(C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)

This presentation is a response to the most recent GBC approved position paper on the ritvik issue entitled `Timeless Order' (T.O.), which was written as a reply to our discussion document entitled `The Final Order'. (All quotes from `Timeless Order' shall be boxed). Although `Timeless Order' was not written by members of the GBC, it was fully endorsed by Umapati Maharaja who is one of the select committee empowered by the GBC body to respond to `The Final Order'.

The paper has also been on put on ISKCON COM for a number of weeks without any objection being made against it from any GBC member, though it is impossible for us to put `The Final Order' on ISKCON COM for even one day, since it is not currently GBC approved. Also, various GBC members have been distributing T.O. as a response to `The Final Order'. More importantly we have learned that the GBC intend to use parts of T.O. in their forthcoming definitive book on the entire ritvik issue. The GBC and its representatives would be unlikely to do any of this if they disagreed with the paper. Thus throughout this presentation we shall present views expressed in T.O. as representing the current official GBC position.

The title- `Timeless Order' alludes to an alleged standing blanket order for everyone to become a diksa (initiating) guru, which it's authors appear to believe has existed from time immemorial, or at least since Lord Caitanya spoke the `amara ajnana guru hana' verse 500 years ago. Although this order is apparently meant to liberally apply to anyone and everyone, the authors of T.O. also contradict the same proposition implied by their paper's title:

Surely if the order to become diksa guru is not automatic, then it must be in some way conditional, and it is precisely what constitutes such conditions which lies at the heart of the whole ritvik controversy in the first place. It will be shown that T.O. fails to provide a scripturally supported explanation as to precisely what these conditions might be, giving instead hazy statements about `book knowledge' not being enough (T.O.p.8), and how anyone who follows strictly can be a diksa guru. It should be noted that this is in sharp contrast to `The Final Order' (pages 9-10), where it is clearly shown from Srila Prabhupada's teachings that the two pre-conditions for a disciple becoming a diksa guru are that the candidate must have:

1. First attained the platform of mahabhagavata (highest level of God realisation).

&

2. Been personally authorised to initiate by his own initiating spiritual master.

T.O. wisely shies away from directly challenging the above principles, choosing instead to fudge around the issue of diksa qualification and authorisation. We will once more establish that the `amara' verse, as presented in Srila Prabhupada's books, has been misunderstood, and that the original blanket order from Lord Caitanya was actually for instructing (siksa) not initiating gurus, (as we already demonstrated in The Final Order' p.10-11). The order in question empowers everyone and anyone to act as instructing guru immediately, regardless of qualification, (much less 2/3 majority votes from a committee in Mayapur). This was certainly the sense in which Srila Prabhupada applied the verse, often delivering it to large crowds of people who were not even initiated- (initiation being of course a vital pre-requisite for diksa authorisation to take place).

We shall demonstrate that as a result of this elementary philosophical misconception many of the other assertions, arguments and interpretations in T.O. are fundamentally flawed. We will also show that T.O. provides not one shred of evidence for modifications a & b (as given in `The Final Order'), thus failing to even tackle that papers central thesis.

*(In this context we use the term `acarya' in its strongest sense, namely `initiating spiritual master', or `diksa guru', who is to be worshipped as good as the Supreme Lord Himself.)
 

T.O. can be broken down into the following four sections:

1. Pages 1-5: Introduction.
2. Pages 5-14: Ten quotes in support of the theory that Srila Prabhupada had always intended to, and in fact did, appoint diksa gurus to continue initiations after his physical departure. Also includes quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja on the `amara' verse to prove it refers to diksa.
3. Pages 14-20: An attack on the `final order' theory.
4. Pages 20-28: An investigation into the motives and methodology of the authors of `The Final Order'.

We shall start by showing how T.O. contradicts the GBC position paper `Disciple of My Disciple' (DD) in at least two key areas fundamental to its position.

