is adopting entirely new philosophical principles, never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, seeing 'the previous acaryas through Prabhupada'?

Even if the interpretation the GBC in GII has placed on these previous acaryas writings were correct, we still could not use them to modify or add to Srila Prabhupada's teachings. This is clearly explained in two verses in the book Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta by Srila Narahari Sarakara. GII should have mentioned these verses by way of caution , since it supported its thesis with other verses from the very same book:

Verse 48: "A disciple may hear some instruction from another advanced Vaisnava, but after gaining that good instruction he must bring it and present it to his own spiritual master. After presenting them he should hear the same teachings again from his spiritual master with appropriate instructions."

Verse 49: "...a disciple who listens to the words of other Vaisnavas, even if their instructions are proper and true, but does not re-confirm those teachings with his own spiritual master and instead directly personally accepts these instructions, is considered a bad disciple and a sinner."

We would humbly suggest that in the interest of the spiritual lives of all the members of ISKCON, the GII book be revised in a manner congruous with the above injunction.

Although I have not done much research on the Jiva Issue, I would like to give certain comments on what Prabhupada answered to this question, if jiva, spirit soul, once with Krishna and later fallen down to material world?

Morning Walk Conversation of Prabhupada, 5th Dec 1973, LA, California:
Devotee: Prabhupad, is every Jiva given a chance in the beginning to go in the spiritual world , then he falls down? or or sometimes a jiva may choose directly?
Prabhupada: Jiva is atomic. He is smaller than the atom. 1/10,000 th part of the tip of the hair. 'Kesagra sata bhagasya, satadha kalpitasya ca', Every living entity is atomic...
Devotee: Is he first allowed?
Prabhupada: Less than atom, smaller than the atom...
Devotee: Is he allowed to associate with Krishna in the beginning?
Prabhupada: Jiva is always with Krishna. Simply he has forgotten. Are you not in Krishna? We are standing on the sand, so sand is Krishna, Krishna's energy. We are standing by the water, this is Krishna's energy. Bhumir apo analo vayuh. Don't you read that? So, is it different from Krishna? My body is also Krishna's energy. I am also Krishna's energy. I am always with Krishna. Simply I have forgotten it.
Devotee: But this is Krishna's inferior energy, right?
Prabhupada: That may be. That is comparitive study. Inferior , superior. But this is energy. As energy it is not different from Krishna. As energy.
Devotee: Vasudeva sarvam it.
Prabhupada: Yes. As energy how can you differentiate from Krishna? Devotee: The growth of a plant is compared to the energy of the Sun.
Prabhupada: There are so many things. That is comparitive study. But energy is not different from the energitic. Sunshine is not different from the Sun.

From this explanation Prabhupada is explaining the acintya-bheda-abheda tattva; simultaneously one & different. In this sense, Jiva is always with Krishna meaning---Jiva is energy of Krishna, just like sunshine is the energy of the sun. And not that Jiva is always with Krishna, IN THE SENSE that Jiva is serving Krishna in spiritual world. But as energy of Krishna, Jiva is always with(in) Krishna, and can never be independent of Sri Krishna. It is Sri Krishna, who is always present in the heart of all conditioned souls, guiding them, and giving them all facilities for enjoying in material world. In this sense, Krishna is always with Jiva.

I feel this understanding is in line with all previous acaryas, that those who are nitya-siddhas, liberated servants of Sri Krishna, never fall down, and this is confirmed by Sri Krishna ---yad gatva na nirvartante, tad dhama paramam mama, one who reaches the spiritual abode, never comes back; because he has no need to go back. Just imagine, we are in material world, which is always miserable, still we don't want to leave & make permanent plans to stay here; just imagine if any one goes to the spiritual world, which is full of happiness, why should anyone want to leave Sri Krishna?

It is not that Jiva loses independence in the spiritual world, but they never misuse independence. Still that freedom to misue is always there, since that independence is given by Sri Krishna to everyone. That does not mean they fall down. This is true liberty, freedom; and spiritual world is full of liberty, freedom, love; so we can conclude that those who are in spiritual world never fall down; nor they have any need for it. Suppose, if any Jiva asks Krishna that he wants to fall down to material world, Sri Krishna will allow him, since Sri Krishna does not want to interfere with independence. Still this only a thought, in negative way. In spiritual world, the life is full of bliss, with many friends, relations, etc.,etc with Sri Krishna and His other devotees, so why should any one want to leave the spiritual world?

But if any one questions like this----since the Jiva has still got that freedom to misuse independence, so Jiva can fall down to material world---- and I would comment that this is the thought of Dr. Frog. Since my head is hollow, everyone has to be like that. This is frog's philosophy. Who would like to live in miserable conditions & place, this world? unless he is a MAD MAN.

24) "Why did Srila Prabhupada not explain what to do when a guru deviates?"

According to Srila Prabhupada's final order he was to be the initiator long into the future, and as an authorised link in the disciplic succession, there was no question of his deviating from the path of pure devotional service for even one second:

It was the author who converted July 9th letter to 'Final Order', and he falsely claims, that Prabahuapda wanted to be diksa guru for future, even after his departure. For there is no direct direction like that, just because Prabhupada never said to discontinue, so it has to be continued--->this logic is employed, this is indirect, negative way, and hence cannot be trusted.

And Prabhupada already said "what to do, when a bogus guru deviates?" in a lecture. It seems the author has no knowledge of these statements of Prabhupada.

"The bona fide spiritual master always engages in unalloyed devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead." (C.c. Adi, 1.46)

Srila Prabhupada taught that a guru will only fall down if he is not properly authorised to initiate:

"...sometimes a spiritual master is not properly authorised to initiate and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and a large number of disciples." (NOD p116)

I don't understand whether the author means "qualification" or "authorization --rubber stamping". If we take Prabhupada's words of authorization to mean qualification, it makes good sense. Since in this world, there is always a propensity to cheat, so unqualified people can tend to become guru, by some means, to cheat people, and there are many innocent people who get cheated. Such unqualfied gurus, assuming an exalted position, is not new thing. But, Maya will take care of these self-authorized gurus. Maya will allure them and keep them in this world! What more do such rascals deserve?

When a guru falls down it is conclusive proof that he was never properly authorised by his predecessor acarya. Even if no ISKCON guru had ever fallen down one could still legitimately question where their authorisation came from to initiate.

We have already seen many times, that even though one takes diksa , initiation from a bonafide acarya, until he becomes sincere to follow the instructions of acarya, one never actually acheives that qualification or authorization to become guru---let us look at these statements of Prabhupada again:

"So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire. Just like father wants every son to be as qualified or more qualified than the father. But it is up to the student or to the son to raise himself to that standard." (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

The problem for the GBC is that in accepting the stark truth of quotes such as the one above, various unpleasant ramifications loom menacingly before them. Since all of ISKCON's gurus claim to be authorised to the same degree as part of the same package, (the alleged order from Srila Prabhupada being equally applicable to all of them), the very fact that many of them have visibly fallen down is proof positive that the 'order' was misunderstood. Had they actually been given proper authorisation there would be no question of any of them falling down. Indeed they would all be maha-bhagavatas.

1) The stark truth is, without required qualification if one becomes guru, then that would cause chaos.
2) Another stark truth is that, there is propensity to cheat. So, we find cheaters & cheated.
3) Certainly Prabhupada has already given authorization to all his disciples, but it is up to them to achieve that qualification, by personal effort & service.
4) From the bold statements of the author, I can only see, that author has misunderstood the order, that 'proper authorization' means 'achieving all required qualification, by following---this takes personal effort'.
5) The author thinks that "authorization" means "naming of certain persons by Prabhupada"--rubber stamping by pure devotee. But Prabhupada always said that a guru is self-effulgent and cannot be elected by votes. A sincere disciple who follows the acarya strictly is automatically a moon among stars. And a moon does not need to be named or rubber-stamped. So the author claims that one, who is rubber stamped by Prabhupada is a maha-bhagavata. This is a new definition of maha-bhagavata created by the author. While sastra defines the maha-bhagavata differently:

"One who is expert in logic and understanding of revealed scriptures, and who always has firm conviction and deep faith that is not blind, is to be considered a topmost devotee in devotional service."(Caitanya-Caritamrta)

"One who is expert in logic, argument, and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krishna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world."(Caitanya-Caritamrta)

"A spiritual master is always liberated." (SP Letter 21/6/70)

25) "As soon as one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples reaches perfection, the ritvik system will have become redundant."

Sometimes referred to as 'soft ritvik', the above injunction rests on the premise that the ritvik system was only put in place because at the time prior to Srila Prabhupada's passing there were no qualified disciples.

However, this premise is speculation since it was never articulated by Srila Prabhupada. There is no evidence that the ritvik system was set up only as a reaction to a dearth of qualified people, and that once there is a qualified person we should stop following it. This notion has the unfortunate side effect of making the ritvik system seem only second best, or makeshift, when actually it is Krsna's perfect plan. It also makes it possible for some future unscrupulous charismatic personality to stop the system through some false show of devotion.

1) The author calls it a 'speculation' to reject ritvik-vada, because it was never articulated by Prabhupada? This is a strange behaviour of the author, since the whole final order is a one-sided speculation of july9th letter and few conversations of Prabhupada.
2) Again, by saying that rtvik-system is Krishna's plan, the author misleads people, thinking they can accept his indirect / negative arguments of final order. And there are many innocent people who accept it, out of misfortune.
3) Actually, ritvik-system is based on indirect interpretations. Again, the author criticizes those who work against his new theory. So, is it not speculation from the author, that he is always right and can do no mistake? In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna declares that anyone who establishes a point on self-pride without basis of sastra, that is in the mode of ignorance.

In theory, even if there were qualified uttama adhikari disciples present now, they would still have to follow the ritvik system if they wanted to remain in ISKCON. There is no reason why a qualified person would not be more than happy to follow the order of Srila Prabhupada, as we have already stated.

The problem in Kali-Yuga is that, unqualified people want to teach their own rascal ideas to the honest devotees, and instead of learning from honest devotees, they try to teach the devotees what is right and what is wrong, without basis of sastra. Is it not hypocrisy? Certainly Kali-yuga is living upto its name!

Instead of understanding bhakti-science from uttama-adhikari, the author is now formulating rules on how to control the pure devotees, if they are present in ISKCON. What should be a devotee's desire? Is it not to become servant of the servant of the servant, 1000000 times down , servant of Krishna? So, how come we not serve uttama-adhikari if he is present, and learn from him

Uttama-adhikari will always be happy to serve Prabhupada, not blindly & in a narrow minded way, but a broad minded way.

One possible source of this misconception could be the instructions Srila Bhaktisiddhanta left the Gaudiya Matha. Srila Prabhupada told us that his Guru Maharaja had asked for there to be a GBC, and that in due course a self-effulgent acarya would emerge. As we know the Gaudiya Matha did not follow this, to catastrophic effect. Some devotees believe we must also be on the look out for a self-effulgent acarya; and that since he could come at any time the ritvik system is only a stop-gap measure.

Did not Prabhupada say that an acarya is not made by rubber-stamp, but is self-effulgent? the author thinks this instruction is a theory --- because he has to prove his theory---is this not madness?

The difficulty with this theory is that the instructions Srila Bhaktisiddhanta left his disciples, and the ones Srila Prabhupada left us, are different. Srila Prabhupada certainly left instructions that the GBC should continue managing his Society, but he said nothing anywhere about the emergence of a future self-effulgent acarya for ISKCON. Instead he set up a ritvik system whereby he would remain the acarya 'henceforward'. Obviously as disciples we cannot jump over Srila Prabhupada and start following Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

Now the author thinks that "A Guru is self-effulgent" is theory. Let us look deep into this, and see what self-effulgence means.
In one Conversation Prabhupada told:
A guru need not have 10 legs and eight hands, who ever opens your eyes, he is guru. If you don't accept this, you are fool number one.

In the verse 'ajnana-timirandhasya, jnana-anjana salakaya' it says a guru will bring the torch light of knowledge to clear away our darkness of ignorance of disciple. In this way, the disciple experiences clearing away of darkness. Just like, when you eat, you feel satisfied, and it does not need confirmation from the author, whether we are satisfied or not. In this way, the Guru is self-effulgent to the disciple, in the sense that disciple will be freed from ignorance, just like Arjuna felt, at the end of Bhagavad gita: 'now my illusion is gone, and I shall act as You say, Krishna!'

om ajnana-timirandhasya jnananjana-salakaya caksur unmilitam yena tasmai sri-gurave namah

I was born in the darkest ignorance, and my spiritual master opened my eyes with the torch of knowledge. I offer my respectful obeisances unto him.

