We continue to document via our papers and Back To Prabhupada (BTP) magazine, how it is virtually impossible for any of the guru hoaxers to speak anything but contradictory gibberish any time they try and justify the guru hoax.

However even by the low standards exhibited by the ISKCON guru hoaxers, His Holiness Kadamba Kanana Swami (KKS) has achieved a new low with a lecture he gave on 20/3/2007 at the ISKCON Czech Republic farm, not far from Prague, where he attempted to address the “ritvik” issue.

As we will detail, in virtually every sentence he speaks, he makes an error. This demonstrates that far from being a self-realised spiritual master, he is unable to even speak coherently on a subject he should know inside out since he claims he is an authorised ISKCON diksa guru.Having been thoroughly exposed speaking nonsense on the guru issue via letters he sent in October 2006, (please see evidence of this here:


KKS obviously had not learned his lesson by going ahead and speaking even more nonsense in the lecture in question. Excerpts from his lecture shall be enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with our responses following underneath.

“There are some devotees, they become ritviks. They don’t have brains. They may have a good heart, and in one sense they may be nice people. But brains they don’t have.  It’s very unfortunate.”

KKS begins by contradicting his own spiritual master, HH Jayadvaita Maharaja, who stated about ritviks that:

“But some, it's equally clear, are sincere, intelligent, thoughtful, and devoted to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna.”

(“Where the Ritviks are Right”, Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)

So though KKS has declared that by definition all ritviks have no brains, his own spiritual master disagrees!

“Because they are just like people who think ‘I don’t need a doctor.  I’ll cure myself.’  And they have a serious disease they think, ‘Oh, I’ll do it myself’.  That’s ridiculous.”

What is ridiculous is KKS simply making up what he claims is our position. We take Srila Prabhupada as our “doctor”, and KKS claims this is the same as saying we take no doctor. Just because we do not wish to take KKS as our “doctor”, does not mean we are rejecting the need for a doctor. Rather we wish to take as a doctor, someone whom HH Bhakti Caru Swami claims is the best “doctor” possible:

“Why do we hesitate to tell a newcomer who is searching for a guru that Srila Prabhupada, the best guru the world has ever seen, is still here, and one can surrender unto him and go back to Godhead very easily?”

(HH Bhakti Charu Swami, Srila Prabhupada’s Disappearance Day, October 31st, 2000)

So KKS’s gibberish is so bad, its not even supported by his guru hoaxer colleagues!

“If someone says. ‘You have cancer’, are you going to doctor yourself?  If the fever starts going higher and higher and higher, and it goes over 40 degrees, and it’s late at night, you get a little worried.  You start to think, ‘Maybe I’m going to die.  Doctor, quick, quick, quick!’.  Then you want a doctor.  But some people in spiritual life, they think ‘No, I will doctor myself’.  Those people are called ‘ritviks’.  Or ‘nitwiks’.  Yah, I call them ‘nitwiks’.  People who know nothing.  What to do?”

As we have just seen, KKS thinks that accepting the “best” spiritual master is the same as having NO spiritual master. Thus he is a “nitwik” or some one who knows nothing. What to do? 

“That is sad.  That is sad.  They’re missing the boat.  It’s just like, imagine someone from Czech who has no experience in sailing on the ocean.  He says, ‘I’m gonna get a boat and I’m going to row across the Atlantic ocean.  No brains.  You need an expert captain.  You need a decent ship.  You need somebody who knows what he’s doing.  So those who think that they can be their own spiritual master, yes they can do that.”

As we have seen it is KKS who is missing the boat, rejecting Srila Prabhupada as a bona fide spiritual master who can take us across the ocean of material life. That is sad, that is sad.

“But I learned one thing from my spiritual master.  And he taught me, he said ‘Someone who becomes his own spiritual master, he has a fool for a disciple.’  This is the nature of unfortunate people.”

The biggest fool is one who thinks Srila Prabhupada is not available as a spiritual master, and that accepting him as a spiritual master is the same as having no spiritual master. This is the nature of unfortunate people.

