GBC Fail To Answer The Final Order

GBC Fail To Answer The Final Order

by Krishnakant

A Reply To 'Prabhupada's Order' (GBC Aug. 98)

In heralding the above paper as the "long awaited ISKCON response to the ritvik paper 'The Final Order'" (TFO) the GBC are not exaggerating. According to our e-mail log it has taken since 26th October 1996 to reply. Despite such a long wait, any hopes that this paper might actually offer a point by point response to TFO are speedily shattered in the introduction on page one of this latest GBC paper - 'Prabhupada's Order' (Henceforward PO):

"The purpose of this paper is not to refute point by point TFO, but to give a general overview of the main claims of this paper, and ritvik theories in general, and examine the supporting evidence for these theories compared to the evidence for following the traditional parampara system."
(PO page 1).

From the very outset then the GBC admit that PO does not offer a full and complete answer to TFO, as was originally promised, but instead a far more nebulous package. We shall start by making some general points about PO and then go through it systematically. Since, in theory at least, this should be the last paper we need to write refuting the GBC on this issue, we have gone into considerable detail. We thus apologise in advance to the reader for the length of this refutation.

Modifications Unaddressed

The main problem with PO is that instead of providing evidence in specific support of modifications A and B, which form the very core of the entire controversy and TFO. The GBC instead offer a 'general overview' of what they purport to be TFO's main claims, along with 'ritvik theories in general'. We will show that even this diluted promise is not fulfilled since PO is full of counter-arguments to assertions we have never made. It is thus unlikely that this paper will convince anyone who has properly read TFO, since as we explain, without explicit evidence for modifications A and B, the GBC have no case. To remind the reader again of these implicitly proposed modifications to the final July 9th policy statement on initiations:

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

There is no clear statement from Srila Prabhupada, given in PO that specifically supports these modifications. If statements supporting the above modifications were ever made by Srila Prabhupada then the whole issue could be settled within a few sentences. The GBC would simply need to present these statements and we would concede defeat. It is that simple. We would not be arguing with the GBC if they could present statements from Srila Prabhupada, issued to the entire movement, EXPLICITLY upholding the above modifications to the final order he himself signed and sent to all the leaders of ISKCON. Instead of such clear and unequivocally RELEVANT evidence, we are once more offered a barrage of IRRELEVANT quotes, the likes of which we have already addressed time and time again. In the previous attempt at partially answering TFO - 'Disciple of My Disciple', (henceforward DOMD), (GBC, 1997), to their credit the GBC did at least attempt to answer more directly modifications A & B. They did this by stating that the 'appt tape' provided the specific evidence for how the ritvik's turned into diksa gurus and in so doing terminated the ritvik system on departure (a contention we disproved in 'The Final Order Still Stands', )

In PO the GBC take a slightly different tack, (perhaps realising their last attempt failed), in that the authors are now arguing that it was always preached by Srila Prabhupada that it was automatic that all his disciples would become diksa gurus upon his departure, and that the 'appt tape' simply CONFIRMS this pre-stated arrangement. In other words, previously the 'appt tape' was offered as the PRIMARY evidence, with the letters to Tusta Krishna, Hansadutta et all. merely used to support the GBC's interpretation of the 'appt tape'. Now these quotes appear to constitute the main thrust of the evidence, with the 'appt tape' simply 'confirming' what was allegedly continually preached by Srila Prabhupada. There are two points to be made here.

This approach does not begin to answer modifications A & B since it is still possible that Srila Prabhupada wanted the ritvik system to be followed after his departure inspite of anything he may have said earlier. Even if Srila Prabhupada had previously mentioned his disciples initiating after departure, he may have changed his mind in the final months. Maybe he saw that no one was suitably qualified, or maybe Lord Krishna spoke within his heart to set up a ritvik system inspite of previous indications. We are not saying this is what happened - (certainly we have yet to see all these many instructions to ALL his disciples specifically stating they should give diksa on their own behalf after departure) - all we are saying is that it is still necessary, inspite of whatever else Srila Prabhupada allegedly indicated, that evidence is offered specifically satisfying 'A & B' in order to justify the events of 1978 which led to the complete abandonment of the ritvik system. One can not just whimsically abandon the order of the guru, that is an axiom of Vaisnava philosophy.

Furthermore, the way in which the May 28th tape is used in PO is quite intriguing since, as mentioned, it veers from the approach of past GBC papers. In 'Disciple of my Disciple', for example, the GBC used ONLY the 'appt tape' to show what Srila Prabhupada wanted for initiations after departure. Thus previously the appointment tape was the principal evidence put forward which allegedly justified both of the GBC's subsequent guru systems. The May 28 conversation, with its alleged sanction of future diksa gurus, was always held up as something quite unique and distinct. In PO it is now downgraded to just one of many similar instructions. This shift in emphasis leads to some serious contradictions, which we shall show later.

The over-all approach of PO is thus something of a departure from the past and goes something like this:

Try and show that Srila Prabhupada many times spoke of his disciples becoming diksa gurus and initiating on his departure; (PO tries to achieve this by offering many quotes which do not simultaneously mention the words 'diksa'/'initiate' and 'departure'; the handful of personal letter extracts which could imply such have already been dealt with many times.)

State that the May 28th tape confirms this arrangement; (though the vital question of how the intention to specifically select/appoint just 11 persons as ritviks is somehow confirmation of a general standing order for everyone to be diksa guru immediately on departure is certainly not addressed, much less explained in PO.)

Assert that the 'ritvik' theory would violate the principle of parampara which allegedly requires 'living' guru links. (A principle never once stated in any of Srila Prabhupada's books. Rather as the appendix of quotes to TFO comprehensively demonstrates, the contrary is stated by Srila Prabhupada - that the transmission of knowledge between Guru and disciple in the parampara does NOT require the 'living' presence of the guru.)