Prabhupada gave this experience to his disciples by preaching with logic & argument based on sastra. So a guru is self-effulgent torch to the disciple (ajnana-timira..) So how can this be applicable only for Bhaktisiddhanta, Prabhupada, and why not for a sincere disciple of Prabhupada?

So, finally, how is this understanding of self-effulgence, jumping over Prabhupada and start following Bhaktisiddhanta? Why should Prabhupada differ from his Guru's instructions on THIS particular Guru principle? But the author tries to mislead people saying that "Prabhupada's instructions are different from his Guru", ofcourse some instructions may be different like Bhaktisiddhanta ordered everyone to chant 64 rounds (64 X 108) of Hare Krishna mantra per day; but Prabhupada said only 16 rounds (16 X 108) of Hare Krishna mantra per day. But the principle of chanting and hearing Hare Krishna Maha mantra has not changed. So the principle of Guru was also not changed by Prabhupada, but it is the author who is trying to mislead people in 'principles'.

If Srila Prabhupada had been given some dictation from Krsna that his Society was shortly to be helmed by a new acarya, then he would have made some provision for this in his final instructions. Instead he ordered that only his books were to be distributed, and that they would be law for the next ten thousand years. What would a future acarya have left to do? Srila Prabhupada has already put in place the Movement that will fulfill every prophecy and purport of our disciplic succession for the remainder of the Sankirtan Movement.

Now, the author laments on what should have happened:
1) That Prabhupada should have gotten a dictation from Sri Krishna on "who" is new acarya.
2) Using Prabhupada instructions that his books be distributed, for next 10,000 years, the author thinks: what a new acarya can preach? I can say this: If an acarya comes to us by Sri Krishna's mercy, then he will remove ignorance from the conditioned souls by torch light of knowledge. Such an acarya will fulfill the purpose of an acarya, by slaying the ignorance----ajana timirandhasya, jnananjana salakaya---, and clearly show us the meaning behind instructions of Prabhupada in a practical way.
3) A new acaraya, if comes, he will preach Krishna Consciousness, and thus serves the wish of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu--- he will become guru, by becoming perfect first, and then preaching for the benefit of others.
4) I feel the prophecy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is yet to be fulfilled. That of spreading His holy name to EVERY TOWN & VILLAGE on planet Earth!

How will it be possible for a new self-effulgent diksa guru to emerge within ISKCON, when the only person allowed to give diksa is Srila Prabhupada?

Is this the desire of Prabhupada or desire of the author? Can we trust his indirect,negative ways, using which he came to this conclusion?

Some have argued that acaryas have the power to change things, and thus a new one could alter the ritvik system within ISKCON. But would an authorised acarya ever contradict the direct orders left by a previous acarya to his followers? To do so would surely undermine the authority of the previous acarya. It would certainly cause confusion and bewilderment for those followers faced with the tortuous choice of whose order to follow.

Since I have shown above that Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta are in agreement, with the principle that Guru is self-effulgent, he need not have any more confusion nor bewilderment. So, I henceforward request the author to stop torturing people, by putting forward abusrd theories.

All such concerns melt away once we read the final order. There is simply no mention of the 'soft' ritvik injunction. The letter just says 'henceforward'. Thus to say it will end with the emergence of a new acarya, or perfected disciple, is superimposing one's own speculation over a perfectly clear request. The letter only supports a 'hard' ritvik understanding, i.e. that:

'Srila Prabhupada will be the initiator within ISKCON for as long as the Society is extant.'

The author is fixed to a word: 'henceforward' and he does not consider what is said before & after that word, and in what time, place and circumustance those words are spoken, and what was spoken and written?

Earlier the author has criticized Prabhupada that he should not have dealt with ritvik-theory, in ambiguous way. Sir, if ritvik-theory was not Prabhupada's desire, why should he give a clear instruction on the "future continuation of rtvik initiations , even after his departure from this world"? Where is that perfectly clear request from Prabhupada? If the request if perfectly clear why is there need for so much interpretation using indirect, negative & insane ways?

This understanding is consistent with the idea that Srila Prabhupada had already single-handedly put into place the success of his mission (please see related objection 8: "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure devotees?")

I have not yet seen 'one' consistent understanding to support ritvik theory. If any theory is pure and correct, then there need not be so much discussion, it is generally simple and self-effulgent like teachings of Prabhupada and directly supported by sastra. But rtvik-theory has no cases of common-sense nor sane arguments, but it is just full of OUTLANDISH CLAIMS---the proof of claims: the strong belief of rtviks, other than this, it has no direct support from sadhu and sastra.

It is sometimes claimed that since the July 9th letter only authorises the original 11 appointed ritviks, the system must stop once the 11 persons nominated die or deviate.

This is rather an extreme argument. After all the July 9th letter does not state that only Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may never be added to. There are other systems of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada, such as the GBC, where new members are freely added or subtracted whenever it is felt necessary. It is illogical to single out one system of management, and treat it entirely differently from other equally important ones. This is particularly so since Srila Prabhupada never even hinted that the approach to maintaining the ritvik system should differ in any way from the upkeep of other systems he personally put in place.

Not to point finger at the author, but the way, he tries to argue against is "This is not there, that is not there, in the letter", to dis-prove the point, and sometimes to prove the point. Prabhupada wrote so many books---why can't he read and get a clear understanding from them?

This argument has become popular, so we invite the reader to consider the following points:

1) In the Topanga Canyon transcript Tamal Krsna Goswami relates the following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected ritviks:

Tamal Krsna: "Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?"

Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be added." (Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80)

Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that could be deemed a 'necessary' circumstance for more ritviks to be 'added'.

Prabhupada is speaking of ritvik-initiations that are happening in 1970's, how can "adding" during Prabhupada's presence, and "adding" after departure of Prabhupada can be same?

2) The July 9th letter defines ritvik as: 'representative of the acarya'. It is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone to represent Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, Temple Presidents or indeed GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus it should be easily within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests to act responsibly on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.

A) As per Srimad Bhagavatam, word-to-word translations, a ritvik is a preist, who can help in sacrifices, and Prabhupada termed them in the same manner, as representative of acarya for performing initiations on the order of Prabhupada. They only help to give help and follow certain procedure in the initiation ceremony, that's all.
B) The GBC way of approving Gurus is rubber-stamping; and thus clearly deviated from the Vedic principles that say Guru is self-effulgent and not made by approvals or votes.
C) Now, the author wants GBC, to select few priests, who will do the ritvik-initiation, the wishes of the author, but not Prabhupada's. May be the author truly believes in ritvik theory as pure devotion----and thus he tries to use GBC also to engage in so-called pure devotion, and then go to hell. This is example of blind leader trying to teach to other blind people.

3) The July 9th letter shows Srila Prabhupada's intention was to run a ritvik system 'henceforward'. Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate managing authority in order that they could maintain and regulate all the systems he put in place. The ritvik system was his system for managing initiations. It is the job of the GBC to maintain that system, adding or subtracting personnel as they can do in all other areas over which they are authorised to preside.

a) The author claims that ritvik-initiations must continue after Prabhupada's departure, but I claim it is not so. So he should go back and look at my arguments.
b) Initiation, diksa means initiation in to transcendental knowledge, so how come Initiations are part of management (the say author terms it?) ? You can manage material things, but Guru & Initiation are all spiritual interactions, so how can we manage spiritual matters (per the author)? . The passionate mode of discussion or arguments found in the Final Order book use whatever means to WIN the discussion, instead of trying to bring out the TRUTH of the matter, which is discussion in mode of goodness.

4) Letters issued on July 9th, 11th, and 21st all indicate that the list could be added to, with the use of such phrases as 'thus far', 'so far', 'initial list', etc. So a mechanism for adding more ritviks must have been put in place, even though it has yet to be exercised.

Just because "ritivks can be added when required" does not mean that the manufactured "ritvik-theory" is right. And to implement this instruction, they have to continue the rtivik initiations after Prabhupada's departure. This argument is indirect, and thus loses value.

5) When trying to understand an instruction one will naturally consider the purpose behind it. The letter states that Srila Prabhupada appointed 'some of his senior disciples to act as "rittik" - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations ...', and that at that time Srila Prabhupada had 'so far' given eleven names. The aim of an obedient disciple is to understand and satisfy the purpose of the system. The purpose of the final order was clearly not to exclusively bind all future initiations to an 'elite' group of individuals ('some [...] so far') who must eventually die, and in so doing end the process of initiation within ISKCON. Rather the purpose was to ensure that initiations could practically continue from that time on. Therefore this system must remain in place as long as there is a need for initiation. Thus the addition of more 'senior disciples' to act as 'representatives of the acarya', as and when they are required, would ensure that the purpose of the system continued to be satisfied.

So, till now, I have shown how the author has not thought in broad-minded way, but only narrow-thinking, while trying to prove the ritvik theory.

After this, the author feels the ritvik system is required when there is need for initiation,diksa. So diksa, has got a new definition from author. But let's look at when a person needs initiation , diksa:

Any person who is seriously desirous of achieving real happiness must seek out a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters. Everyone should try to find such a bona fide spiritual master in order to fulfill his mission of life, which is to transfer himself to the plane of spiritual bliss."

The purport is that one should not accept as a spiritual master someone who is fool number one, who has no direction according to the scriptural injunctions, whose character is doubtful, who does not follow the principles of devotional service, or who has not conquered the influence of the six sensegratifying agents. The six agents of sense gratification are the tongue, the genitals, the belly, anger, the mind and words. Anyone who has practiced controlling these six is permitted to make disciples all over the world. To accept such a spiritual master is the crucial point for advancement in spiritual life. One who is fortunate enough to come under the shelter of a bona fide spiritual master is sure to traverse the path of spiritual salvation without any doubt. (Nectar of Devotion)

So the need for initiation is the "desire of sincere person to achieve the real self-interest in life". Such a person must approach a bonafide spiritual master, who has realized the scriptures. Realization comes after practically applying the principles in our life. Just like we learn Physics theory, but to get real understanding the students do practicals, by applying the laws of Physics. So, similar way, one realizes Sri Krishna, by doing practicals using knowledge of devotion.

6) Taken together with Srila Prabhupada's will (which indicates all future directors for permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst his initiated disciples), it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada's intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply managing the whole thing.

Where is that clear intention from Prabhupada? Dear author, all you have done is interpretation in your own way and I challenge all ritvik-supporters to read my article and debate with me.

Having said this it is always possible that Srila Prabhupada could revoke the order if he wanted to. As stated previously the counter instruction would need to be at least as clear and unequivocal as the personally signed letter which put the ritvik system in place in the first place.

So, now the author has decided upon ritvik-theory, basis and proof as himself, and to counter the ritvik-theory Prabhupada should give him a signed letter, which would be clear & un-equivocal. But if the July 9th letter is clear about ritvik-theory, then why should he interpret it for us? Since the author wants to manufacture new theory, he has to interpret it in a one-sided way.

So, the claim that July 9th letter is clear & un-equivocal, in supporting ritvik-initiations, after departure of Prabhupada, is A FALSE CLAIM. Only rascals can do such claims without proper basis.

With Krsna and his pure devotees anything is possible:

Newsday Reporter: You are now the leader and the Spiritual Master. Who will take your place?

Srila Prabhupada: That Krsna will dictate, who will take my place. (SP Interview, 14/7/76, New York)

However, we feel it is safer to follow the orders we did receive from our acarya, rather than speculate about ones that may or may not come in the future, or worse still invent our own.

1) It is safe, if we follow orders after understanding clearly, and if we don't understand the order, how can it be safe?
2) Now, the author, indirectly intimidates those who say that ritvik-theory is falsely claimed, based on indirect methods, by calling them speculative. I don't understand, why only the author is allowed to think for the whole world! Is he the only one, who has got intelligence; all devotees have got their intelligence; so we should accept those, who can explain with proper logic & argument, and directly support by sastra.
3) It is funny, that author thinks it is worse, to invent & manufacture new philosophies, so according to his own argument this ritvik-theory is one of the WORST and USELESS philosophies, since it is manufactured by using one-sided interpretations.

