Satsvarupa Das Goswami’s (SDG) recent paper: “How All Generations Can Stay With Srila Prabhupada” begins with all the usual platitudes one has heard a thousand times from him and his associate usurpers. Statements such as the following abound: 

“It was Srila Prabhupada who set the standards of sadhana and cleanliness, of purity and association. Whoever follows these basic practices and recognizes Srila Prabhupada as Krishna's direct representative is his follower.”

· “Whatever relationship we can imagine with Srila Prabhupada as a beloved spiritual master can be experienced by all devotees regardless of what year they joined because the relationship with Srila Prabhupada is eternal.”

· “Why shouldn't anyone anywhere in the world feel that if he took up Prabhupada's instructions, he could become Srila Prabhupada's follower?”

· “If we simply use our intelligence to claim our relationship with Prabhupada by practicing Krishna consciousness in the mood in which he taught it, we will inherit the most wonderful relationship with Krishna's pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada.”

· “No follower of Srila Prabhupada is being denied his shelter. Srila Prabhupada can appear in their hearts, in their dreams, in their minds, and he can imbue their following of him with his own special quality of mercy.”

· “That was the purpose of the Srila Prabhupada-lilamrita, and if anyone reads it and opens himself to the possibility of a deep relationship with Srila Prabhupada, he will not only become a Prabhupadanuga, but he will taste the sweetness of Prabhupada's association.”

· “The real substance of the spiritual master's association is his vani, his teachings. We should know what it is, feel attached to it, and serve it with our life's energy.”

After all, according to SDG, it is Srila Prabhupada who is doing all the work:

a) “Srila Prabhupada's books are nondifferent from himself, people still come to Krishna consciousness through Srila Prabhupada's preaching.”

So it is Srila Prabhupada who is doing most of the preaching, imparting transcendental knowledge via his books. 

b) “People still make the commitment to chant the holy name because they have been convinced by Srila Prabhupada's encouragement.”

It is Srila Prabhupada who inspires new devotees to chant. 

c) “Even though they are joining after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, their attraction to Srila Prabhupada and their desire to follow him are what give them solidity in their attempts to practice spiritual life.”

It is also Srila Prabhupada who inspires the commitment new devotees have for practising spiritual life.

One might ask what there is left for SDG and his ‘guru’ associates to do, given that Srila Prabhupada has already done everything. Surely if SDG is correct in his analysis it would be decent and honourable for him to step aside completely and allow Srila Prabhupada to continue initiating as he instructed in his July 9th directive. Especially since he claims: 

“Srila Prabhupada is just as accessible now as he was before his disappearance.”

Not on your life: 

“Part of ISKCON's mood in following Prabhupada is that even though such persons must take diksha from one of Prabhupada's disciples and cannot receive diksha from Srila Prabhupada himself, Srila Prabhupada is ever the founder-acarya and thus the central focus of our branch of the sampradaya.”

Above SDG has simply assumed that which needs to be proven, namely that for some reason Srila Prabhupada cannot remain the initiating guru for his movement via instructions he personally issued to his entire leadership.

In order to convince us that the ritvik system is wrong SDG misrepresents Lord Chaitanya’s ‘amara’ verse, along with Srila Prabhupada’s many general orders quoting this verse, as a call for everyone to become diksa guru: 

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


Surprisingly SDG’s erudition does not extend to the purports following this verse where it is stated: 

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

So clearly Lord Chaitanya’s order, as conveyed to us by Srila Prabhupada, was not meant to refer to diksa as far as we, his followers, are concerned. The Final Order explained all this many years ago. Strangely SDG avoids all mention of this paper, even though it was commissioned by the GBC to correctly represent the ritvik position. Instead he cites a flawed paper by Karnamrta as a straw man to attack, even though it is not accepted by the IRM, the largest and most successful group of pro-ritviks

“The first essay to appear on this topic was by Karnamrita dasa, printed in The Vedic Village Review. His subtitle was telling and true to the experience of the times: "A Pragmatic Approach." Pragmatism means that truth is determined by whatever works best. In that essay he admitted that Srila Prabhupada had established a system, but because we were unqualified to follow that system, it would be more practical to follow something we could do.”

Surely not the old zonal system that he supported for nearly a decade, only to be forced into changing his position by the North American rebellion. And yet at least that original zonal system had some sort of basis, in that Srila Prabhupada selected the eleven names. The only problem was that they were only selected to act as ritviks, SDG included.

He says with regards the ritvik system: 

“The question more is, "Did Srila Prabhupada teach in his books, lectures, or letters, that the ritvik system was what he wanted to establish after his disappearance?" I will not discuss the intricacies of this question here, but I will say here that Srila Prabhupada's main teaching was that the disciple becomes the next spiritual master.”

It is understandable that SDG should not want to go into the ‘intricacies’ since The Final Order presents signed proof that the ritvik system was the ONLY system left in place by Srila Prabhupada. There was no other ‘system’. There was no zonal system, as practised unquestioningly by SDG for nearly ten years, nor any mention of the current multiple acarya successor system in any of his books lectures etc. Even the GBC do not accept that a disciple can automatically initiate after the departure of his guru, since they themselves have an elaborate system for authorising ISKCON gurus to begin initiating. This elaborate system is also not mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada’s books, lectures, letters etc, but that does not seem to trouble SDG. The only thing that troubles him is when people question his right to steal Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. This he calls anarchy: 

“The GBC should also be open to discussing reform. But the process will not be effective in an environment of rebellion or anarchy.”

If there is anarchy he only has himself to blame for stifling any real discussion, and supporting the banning, beating and intimidation of anyone who dares point to Srila Prabhupada’s signed directive on how initiation was meant to run within ISKCON. He was only forced out of his zonal position by a rebellion, and it is SDG and the GBC’s continued insubordination over the ritvik issue that may lead to the same thing happening again over the ritvik issue. This rebellion is growing in force and strength, and SDG must be praying it does not finally overwhelm him and his cohorts just as the previous one did.