by Krishnakant

This is a response to:  'The Minutes of the Timeless Order.' by Hari-sauri dasa, which was a reply to Krishna Kant's paper "Hari-sauri's Minutes Turn Back the Clock"

Firstly we would like to thank H.G. Hari Sauri prabhu (henceforward 'the author') for his time and trouble in attempting to answer our various concerns. It is obvious he has put a lot of thought into his paper, and it does indeed incorporate some insights which we feel make a valuable contribution (though perhaps not to the authors intended conclusion) deserving serious consideration. We would also like to apologise for the length of this reply; this is because we have carefully answered the author's entire paper 'point for point' which itself was quite substantial.
Below we shall reproduce sections of the author's paper with our comments in response following. We shall also state the page number of the author's paper in bold above each relevant section for ease of reference.      

We shall start by exposing some serious contradictions, which appear in the author's paper, between his position and that of the GBC as expressed in the paper 'Disciple of My Disciple' (DOMD). This is particularly damaging since the author quotes DOMD within his own paper as an authoritative and accurate explanation for how Srila Prabhupada authorised diksa gurus for after his departure. First we quote the author:       

So our question for the author is - how can the recommendation of 'proxies ONLY' be the same as activating their service as 'functioning as full-fledged gurus' even in Srila Prabhupada's presence? How can the act of giving a name on Srila Prabhupada's behalf ONLY, be identical to the function of fully-fledged diksa gurus? No divya-jnana is given by the ritvik. He is not responsible for annihilating the sinful reactions of the initiate. No sacrifice is performed by them and no physical contact is made between the 'disciple' and these so-called gurus. If someone functions as a 'guru' simply by giving a name, then that would mean that Pradyumna, or anyone else who helped Srila Prabhupada pick a name, was also acting as a type of diksa guru. Where is this theory stated that someone, who does nothing more than give a name on someone else's behalf, is the same as a full-fledged diksa guru? Surely he is nothing more than a ritvik, or proxy 'to all intents and purposes.' Thus the author seriously contradicts the very body he is supposedly defending.

We shall now go through the author's paper systematically, page by page:

Actually we never said that 'one sentence' is pivotal to the 'GBC's entire position', this is a 'straw man' argument. It is certainly pivotal to the author's original article however.

The second sentence of minute 2 IS quoted in full on page 2 of our reply. Even the author quotes us quoting the second sentence in his very same paper later on. We did not quote it right at the beginning since we were merely dealing with the 'appointment' issue. The second sentence does not in any way change the fact that the first sentence was incorrect, since Srila Prabhupada did not 'appoint' diksa gurus, as is accepted by the GBC. This is ALL we claimed. We did not try and use the first sentence to 'defeat the GBC's entire position' or anything of such magnitude.

As we have shown above this itself is a 'straw man' argument. The author has thus invented a straw man argument which we never used, falsely attributed it to us, just so he could defeat it.

We only use the first sentence to show that the minutes were not an entirely accurate rendition of the conversation, as is conceded by the author and the GBC themselves. The second sentence only follows as a consequence of the first. It is not independent. The second sentence merely describes the relationships of the initiated to the initiator (on what basis does the author speculate that the second sentence is somehow 'especially' pivotal?) Such relationships could only ever exist IF an order for diksa gurus had FIRST been given. How this order was given - whether by 'appointment', 'selection' a 'nod and a wink' or whatever, is central and crucial to the whole debate. We can not just dismiss the question of how EXACTLY diksa gurus were authorised into existence simply because the GBC are currently united in their overwhelming belief that somehow or another they were. Without there first being authorised diksa gurus the second sentence is meaningless. As we have pointed out over and over again, at the end of the day the only entities Srila Prabhupada actually specifically authorised into existence were ritviks, who were only meant to initiate on his behalf (please see July 9th policy directive)

The above 'essence' theory has yet to be established. It may or may not have validity. Our paper, which the author is responding to above, ONLY dealt with the 'minutes' the author presented. If the author now wants to present another paper wherein he will modify the minutes in line with his dubious sounding 'essence' theory then we will deal with that instead. We can only deal with what he presented. He never conceded in his original paper that the minutes were not totally accurate and that instead the real 'essence' was such and such. Our original point in response to the author's original paper thus remains intact- the minutes, by the GBC's own admission, are not totally accurate. And that's all we claimed. Not that therefore on the strength of this alone the whole GBC's entire stance is debunked. The full debunking is carried out in detail in a separate paper - 'The Final Order'

That the above is a point of agreement amongst all the gurus and GBC's in ISKCON was never challenged by us, only the fact that no 'appointment' took place, which the author admits here anyway. The remainder of this section is designed to answer a claim that we never made, namely- 'that the GBC do NOT agree that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to initiate after his departure'. Thus the rest of this section does not alter the actual point we made - that the GBC now agree that no 'appointment' took place, and thus to hold these minutes up as some sort of irrefutable evidence is perhaps unwise.

