VNN Editorial - Point By Point Refutation Of TFO

EDITORIAL

March 20, 1999 VNN3369 See Related VNN Stories

Point By Point Refutation Of TFO

BY JAHNU DAS

EDITORIAL, Mar 20 (VNN) — TFO:
"It would certainly have been entirely out of character for Srila Prabhupada to leave an important issue, such as the future of initiation in his cherished society, up in the air, ambiguous, or in any way open to debate or speculation."

Reply:
If this statement is correct what then is the basis for saying that Srila Prabhupada changed his own teachings on Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta with one word - henceforward? With this statement TFO defeats itself from the very beginning and also ignores the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"This is particularly so in light of what happened to his own spiritual master's mission, which, as he would often point out, was destroyed largely through the operation of an unauthorized guru system."

Reply:
This is a half-truth. The "unauthorized guru system" mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in this Connection is a guru system that is not managed by a GBC.

"He [Srila Bhaktisiddhanta] never asked anybody to become acarya. He asked that 'You form a governing body of twelve men and go on preaching. . . .' None, none of them were advised by Guru Maharaja to become acarya. His idea was 'Let them manage; then whoever will be actually qualified for becoming acarya, they will elect. Why I should enforce upon them?' That was his plan. 'Let them manage by strong governing body, as it is going on. Then acarya will come by his qualifications.'" (Conversation, Bombay 9/21/73)

TFO:
"Immediately after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, on November 14th 1977, the GBC suspended this ritvik system."

Reply:
Which was in line with Srila Prabhupada's instructions in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"By Gaurapurnima 1978, the 11 ritviks had assumed the roles of zonal acarya diksa gurus, initiating disciples on their own behalf."

Reply:
'Zonal acarya' is an anachronism. The term did not come into use until the reform movement. Otherwise, the GBC was acting according to the instructions they had received from Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Their mandate for doing so was an alleged order from Srila Prabhupada that they alone were to succeed him as initiating acaryas. Some years later this zonal acarya system was itself challenged and replaced, not by the restoration of the ritvik system, but by the addition of dozens more gurus, along with an elaborate system of checks and balances to deal with those that deviated; the rationale for this change being that the order to become guru was not, as we had first been told, only applicable to the 11, but was a general instruction for anyone who strictly followed, and received a two-thirds majority vote from the GBC body. The above account is not a political opinion, it is historical fact, accepted by everyone, including the GBC ."

Reply:
Here TFO is begging the question by saying, "not by the restoration of the ritvik system," as if the ritvik system, as imagined by the ritvikvadis, had ever been established. As we have seen in DOMD, Srila Prabhupada didn't conceive of the word ritvik in the same way, as they would have us believe. Srila Prabhupada accepted the term 'ritvik-acarya' to denote someone who would be initiating his grand-disciples; hence he could not take 'ritvik' to mean a proxy-guru who, on his behalf, initiates devotees into becoming his disciples.

TFO:
"As mentioned above, the July 9th letter was sent to all GBCs and Temple Presidents, and remains to this day the only signed instruction on the future of initiation Srila Prabhupada ever issued to the whole society."

Reply:
The emphasis on a signed instruction is a subtle form of begging the question. It implies that an order from the spiritual master must be signed, but this principle has never been established. It makes no difference whether an order from the spiritual master is signed or not. What counts is the desire of the spiritual master, no matter in what form the desire is expressed. This is another attempt to negate the order given by Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Commenting on the July 9th order, Jayadvaita Swami recently wrote:

'Its authority is beyond question...Clearly this letter establishes a ritvik-guru system' (Jayadvaita Swami 'Where the Ritvik People are Wrong' 1996)"

Reply:
This is an example of selective quoting. Jayadvaita Swami's paper says:

"Clearly, this letter establishes a rtvik-guru system. But one may ask where it says that such a system should continue even after Srila Prabhupada's departure."

TFO's selective quoting is an attempt to make Jayadvaita Swami appear to grudgingly concede that the July 9 letter establishes the post-samadhi ritvik system, when Jayadvaita Swami clearly says something else.

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

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

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

Reply:
This is an example of begging the question. TFO presents these two changes as 'superimposed modifications' without actually proving that they are. Without having proved its point, it implies that these changes are not based on any order from Srila Prabhupada. This is another attempt to prove that the May 28 conversation does not exist. Just to reiterate:

The Conversation of May 28, 1977

Satsvarupa: 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.

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

Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.

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

Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order.

Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

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

Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.

Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

Satsvarupa: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That's clear.

Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...

Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.

From this it should be quite clear that the GBC was not 'superimposing' anything, but was actually honestly trying to implement the desires of Srila Prabhupada.

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

Reply:
Here TFO tries to establish a false principle. It tries to impose the condition that Srila Prabhupada's order regarding initiations after his departure must appear in a signed document and come after July 9. There is no such principle. The order was already given orally before July 9, on May 28.

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

Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions."

Reply:
This is begging the question. It has yet to be shown that these are in fact mere assumptions and not Srila Prabhupada's explicit order. From the May 28 conversation it is clear that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to initiate new devotees who would become his grand-disciples. Besides, it is not true that "Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions." It is very few devotees who question this.

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

Reply:
Here is a contradiction in logic. First TFO says, " ...whatever his intended order was, it is our duty to carry it out." Then it says, " the only signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the society's leaders, was the July 9th order." If Srila Prabhupada's intended order must be carried out no matter what, then it makes no difference whether the desire is expressed in a signed letter or in another form. To say that Srila Prabhupada's spoken words are less important than a signed document contradicts the idea that his intended order must be carried out no matter what. This is yet an attempt to negate Srila Prabhupada's words in the May 28 conversation.

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

Reply:
The fact that GII is incomplete does not negate the importance of following Srila Prabhupada's intended order. This is an example of a red herring.

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

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. It has not been established that these are only assumptions. It is also rather peculiar, that the author, who never had any contact with Srila Prabhupada, and who has no faith in his disciples or the system he set up, can speak with such confidence on what Srila Prabhupada wanted. What basis does he have for stating that the GBC's attempt to implement Srila Prabhupada's order is merely "assumptions?" How has the author become so intimate with Srila Prabhupada that he can know better what he wanted than his closest disciples who spoke to him directly?

TFO: "The Order Itself

As previously mentioned, the July 9th order states that the ritvik system should be followed 'henceforward'. The specific word used, 'henceforward', only has one meaning. This is both according to Srila Prabhupada's own previous usage of the word and the meaning ascribed to it by the English Language. On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used the word 'henceforward', nobody raised even the possibility that the word could mean anything other than 'from now onwards'. 'From now onwards' does not mean 'from now onwards until I depart'. It simply means 'from now onwards'. There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure, neither does it state that the system was to only be operational during his presence."

Reply:
This is not true. As it was shown in DOMD Srila Prabhupada's usage of the word "henceforward" is not limited to the meaning suggested in TFO. Neither does the July 9 letter state that the proxy-guru-system should continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure. The word "henceforward" is in itself inconclusive. The time limit of "henceforward" in this case is given in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Supporting Instructions

There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his secretary at that time, which clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation (please see Appendices). In these documents we find words synonymous with 'henceforward' such as:- 'continue', 'future' etc . Nothing to even remotely suggest it was to terminate on Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
An un-truth. The order to stop the system on Srila Prabhupada's departure was given on May 28. TFO consistently ignores Srila Prabhupada's order given in the May 28 conversation. Mr. Desai also falsely tries to impose an importance on the July 9 letter which it does not deserve. He wants us to believe that it constituted some kind of initiation manual left by Srila Prabhupada to be followed forever after. The fact of the matter is that the July 9 letter was not even written by Srila Prabhupada himself but by his secretary, and it was nothing more than a communiqu� sent out to all the devotees to inform them of an emergency arrangement because Srila Prabhupada had become too sick to initiate new devotees.

TFO:
"Subsequent Instructions

Once the ritvik system was up and running, Srila Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it, nor did he ever state that it should be disbanded on his departure."

Reply:
A half-truth and a lie. Srila Prabhupada didn't have to issue a subsequent order to stop the ritvik-system, because he never established the system in the first place. Besides, even if he did, the order does not have to be subsequent if it was given previously. It is not true that Srila Prabhupada never stated that "it should be disbanded on his departure." He stated that on May 28 by instructing his disciples to initiate new devotees into becoming his grand-disciples.

TFO:
"Perhaps aware that such a thing may mistakenly or otherwise occur, he put in the beginning of his final will that the system of management in place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed - an instruction left intact by a codicil added just nine days before his departure."

Reply:
Here TFO advocates foolish following. Srila Prabhupada had outlined the future of initiations on May 28. To continue the system of management unchanged would have to include following Srila Prabhupada's instructions, which include the instructions that his disciples must initiate. To disregard this instruction for the sake of not changing things would be foolish following. Further more, this is also a case of quoting out of context. The order in the will states:

"2. 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."

The system of management referred to in the will concerns specifically the management of properties, not initiations, or general management. Of course, nothing authorizes the GBC to change Srila Prabhupada's instructions, but the above example is given to show that TFO relies on misquotations.

TFO:
"Surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to disband the ritvik system had that been his intention (please see Appendix)."

Reply:
Here TFO avoids the obvious. The order had already been given on May 28. There was no need to repeat it. This is yet another attempt by the author to pretend that the May 28 conversation had never taken place.

TFO:
"If the whole methodology for conducting initiations is considered a system of management by Srila Prabhupada, then one element of initiation, viz. the use of ritviks to give spiritual names, has to fall under the same terms of reference. Thus changing the ritvik system of initiation was a direct violation of Srila Prabhupada's final will."

Reply:
This is word jugglery. Changing the system of initiation was Srila Prabhupada's order, given on May 28, and thus does not contradict the final will or constitute a change in the system of management as long as we consider that the system of management includes following Srila Prabhupada's instructions.

TFO:
"Another instruction in the will which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples. This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up."

Reply:
This is a self-contradiction. By the same logic, the ritvik system cannot last because the eleven ritviks mentioned in the July 9 letter will eventually leave the planet.

TFO:
"Furthermore, every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of initiations after July 9th he simply reconfirmed the ritvik system."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada never confirmed a proxy-guru system as envisioned by the ritvikvadis, what to speak of re-confirm it.

TFO:
"He never gave any hint that the system should stop on his departure�"

Reply:
Here TFO tries to avoid the obvious. This is again an attempt to overlook the May 28 conversation, in which Srila Prabhupada gave clear directions how he wanted initiations to take place after his departure.

TFO:
"� or that there were gurus, waiting in the sidelines, ready to take on the role of diksa."

Reply:
This is called character assassination. The phrase "waiting in the sidelines" implies that the future gurus were lustfully hankering after that role. Thus the author is trying to imply that Srila Prabhupada's intimate disciples were eager for him to leave so they could take over his role as guru.

TFO:
"Thus, at least as far as direct evidence is concerned, there appears to be nothing to support assumptions a) and b) referred to above. As stated, these assumptions - that the ritvik system should have stopped at departure, and that the ritviks must then become diksa gurus - form the very basis of ISKCON's current guru system. If they prove to be invalid then there will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC."

Reply:
With the word "assumptions" TFO is begging the question. It has not been established that Srila Prabhupada's disciple would not initiate disciples of their own. In fact, from the May 28 conversation Srila prabhupada's desire is clear. This is yet another attempt by the author to ignore the order given on May 28.

TFO:
"The above sets the scene. The instruction itself, supporting instructions and subsequent instructions only support the continuation of the ritvik system."

Reply:
This is a lie. There is nothing to support the continuation of the system, imagined by the ritvikvadis, on Srila Prabhupada's departure. There is nothing to continue, because ritvikvada was never established by Srila Prabhupada to begin with.

TFO:
"It is admitted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did not give any order to terminate the ritvik system on his physical departure."

Reply:
Another lie. It is not admitted by all concerned.

TFO:
"It is further accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to operate from July 9th onwards."

Reply:
More lies. It is not accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada set up a proxy system to operate from July 9 onwards.

TFO:
"Thus we have a situation whereby the acarya: i) has given a clear instruction to follow a ritvik system."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada may have given an order to follow a ritvik system, but obviously Srila Prabhupada did not understand the word "ritvik" in the same way as the ritvikvadis, which is clear from the May 28 conversations. The understanding of "ritvik" that TFO tries to impose, i.e. a proxy-guru, is not in accordance with the standard dictionary definition of the word. In fact, nowhere in the Vedas or in Srila Prabhupada's books do we find any reference to a proxy-guru system as suggested in TFO. Again TFO suggests that we ignore the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"ii) has not given an instruction to stop following the ritvik system upon his physical departure."

Reply:
First of all this is a lie. This order was given in the May 28 conversation. Second of all, even if it weren't, it is immaterial, for the ritvik-system envisioned by the ritvikvadis was never set up in the first place. There was a temporary system set up to relieve Srila Prabhupada in his last days when he was very sick. It is only the ritvikvadis who have baptized this temporary emergency system of initiation as "the ritvik system."

TFO:
"Consequently , for a disciple to stop following this order, with any degree of legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing so. The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could only follow it in his physical presence."

Reply:
This is a lie. Srila Prabhupada expressed his desire very clearly in the May 28 conversation. He never mentioned anything about a proxy-guru system. Nor is such a system mentioned in the Vedic literature or Srila Prabhupada's own books.

TFO:
"The onus of proof will naturally fall on those who wish to terminate any system put in place by our acarya, and left to run henceforward. This is an obvious point; one can not just stop following the order of the guru whimsically:"

Reply:
Here TFO is shifting the blame. The onus of proof falls on the ritvik people because they are ignoring the May 28 conversation. Also they are suggesting that a system be instituted in ISKCON that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra. Clearly the burden of proof is on them.

TFO:
"'....the process is that you cannot change the order of the spiritual master.' (SP, Los Angeles, Dec 21 1973)"

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

TFO:
'When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the spiritual master.' (SP, Bg Lecture, 1975)

Since there is no direct evidence stating that the ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, the case for abandoning it can therefore only be based on indirect evidence."

Reply; This is a lie. The May 28 conversation is direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada's desire for a traditional Vedic system of initiation, the guru-parampara.

TFO:
"Indirect evidence may arise out of special circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. These extenuating circumstances, should they exist, may be used to provide grounds for interpreting the literal instruction. We will now examine the circumstances surrounding the July 9th order, to see if such modifying circumstances might indeed have been present, and whether there is inferentially anything to support assumptions a) and b)." Reply:
Again TFO is begging the question. It has not been established that a) and b) are mere "assumptions." According to the May 28 conversation the decisions of a) and b) were Srila Prabhupada's own explicit instructions.

TFO:
"1. 'The letter clearly implies that it was only set up for whilst Srila Prabhupada was present."'

Reply:
This is a straw man. The GBC does not present this argument, but TFO implies that it does. Thus, Mr. Desai appears to defeat the GBC by inventing a foolish argument and defeating it.

TFO:
"There is nothing in the letter that says the instruction was only meant for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. In fact, the only information given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
Here TFO gives a false argument. The July 9 letter refers back to the May 28 conversation, where the order is given.

TFO:
" It is significant to note that within the July 9th letter it is stated three times that those initiated would become Srila Prabhupada's disciples. The GBC in presenting evidence for the current guru system have argued vigorously that Srila Prabhupada had already made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, it was an inviolable law that no one could initiate in his presence. Thus the necessity to state Srila Prabhupada's ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have been an issue."

Reply:
This is a case of avoiding the obvious. The May 28 instruction was given in the presence of only a few people. The July 9 letter was sent to devotees all over the world, most of whom might not have heard of the May 28 conversation, or if they had heard of it, might not have known when Srila Prabhupada's disciples would start initiating. It is for the benefit of these people that the letter specifies that the new initiates would be Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Otherwise, people might think that the disciples had already begun to accept disciples.

TFO:
"For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one had ever questioned who such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning of the July 9th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are 'representatives' of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become fully-fledged diksa gurus."

Reply:
Here TFO is again avoiding the obvious: The letter could have easily been confused with an order for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to start initiating immediately. The letter was going to temples around the world, and there was no way of knowing how much people would know in some places. Therefore, it was necessary to state who was the spiritual master of the new disciples.

To state: "The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives," is a false argument. It was not the only innovation. Previously, the representatives had to first consult Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada would name the disciple and send a letter back. After July 9, the representative would not have to consult Srila Prabhupada, and he could give the name. Therefore, the new initiates could easily be confused about who their spiritual master was.

TFO:
"'So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final.'" (SP Bg Lect, 1968)

Reply:
The order is stated six times in the May 28 conversation:

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

Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

2. Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order.

3. Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

4. Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

5. Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all.

6. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.

TFO:
"The July 9th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were to be sent 'to Srila Prabhupada'. Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the ritvik system must therefore be invalid.

The procedure of sending the names of newly initiated disciples to Srila Prabhupada relates specifically to a post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend or in any way interrupt pre-initiation, or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik's role being already fulfilled well before the actual initiation cereomony takes place). Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent, the initiation has already occured.

...In other words, take the possible scenario that Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated through the ritvik system; according to the above proposition, the disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada's books that the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service."

Reply:
This is a straw man. The argument is, that Srila Prabhupada's statement indicates his desire, not that "the vicissitudes of the postal service" can obstruct initiation. Since TFO has not addressed the real argument, it is not necessary to defend it here.

TFO:
"In any case the names were only to be sent to Srila Prabhupada since that is where the initiated disciples' book was kept. In the conversation of July 7th (please see appendices) it is clearly stated that Srila Prabhupada would not personally enter the names into the book anyway. Thus an activity which only occurred after initiation, and which Srila Prabhupada did not even perform, can not have any implication on what has to occur before initiation. Certainly there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being entered into the book even now. This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time."

Reply:
The author is here inventing a new ceremony to justify his theory. He is trying to give the idea that there was some kind of ceremony regarding the entrance of new names into the book. This is a concoction.

TFO:
2. "The letter does not specifically say 'this system will continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure'; therefore, it was right to stop the ritvik system at Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
This is another straw man. This is not the argument presented. The real argument is that Srila Prabhupada gave the order on May 28. This argument has never been defeated.

TFO:
"Please consider the following points:

1) The July 9th letter also does not specifically state: 'The ritvik system should end on Srila Prabhupada's departure'. Yet it was terminated immediately on his departure.

2) The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system should run while Srila Prabhuada is still present'. Yet it was run while he was still present."

Reply:
Mr. Desai is consistently trying to side track the focus of the controversy, which is how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to continue after his departure. Srila Prabhupada's desire in that regard is clearly expressed in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
3) "The letter also does not state :'The ritvik system should only run until the departure of Srila Prabhupada'. Yet it was only allowed to run till his departure."

Reply:
In the May 28 conversation Srila Prabhupada gave clear directions how initiations were to take place after his departure. These directions were consistent with his teachings as well as guru, sadhu, and sastra. Mr. Desai continually tries to create the idea that Srila Prabhupada instituted a proxy-guru system in ISKCON. The fact is that the term "ritvik" was not even introduced by Srila Prabhupada himself. He just accepted the term when it was introduced by Tamal Krishna Goswami, and from his usage of the word it is clear that he did not take it to be synonymous with the term proxy-guru. Thus the point made above in TFO is moot.

TFO:
4) "The letter also does not state: The ritvik system must stop'. Yet it was stopped.

In summary, the GBC insists on the following: the ritvik system must stop. & the ritvik system must stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Neither of the above stipulations appears in the July 9th letter, nor any other signed order;"

Reply:
Here TFO's argument rests on the premise that an order from the spiritual master must be signed. This is a false principle. Nowhere is it stated that the order from the spiritual master must be signed in order to be valid. Srila Prabhupada already gave the order in the May 28 conversation on how he wanted initiations to be conducted in his absence.

TFO:
"..yet they form the very foundation of both the zonal acarya system and the current 'Multiple Acarya Successor System,' or M.A.S.S. as we shall refer to it. (In this context we use the word acarya in its strongest sense, that of initiating spiritual master, or diksa guru)."

Reply:
In the above paragraphs, TFO appears to present a strong logical argument of reductio ad absurdum - the technique of proving one's point by showing that the opposite would be absurd. It seems to show, point by point, that the idea that the ritvik system should end at a certain time is absurd and illogical. The flaw in this argument is that the duration of the ritvik system was given by Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation, since in that conversation Srila Prabhupada made it cleat that his disciples were to initiate their own disciples after his departure. Thus during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, his disciples should not accept their own disciples, because this is the Vaishnava etiquette, but after his departure they should become "regular gurus." This is what we learn from the May 28 conversation, and this would also be consistent with guru, sadhu, and sastra, and Srila Prabhupada's own teachings. In stead, Mr. Desai, in order to make his point, pretends that this exchange between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples never took place.

TFO:
"To argue that since the letter is not specific about the time period in which it is to run, it must therefore stop on departure, is completely illogical."

Reply:
This is a half-truth and a straw-man. Arguing that the letter is not specific about the time period is only half of the argument. The other half of the argument is that although the letter does not specify the time period, the May 28 conversation does. And it is a straw-man because it suggests that Srila Prabhupada's desire regarding how initiations should continue in his absence can be understood solely from the July 9 letter. This is clearly a false suggestion. Srila Prabhupada's order on how he wanted initiations conducted in his absence is expressed very clearly in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"The letter does not specify that the ritvik system should be followed on July 9th either, so according to this logic it should never have been followed at all."

Reply:
TFO is here creating a false argument. The letter says "henceforward," which means that the system should start. It is only that there is no direct indication in it of when the system should stop or change. This indication is given in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Even accepting that 'henceforward' can at least stretch to the end of the first day of the order being issued, it does not say it should be followed on July 10th , so perhaps it should have stopped then."

Reply:
Here TFO again ignores the obvious. In the May 28 conversation the termination of the July 9 letter is clearly given.

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

Reply:
Mr. Desai tries to give the impression that the proxy-system mentioned in the July 9 letter is a very important system to be followed henceforward, when actually it was only an emergency system set up to relieve Srila Prabhupada in his last days. The time limit of this system is given in the conversation of May 28th, where Srila Prabhupada gives clear directions on how he wants initiations to commence after his departure.

TFO:
"There is no example, either in Srila Prabhupada's 86 recorded uses, nor in the entire history of the English language, where the actual word 'henceforward' has ever meant: 'Every time period until the departure of a person who issued an order'".

Reply:
This is a false argument. The author does not know every use of the word that has ever occurred in the English language. Besides, based on the information given in the May 28 conversation, in the July 9 letter Srila Prabhupada does use the word in that sense.

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

Reply:
Because, as stated in the May 28th conversation, Srila Prabhupada didn't want the guru-parampara to be terminated after his departure. He wanted his disciples to become qualified and continue the disciplic succession.

TFO:
3. "'Certain instructions obviously can not continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure, and thus it is understood that they could only have been intended to operate in Srila Prabhupada's presence; e.g. someone may have been appointed 'henceforward' to give Srila Prabhupada his regular massage. Maybe the ritvik order is of that type?'

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

Reply:
Here we have a straw man and a red herring. The argument is not about the mechanics of the ritvik system but about whether Srila Prabhupada wanted it.

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

Reply:
Here TFO is posing a false argument. On May 28, Srila Prabhupada said that the proxy-guru system should continue until his departure and that after his departure, his disciples should take their own disciples. Therefore, the ritvik system during Srila Prabhupada's presence and the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure are not the same, as one is in line with Srila Prabhupada's instructions and the other goes against them. Besides, as we have shown, Srila Prabhupada's understanding of the word "ritvik" is not the same as the one imposed by ritvikvadis.

TFO:
" In other words, since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet, his leaving the planet can not in itself render the system invalid.

Reply:
Mr. Desai says: "Since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada were not on the planet." This is a concoction. According to the May 28th conversation, the system was specifically set up to run _while_ he was on the planet.

TFO:
4. "'Maybe the fact that the order was 'only' issued in a letter, and not in a book, gives us a licence to interpret it?'"

Reply:
This is an especially ridiculous straw man, since the GBC is resting its case on a conversation.

TFO:
"This 'letters v books' argument does not apply in this case since this was no ordinary letter. Generally, Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter in response to a specific query from an individual disciple, or to offer individualised guidance or chastisement. Naturally, in these cases the devotee's original query, situation or deviation may give grounds for interpretation. Not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied universally (for example in one letter he advised a devotee, who was not good with spices, to just cook with a little salt and tumeric; clearly this advice was not meant for the entire movement). However, the final order on initiation is not open to any such interpretation since it was not written in response to a specific query from a particular individual, or to address a disciple's individual situation or behaviour. The July 9th letter was a procedural instruction, or management policy document, which was sent to every leader in the movement."

Reply:
Nobody disputes this point.

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

'The zonal secretary's duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting.'

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

Reply:
If Mr. Desai believes what he himself is saying why does he continually disregard the instructions issued in the May 28 conversation?

TFO:
5. "'Maybe there was some special background surrounding the issuing of the order that precludes its application after Srila Prabhupada's departure?'"

If such circumstances did exist, Srila Prabhupada would have stated them in the letter, or in an accompanying document."

Reply:
TFO creates here a false principle. Srila Prabhupada can also issue an instruction by speaking. His real and final instructions regarding initiations in his absence were given in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives which would later be made sense of telepathically. For example, had Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to stop on his departure he would have added the following seven words to the July 9th letter - 'This system will terminate on my departure'".

Reply:
This is another attempt by TFO to establish a false principle. Mr. Desai has no right to tell Srila Prabhupada how to issue an instruction. In fact, taken into consideration that he never had any personal association with Srila Prabhupada and never was initiated by him, the author is displaying a rather arrogant attitude.

Besides, the May 28th conversation was known to the GBC, and they were the executors of Srila Prabhupada's orders. Therefor the onus was on them to make Srila Prabhupada's orders known to everyone. Also, at the time, the general assumption among the devotees was that Srila Prabhupada's disciples would initiate after his departure.

TFO:
"Sometimes it is argued that the ritvik system was only set up because Srila Prabhupada was sick. Devotees may or may not have been aware of the extent of Srila Prabhupada's illness; but how could they possibly be expected to deduce from a letter that says nothing about his health, that this was the only reason it was issued? When did Srila Prabhupada say that any instruction he issued must always be interpreted in conjunction with his latest medical report?"

Reply:
Here we see a case of false reductio ad absurdum. No one has argued that all of Srila Prabhupada's instructions must be interpreted according to his latest medical report.

TFO:
"Why should the recipients of the final order on initiation not have assumed the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation?"

Reply:
Because nobody thought it was the "final order." The only one who tries to create this impression is TFO and those behind it. Why didn't anyone assume that it was a general order on how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations conducted until more than 10 years after his departure?

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada had already announced that he had come to Vrindavan to leave his body. Being trikalajnana he was most likely aware of his departure in four months time. He had set in motion the final instructions for the continuation of his movement. He had already drawn up his will and other documents relating to the BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) and GBC, specifically to provide guidance for after his imminent departure. The one matter that had not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left. At this point, no-one had the faintest clue how things were to run. The July 9th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his absence."

Reply:
If the July 9 letter clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in Srila Prabhupada's absence how come it took thirteen years for anyone to come up with the "henceforward" idea? How is it clarifying if it takes 13 years to figure it out? On the other hand, it was made quite clear even before July 9, in the May 28 conversation, how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to proceed in his absence.

TFO:
"In summary, you can not modify an instruction with information that those to whom the instruction was given did not have access to."

Reply:
Again TFO bases its argument on a false principle. Whether or not the devotees had access to the information does not alter the validity of the information, and if the devotee has acted incorrectly due to a lack of information, he should rectify the situation upon receiving the correct information.

TFO:
"Why would Srila Prabhupada purposely issue an instruction that he knew in advance no one could follow correctly, since he had not given them the relevant information within the instruction?"

Reply:
Here TFO displays an arrogant attitude and tries to establish a false principle.There is no such principle that all aspects of an instruction must be issued at the same time as the instruction, and The author has no right to impose such a principle on Srila Prabhupada. The argument is especially inappropriate since the relevant information had already been issued by the time the instruction was issued, i.e. in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"If the ritvik system was only set up because he was ill, Srila Prabhupada would have said so in the letter or in some accompanying document."

Reply:
How does the auhtor know what Srila Prabhupada would have said or done? It is an arrogant attitude of TFO to impose its own concocted conditions on Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"There is no record of Srila Prabhupada ever behaving in such a purposely ambiguous and uninformative manner, especially when instructing the entire movement. Srila Prabhupada never signed anything in a cavalier fashion, and when one considers the magnitude of the instruction in question, it is inconcievable that he would have left out any vital information."

Reply:
Here TFO is committing a monstrous offense. The July 9 letter cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to contain the sole and clear instructions from Srila Prabhupada on how he wanted initiations to proceed in his absence. In the light of the May 28 conversation vital information was indeed left out of the July 9 letter, so TFO is criticizing Srila Prabhupada and saying that he acted in a cavalier fashion.

TFO:
6. "Does not the 'Appointment Tape' contain relevant information that clearly frames the July 9th order as being only applicable whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet?

In the GBC's handbook GII, the sole evidence offered in support of modifications a & b is extracted from a conversation which took place on May 28th 1977."

Reply:
Here we have a false implication.The word "sole" inserted here implies that one conversation is not enough, that the evidence is insufficient because of its small quantity. This is not so. In fact, the ritvikvadis themselves claim that the evidence of one word - henceforward - is enough to over-rule everything Srila Prabhupada had taught his disciples so far, including his very clear instructions in the May 28 conversation.

Read the above sentence without the word "sole" and the tone changes.

TFO:
"The paper appears to concede that there is no other instructional evidence which directly relates to the function of ritviks after Srila Prabhuada's departure:

'Although Srila Prabhupada did not repeat his earlier statements, it was understood that he expected these disciples to initiate in the future.' (GII, Page 14, emphasis added)

Since it is the sole evidence, there is a section exclusively dedicated to the May conversation on page 18. Suffice to say it was not referred to in the July 9th letter."

Reply:
This is a lie.The May 28 conversation was indeed referred to in the July 9 letter.

TFO:
"..nor did Srila Prabhupada demand that a copy of the taped conversation be sent out with the final order."

Reply:
Here Mr. Desai is displaying the arrogance of imposing his own conditions on Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"From this we can deduce, with absolute confidence, that it cannot contain a scrap of modifying information vital to the understanding of the final order. As a point of fact, the May 28th conversation was not released till several years after Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
TFO is trying to establish a false principle. The fact that an instruction is not released until years later does not alter the validity of the instruction. Suppose a letter from Srila Prabhupada was delayed in the mail. Would "the vicissitudes of the postal service" nullify the instruction? Also the idea that the July 9 letter contains Srila Prabhupada's explicit and final desires on how initiations were to take place in his absence, did not surface in ISKCON until thirteen years after his departure. So by TFO's own logic its whole idea is invalid.

TFO:
"Thus once more we are expected to modify a clear written instruction with information which was not accessible to the very people who were issued the instruction. As will be seen later, the May conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order."

Reply:
Here Mr. Desai argues in circles. He says that if the May 28 conversation puts a time limit on the ritvik system it would contradict the July 9 letter. In other words, the July 9 letter says that the ritvik system should continue forever only because there is no limiting instruction, and no other instruction can limit the ritvik system because it is stated as running forever in the July 9 letter.

No one except TFO says that the May 28 conversation contradicts the July 9 letter. The author admits above that the July 9 letter does not specifically say when the ritvik system should end. He only deduces that the the system should continue forever. It is not stated in the letter. The time limit on the proxy system given in the May 28 conversation is an explanation of the July 9 letter, not a contradiction of it.

TFO:
"If you read the order, you will find that it does contain important information. It was up to the GBC to make this available, and if they did not, that fact does not nullify the information in the conversation.

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

'I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to you you do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue - 'Sir you said to me do like this before', no that is not your duty, what I say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue.'" (S.P.Lect, S.B. 5.5.2 , Hyderabad)

Reply:
This is a case of trying to apply an inapplicable principle. In order for a later order to nullify a previous order, it must bear some relation to the previous order. For example, if Srila Prabhupada would tell a disciple to go to New York and then later tell him to go Los Angeles, the order to go to Los Angeles would nullify the order to go to New York because it would be impossible to do both, but the later order would not nullify the order to chant 16 rounds.

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

'Always think of me and become my devotee should be taken as the final order of the Lord and should be followed'". (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 2)

Reply:
Here the author tries to use Srila Prabhupada to justify his own misinterpretation of Bhagavad-gita. An example of extreme arrogance and false preaching. The final order of Bhagavad-gita does not contradict the previous orders because thoughout the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna emphasizes the superiority of bhakti over all other processes. This can be better understood if we examine more of the passage quoted above:

TFO:
"'I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, 'Do it,' your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, 'Sir, you said me like this before.' No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. You cannot argue. Of course, Krishna never said anything contradictory, but if when one thinks foolishly that Krishna said something contradictory, no, that is not to be. You could not understand. So even though you could not understand, you take My direct orders now. Sarva-dharman parityajya mam e..., that is your business. The master says like that, and the servant's business is to accept it as it is, without any argument. That's all right.'" (Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 15 April 1975, Hyderabad)

The final order given by Sankaracarya,'bhaja Govinda', was also meant to supersede many of his earlier statements - all of them, in fact."

Reply:
This is a non-applicable argument. Sankaracarya knew that he had taught a false philosophy and negated it by speaking the truth. Mr. Desai commits an offense here by saying that the same principle applies to the teachings of Lord Krsna and Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"As mentioned in the introduction, the GBC itself recognises this as an axiomatic principle of logic:

'In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance' (GII, Page 25)

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

Reply:
Later statements supercede earlier ones, but if the later statement does not modify the earler one, then there is no relation. It has yet to be shown that the July 9 letter modifies the May 28 conversation. Furthermore, the GBC's logic, right or wrong, is not the basis by which we choose which system to follow. The basis is Srila Prabhupada's instruction.

TFO:
7. "'Srila Prabhupada stated many times that all his disciples must become gurus? Surely this proves that Srila Prabhupada did not intend the ritvik system to be permanent.'

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

'And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said 'alright here is the next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorized gurus for the movement, for the world'. He did not do that."' (Ravindra Svarupa das, San Diego debate, 1990)

Reply:
This argument is called a Red Herring. A Red Herring is meant to distract the reader with an irrelevant argument. The fact that Srila Prabhupada did not specifically appoint anyone or any 11 does not change the fact that he wanted all of his disciples to initiate. In fact, it confirms it.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must be a mahabhagavata (most advanced stage of God-realisation) and be specifically authorized by his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorized. We quote below the only passage in Srila Prabhupada's books where the term diksa (diksitah) is linked with a specific qualification:
Maha-bhagavata-srestho brahmano vai gurur nrnam sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih maha-kula-prasuto' pi sarva-yajnesu diksitah sahasra-sakhadhya yi ca na guruh syad avaisnavah

'The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class.' (C.c. Madhya, 24:330)

'When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata he is to be accepted as guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of guru.' (C.c. Madhya, 24:330)

Reply:
These are selective quotes. There are also quotes such as:

vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apimam prthivim sa sisyat

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." (Nectar of Instruction 1)

sastra-yukty sunipuna drdha-sraddha yanra 'uttama-adhikari, sei taraye samsara

"One who is expert in logic, argument and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krsna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world." (Cc M.22.65)

"A person who is constantly engaged in devotional service by his body, mind and words, or even a person who is not practically engaged but is simply desiring to be so, is considered to be liberated." (NOD Ch.11)

"The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters." (SB 11.3.21 quoted in NOD Ch.7)

"A person who is always chanting the holy name of the Lord is to be considered a first-class Vaisnava, and your duty is to serve his lotus feet." (Cc M.16.172)

Then we have these statements from Srila Prabhupada. In chapter 3 of NOD he defines an uttama-adhikari:

"He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He very nicely presents conclusions with perfect discretion in considering the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain the transcendental loving service of Krsna, and he knows that Krsna is the only object of worship and love.

This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class.

The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

"A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons. This Krsna consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of 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." (SB 4.18.5p)

"Sanatana Gosvami clearly defines the bona fide spiritual master. One must act according to the scriptural injunctions and at the same time preach.One who does so is a bona fide spiritual master. Haridasa Thakura was the ideal spiritual master because he regularly chanted on his beads the prescribed number of times. Indeed, he was chanting the holy name of the Lord three hundred thousand times a day. Similarly, the members of the Krsna consciousness movement chant the minimum number of sixteen rounds a day, which can be done without difficulty, and at the same time they must preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the gospel of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. One who does so is quite fit to become a spiritual master for the entire world." (Cc Ant 4.103p)

"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 Vaisnava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaisnavas, 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 spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Such a Vaisnava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikari, highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought." (NOI 5p)

"A first-class devotee does not at all see anyone who is not in the service of the Lord, but the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and non-devotees. The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciplesfrom the section of third-class devotees or non-devotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of a second-class devotee for preaching work." (SB 2.3.21p)

"When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Krsna, he loses interest in everything but Krsna's service. Always thinking of Krsna, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Krsna, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world. Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikari, and his association should be immediately accepted. Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him." (NOI 5p)

"The spiritual master's qualification is that he is brahma-nistham, which means that he has given up all other activities and has dedicated his life to working only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. ... The prime symptom of one who has become a spiritual master in disciplic succession is that he is one hundred percent fixed in bhakti-yoga." (Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead)

"The madhyama-adhikari Vaisnava can awaken others to Krsna consciousness and engage them in duties whereby they can advance." (Cc M.16.74p)

"Everyone begins his devotional life in the neophyte stage, but if one properly finishes chanting the prescribed number of rounds of hari-nama, he is elevated step by step to the highest platform, uttama-adhikari." (NOI 5p)

"The siksa- or diksa-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. The Krsna consciousness movement is spreading now all over the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikuntha." (SB 4.12.33p)

"Unless one is actually a devotee, he cannot see another devotee perfectly. One should therefore avoid observing a pure devotee externally, but should try to see the internal features and understand how he is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. In this way one can avoid seeing the pure devotee from a material point of view, and thus one can gradually become a purified devotee himself." (NOI 6p)

"Our system, parampara system, is that, for example, I am just a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I don't say that I am liberated, I am conditioned. But because I am following the instruction of Bhaktisiddhanta, I'm liberated. This is the distinction between conditioned and liberated. When one is under the direction of a liberated person...The same thing: Electricity. The copper is not electricity, but, when it is charged with electricity if it is touched, that is electricity. And similarly, this parampara system, the electricity is going. If you cut the parampara system, then there is no electricity. Therefore it is stressed so much. Sa kalena mahata yogo nastah parantapa [Bg 4.2: 'In course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost']. The electricity is lost." (Morning Walk, Bombay, 1/4/77)

"Yes, [those who follow] they're also pure devotees because they're following my instruction. Just like a technician, he is expert, but somebody is assisting him. So the assistants, because they are following the instruction of the expert, therefore their work is also complete. So it is not necessarily that one has to become pure devotee immediately. Just like we are also following the instruction our spiritual master. I don't claim that I am pure devotee or perfect, but my only qualification is that I am trying to follow the instruction of the perfect. Similarly... This is called disciplic succession . Just like here it is stated that Krsna is the original spiritual master and Arjuna is the original student."

"...If we follow Arjuna and Krsna, then we get the perfect knowledge. We may not be cent percent perfect, but as far as possible, if we follow the instruction as it is, that much perfect., In this way one will get perfection. So one has to follow. The same example, try to understand, that a perfect, expert technologist or technician or mechanic is working, and somebody is working under his instruction. So this somebody, because he is strictly working under the instruction of the expert, he's also expert. He may not be cent percent expert, but his work is expert. Is that clear?

Because he is working under the expert. Do you follow? So if you follow pure devotee, then you are also pure devotee. It may not be one is cent percent pure. Because we are trying to raise ourself from the conditional life. But if we strictly follow the pure devotee, then we are also pure devotee. So far we do, that is pure. So pure devotee does not mean one has to become immediately cent percent pure. But if he sticks to the principle that 'we'll follow a pure devotee,' then his actions are...he is as good as a pure devotee. It is not I am explaining in my own way. It is the explanation of the Bhagavat. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. we have to follow the footprints of pure devotees." (Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/25/68)

TFO:
"Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific authorization from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone could act as a diksa guru. 'On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person in Krsna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities.' (Letter to Janardana das, 18/4/68)

'One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana.' (S.B. 4:8:54)

'Indian Man: When did you become spiritual leader of Krsna consciousness? Srila Prabhupada: What is that? Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness. Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara. Indian Man: Did it ... Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.' (Bg Lectures, 28/10/75)

Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru when both the qualification and authorization are in place."

Reply:
This is minimizing the authority of the spiritual master. If Srila Prabhupada says someone should initiate, then there is no need for people with limited vision to try to discern whether that person is a maha-bhagavata.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada had not authorized any such gurus,"

Reply:
Again TFO tries to avoid the obvious. In the may 28 conversation such authorization is clearly given.

TFO:
"nor had he stated that any of his disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather, just prior to July 9th, he agreed that they were still 'conditioned souls', and that vigilance was essential lest persons pose themselves as guru - please see Appendices."

"Yes, [those who follow] they're also pure devotees because they're following my instruction. Just like a technician, he is expert, but somebody is assisting him. So the assistants, because they are following the instruction of the expert, therefore their work is also complete. So it is not necessarily that one has to become pure devotee immediately. Just like we are also following the instruction our spiritual master. I don't claim that I am pure devotee or perfect, but my only qualification is that I am trying to follow the instruction of the perfect. Similarly... This is called disciplic succession . Just like here it is stated that Krsna is the original spiritual master and Arjuna is the original student.

"...If we follow Arjuna and Krsna, then we get the perfect knowledge. We may not be cent percent perfect, but as far as possible, if we follow the instruction as it is, that much perfect., In this way one will get perfection. So one has to follow. The same example, try to understand, that a perfect, expert technologist or technician or mechanic is working, and somebody is working under his instruction. So this somebody, because he is strictly working under the instruction of the expert, he's also expert. He may not be cent percent expert, but his work is expert. Is that clear?

Because he is working under the expert. Do you follow? So if you follow pure devotee, then you are also pure devotee. It may not be one is cent percent pure. Because we are trying to raise ourself from the conditional life. But if we strictly follow the pure devotee, then we are also pure devotee. So far we do, that is pure. So pure devotee does not mean one has to become immediately cent percent pure. But if he sticks to the principle that 'we'll follow a pure devotee,' then his actions are...he is as good as a pure devotee. It is not I am explaining in my own way. It is the explanation of the Bhagavat. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. we have to follow the footprints of pure devotees."

(Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/25/68)

Evidences used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic catagories:-

1). Srila Prabhupada's frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the 'amara ajnaya guru hana' verse from the Caitanya Caritamrta.

2). The half dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure.

3). Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru are mentioned."

Reply:
Here we have a flagrant case of selective presentation of evidence. TFO completely leaves out the May 28 conversation in which Srila Prabhupada statet conclusively and uniquivocably that he wanted his disciples to continue the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"Looking first at catagory 1).

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

'Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.' (C.c. 7:128, Madhya)

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

'That is one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krishna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.' (C.c 7:128, purport, Madhya)

'One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever, It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and instruct friends and relatives in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples.' (C.c. 7:130, purport, Madhya)

It is clear from these descriptions that everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know. Thus this verse is an instruction to become a siksa, or instructing, guru. This is further clarified by the the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position and not then go on to become a diksa guru:

'It is best not to accept any disciples.' (C.c. 7:130, purport, Madhya)"

Reply:
This is a self contradiction. Srila Prabhupada himself instructed his disciples to initiate. Does Mr. Desai think that he can understand Srila Prabhupada's purport better than Srila Prabhupada?

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

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

'Yare dekha, tare kaha, Krsna upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krsna has already said, you repeat. Finish. Don't make addition, adulteration, then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] so we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak Mr. Desaiitative words of Krsna then it will act [...] anyone can do. A child can do.' (Morning Walk, May 11th, 1977)"

Reply:
This is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the above nor from the following that Srila Prabhupada is only talking about siksa guru and ruling out the possibility of diksa guru.

TFO:
"'Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is [...] you become guru.' (May 21st, 1976)

'Just always think of me, Krsna said, 'And become my devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances. Kindly do these things. 'So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?' (SP Conv., Paris, 2nd August 1976)

'Real guru is he who instructs what Krsna has said....You have simply to say, "'This is this.'" That's all. Is it very difficult task?' (SP Lect., Honolulu, 21st May 1976)

'... but I have no qualification. How can I become guru ? There is no need of qualification...whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said. That's all. You become guru.' (SP Lect., Honolulu, 21st May 1976)

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

Reply:
vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apimam prthivim sa sisyat

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." (Nectar of Instruction 1)

sastra-yukty sunipuna drdha-sraddha yanra 'uttama-adhikari, sei taraye samsara

"One who is expert in logic, argument and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krsna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world." (Cc M.22.65)

"A person who is constantly engaged in devotional service by his body, mind and words, or even a person who is not practically engaged but is simply desiring to be so, is considered to be liberated." (NOD Ch.11)

"The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters." (SB 11.3.21 quoted in NOD Ch.7)

"A person who is always chanting the holy name of the Lord is to be considered a first-class Vaisnava, and your duty is to serve his lotus feet." (Cc M.16.172)

Then we have these statements from Srila Prabhupada. In chapter 3 of NOD he defines an uttama-adhikari:

"He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He very nicely presents conclusions with perfect discretion in considering the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain the transcendental loving service of Krsna, and he knows that Krsna is the only object of worship and love.

This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class. The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

"A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons. This Krsna consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of 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." (SB 4.18.5p)

"Sanatana Gosvami clearly defines the bona fide spiritual master. One must act according to the scriptural injunctions and at the same time preach. One who does so is a bona fide spiritual master. Haridasa Thakura was the ideal spiritual master because he regularly chanted on his beads the prescribed number of times. Indeed, he was chanting the holy name of the Lord three hundred thousand times a day. Similarly, the members of the Krsna consciousness movement chant the minimum number of sixteen rounds a day, which can be done without difficulty, and at the same time they must preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the gospel of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. One who does so is quite fit to become a spiritual master for the entire world." (Cc Ant 4.103p)

"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 Vaisnava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaisnavas, 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 spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Such a Vaisnava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikari, highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought." (NOI 5p)

"A first-class devotee does not at all see anyone who is not in the service of the Lord, but the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and non-devotees. The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciples from the section of third-class devotees or non-devotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of a second-class devotee for preaching work." (SB 2.3.21p)

"When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Krsna, he loses interest in everything but Krsna's service. Always thinking of Krsna, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Krsna, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world. Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikari, and his association should be immediately accepted. Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him." (NOI 5p)

"The spiritual master's qualification is that he is brahma-nistham, which means that he has given up all other activities and has dedicated his life to working only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. ... The prime symptom of one who has become a spiritual master in disciplic succession is that he is one hundred percent fixed in bhakti-yoga." (Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead)

"The madhyama-adhikari Vaisnava can awaken others to Krsna consciousness and engage them in duties whereby they can advance." (Cc M.16.74p)

"Everyone begins his devotional life in the neophyte stage, but if one properly finishes chanting the prescribed number of rounds of hari-nama, he is elevated step by step to the highest platform, uttama-adhikari." (NOI 5p)

"The siksa- or diksa-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. The Krsna consciousness movement is spreading now all over the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikuntha." (SB 4.12.33p)

"Unless one is actually a devotee, he cannot see another devotee perfectly. One should therefore avoid observing a pure devotee externally, but should try to see the internal features and understand how he is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. In this way one can avoid seeing the pure devotee from a material point of view, and thus one can gradually become a purified devotee himself." (NOI 6p)

"Our system, parampara system, is that, for example, I am just a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I don't say that I am liberated, I am conditioned. But because I am following the instruction of Bhaktisiddhanta, I'm liberated. This is the distinction between conditioned and liberated. When one is under the direction of a liberated person...The same thing: Electricity. The copper is not electricity, but, when it is charged with electricity if it is touched, that is electricity. And similarly, this parampara system, the electricity is going. If you cut the parampara system, then there is no electricity. Therefore it is stressed so much. Sa kalena mahata yogo nastah parantapa [Bg 4.2: 'In course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost']. The electricity is lost." (Morning Walk, Bombay, 1/4/77)

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

Reply:
TFO has no basis for this assumption. The above quotes clearly do not only speak of siksa gurus.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada is thus envisaging millions of gurus, some of whom may even be children. These gurus are cautioned however not to then go on and become diksa gurus by taking disciples. Thus, these instructions are only consistent with everyone becoming siksa gurus or preachers. The qualification to do this is simply to repeat faithfully what one may know. The caution to then not attempt to take disciples is not surprising since the qualification to become a diksa guru is, as it has already been explained, is much more demanding:

'When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata he is to be accepted as guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of guru.' (C.c., Madhya, 24:330)

'One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana.' (S.B., 4:8:54)

As it has been shown Srila Prabhupada stated that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru."

Reply:
Again TFO chooses to completely overlook that fact that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to become initiating gurus.

TFO:
"The general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider 'amara ajnaya guru hana' to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya."

Reply:
There is no basis for TFO's assumption. It does not follow that because Srila Prabhupada repeated the order to accept disciples that this can only mean siksa guru. Why would Srila Prabhupada only refer to siksa-gurus when he instructed his disciples to become spiritual masters? His disciples were already acting as siksa-gurus preaching all over the world. Why would Srila Prabhupada keep emphasizing a redundant point?

Here is a quote from Srila Prabhupada's purport to SB 1.5.21:

"Although formally Srila Narada Muni is his spiritual master, Srila Vyasadeva is not at all dependent on a spiritual master because in essence he is the spiritual master of everyone else. But because he is doing the work of an acarya, he has taught us by his own conduct that one must have a spiritual master, even though he be God Himself. Lord Sri Krsna, Lord Sri Rama and Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, all incarnations of Godhead, accepted formal spiritual masters, although by Their transcendental nature They were cognizant of all knowledge."

Is there any reason here to think that Srila Prabhupada is speaking of the need to accept a siksa-guru? He says that even incarnations of Godhead accepted formal spiritual masters, although they already know everything. So 'formal spiritual master' means the initiating spiritual master, the one who initiates the disciple into the disciplic succession. What is the need for the Godhead and the acarya to exemplify the need for receiving siksa? The need for that is already understood. The emphasis here is clearly on diksa.

"Every one of us should become spiritual master because the world is in blazing fire... Spiritual master is not a new invention. It is simply following the orders of the spiritual master. So all my students present here who are feeling so much obliged... 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. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become spiritual master. That is the science of becoming spiritual master." (Vyasa-Puja address, Hamburg, 5 September, 1969)

If the order to become spiritual master refers only to siksa guru, then why is Srila Prabhupada ordering people who are already siksa gurus to become spiritual masters?

TFO:
"This general instruction from Lord Caitanya must principally be referring to siksa not diksa guru. Diksa guru is the exception, not the rule, whereas everyone is expected to become siksa guru."

Reply:
Here Mr. Desai is offering his own speculation. Unfortunately, for him, there is no basis for it. There is no reason to think it is as he suggets. Every disciple of a guru is meant to become a diksa-guru and carry on the disciplic succession. Indeed this is the way of continuing the chain of disciples.

TFO:
"Looking now at catagory 2).

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

Reply:
Here TFO offers its speculation regarding the spiritual master's intent. It is only the author's concoction that these instructions are lies meant to pacify ambitious individuals. Srila Prabhupada has never said or indicated any such thing. Moreover, TFO accuses Srila Prabhupada of lying to his disciples.

TFO:
"'The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] Don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do not be in a hurry.' (Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)

'Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work.' (Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72) 'I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master, it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions.' (Letter to Hamsadutta, 1/10/74)

'Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette itis 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 bonafide spiritual master and spread Krishna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.'" (Letter to Tusta Krishna Swami, 2/12/75)

Reply:
We should note that the above quotes do not in any way rule out the possibility of becoming diksa guru after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. Quite to the contrary, they state the principle that one can indeed become a diksa guru after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"(It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above 'law' in support of the MASS doctrine, in the very SAME document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all:

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

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

Reply:
Here we see another attempt of TFO to distract us from the question at hand. This is called a Red Herring. The question at hand is whether Srila Prabhupada wanted his discicples to carry on the disciplic succession in the traditional Vedic way, or if he wanted to introduce a proxy-guru system which have no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra. Whether or not some of Srila Prabhupada's disciple showed personal ambition has nothing to do with that question.

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

Reply:
TFO continues to speculate on the spiritual master's intent. It is quite amazing how Mr. Desai is so initiated into understanding the inner desires of Srila Prabhupada. How did he get connected in this way with Srila Prabhupada? He didn't even take ritvik initiation from him, which is also rather peculiar as he is such a fervent advocate of the idea.

