CHAKRA'S 'ARMY' - FIRES BLANKS
16th Jan. 1998
There are two newly transcribed
tapes posted on the GBC-backed CHAKRA website which are being used to
support ISKCON'S current 'multiple acarya successor system' (M.A.S.S.).
We shall herein show that these new weapons, whilst obviously directed
at supporters of the final order (July 9th 1977), merely
support the ritvik conclusion, and are thus self-defeating.
Just to re-cap. For the last
twenty years the GBC have relied on just one astra to support their
disbanding of the ritvik system, and the subsequent transformation of
the original eleven ritviks into fully fledged diksa gurus
(modifications A and B from 'The
Final Order'). That astra was the famous May
28th conversation. Even as recently as last year a GBC paper (disciple
of my disciple) relied totally on this conversation to support
it's position. 'The Final Order' discussion paper pointed out that
aside from the fact that four different transcripts of this
conversation had been offered, and that the GBC had given four
different 'official' interpretations of this very same evidence. The
conversation itself only factually supported the idea that the ritvik
system was meant to be continued.
This May 28th astra has now been
completely disabled. Under the auspices of the GBC, the tape from which
the conversation was extracted was given a preliminary analysis. This
analysis showed the recording exhibited 'strong signs suggestive of
falsification'. Some GBC members tried to argue that although parts
of the tape may have been edited, the section in question seemed to be
all right. When this was put to the forensic examiner himself his
response was clear and unequivocal:
"If the copy contains
SIGNS SUGGESTIVE OF FALSIFICATION, that copy could not be relied upon
as a faithful and accurate rendition of the original."
"If the preliminary
analysis discovers any area that is significantly suggestive of
falsification, then the ENTIRE recording is in question and a Forensic
Analysis should be done".
& 14/10/97. In response to query as to whether ANY portion of the
May 28th tape can be taken as authentic and 'intact', after a
preliminary analysis had discovered irregularities).
Thus the May 28th conversation,
already highly dubious evidence to start with, is now completely
inadmissible. The only way this conversation could even be considered,
as any type of evidence at all is if a full forensic analysis is done
on the ORIGINAL tape. For some reason the GBC seem reluctant or
incapable of doing this.
Rather than accept defeat and
re-instate the ritvik system, the GBC are now desperately rummaging
around the archives for new evidence. And hence the excitement when
they discovered the following:
1:- "Conversation with
the GBC," May 25, 1972 in Los Angeles.
Ah, no problem. G.B.C. means now they should travel very extensive.
That is the first principle. Not sit down in one place and pass
resolution. No, they must be active. They must act like me. As I'm old
man travelling all over the world. Now to give me relief the G.B.C.
members... I shall expand into twelve more so that they can exactly
work like me. GRADUALLY THEY WILL BE INITIATORS. At least first
initiation. You must make advance. That is my motive. So, in that way I
want to divide it in twelve zones (...).
On the strength of the above
passage the GBC seem to now be saying they were perfectly justified in
stopping the ritvik system, and have the ritviks change into diksa
gurus. (For the sake of argument we will for the time being assume
these tapes have not also been tampered with). In reality the above
quote can only support the ritvik position for the following reasons:
- Leaving aside content for a
moment, if this brief snippet of conversation were really so pivotal to
the future of ISKCON for possibly the next ten thousand years, it seems
unbelievable that Srila Prabhupada would have just blithely left this
statement to be unearthed some 26 years later. What if it had never
been discovered? Certainly he would have made sure it was duplicated
and sent to the entire movement if it was really meant to replace or
supplement the July 9th order, which WAS sent out to the entire society
just prior to his departure. To even suggest otherwise is to invite
howls of derision. Remember this is now the only evidence being put
forward directly relating to the future of initiations, since the May
28th tape is currently inadmissible. Thus since this conversation was
not made generally available before Srila Prabhupada's departure it can
at best only constitute SUPPORTING evidence, not PRINCIPAL evidence.
Unfortunately, as was demonstrated in 'The Final Order', there is
nothing for this evidence to support, since there is no general
instruction to the whole society which says anything about GBC's or
anyone else initiating their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada's
departure. That was supposed to have been stated in the May 28th
conversation which is now inadmissible.
- Looking now at the content of
the above quote. It is clear Srila Prabhupada can only be referring to
a proxy initiation role for these GBC disciples since:
- As early on as 1968 Srila
Prabhupada hinted at his future plans to set up an officiating or proxy
initiation system. In letters to Hansadutta and Kirtanananda (12/1/69) he
that by 1975 he will have devotees performing initiations. We know he
must have been referring to some type of proxy system since he was
still on the planet in 1975. To have disciples initiate their own
disciples whilst he was physically present would have violated 'the
law of disciplic succession' which the GBC is so fond of repeating.
- In the above mentioned letter
to Kirtanananda Srila Prabhupada said that devotees who passed the
Bhaktivedanta examinations would be 'empowered to initiate'. In 1972 he
said it would be the GBC's; and in 1977 on July
7th he said that 'senior sanyasis' would be suitable candidates.
History shows that Srila
Prabhupada did actually put in action these plans. He did set up senior
men to 'gradually be initiators'. Firstly he had devotees such as
Gaurasundara and Kirtanananda chant on new initiates beads. Then more
devotees such as Brahmananda and Achyutananda got involved, often
performing the fire yajna too. Eventually, as the Movement became large
and greater numbers of new disciples were requiring initiation, all
these ceremonial functions were performed by Srila Prabhupada's more
senior disciples. This is what the word 'gradually' must be referring
to. 'Gradually' they were given more and more of the ceremony to
perform until on July 9th 1977 Srila Prabhupada delegated FULL
responsibility for accepting and initiating new disciples to 11
ritviks. At no stage was there ever any question as to whom the
disciples belonged. They were all Srila Prabhupada's disciples. The
ritviks WERE initiators. They were initiators on Srila
Prabhupada's behalf. We want to know how they themselves became diksa
gurus. The quote in question sheds no light on this matter whatsoever.
- In the quoted conversation
Srila Prabhupada is referring to how he wanted the GBC's to act
imminently. Although the word 'gradually' is used, there is no
mention of Srila Prabhupada's departure needing to occur before they
could act as initiators. Thus he could only be talking about them
acting in a representational manner.
- The very term 'gradually'
rules out the possibility that Srila Prabhupada could have been talking
about what was to happen IMMEDIATELY after his departure.
- he very second Srila
Prabhupada left the planet the ritviks believed themselves authorised
diksa gurus. One second is not 'gradual', it is immediate. It makes no
sense to say you gradually immediately become a diksa guru.
However, the fact that the
ritvik system was 'gradually' developed over a number of years is just
historical fact. Thus Srila Prabhupada must have been speaking of GBC's
who would gradually act as initiators on his behalf.
- It should also be pointed
out that there is a vast difference between the qualification necessary
to act as a diksa guru, and that needed to become a GBC member
A GBC member is voted into office.
A diksa guru must be a
maha-bhagavat, and must NOT be appointed or approved by some
ecclesiastical convention or mundane voting procedure. (for supporting
evidence see 'The
To link diksa guru status to any
practising devotee who happens to have some managerial acumen is
unsupported by Srila Prabhupada's teachings, though one could argue he
might make a good ritvik.
- In this conversation Srila
will be initiators. AT LEAST FIRST INITIATION'.
If Srila Prabhupada was talking
about diksa activity post-departure why would he even consider limiting
these 'initiators' to only first initiation? Remember as fully-fledged
Diksa Gurus, they would now be 'the sum total of all the demi-gods',
and it is nonsensical to even think that they should be
restricted from giving brahmin initiation.
Who would do second initiation?
