ISKCON Revival Movement
ISKCON’S ILLITERACY:
A Stunning Case Study
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada
Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness:
Challenging his position as ISKCON's diksa guru leads to illiteracy
Introduction
Section A: TFO's challenge
Section B: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge correct - 1
Section C: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge correct - 2
Section D: No termination instruction for representatives
Section E: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge correct - 3
Section F: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge correct - 4
Section G: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge correct - 5
Section H: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge correct - 6
Section I: BVKS agrees he is an unauthorised deviant
Section J: BVKS agrees TFO’s challenge is correct - 7
Section K: BVKS’s illiteracy summarised
Conclusion
ISKCON GBC-elected guru HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami (“BVKS”) has declared that:
“The Final Order by Krishnakant Desai has been perhaps the most influential post-1977 publication in the Vaisnava world.”
(BVKS article, 12/1/2013)
Desperate to combat this monumental influence of The Final Order (“TFO”), BVKS has claimed that a paper titled Defeat of Ritvik-vada (“DOR”) “completely dismantles” TFO:
“read this Defeat of Ritvik-vada by Rocana, […] The Final Order which it replies to, […] And just completely dismantles it. So it's definitely, ritvikism is completely bogus.”
(BVKS Lecture, 4/2/2013)
But, as we shall now demonstrate, BVKS’s faith in DOR simply reveals his illiteracy, because DOR:
a) Agrees with the conclusions of TFO!
b) Actually “completely dismantles” BVKS’s philosophical position and brands him a deviant.
Below we reproduce verbatim extracts from DOR (unabridged edition) to highlight BVKS’s uneducated response to TFO, and thereby establish that TFO’s conclusion - that Srila Prabhupada did not cease to be ISKCON’s initiating guru on his departure - remains undefeated. All underlining emphasis, unless otherwise stated, has been added.
DOR quotes the directive issued by Srila Prabhupada on July 9th, 1977, which authorised representatives to perform first and second initiations on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, so that those initiated would become Srila Prabhupada’s initiated disciples:
“these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupad by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupad has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”
(July 9th, 1977, Directive, DOR, p. 28)
TFO was specifically written to challenge the following modifications which were made to this July 9th directive:
“Modification a): That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
Modification b): Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada’s.”
(TFO, p. 2)
DOR agrees that successfully challenging these modifications is the core of TFO’s challenge to the GBC position:
“With the introduction of its Modification a) and Modification b) argument, TFO begins to explain how, according to them, the GBC deviated from the instructions that TFO claims are contained in the July 9th Letter. These arguments represent the core of TFO'S challenge to the GBC position”.
(DOR, p. 22)
DOR states the GBC position is that the representatives appointed in the July 9th, 1977 directive ceased to act in this capacity upon Srila Prabhupada’s departure (modification a) because they had already been ordered on May 28th, 1977 to turn into diksa gurus (modification b) - and DOR states this GBC position is false:
“the individuals referred to in the July 9th Letter as the rittik representatives who were then being ordered to assist Srila Prabhupada. According to the GBC, upon Srila Prabhupada's departure these individuals would begin initiating as diksa gurus themselves, having gotten the order to do so on May 28th […] We contend that no such order was given on May 28th”
(DOR, p. 139)
Thus, DOR also offers no defence for modification b) at all:
“Because we are not interested in defending or challenging modification b) in this paper, we will not address TFO's lengthy comments in that regard.”
(DOR, p. 133)
Hence, DOR agrees with TFO that the GBC’s position in regards to modifications a) and b) should be rejected. And having given his full endorsement to DOR, BVKS is thus forced to agree with DOR that the “core of TFO’s challenge to the GBC position”, the specific position TFO was written to challenge, is correct. Thus, BVKS’s stunning illiteracy in regards to DOR and TFO is established on just this point alone. But there is much more. The next 8 sections document DOR:
i) Agreeing with TFO that, as well as the reason offered by the GBC being false, there is actually no reason at all to justify the representatives ceasing to act in this capacity on Srila Prabhupada’s departure (modification a)).
ii) Branding BVKS a deviant!
DOR refers us to a complete listing of all other relevant articles by its author via “Additional Resources” under “Appendices & References” (pp. 153-156). Therein one finds DOR’s author presenting arguments which completely defeat the proposition that on his departure, Srila Prabhupada should have ceased initiating disciples via the representatives appointed in the July 9th directive:
“I object to the entire concept that Srila Prabhupada desired that His disciples should replace Him as the diksa link to the sampradaya. Instead, I propose that Srila Prabhupada desired that His disciples accept a siksa guru role, and that He remain the diksa guru within ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada clearly indicated both in writing (Letter of July 9, 1977) and through His verbal orders that He was to remain the diksa-guru for the foreseable future after His departure. […] They are being cheated out of their rightful position as direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada. […] It is unfortunate that these disciples are not offered the option of being directly connected to Srila Prabhupada by accepting Him as their diksa guru.”
(Rocana Dasa, www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/vswami.htm, archived August 2012)
“It is no surprise that when Srila Prabhupada went into samadhi, these big managers were compelled to grab the power, rather than take on the humble, pure position of rtvik."
(Rocana Dasa, www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/manage.htm, archived August 2012)
“The existing regular diksa gurus would be compelled to preach to their disciples about the discovery of the lost meaning of Srila Prabhupada’s original formula, and enliven them enthusiastically. The disciples would have to understand that at sometime in the foreseeable future, the GBC may, in their new found wisdom, decide that Srila Prabhupada should be worshipped as the diksa. They would then assume a similar guru disciple mood, and consider them as siksa gurus. This is not an unusual situation within our sampradaya, and is certainly not an impediment to the disciples spiritual advancement.”
(Rocana Dasa, www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/manage2.htm, archived August 2012)
Thus, TFO’s conclusion that Srila Prabhupada did not cease to be ISKCON’s initiating guru on his departure, but rather continued through the use of representatives, is unequivocally supported. And, having endorsed DOR, BVKS has to accept these DOR-linked conclusions from DOR’s author, thus further cementing his illiteracy in regards to TFO and DOR.
DOR states how an instruction may be stopped:
“In the absence of an effective date to the contrary, an instruction begins on the date it is executed. It stops according to a stated termination instruction, or at a point when performance becomes impossible. Between start and stop runs the duration.”
(DOR, p. 71)
Thus, according to DOR:
i) Once an instruction starts, its duration must continue until it is actually stopped:
“Between start and stop runs the duration.”
Hence, if an instruction is not stopped, then its duration automatically continues until if and when the stop of the instruction is reached, otherwise there could exist no “duration” that “runs between start and stop”. This means that once the instruction has already commenced, it does not require any further order for it to continue, since its duration must continue until it stops.
ii) After an instruction starts it can only be stopped in one of two ways – a stated termination instruction or if performance becomes impossible:
“It stops according to a stated termination instruction, or at a point when performance becomes impossible.”
In regards to the July 9th directive, DOR states:
iii) The start date for the instructions in the July 9th directive is July 9th, 1977:
“The specified start date is clearly implied in the dated message – it is immediate. Beginning from now, July 9th, the date the letter is executed – that is the effective date.”
(DOR, p. 70)
iv) There is no termination instruction given for the appointed representatives to stop acting on Srila Prabhupada’s departure:
“And as TFO admits, there is no specific reference in the July 9th Letter to either the continuation or the stoppage of actions which are directly referent to the rittik representatives or the Temple Presidents.”
(DOR, p. 32)
“Correct! […] No, the July 9th Letter does not say that the system it describes should stop, nor does it say that it should continue after Prabhupada's departure.”
(DOR, p. 132)
Note, from i), DOR has already established that in the absence of an instruction being stopped, there is no requirement to state that the instruction should continue after it has started, as its duration continues automatically until it is stopped: “between start and stop runs the duration”. Therefore, according to DOR, the points above about there being no statement for instructions in the July 9th directive to continue after departure are irrelevant, since the absence of the instructions being stopped on departure means they automatically continue past this point.
Thus (i), (ii) and (iii) mean that the instructions in the July 9th directive run from July 9th 1977 onwards, until they are stopped.
And (iv) states there is no termination instruction given for the representatives to stop acting on Srila Prabhupada’s departure. And since DOR states that once commenced, an instruction can then only be stopped in two ways:
“It stops according to a stated termination instruction, or at a point when performance becomes impossible.”
...this then only leaves “performance becomes impossible” as the situation which, according to DOR, could lead to the representatives appointed in the July 9th directive ceasing to act on Srila Prabhupada’s departure. We examine whether or not this is the case in the next section.