TFO:
"Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have recieved a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus."

Reply:
Here TFO tries to establish a false principle. Nowhere in Srila Prabhupada's books do we learn that the spiritual master cannot tell a humble and qualified devotee that he may someday take on the responsibility of being a spiritual master. Furthermore Mr. Desai is being offensive by giving a sarcastic interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's words as "describing their glowing future."

TFO:
"Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified?"

This is a misinterpretation. In none of these quotes does Srila Prabhupada "seriously promise guruship." In fact, the idea that the position of guru is some kind of materialistic reward that can be promised to someone does not occur in any of Srila Prabhupada books, letters, etc. It is the author's own invention. We should also note a contradiction here. If Srila Prabhupada is seriously promising guruship, then how can he be just offering a carrot on a stick, as TFO claims he is?

Also how does the author know that the above devotees wanted to to assume the reponsibility of guru because of improper ambition? Did he read their minds at the time? Was he even there at the time. Can he be sure that it was not a misguided sense of duty? What is the proof of his assertion?

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

Reply:
Here the auhtor is minimizing the authority of the spiritual master. The order of the spiritual master is sufficient.

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

'By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above mentioned examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of Krsna consciousness population.' (SPL to Kirtanananda Swami, 12th January, 1968)

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

Reply:
This is a circular argument. Earlier, TFO has stated that the July 9 letter authorizes eternal ritvik because there is no order to the contrary. Now he argues that any order to the contrary is invalid because the July 9 letter authorizes eternal ritvik. Besides that, TFO has far from substantiated that the July 9 letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's final and conclusive instructions on how he wanted initiations to proceed in his absence.

TFO:
"Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's 'law of disciplic succession'. The first part of the 'law' states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence."

Reply:
TFO argues here on a false premise. Srila Prabhupada does not refer to this principle as law but as etiquette. And he says in the letter that they will be specifically empowered. Since it is a matter of etiquette and Srila Prabhupada would be the offended party, Srila Prabhupada could override the etiquette and specifically empower disciples to initiate if he so chose.

TFO:
"Since this was the 'law', clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiating on their own behalf: Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of 'officiating' initiation system as early as 1968."

Reply:
This is a speculative conclusion, not stated anywhere.

TFO:
"By 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed 'empowered', or authorized, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation. Later he called these representatives 'ritviks', and formalised their function in the July 9th order."

Reply:
Here we have a case of begging the question. TFO's conclusion is based on the unproven premise that Srila Prabhupada was only referring to ritvik initiation in the letter. That premise must first be proven before it can become a sound basis for another conclusion.

TFO:
"Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorizing Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams."

Reply:
This is a misinterpretation of the spiritual master's words. Srila Prabhupada is speaking of all his disciples not simply Kirtanananda. The above statement can also be seen as another clumsy attempt to make it appear that this is one of Srila Prabhupada's "lies" to his ambitious disciples, and besides that it is a minimization of the spiritual master's authority. TFO attempts to cheapen Srila Prabhupada's words with the phrase "a few exams."

With this statement TFO attempts to show that anyone who takes Srila Prabhupada's words seriously here is foolhardy, which is nothing but arrogance. TFO says that Srila Prabhupada would be doing something wrong if he actually is suggesting that his disciples initiate, although that is the only clear meaning of Srila Prabhupada's words. The author attempts thereby to cheapen Srila Prabhupada's instructions. TFO:
"'Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of his bona fide spiritual master can become a spiritual master, and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the whole world.' (SPL to Madhusudana, 2nd November 1967)

Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus. However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual masters even in his absence."

Reply:
Here TFO is simply speculating, "may simply have been." To establish one's point on "may simply have been" is not very convincing.

TFO:
"There is definitely no mention of his disciples initiating or accepting disciples."

Reply:
Here TFO is lying. Srila Prabhupada has mentioned many times that he wanted his disciples to initiate and make disciples.

TFO:
"The term 'bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world' is equally applicable to a siksa guru."

Reply:
The term "bona fide spiritual master" is not very likely to refer to a siksa-guru, since anyone, who may not be so bona fide and powerful that he can spread Krishna consciousness all over the worlds, can still give siksa.

TFO:
"In any case, such correspondence cannot be used to modify the July 9th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the movement."

Reply:
This is a straw man. There was no need for these letters to modify the July 9 letter because the July 9 is hardly Srila Prabhupada's final instructions on this matter to be regarded independently from anything else he ever said or wrote. Besides the letter never says anything about the ritvik system continuing.

TFO also bases its argument on the false premise that "these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the movement" There is no such principle that an instruction is not valid if it is not immediately circulated. Srila Prabhupada's desire is what it is, and that is what we have to find out. The author wants to subject Srila Prabhupada's desire to some concocted legalistic system.

TFO:
"The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is sometimes pointed out that letters to Hamsadutta etc were distributed around the society prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure. However, the mechanics of such distribution appear never to have been set up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private corespondence to be distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be published 'if there was time', but he never intimated that without these documents no-one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure."

Reply:
This is a minimization of the guru's authority. Whether the letter has been circulated or not, it clearly is an instruction from Srila Prabhupada. And the statement, "but he never intimated that without these documents no-one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure," is a strawman. No one has presented this argument.

TFO:
"If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for ten thousand years, surely he would have made their publication a matter of the utmost urgency. To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an Mr. Desaiisd form at that time."

Reply:
The author is here making up his own condition that the evidence must be authorized and readily available. It is also not clear what is meant by an "authorized form." Besides that the argument is a distraction from the real issue of Srila Prabhupada's desire.

TFO:
"If Srila Prabhupada had considered these isolated letters to have any bearing on the July 9th letter, he would have ensured they were mass printed and widely circulated.

Reply:
TFO is imposing its own conditions on how Srila Prabhupada should or should not have acted. It is not reasonable to suggest that these letters, which can hardly be said to be isolated, should have been mass printed and widely circulated, especially if Srila Prabhupada didn't regard the July 9 letter as anything but a temporary arrangement because of his disability to move around, which there is no reason to assume that he didn't. In the light of all the other clear instructions Srila Prabhupada gave on this issue, it takes a great leap of faith to regard the July 9 letter as the final and conclusive instructions from Srila Prabhupada on how he wanted initiations to be conducted after his departure.

Still Mr. Desai continuously tries to give us the impression that the July 9 letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's sole instructions on this matter, even though, if to be followed, they would completely oppose Srila Prabhupada's instructions in the May 28 conversation, and besides that be a break away from the ancient Vedic system of transmission of knowledge.

TFO:
"He could even have referred to these letters in the final order itself if they really were so indicative of his future plans for initiation."

Reply:
Again TFO argues from the false premise that the July 9 letter is an initiation-manual and not a communiqu� notifying everyone that Srila Prabhupada was too disabled to any longer conduct initiations. The instructions on how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to proceed in his absence were already given in the May 28 conversations. If we understand the that the July 9 letter was simply a general announcement to all the devotees to notify them of a temporary arrangement in the face of Srila Prabhupada's illness, there is no need to keep insisting that the July 9 letter contain this reference or that reference.

TFO:
"In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of these handful of letters (which, as stated, were not 'officially' published till years after Srila Prabhupada's departure), can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certanly have made that clear in the order itself. Some temple presidents who recieved the final order had never seen or heard of these letters."

Reply:
TFO keeps insisting, without any basis, that the July 9 letter was Srila Prabhupada's final and all-conclusive manual on how he wanted initiations to commence in his absence.

TFO:
"In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was that of name-giving priests, representatives of the acarya, ritviks."

Reply:
This is a false conclusion based on a false premise. There is much evidence to the contrary.

TFO:
"Finally we shall look at catagory 3).

'There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures which have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We shall now examine this evidence.' In Srila Prabhupada's books, all we find are the qualifications of a diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and authorized before even attempting to become diksa guru:"

Reply:
Note here how the following quotation from SB contradicts what Mr. Desai has just said.

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

The above injunction hardly gives carte-blanche for anyone to initiate just because their guru has left the planet."

Reply:
Here TFO poses a straw man. No one has argued that the disciples can initiate simply because Srila Prabhupada has left the planet. They must be strict followers, just as the quote says.

TFO:
"The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here. Only the idea that they must be authorized and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must have first attained the platform of mahabhagavat."

Reply:
This is a minimization of authority of the guru. If the guru orders the disciple to initiate, then all other requirements are met. Besides who is TFO to judge who is, or who is not, a maha-bhagavat? If Srila Prabhupada was a great elevated maha-bhagavat it is offensive to suggest that all his disciples remained unqualified to carry on the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journeys to Other Planets (page 32) dealing with 'monitor gurus' as evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However, this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa, not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher, but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru)."

Reply:
Here is another strawman. Why should we assume that not even some of Srila Prabhupada disciples became qualified being, as they were, in the process? Who ever claimed that they became qualified automatically upon the departure of the teacher? Some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples had received direct training by him in the process of pure devotional service, and had been practicing for at least ten years.

TFO:
"A monitor guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform of mahabhagavat, and then been authorized by his predecessor acarya , there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa guru, the siksha guru may gradually rise to the platform necessary for diksa authorization to take place. Furthermore, a monitor merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again is at variance with the 'law' of disciplic succession that is used to support the M.A.S.S. system. A monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside the teacher. We do not see how this description supports the GBC's a) and b) assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically become diksa gurus."

Reply:
TFO insists on repeating the lie that a ritvik system was ever established. There is no such thing as a ritvik system of initiation mentioned anywhere in the Vedas or in Srila Prabhupada's books. The system referred to in the July 9 letter was not an initiation system per se, but an emergency system set up to relieve Srila Prabhupada. A ritvik system, as in the proxy-guru system envisioned by the ritvikvadis, simply does not exist anywhere. It is a total fabrication. It has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra.

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

'Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth ... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge.' (Arrival Lecture, Los Angeles, 18/5/72)

'At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master . Every one of you should be spiritual master next.' (Vyasa-Puja address, Hamburg, 5/9/69)

The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are already the twelfth - 'you ARE the twelfth'. Thus this is not some authorization for them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that they are already carrying on the message of the parampara."

Reply:
This is simply word jugglery. In English, the present tense can also indicate future. "The child of today is the man of tomorrow."

TFO:
"The second quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place by dint of the disciples vigorous preaching."

Reply:
This is called Scotch Tape. TFO takes two quotes from different times and occasions and uses them as evidence as if they were one quote.

TFO:
"Either way, there is no clear explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation."

Reply:
Here TFO is resorting to speculation. To insist that Srila Prabhupada did not mean for his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters next is even more speculative because he did say that he wanted his disciples to initiate.

TFO:
"In fact, we know it is wrong since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act as instructing spiritual masters, and not in any type of initiating or diksa capacity."

Reply:
TFO keeps begging the question on this point as if it were clear that the July 9 letter established that Srila Prabhupada only wanted for his disciples to become siksa-gurus. It is also a circular argument. The authori is saying that the letter constitutes the final order on initiation, and all other instructions are invalid because the July 9 letter is the final order. This is akin to saying that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

TFO:
"To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable, and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, specifically in relation to who would succeed him, which completely contradict the proposition being made:

Reporter: Who will succeed you when you die? Srila Prabhupada: I will never die! Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! Srila Prabhupada: I will live forever from my books and you will utilise." (Press Conference, San Francisco, 16/7/75)

Reply:
This one statement cannot be used to contradict everything else that Srila Prabhupada said on the subject. In fact, Srila Prabhupada is still the siksa guru for all of ISKCON through his books. Nobody disputes this fact.

TFO:
"Here was a clear opportunity for Srila Prabhupada to lay out his plans for the M.A.S.S. were that to be his intention."

Reply:
Mr. Desai has made it his habit to speculate on the intentions of the spiritual master and impose his own conditions on how he should or should not act.

TFO:
"But instead he says he shall not be succeeded since he shall never die. From the above exchange it can be understood Srila Prabhupada is a living spiritual master who continues to impart transcendental knowledge (the main constituant of diksa) through his books; and that this will continue for as long as ISKCON exists. The role of his disciples being to facilitate the process."

Reply:
There is no dispute over this. Everyone agrees that Srila Prabhupada is the main siksa-guru for ISKCON even after his departure, and that the role is for his disciples to facilitate the process of siksa, but that doesn't mean that they should not become diksa-gurus. The above statement actually defeats itself. If one who imparts transcendental knowledge is a diksa guru, then a siksa guru is also a diksa guru, so TFO's argument that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are meant to be siksa gurus would also authorize them to be diksa gurus.

TFO:
"'Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya. Even if he is complete he should not, because the etiquette is, if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to bring that prospective candidate to his acarya.'(Lecture CC 1.13, Mayapur, 6/4/75)

The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to become acarya. However the whole emphasis is that they should not do it now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his disciples becoming acarya, if he is cautioning them not to do it in his presence."

Reply:
This is pure speculation on the spiritual master's intent.

TFO:
"This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above. This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle."

Reply:
This is a straw man. No one has argued that Srila Prabhupda ordered only specific individuals to take disciples.

TFO:
"As will be seen later, on the 'Appt Tape',(please see page 18), which is used by GII as their principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977 ("but by my order, [...] when I order")."

Reply:
This is a lie. See DOMD.

TFO:
"And this situation remained unchanged until his departure. In any case later on in the same lecture however, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya ambitions in the following manner:"

Reply:
Here TFO is again resorting to the "ambitious acarya" syndrome. This is character assassination. Further more he is speculating on the spiritual master's intent.

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

It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction is for everyone to preach vigorously, and make lots of Krsna Conscious followers, but not to take disciples."

Reply:
How has it been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya instructed for everyone not to take any disciples? If this were true then why did Srila Prabhupada take 5,000 disciples?

TFO:
"This point is re-inforced by the next line wherin Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. The fact that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand ..."(i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence) proves that he is clearly talking about Krsna Conscious followers, not disciples of his disciples, since the main point of the lecture was that they should not initiate in his presence."

Reply:
TFO is juggling words and speculating. The passage can also refer to disciples taking disciples after Srila Prabhupada's departure, as we shall point out below.

TFO:
"Thus the numbers mentioned in the verse are clerly not referring to disciples of his disciples, but simply the increase in the Krsna Conscious population. Such persons could only be disciples of Srila Prabhupada, in the same way the 'ten thousand' present now could only be his disciples."

Reply:
This argument has already been defeated soundly in the Timeless Order by Vivek Sadananda Pai:

"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 Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world." (SPL to Madhusudana, 2 November, 1967) Note the phrases "in my absence" and "become the bona fide spiritual master". This quote shows that Srila Prabhupada believed that all of his disciples could become spiritual masters, but more importantly, it talks of them becoming spiritual masters, rather than some sort of appointment-only basis. The counter-argument to this is that Srila Prabhupada is talking only about siksa gurus, but such an argument does not make sense, because Srila Prabhupada's disciples were already acting as siksa gurus, so there would be no need to hope that they one day start doing so. Not only must this quote refer to diksa gurus, but it must be talking about disciples becoming diksa gurus after Srila Prabhupada's physical disappearance. The counter-argument that Srila Prabhupada is always present through his books does not apply here, since Srila Prabhupada clearly mentions "in my absence," which must refer to his physical absence. .."You each become 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. But you have to be spiritually strong. This means chanting your rounds and following the four rules. It is not an artificial show. It is not a material thing. Chant and follow the four rules and pray to Krsna in helplessness." (Lilamrta VI, page 167) Note that in this quote, Srila Prabhupada talks about his disciples having their own disciples, both by the reference to "ten thousand each" and by mentioning "branches and branches" of the Caitanya tree. If Srila Prabhupada wanted all future members of ISKCON to only be his disciples, there would be no need to talk about branches of the tree or about his disciples having their own disciples. In such a scenario, there would be no future branches, and all the new disciples would just add to Srila Prabhupada's count. Some will no doubt object to this quote since it comes from the Lilamrta and not from Srila Prabhupada's letters. In that sense, it is prudent to check to see if other Srila Prabhupada quotes confirm what is mentioned here, and as we show, the same sentiments are echoed in other places. "By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krsna Conscious population." (SPL to Kirtanananda, 12 January, 1968)

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

Reply:
Mr. Desai keeps forgetting that there never was a ritvik-system. The ritvik-system does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. Nor was it ever introduced into ISKCON. Such a system is not mentioned in the Vedis literatures. It is also not mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books. What is mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books is the traditional ancient Vedic system for transmission of knowledge - the guru-parampara. That this should be an alternative to the ritvik-system is simply wishful thinking on the part of the ritvikvadis.

There simply is no ritvik-system to begin with. Srila Prabhupada as an empowered acarya would never even dream of introducing such a vile concoction. Srila Prabhupada was a strict follower of the Vedic system of transmitting knowledge. To suggest anything else is simply offensive.

TFO:
"What we do have is a handful of (at the time) unpublished personal letters, sent only to individuals who were desiring to become diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's presence, sometimes having only recently joined the movement."

Reply:
Here TFO again engages in character assassination and speculating on the spiritual master's intent.

TFO:
"In such cases they are told to wait until Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet before they fulfil their ambitions. The very fact that they were unpublished at the time of the July 9th letter means that they were not intended to have any direct bearing on the future of initiation within ISKCON."

Reply:
TFO is trying to establish a false principle. The fact that a letter was not published does not nullify the information in it.

TFO:
"Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada's books and conversations only contain instructions for his disciples to be siksa gurus."

Reply TFO is lying. There is abundant evidence to the contrary, e.g. the May 28 conversation and the several letters we have cited in this paper.

TFO:
"Though the general principle of a disciple becoming a diksa guru is mentioned, Srila Prabhupada does not specifically order his disciples to initiate and take their own disciples."

"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krsna Conscious population." (SPL to Kirtanananda, 12 January, 1968)

TFO:
"The above then does not represent grounds for supplanting the explicit instruction of July 9th, an order that was distributed to the whole movement as a specific policy document."

Reply:
This is a false assumption. The July 9 letter does not give any instruction for the ritvik system to continue. Nor did it even establish a ritvik system, at least not as imagined by the ritvikvadis. What the July 9 letter did establish was an emergency arrangement to relieve Srila Prabhupada. There is nothing to indicate that the July 9 letter was more than a communiqu� to inform all the devotees of that arrangement. To raise the letter to an absolute platform, an initiation-manual to be followed forever after, is far fetched.

TFO:
"Thus the idea that Srila Prabhupada had taught far and wide that all his disciples would be diksa gurus, immediately on his departure, or even shortly after, is nothing but a myth."

Reply:
This is a false argument. The idea TFO has, ei. that it has provided any basis for that assumption, is simply a myth.

TFO:
"It is commonly stated that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the final July 9th letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already explained again and again in his lectures, books, and conversations precisely what he wanted to happen."

Sadly assertion, apart from being totally false, merely raises further absurdities: If Srila Prabhupada's previous teachings on how he wanted to continue initiations in his absence were really so crystalline clear that he saw no need to issue a specific directive on the matter, then why did the GBC send a special delegation to his bedside in the first place?"

Reply:
It is normal for a disciple to verify the spiritual master's instructions, especially in the case of doubts.

TFO:
"A delegation whose principle objective it was to find out what was to be done about initiations 'particularly' at that time when he was no longer with them! (Please see 'Appt Tape', page 18). Srila Prabhupada was in ill health, about to leave his body, and here we have his most senior men asking him elementary questions which he had supposedly already answered scores of times over the preceding decade."

Reply:
Is it an elementary question to ask the spiritual master how he wants his institution to run after his departure? Besides, it is normal for a disciple to verify the spiritual master's instructions.

TFO:
"If Srila Prabhupada had clearly spelled out the M.A.S.S. system, why did he leave so little instruction on how to set it up that shortly after his departure his most senior men had to question Sridhar Maharaja on how to operate it?"

Reply:
Here TFO tries to establish a false principle. The fact that a disciple does not clearly understand an instruction does not mean that the instruction does not exist. Besides, if Srila Prabhupada had wanted a proxy-guru system, why did he leave even less instructions about that? In fact he left so little instructions to that effect that it took thirteen years for someone to discover it. And then it was only ONE word - henceforward.

TFO:
"If it really was so clear to everyone precisely how Srila Prabhupada wanted everyone to become diksa guru, then why did the GBC set up the '11 diksa gurus only' zonal acarya system for many years."

Reply:
This is an irrelevant argument. The fact that the GBC made mistakes does not mean that the instruction does not exist.

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

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

Reply:
We could not agree more.

TFO:
"*1(This interpretation is advocated in Ajamila das's paper 'Regular or Ritvik' published in the GBC's ISKCON journal 1990.)

*2[We would like to point out that most of the devotees mentioned above have since recognised their faults, and thus we apologise for any offense or embarrassment we may have caused. Perhaps they may appreciate the fact that personal letters sent by Srila Prabhuada, to specifically address their individual anarthas, are currently being used to support the M.A.S.S. within ISKCON]

8. 'Maybe there is some sastric principle in Srila Prabhupada's books that forbids the granting of diksa when the guru is not on the same planet as the disciple?'

There is no such statement in Srila Prabhupada's books, and since Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, such a restriction simply can not exist in our philosophy."

Reply:
TFO tries here to establish the false principle that, 'We can do anything that is not expressly forbidden in Srila Prabhupada's books.'

History: Srila Prabhupada named the Los Angeles Deities Rukmini and Dvarakadisa. In Krsna book it is said that Rukmini has reddish hair. One day Jayatirtha asked Srila Prabhupada whether they should put an auburn wig on Rukmini. According to Jayatirtha, Srila Prabhupada said, "Like an American girl? Better not to make any changes."

History: Tulasi Devi, former pujari in Los Angeles once asked Srila Prabhupada whether Lord Jagannatha could have a flute, and Srila Prabhupada said no.

According to the principle stated above by Mr. Desai, we should be able to put an auburn wig on Rukmini and give Lord Jagannatha a flute because these things are not expressly forbidden in Srila Prabhupada's books.

TFO:
"The use of a ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure would actually be in line with Srila Prabhupada's many instructions stating the immateriality of physical association in the guru-disciple relationship (please see Appendices). After reading these quotes one can see clearly how some members of the GBC have presented a somewhat different picture:

'Srila Prabhupada has taught us that the disciplic succession is a living affair...The law of disciplic succession is that one approaches a living spiritual master- living in the sense of being physically present.' (ISKCON JOURNAL, p.31, Gaurapurnima 1990).

Reply:
It is stated nowhere in the Vedic literature or Srila Prabhupada's books that one can take diksa from a guru who is not physically present. That the vani is more important than the vapu, as Srila Prabhupada has explained many times, does not make precedence for the idea that one can take initiation from the vani.

TFO:
"It is hard to reconcile the above assertion with statements such as:

'Physical presence is not important.'" (SP Conv. 6.10.77.)

Reply:
How is this hard to reconcile? Every devotee knows that Srila Prabhupada emphasized vani over vapu. Does TFO want to say that Srila Prabhupada's physical presence wasn't important? Furthermore, TFO has said many times that in order for the guru succession system to replace the proxy-guru system, there must be a signed order issued after the July 9 letter, but to prove his own point Mr. Desai now uses the very types of evidence that he forbids his opponents to use. If TFO quotes Srila Prabhupada's letters and conversation to prove his own point, he should not ignore the letters and conversations where Srila Prabhupada clearly states the principle: The disciple should not initiate in the presence of the spiritual master but may initiate after the spiritual master's departure. Nowhere does Srila Prabhupada give an instruction for post-samadhi ritvik.

TFO:
"or 'Physical presence is immaterial.' (SPL 19.1.67.)

Of course, we must have a guru who is external, since in the conditioned stage pure reliance on the Supersoul is not possible, but nowhere does Srila Prabhupada teach that this physical guru must also be physically present."

Reply:
It is stated nowhere that one can take initiation from a spiritual master who is not physical present. In that case what should stop someone from taking initiation from, say, Jiva Goswami?

TFO:
"'Therefore one must take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence.' (C.c. Antya 5, Conclusion)

Srila Prabhupada practically demonstrated this principle by initiating large numbers of his disciples without ever meeting them physically at all. "

Reply:
But he was still physically present on the planet. The fact is that Srila Prabhupada never initiated anyone after he left the planet.

TFO:
"This fact in itself proves that diksa can be obtained without any physical involvement from the guru."

Reply:
No, it only proves that one can obtain diksa from the guru when he is present on the planet. There is never an instance where a guru gave diksa without being physically present.

TFO:
"There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with physical presence."

Reply:
There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, that says one can take diksa from a guru who is not physically present.

TFO:
"Therefore, the continuation of the ritvik system would be perfectly consistent with both sastra and the example our acarya set whilst he was physically present."

Reply:
There is no such example set by any acarya in our line, that one can take diksa from a guru who is not physically present. Besides, Mr. Desai keeps avoiding the obvious, which is that his assertion is not consistent with the instructions given by Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"In one of the main sections on diksa in Srila Prabhupada's books, it is stated that the only requirement for receiving it is the agreement of the guru. This agreement, as has been demonstrated, was totally delegated to the ritviks."

Reply:
This statement is funny in the light of the fact that TFO has spent so much time quoting from sastra to the effect that one must be a maha-bhagavat in order to accept any disciples.

TFO:
'As far as the time of diksa (initiation) is concerned, everything depends on the position of the guru.[...] If the sad-guru, the bona fide spiritual master, agrees, one can be initiated immediately, without waiting for a suitable time or place.'" (C.c., Madhya, 24:331)

Reply:
This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

TFO:
"It is significant to note that there is no stipulation that the diksa guru and the prospective disciple must have physical contact, or that the diksa guru has to be physically present to give his agreement (it is also interesting that Srila Prabhupada equates the term sad-guru with the term diksa guru)."

Reply:
TFO is very selective in its presentation of information. Here for instance it leaves out the significant information that Srila Prabhupada instructed his disciples to initiate after his departure.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada has stated many times that the requirement for being initiated is simply to abide by the rules and regulations he had taught over and over again:
'This is the process of initiation. The disciple must admit that he will no longer commit sinful activity [...] He promises to execute the order of the spiritual master. Then, the spiritual master takes care of him and elevates him to spiritual emancipation.' (C.c., Madhya, 24.256)

Devotee: How important is formal initiation? Srila Prabhupada: Formal initiation means to accept officially to abide by the orders of Krsna and his representative. That is formal initiation. (SB Lectures,73/02/22)

Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules. Disciples: As long as they are following, then he is ... Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right. (Morning Walk, Detroit, 13/06/76)

'... unless there is discipline, there is no suggestion of disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline.'" (Morning Walk, Mayapur, 8/03/76)

Reply:
All the above is irrelevant. It speaks about the qualification of the disciple which no one disputes. And none of the above demonstrates a post-samadhi ritvik theory.