We have gained the impression of late that GBC members and sympathisers think nothing of contradicting each others statements on fundamental key points relating to how Srila Prabhupada supposedly authorised them to act as diksa gurus after his departure; just as long as the conclusion of all such deliberations allows them to carry on acting in that capacity. The most remarkable example of this is Umapati Maharaja's unconditional acceptance of the paper `Timeless Order' (T.O.), even though it completely contradicts two assertions which underpin the paper `Disciple of my Disciple' (DD), which he himself co-authored a mere eight weeks previous. As we said, in an E-mail message to us he stated:

"I think the paper (T.O.) is great" (Umapati Swami, 13/6/97) 

We shall now present two important assertions made in the paper Umapati Maharaja co-wrote, which are contradicted by T.O. The first assertion is that in the May 28th conversation Srila Prabhupada does not refer to proxy initiations at all, not even in relation to the term ritvik. We now quote DD:

Above we see the authors of DD clearly ruling out any possibility that Srila Prabhupada is using the term ritvik to mean someone who acts on his behalf, even when he seems to be referring to their use during his physical presence. Below DD once more breaks with Ravindra Svarupa's 1985/86 interpretation, and ours, of the phrase `on my behalf'.  

This is the first time anyone in the GBC has ever claimed that the phrase `on my behalf' is not referring to pre-samadhi proxy initiations. In this DD is unique, and stands totally alone and at odds with all previous interpretations up to and including T.O.. DD further hammers home its point in the following excerpts:

So according to DD the phrase `on my behalf' does not refer to disciples initiating on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, but initiating on their own behalf on Srila Prabhupada's behalf ! Now let us contrast this with the interpretation offered by the authors of T.O.:

Let us now look at the second assertion made in DD which is contradicted by T.O.. This relates to whether gurus were actually appointed by Srila Prabhupada or not. Again one would have thought that after twenty years the GBC might have reached some sort of consensus on this most basic question. We first quote from DD:

So DD, co-authored by Umapati Maharaja, makes it very clear above that Srila Prabhupada definitely did not appoint gurus. Why then does he accept T.O. when the authors of that paper clearly disagree with him:

Thus, according to T.O., not only is Umapati Maharaja wrong in suggesting that Srila Prabhupada did not appoint anyone to be guru, he is actually insulting his Guru Maharaja into the bargain by even suggesting such a thing. And Umapati Maharaja thinks this is all `great'! (It should be noted that several other senior ISKCON leaders, such as Jayadvaita Maharja and Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, have gone on record as categorically stating that there was no appointment of gurus by Srila Prabhupada).
 

When they have come to a decision it will then be possible to take the discussions onto the next level and examine the evidence for whichever of the above options they decide to select. In the meantime, since they are obviously very confused, it might be prudent for the GBC to stop banning, bullying and intimidating devotees who believe that Srila Prabhupada wanted the ritvik system to continue indefinitely.

We shall now go systematically through T.O., one section at a time.

 

Section 1 (pages 1-5)

The first `contentious' point addressed in T.O. is that the ritvik system did not occur to anyone until years after Srila Prabhupada's departure, and therefore is most likely invalid:

Just because an instruction is not followed, or misunderstood, does not mean the instruction itself is invalid. This principle is not stated in any scripture or system of logic and philosophy that we are aware of. (It is ironic that the very next point in T.O. extols the virtues of using logic - see below).

Folio is simply a sophisticated indexing system. By using this index we have indeed found references to the term ritvik in Srila Prabhupada's books (31 to be precise - including derivatives), a term which some senior devotees initially told us did not exist in Vaisnava vocabulary (ISKCON Journal 1990 p.23). What is wrong in using an index to check assertions made in GBC literature. It is lucky that we did since the assertion in question turned out to be completely false. In what way have we become illogical merely by using this `valuable tool' to uncover incorrect GBC backed assertions?

We have never said `ritvik' is a really important word. It just means `priest'. Srila Prabhupada defined the word ritvik in the July 9th letter as meaning: `representative of the acarya'. Although the word `representative' may not have been separately indexed in all of Srila Prabhupada's books, we know the concept is absolutely central to vaisnava philosophy, guru-tattva in particular, since the guru is the `representative' of the Supreme Lord. The really important person in the ritvik system is not the ritvik, but the acarya he represents, and the subject of bona fide acaryas is certainly covered extensively in Srila Prabhupada's books.

T.O. next claims the reason we have not reproduced the purports to verses in which the term ritvik appears is because...

