By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Srila Prabhupada didn’t confirm that future disciples in ISKCON would also be his disciples

“If the GBC had any hope of upholding modifications a) & b) [to the July 9th letter suggested in maya-GBC’s official paper “Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON”, 1995], Srila Prabhupada would have had to answer this question something along the lines of: “No, they are not my disciples.” Whatever Srila Prabhupada was going on to say is irrelevant since no one can ever know. We only know that when asked whether future initiates were to be his disciples, he answered: “Yes”; again, not a good sign for modifications a) & b).” (TFO)

“Yes, they are [“your”/Srila Prabhupada’s] disciples” answer is confirmed by:

– the opening question/answers of the same May 28th 1977, conversation (“when you are no longer with us”, “ritvik, yes”);

– July 9th directive: “The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad”;

– Srila Prabhupada’s last will: “The executive directors [for ISKCON properties] who have herein been designated are appointed for life. In the event of the death or failure to act for any reason of any of the said directors, a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple”;

– various testimonies- even in TKG’s confession made on December 3, 1980:

Tamal Krishna: “Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. […] He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.

What actually happened I’ll explain. I explained it, but the interpretation is wrong. 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. [This refers to the May 28th 1977, conversation]. We asked him, ‘Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?’

Later on, there was a piled-up list for people to get initiated, and it was jammed up. I said, ‘Srila Prabhupada, you once mentioned about ritviks. I don’t know what to do. We don’t want to approach you, but there’s hundreds of devotees named, and I’m just holding all the letters. I don’t know what you want to do’.

Srila Prabhupada said, ‘All right, I will appoint so many…,’ and he started to name them […] He made it very clear that they are his disciples. At that point it was very clear in my mind that they were his disciples. […] ‘In order for me to manage this movement’, Prabhupada said, ‘I have to form a GBC, and I will appoint the following people. In order to continue the process of people joining our movement and getting initiated, I have to appoint some priests to help me because just like I cannot physically manage everyone myself, I physically cannot initiate everyone myself.”

And that’s all that it was, and it was never any more than that. If it had been more than that, you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, but he didn’t…” (Topanga Canyon discussion transcript that was quoted in maya-GBC’s ‘ISKCON Journal’, 1990)

Nityananda das: “In 1983 Satsvarupa published the final biographical volume of Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita. It included a very adulterated version of the May 28th transcript (Vol. 6, p.324-5), supportive of ISKCON’s unauthorized gurus. The deceptive transcript fudging and his misinterpretation in his book reveals Satsvarupa was a primary participant in the ISKCON gurujacking by falsifying Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. His transcript is so far off from what was spoken, he must have thought the actual tape would never be released. The tape and transcript remained unavailable for another two years; a total of 8 years. Thereafter he pleaded “artistic license” to explain his biography deceit to those with less intelligence.

Satsvarupa invented his own version of the May 28th, 1977 conversation with Srila Prabhupada (which he never corrected). Comparing what was actually said with the Lilamrita version:

SATS: “So they may also be considered your disciples.”

SP: “Yes, they are disciples.” (Archives Vedabase)

LILAMRITA: “So they may also be considered your disciples,” said Satsvarupa, referring to those persons initiated on Prabhupada’s behalf by the ritvik acharya. “They are their disciples,” said Srila Prabhupada. Now he was speaking of initiations after his passing away.”

Lilamrita’s use of speech marks claims these were Srila Prabhupada’s words verbatim. But Srila Prabhupada’s answer: “Yes, they are disciples,” when asked if they are his disciples, is changed to “They are their disciples.” The answer “yes” was deleted, and the word “their” was added.

By this change of Srila Prabhupada’s words, Lilamrita has changed the ownership of the disciples accepted by the “ritvik” on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, from Srila Prabhupada to the “ritviks” themselves. Lilamrita also adds that this refers to initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s “passing away”. These changes allow Lilamrita to claim that Srila Prabhupada is stating that the ritviks he will appoint will be initiating their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, i.e. acting as successor diksha gurus. This fabrication was made to claim Srila Prabhupada appointed individuals who will be successor gurus.” (‘ISKCON HIDDEN HISTORY’, vol. 5 of Personal Ambition series, pg. 37)

Myth: By saying “they are his disciples” Srila Prabhupada meant ritviks’/new diksa gurus’ disciples

Anti-ritvik papers try to make emphasis on “they are his disciples” phrase ignoring the context. According to their interpretation, this means Srila Prabhupada authorized new diksa gurus who were going to initiate their own disciples in ISKCON. Let’s see if this version makes sense.

The essence of this part of the conversation (without repetitions, etc.) is as follows:

Satsvarūpa: What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and…

Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.

Satsvarūpa: So, they may be considered your disciples?

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

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No. He is asking that these ṛtvik-ācāryas, they are officiating, giving dīkṣā, their – the people who they give dīkṣā to – whose disciples are they?

Prabhupāda: They are his disciples. Who is initiating… His grand-disciple… When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.

Note: Tamal doesn’t seem to be impartially clarifying the question. He:

a) Starts off his remark by saying “no”. Srila Prabhupada correctly understood the question and confirmed that future disciples will also be his- Prabhupada’s- disciples (“Yes, they are disciples”). But Tamal tries to negate this answer. He could have said his remark without “no” to Srila Prabhupada.

b) Keep using “ṛtvik-ācāryas” phrase which is not exactly from Srila Prabhupada, at least in this conversation. Why? To try and bolster the ‘acarya’ status of the ritviks?

c) Equates “officiating” with “giving dīkṣā” which are different things, according to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Srila Prabhupada has just differentiated ritviks as those officiating and himself as the guru who is the initiator/diksa guru. The guru gives diksa- this word is derived from ‘divya jnana’ (transcendental knowledge), etc., which is given by the guru who is in the transcendental position. So ritviks/priests are not giving diksa (at least, in the highest, spiritual sense), but provide formal side of initiation on behalf of the acarya.

d) Formulates his question so that a different answer (preferred by TKG) may become obvious: “they are officiating, giving dīkṣā, their – the people who they give dīkṣā to – whose disciples are they?” Does he want to hear that future disciples will be their disciples?

e) When Srila Prabhupada says: “They are his disciples“, TKG rushes to repeat this phrase out of context. Why out of all the phrases he repeats these words? Then again, according to the official transcript, after His Divine Grace pronounces the phrase “His grand-disciple”

TKG says “It’s clear”. Why all this? To impress others that ‘the answer’ is new disciples will be “his disciples” (ritvik’s, according to TKG’s interpretation which he did give later on, but then confessed in 1980 that this interpretation was “wrong”)?   

The above is at least suspicious, especially given the discovered facts of Tamal’s role in the poisoning Srila Prabhupada’s body that Tamal and co. had already started before the conversation, and his most active participation in other aspects of the riot against Srila Prabhupada and the takeover of ISKCON that culminated in 1977-78.

Despite all this Srila Prabhupada is unaffected by Tamal’s influence. Tamal’s is asking in plural “these ṛtvik-ācāryas… the people who they give dīkṣā to – whose disciples are they”. But Srila Prabhupada answers in singular: “They are his disciples. Who is initiating…” Then Prabhupada makes semantic pause and gets to another point- what about disciples of possible future gurus among his own disciples who are going to be appointed as ritviks: “His grand-disciple… When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.” In this situation, only Srila Prabhupada could have grand-disciples. This is obvious. Therefore, it again shows that “his” refers to himself, not to ritviks or supposed ritvik/diksa guru hybrids.

Moreover, if we succumb to anti-ritviks’ version that rests just on interpreting third person pronouns we invariably get to an absurd, contradictory meaning of the conversation. A quote from “The Final Order” (abbreviated):

“The argument that when speaking here in the third person, Srila Prabhupada must be referring to the ritviks and not himself, can be tested by modifying the conversation in accordance with this view, replacing “his”/”who” with “the ritvik” (shown in brackets):

TKG: whose disciples are they?

Srila Prabhupada: They are (the ritvik’s) disciples.

TKG: They are (the ritvik’s) disciples.

Srila Prabhupada: (The ritvik) is initiating…(The ritvik’s) granddisciple…

Given the premise that ritviks are only officiating, and that their role is only representational, it should be self-evident to the reader that this interpretation is nonsense. It is a contradiction in terms for a ritvik to have their own disciples, not to speak of grand-disciples.

The accusation may be made that we are in some way “twisting” Srila Prabhupada’s words by stating that Srila Prabhupada is talking about himself in third person. However, we feel our interpretation is consistent with the function Srila Prabhupada assigned to his ritviks. There appear to be just two possible options for interpretation in considering this conversation:

1) Future new disciples were to belong to ritvik priests, who by definition are not diksa gurus, but officiators who have been set up specifically to act as proxies.

2) Future new disciples were to belong to the diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada.

Option 1) is just absurd. Therefore, we have gone for option 2) as the only rational choice, and have thus interpreted the tape accordingly.” (End of excerpt from TFO)

Again, the above “ritvik after departure” understanding is in harmony with Srila Prabhupada’s initial answers that he is going to appoint ritviks for the future, especially when he is “no longer with us”, with the “yes” answer to the question in the second person (“your disciples”), with the July 9th directive (the final order on initiations in ISKCON) that clearly confirms that future disciples will be “disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad”, with the Last Will (“my initiated disciple”), etc. Whereas anti-ritvik’s version is obviously wrong and conflicted. Its foundation is not the real content of the conversation but thoughtless or dishonest picking some pronouns here and there and giving them illogical interpretations while ignoring the whole body of evidence.

By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Srila Prabhupada said that functioning as ritviks during his presence is mere formality, and after his disappearance they would automatically turn into diksa gurus which is the post Srila Prabhupada really appointed them to

Again, Srila Prabhupada didn’t “appoint” anyone there and then during May 28th conversation as diksa gurus but said that the formality, etiquette is that during the guru’s presence his disciples shouldn’t even think of assuming the post of diksa guru. An example of how Srila Prabhupada equated “formality” with “etiquette”:      

Satsvarūpa: Prabhupāda, you said that we should respect everyone as a devotee, but then also you teach that…

Prabhupāda: No, no. By qualification, a Vaiṣṇava respects everyone.

Satsvarūpa: But then there’s also a teaching not to respect a nondevotee even if he’s a big man. We may formally offer him respect, but if…

Prabhupāda: That’s all right. Yes. Formality, you should be respectful. Suppose your enemy—that is etiquette-comes in your room. But when he has come to your room, you should offer him respect: “Come on, come on. Sit down.” That is etiquette. You know that “He’s my enemy.” That… The etiquette according to Vedic civilization: gṛhe śatrum api prāptaṁ viśvastam akuto-bhayam. Even your enemy comes at your home, you should treat with him in such a nice way that he’ll forget that you are his enemy. (Room Conversation June 28th 1974, Melbourne)

One part of the etiquette is that one should bring all prospective disciples to his own spiritual master:

Prabhupāda: …the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become ācārya. Even if he is complete, he should not, because the etiquette is, if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to bring that prospective candidate to his ācārya. Not that “Now people are coming to me, so I can become ācārya.” That is avamanya. Nāvamanyeta karhicit. Don’t transgress this etiquette. Nāvamanyeta. That will be falldown. (CC, Ādi-līlā 1.13 class — Māyāpur, April 6th 1975)

“Vidura wanted to accept Uddhava as his spiritual master, but Uddhava did not accept the post because Vidura was as old as Uddhava’s father and therefore Uddhava could not accept him as his disciple, especially when Maitreya was present nearby. The rule is that in the presence of a higher personality one should not be very eager to impart instructions, even if one is competent and well versed. So, Uddhava decided to send an elderly person like Vidura to Maitreya, another elderly person, but he was well versed also because he was directly instructed by the Lord while He was about to quit this mortal world. […] One should not be eager to become a spiritual master cheaply for the sake of profit and fame, but should become a spiritual master only for the service of the Lord. The Lord never tolerates the impertinence of maryādā-vyatikrama. One should never pass over the honor due to an elderly spiritual master in the interests of one’s own personal gain and fame. Impertinence on the part of the pseudo spiritual master is very risky to progressive spiritual realization.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.4.26, purport)

So, here, during May 28th 1977, conversation, Srila Prabhupada immediately adds up that there is second aspect of the etiquette: one needs to receive the order from his/her guru to become the next guru oneself. Srila Prabhupada’s disciples should definitely act on his behalf during his physical presence, it’s not that they were appointed as ritviks for the period of his departure only. No, they were soon to be appointed to immediately start this function. But Srila Prabhupada does NOT state here that the ritvik system should operate ONLY until his physical departure and/or that his disciples will automatically become diksa gurus IMMEDIATELY after his departure. Instead, he emphasizes they should be authorized by their guru in order to become gurus. Quotes and examples:

‘Sri Caitanya-caritamrita’ states:

“Vallabha Bhaṭṭa wanted to be initiated by Gadādhara Paṇḍita, but Gadādhara Paṇḍita refused, saying, “The work of acting as a spiritual master is not possible for me. I am completely dependent. My Lord is Gauracandra, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. I cannot do anything independently, without His order.” (CC Antya 7.150-151)

“The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master immediately becomes useless.” (CC Adi 12.10)

Prabhupāda: What is the use of producing some rascal guru?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and it’s clear fact that we are all conditioned souls, so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible…

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: …but not now.

Then Srila Prabhupada said that without his order, “Now you become ācārya. You become authorized” — no one can become a guru (initiator), and also noted that apart from authorization it’s necessary to achieve high spiritual qualification, “The training must be complete. ” And the conclusion was made:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Not rubber stamp.

Prabhupāda: Then you’ll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gauḍīya Maṭha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and “guru.” What kind of guru? (Room Conversation — April 22nd 1977, Bombay)

So anti-ritviks tend to concentrate on one aspect of the etiquette (one shouldn’t become guru in the presence of one’s guru) and misinterpret it by stating it means immediately after Srila Prabhupada’s departure the ritvik system, a supposed mere formality, should be stopped and then ritviks or, as others claim, any disciple could somehow take up the position of the next initiating spiritual master in ISKCON. Although Srila Prabhupada stresses the second part of the etiquette, which is very important: one should get the order, authorization from his own guru to become guru himself.

Maya-GBC’s official anti-ritvik paper “Disciple of My Disciple” desperately claimed that the very words “on my order” are Srila Prabhupada’s actual authorization given to… some unknown circle of future ritviks!

“The present paper will show that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters.” (pg. 2)

“The words “on My order” themselves point to the order.” (pg. 8)

Of course, this is wrong interpolation. This is general principle or warning not to become the next guru without Srila Prabhupada’s order, not the order itself to any specific person to become the next initiating guru in ISKCON.

An email from Krishnakant prabhu regarding the discussed section of the May 28, 1977, conversation:

“The conversation is as follows:

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf. On my order, amara ajnaya guru hana, (he is) (be) actually guru. But by my order.

Satsvarupa Goswami: So (then) (they) (they’ll) (may) also be considered your disciples?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples, (but) (why) consider … who

1) Srila Prabhupada is saying that it is a formality that ONE SHOULD NOT BECOME GURU in his presence, SO (it must be done) on his behalf. Which is a fact. One cannot become a Guru in the presence of one’s own Guru just out of formality – one does not need to consider anything else such as qualification etc., because just out of formality one is forbidden.

2) However, Srila Prabhupada does NOT say that RITVIK is only a formality to be observed in his presence. Ritvik is observed because one cannot be Guru – the reason for THIS being formality.

3) Then he goes onto add that BECOMING Guru is NOT a formality, but requires a specific ORDER:

“ON my order … be ACTUALLY guru. BUT by my order.”

4) Thus, without this order – one still cannot be Guru and hence ‘on my behalf’ – ritvik – will obviously still continue.

Thus:

NOT ACT AS GURU IN OWN GURU PRESENCE = FORMALITY –> SO –> RITVIK

NOT ACT AS GURU WITHOUT ORDER —-> SO STILL RITVIK CONTINUES

(From email, August 29th 2003)

Section 4:

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.

“Tamāla Kṛṣṇa clarifies the question in point #11. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s answer to this question is actually the combination of points #12 and #14. That means he said, “They are his disciples who is initiating”. That means they are Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples as he is initiating, using the ṛtviks as his representatives in the ceremony. But halfway through this reply, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa reiterates Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words in point #13. Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words appear separated.

Then, in point #14 again, he is mentioning the word ‘grand-disciple’. Satsvarūpa tries to ask another question in point #15 [#17 above] but Śrīla Prabhupāda, in point #16 [#18 above] continues from point #14 that one becomes his grand-disciple only when he orders any of his disciples to become guru. Then he clarifies that they must wait for his order to become what Śrīla Prabhupāda terms as ‘regular guru’. So, the order is not there at the time of this conversation.” (IA77)

By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Srila Prabhupada couldn’t say about himself in the third person “he is guru”, he would say “I am guru”

The most logical explanation is as follows: in this case, “he” is Srila Prabhupada himself, because he is asked in the third person “What is the relationship of THAT PERSON who gives the initiation and…” Satsvarupa didn’t even finish his question, but Srila Prabhupada immediately answered it- also in the third person- he, that person who gives the (real, essential, spiritual) initiation is the guru in this ritvik system.

Ritviks are officiators, the guru is initiator. Although Srila Prabhupada had taught that real initiation is not formal ceremony, but serious acceptance of the spiritual master who imparts transcendental knowledge into the disciple’s heart and takes spiritual charge of him, up to complete spiritual liberation, it seems that Satsvarupa and others who formulated the questions to be asked to Srila Prabhupada didn’t word it quite to this point. Srila Prabhupada answer is he, “that person who gives the initiation”, is guru. But who is that real initiator guru in the ritvik/officiating acarya system that Srila Prabhupada had just promised to establish for the future, particularly when he is no longer with us? It is Srila Prabhupada himself.

Otherwise, if we accept anti-ritviks’ interpretation that here Srila Prabhupada spoke of ritvik, not himself, as the guru, then it’s a sudden U-turn, direct contradiction to the answer he had just given moments earlier, and then we’re anyway left with July 9th directive as the final explanation of the issue.  

But the “ritvik” understanding is confirmed by Srila Prabhupada later in this conversation when he is asked in the second person, “So they may be considered your disciples?” He agreed by answering “yes”. It is further confirmed in the July 9th directive:

“The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”

The Last Will signed by Srila Prabhupada in June 1977 also says that any future successor to the appointed executive directors for each and every ISKCON property must be “my initiated disciple”.

Finally, there was certainly an aspect of Srila Prabhupada humility: he didn’t like to emphasize “I”, “me”, “mine” too much, but would sometimes (off course, not always) refer to himself in the third person: the guru, spiritual master, he, his, etc., especially while discussing his position as acarya. E.g.:

“Regarding serving your godbrothers, this is a very good practice. The Spiritual Master is never without His followers, so to serve the Spiritual Master also means to be the servant of His disciples. When you want to serve the king, you must also serve his minister, secretary, and everyone who serves him. And to serve his servants may please him more than to serve the king personally. So, the Spiritual Master is not alone. He is always with His entourage.” (SP Letter to: Sivananda — Los Angeles 23rd January 1969)

“Regarding your $2,000 which you promised to send me within three weeks, I beg to thank you for this. Actually, a brahmacari should contribute whatever he has got to Krishna, through the Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master does not accept anything for his personal use, but he employs everything for Krishna’s service. Therefore, the Spiritual Master is accepted in the renounced order of life.” (SP Letter to: Giriraja — Los Angeles 5th July 1969)

“This spot life is merely a platform for us to make progress toward going back to home, back to Godhead, therefore we should not be too much concerned with family matters. We are never alone in Krsna consciousness; you have got so many wonderful brothers and sisters who are really your family, and besides that the spiritual master is always in his instructions, and Krsna is there within your heart, so you need not feel you are ever alone.” (SP Letter to: Gangadevi — London 11th August 1972)

So, from different angles, the conclusion is that Srila Prabhupada spoke here of himself as the “guru” of future disciples in ISKCON. Ritviks, although providing formal initiation ceremonies, are actually officiators on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, the real initiator guru.

Section 3:

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.

“Although Srila Prabhupada’s answers are quite clear and consistent, it does seem as though there is some confusion in the mind of the questioner at this point. This is where Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks… “But he does it on your behalf”. The “he” Satsvarupa dasa Goswami is referring to is the ritvik, whereas the “he” that Srila Prabhupada was referring to, as we have shown, could only have been himself, since he is the only initiator within the ritvik system. Despite his disciple’s apparent confusion, Srila Prabhupada deftly adapts his next answer to match Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s actual concern, namely the status of these future ritviks.” (TFO)

“In point #8, Śrīla Prabhupāda implied that it is not etiquette to become a guru when one’s guru is still physically present. But then, he immediately added that just by his disappearance, the ṛtviks do not automatically become gurus but must wait for his order to be so. “On my order…” It is prudent to note here that Śrīla Prabhupāda is speaking of an order in the future tense. That means this tape cannot be called the “Appointment Tape” as he is not appointing anyone here but pointing to the future.” (IA77)

Myth: Srila Prabhupada quoted the “amara ajnaya” verse which means the order to become diksa gurus had been given to everyone by Lord Caitanya

“It is further argued that the use of the “amara ajnaya” verse at this point means that the order to be diksa guru had already been given, since this order from Lord Caitanya had been repeated many times by Srila Prabhupada. However, the “amara ajnaya” order, as we have seen, refers only to siksa guru; we know that the order to become diksa guru had not yet been given since Srila Prabhupada states: “When I order”. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada’s use of the verse at this point is simply to convey the notion of an order needing to be given before guruship, of whatever type, is taken up.” (TFO)

Srila Prabhupada had used the “amara ajnaya” verse in a similar vein earlier. In May 1976, Srila Prabhupada invited some leading disciples to visit him in Hawaii. He reprimanded them for attempts to become premature gurus, and said these artificial attempts to occupy the post of guru will never be successful. And he stressed that one should achieve high qualification (perfection of devotional service to Lord Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and observe etiquette (not proclaim oneself as a guru, but one should receive the order from one’s guru, so that not to repeat the mistake of some Gaudiya Matha leaders).

Prabhupāda: The tendency for becoming guru is there… What is the answer to this, their making some attempt to become guru?. It is an immature attempt. And it is not the thing that by artificial attempt one becomes guru. Guru is accepted by etiquette, not by artificial attempt. Āmāra ājñāya guru hañā [Cc. Madhya 7.128]: “Follow My order and become guru.” Not that you become guru.

āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa

yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa

[Cc. Madhya 7.128]

Hmm? You have to follow the paramparā system, order. That is guru. Not that I declare myself as guru. No. That is not guru. Guru is he who has strictly followed the order of the spiritual master. He can become guru. Otherwise, it will be spoilt. Artificial attempt is not good… (Room Conversation — May 30th 1976, Honolulu)

Prabhupāda: So-called commentator, teacher of Bhagavad-gītā, he does not come in the disciplic succession. He is self-made guru. Therefore, he’s not guru. Self-made guru cannot be guru. He must be authorized by the bona fide guru. Then he’s guru. This is the fact. Here… Nobody can be self-made anything. A medical practitioner, he cannot become self-made, that “I have studied all the medical books in my home.” No. “Have you ever gone to the medical college and taken instruction from the bona fide teachers?” Then, if you have got the certificate, then you are medical practitioner. Similarly, bona fide guru means he must be authorized by the superior guru. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. He must receive the order from the superior. And the superior must be bona fide. Then he’s bona fide, not self-made. (The Nectar of Devotion class — Vṛndāvana, October 31st, 1972)

Although Lord Caitanya, in the above verse, spoke of instructing/preaching, not initiating, but the principle of authorization is the same for every type of guru. So, Srila Prabhupada would sometimes quote the “amara ajnaya” verse as a proof that a guru needs to be authorized (by his own guru, by the way, which shows that there had been no Lord Caitanya’s authorization for everyone to become DIKSA guru in the future). So, this is the case with May 28th 1977, conversation: Srila Prabhupada says one needs to get authorization from his guru citing the example of Lord Caitanya.

It’s just extrapolation to claim that Srila Prabhupada actually authorized termination of the ritvik initiation system and emergence of the whole current multiple diksa guru system in maya-ISKCON just by quoting Lord Caitanya’s “āmāra ājñāya guru hañā” verse.  Srila Prabhupada doesn’t name a successor or give any direct authorization to any diksa guru. He says “but by MY order”, and later in this conversation “WHEN I order”. So, this is not ordering diksa gurus there and then by Srila Prabhupada or proclaiming that diksa gurus had already been authorized by Lord Caitanya alone. After this conversation no diksa guru has been authorized by Srila Prabhupada either, but ritviks were. So how can anti-ritviks base their ideas on such obviously incorrect interpretations?

By Bhakta Alex

Myth: Ritviks were appointed until Srila Prabhupada’s physical disappearance only, and in the opening exchange, Srila Prabhupada didn’t fully express his thought which he clarified later in the conversation.

From “The Final Order” (1996) by Krishnakant:

“Here Srila Prabhupada answers Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s question. He says he will be appointing some disciples to act as “officiating acarya”, or “ritvik”. Having clearly answered the question, Srila Prabhupada remains silent.

He offers no further elaboration at this point, nor does he qualify, nor attempt to qualify his answer. We therefore must assume that this was his answer. The only alternatives to this view are either:

1) Srila Prabhupada deliberately answered the question incorrectly or misleadingly,

Or

2) He did not hear the question properly and thought that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was only asking about what was to be done whilst he was still present.

No disciple of Srila Prabhupada would even consider option 1), and if option 2) were the case, then the conversation can tell us nothing about the future of initiation for after his departure; hence we would still be left with an unmodified July 9th order as his only statement on future initiations.

Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. The problem with this proposition is that, in issuing instructions in such a manner, Srila Prabhupada would only correctly answer the original question posed by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami if the following conditions were satisfied:

• That somebody took it upon himself to ask more questions.
• That by sheer luck they would happen upon the right questions to get the correct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja’s original question.

This would be an eccentric way for anyone to answer a question, not to speak of direct a worldwide organization, and was certainly not Srila Prabhupada’s style. Indeed if, as is being proposed by the GBC, he went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole Movement with instructions on initiation which were only to have relevance for four months, surely, he would not have dealt in such an obscurist manner with instructions which could run for as long as ten thousand years.

Clearly if we are looking to this transcript to incontrovertibly support modifications a) & b) [above mentioned key myths of the ant-ritvik position] we are not doing very well so far. Srila Prabhupada is asked what will happen about initiations, particularly when he leaves: he answers he will be appointing ritviks. This completely contradicts both of the GBC’s proposed modifications and simply reinforces the idea that the July 9th order was meant to run “henceforward”. (End of excerpt from TFO)

Any sincere person will clearly see/hear that Srila Prabhupada was asked what arrangement he was going to make in regards to initiations in the future, particularly when he is “no longer with us”, and His Divine Grace answered that he would appoint officiating acaryas or ritviks (“Ritvik, yes”). As will be shown below, the closing part of the conversation doesn’t refute this opening part and doesn’t prove that ritviks were going to be appointed until Srila Prabhupada’s departure only.

Note how the beginning of July 9th letter says: “Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupad indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “rittik”—representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity”.

Now, please step back from the text of the conversation for a while and think about the situation at large: ISKCON Governing Body delegation approached Srila Prabhupada, and there was a discussion of certain issues. Srila Prabhupada promised to finally resolve the issue we are analyzing in the future. And what was the final outcome of the meeting, other discussions, etc.? The directive that officially established the ritvik initiation system in ISKCON to be functioning henceforward without Srila Prabhupada’s physical participation.

There is not a word in the directive that this is a temporary measure or that ritviks will become diksa gurus. And there is no other final directive establishing future multiple diksa guru system in ISKCON. But anti-ritviks insist that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada said that after his departure, the ritviks would certainly become diksa gurus in ISKCON (which, of course, cannot be proved from the text of the conversation itself), but somehow it allegedly remained on tape only, and as a result of the conversation, the document appeared that says that recently, when GBC members met with Srila Prabhupada, he said he would appoint ritviks, and not a word about future diksa gurus in ISKCON? How can anyone seriously believe this??

Myth: By designating ritviks as officiating acaryas Srila Prabhupada meant they are diksa guru acaryas

From “Srila Prabhupada: Our DIKSA GURU” (A reply to the Sivarama Swami Paper – ‘Continuing the Parampara’) by Krishnakant:

“SECTION 3.3 & 3.4 (p19-21)

Not Appointed

The author asserts that the evidence for the appointment of the eleven-diksa gurus is contained in the opening lines. However, upon closer examination, one finds that the only functionaries that Srila Prabhupada appoints are not diksa gurus, but officiating acaryas, a term highlighted and approved by the author. It is significant that the author concedes that they were selected on the understanding that they would continue to function in this capacity after Srila Prabhupada’s apparent departure.

1) There is one question. How will initiation be conducted, especially in Srila Prabhupada’s absence?

2) Prabhupada says he will ‘recommend devotees to act as officiating acaryas.

3) This understanding of “ritvik acarya” is consistent with Srila Prabhupada’s use of officiating acarya. In addition, it explains that upon his disappearance the devotees performing initiation are ‘officiating gurus’.

Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p20

At this point it is clear that there is an admission that Srila Prabhupada selected officiating acaryas to act on his behalf, both before and after his departure. In making this startling admission, the author has chosen to diverge from the official GBC position that Srila Prabhupada did not select officiating acaryas for after his departure, but only for the duration of his physical presence.

EVASION

“As a final point we would like to give a new definition of the word rtvik or rtvik acarya.”

Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p20

Manoeuvres

Until this point, argument has revolved around whether or not Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks or diksa gurus. However, choosing to approach the problem from a rather novel perspective, the author casually asserts that the officiating acarya and diksa guru are one and the same. It would appear that the author, unable to sustain an otherwise untenable position, has decided, by dint of some remarkable semantic manoeuvres, to evade the issue by redefining the question. Indeed, he provides for his unfortunate reader an entire section (section 3.4) in which the term ritvik is exhaustively redefined.

Honorific

The rationale for this amazing claim is as follows: ‘Srila Prabhupada used the word acarya, which means guru, in conjunction with the word officiating, so he was really appointing diksa gurus’. However, the author omits to mention that in Vedic culture it is conventional to give any priest the honorific title of acarya.

The following excerpts from sastra demonstrate this quite clearly:

“Sri Raghunatha das was the son of Govardhana Majumdara. Their family priest was Balarama acarya. ” CC (BBT 1975) Madhya 16.217

“Candapura is just east of the house of the two brothers Hiranya and Govardhana, the father and uncle of Raghunatha das Goswami. In Candapura lived Balarama Acarya and Yadunandana Acarya, the priests of these two personalities. ” CC (BBT 1975) Antya 3.165

It is the custom that any person expert in a particular field is honoured by the title acarya. For example, Dronacarya was given this title for his expertise in military science. Thus, the priest is also considered a type of guru, or teacher, The ritviks, being expert priests, would naturally be called acarya. For example, in the Krishna Book, a ritvik is described as a ‘learned performer of sacrifices’.

Definition of Ritvik

There are similar references to ritviks in the Srimad Bhagavatam: […] Each time it is always translated as a priest. From this it is quite clear that ritvik means a priest only, a definition confirmed by standard works dealing with Sanskrit grammar:

Ritv-ij. Priest. (Literally, Sacrificing in season).

SGS (OUP 1927) 79b

There is no mention of such functionaries being diksa gurus or themselves accepting disciples. Thus, the use of the word acarya after the terms officiating or ritvik does not mean diksa guru, but refers only to a qualified priest. Indeed, as the author himself explains, officiating means to discharge priestly or divine service.

The dictionary meaning of the word ‘officiating’ is ‘to discharge priestly or divine service, or act in an official capacity’.

Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p19

It is therefore clear that a person who functions as an officiating acarya, simply performs these duties and does not accept disciples.

So, Acarya yes, but the key is what kind of Acarya? As we have conclusively demonstrated, the acarya in question is he who discharges priestly service, not he who accepts disciples. The word officiating or ritvik, gives this meaning only to the word Acarya, as has been admitted by the author himself.

Interchangeable

It is clear that Srila Prabhupada himself never made any such distinction between ritvik acarya and ritvik. A brief selection of examples will suffice:

On the ‘appointment tape’ itself he indicates that ritvik acarya is the same as ritvik.

On July 9th, 1977, when a letter naming the eleven ritviks is sent out to all Temple Presidents and members of the Governing Body Commission, the word used is ritvik, not ritvik acarya.

On July 10th, 1977, Tamal Krishna, when informing Hamsadutta of his appointment, refers to him only as a ritvik, not ritvik acarya.

On July 19th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada dictates a letter in which he again uses the term ritvik and not ritvik acarya.

One may therefore conclude that since Srila Prabhupada used the word officiating acarya once, ritvik acarya never, but ritvik at least three times, the terms are therefore interchangeable, and any assertion by the author to the contrary is nonsense.

The author asserts that not only does officiating acarya mean acting on behalf of the acarya, but that the officiating acarya has his own disciples. However, absolutely no evidence to substantiate this assertion is presented.

Clear Evidence

Srila Prabhupada however, does provide clear evidence, but not, unfortunately, for the claim made by the author:

Tamal Krishna: These men. They can also do second initiation. So, there is no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who would give initiation is doing so on your behalf.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

(Room Conversation July 8th 1977)

“After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The above eleven senior devotees are acting as his representative.

(Letter July 9th, 1977)

Also interesting, is what his secretary, Tamal Krishna Goswami, says when he communicates this information over the next few days:

“His divine grace said: ‘You are a suitable person and you can give initiation to those who are ready for it. I have selected you among eleven men as ‘ritvik or representative of the acarya, to give initiations, both first and second initiations, on my behalf’ (A newsletter is being sent to all Temple Presidents and GBC in this regard, listing the eleven representatives selected by His Divine Grace. Those who are initiated are the disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and anyone who you deem fit and initiated in this way, you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada’s ‘initiated disciples book’.”

(Letter July 10th, 1977)

Conclusive Evidence

This proves conclusively that Srila Prabhupada selected ritviks and that those disciples so initiated belonged to Srila Prabhupada. Although the author might respond that this arrangement was of a ‘temporary nature’, and only intended whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. He would be extremely unwise to do so, as he has already admitted that on the appointment tape the selection of Ritvik-Acaryas was made for after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

The author is accordingly caught in a logistical trap of his own creation.

It is abundantly clear that ritviks were selected to act for after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. It is equally clear that the disciples so created are Srila Prabhupada’s. There is no mention of the disciples belonging to the ritviks.

The remarkable simultaneous Ritvik/Diksa Guru hybrid entity proposed by the author may therefore be discarded.” (End of excerpt from “Srila Prabhupada: Our DIKSA GURU”)

So, Srila Prabhupada didn’t promise to appoint diksa gurus or ritvik/diksa guru hybrid, but ritviks – priests acting on behalf of the actual acarya/diksa guru of ISKCON – Srila Prabhupada. July 9th 1977 letter approved by Srila Prabhupada clarified what he was authorizing:

“Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “rittik”-representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.”

So, officiating acarya or ritvik is not an initiating acarya, just like parivrajaka-acarya is the third stage of sannyasa but it’s not that all parivrajaka-acaryas are diksa gurus. They are monks who travel, preach, and teach by their example. In this sense, they are all “acaryas”. By calling ritvik as “officiating acarya” Srila Prabhupada, most probably, tactfully tried to sugar-coat the truth which was bitter for the ambitious disciples: instead of successor diksa gurus they are appointed as ritviks to act on his behalf.

For example, Hansadutta dasa, one of the first eleven ritviks, admitted many years later: “I distinctly remember when I received the July 9th, 1977 letter in Sri Lanka that it was clear to me that this letter was Srila Prabhupada’s arrangement for initiations for the future. I also remember feeling some disappointment with the obvious conditional authority that the “Rittvik representative of the Acharya” designation implied, because I actually had a great desire to be a Guru like Srila Prabhupada, and I think many of the leaders did have similar desires.” (Hansadutta dasa’s letter to Veda Guhya dasa https://www.harekrsna.org/gbc/black/hans-ritvik.htm)

Finally, it’s worth noting that in the first section of May 28th conversation, Satsvarupa does not try to clarify what the term ‘ritvik’ means, but moves on to the next question from the preconceived list of questions.

Section 2:

Let’s continue the analysis of the conversation:

From ‘Initiations After 1977’, v.2.0 by ISKM:

5. Satsvarūpa: “What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and…”

6. Śrīla Prabhupāda: “He’s guru. He’s guru.”

At point #5, Satsvarūpa is asking about the relationship between the ṛtvik and the disciple but he did not phrase his question correctly. He asked the relation between the initiator and the disciple. It is important to note here that the initiator or guru is Śrīla Prabhupāda and the ṛtvik is only an officiating representative. Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda answered in point #6 that the initiator (Śrīla Prabhupāda) is the guru of the new disciple. (End of excerpt from IA77)

Thursday, 12 June 2025 [Mayapura, West Bengal, India Time]

Sri Syamananda Prabhu — Disappearance Day

Sri Shyamananda Prabhu, an eternal associate of Lord Sri Krishna, appeared on the 29th March, 1535 AD, in the village Dharenda of the Medinipur district in Gauda Mandal, West Bengal. As per Indian calendar, it was Madhu Purnima of the month of Chaitra. His father’s name was Sri Krishna Deva and his mother was Durika Devi. Earlier siblings of the couple had departed prematurely. When Sri Shyamananda Prabhu appeared, his parents planned to save him from Yamaraja’s jaws by giving a misnomer name “Duhkhi” (sad). […]

Pastimes of Sri Shyamananda Prabhu are beyond the comprehension of senses, mind and intelligence! Let us begin with the pastime of receiving Sri Shyamsundarji deity. Once, deeply immersed in Raasalila, Srimati Radharaniji lost the anklet or noopur of left foot. Sri Dukhi Krishnadas (as Sri Shyamananda Prabhu was then known) found this anklet. After a sweet and loving conversation, the anklet was returned. Later, under instructions of Srimati Radharaniji, Sri Dukhi Krishnadas chanted the Radha Mantra – which incorporates six opulence and was given to him by Sri Lalita Sakhi – took a dip in Radhakund and attained his spiritual body. In a ceremony conducted by Sri Roopa Manjari, Sri Lalita Sakhi gave him the name of Shyamananda and Vishakha Sakhi revealed his spiritual identity as Kanaka Manjari. Sri Lalita Sakhi and Srimati Radharaniji gave him the divine Tilak named “Shyam Mohan (Shyamanandi)” and then asked him to return to material world. Sri Dukhi Krishnadas was broken hearted with the very thought of separation and to mitigate his feelings, Srimati Radharaniji manifested a deity of Lord Sri Krishna from her lotus heart and gave it to him. […]

(Reference: radhashyamsundar.com)

Wednesday, 11 June 2025 [Mayapur, West Bengal, India Time]
Snana Yatra – Bathing Ceremony of Lord Jagannatha
Disappearance Day of Sri Mukunda Datta
Disappearance Day of Sri Sridhar Pandit

Snana Yatra – Bathing Ceremony of Lord Jagannatha
Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“Lord Jagannātha has a number of stalwart servants known as dayitās. These servants do not come from very high-caste families (brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas or vaiśyas), but because they are engaged in the service of the Lord, they have been elevated to a respected position. Thus they are known as dayitās. These servants of Lord Jagannātha take care of the Lord from the day of the Snāna-yātrā up to the time the Lord is carried from the throne to the Ratha car.

In the Kṣetra-māhātmya these dayitās are said to come from the śabaras, a caste that keeps and sells pigs. However, among the dayitās there are also many who come from the brāhmaṇa caste. Those dayitās coming from the brāhmaṇa families are called dayitā-patis, or leaders of the dayitās.

The dayitā-patis offer food such as sweetmeats to Lord Jagannātha during the anavasara, the resting period after Snāna-yātrā. They also make the early morning offering of sweetmeats daily. It is said that during the anavasara Lord Jagannātha suffers from fever and that the dayitā-patis offer Him an infusion of drugs represented by fruit juice. It is said that in the beginning Lord Jagannātha was worshiped by the śabaras and was known as the Deity Nīla Mādhava. Later, when the Deity was established in the temple, the Lord became known as Jagannātha. Because the Deities were taken from the śabaras, all the śabara devotees were elevated to the position of dayitās.”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 13.8, Purport | 1974 Edition)

Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“The word anavasara is used when Śrī Jagannāthajī cannot be seen in the temple. After the bathing ceremony (snāna-yātrā), Lord Jagannātha is supposed to become sick. He is therefore removed to His private apartment, where no one can see Him. Actually, during this period renovations are made on the body of the Jagannātha Deity. This is called nava-yauvana. During the Ratha-yātrā ceremony, Lord Jagannātha once again comes before the public. Thus for fifteen days after the bathing ceremony, Lord Jagannātha is not visible to any visitors.”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 1.122, Purport | 1975 Edition)

Read More: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=30197

Disappearance Day of Sri Mukunda Datta
Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“Śrī Mukunda Datta was born in the Caṭṭagrāma district, in the village of Chanharā, which is under the jurisdiction of the police station named Paṭiyā. This village is situated ten krośas, or about twenty miles, from the home of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi.

In the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (140) it is said:

vraje sthitau gāyakau yau
madhukaṇṭha-madhuvratau
mukunda-vāsudevau tau
dattau gaurāṅga-gāyakau

“In Vraja there were two very nice singers named Madhukaṇṭha and Madhuvrata. They appeared in caitanya-līlā as Mukunda and Vāsudeva Datta, who were singers in the society of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.”

When Lord Caitanya was a student, Mukunda Datta was His class friend, and they frequently engaged in logical arguments. Sometimes Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu would fight with Mukunda Datta, using tricks of logic. This is described in the Caitanya-bhāgavata, Ādi-līlā, Chapters Seven and Eight.

When Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu returned from Gayā, Mukunda Datta gave Him pleasure by reciting verses from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam about Kṛṣṇa-līlā. It was by his endeavor that Gadādhara Paṇḍita Gosvāmī became a disciple of Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi, as stated in Madhya-līlā, Chapter Seven. When Mukunda Datta sang in the courtyard of Śrīvāsa Prabhu, Mahāprabhu danced with his singing, and when Lord Caitanya for twenty-one hours exhibited an ecstatic manifestation known as sāta-prahariyā, Mukunda Datta inaugurated the function by singing.”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 10.40, Purport | 1973 Edition)

Read More: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=30201

Disappearance Day of Sri Sridhar Pandit
Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“In the Caitanya-bhāgavata it is said:

kholāvecā sevakera dekha bhāgya-sīmā
brahmā śiva kāṅde yāra dekhiyā mahimā
dhane jane pāṇḍitye kṛṣṇa nāhi pāi
kevala bhaktira vaśa caitanya-gosāñi

“Behold the great fortune of the devotee Kholāvecā. Lord Brahmā and Śiva shed tears upon seeing his greatness. One cannot attain Lord Kṛṣṇa by any amount of wealth, followers, or learning. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is controlled only by pure devotion.”

Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had a very sincere devotee whose name was Kholāvecā Śrīdhara and whose only business was to sell pots made of the skin of banana trees. Whatever income he had, he used fifty percent for the worship of mother Ganges, and with the other fifty percent he provided for his necessities.

On the whole, he was so very poor that he lived in a cottage that had a broken roof with many holes in it. He could not afford brass utensils, and therefore he drank water from an iron pot. Nevertheless, he was a great devotee of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He is a typical example of how a poor man with no material possessions can become a most exalted devotee of the Lord. The conclusion is that one cannot attain shelter at the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa or Śrī Caitanya Gosāñi through material opulence; that shelter is attainable only by pure devotional service.”
(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.19.7, Purport | 1975 Edition)

Read More: https://harekrishnasociety.org/?p=12952

Hare Krishna

Monday, 09 June 2025 [Mayapur, West Bengal, India Time]
Panihati Chida-Dahi Festival

Panihati Chida-dahi Mahotsav, also known as the Chipped Rice Festival, is a yearly celebration of the pastimes of Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami and Lord Nityananda Prabhu. This astonishing pastime took place on the banks of the Ganges at Panihati, which is approximately a 30-minute drive from Kolkata airport. Lord Caitanya and His associates enjoyed many transcendental pastimes here.

Chida-Dahi Mahotsav remembers how the Lord mercifully reciprocated with His devotees by arranging, through Nityananda Prabhu and Raghunatha dasa, to provide an ecstatic feast of yogurt and chipped rice, along with various other nectar foodstuffs.

Read more about these pastimes in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, Chapter 6: The Meeting of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī (1975 Edition).

Hare Krishna!

EKADASHI REMINDER
Saturday, 07 June 2025 [Mayapur, West Bengal, India Time]

Fasting for Nirjala Ekadashi. Fast 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!

Thursday, 05 June 2025 [Mayapura, West Bengal, India Time]
a) Disappearance Day of Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
b) Appearance Day of Shrimati Gangamata Gosvamini
C) Ganga Puja

a) Disappearance Day of Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
SRILA PRABHUPADA: “So Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, you have seen in my Bhagavad-gītā his name: dedicated to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, who has written the commentary on Brahma-sūtra, Govinda-bhāṣya. Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is our ācārya. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is a fourth-generation ācārya from Lord Caitanya—fourth or fifth. Anyway, he is one of the ācāryas. Just like Gosvāmīs, they are ācāryas; Śrīnivās Ācārya.
So ācārya paramparā, disciplic succession. So Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is also ācārya in this Gauḍīya-sampradāya. So his special gift… Every ācārya means he gives some special things. Previous ācārya has given, and the next ācārya gives something more. That is the symptom of ācārya. In the incarnation also, just like Lord Buddha incarnation. Then Śaṅkarācārya, then Rāmānujācārya, then Madhvācārya then, in this way Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
So every ācārya is giving a further lift. So Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also gave a further lift to this sampradāya. What is that? Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa wrote commentary on Brahma-sūtra, Vedānta-sūtra. Vedānta-sūtra, his Vedānta-sūtra commentary is known as Govinda-bhāṣya, commentary of Govinda”
(Excerpt from Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana Appearance day Lecture on June 14, 1970, Los Angeles)

SRILA PRABHUPADA: “But sometimes back, in Jaipur, there was a challenge that “The Gauḍīya Sampradāya has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra.” So at that time Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura was requested… Because he was grand scholar, grand old man scholar, at that time living in Vṛndāvana… So he was very old at that time; so he authorized Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, that “You do it.” There was no need, but people are demanding, “Where is your commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra?” So Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, with the order of Govindaji at Jaipur, he wrote the commentary on Brahma-sūtra. That name is Govinda-bhāṣya. So the Gauḍīya-Brahmā Sampradāya, they have got also commentary on Brahma-sūtra. That is required.”
(Excerpt from Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 13.8-12 — Bombay, September 30, 1973)

SRILA PRABHUPADA: “Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra available, this is in Sanskrit. But we are describing the same conclusion in our different books. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also the same conclusion is there. You don’t require to read separately, but because the smārta-brāhmaṇas challenged that “You are not Vaidic because you have no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra,” so this Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana gave us the Govinda-bhāṣya.
Of course, other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas like Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, they have given commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. But we Madhva-Gauḍīya sampradāya, we are benedicted by this Baladeva Ācārya prabhu. And his life is that he…, he was…, he appeared in the family of a vaiśya community. His forefathers were agriculturists, but he became a great devotee and great scholar in Sanskrit, and he has got his commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā and Vedānta bhāṣya, and he has written many other books, all in Sanskrit.
So his birthday, appearance day, is today. So it is our duty to commemorate the memory, I mean to say, activities of the ācāryas and offer our respect and ask from them benediction for our progress. That is the system. Therefore we have listed the appearance and disappearance of the ācāryas. We should take advantage of these auspicious dates and offer our respect to the ācāryas.”
(Excerpt from Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana Appearance day Lecture on June 14, 1970, Los Angeles)

b) Appearance Day of Shrimati Gangamata Gosvamini
“Śrī Ananta Ācārya is one of the eternal associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Previously, during the advent of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Ananta Ācārya was Sudevī, one of the eight gopīs. This is stated in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, verse 165, as follows: anantācārya-gosvāmī yā sudevī purā vraje. “Ananta Ācārya Gosvāmī was formerly Sudevī–gopī in Vraja [Vṛndāvana].”
In Jagannātha Purī, or Puruṣottama–kṣetra, there is a monastery known as Gaṅgā–mātā Maṭha that was established by Ananta Ācārya. In the disciplic succession of the Gaṅgā–mātā Maṭha, he is known as Vinoda–mañjarī. One of his disciples was Haridāsa Paṇḍita Gosvāmī, who is also known as Śrī Raghu Gopāla and as Śrī Rāsa–mañjarī. His disciple Lakṣmīpriyā was the maternal aunt of Gaṅgā–mātā, a princess who was the daughter of the King of Puṭiyā. Gaṅgā–mātā brought a Deity of the name Śrī Rasika–rāya from Kṛṣṇa Miśra of Jaipur and installed Him in the house of Sārvabhauma in Jagannātha Purī.
The disciple in the fifth generation after Śrī Ananta Ācārya was Śrī Vanamālī; in the sixth generation, Śrī Bhagavān dāsa, who was a Bengali; in the seventh generation, Madhusūdana dāsa, who was an Oriyā; in the eighth generation, Nīlāmbara dāsa; in the ninth generation, Śrī Narottama dāsa; in the tenth generation, Pītāmbara dāsa; and in the eleventh generation, Śrī Mādhava dāsa. The disciple in the twelfth generation is presently in charge of the Gaṅgā–mātā monastery.
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 8.60, Purport | 1973 Edition)

C) Ganga Puja
This is literally the “descent of mother Ganges – Ganga Ma”. Throughout india this festival lasts ten days beginning on the Amavasya (dark moon night) and going through to the dasami tithi (tenth phase of the Moon, the day before Pandava Nirjal Ekadasi)
“Festivals connected with rivers are essentially bathing festivals. Ganga Dussehra is celebrated on the tenth day of Jyeshtha. River Ganga is worshipped as a mother as well as a Goddess, particularly by people of Uttara Pradesh, Bihar, and Bengal through which the river flows.
To know more about the sacred descent of Mother Ganges, Read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Canto 5, Chapter 17 :The Descent of the River Ganges

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