There are two newly transcribed tapes posted on the GBC-backed CHAKRA website which are being used to support ISKCON'S current 'multiple acarya successor system' (M.A.S.S.). We shall herein show that these new weapons, whilst obviously directed at supporters of the final order (July 9th 1977), merely support the ritvik conclusion, and are thus self-defeating.

Just to re-cap. For the last twenty years the GBC have relied on just one astra to support their disbanding of the ritvik system, and the subsequent transformation of the original eleven ritviks into fully fledged diksa gurus (modifications A and B from 'The Final Order'). That astra was the famous May 28th conversation. Even as recently as last year a GBC paper (disciple of my disciple) relied totally on this conversation to support it's position. 'The Final Order' discussion paper pointed out that aside from the fact that four different transcripts of this conversation had been offered, and that the GBC had given four different 'official' interpretations of this very same evidence. The conversation itself only factually supported the idea that the ritvik system was meant to be continued.

This May 28th astra has now been completely disabled. Under the auspices of the GBC, the tape from which the conversation was extracted was given a preliminary analysis. This analysis showed the recording exhibited 'strong signs suggestive of falsification'. Some GBC members tried to argue that although parts of the tape may have been edited, the section in question seemed to be all right. When this was put to the forensic examiner himself his response was clear and unequivocal:

Thus the May 28th conversation, already highly dubious evidence to start with, is now completely inadmissible. The only way this conversation could even be considered, as any type of evidence at all is if a full forensic analysis is done on the ORIGINAL tape. For some reason the GBC seem reluctant or incapable of doing this. Rather than accept defeat and re-instate the ritvik system, the GBC are now desperately rummaging around the archives for new evidence. And hence the excitement when they discovered the following:  

On the strength of the above passage the GBC seem to now be saying they were perfectly justified in stopping the ritvik system, and have the ritviks change into diksa gurus. (For the sake of argument we will for the time being assume these tapes have not also been tampered with). In reality the above quote can only support the ritvik position for the following reasons:

1. Leaving aside content for a moment, if this brief snippet of conversation were really so pivotal to the future of ISKCON for possibly the next ten thousand years, it seems unbelievable that Srila Prabhupada would have just blithely left this statement to be unearthed some 26 years later. What if it had never been discovered? Certainly he would have made sure it was duplicated and sent to the entire movement if it was really meant to replace or supplement the July 9th order, which WAS sent out to the entire society just prior to his departure. To even suggest otherwise is to invite howls of derision. Remember this is now the only evidence being put forward directly relating to the future of initiations, since the May 28th tape is currently inadmissible. Thus since this conversation was not made generally available before Srila Prabhupada's departure it can at best only constitute SUPPORTING evidence, not PRINCIPAL evidence. Unfortunately, as was demonstrated in 'The Final Order', there is nothing for this evidence to support, since there is no general instruction to the whole society which says anything about GBC's or anyone else initiating their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada's departure. That was supposed to have been stated in the May 28th conversation which is now inadmissible.
2. Looking now at the content of the above quote. It is clear Srila Prabhupada can only be referring to a proxy initiation role for these GBC disciples since:

1. As early on as 1968 Srila Prabhupada hinted at his future plans to set up an officiating or proxy initiation system. In letters to Hansadutta and Kirtanananda (12/1/69) he predicted that by 1975 he will have devotees performing initiations. We know he must have been referring to some type of proxy system since he was still on the planet in 1975. To have disciples initiate their own disciples whilst he was physically present would have violated 'the law of disciplic succession' which the GBC is so fond of repeating.
2. In the above mentioned letter to Kirtanananda Srila Prabhupada said that devotees who passed the Bhaktivedanta examinations would be 'empowered to initiate'. In 1972 he said it would be the GBC's; and in 1977 on July 7th he said that 'senior sanyasis' would be suitable candidates.

History shows that Srila Prabhupada did actually put in action these plans. He did set up senior men to 'gradually be initiators'. Firstly he had devotees such as Gaurasundara and Kirtanananda chant on new initiates beads. Then more devotees such as Brahmananda and Achyutananda got involved, often performing the fire yajna too. Eventually, as the Movement became large and greater numbers of new disciples were requiring initiation, all these ceremonial functions were performed by Srila Prabhupada's more senior disciples. This is what the word 'gradually' must be referring to. 'Gradually' they were given more and more of the ceremony to perform until on July 9th 1977 Srila Prabhupada delegated FULL responsibility for accepting and initiating new disciples to 11 ritviks. At no stage was there ever any question as to whom the disciples belonged. They were all Srila Prabhupada's disciples. The ritviks WERE initiators. They were initiators on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. We want to know how they themselves became diksa gurus. The quote in question sheds no light on this matter whatsoever.

1. In the quoted conversation Srila Prabhupada is referring to how he wanted the GBC's to act imminently. Although the word 'gradually' is used, there is no mention of Srila Prabhupada's departure needing to occur before they could act as initiators. Thus he could only be talking about them acting in a representational manner.
   
1. The very term 'gradually' rules out the possibility that Srila Prabhupada could have been talking about what was to happen IMMEDIATELY after his departure. T
2. he very second Srila Prabhupada left the planet the ritviks believed themselves authorised diksa gurus. One second is not 'gradual', it is immediate. It makes no sense to say you gradually immediately become a diksa guru.

However, the fact that the ritvik system was 'gradually' developed over a number of years is just historical fact. Thus Srila Prabhupada must have been speaking of GBC's who would gradually act as initiators on his behalf.

3. It should also be pointed out that there is a vast difference between the qualification necessary to act as a diksa guru, and that needed to become a GBC member

A GBC member is voted into office. A diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavat, and must NOT be appointed or approved by some ecclesiastical convention or mundane voting procedure. (for supporting evidence see 'The Final Order').

To link diksa guru status to any practising devotee who happens to have some managerial acumen is unsupported by Srila Prabhupada's teachings, though one could argue he might make a good ritvik.

1. In this conversation Srila Prabhupada says: 'Gradually they will be initiators. AT LEAST FIRST INITIATION'. 

If Srila Prabhupada was talking about diksa activity post-departure why would he even consider limiting these 'initiators' to only first initiation? Remember as fully-fledged Diksa Gurus, they would now be 'the sum total of all the demi-gods', and it is nonsensical to even think that they should be restricted from giving brahmin initiation.

Who would do second initiation?

How would it be decided when they might be ready to do second initiation if Srila Prabhupada had already departed?

We wonder if these questions have even occurred to the mighty army of CHAKRA. Certainly this statement can only be made sense of in a pre-departure context, namely the gradual delegation of ceremonial function to representatives who may eventually perform all procedures on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.

To summarise our points for quote 1:

1. The term 'initiator' can be readily applied to a ritvik, since he initiates on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, and indeed Srila Prabhupada had previously spoken in this way.
2. History supports our interpretation of the term 'gradually' and can relate only to the setting up of a proxy, representational, officiating or ritvik system.
3. The conversation is not restricted to GBC duties post-departure, and therefore their 'initiating' duty can only be representational, since otherwise it would violate 'the law of disciplic succession' which the GBC accept as a very important principle.
4. The term 'gradually' rules out 'immediately after departure' which is what the GBC have always claimed; namely that the 11 ritviks were authorised to initiate one split second after Srila Prabhupada's departure.
5. The qualification of a diksa guru is way beyond that required of a GBC member (with all due respect), therefore Srila Prabhupada must only have been expecting them to act as humble representatives.
6. The fact that Srila Prabhupada would even consider limiting these 'initiators' to first initiation only, proves they were never intended to be fully fledged diksa gurus.

Now for the second quote which appeared on CHAKRA:  

Of course no-one is complaining that all this wonderful new material is coming to light. We are very grateful to the archives for all their painstaking work. However does this quote revoke the ritvik system and set up the M.A.S.S. We think not for the following reasons.

1. Again this quote was not available prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure, but rather some 26 years later, and can thus only be used as SUPPORTIVE evidence. But supporting what exactly? The May 28th tape is currently inadmissible, and it was the dubious interpretation of this tape which formed the very foundation of the GBC's position on gurus within ISKCON for the last twenty years.
2. Nowhere in the above lecture does Srila Prabhupada ever mention the term 'diksa', or the term 'initiate' or 'initiation'. This is a vital pre-requisite to any evidence meant to supplant or modify the final order on initiation. Everyone already accepts that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his disciples to become gurus or teachers. That is not what is at issue here.
3. Srila Prabhupada repeats the 'amara' verse when describing the type of gurus he is authorising: "He says, amara ajnaya. "Whatever I say, amara ajnaya, by My order, you become a spiritual master." As is explained in the paper 'Best not to accept disciples' this can only refer to siksa or instructing guru.
4. Srila Prabhupada is encouraging devotees there and then to act as guru. There is no mention of them only acting in this capacity after his departure. Therefore he must have been ordering siksa or vartma pradasaka gurus since to do otherwise would violate the 'law of disciplic succession' the GBC are so fond of.
5. There is no mention of the necessity of first attaining maha-bhagavata status before acting as guru, a vital pre-requisite for diksa (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport). Therefore Srila Prabhupada can only have been ordering teachers or instructing gurus.
6. Throughout the passage Srila Prabhupada constantly stresses how easy it is to be the type of guru he is ordering; how anyone can do it- even a rascal: 

If the GBC really believe this passage is referring to diksa, how is it there are no female or child initiating acaryas in ISKCON?

In conclusion, the GBC will need to equip their army with more effective weaponry than this if they have any hope of defeating the ritvik position. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 The champions of Krishna's army have recently unleashed onto their web site yet another newly found conversation with the aim of damaging the ritvik position. Although the GBC clearly hope this new evidence will prove that Srila Prabhupada authorised all of his 10,000 disciples to be diksa gurus immediately on his departure, in actuality it hits well wide of the mark, as we shall now attempt to demonstrate.

 Before we analyse the new quote's content please consider the following:

1. Practically every single quote offered by the GBC so far in support of their M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya successor system) are applicable only to SIKSA gurus, or teachers of Krsna Consciousness, not DIKSA gurus. This point has already been established in previous papers such as "The Final Order" and "Best Not To Accept Disciples". Instead of answering this objection the GBC instead choose to present further quotes which do nothing more than re-confirm a fact which everyone on both sides of the issue already agree on. Namely that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his followers to teach Krishna Consciousness, and in that way become instructing gurus. The GBC, or in this case their 'friends', seem to be hoping that by merely re-stating a position everyone already agrees with, they will somehow convince devotees not to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order regarding DIKSA initiation (the July 9th policy document). Thus we apologise to the reader if our arguments now appear repetitive - until the GBC answer our points, or come up with evidence which is actually relevant to the issue at hand, we are left with no other option but to expose their fallacious and misleading argumentation.
2. Also, as we pointed out in 'Chakra's Army Fires Blanks', since these quotes have only just been found, they are approximately 20 years too late to be considered as DIRECT evidence confirming the GBC's legitimacy in disbanding the ritvik system. Such quotes could be used SUPPORTIVELY should the GBC ever discover an instruction that was sent to the whole society prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure authorising the M.A.S.S., currently in operation within ISKCON. So we are left asking where these authorising quotes, supporting a system that has been in operation (in one form or another) for the last twenty years, might be ?

1. If such quotes or policy documents DO exist, then this new quote would not change anything, so why make such an issue of it?
2. If there are NO general instructions to the whole society authorising the M.A.S.S. then it is just totally unbelievable that Srila Prabhupada would only have mentioned it in passing, and then leave the statement to be discovered by chance some 26 years later, and at least twenty years too late.

If Srila Prabhupada HAD issued a clear directive to ISKCON's leaders authorising ALL his disciples to initiate on their own behalf immediately after his departure; how is it that everyone believed he had only authorised eleven diksa gurus in May 1977? This belief was obstinately defended by all of ISKCON's senior most champions, including those now writing for Chakra, for nearly an entire decade. How could such a mistake have been made if the instructions for the M.A.S.S. were so clear- even as early as 1972 ? (the date of the new quote). As with so much that appears on this particular web site, it just doesn't add up.

Let us now examine the content of the new quote. Since it is available in full on Chakra we shall only re-produce a couple of sections (once more we thank the archives for their painstaking work):  

 In the above quote, as with many other similar ones, Srila Prabhupada clearly links the type of guru he is authorising to the famous 'amara ajnaya' verse. However this verse actually only encourages teachers/preacher, vartma-pradasaka gurus, as the following illustrates: 

(Further evidence for Lord Caitanya's order referring to preacher/vartma-pradaksa-guru is given in "The Final Order", and "Best Not To Accept Disciples".)

 At the time of the above conversation Sarasvati was only 8 years old. Following the GBC's reasoning on the new quote, they must obviously believe that Srila Prabhupada was then and there telling a small infant to accept disciples and good as God worship - (nowhere in these quotes does he tell the prospective gurus to wait till after his departure before they act, or even to hold on till they get a bit older). Can it really be true that on all these numerous occasions Srila Prabhupada was really ordering everyone, even tiny eight year old girls, to give first and second initiation to new bhaktas? If Srila Prabhupada WAS doing this then it seems strange that he remained the only initiating guru in ISKCON right up until his departure. Sadly, as far as we know, Sarsavati is no longer active in Krsna Consciousness. Nevertheless it is clear that at the time of this conversation she was definitely a guru according to Srila Prabhupada. But is an 8 year old girl who need only preach 3 words, and who later maybe no longer active in Krsna Consciousness, the following type of Guru...? 

 "A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord."
(BG 4:42)

 "The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

 "When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

 "There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions". (C:C, Adi, 1:47)

Thus the kind of guru that Sarasvati was, and the one that Srila Prabhupada always speaks of, who is minimally qualified and simply repeats '3 words', who is referred to by 'amara ajnaya guru hana', is "he who invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions".  Since the word 'guru' or phrase 'spiritual master' does not generally refer to diksa, the following guidelines will make it clear which type of guru Srila Prabhupada can be referring to on any given occasion?

1. The context that the word 'guru' is used in will contain the terms 'diksa' or 'initiating'.
2. The quote will make clear that the guru will only function in their particular capacity after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure.
3. It will be made clear that the gurus are to initiate on their own behalf, not act as ritviks or proxies.
4. The guru will be described as having already attained the topmost platform of devotional service.

 When any of the elements below appear in a quote we know the guru in question is definitely NOT a diksa guru:

1. The qualification described will be very basic - just preaching and teaching. Anyone can do it, one only need learn three words etc. (A diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata)
2. There will be no mention of time-constraint - this is a vital clue since the GBC accept the principle that Srila Prabhupada would not allow diksa gurus other than himself to operate whilst he was still physically present. If the guru's activity is not limited to after departure we know Srila Prabhupada was ordering him to act only in an instructing capacity.

1. The context that the word 'guru' is used in will contain the terms siksa or instructing.
2. There will be no time constraints on when the guru can act.
3. The 'amara ajnaya' verse will be mentioned.
4. The qualification needed is basic, linked to preaching and following strictly, but not to any specific level of realisation (e.g. prema etc).
5. Instruction has wide applicability - the prospective guru need not even be initiated himself. (For example whilst lecturing in India Srila Prabhupada would often order entire audiences of uninitiated people to become guru then and there).

 In reality then, the general use of the word `guru' on its own by Srila Prabhupada is simply an order to be a `teacher'. That is actually also its basic meaning. A teacher or instructing guru simply teaches what he or she knows. Such a person does not need to be a mahabhagavat or wait till his own guru leaves the planet or any such thing. He can just tell other people that Krishna is God, bas. If the GBC would simply apply the above criteria to any future quotes they uncover they would save themselves, and everyone else, a great deal of time and embarrassment. (The handful of isolated incidents where Srila Prabhupada does specifically refer to Diksa (Tusta Krishna etc) are dealt with in `The Final order' and `Best Not To Accept Disciples").

When we look again at the new quote offered on Chakra we observe the following:

1. No time constraints are mentioned.
2. Only one qualification is needed: he is a devotee of God, that's all.
3. The 'amara ajnaya' verse is quoted twice.

 Thus the quote cannot be used to displace a system specifically set up to facilitate diksa initiation (ritvik), since the type of gurus being discussed, designated and ordered into being by Srila Prabhupada are instructing/teacher/siksa/vartma pradarsaka gurus, NOT diksa gurus. In other words the quote is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In our humble opinion the GBC will hit their target more readily by applying the above mentioned criteria to any future evidence they might wish to present. In the meantime it would seem that the final order still stands. 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada. 

CHAKRA recently posted a brief item entitled - 'VNN Refutes Srila Prabhupada?' - a supposed rebuttal of - 'Chakra's Army Fires Blanks' - an article earlier posted on VNN. Unfortunately rather than deal with the content of the article, CHAKRA substitutes character assassination for proper philosophical argument. This is interesting, in that it appears to be an admission that they can not actually answer the points made in the article. Instead they enlist an anonymous 'champion' to state the following:

Does CHAKRA then make an attempt to show why the article in question is "typical" of "twisty-turny" logic or why it is "illogical". No such luck I'm afraid. In fact the only part of the above statement they are actually able to demonstrate is that they do indeed not - "really say anything", although one assumes they would have had ample time! Also THEY are the ones who now seem to lack the capability "to have a dialogue".

 The anonymous 'champion' then enlists the help of an anonymous 'friend' to try and further belittle the author. The main point, which was curiously a great source of mirth for him and his nameless friend, relates to Srila Prabhupada's use of the phrase '...they will be initiators'. He seems to feel this phrase alone somehow justified the GBC's dismantling of the officiating acarya system, which was personally put in place by His Divine Grace with no countermanding order for it's termination. Unfortunately these valiant warriors have overlooked the simple fact that ritviks ARE initiators; but they initiate on Srila Prabhupada's behalf! This point of course is conclusively demonstrated in the article in question. The very article they refuse to answer.

 We would encourage this particular anonymous 'champion' to actually ANSWER the points made in 'Chakra's Army Fires Blanks', in particular to provide evidence to support modifications A & B as mentioned in 'The Final Order'. If he cannot do this, then simply resorting to childish insult will not impress anyone. The anonymous champion complains that my arguments are full of 'twisty-turny logic'. I sincerely hope the above is not too complicated for him. For now it seems that CHAKRA'S inability to offer any argumentation based on philosophy, proves that CHAKRA'S Army are now no longer even "Firing blanks", but have run out of ammunition altogether! 

Feb 20  - The GBC mouthpiece web site CHAKRA constantly posts articles that systematically misrepresent the IRG position on Srila Prabhupada's rightful status as ISKCON's diksa guru. This misrepresentation must be deliberate since, although we have repeatedly pointed it out, they have never once apologized or written a retraction. Following the GBC's latest horrendously misjudged resolutions there has been a flurry of articles by MASS adherents all seeking to jump on the ritvik bashing bandwagon.

As readers will know, the one thing all the GBC approved authors whose papers we have critiqued share in common, is a pathological incapacity to present what we actually say. Instead they present endless straw man arguments, and defeat them instead. They will say 'ritviks say this' or 'ritviks say that' but practically never quote from any of our papers on the authorized IRG web site. They feel they can get away with it because CHAKRA's dishonest editorial policy never allows its readers to read any response. It is becoming quite tedious to have to keep pointing this out, but we find it hard not to speak out when devotees are being deliberately deceived on practically a daily basis. Looking at just two of these recent items perfectly illustrates our point.

For instance, Danavir Goswami's whole paper is based on the premise that the 'ritviks' want to 'eliminate' or 'jump' the process of diksa. Of course he never quotes us proposing such a thing, because we never have.  It is pure fabrication and lies, as he very well knows. Our position is that diksa must go on in an authorized form, and that ISKCON's diksa guru is Srila Prabhupada. Thus it is the GBC, not us, who have sought to eliminate the bona fide, authorized diksa guru and replace him with inferior models who cannot even honestly present another persons position.

Virtually all of his paper is full of such deceitful 'straw man' arguments. Bhadra Balaram does the same thing in his most recent article. His whole paper rests on the allegation that we insist that an 'order' from Srila Prabhupada must have the word 'order' in it. Again we have never said this.

Thus we would urge those who venture into CHAKRA's treacherous web to adopt the following checklist next time they read something that is supposed to be 'defeating' the 'ritvik theory'.

1. Does the paper in question produce any quotes from an IRG paper?
2. If so, does the quote actually support the proposition they are trying to 'defeat'?

If 1 and 2 are not present then they are not addressing the issue at hand, and their paper does not actually move the issue forward, and thus can be discarded. In this way the vast majority of CHAKRA's items on this matter can be best stored in the circular file.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada
IRG India