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)

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa

yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa

[Cc. Madhya 7.128]

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

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

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

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

By Bhakta Alex

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

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

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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“SECTION 3.3 & 3.4 (p19-21)

Not Appointed

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

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

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

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

Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p20

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

EVASION

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

Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p20

Manoeuvres

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

Honorific

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

The following excerpts from sastra demonstrate this quite clearly:

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

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

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

Definition of Ritvik

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

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

SGS (OUP 1927) 79b

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

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

Sivarama Swami – Continuing the Parampara p19

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

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

Interchangeable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear Evidence

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

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

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

(Room Conversation July 8th 1977)

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

(Letter July 9th, 1977)

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

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

(Letter July 10th, 1977)

Conclusive Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2:

Let’s continue the analysis of the conversation:

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

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

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

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