by Krishnakant

A reply to the Sivarama Swami Paper - 'Continuing the Parampara'  

"A Spiritual Master is the principle, not the body."
(SPL 28/5/68)

"What we have heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living."
(Lecture, 15/1/69)

This document is a reply to the pamphlet entitled: "Continuing The Parampara", by Sivarama Swami.

The aim of the following presentation is to demonstrate point by point, how virtually every argument used by the author is incorrect. Even if the original pamphlet has not been read, since we will quote in full, word for word, the conclusion that the author proposes, and then comprehensively answer it, this presentation will also serve as a stand alone document. In effect, it acts as a handbook to highlight the errors in the main conclusions on guru-tattva that are currently being presented by both the author and the Governing Body Commission.

Continuing The Parampara is divided into five sections, making the following main points:

1. Introduction. (p4-7)
2. That Srila Prabhupada did consider his disciples to be qualified diksa gurus. (p8-14)
3. That Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven diksa gurus on May 28th 1977. (p15-21)
4. That a diksa guru does not need to be liberated, but he does need to be physical present on the planet to give diksa. (p22-30)
5. That there is no sastric explanation or historical precedent for ritvik, and that it therefore must be unacceptable. (p31-34)

For ease of reference, this document will be structured in a format similar to the original presentation, since it is our intention to answer it section by section. Thus our section headings correspond exactly with those used in "Continuing The Parampara ", and all the quotes taken from 'Continuing' will be separated from the main text by being presented in boxed sections.

In addition, the author has referred to the proponents of the idea that Srila Prabhupada continued to remain a diksa guru through the use of ritviks, or priests, themselves as 'ritviks'. This is incorrect since we are not all priests. We wish to put Srila Prabhupada rightly back in the centre of our movement. Thus we are Prabhupada-Anugas, or followers of Srila Prabhupada, and this is how we shall refer to ourselves herein.

It is clear that a measure of progress has only been achieved because the leadership has been pressured into acknowledging these questions. It is worthy of comment that they have failed to do so voluntarily.

• Why have they waited seventeen years in order to only begin answering these questions?

One might reasonably question why those who have begun to deal with these matters, matters that the author himself admits needs to be addressed, have been the victims of many reprehensible actions: 

• Why have they been banned from every ISKCON temple in the UK , even though they have yet to be defeated in open debate? The last time such a debate was held in 1990, the video recording of the event was mysteriously banned by the G.B.C.

Srila Prabhupada indicates that behaviour of this nature is unacceptable:

"Regarding Narottama das, our policy should be to keep members as much as possible. We should not flatly say 'You must leave'. That is not our policy. "
(SPL (VI 1987) 69.8.20 )

This ban is also extremely hypocritical, considering the following sentiments expressed in the Preface to the paper: 

How can there be open discussion when we are not even allowed to enter the Temple!

• Why have they been prevented from obtaining Srila Prabhupada's books for distribution?

Book distribution is extremely important, a point repeatedly emphasised by Srila Prabhupada:

"There is no doubt about it, to distribute books is our most important activity."
(SPL (VI 1987) 73.8.4)
 

• Why have they been threatened with physical violence ?

One can only observe that there are disturbing parallels with the violent sequence of events that befell another devotee who also attempted to bring these matters out in the open - Sulocana Dasa, who was later assassinated.

Unfortunately just recently (October), whilst describing the Ritvik philosophy, the author repeated comments very similar to those contained in the report mentioned above: 

Why issue an apology if you intend to repeat the same personal and accusatory remarks?

This is an incomplete presentation of our position. We actually state that uttama-adhikari is the required level of qualification for a diksa guru, or a guru in the parampara. The qualification to be a siksa, or instructing guru, is simply to preach.

This distinction is important, especially as the author himself later utilises quotes that encourage everyone to be a siksa guru, a fact with which we concur.

Again this is an incorrect presentation of our position. We state that a successor mahabhagavata diksa guru in the parampara would not be 'self proclaimed', but self effulgent, as was the case with Srila Prabhupada.

A bona fide diksa guru does not indicate his existence by proclamation, but by demonstrating his potency, just as Srila Prabhupada did.

This is confirmed by sastra:

"One who is situated in the disciplic succession can be understood by the result of his activities. This is always true as far as the activities of the Lord and His devotees are concerned."
(CC (BBT 1975) Madhya 16.65)
 

Yet again we have another incorrect presentation of our position. We state that if he so wishes, Srila Prabhupada can authorise anyone to become a guru. We pursue this question in Section 2.6 when the author repeats this point.

The author later, is able to give only one example of what he claims to be 'incomplete evidence'. Even this one example, as we shall see, is not justified. Neither does he provide evidence of where we 'exaggerate and concoct' facts. Why doesn't he substantiate his claims with proof, instead of just engaging in sweeping generalisations? Until he does so, it is very difficult to take seriously his allegations.

(The quote in question is the line, "You become guru. But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower...").

Although certain quotes in The Betrayal are indeed abridged, this particular reference is actually reproduced in full in Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple.

That this fact is not mentioned is all the more remarkable as Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple is the document that the author claims to be dealing with:

The author rather surprisingly omits to inform the reader that Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple does indeed provide the complete quotation. As Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple was published a year before The Betrayal, one is consequently tempted to enquire upon whose part the alleged dishonesty actually lies.

The Betrayal serves solely to highlight what Srila Prabhupada stated about his disciples qualifications at that particular point in time. 'Little thing, strictly follower' is a general instruction relating to how one can become a guru. For legitimate reasons of brevity, other less pertinent parts of the morning walk are also omitted. 

In fact 'Hmm' is not the only thing Srila Prabhupada says. He makes a series of instructive comments:

"Hmm yes. [...] I am waiting for that [...] But the training must be complete [...] (The process of purification) O yes must be there [...] But be qualified [...] You can cheat, but it will not be effective [...] Don't go backwards.
(Morning Walk April 22nd 1977)
 

At least on April 22nd 1977, it is very clear what Srila Prabhupada thought of his disciple's level of qualification to be guru at that particular moment in time. They could not possibly have been qualified on April 22nd, otherwise:

• What was he waiting for?
• Why was further training required?
• Why was purification required?
• Why state 'but be qualified'?

How quickly they can become Guru is another matter entirely. However, it is indisputable that on April 22nd 1977, they were certainly not qualified.

It is also interesting to note how the author uses the phrase:

This offensive phrase can be added to 'posthumous ritvik', and 'write Srila Prabhupada a letter and see if he replies', used by other G.B.C.'s, as examples revealing a lack of spiritual vision.

The Prabhupada-Anugas are the original advocates of the principle that everyone is Srila Prabhupada's siksa disciple. This is admitted by the author:

For the author to assert that this point has been overlooked is therefore a surprising error, as he has already accepted that this principle is both widely understood and extensively preached by his opponents.

The document Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple deals exclusively with becoming Srila Prabhupada's diksa disciple. That, everyone still has to accept. Thus, many may yet become his diksa disciples. The title is therefore quite justified and reflects the purpose the document is trying to fulfill. 

Complete retirement does not necessarily imply that Srila Prabhupada could not continue to act as diksa guru, since after July 9th 1977, Srila Prabhupada did effectively retire completely from all activities connected with initiation: Recommendation, acceptance, name giving, entering the name in the initiated disciples book, and the fire sacrifice. In fact, everything was managed by the ritviks that he appointed. Yet all the persons initiated through such a process, wherein Srila Prabhupada had effectively retired from all activities connected with initiation, were still the disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

In any case we will examine later whether or not Srila Prabhupada did actually proceed to select diksa gurus, as the author claims.