TFO:
"Does the definition of the word diksa imply a connection with the guru being physically present on the planet?"

Reply:
This is a straw man. What does it matter what the word diksa implies or not in this connection?

TFO:
"Diksha is the process by which one awakens his transcendental knowledge and vanquishes all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksha.' (C.c., Madhya, 15.108)

Reply:
How does this verse support the notion of a proxy-guru system? Does the verse mean we can take initiation from Rupa Goswami, or Krishna Himself?

TFO:
(Please see 'Diksa' diagram enclosed)

"There is nothing in this definition of diksa that in any way implies that the guru needs to be on the same planet as the disciple in order for it to work properly. Conversely, Srila Prabhupada's instructions and personal example prove categorically that the elements which constitute diksa can be utilised without the need for the guru's physical involvement:"

Reply:
There is nothing in this definition of diksa that in any way implies that one can take diksa without the guru being physically present.

TFO:
"'Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material condition.' (SB (1987 Ed) 7.7.1.)

'The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent.' (SB 2.9.8.)

Thus, all the elements of diksa - transcendental knowledge, a ceremony, the receiving of the mantra etc., can be effectively delivered without the guru's physical presence."

Reply:
TFO does not state how it arrives at this assumption. None of the quoted passages support the conclusion it offers above. its conclusion is totally opposed to guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"In summary, it can be shown conclusively that there is no sastric principle mentioned in any of Srila Prahupada's books that precludes the granting of diksa once the guru leaves the earth planet. Although historical precedent is sometimes cited as an objection, historical precedent is not a sastric principle. Our philosophy is based on following sastric injunctions not historical tradition."

Reply:
TFO again states the principle that anything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed. There is a historical precedence of what happens to disciples who try to jump over their guru to the param-guru.

It is about Jayagopala dasa who appears to have been present during the time of Srila Srinivasacarya. He was was ostracized by Srila Nityananda Prabhu's son, Srila Virabhadra Gosvami Prabhu, an incarnation of Sri Ksirodakasayi Visnu Himself.

This text is from a famous Bengali Vaisnava encyclopedia Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana (by a Gaudiya Vaisnava named Haridasa dasa).

Description of Jayagopala from Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana (Khanda 3):

Jayagopala was a kayastha from the village Kandra in Bengal. Having transgressed the mercy of his spiritual master, he was ostracized by Sri Virabhadra Gosvami from the Vaisnava society.

In Radhadesa, there is a village named Kandra. Sri Mangala and Jnana dasa lived there. Jayagopala was born in a family of Kayasthas in that village. Out of false ego due to having obtained a high education, he became proud and evil-minded. His spiritual master was a pure devotee of the Lord but because he was illiterate, Jaya Gopala was ashamed of him. If someone inquired as to who his guru was, Jaya Gopala would say that his grand-spiritual master parama-guru) was his guru. Srila Virabhadra Prabhu brought this up and ostracized him for having transgressed the mercy given to him. (Bhakti Ratnakara 14.180-183) [1]

The letter sent by the son of Lord Nityananda to Srila Srinivasa Acarya requesting him to reject Jaya Gopala is appended below:

All glories to Sri Gaura and Sri Nityananda!

Sri Virabhadradeva, who is certainly to be remembered by Your Grace, submits herewith the following with a loving embrace:

Srila Srinivasacarya! You are Sri Sri Mahaprabhu's potency. Whereas through one energy of the Lord, transcendental literatures were published by Srila Rupa Gosvami and others who were the personified energies of the Lord, through His other energy, the mahajanas, the Lord is is distributing the books in Bengal. Thus I am submitting news to Your Grace.

Jaya Gopala dasa has transgressed My mercy. This has also become known to the world. Therefore, in this matter, I have forbidden all of My men to talk with him and so on. Similarly, Your Grace may also not talk with him and so on. [2]

In the Bhakti Ratnakara (14.190-191), it is written:

Who does not cry on seeing the qualities of Sri Virabhadra Prabhu? He ostracized the sinful Jaya Gopala. Everyone came to know about this and no one would ever speak to him and so on. [3]

There is also a description of Jaya Gopala in the 19th Vilasa of Prema Vilasa.

TFO:
"This is the very thing that distinguishes ISKCON from virtually every other Gaudiya Vaisnava group. There are many influential smarta brahmins in India who strongly criticise the lack of adherence to tradition exhibited by Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada never transgressed any sastric rules or displayed a lack of adherence to tradition. On the contrary, Srila Prabhupada very carefully followed in the foot-steps of his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who was known to defeat any smarta-rule on the basis of sastra.

TFO:
"Sastric statements, along with the practical example of Srila Prabhupada himself, fully support the principle that diksa is not dependent in any way on the guru's physical presence."

Reply:
TFO is lying. There is no sastric statement that one may take diksa from a guru who is not physically present, nor is there any pratical example from Srila Prabhupada himself, or any other acarya in our line, to that effect.

TFO:
9. "'Since this instruction would lead to the setting up of a system that is unprecedented, and has no historical basis, it should be rejected.'

This can not be a reason to reject the July 9th order since Srila Prabhupada set many precedents, e.g. reducing the number of required rounds of japa from sixty-four to sixteen, performing marriages, allowing women to live in the temples, giving gayatri by tape, etc etc.) Indeed, it is a distinguishing feature of acaryas in our line that, practically without exception, they set their own historical precedents. As acaryas, it is their prerogative to do this; albeit in accordance with sastric principles."

Reply:
None of the acaryas in our line have violated any sastric principles. One may say that Srila Prabhupada travelled over the sea, thus violating a sastric principle. But the over-riding sastric principle is that the disciple should follow the instructions of his spiritual master. Srila Prabhupada's spiritual master told him to preach to the English speaking world, and that instruction was superior to the instruction that a sannyasi should not travel over sea.

That Srila Prabhupada reduced the number of rounds, allowed women to live in the temple, gave gayatri by tape etc. etc., is hardly in the same category as abolishing the timeless Vedic system of transmitting knowledge, the guru-parampara, and replace it with a complete concoction that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"As already stated, the use of ritviks without the guru's physical presence on the planet does not violate any sastric principle. Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, and since there is no mention in his books of the guru needing to be on the planet at the time of initiation, it can not be a principle. Thus the historical precedent of continuing to use ritviks after his departure can only be a change in detail, not principle."

Reply:
TFO continues to promote the false principle that if something is not explicitly forbidden in Srila Prabhupada's books it may be allowed. According to that logic it should also be allowed to throw Krishna's deity out in a parachute from an aeroplane since it is not stated in the books that this is not allowed. Also this particular instruction does not have to be in the books. Srila Prabhupada gave the instructions in his letters and conversations. We should notice how TFO insists on a reference in Srila Prabhupada's books for the guru succession, but uses the letters and conversations for its own purposes.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada did many things, particularly connected with initiation, which were unprecedented, yet we do not reject them (please see box on page 25). It may be argued that he explained some of these changes in his books. This is true, but there were many he did not explain in his books."

Reply:
Such as..?

TFO:
"Besides, there was no need to give detailed explanations of the ritvik system in his books since he had practically demonstrated prototypes of it for many years, with the final touches of how it was to continue fully elucidated in the July 9th order."

Reply:
Here TFO is lying. Srila Prabhupada did not practically demonstrate prototypes of the proxy-guru system for many years.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada never taught us to just blindly follow tradition.:

'Our only tradition is how to satisfy Visnu.' (SPLec, Bg, 1975)

'No. Tradition, religion, they are all material. They are also all designation.' (Conv. Teheran, March 13th 1975)

Reply:
This is a strawman. Nobody ever argued that we blindly follow tradition.

TFO:
"Whether precisely the same orders we received from Srila Prabhupada were ever issued by a previous acarya is utterly irrelevant. Our only duty is to follow the orders given to us by our own acarya."

Reply:
Yes, so why should we not follow the instructions given in the May 28 conversation and all the countless of other places where Srila Prabhupada mentions that he wants his disciples to qualify and continue the guru-parampara?

TFO:
"Then what about the order to initiate given in the letters and conversations?

If a system of initiation can be rejected solely on the grounds that it has no exact historical precedent, then we would certainly be forced to reject the current guru system within ISKCON by the same token. "

Here TFO is giving a false reason. The proxy-guru system is not being rejected solely on the grounds that it has no exact historical precedence. It is being rejected on the grounds that it is a concoction, without any basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra; it is not mentioned anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, or conversations; nor does it have any historical precedence. Therefore it is to be rejected.

TFO:
"Never before has a plethora of diksa gurus been subordinate to a committee which could suspend or terminate their initiating activities. No previous initiating acarya in our line has ever been voted into office with a two-thirds majority vote, nor subsequently fallen prey to gross sinful activity and as a consequence been hastily withdrawn from the 'disciplic succession'.

Reply:
There are many instances where diksa-gurus and sannyasis have fallen down also outside of ISKCON. This has happened many times in the Gaudiya Matha also.

TFO:
"We reject such irregular practices, not on the grounds of historical precedent, but because they are in blatant violation of Srila Prabhupada's final order."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada's final order on how he wanted diksa to continue after his departure is found in the May 28 conversation. The idea of a proxy-guru system is a blatant violation of that order.

TFO:
"They also clash violently with many of the basic tenets of Vaisnava philosophy found in Srila Prabhupada's books."

Reply:
Here TFO is lying. What are the basic tenets of Vaisnava philosophy found in Srila Prabhupada's books that clash with the practices of the GBC? There are none.

TFO:
"The fact that the identical system to ritvik is not directly mentioned in sastra, or ancient Vedic texts, is also not pertinent. According to some Vedic rules, sudras and women should not even receive brahmin initiation at all."

Reply:
Where is the Vedic rule saying that? Here TFO is accusing Srila Prabhupada of violating sastra.

TFO:
"Thus, strictly speaking, Srila Prabhupada should not have initiated any of his western disciples since they were all born lower than the lowest Vedic caste. Srila Prabhupada was able to over-rule such Vedic laws through the invocation of higher order sastric injunctions."

Reply:
Whatever Srila Prabhupada did, he was simply following the teachings and example of Lord Caitanya and His bona fide followers.

TFO:
"He sometimes exercised these injunctions in ways that had never been applied before:

'Therefore the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Isvara Puri is not subjected to any Vedic rules and regulations.... As Hari is not subject to the criticism of mundane rules and regulations, the spiritual master empowered by Him is also not subjected.'" (Cc. Madhya 10.136-137)

Reply:
Does TFO suggest that the Vedic instructions regarding initiation are mundane?

TFO:
"'Diksa cannot be offered to a sudra [ . . .] This initiation is offered not according to Vedic Rules, because it is very difficult to find out a qualified brahmana.' (Lecture, B.G. 1971)

The important point is that although the ritvik system may be totally unique, (at least as far as we know), it does not violate higher order sastric principles. It is testament to Srila Prabhupada's genius that he was able to apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways according to time, place and circumstance."

Reply:
This is a total speculation on the part of TFO. Surely the proxy-guru system violates the ancient Vedic system of guru-parampara.

TFO:
10. "Since there is no specific mention of the ritvik system prior to July 9th, it could not possibly have been intended to continue past Srila Prabhupada's disappearance."

This objection rests on the premise that Srila Prabhupada would never 'spring' anything new on the movement. Taken literally, this objection is absurd, for it means that any order from the guru can be rejected if it is new, or even just a bit different from ones issued previously. It infers that in his final months Srila Prabhupada should not have delivered far-reaching instructions regarding his society, unless everyone was already familiar with them."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question.Its arguments rests on the assumption that the July 9 letter does authorize the continuation of the ritvik system. If this assumption cannot be proved, then Srila Prabhupada does not authorize the system or even mention it anywhere at all.

TFO:
"False reductio ad absurdum:
1. Since there is no specific mention of the ritvik system prior to July 9th, it could not possibly have been intended to continue past Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. 2. Therefore any order from the guru can be rejected if it is new, or even just a bit different from ones issued previously. 3. This is absurd."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. It argues from the premise that the July 9 letter is some kind of an all conclusive initiation-manual Srila Prabhupada gave just before he left. This assertion has yet to be established.

TFO:
"As we have explained, the ritvik system was not 'new' anyway. Prior to the July 9th letter, the experience of diksa initiation in the movement would have predominantly been through the use of representatives. Srila Prabhupada was the only diksa guru in ISKCON, and most initiation ceremonies, particularly in the later years, were performed by a Temple President or some other representative or priest. This is practically identical to the ritvik system."

Reply:
How is it practical identical? In one model Srila Prabhupada is physically present on the planet and can be directly consulted in case of any doubts on the part of the disciple. In the other model Srila Prabhupada has left the planet and cannot any longer be directly consulted by his so-called disciples. How can a "disciple" who has taken "diksa" from Srila Prabhupada, after he has left the planet, consult him in case of doubt?

TFO:
"The only difference after July 9th 1977 was that all initiations would be done this way, and that the procedure was to be linked with the relatively unfamiliar word - 'ritvik'. Also, the letter which was sent out to new initiates would no longer be signed by Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
Again TFO is avoiding the obvious. The big difference was that Srila Prabhupada would leave the planet. Therefore the disciples asked him what to do.

TFO:
" Why should it have come as such a great shock that this system would continue beyond November 14th 1977?"

Reply:
Because Srila Prabhupada said to do something different.

TFO:
"This was a familiar experience for many hundreds of initiates: - that you get connected to the bona fide acarya, a connection usually performed through the use of representatives. The July 9th letter defines the word 'ritvik' as meaning: 'representative of the acarya'. Clearly the system of being initiated by Srila Prabhupada through the use of representatives was nothing 'new' at all. It was merely the continuation of what Srila Prabhupada had taught and put in practice as soon as his movement reached a state of rapid growth."

Reply:
How was it a familiar experience for hundreds of initiates to be initiated by someone who was not physically present on the planet? It had never happened before. Nobody was ever initiated by Srila Prabhupada after he left the planet. Those who were initiated by his representatives could still write Srila Prabhupada a letter in case of doubts. In fact, that's what they used to do.

TFO:
"Although unfamilair to many, the word 'ritvik' was not new either. The word and its derivatives had already been defined over 30 times by Srila Prabhupada in his books."

Reply:
This is called Argumentum ad ignorantiam. The word as used in Srila Prabhupada's books means something else.

TFO:
"The only thing 'new' was that this system was now formalised and put in writing."

Reply:
It was also "new" in the sense that Srila Prabhupada would no longer be physically present to eradicate any doubts.

TFO:
"Hardly suprising, since Srila Prabhupada was at this time issuing many documents in writing regarding the future of his movement. This arrangement was actually a re-endorsement of a system that everyone had already come to consider as standard practise. Ironically what was 'new' was the curious metamorphosis of the ritviks into the 'material and spiritual pure succesor acaryas' to Srila Prabhupada. It was this innovation that was 'sprung' onto the movement."

Reply:
TFO is off on a real trip of wishful thinking here. It is also minimizing the instructions of the spiritual master. The instructions of Srila Prabhupada was for his disciples to initiate their own disciples in his absence.

TFO:
"Summary

We have demonstrated that there is no direct evidence supporting the termination of the Ritvk system on Srila Prabhupada's departure, nor the subsequent transformation of the ritviks into diksa gurus (assumptions a) and b))."

Reply:
TFO has not even begun to demonstrate that.

TFO:
"Even if there was extremely strong indirect evidence supporting a) and b), it would still be debatable whether it could actually supplant the direct evidence, since this usually takes precedence. However, as just demonstrated, there is not even a shred of indirect evidence supporting the discarding of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
TFO is here posing a false argument. As it has been demonstrated there is much evidence opposing the proxy-guru system.

TFO:
"Thus:

1) An instruction was issued to the whole movement to be followed - Direct Evidence"

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. There was no instruction issued to continue the ritvik system. There was not even an instruction to etstablish it to begin with. There was a communiqu� to all the devotees of an emergency arrangement to relieve Srila Prabhupada. It has clearly been shown in DOMD that Srila Prabhupada did not put the same connotations on the term ritvik as the ritvikvadis do.

TFO:
"2) An examination of the instruction itself, as well as other supporting and subsequent instructions, only supports the continuation of the ritvik system - Direct Evidence"

Mr. Desai continues to beg the question. He has never established his point.

TFO:
"3) There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering the termination of the ritvik system upon his departure"

Reply:
TFO is lying. There is the May 28 conversation. Besides, even if there weren't, it doesn't matter, for the proxy-guru system imagined by the ritivkvadis was never even established in the first place.

TFO:
"4) There is also no indirect evidence on the basis of the instruction, sastra, other instructions, special circumstances, the background, the nature and the context of the instruction, nor anything else we can conceive of, that gives valid grounds for stopping the ritvik system at the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure. Interestingly, in examining these other factors we find only further indirect evidence supporting the continued application of the order."

Reply:
TFO is either lying or completely ignorant of the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"In view of the above analysis, we humbly submit that the revoking of Srila Prabhupada's final instruction regarding initiation on November 14th 1977, was at best an arbitrary and unauthorized act."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. He has far from substantiated that the July 9 letter constitute Srila Prabhupada's final instructions on initiation.

TFO:
"We can find no evidence to support assumptions a) and b) which, as we have said, form the very foundation of ISKCON's current guru policy."

Reply:
False. The author must be completely ignorant of the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"To re-comply with Srila Prabhupada's original order is our only option as disciples, followers and servants of Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
The author is begging the question. He speaks as if he has established that the July 9 letter contains Srila Prabhupada's final and all conclusive instructions on initiations after his departure, but he has failed to produce any evidence for this assertion.

TFO:
"To further assist with this compliance we will now go through the May 28th conversation and a number of related objections that appear to have given rise to confusion."

Reply:
This section of TFO is being dealt with in DOMD.

TFO:
"RELATED OBJECTIONS

1. "Srila Prabhupada has not mentioned the use of ritviks in his books"

i. The word 'ritvik' and its derivatives actually have 32 separate references in Srila Prabhupada's books, only slightly less than the word diksa and its derivatives, which has 41 separate references in Srila Prabhupada books. Certainly, the use of ritvik priests to assist in the conduct of ceremonies is a concept that is fully sanctioned in Srila Prabhupada's books."

Reply:
This is a false argument. Mr. Desai fails to mention that nowhere does Srila Prabhupada use the word ritvik in connection with post-samadhi initiations. In fact, Srila Prabhupada doesn't even mention the concept of post-samadhi initiations anywhere in his teachings. Besides being false the argument is also a non sequitur. The fact that priests exist is not a justification for the ritvik theory.

TFO:
"ii. Although spiritual principles were covered extensively by Srila Prabhupada in his books, the specifics concerning those principles would often not be given (for example in the area of Deity worship).

Except that the spiritual principle of initiation into the disciplic succession is very extensively dealt with in Srila Prabhupada's books.

TFO:
"These specific details would usually be communicated by other means such as letters, and practical demonstration. Thus, one needs to distinguish between the principle of diksa or initiation, and the details of the initiation ceremony."

Reply:
Does the author think that asserting the identity of one's spiritual master is a mere detail? If this is so why has he written the Final Order?

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada never defined diksa in terms of any ritualistic ceremony, but as the receipt of trancendental knowledge that leads to liberation:

'In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Vishnu. This is the purpose of diksha, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness.' (C.c., Madhya, 9.61)

'Diksha actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.'" (C.c., Madhya, 4.111)

Reply:
What then is the objection to Srila Prabhupada's disciples giving diksa? They are also fully qualified to give spiritual knowledge.

TFO:
"Diksha is the process by which one awakens his transcendental knowledge and vanquishes all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksha.' (C.c., Madhya, 15.108)

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

'So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja.' (General Lectures, 76/12/10)

'Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation.' (BTG, Search for the Divine)

'Disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. (Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)

'The chanting of Hare Krsna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction in that matter, the initiation is already there.' (Letter to Tamala Krishna Goswami, 68/8/15)

'Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge ... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.' (Chandigarh, 16/10/76)

Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules. Disciples: As long as they are following, then he is ... Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right. (Morning Walk, Detroit, 13/06/76)

'... unless there is discipline, there is no suggestion of disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline.' (Morning Walk, Mayapur, 8/03/76)

'If one does not observe the discipline, then he is not disciple.' (SB Lectures, 1974)

Reply:
Note how all of the above quotes do not in any way support a proxy-guru system as imagined by TFO. If that was the case the quotes would also prove that anyone is free to take initiation from Jiva Goswami or Lord Brahma.

TFO:
"Thus the ceremony is a formality performed to solidify in the mind of the disciple the serious commitment he has made to the process of diksa. Such commitments include:

Receiving transcendental knowledge which will purify him of all contamination Maintaining the determination to always follow the order of the diksa guru To begin enthusiastically executing the spiritual master's orders.

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

1. Recommendation by an official of the institution, usually the Temple President. 2. Acceptance by acting ritvik. 3. The participation in a fire yajna. 4. The taking of a spiritual name.

It is only points two and four which necessarily involves a ritvik priest. The other two are usually carried out by the temple president.

As mentioned previously, nowhere is it ever stated that the guru and disciple must co-exist on the same planet in order for the disciple to receive any element of diksa, such as transcendental knowledge, annihilation of sinful reactions, a fire yajna ceremony and a spiritual name. "

Reply Nowhere in our tradition did anyone receive diksa from someone who was not on the same planet. It never happened. How will the guru-parampara continue in this way? The spiritual knowledge was passed down to us from guru to disciple. What will happen a hundred years from now if this system of transmission of knowledge is not preserved in the traditional way?

Even now some disciples cannot understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted, what to speak of someone, like the author, who has not even been initiated by anyone? How will this situation improve if we do not very strictly adhere to the guru-parampara? If anyone can receive transcendental knowledge and have his sinful reactions erradicated just by reading books, what would stop an aspiring disciple from taking diksa from Jiva Goswami? He wrote even more books than Srila Prabhupada.

If everyone is a Prabhupada disciple, who will settle the present and future controversies that are bound to arise? Srila Prabhupada set up the GBC to act as the ultimate authority of ISKCON after his departure. If the traditional guru-parampara system is dismantled it is against the desire of the GBC, which means it is against the desire of Srila Prabhupada. If the GBC cannot be trusted to carry out Srila Prabhupada's desires, who can? TFO?

TFO:
"On the other hand, every element of diksa - knowledge transmission, the yajna etc. - can be given quite easily without the guru's physical presence. This was demonstrated practically by Srila Prabhupada, as he gave all the elements of diksa through intermediaries such as his disciples and books. Thus, no spiritual principles are changed through the use of ritviks. Only a change of detail is involved."

Reply:
Here TFO is proposing that the the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada from this world is a mere detail.

TFO:
"Thus, to put into perspective the use of ritviks, we can see that we are dealing with the details of one element of a ceremony, a ceremony which itself constitutes but one element, and an unnecessary element at that, of the transcendental process of diksa. Thus the lack of specific mention in Srila Prabhupada's books, or previous historical application, regarding the use of ritviks in initiation procedures, is consistent with Srila Prabhupada's general approach to matters surrounding initiation; specific mention in his books being directly proportional to the significance of the innovations involved."

Reply:
According to that principle, which, by the way, is entirely without basis, the ritvik system should have been mentioned a lot, since is the most extreme "innovation." As it is, it is not mentioned anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's books, lectures, letters, or conversations, so we can safely conclude that the proxy-guru system has no merit and should be discarded to the garbage bin where it belongs.

TFO:
2. "'How can pariksa (mutual examination between disciple and guru), an essential element of diksa, be achieved without physical contact?'

The basis for this belief comes from the stated requirement that a disciple must 'approach', 'inquire from' and 'render service' to a guru (Bg. 4:34), and that the guru must 'observe' the disciple (C.c. 24:330). However, if we examine these verses further one actually discovers the following:

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

Reply:
Why would there be a need to mention that? It is implied. It is also not mentioned that rendering service etc. does _not_ necessitate physical contact.

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

Reply:
Here TFO is giving a false argument. For Srila Prabhupada's disciples, the diksa had already been performed. According to the author's logic Srila Prabhupada was not a disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati after the latter's departure.

TFO:
"The 'inquiring' is done so the 'spiritual master' can 'impart knowledge'. However, to 'impart knowledge' is the definition of siksa, and it is already accepted that in order to impart siksa, or to accept enquiries pertaining to siksa, the guru does not need to be on the planet - see Appendices. And as explained above, by the logic of this proposition no one had had any 'knowledge imparted' to them since Nov 14th, 1977.' False reductio ad absurdum:

1. To approach, inquire, and render service, one must be on the same planet. 2 None of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have been on the same planet with him since 11/14/77. 3 Therefore no one has had any knowledge imparted to him since 11/14/77. 4. This is absurd."

Reply:
This ia an error. It is understood that the connection is made with the guru at initiation. Then by serving and inquiring from the guru transcendental knowledge is revealed. This situation is not nullified after the guru's departure since the connection has already been made. Once the disciple has been initiated, knowledge can be imparted by books, and by the Lord in the heart.

Devotees who served far away from Srila Prabhupada received the same knowledge as those who served in his presence. If physical presence is immaterial for the connection to be made with the disciplic succession, then why don't we take initiation from Jiva Goswami or Vyasadeva himself, or Narada Muni? Why stop at Srila Prabhupada?

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

'In our Krsna Consciousness movement the requirement is that one must be prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life ... In western countries especially we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles.' (C.c. Madhya, 24:330, purport) This facility to use representatives is again repeated a few lines later when discussing the observation required for prospective second initiation candidates:"

Reply:
We should note that the author is begging the question by his usage of the word "repeated," for there is nothing in the first quote from Srila Prabhupada that facilitates the use of representatives in the initiation process.

TFO:
"'In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representatives for at least 6 months to a year.'" (C.c., Madhya, 24:330, purport)

Reply:
How does the above quote from Srila Prabhupada support the proxy-guru system? Srila Prabhupada speaks about guidance of the prospect disciple by the older devotees who are representing their spiritual master. How does this point to a proxy-guru system? It has always been the custom in our line that the older devotees take care of the younger devotees, and assist the guru in guiding them. What has that to do with a ritvik system of initiation?

