ISKCON Revival Movement

THE FINAL ORDER

Proves Srila Prabhupada Is ISKCON's Initiating Guru

By:

Krishnakant

Foreword by Dr. Kim Knott
Professor of Religous Studies, Leeds University, U.K.

Originally requested for submission to
a select committee of ISKCON's GBC in October 1996

Contents

• Foreword by Dr. Kim Knott
• Preface
• Introduction
• The Evidence
• Objections Relating Directly to the Form and Circumstances of the Order
• The "Appointment Tape"
• Other Related Objections
• Conclusion
• What is a ritvik?

• Relevant Quotes from Srila Prabhupada's  Teachings:

• Does the Guru need to be physically present?
• Follow the Instruction not the body
• The Books are enough
• Srila Prabhupada is our Eternal Guru 

Appendices:

• July 9th, 1977 Letter "To All GBC, and Temple Presidents"
• July 10th, 1977 Letter
• July 11th, 1977 Letter
• July 21st, 1977 Letter
• July 31st, 1977 Letter
• Srila Prabhupada’s Declaration of Will (4th June, 1977) &
• Codicil (5th November, 1977)
• Room conversations
• Tamal Krishna’s Pyramid House confessions

Foreword to The Final Order

by
Dr Kim Knott, Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Leeds, UK.

Whilst researching a recent paper on "Insider and Outsider Perceptions of Srila Prabhupada", I found myself trying briefly to do justice to the different views held by devotees concerning disciplic succession and the role of gurus following Prabhupada's  disappearance in 1977. Naturally, I had been aware before this of the periods of crisis surrounding the fall of individual gurus and the waves of shock and sadness experienced by their initiated disciples, godbrothers and godsisters. I had hoped like many, that guru-reforms in the late-1980s would solve ISKCON's leadership and initiation difficulties. Looking again at the issue when preparing the paper, I read some of the arguments for and against the present system, as well as the work of other scholars on questions of guru and succession. It was clearly still a live issue. In the very latest scholarship on "The Parampara Institution" in volume 5 of Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Jan Brzezinski discusses various aspects of this, stressing the importance of qualified, charismatic leadership in the future of ISKCON. His is just one view, but it is indicative of the power of this subject to motivate interest inside and outside the Movement.

Late in 1996 I was asked to read The Final Order, to give my opinions and to discuss the questions posed within it. Reading it, I was left in no doubt that this was a matter of very great significance to ISKCON and about which many devotees felt deeply. It seemed to me that it raised important theological questions concerning spiritual authority and its transmission, the relationship of the disciple and Krishna's representative, the guru, and the proper objects of devotional worship. As an outsider, I am quite unable to judge the matter (and unable to weigh the evidence presented here against the evidence for the present acharya system). However, I am able to commend what is presented here as a serious attempt to argue the case that Srila Prabhupada established a system of ritvik gurus whom he intended would initiate disciples on his behalf. I hope it will be read carefully and discussed widely, not because I support or condemn its position, but because the profound issues it raises demand consideration at all levels. Every devotee has a real stake in the matter.

No doubt it is unwise for an outsider to involve herself by writing such a foreword, but my motives remain my interest in the movement and goodwill to all its devotees.

Kim Knott, February 1997
 

Preface to the Fourth Edition

It is now a decade since the first edition of The Final Order was printed in 1996. Originally I described The Final Order as a “discussion paper on Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for initiation within ISKCON”. No one who knows the Movement would deny that the paper has provoked a good deal of “discussion”, and thus it has succeeded in its aim to bring this issue into the spotlight.

It would be hard now for ISKCON’s leadership to credibly claim oblivion to the legal documents, personally signed by Srila Prabhupada, that clearly set out his intention to remain the sole initiating (diksa) guru for the spiritual Movement he founded. It is these legal documents that constitute the core of The Final Order paper that has now been distributed all over the world, and is available on the world wide web. There are still countries where The Final Order has yet to be translated (as at February 2006, the following translations were available: French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, Bengali, Kannada; with translations in Czech, Dutch, Tamil and Italian underway); added to this ISKCON leaders have placed a blanket ban on its distribution in all ISKCON centres. For these reasons there remain large numbers of ISKCON’s rank and file who have yet to read the paper, in spite of all the media coverage and controversy. But at least for ISKCON’s executive leadership and gurus, ignorance of Srila Prabhupada’s order on spiritual initiation is no longer an excuse. In the introduction to The Final Order we stated that:

“We consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our Founder-Acarya.”

Given the GBC’s evasion, obfuscation, violent suppression and downright dishonesty over The Final Order, the above point may now need revising.

There is now a worldwide organisation called the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM) that holds The Final Order as its foundation, and was set up specifically to promote its conclusions. It has a website with over 100 papers (www.iskconirm.com) by the same author and publishes a quarterly colour magazine called Back to Prabhupada which is distributed free of charge to thousands of subscribers worldwide . There has been worldwide media coverage of the IRM’s activities, including numerous press articles and items on the BBC. The IRM has also made presentations at major academic conferences, including the International Cultic Studies Association, CESNUR and the American Academy of Religion. In addition, the author of The Final Order has been published by various academic and educational publishers including Columbia University Press, Firma KLM, Continuum International Publishing and Facts on File. Through these media the IRM has gained widespread acceptance amongst the scholarly community as a force for reform within ISKCON. Since the formation of the IRM, a growing number of ISKCON devotees and centres around the world have now accepted the conclusions of The Final Order.

Frequently Asked Questions about the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM)

1. What is the IRM?

The IRM is a body composed of ISKCON devotees from all over the world who want to see the Society put back on track, in line with the directives of its Founder, Srila Prabhupada.

