by Ajamila dasa

Adri Dharan Prabhu’s conclusion is false and his concocted N.C.I.P. (No change in the ISKCON paradigm) directive portrays cognitive distortion of a kind never seen before.

The essence of Adri’s N.C.I.P. gimmick is the assumption that as per Prabhupada’s last will and testament nothing at all should change in ISKCON. Isn’t this rather silly? This ‘wild speculation’ covered with an array of phony disguises is an insult to a devotee’s intelligence. Here is Adri’s assertion:

"Thus the GBC:

A) Cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada;
B) Or introduce anything other than that already given by Srila Prabhupada.

Items A) and B) form the N.C.I.P...."

This is absurd beyond belief. While living in a world of change how can we not change anything? It is impossible! This is a very childish assumption. And if you apply the same absurd principle to implementing a posthumous initiation system you come up with all the ideas I described in my Introduction. Whichever way you look at ritvikism it simply doesn’t fall in line with guru, sadhu, and sastra and therefore should be rejected as the GBC have done unanimously.

Common sense tells us that there are certain things that the GBC must change and others that can never change. For example, the GBC must change their clothes, geographical responsibilities when required, resolutions when it is necessary, and so on. This is common sense; some things MUST change. But the GBC can never change major ISKCON principles like initiates must chant a minimum of 16 rounds daily, Deity worship must always be clean and regular, etc.

The big question at hand here is can a guru like Srila Prabhupada initiate posthumously? According to guru, sadhu, and sastra the answer is never, as clearly outlined in my Introduction. Contrary to Adri’s N.C.I.P. speculation one thing that ALWAYS changes in Vaisnavism is that upon the departure of a guru he always stops giving diksa initiation since it requires physical presence. There has never been any exception to this. A guru can never continue giving diksa posthumously. This point has also been proved irrefutably in my Introduction. No one can overrule guru, sadhu, and sastra. That is the end of the story. Baaas.

The following Ritviks’ N.C.I.P. speculation is downright nonsense:

"In conclusion there is no instruction issued to the institution authorising an individual to take up the role of diksa guru in ISKCON once Srila Prabhupada departs..."

Below we present evidence that directly contradicts Adri’s speculations. This evidence was either overlooked or purposely omitted by him. Contrary to Adri’s sinister denigration this evidence is not private or irrelevant correspondence but rather a clear PUBLIC instruction by Srila Prabhupada to his disciples to act as acaryas in his future ISKCON institution:

"Evam parampara-praptam imam rajar-sayo viduh. So we have to follow the acarya. Then, when we are completely, cent per cent follower of acarya, then you can also act as acarya. This is the process. 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." (A PUBLIC Sri Caitanya-caritamrta class, Adi-lila 1.13 Mayapur, April 6, 1975)

There are many, many other quotes where Srila Prabhupada expresses his desire that his disciples initiate after his departure, for example:

"Every student is expected to become acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples…

"Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide 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 bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2 December, 1975)

In this letter Srila Prabhupada gave personal direction and additionally instructed his growing institution as he did in 90%-plus of his letters. See Srila Prabhupada Siksamrita. As the compiler of this work and having gone through 7,500-plus of Srila Prabhupada’s letters I know that it is a fact that 90%-plus of Srila Prabhupada letters nurtured the growth of his ISKCON institution. Adri tries to dismiss as irrelevant letters that contain evidence unsuited to his contraband agenda. Here is another example of how Adri attempts to minimise more clear evidence:

"a) It is not clear to the GBC what is being said (different transcripts)"

The transcript IS clear. The GBC used the official Bhaktivedanta Archives transcript. The attempt to discredit rather than disprove this evidence verifies the Ritviks’ weaknesses and mendacious intentions. Here is the official Bhaktivedanta Archives transcription which after being tested was satisfactorily summarised: "Standard forensic procedures thus far have revealed that there is no editing or tampering of the tapes." This is the official Bhaktivedanta Archives statement (caps for emphasis), and any contrary statement by Adri or any other Ritvik is false.

