Where H. H. Jayadvaita Swami
is Wrong Again

Maharaja is mysteriously unable to produce any evidence of how we are 'shooting down Srila Prabhupada's teachings'.  Though he does seem to be able to find the time and energy to repeatedly make these vacuous claims.  

If Maharaja had more carefully read what we stated he would see the point we were demonstrating in this section is that there are variations from the model of the guru initiating until his departure, and the disciple taking over immediately at that point.  That is a fact, and that's all we were stating here.   

This is a 'straw man' argument from Maharaja.  We do not use a 'gap' as evidence for the p.s.  ritvik theory.  But only as evidence against some 'standard' or 'plain' model for how the parampara must always be continued.  To use Maharaja's analogy (which he misapplies )- the fact that a father does not have a son for many years after his own father has passed away is evidence for just that: 

That a father does not have to give birth to a son immediately after his own father passes away.  

This was not used as evidence to promote the idea that therefore this proves the father never has children, or that they are born of the grandfather or any other such thing (hence Maharaja's misapplication).  

The above analogy is also faulty for another reason.   The 'ritviks' do not propose that sons should be born of 'grandfathers'.  They say that sons should only be born from fathers.  But that Srila Prabhupada is that father.  And that until a valid reason is given as to why he should stop being the father in ISKCON, and be replaced by his sons, he will remain the father.  For in this spiritual analogy, the father does not have to stop pro-creating as soon as he 'dies', or as soon as one of his 'sons' is qualified enough to pro-create himself.  No, Srila Prabhupada set up a system so that he will continue to have sons, his elder children assisting him in the task by acting as 'loco parentis' (siksa guru) to their younger brothers.   

Further example of the Maharaja's avoidance of philosophical substance in favour of irrelevant peripherals.    

Maharaja has yet to demonstrate that anything 'we know' is incorrect on this issue.   

It is interesting that Maharaja justifies his avoidance of pages of pithy arguments, in favour of the inconsequential and vacuous, as a time saving device.  More time spent tackling the main issues, and rather less on seeing how accurately we paraphrased him, might have been time better spent.  If some devotees have been 'confused' by the arguments in our previous rebuttal, it is hard to see how Maharaja's latest effort will help them in any way.     

If 'regular (plain) vanilla' does not refer to accepting the 'current link in the chain of disciplic succession', then whatever it does refer to must be bogus; for the above principle is straight from the Srimad Bhagavatam (2:9:7) as originally quoted in our initial rebuttal paper.

We are not saying that ritvik is correct for ISKCON because it does not violate the principle of diksa or succession; we are merely pointing out that it does not.  The whole point of Maharaja's paper is that ritvik violates 'plain vanilla', but as we demonstrated (and choosing our words very carefully) 'plain vanilla' does not factually exist. 
Since ritvik-past-departure does not violate sastra or any principle of the parampara, why was it stopped on departure?  That is the question Maharaja really needs to urgently address.

If the process of 'approaching, enquiring and serving Srila Prabhupada' simply makes him our siksa-guru then verse 4:34 in the Bhagavad Gita, which recommends this process, cannot simultaneously be used as the standard example of diksa (which it commonly is by those opposed to ritvik in ISKCON).  It is invariably trotted out as evidence that the diksa guru must be 'physically present'.  The verse clearly is speaking of diksa since the word for 'knowledge transmission' is upadiksyanti - 'initiating with'.  So our statement stands.  The process of enquiring, serving and being initiated by the current link in the chain of disciplic succession is not in any way compromised by the ritvik system.   

If the dust jacket does present a major philosophical deviation, and the Maharaja knows about it, then how could he allow tens of millions of copies to be distributed all over the world?  Is he not the BBT chairman as well as the editor of the book in question?  If Srila Prabhupada is not the current link then the Maharaja will have done far more than we ever have to convince the world that he is.     

Of course, we responded to the Maharaja's paper.  But as an added bonus we also cleared up an issue brought up during a five hour meeting we held with the Maharaja, which partially led to him writing his paper in the first place- (we also have this section of the meeting on tape).  We do not see why briefly mentioning pertinent points from that discussion is an example of looking for a 'way out', since over 95% of the reply does respond specifically to 'Where the Ritvik People are Wrong'.  

Srila Prabhupada continually taught, up until 1977, that we must only approach a bona fide spiritual master in the disciplic succession.  He also gave examples of great acaryas in the parampara who were 'current' for long periods of time, and taught that physicality is not a consideration for transmitting spiritual knowledge.  He never taught that the disciplic succession must involve the succession (from one link to the next) always taking place within a certain plain, unadorned time period.    

Whether or not Maharaja accepts it, Srila Prabhupada did teach the above.  There is nothing that Srila Prabhupada taught which is compromised by the p.s. ritvik system.   

