Yeap. The funny thing is that some devotees joined just a month or so too late and did not get initiation from Prabhupada. "Second class" we say:-)

In reality of course being Prabhupada's DISCIPLE is something much more then just being initiated by him. The word historically is a christian concept for the inner circle of christ's followers, usually twelve only. So we take six Goswamis to be 'disciples' of Lord Caitanya.

One has to work hard to remain on the books as the "disciple". Most I know do not qualify, I do not quality, but I aspire to be called "Prabhupada's disciple" even I was not initiated by him. I think this aspiration to become a disciple is more then saying "here I am a disciple". Being a disciple is not automatic result of an initiation, Prabhupada would not consider all his godbrothers to be disciples of BSST, so...

Actually one who is krishna conscious is able to encourage and inspire us ,hence wet-her young or older devotee we should be non envious enough to see and appreciate everyone's special devotional qualities.Even his disciples are repositories of wonderful devotional qualities.So we will remain servants of srila prabhupada's direct disciples ,and their disciples carrying on our common spiritual heritage and unique mood of serving sri chaitanya mahaprabhu's sankirtan flavour.Actually the so called rascals enjoy power sanctioned by their unique karma or because krishna is allowing and blessing.Because we have not realised that we are indeed the problem many times,and especially our contaminated vision.jaya radhe.

Here's an interesting little anecdote. Over the past few months I've been in some debates with one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples. He became angry when I did not find his arguments convincing, and last week he posted two messages to the "Prabhupada Disciples" PAMHO conference. (The members of this conference can post directly to it, but since I'm not a "Prabhupada Disciple" anything I send there has to go through the moderator.) The messages he posted to the conference had the subject lines of "Immature Bhakta Pandu" and "Bhakta Pandu Hypocrite," and the content was deragatory and misrepresentative. I obtained permission from the moderator to write something in my defense, and I drafted a short letter with the subject "cooperation instead of conflict," in which I was proposing a means for reducing Vaisnava aparadha and promoting cooperation for the sake of Srila Prabhupada's mission. The moderator rejected my letter, saying it would induce "unhealthy discussion." Go figure.

Here's my letter:
http://oppositerule.govindapeacefarm.com/?p=684

If anyone is a member of the conference, they have my permission to post it there, since I cannot.

If anyone says you can still be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada by following his instructions, even though you can't be his diksa disciple, go ahead and try ot become a member of the Prabhupada Disciples PAMHO conference. You'll see how much they really think you're his disciple.

Hare Krishna.

my advice:
Stop wasting your time with people heavily tainted with the lower modes of nature.
They are no better than any other religious narrow minded fanatics even if they call themselves “vaishnavas”, dress as ones or hold important posts.
Its always like this, after the departure of the acarya, the spiritual movement becomes a religion, there is not a single example showing otherwise. ISKCON and ritviks are the same coin, fighting for power supremacy represented by intiation “rights”, something never ever even discussed by the pure devotees.
Has ocurred to you that you can preach independently? People who does so find tremendous relief and their efforts are worth and not blocked again and again. Find devotees that have your same experiences and get real sadhu sanga, away from mundane quarreling.

Swarup Das:

I'm a Prabhupada disciple and you're not, nahnny nahnny nah nah ... too bad for you .... you lost out ... you missed the boat ... poor poor pitiful you ..... so envy me if you want ... it's alright ... I would if I were you.

:)))))) ROTFL

Among my children (3 sons, a daughter, a (sannyasi) stepson and a stepdaughter), all were either babies or not born yet when Srila Prabhupada left in 1977. All of them, their spouses, as well as their children (my grandkids) are more advanced Vaisnavas than I ever was nor could ever hope to be in this lifetime.

When I see the enthusiasm, sincerity and advancement of all those who have become devotees over the past 32 years I am very happy and in each instance the legacy of Srila Prabhupada is further enhanced and validated.

For one of my godbrothers or godsisters to "play the Prabhupada disciple card" with the motivated intention of receiving some sort of profit, adoration and/or distinction --- that is about as low as a person can go in the name of God and Guru. Shame on them.

Thanks for your input, Yuga Avatar Prabhu. What Tamal Krishna Goswami thought isn't a concern to me. Srila Prabhupada signed the letter based on his own understanding of what it meant, not Tamal's.

"...invent another mayavadi distortion." What's the use of throwing the "mayavadi" word around without showing how the word fits the situation?


"...there is infact no ''ritvik archarya'' in our line,except in the furtile minds of those envious devotees..."

Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.
Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?
Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => GBC Meets with Srila Prabhupada -- May 28, 1977, Vrndavana

It would seem from this quote that "...there is infact no 'ritvik archarya' in our line," because Srila Prabhupada's order was disregarded because envious and proud devotees thought they new better than their guru and wanted to replace him. The zonal acarya era is historical proof, and we only got to where we are today by going through that. My motive to become his direct disciple is to not be mislead by others with materially ambitious motives. There is no one since Srila Prabhupada in whom I have full confidence. These modern "gurus" would rather have me quit the Hare Krishna movement than see me chanting Hare Krishna without faith in them, otherwise they would not label rtvik supporters as "enemies of ISKCON" and spend so much time and money losing lawsuits against temples where Srila Prabhupada's July 9 order is accepted.

"...minimise those who were personally more empowered by their individual close sevice of srila prabhupada himself."
Are you saying that serving his bodily form is more important than serving his mission? Massaging his body is more important than distributing his books? I don't think serving his form is unimportant, not at all, but it doesn't make them better than devotees who are dedicated to serving his mission. This also reminds me of how Srila Prabhupada ordered that he wanted all of his disciples to come to Vrindavana in late-1977, but the disciples who got that order rejected it and kept the less "important" disciples away. Who "empowered" them to reject Srila Prabhupada's order?

"Why not just accept the fact that we are disciples of his disciples?"
If that is your faith, then fine for you. Personally I don't have full faith in any of his disciples. Why must I be forced to accept their version of things when I see Srila Prabhupada's order saying something else?

I don't want to turn this into another rtvik debate. I don't have time for it. My point here was that they say we're Srila Prabhupada's disciples by following his orders, but when they want to distinguish themselves they say we're not his disciples. There can be a devotee initiated by Srila Prabhupada who hasn't chanted 16 rounds a day since decades ago, but if he shows up at a rathayatra they'll sit him at the "Prabhupada's Disciples Table," but those who do as much as they can to follow his instructions but came after 1977 can't go there.

I was debating with a devotee about the rtvik subject, and he gave me the line, "You can be Prabhupada's disciple by following his instructions," and then a few weeks later he criticized me on the Prabhupada's Disciples PAMHO conference where I was unable to respond because of not being his initiated disciple. I'm sick of seeing devotees making arguments that only mean what they say when they want them to support their version, but later when the same argument is used to show them their hypocrisy, it's not accepted. How am I supposed to be inspired by hypocrisy and accept people like this as my guru?

>If you met all of them, it's unfortunate. It suggests SP wasn't able to make even one sincere disciple... hmm.
>That's where the ritvik position leads to.

Veda Prabhu,very cleverly connects sincerity of these Gurus with potency of Srila Prabhupada. In other words he is trying to say that if these Gurus are not sincere, it means Srila Prabhupada was impotent.

Disciple means a womb, a hollow bamboo, which does not have any false ego in it, completely receptive, ready to receive the seed of Bhakti lata only then the hollow bamboo becomes the flute and song starts.

If Pandu Prabhu has not heard the song coming out of these Bamboos (gurus) it does not mean Prabhupada was impotent, it simply means that he did not find the hollow bamboos which could be turned into flutes. It simply means these bamboos were not hollow. Srila Prabhupada had and he still has the seed of Bhaktilata but it could be given to only those who are ready.

Those who really posses love of Godhead they not only love God but they live in a lovingly way. They love everything which exists around them. Once I praised Narayana Maharaja in front of an ISKCON Guru (I did not really mean that, I was just being naughty). The so called ISKCON Guru was furious and his two cents of love of Godhead which he was exhibiting few minutes before simply evaporated in the sky.

Hare Krsna.

Thanks for your comment Veda Prabhu. In my experience, I have come across many devotees in ISKCON, who are not able to put their faith in any of ISKCON gurus rather than Srila Prabhupada. But they do not critcise or blasphame ISKCON gurus. Still they get kicked out of ISKCON temples. I think this type of devotees should be allowed to stay in ISKCON and practice their sadhana.

But at the bottom of the issue is fear. Our gurus are afraid that if they let some devotees (who are not able to put their faith in present Gurus) choose Srila Prabhupada as their Guru officially then other devotees might follow them. Who would want to take initiation from them if Srila Prabhupada is made available as Guru. Their Guruship will simply be finished, no more Vyasa Puja and feet bathing, devotees offering Arotis to them. They'll be finished. Till the time this fear remains there, problems won't be solved.

As I can see from Pandu Prabhu's experience ISKCON is already divided into two camps, Guruvadis and Ritviks. I call them SHIA ISKCON and SUNNI ISKCON. 1500 years ago, when Islam was born, those people use to settle their differences by fighting and killing each other. Now we live in advanced civilization so swords and killings have been replaced by courts and lawyers but the underlying feeling is the same, to destroy each other.

It does not look like our so called Gurus will be able to sort out this Ritvik problem in this lifetime. My guess is that they will make it worse and pass it on to future generations of ISKCON devotees. We will not be there, but I pray that these future generations of devotees will be more intelligent and will cooperate with each other and will sort out this problem and ISKCON won't go the Islamic way.

Hare Krsna.

Thanks for clarification, Pandu Prabhu.

Historical evidence related to BSST shows that he did the same with deputies. Yet after his tirobhava there were regular gurus.

I also had a siksa guru who left ISKCON before initiating me and since that time I accept SP and his sisyas as siksa gurus, keeping diksa as an open future possibility. My conclusion based on g-s-s is that it's better not to accept diksa than to partake in apasiddhanta.

> it kills my enthusiasm to hear that I have to accept an intermediary to Srila Prabhupada

Yet he's an intermediary to Krsna. As Krsna wants ('devotee of My devotee is My devotee').

I consider Gour Govinda M. to be that moon, without meeting many other SP's sisyas.

> if Srila Prabhupada is made available as Guru

Not in any genuine sampradayas. So far I haven't seen any precedence. With it ritvikvada would be already a norm.

They should have asked him first if he can show his initiation letter signed by SP. If he had none and openly supported ritvikvada, he was to be sent away.

VEDA:

They should have asked him first if he can show his initiation letter signed by SP. If he had none and openly supported ritvikvada, he was to be sent away.

I guess it would not suffice to show the July 9 letter signed by SP.
[br /][br /]
I don't know much about these initiation letters signed by Srila Prabhupada. Obviously I don't have one of my own. But Srila Prabhupada did implement a rtvik system that was complete without his external participation. Eventually he did not want to even be asked about initiation, as is apparent to me in the 10/18/77 conversation. I would presume that the devotees initiated under this system would also not have an initiation letter signed by Srila Prabhupada. Based on this I would say the letter-test is not valid.

New Delhi[br]
2nd December, 1975[br]
[br]
My Dear Tusta Krishna Swami,[br]
[br]
Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 21 November, 1975. Every student is expected to become Acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples. I have given you sannyasa with the great hope that in my absence you will preach the cult throughout the world and thus become recognized by Krishna as the most sincere servant of the Lord. So I’m very pleased that you have not deviated from the principles I have taught, and thus with power of attorney go on preaching Krishna consciousness, that will make me very happy as it is confirmed in the Guru vastakam yasya prasadat bhagavata prasadah just by satisfying your Spiritual Master who is accepted as the bonafide representative of the Lord you satisfy Krishna immediately without any doubt.
[br]
[br]
I am very glad to inform you that Sudama Vipra Maharaja is also now following my principles. So I am very very happy to receive all this news. Thank you very very much.
[br]
[br]
Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.
[br]
[br]
I hope this letter finds you well,
[br]
[br]
Your ever well wisher,
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

1. No he doesn't. It implies diksa guru.
[br][br]
"...Every student is expected to become Acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples...
[br][br]
2. Speaking of restrictions...
[br][br]
"...in his (the guru's) absense or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession..."
[br][br]
3. Why would they do that? As you yourself stated the sole purpose of this letter was used to argue against the rtvik system, and I believe the rtvik system came after 1977 and 1978, so there was no reason for this letter to be there.
[br][br]
4. "This is the law of disciplic succession."
[br][br]
5. What's more interesting is that Srila Prabhupada authored this letter, and that people think that Srila Prabhupada only said these things but ultimately didn't mean them.
[br][br]
Also,
[br][br]
So we have got this message from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. . . My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge.
—Los Angeles arrival lecture, May 18, 1972
[br][br]
One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. --Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.43, purport

ISKCON ceased to exist November 15, 1977. The organization that has been using the name ISKCON for the past 30 plus years is so polluted, infected and screwed up that it's too late to even attempt correcting it from within. Like a house that is so infested with termites and roaches it has to be torn down to its foundation --- the same goes for the so-called ISKCON that exists today.

Seminars, committees, ops improvement, marketing strategies, elections, court cases, retired gurus, retired sannyasis --- this adjustment, that strategy ---- it's as if they've all gone crazy? I don't get it. All of them -- my godbrothers -- who are continuing the charade -- are they blind? Is it a matter of apathy? Ambition? Institutionalization? They go on, year after year, maintaining the status quo while living in a house that is crumbling all around them.

Let's start with the obvious. Just as "we are not our bodies" is an elementary, integral part of our message and preaching .... so is the fact that a Vaisnava guru is NEVER appointed, selected or elected by an ecclesiastic council such as goes on in the Vatican when it's time for a new Pope to replace the old one. If I had a dime for every time I explained that to somebody in the letters I wrote as ISKCON Secretary between '69 and '78, I'd be a wealthy man today.

So what have they done? When the appointment absurdity was an obvious failure, they changed the process to elections (or as they call it, majority approval process or some such thing). It doesn't matter what they call it or how many adjustments and high level meetings they have in Mayapur -- they can't change the fact that two plus two equals four and not five.

Furthermore, the ritvik idea that Srila Prabhupada continues on as diksha guru after his departure is the other side of the craziness. They say that two plus two equals three and over the other side of the boat they go. Splish Splash! The only reason they have such a big following is because they are half right (in regard to what they refer to as the "guru hoax"). They're pretty much right on about what shouldn't be, but they're way off about what should be. Sometimes being half right is worse than being all wrong.

Anyway ... anyhow and any port in a storm .... what then could have and should have taken place after Srila Prabhupada departed? I'll give you a hint with a quote from one of Prabhupada's letters -- and aside from that letter, he alluded to this idea so many times and in so many ways throughout the years (and yet he gave us enough rope to hang ourselves, which is often what Srila Prabhupada would do so that we would hopefully learn and grow up).

"His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected."

When Satsvarupa asked, "When we initiate somebody whose disciple would they be?" it was something like one of my sons asking me, "Dad, when I have a kid whose kid will he be?" Stupid questions, perfect answers. Next thing you know my beloved ISKCON -- my sanctuary -- my home -- my alma mater since I was a 17-year old kid joining the New York temple in '69 -- turned into the Mickey Mouse Club. Just about everybody left. In desperation so many went looking for inspiration and association and ended up in the camps of Sridhara Maharaja or Narayana Maharaja. Of course, just about everybody split. The atmosphere in our ISKCON became intolerable. Suddenly eleven knuckleheads were being worshiped on Vyasa asanas. Unbelievable. It was surreal. It was insane. I tried to speak out in the late 70's and early 80's against the craziness, to no avail. I was labeled a heretic and blacklisted.

Why was it so imperative that diksha initiations had to continue in some fashion after Srila Prabhupada left? Through his books and tapes (vani association) Prabhupada remains Siksha guru for one and all, forever and a day. As far as diksha initiations -- that's a transcendental process of the heart. By the mercy of Krishna one will eventually find his guru and by the mercy of the guru, one gets the seed of love of God planted in his heart. Srila Prabhupada wasn't initiated until years after he met his Guru Maharaja. What was the big rush to tightly wrap three strands of beads around every new recruit post-1977 and give them a new name? Were we running an assembly line? Such immaturity! Such short-sightedness. Such foolishness.

>
> You can see initiation letters signed by Srila Prabhupada e.g. in
> Vedabase.
>

I looked this morning but couldn't find them there. I'd appreciate a clue for where to look.


> Then the initiation letters would be signed by his ritviks but after his
> tirobhava these ritviks would have to turn into normal gurus. Otherwise
> it's apasampradaya.
>

According to you. Please show me where Srila Prabhupada said the rtviks he appointed would automatically become actual diksa gurus. I would expect to see that stated in the July 9 letter, but it's not there. On the contrary, the July 9 letter references the May 28 conversation asking Srila Prabhupada about "initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us."


> > Based on this I would say the letter-test is not valid.
>
> It's valid to prove that there is some guru, not just an imagination....Like nowadays there are self-proclaimed
> members of ISKCON who create a bad name for ISKCON by their
> pseudobusiness, etc.
>

However, if this is really an issue, I'd like to see the initiation letters for all the acaryas in our Sampradaya. Otherwise maybe someone was just making a joke or pretending. No, really... This is just stupid.

Shall we turn this around and conclude that Kirtananda didn't create a bad name for ISKCON because he had his initiation letter?

How does having an initiation letter define a disciple's behavior?

I don't have an initiation letter from Bhaktimarga Swami. I guess you would say that means I'm not his disciple. If only it were that easy.


> > Srila Prabhupada's purity is proven to me, but others' are not.
>
> Ok, your POV. Others may see purity in his disciples as well. But ritviks
> try their best to denigrate all his disciples...
>

You cannot generalize the conduct of ritvik supporters. Just a few weeks ago I spent the day at the local temple literally serving the servant of the servants of the servants of an ISKCON guru whom I know to be very anti-rtvik. I continue to serve in ISKCON because of the positive service that's done there, and I try to minimize potential conflicts. I can also understand how the more inimical rtvik supporters feel, believing Srila Prabhupada's order was usurped and ISKCON hijacked, but I try to suppress that feeling in myself for the sake of cooperation.

I accept that others may see purity in Srila Prabhupada's disciples. I've said that. However, I cannot rightly accept a guru for myself based on what others think. I'm faced with capitulating on that point or getting out of ISKCON, both of which I consider a gross injustice. At this point I'm leaning toward the latter, which makes me very sad.


> The proposal that changes in some minor issues validate also the change in
> diksa is offbase, imho.
> Even acarya can't change such a thing without being challenged to show
> also sastra and sadhu support.


Anyone can challenge anyway. The current ISKCON guru system is being challenged too. Why not challenge that women cannot worship Deities on the altar? The GBC changes what they want and keep what they want. They've even done that with the "Law of Disciplic Succession" quoted previously here. There is now a GBC resolution allowing disciples of current gurus to also become initiating gurus, and at least three have done that.

“Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.”
(SP Press Interview, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)


>
> Another reason why ritvik system isn't viable is that SP authorized only
> few of his disciples to initiate. After their tirohava the system would
> naturally end. What about the future?

Rtviks are just priests. Do you think the GBC can authorized gurus but not priests?

>
> For me the ritvik issue is a test of knowledge of g-s-s. Who can accept
> ritvikism is likely to accept also other apasiddhantas.

You're begging the question. You cannot assume "ritvikism" is an apasiddhanta in the face of evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered it, unless you mean to challenge his authority.


> The rtvik idea appeared only in the middle of 80's.
>

That is not a coincidence. Srila Prabhupada's letters were not made available publicly until 1986 when Solocana obtained and released them. It hardly seems a coincidence that he was murdered shortly thereafter and that the end of the Zonal Acarya era followed soon after. I exchanged a few e-mails with Ameyatma Prabhu some months ago, and as I recall he said he didn't see the July 9 letter until the mid to late 90's.

Accusations cannot arise until the evidence is discovered.

> I looked this morning but couldn't find them there. I'd appreciate a clue for where to look.

I don't have Vedabase installed on this computer, my first one is in service shop.
You can find them by searching for instruction to chant 16 rounds and follow 4 regs. Well, it's
not very helpful in searching but... ;)

> Please show me where Srila Prabhupada said the rtviks he appointed would automatically become actual diksa gurus.

As I said, that hapened in GM after tirobhava of BSST. The standard way.

For me one letter and the last will (the only two pro-ritvik docs) can't outweigh numerous quotes in SP's books about "disciples of my disciples", the standard in all genuine sampradayas.

> However, if this is really an issue, I'd like to see the initiation letters for all the acaryas in our Sampradaya. Otherwise maybe someone was just making a joke or pretending. No, really... This is just stupid.

Previously it was not done neither needed. Nowadays Kali yuga advanced that people do all kinds of nonsense, even pretending to be someone they're not, and to stop them in a court case one needs proofs.

Initiation letter has nothing to do with later (mis)behavior of a discicple. That should be obvious. Everyone has a free will.

> I don't have an initiation letter from Bhaktimarga Swami. I guess you would say that means I'm not his disciple. If only it were that easy.

There must be some record in his possession that he accepted you. SP also had his "Initiated disciples" book, mentioned in the Vedabase.

> You cannot generalize the conduct of ritvik supporters.

Right. What I said is based on what is on their websites and Back to Prabhupada mag, their main propaganda tools.

> Anyone can challenge anyway. The current ISKCON guru system is being challenged too. Why not challenge that women cannot worship Deities on the altar? The GBC changes what they want and keep what they want. They've even done that with the "Law of Disciplic Succession" quoted previously here. There is now a GBC resolution allowing disciples of current gurus to also become initiating gurus, and at least three have done that.

There were women pujaris in the beginning of ISKCON, afaik. There are also precedences to initiations while one's guru is still physically present. From my POV, these are minor things in comparison to the diksa system. ISKCON will go on with them this or that way but as apasampradaya it's finished. New chance coming up in 8 billion years.

> “Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.”
(SP Press Interview, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)

Formality, yet considered quite serious by g-s-s (HBV, etc.).

> Rtviks are just priests. Do you think the GBC can authorized gurus but not priests?

My understanding is that GBC can't and doesn't 'authorize gurus'; it only gives a 'non-objection nod'.
GBC as a body is not an initiator. And when it'd authorize ritvikvada (Krsna forbid), I'm out of ISKCON, to avoid the maha aparadha attached to it.

> You're begging the question. You cannot assume "ritvikism" is an apasiddhanta in the face of evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered it, unless you mean to challenge his authority.

It's not at all obvious he ordered it. There are only two proofs, to me not very convincing ones, and a huge contradicting evidence in his books, etc.

> That is not a coincidence. Srila Prabhupada's letters were not made available publicly until 1986 when Solocana obtained and released them. It hardly seems a coincidence that he was murdered shortly thereafter and that the end of the Zonal Acarya era followed soon after.

The Village Voice Review ritvik writings by Rupavilasa, Karnamrita and Nityananda appeared in 1989 and GBC rejected them in its 1990 Resolution. It'd mean it took them three years to invent ritvikism. But as per Ajamila's and Jahnu's (link below) account the ritvikism was born even earlier, in the middle of 80's.

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/iskcon-internal/284238-where-do-ritviks-come.html

Sulocana was murdered in connection to New Vrindavan crimes he wanted to reveal, afaik.

> Accusations cannot arise until the evidence is discovered.

Accusation against apasiddhanta based on g-s-s is enough for Vaisnavas in general.

I don't see any need to spend more time on this.

VEDA:

[br /]
> Please show me where Srila Prabhupada said the rtviks he appointed would automatically become actual diksa gurus.
[br /]
As I said, that hapened in GM after tirobhava of BSST. The standard way.

[br /]
Standard it may have been, but Srila Prabhupada created a worldwide Vaisnava society out of whatever mlecchas came to the door. It was a new kind of institution, and it was Srila Prabhupada's perogative to protect it as he saw fit. My interest is simply: What did Srila Prabhupada order? For that I'm looking primarily at his written and spoken words specifically addressing that issue. What BSST did with his society of disciples presumably drawn from almost entirely within Vaisnava culture within India is something else. They are vastly different circumstances, making it perfectly reasonable to have different arrangements.

[br /]

For me one letter and the last will (the only two pro-ritvik docs) can't outweigh numerous quotes in SP's books about "disciples of my disciples", the standard in all genuine sampradayas.

[br /]
You can call it "one letter," but it happens to be one letter that is a direct order on what to do about the issue in question. You're essentially saying that you don't accept that a direct order is more relevant than a general instruction, and I disagree. If Srila Prabhupada said a hundred times in his books, "I like milk," but directly asked you for a glass of water, would you give him milk or water?
[br /][br /]
Similarly, the Last Will and Testament isn't an insignificant document. It's a direct order.

[br /]

> However, if this is really an issue, I'd like to see the initiation letters for all the acaryas in our Sampradaya. Otherwise maybe someone was just making a joke or pretending. No, really... This is just stupid.

Previously it was not done neither needed. Nowadays Kali yuga advanced that people do all kinds of nonsense, even pretending to be someone they're not, and to stop them in a court case one needs proofs.

[br /]
this is similar to my point above concerning tradition. Previously there had never been a worldwide Vaisnava society of devotees mostly drawn from mleccha families. Therefore Srila Prabhupada ordered a suitable system to protect his work. It is not at all unreasonable, and the direct evidence

[br /]

> You cannot generalize the conduct of ritvik supporters.
[br /]
Right. What I said is based on what is on their websites and Back to Prabhupada mag, their main propaganda tools.

[br /]
The BTP editors are frequently challenged about their criticism of ISKCON leaders, and their standard response is that they are never accused of publishing anything untrue, only unflattering. Is it better that devotees should be ignorant about hypocritical conduct by religious leaders and thereby follow blindly?
[br /]

There were women pujaris in the beginning of ISKCON, afaik.

[br /]
I don't personally have any objection to women on the altar. My point is that this was something that Srila Prabhupada instituted in ISKCON that was directly and indirectly contradicted in sastra. Yet it is not challenged presumably because of the obvious practical value.
[br /]

There are also precedences to initiations while one's guru is still physically present. From my POV, these are minor things in comparison to the diksa system. ISKCON will go on with them this or that way but as apasampradaya it's finished. New chance coming up in 8 billion years.

[br /]
I'm interested in Srila Prabhupada's point of view. As I quoted above, Srila Prabhupada said, "Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing." There are many similar quotes. If a devotee considers Srila Prabhupada his diksa guru rather than picking from a contemporary guru, how would it destroy anything? It seems to me that it would protect rather than destory. You say it is apasampradaya, but Srila Prabhupada never said a guru cannot give initiation after leaving his body. There is no apparent reason why he cannot continue to initiate disciples at least until another big acarya appears. The only issue is getting it authorized in the temples he founded.
[br /]

it is all because of 'prabhupada disciple card' - is it?

Kyros:

Well there you have it, Srila Prabhupada deviated from Vaishnava siddhanta.

So your understanding of Vaisnava siddhanta is the standard by which Srila Prabhupada should be judged? Hasn't he proven himself enough for you to just accept what he said?

Veda Pr. says:
"Again, we need more than a direct order of a guru. We need also sastra and sadhu. Their pro-ritvik stances were not presented so far."

Scriptures are like a boat. Srila Prabhupada is the boatman. Without boatman boat is not of much significance. It can not take one to the other shore. Here by other shore I mean the spiritual world and this shore mean the material world. Srila Prabhupada is the boatman who could frequently travel between these two shores. He knows perfectly well about both worlds. Even if the boat gets broken, the expert boatman will find a way to take you to the other shore. Even if there is no boat, he will find some technique to transport you to the other shore. He is the expert one. And that boatman is Srila Prabhupada. Boat is not of much significance. Boatman can make alterations into the boat according to his passangers because he has the responsibility to transport them.

Here the fundamental difference is of the attitude. one group is trying to see scriptures through Prabhupada. other devotees are trying to see Prabhupada through scriptures. For me, what Prabhupada said that is scripture. That is Shastra. What Prabhupada said to follow specifically that is more important than any scripture, his words are sastras.

Those who claim that Srila Prabhupada is dead because he is physically not present, for them he was always dead. Even in 1970s when he was present on this planet, he was still dead for them. Those who don't consider him dead they can still feel his presence in his books, in his vani.

There is no word in English to translate the word guru because the relationship between guru and disciple is basically Eastern. No such relationship has ever existed in Western culture and tradition, so no one in the West can understand what a guru is. At the most they can understand what a teacher is. The guru must himself be enlightened, A teacher need not be self-realized, but a guru must be. A teacher can give secondhand information from scriptures or traditions.

So Srila Prabhupada is the enlightened Guru, the expert boatman and he can still be felt, realized through his books. If he is dead and his presence can not be felt then why do we worship him every morning. Why he established that tradition? It is against shastras. Which other Guru in Gaudiya tradition has ordered his disciples to worship him for next 10,000 years.

I apologise in advance if I have committed any offence to any Vaisnava.

Hari Bol.

Pandu das:

[quote]

Kyros:

Well there you have it, Srila Prabhupada deviated from Vaishnava siddhanta.

[br][br]
So your understanding of Vaisnava siddhanta is the standard by which Srila Prabhupada should be judged?[/quote]
[br][br]
Yes, because my understanding is backed by guru, sadhu, and sastra.
[br][br]

Hasn't he proven himself enough for you to just accept what he said?

[br][br]
Accept Prabhupada didn't say we should continue the rtvik style initiation after he leaves the material world.
[br][br]
The question asked was:
[br][br]
Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
[br][br]
Literally, "no longer with us" doesn't mean "you've passed onto the next world." Especially to a literal man like Srila Prabhupada. Most, if not all Indians wouldn't even think of it like this. Hell, my dad's been living here in America for over 20 years and he still has hard time understanding phrases like these.
[br][br]
This is not a difficult subject to understand.

>by Vyasadev by reading his Mahabharata, etc. and no parampara would be needed.

Please do not forget that even though 5000 years have passed, whenever Guru celebrates his birthday its called Vyasa Puja. This word Vyasa Puja has some deep meaning in it. And when Guru's birthdate is not known his birthday is celebrated on Vyasa Purnima, which is birthday of Srila Vyasa deva. Because Guru is a representative of Vyasa deva. At least theoretically. Though Srila Vyasa deva did not order his disciples to worship him for next 10,000 years but Srila Prabhupada obviously did. He had a vision for ISKCON for next 100000 years. Srila Prabhupada's position is unique and can not be compared to Narada or Vyasadeva. Narada or Vyasadeva did not establish ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada did. We do not worship Narada or Vyasa deva in each temple of ISKCON every morning but we do worship Srila Prabhupada. And this all is done by his order. If he is gone forever and is not able to play any important part in our lives then what is the point in worshipping him every morning. We do not worship Narada or Vyasadeva each morning. We can put Srila Prabhupada also in that category and just worship him once a year on his appearance day or disappearance day.

When Srila Prabhupada established this system of worshipping him in Archa form in each ISKCON temple, what was his logic behind doing that. Why he wanted future generations of devotees to worship him and remember him every day? A Guru of the caliber of Srila Prabhupada, his words and orders weight much more than all sastras together. As by the definition of the word Guru. Guru means heavy "the gravitational force who pulls you like a magnet." And Srila Prabhupada obviously does.

VEDA:

PurushaVyaghra Prabhu, you're not reacting to my remark why it's not possible to become a diksa disciple by reading a guru's book.

> A Guru of the caliber of Srila Prabhupada, his words and orders weight much more than all sastras together.

Your reference? I haven't read him claiming this. Always only g-s-s.

I'm listening to Srila Prabhupada right now, and he just said, "To accept guru means: Whatever you say, I'll accept." Unfortunately when I went to check the reference I accidentally lost my spot, but it's CD 11, morning walk, either Hyderbad or Johannesburg.[br /][br /]
To me that's vastly different from hearing from the guru and then checking sastra to see if he's deviating. [br /][br /]
I know when I hear from anyone other than Srila Prabhupada, I compare it to what Srila Prabhupada said. I was supposedly initiated by a "living" guru, but I only judge him according to Srila Prabhupada as the standard. So who's really my guru?
[br][br][br]
I don't see the quotes about Jayagopala or Sri Sita as at all definitiive for settling the question of an acarya's ability to initiate after his disappearance. The quote regarding Balwant is more to the point, but still the circumstance is substantially different and we're left to speculate on what exactly is the rule being applied and whether the presumed rule applies in the current circumstance. What is being asserted at present is that Srila Prabhupada purposely arranged a system for priests to give initiation on his behalf. Actually everyone knows he did that, but the question is whether he had the authority to continue it after his disappearance or whether his disciples had the authority to terminate Srila Prabhupada's order without his express approval and despite evidence that he intended for it to continue. It's not that Srila Prabhupada agreed to initiate somebody and then suddenly died. We're talking about whether an Founder-Acarya has the authority to make a planned arrangement for future initiations in his line.
[br][br]

As a matter of fact there is a GBC paper that says he did have that authority. The following is taken from a GBC paper entitled `ritvik Catechism’ which was prepared by H.G. Badrinarayan Dasa, H.H. Umapati Maharaja and H.H. Giridhari Maharaja. These devotees were members of a special GBC sub-committee set up to address the ritvik issue. Their paper begins:

[br][br]

"Q. Could Prabhupada install a rtvic system?[br]
A. Of course he could. He told us that there are timingala fish, that the moon is fire covered with ice, that Bhu Mandala is a
flat plane. And we have accepted it. So it is not a question of our willingness or unwillingness to accept that Srila Prabhupada,
as the founder/acarya, could establish a new system of initiation. Rather it is a simple question of knowing and accepting
what Srila Prabhupada actually said..."

Kyros,
That's an interesting quote but I don't think we're reading it the same way. I don't see where it says that after accepting a person as guru, everything he says and does has to be corroborated with sastra. Sastra and sadhu verify that he is a guru, and based on that we can put faith in him. Personally I didn't get my faith in Srila Prabhupada that way though, but that's another story. Very briefly... I was studying brahmavadi and mayavadi philosophy and practicing raja yoga and kundalini yoga, when I left home to go meditate as a hermit in the forest. On the way I found Bhagavad-gita As It Is and became absorbed in reading it. While reading in the middle of the night, everything suddenly came together and I entered a trance and saw Krishna standing there. He spent much of the night with me and among His parting advice was, "If you want to learn more about Me, read Srila Prabhupada's books." Everything about my spiritual life is based on that night with Krishna. My faith is rooted in Srila Prabhupada because he revealed Krishna to me, even though only for a few hours; and Krishna certified him as His pure devotee. I eventually tried accepting someone else as my guru due to ISKCON pressure, but it was wrong and I cannot entertain it again. Anyone else can say whatever they like, but I'm simply taking Srila Prabhupada's version and I trust how I understand him. I wish devotees would accept that, because I don't think I'm going to change. Frankly it is completely stupid that devotees don't want me to say Srila Prabhupada is my guru. I sometimes wonder if they really believe in Krishna at all.