ISKCON Revival Movement

THE FINAL ORDER

Proves Srila Prabhupada Is ISKCON's Initiating Guru

By:

Krishnakant

Foreword by Dr. Kim Knott
Professor of Religious Studies, Leeds University, U.K.

Originally requested for submission to
a select committee of ISKCON's GBC in October 1996.

Contents

• Foreword by Dr. Kim Knott
• Preface
        Frequently Asked Questions About the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM)
• Introduction
• The Evidence
• Objections Relating Directly to the Form and Circumstances of the Order
• The "Appointment Tape"
• Other Related Objections
• Conclusion
• What Is A Ritvik?
• Diagrams

• Relevant Quotes from Srila Prabhupada's  Teachings:

• Does the Guru Have to Be Physically Present?
• Follow the Instruction Not the Body
• The Books Are Enough
• Srila Prabhupada Is Our Eternal Guru 

Appendices:

• July 9th, 1977 Letter "To All GBC, and Temple Presidents"
• July 10th, 1977 Letter
• July 11th, 1977 Letter
• July 21st, 1977 Letter
• July 31st, 1977 Letter
• Srila Prabhupada’s Declaration of Will (June, 1977) &
• Codicil (5th November, 1977)
• Room Conversations
• Tamal Krishna’s Pyramid House Confessions

Foreword to The Final Order

by
Dr Kim Knott, Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Leeds, UK.

Whilst researching a recent paper on 'Insider and Outsider Perceptions of Srila Prabhupada', I found myself trying briefly to do justice to the different views held by devotees concerning disciplic succession and the role of gurus following Prabhupada's disappearance in 1977. Naturally, I had been aware before this of the periods of crisis surrounding the fall of individual gurus and the waves of shock and sadness experienced by their initiated disciples, godbrothers and godsisters. I had hoped like many, that guru-reforms in the late-1980s would solve ISKCON's leadership and initiation difficulties. Looking again at the issue when preparing the paper, I read some of the arguments for and against the present system, as well as the work of other scholars on questions of guru and succession. It was clearly still a live issue. In the very latest scholarship on 'The Parampara Institution' in volume 5 of Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Jan Brzezinski discusses various aspects of this, stressing the importance of qualified, charismatic leadership in the future of ISKCON. His is just one view, but it is indicative of the power of this subject to motivate interest inside and outside the Movement.

Late in 1996 I was asked to read The Final Order, to give my opinions and to discuss the questions posed within it. Reading it, I was left in no doubt that this was a matter of very great significance to ISKCON and about which many devotees felt deeply. It seemed to me that it raised important theological questions concerning spiritual authority and its transmission, the relationship of the disciple and Krishna's representative, the guru, and the proper objects of devotional worship. As an outsider, I am quite unable to judge the matter (and unable to weigh the evidence presented here against the evidence for the present acharya system). However, I am able to commend what is presented here as a serious attempt to argue the case that Srila Prabhupada established a system of ritvik gurus whom he intended would initiate disciples on his behalf. I hope it will be read carefully and discussed widely, not because I support or condemn its position, but because the profound issues it raises demand consideration at all levels. Every devotee has a real stake in the matter.

No doubt it is unwise for an outsider to involve herself by writing such a foreword, but my motives remain my interest in the Movement and goodwill to all its devotees.

Kim Knott, February 1997

Preface to the Fifth Edition

It is now more than a decade since the first edition of The Final Order was printed in 1996. Originally I described The Final Order as a "discussion paper on Srila Prabhupada's instructions for initiation within ISKCON". No one who knows the Movement would deny that the paper has provoked a good deal of "discussion", and thus it has succeeded in its aim to bring this issue into the spotlight.

It would be hard now for ISKCON's leadership to credibly claim oblivion to the legal documents, personally signed by Srila Prabhupada, that clearly set out his intention to remain the sole initiating (diksa) guru for the spiritual Movement he founded. It is these legal documents that constitute the core of The Final Order paper that has now been distributed all over the world, and is available on the world wide web. There are still countries where The Final Order has yet to be translated (as of September 2008, the following translations were available: French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, Bengali, Kannada, Czech, Italian, Hungarian, with more underway); added to this ISKCON leaders have placed a blanket ban on its distribution in all ISKCON centres. For these reasons there remain large numbers of ISKCON's rank and file who have yet to read the paper, in spite of all the media coverage and controversy. But at least for ISKCON's executive leadership and gurus, ignorance of Srila Prabhupada's order on spiritual initiation is no longer an excuse. In the introduction to The Final Order we stated that:

"We consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our Founder-Acarya."

Given the GBC's evasion, obfuscation, violent suppression and downright dishonesty over The Final Order, the above point may now need revising.

There is now a worldwide organisation called the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM) that holds The Final Order as its foundation, and was set up specifically to promote its conclusions. It has a website with over 100 papers (www.iskconirm.com) by the same author and publishes a quarterly colour magazine called Back to Prabhupada which is distributed free of charge to thousands of subscribers worldwide. There has been worldwide media coverage of the IRM's activities, including numerous press articles and items on the BBC. The IRM has also made presentations at major academic conferences, including the International Cultic Studies Association, CESNUR and the American Academy of Religion. In addition, the author of The Final Order has been published by various academic and educational publishers including Columbia University Press, Firma KLM, Continuum International Publishing and Facts on File. Through these media the IRM has gained widespread acceptance amongst the scholarly community as a force for reform within ISKCON. Since the formation of the IRM, a growing number of ISKCON devotees and centres around the world have now accepted the conclusions of The Final Order.

Frequently Asked Questions about the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM)

1. What is the IRM?

The IRM is a body composed of ISKCON devotees from all over the world who want to see the Society put back on track, in line with the directives of its Founder, Srila Prabhupada.

2. Why does the IRM exist?

The spiritual purity and general prestige of ISKCON has undergone a massive deterioration since the physical departure of its Founder on November 14^th 1977. Srila Prabhupada single-handedly established ISKCON in 1966 as a great gift to the world, and when he left it was an expanding dynamic force, a beacon of light for humanity. Sadly today it is disintegrating, a fact admitted in a memo sent in May 2000 by the then GBC Chairman Ravindra Svarupa das:

"Therefore the question remains: What, then, will we do? How will we deal with our polarized and disintegrating Society?"

This decline can be traced back to various deviations from the instructions and standards given by Srila Prabhupada, the chief of which being his displacement as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. The ISKCON Revival Movement seeks to restore ISKCON to its former glory, purity and philosophical chastity through the re-institution of all the instructions and standards that Srila Prabhupada gave, beginning with his role as the sole authority and diksa guru for ISKCON. The IRM's position is set out in The Final Order and No Change in ISKCON Paradigm position papers. Both these papers are also available on our website: www.iskconirm.com

3. Is the IRM separate from ISKCON?

It is a movement within a movement, composed of ISKCON members who seek to reform and revive the Society.

4. Is the aim of the IRM to form a new movement?

No. It is to re-establish the original ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada left us. Once this is achieved the IRM shall be dissolved.

5. What difference would Srila Prabhupada's restoration as the sole diksa guru make?

Firstly, it is the most basic axiom of spiritual life that we can only make advancement by properly following the orders of the guru. If the guru asks for milk and we bring him water, how will he be pleased? And if the guru is not pleased, how will we ever approach Lord Krishna?

For nearly three decades ISKCON has not been doing what Srila Prabhupada ordered. Since Srila Prabhupada left us physically we have not allowed him to initiate even one person via his ritvik, or representational, system. This is the only system of initiation he ever authorised to continue within the Society. If ISKCON members once more start to follow his order, then naturally they will please Lord Krishna, and all spiritual success should naturally follow.  Also, with everyone having the same direct relationship as Srila Prabhupada's disciples, factionalism will be eliminated. For the first time in nearly thirty years there will be united team spirit, with everyone working for the same goal—the service and glorification of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Krishna. Many ISKCON "gurus" have fallen prey to gross sinful activities; and when they leave they often take with them hundreds of thousands of dollars and many of their followers. This continual loss of properties, faith and personnel will be eliminated as faith is only placed in Srila Prabhupada, and not in fallible substitutes. Money currently siphoned off by the 80 or so "gurus" from their disciples in daksina (gifted money) will instead go to temples, making them healthy and strong.

6. How can the IRM be so sure its position is correct, and the GBC's is not?

The IRM consider their position correct since it is based on signed, legal documents that were directed to the whole Movement. On the other hand, the GBC have presented at least three completely contradictory official positions (none of which are supported by legal documents) and thus do not technically have a position, not to speak of a correct one. We should point out that not only do these various accounts contradict each other, but on occasion contradict themselves too. For example, if we just take the simple question of when Srila Prabhupada was meant to have authorised his replacement as diksa guru for ISKCON, we get the following answer from the following three official GBC papers:

a) On My Order Understood (GBC, 1995): Srila Prabhupada gave the order for gurus at the same time as the order for devotees to act on his behalf, and this occurred on July 7^th, 1977 (p. 28 in Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON, GBC 1995).

b) Disciple Of My Disciple (H.H. Umapati Swami, 1997): Eleven diksa gurus were all set up and ready on May 28^th, 1977 since "ritvik" means "officiating acarya" which means "diksa guru".

c) Prabhupada's Order (Badrinarayan das, 1998): On July 9^th, 1977 the eleven were fully functioning as gurus but simply observing the etiquette in Srila Prabhupada's presence.

Above we see the GBC have given three different dates for when Srila Prabhupada allegedly sanctioned his replacement. a) refers to a garden conversation, b) refers to a meeting between Srila Prabhupada and some of his senior disciples, whilst c) refers to the signed directive on initiation after which this book is named. Thus each GBC position paper tells a very different tale. To make matters worse:

In February 2004, at their annual meeting in Mayapur, the GBC officially withdrew the paper On My Order Understood, privately admitting it contained "lies" and "stretched the truth". It was this very paper that The Final Order set out originally to challenge (please see Introduction, p. xiii) and the fact it has now been withdrawn so ignominiously can only further vindicate the IRM's position.

Quite clearly the GBC are confused over when successor diksa Gurus were authorised. The IRM argues that this is inevitable since Srila Prabhupada never created any replacement diksa Gurus, only ritviks; and it was this ritvik system he left running with no order for it to be stopped. On this basis we argue that the GBC must first decide on a position, and only then will we be able to judge its efficacy.

The sad thing is that, even to this day, anyone who questions the GBC's miasma of discordant testimony is ruthlessly hounded from the Society.

Krishnakant
September 2008

If you would like further information on the IRM, including a free subscription to our magazine,  or wish to ask questions on the contents of The Final Order, then please email the author at:

irm@iskconirm.com

or

visit our website at:

www.iskconirm.com

Introduction

This book is a humble attempt to present the instructions Srila Prabhupada left the Governing Body Commission ("GBC") on how he intended initiations to continue within the International Society for Krishna Consciousness ("ISKCON"). Although we will refer to several papers and articles that have been published by senior ISKCON devotees on this subject, the main points of reference will be the GBC's most recent official handbook on initiation entitled Gurus And Initiation In ISKCON (to be referred to henceforward as "GII"), and the paper On My Order Understood which is mentioned under section 1.1 of the 'Laws of ISKCON':

"The GBC approves of the paper entitled 'On My Order Understood' which establishes as ISKCON law the final siddhanta on Srila Prabhupada's desire for continuing the disciplic succession after the departure of His Divine Grace. [See Part II: GBC Position Papers in this volume.]" (GII, p.1)

In GII it is the GBC's clearly stated intention to remove incoherence and contradiction from ISKCON's codes and laws surrounding gurus, disciples and guru-tattva in general, thus establishing a final siddhanta (philosophical conclusion). We sincerely pray that this paper is in pursuance of those very same aims.

In the interest of ever greater consistency and philosophical chastity, we feel there are still one or two discrepancies, not fully addressed in GII, which might benefit from further investigation and discussion. Although some of the issues thrown up in confronting these discrepancies may seem quite radical, even painful to deal with, we feel that tackling them now will greatly minimise future confusion and potential deviation. It is not unprecedented that guru systems in ISKCON have come under quite radical review. In the past, symbols have been removed, ceremonies curtailed and paradigms shifted—all without too much long term disruption.

In the whole scheme of things ISKCON is undoubtedly the most important Society on the planet. It is therefore imperative that constant vigilance is maintained in ensuring it does not stray even one millionth of a hair's breadth from the managerial and philosophical parameters set out by our Founder-Acarya. Srila Prabhupada constantly stressed that we must not change, invent or speculate; but simply carry on expanding that which he so carefully and painstakingly established. What better time to closely scrutinise the way we are carrying on Srila Prabhupada's mission than this, his Centennial year (1996)?

It is our strong conviction that the present guru system within ISKCON should be brought fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's last signed directive on the matter; his final order on initiation, issued on July 9th, 1977 (please see Appendices, p.108). Sometimes people question the stress placed on this letter over and above other letters or teachings. In our defence we shall simply repeat an axiom the GBC itself uses in the GII handbook:

"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance."

(GII, p.25)

Since the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON, addressed as it was to the entire Movement, it must be viewed in a category of its own. It will be shown that the full acceptance and implementation of this order does not in any way clash with the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

We have no interest in conspiracy theories, nor do we intend to dredge up the gory details of unfortunate individuals' spiritual difficulties. What is done is done. We can certainly learn from previous mistakes, but we would rather help pave the way for a positive future of re-unification and forgiveness, than dwell too long on past scandal. As far as the author is concerned, the vast majority of devotees in ISKCON are sincerely striving to please Srila Prabhupada; thus we consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our Founder-Acarya. Nevertheless, somehow or other, it does seem as though certain aberrations of epistemology and managerial detail have found their way into general ISKCON currency over the last nineteen years. In identifying these grey areas we pray we may be of some assistance in rooting out unnecessary obstructions to our devotional service to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna.

In this book we shall be presenting as evidence signed documentation, issued personally by Srila Prabhupada, and conversation transcripts, all of which are accepted as authentic by the GBC. We shall then look carefully at both the content and the context of these materials to see if they should be taken literally, or whether modifying instructions exist which might reasonably alter their meaning or applicability. We shall also discuss all relevant philosophical issues raised in connection with this evidence, and answer all of the most common objections raised against a literal acceptance of the July 9th initiation policy document. And finally we shall look at how the "officiating acarya system", as outlined in the July 9th order, might be implemented with the minimum disturbance.

We shall base all our arguments solely on the philosophy and instructions given by Srila Prabhupada in his books, letters, lectures and conversations. We humbly beg the mercy of all Vaisnavas that we may not cause offence to anyone or in any way disrupt the vital mission of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.

The Evidence

Anyone who knew Srila Prabhupada would often note his meticulous nature. His fastidious attention to every detail of his devotional service was one of Srila Prabhupada's most distinguishing characteristics; and for those who served him closely, was profound evidence of his deep love and devotion to Lord Sri Krishna. His whole life was dedicated to carrying out the order of his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and in that duty he was uncannily vigilant. He left nothing to chance, always correcting, guiding and chastising his disciples in his effort to establish ISKCON. His mission was his life and soul.

It would certainly have been entirely out of character for Srila Prabhupada to leave an important issue, such as the future of initiation in his cherished Society, up in the air, ambiguous, or in any way open to debate or speculation. This is particularly so in light of what happened to his own spiritual master's mission, which, as he would often point out, was destroyed largely through the operation of an unauthorised guru system. Bearing this in mind, let us begin with facts that no one disputes:

On July 9th 1977, four months before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada set up a system of initiations employing the use of "ritviks", or "representatives of the acarya". Srila Prabhupada instructed that this "officiating acarya" system was to be instituted immediately, and run from that time onwards, or "henceforward" (please see Appendices, p.108). This management directive, which was sent to all Governing Body Commissioners and Temple Presidents of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, instructed that from that time on new disciples would be given spiritual names and have their beads and gayatri mantras from the 11 named ritviks. The ritviks were to act on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, new initiates all becoming disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada thus handed over to the ritviks total power of attorney over who could receive initiation; he made it clear that from that time onwards he was no longer to be consulted (for details of a ritvik's duties, please see the section entitled "What is a Ritvik?" on p. 90).

Immediately after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure on November 14th 1977, the GBC suspended this ritvik system. By Gaura Purnima 1978, the 11 ritviks had assumed the roles of zonal acarya diksa gurus, initiating disciples on their own behalf. Their mandate for doing so was an alleged order from Srila Prabhupada that they alone were to succeed him as initiating acaryas. Some years later this zonal acarya system was itself challenged and replaced, not by the restoration of the ritvik system, but by the addition of dozens more gurus, along with an elaborate system of checks and balances to deal with those that deviated; the rationale for this change being that the order to become guru was not, as we had first been told, only applicable to the 11, but was a general instruction for anyone who strictly followed, and received a two-thirds majority vote from the GBC body.

The above account is not a political opinion, it is historical fact, accepted by everyone, including the GBC.

As mentioned above, the July 9th letter was sent to all GBCs and Temple Presidents, and remains to this day the only signed instruction on the future of initiation Srila Prabhupada ever issued to the whole Society. Commenting on the July 9th order, HH Jayadvaita Swami recently wrote:

"Its authority is beyond question [...] Clearly, this letter establishes a ritvik-guru system."

(Jayadvaita Swami, Where the Ritvik People are Wrong, 1996)

The source of the controversy arises from two modifications which were subsequently superimposed over this otherwise clear and authoritative directive:

Modification a): That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.

Modification b): Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.

The reforms to the zonal acarya system, which took place around 1987, kept intact these two assumptions. The same assumptions, in fact, that underpinned the very system it replaced. We refer to a) and b) above as modifications since neither statement appears in the July 9th letter itself, nor in any policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada subsequent to this order.

The GBC's paper, GII, clearly upholds the above-mentioned modifications:

"When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after his physical departure he stated he would "recommend" and give his "order" to some of his disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards as "regular gurus", whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples." (GII, p.14)

Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have begun questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions. For many, they have never been properly substantiated, and hence an uneasy sense of doubt and mistrust has grown both within and outside the Society.  At present, books, papers, email-outs and websites offer almost daily updates on ISKCON and its allegedly deviant guru system. Anything that can bring about some sort of resolution to this controversy has got to be positive for anyone who truly cares about Srila Prabhupada's Movement.

One point everyone is agreed on is that Srila Prabhupada is the ultimate authority for all members of ISKCON, so whatever his intended order was, it is our duty to carry it out. Another point of agreement is that the only signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the Society's leaders, was the July 9th order.

It is significant to note that in GII the existence of the July 9th letter is not even acknowledged, even though this is the only place where the original eleven "acaryas" are actually mentioned. This omission is puzzling, especially given that GII is supposed to offer the "final siddhanta" on the entire issue.

Let us then look closely at the July 9th order to see if there is indeed anything that supports assumptions a) and b) above:

The order itself

As previously mentioned, the July 9th order states that the ritvik system should be followed "henceforward". The specific word used, "henceforward", only has one meaning, viz. "from now onwards". This is both according to Srila Prabhupada's own previous usage of the word and the meaning ascribed to it by the English language. Unlike other words, the word "henceforward" is unambiguous since it only possesses one dictionary definition. On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used the word "henceforward", nobody raised even the possibility that the word could mean anything other than "from now onwards". "From now onwards" does not mean "from now onwards until I depart". It simply means "from now onwards". There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure, neither does it state that the system was to only be operational during his presence. 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. Without such a counter instruction this letter must be seen as Srila Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation, and should therefore be followed.

Supporting instructions

There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his secretary, in the days following the July 9th letter, which clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation (all emphases added):

"...the process for initiation to be followed in the future." (July 11^th, 1977)

"...continue to become ritvik and act on my charge." (July 19^th, 1977)

"...continue to be rittik and act on my behalf." (July 31^st, 1977)

(Please see Appendices).

In these documents we find words such as "continue'"and "future" which along with the word "henceforward" all point to the permanency of the ritvik system. There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada that even hints that this system was to terminate on his departure.

Subsequent instructions

Once the ritvik system was up and running, Srila Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it, nor did he ever state that it should be disbanded on his departure. Perhaps aware that such a thing may mistakenly or otherwise occur, he put in the beginning of his final Will that the "system of management" in place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed—an instruction left intact by a codicil added just nine days before his departure. Surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to disband the ritvik system had that been his intention. That the use of ritviks to give initiates' names was a "system of management" can be illustrated by the following:

In 1975 one of the preliminary GBC resolutions sanctioned that the GBC would have sole responsibility for managerial affairs. Below are some of the managerial issues the GBC dealt with that year:

"In order to receive first initiation, one must have been a full time member for 6-months. For second initiation, there should be at least another one year after first initiation."

(GBC Resolution No. 9, March 1975)

"Method of initiating sannyasi".

(GBC Resolution No. 2, March 1975)

These resolutions were personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. They demonstrate conclusively that the methodology for conducting initiations was deemed a "system of management". If the whole methodology for conducting initiations is considered a "system of management" by Srila Prabhupada, then one element of initiation, viz. the use of ritviks to give spiritual names, has to fall under the same terms of reference.

Thus changing the ritvik system of initiation was in direct violation of Srila Prabhupada's final Will.

Another instruction in Srila Prabhupada's Will, which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's "initiated disciples":

"...a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple..."
(Srila Prabhupada's Declaration of Will, June 4th, 1977)

This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up.

Furthermore, every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of initiations after July 9th he simply reconfirmed the ritvik system. He never gave any hint that the system should stop on his departure or that there were gurus, waiting in the sidelines, ready to take on the role of diksa. Thus, at least as far as direct evidence is concerned, there appears to be nothing to support assumptions a) and b) referred to previously. As stated, these assumptions—that the ritvik system should have stopped at departure, and that the ritviks must then become diksa gurus—form the very basis of ISKCON's current guru system. If they prove to be invalid then there will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC.

The above sets the scene. The instruction itself, supporting instructions and subsequent instructions only support the continuation of the ritvik system. It is admitted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did not give any order to terminate the ritvik system on his physical departure. It is further accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to operate from July 9^th onwards. Thus we have a situation whereby the acarya:

1) has given a clear instruction to follow a ritvik system;

2) has not given an instruction to stop following the ritvik system upon his physical departure.

Consequently, for a disciple to stop following this order, with any degree of legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing so. The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could only follow it in his physical presence. The onus of proof will naturally fall on those who wish to terminate any system put in place by our acarya, and left to run henceforward. This is an obvious point; one can not just stop following the order of the guru whimsically:

"...the process is that you cannot change the order of spiritual master."

(Srila Prabhupada Cc. Lecture, 2/2/1967, San Francisco)

A disciple does not need to justify continuing to follow a direct order from the guru, especially when he has been told to continue following it. That is axiomatic —this is what the word 'disciple' means:

"When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the

spiritual master." 

(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 11/2/1975, Mexico)

Since there is no direct evidence stating that the ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, the case for abandoning it could therefore only be based on indirect evidence. Indirect evidence may arise out of special circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. These extenuating circumstances, should they exist, may be used to provide grounds for interpreting the literal instruction. We will now examine the circumstances surrounding the July 9th order, to see if such modifying circumstances might indeed have been present, and whether there is inferentially anything to support assumptions a) and b).

Objections Relating Directly to the Form and
Circumstances of Srila Prabhupada's Final Order

Please consider the following points:

1. The July 9th letter also does not specifically state: 'The ritvik system should end on Srila Prabhupada's departure'. Yet it was terminated immediately on his departure.
   
   
2. The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system should run while Srila Prabhupada is still present'. Yet it was run while he was still present.
   
   
3. The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system should only run until the departure of Srila Prabhupada'. Yet it was only allowed to run till his departure.
   
