PSS Adopts GBC Tactics To Attack “The Final Order”

 

By Krishnakant

26 March 2002 

New York PSS (Prabhupada Sankirtana Society) has recently released a paper authored by Nimai Pandit Das, called “Whatever Happened To The Essentiality Of the Formal Initiation Ceremony in the Final Order?”, in which they try to show:

 

 

“how on this point of the formal initiation ceremony the Final Order document and hence IRM is deviating from the parampara.”

 

Of course in making such a strong criticism, New York PSS are echoing the statement of the GBC who also say that the “The Final Order” (TFO) and the IRM ‘deviate from the parampara’. However, as we will now demonstrate, what is even more amusing is that New York PSS have used also used exactly the same false argumentative devices that the GBC use when they attack the IRM. As anyone who has read the IRM papers will know, we are very easily able to defeat the GBC papers since they contain the following:

 

 1. ‘Straw Man’ Arguments

 

This is where the GBC, unable to defeat what we actually say, invent a phantom argument that we do not make, attribute it to us, and then try and defeat this irrelevant argument. This is done because of their inability to deal with what we actually state.

 

 2. Contradictions

 

GBC papers are also, of course, full of contradictions of both the same and other GBC papers.

 

 

 3. Mis-representing Srila Prabhupada

 

They will try and use Srila Prabhupada’s quotes to support their position. Only what they claim the quote states is actually completely different to what Srila Prabhupada actually says.

 

Due to the use of these cheating methods, the GBC papers have all easily been exposed by the IRM for the false arguments they present, just as the PSS paper will now be exposed. Please note how as we expose the PSS paper mentioned above, virtually all of its arguments will be composed of the above 3 cheating devices.

 

Henceforward, quotations from the PSS paper will be  boxed  thus; quotes from TFO, Srila Prabhupada and other papers shall be in speech marks “ ” thus, with our reply following underneath in bold. The authors of the New York PSS paper will be referred to throughout as the ‘author’.

 

In the TFO we state the following:

 

“Srila Prabhupada never defined diksa in terms of any ritualistic ceremony, but as the receipt of transcendental knowledge that leads to liberation …” (TFO, page 27)

 

In response to the quote above the author states:

 

It is true that Srila Prabhupada never defined diksa in terms of any ritualistic ceremony but he defined it as the receipt of transcendental knowledge (as the author states) AND ALSO as a TRANSCENDENTAL FORMAL CEREMONY (which the author does not state!).

 

Here the author claims that Srila Prabhupada defined diksa as a “Transcendental Formal Ceremony”. The author then presents a series of claims to support his claim. However none of the quotes which the author presents state that “Diksa is defined as a Transcendental Formal Ceremony”. They actually state:

 

 a)  That the initiation ceremony is ‘transcendental’:

 

“And another thing, just like we are holding this ceremony, initiation ceremony. It should not be accepted just we are functioning some ritualistic ceremony. No. It is different from ritualistic ceremony. Although it appears like ritualistic, it is transcendental.”  (SP Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture Los Angeles, December 1, 1968)

 

b) That Diksa means the initiation to begin transcendental activities:

 

“So diksa means the initiation to begin transcendental activities. That is called initiation. Therefore we take promise from the disciple that "You chant so many times," "Yes, sir." "You observe these rules and regulations," "Yes, sir." That is initiation. He has to observe; he has to chant. Then everything comes automatically. In the beginning he is faulty; then how he can make progress?”

(SP Lecture Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.15 -- Auckland, February 22, 1973)

 

But you will note that nowhere does it say that:

 

Diksa is defined as a Transcendental Formal Ceremony”

 

as the author claims. Thus what the author has done is taken parts of two separate quotes and then added them together, and then inserted his own words to arrive at his bogus conclusion. So the author presents one thing from Srila Prabhupada, but claims it says another. Srila Prabhupada’s defintion of Diksa is always the same – the process by which one is initiated with transcendental knowledge so that one becomes free from all material contamination. But nowhere does Srila Prabhupada DEFINE Diksa as a ‘transcendental formal ceremony’ as claimed by the author. Indeed nowhere does Srila Prabhupada even use the term ‘formal ceremony’ with ‘Diksa’. Check the Srila Prabhupada Folio / Vedabase and see for yourself. Type in ‘Diksa’ and ‘formal ceremony’ and you will get ZERO hits.  So the author is in error that he has found a ‘deviation from the parampara’ here. Rather it is he who is ‘deviating’ from what Srila Prabhupada ACTUALLY states by putting his own words into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth,  so desperate is he to find fault with TFO.

