In your last issue serious charges were levelled against the growing band of vaisnavas who wish to see Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation re-instated. One article even accused us of setting fire to ISKCON. Given such inflammatory and emotive allegations, and the large number of column inches dedicated to such opinion, it seems only fair that we should be allowed to respond at similar length.

 It should not be forgotten that the GBC promised to give a full response to the ritvik paper 'The Final Order' way back in October '96. Since then the only direct evidence they have produced in support of disbanding the ritvik system is the May 28th tape. Aside from the fact that the GBC's interpretation of this conversation changes every few years, as do the tape transcripts; it now emerges that the tape from which the segment of conversation is lifted may itself have been edited. This follows from a preliminary analysis, undertaken with the GBC's co-operation, which exposed strong evidence of falsification. So the current situation is that the GBC's only evidence for stopping the system of initiation set up personally by Srila Prabhupada, is itself inadmissible as evidence. In light of the above we humbly beg the devotees to please be patient and open minded enough to first hear what the ritvik position actually is so they can decide for themselves on its validity.

 I thought I might take this opportunity to analyse some of the arguments used in Trivikrama Maharaja's response to Rupunuga, Akhilesvara das's letter and Bhakti Tirtha Swami's lecture to see if there is any substance to this recent anti-ritvik rhetoric.

 I shall start with Trivikrama Swami's response to Rupunuga Prabhu, which opened with the following:

From the very outset Trivikrama Maharaja's argumentation lacks precision. He falsely claims that 'Srila Prabhupada was asked this very same question', when in fact Rupanuga is not actually asking a question. What exactly is Maharaja referring to? Neither does the quoted conversation between Srila Prabhupada and Madhudvisa in any way contradict the points made in Rupanuga's article; rather they support them. The two questions asked of Srila Prabhupada by Madhudvisa are:

 1) "Is it possible to become a devotee without actually having personal association with you? Just by reading your books."

2) "But can your, would your purports serve as explanation besides."

 Srila Prabhupada answers as follows:

 Answer to question 1) A disciple does NOT have to associate with him directly.

"No, it is not that you have to associate with the author."

 Answer to question 2) If you have a question then just ask anyone familiar with his books to explain.

"Simply someone who knows the subject matter, he can explain"

The answers Srila Prabhupada gives completely support Rupanuga's position: that it is spiritually sufficient to read Srila Prabhupada's books and associate with devotees. Rupunuga has never claimed that if a devotee does not understand some point in Srila Prabhupada's books he cannot approach someone more learned for help.

 We can be absolutely certain that the conversation quoted by Trivikrama Maharaja cannot be referring to Srila Prabhupada's disciples giving diksa, since Srila Prabhupada's answer was also applicable in the PRESENT TENSE. In other words Madhuvisa was being instructed to do this even in Srila Prabhupada's presence. We all know that at the time of this conversation Srila Prabhupada was the only diksa guru in ISKCON, so how could he be talking about his disciples acting as diksa gurus then and there? Trivikrama Maharaja offers no evidence whatsoever to support his contention that one is expected or obliged in some way to take diksa initiation from somebody other than Srila Prabhupada, just because they happen to be able to explain something in his books.

 All Srila Prabhupada says is that if you do not understand something you should take help from someone who is more learned. This is called taking siksa or instruction from a senior Godbrother, and is the system that was established when Srila Prabhupada was physically present. There is nothing to justify jumping from this authorised system of instructing spiritual masters, as sanctioned by Srila Prabhupada, to inventing a new system whereby potentially unlimited numbers of variably qualified diksa gurus initiate all and sundry just because they can explain something from Srila Prabhupada's books. How Trivikrama Maharaja is able to reach his conclusion is a mystery his article fails to illuminate.

 "Passive" is the opposite of "active." It means idle and inert. Now how can something which is passive "do everything", "reveal knowledge" and have the same effect as "associating with a pure devotee"? According to Srila Prabhupada his books are extraordinarily potent pro-active little things which will ultimately change the entire course of human destiny. A long way from 'passive' one would have thought. Maharaja completely misunderstands that transcendental literature is not like mundane literature which may indeed just be 'dots on a page' and thus 'passive'. Transcendental literature has the same potency as transcendental personalities: 

 What to speak of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagatavam where we also have the person Bhagavata, in the form of Srila Prabhupada's purports.

Maharaja fails to mention that the phrase "proudly think" relates to Vallabha Bhatta's assumption that he was qualified to approach Lord Caitanya simply because he had read lots of books:

"Vallabha Bhatta was greatly proud of his knowledge in devotional service, and therefore he wanted to speak about Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu without understanding the Lord's position."

Of course one must accept a vaisnava guru in a humble mood. No-one is disputing that. Problems start when so-called 'scholarly' devotees read a few books and then immediately think they know more than their guru. We are certainly not advocating that. However, nowhere in the above quote does it state that the initiating guru must be physically present in order to be humbly approached. Nor is that implied by the need to have questions answered, since Trivikrama Maharaja has already implicitly admitted that this can be fulfilled by ANYONE who understands the subject matter (see above). Furthermore Srila Prabhupada clearly taught us that any questions we may have can in any case be answered by carefully studying his books: 

Next Maharaja quotes Srila Prabhupada stating the importance of having a spiritual master to "guide" us, since one does not become a medical man "simply by reading books". Again there is no disagreement. We all agree that everyone must accept a spiritual master. It is no good just reading the Bhagavad Gita verses and paying no heed to Srila Prabhupada's lucid commentaries for example. We must accept a bona fide spiritual master to understand all the purports of the vedas, and to have our sinful reactions annihilated (the definition of diksa), otherwise there is no question of advancement. For members of ISKCON that spiritual master is Srila Prabhupada.

 The question is can we be guided by Srila Prabhupada through his books even in his physical absence? That Srila Prabhupada's books alone are sufficient to answer all our questions and give all guidance is evidenced in the following:

• Srila Prabhupada clearly stated that everything we needed to know about spiritual life was in his books.
• Should we not understand something we simply need to approach an older Godbrother for help.
• This older Godbrother will always base his instruction on the contents of Srila Prabhupada's books, since they will be the standard for the next ten thousand years.
• Thus even when approaching an instructing spiritual master one is still being directly guided by Srila Prabhupada through his books and teachings.

Srila Prabhupada never said that his physical absence would in any way inhibit his ability to offer guidance. He taught us that he was non-different from his books, and that in time they would do everything. The very same books Trivikrama Maharaja now describes as merely 'passive'. Trivikrama Maharaja is therefore saying that Srila Prabhupada is now only 'passive'. We are sure that on reflection Maharaja will want to retract this statement since it is a serious deviation from Bhagavat philosophy.

 Srila Prabhupada specifically set up a system for people to accept him as their spiritual master and be guided by him. Even when he was on the planet this system was never dependent on his physical presence. Many hundreds of devotees were initiated and guided by Srila Prabhupada without any form of physical contact with him at all. Ultimately this whole bogus 'physically present guru' argument is completely contradicted by Srila Prabhupada's own practical example over the 12 years he spent building ISKCON:

a) He initiated the majority of his disciples without ever having met them.

b) The majority of his disciples never received personal instruction from him. In fact he actively discouraged such interaction so he could write his potently active books.

c) He never wrote to the majority of his disciples.

d) He did not personally perform the initiation ceremony for the majority of his disciples.

These are just undeniable historical facts which fly totally in the face of Trivikrama Maharaja's physically present guru thesis. Certainly we need a physical guru, since pure reliance on the Supersoul is impossible in the conditioned stage. Srila Prabhupada is the physical manifestation of the Supersoul, and thus we have the benefit of his physical books, physical murti, physical society, tapes and videos. So 'physical guru' yes, 'physically present guru' not essential.

 At the moment new bhaktas coming to the movement are expected to get initiated by an ISKCON approved diksa guru so as to receive "physical guidance". However these 'gurus' had either limited, or in some cases absolutely no "physical guidance" from a diksa guru themselves. We know for certain that no ISKCON guru has had any guidance from a physically present diksa guru for the last 20 years. To maintain this position on physical gurus is thus absurd, and patent hypocrisy. The absolute need for a physically present diksa guru for the purpose of spiritual guidance is supported neither by Srila Prabhupada's teachings, nor his personal example ( nor by the example of the very persons who are putting forward this thesis!):  

Next Maharaja quotes the need to "hear" as well as read. But Srila Prabhupada states in relation to his books, that it is the same thing: 

Please note who the above letter was written to. Perhaps the Maharaja might begin to appreciate why Rupunuga prabhu has the conviction he does.

 Maharaja then quotes the need to accept a guru. Who would disagree with this? However none of the quotes given state that the guru needs to be physically ensconced before the disciple in order for the transcendental process of diksa to operate properly. We would not expect such quotes to exist, since Srila Prabhupada would otherwise have been preaching a philosophy which he himself did not practice.

 To sum up, though Maharaja does correctly point out the need to be initiated by a bona-fide spiritual master, he then mistakenly assumes that this spiritual master must be physically present on the same planet as the disciple in order to initiate and guide him. Unfortunately we cannot find anything to support his contention in Srila Prabhupada's books, and can therefore only assume that it is bogus, with all due respect.

Akhilesvara prabhu's article "Quiet the Ritvik Rhetoric", also makes the same erroneous point about the necessity of a physically present diksa guru. Once again he offers no evidence to support his contention. On top of this he does nothing to counter the clear direct evidence offered in favour of the ritvik system, such as the July 9th order which was personally signed by Srila Prabhupada. Thus quite how he thinks his article will contribute towards 'quieting' anything is not at all clear.

 Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja, in his Mayapur meeting speech, accuses ritvik philosophy of setting fire to Srila Prabhupada's movement. He also says that this "ritvik philosophy is like a monster coming out of ourselves". Bhakti Tirtha was addressing the entire GBC when he spoke these words, so if we are to believe him it is they who have unleashed this fiery demon from the dark recesses of their own collective psyche. We wonder if the GBC would agree with this analysis.

 Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja then speculates that people are only attracted to the ritvik philosophy due to bad experiences with the ISKCON institution. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, simply trying to stop devotees becoming attracted to ritvik philosophy is rather silly and futile if it happens to be the truth. Surely this must be the issue, to establish whether or not Srila Prabhupada wanted a ritvik system of initiation to continue within ISKCON. Is not the search for truth the very reason we became devotees in the first place? Making ISKCON a better place is a good sentiment, but can it really be fully better if the truth is suppressed?

 If the GBC are serious about putting out the ritvik fire they will need to answer the definitive ritvik position paper - 'The Final Order' - an 80 page treatise that was requested by and presented to the GBC in October 96 as already mentioned. All that the combined might of the GBC have been able to come up with to put out the 'fire' of 'The Final Order', is a 13 page paper - 'Disciple of My Disciple', which...

a)... contradicts the current GBC position - "Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON" (1995) which was supposed to be the "official final siddhanta" on the initiation issue, and is officially still part of "ISKCON Law";

b)... is based solely on the highly questionable interpretation of a tape recording - the so called 'Appt Tape' - which has now been proven unreliable by a world expert audio forensic examiner, after an investigation which was set up by the GBC themselves! The examiner's report states that the tape shows strong signs "suggestive of falsification", and that until a full forensic analysis is done on the ORIGINAL tape, it cannot be deemed admissible as any sort of evidence at all.

Thus the GBC currently have no evidence to justify their dismantling of the ritvik system, and the subsequent construction of the 'multiple acarya successor system' presently in operation within ISKCON.

 So it is one thing for Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja to talk about the house being on fire, but if he really believes that the ritvik philosophy is so wrong and so evil why is he not demanding from the GBC a swift and immediate response. Why are he and his GBC associates simply standing by and letting it burn?! Where are these powerful arguments based on Srila Prabhupada's books and written instructions that completely expose the ritvik philosophy as fallacious nonsense? All we have so far is an argument based on a tape that can no longer be used. In short we see no substance to any of this anti-ritvik rhetoric. Please forgive any offences that I may have made. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

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