   
4. The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system must stop'. Yet it was stopped.

In summary, the GBC insists on the following:

•  The ritvik system must stop.
•  The ritvik system must stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Neither of the above stipulations appears in the July 9th letter, nor any other signed order; yet they form the very foundation of both the zonal acarya system and the current "Multiple Acarya Successor System", or M.A.S.S. as we shall refer to it. (In this context we use the word acarya in its strongest sense, that of initiating spiritual master, or diksa guru).

To argue that since the letter is not specific about the time period in which it is to run, it must therefore stop on departure, is completely illogical. The letter does not specify that the ritvik system should be followed on July 9th either, so according to this logic it should never have been followed at all. Even accepting that "henceforward" can at least stretch to the end of the first day of the order being issued, it does not say it should be followed on July 10th, so perhaps it should have stopped then.

The demand for the ritvik system to only operate within a pre-specified time period is contradicted by accepting its operation for 126 separate 24 hour time periods (i.e. four months), since none of these 126 separate time periods is specified in the letter, yet everyone seems quite happy that the system ran during this time frame. Unless we take the word "henceforward" literally to mean "indefinitely", we could stop the system at any time after July 9th, so why choose departure?

There is no example, either in Srila Prabhupada's 86 recorded uses, nor in the entire history of the English language, where the actual word "henceforward" has ever meant:

"Every time period until the departure of a person who issued the order."

Yet according to current thinking this is what the word must have meant when it was used in the July 9th letter. The letter simply states that the ritvik system is to be followed "henceforward". So why was it stopped?

If an instruction is impossible to perform, for example giving Srila Prabhupada his daily massage after his physical departure, then obviously there can be no question of doing it. The duty of a disciple is simply to follow an order until it is impossible to follow any longer, or until the spiritual master changes the order. The question then is whether it is feasible to follow a ritvik system without the physical presence of the person who set it up.

In fact, the ritvik system was set up specifically to be operational without any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada whatsoever. Had the ritvik system continued after his departure, it would be identical in every respect to how it was practised whilst Srila Prabhupada was present. After July 9th, Srila Prabhupada's involvement became non-existent, and so even at that stage it was operating as though he had already left. This being the case, we cannot classify the ritvik system dysfunctional, or inoperable, on the grounds of Srila Prabhupada's departure, since his departure does not in any way affect the running of the system. In other words, since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet, his leaving the planet can not in itself render the system invalid.

This "letters v books" argument does not apply in this case since this was no  ordinary letter. Generally, Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter in response to a specific query from an individual disciple, or to offer individualised guidance or chastisement. Naturally, in these cases the devotee's original query, situation or deviation may give grounds for interpretation. Not everything  in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied universally. However, the final order on initiation is not open to any such interpretation since it was not written in response to a specific query from a particular individual, or to address a disciple's individual situation or behaviour. The July 9th letter was a procedural instruction, or management policy document, which was sent to every leader in the Movement.

The letter follows the format of any important instruction that Srila Prabhupada issued and wanted followed without interpretation—he had it put in writing, he approved it, and then sent it to his leaders. For example, he had one sent on April 22nd, 1972, addressed to "ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS":

"The zonal secretaries duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting." 
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to All Temple Presidents, 22/4/1972)

Srila Prabhupada did not publish a new book each time he issued an important instruction, regardless of whether the instruction was to continue past his departure. Thus, the form in which the instruction was issued does not make it prey for indirect interpretations, nor in any way diminish its validity.

If such circumstances did exist, Srila Prabhupada would have stated them in the letter, or in an accompanying document. Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives which would later be made sense of telepathically. For example, had Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to stop on his departure he would have added the following seven words to the July 9th letter—"This system will terminate on my departure". A quick look at the letter tells us he wanted it to continue "henceforward" (please see Appendices, p.108).

Sometimes it is argued that the ritvik system was only set up because Srila Prabhupada was sick.

Devotees may or may not have been aware of the extent of Srila Prabhupada's illness; but how could they possibly be expected to deduce from a letter that says nothing about his health, that this was the only reason it was issued? When did Srila Prabhupada say that any instruction he issued must always be interpreted in conjunction with his latest medical report? Why should the recipients of the final order on initiation not have assumed the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation?

Srila Prabhupada had already announced that he had come to Vrindavan to leave his body. Being tri-kala-jna (cognizant of past, present and future) he was most likely aware of his departure in four months time. He had set in motion the final instructions for the continuation of his Movement. He had already drawn up his Will and other documents relating to the BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) and GBC, specifically to provide guidance for after his imminent departure. The one matter that had not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left. At this point, there was still uncertainty as to how things were to run. The July 9th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his absence.

In the GBC's handbook GII, the sole evidence offered in support of modifications a) & b) is extracted from a conversation which took place on May 28th, 1977. The paper appears to concede that there is no other instructional evidence which directly relates to the function of ritviks after Srila Prabhupada's departure:

"Although Srila Prabhupada did not repeat his earlier statements it was understood that he expected these disciples to initiate in the future." (GII, p.35)

Since it is the sole evidence, there is a section exclusively dedicated to the May 28th conversation on page 33 of this book. Suffice to say it was not referred to in the July 9^th letter, nor did Srila Prabhupada demand that a copy of the taped conversation be sent out with the final order. From this we can deduce with absolute confidence that it cannot contain a scrap of modifying information vital to the understanding of the final order. As a point of fact, the May 28th conversation was not released till several years after Srila Prabhupada's departure. Thus once more we are expected to modify a clear written instruction with information which was not accessible to the very people who were issued the instruction. As will be seen later, the May conversation has nothing in it to

contradict the final order.

As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always supersede previous instructions; the final order is the final order, and must be followed:

"I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, "Do it," your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, "Sir, you said me like this before." No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. You cannot argue." 
(Srila Prabhupada SB Lecture, 15/4/1975, Hyderabad)

Just as in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna gave so many instructions to Arjuna, He spoke of all types of yoga from Dhyana to Jnana, but all this was superseded by the final order:

""You just give up everything and become My devotee, My worshipper" – should be taken as the final order of the Lord, and one should follow that principle."
(Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 11)

The final order given by Sankaracarya,"bhaja Govinda", was also meant to supersede many of his earlier statements—all of them, in fact. As mentioned in the introduction to this book, the GBC itself recognises this as an axiomatic principle of logic:

"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance."
(GII, p. 25)

It is not possible to have a "later" statement than the last one. Therefore we must follow the ritvik system by the GBC's own logic.

Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa guru for after his departure. Evidence for this claim has never been produced; indeed many senior leaders within ISKCON have conceded the point:

"And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said "Alright here is the next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorized gurus for the Movement, for the world". He did not do that." 
(Jayadvaita Swami, ISKCON South London, 1993)

Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must be a mahabhagavata (most advanced stage of God-realisation) and be specifically authorised by his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorised. We quote below from Srila Prabhupada's books where the qualifications of the diksa guru are stated:

"Maha-bhagavata-srestho brahmano vai gurur nrnam
sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih
maha-kula-prasuto' pi sarva-yajnesu diksitah
sahasra-sakhadhyayi ca na guruh syad avaisnavah
The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class." 
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330, purport)

 

"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru."
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330, purport)

Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone could act as a diksa guru:

"On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities." 

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Janardana, 26/4/1968)

 

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana."

(SB, 4.8.54, purport)

 

Indian man: When did you begin to become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?
Srila Prabhupada: What is that?
Brahmananda: He's asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?
Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.
Indian man: Did it...
Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he's ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.
(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 28/10/1975)

Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru when both the qualification and authorisation are in place. Srila Prabhupada had not authorised any such gurus, nor had he stated that any of his disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather, just prior to July 9th, he agreed that they were still "conditioned souls", and that vigilance was essential lest persons pose themselves as guru (please see Appendices, April 22^nd, 1977 conversation).

Evidence used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic

categories:

1. Srila Prabhupada's frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the "amara ajnaya guru hana" verse from the Caitanya-caritamrta.
   
   
2. The half-dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure.
   
   
3. Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru is mentioned.

Looking first at category 1):

The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in the Caitanya-caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada:

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land." 
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 7.128)

However, the type of guru which Lord Caitanya is encouraging everyone to become is clearly established in the detailed purports following this verse:

"That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam."
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 7.128, purport)

"One may remain a householder, a medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples."
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 7.130, purport)

We can see that these instructions do not demand that the gurus in question first attain any particular level of realisation before they act. The request is immediate. From this it is clear everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know, and in so doing become siksa, or instructing, gurus. This is further clarified by the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position, and not then go on to become a diksa guru:

"It is best not to accept any disciples." (Cc. Madhya-lila, 7.130, purport)

To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krsna Consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's purports that, in the above verse, Lord Caitanya is actually authorising siksa gurus, not diksa gurus.

This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru:

"yare dekha, tare kaha, krsna-upadesa. [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krsna has already said, you repeat. Finish. Don't make addition, alteration. Then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krsna. Then it will act [...] Anyone can do it. A child can do it."

(Srila Prabhupada Evening darshan, 11/5/1977, Hrishikesh, emphasis added)

 "Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is, He said, that 'Every one of you become guru.'"

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/1976, Honolulu)

 

"You simply say [...] 'Just always think of Me.' Krsna said. 'And just become My devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances.' Kindly do these things." So if you can induce one person to do these four things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?" 

(Srila Prabhupada Conversation, 2/8/1976, New Mayapur)

"Real guru is he who instructs what Krsna has said. [...] You have simply to say, 'This is this.' That's all. Is it very difficult task?" 

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/1976, Honolulu)

"...'But I have no qualification. How can I become guru?'There is no need of qualification [...] 'Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said. That's all. You become guru.'" 

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/1976, Honolulu)

(Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a justification for "minimally qualified diksa gurus"*(1), an entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures or conversations).

An example of a guru who has no qualification, other than repeating what he has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON. It is perfectly clear therefore that the above are actually invitations to become instructing spiritual masters or siksa gurus. We know this since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru:

"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshiped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru."

(Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330, purport)

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana."
(SB, 4.8.54, purport)

In the above quote Srila Prabhupada states that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru. The general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider "amara ajnaya guru hana" to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya? This general instruction from Lord Caitanya must be referring to siksa, not diksa, guru.  Diksa guru is the exception, not the rule. Whereas Srila Prabhupada envisaged millions of siksa gurus, comprising of men, women and children.

Looking now at category 2):

There were a handful of overly confident devotees, anxious to initiate their own disciples in Srila Prabhupada's presence, whom Srila Prabhupada wrote letters to. These letters are used to support the M.A.S.S.. Srila Prabhupada had a fairly standard approach when dealing with such ambitious individuals. Generally he told them to keep rigidly trained up, and in the future, after his physical departure, they may accept disciples:

"The first thing, I warn Achyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] Don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future Spiritual Masters, but do not be in a hurry."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/1968)

"Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work." 

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Acyutananda, 16/5/1972)

"I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaishnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual mastr, [sic] it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions." 

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Hamsadutta, 1/10/1974)

"Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. 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. I want to see my disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely. That will make me and Krishna very happy."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2/12/1975)

It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above "law" in support of the M.A.S.S. doctrine, in the very same document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all:

"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of guru, [...] In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present."
(GII, p. 23)

Eagerness to accept worship and followers is actually a disqualification for a spiritual master. We can only marvel at the power of the false ego, that even in the presence of the most powerful acarya the planet had ever seen, some personalities still felt amply qualified to initiate their own disciples right under Srila Prabhupada's nose! *(2)

It is apparent that in writing to these devotees, telling them they could take disciples if they just held on a little longer, Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to keep them in devotional service. In so doing there was at least the possibility that, in time, their ambitious mentalities might become purified.

Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have received a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus. Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise diksa guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified?

As far as statements to the effect that they would be free to initiate after his departure, that is true. Just as in England one is free to drive a car once one is 17 years old. However, we must not forget those two little provisos. First, one must be qualified to drive, and second one must be authorised by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own parallels.

Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:

"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krishna Consciousness population."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Kirtanananda, 12/1/1969)

Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on initiation?

Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's "law of disciplic succession". The first part of the "law" states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence. Since this was the "law", clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiating on their own behalf; Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of "officiating" initiation system as early as 1969. As it turned out, by 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed "empowered", or authorised, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation. Later he called these representatives "ritviks", and formalised their function in the July 9^th order. Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorising Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams.

"Any one following the order of Lord Chaitanya under the guidance of His bonafide representative, can become a spiritual master and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bonafide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Madhusudana, 2/11/1967)

Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus. However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual masters also in his absence. There is definitely no mention in the above quote of his disciples initiating or accepting their own disciples. The term "bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world" is equally applicable to a siksa guru.

Even if such letters as these did allude to some other type of guru system, they still could not be used to modify the final July 9th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the Movement. The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is occasionally alleged that some of these personal letters were leaked out to other members of the Society. This may or may not have been the case, but the important point to note is that the mechanics of such distribution appears never to have been set up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private correspondence to be distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be published "if there was time", but he never intimated that without these documents no-one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure.

To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an authorised form at that time. If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for up to ten thousand years, surely Srila Prabhupada would have made their publication, and mass distribution, a matter of utmost urgency. There was, after all, the reasonable possibility that not all his leaders had read his private correspondence, and as a result not gained a clear understanding of precisely how initiations were to run after his departure. We know this to be more than a possibility since the entire GBC still had no idea what Srila Prabhupada was planning as late on as May 28th, 1977 (please see May 28^th conversation in Appendices, p.127).

In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of this handful of letters can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certainly have made that clear in the order itself or in some accompanying document.

In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was as representatives of the acarya, ritviks.

Finally we shall look at category 3):

There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures which have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We shall now examine this evidence.

In Srila Prabhupada's books, all we find are the qualifications of a diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and authorised before even attempting to become diksa guru:

"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master." 
(SB, 2.9.43, purport)

The above injunction hardly gives carte-blanche for anyone to initiate just because their guru has left the planet. The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here; only the idea that they must be authorised and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must have first attained the platform of maha-bhagavata.

Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journey to Other Planets (p.32) dealing with "monitor gurus" as evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However, this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa, not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher, but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru). A monitor guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform of maha-bhagavata, and then been authorised by his predecessor acarya, there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa guru, the siksa guru may gradually rise to the platform necessary before diksa authorisation can theoretically take place. Furthermore, a monitor merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again would be at variance with the "law" of disciplic succession, used to support the M.A.S.S. system, were the monitors actually diksa gurus. In other words, a monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside him.

Certainly the monitor system in no way supports the GBC's  a) and b) assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically become diksa gurus.

There are other occasions, outside of Srila Prabhupada's personal letters, which are quoted as giving authorisation for his disciples to become diksa gurus:

"Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 18/5/1972, Los Angeles)

"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next." 

(Srila Prabhupada Vyasa-Puja Address, 5/9/1969, Hamburg)

The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are already the twelfth—"you are the twelfth". Thus this is not some authorisation for them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that they are already carrying on the message of the parampara. The second quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place by dint of the disciples' vigorous preaching. Either way, there is no clear, explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation. In fact, we know it is wrong since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act as representatives of the acarya, and not in any type of initiating or diksa capacity.

To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable, and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, specifically in relation to what would happen after his departure, which completely contradict the proposition being made:

Reporter: "What will happen to the movement in the United States when you die?"
Srila Prabhupada: "I will never die."

Devotees: "Jaya! Haribol!"  (Laughter.)

Srila Prabhupada: "I shall live for my books, and you will utilise."

(Srila Prabhupada Press Conference, 16/7/1975)

Here was a clear opportunity for Srila Prabhupada to lay out his plans for the M.A.S.S. were that to be his intention. But instead of stating that his disciples will succeed him as diksa gurus, he says he shall never die and his books will do the necessary. From the above exchange it can be understood Srila Prabhupada is a living spiritual master who continues to impart transcendental knowledge (the main constituent of diksa) through his books; and that this will continue for as long as ISKCON exists. The role of his disciples was to facilitate the process.

"Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya. Even if he is complete he should not, because the etiquette is, if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to bring that prospective candidate to his acarya."

(Srila Prabhupada Cc. Lecture, 6/4/1975)

The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to become acarya. However, the whole emphasis is that they should not do it now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his disciples becoming acarya if he is cautioning them not to do it in his presence. This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above. This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle. As will be seen later in the "Appointment Tape" (p. 33), which is used in GII as principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May 1977 ("On my order, [...] But by my order, [...] When I order"). And this situation remained unchanged until his departure. Furthermore, later on in the same lecture, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya ambitions in the following manner:

"And to become acarya is not very difficult. [...] amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa, yare dekha tare kaha krsna upadesa: "By following My order, you become guru." [...] Then, in future... Suppose you have got now ten thousand. We shall expand to hundred thousand. That is required. Then hundred thousand to million; and million to ten million."

(Srila Prabhupada Cc. Lecture, 6/4/1975, Mayapur)

It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction was for everyone to preach vigorously, make lots of Krsna conscious followers, but not to take disciples. This point is reinforced where Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. It is significant that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand..." (i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence). From this it is clear he is talking about Krsna conscious followers, not "disciples of his disciples", since the main point of the lecture was that they should not initiate in his presence. The implication being then, that just as at that time there may have been around ten thousand followers of Krsna Consciousness, so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik system was to ensure that when these followers became suitably qualified for initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just as they could when he gave the above lecture.

In conclusion

There is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada issuing specific orders for his disciples to become diksa gurus, thus setting up an alternative to the ritvik system.

What we do have is a handful of (at the time) unpublished personal letters, sent only to individuals desirous of becoming diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's presence, sometimes having only recently joined the Movement. In such cases they are told to wait until Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet before they fulfil their ambitions. The very fact that they were unpublished at the time of the July 9th letter means that they were not intended to have any direct bearing on the future of initiation within ISKCON.

Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada's books and conversations only contain instructions for his disciples to be siksa gurus. Though the general principle of a disciple becoming a diksa guru is mentioned, Srila Prabhupada does not specifically order his disciples to initiate and take their own disciples.

The above quotes can in no way supplant the explicit instruction of July 9th, an order that was distributed to the whole Movement as a specific policy document. There is clearly no equivalent document outlining the M.A.S.S.

Thus the idea that Srila Prabhupada had taught far and wide that all his disciples should become diksa gurus, immediately on his departure, shortly after or indeed ever, is nothing but a myth.

It is commonly stated that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the July 9th letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already explained again and again in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations precisely what he wanted to happen. Sadly this assertion, apart from being totally false, merely raises further absurdities:

• If Srila Prabhupada's previous teachings on how he wanted to continue initiations in his absence were really so crystalline clear that he saw no need to issue a specific directive on the matter, why then did the GBC send a special delegation to his bedside in the first place? A delegation whose principal objective it was to find out what was to be done about initiations "particularly" at that time when he was no longer with them! (Please see "Appointment tape", p. 33). Srila Prabhupada was in ill health, about to leave his body, and here we have his most senior men asking him elementary questions which he had supposedly already answered scores of times over the preceding decade.
  
  
• If Srila Prabhupada had clearly spelled out the M.A.S.S. system, why did he leave so little instruction on how to set it up that shortly after his departure his most senior men felt compelled to question Sridhar Maharaja (of the Gaudiya Math) on how to operate it?
  
  
• If it really was so clear to everyone precisely how Srila Prabhupada wanted everyone to become diksa guru, then why did the GBC set up the zonal acarya system where diksa guruship was strictly limited, and allow it to run for almost an entire decade?

Although we have been somewhat critical of the GBC's paper GII, there is one passage in it relating to this issue which we feel totally encapsulates the mood that will re-unite Srila Prabhupada's family:

"A disciple's only duty is to worship and serve his spiritual master. His mind should not be agitated over how he may become a guru.  A devotee who sincerely  wants to make spiritual advancement should try to become a disciple, not a spiritual master."
(GII, p. 25, GBC 1995, emphasis added).

We could not agree more.

• (1) This interpretation is advocated in Ajamila das' paper "Regular or Ritvik", published in the GBC's ISKCON Journal, 1990.
  
  
• (2) We would like to point out that most of the devotees mentioned above have since recognised their faults, and thus we apologise for any offence or embarrassment we may have caused. Perhaps they may appreciate the fact that personal letters sent by Srila Prabhupada, to specifically address their individual anarthas, are currently being used to support the M.A.S.S. within ISKCON.
  

The "Appointment Tape"

The GBC claims in GII that the sole justification for modifications a) & b) to the final July 9th order comes from a taped room conversation which took place in Vrindavan on May 28th, 1977. These modifications are given below for reference:

Modification a): That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the
departure of Srila Prabhupada.

Modification b): Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.

This section therefore will be dedicated to a close scrutiny of the May 28^th conversation to see if it can be legitimately used to modify the final order in terms of a) and b) above.

Since the entire GBC position rests on just this one piece of evidence it is quite worrying that they have already published at least four different officially sanctioned versions, or transcripts, of this very same evidence. These differing transcripts appeared in the following publications:

1983: Srila Prabhupada-Lilamrita, Vol 6 (Satsvarupa das Goswami, BBT)
1985: Under My Order (Ravindra Svarupa das)
1990: ISKCON Journal (GBC)
1995: Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON (GBC)

To be presented with four different versions of the same taped conversation in itself raises a number of serious questions. For example, it would not be unreasonable to ask, which is the correct version? Why are there differing versions in the first place? Is the transcript a composite of more than one conversation? Has the tape itself been edited from more than one conversation? Has there been more than one version of the tape released? If so, can we be sure that any version is true to any actual conversation? Thus already, even before the evidence is examined, we are placed in the invidious position of being expected to modify a signed letter through the analysis of tape transcripts, over which hang serious questions of authenticity.

However, for the purpose of examining the tape we shall use a composite of the four different transcripts. So here is the conversation, with the variations in brackets:

(1) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: Then our next question concerns initiation(s) in the future,

(2)      particularly at that time when you are (you're) no longer with us. We want to know how

(3)      (a) first and second initiation(s) would be conducted.

(4) Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up

(5)      I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya(s).

(6) Tamal Krsna Goswami: Is that called ritvik acarya?

(7) Srila Prabhupada:             Ritvik. Yes. (Yes, ritvik)

(8) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: (Then) What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and (the)...

(9) Srila Prabhupada:             He's guru. He's guru. (He is guru.)

(10) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: But he does it on your behalf.

(11) Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru,

(12)    so on my behalf. On my order, amara ajnaya guru (hana), (he is) (be) actually guru.

(13)    But by (on) my order.

(14) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: So (then) (they) (they'll) (may) also be considered your disciples?

(15) Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are (their) disciples, (but) (why) consider who

(16) Tamal Krsna Goswami: No. He's (he is) asking that these ritvik acaryas, they are (they're) officiating, giving diksa,

(17)    (Their)... the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?

(18) Srila Prabhupada: They are (They're) his disciples (the disciples of the one who is initiating).

(19) Tamal Krsna Goswami: They are (They're) his disciples (?)

(20) Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating. (And they are my) (his) (he is) granddisciple(s)...

(21) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: (Yes)

(22) Tamal Krsna Goswami: (That's clear)

(23) Tamal Krsna Goswami: (Let's go on)

(24) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: Then we have a question concerning ...

(25) Srila Prabhupada: When I order you (to) become guru, he (you) become(s) regular guru.

(26)   That's all. He (And they) become(s) (the) disciple(s) of my disciple. (That's it). (Just see).

As we have previously mentioned, neither the July 9th order, nor any subsequent document signed by Srila Prabhupada, ever explicitly refers back to the above conversation. This is quite peculiar since the central argument of GII is that this brief exchange of words is absolutely crucial to the proper understanding of the July 9th order.

This was not the regular way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions to his vast worldwide organisation, i.e. by releasing incomplete and misleading written directives, which could only be properly understood by rummaging through old taped conversations.

When one considers the magnitude of the order in question, namely the continuation of the sankirtan mission for up to ten thousand years, and what happened to the Gaudiya Math over precisely this issue, it seems inconceivable that Srila Prabhupada would have managed things in this way. However, this is what we must believe if we are to accept the present GBC position. Let us now proceed carefully through the composite transcript, paying particular attention to all the lines which GII claims support the above mentioned modifications to the July 9th order.

