VNN Editorial - Master Of Evasion

EDITORIAL

March 22, 1999 VNN3389 See Related VNN Stories

Master Of Evasion

PRESENTED VISWA PRANA DAS

EDITORIAL, Mar 22 (VNN) – Exchanges between Krishnakant and His Holiness Hrdayananda Maharaja

At this years meetings in Mayapura the GBC requested His Holiness Hrdayananda Maharaja to visit our Bangalore temple to try and sort out the ritvik ‘problem’, and in that way persuade us to abandon Srila Prabhupada’s final order on initiation. When we learned we were soon to be honoured a visit by such an erudite guest we asked Krishnakant for the e-mail exchanges we knew he had had with the Maharaja. Below we reproduce in full these interesting and often hilarious exchanges for the pleasure of all the Vaisnavas. We hope Maharaja fairs better when he visits us, or his mission will surely be fruitless.

Introduction

Over the course of a year, from June 1997 to July 1998, the following e-mail exchange took place between H.H. Hrdayananda Maharaja and Krishnakant. The conversation was prompted by a lecture Maharaja had given in Alachua on May 19th, 1997. In this lecture he claimed Srila Prabhupada had stated in 'many dozens' of places that after 'his departure' his disciples should become 'Gurus & acharyas'. Krishnakant challenged Maharaja to produce all these 'many dozens' of quotes, reminding him that 'many' meant at least 2, and 'dozens' also meant at least 2 dozen, and therefore 'many dozens' would mean there were at least 4 dozen i.e 48 such quotes hidden on folio. The need for this evidence is highly significant since this bold claim is continually made by many members of the GBC. Clearly if Srila Prabhupada really had ordered all his disciples to become initiating acaryas on his departure over 48 times the case for ritvik would be severely weakened, if not terminally. The following exchanges ensued.

We reproduce all the exchanges under the date they were sent, in the order they were sent and received with a line dividing each new exchange Any explanatory comments from ourselves will be under the exchanges in bold and enclosed in parantheses, thus ( ).

Following Krishnakant’s initial request for the 48 quotes Maharaja responded as follows:

June 26th, 1997

Dear Krishna Kant,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I'm glad you
have raised these points. In reply:
1. I may have exaggerated the number of quotations, however I stick by my
basic point that Prabhupada's teaching, consistently, was that in his
physical absence, his disciples will become gurus and acharyas.
2. I am reluctant to enter into a highly technical, legalistic discussion of
the rtvik issue precisely because I am convinced that the real point is much
more simple: Prabhupada explicitly stated on many occasions that his
disciples would be gurus in his physical absence, and he never explicitly
stated the opposite. The latest GBC paper elaborately discusses the terms
rtvik, proxy etc. I personally found that discussion to be reasonable and
have little to add.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila
Prabhupada.
Could you still produce these quotes, of which you now admit there are not
'many dozens', but which you still say there are 'many' of. Please reproduce
these 'many' quotes that SPECIFICALLY state what you have claimed i.e that
Srila Prabhupada's disciples should become diksa gurus when Srila Prabhupada
departs.
Also the paper 'Disciple of My Disciple' that you mention has already been
extensively replied to by us, and the GBC have been unable to respond. Its
seems they are 'running out of steam'.
Thank you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishna Kant,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your reply. I will request a
devotee to go through folio to find the appropriate quotes. I am not sure
that the GBC has "run out of steam".
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

________________________________________________________________________

June 28th

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila
Prabhupada. As you know, your disciple Hari Dasi had arranged a meeting
between us, since you had expressed your desire to meet with myself when you
came to London in July. Can you now confirm when that meeting will be?
Look forward to seeing you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishna Kanta,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately,
after several months of travelling, my strength has run out and so in order
to avoid any health problem, I am cutting short my stay in Europe and will
not be able to go to England. However, I hope that we can continue our
conversation by e-mail. As it stands, I owe you a reply to your letter and
hope to send it within several days.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

________________________________________________________________________

June 30th, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to
Srila Prabhupada.
I am sorry to hear about your health. I hope you will soon make a full
recovery and be back to full strength. In the meantime I will await those
quotes.
Thank you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishna Kant,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your good wishes. My schedule
is a little hectic now, but I hope to write to you in the near future.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

(The evasion begins.)

July 22nd, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hope
your health has improved and you are back to fighting best. You are a great
example to all of us with your tireless preaching despite your health and
age.
One month ago you sent me the message below:
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:52:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hrid@aol.com
<Dear Krishna Kant,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your reply. I will request a
devotee to go through folio to find the appropriate quotes. I am not sure
hat the GBC has "run out of steam".
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami>

I hope you have not forgotten me. I know you are busy but since you were
having someone else find the quotes for you, and you promised me a reply
subsequently in a 'few' days I thought I may have heard from you by now. I
am further surprised since as I has previously mentioned I have not come
across anyone else who answers their mail so promptly.
I look forward to hearing form you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Sorry for the delay. I just returned a week
ago to Los Angeles, and was quite fatigued. But I hope to resume our
discussion very soon.
Hoping you are well,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[Since Maharaja had requested somebody else to find the ‘many’ quotes for him on folio, what relevance does the fact that he was 'fatigued' have to the delay in sending them? Maybe the delay is because they do not exist!]

________________________________________________________________________

July 23rd, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila
Prabhupada. I hope you have now recovered from your fatigue. I look forward
to resuming our conversation, and in particular in receiving the quotes you
promised me, that would substantiate EXACTLY what you initially claimed.
Remember their must be EXPLICIT mention of BOTH diksa/initiate and Physical
absence/disappearance.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

2nd, August, 1997

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I am somewhat rested now. Regarding your
statement:
>Please remember their must be EXPLICIT
> mention of BOTH diksa/initiate and Physical absence/disapperance.
I do not agree. Srila Prabhupada often said that he wanted his disciples to
be gurus, without explicitly limiting this concept to siksha guru. He said
that he would be very happy for his disciples to become acharyas. There is
no question that Srila Prabhupada consistently taught normal Vedic culture.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Having been unable to produce the 'many' quotes of the specific type initially promised, Maharaja suddenly moves the goal-posts and states that the quotes do not actually need to say what he originally claimed they said. Any quotes where Srila Prabhupada requests generally that his disciples should become 'gurus' will now apparently suffice. Now there is no need for any mention of departure or diksa etc.]

________________________________________________________________________

4th, August, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you for your reply below.
It is common in both academic and scientific circles, that the evidence
provided to substantiate any claim corresponds to the claim. I stated the
condition given below because it merely mirrored the exact claim which you
made on May 19th in Alachua. If you wish to introduce evidence that is less
conclusive then you must alter your claim correspondingly.
Thus you will need to retract the emphatic statement
you originally made, for which after 6 weeks you have still not provided a
single piece of evidence. It would be much more accurate for you to say
something along the following lines:
" Srila Prabhupada stated many times he wanted his disciples to be gurus.
Though there is no direct evidence to indicate that he was speaking about
diksa gurus, nor did he link these gurus emerging to his disappearance, I
believe that the statements are equally applicable to both siksa and diksa
gurus, for the following reasons :"
You should then provide both the quotes and the reasons.

We however have analysed all these statements and can show that virtually
everyone can apply to siksa, and nearly all can ONLY apply to siksa. You
are then left with a handful of statements that MAY apply to diksa. This is
the sum and substance of your evidence. This hardly tallies with the
emphatic claims that are made to discard DIRECT pieces of evidence for the
establishment of a ritvic system.
I still invite you to present even one piece of DIRECT, CLEAR, evidence
that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to initiate as soon as he left
the planet - what to speak of 'many'.
If you cannot then at least be accurate with your claims, as to why you are
sure Srila Prabhupada did not authorise a ritvik system.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

9th, August, 1997

Dear Krishnakant,
Regarding your statements, your basic misunderstanding can be explained as
follows: Srila Prabhupada did not generally preach that there is any
significant difference between siksa guru and diksa guru. Indeed he says
they are one. He does mention a point of etiquette that we should only
accept one diksa guru. Thus, once one has been initiated by a bona-fide
guru, one is not reinitiated.

> We however have analysed all these statements and can show that
> nearly all can ONLY apply to siksa.

I find this statement to be absurd. In fact, it is wrong to assume, as you
do, that whenever Prabhupada speaks of Guru, he is necessarily speaking of
siksa OR diksa guru, or that if he is speaking of both, he must say so. You
have imposed here a rule that Prabhupada never recognized or enunciated.
Prabhupada has often stated that the guru is one, which you do not, and thus
he speaks of the guru in general, with the etiquette-observation that one
formally takes diksa from only one bona-fide guru. Thus Prabhupada's many
statements about his disciples becoming guru indeed refer, in a general
sense, to guru, reflecting Prabhupada's language. This is quite clear in
statements of Prabhupada like the following one:
"Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the grhastas,
they are called dasa adhikaris, and brahmacaris, everyone can, whoever is
initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette
they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the
etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can make disciples and
spread. They can recruit more members in this."
Hridayananda das Goswami

[By now Maharaja realises this is not going to be so easy as he had first thought, notice how he suddenly drops the affectionate Krsnakantji, and also stops ending his letters with 'hoping you are well'.]

________________________________________________________________________

August 13th, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you for your reply below.

1.) Before I respond to that, please note that my ORIGINAL point still
stands - that the statement you made on May 19th was incorrect - you stated
that the ACTUAL QUOTES included the words 'make disciples' and 'when I
leave'. What you are now saying is that this is the CONCLUSION of the
quotes, and you have very nicely given the explanation for that below. This
was simply my point - that it would have been more accurate to have stated
what you have NOW done below, and presented that as the evidence, than to
have said that the evidence actually consists of 'many' quotes where Srila
Prabhupada DIRECTLY states that his disciples should take disciples on his
disappearance. This is simply not true. Period. Now we shall move onto your
interpretation below of the evidence which does ACTUALLY exist.

"In fact, it is wrong to assume, as you do, that whenever Prabhupada speaks
of Guru, he is necessarily speaking of siksa OR diksa guru, or that if he is
speaking of both, he must say so."
2). What you have stated above is a 'straw man' argument since I fully
agree with what you have said here and have never claimed different - since
I have never ASSUMED anything. I merely asked you to give quotes that
actually mirrored your claims - that's all. What I DID say is that when I
'analysed' the quotes I came to a certain conclusion. You yourself have
quoted this statement. Thus I am surprised that you have represented my
statement that 'I analysed' something as 'I assumed' something.

3) What my ANALYSIS shows is that there ARE instances where Srila
Prabhupada talks of either Siksa OR Diksa. I agree it is wrong to ASSUME
anything. Specifically there are occasions where Srila Prabhupada can ONLY
be referring to SIKSA. I will state four of these circumstances:
a) Where the order for guruship is given in the present tense - Srila
Prabhupada has clearly stated that one should not become a diksa unless he
has left the planet.
b) When the order for guruship is given to persons who are not yet initiated
- Srila Prabhupada states that one would at least need to be his initiated
disciple to become a diksa guru.
c) When the order for guruship is given in conjunction with the 'amara
ajnaya' verse since a relevant purport states 'It is best not accept
disciples' - this is counter to the whole purpose of being a diksa guru.
d) When the order for guruship requires a very minimal level of advancement,
such as stating that even children can do it etc., since Srila Prabhupada
has stated that ONLY a maha-bhagavata can becomea DIKSA GURU - this quote is
given in the Final Order.
It is as a result of these 4 reasons that the references must refer to Siksa
only, not because of any assumptions.
If on these 4 occasions you are still going to argue that there is still a
possibility that Diksa is also a possibility then Srila Prabhupada would be
giving contradictory instructions.

"You have imposed here a rule that Prabhupada never recognized or
enunciated."
4) Thus we have not imposed any such rule on Srila Prabhupada. Another straw
man argument. All we are saying is that IF from the context it can be
deduced what is being referred to, then we are quite entitled to draw that
conclusion. What is absurd is to assume that EVERY time Srila Prabhupada
used the term guru it MUST refer to both. It may or may not. We have to see
the context. For instance the words Siksa or Diksa maybe mentioned, or one
or more of the above 4 circumstances maybe present,etc. or it maybe spoken
in the general sense and thus equally applicable to both.

5) Our point is that we should not simply make vague generalisations - just
like you made the good point about '90% of marriages in ISKCON end in
divorce.' - and how no one has really made serious scientific study.

Thus your latest claim is that:
"Thus Prabhupada's many statements about his disciples becoming guru indeed
refer, in a general sense, to guru, reflecting Prabhupada's language."
To substantiate this claim you then produce one example which ironically is
not used in a general sense at all but refers specifically to diksa - from
the context - making disciples, what happens after Prabhupada leaves, the
etiquette
etc.(This etiquette is NOT applicable to siksa) This would be a perfect
example of the sort of quote which would have backed up your EARLIER claim
on which you were originally challenged!

Thus having made this claim you now need to demonstrate that there are
indeed 'many' quotes from Srila Prabhupada about his disciples becoming guru
that do NOT fall under one or more of 4 categories listed above. If you
cannot then my original statement, which was based on such an analysis still
stands.
(In your original note to me I assume by 'general' you mean it refers to
BOTH siksa AND diksa, with no specific emphasis on either.)
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

_______________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishnakant,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

> 1.) Before I respond to that, please note that my ORIGINAL point still
stands - that the statement you made on >May 19th was incorrect - you stated
that the ACTUAL QUOTES included the words 'make disciples' and 'when I
>leave'. What you are now saying is that this is the CONCLUSION of the
quotes.

There are in fact many, and sufficient quotes, in which Srila Prabhupada
expresses his clear desire, his basic teaching, which is the Vedic culture,
that in his absence, his fixed-up disciples should become gurus and take
students.

>Specifically there are occasions where Srila Prabhupada can ONLY be
referring to SIKSA. I will state four of these >circumstances:

What you would have to show here is that in these 4 circumstances, Srila
Prabhupada states that one can or should become a siksha guru. If he says
simply "become a guru", then guru can be taken to mean a teacher, the
literal
sense of the word. In the case of siksha and diksha, there is a stage in
which one formally accepts a guru and enters into a guru-disciple
relationship. Followers of Sridhara Swami of the Gaudiya Matha used to quote
Prabhupada as saying that Sridhara Swami was his "siksa guru". But as we
know, Prabhupada never entered into a formal guru-disciple relationship with
Sridhara Swami. There are other instances in which we can see the word guru
being used to mean a teacher of Krishna consciousness. On the other hand,
Bhaktivinode Thakur accepted Jagannatha Das Babaji as his siksha guru, and
his main guru. Thus the "four cases" you mentioned would not apply to such a
primary guru-disciple relationship, on the level of siksha or diksha.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Bingo! In the last sentence, without realising it, Maharaja has destroyed his own case by admitting that such 'general' quotes do not refer to siksa or diksa.]

_____________________________________________________________________

August 15th, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you for your reply below.

"There are in fact many, and sufficient quotes, in which Srila Prabhupada
expresses his clear desire, his basic teaching, which is the Vedic culture,
that in his absence, his fixed-up disciples should become gurus and take
students."

It was this claim, which you made on May 19th in Florida, that began our
exchange in the first place. After you made that claim this is what
happened:

1) I asked you on 25/6/97 to substantiate this claim by producing these
quotes which you said there were 'dozens' of.

2) On 26/6/97 you admitted that you may have exaggerated the numbers but
that there were still 'many'

3) On 26/6/97 I again asked you to produce the 'many' quotes, pointing out
that the text of the quotes must correspond with the claim you make about
them - i.e. that they must mention Srila Prabhupada's absence and his
disciples initiating.

4) On 26/6/97, later on, you accepted this challenge and said a devotee was
going to find these quotes out for you from the Folio.

5) On 28/6 and 30/6 you stated that these quotes would be sent in 'several
days' and the 'near future'.