Ritviks are used in some very important sacrifices in the Srimad Bhagavatam, thus to say they did not have `any' significance to previous acaryas is perhaps being a little unfair to them. Still they are only priests, and if the GBC insist that the service they render is not particularly significant, we shall not argue with them. In fact in `The Final Order' we sum up their role in the following way:

`Thus to put into perspective the use of ritviks, it has been shown that we are dealing with 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.'
(`The Final Order' p.28)

As far as Srila Prabhupada not mentioning the ritvik system in his books, this has already been dealt with extensively in `The Final Order' (pages 27-29). Our points therein remain un-challenged, what to speak of answered. (The M.A.S.S. is certainly never mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, so by T.O.'s reasoning must be bogus.)

Firstly the term ritvik, as we have shown, and as the GBC now belatedly concede, was not invented by Srila Prabhupada or Tamal Krishna Goswami or even Pradyumna. It has been used for thousands of years by bona fide acaryas. Secondly it is false to say that acaryas do not come up with `new ideas'. Srila Prabhupada came up with many ideas (dictated by Krishna of course) for preaching Krishna Consciousness which had never been tried before, and were thus `new'. As far as we know the ritvik system- both pre and post-samadhi -was one of them. Again this is elaborated in `The Final Order' (pages 18-19), and once more the GBC fail to even address the points therein.

"The statements of Thakura Bhaktivinoda are as good as scriptures because he is a liberated person."
(Letter to Janaradan, 18/4/68)

It is true that we often quote from conversations and letters in support of the final order. This order was sent to the entire movement, and thus is generally applicable. Any evidence which supports a generally applicable instruction must be deemed valid. What is unacceptable is to try to change or modify a generally applicable instruction on the basis of private correspondence to which the recipients of that general instruction had no access at the time they were expected to act on the general instruction.

We make no such claim, it is pure invention. There is no change to the parampara system. We must still approach the `current link' to understand the message of the Bhagavatam, just as has been the case for millions of years. Our current link happens to be Srila Prabhupada, who could object to that? (See also p.39 of `The Final Order' on whether a `current link' must be physically present).

In this section there is an attempt to show that the `amara ajnaya guru hana' verse, as spoken by Lord Caitanya five hundred years ago, is actually a blanket order for everyone to become diksa guru- (though this assertion is also contradicted in the very same paper, as shown in the introduction). We are also offered ten quotes which are supposed to conclusively prove the papers main `chronological' argument: that on numerous occasions over many years Srila Prabhupada made it perfectly clear he expected all his disciples to become diksa gurus immediately after his physical departure.

We shall first deal with T.O.'s interpretation of the `amara' verse, since this colours their reasoning throughout the rest of the paper.

Practically without exception, whenever Srila Prabhupada wrote or spoke about his disciples `becoming guru', somewhere within that instruction would be included all or part of the following verse from the Caitanya-Caritamrta, Madhya lila, 7.128:

1. Nowhere in the verse, translation or purport is the term diksa or `initiation' ever once mentioned. Thus how can it be reasonably asserted that this is the type of guru being specifically referred to?
2. In the purport just two verses on from this verse Srila Prabhupada states: `It is best not to accept disciples' . How then can this section of the Caitanya Caritamrta be instructing everyone to become diksa gurus and accept disciples? (We note with some interest that T.O. does not even attempt to deal with this point.)
3. There is no mention in the verse, translation or purport that before following the order to be guru one must first wait for ones own guru to depart. It would be absurd if there was, since the majority of persons receiving this order did not even have a formal diksa guru, much less have one that had departed. If we are saying that Lord Caitanya was the diksa guru, then He had certainly not departed since He was standing there giving the order, so how could He be ordering diksa gurus then and there? We know Srila Prabhupada considered this injunction, which he termed: `the law of disciplic succession', an important principle. Indeed it is an injunction which is often quoted by the GBC themselves in support of the M.A.S.S., so how can this order to act immediately as guru refer to diksa?
4. Neither the verse, translation nor purport say anything about getting initiated first, before acting as guru. The order must therefore be referring to siksa. How can un-initiated people give initiation? Is this what the GBC are suggesting we practise in ISKCON? We think not. Even before any of the people Lord Caitanya was speaking to could be initiated they would have had to have undergone at least six months to a year of pariksa (mutual examination between guru and disciple), yet there is no mention of this at all, the order is immediate; more evidence that it is siksa not diksa gurus being ordered.
5. Neither the verse, translation nor purport state that before acting as guru one must first have attained the platform of mahabhagavata. We know this is essential since later on in the Madhya lila Srila Prabhupada states:

