Krishnakant, editor BACK TO PRABHUPADA, Issue 24: The IRM has successfully proven that the requirement for being a diksa-, or initiating, guru in ISKCON is not simply that one thinks they have acquired the requisite qualifications to act as guru, but that in addition Srila Prabhupada must also authorize such persons to specifically act in that capacity:
“One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa vidhana.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.8.54, purport)
This has put the GBC on the back foot, realizing that it’s not enough just to “assume” they were supposed to become gurus to “continue the parampara”, but that they also need to demonstrate authorization for the same. We here will review the shifting and contradictory attempts made by the GBC over the years to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada authorized gurus, illustrated using a recent discussion on the subject between two ISKCON guru hoaxers, HH Jayadvaita Swami and HH Trivikrama Swami, archived an April 5th, 2009, excerpts from which will be in the tinted panels below.
1978 – Direct Order
Following the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, there was never any doubt in anyone’s mind that authorization meant receiving a direct order from Srila Prabhupada for the same, and indeed this was the basis of ISKCON’s guru system with the first Great Guru Hoax:
“The argument that after the departure of the spiritual master any one of his disciples can give initiation, cannot be applied in the case of Srila Prabhupada who specifically named 11 persons only at first to fullfill this function.”
(Tamala Krishna Letter to Upananda, December 13th,1978)
1987 – No authorization – It’s automatic
Following The Great Guru Hoax, Part 1, to satisfy the clamour from many other ambitious persons also wishing to be guru, the requirement that Srila Prabhupada needs to authorize gurus had to be ditched, since at best he had only named 11 persons (as ritviks in reality, but the GBC still accepted they were named as gurus). Therefore, a 180-degree flip-flop was done whereby it was accepted that no authorization is needed since by the “law of disciplic succession” everyone is automatically authorized (“The Great Guru Hoax, Part 2”):
Trivikrama: “Then again, Prabhupada says in a Letter to Tusta Krishna about it is the law of disciplic succession, when your spiritual master is present the etiquette is you should bring aspiring disciples to him. But when he’s no longer present then he can accept disciples.”
Jayadvaita: “Unlimitedty. So it’s a point of etiquette. Otherwise everyone’s authorized, but even the authorized person waits, following the etiquette.”
1987 – But GBC authorization required!
However, having got around the inconvenient point that Srila Prabhupada’s authorization was required to become guru by dispensing with the need for authorization at all, the GBC contradictorily claimed that though no authorization is needed from Srila Prabhupada himself to become guru, it is nonetheless needed from them:
Jayadvaiita: “Well, what you’re saying is that it’s not irrelevant that they are approved, or not objected to, or whatever, and that’s accepted on the grounds that the GBC has been appointed by Prabhupada as the ultimate managing authority. So in terms of the management for the society, it’s relevant. If you want to abide by the managerial set-up of the society then their stamp of whatever is relevant.”
Everyone authorized – Just by following
Trivikrama: “Sometimes they say ‘Well, Lord Chaitanya told everyone to be a spiritual master.'”
Jayadvaita: “He did.”
Trivikrama: “So then everyone is authorized.”
Jayadvaita: “True. Except one just has to follow and then he’s authorized.”
In addition, the argument is also used that Lord Chaitanya’s order for everyone to “become guru” (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 7:128) means again that everyone is automatically authorized by dint of this order. However, Srila Prabhupada makes clear in the purports to this verse that this order only refers to becoming siksa (instructing), not diksa (initiating) guru:
“It is best not to accept any disciples” (Cc, Madhya-lila 7:130). In addition, we have already noted that this argument is defeated by the GBC’s requirement that one still needs to be authorized by them first.
Actual Situation – Direct Order
Though in 1978 Srila Prabhupada’s direct order for ritviks (officiating priests) was misinterpreted as being an order for diksa-gurus, one cannot dispense with the need for an order itself: “A Guru can be Guru when he is ordered by his Guru. That’s all. Otherwise nobody can become Guru.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, October 28th, 1975)
Indeed, even the guru hoaxers refer to this obvious point:
Jayadvaita: “Although it’s supposed to be that if one is authorized by the spiritual master, there must be a letter or it must be on file in the Vedabase.”
Srila Prabhupada dearly stated in his final days 3 times that “everything” which was needed for running ISKCON, he gave in writing:
“I have given in writing everything, whatever you wanted – my will, my executive (?) power, everything. Disaster will happen if you cannot manage it. […] I have already given everything in writing.”
(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, October 2nd and 3rd,1977)
In Srila Prabhupada’s Last Will and the July 9th, 1977 directive, it is established that for ISKCON Srila Prabhupada is its initiating Guru. And hence if Srila Prabhupada had wanted to authorize any successor gurus or a system by which successor gurus could emerge in the future, he would also have given this in writing.
In ISKCON, every single activity, no matter how minor, is considered authorized only because we can support it with a direct recorded instruction to that effect from Srila Prabhupada.
Yet for the most momentous and significant order, that of how the parampara should continue for the next 10,000 years, we are to believe that this one most important activity does not require any direct order from Srila Prabhupada. The GBC have to say this since Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any diksa gurus.
Yes it is true that one needs authorusation to become spiritual master.But is there any direct letter or anything like that from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura that Srila Prabhupada sould be the next Acarya of the Gaudiya Sampradaya?
I ask this very humbly, just to clarify my doubt.I respect Srila Prabhupada very much and want to see him as my spiritual master.I mean no offense whatsoever.
I sincerely desire a reply.
Your servant,
Santosh
Yes,it is true that authorisation is required for becoming Diksha guru.But is there any direct letter from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada that Srila Prabhupada should be the next Acarya of the Gaudiya Sampradaya?Is there any direct evidence or such a mention by Srila Prabhupada that “He has been appointed to be the next Acaya?”
I beg you for a reply.
I ask this question very humbly,only to clear my doubt and strengthen my understanding.I mean no offense wahtsoever.In fact I want to accept Srila Prabhupada as my spiritual master and read His books very sincerely.
Your servant,
Santosh
Hare Rama,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
The proof is the spiritual potency of Srila Prabhupada.
By the blessings of his Guru, Srila Prabhupada was empowered to do deeds impossible for any conditioned soul.
Take the books: The speed in which they were revealed through Srila Prabhupada is beyond what any conditioned soul could accomplish.
The people who claim to be Diksha Guru, without any authorization all end up in a bad way: fall down,get killed in violent ways, turn into creeps etc.
Srila Prabhupada is not dead.
He is right there for you through his books, recordings and Murtis.
If you keep worshiping Srila Prabhupada you will realize this.
With kind regards,
Bhakta Robin
Santosh maybe this will help you?
One can become guru when he is ordered by his guru
In Nairobi (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 7.2 — Nairobi, October 28, 1975):
“INDIAN MAN: When did you become the spiritual leader of Krishna consciousness?
PRABHUPADA: What is that?
BRAHMANANDA: He’s asking, When did you become the spiritual leader of Krishna consciousness?
PRABHUPADA: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru-parampara.
INDIAN MAN: Did it…
PRABHUPADA: Try to understand. Don’t go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he’s ordered by his guru. That’s all. Otherwise, nobody can become guru.
INDIAN WOMAN 2: (Hindi)
PRABHUPADA: (Hindi) Sadhi mam prapannam. “I am surrendered to you. Whatever you say, I shall carry out.” That’s all.
INDIAN MAN: When did he tell you to–
PRABHUPADA: What is the business, when did he tell me? And why shall I disclose to you? It is so very insignificant thing that I have to explain to you?
INDIAN MAN: No, I am just curious when–
PRABHUPADA: You should be curious within your limit. You should know that one can become guru when he is ordered by his guru, this much.”
Hare Krishna!
bj
I am very grateful to you for your kind reply.
I know that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has said to Srila Prabhupada to preach the cult of Lord Chaitanya in the west and maybe not specifically to become”Next acarya of Gaudiya Vaisnavism”.Is this authorisation sufficient.?It is very clear that Srila Prabhupada has taken His spiritual master’s mission as his life and soul.
But it is authorisation sufficient?Because there are some statements by Srila Prabhupada to his disciples that he wanted to train his disciples to become gurus.If a sincere disciple takes Srila Prabhupada’s words seriously and does everything only for him,……then can’t such a pure disciple become another bonafide guru or an authority for Krsna Consciousness?
Of course I agree that Srila Prabhupada belongs to the highest class of Mahabhagavatas.
I humbly ask for a reply so that I become more convinced of what you have told me earlier.
Your servant,
Santosh
Hare Rama,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Theoretical it is possible that a pure devotee becomes the next Acharya.
But in practice we have seen, that none of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada was qualified to take that position.
As far as I understand that is why Srila Prabhupada gave the Ritvik Order, before he left this universe.
In this regard you should study the July 9th 1977 letter regarding how initiations should be performed henceforward:
http://theharekrishnamovement.wordpress.com/category/july-9th-letter/
You should also study the testimony of Srila Prabhupada’s personal Servant Gauridasa Pandita Dasa, how Tamal Krishna “Goswami” and his henchmen were hiding and changing Srila Prabhupada’s letters in the last month before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, so they can proclaim themselves as Diksha Gurus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R49QxjiIMqU
http://www.harekrsna.de/reform/e_pr_omb.htm
Madhu Pandit Dasa on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARfip_a0m6w
After studying the issue, I personally concluded Srila Prabhupada wanted to make his disicples Gurus in the beginning, but after seeing how demoniac they were, he gave the Ritvik Order as a last attempt to rectify the situation.
Greetings
Bhakta Robin
Bhakta Robin is committing an serious offence while applying his insufficient, material intelligence to the activities of the pure soul i.e. Sri Guru as seen from the last sentence of his speculative and mayavada comment (“After studying the issue, I personally concluded Srila Prabhupada wanted to make his disicples Gurus in the beginning, but after seeing how demoniac they were, he gave the Ritvik Order as a last attempt to rectify the situation.” ) So let us study this short masterpiece of our great Robin. According to the twisted logic of our smart Robin there was something about His Divine Graces disciples what the pure soul and associate of Lord Sri Krishna Srila Prabhupada haven’t seen in the “beginning”, was He naive according to Robert or just a little ordinarily blind? So, since He spoiled the situation by this ignorance and blindness later was He fearful about to “rectify” His mistake, by completely rejecting the whole body of the teachings on guru tattva in the Parampara line as given in His glorious books? What else according to the ritvik devoted Robin was unknown to the greatest of the Acaryas? May Lord Sri Krishna spare us this kind of hellish mentallity. Since the Bhagavatam says that none can understand the mind and activities of the Acarya we have a problem here. Of course this is not a problem for the ritvik devoted Robin, he can understand it all ver well.
Hare Krsna!
Please accept my most humble obeissances.I am most grateful to Bhakta Jarek and Bhakta Robin for trying to help me with my problem.But I beg for a reply to Bhakta Jarek’s comment,since his reply seems correct.Also I am a bit confused.But Srila Prabhupada actually wanted to make his disciples as Guru, wasn’t it?May be if some disciple did not misuse his free will and had actually given his life to Prabhupada’s teachings,he could have become qualified,right.But because of their future misuse of freewill and committing offence to Prabhupada,none of them were qualified.
After all, everything is dynamic right.No one can determine when in future a conditioned soul may develop an anatha and deviate from the journey to pure devotion.So Srila Prabhupada might have taken appropriate action in different situations.Not that He ignorantly committed a mistake of wanting his disciples to be Guru.
Sulocana das prabhu mentions in his Guru business book, how Srila Prabhupada took appropriate actions in the appropriate situation(He was directly guided by Krsna to take decisions,of course).For example, he explains how Srila Prabhupada encouraged his disciples to
be responsible householders in the beginning,but seeing that many were ending in bitter divorces,he started awarding sannyasa to His disciples(although they were actually not qualified).Srila Prabhupada intelligently made practical sannyasis to spread the teachings of Lord Caitanya(through His books)all over the world.This was how Srila Prabhupada used His transcendental intelligence.
I respect Sulocana prabhu very much because he sacrificed his life to reveal the false gurus of ISKCON and enlighten people that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee of the highest caliber.
So,I humbly beg for a reply,so that I can wholeheartedly accept Srila Prabhupada as my spiritual master.
I mean no ofence to Prabhupada.I admit that I have a very poor fund of knowledge and a complex mentality.Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong.
Hare Rama,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Well I studied the whole issue of ISKCON and read up on the early days.
Did you actually read Srila Prabhupada’s letters on Kritananda?
Or Sulochan Prabu’s Book “Guru Business”?
http://www.harekrsna.org/pada/guru_biz.htm
I did and as it seems Kirtananda was actually perceived as a spiritually advanced devotees by many devotees including Sulochan Prabhu(first murdered devotee)
That was why Sulochan Prabhu moved to New Vrindavana Farm Community, where Kirtananda divorced him from his wife, took away his children and order his murder, after he started to expose the false Gurus.
I personally did a case study of the whole case of Kirtananda and Srila Prabhupada’s letter reveal, how his mood regarding his “advanced disciples” changed over the years as it became evident, they just wanted to kill Guru and become Guru.
I personally do not hate the ISKCON Gurus.
I hope they safe themselves and the devotees by repenting their Guru Aparadha by neglecting teh Ritvik Order just like Hansadutta Prabhu did.
It is certainly sad to see that most devotees are mislead to follow a false Guru or neglect the Ritvik Order.
But what can be done? This world means, cheaters and cheated
Greetings
Bhakta Robin
On one side we have the current iskcon which is run by the rent seeking gbcs’ selling to the general public, its committee elected mostly unqualified members as qualified, as good as god, worshipable gurus. What a scam. On the other side we have the ‘ritvik’ wallahs selling their ‘ritvik’ wares of initiation by proxy and as disciples of Srila Prabhupada by default using as an excuse, the July 9th letter, as proof to cheat the general public. Another big scam. And all this in the name of Srila Prabhupada said so. What a bunch of lairs and cheaters.
Hare Krsna.
It is really a good sign of hope that the editors of this website are posting our critical comments, a great thing completely impossible on FISKCON’s websites! Thank you, since for me personally this is like an ishta goshti which meaning is to strengthen the mind and intelligence in the spiritual pursuit in” becoming an thoughtful and independend individuals” as per the desire of our eternal Guru and Divine Guide Srila Prabhupada Acharya. Thank You editors once again, and at the same time please accept my apologies and regreat for the apparent personal attacks or animosity. My only concern is to stay aline with the teachings of the current Acharya, H.D.G. A.C. Bhaktivdanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.
y.s. bj
Instead of ”becoming thoughtful and independent individuals” should be of course “independently thoughtful individuals”. Wow, what a difference! If You could kindly edit my obvious speculation dear Prabhus, please.
y.s. bj
Podobno Śrila Prabhupada dużo wcześniej wiedział, że zostanie otruty.
Czy to prawda?
Apparently Srila Prabhupada knew well in advance that he would be poisoned.
Is this true?
Astrological charts of H.D.G. were well known to Srila Prabhupada. The record of conversations also shows clearly that what became known to us (at least some of us) first after the technological enhancement of the tapes (poison whisperers) was known to the great Acharya. Srila Prabhupada was never in ignorance about His disciples, however He said that he knows all what Krishna wants Him to know.
y.s. bj
Neither in Srila Prabhupada’s will nor in the July 9th, 1977 letter was there any mention of initiations that would be performed when His Divine Grace would no longer be with us by his physical presence. Those who espouse the ritvik doctrine want to diminish the role of the ritvik representative to that of a ceremonial priest. When I researched the term “ceremonial priest” on the VedaBase I found that it did not appear even once in the entire body of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Therefore, we may conclude that this term was introduced by those whose agenda was to give neophyte devotees the impression that Srila Prabhupada intended to act as the official initiator even after he had entered samadhi. Actually, though, Srila Prabhupada never made such a statement. In fact, when the opportunity to do so arose on May 28, 1977, he said to the contrary that those who would receive diksa from ritvik acaryas would be considered disciples of the ritvik acarya and grand disciples of Srila Prabhupada.
TKG: These ritvik acaryas — they are officiating, giving diksa — the people who they give diksa to — whose disciples are they?
Srila Prabhupada: They are HIS disciples.
If Srila Prabhupada had intended to continue to initiate after entering samadhi, he would have said: “They are MY disciples.”
Before his pastimes here ended, there were already many disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were outstanding pujaris, very capable of performing fire ceremonies and other priestly functions. Also, previous to the naming of ritvik representatives, Srila Prabhupada had authorized many sannyasis and GBC men to chant on initiation beads, but his choice of ritvik representatives was much more than the designation of candidates with priestly experience. It was a statement that these men, at the time, were thought by His Divine Grace to be the most acarya-like leaders within the movement. Therefore, they were awarded this service.
Dear Locanananda Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances.I request you to read this passage from Sulocana Prabhu’s Guru Business book. I hope this will clear you conception on what Srila Prabhupda actually wanted.
THE BOGUS MAY TAPE
Sat: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
SP: Yes. I shall recommend some of you, after this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.
Tam: Is that called ritvik-acarya?
SP: Ritvik. Yes.
Sat: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and…?
SP: He’s guru. He’s guru.
Sat: But he does it on your behalf?
SP: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf. On my order, amara ajnaya guru haya, he is actually guru. But by my order.
Sat: So they may also be considered your disciples?
SP: Yes, they are or their disciples, but consider who…
Tam: No. he is asking that these ritvik-acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa, the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?
SP: They are his disciples.
Tam: They are his disciples?
SP: Who is initiating. His grand-disciple.
Sat: Then we have a question concerning…
SP: When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciples. Just see.
THE ACCURATE MAY TAPE
This version we have compiled is perfectly accurate in all detail-pauses, unclear words, etc. If the GBC has a version that is more clear, and can be heard better, then let them come forward with it now. Otherwise, when we say a segment of words is indistinguishable, that means that not only ourselves but numerous other devotees also could not make out what was being said. We have an excellent copy of the tape and are using the best equipment available.
Sat: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
SP: Yes. I shall recommend some of you, after this is settled up (local business that they had been discussing), I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.
Note: Here Prabhupada establishes that the following conversation is going to be about officiating gurus before his departure, not about gurus “at that time when he is no longer with us.”
Tam: Is that called ritvik-acarya?
SP: Ritvik. Yes.
Sat: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and-
Note: This is a meaningless question, and so Prabhupada didn’t even wait for him to finish it. He “who gives” is guru-Srila Prabhupada. Satsvarupa was no doubt thinking of he who “officiates” the initiation but his wording was off. The ritvik does not “give” the initiation; he officiates the initiation. Satsvarupa’s question is not clear, and so the answer cannot be confirmed to support any conclusion.
SP: -He’s guru- He’s guru.
Note: The first “He’s guru” broke into Satsvarupa’s words, and so Prabhupada repeated it. That’s the only reason. Srila Prabhupada is simply stating his own relationship to his disciple; the one “who gives” the initiation is guru. It is possible that he was referring to the ritvik as being guru, but in that case it would mean siksa-guru. In many places Prabhupada said that his senior disciples may be taken as siksa-guru of the neophytes if they repeated perfectly what they have heard. Guru simply means teacher in this sense.
Sat: But-he does it on your behalf?
Note: Here Satsvarupa introduces the delusion. In his mind he interpreted the answer as meaning the ritvik is the initiating guru.
SP: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru. So on my behalf. On my order, “amara ajnaya guru haya.” (3 sec. pause) He’s actually guru, but by my order.
Note: This is the most important answer. In fact it is so significant that at the end of this Appendix we quote the entire section in Caitanya-caritamrta where this quote comes from. Srila Prabhupada is being questioned as to what will be the system of guru after his departure. To this line of questioning Prabhupada quotes a verse from the Caitanya-caritamrta. that elaborately explains how me is “actually a guru.” Prabhupada is not going to recite the whole section for Satsvarupa right then and there. Satsvarupa knows how to read and so Prabhupada simply gave him the key words. Thus all Satsvarupa had to do was look it up. Prabhupada’s intentions for guru after his departure are very clear. Anyone who can read can see who Prabhupada was appointing guru.
Sat: So they may also be considered your disciples?
Note: Here Satsvarupa further reveals the delusion he is in. He has now fully convinced himself that the new devotees are actually his own disciples.
SP:…(words)…they’re disciples, but consider. (2 sec. pause) Who.
Note: Any interpretation of this partial statement is simply mental speculation. It is significant however that Prabhupada made this response in a tone of chastisement, as though he wanted Satsvarupa to give up his delusion. Tamala could see the confusion and so he interjected:
Tam: No. He is asking that these ritvik-acaryas… (Prabhupada: Hmmm)…they are officiating, giving diksa,…(hmmm)…the people who they give diksa to…(hmmm)…whose disciple are they?
Note: We have to give Tamala credit here for picking up that Satsvarupa is in delusion. Satsvarupa’s questions were not at all in line with Prabhupada’s answers and so Tamala wants to make it perfectly clear. Tamale’s wording is very concise. It is also significant that three times during this question Prabhupada said, “Hmmm”. Prabhupada was speaking very clearly at this time, and so there is no reason for any of this tape to be ambiguous-unless it was tampered with.
SP: They are (d)-his-disciples.
Note: just before the word “his” there is an unmistakable dip in sound. There can be no doubt that the word “his” was dubbed in; most likely in place of the word “my.” Why would Prabhupada say “his” disciples to a clear question like Tamala’s? Even if there were no dip, we would know that it was dubbed simply on the philosophical basis, but with the dip, there is no doubt. Who did the dubbing??
Tam: They are his disciples.
Note: This response confirms the dub. From the original bogus transcript, everyone thought Tamala was repeating what Prabhupada said. But that was an easy trick they thought they could get away with. This was not spoken as a question to Prabhupada as the bogus transcript led one to believe. This was immediately and softly spoken on the side to Satsvarupa simply confirming that the new devotees were Prabhupada’s disciples. Had Prabhupada actually said “his disciples,” then Tamala would have said to Satsvarupa, “They are our disciples.” One word dubs are relatively easy but even then they couldn’t make it perfect. Tamala is talking to Satsvarupa, so, when he says, “his disciples,” Prabhupada is “his”.
SP: Who is initiating. (3 sec. pause) His grand-disciple.
Sat: Yes. (5 sec. pause) Then we have a question conc-.
Note: Please keep in mind, Tamala had just told Satsvarupa that the new devotees were Prabhupada’s disciples. That was very clear at this time. So even though these last words cannot be interpreted (cuts may have been made), Satsvarupa had heard all he wanted to and so is going on to the next question. Some tampering may have been done on all these sentences. Why would Satsvarupa have gone onto the next point? This last statement could not have made sense to him. Further questions would have been necessary. At least we could expect that Tamala would have been in there clarifying the statement further if there was even the slightest hint that he was going to be a guru. The whole conversation has very unnatural sound to it and so we know it was heavily tampered with. But as yet we have not found out who did it. But we win.
SP: When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all.
Note: The GBC tried to interpret the following June tape as that “order” mentioned here as though Prabhupada had all of a sudden changed the whole philosophy and decided that pure devotees can be appointed after all. It is significant that Prabhupada uses the term “regular guru.” As of yet we have not found an exact definition for that term from the books. It can be taken as a guru under regulations or as an ordinary guru which would mean siksa-guru. It can’t possibly mean a diksa-guru since diksa-gurus are not appointed or ordered.
It is significant that all these answers are to Tamale’s question-the first clear question. But the answers in this chopped up tape do not confirm any conclusion and so more in needed. So even though Prabhupada said, “that’s all”, they needed to add the following sentence to clinch the appointment theory.
SP: (7 sec. delay) He becomes…(inaudible word(s))…disciple of my disciple. (Click) just see.
Note: This fine is an obvious dub. Not only does the background noise drop out, but the speed and tone of Prabhupada’s voice dramatically changes also. The “just see” is again in a radically different tone and volume from the previous words. This tape was the only “evidence” the “gurus” ever had to support their claim to divinity. This can be proven, and when it is, the conspirators will be facing serious charges in court.
Sat: Next we have a question about the GBC. (end tape)
Note: There are some very significant points to bring out about this tape. One is that Prabhupada’s health and speech were not bad at this time and it would have been no problem to ask more specific questions to seek proper clarification. There are so many good reasons why it is obvious that this tape was tampered with. One is, if it was not tampered with, why was it not available to everyone? It was extremely well guarded. This would have been just the opposite if it actually said what they claimed. But because they were unable to make a good dubbing job, they kept it super-confidential. It is available however from DAS if anyone doubts the validity of this transcript. When Sridhar Maharaja told Jayapataka that a ritvik guru does not make one an initiating guru later, Jayapataka told Sridhar Maharaja, referring to this tape: “Prabhupada has given explicit desires.” Sridhar Maharaja believed him, and from the conversation that immediately ensued, the entire bogus guru manifesto was compiled.
Dear SG Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances.What is your view on Madhudvisa Das(jnr)(not a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada),who is doing the invaluable service of making available to all,Srila Prabhupada’s mp3 files and original books like those of Srimad Bhagavatam,Bhagavad Gita As It Is,and Sri Caitanya Caritamrta , for free?
What is your opinion about him?He also upholds that Srila Prabhupada wanted ritviks to conduct initiatons after his departure.
Do you think he is a cheater and a liar?Is he not benefiitting lot of people by making them hear from Srila Prabhupada,and reading Srila Prabhupada’s books?
Your servant,
Santosh
ALL GLORIES TO HIS DIVINE GRACE A.C.BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI SRILA PRABHUPADA! I noticed above that “Bhakta Jarek” thanks the editors of PRABHUPADANUGAS-EU for allowing so many devotees to express so many different viewpoints.I agree 100%.This website is so honest and open that I almost can not believe it.Why are ISKCON’s sites so heavyhanded? The articles on this website are great and the comments section itself is also beyond anything out there.I wish that I had discovered this site sooner.Thank you very much Prabhus. JAI RADHE!
It’s sounds better than the whole ritvik scam what you say Locanandana Prabhu. However in fact your opinion goes even against what clearly Tamal Krishna admitted in the Topanga Canion Pyramide House in the short moments of his apparent regreat for what they/he did to the movement, just because the 11-1=10 clique wanted get rid of him. Srila Prabhupada just made them ritviks to simply and practically settle up the bottle neck situation with initiations which was created artificially by Tamal, Satsvarupa & Co. since their private agenda was to kill Prabhupada and take over the institution. His Divine Grace was disrespected by them, their questioning Him about what and how after His departure was an obvious insult beyond any kind of etiquette. His Divine Graces answers in that subject like those on 28 May 77 were general answers in the matter of initiation. He knew them to be hungry for name and fame, He tried to engage them for their benefit while dovetail their desire for adoration yet keeping them within the realm of His unlimited love in the service for the Lord. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada clearly said about the requirments of becomming guru. All of them are like the eternal law of the Sampradaya teachings and can’t be changed by anyone without spoiling everything. “The training must be completed”, “what is the use of another rascal guru”, “noe one can become guru unless not ordered by his master”,… Srila Prabhupada did not protest while Tamal stated that after he studied all of his godbrothers his conclusion was that none of them himself included was fit to become guru.
y.s.bj
Santosh prabhu your analysis are just great ! a very nice job ! Thank You!