6) By the 22/8 your devotee still had not produced these quotes from the
folio, but you assured me that you would be in touch soon.

7) By 2/8 the quotes still had not been produced. Instead you now challenged
my original request that the quotes produced must match the claims made.
This was a request which you had not earlier challenged, before you started
looking for the quotes, but had implicitly agreed with by indicating that
you were going to request a devotee to search them out for me. Instead you
now insisted that whenever Srila Prabhupada stated that he wanted his
disciples 'to be gurus' would be sufficient as evidence since such
statements were not limited to siksa. You repeated this understanding on
9/8/97.

8) I however pointed out that analysis of these 'general' quotes indicated
that they mostly fell under one of 4 catogeries which precluded diksa.

9) You have now however repeated your original assertion that there are
'many' quotes where the actual TEXT corresponds with your claim. These were
the very same quotes you were unable to produce earlier. You have also
further admitted however that the many occasions where Srila Prabhupada
maybe talking about becoming guru in a general sense do NOT apply to diksa
if they fall within one of the four catogeries I mentioned - which in any
case is nearly all of them. Which means we have now gone full circle and you
are now back to having to produce the quotes I originally asked for - where
the actual wording of the quotes corresponds to your claims i.e. mentions:
absence/initiates/takes disciples, become/gurus/acaryas.

I WOULD THEREFORE HUMBLY REQUEST AGAIN MAHARAJA, THAT YOU PRODUCE THESE 'MANY' QUOTES.

"What you would have to show here is that in these 4 circumstances, Srila
Prabhupada states that one can or should become a siksha guru ..."

Here you have very correctly pointed out that I have been using the term
'siksa' in a very loose sense. However please note that the term
siksa/instructing guru is not ONLY limited to the formal role you mention.
In the CC it mentions that there are two types of instructing gurus - 'one
who awakens by relevant instructions - vartma pradasaka - and the
'liberated' person always 'meditating' on the supreme personality of
godhead. I assume when you talk of the formal siksa guru you are mentioning
the latter. Thus in reality you could say that when I used the term 'siksa'
what I really meant was - a vartma pradaksa siksa guru and also teacher as
you have correctly pointed out. In other words by 'siksa guru' I mean all
possible gurus - teachers, vartma-pradasaka etc. EXCEPT THE DIKSA GURU and
THE PREDOMINANT LIBERATED SIKSA GURU. Thus in this point I am in agreement
with your analysis.

Again thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule for your
prompt and detailed reply.
I look forward to hearing form you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

[ It is now over 7 weeks since Maharaja supposedly sent a devotee away to tap a few buttons on Folio to respond to a very simple and straightforward request. Having been pinned down again, surely now Maharaja will not be able to escape. How does the Master of Evasion answer the request for evidence? As we shall see he goes A.W.O.L. for an entire month]

________________________________________________________________________

9th September, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I am
concerned that I have suddenly not heard from you for a month now. Please
reply to let me know what is happening. I hope nothing has happened in
regards to your health etc., and that you are well.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

10th September, 1997

Dear Krishna Kanta,
Thank you for your letter. I did not reply because I saw that the tone of
our conversation was becoming more that of a debate tournament than a
sincere philosophical discussion. In that atmosphere, points are considered
superficially, and much that is said is not heard.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[So now he is finally pinned down to supplying the evidence Maharaja suddenly feigns aversion to a 'debate tournament' atomsphere. Is this really the Hrdyananda we all know and love, suddenly gone all coy and shy about debating.)
________________________________________________________________________

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I am
very sorry that you feel this way, and apologise for any offences I may have
committed. However I am surprised that you would just suddenly cut someone
off and ignore them without warning. After all we can all make mistakes
inadvertently.
Also in my last note, all I did was:
a) Ask you to produce some quotes, which you had already agreed to produce.
b) AGREED with one of your major points. Hardly a case of points being
"considered superficially, and much that is said is not heard."
In any case what is the harm in debating points if there is a disagreement.
Or should I just accept what you say without question.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

11th September, 1997

Dear Krishna Kant,
Thank you for your letter. My intention was not to "cut you off". I must
admit that I was saddened by the tone of your letter, and did not reply,
because I felt it was best to wait. No, I do not expect you, or anyone else,
to blindly accept what I say.
Hridayananda Das Goswami

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Maharaja,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Sorry
my tone saddened you. This was not my
intention. I will try and be more careful in future. I am young and immature
and so you must excuse my mistakes.
Could we please now resume our discussion. I would still very much
appreciate the many quotes that we spoke about, since their presence would
bring this matter to an amicable conclusion. Thank You.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(Having lured Maharaja back into the debating arena, the evasion starts all over again along with the more affectionate ji name ending, and expressions of concern about Krishnakant’s health.)

15th September, 1997

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letters. I believe that
at this point the crux of our disagreement is as follows:
You have stated, as an interpretive principle, that general statements about
becoming a guru cannot be taken to refer to diksa guru, unless there is
explicit mention of diksa, initiation, etc. My reply was that Srila
PRabhupada, and the scriptures, state that a formal siksa guru and a diksa
guru have the same qualifications and are one. There are of course other
references to becoming guru in the simpler sense of teaching the science of
Krishna. One cannot automatically claim that a reference to becoming a guru
means siksa guru in the absence of a explicit reference to diksa, because
nowhere does Srila Prabhupada, or the scriptures, acknowledge such an
automatic interpretive principle. Therefore, in my view, there are indeed
many statements by Prabhupada that his disciples should become "regular
gurus".
I think that this is our basic disagreement.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

________________________________________________________________________

20th September, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you for your response. I am grateful that you have forgiven my offences and
that we can now resume our discussion. I will try harder in future to make
sure my tone does not inadvertenly turn adversial again. I am sorry I have
taken so long to reply since I have had no access to a computer since
9/16/97. I have only been able to log on for the first time this morning.
You have summarised what you feel our disagreement is below. Unfortunately
this is not actually the case. You had already stated this understanding on
9/8/97. I replied on 13/8/97 that I have never claimed that any mention of
guru must mean siksa unless diksa is specifically mentioned, and you
accepted this. I simply stated that any mention of guru will mean siksa only
if the '4 circumstances' are present. You stated however that these '4
circumstances' would not actually be representative of either Diksa or
formal siksa. I agreed with this point.
Thus the only statements that could even possibly be evidence for Srila
Prabhupada authorising diksa would be statements that did NOT involve the
'4' circumstances present.
I then asked you to produce these 'many statements'.
Thus at this point there is not actually any disagreement. You and I had
already agreed on what can NOT be introduced as evidence to substantiate
your claims. I had then asked you to present what you DO consider as
evidence for diksa guru authorisation.
Thus I would ask again if I can see, what are, in your view the:
"many statements by Prabhupada that his disciples should become "regular
gurus".
Thanking you again , for your time,
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(Having been pinned down yet again, Maharaja tries to buy time.)

October 2nd, 1997

Dear Krishnakantji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. thank you for your clarification of our
positions. i am now in brasil, and i will be at the above address only until
monday, but you can continue writing to my regular address and it will be
forwarded. could you please resend me the four principles which you feel
mark a description of guru as not applying to diksa. thank you very much.
hoping you are well,
hridayananda das goswami

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila
Prabhupada. Before I resend the 4 principles that do not mark a description
of Guru as not applying to diksa, please note this is not something that I
feel, but also something that YOU have already agreed on:

‘Thus the "four cases" you mentioned would not apply to such a primary
guru-disciple relationship, on the level of siksha or diksha.’
(Your e-mail to me on 13/8/97)

Please find below the 4 principles you asked for:

a) Where the order for guruship is given in the present tense - Srila
Prabhupada has clearly stated that one should not become a diksa unless he
has left the planet.
b) When the order for guruship is given to persons who are not yet initiated
- Srila Prabhupada states that one would at least need to be his initiated
disciple to become a diksa guru.
c) When the order for guruship is given in conjunction with the 'amara
ajnaya' verse since a relevant purport states 'It is best not accept
disciples' - this is counter to the whole purpose of being a diksa guru.
d) When the order for guruship requires a very minimal level of advancement,
such as stating that even children can do it etc., since Srila Prabhupada
has stated that ONLY a maha-bhagavata can becomea DIKSA GURU - this quote is
given in the Final Order.

