No Answers From Drutakarma


Jan 7 -1998 - This is in response to His Grace Drutakarma prabhu's (henceforward the 'author') latest item which appeared recently on CHAKRA entitled 'Officiating acarya=ritvik acarya=diksa Guru'. The title alone indicates the desperation of the author as he slips further into absurdity. In arguing that the terms 'ritvik acarya' and 'officiating acarya' mean 'diksa guru', the author is directly contradicting:

'The entire GBC body in 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON' (GBC)
"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 ... [...] Subsequently Srila Prabhupada named some disciples to initiate on his behalf, as he had previously stated." (GII, P14)

Here we clearly see the proxy (ritvik ) arrangement made in July being exactly the same as the "officiating acarya - is that ritvik -acarya - ritvik yes", recommendation Srila Prabhupada spoke about on May 28th. 

Thus in claiming these terms really mean 'diksa guru' the author is directly contradicting the very body he is seeking to defend. 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON' (GII) is still current GBC siddhanta with copies sent to every Temple in ISKCON. It is the very paper we were principally challenging when we wrote 'The Final Order' in the first place. For good measure the author also contradicts the following senior Vaisnavas:
His Holiness Bhakti Caru Swami Maharaja
"In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada explained the word ritvik means priests who perform a sacrifice on behalf of somebody. It is a vedic expression that means yajna purahit. They perform the sacrifice for the hota, the person who organises the sacrifice."
(Spiritual Connections, Page 6, Bhakti Caru Swami)
His Grace Ravindra Svarupa Dasa prabhu
"First of all, I'm going to appoint some people to act as officiating acaryas, around the world, to initiate on my behalf as long as I'm here, because that is the etiquette."
(ISKCON Journal, p34, Ravindra Svarupa Dasa)
His Holiness Tamala Krishna Goswami Maharaja
"He was physically incapable of performing the function of initiation physically, therefore he appointed officiating priests to initiate on his behalf."'
(Topanga Canyon Confessions)

The author is very happy to use H.H.Tamal Krishna's understanding of the July 9th letter, so why not his definition of the term 'officiating acarya'. Once more the author's hypocrisy and twisted mind-set is exposed.
Also we had hoped to focus the discussion by asking the author three simple questions, since he has previously avoided answering any of our points. We thought that in answering them the author might better clarify his thoughts and see more clearly the inferior nature of the paradigm he currently inhabits. Disappointingly he chose not to answer them. Readers will have to draw their own conclusions as to why. We shall repeat the questions again at the end of this rebuttal. We shall reproduce the bulk of the article with our comments following with quotes from our previous papers.

'Officiating acarya=ritvik acarya=diksa Guru'.

by Drutakarma Dasa I am still waiting for Bhakta Krishnakant to produce a statement where Srila Prabhupada directly says he is going to continue to initiate disciples after his physical departure. While we're waiting (and it's going to be a long wait, because no such statement exists), we can consider some other points.

If the author studies Srila Prabhupada's teachings on guru tattva he will soon learn that physical presence and departure are irrelevant to the process of diksa.

'Such association with Krsna and the Spiritual master should be association by vibration not physical presence.'
(Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, chapter 4)

Since physical presence is irrelevant to the process of diksa why should Srila Prabhupada mention it in a letter specifically dealing with how diksa initiation would be given within ISKCON? As we have repeatedly pointed out, since the final policy directive on initiation, approved by Srila Prabhupada on July 9th 1977, does not mention anything about departure, why oh why did the GBC stop it at that very point? It seems a very long wait is in store for anyone wanting a sensible answer to this question. Certainly, the author has offered nothing but a mountain of inconsistent speculation.

In my reply to a concerned godsister (previously posted on CHAKRA), I said: "I appreciate there is a need for reform. But I can also appreciate that even now there are many disciples of Prabhupada who are fulfilling his desire by humbly taking the position of guru in a qualified way." Those gurus and their disciples may wish to take note of Bhakta Krishnakant's response: "There are more humble services than being worshipped as good as the Supreme Being without any authority to do so. Most temples are more in need of a good pot washer than they are of yet another laxmi siphoning guru."  

Those same gurus and disciples may also recall another point made by the author in the same letter: 

"I also support efforts to establish better financial accountability for gurus. Sannyasis, even guru-sannyasis, should live more simply, and make do with fewer servants (Prabhupada got along with two or three). "(Drutakarma)

Thus we see the author's hypocrisy since it was he himself who first accused ISKCON gurus of unnecessary extravagance, even whilst simultaneously arguing they were somehow or other authorised to accept good as God worship. As we pointed out before:

'The initiating diksa guru is Krishna's pure representative who sees everything as the Lord's energy. Why should such elevated souls not be trusted with laxmi? And if the gurus in ISKCON are not on that platform, and cannot be trusted with money, why in heaven's name should we entrust them with peoples spiritual lives?'

Bhakta Krishnakant has appealed to parts of the May 28 conversation to support his ritvik heresy fantasy.

Readers will know that the author has never once produced even a tiny morsel of evidence from Srila Prabhupada's books proving that diksa is dependent on the physical proximity of the guru. Until he does so we can only conclude that it is his accusations of heresy which are based on fantasy.

The author reproduces the appointment tape and then states:

Bhakta Krishnakant wants to take only the first part of the conversation, where the term rtvik-acarya comes up, as support for his concept of ritvik initiations.

We take the whole conversation into account not just the beginning. (This is in spite of the fact that the GBC's own investigative expert concluded it exhibited strong signs suggestive of falsification.) We drew the author's attention to the first part since that is where Srila Prabhupada directly answers the question as to how initiations will proceed 'particularly' when he is no longer present. As we all know Srila Prabhupada's immediate answer to this initial clear and self-contained question fully supports our position. In order to get around the fact that Srila Prabhupada said he would appoint ritvik's for after his departure the author launches into the same mind-bogglingly convoluted speculation as was offered in the GBC's defeated paper 'Disciple of My Disciple' which was answered in the paper 'The Final Order Still Stands'.

 But there is a big difference between the kind of ritvik priest that Bhakta Krishnakant is talking about and the kind of ritvik acarya Srila Prabhupada is talking about. The ritvik acarya that Bhakta Krishnakant has concocted is simply a priest who is not a guru, who does not initiate disciples of his (or her) own. He or she is simply a stand-in for Prabhupada, who according to Bhakta Krishnakant's misinterpretations of the July 9 letter and the May 28 conversation, will continue to initiate disciples after his physical departure. The ritvik -acarya that Prabhupada is talking about is a real guru who will initiate his or her own disciples.

The author claims above that it is a concoction to state that the ritvik's Srila Prabhupada mentions (and then goes on to appoint in July) do '...not initiate disciples of his (or her) own.' But instead simply '...stand-in for Prabhupada.' And yet the final July 9th order, which the author has belatedly conceded is linked to this conversation, states the following:

' Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "ritvik -representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.'
(Srila Prabhupada approved July 9th letter 1977 to all GBC's and Temple Presidents.)

Above it is clear the word ritvik is defined as 'representative of the acarya' not as diksa guru or latent diksa guru or acarya in his (or her) own right. Srila Prabhupada directly and personally approved this letter so we know the definition must be correct.
Further down the letter this interpretation is confirmed with the following:

After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done'.
(Srila Prabhupada approved July 9th letter 1977 to all GBC's and Temple Presidents.)

Further on the policy directive states:

'The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.'
(Srila Prabhupada approved July 9th letter 1977 to all GBC's and Temple Presidents.)

Then just in case there is any doubt about the position of these new ritvik's the letter states:

'The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book.'
(Srila Prabhupada approved July 9th letter 1977 to all GBC's and Temple Presidents.)

