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)