Then try and demonstrate that the July 9th letter was clearly ONLY set up for Srila Prabhupada's presence by using the July 7th garden conversation. (In this PO only manages to establish that the ritvik system was meant to operate during Srila Prabhupada's presence - a point no one disputes - but not that it was ONLY to operate during Srila Prabhupada's presence, with the ritviks mysteriously transmogrifying into diksa gurus one split second after Srila Prabhupada's departure - the very point of contention).

PO pins a major portion of its strategy of attack by just assuming that the ritvik idea is in opposition to the 'traditional parampara system', a charge that its authors never actually substantiate, but nevertheless continually repeat like a self-hypnotic mantra. If this underpinning premise is incorrect, then presenting loads of quotes mentioning the principle of parampara will not actually defeat the pro-ritvik position. Since PO fails to establish precisely how ritvik violates this important principal of parampara, much of the paper is just completely irrelevant. PO is also unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

TFO is only quoted directly 4 times in the whole paper. PO is thus 'the final insult' to all the many thousands of devotees who wanted to see a full response (on both sides of the fence).

PO fabricates statements and then falsely attributes them to TFO, even descending to using quotation marks to convince the reader that the quotes are genuine!

PO answers numerous 'straw-man' arguments that have nothing to do with TFO. ('Straw Man' arguments are a tactic, often used in argumentation where one is unable to defeat an opponent's actual position, and so instead invents a false one, which he feels more capable of tackling. This approach ends up being counter-productive for the protagonist since he loses credibility the instant his reader realises what is going on.)

When PO does accurately address an assertion made in TFO, the paper merely recycles old arguments that have already been used before in other GBC papers and which have already been thoroughly defeated. (On such occasions, we shall quote the relevant passages from our counter rebuttal papers).

Examples of all the above will follow.

There is very little in the way of new argumentation, and certainly none that is relevant to the central issue regarding modifications A & B; in the main it is simply a re-hash of previously released and already refuted material (even the first part of the introduction has been lifted from another paper!) Which appears to have been hastily cut and pasted together with little regard for whether all the pieces actually fit (we shall show how they do not). It is almost as though the GBC have given up trying to honestly answer TFO (not that they ever really started since DOMD was full of straw man arguments). They seem to believe that if they just churn out a load of irrelevant arguments and quotes the majority of devotees will not bother to scratch the surface and study our response.

PO is thus a Merlin's broth of baseless arguments and groundless innuendo, all stirred together in the hope that its magic will prolong the M.A.S.S., or even breath life into yet another new deviant guru system. Whatever the hope, the approach taken in PO will certainly back-fire on the GBC, just as their current concocted guru system is clearly beginning to. We hope the GBC will at last see sense so we will no longer need to respond to them in this way. All the devotees want to work co-operatively with the GBC to put ISKCON back on track, but that can only happen when they either agree to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation, or show that they are justified in interpreting that order as applicable only during his physical presence. If the GBC continue on their present path, there is a strong danger ISKCON will self-destruct.

PO is broken down into 9 sections with 3 appendices as follows:

Introduction

Definition of Ritvik

Chronology of Srila Prabhupada's Instructions - (A presentation of 37 quotes claiming to demonstrate the consistent desire of Srila Prabhupada authorising ALL his disciples to become diksa gurus on his departure).

Srila Prabhupada's teachings on Succession - (A presentation of 13 more additional quotes claiming to further demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada clearly wanted ALL his disciples to succeed him as diksa gurus.)

Comparison of instructions on parampara and ritvik - (An explanation of how only the 'parampara system' and not the 'ritvik system' is mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's teachings.)

The Confirmation of May 28, 1977 - (A presentation of how the May 28th Appointment tape authorises diksa gurus.)

The Letter of July 9th, 1977 - (An explanation of the temporary nature of the July 9th letter.)

Integrity of TFO's reporting methods - (A so-called expose of TFO 'reporting methods' - borrowed from 'Timeless Order'.)

Conclusion

Appendices

GBC Minutes - (A paper about the GBC Minutes book by Hari Sauri Dasa.)

My Experiences with a Ritvik Temple - (An account of a Bhaktin's bad experiences with a 'ritvik temple'.)

The Timeless Order - ( A reply by Hari Sauri Dasa to the rebuttal of his paper in appendix 1 by the authors of TFO)

In reference to actual evidence for Modifications A & B, the central theme of TFO, only sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 could be seen as in any way relevant. Appendices 1 and 3 have been answered and the rebuttals can be found on www.iskconirm.com - please see 'Hari Sauri's Minutes Turn Back the Clock' and 'Timeout For Hari Sauri's Minutes' as the answers for appendices 1 and 3 respectively.

Contradictions

As is traditional with many of our replies to GBC paper's we shall start with an examination of contradictions they have made. This time round they have been much more careful. We note that the authors have cautiously avoided the sort of detailed explanations of the 'Appt Tape', which let DOMD down for instance. Nevertheless, even in this vacuous 'general overview' they have still managed to slip up a number of times.

PO Contradicts Itself

The following quotes from PO seek to establish the fact that even in Srila Prabhupada's presence the ritviks were functioning practically as fully fledged diksa gurus, even relieving Srila Prabhupada from absorbing the karma of new disciples:

QUOTE 1

"Thus the July 9 letter was not, as falsely claimed by the author, a "final order," a "policy statement on how he wanted initiations to run within ISKCON," but merely an interim order which got the named persons functioning as gurus even in his own presence yet while still observing the etiquette". (P.O., Appendix 3)

QUOTE 2

"We should note that even after giving this letter, which says that the people those 11 men would accept would be his disciples, Prabhupada indicated that the 11 were in fact to all intents and purposes performing the full-fledged function of gurus in his own presence, for on October 18 he was approached for initiation by an Indian man who flew in all the way from New York: [...] From the above conversation it is clear that Prabhupada was not willing to accept the new initiate because of his condition - he didn't want his karma. This had already been pointed out by Tamal Krishna Goswami on July 7 - the reason for stopping initiations was so that Prabhupada would not be burdened by the new initiates' karma. Therefore he handed the duty of giving initiation to the men he named." (P.O., Appendix 3)