Lines 1­-3: Here Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks Srila Prabhupada a specific question regarding how initiations will run in the future – "particularly at that time when you are no longer with us". Whatever answer Srila Prabhupada gives, we know it will be particularly relevant to after his departure, since that is the time frame Satsvarupa is clearly concerned with, i.e. – "when you are no longer with us".

Lines 4­-7: Here Srila Prabhupada answers Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's question. He says he will be appointing some disciples to act as "officiating acarya", or "ritvik". Having clearly answered the question, Srila Prabhupada remains silent.

He offers no further elaboration at this point, nor does he qualify, nor attempt to qualify his answer. We therefore must assume that this was his answer. The only alternatives to this view are either:

1) Srila Prabhupada deliberately answered the question incorrectly or misleadingly,
Or
2) He did not hear the question properly and thought that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was only asking about what was to be done whilst he was still present.

No disciple of Srila Prabhupada would even consider option 1), and if option 2) were the case, then the conversation can tell us nothing about the future of initiation for after his departure; hence we would still be left with an unmodified July 9th order as his only statement on future initiations.

Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. The problem with this proposition is that, in issuing instructions in such a manner, Srila Prabhupada would only correctly answer the original question posed by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami if the following conditions were satisfied:

• That somebody took it upon himself to ask more questions.
• That by sheer luck they would happen upon the right questions to get the correct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja's original question.

This would be an eccentric way for anyone to answer a question, not to speak of direct a worldwide organisation, and was certainly not Srila Prabhupada's style. Indeed if, as is being proposed by the GBC, he went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole Movement with instructions on initiation which were only to have relevance for four months, surely he would not have dealt in such an obscurist manner with instructions which could run for as long as ten thousand years.

Clearly if we are looking to this transcript to incontrovertibly support modifications a) & b) we are not doing very well so far. Srila Prabhupada is asked what will happen about initiations, particularly when he leaves: he answers he will be appointing ritviks. This completely contradicts both of the GBC's proposed modifications and simply reinforces the idea that the July 9th order was meant to run "henceforward". Let us read on:

Lines 8­-9: Here Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks what relationship the initiator has with the person being initiated. Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami does not quite finish his question when Srila Prabhupada immediately answers "he is guru". Since ritviks, by definition, are not the initiators, Srila Prabhupada can only have been referring to himself as the "guru" of those being initiated. This is confirmed in the July 9th letter where it states three times that those being initiated were to be the "disciples of Srila Prabhupada".

Sometimes the curious theory is put forward that when Srila Prabhupada says: "he is guru", he is really talking about the ritviks themselves. This is quite bizarre since Srila Prabhupada has only just defined the word ritvik as "officiating acarya"— literally a priest who conducts some type of religious or ceremonial function. In the July 9th letter Srila Prabhupada clarifies precisely what ceremonial function these priests will conduct. They were supposed to give spiritual names to new initiates, and in the case of second initiation, chant on their gayatri thread—all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. That was it. There is no mention of them being diksa gurus, initiating their own disciples or being Spiritual Masters on their own behalf. The letter specifically defines ritvik as "representative of the acarya". They were to act on behalf of the acarya, not as acaryas in their own right. This being the case, why would Srila Prabhupada cloud the issue by calling the ritviks "guru"? If they were initiating gurus all along, why not just call them that to save confusion?

When discussing philosophical or managerial issues surrounding his position as acarya, Srila Prabhupada would often speak of himself in the third person. It is particularly understandable that he should do so here since Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's questions at this point are posed in the third person.

Thus the conversation can only make sense if we take it that Srila Prabhupada is the "guru" who was initiating new disciples, through his representatives, the ritviks.

Although Srila Prabhupada's answers are quite clear and consistent, it does seem as though there is some confusion in the mind of the questioner at this point. This is where Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks on line 10 – "But he does it on your behalf". The "he" Satsvarupa dasa Goswami is referring to is the ritvik, whereas the "he" that Srila Prabhupada was referring to, as we have shown, could only have been himself, since he is the only initiator within the ritvik system. Despite his disciple's apparent confusion, Srila Prabhupada deftly adapts his next answer to match Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's actual concern, namely the status of these future ritviks.

Lines 11-13: This is where it is claimed in GII that there is evidence for modification a). Before considering whether or not these lines do constitute such evidence, we should first remember the analysis of lines 1-7.

If lines 11-13 do establish modification a), this will only be at the expense of contradicting lines 1-7 where Srila Prabhupada has already clearly answered that ritviks were to be appointed "particularly" for after his departure. So if indeed modification a) is established in lines 11-13, the implication is that Srila Prabhupada contradicted a statement he himself made just moments before. Should this be the case it would once more render the transcript useless for determining anything about future initiations, since two totally contradictory positions would be equally validated in the same conversation. Again we would be forced to refer back to the final July 9th order in an unmodified condition.

Let us see if this did in fact happen. Remember we are looking for a specific statement that the ritviks must cease their duties once Srila Prabhupada departs. In other words, that they can only operate in his presence.

On reading lines 11-13 we see that all that is stated is that the ritviks must operate in his presence because in his presence they cannot be guru. Thus Srila Prabhupada is simply re-stating a principle he occasionally invoked in his dealings with ambitious disciples: that in the presence of the guru one must act only on his behalf. However, what Srila Prabhupada does not say is that this "acting on his behalf" must cease once he leaves the planet. He also does not say that "acting on his behalf" can only happen whilst he is present. Indeed, nowhere thus far has he directly linked his physical presence in any way with the concept of acting on his behalf, but rather simply states it as a reason that prevents his disciples from being guru. It is this "not being guru" which is linked to acting as a ritvik.

In other words, at the time of this conversation, one of the reasons they could not be diksa guru was Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. But this is not the only hurdle preventing his disciples from taking on the diksa guru mantle, as we learn on the very next line.

On line 12 we see that being guru also depends on receiving a specific order from Srila Prabhupada – "On my order". He repeats this condition on line 13 – "But by my order", and once more on line 25 – "When I order". It is quite clear then that this cannot be the order proper, otherwise why say: "When I order"? If this were the actual order to become guru after his departure, as the GBC maintains, then surely he would have said something like: "I am now ordering you, that as soon as I leave, you stop being ritviks and become diksa gurus". Such a statement would certainly lend some credibility to the current GBC position and the M.A.S.S. doctrine. However, as can be seen, nothing even remotely resembling such a statement can be found anywhere in the May 28th conversation.

It is further argued that the use of the "amara ajnaya" verse at this point means that the order to be diksa guru had already been given, since this order from Lord Caitanya had been repeated many times by Srila Prabhupada. However, the "amara ajnaya" order, as we have seen, refers only to siksa guru; we know that the order to become diksa guru had not yet been given since Srila Prabhupada states: "When I order". Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's use of the verse at this point is simply to convey the notion of an order needing to be given before guruship, of whatever type, is taken up.

There is certainly nothing on lines 11-13 that in any way modifies Srila Prabhupada's clear reply to Satsvarupa's original question (lines 1­-7). Thus our understanding of lines 1-7 remains intact. Srila Prabhupada did not contradict himself, the July 9th order stands so far unmodified.

What lines 11-13 do establish is that the ritvik system was to operate whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present, but not that it can only operate whilst he is present. The July 9th letter makes this clear anyway by the use of the word "henceforward". The word "henceforward" encompasses all time frames from that day onwards, regardless of Srila Prabhupada's physical proximity. Let us read on.

Lines 14-15: Interestingly, at this point Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks a question using the second person: "So then they'll also be considered your disciples?" Srila Prabhupada answers: "Yes, they are disciples..." once more confirming the ownership of any future disciples. Although it is not clear what Srila Prabhupada is going on to say, his initial answer is quite definite. He is asked a direct question, about his own position, and he answers "Yes".

If the GBC had any hope of upholding modifications a) & b), Srila Prabhupada would have had to answer this question something along the lines of: "No, they are not my disciples." Whatever Srila Prabhupada was going on to say is irrelevant since no one can ever know. We only know that when asked whether future initiates were to be his disciples, he answered: "Yes"; again, not a good sign for modifications a) & b).

Lines 16-18: Tamal Krsna Goswami seems to sense some confusion here and interrupts Srila Prabhupada. He further clarifies Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's question by asking Srila Prabhupada whose disciples are those who are being given diksa by the ritviks. Once again Srila Prabhupada answers in the third person (having been asked the question in the third person): "They are his disciples". As we have discussed, he can only be referring to himself since ritviks do not, by definition, possess their own disciples. Furthermore, we know that he was definitely referring to himself since he answers the question in the singular ("his disciples...who is initiating"), having been asked the question about the ritviks in the plural ("these ritvik-acaryas").

One idea, which is sometimes put forward, is that at this point in the conversation Tamal Krsna Goswami is asking the question in some vaguely futuristic sense, about an unspecified time frame in which the ritviks have somehow transformed themselves into diksa gurus. According to this theory, when Srila Prabhupada, who is now presumably mystically attuned to Tamal Krsna Goswami's mind-set, answers that future initiates are "his disciples", what he actually means is that they are disciples of the ritviks, who are now not ritviks at all, but diksa gurus. Leaving aside the fact that this fanciful "meeting of minds" is both unlikely and highly speculative, there is at least one other problem with this hypothesis:

Up till this point Srila Prabhupada has not stated that the ritviks, which he has yet to appoint, will ever act in any capacity other than as ritviks. So why would Tamal Krsna Goswami have assumed their status was to change?

Lines 19-20: Tamal Krsna Goswami (TKG) repeats the answer, and then Srila Prabhupada continues: "who is initiating ... his grand-disciple." We have chosen the transcript version "his grand-disciple" over the version "he is grand-disciple" since it most closely resembles our copy of the tape, and seems to flow best with the sense of the conversation. (Otherwise the person initiating would simultaneously become a grand-disciple!—"who is initiating ... he is grand-disciple.")

The argument that when speaking here in the third person, Srila Prabhupada must be referring to the ritviks and not himself, can be tested by modifying the conversation in accordance with this view, replacing "his"/"who" with "the ritvik" (shown in brackets), for lines 17-20:

TKG: whose disciples are they?
Srila Prabhupada: They are (the ritvik's) disciples.
TKG: They are (the ritvik's) disciples.
Srila Prabhupada: (The ritvik) is initiating...(The ritvik's) granddisciple...

Given the premise that ritviks are only officiating, and that their role is only representational, it should be self-evident to the reader that this interpretation of lines 17-20 is nonsense. It is a contradiction in terms for a ritvik to have their own disciples, not to speak of grand-disciples.

The accusation may be made that we are in some way "twisting" Srila Prabhupada's words by stating that Srila Prabhupada is talking about himself in third person. However, we feel our interpretation is consistent with the function Srila Prabhupada assigned to his ritviks. There appear to be just two possible options for interpretation in considering this conversation:

1) Future new disciples were to belong to ritvik priests, who by definition are not diksa gurus, but officiators who have been set up specifically to act as proxies.

2) Future new disciples were to belong to the diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada.

Option 1) is just absurd. Therefore we have gone for option 2) as the only rational choice, and have thus interpreted the tape accordingly.

Lines 25-26: Srila Prabhupada concludes with the unequivocal stipulation that only when he orders will anyone become guru. At such a juncture new initiates would be "disciple of my disciple".

A great deal is made of the use of the term "grand-disciple". For many, the use of this phrase by Srila Prabhupada acts as a clincher, since you can only have grand-disciples if there are diksa gurus. This is true. Unfortunately the words following the term "his grand-disciple" are usually ignored. Srila Prabhupada goes on to state that a grand-disciple and hence a diksa guru will only exist when Srila Prabhupada orders his disciple to become a diksa guru. In other words Srila Prabhupada is simply saying that when a guru orders his disciple to become a diksa guru, he will have grand-disciples ("his grand-disciple"), since the new diksa guru will then be initiating in his own right ("he becomes disciple of my disciple"). This seems straightforward enough, a point nobody could dispute. But where is the order for this guruship to occur? Certainly not on lines 25-26; nor for that matter anywhere else in the conversation.

In actuality, the May 28th conversation is not ordering any specific person to do anything at all. Srila Prabhupada is simply making known his intention to appoint ritviks at some point in the future. He then goes on to answer slightly muddled questions about guru-disciple relationships within the ritvik system. He then concludes with a statement about what would happen should he ever decide to give the relevant order to someone to become a diksa guru. It is clear though that the specific order naming specific people to perform specific functions was first made on July 7th (please see Appendices, p.128), and then confirmed in the signed letter of July 9th. But as can be seen from reading the July 9th letter, there is no mention whatsoever of the eleven appointed ritviks ever becoming diksa gurus; or for the ritvik system to ever stop.

After our exhaustive analysis of the May 28th conversation, it is clear that what the GBC is presenting is a classic circular argument:

In order to support modifications a) and b), which are absolutely vital to the current position on gurus within ISKCON, we are told we must modify the July 9th letter using an "order" which Srila Prabhupada allegedly gave in the May 28th transcript. However, having read the transcript carefully we see that Srila Prabhupada says they can only be gurus "When I order". So how can it be asserted that this "When I order" was the same "order" that was finally put in place on July 7th and 9th, since this "order" is purely for the creation of ritviks, and is the very same "order" which was required by the GBC to be modified in the first place in order to support their crucial a) and b) modifications?

Unfortunately, in adopting the line of reasoning championed in GII, we find ourselves drawn inexorably towards the above absurd dialectical impasse.

As an aid to understanding the above impasse please see the flow chart on p. 93.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the whole "modification" theory, apart from the obvious absence of any supportive evidence, is that you cannot legitimately modify an instruction with information that was not available to the very people who were supposed to carry out the instruction.

If it was indeed the case that the May 28th conversation had contained clear instructions supporting modifications a) and b), then surely the final letter should have contained at least some hint of them. Indeed, the main purpose of the meeting on May 28th was to clearly establish what was to be done about initiations after Srila Prabhupada left the planet. And yet it is being proposed that when Srila Prabhupada finally releases his last written directive on initiation, he somehow only addressed what was to be done before he left the planet.

In other words, the subject Srila Prabhupada was not being asked about he supposedly gave clear and emphatic directives on; whilst the really important matter, the one which everyone did want to know about, i.e. the future of initiations for up to ten thousand years, he entirely omitted to address in his last signed instruction on the issue.

We can find no example of Srila Prabhupada ever directing his Society in the following manner:

1) Issuing important directives that fail to even address the main purpose of their being issued.

2) Deliberately withholding vital information pertaining to an important new system of management.

3) Expecting the recipients of his instructions to be mystic mind readers in order to correctly follow an instruction.

The common defence that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the final letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already clearly explained in his books and lectures how he wanted everyone to become a diksa guru, has already been disproven in objection 7 above (please see p.14). There is one further attempt made in GII to extract something from the May 28^th conversation in support of a) and b) when it points to Srila Prabhupada's use of the verse "amara ajnaya guru hana" on line 12. The verse is also repeated further along in the May 28th conversation after discussion relating to the translation of his books. According to this view, the ritvik order is identical to the order to be a diksa guru, simply by merit of Srila Prabhupada mentioning this famous instruction of Lord Caitanya for "everyone to become guru" in the same conversation as he discusses ritviks. But all Srila Prabhupada states is that:

"...one who understands his guru's order, the same parampara, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you."

(May 28^th, 1977 Conversation)
The essential points to consider here are:

1. What was the "guru's order" they had to understand?—to act as ritviks. ("I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.")
2. What are they eventually selected to do?—to act as ritviks (please see the July 9th letter, p.108)
3. And by following the order of the guru, what sort of guru do they become? As was seen earlier from the analysis of Lord Caitanya's order to "become guru", anyone who faithfully executes this order is automatically qualified as a siksa guru.

GII presents the contradictory proposition that in following the guru's order to act as a ritvik only (not as a diksa guru), one should automatically act as a diksa guru.

By this logic, anyone who follows any order given by the guru has also somehow automatically received a specific order to become a diksa guru! Unfortunately, GII does not offer any evidence to support this thesis. As shown previously, the use of the "amara ajnaya" verse is simply an order for everyone to become a siksa guru only ("It is best not to accept any disciples.").

In conclusion

1. On July 9th 1977 Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 ritviks to carry out first and second initiations 'henceforward'.
   
   
2. There is no evidence in the May 28th conversation that can be used to modify the July 9th order, such that the appointed ritviks must cease their duties on Srila Prabhupada's departure.
   
   
3. There is also nothing in the May 28th conversation that can be used to modify the July 9th order such that the ritviks were to metamorphose into diksa gurus as soon as Srila Prabhupada left the planet.
   
   
4. The one thing clearly established in the May 28th conversation is that the ritviks were to operate after Srila Prabhupada's departure.
   
   It should be noted that there have been at least four different transcripts, and three differing "official" GBC interpretations of this very same conversation. Many devotees feel that for this reason alone the conversation cannot be considered as conclusive evidence. Should this be the reader's conclusion, then he will have no choice but to return once more to the July 9th letter as the final order, since it is a signed letter, clearly written and sent to the entire Movement. This would certainly be the conclusion in a court of law; signed, written evidence always takes precedence over tape recordings. The only reason we have examined the May 28th conversation so carefully here is because the GBC have put it forward as the only piece of evidence in support of modifications a) and b).
   
   We are forced then to reject totally modifications a) and b), the very foundations of the GBC's current position on initiation within ISKCON, since there is no evidence to support them. Consequently, the instructions given in the July 9^th policy document do indeed constitute Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation and should therefore be followed.
   
   Here follow some related objections we thought it would be helpful to address.

Other Related Objections

2) Although spiritual principles were covered extensively by Srila Prabhupada in his books, the specifics concerning those principles would often not be given (for example in the area of deity worship). These specific details would usually be communicated by other means such as letters, and practical demonstration. Thus, one needs to distinguish between the principle of diksa or initiation, and the details of its formalisation. Srila Prabhupada never defined diksa in terms of any ritualistic ceremony, but as the receipt of transcendental knowledge that leads to liberation:

"In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness." 
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 9.61, purport)

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."

(Cc. Madhya-lila, 4.111, purport)

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa."

(Cc. Madhya-lila, 15.108, purport)

Diksa normally involves a ceremony, but it is not absolutely essential, more a formality:

"So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja."
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 10/12/1976, Hyderabad)

"Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. [...] My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination. That is initiation."

("The Search for the Divine", Back to Godhead #49)

"... disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be

initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic

conclusion."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/1969)

"The chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real

initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter,

the initiator is already there." 

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamal Krsna, 19/8/1968)

"Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge ...knowledge.

Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and

admission is formality. That is not very important thing." 

(Srila Prabhupada Interview, 16/10/1976, Chandigarh)

Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules.
Disciple: As long as one is following, then he is...
Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right.    
(Morning Walk, 13/6/1976, Detroit)

"...unless there is discipline, there is no question of disciple.  Disciple means one who follows the discipline."

(Srila Prabhupada, Morning Walk, 8/3/1976, Mayapur)

"If one does not observe discipline, then he is not a disciple."

(Srila Prabhupada SB Lecture, 21/1/1974)

Thus, the ceremonial initiation is a formality performed to solidify in the mind of the disciple the serious commitments he has made to the process of diksa. Such commitments include:

• Receiving transcendental knowledge that will purify him of all contamination.

• Maintaining the determination to always follow the order of the diksa guru.

• To begin enthusiastically executing the spiritual master's orders.

Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated that the formality of the ceremony is just that, a formality, not an essential. Furthermore, this formalisation of initiation through a ceremony itself involves a number of elements:

1. Recommendation by an official of the institution, usually the Temple President.

2. Acceptance by acting ritvik.

3. The participation in a fire yajna.

4. The taking of a spiritual name.

It is only points 2 and 4 that necessarily involve a ritvik priest; 1 and 3 are usually carried out by the Temple President.

As mentioned previously, nowhere is it ever stated that the guru and disciple must co-exist on the same planet in order for the disciple to receive any element of diksa, such as transcendental knowledge, annihilation of sinful reactions, a fire yajna ceremony and a spiritual name. On the other hand, every element of diksa (knowledge transmission, the yajna, etc.) can be given quite easily without the guru's physical presence. This was demonstrated practically by Srila Prabhupada, as he gave all the elements of diksa through intermediaries such as his disciples and books. Thus, no spiritual principles are changed through the use of ritviks. Only a change of detail is involved.

Thus, to put into perspective the use of ritviks, it has been shown that we are dealing with the details of a formalisation ceremony; a ceremony which itself constitutes but one element, and a non-essential element at that, of the transcendental process of diksa (please see "Diksa" diagram on p.92).

We note that Srila Prabhupada dealt with all these elements in a manner proportional to their importance:

This question arises from the stated requirement that a disciple must "approach", "inquire from" and "render service to" a guru (Bg. 4.34), and that the guru must "observe" the disciple (Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330). If we examine these verses carefully the following points become apparent:

• There is no mention that this "inquiring", "rendering service to" and "observing" necessitates direct physical contact.

• The Bg 4.34 purport speaks of these activities as being essential for a disciple. Thus, if these activities absolutely require the guru to be on the same planet, then no one has been Srila Prabhupada's disciple since November 14th, 1977.

• The "inquiring" is done so the "spiritual master" can "impart knowledge". However, to "impart knowledge" is also the definition of siksa, and it is already accepted that in order to impart siksa, or to accept enquiries pertaining to siksa, the guru does not need to be on the planet (please see p.94—"Does the guru need to be physically present?"). And, as explained above, by the logic of this proposition no one has had any "knowledge imparted" to them since November 14^th, 1977.

• The "observing" is simply the agreement by the prospective disciple to follow the regulative principles and can be monitored by representatives of the guru:

"In our Krsna Consciousness Movement, the requirement is that one must be prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life [...] In Western countries especially, we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles."

(Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330, purport, emphasis added)

This facility to use representatives is again repeated a few lines later when discussing the observation required for prospective second initiation candidates:

"In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representatives for at least six months to a year." 
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330, purport, emphasis added)

A few lines later we see how vital the use of representatives really is:

"The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no less then six months or a year."
(Cc. Madhya-lila, 24.330, purport)

• Bearing in mind the way in which Srila Prabhupada had set up the Society, the above stipulation would have been impossible to follow.  He could not possibly have observed every one of his thousands of disciples for a full 6 months. Thus, the use of representatives was not just a matter of choice, but totally unavoidable if the above requirement was to have been fulfilled by Srila Prabhupada. If personal (as in him being physically involved) pariksa by the guru was an inviolable sastric principle, why would Srila Prabhupada have purposely set up a preaching mission (with disciples and centres all around the world) that rendered such personal examination impossible? One is, in effect, arguing that Srila Prabhupada only achieved his preaching success at the expense of violating sastra, an argument commonly used by other Gaudiya Vaisnava groups in India.

• All the above points are further substantiated by the strongest evidence possible—extensive practical example from the acarya himself. Srila Prabhupada initiated the majority of his disciples without any personal pariksa. Thus, Srila Prabhupada instituted a system whereby approaching his representatives for diksa was the same as approaching him directly. It may be argued that the elimination of personal pariksa was justified because the guru was still present on the planet. Thus, at least personal pariksa could theoretically have occurred. However this argument has no basis since:

i) There is no mention of this special get-out clause for personal pariksa in any scripture. It would simply be an invention to fit the circumstances after the fact.

ii) When describing the use of representatives for personal pariksa, Srila Prabhupada never states that they can only exist if he is on the planet. What hitherto unmentioned sastric principle forces a limitation on the use of representatives in certain circumstances pertaining to the physical proximity of the person employing them?

iii) As demonstrated, the need for personal pariksa is not a sastric requirement. Srila Prabhupada supports the use of representatives, such as his disciples and books, as a substitute for personal pariksa. So the question of when personal pariksa may or may not be eliminated does not even arise.

iv) That diksa was given without physical contact is itself proof that it can occur without personal pariksa.

v) The very fact that personal pariksa was not always undertaken, even when it was possible to do so, proves that it can not be necessary to the process of diksa.

