By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Srila Prabhupada gave contradictory answers on May 28th, 1977.

It is a fair observation that Satsvarupa and Tamal sometimes said or asked something not quite correct during the conversation, and, unfortunately, they didn’t try hard enough to get the issue discussed in more detail. Satsvarupa seems to be confused, Tamal understands everything, but keeps silent of previous discussions with Srila Prabhupada regarding this issue and tries to push the conversation in the direction he secretly desires- towards emergence of successor acarya(s) that he hopes to become himself. Other GBC delegation members keep silent and don’t ask questions. One of them, Bhagavan dasa, wrote in his letter dated Gaura Purnima 2000:

“I must admit that although it was our duty to clarify these very pivotal issues for posterity, to concentrate on asking him these terribly painful questions about what to do if he should no longer be present, was so spiritually borderline, repulsive and bizarre to me, that I found myself in an incredulous state of mind and not fully present.”  

Srila Prabhupada had to bear in mind who he talks to- some of the GBC delegation members, like Tamal, were very ambitious (up to the point of daring to poison Srila Prabhupada in order to get his place, which is now proven). Srila Prabhupada himself wrote, “It is now evident that some of our top men are very much ambitious” (SP Letter to: Bhagavan — Tokyo 27^th January, 1975). Tamal wrote a number of letters regarding ritvik initiations in July 1977, but nowhere did he state they would turn into diksa gurus. But while writing to his inner group that he tried to control, he revealed his ambitious “program” to become an acarya “just as our Spiritual Master”:

“One day we will all have to be acaryas and give guidance and accommodations to all kinds of people, just as our Spiritual Master has done. Are we preparing our consciousness for this time to come, and do we have a program to meet everyone’s needs? And can we save the world alone, or the chances better if we work together?” (TKG letter to Adi Kesava, Tripurari, and Dhrstadyumna Maharajas, 13th July 1977)

So, we have to keep in mind that during May 28th 1977, conversation Srila Prabhupada had to talk cautiously/diplomatically with persons some of whom were clearly ambitious (Tamal, Kirtanananda, etc.). Although the conversation seems to be somewhat confusing, Srila Prabhupada’s answers are consistent, if we carefully read them. They are not contradictory. They are in harmony with his other documents and statements made in 1977 (and even earlier) regarding the initiation issue. But we do lack some tapes of other discussions of that period (Tamal, as the secretary, was responsible for them) and, possibly, some other 1977 documents on this issue, as well as full information of what exactly happened during the last and most important GBC meeting held on May 27-29, 1977 (detailed questions in this regard were respectfully directed to ex-GBC Rupanuga das who was present there, but he declined to answer them). Judging by the already known documented evidence, testimonies, etc. the lacking tapes would clarify some details and confirm the ritvik initiations arrangement for the period after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

Nityananda das: “Much of the confusion comes from Tamal and Satsvarupa’s pre-rehearsed and leading questions which aim to elicit support for taking their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Srila Prabhupada was not speaking confused, garbled contradictions; it is the questions that create the confusion. Srila Prabhupada was asked confusing questions by a confused Satsvarupa.

If one understands that Srila Prabhupada answered in the third person, as he often does due to his humility, then the conversation clears up. But the most important and final evidence on this issue is the July 9th Letter, a written order signed by Srila Prabhupada, which, being the “last order,” supersedes the May 28^th talks, which were only initial indications. The officiating ritvik representative initiation system does not depend on some interpretation of the May 28th talks.

The devious GBC loves to pick words out of context, interpret them in isolation, and ignore the rest of the conversation, trying to justify their false guru system. The words grand-disciple and disciple of my disciple, that the GBC loves to quote, is portrayed as though contradicting Srila Prabhupada’s previous announcement of appointing officiating acharyas to initiate for him after he departs. Obviously the two sections must be harmonious, and since the first section is very clear, and it coincides with the July 9 Order, the second, confusing section can be taken as simply some miscommunication confusion.” (‘ISKCON HIDDEN HISTORY’, vol. 5 of Personal Ambition series, pg. 38-39)  

Puranjana das: “In the alleged “appointment of gurus” conversation, Tamal Krishna swami interrupts Śrīla Prabhupāda over and over, and does not allow him to continue the sentences. It appears that Tamal is trying to control the conversation. Why was the existing tape not circulated? Why is the May tape accepted as an appointment of 11 gurus — when it appoints no one, and there is no evidence anyone’s name was ever given on the tape at all? The tape was not discussed until after 1978, when it could not be confirmed with Śrīla Prabhupāda. The tape was not even circulated up to the mid-1980s. Sulochana dāsa got a copy by bribing a member of the archives in 1984. The tape was never circulated by the leaders to the rank and file. Why was this tape kept hidden?

So the May 28th tape was not being circulated until Sulochana bribed someone to get a copy, the July 9th letter was barely circulated, “The Will” was not being circulated until I got someone to break into a safe and get a copy, the [Srila Prabhupada’s] letters were not being circulated [especially in the late 1970s – 1980s], and anyone who did was told they were dead meat on a hook (like me and Sulochana were told), the entire 1977 conversations were not circulated until 1990 and then only 1,000 copies… In sum, henceforward, hide all the documents. Despite all these attempts… the original point is preserved:

Satsvarūpa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first, and second initiation would be conducted.

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

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called ṛtvik-ācārya?

Prabhupāda: Ṛtvik, yes.

I think this is the most essential element and it’s still there.” (January 17th 2014)  

In conclusion: During May 28th 1977, conversation, Srila Prabhupada didn’t order any guru successor, but he said he would appoint ritviks to conduct initiation ceremonies for the future, especially when he is “no longer with us”. He confirmed that new disciples would be his disciples, and concluded that any “disciple of my disciple”/his “granddisciple” would be possible “when” he orders new regular diksa gurus. We have asked anti-ritviks where is that order, but they haven’t been able to provide any proof except for their illogical, contradictory interpretations.

Of course, if one desires, he/she can extract indirect interpretations (gauna-vrtti) from many instructions of Srila Prabhupada or statements of Vedic literatures to try and justify one’s intentions. But the standard method of studying Vedic literatures and instructions of acaryas is to accept direct meaning (mukhya-vritti). And there are DEFINITELY NO such direct, documented orders from Srila Prabhupada to authorize any diksa gurus in ISKCON, addressed to ISKCON leadership or to the whole ISKCON, contained in books or otherwise recorded and widely distributed in 1977. The position of anti-ritviks is so weak and baseless that they are forced to claim Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven acaryas in a conversation where not only this does NOT EXIST AT ALL, but it does state something completely different- appointment of ritviks (soon to be made, which happened in July 1977), especially for the period after Srila Prabhupada’s departure!

Anti-rtviks’ stance of denying the obvious is like owls who deny to see the sunlight. The sooner they quit keeping this mindset the better for themselves, and in the meantime, we have to fight this heresy off for the benefit of sincere devotees:

Prabhupāda: Owl will never open the eyes to see that there is sunlight. You know this, owl? So, they will not open. However, you may say, “Mr. Owl, please open your eyes and see the sun,” “No, there is no sun. I don’t see.” (laughter) This owl civilization. So, you have to fight with these owls. You must be very strong, especially the sannyasis. We have to fight with the owls. We have to open their eyes by force from this, with machine. (laughter) So this is going on. So, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is a fight against all the owls. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.37 class — San Francisco, July 19, 1975)

“Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura was also a householder, but he lived in so perfect Krishna Consciousness that he is better than many Sannyasis like us.”

*(Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Rupanuga, Montreal, 30 August, 1968)*

“Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura has sung in a poetry that my mind, my body, and my home is surrendered unto You. So a Grihastha or householder like you, you are also tridandi. Because you have sacrificed everything, your life, your home, and your child, so you are a tridandi sannyasi, in fact. So continue this attitude seriously and sincerely, so you will be also as good as a sannyasi even though you are in the dress of a grihastha.”

*(Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Rupanuga, Montrea, 30 August, 1968)*

“So there is another statement of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhakura that kṛṣṇera saṁsāra kara chāḍi anācāra. To turn your home into Vaikunṭha is not very difficult job. Simply you have to adopt the method. Kṛṣṇera saṁsāra kara chāḍi anācāra. Anācāra means sinful activities. You cannot associate with God if you become sinful. That is not possible. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Yeṣāṁ tv anta-gataṁ pāpam: “One who is completely free from sinful life,” te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ (BG 7.28), “He can worship Me.” So therefore our Krishna consciousness movement is that we do not recommend that “You give up your occupation, you become a sannyasī, give up your wife and children.” No. That is not our movement. Amongst ourself here there are sannyasis, brahmacaris, grihastha, vanaprastha.”

*(Srila Prabhupada’s Lecture, Bombay, September 25, 1973)*

“Krishna Consciousness is not limited within any circle. Brahmacari, grihastha or sannyasi: everyone is eligible for cultivating Krishna Consciousness. There are these stages for gradual development of control of the strong senses in the material environment. But any order of life suitable for a particular person in which he can most favorably execute his Krishna Consciousness is the best position to take up. Generally, if one can remain a brahmacari, it is very convenient, and from brahmacari one can take sannyasa. But in this age of Kali, Bhaktivinode Thakura recommends that it is better to cultivate Krishna Consciousness as a householder.”

*(Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Mandali Bhadra, Tittenhurst, 2 November, 1969)*

“According to Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura also, a husband and wife can turn the home into a place as good as Vaikunṭha, even while in this material world. Being absorbed in Krishna consciousness, even in this world husband and wife can live in Vaikunṭha simply by installing the Deity of the Lord within the home and serving the Deity according to the directions of the sastras. In this way, they will never feel the sex urge. That is the test of advancement in devotional service. One who is advanced in devotional service is never attracted by sex life, and as soon as one becomes detached from sex life and proportionately attached to the service of the Lord, he actually experiences living in the Vaikunṭha planets.”

*(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.23.29, Purport)*

His Divine Grace
Śrīla Sac-cid-ānanda Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s
Appearance Day, Lecture
—
London, September 3, 1971

Prabhupāda: Bring water, water. Water? So today is a very auspicious day, Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda’s birthday. Here is the picture of Ṭhākura Sac-cid-ānanda Bhaktivinoda. He was one of the ācāryas of this disciplic succession from Kṛṣṇa. We have got a succession table from Kṛṣṇa, genealogical table. There are two kinds of genealogical tables, one by the semina-father, his son, his son, like that. That is material genealogical table. And there is one spiritual genealogical table, disciplic succession. Just like Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa, the original father, Supreme Personality of Godhead, He spoke the Vedic knowledge to Brahma, Lord Brahma. He spoke to Nārada. Nārada spoke to Vyāsa. Vyāsa spoke to Madhvācārya. So in this disciplic succession, Lord Caitanya, from Lord Caitanya, the six Gosvāmīs, and similarly, coming down, down, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, then Gaurakiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja, then my spiritual master, then we are next generation, my disciples.

So there is a disciplic succession. And the ācāryas, they’re authorities. Our process of knowledge is very simple. We take it from the authority. We don’t speculate. Speculation will not help us to come to the real knowledge. Just like when we are in difficulty, in legal implication, we go to some authority, lawyer. When we are diseased we go to a physician, the authority. There is no use, speculation. Suppose I am in difficulty in some legal implication. I simply speculate, “I shall be free in this way and that way.” That will not help. We have to go to the lawyer who knows things, and he gives us instruction that “You do like this; then you’ll be free.” Similarly, when we are diseased, if I speculate at home that “My disease will be cured in this way and that way,” no. That is useless. You go to an authorized physician, and he will give you a nice prescription, and you’ll be cured. That is the process of knowledge. But in the modern age people think that “I am free, I am independent, and I can make my own solution.” That is rascaldom. That’s not good. So Arjuna, when he was talking with Kṛṣṇa as friend, but when he saw that there was no solution talking like this, he surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. He said, śiṣyas te ‘ham, aham: [Bg. 2.7] “Myself, I surrender unto You as Your disciple.” Śiṣyas te ‘haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam. Prapannam means surrender. So that is the Vedic injunction, that if you want to know transcendental knowledge or science… “Transcendental” means beyond the scope of your direct perception.

So spiritual knowledge is beyond the scope of our sense speculation. Beyond the scope. Just like when a soul, a spiritual spark only, leaves this body, you cannot see. Therefore, atheistic class of men, they speculate, “There may be a soul; there may not be soul.” Or, “The bodily function was going like this; now it stopped. The blood corpuscles now cease. It is no more red; it is white; therefore life…” These are speculation. This is not actual knowledge. Actual knowledge you get from the authority, Kṛṣṇa. He says, tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati. Just like the soul is passing through different stages. Dehino ‘smin yathā dehe [Bg. 2.13]. Deha, deha means this body. Asmin dehe, in this body, there is dehi. Dehi means who is the owner of this body. That is soul. That is passing through childhood, boyhood, babyhood, youthhood, old age. Everyone, you can perceive that you were a child, you were a baby, you were a boy. Now you are young man or old man. So you are there. So as you are passing through different types of bodies, similarly, when you give up this body you accept another body. What is the difficulty? Tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati [Bg. 2.13]. There is no question of becoming astonished, how transmigration of the self, soul, takes place. The vivid example is there. Simply you require little intelligence. That intelligence is developed through the instruction of ācārya. Therefore, Vedic injunction is not to acquire knowledge by speculation. That is useless. Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvayaṁ jānāti tattvaṁ prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi, na cānya eko ‘pi ciraṁ vicinvan [SB10.14.29]. Ciraṁ vicinvan. Ciram means for thousands of years you can speculate; you cannot understand what is God. That is not possible. But if you receive knowledge from the devotee, he can deliver you. Therefore Vedic injunction is that tad–vijñāna… [break] …in order to understand tad–vijñāna… Vijñāna means science. If you want to know the transcendental science, then you must approach a guru. Tad-vijñānārtham, in order to… If you are at all interested to understand the spiritual science. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ (sa) gurum eva abhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. You must approach guru. Guru means this disciplic succession, as I have explained.

So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura is an ideal guru. He was not a sannyāsī; he was gṛhastha, householder, living with family, wife, children. Still, he was guru. So anyone can become guru. Not that a sannyāsī can become guru. A householder also can become guru, provided he knows the science. Caitanya Mahāprabhu, when He was talking with Rāmānanda Rāya… Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a sannyāsī, very highly born in brāhmaṇa family, very learned scholar. So He was talking with Rāmānanda Rāya, a gṛhastha, governor of Madras. And He was questioning, and Rāmānanda Rāya was answering. That means he was taking the part of guru, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu was taking the part of a disciple. So he was hesitating, Rāmānanda Rāya. He thought himself that “I am a gṛhastha; I’m not even a brāhmaṇa. Besides that, I am dealing in material affairs. I am governor, politics. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu is a sannyāsī, born of a high-class brāhmaṇa family. So it does not look well that I shall teach Him.” So he was hesitating. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “Oh, why you are hesitating?” He said,

kibā vipra, kibā śūdra, nyāsi kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa–tattva–vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya
[Cc. Madhya 8.128]

He said, “Don’t hesitate. Either one may become a brāhmaṇa or one may become a śūdra…” Kibā vipra, kibā śūdra. Vipra means brāhmaṇa, and śūdra. Śūdra is the fourth-grade human being. Brāhmaṇa is the first grade. So kibā vipra, kibā śūdra. He may be a first-grade human being or the lowest grade human being, or he may become a sannyāsī or a gṛhastha. It does not matter. Anyone who knows the science of Kṛṣṇa, he can become a guru. This is the verdict. Because spiritual science does not belong to the bodily platform. It is on the spiritual platform. It is very nice. Just like when you go to a lawyer or to an engineer or to a physician. You do not inquire whether he’s a brāhmaṇa or śūdra. Simply you have to know whether he’s a lawyer. That’s all. Whether he’s a physician actually. If he knows the medical science, he may be a brāhmaṇa, he may be a śūdra, he may be a sannyāsī, he may be a householder. It doesn’t matter. Your business is with a physician, with a lawyer. Similarly, your business is to understand Kṛṣṇa. So anyone who knows Kṛṣṇa perfectly, you have to go there. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. It is… Vedic injunction is not that you have to approach a sannyāsī or a gṛhastha or an Indian or American. No. Gurum. And guru means who knows the science of Kṛṣṇa.

So, this Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was gṛhastha, very responsible officer, magistrate. And he was so exalted that he would come from his office generally at five o’clock, then take his supper and immediately go to bed. Immediately. Say at seven o’clock in the evening he goes to bed, and he wakes up at twelve o’clock. So suppose he goes to bed at seven o’clock in the evening and wakes up at twelve o’clock at night; it is sufficient sleep, five hours. One should not sleep more than five to six hours. Minimize as far as possible. The Gosvāmīs used to sleep not more than one and a half hour, or two hours. Sleeping is not very important thing. Even big politicians, they used to sleep for two hours. So especially in spiritual line, they should minimize as far as possible eating, sleeping, mating, defending. Minimize. Gradually it comes to nil. Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī, he was eating only a little piece of butter every alternate days, not daily. So this Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, regularly he was coming from his office, and after taking his supper immediately he goes to bed, and wake up at twelve o’clock, and he used to write books. He wrote, he left behind him about one hundred books. And he excavated the birthplace of Lord Caitanya, organized how to develop that birth site, Māyāpur. He had so many business. He used to go to preach about Caitanya’s philosophy. He used to sell books to foreign countries. In 1896 he attempted to sell Life and Precepts of Caitanya in the MacGill University in Montreal. So he was busy, ācārya. So one has to adjust things. Not that “Because I am gṛhastha, householder, I cannot become a preacher. It is the business…” (aside:) Give me water. “It is the business of the sannyāsī or brahmacārī.” No. It is the business of everyone. The whole world is suffering for want of knowledge. The present civilization is animal civilization. They do not know anything beyond eating, sleeping, mating and defending. That’s all. This is animal civilization. Animal does not know beyond these four principles of life: eating, sleeping, mating and defending. That’s all. No. Human life is meant for something else: “What I am? What is God? What is my relation with God? What is this material world? Why I am here? Where I have to go next?” So many things one has to learn. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. This is human life. Not that eat and sleep and have sex life and die someday like cats and dogs. Therefore, there is need of ācāryas, teachers, for propagating spiritual knowledge, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was… Although he was a gṛhastha, householder, a government officer, magistrate, but he was ācārya. So from his dealings, from his life, we should learn how one can become a preacher in any stage of life. It doesn’t matter what he is.

There was one incidence, very interesting. When he was magistrate in Jagannātha Purī… The system is… Jagannātha temple is a very big establishment. In the temple fifty-six times daily, bhoga is offered. And you’ll find in the temple always at least five hundred to one thousand people gathered. And they come from outside, and prasāda is ready. If you go and ask in the Jagannātha temple that “We are one hundred men come from outside. We want prasāda,” yes, immediately ready. So it is a huge temple. This is one temple, but there are many other thousands of temple in India where prasāda is distributed. Now it is minimized by our present government. They think that it is unnecessary expenditure. They are minimizing. But not unnecessary expenditure. They do not understand. Formerly, in India there was no necessity of hotel. Anyone goes anywhere, even in a village, he goes to a temple-prasāda is ready. There is no need of going to a hotel. You pay or don’t pay. If you say that “I want little prasāda,” “Yes, take it.” That is the system still. There is the Nāthadvārā temple in Rajasthan. You pay two annas only. Two annas means one cent. You get sumptuous prasāda for two annas, all very nice prasāda, still. So prasāda distribution in temple is longstanding usage. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura… The Jagannātha temple is managed by a body, and it is the custom that the local magistrate of the district, he becomes the president, or manager. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was manager in that sense, because he was magistrate. The managing committee was being presided by him. So there was a complaint. In Orissa, this Jagannātha temple is situated in Orissa. Utkāla. Utkāla, this state, was originally belonging to Dhruva Mahārāja. His son’s name was Utkāla, Mahārāja Utkāla. Anyway, so this Utkāla, there was a pseudo yogi. He declared himself that… Just like you’ll find nowadays also, there are so many rascals declaring that “I am incarnation of God.” And they know some mystic power, play some jugglery, and foolish people take them: “Oh, he’s God.” So there appeared one like such pseudo God, Viṣṇu, in a village of Orissa. And he was dancing rāsa dance, and foolish people were sending their daughters and wife to dance with him. You see? There were so many. Not only that. People are so foolish, they do not know… They want to be cheated, and these cheaters come. He declared that “I am God. I am Viṣṇu.” So there were sane men also. They took objection, “What is this nonsense? This man is dancing with ladies and gentlemen, er, girls.” So they filed a complaint. At that time it was British rule. They complained to the governor or the commissioner, very high officer. The commissioner knew that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura… His name was Kedāranātha Datta. Datta. Kedāranātha Datta, his household name. So the commissioner of the division, he knew that Kedāranātha Datta is a religious man, and he’s magistrate in charge. So he handed over the case for inquiry, “What is this complaint? You please inquire and do the needful.” So he was a pure devotee, and he understood that “This rascal is a bogus man, cheating people. I must inquire.” So he went to the village in plain dress with some constables, police constables. They were also in plain dress. And as soon as he approached that rascal yogi, he said, “Oh, you are Kedāranātha Datta. So, very nice. You are… I shall make you king of India. Please don’t try to bother me.” Because he could know that “He has come to inquire about my rāsa–līlā.” So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura first of all said, “Sir, you are such a great yogi. Why you are in the village? Why don’t you go to Jagannātha Purī? There is temple and Lord Jagannātha is there. Better you go there and see the Lord and be happy. Why you are in this village?” “Oh, Jagannātha? Ah, that is made of wood. I am personally the Supreme Lord. That is made of wood.” Oh, then Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura—he was a devotee—he became fire. (laughter) He was insulting. Arcye śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara–matiḥ. According to śāstra, if somebody thinks… Just like here is Deity. If somebody thinks, “Oh, it is made of stone…” It is stone to the eyes of the nondevotee, but it is personally Supreme Personality of Godhead to the devotees. It requires the eyes to see. So devotee sees in a different angle of vision. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu, when He entered Jagannātha temple immediately He fainted: “Oh, here is My Lord.” And the nondevotee is seeing: “It is wood, a lump of wood.” Therefore, to the nondevotee, He remains always as wood, but to the devotee He speaks. That is the difference. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena [Bs. 5.38]. If God is everything, why wood, through wood and stone, God cannot manifest? If God is everything? According to Māyāvāda philosophy… That’s a fact. God, omnipotent. He can express Himself even through wood and stone. That is God’s omnipotency. That is called omnipotency. Not that God is unable to express Himself through wood and stone. Then how He’s omnipotent? Omnipotent means His potency can be expressed through anything. Because anything, everything is the expansion of God’s energy. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktis tathedam akhilaṁ jagat. The whole world is manifestation of different energies of God. Therefore… Just like through the energy of electricity the electric powerhouse, although far, far away from this place, was expressing. There is electricity. Through this glass, through these wires, the power can be expressed. There is a process.

So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura became very much… Because a devotee cannot tolerate blaspheming another devotee or God. So as soon as he said that “Why shall I go to Jagannātha Purī to see the wooden Jagannātha? I am personally Viṣṇu,” Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura immediately ordered his constables, “Arrest him. Arrest this rascal.” So he was arrested. And when he was arrested… He had some yogic mystic power. All the constables, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and his family members became affected with high fever, 105 degrees fever. So when he came back, his wife became very much disturbed that “You arrested Viṣṇu, and we are all going to die. We have got now high fever.” Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura replied, “Yes, let us all die, but this rascal must be punished.” This is the view of pure devotee. So he was put into the custody. And there was a date fixed for his trial, and all these days Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura himself and his family especially, they were suffering from high fever. Maybe that yogi was planning to kill the whole family. But it was going on as fever. So on the trial day, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Kedāranātha Datta, when he came to the bench the man was presented, the so-called yogi, and he had big, big hairs. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura ordered that “Bring one barber and cut his hair.” So no barber dared. The barbers thought, “Oh, he’s a Lord Viṣṇu. If I offend, as he’s suffering from fever, so I shall also die.” So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura ordered that “Give me the scissor. I’ll cut.” So he cut his hairs and ordered him to be put into jail for six months, and in the jail that Viṣṇu incarnation managed to take some poison, and he died.

So this is one of the incidents. There are many incidences. He was very strong man. He punished many paṇḍas in the tīrthas who exploit visitors. So, this is the position of devotee. In spite of his becoming a responsible magistrate, a householder, still, he was ācārya. So we have to follow the ācāryas. If we at all, if we are at all interested in spiritual science, then we must follow the Vedic instruction, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. We must approach. You cannot have spiritual knowledge simply by speculating. Impossible. Simply waste of time. Śrama eva hi kevalam [SB 1.2.8]. You must go to the… In the Bhagavad-gītā, therefore, it is recommended, ācāryopāsanam. Ācārya-upāsanā. Not only worshiping the Lord, but also the ācārya. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, guru–kṛṣṇa–kṛpayā pāya bhakti–latā–bīja [Cc. Madhya 19.151]. Guru, ācārya, and Kṛṣṇa. One should seek favor of both of them. Not that “I am now seeking favor of Kṛṣṇa. What is the use of guru or ācārya?” No. You cannot overlap ācārya and go to Kṛṣṇa. That is not possible. Kṛṣṇa will not accept you. Just like if you want to see a big man you should go through his secretary, through his orderly, doorkeeper; similarly, our process is ācāryopāsanam, go through the ācārya. That is the injunction of the Vedas. Tarko ‘pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to enter into the spiritual world, you cannot get through simply by arguments. Because there is no limit of argument. I place my argument in one way. Another man, who is better arguer, he places his argument in a different way. So if you simply go on arguing, it is not possible. Tarko ‘pratiṣṭhaḥ. It will never help you. Argument. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you think that “I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God,” no, that is also not possible. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is “Thou shall not kill.” That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction? And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ. So that society was not very enlightened society. So a scripture for a society which is not very enlightened and a scripture for a society which is very enlightened must be different. Just like a dictionary. For the schoolboy, a pocket dictionary. And for a college student, international, big dictionary. Both of them are dictionaries. But the small pocket dictionary is not equal to the big dictionary. Because it is different made for different classes of men. So scriptures are made according to different classes of men. There are three classes of men: first-class, second-class, and third-class. The third-class man cannot understand the philosophy and scriptural injunctions of the first-class man. That is not possible. Higher mathematics cannot be understood by the small schoolboys who are simply trying to understand “Two plus two equal to four.” But “Two plus two equal to four” is equally good to the higher mathematics student. But still, higher mathematics and lower math is different. Therefore it is said, śrutayo vibhinnāḥ: the scriptures are different. So if you simply try to understand what is God by reading scriptures, you cannot achieve. You must approach a guru. Just like a medical book. It can be available in the market. If you purchase one medical book and study and you become doctor, that is not possible. You must hear the medical book from a medical man in the college, medical college. Then you will be qualified. And if you say, “Sir, I have read all the medical books. Recognize me as a medical practitioner,” no, that will be not.

So śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are different. Arguments, that is also not helpful. One man may argue better than me. Then philosophy. The philosophy, it is said, nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. One philosopher is differing from another philosopher. Just now today Śyāmasundara has purchased one book about different philosophers. So that you also cannot ascertain what is truth. Therefore śāstra says, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The truth is very confidential. So if you want to know that truth, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ [Cc. Madhya 17.186], you should have to follow the great ācāryas. Then you will understand. Therefore ācārya–upāsanā is essential. Ācārya-upāsanā is very essential. In all the Vedic śāstras the injunction is that. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet, śrotriyaṁ brahma–niṣṭham [MU 1.2.12]. Tasmād gurum prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. Anyone who is inquisitive to understand higher truths, he must surrender to guru. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta, jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam. One who is inquisitive, who is now inquiring about transcendental subject matter. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā [Bg. 4.34]. So all the śāstras says, in our Vaiṣṇava śāstra also, Rūpa Gosvāmī says, ādau gurv-āśrayam: “In the first beginning, you must take shelter of a bona fide guru.”

So this Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s birthday, we should adore, we should worship, because in the modern age he reintroduced the disciplic succession. From Caitanya Mahāprabhu… Five hundred years ago, Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught this philosophy, but within two hundred years… Because this material world is so made that whatever you introduce, in due course of time it will deteriorate. You make a nice house, but after one hundred years, two hundred years, or nowadays, even after fifty years, it becomes dilapidated. That is the nature’s law, kāla. Time will destroy everything. Now, British empire, such a big, vast empire, now it is finished. The kāla, the time, will make everything finished. That is material. Anything material, it has birth, it has growth, it has got some opulence, then dwindling, then finished. That is the way of material… So we are interested in spiritual subject matter. Therefore the process is ādau gurv-āśrayam. One has to accept a bona fide spiritual master. That is our process. Without accepting a bona fide spiritual master, we cannot make any progress. It is impossible. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura happens to be ācāryas, one of the ācāryas. And he has left behind him many books. Caitanya-śikṣāmṛta, Jaiva Dharma. These are very important books. They’re in Bengali, in Sanskrit. And many songs. He has prepared many books of song. The song, Ei nām gāya gauracānd madhura svare, that is Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s song. So we are trying to present Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s books also in English translation. Gradually you will get it. So our adoration, our worship to Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura today because he may bless us to make peacefully progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Ācārya-upāsanā, simply by the blessings of the ācāryas we can make very rapid progress. Vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma–bhaktau [Bs. 5.33]. If we… Yasya prasādād bhagavat–prasādaḥ… **. We sing every day. By the mercy of the spiritual master, ācārya, we immediately get the blessings of Lord. Immediately. Yasya prasādāt. Yasya means “whose”; prasādāt, “benediction.” By the benediction of the spiritual master. Yasya prasādād bhagavat–prasādaḥ **. If spiritual master, ācārya, is pleased, then you should know that Kṛṣṇa is also pleased. You should know through. This is not very difficult. Just like you are working in office. If your immediate officer, boss, is pleased, that means the proprietor of the firm, he’s also pleased. Although you do not see him. This is fact. Your immediate boss, if he’s pleased. So similarly, we, our business, this spiritual line, is guru–kṛṣṇa–kṛpā. We have to first receive the merciful benediction from the ācārya, and then Kṛṣṇa will be pleased and He’ll also give His blessings. Mad–bhakta. There is a version in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, mad–bhakta pūjyābhyadhikā. He says, Kṛṣṇa says, that “If anyone worships Me directly and if anyone worships Me through the ācārya, he’s better devotee who is coming to Me through ācārya.” Mad–bhakta pūjyābhyadhikā.

So our, this Vaiṣṇava philosophy, process, is to go through the ācārya. Servant of the servant of the servant. We should try to become servant of the servant. Gopī–bhartuḥ pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ [Cc. Madhya 13.80]. Dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ. We should not approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead directly. That is not good. That will not be… In the Vedic injunction also it is said, yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau [ŚU 6.23]. If one has got unflinching faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, yathā deve, and similar faith in guru… Of course, we must make guru bona fide. Then it is disciplic succession. And that is also not very difficult to select, who is bona fide guru. Bona fide guru means he presents himself as servant of God. He does not pose himself falsely that “I am God.” This is bona fide. It is not difficult to find out bona fide. But this is the test. If anyone says that “I am guru,” er, “I am God,” then he cannot be guru. Because he has no knowledge. How he is God? But he can cheat some people. That is different thing. You can cheat all people for some time and some people for all time, but not all people for all time. That is not possible. So these kinds of guru, who poses themself that “I am God,” he’s a false guru. The bona fide guru will say that “I am servant of the servant of the servant of Kṛṣṇa,” or God. Servant of [Cc. Madhya 13.80]. That is the business of guru. He serves Kṛṣṇa as Kṛṣṇa desires; that is his business. That is also not very difficult. Kṛṣṇa says, Kṛṣṇa desires, sarva–dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja [Bg. 18.66], that “You give up all other engagement; just surrender unto Me, and I’ll give you protection.” Kṛṣṇa says. So guru’s business is that “You simply surrender to Kṛṣṇa.” What is the difficulty? Simply repeat the same thing. Not for himself, but for Kṛṣṇa. He’s bona fide guru.

So our this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is very bona fide because we say the same thing as Kṛṣṇa says. We don’t make any addition, alteration. Not like big scholars like, “It is not to Kṛṣṇa…” Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad–yājī māṁ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65], and the scholar interprets, “It is not to Kṛṣṇa.” Just see (the) foolishness. Kṛṣṇa directly says, “unto Me.” He says, “Not to Kṛṣṇa.” Misleading. Such misleading guru will not help you. So therefore to find out a bona fide guru means that he does not change the words of Kṛṣṇa. That is his position. He places everything as it is, and he has understood thoroughly the science. Jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam. Guru, what is the symptom of guru? Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. Those who are inquisitive to understand higher scientific knowledge, uttamam. Uttama means higher. Uttama, madhyama, adhama. There are three words. First-class, second-class, third-class. So spiritual knowledge is uttamam. Anyone who is inquisitive to understand first-class knowledge, he requires to go to a guru. Those who are interested in third-class knowledge, they do not require any guru. Third-class knowledge means animal knowledge: how to eat, how to sleep. How to make arrangement for eating, how to make arrangement for sleeping, that is third-class knowledge. Because the animals also try for this kind of knowledge, how to eat, how to sleep. Therefore this kind of knowledge is third-class knowledge. And second-class knowledge is “What I am?” Athāto brahma jijñāsā. The Vedānta. That is second-class knowledge. And first-class knowledge, when he actually understands what he is, he is eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, and engages himself in the service of the Lord, that is first-class knowledge. And therefore, as soon as he comes to the first-class knowledge platform, he becomes happy.

brahma–bhūtaḥ prasannātmā
na śocati na kāṅkṣati
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu
mad–bhaktiṁ labhate parām
[Bg. 18.54]

So after being liberated from the material concept of life by the blessings of Kṛṣṇa and guru, one comes to the platform of first-class knowledge, where he engages himself directly in the service of the Lord. That is first-class knowledge. First-class knowledge means beyond liberation. Second-class knowledge is trying for liberation. Third-class knowledge means in bondage, like animal. The animals, they are bound up by the particular type of body and has no, I mean to say, possibility of becoming liberated. That is animal life. But human life is better than animal life because he, if he likes, he can make himself liberated from this bondage of material body. That is the facility. He can understand himself what he is. He can understand what is God. He can understand the relationship between God and himself. He can understand what is this material world. Because there are thousands of books of knowledge. Take it for Bhagavad-gītā. Everything is there. And it is meant for human being, not for the cats and dogs. Cats and dogs cannot understand, but a human being can understand.

So our this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to enlighten people to utilize his very nice life, human form of life, utilize it properly. To utilize it properly means to revive his dormant Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or God consciousness, is there already. It is developed in human form of life. But it is now covered because due to our association with this material world for unlimited years background. We are coming through different species of life. Millions and millions of years passed away. Suppose I was a tree sometimes. I was standing up for ten thousand years in one place. We have passed through. That’s a fact. That is evolution. Now we have the opportunity of light. If you don’t use this opportune moment and again go back to the cycle of evolutionary process, jalajā nava–lakśaṇi sthāvarā… So these are great science. Unfortunately, there is no opportunity for the people to study this science in school, colleges, or universities. They are simply teaching people that “You work hard and gratify your senses.” That’s all. Therefore a section, younger section, they have been disgusted. They have refused to cooperate with this society on account of this disappointing education. And it will increase. Because this sort of education cannot give peace or prosperity to the people. Problems are increasing. Therefore, our request is that if you want to decrease or completely finish all the problems of life, take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the process of disciplic succession and you’ll be all happy.

Thank you very much. (devotees offer obeisances)

Śyāmasundara: Prabhupāda, are you going to answer any questions?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: If anyone has any questions pertaining to the lecture, you can ask them at this time. They should be pertaining to the lecture.

Devotee girl: Did Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, he also took sannyāsa in later years? Is this right?

Śyāmasundara: Did Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura take sannyāsa in later years?

Prabhupāda: Yes. In very late years. In his retired life.

Śyāmasundara: Any other questions?

Devotee: Prabhupāda, you say that an animal has no chance for liberation. What would happen if an animal came in contact with a pure devotee?

Prabhupāda: Yes, there is chance of deliverance. Yes. Even an animal. Because he’ll hear Hare Kṛṣṇa from the pure devotee. That will not go in vain. He’ll give prasādam. He does not know, but the devotee out of compassion gives prasādam, chants Hare Kṛṣṇa. He also gets the opportunity of hearing. So he’ll also be liberated. One dog, during Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s time, he also became liberated. There is a history. Śivānanda Sena’s dog, he was liberated by the grace of Lord Caitanya. So by the association of pure devotee… Therefore Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s, there is one song. He prays to the Lord that kīṭa–janma hou jatha tuyā dāsa. Kīṭa means insect. “My Lord, if I have to take my birth again…” Because a devotee does not pray to God for liberation. He simply prays that “Wherever I may take my birth, I may not forget You.” That’s all. That is devotee’s prayer. A devotee does not say that “Elevate me to the heavenly planet or Vaikuṇṭha planet.” No. “You can put me anywhere.” Just like Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says, kīṭa–janma hou: “My dear Lord, I have no objection if I have to take my birth next as an insect.” What to speak of human being or other thing. “As an insect. But I must be in the house of a devotee.” So that an insect, by eating the remnants of foodstuff left by the devotee, he’ll be delivered. Kīṭa–janma hou jatha tuyā, bahir–mukha brahma–janma nāhi mora āśā: “I don’t want my next birth as Lord Brahmā if I forget You. I don’t want.” That is wanted. A devotee prays to the Lord that he would be able to constantly remember the lotus feet of the Lord. Never mind whether as insect or as king or as dog, never mind. That is devotee’s, pure devotee.

Indian man: If one has accepted a bona fide spiritual master and he did not receive much knowledge from him, can he change his spiritual master at later…

Prabhupāda: A bona fide spiritual master, where is the necessity of changing?

Indian man: No, he has not got the knowledge from him, but can I change…?

Prabhupāda: No, no. Bona fide spiritual means he must get knowledge. He must get knowledge. He must inquire from the… The student must inquire from the spiritual master. If he remains dumb, then what bona fide spiritual master can do? Ādau gurv-āśrayaṁ sad–dharma-pṛcchat, jijñāsuḥ. He must be jijñāsuḥ. He must be jijñāsuḥ. We get so many letters daily. So many inquiries. The student must be very inquisitive. Otherwise how he shall make progress? If he remains dumb, then what the bona fide spiritual master can do? If you go to a very nice school but if you do not study, if you do not inquire, then what is the use of going to the nice school? You must be also very alert to inquire, to understand, to make progress. Then it will be all right. If you do not utilize the benefit of having a bona fide spiritual master, then that is your fault. You must utilize the opportunity. We are publishing so many books, so many literatures, magazines. Why? Just to enlighten more and more. But if you don’t take advantage of this, then how can you make progress? Change of spiritual master requires when the spiritual master is not bona fide. Otherwise there is no necessity of changing.

Indian lady: How does one contact the spiritual master? Through a book can you contact the spiritual master?

Prabhupāda: No, you have to associate.

Śyāmasundara: “Can you associate through a book?” she asked.

Prabhupāda: Yes, through books, and also personal. Because when you make a spiritual master you have got personal touch. Not that in air you make a spiritual master. You make a spiritual master concrete. So as soon as you make a spiritual master, you should be inquisitive.

English man: If the spiritual master, Prabhupāda, worships God through a demigod, is he bona fide?

Prabhupāda: No. He does not know how to worship. How he can be bona fide? Kṛṣṇa says, sarva–dharmān parityajya mām ekam [Bg. 18.66]. Why he should go to the demigods? That means he has no knowledge. Kṛṣṇa says, mām ekam. Why should you go to others? That means he’s insufficiently qualified. Why should you go to the demigods? What is the necessity? He’s not bona fide. Because he has insufficient knowledge. Bona fide spiritual must be sufficiently knowledge. Kṛṣṇa says, mām ekam; God says, mām ekam. Why he should go to demigods? That is his proof that he’s not bona fide.

Devotee: If one accepts initiation from a bona fide spiritual master but continues to perform material activities, are they still bound by the karma?

Prabhupāda: He has to do everything under the instruction of the spiritual master. That is his duty. Śiṣya. Śiṣya means who voluntarily accepts disciplinary measures from the spiritual master. He’s ruled by the spiritual master.

Indian lady: Can the death of a spiritual master take to us, or I can get… Is that spiritual master still guiding after the death? (?)

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Just like Kṛṣṇa is guiding us, similarly, spiritual master will guide. We are being guided by Kṛṣṇa, by the Bhagavad-gītā. Although Kṛṣṇa is not physically present, so-called… Kṛṣṇa is present always. But even if we say that Kṛṣṇa is not physically present as He was present before Arjuna, still, His book, Bhagavad-gītā, is there. And that Bhagavad-gītā is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa’s teaching, the same, absolute. That is Absolute Truth. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa’s… Here form, the same. It is not that we are making show of offering Kṛṣṇa some food. No, we are offering directly to Kṛṣṇa and He’s eating. Kṛṣṇa being absolute, He can perform through anything provided we are sincere and serious. All right. (end)

Link to this page: https://prabhupadabooks.com/classes/festival/his_divine_grace_srila_sac-cid-ananda_bhaktivinoda_thakuras_appearance_day_lecture/london/september/03/1971

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura sent his book, Lord Caitanya: His Life and Precepts to McGill University in Montreal, Canada in 1896, the same year that Prabhupada took birth in this world. Srila Prabhupada considered this to be a significant event and later on dedicated his own book, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, as follows:

DEDICATED TO

The Sacred Service

of

SRILA SACCIDANANDA BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA

Who Initiated The Teachings of Lord Caitanya

in

The Western World

(McGill University, Canada)

in 1896

The Year of My Birth

A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI

By Bhakta Alex

Myth: July 9, 1977, directive wasn’t self-sufficient, final order on initiations in ISKCON, as it had been explained in May 28th conversation: ritviks until Srila Prabhupada’s departure only, then diksa gurus.

Instead of normal quoting from May 28th conversation and other evidence, anti-ritviks often resort to retelling them in their own words and distort the real evidence. One of early examples of this is maya-GBC’s paper called “The Process for Carrying Out Srila Prabhupada’s Desires for Future Initiations (A paper prepared by the GBC in Consultation with higher authorities… Mayapura, March, 1978)”. It says:

“The GBC members met together in Vrndavana and prepared a few last questions to put before Srila Prabhupada. One very important question was how disciples would be initiated in the parampara after the departure of His Divine Grace. When asked this question, Srila Prabhupada replied that he would name persons who could initiate disciples [note: on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, not in their own right] after his disappearance. We then asked him who the spiritual master of such disciples would be.

He replied that the new initiators would be the disciples of those whom he empowered to initiate [note: it’s another false statement, Srila Prabhupada replied that they would also be his, Prabhupada’s, disciples] and that he, Srila Prabhupada would be their grand spiritual master [note: this would be possible only “when I order” which didn’t happen]. Then he said that he would name the initiating gurus later [note: actually, he said “When I order”- this was the clause]. […] Then one day in June [note: in July] he gave his secretary the names of eleven disciples who would be initiating the disciples [note: initiating on his behalf]. […]

On naming these disciples, he ordered that they become “rittvic acaryas”, which means that they were to initiate on his behalf [note: that’s it, but where is your authorization as initiating gurus?]. He indicated, as he had said in May, that these rittvic acaryas named by him would, after his disappearance, continue as initiating spiritual master. [Note: there is no such indication nor in July 7th, 1977, neither in the May 28th conversations]” (End of excerpt from maya-GBC March 1978 paper)

Ameyatma das: “In March of 1978 the GBC wrote and distributed an official paper that dealt with initiations now that Srila Prabhupada was no longer with us. That paper gave the names of the 11 new Acaryas and it mentioned the “list” where Srila Prabhupada had given the names of those 11. Bharadvaj is a senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada and he told me that he had asked Ramesvar who was our GBC in LA, if he could see the list for himself. He just wanted to verify for himself that it was valid. Ramesvara denied Bharadvaj’s request, who was even a more senior devotee than Ramesvara was. He told Bharadvaj that the List or letter was for GBC members only. Ramesvara told him that Srila Prabhupad had given the GBC verbal instructions when they met with him earlier that weren’t given in the List, and that if devotees read that List, they’ll reach the wrong understanding. For that reason, the GBC would not let other devotees see it. He told Bharadvaj that he would just have to trust the GBC. Trust? Trust is when your leaders don’t keep such important instruction given by your own spiritual master from you. Trust is when your leaders act in such a way that you know you can trust them.” (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSilpQNom-k)

If Tamal, Satsvarupa, Ramesvara, etc. were so sure that they were appointed as diksa gurus, why May 28th, 1977, tape had been hidden/suppressed for years (until mid-1980s when it leaked to the public)? It wasn’t presented and distributed at the March 1978 Gaura Purnima festival to the assembled devotees (despite Yasoda nandana’s request to make the evidence available and openly discussed). It wasn’t quoted in the official ‘Back to Godhead’ magazine (the first 1978 issue that was dedicated to Srila Prabhupada’s departure). It wasn’t quoted in GBC 1978 resolutions that declared that 11 “Spiritual Master” were “selected” by Srila Prabhupada (GBC resolution # 16, March 19^th 1978. 9:30 am). Etc. They often retell it in their own words.

Yasoda nandana dasa: “Why the GBC did not bring out this so-called appointment tape in front of all the devotees the March 1978 Mayapura meeting? What did they have to hide?” (July 19th 2024)

Maya-ISKCON “guru” Jayadvaita Swami claimed in his “Where the Ritvik people are wrong” paper:

“5. Argument from Srila Prabhupada’s final instruction.

On May 28th, 1977, when a deputation of GBC members asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would go on after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, his last words on the subject were these:

When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. Just see.

“Disciple of my disciple.” The meaning is clear, and it’s consistent with Srila Prabhupada always taught us.

For those who refuse to see it, no amount of argument will help. For the rest of us, there it is.” (End of excerpt)

It’s a case of “physician, heal thyself”. The author quotes the phrase with a clause “when I order”, but refuses to see it. So where is the exact order given to any disciple to become the next initiating acarya in ISKCON? Who, where and when were named in the exact capacity as new diksa gurus? Where are the details of the future multiple initiating guru system in ISKCON given by Srila Prabhupada?

As the founder of their apa-sampradaya admitted, “Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. […] He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus. […] You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: “I appoint these eleven as gurus”. It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.” (Tamal Krishna, December 3rd, 1980, Topanga Canyon talks quoted in ISKCON Journal, 1990)  

The idea that July 9th letter cannot be properly understood without May 28th 1977 conversation where Srila Prabhupada allegedly authorized diksa gurus, and that conversation (not July 9th directive) was his “final instruction”, and on this basis one should not take the directive too seriously, and one just have to blindly trust the distorted interpretations of the issue by bogus gurus/anti-ritvik party is another misleading.  

Myth: July 9th letter wasn’t connected to May 28th conversation, but was the result of July 7th conversation.

According to anti-ritviks, July 9th 1977, directive speaks of the period until Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure as it was the outcome of Jul 7th conversation or the letter appoints ritviks and somehow simultaneously appoints diksa gurus. And that’s no big deal that the directive doesn’t say anything about ritviks until departure only or ritviks turning into diksa gurus, because Srila Prabhupada allegedly authorized this transformation during May 28th conversation.

In their official paper “Prabhupada’s Order” (August 1998) maya-GBC suddenly changed their line of argumentation (compared to their official “Disciple of My Disciple” paper, April 1997) and claimed that July 9th letter arose solely from July 7th conversation: “The letter was a response to a conversation of July 7th”. And “The May 28th conversation deals specifically with the question of what would happen after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and he answers unequivocally that his disciples would accept disciples of their own.”  

The truth is the directive was the result of both July 7th and May 28th conversations, and other discussions as well – all of them pointed to ritvik initiations in ISKCON on behalf of Srila Prabhupada to be followed in the future.

July 9th letter starts off by giving an explicit reference to the conversation that took place on May 28th, 1977, when Srila Prabhupada was asked by the GBC how initiations would be conducted “in the future” when he “is no longer with us.”

From Gadadhar dasa’s article “July 9th Appointments: Temporary or Permanent?”:

“”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, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.”

(1) This section proves that July 9th letter refers [in this place] to May 28th Conversations and not to July 7th Conversations by exploring how many GBCs were there in the world in May 28th, 1977, and how many of them were in Vrindavan on May 28th and July 7th.

(a) From Conversations 770528me.vrn [May 28, 1977, conversation] we learn that there were 23 GBCs as of May 28th, 1977…

Srila Prabhupada: How many GBC’s are there already?

Tamala Krsna: Twenty-three.

[…]

(c) Summary Report of GBC Meetings from May 27th to 29th 1997, states names of following 22 persons who attended those meetings. It was sent to all Temple Presidents.

[…]

(f) I have scanned through “Conversations with Srila Prabhupada” Books I have and found following (Under Documents see “Books – Conversations with Srila Prabhupada”:

(f.1) From May 25th to June 2nd – there are many GBCs around every day. Plus, as shown above, on May 28, 18 GBCs sign GBC Minute Book; Summary Report of GBC Meetings from May 27 to 29 is signed by 22 persons (20 GBCs, one Acting GBC, and 2 non-GBC Members). Furthermore, 15 GBC members are found to be speaking with Srila Prabhupada during May 27, 28, and 29 – as per “Conversations with Srila Prabhupada” Books. I can produce the list if needed.

(f.2) From July 2nd to July 10th only GBC found to be speaking with Srila Prabhupada is TKG – as per “Conversations with Srila Prabhupada” Books.

(g) Comparing (f.1) and (f.2) it is clear that July 9th letter refers to May 28th Conversation because the requirements of the underlined clause in the following statement of July 9th is met by only May 28th conversations, and not by July 7th Conversations.

[…]

“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, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.”

(h) Above July 9th statement specifically refers to the following May 28th statements:

Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first, and second initiation would be conducted.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas. (End of excerpt from Gadadhar Dasa’s article, source: http://prabhupadanugasworldwide.org/july-9-appointments-temporary-or-permanent/)

Thus, the idea that July 9th directive wasn’t connected to May 28th conversation is another myth. July 9th 1977, letter became the practical outcome of Srila Prabhupada’s promise given on May 28th 1977, to resolve this issue later on. This directive does not say anything that ritvk initiations in ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf should stop in the future, or that ritviks will have to become diksa gurus in ISKCON immediately or soon after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, or that the GBC receives the authority to appoint new diksa gurus in ISKCON by their votes.

Seriously, should we believe that the GBC delegation asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would be conducted in the future particularly when he is no longer with us, and he replied he would appoint ritviks, then he did appoint them in July, 1977 and soon after that the directive addressed to all ISKCON managers was written which refers to the recent GBC meeting with Srila Prabhupada in Vrindavana (May 28th 1977 conversation)… but the directive appoints ritviks and supposedly deals with initiations until Srila Prabhupada’s departure only, and it couldn’t mean post-samadhi initiations as well (as per anti-ritvik version). So, Srila Prabhupada arranged the directive about the issue the GBC didn’t particularly ask him about, and the real issue was just forgotten and wasn’t addressed in any 1977 document? Isn’t it self-exposing make-belief?

By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Srila Prabhupada said, “He becomes his disciple, of my disciple.”

Amazingly, one anti-ritvik proponent wrote that the audio recording of the conversation makes it clear that Srila Prabhupada supposedly said, “He becomes his disciple, of my disciple.”  

But Srila Prabhupada says on the tape, “He becomes dis… disciple of my disciple.” (See: https://vedabase.io/en/library/transcripts/770528mevrn/ – 15:48)

Not “his disciple”, but “dis… disciple”.

a) “Dis…” can clearly be heard from the official audio recording.

b) The above anti-ritvik myth makes Srila Prabhupada’s sentence grammatically incorrect.

c) It also contradicts other sections of May 28th conversation, July 9th directive, Srila Prabhupada’s last will, etc.  

Thus, Srila Prabhupada said here not “his disciple”, but “dis… disciple”. Therefore, even the official VedaBase transcript doesn’t say “his disciple” at this place, but just “disciple“. “Dis…” is not even mentioned in the VedaBase (although we suggest to add it in the text) since it bears no decisive meaning, being just a part of the word Srila Prabhupada immediately pronounces in full. Anyway, the point is Srila Prabhupada said that disciple of his disciple would be possible “when” he orders some of his disciple to become (initiating) guru. No such order- no new diksa gurus– no disciple of his disciple- he remains the guru who is initiating new disciples via officiating priests/ritviks. So, this part, again, provides no proof for anti-ritvik theories whatsoever.

Myth: Srila Prabhupada confirmed here that diksa gurus in ISKCON can be of two categories: (1) “regular guru” who is less qualified compared to (2) fully liberated uttama-adhikari guru.

There is Ajamila dasa’ paper “Regular or Ritvik”, published in maya-GBC’s ISKCON Journal, 1990. He proposes the idea of some “minimally qualified diksa gurus” that are never mentioned in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. This interpretation of “regular” meaning “junior”, “non-liberated” initiating gurus is certainly wrong but is supported by anti-ritviks (see rebuttal to the myth “There are two kinds of diksa gurus in ISKCON”).

When Srila Prabhupada mentioned “regular guru” in May 28th 1977 conversation he didn’t tell there are two kinds of diksa gurus (great and small), he told that ritviks who do ceremonial aspect of initiations on behalf of the guru could be promoted to real initiating gurus (“when I order”, and that idea was repeated on April 22nd 1977 when Srila Prabhupada also pointed out that the “training must be complete”). That is, even theoretically ritviks could turn into new regular, real gurus if they are completely developed pure devotees, and before that there cannot be even the question of this promotion by authorization (“What is the use of producing some rascal guru?” – SP, April 22nd 1977). The idea that Srila Prabhupada authorized some junior, non-liberated diksa gurus in the May 28th 1977 conversation, is another outright fabrication. Deviated maya-ISKCON invents such far-off interpretations due to extreme thoughtlessness or, more often, just to desperately cover up their bitter reality which is not just somewhat less qualified bona fide gurus, but self-made pedophile “gurus”, porn-addicted “gurus”, admitted mental disorder “gurus” and their unauthorized, less than transcendental colleagues with self-exposing track-record.

Myth: In the last section of May 28th conversation Srila Prabhupada authorized diksa gurus and said that future disciples in ISKCON must be disciples of his disciples, his grand disciples.

Maya-GBC’s paper “Disciple of My Disciple” says, “the reason for this paper: to show that Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated [on May 28th 1977] that after his departure his disciples should take up the responsibilities of full-fledged initiating spiritual masters.” (Foreword to Disciple of My Disciple, 1997)

This claim is simply false, which should be obvious to any sincere, unbiased person. Srila Prabhupada didn’t “unequivocally stated” what they claim, he didn’t authorize there and then any “full-fledged initiating spiritual masters” with their own disciples, Srila Prabhupada’s granddisciples. He answered he is going to appoint ritviks (which he did in July 1977), confirmed that future disciples would be his disciples (“your disciples”-“yes”), but when Tamal said “No” and continued to ask questions about these officiating acaryas/ritviks, Srila Prabhupada answered that they can only become diksa gurus with their own disciples/Srila Prabhupada’s granddisciples when he would order them to do so.

Otherwise, there is no such gurus/disciples of his disciple/his grand disciples. That’s all. But anti-ritviks don’t like this wise and simple arrangement made by the acarya. And then what can they possibly do? Just stubbornly ignore or twist the phrase “when I order”. Otherwise, if they just call a spade a spade, their whole fake system of so-called gurus, who we never authorized by Srila Prabhupada and proved its falsehood by their scandal-plagued history of endless falldowns, will fall apart, with all their vested interests.         

From a lecture “Attack on ISKCON” given by maya-ISKCON “guru” Indradymna Swami in Moscow on 28/11/98:

“The GBC asked Prabhupada that question, “What about when you leave?” And Prabhupada said, “They will be disciples of my disciples.” Okay? Just remember that one line. Prabhupada said, “They will be disciples of my disciples.” “My disciples will be regular gurus,” he said.” Now, in order to substantiate their speculation, they twist everything, and turn everything, and take references from other places.”

Comment by Krishnakant prabhu:

“Another bare-faced lie from IDS. Here is the question and answer:

Satsvarupa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

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

Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.

(Room conversation, May 28th, 1977)

Notice the answer for what will happen “when you leave” is not “they will be disciples of my disciples” but “they will be ritvik”.

IDS does exactly what he claims we do: he twists everything and takes references from other places – because at the END of the above conversation, Srila Prabhupada states:

“When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru, that’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.”

But this order for “regular” or Diksa gurus was never given, and clearly the impending order for ritviks just quoted, is not the order for Diksa Gurus.” (From “An Error in Every Sentence: H. H. Indradyumna Swami”, source: https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/ids.htm)

Unfortunately, anti-ritvik rebels have turned a blind eye on the real content of the conversation and keep falsely indoctrinating other people to treat it likewise or hope they will not carefully hear/read the actual evidence.  

Join us in honoring His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada on Sunday, 17th August. Express your gratitude through a special writing or poem.

Submit your heartfelt tributes to

yasoda1008@yahoo.com

[Yasoda nandana das]

Deadline: Tuesday, 12th August 2025

Let’s come together to glorify our beloved spiritual master on this auspicious day. Hare Krishna!

By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Srila Prabhupada said, “Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.”

More misleading and artificial confusion created by anti-ritviks. Srila Prabhupada clearly says:

“They’re his disciple- who is initiating… His granddisciple…”

The latter “his” is one word, as is heard from the audio recording, the same as the former one. Anti-ritviks try to break this connection and add more confusion to the conversation. But it’s all useless since granddisciples are in any case restricted by the clause “When I order”.

Different anti-ritvik papers have given different transcripts in this place: his, he is, he’s. Now, the Bhaktivedanta VedaBase (which is currently under anti-ritviks’ influence) says “he is”. This is not in accordance with their official audio (see: https://vedabase.io/en/library/transcripts/770528mevrn/ – from 15:18 to 15:28) and should be corrected. If we literally read their current version, it says the person “who is initiating” is simultaneously a “granddisciple”:

“They’re his disciple- who is initiating… He is granddisciple…”

And that makes remarks by Satsvarupa and Tamal in the transcript quite strange:

Satsvarūpa: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear.

The above version doesn’t make it clear.

From “The Real ‘Appointment Tape'” by Krishnakant:

“The first source of inaccuracy is the phrase ‘He is grand-disciple’. Please note the following:

1. In 1985, His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu produced his landmark paper ‘Under My Order’. This paper very carefully analysed the whole ‘Appt Tape’. It was this analysis of the tape that led to the current guru system in ISKCON being introduced and the zonal acarya system being disbanded. Thus, one can appreciate the significance of this paper and the thought that went into it. Also, since the whole paper revolved around an analysis of the so-called ‘Appt Tape’, its treatment of this tape also needed to be done carefully. To this end the transcript for the tape they produced was crucial and would have needed to be checked thoroughly. Indeed H.G. Ravindra Svarupa prabhu states that the transcript has been carefully ‘checked and corrected’ by H.H. Jayadvaita Swami, a senior BBT editor. In this transcript, it clearly states: ‘HIS grand-disciple’ NOT ‘HE IS grand-disciple’. This rendering was never challenged at the time, or subsequently, by ANY member of the GBC.

2. Fast forward to 1990. H.G. Ravindra Svarupa prabhu helps put out the ISKCON Journal. Mysteriously the transcript has now been changed to ‘HE IS grand-disciple’. No explanation is given for this change. All subsequent GBC transcripts start repeating this phrase as ‘HE IS grand-disciple’.

3. However, since the change involves moving from one word to two words, it can be easily resolved by listening to the tape. The tape has been listened to by a number of persons and they all agree that only ONE word is spoken before the word ‘grand-disciple’. Obviously both H.G. Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu and H.H. Jayadvaita Swami would also have heard only one word. Thus, the term spoken before the word ‘grand-disciple’ DEFINITELY CANNOT be ‘HE IS’, since only ONE word is spoken, not TWO words.

4. In response to this point the GBC have now tried to subsequently argue in ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ (1997) that ‘maybe’ the word spoken was “He’s”. But this does not explain why the carefully checked transcript in 1985 was sure that it was ‘His’, nor why NONE of the GBC transcripts subsequently have never said ‘He’s’, but only ‘He is’. The only possible explanations are:

a) They have a different version of the tape, where the words ‘He is’ ARE spoken.

b) They have deliberately been mis-representing HIS/HE’S as ‘HE IS’ all this time.

Of course, if a) was the case the whole GBC case collapses anyway since it proves beyond any doubt that the tape was falsified since two different recordings exist.

If b) is the case, then it supports the idea that they have been deliberately trying to mis-represent the actual recording so that people will draw the ‘ritviks are diksa gurus’ conclusion. However, with this mis-representation now cleared away, as will be seen, the conclusion that will be drawn is completely different.

5. Also, there is no reason to suppose that Srila Prabhupada did say ‘He’s’ as opposed to ‘His’, since such an interpretation would not make any sense.

The pronoun ‘He’ (from He’s) before the term ‘grand-disciple’ refers to the person BEING initiated, the initiate, or the ‘grand-disciple’. However, in straightforward standard English the pronoun usually refers to the immediate ante-cedent (the term that the pronoun follows). In this case that term is ‘who is initiating’. It is obvious therefore that in this case the pronoun CANNOT be ‘HE’ because how can the INITIATE, the person being INITIATED, or ‘grand-disciple’, simultaneously be the person ‘who is initiating’!

6. Even if we allow for the ante-cedent that the pronoun refers to. To not be the most immediate. There is actually NO ante-cedent for the pronoun ‘HE’ to refer to in the whole conversation, since the speaker Srila Prabhupada has never previously mentioned nor alluded to the initiate, or the person BEING INITIATED, in the singular. The only time previously in the conversation that the speaker or the questioners ever mention the initiate, it is ALWAYS in the plural. ‘(Yes, THEY are disciples.’) Thus, a speaker cannot just introduce a pronoun that has no ante-cedent. It does not make sense. In other words, the ‘HE’ has to REFER to something. But it cannot refer to something that has not yet even been mentioned.

7. However, the use of ‘His’, does make sense, since this use CAN be consistent with the most immediate antecedent, ‘who is initiating’. In this case the ‘HIS’ MUST refer to Srila Prabhupada since the ‘ritvik’ cannot have grand-disciples. Srila Prabhupada would then also be the person ‘who is initiating’. Thus, there is no case for insisting that the words spoken were ‘HE IS’ or even ‘HE’S’. Even the GBC admit that at the very best ‘maybe’ it states ‘He’s’ (‘Disciple of My Disciple’), as opposed to ‘HIS’.

The second source of inaccuracy is in the way the transcript is written out. If one actually listens to this part of the tape the sequence of events are as follows:

1. Srila Prabhupada states ‘Who is initiating’. He then PAUSES.

2. After the PAUSE, he next states ‘HIS grand-disciple’. (See above)

3. Srila Prabhupada again pauses.

4. H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja then attempts to interrupt and begins to ask another question.

5. Srila Prabhupada IGNORES him and CONTINUES SPEAKING.

Taking all these facts into account, and omitting the interruption from H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja, which has absolutely no bearing on what Srila Prabhupada says, since he also ignores this interruption, the transcript can now be more accurately represented as:

Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating (pause) His Grand-Disciple (pause) When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.

Now the transcript becomes clearer. The term ‘his grand-disciple’ is first introduced, and then mentioned again in different terms at the end of the sentence – ‘Disciple of My Disciple’. This by the way is another reason to put these two terms together on the same line, representing the same stream of thought, since the two terms are both speaking of the same entity – Srila Prabhupada’s grand-disciples. Sandwiched in between the two terms is the PROCESS by which the entity is arrived at – ‘When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru’. Thus, in the LAST sentence of the whole conversation Srila Prabhupada merely repeats the standard PRINCIPLE, that WHEN the Guru orders the disciple, THEN he becomes a Diksa Guru. We see that on the May tape no such order was given. And the only order, which was given, was on July 9th, to be ritviks. So it is straightforward. Unless they can produce the actual order, the line:

“His grand-disciple, when I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.”

In itself authorises and orders nothing. (End of excerpt, source:

It should also be noted that “It’s clear” remark by Tamal, which is currently in the VedaBase transcript, is not audible in their official audio recording. Satsvarupa’s “Yes” can definitely be heard (see: https://vedabase.io/en/library/transcripts/770528mevrn/ – 15:29), but not Tamal’s “It’s clear” afterwards. Early transcripts of the conversation (and some modern ones) don’t include this “It’s clear” phrase. For example, Giri-Nayaka das, who made in-depth forensic study of the conversation’s audio recording in 2012, doesn’t mention this phrase in his transcript. Was the phrase added to the transcript under Tamal’s pressure to further falsify the conversation in order to bolster their version that Srila Prabhupada’s appointment of “regular gurus” was “clear” all along (which is false)? This issue should be resolved by a thorough forensic study of the original tape.

Nityananda das: “A poorly-arranged, GBC-funded study of a copy of the May 28th tape by Norman Perle in Los Angeles in 1997 cost only $500. Perle was not apprised that these tapes had repeated stop-starts, as the conversation stopped and started, and he thought these points were possible editing points. So, this study did nothing to verify the tape’s authenticity and was useless. Another study in 1998 by Mitchell at CAE (New Mexico) found no evidence of tampering, but did not completely rule it out either. If the Archives “original” tape is itself a copy of an edited tape, then tampering may be undetectable by any tests. The authenticity of the original May 28th tape should be forensically determined if it is possible to do so without any chance of harming the tape.” (From ‘ISKCON HIDDEN HISTORY’, vol. 5 of Personal Ambition series, Section WAS THE MAY 28th TAPE TAMPERED WITH? Pg. 39)