There follows a response to the above mentioned article which appeared in the periodical "Spiritual Connections" Vol 13 Jan-April '96. We will quote the main sections of the article then offer some thoughts. The article's title has been abbreviated to SPDR and the name of it's author to BCS. The article appeared on pages 6-8 of the above mentioned periodical.

The above account is basically a fabrication. BCS claims that the above conversation transpired at the point when Srila Prabhupada 'named some of his disciples'. Disciples were only specifically named on July 8th 1977, where 9 were selected by Srila Prabhupada, and then on July 9th where the number rose to 11. However, contrary to BCS's claim, on neither occasion did Srila Prabhupada make any reference to the following stipulations:

a) That the named disciples will only initiate on Srila Prabhupada's behalf in his presence.

b) That they will initiate on their own behalf after Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Not only are points a) and b) not mentioned on these occasions, but Srila Prabhupada states the precise opposite:

As can be seen Srila Prabhupada only states that future disciples would be his. He says nothing about ever stopping the ritvik system; rather he uses the word 'henceforward', which means from now on.. He also says nothing about those named ever becoming initiator gurus.

According to BCS's account, at the point of naming these disciples Tamal Krsna asked:

Anyone who examines the 7th July conversation, and the resulting July 9th letter, will see that the above simply never happened, it is pure invention. A similar exchange did take place, but this was two months before any disciples were named. This was on May 28th 1977 when Satsvarupa Maharaja asked the following question:

Thus when asked a direct question about the system of initiation for after his departure, Srila Prabhupada clearly answers that it will be ritvk. This completely contradicts both BCS's stipulations - a) & b).

Further on in the conversation Satsvarupa again asks Srila Prabhupada about the ownership of these future disciples:

Although some people have tried to speculate about what Srila Prabhupada might have said before Tamal Krsna interjected, the initial answer is quite clear. "yes, they are disciples....". If BCS had any hope at all of supporting a) & b) stipulations, Srila Prabhupada would have had to answer: "No, They are not disciples...". As can be seen, Srila Prabhupada's answer once more completely contradicts both a) and b) which are the very foundation of BCS's thesis.

It appears that BCS has got various bits of conversation all mixed up and has somehow merged and twisted them into a form which coincidentally supports the 'multiple acarya successor system', or M.A.S.S., currently favoured by the GBC. Whilst we are sure this was not a deliberate act of deceit, he would be well advised to carefully examine what Srila Prabhupada actually said, not what he thinks he should have said, or may have said, based on imperfect speculation.

Further on in the May conversation Srila Prabhupada does mention his disciples being gurus. But he says that this will only occur when he orders:

Obviously this conversation could not have been the order itself, since in the conversation Srila Prabhupada is clearly saying that there will only be gurus when he orders them. What is certain is that Srila Prabhupada was making known his intention to appoint Rtviks for after his departure. On July 9th 1977 he did precisely that.

This would appear to be another invented conversation, unless BCS has access to tapes and documents previously unseen. Again he seems to be creatively merging that which transpired on May 28th, July 8th and July 9th 1977. As already shown in all three instances Srila Prabhupada does nothing but contradict BCS's thesis. The only thing Srila Prabhupada says about the Rtviks is that they are for after his departure (May 28th) and that they will act 'henceforward' (July 9th order); and that someone could only be a guru if he specifically ordered them to be one-which he never did.

Perhaps BCS is alluding to the following line in the May 28th conversation:

However all this states is that the role of guru cannot be taken in his presence. It does not say:

1) That after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance the named disciple can automatically cease his Rtvik duties.

Or

2) That on ceasing his ritvik duties he can immediately become a diksa guru, regardless of whether he has been ordered to do so.

Nowhere in the May 28th conversation does Srila Prabhupada come even close to stating 1) and 2) above. Nor does he in any other conversation or document. At least none that has come to light over the past 19 years.

It is hard to know where to begin when one is confronted by a passage of such unmitigated nonsense as this. Obviously BCS has not studied what Srila Prabhupada said about Christianity, and so instead has invented more things that Srila Prabhupada never said.

Where did Srila Prabhupada ever state that Christianity was flawed because it follows a similar system to ritvik? Never. He had no criticism of accepting Lord Jesus as one's spiritual Master. His only criticism was that Christians were not following Christ's teachings:

BCS's understanding of Christianity, and how bona fide acaryas operate, differs so greatly from Srila Prabhupada's teachings it is actually frightening. BCS seems to believe that an acarya can only be 'current' or accessible if he is physically present. Srila Prabhupada taught the exact opposite:

Firstly we are not proposing a ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada proposed it in the final initiation policy document of July 9th 1977. This policy document was countersigned personally by Srila Prabhupada; we had nothing to do with it.

Secondly we do not say that no-one is qualified, we simply say that everyone in ISKCON must follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions. In fact the more qualified someone is the more they will want to follow Srila Prabhupada's direct order. Nowhere in scripture does it say that once someone becomes qualified he must immediately become a diksa guru in direct defiance of his Spiritual master's order.

Again this is pure fabrication. Nowhere did Srila Prabhupada ever state:

a) That he will not be accessible for initiation after his 'disappearance pastime'.

b) That once he is gone people must select a physically 'present' diksa guru.

If Srila Prabhupada did issue instructions like this to all the GBC and Temple Presidents, how is it that no-one has ever seen them? Perhaps BCS can share with us these important documents so the matter can be put to rest.

It is interesting that BCS should emphasise how :'Both Narada Muni and the present Spiritual Master speak the same teachings as Krsna'. We hope he will bare this in mind when he next speaks about Christianity and the system our 'immediate spiritual master' put in place for initiation.

Does Srila Prabhupada teach that to act as the 'immediate' or 'current link' one must be physically present?

a) The term 'current link' is only used in one passage in all of Srila Prabhupada's books; there is no reference to physical presence adjacent to the term. Were physical presence essential it would certainly have been mentioned.

b) The dictionary definitions of the word 'current' do not refer to physical presence.

c) Dictionary definitions of the word 'current' can be readily applied to a physically absent spiritual master and his books:

'most recent', 'commonly known, practised or accepted', 'widespread', 'circulating and valid at present'. (Collins English Dictionary). As far as we can see all the above definitions can be applied to Srila Prabhupada and his books.

d) Srila Prabhupada stated that it was to be his books that were to be the lawbooks for the next 10,000 years. It follows therefore that Srila Prabhupada wanted that the message of the Bhagavatam would come from him only, since we will only be reading his books. But Srila Prabhupada also states that the message of the Bhagavatam must come from the 'current link' in the chain of disciplic succession.

Thus Srila Prabhupada must be that 'current link'.

e) Srila Prabhupada also uses the term 'immediate spiritual master' as synonymous with 'current link'. In fact BCS has himself quoted the term in the above quote. However as the definition of the word 'immediate' below demonstrates, there is no need for someone to be 'physically' present to be immediate:

These definitions lend validity to a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada without the need for intermediaries, again all regardless of physical presence/absence.

f) Since there are examples of disciples initiating when their guru was still on the planet, there would appear to be no direct relationship between current link status and someone's physical presence or absence. In other words if it is possible to be the next current link even whilst your own guru is physically present, why should it not be possible for a departed acarya to remain the current link.

In conclusion we see no evidence to suggest that the emergence of a current link is based on physical or non-physical considerations.

We agree that all the initiating acaryas in our line are nitya siddhas, eternally liberated souls. According to Srila Prabhupada only a mahabhagavat can initiate (CC Madhya lila 24. 330), and even then only when authorised. But where does Srila Prabhupada say that if such an acarya is not physically present we must accept something less? Again BCS is inventing his own siddhanta which is nowhere to be found in any of Srila Prabhupada's books. What happened to speaking 'the same teachings as Krsna?'

The breed of 'guru' which BCS would have us accept is treated with a high degree of ambivalence even by the very body that votes them in. Jayadvaita Swami recently succinctly summed up the way in which the GBC currently 'maintains the parampara':

It has to be admitted that the devices employed in the upkeep of the M.A.S.S., as described above, are not only unprecedented in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, but more importantly were never once described or taught by Srila Prabhupada. Why then is BCS supporting the above if he is only supposed to repeat the teachings of Krsna and his pure devotees?

Once more BCS seems to be very confused about Srila Prabhupada's final order. The 9th July letter only authorises new devotees to be disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. There is no mention in the letter that we can take from any other acaryas, or Krsna, or any such thing. Srila Prabhupada is the current link, therefore he is the present initiator in our sampradaya, nobody else, physically present or otherwise. If someone came to us saying he wanted to take initiation from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, we would preach to him that he should follow the July 9th order.

The above statements are inappropriate for at least four reasons:

1) In order to make such statements with any degree of integrity, BCS would have to have met, and carefully analysed, every single ritvik sympathiser around the world. We know he has not done this, even with those who are outspoken about their sympathy, what to speak of the hundreds who are less vocal.

2) Even if he were right it would have no validity in this discussion since it is argumentum ad hominem - a classic logical fallacy.

3) Such statements also directly contradict the observations of other senior Vaisnavas. For example Jayadvaita Maharaja comments that some ritvik sympathisers are:

"Sincere, intelligent, thoughtful, and devoted to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna." (Jayadvaita Swami 'Where the ritvik people are right' '96).

4) To say that Rtviks are disturbing to Srila Prabhupada is highly inflammatory. Indeed it is precisely irresponsible statements such as these which have led to the beatings and intimidation ritvik supporters have experienced over the years. It is also clearly premature for BCS to make this assertion when all the evidence points to Srila Prabhupada's approval of the system.

It is ironic that one of the greatest exponents of Vaisnava etiquette should speak so rudely about large numbers of devotees, particularly when his own philosophical position is so poorly supported.

I) BCS titles his article "Srila Prabhupada Defeats Ritvik yet he has failed to provide a single reference from Srila Prabhupada that supports his assertion that the ritvik system is wrong.

2) His article comprises of nothing more than confused and fictitious 'conversations' combined with fallacious philosophical assertions; all totally uncorroberated by anything Srila Prabhupada actually said.

3) Not only do Srila Prabhupada's instruction and philosophy not support BCS's thesis, they completely contradict it on every conceivable level.

We would humbly submit to the GBC that, with all due respect, BCS may not after all be the best person to oversee the upcoming book on the ritvik issue. At least he should be encouraged to properly study the evidence, rather than falsely attribute to Srila Prabhupada his own misconceptions.

We apologise to BCS for any offence this article may have caused, we simply wish to save him from future embarrassment.

All glories to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!