I look forward to receiving the quotes originally requested.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

(So did the quotes arrive? Not quite.)

October 3rd, 1997

Dear Krishnakanta,
all glories to srila prabhupada. thanks for the reply. since i am now in
brasil, it will take a little time to find the references, but i will
definitely respond.
hoping you are well,
hridayananda das goswami

[Whatever happened to the devotee he had sent away to find these quotes in June?

Did he get lost on the way to the computer room? And why will it take him 'time'

to find the references- we thought he was going to get one of his competent disciples to do it. What has being in Brazil got to do with it? Doesn't he have disciples and computers in Brazil too?]

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you for your response. I look forward to receiving the refernces. Hope you
are in good health.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(Maharaja goes A.W.O.L. yet again.)

19th November, 1997

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. It has
been some time since I heard from you and I was wondering how you were. On
October 3rd you wrote:

I assume from the delay that maybe you are still in/have been longer than
expected in brasil. I am eager that we keep our discussion going. Please let
me know what the situation is. I know you are extremely busy with your
teaching and other responsibilities, so I apprciate the time you are taking
out on this. Look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

20th Novemeber, 1997

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I just returned
two days ago from a wonderful preaching tour of Latin America. I appreciate
your patience. I plan to spend the next several weeks in L.A. and I expect
to find the time to continue our dialogue. Thanks for the reminder.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Very
enlivened to hear about your preaching. Do you produce a newsletter of your
preaching exploits? It would be nice to read how you smash the atheisits and
mayavadis. I look forward to us continuing our dialogue and to the quotes.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(Yes, what about those quotes then?)

21st November, 1997

Dear Krishnkantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I asked my
secretary to send you a few travelogues. I look forward to corresponding
with you again within a few weeks.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Please note the incredible efficiency when it comes to retrieving and dispatching elaborate journals glorifying his own activities. Yet when it comes to finding some quotes, which are supposedly liberally sprinkled throughout Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, we find that even after five months, with all the hundreds of disciples and computers at his disposal he has still not sent them. Could it be that they do not really exist?)

Dear Maharaja,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I
enjoyed reading your travelogues. As it has been 2 months now I am just
sending a reminder to continue our correspondence.

Just to remind you, you were going to send me some quotes where Srila
Prabhupada speaks of his disciples becoming Diksa Gurus after his
disappearance. You also agreed that you could not use quotes where Srila
Prabhupada is simply using the word 'Guru' in the sense of a 'teacher of
Krsna Consciousness' as evidenced by
4 circumstances - but rather we need a specific mention in the quotes of the
actual points that you claimed in your class - that AFTER DISAPPEARNCE, the
disciples will become DIKSA gurus/ INITIATE their OWN disciples.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Hope you are well and are preaching dynamically defeating the atheists and
mayavadis as I know you are the most expert in our society at doing this.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(New year, new hope.)

January 24th, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila
Prabhupada. Since it has been another 2 months since I last heard from you,
I am just dropping you snother line to remind you of again of the quotes
you were going to send me.
Hope you are well.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishnakanta,
Thanks for the note. Sorry again for not writing. It seems the more I try to
simplify my life, the more I get blessed with an avalanche of service.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

(He really must be very a very busy guru indeed. But surely he must have one disciple who could perform this simple task. How can they all be too busy to answer such a simple query?)

________________________________________________________________________

25th, January, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you very much for the note below. I am very glad to hear that you are
blissfully engaged in the service of Srila Prabhupada. I can appreciate your
busy schedule and lack of time. Maybe I can offer a suggestion: Our exchange
has so far allowed us to fully agree on what quotes would constitute the
evidence for Srila Prabhupada authorising his disciples to give diksa after
his dis-appearance. Earlier you had wrote on 26/6/97:

"Thank you for your reply. I will request a devotee to go through folio to
find the appropriate quotes."

Now I know that you are determined to give this matter your personal
attention. But perhaps if you went back to the course of action mentioned
above it will free you up, and at least give me something to think about in
the meantime, by which you may be able to get more time.
Hoping you are well,
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

28th, January, 1998

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thanks for your letter. I will try to
assign a qualified disciple to work on this in the near future. Thank you
for your patience.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

(Goodness, his disciples are obviously just as busy as he is. We wonder if they are all as evasive too.)

________________________________________________________________________

(Maharaja goes A.W.O.L. once again)

21st, February, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I just
thought I would drop a line of reminder. I am very keen for us to continue
our discussion. One thing I would like to say is that I really appreciate
some of the points you have made thus far. In particular your clear
understanding of the difference between a teacher, and a siksa and diksa
guru. I say this because you seem to be the only person from the GBC I have
met who has understood this point. So many GBC's are still quoting Lord
Caitanya's 'amara ajnaya' order to teach anyone one meets about Krishna, as
evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered diksa gurus for when he departs.
Having spent many fruitless
hours in conversation with others just discussing this very basic point, I
just wanted to say I have found it so refreshing to speak to someone who
plays 'fair'and applies the principles of logic and reason expertly.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishnakantji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I do hope that
we can come to some mutual understanding at some level. My hope to continue
our discussion is that I am improving my lifestyle. We have rented a nice
house for a preaching center in Davis, California, a college town near
Berkeley, and I will be going there in a few weeks. Hopefully I will have
several months of relative peace so that I can catch up on all the projects
I have been neglecting.
Thank you again for your patience.Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

15th, April 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Just to
remind you about our discussion. Hopefully by now you will have settled in
Davis since it has been 2 months since our last correspondence.Hope you are
in good health and consciousness. By the way I thought the recent GBC
assessment of you was quite unfair, since we need independent-minded and
thoughful devotees like you to speak up when things are not right. And it
did not make any sense to say that you cannot 'change the engagements of
your disciples without reference to thier authorities!' - you ARE their
authority according to the GBC 's own philosophy - if the Guru cannot
engage the disciple how he sees fit, then what is the purpose of the
guru-disciple relationship?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter and for your
encouraging words. Thank you also for reminding me of our much postponed
conversation. I hope to get back to you soon, and thank you again for your
great patience.Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[After many, many attempts to get Maharaja to produce the 'goods', Maharaja was not heard of again. Silence means acceptance of defeat. It was clear no matter how many times he was asked to produce the quotes he promised back on June 26th, 1997, Maharaja just couldn't, but neither would he be gentlemen enough to admit defeat. Krishnakant then tried to engage him in debate through another tack.]

18th, May, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I hope
you are well and blissfully enagaged in your preaching work. I have a short
paper that I have written about the historical tradition and how it relates
to our siddhanta. Please find it attached. I have not published this or
passed it round since I wanted you to critique it first, since I know that
you are extremely knowledegable about the history of our vedic culture. So I
would like for you to point out the flaws. Thank you very much.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishnakantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter with attached
file. I wil try to read it in the next day or so and give you my feedback.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[The flattery works and Maharaja, thinking he is on safer ground, immediately responds.]

________________________________________________________________________

20th, May, 1998

Dear Krishna Kantaji,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I am sending back, as an attached file, the document you sent me with some of my observations. Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Please note how now Maharaja suddenly finds all the time in the world to reply, and he replies almost immediately. Yet when he is asked to find some quotes, even after an entire year he keeps claiming he has no time. Below is the paper that was sent to Maharaja, with his comments interspersed and underlined.)

The 'Unprecedented' Objection
One of the most common objections to the ritvik system of initiation being
re-instituted within ISKCON is that it is not in line with historical
tradition. It is often pointed out that to operate such a system is
completely unprecedented, and thus cannot be what Srila Prabhupada had
intended. The most obvious problem with this objection is that it is in
itself unprecedented. Nowhere in sastra is it ever stated that a guru's
order can be ignored if it is unprecedented, or that lack of historical
precedent somehow invalidates a direct instruction from a guru to his
followers. Neither is there any mention in Srila Prabhupada's books of any
previous acarya who taught such a principle. Therefore the objection itself
is unprecedented, and thus by its own logic self-defeating and
contradictory.

The following points can be used to defeat this objection:

1) The conclusion that the ritvik system is unprecedented follows from an
analysis of its properties, i.e. that it appears to be unique. However such
an analysis is totally unrelated to the central question- was such a system
ordered by Srila Prabhupada? Just because the ritvik system may have been
previously unheard of, does not in itself prove that Srila Prabhupada did
not sanction its continued application within ISKCON. This 'central
question' can only be properly addressed by analysing Srila Prabhupada's
actual instructions in this regard. These instructions, along with their
analysis, have been presented in the "Final Order" wherein it has been
clearly demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada DID order such a system. As
disciples it is only such orders that have any relevance. Srila Prabhupada
did not train up his disciples to evaluate his orders on the basis of
historical considerations, nor did he ever teach that such considerations
could be used to evaluate the validity of such orders, what to speak of
terminate them.

2) Srila Prabhupada taught that our guide is sastric injunctions, NOT
historical tradition. There are NO sastric injunctions preventing a diksa
guru from initiating just because he is not physically present on the same
planet as his prospective disciple.

The general principle is guru, sadhu, and sastra. The examples of sadhus and
the histories in shastras are relevant. Even Srila Prabhupada constantly
stated, "I have not concocted anything.

3) It is just plain historical fact that Srila Prabhupada did many things
which were unprecedented, such as giving the Gayatri Mantra by having a
female disciple administer it to her husband, giving initiation through the
mail, etc. Every acarya in our line set his own precedents, albeit in
harmony with sastric injunctions. If an acarya never set a precedent, then
logically nothing could ever be UN-precedented, since no precedents would
exist in the first place to act as a comparative standard. Thus to reject
something based on lack of precedence is a self-contradictory argument,
since something can only be unprecedented if you assume that there already
exist precedents set by someone, at some time previous, to act as a
standard. But in accepting this possibility we are admitting that an acarya
can set precedents!

What is unprecendented is that one of Prabhupada's instructions on a very
basic, vital issue is presented in such a way that one must almost be a
lawyer to follow the proof. I am not aware of a single case where Prabhupada
did that. If we take Prabhupada's simple, direct statements, they all
conclude that in his absence, his disciples in good standing should accept
their own students according to the normal Vedic culture.

We learn about Vedic history from shastra.

4) Certainly there is no mention in his books that any type of PHYSICAL
barrier or consideration can obstruct the transcendental process of diksa
between guru and disciple. In fact the OPPOSITE is stated:

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

"Physical presence is immaterial"

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

Etc. - Please see appendices to The Final Order.

We learn about Vedic history from shastra. The basic principle of initiation
is that both parties, guru and disciple, explicitly agree. Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur states in a Bengali essay that Ekalavya was

going to ruin Vedic culture by claiming to be a disciple of a guru that had
not explicitly agreed to accept him. Accepting disciples by mail does not
violate the basic principle of a guru and disciple accepting each other.

5) One could argue that there is no mention in Srila Prabhupada's books of a
ritvik system being used when the Guru is still on the same planet as the
prospective disciple. Yet we know that such a system was used by Srila
Prabhupada to initiate the vast majority of his disciples. Thus if we used
historical precedent as a guide we would need to discount many of the
initiations conducted by Srila Prabhupada as being bogus. This is a clear
example of Srila Prabhupada sanctioning the use of a previously
unprecedented system. The very same system in fact which is now being
objected to on the basis of lack of precedent!

Prabhupada never called his long-distance initiations a "rtvik" system. The
term was introduced by Tamal Krishna Goswami and Prabhupada took it in the
normal sense of the world, "an officiating priest", and used the term also
to refer to regular gurus. The term rtvik is simply not part of Prabhupada's
standard vocabulary for teaching Krishna consciousness. Before TKG
introduced it, it does not appear in Prabhupada's books as a significant
term for anything.

6) Furthermore, what we DO know about the parampara supports the ritvik
system. The most famous example of diksa transmission in our parampara is
given in the Bhagavada Gita 4:1:

"The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to
the
sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of
mankind,
and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku."

And yet Srila Prabhupada describes this primary example of the parampara
system as involving inter-planetary diksa:

"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).

The fact that diksa can be transmitted from one planet to another proves the
viability of the ritvik system, since we know Srila Prabhupada is still
present in the universe:

"You have asked if it is true that the spiritual master remains in the
universe until all his disciples are transferred to the spiritual sky. The
answer is yes, this is the rule". (SPL Jayapataka 11.7.69).

We also know that as a mahabhagavat Srila Prabhupada is at least as powerful
as demigods such as Iksvaku. So transferring or transmitting diksa to
receptive disciples should present him no difficulty at all, from whichever
planet he may presently reside.

In this case, there was communication IN THIS WORLD, ableit interplanetary,
and not someone claiming that an invisible, unheard Srila Prabhupada, by
prior technical agreement, has pre-accepted.

7) Also in the Gaudiya parampara coming from Lord Caitanya, Srila Prabhupada
always presents:

Narottama Dasa Thakura -> Visvanatha Cakravati -> Jagganatha Dasa Babaji

as the record of the parampara, yet there would appear to be hundreds of
years separating them. Srila Prabhupada teaches us that THIS is the
parampara, without any additional clarification regarding 'siksa/diksa',
'gaps' or the need for 'living diksa'. Rather he calls it a 'clear line of
disciplic succession' (Lecture 11/6/69). Why would Srila Prabhupada do this
if he wanted to emphasize the need for 'living diksa'? One may go and
research other books not authored by Srila Prabhupada to present an
alternative explanation, but only the above is what Srila Prabhupada taught
us.

8) Also it does not make sense to use 'tradition' as a benchmark by which to
evaluate our parampara since it is difficult to identify for our parampara,
a package of 'traditional' standards from which nothing must deviate. For
example, a few hundred years ago Madhavendra Puri introduced something
completely new - Radha-Krishna worship. Srila Prabhupada states that up
until then Krishna had been worshipped on His own. Lord Caitanya then
appeared to completely change vaisnava philosophy. Until then the philosophy
of our parampara had been pure dualism - not simultaneous oneness and
difference. With all this in mind it seems odd we should worry unduly about
Srila Prabhupada using ceremonial priests in seemingly novel ways. After
all, he is not changing any principle of philosophy merely by using priests
to give names and accept disciples on his behalf. He is only installing a
relatively minor procedural detail with regards to a ceremony which is
itself merely a formality, not an essential aspect of diksa initiation. The
key overriding principle that a disciple should always get initiated by a
maha-bhagavata who is in the parampara, remains intact. This is the system
Srila Prabhupada left us, whereby potentially unlimited numbers of people in
the future can be initiated into the parampara, using the same system that
was used to initiate large numbers of new disciples when Srila Prabhupada
was physically present.

9) Sometimes people bring in books not authored by Srila Prabhupada to prove
that the ritvik system is a deviation from tradition. This desperate tactic
is employed since there is no mention of these so-called vital 'traditional'
principles in Srila Prabhupada's books. The very fact that outside books
need to be consulted prove that Srila Prabhupada's books were not intended
to be guidebooks for evaluating how 'traditional' a particular practice
maybe. This fact alone should tell us that tradition cannot be an issue. If
tradition was supposed to be a vital tool by which to evaluate the validity
of any particular practice then Srila Prabhupada would have provided us with
the necessary information about 'traditional' practices with which to make
these judgements. We would not need to consult other books, since Srila
Prabhupada's teachings are not 'deficient' in any area of spiritual life.
Obviously if we are sincerely trying to follow and understand what Srila
Prabhupada wanted we should stick solely to his teachings. If there is some
so-called principle of tradition that Srila Prabhupada did not mention, we
are not interested in it. Such principles can not be important to our
spiritual lives if Srila Prabhupada did not mention them.

10) Finally, the whole process of trying to draw comparisons with the past
is entirely meaningless unless you are comparing like with like. Srila
Prabhupada was a totally unique acarya who came in unique circumstances, and
achieved unique results. No previous acarya can compare with Srila
Prabhupada. Even Jesus Christ only preached to his own local people during
his manifest appearance. No-one before has left their own land and spread
Krishna Consciousness all over the world. Unless you can find other examples
of how initiations were conducted in a *worldwide* religious *institution*
during some previous Kali yuga just after the appearance of the Golden
Avatar, you do not even have a basis for comparison.

Thus in summary:

The July 9th order proves that Srila Prabhupada definitely set up a ritvik
system of initiation. We also know that he issued no countermanding order
for it to be terminated. Therefore it should still be running. This system
may not marry up with our speculations about how we think Srila Prabhupada
SHOULD have done things, or what we might have *expected* him to do; but
this is Srila Prabhupada's final order on how initiations were to run within
ISKCON. Thus we have no choice but to follow it if we want to follow Srila
Prabhupada. That's the bottom line. Therefore, the burden is on the GBC to
show why the system that Srila Prabhupada's set up for initiations was
supposed to be drastically altered immediately after his passing away.

Furthermore:

1) The ritvik system as used by Srila Prabhupada himself when he was
present is unprecedented.
2) Historical precedent is in itself no basis for determining truth.
3) We follow sastra, which does not give any injunctions against the
ritvik system.
4) Srila Prabhupada did many things which were unprecedented.
5) Previous acaryas all set their own precedents.
6) Parampara examples and teachings support lack of physicality in guru
disciple relationships.
7) The parampara has no standard pattern to be followed.
8) We do not have enough authorised information to evaluate if the system
is 'untraditional'.
9) The whole situation is too unique to make any valid comparisons.
10) The very objection itself is unprecedented, and thus by it's own
internal logic should be rejected.

(The dialogue resumes)

20th, May 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you very much for your considered and thoughful comments. I feel honored
that you have taken this time out of your busy schedule to look over
carefully what I wrote. What you have written has given me much to think
about. Once I have given your comments careful thought, I would like to get
back to you.

In the meantime I think this would be a good time to wind up our previous
discussion, which has been outstanding for some time now. In being able to
give me some of your valuable time I trust that maybe now your hectic
workload has settled down somewhat. Our previous discussion relates to some
quotes you were going to find me. Infact you allude to this point again
though in different words in your comments here:

"If we take Prabhupada's simple, direct statements, they all conclude that
in his absence, his disciples in good standing should accept their own
students according to the normal Vedic culture."

It was of course a similar statement to this, though in much more emphatic
terms, that you made in in your lecture in Alachua on May 19th, 1997, that
kicked off our whole discussion. To recap, you were going to find me direct
statements that spoke of taking on the role of Guru after Srila Prabhupada's
departure, and which did not fall under the 4 catogeries we had both agreed
on. Are you settled in Davis now? How is your program going on there?
I hope you are well and I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishna Kanta,
In a message dated 5/20/98 4:51:17 PM, you wrote:

>What you have written has given me much to think about. Once I have given
your comments careful thought, I >would like to get back to you.

I look forward to your comments. I will try to find time for the old
project.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Oops! Having thought he had been let off the hook, Maharaja has been drawn
back into the dreaded 'old project'. What can the Master do now?]

________________________________________________________________________

21st, May, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Unfortunately I cannot fully comment on what you have written because one of
your main points is repeating the substance of the 'old project'. Thus in
that sense the project is no longer 'old' but very much current. Thus your
expeditious attention to this matter would be most profitable.
Hope you are well.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

[Two more attempts to engage Maharaja in conversation.]

________________________________________________________________________

28th, May, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I was
just writing some feedback on your comments on the paper I sent you, and I
was wondering, that half the points you did NOT comment on. Should I
therefore not worry so much about altering them, or did you just not comment
on those?
Thank you very much.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishna kanta,
In a message dated 5/28/98 8:05:35 PM, you wrote:

>I was just writing some feedback on your comments on the paper I sent you,
and I was wondering, that half the >points you did NOT comment on. Should I
therefore not worry so much about altering them, or did you just not
>comment on those?

My comments were not exhaustive. I just commented on those points that most
seemed to require comment.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Another week passes, and still there is no response to the 'old project' which he knows must be answered since he had repeated those same old claims again in his answer to Krishnakant’s paper. Krishnakanta decides to respond to his comments anyway].

________________________________________________________________________

7th June, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I have
now fully reviewed your comments and prepared a response. Please find it
attached. I hope you are well, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thank you very much.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(Below are the responses to Maharaja's comments which are enclosed in speech marks and underlined, with Krishnakant’s replies following underneath):

"The general principle is guru, sadhu, and sastra. The examples of sadhus
and the histories in shastras are relevant. Even Srila Prabhupada constantly
stated, "I have not concocted anything." "

We are not saying the examples of sastra are not edyfying or relevant. We
are simply stating that the lack of previous example of some system being
utilised does not in itself make such an arrangement a 'concoction' or
bogus. By definition many 'histories' and actions of sadhus will INITIALLY
be unprecedented. As you know Srila Prabhupada himself did many things not
directly referred to in any sastra. The pre-samadhi ritvik system may be one
such example, yet no-one is currently arguing that it was a 'concoction'. If
you are seriously defending the current guru system within ISKCON I believe
you would be extremely hard pushed to find anything remotely resembling it
in any sastra (although I am willing to stand corrected).

"What is unprecendented is that one of Prabhupada's instructions on a very
basic, vital issue is presented in such a way that one must almost be a
lawyer to follow the proof. I am not aware of a single case where Prabhupada
did that. If we take Prabhupada's simple, direct statements, they all
conclude that in his absence, his disciples in good standing should accept
their own students according to the normal Vedic culture."

Your insinuation that only a lawyer could follow our proof at least appears
to half-heartedly concede that there is some sort of legal thread to our
argumentation. As far as GBC position papers on this issue go, I am afraid I
am unable to return the compliment. In any case your assertion is wholly
subjective. There are many devotees I know personally who agree with, and
understand 'The Final Order', but have no legal or even academic background
at all. (There are also devotees with thorough legal training who also
completely agree with us of course).

Your second assertion regarding 'simple, direct statements' I have already
questioned over a year ago. I am still anxiously waiting to see these many
clear direct calls for diksa guruship to occur, en mass, directly after
Srila Prabhupada's departure. No doubt you will soon be putting this entire
matter to rest by locating and sending me these numerous quotes. Until you
do I humbly pray you will forgive me for not finding your assertion
completely convincing.

I am sure you would ultimately agree that as disciples our only concern is
to follow the order of the guru to the best of our ability. The ritvik order
is actually very simple, in essence it is a continuation of the same
identical system Srila Prabhupada personally set up just prior to his
physical departure. We have seen no evidence that when Temple Presidents
initially received the July 9th letter they all sought urgent legal council,
or complained the order was too difficult to understand. Where things do
become more complicated is when we are forced to unravel the plethora of
self-contradicory GBC papers, whose only uniting feature is their apparent
eagerness to terminate this simple system.

You will know better than I that Srila Prabhupada did not train up his
disciples to evaluate or question his orders on the basis of their limited
understanding of vedic historical considerations, what to speak of terminate
them by such means. That was the real point of my paper, I'm sorry it was
not clearer.

"We learn about Vedic history from shastra."

I would not disagree with your assertion. Vedic history undoubtedly contains
within it many important spiritual lessons concerning fundamental
principles. It is these principles that are most important since there are
many things described in Vedic history which are now impossible for us to
emulate, and indeed they may be things that are no longer authorised, such
as ashvameda sacrifices etc. Thus sastric injunctions, as relayed to us by
our current link Srila Prabhupada, must take precedence over raw historical
tradition. Do you really think the continued application of the system set
out in the July 9th order would actually contravene some stated sastric
injunction, or fundamental tenet of vaisnava philosophy? If so, I would be
very interested to know what these injunctions might be, where they are
explicitly stated in Srila Prabhupada's general teachings, and precisely how
the ritvik system is in contravention of them. As I will explain below, the
example of Ekalavya is hardly applicable.

"The basic principle of initiation is that both parties, guru and disciple,
explicitly agree. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur states in a Bengali
essay that Ekalavya was going to ruin Vedic culture by claiming to be a
disciple of a guru that had not explicitly agreed to accept him. Accepting
disciples by mail does not violate the basic principle of a guru and
disciple accepting each other."

It would seem this explicit agreement WAS present within the 'ritvik system'
(if you will forgive my use of this term). This is explained in the July 7th
conversation, where Srila Prabhupada says he was handing over full
responsibility for accepting disciples to the new appointees. They were to
accept disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf 'without consulting' him. You
may recall that after July 9th there was no longer any requirement for Srila
Prabhupada to be consulted with regards who was being initiated. Thus Srila
Prabhupada personally agreed to the setting up of a system in which all
future acceptance was delegated to his ritviks or representatives. This is
what distinguishes the ritvik system from the story of Ekalavya, the guru
agreed to the arrangement. What the story of Ekalavya does prove is that
physical contact with the guru is not essential to the transmission of
knowledge (as you know he was becoming a proficient archer, before he lost
his digit, without ever having met Drona).

"Prabhupada never called his long-distance initiations a "rtvik" system. The
term was introduced by Tamal Krishna Goswami and Prabhupada took it in the
normal sense of the world, "an officiating priest", and used the term also
to refer to regular gurus. The term rtvik is simply not part of Prabhupada's
standard vocabulary for teaching Krishna consciousness. Before TKG
introduced it, it does not appear in Prabhupada's books as a significant term for anything."

I would be interested to see where Srila Prabhupada defined the term
'ritvik' as meaning 'regular guru'. Would you be kind enough to send me this
quote. As far as I know Srila Prabhupada only used the phrase 'regular guru'
once, so perhaps you could send me quotes which clearly define this phrase
as meaning both "an officiating priest" and "diksa guru".

I am not sure how relevant it is to evaluate the significance of the actual
word 'ritvik', or how often Srila Prabhupada used the term. The fact is that
Srila Prabhupada set up a system, call it what you will, which we all agree
was intended to operate when he was ON the planet (from July 9th 1977
onwards). You seem to have no objection that this system was run whilst
Srila Prabhupada was still physically present, and yet the details of this
system are not described anywhere in his books. Thus lack of specific
mention in his books does not necessarily have any direct bearing on whether
or not a management directive was meant to be kept in operation. We covered
this point already incidently in 'The Final Order' pages 27-29. You might

like to have another look at that before you respond again.

"In this case, there was communication IN THIS WORLD, ableit interplanetary,
and not someone claiming that an invisible, unheard Srila Prabhupada, by
prior technical agreement, has pre-accepted."

Our example above with regards B.G. 4.1 is to illustrate that it is not, in
itself, a violation of sastra to obtain diksa from a guru who is existing on
a different planet to the disciple. Some senior ISKCON leaders have been
preaching that it was. We were merely seeking to redress such false
propoganda.

We never claimed the above example and 'post-samadhi ritvik' were identical
in all respects. Clearly there are differences since we are not powerful
demigods like Iksvaku. As you will know, diksa is a process which may take
many lives to complete, with Srila Prabhupada patiently guiding the sincere
disciple through his different transcendental means. Sometimes by revelation
in the heart; sometimes through an older 'lined up' Godbrother; or most
commonly via his numerous books, tapes and videos. In this sense Srila
Prabhupada is not 'invisible or 'unheard'. He can still be seen in his murti
form, photographic images etc.; and guidance and instruction can be had by
any one of the above mentioned routes, as I am sure you have experienced.
After all, you have not personally had a physically present diksa guru for
more than twenty years now, and yet I am sure the process of diksa is still
going on for you without any major problem.

As far as pre-accepting future disciples via technical agreement; have you
been able to locate some principal of vaisnava philosophy that such an
arrangement would violate? If so I would be most interested to see it.

(The dialogue continues.)

7th, June, 1998

Dear Krishna Kant,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Enclosed are a few simple replies to your
points. Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

[Maharaja again responds immediately on the same day. Thus it is amazing how
he is able to miraculously find the time to do TWO replies immediately, but yet when he asked to find the quotes he claims he has in abundancy, he suddenly gets a seizure!
Please find below, Maharaja's responses to Krishnakant’s replies to bis replies to the paper originally sent him. Maharaja's original reply to the paper is in speeech marks, with responses to this reply in italics, and Maharaja's responses to those replies underlined.)

"The general principle is guru, sadhu, and sastra. The examples of sadhus
and the histories in shastras are relevant. Even Srila Prabhupada constantly
stated, "I have not concocted anything."

I am not sure about this. Srila Prabhupada always said: "I have not
concocted anything, I am simply repeating what my spiritual master said, and
what is in the scriptures.

By definition many 'histories' and actions of sadhus will INITIALLY be
unprecedented. As you know Srila Prabhupada himself did many things not

directly referred to in any sastra.

I am not sure about this either.

The pre-samadhi ritvik system may be one such example, yet no-one is
currently arguing that it was a 'concoction'. If you are seriously defending
the current guru system within ISKCON I believe you would be extremely hard
pushed to find anything remotely resembling it in any sastra.

What in the world are you talking about here? You find nothing in the
scriptures REMOTELY RESEMBLING, for instance, the process in which we come
to know serious candidates, explain to them the teachings of Krishna and
then guide them strictly in the process received from the previous Acharya?
You find nothing remotely resembling a process in which senior Vaishnavas
give their blessings to one who wants to take on that service?

Your insinuation that only a lawyer could follow our proof at least appears
to half-heartedly concede that there is some sort of legal thread to our
argumentation.

I refer to style, not validity.

As far as GBC position papers on this issue go, I am afraid I am unable to
return the compliment.

This dismissive attitude does not reflect the quality of the GBC papers.

In any case your assertion is wholly subjective.
Most average citizens can and do read legal documents, such as rent
contracts, purchase agreements etc.

The ability of devotees without formal
legal or academic training to follow your argument does not change the
legalistic style.

We have seen no evidence that when Temple Presidents initially received the
July 9th letter they all sought urgent legal council, or complained the
order was too difficult to understand.

Srila Prabhupada was still physically present and so a "rtvik" system at
that point was wholly within normal tradition. Thus no one had any reason to
doubt it.

Your real point is wrong. Srila Prabhupada always taught us the story of
Bali and Sukra and urged us not to accept a Guru blindly or as a fashion,
but to apply our reason and judgment to test and see that what he was
presenting was sublime and authentic.

"We learn about Vedic history from shastra."

Do you really think the continued application of the system set out in the
July 9th order would actually contravene some stated sastric injunction, or
fundamental tenet of vaisnava philosophy?

Yes.

This is what distinguishes the ritvik system from the story of Ekalavya, the
guru agreed to the arrangement.

Circular reasoning. We don't agree that Prabhupada consented to accept disciples posthumously.

What the story of Ekalavya does prove is that physical contact with the guru
is not essential to the transmission of knowledge (as you know he was
becoming a proficient archer, before he lost his digit, without ever having
met Drona).

The whole point of the story is that Ekalavya became proficient by practice,
but that he was, in fact, not a bona fide disciple of Drona.

I would be interested to see where Srila Prabhupada defined the term
'ritvik' as meaning 'regular guru'.

I have seen this point clearly explained in GBC papers.

You seem to have no objection that this system was run whilst Srila
Prabhupada was still physically present, and yet the details of this system
are not described anywhere in his books.

Prabhupada's books state that a living Guru can accept a disciple, which
Prabhupada chose to do through his representatives.

________________________________________________________________________

(The dialogue resumes, but something sinister creeps in.)

9th, June, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank
you for your reply. Before I respond, please note that both this file and
the last file you sent me were seriously infected with a deadly virus known
as WM/CAP. Luckily I detected them both times. However I would urge you to
find out how the files you sent me became thus infected, since everything I
send is automatically virus cleaned, and maybe something on your machine
could cause you problems later.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Krishna Kanta,
Thanks for the information. I have requested a knowledgeable devotee to
investigate the cause of the virus.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

(Hope it’s not the same devotee who looks up your quotes. It must be since another destructive virus is sent by the Maharaja.)

________________________________________________________________________

13th June, 1998

Dear Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Please
find attached a response to your recent replies. Please try to ensure that
your drives and files are all virus checked before you send anything. Thank
you.
Thank you again for you continued time and patience.
Hope you are well, and that your preaching is flourishing.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your Servant,
Krishnakant

________________________________________________________________________

(Below is the response to Mahraja's replies. Maharaja's comments are underlined, with Krishnakant’s responses underneath. Krishnakant’s original comments that Maharaja has replied to are in speech marks.)

To keep our discussion focused I will deal firstly with your points which
appear to directly contradict the conclusion of my paper "The Unprecedented
Objection'. I shall then go on to address the less significant points which
are not so central to our discussion. I hope this is agreeable to you.

Srila Prabhupada was still physically present and so a "rtvik" system at
that point was wholly within normal tradition. Thus no one had any reason to
doubt it.

1) I would be very interested to know in which previous tradition disciples
were accepted and initiated by the diksa guru without there being ANY direct
contact at all between the guru and disciple? Could you please tell me where
in sastra there are previous examples of a guru delegating the acceptance of
disciples to representatives, who did not even need to check with or inform
the guru? If this is all 'normal' traditional practice I am sure you will be
able to furnish me with unlimited examples.

Do you really think the continued application of the system set out in the
July 9th order would actually contravene some stated sastric injunction, or
fundamental tenet of vaisnava philosophy?

Yes.

2) Thank you for your unequivocal response on this point. Please therefore
present the specific sastric injunctions 'post-samadhi ritvik' violates.
Please also tell me where these injunctions can found in Srila Prabhupada's
teachings.

I would be interested to see where Srila Prabhupada defined the term

'ritvik' as meaning 'regular guru'.

I have seen this point clearly explained in GBC papers.

3) Although I have carefully read every single GBC paper on this issue, I
must confess to never having seen ANY evidence supporting the idea that the
term 'ritvik' and 'regular guru' are synonymous. It will take some pretty
solid evidence to convince me that 'officiating priests' share the same
defining term as 'initiating diksa gurus', but if you DO have this evidence
please by all means send it. I am always ready to be corrected.

Prabhupada's books state that a living Guru can accept a disciple, which
Prabhupada chose to do through his representatives.

4) Could you please give me the exact quote where Srila Prabhupada states
that a :

" A 'LIVING GURU' can accept a disciple through representatives"

I presume that you must also conversely believe that:

'A 'DEPARTED GURU' cannot accept disciples through representatives'.

If this IS your belief could you also provide an explicit statement from
Srila Prabhupada supporting it.

The above 4 points are actually at the heart of the whole issue, and their
successful resolution would end the debate. Thus I think it makes sense to
keep the discussion focused on these few key points. I look forward to your
answers.

For completeness I will now give my response to your other main points
below.

"We are not saying the examples of sastra are not edifying or relevant. We
are simply stating that the lack of previous example of some system being
utilised does not in itself make such an arrangement a 'concoction' or
bogus."

I am not sure about this. Srila Prabhupada always said: "I have not
concocted anything, I am simply repeating what my spiritual master said, and
what is in the scriptures".

Nevertheless Srila Prabhupada initiated women, reduced the number of rounds
from 64 to 16, gave gayatri by magnetic tape etc. etc. You may argue that
Srila Prabhupada has not changed any PRINCIPLE of sastra in making the above
'innovations', but then we could argue the same- unless you can supply
evidence for 2) above.

"The pre-samadhi ritvik system may be one such example, yet no-one is
currently arguing that it was a 'concoction'. If you are seriously defending
the current guru system within ISKCON I believe you would be extremely hard
pushed to find anything remotely resembling it in any sastra."

The point of issue was the 'current guru system'. You respond with
statements that are related to the elements common to any guru-disciple
relationship - 'the process in which we come to know serious candidates',
'explain to them the teachings of Krishna' etc. Dealing with the actual
issue in hand, can you please tell me where in vedic history a world-wide
preaching movement was set up with a committee who could select, suspend,
censure and decommission a mass of diksa gurus? Also can you show me in
Srila Prabhupada's books and instructions to the whole society where it is
explicitly sanctioned that initiating acaryas can be selected by a majority
'no objection' voting system? ( Also if you read the GBC resolutions on this
subject, you will see there is no mention of 'blessings' but rather there is
a 'disclaimer' to the effect that the guru is not being 'endorsed', but
simply that there is 'no objection').

"As far as GBC position papers on this issue go, I am afraid I am unable to
return the compliment."

This dismissive attitude does not reflect the quality of the GBC papers.

Please do not feel I am being merely dismissive here. If you check our 'Back
To Prabhupada' web site (http://www.webcom.com/btp) you will find lengthy,
painstaking point for point rebuttals of all the relevant GBC position
papers. These GBC papers DO contradict each other, as was admitted by a
member of your own select committee which was set up to specifically deal
with the ritvik issue! (Please see 'The Final Order Still Stands' for
details).

"This is what distinguishes the ritvik system from the story of Ekalavya,
the guru agreed to the arrangement."

Circular reasoning. We don't agree that Prabhupada consented to accept disciples posthumously.

This would only be circular reasoning if we were in some way relying on the
story of Ekalavya as principal evidence for ritvik. You were the one who
brought up this example not us. We have already presented evidence clearly
demonstrating Srila Prabhupada's agreement to accept all future disciples
without being consulted (please see 'The Final Order'). I have yet to see
any relevant evidence that this system was meant to be terminated on
November 14th 1977, (though I am sure your 'many' quotes will soon be
arriving to destroy my ignorance).

"You will know better than I that Srila Prabhupada did not train up his
disciples to evaluate or question his orders on the basis of their limited
understanding of vedic historical considerations, what to speak of terminate
them by such means. That was the real point of my paper, I'm sorry it was

not clearer."

Your real point is wrong. Srila Prabhupada always taught us the story of
Bali and Sukra and urged us not to accept a Guru blindly or as a fashion,
but to apply our reason and judgement to test and see that what he was
presenting was sublime and authentic.

Did Bali reject Sukra purely on the basis that his instruction was without
an identical historical precedent; or because he was in violation of a basic
tenet of vaisnava philosophy? If it was the latter then the conclusion of
my paper still stands.

"What the story of Ekalavya does prove is that physical contact with the
guru is not essential to the transmission of knowledge (as you know he was
becoming a proficient archer, before he lost his digit, without ever having

met Drona)."

The whole point of the story is that Ekalavya became proficient by practice,
but that he was, in fact, not a bona fide disciple of Drona.

I have never disagreed that Ekalavya was not a bona fide disciple of Drona.

________________________________________________________________________

(The dialogue resumes.)

15th, June, 1998

Dear Krishna Kanta,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I am leaving tomorrow morning for Brasil,
and in the meantime, my computer will hopefully be cured of its virus.
When I return, I hope to find more time to answer your points. Thank you
for your patience.
Hoping you are well,
Hridayananda das Goswami

(After this no more was ever heard from the Maharaja again. Almost a year to the day that the dialogue had began with a simple request for quotes, Maharaja still had not provided any, even though there were supposedly many of them. And having engaged him in responding to Krishnakant’s paper, neither did he ever respond to the answers to his last points, even though he said he would. Thus the Master of Evasion disappeared into the night. We look forward very much to meeting him in Bangalore since by now, surely, he must have located those many quotes. Rest assured this will be our first question on his arrival.)

See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story

This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9903/ET22-3389.html

NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP

Surf the Web on