QUOTE 3

"The salient point is that after saying on May 28 he would select some of his disciples to be gurus and give initiations and their disciples would be his grand-disciples, and then in July actually naming those men, he activated them in their service as full-fledged gurus with the one proviso stated on May 28 and many times before, that the etiquette should be observed." (P.O., Appendix 3)

This idea of ritviks acting practically as diksa gurus, even absorbing karma, and thus setting up a different type of representational system than had previously existed is further confirmed by PO:

QUOTE 4

"It was something different from the previous standard..." (P.O., Appendix 3)

Having firmly established that the ritvik system was a firm break with the past, and that for the first time those initiating were now absorbing karma (the function of the diksa guru) PO then makes assertions which establish quite the opposite:

QUOTE 5

"Thus rtvik means, in MW, "sacrificing at the proper time, sacrificing regularly; a priest (usually four are enumerated, viz. Hot.r, Adhvaryu, Brahman, and UdgAt.r etc." These are the well known priests that officiate at Vedic ritualistic sacrifices. The significant point here is that terms such as rtvig-guru and .rtvig-acarya simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit dictionary, nor in any recognised Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There is no such term because there is no such concept. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it". (P.O., Section 2)

Above PO establishes with scholastic panache that a ritvik is merely a priest who officiates without any guru or acarya status- 'terms such as rtvig guru and rtvig acarya do not exist'. How could a mere priest be compared with a karma absorbing diksa guru? PO has stated in quotes 1-4 above that these ritviks were doing something quite out of the ordinary, acting practically as fully-fledged diksa gurus. For good measure, PO gives another 2 quotes contradicting this idea that it has itself stated

QUOTE 6

"The question then is this; if Srila Prabhupada is not personally present to accept responsibility for his disciples, then who accepts the reactions of the disciples sinful activities. It couldn't be the ritvik priest because he is simply officiating at the ceremony, and if Prabhupada accepts the reaction then how is it certain that he actually will if he is not here to personally accept the disciple? (P.O., Section 4)

QUOTE 7

"The practice of having his disciples perform initiations on his behalf had been instituted by Prabhupada since the early days of the movement. He accepted this as a necessary step to spread Krishna Consciousness world-wide. The only difference now was that devotees could write directly to any of the senior disciples named by Srila Prabhupada, and he would initiate them, give them a spiritual name and send the record of initiation to Prabhupada in Vrindavana."
(P.O., Section 7)

Thus above we learn that the ritviks does NOT accept the karma of the disciples, the exact OPPOSITE of what has been stated in quotes 1-4 by PO. Further the use of representatives in giving initiation was standard practice, and only a couple of procedural details were added after July 9th. For ritviks to act practically as diksa gurus, as asserted in the first FOUR quotes above, would be a huge break with past practice, as well as with the very definition of what a ritvik is. For a ritvik to absorb the new disciple's karma would mean he was functioning EXACTLY like a fully-fledged diksa guru, not a partial one. Having contradicted itself, PO also contradicts other current siddhanta GBC position papers and statements made by senior ISKCON leaders.

PO Contradicts GBC

The ritvik is a 'full-fledged diksa guru even in Srila Prabhupada's presence' idea, as set out in quotes 1-4 from PO above, is also contradicted by 'Disciple of My Disciple, (GBC, 1997) the last attempt at answering TFO from the GBC:

QUOTE 8

"the July 9th letter can only be the recommendation of proxies who would later start the process of post-samadhi initiation by Srila Prabhupada's disciples." (Disciple of My Disciple, GBC, 1997)

It is also contradicted by H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja, a key contributor to PO:

QUOTE 9

"In writing this letter, it was an organisational letter to explain the practical matter of how things would be dealt with because nothing was really changing. Prabhupada was still their guru but at least the actual operational method of how Prabhupada would deal with new candidates was changed. It was very clear in my mind at that time that what we were discussing was the process of initiation in Prabhupada's presence, how things would go on after his presence, he had already instructed us when the 5 or 6 of us had met him on May 28th, one had nothing to do with the other." (Class give by H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja on 6 August 1998, in Hong Kong)

QUOTE 10

"He appointed eleven, and he said very clearly, 'Whoever is nearest can initiate'. This is very important because when it comes to initiating, it isn't whoever is nearest, it's wherever your heart goes. Who (you) repose your faith on, you take initiation from him. But when it's officiating, it's whoever is nearest, and he was very clear. He named them. They were spread out all over the world, and he said, 'Whoever you're nearest, you just approach that person, and they'll check you out. Then, on my behalf, they'll initiate.' It is not a question that you repose your faith in that person - nothing. That's a function for the guru." (H.H. Tamala Krishna Goswami, Topanga Canyon Confessions, 3rd December, 1980)

So how can the recommendation of 'proxies ONLY' be the same as activating their service as 'functioning as full-fledged gurus' even in Srila Prabhupada's presence? How can the act of giving a name on Srila Prabhupada's behalf ONLY, be identical to the function of fully-fledged diksa gurus? No divya-jnana is given by the ritvik. He is not responsible for annihilating the sinful reactions of the initiate. No sacrifice is performed by them and no physical contact is made between the 'disciple' and these so-called gurus. If someone functions as a 'guru' simply by giving a name, then that would mean that Pradyumna, or anyone else who helped Srila Prabhupada pick a name, was acting as some sort of diksa guru also. Where is this theory stated that someone, who does nothing more than give a name on someone else's behalf, is the same as a full-fledged diksa guru? Surely he is nothing more than a ritvik, or proxy 'to all intents and purposes.' Thus PO as well as contradicting itself, and other accepted GBC statements, is also offering just another half-baked theory. We also address this point of the 'ritviks accepting karma' again later on in section 7, p33.