"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 guru".
(Madhya, 24.330 purport)

Since the gurus being ordered to act immediately are not expected to already have attained the highest platform of devotional service, we assume Lord Caitanya must have been asking for siksa not diksa gurus to go out and preach whatever they may know about Krishna. Certainly Srila Prabhupada allowed his disciples to go out and preach straight away. He never said they could not instruct others until they had become fully liberated mahabhagavata's. In this way all his disciples could act as spiritual masters immediately; and to the degree to which they followed, they would be effective.

6. In the purport to the `amara' verse it states: `One can remain comfortably in his residence (...) Every person must get married (...) That is one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krishna mantra and preach the instructions of Krishna...' Clearly then the type of gurus being encouraged here are local family siksa or vartma-pradasaka gurus, not world-wide initiating acaryadevas.

If the GBC wish to continue asserting that Srila Prabhupada's use of the `amara' verse is conclusive proof that he wanted the M.A.S.S., wherein potentially unlimited numbers of variably qualified diksa gurus could initiate their own disciples, then they really will need to answer all the above points. So far they have answered none of them.
 

The article in question is clearly aimed at people who know little about vaisnava philosophy, since its main thrust is a justification for why the spiritual master- in this case Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja himself- should be worshipped and glorified, and not eyed suspiciously as a `big animal from the zoo gardens'. It is not a technical paper on diksa or siksa gurus, nor does it go into anything like the detail of Srila Prabhupada's purports on the nature of guru being ordered in the `amara' verse. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja never authorised anything like the M.A.S.S. for after his departure, so how can his teachings be used to support yet another invented unauthorised system?- (Srila Prabhupada roundly criticised his Godbrothers for unauthorisedly posing as acaryas. This point is covered extensively in `The Final Order' pages 39-42. Once more T.O. fails to even address the points made therein.)

1. The article makes absolutely no mention of either the term diksa, nor the word `initiate', and thus can have no direct bearing on the issue of precisely which type of guru the `amara' verse is referring to.
2. In the article Srila Bhaktisiddhanta says that the order to become guru has been passed down to him through the `chain of preceptorial succession'. We take this to be a reference to the disciplic succession, members of which we know to be fully authorised mahabhagavatas. Our current link in this `succession' of mahabhagavatas is Srila Prabhupada, and he says quite clearly that `It is best not to accept any disciples'. This is the order we must all obey if we wish to call ourselves followers of Srila Prabhupada.
3. The article further supports this understanding where it says: `That office his Gurudeva has conferred upon him'. In other words we must be mindful of the specific role or `office' that has been `conferred' on us by our own predecessor acarya. In our case Srila Prabhupada has told us to:- preach, be guru, deliver our neighbourhood, stay in our position, and not accept disciples . This we are told is what is `best' for us. Would T.O. rather we ignore this and do what is not best? To take the path suggested in T.O. is to actually reject the whole thrust of the article by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja. We would then be offending not only Srila Prabhupada, but Srila Bhaktisiddhanta too; that certainly would not be for the `best'. In any event we can only legitimately understand what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja taught through our current link, Srila Prabhupada, certainly not the other way round:

"So if you want to understand Bhagavad-gita, then we must understand in the same way as the person who directly heard from. This is called parampara system. Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. YOU CANNOT IMAGINE WHAT MY SPIRITUAL MASTER SAID. OR EVEN IF YOU READ SOME BOOKS, YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND IT FROM ME. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya."
(Class/Lecture S.B. 1.15.30, Los Angeles, December 8th, 1973)
 

`And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without addition or alteration. Then all of you become spiritual master.'
(Vyasa-puja address, Hamburg, 5 September, 1969. T.O. p.9)

Since the above also comes after his reference to `missionary work', are we also to take it that the above activities cannot in any way apply to siksa gurus, but only to diksa? Let us break this argument down further. There are two choices on offer here. Either-

1. The above activities can not apply to missionary activities (since these refer to siksa and have already been mentioned).