In order to determine if “performance becomes impossible” for the representatives on Srila Prabhupada’s departure, we first need to determine what DOR states the representatives are supposed to be “performing”. On p. 93, while stating “exactly what the July 9th Letter instructs”, DOR states as the very first point, the action that the directive asks the representatives to be “performing”:
“1. the appointment of 11 senior disciples to act as "rittik" - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing first and second initiation;”
(DOR, p. 93, emphasis in original)
DOR states that the directive instructs that the representatives were to be “performing first and second initiation”, and that this is their very “purpose”. DOR then goes on to state how this first and second initiation is performed:
“2. that Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendations for first and second initiation to whichever of the eleven representatives are nearest their temple;
3. after considering a recommendation, the rittik representative may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name or gayatri”
(DOR, p. 93, emphasis in original)
DOR then states, that after the 2 steps above, this “performing” of the “initiations process” is completed:
"4. the newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees having acted as His representatives in the initiations process;”
(DOR, p. 94)
Point 4 states that “newly initiated devotees” who “are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada” have been created by the representatives having acted in the “initiations process” which has occurred. This means that the “initiations process” was already performed to completion; otherwise “newly initiated devotees” who “are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada” could not have been produced. The purpose of “performing initiation” is to make someone “initiated”, and therefore “newly initiated” means that the person is already “initiated”; not “almost” initiated, or “partially” initiated or “soon to be” initiated. But “newly initiated”, who “are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada”.
Thus, DOR states that point 1 establishes that the representatives were appointed for the very “purpose” of “performing” initiations, and that this performance is completed by point 4, following the actions taken in steps 2 and 3.
And in steps 2 and 3, DOR states above that only two parties – Temple Presidents and representatives - are required for the performing of initiations by the representatives.
Step 2 is an action that only the Temple President takes, and thus does not require Srila Prabhupada to act, and therefore the Temple President is able to continue performing it even after Srila Prabhupada departs.
Step 3 is an action that only the representative takes, and thus does not require Srila Prabhupada to act, and therefore the representative is able to continue performing it even after Srila Prabhupada departs.
Hence, according to DOR’s own description, the July 9th directive appoints representatives for the “purpose” of “performing” first and second initiations - and this does not become “impossible to perform” on Srila Prabhupada’s departure. DOR states that an instruction can only be stopped as follows:
“It stops according to a stated termination instruction, or at a point when performance becomes impossible."
(DOR, p71)
and, since the performing of first and second initiations by the representatives -
(i) is not subject to a “termination instruction” on Srila Prabhupada’s departure, as we established in the previous section;
(ii)
does not become impossible on Srila Prabhupada’s departure, as we have just established in this section;
- then this instruction for the representatives performing first and second initiations is not stopped on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
And, since BVKS has endorsed DOR, he has to again accept DOR's agreement with TFO’s conclusion that the use of representatives to initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada is not terminated on his departure.
As TFO explains in its Introduction, its title comes from the fact that the order for performing initiations given in the July 9th directive is Srila Prabhupada’s “last signed directive”, his “final order”, for “initiation within ISKCON”:
“the present guru system within ISKCON should be brought fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's last signed directive on the matter; his final order on initiation, issued on July 9th, 1977 […] the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON”
(TFO, Introduction)
DOR agrees with TFO, even using exactly the same language, that the order for performing initiations given in the July 9th directive is Srila Prabhupada’s “final order”; his “last signed directive” for “initiations in ISKCON”:
“Following is the text of the July 9th, 1977 Letter (p. 86), which is Srila Prabhupada's last signed directive on the matter of initiations in ISKCON.”
(DOR, p. 27)
“the July 9th letter […] the final order on initiations”.
(DOR, p. 149)
“the final order on initiations contained within the July 9th Letter.”
(DOR, p. 151)
i) “Final” and “last” order mean that no order comes after it, nor is there any order before it that supplants it. Thus, this order for performing initiation is the only and final initiation order to be implemented. And, as we saw in the last 2 sections, DOR agrees that this has no termination instruction, nor does it become “impossible to perform” on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
ii) This order is to be implemented as the only and final order for performing initiations “in ISKCON”. Thus, the order’s applicability is not limited or even connected to Srila Prabhupada’s presence or departure, but rather is operable within the institution of ISKCON at all times. Hence, considerations about whether the order should terminate at Srila Prabhupada’s departure are irrelevant, since its applicability is already clearly stated – it is for and in ISKCON. And since ISKCON does not terminate on Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the final order for initiations to be applied “in ISKCON”, also does not terminate at this time, but rather continues within ISKCON, as its “final/last” order for how initiations should be performed in ISKCON.