Contradictions on another subject

The authors of PO also decides to give an explanation of the 'appt tape' that contradicts again 'Disciple of My Disciple':

QUOTE 11

He says that he will nominate certain persons to act as officiating-acharyas, and that they will act as gurus, but that as a "formality", they will do so on behalf of Srila Prabhupada in his presence, because it is Vaishnava etiquette that one does not accept disciples in the presence of one's own spiritual master. (PO, Section 6)

But DOMD clearly states that on the tape there is NO mention of acting as a ritvik on BEHALF of Srila Prabhupada whilst he is present (definition of proxy):

QUOTE 12

In the present conversation, Srila Prabhupada does not refer to proxy initiations at all, not even in connection with the word "ritvik." ('Disciple of My Disciple', GBC 1997)

QUOTE 13

"But Srila Prabhupada answers here that "on my behalf" does not mean acting as a post-samadhi proxy but means becoming an actual guru." ('Disciple of My Disciple', GBC 1997)

Summary of Contradictions

We have seen PO set out one idea - 'ritvik a full-fledged diksa guru' in quotes 1-4 and then contradict this very idea itself in quotes 5-7. Further the idea is also contradicted by other GBC sources in quotes 8-10. Also PO gives an explanation of what Srila Prabhupada states on the 'appt tape' in quote 11. We then see this idea also contradicted by official GBC sources in quotes 12-13.

All these contradictions are particularly damaging since PO quotes DOMD in appendix 3 as an authoritative and accurate explanation for how Srila Prabhupada authorised diksa gurus for after his departure. Even more embarrassing is the fact that the authors of DOMD - H.G. Badrinarayana prabhu, H.H. Giridhari Maharaja and H.H. Umapati Maharaja are also co-authors of this paper! Further, H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja is also a key contributor to PO. Plus the source of these contradictions in PO - appendix 3 - is also glorified by PO:

"Note: For more detailed discussions on this conversation, and claims attempting to question its validity, see Appendices 1 and 3."
(Section 6, 'The Confirmation of May 28th')

"Please refer to Appendix 3 for more discussions on the validity of Mr. Desai's literary tactics.
(Section 8, 'Integrity of TFO's reporting methods')

Why is it that the GBC are incapable of presenting a self-consistent position? Usually this occurs when the basic premises are fundamentally flawed? Also, as will be seen later, the main thrust of the PO - that Srila Prabhupada had authorised everyone to be diksa guru continually over eleven years, is actually contradicted by their explanation of the 'Appt Tape'.

We will answer each of the nine sections in turn. The headings of all the sections that follow correspond to the headings for the nine sections that we will be responding to. (As already mentioned the answers to the appendices can already be found on our website http://www.iskconirm.com). The contributors to PO will be referred to as the 'authors'.

1. Introduction

In this paper we intend to show the overwhelming evidence to support the acceptance by the GBC that Srila Prabhupada wanted the traditional system of parampara; or disciplic succession to continue after his departure form this world. Although Srila Prabhupada stressed that he would always remain the Founder-Acharya and primary instructing spiritual master for the whole society, in the future there would be many initiating spiritual masters who would accept disciples on behalf of Lord Krishna and the disciplic succession."

There is not one single quote in PO from Srila Prabhupada to the whole of ISKCON which says anything remotely like:

"in the future there would be many initiating spiritual masters who would accept disciples on behalf of Lord Krishna and the disciplic succession."

This is just wishful fantasy on behalf of the authors. What PO in fact offers throughout the paper are the same handful of quotes that are always presented for the so-called authorisation of 'many initiating spiritual masters' (letter to Tusta etc). The same quotes that were already carefully examined in TFO and other related rebuttal papers. There has not been any systematic attempt made by the GBC to respond to the points made in TFO or any of these other related papers, but simply the recycling of already defeated arguments. The authors bury these old favourites under dozens of other quotes, which do not even remotely relate to the issue at hand, in a desperate bid to give the impression that there is masses of relevant evidence supporting their assertion, when in fact there is none.

"Above all else, however, we will attempt to understand more clearly what is the actual desire of the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The Vedic system of knowledge stresses the importance of submissive aural reception from authorities as the best way to receive real knowledge. The other two methods, namely direct perception and speculative hypothesis, are fraught with imperfections due to our conditioned nature. Therefore, if we want real knowledge according to the Vedic method, we must simply try to understand what was Srila Prabhupada's desire for the pushing on of his movement, without applying any of our own interpretations or speculations on what he has instructed."

Yet in explaining 'what he has instructed' in the July 9th letter and the 'Appt Tape' the authors use as evidence an explanation by H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja (who we show has changed his story several times - please see section 7 later for evidence of this) and the 'GBC minutes' (which everyone now agrees were not completely accurate). Why do the authors use such indirect and imperfect knowledge acquiring methodologies when we can look directly at what Srila Prabhupada said and approved?

"We begin by presenting a short explanation of the term, and then present a chronology of statements made by Srila Prabhupada in his lectures, letters and conversations between the years 1966-1977. Then we examine his instructions with reference to some of the major claims made by TFO and other ritvik-theory papers, and give a comparative study of Prabhupada's descriptions of the ritvik philosophy with that of the traditional parampara understanding."

As we will see, PO refers to hardly a single FACTUAL claim from TFO. Also by stating that they will give a 'comparative study' of the 'ritvik philosophy' and the 'traditional parampara understanding' the authors have already, at the very outset of the paper, assumed that the 'ritvik theory' is something that is separate and divorced from the 'parampara understanding'. As we will show, it is this unproven assumption which is falsely trumpeted throughout the paper as 'evidence'. The so-called 'comparative study' consists of nothing more than offering quotes which everyone agrees with and do not in any way differ from or contradict the ritvik position.

"Next we look at two sets of instructions given by Prabhupada in 1977 which ritvik-theorists use to support their claims, and then discuss some of the journalistic techniques which have been utilized in the preparation of TFO."