In what way then have we concocted our own definition of the word 'ritvik '? The function of a ritvik is clearly defined above as one who acts on Srila Prabhupada's behalf for the purpose of first and second initiation. Disciples were never meant to belong to the ritvik's, only to Srila Prabhupada. These are the ritvik's Srila Prabhupada alluded to in May. There were no other ritvik's appointed by Srila Prabhupada, only those mentioned in the July 9th letter. As we can see they were never authorised to accept their own disciples. They were only meant to accept disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. Nor were they permitted to change function just because Srila Prabhupada left the planet. If they were let's see the evidence.

Although the author is averse to answering direct questions from us, perhaps someone close to him might pose the following:

Another question for Drutakarma (number 4)

Why would the ownership of disciples have been hammered home three times in a letter which the author alledges was only applicable pre-departure?

Before answering this the author should remember: EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW WHO THE diksa GURU WAS IN ISKCON . According to the author everyone also knew the law of disciplic succession. Obviously the instruction was meant to also apply when disciple ownership could theoretically have been an issue; namely AFTER DEPARTURE.

If the above were not evidence enough that a ritvik is not a diksa guru, but a priest who officiates in some way or other on another's behalf, we also have all the other references in Srila Prabhupada's books where the term (and its derivatives) is only ever translated as meaning 'priest':

ritvik : 4.6.1 / 4.7.16 / 5.3.2 / 5.3.3 / 5.4.17 / 7.3.20 / 8.20.22 / 9.1.15 .
Rtvijah : 4.5.7 / 4.5.18 / 4.7.27 / 4.7.45 / 4.13.26 / 4.19.27 / 4.19.29 / 5.3.4 /      5.3.15   / 5.3.18 / 5.7.5 / 8.16.53 / 8.18.21 /8.18.22 / 9.4.23 / 9.6.3 .
Rtvijam : 4.6.52 / 4.21.5 / 8.23.13 / 9.13.1 .
Rtvigbhyah : 8.16.55 .
Rtvigbhih : 4.7.56 / 9.13.3 .(all these references are from the Srimad-Bhagavatam)

In none of the above references is the word ritvik ever defined as meaning 'diksa guru' or latent diksa guru. Not once .

Neither does the addition of the word 'acarya' after the word 'ritvik ' alter the meaning of the word ritvik . 'ritvik ' still means 'ritvik ' whatever words may be surrounding it. Any practising Vaisnava Brahmin is an acarya of some sort. As we all know there are two types of acarya, the instructing and the initiating. Prefixing the word 'acarya' with the word 'ritvik ' tells us precisely which type is being referred to. Surely such an intelligent devotee as the author can grasp this most basic point.

 If we go carefully through the May 28 conversation, it is clear that Srila Prabhupada sees his "officiating acaryas" as gurus, and not as Ceremonial priests.

If those devotees who were yet to be appointed were simply to act as initiating diksa gurus, then why did Srila Prabhupada confuse everyone by calling them 'officiating acaryas' and then by agreeing with H.H.Tamal Krishna Goswami that this term meant the same as ritvik - "ritvik yes".
In direct response to Satsvarupa Maharaja's question about how initiations will be conducted after his departure, Srila Prabhupada says there will be "officiating acaryas." At this point, Tamal Krsna Goswami, interjects. He wants to know if "officiating acarya" is the same thing as the "ritvik acarya." He had apparently heard this term, or something like it, used in an earlier conversation. But since there is no record of this earlier conversation, we cannot know for certain who first used the term. Neither can we tell for certain what meaning was attached to the term. In any case, ritvik -acarya is not a standard Vedic term. No one has produced any examples of the term "ritvik acarya" in the Vedic literature. ritvik simply means a priest.  

In that case the entities who were soon to be appointed were meant to act only as priests. Above the author has inadvertently supported our position. 'ritvik simply means priest', it does not mean diksa guru even with the honorific title of 'acarya' following it. 
But whether we talk about officiating acarya or ritvik acarya, the key word in the whole exchange is acarya.

With no evidence to support him the author speculates that the 'key word in the whole exchange is acarya'. Even a superficial counting of the number of times each word is used in the exchange shows no validity to the author's claim since both the word 'ritvik ' and 'acarya' each appear three times. Srila Prabhupada agrees that the term 'ritvik ' is synonymous with the term 'ritvik acarya' anyway:

Tamal Krsna Goswami: Is that called ritvik acarya?
Srila Prabhupada: ritvik , yes.  

The reader may also note that later on the honorific title 'acarya' was dropped altogether from the word 'ritvik ' when the appointment was formalized:

'Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "ritvik -representative of the acarya'.
(Srila Prabhupada approved July 9th letter 1977 to all GBC's and Temple Presidents.)

Furthermore the very fact that the terms 'officiating acarya' and 'ritvik acarya' had never been mentioned before by Srila Prabhupada should tell the author that they were most certainly NOT regular diksa gurus. The word acarya is mentioned many times in Srila Prabhupada's books, but never 'officiating acaryas,' so it must be beyond argument that what was being proposed here was something different from the regular.

 And since the context in which the word acarya occurs is a discussion of initiation, it is related to the initiating guru function. So when Srila Prabhupada answers Tamal Krsna Goswami's question if "officiating acarya" is the same as "ritvik acarya," Srila Prabhupada answers, "ritvik , yes." This means, "Yes, ritvik acarya is the same as officiating acarya."

Which is the same as 'ritvik '. And as we all agree a ritvik is not a diksa guru, but a priest. 

Srila Prabhupada and Tamal Krsna Goswami both use the word acarya. And if we have to choose between "ritvik acarya" and "officiating acarya," the best one would be "officiating acarya," since that is the language Srila Prabhupada himself introduced.

Speculation upon speculation. In the end Srila Prabhupada approved the term ritvik when the appointment finally took place. And we are all in agreement that this word definitely does not mean diksa guru. Srila Prabhupada had most definitely already defined the term 'ritvik ' many times in his books (see above references.)

The dictionary definition of officiating is "performing the duties and functions of an office or a position of authority." Using this definition, an "officiating acarya" would be someone who performs the duties and functions of acarya. So if Srila Prabhupada is saying that ritvik -acarya is the same thing as officiating acarya, this means that a ritvik acarya is someone who performs all the duties and functions of acarya or guru, with regard to initiation.

The author is speculating desperately above. We know precisely what Srila Prabhupada meant by the term 'officiating acarya'. Their specific authority was outlined in the final order. It is obvious that if they were to perform ALL the functions of an initiating acarya they would simply be called 'initiating acaryas' or 'diksa gurus'. Why would Srila Prabhupada have agreed with His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami that they were 'ritvik's', and then have gone on to call them ritvik's when he appointed them, if they were really initiating acaryas? The author is spouting gobbledygook and hoping people will buy it.

Since there is no prior use of the word ritvik acarya in sastra, we can only accept Srila Prabhupada definition of it. He says it is the same thing as "officiating acarya."

He also says it means the same thing as 'ritvik ', which everyone agrees means priest, not diksa guru.


Someone who officiates as an acarya is not a stand-in for an acarya. He is an acarya. For example, it is quite correct to say that the President of the United States officiated at the meeting of his Cabinet. In other words, the President performed his duties as head of his Cabinet. Actually, it would be unusual for anyone other than the President to officiate in this circumstance. It is the holder of an office who officiates. A referee officiates at a football game. The referee is an official; his function is to officiate at the game. Only a referee can so officiate. We could also, for example, say that Srila Prabhupada officiated as acarya in an initiation. This would simply mean that Srila Prabhupada performed his function as initiator. It does not at all mean that he was initiating for someone else, or performing only the ceremonial part of the initiating function. I have not encountered any definition of "officiate" indicating that the officiator is not really performing the entire official duty. An officiating acarya is an acarya who performs the functions of his office, namely instructing and initiating disciples. Only an acarya can officiate as an acarya. Of course, he does so by the mercy of the previous acaryas, and especially his immediate predecessor acarya.

Srila Prabhupada agreed the term 'officiating acarya' and the term 'ritvik ' were the same. Thus the entities being proposed are not diksa gurus; a point which is hammered home three times in the final appointment letter of July 9th. The conversation makes it clear that gurus cannot act in Srila Prabhupada's presence, and that diksa gurus can only operate when he orders them: '
"when I order" "but by my order" "on my order". 
Satsvarupa Maharaja then asks: "What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the . . . " He apparently intended to complete the sentence as follows: "What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the person who receives it?"

The obvious point here is why did Satsvarupa Maharaja ask this question in the first place if Srila Prabhupada had always taught that his disciples would initiate their own disciples on his departure? This proves that the author's whole thesis is totally bogus. If it was so clear what Srila Prabhupada was going to do about initiation, why did his most senior men approach him at the end to ask such basic questions? Later on Srila Prabhupada made his decision and appointed eleven ritvik's to act on his behalf.

Why was this system stopped and why did the ritvik's change into diksa gurus? These are the questions the author never answers.

On the basis of the author's warped understanding of the entities being proposed by Srila Prabhupada he completely misinterprets the 'appointment tape'. We have already gone through the tape in 'The Final Order' and 'The Final Order Still Stands' and various other papers. Our points have never been addressed comprehensively, what to speak of refuted. Below we shall reproduce a few relevant sections, which the author has once again failed to acknowledge.
Satsvarupa Maharaja then asks, "But he does so on your behalf." Prabhupada replies: "Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order." Srila Prabhupada has said that the officiating acaryas are gurus.

Only in the mind of the author. 
When Satsvarupa asks "he does it on your behalf," Srila Prabhupada takes the full meaning of the question to be, "He becomes guru [actually guru], on your behalf-as a service to you?"

Now the author is able to read Srila Prabhupada's mind. Maybe Srila Prabhupada meant they would be initiating on his behalf, as was set out in the final order?

If someone becomes a guru on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, it does not mean that those he initiates become Srila Prabhupada's full disciples.

It most certainly did in the final order, please see above. 

For example, let's suppose a father tells his son, who has been married a few years, "Son, why don't you become a father? Your mother and I would like to have a grandchild." So on behalf of his father, the son might agree to become a father, and conceive a child. The child is his son, but also his father's grandson. So he has performed his fathering function on behalf of his father. On behalf of can simply mean "for the benefit of," according to the dictionary. The benefit the man's father would get would be a grandchild.

 Above the author foolishly argues that when Srila Prabhupada says 'on my behalf' he is not speaking of proxies or ritvik's, he is speaking of diksa gurus who will initiate on their own behalf on Srila Prabhupada's behalf! Thus he is indirectly denying that Srila Prabhupada wanted those he would appoint to act on his behalf even whilst he was present! Clearly the strain of trying to defeat his Spiritual Master's wishes is beginning to show. 
Srila Prabhupada answers Satsvarupa Maharaja, "Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru." When Srila Prabhupada says, "Yes. That is formality," he means, "Yes, this is the proper procedure." One dictionary definition of formality is: "following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations." Srila Prabhupada then states the accepted convention: "In my presence one should not become guru." This is exactly what Prabhupada had said so many times previously. He expected his disciples to become gurus, but they should be qualified and should wait until after his departure to begin initiating.

Nowhere in his books nor institutional directives does Srila Prabhupada ever state the above. If he had repeated it so many times why were the GBC completely in the dark about it even as late as May 1977. Why also did the GBC feel the urge to visit H.H. Sridhar Swami in Mayapur in order to work out what to do the minute Srila Prabhupada left the planet? Why are they still in complete disarray after over twenty years if they had been left such clear repetitious instructions on how the M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya successor system) should operate? 