On this point there is no disagreement. In fact, we argue strongly that the main reason that the so-called 'chosen 11' were not Diksa Gurus, is because Srila Prabhupada had not so authorised them. Our point is that the spiritual master can only give this authorisation. We will show later that such an authorisation was never given. However, it can not be given by some ecclesiastical voting committee, as presently occurs in our movement :

Voting procedures [...] for guru candidate [...] who will be established by the voting members.
(GBC document.)

Voting for guru process [...] by a two third vote of the GBC [...] all GBCs are candidates for appointment as guru.
(GBC document.)

The GBC is the highest ecclesiastical body guiding ISKCON.
(Back To Godhead)

This is explicitly condemned in sastra:

"Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgement. A false acarya may try to override a Vaisnava by a High Court decision, but Bhaktivinode Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga. "
(CC (BBT 1975) Madhya 1.220)

"Srila Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social, and ecclesiastical conventions. "
(CC (BBT 1975) Adi 1.35)
 

Thus the GBC has become an ecclesiastical conference that elects new members by means of a voting system. This system is strikingly similar to that adopted by the College of Cardinals within the Roman Catholic church.

It is therefore clear that the prevailing guru system functions and sustains itself by means of practices that cannot possibly be described as authorised. 

In order to prove that becoming qualified is a 'little thing', the author provides quotes in which it is stated how simple it is to become a guru. However, it is not explained that these quotes refer to the 'amara ajanana guru hana' verse, wherein Lord Caitanya encourages everyone to become a guru by simply repeating what he knows. We will conclusively show in section 4, that here Lord Caitanya is simply encouraging everyone to become a siksa guru or preacher. This is a position which all members of the sankirtan movement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are obliged to assume.

Ultimately the key question is whether or not Srila Prabhupada did actually select individuals to become Diksa Gurus. We will see in the next section that he only selected Ritviks, and not Diksa Gurus.

Finally the much heralded 'evidence' for the selection of 11 Diksa Gurus is presented. Unfortunately if one anticipates conclusive evidence in the form of many recorded conversations and confirmatory written documents, one is immediately disappointed. Infact the only 'evidence' put forward by the author is the so-called 'Appointment Tape', which in any case, as we will show, points to a rather different claim.

Before proceeding further, one is immediately confronted by a number of pressing questions:

• Why is there no written evidence ?
• Why was the 'Appt Tape' initially concealed ?
   

Srila Prabhupada invariably confirmed any major decision in writing. It is not unreasonable to consider a decision of this nature to be of considerable importance. One may therefore enquire why, if Srila Prabhupada had in fact appointed eleven diksa gurus, he never confirmed the decision in writing, or indeed, made any further reference to the appointments. It is impertinent to suggest that he acted in such a cavalier manner.

As Srila Prabhupada states, this is not the first time such a major decision has been proclaimed without any recorded proof:

"They wanted to create artificially somebody acarya, and everything failed. They did not consider even with common sense: that if guru Maharaja wanted to appoint somebody as acarya, why did he not say? He said so many things, and this point He missed? The real point? And they insist upon it. They declared some unfit person to become. "
(SPC (BBT 1991) 15.08.76)

"I have also read specifically your articles on the matter of acaryas, wherein on the 14th paragraph I see the acarya shall be entitled to nominate in writing his successive acarya. But we do not find any record where our Srila Prabhupada nominated any acarya after Him. Different persons have interpreted on this point, and everyone of our Godbrothers are acting as acarya, so this is a controversial point which I do not wish to enter into while we are proposing for co-operation. "
(SPL (VI 1987) 69.8.38)
 

One may also justifiably wonder why such supposedly conclusive evidence for the appointment of diksa gurus was concealed until 1983. If the 'appointment tape' does indeed clearly indicate the appointment of diksa gurus, then one may reasonably question why it was not immediately presented as evidence in 1977. Why such secretive behaviour if the evidence actually indicated the appointment of Diksa Gurus?