“So therefore Narada Muni is especially stressing what it takes to be a disciple; that one must render service to the spiritual master in a humble, submissive mood.  Tad viddhi pranipatena (quotes Bg 4:34).  ‘One should submissively inquire from the spiritual master, render service to him.  The spiritual master can impart knowledge because he has seen the truth.’  Bhagavad-gita 4:34.  So that is the attitude of a disciple.”

Yes, and again, even his senior guru hoaxer colleagues are admitting that this spiritual master is none other than Srila Prabhupada:

“Q: “In Bhagavad-gita Krishna tells us to surrender to the spiritual master. Although in the temple we receive guidance from many senior devotees, still somehow the relation between the guru and disciple is very unique. We have the relation with the temple president and other temple authorities to guide and correct us as spiritual masters, but sometimes we can’t connect with them in the same way.”

A: “ … Now let us come to your point. Yes, devotees need a qualified spiritual master, and I will say in ISKCON we have the most qualified spiritual master who is Srila Prabhupada. And everyone in ISKCON is meant to represent Srila Prabhupada. In ISKCON who is the ultimate spiritual master? You need a spiritual master, but who is that spiritual master? It is Srila Prabhupada.”

(HH Bhakti Charu Swami Disciples Meeting, August 1st, 2007)

Yet KKS has just claimed that to accept such a spiritual master is to have no spiritual master at all!

“Not easy. Not easy to become a disciple, especially for us in this age of Kali.  It’s a big challenge … Lifetime practise.  So this is what this purport and this verse of Bhagavatam is trying to encourage; to teach us how to be a humble, surrendered disciple.”

At the same time as claiming it is not easy to become a disciple, and that it requires a “lifetime practise”, apparently to become a self-realised spiritual master is much simpler, since KKS became one after being a devotee for less than 25 years.

”But, you know, many papers have been written and have been published by the GBC body.  Papers are there like “Where the Ritviks Are Wrong”.  Many different papers in response to whatever philosophy is presented.  So I think they should be translated, since the other papers - the ones that they have - they are translated, so we should also give the counterarguments.”

1) Every GBC paper has been rebutted, so how is recycling already rebutted papers offering counter-arguments? Surely, offering counter-arguments to our papers would entail actually writing papers that counter our papers, rather than just offering the very papers which the IRM papers are themselves countering!

2) And if KKS believes that one should offer counter-arguments to what we say, why doesn’t he follow his own advice and offer them? As we have seen he has not offered any counter-arguments to the IRM position, preferring instead to simply fabricate that our position is to have no spiritual master at all.

“I mean it’s quite simple, there’s a conversation of May 28 with Srila Prabhupada and some leading sannyasi disciples.  Satsvarupa Maharaja is asking the questions.  He’s asking ‘So what will happen with the initiations after you leave?’.”

Yes it is quite simple because when Satsvarupa Maharaja asks this question, Srila Prabhupada gives a definitive answer:

Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us.  We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted.
Srila Prabhupada:
Yes.  I shall recommend some of you.  After this is settled up.  I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.
Tamal Krsna:
Is that called ritvik acarya?
Srila Prabhupada:
ritvik. Yes.

(May 28th, 1977, Room conversation)

Yet for KKS what is “simple” about this conversation is that he has simply rejected it, claiming that Srila Prabhupada did not appoint ritviks for after he leaves, even though this is what Srila Prabhupada states, as can be seen clearly from the above.

“No, it doesn’t start there.  It starts with Tamala Krishna Maharaja speaking, talking about the ritvik system; about devotees being initiated on behalf of Srila Prabhupada.  And, so this is meant to go on.  Prabhupda is ill and he’s saying ‘Now, now some senior men, they can do, they can do.’  He gives a few names.”

1) Now KKS wanders off into the realm of fantasy. Tamala Krishna Maharaja had never spoken before this conversation on May 28th, 1977, about the “ritvik system, about devotees being initiated on behalf of Srila Prabhupada”.

2) It would appear that KKS is possibly alluding to the conversation held a full 40 days after May 28th, on July 7th, for in this conversation Srila Prabhupada does “give a few names”, 9 to be precise. But in KKS’s fantasy world, a conversation held 40 days after something is actually the same as being held before it! He has no idea how and when the discussions started or stopped, and therefore it is not surprising that he does not know what was said in these conversations either.

3) In any case KKS states that this ritvik system is “meant to go on”.

Here he unwittingly states the IRM’s whole case –“so this is meant to go on”!

“Then Satsvarupa Maharaja is asking, ‘And what will happen after your departure?’”

No as we just saw, Satsvarupa does NOT ask this next, or “then”. He actually asked this 40 days earlier! 

“And Prabhupada said, ‘Then, then these men, then they will do’.”

1) Now KKS contradicts himself. Just 2 sentences ago he had claimed Srila Prabhupada spoke the above when the discussions “starts”, and THEN Satsvarupa had asked his question. Now he says Srila Prabhupada stated the above in RESPONSE to the question!

KKS has therefore managed to contradict himself in the very next sentence, demonstrating he has absolutely no clue what he is speaking about, and is just making it up as he goes along.

2) And in any case, in response to what “Satsvarupa Maharaja is asking, ‘And what will happen after your departure?’ ” Srila Prabhupada does not give the answer above as KKS claims, since Srila Prabhupada did not start naming the men until 40 days later. Rather as quoted earlier, Srila Prabhupada immediately answers the question from Satsvarupa by saying that he will be setting up ritviks to conduct initiations.

So KKS is in a complete muddle here. He has no idea what was said when, and in response to what.

“Then Satsvarupa Maharaja is asking, ‘Well, whose disciple will they be?’  Prabhupada is saying ‘his disciple’.  So then the ritvik philosophers they’re saying ‘When Prabhupada said ‘his disciple’ he was speaking about himself in the third tense, ‘his disciple’.  Because Prabhupada would sometimes do that, instead of ‘I’ he would say ‘we’.’ It’s a total nonsense argument.  In Hindi, I speak Hindi, mai Hindi boltha hu, it is quite common in Hindi that when you speak respectful Hindi that you use “aham”, “we”, when you speak about yourself; ‘We are here’ – that you can do.  But since when did Prabhupada say, ‘Please bring his shoes’?”

As already seen, KKS has no clear idea about what Srila Prabhupada said when, rather for him it is just a one big jumble. He continues in this vein here, jumping straight to the last part of the May 28th conversation. Earlier we noted that KKS had conveniently left out the opening part of this conversation where Srila Prabhupada states he will appoint ritviks to conduct initiations in response to the question from Satsvarupa about what will after his departure. KKS also leaves out the next part of the conversation which goes like this:

So they may be considered your disciples?
Srila Prabhupada:
Yes, they are disciples, why consider ...  who

(May 28th conversation, 1977)

So the conversation has already established that ritviks will carry out initiations after Srila Prabhupada departs, and those initiated will be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. This is the clear context to the part of the conversation KKS jumps to now, and having just established these two points, Srila Prabhupada is hardly going to suddenly contradict himself with his very next sentence, just because KKS himself does this as we saw earlier! And Srila Prabhupada’s very next sentence goes like this:

Tamal Krsna:
No. He is asking that these ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa, their ...  the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?
Srila Prabhupada:
They are his disciples.
Tamal Krsna:
They are his disciples.
Srila Prabhupada:
Who is initiating ...  his grand disciple ...

(May 28th, 1977, room conversation)

1) Having already established that he will appoint ritviks, and that they will be his disciples, Srila Prabhupada now answers that:

“They are his disciples who is initiating”

So the disciples belong to the person who is initiating, which as we already saw would be Srila Prabhupada, since he said he will only appoint ritviks, and the disciples would be his. And the question makes this distinction clear, since it states that the ritviks will be officiating, and Srila Prabhupada answers that instead the disciples will belong to the person who is initiating.

2) In addition the question asks about the ritviks in the plural – “these ritvik acaryas” – but Srila Prabhupada’s answer refers only to a singular entity – the person who is initiating - rather than the plural officiators asked about, the ritviks.

3) And the idea that Srila Prabhupada would never answer this question in the 3rd person, even though he was asked it in the 3rd person, is contradicted by the very next words he speaks:

“his grand disciple”

Clearly the “his” here can only refer to Srila Prabhupada, because it is not possible for the ritviks, his disciples, to already have their own grand-disciples!

Note: to get around this problem, the GBC now claim that Srila Prabhupada actually says “He is grand disciple”, despite the fact that on the tape anyone can hear that only one word, rather than two, is spoken. But this makes their position worse, because then they would be claiming that Srila Prabhupada says:

“They are his disciples who is initiating, he is grand-disciple”

So how can the person “who is initiating” also be the “grand-disciple”! And how can the ritvik, be both the owner of disciples and also become the grand-disciple at the same time – “his disciples” and “he is grand-disciple”!?

4) In addition, if we were to accept KKS’s argument that Srila Prabhupada is here saying that the ritviks would be having disciples, we noted earlier this would contradict what Srila Prabhupada has just said, since he said they will be his disciples, and by definition a ritvik does not have disciples, only a guru does. And this is confirmed by KKS himself :

ritvik would mean that the disciples would not be my disciples, but would be Jayadvaita Maharaja’s disciples, and that I would initiate on his behalf”

(KKS, Interview, 27/04/08)

So having told us clearly that ritvik would mean that they do not have their own disciples, how can KKS simultaneously claim that the ritviks mentioned in the May 28th conversation would have their own disciples?

5) In addition to claiming Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself and also contradicting himself, KKS would also be contradicting the entire GBC if he claimed that Srila Prabhupada is here saying that the ritviks would have disciples. Because Srila Prabhupada appointed the 11 ritviks – as can be seen from the July 9th directive, where he names 11 of them. If it is now claimed that Srila Prabhuapda is saying that the 11 ritviks he appointed would initiate their own disciples, then KKS is claiming effectively that 11 people were appointed to initiate their own disciples – a discredited theory, part of the “zonal acarya hoax”, which was long rejected by the GBC.

So the choice before us is clear. If the “his” refers to Srila Prabhupada then:

  1. It is consistent with everything Srila Prabhupada would have just said in the conversation about only ritviks being appointed to officiate on his behalf after his departure and the disciples being his.
  2. It is consistent with the question asking about plural ritviks officiating, whereas the answer refers to a singular initiator  - which could only be Srila Prabhupada.
  3. It is consistent with Srila Prabhupada speaking in the third person with the very next words “his grand-disciple”.

On the other hand if the “his” is supposed to refer to the ritviks then:

  1. It would mean Srila Prabhupada would be contradicting everything he just said about the disciples being his and only ritviks being appointed, who by definition do not have disciples. This habit of contradicting oneself in the very next sentence is, as we saw earlier, one that KKS has, but KKS should not project his nonsensical habits onto Srila Prabhupada.
  2. It would mean that KKS is also contradicting his own assertion elsewhere that by definition a ritvik does not have disciples.
  3. It would mean KKS is also contradicting the GBC’s current stance that Srila Prabhupada did not appoint 11 people who will initiate their own disciples.
  4. It would also mean that KKS is claiming that the ritviks are simultaneously initiating disciples and also becoming grand-disciples, and the person who is the owner of the disciples is also the grand-disciple! 
“So May 28, there’s this conversation about the whole thing.  And the ritviks in their paper they give an indirect interpretation of what it means.  In the conversation it says ‘His disciples’, Prabhupada is saying ‘His disciples’, and the ritviks say that means that Prabhupada means ‘My disciples’.  Are baba!  That’s one point.  That’s ridiculous.  That’s why I say no brains.”