26) "Proponents of ritvik just don't want to surrender to a Guru."

This accusation is based on the misconception that in order to surrender to a Spiritual Master he must be physically present. If this were the case then none of Srila Prabhupada's original disciples could currently be surrendering to him. Surrender to the Spiritual Master means following his instructions, and this can be done whether he is physically present or not. The purpose of ISKCON is to provide proper guidance and encouragement to all comers through potentially unlimited siksa relationships. Once the current GBC itself surrenders to the 'order' of Srila Prabhupada this system will naturally inspire more and more surrender from others, eventually perhaps even attracting die hard ritvik activists to do the same.

1) We should know that Prabhupada, had personal association of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, only for a "few tens" of times. But Prabhupada was following instructions, and Bhaktisiddhanta need not be physically always present with Prabhupada. It means that our guru-disciple relationship is not spoon-feeding-a-child relation. A disciple understands from guru, clearly the principles of devotion and then applies himself to those instructions, and thus disciples himself shall take responsibility and works for his growth devotion, and that depends on his sincerity and honesty. This is the reason why many of Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples have deviated, but Prabhupada was honest in following and thus succeeeded his guru. In the same way, those disciples, who honestly follow Prabhupada succeed him as well, and that honesty need not be rubber stamped by the author nor the GBC. So, we can understand devotion to Krishna is based on liberty, freedom, honesty, vulnerability, thus allowing Sri Krishna's plan to emerge; not that we control everything by manufactured philosophies, but our job is to remain honest, and allow Sri Krishna's plan to emerge. So, we should all be prepared to become an instrument for the use of Sri Krishna. Is this not liberty? Is allowing the author's one-sided, indirect interpretations a symptom of liberty?
2) I don't understand what unlimited siksa relationships mean. Does it mean siksa guru is cheap, but diksa guru is costly? Is this not passionate business mentality? If one is bonafide siksa guru, is he not bonafide guru? If one is bonafide guru, are diksa & siksa not just functions of bonafide guru?
3) I don't find any inspiration to follow ritvik theory. Even if all GBC agrees to follow ritvik-theory, I shall still fight against this indirect, narrow-minded interpretations, upon which ritvik-theory is based. So, the author's fight is not yet over, he should defeat me now by proper explanation and answer all my queries OR accept defeat and give-up this ritvik-nonsense.

Even if all ritvik proponents were actually stubbornly unwilling to surrender to a Guru, that still does not invalidate the July 9th order. The fact that ritviks are allegedly so unsurrendered should make the GBC even more anxious to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order, if for no other reason than to prove a contrast.

1) Again, July 9th letter is termed as order for "future initiations after depature of Prabhupada" by the author.
2) It is not also a question of surrendering, but proper method of surrendering. I don't request ritvik-proponents to surrender to rascals and imposters. But they should take proper method of surrendering to Guru, by looking at symptoms of guru. And even GBC or IRM should not present diksa-Gurus before people. But let, sannaysis freely move and preach Krishna Consciousness, and who ever inspires the disciple, by opening his eyes, ajnana timirandhaysa, then it is the disciples & that guru's decision whether to take & give initiation or not. External, thirdy party, cannot decide, for other person, who should be his guru?

Otherwise, if we want to control others' lives, by managing (forcing) them, but not by preaching (induce) to them to be honest and become Krishna Conscious, then ISKCON / IRM is turning to passionate corporate offices, and not a place of devotion to Sri Krishna. But Sri Krishna leaves the responsibility & independence to his devotees to act, and let them fall or stand on their own honesty. Sri Krishna is so personal, but why do we, who claim to be His devotees act impersonal by managing others' choices on accepting Guru?

27) "But who will offer guidance and give service to devotees if there are to be no diksa Gurus."

There will be a diksa Guru, Srila Prabhupada; and guidance and service will be given in exactly the same way as it was when he was present, through reading his books and through siksa Guru relationships with other devotees. Before 1977, when someone joined the temple, they would be instructed by the Bhakta Leader, the Sankirtan Leader, visiting Sannyasis, the Cook, the Pujari, the Temple President, etc. It would be extremely rare to be given personal guidance directly from Srila Prabhupada; in fact he constantly discouraged such interaction so that he could concentrate on his writing. We suggest things should go on just as Srila Prabhupada set them up.

If there is a chance for Prabhupada to meet all his disciples, who he personally initiated or ritvik-initiated, would not Prabhupada be happy enough to meet all of them? Why Prabhupada could not meet all of his disciples? The reason is there are too many disciples, who are distributed all over the world, and Prabhupada had to do the work of translating & had to recover from ill-health; so why are these reasons not considered by the author. By not considering these, it shows the practice of impersonalism by the author.

So, the author has no personal consideration even for Prabhupada, but since he is only intent upon proving his theory, by any possible manner, he fails to see this defect.

28) "On three occasions Srila Prabhupada states that you need a physical guru, and yet your whole position rests on the idea that you do not.

"Therefore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Krsna, then from within our heart he gives us favourable instruction so that we can gradually make progress, gradually. Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested then we have to go to a physical spiritual master." (SP Bg. Lecture, 14/8/66, New York)

"Because Krsna is situated in everyone's heart. Actually, he is the spiritual master, Caitya-Guru. So in order to help us, he comes out as physical spiritual master." (SP S.B. Lecture, 28/5/74, Rome)

"Therefore God is called Caitya-Guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy [...] He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of the spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart." (SP Room conversation, 23/5/74)

Srila Prabhupada used the term physical guru when explaining that in the conditioned stage we cannot rely purely on the Caitya-Guru or Supersoul for guidance. It is imperative that we surrender to the external manifestation of the Supersoul. This is the diksa Guru. Such a Spiritual Master, who is considered a resident of the spiritual world, and an intimate associate of Lord Krsna, makes his physical appearance just to guide the fallen conditioned souls. Often such a Spiritual Master will write physical books; he will give lectures which can be heard with physical ears and be recorded on physical tape machines; he may leave physical murtis and even a physical GBC to continue managing everything once he has physically departed.

Prabhupada is speaking of a bonafide guru, not diksa or siksa. If one is bonafide guru, he can give both siksa and diksa. To understand this concept of physical spiritual master, we need to write a short story again:

Short Story:
Suppose there is a new comer, who is inquisitive about purpose of life, to understand himself & what is God, how to become happy, etc. At that point, he has to find some Guru, who can help him out, by imparting proper knowledge. So, the first person, who gives us the information of spiritual life is called vartma-pradarsaka guru and not siksa guru. And after gaining this knowledge from Nectar of Instruction, what should he decide?

The conclusion is that if you want genuine spiritual knowledge you have to approach a bona fide spiritual master who has realized the Absolute Truth. Otherwise you will remain in darkness. You cannot think, “Oh, I may or may not accept a spiritual master. In any case, there are books that I can learn from.” No, the Vedic injunction is tad-vijïänärthaà sa gurum eväbhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. The word gacchet means “one must go,” not that one may or may not go. To understand transcendental knowledge, one must go to a spiritual master. That is the Vedic injunction. (NOI)

Srila Prabhupada: diksa means divya-jnanam ksapayati iti diksa. Which explains the divya-jnana, transcendental, that is diksa. Di, divya, diksanam. diksa. So divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge... If you don't accept a spiritual master, how you'll get transcen... You'll be taught here and there, here and there, and waste time. Waste time for the teacher and waste your valuable time. Therefore you have to be guided by an expert spiritual master. Read it.(SP Room conversation, 27/1/77, Bhubaneswar)

Any person who is seriously desirous of achieving real happiness must seek out a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters. Everyone should try to find such a bona fide spiritual master in order to fulfill his mission of life, which is to transfer himself to the plane of spiritual bliss."

Even Vedas, are called sruti, which are learnt by hearing. Hearing means we are receiving guidance from the expert spiritual master. For example, in the Naimisaranya, there are hundreds of sages, who are expert in all knowledge of the Vedas, but still, they wanted to hear directly from another EXPERT, Suta Goswami. In this way, we also need to learn from experts, who have proper theoritical knowledge (jnana) & realized knowledge by doing practicals on theoritical knowledge (realized knowledge, vijnanam). Again, to buy gold, we need to know what is Gold, similar way, to go to a Guru, we need to know what would be his qualifications, and then accept such a Guru.

We accept Prabhupada is pure devotee, so are all previous acaryas like Bhaktisiddhanta; still the injunction of Vedas is to accept, receive knowledge from a realized devotee, whether he has socical position of sannyasi or not. So there is a need for everyone to find out such a devotee, who has realized knowledge and receive knowledge from him. And receiving knowledge from realized person is necessary to transfer oneself to plane of spiritual bliss, otherwise, if we are guided by fools & rascals, where will that lead to---except the same material miseries, in the name of Krishna Conciousness. Till then we can be sincere, honest, be broad-minded, be direct & positive and trust Sri Krishna, and pray to Him to lead to a bonafide Guru.

So, by the mercy of both the spiritual master and Krsna, one takes up devotional service. How is that? Their mercy runs on parallel lines. If you have not yet found a spiritual master but are sincere, Krsna will direct you to a bona fide spiritual master. And if you get a bona fide spiritual master, he will take you to Krsna. Krsna is always sitting in your heart as the caitya-guru, the spiritual master within. It is that caitya-guru who manifests Himself externally as the spiritual master. Therefore the spiritual master is the direct representative of Krsna. (NOI)

Again, why do we we need spiritual master? so that we achieve the plane of spiritual bliss. But the author is completely misguided about "initiation ceremonies". The fundamental necessity in spiritual life is that we need to receive knowledge from a realized devotee. Initiation may follow later, even if not initiated, but sincere, then surely he can achieve the purpose of life if he follows. So, by reading Prabhupada's books and hearing lectures we can follow him sincerely, but that does not mean Prabhupada accepts us as his diksa-disciple, but we can accept Prabhupada as siksa-guru, because he is giving us guidance for spirutal advancement. This is indicated here:

The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life is called the vartmapradarsaka- guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the sastras is called the diksa-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the siksa-guru. (CC Madhya)

So, the claim that Prabhupada is our diksa guru (using which ritviks are performing formal diksa ceremonies) is FALSELY claimed.

However what Srila Prabhupada never taught was that this physical guru must also be physically present in order to act as guru. As we have pointed out, were this the case, then currently no-one could be considered his disciple. If the guru must always be physically present in order for transcendental knowledge to be imparted, then once Srila Prabhupada left the planet all his disciples should have taken 're-initiation'. Furthermore thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were initiated having had no contact with the physical body of Srila Prabhupada. Yet it is accepted that they approached, enquired from, surrendered to, served and took initiation from the physical spiritual master. No one is arguing that their initiations were null and void by dint of the above three quotes.

Can Bhaktisiddhanta act as diksa-guru for us now? Can Prabhupada act as diksa-guru for us now? Both can act as siksa gurus because they give us instructions through books; but they cannot be taken as diksa-guru. Just because Bhaktisiddhanta left the material body, has Prabhupada taken re-initiation? Is this not RASCALDOM to ask such questions?

Dear author, Prabhupada is guiding his disciples through his instructions, and since during the living presense of Prabhupada, his disciples are not supposed to become gurus, and for other reasons (health, time for translation, too many people all over world), Prabhupada did ritvik-initiations, and it was never Prabhupada's wish to continue initiations even after his departure from this world. But claimng such theories, which has no clear acceptance from Prabhupada is RASCALDOM. I request author to STOP this rascaldom, give up his post as leader of any sort, for people follow the example of RASCAL leaders and get misled. I am giving him advice, by the same right, the author has given advice to GBC to accept ritvik theory.

29) "Can not the diksa Guru be a conditioned soul?"

Simple answer is No. Since Guru by definition has realized knowledge, which came after practicing the transcendental knowledge given by his own Guru. Unless he practices, follows he cannot be called Guru. So, by definition, a Guru, cannot be conditioned by maya (illusion of material nature). But since this is material world and there is propensity to cheat, there are many cheater gurus and cheated disciples. This is no wonder!

As we have already mentioned there is only one place in all of Srila Prabhupada's teachings where the qualification of a diksa guru is specifically mentioned (C.c. Madhya, 24.330). That is in the section of the Caitanya-Caritamrta which deals specifically with diksa. The quote clearly establishes that the diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata. The pertinent point to note is Srila Prabhupada's use of the words 'must', 'must', and 'only'. It is not possible to be more emphatic. There are no quotes that state that the diksa guru can be a conditioned soul. This is not surprising otherwise Srila Prabhupada would be preaching a contradiction in guru-tattva.

For your benefit, I shall copy the purport of 330 Verse. In the purport Prabhupada is speaking of an Acarya, Guru (also Jagad Guru), and not just for diksa. A Jagad Guru can also give diksa for a sincere disciple.

TEXT 330
guru-laksana, sisya-laksana, donhara pariksana
sevya----bhagavan, sarva-mantra-vicarana

TRANSLATION
"In your book there should be 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, Krsna, should be described as the worshipable object, and you should consider the bija-mantra for the worship of Krsna, Rama or any other expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

PURPORT

In the Padma Purana, the characteristics of the guru, the bona fide spiritual master, have been described:

maha-bhagavata-srestho
brahmano vai gurur nrnam
sarvesam eva lokanam
asau pujyo yatha harih

maha-kula-prasuto 'pi
sarva-yajnesu diksitah
sahasra-sakhadhyayi ca
na guruh syad aVaisnavah

The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class. The first-class devotee is the spiritual master for all kinds of people. It is said: gurur nrnam. The word nrnam means "of all human beings." The guru is not limited to a particular group. It is stated in the Upadesamrta of Rupa Gosvami that a guru is a gosvami, a controller of the senses and the mind. Such a guru can accept disciples from all over the world. Prthivim sa sisyat. This is the test of the guru.

In India there are many so-called gurus, and they are limited to a certain district or a province. They do not even travel about India, yet they declare themselves to be jagad-guru, gurus of the whole world. Such cheating gurus should not be accepted. Anyone can see how the bona fide spiritual master accepts disciples from all over the world. The guru is a qualified brahmana; therefore he knows Brahman and Parabrahman. He thus devotes his life for the service of Parabrahman. The bona fide spiritual master who accepts disciples from all over the world is also worshiped all over the world because of his qualities. Lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih: the people of the world worship him just as they worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All these honors are offered to him because he strictly follows the brahminical principles and teaches these principles to his disciples. Such a person is called an acarya because he knows the principles of devotional service, he behaves in that way himself, and he teaches his disciples to follow in his footsteps. Thus he is an acarya or jagad-guru. Even though a person is born in a brahminical family and is very expert in performing sacrifices, he cannot be accepted as a guru if he is not a strict Vaisnava. A guru is a brahmana by qualification, and he can turn others into brahmanas according to the sastric principles and brahminical qualifications. Brahmanism is not a question of heredity. In Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.11.35) Sri Narada Muni tells Maharaja Yudhisthira what a brahmana is. He states that if brahminical qualifications are observed in ksatriyas, vaisyas or even sudras, one should accept them as brahmanas. In this regard, Srila Sridhara Svami has commented: samadibhir eva brahmanadi-vyavaharo mukhyah, na jatimatradity aha-yasyeti. yad yadi anyatra varnantare 'pi drsyeta, tad-varnantaram tenaiva laksana-nimittenaiva varnena vinirdiset, na tu jati-nimittenety arthah.

There is a similar statement made by Nilakantha, the commentator on Mahabharata:

sudro 'pi samady-upeto brahmana eva
brahmano 'pi kamady-upetah sudra eva

"Although one may be born in a sudra family, if he is endowed with the brahminical qualities beginning with sama [control of the mind], he is to be accepted as a brahmana. Although one may be born in a brahmana family, if he is endowed with the qualities beginning with kama [lust], he is to be considered a sudra." No one should present himself as a brahmana simply on the basis of being born in a brahminical family. One must be qualified by the brahminical qualities mentioned in the sastras, particularly Bhagavad-gita:

samo damas tapah saucam
ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam
brahma-karma svabhava-jam

"Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, wisdom, knowledge and religiousness-these are the qualities by which the brahmanas work." (Bg. 18.42)

Unless one is qualified with all these attributes, he cannot be accepted as a brahmana. It is not a question of simply taking birth in a brahmana family. In this regard, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura remarks that Narottama dasa Thakura and Syamananda Gosvami, although not born in brahmana families, are accepted as bona fide spiritual masters because they were brahmanas by qualification. Personalities like Sri Ganga-narayana, Ramakrsna and many others, who were actually born in brahmana families, accepted Narottama dasa Thakura and Syamananda Gosvami as their spiritual masters.

The maha-bhagavata is one who decorates his body with tilaka and whose name indicates him to be a servant of Krsna by the word dasa. He is also initiated by a bona fide spiritual master and is expert in worshiping the Deity, chanting mantras correctly, performing sacrifices, offering prayers to the Lord, and performing sankirtana. He knows how to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead and how to respect a Vaisnava. When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshiped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru. However, if one is highly qualified but is not a Vaisnava, he cannot be accepted as a guru. One cannot be a brahmana unless one is a Vaisnava. If one is a Vaisnava, he is already a brahmana. If a guru is completely qualified as a Vaisnava, he must be accepted as a brahmana even if he is not born in a brahmana family. The caste system method of distinguishing a brahmana by birth is not acceptable when applied to a bona fide spiritual master. A spiritual master is a qualified brahmana and acarya. If one is not a qualified brahmana, he is not expert in studying Vedic literatures. Nana-sastra-vicaranaika-nipunau. Every Vaisnava is a spiritual master, and a spiritual master is automatically expert in brahminical behavior. He also understands the Vedic sastras.

Here Prabhupada clearly says, that one who has attained the topmost position, then he can be accepted as guru. Just because the author has not seen any one, who has attained that topmost platform, it does not mean that such a topmost devotee is not existing. This idea is "Dr. Frog's philosophy", just because Dr. Frog has not seen, no body has seen.

Similarly, a disciple's qualifications must be observed by the spiritual master before he is accepted as a disciple. In our Krsna consciousness movement, the requirement is that one must be prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life-illicit sex, meat-eating, intoxication and gambling. In Western countries especially, we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles. Then he is given the name of a Vaisnava servant and initiated to chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, at least sixteen rounds daily. In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representative for at least six months to a year. He is then recommended for a second initiation, during which a sacred thread is offered and the disciple is accepted as a bona fide brahmana. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the system of giving the sacred thread to a bona fide Vaisnava, and we are also following in his footsteps. The qualifications of a bona fide disciple are described in Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.10.6) as follows:

amanya-matsaro dakso
nirmamo drdha-sauhrdah
asatvaro 'rtha-jijnasur
anasuyur amogha-vak

The disciple must have the following qualifications. He must give up interest in the material bodily conception. He must give up material lust, anger, greed, illusion, madness and envy. He should be interested only in understanding the science of God, and he should be ready to consider all points in this matter. He should no longer think, "I am this body," or, "This thing belongs to me." One must love the spiritual master with unflinching faith, and one must be very steady and fixed. The bona fide disciple should be inquisitive to understand transcendental subject matter. He must not search out faults among good qualities, and he should no longer be interested in material topics. His only interest should be Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

As far as the mutual testing of the spiritual master and disciple is concerned, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura explains that a bona fide disciple must be very inquisitive to understand the transcendental subject matter. As stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.3.21):

tasmad gurum prapadyeta
jijnasuh sreya uttamam

"One who is inquisitive to understand the highest goal and benefit of life must approach a bona fide spiritual master and surrender unto him." A serious disciple must be alert when selecting a bona fide spiritual master. He must be sure that the spiritual master can deliver all the transcendental necessities. The spiritual master must observe how inquisitive the disciple is and how eager he is to understand the transcendental subject matter. The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no less than six months or a year. A spiritual master should not be very anxious to accept a disciple because of his material opulences. Sometimes a big businessman or landlord may approach a spiritual master for initiation. Those who are materially interested are called visayis (karmis), which indicates that they are very fond of sense gratification. Such visayis sometimes approach a famous guru and ask to become a disciple just as a matter of fashion. Sometimes visayis pose as disciples of a reputed spiritual master just to cover their activities and advertise themselves as advanced in spiritual knowledge. In other words, they want to attain material success. A spiritual master must be very careful in this regard. Such business is going on all over the world. The spiritual master does not accept a materially opulent disciple just to advertise the fact that he has such a big disciple. He knows that by associating with such visayi disciples, he may fall down. One who accepts a visayi disciple is not a bona fide spiritual master. Even if he is, his position may be damaged due to association with an unscrupulous visayi. If a so-called spiritual master accepts a disciple for his personal benefit or for material gain, the relationship between the spiritual master and the disciple turns into a material affair, and the spiritual master becomes like a smarta-guru. There are many caste gosvamis who professionally create some disciples who do not care for them or their instructions. Such spiritual masters are satisfied simply to get some material benefits from their disciples. Such a relationship is condemned by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, who calls such spiritual masters and disciples a society of cheaters and cheated. They are also called baulas or prakrta-sahajiyas. Their aim is to make the connection between the spiritual master and the disciple into a very cheap thing. They are not serious in wanting to understand spiritual life.

The author takes on this purport like this: diksa Guru must be a maha-bhagavata. And Prabhupada is a maha-bhagavata. So, I want to take Prabhupada as my diksa Guru. Is this a LOGICAL approach after reading the purport above? or a MAD MAN'S APPROACH?

There are quotes which may give the impression that they are supporting the idea of a non-liberated guru, but they usually fall into two categories:

1) Quotes dealing with the qualification for a siksa guru:

These quotes will stress how easy it is to act as a guru, how even children can do it, and is usually linked to Lord Caitanya's amara ajnaya verse.

Prabhupada is giving encouragement that if we accept sastras & devotional principles and follow them, then we can quickly advance. If we don't follow, where is advancement? The problem is people promise to follow during initiation, but they later neglect the instructions of guru. Prabhupada says, a child can follow, his parents direction, so similar way, if we understand clearly by proper logic & argument, and after attaining firm conviction, if we follow, then we can reach desired goal of becoming first class devotee.

2) Quotes describing the process of achieving guruhood:

These quotes will usually always have the word 'become' in them. This is because by following the process outlined, one will advance and qualify oneself for guruhood. In this way one will 'become' guru. The quotes will never say that the qualification of the resultant guru will be less than maha-bhagavata. They will usually just describe the process.

The whole process given in Nectar of Devotion, BG, SB, CC, is to enable a conditioned soul become a pure devotee of Sri Krishna, a maha-bhagavata, first-class devotee. So, if a conditioned soul becomes a pure devotee by practice & sincere effort by following Prabhupada, why should not anyone accept such a pure devotee as guru?

We have kept this brief since it is a subject on which another paper could be written; more importantly it is a topic that is not directly relevant to the issue in hand - namely what Srila Prabhupada actually ordered. Just because the diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata does not mean we have to have a ritvik system, or that Srila Prabhupada set up such a system. Conversely even if the qualification of a diksa guru was simple, that does not mean Srila Prabhupada did not order a ritvik system. We simply need to examine what Srila Prabhupada did and follow that; not what Srila Prabhupada may or should have done. This paper has dealt exclusively with Srila Prabhupada's actual final instructions. We have also touched on this subject on pages 9 and 36.

I strongly object to author's claim that Prabhupada ordered ritvik-system. This was manufactured by author. I have clearly shown in this article, how the author was misled by use of faulty one-sided logic & how the misuse of quotes from Prabhupada & sastra is done.

30) "Srila Prabhupada put the GBC at the head of the Society to manage everything and this is the way they have chosen to run initiations."

diksa, initiation, does not come under the jurisdiction of management. We can manage temple constructions, we can manage the money dealings, manage with Govt. authorities, etc. , but how one can manage the transactions between the Guru & his disciples? Where is management happening between Maharaja Pariksit and Sukadeva Goswami? Rather, Maharaja Pariksit gave up his management (administration) to come and hear from Sukadeva Goswami.

This is the reason that the heads of the state, the administration, they should take instruction from brahmanas, who do not manage any thing, but living simply for culturing, practicing knowledge & teaching others---including administrators.

So, if the head management (ex. GBC of ISKCON or heads of IRM), think themselves the ultimate authorities, and do not consider the inputs of the brahmanas, what would that lead to? Managers, without the guidance of brahmanas, tend to manage everything, even the transactions between Guru & his disciples. Management is done by force, not by persuation. They cannot do persuation, by presenting things with proper logic & argument, but they are so busy in managing, that without proper brahminical guidance they don't care in what way they are managing?

The simple example is: A wood-cutter was very busy working to cut the wood, and a saint is walking on the way, and told the wood cutter to stop cutting, lest he would fall down; but the wood-cutter said he was very busy, and kept on sawing! and after sometime he fell down. So, the management is also like that, people become so busy in managing that they, without the proper guidance of the brahmanas, will do mis-management----that they want to manage the transactions between Guru & disciple.

* Srila Prabhupada never authorised the GBC to change any of the systems of management he personally put in place:

"Resolved: The GBC (Governing Body Commission) has been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent Him in carrying out the responsibility of managing the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of which He is the Founder-Acarya and supreme authority. The GBC accepts as its life and soul His divine instructions and recognises that it is completely dependent on His mercy in all respects. The GBC has no other function or purpose other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form." (Definition of GBC, Resolution 1, GBC minutes 1975)

"The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change." (Srila Prabhupada's Declaration of Will, 4th June, 1977)

We already saw that management is the jurisdiction of Ksatriyas, which is in the mode of passion, force; but not in the mode of goodness, persuation. So, we cannot apply this rule for initiations, which are basically supposed to be in the mode of goodness or higher.

· The ritvik system was his chosen way of managing initiations within ISKCON. The job of the GBC is to ensure it runs smoothly, not disband it and start their own system, and in the process develop their own philosophy:

The very idea that diksa, initiations (which are supposed to be in goodness or higher , persuation and followed by preaching with proper logic & argument), are claimed to be a part of management (which is in mode of passion, force), is sufficient to sense that the ritvik idea is wrong & falsely claimed.

"The standards I have already given you, now try to maintain them at all times under standard procedure. Do not try to innovate or create anything or manufacture anything, that will ruin everything." (SP Letter to Bali Mardan and Pusta Krsna, 18/9/72)

"Now I have invested the GBC for maintaining the standard of our Krsna Consciousness Society, so keep the GBC very vigilant. I have already given you full directions in my books." (SP Letter to Satsvarupa, 13/9/70)

"I have appointed originally 12 GBC members and I have given them 12 zones for their administration and management, but simply by agreement you have changed everything, so what is this, I don't know." (SP Letter to Rupanuga, 4/4/72)

"What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by GBC?" (SP Letter to Hansadutta, 11/4/72)

The GBC body should act solely within the parameters it was set by Srila Prabhupada. It pains us to see Srila Prabhupada's representative body in any way compromised, since it was his desire that everyone cooperate under it's direction.

Let us all cooperate under the direction of Srila Prabhupada's final order.

Purport (to the last statement of the author): The author says "Forget about indirect methods, negative ways, because ritvik-theory is what I want, July 9th letter should be taken as Final Order, and GBC & leaders in ISKCON should start doing ritvik-initiations. This is my clear understanding, so those who cannot co-coperate with my ritvik-theory they are against Prabhupada, and doing offense at the lotus feet of a pure devotee."

This is what I get after going through the Final Order book. This is absurd, because it lacks proper logic & argument and direct basis of sastra. All it has got is indirect interpretations & false claims. So, I leave it to the reader, to think properly and decide on how he stands, because I can only persuade, and cannot force the little independence that Sri Krishna gave to the infinitesimal atomic spirit souls. So, dear reader, you are free to reject me and accept ritvik-theory.



3. Page by Page, point by point deconstruction of the Final Order
3F. CONCLUSION Back CONCLUSION

We hope the reader has now gained a deeper appreciation for Srila Prabhupada's momentous final order on the future of initiation within ISKCON. We apologise if any part of our presentation has offended anyone; that was not our intention, so please forgive our inadequacies.

I also hope that the reader of my comments might appreciate the final dis-order, which is presented as Final Order.

We started this paper stressing how we are sure that if any mistakes have been made, they were not deliberate, and it should therefore not be felt necessary to witch-hunt or spend unnecessary energy blaming anyone. It is a fact that when the Acarya leaves, there is automatically some confusion. When one considers that the Movement is destined to run for at least another 10,000years, nineteen years of confusion is very little indeed. It is time now to digest what has gone wrong, learn from our mistakes and then put the past behind us and work together to build a better ISKCON.

1) Presentnig ignorance by mistake or deliberate method is not an excuse. Mistake is a mistake and one has to take reaction for that.
2) Whether it is 19 years or 10,000 years or 100,000 years or 1,000,000 years, the truth of Bhagavad gita & the Vedic injunctions does not change. The truth presented in Vedas & SB traces back to millions of years and it is eternal konwledge. So, 19 years is not so less "less" when compared to 10,000 years. And this "less-erness" cannot be taken as argument, to back up the ritvik-theory. Earth is earth, water is water, and this is true, now, 19 years after, 10,000 after also. Truth cannot change, and I am trying to bring out the truth by discussion, and I am open to also hear from other devotees, to hear their opinions in their angle of vision & supported by sastra.

Finally we should understand that Vedas are the breathing of the Supreme Lord. The Lord is eternal & hence the Vedas are eternal and impart us the perfect knowledge. We must follow the Vedic conclusions, and give up our rascal interpretations which differ from the Vedic conclusions. Without this, one's spiritual life is doomed. And again, one more chance of human life is spoiled.

3) And finally without truth, where is better ISKCON? How else can we learn from mistakes?

It may be considered necessary to ease the ritvik system in gently, in phases perhaps. Maybe it can even run concurrently with the M.A.S.S. for a short, pre-specified time period, in order not to create undue tension and disturbance. Such points will need careful consideration and discussion. As long as our goal is to re-establish Srila Prabhupada's final order, then within that there should be scope to deal gently with everyone's feelings. We must treat devotees with care and consideration, allowing them time to adjust. If an extensive program can be introduced whereby Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions on the guru and initiation are presented systematically, we are confident the whole thing can be turned round quite quickly, and with a minimum of disturbance and ill feeling.

For a diseased patient, the knife of the doctor is very painful, but still the doctor has to administer the knife and take out the puss of ignorance. So, this stage is not at all happy for the patient. Similar way, the M.A.S.S and ritvik-system is a disease and need to be purged out as soon as possible, if possible within a second, why should we keep people in ignorance and slowly give another kind of ignorance? Why not immediately purge darkness of ignorance by the torch of knowledge?

Once it is agreed that the ritvik system is the way forward, there will need to be a cooling off period where the enmity which has built on both sides of the issue can be allowed to dissipate. Retreats should be organised where both sides can come together and make friends. Unfortunately there is considerable immaturity at present, as much from ritvik proponents as from anyone else. Certainly for ourselves, we do not believe that had we been senior disciples at the time of Srila Prabhupada's passing, we would necessarily have acted any differently, or any better. More likely we would have made matters worse.

You might not have made the matters worse during Prabhupada's time because Prabhupada will not allow that to happen, but certainly it has worsened now.

In our experience many devotees in ISKCON, even more senior ones, have never really had the chance to closely examine the ritvik issue in detail. Unfortunately the form of much ritvik literature is enough to put anybody off, filled as it is with personal attacks and very little philosophy. The best solution, as far as we can see, is for the GBC themselves to resolve this issue. With the correct information before them we are confident everything will be adjusted correctly in time. This would certainly be more desirable than being constantly pressured into change by a band of disgruntled and embittered devotees, some of whom may also have their own agendas not entirely in line with Srila Prabhupada's final order.

Similary, my article is also full of personal attacks on the ignorance. I cannot write in an impersonal manner.

Of course we are also subject to the four defects and thus we warmly welcome any comments or criticism. Our main hope in writing this booklet is that the discussion it may inspire might go some ways towards resolving one of the most protracted and difficult controversies ISKCON has faced since the departure of His Divine Grace. Please forgive our offences. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

If this is still a discussion, then why is that the ritvik-inititions are happening, even before the discussion is completed? The author has not properly supported the ritvik-theory, thus I had to write this article of deconstruction.

Only Srila Prabhupada can unite us.

I agree by understanding that--Prabhupada has given instructions, and if we follow, then we are united with the parampara. It is we, who are responsible to be united & serve the purpose Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The same thing, Sri Krishna has taught and left the decision to Arjuna, so similar way, if we follow, we stay united with the parampara--disciplic succession, otherwise, we will be cut-off from the electricity of parampara.

What is a ritvik?

A ritvik means a priest, who can help in sacrifices or yajnas. Just by using definition of ritvik does not help in any way, until why that word is used & in what context.

ritviks are often defined in one of two incorrect ways:

1) As insignificant priests, mere functionaries, who simply dish out spiritual names robotically.

If this is correct, we can use ROBOTS, and no need for ritviks. But we are not matter, but spirit, parts & parcels of Sri Krishna. So, robots or robotic persons should not be given such priestly position, which only sane people & brahminical take.

2) As apprentice diksa gurus who are acting as ritviks only until they are fully qualified, at which point they will initiate on their own behalf.

If one has really achieved qualifications of first class devotee, he should be accepted as guru of everyone. Why not? Because he can remove the darkness of ignorance with torch of knowledge----ajnana timirandhasya, jnananjana salakaya.

We shall now compare these definitions with the role of a ritvik as given by Srila Prabhupada.

Looking first at definition 1). The post of ritvik is a very responsible position. This should be obvious since Srila Prabhupada specifically chose 11 devotees who already had a proven track record of taking senior responsibility within his mission. He did not simply pull the names out of a hat. Thus, although for the most part their function would be fairly routine, they would also be the first to spot deviations from the strict standards necessary for initiation. Rather as a policeman's job is mostly routine, since most citizens are law abiding, yet he will often be the first person to know when some misdemeanor is being committed. Srila Prabhupada would often express concern that initiation should only take place when a student has proven, for at least six months, that he can chant 16 rounds a day, follow the four regulative principles, read his books etc. Should a Temple President start sending recommendations to a ritvik for students who were failing in one of these essential areas, the ritvik would have the power to refuse initiation. In this way the ritvik would ensure that the standards within ISKCON remained the same as the day Srila Prabhupada left the planet.

I don't understand how ritviks or anyone can assure that. We can only preach truth among devotees, but it is up to all individuals, who should take the responsibility to follow. It is not just responsibility of the ritvik, but of every one who is concerned about the movement of Prabhupada to question all kinds of rascaldom that goes on within ISKCON or IRM.

"(The) Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No."(1972 letter to one former GBC man)

Certainly a ritvik would himself have to be following strictly, and would hence be a qualified siksa guru. Whether the ritvik would have a siksa or instructing relationship with the persons being initiated is a separate issue. He may or may not. For a devotee who takes on this position, his ritvik portfolio is separate and distinct from his siksa guru portfolio, though the two may sometimes over-lap. Whilst Srila Prabhupada was present new initiates would not necessarily even meet the acting ritvik for his zone. Very often the initiation ceremony would be carried out by the Temple President, the initiates name arriving by post from his designated ritvik. At the same time we can see no reason why a ritvik should not meet new initiates, and even perform the ceremony, if such an arrangement is agreeable at the local Temple level.

One becomes a bonafide guru, by qualification, just as we have presented in many quotes of first class devotee, verse 330 of CC Madhya lila, and not by changing the name to ritvik or following ritvik-theory strictly, which is based on indirect interpretations.

We shall now examine definition 2). As we have several times mentioned, in order to take disciples one must be a fully authorised maha-bhagavata. Before Srila Prabhupada left, he put in place a system which made it illegal for anyone other than himself to initiate within ISKCON. Thus there is no authorisation for anyone, at any time in the future of ISKCON, to initiate on their own behalf, apart from Srila Prabhupada. Thus even if a ritvik, or anyone else for that matter, were to attain the level of maha-bhagavata, he would still need to follow the ritvik system if he wished to stay within ISKCON. We were given an order on July 9th 1977, and it says nothing about the ritviks ever becoming diksa gurus.

Dear author:
1) It is not Prabhupada's desire at all, but your desire is presented as desire of Prabhupada to mislead innocent devotees.
2) Prabhupada has certainly authorized all his disciples to become future gurus, but it is up to the disciples to raise themselves upto that standard.
3) To become a guru, one should get those qualifications by following, that's all. If one is bonafide guru, then he can act as diksa (initiation) or siksa (instruction). Where is diksa or siksa without a guru being bonafide?

November 2nd, 1977 -- Room conversation
Devotee: "They wanted an Indian to be leader".
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. Everyone. All my disciples they're leaders. As purely as they follow, they'll become leaders. If you want to follow, you can become leader. But you don't follow. I told that. (pause)

What they do and how they are selected.

a) The ritvik accepts the disciple, issues new initiates with a spiritual name, chants on beads, and for second initiation gives the gayatri mantra - all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf (please see the July 9th letter in Appendices). This was Srila Prabhupada's chosen method for having responsible devotees overseeing initiation procedures and standards within ISKCON. The ritvik will examine all recommendations sent by the Temple Presidents to ensure prospective disciples have met the requisite standard of devotional practice.

ritvik--is a priest. That's all. He can be part of initiation ceremonies. A brahmana who performs the marriage ceremony can also be called a ritvik--since he is a priest conducting some holy ceremony. And Prabhupada used priests to intiate, during his presence, and that does not mean that, the priestly-initiations should continue even after departure of Prabhupada from this world !

b) A ritvik is a priest and thus must be a qualified Brahmin. When selecting the ritviks, Srila Prabhupada first suggested 'senior sannyasis' though he also selected persons who were not Sannyasis (please see July 7th conversation in Appendices). The ritviks chosen were senior responsible men to ensure that the process of initiation went on smoothly throughout the whole world.

c) Future ritviks can be selected by the GBC. The way in which ritviks would be selected, reprimanded or decommissioned, would be practically identical to the way in which diksa gurus are currently managed by the GBC within ISKCON. This is definitely within the scope of the powers granted to the GBC by Srila Prabhupada, as they had the authority to select and review much senior personnel such as Sannyasis, Trustees, Zonal Secretaries etc. That more ritviks could be added by the GBC was also admitted by Tamal Krsna Goswami at the 'Topanga Canyon' talks in 1981. (please see Appendices)

First of all, the mass approval of gurus by GBC is 'rubber-stamping', similary, now the author wants to manage (mode of passion) the brahmanas , who are in mode of goodness(he think ritviks-theory-head-members are brahmanas, as if becoming brahmana is CHEAP). The management of Gurus is nonsensical, similarly is the management of BRAHMANAS; and considering all the arguments presented by the author, I doubt if anyone who is following ritvik-philosophy, is a real brahmana. Because brahmanas & Vaishnavas are broad-minded, and never think indirectly, but take direct interpretations of the sastras.

So in summary the system would work exactly as it did when Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet. The mood, attitude, relationship between the various parties etc. will continue unchanged from the way it was for a brief four month period in 1977. As Srila Prabhupada emphatically stated in the second paragraph of his Will:

"The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."

Again the transactions between Guru and disciple is not a part of management & administration, which is in the mode of passion. Only the Guru and disciple are responsible for diksa. You can facilitate by supplying articles, rooms, by management, but cannot control the transactions between Guru and disciple.

Diagrams[IN BOOK]

4. Conclusion Back

Truly speaking, what ever I have said in this article is shared by many devotees and disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Still, I felt it is good to prepare one article, which deconstructs completely, the "Final Order" book, and it would make it easier for the devotees to refer quickly to get an overall picture and clarity in the matter.

I want to make one more point. There is practially nothing to deconstruct in the Final Order, since there is no construction at all; this is clear for those who have clearly understood the principles of Vaishanvism, but for others who are simple and not very well versed in philosophy can get cheated by the ritvik-vada; and they will need this complete deconstruction article.

Unfortunately the propagandists of the ritvik-vada call themselves IRM, ISKCON revial movement; but the pity is that this movement is based on ritvik vada and thus acts against for what it is meant to be.





















APPENDIX
A1. Exchange of emails with the author of The Final Order Back

Here is the exchange of emails that I had with the author of the Final Order - Krishna Kant Prabhu...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 1 - Starting the Discussion...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Vijaya Kumar
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: feedback on IRM.



Dear prabhu,


hare krishna. PAMHO. AGTSP.

I am really tired to see how you are wasting time & trying to support that Srila Prabhupada should be diksa Guru. Srila Prabhupada can be perfect siksa guru, but he has never told any where that he shall remain sole diksa guru for next 10,000 years. If such is his intention he should have given that many times from 1966...

diksa means that one takes initiation in the presence of spiritual master, a bonafide representative of parampara. And siksa can be taken from the books & instructions of all predecessor acaryas.

Still, if you argue what wrong in accepting Srila Prabhupada as diksa guru, I say that this not the parampara practice.

If possible try to encourage devotee to teach about the qualifications of guru, just like Srila Prabhupada, to carry the message of Krishna as it is without adulteration. And a Guru must be well versed in the science of Krishna and can remove all doubts of his disciples. Then he is guru. He need not be exactly like Srila Prabhupada. Just like Srila Prabhupada is not exactly a copy of Srila Bhakti siddhanta Maharaj. The next pure devotee need not be exactly like Srila Prahupada, but he is very expert in science of Krishna consciousness and sets personal example. Ofcourse you are blind even to the simple basics of science of KC , how can u recongnize..a pure devotee....

I know you have a July 9th letter .....; it is quite simple to understand.... that the letter is not personally written by Srila Prabhupad. that letter is written by Tamal Krishna Goswami and the names were given by Srila Prabhupada so that they can initiation because Prabhupada is so busy that he cannot personally initiate any one.....at that time...... the word "Hence forward" is also typed by Tamal Krishna Goswami, he may not have know that you mess it up now like this .... nor Prabhaupada in any of his converstations books, he never told he is only diksa guru. As Prabhupada has many letter which he approves per day, that July 9th letter is one such letter, which u are now using without supporting that from Prabhupada's purports of Srimad Bhagavatam, BG, and you try to twist even his conversations to prove ur points.. When things are clear there is no need for interpretation; and you are doing the opposite word jugglery....

Srila Prabhupada clearly expected his disciples to become bonafide spiritual masters and continue the disciplic succession. But it seems because of you the parampara system is now broken and people more confused about basic principles of philosophy.

Try to think from other angles also... not only from your point of view to prove ur point....


Regards
Hari bol !
Vijay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 2 - Reply from the author of the Final Order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRM wrote:
Dear Vijay prabhu,


PAMHO AGTSP


Hare Krishna. Thank you for your letter.
You have made the following statements:
“diksa means one take initiation in the presence of Spiritual master”

Please quote Srila Prabhupada stating this.
“the names were given by Srila Prabhupada so that they can initiation because Prabhupada is so busy that he cannot personally initiate any one..”

Please quote Srila Prabhupada stating this.

Unless you can back up your allegations with quotes from Srila Prabhupada it is YOU who is actually TWISTING what Srila Prabhupada has said by doing word jugglery, since you are claiming something Srila Prabhupada did not actually say.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Your servant,
Krishnakant,
Editor, Back To Prabhupada


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 3 - My reply to the author asking for some sastric basis...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijaya Kumar
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 10:14 PM
To: IRM
Subject: RE: feedback on IRM.



Dear Krishna Kant prabhu,

Hare Krishna.

The thing which I find silly is that you are initiating people as disciples of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada becoming diksa Guru for them, without the clear approval of Srila Prabhupada.

One can accept Srila Prabhupada and predecessor acaryas as siksa Gurus , but how is that you are taking Srila Prabhupada as diksa Guru without His approval....

Please don't argue based on one single word in the July 9th letter. In that letter one more point to consider that Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaj wrote "henceforward" to indicate that this will continue from that time....and valid till disappearance of Srila Prabhupada..this should be implicitly understood since any sane disciple will not write that this stricture is valid till the disappearance of his Spiritual master in the living presence of his spirutual master.... It is quite possible that people can start deriving their own conclusions....like you by using some words as above in some other letters....since you have shown this negative-example...this could effect huge number of common people.....Please know that many people's lives & devotional practice are at stake because you are making this propaganda....

You should back what ever u say by sastra, otherwise your words will have no value..Prabhupada clearly says in BG and other places not to believe cheaters who do not back up their conclusions by sastra....and I feel you are one of them...no-wonder within ISKCON, which is supposed to dis-illusion people... this is the effect of Kali Yuga....The basis of Vaisnavism are guru, sastra & sadhu.. and sastra is the center... This is simple principle....

There are many other places where Srila Prabhpuada said that all his disciples become spiritual master ( 1 hour back I heard from lecture of Srila Prabhupad on BG 4.1 - 2, given in 1969 if I correctly remember ). The only qualification of Spiritual Master that is one carries the message of Krishna without adulteration of the message.Sirla Prabhupada cannot tell something which is not backed by sastra..It is you who are extrapolating His words with no clear basis of sastra nor proper understanding....

One should accept spiritual instruction from a bonafide person coming in the parampara, and any one says which is not based in BG , SB, and other scriptures, etc... is simply making disturbance in his life and others as well.. smrti sastra puranadi pancaratriki vidhim vina aikantiki harer bhakti utpata eva upapadyate..

Why did you manufacture something which is not present in sastra? This is the cause of the fall of so-called gurus....this happened with the disciples of Srila Bhakisiddhanta and the history repeats with the disciples of Srila Prabhupada....., because they try to manufacture or do not strictly follow the instructions of Prabhupada....

Prabhu, one more thing is that.... those who surround you are all Yes Men, that's all... They act like they are really sincere to serve Prabhupada... How can you or they serve Prabhupada without understanding what He wants...Finally all these followers will become self-motivated instead of Krishna-motivated and this could become a bigger hoax...because the basis is not solid-sastric nor approved...You only assume that Prabhupada wanted that... It is your assumption and not Prabhupada's...If you read Prabhpuada's conversations mentioned in the last pages of Final Order properly without your interpreation then you will understand what he wanted...... you should add 1 + 1 and make 2 , not 4...by keeping it in your interpretation mirror...

If you feel you are real siksa Guru, then take disciples yourself , on behalf of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and then let your disciples consider you their Guru(instead of Prabhupada, ofcourse they fully feel Prabhupada as siksa Guru)...... and you lead them towards Prabhupada, Krishna and Mahaprabhu, then you will do real service.....People need some one examplary to follow and not those who avoid the responsibility-to-show-by-practial-example... and there is no need for so-called service of saving-people from unbonafide gurus.....Prabhu, if people are sincere Krishna shall lead them to the right guru, and if people want to be cheated Krishna shall lead them to cheaters....guru krisna prasade paye bhakti lata bija.. There is no need to change the parampara system prabhu. Please consider these points... I humbly beg you by falling at your feet _.__

Hare Krishna.
Regards
Vijay


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 4 - Receiving some suggestions from the author of Final Order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IRM wrote:

Dear Vijay Prabhu,

Hare Krishna!

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You should follow your own advice. You say:

“You should back what ever u say by sastra, otherwise your words will have no value.”

So can you please back what YOU have said by sastra please. You said:
““diksa means one take initiation in the presence of Spiritual master”
“the names were given by Srila Prabhupada so that they can initiation because Prabhupada is so busy that he cannot personally initiate any one..”

Unless you can produce sastra to back these statements, your words will have no value – according to you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Your servant,
Krishnakant


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 5 - My reply to him
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Vijaya Kumar
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:10 PM
To: IRM
Subject: RE: feedback on IRM.


Dear Krishnakant prabhu,


OK prabhu, I accept I am wrong in these 2 statements. Does my wrong make your acts right prabhu ??? How does one wrong can nullify another wrong prabhu ???

Srila Prabhupada clearly says, we cannot manufacture something which is not based on sastra.. Logic without the basis of sastra is dry logic...Anyway, finally it appears to me, that you want to stick to your own conclusions.... and neglect all good advice even from Srila Prabhupada's books and conversations....You search Prabhupada's conversations, books to support your conclusions by interpreting them, instead of searching his books to find the actual Truth...

Anyway it is hard to accept one's mistake before a materialistic person like me..working in IT company......But it is a Vaishnava virtue to take good advice from where-ever it comes.... Chanakya says, it is good to accept gold even from filth.... If I am proved mistaken by proper sastric explanation, I shall happily agree to that and update my understanding of KC.....