Here is the officially approved transcription just in from the Archives:

Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.
Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?
Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.
Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...
Prabhupada: He’s guru. He’s guru.
But he does it on your behalf.
Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnya guru hana [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. Be actually guru, but by my order.
Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?
Tamala Krsna: No, he’s asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they’re officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?
They’re his disciple.
Tamala Krsna: They’re his disciple.
Who is initiating. He is grand disciple.
Satsvarupa: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: That’s clear.
Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...
Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it."

"Disciple of my disciple. That’s it." It can’t be much clearer than that, but not for Adri and the Ritviks who are determined by hook or by crook to force their concocted ritvikism on ISKCON.

Here is the twist Adri puts on the above conversation to denigrate it as GBC evidence:

"However this conversation makes it clear that the representatives to be appointed, as set out in the directive, were for ‘particularly at that time’ when Srila Prabhupada ‘is no longer with us’. Thus this conversation tends to confirm the directive, not contradict it."

What an insulting twist. Let’s ‘untwist’ what Adri has done here. Adri is basically saying that the temporary ritvik representatives that were to be appointed five weeks later on 9 July were given the same ‘after departure’ mandate as the ‘regular gurus’ were given on 28 May but of course with an additional posthumous spin. After spinning the evidence in the way he wants he claims it confirms his so-called directive! This is just so silly and so obvious. Adri is trying to twist and juggle things around to form his pre-determined ritvik concoction. I’d generously give him four out of ten for word jugglery and zero out of ten for having any truth.

Adri Dharan further stated:

"b) It is not clear to the GBC what is being spoken of (proxy or diksa guru)"

It is unanimously clear with the GBC since Srila Prabhupada was asked "The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?" and Srila Prabhupada replied, "They’re his disciple." and "He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it." This is clear.

"c) It is not clear to the GBC when the answers are applicable (before or after departure)"

It is again unanimously clear with the GBC because Srila Prabhupada’s answer to "Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us." is that the person receiving initiation becomes "grand disciple" and the person initiating is a ‘regular guru’. This is clear.

"d) It is not clear to the GBC how the gurus are activated. (when the order is given)"

Again it is unanimously clear to the GBC that Srila Prabhupada reconfirmed his standing order for all his disciples to initiate after his departure. In the above conversation he says "he becomes regular guru", responding to the position real the initiating ritvik after his departure. This was the REAL final order. It was a reconfirmation of the order he had been giving his disciples all along.

All this is perfectly clear to all the GBC but only unclear to the Ritviks. Instead of disproving the evidence at hand Adri is deploying a ruthless tactic of ‘divide and rule’. Adri is trying hard to create an impression that the GBC are confused and in disagreement about ritvikism, but the fact is that again this year in Mayapura the GBC unanimously rejected ritvikism as a dangerous and devious concoction. Contrary to the opinion of the Ritviks, the GBC on this issue of ritvikism are completely united. Being unable to sway the GBC the Ritviks are now attempting to discredit contrary evidence with cheap ploys to sway and intimidate emotionally unstable and philosophically unsound devotees.

The real insult that Adri has inadvertently levied at Srila Prabhupada is this:

"…there is a third level of proof put in place that indicates Srila Prabhupada’s tri-kala-jana sensibilities."

In addition to his spelling mistake, jana instead of jna, Adri puts forward as his so-called ‘third level of proof’ that Srila Prabhupada’s tri-kala-jna sensibilities are a reason for Srila Prabhupada to defy guru, sadhu, and sastra and break the law of disciplic succession. Lord Krishna was more than tri-kala-jna but still He did not break the law of disciplic succession in order to teach ‘everyone’ by example. Srila Prabhupada was not a law breaker as Adri wants us to believe but rather everything he did was strictly in accordance with guru, sadhu, and sastra. This must not and cannot change under the name of a silly one-sided no change N.C.I.P. concoction.

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari