GBC Fail To Answer 'The Final Order'

As we will see, PO refers to hardly a single FACTUAL claim from TFO. Also by stating that they will give a 'comparative study' of the 'ritvik philosophy' and the 'traditional parampara understanding' the authors have already, at the very outset of the paper, assumed that the 'ritvik theory' is something that is separate and divorced from the 'parampara understanding'. As we will show, it is this unproven assumption which is falsely trumpeted throughout the paper as 'evidence'. The so-called 'comparative study' consists of nothing more than offering quotes which everyone agrees with and do not in any way differ from or contradict the ritvik position.

To do this the authors have simply lifted arguments from previous GBC papers that have already been defeated. It is obvious that the authors have not been following the very debate they are supposed to be resolving. Future historians will be staggered by the GBC's laziness and ineptitude in dealing with this issue.

These articles have already been defeated, and as mentioned we will be referring the reader to the comprehensive point for point rebuttals of these articles published on our website.

As we will show, it is the authors who should have familiarised themselves with both TFO and the rebuttals to all the other arguments that they recycle here, for if they had done this they would have realised PO adds absolutely nothing to the debate. In presenting PO as the definitive reply to TFO the authors will no doubt confirm in the minds of those devotees who have followed the issue, that the debate is now truly over, and Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation should be re-instituted without further delay.

In this section a definition of the word ritvik is given as 'priest', a section that has simply been lifted straight from an already defeated GBC paper 'Disciple of My Disciple'. This adds absolutely nothing to the debate since coincidentally TFO also defines the word ritvik to mean 'priest'. Furthermore this section erroneously adds:

Since TFO does not propose either the term 'rtvik-guru' or 'ritvik-acarya', this is just a 'straw-man' argument. As we will see there are many more to come.

Another 'straw-man' argument. TFO never claims this. It states the opposite. It states that the CURRENT acharya continues to initiate through the use of representatives who assist with initiation ceremonies. If the acharya (Srila Prabhupada) was indeed 'PREVIOUS' TFO would already be defeated since it is only permissible to take initiation from the current link (S.B. 2:9:7) as quoted on page 39 of TFO. The authors here have employed a very common tactic- one which we have exposed in many previous rebuttals to GBC backed papers - namely to assume the very point that needs to be proven.

Something we agree with and quote in TFO as shown above.

No, we do not disregard or interpret anything. We have simply repeated sections of Srila Prabhupada's purports to the verse in question - verbatim.

1) Do it immediately and not first wait for the spiritual master to depart;

2) Stay in your position, whether that be an engineer or whatever;

3) No special qualification is required, 'simply repeat', 'even rascal can do' etc;

4) And remember, it's 'BEST not to accept ANY disciples'.

Here the authors quote a different purport for a different verse that refers to something completely different - the ability for anyone to become a guru of any kind free of SMARTA BRAHMANA considerations. The order to 'become guru' from Lord Caitanya appears in C:C Madhya 7:128. The authors quote verse Madhya 8:128; maybe the similarity in the numbering has confused them.

In case the reader feels we are merely dismissing perfectly solid evidence we give below a few typical examples from the 37 quotes:

(For some reason the authors have incorrectly referenced some of the above quotes. Many of them are private letters, but that is not apparent by only giving the location from where the letter was written. This gives the impression that it was spoken publicly. Also another quotation is attributed as being from 'Mayapur GBC meetings 1976':

This gives the impression that it was some sort of formal resolution that was passed by or under Srila Prabhupada's sanction. On closer examination we find that the quote actually comes from the 'diary' of one of the authors of this very paper! This is all a subtle form of cheating, and does not in any way enhance the credibility of the GBC's position on this important matter.)

So as always we are left with the same handful of quotes that do bring up the subject of Srila Prabhupada's disciples going on to initiate. The same quotes that have already been answered in TFO and other papers. Of course, the GBC may reject what we have said there - but then they need to present their own solidly reasoned arguments for this rejection, not just recycle the same 'evidence' that has already been answered. For a comprehensive analysis of these quotes please see:

This is not in dispute.

As we will see, this 'repeatedly requested' will boil down again mainly to one private letter written to Tusta Krishna Dasa. We deal with this quote in depth later.

The following can be observed:

1. Once more it seems the statement is prompted by having to deal with over-ambitious disciples.

Also this desire of Srila Prabhupada for all his disciples in his ABSENCE to become great preachers to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the whole world is repeated earlier in the year, just 4 months before the letter above was written:

But, as we have seen from the above letter, a spiritual master can also pass on the 'torch' to his disciples to carry on his mission by preaching and just leading persons to Srila Prabhupada. It is not a sastric NECESSITY that upon the departure of the Guru the disciple MUST start initiating for himself.

TFO does not claim this. We simply state that we should all follow Srila Prabhupada's order as given in the July 9th directive. Even if Srila Prabhupada had not written any books, we should still need to follow whatever orders he had given.

This is also not disputed, in that, if diksa guruship was to occur amongst the disciples, Srila Prabhupada did state that it could only occur after his absence. That is not the same as saying that after his absence diksa guruship must or has to occur, or that he was hereby officially authorising such a thing.

1) Above we see the GBC, in one of their more lucid moments, answering for themselves why personal letters to such ambitious disciples cannot possibly be used to modify institutional directives meant for the entire movement. Surely this is an obvious point that should not need continual repetition over and over again. In each case where Srila Prabhupada is dealing with such ambitious disciples he simply instructs them that they CAN in principle initiate only after the departure of the guru, not before.

2) Further to simply STATE the time-period in which an activity CAN occur, is not the same as AUTHORISING that activity TO occur as soon that time-period begins.

3) Srila Prabhupada is merely stating a very basic point - that there is a time-period after which the diksa-guru CAN be succeeded. If such a 'law' did not exist the diksa guru could never change, and the question of anyone else becoming the diksa guru would not even arise, for a diksa guru would automatically remain diksa guru forever by DEFAULT. Thus simply STATING that such an activity is possible by a disciple, is not the authorisation for that disciple to undertake that activity i.e. just the statement of this 'law' by Srila Prabhupada is not in itself the authority that now his disciples MUST become diksa guru at a certain time.

4) And as mentioned, the very fact that this 'law' is only virtually ever mentioned when dealing with PREVENTING disciples from initiating in his presence, merely reinforces the point that we are simply dealing with the statement of when disciples CAN in principle initiate - not when they are now being AUTHORISED TO initiate. The letters deal specifically with trying to PREVENT diksa guru activity by the disciple. To state when an activity is POSSIBLE in the context of trying to specifically PREVENT that activity from happening is NOT the same as specifically authorising specific individuals or everyone, to definitely take up that activity as soon as it becomes possible to do so. The issue is that the disciples must be specifically ordered to take on this activity by their guru:

We would love to see ONE reference to the system of 'only surrendering to a living spiritual master'. The only time Srila Prabhupada uses this term is to denounce the very concept:

Two points:

2) Furthermore if the GBC use this statement in this way they are, in effect, saying that no one can understand Srila Prabhupada's books without a guru. Then, what is the value of distributing millions of these books? Why should devotees be encouraged to read Srila Prabhupada's books, BEFORE they accept a guru? Are the new devotees in ISKCON 'jumping over' if they read Srila Prabhupada's books without the direct guidance of their guru? What about hearing Srimad Bhagavatam class from persons other than their Guru, or even persons who are not 'official current link' gurus at all?

3) This is a strange quote for the GBC to use since it simply confirms what we have said all along - that one must stick ONLY to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, and not 'jump over' to the works of the previous acharyas. How for instance do the GBC justify their consultation of the 'Krsna Bhajanamrta' and other books from the previous acharyas, when Srila Prabhupada clearly says that we cannot understand anything from the previous acharyas unless it is understood DIRECTLY from Srila Prabhupada? Thus the quote used by the GBC merely brings to light more misdemeanours perpetrated by themselves on the many thousands of innocent devotees under their charge.

Again, this is not in dispute. Anyone surrendering to Srila Prabhupada now would serve and be instructed by Srila Prabhupada in exactly the same manner as the original 10,000 disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada, the majority of whom never had any direct physical contact with him.

We have no idea why the GBC are trying to prove that one must contact the spiritual master physically and that the inability to do this is the proof that ritvik is wrong, since they admit that vast numbers of Srila Prabhupada's disciples never had any such contact. If lack of physical contact disbars one from getting initiated, then most of the initiations that Srila Prabhupada carried out would thus be bogus. Is this what the GBC are now saying? If it is they will become even more unpopular than they are already, if that is possible.

At last, after ploughing through a third of PO we finally come to an actual quote from TFO, the paper the authors were meant to be responding to. As far as their objection goes:

We use the words 'stopping' and 'eternal', which if one consults the dictionary, would mean that we are saying that the parampara can never come to a halt permanently. (The word 'stop' according to the dictionary means to bring to an 'end'). Since a 'break' occurred but the parampara is still here today, this proves that our point is correct - the parampara does not 'end'. The authors then simply produce quotes backing up our point, that even though some break may occur, still, in due course of time this will get fixed and the parampara will continue. Even when the temporary break does occur, the science can only 'appear' to be lost, not be actually lost.

This again is another rather sad 'Straw man' argument. The purpose of our example was not to prove that there are no sub-branches, but simply to highlight the fact that Srila Prabhupada states one may 'pick up' and 'follow' the prominent acharya. He does not state that instead one should only follow some 'sub-branch' or other, or scour the entire planet for a qualified 'living link'. Such speculative notions are entirely absent from Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

In any case Srila Prabhupada never states that there are sub branches in between Vivasvan, Manu and Iksvaku and thus our point that current links can remain current for vast periods of time remains intact. This example also shows the lack of need for physical contact between gurus and disciples since Srila Prabhupada explains that diksa was transferred from one planet to another. We wonder if the reason this point is not addressed by the authors is because it does not fit in with their false theory about 'traditional parampara' always needing physical contact between gurus and disciples?

1) As mentioned, this argument about the 'physical' spiritual master is thoroughly answered in TFO. Also the above argument that the 'living' guru is necessary to 'adjudicate' on issues is ridiculous since it would mean that all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada would have needed to find a new guru as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed. Who have they surrendered to for the last 21 years or have 'adjudicate' for them?

2) Also Srila Prabhupada set up an institution with the GBC Body, GBC Secretaries, and Temple Presidents and he stated that nothing should change. Srila Prabhupada set up that structure, that is different from what was the traditional guru-student personal system, so that everyone would have an authority. It is the GBC who have tried to introduce a system different from that Srila Prabhupada set up, whereby now hundreds of "diksha" gurus become authorities over the individual students and, in this way, disrupt the system of authority in the institution that Srila Prabhupada has established himself.

Next they produce 'hearsay' evidence from the Lilamrta, a publication that has already been exposed as fabricating a spurious version of the 'appt tape' conversation; the Lilamrta gives a version that differs from both the audible spoken words on the tape and also from the GBC's own transcripts. Why can the authors not just produce evidence from Srila Prabhupada himself? We will see later how they base another key part of their argument on the testimony of one of Srila Prabhupada's most erratic disciples, but not from Srila Prabhupada himself.

This section then recycles quotes already produced in the last section and answered in TFO.

• Just because a guru may not need to be an uttama adikari does not mean Srila Prabhupada wanted to stop the ritvik system on his departure and have the ritviks transmogrify into diksa gurus.

And taking it from our viewpoint.

• Just because the guru MUST be a mahabhagavata does not prove Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system.

We notice again how the authors are simply avoiding the issue. They imply that TFO states that Srila Prabhupada wanted the ritvik system because his disciples were not qualified. We never state this in TFO. Thus we have yet another 'straw man' argument.

This is a complete fabrication. Nowhere does the quote state that 'try to first become a diksa guru, because the qualification for that is harder than siksa guru, and if you can not do that then become siksa guru'. This is just the invention of a bewildered mind. If one actually reads the purports to the 'amara' verse one will see that Lord Chaitanya's order to preach (only) can itself be carried out to varying degrees and therefore will depend on personal capacity.

This is not only a 'straw man' argument but also a blatant act of cheating since the presence of speech marks falsely indicates that the above statement is found in TFO, which it most certainly is not. In fact nothing approaching the above statement is found in TFO. The reasoning for Lord Caitanya's order being for instructing gurus has nothing to do with qualification or lack of it, but the purports for the verse and the context in which the order is given by Srila Prabhupada. One almost feels pity for the authors that they are so desperate they should actually make up statements and pretend they are directly quoting from TFO.

Srila Prabhupada does not mention ANYWHERE in the above quote that 'the application of what kind of guru one can become will depend on his qualification'. This is more sadly bewildered invention.

The authors now produce a string of quotes which:

1) Have already been answered in TFO and elsewhere;

2) Can NOT refer to diksa guru as admitted by the GBC themselves in 'Gurus and Initiations in ISKCON', 1995, since they refer to the initiating of disciples being done in Srila Prabhupada's presence.

The authors themselves have used this restriction of not initiating in the presence of Srila Prabhupada earlier as evidence that Srila Prabhupada WAS talking of diksa gurus. Now in contradiction to this, they state that initiating in Srila Prabhupada's presence IS evidence of desired diksa guruship! We wish the authors had made up their minds before embarking on this 'refutation', and at least attempted to agree with the other official GBC papers which are all still official current ISKCON siddhanta. It is unlikely that anyone will be impressed by GBC arguments in PO which contradict other arguments also presented in PO, the very same paper!! Usually the GBC allow a gap of at least a few weeks before they radically contradict a previous siddhanta. By instantaneously contradicting themselves they may end up a complete laughing stock, if they are not careful. In the past we have suggested to the GBC that they run their papers past us before they release them, but as yet they have not taken us up on the offer. The results speak for themselves.

But the system was not restricted for only when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet - this is the very contention the GBC need to support with irrefutable clear evidence - not simply again assume that which needs to be proven.

The above can be counteracted by one of the GBC's own recent papers. In 'Disciple of My Disciple' the GBC's previous failed attempt to reply to TFO, it is stated that the 'officiating acharyas' are to be selected to act for AFTER Srila Prabhupada's departure - not just to clear some backlog. Indeed 'Disciple of My Disciple' goes to great lengths to also show how an 'officiating acarya' is indeed non-different to a diksa guru. Indeed we are told that the 'officiating acaryas' can have nothing to do with 'proxy initiations' since on the 'Appt Tape', where they are mentioned, there is no reference at all to them acting as 'proxies'. Now we are told that the 'officiating acharyas' are set up specifically to act as proxies!

Unless it can be shown that the system was to be terminated at departure then the above argument does not hold. Further the GBC has already accepted the truth of H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja's explanation at Topanga on 3rd December 1980 that more ritviks could be added. This position is also hypocritical since the GBC are very happy to authorise 'good as God' diksa gurus every year at Mayapur even though on May 28th Srila Prabhupada clearly says 'I shall select'.

This section then finishes with the repetition of two more quotes that have already been answered in TFO and elsewhere. Simply recycling already answered arguments is not going to convince anyone.

In short the evidence is NOT overwhelming but:

Only implies 'initiating spiritual masters in his absence' a handful of times, mainly in private correspondence to ambitious deviants;

This is historical fact!

The authors have again assumed that which needs to be proven - that 'ritvik' is a system that is an alternative to or substitute for the parampara. As well as being dishonest, this approach also reveals a complete lack of understanding of the July 9th letter and the very theory the authors are supposed to be defeating. The 'ritvik system' is merely a device used by our parampara guru to assist him with initiations. Thus it is PART of, and indeed FACILITATES the parampara system, since it allows potential disciples to connect to the parampara through the current link in the parampara.

Thus the exercise of 'comparison' is flawed even before it has begun.

Firstly just focusing on the word 'ritvik' alone makes no sense, since in the July 9th letter (the 'order' in question) the word 'ritvik' is used just once, and the word 'representative' is used *7* times. If the authors look up the word 'representative' on folio we are confident they will find plenty of reading matter (1334 times to be precise).

2. Also by the above logic, the GBC should have had 'grave doubts' about their current guru system many years ago, for where do Srila Prabhupada's books give 'examples' of:

a) Disciples taking initiation from Americans?

b) Gurus having many disciples from many different countries of the world?

c) Gurus being authorised, suspended, censured and de-selected by a GBC?

etc. etc.

No, the GBC have not had 'grave doubts' because they will argue that their system follows the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, even if his books may not give exact examples of such a system. Similarly, the ritvik system follows the parampara system of taking initiation from the 'current link' in the disciplic succession.

As we have said, the RELEVANT statements that definitely do NOT exist anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's books are:

a) The 'current link' ceases to be 'current' once he departs from the planet;

b) Srila Prabhupada's disciples must initiate the second Srila Prabhupada departs;

c) One must only surrender to a guru who is 'living';

d) There is a time limit as to how long a 'current link' can remain 'current'.

e) Initiations can only be conducted if the guru is within a certain distance of the ceremonial fire pit at the moment the initiation occurs.

If none of these teachings are found in Srila Prabhupada's' books, what is the authority for replacing Srila Prabhupada and the system that he set up for ISKCON just before he left?

These are simple enough questions, as formulated through 'modifications A & B'. The fact that on a few occasions Srila Prabhupada re-stated the principle that one should not initiate in his presence does not answer the above.

This in itself does not appear to be true according to the conversation itself, which opens as follows:

Now before we see what Srila Prabhupada goes on to say, let us recall what the authors would have us believe should be the answer. Up until now the authors have attempted to present evidence that they claim proves the following:

a) That all Srila Prabhupada's disciples should become diksa gurus when he departs;

b) That all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have already been authorised to do this many times;

c) That according to the authors' interpretation of the following quote, as early as 1971 they were already ALL qualified to do this, simply by dint of being initiated, but they should simply wait until Srila Prabhupada leaves:

To emphasise their point, the authors have even shortened the actual full quote as above.

Also in 1976, according to the following hearsay evidence, the authors are convinced that the only qualification required was already being met by virtually every disciple:

The authors define 'strictly following' then as simply chanting 16 rounds and following the 4 regs.

So based on everything that has been presented so far by the authors we would expect Srila Prabhupada simply to tell them to all go ahead - they ALL have ALREADY been ordered, and as long as they are following the basics they are ALL QUALIFIED

What do the authors claim actually happened:

1) Srila Prabhupada states that he will 'recommend' and 'select' a few individuals.

But the authorisation has already been given according to the authors. So why does Srila Prabhupada need to personally 'select' people?

2) Then we find the authors claiming that Srila Prabhupada will not even be naming gurus, but rather 'officiating acharyas'! Thus having tried to convince us how Srila Prabhupada had taught consistently that as soon as he leaves:

ALL his disciples should become Diksa Gurus;

and that they are all authorised to do this;

and also all qualified to do this providing they are strictly following their initiation vows and just repeating verbatim whatever little they know;

we are now asked to believe that Srila Prabhupada 'confirms' these many consistent and repeated instructions by doing something completely opposite and unique:

He 'selects/recommends/nominates/picks etc/' a FEW men to act as RITVIKS and 'officiating acharyas' - a term he has never ever even used before.

Now regardless of whatever actually does happen on the 'appt tape', one thing is for sure - it is most transparently NOT the 'confirmation' of what the authors have spent most of this paper trying to convince us would naturally occur, based on all their quoted evidence.

According to the authors Srila Prabhupada is now doing something he has NEVER spoken about - he wants the disciplic succession to continue by hand-picking a few selected ritviks! This goes against both the authors' carefully constructed principles in that:

• No specific authorisation is required since diksa guruship is already given as a 'standing order';
• Everyone is supposed to become a diksa guru automatically;

Yet we are now told that Srila Prabhupada announces he will do the opposite - Only 11 candidates out of a potential pool of thousands are to become 'guru', and further Srila Prabhupada will personally select them! And just to make it completely divorced from what the authors have hitherto claimed, for good measure they will not even be selected as diksa gurus, but as ritviks or officiating acharyas - a previously unused term.

Maybe there were only 11 people in the whole movement qualified to act as diksa guru, and that is why Srila Prabhupada chose them?

Maybe everyone who was allegedly 'competent' to be diksa gurus back in 1971, suddenly all stopped being competent the more they practised Krsna Consciousness?

Maybe also virtually everyone developed difficulty in following the 4 regs and chanting 16 rounds and how to read and repeat basic teachings in Srila Prabhupada's books verbatim, even though Srila Prabhupada had said time and again that it is 'a very simple thing', that even a 'child can do it' - and through all these difficulties only 11 competent people were left?

Does this help the authors out of their contradictory quandary? Unfortunately not since it does not stack up with what Srila Prabhupada actually states and what actually happened:

1) Firstly the authors have claimed that the qualification is to be 'strictly following'.

Srila Prabhupada does not say he is selecting them because they are 'strictly following' or the 'most qualified', but only that they 'understand the Guru's Order'.

2) Also the authors have claimed that 'strictly following' means 'chanting rounds and following 4 regs'. Yet we know that was not the reason that Bhavananada was added for instance. He would not have been an obvious choice for 'strictly following' even at that time, and further it is admitted by the GBC that Bhavananda was chosen simply because of the bravery he had displayed defending Mayapur against the goondas.

Maybe everyone was qualified but Srila Prabhupada only wanted the 'best of the best' to take on the job. Thus Srila Prabhupada was not so much authorising as intervening to restrict the numbers. Maybe this will help the authors out? Unfortunately this again is contradicted by the GBC's own interpretation of certain quotes:

Please also note that all the above - Srila Prabhupada picking just a few of his leading manager devotees is totally consistent with what we are proposing - a ritvik system.

Thus even before we get to examining what happened on the tape, whatever it was will certainly contradict the authors' case so far. The authors will need to go back again to the drawing board and come up with another story baring in mind the following:

• Do they stick with the tape, and take that as the main principal evidence of Srila Prabhupada's desire, like they have been doing right up till now.

Or

• Do they stick with the letter to Tusta and all the other quotes repeating Lord Caitanya's order, and just tack the tape on at the end like they have tried to do here?

Should they attempt the latter they will need to come up with another story as to how the selection and authorisation of 11 men ONLY as ritviks, becomes the CONFIRMATION of the ORDER for everyone to all go ahead with very little qualification as diksa gurus the moment Srila Prabhupada departs.

When and if the authors do come up with another theory we hope they will inform us first before embarrassing themselves before the world's Vaisnava community. We want a strong authoritative GBC we can all be proud of and serve under, as was Srila Prabhupada's wish. In the meantime we suggest a swift re-instatement of Srila Prabhupada's final order since there is obviously no clear reason for having terminated it 21 years ago.

Leaving aside all the above considerations, the above also has another serious flaw. It completely contradicts the account of what happened on the tape as given in 'Disciple of My Disciple', the previous 'partial' response to TFO, and authored by 3 of the authors of this paper and endorsed by the GBC! For in there we are told that on the tape there is no mention of the 'officiating acharyas' officiating in Srila Prabhupada's presence:

Yet above the authors have stated that Srila Prabhupada will nominate 'officiating acharyas' (whom Srila Prabhupada states on the tape are the same as ritvik) to initiate for after his departure (question 3), but that in his presence these same 'officiating acharyas/ritviks' will act as proxies!

As we have seen, the one thing Srila Prabhupada does NOT do, according to the authors own thesis, is 'confirm' what he has been teaching for so many years - i.e., that everyone become diksa guru automatically on his departure as long as they are following their initiation vows and know how to do basic preaching. To make this clear for us, the authors themselves present what was written in the GBC minutes book regarding what they believed Srila Prabhupada had instructed:

Here we see Srila Prabhupada 'appointing' diksa gurus according to the authors. Yet this is the exact antithesis of what they have tried to prove up until now regarding what Srila Prabhupada consistently preached -i.e., that everyone was already authorised to act as diksa guru as long as they followed their initiation vows and knew how to preach whatever little they knew; and that such diksa guruship would automatically be activated by Srila Prabhupada's departure. After all, the authors are quite assertive that this is the vital 'law of disciplic succession'. And yet according to the GBC minutes book above, this diksa guruship was actually activated by their selection as ritviks:

Here we see a 'seamless' appointment, whereby the future diksa gurus have already been anointed as such EVEN whilst acting in Srila Prabhupada's presence, for the above quote talks of acting after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance simply being an addition, and not a rapid departure, as indicated by the word 'EVEN'.

Thus now we are asked to accept another 'law' that is totally different - that diksa guruship comes about due to specific appointment only, and even then not as gurus, but as ritviks!

And that the second law is actually the confirmation of the first!

1) Yet INTERPRETATION of the minutes is exactly what the authors do in the 'appendices 1& 3' we are directed to, for there it is admitted that TWO MODIFICATIONS - let these be MODIFICATIONS C & D, must be imposed on the GBC minutes as presented:

• That the word 'appoint' is incorrect, since Gurus are not 'appointed' and it is conceded that this part of the minutes is inaccurate. (c)
• That though the minutes do not say so, we must impose the etiquette that the disciples initiated in Srila Prabhupada's presence must belong to Srila Prabhupada. (d)

If the GBC were to accept their own minutes without interpretation then even the disciples initiated in Srila Prabhupada's PRESENCE must be Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples:

Note that the second sentence is NOT restricted only to after Srila Prabhupada's departure. Rather the time period after departure is only mentioned with the word 'EVEN' indicating that this period is ALSO included, not that it is the primary time period spoken of.

Above the authors state that the July 7th conversation is a 'follow-on' to the May 28th conversation in that Srila Prabhupada actually names those devotees who would act as 'officiating acharyas''. But in the May conversation Srila Prabhupada only speaks of those whom he would name to 'act as officiating acharyas', doing so 'particularly' for when he is 'no longer with us':

Now the authors are asserting that the persons whom Srila Prabhupada stated in May he was going to name as 'officiating acharyas' 'particularly' for when he is 'no longer with us', he now names only for when he is 'with us'! Not only is this a contradiction, but how can it also be a 'follow-on' if in May he was talking of naming them 'particularly' for after his departure, and now we are told he names them ONLY for before his departure? This is not a follow up, it is a complete U-turn.

Further the GBC themselves have always told us that the OPENING of July 9th letter itself makes mention of this May 28 conversation, and that therefore any attempt to isolate the letter from the tape is foolish:

If we take the GBC's argument to its logical conclusion we find that the May 28 conversation is the real reason for the letter; not the July 7 conversation which is not in any way alluded to in the letter:

So the GBC yet again need to make up their minds. If the July 9th letter does follow directly from the May conversation, then the letter must be an expression of what occurred in that earlier meeting, and be therefore 'particularly' applicable to when Srila Prabhupada is 'no longer with us'. It is quite absurd to assert that a letter which arises out of a conversation specifically concerning post-departure diksa arrangements, ends up only spelling out what is to be done pre-departure. Why mention in the letter a previous conversation (May 28) that deals 'particularly' with when Srila Prabhupada 'is no longer with us', when the same letter is supposed to ONLY be applicable to BEFORE Srila Prabhupada's departure - and ALSO makes no mention of the July 7th conversation which we are now told is the sole reason for the generation of this letter? The GBC's position is quite absurd.

The GBC are in effect arguing that the letter actually names the ritviks mentioned in the May conversation, but with two modifications:

&

We can see that the GBC have got themselves into a complete pickle in trying to defeat TFO. Having previously pinned everything on the May 28 tape in their last attempt at answering TFO - 'Disciple of My Disciple'(GBC, 1997):

The GBC have now radically altered tack and have for some reason decided to pin everything on the July 7th garden conversation in order to 'deal' with the July 9th letter. But in doing so they have needed to impose TWO MORE MODIFICATIONS to justify their theory - let these be known as modifications E & F as given above.

Thus at this point let us summarise what has happened so far:

b) April 1997 - The GBC answers in 'Disciple of My Disciple' that the evidence for these modifications can be found solely on the May 28th tape:

d) August 1998 - The GBC now publish 'Prabhupada's Order' to answer TFO. In this paper they change tack and state that the order to be diksa guru was ALWAYS given to EVERYONE all the time, and that the tape merely CONFIRMED THIS. Further the July 9th letter arose solely from the July 7th conversation. This has now led to:

1) Many more contradictions;

2) More questions than answers e.g. How is a new specific order for *11 ritviks only* the confirmation of an already given order for all men, women and children to become DIKSA GURUS.

4) The creation of FOUR more new modifications - C, D, E & F to try and sustain the new approach.

So far above we have shown how the GBC's assertions are untenable by their own arguments. We have only used the tape as evidence since they use it. We have not yet needed to offer any arguments or evidence of our own.

An 'answer' is the response given to a question. The 'answer' given to the question of what would happen after Srila Prabhupada's departure is that Srila Prabhupada would appoint ritviks, as we have seen above. The very LAST line of the conversation segment, after a number of different questions have been answered, addresses the circumstances by which Srila Prabhupada's disciples may take their own disciples, and as can be seen from the transcript, this would only occur on receiving an order from him to do so. Thus it is completely misleading to state that the first line of a conversation is 'unequivocally' 'answered' by the last line of the conversation. Are the authors hoping the reader is too lazy to bother checking the conversation in question, and see that their assertion is humbug?

This is another misleading assertion. The backlog had temporarily arisen because H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja had stopped the initiations, which in any case were being conducted through representatives. Srila Prabhupada simply tells H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja to resume the system, and not wait any more, except now the representatives would give the name themselves to the initiate:

There is no mention here in the conversation, or in the July 9th letter, that this system was being set up JUST to clear a 'backlog'. Rather Srila Prabhupada was rectifying the situation that ever allowed such a needless backlog to occur in the first place. There is no mention that once the backlog is cleared up, the system should be terminated. Thus this was the setting up of a PERMANENT system to handle initiations generally, not just to clear a 'backlog' which should never have been there in the first place.

The conversation was about whether or not the system should be 'resumed'. The 'backlog' had only resulted because the system employing representatives had for some speculative reason been stopped (allegedly). It is not that Srila Prabhupada only set up the system to 'fix a backlog'. Merely clearing a backlog would not have required setting up a brand new elaborate system with devotees around the world, who now had the power to carry on without any involvement from Srila Prabhupada. All it would have required was to carry on with the representational system already running, and which was apparently only interrupted on the basis of speculations surrounding Srila Prabhupada's ability to absorb more karma whilst sick. Even H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja himself only states that there were around 200 devotees in this 'backlog':

his letter raises more questions:

1) Where is the evidence for the above alledged discussion? According to the above H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja was supposed to have discussed with Srila Prabhupada the 'question of new requests for first and second initiation'. Srila Prabhupada supposedly told the Maharaja that initiations should be stopped. Why is it this discussion has never been mentioned by H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja in the subsequent 21 years since Srila Prabhupada's departure?

2) Also this letter was only issued by H.H. Ramesvara Swami on the 20th June, 1977, just 17 days before the conversation regarding the supposed 'backlog'. This letter then had to be received by all the GBC secretaries, who would then need to communicate the same information to all their temples. This process would take them many more days. Yet we are then to believe that in the few days which were left for this policy to have been operational, by the time H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja went to see Srila Prabhupada on the 7th July, at least 200 people suddenly needed to get initiated.

3) Also H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja was subsequently party to a GBC paper issued the following Mayapura where the new 'zonal gurus' were announced. Here again we get a different version of events:

This also destroys the myth that the system was set up because Srila Prabhupada was too 'sick' to accept more karma. Above it seems the representational system, already in operation, had been stopped by some devotees because Srila Prabhupada was sick. Srila Prabhupada now states that the system should immediately be resumed. So the one reason that the system could NOT have been set up for was because Srila Prabhupada was 'sick'. On the contrary Srila Prabhupada indicates to Maharaja that he is happy to resume taking as much karma as required.

It could be argued that it was set up because Srila Prabhupada was 'sick' in the sense that he could not 'participate' in the initiations. But as the conversation states Srila Prabhupada was not 'participating' anyway:

The only 'burden' that Srila Prabhupada had now been relieved of was having to dictate short letters giving names. Yet we know that at that time at least Srila Prabhupada had not lost the power of his speech, and was conducting lengthy room conversations. Furthermore, in the last months when his health was much worse he was still translating and holding long room conversations. Just nine days before his departure Srila Prabhupada dictated a complex codicil to his final will, so we know he was not too sick to have given verbal approval to a few new disciples each day. So we know that he still had the ability to dictate names to his secretary.

Maybe it could be argued that Srila Prabhupada was now relieved of the burden of actually having to perform such a task, even though he may have been able to do so. But please consider the following - even if Srila Prabhupada was to have now suddenly started receiving a letter every day asking for persons to be initiated, the new system would at the most have only saved him a few minutes. And in any case as Maharaja admits, he was handling most of the mail for Srila Prabhupada anyway, and if Maharaja had read out the request to Srila Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada would just have had to dictate some names.

Thus there is no evidence in the July 7th conversation or the July 9th letter that the system was set up simply because Srila Prabhupada wanted to 'clear a backlog' or because he was too 'sick' to accept any more karma. (We have also addressed other speculative arguments). Rather it was set up to continue what had been going on anyway. Only now he had handed over the final operations, acceptance of disciples and issuing names, so that the system could continue to operate without his physical presence.

Sometimes devotees get confused by the conversation on October 14th, whereby Srila Prabhupada talks about 'stopping' and 'resuming' his role in giving 'initiations'-

However some facts are overlooked:

1) Srila Prabhupada still instructs H.H. Jayapataka Maharaja to do it instead as per the July 9th letter where the Maharaja's name was listed. So the initiation would still have gone ahead and he would have taken the karma and been the guru just as with any other initiation.

2) Srila Prabhupada had already largely 'stopped' giving initiation some years before, even prior to the July 9th letter, since as we showed earlier he was already employing 'local sannyasis' to initiate on his behalf. The one thing Srila Prabhupada was still doing was performing the ceremony himself if he was there personally.

3) It is the above sporadic participation Srila Prabhupada is referring to when he speaks of 'stopping and resuming'. In the above conversation an Indian man had flown all the way from New York to get initiated PERSONALLY by Srila Prabhupada. This physical involvement with the actual fire ceremony was something that was affected by Srila Prabhupada's fluctuating health. And as we have just seen PO admit above, Srila Prabhupada had indicated THIS continued local participation of his in the ritvik system when he stated 'India I am here'.

4) Thus the 'time being' Srila Prabhupada had 'stopped' for does not refer to the ritvik system he had only just set up on July 9th, since at that time the only thing he 'stopped' was the practice of dictating names. Neither is he suddenly telling H.H. Jayapataka Maharaja to take all the karma by asking him to go and do the yajna.

Having established what happened on July 7th we now come to the crux of the matter - was the system set up to terminate on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

The procedure H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja refers to is his maintenance of the book of disciples' names. He is asking what should happen with regards the book when initiations are resumed. Since the Maharaja was there in Vrindavana at the time, naturally he has to speak of the names of new disciples being sent to him there. Where else would he be suggesting the new disciples' names be sent - to some distant place where the book was not being kept!? Of course Maharaja is speaking of the system being up and running there and then - it has never been disputed that the system was to run initially in Srila Prabhupada's presence. The above merely proves that Maharaja is speaking of the system as it would then immediately be operational.

This quote contradicts the authors' assertion on a number of points:

1) If Srila Prabhupada was not 'physically fit to perform initiations' why put himself forward at all?

2) Why also then add that 'we shall see' and then give H.H. Jayapataka Maharaja's name as well?

3) Also in the July 9th letter H.H. Jayapataka Maharaja is named as the representative, with no mention that he is only there as some sort of potential back up to Srila Prabhupada.

Thus the naming of both Srila Prabhupada AND someone else in no way contradicts the position we have always maintained - that the system was for when Srila Prabhupada was able to participate AND for when he was not able to participate. And as we saw in the October the conversation above, that direct participation could also be curtailed when he was physically present as well depending on his day to day health.

Another plank of this current GBC paper is the absolute insistence that H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja 'dictated' the letter. Of course we only have Maharaja's word for that. But the issue is not what Maharaja now claims he thought he was writing, or what he claims the letter means - the issue is the words written down in the letter that Srila Prabhupada himself approved. It was not as though Maharaja developed the ritvik system out of his own mind, picked the representatives names himself, and then decided what was going to be done. The whole procedure was instigated by Srila Prabhupada. Whatever words were written down, Srila Prabhupada approved them all. Srila Prabhupada never told the Maharaja 'since this letter is not self-explanatory you better travel all over the world and personally tell everyone what it really means'.

Also the letter was sent to every TP and GBC, and specifically 'approved' by Srila Prabhupada. And maharaja himself accepts that letters written by the secretary but 'approved' by Srila Prabhupada were authored by Srila Prabhupada:

And this was an extremely important letter sent to all GBC's and TP's. A search through folio does not show us other letters that were also sent to every GBC AND TP.

This point was answered in TFO in October 1996. Again if the GBC did not agree with our answer they should really have explained why it was unsatisfactory. We could then have seen if their objection had any legitimacy and thus the debate could move forward. The GBC should know they will not satisfy devotees' intelligence if they just keep endlessly repeating already defeated arguments and pretending TFO has not dealt with them. In TFO we made the point that the name was received by the secretary and entered by him - and that it was stated that it should be sent to Srila Prabhupada since that was where the book was kept. This fact is itself confirmed in the very July 7th conversation that the authors themselves have quoted above:-

As stated earlier we are only interested in the words that Srila Prabhupada approved. Thus Maharaja's 'explanation' of what he thought he wrote, whilst gratefully acknowledged, is not relevant unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that this is what Srila Prabhupada also meant. We already know the exact words that Srila Prabhupada did approve.

Since the GBC are using the contents of Maharaja's mind as prime evidence, it is pertinent for us to carefully examine whether his record on this issue is solid and reliable. Below the reader will see for themselves how Maharaja has offered nothing but a mass of confusing and contradictory positions on what should have happened after Srila Prabhupada's departure:

Maharaja offered the following vivid understanding of what exactly he thinks happened at this time:

As is accepted by everyone now including the GBC, Maharaja's understanding of what the letter meant, and the events that transpired after 1978 based on this understanding of the letter by Maharaja, was an understanding that was absolutely FALSE. Thus from the very beginning Maharaja had misunderstood the meaning and context of the letter by his own later admission.

Here Maharaja is not only confirming that his understanding of the letter in 1978 was totally wrong, but also that now he has finally properly understood what Srila Prabhupada really wanted.

Further it will be noted in the above that maharaja states that Srila Prabhupada's intention to appoint disciples to assist with initiation, as recorded in the May 28th conversation, (6 Months before his own demise), was motivated by illness EVEN THEN, and that the 'naming of the gurus' done in the July 9th letter flowed directly from the May 28th conversation.

Here the informative Maharaja makes a 'Freudian slip', in that he gives a definition of the word 'henceforward' that forms the whole basis of the TFO - 'until further notice'. The very 'further notice' that was NEVER given. This is exactly what TFO is claiming. Srila Prabhupada never gave this 'further notice' and thus the system should still be running.

Here Maharaja must be praying the reader will not notice the glaring contradiction. He makes a 'brief mention' to a conversation that deals with what to do 'after Prabhupada's departure', at the outset of a letter that is supposed to deal only with what to do before Srila Prabhupada's departure. Furthermore, as we have already covered extensively above, the GBC argues that this brief mention proves the letter resulted from what was stated on the May 28 tape, a tape that deals specifically with what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada' departure. (A tape which is also currently inadmissible as evidence according to the GBC's own investigative expert, incidentally)

Maharaja answers 'yes', there was an 'accompanying explanation' which would 'shed more light' on the 'understanding of the term "henceforward" in this context.' Then he immediately states that he has no 'specific memory' about such an accompanying explanation, but there must 'undoubtedly' have been some exchange between them. If Maharaja has no 'specific memory' how can he be so sure that there was 'undoubtedly' such an exchange, and further what the exact details of that exchange were? As we have seen above, 21 years ago Maharaja was not sure at all what Srila Prabhupada intended status for those 11 persons was. Yet today we are supposed to accept his version of events as being accurate even though admits he does not even have a 'specific memory' on the topic. Not entirely convincing we are afraid to say.

The fact that in Maharaja's diary of his time as secretary in the last year, which he has just released, there is absolutely no mention of any of these elusive conversations surrounding the issuing of this letter adds further doubt to his testimony. Evidence which does not exist is no evidence at all. Not only is this evidence entirely missing in any hard form such as tapes or approved documents, it appears to have also slipped out through the gaps in the Maharaja's synaptic junctions.

Hardly overwhelming. This so-called 'evidence' is nothing more than the testimony of someone who, by his own admission, has not been at all clear on Srila Prabhupada's desires for the past 21 years. Furthermore the same person also admitted that the 'most senior devotees in the movement' had committed the 'greatest disservice' in the way in which they had understood and executed Srila Prabhupada's instructions for what should occur after his departure. Considering his terrible track record on the issue of spiritual authority, the Maharaja must have been very flattered to even have been asked to contribute to such an important GBC paper.

As far as 'writing off' goes, the GBC themselves have 'written off' a substantial proportion of Srila Prabhupada's 'hand-picked' men. After all we do not see them rushing to take testimonies from:

Hamsaduta, Bhagavan, Ramesvara, Kirtanananda, Harikesa or Bhavananda.

We see yet another 'straw man' argument. Again what is particularly pathetic about these 'straw man' arguments is that they cannot even come up with new ones, but instead keep recycling ones that have already been defeated in our responses to previous GBC papers. We hope the reader will forgive us if we once more reproduce our position as stated in TFO:

The authors have 'shown' no such thing. They have simply have told us to take Maharaja's word for it. Yet Maharaja himself is happy to accept that letters 'signed' by Srila Prabhupada's secretary were actually 'authored' by Srila Prabhupada:

As we have seen the authors have only demonstrated something that was never in dispute - that initiations were to be performed in Srila Prabhupada's presence. The real issue is - were they ONLY to be performed in Srila Prabhupada's presence. The 3 pieces of evidence they have offered for this are:

1) 2 pieces relating to sending the names to Srila Prabhupada's for entry in the 'initiated disciples book' - a POST-initiation activity that we have shown by the GBC's own evidence was not to be carried out by Srila Prabhupada anyway.

2) The other piece relates to the phrase 'India I'm here' in relation to who should perform initiations in India which:

• presents a contradiction since the authors have also simultaneously assured us that the only reason the system was being set up was because Srila Prabhupada was too sick to participate in initiations!
• after so saying Srila Prabhupada immediately ADDS 'We shall see. Jayapataka', and in that way appoints someone to take over from him in India.

As shown above this is just another 'straw man' argument. We are more than happy to accept the definition of the word 'henceforward' as given by H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja. The same definition the authors have quoted to support their own position, i.e., 'Until further notice'.

Please see above.

Please see above.

The letter was the 'last' instruction sent to the whole society on how future initiations were to run. It was sent just over 100 days before Srila Prabhupada's departure and set out how initiations were to run 'from that time onwards' or 'until further notice'. This is just a plain old stubborn fact that just will not go away, whoever's shaky 'testimony' the authors may wish to present as 'new evidence'. If any subsequent orders on this subject were ever issued by Srila Prabhupada it would be timely for the authors to produce them.

Unfortunately it has not come close to achieving even this diluted objective, as we have thus far demonstrated.

It has also been pointed out that with the number of 'straw man' arguments presented in PO, it is unlikely the authors have read TFO properly even once, what to speak of 'repeatedly'.

Yet the authors are unable to give even one specific example of where we have misrepresented the philosophy through selective quotation in TFO. Even the two examples they offer are false (as we shall demonstrate), and in any case do not even relate to quotations from Srila Prabhupada or sastra. Further, as we will show in the appendix, in establishing one of the key planks to their whole theory (kiba vipra), the authors themselves have quoted very selectively.

Two points;

• It is painfully clear that the one thing the authors have not done is 'closely examine' TFO, or any other paper on our web site for that matter.
• They have yet to substantiate any of the above claims.

This is a recycling of exactly the same defeated argument that was used in 'The Timeless Order'. For convenience we will answer it just once more below:

At no point do we in any way suggest that Jayadvaita Maharaja agrees with our conclusion- that the ritvik system should have continued past the departure of Srila Prabhupada, or even that he approves of the way we formulate the 'question at hand'. We quoted him simply to establish that everyone on both sides of the controversy agrees that the July 9th policy document is authentic and was authorised by Srila Prabhupada. Surely if commonality does exist, even if only on a minor point, it is still good to point it out.

Again totally recycled from the 'The Timeless Order'. Our response again for the last time (hopefully):

'Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus'.

Now if the above does not constitute a confession, we don't know what would.

The authors then accuse us of selective quoting. Of this we are also guilty. In a court of law the prosecution will often take statements of the accused to support their own case. There is nothing wrong in that. Everyone knows that devotees such as H.H.Tamal Krishna Goswami and H.H.Jayadvaita Maharaja believe that the M.A.S.S. was authorised by Srila Prabhupada. We never imply otherwise. There is no point in simply repeating entire tracts of a talk when only certain parts are relevant. H.H.Tamal Krishna Goswami is perfectly entitled to give his personal views, for example, on who is and who is not qualified to be a diksa guru. Should these or other statements support the final order we are more than happy to quote him. Selective quoting can only be dishonest if we use the quotes to try and prove something other than what is actually said by the whole text. This we have never done. We never claimed that anything H.H. Jayadwaita Maharaja or H.H. Tamala Krishna Goswami said supported the post-samadhi ritvik proposition. We simply stated that they did agree on certain subsidiary points: that the July 9th letter sets up a ritvik system - H.H.Jayadvaita Swami; that no Diksa Gurus were appointed - H.H.Tamala Krishna Goswami; nothing more and nothing less. Further, in the case of the 'Topanga Canyon Confessions', we do not present it in our section called 'Evidence'. We simply produce the sections on their own after the paper in the appendix, to simply make the point that gurus were never 'appointed', and it is not referred to throughout the whole paper to try and support the idea that it is evidence for the post-samadhi ritvik system.

We are surprised the authors should employ such false innuendo with regards 'selective quoting', since the very next thing they say is:

As we have just shown, the authors have failed to provide any real evidence for such misrepresentation. It would be incredibly childish and stupid for us to deliberately pretend that H.H.Jayadvaita Maharaja was really a hard ritvik, would it not. The authors have not shown where we have falsely presented quotes from opposition authors in 'support of a particular point' that is then contradicted by the rest of the authors' quote. Where, for example, does H.H. Jayadvaita Maharaja go on to say that the July 9th letter 'has no authority whatsoever, and certainly does not establish any sort of ritvik system'?

The authors, of course, can 'assert' whatever they like, in the same way the GBC have asserted for the last 21 years that Srila Prabhupada authorised them to succeed him as diksa gurus. But they never seem to be able to produce any evidence for their assertions, just as they have not done here. Presumably the authors considered the above two examples best illustrative of our dishonesty, and yet clearly neither accusation holds up. The readers can thus see for themselves just how careful the GBC are to give 'truthful and fair reporting'.

On the contrary the TFO is based on following the July 9th letter until irrefutable relevant evidence to the contrary can be presented. There is no interpretation offered. Only the face meaning of the order is accepted in TFO. The authors meanwhile have never accepted the face meaning of the July 9th order, but rather have offered endless speculations and reinterpretations of this clear directive, culminating in expecting us to accept what H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja currently teaches Srila Prabhupada meant by the letter. Why not be submissive to Srila Prabhupada rather than a self confessed leader of endless deviations?

We would love for the authors to give us the 'direct meanings' of the following words, and show how they mean 'until my departure':

'Henceforward' - July 9th letter

'in the future' - July 11th letter

'Continue' X 2 - July 19th and July 31st

'There is no need for ANY CHANGE' - Last Will and Testament

'My Initiated Disciple' - Last Will and Testament

We would also like to know how the word 'ritvik' means two different things in the May 28th tape and the July 9th letter.

As we have shown the authors have not produced any direct instructions where Srila Prabhupada has told all his followers that they must become 'INITIATING spiritual masters' immediately on his departure. All they have produced in specific relation to this issue are:

1) Instructions relating to siksa/preacher gurus - as our appendix will again prove;

2) One letter to a deviant where Srila Prabhupada states that diksa guruship CAN occur after his departure;

3) Other quotes relating to 'initiating' that actually violate the 'law of disciplic succession' that they have used in 2.

4) The 'appt tape' that only speaks of 'ritviks' for AFTER Srila Prabhupada's departure and diksa gurus only emerging on the receipt of a specific order.

Yet the authors have singularly failed in providing even one example of the above - not surprising since they only quoted from TFO four times in the whole of PO.

See above. Though thanks for the half-compliment - not bad for someone who is more commonly referred to as worse than a 'sahajiya and mayavadi' combined.

So would we. A synonym for 'last word' could be 'final order'. We wish the GBC really would give the 'last word' to Srila Prabhupada on this issue.

We demonstrated in TFO that Srila Prabhupada's many uses of Lord Caitanya's order to 'become guru' - amara ajnaya - (C:C, Madhya 7:128) was not an encouragement for all his followers and disciples to become diksa gurus, but simply to become preacher/siksa gurus. It seems the GBC realised that without these numerous quotes, they would be stripped of anything to support their dubious interpretation of the May 28th conversation, and thus they have attempted to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada is referring to diksa when repeating this order for everyone to become guru. By doing this they presumably hoped to expand their pool of quotes from the usual old chestnuts from a handful of private letters to ambitious deviants (Tusta Krishna etc), to take in many quotes directly from Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures. This they have attempted to accomplish by using a sentence that is found in another purport to a different verse in the C:C - Madhya 8:128.

We will quote this sentence from the purport in question, see what the verse and whole purport states, and then we will examine in detail if indeed the purport in Madhya 8:128 proves once and for all that Madhya 7:128 refers to diksa gurus.

In section 3 of their paper, the authors present the following from the C:C (Madhya 8:128) as evidence that the 'amara ajnaya' verse (Madhya 7:128) from Lord Caitanya refers to diksa guru:

a). What is interesting to note is that parts of the purport before the underlined sentence but after the Sanskrit have been omitted, an omission that is not indicated by the authors. This is noteworthy since the sentence before the key quoted sentence might well clarify the context.

b). Also the quoted part comes right at the end of the purport. What is also interesting is that after the evidence is quoted by the authors there are only 5 more lines to the whole purport. As well as providing the words before the evidence one would also have expected the words after. Thus one might question why the authors only quote the next 3 lines but leave out the final 2.

We will now re-examine the 'evidence' by again looking at this section of the purport but this time including the sections missed out by the authors. (Later on we will take a look at the entire purport as a whole). What follows is the complete section relating to the part of the purport the authors have quoted; the sections which have been omitted by the authors shall be in italics:

As we can see significant RELEVANT portions have been omitted which appear both before and after the 'evidence' in question.

Thus this purport is simply making the point that one's birth does not bar one from taking up the role of a diksa guru. One simply needs to know the science of Krishna.

This is completely different from stating as the authors have done in introducing this purport:

"In his purports to Caitanya Charitamrta, Srila Prabhupada quotes his own spiritual master, who directly refutes the claim that the order to become guru cannot refer to diksa guru"

As we have seen this purport makes no reference to the 'amara ajnaya' ORDER but only to the QUALIFICATION that anyone who knows the science of Krsna can be a guru.

However our evidence for the specific application of the 'amara ajnaya' verse (C:C Madhya 7:128) as used by Srila Prabhupada, is based on two considerations: 

a) The explanation of the verse itself by Srila Prabhupada.

b) The usage of the verse by Srila Prabhupada in relation to his disciples. 

TRANSLATION 

And straight after Srila Prabhupada states: 

That the points made by us above are philosophically correct and self-evident is further corroborated by the fact that even H.H. Hrdayananda Maharaja, one of the authors of this paper, agrees with us on this issue. Though Maharaja does not as yet agree at all with TFO (we hasten to add), he nevertheless sees that we need to actually stick with quotes that clearly deal with diksa, and not just general quotes dealing with acting as 'guru', which do not refer to either a formal diksa or indeed even formal siksa relationships. 

I had an e-mail exchange with him on the subject of evidence for Srila Prabhupada ordering gurus, and the following exchange transpired: 

"What my ANALYSIS shows is that there ARE instances where Srila Prabhupada talks of either Siksa OR Diksa. I agree it is wrong to ASSUME anything. Specifically there are occasions where Srila Prabhupada can ONLY be referring to SIKSA. I will state four of these circumstances:

"What you would have to show here is that in these 4 circumstances, Srila Prabhupada states that one can or should become a siksha guru. If he says simply "become a guru", then guru can be taken to mean a teacher, the literal sense of the word. In the case of siksha and diksha, there is a stage in which one formally accepts a guru and enters into a guru-disciple relationship. Followers of Sridhara Swami of the Gaudiya Matha used to quote Prabhupada as saying that Sridhara Swami was his "siksa guru". But as we know, Prabhupada never entered into a formal guru-disciple relationship with Sridhara Swami. There are other instances in which we can see the word guru being used to mean a teacher of Krishna consciousness. On the other hand, Bhaktivinode Thakur accepted Jagannatha Das Babaji as his siksha guru, and his main guru. Thus the "four cases" you mentioned would not apply to such a primary guru-disciple relationship, on the level of siksha or diksha."

PO, as we have seen, relies in part on the understanding of H.H. Tamal Krishna Maharaja regarding what happened in 1977. It is interesting to note that at that time to support his understanding, Maharaja also gave an explanation of the 'amara ajnaya' verse that concurs fully with our view: 

Should the authors of PO try to avoid the above damaging testimony (which fully supports our understanding of the 'amara' verse) by arguing that Maharaja's previous understanding of the July 9th letter, and the events that occurred in 1977, were actually awry , they would also be forced to accept the following: 

a) Any attempt to use Maharaja's testimony as some type of reliable record of Srila Prabhhupada's intentions in 1977 will severely lack credibility, since the authors of PO would simultaneously have to concede that even at the time in question the Maharaja had no clear grasp of the facts.

b) It will also undermine the claims of the authors that the '11', of whom Maharaja was one, were 'selected' to be initiating gurus by Srila Prabhupada, since they would now be forced into preaching that Maharaja was not even qualified enough to understand a basic aspect of Krishna Conscious philosophy as found in the Caitanya Caritamrta. Rather he gave the totally OPPOSITE meaning to that which the authors of PO allege is the case.

It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above 'law' in support of the M.A.S.S. doctrine, in the very SAME document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all :

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!  

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: 

Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have received a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus. Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise diksa guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified? 

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 authorised by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own parallels.  

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

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

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. 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 1969. As it turned out by 1975 Srila Prabhupada had indeed 'empowered', or authorised, 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. Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorising Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya just as long as he passed a few exams.

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 also in his absence. There is definitely no mention in the above quote of his disciples initiating or accepting their own disciples. The term 'bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the whole world' is equally applicable to a siksa guru. 

Even if such letters as these did allude to some other type of guru system, they still could not be used to modify the final July 9th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the Movement. The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is occasionally alleged that some of these personal letters were leaked out to other members of the Society. This may or may not have been the case, but the important point to note is that the mechanics of such distribution appears 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.  

In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of these handful of letters can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certainly have made that clear in the order itself, or in some accompanying document. 

In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was as representatives of the acarya, ritviks. 

- Finally we shall look at category 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 authorised before even attempting to become diksa guru:

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

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

To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable, and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, in relation to what would happen after his departure, which completely contradict the proposition being made:

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. But instead of stating that his disciples will succeed him as diksa gurus, he says he shall never die, and his books will do the necessary. 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.

It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction was for everyone to preach vigorously, make lots of Krsna conscious followers, but not to take disciples. This point is re-inforced where Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. It is significant that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand..." (i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence). From this it is clear he is 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. The implication being then, that just as at that time there may have been around ten thousand followers of Krsna Consciousness, so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik system was to ensure that when these followers became suitably qualified for initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just as they could when he gave the above lecture.

("The Final Order", p12-15) 

Next we quote from 'Best Not To Accept Disciples', a reply to 'Timeless Order (TO):  

3) The above argument is quite irrational. When outlining the activities of these 'spiritual masters' Srila Prabhupada says: 

Since the above also comes after his reference to 'missionary work', are we also to take it that the above activities cannot in any way apply to siksa gurus, but only to diksa? Let us break this argument down further. There are two choices on offer here.  

Either- 

a) The above activities can not apply to missionary activities (since these refer to siksa and have already been mentioned).  

Or 

b) They do apply to missionary activities. 

If we choose option a) then one might ask what sort of preaching these so-called spiritual masters, are doing, if not giving in 'toto' that which they have received from their own spiritual master?  

If we go for option b) then Srila Prabhupada may still be describing the activities of siksa gurus, even though- heaven help us- such elucidation occurs after he mentions the term 'missionary work'. The activities described are, after all, quite typical of a siksa guru.  

Clearly a) must be false, in which case Srila Prabhupada can be seen to be outlining for these aspiring siksa gurus how they will most effectively carry out their missionary activities, namely by repeating what they have been taught without addition or alteration.  

Certainly there is no logic in T.O.'s assertion that Srila Prabhupada must be talking only about diksa gurus in the latter half of the quote, purely by dint of the fact that he had already mentioned missionary work in the first half!

The above quote cannot be used to supplant or modify the final order for the following reasons: 

1) There is absolutely no mention of the terms 'diksa' or 'initiation'. These are essential elements since that is what is under debate, namely who is supposed to be the diksa, or initiating spiritual master within ISKCON. We all accept that everyone should be a 'spiritual master', that is not what is at issue. 

2) In relation to the type of spiritual master Srila Prabhupada is referring to, we note that once again he uses the famous 'amara' verse which, as previously demonstrated, he taught us refers only to instructing guru, not initiating: 'It is best not to accept any disciples'. 

3) Srila Prabhupada does make reference to his physical departure where he says 'even I die', but this does not prove that he could only be referring to diksa, since it is also possible to continue as an instructing guru when the spiritual master leaves. In fact the vast majority of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are doing precisely that. No-one is suggesting that their activities as instructing gurus is in any way a violation of the above quote, or somehow only second-rate, so presumably our interpretation is correct. (As an aside we see Srila Prabhupada is ordering his boys and girls to act as spiritual master. If this can only mean diksa, how is it that after twenty years we do not have even one single female diksa guru? The GBC do not seem to have the courage of their convictions on this point).  

To clarify this point on references to disappearance in relationship with guruhood, we would like to make the following points: 

• The mention of disappearance does not only imply diksa guru.  
• Siksa gurus can operate during the appearance and disappearance of the initiating acarya. 
• Srila Prabhupada stated that diksa gurus could only operate after the disappearance of the initiating acarya. 
• Thus the only definite principle in all this is that diksa gurus cannot operate during the physical presence of their own diksa guru, (at least as far as Srila Prabhupada was concerned). 

Quote number 3: 

The above quote cannot be used to supplant or modify the final order for the following reasons: 

1) Srila Prabhupada once more defines the type of guru by using the 'amara' verse. As we have shown this can only refer to siksa. 

2) There is absolutely no mention of the term diksa nor the word 'initiation', so once more the quote can have no direct relevance to the central issue of contention, namely the intended process for diksa initiation within ISKCON. 

3) There is no mention of Srila Prabhupada's disappearance needing to occur before guru activities commence- the order being immediate- therefore he can only be referring to siksa. 

4) 'Messiah' is a Hebrew word- meaning 'deliverer of Jews'(Oxford English Dictionary)- not a scientific Sanskrit term, so it is pushing it a bit for T.O. to state categorically that 'messiah must mean diksa guru'(T.O.p.12). Certainly such a definition is never given by Srila Prabhupada. It would also severely contradict their own position if it did mean this since, according to Christian scholars expert in the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus is still the messiah, and therefore by the GBC's own argument still a diksa guru, even though he is no longer on the planet! Srila Prabhupada also taught that Jesus can deliver his disciples even now (quotes given in 'The Final Order' p.32). Either way our position is only strengthened and the GBC's weakened through this assertion since in any case siksa gurus can also help deliver conditioned souls through relevant instruction. To summarise this point, either:

a) The word 'messiah' means diksa guru, in which case it is possible to accept a departed acarya as ones diksa guru since Srila Prabhupada taught that Jesus is still delivering disciples. Therefore the essence of ritvik philosophy is bona fide.

or

b) The word 'messiah' just means preaching what you have been taught, and in that way deliver your friends family and neighbours (though remember it's 'best not to accept any disciples'), in other words siksa guru. Therefore ritvik conclusion is correct. 

Either way the final order still stands.

The above quote cannot be used to supplant or modify the final order for the following reasons: 

1) Once again we have the 'amara' verse which encourages siksa not diksa activity, (unless the GBC can satisfactorily answer all of our six points under the section 'The 'amara' verse' above). 

2) There is no mention of the word diksa, nor the term 'initiate', at least one of which would be essential elements in any evidence purporting to relate directly to Srila Prabhupada's intended system for the continuation of initiation within ISKCON.

3) There is no mention of Srila Prabhupada's physical disappearance, only 'retirement'. Therefore conversation most likely referring to siksa gurus or instructing acaryas. 

4) Never mind mention of departure, the order to become guru is immediate, 'you become guru', therefore it must be siksa since Srila Prabhupada was still present. 

The argument that Srila Prabhupada must have followed through with his 'promise' is not strong either, for at least two reasons: 

b) Srila Prabhupada can still give a diksa order at any time on any planet to any disciple he deems fit. The relationship between spiritual master and disciple is eternal once formed, and once a disciple has reached the platform of mahabhagavata he will be more than capable of direct communication with his predecessor acarya. 

Furthermore if Srila Prabhupada were referring to diksa gurus the GBC would still need to abandon its present M.A.S.S., since he clearly says 'I shall say who is guru'. Nowhere does he state that the GBC can 'say who is guru', so why have they been doing this since the mid-eighties? And if Srila Prabhupada was talking about siksa, then what he was basically saying was that in April 1977 none of his disciples were even proper siksa gurus. If that were the case then how are we to believe the GBC when they tell us that only one month later, on May 28th, suddenly, miraculously Srila Prabhupada discovered that there were in fact eleven fully qualified diksa gurus all along, including Tamal Krsna himself, the very devotee he had just been expressing his doubts to just one month previous!? 

One final point here is that the concept of Srila Prabhupada needing to 'say who is guru' runs entirely counter to the concept of a 'timeless order' wafting around in the ether for anyone to just start initiating. It confirms our position that a disciple must receive personal authorisation from the predecessor acarya in order to be a diksa guru. T.O. not only contradicts its own underlying assumption, it also singularly fails to show where such authorisation ever occurred.

The above two quotes cannot be used to replace, supplant or modify the July 9th policy document since the vast majority of the recipients of that directive would not even have known of the existence of the above letters. We offer further reasons below as to why this evidence also fails to support T.O.'s thesis, in and of itself: 

1) Srila Prabhupada was still physically present in 1975, therefore he could only be referring to some type of representational system like ritvik. There is no evidence that Srila Prabhupada had serious plans to leave the planet before 1975. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada would be proposing to set up a system that violates the 'Law of Disciplic Succession'. 

T.O. overlooks the possibility that by 'generations' Srila Prabhupada may have been talking in a physical sense, i.e., future generations of humanity. This is supported by the fact that in the first quote above, the phrase 'Krsna Conscious population' is used instead of 'generations'. 'Krsna Conscious population' merely means all future participants of the Krsna Consciousness movement - not only future members of the disciplic succession. The dictionary definition of the word 'generations' is not 'disciplic succession'. In any case the whole argument falls flat since nothing even approaching a M.A.S.S. type system was ever set up by Srila Prabhupada either before, during or after 1975.  

What did happen by 1975 is that Srila Prabhupada had empowered various individuals to carry out initiations and chant on beads etc., but on his behalf. This system was later formalised on July 9th 1977 and left to run henceforward. Perhaps it was this system that he was alluding to in the above two letters. In an attempt to re-enforce their 'generations' argument T.O. quotes from another letter to Kirtanananda: 

The above is obviously just an analogy to illustrate a point. Srila Prabhupada is merely giving an example to clear up a question raised by one of his disciples, (one whom he later appoints to act as a ritvik only, not a diksa guru). He is not saying that this will happen or should happen. In fact he uses the word 'may'. One thing is for certain, it can not be used to displace the final order since, barring one, the recipients of the order never saw the above letter.

Commenting on the above quote T.O. asserts: 

The so-called public confirmation referred to above has been dealt with already, it is quote number 2 above, and was shown to be non-existent. Furthermore the above quote cannot be used to replace, supplant or modify the July 9th policy document since the vast majority of the recipients of that directive would not even have known of the existence of the above letter.  

For some reason the authors of T.O. seem to be oblivious here of the material facts surrounding the case of Tusta Krsna. It is not that we are unfairly painting a meek humble devotee as un-submissive and anxious for followers. It is peculiar that we should need to give a history lesson to the GBC, and going into the details of individuals spiritual anarthas is not something we like to make a habit of, (we have enough of our own to deal with). However the following evidence will show that our judgement on Tusta Krsna is not without justification - and that Srila Prabhupada was continually trying to keep him 'in line': 

 Please note that Tusta Krsna was a follower of Siddhasvarupa who already had his own disciples before meeting Srila Prabhupada was present. Taking all the above into account it is clear that the above private letter (quote number 10) is simply urging an ambitious deviant disciple to at least wait until the spiritual master has left the planet before taking his own disciples. That some devotees would seek to promote this letter as generally applicable beggars belief. 

('Best Not To Accept Disciples', p9-17) 

Finally we quote from the paper 'Institutional Cataclysm': 

 General Points 

3) All evidence exists only because some external circumstance prompted their release. In other words the evidence only exists because someone deviated or (in the case of Detroit) personally asked Srila Prabhupada a question. If Srila Prabhupada wanted something enacted by the whole movement he would either get the GBC to pass a resolution, or send a letter to all his leaders. Thus the July 9th letter is in an entirely different category to the GBC's so-called modifying evidence. 

4) None of this evidence was available publicly at the point of Srila Prabhupada's departure. The letters were released by 'unauthorised' behaviour in 1986; the Detroit tape was only available for the first time last year (1997) in either recorded or transcript form.

8) In the case of Room Conversations, they cannot possibly be considered a guaranteed means of relaying important policy decisions to the entire movement since:  

a) No guarantee that any given recording would come out audibly.

b) No guarantee the recording would be transcribed.

c) No guarantee that the tapes would be listened to in time to act at the point of Srila Prabhupada's departure.

d) Even if the tapes were listened to, the right devotee would need to pick out the one or two relevant sentences from literally hundreds of tapes in order to obtain instructions on how to manage initiations within ISKCON.

e)There is no single example of Srila Prabhupada issuing important directives simply through some casual chat with visitors, or private letters to problem disciples. 

With such serious unpredictable hurdles, it is unreasonable to assume that information given in private letters or lecture/morning walk/ room conversations, and which is not then repeated in his books or instructions to the whole society, is intended to be used to modify an order which was issued to the entire Movement.

9) It is unbelievable that anyone would direct a massive world-wide organisation by telling a few people something, but omit to ask them to tell everyone else. Would Srila Prabhupada say something to a one time visitor (Detroit), then rely on the tape being audibly recorded; then rely on it being accurately transcribed; then count on all his disciples subscribing to the BBT tape ministry, then hope against hope they all listen to the important bit before he leaves the planet - and as a result develop the correct initiation system. To argue this is pure madness.  

To illustrate our point, the Detroit conversation, which is arguably the GBC's best evidence, was not available in either a recorded or transcript form until last year. How can anyone believe it contains information crucial to the running of ISKCON, or which was meant to somehow displace an order which was sent to the entire movement in 1977? 

With regards to the Detroit room conversation, had Srila Prabhupada said in 1971 that none of his disciples would ever be diksa gurus, the neophyte devotees around him may have been discouraged and left. We have already seen from the letters above that Srila Prabhupada had to write, that some of his disciples were extremely ambitious, trying to initiate after having been in the movement for just a few years; and that Srila Prabhupada was forced to check their ambition by simply encouraging them to at least wait. At that point it is unlikely they had fully grasped just how elevated the diksa guru actually needs to be. Even now those that are left are having a hard time understanding. Even now, some 27 years later, many of Srila Prabhupada's original followers still labour under the misconception that anyone can be a diksa guru as long as he has been following his initiation vows for the preceding five years. We can also see that in the same room conversation Srila Prabhupada is also endorsing the activities of his god-brothers, even though he said that they none of them were 'qualified to be acarya' and one year later he says that they were all 'dead men' and envious. So it is clear here that Srila Prabhupada is just giving general encouragement, since he emphasises the following points: 

1. That his grhastha disciples are just as qualified as his sannyasis.
2. That ALL of his disciples are 'competent' to become diksa gurus.
3. That anyone who is simply 'initiated' is automatically 'competent' to become a diksa guru.
4. That even at that time - 1971- they were ALL already qualified to become fully-fledged diksa gurus - 'NOW, they're competent'. 

Otherwise we have to seriously accept that Srila Prabhupada is stating that: 

- That anyone just by being initiated is qualified and authorised to become a diksa guru. Thus if the GBC want to take this quote literally then all of Srila Prabhupada's 10,000 disciples, men and women, should all be free regardless of their spiritual standing, to initiate without the need for the elaborate voting and 'no objection' arrangements that occur at present. Since as Srila Prabhupada states, they are 'all competent'. He does not say that they still need to be qualified. Though he does say that his disciples are being "trained to become future spiritual masters", his very next words are: "NOW, they're competent".

- Please remember that as little as one year later Srila Prabhupada had to suspend the whole GBC for gross unauthorised behaviour. Thus we can hardly accept that Srila Prabhupada had such bad judgement that in 1971 he was stating that ALL of his disciples were there and then qualified to be Diksa Gurus even though one year later his leading men were not even able to behave as disciples.  

• The encouragement given in Detroit was never repeated to the entire movement, nor written into any GBC resolution or directive or published book. Just one mention in a conversation to a one-off visitor to a temple in 1971, and which was not in any case uncovered until twenty years after Srila Prabhupada's departure. 

('Institutional Cataclysm', Appendix)