To do this the authors have simply lifted arguments from previous GBC papers that have already been defeated. It is obvious that the authors have not been following the very debate they are supposed to be resolving. Future historians will be staggered by the GBC's laziness and ineptitude in dealing with this issue.

"In the appendix, we have presented some articles that have been recently published on the ritvik debate, giving more detail on the different arguments, and also a first-hand account of one devotee's experience of living in a ritvik temple."

These articles have already been defeated, and as mentioned we will be referring the reader to the comprehensive point for point rebuttals of these articles published on our website.

"We will attempt to present this paper in a format that is concise and easy to understand, so that all devotees can familiarise themselves with the essential arguments without having to wade through hundreds of pages of manuscript."

As we will show, it is the authors who should have familiarised themselves with both TFO and the rebuttals to all the other arguments that they recycle here, for if they had done this they would have realised PO adds absolutely nothing to the debate. In presenting PO as the definitive reply to TFO the authors will no doubt confirm in the minds of those devotees who have followed the issue, that the debate is now truly over, and Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation should be re-instituted without further delay.

2. Definition of Ritvik

In this section a definition of the word ritvik is given as 'priest', a section that has simply been lifted straight from an already defeated GBC paper 'Disciple of My Disciple'. This adds absolutely nothing to the debate since coincidentally TFO also defines the word ritvik to mean 'priest'. Furthermore this section erroneously adds:

"The significant point here is that terms such as rtvig-guru and rtvig-acarya simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit dictionary, nor in any recognised Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There is no such term because there is no such concept. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it."

Since TFO does not propose either the term 'rtvik-guru' or 'ritvik-acarya', this is just a 'straw-man' argument. As we will see there are many more to come.

3. Chronology of Srila Prabhupada's Instructions

The proponents of the theory of ritvik or proxy initiations claim that an aspiring disciple can approach another devotee and receive initiation from him on behalf of the previous acharya."

Another 'straw-man' argument. TFO never claims this. It states the opposite. It states that the CURRENT acharya continues to initiate through the use of representatives who assist with initiation ceremonies. If the acharya (Srila Prabhupada) was indeed 'PREVIOUS' TFO would already be defeated since it is only permissible to take initiation from the current link (S.B. 2:9:7) as quoted on page 39 of TFO. The authors here have employed a very common tactic- one which we have exposed in many previous rebuttals to GBC backed papers - namely to assume the very point that needs to be proven.

"In contrast to this, Srila Prabhupada often states that a devotee must directly approach a bona-fide spiritual master who is coming in the line of disciplic succession and take initiation from him."

Something we agree with and quote in TFO as shown above.

"In trying to disregard the repeated instructions of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to become a guru, the author of TFO has given a blanket interpretation that whenever this instruction is given it cannot refer to diksa guru but must only mean siksa guru."

No, we do not disregard or interpret anything. We have simply repeated sections of Srila Prabhupada's purports to the verse in question - verbatim.

"Trying to minimize the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is certainly a bold stance to take, so let us examine whether the evidence supports this stance."

We have not minimized these instructions, quite the reverse. We quote them verbatim and suggest everyone follows them. We even titled one of our papers with an instruction directly related to Lord Chaitanya's order: (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport). We notice the authors are very keen to minimize this particular instruction from Srila Prabhupada. The order from Lord Chaitanya to be guru, as it was passed on to us through Srila Prabhupada, has the following clear cut parameters:

Do it immediately and not first wait for the spiritual master to depart;

Stay in your position, whether that be an engineer or whatever;

No special qualification is required, 'simply repeat', 'even rascal can do' etc;

And remember, it's 'BEST not to accept ANY disciples'.

If the authors insist on foolishly arguing that these parameters apply to diksa gurus, rather than instructing spiritual masters, then it is they who are minimising the instructions of both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Srila Prabhupada. We deal with this issue in much more detail later, please see appendix 1 - 'Become Guru'.

"In his purports to Chaitanya Charitamrta, Srila Prabhupada quotes his own spiritual master, who directly refutes the claim that the order to become guru cannot refer to diksa guru:"

Here the authors quote a different purport for a different verse that refers to something completely different - the ability for anyone to become a guru of any kind free of SMARTA BRAHMANA considerations. The order to 'become guru' from Lord Chaitanya appears in C.C. Madhya 7:128. The authors quote verse Madhya 8:128; maybe the similarity in the numbering has confused them.

Since the main argument of the authors rests on their ability to show that all the quotes from Srila Prabhupada urging his disciples to be gurus can also apply equally to being diksa guru, we will deal with this thoroughly in a separate appendix. The authors have used this argument again in the next section - that Madhya 8:128 proves that the quote of Madhya 7:128 is also an order to become diksa guru. Please see the section 'Become Guru', appendix 1, at the end.

The authors now produce some 37 quotes from Srila Prabhupada's letters and conversations. In examining these quotes remember we are looking for evidence that relates to 'modifications A & B' given earlier. We need to see quotes where Srila Prabhupada instructs his disciples to take their own disciples IMMEDIATELY on his departure - please note that the 'IMMEDIATE' condition is important, since 'modification b' allowed the ritviks to transmogrify into diksa gurus immediately upon Srila Prabhupada's departure. Only with such clear statements would we even be approaching evidence relevant to 'modification A & B' as given above.

Sadly, upon examining these 37 quotes we find that most of them are very general statements of principle which have no bearing at all on whether the ritviks were supposed to transmogrify into diksa gurus on departure - the issue at hand. They either state a general point about the qualification and nature of becoming guru, or they again relate to Lord Chaitanya's order to become gurus who teach Krishna Consciousness. As we have stated already, and as we elaborate in the appendice 'Become Guru', this 'new' evidence from Madhya 8:128 that the GBC have introduced does not actually challenge our original argument that Lord Chaitanya's order for everyone to become guru, as relayed to us by Srila Prabhupada, refers only to acting as gurus in the sense of preaching Krishna Consciousness.

In case the reader feels we are merely dismissing perfectly solid evidence we give below a few typical examples from the 37 quotes:

"If you want to understand the transcendental science, then you have to approach to a spiritual master." And who is spiritual master? ... One who is coming into that disciplic succession and by coming from that disciplic succession, he is firmly convinced in the Absolute, he is firmly conversant in the Absolute Truth, he is guru."
New York, August 12, 1966

"So there is no bar for anyone, that one cannot become the spiritual master. Everyone can become spiritual master, provided he knows the science of Krishna. That is the only qualification."
New York, August 17, 1966

"Because in Indian society it is simply taken that the brahmanas and the sannyasi can be spiritual master. But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, "No. Anyone can become spiritual master provided he's conversant with the science."
April 5-6, 1967, San Francisco

"Lord Chaitanya says that "Every one of you become the spiritual master, every one of you. Why one, two? Every one of you." "Oh, spiritual master is very difficult job." No. No difficult job. Chaitanya Maha... Amara ajnaya: Just try to carry out My order. That's all. Then you become spiritual master."
Columbus, May 9, 1969

"Our process is evam parampara praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. Parampara. What Krishna said, the disciplic succession will say the same thing. But they are speaking differently. So therefore we don't take them as bona fide. They are not bona fide."
Paris, August 13, 1973

"Even though you see that he is materially born, his behaviour is like other men. But because he says the same truth as it is spoken in the Vedas or by the Personality of Godhead, therefore he is guru. Because he does not make any change whimsically, therefore he is guru. That is the definition. It is very simple."
Hyderabad, August 19, 1976

By reading, you cannot understand. Tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet. That is also vidhilin: "In order to understand that science, he must go to guru."
January 8, 1977, Bombay

For some reason the authors have incorrectly referenced some of the above quotes. Many of them are private letters, but that is not apparent by only giving the location from where the letter was written. This gives the impression that it was spoken publicly. Also another quotation is attributed as being from 'Mayapur GBC meetings 1976':

"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 Chaitanya tree." (Mayapur GBC meetings 1976)

This gives the impression that it was some sort of formal resolution that was passed by or under Srila Prabhupada's sanction. On closer examination we find that the quote actually comes from the 'diary' of one of the authors of this very paper! This is all a subtle form of cheating, and does not in any way enhance the credibility of the GBC's position on this important matter.)

We see nothing above that would shed any light on whether or not the 11 ritviks named in the July 9th order were supposed to give up their service as ritviks on Srila Prabhupada's departure and transmogrify into diksa gurus - the central point of contention of TFO - i.e., modifications A & B. Most of the 37 quotes are similar to above, except around 5 quotes which do have some allusion to Srila Prabhupada's disciples actually initiating upon his departure, which have, in any case, already been answered.

So as always we are left with the same handful of quotes that do bring up the subject of Srila Prabhupada's disciples going on to initiate. The same quotes that have already been answered in TFO and other papers. Of course, the GBC may reject what we have said there - but then they need to present their own solidly reasoned arguments for this rejection, not just recycle the same 'evidence' that has already been answered. For a comprehensive analysis of these quotes please see:

TFO; Best Not To Accept Disciples; Institutional Cataclysm; Chakra's Army Still Off Target;

These are all available (& more) at http://www.iskconirm.com, the IRM (ISKCON Revival Movement) website. To save time, we have also provided the relevant extracts in APPENDIX 2 -'Already Answered Quotes' - to be found at the end of this paper.

4. Prabhupada's teachings on succession

In this section, the authors attempt to address a number of issues to try and show the defects with the 'ritvik theory'. Again, there is no attempt to directly answer modifications A & B. They present many quotes in this section, some 24, but on closer examination we find that approximately half are the same as from the previous section! Furthermore all the remainder are irrelevant to the issue at hand - i.e. evidence for Srila Prabhupada authorising his disciples to take their own disciples upon his immediate departure - with the relevant ones merely being repeats from the last section.

"Throughout the recorded works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, both during his twelve years of preaching in the Western countries and in the years previous, he explains the ancient principle of parampara or disciplic succession, whereby the bona-fide spiritual master instructs his disciple in the science of God."

This is not in dispute.

"Those disciples who become qualified then become spiritual masters themselves after the departure of their guru, thus continuing the unbroken transmission of the messages of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Srila Prabhupada not only explained this system in detail, but repeatedly requested his disciples to take up the role of initiating spiritual masters in his absence to push on the movement which he had started."

As we will see, this 'repeatedly requested' will boil down again mainly to one private letter written to Tusta Krishna Dasa. We deal with this quote in depth later.

"Anyone following the order of Lord Chaitanya under the guidance of His bona fide representative can become a spiritual master and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world."
(SPL to Madhusudana, 2nd November, 1967)

"Note the date on this letter - 1967. So, even from the early days of his movement, Srila Prabhupada expected that his disciples would become spiritual masters."

This quote has already been answered in TFO on page 13 - which is reproduced for convenience in APPENDIX 2 - 'Already Answered Quotes' - to be found at the end of this paper. One other point we omitted to make in TFO was the context to the above quote; just before the above sentence Srila Prabhupada states:

"Kirtanananda was awarded the position of a Sannyasi because he wanted it although I could understand it that he wanted to be a spiritual master himself. Lord Chaitanya wanted every one should be a spiritual master provided he follows the order of Lord Chaitanya."

The following can be observed:

1. Once more it seems the statement is prompted by having to deal with over-ambitious disciples.

2. And in any case it refers to Lord Chaitanya's order for everyone to be a preacher/siksa spiritual master
(Please see Appendix 'Become Guru').

Also this desire of Srila Prabhupada for all his disciples in his ABSENCE to become great preachers to spread Krishna consciousness throughout the whole world is repeated earlier in the year, just 4 months before the letter above was written:

"Therefore I have a great hope to train some of my disciples for preaching work, even in my absence. I am now old man, and attacked with serious disease; I may be overcome by death at any moment. Therefore I wish to leave some trained preachers so that they can do the work of Krishna Consciousness in the western world. That is my ambition. I hope you all pray to Krishna so I may be able to execute my duty properly".
(Letter to Janardan et. Al., 28/6/67)

The aim here, as in the earlier letters, is to have many preacher-gurus as per Lord Chaitanya's instruction; not institutional diksa gurus. Here the context in which Srila Prabhupada is talking is about leaving 'at any moment'. Yet how could he be expecting his new disciples who at that time had practised Krishna Consciousness for only MONTHS, to take up the role of anything except preachers. These are the 'spiritual masters' that Srila Prabhupada expected 'even from the early days of his movement'.

"Note also the phrase used by Srila Prabhupada to designate when this would occur - "in my absence." This phrase is significant for two reasons. The first refers to after his departure from this world, which is what is expected in a standard disciplic succession - some of the disciples take their own disciples after their spiritual master has left this world."

But, as we have seen from the above letter, a spiritual master can also pass on the 'torch' to his disciples to carry on his mission by preaching and just leading persons to Srila Prabhupada. It is not a sastric NECESSITY that upon the departure of the Guru the disciple MUST start initiating for himself.

"However, the other level of meaning in the phrase "in my absence" is very significant to the ritvik debate. The ritviks claim that no future diksha gurus are ever needed because Srila Prabhupada is always present in his books."

TFO does not claim this. We simply state that we should all follow Srila Prabhupada's order as given in the July 9th directive. Even if Srila Prabhupada had not written any books, we should still need to follow whatever orders he had given.

"That Srila Prabhupada is present through his books has never been in dispute. However, we see that Srila Prabhupada did also consider his physical presence to have some significant relevance in the issue of disciplic succession, and this aspect is mentioned in many of his other statements."

This is also not disputed, in that, if diksa guruship was to occur amongst the disciples, Srila Prabhupada did state that it could only occur after his absence. That is not the same as saying that after his absence diksa guruship must or has to occur, or that he was hereby officially authorising such a thing. Next we are presented with a letter to Tusta Krishna Dasa. Please note that the authors do not even attempt to answer the many points we have made in response to this quote in TFO and our other papers, least of all the fact that the letter was not even published by the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure, after which the July 9th instruction was immediately abandoned. Again the response can be found in Appendix 2 - 'Already Answered Quotes'. Tusta Krishna Dasa was an ambitious disciple who was eager to initiate even in Srila Prabhupada's presence. The GBC themselves admit that this is not a desirable quality in a disciple:

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

Above we see the GBC, in one of their more lucid moments, answering for themselves why personal letters to such ambitious disciples cannot possibly be used to modify institutional directives meant for the entire movement. Surely, this is an obvious point that should not need continual repetition over and over again. In each case where Srila Prabhupada is dealing with such ambitious disciples he simply instructs them that they CAN in principle initiate only after the departure of the guru, not before.

Further to simply STATE the time-period in which an activity CAN occur, is not the same as AUTHORISING that activity TO occur as soon that time-period begins.

Srila Prabhupada is merely stating a very basic point - that there is a time-period after which the diksa-guru CAN be succeeded. If such a 'law' did not exist the diksa guru could never change, and the question of anyone else becoming the diksa guru would not even arise, for a diksa guru would automatically remain diksa guru forever by DEFAULT. Thus simply STATING that such an activity is possible by a disciple, is not the authorisation for that disciple to undertake that activity i.e. just the statement of this 'law' by Srila Prabhupada is not in itself the authority that now his disciples MUST become diksa guru at a certain time.

And as mentioned, the very fact that this 'law' is only virtually ever mentioned when dealing with PREVENTING disciples from initiating in his presence, merely reinforces the point that we are simply dealing with the statement of when disciples CAN in principle initiate - not when they are now being AUTHORISED TO initiate. The letters deal specifically with trying to PREVENT diksa guru activity by the disciple. To state when an activity is POSSIBLE in the context of trying to specifically PREVENT that activity from happening is NOT the same as specifically authorising specific individuals or everyone, to definitely take up that activity as soon as it becomes possible to do so. The issue is that the disciples must be specifically ordered to take on this activity by their guru:

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

Thus the statement:

'You cannot initiate before I leave since it can only ever be carried out once I have left'; IS NOT THE SAME AS

'I order you to initiate after I leave';

"If Prabhupada refers to 'initiate' and 'become spiritual master' only in the sense of siksa instructions or becoming an officiating priest (as the ritvik proponents claim), why does he expressly forbid doing this on the one hand, and at the same time gives direct instructions to numerous disciples to act as both siksa-gurus and officiating priests to initiate disciples on his behalf? Clearly Srila Prabhupada is talking about something other than the officiating role which was already being performed by his senior disciples; he was talking about his disciples accepting their own disciples when he was no longer physically present on the planet.

Here the authors themselves are admitting the very point we have continually made - that ONLY in the cases where acting as guru is mentioned with reference to the etiquette forbidding the taking of disciples in Srila Prabhupada's presence, are we dealing with evidence concerning the disciples acting as diksa gurus at all. We have no more than a handful of such cases which are answered in depth in TFO and our previous papers - reproduced in Appendix 2 - 'Already Answered Quotes' (we only wish the authors had followed their own argumentation, instead of producing dozens and dozens of quotes that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand). In summary, an explanation of when one can NOT take disciples, is not an endorsement to definitely take disciples in the period when it is ALLOWED. Nor does it in any way justify the destruction of management systems set up for the entire movement.

"This is not surprising since his books and conversations are absolutely full of references to the parampara system and how this system, of surrendering to a living bona-fide spiritual master, is imperative to the proper understanding of Vedic knowledge."

