VNN Editorial - Point By Point Refutation Of TFO

EDITORIAL

March 20, 1999 VNN3369 See Related VNN Stories

Point By Point Refutation Of TFO

BY JAHNU DAS

EDITORIAL, Mar 20 (VNN) — TFO:
"It would certainly have been entirely out of character for Srila Prabhupada to leave an important issue, such as the future of initiation in his cherished society, up in the air, ambiguous, or in any way open to debate or speculation."

Reply:
If this statement is correct what then is the basis for saying that Srila Prabhupada changed his own teachings on Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta with one word - henceforward? With this statement TFO defeats itself from the very beginning and also ignores the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"This is particularly so in light of what happened to his own spiritual master's mission, which, as he would often point out, was destroyed largely through the operation of an unauthorized guru system."

Reply:
This is a half-truth. The "unauthorized guru system" mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in this Connection is a guru system that is not managed by a GBC.

"He [Srila Bhaktisiddhanta] never asked anybody to become acarya. He asked that 'You form a governing body of twelve men and go on preaching. . . .' None, none of them were advised by Guru Maharaja to become acarya. His idea was 'Let them manage; then whoever will be actually qualified for becoming acarya, they will elect. Why I should enforce upon them?' That was his plan. 'Let them manage by strong governing body, as it is going on. Then acarya will come by his qualifications.'" (Conversation, Bombay 9/21/73)

TFO:
"Immediately after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, on November 14th 1977, the GBC suspended this ritvik system."

Reply:
Which was in line with Srila Prabhupada's instructions in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"By Gaurapurnima 1978, the 11 ritviks had assumed the roles of zonal acarya diksa gurus, initiating disciples on their own behalf."

Reply:
'Zonal acarya' is an anachronism. The term did not come into use until the reform movement. Otherwise, the GBC was acting according to the instructions they had received from Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Their mandate for doing so was an alleged order from Srila Prabhupada that they alone were to succeed him as initiating acaryas. Some years later this zonal acarya system was itself challenged and replaced, not by the restoration of the ritvik system, but by the addition of dozens more gurus, along with an elaborate system of checks and balances to deal with those that deviated; the rationale for this change being that the order to become guru was not, as we had first been told, only applicable to the 11, but was a general instruction for anyone who strictly followed, and received a two-thirds majority vote from the GBC body. The above account is not a political opinion, it is historical fact, accepted by everyone, including the GBC ."

Reply:
Here TFO is begging the question by saying, "not by the restoration of the ritvik system," as if the ritvik system, as imagined by the ritvikvadis, had ever been established. As we have seen in DOMD, Srila Prabhupada didn't conceive of the word ritvik in the same way, as they would have us believe. Srila Prabhupada accepted the term 'ritvik-acarya' to denote someone who would be initiating his grand-disciples; hence he could not take 'ritvik' to mean a proxy-guru who, on his behalf, initiates devotees into becoming his disciples.

TFO:
"As mentioned above, the July 9th letter was sent to all GBCs and Temple Presidents, and remains to this day the only signed instruction on the future of initiation Srila Prabhupada ever issued to the whole society."

Reply:
The emphasis on a signed instruction is a subtle form of begging the question. It implies that an order from the spiritual master must be signed, but this principle has never been established. It makes no difference whether an order from the spiritual master is signed or not. What counts is the desire of the spiritual master, no matter in what form the desire is expressed. This is another attempt to negate the order given by Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Commenting on the July 9th order, Jayadvaita Swami recently wrote:

'Its authority is beyond question...Clearly this letter establishes a ritvik-guru system' (Jayadvaita Swami 'Where the Ritvik People are Wrong' 1996)"

Reply:
This is an example of selective quoting. Jayadvaita Swami's paper says:

"Clearly, this letter establishes a rtvik-guru system. But one may ask where it says that such a system should continue even after Srila Prabhupada's departure."

TFO's selective quoting is an attempt to make Jayadvaita Swami appear to grudgingly concede that the July 9 letter establishes the post-samadhi ritvik system, when Jayadvaita Swami clearly says something else.

TFO:
"The source of the controversy arises from two modifications which were subsequently superimposed over this otherwise clear and authoritative directive:

Modification a) That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.

Modification b) Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's."

Reply:
This is an example of begging the question. TFO presents these two changes as 'superimposed modifications' without actually proving that they are. Without having proved its point, it implies that these changes are not based on any order from Srila Prabhupada. This is another attempt to prove that the May 28 conversation does not exist. Just to reiterate:

The Conversation of May 28, 1977

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.

Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.

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. Be actually guru, but by my order.

Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

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

Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.

Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

Satsvarupa: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That's clear.

Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...

Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.

From this it should be quite clear that the GBC was not 'superimposing' anything, but was actually honestly trying to implement the desires of Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"The reforms to the zonal acarya system, which took place around 1987, kept intact these two assumptions. The same assumptions, in fact, that underpinned the very system it replaced. We refer to a) and b) above as modifications since neither statement appears in the July 9th letter itself, nor in any policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada subsequent to this order."

Reply:
Here TFO tries to establish a false principle. It tries to impose the condition that Srila Prabhupada's order regarding initiations after his departure must appear in a signed document and come after July 9. There is no such principle. The order was already given orally before July 9, on May 28.

TFO:
"'When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after his physical departure he stated he would "recommend" and give his "order" to some of his disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards as "regular gurus", whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada grand-disciples.' (GII, page 14)

Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions."

Reply:
This is begging the question. It has yet to be shown that these are in fact mere assumptions and not Srila Prabhupada's explicit order. From the May 28 conversation it is clear that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to initiate new devotees who would become his grand-disciples. Besides, it is not true that "Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the legitimacy of these basic assumptions." It is very few devotees who question this.

TFO:
"One point everyone is agreed on is that Srila Prabhupada is the ultimate authority for all members of ISKCON, so whatever his intended order was, it is our duty to carry it out. Another point of agreement is that the only signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the society's leaders, was the July 9th order."

Reply:
Here is a contradiction in logic. First TFO says, " ...whatever his intended order was, it is our duty to carry it out." Then it says, " the only signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the society's leaders, was the July 9th order." If Srila Prabhupada's intended order must be carried out no matter what, then it makes no difference whether the desire is expressed in a signed letter or in another form. To say that Srila Prabhupada's spoken words are less important than a signed document contradicts the idea that his intended order must be carried out no matter what. This is yet an attempt to negate Srila Prabhupada's words in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"It is significant to note that in GII the existence of the July 9th letter is not even acknowledged, even though this is the only place where the original eleven ritvik acaryas are actually mentioned. This omission is puzzling, especially given that GII is supposed to offer the 'final siddhanta' on the entire issue."

Reply:
The fact that GII is incomplete does not negate the importance of following Srila Prabhupada's intended order. This is an example of a red herring.

TFO:
"Let us then look closely at the July 9th order to see if there is indeed anything that supports assumptions a) and b) above."

Reply:
TFO is begging the question. It has not been established that these are only assumptions. It is also rather peculiar, that the author, who never had any contact with Srila Prabhupada, and who has no faith in his disciples or the system he set up, can speak with such confidence on what Srila Prabhupada wanted. What basis does he have for stating that the GBC's attempt to implement Srila Prabhupada's order is merely "assumptions?" How has the author become so intimate with Srila Prabhupada that he can know better what he wanted than his closest disciples who spoke to him directly?

TFO: "The Order Itself

As previously mentioned, the July 9th order states that the ritvik system should be followed 'henceforward'. The specific word used, 'henceforward', only has one meaning. This is both according to Srila Prabhupada's own previous usage of the word and the meaning ascribed to it by the English Language. On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used the word 'henceforward', nobody raised even the possibility that the word could mean anything other than 'from now onwards'. 'From now onwards' does not mean 'from now onwards until I depart'. It simply means 'from now onwards'. There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure, neither does it state that the system was to only be operational during his presence."

Reply:
This is not true. As it was shown in DOMD Srila Prabhupada's usage of the word "henceforward" is not limited to the meaning suggested in TFO. Neither does the July 9 letter state that the proxy-guru-system should continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure. The word "henceforward" is in itself inconclusive. The time limit of "henceforward" in this case is given in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Supporting Instructions

There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his secretary at that time, which clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation (please see Appendices). In these documents we find words synonymous with 'henceforward' such as:- 'continue', 'future' etc . Nothing to even remotely suggest it was to terminate on Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
An un-truth. The order to stop the system on Srila Prabhupada's departure was given on May 28. TFO consistently ignores Srila Prabhupada's order given in the May 28 conversation. Mr. Desai also falsely tries to impose an importance on the July 9 letter which it does not deserve. He wants us to believe that it constituted some kind of initiation manual left by Srila Prabhupada to be followed forever after. The fact of the matter is that the July 9 letter was not even written by Srila Prabhupada himself but by his secretary, and it was nothing more than a communiqu� sent out to all the devotees to inform them of an emergency arrangement because Srila Prabhupada had become too sick to initiate new devotees.

TFO:
"Subsequent Instructions

Once the ritvik system was up and running, Srila Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it, nor did he ever state that it should be disbanded on his departure."

Reply:
A half-truth and a lie. Srila Prabhupada didn't have to issue a subsequent order to stop the ritvik-system, because he never established the system in the first place. Besides, even if he did, the order does not have to be subsequent if it was given previously. It is not true that Srila Prabhupada never stated that "it should be disbanded on his departure." He stated that on May 28 by instructing his disciples to initiate new devotees into becoming his grand-disciples.

TFO:
"Perhaps aware that such a thing may mistakenly or otherwise occur, he put in the beginning of his final will that the system of management in place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed - an instruction left intact by a codicil added just nine days before his departure."

Reply:
Here TFO advocates foolish following. Srila Prabhupada had outlined the future of initiations on May 28. To continue the system of management unchanged would have to include following Srila Prabhupada's instructions, which include the instructions that his disciples must initiate. To disregard this instruction for the sake of not changing things would be foolish following. Further more, this is also a case of quoting out of context. The order in the will states:

"2. Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."

The system of management referred to in the will concerns specifically the management of properties, not initiations, or general management. Of course, nothing authorizes the GBC to change Srila Prabhupada's instructions, but the above example is given to show that TFO relies on misquotations.

TFO:
"Surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to disband the ritvik system had that been his intention (please see Appendix)."

Reply:
Here TFO avoids the obvious. The order had already been given on May 28. There was no need to repeat it. This is yet another attempt by the author to pretend that the May 28 conversation had never taken place.

TFO:
"If the whole methodology for conducting initiations is considered a system of management by Srila Prabhupada, then one element of initiation, viz. the use of ritviks to give spiritual names, has to fall under the same terms of reference. Thus changing the ritvik system of initiation was a direct violation of Srila Prabhupada's final will."

Reply:
This is word jugglery. Changing the system of initiation was Srila Prabhupada's order, given on May 28, and thus does not contradict the final will or constitute a change in the system of management as long as we consider that the system of management includes following Srila Prabhupada's instructions.

TFO:
"Another instruction in the will which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples. This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up."

Reply:
This is a self-contradiction. By the same logic, the ritvik system cannot last because the eleven ritviks mentioned in the July 9 letter will eventually leave the planet.

TFO:
"Furthermore, every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of initiations after July 9th he simply reconfirmed the ritvik system."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada never confirmed a proxy-guru system as envisioned by the ritvikvadis, what to speak of re-confirm it.

TFO:
"He never gave any hint that the system should stop on his departure�"

Reply:
Here TFO tries to avoid the obvious. This is again an attempt to overlook the May 28 conversation, in which Srila Prabhupada gave clear directions how he wanted initiations to take place after his departure.

TFO:
"� or that there were gurus, waiting in the sidelines, ready to take on the role of diksa."

Reply:
This is called character assassination. The phrase "waiting in the sidelines" implies that the future gurus were lustfully hankering after that role. Thus the author is trying to imply that Srila Prabhupada's intimate disciples were eager for him to leave so they could take over his role as guru.

TFO:
"Thus, at least as far as direct evidence is concerned, there appears to be nothing to support assumptions a) and b) referred to above. As stated, these assumptions - that the ritvik system should have stopped at departure, and that the ritviks must then become diksa gurus - form the very basis of ISKCON's current guru system. If they prove to be invalid then there will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC."

Reply:
With the word "assumptions" TFO is begging the question. It has not been established that Srila Prabhupada's disciple would not initiate disciples of their own. In fact, from the May 28 conversation Srila prabhupada's desire is clear. This is yet another attempt by the author to ignore the order given on May 28.

TFO:
"The above sets the scene. The instruction itself, supporting instructions and subsequent instructions only support the continuation of the ritvik system."

Reply:
This is a lie. There is nothing to support the continuation of the system, imagined by the ritvikvadis, on Srila Prabhupada's departure. There is nothing to continue, because ritvikvada was never established by Srila Prabhupada to begin with.

TFO:
"It is admitted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did not give any order to terminate the ritvik system on his physical departure."

Reply:
Another lie. It is not admitted by all concerned.

TFO:
"It is further accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to operate from July 9th onwards."

Reply:
More lies. It is not accepted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada set up a proxy system to operate from July 9 onwards.

TFO:
"Thus we have a situation whereby the acarya: i) has given a clear instruction to follow a ritvik system."

Reply:
Srila Prabhupada may have given an order to follow a ritvik system, but obviously Srila Prabhupada did not understand the word "ritvik" in the same way as the ritvikvadis, which is clear from the May 28 conversations. The understanding of "ritvik" that TFO tries to impose, i.e. a proxy-guru, is not in accordance with the standard dictionary definition of the word. In fact, nowhere in the Vedas or in Srila Prabhupada's books do we find any reference to a proxy-guru system as suggested in TFO. Again TFO suggests that we ignore the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"ii) has not given an instruction to stop following the ritvik system upon his physical departure."

Reply:
First of all this is a lie. This order was given in the May 28 conversation. Second of all, even if it weren't, it is immaterial, for the ritvik-system envisioned by the ritvikvadis was never set up in the first place. There was a temporary system set up to relieve Srila Prabhupada in his last days when he was very sick. It is only the ritvikvadis who have baptized this temporary emergency system of initiation as "the ritvik system."

TFO:
"Consequently , for a disciple to stop following this order, with any degree of legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing so. The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could only follow it in his physical presence."

Reply:
This is a lie. Srila Prabhupada expressed his desire very clearly in the May 28 conversation. He never mentioned anything about a proxy-guru system. Nor is such a system mentioned in the Vedic literature or Srila Prabhupada's own books.

TFO:
"The onus of proof will naturally fall on those who wish to terminate any system put in place by our acarya, and left to run henceforward. This is an obvious point; one can not just stop following the order of the guru whimsically:"

Reply:
Here TFO is shifting the blame. The onus of proof falls on the ritvik people because they are ignoring the May 28 conversation. Also they are suggesting that a system be instituted in ISKCON that has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra. Clearly the burden of proof is on them.

TFO:
"'....the process is that you cannot change the order of the spiritual master.' (SP, Los Angeles, Dec 21 1973)"

Reply:
A disciple does not need to justify continuing to follow a direct order from the guru, especially when he has been told to continue following it. That is axiomatic - this is what the word 'disciple' means:

TFO:
'When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the spiritual master.' (SP, Bg Lecture, 1975)

Since there is no direct evidence stating that the ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, the case for abandoning it can therefore only be based on indirect evidence."

Reply; This is a lie. The May 28 conversation is direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada's desire for a traditional Vedic system of initiation, the guru-parampara.

TFO:
"Indirect evidence may arise out of special circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. These extenuating circumstances, should they exist, may be used to provide grounds for interpreting the literal instruction. We will now examine the circumstances surrounding the July 9th order, to see if such modifying circumstances might indeed have been present, and whether there is inferentially anything to support assumptions a) and b)." Reply:
Again TFO is begging the question. It has not been established that a) and b) are mere "assumptions." According to the May 28 conversation the decisions of a) and b) were Srila Prabhupada's own explicit instructions.

TFO:
"1. 'The letter clearly implies that it was only set up for whilst Srila Prabhupada was present."'

Reply:
This is a straw man. The GBC does not present this argument, but TFO implies that it does. Thus, Mr. Desai appears to defeat the GBC by inventing a foolish argument and defeating it.

TFO:
"There is nothing in the letter that says the instruction was only meant for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. In fact, the only information given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
Here TFO gives a false argument. The July 9 letter refers back to the May 28 conversation, where the order is given.

TFO:
" It is significant to note that within the July 9th letter it is stated three times that those initiated would become Srila Prabhupada's disciples. The GBC in presenting evidence for the current guru system have argued vigorously that Srila Prabhupada had already made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, it was an inviolable law that no one could initiate in his presence. Thus the necessity to state Srila Prabhupada's ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have been an issue."

Reply:
This is a case of avoiding the obvious. The May 28 instruction was given in the presence of only a few people. The July 9 letter was sent to devotees all over the world, most of whom might not have heard of the May 28 conversation, or if they had heard of it, might not have known when Srila Prabhupada's disciples would start initiating. It is for the benefit of these people that the letter specifies that the new initiates would be Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Otherwise, people might think that the disciples had already begun to accept disciples.

TFO:
"For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one had ever questioned who such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning of the July 9th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are 'representatives' of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become fully-fledged diksa gurus."

Reply:
Here TFO is again avoiding the obvious: The letter could have easily been confused with an order for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to start initiating immediately. The letter was going to temples around the world, and there was no way of knowing how much people would know in some places. Therefore, it was necessary to state who was the spiritual master of the new disciples.

To state: "The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives," is a false argument. It was not the only innovation. Previously, the representatives had to first consult Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada would name the disciple and send a letter back. After July 9, the representative would not have to consult Srila Prabhupada, and he could give the name. Therefore, the new initiates could easily be confused about who their spiritual master was.

TFO:
"'So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final.'" (SP Bg Lect, 1968)

Reply:
The order is stated six times in the May 28 conversation:

1. Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

2. Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.

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. Be actually guru, but by my order.

3. Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

4. Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

5. Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all.

6. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.

TFO:
"The July 9th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were to be sent 'to Srila Prabhupada'. Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the ritvik system must therefore be invalid.

The procedure of sending the names of newly initiated disciples to Srila Prabhupada relates specifically to a post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend or in any way interrupt pre-initiation, or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik's role being already fulfilled well before the actual initiation cereomony takes place). Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent, the initiation has already occured.

...In other words, take the possible scenario that Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated through the ritvik system; according to the above proposition, the disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada's books that the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service."

Reply:
This is a straw man. The argument is, that Srila Prabhupada's statement indicates his desire, not that "the vicissitudes of the postal service" can obstruct initiation. Since TFO has not addressed the real argument, it is not necessary to defend it here.

TFO:
"In any case the names were only to be sent to Srila Prabhupada since that is where the initiated disciples' book was kept. In the conversation of July 7th (please see appendices) it is clearly stated that Srila Prabhupada would not personally enter the names into the book anyway. Thus an activity which only occurred after initiation, and which Srila Prabhupada did not even perform, can not have any implication on what has to occur before initiation. Certainly there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being entered into the book even now. This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time."

Reply:
The author is here inventing a new ceremony to justify his theory. He is trying to give the idea that there was some kind of ceremony regarding the entrance of new names into the book. This is a concoction.

TFO:
2. "The letter does not specifically say 'this system will continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure'; therefore, it was right to stop the ritvik system at Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
This is another straw man. This is not the argument presented. The real argument is that Srila Prabhupada gave the order on May 28. This argument has never been defeated.

TFO:
"Please consider the following points:

1) The July 9th letter also does not specifically state: 'The ritvik system should end on Srila Prabhupada's departure'. Yet it was terminated immediately on his departure.

2) The letter also does not state: 'The ritvik system should run while Srila Prabhuada is still present'. Yet it was run while he was still present."

Reply:
Mr. Desai is consistently trying to side track the focus of the controversy, which is how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to continue after his departure. Srila Prabhupada's desire in that regard is clearly expressed in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
3) "The letter also does not state :'The ritvik system should only run until the departure of Srila Prabhupada'. Yet it was only allowed to run till his departure."

Reply:
In the May 28 conversation Srila Prabhupada gave clear directions how initiations were to take place after his departure. These directions were consistent with his teachings as well as guru, sadhu, and sastra. Mr. Desai continually tries to create the idea that Srila Prabhupada instituted a proxy-guru system in ISKCON. The fact is that the term "ritvik" was not even introduced by Srila Prabhupada himself. He just accepted the term when it was introduced by Tamal Krishna Goswami, and from his usage of the word it is clear that he did not take it to be synonymous with the term proxy-guru. Thus the point made above in TFO is moot.

TFO:
4) "The letter also does not state: The ritvik system must stop'. Yet it was stopped.

In summary, the GBC insists on the following: the ritvik system must stop. & the ritvik system must stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Neither of the above stipulations appears in the July 9th letter, nor any other signed order;"

Reply:
Here TFO's argument rests on the premise that an order from the spiritual master must be signed. This is a false principle. Nowhere is it stated that the order from the spiritual master must be signed in order to be valid. Srila Prabhupada already gave the order in the May 28 conversation on how he wanted initiations to be conducted in his absence.

TFO:
"..yet they form the very foundation of both the zonal acarya system and the current 'Multiple Acarya Successor System,' or M.A.S.S. as we shall refer to it. (In this context we use the word acarya in its strongest sense, that of initiating spiritual master, or diksa guru)."

Reply:
In the above paragraphs, TFO appears to present a strong logical argument of reductio ad absurdum - the technique of proving one's point by showing that the opposite would be absurd. It seems to show, point by point, that the idea that the ritvik system should end at a certain time is absurd and illogical. The flaw in this argument is that the duration of the ritvik system was given by Srila Prabhupada in the May 28 conversation, since in that conversation Srila Prabhupada made it cleat that his disciples were to initiate their own disciples after his departure. Thus during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, his disciples should not accept their own disciples, because this is the Vaishnava etiquette, but after his departure they should become "regular gurus." This is what we learn from the May 28 conversation, and this would also be consistent with guru, sadhu, and sastra, and Srila Prabhupada's own teachings. In stead, Mr. Desai, in order to make his point, pretends that this exchange between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples never took place.

TFO:
"To argue that since the letter is not specific about the time period in which it is to run, it must therefore stop on departure, is completely illogical."

Reply:
This is a half-truth and a straw-man. Arguing that the letter is not specific about the time period is only half of the argument. The other half of the argument is that although the letter does not specify the time period, the May 28 conversation does. And it is a straw-man because it suggests that Srila Prabhupada's desire regarding how initiations should continue in his absence can be understood solely from the July 9 letter. This is clearly a false suggestion. Srila Prabhupada's order on how he wanted initiations conducted in his absence is expressed very clearly in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"The letter does not specify that the ritvik system should be followed on July 9th either, so according to this logic it should never have been followed at all."

Reply:
TFO is here creating a false argument. The letter says "henceforward," which means that the system should start. It is only that there is no direct indication in it of when the system should stop or change. This indication is given in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Even accepting that 'henceforward' can at least stretch to the end of the first day of the order being issued, it does not say it should be followed on July 10th , so perhaps it should have stopped then."

Reply:
Here TFO again ignores the obvious. In the May 28 conversation the termination of the July 9 letter is clearly given.

TFO:
"The demand for the ritvik system to only operate within a pre-specified time period is contradicted by accepting its operation for 126 separate 24 hour time periods (i.e. four months), since none of these 126 separate time periods is specified in the letter, yet everyone seems quite happy that the system ran during this time frame. Unless we take the word 'henceforward' literally to mean 'indefinitely', we could stop the system at any time after July 9th, so why choose departure?"

Reply:
Mr. Desai tries to give the impression that the proxy-system mentioned in the July 9 letter is a very important system to be followed henceforward, when actually it was only an emergency system set up to relieve Srila Prabhupada in his last days. The time limit of this system is given in the conversation of May 28th, where Srila Prabhupada gives clear directions on how he wants initiations to commence after his departure.

TFO:
"There is no example, either in Srila Prabhupada's 86 recorded uses, nor in the entire history of the English language, where the actual word 'henceforward' has ever meant: 'Every time period until the departure of a person who issued an order'".

Reply:
This is a false argument. The author does not know every use of the word that has ever occurred in the English language. Besides, based on the information given in the May 28 conversation, in the July 9 letter Srila Prabhupada does use the word in that sense.

TFO:
"Yet according to current thinking this is what the word must have meant when it was used in the July 9th letter. All the letter states is that the ritvik system is to be followed 'henceforward'. So why was it stopped?"

Reply:
Because, as stated in the May 28th conversation, Srila Prabhupada didn't want the guru-parampara to be terminated after his departure. He wanted his disciples to become qualified and continue the disciplic succession.

TFO:
3. "'Certain instructions obviously can not continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure, and thus it is understood that they could only have been intended to operate in Srila Prabhupada's presence; e.g. someone may have been appointed 'henceforward' to give Srila Prabhupada his regular massage. Maybe the ritvik order is of that type?'

If an instruction is impossible to perform, for example giving Srila Prabhupada his daily massage after his physical departure, then obviously there can be no question of doing it. The duty of a disciple is simply to follow an order until it is impossible to follow any longer, or until the spiritual master changes the order. The question then is whether it is feasible to follow a ritvik system without the physical presence of the person who set it up."

Reply:
Here we have a straw man and a red herring. The argument is not about the mechanics of the ritvik system but about whether Srila Prabhupada wanted it.

TFO:
"In fact, the ritvik system was set up specifically to be operational without any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada whatsoever. Had the ritvik system continued after his departure, it would be identical in every respect to how it was practised whilst Srila Prabhupada was present. After July 9th, Srila Prabhupada's involvement became non-existent, and so even at that stage it was operating as though he had already left. This being the case, we cannot classify the ritvik system dysfunctional, or inoperable, on the grounds of Srila Prabhupada's departure, since his departure does not in any way affect the running of the system."

Reply:
Here TFO is posing a false argument. On May 28, Srila Prabhupada said that the proxy-guru system should continue until his departure and that after his departure, his disciples should take their own disciples. Therefore, the ritvik system during Srila Prabhupada's presence and the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure are not the same, as one is in line with Srila Prabhupada's instructions and the other goes against them. Besides, as we have shown, Srila Prabhupada's understanding of the word "ritvik" is not the same as the one imposed by ritvikvadis.

TFO:
" In other words, since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet, his leaving the planet can not in itself render the system invalid.

Reply:
Mr. Desai says: "Since the system was specifically set up to operate as if Srila Prabhupada were not on the planet." This is a concoction. According to the May 28th conversation, the system was specifically set up to run _while_ he was on the planet.

TFO:
4. "'Maybe the fact that the order was 'only' issued in a letter, and not in a book, gives us a licence to interpret it?'"

Reply:
This is an especially ridiculous straw man, since the GBC is resting its case on a conversation.

TFO:
"This 'letters v books' argument does not apply in this case since this was no ordinary letter. Generally, Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter in response to a specific query from an individual disciple, or to offer individualised guidance or chastisement. Naturally, in these cases the devotee's original query, situation or deviation may give grounds for interpretation. Not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied universally (for example in one letter he advised a devotee, who was not good with spices, to just cook with a little salt and tumeric; clearly this advice was not meant for the entire movement). However, the final order on initiation is not open to any such interpretation since it was not written in response to a specific query from a particular individual, or to address a disciple's individual situation or behaviour. The July 9th letter was a procedural instruction, or management policy document, which was sent to every leader in the movement."

Reply:
Nobody disputes this point.

TFO:
"The letter follows the format of any important instruction that Srila Prabhupada issued and wanted followed without interpretation - he had it put in writing, he approved it, and then sent it to his leaders. For example, he had one sent on 22nd April 1972 addressed to 'ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS':

'The zonal secretary's duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting.'

Srila Prabhupada did not publish a new book each time he issued an important instruction, whether or not the instruction was to continue past his departure. Thus, the form in which the instruction was issued does not make it prey for indirect interpretations, nor in any way diminishes its validity."

Reply:
If Mr. Desai believes what he himself is saying why does he continually disregard the instructions issued in the May 28 conversation?

TFO:
5. "'Maybe there was some special background surrounding the issuing of the order that precludes its application after Srila Prabhupada's departure?'"

If such circumstances did exist, Srila Prabhupada would have stated them in the letter, or in an accompanying document."

Reply:
TFO creates here a false principle. Srila Prabhupada can also issue an instruction by speaking. His real and final instructions regarding initiations in his absence were given in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives which would later be made sense of telepathically. For example, had Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to stop on his departure he would have added the following seven words to the July 9th letter - 'This system will terminate on my departure'".

Reply:
This is another attempt by TFO to establish a false principle. Mr. Desai has no right to tell Srila Prabhupada how to issue an instruction. In fact, taken into consideration that he never had any personal association with Srila Prabhupada and never was initiated by him, the author is displaying a rather arrogant attitude.

Besides, the May 28th conversation was known to the GBC, and they were the executors of Srila Prabhupada's orders. Therefor the onus was on them to make Srila Prabhupada's orders known to everyone. Also, at the time, the general assumption among the devotees was that Srila Prabhupada's disciples would initiate after his departure.

TFO:
"Sometimes it is argued that the ritvik system was only set up because Srila Prabhupada was sick. Devotees may or may not have been aware of the extent of Srila Prabhupada's illness; but how could they possibly be expected to deduce from a letter that says nothing about his health, that this was the only reason it was issued? When did Srila Prabhupada say that any instruction he issued must always be interpreted in conjunction with his latest medical report?"

Reply:
Here we see a case of false reductio ad absurdum. No one has argued that all of Srila Prabhupada's instructions must be interpreted according to his latest medical report.

TFO:
"Why should the recipients of the final order on initiation not have assumed the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation?"

Reply:
Because nobody thought it was the "final order." The only one who tries to create this impression is TFO and those behind it. Why didn't anyone assume that it was a general order on how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations conducted until more than 10 years after his departure?

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada had already announced that he had come to Vrindavan to leave his body. Being trikalajnana he was most likely aware of his departure in four months time. He had set in motion the final instructions for the continuation of his movement. He had already drawn up his will and other documents relating to the BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) and GBC, specifically to provide guidance for after his imminent departure. The one matter that had not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left. At this point, no-one had the faintest clue how things were to run. The July 9th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his absence."

Reply:
If the July 9 letter clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in Srila Prabhupada's absence how come it took thirteen years for anyone to come up with the "henceforward" idea? How is it clarifying if it takes 13 years to figure it out? On the other hand, it was made quite clear even before July 9, in the May 28 conversation, how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to proceed in his absence.

TFO:
"In summary, you can not modify an instruction with information that those to whom the instruction was given did not have access to."

Reply:
Again TFO bases its argument on a false principle. Whether or not the devotees had access to the information does not alter the validity of the information, and if the devotee has acted incorrectly due to a lack of information, he should rectify the situation upon receiving the correct information.

TFO:
"Why would Srila Prabhupada purposely issue an instruction that he knew in advance no one could follow correctly, since he had not given them the relevant information within the instruction?"

Reply:
Here TFO displays an arrogant attitude and tries to establish a false principle.There is no such principle that all aspects of an instruction must be issued at the same time as the instruction, and The author has no right to impose such a principle on Srila Prabhupada. The argument is especially inappropriate since the relevant information had already been issued by the time the instruction was issued, i.e. in the May 28 conversation.

TFO:
"If the ritvik system was only set up because he was ill, Srila Prabhupada would have said so in the letter or in some accompanying document."

Reply:
How does the auhtor know what Srila Prabhupada would have said or done? It is an arrogant attitude of TFO to impose its own concocted conditions on Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"There is no record of Srila Prabhupada ever behaving in such a purposely ambiguous and uninformative manner, especially when instructing the entire movement. Srila Prabhupada never signed anything in a cavalier fashion, and when one considers the magnitude of the instruction in question, it is inconcievable that he would have left out any vital information."

Reply:
Here TFO is committing a monstrous offense. The July 9 letter cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to contain the sole and clear instructions from Srila Prabhupada on how he wanted initiations to proceed in his absence. In the light of the May 28 conversation vital information was indeed left out of the July 9 letter, so TFO is criticizing Srila Prabhupada and saying that he acted in a cavalier fashion.

TFO:
6. "Does not the 'Appointment Tape' contain relevant information that clearly frames the July 9th order as being only applicable whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet?

In the GBC's handbook GII, the sole evidence offered in support of modifications a & b is extracted from a conversation which took place on May 28th 1977."

Reply:
Here we have a false implication.The word "sole" inserted here implies that one conversation is not enough, that the evidence is insufficient because of its small quantity. This is not so. In fact, the ritvikvadis themselves claim that the evidence of one word - henceforward - is enough to over-rule everything Srila Prabhupada had taught his disciples so far, including his very clear instructions in the May 28 conversation.

Read the above sentence without the word "sole" and the tone changes.

TFO:
"The paper appears to concede that there is no other instructional evidence which directly relates to the function of ritviks after Srila Prabhuada's departure:

'Although Srila Prabhupada did not repeat his earlier statements, it was understood that he expected these disciples to initiate in the future.' (GII, Page 14, emphasis added)

Since it is the sole evidence, there is a section exclusively dedicated to the May conversation on page 18. Suffice to say it was not referred to in the July 9th letter."

Reply:
This is a lie.The May 28 conversation was indeed referred to in the July 9 letter.

TFO:
"..nor did Srila Prabhupada demand that a copy of the taped conversation be sent out with the final order."

Reply:
Here Mr. Desai is displaying the arrogance of imposing his own conditions on Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"From this we can deduce, with absolute confidence, that it cannot contain a scrap of modifying information vital to the understanding of the final order. As a point of fact, the May 28th conversation was not released till several years after Srila Prabhupada's departure."

Reply:
TFO is trying to establish a false principle. The fact that an instruction is not released until years later does not alter the validity of the instruction. Suppose a letter from Srila Prabhupada was delayed in the mail. Would "the vicissitudes of the postal service" nullify the instruction? Also the idea that the July 9 letter contains Srila Prabhupada's explicit and final desires on how initiations were to take place in his absence, did not surface in ISKCON until thirteen years after his departure. So by TFO's own logic its whole idea is invalid.

TFO:
"Thus once more we are expected to modify a clear written instruction with information which was not accessible to the very people who were issued the instruction. As will be seen later, the May conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order."

Reply:
Here Mr. Desai argues in circles. He says that if the May 28 conversation puts a time limit on the ritvik system it would contradict the July 9 letter. In other words, the July 9 letter says that the ritvik system should continue forever only because there is no limiting instruction, and no other instruction can limit the ritvik system because it is stated as running forever in the July 9 letter.

No one except TFO says that the May 28 conversation contradicts the July 9 letter. The author admits above that the July 9 letter does not specifically say when the ritvik system should end. He only deduces that the the system should continue forever. It is not stated in the letter. The time limit on the proxy system given in the May 28 conversation is an explanation of the July 9 letter, not a contradiction of it.

TFO:
"If you read the order, you will find that it does contain important information. It was up to the GBC to make this available, and if they did not, that fact does not nullify the information in the conversation.

As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always supercede previous instructions: The final order is the final order, and must be followed:

'I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to you you do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue - 'Sir you said to me do like this before', no that is not your duty, what I say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue.'" (S.P.Lect, S.B. 5.5.2 , Hyderabad)

Reply:
This is a case of trying to apply an inapplicable principle. In order for a later order to nullify a previous order, it must bear some relation to the previous order. For example, if Srila Prabhupada would tell a disciple to go to New York and then later tell him to go Los Angeles, the order to go to Los Angeles would nullify the order to go to New York because it would be impossible to do both, but the later order would not nullify the order to chant 16 rounds.

TFO:
"Just as in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna gave so many instructions to Arjuna, he spoke of all types of yoga from Dhyana to Jnana, but all this was superseded by the final order:

'Always think of me and become my devotee should be taken as the final order of the Lord and should be followed'". (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 2)

Reply:
Here the author tries to use Srila Prabhupada to justify his own misinterpretation of Bhagavad-gita. An example of extreme arrogance and false preaching. The final order of Bhagavad-gita does not contradict the previous orders because thoughout the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna emphasizes the superiority of bhakti over all other processes. This can be better understood if we examine more of the passage quoted above:

TFO:
"'I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, 'Do it,' your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, 'Sir, you said me like this before.' No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. You cannot argue. Of course, Krishna never said anything contradictory, but if when one thinks foolishly that Krishna said something contradictory, no, that is not to be. You could not understand. So even though you could not understand, you take My direct orders now. Sarva-dharman parityajya mam e..., that is your business. The master says like that, and the servant's business is to accept it as it is, without any argument. That's all right.'" (Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 15 April 1975, Hyderabad)

The final order given by Sankaracarya,'bhaja Govinda', was also meant to supersede many of his earlier statements - all of them, in fact."

Reply:
This is a non-applicable argument. Sankaracarya knew that he had taught a false philosophy and negated it by speaking the truth. Mr. Desai commits an offense here by saying that the same principle applies to the teachings of Lord Krsna and Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"As mentioned in the introduction, the GBC itself recognises this as an axiomatic principle of logic:

'In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance' (GII, Page 25)

It is not possible to have a 'later' statement than the last one. Therefore we must follow the ritvik system by the GBC's own logic."

Reply:
Later statements supercede earlier ones, but if the later statement does not modify the earler one, then there is no relation. It has yet to be shown that the July 9 letter modifies the May 28 conversation. Furthermore, the GBC's logic, right or wrong, is not the basis by which we choose which system to follow. The basis is Srila Prabhupada's instruction.

TFO:
7. "'Srila Prabhupada stated many times that all his disciples must become gurus? Surely this proves that Srila Prabhupada did not intend the ritvik system to be permanent.'

Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa guru immediately after his departure. Evidence for this claim has never been produced, indeed many senior leaders within ISKCON have conceded the point:

'And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said 'alright here is the next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorized gurus for the movement, for the world'. He did not do that."' (Ravindra Svarupa das, San Diego debate, 1990)

Reply:
This argument is called a Red Herring. A Red Herring is meant to distract the reader with an irrelevant argument. The fact that Srila Prabhupada did not specifically appoint anyone or any 11 does not change the fact that he wanted all of his disciples to initiate. In fact, it confirms it.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must be a mahabhagavata (most advanced stage of God-realisation) and be specifically authorized by his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorized. We quote below the only passage in Srila Prabhupada's books where the term diksa (diksitah) is linked with a specific qualification:
Maha-bhagavata-srestho brahmano vai gurur nrnam sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih maha-kula-prasuto' pi sarva-yajnesu diksitah sahasra-sakhadhya yi ca na guruh syad avaisnavah

'The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class.' (C.c. Madhya, 24:330)

'When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata he is to be accepted as guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of guru.' (C.c. Madhya, 24:330)

Reply:
These are selective quotes. There are also quotes such as:

vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apimam prthivim sa sisyat

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." (Nectar of Instruction 1)

sastra-yukty sunipuna drdha-sraddha yanra 'uttama-adhikari, sei taraye samsara

"One who is expert in logic, argument and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krsna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world." (Cc M.22.65)

"A person who is constantly engaged in devotional service by his body, mind and words, or even a person who is not practically engaged but is simply desiring to be so, is considered to be liberated." (NOD Ch.11)

"The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters." (SB 11.3.21 quoted in NOD Ch.7)

"A person who is always chanting the holy name of the Lord is to be considered a first-class Vaisnava, and your duty is to serve his lotus feet." (Cc M.16.172)

Then we have these statements from Srila Prabhupada. In chapter 3 of NOD he defines an uttama-adhikari:

"He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He very nicely presents conclusions with perfect discretion in considering the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain the transcendental loving service of Krsna, and he knows that Krsna is the only object of worship and love.

This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class.

The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

"A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons. This Krsna consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of material nature. Lord Caitanya therefore says: 'By My order you may become a spiritual master.' One can immediately become a spiritual master by having full faith in the transcendental words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and by following His instructions." (SB 4.18.5p)

"Sanatana Gosvami clearly defines the bona fide spiritual master. One must act according to the scriptural injunctions and at the same time preach.One who does so is a bona fide spiritual master. Haridasa Thakura was the ideal spiritual master because he regularly chanted on his beads the prescribed number of times. Indeed, he was chanting the holy name of the Lord three hundred thousand times a day. Similarly, the members of the Krsna consciousness movement chant the minimum number of sixteen rounds a day, which can be done without difficulty, and at the same time they must preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the gospel of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. One who does so is quite fit to become a spiritual master for the entire world." (Cc Ant 4.103p)

"When a neophyte devotee is actually initiated and engaged in devotional service by the orders of the spiritual master, he should be accepted immediately as a bona fide Vaisnava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaisnavas, one may be found to be very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord and strictly following all the regulative principles, chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads and always thinking of how to spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Such a Vaisnava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikari, highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought." (NOI 5p)

"A first-class devotee does not at all see anyone who is not in the service of the Lord, but the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and non-devotees. The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciplesfrom the section of third-class devotees or non-devotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of a second-class devotee for preaching work." (SB 2.3.21p)

"When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Krsna, he loses interest in everything but Krsna's service. Always thinking of Krsna, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Krsna, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world. Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikari, and his association should be immediately accepted. Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him." (NOI 5p)

"The spiritual master's qualification is that he is brahma-nistham, which means that he has given up all other activities and has dedicated his life to working only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. ... The prime symptom of one who has become a spiritual master in disciplic succession is that he is one hundred percent fixed in bhakti-yoga." (Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead)

"The madhyama-adhikari Vaisnava can awaken others to Krsna consciousness and engage them in duties whereby they can advance." (Cc M.16.74p)

"Everyone begins his devotional life in the neophyte stage, but if one properly finishes chanting the prescribed number of rounds of hari-nama, he is elevated step by step to the highest platform, uttama-adhikari." (NOI 5p)

"The siksa- or diksa-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. The Krsna consciousness movement is spreading now all over the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikuntha." (SB 4.12.33p)

"Unless one is actually a devotee, he cannot see another devotee perfectly. One should therefore avoid observing a pure devotee externally, but should try to see the internal features and understand how he is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. In this way one can avoid seeing the pure devotee from a material point of view, and thus one can gradually become a purified devotee himself." (NOI 6p)

"Our system, parampara system, is that, for example, I am just a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I don't say that I am liberated, I am conditioned. But because I am following the instruction of Bhaktisiddhanta, I'm liberated. This is the distinction between conditioned and liberated. When one is under the direction of a liberated person...The same thing: Electricity. The copper is not electricity, but, when it is charged with electricity if it is touched, that is electricity. And similarly, this parampara system, the electricity is going. If you cut the parampara system, then there is no electricity. Therefore it is stressed so much. Sa kalena mahata yogo nastah parantapa [Bg 4.2: 'In course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost']. The electricity is lost." (Morning Walk, Bombay, 1/4/77)

"Yes, [those who follow] they're also pure devotees because they're following my instruction. Just like a technician, he is expert, but somebody is assisting him. So the assistants, because they are following the instruction of the expert, therefore their work is also complete. So it is not necessarily that one has to become pure devotee immediately. Just like we are also following the instruction our spiritual master. I don't claim that I am pure devotee or perfect, but my only qualification is that I am trying to follow the instruction of the perfect. Similarly... This is called disciplic succession . Just like here it is stated that Krsna is the original spiritual master and Arjuna is the original student."

"...If we follow Arjuna and Krsna, then we get the perfect knowledge. We may not be cent percent perfect, but as far as possible, if we follow the instruction as it is, that much perfect., In this way one will get perfection. So one has to follow. The same example, try to understand, that a perfect, expert technologist or technician or mechanic is working, and somebody is working under his instruction. So this somebody, because he is strictly working under the instruction of the expert, he's also expert. He may not be cent percent expert, but his work is expert. Is that clear?

Because he is working under the expert. Do you follow? So if you follow pure devotee, then you are also pure devotee. It may not be one is cent percent pure. Because we are trying to raise ourself from the conditional life. But if we strictly follow the pure devotee, then we are also pure devotee. So far we do, that is pure. So pure devotee does not mean one has to become immediately cent percent pure. But if he sticks to the principle that 'we'll follow a pure devotee,' then his actions are...he is as good as a pure devotee. It is not I am explaining in my own way. It is the explanation of the Bhagavat. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. we have to follow the footprints of pure devotees." (Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/25/68)

TFO:
"Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific authorization from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone could act as a diksa guru. 'On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person in Krsna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities.' (Letter to Janardana das, 18/4/68)

'One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana.' (S.B. 4:8:54)

'Indian Man: When did you become spiritual leader of Krsna consciousness? Srila Prabhupada: What is that? Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness. Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara. Indian Man: Did it ... Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.' (Bg Lectures, 28/10/75)

Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru when both the qualification and authorization are in place."

Reply:
This is minimizing the authority of the spiritual master. If Srila Prabhupada says someone should initiate, then there is no need for people with limited vision to try to discern whether that person is a maha-bhagavata.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada had not authorized any such gurus,"

Reply:
Again TFO tries to avoid the obvious. In the may 28 conversation such authorization is clearly given.

TFO:
"nor had he stated that any of his disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather, just prior to July 9th, he agreed that they were still 'conditioned souls', and that vigilance was essential lest persons pose themselves as guru - please see Appendices."

"Yes, [those who follow] they're also pure devotees because they're following my instruction. Just like a technician, he is expert, but somebody is assisting him. So the assistants, because they are following the instruction of the expert, therefore their work is also complete. So it is not necessarily that one has to become pure devotee immediately. Just like we are also following the instruction our spiritual master. I don't claim that I am pure devotee or perfect, but my only qualification is that I am trying to follow the instruction of the perfect. Similarly... This is called disciplic succession . Just like here it is stated that Krsna is the original spiritual master and Arjuna is the original student.

"...If we follow Arjuna and Krsna, then we get the perfect knowledge. We may not be cent percent perfect, but as far as possible, if we follow the instruction as it is, that much perfect., In this way one will get perfection. So one has to follow. The same example, try to understand, that a perfect, expert technologist or technician or mechanic is working, and somebody is working under his instruction. So this somebody, because he is strictly working under the instruction of the expert, he's also expert. He may not be cent percent expert, but his work is expert. Is that clear?

Because he is working under the expert. Do you follow? So if you follow pure devotee, then you are also pure devotee. It may not be one is cent percent pure. Because we are trying to raise ourself from the conditional life. But if we strictly follow the pure devotee, then we are also pure devotee. So far we do, that is pure. So pure devotee does not mean one has to become immediately cent percent pure. But if he sticks to the principle that 'we'll follow a pure devotee,' then his actions are...he is as good as a pure devotee. It is not I am explaining in my own way. It is the explanation of the Bhagavat. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. we have to follow the footprints of pure devotees."

(Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/25/68)

Evidences used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic catagories:-

1). Srila Prabhupada's frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the 'amara ajnaya guru hana' verse from the Caitanya Caritamrta.

2). The half dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure.

3). Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru are mentioned."

Reply:
Here we have a flagrant case of selective presentation of evidence. TFO completely leaves out the May 28 conversation in which Srila Prabhupada statet conclusively and uniquivocably that he wanted his disciples to continue the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"Looking first at catagory 1).

The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada:

'Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.' (C.c. 7:128, Madhya)

However, the type of guru which Lord Caitanya is encouraging everyone to become is clearly established in the detailed purports following this verse:

'That is one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krishna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.' (C.c 7:128, purport, Madhya)

'One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever, It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and instruct friends and relatives in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples.' (C.c. 7:130, purport, Madhya)

It is clear from these descriptions that everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know. Thus this verse is an instruction to become a siksa, or instructing, guru. This is further clarified by the the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position and not then go on to become a diksa guru:

'It is best not to accept any disciples.' (C.c. 7:130, purport, Madhya)"

Reply:
This is a self contradiction. Srila Prabhupada himself instructed his disciples to initiate. Does Mr. Desai think that he can understand Srila Prabhupada's purport better than Srila Prabhupada?

TFO:
"To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krsna consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's purports that in the above verse Lord Caitanya is actually authorizing siksa gurus, not diksa gurus.

This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru:

'Yare dekha, tare kaha, Krsna upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krsna has already said, you repeat. Finish. Don't make addition, adulteration, then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] so we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak Mr. Desaiitative words of Krsna then it will act [...] anyone can do. A child can do.' (Morning Walk, May 11th, 1977)"

Reply:
This is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the above nor from the following that Srila Prabhupada is only talking about siksa guru and ruling out the possibility of diksa guru.

TFO:
"'Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is [...] you become guru.' (May 21st, 1976)

'Just always think of me, Krsna said, 'And become my devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances. Kindly do these things. 'So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?' (SP Conv., Paris, 2nd August 1976)

'Real guru is he who instructs what Krsna has said....You have simply to say, "'This is this.'" That's all. Is it very difficult task?' (SP Lect., Honolulu, 21st May 1976)

'... but I have no qualification. How can I become guru ? There is no need of qualification...whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said. That's all. You become guru.' (SP Lect., Honolulu, 21st May 1976)

Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a justification for 'minimally qualified diksa gurus' 1, an entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures or morning walks."

Reply:
vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apimam prthivim sa sisyat

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." (Nectar of Instruction 1)

sastra-yukty sunipuna drdha-sraddha yanra 'uttama-adhikari, sei taraye samsara

"One who is expert in logic, argument and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Krsna is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world." (Cc M.22.65)

"A person who is constantly engaged in devotional service by his body, mind and words, or even a person who is not practically engaged but is simply desiring to be so, is considered to be liberated." (NOD Ch.11)

"The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters." (SB 11.3.21 quoted in NOD Ch.7)

"A person who is always chanting the holy name of the Lord is to be considered a first-class Vaisnava, and your duty is to serve his lotus feet." (Cc M.16.172)

Then we have these statements from Srila Prabhupada. In chapter 3 of NOD he defines an uttama-adhikari:

"He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He very nicely presents conclusions with perfect discretion in considering the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain the transcendental loving service of Krsna, and he knows that Krsna is the only object of worship and love.

This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first-class. The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scripture by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures."

"A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons. This Krsna consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of material nature. Lord Caitanya therefore says: 'By My order you may become a spiritual master.' One can immediately become a spiritual master by having full faith in the transcendental words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and by following His instructions." (SB 4.18.5p)

"Sanatana Gosvami clearly defines the bona fide spiritual master. One must act according to the scriptural injunctions and at the same time preach. One who does so is a bona fide spiritual master. Haridasa Thakura was the ideal spiritual master because he regularly chanted on his beads the prescribed number of times. Indeed, he was chanting the holy name of the Lord three hundred thousand times a day. Similarly, the members of the Krsna consciousness movement chant the minimum number of sixteen rounds a day, which can be done without difficulty, and at the same time they must preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the gospel of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. One who does so is quite fit to become a spiritual master for the entire world." (Cc Ant 4.103p)

"When a neophyte devotee is actually initiated and engaged in devotional service by the orders of the spiritual master, he should be accepted immediately as a bona fide Vaisnava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaisnavas, one may be found to be very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord and strictly following all the regulative principles, chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads and always thinking of how to spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Such a Vaisnava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikari, highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought." (NOI 5p)

"A first-class devotee does not at all see anyone who is not in the service of the Lord, but the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and non-devotees. The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciples from the section of third-class devotees or non-devotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of a second-class devotee for preaching work." (SB 2.3.21p)

"When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Krsna, he loses interest in everything but Krsna's service. Always thinking of Krsna, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Krsna, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world. Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikari, and his association should be immediately accepted. Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him." (NOI 5p)

"The spiritual master's qualification is that he is brahma-nistham, which means that he has given up all other activities and has dedicated his life to working only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. ... The prime symptom of one who has become a spiritual master in disciplic succession is that he is one hundred percent fixed in bhakti-yoga." (Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead)

"The madhyama-adhikari Vaisnava can awaken others to Krsna consciousness and engage them in duties whereby they can advance." (Cc M.16.74p)

"Everyone begins his devotional life in the neophyte stage, but if one properly finishes chanting the prescribed number of rounds of hari-nama, he is elevated step by step to the highest platform, uttama-adhikari." (NOI 5p)

"The siksa- or diksa-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. The Krsna consciousness movement is spreading now all over the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikuntha." (SB 4.12.33p)

"Unless one is actually a devotee, he cannot see another devotee perfectly. One should therefore avoid observing a pure devotee externally, but should try to see the internal features and understand how he is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. In this way one can avoid seeing the pure devotee from a material point of view, and thus one can gradually become a purified devotee himself." (NOI 6p)

"Our system, parampara system, is that, for example, I am just a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I don't say that I am liberated, I am conditioned. But because I am following the instruction of Bhaktisiddhanta, I'm liberated. This is the distinction between conditioned and liberated. When one is under the direction of a liberated person...The same thing: Electricity. The copper is not electricity, but, when it is charged with electricity if it is touched, that is electricity. And similarly, this parampara system, the electricity is going. If you cut the parampara system, then there is no electricity. Therefore it is stressed so much. Sa kalena mahata yogo nastah parantapa [Bg 4.2: 'In course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost']. The electricity is lost." (Morning Walk, Bombay, 1/4/77)

TFO:
"It is perfectly clear that the above are actually invitations to become instructing spiritual masters, siksa gurus. We know this since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru. An example of a guru who has no qualification other than repeating what he has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON . The above references must apply then to siksa."

Reply:
TFO has no basis for this assumption. The above quotes clearly do not only speak of siksa gurus.

TFO:
"Srila Prabhupada is thus envisaging millions of gurus, some of whom may even be children. These gurus are cautioned however not to then go on and become diksa gurus by taking disciples. Thus, these instructions are only consistent with everyone becoming siksa gurus or preachers. The qualification to do this is simply to repeat faithfully what one may know. The caution to then not attempt to take disciples is not surprising since the qualification to become a diksa guru is, as it has already been explained, is much more demanding:

'When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata he is to be accepted as guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of guru.' (C.c., Madhya, 24:330)

'One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana.' (S.B., 4:8:54)

As it has been shown Srila Prabhupada stated that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru."

Reply:
Again TFO chooses to completely overlook that fact that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to become initiating gurus.

TFO:
"The general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider 'amara ajnaya guru hana' to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya."

Reply:
There is no basis for TFO's assumption. It does not follow that because Srila Prabhupada repeated the order to accept disciples that this can only mean siksa guru. Why would Srila Prabhupada only refer to siksa-gurus when he instructed his disciples to become spiritual masters? His disciples were already acting as siksa-gurus preaching all over the world. Why would Srila Prabhupada keep emphasizing a redundant point?

Here is a quote from Srila Prabhupada's purport to SB 1.5.21:

"Although formally Srila Narada Muni is his spiritual master, Srila Vyasadeva is not at all dependent on a spiritual master because in essence he is the spiritual master of everyone else. But because he is doing the work of an acarya, he has taught us by his own conduct that one must have a spiritual master, even though he be God Himself. Lord Sri Krsna, Lord Sri Rama and Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, all incarnations of Godhead, accepted formal spiritual masters, although by Their transcendental nature They were cognizant of all knowledge."

Is there any reason here to think that Srila Prabhupada is speaking of the need to accept a siksa-guru? He says that even incarnations of Godhead accepted formal spiritual masters, although they already know everything. So 'formal spiritual master' means the initiating spiritual master, the one who initiates the disciple into the disciplic succession. What is the need for the Godhead and the acarya to exemplify the need for receiving siksa? The need for that is already understood. The emphasis here is clearly on diksa.

"Every one of us should become spiritual master because the world is in blazing fire... Spiritual master is not a new invention. It is simply following the orders of the spiritual master. So all my students present here who are feeling so much obliged... I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become spiritual master. That is the science of becoming spiritual master." (Vyasa-Puja address, Hamburg, 5 September, 1969)

If the order to become spiritual master refers only to siksa guru, then why is Srila Prabhupada ordering people who are already siksa gurus to become spiritual masters?

TFO:
"This general instruction from Lord Caitanya must principally be referring to siksa not diksa guru. Diksa guru is the exception, not the rule, whereas everyone is expected to become siksa guru."

Reply:
Here Mr. Desai is offering his own speculation. Unfortunately, for him, there is no basis for it. There is no reason to think it is as he suggets. Every disciple of a guru is meant to become a diksa-guru and carry on the disciplic succession. Indeed this is the way of continuing the chain of disciples.

TFO:
"Looking now at catagory 2).

There were a handful of overly confident devotees, anxious to initiate their own disciples in Srila Prabhupada's presence, who Srila Prabhupada wrote letters to. These letters are used to support the M.A.S.S.. Srila Prabhupada had a fairly standard approach when dealing with such ambitious individals. Generally he told them to keep rigidly trained up, and in the future, after his physical departure, they may accept disciples:"

Reply:
Here TFO offers its speculation regarding the spiritual master's intent. It is only the author's concoction that these instructions are lies meant to pacify ambitious individuals. Srila Prabhupada has never said or indicated any such thing. Moreover, TFO accuses Srila Prabhupada of lying to his disciples.

TFO:
"'The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] Don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do not be in a hurry.' (Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)

'Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work.' (Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72) 'I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master, it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions.' (Letter to Hamsadutta, 1/10/74)

'Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette itis the custom that during the lifetime of your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide spiritual master and spread Krishna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.'" (Letter to Tusta Krishna Swami, 2/12/75)

Reply:
We should note that the above quotes do not in any way rule out the possibility of becoming diksa guru after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. Quite to the contrary, they state the principle that one can indeed become a diksa guru after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada.

TFO:
"(It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above 'law' in support of the MASS doctrine, in the very SAME document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all:

'There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initition in the presence of the guru, [. . .] In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present.' (GII, Page 23))

Eagerness to accept worship and followers is actually a disqualification for a spiritual master. We can only marvel at the power of the false ego, that even in the presence of the most powerful acarya the planet had ever seen, some personalities still felt amply qualified to initiate their own disciples right under Srila Prabhupada's nose."

Reply:
Here we see another attempt of TFO to distract us from the question at hand. This is called a Red Herring. The question at hand is whether Srila Prabhupada wanted his discicples to carry on the disciplic succession in the traditional Vedic way, or if he wanted to introduce a proxy-guru system which have no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra. Whether or not some of Srila Prabhupada's disciple showed personal ambition has nothing to do with that question.

TFO:
"It is apparent that in writing to these devotees, telling them they could take disciples if they just held on a little longer, Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to keep them in devotional service. In so doing there was at least the possibility that, in time, their ambitious mentalities might become purified:"

Reply:
TFO continues to speculate on the spiritual master's intent. It is quite amazing how Mr. Desai is so initiated into understanding the inner desires of Srila Prabhupada. How did he get connected in this way with Srila Prabhupada? He didn't even take ritvik initiation from him, which is also rather peculiar as he is such a fervent advocate of the idea.

TFO:
"Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have recieved a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus."

Reply:
Here TFO tries to establish a false principle. Nowhere in Srila Prabhupada's books do we learn that the spiritual master cannot tell a humble and qualified devotee that he may someday take on the responsibility of being a spiritual master. Furthermore Mr. Desai is being offensive by giving a sarcastic interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's words as "describing their glowing future."

TFO:
"Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified?"

This is a misinterpretation. In none of these quotes does Srila Prabhupada "seriously promise guruship." In fact, the idea that the position of guru is some kind of materialistic reward that can be promised to someone does not occur in any of Srila Prabhupada books, letters, etc. It is the author's own invention. We should also note a contradiction here. If Srila Prabhupada is seriously promising guruship, then how can he be just offering a carrot on a stick, as TFO claims he is?

Also how does the author know that the above devotees wanted to to assume the reponsibility of guru because of improper ambition? Did he read their minds at the time? Was he even there at the time. Can he be sure that it was not a misguided sense of duty? What is the proof of his assertion?

TFO:
"As far as statements to the effect that they would be free to initiate after his departure, that is true. Just as in England one is free to drive a car once he is 17 years old. However, we must not forget those two little provisos. First, one must be qualified to drive, and second one must be authorized by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own parallels."

Reply:
Here the auhtor is minimizing the authority of the spiritual master. The order of the spiritual master is sufficient.

TFO:
"Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:

'By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above mentioned examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of Krsna consciousness population.' (SPL to Kirtanananda Swami, 12th January, 1968)

Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on initiation?"

Reply:
This is a circular argument. Earlier, TFO has stated that the July 9 letter authorizes eternal ritvik because there is no order to the contrary. Now he argues that any order to the contrary is invalid because the July 9 letter authorizes eternal ritvik. Besides that, TFO has far from substantiated that the July 9 letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's final and conclusive instructions on how he wanted initiations to proceed in his absence.

TFO:
"Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's 'law of disciplic succession'. The first part of the 'law' states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence."

Reply:
TFO argues here on a false premise. Srila Prabhupada does not refer to this principle as law but as etiquette. And he says in the letter that they will be specifically empowered. Since it is a matter of etiquette and Srila Prabhupada would be the offended party, Srila Prabhupada could override the etiquette and specifically empower disciples to initiate if he so chose.

TFO:
"Since this was the 'law', clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiating on their own behalf: Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of 'officiating' initiation system as early as 1968."

Reply:
This is a speculative conclusion, not stated anywhere.

TFO:
"By 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed 'empowered', or authorized, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation. Later he called these representatives 'ritviks', and formalised their function in the July 9th order."

Reply:
Here we have a case of begging the question. TFO's conclusion is based on the unproven premise that Srila Prabhupada was only referring to ritvik initiation in the letter. That premise must first be proven before it can become a sound basis for another conclusion.

TFO:
"Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorizing Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams."

Reply:
This is a misinterpretation of the spiritual master's words. Srila Prabhupada is speaking of all his disciples not simply Kirtanananda. The above statement can also be seen as another clumsy attempt to make it appear that this is one of Srila Prabhupada's "lies" to his ambitious disciples, and besides that it is a minimization of the spiritual master's authority. TFO attempts to cheapen Srila Prabhupada's words with the phrase "a few exams."

With this statement TFO attempts to show that anyone who takes Srila Prabhupada's words seriously here is foolhardy, which is nothing but arrogance. TFO says that Srila Prabhupada would be doing something wrong if he actually is suggesting that his disciples initiate, although that is the only clear meaning of Srila Prabhupada's words. The author attempts thereby to cheapen Srila Prabhupada's instructions. TFO:
"'Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of his bona fide spiritual master can become a spiritual master, and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the whole world.' (SPL to Madhusudana, 2nd November 1967)

Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus. However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual masters even in his absence."

Reply:
Here TFO is simply speculating, "may simply have been." To establish one's point on "may simply have been" is not very convincing.

TFO:
"There is definitely no mention of his disciples initiating or accepting disciples."

Reply:
Here TFO is lying. Srila Prabhupada has mentioned many times that he wanted his disciples to initiate and make disciples.

TFO:
"The term 'bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world' is equally applicable to a siksa guru."

Reply:
The term "bona fide spiritual master" is not very likely to refer to a siksa-guru, since anyone, who may not be so bona fide and powerful that he can spread Krishna consciousness all over the worlds, can still give siksa.

TFO:
"In any case, such correspondence cannot be used to modify the July 9th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the movement."

Reply:
This is a straw man. There was no need for these letters to modify the July 9 letter because the July 9 is hardly Srila Prabhupada's final instructions on this matter to be regarded independently from anything else he ever said or wrote. Besides the letter never says anything about the ritvik system continuing.

TFO also bases its argument on the false premise that "these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the movement" There is no such principle that an instruction is not valid if it is not immediately circulated. Srila Prabhupada's desire is what it is, and that is what we have to find out. The author wants to subject Srila Prabhupada's desire to some concocted legalistic system.

TFO:
"The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is sometimes pointed out that letters to Hamsadutta etc were distributed around the society prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure. However, the mechanics of such distribution appear never to have been set up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private corespondence to be distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be published 'if there was time', but he never intimated that without these documents no-one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure."

Reply:
This is a minimization of the guru's authority. Whether the letter has been circulated or not, it clearly is an instruction from Srila Prabhupada. And the statement, "but he never intimated that without these documents no-one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure," is a strawman. No one has presented this argument.

TFO:
"If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for ten thousand years, surely he would have made their publication a matter of the utmost urgency. To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an Mr. Desaiisd form at that time."

Reply:
The author is here making up his own condition that the evidence must be authorized and readily available. It is also not clear what is meant by an "authorized form." Besides that the argument is a distraction from the real issue of Srila Prabhupada's desire.

TFO:
"If Srila Prabhupada had considered these isolated letters to have any bearing on the July 9th letter, he would have ensured they were mass printed and widely circulated.

Reply:
TFO is imposing its own conditions on how Srila Prabhupada should or should not have acted. It is not reasonable to suggest that these letters, which can hardly be said to be isolated, should have been mass printed and widely circulated, especially if Srila Prabhupada didn't regard the July 9 letter as anything but a temporary arrangement because of his disability to move around, which there is no reason to assume that he didn't. In the light of all the other clear instructions Srila Prabhupada gave on this issue, it takes a great leap of faith to regard the July 9 letter as the final and conclusive instructions from Srila Prabhupada on how he wanted initiations to be conducted after his departure.

Still Mr. Desai continuously tries to give us the impression that the July 9 letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's sole instructions on this matter, even though, if to be followed, they would completely oppose Srila Prabhupada's instructions in the May 28 conversation, and besides that be a break away from the ancient Vedic system of transmission of knowledge.

TFO:
"He could even have referred to these letters in the final order itself if they really were so indicative of his future plans for initiation."

Reply:
Again TFO argues from the false premise that the July 9 letter is an initiation-manual and not a communiqu� notifying everyone that Srila Prabhupada was too disabled to any longer conduct initiations. The instructions on how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to proceed in his absence were already given in the May 28 conversations. If we understand the that the July 9 letter was simply a general announcement to all the devotees to notify them of a temporary arrangement in the face of Srila Prabhupada's illness, there is no need to keep insisting that the July 9 letter contain this reference or that reference.

TFO:
"In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of these handful of letters (which, as stated, were not 'officially' published till years after Srila Prabhupada's departure), can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certanly have made that clear in the order itself. Some temple presidents who recieved the final order had never seen or heard of these letters."

Reply:
TFO keeps insisting, without any basis, that the July 9 letter was Srila Prabhupada's final and all-conclusive manual on how he wanted initiations to commence in his absence.

TFO:
"In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was that of name-giving priests, representatives of the acarya, ritviks."

Reply:
This is a false conclusion based on a false premise. There is much evidence to the contrary.

TFO:
"Finally we shall look at catagory 3).

'There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures which have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We shall now examine this evidence.' In Srila Prabhupada's books, all we find are the qualifications of a diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and authorized before even attempting to become diksa guru:"

Reply:
Note here how the following quotation from SB contradicts what Mr. Desai has just said.

TFO:
"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master" (SB 2.9.43)

The above injunction hardly gives carte-blanche for anyone to initiate just because their guru has left the planet."

Reply:
Here TFO poses a straw man. No one has argued that the disciples can initiate simply because Srila Prabhupada has left the planet. They must be strict followers, just as the quote says.

TFO:
"The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here. Only the idea that they must be authorized and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must have first attained the platform of mahabhagavat."

Reply:
This is a minimization of authority of the guru. If the guru orders the disciple to initiate, then all other requirements are met. Besides who is TFO to judge who is, or who is not, a maha-bhagavat? If Srila Prabhupada was a great elevated maha-bhagavat it is offensive to suggest that all his disciples remained unqualified to carry on the disciplic succession.

TFO:
"Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journeys to Other Planets (page 32) dealing with 'monitor gurus' as evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However, this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa, not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher, but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru)."

Reply:
Here is another strawman. Why should we assume that not even some of Srila Prabhupada disciples became qualified being, as they were, in the process? Who ever claimed that they became qualified automatically upon the departure of the teacher? Some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples had received direct training by him in the process of pure devotional service, and had been practicing for at least ten years.

TFO:
"A monitor guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform of mahabhagavat, and then been authorized by his predecessor acarya , there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa guru, the siksha guru may gradually rise to the platform necessary for diksa authorization to take place. Furthermore, a monitor merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again is at variance with the 'law' of disciplic succession that is used to support the M.A.S.S. system. A monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside the teacher. We do not see how this description supports the GBC's a) and b) assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically become diksa gurus."

Reply:
TFO insists on repeating the lie that a ritvik system was ever established. There is no such thing as a ritvik system of initiation mentioned anywhere in the Vedas or in Srila Prabhupada's books. The system referred to in the July 9 letter was not an initiation system per se, but an emergency system set up to relieve Srila Prabhupada. A ritvik system, as in the proxy-guru system envisioned by the ritvikvadis, simply does not exist anywhere. It is a total fabrication. It has no basis in guru, sadhu, and sastra.

TFO:
"There are other occasions, outside of Srila Prabhupada's personal letters, which are quoted as giving authorization for his disciples to become diksa gurus:

'Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth ... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge.' (Arrival Lecture, Los Angeles, 18/5/72)

'At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master . Every one of you should be spiritual master next.' (Vyasa-Puja address, Hamburg, 5/9/69)

The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are already the twelfth - 'you ARE the twelfth'. Thus this is not some authorization for them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that they are already carrying on the message of the parampara."

Reply:
This is simply word jugglery. In English, the present tense can also indicate future. "The child of today is the man of tomorrow."

TFO:
"The second quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place by dint of the disciples vigorous preaching."

Reply:
This is called Scotch Tape. TFO takes two quotes from different times and occasions and uses them as evidence as if they were one quote.

TFO:
"Either way, there is no clear explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation."

Reply:
Here TFO is resorting to speculation. To insist that Srila Prabhupada did not mean for his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters next is even more speculative because he did say that he wanted his disciples to initiate.

TFO:
"In fact, we know it is wrong since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act as instructing spiritual masters, and not in any type of initiating or diksa capacity."

Reply:
TFO keeps begging the question on this point as if it were clear that the July 9 letter established that Srila Prabhupada only wanted for his disciples to become siksa-gurus. It is also a circular argument. The authori is saying that the letter constitutes the final order on initiation, and all other instructions are invalid because the July 9 letter is the final order. This is akin to saying that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

TFO:
"To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable, and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, specifically in relation to who would succeed him, which completely contradict the proposition being made:

Reporter: Who will succeed you when you die? Srila Prabhupada: I will never die! Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! Srila Prabhupada: I will live forever from my books and you will utilise." (Press Conference, San Francisco, 16/7/75)

Reply:
This one statement cannot be used to contradict everything else that Srila Prabhupada said on the subject. In fact, Srila Prabhupada is still the siksa guru for all of ISKCON through his books. Nobody disputes this fact.

TFO:
"Here was a clear opportunity for Srila Prabhupada to lay out his plans for the M.A.S.S. were that to be his intention."

Reply:
Mr. Desai has made it his habit to speculate on the intentions of the spiritual master and impose his own conditions on how he should or should not act.

TFO:
"But instead he says he shall not be succeeded since he shall never die. From the above exchange it can be understood Srila Prabhupada is a living spiritual master who continues to impart transcendental knowledge (the main constituant of diksa) through his books; and that this will continue for as long as ISKCON exists. The role of his disciples being to facilitate the process."

Reply:
There is no dispute over this. Everyone agrees that Srila Prabhupada is the main siksa-guru for ISKCON even after his departure, and that the role is for his disciples to facilitate the process of siksa, but that doesn't mean that they should not become diksa-gurus. The above statement actually defeats itself. If one who imparts transcendental knowledge is a diksa guru, then a siksa guru is also a diksa guru, so TFO's argument that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are meant to be siksa gurus would also authorize them to be diksa gurus.

TFO:
"'Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya. 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 acarya.'(Lecture CC 1.13, Mayapur, 6/4/75)

The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to become acarya. However the whole emphasis is that they should not do it now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his disciples becoming acarya, if he is cautioning them not to do it in his presence."

Reply:
This is pure speculation on the spiritual master's intent.

TFO:
"This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above. This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle."

Reply:
This is a straw man. No one has argued that Srila Prabhupda ordered only specific individuals to take disciples.

TFO:
"As will be seen later, on the 'Appt Tape',(please see page 18), which is used by GII as their principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977 ("but by my order, [...] when I order")."

Reply:
This is a lie. See DOMD.

TFO:
"And this situation remained unchanged until his departure. In any case later on in the same lecture however, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya ambitions in the following manner:"

Reply:
Here TFO is again resorting to the "ambitious acarya" syndrome. This is character assassination. Further more he is speculating on the spiritual master's intent.

TFO:
"'And to become acarya is not very difficult. [...] Amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa, yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa: "By following my order, you become guru." Then, in future ... suppose you have got now ten thousand. We shall expand to hundred thousand. That is required. Then hundred thousand to million; and million to ten million.'

It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction is for everyone to preach vigorously, and make lots of Krsna Conscious followers, but not to take disciples."

Reply:
How has it been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya instructed for everyone not to take any disciples? If this were true then why did Srila Prabhupada take 5,000 disciples?

TFO:
"This point is re-inforced by the next line wherin Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. The fact that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand ..."(i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence) proves that he is clearly talking about Krsna Conscious followers, not disciples of his disciples, since the main point of the lecture was that they should not initiate in his presence."

Reply:
TFO is juggling words and speculating. The passage can also refer to disciples taking disciples after Srila Prabhupada's departure, as we shall point out below.

TFO:
"Thus the numbers mentioned in the verse are clerly not referring to disciples of his disciples, but simply the increase in the Krsna Conscious population. Such persons could only be disciples of Srila Prabhupada, in the same way the 'ten thousand' present now could only be his disciples."

Reply:
This argument has already been defeated soundly in the Timeless Order by Vivek Sadananda Pai:

"Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of His bona fide representative can become a spiritual master and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world." (SPL to Madhusudana, 2 November, 1967) Note the phrases "in my absence" and "become the bona fide spiritual master". This quote shows that Srila Prabhupada believed that all of his disciples could become spiritual masters, but more importantly, it talks of them becoming spiritual masters, rather than some sort of appointment-only basis. The counter-argument to this is that Srila Prabhupada is talking only about siksa gurus, but such an argument does not make sense, because Srila Prabhupada's disciples were already acting as siksa gurus, so there would be no need to hope that they one day start doing so. Not only must this quote refer to diksa gurus, but it must be talking about disciples becoming diksa gurus after Srila Prabhupada's physical disappearance. The counter-argument that Srila Prabhupada is always present through his books does not apply here, since Srila Prabhupada clearly mentions "in my absence," which must refer to his physical absence. .."You each become guru," he said. "As I have five thousand disciples or ten thousand, so you have ten thousand each. In this way, create branches and branches of the Caitanya tree. But you have to be spiritually strong. This means chanting your rounds and following the four rules. It is not an artificial show. It is not a material thing. Chant and follow the four rules and pray to Krsna in helplessness." (Lilamrta VI, page 167) Note that in this quote, Srila Prabhupada talks about his disciples having their own disciples, both by the reference to "ten thousand each" and by mentioning "branches and branches" of the Caitanya tree. If Srila Prabhupada wanted all future members of ISKCON to only be his disciples, there would be no need to talk about branches of the tree or about his disciples having their own disciples. In such a scenario, there would be no future branches, and all the new disciples would just add to Srila Prabhupada's count. Some will no doubt object to this quote since it comes from the Lilamrta and not from Srila Prabhupada's letters. In that sense, it is prudent to check to see if other Srila Prabhupada quotes confirm what is mentioned here, and as we show, the same sentiments are echoed in other places. "By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krsna Conscious population." (SPL to Kirtanananda, 12 January, 1968)

TFO:
"In conclusion:
There is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada issuing specific orders for his disciples to become diksa gurus, thus setting up an alternative to the ritvik system.

Reply:
Mr. Desai keeps forgetting that there never was a ritvik-system. The ritvik-system does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. Nor was it ever introduced into ISKCON. Such a system is not mentioned in the Vedis literatures. It is also not mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books. What is mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books is the traditional ancient Vedic system for transmission of knowledge - the guru-pa