As we just saw, Srila Prabhupada already agreed they are his disciples:

“Satsvarupa: So they may be considered your disciples?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples, why consider ...  who”

(May 28th conversation, 1977)

What would be ridiculous would be to accept that Srila Prabhupada then contradicts himself with his very next words. Anyone who claims this has no brains”.

“And then you have July 9th. It’s a letter written by Tamala Krishna Maharaja as the secretary.  And he writes a word “henceforth”. 

Well actually he writes, “henceforward”. It means the same thing, but KKS should at least try and be accurate. But then why change a habit of a lifetime now?!

“So you know if you look in the dictionary the word “henceforth” means “from now on”. So the ritviks say the word “henceforth” means “from now on”.  And Prabhupada didn’t give any counter order.  So that means “forever”.”

We have never claimed “henceforward” ends up meaning “forever”. We only claim it means “from now on”. And the fact that there is no counter-order means we can’t stop Srila Prabhupada’s directive for ISKCON without authorisation to do so! So again KKS makes up what he claims we say, just as he earlier claimed we say you need no spiritual master.

“And that’s it, that’s your proof?  And we don’t see anything in Prabhupada’s books about it?  And Prabhupada says in 1977 in his last days, “Everything is in my books”.  He instructs, it’s there also recorded, Prabhupada said, “I have nothing more to say.  Everything is in my books.”

1) In Srila Prabhupada’s books, the ONLY system of initiation mentioned for ISKCON is the same one that was present when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, where a temple president recommends a candidate, representatives are used, and one automatically becomes an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada:

"Due to the necessity of these activities, we do not immediately initiate disciples in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.  For six months, a candidate for initiation must first attend arati and classes in the sastras, practice the regulative principles and associate with other devotees.  When one is actually advanced in the purascarya-vidhi, he is recommended by the local temple president for initiation.

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 15:108, purport, A. C.  Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

Then he is given the name of a Vaisnava servant and initiated to chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, at least sixteen rounds daily.  In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representative for at least six months to a year.  He is then recommended for a second initiation, during which a sacred thread is offered and the disciple is accepted as a bona fide brahmana."

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 24:330, purport, A.C.  Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

2) The books mention no system of initiation for ISKCON whereby the GBC will vote in gurus, or ritviks will have disciples etc., which is what KKS is proposing. So by his own argument, that “everything is in the books”, the only valid system of initiation for ISKCON can be the one which was present when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, and no other, since no other initiation system for ISKCON is mentioned in the books.

“And the whole system of guru-disciple is in the books.  And on the basis of some sentences which they twist left and right, they say ‘No, Prabhupada had another system than in the books.”

Yes the whole system is there. And it never mentions the system proposed by KKS, that Srila Prabhupada will appoint ritviks who will initiate their own disciples, and that this is how the disciplic succession will continue!

“Nice that you want to believe, but it’s not proof.  You cannot say that this is proof.  You have to twist one conversation, and you have to make a big thing out of one word – ‘from now on’.”

The proof is there directly from Srila Prabhupada. You can either take it from the books, from the May 28th conversation, or the July 9th directive, and all 3 are consistent – Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks who will act as ritviks and not have their own disciples, but initiate on Srila Prabhupada’s own behalf. And KKS even agrees that this is exactly what a ritvik will do, and also that this system was “meant to go on”! KKS has nothing to counter this proof. Rather his position is so desperate, that as documented in copious detail above, he is forced to fabricate, jumble and merge snippets of conversations together, contradict himself and propose that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself as well!

“And so many times the Temple President in the morning may make an announcement, ‘from now on we’ll have mangala-aratika half-hour later, because it’s winter.  And then in the summer, ‘from now on we’ll have it half-hour earlier.’  So this is childish.  It’s actually childish.”

Its childish to compare Srila Prabhupada stating only ONE thing – that “from now one there will be a ritvik system”, with a temple president stating two different things, one superseding the other! Clearly if Srila Prabhupada had given a superseding instruction, as per KKS’s temple president example, then KKS’s example would have some relevance. The very fact that Srila Prabhupada did not supersede the ritvik system he set up with something else, means that KKS’s example simply re-inforces the very point he is trying to argue AGAINST!