Srila Prabhupada made it very clear what standards he expected in a disciple; the Temple Presidents and ritviks were meant to see them continued. The standards for initiation today are identical to those established by Srila Prabhupada whilst he was present. So if he requested not to be consulted whilst he was present, what makes us think he would urgently want to intervene now? The only concern for us is to ensure that the standards are rigidly maintained without change or speculation.

In posing as initiating acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples acted in direct defiance of their spiritual master's final order (to form a GBC and await a self-effulgent acarya). Srila Prabhupada roundly condemned his Godbrothers for their insubordination, describing them as useless for preaching, not to speak of initiating:

"...amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/1974)

"On the whole, you may know that he (Bon Maharaja) is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Janardana, 26/4/1968)

"If everyone just initiates then there will only be a contradictory result. As long as it goes on, there will be only failure." 

(Srila Prabhupada Phalgun Krishna Pancami, Verse 23, 1961)

We can see from recent experience what havoc just one of these personalities can cause to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We would suggest respect from as great a distance as possible. Certainly we cannot afford to use them as role models for how a disciple should carry on their spiritual master's mission. They destroyed their spiritual master's mission, and are more than capable of doing the same to ISKCON if we were to allow them.

With regard to the Gaudiya Matha's guru system, this may be the only historical precedent the M.A.S.S. can lay claim to, i.e. that it was also set up in direct defiance of clear orders from the Founder­-acarya.

It is true that on occasion Srila Prabhupada dealt with his Godbrothers diplomatically, referring to Sridhar Maharaja as his siksa guru etc. Srila Prabhupada was also a warm person who had genuine care and affection for his Godbrothers, always trying to find ways of engaging them in the Sankirtan Movement. We must realize however that had these been genuine acaryadevas, Srila Prabhupada would never have spoken ill of them, not even once. To speak of bona fide diksa gurus as "disobedient", "envious snakes", "dogs", "pigs", "wasps" etc., would itself have been a serious offence, and thus not something Srila Prabhupada would have done. To illustrate the way in which Srila Prabhupada viewed his Godbrothers, we shall offer excerpts below from a room conversation in which Bhavananda is reading a pamphlet put out by Tirtha Maharaja's matha:

Bhavananda: "It starts off in big print, "Acaryadeva Tridandi Swami Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja. All learned men are aware that in the dark ages of India when the Hindu religion was in great danger..."" 

Srila Prabhupada: "(Laughs.) This is nonsense."

It is obvious what type of "acaryadeva" Srila Prabhupada considers Tirtha Maharaja (the same Tirtha who is hailed as a bona fide acarya in the 1990 ISKCON Journal mentioned earlier). Later on the pamphlet describes how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was so fortunate to have a wonderful personality to carry on the mission.

Bhavananda: "... In proper time, he (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) got a great personality who readily shouldered the..."

Srila Prabhupada: "Just see now. "He got a great personality". He is that personality. He'll also prove that. [...] No one accepts him. [...] Where is his greatness? Who knows him? Just see. So he is making a plan to declare himself a great personality. [...] he (Tirtha Maharaja) is very envious about us. [...] these rascals they may create some trouble."

(Room Conversation, 19/1/1976, Mayapur)

Bona fide acaryas can never be described as envious rascals who just want to cause trouble. Sadly, even to this day, some members of the Gaudiya Matha are still causing trouble. Respect from a distance has to be the safest policy.

Srila Prabhupada states the precise opposite:

"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal, and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord" 

Nothing, as long as we do not attempt to use them to add new principles which were not mentioned by our own acarya. The idea that a bona fide guru can deviate is totally alien to anything Srila Prabhupada taught. The problems over the "origin of the jiva" issue all stem from this propensity to jump over:

"...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous acaryas."

(Our Original Position, GBC Press, p. 163)

How is adopting entirely new philosophical principles, never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, "seeing the previous acaryas through Prabhupada"?

Even if the interpretation the GBC in GII has placed on these previous acaryas' writings were correct, we still could not use them to modify or add to Srila Prabhupada's teachings. This is clearly explained in two verses in the book Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta by Srila Narahari Sarakara. GII should have mentioned these verses by way of caution, since it supported its thesis with other verses from the very same book:

Verse 48:

"A disciple may hear some instructions from another advanced Vaisnava but after gaining that good instruction he must bring it and present it to his own spiritual master. After presenting them, he should hear the same teachings again from his spiritual master with appropriate instructions."

Verse 49:

"...a disciple who listens to the words of other Vaisnavas, even if their instructions are proper and true, but does not re­confirm those teachings with his own spiritual master and instead directly personally accepts these instructions, is considered a bad disciple and a sinner."

This accusation is based on the misconception that in order to surrender to a spiritual master he must be physically present. If this were the case then none of Srila Prabhupada's original disciples could currently be surrendering to him. Surrender to the spiritual master means following his instructions, and this can be done whether he is physically present or not. The purpose of ISKCON is to provide proper guidance and encouragement to all comers through potentially unlimited siksa relationships. Once the current GBC itself surrenders to the order of Srila Prabhupada, this system will naturally inspire more and more surrender from others, eventually perhaps even attracting die hard ritvik activists to do the same.

Even if all ritvik proponents were actually stubbornly unwilling to surrender to a guru, that still does not invalidate the July 9th order. The fact that pro-ritviks are allegedly so un-surrendered should make the GBC even more anxious to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order, if for no other reason than to prove a contrast.

"Therefore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Krsna, then from within our heart He gives us favourable instruction so that we can gradually make progress, gradually. Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master."

(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 14/8/1966, New York)

"Because Krsna is situated in everyone's heart. Actually, He is the spiritual master, caitya-guru. So in order to help us, He comes out as physical spiritual master." 

(Srila Prabhupada SB Lecture, 28/5/1974, Rome)

"Therefore God is called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy [...] He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of the spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart."

(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, 23/5/1974)

Srila Prabhupada used the term "physical guru" when explaining that in the conditioned stage we cannot rely purely on the caitya-guru or Supersoul for guidance. It is imperative that we surrender to the external manifestation of the Supersoul. This is the diksa guru. Such a spiritual master, who is considered a resident of the spiritual world, and an intimate associate of Lord Krsna, makes his physical appearance just to guide the fallen conditioned souls. Often such a spiritual master will write physical books; he will give lectures which can be heard with physical ears and be recorded on physical tape machines; he may leave physical murtis and even a physical GBC to continue managing everything once he has physically departed.

However, what Srila Prabhupada never taught was that this physical guru must also be physically present in order to act as guru. As we have pointed out, were this the case, then currently no-one could be considered his disciple. If the guru must always be physically present in order for transcendental knowledge to be imparted, then once Srila Prabhupada left the planet all his disciples should have taken "re-initiation". Furthermore, thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were initiated having had no contact with the physical body of Srila Prabhupada. Yet, it is accepted that they approached, enquired from, surrendered to, served and took initiation from the physical spiritual master. No one is arguing that their initiations were null and void by dint of the above three quotes.

Conclusion

We hope the reader has now gained a deeper appreciation for Srila Prabhupada's momentous final order on the future of initiation within ISKCON. We apologise if any part of our presentation has offended anyone; that was not our intention, so please forgive our inadequacies.

We started this paper stressing how we are sure that if any mistakes have been made, they were not deliberate, and it should therefore not be felt necessary to witch-hunt or spend unnecessary energy blaming anyone. It is a fact that when the Acarya leaves, there is automatically some confusion. When one considers that the Movement is destined to run for at least another 9,500 years, nineteen years of confusion is very little indeed. It is time now to digest what has gone wrong, learn from our mistakes and then put the past behind us and work together to build a better ISKCON.

It may be considered necessary to ease the ritvik system in gently, in phases perhaps. Maybe it can even run concurrently with the M.A.S.S. for a short, prespecified time period, in order not to create undue tension and disturbance. Such points will need careful consideration and discussion. As long as our goal is to re-establish Srila Prabhupada's final order, then within that there should be scope to deal gently with everyone's feelings. We must treat devotees with care and consideration, allowing them time to adjust. If an extensive programme can be introduced whereby Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions on the guru and initiation are presented systematically, we are confident the whole thing can be turned round quite quickly, and with a minimum of disturbance and ill feeling.

Once it is agreed that the ritvik system is the way forward, there will need to be a cooling off period where the enmity which has built on both sides of the issue can be allowed to dissipate. Retreats should be organised where both sides can come together and make friends. Unfortunately, there is considerable immaturity at present, as much from some ritvik proponents as from anyone else. Certainly, for ourselves, we do not believe that had we been senior disciples at the time of Srila Prabhupada's passing, we would necessarily have acted any differently, or any better. More likely we would have made matters worse.

In our experience many devotees in ISKCON, even more senior ones, have never really had the chance to closely examine the ritvik issue in detail. Unfortunately, the form of some ritvik literature is enough to put anybody off, filled as it is with personal attacks and very little philosophy. The best solution, as far as we can see, is for the GBC themselves to resolve this issue. With the correct information before them we are confident everything will be adjusted correctly in time. This would certainly be more desirable than being constantly pressured into change by a band of disgruntled and embittered devotees, some of whom may also have their own agendas not entirely in line with Srila Prabhupada's final order.

Of course, we are also subject to the four defects of the conditioned soul and thus we warmly welcome any comments or criticism. Our main hope in writing this book is that the discussion it may inspire might go some ways towards resolving one of the most protracted and difficult controversies ISKCON has faced since the departure of His Divine Grace. Please forgive our offences. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Only Srila Prabhupada can unite us.

What Is a Ritvik?

Ritviks are often defined in one of two incorrect ways:

1) As insignificant priests, mere functionaries, who simply dish out spiritual names robotically.

2) As apprentice diksa gurus who are acting as ritviks only until they are fully qualified, at which point they will initiate on their own behalf.

We shall now compare these definitions with the role of a ritvik as given by Srila Prabhupada.

Looking first at definition 1). The post of ritvik is a very responsible position. This should be obvious since Srila Prabhupada specifically chose 11 devotees who already had a proven track record of taking senior responsibility within his mission. He did not simply pull the names out of a hat. Thus, although for the most part their function would be fairly routine, they would also be the first to spot deviations from the strict standards necessary for initiation. Just like a policeman's job is mostly routine since most citizens are law abiding, yet he will often be the first person to know when some misdemeanour is being committed. Srila Prabhupada would often express concern that initiation should only take place when a student has proven, for at least six months, that he can chant 16 rounds a day, follow the four regulative principles, read his books, etc. Should a Temple President start sending recommendations to a ritvik for students who were failing in one of these essential areas, the ritvik would have the power to refuse initiation. In this way, the ritvik would ensure that the standards within ISKCON remained the same as the day Srila Prabhupada left the planet.

Certainly a ritvik would himself have to be following strictly, and would hence be a qualified siksa guru. Whether the ritvik would have a siksa or instructing relationship with the persons being initiated is a separate issue. He may or may not. For a devotee who takes on this position, his ritvik portfolio is separate and distinct from his siksa guru portfolio, though the two may sometimes overlap. Whilst Srila Prabhupada was present, new initiates would not necessarily even meet the acting ritvik for his zone. Very often the initiation ceremony would be carried out by the Temple President, the initiate's name arriving by post from his designated ritvik. At the same time we can see no reason why a ritvik should not meet new initiates, and even perform the ceremony, if such an arrangement is agreeable at the local Temple level.

We shall now examine definition 2). As we have several times mentioned, in order to take disciples one must be a fully authorised maha-bhagavata. Before Srila Prabhupada left, he put in place a system that made it illegal for anyone other than himself to initiate within ISKCON. Thus, there is no authorisation for anyone, at any time in the future of ISKCON, to initiate on their own behalf, apart from Srila Prabhupada. Thus, even if a ritvik, or anyone else for that matter, were to attain the level of maha-bhagavata, he would still need to follow the ritvik system if he wished to stay within ISKCON. We were given an order on July 9^th, 1977, and it says nothing about the ritviks ever becoming diksa gurus.

What they do and how they are selected:

a) The ritvik accepts the disciple, issues new initiates with a spiritual name, chants on beads, and for second initiation gives the gayatri mantra—all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf (please see the July 9th letter on p.108). This was Srila Prabhupada's chosen method for having responsible devotees overseeing initiation procedures and standards within ISKCON. The ritvik will examine all recommendations sent by the Temple Presidents to ensure prospective disciples have met the requisite standard of devotional practice.

b) A ritvik is a priest and thus must be a qualified brahmana. When selecting the ritviks, Srila Prabhupada first suggested "senior sannyasis", though he also selected persons who were not sannyasis (please see July 7^th conversation in Appendices, p.128). The ritviks chosen were senior, responsible men to ensure that the process of initiation went on smoothly throughout the whole world.

c) Future ritviks can be selected by the GBC. The way in which ritviks would be selected, reprimanded or decommissioned would be practically identical to the way in which diksa gurus are currently managed by the GBC within ISKCON. This is definitely within the scope of the powers granted to the GBC by Srila Prabhupada, as they had the authority to select and review much senior personnel such as sannyasis, Trustees, Zonal Secretaries, etc., Tamal Krsna Goswami also admitted that more ritviks could be added by the GBC in the "Topanga Canyon" talks in 1980 (please see Appendices, p.133).

So in summary, the system would work exactly as it did when Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet. The mood, attitude, relationship between the various parties, etc. should continue unchanged from the way it was for a brief four-month period in 1977. As Srila Prabhupada emphatically stated in the second paragraph of his Will:

"The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."

  Does the Guru Have to Be Physically Present?

"Physical presence is immaterial; presence of the transcendental sound received from the spiritual master should be the guidance of life. That will make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very strongly about my absence you may place my pictures on my sitting places and this will be source of inspiration for you."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/1967)

"But always remember that I am always with you. As you are always thinking of me I am always thinking of you also. Although physically we are not together, we are not separated spiritually. So we should be concerned only with this spiritual connection."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Gaurasundara, 13/11/1969)

"So we should associate by the vibration, and not by the physical presence. That is real association."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, SB, 18/08/1968)

"There are two conceptions of presence — the physical conception and the vibrational conception. The physical conception is temporary, whereas the vibrational conception is eternal. [...] When we feel separation from Krishna or the spiritual master, we should just try to remember their words of instructions, and we will no longer feel that separation. Such association with Krishna and the spiritual master should be association by vibration, not physical presence. That is real association."

(Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, Chapter 4)

"Although according to material vision His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarsavati Thakura Prabhupada passed away from this material world on the last day of December, 1936, I still consider His Divine Grace to be always present with me by his vani, his words. There are two ways of association—by vani and by vapu.  Vani means words and vapu means physical presence. Physical presence is sometimes appreciable and sometimes not, but vani continues to exist eternally. Therefore we must take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence."

(Cc. Antya-lila, concluding words)

"Therefore we should take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence".

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Suci Devi Dasi, 4/11/1975)

"I shall remain your personal guidance, physically present or not physically, as I am getting personal guidance from my Guru Maharaja."

(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, Vrindavan, 14/7/1977)

"It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons engaged in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic problem. To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life."

(SB, 3.31.48, purport)

"I'm always with you never mind if I am physically absent."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Jayananda, 16/9/1967)

Paramananda: "We're always feeling your presence very strongly, Srila Prabhupada [...] simply by your teachings and your instructions.  We're always meditating on your instructions."

Srila Prabhupada: "Thank you. That is the real presence. Physical presence is not important."

(Room Conversation, 6/10/1977, Vrndavana)

"You write that you have desire to avail of my association again, but why do you forget that you are always in association with me? When you are helping my missionary activities I am always thinking of you and you are always thinking of me. That is real association. Just like I always think of my Guru Maharaj every moment, although He is not physically present, and because I am trying to serve Him to my best capacity, I am sure He is helping me by His spiritual blessings. So there are two kinds of association: physical and preceptorial. Physical association is not so important as preceptorial association."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Govinda Dasi, 17/8/1969)

"As far as my blessing is concerned it does not require my physical presence. If you are chanting Hare Krishna there and following my instructions, reading the books, taking only Krsna prasadam etc. then there is no question of your not receiving the blessings of Lord Caitanya whose mission I am humbly trying to push on."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Bal Krsna, 30/6/1974)

""Anyone who has developed unflinching faith in the Lord and the Spiritual Master can understand the revealed scripture unfold before him. So continue your present apptitude [sic] and you will be successful in your spiritual progress. I am sure that even if I am not physically present before you. Still you will be able to execute all spiritual duties in the matter of Krishna Consciousness; if you follow the above principles."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Subala, 29/9/1967)

"So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the spiritual master, vibration. What we have heard from the spiritual master, that is living."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 13/1/1969, Los Angeles)

Revati-nandana: "... so sometimes the spiritual master is far, far away. He may be in Los Angeles. Somebody is coming to Hamburg Temple. He thinks 'How will the spiritual master be pleased?'"

Srila Prabhupada: "Just follow his order. Spiritual master is along with you by his words. Just like my spiritual master is not physically present, but I am associating with him by his words."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 18/8/1971)

"Just like I am working, so my Guru Maharaja is there, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Physically he may not be, but in every action he is there."

(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, 27/5/1977, Vrndavana)

"So that is called prakata, physically present. And there is another phase, which is called aprakata, not physically present.  But that does not mean, Krsna is dead or God is dead. That does not mean, prakata or aprakata, physically present or not present, it doesn't matter."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 11/12/1973, Los Angeles)

"So, spiritually there is no question of separation, even physically we may be in far distant place."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Syama Dasi, 30/08/1968)

"I went to your country for spreading this information of Krishna Consciousness & you are helping me in my mission although I am not physically present there but spiritually I am always with you."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Nandarani, Krsna Devi, Subala & Uddava, 3/10/67)

"We are not separated actually. There are two—vani or vapu. So vapu is physical presence and vani is presence by the vibration, but they are all the same."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Hamsadutta, 22/6/1970)

"So in the absence of physical presentation of the Spiritual Master the vaniseva is more important. My Spiritual Master, Sarasvati Gosvami Thakur, may appear to be physically not present, but still because I try to serve His instruction I never feel separated from Him."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Karandhara, 22/8/1970)

"I also do not feel separation from my Guru Maharaj. When I am engaged in His service His pictures give me sufficient strength. To serve the Spiritual Master's word is more important than to serve him physically."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Syamasundara, 19/7/1970)

Follow the Instruction, Not the Body.

"So far personal association with the Guru is concerned, I was only with my Guru Maharaj four or five times, but I have never left his association, not even for a moment. Because I am following his instructions, I have never felt any separation. There are some of my Godbrothers here in India who had constant personal association with Guru Maharaj, but who are neglecting his orders. This is just like the bug who is sitting on the lap of the king. He may be very puffed-up by his position, but all he can succeed in doing is biting the king. Personal association is not so important as association through service."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Satadhanya, 20/2/1972)

"So spiritually, appearance and disappearance, there is no difference ...  spiritually, there is no such difference, appearance or disappearance. So although this is the disappearance day of Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, so there is nothing to be lamented. Although we feel separation..."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, Los Angeles, 13/12/1973)

"So my Guru Maharaja will be very, very much pleased upon you [...] It is not that he is dead and gone. That is not spiritual understanding [...] He is seeing. I never feel that I am alone."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 2/3/1975, Atlanta)

"Vani is more important than bopu."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tusta Krishna Das, 14/12/1972)

"Yes, I am so glad that your center is doing so well and all the devotees are now appreciating the presence of their Spiritual Master by following His instructions although He is no longer physically present—this is the right spirit."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Karandhara, 13/9/1970)

"The spiritual master by his words can penetrate into the heart of the suffering person and inject knowledge transcendental, which alone can extinguish the fire of material existence."

(SB, 1.7.22, purport)

"There are two words, vani and vapuh. Vani means words, and vapuh means this physical body. [...] Vapuh will be finished. This is material body. It will be finished. That is the nature. But if we keep to the vani, to the words of spiritual master, then we remain very fixed up. [...] if you always keep intact, in link with the words and instruction of the superior authorities, then you are always fresh. This is spiritual understanding."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 2/3/1975, Atlanta)

"So we should give more stress on the sound vibration, either of Krsna or of the Spiritual Master."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 18/8/1968, Montreal)

"Never think that I am absent from you. Physical presence is not essential; presence by message (or hearing) is real touch."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to students, 2/8/1967)

"Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material condition."

(SB, 7.7.1, purport)

"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimized because the vibrator is apparently absent."

(SB, 2.9.8, purport)

"The disciple and spiritual master are never separated because the spiritual master always keeps company with the disciple as long as the disciple follows strictly the instructions of the spiritual master. This is called the association of vani (words). Physical presence is called vapuh. As long as the spiritual master is physically present, the disciple should serve the physical body of the spiritual master, and when the spiritual master is no longer physically existing, the disciple should serve the instructions of the spiritual master."

(SB, 4.28.47, purport)

"If there is no chance to serve the spiritual master directly, a devotee should serve him by remembering his instructions. There is no difference between the spiritual master's instructions and the spiritual master himself. In his absence , therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple."

(Cc. Adi-lila 1.35, purport)

"He lives forever by his divine instructions and the follower lives with him."

(SB, Preface)

"He reasons ill who tells that Vaisnavas die, when thou art living still in sound!"

(Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Songs of the Vaisnava Acaryas, 1972 edition)

"Yes, the ecstasy of separation of Spiritual Master is even greater ecstasy than meeting with Him."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Jadurani, 13/1/1968)

"Krishna and His representative is the same. Just like Krishna can be present simultaneously in millions of places. Similarly, the Spiritual Master also can be present wherever the disciple wants. A Spiritual Master is the principle, not the body. Just like a television can be seen in thousands of places by the principle of relay monitoring."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Malati, 28/5/1968)

"It is better service to Krishna and Spiritual Master in a feeling of separation; sometimes there is risk in the matter of direct service."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Madhusudana, 30/12/1967)

The Books Are Enough 
 

Devotee: "Srila Prabhupada, when you are not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions, for example, on questions that may arise?"

Srila Prabhupada: "Well, the questions... Answers are there in my books."
(Morning Walk, 13/5/1973, Los Angeles)

"So utilize whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then

all your questions will be answered."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Upendra, 7/1/1976)

"If it is possible to go to the temple, then take advantage of the temple. A temple is a place where by one is given the opportunity to render direct devotional service to the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna. In conjunction with this you should always read my books daily and all your questions will be answered and you will have a firm basis of Krishna Consciousness. In this way your life will be perfect."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Hugo Salemon, 22/11/1974)

"Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice—in the morning and evening, and automatically all questions will be answered."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Randhir, 24/01/1970)

"In my books the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is explained fully so if there is anything which you do not understand, then you simply have to read again and again. By reading daily the knowledge will be revealed to you and by this process your spiritual life will develop."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Bahurupa Dasa, 22/11/1974)

Srila Prabhupada: "'Even a moment's association with a pure devotee— all success!'" [...]
Revatinandana: "Does that also apply to reading the words of a pure devotee?"
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes."
Revatinandana: "Even a little association with your books has the same effect?"
Srila Prabhupada: "Effect, of course, it requires both the things. One must be very eager to take it."
(Room Conversation, 13/12/1970)

Paramahamsa: "My question is: A pure devotee, when he comments Bhagavad-Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in contact with his commentary, explanation, is this the same thing?"
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. You can associate with Krsna by reading Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their explanations, comments. So where is the difficulty?"
(Morning Walk, 11/6/1974, Paris)

"So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue your endeavor. Whether I am present or not present doesn't matter."
(Srila Prabhupada Arrival Conversation, 17/5/1977, Vrndavana)