SKCON India ("II"), represented by its "scholars" board ("IISB"), recently launched a series of videos trying to refute The Final Order (TFO) and the position it sets forth, which IISB calls "rtvikism". They felt compelled to do this because, like ISKCON GBC gurus HH Jayadvaita Swami and HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami, they also recognised the position of TFO as being the "Bible" of accepting Srila Prabhupada's order that he is ISKCON's diksa guru:
"The Final Order on rtvikism, which is considered as the Bible for the rtviks. [...] godfather of rtvik"
Thus, even 30 years after TFO was requested by, and sent to, the GBC, ISKCON realises the only way to oppose Srila Prabhupada's position as ISKCON's diksa guru today is to try to refute TFO. The quotes in the shaded boxes above and below are taken from these IISB videos released between 16/5 and 2/6, 2025.
Forever wrong about TFO
"The Final Order and basically in a nutshell that book propagated the idea that this letter of July 9th, 1977 was Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiations and suddenly because of that letter Prabhupada continues to be the guru forever and ever."
This is a fabrication. TFO does not state that Srila Prabhupada will be the guru "forever". Here is what it actually states:
"Srila Prabhupada will be the initiator within ISKCON for as long as the Society is extant."
(TFO, p. 81)
Thus, TFO only states that Srila Prabhupada will be the diksa guru for ISKCON, since he will also be the Acarya for ISKCON.
Eternally wrong about TFO
"we find that that "henceforward" is not sanctioned to be considered as "into eternity.""
This refers to the fact that the July 9th, 1977 directive on initiations was to begin "henceforward". However, TFO does not claim that "henceforward" means "into eternity". Rather, it states:
"The specific word used, "henceforward", only has one meaning, viz. "from now onwards"."
(TFO, p. 3)
Indeed, we even state in regard to the word "henceforward" that:
"even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed."
(TFO, p. 3)
Thus, as before, IISB has simply addressed something TFO does not even state.
More fabrication
Srila Prabhupada stated the "law of disciplic succession" in a letter to Tusta Krsna Dasa on 2/12/75 as follows:
"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."
It is claimed by the IISB videos that we claim in TFO that this law was:
"somehow reversed by this July 9th letter."
And that such a claim by us would be absurd because:
"How is it possible? Why would Prabhupada write one thing and contradict himself?"
But we do not state the letter "reverses" the law. We do not state this because the law and the July 9th letter are not incompatible, as we will explain later on. For now, we can note how IISB, rather than answer TFO, has instead yet again just engaged in another fabrication about TFO.
In this way, large sections of the videos do not even attempt to address what TFO actually states, and therefore are completely irrelevant and thus useless in refuting TFO. There are only two times where the IISB videos directly quote and attempt to deal with what TFO states, and we address them next.
Illness doctrine defeated
"July 9th letter actually has list of 11, you know, rtviks assigned by Prabhupada who could do initiation when Prabhupada was not well."
This "illness" argument addresses this quote from TFO given by the video:
"the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON"
(TFO, p. xiv)
Thus, IISB is trying to show that the July 9th directive giving the final system for initiations within ISKCON was not issued as a general directive on initiation for ISKCON, even though that is what the directive states. But that rather it was a temporary, one-off measure, instituted only to address Srila Prabhupada's inability to perform initiations due to being ill. Hence, the temporary nature of the July 9th directive would be established by this "illness" doctrine ("ID"). However, this ID has already been defeated many times by us in previous BTPs, and again on page 4 of this issue. We will now show how it has also been defeated by IISB themselves. The Bureau is the governing body of ISKCON India, and they stated as part of a resolution, communicated on 25/11/19, that:
"ritvik (guru – as per the July 9 letter)".
Thus, they state that the appointment of a rtvik in the July 9th letter was also the appointment of "guru". Which means that II believes the July 9th letter was not issued temporarily to deal with Srila Prabhupada's illness, but that it was issued to permanently appoint gurus. Thus, by II's own hand, the ID is demolished, and they must accept the permanent nature of the July 9th directive.
The fact that the July 9th directive does not even mention, nor actually appoint, "guru", does not change the fact that II deludedly believes that it does! The net result is that IISB cannot claim the "illness" objection to TFO's central thesis that the July 9th directive is the final instruction for initiations within ISKCON.
Recycling the defeated
The one other time the IISB videos deal with answering what TFO states is a quote from pages 18-19, wherein TFO speaks about the private letters Srila Prabhupada wrote to those who were "ambitious" to become diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. IISB's response is to claim that we are claiming Srila Prabhupada "lies" to the devotees concerned. The exact same argument was already made previously by the same IISB member making the claims here, and we already refuted these "lying" claims in BTP 79, and they can be read here:
iskconirm.com/lies
There we show we are not claiming that Srila Prabhupada is lying.
Lying projection
We can show, however, that IISB actually does believe Srila Prabhupada is lying.
a) One of the private letters written by Srila Prabhupada, in which the IISB videos falsely claim that we are stating Srila Prabhupada is telling "lies", is a letter to Tusta Krsna Dasa, dated 2/12/75, in which the "law of disciplic succession" that we quoted earlier is stated. However, the letter also refers to being applicable to all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples by stating "every student" and "my disciples". And the IISB videos claim that this "law" is an order for diksa gurus, and that it is "the final decision of initiations". Which would mean that, according to IISB, this letter would be authorising female diksa gurus ("FDG"). But IISB has already rejected FDG as a deviation, as we have documented in earlier issues. And, thus, they would have to believe that Srila Prabhupada was "lying" when he referred to "every student" and "my disciples" in this letter.
b) Also, the "law", as we quoted earlier, states that one can only become a diksa guru after the "disappearance" of one's own guru. But ISKCON has authorised numerous diksa gurus in the physical presence of their own spiritual masters. Thus, if IISB believed in the "law", it would have launched a campaign against such "granddisciple gurus", as they are in violation of the "law", which according to IISB was the "final decision of initiations". After all, as we saw in the case of FDG, IISB will launch a campaign against gurus if they believe they are not authorised. But IISB has not launched such a campaign in this case, showing they do not even "believe" in the law, and have only invoked it to try to oppose TFO.
No limitation or incompatibility
In regard to this law, it is further claimed:
"what that does is that naturally limits the July 9th letter to the lifetime of Prabhupada."
However, the law only states when it is possible for a disciple to become a diksa guru:
"in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples"
It therefore states nothing about when the existing diksa guru must cease acting as a diksa guru himself, since the "law" only states "you can", not "must", accept disciples. Thus, the law does not limit Srila Prabhupada to only acting as the diksa guru during his lifetime. Therefore, the July 9th directive, which states that Srila Prabhupada continues to act as ISKCON's diksa guru, is not limited to Srila Prabhupada's lifetime, as claimed above.
Nor does the July 9th directive change the fact that a guru's physical absence is the only time period in which it is possible for a disciple to become a diksa guru. Thus, just because it may not become necessary to exercise this law, does not mean the law is being discarded or contradicted. So the law and the July 9th directive are not incompatible, nor does one "reverse" or "supersede" the other.
Srila Prabhupada declared deviant
We have dealt with basically all the arguments claimed by IISB to be from Srila Prabhupada that supposedly terminate the July 9th directive. One other relevant quote from Srila Prabhupada offered by the IISB videos was the quote from October 18th, 1977, which was already answered on page 4.
An extremely large portion of the videos deal instead with going outside Srila Prabhupada's actual statements and claiming to offer evidence from: the leaders of organisations outside ISKCON, tradition, and "sastra". But what outside leaders may say is irrelevant to what Srila Prabhupada ordered. This can only be determined by examining Srila Prabhupada's orders themselves! And "tradition" will be shown in the next article as not being able to prevent Srila Prabhupada from continuing as ISKCON's diksa guru.
The arguments from "sastra" are self-defeating because they would mean that what IISB accepts Srila Prabhupada did order would also not be sastric. For example, they claim "sastra" states:
"First thing is this name-giving ceremony is done by an Acarya. [...] so the representative cannot give the name. [...] The Acarya should tell [...] Rtvik Prabhu, I thought of this name [...] This much communication must be there from Acarya to representative."
Thus, it is emphatically claimed that a spiritual name cannot be given by the rtvik representative, but rather must only be given by the Acarya or diksa guru. But IISB accepts that the July 9th directive is a valid document authorised by Srila Prabhupada, and this states the exact opposite, that the representative alone gives the spiritual name:
"After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupad by giving a spiritual name".
Thus, in their desperation to defeat TFO using "sastra", they have only ended up claiming that it is Srila Prabhupada himself who has deviated from sastra!
Final order delivers final nail
IISB already accepts that Srila Prabhupada, as the Founder-Acarya for ISKCON, will be the Acarya for ISKCON. IISB also accepts that the "Acarya" is the diksa guru, as we just quoted them speaking about the "Acarya" being the diksa guru who gives the spiritual name. Thus, IISB has to accept that Srila Prabhupada remains the Acarya and diksa guru of ISKCON, just as TFO states! Which renders their whole made-up and contradictory endeavour to refute TFO even more futile than it already is!
The need for literacy
Even a child knows that: if he tells his mother in the morning he cannot go to school because he has a "tummy-ache", he cannot then later go playing around the house as if his stomach is fine. The grown-ups call this a "self-contradiction", since contradicting your own argument will cause it to collapse.
You need to answer what an argument states rather than something else, otherwise the actual argument will still remain undefeated. The grown-ups call this answering a "straw man" argument. So one must first read the actual argument. Similarly, if one's reply to an argument has already been answered, then one needs to first read that answer and then respond to that. Otherwise, simply repeating an already defeated reply does not change the fact that it was already defeated, no matter how many times one may repeat it!
The need to not contradict oneself and first read the subject matter one is dealing with is the basic level of literacy required in order to be able to argue one's case. And yet, all of IISB's points have been refuted by us simply by taking advantage of IISB not yet possessing this elementary child-level literacy.
Conclusion
It has been 30 years, and still no one has been able to lay a glove on TFO.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to "ISKCON India" Index
Return to "July 9th, 1977 Directive" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