2. Why does the IRM exist?

The spiritual purity and general prestige of ISKCON has undergone a massive deterioration since the physical departure of its Founder on November 14th 1977. Srila Prabhupada single-handedly established ISKCON in 1966 as a great gift to the world, and when he left it was an expanding dynamic force, a beacon of light for humanity. Sadly today it is disintegrating, a fact admitted in a memo sent in May 2000 by the then GBC Chairman Ravindra Svarupa das:

“Therefore the question remains: What, then, will we do? How will we deal with our polarized and disintegrating Society?”

This decline can be traced back to various deviations from the instructions and standards given by Srila Prabhupada, the chief of which being his displacement as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. The ISKCON Revival Movement seeks to restore ISKCON to its former glory, purity and philosophical chastity through the re-institution of all the instructions and standards that Srila Prabhupada gave, beginning with his role as the sole authority and diksa guru for ISKCON.
The IRM’s position is set out in The Final Order and No Change in ISKCON Paradigm position papers. Both these papers are also available on our website: www.iskconirm.com

3. Is the IRM separate from ISKCON?

It is a movement within a movement, composed of ISKCON members who seek to reform and revive the Society.

4. Is the aim of the IRM to form a new movement?

No. It is to re-establish the original ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada left us. Once this is achieved the IRM shall be dissolved.

5. What difference would Srila Prabhupada’s restoration as the sole diksa guru make?

Firstly, it is the most basic axiom of spiritual life that we can only make advancement by properly following the orders of the guru. If the guru asks for milk and we bring him water, how will he be pleased? And if the guru is not pleased, how will we ever approach Lord Krishna?
For nearly three decades ISKCON has not been doing what Srila Prabhupada ordered. Since Srila Prabhupada left us physically we have not allowed him to initiate even one person via his ritvik, or representational, system. This is the only system of initiation he ever authorised to continue within the Society. If ISKCON members once more start to follow his order, then naturally they will please Lord Krishna, and all spiritual success should naturally follow. Also, with everyone having the same direct relationship as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, factionalism will be eliminated. For the first time in nearly thirty years there will be united team spirit, with everyone working for the same goal - the service and glorification of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Krishna. Many ISKCON “gurus” have fallen prey to gross sinful activities; and when they leave they often take with them hundreds of thousands of dollars and many of their followers. This continual loss of properties, faith and personnel will be eliminated as faith is only placed in Srila Prabhupada, and not in fallible substitutes. Money currently siphoned off by the 80 or so “gurus” from their disciples in daksina (gifted money) will instead go to temples, making them healthy and strong.

6. How can the IRM be so sure its position is correct, and the GBC’s is not?

The IRM consider their position correct since it is based on signed, legal documents that were directed to the whole Movement. On the other hand, the GBC have presented at least three completely contradictory official positions (none of which are supported by legal documents) and thus do not technically have a position, not to speak of a correct one. We should point out that not only do these various accounts contradict each other, but on occasion contradict themselves too. For example, if we just take the simple question of when Srila Prabhupada was meant to have authorised his replacement as diksa guru for ISKCON, we get the following answer from the following three official GBC papers:

a) On My Order Understood (GBC, 1995): Srila Prabhupada gave the order for gurus at the same time as the order for devotees to act on his behalf, and this occurred on July 7th, 1977 (p. 28 in Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON, GBC 1995)

b) Disciple Of My Disciple (H. H. Umapati Swami, 1997): Eleven diksa gurus were all set up and ready on May 28th, 1977 since “ritvik” means “officiating acarya” which means “diksa guru”.

c) Prabhupada’s Order (Badrinarayan das, 1998): On July 9th, 1977 the eleven were fully functioning as gurus but simply observing the etiquette in Srila Prabhupada’s presence.

Above we see the GBC have given three different dates for when Srila Prabhupada allegedly sanctioned his replacement. a) refers to a garden conversation, b) refers to a meeting between Srila Prabhupada and some of his senior disciples, whilst c) refers to the signed directive on initiation after which this booklet is named. Thus each GBC position paper tells a very different tale. To make matters worse:

In March 2004, at their annual meeting in Mayapur, the GBC officially withdrew the paper On My Order Understood, privately admitting it contained “lies” and “stretched the truth”. It was this very paper that The Final Order set out originally to challenge (please see Introduction) and the fact it has now been withdrawn so ignominiously can only further vindicate the IRM’s position.

Quite clearly the GBC are confused over when successor diksa Gurus were authorised. The IRM argues that this is inevitable since Srila Prabhupada never created any replacement diksa Gurus, only ritviks; and it was this ritvik system he left running with no order for it to be stopped. On this basis we argue that the GBC must first decide on a position, and only then will we be able to judge its efficacy.

The sad thing is that, even to this day, anyone who questions the GBC’s miasma of discordant testimony is ruthlessly hounded from the Society.

Krishnakant
February 2006

If you would like further information on the IRM, including a free subscription to our magazine, or wish to ask questions on the contents of The Final Order, then please email the author at: irm@iskconirm.com or krishnakant108@yahoo.com, or visit our website at: www.iskconirm.com

Introduction

This booklet is a humble attempt to present the instructions Srila Prabhupada left the Governing Body Commission on how he intended initiations to continue within the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Although we will refer to several papers and articles that have been published by senior ISKCON devotees on this subject, the main points of reference will be the GBC's most recent official handbook on initiation entitled. "Gurus And Initiation In ISKCON" (to be referred to henceforward as GII), and the paper "On My Order Understood" which is mentioned under section 1.1 of the "Laws of ISKCON":

"The GBC approves of the paper entitled "On My Order Understood" which establishes as ISKCON law the final siddhanta on Srila Prabhupada's  desire for continuing the disciplic succession after the departure of His Divine Grace. [See Part II: GBC Position Papers in this volume.]" (GII, p.1)

In GII it is the GBC's clearly stated intention to remove incoherence and contradiction from ISKCON's codes and laws surrounding gurus, disciples and guru tattva in general, thus establishing a final siddhanta (philosophical conclusion): We sincerely pray that this paper is in pursuance of those very same aims.

In the interest of ever-greater consistency and philosophical chastity, we feel there are still one or two discrepancies, not fully addressed in GII that might benefit from further investigation and discussion. Although some of the issues thrown up in confronting these discrepancies may seem quite radical, even painful to deal with, we feel that tackling them now will greatly minimise future confusion and potential deviation. It is not unprecedented that guru systems in ISKCON have come under quite radical review. In the past, symbols have been removed, ceremonies curtailed and paradigms shifted - all without too much long-term disruption.

In the whole scheme of things ISKCON is undoubtedly the most important Society on the planet. It is therefore imperative that constant vigilance is maintained in ensuring it does not stray even one millionth of a hair's breadth from the managerial and philosophical parameters set out by our Founder-Acarya. Srila Prabhupada constantly stressed that we must not change, invent or speculate; but simply carry on expanding that which he so carefully and painstakingly established. What better time to closely scrutinise the way we are carrying on Srila Prabhupada's  mission than this, his Centennial year (1996)?

It is our strong conviction that the present guru system within ISKCON should be brought fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's  last signed directive on the matter; his final order on initiation, issued on July 9th, 1977 (please see appendices ). Sometimes people question the stress placed on this letter over and above other letters or teachings. In our defence we shall simply repeat an axiom the GBC itself uses in the GII handbook:

"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance."  (GII, p.25)

Since the July 9^th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON, addressed as it was to the entire Movement, it must be viewed in a category of its own. It will be shown that the full acceptance and implementation of this order does not in any way clash with the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

We have no interest in conspiracy theories, nor do we intend to dredge up the gory details of unfortunate individuals" spiritual difficulties. What is done is done. We can certainly learn from previous mistakes, but we would rather help pave the way for a positive future of re-unification and forgiveness, than dwell too long on past scandal. As far as the authors are concerned, the vast majority of devotees in ISKCON are sincerely striving to please Srila Prabhupada; thus we consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our Founder-Acarya. Nevertheless, somehow or other, it does seem as though certain aberrations of epistemology and managerial detail have found their way into general ISKCON currency over the last nineteen years. In identifying these grey areas we pray we may be of some assistance in rooting out unnecessary obstructions to our devotional service to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna.

In this booklet we shall be presenting as evidence signed documentation, issued personally by Srila Prabhupada, and conversation transcripts, all of which are accepted as authentic by the GBC. We shall then look carefully at both the content and the context of these materials to see if they should be taken literally, or whether modifying instructions exist which might reasonably alter their meaning or applicability. We shall also discuss all relevant philosophical issues raised in connection with this evidence, and answer all of the most common objections raised against a literal acceptance of the July 9^th initiation policy document. And finally we shall look at how the "officiating acarya system", as outlined in the July 9^th order, might be implemented with the minimum disturbance.

We shall base all our arguments solely on the philosophy and instructions given by Srila Prabhupada in his books, letters, lectures and conversations. We humbly beg the mercy of all Vaisnavas that we may not cause offence to anyone or in any way disrupt the vital mission of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.

The Evidence

Anyone who knew Srila Prabhupada would often note his meticulous nature. His fastidious attention to every detail of his devotional service was one of Srila Prabhupada's  most distinguishing characteristics; and for those who served him closely, was profound evidence of his deep love and devotion to Lord Sri Krishna. His whole life was dedicated to carrying out the order of his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and in that duty he was uncannily vigilant. He left nothing to chance, always correcting, guiding and chastising his disciples in his effort to establish ISKCON. His mission was his life and soul.

It would certainly have been entirely out of character for Srila Prabhupada to leave an important issue, such as the future of initiation in his cherished society, up in the air, ambiguous, or in any way open to debate or speculation. This is particularly so in light of what happened to his own spiritual master's mission, which, as he would often point out, was destroyed largely through the operation of an unauthorised guru system. Bearing this in mind, let us begin with facts that no-one disputes:

On July 9^th 1977, four months before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada set up a system of initiations employing the use of "ritviks", or "representatives of the acarya". Srila Prabhupada instructed that this "officiating acarya" system was to be instituted immediately, and run from that time onwards, or "henceforward" - (please see Appendices). This management directive, which was sent to all Governing Body Commissioners and Temple Presidents of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, instructed that from that time on new disciples would be given spiritual names and have their beads and gayatri mantras from the 11 named ritviks. The ritviks were to act on Srila Prabhupada's  behalf, new initiates all becoming disciples of Srila Prabhupada.  Srila Prabhupada thus handed over to the ritviks total power of attorney over who could receive initiation, he made it clear that from that time onwards he was no longer to be consulted. (for further details of a ritvik's duties, please see the section entitled "What is a Ritvik? in Appendices)

Immediately after Srila Prabhupada's  physical departure, on November 14^th 1977, the GBC suspended this ritvik system. By Gaura Purnima 1978, the 11 ritviks had assumed the roles of zonal acarya diksa gurus, initiating disciples on their own behalf. Their mandate for doing so was an alleged order from Srila Prabhupada that they alone were to succeed him as initiating acaryas. Some years later this zonal acarya system was itself challenged and replaced, not by the restoration of the ritvik system, but by the addition of dozens more gurus, along with an elaborate system of checks and balances to deal with those that deviated. The rationale for this change being that the order to become guru was not, as we had first been told, only applicable to the 11, but was a general instruction for anyone who strictly followed, and received a two-thirds majority vote from the GBC body.

The above account is not a political opinion, it is historical fact, accepted by everyone, including the GBC.

