by Krishnakant

Recently His Grace Drutakarma prabhu entered the guru debate with a series of items posted on CHAKRA which seek to expose the very notion of ritvik as heretical. In adding his voice we assume he is, like many others, less than happy with the quality and effectiveness of the various GBC approved papers on the matter which have been put out so far. After all, if the GBC had already clearly defeated 'The Final Order' with 'Disciple of My Disciple', 'Prabhupada's Order' etc., then what would be the point of muddying the water with yet more verbiage on the issue. Surely it would be better to just direct devotees towards these clear monuments of philosophical elucidation rather than construct distracting new ones. It is noteworthy that Drutakarma has not even referred once to any of these GBC efforts, and indeed even makes points which contradict some of them.

As someone who has distinguished himself within scholastic circles, perhaps he sees himself as a one man cavalry charge, sweeping down from the rarefied plains of academia to effortlessly wipe out the rebellious hordes. It would be quite hypocritical of him however to expect us to be satisfied with the GBC's arguments thus far if he himself feels it necessary to enter the fray so forcefully. Needless to say Drutakarma adds absolutely nothing new to the debate - barring a ridiculously self-contradictory argument which he seems to think will stop a ritvik dead in his tracks.

Although Drutakarma prabhu claims to have carefully studied the ritvik position, he continually misrepresents and ignores our arguments and supporting evidence. He fails to even mention modifications A and B, for example, which form the central thrust of 'The Final Order' (from which he never once quotes directly). His treatment of evidence, and the issue in general, thus bares remarkable similarity to the way in which his Darwinian opponents treat the fossil record and creationism. He even tries to skirt around the July 9th letter by treating it rather like some sort of intrusive burial (a term used by Darwinists to discard evidence that does not agree with their world-view) which had nothing 'directly' to do with Srila Prabhupada, and is hence not to be taken terribly seriously. By drawing the readers attention to these deficiencies in Drutakarma's approach we hope to clearly demonstrate that an obstructive knowledge filter is currently preventing him from properly confronting this issue.

Henceforward Drutakarma prabhu shall be referred to as the author. We shall reproduce his items in full in the order in which they appeared with our comments following.

It is a very poor form of preaching that leads to the false assumption that there is legitimate authorisation for any diksa gurus in ISKCON other than Srila Prabhupada. One of the first things that should be pointed out to any congregation, is that Srila Prabhupada is the only initiating spiritual master in ISKCON.  The current link in the chain of disciplic succession. This is in line with his final order on the matter issued on July 9th 1977. According to Srila Prabhupada's official institutional directives we are ONLY authorised to act in an instructing or teaching capacity within ISKCON. The author admits that 'many of Srila Prabhupada's statements about becoming guru refer to becoming siksa guru', we would say all of them apart from a tiny handful which we have carefully examined in 'The Final Order' and other related papers. The author does not produce a single quote which we have not dealt with, nor does he even attempt to refute our points on such evidence. 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta himself did not follow this 'etiquette' since he initiated when his own spiritual master was still present. Srila Prabhupada nearly always invoked this 'law' when dealing with ambitious deviant disciples such as Tusta Krishna (whose private letter from Srila Prabhupada the author later tries to use as a generally applicable instruction to the entire movement). This law or etiquette was thus used to discourage diksa aspirations, not authorise them.

Where is the official GBC resolution or policy directive, approved by Srila Prabhupada, which makes it 'clear' that there could be diksa gurus other than himself acting within ISKCON at any time in the future? We have never seen such evidence. If such evidence exists then the whole controversy could be resolved over-night.

The author is in danger of directly offending Srila Prabhupada by claiming that his final order on initiation policy for ISKCON is heretical. What is his evidence for this assumption? What is heretical about surrendering and taking diksa from an acarya who is not physically present, when the acarya specifically put in place a representational system for this very purpose? Why does the author not back up his accusations with quotes from Srila Prabhupada's books?

On the issue of initiator fall-downs, Srila Prabhupada taught that only persons who are not properly authorised to initiate fall down (NOD p.116); never bona fide authorised members of the disciplic succession (please see 'The Final Order' page 46). This point alone proves that the so-called gurus the author mentions as disappointing should never have acted in a diksa capacity at any stage. They were never authorised to initiate on their own behalf. That is proven by the fact that they fell down. Thus all ISKCON gurus are equally unauthorised, having all been generated by the same system of 'authorisation'. Unfortunately any one of them can fall down at any moment, as they frequently do. This is an atrocious and highly embarrassing situation which the author merely seeks to defend and perpetuate, albeit in some speculatively diluted form.

The author still needs to demonstrate that the ritvik system is heretical in order for him to make the above assertion. As shall be seen, he never actually does this in any of his articles . Thus we are left feeling deeply concerned for his spiritual well-being, along with any one else who may be influenced by him.

The final order was issued by Srila Prabhupada PRIOR to his departure. Srila Prabhupada is not dead, and therefore applying the term 'posthumous' to him is at best 'reasoning ill' and at worst blatant atheism. It is an insult to Srila Prabhupada that his preferred system of initiation was terminated by the GBC the minute he left the planet. Where was their authority to do this?

