Ṛtvik-māyā-vāda-śata-dūṣaṇi 100 Deviations of Ṛtvikism

The ṛtvik proxy-initiation-advocates strongly appeal that the July 9th, 1977 letter, written by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami and approved by Śrīla Prabhupāda authorizing some devotees to initiate on his behalf during his presence, should be accepted as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s final order for all time to come. There are various problems with this proposal. One problem is that specifically Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t say that the process he was setting up was for all time. The July 7th, 1977 discussion didn’t discuss more than the current backlog of disciples waiting for initiation although it was in furtherance to the May 28th, 1977 discussion. In that discussion Śrīla Prabhupāda had instructed that he would “recommend” some devotees to act as “officiating ācāryas” (also known as ṛtviks). His Divine Grace stated that they would give initiations “on his behalf” as a formality during his presence, since disciples shouldn’t initiate in the physical presence of their spiritual master.

Śrīla Prabhupāda also stated that the “officiating ācāryas”, he would recommend to give initiations when he was no long er present with us, would, “on his order”, otherwise be “regular gurus”, “guru”, and initiators of their own disciples who would be Śrīla Prabhupāda’s “grand-disciples” or disciples of his disciples. This was a direct order given for how initiations would continue after his physical departure. There are many other references wherein Śrīla Prabhupāda had generally expressed his desire, intention, request, and order that in the future all his disciples should become qualified as spiritual masters and also initiate new generations of disciples.

This topic has been discussed threadbare back and forth and various interpretations have been given, but the bottom line remains that the ṛtvik-theory proponents cannot produce any proof that Śrīla Prabhupāda actually desired to establish a ṛtvik proxy-initiation system to continue when he was no longer physically present. Nor have the ṛtvik theory proponents demonstrated that Śrīla Prabhupāda has given a specific order to have a post-samādhi ṛtvik proxy-initiation system established in ISKCON. Nevertheless, based on speculative interpretation of the purpose of the July 9th, 1977 letter and their practical convictions many of them still feel that the ṛtvik proxy-initiation theory is the actual desire of Śrīla Prabhupāda. I would like to demonstrate from various angles that it isn’t at all possible that Śrīla Prabhupāda has desired such a system, nor is there any reasonable proof that he did. To the contrary vast evidence points to His Divine Grace desiring and requesting that all his qualified disciples become śikṣā and direct dīkṣā-gurus and that this is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s authorized system.

It is also important to mention that devotees in ISKCON have various sincere concerns about the application of the guru system in ISKCON and the aberrations in application which have occurred. This has produced misgivings in the system of guru-paramparā. This is seen as one of the causes or inspirations for the ṛtvik theory. The hope is that if the understanding and application of guru-tattva in ISKCON is properly analyzed and reviewed, to insure it is chaste according to sādhu, śāstra, and guru, it can satisfy those devotees who have lost their confidence in the previous system. To go into those points is not the purpose of this paper, although I acknowledge the need to do so. It is also important to recognize that those persons who have accepted the ṛtvik theory may not be so easily convinced merely by changes in application. They will need to be convinced about disciples and followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda being dīkṣā-gurus in their own right based on the fundamental principles and instructions of Śrīla Prabhupāda. It would be auspicious if ISKCON’s senior preachers would hear and discuss with those ṛtvik proponents willing to do so in order to arrive at an early favorable solution. It appears that everyone wants to satisfy the desire of Śrīla Prabhupāda. In order to achieve that end it is important to clearly understand what it is that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted and ordered.

The reason for explaining this point is to firmly establish that Śrīla Prabhupāda was totally committed to doing everything according to sādhu, śāstra and guru. Therefore, whatever ISKCON GBC and ISKCON followers do should also be clearly established according to śāstra. Since proxy initiations by a spiritual master after his disappearance is not a normal occurrence found in śāstra, Śrīla Prabhupāda wouldn’t and didn’t establish such a system. The function of initiations “on behalf of” Śrīla Prabhupāda was clearly only meant to be during his physical presence. No pro-ṛtvik advocate has shown anywhere in the Vedic literatures where such a system of proxy-initiations after the spiritual master’s departure exists. The only basis they give is a fanatical interpretation of the July 9th, 1977 letter, which ignores Śrīla Prabhupāda’s earlier statement that initiations “on his behalf” are only a formality in his presence. If we can all accept this principle that whatever we do must be authorized by sādhu, śāstra and guru then we can all cooperate more easily.

His Divine Grace Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupā da explained that his “secret of success” was the fact that he strictly followed the instructions of his spiritual master Oṁ Viṣnupāda Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.

“…we took up the mission of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura to preach the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu all over the world, under the protection of all the predecessor ācāryas, and we find that our humble attempt has been successful. We followed the principles especially explained by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā verse vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana. According to this instruction of Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, it is the duty of a disciple to follow strictly the orders of his spiritual master. The secret of success in advancement in spiritual life is the firm faith of the disciple in the orders of his spiritual master.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.8p)

Śrīla Prabhupāda diligently protected the purity of ISKCON by always insuring that ISKCON’s activities remained in accordance with sādhu, śāstra and guru. It is inconceivable to consider that Śrīla Prabhupāda would ever do anything which wasn’t in accordance with sādhu, śāstra and guru principles and references. Moreover, Śrīla Prabhupāda taught that a fundamental principle of Kṛṣṇa consciousness was that the spiritual master and all Vaiṣṇavas must always follow śāstra as the basis for all Kṛṣṇa conscious activities. Śrīla Prabhupāda has instructed this throughout his transcendental literatures which are the ultimate authority for the Krishna consciousness Movement.

“Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura advises, sādhu-śāstra-guru vākya, hṛdaye kariyā aikya. The meaning of this instruction is that one must consider the instructions of the sādhu, the revealed scriptures and the spiritual master in order to understand the real purpose of spiritual life. Neither a sādhu (saintly person or Vaiṣṇava) nor a bona fide spiritual master says anything that is beyond the scope of the sanction of the revealed scriptures. Thus the statements of the revealed scriptures correspond to those of the bona fide spiritual master and saintly persons. One must therefore act with reference to these three important sources of understanding.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.48 Purport)

Śrīla Prabhupāda again emphasizes that spiritual matters must always be tested according to sādhu, śāstra and guru.

“As stated by Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, sādhu-śāstra-guru: one has to test all spiritual matters according to the instructions of saintly persons, scriptures and the spiritual master. The spiritual master is one who follows the instructions of his predecessors, namely the sādhus, or saintly persons. A bona fide spiritual master does not mention anything not mentioned in the authorized scriptures. Ordinary people have to follow the instructions of sādhu, śāstra and guru. Those statements made in the śāstras and those made by the bona fide sādhu or guru cannot differ from one another.” (śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.16.1p)

The ṛtvik proponents usually say that whatever quotation is given later is more important. So they might say that Śrīla Prabhupāda had a different idea in the latter days of his pas times from July 9th, 1977 and on. However a quick search of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s conversations during the last days of his pastimes shows that he is still having the same ideas. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s ideas don’t change since they are based on following sādhu, śāstra and guru and not on speculation or material ideas. Here are some of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s final conversations in which he mentions the essential aspect of following sādhu, śāstra and guru:

Prabhupāda: And we are following what Kṛṣṇa says. Then our life, success...

Prabhupāda: According to our śāstra, mind is meant for speculation. It does not give us any definite knowledge. My mind is working in one way; your mind is working another way. There is no conclu... Manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ. This is the result of mental speculation. And Gītā also says that manaḥ ṣaṣthānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni karṣati. This spiritual spark, being bound up by the mind and the senses, is struggling hard on the material nature. And he’s simply struggling. No fixed up condition. Everyone will say, “I think this is right.” What is right, he does not know. That is struggle. Is it not? (Room Conversation. Vṛndāvana, October 13, 1977)

Prabhupāda: Vīrarāghavācārya, Sanātana Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī. We are just trying to explain their ideas. We are teeny.

Pradyumna: I think your commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam will go down in history as one of the most..., one of the best commentaries. It will go down.

Prabhupāda: Let us try for that.

(Room Conversation. Vṛndāvana, Oct. 16, 1977)

Prabhupāda: And Dr. Ghosh has his scheme, but actually the scheme is there in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. We want to introduce that scheme to our Gurukula. We haven’t got to manufacture scheme. Is that correct?

Girirāja: Yes.

(Room Conversation Vṛndāvana, October 18, 1977)

Prabhupāda: Śruta-gṛhītayā. And śruta-gṛhītayā is Vedānta knowledge, not sentimental. Śruta-gṛhītayā. That is sound knowledge. Discuss Bhāgavatam daily, as much as possible. Everything will be clarified. Because Bhāgavata is the essence. Nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam idam. And vyāsadeva-kṛta. Kim anyaiḥ śāstraiḥ. When he’s self-realized, he made this. Mahā-muni-kṛte. So the more we read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the knowledge becomes clarified. Each and every verse-transcendental. Is this clear?

(Room Conversation. Vṛndāvana, October 21, 1977)

Prabhupāda: And all the ācāryas say. We have to follow the ācāryas. Very good. (Prabhupāda Vigil: Vṛndāvana, November 1, 1977)

Therefore, it is amply clear that Śrīla Prabhupāda right to the very end of his visible pastimes was totally committed to not changing any principles of sādhu, śāstra and guru, but rather to preserve these principles at all costs. Had Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted to make such a drastic change in everything he had instructed to do in his books, lectures, conversations, and letters he certainly had plenty of time to do so. He didn’t because he had no idea of anything other then his own disciples becoming “regular gurus” and initiating their own disciples after his departure since nothing else is given in śāstra. The importance of śāstra as the center is illustrated in the following quotation:

“Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākya, cittete kariyā aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and śāstra. The actual center is śāstra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the śāstra, he is not a saintly person. Śāstra is the center for all.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 20.352p)

Yet sometimes the pro-ṛtvik camp claim there is nothing wrong with Śrīla Prabhupāda instituting a post-disappearance proxy initiation system since Śrīla Prabhupāda, as the “Ācārya”, had changed many things in the past so he could also change this detail in śāstra. (By discussing this point I don’t accept that Śrīla Prabhupāda actually ordered to have such a system of ṛtvik initiations after his physical presence. This is another aspect of ṛtvik-māyā; to discuss a detail without ever establishing the first primary point that Śrīla Prabhupāda never specifically ordered such a system to continue after his departure.)

The ṛtvik camp says Śrīla Prabhupāda can set new “precedences” and make changes in śāstra. In other words indirectly they are accepting that the concept of a system for giving initiations after the spiritual master has physically left the planet by proxy or ṛtvik initiators is not authorized anywhere according to śāstric evidences. If it is authorized anywhere by śāstra then they should show it, but so far nothing has been demonstrated. Sometimes it is argued that Śrīla Prabhupāda had already instituted a ṛtvik-system in his presence, but authorizing some disciples to help him in any of the aspects of initiation in his presence doesn’t break the principle of disciplic succession. No one is arguing that Śrīla Prabhupāda in his presence could authorize disciples to assist him as ṛtviks since it was just an assisting role.

The post-samādhi proxy initiations is something Śrīla Prabhupāda never discussed since he clearly said initiation “on his behalf” was a formality because in the presence of the spiritual master one shouldn’t initiate. Śāstra always talks of disciplic succession which means after one spiritual master leaves this world he is succeeded by his disciples who connect new devo tees to the paramparā by initiating and guiding disciples. To change this concept is a very major deviation from the standard understanding of disciplic succession. If Śrīla Prabhupāda was going to establish something so different from the standard or regular system, he had already given in his books, then he would have discussed it at length and explained why it was according to śāstra and guru. Everything Śrīla Prabhupāda instructed he backed up with śāstra if it was an important issue.

Now the pro-ṛtvik’s latest plea due to lack of any addition al positive evidence or statement from Śrīla Prabhupāda is to claim that there are missing tapes. In this way the discussion goes into a total anarchy of thought since if we claim the lack of evidence signifies evidence then anyone can speculate anything. In ISKCON the GBC and devotees must depend on what instructions we have. We cannot depend on evidence we don’t have.

Actually, Śrīla Prabhupāda always followed the śāstra and didn’t change any principle of sādhu, śāstra and guru. In the details of how to apply the sādhu, śāstra and guru injunctions Śrīla Prabhupāda may have set precedences, but that is not creating something new which wasn’t in śāstra. In order to demonstrate that, kindly consider the points the ṛtvik proponents cite as examples of Śrīla Prabhupāda setting a new precedence not in śāstra.

Reducing the number of rounds from 64 to 16: This doesn’t change the principle of chanting and counting rounds every day. It merely changes the number of rounds. Actually, Śrīla Dāmodara Mahārāja, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Godbrother, informed us that 64 rounds was for those who didn’t go out and preach, but for those who were actively preaching in the Gauḍīya Maṭha 16 rounds was allowed by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. So actually, Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t change anything, but applied the preachers standard to ISKCON and engaged us in preaching

Performing marriages: This is also not against śāstra and Śrīla Prabhupāda explained this specific point in Bhagavad-gītā Ch. 18 on Vivāha-yajña.

The yogīs should perform acts for the advancement of human society. There are many purificatory processes for advancing a human being to spiritual life. The marriage ceremony, for example, is considered to be one of these sacrifices. It is called vivāha-yajña. Should a sannyāsī, who is in the renounced order of life and who has given up his family relations, encourage the marriage ceremony? The Lord says here that any sacrifice which is meant for human welfare should never be given up. Vivāha-yajña, the marriage ceremony, is meant to regulate the human mind so that it may become peaceful for spiritual advancement. For most men, this vivāha yajña should be encouraged even by persons in the renounced order of life. Sannyāsīs should never associate with women, but that does not mean that one who is in the lower stages of life, a young man, should not accept a wife in the marriage ceremony. All prescribed sacrifices are meant for achieving the Supreme Lord.” (Bhagavad-gītā 18.5p)

Allowing women to live in temples: Śrīla Prabhupāda explained that the word “Maṭha” in Gauḍīya Maṭha meant monastery and in a “Maṭha” only renounced āśramas and elderly widows lived. Śrīla Prabhupāda explained that he therefore didn’t create Gauḍīya Maṭhas and instead made temples. Śrīla Prabhupāda explained that there is no absolute restriction for women or householders living in a temple. Just as in the Śrīraṅgam Temple-complex families and women live. Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda preserved the śāstric principle.

Giving Gāyatrī by tape: This is simply “utility is the principle”! The śāstra states that the disciple should hear from the spiritual master. Śrīla Prabhupāda instructed that only those approved for receiving second initiation could listen to the tape. So Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t change a principle, but merely applied it using modern facilities. Nevertheless, this is a detail and doesn’t establish that Śrīla Prabhupāda did or would do something against sādhu, śāstra and guru.

Śrīla Prabhupāda giving initiation to women and foreigners: Ṛtvik Proponents sometimes also state that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s giving Vedic and pāñcarātrika initiation to women and foreigners is an example of making a śāstric changing precedent. Actually, Śrīla Prabhupāda simply followed Oṁ Viṣnupāda Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s pāñcarātrika initiation system. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura didn’t change principles but actually applied the principles after understanding their purpose. Śrīla Prabhupāda not only taught how we must preserve the pāñcarātrika initiation system given by his spiritual master, but that they didn’t break the principles of śāstra, but actually preserved them:

Regarding the validity of the brahminical status as we accept it, because in the present age there is no observance of the Garbhadhana ceremony, even a person born in brāhmaṇa family is not considered a brāhmaṇa, he is called dvija-bandhu or unqualified son of a brāhmaṇa. Under the circumstances, the conclusion is that the whole population is now śūdra, as it is stated kalau śūdra-sambhavaḥ. So for śūdras there is no initiation according to the Vedic system, but according to the Pañcarātrika system initiation is offered to a person who is inclined to take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

During my Guru Mahārāja’s time, even a person was coming from a brāhmaṇa family, he was initiated according to the Pañcarātrika system taking him to be a śūdra. So the birthright brahmanism is not applicable at the present moment. The sacred thread inaugurated by my Guru Mahārāja according to pañcarātrika system and Hari-bhakti-vilāsa by Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī must continue. It does not matter whether the priestly class accepts it or not. When my Guru Mahārāja Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Goswami Prabhupāda introduced this system, it was protested even by His inner circle of Godbrothers or friends. Of course, He had actually no Godbrothers, but there were many disciples of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura who were considered as Godbrothers who protested against this action of my Guru Mahārāja, but He didn’t care for it.

Actually one who takes to chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra offenselessly immediately becomes situated transcendentally and therefore he has no need of being initiated with sacred thread, but Guru Mahārāja introduced this sacred thread because a Vaiṣṇava was being mistaken as belonging to the material caste. To accept a Vaiṣṇava in material caste system is hellish consideration (nārakī-buddhi). Therefore, to save the general populace from being offender to a Vaiṣṇava, He persistently introduced this sacred thread ceremony and we must follow His footsteps...

It is our duty therefore to train all kinds of men up to the standard of qualified brāhmaṇas, initiating them as such by qualification in accordance with the above authorities, so that they may go on progressively unhindered in their march back to home, back to Godhead. This system introduced by my Guru Mahārāja is a chance for all the members of the society, scientifically based and applied, apart from the exploitative sentiment of birthright ‘caste’ system, to become actually situated on the transcendental platform...” (Śrīla Prabhupāda Letter to Acyutānanda Nov.14, 1970)

The principle is that a Vaiṣṇava is automatically a brāhmaṇa due to his devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa. Therefore the pañcarātrika system of initiation practiced by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was simply an application of the underlying principles which were already accepted by the previous ācāryas.

Actually, Śrīla Prabhupāda never mentioned anything about a system of ṛtvik proxy-initiations after his physical absence, nor is it mentioned in any śāstra. So it is not a mere tradition or application, but the fundamental principle of guru-paramparā, that after the spiritual master departs from this mortal world, the next generation of disciples should take up the responsibility of continuing the guru-paramparā. There are countless quotations on this topic which I am sure you are all aware of.

The ṛtvik proponents should understand that establishing a post-samādhi initiation system is a drastic change to the guru-paramparā system. Trying to minimize the importance, or trying to minimize the impact of this almost complete change in the parampara system, by using clever words is simply misleading innocent people. By avoiding the obvious requirements of some direct instructions from Śrīla Prabhupāda it appears as if they are trying to get their system established “through the back door” without any actual sādhu, śāstra and guru evidence at all that this is a valid system.

I was asked, “What is wrong with ṛtvik post-samādhi proxy initiations?” What is obviously wrong is that it contradicts the system elucidated by Śrīla Prabhupāda known as guru-paramparā. Although this system should be well known to all, since I was asked I am providing some śāstric references from Śrīla Prabhupāda books and lectures below.

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. Brahmājī, as a disciple of the Supreme Lord, received the real knowledge and imparted it to his dear disciple Nārada, and similarly Nārada, as spiritual master, handed over this knowledge to Vyāsa and so on.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.43)

The perfection of the paramparā system, or the path of disciplic succession, is further confirmed. In the previous chapter it has been established that Brahmājī, the firstborn living entity, received knowledge directly from the Supreme Lord, and the same knowledge was imparted to Nārada, the next disciple. Nārada asked to receive the knowledge, and Brahmājī imparted it upon being asked. Therefore, asking for transcendental knowledge from the right person and receiving it properly is the regulation of the disciplic succession. This process is recommended in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.2). The inquisitive student must approach a qualified spiritual master to receive transcendental knowledge by surrender, submissive inquiries and service.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.5.1)

Śrīla Prabhupāda describes lucidly the principle of guru-paramparā or disciplic succession. It is clear that one spiritual master passes the knowledge to his disciple through direct communication. That disciple becomes guru and in turn passes it onto the next generation.

The transcendental knowledge of the Vedas was first uttered by God to Brahmā, the creator of this particular universe. From Brahmā the knowledge descended to Nārada, from Nārada to Vyāsadeva, from Vyāsadeva to Madhva, and in this process of disciplic succession the transcendental knowledge was transmitted by one disciple to another until it reached Lord Gaurāṅga, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, who posed as the disciple and successor of Śrī īśvara Purī. The present Ācāryadeva is the tenth disciplic representative from Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī, the original representative of Lord Caitanya who preached this transcendental tradition in its fullness. The knowledge that we receive from our Gurudeva is not different from that imparted by God Himself and the succession of the ācāryas in the preceptorial line of Brahmā. We adore this auspicious day as Śrī Vyāsa-pūjā-tithi, because the Acārya is the living representative of Vyāsadeva, the divine compiler of the Vedas, the Purāṇas, the Bhagavad-gītā, the Mahābhārata, and the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.” (Science of Self-Realization, Ch. 2: Choosing a Spiritual Master)

Śrīla Prabhupāda has expressed his personal desire on many occasions to see his disciples become spiritual masters and initiate new generations of disciples. I am not mentioning all those well-known quotations here, but mainly the principle of disciplic succession. Still the following verse highlights His Divine Grace’s consistent mood.

Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession.” (Los Angeles, 25 January, 1969)

Every one of you should be spiritual master next.” (Ham burg, September 5, 1969)

Everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette, they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can make disciples and spread they are competent to make disciples.” (Detroit, July 18, 1971)

Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājaṛṣayo viduḥ. So we have to follow the ācārya. Then, when we are completely, cent per cent follower of ācārya, then you can also act as ācārya. This is the process.” (Māyāpur, April 6, 1975)

The following verse not only illustrates the system of disciple succession, but also the qualification for being a spiritual master. One must learn properly from one’s own spiritual master and then transmit that knowledge intact to the next generation.

The spiritual master is the representative of the Supreme Lord. How does he become the representative? If one says that such and such an object is a pair of spectacles, and if he teaches his disciple in that way, there is no mistake as to the identity of the object. The spiritual master is he who has captured the words of a particular disciplic succession. In the case given, the key word is “spectacles”-that’s all. The spiritual master does not have to say anything beyond that. This is the qualification. Kṛṣṇa says, “I am the Supreme,” and the spiritual master says, “Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme.” It is not that to be a representative of Kṛṣṇa or to be a spiritual master one has to have any extraordinary qualification. He simply has to carry the message from the authority as it is without any personal interpretation. As soon as there is some personal interpretation, the message is lost and the instructions become offensive. A person who interprets the scriptures according to his own whims should be immediately rejected.” (Elevation to Kṛṣṇa Consciouness, Ch. 6: Taking to Kṛṣṇa Consciousness)

Śrīla Prabhupāda gives an emphatic instruction in the above quotation to reject immediately any person who interprets the scriptures according to his own whims. This demonstrates how motivated whimsical interpretations of scripture is possible, but that it is a serious offense and the person doing it should be rejected immediately. Throughout Śrīla Prabhupāda books and in all the Vedic literatures the principle of disciplic succession is repeated again and again. It isn’t a new or unknown topic. This principle is well known to everyone in Vedic culture. Why the ṛtvik proponents still ask, “Why not ṛtvik?” is amazing to anyone with even basic Vedic knowledge.

The principle of Vedic knowledge is that there must be some śāstra to back it. The onus is upon the proponents of the ṛtvik-initiation theory to support their doctrine with direct śāstric evidence. Indirect interpretations would be like Saṅkarācārya’s indirect method of establishing his Māyāvāda philosophy and can’t be accepted by any true follower of the Vedas. Since no such system exists in Vedic references it is a still-born concept. It won’t serve any useful purpose to stubbornly insist on a theory that isn’t supported by the Vedas. It is a whimsical interpretation and according to Śrīla Prabhupāda such a person should be immediately rejected.

Sometimes a small point is made into a major issue in the ṛtvik discussions. The fact that ISKCON gurus are under the supervision of the GBC body is considered a limiting factor, However it simply enshrines the principle of guru-paramparā: “Every guru is first a disciple.”

A disciple must carry out the order of his spiritual master. Since it was the instruction of Oṁ Viṣnupāda Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura to establish a GBC (Governing Body Commission), Śrīla Prabhupāda said the failure to do so was an offense against guru, and it was that offense which was the cause of the disintegration of the original Gauḍīya Maṭha. Similarly today for spiritual masters in ISKCON to follow Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions and cooperate under the supervision and coordination of a GBC (Governing Body Commission) certainly doesn’t reduce their stature since it is merely carrying out the orders of their spiritual master and ISKCON’S Founder-Acārya Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Śrīla Prabhupāda meticulously followed his spiritual master and the predecessor ācāryas. Since they have never advocated, nor does śāstra advocate, a ṛtvik-system of initiation beyond the presence of the spiritual master, there is no way that Śrīla Prabhupāda would have wanted it to happen. With no disrespect meant for the sincere devotees who are trying to please Śrīla Prabhupāda through studying his final orders, but in all honesty, it is really an ākāśa-kusuma to base a whole lifetime of devotional service on the idea that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted ṛtviks to give initiation on his behalf after his departure, when he never specifically said that and rather said the opposite time and time again.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Godbrothers informed that after the departure of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura they considered having a ṛtvik-system for about five minutes. Then it was brought up that it isn’t approved anywhere in śāstra and that was it. The whole idea was dropped. That was responsible on their part.

Since it is a totally new concept, something Śrīla Prabhupāda never discussed—rather something totally against his consistent instructions—had he wanted to institute this system, he would have obviously discussed a lot about it. We find absolutely no mention of any such concept. It exists only in the imagination of the post-samādhi ṛtvik proponents, possibly out of some desperation for some change from the present system. However, unless a specific order is found, how can they expect any loyal follower of Śrīla Prabhupāda to accept this proposal? How apparently intelligent devotees are maintaining their attachment to this idea is something amazing to all of us. We can only pray that since they all appear to be sincere souls, they will soon have a change of heart and realize that the post-samādhi ṛtvik initiation system really isn’t pleasing to Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Śrīla Prabhupāda as ISKCON’s Founder-Ācārya is considered the Ādi-guru of our branch of the sampradāya. As such he is the Foundational śikṣā-guru for all ISKCON devotees. In ISKCON reevaluation of the guru-tattva, which is scheduled for this years GBC meeting, establishing that every devotee in ISKCON has a unique and personal direct relationship with Śrīla Prabhupāda, is certainly on the agenda. Whether as disciple, grand-disciple, and śikṣā-disciple everyone has a direct access to Śrīla Prabhupāda and His Divine Grace’s full mercy. There is no need of inventing some new scheme in order to be connected with Śrīla Prabhupāda. The existing methods are adequate and rather to do something not authorized by Śrīla Prabhupāda and śāstra will simply create more distance between Śrīla Prabhupāda and the devotee.

In the refined concept of our guru-disciple relationships in Kṛṣṇa consciousness it is understood that śikṣā will play the prominent role and will get the strongest acknowledgement. Every devotee should work toward this end. Trying to create Śrīla Prabhupāda as the only dīkṣā-guru for the next ten thou sand years is simply a deviation, which is creating an obstacle in establishing what Śrīla Prabhupāda actually wanted in the Guru-Disciple system and relationships in ISKCON. If some one is not satisfied with their relationship with their dīkṣā-guru there are options authorized in the śāstra for resolving that through acceptance of a śikṣā-guru. It would be interesting to discuss to what extent that relationship can be simply with Śrīla Prabhupāda. That is a more viable discussion to hold as many previous ācāryas have had direct śikṣā relationships with one of their previous ācāryas and that was recognized. Since śikṣā and dīkṣā are not to be considered different establishing that connection is reasonable. Trying to establish multi-generational dīkṣā relationships is nowhere to be found as a Vedic authorized system and valuable time and energy is simply being wasted by attempting to do so.

Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t want to create an ācārya nor many ācāryas if the institution in the sense the Gauḍīya Maṭha considers an ācārya as the institutional head. Śrīla Prabhupāda had already established the GBC as the Ultimate Managing Authority for ISKCON. Śrīla Prabhupāda did express on April 22nd, 1977 that he was going to make “gurus”. On May 28th, 1977 Śrīla Prabhupāda stated he would recommend some devotees to act as Officiating Acāryas who would be a guru, a regular guru by his order, etc. Being made a regular guru by the order of one’s spiritual master is different than being a fully liberated Acārya. The role is similar in terms of caring for disciples and representing the previous ācārya, but the scope would be different. A regular guru would be an ācārya only for his disciples, initiated or aspiring. A guru made “on the order” of his spiritual master should always follow the spiritual master’s order and never consider himself independent or above such orders.

In this way, if some clear discussion and study of the topic is held it would be possible to establish exactly what perimeters an “officiating ācārya” or regular guru in ISKCON should have. It lies beyond the scope of this paper to go into details of that topic. I presume that will be the main task the GBC is intending to deal with during the coming meetings. However, it would be beneficial if devotees concentrated on defining this role. We should avoid concocting something not authorized in śāstra and make the correct adjustments wherever we are not applying the principles properly.

Often many lacuna in the applications of guru-tattva in ISKCON’s history, after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, are brought up to create an impassioned appeal for why the ṛtvik theory is the only viable solution. Again that is producing a whimsical solution to a real problem. It is not acceptable. What is acceptable is discussing how to make the real guru-paramparā, that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted, work in an effective manner.

If all devotees would assist in this effort it would be very positive. Creating a total picture of guru-paramparā and every devotee’s relationships with Lord Kṛṣṇa, Lord Caitanya, the previous ācāryas, Śrīla Prabhupāda and śikṣā and dīkṣā-gurus is the most important thing that can be done at present. I hope to be able to write a separate paper on that topic. I bring up the topic here simply to invite the proponents of the ṛtvik theory to be very introspective and hopefully they will understand that it is more pleasing to Śrīla Prabhupāda to consider how to apply what he directly said he wanted in the form of regular gurus. It is certainly counter-productive to try to create a new paradigm which doesn’t exist anywhere in sādhu, śāstra and guru references.

ISKCON and Kṛṣṇa consciousness are claiming to be bona fide Vedic sampradāyas. Everything we do must be backed up by Vedic literature in order to maintain that respect with the other religious groups and sampradāyas. It is one thing that ṛtvik proponents can sentimentally convince Śrīla Prabhupāda’s followers about accepting their speculations, but how do the ṛtvik proponents intend to convince other sampradāyas who only want to see Vedic evidence for anything we do? In this way the ṛtvik proponents, if they have their way, will turn ISKCON into an apa-sampradāya or an unauthorized disciplic succession. The only reasonable way of proceeding is according to sādhu, śāstra and guru and not according to the speculations of uninitiated and untrained persons.

Consider how our previous ācāryas have worked so hard to establish the Brahma-Madhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya as a unique and bona fide Vedic sampradāya no less valid than the existing four Vaiṣṇava-sampradāyas, and rather the best of all! Consider how Sanātana Gosvāmī compiled Hari-bhakti-vilāsa to establish that we have a bona fide system of worship. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has given the Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra to establish our philosophy. Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī established a bona fide system of saṁskāras and reformatory ceremonies and sacrifices. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura established that our sampradāya is not simply some degraded sahajiyās, bābājīs or caste gosvāmīs, but actually based on solid sādhu, śāstra and guru evidence. Oṁ Viṣnupāda Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura established our paramparā and system of applying the Vedic, pāñcarātrika and Bhāgavata principles. Śrīla Prabhupāda worked so hard to have the Gauḍīya Maṭha, academic institutions, Indian and worldwide public recognize ISKCON, its philosophy and its international devotees as bona fide members of the disciplic succession. Everything was carefully done. If the unauthorized non-Vedic Ṛtvik post-samādhi proxy initiation system were to be established in ISKCON then all the efforts of these ācāryas would be dis carded and ISKCON would be considered an apa-sampradāya or deviant succession. Certainly, the GBC and devotees in general won’t allow that to happen. Hopefully those who currently advocate ṛtvik ideas will reconsider their stand and remain sol idly with Śrīla Prabhupāda and the previous ācāryas.

The July 9th, 1977 letter does not constitute a direct order for continuing the process of initiation after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. Actually, Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly stated, in the following excerpt from Folio on October 18th, 1977, that if his health improved he might start initiating again:

Prabhupāda: Hare Kṛṣṇa. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes. Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.

Prabhupāda: So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes. Actually... Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: So I think Jayapatākā can do that if he likes. I have already deputed. Tell him.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes. Prabhupāda: So, deputies, Jayapatākā’s name was there?

Bhagavān: It is already on there, Śrīla Prabhupāda. His name was on that list. Prabhupāda: So I depute him to do this at Māyāpura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Stopped doing what, Śrīla Prabhupāda?

Prabhupāda: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?

Girirāja: It’s clear.

Prabhupāda: You have got the list of the names?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: And if by Kṛṣṇa’s grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.

In October, 1977, months after the July 9th letter, which according to ṛtvik supporters permanently established the Ṛtvik-system, Śrīla Prabhupāda stated he may begin initiating again which would have stopped the ṛtvik-system. It is clear that the July 9th letter was not considered by Śrīla Prabhupāda as a sacrosanct Final Order on initiations. It is not reasonable to consider ṛtvik as a system that would continue when he wasn’t present based on this letter alone.

I am writing this paper in the mood of searching for some common ground and understanding. Since I feel the devotees I talked to sincerely want to please Śrīla Prabhupāda I have taken the time and energy to write this paper. My hope is that it will make it more clear what is required to please Śrīla Prabhupāda. Also this is a humble appeal to all sincere devotees, who want to please Śrīla Prabhupāda and the previous ācāryas, that the only way to do so is within the clear framework of sādhu, śāstra and guru references. The ṛtvik theory isn’t an acceptable alternative since it isn’t found anywhere in sādhu, śāstra and guru references.

Your servant,

Jayapatākā Swami

That is a chance given, that you can become a brāhmaṇa, you can become a great devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa, and you can become the spiritual master of the world... If you, some of you at least understand this science and take up this science, you become future hope of the, this country or the world. That is my request to you, that you should take this chance and become a spiritual master for all the people.” (New York, July 29, 1966)

So there is no bar for anyone, that one cannot become the spiritual master. Everyone can become spiritual master, provided he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa. That is the only qualification.” (New York, August 17, 1966)

You have to find out that whether this man is coming from disciplic succession, śrotriyam... Just like in the Bhagavad gītā it is said, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam: ‘By this disciplic succession, this science of Bhagavad-gītā was learned.’ So you have to approach the spiritual master who is coming down from that disciplic succession. Then he is bona fide.” (San Francisco, March 3, 1967)

Because in Indian society it is simply taken that the brāhmaṇas and the sannyāsī can be spiritual master. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “No. Anyone can become spiritual master provided he’s conversant with the science.” (April 5-6, 1967, San Francisco)

This is ācārya. You behave yourself exactly as it is stated in the śāstra, as it is ordered by Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as it is ordered by Kṛṣṇa... Āpani ācari jīvere sikhāya. And you teach all your disciples, who comes to you as your disciples, teach them. This is ācārya.

So ācārya, guru, representative, it is not difficult. Simply one has to become very, very sincere.” (Vṛndāvana, August 15, 1974)

So try to follow the path of ācārya process. Then life will be successful. And to become ācārya is not very difficult. First of all, to become very faithful servant of your ācārya, follow strictly what he says. Try to please him and spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That’s all. It is not at all difficult.” (Māyāpura, April 6, 1975)

You each be guru,” he said. “As I have five thousand disciples or ten thousand, so you have ten thousand each. In this way, create branches and branches of the Caitanya tree.” (Māyāpura GBC meetings 1976)

Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branch es of disciplic succession.” (Los Angeles, 25 January, 1969)

Prabhupāda: Every one of us messiah. Anyone Kṛṣṇa conscious, he’s the messiah. Everyone. Why one? All of us. Gaurāṅgera bhakta-gaṇe, jane jane śakti dhari, brahmāṇḍa tari saksi(?): “The devotee of Lord Caitanya, everyone has so immense power that everyone, they can deliver the whole universe.” Gaurāṅgera bhakta-jane, jane jane śakti..., brahmāṇḍa tari... That is Gaurāṅga’s men.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Only you are that powerful, Śrīla Prabhupāda. We’re like...

Prabhupāda: Why you are not? You are my disciples.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: We’re like the bugs.

Prabhupāda: “Like father, like son.” You should be. Gaurāṅgera bhakta..., jane. Everyone. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa. He asked everyone, “Just become guru.” Follow His instruction. You become guru. Āmāra ājñāya. Don’t manufacture ideas. Āmāra ājñaya. “What I say, you do. You become a guru.” Where is the difficulty? “And what is Your ājñā?” Yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Bas. Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. You simply repeat. That’s all. You become guru. To become a guru is not difficult job. Follow Caitanya Mahāprabhu and speak what Kṛṣṇa has said. Bas. You become guru.” (Bombay, April 15, 1977)

Note:

1. In the above quote, Śrīla Prabhupāda renders the term āmāra ājñāya (“on my order”) as “What I say, you do.” This is significant considering the misinterpretation of the ṛtvik-vādīs that “on my order” means “only when I or der.” Śrīla Prabhupāda interprets otherwise. He even says what the order is: “And what is Your ājñā? Yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Bas. Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. You simply repeat. That’s all.”

2. Someone might imagine that the guru, who is being referred to in the above quote, is a śikṣā-guru and not a dīkṣā-guru. However, Śrīla Prabhupāda has clarified the topic by using the expressions: “Why you are not? You are. my disciples... Like father, like son.” Śrīla Prabhupāda, quoting the latter English proverb, refers to himself as the father and his (dīkṣā-) disciples as his sons. Śrīla Prabhupāda, being the dīkṣā-guru for his disciples, says “like father, like son” which shows that he is referring to his disciples as future dīkṣā-gurus.

Lord Caitanya says: ‘Every one of you become the spiritual master, every one of you. Why one, two? Every one of you.’ ‘Oh, spiritual master is very difficult job.’ No. No difficult job. Caitanya Mahā... āmāra ājñāya: Just try to carry out My order. That’s all. Then you become spiritual master.” (Columbus, May 9, 1969)

A person who is liberated ācārya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as guru and ācārya by strictly following the disciplic succession.” (New York, 26 April, 1968)

There are so many qualification. But one may not have all these qualifications. He may be rascal number one, but still, he can become spiritual master. How? Āmāra ājñāya. As Kṛṣṇa says, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, if you follow, then you become spiritual master. One may be rascal number one from material estimation, but if he simply strictly follows whatever is said by Caitanya Mahāprabhu or His representative spiritual master, then he becomes a guru. So it is not very difficult. One may not think that ‘I am not qualified to become guru.’ No, you are qualified if you follow strictly the paramparā system. Then you are qualified. That’s all.” (London, August 22, 1973)

In the following quotes, Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the imperative “should” twice.

I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next.” (Hamburg, September 5, 1969)

From a bona fide spiritual master you receive knowledge, because he will present as he has received from his spiritual master. He’ll not adulterate or manufacture something. That is the bona fide spiritual master. And that is very easy. To become spiritual master is not very difficult thing. You’ll have to become spiritual master. You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master. It is not difficult. It is difficult when you manufacture something. But if you simply present whatever you have heard from your spiritual master, it is very easy.” (London, August 22, 1973)

...guru means faithful servant of God, simple. You don’t re quire large definition, what is guru. So Vedic knowledge gives you indication that tad-vijñānārtham. If you want to know the science of spiritual life, tad-vijñānārtham sa gurum eva abhigacchet, you must approach guru. And who is guru. Guru means who is the faithful servant of God. Very simple. (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture 12 July, 1975)

Very simple.

So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire. Just like father wants every son to be as qualified or more qualified than the father. But it is up to the student or to the son to raise himself to that standard.” (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

Everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise they are competent. They can make disciples and spread... they are competent to make disciples.” (Detroit, July 18, 1971)“

Every student is expected to become Ācārya. Ācārya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples...

Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide 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.” (New Delhi, 2 December, 1975)

So Rūpa Gosvāmī says who can be a spiritual master. So he has given specifically this definition, that one who has got controls over the tongue, over the speech, over the mind, over the belly, and over the genitals, and over the anger. If anyone has control over these six things, then he can become spiritual master. Pṛthivīm sa śiṣyāt: ‘He is allowed to make disciples all over the world.’ Otherwise not.” (Montreal, July 9, 1968)

...it is said, tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye, hrdā: “through the heart.” Because Kṛṣṇa 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.

And therefore, sākṣād dharitvena sama... Spiritual master is representative of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa sends some sincere devotee to act on His behalf, and therefore he is spiritual master. So this is the paramparā system.” (Rome, May 28, 1974)

...God is called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God’s mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart.” (Rome, May 23, 1974)

Kṛṣṇa is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master. That is enjoined in the next verse.

tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānam
jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

Now, Kṛṣṇa advises that ‘If you want to know that transcendental science, then you just try to approach somebody.’ Praṇipātena. Praṇipātena, paripraśnena and sevayā. What is praṇipāta? Praṇipāta means surrender. Surrender. You must select a person where you can surrender yourself because nobody likes to surrender to anyone. We have got...

...There is regular propaganda that ‘For spiritual realization there is no need of spiritual master. But so far Vedic literature is concerned, so far Bhagavad-gītā is concerned, so far Bhāgavata is concerned, so far the Upaniṣads and Vedic literatures are concerned, they do not say. They say that there is need of a spiritual master. Take for example the Upaniṣads, the Vedic Upaniṣads. In the Vedic Upaniṣads it is said, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet, śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham, this mantra, that ‘If you want to learn that transcendental subject, then...’ First word is that if you are eager to learn that subject. In the material world also, suppose if I want to learn the art of music. Then I have to find out somebody who is a musician. Without having the association of a musician, nobody can learn the art of music.

Or any art. Suppose if you want to become an engineer. So you have to enter yourself in an engineering college or technical college and learn there. Nobody can become a medical practitioner simply by purchasing book from the market and reading at home. That is not possible. You have to admit yourself in a medical college and undergo training and practical examination, so many things. Simply by purchasing book, it is not possible. Similarly, if you want to learn Bhagavad-gītā or any transcendental subject matter, here is the instruction by Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself. Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself, because He is the speaker of this Bhagavad-gītā, He says that tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā. You must go to a person where you can surrender yourself. That means you have to check, “Who is the real person who can give me instruction on Bhagavad-gītā or any Vedic literature, or any scripture, right?’ And not that, to search out a person as a, whimsically.

...Not only surrender, not blindly surrender. You must be able to inquire. Paripraśna. The next qualification is paripraśna. Paripraśna means inquiry. Without inquiry, you cannot make advance. Just like a student in the school who inquires from the teacher, he’s very intelligent. Even a boy, a child, if he inquires from the father, ‘Oh, father, what is this? What is this?’ that child is very intelligent. Very intelligent. So inquiry is required, not only praṇipāta... ‘Oh, I have found out a very good spiritual master, very learned and very good, saw. All right. I have surrendered. Then all my business finished.’ No. That is not... You may have a very good spiritual master, but if you have no power to inquire, then you cannot make progress.

Inquiries must be there. But inquiry, how inquiry? Not to challenge. Inquiry, not that ‘Oh, I shall see what kind of spiritual master he is. Let me challenge him and put some irrelevant questions and talk nonsensically, this way and that way.’ Oh, that will not make... Inquiry on the point. Paripraśna means inquiry on the point, and that inquiry should be sevā. Sevā means service. Not that ‘Oh, I have inquired so many things from such and such person. Oh, I have not rendered any payment or any service, so I have gained.’ No. Without service, your inquiry will be futile. So three things here.” (New York, August 14, 1966)

The guru must come through the paramparā system. Then he is bona fide. Otherwise he is a rascal. Must come through the paramparā system, and in order to understand tad-vijñānam, transcendental science, you have to approach guru. You cannot say that I can understand at home.’ No. That is not possible. That is the injunction of the all śāstra.” (Hyderabad, August 19, 1976)

By reading, you cannot understand. Tad-vijāñārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet. That is also vidhilīn: In order to understand that science, he must go to guru.” (January 8, 1977, Bombay)

So how everyone can become a spiritual master? A spiritual master must have sufficient knowledge, so many other qualifications. No. Even without any qualifications, one can become a spiritual master. How? Now the process is, Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, āmāra ājñāya: ‘On My order.’ That is the crucial point. One does not become spiritual master by his own whims. That is not spiritual master. He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he’s spiritual master. Amāra ājñāya. Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that ‘You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English.’ So we have tried it. That’s all. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior authority. That’s all. This is the secret of success.” (London, August 3, 1973)

Our process is evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājaṛṣayo viduḥ. Paramparā. What Kṛṣṇa said, the disciplic succession will say the same thing. But they are speaking differently. So therefore, we don’t take them as bona fide. They are not bona fide.” (Paris, August 13, 1973)

In trying to disregard the repeated instructions of Śrīla Prabhupāda and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu to become a guru, ṛtvik proponents present a blanket interpretation that whenever this instruction is given it cannot refer to dīkṣā-guru but only to śikṣā-guru. In the following purport, Śrīla Prabhupāda quotes his own spiritual master, who directly refutes the claim that the order to become guru cannot refer to dīkṣā-guru:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura also states that although one is situated as a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, brahmacārī, vānaprastha, gṛhastha or sannyāsī, if he is conversant in the science of Kṛṣṇa he can become a spiritual master as vartma-pradarśaka-guru, dīkṣā-guru or śikṣā-guru. The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life is called the vartma-pradarśaka-guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the śāstras is called the dīkṣā-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the śikṣā-guru...

kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, sūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei ‘guru’ haya

The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarśaka-guru, śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. According to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s intentions, pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi-grāma sarvatra pracāra haibe mora nāma. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s cult must be preached all over the world.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 8.128p)

Every student is expected to become Ācārya. Ācārya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples...

Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide 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.” (New Delhi, 2 December, 1975)

Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ. So we have to follow the ācārya. Then, when we are completely, cent per cent follower of ācārya, then you can also act as ācārya. This is the process. Don’t become premature ācārya. First of all follow the orders of ācārya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become ācārya. Because we are interested in preparing ācārya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become ācārya.” (Māyāpura, April 6, 1975)

By My command you become a guru and save this land. This was also the mission of my Guru Mahārāja and it is my mission. You will perfect your life if you make it also your mission.” (New Delhi, 1 September, 1976)

Sometimes it is falsely claimed by some Ṛtvik-vādīs that Śrīla Prabhupāda did not “order” that his disciples should initiate after his departure.

Actually, Śrīla Prabhupāda did request his disciples to be gurus.

That is my request to you, that you should take this chance and become a spiritual master for all the people.” (New York, July 29, 1966)

I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next.” (Hamburg, September 5, 1969)

You’ll have to become spiritual master. You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master.” (London, August 22, 1973)

Śrīla Prabhupāda used the terms request and order (also ask, plead) synonymously in the context of a guru requesting his disciple(s). Here are some quotations:

• Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the guru, requesting/ordering his disciples to form a GBC:

My Guru Mahārāja used to lament many times for this reason and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of preaching then his mission would achieve success... Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be ācārya of the Gauḍīya Maṭha. But Śrīdhara Mahārāja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Mahārāja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one ācārya.” (Letter to Rūpānuga: 74-04-28)

• Paraśurāma, the guru, asking ordering Bhiṣmadeva to marry Ambā:

When Bhīṣma refused to marry Ambā, who wanted him to become her husband, Ambā met Paraśurāma, and by her request only, he asked Bhiṣmadeva to accept her as his wife. Bhīṣma refused to obey his order, although he was one of the spiritual masters of Bhīṣmadeva.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.9.6-7p)

• Brahmā, father and guru, requesting/ordering Nārada Muni to preach:

Nārada is therefore requested or ordered by his spiritual master to present this science with determination and in good plan. Nārada was never advised to preach the principles of Bhāgavatam to earn a livelihood; he was ordered by his spiritual master to take the matter very seriously in a missionary spirit.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.7.53p)

• Brahmā, requesting/ordering the Kumāras to become gṛhasthas:

The four sons of Brahmā, the Kumāras, declined to become family men even on the request of their great father, Brahmā. Those who are serious about gaining release from material bondage should not be entangled in the false relationship of family bondage. People may ask how the Kumāras could refuse the orders of Brahmā, who was their father and above all the creator of the universe.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.12.5p)

• Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the guru, request-ing/ordering Śrīla Prabhupāda to preach:

Once we had the opportunity to meet Viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja, and on first sight he requested this humble self to preach his message in the Western countries. There was no preparation for this, but somehow or other he desired it, and by his grace we are now engaged in executing his order, which has given us a transcendental occupation and has saved and liberated us from the occupation of material activities.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.22.5p)

• Brahmā, requesting/ordering the Kumāras to become gṛhasthas:

When the Kumāras were born out of the body of Lord Brahmā, they were requesting to get married and increase the population. In the beginning of the creation there was a great need of population; therefore Lord Brahmā was creating one son after another and ordering them to increase.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.22.6, purport)

• Lord Kṛṣṇa requesting/ordering/pleading to Satrājit to give his jewel to King Ugrasena:

Kṛṣṇa pleaded that the best should be offered to the king. But Satrājit, being a worshiper of the demigods, had become too materialistic and, instead of accepting the request of Kṛṣṇa, thought it wiser to worship the jewel to get the 170 pounds of gold every day... But Satrājit refused to abide by the order of Kṛṣṇa and did not deliver the jewel.” (Kṛṣṇa Book, Ch. 55)

• Lord Kṛṣṇa requesting/ordering Sahadeva (the son of Jarāsandha) to honor the kings:

Lord Kṛṣṇa requested Sahadeva, the son of King Jarāsandha, to supply all necessities to the kings and show them all respect and honor. In pursuance of the order of Lord Kṛṣṇa, Sahadeva offered them all honor and presented them with ornaments, garments, garlands and other paraphernalia.” (Kṛṣṇa Book, Ch. 72)

• Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the guru, requesting/ordering/ instructing his disciples to form a GBC:

One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, at the time of his departure, requesting all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next ācārya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of ācārya, and they split in two factions over who the next ācārya would be. Consequently, both factions were asāra, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master. Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities of the Gauḍīya Maṭha, the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years with no decision.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 12.8, purport)

• Lord Caitanya requesting/ordering Gadādhara Paṇḍita to go to Puri:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu requested Gadādhara Paṇḍita to go to Nīlācala, Jagannātha Purī, but he did not abide by this order.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 16, chapter summary)

The first-class disciple fulfills the desire of his guru even with out being ordered; the second-class disciple fulfills only the order of the guru but he is not able to understand the desire of the guru; the third-class disciple does not fulfill the order of the guru, even after being instructed. Śrīla Prabhupāda him self did not stress the difference between fulfilling the order and fulfilling the desires of the guru or the Lord. It is simply not a part of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s usage of the language.

This is perfect conclusion, that ‘I shall execute the desire of Kṛṣṇa. ‘But Kṛṣṇa is not physically present before me. Then how I shall know what Kṛṣṇa desires?’ That is not very difficult. Kṛṣṇa’s representative is there, the spiritual master. If you fulfill the desire of the spiritual master, then you fulfill the desire of Kṛṣṇa. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ. That is stated by Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. If you please your spiritual master, then you know that ‘I have pleased Kṛṣṇa.’ Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto ‘pi: “If you displease your spiritual master, then you are nowhere. Your position is lost.’ Therefore, yesterday we were explaining the ten kinds of offenses. Out of ten kinds of offenses, the serious offence is guror avajñā, disobedience of the order of guru. This is the verdict of the śāstra.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, Māyāpura, 28 October 1974)

Śrīla Prabhupāda first instructs us that by fulfilling the desire of the spiritual master, we please Kṛṣṇa. Then he mentions the converse of that. Next he says “therefore” and then talks about disobedience of the “order of the guru”. He says that by not fulfilling the desire of guru one cannot be pleasing the guru, which he further equates with the disobedience of the order of the guru.

Here is another instance of a similar usage by Śrīla Prabhupāda:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to spread the bhakti cult all over the world (pṛthivite āche yata nagarādi grāma). There fore devotees in the line of Kṛṣṇa consciousness must go to different parts of the world and preach, as ordered by the spiritual master. That will satisfy Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā 4.144)

Here Śrīla Prabhupāda first says that Lord Caitanya “wanted” to spread the bhakti cult all over the world. This is a statement of the Lord’s desire. Then he says “therefore” that devotees “must” go and preach. This is a statement of order. The word “therefore” is significant because the order is consequential to the desire.

To settle the argument whether Śrīla Prabhupāda thought his disciples competent or not to initiate, here is some enlightenment from His Divine Grace:

Everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Other wise, they are competent. They can make disciples and spread they are competent to make disciples.” (Detroit, July 18, 1971)

Please note that Śrīla Prabhupāda stated this as early as 1971.

Some argue that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s śikṣā in the form of his teachings is available to anyone and that alone is sufficient. But Śrīla Prabhupāda teaches us that mere śikṣā from an ācārya (who is non-manifest to our physical sense perception), or even from the Supreme Personality of Godhead (whose direct sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha is also non-manifest to our physical sense perception) is not enough. You require to “approach” a personal spiritual master.

One must approach. Sanātana Gosvāmī’s teaching us the Vaiṣṇava principle that one should approach a proper spiritual master. So he’s approaching Caitanya Mahāprabhu. So one may argue that ‘Where is Caitanya Mahāprabhu now? Where is Kṛṣṇa now?’ It doesn’t matter. Kṛṣṇa’s words are there. Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s words are there. Instructions are there. So if we follow the direction and instruction of Caitanya Mahāprabhu or Kṛṣṇa under the guidance of a superior, bona fide spiritual master, then we associate with Kṛṣṇa or Caitanya Mahāprabhu without any deviation.” (Vrndāvana, October 19, 1972).

Even though you see that he is materially born, his behavior is like other men. But because he says the same truth as it is spoken in the Vedas or by the Personality of Godhead, there fore he is guru. Because he does not make any change whimsically, therefore he is guru. That is the definition. It is very simple.” (Hyderabad, August 19, 1976)

When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.” (Vrndāvana, May 28, 1977)

And Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā. One can understand the order of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he can become guru. Or one who understands his guru’s order, the same paramparā, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you.” (Vṛndāvana, May 28, 1977)

Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of His bona fide representative, can become a spiritual master and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letter to Madhusūdana, 2nd November, 1967)

Ṛtvik-vādīs try to discredit the above quote saying that Śrīla Prabhupāda meant śikṣā-guru, not dīkṣā-guru. This argument is proven wrong by the fact that Śrīla Prabhupāda says “in my absence”—that is after his physical disappearance. His disciples were already acting as śikṣā-gurus, as preachers.

I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual masters. Every one of you should be spiritual master next.” (Hamburg, Sept 5, 1969)

Note that Śrīla Prabhupāda says “next.” That means his disciples should succeed him as dīkṣā-gurus. If he were merely referring to his disciples becoming śikṣā-gurus, as the Ṛtvik-vādīs claim, the use of the term “next” becomes redundant, as they were already acting as śikṣā-gurus.

Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted many initiating gurus in ISKCON, after his departure. Ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs, in slight of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct orders, disparagingly and misleadingly refer to the system our Founder-Ācārya wanted as M.A.S.S. (Multiple Ācārya Successor System). But let Śrīla Prabhupāda speak for himself on what he wanted. The following excerpt is from the lecture Śrīla Prabhupāda gave in Māyāpura on 16 April 1975. Present were the GBC, many Temple Presidents and sannyāsīs, and a good percentage of ISKCON’s total membership.

Prabhupāda: So we have to follow the ācārya. Then, when we are completely, cent percent follower of ācārya, then you can also act as ācārya. This is the process. Don’t become premature ācārya. First of all follow the orders of ācārya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become ācārya. Because we are interested in preparing ācārya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become ācārya. 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 ācārya, not that “Now people are coming to me, so I can become ācārya.” That is avamanya. Nāvamanyeta karhicit. Don’t transgress this etiquette. Nāvamanyeta. That will be fall down. Just like during the lifetime of our Guru Mahārāja, all our godbrothers now who are acting as ācārya, they did not do so. That is not etiquette. Ācāryam māṁ vijānīyāt na avaman... That is insult. So if you insult your ācārya, then you are finished. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasya aprasādāt na gatiḥ kuto ‘pi—finished. If you displease your ācārya, then you are finished. Therefore it is said, Caitanya Mahāprabhu says to all the ācāryas... Nityānanda Prabhu, Advaita Prabhu and Śrīvāsādi gaura-bhakta-vṛnda, they are all carriers of orders of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. So try to follow the path of ācārya process.

Then life will be successful. And to become ācārya is not very difficult. First of all, try to become very faithful servant of your ācārya, follow strictly what he says, try to please him and spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That’s all. It is not at all difficult. Try to follow the instruction of your Guru Mahārāja and spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is the order of Lord Caitanya. Amāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra ei deśa, yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa: “By following My order, you be come guru.” And if we strictly follow the ācārya system and try our best to spread the instruction of Kṛṣṇa... Yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. There are two kinds of kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Upadeśa means instruction. Instruction given by Kṛṣṇa, that is also kṛṣṇa-upadeśa, and instruction received about Kṛṣṇa, that is also ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa. Kṛṣṇasya upadeśa iti kṛṣṇa upadeśa. Samāsa, śāsti-tat-puruṣa-samāsa. And Kṛṣṇa viṣayā upadeśa, that is also Kṛṣṇa upadeśa. Bāhu-vrīhi-samāsa. This is the way of analyzing Sanskrit grammar. So Kṛṣṇa’s upadeśa is Bhagavad-gītā. He’s directly giving instruction. So one who is spreading Kṛṣṇa-upadeśa, simply repeat what is said by Kṛṣṇa, then you become ācārya. Not difficult at all. Everything is stated there. We have to simply repeat like parrot. Not exactly parrot. Parrot does not understand the meaning; he simply vibrates. But you should understand the meaning also; otherwise how you can explain? So, so we want to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Simply prepare yourself how to repeat Kṛṣṇa’s instructions very nicely, without any malinterpretation. 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.

Devotees: Jaya!

Prabhupāda: So there will be no scarcity of ācārya, and people will understand Kṛṣṇa consciousness very easily. So make that organization.

So here is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct instruction: “make that organization”, an organization where “there will be no scarcity of ācārya”.

“Māyā” means that which is not. The post-samādhi ṛtvik concoction was not ordered by Śrīla Prabhupāda, was never discussed by Śrīla Prabhupāda, and was not desired by Śrīla Prabhupāda in any of his communications or writings to devotees. Therefore the ṛtvik doctrine is simply a māyā or vāda or theory, so it is quite befitting they be called ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs.

Explanation: Śrīla Prabhupāda regularly and consistently de scribed the guru-paramparā system whereby, after the physical departure of the spiritual master, disciples would continue the paramparā by also accepting disciples. Śrīla Prabhupāda never discussed any other system of paramparā. In his presence, due to logistical considerations, sometimes he would have devotees chant on beads or perform certain parts of the initiation process on his behalf. In 1977, when Śrīla Prabhupāda was extremely ill and preparing to leave the world, he also designat ed some devotees to choose the names and perform the initiation ceremony on his behalf. On May 28th, 1977, Śrīla Prabhupāda said that giving initiation on his behalf was merely a formality, because in the presence of the guru one should not initiate disciples. Nowhere did Śrīla Prabhupāda ever say that this system should continue after his physical departure.

Just as the impersonalist māyāvādīs criticize the Supreme Personality of Godhead as a routine affair in the propagation of their unbonafide doctrine, the ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs regularly criticize Vaiṣṇavas. Associating with ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs is dangerous as one will have the spiritual creeper destroyed by mad elephant vaiṣṇava-aparādhas. Therefore one should not listen to or associate with ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs.

Explanation: Due to a lack of any positive reference in sādhu, śāstra and guru for the system of post-samādhi ṛtvik initiations, the ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs try to demoralize followers of the Vedic paramparā-system by rejoicing in telling about any real or imagined defects in the Vaiṣṇavas. The more the current ISKCON Vaiṣṇavas or contemporary Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas can be criticized, and real or imagined defects broadcasted, they feel that somehow this will legitimize their concoction that Śrīla Prabhupāda should continue to be the initiating guru, although he never expressed such a desire. It seems that the ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs could use this ploy by default to discredit all other Vaiṣṇavas from acting as a spiritual master, so that the only one left to do so is Śrīla Prabhupāda. But this drives people out of ISKCON to other groups, that may appear to have a Vaiṣṇava with exalted qualities. The ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs ignore all the wonderful preaching achievements and the strict adherence to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions of the many ISKCON preachers. One of their main tactics is to destroy the faith of innocent devotees in the ISKCON guru-system, so that they can plant the seed of the ṛtvik poison.

(If you listen to the words of the ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs you will lose your guru-bhakti, your devotion to your spiritual master)

As Lord Caitanya cautioned His followers not to listen to the words of the impersonalist māyāvādīs because it would destroy their devotion to the Supreme Lord, similarly devotees are cautioned not to listen to the ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs as listening to them can destroy one’s faith and devotion to the spiritual master.

Explanation: Śrīla Prabhupāda has explained that even uttama-adhikārī devotees, if they hear the discourses of Saṅkarācārya or impersonalism, can become bewildered and fall down from the platform of devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Practically it is seen that even faithful devotees of Śrīla Prabhupāda can become bewildered when listening to the concoctions presented in the word jugglery of the ṛtvik proponents, which is very expertly presented in a systematic way, so that the devotion to the spiritual master and the instructions of Śrīla Prabhupāda become convoluted and con fused. In this way the ṛtvik-vādīs become offenders to Śrīla Prabhupāda and the guru-paramparā.

It is said that the grand-disciples, although they have a direct śikṣā relationship with Śrīla Prabhupāda as the Founder-Ācārya of ISKCON, also, according to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions, should serve under the direct guidance of the dīkṣā and śikṣā-gurus in ISKCON. However, exposed to the ṛtvik concocted māyā presentations, they think they are directly initiated disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Although Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted to have spiritual grandchildren who would be disciples of his disciples, they are disobeying Śrīla Prabhupāda’s order and thus offending Śrīla Prabhupāda by rejecting their bona fide spiritual master. They are also committing the offense of improper rejection of the spiritual master. There fore listening to or reading the ṛtvik concocted theories is very dangerous for those who want to maintain devotion to the spiritual master intact.

(or) Tarka rahu dur (The ṛtvik-māyā-vāda cannot,
through its complicated arguments and logic,
cover the correct teachings of sādhu, śāstra and guru)

Ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs cover the real truth with complicated and often misapplied logic and arguments ignoring direct scriptural references and orders of Śrīla Prabhupāda as well as examples of previous ācāryas.

Explanation: Vedic scriptures are the basis of everything. Śrīla Prabhupāda has repeatedly recited the verse, śruti-smṛti purāṇādi-pañcarātra-vidhim vinā aikāntiki harer bhaktir utpātāyaiva kalpate—“Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upaniṣads, Purāṇas and Nārada-pañcarātra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society.”

Everything in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement has to be according to śāstra. Although there is no direct reference to a posthumous initiation system anywhere in śāstra, ṛtviks mis use logic by asking such questions: “Where is it prohibited in śāstra to have such post-samādhi initiations?” This tricky kind of questioning misleads the innocent people. In this way one could ask so many questions like, where is it prohibited to offer Jhulan-yātrā on a bungee-cord? Nobody would think of throwing Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Deities off a bridge on a bungee-cord, even though it is not prohibited in śāstra. Since no one would ever conceive of doing such a crazy thing, the question of prohibiting it doesn’t even come up. There is an established system that śāstra prescribes on how to do Jhulan-yātrā, and therefore it is done in that way. Similarly in śāstra it is described how the guru-paramparā, generation after generation, goes on. The question of prohibiting various other types of concocted ways that one might conceive of or manufacture for continuing the disciplic succession doesn’t arise, since the Vedas rather present the positive way to do things. By default everything that is not authorized by the Vedas is not acceptable.

Similarly, Śrīla Prabhupāda never said he wanted to continue to initiate people after his physical departure. Rather he always said he wanted his disciples to do that. Yet ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs will create some illusion saying: “Where did Śrīla Prabhupāda say he didn’t want to initiate after his departure?” or any other combination of tricky word jugglery. Moreover, according to Śrīla Prabhupāda, what previous ācāryas have done is also important evidence for us. We have seen that since time immemorial when the spiritual master physically departs, then one or more of his disciples take up the responsibility of initiating and accepting disciples. Nowhere in any Vedic disciplic succession has a system of post-samādhi ṛtvik initiations ever been applied. However through the intricate use of tricky, concocted arguments, the ṛtviks are trying to disprove the Vedic system, which by its very definition, discredits the ṛtvik system.

“Even most people who claim to belong to the Vedic system of religion are actually opposed to the Vedic principles. Every day they manufacture a new type of dharma on the plea that whatever one manufactures is also a path of liberation. Atheistic men generally say, yata mata tata patha. According to this view, there are hundreds and thousands of different opinions in human society, and each opinion is a valid religious principle. This philosophy of rascals has killed the religious principles mentioned in the Vedas, and such philosophies will become increasingly influential as Kali-yuga progresses.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.8.19p)

Ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs state that all people should be initiated on behalf of Śrīla Prabhupāda and that he must accept every one’s sins for the next ten thousand years, or as long as ISKCON exists, although Śrīla Prabhupāda never said he would accept everyone’s sins in this way.

Explanation: It is well documented in the Vedas that the spiritual master accepts the reactions of his disciples’ karma. Therefore scripture cautions against accepting too many unqualified disciples. However, unless the ṛtvik initiators shall be responsible for any karma; all the karma will be accepted by Śrīla Prabhupāda, who for all time, as long as ISKCON exists, must accept all the karma of all the initiates. In effect they want to bring Śrīla Prabhupāda back down to take birth again and again in this material world until everyone is delivered. But Śrīla Prabhupāda never expressed the desire to take birth again and again, rather he expressed the opposite.

Śrīla Prabhupāda was the spiritual master who initiated and the disciples must serve and assist the spiritual master and the previous ācāryas. The ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs want to re place this system perpetually, giving all the burden to Śrīla Prabhupāda, who is no longer here to say yes or no whether he wants to accept. Therefore the disciples will have to always remain in doubt whether actually they were accepted or not. In fact, there is no doubt that they will not be accepted, since Śrīla Prabhupāda has never given such a system. Ṛtvik-māyā vādīs will say that in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s presence he had devotees, in the last four months, initiate on his behalf, and that this system were never meant to stop after his disappearance, but the actual meaning of a ṛtvik is someone who is an assisting priest, who is assisting the ācārya in the performance of yajña. Ṛtvik is not a permanent position. No ṛtvik ever continues to act once the ācārya is no longer present. Although engaging an assistant to help is commonly accepted in the Vedas, the continuation of the post-samādhi initiation system is not anywhere mentioned by the Vedas or Śrīla Prabhupāda. He never specifically said that he wanted such a thing, rather he said the opposite. He wanted grand-disciples, disciples of his disciples. He wanted many branches of the disciplic succession coming from him to expand through ISKCON.

To jump over one’s own spiritual master and declare oneself the initiated direct disciple of a previous ācārya and dishonor one’s relationship with the spiritual master is an excommunicable offense.

Explanation: Vīracandra Prabhu, the incarnation of Lord Kṣīrodakaśāyi Viṣṇu and son of Lord Nityānanda Prabhu, excommunicated Jaya-gopāla (of Kandra, West Bengal) for committing this offense. In 1970 the 4 sannyāsīs in New Vṛndāvana claimed that Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was the real initiator or guru and Śrīla Prabhupāda was only acting on his behalf, and then they started to think about it and said that if Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura is the real guru, then why not Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and if Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, then why not Rūpa Gosvāmī or why not Lord Caitanya or Kṛṣṇa. Actually everybody is guru on behalf of Kṛṣṇa, so that means that actually everybody is Kṛṣṇa’s disciple. And then, somehow, they began to think that since Śrīla Prabhupāda is acting on behalf of Kṛṣṇa directly, he is Kṛṣṇa Himself, and they started preaching that Śrīla Prabhupāda was Kṛṣṇa. So they went from the ṛtvik concept to a total impersonalist māyāvāda concept. This basic problem is called jumping over the guru. If you can jump over one generation of the disciplic succession you can jump over so many. If devotees can accept Śrīla Prabhupāda as their direct dīkṣā-guru after his samādhi, then similarly one could accept any guru in the line.

Of course, this does not mean that someone cannot be inspired by Śrīla Prabhupāda and be getting mercy directly from Śrīla Prabhupāda. Every member of ISKCON achieves that, but the actual service connection in the guru-paramparā occurs through the spiritual masters, who are physically present in the formal sense.

An Analysis of the Conversation of May 28, 1977

The May 28th conversation is the final order about continuing the disciplic succession, spoken directly by Śrīla Prabhupāda.

In May 1977, Śrīla Prabhupāda fell seriously ill and requested that all the GBC members come and visit him in Vṛndāvana to insure the continuation of the ISKCON institution.

Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami writes in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Līlāmṛta:

The GBC men met and decided that aside from Prabhupāda’s will, which would secure the ISKCON properties, and aside from making all the bank accounts within ISKCON secure, there were also a few questions which they should put before Prabhupāda before it was too late. These questions, such as how future disciples would be initiated, would have to be answered; otherwise they would become a source of speculation and havoc after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure.”

Meetings were held over two days, May 27 and May 28. Most of the discussions that took place concerned the securing of ISKCON properties and other legal matters that suddenly be came more immediately relevant with the impending departure of His Divine Grace.

Minutes from the morning session of the meeting of the Governing Body

Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, held in Vṛndāvana, India, on May 28th, 1977:

17 members in attendance plus Girirāja Dāsa (as per the recorded signatures of the members in attendance]: Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami; Pañcadraviḍa Swami; Jayatīrtha Dāsa; Rāmeśvara dāsa Swami; Gopāla Kṛṣṇa Dāsa; Ātreya Ṛṣi Dāsa; Bhagavān Dāsa; Rūpānuga Dāsa; Hṛdayānanda dāsa Goswami; Guru-kṛpā Swami; Harikeśa Swami; Bali-mardana; Girirāja dāsa Brahmacārī; Svarūpa Dāmodara dāsa Brahmacārī; Balavanta dāsa Adhikārī; Jagadiśa Dāsa; Ādi Keśava Swami; Jayapatākā Swami.

Resolved: The following questions will be taken to Śrīla Prabhupāda for his answers. They will be presented by a committee of Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, Satsvarūpa Goswami, Jagadīśa, Rūpānuga, Bhagavān, Kīrtanānanda Swami, Bali-mardana.

1. How long should GBC members remain in office?

2. How can GBC members who leave be replaced?

3. In the absence of Śrīla Prabhupāda what is the procedure for first, second, and sannyāsa initiations?

4. What is the relationship of the person who gives this initiation to the person he gives it to?

5. Is there any provision for publication of other translations of Vaiṣṇava scriptures by the BBT, after the disappearance of Śrīla Prabhupāda?

These questions were duly asked to Śrīla Prabhupāda before the afternoon session. His answers were recorded on tape and they were also recorded in the GBC minutes book on the next page after the above questions were written down, as follows:

For the purpose of recording information, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s answers to the above questions were given as follows:

1. GBC members shall remain permanently. If a GBC member leaves, the GBC can appoint new GBC members.

2. Śrīla Prabhupāda said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even after his disappearance. The disciples they accept shall be their disciples and Śrīla Prabhupāda will be their grand spiritual master.

3. New translations of Vedic works can be published in the future, even after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, but they can only be done by one who is very expert. At present, Śrīla Prabhupāda acknowledged, there are very few such men.

Why do ṛtvik-vādīs attack the conversation? Because Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly and unambiguously established that his disciples will be regular gurus and the disciples they accept will be their disciples. Ṛtvik-vādīs therefore try their best, unsuccessfully—to discredit the conversation as the final, official expression of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s desire on the matter.

Here is the whole conversation:

Satsvarūpa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, we were all asked by the rest of the GBC to come to ask some questions. Most... These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office?

Prabhupāda: They should remain for good.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They should remain for good.

Prabhupāda: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that Vāsudeva become one of the GBC.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Vāsudeva is Deoji Punja. He’s the founder of our... He’s building the temple in Fiji.

Prabhupāda: How many GBC’s are there already?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Twenty-three.

Prabhupāda: So add him. GBC is not to be changed.

Satsvarūpa: But then, in the event that some present GBC member leaves, either leaves...

Prabhupāda: Another should be elected.

Satsvarūpa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

Prabhupāda: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating ācāryas.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called ṛtvik-ācārya!

Prabhupāda: Ṛtvik, yes.

Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.

Satsvarūpa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Āmāra ājñāya guru hañā. Be actually guru, but by my order.

Satsvarūpa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

Prabhupāda: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, he’s asking that these ṛtvik-ācāryas, they’re officiating, giving dīkṣā. Their... The people who they give dīkṣā to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.

Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

Satsvarūpa: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear.

Satsvarūpa: Then we have a question concer...

Prabhupāda: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.

Satsvarūpa: Next we have a question about the BBT. At present, no translation work is to be published without your seeing and approving it. So the question is, is there any system for publishing works in the future that you may not see? For example, we’ve heard suggested that the Padma Purāṇa or the Ṣat-Sandarbha may be translated. But what would the system be to insure the paramparā if you would not personally see these translations?

Prabhupāda: That you have to examine expertly.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: In other words, there’s no set principle that only the works which you have already translated can be published by the BBT. If there is some worthy translation of a bona fide Vedic reference, it it’s properly done, the BBT could publish it.

Prabhupāda: That we are doing, just like Hindi. We are doing other languages. If it is properly translated, it can be...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Even if it’s a work which you have not yet translated yourself.

Prabhupāda: No, no, no, the principle is... Just like my translation, another person translating into Hindi or other languages, we are publishing. Similarly, if somebody has translated properly, it can be published. But amongst our disciples, I don’t think there are many who can translate properly.

Rāmeśvara: None. We’re not eager to publish anything which is not perfect, because you have already set the highest standard for the BBT. The name BBT means the highest standard right now in the world.

Prabhupāda: That is good answer.

Kīrtanānanda: Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda, we think that you cannot leave us very soon.

Prabhupāda: I don’t want. But if I am obliged, what can I do?

Kīrtanānanda: If you don’t want, Kṛṣṇa will not want.

Prabhupāda: A realized soul, must be. Otherwise, simply by imitating A-B-C-D will not help. My purports are liked by people because it is presented as practical experience. (aside:) It is within the mouth.

Bhavānanda: I’m sorry.

Prabhupāda: Such a nice instrument, (laughter) that it must enter into the mouth. Then it will act. That kind of instrument not required. It must remain three miles off. Our translation must be documents. They are not ordinary... One cannot be come unless one is very realized. It is not A-B-C-D translation.

Bhagavān: It’s not a matter of scholarship.

Prabhupāda: And Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā. One can understand the order of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he can become guru. Or one who understands his guru’s order, the same paramparā, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you. (hums)

Satsvarūpa: That’s all the questions.

Prabhupāda: So there is no question of changing GBC.

Satsvarūpa: No.

Prabhupāda: Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Of course, if someone has a falldown, just like in the past some GBC men have fallen down...

Prabhupāda: He should be replaced.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Then he should be replaced. But that’s a serious falldown, not some minor discrepancy.

Prabhupāda: They must be all ideal ācārya-like. In the beginning we have done for working. Now we should be very cautious. Anyone who is deviating, he can be replaced.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So Śrīla Prabhupāda, there’s chanting party ready to do saṅkīrtana. So may they come in?

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Thank you, Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Devotees: Jaya Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: Jaya. (end).

An Analysis of the Conversation of May 28, 1977,
from Disciple of My Disciple

by Badrīnārāyaṇa Dāsa, Giridhāri Swami and Umāpati Swami

The conversation:

Satsvarūpa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

Analysis: Satsvarūpa Mahārāja’s question can be taken as either one question or two. There is no doubt that the question concerns initiations after the departure of Śrīla Prabhupāda, but it is not certain whether the question also includes the subject of initiations during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s presence. In either case, the main concern is initiations after the departure of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Therefore Satsvarūpa Mahārāja says “particularly.”

The hesitant wording shows that Satsvarūpa Mahārāja is uneasy about bringing up the subject of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. The devotees were hoping against hope that Śrīla Prabhupāda would recover, and they did not like to contemplate the idea that he might be leaving.

Satsvarūpa Mahārāja says “our next question” because this question was one of a list of questions that the GBC had brought before Śrīla Prabhupāda at Śrīla Prabhupāda’s request.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Prabhupāda: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating ācāryas.

Analysis: What is an “officiating ācārya”? An officiating ācārya must be a certain kind of ācārya: an ācārya who officiates. But he is an ācārya. Śrīla Prabhupāda does not say “priest” or “proxy.” He says “ācārya.” (The meaning of “officiate” will be taken up later.)

The word “recommend” is also important. Śrīla Prabhupāda is not appointing ācāryas. The initiations must continue, and this can only be done through Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples. There is no appointment of gurus or successors, only a recommendation that certain disciples start the natural process. But a recommendation from the spiritual master is as good as an order, and the recommendation of certain devotees in the July 9th letter is a follow-up to the order that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples should take up the work of spiritual master after his departure.

Śrīla Prabhupāda is promising to do something. He will do it in the July 9th letter, and one of the people that Śrīla Prabhupāda is now speaking to will write that letter. How, then, can the ṛtvik-vādīs say that the July 9th letter can be understood only without reference to this conversation? Rather, the July 9th letter begins the process Śrīla Prabhupāda is describing here.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called ṛtvik-ācārya?

Prabhupāda: Ṛtvik, yes.

Analysis: The term “ṛtvik-ācārya” is brought in here by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja. The word “ṛtvik” plays a large part in the arguments of the Ṛtvik-vādīs, but their definition of the word is false. The Final Order (TFO) says:

“Ṛtviks, by definition, are not the initiators.”

The definition of “ṛtvik” in the Sanskrit dictionaries and in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books is not “proxy” or “non-initiator” or anything of the sort. The definition of “ṛtvik” is simply “priest,” and a look at Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books will show “ṛtvik” de fined as “priest,” or something similar, again and again. In fact, in the next passage Śrīla Prabhupāda will say that the person called “ṛtvik” is the guru. Thus, Śrīla Prabhupāda does not give any weight to the idea that “ṛtvik” means “proxy.” Many times Śrīla Prabhupāda himself performed the fire sacrifice, and on those occasions, Śrīla Prabhupāda acted both as ṛtvik (officiating priest) and as initiating guru but not as proxy.

Of course, a priest, may act as a proxy at times like anyone else, and in a later conversation Śrīla Prabhupāda directs Haṁsadūta to act as a proxy ṛtvik. But one cannot disregard all the other examples of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s use of the word and say that ṛtvik can be used only in this sense. In the present conversation, Śrīla Prabhupāda does not refer to proxy initiations at all, not even in connection with the word “ṛtvik.”

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja, however, does seem to think that “ṛtvik” means “proxy,” and his question shows that the GBCs were ready to accept whatever Śrīla Prabhupāda said, even if he told them to become proxies after his leaving. In fact, it is they, not Śrīla Prabhupāda, who bring up the idea of proxy initiation. This refutes the charge that those devotees who accepted the responsibility of guru were eagerly waiting in the wings or usurped the position.

The ṛtvik-vādīs say that Śrīla Prabhupāda should stop speaking at this point, although he does not. TFO says:

“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 that proposition is that, in issuing instructions like this, Śrīla Prabhupāda would only correctly answer the original question posed by Satsvarūpa Mahārāja if the following conditions were satisfied. “a. That somebody took it upon themselves (sic) to ask more questions. & “b. That by sheer serendipity they would happen upon the right questions to get the proper answer to Satsvarūpa’s original question.”

In other words, the ṛtvik-vādīs say that the conversation continues because the GBCs are trying to prompt Śrīla Prabhupāda into giving them the answer they want. But Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja has already shown the willingness of the GBCs to accept any answer Śrīla Prabhupāda gave. The questions continue because the disciples want clarification of their guru’s words. And at the end of the discussion, when the GBCs are ready to move on to another topic, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself continues the discussion, offering final and definitive statements on this question.

TFO says that something is wrong if “the full answer is only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation.” But how else is knowledge revealed? Is everything revealed in Bhagavad-gītā 2.11? Or is “the full answer... only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation”? Indeed, it is the duty of the disciple to ask the guru for clarification, and no one can blame him. The ṛtvik-vādīs thus go against Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings: “Not only should one hear submissively from the spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries.” (Bg 4.34p)

How casually the ṛtvik-vādīs play with the words of Śrīla Prabhupāda! They say that the word “henceforward” in the July 9th letter is of the utmost importance but the words of this conversation should never have been spoken, or are at best an “old taped conversation.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda condemned such picking and choosing of the words one likes and dislikes. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words are the same as scripture, and to reject this conversation is the same as rejecting a chapter of Bhagavad-gītā.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.

Analysis: TFO says:

“Sometimes the curious theory is put forward that when Śrīla Prabhupāda says ‘he is guru,’ he is really talking about the Ṛtviks themselves. This is clearly absurd since Śrīla Prabhupāda has only just defined the word ṛtvik as ‘officiating ācārya.’ Literally a priest who conducts some type of religious or ceremonial function.”

The word “ācārya” does not mean “priest,” so “officiating ācārya” cannot literally mean “officiating priest.” Nor is the word “officiate” limited to the meaning of performing a ceremony. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “officiate” can also mean “to perform the duties and functions of an office or a position of authority.” Literally speaking, then, “officiating ācārya” can only mean “someone who performs the functions of an ācārya.”

TFO mentions the word “ṛtvik” here, so let us see what the conversation would look like if “ṛtvik” were the same as “proxy.” The conversation would run like this:

“Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called proxy-ācārya?

“Prabhupāda: Proxy, yes.

“Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

“Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.”

In this case, the conversation would make no sense. How can the proxy be the guru? One may say, of course, that the proxy and the person who gives the initiation are not the same, but Satsvarūpa Mahārāja is referring to them as the same person. The ṛtvik-vādīs would have to say, then, that Śrīla Prabhupāda either is not answering the question or does not understand it.

TFO thus suggests a contradiction—the proxy would be the guru-but tries to save itself by giving Śrīla Prabhupāda a habit he did not have: The paper says that when Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the word “he” he is talking about himself (and that to think otherwise is “clearly absurd”).

TFO says:

“When discussing philosophical or managerial issues surrounding his position as ācārya, Śrīla Prabhupāda would invariably refer to himself in the third person.”

The ṛtvik-vādīs are saying here that when Śrīla Prabhupāda would speak of himself, he would not say “I,” as other people do, but would say “he,” and that this was his invariable way of speaking. In other words, they say that when Śrīla Prabhupāda would want to say “I am your guru,” he would invariably say, “He is your guru,” and leave the bewildered disciple to guess what he meant.

But Śrīla Prabhupāda spoke in such a way rarely if at all. When he spoke about the spiritual master in general, he would use the third person, and when he spoke about himself, he would use the first person, the same as everyone else. One has only to look through Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letters and conversations on the Folio for proof. Thus the ṛtvik-vādīs say that Śrīla Prabhupāda spoke clearly and directly about important issues (we all agree), but go on to say that when Śrīla Prabhupāda says “he” he means “I.”.

But their argument is too easy. They take any word they want, give it any meaning they want, and make Śrīla Prabhupāda appear to say anything they want. So “he” means “I.” Why not “black” means “white”? How about, “When Śrīla Prabhupāda says ‘Kṛṣṇa,’ he means ‘Darwin’”? Who can say where it would end?

In fact, Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the word “I” to refer to himself in this very conversation, so according to the ṛtvik-vādīs’ theory, Śrīla Prabhupāda would sometimes say “I” and sometimes “he” when speaking of himself, even at the same time. If the ṛtvik-vādīs think Śrīla Prabhupāda’s use of language is so imprecise and confusing, how can they attach so much importance to one single word in the July 9th letter?

To further test the ṛtvik-vādīs’ premise, let us take this segment of the conversation and substitute “I” for “he,” as well as “proxy” for “ācārya”:

“Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called proxy-ācārya?

“Prabhupāda: Proxy, yes.

“Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

Prabhupāda: I’m guru. I’m guru.”

It would seem, then, that Śrīla Prabhupāda is not answering the question at all. He would simply be declaring himself guru and giving no information about that person who gives the initiation.” The ṛtvik-vādīs may argue that the “person who gives the initiation” is really Śrīla Prabhupāda, but then Śrīla Prabhupāda would simply be saying that he is the guru of the people he initiates, something Satsvarūpa Mahārāja already knows.

When Satsvarūpa Mahārāja says “that person who gives the initiation,” he is speaking not about Śrīla Prabhupāda but about the person who will perform the ceremony or take charge of the new disciple after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. That is the whole point of the conversation. Are we to think that Śrīla Prabhupāda does not understand what anyone is talking about here?

Śrīla Prabhupāda did not call the GBCs to his side just to tell them that he is the guru of the people he initiates. He called them in to answer their questions about what to do after his departure. The ṛtvik-vādīs’ version that Śrīla Prabhupāda says “he” when he means “I” turns the conversation into nonsense. This point will become more obvious later on. On the other hand, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words—“He’s guru”—literally say that his disciples will be gurus after his departure.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Satsvarūpa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amāra ājñāya guru hañā. Be actually guru, but by my order.

Analysis: Satsvarūpa Mahārāja says “on your behalf,” again suggesting the possibility of proxy initiation and the willing ness of the GBCs to accept whatever Śrīla Prabhupāda would say. Satsvarūpa Mahārāja is certainly not prompting Śrīla Prabhupāda or trying to trick Śrīla Prabhupāda into giving one answer or another. But Śrīla Prabhupāda answers here that “on my behalf” does not mean acting as a post-samādhi proxy but means becoming an actual guru. And in the garden con versation of July 7th, 1977, Śrīla Prabhupāda says that proxy initiation is a formality to be observed during his presence:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikeśa Mahārāja, he should send the person’s name to us here and I’ll enter it in the book. Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

Prabhupāda: India, I am here.”

The statement “India, I am here” shows that Śrīla Prabhupāda is talking about a system for use during his physical presence. One may argue that there is no order for the disciples to stop the proxy initiation and become initiating gurus after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, but that order had already been given on May 28. In other words, in the May 28th conversation Śrīla Prabhupāda orders his disciples to take up the work of initiating guru, and in the July 9th letter, based on the July 7th garden conversation, Śrīla Prabhupāda describes proxy initiation as a system to be followed during his physical presence.

When Śrīla Prabhupāda says “on my behalf, on my order...,” the ṛtvik-vādīs say that he is speaking of an order to come in the future, that if this statement itself were the order, then Śrīla Prabhupāda would have said something like, “Now I am giving the order.”

Why?

“Be guru, but by my order” is in the present tense, with no indication of future. The “but” does not indicate future, since “but” can be used in any tense: “I am a guru, but only by the order of Śrīla Prabhupāda,” or “I became a guru, but only by the order of Śrīla Prabhupāda.” It is unreasonable to impose an idea of future tense on a statement that is in the present. When Lord Caitanya said, “On My order, become a spiritual master,” He did not have to repeat Himself and say, “Now I am giving the order.” The words “on My order” themselves point to the order.

Here, Śrīla Prabhupāda says “on my order” as a clarification of “on my behalf.”

“So on my behalf, on my order... Amāra ājñāya guru haña. Be actually guru, but by my order.”

One becomes a spiritual master on behalf of his own spiritual master, on the order of his spiritual master, carrying on the disciplic succession. Śrīla Prabhupāda is telling his disciples to be come spiritual masters, but as his servant, in the same way that Śrīla Prabhupāda himself became a spiritual master on behalf of His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Țhākura.

Śrīla Prabhupāda says, “In my presence one should not become guru.” Some may argue that because Śrīla Prabhupāda is present in his books, the order is that no one may initiate for ten thousand years. But Satsvarūpa Mahārāja’s opening question says “initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us.” Satsvarūpa Mahārāja is clearly talking about Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical presence. If Śrīla Prabhupāda’s answer “in my presence” is about the presence of his books, Śrīla Prabhupāda is either ignoring the question or playing a trick on the GBC, two unlikely possibilities.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Satsvarūpa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

Prabhupāda: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?

Analysis: Satsvarūpa Mahārāja again suggests the possibility of proxy initiation. Śrīla Prabhupāda could say yes, but he does not. On the contrary, Śrīla Prabhupāda suggests that the question does not make sense. Therefore, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja will ask for clarification.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, he’s asking that these ṛtvik-ācāryas, they’re officiating, giving dīkṣā. Their... The people who they give dīkṣā to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.

Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

Analysis: Again, Śrīla Prabhupāda does not take the word “ṛtvik” to mean “proxy.” In fact, the word “ṛtvik” seems to have no bearing on the conversation at all. Śrīla Prabhupāda says that those who are initiated by the ṛtvik-ācāryas become the granddisciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda. They become the disciples of the Ṛtvik-ācāryas. The passage is clear, logical, easy to understand, and in line with our teachings. And Śrīla Prabhupāda says that the new initiate is the disciple of the ṛtvik.

Again, let us substitute “proxy” for “ṛtvik”:

“Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, he’s asking that these proxy-ācāryas, they’re officiating, giving dīkṣā. Their... The people who they give dīkṣā to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.

Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.”

Again, the passage would contradict itself. If the new initiate is the disciple of the proxy, then the proxy is not a proxy. And again, the ṛtvik-vādīs try to resolve their contradiction by put ting a twist on the passage. They read the passage differently, maybe because of a lack of clarity in the recording. They read it as:

Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. His granddisciple.” (“He is granddisciple” becomes “His granddisciple.”)

TFO says:

In his question Tamāla Kṛṣṇa is asking about ṛtvik-ācāryas, not dīkṣā-gurus. Therefore we know, even before Prabhupāda answers, that any disciples referred to can only belong to the initiator, Śrīla Prabhupāda. As we have shown, this is the very definition of ṛtvik, he acts on someone else’s behalf.”

The above paragraph has two faults. First, it assumes that Śrīla Prabhupāda is the initiator without Śrīla Prabhupāda’s having said so. Nowhere in this conversation does Śrīla Prabhupāda say that he will continue to be the initiator after his departure. Second, their “very definition of ṛtvik” is wrong again. “Ṛtvik” means “priest,” and a priest is not obliged to act on someone else’s behalf. The yajña brāhmaṇas of Vṛndāvana were ṛtviks and were acting on their own behalf. One may argue that their yajña was not an initiation, but still they were acting on their own behalf, as opposed to the Controversy Paper’s “very definition of ṛtvik.”

TFO continues:

Line 19-20. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa repeats the answer, and Śrīla Prabhupāda 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 the tape, and seems to flow best with what is being said.”

But Śrīla Prabhupāda may have said “He’s grand disciple,” in which case, “His grand disciple” would not resemble the tape more closely.

TFO continues:

We have established that in speaking in the third person Śrīla Prabhupāda must be speaking of himself.”

They have established no such thing. They have proposed it, but the Folio proves the contrary. Again, Śrīla Prabhupāda would speak of himself in the first person, like everyone else.

TFO continues:

To help us understand more clearly what Śrīla Prabhupāda is saying, let us replace third person with first person statements, shown in brackets, for lines 17-20.”

Two faults here: First, it is only an assumption, that Śrīla Prabhupāda is speaking about himself in the third person. Second, by inserting words in brackets one could make Śrīla Prabhupāda appear to speak any words one might want, even māyāvāda philosophy. TFO continues:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa:... Whose disciples are they?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: They are (my) disciples.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They are (your) disciples.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: (I am) initiating. (My) grand disciple.”

Why not “[He is initiating. [My] grand disciple.” Who can say which brackets are better?

Because the ṛtvik-vādīs read “he is” as “his,” they insist that “initiating” and “grand disciple” must both be preceded by pronouns in the same person (“I am initiating my grand disciple” or “He is initiating his grand disciple”). Thus they assume that the new initiate is the grand disciple of the initiator and since the new initiate cannot be the grand disciple of the ṛtvik, he must be the grand disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda, and there fore Śrīla Prabhupāda is the initiator.

But their logic goes in circles because they assume before hand that their parenthetical insertions are correct: The insertions are correct because this is what Śrīla Prabhupāda must have meant, and Śrīla Prabhupāda must have meant this be cause of the inserted words. Here is the “classic circular argument” the ṛtvik-vādīs mention in one of their papers: it is their own argument.

The Ṛtvik-vādīs would have Śrīla Prabhupāda say, “I am initiating my grand disciple.” Thus they admit that even according to their own view the new initiate is a grand disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda as opposed to the direct disciples initiated during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical presence. There would still be a one-generation difference between those initiated during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical presence and those initiated later. But how can some be direct disciples and others be grand disciples if the initiator is the same and pre-samādhi or post samādhi makes no difference?

And why the obscure language? If Śrīla Prabhupāda were speaking about himself as the initiator, why would he say “who” instead of “I”? “Who” (meaning “he who”) refers to a general principle, not a particular person. Again, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s habit was to say “I” when speaking of himself. Why a sudden departure from his usual way of speaking and from clear language? The reading “He is grand disciple” requires no interpretation or stretching of the imagination. It is straightforward and logical, in line with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s usual way of speaking.

But whatever the reading, whatever the insertion, the fact remains that the new disciple is the grand disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda and cannot be the Godbrother or Godsister of the pre-samādhi disciples. No amount of word-twisting can change it:

Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.

Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.”

The May 28th conversation continues:

Satsvarūpa: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear.

Analysis: This passage does not give any information.

The May 28th conversation continues:

Satsvarūpa: Then we have a question concer...

Prabhupāda: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.

Analysis: Satsvarūpa Mahārāja is ready to move on to another question, but Śrīla Prabhupāda continues the discussion. Although the ṛtvik-vādīs say that Śrīla Prabhupāda should have stopped speaking at the beginning of the discussion, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself wants to continue.

Then Śrīla Prabhupāda says:

When I order, ‘You become guru,’ he becomes regular guru.”

Taken out of context, the sentence could seemingly point to a future order, but in the context of the conversation it could only be a re-statement of the order given above by Śrīla Prabhupāda. Otherwise, why would Śrīla Prabhupāda say “That’s all”?

The comment “That’s all” implies that the instruction is complete, that there is no more to add. Śrīla Prabhupāda is summing it up, not reversing it. One may say that the word “when” indicates a future order, but “when” does not necessarily indicate future any more than “but.” (“When I see a sunrise, I think of Kṛṣṇa.”)

Then Śrīla Prabhupāda says, “He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it,” another simple restatement of what has already been said. This final statement is clear and needs no elaboration: “disciple of my disciple.”

Again, let us test the ṛtvik-vādīs’ theory by substituting “I” for “he”:

Prabhupāda: When I order, ‘You become guru,’ I become regular guru. That’s all.”

Thus, the ṛtvik-vādīs’ theory about “he” and “I” would ultimately reduce the conversation to nonsense.

In short, Śrīla Prabhupāda has stated the principles of post samādhi initiations, and he will confirm his order by naming some people to begin the process. This conversation is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s last official response to the question, How will initiations go on after your departure? Śrīla Prabhupāda answers with terms such as regular guru, disciple of my disciple, and granddisciple.

There is nothing in this conversation to indicate that people initiated after the departure of Śrīla Prabhupāda would be the disciples of anyone other than the person who gives the initiation, call him ṛtvik or not. The new initiates will be the granddisciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Thus we find in this discussion an affirmation of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings of the previous twelve years, in harmony with the Vedic tradition.

[End of analysis of the conversation]

After discussing the fifth and last question, “a question about the BBT”, Śrīla Prabhupāda spontaneously goes back to the subject of initiations.

Prabhupāda: And Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā. One can understand the order of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he can become guru. Or one who understands his guru’s order, the same paramparā, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you.

As explained above, Śrīla Prabhupāda made the selection on 7th July 1977.

In the May 28 conversation Śrīla Prabhupāda definitively confirmed how initiations should go on after his departure. That conversation was recorded on tape and the conclusions were written down in the GBC minutes book, which was signed by everyone present, immediately after the conversation took place.

The ṛtviks can’t erase Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words on that tape, “regular guru”; “disciple of my disciple”; “granddisciple” and so their only argument is to destroy the credibility of the tape. One ṛtvik-vādī argument concerning the May 28 tapes is that the tapes aren’t acceptable evidence because of the result of a forensic investigation commissioned by the GBC, but the analysis simply reveals that on the tape there are pauses and stops. This practice of pausing or stopping the cassette recorder was very common. Hari-śauri Prabhu writes:

I personally recorded Śrīla Prabhupāda almost every day for about 10 months. I was the first one to use a cassette recorder rather than the old reel-to-reel. My habit, which was emulated by my successor recordist, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, was to use a tape until it was full. Consequently, multiple short conversations may be found on many of the tapes, replete with the necessary stops and starts. Not only that, if there was an extended break in a conversation we had the habit of pausing or stopping the tape recorder and then starting up again when the conversation restarted. Thus it is not surprising that the tape Perle examined has many stops and starts. There are heaps of tapes just like it in the Archives.”

The other point the lab made, the most significant point in relation to the discussion-which the ṛtviks never point out because it doesn’t fit into their theory-was that there is no evidence of tampering in the section of the tape in which Śrīla Prabhupāda answers the questions from the GBCs.

In the May 28 Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly confirmed that he wanted a regular guru system to continue after his disappearance. Therefore the ṛtvik-vādīs attempt at discrediting the tape, resorting to saying that the tape is not acceptable be cause the devotee doing the recording recorded more than one conversation on the same tape! But the forensic laboratory states clearly that the section containing this entire conversation is unbroken and shows no sign of adulteration.

Mr. Norman I. Perle (American Board of Recorded Evidence Nationally Certified Expert), is the forensic expert who examined the tape. He confirmed that the section in question is ‘virgin’ and unadulterated. Mr. Perle certified that the full 18+ minutes conversation has no signs of editing, erasures, starts and stops. Perle found no sign of signs “suggestive of falsification” on the entire length of the section of recording of the May 28 conversation, Mṛgendra Dāsa (who arranged the forensic analysis on behalf of the GBC) wrote: “When I asked him to confirm on the phone whether I was correct that there was no start or stop during the disputed portion of the tape, Mr. Perle did confirm that...” therefore the recording of the conversation we are dealing with was admitted to be OK.

For full details on the forensic analysis one can consult the paper “The Minutes of the Timeless Order” by Hari-śauri Prabhu.

But there is more than the tape to confirm that it actually took place: the GBC recorded in its Minutes book before the con versation took place that it was delegating some of its members to ask certain questions about initiations, the GBC body and membership etc. It also records that the meeting took place, and what the answers were to their questions as given by Śrīla Prabhupāda. Hari-śauri Prabhu wrote to a Godbrother influenced by Ṛtvik-vāda:

I wonder why you find the GBC Minutes unacceptable? (At least I presume you do since you don’t refer to them at all.) When they were written down, very shortly after the meeting with Śrīla Prabhupāda, and witnessed not by one or two but many, do you seriously think that there was a conspiracy afoot? Try to put yourself in Vṛndāvana on May 29 1977 before anyone had even heard of ṛtvik-ācārya. The concept didn’t exist. Nobody knew what Prabhupāda’s response was going to be to the questions, nor having gotten it, did anyone have any notion of what would happen after, i.e. nobody could anticipate at that time that it would even be questioned since the assumption was that all ISKCON members were only interested in fulfilling Śrīla Prabhupāda’s desire.

It was an honest, sincere meeting with only one intent-to understand Śrīla Prabhupāda’s desire for initiations after his departure. His statements were recorded electronically and in writing. I don’t know why this is not acceptable to you.”

Finally, there is the testimony of the GBCs themselves. His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami writes:

I was personally in Vṛndāvana for that GBC meeting during May, 1977 and although I wasn’t in the room as one of the 5 GBC delegates when the questions were asked and Śrīla Prabhupāda answered them. I did hear the report from the delegates in the subsequent de-briefing and reporting that happened to the whole GBC body after the darśana. There was only one understanding of what Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted. That was put down in short and clear words in the GBC emergency minute book. All of the GBC’s present signed the minute book accepting Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions.

Later in those days all discussions with GBC’s who were present in the room with Śrīla Prabhupāda corroborated the same conclusions. In those days we didn’t have the habit of replaying Śrīla Prabhupāda’s tapes and analyzing his statements since they were fresh and everyone understood the same conclusion there was no purpose in doing so. To say that Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t say those things and that His Div

The July 9 letter is completely irrelevant to the discussion of how initiations should be conducted after Śrīla Prabhupāda physical disappearance because the subject of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disappearance is not mentioned at all.

Here is the famous “July 9th letter”, written by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja:

July 9th, 1977

To All G.B.C., and Temple Presidents

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Śrīla Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “ritvik” - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:

His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami
His Holiness Jayapataka Swami
His Holiness Tamala Kṛṣṇa Gosvami
His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami
His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami
His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami
His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
His Holiness Harikesa Swami
His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari
His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari

In the past Temple Presidents have written to Śrīla Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Śrīla Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Śrīla Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Śrīla Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Śrīla Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book.

Hoping this finds you all well.

Your servant,
Tamala Kṛṣṇa Gosvami Secretary to Śrīla Prabhupada

Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

From “Prabhupāda’s Order”:

The subject of this letter is used in TFO as the irrefutable ‘final order’, which attempts to prove the case of the ṛtvik philosophy. The letter was a response to a conversation of July 7th, where Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja brings to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s attention the dilemma of what to do about all the devotees who wanted to take initiation but had been told to wait due to Prabhupāda’s sickness. Although this conversation is a follow-on from the one of May 28th in the fact that Prabhupāda actually names those devotees who would act as ‘officiating ācāryas’, the reason behind the conversation is significantly different. The May 28 conversation deals specifically with the question of what would happen after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, and he answers unequivocally that his disciples would accept disciples of their own. In contrast, this conversation, from the very beginning, deals with the question of what to do about the backlog of new initiation candidates:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Śrīla Prabhupāda? We’re receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.

Prabhupāda: The local, mean (men?], senior sannyāsīs can do that.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were... The local GBC, sannyāsīs, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed, or should we...? I mean one thing is that it’s said that the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he takes on the... He has to cleanse the disciple by... So we don’t want that you should have to... Your health is not so good, so that should not be... That’s why we’ve been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.

Prabhupāda: No, the senior sannyāsīs...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So they should continue to...

Prabhupāda: You can give me a list of sannyāsīs. I will mark who will...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Okay.

Prabhupāda: You can do. Kīrtanānanda can do. And our Satsvarūpa can do. So these three, you can give, begin.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So supposing someone is in America, should they simply write directly to Kīrtanānanda or Satsvarūpa?

Prabhupāda: Nearby. Jayatīrtha can give.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Jayatīrtha.

Prabhupāda: Bhavānan..., er, Bhagavān. And he can do also. Harikeśa.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Harikeśa Mahārāja.

Prabhupāda: And... Five, six men, you divide who is nearest.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Who is nearest. So persons wouldn’t have to write to Your Divine Grace. They could write directly to that person?

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Actually they are initiating the person on Your Divine Grace’s behalf. Those persons who are initiated are still your...

Prabhupāda: Second initiation we shall think over, second initiation.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: This is for first initiation, okay. And for second initiation, for the time being they should...

Prabhupāda: No, they have to wait. Second initiation, that should be given...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Should... Some devotees are writing you now for second initiation, and I’m writing them to wait a while because you’re not well. So can I continue to tell them that?

Prabhupāda: They can do second initiation.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: By writing you.

Prabhupāda: No. These men.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: These men, they can also do second initiation. So there’s no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who gives initiation is doing so on your behalf.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: You know that book I’m maintaining of all of your disciples’ names? Should I continue that?

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikeśa Mahārāja, he should send the person’s name to us here and I’ll enter it in the book. Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

Prabhupāda: India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapatākā.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Jayapatākā Mahārāja.

Prabhupāda: You are also in India.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes.

Prabhupāda: You can note down these names.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes, I have them.

Prabhupāda: Who are they?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Kīrtanānanda Mahārāja, Satsvarūpa Mahārāja, Jayatīrtha Prabhu, Bhagavān Prabhu, Harikeśa Mahārāja, Jayapatākā Mahārāja and Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja.

Prabhupāda: That’s nice. Now you distribute.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Seven. There’s seven names.

Prabhupāda: For the time being, seven names, sufficient. You can make Rāmeśvara.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Rāmeśvara Mahārāja.

Prabhupāda: And Hṛdayānanda.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Oh, yeah. South America.

Prabhupāda: So without waiting for me, wherever you con sider it is right... That will depend on discretion.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: On discretion.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s for first and second initiations.

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Okay. Shall I send a kīrtana party, Śrīla Prabhupāda? (break)

The reason for this conversation, as stated above, is that there was a backlog of hundreds of devotees who wanted to take initiation from Śrīla Prabhupāda. However, the initiations had been stopped, as Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja explains, because the devotees close to Prabhupāda were concerned about Prabhupāda having to accept the karma of his disciples in his weakened condition.

The practice of having his disciples perform initiations on his behalf had been instituted by Prabhupāda since the early days of the movement. He accepted this as a necessary step to spread Kṛṣṇa Consciousness worldwide. The only difference now was that devotees could write directly to any of the senior disciples named by Śrīla Prabhupāda, and he would initiate them, give them a spiritual name and send the record of initiation to Prabhupāda in Vṛndāvana.

There are also two very clear evidences in the conversation that Śrīla Prabhupāda and Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja were talking specifically about that time, i.e. when Prabhupāda was present there in Vṛndāvana, and not for ever after. The first is where Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja states, “So if someone gives initiation, like Harikeśa Mahārāja, he should send the person’s name to us here and I’ll enter it in the book.” This quite clearly confirms the context of the conversation, which had been set at the beginning; it was regarding the question of initiations while Śrīla Prabhupāda was sick in Vṛndāvana.

Another confirmation of this comes when Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja asks Śrīla Prabhupāda, “Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?” and Prabhupāda answers,” India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapatākā...” this clearly reveals Śrīla Prabhupāda as accepting the context of the matters being discussed related to what should happen at that time, when he was present but not physically fit to per form initiations. Therefore to claim that this conversation and the distribution of its message via the July 9th letter as a ‘final order’, which once and for all establishes the future of initiations for all time in ISKCON totally neglects to understand the clearly stated purpose for the conversation, and its context, from beginning right to end.

The subject of this conversation was then dictated by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja as a letter to all Temple Presidents and GBC’s, letting them know that initiations could again be performed, and which devotees Śrīla Prabhupāda had deputed to oversee the giving of names and chanting on beads.

The fact that this arrangement was not intended to be for all time is again confirmed in the letter resulting from the above conversation, where Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja says, “The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Śrīla Prabhupāda, to be included in His Divine Grace’s ‘Initiated Disciples’ book.”

Much effort has gone into trying to analyze and make judgments on what is the actual meaning of this letter. Of course, if you want to know what is actually meant by some particular statement, the very best person to ask is the person who made it. As the letter was written by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja, we thought it pertinent to allow him to explain what he actually meant by the letter, and particularly the word ‘henceforward’ which is often highlighted to have special significance.

On July 31st, 1998, we contacted His Holiness Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami by e-mail, asking him to give some first hand insight about how the word ‘henceforward’ was used in the letter of July 9th, 1977. As the person who wrote this letter, which was later countersigned by Śrīla Prabhupāda, he is in the best position to know what the intended meaning was. He was asked three questions and his answers follow each question.

Who actually worded the letter of July 9th stating ‘hence forward’?

I did.

If you worded it, what did you mean by this word?

Henceforward’ means something like, “in the foreseeable future,’ or, ‘until further notice.’ My service was to encourage Śrīla Prabhupāda to survive his illness. I made every effort, both when speaking with him, and in correspondence, to be positive about recovering from his disease and continuing to physically lead the Krishna Consciousness Movement in a healthy condition. In fact, I believed this is exactly what would happen, and not until the final days did I ever think otherwise. Therefore, the word ‘henceforward,’ in fact the entire letter, in no way refers to a situation after Prabhupāda’s departure, a situation that I was not prepared to normally think of. That situation was already addressed by Prabhupāda in the May 28th conversation, which I make brief mention of at the outset of my letter.

Was there any accompanying explanation to this letter given by you to Śrīla Prabhupāda, when you read it to him for his approval, which may shed more light on Śrīla Prabhupāda’s understanding of the term “henceforward” in this context?

Yes, in the sense that this letter was viewed by Śrīla Prabhupāda as a managerial document for how new disciples could continue to be initiated during His illness, not a blueprint for how the disciplic succession would continue after His departure. Though I have no specific memory about such an accompanying explanation, there undoubtedly would have been some exchange between us along the lines of what we discussed in the garden the previous day.

Hope this makes things a little clearer. Hare Krishna.

your servant,

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami

The ṛtvik-vādīs who stick to their misinterpretation of the word “henceforward” as meaning “forever” run into an unsolved paradox, as explained by His Holiness Jayādvaita Mahārāja in “Where the Ṛtvik People are Wrong” (January 1996): Taking “henceforward” to mean literally forever, never will the ṛtvik-guru system come to an end. By this “hard” version of the doctrine, even should an uttama-adhikārī someday appear, he will never initiate disciples of his own. At most, he will serve merely as a ṛtvik. For according to this hard version of the doctrine, Śrīla Prabhupāda is the final member of the disciplic succession. The succession has come to an end. Śrīla Prabhupāda is the only guru forever after. Henceforward, all new devotees will be his disciples, through his appointed ṛtviks.

And since we’re insisting that “henceforward” must mean literally forever, we must apply it not merely to a selected portion of what Śrīla Prabhupāda’s appointment letter says but to the letter in its entirety.

Temple presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee... The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, the above eleven senior devotees acting as his representative.”

If we’re being literal, as the argument says we must, then let’s be literal. Though the letter says that Śrīla Prabhupāda has “so far” given a list of eleven ṛtviks, he never added to the list. So this is it. The only authorized ṛtviks are these eleven. There is no mention that any of them may ever be removed or re placed, nor is there any mention of any successor. Nor does Śrīla Prabhupāda provide that the list may be altered by the GBC. Henceforward, these eleven.

Of these, one-Jayatīrtha Dāsa-fell into intoxication and illicit sex and is now dead. How he will continue to serve as ṛtvik henceforward is unclear. But presumably he must, provided we can find out where he is so we can send him requests for initiation from the temples nearest.

And then we have Kīrtanānanda Swami, Bhavānanda Goswami, Rāmeśvara Swami, and Bhagavān dāsa Adhikārī, all fallen from their spiritual vows but serving eternally as ṛtviks nonetheless.

Or Haṁsadūta Swami. His falldowns have become the stuff of literature, yet now that he has become humble, perhaps he is available to serve as a ṛtvik-guru from now till the end of time. For some, perhaps, once again, Haṁsadūta is the only way.

If these choices somehow don’t suit you, you’re left with Harikeśa Swami, Jayapatākā Swami, Hṛdayānanda Goswami, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, or Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami. The problem here, of course (aside from the possibility that you may not like them), is that all of them are sure they were supposed to serve as ṛtviks only until Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. As far as they’re concerned, the post-samādhi ṛtvik doctrines are bunk. Now these devotees wouldn’t serve as ṛtviks for love or money. So if you’re looking for an authorized ṛtvik, go back to the other names on the list.

And remember, henceforward-from now till the end of time, these are the only authorized ṛtviks.

My apologies for the sarcasm, but a person who puts forward an argument is obliged to live with its consequences. And if the consequences are absurd, so is the argument.

More analysis of the word “henceforward”.

By Drutakarma Prabhu, from “Krishnakant Desai: All Bluff, No Stuff”

But let’s get back to this supposed final order by Prabhupāda. Actually, if it is a final order it is a final order by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, because he wrote and signed the July 9 letter. Prabhupāda is referred to only indirectly, in the third person, and his signature is below Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami’s as an approval of Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami’s words. Furthermore, the whole process that resulted in the letter was begun not on the initiative of Śrīla Prabhupāda but on the initiative of Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, who put to Śrīla Prabhupāda a specific question, on his own accord, without any prompting from Śrīla Prabhupāda. That question, unrelated to Prabhupāda’s departure, was this: what to do with the backlog of initiations that had accumulated during the time when Prabhupāda was not answering letters. This can be seen from the start of the July 7 conversation on this topic.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Śrīla Prabhupāda? We’re receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.

Prabhupāda: The local, mean [men?], senior sannyāsīs can do that.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were... The local GBC, sannyāsīs, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed, or should we...? I mean one thing is that it’s said that the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he takes on the... He has to cleanse the disciple by... So we don’t want that you should have to... Your health is not so good, so that should not be... That’s why we’ve been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.

Prabhupāda: No, the senior sannyāsīs...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So they should continue to...

Prabhupāda: You can give me a list of sannyāsīs. I will mark who will...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Okay.

So Śrīla Prabhupāda was not responding to a question about how initiations would go on after his departure. He was responding to a question about what to do with a backlog of requests for initiation from devotees desiring initiation from Śrīla Prabhupāda. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami indicated that the whole concern was Śrīla Prabhupāda’s health. The devotees were thinking Śrīla Prabhupāda was so weak that the karmic burden of accepting new disciples would not be good for him. This places the whole episode in the context of what was to be done during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical presence. There is no mention at all of Prabhupāda’s departure or how initiations were to be conducted after his departure.

Śrīla Prabupada went on to name several other devotees. Here is another significant part of the conversation:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

Prabhupāda: India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapatākā.

The ṛtvik advocates say that Śrīla Prabhupāda was completely withdrawing from the initiation process and setting up a system that was designed to operate in an unbroken way even after his departure. But Śrīla Prabhupāda indicated the possibility that he himself would continue to handle initiation requests from India, by saying “India, I am here.” In conclusion, on July 7 neither Śrīla Prabhupāda nor the devotees present say anything about Prabhupāda’s departure or how initiations were to go on after his departure.

In fact, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself contemplated the possibility that he might again take a direct role in the initiation process, if he recovered his health. This is evident in the following statement made by Śrīla Prabhupāda in Vṛndāvana on October 18, 1977 (conversation).

Prabhupāda: Hare Kṛṣṇa. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes. Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.

Prabhupāda: So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes. Actually... Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: So I think Jayapatākā can do that if he likes. I have already deputed. Tell him.

Tamāla Krsṇa: Yes. Prabhupāda: So, deputies, Jayapatākā’s name was there?

Bhagavān: It is already on there, Śrīla Prabhupāda. His name was on that list.

Prabhupāda: So I depute him to do this at Māyāpura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Stopped doing what, Śrīla Prabhupāda?

Prabhupāda: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?

Girirāja: It’s clear.

Prabhupāda: You have got the list of the names?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: And if by Kṛṣṇa’s grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.

Here, several months after the July 9 document, which the ṛtvik supporters say establishes the ṛtvik system forever, Śrīla Prabhupāda is contemplating stopping it and taking up his initiation duties again. It seems clear that he regarded it as simply a temporary measure, related to his health, and did not see it as a system that was going to continue after his departure.

Krishnakant Desai, however, has his own opinion, and he bases it on the occurrence of the word henceforward in the July 9 letter. The first thing we have to consider is that henceforward is Tamāla Krsṇa Goswami’s word, not Śrīla Prabhupāda’s. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami is therefore the best authority for the intended meaning of the word, and he has said he did not intend that word to mean from now until eternity. So taking the letter at face value, whatever Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami intended to say (including his intended meaning of the word henceforward) was approved by Śrīla Prabhupāda. But even if we take it as a word approved by Prabhupāda in a sense different from that intended by the author of the letter, I have carefully studied Śrīla Prabhupāda’s use of the word “henceforward” and have found many instances in which he uses the word in a time limited sense. Here are some examples of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s use of the word henceforward. Many more could be cited.

1. “As I told you, that 2,500 years ago, or 5,000 years ago Vyāsadeva wrote about Lord Buddha’s appearance. Still, there is appearance of Kalki from this time, henceforward, after 400,000’s of years Kalki will appear.” (Lecture on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, London, August 16, 1971)

In this case, Śrīla Prabhupāda uses henceforward to refer to a specific time in the future, a specific number of years from the present. It is not used in the sense of a ceaselessly executed action.

2. “Regarding printing 20,000 copies of Back To Godhead, I have appealed to 4 centers, namely New York, San Fran cisco, Los Angeles, and London to contribute $750 monthly. I have got confirmation from Los Angeles, so I shall be glad to hear from New York also whether this center is going to hand over to me $750 per month. I have no objection if this $750 is collected in the way of advertisements from New York, but charges will be increased be cause we are going to print 20,000 copies henceforward.” (Letter to Rāyarāma, February 20, 1969).

Let us imagine that Śrīla Prabhupāda had left the planet soon after this letter had been written. Would it have been wrong for devotees to have printed more than 20,000 copies in the future? The word henceforward is obviously tied to a certain set of circumstances that could change in a very short period of time. Henceforward means, “given the current situation, we shall do like this.”

In the case of the July 9 letter, the same implication is there. Given the current situation (Prabhupāda still on the planet but too weak to even answer letters, devotees still requesting initiation from him) the process for initiation will go on as stated in the letter. Given that the usual system throughout history is that when a guru departs he ceases to accept disciples, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure would mark a major change of circumstances requiring a change in the system outlined in the July 9 letter.

Therefore, the ṛtvik reading of the July 9 letter would only hold true (in unambiguous fashion) if the word henceforward had been qualified to mean that it applied even across such a major change of circumstance as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. In other words, for the ṛtvik case to be made unambiguously the July 9 letter should have read “henceforward, even in the event of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure from this world, this system will continue.” But the letter does not read that way. The word henceforward stands alone, and given that Śrīla Prabhupāda sometimes used this word in a time-limited sense, the intended meaning in the July 9 letter is unclear.

The ṛtvik supporters argue that it is up to their opponents to show that the word henceforward was qualified to mean the system would stop on Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. Given that the normal system down through history is that a guru’s departure signals the time for him to stop accepting disciples by dīkṣā, it is, on the contrary, up to the ṛtvik supporters to demonstrate that Śrīla Prabhupāda intended the word hence forward to apply to the time after his departure.

3. “I have again begun speaking on the tapes and very soon you will get transcribed copies of my dictaphoning for being edited and laid out for printing, chapter-wise, the fourth canto. Let the second and third cantos be finished quickly so that the fourth canto can be started. Henceforward I shall be supplying material for all cantos and you must do the rest; editing, layout, printing, etc.” (Letter to Candanācārya, March 23, 1971)

It is obvious here that the time period represented by the word henceforward will have an end to it, although this is not specifically stated by Śrīla Prabhupāda. The end will come when the work on the Bhāgavatam is completed. This is not stated, but it is clear from the context. Furthermore, it is obvious that the word henceforward would cease to apply if Śrīla Prabhupāda were to leave his body. What this means is that the word henceforward does not always mean continuing into the future, forever, without end. It could mean that, but not necessarily so. In the case of the July 9 letter, the departure of Śrīla Prabhupāda would represent a major change of circumstances. So it is not at all clear from the context that the word henceforward was taken by Śrīla Prabhupāda to mean that the system described in that letter was to continue after his departure. The general system is that gurus do not accept disciples after their departure. So the word henceforward, if meant to apply after this major change of circumstance, would have to be properly qualified to indicate this. That is not the case with the July 9 letter.

Summary: Henceforward is a word that means from now on, but it can be qualified, either directly or indirectly. It does not mean in all cases “from now until eternity.”

In short, there is no sign at all that the July 9 letter is Prabhupāda’s final order about how the disciplic succession was to continue in his absence. It was simply a temporary measure, tied to his health. Śrīla Prabhupāda indicated that the system could change at any moment. Therefore it is not true that he intended the word “henceforward” to mean from now to eternity, as the ṛtvik advocates falsely say. The July 9 letter can not therefore be used as unambiguous evidence of how Śrīla Prabhupāda intended the disciplic succession to go on in his absence. First of all, it does not contain Prabhupāda’s direct words and, more importantly, it makes no direct mention of his departure or how initiations were to go on after his departure. Krishnakant Desai can speculate and interpret and juggle words “henceforward” (from now until eternity), but the fact is that the July 9 letter says nothing about Prabhupāda’s departure and how initiations were to go on thereafter-and that is the question we are trying to answer.

Krishnakanta Desai asserts that if we say the July 9 letter was not written by Prabhupāda that is like saying that Prabhupāda’s books were not written by Prabhupāda. That is not true. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books were either directly written by him or they were dictated by him on tapes which were transcribed and minimally edited. Those who typed the transcripts were typing Prabhupāda’s words, not theirs, and the editors were editing Prabhupāda’s words, not theirs. In his books, Śrīla Prabhupāda chose his own words and always wrote about himself in the first person (I did this, or I said this) and not in the third person. He also listed himself as the author of his books. He did not let typists and editors like Jayādvaita Prabhu (now Swami) or Hayagriva Prabhu list themselves as the author, and merely sign his name “approved”.

On the other hand, what we have in the July 9 letter is Prabhupāda’s secretary’s understanding of some things Prabhupāda said on July 7 and May 28, written in the secretary’s own words.

Just to give some idea of how there is a difference between a letter directly written by Prabhupāda and signed by him directly and a letter written by Prabhupāda’s secretary and merely approved by him, we can consider the following:

Letter to: All Centers Los Angeles

16 December, 1973
73-12-16
Memo to All Centers

Repeatedly Śrīla Prabhupada says, “I only want my disciples to take this Movement seriously.” So, the punch line is that Prabhupada wants to initiate the following schedule:

1. Reside 4 months in India, 4 months in Europe and 4 months in the U.S.A. out of each year.

2. See or speak to no one except very important visitors wherever his is staying.

3. Be completely relieved of managerial affairs and have full time for translating.

4. Misrepresentation of the Letter of July 9th, 1977

What this means to us is the following:

1. Don’t ask Prabhupada to come to our Temple.

2. Solve all problems amongst ourselves and don’t burden Prabhupada with them.

3. Continue to advance dynamically in Kṛṣṇa Consciousness by keeping all our principles very strictly and vigorously preach and propagate the movement around the world.

Now we have the GBC, the sannyasis, the presidents and so many qualified devotees. We have to give up the habit of placing everything on Prabhupada’s shoulders. We must be responsible, mature, steadfast and convinced. Wherever Prabhupada is staying he will deliver morning lectures. Presidents, etc., may visit there and go on the walks with Prabhupada. Other than that we must take care of all affairs. Enough said. The rest is up to us. Haribol.

Your servant,

Karandhara das Adhikari

APPROVED: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
KDA:kdd

[note: here Kaumodakī Devī Dāsī typed the letter, which was written by Karāndhara Prabhu, and it was signed approved by Prabhupāda.)

I can imagine that some of the disciples of Prabhupāda who were not “very important” might have wondered about this letter. Is it really true that Prabhupāda does not wish to see us, or let us go on walks with him? They probably would have liked to hear that directly from Prabhupāda. And what about the temple presidents who are admonished not to invite Prabhupāda to their centers? Sure, it is a letter from Prabhupāda’s secretary, and there is Prabhupāda’s signature-approved. But I suspect there were many temple presidents who might have thought, “Hmm. I would like to hear that from Prabhupāda directly that he does not want me to invite him to my temple.” So certainly there is a difference between a letter by Prabhupāda’s secretary (even if signed “approved” by Prabhupāda) and a letter written or dictated by Prabhupāda himself. Maybe we’d like to see a tape of the conversation, or confirm it directly from Prabhupāda—just to be absolutely sure. Specifically regarding the July 9 letter, we have to be careful about trying to read between the lines and put all kinds of hidden meanings into particular words, which may not have been directly chosen by Prabhupāda. Of course, in the case of the July 9 letter, we do have a copy of the conversations that inspired the letter (July 7 and May 28), so we can be fairly certain that in this case the secretary faithfully recorded, in a general sense, Prabhupāda’s intentions. But nowhere in the May 28 conversation, and even more importantly, nowhere in the July 7 conversation, which was the immediate cause of the July 9 letter, do we find any statement by Prabhupāda directing Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami to say that Prabhupāda was going to continue to initiate disciples after his physical departure. And, as one might expect, one therefore finds no direct mention at all of Prabhupāda continuing to initiate disciples after his physical departure in the July 9 letter. Krishnakant Desai and his gullible followers may wish that such a thing was there. But it is not. It just is not there! Case closed! (Except for Krishnakanta Desai and his hardcore followers).

So whatever Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami understood and wrote down in his own words was approved by Prabhupāda, and Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami certainly did not have the understanding that Prabhupāda was saying he was going to continue to initiate disciples after his departure, especially after Prabhupāda had just said on May 28 that his disciples were going to become regular gurus who would initiate their own disciples, who would be Prabhupāda’s granddisciples, disciples of Prabhupāda’s disciples. If it was Prabhupāda’s desire on July 7 that he change the direction he gave on May 28, then he would have explicitly said that he would continue to initiate his own disciples after his physical departure, and Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami should have written this into the letter. But nowhere (in Prabhupāda’s entire life!) is there any statement in which Prabhupāda has said he would give initiation to disciples after his own physical departure. In particular, nothing like that is said in the July 7 conversation, which was the immediate cause for the July 9 letter being written.

There is not much more that really needs to be said on this subject, but as I predicted in my Thoughts on the Ṛtvik Heresy, Krishnakanta Desai has continued and will continue to recycle his same old arguments. Krishnakanta Desai asks why I don’t quote anything from his paper. It’s simple. I cannot find anything in the document that is worth quoting. Śrīla Prabhupāda is who we should be quoting. Not Krishnakanta Desai. I defy Krishnakanta Desai to produce any statement in which Prabhupāda directly says in his own words, “I am going to continue to directly initiate dīkṣā disciples after my physical departure from this world.” There is no such statement in the July 7 conversation, the July 9 letter or the May 28 con versation. In fact, in the May 28 conversation Prabhupāda directly says that those taking initiation from the new gurus would be “disciple of my disciple” and “my granddisciple.” He also said that the gurus would be “regular gurus” but should wait until after his departure to accept disciples. It should not be done in the physical presence of Prabhupāda. And that is exactly what Śrīla Prabhupāda said from beginning to end, throughout his life.

Ṛtvik proponents says that Śrīla Prabhupāda’ will indicates that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted a ṛtvik system to continue after his disappearance. This is a totally unsubstantiated speculation. Let’s analyze the facts.

From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Declaration of Will, 4th June, 1977:

I, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, founder-acarya of the International Society for Krishna consciousness, Settlor of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and disciple of Om Visnupada 108 Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktsiddhanta Sarasvatī Gosvama Maharaja Prabhupāda, presently residing at Śrī Kṛṣṇa-Balarama Mandir in Vrndavana, make this my last will:

1. The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.

Ṛtvik proponents say that the “ṛtvik” system was Śrīla Prabhupāda’s chosen way of managing initiations within ISKCON. This statements is totally out of context and ignores at least three facts:

In the will Śrīla Prabhupāda is talking about management of ISKCON properties by three executive directors, he is not talking about initiations.

The “ṛtvik system” was to be used only during Śrīla Prabhupāda physical presence. Śrīla Prabhupāda never indicated that the system would continue after his physical disappearance. He always instructed that he wanted his disciples to become regular dīkṣā-gurus after his departure.

The will is written before the July 9 letter. Even if we apply, for argument’s sake—the sentence “there is no need of any change” to the system of initiations, the sentence would totally invalidate the speculation that the July 9 letter contains indications on how to conduct initiations after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disappearance, a subject that, by the way, is not even mentioned in the July 9 letter.

Another expression the ṛtvik-maya-vādīs try to misuse is “my initiated disciple”.

His Holiness Jayādvaita Mahārāja explains this in his ‘Where the Ṛtvik People are Wrong’:

So now we come to the second piece of evidence, that phrase from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s will in which he stipulates that each new executive director for the ISKCON properties must be ‘my initiated disciple.’

The logic, again, is that since Śrīla Prabhupāda must have wanted to protect these properties forever, he must forever have direct disciples, initiated through a ṛtvik system.

Again, please note that this logic works only for the “hard” form of ṛtvik doctrine (or for the “hard/soft” version), in which the ṛtvik system lasts forever. The “soft” version, in which the ṛtvik system lasts only until the appearance of qualified gurus, is ruled out: for the will to be followed, Śrīla Prabhupāda must have direct disciples forever, through the agency of his ṛtviks (again, “these eleven”).

Even if one wants to go with a “hard/soft” ṛtvik doctrine, in which ṛtviks and pure devotees in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s line initiate side by side, one might wonder why the disciples of those pure devotees are to be excluded from serving as executive directors. Is their initiation somehow less effective? Are they not equally connected with Śrīla Prabhupāda? But this is a small point. Let us go on.

Before we accept this phrase from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s will as a clear sign of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intention for an eternally existing system of ṛtvik-gurus, let us pause for a moment to see how that phrase got in there. Doing so won’t tip the scales one way or the other, but the history is interesting.

It appears that the theme for the will arises in Vṛndāvana on May 27, 1977. That day, Girirāja Swami says to Śrīla Prabhupāda: “This morning you gave the hint that there might be envious persons coming to take away our properties, so in the GBC meeting we discussed this point.” He then relates how a committee of devotees has come up with a “model trust deed” to protect the properties.

Introducing the text, Rāmeśvara Swami says, “This is based on the BBT Trust document that you wrote many years ago.” He then begins reading the new document.

In the course of reading, he comes to the list of trustees for various temples, and gradually to those for Vṛndāvana. “The proposed trustees are Akṣayānanda Swami, Gopāla Kṛṣṇa and Visvambhara.” Visvambhara Dayal (known as “Bhagatji”) was a devoted friend of ISKCON who rendered much service to Śrīla Prabhupāda in Vṛndāvana.

The following conversation ensues:

Prabhupāda: Visvambhara is not our regular disciple.

Jayapatākā: Shouldn’t be included.

Prabhupāda: Then he has to accept sannyāsa from me.

Jayatīrtha: Jaya.

Prabhupāda: He should know...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Become initiated.

Jayapatākā: Trustee must be initiated disciple.

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.

Rāmeśvara: If he is seen... He could be on the advisory board.

Prabhupāda: No, you can say that “If you take sannyāsa, you become on this.”

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So we’ll talk to him, and if he says no, then we’ll select another person and come back and tell you who our choice is.

A few days later, on June 2, devotees present Śrīla Prabhupāda a revised draft.

Girirāja: So we drafted a will, including the trust for the properties of India and some of the other...

Prabhupāda: Will? Will, there will be direction that “Management should be done like this.” That’s all.

Girirāja: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Nobody can say in court case that “This temple will be in charge of this person, this temple...”

Rāmeśvara: Yes, just like you said.

Girirāja: So we’ve included those points...

In the original draft, the successor trustees are simply “never less than three or more than five.” But in the second draft the devotees working on the document have added that the trustees, in this draft called “executive directors,” are to be “initiated disciples” following the regulative principles.

Śrīla Prabhupāda signs the will two days later.

If after Śrīla Prabhupāda disappeared he would cease to initiate, why did the devotees working on the document use the phrase “my initiated disciple”? Why not language that took into account that both Śrīla Prabhupāda and his disciples would soon disappear?

We weren’t used to thinking like that,” says Girirāja Swami. “In retrospect it’s very naive.” (personal interview, January 26, 1996)

But however the language came to be there, the will is signed by Śrīla Prabhupāda, and it clearly says that each successor director should be Śrīla Prabhupāda’s initiated disciple.

So the argument still stands: How could a director generations from now be Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciple unless initiated by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s ṛtvik?

Here opponents of p.s. ṛtvik doctrines might argue that we cannot accept the dictionary meaning of “disciple” but in stead must offer an interpretation. When the dictionary meaning is clear, no interpretation is needed. But when the meaning is equivocal, an interpretation may be warranted.

Śrīla Prabhupāda gives this example: One may say, “There is a residential quarter on the Ganges.” But then a question arises: “The Ganges is water, so how could there be houses on the water?” The answer offered is that “on the Ganges” doesn’t mean literally on the water of the Ganges but rather “on the bank of the Ganges.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda gives this as an example of a legitimate interpretation, offered when there is a legitimate need.

One might argue, then, that since accepting the dictionary meaning of “disciple” would have the unexpected result of requiring the entire system of guru-paramparā to be put aside, here an interpretation is legitimately called for.

In fact, however, no such interpretation is required. The dictionary does fine.

Going to the Oxford English Dictionary, we find that a disciple is “one who follows or attends upon another for the purpose of learning from him; a pupil or scholar.” More explicitly: “A personal pupil or follower of any religious or (in more recent use) other teacher or master.” This is the definition we’re most used to, and it’s the one the ṛtvik people have in mind.

But there’s more. Here’s the next definition, equaliy valid: “One who follows or is influenced by the doctrine or example of another; one who belongs to the ‘school of any leader of thought.”

This is the sense in which anyone who wants to can, be yond a doubt, become Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciple. Any sin cere person can follow Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings and example. Anyone can join his school of thought, or, still further, his International Society for Krishna Consciousness. And ultimately one can become not only his disciple in spirit but his “initiated disciple” through the guru-paramparā system.

In this sense, by the grace of Śrīla Prabhupāda, one can become not only his disciple but at the same time the disciple of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the six Gosvāmīs, and all the other ācāryas in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s line.

“This,” as Śrīla Prabhupāda writes (Bg. 18.75), “is the mystery of the disciplic succession.” One is linked through the transparent medium of the bona fide spiritual master, but at the same time “the experience is still direct.”

We might envision the day when those who believe they have become directly “initiated disciples” of Śrīla Prabhupāda through a ṛtvik-or from a picture, or in a dream-might challenge in court that they alone have the right to serve as executive directors for ISKCON properties. Only the direct disciples are bona fide, they might claim, not those who profess to be merely disciples of his disciples in succession. We leave it for you to decide how well this would conform-legally and spiritually—to the intention of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s will.

Some ṛtvik-vādīs have come up with the notion that the spiritual master has to instruct his disciples in written and signed orders. This is a total concoction. Where in the scriptures is it said that an order of the guru is less valid if it is not written down on a paper and signed? The argument, besides being against tradition, is also self-defeating. To substantiate it they need to present a written and signed order from Śrīla Prabhupāda where he says that the guru needs to write down and sign his instructions. But where is such document? Nowhere.

Śrīla Prabhupāda gave the qualifications of guru and expressed his desire for all members of ISKCON to qualify as guru. Śrīla Prabhupāda does not even say that the July 9 letter is the “final order”. The “final order” is merely an invention.

“I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time I shall request them all to become spiritual masters. Every one of you should be spiritual master next.” (Hamburg, Sept 5, 1969)

Here Śrīla Prabhupāda says that every disciple should become a spiritual master next. He didn’t say that he ordered his disciples to become spiritual masters, still the meaning is the same. Any serious disciple will take the spiritual master’s expressed desire as an order. Note also that Śrīla Prabhupāda says “next.” That means his disciples should succeed him as dīkṣā-gurus. If he were merely referring to his disciples becoming śikṣā-gurus, as the ṛtvik-vādīs claim, the use of the term “next” becomes redundant, as they were already acting as śikṣā-gurus.

A Folio search didn’t reveal even a single instance of Śrīla Prabhupāda saying “I order... (something)” The ṛtvik-vādīs impose the imaginary condition on Śrīla Prabhupāda that he must express himself in a particular way. They propose that in instructing his disciples and communicating his desires he must use the term “order”, otherwise they will not accept his instructions. Śrīla Prabhupāda, on the other hand, has repeatedly and consistently instructed his disciples to become spiritual masters after his departure. Whether or not he has done this using the expression “order” is totally irrelevant. Here are just a couple of examples:

“So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciples. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire.” “If you are incapable of raising yourself to the standard of becoming spiritual master, that is not your spiritual master’s fault, that is your fault. He wants, just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā, “By My order, every one of you become a guru.” (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

Some ṛtvik-māyā followers wrote:

“It needs to actually be proven through statements from Śrīla Prabhupāda that he continually taught that he would stop being the guru upon his departure...”

What does it mean “stop being the guru”? Śrīla Prabhupāda never stopped being the dīkṣā-guru for his disciples, and never stopped being the dīkṣā-guru for those who never took dīkṣā from him. There is no question of stopping something that has never started. Whoever was initiated by Śrīla Prabhupāda remained his disciple, whoever had not been initiated by Śrīla Prabhupāda also remained so.

Are they really expecting to find a recorded statement where Śrīla Prabhupāda says: “After leaving my body I will stop accepting disciples.” Do they expect such delirious statements? Did Śrīla Prabhupāda specifically instruct that his servants should stop giving him medicines once he left his body? Their request is insane.

Śrīla Prabhupāda was not going to make such obvious statements which are totally unnecessary for reasonable people.

They are imposing some imaginative condition on Śrīla Prabhupāda; he should have said that, he should have done that.

Moreover, have any of the previous ācāryas ever said: “After leaving the body I will stop accepting disciples”? Did Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura ever say that? The absence of such statements would, according to their “logic”, demonstrate that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s initiating disciples was illegitimate, as his spiritual master never expressly said that he would stop initiating after his departure.

What ṛtvikism indirectly implies is that Śrīla Prabhupāda was incapable of leaving clear instructions behind him. If Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted a post-samādhi proxy-initiation system, he could have plainly said so in his books, letters, lectures, conversations, etc. A single statement would have been enough; something like: “the disciples I have appointed to accept disciples on my behalf will continue to accept disciples on my behalf even after my physical departure. I shall remain as the only dīkṣā-guru for all devotees in ISKCON.” Of course, such statement, or similar ones, do not exists. What exists is a multitude of statements in which Śrīla Prabhupāda presents the eternal system of disciplic succession.

Ṛtvik-vādīs are therefore offending Śrīla Prabhupāda by implying that he didn’t have the ability or intelligence to properly express his instructions.

Some ṛtvik-vādīs want to make the following conversation into the evaluation of Śrīla Prabhupāda of his disciples as late as 22 April 1977:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and it’s clear fact that we are all conditioned souls, so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible...

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: ...but not now.

Prabhupāda: Yes. I shall choose some guru. I shall say, “Now you become ācārya. You become authorized.” I am waiting for that. You become all ācārya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: The process of purification must be there.

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahāprabhu wants that. Amāra ajñāya guru hañā. “You become guru.” (laughs) But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower...

Taking the above as the only evaluation of his disciples by Śrīla Prabhupāda is a clear example of omitting other evidence, the logical fallacy known as “proof by selected instance”. In another conversation that took place just a week before, on 15 April 1977, Śrīla Prabhupāda expressed confidence in his disciples and encouraged them when they humbly presented themselves as unqualified:

Prabhupāda: Every one of us messiah. Anyone Kṛṣṇa conscious, he’s the messiah. Every one. Why one? All of us. Gaurāṅgera bhakta-gaṇe, jane jane śakti dhari, brahmāṇḍa tari saksi(?): “The devotee of Lord Caitanya, every one has so immense power that every one, they can deliver the whole universe.” Gaurāṅgera bhakta-jane, jane jane śakti..., brahmāṇḍa tari... That is Gaurāṅga’s men.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Only you are that powerful, Śrīla Prabhupāda. We’re like...

Prabhupāda: Why you are not? You are my disciples.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: We’re like the bugs.

Prabhupāda: “Like father, like son.” You should be. Gaurāṅgera bhakta..., jane. Everyone. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa. He asked everyone, “Just become guru.” Follow His instruction. You become guru. Amāra ājñāya. Don’t manufacture ideas. Amāra ājñāya. “What I say, you do. You become a guru.” Where is the difficulty? “And what is Your ājñā?” Yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Bas. Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. You simply repeat. That’s all. You become guru. To become a guru is not difficult job. Follow Caitanya Mahāprabhu and speak what Kṛṣṇa has said. Bas. You become guru.

Bas. So much for the “In-1977-Śrīla Prabhupāda-thought-that no-diciple-was-qualified-to-be-dīkṣā-guru” theory.

An argument we often hear from proponents of ṛtvikism is: “In the past gurus have fallen, and this has created havoc in our society and in the lives of individual devotees. Śrīla Prabhupāda must have seen the future and knew that that would have happened. Therefore Śrīla Prabhupāda cannot have wanted gurus in ISKCON”.

First of all this argument is speculative and not based on any reference to sādhu-guru-śāstra, and therefore should be rejected. The argument shows its inconsistency when applied to other areas in which Śrīla Prabhupāda’s followers had difficulty in fulfilling his desires.

One could say, for instance: “Śrīla Prabhupāda must have predicted that marriages would have so many problems, there fore he really cannot have wanted a gṛhastha-āśrama in ISKCON...”

“Śrīla Prabhupāda must have predicted that there will be problems in the gurukula, therefore he really cannot have wanted a gurukula system in ISKCON...”.

Śrīla Prabhupāda must have predicted that so many temples would face problems of management and maintenance, therefore he really cannot have wanted temples in ISKCON...”

Śrīla Prabhupāda must have predicted that there will be difficulties in protecting cows, therefore he really cannot have wanted cow-protection in ISKCON...” etc. etc. the list goes on and on.

In other words, ṛtvik-vādīs disregard Śrīla Prabhupāda’s stated desire and then offhandedly say: “Oh, Śrīla Prabhupāda must have seen the future...” substituting their speculations for the Founder-Acārya’s direct, unambiguous directions. A true followers keeps in mind the instructions of the guru and works toward fulfilling the guru’s desire, even in spite of challenges and obstacles. So why pointing out only the difficulties or failures some individuals had in their service as spiritual masters?

In the words of Śrīla Prabhupāda (San Diego, 29 June, 1972):

“So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciples. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not.

...If you are incapable of raising yourself to the standard of becoming spiritual master, that is not your spiritual master’s fault, that is your fault. He wants, just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā, “By My order, every one of you become a guru.

Another aspect is that ISKCON’s future doesn’t stop 20 years from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disappearance; therefore one should not come to hasty conclusions on what the future holds.

Did any guru in any bona fide sampradāya continue to initiate disciples after his or her physical presence? How can we ever accept something that nobody ever talked about? But the ṛtvik-advocates sustain: “Śrīla Prabhupāda must have wanted to remain the dīkṣā-guru for ISKCON, otherwise he should have said the contrary!” With the same “logic” we could pro pose literally unlimited speculations on what Śrīla Prabhupā da wanted. Ṛtvikists are reduced to declare something that Śrīla Prabhupāda never even mentioned as the system for the next 10,000 years.

A ṛtvik proponent wrote, about the May 28 conversation:

Śrīla Prabhupāda then finishes by saying that they would be gurus if he orders them, and should he ever do so they would then be disciples of his disciples.”

A faithful report of what Śrīla Prabhupāda said? The transcription reads:

When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.”

This is Metamorphosis at its best. “When” is here twisted into “it”, and the sentence “should he ever do so” magically manifests.

In other words, to support their doctrine with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words they have to put these words into Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mouth themselves.

Śrīla Prabhupāda never said that he wanted to remain as dīkṣā-guru for the next 10,000 years. On the contrary Śrīla Prabhupāda has always preached about the paramparā system.

Mohsin Hassan: After you, is it any decision has been made who will take over?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters. (Conversation, Detroit, 18 July, 1971)

Ṛtvikists therefore try to force Śrīla Prabhupāda to remain the dīkṣā-guru for ISKCON when he specifically expressed a different desire.

The above is simply absurd.

Devotees have sometimes announced that they have “irrefutable proof” of the ṛtvik-guru system. They then offer into evidence various quotes in which Śrīla Prabhupāda speaks of appointing ṛtviks. Next comes the document in which Śrīla Prabhupāda actually appoints them, and then letters in which Śrīla Prabhupāda makes clear to the ṛtviks their duties. Then further evidence: testimony from senior devotees that Śrīla Prabhupāda did indeed appoint ṛtvik-gurus.

On top of this we are offered a careful tracing of history: Śrīla Prabhupāda gradually handed things over-first the performance of fire yajñas, then the chanting on beads, and finally the actual acceptance of candidates and giving of spiritual names. Yet through all of this, we are reminded, the new initiates were al ways disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda, and no one else.

And then comes the conclusion: In the face of such an over whelming body of evidence, how can one deny that Śrīla Prabhupāda did indeed establish the ṛtvik-guru system?

The answer, of course, is simple: What the argument succeeds in proving is what everyone already accepts. That Śrīla Prabhupāda appointed ṛtvik-gurus and established a “ṛtvik-guru system” is not in dispute. Everyone agrees about it.

The argument, therefore, entirely misses the issue.

What’s at issue is whether Śrīla Prabhupāda intended some form of ṛtvik-guru system to continue after his physical departure.

Some people seem to think that merely offering more and more evidence that Śrīla Prabhupāda set up a ṛtvik-guru system somehow makes the case for a post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru system stronger and stronger. It doesn’t. If one wanted to prove the existence of two-headed pigeons, no amount of evidence that there are pigeons would be enough. That pigeons exist is something we already know. What would need to be shown is that some of them have two heads.

Arguments proving again and again what’s already accept ed do nothing to settle the issue at hand. When used knowingly and deliberately, such arguments are a form of cheating. When used innocently, they are merely irrelevant.

So let’s leave this behind and go on.

We now come to an argument that is relevant: the personal testimony of devotees who say they heard before Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure that Śrīla Prabhupāda had set up a post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru system.

Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita, one of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples, tells us that while serving as an assistant to His Holiness Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami in Vṛndāvana, on or about May 23, 1977, he directly heard Śrīla Prabhupāda tell Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami that the appointed ṛtviks should continue to serve as ṛtviks even after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. This conversation, he tells us, was even recorded on tape.

In addition, Yaśodā-nandana Dāsa tells us that in May 1977 Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami and Bhavānanda Goswami indicated to him that Śrīla Prabhupāda had endorsed a post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru system. Yaśodā-nandana Prabhu offers a diary in which he noted this at the time.

When we come to this sort of testimony, several questions are naturally relevant: How many witnesses are testifying? How reliable are their accounts? How well do they agree with one another?

From the beginning, then, this argument is in trouble. How many people claim to have heard directly from Śrīla Prabhupāda that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted this system? Only one. He was a junior man, not a leading devotee, Śrīla Prabhupāda was not confiding in him directly, and though we have nothing bad we wish to say of him he has not especially distinguished himself by his record of devotional service. Moreover, for some reason he held back his testimony until many years after Śrīla Prabhupāda left.

Most important, Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita, for all his good qualities, may still be subject to the four frailties common to all conditioned souls: imperfect senses, a tendency to make mistakes, a tendency to fall into illusion, and a propensity to cheat.

Yaśodā-nandana Dāsa, of course, is presumably subject to the same four shortcomings. And apart from this, a serious concern is that his testimony is second hand.

If the tape recording Gaurīdāsa speaks of has ever existed, it has never been found. One may obliquely suggest that some one must have deliberately erased it. But in any case, evidence that doesn’t exist is no evidence at all.

What we are left with, then, is mainly Gaurīdāsa’s lone report. And according to Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, the other person allegedly present, what Gaurīdāsa tells us is wrong.

At best, then, the evidence from personal testimony is equivocal and weak.

Here, perhaps is the place to bring forward a point made by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja and approvingly quoted in several papers by proponents of post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru doctrines.

At a meeting in Topanga Canyon in 1980, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja stated that Śrīla Prabhupāda had never appointed the eleven ṛtviks to be anything more than ṛtviks. “If it had been more than that,” he said, “you can bet your bottom dol lar that Prabhupāda would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, but he didn’t...”

The same point about how Śrīla Prabhupāda let us know what he wanted is relevant here. If he had wanted a ṛtvik-guru system to continue after his departure, would we have expected him to have said so merely once in private to his secretary, or would he have spoken about it with his leading devotees “for days and hours and weeks on end”?

For those familiar with how Śrīla Prabhupāda did things, the answer should be easy.

This is a point we shall return to later. But for now let us move on.

Another line of reasoning begins with a critique–much of it valid-of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s leading disciples and their failings after his departure. None of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples, it is argued, is now fit to serve as a bona fide spiritual master. And scriptural arguments are offered to support this point of view.

Therefore, the argument continues, since no one else is fit, the only person of whom we can safely take shelter is Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.

Śrīla Prabhupāda knew the limitations of his disciples, and he must have known what would happen. Therefore, the argument concludes, he must have set up the ṛtvik-guru system.

The response to this argument is simple: It is speculative and should therefore be rejected. A speculation may be rea sonable or unreasonable, but Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us to rely on authority, not on speculation.

Moreover, this speculation is logically defective. To dis pose of it, we need not decide whether Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples are fit or unfit, or whether they “received the order” to become guru or not. Nor do we need to discuss what the credentials of a bona fide spiritual master should be. (These are important topics, but they are not the topic at hand.)

Suppose for the moment that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples are all indeed unfit. It does not therefore logically follow that Śrīla Prabhupāda must have (note the speculative language) set up a post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru system.

Instead, if he found his disciples all unfit he could have blessed one or more to quickly attain spiritual perfection. Or he could have declared that henceforward Kṛṣṇa Himself, or the Bhāgavatam itself, or the holy name itself would be the spiritual master. Or he could have simply left everything up to Kṛṣṇa.

The point is that it’s not enough to talk about what Śrīla Prabhupāda could have done or must have done. We have to see what Śrīla Prabhupāda actually did.

To argue that Śrīla Prabhupāda must have set up a ṛtvik-guru system and that the evidence for this is so scanty only because it must have been suppressed and covered up is merely to take the speculation one step further.

And speculating is not the way Śrīla Prabhupāda cold us to do things. One who wants to take shelter of Śrīla Prabhupāda, therefore, should avoid taking shelter of speculations.

Coming back to a point on which all agree, we should all take shelter of Śrīla Prabhupāda and his instructions. Śrīla Prabhupāda is the exalted pure devotee who gave us the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We can all be completely confident of his instructions and his example. And we can be sure that by strictly and sincerely following Śrīla Prabhupāda we will always be safe and secure.

But we must follow Śrīla Prabhupāda as he himself instruct ed us to follow. We must follow Śrīla Prabhupāda and those who follow Śrīla Prabhupāda, not the speculations of others.

This brings us to the next argument.

The next argument is really just an extension of the previous one: Śrīla Prabhupāda must have set up a ṛtvik-guru system, because the system has so many advantages.

“Just see all the benefits of this system,” declare the advocates of this point of view. “How much better it would be than the alternatives.”

Or the same argument is put in negative form: We are in trouble and perplexity only because we have failed to take up this wonderful system.

To make it all clear to us, the advocates sometimes offer charts showing us the benefits their system would bring, com pared to the bad points of what’s going on now.

But those who have learned from history will refuse to be lured. The one-appointed-ācārya system of the Gauḍīya Maṭha, the zonal-ācārya system of ISKCON—both looked so good. They seemed to offer so many advantages. Or the alternatives seemed so bleak.

For many, only in retrospect could those fine-looking systems be recognized as deviations and therefore causes of disaster.

But, again, what Śrīla Prabhupāda trained us to do was not to evaluate all the possibilities, choose what seems to us to have the most points going for it, and then conclude that this must have been what he wanted. What he trained us to do was to strictly follow what he taught us.

If there’s one lesson we should have learned from history it should be this: However good a path of action may seem, if it’s against what Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us, forget it.

We now come to another argument we can deal with quickly.

Where, it is demanded, has the śāstra or Śrīla Prabhupāda said that one can’t approach an ācārya for initiation merely because he has physically departed? Where do the authorities tell us that a post-samādhi ṛtvik system is no good? Can you show me a verse? Can you point to a purport? How then can you say it’s not valid?

This is simply a classic argumentative blunder, a textbook fallacy.

“How do we know that you don’t beat your wife?” demands the rumor-monger. And then you’re stuck there, trying to come up with evidence to counter a groundless accusation.

How do you know there’s not a celestial planet controlled by a three-legged grasshopper with seven heads and superhuman intelligence? Can you show me a verse that refutes it? Can you point to a purport?

How can you prove it’s not bona fide to take initiation from the ghost of Aristotle’s mother or a picture of a self realized boa constrictor?

One must support one’s views by evidence, not by assertions that a lack of counter-evidence makes them true. Enough said.

This argument is simple. As Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us, the process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by authorities.

Our authorities are guru, sādhu, and śāstra. For us to accept that post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru theories are right, we should see statements in which guru, sādhu, and śāstra directly endorse them. We don’t. Therefore the theories should be rejected.

A first-class appeal to authority does not consist of authoritative statements linked with a line of logic: “Therefore he could have... Therefore he must have...” It consists of a clear, unequivocal statement that directly supports what you’re trying to show.

What statements of this kind are available to support the p.s. ṛtvik-guru doctrines? None. Therefore the doctrines should be discarded.

Please note that the argument here is different from the “argument from a lack of counter-evidence” rejected before. We are not saying, “X is true. Prove that it isn’t.” It’s not “You beat your wife. Prove that you don’t.” Rather, it’s “If you believe that X is true, please show that it is.” “Oh, do I beat my wife? All right, what’s the evidence?”

Neither from guru nor sādhu nor śāstra do the post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru doctrines have any evidence going for them. Therefore we should reject them.

Again, a simple argument.

Śrīla Prabhupāda usually did what was done by the predecessor ācāryas. And never in the history of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, nor any other form of Vaiṣṇavism, have we found any instance of a post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru system.

Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda could have put in place an unprecedented system. He could have done anything. But the lack of precedent gives a good reason to doubt that he did.

The reasons given for accepting the p.s. ṛtvik-guru doctrines are poor. And why should we accept doctrines backed by poor reasons? We shouldn’t.

The p.s. ṛtvik doctrines require us to accept that Śrīla Prabhupāda, in his last few months, reversed what he’d taught for the previous ten years.

“One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.43p)

“Every student is expected to become ācārya. Ācārya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples... Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide 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 the 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.” (Letter to Tuṣta Kṛṣṇa Swami, December 2, 1975; emphasis supplied)

“So we have got this message from Kṛṣṇa, from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, from the six Gosvāmīs, later on Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Bhaktisiddhānta Ṭhākura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth... My Guru Mahārāja is tenth from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge.” (Los Angeles arrival lecture, May 18, 1972)

Commenting on the letter to Tuṣṭa Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja, a treatise advocating a p.s. ṛtvik doctrine says, “All the letter states is the normal process of disciplic succession: Guru departs and a qualified disciple continues initiating.” The treatise then argues that because no one was qualified, Śrīla Prabhupāda set up a p.s. ṛtvik system.

The faulty argument that since no one was qualified Śrīla Prabhupāda “must have” set up a new system has been previously disposed of. What I want to focus on here is a simple point: That a spiritual master initiates until his departure and then his disciples initiate next is the normal system. On this we are all in agreement. This is what Śrīla Prabhupāda taught the entire time he was with us.

The p.s. ṛtvik doctrines require us to accept that Śrīla Prabhupāda-in contradiction to more than ten years of his own consistent teaching-suddenly put aside the normal system and replaced it with a new innovation.

Asking us to accept this is simply asking too much.

On May 28, 1977, when a deputation of GBC members asked Śrīla Prabhupāda how initiations would go on after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical departure, his last words on the subject were these:

“When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. Just see.”

“Disciple of my disciple.” The meaning is clear, and it’s consistent with Śrīla Prabhupāda always taught us.

For those who refuse to see it, no amount of argument will help. For the rest of us, there it is.

Here is the place to recall, one last time, that when Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted to do something different and new, he spared no pains to make himself clear. As his disciples will remember, when His Divine Grace had an important point to make, he would drive it into our thick heads again and again and again.

If Śrīla Prabhupāda had wanted to initiate even after his physical departure, he wouldn’t have merely disclosed this privately to only one conspiratorially minded disciple. Or packed it all into one pregnant word. Or left it for us to infer from a phrase about property directors.

Had Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted to revolutionize the entire paramparā system, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have spoken about it for days and hours and weeks on end. But he didn’t, because he simply expected us to follow the normal system he had taught us for the past ten years.

Asking us to believe anything to the contrary is, again, simply asking too much.

Śrīla Prabhupāda entered samādhi in 1977. Post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru doctrines began appearing only in the mid-1980’s.

After all the troubles we’ve been through since Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, after all the concoctions, after all the disasters, now we are supposed to put our faith in a truth that came to light only years after Śrīla Prabhupāda physically left us.

The teaching about paramparā we all understood and re peated and agreed about till 1977, and for years after-out the window it goes.

Now, with no precedent from śāstra, no example from previous ācāryas, no clear and public instruction from Śrīla Prabhupāda himself, we are supposed to set aside the normal system Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us the whole time he was physically here. And we’re supposed to buy into something entirely opposite, a new doctrine that has sprung up, amidst a swirl of controversy, half a decade or more after His Divine Grace has physically left.

As Śrīla Prabhupāda used to say, “And I have to believe it?” Please—that’s asking far too much.

“The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.”

This is the first point in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s will. Ṛtvik-vādīs conduct their propaganda in open violation of it.

Since 1990 the GBC has included the ṛtvik speculations in the category of “Specifically Outlawed Doctrines and Practices”:

“The doctrine that Śrīla Prabhupāda continues to initiate direct dīkṣā disciples after his departure from this world through officiating priests (ṛtviks) is a dangerous philosophical deviation. It is totally prohibited in ISKCON. No devotee shall participate in such posthumous ṛtvik initiation ceremonies in any capacity including acting as ṛtvik, initiate, assistant, organizer, or financier. No ISKCON devotee shall advocate or support its practice.” (ISKCON law 8.5.7.2)

The pro-ṛtviks claim that the guru should be “independent of mundane rules” and “beyond all ecclesiastical considerations”, and therefore a guru cannot be under the authority of the GBC Body.

The guru is first of all a disciple, who has to follow the instructions of Śrīla Prabhupāda. One of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions is to work under the GBC. Following the orders of the spiritual master cannot be considered a mundane or ecclesiastical consideration. So how can someone legitimately think that if a guru has to follow the GBC Body, which is the instruction of Śrīla Prabhupāda, it is a limitation upon him that will relativize his position to his disciples? Besides this, the GBC Body is a group of senior Vaiṣṇavas and working under the jurisdiction of senior Vaiṣṇavas has always been existing in the Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura states in his work Śrī Godruma-kalpaṭavī that he worked under a eleven-member pañcāyat which was directing the activities of the nāma-haṭṭa. But that does not in any way diminish the stature of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. Rather it reveals his glorious quality of being a servant of the servant of the Lord.

Śrīla Prabhupāda himself would have been working under a GBC if the Gauḍīya Maṭha had followed Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s instruction to establish a Governing Body.

Śrīla Prabhupāda often stated that the reason why the Gauḍīya Maṭha failed was that it disobeyed the orders of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura to form a Governing Body and work under such a Governing Body. Had a Governing Body existed in the mission of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura after his disappearance, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself would have worked under it. But that would not have minimized the stature and self-effulgence of Śrīla Prabhupāda, just as working under the eleven-member pañcāyat of the nāma-haṭṭa did not diminish the stature of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura.

Some pro-ṛtviks say that the dīkṣā-guru is one who “embraces Kṛṣṇa,” that he is “in direct contact with the Supersoul,” etc. These people claim that the GBC criterion of being a guru is a “low-level” standard. However, if we examine the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda as well as his example, we do not find that to be the case. The GBC’s standard is not a “low-level” standard but an objective standard that is strictly in accordance with the guidelines given to us by Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Here is one quote from Śrīla Prabhupāda:

One does not become spiritual master by his own whims. That is no spiritual master. He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he’s spiritual master. Amāra ājñāya. Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that “You just try to preach this gospel, what ever you have learned from me, in English.” So we have tried it. That’s all. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior authority. That’s all. This is the secret of success.” (London, August 3, 1973)

Here Śrīla Prabhupāda has given an objective, verifiable criterion. Why is he a spiritual master? Because he has “tried to execute the order of superior authority.” “That’s all.” That is the criterion for being a guru: simply following the order of “superior authority.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda doesn’t say anything about that he should be accepted as a guru because he is “embracing Kṛṣṇa,” etc. He says clearly that the reason why he is a guru is because he strictly follows the superior authority.

Śrīla Prabhupāda accepted Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura as his guru. Why? Let us listen to his own reason why he accepted Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura as his spiritual master:

“In this connection we may call to memory the time when I was fortunate enough to meet His Divine Grace Śrīla Prabhupāda, sometime in the year 1922. Śrīla Prabhupāda had come from Calcutta to Śrīdhāma Māyāpur to start the missionary activities of the Gauḍīya Maṭha. He was sitting in a house at Ulṭa-Daṅga when through the inducement of an intimate friend, the late Śrīman Narendranātha Mallika, I had the opportunity to meet His Divine Grace for the first time. I do not remember the actual date of the meeting, but at that time I was one of the managers of Dr. Bose’s laboratory in Calcutta. I was a newly married young man, addicted to Gandhi’s movement and dressed in khadi. Fortunately, even at our first meeting, His Divine Grace advised me to preach the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in English in the Western countries. Because at that time I was a complete nationalist, a follower of Mahātma Gandhi’s, I submitted to His Divine Grace that unless our country were freed from foreign subjugation, no one would hear the message of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu seriously. Of course, we had some argument on this subject, but at last I was defeated and convinced that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s message is the only panacea for suffering humanity. I was also convinced that the message of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was then in the hands of a very expert devotee and that surely the message of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu would spread all over the world. I could not, however, immediately take up his instructions to preach, but I took his words very seriously and was always thinking of how to execute his or der, although I was quite unfit to do so.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, “Concluding Words”)

Śrīla Prabhupāda doesn’t say that he accepted Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī as his guru because “he was from Vaikuṇṭha,” etc. He later expressed his realization about Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī: “What can I say? He is a Vaikuṇṭha man!” But he never stated this as the criterion for accepting a spiritual master. The reason he accepted Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī was simply because “the message of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was then in the hands of a very expert devotee.” Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī was presenting the message of Lord Caitanya expertly and purely and that was why he accepted him as his spiritual master.

There are two very important reasons why we cannot accept the criteria for someone to be a guru as “being able to see Krishna,” etc.

1. No Vaiṣṇava who is seeing Kṛṣṇa will generally out of his humility admit that he is seeing Kṛṣṇa.

2. Neophyte devotees cannot understand the level of realization of the devotee. Therefore even if a Vaiṣṇava tells some one that he is seeing Kṛṣṇa, how will the listener know for certain whether or not it is true?

So how can we set the standard of accepting the guru as some thing vague and subjective, like someone who has been embraced by Kṛṣṇa? When Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gītā asked Kṛṣṇa how he could know a self-realized person, Kṛṣṇa didn’t tell him to look for a person who had been embraced by Kṛṣṇa. On the contrary He gave clear, verifiable symptoms by which such a person can be known. Thus it is seen that the GBC’s system of setting an objective criteria for acceptance of guru is in accordance with the statements of Śrīla Prabhupāda. It is not a “low standard” as some pro-ṛtviks would like us to believe, but strictly according to guru, sādhu and śāstra.

This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follow er may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme, liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of the material nature. Lord Caitanya therefore says: ‘By My order you may become a spiritual master. One can immediately become a spiritual master by having full faith in the transcendental words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and by following His instructions.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.18.5p)

Sometimes, upon being confronted with the total lack of śāstric support for their doctrine, ṛtvikists resort to another speculation: “Well, the ācārya can change śāstra.” This is completely opposite to the very definition of ācārya, as given by Śrīla Prabhupāda:

Guru means he must be abiding by the rules and regulation of the śāstra. Sādhu-guru-śāstra. Sādhu means one who is obeying the rules and regulation of śāstra. Śāstra must be the medium. Without śāstra nothing is acceptable. That is spoken by Kṛṣṇa. Tasmād śāstra-vidhānoktaḥ. Yaḥ śāstra vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ. So nobody can transgress the rules and regulation of śāstra, and what to speak of guru. Guru is ācārya. Acinoti yaḥ śāstrāṇi. One who knows the rules and regulation of the śāstra and he teaches his disciple according to the śāstra, he is called ācārya.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, Vṛndāvana, 5 October, 1976)

Therefore the Vedic literature says that you have to follow the footprints of great ācāryas. Ācārya means great devo tees who come to teach the people in general about God consciousness or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He is called ācārya. He behaves in his life how? To think of Kṛṣṇa, and he teaches his students about that. He is called ācārya. Acinoti śāstrāṇi. He knows the purport of the scriptures, and he behaves in his life and he teaches his student in that way. He is called ācārya.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, New York, 16 December, 1966)

Guru means the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Ācāryam mām vijānīyān nāvamanyeta karhicit. “Acārya,” Kṛṣṇa says, māṁ vijānīyāt: “he is Myself. I am. Because he is My perfect representative-he won’t speak anything nonsense; he will speak something or everything which he has heard from Me—therefore he is ācārya...

Ācārya means one who knows the śāstra and practically uses in his life, and the same thing, he teaches to his disciple. That is called ācārya. Acārya is not a self-made man, no. Ācārya means acinoti yaḥ śāstrāṇi. One who understand the śāstra, the Vedic śāstra, and practices in life and teaches the same thing to his student. That is called ācārya.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, 9 January, 1975)

So the ācārya “won’t speak anything nonsense”, he speaks according to śāstra.

Besides, Śrīla Prabhupāda never even hinted at changing anything regarding the traditional system of guru-paramparā as presented in the śāstra.

Some pro-ṛtviks say that since Śrīla Prabhupāda is in his books, we can directly be in contact with him and therefore he is our current link. However, this is an incorrect conclusion. Not only Prabhupāda, but all of our previous ācāryas are in their books because the spiritual master is present in vapuḥ and vāṇī.

The instructions in the writings of the previous ācāryas constitute the vāṇī and therefore they are still present and available to us in their vāṇī form for us to take shelter.

Actually going to Vṛndāvana involves taking shelter of the six Gosvāmīs by reading Bhakti-rasāmsta-sindhu, Vidagdha-mādhava, Lalita-mādhava and the other books that they have given.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 8.31p)

From this we can understand that one can take shelter of the six Gosvāmīs by reading their books. But that doesn’t mean that we can bypass the spiritual master or the representative of the six Gosvāmīs and attempt to directly take initiation from the six Gosvāmīs.

Similarly, reading the books of Śrīla Prabhupāda is not sufficient; one requires a living spiritual master representing Śrīla Prabhupāda, who can give spiritual initiation and accept our service on behalf of the paramparā:

Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called paramparā system.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda lecture December 8th, 1973)

One should not proudly think that one can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by reading books. One must become a servant of a Vaiṣṇava. One must accept a Vaiṣnava guru (ādau gurv-āśrayam), and then by questions and answers one should gradually learn what pure devotional service to Kṛṣṇa is. That is called the paramparā system.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.54p)

And again in answering a question from an Indian lady at his lecture in London, on September 23, 1969:

Indian lady: How does one contact the spiritual master? Through a book can you contact the spiritual master?

Prabhupāda: No, you have to associate.

Syāmasundara: “Can you associate through a book?” she asked.

Prabhupāda: Yes, through books, and also personal. Because when you make a spiritual master you have got personal touch. Not that in air you make a spiritual master. You make a spiritual master concrete. So as soon as you make a spiritual master, you should be inquisitive.

From the above, it is clear that we need a living spiritual master to help us understand and apply the books of Śrīla Prabhupāda.

The guru is a devotee serving as initiating and/or instructing spiritual master. There is no reason to believe that he or she cannot have problems.

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains:

A spiritual master must be very careful in this regard. Such business is going on all over the world. The spiritual master does not accept a materially opulent disciple just to advertise the fact that he has such a big disciple. He knows that by associating with such viṣayā disciples, he may fall down. One who accepts a viṣayī disciple is not a bona fide spiritual master. Even if he is, his position may be damaged due to association with an unscrupulous viṇayī.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 24.330p)

Śrīla Prabhupāda elaborates on the temptations affecting even great personalities:

This sex life in this material world is so strong, even in the heavenly planets. Big, big rṣis. Sex life with animals also there is... Sex life is so strong. Man cohabiting with animal. It makes blind. Vyāsadeva made one of her (his) students pregnant, what to speak of ourselves. Vyāsadeva was born, Satyavatī. She was low class. Although she was born by a king, but her mother was a low-class fisherwoman. And the fisherman raised her as daughter. And Parāśara Muni became attracted. And Vyāsadeva was born. Sex affairs, just see, in the highest circle. Bṛhaspati, the spiritual master of the devatās, he became so much mad for his brother’s wife who was pregnant, and forcibly they had sex. Just see. These are examples. Brahmā became attracted with his daughter. Lord Śiva became attracted with the beauty of Mohinī-mūrti, even in the presence of his wife.” (Room Conversation, Bombay, 7 January, 1977)

Some pro-ṛtviks concoct a new doctrine about gurus and uttama-adhikārīs. First of all, they point out the following statement of Śrīla Prabhupāda as found in his purport to the fifth verse of the Nectar of Instruction, “A disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikārī as a spiritual master.” Then they boisterously claim that there are no uttama-adhikārīs within ISKCON because “so many gurus have fallen down,” etc. They misleadingly quote descriptions of the uttama adhikārī that he is one who “constantly sees Kṛṣṇa,” etc. and say that it is only such an uttama-adhikārī who is “constantly seeing Kṛṣṇa within his heart” that one should accept as a spiritual master. They say, “Since Śrīla Prabhupāda (alone) is such an uttama-adhikārī, everyone in ISKCON should accept Śrīla Prabhupāda as their dīkṣā-guru and be saved.”

However, if we closely examine the entire translation and purport of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s fifth verse of the Nectar of Instruction, it becomes apparent that the nature of the uttama-adhikārī being referred to is different from what the pro-ṛtviks would want us to believe. We shall quote the translation and excerpts from the purport in italics.

Translation: One should mentally honor the devotee who chants the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, one should offer humble obeisances to the devotee who has undergone spiritual initiation [dīkṣā] and is engaged in worshiping the Deity, and one should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others.

Taking into account the word meanings and translation, we discover that there are three distinguishing symptoms of the uttama-adhikārī that are being referred to herein which are as follows:

1. Bhajana-vijñam—“advanced in devotional service”

2. Ananyam—“without deviation” (“undeviated” in the translation)

3. anya-nindā-ādi-śūnya-hṛdam—“whose heart [is] completely devoid of blasphemy of others, etc.” (in the translation: “whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others”)

Such an uttama-adhikārī is referred to herein as a “pure devotee.”

Purport: In order to intelligently apply the sixfold loving reciprocations mentioned in the previous verse, one must select proper persons with careful discrimination.

The term “careful discrimination” reveals that the three categories of devotees can be distinguished from one another based on external and objective symptoms. It is not possible to exercise careful discrimination upon devotees merely on the basis of subjective opinions or unverifiable statements such as “he sees Kṛṣṇa” or “he doesn’t see Kṛṣṇa within his heart,” etc. So we can expect to come across in this purport clear and externally distinguish able descriptions of the three types of devotees.

“Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī therefore advises that we should meet with the Vaiṣṇavas in an appropriate way, according to their particular status. In this verse he tells us how to deal with three types of devotees—the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī. The kaniṣṭha-adhikārī is a neophyte who has received the hari-nāma initiation from the spiritual master and is trying to chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. One should respect such a person within his mind as a kaniṣtha-vaiṣṇava. A madhyama-adhikārī has received spiritual initiation from the spiritual master and has been fully engaged by him in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. The madhyama-adhikārī should be considered to be situated midway in devotional service.”

A short description of the uttama-adhikārī follows next:

The uttama-adhikārī, or highest devotee, is one who is very advanced in devotional service.”

The above is a rendering of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s term bhajana-vijñam “advanced in devotional service.”

“An uttama-adhikārī is not interested in blaspheming others, his heart is completely clean, and he has attained the realized state of unalloyed Kṛṣṇa consciousness.”

The first half of the above is a rendering of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s terms anya-nindā-ādi-śūnya-hṛdam—“whose heart [is] completely devoid of blasphemy of others, etc.” The word “unalloyed” in the second half appears to indicate that the second half of the above is a rendering of the term ananyam—“without deviation” (“undeviated” in the translation).

According to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, the association and ser vice of such a mahā-bhāgavata, or perfect Vaiṣṇava, are most desirable.”

In the above, Śrīla Prabhupāda calls such an uttama-adhikārī a mahā-bhāgavata, or perfect Vaiṣṇava.

“One should not remain a kaniṣtha-adhikārī, one who is situated on the lowest platform of devotional service and is interested only in worshiping the Deity in the temple. Such a devotee is described in the Eleventh Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.47):

arcāyām eva haraye
pūjām yaḥ śraddhayehate
na tad-bhakteṣu cānyeṣu
sa bhaktaḥ prākṣtaḥ smstaḥ

A person who is very faithfully engaged in the worship of the Deity in the temple, but who does not know how to behave toward devotees or people in general is called a prākṛta-bhakta, or kaniṣṭha-adhikārī.”

One therefore has to raise himself from the position of kaniṣtha-adhikārī to the platform of madhyama-adhikārī. The madhyama-adhikārī is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.46) in this way:

iśvare tad-adhīneṣu
bāliśeṣu dviṣatsu ca
prema-maitrī-kṛpopekṣā
yaḥ karoti sa madhyamaḥ

The madhyama-adhikārī is a devotee who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the highest object of love, makes friends with the Lord’s devotees, is merciful to the ignorant and avoids those who are envious by nature.”

This is the way to cultivate devotional service properly; therefore in this verse Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has advised us how to treat various devotees. We can see from practical experience that there are different types of Vaiṣṇavas. The prākṛta-sahajiyās generally chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, yet they are attached to women, money and intoxication. Although such persons may chant the holy name of the Lord, they are not yet properly purified. Such people should be respected within one’s mind, but their association should be avoided. Those who are innocent but simply carried away by bad association should be shown favor if they are eager to receive proper instructions from pure devotees, but those neophyte devotees who are actually initiated by the bona fide spiritual master and are seriously engaged in carrying out the orders of the spiritual master should be offered respectful obeisances.

In this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement a chance is given to everyone without discrimination of caste, creed or color. Everyone is invited to join this movement, sit with us, take prasāda and hear about Kṛṣṇa. When we see that someone is actually interested in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and wants to be initiated, we accept him as a disciple for the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. When a neophyte devotee is actually initiated and engaged in devotional service by the orders of the spiritual master, he should be accepted immediately as a bona fide Vaiṣṇava, and obeisances should be offered unto him.”

After describing externally distinguishable symptoms of kaniṣṭha- and madhyama-adhikārīs, Śrīla Prabhupāda proceeds to describe objectively the symptoms of an uttama-adhikārī so that we can exercise our careful discrimination:

Out of many such Vaiṣṇavas, one may be found to be very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord and strictly following all the regulative principles, chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads and always thinking of how to expand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.”

The above is a further description of the uttama-adhikārī. Here are the distinguishable symptoms (vilakṣaṇas): (1) “very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord,” (2) “strictly following all the regulative principles,” (3) “chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads” and (4) “always thinking of how to expand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.” All the four descriptions seem to elaborate on the term bhajana-vijñam—“advanced in devotional service.” Thus we need not speculate on the meaning of the term “advanced in devotional service” as one who “sees Kṛṣṇa within his heart, etc.” but simply need to accept Śrīla Prabhupāda’s above de scription of the uttama-adhikārī.

Such a Vaiṣṇava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikārī, a highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought.”

We must remember that the expression “such a Vaiṣṇava” refers to the Vaiṣṇava who is (1) “very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord,” (2) “strictly following all the regulative principles,” (3) “chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads” and (4) “always thinking of how to expand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda also uses the imperative “should” twice in the above sentence and thus makes it clear that any Vaiṣṇava who exhibits the above four qualities “should be accepted as an uttama-adhikārī, a highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought.”

...The chanting of the holy names of Kṛṣṇa is so sublime that if one chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra offenselessly, care fully avoiding the ten offenses, he can certainly be gradually elevated to the point of understanding that there is no difference between the holy name of the Lord and the Lord Him self. One who has reached such an understanding should be very much respected by neophyte devotees.”

One who has reached such an understanding” is the uttama-adhikārī. How does one become such an uttama-adhikārī? By chanting the holy names offenselessly and by carefully avoiding the ten offenses, one is “gradually elevated” to the uttama-adhikārī platform. From this, we can also understand that the uttama-adhikārī chants the holy names of Kṛṣṇa without the ten offenses. It is an important point to note that chanting the holy names without offenses is an objective symptom which can be verified externally.

...Unless one faithfully chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, Kṛṣṇa does not reveal Himself: sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.234) We cannot realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead by any artificial means. We must engage faithfully in the service of the Lord. Such service begins with the tongue (sevonmukhe hi jihvādau), which means that we should always chant the holy names of the Lord and accept kṛṣṇa-prasāda. We should not chant or accept anything else. When this process is faithfully followed, the Supreme Lord reveals Himself to the devotee.

When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Kṛṣṇa, he loses interest in everything but Kṛṣṇa’s service.”

Now it may be possible for anyone to claim that he has realized himself to be an eternal servitor of Kṛṣṇa, but Śrīla Prabhupāda’s above statement helps us understand that such a devotee will lose interest in everything but Kṣsna’s service.

Again, anyone can claim that he has no interest in any thing but Kṛṣṇa’s service. However, just to drive away this kind of speculation, Śrīla Prabhupāda makes it clear what losing interest in everything but Kṛṣṇa’s service actually means:

Always thinking of Kṛṣṇa, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world.”

Such a person devises means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa and the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world. This is because he is “always thinking of Kṛṣṇa.” Thus Śrīla Prabhupāda has provided us with a very clear and objective description of the uttama-adhikārī.

Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikārī, and his association should be immediately accepted according to the six processes (dadāti pratigṛhṇāti, etc.).”

Such a person who is devising means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa and the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world because he is always thinking of Kṛṣṇa is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikārī. By the causeless mercy of Śrīla Prabhupāda and Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, there are many Vaiṣṇavas within the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement (ISKCON) who fit the above description of an uttama-adhikārī and they should be recognized as uttama-adhikārīs. One should not illusion himself and others that such sincere and empowered preachers of the holy names of Krsṇa are not uttama-adhikārīs. Such preachers’ association should be immediately accepted.

“Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master.”

Such a constantly preaching Vaiṣṇava should be accepted as a spiritual master.

Everything one possesses should be offered to him, for it is enjoined that one should deliver whatever he has to the spiritual master.”

Everything one possess should be offered to him because he is constantly devising means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa and the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world.

The brahmacārī in particular is supposed to beg alms from others and offer them to the spiritual master. However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or mahā-bhāgavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will eventually become degraded.

In this verse Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaiṣṇavism.”

The above citation from Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura that an uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaiṣṇavism simply reconfirms Śrīla Prabhupāda’s previous descriptions of the externally distinguishable symptoms of the uttama-adhikārī:

1. “very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord,”

2. “strictly following all the regulative principles,”

3. “chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads,”

4. “always thinking of how to expand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement,”

5. “devising means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa,” and

6. “spreading the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world.”

One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikārī.”

The external symptoms of one who has attained the platform of the uttama-adhikārī have been noted above.

A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.”

The expression “can also accept disciples” reveals that a “kaniṣṭha-adhikārī” (as described in this verse of Nectar of Instruction) or a madhyama-adhikārī (also described in this verse) can also accept disciples. But the disciples cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life. Why? The answer is very clearly provided for by Śrīla Prabhupāda him self using the pregnant expression “insufficient guidance.” Because such a spiritual masters’ guidance is insufficient.

From the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta we learn that guidance is provided for by example and precept (ācāra and prācāra). When we go through the descriptions of the symptoms of the kaniṣṭha- and madhyama-adhikārīs as given in this verse and purport, it is obvious that their ability to guide their disciples by their example (ācāra) and precept (prācāra) are quite limited and thus insufficient.

Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikārī as a spiritual master.”

However, the uttama-adhikārī or the Vaiṣṇava who is (1) “very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord,” (2) “strictly following all the regulative principles,” (3) “chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads,” (4) “always thinking of how to expand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement,” (5) “devising means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa,” and (6) “spreading the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world” is certainly sufficiently able to guide his disciples by example (ācāra) and precept (prācāra). Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda states herein that one should accept such a preacher Vaiṣṇava as a spiritual master.

Any sincere and non-envious person who comes across the above mentioned six symptoms of the uttama-adhikārī (collected from the purport) will be able to see that there are many such souls in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement (ISKCON). Such souls have to be recognized as “highly advanced devotees”, “advanced devotees”, “mahā-bhāgavatas” and “uttama-adhikārīs” according to the clear definition given by Śrīla Prabhupāda and Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī.

There may be various types or descriptions of uttama-adhikārīs, but from an impartial study of this verse, its word meanings, its translation and its purport, we understand that the uttama-adhikārī who has to be accepted as a spiritual master (according to this purport), is the sincere Vaiṣṇava who constantly preaches the holy name throughout the world.

“Not only does the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead act on the conditioned soul within this material world, but sometimes it also acts on the most advanced learned scholars, who factually know the constitutional position of this material world through realization. As soon as someone thinks, “I am this material body (ahaṁ mameti) and everything in relationship with this material body is mine,” he is in illusion (moha). This illusion caused by the material energy acts especially on the conditioned souls, but it sometimes also acts on liberated souls as well. A liberated soul is a person who has sufficient knowledge of this material world and is therefore unattached to the bodily conception of life. But because of association with the modes of material nature for a very long time, even liberated souls sometimes become captivated by the illusory energy due to inattentiveness in the transcendental position. (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.18.4p)

Some pro-ṛtviks claim that a mahā-bhāgavata can never fall down and only such a mahā-bhāgavata should be accepted as a guru.

However, the doctrine that a mahā-bhāgavata cannot fall down is simply false and not based on the teachings of guru, sādhu and śāstra. Only those who are unacquainted with the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda can come to such conclusions.

Here are some quotes from Śrīla Prabhupāda which show that mahā-bhāgavatas can indeed fall down:

The māyāvādī philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive flowery language that hearing māyāvāda philosophy may sometimes change the mind of even a mahā-bhāgavata, or very advanced devotee.” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.110p)

A liberated soul is a person who has sufficient knowledge of this material world and is therefore unattached to the bodily conception of life. But because of association with the modes of material nature for a very long time, even liberated souls sometimes become captivated by the illusory energy due to inattentiveness in the transcendental position.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.18.4p)

In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.7.1, in the Sanskrit word meanings, Bharata Mahārāja is defined as a mahā-bhāgavata both in the Sanskrit and in English

śrī-suka uvāca
bharatas tu mahā-bhāgavato yadā bhagavatāvani-tala
paripālanāya sancintitas tad-anuśāsana-paraḥ parcajanim
viśvarūpa-duhitaram upayeme.

śrī-bukaḥ uvāca–Śukadeva Gosvāmī said; bharataḥ–Mahārāja Bharata; tu-but; mahā-bhāgavataḥ-a mahā-bhāgavata, most exalted devotee of the Lord;

We must remember that in the Bhāgavatam chapter that this verse appears, Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī refers to Bharata Mahārāja when he was a king in his first life as a mahā-bhāgavata. We learn that Bharata Mahārāja fell down because of attachment to a deer, even though he was a mahā-bhāgavata. This incident is plain evidence that an even a mahā-bhāgavata can fall down from an advanced spiritual status.

Ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs proclaim that the alleged gaps in the paramparā point that ācāryas remain current after having disappeared from this world.

But Śrīla Prabhupāda tells a different story:

Regarding paramparā system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps. Just like we belong to the Brahma Sampradaya, so we accept it from Krishna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasadeva, Vyasadeva to Madhva, and between Vyasadeva and Madhva there is a big gap. But it is sometimes said that Vyasadeva is still living, and Madhva was fortunate enough to meet him directly. In a similar way, we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system-namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the param para system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from him. There are many branches also from the parampara system, and it is not possible to record all the branches and sub-branches in the disciplic succession. We have to pick up from the authority of the acharya in whatever sampradaya we belong to.” (Letter to Dayānanda, 12th April, 1968)

Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. So in one line of disciples we may not see another name coming from a different line. But this does not mean that person whose name does not appear was not in the disciplic succession. Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva’s disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion, and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree.” (Letter to Kīrtanānanda, 25th January, 1969)

So, in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words, “disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person”. The time-gaps between various ācāryas, in the list given at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā, don’t mean that the previous ācārya initiated the next one by a system of post samādhi proxy-initiation.

... God is called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God’s mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart.” (Conversation, Rome, 23 May, 1974)

...Kṛṣṇa, He is within our heart. Hṛdy antaḥ-sthaḥ. There fore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Kṛṣṇa, then from within our heart He gives us favorable instruction so that we can gradually make progress, gradually. Kṛṣṇa is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master. That is enjoined in the next verse.

tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānam
jñāninas tattva-darsinaḥ

...Nobody can become a medical practitioner simply by purchasing book from the market and reading at home. That is not possible. You have to admit yourself in a medical college and undergo training and practical examination, so many things. Simply by purchasing book, it is not possible. Similarly, if you want to learn Bhagavad-gītā or any transcendental subject matter, here is the instruction by Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself. Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself, because He is the speaker of this Bhagavad-gītā, He says that tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā. You must go to a person where you can surrender yourself. That means you have to check, “Who is the real person who can give me instruction on Bhagavad-gītā or any Vedic literature, or any scripture, right?” And not that, to search out a person as a, whimsically.

No. You have to search out a person very serious that, who is actually in the knowledge of the thing. Otherwise, why you shall surrender? No. There is no necessity of surrender. But here it is said clearly that “You have to surrender to a person.” That means you have to find out such a person where you can voluntarily surrender. Without finding, your mission will not be fulfilled.

...Not only surrender, not blindly surrender. You must be able to inquire. Paripraśna. The next qualification is paripraśna. Paripraśna means inquiry. Without inquiry, you cannot make advance.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture on Bhagavad-gītā 4.34, New York, 14 August, 1966)

So, in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words:

...we have to go to a physical spiritual master.”

Self-evident.

Simply by purchasing book, it is not possible. Similarly, if you want to learn Bhagavad-gītā or any transcendental subject matter... You must go to a person where you can surrender yourself...”

Śrīla Prabhupāda remains as the foundational śikṣā-guru for all ISKCON devotees. His books remain as the law-books of our Society, but to take dīkṣā one has to approach a current link.

Not only surrender, not blindly surrender. You must be able to inquire.”

How do we inquire from a spiritual master after his disappearance?

The Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta is a book by Śrīla Narahari Sarakāra, a close associate of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and is referred to by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. One of the topics of this important book is what to do when a guru falls down or has difficulties. The instructions given there form the basis of several ISKCON laws in regard to gurus’ falldowns, etc.

Some creative pro-ṛtviks have concocted another doctrine, namely that the gurus who are being spoken of in the Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta are only family priests or kula-gurus and not “spiritual” masters. They thus imply that a kula-guru can fall down but the others, who are spiritual masters, don’t ever fall down. So the Bhajanāmṛta’s points about guru-falldowns don’t apply to ISKCON since we don’t have kula-gurus here.

However, this is baseless because Narahari Sarakāra never mentions that in the original text. Indeed, the text never mentions the term kula-guru when it refers to guru-falldowns.

The text in Bhajanāmṛta clearly makes it understood that the gurus who are referred to are practicing Vaiṣṇava gurus. Even if we were to accept their speculative argument, what different does it make if the guru is a kula-guru or not, if he is a practicing Vaiṣṇava? What is the compelling justification to say that these rules apply only to kula-gurus?

Thus this doctrine is wrong, and can be rejected as yet another imagination of the ṛtvik-vādīs.

The ISKCON Laws about suspension of gurus and related topics are based on Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta, a book written by Śrīla Narahari Sarakāra, a personal associate of Lord Caitanya (we sing about him at sandhyā-ārati “narahari-ādi kari cāmara dhulāya”). In that book is very clear what to do in regard to fallen gurus, etc.

Some die-hard pro-ṛtviks propound the following meaningless argument in a desperate move to rationalize their heresy: we should not refer to the Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta in relation to gurus falling down, because Śrīla Prabhupāda never told us to refer to that book.

The lack of logic should be clear. Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us to refer to the books of the previous ācāryas and the work of Śrīla Narahari obviously falls in that category.

Here is one of many quotations referring to the books of the previous ācāryas and Vedic writings:

Pure devotees have prepared many books of knowledge on the basis of authorized scriptures. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and his assistants, under the instructions of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, have all written various literatures for the guidance of prospective devotees, and anyone who is very serious about raising himself to the standard of a pure devotee of the Lord must take advantage of those literatures.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.7.39p)

This book, written by a Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Ācārya, explicitly discusses the issue of what to do about a guru (dīkṣā and śikṣā) having difficulties. Why the ṛtvik-vādīs suggest we reject it? Is there any reason except that it doesn’t support their doctrines?

The Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta was so important that Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura published it. On what basis one can reject its authority?

Ṛtvikists sustain: “Post-samādhi ṛtvik initiation system is only changing the details of conducting the initiation ceremony and not the principle of initiation itself.”

When we argue that the post-samādhi ṛtvik system does not follow guru-sādhu-śāstra precedents, some pro-ṛtviks argue back that the post-samādhi ṛtvik system does indeed follow guru-sādhu-śāstra.

Here is how their doctrine goes:

Dīkṣā is defined thus by Śrīla Prabhupāda: ‘Dīkṣā 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 dīkṣā.” (Bhakti-sandarbha 283 quoted in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 15.108p)

Dīkṣā has two functional aspects to it: transmission of transcendental knowledge and vanquishment of sinful reactions. In the post-samādhi ṛtvik system, both these functions are applicable. One can awaken transcendental knowledge by studying Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books and by engagement of devotional service, one’s sinful reactions can be vanquished.

The details regarding initiation are being changed in the post-samādhi ṛtvik system; the principles regarding initia tion are not.”

The above is what the pro-ṛtviks claim. However, the requirement that we must take initiation and guidance from a living spiritual master is a principle and not a detail. This can be gathered by studying the first five principles given to us by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Śrīla Prabhupāda in the Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 6:

For example, a basic principle is that one has to accept a spiritual master. Exactly how one follows the instructions of his spiritual master is considered a detail. For example, if one is following the instruction of his spiritual master and that instruction is different from the instructions of another spiritual master, this is called detailed information. But the basic principle of acceptance of a spiritual master is good every where, although the details may be different. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī does not wish to enter into details here, but wants to place before us only the principles.” (Nectar of Devotion)

Indeed, the first five basic principles of devotional service in volve acceptance of a personal, living spiritual master:

He mentions the basic principles as follows: (1) accepting the shelter of the lotus feet of a bona fide spiritual master, (2) becoming initiated by the spiritual master and learning how to discharge devotional service from him, (3) obeying the orders of the spiritual master with faith and devotion, (4) following in the footsteps of great ācāryas (teachers) under the direction of the spiritual master, (5) inquiring from the spiritual master how to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness...” (ibid.)

These five basic principles are also found in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 22.115:

On the path of regulative devotional service, one must observe the following items: (1) one must accept a bona fide spiritual master. (2) Accept initiation from him. (3) Serve him. (4) Receive instructions from the spiritual master and make inquiries in order to learn devotional service. (5) Follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas and follow the directions given by the spiritual master.”

Now let us examine what ṛtviks would do when they come across these five basic principles of devotional service. (We can consider both the Nectar of Devotion version and Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta version of the five principles.)

Principle 1:

1. Accepting the shelter of the lotus feet of a bona fide spiritual master (Nectar of Devotion)

1. One must accept a bona fide spiritual master. (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta)

Pro-ṛtviks may try to get away by claiming that this means that we accept Śrīla Prabhupāda as our spiritual master, as our shelter, but the question always remains, how can we be sure Prabhupāda has actually accepted us if he is not here personally to do so?

Principle 2:

2. Becoming initiated by the spiritual master and learning how to discharge devotional service from him (Nectar of Devotion) 2. Accept initiation from him. (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta)

Let us see how Śrīla Prabhupāda has worded principle 2. He says that one should become initiated by the spiritual master and learn to discharge devotional service from him. The expression “learn... from him” reveals that the “him” who is referred to here is a living person with whom we can interactively communicate.

The term “him” in the Nectar of Devotion version reveals that the spiritual master from whom one accepts initiation is the same spiritual master from whom one must learn how to discharge devotional service. The pro-ṛtviks claim that the dīkṣā-guru is Śrīla Prabhupāda. However, according to this idea, how are they going to learn and communicate with Śrīla Prabhupāda interactively?

Principle 3:

3. Obeying the orders of the spiritual master with faith and devotion (Nectar of Devotion) 3. Serve him. (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta)

Śrīla Prabhupāda then says in principle 3 that one should obey the orders of the spiritual master with faith and devotion. It is not that the dīkṣā-guru is merely a ṛtvik who simply performs a ceremony and leaves it at that, someone whose orders the initiated disciple is not bound to obey. No. From principle 3, we learn that we should obey the orders of the spiritual master with faith and devotion. The word “him” in the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta version makes it clear that one should serve and obey the orders of that very spiritual master from whom one has received initiation with faith and devotion.

Principle 4:

4. Following in the footsteps of great ācāryas (teachers) under the direction of the spiritual master (Nectar of Devotion)

5. Follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas and follow the directions given by the spiritual master. (Śrī Caitanya caritāmṛta) [This is presented by Śrīla Prabhupāda as point 5 in the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta]

Here Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the expression “under the direction of the spiritual master” in the Nectar of Devotion version. This is another proof that the spiritual master, who is being referred to here, is a living spiritual master from whom we can receive direct guidance and direction. (All the previous ācāryas accepted initiation from a living spiritual master, so we should also do so, in order to “follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas”...)

Principle 5:

5. Inquiring from the spiritual master how to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness (Nectar of Devotion)

4. Receive instructions from the spiritual master and make inquiries in order to learn devotional service. (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta) (This is presented by Śrīla Prabhupāda as point 4 in the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta]

In wording this principle, Śrīla Prabhupāda has used the expressions “inquiring” and “make inquiries” making it clear that we should inquire from the spiritual master. How is it possible at present (after the physical departure of His Divine Grace) to inquire from His Divine Grace and elicit answers? Such inquiries obviously necessitate the presence of a living spiritual master.

It is clear that acceptance of and taking initiation and instructions from a living physical spiritual master, is a basic principle and not a detail that can be passed off lightly by the pro-ṛtviks. It is a basic principle of devotional service; one cannot avoid taking initiation from a living, physical spiritual master.

Since the post-samādhi ṛtvik doctrine goes against the basic principles of devotional service as taught by Lord Caitanya, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Śrīla Prabhupāda, it cannot be accepted by followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda and Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

The GBC Body was set up by Śrīla Prabhupāda to be the ultimate authority of ISKCON. The gurus are also under the GBC Body, but that does not minimize their position because the GBC-body’s decisions represents Śrīla Prabhupāda’s decisions for his ISKCON and his disciples. The gurus are servants of Śrīla Prabhupāda and therefore also the servants of his representative managerial body, the GBC.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, in his book Godruma-kalpaṭavī, wrote that in the nāma-haṭṭa organization he established, the ruling body will be a group of senior Vaiṣṇavas. The decisions of this group, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says, is to be considered nondifferent from the decision of Lord Nityānanda Prabhu Himself, who is the Founder of the Nāma-haṭṭa, the market of the holy name.

A guru being subordinate to an assembly of senior Vaiṣṇavas is not a modern invention. Before Śrīla Rāmānuja’s time, the sole and ultimate authority for the Śrī Vaiṣṇava community was Śrīla Yāmunācārya. Yāmunācārya wanted to initiate Rāmānuja, who was studying under Yādavaprakāśa, a Māyāvādī. Rāmānuja left the Māyāvādī class just around the time Yāmunācārya called him. Rāmānuja was in ecstasy and ran to see him. When he reached Śrī Raṅgam to meet Yāmunācārya, he found that he had departed to Vaikuṇṭha.

Yāmunācārya had a group of senior disciples who were empowered by him to take decisions. They met and decided that Rāmānuja should be properly trained and later take up the leadership of the entire Śrī Vaiṣṇava community. They decided that Mahāpūrṇa, a disciple of Yāmunācārya, should help Rāmānuja. Mahāpūrṇa agreed immediately and set out to Kāñcīpuram where Rāmānuja was staying. So here is an actual instance of a Vaiṣṇava-sabhā, an assembly of senior Vaiṣṇavas, with executive power.

Later on, Rāmānuja took sannyāsa and became a leader with many disciples. In their paramparā, disciples were allowed to take disciples during the physical presence of the guru. So Rāmānuja had disciples even in the presence of his dīkṣā-guru Śrīla Mahāpūrṇa. One day the latter told him to go to one Goṣṭhipūrṇa and learn the meaning of one Vaiṣṇava-mantra.

Rāmānuja went to Goṣṭhipūrṇa but Goṣṭhipūrṇa considered Rāmānuja to be unqualified and told him to come back later. This happened seventeen times. Finally Rāmānuja stopped eating and was in great distress. Rāmānuja’s disciples informed Rāmānuja’s dīkṣā-guru Śrīla Mahāpūrṇa who sent word to his Godbrother Goṣṭhipūrṇa requesting him to kindly give mercy to Rāmānuja, which he then did.

One point of observation was that Rāmānuja’s disciples didn’t start worrying about their guru being considered un qualified by a higher authority and therefore relativized, etc. They had respect and allegiance to Rāmānuja and they were simply surrendered to him. Of course, Rāmānuja’s Godbrothers or Godcousins might not have had that same kind of relationship with him. In the same way, current ISKCON gurus are working under the GBC, which may give various instructions to the gurus, but in the disciples’ eyes the guru is always the representative of the Supreme Lord. Had it been the twentieth century, disciples might be worrying about their guru not being a mahā-bhāgavata, who can never ever make any mistakes, what to speak of being refused a lecture on a vaiṣṇava-mantra because he is considered unqualified.

But since they were in a Vedic society, they didn’t display such misgivings. They understood that the guru is sākṣād dharitva in the sense that he is transmitting transcendental knowledge intact without adulteration both by example and precept, but also that the guru is a servant of higher spiritual authorities and that this does not minimize the position of the guru at all. It simply proves that the guru is a servant of the Vaiṣṇavas, especially senior Vaiṣṇavas, who have been given spiritual responsibilities by the Founder.

In many instances it is seen that a Vaiṣṇava-sabhā make decisions that are followed by the gurus. There is no dichotomy between a guru being a servant of an assembly of senior Vaiṣṇavas (Vaiṣṇava-sabhā) and him being sākṣād-dharitva to his disciples. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has written that he is doing this or that simply to fulfill the orders of the superiors. He always remained subordinate to the ruling body of the nāma-haṭṭa organization that he started. It doesn’t minimize Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, rather it shows how glorious he was.

So we have to go to a person who is as good as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. As good, how one can become Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu? He is God. How another man can become as good as Caitanya Mahāprabhu? Then he is also God? No. He doesn’t require to be God, and neither he can ever become God. That is false. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s equal person means one who speaks the exactly what Caitanya Mahāprabhu speaks. That makes him equal. He doesn’t manufacture. If you simply repeat what Kṛṣṇa says or Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, then you become equal to me. Equal to me? That is guru. Guru means who is equal. Sākṣād dharitvena samasta-śāstrair uktas tathā bhāvyata eva sadbhiḥ. Why guru is accepted as God Himself? Does it mean Māyāvāda philosophy? No. This is not Māyāvāda. Because he is most confidential servant of God- kintu prabhor yaḥ priya eva tasya—Therefore he’s as good as God. He is very, very dear to God. Why? Because he does not speak anything nonsense what his master does not speak, that’s all. That is the qualification.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, 10 July, 1976)

One of the ṛtvik-vādīs’ latest twists is to present themselves as the real traditionalists. They say: “We are the no-change group; we are the ones who follow ISKCON tradition.” They say that Śrīla Prabhupāda was the dīkṣā-guru in ISKCON (before his disappearance) and that we should stick to this, without change (even after his disappearance). Of course, these might be catchy slogans “No change!” or “We are following tradition!” but when analyzed, these statements are nonsensical.

Why not say: “Lord Brahmā is the original dīkṣā-guru in our sampradāya, we should not change anything and let him remain the initiating guru for everyone!”

(This would at least have the advantage that Brahmā is still physically present-although hard to approach).

Tradition is something different from ever-changing concoctions. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.43p)

This is tradition.

Kali spreads its influence by creating dissension among devo tees. The meaning of Kali is “quarrel”. Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted that we expressed our love for him through unity and cooperation. He also said that this movement cannot be stopped by any external agency, but it can be broken from within. Irresponsibly spreading Ṛtvikism instead of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s bona-fide teaching creates confusion and dissension among Vaiṣṇavas.

A disciple of an ISKCON guru might accept ṛtvikism and start considering himself a God-brother of his own spiritual master. Accepting such absurd proposition is one of the gravest forms of the offense called maryādā-vyatikrama.

Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryādā-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryādā-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world.

...The Lord never tolerates the impertinence of maryādā-vyatikrama.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.4.26p)

Our Krishna Consciousness movement is based on complete fellow feeling and love, but there is a word maryādā which means respect which should always be offered to the Spiritual Master and elderly members.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letter, 17 April, 1970)

So considering oneself as the God-brother of one’s dīkṣā-guru is certainly a great and self-destructive offense.

Ṛtvikists stress that Śrīla Prabhupāda was the only dīkṣā-guru in ISKCON and that he should remain so. Actually, that Śrīla Prabhupāda was the only guru was something circumstantial, not based on some unchangeable principle or injunction. Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly invited his Godbrothers to preach in the West. Are we to think that, once in the West, Śrīla Prabhupāda would not allow them to be regular dīkṣā-gurus and initiate? Are we supposed to think that they would only act as proxies on behalf of their Godbrother, Śrīla Prabhupāda?

Ṛtvikism implies that Śrīla Prabhupāda was and should remain the zonal-ācārya of the planet Earth, but where did Śrīla Prabhupāda ever say that he wanted to be the only guru in ISKCON during his presence? What to speak of remaining the only guru after his departure.

This thought itself is an offense. Śrīla Prabhupāda has repeatedly warned us against jumping over present ācāryas. Jayagopāla, a kāyastha from the village Kandra in Bengal was ostracized from the Vaiṣnava society by Śrī Vīrabhadra Gosvāmī (an incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu), when he tried to jump over his spiritual master.

Recently a ṛtvik-māyā-vādī was preaching to a lady congregational devotee suggesting that she take initiation from Śrīla Prabhupāda, to which she replied, “If I can take initiation from Śrīla Prabhupāda directly, then-being a gṛhastha I would rather feel more inspired to take initiation from Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Țhākura.”

Once the principle of taking dīkṣā from a departed ācārya is accepted, the sky is the limit. It would be surprising to start seeing people claiming to be initiated by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī or Śrīla Íśvara Purī.

Devotees in general desire a personal guidance in their lives from a living guru. If ṛtvikism is promulgated, many might feel prompted to go outside of ISKCON to get a living, physical guru with whom to establish a normal guru-disciple relation. Will such spiritual guides give them the pure message and standards presented by Śrīla Prabhupāda?

It is said that the potency of a Vaiṣṇava is measured by his ability to convert the fallen souls into Vaiṣṇavas. Śrīla Prabhupāda said that his mystic potency was that he converted so many low-born Westerners into Vaiṣṇavas. It is seen that the so-called incarnations, who gather many followers by displaying some mystic power, can’t even stop their followers from smoking. According to some ṛtvik-māyā-vādīs, Śrīla Prabhupāda could not even create one bona fide spiritual master. By such propaganda (“Prabhupāda was so great but all his disciples are unqualified”) they are destroying the devotees’ faith in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s preaching efficacy as well.

Ṛtvikists don’t seem to realize that all their points have long since been refuted, and so they keep cooking up new shades of their theories. This wastes a lot of time. How many hundreds of ISKCON-hours have been wasted in refuting their stacks of useless, speculative papers? Of course, very few devotees actually read them, being too busy serving Kṛṣṇa, but it is still a disturbance.

Many people’s faith has been affected due to ṛtvik-vādīs’ slanderous, anti-ISKCON propaganda. Someone got so affected that he threw away his neck-beads, stopped chanting and left devotional service altogether. Also, by slandering ISKCON in public–in particular on the internet—they are turning people away from the shelter of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lotus feet.

If anyone has been helped by the ṛtvikists’ preaching, it is the anti-cult people. By creating and propagating their brand of apa sampradāyic thought, ṛtvikists encourage the enemies of Vaisnavism to see the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement as a new cult, a dangerous sect with no connection with bona-fide Vedic teachings.

Ṛtvik-vādīs claim that because so many gurus have fallen the remaining gurus are also fallen, or if they are not already fallen, it is just a matter of time before they will. This is offensive to ISKCON gurus in good standing. It is also a very grave offense to try to destroy the guru-bhakti of disciples and aspiring disciples.

In Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya-lilā 15.261) Śrīla Prabhupāda cites a conversation between Mārkaṇḍeya and Bhagīratha from the Skanda Purāṇa:

“‘My dear King, if one derides an exalted devotee, he loses the results of his pious activities, his opulence, his reputation and his sons. Vaiṣṇavas are all great souls. Whoever blasphemes them falls down to the hell known as Mahāraurava. He is also accompanied by his forefathers. Whoever kills or blasphemes a Vaiṣṇava and whoever is envious of a Vaiṣṇava or angry with him, or whoever does not offer him obeisances or feel joy upon seeing a Vaiṣṇava, certainly falls into a hellish condition.’”

The Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (10.314) also gives the following quotation from Dvārakā-māhātmya:

kara-patraiś ca phālyante
sutīvrair yama-śāsanaiḥ
nindām kurvanti ye pāpā
vaiṣṇavānām mahātmanām

In a conversation between Prahlāda Mahārāja and Bali Mahārāja, it is said, “Those sinful people who blaspheme Vaiṣṇavas, who are all great souls, are subjected very severely to the punishment offered by Yamarāja.”

It is as if some Ṛtvik-vādīs reckon that the best way to avoid responsibility is to become a ṛtvik-guru and not a regular one. This is not what Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us. Śrīla Prabhupāda often quoted the Bhāgavatam verse that says that one should not become guru unless he is able to deliver his dependents: “One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother or a worshipable demigod.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.5.18)

Ṛtvikists defy Śrīla Prabhupāda’s request to all his disciples to become qualified and make disciples all over the world. Ṛtvikists avoid taking responsibility and instead they want to burden Śrīla Prabhupāda with all this obligation.

Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā instructs that one should approach a spiritual master in submission, inquire from him, and serve him. Ṛtvikism empties that relation of meaning and substance.

Disciple means one who is regulated by higher authority. He is disciple. The higher authority is called the spiritual master, and the person who voluntarily submits to him for being regulated, he is called disciple.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, 25 February, 1975)

A disciple means who voluntarily agrees to be disciplined by the spiritual master. When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the spiritual master. Śiṣya. Śiṣya, this word, comes from the root sas-dhatu, means “I accept your ruling.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, 11 February, 1975)

“A Spiritual Master has the right to chastise his disciple any way He likes. A śiṣya or a disciple means one who accepts the disciplinary action given by the Spiritual Master. Even although sometimes a Spiritual Master chastises his disciple as a fool or rascal in fatherly affection, it does not mean necessarily that the disciple is a fool or a rascal. You will find even in the statement of Lord Caitanya–He presents Himself as a fool designated by His Spiritual Master, but that does not mean that He was a fool. A sincere disciple feels it pleasurable when his Spiritual Master chastises him with calling him such names as fool and rascal. My Spiritual Master sometimes called me in that way, and I remember that day always and feel transcendental pleasure.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letter, 27th January, 1970)

“Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide 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.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letter, 2 December, 1975)

#“In the modern age there is a tendency to do research by mental speculation and concoction. But the man who speculates forgets that he himself is subject to the four defects of nature: he is sure to commit mistakes, his senses are imperfect, he is sure to fall into illusion, and he is cheating. Unless one has perfect knowledge from disciplic succession, he simply puts forth some theories of his own creation; therefore he is cheating people.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.24.17p)

#“If you do not receive instruction of Kṛṣṇa from the sampradāya, then viphalā-matāḥ, then whatever you have learned, it is useless. It is useless.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture, 25 March, 1974)

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s once used the expression “current link” in a Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam purport:

As already stated, Brahmā is the original spiritual master for the universe, and since he was initiated by the Lord Himself, the message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession. After being initiated by the proper spiritual master in that chain of succession, one should engage himself in the discharge of tapasya in the execution of devotional service.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.7p)

Contrary to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings on paramparā, ṛitvikists try to convince us that Śrīla Prabhupāda remains the current link in the chain of disciplic succession. But Śrīla Prabhupāda declared that his disciples shall become the next cur rent link:

So we have got this message from Kṛṣṇa, from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, from the six Gosvāmīs, later on, Bhaktivinoda Thākura, Bhaktisiddhānta Ṭhākura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. My Guru Mahārāja is tenth from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth.” (Los Angeles, arrival lecture, 18 May, 1972)

The pro-ṛtviks show us excerpts from the following purport in an attempt to make us believe that only an uttama-adhikārī mahā-bhāgavata totally beyond material desires can be a guru:

In Dvāpara-yuga, devotees of Lord Viṣṇu and Kr.ṣna rendered devotional service according to the principles of pāñcarātrika. In this Age of Kali, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is worshiped simply by the chanting of His holy names. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura then comments: ‘Without being empowered by the direct potency of Lord Kṛṣṇa to fulfill His desire and without being specifically favored by the Lord, no human being can become the spiritual master of the whole world. He certainly cannot succeed by mental concoction, which is not meant for devotees or religious people. Only an empowered personality can distribute the holy name of the Lord and enjoin all fallen souls to worship Kṛṣṇa. By distributing the holy name of the Lord, he cleanses the hearts of the most fallen people; therefore he extinguishes the blazing fire of the material world. Not only that, he broadcasts the shining brightness of Kṛṣṇa’s effulgence throughout the world. Such an ācārya, or spiritual master, should be considered nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa—that is, he should be considered the incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s potency. Such a personality is krṣṇālingita-vigraha—that is, he is always embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Such a person is above the considerations of the varṇāśrama institution. He is the guru or spiritual master for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the mahā-bhāgavata stage, and a paramahaṁsa-ṭhākura, a spiritual form only fit to be ad dressed as paramahaṁsa or ṭhākura.’

Nonetheless, there are many people who are just like owls but never open their eyes to see the sunshine. These owlish personalities are inferior to the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs who cannot see the brilliance of Kṛṣṇa’s favor. They are prepared to criticize the person engaged in distributing the holy name all over the world and following in the footsteps of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who wanted Kṛṣṇa consciousness preached in every town and city.” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 25.9p)

Instead of understanding the purport in its entirety the pro ṛtviks select only this part:

Such a personality is kṛṣṇāliṅgita-vigraha—that is, he is al ways embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Such a person is above the considerations of the varṇāśrama institution. He is the guru or spiritual master for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the mahā-bhāgavata stage, and a paramahaṁsa-ṭhākura, a spiritual form only fit to be addressed as paramahaṁsa or ṭhākura.”

And then they claim, “See, this proves that only a person who is on the topmost platform, the mahā-bhāgavata stage, a paramahaṁsa-ṭhākura, who is always embraced by Kṛṣṇa, only such a person can be a guru. No one else can be a guru.” In response to that, we can simply examine the purport more closely to see what the above statement of Prabhupāda means. Who is this personality who is always embraced by... Kṛṣṇa? What does he do? See the whole purport above. You will find the following about this personality:

1. He is engaged in distributing the holy name of the Lord.

2. Distributing the holy names, he cleanses the hearts of the most fallen people.

3. Therefore he extinguishes the blazing fire of the material world.

4. Not only that, he broadcasts the shining brightness of Kṛṣṇa’s effulgence throughout the world.

Then Prabhupāda says about a person who preaches the holy name throughout the world, “Such an ācārya, or spiritual master, should be considered nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa—that is, he should be considered the incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s potency.”

So such a preacher of the holy name should be considered to be an ācārya and nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. “He should be considered the incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s potency”. Please note the usage of the term “should be considered”.

Then Prabhupāda continues: “Such a personality is kṛṣṇāliṅgita-vigraha-that is, he is always embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsṇa... he is the guru or spiritual master for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the mahā-bhāgavata stage, and a paramahaṁsa-ṭhākura...”

So Prabhupāda’s point is that a such a preacher of the holy name is always embraced by... Kṛṣṇa and that such a preach er of the holy name is guru for the whole world. It does not state anywhere in this purport that a person who is embraced by Kṛṣṇa in his svarūpa has to be accepted as a guru. The real point is that the ṛtvik-vādīs don’t want any guru at all. They say they only want a mahā-bhāgavata but how will they recognize such a personality? And Śrīla Prabhupāda is not here with us anymore to tell them what to do and what not to do. In this way they can do what they like without feeling guilty about it, which is what they really want.

The purport in consideration simply states that a personality who is preaching the holy name and delivering the conditioned souls by the potency of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s name should be considered the incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s potency.

Now someone may think, “Yes, but the purport also says that such a personality is empowered to preach. So only an empowered mahā-bhāgavata preacher can be accepted as a guru and not just any unempowered non-mahā-bhāgavata Vaiṣṇavas. Yes, it is true that only one who is empowered by Kṛṣṇa can do any of the things that Prabhupāda had described in the purport such as:

1. Distributing the holy name of the Lord.

2. Cleansing the hearts of the most fallen people.

3. Extinguishing the blazing fire of the material world.

4. Broadcasting the shining brightness of Kṛṣṇa’s effulgence throughout the world.

Śrīla Prabhupāda has explained in many places that anyone who is a disciple and follows strictly in the footsteps of his guru becomes empowered to carry out the above functions. Purity is the force.

Ṛtvik speculations come in different flavors (all disgusting). In “Where the Ṛtvik People are Wrong”, His Holiness Jayādvaita Swami outlines three forms:

What is the post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru doctrine?

We now come to the question to be decided: Did Śrīla Prabhupāda intend that, even after his physical departure, his disciples would continue to serve as ṛtvik-gurus by initiating devo tees who would be not their disciples but his?

On November 14, 1977, Śrīla Prabhupāda ended his manifest physical pastimes and, as the traditional language puts it, “entered samādhi.” The assertion that his disciples should continue to serve as ṛtviks, then, is what we may call the “post-samādhi ṛtvik-guru doctrine.”

I trust you will accept that my statement of the question has been accurate and fair and my language neutral.

Now, moving on, I should next make clear that the post samādhi ṛtvik-guru doctrine comes in two forms, which we may call “hard” and “soft.”

The “hard” doctrine says this: Śrīla Prabhupāda is the only initiating spiritual master for all ISKCON devotees, and he shall continue to be so forever. Acting as ṛtviks on his behalf, certain disciples may initiate new devotees, who then become not their disciples but his. ISKCON shall follow this system, and only this system, forever.

Differing on certain points is the “soft” doctrine: Śrīla Prabhupāda is the only initiating spiritual master for all ISKCON devotees. Acting as ṛtviks on his behalf, certain disciples may initiate new devotees, who then become not their disciples but his. This system shall continue until the appearance with in ISKCON of pure devotees fit to initiate disciples of their own. The ṛtvik system will then come to an end.

It should be instantly clear that these two doctrines are incompatible and mutually exclusive. If the hard doctrine is right, the soft doctrine is wrong, and vice versa. Just as a man cannot be both living and dead, or a woman both pregnant and sterile, we cannot have a ṛtvik system that is both permanent and temporary. It’s either one or the other—not both.

For the sake of thoroughness, we may also note that some people have put forward a hybrid “soft/hard” doctrine, in which pure devotees initiate their own disciples and yet the ṛtvik system continues side by side. This doctrine, of course, is incompatible with the other two. If it is right, both of the others must be wrong, and if either of the others is right, this one must be wrong.

All the devotees who were in touch with Śrīla Prabhupāda declared that Śrīla Prabhupāda never mentioned a posthumous ṛtvik doctrine. In face of such overwhelming evidence, the ṛtvik-theorists take the only possible alternative to attempt to keep to their theory, i.e. they try to discredit the evidence of all the senior most devotees in the movement, those whom Prabhupāda had personally chosen. However, to write off all of Prabhupāda’s hand-picked men as being ill-motivated is also an offense to Śrīla Prabhupāda himself, implying that he wasn’t able to judge the sincerity and motives of his disciples. 

This is the logical fallacy of referring to an example that is applicable in one instance, but not in another.

“Regarding parampara system; there is nothing to wonder for big gaps.....we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system, namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up from the prominent acaryas, and follow from him... We have to pick up from authority of the acarya in whatever sampradaya we belong to.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda Letter Dayānanda, 68-4-12)

Ṛtvik papers have tried to establish that these demigods remained as the “current link” for millions of years, but the difference is that they remained physically present. How can we imitate Vivasvān and Manu? They are demigods from higher realms of existence. Clearly their examples are not applicable in our case. Besides, even they didn’t take ṛtvik initiation. The Sun-god actually appeared before Ikṣvāku and instructed him, and he in turn instructed Manu. Even these higher living entities don’t rely on remote initiation as it is fancied by ṛtvik-vādīs. Another example given is that of Madhvācārya taking initiation from Vyāsadeva. However, this also conforms to the standard Vedic understanding. Madhva traveled to the Himalayas and met Vyāsadeva personally and took initiation from him face to face.

Ṛtvikists imagine that Śrīla Prabhupāda should have expressed his desire that-after his disappearance-his disciples become dīkṣā-gurus, using a sentence containing the word “order.” But when it comes to the crazy idea that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted to remain as dīkṣā-guru after his departure, ṛtvikists accept a doctrine Śrīla Prabhupāda never even mentioned as the dharma of ISKCON for the next 10,000 years. A clear case of double standard.

In their desperate efforts to find support for their doctrines, ṛtvikists sometimes recur to misquoting devotees’ statements, as if they were agreeing with their ideas. One example: His Holiness Jayādvaita Mahārāja, a staunch opponent of the ṛtvik-heresy, was quoted in a ṛtvik publication:

Commenting on the July 9 order, Jayādvaita Swami recently wrote:

*Its authority is beyond question [...] Clearly, this letter establishes a ṛtvik-guru system.’ (Jayādvaita Swami ‘Where the ṛtvik People are Wrong’ 1996)

What the author “forgot” to mention is the remaining part of the sentence: “Clearly, this letter establishes a ṛtvik-guru system. But one may ask where it says that such a system should continue even after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure.”

So, when the mangled citation is presented in its pristine form, it only reveals doubts on the validity of ṛtvikism.

Another quotation from His Holiness reveals his true feelings about ṛtvikism:

...your paper and your theory aren’t worth two turds in hell...” (from Where the Ṛtvik People Are Wrong Again)

In a form of this logical fallacy one pushes an argument he himself would not present in similar situations. For instance, demanding an unnecessary documentation of individual appointment, ṛtvik-vādīs ask: “Where did Śrīla Prabhupāda or der any of his disciples to become dīkṣā-guru?” This is a classic example of special pleading, as they would not dare to ask: “Where did Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura order Śrīla Prabhupāda to become dīkṣā-guru!” or “Where did Gaura kiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja order Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura to initiate disciples?” or “Where Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu specifically ordered Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī to begin initiating?”

The story of Ekalavya occurs in the Mahābhārata. Ekalavya was the son of a Niṣāda (a low-class tribe) king and wanted to become a disciple of Droṇa to learn the art of Dhanur-veda. But Droṇa refused to teach him. Then Ekalavya, without securing the permission of Droṇa, made an earthen and mystical image of Droṇa and started worshipping it. Mahābhārata mentions that Ekalavya obtained power from the image so much so that Ekalavya did become a very proficient archer.

One day Arjuna found out about Ekalavya’s mode of worship and skill and informed Droṇa about Ekalavya and hinted to Droṇa that Ekalavya should not be allowed to remain in such situation. Droṇācārya then went to Ekalavya and asked for his right thumb as guru-dakṣiṇā. Ekalavya promptly cut off his right thumb and gave it to Droṇācārya.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has commented on this incident in an article published in Upākhyane Upadeśa, Part II. This article was translated by Bhakti-cāru Swami into English. It also appeared a few years back in one of the Back To Godhead Magazines. Some excerpts follow below. Our comments for the sake of clarification appear within square brackets.

“Ekalavya wanted his skill to be greater than that acquired by learning the Vedic wisdom directly from a bona fide spiritual master (i.e. by personally approaching and serving a bona fide guru), as Arjuna had done. By asking Droṇācārya to do something about Ekalavya, Arjuna showed Ekalavya that Ekalavya’s approach to learning the Vedic science was wrong.

If Arjuna had not mercifully pointed that out to him, impersonalism would have prevailed. To learn sciences and devotions, people would have created imaginary, mundane, unconscious gurus instead of (personally) approaching a [living] bona fide guru.

So Arjuna took care that such an atheistic principle not be established. Arjuna was not envious of Ekalavya. Arjuna’s action was a manifestation of his mercy toward Ekalavya and the whole world.

If Ekalavya had been an unalloyed devotee of his guru, Kṛṣṇa would not have destroyed such a guru-bhakta, an ear nest disciple of the guru... But Ekalavya was killed by the hand of Kṛṣṇa. That is what finally happened to Ekalavya.”

Comment: Ekalavya’s mistake was that he did not approach a living guru and served and pleased him. He made a mystical form of his guru (who was living) and worshipped that mystical form and indeed obtained extra-ordinary powers of archery. However, his approach was illegitimate. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura explains that Ekalavya’s approach was opposite to that of Arjuna who directly and personally served his guru in his manifest living form.

The ṛtvik approach to take shelter of Śrīla Prabhupāda through his books is like that of Ekalavya. One who is not initiated by Śrīla Prabhupāda in His Divine Grace’s manifest presence and who only wants to approach Śrīla Prabhupāda through his books, not recognizing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples as gurus, might say that he is getting mercy from Śrīla Prabhupāda but his approach is illegitimate. Indeed, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī warns us that Ekalavya’s approach would bring about impersonalism.

Do they really imagine that ISKCON will ever accept their concocted doctrine as a standard tenet of Vaiṣṇava philosophy and practice? One is reminded of Duryodhana. Everyone told him that he should give up his illicit pursuits; that there was no way he could win against the Pāṇdavas, for God was on their side. Bhīṣma told him, Droṇācārya told him, Vyāsadeva came and told him, his own mother told him, but he just wouldn’t listen. He was so stubbornly convinced he could de feat the Pāṇdavas because of his large army with Bhiṣma and Droṇa in it to protect him.

When Kṛṣṇa went to Hastināpura on His peace-mission, to try and stop the war, he was very kind to Duryodhana. He told him to give up his enmity against the Pāṇḍavas and rule the world together with them. He knew that Duryodhana was into power so he told him that together with the Pāṇḍavas he’d be invincible. Duryodhana simply wouldn’t listen. Like a child he complained to Kṛṣṇa that He was always favoring the Pāṇḍavas. Kṛṣṇa, getting a little impatient with Duryodhana, reminded him that he had behaved very obnoxiously towards the Pāṇḍavas. Then Duryodhana said the most amazing thing. He said: “I have looked into my own heart very carefully, and I have not been able to detect even the slightest fault there.”

The ṛtvik-vādīs are like that. Depending on their false egos they think they can defeat the ancient guru-paramparā system that was put in place by Kṛṣṇa Himself, and taught by Śrīla Prabhupāda to his disciples. But just like Duryodhana couldn’t win, because he was working against the Supreme Lord and His devotees, the ṛtvik-vādīs can’t win. They will never succeed in introducing their deviant doctrine in ISKCON.

Some pro-ṛtviks claim that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s final order in that famous “henceforward” letter (wherein they claim that Śrīla Prabhupāda ordered the ṛtvik system to be continued after his departure) supercedes all of the previous instructions that Śrīla Prabhupāda had given. They quote the Gītā in an attempt to substantiate this point. Their idea is: the final order of the Lord in the Gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya..., supercedes and invalidates all of the previous statements of the Lord in the Gītā. You may think it sounds funny but it is actually an argument of some pro-ṛtviks.

If we examine this, we find that this argument is incorrect. According to the previous ācāryas it is not the philosophy of the Gītā that the final order supercedes and invalidates all the previous orders of the Lord. This is a wrong understanding of the Gītā.

All of the instructions of the Gītā are pertinent and valid, not only the final order (carama-upadeśa). tat tu samanvayāt. gati sāmānyāt. The entire Gītā teaches śaraṇāgati from the beginning to the end. The final order of the Lord just makes it clear how to do it. Even the message of surrender (saraṇāgati/prapatti) is explicitly stated in many places in the earlier chapters:

7.15: na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ

7.19: jñānavān māṁ prapadyate

2.7: śisyas te ‘haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam

7.14: mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etām taranti te

Besides that, Śrīla Prabhupāda writes in his commentary, that the surrendering process is known as bhakti. How many verses are needed to show that Kṛṣṇa teaches pure bhakti in the Gītā prior to the sarva-dharmān verse? Other Vaiṣṇava-ācāryas teach the same point. Śrīla Vedānta-deśika in his Tātparya-candrikā sub commentary on Śrīla Rāmānuja’s Gīta-bhāṣya has glossed that all the eighteen chapters of the Gītā teach surrender, prapatti.

Besides that, Lord Kṛṣṇa’s final order is supported by ex ternal evidence from the śruti, etc. In his Gītārtha-saṅgraha-rakṣa commentary on Yāmunācārya’s Gītārtha-saṅgraha which is a summary of the Gītā, he has stated that the process of surrender is not only the Lord’s final order, but also a standing and eternal process by which the living entity is delivered. He does this by quoting the śruti (ātma-buddhi-prakāśaṁ mumukṣur vai śaraṇam ahaṁ prapadye). Śruti is eternal, meaning that all the syllables in the four Vedas appear eternally in the same order. Smṛti isn’t like that though the message is eternal. So that verse, which is actually from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, proves that surrender to the Supreme Personality of Godhead is an eternal, standing instruction of the Lord and not merely a final order.

So if one wants to say that Śrīla Prabhupāda has given his final order superceding the previous orders, quoting the Gītā to support that claim, it just shows that one doesn’t know what one is talking about.

First of all the final order of the Lord does not supercede the previous orders; secondly that final order is the same as an eternal standing instruction of the Lord to the living entities.

The Ṛtvik-vādīs, if they want to adopt the same mode of reasoning, have to explicitly show that:

1. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s so-called final order to conduct post samādhi ṛtvikism was given all the time from 1966 (or earlier) onwards

2. They have to show that the post-samādhi ṛtvik system has some śāstric basis or some other explicit external evidence.

Since they have not been able to do that their idea of Śrīla Prabhupāda as the eternal dikṣā-guru has to be rejected as mental speculation.

“We are the real followers of Prabhupāda!” proclaim the ṛtvik-vādīs. But they fail to support such chauvinistic zeal with any concrete evidence. They have published enthusiastic statements such as: “Let us cooperate under the direction of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s final order.” But under closer scrutiny we find no evidence whatsoever that Śrīla Prabhupāda ever considered a post-samādhi ṛtvik system, or that the ṛtvik-vādīs in tend to cooperate with the appointed final authority in ISKCON, the Governing Body Commission. 

Although the ṛtvik idea—under whatever headings it has been presented-has been officially rejected in ISKCON, ṛtvik-vādīs stubbornly and aggressively keep propagating it as if it were something of value. It is as if they have been trained up by the ghost of Goebbels (the propaganda minister of Hitler) who said that if you keep repeating a lie enough times, in the end everyone will believe it.

As we have shown there is no scope for introducing ṛtvik-vāda in ISKCON. The idea simply has no basis in guru, sādhu, and śāstra. Aside from being un-Vedic there is also nothing to indicate that this is what Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted. The ṛtvik-vādīs claim that this is indeed what Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted, but they have not been able to present any evidence to sup port that claim.

The only piece of evidence they have been able to produce in their favor is the word “henceforward” in the July 9 letter. This cannot by any standard be considered sufficient evidence to support an idea for which there is no reference in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava philosophy. It is not very convincing to suggest that Śrīla Prabhupāda would break away from the timeless tradition of the guru-paramparā on the basis of one single word spoken in a letter that wasn’t even written by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.

To the objection that ṛtvik-vāda has no basis in guru, sādhu and śāstra, the ṛtvik-vādīs have claimed that Śrīla Prabhupāda was not obliged to follow guru, sādhu and śāstra, but that he, as an empowered ācārya, could institute new rules as he saw fit. We have discussed how the acceptance of a living guru is a principle of devotional service and not a detail according to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, and also how Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly confirms that an ācārya always follows the principles of guru, sādhu and śāstra.

We would like to conclude by hearing from Ajāmila Dāsa, who personally witnessed how the ṛtvik speculation was in vented during the middle of the 1980’s.

When the whole ṛtvik idea emerged around the mid-eighties, the original ṛtvik protagonists, Rūpa Vilāsa, Karṇāmṛta, and Nityānanda, rang me from USA and asked me to support their idea that Śrīla Prabhupāda desired a ṛtvik system. When I asked them for evidence they quoted the “henceforward” letter, but I was not convinced. I said, “Ring me back in a few days and I’ll tell you what Śrīla Prabhupāda has said in Śikṣāmṛta,” which was on the verge of being printed. When they rang back I quoted from the above letter and many other letters which they were not aware of, much to their annoyance.

When I said to them that if you look at the evidence in its entirety it is very clear that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted a regular guru system, and that the current problems were not an excuse to come up with a concocted idea. This angered them immensely to the point of shouting uncontrollably and calling me ill names and offering threats of defamation in their infamous Vedic Village Review. Thus I saw the birth of the Kali-yuga ṛtvik philosophy arise from of a group of uncooperative anti-GBC dissidents bent on satisfying their emotional frustrations. In the Kali-yuga there is no shortage of such uncontrolled people and so the impotent ṛtvik-vādīs don’t recruit anyone new but rather grub on ISKCON’s dissidents.

None of the ṛtvik evidence has any real strength. Their evidence is never clear-cut but always ambiguous and interpretable. When Śrīla Prabhupāda says that a disciple can, after the disappearance of his/her spiritual master, accept disciples without any limitation, and that this is the law of disciplic succession, it is uninterpretable evidence. This law cannot be changed. The Ṛtviks speculate that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted to change this timeless law, and that he explained it all in one word “henceforward” which for most sane people usually means until I die, unless explicitly other wise stated. In a court of law the ṛtviks henceforward argument would be quickly dustbined.

There is no precedent in the history of bona fide Vaiṣnavism of someone taking dīkṣā from a previous ācārya posthumously. Following the ṛtvik idea anyone can become a disciple of anyone! A 30-year-old sannyāsa disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda might meet an impudent 1 year-old upstart dīkṣā disciple of Rūpa Gosvāmī and would have to hit the dust in fear of offence. Such is the silliness of the ṛtvik concoction. It is simply a childish idea for silly people, and not for anyone serious.

If Śrīla Prabhupāda actually wanted to make a major radical change in the guru-paramparā system he would have spelled it out very clearly and not left it all wrapped up in a subjective interpretation of one ambiguous word like hence forward, expecting us to cut and paste other things to it to make it all add up. The ṛtviks try to get around the uninterpretable absolute philosophical evidence given by Śrīla Prabhupāda in the above letter to Tuṣṭa Kṛṣṇa by minimizing the authority of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letters, saying that the letters are not as absolute as his books. Yet the ṛtviks use (construe) the letters when it suits them, particularly the “henceforward” letter which they claim is their strongest evidence.

Śrīla Prabhupāda gave us so many absolute instructions in his letters about various ISKCON projects not mentioned in his books. He also gave in his letters absolute philosophical explanations and directions on guru-tattva which are no less absolute than his Bhaktivedanta purports. To suggest other wise would be offensive.

Our only wish is to have our consciousness purified by (all] the words emanating from his lotus mouth.’

The ṛtvik-vādīs will bark but the ISKCON caravan will pass.”

Hare Kṛṣṇa.