It is interesting that in this discussion about initiating gurus, Srila Prabhupada quotes the amara ajnaya guru hana verse, originally spoken by Lord Caitanya. So even though Bhakta Krishnakant insists it can only refer to siksa guru, Prabhupada here uses it to mean diksa guru, a guru who gives initiation.

Srila Prabhupada does not say the verse means diksa, in the May conversation. He merely uses it to enforce the idea that all guru activity must be authorised, 'when I order' 'on my order' etc. One only needs to read the purports following the 'amara' verse to realise that the order to become guru, as conveyed to us by Srila Prabhupada, only refers to siksa - 'It is best not to accept any disciples' (C.c.Madhya, 7.130, purport). It is a shame the author does not read Srila Prabhupada's books more carefully.

Satsvarupa Maharaja then asks about the relationship of the new disciples to Srila Prabhupada. Prabhupada starts to answer, but Tamala Krsna Goswami, seeking to clarify the question, interjects:

Notice the author does not reproduce this part of the conversation above. Let's see if we can guess why:
(14) Satsvarupa: So (then) (they) (they'll) (may) also be considered your disciples?
(15) Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples, (but) (why) consider ... who

Above Srila Prabhupada is asked directly whether future initiates would be his and he answers 'yes'. No wonder the author did not reproduce it. The author really should be more straightforward or people will think he is nothing but a big cheating rascal. Perhaps he has had too much association with scientists. As we stated in The Final Order p.24:

' this point Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks a question in the first person: 'So then they'll also be considered your disciples?' Srila Prabhupada answers 'Yes, they are disciples...' Once more confirming the ownership of any future disciples. Although it is not clear what Srila Prabhupada is going on to say, his initial answer is quite definite. He is asked a direct question, in the first person, and he answers 'Yes'.

If the GBC had any hope of upholding modifications a) & b) Srila Prabhupada would have had to answer this question something along the lines of: 'No, they are not my disciples' Whatever Srila Prabhupada was going on to say is irrelevant since no-one can ever know. We only know that when asked whether future initiates were to be his disciples, he answered 'Yes'. Again not a good sign for the modifications a) & b).
(The Final Order p.24)
"No, he's asking that these ritvik -acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?" Tamal Krsna Goswami uses the word ritvik -acarya, which Srila Prabhupada said means "officiating acarya."  

Which in turn means ritvik .

Officiating acarya is the word used by Prabhupada in answer to the question raised in the beginning of the excerpt, which, in essence, was, "Who is going to initiate after your departure." acarya in the context of this conversation can only mean initiating guru. We are talking about initiations, disciples, diksha, and so on. Also keep in mind that "officiating" does not mean someone who is just temporarily assuming a role. This is very important. By the dictionary definitions it means one who is performing the duties of an office. We therefore cannot conclude that when Srila Prabhupada said "officiating acaryas" he meant non-acaryas who act in place of a real acarya. "Officiating acarya"means a real acarya, who performs the duties of an acarya by himself. Keep in mind, Tamal Krishna Goswami uses the words rtvik-acarya, officiating, giving diksa all together, indicating that ritvik -acarya, officiating acarya, and diksa-guru are all synonymous. In the context of the May 28 conversation a ritvik acarya is a diksa guru.

Officiating acarya=ritvik acarya=diksa guru.

We answered similar nonsense as the above in our reply to the GBC paper 'Disciple of My Disciple' (DOMD) 'The Final Order Still Stands':

 So Tamal Krsna Goswami, in talking about these officiating acaryas, who are "giving diksha," asks about the position of their disciples. Whose disciples are they really? Srila Prabhupada's or their own? Srila Prabhupada gives an unmistakable answer to the question about disciples. He says, "They're his disciple." The question was clear. The officiating acarya is giving diksha. Disciples are accepting diksha from him. But whose disciples are they? Srila Prabhupada says, "They're his disciple."