It is clear that Srila Prabhupada anticipated problems:

"So Sridhar Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorised selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. "
(SPL (VI 1987) 74.4.52)

The following conversation, held the day before the alleged appointment of eleven diksa gurus was made, is also worthy of consideration:

The words 'Very strong management required and vigilant observation' are unlikely to be those of someone about appoint eleven diksa gurus. On the contrary, Srila Prabhupada indicates quite clearly that unqualified persons should be prevented from occupying the post of guru.

Rather surprisingly, the author requires that the reader accept that less than twenty-four hours later, Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven such individuals.

Reflecting on the minimal qualifications necessary for assuming the position of diksa guru, the author assures the reader that Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven diksa gurus who were qualified, and yet immediately concedes their lack of qualifications:

(This presumably explains the current fashion for 'transcendental' discussions with representatives of the Gaudiya Math, an activity not recommended by Srila Prabhupada :

"We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So we must be very careful about them. "
(SPL (VI 1987) 74.4.52)

"There is nothing new to be said. Whatever I had to say, I have already said in my books. "
(Arrival Address, Vrindavan, 17 May 1977)

 It is worth repeating that after 11 years, as his remarks on April 22nd 1977 demonstrate (quoted in Section 2.3), Srila Prabhupada still did not perceive anyone qualified to be a Diksa Guru. Yet, thirty-six days later, eleven of them simultaneously became 'qualified'. One might reasonably wonder how, that if no one could achieve this qualification in eleven years, they managed to do so in such a short period.

A transcript of the most common version of the tape, and that utilised by the author, is given below: 

Here the author lists what he claims are 10 alleged defects in the explanation of the appointment tape given in 'Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple'. Rather than deal with every one of these points separately, in the next section we will use the same analysis as used in Become to refute the author's interpretation of the appointment tape. We will therefore simultaneously highlight the errors that the author makes and defend the original analysis given in Become.

The author asserts that the evidence for the appointment of the eleven-diksa gurus is contained in the opening lines. However, upon closer examination, one finds that the only functionaries that Srila Prabhupada appoints are not diksa gurus, but officiating acaryas, a term highlighted and approved by the author. It is significant that the author concedes that they were selected on the understanding that they would continue to function in this capacity after Srila Prabhupada's apparent departure.

At this point it is clear that there is an admission that Srila Prabhupada selected officiating acaryas to act on his behalf, both before and after his departure. In making this startling admission, the author has chosen to diverge from the official GBC position that Srila Prabhupada did not select officiating acaryas for after his departure, but only for the duration of his physical presence.

Until this point, argument has revolved around whether or not Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks or diksa gurus. However, choosing to approach the problem from a rather novel perspective, the author casually asserts that the officiating acarya and diksa guru are one and the same. It would appear that the author, unable to sustain an otherwise untenable position, has decided, by dint of some remarkable semantic manoeuvres, to evade the issue by redefining the question. Indeed, he provides for his unfortunate reader an entire section (section 3.4) in which the term ritvik is exhaustively redefined.

The rationale for this amazing claim is as follows: 'Srila Prabhupada used the word acarya, which means guru, in conjunction with the word officiating, so he was really appointing diksa gurus'. However, the author omits to mention that in Vedic culture it is conventional to give any priest the honorific title of acarya.

The following excerpts from sastra demonstrate this quite clearly:

"Sri Raghunatha das was the son of Govardhana Majumdara. Their family priest was Balarama acarya. "
CC (BBT 1975) Madhya 16.217

"Candapura is just east of the house of the two brothers Hiranya and Govardhana, the father and uncle of Raghunatha das Goswami. In Candapura lived Balarama Acarya and Yadunandana Acarya, the priests of these two personalities. "
CC (BBT 1975) Antya 3.165

It is the custom that any person expert in a particular field is honoured by the title acarya. For example, Dronacarya was given this title for his expertise in military science. Thus the priest is also considered a type of guru, or teacher, The ritviks, being expert priests, would naturally be called acarya. For example, in the Krishna Book, a ritvik is described as a 'learned performer of sacrifices'.