As mentioned above, the July 9^th letter was sent to all GBC's and Temple Presidents, and remains to this day the only signed instruction on the future of initiation Srila Prabhupada ever issued to the whole Society. Commenting on the July 9^th order, HH Jayadvaita Swami recently wrote:

"Its authority is beyond question [...] Clearly, this letter establishes a ritvik-guru system." (Jayadvaita Swami "Where the ritvik People are Wrong" 1996)

The source of the controversy arises from two modifications, which were subsequently superimposed over this otherwise clear and authoritative directive

The reforms to the zonal acarya system, which took place around 1987, kept intact these two assumptions. The same assumptions, in fact, that underpinned the very system it replaced. We refer to a) and b) above as modifications since neither statement appears in the July 9^th letter itself, nor in any policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada subsequent to this order.

The GBC's paper, GII, clearly upholds the above mentioned modifications:

"When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after his physical departure he stated he would "recommend" and give his "order" to some of his disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards as "regular gurus", whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada's  grand-disciples." (GII, p.14)

Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions. For many, they have never been properly substantiated, and hence an uneasy sense of doubt and mistrust has grown both within and outside the Society. At present, books, papers, E-Mailouts and Internet Web Sites offer almost daily updates on ISKCON and its allegedly deviant guru system. Anything, which can bring about some sort of resolution to this controversy has got to be positive for anyone who truly cares about Srila Prabhupada's  Movement.

One point everyone is agreed on is that Srila Prabhupada is the ultimate authority for all members of ISKCON, so whatever his intended order was, it is our duty to carry it out. Another point of agreement is that the only signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the Society's leaders, was the July 9^th order.

It is significant to note that in GII the existence of the July 9^th letter is not even acknowledged, even though this is the only place where the original eleven "acaryas" are actually mentioned. This omission is puzzling, especially given that GII is supposed to offer the "final siddhanta" on the entire issue.

Let us then look closely at the July 9th order to see if there is indeed anything that supports assumptions a) and b) above:

The Order Itself

As previously mentioned, the July 9^th order states that the ritvik system should be followed "henceforward". The specific word used, "henceforward", only has one meaning, viz. "from now onwards". This is both according to Srila Prabhupada's  own previous usage of the word and the meaning ascribed to it by the English Language. Unlike other words, the word "henceforward" is unambiguous since it only possesses one dictionary definition. On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used the word "henceforward", nobody raised even the possibility that the word could mean anything other than "from now onwards". "From now onwards" does not mean "from now onwards until I depart". It simply means "from now onwards". There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's  departure, neither does it state that the system was to only be operational during his presence. Furthermore the argument that the whole ritvik system "hangs" on one word - "henceforward" - is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure, with no subsequent instruction to terminate it. Without such a counter instruction, this letter must be seen as Srila Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation, and should therefore be followed.

 Supporting Instructions

There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his secretary, in the days following the July 9^th letter, which clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation: 

 "...the process for initiation to be followed in the future." (July 11^th , 1977)

 "...continue to become ritvik and act on my charge." (July 19^th, 1977)

 "...continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf." (July 31st, 1977)
(please see Appendices)

In these documents we find words such as "continue" and "future" which along with the word "henceforward" all point to the permanency of the ritvik system. There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada that even hints that this system was to terminate on his departure.

Subsequent Instructions

Once the ritvik system was up and running, Srila Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it, nor did he ever state that it should be disbanded on his departure. Perhaps aware that such a thing may mistakenly or otherwise occur, he put in the beginning of his final will that the "system of management" in place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed - an instruction left intact by a codicil added just nine days before his departure. Surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to disband the ritvik system had that been his intention.  That the use of ritviks to give initiates" names was a "system of management" can be illustrated by the following:

In 1975 one of the preliminary GBC resolutions sanctioned that the "GBC would have sole responsibility for managerial affairs". Below are some of the "managerial" issues the GBC dealt with that year:

"In order to receive first initiation, one must have been a full time member for six months. For second initiation there should be at least another one year after the first initiation." (GBC Resolution No. 9, March 25^th, 1975)

"Method of initiating Sannyasis." (GBC Resolution No. 2, March 27^th, 1975)

These resolutions were personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. They demonstrate conclusively that the methodology for conducting initiations was deemed a "system of management". If the whole methodology for conducting initiations is considered a "system of management" by Srila Prabhupada, then one element of initiation, viz. the use of ritviks to give spiritual names, has to fall under the same terms of reference.

Thus changing the ritvik system of initiation was in direct violation of Srila Prabhupada's  final Will.

Another instruction in Srila Prabhupada's Will which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's "initiated disciples":

"...a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple..."
(Srila Prabhupada's Declaration of Will, June 4th, 1977)

This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's  departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up.

Furthermore, every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of initiations after July 9^th he simply reconfirmed the ritvik system. He never gave any hint that the system should stop on his departure or that there were gurus, waiting in the sidelines, ready to take on the role of diksa. Thus, at least as far as direct evidence is concerned, there appears to be nothing to support assumptions a) and b) referred to above. As stated, these assumptions - that the ritvik system should have stopped at departure and that the ritviks must then become diksa gurus - form the very basis of ISKCON's current guru system. If they prove to be invalid then there will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC.

The above sets the scene. The instruction itself, supporting instructions and subsequent instructions only support the continuation of the ritvik system. It is admitted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did not give any order to terminate the ritvik system on his physical departure. It is further accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to operate from July 9^th onwards. Thus we have a situation whereby the acarya:

1) has given a clear instruction to follow a ritvik system.

2) has not given an instruction to stop following the ritvik system upon his physical departure.