2. They do apply to missionary activities.

If we choose option a. then one might ask what sort of preaching these so-called spiritual masters, are doing, if not giving in `toto' that which they have received from their own spiritual master?

If we go for option b. then Srila Prabhupada may still be describing the activities of siksa gurus, even though- heaven help us- such elucidation occurs after he mentions the term `missionary work'. The activities described are, after all, quite typical of a siksa guru.

Clearly a. must be false, in which case Srila Prabhupada can be seen to be outlining for these aspiring siksa gurus how they will most effectively carry out their missionary activities, namely by repeating what they have been taught without addition or alteration.

1. There is absolutely no mention of the terms `diksa' or `initiation'. These are essential elements since that is what is under debate, namely who is supposed to be the diksa, or initiating spiritual master within ISKCON. We all accept that everyone should be a `spiritual master', that is not what is at issue.
2. In relation to the type of spiritual master Srila Prabhupada is referring to, we note that once again he uses the famous `amara' verse which, as previously demonstrated, he taught us refers only to instructing guru, not initiating: `It is best not to accept any disciples'.
3. Srila Prabhupada does make reference to his physical departure where he says `even I die', but this does not prove that he could only be referring to diksa, since it is also possible to continue as an instructing guru when the spiritual master leaves. In fact the vast majority of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are doing precisely that. No-one is suggesting that their activities as instructing gurus is in any way a violation of the above quote, or somehow only second-rate, so presumably our interpretation is correct. (As an aside we see Srila Prabhupada is ordering his boys and girls to act as spiritual master. If this can only mean diksa, how is it that after twenty years we do not have even one single female diksa guru? The GBC do not seem to have the courage of their convictions on this point).

To clarify this point on references to disappearance in relationship with guruhood, we would like to make the following points:

The mention of disappearance does not only imply diksa guru.

Siksa gurus can operate during the appearance and disappearance of the initiating acarya.

Srila Prabhupada stated that diksa gurus could only operate after the disappearance of the initiating acarya.

Thus the only definite principle in all this is that diksa gurus cannot operate during the physical presence of their own diksa guru, (at least as far as Srila Prabhupada was concerned).

1. Srila Prabhupada once more defines the type of guru by using the `amara' verse. As we have shown this can only refer to siksa.
2. There is absolutely no mention of the term diksa nor the word `initiation', so once more the quote can have no direct relevance to the central issue of contention, namely the intended process for diksa initiation within ISKCON.
3. There is no mention of Srila Prabhupada's disappearance needing to occur before guru activities commence- the order being immediate- therefore he can only be referring to siksa.
4. `Messiah' is a Hebrew word- meaning `deliverer of Jews' (Oxford English Dictionary) - not a scientific Sanskrit term, so it is pushing it a bit for T.O. to state categorically that `messiah must mean diksa guru' (T.O.p.12). Certainly such a definition is never given by Srila Prabhupada. It would also severely contradict their own position if it did mean this since, according to Christian scholars expert in the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus is still the messiah, and therefore by the GBC's own argument still a diksa guru, even though he is no longer on the planet! Srila Prabhupada also taught that Jesus can deliver his disciples even now (quotes given in `The Final Order' p.32). Either way our position is only strengthened and the GBC's weakened through this assertion since in any case siksa gurus can also help deliver conditioned souls through relevant instruction. To summarise this point, either:

1. The word `messiah' means diksa guru, in which case it is possible to accept a departed acarya as ones diksa guru since Srila Prabhupada taught that Jesus is still delivering disciples. Therefore the essence of ritvik philosophy is bona fide.

2. The word `messiah' just means preaching what you have been taught, and in that way deliver your friends family and neighbours (though remember it's `best not to accept any disciples'), in other words siksa guru. Therefore ritvik conclusion is correct.

Either way the final order still stands.

1. Srila Prabhupada mentioned other things which he eventually did not put in place, such as the setting up of the bhakti-vedanta examination system in 1975 as suggested in his letter to Kirtanananda 12/1/69 (quoted in `The Final Order' p.13).
2. Srila Prabhupada can still give a diksa order at any time on any planet to any disciple he deems fit. The relationship between spiritual master and disciple is eternal once formed, and once a disciple has reached the platform of mahabhagavata he will be more than capable of direct communication with his predecessor acarya.

One final point here is that the concept of Srila Prabhupada needing to `say who is guru' runs entirely counter to the concept of a `timeless order' wafting around in the ether for anyone to just start initiating. It confirms our position that a disciple must receive personal authorisation from the predecessor acarya in order to be a diksa guru. T.O. not only contradicts its own underlying assumption, it also singularly fails to show where such authorisation ever occurred.

The last public pronouncement made by Srila Prabhupada, which is offered as evidence for the M.A.S.S. in T.O., is the conversation of May 28th. This has been extensively dealt with in both `The Final Order' and `The Final Order Still Stands'. The only new point worthy of note, which we made in the first section of our response, is that T.O. contradicts another GBC position paper which was released just two months prior.

Also, as we point out in `The Final Order Still Stands', we shall need to see the original tapes of this conversation before it can even be considered as any type of evidence at all, as would be standard legal practise.

Although we have defeated T.O.'s crucial `chronological' argument, for completeness we shall now go through once more the evidence offered from private correspondence. For the record we have already dealt with this form of evidence in `The Final Order' (pages 12-15), and our main points have not even been challenged in T.O., what to speak of answered.

As we point out in `The Final Order' (pages 12-13) none of Srila Prabhupada's private correspondence was publicly available, in anything resembling an authorised form, until 1986, some seven years after his departure. Srila Prabhupada never ordered his private letters to individuals to be published, nor did he ever state that they were vital appendages to the final July 9th policy document. At best then such evidence could only be used to support a document to the entire society outlining the M.A.S.S. It will be obvious to everyone by now that such a document does not exist, and hence there is nothing for these letters to support. In and of themselves private letters to individuals, which nobody else had even seen cannot be used to modify an order which was directed at the whole society. This is just plain common sense. Let us nevertheless examine the evidence proffered in T.O. in support of their claims.

This cannot be used to replace, supplant or modify the July 9th policy document since the recipients of that directive would not necessarily even have known of the existence of the above letter. We offer further reasons below as to why this evidence also fails to support T.O.'s thesis, in and of itself:

1. There is absolutely no mention of the term diksa, nor the word `initiate' in the above quote, and hence it cannot be asserted to have any direct bearing on the future of diksa initiation within ISKCON.
2. As explained previously, (bullet points under quote 2), the mention of absence does not have to refer to diksa, it can also refer to siksa. Therefore it is not conclusive that Srila Prabhupada must be writing about diksa here.
3. The point that Srila Prabhupada must mean diksa since his disciples were already acting as siksa is answered in the following:

`All my disciples' could mean, including `all those who are yet to come'.

The statement could be encouraging his disciples to become proficient at giving proper instruction. At that time his disciples were very new to spiritual life, and hence there was plenty of room for them to improve in their performance as siksa spiritual masters and become bona fide representatives of the initiating acarya. This was a process Srila Prabhupada wanted continued in his absence.

There are different grades of siksa, from vartma-pradasaka on up to a fully liberated souls. All can still be siksa gurus. Obviously the more pure they become the more effective instructing spiritual masters they will make.

If we take the above GBC assertion literally, then it would mean that every time Srila Prabhupada used the term `guru', he must always be referring to diksa, since his disciples were always already acting as siksa. But this premise must be wrong since there are many quotes where Srila Prabhupada is clearly ordering his disciples to become guru straight away, even in his presence. We know that in those circumstances he was definitely talking about siksa, so why not in quote number 6?

This quote is taken from the Lilamrta, and hence is not proper evidence. If the GBC can produce the original recordings of this conversation we shall consider it. The Lilamrta frequently alters and paraphrases conversations, no doubt for literary reasons, and thus these exact words may never have been spoken.

1. T.O. makes the following point:
   

What did happen by 1975 is that Srila Prabhupada had empowered various individuals to carry out initiations and chant on beads etc., but on his behalf. This system was later formalised on July 9th 1977 and left to run henceforward. Perhaps it was this system that he was alluding to in the above two letters. In an attempt to re-enforce their `generations' argument T.O. quotes from another letter to Kirtanananda:

The above is obviously just an analogy to illustrate a point. Srila Prabhupada is merely giving an example to clear up a question raised by one of his disciples, (one whom he later appoints to act as a ritvik only, not a diksa guru). He is not saying that this will happen or should happen. In fact he uses the word `may'. One thing is for certain, it can not be used to displace the final order since, barring one, the recipients of the order never saw the above letter.

The so-called public confirmation referred to above has been dealt with already, it is quote number 2 above, and was shown to be non-existent. Furthermore the above quote cannot be used to replace, supplant or modify the July 9th policy document since the vast majority of the recipients of that directive would not even have known of the existence of the above letter.

 "Do not try to make a faction." (SPL to Tusta Krishna, 72-12-14)

"I have heard that you are having some difficulties [...] Of course, our serving Krishna is voluntary affair, so what can I say? If you think that is the best choice, I must agree, otherwise you might go away altogether." (SPL to Tusta Krishna, 72-12-14)

"News has come to me that you want to sell our temple to somebody else which I cannot believe. Even that you have been in charge of the New Zealand centre, now you have taken it as your personal property and you have demanded from Madhudvisa Swami the price of the temple. This is all amazing to me. I do not know what is your decision. Tusta Krishna has already left and is in Hawaii with Siddha Svarupananda Maharaja. I never believed that again you would go back to your old habits, giving up the Krishna Consciousness Movement in a whimsical way. Please do not do this mistake [...] Now all of a sudden you have changed that program and taken to your original ways? I am so much aggrieved to receive all this news. For Krishna's sake, do not do these things. I request Tusta Krishna to go back to New Zealand and take charge of your duties. Please do not leave Krishna. You will not be happy. That is my request."
(SPL to Tusta Krishna and Beharilal, 73-10-15)

"I may inform you that I have today sent the following cable to Tusta Krishna Maharaja:'DO NOT SELL NEW ZEALAND TEMPLE TO OTHERS. IF YOU WANT MONEY I SHALL PAY TO YOU. REST ASSURED - BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI.' "
(SPL to Madhudvisa, 73-10-22)

"I have not heard from Tusta Krishna or Siddha-Svarupa Goswamis nor do I know anything of their plans to return to New Zealand. Try to convince them to return to our Society and work co-operatively. That they have gone away is not good thing and it is a deviation from our line of parampara. Rather, avoiding faultfinding and anarchy, they should keep our standard and work maturely and not cause factions and splitting. I am not at all pleased at what they have done."
(SPL to Madhudvisa, 73-12-15)

"So far I have studied Siddhasvarupa, he is not a bad boy, but he has his own philosophy, from the very beginning."
(SPL to Paramahamsa, 75-07-16) (All emphasis added)

Please note that Tusta Krishna was a follower of Siddhasvarupa who already had disciples even whilst Srila Prabhupada was present. Taking all the above into account it is clear that the above private letter (quote number 10) is simply urging an ambitious deviant disciple to at least wait until the spiritual master has left the planet before taking his own disciples. That some devotees would seek to promote this letter as generally applicable beggars belief.

T.O. seems to believe that the above interview shows Srila Prabhupada giving a hint about his future appointment (if we may use such a term) of his 11 successor acaryas. This assertion is un-sustainable for the following rather obvious reasons:

1. The quote makes no mention of the term diksa, nor the word initiate, and thus can have no direct relevance to the issue at hand.
2. Srila Prabhupada speaks of future guidance only in relation to the GBC whom he was training. There is no mention that these GBC's were to be initiating diksa gurus as well as GBC's, or instead of.
3. How are we supposed to see that in the following year `Srila Prabhupada would follow through with his plans' to appoint diksa gurus, when what actually occurred in 1977 was the appointment of just 11- ( not 18)- ritviks, not diksa gurus? Just for the record we also cannot for the life of us see how this quote in any way contradicts our position, as is asserted in T.O.p.11.
   
   
   

T.O. offers ten quotes in support of the M.A.S.S., 5 public and 5 private correspondence. As far as public pronouncements go it should be noted that:

As far as private correspondence goes:

1. None of these letters can be used as principal evidence since they were not made generally available until the mid-eighties. The letters were only ever published because someone was bribed into releasing them. Thus even the belated publication of these letters was more by default than careful authorised planning.
2. Private correspondence can be used legitimately as supportive evidence, as we have done in `The Final Order', but unfortunately there is nothing here for it to support since Srila Prabhupada never mentioned the M.A.S.S. in any of his books, conversations, morning walks, lectures or signed directives to the whole society.
3. Only three of these letters actually refer to diksa anyway. Two of these must have been referring to some type of officiating system since Srila Prabhupada was still present when the systems mentioned were supposed to come into effect. Thus we are left with only one relevant quote.

So this is the GBC's clear and unequivocal evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., just the one private letter- quote number 10. This appears to be the only evidence the authors of T.O. are able to bring to the table which has any direct relevance to the case they are trying to construct. And yet this one private letter was issued in reaction to an extreme circumstance, as explained above, and was seen by hardly anyone but Tusta Krishna until seven years after Srila Prabhupada's departure. As demonstrated above, we were dealing with someone who wanted to initiate whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present - thus this letter to Tusta Krishna was not being sent to a regular devotee in a normal situation. This being so it cannot possibly be viewed as generally applicable instruction. It seems that on the basis of this one letter to an ambitious deviant disciple, that at the time was generally unseen, we are being asked by the GBC to ignore Srila Prabhupada's clear July 9th directive on initiation which was sent specifically to all the societies leaders with the instruction that it be continued henceforward!

T.O. states:

If Srila Prabhupada `repeatedly made this point over many years, both in private letters and in public', how is it that the GBC are only able to produce one very poor example which no-one even knew about until the mid-eighties? Where is this `consistent', `regular' `public' evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted anything remotely resembling the M.A.S.S. to come into force the minute he left the planet? There is not one public statement presented in T.O. which even mentions `diksa gurus', what to speak of authorising disciples to become such.

We submit that the GBC have not presented this evidence because it simply does not exist.

Instead we have one letter to one ambitious deviant disciple who left the movement shortly after he received his so-called `diksa authorisation'; a letter which nobody who received the final order even knew about, (there were three other similarly ambitious disciples who received similar letters). How is this evidence `clear' and `beyond doubt'? We believe that most honest devotees will come to the conclusion that the GBC should re-institute Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation immediately, since there is insufficient grounds for suspending its operation any longer.

In the above the authors of T.O. are trying to construct a straw man argument. In `The Final Order' we never say that the July 9th letter is to be `taken in isolation of everything else'. How can it be taken in isolation of the Bhagavad Gita, chanting sixteen rounds, following the regulative principles etc? Obviously such an assertion would be absurd, and we certainly never make it. The sole evidence offered by the GBC for modifications a) & b) is the May 28th conversation. In `The Final Order' we clearly state that there is nothing in this conversation that contradicts the July 9th letter. We simply make a general point about `later' instructions, and show how the GBC completely agrees with us (or at least they used to):

`As will be seen later, the May conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order. As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always supersede previous instructions [...]

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)

(The Final Order, p14)'

We have never stated that the final order implicitly or explicitly `negates everything said before it'. In fact, as we demonstrated in section 2 , the GBC have so far been unable to show even one generally applicable instruction or teaching that the final order contradicts or `negates'. Our point is that the July 9th order is the final instruction on how initiations were to run within ISKCON, so even if there were some perception amongst a few ambitious individuals (for example Tusta Krishna) that they might be able to initiate, the final order is the final order and must be followed. Hamsaduta for example received a similar letter to Tusta Krishna at one point. Later however he received the July 9th order, and a separate letter from Srila Prabhupada encouraging him to just `continue to be ritvik'. Hamsadutta prabhu apparently now admits that that is what he should have done, since it was the last instruction he directly received from his spiritual master.