Quote1: "Just like I am working so my guru maharaja is there...to serve the master's word is more important than to serve physically." This cannot be taken as evidence for the ritvik version as SP is not talking about initiation- only serving the spiritual masters order (vani). For SP's initiation, Bhaktisiddhanta was present.(vapuh). Same with these quotes:

Quote 2:"Who will succeed you when you die?"

SP: "I will never die...I will live forever in my books and you will utilize"

Niscala dasi has inadvertently employed above a classic 'straw man' argument. If she were to go back and carefully re-read the paper 'GBC Heresies' she will see that we do not use these quotes as direct evidence for the ritvik position. Rather we use them to show that Srila Prabhupada's physical presence is not required in order to give instructions - and in this way these quotes simply eliminate one of the most common objections to the ritvik position. So often the GBC claim that the guru must be physically present in order to act, yet these quotes prove the opposite. That is our only point in using them, as is clear from the paper in question. Proof of the actual ritvik system is in legal documents such as the July 9th directive and Srila Prabhupada’s Final Will.

Quote 3: "Sometimes a spiritual master is not properly authorized to initiate, and only on his own initiative becomes spiritual master" But Srila Prabhupada did give authorization:

"I want all of my disciples to become spiritual master"

"Whoever follows can lead"

Whether that means as siksa or diksa guru is simply dependent on qualification and function."

Of course the issue of whether or not Srila Prabhupada authorised his disciples to be Diksa Gurus has been covered extensively in 'The Final Order' and our other many papers. In summary Srila Prabhupada states:

a) 'Best Not To Accept Disciples" - (CC:7:130) - when explaining the instruction from Lord Chaitanya to 'become guru'.

b) Virtually all of the instructions to become guru are not time-dependent as they would need to be if they referred to diksa guru - that is they do not specifically speak of becoming guru after Srila Prabhupada's departure.

etc. etc.

Please refer to the paper - 'Best Not To Accept Disciples' - where this issued is covered in depth. The paper is on our web-site. If after reading this paper you still have questions please let us know.

"Quote 4: "A spiritual master in the disciplic succession...does not deviate at all from the instructions..."

How is this to be taken? That it is impossible for a guru to fall down, as you have suggested? Then why did Narahari and Bhaktivinode write about it? "

In trying to understand Srila Prabhupada's teachings we are instructed to not 'jump over' to the previous acaryas. Instead one must understand Srila Prabhupada's instructions from Srila Prabhupada himself. If you have any quotes from *Srila Prabhupada* where he speaks of the bona-fide spiritual master in the disciplic succession falling down - we would love to see them. We have many to the contrary. The fact that you have had to resort to try and quote others rather than Srila Prabhupada would indicate that you do not have any supporting quotes from our immediate authority. This fact alone should be troubling to you.

"Even if you get these pretenders to initiate "on behalf of Srila Prabhupada" instead of on their own behalf, how is it going to change their hearts and make them honest people."

We are not interested in instituting the ritvik system as some method to make the 'pretenders into honest people’. We are doing it simply because that is what Srila Prabhupada ordered. To carry out the instructions of the Guru has to be our first priority - without which there is no question of spiritual life.

Finally we would like to end by agreeing with the following statement by Niscala prabhu:

"Who is cheating, I may ask, Kundali who responds to my doubts with logic and sastra, or the ritviks who either couldn't be bothered or can't because they're cheating?"

We are glad that you agree that if one does not reply with logic and sastra then it is a sign of cheating. As you will see from the latest exchange between Kundali and the IRM, Kundali has made it clear he cannot be bothered to reply to our points, and instead simply explains why he does not need to reply. We hope you are honest enough to apply your standards of cheating to 'Kundali', and either demand he replies to our specific points, or reject him as a cheater.

We are sorry once more that we did not answer your questions earlier, and if you still have any doubts please write to us through our newsletter address:

adri@cwcom.net, or through the website as before.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada

Thank you.

IRM