Which statements have we dismissed exactly? Why is the author not more specific? An ounce of example is worth a ton of generalisation.

Since the July 9th letter does not mention departure, why did the GBC decide that it was at this specific point the system was to be discontinued? How did the notion ever arise that the system was specifically meant to terminate at departure if the letter does not mention departure at all? The author has inadvertently supported our claim that there is no evidence for modification A (ie that the system was meant to terminate on departure). Also the letter was directly approved by Srila Prabhupada, and is thus an order coming directly from him via the society's secretary. Why does the author try to infer that this order was not coming directly from Srila Prabhupada?

The final order 'explicitly' sets out the system which was to be continued from that time onwards or 'henceforward'. The letter was directly approved by Srila Prabhupada. Where does the author derive the notion that departure had some special significance to this instruction, especially since, as he has just admitted, it makes absolutely no mention of departure whatsoever? Does the author possess some hitherto unseen follow-up letter from Srila Prabhupada stating that the system that he had only just set up to operate globally was meant to stop on his departure? If he does it would be timely for him to produce it.

To insinuate that the July 9th order is not a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada on his desires is to imply that he did not know what he was signing. Obviously the author is on very dangerous and offensive ground if he were to push this point, which unfortunately he does.

The above passage makes it very clear that Srila Prabhupada was not going to allow anyone to initiate in his presence. By this time various ambitious disciples had been jostling to initiate, and clearly he was having none of it: 

"Don't become premature acarya." 
"Don't be falsely puffed up" 
"If you displease your acarya, then you are finished". 

Since the term acarya can mean siksa or diksa, we cannot immediately assume we are all authorised to be diksa gurus. What Srila Prabhupada stresses is that we must strictly follow our acarya, and in that way we can become acarya. This merely brings us back to Srila Prabhupada's final instructions on initiation-
"Follow the acaryas instruction...". 
By disobeying them, according to the above class, we are not even qualified as instructing gurus what to speak of initiating ones. Also it is noteworthy that Srila Prabhupada once more uses the 'amara' verse which, as we have demonstrated several times, can ONLY refer to siksa (please see 'Best not to Accept Any Disciples' and appendix to 'GBC Fail To Answer The Final Order' on our IRM web site). We have already addressed the above quote in 'The Final Order' (page 15) thus the author is simply wasting everyone's time.

Why does the author not counter the points we have already made regarding such evidence, rather than merely re-present the same evidence? In that way the debate could move forward.

This is a concoction. Nowhere in the above passage does Srila Prabhupada even mention the word 'initiate' what to speak of authorise his disciples to do it. The author is putting words into Srila Prabhupada's mouth, the very thing he accuses us of doing.

And what type of acarya are we authorised to become. The author should read the purports following the 'amara' verse and all will be revealed. Remember it's 'best not to accept any disciples'.

What relevance to this issue is a law preventing diksa guruship while the acarya is present, when what we are looking to the author for is evidence preventing ritviks from initiating on his behalf once he leaves?

The author's knowledge filter unfortunately prevents him from understanding such basic points.

The very fact that Srila Prabhupada alludes to the current situation ie.- 'suppose now' merely supports the idea that nothing was to change as far as diksa was concerned. At that time everyone was his disciple, or aspiring disciple. The expansion of numbers does not in any way necessitate or infer a change of initiator. Why does the author assume that all these millions of followers in the future were not also intended to be Srila Prabhupada's disciples, just as was standard practice at the time he gave this lecture? How can Srila Prabhupada be talking about his disciples taking their own disciples, when he simply tells them to expand what they were already doing at that time, which was to make disciples for him? Srila Prabhupada clearly states "suppose NOW YOU have ten thousand ...". Even though Srila Prabhupada was only giving an example, the 'ten thousand' clearly can NOT refer to his disciples also having disciples, since in his presence that was forbidden, as explained in the very opening of this same lecture. Thus the context for how Srila Prabhupada wants his disciples to act is clearly NOT diksa.

In order to change that which is standard practise we will need some evidence comparable in applicability and force to the July 9th letter which was sent to all the leaders of ISKCON, and which was signed by the society's secretary and the founder acarya. Does the author have any such evidence outlining the current or any future Guru system proposed by the GBC?

The author has still to prove his contention that ritvik past departure is a heresy.

Srila Prabhupada personally and directly approved the order which instituted the ritvik system as the system to be followed in ISKCON from July 9th, 1977, onwards. It was never terminated before he left and therefore should remain the system in force within ISKCON.

As we have shown the author has put words into Srila Prabhupada's mouth, and now he condemns anyone who does not accept his own mental concoctions.

There has not been 'endless debate'. The GBC have still not properly answered 'The Final Order' which they promised to do way back in October '96. There has only been one debate, the ITV video of which was banned by the GBC. The author obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

The above frenzied and medieval rant is based on the authors unsubstantiated assumption that the continued application of a management system Srila Prabhupada personally set in place is heretical. Thus the author is inviting everyone to commit the same guru aparadha as himself. Better we remove unauthorised diksa guruship from ISKCON once and for all and re-establish the ritvik system as soon as possible.

According to one posting by the author it appears he is happy to downsize the movement to just a few similarly bewildered souls whose knowledge has been equally filtered. Rather than downsizing ISKCON, let us open it up to all the potential millions of sincere people who might wish to surrender and take initiation from the self-realised mahabhagavat, Srila Prabhupada.

Thus ends our analysis of the author's first very poor article.

If the reader is expecting the author to provide examples which demonstrate this 'offensive flouting' of generally applicable instructions, he will be sorely disappointed. The author is bluffing and hoping no-one will notice that he provides not one single example to support his spiteful accusations.

The author irrelevantly states that the July 9th letter was not written by Srila Prabhupada. Rarely did Srila Prabhupada do his own typing, are we then to distance ourselves from his books? This red herring argument is used to cunningly and dishonestly undermine a policy directive which Srila Prabhupada personally signed in approval. Since the letter does not mention departure, why does the author assume that it was at this specific point in time that the order ceased to have relevance?

The above is a subtle distortion of the position set out in 'The Final Order'. The July 9th letter sets out a system which was to operate within ISKCON from that time onwards. Departure is not an issue. Only the author wishes to make departure an issue by insisting that the system should have ceased at this point, even though he himself admits that departure is not mentioned within the order. 'From now onwards' or 'henceforward' incorporates all time periods both pre and post departure.

Once more the author insidiously tries to undermine the order by irrelevantly stating that Srila Prabhupada did not personally write it. No, he had his secretary write it, and then he personally approved it. Since the letter says nothing about departure, why did the GBC decide it should stop at that that point, and why is the author supporting that decision without offering any evidence for modification A?

On meeting someone with the author's deviant mind-set one need simply state :

You can speculate that the order was meant to cease on departure, but where does Srila Prabhupada state that in the order, or anywhere else for that matter?

One need simply say to such a person :

You may speculate as much as you like, but where do you derive the notion that the ritvik system was meant to cease on departure when as you yourself admit, it says nothing at all about departure?

Quite so.

Anyone who sticks to the point that we can arbitrarily terminate orders issued directly by our founder acarya, without a scrap of supporting evidence, should best be avoided.

Once more the author sneakily implies that Srila Prabhupada did not really know what he was signing when he personally approved the July 9th letter. This order came directly from Srila Prabhupada via his secretary. It is interesting that in order to defeat us the author feels he has to cast such aspersions on Srila Prabhupada's final directive on initiations.

Once more the author puts words into Srila Prabhupada's mouth which are nothing but his own wishful fantasy. The above sentence never appears in the lecture, it is pure invention. Why does the author not quote verbatim the exact sentence in which Srila Prabhupada supposedly explicitly states that his disciples can all give diksa once he leaves the planet?

The above is humbug. The July 9th order came directly from Srila Prabhupada via his secretary, and was personally approved by him. The only evidence offered so far by the author to counteract this direct evidence comprises of his own invented version of one lecture which does not mention the words 'diksa', 'initiate' or the sentence 'the ritvik system will stop on my departure'.

Does the author believe that he has suddenly become Srila Prabhupada? As shown above, the evidence offered came directly from the author himself, the word 'initiate' is never once mentioned in the lecture. Must we now view the author's own speculative outpourings as coming directly from Srila Prabhupada? Can the author please show just one generally applicable instruction that we have dismissed? We do not even 'dismiss' instructions to ambitious deviant individuals, we merely state that they are not generally applicable, which is a fact.

Krishna Kant Desai did not issue the July 9th order, just as Srila Prabhupada never spoke the words the author uses as 'direct' evidence from the lecture.

This is factually inaccurate, the above conversation is nothing like the lecture, thus how can he say it 'says the same thing'. In fact the above conversation is much closer to the type of evidence the author requires than the lecture. As we have mentioned in 'Institutional Cataclysm' this is objectively speaking the very strongest piece of evidence the GBC have ever produced since it fulfils several of the pre-requisite criteria. Below we shall once more explain why this conversation, which was not discovered until last year (1997), cannot be used to countermand the July 9th letter which was issued to the entire movement 20 years earlier in 1977.

This is rubbish (please see 'The Final Order' pages 34-35). Here are just two examples which prove the author's knowledge filter is operating robustly:  

The above two quotes prove the author is either very poor at research, or is directly trying to mislead his readers.

The author has carefully selected evidence which appears to support his contrived M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya successor system), whilst casting aside other direct statements on the identical issue, along with Srila Prabhupada's final decision on the matter issued to the entire movement on July 9th 1977, which completely contradict his contention. This is a clear fact as evidenced above, no need for any huffing and puffing.

If the author really wants to assert that the above conversation with Mr. Hassan sets out Srila Prabhupada's final plans for how things should continue after his departure then he is also arguing for ISKCON to disintegrate into a multitude of competing uncooperative maths:

"Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters"

Drutakarma himself criticises the so-called Gaudiya Matha, and yet in using this quote as principal evidence he would have us all go down the same path. Obviously Srila Prabhupada was simply giving a very general overview to a one-time visitor who knew nothing about guru tattva; not a precise blue-print for how things would run once he left the planet. On other occasions Srila Prabhupada condemned his Godbrother's unauthorised acarya activities, so obviously the above conversation needs to be seen in context.

The above conversation was only discovered last year, and thus can have no direct bearing on the issue of what was meant to happen in 1977. You cannot modify a general instruction deliberately issued to the whole movement in 1977 with the transcript of a conversation which only came to light 22 years later. To do so is called cheating. Such evidence could be used to support a general instruction to the whole movement, but as we have seen, Srila Prabhupada, in the end, decided on a representational system to be continued within ISKCON.

The author makes great play of the fact that the student was going to write a thesis based on the conversation and thus Srila Prabhupada must have revealed completely accurately his precise plans on how initiations would carry on past his departure. (This is in spite of the fact that when asked the same question on other occasions by news reporters etc, he gave quite different answers). In using this evidence to countermand the final order the author is proposing the following absurdities:

1. Srila Prabhupada made important institutional arrangements within ISKCON via conversations with one-off visitors to the temple.
2. Srila Prabhupada never ordered the tapes of such monumentally important discussions to be transcribed and distributed to his leaders. Instead he arranged that such important directives should remain in the tape archives indefinitely.
3. Srila Prabhupada expected all his temple presidents to read the thesis of all the students, philosophers and scholars he had ever spoken to in order to understand how his society should be run, since it was at these times that he would give his most authoritative and final briefings on institutional policy.
4. Once unearthed the instructions issued through such transient and indirect means, must be used to modify standard institutional directives issued internally through official channels such as the society's secretary. Thus the running of temples, the BBT, the final will, are all open to termination and change on the basis of information gleaned by rummaging through the tape archives, and the thesis of karmi scholars.

Anyone can see that what the author is proposing is utterly absurd. Also we are back to the author's unpleasant insinuations about the letters origin. Is the author really suggesting Srila Prabhupada would sign a document in approval if he had not first read and agreed with it? Does he really believe that H.H. Tamal Krishna just somehow dreamed up the whole idea of a ritvik system and then tricked Srila Prabhupada into signing it? What is this nonsense?

Lord Krishna will be showing the author the door if he carries on lambasting his spiritual master's order. We are not going anywhere buddy.

And yet the author himself has failed to provide one shred of evidence demonstrating that the continued operation of the ritvik system, beyond Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, would constitute a philosophical heresy.

If any of these devotees wish to discuss this issue to show us the error of our ways then we will be more than happy to meet with them. Please contact us via our IRM web site. The only time the GBC discussed this issue in public was in 1990 in San Diego, after which they banned the video of the debate via unpublished minutes (which we have in our possession).

If the author is actually serious about dispelling the 'ritvik illusion' he could start by issuing a point for point rebuttal of 'The Final Order' which:

1. actually quotes and deals with all the points made in 'The Final Order', rather than invented straw-man arguments,
2. remains in harmony with all GBC papers which are current siddhanta, since we are not interested in dealing with lone mavericks.

To achieve the above will not be easy, but we wish the author luck. It is certainly not our wish to promote a heresy, and thus we warmly welcome any serious points which meet the above two requirements.

This ends our examination of the author's second paper.

Srila Prabhupada expected his disciples to follow his instructions, especially important management directives. He was always very cross when devotees changed things whimsically, without his proper authorisation. The author should bare this in mind before jumping to the assumption that there should ever have been any other diksa gurus within ISKCON other than Srila Prabhupada himself. Certainly if we had stuck with Srila Prabhupada's preferred system there would have been none of the terrible disappointment which constantly decimates ISKCON, stripping it of thousands upon thousands of disillusioned 'grand disciples'.

Who does the author think he is to develop guru tattva on the hoof in this manner? What arrogance to think he can just dream up some new form of worship out of thin air and that it will be immediately acceptable to Sri Krishna and Srila Prabhupada. Perhaps the author should get back to writing about bones and stones, rather than posing himself as some sort of latter day Rupa Goswami.

This is completely bogus. Srila Prabhupada taught that the initiating guru MUST be a Mahabhagavat (C.c.Mad 24:330 purport). Someone who is strictly following a pure devotee may well be a good disciple, but not necessarily an authorised member of the disciplic succession, capable of transmitting full divya jnana up to and including the disciples original svarupa whilst simultaneously annihilating all his sinful reactions. The author seems to believe that he is authorised to downgrade the diksa guru, and in the process corrupt and pollute Bhagavat philosophy.

The initiating diksa guru is Krishna's pure representative who sees everything as the Lord's energy. Why should such elevated souls not be trusted with laxmi? And if the gurus in ISKCON are not on that platform, and cannot be trusted with money, why in heaven's name should we entrust them with peoples spiritual lives?
 