How would it be decided when they
might be ready to do second initiation if Srila Prabhupada had already
We wonder if these questions have
even occurred to the mighty army of CHAKRA. Certainly this statement
can only be made sense of in a pre-departure context, namely the
gradual delegation of ceremonial function to representatives who may
eventually perform all procedures on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.
To summarise our points for quote
Now for the second quote which
appeared on CHAKRA:
- The term 'initiator' can
be readily applied to a ritvik, since he initiates on Srila
Prabhupada's behalf, and indeed Srila Prabhupada had previously spoken
in this way.
- History supports our
interpretation of the term 'gradually' and can relate only to the
setting up of a proxy, representational, officiating or ritvik system.
- The conversation is not
restricted to GBC duties post-departure, and therefore their
'initiating' duty can only be representational, since otherwise it
would violate 'the law of disciplic succession' which the GBC accept as
a very important principle.
- The term 'gradually' rules out 'immediately
after departure' which is what the GBC have always claimed; namely
that the 11 ritviks were authorised to initiate one split second after
Srila Prabhupada's departure.
- The qualification of a diksa
guru is way beyond that required of a GBC member (with all due
respect), therefore Srila Prabhupada must only have been expecting them
to act as humble representatives.
- The fact that Srila Prabhupada
would even consider limiting these 'initiators' to first initiation
only, proves they were never intended to be fully fledged diksa gurus.
22, 1973 in London on
Prabhupada's Vyasa Puja day:
so-called philosopher, scientist's knowledge is always imperfect. The
perfect knowledge can be received through this parampara system. From
Krishna, Krishna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasa, Vyasa to
Madhvacarya. In this way, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, six Gosvames, then
our Guru Maharaja, in this way. And our business is just to present
whatever we have heard. This is very important point.
[ ... rest of
quote is quite long, and can be seen on Chakra's website ... ]
you become spiritual master. That's all."
So I hope that all
of you, men, women, boys and girls, become spiritual master, and follow
this principle. Spiritual master, simply, sincerely, follow the
principles and speak to the general public. Then Krishna immediately
becomes your favourite. Krishna does not become your favourite; you
become Krishna's favourite. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita, na ca
tasmad manunyenu kaccin me priya-kattamau: "One who is doing this
humble service of preaching work, Krishna consciousness, nobody is dearer
than him to Me." So if you want to become recognized by Krishna very
quickly, you take up this process of becoming spiritual master, present
the Bhagavad-gita as it is. Your life is perfect. Thank you very much. (end)
Of course no-one is complaining
that all this wonderful new material is coming to light. We are very
grateful to the archives for all their painstaking work. However does
this quote revoke the ritvik system and set up the M.A.S.S. We think
not for the following reasons.
- Again this quote was not
available prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure, but rather some 26
years later, and can thus only be used as SUPPORTIVE evidence. But
supporting what exactly? The May 28th tape is currently inadmissible,
and it was the dubious interpretation of this tape which formed the
very foundation of the GBC's position on gurus within ISKCON for the
last twenty years.
- Nowhere in the above lecture
does Srila Prabhupada ever mention the term 'diksa', or the term
'initiate' or 'initiation'. This is a vital pre-requisite to any
evidence meant to supplant or modify the final order on initiation.
Everyone already accepts that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his disciples
to become gurus or teachers. That is not what is at issue here.
- Srila Prabhupada repeats the
'amara' verse when describing the type of gurus he is authorising: "He
says, amara ajnaya. "Whatever I say, amara ajnaya, by My order, you
become a spiritual master." As is explained in the paper 'Best not to accept disciples' this
only refer to siksa or instructing guru.
- Srila Prabhupada is encouraging
devotees there and then to act as guru. There is no mention of them
only acting in this capacity after his departure. Therefore he must
have been ordering siksa or vartma pradasaka gurus since to do
otherwise would violate the 'law of disciplic succession' the GBC are
so fond of.
