Bhadra Balarama's Monkey Business - ISKCON Revival Movement

The following is a response to Bhadra Balarama prabhu's paper "Post-Samadhi Rtvik Theory - Out of ISKCON", which was posted on VNN on February 16th, 1999. In this paper Bhadra Balarama prabhu tries to show how ultimately the 'ritvik' position taken by the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM) is merely a 'monkey-strategy', with IRM supporters acting like monkeys whenever they put forward their arguments. However, this response will demonstrate that in order to make his arguments, Bhadra Balarama has not only invented the Ritvik position he is trying to attack, but also fabricated quotes from Srila Prabhupada to try and attack this non-existent position - a double-whammy! Therefore it is actually Bhadra Balarama prabhu who has been up to 'monkey business', fabricating both the statements he attributes to the ritviks and also the evidence which he attributes to Srila Prabhupada, which he then uses to try and defeat these phantom ritvik statements.

In what follows, statements from Bhadra Balarama prabhu's paper shall be enclosed in speech marks thus " ", with my replies following underneath in bold. Bhadra Balarama prabhu shall be referred throughout as the author.

"I recently read the paper "Rtvik Theory--- Out of The Question" by His Holiness Jayapataka Swami and was highly impressed by its clarity and simplicity."

That paper, like this one, was also thoroughly refuted, and not surprisingly also contains the same technique of attributing false statements to our position, known as 'straw-man arguments'. (A 'straw-man argument' is the attributing of a fictitious statement to one's opponent, which can easily be defeated, since what the opponent actually says cannot be defeated.) The refutation to Jayapataka Maharaja's paper can be found at http://www.iskconirm.com/ritvik_srila_prabhupadas-way.htm.

"The purpose of "Post-samadhi Rtvik Theory--- Out of ISKCON" is as simple as the name suggests. It explains why rtvik-vadis should give up their misunderstandings and if they refuse the only way for them to go is out of ISKCON with their concocted theory."

As we will see, the only 'misunderstanding' going on is the author 'misunderstanding' the so-called 'ritvik misunderstandings' which he claims to be tackling!

After realizing their mistake that the word "henceforward" was not enough to fool all ISKCON leaders and most devotees in general, the proponents of rtvik-maya vada have now found a new speculation based on the word "order".

This is a straight-forward lie. The IRM's position paper "The Final Order" (TFO) actually says you can take the word 'henceforward' OUT of the July 9th directive and it makes no difference:

"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."
("The Final Order, Page 4)

So where is the question of realising a mistake which was never made? Similarly, as we will see, we have made NO speculation or argument based on the word 'order'.

"They eagerly challenge the GBCs, and whoever they argue with, to show an explicit order by Srila Prabhupada where he uses the word "order" like, "I am ordering you to become guru" and if such a statement cannot be found, they propose that ISKCON should accept the July 9th letter as Srila Prabhupada's final order."

The author has completely misunderstood the notion of 'an order', which is a noun specifying an instruction commanding someone to do something, as in - "go and fetch me a glass of water" - which is 'an order' to get a glass of water, without the actual WORD 'order'. We have never asked that any order from Srila Prabhupada must always contain the actual word 'order'. This is another fabrication by the author, and nowhere is this demand stated anywhere in TFO. But AN ORDER - not necessarily one word 'order' - IS required in all cases:

"The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life."
(CC, Adi, 12.10)

"Although they do admit that Srila Prabhupada expressed a strong desire that his disciples become regular gurus, he none the less never gave any explicit order for it, they add."

This again is another fabrication from the author. We NEVER admit that "Srila Prabhupada expressed a strong desire that his disciples become regular gurus". Such a statement is to be found nowhere in TFO.

"They also give many examples, backed by really poor logic, to prove their claim."

But unfortunately the author does not give even ONE such example of poor logic from TFO. And considering that everything else he has said thus far about our position has simply been from the realm of his imagination, we obviously cannot simply be expected to take his word for this latest allegation of his.

"Obviously they don't have many valid arguments and keep jumping from one point to the other, only to come back to the initial point in the end."

Obviously as we have already seen, it is the author, who not having any valid arguments, keeps jumping from one 'straw man' argument to the next.

"If that doesn't work they go wild and start offending vaisnavas. This is what I call the monkey-strategy. Although it's important to expose their stratagem we will talk about that a little later. For now let's see if we can help them find the "order" they have lost along with their intelligence."

Well as we can see, and will see, it is the author who is offending us, accusing us of having lost our intelligence, and behaving like monkeys etc.

"Rtvik-vadis say Srila Prabhupada may have "desired" that his disciples become gurus, but that is not sufficient; we must show that Srila Prabhupada "ordered" his disciples to be gurus."

Another figment of the author's imagination. We make no such statement in TFO.

"They say we cannot accept any of Srila Prabhupada's statements as an order, even where he expresses his strong desire that his disciples should become regular gurus, because he has not used the word "order"."

Another figment of the author's imagination. We make no such statement in TFO.

"By suggesting this division they have reached new heights of absurdity. Of course, Srila Prabhupada did use the word "order", but the rtvikvadis say it was an order to become siksa-guru and not diksa-guru. This is offensive because it's a direct negligence of Srila Prabhupada's own words: "The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksa-guru and diksa-guru".

This verse relates specifically to the eligibility to be Guru in relation to considerations of birth - stating that anyone regardless of birth can be any type of Guru:

"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, siksä-guru and diksa-guru."
(CC. 8:128)

Therefore this verse cannot relate to every single time that Srila Prabhupada used the word 'guru' in whatever context, since Srila Prabhupada never used the word Guru with these hereditary considerations in mind.

"On the other hand he said hundreds of times that he desired/wanted his disciples to continue the parampara system and become regular gurus".

Here the author has made the outlandish claim that Srila Prabhupada stated 'hundreds of times' that he:

'desired/wanted his disciples to continue the parampara system and become regular gurus.'

Thus the author is claiming Srila Prabhupada stated the above at least 200 hundred times (that's what 'hundreds' means). Yet we know that Srila Prabhupada did not state the above even ONCE, since the term 'regular guru' is itself only ever used by Srila Prabhupada ONCE, and there it says that his disciples should only act it in this capacity, WHEN he orders - an order which was never given:

"When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru."
(May 28th, 1977, Room Conversation)

So we challenge the author to produce at least 200 quotes stating that Srila Prabhupada:

''desired/wanted his disciples to continue the parampara system and become regular gurus.'

We have checked on the Vedabase (Folio) and the quotes saying the above do not exist. We ask the reader to also search for himself if he has Vedabase (Folio) program - type in the words 'continue', 'parampara' 'regular gurus' and see how many hits you get. (Hint: The number will not be more than Zero). So the author has simply INVENTED these 200+ quotes from Srila Prabhupada to try and support his argument. Just in case the author has some secret Vedabase (Folio) program containing many hitherto unseen quotes from Srila Prabhupada, we invite him to post these 200+ quotes. Please send them to irm@iskconirm.com, and we will re-consider our position, since neither we or anyone else has yet to see these quotes, so the author will be doing the world a great service if he enlightens us with these quotes. Thank you.

"Why think of something that is not even Srila Prabhupada 's desire and try to convert it into to his order, and purposefully ignore his strong desire that he repeatedly expressed? Isn't this plain nonsense?"

Why think of something that is not even Srila Prabhupada's desire (200 + quotes) and try to convert it into to his order, and purposefully ignore his strong desire that he repeatedly expressed? Isn't this plain nonsense?

"Apart from that, since the rtvik-vadis are sticking to the July 9th letter and presenting it as if it were Srila Prabhupada's direct order, my question to them is: did Srila Prabhupada use the word "order" anywhere in the July 9th letter? NO!"