Consequently, for a disciple to stop following this order, with any degree of legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing so. The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could only follow it in his physical presence. The onus of proof will naturally fall on those who wish to terminate any system put in place by our acarya, and left to run henceforward. This is an obvious point; one can not just stop following the order of the guru whimsically:

"...the process is that you cannot change the order of the spiritual master." (C.c. Adi 7.76-81, Lecture, 2/2/67, San Francisco)

A disciple does not need to justify continuing to follow a direct order from the guru, especially when he has been told to continue following it. That is axiomatic - this is what the word "disciple" means:

"When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the spiritual master."   (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 11/2/75, Mexico)

Since there is no direct evidence stating that the ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's  physical departure, the case for abandoning it could therefore only be based on indirect evidence. Indirect evidence may arise out of special circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. These extenuating circumstances, should they exist, may be used to provide grounds for interpreting the literal instruction. We will now examine the circumstances surrounding the July 9^th order, to see if such modifying circumstances might indeed have been present, and whether there is inferentially anything to support assumptions a) and b). 

Objections Relating Directly To The Form 
And Circumstances Of The Final Order

For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one had ever questioned whom such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning of the July 9^th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are "representatives" of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become fully-fledged diksa gurus. Srila Prabhupada's  emphasis on disciple ownership would therefore have been completely redundant were the system to operate only in his presence, especially since as long as he was present he could personally ensure that no one claimed false ownership of the disciples. As mentioned above, this point is hammered home three times in a letter which itself was quite short and to the point:

"So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final." (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 27/11/68, Los Angeles)

The July 9^th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were to be sent "to Srila Prabhupada" - Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the ritvik system must therefore be invalid.

The first point to note is the stated purpose behind the names being sent to Srila Prabhupada, ie., so they could be included in his "Initiated Disciples" book. We know from the July 7^th conversation (please see Appendices) that Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with entering the new names into this book, it was done by his secretary. Further evidence that the names should be sent for inclusion in the book, and NOT specifically to Srila Prabhupada is given in the letter written to Hamsadutta, the very next day, where Tamala Krishna Goswami explains his new ritvik duties to him:

"...you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada's  'Initiated Disciples' book." (Letter to Hamsadutta from Tamala Krishna Goswami, 10/7/77)

Their is no mention made here of needing to send the names to Srila Prabhupada. This procedure could easily have continued after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. Nowhere in the final order does it state that if the "Initiated Disciples" book becomes physically separated from Srila Prabhupada all initiations must be suspended.

The next point is that the procedure of sending the names of newly initiated disciples to Srila Prabhupada in any case relates to a post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend or in any way interrupt pre-initiation, or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik's role being already fulfilled well before the actual initiation ceremony takes place). Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent, the initiation has already occurred.

Please consider the following points:

1. The July 9^th letter also does not specifically state: "The ritvik system should end on Srila Prabhupada's  departure". Yet it was terminated immediately on his departure.
    
2. The letter also does not state: "The ritvik system should run while Srila Prabhupada is still present". Yet it was run while he was still present.
    
3. The letter also does not state: "The ritvik system should only run until the departure of Srila Prabhupada". Yet it was only allowed to run till his departure.
    
4. The letter also does not state: "The ritvik system must stop". Yet it was stopped.

In summary, the GBC insists on the following:

• the ritvik system must stop.

• the ritvik system must stop on Srila Prabhupada's  departure.

Neither of the above stipulations appears in the July 9th letter, nor any other signed order; yet they form the very foundation of both the zonal acarya system and the current "Multiple Acarya Successor System," or M.A.S.S. as we shall refer to it. (In this context we use the word acarya in its strongest sense, that of initiating spiritual master, or diksa guru).

To argue that since the letter is not specific about the time period in which it is to run, it must therefore stop on departure is completely illogical. The letter does not specify that the ritvik system should be followed on July 9^th either, so according to this logic it should never have been followed at all. Even accepting that "henceforward" can at least stretch to the end of the first day of the order being issued, it does not say it should be followed on July 10^th, so perhaps it should have stopped then.

The demand for the ritvik system to only operate within a pre-specified time period is contradicted by accepting its operation for 126 separate 24 hour time periods (i.e. four months). Since none of these 126 separate time periods is specified in the letter, yet everyone seems quite happy that the system ran during this time frame. Unless we take the word "henceforward" literally to mean "indefinitely", we could stop the system at any time after July 9^th, so why choose departure?

There is no example, either in Srila Prabhupada's 86 recorded uses, nor in the entire history of the English language, where the actual word "henceforward" has ever meant:

"Every time period until the departure of a person who issued the order"

Yet according to current thinking this is what the word must have meant when it was used in the July 9^th letter. All the letter states is that the ritvik system is to be followed "henceforward". So why was it stopped?
 

If an instruction is impossible to perform, for example giving Srila Prabhupada his daily massage after his physical departure, then obviously there can be no question of doing it. The duty of a disciple is simply to follow an order until it is impossible to follow any longer, or until the spiritual master changes the order. The question then is whether it is feasible to follow a ritvik system without the physical presence of the person who set it up.

In fact, the ritvik system was set up specifically to be operational without any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada whatsoever. Had the ritvik system continued after his departure, it would be identical in every respect to how it was practiced whilst Srila Prabhupada was present. After July 9^th, Srila Prabhupada's  involvement became non-letter existent, and so even at that stage it was operating as though he had already left. This being the case, we cannot classify the ritvik system dysfunctional, or inoperable, on the grounds of Srila Prabhupada's  departure, since his departure does not in any way affect the running of the system. In other words, since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet, his leaving the planet can not in itself render the system invalid.
 

