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.

Truth: Srila Prabhupada did not state he established the ritvik system because he was ill or for the period of his physical presence. This is nothing but speculation that contradicts real evidence that ritvik arrangement was made by Srila Prabhupada for the future, especially after his physical departure.

by Bhakta Alex, Russia.

In 1977, before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada finalized the proxy initiation system in ISKCON to be continued in the future, especially after his passing away. This is proved by May 28, 1977, conversation with GBC members, July 9th,1977 directive, his Final Will, other documents and various testimonies of those who were with Srila Prabhupada in spring, summer and autumn of 1977. However, those who don’t have enough knowledge of this topic or are opposed to Srila Prabhupada’s orders in this regard, reject these orders of the acarya and claim, without any serious proof, that the ritvik initiation system was established by Srila Prabhupada just because he was ill, and it was meant to continue only until his physical departure. E.g. in 1996, Tamala Krishna Goswami, the mastermind of ISKCON coup in the 1970s and a key architect of the zonal acarya system, wrote: 

“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.” (‘The Perils of Succession’, Tamala Krishna Goswami)

This has become a widespread misinterpretation among the anti-ritvik party: 

Maya-ISKCON “guru” Kadamba Kanana Swami: “Yes Srila Prabhupada did write a 9th of July letter. It shows that Srila Prabhupada started a ritvik system at the end of his life, when he was ill and not able to travel.” (KKS Letter, October 11th, 2006)

Kailasa Candra das: “Srila Prabhupada was very ill, so he authorized his rittviks to make some decisions that normally he would have made.” (‘Flaws in the Rittvik Concoction’, circa 2008)

Basu Ghosh das: “there’s just one letter [July 9, 1977], which those old timers, you know, like us, Prabhupada disciples, we know that was because Prabhupada was ill, and he couldn’t give initiations” (maya-ISKCON Indian Continental Committee meeting, 9/7/21)

Maya-ISKCON “guru” Sankarsana das: “The quote from the letter you have cited, which by the way was written by my Godbrother and close associate Tamal Krishna Maharaja on 9 July 1977, describes the system for Srila Prabhupada’s initiating disciples during his last year when he was physically present on this planet and was indisposed due to chronic illness but still accepting disciples.” [January 21st, 2009]

Comment by Krishnakant Desai:

a) The system of initiation set up on the 9th July 1977, now allowed representatives to take over accepting disciples on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf by giving a spiritual name –

“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.”

(July 9th, 1977, directive)

– with the actual initiation ceremonies themselves having already been delegated to Temple Presidents to perform:

“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.”

(July 9th, 1977, directive, emphasis added)

b) Hence the ritvik system could not have been set up because Srila Prabhupada was “indisposed due to chronic illness”, since Srila Prabhupada had not lost the use of his vocal chords or his hearing, and so he could have continued to accept disciples by issuing spiritual names in the same way the ritviks were going to. Rather, the system was set up to allow Srila Prabhupada to continue initiating without the need for his physical presence. (Source: https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/divinity_delusion_sad.html)

An article from ‘Back to Prabhupada’ magazine that refutes the anti-ritvik argument in more detail:

Debunking The Illness Initiation Myth. Back to Prabhupada, Issue 39, Spring 2013

On page 6 we addressed the long-standing myth that Srila Prabhupada had sanctioned non-liberated diksa gurus. Through a detailed analysis, this myth was thoroughly debunked. Another much-repeated myth is the idea that Srila Prabhupada authorised the representational (rtvik) system of initiation only because he was ill. An example of this myth is the following recent GBC statement:

“It is documented that on July 7th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada discussed how devotees who had been waiting for initiation could be initiated during his illness. At that time, Srila Prabhupada named specific senior disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his illness. Two days later, the July 9th letter was written to inform devotees about the July 7 conversation and these instructions of Srila Prabhupada.”

(GBC letter to Bangalore devotees, 9/3/2013)

Below we provide a detailed analysis which thoroughly debunks this myth. The quotes in the shaded boxes are from the July 7th, 1977, room conversation, with all emphases added.

Initiation stoppage

Tamala Krsna: “We’re receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait. […] I mean, one thing is that it’s said that the spiritual master takes on the … You know, he takes on the … He has to cleanse the disciple by … So, we don’t want that you should have to … Your health is not so good, so that should not be … That’s why we’ve been asking everybody to wait […] Some devotees are writing you now for second initiation, and I’m writing them to wait a while because you’re not well.”

Tamala Krsna states:

a) All initiations have been stopped due to the concern of Tamala Krsna and other devotees over Srila Prabhupada’s health (“we don’t want that you should have to”).

b) This concern of theirs is that after the spiritual master takes disciples he has to cleanse them spiritually and Srila Prabhupada’s health may be adversely affected by this task (“that’s why we’ve been asking everybody to wait”).

Initiations resumed

Tamala Krsna: “We’re receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.”

Srila Prabhupada: “The local, mean, senior sannyasis can do that.”

Tamala Krsna: “[…] So should that process be resumed, or should we…? I mean, one thing is that it’s said that the spiritual master takes on the […] That’s why we’ve been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.”

Srila Prabhupada: “No, the senior sannyasis…”

Having heard the health concern for why the initiations were stopped, Srila Prabhupada immediately rejects it and asks that initiations be resumed. He wants to continue initiating, and thus does not accept that his health will not be able to take the effects of continuing to accept disciples.

Last aspect devolved

Tamala Krsna: “That’s what we were doing … I mean, formerly we were … the local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. […] I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.”

Srila Prabhupada: “No, the senior sannyasis […]”

Tamala Krsna: “So supposing someone is in America, should they simply write directly to

Kirtanananda or Satsvarupa?”

Srila Prabhupada: “Nearby.”

Up until this time, as explained above, the initiation system had been largely devolved to the senior sannyasis, with Srila Prabhupada only giving a spiritual name. Srila Prabhupada states that the senior sannyasis can resume the initiation system, and now give the spiritual name as well.

Summary

1. The issue of health was only relevant to why the leaders had stopped initiations.

2. Even then the health issue was not Srila Prabhupada’s physical capacity to continue initiating, but the health effects from spiritually “cleansing” future disciples.

3. These health concerns were rejected and Srila Prabhupada asked that initiations be resumed.

July 9th confirmation

Thus, the July 7th conversation does not document, as the GBC falsely claimed, that the rtvik system was set up by Srila Prabhupada only to initiate devotees “during his illness”. Further, the July 9th directive, which sets out the rtvik system of initiating on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, makes zero mention that the system was set up only for during Srila Prabhupada’s illness. Indeed, it makes no mention of Srila Prabhupada’s illness at all. Rather, it only states that the system is for all initiations generally — “for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation”. Ironically, here the GBC are defeated by their own statement. They claimed that “the July 9 letter was written to inform devotees about the July 7th conversation and these instructions of Srila Prabhupada.” Since the July 9th directive makes no mention of the illness theory, they have to accept, by their own reasoning, that the July 7th conversation does not either!

Unable to perform yajna

Over 3 months later, Srila Prabhupada was unable to perform a fire yajna for someone who had travelled all the way from New York to Mayapur to be personally initiated by Srila Prabhupada, and in response Srila Prabhupada states:

“So, deputies, Jayapataka’s name was there? […] So I depute him to do this at Mayapur, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. […] And if by Krsna’s grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.”

(Srila Prabhupada, Room Conversation, 18/10/1977)

The “stopping” here cannot refer to the representational (rtvik) system of initiation, since:

a) The representational system of initiation had already been running for over 3 months and had never been stopped.

b) Srila Prabhupada asks one of the rtviks, Jayapataka, to perform the initiation on his behalf.

So, the stopping and beginning again refer only to Srila Prabhupada physically performing initiation ceremonies himself, with initiations on his behalf continuing normally.

Conclusion

Hence, it is not that the representational initiation system was set up because of Srila Prabhupada’s illness. Rather, the leaders had stopped the initiations because of their concern for Srila Prabhupada’s health, and Srila Prabhupada rejected this health concern and simply asked that initiations be immediately resumed. (End of article) 

One evidence anti-ritviks may extrapolate their opinion from is the following message given in Bhaktivedanta Book Trust’s newsletter by Ramesvara Swami dated June 20th 1977 (before the July discussions):

“We have received one letter from Tamal Krsna Maharaja who discussed the question of new requests for first and second initiation with Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada told Tamal Krsna that he does not want to consider any requests until his health has returned. Tamal Krsna Maharaja requested that I inform all the GBC members to instruct their temples to hold all requests for initiation until further notice.” 

However, if we carefully look at this message, we will see the following:

1. In the second half of June 1977, initiation requests were postponed until Srila Prabhupada’s health was improved. But this in itself doesn’t prove what anti-ritviks claim: that the system of ritvik initiations, formalized later in July 1977, was introduced only because of Srila Prabhupada’s illness and was intended only until physical departure of the acarya. This is not stated in the above letter.

2. This evidence is not signed by Srila Prabhupada, and it is not an audio recording. Where is the tape of the conversation? Why was it among the many audio recordings from 1977 that disappeared under Tamal’s care? This means Tamal could have incorrectly reported what was actually said in June since he is proven mastermind of the coup that was already secretly being prepared by him and carried out at that time- in summer of 1977. He may have distorted or omitted important aspects mentioned by Srila Prabhupada. Thus, at present moment, this document is just a third hands retelling (Srila Prabhupada-Tamal-Ramesvara) not confirmed by Srila Prabhupada’s recorded words or signature.

3. This message from Tamal to Ramesvara doesn’t look to fit in with the conversation on July 7th 1977, when Tamal said that “we” do not want Srila Prabhupada to get the burden of karma of new disciples during illness, but Srila Prabhupada replied “no”, rejecting the idea that initiations should not be conducted because of his health. Srila Prabhupada said to resume initiations, and to send new letters with requests for initiations to the nearest “senior sannyasi”/ritvik, 9 of whom he named during this July 7th conversation. Srila Prabhupada didn’t emphasize anywhere that all this was introduced only for the period of illness of his body. For some reason, there is no reference or hint in July 7th conversation to the decision allegedly made in June. But even if the document quoted above correctly stated Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, then in this case it was a temporary solution “until further notice”, and later, in July 1977, this decision was changed. 

4. What exact participation on the part of Srila Prabhupada was meant in June 20th newsletter? If it was meant his personal physical involvement in initiation procedures, it was postponed but then solved by the ritvik system: his personal participation was difficult or impossible at that time, but his remaining the spiritual master who delivers transcendental knowledge, taking spiritual charge of the disciple up to his/her spiritual liberation cannot be checked by physical difficulties, and his representatives would continue doing the formal part of initiations on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. This arrangement, unlike Srila Prabhupada’s personal participation in yajna, etc., was possible regardless Srila Prabhupada’s health condition. Why could it continue until Srila Prabhupada physical departure only if all the physical ceremonial aspects of initiation were anyway devolved to ritviks?  

5. In the beginning of the July 9th 1977, directive that officially introduced the ritvik initiation system in ISKCON there is reference to GBC meeting at Vrindavana when during May 28th, 1977, conversation GBC members asked Srila Prabhupada questions about initiations after his physical departure. His Divine Grace replied he would appoint ritviks. The July 9th directive also gives information from July 7th, 1977, discussion (9 of the first 11 ritviks were named on July 7). It is also based on other instructions from Srila Prabhupada (names of 2 ritviks not mentioned on July 7, and probably conversations held before May 28, 1977, about ritviks, etc.).

However, on the July 9th directive and private letters written by Tamal (as Srila Prabhupada’s secretary) during the same period to some ritviks (Kirtanananda, Hamsaduta, Harikesa), absolutely nothing is said that this system is being introduced for reasons related to Srila Prabhupada’s health and only for the period until his physical departure. In these letters, Tamal wrote vaguely “henceforward”, “in the future”, trying to avoid any direct mention that this system is being introduced “particularly” for the period when Srila Prabhupada is “no longer with us” (as per May 28th 1977, conversation). However, Srila Prabhupada’s Final Will confirms that in the future, all executive directors of all ISKCON properties, even their “successors”, must be “my initiated disciple[s]” (which is possible only if the ritvik initiations on behalf of Srila Prabhupada are to be maintained), and no successor gurus are appointed in the Will.

6. There are a number of testimonies that confirm that Srila Prabhupada ordered ritvik-representational system of initiations for the period of his departure. 

Gauridas Pandit Das, one of Srila Prabhupada’s personal servants in 1977: “The next few days after the ritvic appointments I heard more instructions from Srila Prabhupada. Tamal K.G. asked him the next morning, July 8th, if there should be vyasasana’s for the ritviks in the temples. Srila Prabhupada said, “No; that would create enmity among my disciples.” […] Tamal K.G. also asked Srila Prabhupada if there could be more ritviks in the future. Srila Prabhupada said that more could be appointed by the GBC at Mayapura. Tamal K.G. asked Srila Prabhupada what to do if a ritvik falls down and Srila Prabhupada replied that the GBC could remove them. […] I told some of the devotees what I heard about this and Yasodanandan wrote it down in his diary.

On July 8th Yasodanandan Prabhu wrote, “Tamal Krishna Maharaja was talking about [with Prabhupada] rtvik gurus to initiate on behalf of Prabhupada after he leaves the planet.” On July 9th Yasodanandan wrote, “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.”

On July 10th Yasodanandan wrote, “Tamal Krishna Maharaja comes out of Prabhupada’s room.

TKG: “Haribol, Yasoda, did you see this?”

Yasoda: “No, what is it?”

TKG: “This is signed by Prabhupada.”

Yasoda: “What does all this mean?”

TKG: “Devotees have been writing to Prabhupada asking for initiations and now Prabhupada has named eleven ritviks who can initiate on his behalf. Prabhupada said others can be added.”

Yasodanandan: “And when Prabhupada departs?”

TKG: “They’ll be ritviks. That’s what Prabhupada said. It’s all on tape.”

(R.C.5-28-77 & 7-7-77etc.)” (On My Behalf, by Gauridasa Pandita Dasa, 01/19/98, VNN)

According to the testimony of Cyavana Swami Srila Prabhupada said, “I will continue to accept disciples and give them my blessings even after I am no longer physically present, you may initiate them on my behalf”. To that he added, “I will have millions of disciples”… (Posted by HH Cyavana Swami on his Facebooks page on September 7, 2016)

Pita das recollected in 1998, “The fact of the matter was Srila Prabhupada made himself very clear on how new devotees coming into his movement were to be accepted into it after his disappearance. The word ritvik was first heard by me from Srila Prabhupada’s Lotus mouth and His Divine Grace used the term many times during his last two weeks in Vrindaban. I remember this clearly because I didn’t know what a ritvik was.” (from ‘Srila Prabhupada Coined the Term Ritvik’, December 1, 1998, VNN).

Locanananda das: “One other thing he [Pita das] mentioned in the same letter [to Locanananda] was that he heard Srila Prabhupada say at least a dozen times in Vrndavana in 1977 that initiations would be performed after his departure by the ‘ritvik acharya'”. (‘Srila Prabhupada Hidden Glories’, book 1, chapter 63, pg. 343)

7. Of course, Srila Prabhupada’s severe health crisis in May 1977 incited formalizing the ritvik-representative system for the future, but not just until his physical departure, like anti-ritviks claim. It was Srila Prabhupada’s divine arrangement for the future of his movement, especially after his disappearance. Proxy initiation system had already been de facto practiced in ISKCON throughout the world during 1970s since it wasn’t possible for Srila Prabhupada to examine and personally initiate all the ever-growing number of disciples in each temple, and this factor alone could have caused finalizing the ritvik system in some time even if Srila Prabhupada wouldn’t get ill. Srila Prabhupada wrote in 1973:

“Just now I have received some more requests for giving first initiation from Dhananjaya, and now I am receiving weekly not less than ten to fifteen such requests from new students. So, it is becoming very expensive to send so many sets of beads such long distance, and it has become little bothersome for me also, so I think now you may be appointed by me to give first initiations to new disciples by chanting on their beads on my behalf. In America Kirtanananda Swami is going that. So now if there are two of you that will give me great relief. 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. Is that all right? I shall continue to deal with the matter of second initiations. The sacred threads do not require so much postage to send airmail.” (SP Letter to: Revatinandana — Bombay 4 January 1973)

So, at some point, due to even more increased number of temples and disciples, the second initiation and other remaining aspects of initiation procedure would take too much time as well, even if Srila Prabhupada would remain perfectly healthy. So, Srila Prabhupada made arrangements to remain the current spiritual master for his worldwide movement, not necessarily due to illness alone. 

8. Thus, neither the above quoted message in the BBT newsletter, nor the subsequent conversation dated July 7th, 1977, nor the July 9th, 1977 directive, nor the Will of June 4th, 1977, nor personal letters to first ritviks, etc. – nowhere does actual evidence prove what anti-ritviks claim: that the representative initiation system was introduced only for the period of Srila Prabhupada’s illness. Srila Prabhupada himself does not state this anywhere. Why do anti-ritviks insist on something they have no solid evidence of? Is this a serious approach? No, this is just their interpretation based on their unwillingness to understand and follow the real instructions of Srila Prabhupada.

In conclusion: Srila Prabhupada established the ritvik initiation system for the future, particularly when he is no longer with us. But some individuals don’t want to accept the acarya’s order. So, what they are left with? With the argument, “Yes, he set this system, but only temporary, until his physical departure”. And why temporary, until the departure, when the actual orders don’t state this at all, but indicate the future after the departure as well? So, they can only indulge in wishful thinking, “Oh, until departure because he was ill”. And then continue to state this dogmatic opinion countless times, as if it in itself constitutes a proof. How can one terminate the acarya’s order on such a shaky basis and then introduce a completely different system of new diksa gurus whom Srila Prabhupada never authorized in this capacity and never gave descriptions of the new multiple guru system in ISKCON?

So, this anti-ritvik argument is a speculation and myth, because Srila Prabhupada never stated anywhere in the recorded evidence that representational initiation system is introduced only due to his illness and only until his physical departure. Sincere devotees should be careful not to blindly accept and then not to repeat this bogus argument introduced by some deviated persons.

Truth: Srila Prabhupada didn’t sanction this, and it’s he who is the current acarya.

By Bhakta Alex (Russia).

One teacher of maya-ISKCON’s Mayapur Institute wrote against Srila Prabhupada’s ritvik system, “If I was to be given a choice to get diksa from a guru not present on the planet, then I would probably accept Srila Rupa Gosvami”. Another person wrote: “Then what is the difficulty to accept initiation directly from Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Or from Brahma, Narada? What is the hindrance?” There are many similar statements from those who don’t accept Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding initiations in ISKCON. But this argument can easily be defeated as follows:

1. Although it’s potentially possible to get darsana (spiritual audience) of any previous acarya, as they are eternal souls, still there is a general rule: one must take initiation from the spiritual master who is current link of bona fide Vaisnava guru parampara (disciplic succession of spiritual masters). Srila Prabhupada, not any previous acarya, is the current bona fide link after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. And Srila Prabhupada didn’t authorize any guru successor(s) but said that he would continue as ISKCON’s initiating guru and the formal part of initiations would be assisted by ritvik representatives. Some quotes:

“As already stated, Brahmā is the original spiritual master for the universe, and since he was initiated by the Lord Himself, the message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession. After being initiated by the proper spiritual master in that chain of succession, one should engage himself in the discharge of tapasya in the execution of devotional service. One should not, however, think himself on the level of Brahmā to be initiated directly by the Lord…” (Srimad-Bhagvatam 2.9.7, purport)

“So, if you want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we must understand in the same way as the person who directly heard from. This is called paramparā system. Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So, this is paramparā system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called paramparā system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next ācārya, immediate next ācārya.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.15.30 — Los Angeles, December 8, 1973)

“Lord Brahmā is the guru of Nārada Muni, who is the guru of Vyāsadeva, and Vyāsadeva is the guru of Madhvācārya. Thus, the Gauḍīya-Mādhva-sampradāya is in the disciplic succession from Nārada Muni. […] The immediate spiritual master is the representative of Nārada Muni; there is no difference between the instructions of Nārada Muni and those of the present spiritual master. Both Nārada Muni and the present spiritual master speak the same teachings of Kṛṣṇa” (Srimad-bhagvatam 6.5.22, purport)

Prabhupāda: …Then he knows that Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa, is the original (indistinct). It is a question of knowing, and knowing through the direct current via media-guru. Otherwise, he remains in darkness. (Discussions with Syamasundara Dasa: Bertrand Russell)

“You have rightly observed that I am simply trying to execute the order of my Spiritual Master. Whatever is being done it is not on account of my intelligence or endeavor because I am simply an instrument in the hands of my Spiritual Master. I do not know how far I have got the capacity to carry His order, but I may say that I have a sincere desire to do it. This is Parampara system. If a student tries to satisfy his immediate Acarya or the Spiritual Master, that is the only qualification for advancing in Krsna consciousness.” (SP Letter to: Paramananda — Los Angeles 17th June 1970)

2. So, one who studies Srila Prabhupada’s instructions gets clear understanding that one should accept immediate, current link of sampradaya, not that we should accept directly Krsna, Brahma, Narada, Caitanya, Rupa, etc. as our diksa guru. Not that it is the custom to accept some past acarya, let’s says third link previous to current link. Everyone is encouraged to accept the current acarya of parampara. And that current acarya in our lineage is Srila Prabhupada himself since he proved to be real acarya and confirmed that he is current, present link of sampradaya and didn’t appoint any successor or established any system of future diksa gurus in ISKCON but instead ordered ritvik-representatives system to continue for the future, even “when he is no longer with us”.

“Krsna Consciousness Handbook” (ISKCON Press, 1970), approved by Srila Prabhupada, explains the position of His Divine Grace, “Present acarya of Krsna consciousness and founder of ISKCON”. There are many similar statements in original ISKCON literature that Srila Prabhupada is the current spiritual master (and zero mentions of any other acaryas of ISKCON, present or future).

Srila Prabhupada himself said that he is “the Acharya of the present Gaudiya Sampradaya” after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur (room conversation, January 19th 1976, Mayapur). And Srila Prabhupada didn’t cancel this position in his last directives, letters, conversations or purports to Srimad Bhagavatam, even when he was asked by reporters in 1975-76 if he is going to appoint a successor. E.g.:     

Prabhupāda: After one month I will be eighty.

Reporter (1): Eighty?

Prabhupāda: Eighty years old.

Reporter (2): What will happen…

Prabhupāda: I was born in 1896, now you can calculate.

Reporter (2): What will happen to the movement in the United States when you die?

Prabhupāda: I will never die.

Devotees: Jaya! Hari bol! (laughter)

Prabhupāda: I shall live for my books, and you will utilize.

Reporter (2): Are you training a successor?

Prabhupāda: Yes, my Guru Mahārāja is there. Where is my photo of Guru Mahārāja? I think… Here is. (Press Conference — July 16th 1975, San Francisco)

Interviewer: What happens when that inevitable time comes when a successor is needed?

Rāmeśvara: He is asking about the future, who will guide the movement in the future.

Prabhupāda: They will guide. I am training them.

Interviewer: Will there be one spiritual leader, though?

Prabhupāda: NO, I AM TRAINING GBC, eighteen all over the world.

Rāmeśvara: His personal secretaries.

Interviewer: I see.

Rāmeśvara: To see that the original teachings that Prabhupāda has given are not in any way changed.

Interviewer: Well, nothing more? Then ah, thank you, and I wish you well in your travels. (Magazine Interview — June 10th 1976, Los Angeles)

Guest (2): What do you see as the future of your movement and are you planning to…

Prabhupāda: My movement is genuine.

Guest (2): …to choose a successor.

Prabhupāda: It is already successful. Genuine thing is always success. Gold is gold. If somebody is fortunate, he can purchase gold, but gold remains gold. If somebody purchases and somebody does not, it doesn’t matter. Gold is gold. So future, gold future is always the same as it is at present—if it is gold. If it is something glittering, that is another thing.

Guest (4): But there must be somebody, you know, needed to handle the thing.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle.

Hanumān: One thing he’s saying, this gentleman, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will…

Prabhupāda: My success is always there. Yes. Just like the sun is there always. It may come before your vision or not. The sun is there. But if you are fortunate, you come before the sun. Otherwise you remain in darkness. (Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, other Guests and Disciples — February 12th, 1975, Mexico)

In his article “SOME OBSERVANCES ON THE LATTER-DAY GURUS A Rational and Ethical View of Guru Since Prabhupada’s Departure” Rohini Kumar Swami wrote:

“At our center at 26th Second Ave., Srila Prabhupada, when asked who would be the next acarya after him stated, “There will not be any more acaryas.”

This article was written in 1985 and included as Appendix 8 of Sulocana Dasa’s book “The Guru Business” (1986), and in that book Sulocana mentions that this conversation, according to Rohini Kumar Swami, occurred in 1968 in New York.

Another disciple of Srila Prabhupada, Pradyumna Dasa, wrote in his letter to GBC chairman Satsvarupa das Gosvami dated August 7th 1978:

“At the time of Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, it was most clearly understood by all of us present that Srila Prabhupada had made no successor. Everyone admitted that fact and understood it clearly. Instead, the GBC was to jointly manage all affairs of ISKCON just as had been the case previously”.

According to the testimony of Cyavana Swami Srila Prabhupada said, “I will continue to accept disciples and give them my blessings even after I am no longer physically present, you may initiate them on my behalf”. To that he added, “I will have millions of disciples”… (Posted by HH Cyavana Swami on his Facebooks page on September 7th 2016).

There are other similar testimonies consistent with documented evidence. On May 28th 1977, Srila Prabhupada said to GBC delegation that in the future particularly when he is “no longer with us”, he would appoint “ritviks” and confirmed that future disciples would be his disciples. That was further confirmed in the July 9th 1977 letter to all GBCs and Temple Presidents (the final directive on future initiations in ISKCON), “The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”

Disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples would be possible if he would have ordered them so (it was mentioned by Srila Prabhupada on April 22nd, 1977, May 28th, 1977, etc.) But there was no such order although on October 2nd 1977, Srila Prabhupada said that he had given everything in writing: “I have given in writing everything, whatever you wanted—my will, my executive(?) power, everything.” Srila Prabhupada’s final will also doesn’t mention any future spiritual successors but confirms that even successors to ISKCON property trustees/executive directors must be “my initiated disciple” and that the system of management shouldn’t change, and the GBC will be managerial authority.

There are numerous evidences both documented and testimonial that Srila Prabhupada clearly wanted to remain the initiating guru for his movement even after his physical departure, and ceremonial aspect of initiation should be conducted by temple presidents and official ritviks (to be “added as necessary”, according to TKG Confession, December 3rd 1980, citing Srila Prabhupada’s instruction). History and evidence show that Srila Prabhupada didn’t authorize neither zonal acarya system, nor voting in many diksa gurus by GBC managers and regional bodies, nor that we should wait for any self-effulgent successor acarya to be emerged in ISKCON any time soon. Srila Prabhupada didn’t give any details of the current multiple diksa guru system in maya-ISKCON.     

Therefore, His Divine Grace is still the current immediate acarya for his movement, and so called “ISKCON gurus” or other self-made diksa gurus are not real links, they have no solid standing as current spiritual masters, representatives of God Himself. No proof of their legitimacy and lots of proofs they are bogus. Then how can one call those non-liberated, non-authorized “gurus” with innumerous deviations, failures and crimes, as proved by history, as current links of Brahma Madhva Gaudiya sampradaya? It’s not honest and rational. So sastra, previous acaryas and Srila Prabhupada advice to avoid and reject bogus gurus.   

Prabhupada: You have to follow the paramparā system, order. That is guru. Not that I declare myself as guru. No. That is not guru. […] Ār nā koriho mane āśā. Simply whatever you hear from the guru, try to execute it. Ār nā koriho mane āśā. Do not expect anything more. So, whatever we are chanting, we are reading, we must realize that. The Gauḍīya Maṭha institution became a failure on account of disobedience and not following the orders. Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s statement about the verse vyavasāyātmikā buddhir—find out this verse from the Bhagavad-gītā. The Caitanya-caritāmṛta statement, āmāra: one can become guru by the superior order. (Room conversation, May 30th 1976, Honolulu)

3. Neither Srila Prabhupada, nor any previous acarya gave any order to conduct initiations within ISKCON or among followers of Srila Prabhupada on behalf of previous links of parampara. For example, Srila Rupa Gosvami was never founder and/or current initiating guru in ISKCON, and he didn’t give permission to Srila Prabhupada’s followers to take shelter of him (Rupa Gosvami) as diksa disciples. Then how can one so liberally equate previous acaryas with Srila Prabhupada in this sense?

“There is no record anywhere of Srila Prabhupada ever giving an order to go and take initiation from Rupa Goswami.” (Yasoda nandana das, 30th October 2023)

4. Srila Prabhupada, the founder and spiritual master of ISKCON and current link of the sampradaya, did gave clear orders that he himself would remain initiating spiritual master for his ISKCON movement. And we should “simply try to execute the order” of His Divine Grace. This is plain and simple for any honest person. That’s the main point – Srila Prabhupada gave orders for ritvik initiations system to be followed in the future and that new followers of ISKCON should become his initiated disciples even when he would no longer be with us. Not that his manifested body is not present anymore, and thus someone just whimsically decided to approach Srila Prabhupada who has supposedly become a previous acarya, while acknowledging that there are some other current acaryas/diksa gurus in ISKCON. Anti-ritviks just make thoughtless/unfair mish-mash and try to present that this is the ridiculous position of Prabhupadanugas, while it is their argument that is actually off point.

In conclusion: Srila Prabhupada’s followers should become his initiated disciples, as per his orders and his position of current acarya, and not try to “jump over” to previous gurus or to accept pseudo-successors.