There are similar references to ritviks in the Srimad Bhagavatam:

Sa-rtvik-sabhyah - with all the priests and members of the sacrificial assembly.
SB (BBT 1987) 4.6.1-2

Rtvik - the priests.
SB (BBT 1987) 4.7.16

Rtvik - priests conducting the ceremony.
SB (BBT 1987) 5.3.2

Rtvik - the priests.
SB (BBT 1987) 5.3.3

Rtvik - the priests.
SB (BBT 1987) 5.4.17

Saha-rtvik-acarya-sadasyah - with all the priests, acaryas and members of the holy assembly.
SB (BBT 1987) 8.20.22

Adhvaryuna - by the rtvik priest.
SB (BBT 1987) 9.1.15

Infact, the term ritvik appears on many further occasions in the Srimad Bhagavatam:

Ritvik
4.6.1; 4.7.16; 5.3.2; 5.3.3; 5.4.17; 7.3.20; 8.20.22; 9.1.15.

Rtvijah
4.5.7; 4.5.18; 4.7.27; 4.7.45; 4.13.26; 4.19.27; 4.19.29; 5.3.4; 5.3.15; 5.3.18; 5.7.5; 8.16.53; 8.18.21; 8.18.22; 9.4.23; 9.6.3.

Rtvijam
4.6.52; 4.21.5; 8.23.13; 9.13.1.

Rtvigbhyah
8.16.55

Rtvigbhih
4.7.56; 9.13.3.

Each time it is always translated as a priest. From this it is quite clear that ritvik means a priest only, a definition confirmed by standard works dealing with Sanskrit grammar:

Ritv-ij. Priest. (Literally, Sacrificing in season).
SGS (OUP 1927) 79b

There is no mention of such a functionaries being diksa gurus or themselves accepting disciples. Thus, the use of the word acarya after the terms officiating or ritvik does not mean diksa guru, but refers only to a qualified priest. Indeed, as the author himself explains, officiating means to discharge priestly or divine service.

It is therefore clear that a person who functions as an officiating acarya simply performs these duties and does not accept disciples.

So Acarya yes, but the key is what kind of Acarya ? As we have conclusively demonstrated, the acarya in question is he who discharges priestly service, not he who accepts disciples. The word officiating or ritvik, gives this meaning only to the word Acarya, as has been admitted by the author himself.

It is clear that Srila Prabhupada himself never made any such distinction between ritvik acarya and ritvik. A brief selection of examples will suffice:

1. On the 'appointment tape' itself he indicates that ritvik acarya is the same as ritvik.
2. On July 9th 1977 when a letter naming the eleven ritviks is sent out to all Temple Presidents and members of the Governing Body Commission, the word used is ritvik, not ritvik acarya.
3. On July 10th 1977 Tamal Krishna, when informing Hamsadutta of his appointment, refers to him only as a ritvik, not ritvik acarya.
4. On July 19th 1977, Srila Prabhupada dictates a letter in which he again uses the term ritvik and not ritvik acarya.

One may therefore conclude that since Srila Prabhupada used the word officiating acarya once, ritvik acarya never, but ritvik at least three times, the terms are therefore interchangeable, and any assertion by the author to the contrary is nonsense.

The author asserts that not only does officiating acarya mean acting on behalf of the acarya, but that the officiating acarya has his own disciples. However absolutely no evidence to substantiate this assertion is presented.

Srila Prabhupada however, does provide clear evidence, but not, unfortunately, for the claim made by the author:

"After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The above eleven senior devotees are acting as his representative. "
(Letter July 9th 1977)

Also interesting, is what his secretary, Tamal Krishna Goswami, says when he communicates this information over the next few days:

"His divine grace said: 'You are a suitable person and you can give initiation to those who are ready for it. I have selected you among eleven men as 'ritvik or representative of the acarya, to give initiations, both first and second initiations, on my behalf' (A newsletter is being sent to all Temple Presidents and GBC in this regard, listing the eleven representatives selected by His Divine Grace. Those who are initiated are the disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and anyone who you deem fit and initiated in this way, you should send thei