© 1998 VNN
|
03/27/98 - 1715 Institutional Cataclysm
USA (VNN) - by Krishnakant A reply to the GBC paper 'Ritvik Catechism' - from the authors of 'The Final Order'. The following is a reply to a GBC paper entitled `Ritvik Catechism'
which was prepared by H.G.Badrinarayan Dasa, H.H.Umapati Maharaja
and H.H.Giridhari Maharaja. These three devotees are members of
the special GBC sub-committee set up to specifically deal with
the ritvik issue. They were also the authors of the official GBC
'reply' to the definitive ritvik position paper - `The Final Order'-
which was entitled 'Disciple of my Disciple' (henceforward referred
to as DD). This latest offering appears to not have been circulated
widely publicly, and instead appears to only have been intended
as an 'in-house' document. Somewhat disappointingly the three authors appear not to have
properly studied either 'The Final Order' or our response to DD
('The Final Order Still Stands') since their arguments vacillate
perpetually between irrelevancy and crass misrepresentation. This
is a shame since we might well have come closer to some sort of
resolution by now had the select committee dealt more honestly
and straightforwardly with the issues involved. For example, the
committee consistently fail to even mention modifications A & B (what to speak of provide supporting evidence) which lie at the
very centre of 'The Final Order's thesis, and are referred to
constantly throughout our presentations. There really can be little
excuse for this since they had promised us a full and comprehensive
response to 'The Final Order' over a year ago. The result of this apparent inability to confront central, key
issues, is that the GBC are rapidly losing credibility in the
eyes of many free-thinking devotees. Despite what people may think,
that is not a situation we relish. We want a GBC we can be proud
of since it was Srila Prabhupada's desire that we all co-operate
under its authority. Why do we constantly push an issue which the GBC do not appear
to consider merits great importance? Without meaning to sound alarmist, we believe that if the GBC
do not properly implement Srila Prabhupada's final, clear and
emphatic instructions on initiation, the results for ISKCON could
be disastrous. Even as we write the movement is in some danger
of splintering, rather as happened to the Gaudiya Matha over a
similar issue. It is our prayer that by constantly drawing the
GBC's attention to this central issue, they will eventually realise
that implementing Srila Prabhupada's ritvik system will solve
many of the 'perplexities' presently encircling the whole issue
of the guru in ISKCON A `catechism' is a method of explaining an issue which takes the form of questions and answers. In all, the authors have prepared 17 such questions and answers, and we shall deal with each one systematically. Each question and answer set shall be numbered and boxed. There are numerous arguments proposed in 'Ritvik Catechism' that we refer to as `straw man', since they are not presented in `The Final Order'- which is the definitive ritvik position paper the GBC select committee were originally supposed to answer, and which is accepted by most pro-ritviks as representative of their position. ( The term `straw-man' is used to describe an argument that is falsely ascribed to the opposing party. This is done since it is a proposition that can be easily defeated, and acts as a substitute to answering the arguments which are actually proposed by the opposition.) When referring to the paper 'Ritvik Catechism' we shall simply say the 'authors'. Any supporting evidence used by the authors shall be in italics. All our points shall be lettered: Question 1: Q. Could Prabhupada install a rtvic system? A. Of course he could. He told us that there are timingala fish, that the moon is fire covered with ice, that Bhu Mandala is a flat plane. And we have accepted it. So it is not a question of our willingness or unwillingness to accept that Srila Prabhupad, as the founder/acarya, could establish a new system of initiation. Rather it is a simple question of knowing and accepting what Srila Prabhupada actually said. And what he said is "grand-disciple disciple of my disciple regular guru." a)The above answer at least accepts the principle that Srila Prabhupada
could have introduced a ritvik system had he wanted to. b) The phrases used to counter the continuation of the ritvik
system, "grand-disciple" etc., all appear in a tape that was rendered
inadmissible by the GBC's own investigative expert (please see
"Tape" section in Appendix). Question 2: Q. Although Srila Prabhupada wrote and spoke about his disciples becoming regular gurus, didn't he change his mind as he prepared to leave the planet, seeing that they were not qualified? A. When Srila Prabhupada was asked whether he was dissatisfied with his disciples (as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was) he said no. Rather, he said that he was satisfied. When asked if he was leaving any work unfinished, he said, "Yes, I have not established varnashram dharma." This certainly would have been an appropriate time to state that he had not been able to create disciples qualified to be gurus upon his departure. But he did not. a) The above question and answer both assume "Srila Prabhupada
wrote and spoke about his disciples becoming regular gurus". Until
this assertion is first verified, the question of Srila Prabhupada
changing his mind does not even arise. b) Since Srila Prabhupada only used the term "regular guru" once,
and even then only on the disputed May 28th tape (see 'Tape' Appendix),
we feel it is quite misleading to state that Srila Prabhupada
"wrote and spoke about his disciples becoming regular gurus".
Where is all this elusive evidence? Question 3: Q. Doesn't the guru have to be an uttama adhikary? A. Srila Prabhupada says that the real qualifications is to be a strict follower....who behaves and repeats the teachings as trained by his own spiritual master. Evidence offered by the authors to support above assertion: "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 Janardan / April 26, 1968) "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 the material nature.
Lord Caitanya therefore says: 'By My order you may become a spiritual
master.' One can 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
4.18.5 purport) "Such relationship between the disciple and the spiritual master
is eternal. One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual
master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorised spiritual
master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual
master." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.43 purport ) Dr. Benford: So everyone I might meet who accepts Krsna as the perfect teacher is the perfect teacher? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, because he is teaching only Krsna's teachings, that's all. It is the same as the example we gave before: they may not be personally perfect, but whatever they are speaking is perfect because it is taught by Krsna. Dr. Benford: Then you are not perfect. Srila Prabhupada: No, I am not perfect. None of us claims to be
perfect; we have so many faults. But because we don't speak anything
beyond Krsna's teachings, our teaching is therefore perfect..."
(Consciousness: The Missing Link, pages 13-14) Our response: a) None of the above quotes explicitly state that an acting diksa guru can be less than an uttama adhikary.
Thus the assertion is not directly supported by this evidence. b) If it is such a well-known principle that the initiating diksa guru does not have to have first attained the topmost platform of devotional service before he initiates, we would expect Srila Prabhupada to have stated it at least once in his books. As far as we can see he only states the precise opposite - C.c. Madhya 24.330 purport. c) The above quotes clearly talk about the process of becoming a guru, not the resultant level of qualification once the aspirant has become a qualified guru. Further the quote from the Srimad Bhagavatam 4.18.5 could
just as easily be talking about instructing guru since neither
the term diksa/initiate nor the physical departure of the guru
is mentioned. Srila Prabhupada claiming he is "not perfect", and
that he has "so many faults" are not evidence for anything since
we know that this was not actually the case, and therefore Srila
Prabhupada was merely stating that out of humility. The letter to "Janardan" obviously cannot be endorsing non-liberated
initiating gurus for the simple reason that in SAME letter Srila
Prabhupada had earlier said: "On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person,
and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness." To seriously argue that Srila Prabhupada would then contradict
himself a few lines later is very offensive. Certainly by 'strictly following' we become qualified to act as a guru even though initially we may not be qualified. This is simply the process for a non-qualified person becoming qualified. Certainly nowhere does Srila Prabhupada state that a non-liberated person is fully qualified to give diksa. There are several quotes that prove that the guru must be on the topmost platform of devotional service, an uttama adhikari or mahabhagavat (see `The Final Order'). The only way the author's interpretation could be correct is if Srila Prabhupada directly contradicted himself on this most fundamental aspect of guru tattva. We suggest the author's would be far safer to withdraw their assertion since it is a serious deviation from bhagavat philosophy. Question 4: Q. Isn't it offensive to speak of Srila Prabhupada's "departure"? Didn't he say he will never leave, that he will always be present in his books? A. No doubt, any sincere follower feels the presence and mercy of Srila Prabhupada daily. But Srila Prabhupada himself made the distinction between vani and vapu: physical presence and vibrational (instructional) presence. He wrote a number of letters referring to his "physical departure." It was an event Srila Prabhupada himself spoke of. a) We have no idea what relevance the above question has to 'The
Final Order'. We constantly use the term 'physical departure'
and have never considered it in any way offensive. Merely irrelevant
to the process of diksa. b) Srila Prabhupada taught that spiritually there is no difference
between vani and vapu. Question 5: Q. If "regular gurus" is the system Srila Prabhupada wanted, why have we had so many problems with it? A. We have had problems with gurukulas, sannyasis, marriages.... The list goes on and on. That we have a problem establishing the order of the list goes on and on. That we have a problem establishing the order of the guru does not mean the order is counterfeit. a) In the above the author's simply assume that "'regular gurus'
is the system Srila Prabhupada wanted". However what they assume
is the very thing they have yet to prove. We first need to see
their evidence supporting the termination of the ritvik system,
and the subsequent construction of the M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya
successor system). Let us first see this evidence, and then after
that we can discuss whether or not there are any problems with
the resulting system. b) This is a straw man objection since it is not posed in 'The
Final Order'. Question 6: Q. Wouldn't rtvik be a better system? Or couldn't we have both systems simultaneously; some initiates can opt for ISKCON gurus, some can opt for rtvik from Srila Prabhupad. A. We don't have the right to speculate. Our duty and salvation is in following the orders of our founder/acharya. That said, it is worth noting the old adage, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." Many thought the zonal acharya system sounded great, but in time it bore unexpected fruit that was bitter. The great acaryas are trilocan, they can perfectly see past, present, and future. Again, our duty and guarantee of success is in simply following the orders of the acaryas. a) This is a "straw man" argument. We have never proposed the
ritvik system simply on the basis that we think it is a "better"
system. b) The point the authors claim as their own is the very one we
make- that the only consideration must be to execute whatever
Srila Prabhupada wanted. He was the person who originally issued
the final order, so we assume he must have wanted the ritvik system.
Where are his general instructions detailing the elaborate M.A.S.S. c) We do say that since a ritvik system may be difficult for the GBC to
implement in one go, they may want to consider running both systems
in parallel for a short period. In this way ease the transition,
that's all. We have never proposed running both systems as any
type of permanent arrangement. Question 7: Q. Aren't written orders more important than spoken orders (the May conversation being spoken, the July letter being written)? A. "Guru mukha padma vakya...." Narrotam das Thakur enjoins us to be purified by the words emanating from the mouth of the spiritual master. Also, the May conversation was not just any conversation. It was an extremely formal and sober discussion. Srila Prabhupada had personally petitioned the GBC to meet together, decide if there were any important issues that needed further clarification before he departed, and then to come before him to discuss the issues. The questions were in writing, to come before him to discuss the issues. The questions were in writing, and the answers were written down and entered into the GBC minutes books and signed by all the GBCs present. a) The above argumentation once more falls back on evidence from
the disputed `May 28th tape'. (Please see `tape' section in the
Appendix.) b) At this stage the proposed consideration regarding "written
over spoken" is not relevant. We are not even sure exactly what was spoken since the evidence shows signs 'strongly suggestive of
falsification'. At least according to the GBC's own assigned expert,
Mr Perle. Question 8: Q. Doesn't the July letter prove that Srila Prabhupada wanted a proxy system? A. It proves that he wanted a proxy system for the remainder of the time he was physically on the planet, as everyone has agreed all along. It was a time-bound system, put in place until Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. Evidence offered by the authors to support above assertion: Quoting from the May 28th conversation: "Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru." This is the same thing Srila Prabhupad said even much earlier:
Detroit room conversation July 18, 1971 Mohsin Hassan: Yeah, the tenth. After you, is it any decision has been made who will take over? Prabhupada: Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who
are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just
like I have got many initiated from me, all of them will act as
I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all
acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating,
they are being trained to become future spiritual masters. Now,
they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the grhasthas,
they are called dasa adhikari, 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. Our response: a) The author's once more quote from a tape (May 28) which is
currently inadmissible. b)The authors claim that the July 9th letter was supposed to terminate
on Srila Prabhupada's departure. There is nothing offered above
which directly supports this termination. C)What is stated is that one should not be a diksa guru whilst Srila Prabhupada
is still physically present. But the author's assumption that
the July 9th letter was supposed to terminate does not in any
way follow from this given evidence: It does not follow that because DIKSA gurus must not operate in
Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, that no-one can act as a
ritvik when Srila Prabhupada is physically absent. In other words we have two mutually exclusive entities, the ritvik
r, and the diksa guru d; and we have two mutually exclusive time periods: before and after Srila Prabhupada's departure: (b) and (a). We need evidence that:- r cannot exist at time (a). - scenario (1) Instead we are given evidence that:- d cannot exist at time (b). - scenario (2) (1) and (2) above are two separate and distinct scenarios. In logic you could never derive scenario (1) from scenario (2). Evidence for (1) can only come from a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada to
that effect, i.e. that r cannot exist at time (a); or a statement to the effect that d MUST exist at time (a). If (d) exists at time (a) then it will obviously displace rexisting at time (a). One could argue that the quote from Detroit above is evidence
that diksa gurus must exist after Srila Prabhupada's departure, hence displacing any
possible ritvik arrangement at such a time. Objectively speaking
this is the strongest piece of evidence we have seen presented
by the GBC in support of the M.A.S.S., since it satisfies several
of the requisite criteria. Nevertheless there are still several
insurmountable problems with it in terms of modifications A & B as we shall demonstrate in the Appendix - "Evaluating the Evidence".
Question 9: Q. Doesn't the July letter nullify the May 28th conversation? The letter stands alone as the final instruction. A. No. The July letter itself refers back to the May 28th conversation. Just as the earlier chapters of the Gita support the later chapters, Srila Prabhupada's instructions on continuing the paramapara after his physical departure are a continuum. Throughout his books, letters, lectures, and the May conversation, the message is always the same: "regular gurus...grand-disciple... disciple of my disciple". a) We recommend the above answer be disregarded since it is utter
nonsense. The phrases "regular gurus- grand-disciple- disciple
of my disciple" only ever appear once, and even then only on a
tape rendered inadmissible by the GBC's own investigation. b) We would be very interested to see first hand all this evidence
which is supposedly liberally distributed "throughout his books,
letters, lectures and the may conversation". Once this phantom
evidence is produced we may all be in a better position to evaluate
it. Until then we must take such assertions as mental speculation. c) If the July 9th instruction is actually referring back specifically
to the May 28 conversation, as is asserted above by the author's,
then it might be worth reading more carefully what it says about
what transpired in the May 28th conversation: "Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace
in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint
some of His senior disciples to act as "rittvik" - representative
of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both
first initiation and second initiation." (July 9th 1977 Letter, Opening lines) In asserting that the July 9th letter refers back specifically
to the May 28th conversation, the authors have made a double contradiction:
In the present conversation, Srila Prabhupada does not refer to proxy initiations at all, not even in connection with the word `ritvik'. (`Disciple of My Disciple', GBC 1997) However they now state that the July 9th letter refers only to proxies, and that the July 9th letter refers directly to the
May 28th conversation. Thus, we are now being told by the GBC
that... a letter that speaks only of proxies, which are to operate solely
in Srila Prabhupada's presence, is in fact a faithful summary
of an earlier conversation in which proxies are not even mentioned! We might ask how the July 9th letter could arise from the May
conversation, referring back to it as its very source, when according
to the authors the May conversation deals only with the existence of diksa gurus for when Srila Prabhupada is
not present? Question 9 cont'd: ... On one hand, the July letter does stand alone. The proxy system described in the July letter is time bound, meant only for the period during which Srila Prabhupada would remain on the planet. This is the eternal parampara system. We have above two totally unsubstantiated assumptions. Firstly
the very thing which needs to be proven, i.e. that the July 9th
letter was "meant only for the period during which Srila Prabhupada
would remain on the planet", is simply stated; as if re-stating
that which needs to be proven suddenly becomes proof in itself.
You could prove anything if all you needed to do was simply assume
that which needs to be proven. Secondly the authors talk of a
"system described by Srila Prabhupada in his books, letters, and
conversations". Somewhat unhelpfully the authors omit to tell
us what this system is, or where exactly descriptions of it can
be found in Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Just for the record we can assert with absolute confidence that
there is one system that is never described in Srila Prabhupada teachings: This is the system whereby a powerful diksa guru suddenly becomes
incapable of giving diksa simply and solely because he leaves
his physical body. Unless the authors can come up with clear, universally applicable
evidence for the above 'system', then they effectively have no
evidence that the July letter was "meant only for the period during
which Srila Prabhupada would remain on the planet." Question 10: Q. First you say "regular gurus" from the May conversation, and then you say "proxies" from the July letter. Which is it? A. There is a continuum, a series of events over which Srila Prabhupada directed the transition from his being the sole initiating spiritual master to his disciples' carrying on after his physical departure. First there is the May conversation, Prabhupada states that he expects his followers to be come regular gurus after his physical departure. a) Once again this is evidence from the disputed `May tape' (please
see `tape' section in the Appendix). b) There is no transcript of the tape where Srila Prabhupada states
that he "expects his followers to be come regular gurus after
his physical departure". Neither does such a statement exist in
any instruction given by Srila Prabhupada. Thus it is an instruction
which has emanated from the wishful minds of a GBC select committee,
with absolutely no basis in reality. Question 10 cont'd ... Second, there is the garden conversation of July 8th, where Tamal Krsna Maharaja asks what to do about the backlog of initiations, held up until Srila Prabhupada regains his health. Srila Prabhupada discusses handing over the process of initiation to his senior disciples, who will act as proxies while he is physically present. (That the proxy system is based on Srila Prabhupada's physical presence is reinforced when Srila Prabhupada is listing which senior devotees should act as proxies for him. Srila Prabhupada says the aspirants should write "whoever is nearest." Tamal Krsna Maharaja asks about initiation requests coming in from India and Srila Prabhupada responds, "India, I am here." (Incidentally the garden conversation is on July 7th, not 8th). a) The fact that Srila Prabhupada states "India, I am here" certainly
proves that the system was set up to run in his physical presence.
This fact has never been in dispute. We have never argued that
the ritvik system should not have been operated whilst Srila Prabhupada
was still present. What the above most certainly does not prove is that the system was set up to only operate during his presence. This is demonstrated by the very
next thing Srila Prabhupada says: "We shall see. In India - Jayapataka". If the ritvik system was set up to operate only whilst Srila Prabhupada was present, there would be nothing to
"see". Srila Prabhupada had only just said he would initiate in India,
so why mention Jayapataka Maharaja unless the system was meant
to continue past his departure? b) Actually, as can be seen by reading the July 9th letter, the
ritvik system was set up to run `henceforward'. For the first
four months of its operation Srila Prabhupada was still present,
and could thus still theoretically perform the ceremony, health
willing of course. So the system was set up to run both during,
and after departure. That is why Srila Prabhupada nominated someone
to continue in India, so the ritvik system could carry on without
being interrupted by his leaving the planet. c) We have already pointed all this out in 'The Final Order Still
Stands'(page 14) and again in 'Best Not To Accept Any Disciples'(pages
24 & 25), so it really is quite hopeless for the authors to present
once more an objection which has already been answered twice before.
Perhaps they believe that no-one is actually following the debate,
or maybe they are themselves incapable of following a simple line
of argument. If the former is the case then the authors should
think again; if it is the latter then they have our sympathies,
and we look forward to discussing the matter with their more competent
replacements. Question 10 cont'd: ... Third is the July 9th letter confirming the garden conversation of the previous day and highlighting which senior devotees should start the process. a) The authors have already admitted that the July 9th letter
deals with proxies only, and that the May 28th tape does not deal with proxies at all. Given this, how can the appointment of proxies for pre-samadhi
only activity, be part of any "process" whereby Srila Prabhupada moves
away from being the "sole initiating spiritual master" for ISKCON,
to a state where his disciples are suddenly initiating their own
disciples "after his physical departure"? The authors offer not
one tiny grain of evidence to support this mysterious 'transition'-
(which incidentally is simply a re-statement of modifications A & B from 'The Final Order' p.2). What the author's need to prove then, they simply re-state, in the vain hope no one will notice that their version of events
is nothing more than a tiresome liturgy of speculative assumptions,
with no relevant evidence whatsoever supporting it Question 10 cont'd: ...Finally, after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, those devotees first selected as proxies, step into the role prescribed by Srila Prabhupada in the May conversation: regular gurus. a) This is another splendid example of the authors merely stating
that which they need to prove. All they have done is point to
three documents: the May 28th transcript, the July 7th Garden
conversation transcript and the July 9th letter, and then boldly
assert that they are all linked in such a way as to prove that
the proxies (ritviks) are supposed to transmogrify into diksa
gurus on Srila Prabhupada's departure. This assertion is made
in spite of the stark reality that none of the three documents
mentions any such thing! Anyone with a moderate grasp of English
can read these documents and see for themselves that there is
no mention of the following: 1) That the ritvik system must stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure. (Modification A) 2) That the ritviks must then turn into diksa gurus (Modification
B) This so-called `catechism' constantly presents what the GBC would
like to believe happened. However, we already had a fair idea
about that before we read the first word of this feeble tome.
What we really need now is evidence which actually supports the
theories being propounded. Merely re-stating discredited beliefs
is not going to convince any sensible person of anything. Question 11: Q. Doesn't "henceforward" in July 9 letter mean "perpetually, eternally"? A. No. A study of Srila Prabhupada's use of the word "henceforward" shows that he regularly used it to describe situations that were bound by time that he regularly used it to describe situations that were bound by time and circumstance and would be superseded by other situations. In the case of the July letter he used "henceforward" to mean from that time until his physical departure (the event that would supersede the then existing condition). a) This is another `straw man' argument since it does not appear
in 'The Final Order' which the GBC were meant to be responding
to. Disconcertingly the authors were made fully aware of this
when they last tried to present the very same straw-man argument
in DD. We dealt with it on page 16 of `The Final Order Still Stands'
which was also sent to the authors many months before they wrote
'ritvik catechism'. The select committee were never supposed to
write a paper in response to their own fabricated objections,
they were supposed to respond to 'The Final Order'. For convenience
we will reproduce once more our answer: "If the authors had taken the trouble to read our paper (`The
Final Order') they would see we give the standard dictionary definition
of the word: `from now onwards'. Further the examples of Srila
Prabhupada's use of `henceforward' offered in `Disciple of My
Disciple' merely illustrate our point. One must diligently carry
out the order of the spiritual master until one of three things
happen: 1) The order is completed. 2) The guru stops or changes the order. 3) The order becomes impossible to follow. As we pointed out in `The Final Order', the July 9th order is
not affected by any of these circumstances since: 1) The task is not completed, there are still billions more people
who need to be initiated by Srila Prabhupada. 2) Srila Prabhupada never changed or revoked his final order,
therefore it still stands. 3) It is still possible to follow, we just need the GBC to agree,
and the rest will be plain sailing. In any case, even if we leave out the word `henceforward' from
the July 9th letter, you are still left with a system of initiation,
put in place personally by our acarya, with no direct order to
terminate it. Thus if the word `henceforward' had been left out
of the final order altogether, the system still should not have
been dismantled." [p16, `The Final Order Still Stands'] To simply keep repeating arguments that have already been exposed
as being gross mis-representations is called cheating in anybody's
language. Question 12: Q. The word "ritvik is mentioned in SP's books. It means "proxy." A. The word "ritvik" in Srila Prabhupada's books means simply "priest." The post-samadhi ritvik (proxy) system is never mentioned anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures, or conversations. a) This is yet another `straw man' argument. Once more it was
dealt with the last time they used it in `Disciple of My Disciple'.
(Page 5, `The Final Order Still Stands') Again we will reproduce
the argument here for convenience: "Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace
in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon he would appoint
some of His senior disciples to act as "rittik" - representative
of the acarya, ..." (July 9th letter) (Oxford Dictionary defines "proxy" - as authorised to represent
someone else) In the above letter Srila Prabhupada clearly defines the word ritvik (rittik) as proxy. A definition accepted in DD; "The July 9th letter can only be the recommendation of proxies
..." (DD, p13) Thus everyone is agreed that in the final order Srila Prabhupada
defines the word ritvik as "representative of the acarya" or "proxy".
But the July 9th letter also states that this appointment of proxies
(ritviks), was the very appointment that was discussed on May
28th: "Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace
in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon he would appoint
..." Further this linkage is also acknowledged by DD: "There is a link between the July 9th letter and the May 28th conversation. The July 9th letter, issued through the GBC, is a follow-up to May 28th conversation, ..." (DD, p3) Thus the July 9th letter proves that the use of the word ritvik
on May 28th was solely in relation to them acting as `representative
of the acarya' or proxy. Thus by accepting that the use of the
word `ritvik' in the July 9th letter meant proxy, DD has unwittingly
defeated its own premise. Further the general meaning of the word ritvik has never been
an issue of contention. DD's use of their Holiness's Hrdayananda
Dasa Goswami and Suhotra Dasa Goswami to show that `ritvik' means
priest is totally redundant since in `The Final Order' the word
ritvik is clearly defined as meaning "priest" (p.52 point b).
References are given for every one of the 32 times the word ritvik
or its derivative is used in Srila Prabhupada's books, and on
every occasion it means priest. The issue is - in what capacity
were the ritviks (priests) that Srila Prabhupada appointed meant
to act. It is clear that Srila Prabhupada set them up specifically
to act as his proxies. There is no instruction for them to act
on their own behalf. For thousands of years ritviks have been
used in all types of ceremonies and functions. We are only concerned
with what Srila Prabhupada wanted his particular ritviks to do."
[P5, `The Final Order Still Stands'] b) To point out the fact that the post-samadhi ritvik system is
not mentioned previously by Srila Prabhupada in his books means
nothing. Srila Prabhupada does not mention a pre-samadhi ritvik system either, and yet the authors think there
was nothing wrong with that at all. This point was in any case
answered in detail in `The Final Order' (p19, 27-30). c) The authors have made no attempt to answer the rebuttals we
gave last time to these very same points. To simply repeat arguments
that have already been dealt with is most unimpressive, and a
real sign of desperation. Question 13: Q. Srila Prabhupada's will mentions his initiated disciples. Doesn't that indicate that even in the future everyone will be Prabhupada's disciple? A. No, Srila Prabhupada also called his disciples initiated disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. a) This is a straight-forward fabrication. No such statement exists
on the whole of folio. Perhaps this is why they offer no quote
to support their assertion. Again they simply state what they
want to be true, regardless of reality. The quote we think they
may actually be alluding to is given below: "Thakura Bhaktivinoda also wanted to beget a child who could preach the philosophy and teachings of Lord Chaitanya to the fullest extent. By his prayers to the Lord he had as his child Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, who at the present moment is preaching the philosophy of Lord Chaitanya throughout the entire world through his bona fide disciples." ( Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto Three, Chapter Twenty-two, Text 19
purport) The reader will quickly see there is actually no mention of the
term `initiated disciple' above. We all agree that everyone is a siksa disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so in that sense the quote
might be applicable to Srila Bhaktissidhanta's grand-disciples.
But the word `initiated' precludes any such an interpretation
of the will. Since when was an `initiated disciple' of a current link identical
to a siksa disciple of a previous acarya? b) The authors have displayed gross dishonesty in claiming something they must know is not true. This point was already answered in our reply to a paper called `The Timeless Order' which unwisely gained the enthusiastic backing of one of the select committee authors. We pointed out this false claim in our paper `Best Not To Accept Disciples' which was also sent to the authors long before 'ritvik catechism'. How sad that Srila Prabhupada's representative body should behave so duplicitously. Question 14: Q. The will states that the system of management should not change. Doesn't this mean no change from the proxy system established in the July letter? A. The quote is taken out of context. In the will "system of management" refers to the management of ISKCON properties. A change from proxy to regular gurus does not change the "system of management" for the properties as outlined in the will. Below is the relevant section from the 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) a) The authors are once more re-cycling an argument that was last
used in `The Timeless Order', and which was promptly rebutted
in `Best Not To Accept Disciples' (P29-30). For convenience we
will again repeat our original answer: "Thus we are told the line: `The system of management will continue
as it is now and there is no need of any change' is only a `straightforward
statement' that `refers to the way temples should be organised'.
But that is precisely our point. Part of the way Temples were organised was that when candidates
emerged who were suitable for initiation, their names would be
sent to the respective ritvik. Thus the ritvik system was part
and parcel of the way temples were organised. In one sense the
primary purpose for Temples even existing in the first place was
to train devotees up to the standard required for initiation,
not just to be able to boast `three executive directors'. It seems the authors are making the absurd assertion that the
only aspect of temple organisation that Srila Prabhupada did not
want changed was the principle of having `three executive directors'.
In other words you could scrap everything else, such as having
a Temple President or a Treasurer, or donating proceeds of book
sales to the BBT or maintaining the Deities, just as long as you
proudly keep `three executive directors' somewhere in the temple
building ! From a purely legal angle: a) The clause concerning `three executive directors' could only
be exclusively linked to the `no change clause' if the latter
were preceded by the word `this'. b) In legal documents only words in the form of clauses have significance,
not necessarily the juxtaposition of one sentence with another,
unless a word such as `this' is used to exclusively link one sentence
to another. c) Even if one tries to argue a linkage to `system of management'
based on the occurrence of the word `managed' i.e.- `managed by
three executive directors' - we are still left with the problem
that no linkage can be established to the first part - that `each
temple will be an ISKCON temple' - since there is no mention of
management here. d) In this instance the two sentences in section 2 are not exclusively
linked. Therefore the `no change' clause must apply to the will
as a whole. If the above were not the case then the following point would
need careful consideration by the GBC: The `no change' clause only comes in section 2 of the will, not
in section 1 which mentions the GBC, so unless it can be applied
to the entire will the GBC could legitimately be disbanded. However tempting the above scenario might sound to some, we could
not support such an interpretation of the will since we know it
is not what Srila Prabhupada wanted. We might even muster the
support of the GBC itself on this point. Certainly the ritvik system was a system of management. It was
the way in which Srila Prabhupada wanted Temple Presidents to
manage initiations within ISKCON. And as the will attests the
GBC had no authority to stop it. As the `ultimate managing authority'
it was their duty to maintain it, not destroy it and invent the
M.A.S.S: "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 and Pusta Krsna who were acting GBC's
18/9/72 as quoted in `The Final Order' p.50) It is a shame these clear emphatic orders were disobeyed, and
even sadder that some people today have got nothing better to
do than vehemently and enthusiastically defend such insubordination." [Best Not To Accept Disciples, p29-30] b) Simply re-hashing defeated arguments from other people's papers
is not going to help the authors one iota. They must be hoping
that the people who read their `ritvik catechism' paper will not
have bothered to go through all the various banned `ritvik' papers,
and will therefore be susceptible to the author's misrepresentations
and cheating. It is significant to note that the authors have
made no attempt whatsoever to answer the rebuttals to their points,
but have simply re-produced the original arguments. In any debate
the logical thing to do when your opponent answers your argument
is to try and defeat their answer. Not just keep repeating the
original point ad infinitum. Question 15: Q. Srila Prabhupada said "When I order, you become guru." When did he give the order? A. Taken out of context, the sentence could seemingly point to a future order, but in fact Srila Prabhupada made this statement in the context of the May conversation, as part of a detailed explanation. Just previously in the conversation, Srila Prabhupada had said, "So on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order." Further arguments used by the authors to support the above: "Be guru, but by my order" is in the present tense, with no indication
about the future. The "but" does not indicate future, since "but"
can be used in any tense: "I am a guru, but only by the order
of Srila Prabhupada," or "I became a guru, but only by the order
of Srila Prabhupada." It is unreasonable to impose an idea of
future tense on a statement that is in the present. When Lord
Caitanya said, "On My order, become a spiritual master," He did
not have to repeat Himself and say, "Now I am giving the order."
The words "on My order" themselves point to the order. Srila Prabhupada quotes "Amara ajnaya guru hana" which is found
in Caitanya Caritamrta. There, Srila Prabhupada translates it
as "under my order." Srila Prabhupada has used the terms interchangeably:
"Under my order... by Srila Prabhupada has used the terms interchangeably:
"Under my order... by my order...when I order... on my behalf."
Our response: a) The above argument is again reproduced from the authors' previous
paper - `Disciple of My Disciple'. And again we will reproduce
our unanswered reply from `The Final Order Still Stands' : "1) Srila Prabhupada is supposedly giving an `order' which is
only applicable to entities which have yet to come into existence.
Thus we are now being told by the GBC that on the May 28th tape
Srila Prabhupada is ordering conceptual entities called ritviks
to become guru then and there. The very same ritviks who were
not `ordered' until July 9th. Thus Srila Prabhupada is supposedly
giving an order for an entity (ritvik acting as proxy) to change
into another entity (diksa guru) before the first entity has even
been ordered into existence! 2) If we are to accept that this was a specific order, rather
than a general statement of principle, then surely it would need
to have been directed at the specific individuals it was applicable
to. The words "on my order" were only spoken to the small GBC
delegation who happened to be in Srila Prabhupada's bedroom at
the time. It certainly could not be an order for the 11 ritviks,
because they did not even exist at this point. 3) DD asserts that the whole May conversation only relates to
after Srila Prabhupada's departure. It is also claimed that the
words "on my order" are used in a present tense sense. Thus DD
is contradicting its own thesis since Srila Prabhupada is supposedly
then and there ordering diksa gurus, in a conversation which we
are told only relates to what is to take place after his departure.
How can Srila Prabhupada have been talking about appointing diksa
gurus then and there when he has only just said - "..in my presence
one should not become guru..." ? Even leaving that aside, if Srila
Prabhupada is ordering diksa gurus then and there, in his presence,
then this would surely be violating the "law of disciplic succession"
which the GBC are so fond of repeating. Perhaps the GBC might
then argue that the law would only be broken if the ritvik/guru
hybrid entities had actually began initiating pre-departure. But
this simply adds to the confusion if we look at the entities Srila
Prabhupada was supposedly talking about in the May conversation.
We are now dealing with: officiating acarya/ritvik/ priest/latent diksa gurus who do not
as yet exist, but when they do will already have been ordered
to change function and be something else. 4) It should be noted that the GBC offer not one scrap of evidence
to support their hypothesis that on every occasion where Srila
Prabhupada uses the phrase "on my order" he was automatically
then and there authorising all and sundry to become initiating
diksa gurus. If this was indeed the case there should have been
large numbers of expectant diksa gurus all vying for disciples
in ISKCON within a short time of the society being formed - the
"law of disciplic succession" was only invoked after 1975; and
when using the phrase "on my order" Srila Prabhupada never once
restricted its application to post -samadhi only. Also the phrase "on my order" is derived from the verse in the
C.C. `amara ajnana guru hana', (originally spoken five hundred
years ago by Lord Caitanya, and cited by Srila Prabhupada after
the words `On My Order' in the May conversation). Both the verse
and the phrase were repeated on many occasions previous to May
28th 1977 by Srila Prabhupada. As is explained in `The Final Order',
this verse encourages everyone to become instructing spiritual
masters (vartma-pradasaka and siksa) there & then, not diksa gurus
post-samadhi. This is made abundantly clear in the detailed purports
following this verse- "It is best not to accept disciples"(C.c.
Madhya, 7.130, purport)." [`The Final Order Still Stands', p9-10] b) If the authors believe rebuttals such as the one above are
flawed in some way, then the best thing for them would be to point
out the defects. It makes no sense at all for them to keep continuously
repeating defeated propositions. Question 15 cont'd: ... Considering the context, one can see that Srila Prabhupada is confirming what he has said all along, that under his order, by his sanction, on his behalf, his disciples should become regular gurus after his physical departure. The order is given in his books, confirmed in the May conversation, and begins to unfold with the July letter. a) Above we are enticed with the promise of more spectral evidence:
"the order is given in his books" we are advised. If the `order
is given in his books' why not just quote them and put the matter
to rest? Of course no such order exists in Srila Prabhupada's
books; thus the authors are either completely incompetent, or
deliberately lying. b) How can the order to be `regular gurus after his physical departure'
begin to `unfold with the July letter' when:
Question 16: Q. What about differences in the various GBC papers that have come out? Don't the GBC members keep changing their position? A. Understandings of how Srila Prabhupada wanted regular gurus in ISKCON to function, if and how the number of gurus should expand, and ISKCON to function, if and how the number of gurus should expand, and understandings of how to apply the order from Srila Prabhupada have evolved. But there never has been any doubt that Srila Prabhupada clearly ordered his followers to carry on the parampara as regular gurus. There has never been any doubt that Srila Prabhupada did not institute a permanent, post Samadhi rtvic (proxy) system. a) The only way one can reasonably accommodate the notion of completely
contradictory understandings arising from the same identical evidence,
over a period of twenty years, is if the evidence itself is confusing
or unclear. Rather than hang everything on the currently discredited
May 28th tape, we suggest the GBC stick to clear signed evidence
such as the July 9th policy document. b) The fact that for the last twenty years the GBC's justification
for dismantling the ritvik system and constructing the M.A.S.S.,
amounts to nothing but a miasma of discordant testimony, only
goes to show how strong motivation can blind one to simple truths. c) And despite all the differing contradictory interpretations
of apparently falsified evidence; all the shifting position papers
and guru system reformations; all the subtle philosophical deviations;
all the misrepresentations and illogical and unsubstantiated propositions,
we are told that through all this the GBC were never in any doubt
whatsoever that Srila Prabhupada definitely did not want the ritvik
system continued. What unbridled nonsense! Question 17: Q. What about the Topanga tapes? Didn't Tamal Krsna Maharaja reveal that there was a conspiracy to cover up Srila Prabhupada's desire for a proxy system? A. In the Topanga tapes Tamal Krsna Maharaja says that it was a mistake to not expand the number of gurus sooner in ISKCON. He concedes that the zonal acharya system was wrong. He says that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his disciples to become qualified and become regular gurus. Tamal Krsna Maharaja never said that Srila Prabhupada wanted a rtvic (proxy) system. a) This is yet another `straw man' argument. We have never claimed
that the Topanga tapes are direct evidence for a post-samadhi
ritvik system. We have simply maintained that it is evidence against
the theory that the `11' were given the role of diksa guru by
Srila Prabhupada via an order on the `May' tape. The very theory
which is now once again being propagated by the authors. This ends our examination of the GBC paper 'ritvik catechism'. Conclusion: We have shown that 'ritvik catechism' is nothing but an unwholesome
blend of straw-man arguments, false supposition and the recycling
of previously defeated propositions. We hope the GBC will realise
that they can no longer get away with this sort of repetitive
inanity. The world is watching now. We strongly urge them to re-introduce
Srila Prabhupada's ritvik system as soon as is practical, or risk
an institutional cataclysm, or at the very least utter disapprobation.
Please forgive any offence. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Appendix 1 - The Tape The only piece of evidence offered by the GBC to justify the disbanding
of the ritvik system, and the consequent replacement of Srila
Prabhupada with the MASS, is a taped conversation held with Srila
Prabhupada on May 28th, 1977. Leaving aside whether or not this
evidence actually supports the GBC's position, the main problem
with the `evidence' has always been its authenticity. Over the
years there have been 5 different official transcripts of the
same short (approx. 30 seconds) conversation, and 4 official interpretations.
It was with a view to clearing up this issue of authenticity that
the GBC passed a resolution in 1997 to have the tape investigated
by a forensic examiner. This was done through a special committee
set-up for this task, who engaged the services of world renowned
forensic investigator, Norman Perle. On September 22nd, 1997,
Mr Perle released a report of a preliminary analysis that was
done on a COPY of the tape. A preliminary analysis is usually
done to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for conducting
a much costlier and more in-depth forensic investigation. Normally
if the preliminary analysis, which only runs some basic checks,
finds evidence that casts doubts on the reliability of the evidence,
a full forensic examination is recommended by the investigator
on the ORIGINAL version of the tape, to conclusively determine
the nature and scope of any possible tampering. This is what the
report concluded: "In conclusion, this recording exhibits strong signs suggestive of falsification. I do not believe that these deficiencies might possibly be the product of some mechanical process or problem within the recording or duplication process and I believe that they exist at what is considered to be a higher degree than that of a coincidence. I strongly recommend that an independent Forensic Analysis be conducted the Master recording in order to determine the authenticity and originality of the evidence. This analysis requires what is represented as the original recording and the original tape recorder upon which this recording was represented to be made." (N. Perle, GBC appointed forensic investigator, 22/9/97) The conclusion, in the words of the GBC's own appointed examiner,
is that until such a forensic analysis is done on the ORIGINAL
tape, we have no grounds for assuming the reliability and authenticity
of the evidence. Thus until the investigation is done the GBC
effectively have no evidence on the table. Unfortunately, rather than accept the conclusions of their own
expert, the GBC have ignored him. They presently have no plans
to conduct a full forensic analysis. Further, in a blatant act
of cheating, they have continued to present the tape as 100% bona
fide evidence, even though their own investigation has concluded
that there are no grounds for doing this. This they need to do,
of course, since they have no other evidence to present. The above
`catechism', which was produced after Mr Perle's report came out, is an example of such cheating. The
authors have presented many arguments using extracts from the
tape, even though there is currently no basis for doing so. They have tried to defend their actions by putting forward two
justifications: 1) The preliminary analysis on the copy, which was done on the
WHOLE tape from which the disputed 30 second extract is taken
from, did not reveal any signs of `editing' or other `irregularities'
in the actual crucial 30 second `appt tape' section. Thus this
section at least remains `intact'. Our response: a) A preliminary analysis only runs basic checks and is not even
designed to find all the instances of irregularities that can
be present on a tape. It is ONLY designed to check if there are
enough irregularities to cast doubt on the reliability of the
evidence, so as to justify conducting a full forensic examination.
b) Since a preliminary analysis is done on a copy, there are many
types of tampering that can only be discovered by doing a forensic
on the ORIGINAL. c) The forensic examiner concerned was asked directly if any portion
of a tape can be taken as `intact' after a preliminary analysis
had discovered enough irregularities to warrant the conduction
of a full forensic analysis. His answer was as follows: "IF the copy contains signs suggestive of falsification, that
copy could NOT be relied upon as a faithful and accurate rendition
of the original." "If the preliminary analysis discovers ANY area that is significantly suggestive of falsification, then the ENTIRE recording is in question and a Forensic Analysis should be done." (N. Perle, 13/10/97 & 14/10/97, in response to query asking if
ANY part of a tape can be taken as being `intact', after a preliminary
analysis had discovered irregularities) The GBC's second justification: 2) The irregularities discovered can easily be explained by the
process that was used when recording Srila Prabhupada's talks: i) Frequent stopping and starting; ii) Re-using tapes by taping over previously recorded tapes; etc.etc., Since the taping done was not completely professional many of
Srila Prabhupada's tapes would fail such a `preliminary analysis'
and therefore such a failure in this case is of no significance.
Our response: a) If this was actually the case then it begs the question as
to why such an investigation was carried out in the first place.
If one has no faith in such `technical' methods then to have employed
them to simply reject them later, when the results did not suit
one's purpose, is just another clear example of cheating. b) To be able to accurately explain away all the irregularities,
in the manner attempted above, one would not only need to be a
qualified forensic examiner, but a psychic one at that, since
his conclusion would have been reached before the forensic analysis
was even performed. If anyone had the ability to precisely pin-point
the cause of all the irregularities which a preliminary analysis
uncovers, simply through a mixture of guess work and speculation,
then he would definitely revolutionise forensic science as we
know it. c) We are more than happy to except that a full forensic examination
may indeed verify that the supposed 'irregularities' are all justified,
and that the evidence of the tape is fully authentic. The words
spoken on the tape fully support our position. Srila Prabhupada
clearly states that he will select ritviks to enable initiations
to continue to be conducted after his departure. We simply ask
that the GBC get all this established in line with the recommendations
of their own investigation, that's all. Appendix 2: Evaluating the Evidence: In the 'ritvik catechism' paper, the GBC present a quote from
Srila Prabhupada (Detroit) where he speaks of his disciples being
qualified to take on the role of diksa guru once he departs. We
will discuss all statements made by Srila Prabhupada in the 11
year period that ISKCON was running during his physical presence,
that mention his disciples taking their own disciples once he
departs. There are actually only 6 examples in all. We are only
listing those where the issue of Srila Prabhupada's disciples
specifically accepting their own disciples once he departs is
mentioned, since only this evidence could conceivably be used
to support the removal of Srila Prabhupada as the initiating guru
for ISKCON, and the subsequent construction of the M.A.S.S. (We
have not included two other quotes were the issue of being 'guru'
and 'acarya' when Srila Prabhupada departs is mentioned, since
there is no reference to taking disciples, unlike the quotes below.)
We have not been able to find any other quotes, neither have the
GBC ever presented any others, so we shall take the following
list as complete: "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." (SP 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." (SP 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." (SP Letter to Hansadutta, 1/10/74) So far as your taking initiation from Brahmananda Maharaja, I have no objection, but it is the etiquette that in the presence of one's Spiritual Master, one does not accept disciples. In this connection, Swami Brahmananda may write me and I will instruct him. (SP Letter to John Milner, 24/3/71) "Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bona fide spiritual master and spread Krsna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krsna very happy." (SP Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2/12/75) Mohsin Hassan: Yeah, the tenth. After you, is it any decision has been made who will take over? Prabhupada: Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, the are being trained to become future spiritual masters. Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the grhasthas, they are called dasa adhikari, 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. (Detroit room conversation July 18, 1971) General Points 1) All evidence is in the form of private letters (except Detroit)
which are not always universally applicable. 2) Usually the letters were issued as a reaction to some premature
attempt at being a diksa guru, which needed to be blocked. 3) All evidence exists only because some external circumstance
prompted their release. In other words the evidence only exists
because someone deviated or (in the case of Detroit) personally
asked Srila Prabhupada a question. If Srila Prabhupada wanted
something enacted by the whole movement he would either get the
GBC to pass a resolution, or send a letter to all his leaders.
Thus the July 9th letter is in an entirely different category
to the GBC's so-called modifying evidence. 4) None of this evidence was available publicly at the point of
Srila Prabhupada's departure. The letters were released by 'unauthorised'
behaviour in 1986; the Detroit tape was only available for the
first time last year (1997) in either recorded or transcript form. 5) Such letters were only ever sent to some of the most ambitious
deviants in the society. Why seriously promise diksa guru-hood
only to those least qualified? 6) Srila Prabhupada never insisted on the letters being published.
Even when he was asked if they could print them, he said it could
be done only if it did not "detract from your other important
engagements" (letter to Gargamuni, 17/2/69). Therefore how could
their contents be considered vital appendages to the final order? 7) The whole emphasis of the letters is to stop the devotees concerned
from being diksa gurus now, and at least waiting until after his
departure. Delaying something is not the same as recommending
it. 8) In the case of Room Conversations, they cannot possibly be
considered a guaranteed means of relaying important policy decisions
to the entire movement since: a) No guarantee that any given recording would come out audibly. b) No guarantee the recording would be transcribed. c) No guarantee that the tapes would be listened to in time to act at the point of Srila Prabhupada's departure. d) Even if the tapes were listened to, the right devotee would need to pick out the one or two relevant sentences from literally hundreds of tapes in order to obtain instructions on how to manage initiations within ISKCON. e)There is no single example of Srila Prabhupada issuing important
directives simply through some casual chat with visitors, or private
letters to problem disciples. With such serious unpredictable hurdles, it is unreasonable to
assume that information given in private letters or lecture/morning
walk/ room conversations, and which is not then repeated in his
books or instructions to the whole society, is intended to be
used to modify an order which was issued to the entire Movement. 9) It is unbelievable that anyone would direct a massive world-wide
organisation by telling a few people something, but omit to ask
them to tell everyone else. Would Srila Prabhupada say something
to a one time visitor (Detroit), then rely on the tape being audibly
recorded; then rely on it being accurately transcribed; then count
on all his disciples subscribing to the BBT tape ministry, then
hope against hope they all listen to the important bit before
he leaves the planet - and as a result develop the correct initiation
system. To argue this is pure madness. To illustrate our point, the Detroit conversation, which is arguably
the GBC's best evidence, was not available in either a recorded
or transcript form until last year. How can anyone believe it
contains information crucial to the running of ISKCON, or which
was meant to somehow displace an order which was sent to the entire
movement in 1977? Specific Points We will now examine each of the pieces of evidence in detail.
In each case it appears that Srila Prabhupada only made these
statements, according to the context, to deal with a situation.
The letters to Acyutananda, Hamsaduta and Tusta Krishna were dealing
with ambitious individuals whose rampant guru ambitions even whilst
Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet needed to be curbed.
The private letters were clearly worded in order to control these
ambitious, potentially deviant disciples. By offering the guru
carrot, there was at least the possibility that they would carry
on in devotional service and thus in time become purified. Such
letters always tell them to wait, and not to do it now. Hardly
enthusiastic encouragement. In the case of Acyutananda this ambition
manifested barely after he had joined and Srila Prabhupada said
"do not be allured by such maya"; see letter in 1968 above. In
1972 less than 4 years later Srila Prabhupada is again having
to deal with the same desire for being guru from Acyutananda.
In the case of the letter to Hamsaduta in 1974 we can see that
whereas at least Acyutananda asked for permission, Hamsaduta had
already started to accept worship, and that Srila Prabhupada had
to rebuke him that "it will create factions". These letters are
clearly warnings against unauthorised behaviour, not authorising
future guru-ships to those least qualified to take it up. In the case of the letter to Tusta Krishna, the following evidence
will show that our judgement on Tusta Krsna is not without justification
that Srila Prabhupada was continually trying to keep him under control: "Do not try to make a faction." (SPL to Tusta Krsna, 72-12-14) "I have heard that you are having some difficulties [...] Of course,
our serving Krishna is voluntary affair, so what can I say? If
you think that is the best choice, I must agree, otherwise you might go away altogether." (SPL to Tusta Krsna, 72-12-14) "News has come to me that you want to sell our temple to somebody else which I cannot believe. Even that you have been in charge of the New Zealand centre, now you have taken it as your personal property and you have demanded from Madhudvisa Swami the price of the temple. This is all amazing to me. I do not know what is your decision. Tusta Krsna has already left and is in Hawaii with Siddha Svarupananda Maharaja. I never believed that again you would go back to your old habits, giving up the Krishna Consciousness Movement in a whimsical way. Please do not do this mistake [...] Now all of a sudden you have changed that program and taken to your original ways? I am so much aggrieved to receive all this news. For Krsna's sake, do not do these things. I request Tusta Krsna to go back to New Zealand and take charge of your duties. Please do not leave Krsna. You will not be happy. That is my request." (SPL to Tusta Krsna and Beharilal, 73-10-15) "I may inform you that I have today sent the following cable to Tusta Krsna Maharaja:'DO NOT SELL NEW ZEALAND TEMPLE TO OTHERS. IF YOU WANT MONEY I SHALL PAY TO YOU. REST ASSURED - BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI.' " (SPL to Madhudvisa, 73-10-22) "I have not heard from Tusta Krsna or Siddha-Svarupa Goswamis nor do I know anything of their plans to return to New Zealand. Try to convince them to return to our Society and work co-operatively. That they have gone away is not good thing and it is a deviation from our line of parampara. Rather, avoiding faultfinding and anarchy, they should keep our standard and work maturely and not cause factions and splitting. I am not at all pleased at what they have done." (SPL to Madhudvisa, 73-12-15) "So far I have studied Siddhasvarupa, he is not a bad boy, but he has his own philosophy, from the very beginning." (SPL to Paramahamsa, 75-07-16) (All emphasis added) Please note that Tusta Krsna was a follower of Siddhasvarupa who
already had initiated disciples before he met Srila Prabhupada.
Taking all the above into account it is clear that the above private
letter is simply urging an ambitious deviant disciple to at least
wait until the spiritual master has left the planet before taking
his own disciples. That some devotees would seek to promote this
letter as generally applicable beggars belief. Even in the case of John Milner and Bramahananda, just 6 months before this letter was written, which the GBC have enthusiastically
presented as being evidence of Srila Prabhupada endorsing Bramahananda's
'sum total of all the demi-gods' status, Srila Prabhupada severely
rebuked him for 'spreading contamination in our society', being
a 'rascal', doing 'nonsense' etc. since he was one of the '4 sannyasis'
that was spreading mayavadi philosophy throughout the society.
Later on Srila Prabhupada did not even consider him to be fit
to be a ritvik, according to His Holiness Tamala Krishna Maharaja's
'Pyramid House Talks'. We do not wish to drag up all these incidents unnecessarily, especially
since currently many of the devotees in question may be in very
good standing, but if the GBC seriously consider the above quotes
as their strongest evidence then the full facts must be known. With regards to the Detroit room conversation, had Srila Prabhupada
said in 1971 that none of his disciples would ever be diksa gurus,
the neophyte devotees around him may have been discouraged and
left. We have already seen from the letters above that Srila Prabhupada
had to write, that some of his disciples were extremely ambitious,
trying to initiate after having been in the movement for just
a few years; and that Srila Prabhupada was forced to check their
ambition by simply encouraging them to at least wait. At that
point it is unlikely they had fully grasped just how elevated
the diksa guru actually needs to be. Even now those that are left
are having a hard time understanding. Even now, some 27 years
later, many of Srila Prabhupada's original followers still labour
under the misconception that anyone can be a diksa guru as long
as he has been following his initiation vows for the preceding
five years. We can also see that in the same room conversation
Srila Prabhupada is also endorsing the activities of his god-brothers,
even though he said that they none of them were 'qualified to
be acarya' and one year later he says that they were all 'dead
men' and envious. So it is clear here that Srila Prabhupada is
just giving general encouragement, since he emphasises the following
points:
Otherwise we have to seriously accept that Srila Prabhupada is
stating that: - That anyone just by being initiated is qualified and authorised to become a diksa guru. Thus if the GBC want to take this quote literally then all of Srila Prabhupada's 10,000 disciples, men and women, should all be free regardless of their spiritual standing, to initiate without the need for the elaborate voting and 'no objection' arrangements that occur at present. Since as Srila Prabhupada states, they are 'all competent'. He does not say that they still need to be qualified. Though he does say that his disciples are being "trained to become future spiritual masters", his very next words are: "NOW, they're competent". - Please remember that as little as one year later Srila Prabhupada
had to suspend the whole GBC for gross unauthorised behaviour.
Thus we can hardly accept that Srila Prabhupada had such bad judgement
that in 1971 he was stating that ALL of his disciples were there
and then qualified to be Diksa Gurus even though one year later
his leading men were not even able to behave as disciples.
Conclusion However the above explanations are not central to the argument
since even if one does not accept them, the simple objective fact
remains that the 'evidence' offered by the GBC, 6 instances in
11 years:
Only if ALL the three conditions above were present could we even
discuss the possibility that there is some sort of evidence that may point
to the ritvik system set up by Srila Prabhupada being immediately
displaced by the current M.A.S.S. system on Srila Prabhupada's
departure. The many other calls to become guru have been dealt with in previous
papers. In essence they refer to becoming instructing spiritual
masters, not diksa gurus. This is clear since they will incorporate
one or more of the following elements:
Thus in summary, there is NO instruction from Srila Prabhupada
that can be used to displace the ritvik system that Srila Prabhupada
instituted in ISKCON just before he departed. Until such evidence
is presented, the system needs to be reinstituted at once if we
are to remain faithful to Srila Prabhupada's orders. |