The paper that names them is the July 9th letter which says nothing about the eleven's duties being restricted ONLY to 'during his presence'. Thus H.H. is clearly speculating here, with all due respect.

We have never seen these repeated instructions to the entire movement for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to all become diksa gurus immediately on his departure, in spite of repeated requests (we look at the author's 'evidence' later).

We could very easily replace the word 'surmise' above with the word 'speculate' with no discernible change of meaning.

We would agree with H.H. on this point

Reasonable understanding must be based on clear irrefutable evidence. Since it is agreed the May 28 conversation does not fully or 'clearly' provide this, could the author please tell us where we might locate it? We are not very interested in wispy 'essence' theories to be honest, and as we said before we are certainly unwilling to accept minutes which everyone agrees contain inaccuracy, and do not clearly state that which is being proposed.  

H.H. just said that in the May conversation it was not 'clear' that the eleven were to give diksa after Srila Prabhupada's departure. How can he now say it was 'eminently clear (...) that Srila Prabhupada expected his disciples to initiate disciples of their own'? The famous eleven are the only disciples who were alluded to in the May 28th conversation; if it was not clear that they should initiate, how could it be 'eminently clear' that anyone else should?

Perhaps because the video of the debate was outlawed by the GBC in unpublished minutes.

Where does Srila Prabhupada ever teach that there are two forms of initiating acarya, one who is allowed to head up an institution, and one who must not? This would appear to be a Gaudiya Matha type interpolation.

Where does Srila Prabhupada teach this so-called tradition? Also, it should be pointed out that the GBC were only authorised to manage existing systems of management, not disband them and begin unauthorisedly initiating their own disciples.

Why? Where is it stated that an acarya can appoint 'acaryas' but not 'gurus' ?

Where does Srila Prabhupada say 'I will select those of you I feel most qualified?' We can not see this sentence above.

How did Srila Prabhupada 'indicate' anything about the selection of diksa gurus merely by 'appointing' name-giving ritvik priests? This is complete speculation. We have already shown that the order from Lord Chaitanya, as conveyed to us by Srila Prabhupada, is for instructing gurus who follow the orders of their spiritual master, not a blanket endorsement for anyone to become a diksa guru (please see 'Best Not to Accept Any Disciples').

They WERE initially an hand-picked chosen few. They were specially selected to act as ritviks, the question is who told them they could stop, and then become diksa gurus?

This appointment theory arose because of the inaccurate GBC minutes which the author is still stubbornly promoting as solid evidence. His new 'essence' theory has yet to be established.  As far as the GBC paper DOMD goes, even in the quote the author supplies, his point is not supported:

If the so-called 'Appointment Tape' is so 'eminently clear' why is it the GBC and their supporters are unable to agree on the important detail of exactly HOW the 'gurus' came into existence - this is the issue - HOW the end product came into being - not the fact that they all agree that the end product must somehow exist. Also where does this 'natural process' concept come from? Where is it stated that to act as ritviks first is the 'natural process' by which one goes on to become Diksa Guru? How long has this 'process' been 'naturally' going on for, and where does Srila Prabhupada teach about this 'natural process'?

We all agree that the GBC all believe that diksa gurus were authorised. It is the specifics and EVIDENCE for this supposed authorisation we would like to see.

If it cannot be decided HOW exactly Srila Prabhupada 'categorically confirmed' that his disciples were to be diksa gurus, then how can we jump to the next step and be sure that this DID actually occur. The only 'selection' that was made was for ritviks. This much is accepted by everyone. The author still has not made it clear how exactly the selection of the ritviks was the same as the selection of diksa gurus as well. To first 'categorically' decide whether they were 'appointed', 'selected', 'ordered', 'expected' or 'understood' to become diksa gurus and HOW this was done, would be a good start on the way to convincing us that the entire ISKCON guru edifice is not one massive deviation.

How was it clear? Where is it stated in Srila Prabhupada's books or in policy directives to the movement or in GBC resolutions approved by Srila Prabhupada that this was what he wanted?

Where does Srila Prabhupada mention these different types of diksa guru? All initiating gurus must be authorised or 'appointed' by their predecessor acarya, this principle is stated in the Srimad Bhagavatam (4.8.54); whether they head up an institution or not is completely irrelevant.

In the quote above from the San Diego debate H.G. Ravindra Svarupa prabhu says that Srila Prabhupada never said the eleven were 'authorised gurus for the movement'. Again if these eleven, who are the only disciples alluded to on May 28th, were not 'authorised gurus' then how could anyone else be? And if they were not 'authorised gurus' why did they act as such, why are they still acting as such (those who are left) and why did they allow others to do the same in the mid eighties? Also there are serious questions surrounding H.G. Ravindra Svarupa's triple acarya theory which are addressed on pages 40-42 of 'The Final Order'

The principle, as it is now understood and taught by the GBC, is not that ONLY those selected by Srila Prabhupada could be guru, or the ones who are selected by those who were selected could become gurus. The current GBC understanding is that everyone - every man, woman and child who is an initiated disciple automatically has the right to be a diksa guru on the departure of Srila Prabhupada. Thus the word 'appointed' led to both a mistake in the application AND principle, since for so many years devotees were held back from initiating, and not allowed to properly follow the 'law of disciplic succession'. The author eagerly supported this deviation from principle, just as he today enthusiastically endorses the concocted M.A.S.S.

Further H.H. Jayadawaita Maharaja, whom the author has quoted above, also agrees that the actvities of the GBC between 1977-86 constituted a deviation from both application AND spiritual principles:

4. The GBC instituted, encouraged, and for many years belligerently and obstinately defended symbols, rituals, practices, teachings, and structures subversive to the unique importance of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

13. After Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, for many years the GBC systematically misrepresented Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions about carrying on the disciplic succession.

14. The GBC instituted, encouraged, and for many years belligerently and obstinately defended symbols, rituals, practices, teachings, and structures meant to create and perpetuate for a small group an elite status to which they were never entitled.

(Several Grievances Against the Members of the GBC, H.H. Jayadwaita Swami, March 5, 1987)

Thus here Maharaja admits that there was more than just the 'application' which went astray.

NO. As we have explained above, the activities between 1977-1986 also led to the wrong PRINCIPLE being applied since only those who were 'appointed' by Srila Prabhupada or 'appointed' by those who were 'appointed' by Srila Prabhupada were allowed to initiate. This directly violates the GBC's much heralded principle, the 'law of disciplic succession'.

The 'understanding' which was inspired by the author's cherished GBC minutes, led to a massive deviation from principal and application, as explained above, and the idea of an appointment was the foundation of that 'understanding', which has since been rejected.

How can they when they are based on the idea that Srila Prabhupada had only appointed eleven successor acaryas, an idea which has since been completely rejected? The author is continuing to confuse two separate issues - the fact that Srila Prabhupada's disciples were supposedly meant to initiate after Srila Prabhupada leaves; and HOW this was to occur. It is the latter issue which concerns us, and which lies at the very heart of the controversy. Though the minutes may sanction the former idea, they definitely state that the latter comes about only through appointment. This is the idea which was rejected by the GBC. The simple fact therefore remains that the minutes may well support the notion of diksa gurus coming into being. No one has challenged the fact that the GBC has always believed that SOMEHOW diksa gurus must arise. Further since Ravindra Svarupa, H.H. Jayadvaita Swami and H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami have clearly said that no appointment took place, (Ravindra Svarupa even said the very idea was not 'appropriate') how did this erroneous idea enter into the minds of the GBC in the first place? In Topanga Canyon H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami said that even thinking that they were 'selected' was a mistake.

The letter is diametrically opposed to the minutes, since the entities described therein were only authorised as ritviks to officiate on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. The minutes wrongly reported that Srila Prabhupada had appointed successor acaryas who would initiate their own disciples. This is all very obvious stuff, surely beneath the author to have to have it pointed out.

Where on the tape does Srila Prabhupada say "my disciples will initiate after my departure and have disciples of their own"? Let us see what he DOES state:

1. He will soon name ritviks/officiating acaryas.
2. His disciples will initiate and have disciples of their own IF he orders.

When was the order ever given? DOMD claims it is the words 'On My Order' on the tape which issues the order. The author claims it is the order to be ritviks on July 9th. Others have claimed the order is timeless and was merely re-confirmed on May 28th. Will the GBC and their apologists please make up their minds.

In none of the official transcripts of the May 28th conversation does Srila Prabhupada ever once link the emergence of diksa gurus with his departure. He clearly states that such entities could only exist when he 'ordered' ('on my order' 'when I order' 'but by my order') It is becoming increasingly clear that this specific order for DIKSA gurus was never issued. The only order was for ritviks and instructing gurus.

The May 28 conversation does not issue anyone with any specific directives, it merely has Srila Prabhupada making known his intention to appoint ritviks at some future time, and that diksa gurus would be dependent on his ordering them. A specific 'directive' was only issued later on, in the July 9th statement of initiation policy. Over one hundred identical 'directives' were sent all over the world indicating the initiation system which was to operate within ISKCON. Once more, why was it stopped?

The above is patent falsehood. Terms such as "grand-disciple" and "disciple of my disciple" are only spoken in connection with the phrases 'on my order' 'when I order' and 'but by my order'. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to lying. Once again, where was this order ever issued? The only order we have seen was for ritviks. Does the author possess some other directive from Srila Prabhupada that has remained hitherto hidden? If so it would be opportune for him to produce it.