Dear Santosh,
Before i talk about Madhudvisa Das/ritvik, can you please tell me what is your position on ritvik. A simple, yes, i believe it should be ritvik or No, I don’t believe it should be ritvik via the July 9th 1977 letter will do and also if it is possible can you please explain what do you mean by “Yes, it is true that authorization is required for becoming Diksha guru.” In your 1st and 2nd comment above.
Hare Krsna
There is lately lots of Prabhupadanugas shooting against ritvik. Not that this is a campaign of Rocana who still cannot name his living maha-bhagavat pure Vaishnava acarya who according Rocana is supposed to perform lving initiations.
Rather it seems some former ritviks are losing faith. Believe or not believe, this what works will remain, false gurus will be removed as it happend 41 times all those years since Prabhupada left. Obviously for many this is nothing, peanuts, doesnt have to be considered. Even if more are to follow to fall from the vyasasana, they are sure, a guru has to be alive.
Prabhupada states:
Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.4
by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Mayapur, February 11, 1976
Prabhupada recognized Lord Jesus as maha-bhagavata, nitya-siddha. Jesus never fell down, his religion goes on, more and more Christians adopt Prabhupada’s 4regs and chant on beads.
How do you explain to people in general that Gaudiya Vaishnavas have the real knowledge? Lets say Rocana says tomorrow, listen folks, I’m the true successor of Prabhupada. Just writing this while sitting on the vysasana, I’m a genuine guru…..
So Christians will answer, come on silly guys, yet another experiment. We never went so low like you to try for another Jesus. In any case, Jesus is merciful, in case you are sick of your guru gamble, just come over, Jesus wont give you the runaround if he makes it or not. Your gurus cannot guarantee for anything. They let you wait forever. How can you live with trembling uncertainty?
In sum, Christianity won, living guru doctrine failed.
Just in case you are wondering why no intelligent Westerners join ISKCON / GM anymore.
Thank you for spending your time with us!
I have never read or hear Rocana prabhu saying that Guru must be a live. Guru is always a live, even the conditioned soul is always a live, and this minimum of understanding in spiritual culture a senior disciple of the current Acarya certainly does have. The thing is however whether a ccondtioned soul may be able to take (nomen omen) or saying it literal usurp to have recived diksha formal initiation from non present anymore physically Guru.
While you will oppose saying that the ritvik system solves the dilemna exactly the same way as it was while Srila Prabhupada acted via ritviks while being himself personally present on planet Earth the opponent of the whole posthumous idea will ask why then the songs mourning for the departed Vaishnavas, why the celebrations of their disapparences, while Bhagavatam at all speaks about the Bhagavatas going back and disappear from our sight, why the vapu and vani as different ways of association as an obvious result and consequences of our limitation, where we are disabled to conduct or experience certain future or elements of spiritual practices in any other baiseut sensual way which certainly requires a visible medium in so called physical form.
Why Lord Krishna says and does appear to reestablish the Sampradaya if according to You no touchable (living) presence is needed ? The way you refute and criticise your oponents Saksigopal das (whoever was or is you guru since you let us in ignorance what or who gave you the name, or what your status is) is typhical for the ritviks and sorry to say is just a blunder and lie.
One proof that your main accusation against Rocana prabhu has some substance. No there is no such proof. Living Guru issue as shown by you is the result of your misunderstanding of what Guru is. Guru is allways a life, but the question or problem is our impersonal or material sight tendency where we take the machine of the body for the very self.
Then by saying “no He is present in the same way He was before He left” we do believe to have raised in spiritual understanding, that now we are great, we do know what spirit is about, “He is a life”, like the Jesus fans.
Well, we know from the scripture that wrongly things one who consider Vaishnava to have died, … that He lives in sound, but the śastra do not formalize such woderful power of this kind of presence of a Vaishnava to formal, institutional and automatic diksha formality. You will never find such nonsence, so clear that Prabhupada would never wish anything like that to go on in the name of Krishna bhakti. Never!
y.s. bj
From Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.47.
“The disciple and spiritual master are never seperated because the spiritual master always keeps company with the disciple as long as the disciple follows strictly the instructions of the spiritual master. This is called the association of vani (words). Physical presence is called vapuh. As long as the spiritual master is physically present, the disciple should serve the physical body of the spiritual master, and when the spiritual master is no longer physically existing , the disciple should serve the instructions of the spiritual master.”
This excerpt from Srila Prabhupada’s Srimad Bhagavatam completely destroys the ritvik concept that a “rittik”-representative of the Acharya is able to Initiate after the disapperance of Srila Prabhupada.
In the July 9th letter the “rittik” is described as a representative which means the process is a via medium process. the “rittik” acting as a representative of Srila Prabhupada. Whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present the “rittik” is instructed to serve the body of the spiritual master exclusively. And after the spiritual master is no longer physically existing the disciple and “rittik” are instructed to serve the vani (instructions) exclusively. The representative aspect of the “rittik” can only be serving the Vani after the spiritual master is no longer physically existing and is not able to represent the Vapuh any longer as instructed by Srila Prabhupada in this example from His Srimad Bhagavatam. The Vani relationship with the spiritual master is a direct relationship requiring no via medium representative.
In the “final Order ” in the section under “Related Objections” section 14 deals with this very point. In this section the editor is using the quote from Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7. “..in order to receive the real message of Srimad Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.”
In this section the editor proves that to be the current link physical presence is not required.But crucially it is also proved that the relationship with Srila Prabhupada and His Books is also a direct relationship . The wording used in this example is that the word “current link” is synonomous to “immediate acharya” and that the very purpose of approaching a “current link” can be fully satisfied by reading Srila Prabhupada’s Books.
So the requirement for “rittik”-representative of the Acharya is nullified by this way of approaching the current link via His direct Books relationship.
So the next question logically would be what is that relationship with Srila Prabhupada through His Books in Vani.?
From Cc Adi 1.47.
“From within He teaches as Parampara, our constant companion, and from without he teaches from Bhagavad-Gita as the Instructing Spiritual Master.”
Srila Prabhupada is describing Sri Krsna in this excerpt as the Instructing Spiritual master in His form as Bhagavad-Gita, His Vani.That is our relationship with Krsna in this form.
And our relationship with Srila Prabhupada is also as our Shiksa Guru in His form of vani, His Books.
These points are all consistent evidences that illustrate clearly that our relationship with Srila Prabhupada, after he is no longer physically existing, is our Shiksa Guru in His Vani feature through reading His Books, there is no intervening via medium.Thats how He is the current link though His being our Shiksa Guru eternally through His Vani. And thats our relationship with Him, as Shiksa Guru.
your servant Dusyanta dasa.
Thank You dear Dushyanta Prabhu! As usually right to the point!!!
Jay Srila Prabhupada!