Hari Bol !
Vijay


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 6 - Few more suggestions from the author of Final Order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IRM wrote:
Dear Vijay Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada

Yes you are correct that is hard to accept one’s mistake. I had to ask you TWICE before you were honest enough to admit to your mistakes about these 2 statements.

Next I would ask you to simply state ONE thing which I have said which is contradicted by sastra BY QUOTING the sastra which contradicts what I have said.

Don’t forget to quote both exactly what I say, and exactly what sastra says, and to show how what I say is contradicted by what the sastra says.

You have not even attempted to do this yet. If you do this, I will IMMEDIATELY accept my mistake (and not wait to be asked twice to do it).

I look forward to hearing from you.

Hare Krishna!
Thank you,
Your servant,
Krishnakant


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 7 - My explanation using NOD & NOI as sastric basis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Vijaya Kumar"
Subject: RE: feedback on IRM.
To: "IRM"


Dear Krishnakant prabhu,


Hare Krishna. PAMHO. AGTSP.

The first point I would like to mention is that since you are asking me to present sastric basis of my statements against your assumptions or conclusions ---- HERE IS YOUR ASSUMPTION (if I am not mistaken) : that you are claiming Srila Prabhupada is the ONLY diksa guru for ISKCON for the next 10000 years ------.

If you have really understood what I am asking you, it is the same prabhu, to show some sastric basis for your assumptions. It is you who are making huge propaganda and turning 100s of people into accepting manufactured IDEA, I felt you may have alteast one sastric quote by which you can explain your theory.... But as I guessed, you could not provide even one sastric statement which clearly proves once again you have no basis in sastra, but YOUR ASSUMPTION is based on your personal interests , assumptions & conclusions...

Now, please let me present for you what I have read & understoold from the books of Srila Prabhpuad about INITIATION / spiritual master / guru...

Let me first form the basis of our discussion.... from this purport of Srila Prabhupada it will be clear that sruti , is the basis in otherwords sastra is the primary basis..

In the Vedic disciplic succession, the spiritual masters always base their statements on what they have heard from authoritative sources, never on personal experience. Trying to understand things by one’s own direct experience is the material process of gaining knowledge, technically called pratyaksa. The Vedic method is different. It is called sruti, which means “to hear from authoritative sources.” That is the secret of Vedic understanding. (NOI)

Before Vyäsadeva’s writing, the Vedic literature was simply heard, and the disciples would learn the mantras quickly by hearing and not by reading. Later on, Vyäsadeva thought it wise to write down the Vedas, because in this age people are short-memoried and unable to remember all the instructions given by the spiritual master. (NOI)

With this understanding we also have a need to understand the context (time, place, circumustance) when we need to understand and apply the principles given in the sastra.. At present moment 99 % of the ISKCON devotees follow something which is called as Vaidhi Bhakti. Here is what we have about Vaidhi Bhakti..:

Now this sädhana-bhakti, or practice of devotional service, may also be divided into two parts. The first part is called service according to regulative principles: one has to follow these different regulative principles by the order of the spiritual master or on the strength of authoritative scriptures, and there can be no question of refusal. That is called vaidhi, or regulated. One has to do it without argument. (NOD)

From this we can easily understand that Vaidhi bhakti is primarily concentrated on the authority of the revaled scriptures / sastra. Suppose if we go with the injunctions of the sastra it is recommened that "one must go" to the bonafide guru to learn the science of KC of one wants perfection.

The conclusion is that if you want genuine spiritual knowledge you have to approach a bona fide spiritual master who has realized the Absolute Truth. Otherwise you will remain in darkness. You cannot think, “Oh, I may or may not accept a spiritual master. In any case, there are books that I can learn from.” No, the Vedic injunction is tad-vijïänärthaà sa gurum eväbhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. The word gacchet means “one must go,” not that one may or may not go. To understand transcendental knowledge, one must go to a spiritual master. That is the Vedic injunction. (NOI)

However great one may be, he must accept a teacher or spiritual master. (NOD)

This injunction makes lots of sense, since without receiving knowledge from a guru coming in disciplic succession, one will be misled about KC. And since this is Kaliyuga, it may not be practically possible for every one to seek/search out a guru, because of the reason that bonafide guru is not cheaply available to everyone, and he is not our order carrier who would come and stand before us whenever we want him... So the other alternative is to strictly follow the Vaidhi Bhakti on the strength of the authoritative scriptures / sastra. The authoritative scriptures are given to us in easily understandable way by Srila Prabhupada, so with their guidance one can apply very nicely the principles of Vaidhi bhakti. And when one is sufficiently purified Krishna in his heart will certainly lead him to a guru at the oppurtune moment....

Any person who is seriously desirous of achieving real happiness must seek out a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters. Everyone should try to find such a bona fide spiritual master in order to fulfill his mission of life, which is to transfer himself to the plane of spiritual bliss.” (NOD)

Here is one more quote which establishes that Krishna will lead him to a guru, when is sufficienly qualified to have the association of a bonafide guru.....

So, by the mercy of both the spiritual master and Krsna, one takes up devotional service. How is that? Their mercy runs on parallel lines. If you have not yet found a spiritual master but are sincere, Krsna will direct you to a bona fide spiritual master. And if you get a bona fide spiritual master, he will take you to Krsna. Krsna is always sitting in your heart as the caitya-guru, the spiritual master within. It is that caitya-guru who manifests Himself externally as the spiritual master. Therefore the spiritual master is the direct representative of Krsna. (NOI)

In the above quote one more significant point to understand is : suppose one can feel Srila Prabhupada is direct representative spiritual master, yes that is true, in the same way Krishna is also the spiritual master, and Arjuna is also the direct representative of Krishna, but they are not present before us to teach personally, so the only option left is to follow their instructions.....As far as the spiritual instruction is concerned the instruction given by Krishna and Srila Prabhupada are the same...

Of course, Srila Prabhupada has not left out the cautions to be taken before accepting a person as one's spiritual master....One who can control the 6 urges as given in first verse of NOI makes one a qualified spiritual master.....And one can take initiation from him....Please look at this quote:

The purport is that one should not accept as a spiritual master someone who is fool number one, who has no direction according to the scriptural injunctions, whose character is doubtful, who does not follow the principles of devotional service, or who has not conquered the influence of the six sense-gratifying agents. The six agents of sense gratification are the tongue, the genitals, the belly, anger, the mind and words. Anyone who has practiced controlling these six is permitted to make disciples all over the world. To accept such a spiritual master is the crucial point for advancement in spiritual life. One who is fortunate enough to come under the shelter of a bona fide spiritual master is sure to traverse the path of spiritual salvation without any doubt. (NOD)

Since, this is Kaliyuga, it is not easy to find bonafide spiritual master, so the only option left is to follow the instructions left by great acaryas like Srila Prabhupada & advanced devotees...in the disciplic sucession..

In the Skanda Puräna it is advised that a devotee follow the past äcäryas and saintly persons, because by such following one can achieve the desired results, with no chance of lamenting or being baffled in his progress. (NOD)

Here in this quote (above) Srila Prabhupada is advising a devotee to follow past acarya. So, in our present scenario, Srila Prabhupada & his Guru Mahraj, etc , etc are all past acaryas for us. So it is better to follow their instructions properly.

And coming back, seeking out a bonafide spiritual master is not easy, but by the mercy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, it may become possible to come in contact with a bonafide guru......if one is sincere...this is already conclude before that Krishna will lead one to a bonafide guru; but let's take a look at this again....

However, Lord Caitanya’s causeless mercy is such that He advised all bona fide spiritual masters to speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere. Therefore, in the line of Lord Caitanya even the sannyäsis can speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere, and if someone is seriously inclined to become a disciple, the sannyäsi always accepts him. (NOD)

The one point is that without increasing the number of disciples, there is no propagation of the cult of Krsna consciousness. Therefore, sometimes even at a risk, a sannyäsi in the line of Caitanya Mahäprabhu may accept even a person who is not thoroughly fit to become a disciple. Later on, by the mercy of such a bona fide spiritual master, the disciple is gradually elevated. However, if one increases the number of disciples simply for some prestige or false honor, he will surely fall down in the matter of executing Krsna consciousness. (NOD)

Please also look at a quote given by Krishna and how Srila Prabhupada explains it:

“My dear Pärtha, one who claims to be My devotee is not so. Only a person who claims to be the devotee of My devotee is actually My devotee.” No one can approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead directly. One must approach Him through His pure devotees. Therefore, in the system of Vaisnava activities, the first duty is to accept a devotee as spiritual master and then to render service unto him. (NOD)

Here Prabhupada speaks of accepting a spiritual master, and this should be understood in line with the other explanations that he gave above..and not by whimisical interpretation, that one can accept spiritual master (diska guru), who have left this world to join the Lord in His eternal pastimes.

Let us look at the other quotes where Srila Prabhupada distinguishes talks about following in the steps of acaryas and also the personal spiritual master (means one's personal guru)..

In the beginning one is trained according to the principles of regulation under the guidance of the äcärya, or spiritual master, and gradually, when one is elevated, devotional service becomes automatic and spontaneous eagerness to serve Krsna. Thinking, feeling and willing are all activities of the mind, and when we will to do something, the activity comes to be manifest by the gross bodily senses. Thus, in our mental activities we should always try to think of Krsna and try to plan how to please Him, following in the footsteps of the great äcäryas and the personal spiritual master. (NOD)

From this quote, for practical purposes, we should take Srila Prabhupada as the great acarya whom I can follow, and also I have to seek out a guru, who is in the disciplic succession from Prabhupada, and who (either by personal association or by strictly following his instructions from his books) has understood from Srila Prabhupada the science of KC perfectly.

Let us look at another quote, where Srila Prabhupada says about ,,MANUFACTURING BUSINESS"...

In the neophyte stage of devotion one must follow all the principles, regulated by the authority of the spiritual master. The acceptance and rejection of things should always be in pursuance of the devotional principles; not that one can independently manufacture some idea of what should be accepted or rejected. (NOD)

Suppose if by mistake, because of not properly being educated in the science of KC, if one accepts a wrong person as Guru / spiritual master (who would naturally prove his disqualification in course of time), then one can reject him and accept a bonafide guru.. (Please refer to the lecture given by Srila Prabhupada on BG 2.4-5, Aug 5, 1973 ).. Prabhupada clearly says "karya akaryam ajanatah (Jiva goswami)", one who does not know "who to do, and what not to do", then that kind of guru can be rejected, and another bonafide guru can be accepted. This instruction was given in 1973, since he was expecting his sannyasi disciples to take on the role of guru in the future...., and this idea is clear from the his other letters & conversations that he wanted his disciples to become bonafide gurus and spread the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

From the quotes above it is clear that one can take initiation from a disciple of Srila Prabupada, who has clearly understood the science of KC perfectly, who has controlled the 6 urges (NOI, verse 1).....The disciple must seek out such a Guru, and take initiation after the disciple is accepted by the spiritual master as his disciple.....In the process of initiation (diksa) two persons are involved, the guru and the disciple... Guru is to be given higher precedence and not the disciple... so it is guru who accepts a person as his disciple, and not that any one can come and take Guru for himself, just like once can take a dog on his own.... Even Srila Prabhupada cautioned once not to keep spiritual master, just as we keep a dog.. With spritual master the business is very serious & to be considered topmost priority. But those who thing they can take up a Spiritual Master based on their OWN IDEAS, they are ALREADY MISLEAD.

The connection with the spiritual master is called initiation. From the date of initiation by the spiritual master, the connection between Krsna and a person cultivating Krsna consciousness is established. Without initiation by a bona fide spiritual master, the actual connection with Krsna consciousness is never performed. (NOD)

And you are trying to make many neophytes feel that they are actually INITIATED disciples of Srila Prabhupada without His clear acceptance OF THIS IDEA OF YOURS; and naturally any neophyte when he is said that he can become an INITIATED disciple of Srila Prabhupada, they feel wonderful and feel positive about it....DO You know why ?? They don't understand any thing of the devotional principles given in NOD or NOI.....They believe you blindly , BECAUSE you are wearing nice Vaishnva dress and putting tilak, and thus you don't look like cheater.... It is not that they have understood the sastra properly...Just like blind followers with a blind leader... This example is repeated many times in lectures, books, but still you cannot understand what is its import....You are a big example of this scenario..and you may not see that... yourself , but others who have proper understanding of principles can see.....

Even considering you are right in your assumption that Prabhupada is the diksa guru for whole ISKCON devotees,

CAN YOU SUPPORT YOUR ASSUMPTION BY sastra ?

In your next mail I am expecting that you provide me some sastric proof of it.... and not WORD JUGGLERY...by interpreting one word in a letter, WHICH CAN ALSO BE INTERPRETED IN MANY DIFFERENT MANNERS, AND THAT NEW INTERPRETATION COULD REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION OTHER THAN YOUR ASSUMPTION...

So by this logical word jugglery we will not reach a CONCLUSION... So, please base your words on sastra...

Hari Bol !

Ys
Vijay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 8 -- Suggestion from the author to read the "Final Order" book
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRM wrote:

Dear Vijay Prabhu,

Hare Krishna. PAMHO AGTSP

Instead of speculating as to what you think the IRM assume or say, I suggest you read “The Final Order”,
and please tell me which statement in that book is incorrect. Do you have a copy or shall I send it to you?
I look forward to hearing from you.

Hare Krishna.
Thank you,
Your servant,
Krishnakant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 9 - My reply to him
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Vijaya Kumar
Sent: 14 October 2005 06:11
To: IRM
Subject: RE: feedback on IRM.

Dear Krishnakant prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisnacess. All glories to Srila Prahupada.

I have not written any speculations... nor word jugglery... I have quoted from Nectar of Devotion & Nectar of Instruction...

How can you say it is speculation ?

I have also read the Final Order, but I have seen so many logical inconsistancies in it. Anyway I shall read the book again..and if needed I am planning to write a small book what the letter of 9th July actually meant by proper analysis, basing on the same Appendices which you have given in the Final Order.

Hare Krishna.
ys
Vijay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 10 - Reply from the author
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRM wrote:
Dear Vijay Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

It would help if you actually read what I said.

I said:

“Instead of speculating as to what you think the IRM assume or say …”
What the actually IRM state is given in The Final Order, and unless you quote directly from this document you will be speculating as to what the IRM’s position is.

Hence unless you quote from it, and then analyse THOSE statements, you will continue to speculate regarding what you think the IRM’s position is.

In future please first carefully read what I actually say.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,
Your servant,
Krishnakant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 11 - My reply to him
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 06:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Vijaya Kumar"
Subject: RE: feedback on IRM.
To: "IRM"

Dear Krishnakant prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP & Sri Sri Gaur Nitai.

I would surely write a small book, which analyzes each and every page & point in the final order. But it would take time; may be 3-4 months or more time ; to compile & edit that very thoroughly, by also discussing it with other devotees to make it more clear for everyone.

But I promise I will work on it and certainly reply to you.

The title of the book will be "Deconstructing The Final Order".

Hare Krishna.
ys
Vijay

A2. Exchange of emails with PD(a devotee)Back
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 1 - After I sent a copy of this article, I got this reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Vijay, but it seems that Srila Prabhupad made eleven ritviks and not eleven acharyas / pure devotees / diksha gurus, as current ISKCON claims. If there is at the present time someone other than / better than / Srila Prabhupada to worship as our guru, who is that person? And if there is no actual "living link" person current, then this is all speculation. Whether there may be another pure devotee or not in the next 10,000 years is also speculation on the part of the IRM and the GBC.

Or is this all theory and not actual? Also we need to know who is going to absorb the sins, di-ksha (absorb sins), who is going to do that if it is not the pure devotee?

By the way Satsvarupa is writing pornographic stuff, a bhakta is grabbing breasts, and in the photo on the cover of his book there is Vaikuntha planets !!!!!!! is in the background, Vaikuntha and breast grabbing sex, and the whole GBC backs these insane literatures, why not fix this first before we run off into so many other aspects? Thanks pd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 2 - my reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atleast what ever I wrote is not my speculation. I wrote the deconstruction by basing on sastras, and to prove that ritvik-claim is indirect and one-sided approach, which is similar to Mayavadis. My article will help ritviks to give up their non-sensical ideas.

Regarding the current gurus of ISKCON I have no information what they are doing, my only business is to hear MP3 lectures of Prabhupada daily and do as much remembrance, chanting of Sri Krishna as I can. I am working as software professional, and a family man. Regarding the current link to parampara, a pure devotee of Krishna; I have not found such person yet; but will wait, it is only by the grace of Krishna that one gets such pure devotee as Guru, and such devotees are very rare in this world.

As far I know, the qualification of a disciple is eagerness to know his ultimate self-interest and not for leaving all his sins to Guru. No sincere disciple would want to give away his sins to his spiritual master; but wishes to suffer for what he has done. Thus Caitanya mahaprabhu prays "I desire to be servant of Your servant birth after birth"; real devotees don't even like to get liberated from this material world to Vaikuntha because that is also a kind of material disease; giving up all material desires one should worship Krishna, then he can see Vaikuntha in this world !

Hare krishna. Vijay kumar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 3 - pd's reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks prabhu, I never said that the disciple should wish to dump his sins, I said Srila Prabhupada says that only a mahabhagawata can resolve the sins of the followers. You missed the whole point. Anyway you are right about some of the flaws of the IRM. This is a sample of my news, you might find some of it of interest. thanks pd

Recent PADA newsletters are available all the time at: http://blog.myspace.com/52199499. PADA news is an information service for the devotees of ISKCON. We do not always endorse all the letters we get from others. Nor can we independently verify each and every statement found in letters to PADA. And sometimes -- we write spoof for comic relief. Let us know if you do not wish to receive this news letter. Thanks pd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 4 - my reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading the blog which you sent, it appears that most horrible things have been happening within the walls of ISKCON. Many are missing the valuable chance of human form of life. And I would not like to waste my time reading about these rascals. Better I may spend my time on Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita and hearing MP3s of Prabhupada, because any minute lost without KC will not help me. I know I am not Krishna Consciuos and I am willing to achieve it before my breath stops.

Please remove me from this mailing list. Hari Bol! Vijay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 5 - pd's reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Vijaya, that means you are a de facto ritvik, you are promoting Srila Prabhupada as his agent, preacher or ritvik (i.e. a brahmana or priest). You are with us.

I also sued the GBC to print the original books, not the hatchet job edited ones, and won the lawsuit. So we are taking them on, if you don't want to do that, is fine, I think you are on the right path, you are doing what we tell people to do: worship Srila Prabhupada. The reason all this "horrible stuff" occured is because no one protested except a few of us, thanks pd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 6 - my reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Sir, I am not defacto ritvik. I am from India, and since I know little sanskrit, ritvik means a priest who does some ceremonies; in India there are many ceremonies like name giving ceremoney, hair cutting cermoney , marriage ceremony, some special kinds of worship of Lord Narayan, Lord Rama, etc. ritvik-means only a priest, a helper, whom people call and pay him for conducting ceremonies by chanting vedic mantras. They have no other special meaning.

I am considering Srila Prabhupada as my siksa guru only. And not diksa guru.

Hare krishna. Vijay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 7 - pd's reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Vijay but we are saying that people should act as the agents of Srila Prabhupada, why would I care if the agent is called: a devotee, a preacher, a temple pot washer, a samkirtana devotee, a book distributor, a pujari, a brahmana, a ritvik, who cares?

We are telling people to read his books, and you are doing that as well. You are one and the same as us in the essentials. We are for promoting his divine grace's teachings, and so are you. We just wanted the original books, not the edited ones, so we sued to get the rights of the originals, we won. You do not think our fighting for the right idea is useful, but Krishna says: it is, dharma-yuddha? thanks pd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 8 - my reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your fight is good; since the idea is to re-establish the principles in line with scriptural codes. But in the fight as you say dharma-yuddha, religious fight, there should be discrimination and caution that we do not do adharma-yuddha. ritviks also fight against problems in ISKCON, but their fight is not dharma-yuddha. I already this proved in my article. I am not against ritviks if they follow direct interpretations and accept Prabhupada only as siksa guru and give up their non-sensical propaganda that "Prabhupada will still remain initiating (diksa) guru".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 9 - pd's reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks vijay. First of all Srila Prabhupada said that he would be worshipped after his departure by a ritvik system, at least that is basically what he wrote in the July 9th letter, stated in May 28th tape, and is more or less the idea of his last will and countless other statements and documents (see our site Harekrsna.org for some of my documented lists of some of his statements).

OK, he does not say the ritviks will go on for 10,000 years, agreed, this is a bogus IRM idea. My point is that Chaitanya Charitamrita says no one should discriminate against the shiksha and diksha guru saying they are different. Srila Prahupada is giving the divyam jnanan (di) which destroys the sins (ksha). Or isn't he? I do not see why he is not doing that? thanks pd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 10 - my reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that one should not discriminate between diksa guru and siksa guru, since guru means bonafide guru, as spoken by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. I have also mentioned the complete definitions and purports of diksa, siksa and vartma-pradaksa guru from sastra and proved how the ritivks have misused the sastra.

Prabhupada did not say in July 9th letter that he should be worshipped by ritvik system after departure nor the 28th may tape confirms it. I have seen many devotees asking me "Have you read the final order book?". For this reason, I completely analyzed the complete final order book in my article. Unless you read my "deconstruction of final order book" and read my arguments, where I proved the ritvik system is based on "indirect interpretations, negative arguments and misused sastra" you cannot differntiate between devotees and so-called devotees, and know that the arguments of ritviks are similar to Mayavadis and they should be given up if anyone wants to progress in Krishna-Bhakti. Ys. Vijay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 11 - pd's reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Vijaya, I lived with Srila Prabhupada for 1970 -mid 1971 -- 1 and 1/2 years, and the whole time he said, day in and day out, all the time, many times, that after he leaves his worship would continue by a Governing Body, and already by 1970 some of the leaders were chanting on beads for initiations (ritviks).

That is the system he personally made and he said this should continue AFTER I AM GONE. He never said anyone else would be worshipped after his departure, or that the people chanting on beads process should be stopped etc., rather he said that "nothing should be changed."

So this is the system he personally approved of. He also said, change means rascal. So that was clarified in hundreds of letters, after I am gone there will be a managing system, and some of them were already chanting on beads for the ceremony by 1970 (ritvik idea), that was and is his system, he never said to change that system. Where does he say change this? I do not see any such order for change in your documents, Thanks pd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange(pd) 12 - my reply...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed that we should worship Prabhupada as the acarya, just like we worship Bhaktisiddhanta, and the whole GBC must act according to directions given by Prabhupada in his books, lectures, etc.

Your arguments "He never said anyone else would be worshipped after his departure, or that the people chanting on beads process should be stopped etc" are indirect. They really never help to get to perfect conclusions. Actually in India Mayavadis use "neti neti process" "Not this , Not this", but what is positively there, they cannot say of it.

When Prabhupada said ""nothing should be changed.", this part of argument is taken from the WILL /cocodil of Prabhupada so that properties of ISKCON will not be misused. He also said "no change" in the matter of spiritual science, please check this lecture of Prabhupada: http://www.geocities.ws/vijaykm108/adtfo.html This lecture actually presents what "must not be changed" in terms of spiritual matters. You also put this argument "he never said to change that system. Where does he say change this? I do not see any such order for change in your documents, "

You can observe that for proof and rebutal you only use "indirect statements" and the whole final order book is like that. As vaishnavas, we must used positive direct statements of what is said.

And the "must not change" arguments are in regard to the management system (from WILL) of GBC and ISKCON which was running before 1977. Certainly GBC must not have made centralized management; actually Prabhupada wanted localized management of each temples and GBC must only look after spiritual standards instead of management. Now GBC has neglected these orders of Prabhupada. This is one of the main problems, that superior heads are not Brahmanas, but acting as both "brahmana and kshatriya roles" together. This is the one of the problems. Even till now GBC failed to implement varnasarama system, which is ideal governing and managment system for spiritual upkeep of society.

Management is an administratrive job, which "must not be changed", and initiation is spiritual exchange between a guru and disciple, which also "must not be changed". We should not combine both. They are different subjects. We cannot bring initiations(spiritual exchange) under management(material exchange). We should not confuse one with the other, if we get confused we will be misled.
YS. Vijay.

HARE-KRISHNA HARE-KRISHNA KRISHNA-KRISHNA HARE-HARE
HARE-RAMA HARE-RAMA RAMA-RAMA HARE-HARE