This "letters v books" argument does not apply in this case since this was no ordinary letter. Generally, Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter in response to a specific query from an individual disciple, or to offer individualised guidance or chastisement. Naturally, in these cases the devotee"s original query, situation or deviation may give grounds for interpretation. Not everything in Srila Prabhupada's  letters can be applied universally (for example in one letter he advised a devotee, who was not good with spices, to just cook with a little salt and tumeric; clearly this advice was not meant for the entire Movement). However, the final order on initiation is not open to any such interpretation since it was not written in response to a specific query from a particular individual, or to address a disciple's individual situation or behaviour. The July 9^th letter was a procedural instruction, or management policy document, which was sent to every leader in the Movement.

The letter follows the format of any important instruction that Srila Prabhupada issued and wanted followed without interpretation - he had it put in writing, he approved it, and then sent it to his leaders. For example, he had one sent on April 22^nd, 1972, addressed to "ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS":

"The zonal secretary's duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to All Temple Presidents, 22/4/72)

If such circumstances did exist, Srila Prabhupada would have stated them in the letter, or in an accompanying document. Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives which would later be made sense of telepathically. For example, had Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to stop on his departure he would have added the following seven words to the July 9^th letter - "This system will terminate on my departure". A quick look at the letter tells us he wanted it to continue "henceforward". (please see Appendices)

Sometimes it is argued that the ritvik system was only set up because Srila Prabhupada was sick.

Devotees may or may not have been aware of the extent of Srila Prabhupada's  illness; but how could they possibly be expected to deduce from a letter that says nothing about his health, that this was the only reason it was issued? When did Srila Prabhupada say that any instruction he issued must always be interpreted in conjunction with his latest medical report? Why should the recipients of the final order on initiation not have assumed the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation?

Srila Prabhupada had already announced that he had come to Vrindavan to leave his body. Being tri-kala-jna he was most likely aware of his departure in four months time. He had set in motion the final instructions for the continuation of his Movement. He had already drawn up his will and other documents relating to the BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) and GBC, specifically to provide guidance for after his imminent departure. The one matter that had not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left. At this point, no one had the faintest clue how things were to run. The July 9^th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his absence.

In the GBC's handbook GII, the sole evidence offered in support of modifications a) & b) is extracted from a conversation, which took place on May 28^th, 1977. The paper appears to concede that there is no other instructional evidence, which directly relates to the function of ritviks after Srila Prabhupada's  departure:

"Although Srila Prabhupada did not repeat his earlier statements, it was understood that he expected these disciples to initiate in the future."  (GII, p.35)

Since it is the sole evidence, there is a section exclusively dedicated to the May 28th conversation. Suffice to say it was not referred to in the July 9^th letter, nor did Srila Prabhupada demand that a copy of the taped conversation be sent out with the final order. From this we can deduce, with absolute confidence, that it cannot contain a scrap of modifying information vital to the understanding of the final order. As a point of fact, the May 28^th conversation was not released till several years after Srila Prabhupada's  departure. Thus once more we are expected to modify a clear written instruction with information, which was not accessible to the very people who were issued the instruction. As will be seen later, the May conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order.

As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always supersede previous instructions; the final order is the final order, and must be followed:

"I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to you, you do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue - "Sir you said to me do like this before", no that is not your duty, what I say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue." (Srila Prabhupada S.B. Lecture, 14/4/75, Hyderabad)

Just as in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna gave so many instructions to Arjuna, he spoke of all types of yoga from Dhyana to Jnana, but all this was superseded by the final order:

"Always think of Me and become My devotee"- should be taken as the final order of the Lord and should be followed." (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, chapter 11)

The final order given by Sankaracarya,"bhaja Govinda", was also meant to supersede many of his earlier statements - all of them, in fact. As mentioned in the introduction, the GBC itself recognises this as an axiomatic principle of logic:

"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance." (GII, p. 25)

Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa guru for after his departure. Evidence for this claim has never been produced, indeed many senior leaders within ISKCON have conceded the point:

"And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said "Alright here is the next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorised gurus for the Movement, for the world". He did not do that."  (Ravindra Svarupa das, San Diego debate, 1990)

Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must be a mahabhagavata (most advanced stage of God-realisation) and be specifically authorised by his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorised. We quote below from Srila Prabhupada's  books where the qualifications of the diksa guru are stated.

Maha-bhagavata-srestho brahmano vai gurur nrnam
sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih
maha-kula-prasuto" pi sarva-yajnesu diksitah
sahasra-sakhadhya yi ca na guruh syad avaisnavah

 "The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

 "When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone could act as a diksa guru: 

"On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68) 

"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)
 

Evidence used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic categories :

1. Srila Prabhupada's  frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the "amara ajnaya guru hana" verse from the Caitanya-Caritamrta.
    
2. The half dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure.
    
3. Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru are mentioned.
    

Looking first at category 1):

The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in the Caitanya-Caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada:

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krishna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)

However, the type of guru, which Lord Caitanya is encouraging everyone to become, is clearly established in the detailed purports following this verse:

"That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krishna mantra and preach the instructions of Krishna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam."  (C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)

"One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krishna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)

We can see that these instructions do not demand that the gurus in question first attain any particular level of realisation before they act. The request is immediate. From this it is clear everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know, and in so doing become siksa, or instructing, gurus. This is further clarified by the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position, and not then go on to become a diksa guru:

"It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)

To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krishna Consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's  purports that in the above verse Lord Caitanya is actually authorising siksa gurus, not diksa gurus.

This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru:

"yare dekha, tare kaha, Krishna-upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krishna has already said, you repeat. Finish. don't make addition, adulteration. Then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krishna. Then it will act [...] Anyone can do. A child can do."  (Srila Prabhupada Evening darshan, 11/5/77, Hrsikesh)

"Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is, [...] He said that "Everyone of you become guru." (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)

"You simply say [...] "Just always think of Me", Krishna said, "And just become My devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances." Kindly do these things." So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?" (Srila Prabhupada Conversation, 2/8/76, New Mayapur) 

"Real guru is he who instructs what Krishna has said....You have simply to say, 'This is this.' That's all. Is it very difficult task?" (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)

"...'But I have no qualification. How can I become guru ?' There is no need of qualification...Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krishna has said. That's all. You become guru." (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)

(Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a justification for "minimally qualified diksa gurus"*(1), an entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's  books, letters, lectures or conversations).

An example of a guru who has no qualification other than repeating what he has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON. It is perfectly clear therefore that the above are actually invitations to become instructing spiritual masters, siksa gurus. We know this since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru:

"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

 "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)

There were a handful of overly confident devotees, anxious to initiate their own disciples in Srila Prabhupada's  presence, who Srila Prabhupada wrote letters to. These letters are used to support the M.A.S.S. Srila Prabhupada had a fairly standard approach when dealing with such ambitious individuals. Generally he told them to keep rigidly trained up, and in the future, after his physical departure, they may accept disciples:

"The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do not be in a hurry." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)

 "Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work."  (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72)

 "I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master, it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Hansadutta, 1/10/74)

 "Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide spiritual master and spread Krishna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2/12/75)

(It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above "law" in support of the M.A.S.S. doctrine, in the very same document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all) :

"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of the guru, [...] In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present." (GII, p. 23)

It is apparent that in writing to these devotees, telling them they could take disciples if they just held on a little longer, Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to keep them in devotional service. In so doing there was at least the possibility that, in time, their ambitious mentalities might become purified:

Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have received a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus. Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise diksa guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified?

As far as statements to the effect that they would be free to initiate after his departure, that is true. Just as in England one is free to drive a car once he is 17 years old. However, we must not forget those two little provisos. First, one must be qualified to drive, and second one must be authorised by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own parallels.

Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:

"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krishna Consciousness population." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Kirtanananda, 12/1/69)

Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on initiation?

Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's  "law of disciplic succession". The first part of the "law" states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence. Since this was the "law", clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada's  disciples initiating on their own behalf: Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of "officiating" initiation system as early as 1969. By 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed "empowered", or authorised, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation. Later he called these representatives "ritviks", and formalised their function in the July 9^th order. Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorising Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams.

"Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya 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." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Madhusudana, 2/11/67)

Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus. However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual masters also in his absence. There is definitely no mention in the above quote of his disciples initiating or accepting their own disciples. The term "bona fide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world" is equally applicable to a siksa guru.

Even if such letters as these did allude to some other type of guru system, they still could not be used to modify the final July 9^th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the Movement. The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is occasionally alleged that some of these personal letters were leaked out to other members of the Society. This may or may not have been the case, but the important point to note is that the mechanics of such distribution appears never to have been set up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private correspondence to be distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be published "if there was time", but he never intimated that without these documents no one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure.

To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an authorised form at that time. If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for up to ten thousand years, surely Srila Prabhupada would have made their publication, and mass distribution, a matter of utmost urgency. There was, after all, the reasonable possibility that not all his leaders had read his private correspondence, and as a result gained a clear understanding of precisely how initiations were to run after his departure. We know this to be more than a possibility since the entire GBC still had no idea what Srila Prabhupada was planning as late on as May 28^th, 1977. (please see May 28^th conversation in Appendices)

In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9^th order on the basis of these handful of letters can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certainly have made that clear in the order itself or in some accompanying document.

In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was as representatives of the acarya, ritviks. 

Finally we shall look at category 3):

There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's  books and lectures which have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We shall now examine this evidence.

In Srila Prabhupada's  books, all we find are the qualifications of a diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and authorised before even attempting to become diksa guru:

"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorised spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master." (S.B. 2.9.43, purport)

The above injunction hardly gives carte blanche for anyone to initiate just because their guru has left the planet. The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here. Only the idea that they must be authorised and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must have first attained the platform of maha-bhagavata.

Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journey to Other Planets (p.32) dealing with "monitor gurus" as evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However, this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa, not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher, but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru). A monitor guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform of maha-bhagavata, and then been authorised by his predecessor acarya , there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa guru, the siksa guru may gradually rise to the platform necessary before diksa authorisation can theoretically take place. Furthermore, a monitor merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again is at variance with the "law" of disciplic succession used to support the M.A.S.S. system, were the monitors actually diksa gurus. In other words, a monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside him. 

Certainly the monitor system in no way supports the GBC's a) and b) assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically become diksa gurus.

There are other occasions, outside of Srila Prabhupada's  personal letters, which are quoted as giving authorisation for his disciples to become diksa gurus:

"Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge." (Srila Prabhupada Arrival Lecture, 18/5/72, Los Angeles)

"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master . Every one of you should be spiritual master next." (Srila Prabhupada Vyasa-Puja address, 5/9/69, Hamburg)

The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's  disciples are already the twelfth - "you are the twelfth". Thus this is not some authorisation for them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that they are already carrying on the message of the parampara. The second quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place by dint of the disciples vigorous preaching. Either way, there is no clear explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation. In fact, we know it is wrong since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act as representatives of the acarya, and not in any type of initiating or diksa capacity.

"Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya. Even if he is complete he should not, because the etiquette is, if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to bring that prospective candidate to his acarya." (Srila Prabhupada C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)

The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to become acarya. However the whole emphasis is that they should not do it now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his disciples becoming acarya, if he is cautioning them not to do it in his presence. This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above. This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle. As will be seen later, on the "Appointment tape", which is used in GII as principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977 ("On my order, [...] But by my order, [...] When I order"). And this situation remained unchanged until his departure. Furthermore, later on in the same lecture, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya ambitions in the following manner:

"And to become acarya is not very difficult. [...] amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa, yare dekha tare kaha Krishna-upadesa: "By following My order, you become guru." [...] Then, in future... suppose you have got now ten thousand. We shall expand to hundred thousand. That is required. Then hundred thousand to million; and million to ten million."  (Srila Prabhupada C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)

It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction was for everyone to preach vigorously, make lots of Krishna conscious followers, but not to take disciples. This point is reinforced where Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. It is significant that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand..." (i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's  presence). From this it is clear he is talking about Krishna conscious followers, not "disciples of his disciples", since the main point of the lecture was that they should not initiate in his presence. The implication being then, that just as at that time there may have been around ten thousand followers of Krishna Consciousness, so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik system was to ensure that when these followers became suitably qualified for initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just as they could when he gave the above lecture. 

In Conclusion:

There is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada issuing specific orders for his disciples to become diksa gurus, thus setting up an alternative to the ritvik system.

What we do have is a handful of (at the time) unpublished personal letters, sent only to individuals desirous of becoming diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's  presence, sometimes having only recently joined the Movement. In such cases they are told to wait until Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet before they fulfil their ambitions. The very fact that they were unpublished at the time of the July 9^th letter means that they were not intended to have any direct bearing on the future of initiation within ISKCON.

Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada's  books and conversations only contain instructions for his disciples to be siksa gurus. Though the general principle of a disciple becoming a diksa guru is mentioned, Srila Prabhupada does not specifically order his disciples to initiate and take their own disciples.

The above then does not represent grounds for supplanting the explicit instruction of July 9^th, an order that was distributed to the whole Movement as a specific policy document. There is clearly no equivalent document outlining the M.A.S.S.

Thus the idea that Srila Prabhupada had taught far and wide that all his disciples should become diksa gurus, immediately on his departure, shortly after or indeed ever, is nothing but a myth.

It is commonly stated that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the final July 9^th letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already explained again and again in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations precisely what he wanted to happen. Sadly this assertion, apart from being totally false, merely raises further absurdities:

• If Srila Prabhupada's  previous teachings on how he wanted to continue initiations in his absence were really so crystalline clear that he saw no need to issue a specific directive on the matter; then why did the GBC send a special delegation to his bedside in the first place? A delegation whose principal objective it was to find out what was to be done about initiations "particularly" at that time when he was no longer with them! (Please see "Appt. tape"). Srila Prabhupada was in ill health, about to leave his body, and here we have his most senior men asking him elementary questions which he had supposedly already answered scores of times over the preceding decade.
   
• If Srila Prabhupada had clearly spelled out the M.A.S.S. system, why did he leave so little instruction on how to set it up that shortly after his departure his most senior men felt compelled to question Sridhar Maharaja (of the Gaudiya Math) on how to operate it?
   
• If it really was so clear to everyone precisely how Srila Prabhupada wanted everyone to become diksa guru, then why did the GBC set up the zonal acarya system where diksa guruship was strictly limited, and allow it to run for an entire decade?

Although we have been somewhat critical of the GBC's paper GII, there is one passage in it relating to this issue which we feel totally encapsulates the mood that will re-unite Srila Prabhupada's  family:

 "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." (GII, p. 25, GBC 1995, emphasis added)

We could not agree more.  

.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

*(1) - This interpretation is advocated in Ajamila dasa's paper "Regular or Ritvik", published in the GBC's ISKCON Journal 1990.

The use of a ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure would actually be in line with Srila Prabhupada's many instructions stating the immateriality of physical association in the guru-disciple relationship (please see Appendices). After reading these quotes one can see how some members of the GBC have presented a somewhat different picture over the years:

"Srila Prabhupada has taught us that the disciplic succession is a living affair [...] The law of disciplic succession is that one approaches a living spiritual master - living in the sense of being physically present."  (Sivarama Swami ISKCON Journal, p.31, GBC 1990)

It is hard to reconcile the above assertion with statements such as:

"Physical presence is not important." (Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan)

or

"Physical presence is immaterial." (Srila Prabhupada Letter, 19/1/67)

Of course, we must have a guru who is external, since in the conditioned stage pure reliance on the Supersoul is not possible, but nowhere does Srila Prabhupada teach that this physical guru must also be physically present:

"Therefore one must take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence." (C.c. Antya, concluding words)

Srila Prabhupada practically demonstrated this principle by initiating large numbers of his disciples without ever meeting them physically at all. This fact in itself proves that diksa can be obtained without any physical involvement from the guru. There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with physical presence. Therefore, the continuation of the ritvik system is perfectly consistent with both sastra and the example our acarya set whilst he was physically present.

In one of the main sections on diksa in Srila Prabhupada's books, it is stated that the only requirement for receiving it is the agreement of the guru. This agreement was totally delegated to the ritviks:

"So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will depend on discretion." (Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)

Srila Prabhupada instructs us that:

"As far as the time of diksa (initiation) is concerned, everything depends on the position of the guru.[...] If the sad-guru, the bona fide spiritual master agrees, one can be initiated immediately, without waiting for a suitable time or place." (C.c. Madhya, 24.331, purport)

It is significant to note that there is no stipulation that the diksa guru and the prospective disciple must have physical contact. Or that the diksa guru has to be physically present to give his agreement (it is also interesting that Srila Prabhupada equates the term sad-guru with the term diksa guru). Srila Prabhupada has stated many times that the requirement for being initiated is simply to abide by the rules and regulations he had taught over and over again:

"This is the process of initiation. The disciple must admit that he will no longer commit sinful activity [...] He promises to execute the order of the spiritual master. Then, the spiritual master takes care of him and elevates him to spiritual emancipation." (C.c. Madhya, 24.256, purport)