Saturday, 24 April 2025 [Mayapura, West Bengal, India Time]
Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura Appearance Day

 Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 11.55 (1973 Edition). All Synonyms, Translation and Purport by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada

Text 55
ভাগবতে কৃষ্ণলীলা বর্ণিলা বেদব্যাস ।
চৈতন্য–লীলাতে ব্যাস—বৃন্দাবন দাস ॥ ৫৫ ॥
bhāgavate kṛṣṇa-līlā varṇilā vedavyāsa
caitanya-līlāte vyāsa — vṛndāvana dāsa
Synonyms
bhāgavate — in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam; kṛṣṇa-līlā — the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa; varṇilā — described; veda-vyāsa — Dvaipāyana Vyāsadeva; caitanya-līlāte — in the pastimes of Lord Caitanya; vyāsa — Vedavyāsa; vṛndāvana dāsa — Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura.
Translation
Śrīla Vyāsadeva described the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Vyāsa of the pastimes of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was Vṛndāvana dāsa.
Purport
Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura was an incarnation of Vedavyāsa and also a friendly cowherd boy named Kusumāpīḍa in kṛṣṇa-līlā. In other words, the author of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura, the son of Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura’s niece Nārāyaṇī, was a combined incarnation of Vedavyāsa and the cowherd boy Kusumāpīḍa. There is a descriptive statement by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura in his commentary on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata giving the biographical details of the life of Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura.

Read More: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=12701

Friday, 23 May 2025 [Mayapur, West Bengal, India Time]

Apara Ekādaśī fasting from grains and beans. Kindly avoid tea, coffee, etc., as well.
Keep the fast and chant more rounds of the Maha Mantra for the pleasure of Krishna.
Wishing you a Happy Ekadashi!

Sunday, 18 May 2025 [Mayapura, West Bengal, India Time]

Disappearance Day of Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya

rāmānanda rāye mora koṭī namaskāra
yāṅra mukhe kaila prabhu rasera vistāra
“I offer ten million obeisances unto the lotus feet of Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya because from his mouth much spiritual information has been expanded by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Madhya-līlā 8.311 | 1975 Edition)

“Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught His principles through four chief followers. Among them, Rāmānanda Rāya is exceptional, for through him the Lord taught how a devotee can completely vanquish the power of Cupid. By Cupid’s power, as soon as one sees a beautiful woman he is conquered by her beauty. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya vanquished Cupid’s pride because in the Jagannātha-vallabha-nāṭaka he personally directed extremely beautiful young girls in dancing, but he was never affected by their youthful beauty. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya personally bathed these girls, touching them and washing them with his own hands, yet he remained calm and passionless, as a great devotee should be. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu certified that this was possible only for Rāmānanda Rāya [….]
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Ādi-līlā 10.84 » Purport | 1973 Edition)

“Bhavānanda Rāya had five sons, one of whom was the exalted personality known as Rāmānanda Rāya. Bhavānanda Rāya first met Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu after His return from South India. At that time Rāmānanda Rāya was still serving at his government post; therefore when Bhavānanda Rāya went to see Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he went with his other four sons. They were named Vāṇīnātha, Gopīnātha, Kalānidhi and Sudhānidhi. A description of Bhavānanda Rāya and his five sons is given in the Ādi-līlā (10.133)”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Madhya-līlā 10.49 » Purport | 1975 Edition)

এই পঞ্চ পুত্র তোমার মোর প্রিয়পাত্র ।
রামানন্দ সহ মোর দেহ–ভেদ মাত্র ১৩৪ ॥
ei pañca putra tomāra mora priyapātra
rāmānanda saha mora deha-bheda mātra

SYNONYMS
ei—these; pañca—five; putra—sons; tomāra—your; mora—Mine; priya-pātra—very dear; rāmānanda saha—with Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya; mora—Mine; deha-bheda—bodily difference; mātra—only.

TRANSLATION
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu told Bhavānanda Rāya, “Your five sons are all My dear devotees. Rāmānanda Rāya and I are one, although our bodies are different.”

PURPORT
The Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (120-24) states that Rāmānanda Rāya was formerly Arjuna. He is also considered to have been an incarnation of the gopī Lalitā, although in the opinion of others he was an incarnation of Viśākhādevī. He was a most confidential devotee of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “Although I am a sannyāsī, My mind is sometimes perturbed when I see a woman. But Rāmānanda Rāya is greater than Me, for he is always undisturbed, even when he touches a woman.” Only Rāmānanda Rāya was endowed with the prerogrative to touch a woman in this way; no one should imitate him. Unfortunately, there are rascals who imitate the activities of Rāmānanda Rāya. We need not discuss them further.
In Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s final pastimes, both Rāmānanda Rāya and Svarūpa Dāmodara always engaged in reciting suitable verses from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to pacify the Lord’s ecstatic feelings of separation from Kṛṣṇa. It is said that when Lord Caitanya went to southern India, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya advised Him to meet Rāmānanda Rāya, for he declared that there was no devotee as advanced in understanding the conjugal love of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs. While touring South India, Lord Caitanya met Rāmānanda Rāya by the bank of the Godāvarī, and in their long discourses the Lord took the position of a student, and Rāmānanda Rāya instructed Him.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu concluded these discourses by saying, “My dear Rāmānanda Rāya, both you and I are madmen, and therefore we met intimately on an equal level.” Lord Caitanya advised Rāmānanda Rāya to resign from his government post and come back to Jagannātha Purī to live with Him. Although Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu refused to see Mahārāja Pratāparudra because he was a king, Rāmānanda Rāya, by a Vaiṣṇava scheme, arranged a meeting between the Lord and the King. This is described in the Madhya-līlā, Chapter Twelve, verses 41-57. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya was present during the water sports of the Lord after the Ratha-yātrā festival.
Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu considered Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī to be equal in their renunciation, for although Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya was a gṛhastha engaged in government service and Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī was in the renounced order of complete detachment from material activities, they were both servants of the Supreme Personality of Godhead who kept Kṛṣṇa in the center of all their activities. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya was one of the three and a half personalities with whom Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu discussed the most confidential topics of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu advised Pradyumna Miśra to learn the science of Kṛṣṇa from Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya. As Subala always assisted Kṛṣṇa in His dealings with Rādhārāṇī in kṛṣṇa-līlā, so Rāmānanda Rāya assisted Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu in His feelings of separation from Kṛṣṇa. Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya was the author of Jagannātha-vallabha-nāṭaka
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Ādi-līlā 10.134 | 1973 Edition)

Read more:
Srila Prabhupada explains the unique position of Sri Ramanada Raya: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=15633
Ramananda Raya’s conversation with Lord Caitanya: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=9796
Srila Prabhupada summarizes the discussions between Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Ramananda Raya: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=31349

Monday, 12 May 2025 [Mayapura, West Bengal, India Time]
a) Appearance Day of Sri Radha-Raman Devji
b) Appearance Day of Sri Srinivasa Acarya
c) Appearance Day of Sri Madhavendra Puri
d) Disappearance Day of Sri Parameshvara Das Thakur

a) Appearance Day of Sri Radha-Raman Devji
The self manifested deity out of the Saligram Shila, over 500 years old heritage temple where standards of worship are highest in Vrindavan. Radha Raman Temple was established by Gopal Bhatta Goswami. He is one of the six Goswamis of Vrindavan who followed the principles of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu strictly. This beautiful Deity is self-manifested from a saligram sila and has a mystic smile on his face.
Sri Radha Raman’s Appearance Place is in the Radha-Raman Temple, next to the samadhi of Gopala Bhatta. Gopala Bhatta Goswami erected this temple. The deity was installed on the full moon day in the month of Vaishaka (April-May) in the year 1542. This event is celebrated every year by bathing the deity with milk and various other items. Gopala Bhatta Gosvami’s other shalagram-shilas are also worshiped in the temple. The samadhi of Gopala Bhatta is located next to Raman’s appearance place in Radha-Raman Temple.
Link to this Page: https://www.radharaman.org/our-history/

b) Appearance Day of Sri Srinivasa Acarya
Śrī Rāmacandra Kavirāja, the son of Khaṇḍavāsī Cirañjīva and Sunanda, was a disciple of Śrīnivasā Ācārya and the most intimate friend of Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, who prayed several times for his association. His youngest brother was Govinda Kavirāja. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī very much appreciated Śrī Rāmacandra Kavirāja’s great devotion to Lord Kṛṣṇa and therefore gave him the title Kavirāja. Śrī Rāmacandra Kavirāja, who was perpetually disinterested in family life, greatly assisted in the preaching work of Śrīnivasā Ācārya and Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura. He resided at first in Śrīkhaṇḍa but later in the village of Kumāra-nagara on the bank of the Ganges.
Govinda Kavirāja was the brother of Rāmacandra Kavirāja and youngest son of Cirañjīva of Śrīkhaṇḍa. Although at first a śākta, or worshiper of Goddess Durgā, he was later initiated by Śrīnivasā Ācārya Prabhu. Govinda Kavirāja also resided first in Śrīkhaṇḍa and then in Kumāra-nagara, but later he moved to the village known as Teliyā Budhari, on the southern bank of the river Padmā. Since Govinda Kavirāja, the author of two books, Saṅgīta-mādhava and Gītāmṛta, was a great Vaiṣṇava kavi, or poet, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī gave him the title Kavirāja. He is described in the Bhakti-ratnākara (Ninth Wave).
Kaṁsāri Sena was formerly Ratnāvalī in Vraja, as described in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, verses 194 and 200.
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Adi Lila 11.51 » Purport by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda)

c) Appearance Day of Sri Madhavendra Puri
Śrīla Prabhupāda: “The uncontaminated devotees who strictly depend on the Vedānta philosophy are divided into four sampradāyas, or transcendental parties. Out of the four sampradāyas, the Śrī Madhvācārya-sampradāya was accepted by Mādhavendra Purī. Thus he took sannyāsa according to paramparā, the disciplic succession. Beginning from Madhvācārya down to the spiritual master of Mādhavendra Purī, the ācārya named Lakṣmīpati, there was no realization of devotional service in conjugal love. Śrī Mādhavendra Purī introduced the conception of conjugal love for the first time in the Madhvācārya-sampradāya, and this conclusion of the Madhvācārya-sampradāya was revealed by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu when He toured southern India and met the Tattvavādīs, who supposedly belonged to the Madhvācārya-sampradāya.
When Śrī Kṛṣṇa left Vṛndāvana and accepted the kingdom of Mathurā, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, out of ecstatic feelings of separation, expressed how Kṛṣṇa can be loved in separation. Thus, devotional service in separation is central to this verse. Worship in separation is considered by the Gauḍīya-Mādhva sampradāya to be the topmost level of devotional service.
According to this conception, the devotee thinks of himself as very poor and neglected by the Lord. Thus he addresses the Lord as dīna-dayārdra nātha, as did Mādhavendra Purī. Such an ecstatic feeling is the highest form of devotional service. Because Kṛṣṇa had gone to Mathurā, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī was very much affected, and She expressed Herself thus: “My dear Lord, because of Your separation My mind has become overly agitated. Now tell Me, what can I do? I am very poor and You are very merciful, so kindly have compassion upon Me and let Me know when I shall see You.” Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was always expressing the ecstatic emotions of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī that She exhibited when She saw Uddhava at Vṛndāvana. Similar feelings, experienced by Mādhavendra Purī, are expressed in this verse.
Therefore, Vaiṣṇavas in the Gauḍīya-Mādhva sampradāya say that the ecstatic feelings experienced by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu during His appearance came from Śrī Mādhavendra Purī through Īśvara Purī. All the devotees in the line of the Gauḍīya-Mādhva sampradāya accept these principles of devotional service.”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Madhya-līlā 4.197 » Purport | 1975 Edition)
Read More: https://krishnaconsciousnessmovement.com/?p=31623

d) Disappearance Day of Sri Parameshvara Das Thakur

TEXT 29
পরমেশ্বরদাস—নিত্যানন্দৈক–শরণ ।
কৃষ্ণভক্তি পায়, তাঁরে যে করে স্মরণ ॥ ২৯ ॥
parameśvara-dāsa–nityānandaika-śaraṇa
kṛṣṇa-bhakti pāya, tāṅre ye kare smaraṇa

SYNONYMS
parameśvara-dāsa—of the name Parameśvara dāsa; nityānanda-eka-śaraṇa—completely surrendered to the lotus feet of Nityānanda; kṛṣṇa-bhakti pāya—gets love of Kṛṣṇa; tāṅre—him; ye—anyone; kare—does; smaraṇa—remembering.

TRANSLATION
Parameśvara dāsa, said to be the fifth gopāla of kṛṣṇa-līlā, completely surrendered to the lotus feet of Nityānanda. Anyone who remembers his name, Parameśvara dāsa, will get love of Kṛṣṇa very easily.

PURPORT

The Caitanya-bhāgavata states that Parameśvara dāsa, known sometimes as Parameśvarī dāsa, was the life and soul of Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu. The body of Parameśvara dāsa was the place of Lord Nityānanda’s pastimes. Parameśvara dāsa, who lived for some time at Khaḍadaha village, was always filled with the ecstasy of a cowherd boy. Formerly he was Arjuna, a friend of Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma. He was the fifth among the twelve gopālas. He accompanied Śrīmatī Jāhnavā-devī when she performed the festival at Kheturi. It is stated in the Bhakti-ratnākara that by the order of Śrīmatī Jāhnavā-mātā, he installed Rādhā-Gopīnātha in the temple at Āṭapura in the district of Hugalī. The Āṭapura station is on the narrow-gauge railway line between Howrah and Āmatā. Another temple in Āṭapura, established by the Mitra family, is known as the Rādhā-Govinda temple. In front of the temple, in a very attractive place among two bakula trees and a kadamba tree, is the tomb of Parameśvarī Ṭhākura, and above it is an altar with a tulasī bush. It is said that only one flower a year comes out of the kadamba tree. It is offered to the Deity.
Parameśvarī Ṭhākura belonged, it is said, to a vaidya family. A descendant of his brother’s is at present a worshiper in the temple. Some of their family members still reside in the district of Hugalī, near the post office of Caṇḍītalā. The descendants of Parameśvarī Ṭhākura took many disciples from brāhmaṇa families, but as these descendants gradually took to the profession of physicians, persons from brāhmaṇa families ceased becoming their disciples. The family titles of Parameśvarī’s descendants are Adhikārī and Gupta. Unfortunately, his family members do not worship the Deity directly; they have engaged paid brāhmaṇas to worship the Deity. In the temple, Baladeva and Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Gopinātha are together on the throne. It is supposed that the Deity of Baladeva was installed later because according to transcendental mellow, Baladeva, Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā cannot stay on the same throne. On the full moon day of Vaiśākha (April-May), the disappearance festival of Parameśvarī Ṭhākura is observed in this temple.
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta » Adi Lila 11.29 | 1973 Edition. All Synonyms, Translation, and Purport by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda)

By Bhakta Alex. Russia

Myth: July 9th directive is explained in the May 28th 1977, conversation where Srila Prabhupada ordered regular guru successors after his departure, and said that future devotees in ISKCON would be their disciples, “disciple of my disciple”, Prabhupada’s “granddisciple”.

Truth: May 28th 1977 conversation confirms that Srila Prabhupada envisioned the ritvik system after his departure, when he is “no longer with us”, he agreed that future disciples would be his disciples, and any “disciple of my disciple” would be possible only “when I order, “You become guru”, but such an order wasn’t given by Srila Prabhupada to anyone. So, the conversation confirms July 9th directive message of the ritvik system to be followed henceforward.  By Bhakta Alex. Russia.

Anti-ritviks have repeatedly tried to give various contradictory interpretations of Srila Prabhupada’s conversation with the GBC delegation held on May 28th 1977. It was discussion of issues pertaining to the period after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. The key part of the conversation was dedicated to future initiations. Anti-ritviks simply obscure the obvious facts: in this conversation, Srila Prabhupada said that for the future, particularly when he is “no longer with us,” he would appoint ritviks; he confirmed that future disciples should be his disciples; and what about how ritviks/officiators themselves could turn into real diksa gurus with their own disciples- only when (and if) Srila Prabhupada orders them to become gurus (initiators), then new disciples will become disciples of his disciples, his granddisciples.

However, neither in this conversation nor anywhere else did Srila Prabhupada give the actual order to any of his disciples to become the next diksa guru of the sampradaya. Fulfilling his promise made on May 28th 1977, Srila Prabhupada appointed the first official ritviks in July 1977, and instructed to “distribute” the directive in this regard.

This directive dated July 9th, 1977, approved by Srila Prabhupada’s signature, contains instructions only about the introduction of a system of ritvik/representative of the acarya initiations in ISKCON for the future, and does not say a word about any new diksa gurus. However, anti-ritviks turn the situation upside down by various incorrect interpretations:

1) Beginning from 1977-78, they hid the real content of May 28th, 1977, conversation and did not allow its audio recording to be distributed. Instead, they retold its contents in their own words, distorting its meaning: Srila Prabhupada allegedly appointed full-fledged successors on May 28th, 1977 (and now they should be exclusive gurus within their own zones).

2) In the mid-1980s, the leader of the Guru reform movement Ravindra Swarupa das, unfortunately, didn’t fulfill the task given to him by ISKCON temple presidents to research and present what exactly Srila Prabhupada ordered regarding future initiations in ISKCON, and to identify the cause of the zonal acaryas’ deviation. Having read the May 28th, 1977, conversation, Ravindra Swarupa concluded there wasn’t appointment of diksa gurus, but that of ritviks only.

Still, they have to be initiating gurus, as Srila Prabhupada allegedly hinted, nodded in their direction, by ordering them to begin the natural process of becoming gurus. That is, they simultaneously were and weren’t appointed as initiating gurus (not as zonal acaryas with excessive worship, but as “regular gurus”).

3) In the mid-1990s, a new interpretation was presented in maya-GBC publication “Gurus and Initiations in ISKCON”: on May 28th 1977, Srila Prabhupada said that in the future he would appoint diksa gurus who should be ritviks until his departure. Later, when Srila Prabhupada appointed the first ritviks on July 7th 1977, it was allegedly the appointment of diksa gurus as well (although there is nothing like that in the conversation itself).

4) In the late 1990s, in their new paper “Disciple of My Disciple”, maya-GBC put forward a new interpretation: it wasn’t on July 7th, but on May 28th 1977, right during the conversation, Srila Prabhupada unequivocally appointed new diksa gurus, and ritvik initiations are not proxy initiations at all!

These are just a few examples, of which there are many more in the statements of maya-ISKCON GBC/gurus: whether or not the gurus were appointed on May 28, 1977, or at some other date, who exactly was authorized, what should be the new guru system in ISKCON and its details, etc. They have never been able to present one decent truth, but seriously contradicted themselves. See ‘How can there be many different versions of the truth?’ https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/gbc13.htm 

The factual history

In mid-May 1977, Srila Prabhupada’s health deteriorated severely (as it turned out, due to heavy metal poisoning), and on May 17, he arrived from Hrishikesh to Vrindavan. During the address speech given upon arrival, Srila Prabhupada said that he came to Vrindavan to leave the body (see May 17th 1977 Address Speech recording: https://vedabase.io/en/library/transcripts/770517arvrn/).

In this regard, an extraordinary meeting of the Governing Body Commission (GBC) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) was requested by Srila Prabhupada. It took place on May 27-29, 1977, in Vrindavan at the premises of Sri Krishna Balarama Mandir. On May 28th, a delegation of several GBC members came to Srila Prabhupada’s room to ask a number of questions pertaining to the period after his physical departure. Of all the published documented evidence, it was in the May 28th, 1977, room conversation that the first mention is made of ritviks who will be officially appointed to conduct initiations on behalf of Srila Prabhupada “in the future, particularly when you [Srila Prabhupada] is no longer with us.” 

In response to Satsvarupa das Goswami’s request to answer how initiations would be performed after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, His Divine Grace replied that he would appoint ‘officiating acaryas’, and Tamala Krishna Goswami asked, “Is this called ritvik-acarya?” Srila Prabhupada replied: “Ritvik, yes.”

Obviously, there had been discussions on this topic even before, and Srila Prabhupada had spoken about it, otherwise Tamala Krishna Goswami would not have mentioned the ritviks showing his knowledge of this issue and understanding of the role of ritviks/priests as representatives conducting the ceremony on behalf of another person. And GBC members would not have included in the list of the most important issues to be resolved before Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, the question of how initiations are to be conducted in the future, especially after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and what is the relationship between the one who gets initiation and the one who gives it.

From the minutes of the GBC meeting dated May 28th 1977, written by Satsvarupa das Goswami, the then secretary of the GBC:

“Resolved: The following questions will be taken to Srila Prabhupada for his answers. They will be presented by a committee of Tamal Krsna Goswami, Satsvarupa Goswami, Jagadisha, Rupanuga, Bhagavan, Kirtanananda Swami, Bali Mardan:   

1. How long should GBC members remain in office?

• How can GBC members who leave be replaced?

• In the absence of Srila Prabhupada, what is the procedure for first, second and sannyasa initiations?

• What is the relationship of the person who gives this initiation to the person he gives it to?

5) Is there any provision for publication of other translations of Vaishnava scriptures by the BBT after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada?”  (Published in ‘ISKCON Journal’, 1990)

If GBC members really believed that Srila Prabhupada would authorize them to be diksa gurus in ISKCON, then there would simply be no question of what is the relationship between a genuine guru and his disciples. They knew or guessed that Srila Prabhupada could authorize a certain system of representatives (which already functioned in ISKCON), and they wanted to clarify this issue. Tamala Krishna Goswami confirmed this in his speech during Topanga Canyon talks on December 3rd 1980 (recorded on audio tape, then quoted in maya-GBC’s ‘ISKCON Journal’ in 1990):

“What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons, and they went to Prabhupada, five or six of us [on May 28, 1977].” (Full transcript:

http://iskcon-truth.com/pdf/pyramid_house_talks.pdf)

This is also confirmed by Srila Prabhupada’s personal servant Gauridas Pandit das in a letter to another Prabhupada’s disciple, Pratyatosa das:

From: Gauridas <Gauridas@*******.com>

Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 05:12:15 EDT

To: Pratyatoṣa Dāsa

Subject: Re: Usenet Ritvik Discussion

In a message dated 98-05-14 02:29:27 EDT, Pratyatoṣa Dāsa writes:

> ROOM CONVERSATION. Vrindavana, May 28, 1977:

>

> Satsvarūpa Mahārāja: “Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations will be conducted.”

>

> Śrīla Prabhupāda: “Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating ācārya.”

>

> Tamāla Krishna Mahārāja: “Is that called ritvik-acarya?”

>

> Śrīla Prabhupāda: “Ritvik. Yes.”

>

> “Ritvik” is not a word which was part of the devotee lexicon at that time. Therefore, it is obvious that Śrīla Prabhupāda had been talking about “ritviks” on previous occasions which were never recorded, or the recordings were hidden or destroyed, otherwise how would Tamal Krishna Goswami think to ask this question?

>

> Here is a quote on this subject from “The Betrayal” by Purañjana Prabhu:

>

> “MYSTERIOUS GAPS? There are still mysterious and unaccounted for ‘time gaps’ (missing tapes?) in these conversations. There is no small amount of suspicion that some of the ‘new gurus’ are responsible for this. Additionally, GBC’s such as Tamal Krishna

Swami, Jayādvaita Swami and others sometimes refer to the ‘pre-May 28th ritvik guru discussions.’ However, no public record or indeed an existing scrap or trace of these conversations is currently available. Where are they?”

I would like to answer this question to the best of my ability.

When Śrīla Prabhupāda said we should be officiating acharyas, Tamal mentioned it [the word “ritvik”] because he heard Śrīla Prabhupāda talk about it in the garden days before. I stood before Śrīla Prabhupāda, serving him with the chamara [fan] during this time.

Tamal also admitted to me in a letter that the guru issue was “fraught with errors”. (TKG letter to GPD)

If the “Final Order” is too intellectual for some of your readers, then I recommend that they read my historical account of the facts in chronological order. I compiled it recently, and I call it “On My Behalf”.

Your servant, Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita Dāsa

(Source: https://pratyatosa.com/?P=27)

Gauridas Pandit prabhu wrote in his open letter to another Godbrother:  

“June 08th 2009, Dear Vaisesika Prabhu, […] As you may know I was one of Srila Prabhupada’s personal servants back in 1977. I was in Hrishikesh with Srila Prabhupada when he first told us that he wanted to go to Vrindavan to leave his body. This was mid-May. So, we went to Vrindavan the next day [May 17th 1977] where Prabhupada asked to see all of the devotees in his room. After all the devotees that could settled in, Srila Prabhupada started to speak. He said that he had come to Vrindavan to leave his body, but we devotees didn’t need to lament because he would live on in his books. There is a tape of this arrival address. Half of the devotees, including Yasodanandana Swami, began to cry and begged Srila Prabhupada not to leave. It was a sad shock to us all to hear these words from His Divine Grace.

About a week later, I was attending to Srila Prabhupada in his garden when his secretary asked him if he would appoint a guru to succeed him after his departure. Prabhupada said that he would appoint ritvik representatives who would initiate on his behalf.

Later on, May 28th 1977, there was a GBC meeting in Srila Prabhupada’s room in Vrindavan. It’s on tape. Knowing Srila Prabhupada already said he was getting ready to leave the planet the questions concerned the future of the movement after his departure. So Satsvarupa asked how initiations would go on after his departure and Prabhupada said that he would appoint ‘officiating acharyas’. Hearing that the secretary, TKG, asked if that was also called a ‘ritvik’ having heard him mention it earlier and Prabhupada said, “ritvik yes.” He said he would appoint them later.

Later on July 5th I was attending to Prabhupada in his garden in the morning as usual when Tamal read some letters to Prabhupada. They were from temple presidents asking for initiation approval for their local devotees. Srila Prabhupada said that he would appoint some ritvik representatives soon. Then on July 7th he heard more requests for initiations and started to name the first group of ritvik representatives of the acharya. The secretary said that all the devotees the reps. Initiated would still be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples and Srila Prabhupada said, “Yes.” So, it was understood by the secretary, TKG and I thought this is what would happen. Needless to say, I was shocked to see what happened after His Divine Grace left.” (Full text: https://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=4289)

So, Srila Prabhupada talked about ritviks after departure on about May 24th or 25th, 1977.

It should be noted that even after the official full release of 1977 audio recordings and their text transcripts by the Bhaktivedanta Archives in 2012, 2/3 days in March-September, 1977 still do not have any tapes of those Srila Prabhupada’s conversations, while the recording should have been kept constantly, and there are numerous testimonies and mentions in letters and other materials from that period that in 1977 Srila Prabhupada gave important instructions about the future of ISKCON. On April 18th, 1977, Tamal wrote in a letter he was “personally taking responsibility for the tape recordings.” But under his supervision a lot of 1977 tapes disappeared, and maya-ISKCON hasn’t conducted any thorough investigation of this issue. See historical details in ‘ISKCON’S HIDDEN HISTORY’, Vol. 5, Personal Ambition Series, Part 1: Gurujacking the Movement.

Nevertheless, the recorded evidence known to date indicates the following: in 1977, GBC members were not at all sure that immediately after Srila Prabhupada’s departure they would become initiating gurus, which Srila Prabhupada allegedly had been teaching all twelve years of his preaching in the West and since this is supposedly the tradition. In fact, it was traditional at that time in ISKCON to initiate via Srila Prabhupada’s representatives.  Later, some ex-GBC members/”gurus” admitted that proxy initiation system should have continued to function, since this was Srila Prabhupada’s decision.

One can listen to the full content of the May 28th, 1977 conversation at official Bhaktivedanta Archives web site: https://vedabase.io/en/library/transcripts/770528mevrn/ 

Below is the part of May 28th, 1977, room conversation regarding future initiations:

1. Satsvarūpa: 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.

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

3. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called ṛtvik-ācārya?

4. Prabhupāda: Ṛtvik, yes.

5. Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the…

6. Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.

7. Satsvarūpa: But he does it on your behalf.

8. Prabhupāda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order… Āmāra ājñāya guru hañā [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. Be actually guru, but by my order.

9. Satsvarūpa: So, they may also be considered your disciples.

10. Prabhupāda: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?

11. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, he’s asking that these ṛtvik-ācāryas, they’re officiating, giving dīkṣā. Their… The people who they give dīkṣā to, whose disciple are they?

12. Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple.

13. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.

14. Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. His granddisciple.

15. Satsvarūpa: Yes.

16. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear. (?)

17. Satsvarūpa: Then we have a question concer…

18. Prabhupāda: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes dis… disciple of my disciple. That’s it.

Let’s have a closer look at the above text divided in sections and analyze misconceptions associated with each of them:

Section 1:

1. Satsvarūpa: 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.

• 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?

4. Prabhupāda: Ṛtvik, yes.

This part clearly proves the position of Prabhupadanugas:

1. The future initiation system in ISKCON should be ritvik;

2) Ritviks were to be appointed especially after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure.

Also, this exchange refutes two key myths of anti-ritvik theory:

1) Ritviks were appointed until the departure only;

2) Diksa gurus were authorized in ISKCON for the period after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance.

by Caitanya Priya Das

“Person Bhāgavata is the spiritual master And by reading Bhāgavata, you understand what is Bhagavān, what is spiritual master.”
(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.21-Dec.30,1974-Bombay)

“The Bhāgavata says,

nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā: “You have to twenty-four hours engaged in bhāgavata,

in the service of Bhāgavata, the person Bhāgavata or the book bhāgavata.” Bhāgavata, there are two kinds of bhāgavata.
(From minute 41:07 to minute 41:27)

Person Bhāgavata is the spiritual master, and the book Bhāgavata.
(From minute 41:27 to minute 41:32)

So, there is no difference, because the person Bhāgavata advises you read Bhāgavata. And by reading Bhāgavata, you understand what is Bhagavān, what is spiritual master.
(From minute 41:32 to minute 41:42)

So, in this way,

naṣṭa-prāyeṣv abhadreṣu
nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā
bhagavaty uttama-śloke
bhaktir bhavati naiṣṭhikī
[SB 1.2.18]
https://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/1/2/18

This is the process to make the heart cleansed and gradually attain the perfection of complete peacefulness. And that complete peacefulness is the stage for understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Thank you very much.
Devotees: Haribol… [end]
(From minute 41:42 to minute 42:18) (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.21-Dec.30,1974-Bombay)
https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/741230sbbom/

Note:

“Person Bhagavata is the spiritual master.” The spiritual master is only the person Bhagavata.

“Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru.”

“When one has attained the topmost position of mahā-bhāgavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshiped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru.”
(CC Madhya lila 24.330)
https://prabhupadabooks.com/cc/madhya/24/330

This is the process:

“Person Bhāgavata is the spiritual master.

You have to twenty-four hours engaged in bhāgavata, in the service of Bhāgavata, the person Bhāgavata (the spiritual master) or the book Bhāgavata.”

This is the process to make the heart cleansed and gradually attain the perfection of complete peacefulness.

And that complete peacefulness is the stage for understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

According to this: IF one serves a so-called spiritual master, a person who is NOT the person Bhagavata, IF one does NOT serve the person Bhagavata, who is the bonafide spiritual master,

the consequences are that:

• the heart does NOT become cleansed,
• one does NOT attain the perfection of complete peacefulness,
• one does NOT understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Accepting a so-called spiritual master who is not the person Bhāgavata is contrary to the teachings of both Bhagavatas: the devotee Bhāgavata (Srila Prabhupada) and the book Bhagavata.

How do we know which particular person is the person Bhagavata and can act as a spiritual master?

We know this because that person receives the order, authorization, from Srila Prabhupada to accept disciples.

How do we know which particular person is a doctor?

We know this because the expert official authority authorizes that person through a certificate to act as a doctor.

This order or authorization from the higher authority is the guarantee that a particular person has the required qualifications to act as a doctor, to act as a spiritual master.

Without this authorization, no one is a bona fide spiritual master, no one is a bona fide doctor.

This authorization is the assurance that a specific person is the devotee Bhāgavata.

Therefore, there are two conditions for being a bona fide spiritual master:

1. Qualification, being the devotee Bhāgavata, and
2. Srila Prabhupada’s demonstrable and verifiable authorization to a specific person.

Without this authorization, no one can act as a doctor, nor should anyone act as a spiritual master.

“If a man wants to be a high-court judge, he must acquire not only the necessary qualifications but also the consent of the authority who can award the title of high-court judge. The qualifications in themselves are insufficient for one to occupy the post: it must be awarded by some superior authority.”
(Śrī Īśopaniṣad-Mantra Eight-Purport by Srila Prabhupada)

SB 1.2.18

naṣṭa-prāyeṣv abhadreṣu
nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā
bhagavaty uttama-śloke
bhaktir bhavati naiṣṭhikī

SYNONYMS

naṣṭa—destroyed; prāyeṣu—almost to nil; abhadreṣu—all that is inauspicious;
nityam—regularly; bhāgavata—Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, or the pure devotee; sevayā—by serving; bhagavati—unto the Personality of Godhead; uttama—transcendental; śloke—prayers; bhaktiḥ—loving service; bhavati—comes into being; naiṣṭhikī—irrevocable.

TRANSLATION

By regular attendance in classes on the Bhāgavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.

PURPORT

Here is the remedy for eliminating all inauspicious things within the heart
which are considered to be obstacles in the path of self-realization.

The remedy is the association of the Bhāgavatas.

There are two types of Bhāgavatas, namely the book Bhāgavata and the devotee Bhāgavata.

Both the Bhāgavatas are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them
can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles.

A devotee Bhāgavata is as good as the book Bhāgavata because the devotee Bhāgavata leads his life in terms of the book Bhāgavata and the book Bhāgavata is full of information about the Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees, who are also Bhāgavatas.

Bhāgavata book and person are identical.

.

The devotee Bhāgavata is a direct representative of Bhagavān, the Personality of Godhead.

.

So by pleasing the devotee Bhāgavata one can receive the benefit of the book Bhāgavata.

.

Human reason fails to understand how by serving the devotee Bhāgavata or the book Bhāgavata one gets gradual promotion on the path of devotion.

.

But actually, these are facts explained by Śrīla Nāradadeva, who happened to be a maidservant’s son in his previous life.

.

The maidservant was engaged in the menial service of the sages, and thus he also came into contact with them.

.

And simply by associating with them and accepting the remnants of foodstuff left by the sages, the son of the maidservant got the chance to become the great devotee and personality Śrīla Nāradadeva.

.

These are the miraculous effects of the association of Bhagavatas

.

And to understand these effects practically, it should be noted that by such sincere association of the bhagavatas. one is sure to receive transcendental knowledge very easily, with the result that he becomes fixed in the devotional service of the Lord

.

The more progress is made in devotional service under the guidance of the Bhagavatas, the more one becomes fixed in the transcendental loving service of the Lord.

.

The messages of the book Bhāgavata, therefore, have to be received from the devotee Bhagavata and the combination of these two Bhagavatas.

will help the neophyte devotee to make progress on and on.

.

: https://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/1/2/18

Truth: This directive was based on Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and written on his order, and then approved by him, whereas TKG’s contradictory explanations given after he masterminded the coup and became a bogus acarya are certainly false and shouldn’t be followed.

By Bhakta Alex. Russsia.

Amazingly, maya-ISKCON tries to downplay Srila Prabhupada’s role in the July 9th, 1977, directive and overall, in ritvik initiation system finalized in 1977, up to the point His Divine Grace supposedly wasn’t the one who really made this arrangement! They try to sell a very strange idea: it was Tamal Krishna Goswami, the then secretary of Srila Prabhupada, who wrote this directive and introduced the whole ritvik initiations concept (off course, they say as a temporary measure), and it was something quite insignificant, so Srila Prabhupada just signed this letter, that’s all.

Hence, they conclude, we should accept what TKG, as the supposed real author of the directive, explained regarding this issue many years later (mostly in the 1990s). They don’t like to recall his public confession made on December 3rd, 1980, that Srila Prabhupada never appointed any diksa gurus in ISKCON but ritviks only, who were to be added as necessary, etc. And that he was sanctioned/suspended as “ISKCON guru” in 1980 and 1995, and that he gave a lot of contradictory versions of the story, never mind his most active participation in the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada’s body in the 1970s, in the ISKCON takeover by zonal acaryas, his promotion of false outside “acarya” Narayana Maharaja in ISKCON in the 1990s, TKG’s sabotage of ISKCON restoration reforms, etc.  

Let’s review TKG/GBC arguments by reading excerpts from two publications:

[Maya-ISKCON GBC’s official paper ‘Prabhupada’s Order’ (Aug. 1998) states] “The subject of this conversation was then dictated by Tamal Krishna Maharaja as a letter to all Temple Presidents and GBC’s, letting them know that initiations could again be performed, and which devotees Srila Prabhupada had deputed to oversee the giving of names and chanting on beads:”

[Here and below each quote from ‘Prabhupada’s Order’ is followed by comments from “GBC Fail to Answer The Final Order” paper by Krishnakant] Another plank of this current GBC paper is the absolute insistence that H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja ‘dictated’ the letter. Of course, we only have Maharaja’s word for that. But the issue is not what Maharaja now claims he thought he was writing, or what he claims the letter means – the issue is the words written down in the letter that Srila Prabhupada himself approved.

It was not as though Maharaja developed the ritvik system out of his own mind, picked the representatives names himself, and then decided what was going to be done. Srila Prabhupada instigated the whole procedure. Whatever words were written down, Srila Prabhupada approved them all. Srila Prabhupada never told the Maharaja ‘since this letter is not self-explanatory you better travel all over the world and personally tell everyone what it really means’.

Also, the letter was [meant to be] sent to every TP and GBC, and specifically ‘approved’ by Srila Prabhupada. And Maharaja himself accepts that letters written by the secretary but ‘approved’ by Srila Prabhupada were authored by Srila Prabhupada:

“Prabhupada called his GBC member for the western USA, Karandhara Dasa, to Tokyo to clearly establish the GBC’s responsibilities. In a letter issued by Karandhara, but bearing Prabhupada’s signature of approval, one can sense Prabhupada’s authorship.”

(‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)

And this was an extremely important letter sent to all GBC’s and TP’s. A search through folio does not show us other letters that were also sent to every GBC AND TP.

“Much effort has gone into trying to analyse and make judgements on what is the actual meaning of this letter. Of course, if you want to know what is actually meant by some particular statement, the very best person to ask is the person who made it. As the letter was written by Tamal Krishna Maharaja, we thought it pertinent to allow him to explain what he actually meant by the letter, and particularly the word ‘henceforward’ which is often highlighted to have special significance.”

As stated earlier, we are only interested in the words that Srila Prabhupada approved. Thus Maharaja’s ‘explanation’ of what he thought he wrote, whilst gratefully acknowledged, is not relevant, unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that this is what Srila Prabhupada also meant. We already know the exact words that Srila Prabhupada did approve.

“On July 31st 1998, we contacted His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami by e-mail, asking him to give some first-hand insight about how the word ‘henceforward’ was used in the letter of July 9th, 1977. As the person who wrote this letter, which was later countersigned by Srila Prabhupada, he is in the best position to know what the intended meaning was.”

Since the GBC are using the contents of Maharaja’s mind as prime evidence, it is pertinent for us to carefully examine whether his record on this issue is solid and reliable. Below the reader will see for themselves how Maharaja has offered nothing but a mass of confusing and contradictory positions on what should have happened after Srila Prabhupada’s departure:

1978

1. Maharaja agrees with the rest of the ’11’ that the 11 mentioned in the July 9 letter had been exclusively chosen as the ‘material and spiritual successors’ to Srila Prabhupada. He enthusiastically participated and supported this system, with the big vyasasanas etc. We can see that at the time, Maharaja did not display any outward signs that, he had any idea what the ‘real’ meaning or context of the July 9 letter was. In a document he was party to issued at this time, it states:

“The GBC members met together in Vrndavana and prepared a few last questions to put before Srila Prabhupada. […]

Then he said that he would name the initiating gurus later. […]

Then one day in June he gave his secretary the names of eleven disciples who would be initiating the disciples. […]

A delicate situation may arise when in one ISKCON temple there are disciples of different gurus. The natural way to avoid this is for a guru to perform diksa in his own zone. Srila Prabhupada deliberately chose gurus in different parts of the world to arrange for this. […]

A second seat, however a little below Srila Prabhupada’s vyasasana, should be given to the initiating guru. […]

Those who are already empowered to initiate will extend the number by their consideration. In this way it will have spiritual characteristics. The eleven picked by His Divine Grace will extend themselves. […]

Now these godbrother’s are worshipped by their disciples as genuine spiritual masters. This means for example, that they are to be considered, as stated in the Guruvastakam, as nikunjo-yuno rati keli siddhyai – intimate assistants in the pastimes of Krishna.”

(The Process for Carrying Out Srila Prabhupada’s Desires for Future Initiations; A paper prepared by the GBC in consultation with higher authorities, Mayapur, March 1978)

Maharaja offered the following vivid understanding of what exactly he thinks happened at this time:

“The argument that after the departure of the spiritual master anyone of his disciples can give initiation, cannot be applied in the case of Srila Prabhupada who specifically named 11 persons only at first to fulfil this function. These 11 persons were named by Srila Prabhupada in the beginning of July 1977, in Vrindavana in the back garden of his house.

These names were dictated to me as I was serving as his secretary, and now he had me write a letter to all the GBC’s and Temple Presidents which he also signed as approved on the 9th of July listing their names and defining their function. […]

Thus, we can understand, that in regard to the third definition of acharya, that Srila Prabhupada clearly appointed 11 successors for initiation. Whatever process may have been followed by past acharyas, Prabhupada chose to appoint. […]

Even after having these facts clearly explained, if someone continues to blaspheme the 11 gurus, their legitimacy, blasphemes ISKCON, the spiritual vehicle created by Prabhupada to fulfill his will, blasphemes the GBC – the approved driver of the vehicle – […]

he is not a disciple at all. Rather he is the killer of gurudev and his spiritual whereabouts is unknown.”  (Letter to Upananda Das, 13/12/78)

As is accepted by everyone now, including the GBC, Maharaja’s understanding of what the letter meant, and the events that transpired after 1978 based on this understanding of the letter by Maharaja, was an understanding that was absolutely FALSE. Thus, from the very beginning Maharaja had misunderstood the meaning and context of the letter by his own later admission.

1980

2. By this time Maharaja’s understanding of what Srila Prabhupada’s desires for guru-succession were, had become so deviant that even the GBC, who at that time were themselves following a deviated path, suspended him as GBC and guru. At the time Maharaja had become convinced, amongst other things, that (what to speak of his own disciples) even his godbrothers and godsisters could only reach Srila Prabhupada through him!

“Tamala Krishna Goswami, the leader of a large number of sannyasa and brahmacari preachers, insisted that he was now their via media in relating to Prabhupada and expected that his godbrothers follow HIM ABSOLUTELY.”

(‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)

Dec. 3rd, 1980

3. Having been suspended Maharaja now gave a new version of events at Topanga Canyon, California. He admits there that:

“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. What actually happened I’ll explain. I explained it but the interpretation is wrong.”

(Topanga Canyon Confessions, 3/12/80)

Here Maharaja is not only confirming that his understanding of the letter in 1978 was totally wrong, but also that now he has finally properly understood what Srila Prabhupada really wanted.

1982

4. Maharaja now changes his mind again and goes back to the version of events that he had supported in 1978 and rejected in 1980:

“I do not think that there is any problem in accepting the spiritual masters who Srila Prabhupada appointed. The first qualification which you should have before you decide on this issue is to chant sixteen rounds and follow strictly Prabhupada’s orders. So far as I seen anyone who is doing this is accepting these acharyas, except in a very few instances. The real proof however is to see that they are acharya, not simply by appointment, but by actions. Our movement is progressing and growing more and more, at least as much as it was during Srila Prabhupada’s time. […]

You have enclosed a clipping from Back to Godhead in which Srila Bhaktipada is advertised as ‘Bona fide Spiritual Master’. You say ‘this is something that seems a little strange to me’. Would you please explain to me what seems strange?

(Letter to Gadai Prabhu, 14/6/82)

5. This metamorphosis of Maharaja’s version of what happened in 1977 is completed by the publication of his book “Servant of the Servant”, in which he states categorically:

“Since the disappearance of our beloved spiritual master, we have seen such disenchanted persons come forward trying to cast doubt on the legacy left by Srila Prabhupada. When SP appointed from among his senior disciples eleven persons to continue the process of initiation, and when after their spiritual master’s departure those whom he selected assumed their duties by his command, the critics began to bark their discontent. […]

The critics may argue that appointment alone is not a guarantee that one has actually achieved this perfectional stage of life; Prabhupada might have appointed disciples for lack of anyone better, or hoping that they might one day achieve the desired realization. To such irresponsible criticism we answer a decisive “No!” SP chose them because they merited his confidence. […]

SP conferred his blessings upon these disciples, seeing that they had dedicated themselves heart and soul to assisting him in the preaching mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Thus, he considered them to be uttama-adhikari, all highly advanced devotees worthy to be accepted as spiritual masters. […]

Critics may doubt whether our ISKCON acharyas are actually liberated. Do they know their rasa (liberated relationship) with Krishna, and will they be able to instruct their disciples similarly? But such questions bring one dangerously near the precipice of spiritual calamity.”

(“Servant of the Servant”, Tamal Krishna Goswami, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1984, Pages 361-365)

Post 1987

6. Maharaja again changes his mind and whole-heartedly endorses the new reforms and agrees that what he and the other 11 had been doing and teaching for the last 10 years was wrong. To support this new understanding he agrees that in new versions of his book ‘Servant of the Servant’ the above quoted passage should be edited out.

1992-95

7. Maharaja’s understanding of guru-tattva takes a further twist. He now leads the formation of the ‘gopi bhava’ club, preaching that Srila Prabhupada had not given us the ‘highest understanding’ but rather that he wanted us to consult with a ‘rasika guru’, who the chairman of the ministry that has sponsored PO considers:

‘…a ‘crooked’ and ‘talented pretender or imposter, who has seduced, beguiled and misled many people.’   (His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, ‘Taking Srila Prabhupada Straight’, 1998)

1995

8. Maharaja now realises that he was wrong in thinking that Srila Prabhupada had not given us everything and that he had wanted us to consult with the ‘rasika guru’, as he had himself done and also persuaded many others to do so, for the previous 4 years.

1996

9. Maharaja again accepts the ‘appointment’ theory that he had rejected in the post 1987 reforms:

“6 months before his own demise, Prabhupada had announced that he would APPOINT some of his disciples to perform all of the functions of initiating new disciples as he had become too ill to do so. Those so initiated would still be Prabhupada’s disciple while those who would be initiated after his demise would become his grand-disciples. Shortly thereafter, Prabhupada selected eleven disciples to begin assisting him, and asked his secretary to communicate their names to the rest of ISKCON. Following Srila Prabhupada’s death and the fateful meeting with Prabhupada’s godbrother Sridhara Maharaja, the eleven gurus NAMED by Prabhupada assumed the extra-ordinary position above all others.”  (‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)

Further it will be noted in the above that Maharaja states that Srila Prabhupada’s intention to appoint disciples to assist with initiation, as recorded in the May 28^th 1977 conversation, (6 Months before his own demise), was motivated by illness EVEN THEN, and that the ‘naming of the gurus’ done in the July 9th letter flowed directly from the May 28th conversation.

1998

10. Maharaja now tells us that the issue of appointing the ’11’ as occurred via the July 7th garden conversation and the July 9th letter was done independently of the May 28th conversation, though above he has just told us the opposite:

“In writing this letter, it was an organisational letter to explain the practical matter of how things would be dealt with because nothing was really changing. Prabhupada was still their guru but at least the actual operational method of how Prabhupada would deal with new candidates was changed. It was very clear in my mind at that time that what we were discussing was the process of initiation in Prabhupada’s presence, how things would go on after his presence, he had already instructed us when the 5 or 6 of us had met him on May 28th, one had nothing to do with the other.

(Class given by H. H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja on 6th August 1998, in Hong Kong)

Now we are told, that 21 years later, the best way to understand the July 9 letter and how it arose is to understand it from Maharaja, even though it is accepted that he did not understand it at the time, and that he has been greatly confused on this issue over the last 21 years. Surely most normal sane people would not consider the Maharaja a very reliable witness on this issue, with all due respect. The fact that the GBC have placed such store in his testimony in PO proves that they are utterly desperate. Possessing not one scrap of hard evidence, nor even a single sound argument, they are now pinning everything on the testimony of Maharaja. Instead of just reading the letter ourselves, we must for some bizarre reason accept the indirect interpretation of a witness who has merrily bounced from one deviant and contradictory position to another over the last 21 years.

So instead of any factual EVIDENCE, Maharaja’s mental projections must now become the basis on which to justify ‘modifications A & B’ to the July 9th letter – the modifications that led to the abandonment of the ritvik system and the imposition of the previous, current and possibly a future ISKCON guru system?

Please note the above is NOT an ‘ad hominem’ attack. An ‘ad hominem’ attack is when one tries to discredit a philosophy solely by trying to discredit the person who is presenting the philosophy. Here Maharaja is not presenting any philosophy but giving his personal testimony. In evaluating a person’s testimony, the key criterion will be the credibility of the testifier specifically in relation to the subject at hand.

“2.  If you worded it, what did you mean by this word?

‘Henceforward’ means something like, ‘in the foreseeable future,’ or, ‘until further notice.’ “

Here the informative Maharaja makes a ‘Freudian slip’, in that he gives a definition of the word ‘henceforward’ that forms the whole basis of the TFO -‘until further notice’. The very ‘further notice’ that was NEVER given. This is exactly what TFO is claiming. Srila Prabhupada never gave this ‘further notice’ and thus the system should still be running.

“Therefore, the word ‘henceforward,’ in fact the entire letter, in no way refers to a situation after Prabhupada’s departure, a situation that I was not prepared to normally think of. That situation was already addressed by Prabhupada in the May 28th conversation, which I make brief mention of at the outset of my letter.”

Here Maharaja must be praying the reader will not notice the glaring contradiction. He makes a ‘brief mention’ to a conversation that deals with what to do ‘after Prabhupada’s departure’, at the outset of a letter that is supposed to deal only with what to do before Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Furthermore, as we have already covered extensively above, the GBC argues that this brief mention proves the letter resulted from what was stated on the May 28th tape, a tape that deals specifically with what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’ departure. […]

“3. Was there any accompanying explanation to this letter given by you to Srila Prabhupada, when you read it to him for his approval, which may shed more light on Srila Prabhupada’s understanding of the term “henceforward” in this context?

Yes, in the sense that this letter was viewed by Srila Prabhupada as a managerial document for how new disciples could continue to be initiated during His illness, not a blueprint for how the disciplic succession would continue after His departure. Though I have no specific memory about such an accompanying explanation, there undoubtedly would have been some exchange between us along the lines of what we discussed in the garden the previous day.”

Maharaja answers ‘yes’, there was an ‘accompanying explanation’ which would ‘shed more light’ on the ‘understanding of the term “henceforward” in this context.’ Then he immediately states that he has no ‘specific memory’ about such an accompanying explanation, but there must ‘undoubtedly’ have been some exchange between them.

If Maharaja has no ‘specific memory’ how can he be so sure that there was ‘undoubtedly’ such an exchange, and further what the exact details of that exchange were?

As we have seen above, 21 years ago Maharaja was not sure at all what Srila Prabhupada intended status for those 11 persons was. Yet today we are supposed to accept his version of events as being accurate even though he admits he does not even have a ‘specific memory’ on the topic. Not entirely convincing we are afraid to say. The fact that in Maharaja’s diary of his time as secretary in the last year, which he has just released, there is absolutely no mention of any of these elusive conversations surrounding the issuing of this letter adds further doubt to his testimony. Evidence, which does not exist, is no evidence at all. Not only is this evidence entirely missing in any hard form such as tapes or approved documents, it appears to have also slipped out through the gaps in the Maharaja’s synaptic junctions.

“Of course, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, the ritvik-theorists take the only possible alternative to attempt to keep to their theory i.e. they try to discredit the evidence of all the most senior devotees in the movement, those whom Prabhupada had personally chosen. However, to write off all of Prabhupada’s hand picked men as being ill-motivated is indirectly an offence to Srila Prabhupada himself, implying that he wasn’t able to judge the sincerity and motives of his disciples.”

Hardly overwhelming. This so-called ‘evidence’ is nothing more than the testimony of someone who, by his own admission, has not been at all clear on Srila Prabhupada’s desires for the past 21 years. Furthermore, the same person also admitted that the ‘most senior devotees in the movement’ had committed the ‘greatest disservice’ in the way in which they had understood and executed Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for what should occur after his departure. Considering his terrible track record on the issue of spiritual authority, the Maharaja must have been very flattered to even have been asked to contribute to such an important GBC paper.

As far as ‘writing off’ goes, the GBC themselves have ‘written off’ a substantial proportion of Srila Prabhupada’s ‘hand-picked’ men.

After all we do not see them rushing to take testimonies from: Hamsaduta, Bhagavan, Ramesvara, Kirtanananda, Harikesa or Bhavananda. We wonder why?

It cannot be the fact that they had ‘fallen’, for Hari Sauri also similarly ‘fell’ and yet they are enthusiastic to distribute his ‘diaries’ all throughout ISKCON. Indeed, they use the contents of those very diaries as one of their main pieces of evidence for Diksa authorisation. Yet would the GBC like to publish and distribute the memoirs of Hamsaduta et. al., over what they think happened in 1977. We think not! We will leave it to the reader to figure out the reason for this glaring double standard (in addition to the fact that it is kali-yuga, and such hypocrisy is only to be expected).

Furthermore, this is what H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja himself had to say recently about Srila Prabhupada’s ‘chosen leaders’:

‘The failure of the attempt at centralization did not mean that Prabhupada’s chosen leaders would cease jockeying for position and control, desires that seem at the heart of each heresy’.

(‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)

(End of excerpt from ‘GBC Fail To Answer The Final Order’ by Krishnakant, source:  https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/gbc_fail_to_answer_the_final_order.htm)

Shortly afterwards, in 1999, the GBC funded a video called ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ prepared by ITV to be broadcasted in maya-ISKCON centers (I recall watching it at that time in our local yatra). Below are excerpts from it along with comments from “A response to ISKCON TV (ITV)’s ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ video” by the IRM:

3. H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts GBC Minutes Book

No stranger to contradiction, having changed his story regarding ISKCON’s guru tattva nine times over the last twenty-two years, this was always going to be Tamal Krishna Goswami’s show. He chooses his words as carefully as a soldier picking steps through a minefield. Even so he still manages to contradict one of the video’s most crucial pieces of evidence; the GBC minutes book. The GBC minutes book allegedly contains, amongst other things, a hand-written record of the May 28th meeting between the GBC and Srila Prabhupada. They state that some devotees were to be appointed by Srila Prabhupada to act as diksa gurus for after his departure:

“Srila Prabhupada said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even after his disappearance.”

(GBC minutes book as shown in ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ video).

The people who were specifically appointed by Srila Prabhupada were thus meant to act as initiating gurus after departure, according to the GBC’s official minutes, as presented on the video. On the video Tamal Krishna also recommends we read the minutes as a worthy record of what occurred on May 28th. However, on the same video H.H.Tamal Krishna states:

“Prabhupada did not appoint gurus. He named people who would act as his assistants to give initiation in his presence.”

(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).

Thus H. H. Tamala Krishna and the video promote the GBC minutes book, which presents the old ‘Guru appointment’ theory; and at the same time the video has H. H. Tamala Krishna emphatically stating that Gurus were not appointed! We do not think H.H.Tamal Krishna Goswami should get all the blame for this contradiction, since the GBC body themselves have also contradicted their own minutes book in one of their recent papers:

“There is no appointment of gurus or successors, only a recommendation that certain disciples start the natural process.”

(The entire GBC, in the position paper ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ page 4, 1996).

What an incredible state of affairs that there should be no agreement even on such a basic, fundamental issue. Either Srila Prabhupada did appoint gurus for after his departure or he did not. And after more than twenty years we are still presented with nothing but a tangle of conflicting testimony over the very issue that the video was supposed to be shedding light on. In the end Srila Prabhupada only appointed ritviks- and there is certainly no order from him that they were to change function after his physical departure. We know this for a fact, since the GBC have not produced any such document even for the court case in Calcutta. Had Nrsimhananda allowed that particular fact to infiltrate, he may well have further jeopardised future GBC patronage. One lesson from all this is that devotees should be extremely wary whenever the GBC or their supporters release anything, and especially anything with the title ‘Disciple of my Disciple’; it is just bound to be self-contradictory and misleading. This is especially so since the phrase itself is taken completely out of context. In the original conversation (May 28th ’77) the passage in which the phrase ‘disciple of my disciple’ appears is prefaced with the conditional ‘When I order’. It is this requisite ‘order’ for diksa gurus that the GBC have never been able to locate. Only if they can find such an order will there be any scope for ‘disciple of my disciple’.

4. H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts Himself

In his cautious explanation of the events surrounding the July 9th letter, Tamal Krishna claims the final order on initiations was only dealing with what was supposed to happen whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present:

“I think in the beginning of the letter I make mention that we’ve already met in May, in other words what will happen in the future is not at issue here, we’re not talking about what will happen after Prabhupada departs, we’re talking about now in Prabhupada’s presence – that was what the whole purpose of the letter was.”

(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).

Yet at the beginning of the letter, under Srila Prabhupada’s approval, Tamal Krishna actually starts the letter thus:

“Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavan, 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 and second initiation.”

(July 9th letter, opening paragraph)

According to Tamal Krishna, and the entire GBC, this refers to the May 28th conversation, in which the only issue was what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

So why on earth does mentioning this conversation as the original inspiration for what is to follow in the July 9th letter, tell us that the only issue being dealt with is what to do before departure?

When we look back at the conversation that Tamal Krishna says he is alluding to, we see Srila Prabhupada said he was appointing ritviks as a direct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja’s first question concerning what was to be done after he was no longer with them. Thus by starting the letter with reference back to the May 28th conversation the very last thing anyone would assume is that it was only concerned with what to do whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present. Indeed, this has to be one of the most preposterous statements ever made by a GBC apologist. The Maharaja is contradicting the very letter he is so proud of typing for Srila Prabhupada. Once more we are being asked to believe that Srila Prabhupada went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole movement on a subject the GBC had not asked him about- namely initiation before departure. And yet on the really important issue, the matter they all went to his room to ask him about- namely initiations after departure, Srila Prabhupada issued nothing, no letter to all the movements leaders, no approved GBC resolution – nothing.

5. HH Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts Reality

Tamal Krishna accepts that the letter was approved by Srila Prabhupada with his signature, in other words Srila Prabhupada signed the letter. As Maharaja says:

“… Prabhupada approved it because I thought it would add more weight to it…”.

(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).

Yet Tamal Krishna also contradicts this in the following:

“If Prabhupada himself wanted to change something, first of all he wouldn’t have had someone write a letter for him. He would have written the letter, he would have dictated the letter, and he certainly would have signed it.”

(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).

Srila Prabhupada did sign the letter as Tamal Krishna has admitted above, and as is plain from just looking at it. Thus, the strain of twenty years of deviations are finally catching up with the Maharaja; he is now completely losing grip of reality.

6. H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts the English Language

Why does the Maharaja, and others on the video like Dravida das, make such an issue of the fact that it was not Srila Prabhupada’s letter?

What are they so afraid of that they feel it necessary to make such an absurd argument?

All shall be revealed. Even though there is no mention in the July 9th letter (or any other) that the ritvik system was only stop-gap, temporary or solely for Srila Prabhupada’s presence; the argument now being made is that to understand what the letter meant we must approach the real mastermind and author. Never mind what words are used in the letter, that is now irrelevant. Indeed, if we read them, we might even become confused. What really matters is what Tamal Krishna Goswami now tells us the words mean. Even if the meaning he ascribes is not hinted at, or is even contradicted within the letter. As he says himself in the video about the way the July 9th letter turned out:

“It’s just a choice of words that I used, if someone looks in a dictionary and finds it has a different meaning, somehow it gives a permanence, it wasn’t, it certainly wasn’t the intention.”   (Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).

So even when we read words in the letter like ‘henceforward’, and no words like ‘temporary system’ or ‘stop-gap measure’ or ‘just while Srila Prabhupada is ill’; we must somehow forget the real meaning of language according to every English dictionary on the planet, and simply understand from the humble secretary what the letter actually meant. The underlying reason for this sinister line of argument would seem to be: -since everyone knows that the Acarya is beyond the four defects it is hard to directly deny the validity of the letter’s wording. But by heavily exaggerating Tamal Krishna’s part in the production of the final order, and minimising Srila Prabhupada’s, devotees will not worry so much about exactly what the letter says. In that way the attention is gently and imperceptibly shifted away from the signed directive itself, and onto the wobbly testimony of a man who has changed his story nine times over the last twenty-two years.- If this was the plan, then it’s been rumbled. The fact is Srila Prabhupada approved the letter with his signature, so he must have agreed with its contents.

End of story.

[…]

Tamal Krishna – The Secretary Who Thinks He is the Boss

In the video Tamal Krishna admits that it was he who blocked the recommendations for initiation that were still being sent to Srila Prabhupada up to July of 1977. He claims this was to protect Srila Prabhupada from all the bad karma since he was sick. When we look at the July 7th Garden conversation, we see Srila Prabhupada immediately ordered for the initiations to be resumed under the new ritvik system, once he learned of Tamal Krishna’s independent initiative. The same system he had first mentioned way back on May 28th. Despite this, Tamal Krishna seems to think the whole thing was his idea, and in one passage of unbridled egotism reveals what he really thinks about his relationship with Srila Prabhupada:

“The letter was written by me, it was not dictated by Srila Prabhupada; it was signed by me – and it’s my letter. It’s not Prabhupada’s letter.”

(HH Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ Video)

Above we see Tamal Krishna Maharaja tries to present the whole ritvik system as his idea, and that he simply got Srila Prabhupada to sign it, almost as an after-thought:

“And it was my suggestion – Prabhupada approved it because I thought it would add more weight to it, so people would know it was authorised.”

(HH Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ Video)

How terribly thoughtful of Tamal Krishna to let Srila Prabhupada know how he was directing his movement for him, and how generous to allow Srila Prabhupada to sign his own letter. There is just one small problem. Tamal Krishna admits at the beginning of the letter that the whole thing was really Srila Prabhupada’s idea – not his at all. Please read again the beginning of the July 9th letter above. Notice the words ‘Srila Prabhupada indicated’. Look at the transcript of the May 28th conversation and see how it was Srila Prabhupada who first brought up the idea of using ritviks. Notice how even the great self-styled mastermind was asking how the system would run, just as he was on July 7th in the garden. It is Srila Prabhupada who chose the initial eleven devotees who were to act as ritviks.

[Note: Srila Prabhupada said on July 7th, “You can note down these names… That’s nice. Now you distribute.” From Yasoda nandana dasa’s 1977 diary, July 9th: “I heard from Tamal Krishna Maharaja in the afternoon that Srila Prabhupada had told him to send a letter to ‘all the temples’ to explain the ritvik initiation system for the future.”]

And it was Srila Prabhupada who signed the finished draft of the letter, typed by his lowly servant and secretary – Tamal Krishna Maharaja. Tamal Krishna Maharaja is fond of writing academic books that candidly expose all his past deviations. We hope this paper will provide a rich source of new material for future volumes in the continuing saga of the man who could not follow a simple order.

(End of excerpt from “A response to ISKCON TV (ITV)’s ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ video”, source: https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/Reply_ITV.htm)

Naveen Krishna dasa: “So much importance given to the person who is the principal person involved with the murderous poisoning of Srila Prabhupadas body, a person who Srila Prabhupada compares to Ravana? Once one finds out his role in this maha mad elephant offence one cannot believe anything coming from his mouth.” (June 29th, 2024)

Yasoda nandana dasa: “Gauri dasa Pandita dasa also personally witnessed and was recording Srila Prabhupada’s statement [made on July 5th, 1977], “Tomorrow I will nominate some ritviks to initiate on my behalf after I leave…” [see: https://vaishnava-news-network.org/world/9801/19-1517/index.html]

Where is that tape recording?

Topanga Canyon excerpt, December 3rd 1980, Tamal Krishna: “The point I want to state on that is this realization, and I feel that the GBC body, if they don’t adopt this point very quickly, if they don’t realize this truth: You can’t show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says, “I appoint these 11 as gurus.” It doesn’t exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.”

The entire initiation system in [maya-]ISKCON is based upon mythology, a complete fabrication mixed in with TKG’s interpretations.” (June 27th 2024)

In conclusion: In 1977, Tamal and his accomplices were trying to poison Srila Prabhupada with heavy metal compounds, which is now a proven fact, to prepare a coup and takeover of ISKCON, by writing rather vague phrases in 1977 correspondence concerning the future of the initiation issue, trying to hide audio recordings and instructions of Srila Prabhupada about the ritvik system for the period after his departure. After the coup was finally carried out in 1978 and TKG became a false acarya, he created schisms and crises in maya-ISKCON, was temporarily suspended from his “guru” position twice- in 1980 and in 1995- shortly before the above quoted maya-ISKCON materials were prepared. But it turns out that soon he suddenly became not a key person who greatly undermined ISKCON and created lots of confusion, but the best, most honest, impartial and conscientious devotee, a true transcendental guru who would now save ISKCON from misunderstandings! That’s gross!

It’s obvious to any more or less sincere person that TKG was re-writing history in the late 1990s. Anti-ritviks present Tamal’s statements made when he was defending his bogus guru position in the 1990s as the best source to understand the issue whereas it’s the worst source and we shouldn’t take to it holding our breath. He wasn’t the real author of July 9th, 1977, directive. Srila Prabhupada had been introducing proxy initiation system in his worldwide movement for years, and finalized it in 1977, and ordered Tamal to “distribute” information regarding this arrangement. So, it was His Divine Grace who ordered ritviks to officially initiate his new disciples in the future, particularly when he is no longer with us.       

Truth: New names were to be sent to Srila Prabhupada’s address not to him personally, but to his secretary who was to include the names of new Srila Prabhupada’s disciples officially initiated via ritviks in the ‘Initiated Disciples’ book, which is confirmed by other evidence.

By Bhakta Alex (Russia)

There is an argument put forward by anti-ritviks regarding July 9th 1977, directive: at the end it says that names of new disciples should be sent by ritvik-representatives “to Srila Prabhupada”: 

“The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book.”

So, they say it means this whole initiation system was set just temporary until Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. For example, BBTI officer Vijitatma das wrote: 

“…the letter very clearly indicates the time limits to which Srila Prabhupada’s order to appoint “representatives” should be applied: as long as Srila Prabhupada remains on the planet, and letters can be sent to him. These are the words: ” The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada”. Thus, the original argument of ritviks is completely baseless.” (New Ritviks, Old Delusions, 2009)

This interpretation was defeated many years ago. An excerpt from “The Final Order”:

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

The first point to note is the stated purpose behind the names being sent to Srila Prabhupada, i.e., so they could be included in his “Initiated Disciples” book. We know from the July 7th conversation (please see Appendices, p.128) * that Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with entering the new names into this book; it was done by his secretary. Further evidence that the names should be sent for inclusion in the book, and not specifically to Srila Prabhupada, is given in the letter written to Hamsadutta, the very next day, where Tamal Krsna Goswami explains his new ritvik duties to him:

“… you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada’s “Initiated Disciples” book.”

(Letter to Hamsadutta from Tamal Krsna Goswami, 10/7/1977)

There is no mention made here of needing to send the names to Srila Prabhupada. This procedure could easily have continued after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. Nowhere in the final order does it state that if the “Initiated Disciples” book becomes physically separated from Srila Prabhupada all initiations must be suspended.

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

The last point is that if sending the names to Srila Prabhupada were a vital part of the ceremony, then even before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the system would have been invalid, or at least run the constant risk of being so. It was generally understood that Srila Prabhupada was ready to leave at any time, thus the danger of not having anywhere to send the names was present from day one of the order being issued.

In other words, taking the possible scenario that Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated through the ritvik system, according to the above proposition the disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada’s books that the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service. Certainly, there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being entered into His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book even now. This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time.” (End of excerpt from ‘The Final Order’ by Krishnakant, 1996)

* Here is the relevant quote from July 7th, 1977, conversation: 

Tamala Krsna: You know that book I’m maintaining of all of your disciples’ names? Should I continue that?

Prabhupada: Hmm.

Tamala Krsna: So, if someone gives initiation, like Harikesa Maharaja, he should send the person’s name to us here, and I’ll enter it in the book. Okay. (Room Conversation — July 7th 1977, Vrndavana) 

It was the system from early days of proxy initiations in ISKCON:

“Kirtanananda will chant on the beads for new devotees in America, Canada, like that, you can chant on the beads for the European continent new disciples. They shall, of course, still be considered as my disciples, not that they shall become your disciples, but you will be empowered by me to chant their beads and that is the same effect of binding master and disciple as if I were personally chanting. They may continue to send me their letters of request, along the President’s recommendation, and I shall give them name and it will be entered by my Secretary in our records, only I will send my letter of reply to you and you will purchase beads there and chant them and send, along with my letter to the new initiates.” (SP Letter to: Revatinandana — Bombay 4th January 1973)

In 1998, Tamal confirmed that “the secretary kept the book of initiated disciples”:

“So, I said to Prabhupada that we can list, because Prabhupada… we had kept… the secretary kept the book of initiated disciples, so I said that when someone does this initiating on your behalf, then the names can be kept in your book and Prabhupada said yes.” (Class given by Tamal Krishna Goswami on 6th August 1998, in Hong Kong)

Moreover, VedaBase 2019 release (the official collection of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, issued and updated by the Bhaktivedanta Archives) presented previously unknown letter from Tamala Krishna to Ramesvara dated July 22, 1977. It appeared in ‘230 New Secretary Letters 2019 [To be merged in future VedaBase releases]’ section. This letter hadn’t been published earlier, even in the previous VedaBase release dated May 12, 2018. It explains in detail how ritviks should conduct both first and second initiation ceremonies and then send the names of new Srila Prabhupada’s disciples to the “Initiated Disciples” book to the secretary (“to me for inclusion in Prabhupada’s Initiated Disciples Book)” which puts an end to the dispute whether the names were to be sent to Srila Prabhupada personally or just to his address, for his secretary. The text of the letter:

Letter to: Ramesvara
July 22nd, 1977
From: Tamal Krishna

My dear Ramesvara Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. I thought it would be in order to give some instructions to the 11 disciples of His Divine Grace whom He chose to represent Him for giving first and second initiations. I thought you could photocopy this letter and send a copy to each of them.

The system that His Divine Grace has always followed in the case of initiations is that first of all He receives a recommending letter from the temple president. In the case of first initiation requests, His Divine Grace replies by saying: “As you have recommended him I accept as my initiated disciple. His spiritual name is. Now you should hold a fire ceremony, and he must vow to follow the four regulative principles and chant minimum 16 rounds daily. Teach him to be an ideal Vaisnava by your example.” His Divine Grace has authorized all of the GBC and senior sannyasis in the past to chant on beads for initiation, so this is already going on.

In the case of second initiation, Srila Prabhupada writes: “As you have recommended him, I accept [BLANK SPACE] for second initiation. His brahmana thread, duly chanted on, is enclosed herein along with the Gayatri mantra sheet. Now you should hold a fire ceremony after which he may be permitted to hear the Gayatri mantra tape in the right ear. Teach him to be Brahminical, always keeping clean internally by chanting Hare Krsna, and externally by regular bathing.” The process of chanting on the thread is that during one of the times when you are saying your normal Gayatri mantra, you hold the thread to be chanted on (which should remain twisted up, that is not open) in the right hand, and by chanting on your thread the Gayatri mantra, this new thread is considered chanted upon .I would suggest that His Holiness Ramesvara Maharaja may supply each of the 11 representatives sufficient copies of the Gayatri mantra sheet.

I think it would be appropriate in your letter to the president or the person who is being accepted for initiation, to remind him to send Guru-daksina to His Divine Grace. This is no longer being done very regularly, but actually it is the proper etiquette to be followed.

I hope this letter is helpful to you, and if there is any further clarification required, please do not hesitate to write. Hoping this meets you all well.

Your servant,
Tamal Krsna Gosvami
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada

P.S. Please remember to send the names of all new initiates (1st initiation only) to me for inclusion in Prabhupada’s Initiated Disciples Book.

Include former karmi name.

His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
c/o ISKCON Los Angeles
Copies to all rittiks [ritviks]

(End of quote from VedaBase)

Such a letter was published by the Bhaktivedanta Archives 42 years after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. Please note how detailed was the description of the formal initiation system via ritvik-representatives of the acarya. Where is similarly detailed description of the future system of multiple diksa gurus in ISKCON, their voting in by the GBC, etc? Such details as separation of powers between the GBC and new initiating gurus, etc., were simply not given, because Srila Prabhupada did not intend to create a system of many diksa gurus in ISKCON, but gave instructions that he himself would remain the initiating guru for his entire movement.

We hope that more documents and audio recordings of 1977 will become public and leave fewer opportunities for anti-ritvik false arguments.

In conclusion: Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with writing down the names of new disciples, accepted by ritviks, in his “Initiated Disciples” book. This was done by the secretary, and now it can function in the same way by a secretary appointed by the GBC (ideally). The phrase about sending the names of new disciples means sending them to Srila Prabhupada’s address, to his secretary- this is what Srila Prabhupada really approved on July 7th 1977, and what Tamal Krishna wrote about on July 22nd 1977. July 9th 1977, directive describes the system of proxy initiations that should function in ISKCON “henceforward” and does not say anything that this was just a temporary measure for the period until Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure.

The beginning of the directive refers to Srila Prabhupada’s conversation with the GBC on May 28th 1977, where some issues related to the period after Srila Prabhupada’s departure were discussed. Thus, this directive became the fulfillment of Srila Prabhupada’s promise to appoint ritviks for the future, “particularly” when he “is no longer with us” (as per May 28th 1977, conversation). This is also confirmed (directly and indirectly) by Srila Prabhupada’s Last Will, personal letters to the first ritviks in 1977, Srila Prabhupada’s conversations of that period, various witness testimonies, etc. Total aggregate of available evidence clearly proves that ritvik initiations were established by Srila Prabhupada for the future, especially after his physical departure so that initiation ceremonies would continue, and he would remain the spiritual master for his movement.