This 'straw-man' argument of the author, that we insist on the WORD 'order', has already been exposed earlier. As can be seen, we have already gone through a good portion of the author's paper, and it has contained nothing thus far except fabrications of what we are supposed to say, and what Srila Prabhupada is supposed to say, just as we claimed at the outset.

"The point is that the rtvik-vadis have no right to present the July 9th letter as Srila Prabhupada's order if they don't want to accept the fact that Srila Prabhupada did order his disciples to become regular diksa gurus after his physical departure."

Now the author is claiming that Srila Prabhupada did order:

"his disciples to become regular diksa gurus after his physical departure."

We have already seen that no such desire/order/want for Srila Prabhupada disciples to become 'regular diksa gurus' exists. Indeed the term 'regular diksa gurus' was never once used by Srila Prabhupada, nor did Srila Prabhupada mention the term 'physical departure' in connection with his disciples being ordered to become 'gurus' of any sort. Again don't take our word for it, type in the words 'diksa guru' and 'physical departure' on the Vedabase (Folio) and see how many hits you get. (Hint: The number will not be more than Zero). We fail to see how Srila Prabhupada could be ordering/desiring things which he NEVER speaks of. Even accepting the author's argument that 'an order' does not need the word 'order' in it, it should however have the words denoting the entities which the author claimed Srila Prabhupada ordered - 'regular guru', 'after physical departure' etc. Otherwise how else do we know Srila Prabhupada ordered/desired these things? Unless the author is now claiming to be 'Srila Prabhupada's supersoul' and is telling us what Srila Prabhupada REALLY meant but simply forgot to actually state? It's ironic that the author later accuses US of acting in this capacity, but as we have seen it is the author who is ACTUALLY doing this.

"Did Srila Prabhupada ever say that he "ordered" his followers to follow the four regulative principles and chant sixteen rounds daily? He rather said his followers "should" do it or "have to" do it and thus we take it as an order. Why should we find excuses not to follow Srila Prabhupada's order? What's the point except to stay bound up by maya?"

Did TFO ever say that Srila Prabhupada must 'order' his followers? Why should the author find excuses not to follow Srila Prabhupada's order as given in TFO? What's the point except to stay bound up by maya?"

"God knows from where this distinction between "desire" and "order" has sprung in the rtvik-vadis' minds when it is well known that the spiritual master's desires are to be taken as his orders by sincere disciples."

God knows from where the idea that TFO makes this distinction between "desire" and "order" has sprung in the author's mind when it is well known that the spiritual master's desires are to be taken as his orders by sincere disciples.

"Here is one more quote from Srila Prabhupada where he talks about the importance of fulfilling the guru's desire even when it's not necessarily a direct order.

"This movement was started only for the satisfaction of my spiritual master. He wanted. Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted that this movement should be spread all over the world. So he ordered many of my God-brothers, and desired... Even not ordered, he wanted. He sent some of my God-brothers to the foreign countries to spread, but some way or other, he was not very successul. He was called back. So I thought, "Let me try in this old age." So the only desire was to satisfy the desire of the spiritual master. So you have helped now. It is coming to be successful. And this is yasya prasadad bhagavat prasadah. If we actually sincerely work under the direction of the spiritual master, that is satisfaction of Krishna, and Krishna will help us you, any way." (Delhi, November 3, 1973)"

But the desire of the Guru has to be expressed in WORDS. Even if the word 'order' is not there, what the desire is supposed to be, SHOULD be stated in words. Otherwise how else do we KNOW what the desire of the Guru is, unless again, we are supposed to become 'Srila Prabhupada's supersoul' as the author seems to be implying. And we have seen, that the words 'become regular guru' in conjunction with 'after physical departure' do not appear even once, what to speak of 200+ times!

"Here are some more quotes from Srila Prabhupada in this regard. There are plenty like these ones:

"You'll have to become spiritual master. You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master." (London, August 22, 1973)

"You each be guru," he said. "As I have five thousand disciples or ten thousand, so you have ten thousand each. In this way, create branches and branches of the Caitanya tree." (Mayapur GBC meetings 1976)

"You'll have to become spiritual master. You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master." (London, August 22, 1973)"

It's interesting the author claims that 'here are some MORE quotes from SRILA PRABHUPADA in this regard. There are PLENTY like these ones", since:

1) In the whole paper to date, this is the FIRST time the author has even attempted to offer ANY quotes in relation to Srila Prabhupada 'ordering/desiring' Gurus. So where the idea of 'more' comes from, only he knows.

2) Out of the 3 quotes, one is not even from Srila Prabhupada. It is from Hari Sauri Das's 'diary'.

3) So inundated is the author with 'plenty' of quotes, that he simply repeats the same one twice! Which means out of the 3 quotes he presents, only ONE is from Srila Prabhupada. Based on this analysis, we wonder if the author really has 'plenty' to offer!

4) The one quote the author DOES offer, however relates only to his disciples becoming preachers/siksa gurus only, because:

a) The quote in question does not link this 'becoming spiritual master' to first waiting for Srila Prabhupada's departure. So how can it be speaking of Diksa Gurus, which can only come into existence after the spiritual master has FIRST departed? The author states later that Srila Prabhupada strongly 'warned' his disciples against initiating whilst he was still present. So by the author's own argument, Srila Prabhupada cannot at the same time be encouraging Diksa Gurus to act whilst he was still physically present. Yet this quote and so many of the other quotes that the GBC present do just that - they speak of acting as 'Guru' without needing to wait for Srila Prabhupada to depart first.

b) The full quote also goes onto quote Lord Caitanya's order to the Brahmana Kurma to become Guru:

amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa
yare dekha, tare kaha, krsna-upadesa
[Cc. Madhya 7.128]

This was an order given by Lord Caitanya to an uninitiated Brahmana whom Lord Caitanya had just met, to act as a Guru while Lord Caitanaya was still on the planet, and who was to act as such a Guru by NOT traveling with the Lord, but by staying in his home and just preaching to his friends and family. Lord Caitanya then gave the same advice to ANYONE he met whenever he entered a village, visited a temple or met on the roadside. Now EVERYONE acting as a family Guru without any formal training or initiation immediately in the presence of the current link, is NOT an order to be a successor Diksa Guru in the parampara and become the next current link. In case the author is still confused, to make it doubly clear, in the purports to this verse, Srila Prabhupada states:

"It is best not to accept any disciples."

So:

a) Preach immediately in the presence of the current link.
b) No initiation or temple training required.
c) No traveling - stick to your family and neighbours only.
d) Don't make any disciples.
e) Anyone and everyone is INSTANTLY eligible. You just got to repeat what it says in the sastra. No other qualification required.

THIS is the type of Guru Srila Prabhupada is speaking about, and we fully agree with the author that anyone who comes into contact with the Krishna consciousness movement should become this type of Guru. But there is no order to become the 'sit in Srila Prabhupada's seat since Srila Prabhupada is now dead and gone' Guru.

"What else do the rtvik-vadis need in order to realize that their new speculation of establishing a difference between "desire" and "order" of the spiritual master is too stupid to be taken seriously by the GBC and ISKCON-devotees in general?

What else does the author need in order to realize that his new speculation of establishing a difference between "desire" and "order" of the spiritual master in TFO is too stupid to be taken seriously by the GBC and ISKCON-devotees in general?

"Their concoction doesn't make any sense. ISKCON cannot afford to accommodate their every speculation and waste a lot of time, money and energy to make them understand something that they are determined not to understand. They are creating a mess in our society and have confused many innocent devotees."

The author's concoction doesn't make any sense. The IRM cannot afford to accommodate his every speculation and waste a lot of time, money and energy to make him understand something that he is determined not to understand. He is creating a mess in our society and has confused many innocent devotees.

"Some rtvik-vadis do recognize that at some time Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to become regular gurus but on July 9th he changed his mind and said they should become rtvik-gurus."

How can anyone recognize that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to become 'regular gurus' when he only uses this term once, and then only to say that one can become a 'regular guru' WHEN he orders - an order which was never given. As we have seen, the only order which was given, as presented by the author himself, was to become a family guru/preacher in the presence of the current link Guru, like the Brahmana Kurma.

"In fact there is nothing wrong with rtvik initiations in and of itself. What is dangerously wrong, according to sadhu, guru and sastras, is continuing such initiations after the spiritual master leaves the planet."

So where is the statement from the Guru, Srila Prabhupada, that:

"continuing such initiations after the spiritual master leaves the planet, is dangerously wrong."

A search of Vedabase (Folio) will show no such quote exists. But hey, don't take our word for it - if you got the program look for yourself. Type in any of the above words or similar words, and see how many hits you get. (Hint: The answer will not be larger than zero.) Again this is more of the author's 'monkey business', making up something Srila Prabhupada never said, along with those 200+ quotes and all the other phantom statements he has presented.

"Apart from that Srila Prabhupada never promoted rtvik-system in his lectures, conversations, letters and books but always instructed us to continue the standard parampara-system. This was clearly understood by the GBCs and other devotees in general."

The 'standard parampara-system' was so clearly understood by the GBCs that first they claimed the 'standard parampara-system' was:

1) Only 11 Ritviks appoint themselves as zonal acaryas, divide up the world, and sit on big seats.
2) Then they claimed that this was NOT the 'standard parampara system' but actually it was the 'majority GBC votes for anyone who has not fallen down in the last 5 years' system.
3) Now Bhakti Caru Maharaja is actually saying both these systems are defective and we should actually move to the 'officiating acarya/psuedo ritvik system', where one becomes automatically linked to BOTH the param and Diksa Guru via one initiation. (Toronto Meeting, tape available, see IRM newsletter 62, go to http://www.iskconirm.com/62.htm#BCS)

So can the author please tell us WHICH of the above is the 'standard parampara-system' which all the GBC understood so well? And then having selected one of the above systems, can the author please present quotes from Srila Prabhupada showing how it is indeed the standard system. (Hint: Srila Prabhupada never speaks about ANY of the above 3 systems ever.)

"Being born in an Indian family I had the opportunity to have this understanding from the beginning and when I read the July 9th letter I never thought Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to remain rtviks even after his physical departure. He wouldn't do it since it was against sastric principles".

Again the author is stating that continuing the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is against sastric principles. Which 'sastric principle' is violated by continuing to have Srila Prabhupada as the Diksa Guru? Such a sastric principle - stating that continuing initiation without the physical presence of the Diksa Guru is a violation - is not found anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Again more 'monkey business' from the author - simply inventing sastric principles which Srila Prabhupada never mentioned.

"I am sure constant hearing of vaisnava criticism and reading TFO which is a mayavadi explanation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings are among major reasons. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has warned us against both criticizing vaisnavas and reading mayavadi literature."

Finally the author explains why his whole paper consists simply of imaginary concocted 'ritvik' arguments, none of which are to be found in the TFO actually. He has never ever even READ TFO, claiming it is mayavadi literature. No wonder he is completely unable to attack what the TFO actually states, but instead attacks an imaginary 'rtvik' position which he has based on some mythical 'rtvik-vadis' whose voices he keeps hearing in his head. Maybe he should see a psychiatrist and get this confusion cleared up. If you want to defeat the rtvik position you have actually got to know what it is, which means READING TFO I am afraid, or you will just be attacking imaginary arguments which do not actually exist and hence just waste everyone's time, just as the author has done here. And if TFO is too painful to read, then just say that, and do not offer any comment on it. Don't waste everyone's time writing papers on a subject you admit you know nothing about.

"Coming back to the point, we know that Srila Prabhupada approved rtvik initiations in ISKCON while he was present, but the very fact that he did so while he was physically present on the planet, makes a gulf of difference."

This has to be the most ludicrous point the author has made so far, though there are many of them to choose from. EVERYTHING Srila Prabhupada approved, 'he did so while he was physically present on the planet', so HOW can that make a gulf of difference? Especially when the author's whole thesis is that Srila Prabhupada ordered Diksa Gurus (at least 200+) times, which was also done 'while he was physically present on the planet'. So what gulf of difference does Srila Prabhupada doing everything only when he did do it, make? Or maybe the author's 'Indian English' meant to say Srila Prabhupada approved ritvik initiations FOR while he was on the planet. But then that would be worse, since again he would be fabricating something Srila Prabhupada never stated, for he never states anywhere that the ritvik system is for 'while he was physically present'. Nowhere is any such statement to be found - either in the May 28th conversation or the July 9th directive - or anywhere else for that matter.

"Srila Prabhupada has very clearly made the point that when a spiritual master is alive his disciples don't initiate their own disciples as an etiquette. If he does so, then it's on behalf of his spiritual master, and the new disciples are not considered his own but his spiritual master's. The person performing such an initiation is called a rtvik and such initiations are bona fide. But initiating one's own disciples when one's guru is physically present is ignoring the presence of the spiritual master and can be compared to someone wanting to perform the sraddha ceremony of his living father. Srila Prabhupada warned his followers against such practice and told his disciples to not initiate in his presence. This was an etiquette."

Well the author here disagrees with his own GBC, which means his own Guru Maharaja, His Holiness Jayapataka Swami, who is a member of the GBC, for the GBC has now passed a resolution allowing any disciple to initiate in the presence of the Guru, simply if the Guru gives permission.

"As taught by Srila Prabhupada, the etiquette of not initiating in the presence of one's diksa-guru will be upheld in ISKCON. However, Srila Prabhupada and historical precedents also teach us that disciples may sometimes initiate in the physical presence of their diksa gurus. If a diksa guru desires for this to happen, he can direct his disciple to go through the normal GBC procedure for initiating.'
(ISKCON Law, 6.3.2)

So the GBC obviously don't agree with the author that initiating in the presence of the spiritual master is something which must always be strictly upheld.

"So the answer to the question, "when after July 9th, 1977 did Srila Prabhupada say that the rtvik system he approved should be discontinued after his departure?", would be, "Before he approved the rtvik-system," as in the above example where the spiritual master instructed his disciples to take the remnants after he had finished eating. The answer to the second question, "how can one become regular diksa-guru when Srila Prabhupada approved them to be only rtviks?", is this: "Srila Prabhupada has already repeatedly told his disciples to become regular diksa-gurus after his departure."

1) But there is no instruction to discontinue the ritvik system, issued either before or after the Ritvik system began. If such an instruction was issued, we are still waiting to see it. Clearly the author has not produced any such instruction in his paper thus far.

2) And we have already seen that this 'repeated' instruction to become 'regular diksa-gurus after Srila Prabhupada's departure' is a figment of the author's fertile imagination, with no such instructions mentioning 'regular diksa gurus' for 'after his departure' ever being issued by Srila Prabhupada.

"The following illustration graphically exposes the monkey-strategy. You can see how they start with July 9th and end with July 9th, and if that doesn't work, begin to rave and offend vaisnavas--- something similar to what the monkeys do when they can't get their work done. […]
2. Next, we are again presenting Srila Prabhupada quotes to prove he ordered his disciples to become regular gurus after his departure. Another rtvik-vadi gets fired up and challenges us to provide a quote where Srila Prabhupada explicitly uses the word "order"."

We have already shown numerous times that the only monkey strategy at work here is the author fabricating the above objection. For the umpteenth time, we ask for 'an order', as justified by the quote we gave from the Caitanya-caritamrta ("The order of the spiritual master is the active principles in life."), NOT for the WORD 'order'. It is amazing how the author has based his whole paper from start to finish on such a foolish invention.

"3. We show the rtvik-vadis a letter by Srila Prabhupada wherein he says "I am ordering all my disciples to become gurus after my departure".

The use of speech marks thus "" in the above quote by the author shows that the author is claiming he is reproducing a direct quotation from Srila Prabhupada. But such a letter from Srila Prabhupada does not exist. The author has just made it up. Type in the above quote into the Vedabase (Folio) and one will see that such a quote or anything resembling it simply does not exist. To falsely put words into the mouth of Srila Prabhupada like this is reprehensible.

"4. Next, we come up with a letter written by Srila Prabhupada where he says "I am ordering all my disciples to become diksa-gurus after my departure". "

"Another rtvik-vadi intervenes and asks us to provide a similar statement after July 9th.
5. Then we are providing such a letter."

But such a statement ("I am ordering all my disciples to become Diksa-Gurus after my departure", issued after July 9th), from Srila Prabhupada does not exist. The author has just made it up. Type in the above quote into the Vedabase (Folio) and one will see that such a quote or anything resembling it simply does not exist. To falsely put words into the mouth of Srila Prabhupada like this is reprehensible.

"One more rtvik-vadi brings out a quote by Srila Prabhupada where he says, "A disciple is he who is fully surrendered to his spiritual master". In addition he provides a quote from the Vedabase (Folio) where Srila Prabhupada chastises one of his disciples for not being fully surrendered. Then he, too, takes the role of Srila Prabhupada's super soul and reveals that what His Divine Grace meant to say was that not all whom he initiated were his real disciples and so they should not initiate.
6. Next, we provide a taped conversation where Srila Prabhupada tells one X das "you are a fully surrendered disciple of mine and should become guru in the future". "

The use of speech marks thus "" in the above quote by the author shows that the author is claiming he is reproducing a direct quotation from Srila Prabhupada. But such a taped conversation from Srila Prabhupada does not exist. The author has just made it up. Type in the above quote into the Vedabase (Folio) and one will see that such a quote or anything resembling it simply does not exist. To falsely put words into the mouth of Srila Prabhupada like this is reprehensible.

"7. Then we present a letter written on July 10th to a swami (one of those eleven) where Srila Prabhupada encourages him "you are all my fully surrendered disciples and I am ordering all of you to become regular diksa gurus after my departure". "

"8. Finally, when we provide a taped conversation wherein Srila Prabhupada clearly tells that same swami, "you are all my fully surrendered disciples and since one needs to take initiation from a living spiritual master I am ordering all of you to become regular diksa-gurus after my physical departure from the planet", "

"Obviously there is no end to their speculations and we can't afford to spend time in refuting all of them. How can we wake up those who are pretending to sleep? We have to simply stick to sadhu, guru and sastras and try to carry out Srila Prabhupada's order sincerely."

Obviously there is no end to the author's speculations and we can't afford to spend time in refuting all of them. How can we wake up those who are pretending to sleep? We have to simply stick to sadhu, guru and sastras and try to carry out Srila Prabhupada's order sincerely.

Conclusion

1) It has been shown quite conclusively that the author's paper has been constructed simply based on some phantom 'ritvik-vadi' voices that he has heard in his head, since nothing he says regarding our position is to be found in "The Final Order". Thus the author's paper sheds absolutely no light on the truthfulness of the position of the IRM, though it does shed a lot of light on the truthfulness of the author's position.

2) To try and support his position, the author has shamelessly fabricated a whole list of statements which Srila Prabhupada never made.

3) The author also presents views in variance with the GBC and his own Guru maharaja.

When discussing an issue, if one simply makes up what one is supposed to be answering, and also makes up arguments to answer these made up arguments, one can 'win' any argument!

Completely making up what we say, and what Srila Prabhupada says - simply 'monkey business' of the highest order.