- There is no mention of the
necessity of first attaining maha-bhagavata status before
acting as guru, a vital pre-requisite for diksa (C.c. Madhya,
24.330, purport). Therefore Srila Prabhupada can only have been
ordering teachers or instructing gurus.
- Throughout the passage Srila
Prabhupada constantly stresses how easy it is to be the type of guru he
is ordering; how anyone can do it- even a rascal:
is the bona fide
spiritual master. And that is very easy. To become spiritual master is
not very difficult thing. You'll have to become spiritual master. You,
all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master. It is not
There is no mention that one must
first attain the topmost platform of
devotional service, or receive a majority vote from a committee in
Mayapur. Thus we fail to see how this can be authorising bona fide
diksa gurus, what to speak of the concocted M.A.S.S., currently in
operation within ISKCON.
I hope that all of
you, men, women, boys and girls, become spiritual master, and follow
this principle. Spiritual master, simply, sincerely, follow the
principles and speak to the general public".
If the GBC really believe this
passage is referring to diksa, how is it there are no female or child
initiating acaryas in ISKCON?
In conclusion, the GBC will need
to equip their army with more effective weaponry than this if they have
any hope of defeating the ritvik position. All glories to Srila
The champions of Krishna's army
have recently unleashed onto their web site yet another newly found
conversation with the aim of damaging the ritvik position. Although the
GBC clearly hope this new evidence will prove that Srila Prabhupada
authorised all of his 10,000 disciples to be diksa gurus immediately on
his departure, in actuality it hits well wide of the mark, as we shall
now attempt to demonstrate.
analyse the new quote's content please consider the following:
- Practically every single quote
offered by the GBC so far in support of their M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya
successor system) are applicable only to SIKSA gurus, or teachers of
Krishna Consciousness, not DIKSA gurus. This point has already been
established in previous papers such as "The Final Order"
and "Best Not To Accept Disciples".
of answering this objection the GBC instead choose to present further
quotes which do nothing more than re-confirm a fact which everyone on
both sides of the issue already agree on. Namely that Srila Prabhupada
wanted all his followers to teach Krishna Consciousness, and in that
way become instructing gurus. The GBC, or in this case their 'friends',
seem to be hoping that by merely re-stating a position everyone already
agrees with, they will somehow convince devotees not to follow Srila
Prabhupada's final order regarding DIKSA initiation (the July 9th
policy document). Thus we apologise to the reader if our arguments now
appear repetitive - until the GBC answer our points, or come up with
evidence which is actually relevant to the issue at hand, we are left
with no other option but to expose their fallacious and misleading
- Also, as we pointed out in 'Chakra's Army Fires Blanks',
these quotes have only just been found, they are approximately 20 years
too late to be considered as DIRECT evidence confirming the GBC's
legitimacy in disbanding the ritvik system. Such quotes could
be used SUPPORTIVELY should the GBC ever discover an instruction that
was sent to the whole society prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure
authorising the M.A.S.S., currently in operation within ISKCON. So we
are left asking where these authorising quotes, supporting a system
that has been in operation (in one form or another) for the last twenty
years, might be ?
- If such quotes or policy
documents DO exist, then this new quote would not change anything, so
why make such an issue of it?
- If there are NO general
instructions to the whole society authorising the M.A.S.S. then it is
just totally unbelievable that Srila Prabhupada would only have
mentioned it in passing, and then leave the statement to be discovered
by chance some 26 years later, and at least twenty years too late.
Prabhupada HAD issued a clear directive to ISKCON's leaders
authorising ALL his disciples to initiate on their own behalf
immediately after his departure; how is it that everyone believed he
had only authorised eleven diksa gurus in May 1977? This belief was
obstinately defended by all of ISKCON's senior most champions,
including those now writing for Chakra, for nearly an entire decade.
How could such a mistake have been made if the instructions for the
M.A.S.S. were so clear- even as early as 1972 ? (the date of the
new quote). As with so much that appears on this particular web
site, it just doesn't add up.
Let us now examine
the content of the new quote. Since it is available in full on Chakra
we shall only re-produce a couple of sections (once more we thank
the archives for their painstaking work):
"So far designation is concerned, the
authorises every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to
carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual
master is partial and he designates one and rejects other. He may do
that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. (...) If you are
incapable of raising yourself to the standard of becoming spiritual
master, that is not your spiritual master's fault, that is your fault.
He wants, just like Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya guru hana,
"By My order, every one of you become a guru." If one cannot carry out
the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, then how he can become a guru? The
first qualification is that he must be able to carry out the order of
Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Then he becomes guru. So that carrying out the
order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu depends on one's personal capacity. Amara
ajnaya guru hana...."
(Room Conversation, 29/6/72)
In the above quote, as with many
ones, Srila Prabhupada clearly links the type of guru he is authorising
to the famous 'amara ajnaya' verse. However this verse actually
only encourages teachers/preacher, vartma-pradasaka gurus, as the
Caitanya Mahaprabhu... Yare dekha tare kaha 'krsna'-upadesa: "You
become guru. No qualification required. Simply you repeat what Krishna
has said." Just see how simplified. Don't talk anything nonsense. Yare
dekha tare kaha 'krsna'--bas. So who cannot do it? Anyone can do it,
even a child. (laughs) Our Syamasundara's daughter. She was preaching,
"Do you know Krishna?" They said, "No I have got no..." "The Supreme
Personality." This is preaching, simply if you say that "Krishna is the
Supreme Personality, supreme controller. Just be obedient to Him."
Where is the difficulty? Anyone can preach. Chant Hare Krishna. Bas.
Three words: Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead; surrender
unto Him; and chant Hare Krishna. Your life will be successful. What is
the difficulty in preaching these three words? Hm? Is there any
difficulty? Even a child like Sarasvati, she can preach. Then what to
speak of others? Those who are educated, grown-up, advanced, they can
put the matter more nicely, more convincingly, more philosophically.
That is another thing. But these three words, that "Krishna is the
Supreme Lord; you are servant; and chant Hare Krishna"--bas, preaching
complete. Very simple thing and the sublime instruction. Everyone can
become guru by simply teaching these three words."
Conversation, Puri, 25/1/77)
(Further evidence for Lord
Caitanya's order referring to preacher/vartma-pradaksa-guru is given in
and "Best Not To Accept
At the time
of the above conversation Sarasvati was only 8 years old. Following the
GBC's reasoning on the new quote, they must obviously believe that
Srila Prabhupada was then and there telling a small infant to accept
disciples and good as God worship - (nowhere in these quotes does
he tell the prospective gurus to wait till after his departure before
they act, or even to hold on till they get a bit older). Can it
really be true that on all these numerous occasions Srila Prabhupada
was really ordering everyone, even tiny eight year old girls, to give
first and second initiation to new bhaktas? If Srila Prabhupada WAS
doing this then it seems strange that he remained the only initiating
guru in ISKCON right up until his departure.
Sadly, as far as
we know, Sarsavati is no longer active in Krishna Consciousness.
Nevertheless it is clear that at the time of this conversation she was
definitely a guru according to Srila Prabhupada. But is an 8 year old
girl who need only preach 3 words, and who later maybe no longer active
in Krishna Consciousness, the following type of Guru...?
"A bona fide
spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and
he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord."
"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
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330,
"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."
...We think not. Thus it is shown
that the term `guru' does not always refer to DIKSA Guru.
Diksa gurus are rare and exceptional, whereas anyone- man, woman or
child can become an INSTRUCTING guru.
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330,
Thus it is
clear that there are definitely different types of 'guru'. In addition
to a Diksa Guru, Srila Prabhupada mentions two other types of
"There are two
kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person
fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he
who invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant
instructions". (C:C, Adi,
Thus the kind of
guru that Sarasvati was, and the one that Srila Prabhupada always
speaks of, who is minimally qualified and simply repeats '3 words', who
is referred to by 'amara ajnaya guru hana', is "he who
invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant
word 'guru' or phrase 'spiritual master' does not generally refer to
diksa, the following guidelines will make it clear which type of guru
Srila Prabhupada can be referring to on any given occasion?
- Definitely being referred to:
- The context that the word
'guru' is used in will contain the terms 'diksa' or 'initiating'.
- The quote will make clear that
the guru will only function in their particular capacity after Srila
Prabhupada's physical departure.
- It will be made clear that the
gurus are to initiate on their own behalf, not act as ritviks or
- The guru will be described as
having already attained the topmost platform of devotional service.
When any of the elements below appear in a quote
we know the guru in question is definitely NOT a diksa
- The qualification described
will be very basic - just preaching and teaching. Anyone can do it, one
only need learn three words etc. (A
diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata)
- There will be no
mention of time-constraint - this is a vital clue since the GBC accept
the principle that Srila Prabhupada would not allow diksa gurus other
than himself to operate whilst he was still physically present.
If the guru's activity is not limited to after departure we know Srila
Prabhupada was ordering him to act only in an instructing capacity.
the following elements point conclusively to siksa or instructing gurus.
then, the general use of the word `guru' on its own by Srila
Prabhupada is simply an order to be a `teacher'. That is
actually also its basic meaning. A teacher or instructing guru simply
teaches what he or she knows. Such a person does not need to be a
mahabhagavat or wait till his own guru leaves the planet or any such
thing. He can just tell other people that Krishna is God, bas. If the
GBC would simply apply the above criteria to any future quotes they
uncover they would save themselves, and everyone else, a great deal of
time and embarrassment. (The handful of isolated incidents where Srila
Prabhupada does specifically refer to Diksa (Tusta Krishna etc) are
dealt with in `The
order' and `Best Not To Accept
- The context that the word 'guru'
is used in will contain the terms siksa or instructing.
- There will be no time
constraints on when the guru can act.
- The 'amara ajnaya'
verse will be mentioned.
- The qualification needed is
basic, linked to preaching and following strictly, but not to any
specific level of realisation (e.g. prema etc).
- Instruction has wide
applicability - the prospective guru need not even be initiated
himself. (For example whilst lecturing in India Srila Prabhupada
would often order entire audiences of uninitiated people to become guru
then and there).
When we look
again at the new quote offered on Chakra we observe the following:
- No time constraints are
- Only one qualification is
needed: he is a devotee of God, that's all.
- The 'amara ajnaya' verse is
quote cannot be used to displace a system specifically set up to
facilitate diksa initiation (ritvik), since the type of gurus being
discussed, designated and ordered into being by Srila Prabhupada are
instructing/teacher/siksa/vartma pradarsaka gurus, NOT
diksa gurus. In other words the quote is irrelevant to the issue at
hand. In our humble opinion the GBC will hit their target more readily
by applying the above mentioned criteria to any future evidence they
might wish to present. In the meantime it would seem that the final
order still stands.
All glories to
Champions Evade Combat
CHAKRA recently posted a brief
item entitled - 'VNN Refutes Srila Prabhupada?' - a supposed rebuttal
of - 'Chakra's Army Fires Blanks' -
an article earlier posted on VNN. Unfortunately rather than deal with
the content of the article, CHAKRA substitutes character assassination
for proper philosophical argument. This is interesting, in that it
appears to be an admission that they can not actually answer the points
made in the article. Instead they enlist an anonymous 'champion' to
state the following:
reflects typical Krishnakant writing. I have already tried to have a
dialogue with him, but it is impossible. His trick is to keep you busy
unravelling his twisty-turny logic, and this way you have no time to
really say anything because you are always too busy explaining he is
Does CHAKRA then make an attempt
to show why the article in question is "typical" of "twisty-turny"
logic or why it is "illogical". No such luck I'm afraid. In
fact the only part of the above statement they are actually able to
demonstrate is that they do indeed not - "really say anything",
although one assumes they would have had ample time! Also THEY
are the ones who now seem to lack the capability "to have a
The anonymous 'champion'
then enlists the help of an anonymous 'friend' to try
and further belittle the author. The main point, which was curiously a
great source of mirth for him and his nameless friend, relates to Srila
Prabhupada's use of the phrase '...they will be initiators'. He
seems to feel this phrase alone somehow justified the GBC's dismantling
of the officiating acarya system, which was personally put in place by
His Divine Grace with no countermanding order for it's termination.
Unfortunately these valiant warriors have overlooked the simple fact
that ritviks ARE initiators; but they initiate on Srila
Prabhupada's behalf! This point of course is conclusively demonstrated
in the article in question. The very article they refuse to answer.
We would encourage this
particular anonymous 'champion' to actually ANSWER the
points made in 'Chakra's Army Fires Blanks', in particular to
provide evidence to support modifications A & B as mentioned in 'The Final Order'. If
cannot do this, then simply resorting to childish insult will not
impress anyone. The anonymous champion complains that my arguments are
full of 'twisty-turny logic'. I sincerely hope the above is not too
complicated for him. For now it seems that CHAKRA'S inability to offer
any argumentation based on philosophy, proves that CHAKRA'S Army are
now no longer even "Firing blanks", but have run out of
Feb 20 - The GBC mouthpiece web
site CHAKRA constantly posts
articles that systematically misrepresent the IRM position on Srila
Prabhupada's rightful status as ISKCON's diksa guru. This
misrepresentation must be deliberate since, although we have repeatedly
pointed it out, they have never once apologized or written a
retraction. Following the GBC's latest horrendously misjudged
resolutions there has been a flurry of articles by MASS adherents all
seeking to jump on the ritvik bashing bandwagon.
As readers will know, the one thing all the GBC approved authors whose
papers we have critiqued share in common, is a pathological incapacity
to present what we actually say. Instead they present endless straw man
arguments, and defeat them instead. They will say 'ritviks say this' or
'ritviks say that' but practically never quote from any of our papers
on the authorized IRG web site. They feel they can get away with it
because CHAKRA's dishonest editorial policy never allows its readers to
read any response. It is becoming quite tedious to have to keep
pointing this out, but we find it hard not to speak out when devotees
are being deliberately deceived on practically a daily basis. Looking
at just two of these recent items perfectly illustrates our point.
For instance, Danavir Goswami's whole paper is based on the premise
that the 'ritviks' want to 'eliminate' or 'jump' the process of diksa.
Of course he never quotes us proposing such a thing, because we never
It is pure fabrication and lies, as he very well knows. Our position is
that diksa must go on in an authorized form, and that ISKCON's diksa
guru is Srila Prabhupada. Thus it is the GBC, not us, who have sought
to eliminate the bona fide, authorized diksa guru and replace him with
inferior models who cannot even honestly present another persons
Virtually all of his paper is full of such deceitful 'straw man'
Bhadra Balaram does the same thing in his most recent article. His
whole paper rests on the allegation that we insist that an 'order' from
Srila Prabhupada must have the word 'order' in it. Again we have never
Thus we would urge those who venture into CHAKRA's treacherous web to
adopt the following checklist next time they read something that is
supposed to be 'defeating' the 'ritvik theory'.
- Does the paper in question
produce any quotes from an IRM paper?
- If so, does the quote
actually support the proposition they are trying to 'defeat'?
If 1 and 2 are not present then
they are not addressing the issue at hand, and their paper does not
actually move the issue forward, and thus can be discarded. In this way
the vast majority of CHAKRA's items on this matter can be best stored
in the circular file.