"Srila Prabhupada in 1977, appointed eleven disciples to serve as ritvik gurus, or 'officiating spiritual masters'."
1) Chaitanya Carana Das states at the outset that the eleven disciples were empowered to act via being
“appointed” into their positions. This is significant since it means that Chaitanya Carana Das must accept that they were not empowered to initiate their own disciples and act as Srila Prabhupada’s successor diksa gurus. This is because, later on in his article, Chaitanya Carana Das quotes HH Tamal Krishna Goswami (TKG) as being his authority on this issue, and he has made it clear that Srila Prabhupada never appointed successor diksa gurus:
"Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He didn't appoint eleven gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus. […] You can't show me anything on tape or writing where Prabhupada says, "I appoint these eleven as gurus." It doesn't exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.”
(HH Tamala Krishna Goswami, 3/12/80, quoted from ISKCON Journal (1990), Governing Body Commission, Executive Committee)
Yet, as we shall see, Chaitanya Carana Das will go on to claim that the eleven disciples were empowered to initiate their own disciples, thus contradicting his opening claim.
2) Chaitanya Carana Das also claims that the eleven were appointed by Srila Prabhupada as “ritvik gurus” or “officiating spiritual masters”. Indeed, Chaitanya Carana Das even puts the latter term in quotation marks to indicate he is quoting Srila Prabhupada. But neither of these terms was ever used by Srila Prabhupada. The reason for this subtle deception by Chaitanya Carana Das in the very first sentence of his paper, where he adds the words “gurus” and “spiritual masters” to the actual words used by Srila Prabhupada, is that later he will claim that these eleven persons were actually appointed to act as successor diksa gurus to initiate their own disciples. A claim which, as just seen, is, defeated by his own proclaimed authority on the issue.
Thus, in his opening sentence, Chaitanya Carana Das demonstrates the qualities which, as will be seen, characterise the rest of his paper – error and contradiction.
"He authorized these ritviks to decide which candidates to accept, and to chant on the candidates’ beads and give the new disciples spiritual names. The ritviks were to do this on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, and the new disciples were to be not those of the ritviks but of Srila Prabhupada himself. On July 9, 1977, Srila Prabhupada signed a document that makes these facts unmistakably clear."
Chaitanya Carana Das correctly states that Srila Prabhupada actually appointed these eleven persons as ritviks and nothing else. But this merely adds another layer of contradiction to his later claims that these same ritviks were appointed to become successor diksa gurus and initiate their own disciples.
"The proponents of the ritvika-acharya theory, referred in short as the ritvikas’, claim that Srila Prabhupada intended that, even after his physical departure, his disciples would continue to serve as ritvik gurus by initiating devotees who would be not their disciples but his. They claim to substantiate this in their book 'The Final Order,' referred henceforth as TFO."
Yes “The Final Order” (TFO) is the foundational document of the IRM and is referred to by ISKCON leaders as the “ritvik bible”. However, what TFO actually states is what Chaitanya Carana Das himself just claimed, which is that Srila Prabhupada authorised these ritviks to initiate disciples on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf. It is the GBC (Governing Body Commission, ISKCON’s leadership body, of whom Chaitanya Carana Das’ own spiritual master, HH Radhanatha Swami, is a member), who claim that these ritviks were supposed to magically transmogrify into functioning as successor diksa gurus as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed, and start initiating disciples on their own behalf. As TFO demonstrates, these claims are unsubstantiated, and referred to as Modifications A and B in TFO.
"There is no scriptural reference to support the claim that a guru continues initiation after his physical departure."
A diksa guru initiates disciples, which is the very definition of what a diksa guru does. It is the GBC who claim that such a diksa guru is restricted from such initiating as soon he departs. Since scripture does not state that such a restriction on the diksa guru exists, there is no need for scripture to state that such a restriction does not exist. The fact that such a restriction does not exist in scripture is self-evident from the fact that it does not exist in scripture. Therefore, it is actually the GBC's claim that the diksa guru is restricted from initiating which has no scriptural reference in its support.
"Srila Prabhupada consistently taught throughout his life that, after the departure of the guru, the disciple becomes the next guru and thus continues the disciplic succession; numerous references can be found in the folio to support this. Here are a few examples […] Are these references talking about siksha-gurus only, not diksha-gurus, as some ritvikas claim? Srila Prabhupada doesn’t say so. In case somebody feels there is some ambiguity, here is an unambiguous letter in which Srila Prabhupada etches in stone, as 'the law of disciplic succession', that his disciples should 'accept disciples without limitation' and 'that will make me and Krishna very happy.':"
Three quotes are initially provided, none of which state that “after the departure of the guru, the disciple becomes the next guru and thus continues the disciplic succession”, as Chaitanya Carana Das claims here. Indeed, none of them even mention the concept of the disciple becoming the “next” guru after the guru “departs”. Recognising this, Chaitanya Carana Das himself accepts that one may argue that these quotes may be referring to authorising siksa gurus. He, therefore goes on to offer the only quote which even makes reference to the possibility of guru succession occurring. This mentions the “law of disciplic succession”.
1) This “law” states that after the departure of the guru, his disciples “can” accept disciples:
“But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter: December 2, 1975)
No one has disputed that after the guru departs, it is possible for his disciples to become successor gurus. The issue is whether Srila Prabhupada authorised his disciples to do so. Even the GBC accepts that the “law” mentioned above does not constitute authorisation for all of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples to “accept disciples without limitation”. Rather, they insist that each successor ISKCON diksa guru is individually authorised via first receiving the necessary authorisation from the majority votes of the GBC:
“…any GBC can present a diksa guru candidate before the GBC body. […] and upon majority approval of the body, he may take up the responsibilities of an initiating guru in ISKCON.”
(GBC Resolution No. 3, 30/3/1986)
2) Hence, the “law” does not in itself mean the eleven ritviks were ordered by Srila Prabhupada to transmogrify into diksa gurus as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed. And without such an order they remain as ritviks. And we already saw earlier that the ISKCON leader whom Chaitanya Carana Das accepts as an authority on this subject, TKG, admits that the eleven ritviks were not authorised by any order from Srila Prabhupada to become successor diksa gurus.
3) Since 2001 the GBC have in any case abandoned this as being a “law” which ISKCON should follow, with there no longer being any restriction on disciples becoming gurus even in the lifetime of their own spiritual masters. Hence, a number of disciples of ISKCON gurus have themselves become ISKCON gurus in the presence of their own gurus.
Thus, in summary, according to Chaitanya Carana Das’ own authorities, there is no “law of disciplic succession” or any other order which authorises the eleven ritviks to automatically transmogrify into successor diksa gurus on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
"Moreover, on May 28, 1977, in view of Srila Prabhupada’s impending departure from this world, he was specifically asked by the GBC representatives how initiations would continue in his physical absence."
And the answer which Srila Prabhupada gives, which Chaitanya Carana Das himself reproduces, is that initiations would be continued via the appointment of ritviks:
“Satsvarupa: 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.
Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.
Tamala Krishna: Is that called ritvik-acarya?
Prabhupada: ritvik, yes.”
(Room conversation, May 28th, 1977)
"In this conversation are indelibly included the words 'granddisciple', 'regular gurus' and 'disciple of my disciple', which all strongly show that he is continuing the regular way of initiation."
Chaitanya Carana Das claims that Srila Prabhupada stating the following:
“Grand-disciple … When I order, “You become guru”, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.”
refers to the same ritviks that Srila Prabhupada mentions at the beginning of this conversation, now initiating their own disciples and producing Srila Prabhupada’s grand-disciples. But we already quoted Chaitanya Carana Das stating in the first sentence of this paper that these ritviks were “appointed” by Srila Prabhupada. Therefore, combining both of Chaitanya Carana Das’ claims would means that eleven disciples were appointed as ritviks who would then initiate their own disciples as successor diksa gurus. But, we already quoted Chaitanya Carana Das’ authority stating that Srila Prabhupada never appointed successor gurus, only ritviks. Therefore, by claiming that Srila Prabhupada is speaking here of the ritviks becoming gurus and initiating their own disciples, Chaitanya Carana Das is again defeated by the statement of his own authority.
And if we ignore the claims of both Chaitanya Carana Das and his authority, but simply examine the statements which Srila Prabhupada makes here, we can see that Srila Prabhupada is referring to regular gurus and grand-disciples (“disciple of my disciple”) emerging contingent on him first ordering them (“When I order”). And this cannot be the order for ritviks, since Chaitanya Carana Das has already said they were “appointed” and Chaitanya Carana Das’ authority states that Srila Prabhupada never appointed gurus, only ritviks. Nor has Chaitanya Carana Das produced any such diksa guru order for the eleven ritviks.
"The TFO, in order to screw out a meaning suitable for their purposes, claims that Srila Prabhupada often referred to himself in the third person; so when he uses the word 'he' in this conversation, he is referring to himself. But a folio study doesn’t support this claim."
Later on in the article, Chaitanya Carana Das quotes HH Jayadvaita Swami (JS) extensively as being another authority whom he accepts on this issue. This same authority of Chaitanya Carana Das, JS, is quoted by GBC Ravindra Svarupa Das in his paper “Under my Order”, as having rendered Srila Prabhupada stating “his grand-disciple” and not “he is grand-disciple” for the above mentioned transcript. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada has to be referring to himself here in the third person, since only he could even in theory possess grand-disciples – “his grand-disciple”. It would be impossible for his disciples to already possess grand-disciples!
"Moreover this argument amounts to tampering with guru-vani, to placing one’s own words in the guru’s mouth. By choosing whichever words one wants and replacing them with whichever words one wants, one can make Srila Prabhupada say whatever one wants."
Chaitanya Carana Das has just stated that we are wrongly claiming that the words Srila Prabhupada actually spoke refer to himself in the third person. Thus, he fully accepts that we are referring to the actual words Srila Prabhupada spoke, but are mistaken only over to whom these words Srila Prabhupada spoke refer. Thus, since Chaitanya Carana Das accepts we are dealing with the actual words spoken by Srila Prabhupada, we cannot be changing, replacing or tampering with them and instead placing our own words into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth. Therefore, in claiming that attribution of referents for the words Srila Prabhupada speaks means we are “replacing” the words Srila Prabhupada speaks, Chaitanya Carana Das not only contradicts himself, but also displays a lack of understanding of the English language.
"The word ritvika-acharya is introduced by Tamal Krishna Maharaja, not by Srila Prabhupada. This and the repeated clarifications sought by him and Satsvarupa Maharaja indicate that they were eager to understand and implement Srila Prabhupada’s will, not that they were trying to make Srila Prabhupada speak that they (his disciples) could become gurus, as TFO alleges."
TKG has already admitted that they did not understand and implement Srila Prabhupada’s will, but instead tried to become gurus without authorisation:
“Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.”
(HH Tamala Krishna Goswami, 3/12/80, quoted from ISKCON Journal (1990), GBC Executive Committee)
So again Chaitanya Carana Das is defeated by his own authorities.
"The definition of 'ritvik' in the Sanskrit dictionaries and in Srila Prabhupada’s books is not 'proxy' or 'non-initiator' or anything of the sort. The definition of 'ritvik' is simply 'priest', and a look at Srila Prabhupada’s books will show 'ritvik' defined as 'priest', or something similar, again and again. The word 'acarya' does not mean 'priest', so 'officiating acarya' cannot literally mean 'officiating priest'. Nor is the word 'officiate' limited to the meaning of performing a ceremony. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 'officiate' can also mean 'to perform the duties and functions of an office or a position of authority'. Literally speaking, then, 'officiating acarya' can only mean 'someone who performs the functions of an acarya', a meaning which does not support the ritvika theory that the ritvikas are meant to be just that for all time to come."
By attempting to put forward the idea here that “officiating acaryas” are not ritvik priests but diksa gurus, Chaitanya Carana Das is again contradicting himself. At the outset, we already quoted Chaitanya Carana Das stating that the ritviks were “appointed”:
“Srila Prabhupada in 1977, appointed eleven disciples to serve as ritvik gurus, or 'officiating spiritual masters'.”
Since his authority TKG has declared that Srila Prabhupada never appointed gurus, the “ritviks” who were appointed could never have been gurus.
"The ritvikas use grammatical word jugglery to screw out a meaning suitable for them from this conversation. To help decide whose understanding should be taken seriously – those who heard it or those who interpret it, Sriman Bharatasrestha Dasa, (William G. Wall, Professor of Vaishnava Literature and Theology; BA (summa cum laude), MA, Ph.D in English) clarifies: 'We are dealing with complex grammars operating in the 'understood’ mode. Noam Chomsky built a career on that. A 2 year old’s one syllable sentence is grammatically complete according to the Theory of Innate Grammar, and it is also true according to parents, who do, in fact, understand the child’s utterance despite the fact that grammatically necessary ingredients have been omitted, just as those present in the room understood Srila Prabhupada to mean that after Srila Prabhupada’s passing new devotees would be disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. (See JL Austin, Searle, Strawson, Griece and Speech Act Theory.) I’m sure you can find other cases where Srila Prabhupada used clipped speech, denying a pronoun its formal antecedent. If Srila Prabhupada had been writing for publication, it would be a different matter. The authority in this case, according to Speech Act Theory, would be Tamala Krishna Goswami [to whom Prabhupada was speaking]. Srila Prabhupada meant what those in the room say he meant. Period. This is, by the way, Philosophy, not Grammar.' And Tamal Krishna Maharaja as well as all the other devotees present in the room unanimously state that they understood Srila Prabhupada to be continuing the standard guru parampara system."
Chaitanya Carana Das puts forward the bizarre theory that we can understand what Srila Prabhupada meant based not on what he actually said, but on what those who heard him think he meant! He claims that the authority for what Srila Prabhupada stated in the above conversation is, therefore, not the plain meaning of the words and sentences Srila Prabhupada speaks, but TKG. But, in any case, TKG explains that his understanding of the above conversation is that Srila Prabhupada did not appoint persons who would initiate their own disciples:
“Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He didn't appoint eleven gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus. […] What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned that he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons and they went to Prabhupada - five or six of us. We asked him, "Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?" Later on there was a piled-up list for people to get initiated, and it was jammed-up. I said, "Srila Prabhupada, you once mentioned about ritviks. […] So Prabhupada said, "All right, I will appoint so many...." and he started to name them and he did name them. He made it very clear that they're his disciples. At that point it was very clear in my mind that they were his disciples. […] He appointed eleven and he said very clearly, "Whoever is nearest, he can initiate." This is a very important point, because when it comes to initiating it isn't whoever is nearest, it's wherever your heart goes. Who repose your faith on, you take initiation from him. But when it's officiating, it's whoever is nearest, and he was very clear. […] Then, on my behalf, they'll initiate." It's not a question that you repose your faith in that person - nothing. That's a function for the guru. "In order for me to manage this movement," Prabhupada said, "I have to form a GBC, and I will appoint the following people. In order to continue the process of people joining our movement and getting initiated, I have to appoint some priests to help me because just like I cannot physically manage everyone myself, I physically cannot initiate everyone myself." And that's all that it was, and it was never any more than that. If it had been more than that, you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, but he didn't because he already had said it a million times.” He said, "My Guru Maharaja did not appoint anyone. It's by qualification.” […] Obviously, Srila Prabhupada felt that of all the people, these people are particularly qualified. So it stands to reason that after Prabhupada's departure, they would go on, if they so desired, to initiate.”
(HH Tamala Krishna Goswami, 3/12/80, from ISKCON Journal (1990), GBC Executive Committee, emphasis added)
TKG clearly explains that in the May 28th conversation, Srila Prabhupada was speaking of only appointing ritviks who would only initiate on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, and that these persons were not appointed to later have the status of gurus who would initiate their own disciples. Rather, if at all they were to become gurus, it would only be by virtue of their own desire to become gurus and due to being qualified for that position. But, in no way do they get the status of initiating their own disciples via the May 28th conversation and their related subsequent appointment as ritviks. Thus, there is no empowerment or order from Srila Prabhupada for them to be anything other than ritviks. The underlined parts highlight the key chain of events from the May 28th conversation to the appointment of ritviks, and TKG makes it clear that, throughout the whole process, only ritviks who would initiate on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf were being appointed, and it was “never any more than that.” Therefore, according to Chaitanya Carana Das’ own argument that we must accept what TKG states about this conversation, the May 28th conversation does not speak of devotees who would be appointed to initiate their own disciples.
Again, we have demonstrated that we do not need to directly rebut what Chaitanya Carana Das puts forward. Rather, throughout this paper we have demonstrated that Chaitanya Carana Das can simply be defeated by the words of those whom he claims are his authorities. Thus, every time Chaitanya Carana Das contradicts his authorities, he automatically defeats himself and it is not necessary for the IRM to separately defeat him.
"In summary: Srila Prabhupada consistently said - over the entire period of his ISKCON preaching - that he wanted his disciples to continue the parampara by becoming regular gurus, giving initiations and accepting disciples. Srila Prabhupada reconfirmed these instructions on 28 May, 1977, when specifically asked by the GBC at a time when his departure seemed imminent."
In summary Chaitanya Carana Das here presents a pack of lies:
1) First, Srila Prabhupada never even used the term “regular gurus”, never mind “continue the parampara by becoming regular gurus”, before the 28th May, 1977 conversation.
2) Neither does Srila Prabhupada ever state that he wanted his disciples to be “giving initiations and accepting disciples”.
One can check the folio and confirm this for oneself.
Rather, as we demonstrated earlier, Chaitanya Carana Das has simply put his own words into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth, for the words he uses are not spoken by Srila Prabhupada. This is ironic, for as we saw earlier, it was Chaitanya Carana Das who, due to a poor grasp of the English language, had falsely claimed we were the ones who were putting words into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth.
So Srila Prabhupada could not have “reconfirmed” on May 28th, 1977, something which he had not even mentioned previously! Rather, as demonstrated above, on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada simply speaks of appointing ritviks who would initiate disciples only on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf.
"The Misrepresented July 9, 1977 letter
The July 9 letter, written by Tamal Krishna Goswami and approved by Srila Prabhupada, is claimed by the ritvikas as the 'final order' regarding how initiations should go on forever."
Yes, the above is definitely the July 9th letter “misrepresented”, for TFO never claims that this letter states how initiations “should go on forever”. TFO simply states what the letter itself states – that this is the system for persons to get initiated in ISKCON.
"The ritvikas use the word 'henceforward' in the sentence 'Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple' to claim that this – the representatives should initiate on his (Srila Prabhupada’s) behalf – is his final order for all time to come."
Though Chaitanya Carana Das correctly claimed at the outset that TFO sets out the position he is attempting to rebut, due to either poor scholarship, laziness or just outright cheating, he does not actually then present any argument from TFO itself to rebut! Above is a perfect example. TFO does not depend on the word “henceforward” to make its argument. It actually states:
“Furthermore, the argument that the whole ritvik system “hangs” on one word – “henceforward” is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure with no subsequent instruction to terminate it.”
(TFO, Page 3)
"This argument is flawed because:
1. This letter was a response to a June 7 conversation that specifically dealt, from the beginning, with how to deal with the backlog of initiations that had accumulated due to Srila Prabhupada’s ill health, not with what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure."
Yes the argument above is indeed flawed, because Chaitanya Carana Das has to accept that:
a) The ritvik appointment was in response to the May 28th conversation, with the backlog merely being the trigger for making the appointment, based on the authority of TKG’s statement below:
“What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned that he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons and they went to Prabhupada - five or six of us. We asked him, "Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?"
Later on there was a piled-up list for people to get initiated, and it was jammed-up. I said, "Srila Prabhupada, you once mentioned about ritviks. I don't know what to do. We don't want to approach you, but there's hundreds of devotees named, and I'm just holding all the letters. I don't know what you want to do." So Prabhupada said, "All right, I will appoint so many...." and he started to name them and he did name them. He made it very clear that they're his disciples. At that point it was very clear in my mind that they were his disciples.”
(HH Tamala Krishna Goswami, 3/12/80, from ISKCON Journal (1990), GBC Executive Committee)
b) And that the May 28th conversation, in turn, dealt specifically with initiations in Srila Prabhupada’s absence according to his own statement:
“Moreover, on May 28, 1977, in view of Srila Prabhupada’s impending departure from this world, he was specifically asked by the GBC representatives how initiations would continue in his physical absence.”
(Chaitanya Carana Das’ statement at the outset of his paper, quoted earlier)
Therefore, via the combination of the statements of his authority and himself, Chaitanya Carana Das accepts that Srila Prabhupada made the ritvik appointment in response to “how initiations would continue in his physical absence”, with the need to clear the backlog of initiations merely being the trigger for the appointment at that point in time.
"This letter is written not by Srila Prabhupada, but by Tamal Krishna Maharaja. So he is the best person to tell what the word 'henceforward'. Here’s what he explains, 'Henceforward’ means something like, 'in the foreseeable future,' or, 'until further notice.'’"
As we already pointed out, this is another pointless “straw man” argument (or addressing an argument we never made to begin with), since our position does not rest on the use of this word.
*At this point in his paper, Chaitanya Carana Das then decides to recycle already defeated arguments by quoting extensively from a paper by JS which we rebutted 16 years ago! That rebuttal can be read here.
"Faced with the fact of not having any scriptural support for their theory, ritvikas devise several devious arguments to give credence to their concoction. […] Then they boisterously claim that there are no uttama-adhikaris within ISKCON because 'so many gurus have fallen down,' etc. […] Moreover the allegation that none of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are uttama-adhikaris implies that Srila Prabhupada did not have the potency to make any of his disciples pure. […] ('Prabhupada was so impotent that none of his disciples became qualified')."
1) Again, Chaitanya Carana Das displays his gross ignorance of the very position he is supposed to be rebutting. TFO does not claim that there are “no uttama-adhikaris within ISKCON because so many gurus have fallen down.” TFO actually states that there could be pure devotees in ISKCON:
“8. “Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure devotees?”
No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to allow
initiations to continue. […] In any case, the implementation of a ritvik system does not rule out, a priori, the possible existence of pure devotees.”
(TFO, Pages 56-57)
2) Conversely, Chaitanya Carana Das’ own authorities DO state that there are no uttama-adhikaris in ISKCON. ISKCON’s minister for sannyasa and ISKCON diksa guru, HH Prahladananada Swami states:
"Such an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava is in perfect touch with the Supersoul and at every moment knows the Supreme Lord's desires."
(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)
"If the GBC Body sees someone as a self-effulgent acarya who is completely aware of the Supersoul and Srila Prabhupada's desires and instructions they can and should follow his/her instructions. No one so far has been seen in that category."
(Prahladananda Swami, Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:32 +0300, emphasis added)
"To spread Krsna consciousness in the absence of an advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava, third-class and second-class Vaisnavas must follow the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and learn the art of cooperation."
(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006, emphasis added)
"Therefore, Srila Prabhupada, in the same purport, gives externally distinguishable symptoms of the uttama-adhikari: […] Any sincere and non-envious person will be able to see that there are many souls with these symptoms in Srila Prabhupada’s Krishna Consciousness movement (ISKCON)."
As we have just seen, this means that Chaitanya Carana Das is condemning ISKCON guru and minister for sannyasa, HH Prahladananda Maharaja, as being envious and insincere due to his not accepting that ISKCON is full of many uttama-adhikaris!
"Irresponsibly spreading ritvikism instead of Srila Prabhupada’s bona fide teaching creates confusion and dissension among Vaishnavas. Further, ritvikism leads to Vaishnva-apradha, even guru-apradha, and can destroy one’s spiritual life. "
We have seen that Chaitanya Carana Das is not even able to spread the teachings of those whom he claims are his own spiritual authorities, never mind the bona fide teachings of Srila Prabhupada. And that, further, he has engaged in what he would consider to be “aparadha” against an ISKCON guru and sannyasa minister by accusing him of being envious and insincere!
The arguments put forward by Chaitanya Carana Das are so unscholarly and contradictory that we have been able to refute them simply by:
- Pointing out that they do not deal with the position stated in TFO, which is supposed to be the position Chaitanya Carana Das is refuting. Thus, Chaitanya Carana Das cannot possibly hope to refute TFO when he does not even address TFO’s statements.
- Pointing out that they are contradicted by the statements of those whom he puts forward as authorities on the subject.
We have, therefore, not needed to make any further arguments of our own to refute Chaitanya Carana Das’ position. Indeed, to have done so would have just been overkill, considering the great job Chaitanya Carana Das has done of defeating himself.