“But it’s people who don’t want to surrender to authority.  It’s nice if you can be your own guru, because if you accept Prabhupada that’s easier.  He will not tell you ‘You cannot do this’.”

By this argument it means all of Srila Prabhupada 10,000 disciples, including KKS’s own guru, are also guilty of not wanting to surrender to authority for over 30 years. Because they also have not had Srila Prabhupada physically present to say you cannot do this.

“And you want to do what you want.  But if you have a living guru he will tell you ‘No.’  So it’s easier to take initiation from Prabhupada because he will not say anything.”

Again by this nonsensical logic all the 10,000 Srila Prabhupada disciples, including KKS’s own guru, should take re-initiation from a “living” guru, so that they have someone to “tell” them what to do. Yet KKS never thought that his own guru was bereft of a “living guru” for the last 30 years, and that therefore he can just do what he wants.

So more nonsense and hypocrisy.

“And why are you taking initiation anyway from Prabhupada?  Why not from Rupa Goswami?  (Adopts mocking tone): ‘I think I’ll take from Nityananda, He is after all the Adi-Guru, original spiritual master, I think I’ll take from Him.  Who are you going to take from?  Well, I always liked Sanatana Goswami, the Six Goswamis, very nice, I think I’ll have one of them.  One of the six, I can’t make up my mind yet, maybe I’ll take all six.  Why not, you know?  I mean, why can’t I have six gurus?  No brain, the ritvik people….Ah, what to do?”

KKS here demonstrates that he does not know the basics of the Krishna consciousness philosophy. Srila Prabhupada teaches that we must take initiation from the current link in the chain of disciplic succession:

“ order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession."

(S.B. 2.9.7, purport)

This current link was and is Srila Prabhupada since:

a) We are still receiving the real message of the Srimad Bhagavatam from him in EXACTLY the same way as it was received pre-77 – devotees read from Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavatam translation and purports;

b) No one to date has presented how, when and why Srila Prabhupada’s status as current link in the disciplic succession was ever changed. (Fabricating and merging snippets of different conversations don’t count!).

Hence the question of taking initiation from anyone other than the current link does not even arise - unless of course you are KKS, in which case you can just take initiation from whomever the GBC decides to make guru by voting them in.

No brain, KKS has …. Ah, what to do?

“It’s a shame.  Because sometimes there are nice devotees, people that we like, so it’s a little sad to see these things happen.  It also makes me a little sad.  Can’t we just be normal?  Spiritual life is difficult enough.  Let’s just be normal.  That’s what I think.”

Yes we should be normal, and it does make us sad to see these things happening:

  1. KKS having no idea what he is talking about and just making it up as he goes along.
  2. KKS fabricating what he claims our position is, and when and how  conversations took place.
  3. KKS contradicting himself, and claiming Srila Prabhupada must have contradicted himself as well.

And so on. This behaviour is clearly not normal – and it’s a shame, because spiritual life is difficult enough.

“Well anyway, you know, let’s see and maybe with time everything will come right.  Because it gets pretty lonely.  It gets lonely if you don’t have a living guru, because sometimes you want to ask some advice, and you have no one to ask to.  So this ritvik thing is not so nice.  So they will feel that it’s not so pleasant.”

KKS now claims that his own guru and 10,000 other Srila Prabhupada disciples are lonely and have not felt pleasant for over the last 30 years. If KKS really felt this is the case, then why did he rush to get initiated himself by such a lonely and non-pleasant feeling person? So more nonsensical hypocrisy. He clearly never engages brain before he speaks – or maybe he just has “no brains” to begin with?!


We apologise for the length of this treatise, but we were left with no option when, as we have just seen, there was an error in almost every single sentence. Sometimes our readers feel we exaggerate when we continually point out that the guru hoaxers are unable to string together even a few sentences justifying the guru hoax without speaking gibberish. One may read the above and decide for oneself if indeed this is just an exaggeration or the truth.