Maharaja is overlooking the obvious.  Even the GBC themselves acknowledge that the beginning of the letter alludes back to the May conversation.  It is clear from the very start of the letter that it has arisen out of a meeting which sounds remarkably similar to the one held on May 28^th, and that it is an answer to the question at hand:

Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrindavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon he would appoint some of his senior disciples to act as "ritvik - representative of the acharya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.  His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:
(July 9th, Letter)

Who says so?  Maharaja's own GBC EC member, His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu:

We hope that Maharaja will accept this statement from his own authority in ISKCON.  If he does not wish to accept the GBC's authority, he may wish to note the following:

The opening phrase from the May 28^th tape does correspond directly with the opening phrases from the July 9^th letter:  

Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us.  We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.  [...] Yes.  I shall recommend some of you.  After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas.  [...] Is that called ritvik-acharya? [...] Ritvik, yes.  (May 28th Conversation) 

Please notice the correspondence between the underlined words above and the opening sentence of the July 9^th letter given earlier:  

If the July 9th letter does follow directly from the May conversation, then the letter must be an expression of what occurred in that earlier meeting, and be therefore ‘particularly’ applicable to when Srila Prabhupada is ‘no longer with us’.  It is quite absurd to assert that a letter which arises out of a conversation specifically concerning post-departure diksa arrangements, ends up only spelling out what is to be done pre-departure.  Why mention in the letter a previous conversation (May 28) that deals ‘particularly’ with when Srila Prabhupada ‘is no longer with us’, when the same letter is supposed to only be applicable to before Srila Prabhupada’s departure?   

Again Maharaja needs to carefully read what we said.  As before we will produce what we actually said, what Maharaja said, and let the readers decide for themselves if there is a reasonable correspondence between the two: 

"You say everyone accepts the July 9th order and the establishment of the rtvik system."  

Now, let's move on to something else that everyone agrees on. 

Srila Prabhupada himself, in 1977, appointed eleven disciples to serve as rtvik gurus, or "officiating spiritual masters."(1) […] On July 9, 1977, Srila Prabhupada signed a document that makes these facts unmistakably clear.(2)

("Where the Ritvik People Are Wrong")  

Maharaja prefaces what we have labelled as (1) and (2) as being something 'everyone agrees on'.  (1) is the 'ritvik system'.  (2) is the July 9^th order. 

Again we never enclosed what we alleged Maharaja said with speech marks, and thus it is clear we were paraphrasing.  Let us see if we have changed the meaning or the understanding of what you said:     

I hope we all agree so far     

Thus we fail to see how us claiming the Maharaja agreed that everyone accepts both the July 9^th instruction, and the establishment of the ritvik system, is in any sense a 'straw man' argument.  We fully agree that the question of whether or not the system applies post-samadhi is another matter.  However, we never implied that there was any acceptance of this point by anyone.  Surely, the Maharaja would not think that we would try and pretend to everyone that he really agreed with post samadhi ritvik all along.  Thus once more the Maharaja makes a huge unjustified attack over some minor detail of paraphrasing, whilst avoiding anything pertinent to the issue at hand  - namely the validity of the p.s.  ritvik system.    

Again Maharaja is purposefully pretending that we are trying to give a verbatim analysis of the conversation rather than just paraphrasing.  When paraphrasing the issue is to see if the meaning has been corrupted.  In this case we have equated the phrase: 

'When I order'   with   'If if he orders them, and should he ever do so' 

Do the two mean the same thing?  The term 'when' is used to express a condition that must be fulfilled.  That condition is simply expressed by us in other words such as 'if ' and 'should he ever do so'.  These phrases imply the same thing.  For the action 'when I order' can only be fulfilled if he gives the order, and 'should the order be given' then what Srila Prabhupada has stated will happen 'when' he gives the order - will happen.

Thus, there is no question of 'putting words in Srila Prabhupada's mouth' since we have never claimed that we were quoting verbatim.  Maharaja needs to understand the basic difference between quoting verbatim and paraphrasing.  The latter is a valid technique as long as the meaning is not changed.  It was done frequently in our original paper since as we stated right at the opening of our paper: 

This is why we paraphrased, which is not a crime as long as the meaning is kept intact, which we have demonstrated it was.   

We also said in our reply.  Right before the part quoted earlier: 

This turned out to be 'The Final Order' where we do quote relevant GBC views and the May 28^th tape verbatim.   

Maharaja also pretends that the following exchange is not muddled:  

Tamal Krishna Maharaja: No, he is asking [T]hese rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa.  .  .  .  The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?  

We say 'pretend' for the following reasons:  

1)  Maharaja conveniently left out the words in bold.  This is the point where H. H.  Tamal Krishna Maharaja interrupted.  H. H.  Jayadvaita Maharaja missed out the words 'No.  He is asking'.  Clearly H. H.  Tamal Krishna Maharaja thought there was confusion and the words missed out show that H. H.  Tamala Krishna Maharaja was asking the question to clear up a perceived misunderstanding that had just taken place. 

2)  In 1993 in South London, England, H. H.  Jayadvaita Maharaja gave a class on ritvik where he himself stated that the May 28^th conversation becomes 'mergy in the middle'! 

3)  Both Ravindra Svarupa prabhu and Hari Sauri prabhu, in authorised GBC papers, have admitted that the tape has sections, which are unclear.  Ravindra Svarupa prabhu's contribution was highly significant since it was written in the paper that actually brought down the whole zonal acarya system: 

After berating us for not respecting our superiors, we are sure the Maharaja will also be keen to humbly respect his authority in ISKCON.

As for Maharaja endorsing the GBC paper 'Disciple of My Disciple', he seems oblivious to the fact that it contradicts his own explanation of what Srila Prabhupada did on May 28th:  

Here the paper clearly states that Gurus were set up for the future, but not ritviks acting for the present.  Maharaja believes the opposite happened:  

We have shown how Maharaja has failed to properly read both the paper he is supposed to be replying to, as well as his own paper that he is supposedly defending.  To this we would add that he should also read papers that he is now recommending as having given an accurate analysis of the May 28^th conversation. 

We have already addressed Maharaja's connection with the M.A.S.S. system (see opening point).    

We explain clearly WHY it is the 'final order' on initiation - because it was:

a) An order
b) It was on initiation
c) It was the final communication on this subject sent to the society.  

Now we have come to the real crux of the issue, and once more Maharaja dodges it completely.  He would much rather point out how our paraphrasing differs from direct quoting, or talk about different flavours of ice cream, than where he ever got the idea the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure.   

The suggestion that to get the answer to the question we should read his paper again is breathtaking, to say the least.  If his original paper contains this sort of explicit proof then why not just have faith in it.  Why did his holiness Giridhari Maharaja ask for a new paper to be written?  Why did the Maharaja feel the need to bale out his previous writing if he had already given irrefutable proof that the system was meant to stop at departure?  Why not just direct us to read his original paper from the beginning and leave it at that?   

As is clear, we made the above comment in a certain context - we were referring specifically to written instructions.  To issue a clear written directive to the whole movement for something that is supposedly only applicable for 4 months, and at the same time issue no written instruction for what is applicable for up to 10,000 years, is just plain unbelievable.  To only supposedly speak a few words in a conversation lasting seconds, which the GBC have previously admitted is confused, is in contrast with a signed directive sent all over the world- akin to silence.  We must remember that for even minor matters Srila Prabhupada would insist on putting things in writing.

Srila Prabhupada never taught that there are arbitrary time restrictions for how long a member of the disciplic succession can remain current.  Yes Srila Prabhupada did teach about disciplic succession, but Srila Prabhupada is the current successor.  The issue is about how long before there has to be another one.  We feel no compulsion to speculate about arbitrary time periods when we have clear instructions to be going on with from the current link.     

[Letter follows]  

Of course we do not try and get 'rid of it'.  It is Maharaja who tries to ignore and get 'rid of ' what we actually say about the letter.  Here are the points again, with a few more added: 

1)   The letter was sent privately to one person, and not discovered by the movement until 10 years later and even then only because of the unauthorised activities of a 'ritvik'.  Thus what relevance does it have to terminating the July 9^th letter in 1977, the issue at hand? 

2)   The letter was an instruction directed at its recipient.  Thus, how is it also applicable as specific authorisation for anyone else in ISKCON? 

3)  The letter speaks of the principle that the departure of the Guru is the time that succession can take place.  How is the instruction that something can happen the same as authorising that it must ? e.g.  one can drive a car once one is 17 years old (in the UK).  But separate qualification and then authorisation is also required.  In other words the departure of the Guru is a general hurdle that must be crossed before the disciple can take up the role of diksa guru.  But it is not automatic.  Qualification and authorisation must also be there. 

4)  If Maharaja believes that Tusta Krishna Maharaja was himself authorised by this letter, it still does not affect the running of ISKCON.  He left the movement soon after he received the letter, and is not in any case qualified even now due to his association with Siddha Svarupa, whose philosophy is not in line with Srila Prabhupada's. 

5)  Also why was this supposed authorisation letter only ever issued to someone who was probably one of the least qualified to receive it, as we have demonstrated from all the other letters Srila Prabhupada sent him. 

Thus we never got 'rid of the letter'.  We merely stated that it did not constitute authorisation for the ritviks or general devotees in ISKCON to initiate their own disciples.  The above are the reasons why.  The reasons that Maharaja would no doubt rather 'get rid of' than answer.

The quotes merely speak of the qualification required to make disciples.  These injunctions have always been there.  But to act as diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada states that specifically the predecessor acarya must also authorise it: 

One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master.  This is called diksa-vidhana.            
(S.B. 4:8:54) 

This verse would be completely redundant if one simply needed to follow injunctions that already existed before (in ISKCON's case) the predecessor spiritual master even existed.  Srila Prabhupada also repeats this principle in response to a question regarding his own status: 

A guru can become guru when he's ordered by his guru.  That's all.  Otherwise nobody can become guru.  […] You should know that one can become guru when he is ordered by his guru, this much.           
(B.G.  Lecture, 28/10/75) 

As we have shown, Maharaja has yet to make any solid points relating to the issue at hand.  Even where he correctly pointed out our mistake in using the word 'regular' instead of 'plain', the validity of our argument was not affected in the slightest.  Neither has Maharaja been 'through ten pages'.  He has simply picked out a small fraction of these ten pages, and even then only tackled perceived faults that have no relevance to the issue at hand.

Maharaja has accepted the principal that acaryas can remain 'current' for long periods of time (the example of Vyasadeva etc.) yet curiously he does not consider these personalities as having 'frozen the disciplic line'.  No, he reserves that objection for if Srila Prabhupada might stay current, and in that way prevent his disciples from occupying the post of initiating guru.  He may argue that in the other cases the acaryas where physically embodied, but that is a separate matter.  There are two issues here: 

1)    Does the acarya need to be physically embodied in order to remain 'current' in the disciplic succession?

2)     Can an acarya remain 'current' for long periods of time? 

Maharaja has already accepted that the answer to question 2 is YES.  If the answer to question 1) is NO, then the issue of time becomes irrelevant by virtue of the answer given to question 2.  If the answer to question 1) is YES, then the issue of time is also irrelevant since the acarya would have to cease being 'current' immediately he left his body.  In order to defeat the ritvik idea Maharaja would need to find the following instructions in Srila Prabhupada's teachings: 

a)    That the acarya can only be current if 'physically embodied';

OR

b)   If the acarya is not physically embodied, he can remain 'current' only for small periods of time, as dictated by the whim of the Maharaja. 

We challenge Maharaja or anyone else to find these instructions in Srila Prabhupada's teachings.  

Just one more thing.  .  .     

We never say what Maharaja has claimed above.  We have simply stated a fact.  That neither statement a) or b) appear in the July 9^th letter.  If Maharaja has some other place where a) and b) do appear in Srila Prabhupada's institutional directives or books, we would also consider that as evidence.  Unfortunately Maharaja's papers do not attempt to address the issue of evidence for statement a) and b), thus their location is not even an issue.  We have never claimed that statements a) and b) cannot be found from another document besides the July 9^th letter.  We have simply pointed out that they do not appear in the July 9^th letter.  In fact they do not appear anywhere else either, and that is why we call these statements an invention.  We invite the Maharaja to prove us wrong. 

Anyway:

The quotes you offer in the appendix support a part of your paper we did not disagree with.  Everyone accepts the principle of disciplic succession, and that one must approach the current link.  We only disagree with your interpretation that this constitutes a 'plain vanilla' version of the parampara, and that therefore the p.s.  ritvik system must be bogus.  That is the fiction.  Your interpretation.  None of the quotes in the appendix mention plain vanilla, nor do they contradict the ritvik proposition.  So what point are you trying to make?  We apologise again for any offence; we fully acknowledge Maharaja's seniority and dedication to Srila Prabhupada's movement.  We also respect his extensive knowledge of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, far in excess of our own.  It is only on this one issue that there seem to be a few discrepancies.  Unfortunately these discrepancies have had serious ramifications for thousands of 'second generation' disciples, and will have serious effects long into the future if something is not done about it.  It is for this reason only that we speak so strongly, not out of disrespect.  

1. Maharaja has not answered any point from our original paper that related to the validity of the ritvik issue, and more importantly the evidence for a) and b) in the second to last quoted section above - the key points.  Thus however right Maharaja could have been on everything else he says, he still could not possibly have achieved his main objective.  That which caused Giridhari Maharaja to request a new paper in the first place: to dissuade those who were convinced of the ritvik argument. 
   
   
2. As it happens, even on the irrelevant and trivial points Maharaja has tried to concentrate on, he has still not been able to demonstrate that we were incorrect.  In fact, the only point he has been able to make with any measure of validity, is that we should have used the word 'plain' rather than 'regular'.  But even then the consequence of this oversight is zero since it does not alter in the slightest any of the conclusions we reached. 

Please forgive any offence, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Back to top of page