When did Srila Prabhupada ever say he was unwilling to accept new disciples?

Here we see the author claiming that the selection of the ritviks was the selection of gurus. But this is a contradiction. Srila Prabhupada stated in May that he was going to name some ritviks. Now the author claims that the naming occurred to resolve the 'dilemma' in July. Yet in May he clearly indicated that he was going to name individuals in order to solve the problem of what to do 'particularly when he was no longer with us'. Now we are told that the naming only occurred because he wanted to resolve a 'dilemma' that had nothing to do with when he was 'no longer with us', but to solve an alleged problem which was only relevant during his presence. Srila Prabhupada never said in May that the appointment or naming of individuals would be done in order to solve an upcoming 'dilemma'. Where is the evidence for this?

He does not mention anything about etiquette in the July 7th conversation, thus the author is speculating when he links it to the selection of ritviks.

Srila Prabhupada only stated that he was going to name ritviks. He never said that the ritviks he was soon to name were to be diksa gurus. He clearly states two things:  

I shall recommend some of you. (as ritviks)
Be actually guru, but by my order. 
When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru

1. Something he is definitely going to do - the appointment of ritviks.  
2. Gurus arising only when he ORDERS them.

The two things are not the same - the definite naming of RITVIKS; The CONDITIONAL creation of GURUS through an ORDER.

Srila Prabhupada never linked the emergence of diksa gurus AUTOMATICALLY with his DEPARTURE in the May 28th conversation, as anyone who reads it can see.

The above is total nonsense. If this was not a 'final order' then presumably the author has one which was issued after July 9th. Could we see it please? Where is it stated by Srila Prabhupada that the ritvik system would only be an 'interim order'? How did this order for ritviks somehow get those named functioning as gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's presence? All they did was accept persons they had most likely never met, as disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and issue them a name. What has this got to do with being a diksa guru who, by definition, accepts and instructs (through his teachings) his own disciples. The author is clearly very confused here about what the ritvik system actually entails.

This is complete nonsense. Within the ritvik system new disciples all belonged to Srila Prabhupada alone. The author should really sit down and read the final order on initiation instead of trying to speculate around it.

Thus we now have a brand new theory - that by giving a name the ritviks were also taking the karma in Srila Prabhupada's presence! This new theory is so unbelievably silly we can hardly conceive of how the author could have written it. Anyone initiated within the ritvik system was automatically accepted as Srila Prabhupada's directly initiated disciple, and hence would be having his sinful reactions directly annihilated by Srila Prabhupada. The fact that above Srila Prabhupada indicated that he may or may not continue personally participating in the system is completely irrelevant. When he says 'I shall begin again, or I may not' he could not be referring to the acceptance of karma as he would be doing this anyway since anyone initiated by his 'deputies' or ritviks would be his direct disciples. Clearly Srila Prabhupada is simply referring to his sitting in on local initiations.

Maybe, but not by Srila Prabhupada.

That means that Srila Prabhupada would accept their karma, so why does the author suggest above that Srila Prabhupada did not want to do this? In fact the ritvik system allowed him to accept karma in vast quantities from all over the world on a greater scale than ever before. How does this demonstrate an unwillingness to accept karma?

Above we see Srila Prabhupada's standard method for dealing with ambitious deviants who were allured by the MAYA of becoming unauthorised initiators - they are 'warned' and told the etiquette that PREVENTS them from initiating NOW.

We address this quote later.

Again see how Srila Prabhupada PREVENTS an initiation by stating that it cannot happen now.

Once more we see an example of Srila Prabhupada endeavouring to PREVENT initiations in his presence. Clearly PRIVATE letters like this can not be applied universally. Besides, as mentioned many times previously, none of this evidence was available till long after Srila Prabhupada's departure, and thus cannot be legitimately used to modify the July 9th order.

A good warning to any other disciples who might be getting unauthorised ideas to initiate in the presence of Srila Prabhupada. And of course it is not just a question of the acarya leaving the planet before the disciples may initiate their own disciples. They must first have attained the level of mahabhagavat and been personally authorised to initiate by their predecessor acarya as is stated in Srila Prabhupada's books.

Firstly Srila Prabhupada NEVER said that 'he will select some of his disciples to be gurus and give initiations', this is a blatant falsehood. At the end of the May 28 tape segment (ignoring the fact that the tape is currently inadmissible as evidence) in a section unrelated to H. H. Satsvarupa Maharaja's first question, Srila Prabhupada simply repeats what is found in the purports surrounding Lord Caitanya's order for everyone to be guru - that one who understands the order of Lord Caitanya or his representative is qualified to be a guru. Srila Prabhupada then says he will 'select' some disciples who are qualified to understand the order of Lord Caitanya and his representative. THIS in itself makes one a guru, as described in the purports to Lord Caitanya's instructions on this subject. But the order ITSELF given by the guru was to be ritvik only. Therefore to understand THIS order the recipients should have continued acting as ritviks. Srila Prabhupada never 'activated them' as 'full-fledged gurus', and so the whole argument falls down. If this did occur the author should tell us where and how. Srila Prabhupada had 'activated' eleven of them to give names without consulting him. Furthermore, how could they have any role as diksa guru since Srila Prabhupada simply said 'whoever is nearest'. As His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja has so nicely explained:

'Now I understand that what he did was very clear. He was physically incapable of performing the function of initiation; therefore he appointed officiating priests to initiate on his behalf. He appointed eleven, and he said very clearly, 'Whoever is nearest can initiate'. This is very important because when it comes to initiating, it isn't whoever is nearest, it's wherever your heart goes. Who (you) repose your faith on, you take initiation from him. But when it's officiating, it's whoever is nearest, and he was very clear. He named them. They were spread out all over the world, and he said, 'Whoever you're nearest, you just approach that person, and they'll check you out. Then, on my behalf, they'll initiate.' It is not a question that you repose your faith in that person - nothing. That's a function for the guru. 'In order for me to manage this movement', Prabhupada said, 'I have to form a GBC and I will appoint the following people. In order to continue the process of people joining our movement and getting initiated, I have to appoint some priests to help me because(...) I cannot physically manage everyone myself.'

'And that's all it was, and it was never any more than that, you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, because he had already said it a million times'.
(Topanga Canyon Confessions, 3/12/80)

The ritviks clearly WERE appointed. The Gurus were NOT. How then is the appointment of ritviks the creation of diksa gurus? Neither were the gurus 'selected':

'Unfortunately the GBC did not recognise this point. They immediately (assumed, decided) that these eleven people are the selected gurus. (Topanga Canyon Confessions, 3/12/80)

Here the author reproduces the May 28th conversation. We have already covered this extensively in such papers as 'The Final Order' and 'The Final Order Still Stands'. The author does not even attempt a point for point rebuttal of these papers, but instead offers his own speculative analysis.

There was no need for any correction since the word 'officiating' is there, which makes it clear that H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami is not talking in an 'initiating' sense, as he explained in Topanga:

'He was physically incapable of performing the function of initiation; therefore he appointed officiating priests to initiate on his behalf. He appointed eleven, and he said very clearly, 'Whoever is nearest can initiate'. This is very important because when it comes to initiating, it isn't whoever is nearest, it's wherever your heart goes. Who (you) repose your faith on, you take initiation from him. But when it's officiating, it's whoever is nearest, and he was very clear'.

Using H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami's above explanation the who 'who is initiating' is Srila Prabhupada. The ritviks were only to be assigned as officiators.

Now, as is admitted, there is a SUBJECT CHANGE. The disciples are his; grand-disciples will only arise when he 'orders' - "his grand-disciple ... when I order 'you become guru', he becomes regular guru, he becomes disciple of my disciple"

So then, where is the order? Without it the author's case collapses like a house of cards.

But where and when was this 'order' that leads to regular gurus and disciples? This is the crux of the whole debate. You cannot skate over the VERY point that is at the centre of the entire issue.

But only as ritviks. Also he is talking here of making a selection for after his departure. Then we are told by the author that he only makes a selection to handle a 'dilemma' that was only relevant before departure. How are the two the same?

Where did Srila Prabhupada ever issue such a blanket authorisation for diksa guruhood? It could not be in the May 28 conversation because there Srila Prabhupada only alludes to persons he will personally appoint. Those eleven persons were personally appointed as ritviks, not diksa gurus. Even H.H. Jayadvaita Goswami Maharaja does not think it is clear the eleven were selected to act as diksa gurus, so why on earth should we?

When we read the 'words' in the conversation we do not see any clear statement from Srila Prabhupada that 'his disciples were to be diksa gurus' on his departure. We only see a desire to name ritviks at some point in the future; and the emergence of 'regular gurus' WHEN the SPECIFIC order is given. And a desire to select some disciples who can 'understand the order of Lord Caitanya' and Srila Prabhupada, and become gurus in that sense.

In order to justify his distorted interpretation of the May conversation the author, as well as the GBC in DOMD, goes to great trouble analysing the way in which Srila Prabhupada's words are arranged in the conversation. Then the author states:

If the above is true then how will we ever know for sure if anyone's interpretation is correct? (That is leaving aside the issue of key words being in dispute due to inaudability and alleged falsification). How can the author assume, with absolute certainty, that his interpretation is correct, and ours is not? Why is it that he is allowed to interpret the tape on the basis of his understanding of Srila Prabhupada's use of grammar, but not us?

If we have a scenario whereby: 'especially with Srila Prabhupada his speech is rarely strictly grammatically correct', then we can read almost anything we want into the conversation. According to the author the rules of grammar will only strictly apply 'especially' 'rarely' on this occasion. Furthermore, who is to decide when the rules of grammar do and when they do not apply? The author is more than happy to invoke normal grammatical rules to support his understanding, but happy to reject them when someone else uses them. By his above assertion how can we ever deduce anything with any certainty from Srila Prabhupada's speech, unless we first determine:

a) When the rules of grammar apply 'strictly';  
b) When they do apply , just HOW 'strictly';  
c) When they do not apply at all 'strictly';

d) Who will decide the above 3, and on what basis?

All the author has succeeded in doing here is support the whole premise of 'The Final Order', that the letter is a clear expression of Srila Prabhupad's order, and that many interpretations (and indeed versions) of the tape have been made, and are possible.

Neither have we only picked this ONE instance. We have tried to apply normal grammar rules all the way through. In the circumstances one would have thought it safer to just stick to Srila Prabhupada's books, approved GBC resolutions and official policy directives. Unfortunately the author would rather speculate endlessly around a conversation which he himself, his linguistic experts, H.H. Jayadvaita, Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, and the authors of DOMD, admit is not so clear. This point comes up later on where the author brings in linguistic experts who make some rather interesting observations.

This is nonsense. The subject complement has already been given - They're his disciples. The phrase 'his grand disciple' is connected to the next phrase as the author admits, and follows a 'change of subject' by Srila Prabhupada.     

As a matter of interest is there any evidence that it was Srila Prabhupada who called the meeting and not the GBC. Especially since the conversation opens with H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja stating the following:  

?

Clearly they did not since they operated a completely bogus zonal acarya system for nearly an entire decade, driving away thousands of innocent dissenters in the process.

Where is the evidence for this - see above?

Then he would surely not have been satisfied with the May 28 conversation since the author, and his linguistic experts, admit that it is not at all clear since nothing said necessarily obeys grammatical rules. Certainly he would have issued an official declaration, either in the form of an approved GBC resolution, or as a signed policy directive (which the author's linguistic experts say DO obey grammatical rules). Such is the July 9th order.

It is interesting to note that the answers to all the above questions were put in writing in official approved documents under Srila Prabhupada's direction (such as the final will and the July 9th order). Why does the author not insist that the final will for instance, be superseded by all the possible twisted interpretations of all the conversations which undoubtedly led to its formulation?

That is why we should accept Srila Prabhupada's final order without thinking we know better.

By this same logic why did the GBC not also ask if they should carry on chanting 16 rounds, worshipping Deities, holding kirtan and avoiding sinful activity? Why did they only ask about initiations if Srila Prabhupada really had clearly described the M.A.S.S. over and over again for the 11 years previous, just as he had these other points?  

Please note that not one of the following quotes simultaneously mentions the terms 'initiate'/'diksa guru' and departure or even 'ritvik', thus how they can be considered directly relevant baffles us.

The term diksa is not mentioned once in any of the above quotes. Aside from one quote (given on page 6 'conversation Detroit July 18, 71), where diksa could be implied, it is always in relation to ambitious deviants, in letters which were never seen until the mid-eighties and are thus irrelevant. All the others must only refer to siksa. We shall reproduce below a section from our paper 'Institutional Catechism' which deals with a large proportion of this type of evidence.  

In the 'ritvik catechism' (as in the authors paper), the GBC present a quote from Srila Prabhupada (Detroit) where he speaks of his disciples being qualified to take on the role of diksa guru. We will discuss all such statements made by Srila Prabhupada in the 11 year period that ISKCON was running during his physical presence. There are actually only 6 examples in all. We are only listing those where the issue of Srila Prabhupada's disciples specifically initiating is mentioned, since only this evidence could conceivably be used to support the removal of Srila Prabhupada as the initiating guru for ISKCON, and the subsequent construction of the M.A.S.S. We have not been able to find any other quotes, neither have the GBC ever presented any others, so we shall take as complete the following list which is presented chronologically:

Letter to Acyutananda; X 2
Letter to Hamsaduta;
Letter to Tusta Krishna;
Letter to John Milner;
Detroit July '71

[(Letter to Madhusudana ) - No mention of taking disciples just preaching. Also only spoken in relationship to Kirtanananda's desire to become a premature spiritual master. Srila Prabhupada simply cautions that he wants to encourage his disciples to preach and become gurus but cautions there is no question of doing so unless the spiritual master is pleased and followed.]    

1. All evidence is in the form of private letters (except Detroit) which are not necessarily universally applicable.  
2. In all cases the letters were issued as a reaction to some premature attempt at being a diksa guru, which needed to be blocked.
3. All evidence exists only because some external circumstance prompted their release. In other words the evidence only exists because someone deviated or (in the case of Detroit) personally asked Srila Prabhupada a question. If Srila Prabhupada wanted something enacted by the whole movement he would either get the GBC to pass a resolution, or send a letter to all his leaders. Thus the July 9th letter is in an entirely different category to the GBC's so-called modifying evidence.
4. None of this evidence was available publicly at the point of Srila Prabhupada's departure. The letters were released by accident in 1986; the Detroit tape was only available last year (1997) in either recorded or transcript form.
5. Such letters were only ever sent to some of the most ambitious deviants in the society. Why seriously promise diksa guru-hood only to those least qualified?
6. Srila Prabhupada never insisted on the letters being published - ONLY "if time". Therefore how could their contents be considered vital appendages to the final order?
7. The whole emphasis of the letters is to stop the devotees concerned from being diksa gurus now, and at least waiting until after his departure. Delaying something is not the same as recommending it.
8. In the case of Room Conversations, they cannot possibly be considered a guaranteed means of relaying important policy decisions to the entire movement since:

1. No guarantee that any given recording would come out audibly.  
2. No guarantee the recording would be transcribed.
3. No guarantee that the tapes would be listened to in time to act at the point of Srila Prabhupada's departure.
4. Even if the tapes were listened to the right devotee would need to pick out the one or two relevant sentences from literally hundreds of tapes in order to obtain instructions on how to manage initiations within ISKCON.
5. There is no single example of Srila Prabhupada issuing important directives simply through some casual chat with visitors, or private letters to problem disciples.

With such serious unpredictable hurdles, it is unreasonable to assume that information given in private letters or lecture/morning walk/ room conversations , and which is not then repeated in his books or instructions to the whole society, is intended to be used to modify an order which was issued to the entire Movement.
It is unbelievable that anyone would direct a massive world-wide organisation by telling a few people something, but omit to ask them to tell everyone else. Would Srila Prabhupada say something to a one time visitor (Detroit), then rely on the tape being audibly recorded; then rely on it being accurately transcribed; then count on all his disciples subscribing to the BBT tape ministry, then hope against hope they all listen to the important bit before he leaves the planet- and as a result develop the correct initiation system. To argue this is pure madness.
To illustrate our point, the Detroit conversation, which is arguably the GBC's best evidence, was not available in either a recorded or transcript form until last year (1997). How can anyone believe it contains information crucial to the running of ISKCON, or which was meant to somehow displace an order which was sent to the entire movement in 1977?
So why did Srila Prabhupada make such statements in the first place if he did not really mean them? Here are our thoughts on the matter: 

The private letters were clearly worded in order to control ambitious, potentially deviant disciples. By offering the guru carrot, there was at least the possibility that they would carry on in devotional service and thus in time become purified. Such letters always tell them to wait, and not to do it now. Hardly enthusiastic encouragement. 
With regards Detroit, Had Srila Prabhupada said in 1971 that none of his disciples would ever be diksa gurus, the neophyte devotees around him may have been discouraged and left. At that point it is unlikely they had fully grasped just how elevated the diksa guru actually needs to be. Even now those that are left are having a hard time understanding. Even now, some 27 years later, many of Srila Prabhupada's original followers still labour under the misconception that anyone can be a diksa guru as long as he has been following his initiation vows for the preceding five years. 
The encouragement given in Detroit was never repeated to the entire movement, nor written into any GBC resolution or published book. Just one mention in a conversation to a one-off visitor to a temple in 1971, and which was not uncovered until twenty years after Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Some may wish to reject the above as speculation, but then they will still need to answer the above eight points. The many other calls to become guru have been dealt with in previous papers. In essence they refer to becoming instructing spiritual masters, not diksa gurus. This is clear since they will incorporate one or more of the following elements:

• No mention of Srila Prabhupada's physical departure
• No mention of qualification;
• Mention of amara ajnaya verse;  
• Word `guru' used to indicate teacher/instructor - no mention of terms 'initiate' or 'diksa'.  

As shown above this is simply not the case.

He most certainly did not talk about his disciples acting as diksa gurus. Where is the GBC resolution, approved by Srila Prabhupada, which states any such thing? It is sheer fantasy.

Yes but not acting as diksa gurus. We are all acting as successors if we are carrying on Srila Prabhupada's mission, but only in an instructing capacity.

The author is contradicting himself quite badly when he argues on the one hand that since Srila Prabhupada had hinted at all kinds of possibilities, or 'variations', the GBC had to ask what was going to happen since they were unsure; and then on the other hand argue that Srila Prabhupada's May instructions 'confirmed everything he had so consistently said before'. How can you be simultaneously consistent and variant?
In any event, let it never again be argued that the M.A.S.S is unquestionably correct since it is simply following the normal standard tradition. According to the author the acarya can do practically what he wants, and we must simply follow. Of course the author's great open mindedness and humility before his guru's every wish does not seem to extend to the July 9th order.

The above paragraph does not make sense since the 'etiquette' only applies whilst the guru is still present. The question on May 28th was posed particularly in relation to after departure when such etiquette was no longer applicable. Thus we ask again, why was this question asked unless there was already some prior notion that proxies were on the cards?

The above is called mental speculation. Where did Srila Prabhupada ever state he was setting up the ritvik system only for use during his presence since he was not willing to do it himself?

Srila Prabhupada never ever once stated that the ritviks would initiate their own disciples. The above is sheer nonsense. The only evidence the author has is a conversation which he concedes obeys no grammatical rules and is not clear.

The questioning by the GBC on May 28 was handled as incompetently as their response to this issue. If the GBC were so 'prescient' one might ask why, after their clever questioning, they went on to operate a completely bogus zonal acarya system and in the process banish, ban and intimidate many innocent dissenters in the process, just as they do today over the M.A.S.S.

Whenever we have enquired from the GBC we have simply been offered a miasma of discordant testimony. This is a problem for everyone who cares about ISKCON and desires a GBC worthy of respect. This does not answer the question, why was question 4 ever asked?

Even the GBC might blush at this last sentence - comparing the GBC to Srila Prabhupada

As we have shown Srila Prabhupada never once issued a general instruction for his disciples to all initiate after his departure. Honest disciples will eventually decide to stop making up stories and humbly follow Srila Prabhupada's final order, of that we are convinced.

We appreciate the author's honest admission on his point of inadvertent misrepresentation.

There is also the small matter of Srila Prabhupada saying nothing about the ritviks initiating their own disciples. It is certainly not clear to H.H. Jayadvaita Maharaja that the conversation recommends or selects any future diksa gurus. It seems the author is slipping back in time once again to those glorious zonal days of yore.

Srila Prabhupada never once links the emergence of diksa gurus with his departure, but only with an order, which he never gave.

The author himself states that the conversation does not follow grammatical laws. At least our interpretation is in line with the July 9th letter which is extremely clear and authoritative, employing excellent grammar.

It most certainly is not. Srila Prabhupada never says that ritviks own disciples, the very suggestion is absurd. Ritviks are by definition not initiators, they are officiators. Is this really so hard to understand?

Srila Prabhupada never selected or appointed disciples to be diksa gurus. We thought that had been established. Ask H.H. Jayadvaita Maharaja. It is not clear to him from the May 28 conversation that the eleven were specially selected to act as diksa gurus for the future. Indeed when the final order was issued he asked H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja to go back and check with Srila Prabhupada whether they had been appointed or selected as gurus. As we all know H.H. Tamal Krishna would not allow H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja in to see Srila Prabhupada for confirmation - (See memoirs of 1977 by H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja)

The above is just dishonest nonsense. Nowhere does the July 9th letter in any way corroborate the warped understanding promoted by the GBC in their inaccurate rendering of the meeting in their minutes book. The eleven chosen disciples were only authorised to initiate on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. The author must know this.

If the author would like to see it we can send him a copy.

The persons who were actually there drastically misunderstood what Srila Prabhupada wanted with disastrous results, by their own admission. We can hardly do worse than that. We can hear the tape and read all the transcripts and signed documentation for ourselves. Plus we now have folio which was not available then. So it could be argued that we are better positioned now to make a judgment than at any time since Srila Prabhupada was with us physically.

In the above we hoped to wipe the slate clean and allow everyone to look afresh at the issue. To establish ritvik one does not need to invoke some kind of conspiracy theory. We feel we established our case fully in 'The Final Order' without once mentioning the word conspiracy (except once in the excepted passage). However since writing this paper we were shocked by the sheer dishonesty of the select committee who were supposed to answer our concerns. Fifty percent of DOMD comprises of nothing but lies innuendo and straw man arguments, (please see 'The Final Order Still Stands' for details). Also since then we have had the forensic examiner's report, etc. Even now the author has failed to answer why the GBC asked what the relationship would be between diksa gurus and their disciples. With these types of dealings it is hardly surprising suspicions become aroused.

        i.  "Unexplained" stops and starts on the tape Perle examined.

The author now seems to feel he is more of an expert than Mr. Perle with regards tape analysis. The report specifically said that until a full forensic analysis was done the entire tape was suspect. The initial analysis was quite superficial and yet even so turned up six points of concern. Until a full forensic is carried out it is not possible for the author to state that it is all fine, just someone turning the tape on and off.

The above is full of lies and deceit. Mrigendra prabhu writes in response: