Overview Of The Rtvik-Acharya WebSite (Rtvik.Org)

by ameyatma das/ Sept 05 2007 the Holy Appearance Day of Our Master ACBS Srila Prabhupad

Updated Nov 2007

[note - work in progress, the article below has taken me way too long to write, and it is currently incomplete. I may wind up redoing some of it, not sure at this time.

Introduction

This year marks 30 full years since the disappearance day of our most beloved Guru Maharaj, ISKCON's Founder-Acharya, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami - Srila Prabhupad. Thirty years is a very long time for us who so much miss his presence.

During the whole 30 year period there has been an on-going and very draining schism and conflict among the members of ISKCON and followers of Srila Prabhupad over what has been labeled the "guru issue" or the "rtvik issue". Srila Prabhupad's mission has been shattered over this issue. Preaching has been stifled, and so much time, energy, man power and money has been wasted on dealing with so many facets of this issue. Many of Srila Prabhupad's disciples became disheartened, disenfranchised and can no longer function within the ISKCON institution. Many have been unceremoniously kicked out of their spiritual master's mission over this issue. And some have been bodily beaten or even murdered over this issue.

There are many anti-rtvik articles and websites on the web. And, there are other pro-rtvik sites as well. Rtvik.Org has been established to counter the false and misleading (mis)information and to propagate the solid truth and spiritual potency of Srila Prabhupada's rtvik-acharya system. Our views are based on nothing less then Srila Prabhupad's own words.

If possible (if I can find the time and enough people send in articles) we will also publish current news from temples and devotees who support the real ISKCON mission.

We invite our readers to submit articles, however, as should be obvious, this site is dedicated toward enlightening others in a positive way about the Rtvik-Acharya system our Srila Prabhupad established. We will feature articles that support this basis.

We encourage constructive discussions.

We invite intellectual debate (opposing views) of particular articles or views by participating authors. However, we will not publish articles which vehemently attack (in a sentimental and vicious way) our views or other's views, or attack anyone personally regardless of their views. Refer to our Submission page for complete rules and guidelines.

Rtvik Dilemma

There are those who accept that Srila Prabhupad wanted an on-going Rtvik-Acharya system and there are those who say he did not. Although this would seem to indicate two camps, in reality it is not so simple. One camp is more easily identified and organized, that of the current GBC side. The other side, however, is not a single camp, there is no real cooperative organization that all the parties adhere to. There is one prominent group, the IRM (ISKCON Reform Movement), but the majority of Prabhupad followers who accept the rtvik-acharya position are not aligned with the IRM. Thus, most of those who support the Rtvik-Acharya system as being bona-fide are simply individuals who belong to no other organized group.

I find a very logical reason why the majority of those who support the rtvik system are not aligned with any group and are not organized. It is rooted in the fact that their loyalty is to Srila Prabhupad. Srila Prabhupad set up a GBC system of authority to manage his society and he entrusted this body to act as the ultimate authority for ISKCON in his absence. The problem for those who have splintered off over this guru-issue is that while in their heart they want to follow and uphold the GBC system that Srila Prabhupad put in place, they are convinced, in the core of their hearts, that the current GBC is mistaken on this issue.

This leaves them in a very awkward situation. Their loyalty is with Srila Prabhupad, thus, they do not want to join any other camp, as ISKCON is Prabhupad's camp. But, on the other hand they reach a point where ISKCON has been so distorted and so far removed from what they are convinced Srila Prabhupad wanted, that they wind up having no where to go. No where to turn. They can hardly function within their Spiritual Master's mission any more, but due to their loyalty to his mission they refuse to leave, and they refuse to align themselves with any other organization. (BTW - the above describes the position of the author of this article). Another type of "rtvik" adherent are those who also do not want to join any other camp, but who no longer can tolerate the changes and intolerances of the current ISKCON and the current GBC and thus these people simply leave. They never left Srila Prabhupad, but they no longer see the current ISKCON as being the ISKCON that Srila Prabhupad set up or that he wanted to continue. It has changed so much fundamentally that they can no longer remain a part of it. This type of 'rtvik' generally wind up not able or inspired to do much on their own, and so, they live a very despondent life. Another type either join one of the other rtvik supportive groups, or they start their own preaching center or temple and try to carry on, outside of ISKCON, as well as they can.

It should also be noted that there are many who are in between, the fence sitters, who just aren't sure which side is really right. Most fence sitters try to lean toward the GBC side as much as possible since they feel an obligation to Srila Prabhupad to do so. (This described my situation for many years).

And, also there are those who have come to more-or-less accept the Rtvik system as being bona-fide, but, due to the current hostile environment they have chosen to keep their rtvik alliance in the closet. There are a lot more closet rtviks then some may think. Some closet rtviks are GBCs, Sannyasis, Temple Presidents and even ISKCON GBC-authorized initiating gurus.

The "anti-Rtvik" camp is much more organized. Mostly, it is represented by one camp, the current GBC camp who currently run the ISKCON ashrams. This gives the GBC camp a number of advantages. First, they have the prestige of being the GBC, the ones that Srila Prabhupad handed his mission over to. They are the official keepers of his mission. They are, for the most part, a single camp and they issue resolutions which facilitate them to have a single voice in the presentation of their views. The GBC is seen as the leaders of the Hare Krsna movement, and thus their views are given much more weight by the majority members and congregation. The pro-rtviks are seen as rebellious renegades, even outsiders and trouble makers (a view which has often been propagated by the GBC), Thus, a new member feels an obligation to accept and follow the GBC and in this way they are indoctrinated to look down upon the Rtviks as something very bad and horrible, even though many have never researched the issue themselves.

What is the Rtvik-Acharya system?

The word 'rtvik' is Sanskrit. It refers to a brahman priest who acts in such a way and capacity to assist the presiding priest in the performance of rites, or rituals and ritualistic ceremonies. Ritu means rituals (the English word comes from the Sanskrit) and vi means to do. A rtvik is a priest who 'officiates' a ceremony on behalf of the main priest.

Srila Prabhupad coined the term "Officiating-Acharya", which he agreed meant "Rtvik-Acharya". This term designates something similar to a rtvik-priest, but obviously more then just a rtvik-priest. Rather then officiating for a priest, this person officiates ceremonies and functions on behalf of the presiding Acharya. Basically, however, it still refers to a rtvik, but, the duties cover the entire process of giving of initiation, not just performing the yajna.

In 1970 Srila Prabhupad officially began to put into place a Governing Body Commission (the GBC) for the management of his ISKCON mission. His mission was expanding rapidly at this time. Going from a single store-front in NY's Lower-East Side and a small handful of dedicated followers to many temple and ashram branches sweeping across the globe, from the Americas, to Europe, Africa, India and more. The number of disciples and congregational members similarly was rapidly increasing as well. Thus, he established the GBC to help assist him in the operation of his expanding international mission.

Together he set up these two arms, the GBC and the rtvik assistants to assist him in the process of initiating, training and engaging his ever increasing number of disciples.

Personally I do not know when Srila Prabhupad first engaged a disciple to act as a rtvik priest, or who it was. It could well have been Pradyumna Prabhu. It could have been as early as the late 1960's. Simply I do not know. If someone has specific information, please submit it.

Some people have tried to put forth an argument that Tamal is the one who began using this word rtvik. Or they try to argue that it was not really used by Srila Prabhupad until Tamal began using it. It is my experience that this is simply not true. I joined in 1973 and at that time Pradyumna acted as the rtvik priest at my first initiation. At my initiation on Dec 10th, 1973 Karandhar and Pradyumna both referred to Pradyumna as the "rtvik" priest as he was the one who performed the actual fire yajna, lighting the fire, offering the ghee to the sacrificial fire and chanting the mantras. The term "rtvik" was used to describe his function at that time. There was a devotee who was taking second initiation on that day whose first initiation Srila Prabhupad had personally performed the fire yajna and he was concerned and asked Karandhar if Pradyumna was now becoming his guru since Pradyumna was doing those functions rather then Srila Prabhupad, and this is why Pradyumna and Karandhar explained to us the term "rtvik".

Unknown to many, however, was the fact that Karandhar, who was the GBC for Los Angeles temple where this took place, was being trained by Srila Prabhupad to handle other aspects of the initiation process. Karandhar told me in private some time later that Srila Prabhupad had asked him, Karandhar, to select the names of the new initiates for that initiation. A function that Srila Prabhupad had been doing himself directly previously, and is traditionally the duty of the diksha guru. He had also asked Karandhar to chant on some of the beads, again a duty traditionally for the diksha guru to perform. Prior to the initiations Karandhar selected the names and then took the beads to Srila Prabhupad's room. He would take one set of beads and hand to Srila Prabhupad, telling him the name he had chosen for that person, then he would take another set of beads himself, and again tell Prabhupad the name he chose for that devotee, and then the both of them would chant together on the respect beads.

It is also known that by January of 1973 Srila Prabhupad had already been training Kirtanananda and then others in this same process (selecting names and chanting on the beads).

This was not normally a function of a rtvik-priest, who normally only assists in performance of the ritual fire sacrifice, as Pradyumna was doing. Srila Prabhupad had taken the concept of rtvik to another level by delegating the other functions of the initiation process that were normally the duty of the diksha guru to perform. Thus, Srila Prabhupad eventually named those who assisted him in selection of the names and chanting on the beads, etc, as 'Officiating-Acharyas', or 'Rtvik-Acharyas', distinguishing them from just a rtvik-priest. The Rtvik-Acharya was given the duty of giving the names, chanting on the beads, while Temple Presidents were often asked to act as rtvik-priests and perform the actual fire yajna. Thus, he trained two distinct type of rtviks.

(It is interesting to note that Srila Prabhupad's godbrother Srila Sridhar Maharaj also made use of such a rtvik system, and it seems obvious that he did so on seeing how Srila Prabhupad made use of such a system, for reference please see, Sridhar Rtvik1 and Sridhar Rtvik2)

As we said, however, the over all initiation process included two separate arms. So, what was the function of the GBC arm of this process?

Actually, the other arm is not limited to just GBC, but more to the greater GBC/ Temple President/ Sannyasis and Senior Devotees which comprised a system of management and of 'training' and 'guidance' for the new and existing members of ISKCON (For sake of brevity i will use GBC/TP to refer to that greater overall system of management). As we said Srila Prabhupad setup the foundation of the GBC structure in 1970 (and the writing and signing of the Direction of Management (DOM) document). By 1972, it seems, this system was quite well established. Again, I joined in the summer of 1973 in Los Angeles and by that time the system appeared to be fully established.

Srila Prabhupad had requested that as much as possible his disciples no longer approach him on matters of personal issues, managerial or philosophical guidance. Instead he asked us to take guidance and advice from the GBC/TP system he had set up.

By 1973 when I joined this was the system. We were trained in the philosophy by the GBC/TP system, not directly by our diksha guru. Obviously, the entire basis of our training was Srila Prabhupad's books and teachings. But, we did not have any direct training by Srila Prabhupad, our direct diksha guru. And, personal issues as well were all delegated to the GBC/TP system. Even my own second initiation was performed via rtvik, Srila Prabhupad was not physically present at all. This was summer of 1975.

Lets look at this compared to a much smaller and traditional ashram setting. In a smaller traditional ashram a guru may only have no more then 5-10 to 30 disciples at any one time living in his ashram. In the traditional setting then, the diksha guru gives all direct training and addresses all personal issues of his disciple. When a person is ready for initiation the diksha guru would perform all of the above functions, selecting the name, chanting on the beads then performing the fire yajna. For training purposes he may have an advanced disciple act as rtvik for the initiation ceremony, but that would be all. He may also train other leading students to help in training, but in a small ashram the guru would be directly accessable.

With so many disciples and such a large mission Srila Prabhupad set up the GBC/TP structure to handle all of the training and advice aspects that the diksha guru would normally handle. He had rtviks performing the fire sacrifice, and then he trained Rtvik-Acharyas to take up the other duties of diksha, giving of the name, chanting on the beads, etc. (and also perform the functions of rtvik-priest as well).

Thus, the combination of the GBC/TP system plus the Rtvik-Acharyas, the entire process of initiation no longer required his physical presence or physical involvement in anyway. Of course, we must add that in regards to the philosophical training his books and teachings form the absolute philosophical basis for those who join his ashram and mission.

It must also be noted that the two features, the GBC/TP system and the Rtvik-Acharyas are 100% complementary, with absolutely no conflict of authority or conflict of duty. The roles and duties for these functions were clearly laid out and defined by Srila Prabhupad. By their very nature the two roles are inherently clear. One compliments the other. There is no conflict of duty or authority. As a Rtvik Priest, or a Rtvik-Acharya these posts have no authority, they simply perform a function or a service.

And, it cannot be stressed enough the fact that Srila Prabhupad gave many instructions detailing the duties of the GBC/TP system and the authority that each party had. TP's were to manage their temples, the GBC were to give advice.

In contrast to this we do not find one single instruction given by Srila Prabhupad explaining how new gurus were to fit into the managerial structure of the GBC/TP system. This point will be discussed in more detail later in this article.

GBC Is Deputed Authority - How Can They Be Wrong?

Srila Prabhupad clearly stated that in his absence the GBC was to become the ultimate authority for his ISKCON mission.

The problem, however, is that those who have come to accept that Srila Prabhupad wanted the Rtvik system to continue in his absence see the GBC have made very grave mistakes in this regard. In their view the GBC are wrong.

The fact is the GBC has made a number of mistakes in the past, both minor and major. Their forceful and vehement adherence to the Zonal Acharya system is one example. This was the first 'guru' system the GBC adopted after Srila Prabhupad's disappearance. At the time the GBC was very forceful in their demands that every one accept the system as not only being correct, but they portrayed it as being what Srila Prabhupad wanted. Disciples of Srila Prabhupad who publicly disagreed with their views were expelled from ISKCON or at least seen and treated as fallen deviants, to be shunned by all 'good' devotees and members. After 9 or so years, under pressure from a rising rebellion of Temple Presidents and senior members and a series of fall downs by several of their leading Zonal Acharyas, the GBC eventually withdrew their support of the Zonal Acharya system and threw their weight behind a GBC Rubber-Stamped Guru-Election system. But, the fact remains that the GBC had once stood just as adamant behind the Zonal Acharya system (which was eventually seen as wrong and destructive to the society) as they stand today behind their rubber-stamped election system. They were wrong before, and for those who understand that Srila Prabhupad wanted the on-going rtvik process they are convinced the GBC is wrong still.

The GBC's authority is empowered only by Srila Prabhupad's instructions. And, Srila Prabhupad's instruction are that the GBC are to be the executioners of his will. They are to carry out his instructions. If and when the GBC fail to execute the will of Srila Prabhupad, then their authority stops and their so-called leadership and guidance is to be rejected, if it cannot be corrected first. But, ultimately if they are proved wrong then the GBC must be corrected.

Main Evidence Supporting the Rtvik-Acharya System (May 28th Conversation / July 9th Letter)

This is the most important part of this article.

Our view that Srila Prabhupad wanted the rtvik-acharya system to continue on after he departed is based on nothing less then the direct words and instructions of Srila Prabhupad himself. This is not our only reason, but it is, obviously, the most important reason, and really, the only reason that matters.

On May 28th, 1977 five or six GBC members went to Srila Prabhupad's room in Vrndaban seeking Srila Prabhupad's guidance on several issues. One issue was that of how initiations were to be held after Srila Prabhupad departs.

But, lets go back one month earlier to the following conversation:

(By the way, the conversation included comments by Srila Prabhupad about his godbrothers, including Sridhar Maharaj. It is too long to include all here, but, you can read more of the conversation here).

Srila Prabhupad had mentioned how his god brothers simply fought over who was to be guru and that he, our Srila Prabhupad, remained aloof from them. Our Prabhupad said that his guru maharaj also approved that he live aloof from the Gaudiya Math.

 

Tamala Krsna: He could understand that his disciples were not...

Prabhupada: No, he was very sorry. At the last stage he was disgusted.

Tamala Krsna: But that... That doesn't mean that your disciples should think also, "I will remain aloof just as our Prabhupada..."

Prabhupada: No, that I have not said. Therefore I used so strong word on the, our Surabhi's action. This was made independently. He has written. He has given photograph. That is not good.

Tamala Krsna: Yeah, I took that as a good instruction to all of us, your rebuking.

Prabhupada: I told him that "You cannot do so independent. You are doing nice, but not to do in the... You admit." People complained against Hamsaduta. Did you know that?

Tamala Krsna: I'm not sure of the particular incidences, but I've heard general...

Prabhupada: In Germany. In Germany.

Tamala Krsna: The devotees there.

Prabhupada: So many complaints.

Tamala Krsna: Therefore change is good.

[Note, it appears Tamal meant that to change Hamsaduta from being GBC of Germany was good, not just change in general ]

 

Prabhupada: No, you become guru, but you must be qualified first of all. Then you become.

Tamala Krsna: Oh, that kind of complaint was there.

Prabhupada: Did you know that?

Tamala Krsna: Yeah, I heard that, yeah.

Prabhupada: What is the use of producing some rascal guru?

[Although not entirely directly part of the current discussion of this article, I found this interesting, that there was complaint against Hamsaduta - about becoming guru. Prabhupad says, "you become guru, but you must be qualified first, then you become". Tamal says, "Oh that kind of complaint". Interesting. The complaints, before Srila Prabhupad departed, were that Hamsaduta was trying to act like guru??? This leads us to the point in this conversation regarding our topic ]

 

Tamala Krsna: Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and it's clear fact that we are all conditioned souls, so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible...

Prabhupada: Hm.

Tamala Krsna: ...but not now.

Prabhupada: Yes. I shall choose some guru. I shall say, "Now you become acarya. You become authorized." I am waiting for that. You become all acarya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete.

[Note. this was April of 1977, Tamal tells SP that as far as he is concerned he, nor any other of his godbrothers are qualified to become guru. Maybe one day, but, as of April of 1977 he could not see anyone, including himself, were actually qualified. Note that Srila Prabhupad does not disagree with his statement. Prabhupad says that he wants us all to become acharya, but, the training must be complete. He did not disagree with Tamal's assessment that the training was complete, at least at that time. ]

 

Tamala Krsna: The process of purification must be there.

Prabhupada: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahaprabhu wants that. Amara ajnaya guru hana. "You become guru." (laughs) But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower...

Tamala Krsna: Not rubber stamp.

Prabhupada: Then you'll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and "guru." What kind of guru? No publication, no preaching, simply bring some foodstuff... My Guru Maharaja used to say, "Joint mess," a place for eating and sleeping. Amar amar ara takana (?)(Bengali): "Joint mess." He said this.

..[later in the conversation]

 

Prabhupada: Stick to our principle, and see our GBC is very alert. Then everything will go on, even I am not present. Do that. That is my request. Whatever little I have taught you, follow that, and nobody will be aggrieved. No maya will touch you. Now Krsna has given us, and there will be no scarcity of money. You print book and sell. So everything is there. We have got good shelter all over the world. We have got income. You stick to our principles, follow the... Even if I die suddenly, you'll be able to manage. That's all. That I want. Manage nicely and let the movement go forward. Now arrange. Don't go backward. Be careful. Apani acari prabhu jiveri siksaya.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- April 22, 1977, Bombay

In Tamal's 1980 Topanga confessions Tamal hinted that after this conversation Srila Prabhupad began to speak about an on-going Rtvik system that would carry on after he departed, and that this caused some concern among the GBC, especially those who were desiring to become guru after Srila Prabhupad departed. (please refer to Tamal's confession)

This, then, is the preface to the May 28th meeting of 5-6 GBC men with Srila Prabhupad. During that meeting the following very important and direct question was put before Srila Prabhupad:

 

Satsvarupa: ...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.

[This is very direct and most important question: How intiations are to be performed in the future, when you're no longer with us (physically)? That is the real question of this topic. Note that Srila Prabhupad did not take any time to contemplate such important question. His answer was quick and concise, meaning that this was a topic he had considered for some time and knew exactly what he wanted to do.]

 

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.

[ Srila Prabhupad understood the meaning of the word Rtvik. Note also that he says that he will, shall, meaning that he will soon, recommend some of the GBC to act as officiating or Rtvik acharyas. This was his immediate and premeditative reply to this very direct and important question. But, also note that the reply remains incomplete until he actually performs this recommendation. At the time that he makes that recommendation then his reply to this question will be completed.

And, it is a very, very, important, serious and grave question, in deed. Thus, the follow up where he actually completes his reply to that question, the wording, written or spoken, where he acutally authorizes and appoints those Rtviks, that letter will be just as important as it will be his final completion to his reply to this most grave question.

However, after stating that he will, shall, soon, appoint some to become rtvik acharyas, the conversation continued as follows, with those GBC asking, whose disciples will the new devotees be, yours, Prabhupad, or... mine? ]

 

Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.

Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order.

Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?

Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?

Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.

Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

Satsvarupa: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That's clear.

[ Hmmm, that is clear? It is clear that he wanted them to become regular guru, but, is the overall reply really clear?
No, it is not really clear. The first part of his reply clearly means Rtvik, the second part clearly means regular guru. There is a huge difference between regular guru and that of Rtvik.
A rtvik is not the presiding priest. A rtvik is someone who performs a yajna on behalf of the presiding priest. When used in relation to giving of diksha, the rtvik would not become the guru, but the presiding priest would. Thus, Srila Prabhupad's original reply to the question, and this additional explanation to these questions as to who will be actual guru leaves us with a very unclear answer. One that begs for additional explanation.

After all, this was a most important question and a very important topic, yet the GBC members who are present, they were not satisfied with the Rtvik answer, but, when they got the answer they wanted to hear, then they wanted to end the conversation then and there, without any additional clarification. What would have been best is that they were to ask more clarification of the term rtvik or officiating acharya.

Never before had Srila Prabhupad ever used the term Officiating Acharya. Not in reference to any past acharya, or in reference to his own self. It was a new term that he had just coined. He agreed that the term equated to Rtvik-Acharya, Rtvik, Yes. Yet, it is a new term, not found anywhere else in his conversations or books.

Again, this is why I say that the answer, at this point, is not at all clear, not without a more in depth explanation to this new term Officiating Acharya. Why coin a new terminology to describe the function of these men if what he intended them to become were regular diksha gurus?
Why not simply say that he would be appointing them as successor gurus, successor acharyas? What was the significance of adding the word "Officiating", and why did he agree this meant "Rtvik"?

These are very serious questions because the topic is a very serious one.

First, let us examine the dictionary definition of the word "Officiate"

From Meriam-Webseter: Officiating:
1 : to perform a ceremony, function, or duty <officiate at a wedding>
2 : to act in an official <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/official> capacity : act as an official (as at a sports contest)

The origin of the word is from Latin, Officium, and was used to indicate duty or ceremony. In Old English "Officiate" was used to indicate a person who oversees a religious rite or ceremony.

But, to know more precisely how SP meant the word we must see how he used it at other times

 

"Nahusa was officiating for Indra while Indra, absent from heaven, was going here and there to gain release from his sinful reactions". ------------>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 6.13.10
"So long Yamaraja continued as a sudra, Aryama was officiating in his place as Yamaraja." ---->>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.13.15 -- Geneva, June 4, 1974 (lecture)

Here we see that Srila Prabhupad use of the word was to indicate someone who takes on the official duties on behalf of someone else.

 

"Although Romaharsana was not a brahmana, having been born of a mixed marriage, he was invested with that status by the assembled sages and thus given the brahmasana, the seat of the chief officiating priest." ----->>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 10.78.30

And, yet, here we find he uses the word to refer to the "office" or the executor of the duty.

 

"The post of Brahma to officiate in the creation of the universe is offered to the most pure living being," -->>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 2.9.7

We know that Brahma is not the actual creator, but he "officiates" in the creation... He carries out the duties or ceremonial post as creator - but the real creator is Krsna. So, in this sense the use of the word "officiate" is again used to indicate one who assists in a function on behalf of the higher power. This is how Srila Prabhupad most often used the word "Officiate", to indicate someone who officiates on behalf of a higher authority.

Yet, we will grant that the term 'could' also be used to indicate one who executes the office of, or duty of acharya, meaning that the person is the actual acharya.

However, there are serious problems with this understanding

a) Srila Prabhupad's most common use of the word was in the Rtvik sense, that is to indicate someone who executes a function on behalf of a higher authority.

b) Why would Prabhupad even include the word if he intended those he was appointing were to become regular acharya? He had never used the term "officiating acharya" at any other time to refer to any past acharya or himself. Thus, his inclusion of it here can only be to distinguish what he calls the "officiating-acharya" to mean something different then that of a regular or past acharya. It must have been used to indicate someone who was officiating on behalf of the acharya.

c) Srila Prabhupad then emphatically agrees that what he means by Officiating is the word Rtvik. And Rtvik means the same, that is it defines one who performs a ritual on behalf of the presiding priest. Thus, this can only be the meaning that he intended, as he agrees Officiating Acharya means Rtvik-Acharya.

Tamala Krsna: Is that called Rtvik-acarya?
Prabhupada: Rtvik. Yes.

Going back to the conversation. Recall that when Srila Prabhupad said the disciples would be theirs, they got what they wanted to hear and were ready to end the conversation, but Srila Prabhupad adds the following comment: ]

 

Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...

Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.

Satsvarupa: Next we have a question about the BBT. At present, no translation...

>>> Ref. VedaBase => GBC Meets with Srila Prabhupada -- May 28, 1977, Vrndavana

"When I order"

Srila Prabhupad ends this, for now, by saying that when he orders someone to become a guru, he becomes a regular guru, but, it is only On his Order.

So, we have two contradictory concepts given in his answer to this most important question. First he says he will soon appoint Rtviks, which clearly means one's who will only perform the ceremony on his behalf, then when asked whose disciples he says they will be those of the rtviks and he speaks in terms of them becoming Regular Guru. But, he qualifies it, Only on his order. When I order, then you become regular guru.

Overall, his reply to this very important question as to how he wanted initiations to go on after he departs begs for more explanation. And, until Srila Prabhupad actually appoints anyone to become that Officiating Rtvik Acharya, his reply to this all important question remains incomplete.

This brings us to the July 9th, letter.

The July 9th letter is significant because it represents Srila Prabhupad's completion to that most significant and important question that was put to him on May 28th. This letter is nothing less then the completion to that question.

Today the current GBC and those who oppose the on-going Rtvik idea deride the importance of this letter. Previously, however, the GBC had put much stress on that letter as that letter was the foundation of the original Zonal-Acharya system, and the acceptance of the idea that Srila Prabhupad had appointed 11 new acharyas as his successor.

Now, lets examine this letter:

 

Letter to: All G.B.C., All Temple Presidents
--
Vrindaban
9 July, 1977
77-07-09

To All G.B.C., and Temple Presidents

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "ritvik" - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:

His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami
His Holiness Jayapataka Swami
His Holiness Tamala Krsna Gosvami
His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami
His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami
His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami
His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
His Holiness Harikesa Swami
His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari
His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari

In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book.

Hoping this finds you all well.
Your servant,
Tamala Krsna Gosvami

Approved: [signed by] A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Secretary to Srila Prabhupada

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: All G.B.C., All Temple Presidents -- Vrindaban 9 July, 1977

The letter begins by stating what the letter is in reference to. The letter begins by referring back to the May 28th meeting. The GBC accept that this is the meeting being referred to as follows:

Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "ritvik" - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:

Recently when all the GBC were with Srila Prabhupad in Vrndaban was back in May, just 5 weeks earlier. And, the day he said he would soon appoint Rtvik acharyas was on May 28th. This was the only meeting in which Srila Prabhupad had ever indicated (said) that he would soon appoint anyone as a Rtvik for the purpose of performing initiations in the future.

Most importantly, Srila Prabhupad had only made this statement as his reply to that most important question as to how he wanted initiations to go on in the future, particularly at that time when he was no longer physically present with us.

Thus, the letter itself informs us as to the context of the letter. The letter is, none other, then Srila Prabhupad's completion to that question. On May 28th Srila Prabhupad stated that he would soon appoint Rtvik-Acharyas to perform initiations for when he was no longer physically present. Srila Prabhupad had said this is what he would do, he would soon appoint some Rtviks, and in this July 9th letter he is doing exactly what he said he would do, he is herein appointing, for now, 11 Rtviks.

This is exactly what he said he would do, and this is exactly what the letter is stating he is now doing.

The importance of the letter is it's direct connection, as stated, to the May 28th meeting, and that it is, as defined by the letter, Srila Prabhupad's follow up, or completion, of his reply to that most all important question asked of him at that meeting.

11 men are named in this letter.

Yet, this letter comes with additional instructions and CLARIFICATIONS as to how this process shall work, how it is to be carried out.

This is very important.

The letter states how, in the past, when a Temple President were to recommend someone for initiation they would write to Srila Prabhupad requesting his sanction. Srila Prabhupad had most always accepted their recommendations. The significant change delineated by this letter is that from now on the recommendations can be made to the newly appointed Rtvik-Acharyas. The letter states, to which ever rtvik representative is nearest to that temple.

Why this is so significant is that previous to this letter all other aspects of the Rtvik system of initiation were already delegated by Srila Prabhupad to different senior men at different times. Some already were selecting the names, some were already chanting on the beads, and different GBC men as well as Temple Presidents were already performing the actual fire yajna initiations. The only significant change or addition brought by this letter is that it eliminates the last need for Srila Prabhupad's physical presence for the initiation process to continue on. Previously only Srila Prabhupad could approve of the recommendations for new initiates. But, with this new directive even the making of that final decision was delegated to these appointed Rtvik acharyas. This one addition now provided that the rtvik process could continue onward without the need for Srila Prabhupad's physical involvement on any level. This also allowed the process to continue on after he physically departs.

Why is this so important? Because that feature would be, and is, critical to providing that this Rtvik system could go on functioning in Srila Prabhupad's physical absence. Previously his physical involvment, in granting the formal acceptane of the Temple President's recommendation, was required. Thus, previously, his physcial presence on the planet was still needed. But, with this new additional instruction, that from now on the recommendations be made to the appointed Rtviks and that the Rtviks are now authorized by Srila Prabhupad to make that decision on his behalf, this now completely removes the need or involvment of Srila Prabhupad's physical presence, and allows this process to go on functioning even after he departs.

That is exactly what the question was that was put to Srila Prabhupad on May 28th. How initiations were to go one after he physcial departs. Thus, this additional feature presented in this letter is what was required to facilitate the process to go on in his physical absence.

After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book.

Very clearly, explicitly, this letter clarifies and defines that the newly initiated devotee shall become the disciple of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad. And NOT the disciples of the Rtvik Acharya. That is made abundantly clear.

What is significant is that this letter refers to the May 28th meeting. It places itself in the context of that meeting. Thus this letter can only be Srila Prabhupad's promised follow up to when he had said that he would soon (shall) recommend (appoint) Rtvik Acharyas for the purpose of performing initiations. Srila Prabhupad had made this statement as his original reply to that all important question as to how he wanted initiations to carry on after he departs.

During that conversation when Prabhupad was asked whose disciples the new initiates would be, Srila Prabhupad contradicted the term he originally used, Officiating, or Rtvik, and said the disciples would become the Rtvik's disciples. This is a contradictory use of the term Rtvik. Thus, that conversation and his original reply begged for additional clarification as to exactly what he really did want. Rtvik, or regular gurus?

This July 9th letter provides that very much needed clarification as to what he really wanted. Here is is made absolutely clear, spelled out in writing, that the new devotees will be his, Prabhupad's, disciples.

Now I will address the main objections, in general, to this letter.

Some have objected to it's importance by pointing out that this letter was not worded by Srila Prabhupad, but was written by Tamal. They claim that it therefore may not clearly represent what Srila Prabhupad intended.

First, as to how it was written: Normally, in the past, Srila Prabhupad would dictate such letters. His secretary would write down, or tape record, Prabhupad's instruction word for word, then he would type it up on letter head and take to Srila Prabhupad. Srila Prabhupad would review the letter, and if needed make corrections and a new letter would be written, or if he approved that the letter was sufficiently correct (some letters had grammatical errors, but not so severe as to justify rewriting them), Srila Prabhupad would then sign the letter. His signature on the letter was his signature of approval that the letter did, in fact, convey his interned instruction.

This letter is only slightly different, and those differences rather then being grounds for questioning whether or not the letter should be taken as faithfully representing what Srila Prabhupad intended, on the other hand can be argued as additional support that the letter does just that. The difference in how this letter was written was that in other letters the secretary would, in one sitting, get a dictated letter to write. In this instance Srila Prabhupad had discussed this issue with Tamal more than once. This, at the very least, is confirmable that at least 2 meetings were held where the substance of this letter was discussed. Additionally, the letter was written approximately 5-6 weeks after the May 28th meeting, which means that the content of the letter may have been discussed in much more depth in a number of meetings. And, there is one witness who was present with Tamal and Prabhupad during Tamal's meetings with Srila Prabhupad during that time period who tells us there were a number of other meetings where Srila Prabhupad did do just this. But, as we said, we can prove that at least 2 meetings were held.

One July 7th there is a recorded conversation between Tamal and Srila Prabhupad on the topic of this letter. In that conversation Srila Prabhupad gives 7 names to be put on the list of appointed Rtviks. Then, he adds 2 more during that conversation. However, the final letter lists 11 names. Thus, the only way 2 more names are given is because at least one additional discussion must have occurred between Tamal and Srila Prabhupad on this topic before the letter was written.

However, the two most important verifications that this letter does, in fact, faithfully represent what Srila Prabhupad wanted and intended are

1) Srila Prabhupad's signature on the letter
2) latter, in October of 1977, just one month before his departure, Srila Prabhupad refers to that letter, referring to it as the "list" of names for the appointed rtviks. Thus, Srila Prabhupad not only signed it, but latter made reference to it as being the list and place where he had appointed those 11 men to be rtvik. He also referenced the number of men as 11 in that October conversation (which will be given shortly below), thus confirming that Tamal had not added the other 2 names on his own, but they were added by Srila Prabhupad himself, obviously in a separate conversation with Tamal before Tamal wrote that letter.

After Srila Prabhupad discussed this issue in depth over a period of more than one day, more than one meeting, Tamal, then, wrote the letter. The letter refers to the recent meetings in Vrndaban (May 28th) and to Srila Prabhupad's promise that he would soon appoint rtviks (his preliminary answer to that all important question). There is no doubt that Srila Prabhupad clearly agreed to the wording and content of this July 9th letter by way of his signature of approval, and by the fact that months latter he makes reference to this letter and its content as being the place where he authorized those 11 men to act as Rtvik-Acharyas.

Another objection, or shall we say theory (or more appropriately defined as 'pure speculation'), which is put forth by the current GBC, is the speculation that this letter was only intended to apply during the time while Srila Prabhupad was still physically present with us. Or, that the letter was only intended to be valid for while Srila Prabhupad was too ill to perform the intiations himself. The latter speculation was made to me in an email by a current GBC / guru, Prahladananda Swami.

The problem with such baseless idea is that such ideas are founded only in pure speculation. The letter itself does not state that the letter is to apply only from then until Srila Prabhupad physically departs, nor does the letter say anything at all about applying only while Srila Prabhupad was ill.

Rather, the source of this speculation comes from Tamal Krsna, who has told the GBC that this is what the letter meant. The GBC point out that since Tamal is the actual author of that letter, then he should know. But, he is not the real author of that letter any more than any of the other letters from Srila Prabhupad. The content of that letter came from Srila Prabhupad, not Tamal. And, Srila Prabhupad signed that letter, thus giving his signature of approval for the content of the letter.

And, why should Tamal's opinion be taken over the content and wording of the letter itself? They may argue because he is the one who wrote it, but, he is not the one who supplied the content or approved of the content and wording of the letter. The person who supplied the content and approved the wording was Srila Prabhupad.

What makes Tamal's stating that this letter only applied to while Srila Prabhupad was living as suspect is the fact that Tamal could have been motivated to make this statement due to strong material desires to want to become a regular guru.

Amazingly we find clear support of the above suspicion, and that support comes directly from the mouth of Tamal himself.

From his 1980 confession tape:

 

I can definitely say for myself, and for which I humbly beg forgiveness from everybody, that there was definitely some degree of trying to control(...) This is the conditioned nature, and it came out in the highest position of all, 'Guru, oh wonderful! Now I am guru, and there is only eleven of us'(...).

...you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, because he had already said it a million times. He said: My Guru Maharaja did not appoint anyone. It's by qualification.' We made a great mistake. After Prabhupada's departure what is the position of these eleven people?(...)

Tamal admits, "that there definitely was some degree of trying ot control". That he had strong desire to become guru. He admitted that Srila Prabhupad never appointed gurus, he had only appointed Rtviks.

There are serious problems with accepting the GBC promoted theory that this letter was intended only to apply while Srila Prabhupad was ill or only while he was physically with us.

The letter states that it is Srila Prabhupad's follow up to when he said he would soon appoint Rtviks, which was during the recent May 28th meeting. Srila Prabhupad made this statement as his reply to a very serious, grave and most important question, how he wanted initiations to go on after he departs. Thus, if Srila Prabhupad had intended the July 9th letter to only apply to while he was present, or ill, and not to apply After he Departs, which was the question put to him at the recent GBC meeting where he stated he would soon appoint Rtviks, then why did he put his signature of approval to a letter that says it is his follow up to that meeting / question, if he only intended it to apply for a temporary time/circumstance? Why would Srila Prabhupad had approved of a letter that clearly states one thing, yet he intended it to mean something different?

a) Was Srila Prabhupad becoming senile? That is, had Srila Prabhupad forgot that he had made the statement that he would soon appoint rtviks as his answer to that most important question? Had Srila Prabhupad forgotten what the question was? Had he totally forgot the connection? Such important question was put to him and 5 weeks latter he just totally forgot the connection of his saying he would appoint rtviks as being his reply to that question, and here 5 weeks latter signing a letter appointing rtvik, and the letter refers to his previous promise to do so, but, some how Srila Prabhupad just totally forgot the connection?

b) If Srila Prabhupad was not overtly forgetful or absent minded, was he just being careless when he signed the July 9th letter? He just didn't take the time to read it carefully enough to see the connection to that meeting, and thus the connection to that all important question that was asked of him? He just signed the letter without really thinking, thus acting very carelessly regarding such an important issue? I can't, personally, think of any other reason why Srila Prabhupad would have signed the letter if he had not intended it to be the follow up to the question on May 28th when the letter itself says it is.

Neither of these explanations make any sense. Srila Prabhupad was very methodical and was in full possession of his full faculties right up to the moment of his departure from our world. Months later he refers back to this letter, and to it's content, so he clearly understood what the letter stated, he clearly knew the content 15 weeks later, what to speak of on the day he signed it.

The question put to him in the May 28th meeting was most grave, most serious, most important. He would not have simply forgot what the question was. The letter clearly states it is in context to that meeting and to Srila Prabhupad's statement that he would soon appoint rtviks. The July 9th letter was written only 5-6 weeks later. Srila Prabhupad would not have forgotten that he was replying to such a grave and serious issue and question. He would not have carelessly signed off on a letter that made clear reference that it was his follow up to that meeting/question if that is not what he purposefully intended.

Yet, the only way to support the GBC's promoted idea that the July 9th letter was not intended to be Srila Prabhupad's final written answer to that question and clarification to what he really wanted is to assume one or both of the above scenarios, that Prabhupad had become forgetful of that all important question, and/or he had become careless and didn't read the whole letter before he signed it.

The GBC's view that the letter only applies to before he departed is based only in pure mental speculation, as the letter itself does not state this. The meeting to which the letter refers to as being the follow up to did not discuss that issue at all. That meeting only discussed how initiations were to be held AFTER he departs. The only support the GBC can muster for this view is that Tamal, who wrote the letter on behalf of Srila Prabhupad, told them so. But, Tamal admitted that he was blinded by material desires of wanting to become guru. He was illy motivated. This very much cripples the only real support they have for such a view. And, still, the above problems exist as to why Srila Prabhupad would have signed a letter that says one thing, but some how he meant it to mean something different.

Our view, in contrast, is that the Srila Prabhupad was vividly aware of the context of the July 9th letter when he signed it.. He was vividly aware that the letter states it is in reference to the May 28th meeting, and that Srila Prabhupad was vividly aware that the question to which he was following up with his reply was that most serious and grave question. Not only was Srila Prabhupad vividly aware of the content and context of the letter, but he is the one who dictated to Tamal the very content of that letter. Thus, the clarifications made in the July 9th letter clarifying who the new devotee's guru will be are very significant.

The current GBC, however, want us to assume that Srila Prabhupad was being very careless regarding such an important issue, or that he was being very forgetful and practically senile at the time of signing a letter that clearly states one thing, while, according to them (source being Tamal) he intended it to mean something else.

Yet, that source, Tamal, admitted he had been motivated by strong desire to become guru and that he basically misled the GBC in this matter, intentionally, so that he could become a big guru, acharya.

To accept the GBC's understanding one has to assume that Srila Prabhupad was careless, forgetful or senile, or all the above.

The October 18th, 1977 Conversation

After having signed the July 9th letter we can find nothing in the Vedabas on the topic until 3 months later, in this Oct 18th conversation, which goes as follows :

 

Jayapataka: Because you are a paramahamsa, Srila Prabhupada, you are seeing everyone else as surrendered to Krsna. But only by your mercy, you are forcing us to serve Krsna.

Prabhupada: Hare Krsna. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?

Tamala Krsna: Yes. Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.

Prabhupada: So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?

Tamala Krsna: Yes. Actually... Yes, Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: So I think Jayapataka can do that if he likes. I have already deputed. Tell him.

Tamala Krsna: Yes.

Prabhupada: So, deputies, Jayapataka's name was there?

Bhagavan: It is already on there, Srila Prabhupada. His name was on that list.

Prabhupada: So I depute him to do this at Mayapura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?

Tamala Krsna: Stopped doing what, Srila Prabhupada?

Prabhupada: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?

Giriraja: It's clear.

Prabhupada: You have got the list of the names?

Tamala Krsna: Yes, Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: And if by Krsna's grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.

Giriraja: We will explain to him so that he will understand properly.

Prabhupada: Hm? Hm?

Giriraja: I said we will explain to the Bengali gentleman just as you have described to us, so that he'll be satisfied with this arrangement.

Prabhupada: And Dr. Ghosh has his scheme, but actually the scheme is there in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. We want to introduce that scheme to our Gurukula. We haven't got to manufacture scheme. Is that correct?

Giriraja: Yes.

Prabhupada: Let them learn to rise early in the morning and cleanse. This is the first scheme. This will keep their health nice. Catur-varnyam maya srstam [Bg. 4.13]. Unless in the human society the varnasrama system is introduced, no scheme or social order, health order or any order, political order, will be successful.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- October 18, 1977, Vrndavana

Interestingly that Prahladananda Swami sent me parts of the transcript of this conversation as evidence that the July 9th letter was only to apply while Srila Prabhupad was ill. The GBC claim that this conversation is their proof that Srila Prabhupad, while originally deputing those 11 men to act as Rtvik, he was now deputing them to act as actual or regular diksha guru.

Here is the logic of their interpretation. The speculation by the GBC that the July 9th letter only applied to when Srila Prabhupad was sick appears to have it's foundation in the following comment made by Srila Prabhupad:

Here Srila Prabhupad says

Prabhupada: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?

Giriraja: It's clear.

Prabhupada: You have got the list of the names?

Tamala Krsna: Yes, Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: And if by Krsna's grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.

Everyone agrees that the List of Names that Srila Prabhupad is referring to, where he had previously deputed some men to initiate, is the July 9th letter. Here Srila Prabhupad refers to that list/letter. Then he says that if by Krsna's grace he shall recover from this (ill health) condition, then he shall begin again to initiate. But, to be pressed to do so in his current condition is not good.

Thus, the GBC and others claim that the July 9th letter Srila Prabhupad was referring to was only to apply while he was ill, for here he says that if / when his health recovers then again he can take up initiating again.

The defect with this interpretation is that it has no real basis. When you examine all of the evidence the theory simply does not hold up. First, no where in that letter does it refer anywhere that it only applies while Srila Prabhupad was ill. The July 9th letter, as we showed above, instead refers explicitly to the May 28th conversation to where Srila Prabhupad had said that he would soon appoint Rtviks, and he did this as his reply to that all important and serious question as to how initiations were to be conducted AFTER he departs. In the May 28th conversation there is no discussion of how initiations were to be conducted while Srila Prabhupad was ill. rather the topic was After he departs. According to the letter itself, this is what the letter was a follow up to.

Rather, the more logical understanding of what Srila Prabhupad is saying is that he has already deputed those 11 men in that July 9th list/letter, to initiate on his behalf as Rtvik "After" he departs. But, there are men, like this Bengali man, who are ready for initiation. What he is saying is that it is not good for him (Prabhupad) to initiate while he is so ill, so those whom he had already deputed to do this on his behalf, they should not wait for him to pass away, they can take this up now and give this man and others initiation. If Prabhupad's health recovers, then he may resume those functions that he had deputed the Rtviks to do. Yet, none of this would nullify or change the July 9th directive that was to apply After Srila Prabhupad departed.

Another argument by the GBC side is that they say Srila Prabhupad, in this conversation, is now stopping giving diksha, and that those he had previous deputed to be Rtvik will now become regular diksha gurus.

Prabhupada: So I depute him to do this at Mayapura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?

Tamala Krsna: Stopped doing what, Srila Prabhupada?

Prabhupada: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?

One argument that Gaur Keshava prabhu gave in a recent debate I had with him is that Srila Prabhupad had already stopped giving the Rtvik aspects of initiation via the July 9th letter, and so he could not possibly be referring to the rtvik aspects in October when he says here that he is now stopping "this initiation". He argued that since Srila Prabhupad had already stopped the rtvik aspects in July, then the only logical conclusion was that in October he was now stopping the giving of diksha aspects. He was stopping "this initiation" and he says that he has deputed his disciples. Thus, the opposition argue that here Srila Prabhupad was now deputing the original 11 to become Diksha gurus.

But, this idea also does not hold up under scrutiny concerning all the points above.

First, regarding the idea what Srila Prabhupad had stopped in July. Actually, that letter never mentions anything about Srila Prabhupad stopping anything. On May 28th the question was about how "future" initiations are to be held, particularly at that time when Srila Prabhupad was no longer physically present with us (after he departs). Srila Prabhupad said he would soon appoint Rtviks, which is what is did via the July 9th letter. Mostly, however, that question and the letter referred to how initiations were to be conducted after he departed. Until he departed Srila Prabhupad could very well have done whatever he chose. He could have resumed giving all aspects of initiation, or he could have resumed the giving of the names and chanting on the beads and making the final decisions as to accepting the recommendation of the Temple Presidents regarding who was to be initiated. Or, as he was doing here, he could ask that those who had deputed as rtviks actually begin their rtvik-acharya duties now, even before he departs. The July 9th letter did not limit Srila Prabhupad from doing what ever he wanted to do, but it did delineate what the Rtviks were to do.

As noted above regarding the July 9th letter, we noted the most important additional feature introduced by that letter was the making of the final decision to accept the recommended new initiate. Previous this final decision was made only by Srila Prabhupad, and the July 9th letter delegated this duty and function to the Rtvik-Acharya. But, if Srila Prabhupad wanted he could still do this. In the July 9th letter he never said he was stopping anything. So, for him to say in October he is now stopping the "this" (the Rtvik aspects of) initiation, there is no conflict with the content of the July 9th letter.

The fact is that this very conversation provides proof that up to that date he had not, in fact, stopped even the making of the final decisions regarding new initiates. Even though he delegated that duty to the Rtviks in July, here it is Oct 18th and none of the Rtviks had held any such rtvik initiations. Nor were they making any final decisions as to who would be accepted for initiation.

In this Oct 18 conversation Srila Prabhupad mentions this Bengali Gentleman and asks that since he had deputed Jayapataka to initiate (as rtvik) that he should go ahead and initiate that devotee. Just see, here it is Oct 18th and Srila Prabhupad himself is still making the final decision to accept the new devotees. This was the most significant addition made by the July 9th letter, and here on Oct 18th Srila Prabhupad had not yet stopped making these decisions. Therefore, after he makes this decision one last time, he declares that he is now stopping. Stopping what? Stopping 'this' initiation. Not that he has stopped being the diksha guru, but that he is stopping the rtvik aspects that he had delegated to the 11 rtviks, but who had not yet taken up those duties. He is now telling Jayapataka to perform the rtvik initiation and that he is now stopping 'this' initiation.

But, the GBC and others have also tried to argue that on Oct 18th Srila Prabhupad was not just asking Jayapataka to initiate as a rtvik, but he was deputing him to initiate as a regular guru.

Again, this speculation does not hold up because all throughput the topic of this conversation Srila Prabhupad refers to having Already deputed Jayapataka and the other of the 11. Very explicitly Prabhupad uses past-tense to describe when he had deputed them, and he also refers to where he had deputed them in the past. Where being "there" in that "List of the Names", the July 9th letter. As shown below:

Prabhupada:
So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm? ...
..Jayapataka...I have already deputed.
...So, deputies, Jayapataka's name was there?
[There refers to the July 9th letter/list of names of the 11 rtviks]

Bhagavan: It is already on there, Srila Prabhupada. His name was on that list.

Prabhupada: So I depute him to do this at Mayapura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?

Srila Prabhupad made it abundantly clear that he had already deputed those men in the July 9th list of 11 names. Then, when he says he is deputing Jayapataka to do 'this', what is 'this'? It is the same thing that he had already deputed him to do in the past, in that list of names, the July 9th letter. And, what was it that he had already deputed those men to do, that which he is now stopping? He had only deputed them to perform the Rtvik aspects of initiations on behalf of Srila Prabhupad. Srila Prabhupad just used the word 'this' to refer to the Rtvik aspects. He had already deputed Jayapataka on that list. Then he tells Tamal that he (Prabhupad) is now stopping. Stopping what? Prabhupad says, "This initiation". Srila Prabhupad had just used the term 'this' in regards to asking Jayapataka to perform the rtvik aspects of initiation that he had already deputed to do in the July 9th letter. Therefore, it logically follows that he was using the term 'this initiation' to refer to the very same thing, the rtvik aspects. He had previously deputed Jayapataka and the 11 to perform the rtvik aspects, he is now deputing Jayapataka to do 'this' (the rtvik aspects) and he is now stopping 'this', the rtvik aspect of the initiation process. And, Srila Prabhupad makes it even more clear when he says, in relation to 'this', that he has deputed his disciples... that which he is now stopping is the same thing that he had already deputed his disciples to do in that list of names, the July 9th letter.

Thus, the idea that the GBC try to argue that Srila Prabhupad was herein, in Oct, deputing the 11 to now become regular guru is not substantiated. It is pure mental speculation. Speculation that is driven and motivated by matieral desires. Srila Prabhupad made it very clear that what he was asking Jayapataka to do was what he had already deputed him to do in the July 9th letter. And that was to initiate on Srila Prabhupad's behalf via the Rtvik system. "this" was the aspect Srila Prabhupad was now stopping, after having to again make the decision to accept this disciple. Simply the act of making that decisioin is actually the most important additional feature of the Rtvik aspects of the July 9th letter that he had deputed those men to do on his behalf. So, after having to make this decision one last time, he now says he is stopping 'this' function.

Additional evidence that supports our position is the fact that Prabhupad is saying that Jayapataka had already been deputed (via the July 9th letter) to do this, perform the rtvik initiations, for the Mayapur area. How is that? Because Jayapataka was one of the GBC for Mayapur, he was stationed in Mayapur, and thus he was the nearest appointed Rtvik for that area, and the devotee referred to is a Bengali man, thus Jayapataka was the nearest Rtvik. It would make no sense to ask Jayapataka to initiate the man as his diksha guru simply because Jayapataka was the 'nearest'. That is not the process for seeking out a diksha guru or why a guru would accept a disciple. simply because that guru is the nearest. Guru is selected on the basis of his qualifications, his self-realization and his full Krsna Consciousness, not on the basis of where he is physically located. This is what is taught all through out Srila Prabhupad's teachings. The only time he refers to taking initiation from someone who was nearest in the July 9th letter in regard to the Rtvik-Acharya approving the recommendation of the Temple Presidents on Srila Prabhupad's behalf. This is the only place that he speaks of 'nearest' in relation to the initiation process, and that is in redard to the Rtvik aspects. As for regular Diska initiation the guru is selected only on the basis of qualifications, not be physical proximity.

Thus, we have debunked the GBC speculations regarding their mis-interpretations and speculations concerning the October 18th conversation, as well as their speculative views regarding the July 9th letter.

One additional point. The conversation ends up by Giriraj telling Srila Prabhupad that he will explain to this man (why Jayapataka is performing the initiation via the Rtvik process on behalf of Srila Prabhupad) so that the man will be satisfied with this. Giriraj was NOT going to be explaining to the man that Jayapataka was now going to become his diksha guru simply because he was the nearest guru. The man would certainly not been satisfied with this.

The conclusion is that the October 18th conversation does not give any support at all to the GBC speculation that Srila Prabhupad wanted the 11 Rtviks to become regular gurus. Or that the July 9th letter was to apply only while Srila Prabhupad was ill.

Rather, the conversation lends additional support that Srila Prabhupad wanted the Rtvik system to go on. It gives support that Srila Prabhupad knew very well what the July 9th letter stated, and part of what it states is that it is Srila Prabhupad's follow up to when he had said he would soon appoint Rtviks, and this was his in his reply to the question how initiations were to go one after he departs. Thus, this convesation supports the conclusion that Srila Prabhupad was well aware of the content and context of the July 9th letter, and that he had fully intended it to be his final written order regarding initiations after he departs.

The GBC's speculation that the July 9th letter was only to apply while Srila Prabhupad was ill or physically present is not with standing. It has no basis other then the pure mental speculation it is based on.

As said, we have herein debunked the speculative non-sense propagated by the GBC-I

Other Evidence Supporting The Rtvik-Acharya System

The man circumstantial evidence is eluded to at the beginning of this article regarding the fact that for the past 30 years the GBC has struggled with trying to define exactly where the new gurus fit into the already existing GBC/TP structure of authority. They have not been able to come up with a final workable solution to this question for one very obvious reason. There is not one single instruction given by Srila Prabhupad where he ever mentioned how such new gurus would fit in. He never mentioned at all a future ISKCON that would have many diksha gurus, and thus there is absolutely no guidance by him how the authority of the new gurus and that of the GBC are to interface together.

This was admitted by and pointed out by non-other then Tamal Krishna,

 

...you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing with the gurus, because he had already said it a million times. He said: My Guru Maharaja did not appoint anyone. It's by qualification.' We made a great mistake. After Prabhupada's departure what is the position of these eleven people?(...)

Srila Prabhupad didn't give a single instruction, not a single word, how a future ISKCON will exist or function with many gurus. He never spoke at all about an ISKCON that included many diksha gurus functioning under the top ashram authority, the GBC..

All he ever spoke of and instructed was how the existing GBC/TP structure was to go on with no mention of how to interface with or include a number of diksha gurus. .

Now, it is a fact that he had given so many instructions how we, his disciples, should become guru. How he wants us to become guru. But, that means to become first qualified. Still, he does not give any instructions how, if and when we become gurus, how those new gurus will fit into the GBC/TP structure of managment and authority.

The only authority that was entrusted, by Srila Prabhupad, to the Rtvik-Acharya was the authority to make the final decisions as to the recommendations made by the Temple Presidents as to who will be accepted as Prabhupad's disciple. This is not an authority he ever gave to any other entity, including the GBC. And this is the only authority that was entrusted to the post of Rtvik-Acharya. Thus, there is no over lap of authority, no conflict with any duty already given to the GBC's and TP's. There is no conflict. No friction. Instead, the Rtvik-Acharyas complement and work in total harmony with the GBC/TP authority.

But, this is not true for the new diksha gurus and the existing GBC/TP authorities. There are many areas of conflict between GBC authority and that of Guru.

I have written other articles that delve more deep on this aspect (please read www.16108.com/NoNeedOfChange.htm for more detailed information on this), and do not wish to rewrite all of it here.

Guru means master.

-NOTE - I am posting this to the website incomplete, i just don't have the time to complete it all. but want to get this up there. Hari Bol

Is It Bona fide?

Getting a Better Understanding by Reviewing the History of the Rtvik-Guru-Issue

I must preface this section with the disclaimer that the following is from my own limited understanding of the history. Some areas I am making educated guesses, and I will note them as such. Other areas I may simply have remembered the sequence or some detail wrongly. Please let me know my mistakes or omissions and i will correct it.

Lets get the record straight. There are some very uninformed (mostly granddisciples) members who have a distorted idea that the Rtvik issue came about years after Srila Prabhupad departed, and thus they proclaim it was born of mere frustration with the current GBC.

No.

The Rtvik issue appears to actually predate Srila Prabhupad's departure. But, it was not an issue with the common devotees at that time. At the time it was an issue only among certain GBC leaders who had information of what was going on and who were not happy with it. At least, this is according to what Hamsaduta and Tamal have written or said in the past. According to Tamal (refer to his 1980 confessions for more information) in the Spring of 1977 Srila Prabhupad began to speak about the already established rtvik system of intiations continuing on - even after he departed. Tamal claims that he and other GBC were concerned (disturbed) about this, since they had strong desires to want to become the next Guru or Acharya succeeding Srila Prabhupad. We have already covered the meeting between Srila Prabhupad and the GBC on May 28th, 1977 where Srila Prabhupad was directly asked how he wanted initiations to carry on after he departed, and where he replied that he would soon appoint 11 Rtviks. There was, however, some question as to who the disciples would be, disciples of Prabhupad or the Rtvik-Acharya? On July 9th Srila Prabhupad did what he said he would do, he appointed 11 men to act as Rtviks - but he then clarified the disciple issue and the letter clearly states that the disciples will become His, Srila Prabhupad's.

That letter, even though sent to GBC's and Temple Presidents, was not widely circulated to the mass devotees, not for many years.

After Srila Prabhupad departed the GBC were left to try to figure out what direction they should now take Srila Prabhupad's mission. The July 9th letter was clear, Srila Prabhupad had appointed 11 Rtviks, and it was clear that the future disciples would become Srila Prabhupad's, not the disciples of the Rtvik priest. But, it appears that the GBC, or at least among the leaders, it was not clear that this letter applied to after Srila Prabhupad departed.

We need to view this in the proper context. Today we have the Vedabase with all the taped conversations transcribed and readily available to one and all. Back in 1977-78 there was no Vedabase. Personally I do not know if the full GBC at that time had knowledge of the May 28th meeting or not. While sometimes we refer to it as a meeting between Srila Prabhupad and the GBC, in reality there were only 5-6 members of the GBC present in that meeting. Tamal Krishna, Satsvarup and several others.

I do not know if there was a transcript of the recording of that meeting made available to all the GBC who met in late 1977 and early 1978 to discuss the guru - issue. But, I am thinking there was none because the GBC reached a conclusion that the July 9th letter did not apply to after Prabhupad departed, but was only meant for before he departed.

This issue was only discussed among the GBC men. There was no open debate or discussion. We, the majority of Srila Prabhupad's disciples, were not consulted or brought into that discussion. There was good reason why not, and also reason why today many of us should be. And because we are now denied any input into the issue, there is reason why we feel left without a voice or ability to correct a very grave and horrible mistake.

The reason why it was discussed only by the GBC and not openly, mostly, was because the mission was so young then. The majority of Prabhupad's disciples all joined after 1972 or so. I joined and took initiation in 1973 (although I found Prabhupad's books and accepted him in my heart as my guru in 1970). I was only 4 years a devotee when Srila Prabhupad departed. Most of the GBC were senior men. Satsvarup, Hamsaduta, Jayatirtha, Bhavananda, Bhagavan, etc., all joined years before. Tamal and Satsvarup had served for years as Srila Prabhupad's personal secretaries. Most all had a lot of direct training and association with Srila Prabhupad, and of course, as GBC members, they were all directly involved in the management of the society. It was their duty to make such decisions. But, what we were not that aware of is that at the time the GBC were, in their private meetings, not sure what path they were to follow. This uncertainty among the GBC was more or less kept away from the majority. We simply looked to the GBC, as our appointed leaders, to lead us. To inform us what Srila Prabhupad had told them. For the most part, the majority of Prabhupad's disciples at the time had no direct knowledge of the situation or direct information as to what Srila Prabhupad had said or wrote. So, in reality, we were at the mercy of the GBC to tell us what Srila Prabhupad wanted. We had no idea that the GBC were not certain what Srila Prabhupad wanted them to do.

There was the July 9th letter. However, it appears that Tamal informed the GBC that, as the writer of that letter, he informed the GBC that that letter only was intended to apply while Srila Prabhupad remained in this world, and not for after he departs. The letter, itself, does not direct say. But, indirectly it does. The letter clearly states that it is Srila Prabhupad's follow up to the recent (May 28th) meeting where Srila Prabhupad said he would soon appoint Rtviks.

I do not know if the GBC had access to the transcription of that meeting, because if they had, it would seem that they would have reached the same conclusion as I have, that the July 9th letter was Srila Prabhupad's follow up to the question asked him on May 28th. But, the GBC decided that Tamal knew best, and seem to have rejected the idea. 5-6 GBC men were present at the May 28th meeting, did they faithfully inform the GBC in 77-78 what the exact question was that they had asked him in that meeting, to which Srila Prabhupad replied he would soon appoint Rtviks?

Not knowing what the GBC knew or did not know in 77-78 I can't say for certain.

But, there are devotees who claim that there was an overt conspiracy by those GBC men to hood-wink the rest of the GBC and all of ISKCON. Those who say there was a conspiracy say that those GBC who met with Prabhupad on May 28th knew well what question was asked of Srila Prabhupad that day, and they knew well that the July 9th letter was his final written reply to that question. Especially Tamal Krsna and Satsvarup knew this perfectly. But, Tamal tells the GBC that the July 9th letter did not apply to after Srila Prabhupad departed, even though the letter itself says it is Prabhupad's follow up to when he said he would appoint Rtviks.

Why would Tamal and the others say this?

According to Tamal, himself, and according to Hamsaduta's confessions (please read his humble letter of Apology to the Devotees), they were had materialistic desires to want to be become the next Acharya. They were disappointed at

Our view is that Tamal purposefully lied to and purposefully misled the GBC about this. This is not a vicious fault-finding statement made out of enviousness. The source of this view comes from Tamal, himself. Tamal practically admitted as much in his confessions in 1980. He, of all the GBC, knew exactly what Srila Prabhupad wanted, and what he had instructed. He was, after all, Srila Prabhupad's personal secretary at the time. But, aside from knowing what Srila Prabhupad wanted, he and others were blinded by their own strong material desires for adoration, false prestige, fame and to lord over others.

Other GBC were not so clearly decided. Did Srila Prabhupad want the Rtvik system to continue, or would he want them to become regular diksha gurus?

Many times Srila Prabhupad had said that he wanted us all to become guru. Many times he said it was proper etiquette that a disciple should not take disciples himself in the presence of his guru, but after his guru departs, then he can take. We all knew this, and some among the GBC were actually looking forward to the day Srila Prabhupad would leave so that they could finally fulfill their desire of becoming guru themselves. The source for this view comes directly from Srila Prabhupad. At least, according to Sruti Kirti (who was Srila Prabhupad's personal servant for many years) in his book 'What is the Difficulty', Srila Prabhupad made this comment to him several times.

These men were disappointed when Srila Prabhupad was, instead, setting up an on-going Rtvik-System. What about the instructions to become guru? What about the idea of waiting until one's guru departs, then one can take disciples himself?

The point is, partly their motives were also based on Prabhupad's instructions to become guru. Yes, Prabhupad said like that, had encouraged them. Naturally they also wanted to do this. But, he also said that one has to be qualified first. Partly they were motivated in a good way to want to take up the responsibility and become guru. But, they were not yet pure, and their desires were mixed with material desires for fame and adoration. That is the part that caused them to take a blind eye to Prabhupad's instructions to continue with the Rtvik-Acharya system.

Today I find no contradiction in the two orders by Srila Prabhupad. His order to carry on with a Rtvik-Acharya system and his order to become qualified and become actual guru. The Rtvik-system was to go on, and those who want to become guru, they can do so. Both instructions are there, both can go forward. I will discuss this idea more at the end of the article.

The fact is there is real potential for material motivation to have clouded the minds and actions of some of those GBC men. There is the admission from 2 of the 11 (Tamal's Confessions and Hamsaduta's Apologies) that lend support to this idea that Tamal and others purposefully misled the other GBC members about the purpose and scope of the July 9th letter.

Both Tamal and Jayapataka had personal relations with Srila Prabhupad's Godbrother Sridhar Maharaj. There was question among the GBC men what Srila Prabhupad actually wanted. Was the July 9th letter and appointed Rtviks to apply after Srila Prabhupad's departure or before? I am not sure if it was Tamal or Jayapataka or the both of them, but someone proposed that a GBC contingency, including Tamal and Jayapataka, meet with Sridhar Maharaj on this topic, seeking his guidance.

And, the GBC approved of this, of consulting and taking guidance from Sridhar Maharaj.

In April of 1977 Srila Prabhupad was discussing with Tamal Sridhar's previous involvement with the Bagh Bazaar Party who wound up leaving the Gaudiya Math. While Sridhar and Prabhupad were old friends, nevertheless, Srila Prabhupad told us to offer our respects to his godbrothers from a distance. He had only told the GBC they could consult with Sridhar regarding details of how to observe his passing away, his samadhi, etc. It is simply unimaginable that they actually sought out his guidance on how to proceed with such a cataclysmic topic as this.

 

Tamala Krsna: Today I was reading a very beautiful section of Caitanya-caritamrta that Krsna comes in the form of the spiritual master. And then that...

Prabhupada: Spiritual master is a revelation of Krsna.

Tamala Krsna: Yes.

Prabhupada: Guru-krsna.

Tamala Krsna: It was mentioning how the initiator spiritual master is the representative of Sri-Sri-Madana-mohana, and the instructing spiritual master is a representative of Sri-Govindadeva. Very nice explanation you gave in the purport.

Prabhupada: As far as possible, I have tried to present. In one place I have criticized my Godbrothers.

Tamala Krsna: Last night?

Prabhupada: No, no, in Caitanya-caritamrta.

Tamala Krsna: Oh, yeah, at the end in one line. We were... When we read that, it was actually relishable, very personal.

Prabhupada: Sridhara Maharaja is little...

Tamala Krsna: He read it?

Prabhupada: I think so.

Tamala Krsna: Did he make any comment?

Prabhupada: He cannot make any comment. These are facts. Two parties there were. One party, to use guru as their instrument for self-aggrandizement, and another party left guru. So both of them are offenders. This Kunja Babu, this Tirtha Maharaja's party, he wanted to enjoy senses through guru. And the Bagh Bazaar party, they left.

Tamala Krsna: Vasudeva.

Prabhupada: So both of them are severe offenders.

Tamala Krsna: What about Sridhara Maharaja?

Prabhupada: Sridhara Maharaja belonged to the Bagh Bazaar party. And I was living aloof. My Guru Maharaja approved. He said, "It is better that he is aloof from them."

Tamala Krsna: He could understand that his disciples were not...

Prabhupada: No, he was very sorry. At the last stage he was disgusted.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- April 22, 1977, Bombay

"Both of them are severe offenders", both parties, Kunja Babu-Tirtha Maharaj's party and the Bagh Bazaar party - of which Sridhar Maharaj was one of the leaders.

 

My dear Visvakarma das,

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated September 3, 1975 with the enclosed statement about Van Maharaja. So I have now issued orders that all my disciples should avoid all of my godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence, nor should they give them any of my books or should they purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Visvakarma -- Bombay 9 November, 1975

That written order is very clear. It was written 2 years before Srila Prabhupad departed. Yet, the GBC approved and Tamal, Jayapataka and others went to Sridhar Maharaj early in 1978, barely 2 years and a few months after the above order was written by Srila Prabhupad to totally avoid all of his godbrothers. Still, those GBC men went, before (or during?) the GBC meetings in Mayapur in 1978, when the GBC were trying to figure out how to proceed. They informed Sridhar Maharaj about the July 9th letter and sought his guidance on this matter.

One such meeting was recorded and some years ago I read a transcript of one of those meetings. Unfortunately I was not able to find it via an internet search at the moment.

I say 'one of those meetings' because the transcription I read I remember someone in the meeting refer to previous meetings/discussions with Sridhar Maharaj on this topic. Also, as far as I recall the GBC representatives only presented Sridhar Maharaj with the July 9th letter, and did not provide him with a transcript of the May 28th meeting to which the letter refers to. I do not believe the GBC representatives explained to Srila Sridhar Maharaj the circumstances of that letter. They did not explain that on May 28th Srila Prabhupad was asked a most direct, and most important, question as to how he wanted the intitiations to go on after he departs. They did not explain to Srila Sridhar Maharaj that it was in Srila Prabhupad's reply to that question that he said that he would soon appoint Rtviks. And that the July 9th letter was his follow up to that meeting and that question. Since Tamal Krsna was telling the other GBC men that the letter only applied to while Srila Prabhupad was present, he may very well have said this to Sridhar Maharaja as well. Without knowing of these most important facts Sridhar mis understood the letter.

His advice to those GBC men at the time was that those 11 men who Srila Prabhupad had named Rtvik should now become regular gurus, the next acharyas suceeding Srila Prabhupad.

However, Srila Sridhar further told them that you cannot have 2 masters in an ashram. He told them that there was an inherent conflict of authority in having a GBC that is the highest authority of an ashram and a Spriitual Master, who is supposed to be the topmost authority of his ashram. To resolve this conflict Sridhar advised the GBC that since Srila Prabhupad had established different zones and that each GBC had their own zone, then the GBC and Acharya for each zone should be the same person. This way the Acharya of that zone would also be the topmost authority for that zone.

Thus, it was Srila Sridhar Maharaj who gave birth to the very distruptive and devistating Zonal-Acharya system that ISKCON suffered under for years just after Srila Prabhuapd departed from this world.

For many years the GBC continued to seek and take Sridhar's guidance as a number of problems arose. In 1981 (?) Jayatirtha had suffered major fall downs and thus the GBC not only sought Sridhar's help, they actualy authorized that Jayatirtha should seek shelter and direct guidance from Sridhar Maharaj. The result was that Jayatirtha eventually totally left ISKCON and for sometime had aligned himself with Sridhar's mission, the Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math.

Even though Sridhar Maharaj was not supportive of the Rtvik-Acharya system continueing on in his absence at the time in 1978, by the mid 1980's he had already appointed Rtvik's to assist him in his own math, and before Sridhar's departure even said that Govinda Maharaj would continue to give Rtvik initiations on his behalf for those who still wanted to take shelter of Sridhar. (Refer to the articles Sridhar Rtvik-1 and Sridhar Rtvik-2)

Let me insert my personal experience at the time. Going into 1978, after the GBC meetings in Mayapur, at the time I had no knowledge of any meetings by the GBC with Sridhar, I had no access to the July 9th letter, no knowledge of the May 28th meeting, etc. From my personal perspective all I knew was that the GBC announced to us in 1978 that Srila Prabhupad had appointed 11 new Acharyas, and that we were now expected to accept them as such.

We were not told "anything" about the fact that Srila Prabhupad had only appointed those men as Rtvik-Acharyas. We were only told that Srila Prabhupad had appionted them as the new successor Acharyas, period.

Ramesvar was GBC - now Zonal-Acharya - for the LA temple. When he got back from Mayapur meetings he was reluctant to take up the role as guru. He told me and others that he knew he just wasnt qualified. He told us, maybe in ten years, but not now (then). Most of his godbrothers did not disgree with this assesment. We held some respect for him as a GBC, a leader of Prabhupad's mission, but we also knew him personally and were aware of the jagged edges of his devotional character. He just wasn't a full self-realized pure hearted Vaishnav.

Many years later we were told that Bhagavan took no time promoting himself as one of the next acharya's for ISKCON. We heard, again years after the fact, that in Rome he immediately ordered the removal of Srila Prabhupad's image on Prabhupad's Vyasasan and he began sitting in Prabhupad's seat to give class and have his guru-puja performed, proclaiming himself to be that zone's new acharya.

Again, from my personal persepctive I felt bewildered and almost numb on hearing that (according to the GBC) Srila Prabhupad had named those 11 men to become the next acharyas of his mission. It left me dumbfounded. How? Why? Could/Would Srila Prabhupad have done this? Couldn't he see that these men were not yet qualified? I could easily see this. Why couldn't Srila Prabhupad? All I knew was 'something' just wasn't right. Ramesvar was known to sometimes spew in disgusting language his percieved faults of other devotees. How could Srila Prabhupad had made him one of 11 of his successor gurus? It just made no sense.

Tamal Krsna I did not have much association with, but, he was widely known by the knick-name 'Hot Tamale' due to his stern anger in dealing with some of his godbrothers. There was a rumbling in the LA community, how could Srila Prabhupad have named the Hot Tamale as one of his successors?

Immeidately a number of devotees suspected something was awry. But, the vast majority had no direct or substantial information at the time, so there were many varieties of speculation as to what may be a-miss. Some suspected a conspiracy, led by Tamal, where he faked this so-called letter where Srila Prabhupad had named the 11 as the new gurus. And, where was that 'letter'? We were never shown the actual copy at the time. Personally, I never saw the July 9th letter until the mid 1990's. Back in 1977, when It was only within weeks to months of Srila Prabhupad's passing, I first heard some remark that Srila Prabhupad had been poisoned, or that his medicine acted like poison. But, this idea did not get much traction at the time. It was totally inconcievable that such a rumor could be true. At the time, there were so many rumblings and rumors.

In LA, which was where I resided at the time, for a few days Ramesver expressed his reluctance to take up the position of being a new Achayra. I cannot recall if someone from the GBC came to LA and inspiried Danavir, or if it was via phone or fax communicaitons. Whatever the way, Danavir called a meeting of the already initiated Prabhupad disciples. At the meeting he reminded us that in Srila Prabhupad's absence he told us the GBC shall be the authority in ISKCON. He told us that the GBC have proclaimed that Srila Prabhupad had given a list of 11 men which he had appointed to become the next Acharyas after he departed [ that was not true. The July 9th letter, that list of names, said no such thing. Srila Prabhupad had not appionted anyone to become the next acharya, rather, he had only appointed them to act as his rtvik-representatives. But, we were not told the whole truth. And, I doubt Danavir was informed of the whole truth either, at the time] . Danavir went on to instruct us that it was now our duty to Srila Prabhupad to recognize these men as the new acharyas of our mission. He told us that while we, as the Godbrothers of these me, may not see them as qualified, their disciples (and prospective disciples) will (or, are supposed to from now on). He told us that for the sake of the spiritual lives of the newer devotees we should externally give the new gurus very high respect. We should start referring to them as Srila Ramesvar, etc., and not just Ramesvar. We should present them to the newer devotees as being fully qualified, even if we didn't think so ourselves. We should glorify their good qualities. We were told this was our duty, that it was needed to assure the sampradaya will continue on smoothly, to assure that ISKCON will go on smoothly and to assure the advancement of the spiritual lives of the newer devotee who now had to surrender to these men and accept the nearest one as their Guru Maharaj and savior. He emphacized that we had no choice but to do this as a show of our love to Srila Prabhupad.

That meeting, and the whole mood that was presented, left a very bad taste in my mouth. Our savior and the life of our soul had left, and everything was going in the wrong direction. Something was horribly wrong. Truth and honesty was being thrown out the door. My true feelings, based on my realizations at the time, was that the 11 'new gurus' were not pure hearted Vaishnavs, and were not fully self-realized. But, I was told not to be honest, not to be truthful. I was told to put up a false show and hold those men up to some artificially high standard.

I tried to resist falsely glorifying those who, in my view, did not deserve the artificial praise that was attributed to them. Previously I used to relish preaching to new people that came to the temple. After this, I lost the enthusiasm. For a long time I could not bring myself to promote men as being bonafide gurus, who in my own heart and according to my own self-realizations, were not actually qualified.

But, time passed and many had jumped on the wagon and took up the facade.

And, another thing was obvious. The few devotees who stood up and voiced their true feelings, that openly told others the 'new gurus' were not qualified to be guru, who openly told others that something was off, who suspected there was a conspiracy, those devotees who stood up at the very beginning were harshly ostracized from ISKCON . Some, who had seen the July 9th letter, spoke of a Rtvik system being what Prabhupad wanted. Some claimed that Srila Prabhupad had been poisoned. Many claimed 'conspiracy'. They were all kicked out. Their services taken away, their place in Prabhupad's mission - everything lost. There was no tolerance. Since, at that time, it was only a small handful, the GBC told us those devotees were poisoned with envious. Seeing their fate put a cold damper on many of the rest of us who wanted to also speak up. We saw what would be our fate, and we did not want to be kicked out of our Guru's ashram. We did not want to have our service to Krsna and Prabhupad taken away. And, quite frankly, I recall observing years later that many of the those first victims of the harsh campaign to remove such disidents were devotees who at the time did not have so much service or position to lose. For some of them it was easier for them to stand up and risk being kicked out. I also observed that when someone stood up and was kicked out, in the end, at least at that time, nothing positive seemed to come of it. Not wanting to lose my service (the FATE doll project at the time), and not wanting to be banned from my guru's mission, I found myself struggling to try to cope and live amicably with the GBC and go along with the status quo at the time. But, it was a nagging issue, 'somthing' fundamental was off.

I moved from LA to Detroit where Jayatirtha was GBC. He arranged for my wife. But, a year latter havoc. He fell down. Ramesvar was made new co-GBC along with Bhavananda. My wife wound up taking initiation from Bhagavan. And, during the next few years I had dealings with Kirtananda and later Harikesh. All of them (along with Jayatirtha) members of the original 11, and all fell down in one way or the other. Those years, really all the way from 78 to 86 was nothing but struggling to go up, only to come crashing down ride. Getting tossed around, emotionally, all over.

In 1985 funding for the FATE doll project came to an end (a whole other story) and I wound up no longer having a service in ISKCON. Okay, I will share part of that story. One day I went to meet with Ramesvar regarding the future of the FATE project and he told me that the project would now only be for his local zone. I quoted from Prabhupad's letters to the doll project devotee where Srila Prabhupad said he wanted doll exhibits in all of his temples. I argued that FATE as not just a single zone project, it was for all of ISKCON. Ramesvar then told me it was time to wake up. That I was trying to live in the past. He told me that Prabhupad's letter, his instructions in general, were outdated and no longer relavent to ISKCON. He said that in case I hadn't figured it out, Prabhupad had died, he was now gone, and there were now 11 new Acharyas. He told me to give up trying to live in the past by trying to follow Prabhupad's outdated instructions and instead he said my duty now was to take shelter of he or another of the 11 new acharyas and follow their instructions (instead of Srila Prabhupad's).

That was it. I had been doing my best to tolerate all the non-sense and tried not to speak up, out of fear of losing my service - but this went over the top. I felt like a bolt of lightening jolted me and I stood up and gave Ramesvar hell. Shouting, I told him that it was he and the rest of the GBC who thought like him who were destroying Prabhupad's mission. After I said my peace, he informed me there was no longer any place for me in ISKCON and it was time for me to bloop. I told him, I can never leave Prabhupad's mission. Instead, it is you who must leave. 1 year latter he left. While I never really left, the end result was all my service in ISKCON came to an end. And, at one point I was told I had 2 weeks to pay my next month's rent on the temple apartment or be evicted into the street. I had no bank account, no money, no income, nothing. I was grhasta, but we had our FATE service and we had always been maintained. For years my wife and I got our aparment paid, our utilities paid, meals at the temple and a whole $10 a month allowance that we were to use to buy toiletries. That as it.

In 85 I had no choice but to start my own business to earn a livelihood. I moved up to Bhaktivedanta Village and ran my business from our home. During the days of the original ISKCON Reform, the uprising of the Temple Presidents and the GBC finally agreeing to put an end to the Zonal Acharya system, I was aloof. I was not part of it. I had already been kicked out (officially according to Ramesvar), although I never left and continued to chant and attend temple programs. But, I was not a part of that experience.

For a while I tried coming back to LA, but I had serious health problems due to the smog. While in LA Svavas had talked of stepping down as Temple President. Originally I was asked to take up that post, but then he changed his mind. But, my health because a serious issue. For my health I was forced to move to where the air was clean. I found Northern California air, up around Mnt Shasta, to be very healthy and moved there to recover my health. I was there from mid 1987 to December of 1992 and we ran a small preacing center from our home and distributed Prabhupad's books mail order for a while.

Those years I was on our own. We came down to LA temple several times a years, Berekely, even San Diego several times. But, mostly I was isolated. I wasn't aware of a growing Rtvik issue at the time, even though I had come to San Diego on the day of the NA GBC Rtvik debates, I had come there only to make a presentation to revive the FATE doll project. I had no idea what the Rtvik debates were even about, even though I was there that day. Oddly enough for years after that when a Rtvik devotee saw me they automatically thought I supported their cause because they saw me at the meetings in San Diego. But, for years I had no idea what they were all about.

In Jan of 93 I moved to Alachua and stayed to myself, at least regarding the GBC/guru issue. In 1995 on a trip to LA I was given some pro-rtvik literatures. It was not the Final Order, but it was similar. I had been so out of the loop on this topic that the only thing I heard is that the rtviks were a bunch of fallen deviant devotees pushing some totally bogus and deviant philosophy. They were painted to be as bad as sahajiya or mayavadis. But, I got a small book by Hansaduta and decided to see what it was all about.

1995, 18 years, and for the first time I was able to read the July 9th letter for myself. What? I was blown away. Where in that letter did it say anything about appointing those 11 men as the next Acharyas? It only said they were to be Rtvik Representatives, Rtvik Acharyas. What an eye opener. I don't recall if that literature mentioned the connection to the May 28th meetings or not. All I recall was being blown away by the actual letter. But, then a devotee handed me literature by the GBC to defeat the rtvik side, and I read that and so began a period of flips and flops. For a while was convinced that the Rtviks were, in fact, wrong. I then took up writing my own articles in defeat of the Rtvik-vada. I came up with the strong arguments against the idea of continued Rtvik. Tamal read my articles and thanked me, sending my points to Giridhar (?) Swami to be included in their next writings to defeat the rtviks.

But, I also had strong reservations. I still knew something was off, something was fundamentally way off. I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Anyway, I have made this historical account too personal. Only because I can better present my personal experience better.

From 97 to 2001 or so I began to study the Rtvik issue more deeply and began a series of flips and flops. It was difficult. Despite all the difficulties with the fallen Zonal Acharyas and bad experiences, I still wanted to support the GBC. I felt duty bound to do so. So, I tried to discuss my doubts and realizations on the topic with the GBC via email, but no one would take it up and discuss with me. Even when I begged for their guidance on this issue, they refused to discuss the issue, period.

I then began to have clearer and clearer understandings and by 2002 or so I had landed squarely down on the Rtvik side and all doubts vanished. It became crystal clear what had been fundamentally off. Along side a growing number of other Godbrothers.

Why so long? Why so many years after Srila Prabhupad left? For all the above reasons. Some of the original 11 were highly motivated and lied to us and the rest of the GBC. We did not have access to the information. We were trying to be faithful to Srila Prabhupad by following the guidance of the GBC, but they were on the wrong path, and it just took a long time for us to figure out what had really happened and what was really wrong.

The problem is the anit-rtvik propaganda has been going on for 30 years. A whole generation of devotees have come who don't know any other ISKCON that an anti-rtvik iskcon. To them, that is iskcon. They are fearful of such a major change, so they refuse to accept the facts.

ISKCON is a philosophically based mission. Yet, on this issue our leadership has long refused to discuss any thing with any of their godbrothers in a philosophical manner. Many of them have disciples and fear what they see would be humiliation if they were defeated publicly.

I have begged and pleaded for the GBC to discuss the points made in the article with me, and they refuse. Cold defening silence. They will not defend their own views.

Current Situation and Basis of the GBC Positions

One of the more recent developments has been promotion by the GBC to encourage more and more of Srila Prabhupad's disciples to step forward and become initiating gurus. As this idea takes hold there could potentially be 1,000's of 'Gurus' in Srila Prabhupad's ashrams.

But, it could get even more crowded in the next 5-10 years as a number of older Prabhupad disciples are advancing in age and an increasing number of existing gurus will be leaving their bodies. Some of these gurus have many 1,000's of disciples. All of those granddisciples will then be able, according the current GBC system, to become ISKCON gurus. The number of gurus will then potentially expand exponentially.

And all the problems associated with such gurus will also expand exponentially. The main problem being where to draw the lines of authority, and stress to the resources of the ashram. To understand better the current situation lets take a brief look at the history of the ever-changing (and speculative) basis of the current GBC system of guruships. And the fixed and authorized basis of the on-going Rtvik-Acharya system.

From the Rtvik side the basis is fixed in the spoken words of authority and written words signed and endorsed by Srila Prabhupad, ie his reply to the May 28th question as to how he wanted initiations to go on after he departed and in his written follow up and completion of his answer via the July 9th letter/list of names. That basis is fixed and doesn't change.

The bais of the various varieties of the GBC guru systems are:

The Zonal-Acharya system. This system mostly was the idea of Srila Sridhara Swami who put forth the idea that an ashram can only have one master. That an ashram cannot have 2 or more masters. Srila Prabhupad left the GBC as the ultimate authority for his ashrams. Thus, they are the master in Srila Prabhupad's absence. But, Guru also means master, the master of the ashram is the guru. Sridhar Maharaj pointed out the inherent conflict that still exists today in ISKCON. The dilemma of having 2 or more (with may gurus) masters of a single ashram. (This is not an issue with the Rtvik-Acharya since the master remains SP/GBC, and the Rtik Acharya basically has no managerial or ashram authority). Sridhar's proposal, which the GBC accepted at that time, was to make the GBC and Guru one for each zone. The Zonal-Acharya.

But, who would the new gurus be? There were over 22 or more GBC. Yet, it was decided that not all GBC will be made guru. There was theJjuly 9th letter and list of 11 men Srila Prabhupad had appointed to become Rtviks. Really, the idea the GBC presented to Sridhar was if the 11 men named in that letter should remain rtviks, or should those men (just those men) become the next acharyas? At the time, in 1978, it appears that the GBC was only focused on those 11 men. The July 9th letter was seen as a very crucial letter. This is where those 11 were named, and so the discussion centered around only those 11. Were those 11 to remain rtvik or were they to become diksha gurus themselves? That was the main question presented to Srila Sridhar.

The problems with the Zonal Acharya system were: It was a total speculation and went against the GBC system Srila Prabhupad had set up. Previously while each GBC had his particular zone to manage, the idea was there was only one ISKCON, and thus all the zones worked together as one, very cooperatively. The GBC was an office, not a person. So, one year one person may be GBC, next year another. Thus, the men did not become too attached to thinking of the zone as "their" personal possession. With the Zonal-Acharya system the Guru was a person, not a post, and that guru laid claim to his zone as theirs. Each Guru-GBC tried to outdo the other. There was strong rivalry and competition for men and resources. Men and resourced were stolen from other gurus, by hook or by crook. Rather then being united as one ISKCON each zone became more independent, as a My Zone versus Your Zone mentality by the Zonal-Gurus set in. Cooperation turned to corruption. The ill effects were felt by most immediately and the lingering effects are still very much present. The system worked only to undermine the GBC system that Srila Prabhupad set up, rather then suppor it. The position, respect and integrity of the GBC has never fully regained since the destructive effects of the Zonal-Acharya system.

The GBC had gone to Sridhar. Just 2 years earlier Srila Prabhupad had instructed them to please avoid all correspondence and contact with his godbrothers, and here, they went to this one godbrother to seek guidance on a most critical area. The result was total disruption.

For some years many senior leaders knew many of the Zonal-Acharya principles were wrong. Slowly an uprising gathered more and more momentum. In 1986 (I think was the year, or 87) the GBC finally put an end to the Zonal-Acharya system.

The remaining members of the original 11 remained as gurus, but, the number of gurus was increased. This was based, as far as I am able to understand, on the following: The july 9th letter was still being held up as an important reference. Even though, back in 77-78, Tamal had told the GBC that that July 9th letter really only applied to when Srila Prabhupad was present, before he departed, not after, still the GBC considered the letter to be very much relavent to their decisions. Their question in 1978 was whether the 11 named in that letter as Rtviks should remain Rtviks or become regular gurus. But, still, the July 9th letter was used as the basis for the 11 names. In the mid 80 Guru Reform movement the July 9th letter was still being held up as pivitol in that a point was made that in that letter it stated something to the effect that there were 11 men named thus far. This indicated that there would be a way to increase the number of appointed men at a later date. This was the idea that the GBC adopted. That they, the GBC, could expand on that list as they felt the need was there. Thus, when the Zonal Acharya system was scrapped the GBC immediately added to the number of ISKCON gurus. The GBC did this by way of putting into place a system by which the GBC could vote or elect a new guru to add to the list.

Many GBC men were elected by the GBC, as well as many sannyasis, that were added as GBC authorized or rubber-stamped gurus.

From the start there were those who criticized this system. For many they felt it was such a welcome relief and looked to it as the final solution to the guru issue problems. For those who upheld that Srila Prabhupad actually wanted an on-going Rtvik system this new development was seen as just the same old grape juice in a new bottle. Nothing really changed. But, the pro-rtvik camp was so small at that time their voice was never heard by the general devotees. Most devotees had no idea or knowledge of such an idea.

Of the original 11 Srila Prabhupad appointed - not as regular gurus, but as Rtvik Representatives - how many fell? Hamsaduta (who is now very apologetic and proclaims that Srila Prabhupad only wanted a Rtvik system), Jayatirtha - who lost his head, Kirtananda, Ramesvar, Bhavananda, Bhagavan, Hari kesh - those have, without question, fallen down. 7 men. Of the other 4, 1 had passed away, Tamal, leaving 3 others. Satsvarup has been considered by many to have fallen long ago. He had stepped down as GBC many years ago. But, most recently he has admitted to illicit affair with another devotee's wife, as well as having authored a book that contains explicit sexual descriptions that are unfit for a Vaishnav or sannyasi. Hrdayananda. Many of those who have associated with him over the past many years have said he is very fallen. And, finally, last but not least is Jayapataka. He has remained the longest lasting of the original 11. But, if the rumors surrounding Hrdayananda are true (Satsvarup has admitted his falling down - just the GBC have refused to take him off the authorized Iskcon guru list), then 9 out of the original 11 have had major fall downs that have crippled or put an end to their ability to function as a guru, gbc leader, and in many cases, even function as a devotee period (only 1, so far, has pased away).

After the GBC set up the Guru Election process there have been well over 100 gurus. I have no count as to the number of fall downs, but they have been numerous. Many concerning illicit sex involving their disciples.

Has the new Guru Election system really solved anything?

But, by it's very nature it is bogus. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and our Srila Prabhupad both had said that one does not become a guru by an election process, not be vox populi or the vote of any one. Srila Prabhupad rejected such "rubber-stamped" gurus.

 

Prabhupada: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahaprabhu wants that. Amara ajnaya guru hana. "You become guru." (laughs) But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower...

Tamala Krsna: Not rubber stamp.

Prabhupada: Then you'll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and "guru." What kind of guru? No publication, no preaching, simply bring some foodstuff... My Guru Maharaja used to say, "Joint mess," a place for eating and sleeping. Amar amar ara takana (?)(Bengali): "Joint mess." He said this.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- April 22, 1977, Bombay

But, this has been the process in ISKCON for some 20 years now. This Rubber-Stamping that this person is an authorized ISKCON-Guru.

20 years is a very long time. But, today there is a growing number of devotees, even among those who reject the Rtvik-system, who are calling on the GBC to abandon this rubber-stamp process.

Which brings us to the current position. Recently there has been propaganda to increase the number of gurus. The GBC is encouraging all of Srila Prabhupad's disciples to step forward and take up the responsibility and become an ISKCON guru.

To help facilitate this the GBC have even decreased their requirements for becoming rubber-stamped by them, making it easier for even less qualified devotees to come forward and become "authorized" gurus.

But, as I said there is an increasing number who are concerned about the long standing Rubber-Stamp process the GBC has propagated. They have become more aware of Prabhupad's and Bhaktisiddhanta's instructions opposing such process. But, the GBC argue that they are not really electing gurus. Of course, in the beginning and for most of the 20 past years there was no question that it was a real election process. But, more recently they are saying that anyone can become guru, really, but that to be recognized within ISKCON, the GBC has set certain standards and all the GBC are doing is saying that those who meet those standards (via a GBC majority vote), shall be recognized by the GBC as bonafied.

It is more like double-speak. Rubber-Stamping is Rubber-Stamping, there are no two ways around it.

So, as I said there is a growing number of men, including the strong supporters of the current gurus, who are arguing that the Rubber-Stamping is, in fact, bogus and should be stopped. Their argument, to which we agree, is that a guru's qualifications are that he should be a fully self-realized soul, fully Krsna Conscious, and able to uplift his followers back home, back to Godhead. The process of selection is given in shastra. The process of selecting and determining who is so qualified rests on the prospective disciple, not on a body of managers. The prospective disciple must take time to examine and test his prospective guru, and likewise the guru must determine if his prospective disciple is serious. The process given in shastra and Prabhupad's teachings mentions nothing of elections or rubber-stamping by administrative managers of an ashram, other then Srila Prabhupad's rejection of such rubber-stamping.

So, possibly another major change to the ISKCON guru system is in the works.

But, the problem with eliminating the Rubber-Stamping is then how to regulate who is authorized to act as guru in the ISKCON ashrams and who is not? Why this is a major issue is that in ISKCON the guru is not the manager or authority of the ashram in which the guru functions as guru. The ashram is ISKCON and the guru is not the authority, the GBC is. Thus, as managers of the ashram, the managers have a need to regulate the activities of the ashram members. We can not allow people to join the ISKCON ashram who accept as their guru some teacher out side of ISKCON, especially a guru who teaches philosophies we know are bogus.

This presents a major dilemma. The ISKCON ashram authorities, the GBC, cannot allow it's members to worship and accept just anyone as their guru while living in the ISKCON ashrams, yet there appears to be no other way to regulate this without a process by which the GBC can rubber-stamp who is to be accepted as bonafide / authorized by the GBC and who is not.

So,

This has been demonstrated.

In contrast, there is no

 

 

 

What's Next

In a Philosophically Based Mission - Can't Such An Issue Be Resolved Via Philosophic Debate?

Yes. That would seem to be the best solution to the problem. However, on such an issue their will always be those who will not accept the outcome of any philosophic debate, due to sentimental attachment.

But, it has been over 30 years and for many years the GBC have totally refused to discuss the issue - at least with individuals.