Sannyasis, even guru-sannyasis, should live more simply, and make do with fewer servants (Prabhupada got along with two or three). I also question the current practice of having gurus sit on a bigger vyasasana than their disciples in ISKCON temples. The vyasasana belongs to Vyasa, not the guru, and anyone fit to give class should sit on the same vyasasana, be he (or she) a disciple or granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada. My hope is that these reforms can be carried out with a minimum of legislation, and a maximum of shared understanding and voluntary cooperation. There are many other reforms that can be considered, and I am willing to consider all of them-with the exception of the rtvik heresy, which has absolutely no foundation in Prabhupada's direct words.

Thus the author is happy inventing all kinds of bogus unauthorised never before seen or heard of philosophies and practices, but he utterly refuses to even consider following Srila Prabhupada's direct order. He is quite happy to downsize ISKCON to a mere hundred devotees who are willing to accept his bogus unauthorised philosophies and practices, but will not for one second countenance following his own spiritual master's directive on the matter.

In other words only devotees who agree not to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order should be allowed to concoct the next bogus deviation.

The July 9th order was directly approved by Srila Prabhupada, thus it is as good as his direct words. Also, why does the author ignore other conversations, such as the two examples given earlier, where Srila Prabhupada gives quite different answers? Clearly the author's knowledge filter will not allow him to do that.

Certainly we must all become gurus or acarya, no-one disputes that. However the author has failed to show where the authorisation was ever given for anyone to become diksa guru. Srila Prabhupada only ever selected eleven ritviks. Why did they transmogrify into diksa gurus immediately on his departure? Who said they could do that? And then who told them they could authorise more people to do the same thing in the mid-eighties? Who is now authorising the author to change the system yet again and stop daily gurupujas etc? As we have shown Srila Prabhupada clearly indicates in that lecture the type of acaryas he was expecting in his use of the 'amara' verse ('best not to accept any disciples'). If we had just continued to follow that which was standard practice within ISKCON there would be no need for all this change and speculation.

Perhaps the author should track down Mohsin Hassan's thesis in order to ensure that his next guru system properly follows Srila Prabhupada's authoritative directives.

The author well knows that Tusta Krishna was an extremely troublesome and ambitious disciple whom Srila Prabhupada even offered to pay in order to stop his deviant behaviour. To claim such private correspondence is applicable to the entire society is the grossest most flagrant act of cheating imaginable.

Again this is a factual inaccuracy, for instance there is no mention above of doing things like his Godbrothers.

This is very sloppy scholarship. Where above does Srila Prabhupada quote the 'amara' verse for instance? How can he say it is exactly the same? In any case what has this got to do with terminating a system of institutional management? Srila Prabhupada would have needed to specifically mention that ritvik representatives can never initiate after the departure of the guru, or some such thing, for this letter to have any relevance to the debate. Or else Srila Prabhupada would have had to have instructed the GBC to distribute the letter with a covering explanation outlining in detail the M.A.S.S. The best the author could possibly argue is that Tusta Krishna himself should have succeeded Srila Prabhupada as an initiating acarya, and yet Srila Prabhupada did not even select him to act as a ritvik.

Why then is it that the author can only find these types of promises in letters to ambitious deviant disciples? How is it that this law was not followed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, nor mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books? These are all accusations the author would use against ritvik, and yet when it seems to suit his purposes he is happy to employ a double standard. His main problem is that these letters were only published by default in 1986, and thus cannot be used to modify a management system that was put in place for the entire movement in 1977. Surely the author can understand this simple point. Where is his generally applicable order, supporting modifications A & B, which clearly terminate the ritvik system after departure, and make it clear that all Srila Prabhupada's disciples were to be allowed to initiate the minute he left the planet? Unless he can produce such clear explicit applicable evidence he is simply wasting everyone's valuable time.

Here the author appears not to have closely studied the lecture he himself quoted:

"And to become acarya is not very difficult... So one who is spreading Krishna-upadesa, simply repeat what is said by Krishna, then you become acarya. Not difficult at all. Everything is stated there. We have to simply repeat like parrot. Not exactly parrot. Parrot does not understand the meaning; he simply vibrates. But you should understand the meaning also..."

The author is trying to merge two types of acarya. The one who simply repeats without any special qualification is an instructing spiritual master. The one who accepts (initiates) disciples is the diksa guru. We are all authorised to act in the first capacity since it is 'not very difficult'. There is no authorisation for anyone, aside from Srila Prabhupada, to act in the latter capacity since one must first attain the topmost platform of devotional service (mahabhagavat), and be authorised by one's predecessor acarya. Occasionally Srila Prabhupada even talks about accepting disciples in an instructing sense (rather as a sanyasi may train up a few brahmacharis eg. - 'monitor guru') - this is also fine, as long as he is strictly following and directing people to Srila Prabhupada once they are ready for initiation.

This is no bluff, we refer the author to our web site where he will find all his evidence carefully examined and answered. Where are the author's counter arguments we wonder? Who is really bluffing here?

It is not that we do not like Srila Prabhupada's letters to ambitious upstarts, our point is that they cannot be used as generally applicable instructions to the entire movement since they are private correspondence which was only published by default in the mid-eighties. The author must know that he is cheating his readers in arguing that institutional policy directives should have been terminated in 1977 on the basis of private correspondence to difficult disciples discovered in 1986.

This ends our analysis of the author's third article. 

Where does Srila Prabhupada state that we can disregard, or treat less seriously, letters which he has not personally typed but only signed in approval? This is speculation on behalf of the author.

If the order does not mention departure, then why does the author speculate that the order was meant to terminate at this point? He is once more admitting that there is no evidence for modification A, a point we made in 'The Final Order' in October of 1996.

Here the author is contradicting the GBC's recent paper 'Disciple of my Disciple'(DOMD). In DOMD the GBC say:

"There is a link between the July 9th letter and the May conversation. The July 9th letter, issued through the GBC, is a follow-up to the May 28th conversation,..." (DOMD, p3)

How can the author argue that the July 9th letter is 'simply' a record of the July 7th garden conversation, which he alleges deals only with pre-departure initiations, when the GBC themselves argue that it is really a follow up to the May 28th conversation which they say deals only with post-departure initiations? The author is directly contradicting the very body he is trying to defend, how absurd can you get!

A truth which directly contradicts the GBC and the letter itself. Note the July 9th letter begins:

"Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavan..."

Is the author now saying that all the GBC were actually present on July 7th in the garden?

Perhaps they were all hiding in the bushes.

What precisely is the difference? For example Srila Prabhupada would often sign approval to GBC resolutions which he had not personally drafted, (though if there was something he did not like he would have the GBC change it). Are we now to take such resolutions less seriously? When such resolutions were sent to the Temple Presidents did they all refuse to follow them because Srila Prabhupada had only approved them, not sat down and typed them himself? What is the author trying to say here?

This was his final directive on the matter and since, as the author concedes, there is no mention of terminating the system on departure, why did the GBC stop it the minute he left the planet?

We have already proved the above to be a lie, for more examples please see 'The Final Order' pages 34-35, also see pages 9-16 on Srila Prabhupada's instructions about becoming guru.

Perhaps he was approving the July 9th letter.

How does the author know for certain that none of the letter was dictated by Srila Prabhupada?

Was he in the room hiding in the closet?

What is the difference? Where did Srila Prabhupada say we could disregard instructions which he only signed in approval? This is complete speculation. Why is the author so scared of the July 9th letter that he should wish to raise such irrelevant issues?

So now the author is suggesting that Srila Prabhupada might irresponsibly sign something without fully agreeing with what was written. The author should try to develop more faith in his Guru Maharaja. Srila Prabhupada is perfect, he never makes mistakes.

The author is nothing but a rascal if he would have us disregard an order directly approved by Srila Prabhupada on the basis of his own mental speculations. Who does he think he is?

Which words do we 'dissect' exactly. What does it mean anyway, to dissect a word? We do not believe Srila Prabhupada would approve a letter which was to be sent out to the entire movement unless he agreed with its contents. It seems the issue is now beginning to boil down to who has faith in Srila Prabhupada.

It's good to get that cleared up. Now could the author please tell us why the GBC stopped the system?

The author has just said the letter has Srila Prabhupada's signature of approval, so however the words got there we know he approved them. If the author wishes to challenge whether the July 9th letter is Srila Prabhupada's final directive on initiation then he will need to produce another approved document issued subsequently to July 9th 1977. Unless he can do this, then the July 9th order is by definition Srila Prabhupada's final directive on the matter of initiation within ISKCON.

Then why does the author assume the system outlined in the letter must stop on departure. The very fact that departure is not mentioned proves it is irrelevant to the system.

We only accept the order on face meaning or mukhya vritti. This is the correct way to understand vedic statements, or those pursuant of the vedic version, as the order of the spiritual master undoubtedly is. The 'particular way' in which we interpret the letter is to accept standard dictionary definitions of words. Is there something wrong with that? It is the author who is placing an indirect interpretation by asserting the order must stop on departure. Srila Prabhupada said nothing about the system ever stopping either in the letter, or anywhere else.

Srila Prabhupada never said that the ritvik system was only set up to get rid of a backlog. This is never stated by Srila Prabhupada, and thus is yet another speculation by the author.

We deal with this nonsensical argument in 'The Final order' page 7. The letter also does not say it should continue past July 10 so perhaps it should have stopped then? There is no ambiguity, the order was to be implemented immediately and continue from that time forward. Why was it arbitrarily terminated at departure? What relevance does the physical proximity of the guru have to the transcendental functioning of the process of diksa?

There is no ambiguity. Physical departure is irrelevant to diksa initiation. Many many initiations were performed without Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, even when he was still on the planet.

The letter is completely non-ambiguous. Why does the author imply that Srila Prabhupada would issue an ambiguous instruction? Once more the author makes the same irrelevant point regarding who wrote it. He has just admitted that the letter was approved by Srila Prabhupada so why is he now dishonestly making an issue of the letters authorship yet again.

Departure is not an issue, except in the mind of the author. Where did Srila Prabhupada ever teach that the physical presence of the guru was a vital pre-requisite to the process of diksa? Indeed he taught the very opposite over and over again (Please see appendices to 'The Final Order'). Why would Srila Prabhupada need to refer to a matter irrelevant to the process of diksa, in a letter specifically outlining how such initiations were to be conducted from that time onwards within ISKCON. What is 'extraordinary' is that the author continues to support one deviant guru system after another, but will not countenance the re-institution of a system personally put in place by his own spiritual master, with no instruction for it ever to be terminated.

The author conveniently ignores Srila Prabhupada's answer to H.H.Satsvarupa Maharaja's question -

As we have shown this is a lie.

The GBC falsely advertise these people as guru by giving them an official rubber stamping in Mayapur every year. It is they who should take all the blame for what has transpired since Srila Prabhupada's departure. The author would merely perpetuate a watered down version of this same nonsense.

There are more humble services than being worshipped as good as the Supreme Being without any authority to do so. Most temples are more in need of a good pot washer than they are of yet another laxmi siphoning guru.

But where does Srila Prabhupada ever contradict his teaching that only a mahabhagavat may occupy the post of initiating guru, C.c.Mad 24:330. Unless one is fully self-realised how can he be worshipped as such, this is cheating. It is the blind leading the blind.

This is complete speculative nonsense, and ignores some very serious warnings:

'Anyone, if he is a pure devotee he can deliver others, he can become spiritual master. But unless he is on that platform he should not attempt it. Then both of them will go to hell, like blind men leading the blind.'
(Letter to Tusta Krishna, 14/12/71)

"It is illegal to become a spiritual master if one is unable to deliver his disciple.'
(S.B. 2:8:3)

How will this principle of disciplic succession be adhered to if we take initiation from unqualified and unauthorised people?

Clearly the author has found the debate difficult to follow, we advise him to carefully study the rebuttal papers on the IRM web site.

Then why does the author not write a full rebuttal which actually deals with the arguments within 'The Final Order'? This is the paper the GBC commissioned and promised to answer in October 1996 (we have the E-mails to prove it). Why does the author not provide evidence for his claim that the ritvik system was meant to stop on departure?

The reader will know that the author has failed to demonstrate his claim that the ritvik system contradicts Srila Prabhupada's teachings. We also strongly disapprove of philosophical deviation, that is why we have pointed them out in the author's writings.

Or perhaps the author could try substantiating the GBC's position without:

a) contradicting the GBC,
b) inventing straw man versions of our position,
c) implying that Srila Prabhupada did not really know what he was signing,
d) inventing his own deviant philosophy regarding the qualifications of the initiating diksa guru,
e) failing to offer one scrap of applicable explicit evidence in support of modifications A & B.

Unfortunately, as we have shown, the author has committed all the above. Why should we take him or the GBC seriously as long as they are so incapable of supporting their position in a sane, self-consistent manner. Srila Prabhupada always taught that we should not be blind followers.

The author wants the kingdom without the king.

But why should bona fide diksa gurus need to be told that they are only lowly servants? 
 

We refer the reader to the points we made earlier regarding this belated evidence. Had Srila Prabhupada not written the final order, and had he instead ordered Mohsin Hassan's thesis to be sent out to the entire movement then we would indeed have great difficulty in maintaining our opposition to the GBC. We would also have to accept the disintegration of ISKCON into the same condition Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers have rendered the Gaudiya Matha.

As mentioned earlier the word 'initiate' is never uttered in the lecture, and the 'amara' verse is quoted to qualify the type of guru being authorised.

We have addressed this quote on numerous occasions. It is gross dishonesty to use private correspondence, which was not published until 1986, to modify a general instruction which was issued to the entire movement in 1977. The next letter quoted by the author makes it clear, right at the outset (underlined) , that Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to curtail yet another young Turks ambitions.

Srila Prabhupada never instructed Brahmananda to become diksa guru on his departure, he did not even approve him to be a ritvik. It beggars belief that the author should try to use letters concerning UNAUTHORISED diksa behaviour as generally applicable and relevant to the entire institution in the matter of AUTHORISED diksa behaviour. We deal with this type of evidence in detail in 'Best not to Accept Any Disciples', and 'GBC Fail to Answer The Final Order'.

The author's knowledge filtration system has obviously made him forget the actual answer Srila Prabhupada gave to Satsvarupa Maharaja's first clear question. 'Grandisciples' and 'disciple of my disciple' are phrases which occur later in the conversation segment and were juxtaposed to the phrases 'on my order' 'when I order' and 'but by my order'. Thus guruship, of whatever kind, requires authorisation. The only entities Srila Prabhupada actually elected to authorise were ritviks, and of course preachers.

This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Mr. Pearle, the GBC's tape expert, has not cleared any part of this tape. His recommendation was that a full forensic analysis should be performed since his preliminary investigation threw up problems. Why can the author not stick to the facts as they are?

As we have pointed out in previous papers, the very existence of these last two questions strongly indicates that the GBC were expecting something other than just straight forward diksa gurus. This shows the author's contention, that Srila Prabhupada had always consistently taught for many years that he had authorised diksa gurus, cannot be true. Otherwise why ask the above questions?

The above minute has since been rejected as inaccurate by the entire GBC since it presents the old zonal acarya idea of appointed gurus, an idea which the author himself has rejected, (it also bares no resemblance to the taped conversation since there is no mention that diksa gurus would need to be specifically ordered before they could act as such- 'on my order' etc).

How strange the author should quote minutes which directly inspired a system everyone, including himself, have rejected many years ago. We have already pointed this out to Hari Sauri prabhu in the papers 'Hari Sauri's Minutes Turn Back the Clock' and 'Time Out for Hari Sauri's Minutes'. The author really should keep up to date with the debate before just launching in or he will be in danger of making a fool of himself.

Then we must follow the ritvik system since that was his answer for what was to be done 'particularly' when he was no longer with us. Of course the author is also forgetting the final order which was directly approved by Srila Prabhupada.

'On my order' 'when I order' 'but by my order'. Where and when was this order ever issued?

A document which led directly to ten years of deviation (at least). If he accepts the minutes as one hundred percent accurate he will have to accept that Srila Prabhupada really did select the famous eleven to be diksa gurus. But then he will have a few more questions to answer:

_ The only function assigned to these eleven was to act as ritviks only. The only place they are named is the July 9th letter which says nothing about their function ever changing. What then is the author's evidence supporting modifications A & B?

_ How is the selection of officiating priests the confirmation of everything Srila Prabhupada had ever taught about disciplic succession?

_ How does the author reconcile his insistence that everyone is authorised to initiate directly after departure, with these minutes which clearly say: 'Srila Prabhupada said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even after his disappearance...' ?

_ Why only eleven, and why do they have to be specially selected prior to departure if everyone is automatically authorised one minute after?

_ Where did Srila Prabhupada consistently teach that only eleven zonal gurus would succeed him?

_ Where did he teach that the standard system of disciplic succession is for the guru to personally select eleven men who would initially act only as ritviks?

_ Why was this eleven man guru system disbanded if it was Srila Prabhupada's direct order?

etc etc.

Here we go again, back to casting groundless aspersions on a document he himself admits was approved by Srila Prabhupada. Also, on what basis does the author gain the impression that the departure of his spiritual master inhibits his ability to initiate.

We place no interpretation at all on the letter. If it does not tell us to stop the ritvik system on departure, then we refuse to allow it to be stopped.

As we have shown, this is nothing but a lie.

Then why is it the GBC felt compelled to ask questions 3 and 4 above? As we have shown the above assertion is a lie.

The letter was directly approved by Srila Prabhupada, as was earlier admitted by the author.

_ The reason departure is not mentioned is in itself proof that there is no evidence for 'Modification A' in the letter. So why was the ritvik system stopped? And if there is no evidence to stop it then it must be continued.

_ The letter also does not state it is to continue past July 10th yet the author has not objected to its operation on that date. Why not?

We strongly urge the GBC to reprimand the author for the following reasons:

1. He has directly contradicted an official GBC paper, namely DOMD, by stating that the July 9th letter arose 'simply' from the July 7th garden conversation, whereas the GBC's previously held position is that the letter is directly linked to the May 28th conversation and indeed is a follow up to that meeting.
2. He is proposing forms of worship and guru tattva which run totally counter, not only to Vaisnava philosophy, but also the GBC published handbook 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON' wherein disciples are expected to offer daily guru puja and worship their guru as though he were as good as God.
3. He is preaching that the GBC minutes of the May 28th meeting gives an entirely accurate picture of what was said; whereas the GBC have rejected the idea that Srila Prabhupada ever appointed eleven gurus who would initiate after his departure. (Someone needs to speak to Hari Sauri too about this).
4. He has displayed gross disregard for his fellow Vaisnavas by saying that he would be quite happy if the movement is reduced to only one hundred people who share his deviant views.
5. He has impudently implied that Srila Prabhupada signed important documents without first reading them.
6. He has stated that ISKCON gurus:

• cannot be trusted with money,
• are not aware that they are only lowly servants,
• are only to be viewed as madhyama, even though the nectar of instruction clearly says that such persons can only offer 'insufficient guidance', and that disciples of such gurus 'cannot advance very well towards the ultimate goal of life.' (The Nectar of Instruction, text 5, purport)
• are sitting on vyasasans which are larger than their disciples, even though Srila Prabhupada himself did the same thing.

In light of the above we strongly recommend that the author be encouraged to re-acquaint himself with Srila Prabhupada's teachings and to carefully study 'The Final Order' so he may understand more clearly Srila Prabhupada's instructions for initiation within ISKCON.

This concludes our examination of Drutakama prabhu's papers. Since he did not mince his words in his onslaught on Srila Prabhupada's instructions, we chose not to either. Please forgive any undue offence.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada.