Thus it should be noted that one of the main aims of 'The Final Order' has been achieved. In not defending GII whilst replying to 'The Final Order', but rather crafting an entirely new position that contradicts GII, the GBC has tacitly acknowledged that 'The Final Order' has successfully shown major flaws in GII, as was its original intention

This recent ecclesiastical U-turn has some extremely serious implications:

1. It means they are admitting that for the last twenty years the GBC's official explanations of how they were authorised to initiate after Srila Prabhupada's departure were all false.
2. It means that the GBC, by their own admission, have proven themselves unreliable when it comes to understanding what Srila Prabhupada wanted, since in examining the same identical evidence for twenty years they have produced at least four different contradictory 'official' explanations for how they were supposedly authorised to initiate.
3. It means that anyone who has been intimidated, ostracised or thrown out of ISKCON for criticising the GBC's previous 'explanations' were treated completely unjustly.

In light of the GBC's poor track record on this issue, devotees should at least be open to the possibility that the new siddhanta offered in DD may also be completely false. This is practically admitted in Badrinarayana prabhu's remark- "We are not set in cement...we want the truth". In other words it is quite possible that in a couple more years we shall be issued yet another theological treatise as the GBC struggles for any interpretation of the evidence which allows their invented multiple acarya successor system (M.A.S.S.) to continue, and the original 'representative of the acarya' (ritvik) system to be suppressed. We wonder what Srila Prabhupada would think of all this:

We had prayed that in recognising the flaws in GII, the GBC would see sense and decide to re-instate Srila Prabhupada's final order without the need for any further external pressure. In the conclusion to 'The Final Order' we said it would be far better for the GBC to correct matters internally, rather than perpetuate a messy public battle of polemics. We even sent the GBC an earlier draft of this present paper along with the plea that they withdraw DD. Sadly the GBC body have chosen to ignore this advice.

This paper is divided into two parts. For reference, Part 1 presents the evidence that proves how both of these premises are contradicted by the most recent GBC position, thus illustrating how the GBC have been forced to come up with yet another 'official' interpretation in trying to answer the 'The Final Order'.

In DD it is claimed the two orders (to act as ritvik, and act as diksa guru) are separate, and that the order for Guru-ship occurred earlier, on May 28th 1977:

(N:B Oxford dictionary defines the word APPOINT as 'to ordain'. It defines the word ORDER as 'to ordain'.)

The authors must accept this evidence from Tamal Krishna Goswami since in DD it says:

Leaving aside when the 'order' came, there also appears to be no agreement over whether or not it was even an 'appointment'. Also, as shown earlier, the word 'order' and 'appoint' share the same definition. Thus the author of DD even contradicts himself.

It is interesting to note at this point that as well as contradicting DD, all the pieces of evidence given so far from 'official' sources frequently contradict each other too. All the quotes above are from so-called 'current siddhanata' position papers; (they have yet to be officially withdrawn in the wake of DD). We did not quote from papers issued before 1986 where an officially recognised evolutionary jump in understanding did indeed take place. No, the sources we quote are all currently accepted as bona fide. Let's just run through them quickly here:

GII (1995) : This is the 'official GBC position', the 'Final siddhanta' as of 1995. ( GII, p1&p14).

ISKCON JOURNAL (1990) : This journal is considered so currently Bona Fide that in this year's GBC resolutions it was decided to use sections of it, along with DD in a booklet to be released very shortly.

H.H. SIVARAMA SWAMI (1994): His understanding of this issue is so respected and admired that he was this year selected to the committee which will produce a book on this entire issue. He has never officially retracted one single word that we have quoted.

H.H. JAYADVAITA SWAMI (1996): An up-dated version of his paper on ritvik will also be included in the upcoming booklet. He has never retracted his statement, which we quoted, that Srila Prabhupada definitely did not select gurus for the future.

H.H. BHAKTI CARU SWAMI (1996): This devotee, of exceptional standing, gave a definition of ritvik as meaning proxy only last year. He also appeared in the ISKCON JOURNAL in 1990, and to our knowledge not a single word of that document has ever been retracted by the GBC body.

(Oxford Dictionary defines "proxy" - as authorised to represent someone else)

In the above letter Srila Prabhupada clearly defines the word ritvik (rittik) as proxy. A definition accepted in DD;

Thus everyone is agreed that in the final order Srila Prabhupada defines the word ritvik as "representative of the acarya" or "proxy". But the July 9th letter also states that this appointment of proxies (ritviks), was the very appointment that was discussed on May 28th:

"Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon he would appoint ..."

Further this linkage is also acknowledged by DD:

Thus the July 9th letter proves that the use of the word ritvik on May 28th was solely in relation to them acting as 'representative of the acarya' or proxy. Thus by accepting that the use of the word 'ritvik' in the July 9th letter meant proxy, DD has unwittingly defeated its own premise.

Furthermore, the fact that a ritvik is only a priest and nothing else proves that they are NOT diksa gurus who take their own disciples. They have never been defined as diksa gurus and, more importantly, Srila Prabhupada never used the word rtvik when referring to a diksha guru.

Thus as evidence the appointment tape offers only two choices:

a) The disciples belong to a priest, who by definition is not a diska guru, and who has been set up to be a proxy.

or

b) They belong to the diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada.

The ritviks function was defined by Srila Prabhupada. He set them up specifically as proxies. They were not existing independently as yajna priests before Srila Prabhupada created them. Thus, since Srila Prabhupada manifested them only and specifically as proxies, this is the only definition that counts - and is the definition that Srila Prabhupada would have had in mind when he firsts mentions appointing them on the May 28th 'Appt Tape'. This is the definition which is used and accepted in 'The Final Order'.

In the following Srila Prabhupada contradicts the above assertion by equating the term 'priest' (ritvik) with the term 'ritvik-acarya' which in turn is equated with the term "officiating acarya":

Thus the term 'officiating acarya' refers to a 'priest'.

Also the main definition of the word "officiate" is to 'discharge priestly service' (Oxford Dictionary). Thus an officiating acarya is an acarya that discharges priestly service. Not a diksa guru. (The term 'acarya' can simply mean 'one who teaches by example'- it does not necessarily refer to diksa guru). Notice how Srila Prabhupada states he will recommend 'officiating acaryas', agrees that they are the same as 'ritvik' and then uses only the term 'ritvik' in the 'recommendation' letter of July 9th.

The author of DD himself admits that a ritvik can act as proxy:

Only in this case they were not intended to act as proxies 'at times', they were created specifically and only for that purpose. There is no question of them already being ritviks who were asked to act as proxies 'at times'. They were set up solely to act as proxies and then simply referred to as ritviks.

Everyone is agreed that the definition of 'ritvik' is 'priest'. Priests do not initiate, they officiate over various types of ceremony. This is explained by H. H. Hrdayananda Goswami and H. H. Suhotra Maharaja in the appendixes of DD. This is also confirmed by Dr. V.S. Apte's Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, which was quoted by Srila Prabhupada in the Adi-lila of Caitanya Caritamrta. There it states that the word means a "priest who officiates at a sacrifice".

Thus our statement that "ritviks, by definition, are not the initiators" is correct since:

Ritvik = Priest who officiates

Officiator is not a Diksa guru

Diksa guru = Initiator

Therefore Ritvik is non-initiator

as we said.

The issue here is that the authors of DD are confusing the ceremonial formalisation of diksa, with the concept of disciple ownership. As we established in the previous point, ritviks cannot be the initiators within the system mentioned on May 28th. In Srila Prabhupada's books and July 9th letter, ritviks are only ever described as 'priests' or 'representative of the acarya', never as diksa gurus, or latent diksa gurus. Whenever Srila Prabhupada performed the initiation ceremony, gave a name, chanted on beads or thread etc, he was undoubtedly performing priestly functions. The difference between this situation, and the system Srila Prabhupada sets up on July 9th, is that in the first example Srila Prabhupada is not only performing ceremonial functions, he is also the diksa guru. Clearly he was not acting as a proxy for himself; on that we would agree with DD. In the system mentioned in May, and then formally put in place in July 1977, the ritviks were selected to perform these very same priestly functions, but on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. This is made extremely clear in the final July 9th order itself, and through the common sense point that if ritviks are performing initiation ceremonies, the disciples thus generated can only belong to them if they happen already to be diksa gurus- (as was the case when Srila Prabhupada acted in a priestly capacity)- if they are not, then the disciples must belong to somebody else, and the ritviks will be acting in that instance in some type of proxy capacity.

It is true we do make an indirect interpretation at this point in so far as we assert that Srila Prabhupada is speaking of himself in the third person. We cannot absolutely prove that our interpretation is correct. However, the GBC had the duty on May 28th to ask clear questions of Srila Prabhupada. It is a fair observation that their questioning, albeit for understandable emotional reasons, was far from professional, and as a result the interpretation of this conversation has been fraught with difficulty ever since. We feel our own interpretation is justified for the following reasons:

1. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's question is posed in the third person- "What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and..." So it is not unreasonable that Srila Prabhupada might answer in the third person - "He's guru"... etc.
2. He is being asked about certain principles relating to the setting up of the ritvik system- namely the relationships between the various parties, the ritviks, the initiates and the initiator.

DD admits that when speaking generally about principles Srila Prabhupada would speak of the spiritual master in the third person:

Thus we are in agreement that when speaking about general principles concerning the spiritual master Srila Prabhupada would often speak in the third person. He gave numerous lectures, for example, about the importance of surrendering to a spiritual master, always in the third person; and yet when he gave such discourses he was in fact the only diksa guru in ISKCON, so we know he was most likely referring to himself.

One may object when we understand -"They are his disciples" to mean "They are my disciples", but who else's disciples could they be apart from Srila Prabhupada's. Which is the most likely:

1) Srila Prabhupada is the diksa guru being referred to.

or

2) The ritvik-acaryas are the diksa gurus being referred to?

According to H.H.Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami in DD there is no such entity as a ritvik-acarya, (even though Srila Prabhupada did not correct Tamal Krishna Goswami on this point).

So let's just take the term ritvik. Since everyone is agreed that a ritvik is just a priest, then how can he be the diksa guru within the system which Srila Prabhupada is outlining? By DD's own definition, as given by Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami and Suhotra Maharaja, a ritvik is definitely not a diksa guru. Therefore Srila Prabhupada can only have been speaking of himself as the guru, albeit in the third person. Since we are all agreed that he often did this on such occasions it should not be too difficult to accept our interpretation. It is well nigh impossible for any sane person to accept the interpretation offered in DD, since it means that ceremonial officiating priests are non-different to Diksa gurus.

To further clarify this issue, let us examine all the points on which we agree with DD (leaving aside the fact that DD is sometimes self-contradictory)

The following are accepted within DD:

1. A diksa guru has disciples.
2. Srila Prabhupada is a diksa guru, (at least he was on May 28th 1977).
3. The term ritvik in Srila Prabhupada's books was never used to mean Diksa Guru, per se. (Ritvik acaryas or ritvik gurus do not even exist apparently)
4. A ritvik is only a priest.
5. The term ritvik throughout Srila Prabhupada's books refers to someone who is not in the process of initiating his own disciples, but performing a fire or other sacrifice.
6. A ritvik can act as a proxy.
7. Ritviks were meant to act as proxies in the July 9th order, which is directly linked to the May 28th conversation.

The above points are all agreed by the GBC in DD. We are therefore presented with just two clear choices when interpreting the conversation:

New disciples were to belong to:

1) A diksa guru.

or

2) A person with a title that had never once been used by Srila Prabhupada to refer to a diksha guru either before, on or after May 28th.

We shall leave the reader to decide for himself, but should he choose option 1) then he will be agreeing that Srila Prabhupada must have been referring to himself as the guru in the May conversation.

If a ritvik is identical to a diksa guru then why did Srila Prabhupada need to use the terms officiating acarya/ritvik at all? He could have just said: "I shall be appointing some of you to be diksa gurus, who will initiate their own disciples on my departure".

The argument that Srila Prabhupada is only talking about during his physical presence when he speaks of ritviks is contradicted by DD when it states that the conversation only relates to after his departure. DD does not even accept that on May 28th Srila Prabhupada makes any reference to proxies at all, therefore according to DD the whole conversation was only talking about after departure.

Therefore ritviks were intended for after departure. And since ritviks do not initiate it is clear Srila Prabhupada wanted to continue being the diksa guru - after his departure.

There is a perfectly simple explanation as to why both Tamal Krsna Goswami and Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami have the idea that the ritviks Srila Prabhupada was shortly to select were to be proxies. As Tamal Krsna Goswami himself explains:

Thus we see that Srila Prabhupada had already discussed the use of ritviks prior to the May 28th meeting. It was obviously during these prior meetings that Tamal Krishna Goswami and Satsvarupa goswami gained their impression that these future ritviks were to be proxies; (it also shows that Tamal Krsna Goswami contradicted himself when he said in the ISKCON journal that no such meetings were ever held and that he got the term ritvik from Pradyumna. p.9). This is further evidenced by the fact that in preparing questions for the May 28th meeting, the GBC already had an idea that some type of proxy system may be in the offing:

No-one has ever explained what induced the GBC to draft the above question in late 1977. It's very existence forces one to seriously question the GBC's claim that they possess no other material evidence of Srila Prabhupada's expressions, from that late 1977 period, concerning the future of initiations. If Srila Prabhupada had never, in 12 long years, given any hint of a proxy system for after his departure, but had only taught the "law of disciplic succession" whereby his disciples would all be diksa gurus immediately on his departure, then why would the GBC feel the urge to ask the above question? Remember the above question was asked specifically in relation to initiations after Srila Prabhupada's departure.

Even without understanding their proxy nature, just the fact that 'ritvik' has never been defined as meaning 'diksa guru', is enough to prove DD's interpretation- that they may initiate their own disciples- as false. The author's inability to grasp even this simple point is what has lead them to a false conclusion:

Whether these appointees were ritviks or diksa guru is precisely what the whole argument is about. If we call them ritviks then they cannot, by definition, be diksa gurus as well.

a) The ritvik system of initiation, which I have yet to set up, must be stopped on my departure.

&

b) The ritviks must then immediately metamorphose into fully fledged diksa gurus and initiate their own disciples.

The GBC is asserting that these three words alone must now supplant a clear explicit instruction to operate a ritvik system, and replace it with the M.A.S.S., in which scores of diksa gurus initiate their own disciples! At best this is an unsubstantiated interpretation, not in any way unequivocal clear evidence. There are many serious weaknesses with this brand new GBC interpretation:

1. Srila Prabhupada is supposedly giving an 'order' which is only applicable to entities which have yet to come into existence. Thus we are now being told by the GBC that on the May 28th tape Srila Prabhupada is ordering conceptual entities called ritviks to become guru then and there. The very same ritviks who were not 'ordered' until July 9th. Thus Srila Prabhupada is supposedly giving an order for an entity (ritvik acting as proxy) to change into another entity (diksa guru) before the first entity has even been ordered into existence!
2. If we are to accept that this was a specific order, rather than a general statement of principle, then surely it would need to have been directed at the specific individuals it was applicable to. The words "on my order" were only spoken to the small GBC delegation who happened to be in Srila Prabhupada's bedroom at the time. It certainly could not be an order for the 11 ritviks, because they did not even exist at this point.
3. DD asserts that the whole May conversation only relates to after Srila Prabhupada's departure. It is also claimed that the words "on my order" are used in a present tense sense. Thus DD is contradicting its own thesis since Srila Prabhupada is supposedly then and there ordering diksa gurus, in a conversation which we are told only relates to what is to take place after his departure. How can Srila Prabhupada have been talking about appointing diksa gurus then and there when he has only just said - "..in my presence one should not become guru..." ? Even leaving that aside, if Srila Prabhupada is ordering diksa gurus then and there, in his presence, then this would surely be violating the "law of disciplic succession" which the GBC are so fond of repeating. Perhaps the GBC might then argue that the law would only be broken if the ritvik/guru hybrid entities had actually began initiating pre-departure. But this simply adds to the confusion if we look at the entities Srila Prabhupada was supposedly talking about in the May conversation. We are now dealing with: officiating acarya/ritvik/ priest/latent diksa gurus who do not as yet exist, but when they do will already have been ordered to change function and be something else.
4. It should be noted that the GBC offer not one scrap of evidence to support their hypothesis that on every occasion where Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase "on my order" he was automatically then and there authorising all and sundry to become initiating diksa gurus. If this was indeed the case there should have been large numbers of expectant diksa gurus all vying for disciples in ISKCON within a short time of the society being formed - the "law of disciplic succession" was only invoked after 1975; and when using the phrase "on my order" Srila Prabhupada never once restricted its application to post -samadhi only.

Should the reader conclude that this section of the tape lends itself to so many possible interpretations that it cannot justifiably be used as evidence to clearly establish any position, we would be happy to accept that. It should be noted that we have never offered this tape up as any sort of principal evidence. Rather we are only discussing it since it appears to be the only piece of evidence offered by the GBC, who now claim that their latest interpretation is also the only possible interpretation.

DD proves 'post-samadhi proxy' theory:

In the above it has been demonstrated that the authors of DD admit Srila Prabhupada was going to recommend 'proxies', when he used the term 'officiating acarya' at the beginning of the May 28th 'appointment tape'. DD has also admitted that this promised appointment of 'officiating acaryas' is the direct answer to the question where:

(This is also evidenced by DD's claim that Srila Prabhupada orders them on the tape to become Diksa Gurus, an order that would only be relevant if we were dealing with 'initiations after the departure of Srila Prabhupada')

Thus the authors, in falsely assuming that an officiating acarya is not a ritvik, (which in turn is not a proxy), but in actuality a diksa guru, have unwittingly proved that Srila Prabhupada set up proxies for after his departure. (We have already demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada accepted that the term ritvik was the same as 'officiating acarya'.)

Furthermore, having accepted that the tape deals with the situation for 'initiations after the departure of Srila Prabhupada', the authors are further forced to accept the Post-samadhi proxy theory by the following exchange:

Even though Srila Prabhupada clearly says "yes", the authors pretend he does not, otherwise they will again end up proving the post-samadhi proxy theory. Rather they hope that the next three words : 'Why consider? Who?', will somehow:

a) Change the 'yes' to a 'no';

&

b) Suggest that the question does not make sense;

Unfortunately after speaking these three words Srila Prabhupada was actually interrupted by His Holiness Tamala Krishna Goswami Maharaja. Thus we shall never know what Srila Prabhupada was going on to say. To base a theory on what someone might have gone on to say is called speculation. As His Holiness Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja points out:

The simple fact is that Srila Prabhupada could have said 'no'. He plainly did not. On the contrary he said 'yes'. You can only base a theory on that which exists, not that which does not. The three words 'Why Consider? Who?' tell us nothing except that Srila Prabhupada was going on to say something, which involved considering something, which may have or may not have been a direct reference to the question asked, and which may or may not have raised the possibility that the question did not make sense. One thing we can be quite certain of is that Srila Prabhupada was not going to contradict himself after having just said 'Yes, they are disciples.', and say 'no, they are not disciples'.You cannot modify something which is stated by that which is not stated.

It is also interesting to note that by the time the authors reach the end of their paper they may have realised that the opening exchange actually proves 'post-samadhi ritvik', and that is why they fabricate a new version of the tape:

The authors have already admitted that the opening question concerns 'How initiations go on after your departure'. They have also admitted that the answer to that question was answered with the words "officiating acaryas -is that ritvik acarya - ritvik, yes." The terms 'regular guru', 'disciple of my disciple', and 'grand-disciple' come at the end of the conversation. In other words the authors will have us believe that a question in lines 1-3 is answered on lines 20-26. Thus the first words of the conversation are answered by the last words! The authors have admitted earlier that the question on lines 1-3 was answered by the next lines 4-6. However, as has already been shown, lines 4-6 only mention the recommendation of 'officiating acaryas', 'ritvik acaryas' and 'ritviks' - which the authors say were recommended as proxies - and not Diksa Gurus. Unfortunately cutting and pasting lines 20-26 up to line 4 is not evidence. Better we stick with the answer Srila Prabhupada actually gave to the initial question, especially since it is something on which we all apparently agree; i.e., ritviks for after his departure.

The following are a collection of false claims and straw man arguments that liberally fill up a large portion of DD (at least one per page). 'Straw Man' arguments are a tactic, often used in argumentation where one is unable to defeat an opponent's actual position, and so instead invents a false one which he feels more capable of tackling. This approach ends up being counter-productive for the protagonist since he loses credibility the instant his reader realises what's going on.

The above is completely false. 'The Final Order' only deals with evidence and statements from Srila Prabhupada which actually exist. Our position is not based on what we 'think', but solely on instructions issued by Srila Prabhupada in documents accepted as authentic by the GBC.

We have never stated the above. In fact we are happy to quote from this conversation in support of our position. Nevertheless, in our view the July 9th order is complete in itself, and nothing in the May conversation contradicts our understanding of this final order on the future of initiation. Everything Srila Prabhupada said was of great importance, and it is simply a groundless slur to suggest we have ever stated otherwise.

The above accusation is completely outrageous. By 'old taped conversation' we clearly meant 'previously recorded' not old in the sense of decrepit or not worth hearing.

We never state the above.

We simply say that if the July 9th order was not complete, and needed modifying in conjunction with a previous conversation, then it would say so in the letter itself , or in some accompanying document. This is a perfectly reasonable position. Otherwise we could try to modify other final instructions, such as Srila Prabhupada's final will, merely by searching through the tape archives, identifying a conversation where Srila Prabhupada speaks somewhere about wills, and then amend the will according to our dubious interpretations of this previously taped conversation. Unless the final will stated that it needed modifying, we should leave it alone. The same goes for the July 9th letter. Unless it states that it is incomplete, then why should we assume that it is. DD even admits:

So if it is not incomplete, that must mean it is complete, so why are the GBC telling us we must modify it in accordance with a previous conversation in order to make it complete? This is just plain silly. DD asserts that:

Certainly the July 9th letter would be incomplete if it made no reference to its needing to be modified, if indeed it should have been. If DD wants to maintain it's position on modifications a) & b), and at the same time assert that the July 9th order is complete, it needs to explain how a recipient of the letter would:

a) Know it needed to be modified in the first place.

b) Know exactly which conversation to go to in order to modify it correctly.

c) Be able to modify the order in accordance with at least one of the GBC's many dubious interpretations of the May 28th conversation.

The GBC does not even attempt to answer such points in DD.

The above is totally baseless. The GBC have never produced one single statement from Srila Prabhupada's books or letters to the whole society, on the subject of succession, which is in any way contravened by the post-samadhi proxy-initiation system (ritvik). 'The Final Order' has actually demonstrated this point in depth.

The above are totally groundless assertions. Since it is admitted that the July 9th order is complete, and since the order does not state that it is make-shift, stop-gap, or in any way temporary or dependent on Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, or that it should ever be stopped, or that it is only for the last days, or restricted to a certain time; we are forced to conclude that in making the above assertion the authors of DD are speculating.

We do not say the final order can be understood only without reference to the May conversation. We say it can be understood with or without reference- since the July 9th letter is a complete instruction in and of itself (as agreed in DD).

Yet another rather distasteful straw man argument. We never said any such thing.

We never state the above. It is pure invention.

We never said there is anything wrong with submissive hearing from the spiritual master. In fact we think it is a good idea. The example of the Bg is somewhat misleading since Arjuna does not ask just one question, he asks many, on numerous differing aspects of vaisnava philosophy. In the relevant section of the May 28th conversation Satsvarupa das Goswami asks just one very clear, and self-contained question. Srila Prabhupada answers the question and then remains silent. Other things are revealed to other questions, but the initial answer to the first question is clear, emphatic and undeniable. We accept this as Srila Prabhupada's clear answer to what was supposed to happen after his departure. And so, in a strangely distorted way, do the authors of DD. They however go on to speculate that a ritvik can also be a diksa guru since the word ritvik does not mean non-initiator. As we have shown this argument is false, and so therefore is their interpretation of the conversation.

The above is just childish nonsense; we say no such thing.

One might ask then why the authors themselves have rejected Srila Prabhupada's answer to the first question, in favour of their speculative and entirely spurious notion that a ritvik is the same as a diksa guru. Yet another straw man argument.

But the only naming he does is of proxies:

(DD's explanation of the opening exchange of the conversation.)

How or why is the naming of proxies the confirmation of an order to be Diksa Gurus, especially when the notion of naming proxies is mentioned way before, and independently of, ordering Diksa Gurus? How is acting as proxies the beginning of the process to become Diksa Guru? This assertion is the very thing that is under debate - DD has merely stated it, not proved it.

In their eagerness to discredit our position the authors of DD forget that in the July 9th letter Srila Prabhupada mentions three times that new initiates were to be his. Why would he do this if, as DD asserts, this was already so painfully obvious to everyone. Could it be because Srila Prabhupada's order was meant to carry on into a time frame wherein disciple ownership could even be an issue, namely after his departure? Otherwise how else can you explain the fact that Srila Prabhupada sent a letter to the entire movement telling them that future initiates were to be his. If this was too obvious a fact to be brought up before a small group of devotees- then what to speak of broadcasting the same message all over the planet. Clearly the final July 9th order was meant to continue after Srila Prabhupada's departure. That is why he made such a big issue out of who would own the future disciples. An obvious point no doubt, but one which appears to have totally eluded DD.

The above accusation was not made in "The Final Order", so we are at a loss to know why the authors of DD bring it up here.

However the words 'India, I am here' definitely do not show that it was ONLY a system for use during Srila Prabhupada's presence - the main point of contention, as the authors go on to concede:

If the authors so much detest the technique of testing a theory through substitution, why do they do the same thing themselves:

It is somewhat hypocritical for the authors of DD to lambaste us, make some snide innuendo about making Srila Prabhupada speak Mayavadi philosophy, and then do exactly the same thing themselves.

There is nothing circular in our reasoning here. Either Srila Prabhupada does say "his", in which case we are correct, or he says something else. The authors of DD admit they themselves do not know for sure whether Srila Prabhupada says "his", "he is" or "he's", and therefore cannot say for sure if we are wrong or right in our assumption. If the GBC feel their own principal evidence is inaudible in key sections, we are happy to eliminate it from the discussion, and just focus on clearly written signed evidence such as the July 9th policy document. For some reason the GBC are reluctant to do this, and so we are back to quibbling over "his", "he is" and "he's".

The above is yet another straw man argument. We have never denied the possibility of grand-disciples. We simply point out that this could only happen if Srila Prabhupada gives the order to one of his disciples to initiate ("when I order"). We also point out that that order was never given.

Another spiteful and wholly gratuitous jibe. At this point one begins to question the integrity of the authors, since they must know we made no such comment, nor even remotely implied any such thing. We do not say Srila Prabhupada should have stopped speaking after answering Satsvarupa Maharaja's opening question, we simply observe that he did stop speaking. From this we understand he had given the answer to the question to his satisfaction- namely ritviks for after his departure. An answer DD appears to accept in its own peculiar way.

DD's speculation that this phrase means Srila Prabhupada has just appointed initiating gurus is just that, speculation. He could have meant "that's all" there is to the principle he has just outlined: that when he orders, you become guru. This is a principle in Srila Prabhupada's books, that one becomes diksa guru only when one has been authorised by one's predecessor acarya (S.B. 4.8.54, purport). It is a desperate man who would try to extrapolate from the phrase "that's all", the notion that Srila Prabhupada had just given a blanket authorisation for all his disciples to initiate. The use of such phrases as 'grand-disciple' 'disciple of my disciple' 'regular guru' on the next line of the conversation, can be seen as illustrating the principle of how future grand-disciples may emerge; namely through his ordering his disciples to become diksa guru.

1) The order is completed.

2) The guru stops or changes the order.

3) The order becomes impossible to follow.

As we pointed out in 'The Final Order', the July 9th order is not affected by any of these circumstances since:

1) The task is not completed, there are still billions more people who need to be initiated by Srila Prabhupada.

2) Srila Prabhupada never changed or revoked his final order, therefore it still stands.

3) It is still possible to follow, we just need the GBC to agree, and the rest will be plain sailing.

In any case, even if we leave out the word 'henceforward' from the July 9th letter, you are still left with a system of initiation, put in place personally by our acarya, with no direct order to terminate it. Thus if the word 'henceforward' had been left out of the final order altogether, the system still should not have been dismantled.

DD's two main premises both involve accepting parts of a tape where the relevant portions of the transcripts are disputed by other members of the GBC. This in itself is enough to make the author's case collapse since they only have evidence that is disputed by members of the body that deputed them in the first place to defend their position. The disputed words are in parenthesis below:

In regards to the quote directly above, the authors of DD mention problems with 'clarity of the recording' (we touched on this earlier). Clarity of the recording may distort a particular word but it should not make one word appear as two. In fact the author's themselves do not even seem sure whether one or two words were spoken:

Please note that no previous version of the transcript has ever claimed Srila Prabhupada said "He's" in the section above. In previous GBC papers it has either been "his" or "he is". It casts a very poor light on the evidence being proferred if two words might sound like one word.

(One can also at this point legitimately ask why for the last 6 months of Srila Prabhupada's manifest existence the archives have hardly any tapes, despite the fact that for other similar (though possibly less significant) periods of time they have many more tapes, especially in light of the following quote:

Sadly the authors can not even offer a definite interpretation, never mind a definite transcript:

In summary, DD is attempting to modify a signed undisputed instruction, sent to the whole society, with a tape recording, of which there are at least 4 official differing transcripts, and at least four official different interpretations. We gave the 4 official transcripts in 'The Final Order'. Let us now briefly run through four 'official' interpretations of this May conversation, on which DD's whole thesis rests:

1. That Srila Prabhupada WILL in the near future, order the 11 to be gurus.

This interpretation formed the basis of the zonal acarya system, lost favour around the mid 80's, and has since been resurrected in GII.

2. That Srila Prabhupada actually ordered the 11 there and then on the May 28th tape to be Gurus.

This is the interpretation offered in 'D D.'.

3. That no specific order or appointment was given to anyone in particular to be guru, since the order had already been given many times to everyone.

This interpretation led to the reforms in the mid 80's which led to the current M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya successor system).

4. Only the principle of Srila Prabhupada's disciples at some point going onto become Gurus is given. Srila Prabhupada did not need to give any specific order to any specific individuals since guruship arises simply through qualification. The '11' it was 'felt' were the most suitably qualified to make an attempt at taking up guruship by simple dint of their qualifications.

In essence the GBC has admitted that even though for the last 20 years they have not really understood precisely how Srila Prabhupada authorised diksa gurus to operate after his departure, still they are absolutely certain that he did. But how can you be certain and unsure at the same time? And if you are unsure, then how can you be absolutely certain that he did not order ritviks for the future? The main aim of DD is :

No free-thinking devotee, nor indeed any sensible person, will accept yet another interpretation of a transcript (of which there are conflicting versions) of this tape as either 'unequivocal' or even proper 'evidence'. And neither, for that matter, would a court of law.

We humbly beg the GBC to re-consider their position on this crucial issue. Since the GBC have said they are in a mood to take a fresh look at things, and not remain stuck in cement, we pray they will take the time and trouble to properly study this issue. Please forgive our offences. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

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