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

'The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no less then 6 months or a year.' (C.c., Madhya, 24:330, purport)

Bearing in mind the way in which Srila Prabhupada had set up the society, the above stipulation would have been impossible to observe. He could not possibly have observed every one of his thousands of disciples for a full 6 months. Thus, the use of representatives was not just a matter of choice, but totally unavoidable if the above requirement was to have been fulfilled by Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
How does this support the idea that Srila Prabhupada's disciples should not initiate their own disciples?

TFO:
"If personal (as in him being physically involved) pariksa by the guru was an inviolable sastric principle, why would Srila Prabhupada have purposely set up a preaching mission (with disciples and centres all around the world) that rendered such personal examination impossible?"

Reply:
The above line of reasoning is a non sequitur. TFO wants to say that because personal association is not required, therefore the idea of a proxy-guru system is legitimate. But it doesn't follow that because older disciples assist their spiritual master in taking care of new and aspiring disciples, therefore we should dismantle the guru-parampara system and institute a concoction instead.

TFO:
"One is, in effect, arguing that Srila Prabhupada only achieved his preaching success at the expense of violating sastra, an argument commonly used by other 'Gaudiya Vaisnava' groups in India." Reply:
Argumentum ad verecundium

TFO:
"All the above points are further substantiated by the strongest evidence possible - extensive practical example from the acarya himself: Srila Prabhupada initiated the majority of his disciples without any personal pariksa. Thus, Srila Prabhupada instituted a system whereby approaching his representatives for diksa was the same as approaching him directly."

Reply:
TFO is a presenting a false principle. Just because Srila Prabhupada was assisted by his representatives in the initiation process does not mean we should give up the ancient vedic system of transmitting knowledge and replace it with a concoction that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"It may be argued that the elimination of personal pariksa was justified because the guru was still present on the planet. Thus, at least personal pariksa could theoretically have occured. However this argument has no basis since:

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

When describing the use of representatives for personal pariksa, Srila Prabhupada never states that they can only exist if he is on the planet. What hitherto unmentioned sastric principle forces a limitation on the use of representatives in certain circumstances?"

Reply:
This is a strawman. The argument is not about whether the guru can take the assistance of his disciples, in whatever circumstances, but whether or not the ancient guru-parampara system should be dismantled in favor of a proxy-guru system.

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

Reply:
This is a moot point. Nobody disputes this.

TFO:
"That diksa was given without physical contact is itself proof that diksa can be acheived without personal pariksa."

Reply:
This is a false argument. There was never any diksa given without Srila Prabhupada being personally present on the planet. This means that pariksa could still take place between him and his disciple.

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

Reply:
This is a false argument. Even though Srila Prabhupada sometimes relied on the judgement of his representatives in certifying an aspiring disciple, he was still personally present to accept the disciple. A situation where Srila Prabhupada is no longer physically present can never be compared to that.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada made it very clear what standards he expected in a disciple; the Temple Presidents and ritviks were meant to see them continued. The standards for initiation today are identical to those established by Srila Prabhupada whilst he was present. So if he requested not to be consulted whilst he was present, what makes us think he would urgently want to intervene now?"

Reply:
This is a false argument. That Srila Prabhupada had trust in his disciples, and in many cases left it to them to certify new initiates, does not mean that there is no need to continue the guru-parampara the traditional way, and that hereafter Srila Prabhupada will remain as the sole diksa-guru.

TFO:
"The only concern for us is to ensure that the standards are rigidly maintained without change or speculation."

If the author believes in that, why does he want to change the traditional Vedic system of transmission of knowledge and introduce a system of initiation which has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra?

TFO:
"False reductio ad absurdum:

1. Srila Prabhupada did not personally intervene when he was on the planet. 2. He wants to intervene when he is not on the planet. 3. This is absurd."

Reply:
This line of reasoning constitutes an error. Proposition 2 is a straw man. Nobody ever suggested that Srila Prabhupada wants to intervene when he is not on the planet.

TFO:
3. "'We may accept Srila Prabhupada, but how do we know he has accepted us as his disciple even in his physical absence?'

On July 7th, when setting up the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada clearly states that the ritviks could initiate without any permission from himself."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. Srila Prabhupada never set up a ritvik system on July 7th.

TFO:
"Thus, Srila Prabhupada was not involved in the process of screening, approving and initiating new disciples. The ritviks had full authority and discretion. Srila Prabhupada's physical involvement was not required."

Reply:
But he was still present as the supreme authority of ISKCON, and he was still accepting the disciples as his own. Another thing is that, being such a fervent agitator for the ritvik system, it is amazing that the author has not, to this date, taken initiation from any of the ritvik advocates. Why has the author not taken advantage of the ritvik process and in this way connected himself with Srila Prabhupada? As we have seen many places in TFO he professes to know the innermost desires of Srila Prabhupada, better even than his intimate devotees. How can he have such firm knowledge of what Srila Prabhupada wanted without being connected with him in parampara?

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, whoever you consider deserves. That will depend on discretion. Tamala Krishna Goswami: Discretion. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. (Room Conversation, Vrindavana, July 7th, 1977)

Furthermore, the names given by the ritviks would be entered by Tamala Krishna Goswami into the 'initiated disciples' book. Thus, externally at least, Srila Prabhupada would not even have been aware of the disciple's existence. Consequently, the process now would be the same as it was then, since the ritvik has full power of attorney."

Reply:
How can it be the same now, when Srila Prabhupada is no longer with us? Before his departure the disciple, even though Srila Prabhupada was not aware of him, could still go see Srila Prabhupada or write him a letter.

TFO:
4. "'Only if diksa initiation has occured before the guru leaves the planet is it possible to carry on approaching , enquiring and serving him in his physical absence.'

At least the above assertion concedes the point that it is possible to approach, enquire and serve a physically absent spiritual master. The injunction that this is only possible - 'if the diksa link is made before the guru leaves the planet' - is pure invention, with no reference in Srila Prabhupada`s books, and thus can be ignored."

Reply:
It is stated in the May 28 conversation what Srila Prabhupada wanted. Besides it is not pure invention that the link to the sampradaya is made while the guru is physically present. It is according to the guru, sadhu, and sastra. In contrast to this we find the notion that the link to the sampradaya can be made through a guru who has left the planet is not mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books - it is pure invention - and thus it can be ignored.

TFO:
"Diksa does not even require a formal initiation ceremony to make it function; it is the transmission of transcedental knowledge from guru to receptive disciple (along with the anihilation of sinful reactions):"

Reply:
Who takes the sinful reactions of the disciple if Srila Prabhupada is no longer present?

TFO:
"'....disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion.'" ( SPL Dinesh 69.10.31 )

TFO doesn't seem to accept the disciplic succession. It doesn't accept that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are the continuation of the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"'Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.' (16.10.76)

It is irrational to assert that the transcedental process of diksa cannot work properly if the guru is not physically present during a non-essential fire ceremony; particularly since:"

Reply:
This is a straw man. No one ever suggested that diksa cannot work properly if the guru is not personally present at the fire ceremony.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada was often not physically present during initiation ceremonies. They were frequently carried out by his representatives, ie., temple presidents, senior sannyasis and ritviks

It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefitting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been physically absent for nearly two decades)."

Reply:
TFO is offering another straw man. It has never been disputed that those who were initiated during Srila Prabhupada'' presence do not still benefit from the diksa.

TFO:
"It might be argued that although Srila Prabhupada was not present at these initiations, still he was physically present on the same planet at the time they took place. So is the guru's physical presence on the planet during initiation essential to diksa? In order to lend weight to this argument we would need to find an injunction in Srila Prabhupada's books to the effect that:"

Reply:
TFO is trying to establish the false principle that if something is not specifically stated in Srila Prabhupada's books it becomes invalid. According to that principle the proxy-guru system has to be rejected because it is not specifically mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books.

TFO:
"'Diksa can only take place if the guru is within a distance, not greater than the earth's diameter, of his disciple during the non-essential fire ceremony formality'.

To date no one has been able to locate such an injunction. Rather as the quote below shows, a very common example of diksa in our philosophy actually contradicts the above proposition:"

To date it has also not been possible to locate an injunction that justifies the proxy-guru system.

TFO:
"'So there was no difficulty in communicating with Manu or Manu's son Iksvaku. The communication was there, or the radio system was so nice that communication could be transferred from one planet to another.'" (BG Lecture, 1968)

Reply:
This example is not not applicable to this discussion. There is no mention that the transmission took place through someone else, like a proxy representative. Manu and his immediate sons could communicate mystically. We cannot. Manu and Iksvaku lived at the dawn of creation. Their example is not applicable to us.

TFO:
"It would appear that diksa is not dependent on physical distances between guru and disciple."

Reply:
It would appear that this example is not applicable to our case. We are dealing with self-realized souls here, for whom such a distance would not have been a problem. In those days there were interplanetary exchanges going on without any inhibitions. How is such an example relevant to our present Kali-yuga situation?

TFO:
5. "'What you are proposing sounds suspiciously like Christianity!'

i. We are not proposing the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada is - in the final order."

Reply:
This is begging the question. It has not been proven that the July 9 letter proposes the ritvik system. It is actually quite obnoxious to keep suggesting that Srila Prabhupada would disrupt the ancient guru-parampara and introduce in its place a concoction that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"Thus even if it is like Christianity, we still have to follow it, since it is the order of the guru."

Reply:
Whether it is the order of the guru, is highly doubtful. Why would Srila Prabhupada introduce a system that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra? Besides, if the author really believes that we should follow the order of the guru, why doesn't he follow the GBC? It is the order of the guru.

TFO:
"ii. Srila Prabhupada clearly sanctioned the idea of the Christians continuing to follow the departed Jesus Christ as their guru. He taught that anyone who followed Christ's teachings was a disciple, and would achieve the level of liberation that was being offered by Jesus Christ:

Madhudvisa: Is there any way for a Christian to do without the help of a Spiritual Master. To reach the spiritual sky through believing the words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings? Srila Prabhupada: I don't follow. Tamala Krishna Goswami: Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the ... Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow the Spiritual Master. How can you say without? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means that you are following the Spiritual Master. So where is the opportunity of being without Spiritual Master? Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living Spiritual Master. Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of ... Spiritual Master is eternal...so your question is 'without Spiritual Master'. Without Spiritual Master you cannot be at any stage of your life. You may accept this Spiritual master or that Spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible", when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ." (Morning Walk, Seattle, 2/10/68)

Reply:
Does this mean we can read the books of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and then he is our initiating spiritual master?

TFO:
"'Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go to heaven, that is all. That is a planet in the material world. A devotee of Lord Jesus Christ is one who is strictly following the ten commandments. [...] Therefore the conclusion is that the devotees of Lord Jesus Christ are promoted to the heavenly planets which are within this material world.' (Letter to Bhagavan Das, 70/03/02)

Srila Prabhupada: Actually, one who is guided by Jesus will certainly get liberation. (Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9)

Srila Prabhupada: '....Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, great personality.....You follow one acarya, like Christians , they follow Christ, acarya. The Mohammedans, they follow acarya, Mohammed. That is good. You must follow some acarya.....Evam parampara-praptam.'" (Conv. Melbourne, May 20, 1975)

So Srila Prabhupada is saying here that we must follow the acarya - 'evam parampara-praptam.'"

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada is our acarya so we must follow him. He set up the GBC to be the ultimate authority of ISKCON after he left, so we must follow the GBC. Srila Prabhupada expressed very clearly in the May 28 conversation that he wanted his disciples to continue the disciplic succession and initiate disciples of their own, so we must follow that order.

TFO:
"iii. This objection to being 'Christian' is ironic, since the current guru system in ISKCON has itself adopted certain Christian procedures:

The theology behind the GBC voting in gurus is similar to the system of the College of Cardinals voting in Popes in the Catholic Church:

'Voting procedures [...] for guru candidate [...] who will be established by the voting members. Voting for guru process [...] by a two third vote of the GBC [...] all GBCs are candidates for appointment as guru.' (GBC Resolutions)

Similarly the GBC calls itself 'the highest ecclesiatical body guiding ISKCON' (Back To Godhead 1990-1991): again 'Christian' terminology. These particular 'Christian' practices were never taught by Jesus, and were totally condemned by Srila Prabhupada:"

Reply:
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

TFO:
"'Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgement.' (C.c., Madhya 1:220)

Reply:
What is the basis for calling the voting of GBC 'mundane votes?' Srila Prabhupada himself named the GBC to be the ultimate governing body of ISKCON.

TFO:
"Srila Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social, and ecclesiastical conventions. GBC votes do not create a guru."

Reply:
Obviously it does, since it was established by Srila Prabhupada to be the ultimate authority of ISKCON. If the GBC should not deal with the guru-issue in ISKCON, who should? Should Mr. Desai, who is an outsider, that never took initiation from anyone, resolve ISKCON's problems? Are we to believe that he should run Srila Prabhupada's movement instead of the GBC, who, after all, consists of Srila Prabhupada's own intimate disciples specifically appointed to lead ISKCON in his absence?

TFO:
"6. 'The ritviks give a type of diksa. Srila Prabhupada is only our siksa guru.'

i. The function of the ritvik is distinct from that of the diksa guru. His whole purpose is to assist the diksa guru in initiating disciples, not take them for himself

ii. The ritvik only regulates standards for initiation, and gives a spiritual name, he does not even necessarily perform the fire yajna. This was normally done by the Temple President - and he is certainly not the diksa guru

iii. Why not allow Srila Prabhupada to be what he wants to be? He is certainly our siksa guru, but as he clearly indicated on July 9th, he was also to be our diksa guru."

Reply:
This is begging the question. In the May 28 conversation Srila Prabhupada clearly directed his disciples to continue the disciplic succession and take disciples of their own.

TFO:
"iv. Since Srila Prabhupada is our predominant siksa guru, he will be our de facto diksa guru anyway, since:

He will give the divya jnana or transcendental knowledge - definition of diksa"

Reply:
There is more to the definition of diksa than that. Diksa also means to initiate someone into the disciplic succession. If diksa is only to give divya jnana, it would not be distinguished from siksa. TFO is also presenting a false assumption, i.e. that Srila Prabhupada will be our de facto diksa guru. There is no doubt that Srila Prabhupada will be everyones siksa guru, that doesn't mean he will be everyone's diksa-guru as well.

TFO:
"He will have planted the bhakti lata bija - definition of diksa."

Reply:
In many cases this is done by Srila Prabhupada's disciple. There is no reason to assume that only Srila Prabhupada can plant the bhakti-lata-bija. What kind of faith does one have in Srila Prabhupada by suggesting that he couldn't even create one disciple who could continue planting bhakti-seeds?

TFO:
"Devotees can assist in the above two activities (by preaching, book distribution etc.), but they are vartma-pradasaka gurus, not diksa gurus."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question here besides expressing his wishful thinking. Certainly we don't need to hear from TFO who can be diksa-guru or not.

TFO:
"v. The predominant siksa guru usually becomes the diksa guru anyway:
'Srila Prabhupada is the foundational siksa guru for all ISKCON devotees [...] Srila Prabhupada's instructions are the essential teachings for every ISKCON devotee.' (GBC Resolutions, No. 35, 1994)

'Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on.' (C.c. Adi, 1.35)

'It is the duty of the siksa guru or diksa guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa guru and diksa guru, and generally the siksa guru later on becomes the diksa guru.'" (S.B. 4:12:32)

Reply:
Note how none of the above quotes support a proxy-guru system.

TFO:
"7. 'If diksa and siksa are the same, why make such a fuss about Srila Prabhupada being the diksa guru?'

The confusion between diksa and siksa gurus occurs because their titles are confused with their functions. Thus it is sometimes assumed that only the siksa guru can give siksa, not the diksa guru."

Reply:
This is not assumed by anyone. It is common knowledge in ISKCON that the diksa-guru also gives siksa. In fact for most devotees in ISKCON the diksa-guru is the main siksa-guru as well.

TFO:
"However, as the last verse just quoted demonstrates, the diksa guru also instructs. This should be obvious, otherwise how else will he transmit divya jnana?:"

Reply:
This can also justify the traditional Vedic guru succession we find in ISKCON. TFO:
"Pradyumna: Guru-padasrayah. 'First one must take shelter of the lotus feet of a spiritual master.' Tasmat Krsna-diksadi-siksanam. Tasmat, 'from him', Krsna-diksadi-siksanam, 'one should take Krsna-Diksa, initiation, and Siksa.' Srila Prabhupada: Diksa means divya-jnanam ksapayati iti diksa. Which explains the divya-jnana, transcendental, that is Diksa. Di, divya, diksanam. Diksa. So divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge ... If you don't accept a spiritual master, how you'll get transcen ... You'll be taught here and there, here and there, and waste time. Waste time for the teacher and waste your valuable time. Therefore you have to be guided by an expert spiritual master. Read it. Pradyumna: Krsna-diksadi-siksanam. Srila Prabhupada: Siksanam. We have to learn. If you don't learn, how you'll make progress? Then? (Room Conversation, Bhubaneswar, January 27, 1977)

That transcendental siksa is the essence of diksa, is evident from the most well known verse on the guru-disciple relationship - Bg. 4.34. In this verse the word 'Upadeksyanti' is translated in the word for word as meaning 'initiate'. The verse however states that this 'initiation' requires the guru to 'impart knowledge', and that this is assisted through the disciple 'inquiring'."

Reply:
This is irrelevant. Nobody disputes this.

TFO:
"Consequently the 'Prabhupada is siksa not diksa' advocates are caught in a logistical trap of their own making. If Srila Prabhupada is capable of 'imparting knowledge' when he is not on the planet - then he must, by definition be giving divya jnana - transcendental knowledge. Thus, if Srila Prabhupada can be a siksa guru without the need for physical interaction, then why not diksa also?"

Reply:
Because for diksa the physical presence of the guru is required. Otherwise how will anyone get connected to the disciplic succession? If the physical presence of the guru is not required, as TFO suggest, the inevitable consequence of that will be that any fool and rascal can just proclaim himself a disciple of whomever he fancies. Then what will stop someone from taking initiation from Jiva Goswami, or Vyasadeva, or why not Lord Brahma, or even Sri Krishna Himself?

TFO:
"It is ludicrous to argue that Srila Prabhupada can give siksa when not on the planet if acting as a siksa guru, but he can not give siksa if we change his title. The very fact that he can be a siksa Guru whilst not on the planet, is itself evidence that he simultaneously can give diksa."

Reply:
TFO is being absurd. If the mere fact that we are getting knowledge from Srila Prabhupada's books means that we can take initiation from him when he is not on the planet, then we can take initiation from any previous acarya whose books we read. Vysadeva wrote all the Vedas, let us take initiation from him.

TFO:
"Some individuals have gone the next step; arguing that Srila Prabhupada can not even give transcendental siksa without a physical body."

Reply:
This is a straw-man. Nobody has argued like that. What disciple of Srila Prabhupada would argue that he cannot get instructions from his spiritual master unless he is physically present?

TFO:
"If this were the case, one wonders why Srila Prabhupada went to such effort to write so many books and set up a trust with the sole purpose of propagating them for the next ten thousand years? If it is no longer possible to receive transcendental instruction from Srila Prabhupada's books, why are we distributing them, and why are people still surrendering purely on the strength of them?"

Reply:
Straw-man. Nobody disputes that Srila Prabhupada is making devotees through his books.

TFO:
"8. 'Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure devotees?'

No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to allow initiations to continue."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada did not set up a proxy-guru system to allow initiations to continue. There was no need to set up a system like that for initiations to continue. The traditional guru-parampara would also allow initiations to continue. Why would Srila Prabhupada change the traditional guru-parampara system if there was not a need? He had many disciples who were ready to continue the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"Whether or not Srila Prabhupada created pure devotees is not relevant to his clear and unequivocal final order."

TFO is begging the question. It has not even begun to establish that there is such an unequivocal final order.

TFO:
"As disciples our duty is simply to follow the instructions of the guru. It is inappropriate to abandon the guru's instruction and instead speculate as to how many pure devotees there are now, or will be in the future."

If the author believes that he should simply follow the instructions of Srila Prabhupada, why does he argue so much? Srila Prabhupada told all the devotees to follow the GBC. In the May 28 conversation he also told his disciples to become initiationg spiritual masters. Why doesn't the author follow these instructions? TFO:
"Even taking a worst case scenario, that there are in fact no pure devotees at present, one should consider the situation that existed after the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. After almost 40 years, Srila Prabhupada indicated that there was only one authorized initiating acarya produced from the Gaudiya Matha:

'Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya*. [...] Instead of inspiring our students they may sometimes pollute them. [...] they are very competent to harm our natural progress.' (Letter to Rupanuga Das, 28/5/74)

*(Srila Prabhupada used the terms 'acarya' and 'guru' interchangeably:

'I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become acarya.' [...] You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to be guru. A small temple and 'guru'. What kind of guru?' (Morning Walk, 22/4/77)*

This could be seen as a damning indictment of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's preaching work. However, it would be extremely unwise to argue that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a 'failure'. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is known to have said that if his mission only produced one pure devotee he would have considered it a success. We all know that he was successful.

In any case, the implementation of a ritvik system does not rule out, a priori, the possible existence of pure devotees. There are various scenarios that could easily accommodate both ritviks and pure devotees, e.g.:"

Reply:
Why should TFO speculate on this? Srila Prabhupada's instruction is clear.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada may have created many pure devotees who have no desire to become diksa gurus. There is no evidence to suggest that the most advanced devotees in ISKCON must necessarily be those individuals who put themselves up for election each year."

Reply:
Here TFO is offereing a straw man. What is the relevancy that "there is no evidence to suggest that the most advanced devotees in ISKCON must necessarily etc."? Besides, who, if not the GBC, should elect the new gurus? Srila Prabhupada designated the GBC to be the ultimate authority in ISKCON in his absence. What's wrong with the GBC dealing with this?

TFO:
"These pure devotees may simply wish to humbly assist Srila Prabhupada's mission."

Reply:
Who is Krishna Kant Desai to dictate to the pure devotees what they may or may not do?

TFO:
"It is nowhere stated that it is mandatory for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru."

Reply:
Nowhere is it stated that it is mandatory for the pure devotee, _not_ to become diksa guru. Rather the traditional Vedic system of guru-parampara is that those who are the most qualified disciples continue the disciplic succession after the acarya has left.

TFO:
"Such persons would be delighted to work within the ritvik system if that was their guru's order."

Reply:
But they would certainly not want to work within the ritvik system if it were not the order.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada's desire may be for large numbers of instructing gurus, but not necessarily for more initiating ones.

Reply:
TFO is speculating on what Srila Prabhupada's desire may or may not be. There is no need for that. Srila Prabhupada's desire is already clear from the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"This would be consistent with the earlier quoted instruction for everyone to become a siksa guru, and Srila Prabhupada's caution not to take disciples. It would also be consistent with the fact that Srila Prabhupada had single-handedly already put in place the success of his mission:"

Reply:
If Srila Prabhupada had already put in place the success of his mission, what then is the reason to suggest that the GBC, who were put in place by Srila Prabhupada personally to lead ISKCON in his absence, will not be successful in carrying out his desires?

TFO:
Guest: Are you planning to choose a successor? Srila Prabhupada: It is already successful. Guest: But there must be somebody you know, needed to handle the thing. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle. Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will ... Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there. (Room Conversation, Mexico, 12/2/75)

'After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost ended. So you have to carry on, and these books will do everything.' (Room Conversation, 18/2/76)

'So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue with your endeavour. Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter.' (Arrival Conversation, Vrindavan, 17/5/77)

Reporter: Who will succeed you when you die? Srila Prabhupada: I will never die! Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! Srila Prabhupada: I will live forever from my books and you will utilise. (Press Conference, San Francisco, 16/7/75)

Reporter: Are you training a successor? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, my Guru Maharaja is there. (Press Conference, San Francisco, 16/7/75)

'Only Lord Caitanya can take my place. He will take care of the movement.' (Room Conversation, 2/11/77)

Interview: What happens when that inevitable time comes a successor is needed. Ramesvara: He is asking about the future, who will guide the movement in the future. Srila Prabhupada: They will guide, I am training them. Interviewer: Will there be one spiritual leader though? Srila Prabhupada: No. I am training GBC, 18 all over the world." ( Interview, Los Angeles, 10/6/76)

Reply:
Note how none of the above quotes suggests that the traditional Vedic guru-parampara system be dismantled and replaced with a proxy-guru system. Note also how Srila Prabhupada is saying, in the last quote, that the GBC will be the spiritual leader of ISKCON.

TFO:
"Reporter: Do you expect to name one person as your successor or have you already? Srila Prabhupada: That I am not contemplating now. But there is no need of one person." (Interview, Los Angeles, 4/6/76)

Reply:
This quote does not prove the proxy-guru system. Besides no one has suggested that one person be the leader of ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada set up the GBC to lead ISKCON.

TFO:
"Interviewer: I was wondering if he had a successor to do...Do you have a successor to take your place when you die? Srila Prabhupada: Not yet settled up. Not yet settled up. Interviewer: So what process. Srila Prabhupada: We have got secretaries. (Interview, New York, 14/7/76)

Thus Srila Prabhupada not authorizing any of his disciples to act as diksa guru, does not necessarily have to be because they were not pure devotees, but because it was not required for them to also take up such a role."

Reply:
This is a misinterpretation. What Srila Prabhupada said was that there would not be any one person in charge.

TFO:
"We do have an important role to play, just as when Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet, but as assistants, not successor acaryas:"

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada has no where stated that his disciples should not succeed him as gurus. On the other hand we have provided numerous quotes where he explicitly says that he wants his disciples to become spiritual masters after him.

TFO:
"'The GBC should all be instructor gurus. I am the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing.'" (Letter to Madhudvisa Swami, 4/8/75)

Reply:
This quote does not prove the proxy-guru system.

TFO:
"'Sometimes a diksa guru is not present always. Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the siksa guru.'" (Bg. Lectures, 1974)

Reply:
This quote does not point to a proxy-guru system. In fact the proxy-guru system envisioned by the ritvikvadis is no where mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures, or conversations.

TFO:
"Thus the issue is not whether Srila Prabhupada created any pure devotees, but the fact that he did set up the ritvik system."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada never set up such a system. What he did, was send out a communiqu� to all the devotees notifying them of an emergency arrangement for initiations because he was too ill anylonger to initiate new disciples.

TFO:
"Although the diksa guru at this time is not physically present, that does not mean he is not the diksa guru."

What it means is that he was physically present during the time when the disciple received diksa from him. There is no instance in our line where someone took diksa from a guru who was not personally present. If this was a bona fide principle what would stop us from taking diksa from Lord Brahma?

TFO:
"In his absence we are expected to take instruction from bona fide siksa gurus, of which there may eventually be millions."

Reply:
That we take siksa from many bona fide siksa gurus does not mean that we do not need to take diksa to become connected with the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"9. 'As long as a guru is following strictly it does not matter how advanced he is, he will eventually become qualified and take his disciples back to Godhead.'

As discussed previously, in order to act as a diksa guru one must first attain the highest platform of devotional service, namely mahabhagavata,"

Reply:
Here TFO is lying. It is no where stated that to give diksa one _must_ be a maha-bhagavata.

TFO:
"and then be authorized to initiate by one`s predecessor acarya. The above post-dated cheque guru-philosophy is an offensive speculation as the following quote illustrates:"

Reply:
There is no evidence of a "post-dated cheque guru-philsophy." In fact it is offensive to call the traditional Vedic system of guru-parampara a "post-dated cheque guru-philosophy," especially when Srila Prabhupada has given clear instructions to his disciples that they should continue the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"'Although Prthu Maharaja was factually an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he rejected those praises because the qualities of the Supreme Person were not yet manifest in him. He wanted to stress that one who does not actually possess these qualities should not try to engage his followers and devotees in offering him glory for them, even though these qualities might be manifest in the future. If a man who does not factually possess the attributes of a great personality engages his followers in praising him with the expectation that such attributes will develop in the future, that sort of praise is actually an insult.' (S.B. 4.15.23.)

Just as it would be an insult to address a blind man as `lotus eyed one', to address partially conditioned souls as being 'as good as God' (GII, point 8, page 15) is similarly offensive; not only to the person being falsely flattered, but also to the pure disciplic succession of factually realised souls, on up to the Supreme Lord Himself.

To 'strictly follow' is the process by which a disciple advances, not a qualification in and of itself."

Reply:
"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 Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world." (SPL to Madhusudana, 2 November, 1967)

"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 Krsna. That is the only qualification. And that is very reasonable. If you do not this, do not know the subject matter, how can you be a teacher? Eh? A teacher means he knows the thing. He knows the science. So only qualification of the spiritual master, as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, kiba sudra, kiba vipra, nyasi kene naya, yei krsna-tattva-vetta: 'Anyone who knows the science of Krsna...' This is the science of Krsna, this Bhagavad-gita. If anyone knows perfectly, then he becomes the spiritual master. And there is need of spiritual master at the present moment. We require thousands of spiritual master to preach all over the world this science of Krsna, the science of Krsna. That will solve all problems of the world. Take it from me. We discussed amongst our confidential devotees here, and they agreed that actually this is the science which can mitigate all the problems of the world." (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.34-38 ,New York, August 17, 1966)

TFO:
"Devotees often confuse the process with the qualification, sometimes even preaching that they are one and the same. Just because someone is following strictly does not mean he is a mahabhagavat, or that he has been asked to initiate by his own spiritual master;"

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada explains uttama-adhikari in Nectar of Devotion (Chapter 3): "This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class. The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

TFO:
"and if a disciple does start initiating before he is properly qualified and authorized , he is certainly not 'strictly following' either." Reply:
This is a straw-man. No one disputes that.

TFO:
"Sometimes, devotees quote text 5 of Nectar of Instruction to prove that 'a neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples...'. For some reason they do not notice that the rest of the sentence warns disciples of such gurus that 'they cannot advance very well towards the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.' It then states:

'Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.'

Unqualified gurus are also warned:

'One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari.'" (The Nectar of Instruction, page 58)

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada explains uttama-adhikari in Nectar of Devotion (Chapter 3): "This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class. The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

TFO:
"If a guru is only offering 'insufficient guidance' he cannot, by definition, be a diksa guru, since this requires the transmission of full divya jnana. Thus we are advised that initiating gurus who cannot help one advance very well are best avoided altogether."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada, as shown many places, ordered his disciples to take up positions as spiritual masters.

TFO:
10. "The ritvik system by definition means the end of the disciplic sucession."

The disciplic succession, or guru parampara, is eternal; there is no question of it stopping. According to Srila Prabhupada, the sankirtan movement, (and hence ISKCON), will only exist for the next 9,500 years. Compared with eternity 9,500 years is nothing, a mere blip in cosmic time.

Reply:
This argument is irrelevant. It does not at all address the objection of the disciplic succession ending with the proxy-guru system. The guru-parampara may be eternal, but still Krishna comes Himself, or sends his representative to reestablish it when it has become interrupted in the material world. (Bg.4.7) How will our line continue for 9.500 years if there will be no spiritual masters to continue it?

TFO:
"This would appear to be the time period during which Srila Prabhupada shall remain the 'current link' within ISKCON, unless he or Krsna countermands the July 9th order, or some external circumstance renders the order impossible to follow (such as total thermo-nuclear annihilation)."

Reply:
This is begging the question. There is nothing to indicate that the July 9 letter constitutes Srila Prtabhupada's "final order" on initiation.

TFO:
"Previous acaryas have remained current for long periods of time, thousands (Srila Vyasadeva) or even millions of years (see quote below). We see no reason why the duration of Srila Prabhupada's reign as 'current link', even if it extends right till the end of the sankirtan movement, should pose any particular problem."

Maybe the author does not see a problem but what about Srila Prabhupada? Even great souls like Madhavacarya went to receive direct initiation from Vyasadeva in Badarikasrama. He didn't rely on some mystical remote initiation in the heart. He followed the traditional system. So did all the acaryas in our line, including Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Surely He is not in need of taking diksa from anyone, still he did so to set the example. Why should we believe the author when he tells us that Srila Prabhupada wanted to change that system and put in its place a concoction without any basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra?

TFO:
"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, Vivisvan, 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." (SPL Dayananda, 68-4-12)

Reply:
Sauce for the goose. How can we imitate Vivasvan and Manu? Clearly their examples are not applicable in our case.

TFO:
"The July 9th order is significant since it means that Srila Prabhupada shall be the prominent acarya, at least for members of ISKCON, for as long as the society exists."

Reply: TFO is begging the question here. He seems to think that the July 9 letter constitutes some kind of initiation-manual from Srila Prabhupada. In the May 28 conversation Srila Prabhupada's desire is clear on how he wanted initiations to proceed in his absence.

TFO:
"Only the direct intervention of Srila Prabhuada or Krsna can revoke the final order-(such intervention needing to be at least as clear and unequivocal as a signed directive sent to the entire society). Thus until some counter-instruction is given, the science of devotional service shall continue to be transmitted directly by Srila Prabhupada to successive generations of his disciples."

Reply:
Why a signed directive after? The directive was already given in the May 28 conversation. How can the science of devotional service continue to be transmitted directly by Srila Prabhupada when he is no longer present with us? Who do we consult when doubts arises, like in the case of this present controversy.

TFO:
"Since this is a common phenomenon in our disciplic succession, there is no cause for alarm."

Reply:
First of all the author is not a member of our disciplic succession. He is not initiated by Srila Prabhupada, neither has he been initiated by one of Srila Prabhupada's "ritvik" representatives. Second of all there is no such common phenomenon in our disciplic succession. There was never an instance in our line of someone who took diksa from a proxy-representative of some guru.

TFO:
"The succession can only be considered 'ended' if this science of devotional service is lost."

Reply:
How can the science be secured if the ritvikvadis had their way? By artificially ending the process of disciplic succession, we would be breaking the chain of transcendental knowledge.

TFO:
"On such occasions, Lord Krsna Himself usually descends to re-establish the principles of religion. As long as Srila Prabhupada's books are in circulation, this 'science' shall remain vigorously intact, and perfectly accessible."

Reply:
What if the people teaching the science of Srila Prabhupada's books are teaching it falsely? It is not that just because Srila Prabhupada's books are available then everyone will automatically understand their purports without any problem. That's why the bona fide spiritual master, who is strictly adhering to Srila Prabhupada's desire, is needed. If the GBC cannot secure that, who can? If Srila Prabhupada's immediate and most intimate disciple cannot be trusted to do that, who can?

TFO:
"11. 'The ritvik system means an end to the guru-disciple relationship which has been the tradition for thousands of years.'

The ritvik system involves linking potentially unlimited numbers of sincere disciples with the greatest acarya who ever blessed the earth, namely Srila Prabhuada."

Reply:
How can the proxy guru system connect one with Srila Prabhupada? It is a complete speculation. How will a complete speculation connect us with Srila Prabhupada? Besides the traditional guru-parampara system also has the potential of linking an unlimited number of sincere disciples with Srila Prabhupada. Why introduce a speculation when the same thing can be accomplished by following guru, sadhu, and sastra?

TFO:
"These disciples will have a relationship with Srila Prabhupada based on studying his books and serving his society."

Reply:
So will the ones who have been initiated in the traditional way. Why introduce a speculation?

TFO:
"Within the society there is also ample opportunity for unlimited numbers of siksa guru relationships to exist."

Reply:
The same thing is also true if we stick to the traditional vedic system of parampara.

TFO:
How is this ending the tradition of guru disciple relationships?"

Reply:
Because the guru-proxy system is a speculation with no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"The details of how diksa guru-disciple relationships are formally bonded may be adapted by an acarya, according to time place and circumstance, but the principle remains the same:"

Reply:
Where is this principle stated? What is the reason to think that Srila Prabhupada would dismantle the traditional guru-paprampara system and replace it with a complete speculation, especially seen in the light of all the numerous quotes where Srila Prabhupada urges his disciples to become qualified spiritual masters?

TFO:
"'Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that candalas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than sudra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them Vaisnavas.'" (SB Canto 4, ch8, text 5)

Reply:
The above quote is totally irrelevant. Nobody is disputing the fact that even candalas can receive initiation and become purified. And if diksa is indeed a mere formality, then why all the fuss? If it's a mere formality why does the author keep stressing the point that only a maha-bhagavat can give diksa?

TFO:
"This principle of accepting initiation from a bona fide spiritual master is in no way diminished or compromised by the ritvik system."

Reply:
This is a lie. Surely the principle of accepting initiation will become compromised and diminished when it is based on a complete speculation with no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra. According to this logic we should be able to take diksa from Vyasadeva himself without any diminution or compromise.

TFO:
"Some people point to traditional gurus living in villages in India as a model for ISKCON. Each guru has a few disciples who he personally trains. However cosy this may sound it has nothing remotely to do with the worldwide mission Lord Caitanya predicted, and Srila Prabhupada established. "

Reply:
This is just an assertion with no explanation offered.

TFO:
"Within that mission Srila Prabhupada is the world acarya with thousands, and potentially millions, of disciples."

Reply:
Sure. Grand-disciples. Disciples who are linked to him in proper guru-parampara.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada set up a world movement through which anyone can approach, serve and inquire from him anywhere in the world."

Reply:
Well, they can hardly inquire from him when he is no longer physically present. Then it has to go through his disciples. That is the traditional way to link up with the guru-parampara.

TFO:
" Why should we want to introduce a village guru system into ISKCON, when it was not what Srila Prabhupada ordered or set up?"

Reply:
Why should we introduce a proxy-guru system when it was not what Srila Prabhupada ordered or set up?

TFO:
"How can there be unity if everyone is meditating on hundreds of different gurus of differing viewpoints, opinions and levels of realisation?"

Reply:
How would it be different under a proxy-guru system? Instead of hundreds of different gurus of differing viewpoints, opinions and levels of realizations, there would be thousands and eventually millions of different so-called disciples of differing viewpoints, opinions and levels of realizations arguing and bickering about how to understand Srila Prabhupada's teachings. How is the unity going to increase just because you take the guru away? Does TFO think that just because none of Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiates their own disciples then, poof, everyone's understanding of Srila Prabhupada's books will magically increase?

As it is now, all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada cannot work in harmony together, or agree on the teachings of his books, and there is even so few of them, why should this situation change, if the number of Srila Prabhupada's disciples increase vastly?

TFO:
"Rather than this lucky-dip approach to spiritual life why not stick with the tried and tested, one hundred percent guaranteed process of surrender to Srila Prabhupada."

Does the author mean surrender to Srila Prabhupada as in following his orders? In that case he'd have to surrender to the authority of the GBC, because that was Srila Prabahupada's order.

TFO:
"We know he shall never let us down, "

Reply:
So why think that Srila Prabhupada let everyone down when he named the GBC to take over the authority of ISKCON after his departure?

TFO:
"and in this way ISKCON will remain united, not just in name, but in consciousness."

Reply:
It is already united under the GBC not just in name but in consciousness too.

TFO:
"It was also, as we have demonstrated, what Srila Prabhupada wanted."

Reply:
This is begging the question. TFO hasn't even begun to demonstrate this. In fact to suggest that an outsider, with no respect for Srila Prabhupada's institution, should know better what Srila Prabhupada wanted than his intimate disciples, is grossly offensive. In fact, if it wasn't so offensive it would be highly laughable.

TFO:
"Some devotees feel that without a succession of living, physically present, initiating diksa gurus, the science of devotional service will be lost."

Reply:
And with good reason, too, for with the disruption of the disciplic succession the transmission of transcendental knowledge is lost.

TFO:
"However, this principle is never once stated by Srila Prabhupada, and thus cannot exist in our philosophy."

Reply:
TFO is lying. The principle of transmission of knowledge in guru-parampara is a major theme in Srila Prabhupada's books.

TFO:
"As long as the ritvik system remains in force (once it is re-instituted of course),

Reply:
TFO is begging the question again. The proxy-guru system can never be 're-instituted,' for it was never instituted to begin with.

TFO:
"there will be a succession of living siksa gurus acting on behalf of a living, though not physically present, mahabhagavat."

Reply:
The same will be true under the present system.

TFO:
"As long as these siksa gurus do not change anything, invent philosophy, disobey important orders and unauthorizedly pose themselves as diksa gurus,

Reply:
TFO begging the question again. The diksa gurus of Srila Prabhupada are not in any way unauthorized. They were clearly authorized by Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"the science of devotional service shall remain perfectly intact."

Reply:
There is no reason to believe that it should not remain perfectly intact under the present traditional system.

TFO:
"If such misbehaviour were to obstruct the imperishable science of bhakti, then Krsna would certainly intervene in some way, perhaps by sending another resident of Goloka to establish a new bona fide society."

Reply:
Now TFO is off again in some fantasy realm. Srila Prabhupada established ISKCON and the GBC. It seems Mr. Desai doesn't like this idea. Now he wants another society he can attempt to tear down. TFO:
"Let us work together to make sure this will not be necessary."

Reply:
ISKCON is already working together to spread Srila Prabhupada's books all over the planet. The only problem is that some outsiders, inspired by former frustrated disciples, are trying to create dissention in various ways.

TFO: "12. 'Ritvik is not the regular way of conducting the disciplic succession. The proper way to do it is for the guru to teach the disciple everything he needs to know about Krsna while he is physically present. Once the guru leaves the planet it is the duty of all his strict disciples to immediately start initiating their own disciples, thus carrying on the disciplic succession. That is the 'regular' way of doing things.'

Leaving aside the two important pre-conditions to anyone initiating, it is clear that diksa activity within our parampara is enormously diverse. We have observed that violations of the so-called 'regular' system fall into 5 basic catagories, though we do not deny there could be many others:

a) Gaps

These are all the occasions when an acarya in the parampara leaves, and there is no next link to immediately start initiating. Or the person who is to become the next link does not immediately receive authorization from his spiritual master to initiate on, or directly after, his departure. For example, there was a gap of some twenty years between the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and the next bona fide initiation in our sampradaya. Gaps of more than one hundred years are not uncommon between members of the disciplic succession."

This is irrelevant. Srila Prabhupada gave us another instruction.

TFO:
"b) Reverse gaps These are all the occasions where an acarya has not yet left his body before his disciples start initiating. Lord Brahma, for example, has not yet left his body, and yet generations of successor gurus have initiated millions upon millions of disciples. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta initiated when both Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Gaura Kisore were still physically present. According to GII (page 23) this is a common phenomenon in our sampradaya.

c) Siksa/diksa links

There are instances of a disciple accepting an acarya as his principal spiritual master after he has left the planet. Whether the departed acarya is a siksa or a diksa guru to the disciple is often difficult to discern. Srila Prabhupada does not generally specify the precise nature of these spiritual interactions. For example, the exact nature of the relationship between Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Narottama dasa who lived over a hundred years apart, is not detailed by Srila Prabhupada. We may wish to call it a siksa relationship, but that is speculation, since Srila Prabhupada simply says :

'Narottama dasa Thakura ...accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravati as his servitor.' (Adi-lila, ch. 1)

'...Visvanatha Cakravati Thakura. He accepted his guru, Narottama dasa Thakura.'" (SPL S.B., 1976)

Reply:
First of all these acaryas are great liberated souls, so their example may not be applicable for us. Srila Prabhupada said to follow in the footsteps of the great souls, not to imitate them. Secondly Srila Prabhupada gave us a process to follow. The duty of the disciple is to follow the orders of his spiritual master.

TFO:
"Although such disciples normally go through some sort of ceremony with someone who is physically present, that still may not preclude the departed acarya from being his diksa guru ; just as a ritvik ceremony does not mean that the ritvik or temple president is the diksa guru. Also such disciples normally obtained permission from an authority who was physically present, to accept a sad-guru who was not. In a similar way, were the ritvik system re-instated, new disciples of Srila Prabhupada would first gain the approval of the temple president and the ritvik before they were initiated."

Reply:
This was not Srila Prabhupada's instruction. Furthermore, if the author believes in this system why doesn't he follow it himself, and takes initiation from one of the avowed ritvik representatives of Srila Prabhupada? TFO: "d) Mode of initation

These are anomolous forms of initiation where unique, or inconceivable forms of diksa transmission take place. For example, Lord Krsna to Lord Brahma; or Lord Caitanya whispering into a Buddhist's ear. Interplanetary diksa might also come under this category. This is where personalities initiate, or transmit diksa to a disciple who resides on a different planet, for example Manu to Iksvaku in Bhagavad-gita 4.1."

Reply:
What has this to do with our present situation in ISKCON? First TFO claims that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not maha-bhagavatas, and therefore not qualified to give diksa, now it recommends that we imitate the giving of diksa by great liberated souls. TFO:
"e) Successor Systems

This refers to differing successor acarya systems within our sampradaya. For example Srila Bhaktivinoda adopted a 'powerful Vaisnava son' successor system. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta left in place a 'self-effulgent acarya' successor system. As far as we can determine, Srila Prabhupada opted for an 'officiating acarya' successor system. The present system favoured by the GBC is a 'multiple acarya successor system'."

Reply:
This is a total speculation. The fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is Srila Bhaktivinode's son does not mean that this is a new type of succession. The present system favored by the the GBC is the system Srila Prabhupada wanted, which has been demonstrated in so many quotes by him. Besides that, it is the traditional Vedic system of continuing the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"It is clear that the approach of each acarya is fairly unique;"

Reply:
TFO is off in the speculative realm again. There is no basis for this assumption.

TFO:
"so to talk about a 'regular' system for continuing the parampara is practically meaningless."

Reply:
This is simply word-jugglery. The "regular" system merely means the traditional Vedic system of guru-parampara, that is being followed at present in ISKCON.

TFO:
"13. 'If we adopted the ritvik system, what would stop us taking initiation from any previous acarya, such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta?'

Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:

a. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and other previous acaryas, did not authorize a ritvik system to run 'henceforward'."

Reply:
So why would Srila Prabhupada? If he did, what would prevent us from taking diksa from, say, Jiva Goswami?

TFO:
a. "We must approach the current link:

'...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.' (S.B. 2.9.7)

Reply:
But the current link is Srila Prabhupada's disciples.

TFO:
"It is self-evident, that Srila Prabhupada is the sampradaya acarya who succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada is therefore the current link, and is thus the only person authorized to initiate at this juncture."

Reply:
It seems TFO has made it its habbit to beg the question. Srila Prabhupada is not the current link in our disciplic succession. His disciples are.

"14. 'In order to be the current link you must be physically present.'

Srila Prabhupada never states the above injunction."

Reply:
TFO is lying. Srila Prabhupada states this very clearly in the following passage.

Melbourne, Srimad Bhagavatam, May 21, 1975:

Devotee: Srila Prabhupada, does a disciple first accept his spiritual master within the heart when he takes initiation?

Madhudvisa: What is the question again?

Devotee: When a disciple takes initiation, does he firs take initiation within the heart?

Prabhupada: Initiation is the third stage. First stage is that.... just like you have come. This is called sraddha, faith, little faith, not full faith. Then you have to increase this faith by association of devotee. That is required. And when the faith is increased, then the question of initiation, Initiation should not be immediately offered. That will be misused. Therefore when we initiate, we inquire from the head of the temple, How long he is coming? What is his behavior? If he certifies that Yes, he is doing nice. Then we initiate. Our initiation is not so cheap, You come and be initiated. No, we do not do that. We must test you first of all. Then we initiate.

Madhudvisa: His question was that can you take initiation by accepting the spiritual master in your heart without actually taking....

Prabhupada: These are bogus proposals. It has no meaning. (Laughter) It has no meaning. If you think within yourself, I am eating will you be satisfied? You starve and simply think, I have eaten everything. (Laughter) Is that very practical proposal. You must eat. We don't say all these bogus proposition. All right, Thank you very much.

TFO:
"So let us consider: Can a spiritual master be 'current' if he is physically absent?"

Reply:
According to the above quote from Srila Prabhupada this is a bogus proposal.

TFO:
"a) The term 'current link' is only used in one passage in all of Srila Prabhupada's books; there is no reference to physical presence adjacent to the term. Were physical presence essential it would certainly have been mentioned."

Reply:
Here TFO is trying to impose his own speculative conditions on Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"b) The dictionary definitions of the word 'current' do not refer to physical presence.

c) Dictionary definitions of the word 'current' can be readily applied to a physically absent spiritual master and his books:

'most recent', 'commonly known, practised or accepted', 'widespread', 'circulating and valid at present'. (Collins English Dictionary).

As far as we can see all the above definitions can be applied to Srila Prabhupada and his books.

d) The very purpose of approaching a 'current link' can be fully satisfied by reading Srila Prabhupada's books:"

Reply:
Does this mean that it is as good as taking diksa from Srila Prabhupada to read his books? This theory is not supported in the sastras.

Besides, in the above quote Srila Prabhupada already stated that to think one can receive diksa in the heart without the physical presence of the guru is a bogus proposal.

TFO "'...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.' (S.B. 2.9.7)

e) Srila Prabhupada also uses the term 'immediate acarya' as synonymous with 'current link'. The word 'immediate' means:

'Without intervening medium', 'closest or most direct in effect or relationship'. (Collins English Dictionary).

These definitions lend validity to a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada without the need for intermediaries, again all regardless of physical presence/absence."

Reply:
According to this logic, siksa gurus would not be necessary either. We can just take diksa directly from Srila Vyasadeva.

TFO:
"f) Since there are examples of disciples initiating when their guru was still on the planet, there would appear to be no direct relationship between current link status and physical presence. In other words if it is possible to be the next current link even whilst your own guru is physically present, why should it not be possible for a departed acarya to remain the current link?"

Reply:
Apart from being a non sequitur, the logic is false. How can it be the same if the current link is physical present or if he is not physical present?

TFO:
"In conclusion, we see no evidence to suggest that the emergence of a current link is based on physical or non-physical considerations."

Reply:
Madhudvisa: His question was that can you take initiation by accepting the spiritual master in your heart without actually taking....

Prabhupada: These are bogus proposals. It has no meaning. (Laughter) It has no meaning. If you think within yourself, I am eating will you be satisfied? You starve and simply think, I have eaten everything. (Laughter) Is that very practical proposal. You must eat. We don't say all these bogus proposition. All right, Thank you very much.

TFO:
"15. 'Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers all became initiating acaryas after the dissappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so what is wrong with Srila Prabhupada's disciples doing the same?'

In posing as initiating acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples acted in direct defiance of their spiritual master's final order (to form a GBC and await a self-effulgent acarya). Srila Prabhupada roundly condemned his Godbrothers for their insubordination, describing them as useless for preaching, what to speak of initiating:"

Reply:
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta never said for his disciples not to take any disciples of their own. He said that not one of them should become the new acarya.

TFO:
"'Amongst my godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya.'" (SPL Rupanuga 28/4/74)

Reply:
Does TFO suggest here that Srila Prabhupada is saying that none of his Godbrothers were qualified to take any disciples?

TFO:
"'On the whole you may know that he (Bon Maharaja) is not a liberated person, and therefore he cannot initiate any person to Krsna Consciousness. It requires special benediction from higher authorities.'" (SPL Janardana 26.4.68)

Reply:
This quote is not applicaple to the present situation. Srila Prabhupada did benedict his devotees to become spiritual masters.

TFO:
"If everyone just intiates there will be contradictory result. As long as it goes on, there will be only failure." (SP Phalgun Krishnan Pancami, verse 23).

Reply:
This quote is totally irrelevant. In ISKCON everyone is not just initiating.

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

Reply:
This is a straw-man. No one has ever suggested ISKCON follow in the footsteps of the Gaudiya Math.

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

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. No one in ISKCON has defied the orders of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada set up the GBC to jointly lead ISKCON in his absence. After some initial difficulties following Srila Prabhupada's departure they are doing just that. Srila Prabhupada wanted all of his disciples to come up to the standard and take up the service of initiating new devotees into Krishna conciousness. The GBC is trying to facilitate that.

TFO:
16. "'When Srila Prabhuada said they should not be acaryas, he meant acarya with a big 'A'. That is, an acarya who heads up an institution.'

Where does Srila Prabhupada ever differentiate between big 'A' and small 'a' initiating acaryas? Where does he ever talk about a specific breed of initiating acarya who can head up institutions, and indicate that there is an inferior species who, is less qualified, but can still initiate?"

Reply:
Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.

In this quote Srila Prabhupada is talking of an acarya as a spiritual master who initiates disciples. Even if we accept the ritvikvadi definition of this term as 'proxy-acarya,' then it is acarya with an even smaller "a."

"Amongst my godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya."(SPL Rupanuga 28/4/74)

Here Srila Prabhupada is using the term with a big "A."

TFO: "17. 'It is just common knowledge that there are three types of acarya. Everyone in ISKCON accepts that.'

But this idea was never taught by Srila Prabhupada, it was introduced by Pradyumna Dasa in a letter to Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami dated 7.8.78. This letter was later re-printed in the paper '"On My Order", and was used as one of the corner stones of that paper's thesis on how the guru system within ISKCON should be reformed. In turn it is this paper 'Understood', that is the basis of GII's doctrine on initiation (as mentioned in the Introduction). This paper led to the transformation of the zonal acarya system into the present day M.A.S.S:

'I have taken this definition of acarya from the letter of August 7, 1978, from Pradyumna to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. The reader should now turn to this letter (which I have appended) for careful study. ('On My Order' Ravindra Svarupa, August 17th 1985)

In his letter, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya may be taken in three senses:

1. One who practices what he preaches.

2. One who grants initiation to a disciple.

3. The spiritual head of an institution who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor.

We accept definition 1, since it was used by Srila Prabhupada. This definition would automatically apply to any effective preacher, be he siksa or diksa guru.

Moving on to definition 2. Pradyumna explains that this type of acarya can initiate disciples and be refered to as acaryadeva, but only by his disciples:

'Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "'acaryadeva'", etc -- by his disciples only. Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples.'"(Pradyumna 7/8/78)

Reply:
As we have shown above TFO is mistaken if it thinks that Srila Prabhupada only used 'acarya' in one specific meaning. Besides, its further analysis is a false. The meaning is not that others may not offer respects, but the etiquette is that it cannot be demanded. Srila Prabhupada demanded a certain standard from his disciples, but he did not demand it from others even though he was jagad-guru.

TFO:
"Let us see how Srila Prabhupada defines the word acaryadeva. The following are excerpts from Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa puja offering printed in The Science of Self Realisation, chapter 2, where he uses the term in relation to his own spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta:

'The guru, or acaryadeva, as we learn from bona fide scriptures, delivers the message of the absolute world.'"

Reply:
This quote would also apply to Srila Prabhupada's disciples.

TFO:
"...when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva, or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application."

Reply:
This also applies to Srila Prabhupada's disciples.

TFO:
"'The acaryadeva for whom we have assembled tonight is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is Jagad-Guru, or the guru of all of us...'

Srila Prabhupada's use of the word acaryadeva is diametrically opposed to that of Pradyumna."

Reply:
This is a false argument. Pradyumna does not say that others do not have the right to respect a jagad-guru. It is simply a matter of etiquette.

TFO:
"Implicit in what Pradyumna says is that the term acaryadeva can be falsely applied to persons who are not actually on that highly elevated platform. Thus, he relativises the absolute position of the diksa guru.

'Every student is expected to become acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples. I have given you sannyasa with the great hope that in my absence you will preach the cult throughout the world and thus become recognised by Krsna as the most sincere servant of the Lord.'" (SPL to Tusta Krsna Swami, 2 December, 1975)

Reply:
Here Srila Prabhupada is again using the term acarya with a small "a." According to TFO Srila Prabhupada shouldn't be doing that. According to this quote Srila Prabhupada wants his disciples to up the role as acaryas, ei. initiating spiritual masters in his absence.

TFO:
"A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as guru and acharya by strictly following the disciplic succession." (Letter to: Janardana : 68-04-26)

Reply:
We should note here how Krishna here tricks the author into citing quotes that defeats his own position.

TFO:
"The term acaryadeva can only be applied to someone who is factually 'the guru of all of us'; someone who should be worshipped by the entire world:"

Reply:
But this notion has just been refuted by the above quotes from Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"...he is known to be the direct manifestation of the Lord and a genuine representative of Sri Nityananda Prabhu. Such a spiritual master is known as acaryadeva." (C.c. Adi-lila 1.46)

In definition 3, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya indicates the head of an institution, and that this meaning is very specific:

'It does not mean just anyone. It means only one who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor above all others to the seat of the spiritual institution which he heads. ....This is the strict tradition in all of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.' (Pradyumna 7/8/7.) We certainly agree that to initiate one must first be authorized by the predeccessor acarya: (that is why defintion 2 is bogus, since apparently no specific authorization has been given)

'One should take initiation from a bona fide spirtual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master'. (S.B. Canto 4. Chapter 8, Text 55)

Reply:
Note how none of the above quotes are in support of the proxy-guru system.

TFO:
"However, what this has got to do with taking over the 'seat of the spiritual institution' is rather baffling, since Srila Prabhupada is the Acarya of an entirely separate institution from that of his Guru Maharaja. According to Pradyumna's philosophy therefore, Srila Prabhupada might only come in as a definition 2 acarya. Whatever 'strict tradition' Pradyumna is referring to, it was certainly never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, and thus we can safely discard it. Further down the page, we see exactly from where Pradyumna's insidious ideas originated:

'Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one Godbrother is in the position of acarya, he usually, out of humility, takes only a thin cloth asana, not anything higher.'

None of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were authorized acaryas. One would think that genuine humility should translate into giving up one's unauthorized activity, whatever it may be, recognising Srila Prabhupada's pre-eminent position, and then surrendering to the true jagad-guru. Unfortunately, few members of the Gaudiya Matha have ever done this. The fact that Pradyumna cites these personalities as bona fide examples means he is once more denigrating the position of the true acaryadeva."

Reply:
This is completely irrelevant as we have already demonstrated how Srila Prbahupada used the word acarya with both small "a" as in initiating spiritual master and with a big "A" as in the the head of an institution.

TFO:
"Regarding Bhakti Puri, Tirtha Maharaja, they are my godbrothers and should be shown respect. But you should not have any intimate dealings with them as they have gone against the orders of my Guru Maharaja.'(SPL to Pradyumna 17/2/68)

It is a shame Pradyumna prabhu ignored this direct instruction from his Guru Maharaja, and quite remarkable that his deviant views were allowed to shape ISKCON's current guru 'siddhanta'."

Reply:
This is sheer nonsense. There is nothing to indicate that Pradyumna's 'deviant views' were ever allowed to creep into ISKCON's current guru siddhanta. As it is has been demonstrated, the current system now in practice in ISKCON is strictly according to Srila Prabhupada's desires. Not only that but it is also the traditional system according to guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"Thus, when Srila Prabhupada said none of his Godbrothers were qualified to be acarya, whether he meant Definitions 1 or 3 acarya is irrelevant. If they were not qualified for Definition 1 then that meant they did not teach by example, which would automatically disqualify them from Definition 3, and hence from initiating altogether. And if they were not qualified as per Definition 3, then they were not authorized, and hence once more they could not initiate."

Reply:
That Srila Prabhupada should have said that none of his godbrothers were qualified to take disciples is a total concoction. There is no basis for that assumption.

TFO:
"In conclusion:

a] All preachers should aspire to become a definition 1 acarya, or siksa guru.

Definition 1 acarya can also be a diksa guru.

b] Definition 2 is completely bogus. It is forbidden for anyone, disciple or not, to regard the bona fide guru, or acaryadeva, as an ordinary man. And if he is, in fact, an ordinary man then he cannot be referred to as acaryadeva, nor can he initiate anyone. No-one can initiate anybody without specific authorization from the predessesor acarya in disciplic succession.

c] Definition 3 is the only type of acarya who may initiate; i.e. one who has been authorized by his own sampradaya acarya - spiritual master. Having been so authorized he may or may not head up an institution, that is irrelevant.

Within ISKCON all devotees are authorized to aspire to become definition 1 acaryas, or siksa gurus, teaching through example. A good start on the path to becoming this type of acarya is to begin strictly following the orders of the spiritual master."

Reply:
This is totally beside the point. Srila Prabhupada appointed the GBC to become the authority of ISKCON after his departure, which means that by following the GBC one is following the orders of Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"18. 'It seems a small point, so how could these ideas regarding the acarya have had any noticeable adverse effect on ISKCON?'

In fact, the relativisation of the initiating diksa guru has led to all kinds of confusion within ISKCON. Some ISKCON gurus claim they are taking their disciples back to Godhead by acting as current links to Srila Prabhupada who is the founder-acarya;"

Reply:
What is wrong with that? That's our philosophy.

TFO:
"and some say they are simply introducing disciples to Srila Prabhupada who is the actual current link who is taking them back to Godhead (almost ritvik philosophy). Some gurus say Srila Prabhupada is still the current acarya, others say that he is not; whilst a couple have claimed themselves to be the sole successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
That thing is over and done with since many years.

TFO:
"Some ISKCON gurus still believe Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 successor acaryas (a myth which was recently reported as fact in the LA Times); others that he appointed 11 ritviks who were to turn into small 'A' acaryas immediately on his departure; others that it was not just the 11 who should have turned into small 'A' acaryas on departure, but all Srila Prabhupada's disciples (except the women it seems)."

Reply:
The 3 types acaryas are irrelevant here. The women question is also irrelevant, since the GBC does not have any injunctions against women initiating.

TFO:
"If we return once more to GII, we can see that the GBC is highly ambivalent towards the gurus it 'authorizes'."

Reply:
None of this has anything to do with the question at hand.

TFO:
"Whilst acknowledging the rubber stamping of sampradaya acaryas is bogus (point 6, page 15, GII), the GBC nevertheless, in effect, performs precisely this function every Gaurapurnima at Mayapur, year after year. We now have close to a hundred initiating gurus, all annointed with the 'no objection' stamp of approval. All these gurus are being worshipped as saksad hari (as good as God) in accordance with the GBC's own directives for disciples (point 8 page 15 GII). These initiating acaryas are heralded as current links to a disciplic succession of mahabhagavatas stretching back thousands of years to the Supreme lord Himself:"

Reply:
The author seems here to be arguing, not from faith in Srila Prabhupada's instructions, but from his own personal incredulity.

TFO:
"Devotees should take shelter of the representatives of Srila Prabhupada who are the current link in the disciplic succession" (page 34, GII)

At the same time however the aspiring disciple is sternly warned that ISKCON approval....

'...is not automatically to be taken as a statement about the degree of God-realisation of the approved guru' (section 2.2, page 9, GII) Elsewhere we are further cautioned:

'When a devotee is allowed to carry out the '"order'" of Srila Prabhupada to expand the disciplic succession by initiating new disciples it is not to be taken as a certification or endorsement of his being an '"uttama adhikary'", "pure devotee", or to having achieved any specific state of realization.'(Page15, GII)

These gurus are not to be worshipped by everyone in the temple, but only by their own clique of disciples in a separate place (Page 7, GII): - (Pradyumna's acaryadeva definition).

We have shown that the only type of bona fide diksa guru is an authorized mahabhagavat; (we have also shown that the actual 'order' was for ritviks and siksa gurus)."

Reply:
Again TFO is begging the question. Ithas shown nothing of the sort.

TFO: "Thus, to describe anyone as a current link or initiator guru, is synonymous with claiming he is a large 'A' or Definition 3 Acarya, an "uttama adhikary" or a "pure devotee".

Reply:
This is a false argument. We have just demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada used the term acarya to also denote his disciples who would take up the roles as spiritual masters.

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

TFO:
"We would venture that it is infelicitous to approve, or 'not object', to the creation of diksa gurus, and simultaneously disavow any blame or responsibility should they deviate. This is what's termed 'living in denial' according to modern psychological parlance. We are sure Srila Prabhupada did not intend ISKCON to be a type of lottery, or Russian roulette, where the stake is someone's spiritual life. Perhaps the GBC should refrain from further rubber stamping until they can stand one hundred percent behind those they approve. After all, every one of us stands one hundred percent behind Srila Prabhupada as a bona fide spiritual master; so such consensual recognition of personal qualification is not impossible."

GBC guru ambivalence was recently summed up quite succinctly by Jayadvaita Swami:

'The word appointed is never used. But there are "candidates for initiating guru", votes are taken, and those who make it through the procedures become "ISKCON-APPROVED" or "ISKCON-authorized" gurus. To boost your confidence: On one hand the GBC encourages you to be initiated by a bona fide, authorized ISKCON guru and worship him like God. On the other, it has an elaborate system of laws to invoke from time to time when your ISKCON-authorized guru falls down. One might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that for all the laws and resolutions the role of guru is still a perplexity even for the GBC.' (Jayadvaita Swami , 'Where the Ritvik People are Right' 1996).

When we look at the appalling track record of gurus in ISKCON it is hardly surprising that such mistrust should exist. To quote once more from Jayadvaita Swami's paper:

'FACT: ISKCON gurus have opposed, oppressed and driven out many sincere godbrothers and godsisters.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and men, and possibly children as well." (Jayadvaita Swami, 'Where the Ritvik People are Right' 1996).

Reply:
The above quotes has nothing to with the question at hand. That ISKCON has had difficulties in implementing Srila Prabhupada's instructions does not mean that they should be discarded all together and replaced with a concoction that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra. That individual gurus have fallen does also not denounce all the rest of the gurus in ISKCON. Why only be hung up on the falldowns? Why not also give credit to those who didn't deviate and who didn't fall down?

TFO:
"Newcomers to ISKCON are told that the onus is on them to carefully examine ISKCON gurus on the basis of Srila Prabhupada's books and instructions, to make sure for themselves that they are qualified to initiate. However, should such a prospective disciple come to the conclusion that none of the 'physically present' gurus on offer are up to standard, and that he wishes instead to repose his faith in Srila Prabhupada as his diksa guru, he is ruthlessly hounded from the society."

The author is speaking nonsense. Nobody is ruthlessly hounded from the society. If someone joins ISKCON and wishes to take diksa from Srila Prabhupuda, it is because he's philosophical understanding is not mature enough, and he will just be asked to wait with initiation and go on serving Srila Prabhupada as his siksa-guru, like all the other bhaktas.

TFO:
"Is this really fair? After all, he is only doing what the GBC has told him to do. Should he be punished for not coming to the 'right' conclusion,"

Reply:
This is just a straw-man. Nobody is being punished. Where does TFO get these ideas from? There are bhaktas in ISKCON who have been serving Srila Prabhupada for ten years as their siksa-guru, without having been able to decide which guru they wish to surrender to. Nobody is being forced into initiation in ISKCON. What guru would want to have a disciple that was forced onto him?

TFO:
"especially since there is such clear and unequivocal evidence that this choice is precisely what Srila Prabhupada wanted all along."

This is begging the question. Srila Prabhupada never stated anywhere that he would continue to give diksa after his departure.

TFO:
"Is it reasonable to expect someone to have unflinching faith in a current ISKCON guru, when he sees that the GBC themselves have felt it necessary to construct a rigorous penal system just to keep them in line?"

Reply:
What's wrong with that? These rules are to protect new initiates. There is a definite need in ISKCON to have certified gurus. What would be the alternative? To disrupt the disciplic succession and replace it with a cocoction?

TFO:
"A penal system which itself is never once mentioned in the very books and instructions the prospective disciple is being asked to base his decision on. A clearer case of self-referential incoherence it would be hard to find."

Reply:
TFO doesn't make any sense. How would it be different with a proxy-guru system? A proxy-guru would also need some kind of certification from the GBC.

TFO:
"It is much simpler just to have Srila Prabhupada as the only initiator for ISKCON, as he desired. Who could object to that?"

Reply:
Those who want to institute Srila Prabhupada's desires.

TFO:
"19. 'According to the ISKCON Journal 1990, some of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers were actually acaryas.'

The same person who said there was no such word as ritvik in the Vaisnava dictionary (page 23, ISKCON Journal 1990), even though the term is used repeatedly in the Srimad Bhagavatam, and in the July 9th letter which Srila Prabhupada personally signed.

The same person who implied that Srila Prabhupada was not specifically authorized to initiate:

'Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has not said or given any document that Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada) will be guru.' (ISKCON Journal 1990, page 23)

The same person who said that Tirtha, Madhava and Sridhar Maharaja were bona fide acaryas, even though Srila Prabupada had said none of them were qualified:

"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has not mentioned that so many others will do acarya, yet they have all done. This is the system." (ISKCON Journal 1990, page 23).

Contrast the above with what Srila Prabhupada thought of one of the these 'acaryas':
'Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is very much antagonistic to our society and he has no clear conception of devotional service. He is contaminated.' (SPL Sukadeva 14/11/73)

The same person who recently claimed that Srila Prabhupada had not given everything, and that it was time for a rasika guru."

Reply:
All this hinting at what Narayan Maharaja has said is irrelevant. What is the point TFO is trying to make? Narayan Maharaja has no authority over ISKCON. Neither is anyone in ISKCON following his advice.

TFO:
"20. Srila Prabhupada spoke well of his Godbrothers sometimes.

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

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

Prabhupada: (laughs).....This is nonsense.

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

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

Prabhupada: 'Just see now. 'He got a great personality'. He is that personality. He'll also prove that. (later)........No one accepts him....Where is his greatness? Who knows him? Just see. So he is making a plan to declare himself a great personality......(Tirtha Maharaja) is very envious about us.....These rascals they may create some trouble.' (Conversation, Mayapur, 19/1/76).

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

Reply:
This is beside the point. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand. Nobody even disputes these points. In fact, ISKCON has gone to great length to keep itself out of the influence of the Gaudiya Matha. What is the point of bringing this up?

TFO:
"21. 'We know that bona fide acaryas do not have to be so advanced because sometimes they fall down.'

Reply:
This is not an official ISKCON statement. This is another straw-man.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada states the precise opposite:

'The bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord.'" (Bg. 4.42, purport)

Reply:
No one contests this point.

TFO:
"22. 'But previous acaryas even describe what one should do when one's spiritual master deviates.'

Those deviant gurus being described could never, by definition, have been members of the eternal disciplic succession. Rather, they were non-liberated, self-authorized family priests posing as initiating acaryas. Bona fide members of the disciplic succession never deviate.

'God is always God, Guru is always Guru.' (SSR)

'Well if he is bad, how can he become guru?' (SSR)

'The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of Maya and her influence.' (SB 5.3.14) 'There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall down.' (C.c. Madhya lila 22.71)

'A spiritual master is always liberated.' (SPL 21/6/70)

There is not a single example in Srila Prabhupada's books of a formally authorized diksa guru, in our disciplic succession, ever deviating from the path of devotional service. The rejection of Sukracarya is sometimes used to validate the view that acaryas fall down, or can be rejected, but this example is highly misleading since he was never an authorized member of our disciplic succession."

Reply:
TFO is making a false argument. It is not true that there has not been fall-downs of authorized diksa-gurus. It has happened before in the Gaudiya Matha, and it has happened in ISKCON. That some gurus were falling from the path of pure devotional service does not mean that there is something wrong with pure devotional service. It simply means that pure devotional service is difficult to pursue. In fact. One of the charateristics of pure devotional service is that it is very rarely given by Krishna to the living entity.

What TFO is saying here is in effect that because some gurus have not been able to live up to the standard, therefore the standard must be wrong. In other words, the standard process of initiation is to receive diksa from the current link in the disciplic succession. That some of these links slipped from their service as initiating gurus, does not mean that the standard linking process to the disciplic succession is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the traditional guru-parampara system. This is the system we have received from the acaryas. What is wrong is that we are in the middle of a raging Kali-yuga, and therefore it can be a problem to implement proper standards. This is what the GBC has to deal with.

What we should note here is that TFO has chosen to focus exclusively on the rotten apples of the ISKCON tree. Why does it not mention those initiating spiritual masters who did not fall down and who continued to follow Srila Prabhupada's orders under all circumstances? According to his own logic, since they have not deviated, they must be bona fide acaryas, and therefore are to be followed.

TFO:
"Despite a total absence from Srila Prabhupada's books of bona fide gurus deviating, the GBC's book GII has a whole section on what a disciple should do when his previously bona fide guru deviates! The chapter begins by asserting the importance of approaching a current link, and not jumping over (GII, page 27). However, authorities proceed to do precisely this by quoting numerous previous acaryas in an attempt to establish principles never taught by Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
What principle was never taught by Srila Prabhupada? That gurus and authorities fall down? But they do. Devotees are falling down all the time. Even sannyasis were falling down during Srila Prabhupada's time. Of course a bona fide guru cannot fall down, because the very second he falls down he is not bona fide any longer. But as long as he faithfully and strictly follows Srila Prabhupada's orders he is bona fide.

TFO:
"The gurus described by these previous acaryas could never have been authorized:

'Narada Muni, Harias Thakura and similar acaryas especially empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord cannot be brought down to the material platform.' ( SB 7.7.14.)

The danger of 'jumping over' in the manner prevelant in GII is clearly demonstrated in the chapter on 're-initiation', (itself a term never once used by Srila Prabhupada, nor any previous acarya). In the question and answer section (page 35, question 4, GII) the conditions under which one may reject a guru and take 're-initiation' are described. The 'explanation' follows:

'Fortunately , the crux of this issue has been clarified for us by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Jaiva Dharma and by Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Bhakti Sandarba.' (GII)

The word 'fortunately' rather unfortunately implies that since Srila Prabhupada neglected to tell us what to do when a guru deviates, it's just as well we can jump over him to all these previous acaryas'. But Srila Prabhupada told us that everything we needed to know about spiritual life was in his books. Why are we introducing systems never mentioned by our acarya?"

Reply:
In that case, why does TFO want to introduce the guru-proxy system, a system which has never been mentioned by our acarya?

TFO:
"23. But what is wrong in consulting previous acaryas?

Nothing, as long as we do attempt to use them to add new principles which were not mentioned by our own acarya."

Reply:
Since the GBC was set up by Srila Prabhupada to be the utimate authority of ISKCON, and since Srila Prabhupada didn't give any instructions in his books regarding re-initiations, it is the duty of the GBC to try and come up with a solution to this problem, that, at the same time, keeps the disciplic succession intact.

TFO:
"The idea that a bona fide guru can deviate is totally alien to anything Srila Prabhupada taught. The problems over the 'origin of the jiva' issue, all stem from this propensity to jump over:"

Reply:
What TFO is insinuating is wrong. There has been no jumping over in ISKCON. In the "origin of the jiva" issue ISKCON stood its ground, when some members tried to jump over, and ruled strictly according to Srila Prabhupada's books, even to the extent of expelling some devotees who wouldn't accept the ruling of the GBC.

TFO:
"'...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous acaryas.' (Our Original Position, P.163, GBC Press)

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

Reply:
The duty of the GBC is to guide the devotees according to Srila Prabhupada's instructions. If, because of a lack of precedence to base the instructions on, the GBC has to use it's own descrimination, then what is the fault? Why does the author keep insinuating that he should know better what Srila Prabhupada wanted than his most dear and trusted disciples? Where does this funny idea come from?

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

Verse 48:
'A disciple may hear some instruction from another advanced Vaisnava, but after gaining that good instruction he must bring it and present it to his own spiritual master. After presenting them he should hear the same teachings again from his spiritual master with appropriate instructions.'

Verse 49.:
'....a disciple who listens to the words of other Vaisnavas, even if their instructions are proper and true, but does not re-confirm those teachings with his own spiritual master and instead directly personally accepts these instructions, is considered a bad disciple and a sinner.' We would humbly suggest that in the interest of the spiritual lives of all the members of ISKCON, the GII book be revised in a manner congruous with the above injunction."

Reply:
Again the author hints at his mystical union with Srila Prabhupada and his insight to Srila Prabhupada's desires. What is the basis for this? We have seen no reason to believe that the author should have some special access into the heart of Srila Prabhupada that is not available to his disciples.

TFO:
"24. 'Why did Srila Prabhupada not explain what to do when a guru deviates?'

According to Srila Prabhupada's final order he was to be the initiator long into the future, and as an authorized link in the disciplic succession, there was no question of his deviating from the path of pure devotional service for even one second:"

Reply:
TFO is lying. There is no final order where Srila Prabhupada indicates that he was to remain the sole diksa-guru in ISKCON even after his departure. On the other hand we find numerous instructions from Srila Prabhupada, as we have seen in this paper, that makes it clear that he intended to for his disciples to continue with the traditional guru-parampara system. Even if one stubbornly persists that Srila Prabhupada only wanted for his disciples to remain siksa-gurus there is the May 28 conversation to make his desires clear.

TFO:
"'The bona fide spiritual master always engages in unalloyed devotional service to the Supreme Personality Godhead.' (C.c. Adi lila 1.46) 25. 'As soon as one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples reaches perfection the, ritvik system will have become redundant.'

Sometimes referred to as 'soft ritvik', the above injunction rests on the premise that the ritvik system was only put in place because at the time prior to Srila Prabhupada's passing there were no qualified disciples.

However, this premise is speculation since it was never articulated by Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
For once TFO gets it right. The ritvik system was never articulated by Srila Prabhupada in any form.

TFO:
"There is no evidence that the ritvik system was set up only as a reaction to a dearth of qualified people, and that once there is a qualified person we should stop following it. This notion has the unfortunate side-effect of making the ritvik system seem only second best, or make-shift, when actually it is Krsna's perfect plan."

Reply:
TFO seems to possess a remarkable insight to the plans of Krishna and His pure devotees. Fortunately he cannot back up his claim from guru, sadhu, and sastra. In which scripture, for instance, is it stated that ritvikvada is Krishna's perfect plan?

TFO:
"It also makes it possible for some future unscrupulous charismatic personality to stop the system through some false show of devotion."

Reply:
Here the author, probably quite unwillingly, reveals his heart. This statement is a criticism of the whole process of parampara. What he proposes could happen at any time. The author reveals his desire to end the whole system of guru parampara.

TFO:
"In theory, even if there were qualified uttama adhikari disciples present now, they would still have to follow the ritvik system if they wanted to remain in ISKCON."

Reply:
If it weren't clear before the author makes it clear here. TFO's not so covert aim is simply to dismantle the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"There is no reason why a qualified person would not be more than happy to follow the order of Srila Prabhupada, as we have already stated."

Reply:
TFO seems to have a stunning affinity for begging the question.

TFO:
"One possible source of this misconception could be the instructions Srila Bhaktisiddhanta left the Gaudiya Matha. Srila Prabhupada told us that his Guru Maharaja had asked for there to be a GBC, and that in due course a self-effulgent acarya would emerge. As we know the Gaudiya Matha did not follow this, to catastrophic effect. Some devotees believe we must also be on the look out for a self-effulgent acarya; and that since he could come at any time the ritvik system is only a stop-gap measure."

Reply:
This is misleading. No one in ISKCON has proposed that we wait for a self-effulgent acarya to emerge amongst Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Srila Prabhupada clearly said that there would be no one acarya in ISKCON after his departure. Therefore he set up the GBC. Even if a self-effulgent acarya should emerge he would still be under the authority of the GBC. GBC is the ultimate authority of ISKCON because this is what Srila Prabhupada wanted it to be.

TFO:
"The difficulty with this theory is that the instructions Srila Bhaktisidhanta left his disciples,"

Reply:
This is just a smokescreen. There has never been such a theory in ISKCON, nor is there such a theory, nor will there be such a theory in ISKCON.

TFO:
"and the ones Srila Prabhupada left us, are different. Srila Prabhupada certainly left instructions that the GBC should continue managing his society, but he said nothing anywhere about the emergence of a future self-effulgent acarya for ISKCON."

Reply:
TFO is fantazising. There has never been such a theory in ISKCON.

TFO:
"Instead he set up a ritvik system whereby he would remain the acarya 'henceforward'."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. Srila Prabhupada didn't even write the 'henceforward' letter himself. It was written by his secretary at the time, Tamal Krishna Goswami, and it was sent out to all the devotees to inform them that Srila Prabhupda was too sick to travel around any more and therefore initiations would have to be conducted by his representatives. To think that Srila Prabhupada would have incorporated his final instructions in that letter is preposterous and shows gross contempt for Srila Prabhupada's wit.

TFO:
"Obviously as disciples we cannot jump over Srila Prabhupada and start following Srila Bhaktisidhanta. If Srila Prabhupada had been given some dictation from Krsna that his society was shortly to be helmed by a new acarya, then he would have made some provision for this in his final instructions. Instead he ordered that only his books were to be distributed, and that they would be law for the next ten thousand years. What would a future acarya have left to do?"

Reply:
He could probably figure out something. This argument is so foolish that I have not found a name for it. But it definitely once again reveals The author's funny notion that he is free to impose his conditions on what Srila Prabhupada should or should not have done.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada has already put in place the movement that will fulfill every prophesy and purport of our disciplic succession for the remainder of the Sankirtan movement."

Reply:
That he has. So why does TFO seek to destroy that?

TFO:
"How will it be possible for a new self-effulgent Diksa guru to emerge within ISKCON, when the only person allowed to give Diksa is Srila Prabhupada?"

Reply:
TFO keeps arguing against its own imaginary objection. Nobody, except itself, has ever suggested that ISKCON wait for a self-effulgent acarya to come and take over. Srila Prabhupada didn't want that ISKCON be led by a single person. That's why he established the GBC to lead the devotees in his absence.

TFO:
"Some have argued that acaryas have the power to change things, and thus a new one could alter the Ritvik system within ISKCON."

Reply:
No one has argued such a thing. Why would anyone argue like that? There has not even been a ritvik system within ISKCON to begin with. Nor will there ever be.

TFO:
"But would an authorized acarya ever contradict the direct orders left by a previous acarya to his followers?"

Then why does TFO suggest that Srila Prabhupada contradicted Srila Rupa Goswami who said that one who can control the six pushing factors can make disciples all over the world?

TFO "To do so would surely undermine authority of the previous acarya. It would certainly cause confusion and bewilderment for those followers faced with the tortuous choice of whose order to follow."

Reply:
TFO keeps beating its dead horse. The point is moot. Even if a self-effulgent acarya should emerge amongst Srila Prabhupada's discipels he'd still be under the authority of the GBC.

TFO:
"All such concerns melt away once we read the final order. There is simply no mention of the 'soft' ritvik injunction. The letter just says 'henceforward'."

Reply:
That's right. And on the shaky foundation of one word, which is even subject to interpretation, the entire ritvikvada idea is build. See An Analysis of the Word Henceforward in DOMD.

TFO:
"Thus to say it will end with the emergence of a new acarya, or perfected disciple, is superimposing one's own speculation over a perfectly clear request. The letter only supports a 'hard' ritvik understanding, ie that:"

Reply:
The letter doesn't even support that. What the letter supports is a communiqu� sent out to the devotees to inform them of an emergency situation.

TFO:
"'Srila Prabhupada will be the initiator within ISKCON for as long as the society is extant'."

Reply:
Nowhere in the July 9 letter does it say anything even remotely similar to this. Either the author is blind or he is lying through his teeth.

TFO:
"This understanding is consistent with the idea that Srila Prabhupada had already single-handedly put into place the success of his mission - please see related objection 8 - "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure devotees".

Reply:
The understanding that the GBC is the ultimate authority in ISKCON is also consistent with the idea that Srila Prabhupada already single-handedly put into place the success of his mission.

TFO:
"It is also claimed that since the July 9th letter only authorizes the original 11 appointed ritviks, the system must stop once the 11 persons nominated die or deviate."

Reply:
This is claimed nowhere.

TFO:
"One must however consider the following points:

1) In the Topanga Canyon transcript Tamal Krsna Goswami relates the following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected ritviks:

Tamal Krsna: 'Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?'

Srila Prabhupada: 'As necessary, others may be added'." Pyramid House confessions 3.12.80

Reply:
It is uncertain why the author has chosen to call the Topanga Canyon talks for "Confessions," but in any case this statement from Srila Prabhupada confirms that the GBC is on the right track.

TFO:
"Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that could be deemed a 'necessary' circumstance for more ritviks to be 'added'.

The July 9th letter defines ritvik as: 'representative of the acarya'. It is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone who represents Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, temple president or indeed GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself."

Reply:
The author doesn't seem to have much faith in the transcendental system of guru-parampara. Maybe that is why he wants to replace it with his own concoction.

TFO:
"Thus it is within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests to act on Srila Prabhupada's behalf."

Reply:
What makes the author think that he, who obviously doesn't have any faith in Srila Prabhupada's institution, should dictate to the GBC what is within their capacity. This attitude is highly arrogant.

TFO:
"The July 9th letter shows Srila Prabhupada's intention was to run a ritvik system 'henceforward'."

Reply:
Begging the question. There is no mention of a ritvik system, as envisioned by TFO, mentioned in the July 9 letter.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate managing authority in order that they could maintain and regulate all the systems he put in place."

Again the author imagines himself to know all about Srila Prabhupda's motives and dispositions.

TFO:
"The ritvik system was his system for managing initiations."

Reply:
There has never been a ritvik system in ISKCON, nor will there ever be. Such a system is nowhere mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books, lectures, letters, or conversations. That TFO can say with such great conviction that this was Srila Prabhupada's system for managing initiations is astounding.

TFO:
" It is the job of the GBC to maintain the system, adding or subtracting people as they do in all other systems over which they were authorized to preside."

Reply:
TFO has no business dictating to the GBC what is their job. This has already been defined by Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"4) Letters issued by Srila Prabhupada on July 9th, 11th and 21st all indicate that the list could be added to with the use of such phrases as 'thus far', 'so far', 'initial list' etc. So a mechanism for adding more ritviks must have been put in place, even though it has yet to be exercised. Were the GBC to choose more ritviks a new list could be sent to the entire movement.

5) Taken together with the will (which indicates all future directors for permanent properties in India would only be Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples) it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada's intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply managing the whole thing.

Having said this it is always possible that Srila Prabhupada could revoke the order if he wanted to. As stated previously the counter instruction would need to be at least as clear and unequivocal as the personally signed letter which put the Ritvik system in place in the first place. With Krsna and his pure devotees anything is possible:"

Reply:
All the above is nothing but wishful thinking and totally irrelevant. TFO has no business imposing its artificial conditions on the GBC. Besides that he completely ignores the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Newsday Reporter: You are now the leader, the Spiritual Master. Who will take your place? Srila Prabhupada: That Krsna will dictate, who will take my place." (Interview, New York, 14/07/76)

Reply:
However, in ISKCON we feel it is safer to follow the orders we have received from our acarya, rather than speculate about ones that may or may not come in the future, or worse still, invent our own.

TFO:
"26. 'Proponents of Ritvik just don't want to surrender to a Guru.'

This accusation is based on the misconception that in order to surrender to a Spiritual Master he must be physically present." Reply:
Otherwise how can you surrender to him? If the spiritual master is not physically present the so-called disciple can just imagine in his mind that he is surrendering to the guru. How can he consult his guru in case of doubts?

TFO:
"If this were the case then none of Srila Prabhupada's original disciples could currently be surrendering to him."

Reply:
Why not? They were initiated by him and served him while he was present. This argument is not based on anything Srila Prabhupada said.

TFO:
"False reductio ad absurdum:
1. Spiritual master must be present in order to surrender to him. 2. Srila Prabhupada is not physically present. 3. Therefore none of Srila Prabhupada's disciples can now surrender to him. 4. This is absurd."

Reply:
There is an error in this line of reasoning. The original argument refers to surrender at the time of initiation.

TFO:
"Surrender to the Spiritual Master means following his instructions, and this can be done whether he is physically present or not."

Reply:
But how will one even know what the instructions are and how to implement them if one has not had any contact with the spiritual master?

TFO:
"The purpose of ISKCON is to provide proper guidance and encouragement to all comers through potentially unlimited Siksa relationships. Once the current GBC itself surrenders to the 'order' of Srila Prabhupada this system will naturally inspire more and more surrender from others, eventually perhaps even attracting die hard Ritvik activists to do the same." Reply:
What stops the ritvikvadis from taking initiation from Srila Prabhupada with themselves as proxies? Why should they wait for the GBC to "surrender"? What do they even need the GBC for? Since the GBC is so stubborn why don't they just make their own movement and show by their own practical example how they can bring unlimited disciples to Srila Prabhupada's lotus feet?

TFO:
"Even if all Ritvik proponents were actually stubbornly unwilling to surrender to a Guru, that still does not invalidate the July 9th order. The fact that Ritviks are alledgedly so unsurrendered should make the GBC even more anxious to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order, if for no other reason than to prove a contrast."

Reply:
Why should the GBC be anxious to follow a concoction that has no merit, just because some fringe-devotees and outsiders don't want to surrender to their guru?

TFO:
"27. 'But who will offer guidance and give service to devotees if there are to be no Diksa Gurus.'

There will be a Diksa Guru, Srila Prabhupada; and guidance and service will be given in exactly the same way as it was when he was present, through reading his books and through Siksa Guru relationships with other devotees."

Reply:
This can also be done by following the traditional parampara system, except that instead of diksa-guru Srila Prabhupada will be siksa-guru.

TFO:
"Before 1977, when someone joined the temple, they would be instructed by the Bhakta Leader, the Sankirtan Leader, visiting Sanyasis, the cook, the Pujari and the Temple President etc. It would be extremely rare to be given personal guidance directly from Srila Prabhupada; infact he constantly discouraged such interaction so that he could concentrate on his writing. We suggest things should go on just as Srila Prabhupada set them up."

Reply:
They already do.

TFO:
"28. 'On 3 occasions Srila Prabhupada states that you need a physical guru, and yet your whole position rests on the idea that you do not.'

'Therefore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Krsna, then from within our heart he gives us favourable instructions so that we can gradually make progress, gradually. Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested then we have to go to a physical spiritual master.' (B.G. Lectures, 14/8/66)

'Krsna is situated in everyone's heart. Actually, he is the spiritual master, Caitya-Guru. So in order to help us, he comes out as physical spiritual master.' (S.B. Lectures, 28/5/74)

Srila Prabhupada: Therefore God is called Caitya-Guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy [...]. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of the spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart. (Room Conversation, 23/5/74)

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

However what Srila Prabhupada never taught was that this physical guru must also be physically present in order to act as guru."

Reply:
This is nothing but word jugglery. There is no way to get around these statements from Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"As we have pointed out, were this the case, then currently no-one could be considered his disciple."

Reply:
This is a false argument. It cannot be compared to having taken initiation from a guru who later departs, and then to take initiation from the same guru after he has departed. These are two entirely different situations. TFO:
"If the guru must always be physically present in order for transcendental knowledge to be imparted, then once Srila Prabhupada left the planet all his disciples should have taken re-initiation."

Reply:
This is a straw-man. Nobody has suggested that the guru must always be physical present in order for transcendental knowledge to be imparted. Apart from that it would be ignoring Srila Prabhupada's instruction in the May 28 concersation.

TFO:
"Furthermore hundreds of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were initiated having had no contact with the physical body of Srila Prabhupada. Yet it is accepted that they approached, enquired from, surrendered to, served and took initiation from the physical spiritual master."

Reply:
They approached Srila Prabhupada, through his representatives, while he was still on the planet. If there would be no need for the spiritual master to be physically present, why would Srila Prabhupada say it in these three quotes?

TFO:
"No one is arguing that their initiations were null and void by dint of the above 3 quotes."

Reply:
Why should anyone argue that? They received initiation from Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"29. 'Can not the diksa guru be a conditioned soul.'

As we have already mentioned there is only one place in all of Srila Prabhupada's teachings where the qualification of a diksa guru is specifically mentioned (Madhya 24:330)."

Reply:
This is a false statement from TFO, as shown below. Note how the quotes below are only a tiny fraction of quotes from Srila Prabhupada where he describes the qualifications of the diksa-guru.

"One who is expert in logic, argument and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krsna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world." (Cc M.22.65)

Srila Prabhupada explains uttama-adhikari in Nectar of Devotion (Chapter 3): "He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He very nicely presents conclusions with perfect discretion in considering the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain the transcendental loving service of Krsna, and he knows that Krsna is the only object of worship and love.

This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class. The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

"The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters." (SB11.3.21 quoted in NOD Ch.7)

"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 Vaisnava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaisnavas, 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 spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Such a Vaisnava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikari, highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought." (NOI 5p)

"A first-class devotee does not at all see anyone who is not in the service of the Lord, but the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and non-devotees. The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciples from the section of third-class devotees or non-devotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of a second-class devotee for preaching work." (SB 2.3.21p)

"The spiritual master's qualification is that he is brahma-nistham, which means that he has given up all other activities and has dedicated his life to working only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. ... The prime symptom of one who has become a spiritual master in disciplic succession is that he is one hundred percent fixed in bhakti-yoga." (Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead)

"A person who is always chanting the holy name of the Lord is to be considered a first-class Vaisnava, and your duty is to serve his lotus feet." (Cc M.16.172)

"The siksa- or diksa-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. The Krsna consciousness movement is spreading now all over the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikuntha." (SB 4.12.33p)

TFO:
"That is in the section of the Caitanya Caritamrta which deals specifically with diksa. The quote clearly establishes that the diksa guru must be a mahabhagavata."

Reply:
As shown above there are other quotes showing that also middle-class devotees can take disciples.

TFO:
"The pertinent point to note is Srila Prabhupada's use of the words 'must', 'must' and 'only'. It is not possible to be more emphatic. There are no quotes that state that the diksa guru can be a conditioned soul."

Reply:
See the above quotes.

TFO:
"This is not surprising otherwise Srila Prabhupada would be preaching a contradiction in guru tattva. There are quotes which may give the impression that they are supporting the idea of a non-liberated guru, but they usually fall into two categories:

1) Quotes dealing with the qualification for a siksa guru:

These quotes will stress how easy it is to act as a guru, how even children can do it, and is usually linked to Lord Caitanya's amara ajnaya verse.

2) Quotes describing the process of achieving guruhood:

These quotes will usually always have the word 'become' in them. This is because by following the process outlined one will advance and qualify oneself for guruhood. In this way one will 'become' guru. The quotes will never say that the qualification of the resultant guru will be less than maha-bhagavata. They usually will just describe the process."

Reply:
This is all irrelevant. Srila Prabhupada instructed his disciples to continue the disciplic succession. Besides, who is TFO to decide who is a maha-bhagavata devotee or not?

TFO:
"We have kept this brief since this is a subject on which another paper can be written. But most importantly it is a topic that is not directly relevant to the issue in hand - namely what did Srila Prabhupada order. Just because the diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata does not mean we have to have a ritvik system, or that Srila Prabhupada set up such a system. Conversely even if the qualification of a diksa guru was simple, that does not mean Srila Prabhupada did not order a ritvik system. We simply need to examine what Srila Prabhupada did and follow that; not what Srila Prabhupada may or should have done. This paper has dealt exclusively with Srila Prabhupada's actual final instructions."

Reply:
All the TFO has done is showing that it's author doesn't have the slightest clue as to what was Srila Prabhupada's final orders. After all, how could he? Mr. Desai is not initiated by Srila Prabhupada, nor does he have any faith in Srila Prabhupada's disciples or the system he set up.

TFO:
"We have also dealt with the subject of the qualification of the Diksa Guru on pages 8, 10 and 32.

30 'Srila Prabhupada put the GBC at the head of the society to manage everything and this is the way they have chosen to run initiations.'

Srila Prabhupada never authrized the GBC to change any of the systems of management he personally put in place:"

Reply:
The fact is that the author has no way of knowing what Srila Prabhupda authorized the GBC to do other than from the GBC itself. He could of course have listened to Srila Prabhupada's instructions and conversations, e.g. the May2 28 conversation, but since he has neglected to do that the conlusion is that he does not know what Srila Prabhupada actually wanted. His assertion that he should know better what Srila Prabhupada wanted than his dear and bona fide disciples is unwarranted.

TFO:
"Resolved: The GBC (Governing Body Commission) has been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent Him in carrying out the responsibility of managing the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of which He is the Founder-Acarya and supreme authority. The GBC accepts as its life and soul His divine instructions and recognises that it is completely dependent on His mercy in all respects. The GBC has no other function or purpose other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace and preserve and spread his Teachings to the world in their pure form.

(Definition of GBC, Resolution 1, GBC minutes 1975)

'The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change'. (Srila Prabhupada's Declaration of Will., June 77)."

From The Timeless Order:

To make matters worse, the rtvik-vaadis tactic of selective, out-of-context excerpting is not l limited to the writings of Jayadvaita Swami; the ritvig-vaadis use the same practice even on Srila Prabhupada's Last Will. In their paper on the "final order" theory, The ritvig-vaadis assert: "he [Srila Prabhupada] put in the beginning of his final will that the system of management in place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed." They then try to claim that initiation process falls into the realm of the GBC's managing authority, and assert that as a result, the Last Will supports the final order theory. Earlier in this paper, out of courtesy to the ritvig-vaadis, we accepted their presentation of this statement and showed that it does not support their contentions. However, a more detailed analysis of Srila Prabhupada's Last Will shows that the ritvig-vaadis' presentation of this statement willfully misrepresents Srila Prabhupada's actual instruction:
I, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder-acarya of the International Society for Krishna consciousness, Settlor of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and disciple of Om Visnupada 108 Sri Srimad Bhaktsiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvama Maharaja Prabhupada, presently residing at Sri Krsna-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. 2.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." (Srila Prabhupada's Last Will -- 5 June, 1977) Reply:
Note that the statement often cited by the ritviks "The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change" appears not in the item referring to the managing authority of ISKCON, but rather to the status of ISKCON temples as ISKCON properties and their management by three executive directors. In other words, the ritvikvadis have selectively excerpted a straightforward statement by Srila Prabhupada that refers to the way temples should be organized and have misrepresented it as a statement about ISKCON management in general.

TFO:
"The ritvik system was his chosen way of managing initiations within ISKCON. The job of the GBC is to ensure it runs smoothly, not disband it and start their own system, and in the process develop their own philosophy:"

Reply:
The author claims that the GBC, Srila Prabhupada's own disciples, is developing their own philosophy but that he, an outsider who never met Srila Prabhupada, follows his orders. We would like to see some documentation for this bold assertion. Now we are nearing the end of his magnum opus of a useless paper, and so far he has not been able to cite a single piece of clear evidence in support of his position.

Some devotees have wondered why it has taken so long for the GBC to respond to this paper. The truth is that no one in the GBC imagined that anyone serious about Krishna consciousness could take this paper serious, fraught as it is with deception and lies. This disposition later turned out to be a mistake.

TFO:
'The standards I have already given you, now try to maintain them at all times under standard procedure. Do not try to innovate or create anything or manufacture anything, that will ruin everything.' ( SP Letter to Bali Mardan 18.9.72)

'Now I have invested the GBC for maintaining the standard of our Krsna Consciousness Society, so keep the GBC very vigilant. I have already given you full directions in my books.' (SP Letter to Satsvarupa 13.9.70). 'I have appointed originally 12 GBC members and I have given them 12 zones for their administration and management, but simply by agreement you have changed everything, so what is this, I don't know.' (SP Letter to Rupanuga 4.4.72.)

'What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by the GBC?' (SP Letter to Hamsadutta. 4.11.72.)

The GBC body should act solely within the parameters it was set by Srila Prabhupada. It pains us to see Srila Prabhupada's representative body in any way compromised, since it was his desire that everyone cooperate under it's direction. Let us all cooperate under the direction of Srila Prabhupada's final order."

Yes. We agree. Srila Prabhupada's final order was to establish the GBC and tell all the devotees to work jointly under its auspice.

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

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

Reply:
And to do that, the first thing that ISKCON needs to do is rid itself of this deviant concoction called ritvikvada.

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

Reply:
TFO must be hallucinating. Does it really think that all the disciples of bona fide ISKCON gurus will buy this idea? What if they are satisfied with their guru, and are making progress in Krishna consciousness under his guidance? Should they be forced to reject their gurus and accept ritvikvada?

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

Reply:
Judging by the present behavior of the author, he seems to be correct in this statement.

TFO:
"In our experience many devotees in ISKCON, even more senior ones, have never really had the chance to closely examine the ritvik issue in detail. Unfortunately the form of much ritvik literature is enough to put anybody off, filled as it is with personal attacks and very little philosophy."

Reply:
This paper certainly isn't better. According to the Isopanisad it is worse. If I didn't know better I'd think it was written by Mr. Goebbels and not Mr. Desai.

TFO:
"The best solution, as far as we can see, is for the GBC themselves to resolve this issue. With the correct information before them we are confident everything will be adjusted correctly in time."

Reply:
The GBC has already evaluated all the information at hand, which is one of the reasons that ritvikvada can be given no credence. There is no way Srila Prabhupada would ever want to disrupt the bona fide disciplic succession, and replace it with a total concoction like ritvikvada.

TFO:
"This would certainly be more desirable than being forced into change by a band of disgruntled and embittered devotees, some of whom may also have their own agendas not entirely in line with Srila Prabhupada's final order."

Reply:
The GBC will never be forced to change by a band of disgruntled and embittered devotees.

TFO:
"Of course we are also subject to the four defects and thus we warmly welcome any comments or criticism."

Reply:
Consider this one.

TFO:
"Our main hope in writing this booklet is that the discussion it may inspire might go some ways towards resolving one of the most protracted and difficult controversies ISKCON has faced since the departure of His Divine Grace. Please forgive our offenses, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. Only Srila Prabhupada can unite us."

Reply:
That's a fact. Therefore ritvikvada has to be banned from ISKCON.

TFO:
"What is a Ritvik?

Ritviks are often defined in one of two incorrect ways:

1) As insignificant priests, mere functionaries, who simply dish out spiritual names robotically. 2) As apprentice diksa gurus who are acting as ritviks only until they are fully qualified, at which point they will initiate on their own behalf.

However we need to stick with the role of a ritvik as given by Srila Prabhupada.

Reply:
TFO is begging the question with its last breath. Srila Prabhupada never gave the role of ritvik to anyone. In the May 28 conversation he gave his disciples the clear order to initiate new disciples.

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

Reply:
This is complete speculation. We don't see any basis for this in Srila Prabhupada's books.

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

Reply:
More speculation and wishful thinking. We don't find any basis for the above scenario in Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

TFO:
"We shall now examine definition 2. As we have several times mentioned, in order to take disciples one must be a fully authorized Mahabhagavat. Before Srila Prabhupada left, he put in place a system which made it illegal for anyone other than himself to initiate within ISKCON."

Reply:
This is a lie. TFO seems to be ignorant of the innumerable instructions Srila Prabhupada gave to his disciples asking them to continue the dicsiplic succession, notably and unequivocably in the May 28 conversation.

The Conversation of May 28, 1977

Satsvarupa: 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.

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

Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.

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

Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order.

Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

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

Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.

Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

Satsvarupa: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That's clear.

Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...

Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it. TFO:
"Thus there is no authorization for anyone, at any time in the future of ISKCON, to initiate on their own behalf, apart from Srila Prabhupada."

Reply:
Look above.

TFO:
"Thus even if a Ritvik, or anyone else for that matter, were to attain the level of Mahabhagavat, he would still need to follow the ritvik system if he wished to stay within ISKCON. We have the final July 9th order, it does not say anything about the ritviks ever becoming Diksa Gurus."

Reply:
The July 9 letter didn't say anything at all about future initiations. This question had already been settled in the May 28 conversation. The July 9 letter was not Srila Prabhupada's instruction per se, in fact, it was not even written by him, it was simply a communiqu� written by his secretary to inform the devotees of an emergency situation.

TFO:
"What they do and how they are selected.

i. The Ritvik issues new initiates with a spiritual name, (see July 9th letter) chants on beads, and for second initiation gives the Gayatri mantra- all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, and was Srila Prabhupada's method for having responsible devotees overseeing initiation procedures and standards within ISKCON. He will examine all recommendations sent by the Temple Presidents to ensure prospective disciples have met the requisite standard of devotional practise.

ii. A Ritvik is a priest and thus must be a qualified Brahmin. When selecting the Ritviks, Srila Prabhupada first suggested 'senior Sannyasis' though he also selected persons who were not Sannyasis. (July 7th, Conversation). The Ritvik's chosen were senior responsible men to ensure that the process of initiation went on smoothly throughout the whole world.

iii. Future Ritviks can be selected by the GBC. The way in which Ritviks would be selected, repremanded or decomissioned, would be practically identical to the way in which Diksa Gurus are currently managed by the GBC within ISKCON. This is definitely within the scope of the powers granted to the GBC by Srila Prabhupada, as they had authority to select and review much senior personnel such as Sannyasis, Trustees, Zonal Secretaries etc. That more Ritviks could be added by the GBC was also admitted by Tamala Krsna Goswami at the 'Topanaga Canyon' talks in 1981, (see appendices)

So in summary the system would work exactly as when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet. The only difference now is that the name in the post would come from a ritvik, rather than from Srila Prabhupada. The mood, attitude, relationship between the various parties etc. will continue unchanged from the way it was for a four month period in 1977."

Reply:
It seems the author of TFO has an uncontrollable urge to become a GBC so he can dictate to everyone what they should and what they should not do. He should purify himself of this contamination because it will never become real.

TFO:
"As Srila Prabhupada very strongly stated in the second paragraph of his will: 'The system of management will continue as it is. There is no need for any change'."

Reply:
From The Timeless Order:

Note that the statement often cited by the ritviks "The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change" appears not in the item referring to the managing authority of ISKCON, but rather to the status of ISKCON temples as ISKCON properties and their management by three executive directors. In other words, the ritvig-vaadis have selectively excerpted a straightforward statement by Srila Prabhupada that refers to the way temples should be organized and have misrepresented it as a statement about ISKCON management in general.

See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story

This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9903/ET20-3369.html

NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP

Surf the Web on