 

Of course as point b) above states, Diksa does mean the initiation to begin transcendental activities. This point was actually stated in TFO, and indeed in his paper the author also uses the same quotes from TFO to help make his point. And yes these transcendental activities CAN begin when one takes the initiation ceremony. However these transcendental activities are not initiated ONLY when one takes a formal ceremony, which would have to be the case if this was how Diksa was DEFINED.  Rather these transcendental activities can and do take place way before the performance of the initiation ceremony:

 

“The chanting Hare Krishna 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 Tamala Krsna, 19 August, 1968)

 

 

 “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)

 

To understand the absurdity of the author’s argument, please note that if transcendental activities only began at the ceremony, which would have to be the case if this was how Diksa was DEFINED, then according to this logic REAL initiation would not mean the beginning of REAL transcendental activities, since we would still need to wait to take the formal ceremony for that to happen!

 

Next the author contradicts himself. First he quotes TFO stating that the ceremony is ‘unnecessary’ for the transcendental process of Diksa:

 

“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.””  (TFO, Page 28)

 

Then immediately agrees that the ceremony IS unnecessary to the transcendental process of Diksa:

 

“And although one CAN receive knowledge constantly without formalising the relationship with the teacher,”

 

If transcendental knowledge CAN be received without the ceremony, then by definition the ceremony is not necessary.  He then concludes by saying:

 

“Whereas Srila Prabhupada not only carefully performed the ceremony himself but also states that the ceremony is “valuable”, “authorizing”, “required” and “essential”.

 

So he attempts to prove that TFO was incorrect in stating that the initiation ceremony was unnecessary to the transcendental process of Diksa, having already agreed that the TFO was correct on this point! Also the quotes he provides to show that the initiation ceremony is “required”, “authorizing” and “valuable” are used to present more “straw man” arguments since the TFO actually states in the conclusion that the ritvik initiation ceremony is required to be re-introduced, and the IRM are dedicated to restoring this ceremony, and nowhere do we say it has no value or authority. We simply state what the author himself agrees with, that one CAN participate in the transcendental process of Diksa without the necessity of the formal ceremony. Similarly when the author states:

 

“Srila Prabhupada still prefers that the knowledge be received in a formal way from the disciplic succession as he showed by giving scores of his valuable hours personally conducting the initiation ceremonies, …”

 

Again another ‘straw man’ argument is implied since the TFO also agrees that Srila Prabhupada prefers that the initiation ceremony be conducted, and that is why we state in the conclusion of the TFO that the initiation ceremony be re-introduced via the use of ritviks. Indeed it was for this purpose that the whole TFO was written!

 

Also in trying to mistakenly prove that the initiation ceremony is “essential”, the author again indulges in his trick of mis-representing what Srila Prabhupada says. He claims that:

 

“Srila Prabhupada even goes on to say the ceremony is “required” and “essential”.”

 

And then offers the following quotes as ‘evidence’ to show that the ceremony is “essential”:

 

“Of course, for anyone to hear the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam will produce a favorable result but formally one should receive this knowledge from the disciplic succession. For example, Arjuna and Krishna were friends but still Arjuna submitted himself formally as Krishna's disciple. This is essential. We should take example from these great  Personalities. Arjuna was hearing Krishna speaking Bhagavad-gita but still he submitted as Krishna's disciple. "Now I submit unto You, please teach me." So this is the process. I hope this will clear up your question sufficiently.”

(SP Letter to John Darsinos, 23/11/68)

 

 

“Actually this is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's initiation of Dabira Khasa and Sakara Mallika. They approached the Lord with all humility, and the Lord accepted them as old servants, as eternal servants, and He changed their names. It is to be understood from this that it is essential for a disciple to change his name after initiation.”

(Madhya 1.208, The Later Pastimes of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

 

Again, please notice that nowhere does Srila Prabhupada state that the ‘ceremony is essential’. The first quote says that it is essential that one submit oneself formally to the spiritual master just as Arjuna did with Krishna. Yet the word ‘ceremony’ is not used and the example Srila Prabhupada gives proves that such a ceremony it is not always necessary since Arjuna himself never underwent any ceremony before surrendering to Krishna on the batllefield! And Srila Prabhupada states that:

 

“We should take example from these great Personalities.” (op. cit.)

 

So how the example of Arjuna surrendering to Krishna without a ceremony is evidence that the ceremony is essential is mind-boggling!  Rather, what ‘formally’ submitting oneself to the spiritual master means in this context is explained by Srila Prabhupada as follows:

 

“He is therefore asking Lord Krsna, the supreme spiritual master, to make a definite solution. He offers himself to Krsna as a disciple. He wants to stop friendly talks. Talks between the master and the disciple are serious, and now Arjuna wants to talk very seriously before the recognized spiritual master.”

(Bhagavad Gita, 2:7)

 

The point is that ‘friendly talks’ must stop and one must seriously accept the words of the spiritual master. This does happen at the ceremony, but does not only happen at the ceremony, as we see in the example of  both Arjuna and Srila Prabhupada:

 

“So I was at that time a fool, but I opined like this. And I accepted him as my spiritual master immediately. Not officially, but in my heart. That was in 1922.

(SP Lecture, Los Angeles, December 13, 1973)

 

 

Thus what is ‘essential’ is not the ceremony but accepting the spiritual master seriously, and this may or may not happen only at a ceremony.

 

The second quote only states that it essential to ‘change one’s name after initiation’, not that ‘the ceremony is essential’. Thus again the author has taken what Srila Prabhupada stated, simply INSERTED the word ‘ceremony’ himself into the quotes, and arrived at a completely different conclusion to Srila Prabhupada. So yet another example of cheating from the author in a desperate attempt to find any flaw, no matter how minor, in TFO.

 

Next the author proves by quoting from Srila Prabhupada that  in regards to initiation:

 

“Here again we see that the “formalities” are “slightly changed” but not given up.”

 

But since TFO never states that the initiation ceremony should be ‘given up’, but actually states the OPPOSITE - that it should be re- introduced - the author is again offering a ‘straw-man’ argument.

 

Thus as we have shown:

 

a) The author AGREES that the ceremony is not necessary, and hence ‘not essential’ to the transcendental process of Diksa;

 

b) That TFO nowhere states that the ceremony is ‘not required’, ‘not authorising’, ‘not valuable’, but rather agrees with these points since it calls for the ceremony to be re-introduced. We simply agree with the author that the ceremony is not necessary to the transcendental process of Diksa.

 

c) That the author fabricates the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada states that the initiation ceremony is essential, when actually Srila Prabhupada states something completely different.

 

Next the author attacks the following statement from TFO:

 

“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.” (TFO, Page 28)

 

by arguing that there is more to the ceremony than just this:

 

Where does Srila Prabhupada state this ?  That the ceremony is just to “solidify in the mind of the disciple”! The author does not state “just” but by giving no other function of the formal ceremony he implies the same.

Let us see what reasons Srila Prabhupada actually gives for performing this ceremony. We hope this will solidify in the mind of the author the importance Srila Prabhupada gives to the initiation ceremony.

 

The author then proceeds to list all the items associated with the formal initiation such as:

• Change of name

• Sanctification of chanting beads

• Promise by Srila Prabhupada to deliver disciple

Etc., etc.

 

However, most of these activities do not occur specifically and only at the time of the fire sacrifice, which is what the ceremony is. What does happen primarily at the ceremony is an activity which the author himself also lists as being part of the initiation:

 

F: Disciple promises in front of witnesses

 

The author then illustrates this point with the following quote from Srila Prabhupada:

 

“Now instruct them very seriously about their responsibilities. To promise to follow the four prohibitive rules and to daily chant sixteen rounds means they cannot deviate. You can hold a fire yajna and inform them that in promising before the Deity and before the spiritual master, one cannot later break the rules without being punished, just as in the law court one is held for perjury.”

(SP Letter to Damodara, 16 January, 1974)

 

In other words, Srila Prabhupada is stating that the purpose of the ceremony is to impress upon the mind of the disciple the serious commitments he has made to the process of diksa. Which of course is exactly what TFO states! Thus TFO simply summarises the main purpose of the ceremony by stating that it helps to ‘solidify’ the mind of the disciple to the commitments he has made to the process of Diksa, a point the author himself agrees with when demonstrating how the ceremony assists the disciple to make a commitment ‘in front of witnesses’. Though all the other aspects the author lists such as ‘changing the name, having the beads sanctified etc.’ are also part of the initiation process, they do not strictly always occur at the time of the CEREMONY, and hence we were justified in emphasizing what mainly occurs AT THE CEREMONY. So again the author has made a completely useless and irrelevant point in his desperation find a flaw in TFO.

 

The author then ends his paper with the following conclusion:

 

Srila Prabhupada wants the formal initiation to take place exactly as he instructed and performed it, and as he had his representatives perform it on his behalf...as soon as one is qualified!

 

Yet we all know that the ‘exact’ way in which Srila Prabhupada ‘instructed’ the formal initiation to be performed was via the system outlined in the July 9th 1977 directive. This directive is brief and mentions 3 key features:

 

1)       It is sent to the GBC to implement even though they are not mentioned at all in the directive, and sets out 11 persons chosen to perform 1st and 2nd initiations.

 

2)       It states that a Temple President must recommend a candidate for initiation, just as was being done previously.

 

3)       The recommendation is sent to another party, a ritvik, who then sends back the approval with a spiritual name to the Temple President.

 

If we study the directive we will see that if we were to remove any ONE of these features we would not be conducting the initiation ‘exactly’ as Srila Prabhupada ‘instructed’. Further, if we were to remove all 3 features, we would have no directive left. Take out the 3 above key features, and the July 9th directive literally disappears. Yet this is what PSS, who are stating here that we should perform the initiations EXACTLY as Srila Prabhupada has instructed, have done. They have done the OPPPOSITE of their claim that we should follow ‘exactly’ Srila Prabhupada’s instruction, by deviating from the July 9th directive in all respects:

 

1)        Kapindra Swami, PSS’s Gaudiya Matha Sannyasi, who performs their ritvik initiations, is not listed in the July 9th directive as being authorized to perform ritvik initiations, nor has a BONA FIDE GBC (not the current deviant GBC) which is meant to manage ISKCON, and whom were sent the July 9th directive to implement, authorized him.  He is simply self-appointed.

 

2)        There is no system of recommendation from a Temple President for initiation candidates, who have been observed for at least 6 months to a year, as Srila Prabhupada instructed. Rather Kapindra Swami will initiate unknown persons who he has just met for the first time, after making his own on the spot personal ‘assessment’.

 

3)        There is also no separation of powers between the GBC, ritvik and Temple President, the 3 entities that Srila Prabhupada set up to manage the system. It was a perfect check and balance. The GBC control the ritviks, but have no control over who gets initiated. The ritviks control who gets initiated but have no control over the supply of candidates. The Temple Presidents control the supply of candidates, but cannot control whether or not they will get initiated. In this way Srila Prabhupada set up a perfect system of checks and balances essential for the running of any institution. However in the PSS system, all the power is concentrated in one ‘acarya’, Kapindra Swami, who is the self-appointed GBC, ritvik and Temple President all rolled into one.

 

Now PSS may argue that all this does not matter, that it does not matter if one does not follow the July 9th directive as given as long as an initiation takes place. But they are the ones who say that the ceremony is very ‘essential’, and thus should not be minimized, and should be performed ‘EXACTLY’ as given. Thus they are contradicting themselves again, as they clearly do not believe it should be followed ‘exactly’ as they claim. Either the ceremony is important and should be performed exactly as instructed or it can be performed in any manner we choose, in which case it cannot be so important after all, if we can conduct it in any arbitrary manner.

 

The reality is that it is the IRM who are actually dedicated to performing the initiation ceremony exactly as given by Srila Prabhupada, and who do not wish to devalue its importance and minimize it by having anyone performing it any time in any fashion that they choose, without authority! In this way it is PSS who have completely minimized the initiation ceremony that Srila Prabhupada has given by not practicing it all, but by instead inventing their own ceremony. This devaluing of the initiation ceremony is to be expected from an organization whose self-appointed acarya went and took his sannyasa initiation from the Gaudiya Matha, an organization Srila Prabhupada expressly forbade us from mixing with, what to speak of going there for initiation! Thus PSS’s real policy is that it does not matter a fig how an initiation ceremony is done, even if one has to deviate from the orders of Srila Prabhupada to do it. One should simply get it done by hook or by crook, even if it means going to the Gaudiya Matha even though Srila Prabhupada has told us not to go there, or even if it means deviating in all respects from the July 9th directive which Srila Prabhupada gave us.