The reader will note that H.H.Tamal Krishna Maharaja's question is in the plural
: 'these ritvik acaryas, they are officiating...' Whereas Srila Prabhupada answers in the singular: 'They are his disciples'. This supports our interpretation that he is speaking of himself in the third person.
Tamala Krsna repeats the answer, "They're his disciple." Srila Prabhupada offers further confirmation, saying: "Who is initiating. He is grand disciple." In other words, Srila Prabhupada is saying, "They are the disciples of the officiating acarya who is initiating them. They are my grand disciples."

The above speculation must be incorrect since ritvik's do not initiate their own disciples.

 Satsvarupa Maharaja says, "Yes." Tamala Krsna Goswami says, "That's clear." It should be clear to anyone.

Though sadly not to the author since he has concluded that officiating priests are identical to fully fledged diksa gurus, which of course is utterly absurd.

Satsvarupa Maharaja then apparently wants to shift to another topic, saying: "Then we have a question concer..." But to make his point absolutely clear, Srila Prabhupada saying that the gurus he is talking about are "regular guru" and that those they initiate will be "disciple of my disciple." When they initiate someone, that person "becomes the disciple of my disciple. That's it."

Again the author omits to inform his readers that Srila Prabhupada prefixes the above with the following clear and emphatic restriction:


So where is the order for diksa gurus? This could not be it, otherwise Srila Prabhupada would have said something like -'I am now ordering you to become diksa gurus on my departure'. No such statement is found anywhere in this conversation, nor in any policy directive sent to the entire movement, nor is it once stated in any of his books, nor lectures nor morning walks. Notice in the May 28th conversation Srila Prabhupada never says 'when I depart you become diksa guru', only 'when I order'.

That's it. That's it. That's it. Of course, Bhakta Krishnakant will disagree with Srila Prabhupada and say, No it isn't, no it isn't no it isn't." According to Bhakta Krishnakant there can be no disciple of Prabhupada's disciple.

There can be if the author will show us the order which countermands or modifies the July 9th letter. We sense the author is a little frustrated here, perhaps because he is also anxious to be worshipped by disciples, and he feels we may put people off.

But that is not what Srila Prabhupada said. He said there will be regular gurus who will give initiation.

Yes, when he orders. Where is the order?  
You can call them diksa gurus, or officiating acaryas, or ritvik acaryas.

Srila Prabhupada only called them 'officiating acaryas' and 'ritvik ', never diksa gurus, that is the author's speculation.
The point is this: they will give initiation, they will accept disciples of their own, but only after Prabhupada's departure. So on the basis of the May 28 conversation, accepting the identification of ritvik acarya with diksa guru, we can say that all the gurus presently initiating today in ISKCON are officiating acaryas or ritvik acaryas or diksa gurus, who are initiating their own disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, so that Srila Prabhupada can become a spiritual grandfather to them. They are regular gurus, and their disciples are the granddisciples of Srila Prabhupada, the disciples of Prabhupada's disciples. This is exactly what Srila Prabhupada always said whenever he spoke about initiations after his departure. In one of his replies to me Bhakta Krishnakant tried to dispute this, but in the two examples he cited neither the questions nor the answers mention initiation, and are thus not relevant to the current discussion.

It was members of the media, who would be unlikely to use the word diksa or initiate, who nearly always asked the question of who would succeed him. The fact that in replying Srila Prabhupada did not say his disciples would be initiating or succeeding him supports us not the author. Where is this multitude of explicit generally applicable evidence supporting the author's position? So far he has produced a conversation with a one time visitor to the temple which was not discovered until last year; a letter to an ambitious deviant devotee, and a lecture which does not support his contention in any way (see below).

If the May tape is authentic (and we hope it is) it shows that when directly asked about initiations 'particularly' after his departure, Srila Prabhupada said he would appoint 'officiating acaryas' which he agreed were the same as 'ritvik's'. He then went on to do precisely that by issuing the July 9th letter. Our case is thus water tight. That is why we are committed to exposing the author's fallacious and misleading arguments. There is a danger many innocent people could be cheated otherwise.

 Of course, I don't think any of this will convince Bhakta Krishnakant or his disciples.

Bhakta Krishnakant does not have any disciples; he is not even a ritvik . Certainly no one with any intelligence will accept the arguments put forward by the author unless they themselves have a vested interest in propagating a lie, or are unfortunate enough to be an aspiring disciple of the author. The author ends his article with another fascist rant and an invitation for all non-ritvik's to participate in the next bogus guru system which the GBC are currently in the process of concocting.

In Conclusion we once again call on the author to answer the three questions posed previously, plus a new one, if he is able: Drutakarma states that the July 9th letter makes no mention of departure.

Question 1)

Why then has he selected the very time which is NOT mentioned in the letter as being the point at which he knows for sure Srila Prabhupada wanted the system set up in the letter to be terminated?

Drutakarma insists that the July 9th letter was not in 'Srila Prabhupada's own words'.  

Question 2) 

However, since the letter was approved and signed by Srila Prabhupada and sent out by him via his secretary, why does it have any less authority, especially when H.H. Jayadvaita Maharaja (an anti-ritvik) has stated that the authority of the letter is 'beyond question'?
Drutakarma has stated that in the April 6, 1975 lecture Srila Prabhupada is clearly instructing his disciples to initiate their own disciples after his departure. Yet when Srila Prabhupada actually directly speaks of how his disciples should act in the FUTURE, which is the conclusion to the passage, (not how they should act in Srila Prabhupada's presence) Srila Prabhupada actually states the following:  

"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.*"

Here Srila Prabhupada states two things that prove that the context CANNOT be diksa:
  1. He says 'Then, in FUTURE suppose YOU have got NOW ten thousand'. Srila Prabhupada opened the whole lecture by stating that his disciples cannot have their own disciples in his presence. Thus Srila Prabhupada cannot be talking about his disciples possessing their own disciples, for the context is how they are acting in Srila Prabhupada's PRESENCE - 'YOU have got NOW'.
  2. The rest of the statement confirms this: 

    "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."  
As Drutakarma prabhu has admitted, the ten thousand here refers to SRILA PRABHUPADA's initiated disciples ONLY. Thus the expansion suggested is in the number of SRILA PRABHUPAD'S INITIATED disciples. Srila Prabhupada here clearly states that the context of the expansion is the 'ten thousand' that his disciples have 'got' at that time. Of course they have not 'got' them as disciples, but only as other members of the Krsna Consciousness movement. The irony is that Drutakarma prabhu spends a large chunk of one of his articles proving that the 'ten thousand' refers specifically only to SRILA PRABHUPADA'S INITIATED disciples, and that THIS is what the expansion is required for:  

"So it is abundantly clear that Prabhupada is speaking throughout the April 6, 1975 lecture of acaryas who will initiate disciples and increase the current number from ten thousand to tens of millions."  
(Drutakarama prabhu, 'The Phantom Order')  

Above Drutakarma admits that Srila Prabhupada only wants disciples who will increase the number of SRILA PRABHUPADA'S initiated disciples, for the 'current number ten thousand' refers to this only. These are the acaryas Srila Prabhupada wants instructing and officiating acaryas (ritvik's) only.  

Question 3)

In light of the above how can the context for the extract*(taken from the April 6, 1975 lecture) which forms the conclusion to the passage, be for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to have their OWN initiated disciples?  

Question 4)

Why would the ownership of disciples have been hammered home three times in a letter which the author alleges was only applicable pre-departure?

All glories to Srila Prabhupada.