Hare Krishna!
y.s. bj
Dear Praahupadanugas,
Please accept my most humble obeisances. Dusyanta dasa prabhu said we can have a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada(as Siksha Guru) by reading His books.
Can you please explain me(I’m a little confused)-Can we not be initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada.
There is a purport in Caitanya Caritamrta that goes as foolows:-
Madhya 1.208
“AFTER INITIATION, the disciple’s name must be changed to indicate that he is a servant of Lord Visnu. The disciple should also immediately begin marking his body with tilaka (urdhva-pundra), especially his forehead. These are spiritual marks, symptoms of a perfect Vaisnava.” This is a verse from the Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda. A MEMBER OF THE SAHAJIYA-SAMPRADAYA DOES NOT CHANGE HIS NAME; THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A GAUDIYA VAISNAVA. If a person does not change his name after initiation, it is to be understood that he will continue in his bodily conception of life.
Is it then authorised to apply tilaka without becoming an initiated disciple?
Then can we never become free from bodily conception,since we cannot recieve initiation from Srila Prabhupada?
Begging for a reply,
Your servant,
Santosh
Since you are saying that we cannot take initiation from Srila Prabhupada,from whom should we take.
Srila Prabhupada Himself says that if one is intelligent,he must take initiation from the totally liberated mahabhagavata devotees.But where is the Mahabhagavata devotee?
But it is also said that we must approach the current link in the disciplic succesion.But is there a bonafide acarya after Srila Prabhupada?If there is,then is it helpful to surrender to Prabhupada by reading His books and following His instructions?(if He is not the current link)?
If there is no bonafide successor of Srila Prabhupada,then why can’t we become His initiated disciples?
There is so much confusion in this world because different people give different opinions.I am utterly confused as to what is correct as is to be done.
Since I have seen many opinions from different people,I am myself confused whether Srila Prabhupada wanted future devotees(those who would come after His departure)to be His disciples,or disciples of His
disciples(the ISKCON gurus).Is the whole system of ritvik bogus?Then who is genuine?I am unable to understand anything.
I am in utter confusion and bewildement.Please, I beg you all Prabhus to clear all my doubts by presenting fully convincing and elaborate arguments.
Your servant……Wanting to be an honest follower of Srila Prabhupada,
Santosh
Hare Krsna,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Dear Prabhupadanugas,
I beg you to reply to my comment,as I’m bewildered by various opinions.I wan’t to be free from this bewilderment and concentrate on my sadhana for pleasing Srila Prabhupada.It is only possible if you are very kind enough to help me.
Your humble servant,
Santosh
Please help!I beg for help!May Krsna give me enough faith to practice Krsna Consciousness
Hi Santosh,
I think you’re on the right track. You accept Prabhupada is the pure devotee, yet you admit your confusion over exactly what his instructions are on this matter. Unless we ourselves are perfectly pure on the transcendental platform, then our senses are imperfect, and to think that we have a perfect understanding about anything one must only be fooling themselves and others. All these people who insist they understand things perfectly, to me are all questionable. I also do not understand everything, but at least what makes the most sense to me is that really we should focus our attention and worship on Srila Prabhupada, and study his teachings closely.
This is kali yuga, where there is so much cheating going on, and this idea that so many persons can easily be rubber stamped as initiating gurus, to be worshiped as good as God, really appears to be just so much opportunity for cheating. If we are to accept someone as our initiating guru whom we shall actually worship, that person must not be rubberstamped, and their qualification must be above all questioning, so much so that it is glaringly obvious that such a person is undeniably a mahabhagavata. The only person I know of that fits this description until now is Srila Prabhupada.
So many persons are accepting this whole matter of guru very cheaply, and accepting some person just because they are rubberstamped by GBC, or in some cases even not GBC rubberstamped, but because that person is Indian, is a sanyassa, is elderly, was there with Prabhupada, and appears to be nicely situated. People may think for such a person, there is no possibility of falldown. But we see time and time again, that persons lack of qualification is eveident by their eventual falldown. Or sometimes there is someone whom is not exposed in any gross falldown, but displays signs that they are still under the influence of the last snare of maya, that they still want to be adorned with followers and recognition. Such persons at times reveal their envy of Srila Prabhupada and contradict his teachings by leading followers to believe that Prabhupada did not give everything, and that he only gave us the very basic fundamentals, and that now we must go to the next level by accepting them to receive the “higher” teachings. In the shastra it is stated that one who is anxious to present something higher than their guru is no better than a monkey.
So all these things are going on, and there are so many persons who are very envious of the idea that Prabhupada could still actually accept disciples. This is what is very questionable to me, persons who emphatically deny any shred of consideration of any possibility that Srila Prabhupada may have actually been authorized by Lord Krishna to setup a system of continuing to accept disciples without any limitation or time constraint, or at least until the time where some disciple has actually become qualified and authorized to initiate their own disciples. The basic point is that persons are against this idea due to envy of Lord Krishna, and his devotee Srila Prabhupada. They do not like the idea because either they themselves are aspiring for the position, or because they are attached to the distinction and recognition that comes with being one of the exclusive Prabhupada disciples, or because they just want to be part of the club and have plenty of friends and associates, places to go, etc. – Like Prabhupada says “society, friendship and love”. In any case, in one form or another, they deny any possibility that someone could today become an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada. They say that the very idea is absurd.
So no matter how well meaning these persons may seem to be, we must see what their motivation is. It is understandable to be somewhat confused about this matter, because there are various statements from Srila Prabhupada whereby we can come to different conclusions. But the fact that Prabhupada, after being questioned specifically on this matter, on May 28th in Vrndavan, shortly thereafter issued a letter to the entire society, describing this ritvik sytem and stating 3 times that initiates are his disciples, and stating nowhere that system should end at any given time, must be given consideration. The letter neither states in specific terms that it should continue after his departure, neither does it say it should end after his departure. And this is the only letter ever issued by Prabhupada to the entire society concerning initiations. And it was issued when Prabhupada was ill and knowing that he would soon be departing.
Why Prabhupada did not state in black and white in this letter, “to continue after my departure” ? is certainly a valid question. It is likely that Prabhupada did not need to make such a statement for various reasons. One is that he would thwart the ambitions of his disciples, which he was engaging in the most important work of publication and distribution of his books and recordings. This was the main work, and had he pulled the plug on the main driving force behind it all, namely ambition for position, recognition, etc., then perhaps it would have had a great detrimental effect on the book distribution and other aspects of development in the movement. So rather Prabhupada encouraged them, but simultaneously set it up so that with some inquiry, any sincere person could figure out that what he has intended is for the system to continue after his departure. These GBC knew that Prabhupada had assigned zones for these ritviks and they continued with these zones for 11 years after Prabhupada’s departure, because they knew Prabhupada never instructed to stop the zonal system after his departure. A zonal system of course is only applicable to ritvik initiations, because for a bonafide diksa guru there is no question of zones or any such restrictions. So the fact that they continued with these zones for 10 years is proof that Prabhupada never instructed for it to end and they knew it. This error on their behalf was admitted in a BTG magazine after 11 years at which time they, after admitting the mistake, rather than adopt the ritvik system, went on to compound the error by removing the zones and introducing the rubberstamp process whereby anyone could assume the position by a combination of that persons own initiative with the approval of 2/3 vote of th GBC. So this process of assuming the post of initiating acarya by combination of ones own ambition and the rubberstamp of an ecclesiastical board is something that is not supported by shastra. These people argue that ritvik is against shastra and is unprecedented while their own system itself is something that is far removed from shastra. And such an argument shows that they do not accept anything that Prabhupada instructs to be as good as shastra itself. They do not accept that an acarya can be authorized by Lord Krishna do adopt any means most effective for the time, place and circumstance, in order to spread Krishna Consciousness. In this regard there are many, many things that Prabhupada did in order to effectively preach, that were never done before, and which he was criticized by his own godbrothers and caste brahmanas of the like.
So all these arguments are being given by caste conscious, club conscious people. The fact that practically all of the original 11 ritviks who went on to claim themselves as Prabhupada’s successors have fallen down in the most horrendous ways, is proof that they were never authorized for that position. The fact that so many gurus who have subsequently been rubberstamped is further proof that the rubberstamping process also is not authorized. And the fact that Prabhupada has stated in his will that only his initiated disciples could be the trustees for ISKCON properties for the duration of ISKCON’s existence, is a clear indication that the ritvik system has been intended by Srila Prabhupada to continue after his departure. It is truly amazing, given these facts and the large body of historical, legal and philosophical support in favor of the continuation of the ritvik system, that yet so many persons are hell bent against it. Truly this is kali yuga we live in, where even the vast majority of devotees cannot agree on something so reasonable as this. Persons want to be cheated by supporting the whole charade of men being promoted to the position of being worshiped as good as God. As far as I’m concerned, only Prabhupada should be accepted on this level. Surely we can accept others who are in agreement with this, as instructing gurus and give our respects to such persons. But anyone who will tell you, that “no, you cannot be Prabhupada’s disciple”, apparently must have some ulterior motive which is covering them over.
As far as the formality of initiation, Prabhupada has stated the essence is accepting and following the instructions. The initiation ceremony is helpful in solidifying one’s vows, but Prabhupada has said that it is not essential. Under the circumstances, where this ritvik system has been dismantled, and there is so much current confusion, we need not concern ourself about it for the time being. Mainly we need to concern ourself with hearing from Prabhupada, reading his books, listening to his recordings, etc, and following the instructions. It may not be easy when we don’t really have much like minded association, but it is possible and we can carry own to the best of our ability.
As to whether there will be a successor, it is possible, but I do not believe we need to concern ourselves about this either. It is an area of speculation which continues to keep the doors wide open for all the cheating that goes on. Time and time again ambitious opportunistc people are taking advantage of people eagerness to have what they call a “living guru”- some charismatic personality or something, and the cheating continues to go on in this way. So why should we go there when Prabhupada has already given us everything. Let us focus on that. If such an acarya does manifest, it is not likely to be someone who is rubberstamped and already claiming “take shelter of me, I am the next acarya”. Such an acarya would not establish themselves this way in their own guru’s institution, they would establish their own institution, as did Srila Prabhupada. He did not remain within the Gaudiya Matha and become the next acarya, he went out and established his own matha, this is the way of the acaryas. Persons today want to take advantage of their own spiritual master’s facilities, and claim themselves the acaryas of his institution. They say “well Prabhupada said to stay in ISKCON.” I say, right, stay in ISKCON and accept Prabhupada who is already the acarya, you want to be acarya, make your own institution, write your own commentaries, etc.
Hare Krishna, best wishes,
Madhavananda das
Srila Prabhupada says that he is “the initiator” (diksa guru) for “ISKCON”:
What Srila Prabhupada actually never said was that the above state of affairs would automatically be terminated on his departure, and without such a statement from Srila Prabhupada, the situation established above by Srila Prabhupada should remain.
Madhavananda prabhu is a great writer and a great devotee. I agree with him on all points but one, which is mainly a question of formalities. In our movement, it was once a universal fact that everyone was encouraged to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and accept him as spiritual master. This is similar to Arjuna accepting Sri Krishna, the speaker of Bhagavd-gita, as guru. Arjuna surrendered to Sri Krishna, who is also known as Mukunda, the bestower of liberation. There was no question of formal initiation taking place on or off the battlefield to solidify their guru/disciple relationship. Arjuna’s liberation was all about his acceptance of the order of the spiritual master. I was disappointed to read in a recent GBC statement on parallel lines of authority that new disciples are expected today to surrender to whoever they receive initiation from and not to Srila Prabhupada.
There is absolutely no statement by His Divine Grace that he would continue to initiate disciples after entering maha-samadhi. There are only statements from which one must twist out such an interpretation.
However, Srila Prabhupada said that when the meaning is clear, there is no need to interpret. So on May 28, 1977 he was clearly asked who would be considered the initiator of new disciples in ISKCON when he would no longer be physically present. He had already stated in the conversation that he would recommend certain disciples to act as officiating acaryas (a/k/a ritvik acaryas). The next question was stated as follows:
TKG: “These ritvik acaryas — they are officiating, giving diksa. The people who they give diksa to — whose disciples are they?”
Srila Prabhupada replied, “They are his disciples.”
TKG: “They are his disciples?”
Srila Prabhupada: “Who is initiating… He’s grand-disciple.”
Basically, Srila Prabhupada was being asked who would be the initiator of new disciples when he would no longer be present. His answer was not “They are MY disciples,” which is what the ritvik proponents wish he had said. His actual reply was “They are His disciples,” referring to the ritvik acarya who was giving diksa. Nor did he object when the questionner proposed that the ritvik acarya was the one giving diksa, which ritvik proponents also argue against. And it was at that moment that Srila Prabhupada described those receiving diksa from the ritvik acarya as HIS grand-disciples. How can someone be a grand-disciple and also a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada?
We should accept Srila Prabhupada’s words without interpretation and abide by his instruction. The July 9th letter came later but did not supersede the instructions given to the GBC on May 28th that specifically dealt with that time when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be with us. There is no mention in the letter of post-samadhi initiations. Ritvik representatives were named along with new protocols that were to be implemented and followed until further notice. That’s all.
The obvious meaning of all this is that in terms of formalities, it would be the ritvik acarya who was to be giving diksa. However, Srila Prabhupada would remain the guru who was to receive worship and to whom we would all surrender. Thus, the only difference between a direct disciple and a grand-disciple is in terms of these formalities.
I understand that because of all the deviations and falldowns in ISKCON it is difficult to accept the notion that the ritvik acaryas were actually authorized by Srila Prabhupada to give diksa, but that doesn’t mean we should reject Srila Prabhupada’s order as a failed concept, If we do it will make us just as disobedient as the leaders of ISKCON who kicked out the idea, as soon as it was spoken by Srila Prabhupada, that as ritvik acaryas they would give diksa and have disciples but not receive worship.
It was not Srila Prabhupada’s intention to have two classes of direct disciples, those who were worshipped as guru and those who were not. Nor would he have approved the GBC resolution that referred to those direct disciples who were not giving diksa as “non-guru godbrothers.” The offenses committed by the GBC and other leaders of ISKCON are innumerable, and their speculation on how to execute the will of the spiritual master in managing the society is never-ending. But if you speak out against their shenanigans,
you will be ostracized, so keep your mouth shut and chant Hare Krishna.
The Sankirtana movement, when executed properly and with purity, is supposed to act like the moon by holding back the tide of kali yuga. Instead, ISKCON’s mismanagement seems to be holding back Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s movement! It is our duty not to be discouraged by ISKCON’s failure to uphold Srila Prabhupada’s programs. The bogus leaders, for example, are responsible for the abuse of children that went on in our gurukula schools, but not one of them ever resigned out of remorse. They turned Back to Godhead magazine which Srila Prabhupada called the backbone of our movement into an in-house publication instead of a preaching tool to bring thousands and eventually millions to the lotus feet of Krishna’s pure devotee. And they have de-emphasized the public chanting parties to the point of invisibility even though Srila Prabhupada wrote that in a city like Los Angeles there could be ten parties going out daily to spread the glories of the Holy Name. His words, “I never said the chanting should stop,” have gone more or less unheeded.
If we choose to ignore the GBC while remaining within The Greater ISKCON, what we must do is keep ourselves spiritually fit. We have to determine what service we are capable of rendering to the spiritual master and not falter in carrying it out. We should keep the company of like-minded souls and encourage one another to stick tight to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada, appreciating the contributions others make to propagate the Sankirtana movement. In this regard, I would like to mention the wonderful service Vyasasana prabhu is doing maintaining the wonderful website: http://www.theharekrishnamovement.com and providing Srila Prabhupada’s original books to devotees who want to distribute pure nectar and receive the unlimited blessings of the spiritual master.
By good association faith grows. The association of good devotees is equivalent to the watering of the seed of the devotional creeper which fructifies and ultimately pierces the coverings of the material world. When the devotional creeper attains the Lord’s personal abode, its fruits and flowers are finally offered at the lotus feet of Sri Sri Radha and Krishna.
My obeisances to the assembled Vaisnavas.
Your servant,
Locanananda dasa
Srila Prabhupada replied,
…then he indicates who the “his” is …
Prabhupada has already declared himself to be the initiator…
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 4/8/1975)
What is the difficulty?
ALL GLORIES TO HIS DIVINE GRACE A.C.BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI SRILA PRABHUPADA! I’ve said this before,and I would like to say this one more time–THANK YOU VERY MUCH prabhupadanugas.eu–For allowing so many different devotees write in to your website and state their opinions.I know of no other Vaisnava website that is so liberal.It is only with this level of freedom that anyone can discern the truth about any subject.For instance The Talaban–everyone is so afraid of them that no one even speaks up when a great mistake has been committed.So now ISKCON is just like this,and also esp. The Sampradaya Sun.Prabhupadavision.com is a good site,with a great comments section,but the articles have seemingly come to a stop,at least lately.So prabhupadanugas.eu has great articles,great stories,great writing—and best of all–great comments.Please keep it coming.HARE KRSNA.
From the Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Rupanuga:
In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted. Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued to live for more years. Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. HE NEVER RECOMMENDED ANYONE TO BE ACARYA OF THE GAUDIYA MATH. BUT SRIDHARA MAHARAJA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISOBEYING THIS ORDER OF GURU MAHARAJA, AND HE AND OTHERS WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD UNNECESSARILY THOUGHT THAT THERE MUST BE ONE ACARYA. If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected. So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. THE RESULT IS NOW EVERYONE IS CLAIMING TO BE ACARYA EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE KANISTHA ADHIKARI WITH NO ABILITY TO PREACH. IN SOME OF THE CAMPS THE ACARYA IS BEING CHANGED THREE TIMES A YEAR. THEREFORE WE MAY NOT COMMIT THE SAME MISTAKE IN OUR ISKCON CAMP. …
…somehow or other I saved the situation..”
Locanananda das (LD) writes “We should accept Srila Prabhupada’s words without interpretation and abide by his instruction. The July 9th letter came later but did not supersede the instructions given to the GBC on May 28th that specifically dealt with that time when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be with us. There is no mention in the letter of post-samadhi initiations. Ritvik representatives were named along with new protocols that were to be implemented and followed until further notice. That’s all.”
LD-1. We should accept Srila Prabhupada’s words without interpretation and abide by his instruction.
M- True
LD-2. The July 9th letter came later but did not supersede the instructions given to the GBC on May 28th that specifically dealt with that time when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be with us.
M- False. First, later directives always supersede earlier ones. ESPECIALLY when the later directive is addressed and distributed to all Temple Presidents, whereas the earlier statements were not in the form of a directive, but part of an impromptu discussion describing a potential policy. Potential as in to be created “WHEN THIS IS SETTLED UP. SP made that quite clear.
The PRECISE question which spurred that discussion was what to do about initiation “PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER WITH US.”
The answer QUITE OBVIOUSLY contained a caveat/contradiction.
The first and complete direct answer was that ritviks would be chosen to initiate on SP’s behalf, which was a simple continuation of what was already going on wherein all new Bhaktas were considered SP’s direct disciples.
Satswarupa and Tamal obviously did not agree with SP’s direct answer that riviks would be performing initiations on Sp’s behalf. Obvious because they further pressed SP by questioning who’s disiciples the new Bhaktas will be. Remember, SP already indicated they would be his own by plainly stating the current system of initiating new people “on his behalf” would continue.
So to answer their obvious presumptuous arrogant ambition, SP described a situation in which a Ritvik would become the actual initiator, and wherein SP himself would be relegated to having the new Bhakta as a grand-disciple.
Next, he THRICE gave the caveat that only on his order would a ritvik become a bonafide initiating Spiritual master who could consider the disciple his own.
NEXT and LAST, 40 days later, The July 9th letter gave no such order, but instead mentions THREE TIMES, THAT THE NEW DISCIPLES ARE HIS INITIATED DISCIPLES, and calls the named ritviks his “representatives” THREE TIMES IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, AND THREE TIMES IN THE 2ND PARAGRAPH.
It is straightforward. One after the other. Plain as day.
LD- 3. “There is no mention in the letter of post-samadhi initiations”
M- Exactly. Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada never used the term “post samadhi”, forget about “post samadhi initiations”. Therefore, we must accept the directive “as it is” and consider the word “henceforward” to “mean what it says”.
LD-4. “Ritvik representatives were named along with new protocols that were to be implemented and followed until further notice. Thats all.”
M- Exactly. So unless you have proof of “further notice” that would countermand the ritvik protocols, then why do you promote such?