 

Finally we will end by demonstrating just how self-contradictory and desperate PSS have become to try and attack the IRM and attract initiation candidates for their self-appointed Gaudiya Matha ritvik/GBC/TP. As little as 3 years ago PSS released a book in which a whole section is devoted to the issue of initiation, and which completely agrees with the stand of TFO, that the ceremony is a formality only, and that the ‘real’ initiation is based on the transmission of knowledge from Srila Prabhupada. The book even uses the same quotes as TFO to make its points. The book called ‘All of Us Should Hear Prabhupada’, was written by Mukunda Das of PSS, and consists mainly of quotes from Srila Prabhupada with Mukunda’s commentary. We will quote sections from it below:

 

On The Definition Of Diksa

 

“Srila Prabhupada ‘s transcendental books transmit transcendental knowledge which vanquish all material contamination caused by our previous sinful activities and thus bring us to pure love of God, where we can directly worship Krishna. This perfectly corresponds with sastric definitions of diksa.( CC Madhya lila 15-108, 9-61, 4-111).”

[…] Srila Prabhupada describes our daily reading of His books as process of revealing or awakening transcendental knowledge. This process is described in the sastra as diksa.”

(Page 156, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

Here Mukunda completely agrees with TFO and contradicts the author regarding the definition of Diksa. Mukunda agrees that the ‘transmission of knowledge’ is what PERFECTLY corresponds with the sastric definitions of Diksa. Thus the definition given in TFO is COMPLETE.

 

On The Importance Of The Ceremony

 

“By receiving the books of Srila Prabhupada the people of the world are hearing his ecstatic chanting of the Holy name, and thus being initiated the people are becoming the devotees of the Lord.”

(Page 140, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“Srila Prabhupada is delivering all fallen souls through his transcendental sound vibration. This is the purpose of initiation, the deliverance of the disciple from the material existence.”

(Page 142,  Mukunda Prabhu, ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“You’d simply have to give up your bad habits and chant Hare Krishna mantra on these beads -That’s all.” That’s what Srila Prabhupada asks of us if we want to become his initiated disciples.”

(Page 146, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“In this letter there is more confirmation that anyone following his instructions in regards to chanting the holy name, is as good as his disciple, even without formal initiation”.

(Page 148, Mukunda Prabhu, ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“The esssential principle of parampara is not the official formalities, but the revelation of transcendental knowledge by the process of submissive aural reception”.

(Page 154, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“By the association of Srila Prabhupada (sadhu sanga) the fortunate soul receives a process of  spiritual acitivities, that is called bhajana kriya. If we follow this process that is our initiation. By engaging in these spiritual activities our material activities diminish (anartha nivrrtti) thus devotees who have not received formal initiation, but have been chanting and following the four regulative principles, are freeing themselves from gross and subtle anarthas. They have clearly received initiation from Srila Prabhupada, who is actually giving everyone this process, (bhajana kriya ) in his transcendental books.”

(Page 143, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“In the earlier lecture (SB1.2.8) Srila Prabhupada says “observe these four regulative principle and chant Hare Krishna mantra as far as possible, at least 16 rounds. Then see how your life changes.” Again confirmation, that if we follow his guidance that is our initiation (bhajana kriya) and as a result our life will change or we will become free from material contamination (anartha nivrrtti)”.

(Page 144, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

Here Mukunda makes it clear that the ceremony is not all essential, but it is the process of Diksa alone which is what matters. The prosecution of transcendental activities are not in any way dependent on the performance of a ceremony. This is of course 100% in line with TFO, and 100% in contradiction with the thesis of the author.

 

On The Purpose Of The Ceremony

 

 

“Srila Prabhupada says that chanting Hare Krishna is the real initiation, and that because devotees were following his instructions in that matter (16rounds, 4 regulations), he was already there as the initiator. In other words the initiation was already there and he had accepted them as his disciples. He then goes onto say the next initiation will be performed as a ceremony officially”.

(Page 147, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“In summary book distribution or more specifically Srila Prabhupada’s loud chanting is giving all fallen souls his association. If they take this association seriously and follow his guidance, that is their initiation into the chanting of the holyname. To formalize such an initiation and thus give his disciple a spiritual name, he appointed 11 disciples (officiating acaryas) to conduct these initiation rites.”

(Page 150, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

“The system of rtviks (priests) chanting on beads, awarding spiritual name to new initiates on behalf of the acarya Srila Prabhupada, would fall into the category of an initiation formality. This is confirmed by the following quotes”.

(Page 153, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

It is very clear from the evidence of sadhu sastra and guru that the real initiation is being given by Srila Prabhupada through the mercy of his transcendental books. The rtvik system should continue to formalize such mass harinama diksa.”

(Page 157, Mukunda Prabhu,  ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

Here Mukunda again makes it clear that the ceremony exists simply to formalize the REAL initiation which has already been given via the transmission of Srila Prabhupada’s vani.  Only for this purpose does it exist.

 

To finish we will give a quote directly from Srila Prabhupada which summarises the whole situation perfectly:

 

“The official initation has no meaning unless one who has fully surrendered to guru. There is no question of initiation. “Dibya-jnana hrdi prokasito

(S.B. lecture New Vrindavana 1974)

 

Thus the so-called ‘essential’ ceremony actually has no meaning unless it is preceded by the ‘real’ initiation – the surrender to the transmission of knowledge from the Guru.

 

And just to show that this book by Mukunda is completely authorized by the same persons who have put together this paper, we read the following in the Foreword to the book from Kapindra Swami, the world leader of the PSS:

 

“Mukunda prabhu after hearing regularly from Srila Prabhupada has compiled this essential book…”

“ …Our heartfelt thanks to Mukunda prabhu for this most valuable service for all the devotees.”

(Kapindra Swami, Page 6&7, ‘All of us should hear Prabhupada’)

 

 

 Conclusion

 

We have conclusively demonstrated that the author has failed spectacularly in his stated aim of finding even one quote where Srila Prabhupada states anything remotely resembling the author’s speculation that the:

 

“ceremony is essential”.

 

In contrast the IRM has presented many quotes which do state that it is not essential. E.g:

 

“Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.”

(SP Press Interview, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)

 

So the ceremony is required, it does have its value and place, and the IRM is the largest world-wide organization working full-time to re-introduce it. But still we have to accept Srila Prabhupada’s conclusion that it is not essential to the process of diksa. Rather we have to accept Srila Prabhupada’s conclusion that it is “not very important thing”. So we humbly request the author to stop speculating, fabricating what Srila Prabhupada states, and to just accept the actual words of Srila Prabhupada  as final on this matter.

 

We also note how the author has produced another paper answering the supposed ‘objections’ to the need for the initiation ceremony. It is interesting to note that not one of these objections are made by the “The Final Order” since the IRM agree that the ceremony should be correctly and the production of such a paper merely highlights the author’s propensity for engaging in his other cheating device of  ‘straw-man’ argumentation.

 

Thus it has conclusively been proven that the author of this paper has engaged in a desperate mix of self-contradiction, putting words into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth, and ‘straw-man’ arguments to try and find a flaw in TFO.  In doing this not only has PSS failed in its stated objective, but it has also revealed its true nature. The fact that it would completely jettison and turn on its head a siddhanta which they had endorsed only 3 years ago in a book that was supposedly ‘essential’ and a ‘most valuable service’, just so it could attack TFO, shows that it has no commitment at all to the truth – only to opportunism.

 

1) This is the same opportunism that can pontificate about following ‘exactly’ the initiation ceremony as instructed by Srila Prabhupada, whilst deviating from this instruction in every respect.

 

2) The same opportunism that while trumpeting the unique position of Srila Prabhupada and loyalty to his instructions, will happily run to the Gaudiya Matha at the drop of a hat for their ‘authorisation’.

 

3) The same opportunism which can in the same breath pontificate about not minimizing the importance of the initiation ceremony given by Srila Prabhupada, while happily inventing another one for 1st and second intiation, and going to the Gaudiya Matha for sannyasa initiation. In other words, the initiation ceremony given by Srila Prabhupada has been so de-valued that where you get it, and how you get it does not matter, as long as you get initiated somehow!

 

4) The same opportunism that allows the author to systematically attack propositions that we do not even put forward. That spreads the misinformation that we wish to dispense with the initiation ceremony altogether, rather than just do it correctly.

 

5) The same opportunism that allows the author to put words into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth to try and prove their bogus conclusions.

 

6) The same opportunism that allows the author to contradict himself at will.

 

7) The same opportunism that allows the author to declare boldly that we have ‘deviated from the parampara’, when only he has deviated from stating accurately what we and Srila Prabhupada actually say.

 

Thus far from exposing TFO, this paper has simply revealed PSS as a group that will say anything and do anything just to try and attract followers for Kapindra Swami’s initiation program. For they obviously feel that by offering initiation they will attract the many members of the IRM who are waiting to get initiated ‘exactly’ as Srila Prabhupada instructed, to join PSS. This of course is completely consistent with their opportunistic approach where the solemn initiation ceremony has been de-valued by them simply into a tool to be bent and molded into any shape, and used however desired, to fulfil the expansion needs of one man and his tiny organization.

 

The author has boasted that he is writing many other papers to try and expose the false position of the IRM. We hope he has more success than he has had with this effort, and we look forward to receiving them!