We would love to see ONE reference to the system of 'only surrendering to a living spiritual master'. The only time Srila Prabhupada uses this term is to denounce the very concept:

Madhudvisa:	Is there any way for a Christian to do without the help of a Spiritual Master. To reach the spiritual sky through believing the words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings?
Srila Prabhupada:	I don't follow.
Tamala Krishna Goswami:	Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the ...
Srila Prabhupada:	When you read the Bible, you follow the Spiritual Master. How can you say without? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means that you are following the Spiritual Master. So where is the opportunity of being without Spiritual Master.
*Madhudvisa:*	I was referring to a living Spiritual Master.
Srila Prabhupada:	Spiritual Master is not question of ... Spiritual Master is eternal...so your question is 'without Spiritual Master'. Without Spiritual Master you cannot be at any stage of your life. You may accept this Spiritual master or that Spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible", when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ. (Morning Walk, Seattle, 2/10/68)

We see above that the phrase 'living spiritual master' is redundant since the spiritual master is eternal, and thus always living. In the same sense Srila Prabhupada is living and is thus eminently available since he is also still the current link for ISKCON, as per his final order on initiation. Even one of the key authors of this paper has admitted that:

"Prabhupada is more widely available now than ever before."

(H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami, 'Perils of Succession, 1996)

"This point is made clear in the following quote:

"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 acharya, immediate next acharya."
(Srila Prabhupada lecture December 8th, 1973)

Here Srila Prabhupada specifically mentions the issue of surrendering to the current link in the chain of disciplic succession. He instructs his disciples that, "even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara". He clearly explains the principal of parampara, and even explicitly states that simply to read books is not enough (a corner stone of ritvik-theory), but rather the disciple must understand everything through his own spiritual master, and not attempt to independently understand the previous acharyas."

Two points:

Here the authors have simply assumed that which needs to be proven - that Srila Prabhupada is a 'previous acharya'. We agree that one must approach the current link, and as far as we can determine, that person is Srila Prabhupada. The whole challenge of 'modification A & B' is for the GBC to demonstrate from Srila Prabhupada's instructions WHEN, WHY and HOW Srila Prabhupada stopped being CURRENT. So far, instead of answering this challenge the authors simply assume the challenge has been met. They meet this challenge by merely re-stating the GBC view, which everyone already knows only too well. What we need is the EVIDENCE supporting this view!

Furthermore if the GBC use this statement in this way they are, in effect, saying that no one can understand Srila Prabhupada's books without a guru. Then, what is the value of distributing millions of these books? Why should devotees be encouraged to read Srila Prabhupada's books, BEFORE they accept a guru? Are the new devotees in ISKCON 'jumping over' if they read Srila Prabhupada's books without the direct guidance of their guru? What about hearing Srimad Bhagavatam class from persons other than their Guru, or even persons who are not 'official current link' gurus at all?

This is a strange quote for the GBC to use since it simply confirms what we have said all along - that one must stick ONLY to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, and not 'jump over' to the works of the previous acharyas. How for instance do the GBC justify their consultation of the 'Krishna Bhajanamrta' and other books from the previous acharyas, when Srila Prabhupada clearly says that we cannot understand anything from the previous acharyas unless it is understood DIRECTLY from Srila Prabhupada? Thus the quote used by the GBC merely brings to light more misdemeanours perpetrated by themselves on the many thousands of innocent devotees under their charge.

"One should not proudly think that one can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by reading books. One must become a servant of a Vaisnava. As Narottama dasa Thakura has confirmed, chadiya vaisnava-seva nistara peyeche keba: one cannot be in a transcendental position unless one very faithfully serves a pure Vaisnava. One must accept a Vaisnava guru (adau gurv-asrayam), and then by questions and answers one should gradually learn what pure devotional service to Krishna is. That is called the parampara system." (C.C. A 7.54p)

Again, this is not in dispute. Anyone surrendering to Srila Prabhupada now would serve and be instructed by Srila Prabhupada in exactly the same manner as the original 10,000 disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada, the majority of whom never had any direct physical contact with him.

"And again in answering a question from an Indian lady at his lecture:

Indian lady:	How does one contact the spiritual master? Through a book can you contact the spiritual master?
Prabhupada:	No, you have to associate.
Syamasundara:	"Can you associate through a book?" she asked.
Prabhupada:	Yes, through books, and also personal. Because when you make a spiritual master you have got personal touch. Not that in air you make a spiritual master. You make a spiritual master concrete. So as soon as you make a spiritual master, you should be inquisitive. (London, September 23, 1969)

We have no idea why the GBC are trying to prove that one must contact the spiritual master physically and that the inability to do this is the proof that ritvik is wrong, since they admit that vast numbers of Srila Prabhupada's disciples never had any such contact. If lack of physical contact disbars one from getting initiated, then most of the initiations that Srila Prabhupada carried out would thus be bogus. Is this what the GBC are now saying? If it is they will become even more unpopular than they are already, if that is possible.

Srila Prabhupada is 'concrete'; he is not 'in the air'. His 'concreteness' cannot depend on his PHYSICAL PRESENCE since the majority of Srila Prabhupada's disciples accepted Srila Prabhupada 'concretely' without any physical contact with him. Further, Srila Prabhupada has also been 'concrete' for the last 21 years for these same disciples. Thus, anyone now would have the same 'personal' touch that Srila Prabhupada instituted for the many disciples that he never had any physical contact with whatsoever. We dealt with this whole issue of physicality in considerable depth in TFO (pages 29, page30, page31, page39, page49 and appendices) and thus it is profoundly disappointing that the GBC appears not to have read these points before they set out to 'refute' our position. Anyway the world is watching now and they shall not be getting away with this sort of nonsense for much longer.

"In the section of TFO entitled 'Other Related Objections', the author attempts to address the very pertinent objection that if there is no more bona-fide diksa initiations then the parampara will be stopped (at least within ISKCON). He starts his explanation by making the following statement:

TFO: "the disciplic succession is eternal, there is no question of it stopping."
Firstly, this claim is directly denied by Lord Krishna Himself:

"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost."