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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much. (devotees offer obeisances)

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

Prabhupāda: Yes.

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

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

Śyāmasundara: Did Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura take sannyāsa in later years?

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

Śyāmasundara: Any other questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prabhupāda: No, you have to associate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEDICATED TO

The Sacred Service

of

SRILA SACCIDANANDA BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA

Who Initiated The Teachings of Lord Caitanya

in

The Western World

(McGill University, Canada)

in 1896

The Year of My Birth

A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamala Krsna: Twenty-three.

[…]

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Krishnakant prabhu:

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

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

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

Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.

(Room conversation, May 28th, 1977)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submit your heartfelt tributes to

yasoda1008@yahoo.com

[Yasoda nandana das]

Deadline: Tuesday, 12th August 2025

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

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satsvarūpa: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear.

The above version doesn’t make it clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Srila Prabhupada again pauses.

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

5. Srila Prabhupada IGNORES him and CONTINUES SPEAKING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@harekrishnasociety?si=tESP0az0SIw92hDi

Connect with us:
1) On our Website ↓https://harekrishnasociety.org/
2) On Facebook ↓  https://www.facebook.com/groups/prabhupadadisciples/?ref=share&mibextid=NSMWBThttps://www.facebook.com/HareKrishnaSocietyOfficial?mibextid=ZbWKwL
3) On Instagram ↓https://www.instagram.com/harekrishnasocietyofficial?igsh=a3F1ZmtuOXJnZHFx
4) On WhatsApp ↓https://chat.whatsapp.com/JevdrxyE15R9xdEOGWHsUC
5) Join our email list for meeting invitations ↓https://a9839b59.sibforms.com/serve/MUIEACAt6IiCzPaud6-iTBrMIcSNDAZrmfuHS6gBm8jsTlj2ERgTV5PrCrMC7u4LlDeI22Bl5Z4QMDLitOyxFSN8iexv02GWxNm-bgi4V81WM3TjAZ0gkD9WKJnjr8FSE_OR8djOkWbbcJwkYAOUfNXRAAbwHhXXequzlDa1Jg3Kuerw6e9V5tG2TaN3BH2lTFkXoM6Kwc1CIIr1
Hare Krishna ♫♪

MISSION STATEMENT

Hare Krishna Society/Prabhupada Disciples Association [HKS/PDA]

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Founder-Acharya of the Krishna Consciousness Movement

Prabhupada Disciples Association devotees are followers and devotees of Śrīla Prabhupāda around the world, who have accepted Śrīla Prabhupāda as the center of ISKCON, following His system of initiation as outlined in his written July 9^th, 1977, directive, addressed to all GBC and Temple Presidents.

Basic fundamental points of Worldwide Hare Krishna Society/Prabhupada Disciples Association [HKS/PDA]

1. Śrīla Prabhupāda is the current acharya and diksha guru [initiating spiritual master] of the Krishna Consciousness Movement and ISKCON based upon the only system which he used, practiced, taught and established with complete detail and clarity over a dozen years and finalized/confirmed in his written directive and ritvik order on July 9th of 1977.

2. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s unrevised, original, first edition books are the basis of the Krishna Consciousness movement and ISKCON. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s serious followers and disciples should use these books for reading, preaching and study, and whenever available for book distribution.

3. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original method of offering āratika to the deities, which he taught, instructed, practiced and demonstrated during His manifested presence, should be the method practiced, taught and followed by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s followers, disciples, students and new devotees. The original method of offering bhoga to the deities, as he taught, instructed, practiced and demonstrated during his manifested presence should be the method practiced and followed by all serious new Prabhupāda followers and disciples.

4. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s and the photographs of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s authorized predecessor ācāryas, as practiced and demonstrated by Śrīla Prabhupāda, must be the only ones on the altars and preaching centers of all serious new and seasoned Śrīla Prabhupāda followers and disciples.

5. The jaya dhvani [respectful obeisances] prayers at the end of the kīrtana should be recited starting with praṇāmas to Śrīla Prabhupāda and the predecessor ācāryas, and continuing with the other standard authorized praṇāmas taught by Śrīla Prabhupāda.

6. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original method of offering praṇāmas [respectful obeisances] to him by reciting audibly nāma oṁ vishnu paḍaya and namaste sārasvate deve should be practiced by reciting audibly by all serious Prabhupāda followers and disciples. No other praṇāmas should be chanted other than the praṇām mantras for Śrīla Prabhupāda.

7. Śrīla Prabhupāda is the pure Vaiṣṇava who is meditated on when singing Śrī Gurvastakam,

8. In the list of disciplic succession given by Śrīla Prabhupāda, His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda is number ’32’, with no need for a ‘33’ as a link to ‘32’”,

9. The term “my guru or my spiritual master’ refers to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda.

nama oṁ viṣṇu-pādāya kṛṣṇa-preṣṭhāya bhū-tale
śrīmate bhaktivedānta-svāmin iti nāmine

namas te sārasvate deve gaura-vāṇī-pracāriṇe
nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi-pāścātya-deśa-tāriṇe

I offer my respectful obeisances unto His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, who is very dear to Lord Kṛṣṇa, having taken shelter at His lotus feet.

Our respectful obeisances are unto you, O spiritual master, servant of Sarasvatī Gosvāmī. You are kindly preaching the message of Lord Caitanyadeva and delivering the Western countries, which are filled with impersonalism and voidism.

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What actually happened I’ll explain. I explained it, but the interpretation is wrong. What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons, and they went to Prabhupada, five or six of us. [This refers to the May 28th 1977, conversation]. We asked him, ‘Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.

Satsvarūpa: So, they may be considered your disciples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TKG: whose disciples are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Sri Caitanya-caritamrita’ states:

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

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

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

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

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: …but not now.

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

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Not rubber stamp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The conversation is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus:

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

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

(From email, August 29th 2003)

Section 4:

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

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

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

12. Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple…

13. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.

14. Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. His granddisciple…

15. Satsvarūpa: Yes.

16. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear. (?)

17. Satsvarūpa: Then we have a question concer…

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

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

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