Thus, the final order for initiations in ISKCON does not stop in ISKCON but is applied in ISKCON!
BVKS understands the significance of this “final order” argument, because while endorsing DOR as rebutting TFO, he claimed that TFO does not refer to a “final order” on initiation given by Srila Prabhupada:
“In August 2012, Rocana dasa published Defeat of Ritvik-vada, a comprehensive rebuttal of Krishnakant's Final Order (actually it is his so-called final order, and not that of Srila Prabhupada).”
(BVKS article, 12/1/2013)
Yet, as just seen, DOR itself agrees 3 times that the “final order” which TFO speaks of is indeed a “last/final” order from Srila Prabhupada. Thus, even in the simple act of issuing a statement endorsing DOR, BVKS again displays his stunning illiteracy!
Consequently, these statements from DOR are additional confirmation that the “final order” for performing initiations given in the July 9th directive is not terminated in ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada’s departure, but rather continues to be applied “in ISKCON” as its only and final order for initiations for the institution. And, thus, we have yet another reason why BVKS has to agree, via his endorsement of DOR, that, as TFO states, using representatives to initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada should not have been terminated in ISKCON on his departure.
DOR claims there is a “fact” which prevents the representative system from continuing even though it is not terminated - “despite the fact” that after Srila Prabhupada departs initiations should continue through qualified successor disciples:
“The author has apparently concluded that because Srila Prabhupada did not make a specific statement 'terminating' a supposed July 9th order for a post-samadhi ritvik diksa system, that such a system must therefore continue – despite the fact that Srila Prabhupada has explained on many occasions the age-old method for continuing the disciplic succession: that when the Spiritual Master departs, the qualified disciple may become an initiating guru.”
(DOR, p. 59)
However, DOR’s author himself explains why this supposed “fact” would not be applicable after Srila Prabhupada departed - there was not a single qualified disciple available to succeed Srila Prabhupada:
“the greatest problem devotees seem to have with my position is their difficulty in accepting the concept that Srila Prabhupada did not definitively spell out who the exact personalities are that he approved of as being qualified diksa gurus following his departure. I've given my reasons as to why I feel he didn't do that, and they can be summed up simply by the fact that he knew none of his disciples were qualified.”
(Rocana Dasa, www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/09-07/editorials1954.htm, archived August 2012)
Thus, even if we accept that this “fact” offered by DOR regarding succession by qualified disciples after Srila Prabhupada’s departure is correct, it cannot prevent Srila Prabhupada continuing as ISKCON’s initiating guru if such qualified disciples do not exist!
Hence, we have yet another reason why BVKS is forced to agree, via his endorsement of DOR, that, as TFO states, using representatives to initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada is not stopped from continuing on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
In the last section we were able to use DOR’s own argument regarding “qualified” successors to show that Srila Prabhupada continuing to initiate in ISKCON via representatives is not prevented on his departure.
Thus, we have been able to keep this paper concise by simply showing how DOR’s own statements can be shown to be in agreement with TFO’s conclusions. We have therefore not needed to show where such statements offered by DOR are in error, nor do we necessarily endorse them. For example, this argument offered by DOR regarding automatic succession by “qualified” successors is not, in any case, correct. Aside from qualification, succession by disciples also requires prior authorisation from the guru:
"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa vidhana."
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.8.54, purport)
"A guru can be guru when he's ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru."
(Lecture, 28/10/1975)
DOR agrees that no such authorisation or order from Srila Prabhupada was given to his disciples to succeed him as ISKCON’s diksa guru:
“Precisely! When the Acarya orders, his disciples may become regular diksa gurus. […] What we do know is that no such order or authorization is known to exist.”
(DOR, p. 131)
Thus, in addition to DOR agreeing there were no qualified disciples available to effect succession after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, DOR agrees that Srila Prabhupada did not actually authorise that he be succeeded by any disciples at all, period. Therefore, the question of Srila Prabhupada being succeeded as ISKCON’s initiating guru does not even arise.
Hence, with no authorisation given by Srila Prabhupada for him to be succeeded as ISKCON’s initiating guru, he remains as ISKCON’s initiating guru through the use of representatives, which remains as the only authorised “final” initiation system for ISKCON. Therefore, again, BVKS is forced to agree, via his endorsement of DOR, that, as TFO states, Srila Prabhupada does not cease to be ISKCON’s initiating guru on his departure.
Section B documented DOR agreeing with TFO’s challenge to the GBC position that the representatives authorised in the July 9th, 1977 directive were not authorised to change their status to diksa gurus on Srila Prabhupada’s departure. The last section showed that DOR also agrees that actually all the diksa gurus in ISKCON, including those such as BVKS, who followed these representatives in becoming diksa gurus, are unauthorised. Indeed, DOR states that all these subsequent gurus arose through a GBC system which is also not philosophically bona fide:
“And because we are not defending the Zonal Acarya System or ISKCON's institutional Diksa program, we have no difficulty at all in paying attention to the words following his grand-disciple: […] Precisely! When the Acarya orders, his disciples may become regular diksa gurus. […] What we do know is that no such order or authorization is known to exist. […] the ISKCON leaders who, after a history of Zonal Acarya-ism, re-wrote ISKCON guru-tattva to support an institutional Diksa Guru program. The GBC has never been able to philosophically defend that program, and in fact, it is also asiddhantic.”
(DOR, p. 131)
Yet, due to his illiteracy, BVKS promotes the GBC guru system by which he became a guru as not being “deviant from sastric tradition” in the very same article in which he also endorses DOR which, as just seen, states that this GBC guru system is deviant:
“Obviously sastra does not state what the GBC should do, so it is silly to ask "Where does Sastra say that a group of GBCs can rubber-stamp Gurus?" In fact, sastra gives little or no guidelines for organization of religious groups. Nevertheless, all sampradayas and organizations that profess Vedic culture have procedures for choosing or appointing who will represent them as gurus. It is not that just anyone can claim to be a guru and be recognized as such in an established tradition. So in having a system, ISKCON is not unique or deviant from sastric tradition. […] But don't bring in that Ritvik tripe. Apart from their appalling ideology (which DOR has thoroughly dismantled)”
(BVKS article, 19/1/2013)
Thus, having endorsed and urged his ISKCON followers to read DOR, BVKS has told them that he accepts, and they should also accept, the following conclusions of DOR:
i) TFO’s challenge to the GBC position is correct, and there is no justification for having removed Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON’s initiating guru.
ii) ISKCON’s entire guru system is unauthorised.
iii) Therefore, both BVKS and all other ISKCON gurus should be rejected as deviants, as their guru position arises from a system which is philosophically not bona fide.
Which would mean that not only are BVKS’s claims and aims in regards to TFO and DOR the complete opposite of what he actually puts forward, but he is also attacking himself, the GBC and ISKCON as well!
Hence, BVKS’s illiteracy is firmly established.
Previously, DOR’s author had claimed that because he is a “fallen conditioned soul” he could not rule out the Ritvik position:
“Because I’m a fallen conditioned soul, I’m not in a position to rule out Rttvik as one of the many possible options.”
(Rocana Dasa, www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/final.htm, archived August 2012)
Yet DOR attempts to do just this, claiming it is a “rebuttal of the Ritvik-vada manifesto, The Final Order” (DOR title), and that those who follow this “Ritvik-vada” have an “asiddhantic Ritvik position” (DOR, p. 5). But there is no evidence that DOR’s author suddenly became a liberated soul before writing DOR. Thus, DOR’s attempt at rebutting TFO is ruled out as invalid by its author’s proclamation regarding his status as a “conditioned soul”.
BVKS does not even expect ISKCON’s gurus, of which he is one, to be liberated souls:
“we can't expect that there won't be any more guru falldowns, even of those who have been stringently screened, because it's a war against Maya and there is no magic wand to convert a conditioned soul into a pure devotee.”
(BVKS Lecture, 4/2/2013)
Therefore, unless BVKS can prove that DOR’s author is a liberated soul, then he has to accept that DOR’s stated objective in defeating TFO has to be ruled out as invalid by its own author.
As explained in section A, TFO begins (p. 2) by stating modifications a) and b) to the July 9th directive. The rest of TFO then examines whether there is any evidence for these modifications, and finds that there is none. Hence, on the last page of TFO, the following conclusion is given:
“Thus, there is no authorisation for anyone, at any time in the future of ISKCON, to initiate on their own behalf, apart from Srila Prabhupada.”
(TFO, p. 94)
DOR agrees in toto with this conclusion of TFO, by agreeing with the following points:
1) Modification a) - the representatives appointed in the July 9th directive should have been terminated on Srila Prabhupada’s departure - is invalid.
This conclusion is actually established through multiple arguments:
i) Because the representatives did not cease to initiate as representatives due to turning into diksa gurus on Srila Prabhupada’s departure. (Section B)
ii) Because this is what Srila Prabhupada ordered. (Section C)
iii) Because there is no termination instruction for the representatives to stop performing initiations on Srila Prabhupada’s departure. (Section D)
iv) Because it is still possible for the representatives to continue performing initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. (Section E)
v) Because this initiation order is the “final” order for how initiations were to be performed within ISKCON and therefore it continues within ISKCON. (Section F)
vi) Because the use of representatives initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada is not terminated on his departure through Srila Prabhupada being succeeded as ISKCON’s initiating guru by qualified disciples. (Section G)
vii) Because Srila Prabhupada did not authorise anyone to succeed him as ISKCON’s initiating guru, and therefore he remains ISKCON’s initiating guru. (Section H)
viii) Because ruling out Srila Prabhupada’s use of representatives to initiate on his behalf after his departure is not possible unless DOR’s author is a liberated soul. (Section J)
Thus, it is demonstrated from every conceivable angle that representatives appointed in the July 9th directive should not have been terminated on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
2) Modification b) - the representatives turn into diksa gurus - is invalid (Section B).
3) There is no order for anyone to succeed Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON’s initiating guru, and all ISKCON gurus, including BVKS, are unauthorised deviants. (Sections B, H and I).
And through his illiterate endorsement of DOR, BVKS has also ended up agreeing with all the above conclusions, which are the exact opposite of his claims regarding TFO and DOR. BVKS’s mind-numbing illiteracy in regards to promoting DOR as having defeated TFO can therefore be summed up very simply as follows: you can’t defeat a proposition by agreeing with it!
This stunning illiteracy on the part of BVKS is actually a characteristic of a sect of pseudo-devotees known as sahajiyas:
“Certainly it was right for Jiva Gosvami to stop such a dishonest scholar from advertising that he had defeated Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami, but due to their illiteracy the sahajiya class refer to this incident to accuse Srila Jiva Gosvami of deviating from the principle of humility.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila, 10.85, purport)
Such ignorance and illiteracy from BVKS clearly establishes that he is not on the platform of being an acarya who is to be respected “as good as Krishna”, as BVKS insists he is:
“The Vaisnava guru is even more important than the demigods in as much as they both accept worship. […] And I’m saying that and I am a Vaisnava guru. […] So the acarya that Krishna is speaking about when he’s instructing Uddhava, that “the acarya is as good as Me”, not be disrespected in any way, is the forest rishi guru. And of course this applies to all those, all Vaisnava gurus.”
(BVKS Lecture, “A Reply to Ritvikism”, 9/2/2009)
We began this case study by noting BVKS’s acknowledgement of TFO as being “perhaps the most influential post-1977 publication in the Vaisnava world". BVKS’s desperation to counter this threat posed by TFO to his unauthorised guru position has resulted in his sahajiya illiteracy being revealed. BVKS therefore needs to purify himself of these sahajiya qualities rather than worry about his guru position.
BVKS claimed:
“But DOR has shown that Ritvikism cannot be a solution, but simply adds to the confusion.”
(BVKS article, 12/1/2013)
Clearly, as has been demonstrated, it would be hard to spread any more confusion than BVKS claiming that TFO is defeated by a document that agrees with TFO and only defeats BVKS’s own position! Not only was it supreme illiteracy for BVKS to have claimed that DOR defeats TFO, but in being hilariously consistent with this illiteracy, BVKS admits that the document he is recommending is also not even readable:
“read this Defeat of Ritvikvada by Rocana, if you can read it. [...] It's not readable. I mean it's not, it's not readable”
(BVKS Lecture, 4/2/2013)
There is no greater testament to the truth of the proposition that Srila Prabhupada does not cease to be ISKCON’s initiating guru on his departure than the fact that a paper like DOR, which set out specifically to defeat that proposition, ends up being forced to agree with it. Indeed, after over 16 years, no attempts to defeat TFO have succeeded, because it is not possible to defeat Srila Prabhupada’s orders. And therefore, TFO, which is simply presenting Srila Prabhupada’s “final order” on initiations in ISKCON, also cannot be defeated. And herein lies the reason for the enormous influence of TFO which BVKS is desperate to counter.
Return to IRM Homepage