Paper on initiations after Srila Prabupada's departure

[Guest guest]

> Can ritvik.zip also be made available in simple ASCII text format

> for those amongst us who don't use WinWord 6.0?

 

I guess I should have sent it in a text from the beginning. That was my

mistake. All of you who have got the file already and read it too have to

excuse me because here it is again...

 

 

"DISCIPLE OF MY DISCIPLE"

 

An Analysis of the Conversation of May 28, 1977

 

by (in alphabetical order):

Badrinarayan Dasa

Giridhari Swami

Umapati Swami

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

The authors would like to thank all of the devotees who contributed to this

paper. Special thanks to Drutakarma Prabhu for his logical insight and clear

thinking, and to Hrdayananda Das Goswami and Suhotra Swami for their research

on the Sanskrit meaning of "ritvik." The authors would also like to thank

Krishna Kant Prabhu for reviewing an earlier draft of the present paper. An

answer to Krishna Kant's comments is included herewith as an appendix .

 

FOREWORD

 

The following paper deals only with the question, "What were Srila Prabhupada's

instructions on continuing initiations after his physical departure?" Srila

Prabhupada answered this question in the conversation of May 28th, 1977, with

additions in the garden conversation of July 8th and the letter of July 9th.

The present paper does not deal with the many subsequent concerns, which will

be addressed in an upcoming book on the entire ISKCON guru issue, both past and

present.

 

There is also some controversy over Srila Prabhupada's desire concerning

initiations during his presence. Some say that the May 28th conversation

indicated that Srila Prabhupada would appoint proxies; others say that Srila

Prabhupada intended to name devotees who would act as full-fledged gurus even

during his presence. The present paper, however, deals only with Srila

Prabhupada's order concerning initiations after his disappearance. That, in

fact, is the reason for this paper: to show that Srila Prabhupada unequivocally

stated that after his departure his disciples should take up the

responsibilities of full-fledged initiating spiritual masters.

 

PREFACE

 

The devotees commonly known as "ritvik adherents" will be referred to in this

paper as "proxy-initiation adherents." The English word "proxy" has been chosen

over the Sanskrit "ritvik" for reasons that will become obvious as the paper

progresses. There has been some objection to the word "proxy" on the grounds

that it is pejorative, but the word simply means "authorized agent" and has no

pejorative connotations either in the dictionary or in common usage (proxy

vote, proxy wedding). The term "proxy-initiation" refers to the philosophical

position of the proxy-initiation adherents that all initiations performed in

ISKCON are proxy initiations and that Srila Prabhupada is the only initiator.

 

The term "pre-samadhi" refers to the time of Srila Prabhupada's physical

presence in this world, and "post-samadhi" refers to the period after his

departure. The term "Controversy Paper" refers to an undated paper put out by

the proxy-initiation adherents. Their paper is called "The Controversy

Surrounding Srila Prabhupada's Final Order on the Future of Initiations Within

ISKCON." The term "Controversy Paper" is a shortening of the title for

convenience.

 

PART 1

 

The Controversy

 

The controversy revolves around two questions: What was Srila Prabhupada's

final order concerning initiations after his departure? and, Why has ISKCON had

trouble implementing the order? The present paper deals only with the first

question: What was Srila Prabhupada's final order?

 

Logically, we should first know Srila Prabhupada's order and then deal with the

problems. But the proxy-initiation adherents have fallen into the trap of

backward thinking: first looking at the problems and then trying to ascertain,

through reverse logic, what they think Srila Prabhupada should have wanted.

They point to the problems of some ISKCON spiritual masters and then say that

Srila Prabhupada's order was misunderstood. The problems, they say, prove that

Srila Prabhupada did not want his disciples to initiate.

 

In other words, they say that the falldowns of some of the new gurus prove that

Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not qualified to initiate, at least not yet.

Srila Prabhupada is perfect and cannot set up an imperfect system. The

proxy-initiation adherents say that the falldowns of the gurus prove that the

present system in ISKCON is imperfect and cannot be what Srila Prabhupada

wanted.

 

But difficulty in applying an order does not prove that the order was never

given. People have also had problems with other orders given by Srila

Prabhupada. Sannyasis have given up their vows. Marriages arranged by Srila

Prabhupada have ended in divorce. Gurukula teachers have failed in their jobs.

But these examples do not prove that Srila Prabhupada never gave those orders

or that the orders were imperfect. In the same way, the failures of certain

gurus do not prove that Srila Prabhupada never gave his disciples the order to

initiate.

 

If difficulty in applying an order proves that the order was never given, what

can be said about the difficulty the proxy-initiation adherents have had in

applying what they themselves consider to be Srila Prabhupada's order: that all

new disciples will be the direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada? They have not

been able to implement this order within ISKCON at all. By their own logic,

this would prove that Srila Prabhupada never gave such an order.

 

One must separate the two questions: What was Srila Prabhupada's order? and Why

has ISKCON had so much trouble implementing it? The present paper deals only

with the first question: Srila Prabhupada's order. Of course, no one can

ignore the problems--the cheating, the fallen gurus, the devastated disciples--

and these will be taken up in separate papers. But first things first.

 

The present paper will show that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada ordered

his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters. The proxy-initiation

adherents, however, say that the words Srila Prabhupada spoke on that day have

little importance and that Srila Prabhupada's order is stated only in a letter

of July 9, 1977. Their Controversy Paper says:

 

"One interesting point to note is that neither the July 9th order nor any

subsequent document signed by Srila Prabhupada ever refers back to the above

conversation [the May 28th conversation]. This is quite peculiar since the

central argument of the GBC is that this brief exchange of words is absolutely

crucial to the proper understanding of the July 9th order. Was this the normal

way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions, i.e., releasing incomplete

and misleading written directives which could only be properly understood by

rummaging through old taped conversations?"

 

"Old taped conversations"? If Srila Prabhupada's words no more than old tapes,

why have devotees bothered to transcribe these conversations for the Folio? One

could just as easily say that Bhagavad-gita is some old book. It seems that the

proxy-initiation adherents are dismissing the words of their spiritual master

as some old relic hardly worth listening to.

 

In fact, it was Srila Prabhupada who arranged the conversation. He had called

in the GBC members from all over the world so they could ask any last questions

before he departed. The atmosphere was formal and serious. The conversation was

taped for future reference, and the results of the conversation were recorded

in the official GBC minutes book, with all the GBCs present signing as

witnesses. Still, the proxy-initiation adherents say that the May 28th

conversation has little relevance and that the word "henceforward" in the

following passage of the July 9th letter proves that Srila Prabhupada intended

to be the only initiating guru after his departure.

 

"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."

 

The proxy-initiation adherents also maintain that the July 9th letter stands on

its own without any reference to anything that was ever said previously. The

Controversy Paper says:

 

"Was this the normal way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions, i.e.,

releasing incomplete and misleading written directives which could only be

properly understood by rummaging through old taped conversations?"

 

The GBCs do not think the July 9th letter is incomplete or misleading, nor do

they think that Srila Prabhupada's words are just "old taped conversations."

Would anyone say that the July 9th letter an old piece of paper? True, the July

9th letter was published, but the May 28th conversation was recorded to be

published if need be. There is a link between the July 9th letter and the May

28th conversation. The July 9th letter, issued through the GBC, is a follow-up

to the May 28th conversation, as the present paper will show, and deals only

with the question of how to initiate during the last days of Srila Prabhupada's

presence.

 

But it was not "the normal way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions"

to change what he had been saying for twelve years about disciplic succession

by inserting one adverb ("henceforward") in a sentence. Srila Prabhupada wanted

his disciples to read what he wrote and listen to what he said, and he assumed

that they would look at any new developments in the light of what had gone

before. What teacher would not want that? Therefore, saying that the July 9th

letter must be understood with no link to past conversations goes against Srila

Prabhupada's normal way. The July 9th letter does not stand on its own any more

than the eighteenth chapter of Bhagavad-gita stands on its own: one must first

understand the previous seventeen.

 

In another sense the July 9th letter does stand on its own. It is a clearly

worded letter stating procedures to be followed at a certain time. But the

proxy-initiation adherents have imposed their own definition on the word

"henceforward," and it has thus become necessary to look at the letter in

historical perspective and to look at the word "henceforward" in the standard

dictionaries and in Srila Prabhupada other letters and conversations. This

topic will be dealt with in another section of the present paper.

 

The July 9th letter is a temporary order, written by Tamal Krishna Maharaja and

signed by Srila Prabhupada. It is based on a conversation between Srila

Prabhupada and Tamal Krishna Maharaja held in a garden on July 8, 1977. A

transcript of the conversation is included as an appendix to the present paper.

The May 28th conversation is the final order about continuing the disciplic

succession, spoken directly by Srila Prabhupada.

 

PART 2

 

THE MAY 28TH CONVERSATION

 

The conversation:

 

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.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja's question can be taken as either one question or two.

There is no doubt that the question concerns initiations after the departure of

Srila Prabhupada, but it is not certain whether the question also includes the

subject of initiations during Srila Prabhupada's presence. In either case, the

main concern is initiations after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. Therefore

Satsvarupa Maharaja says "particularly."

 

The hesitant wording shows that Satsvarupa Maharaja is uneasy about bringing up

the subject of Srila Prabhupada's departure. The devotees were hoping against

hope that Srila Prabhupada would recover, and they did not like to contemplate

the idea that he might be leaving.

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja says "our next question" because this question was one of a

list of questions that the GBC had brought before Srila Prabhupada at Srila

Prabhupada's request.

 

*******************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I

shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

What is an "officiating acarya"? An officiating acarya must be a certain kind

of acarya: an acarya who officiates. But he is an acarya. Srila Prabhupada does

not say "priest" or "proxy." He says "acarya." (The meaning of "officiate" will

be taken up later.)

 

The word "recommend" is also important. Srila Prabhupada is not appointing

acaryas. The initiations must continue, and this can only be done through Srila

Prabhupada's disciples. There is no appointment of gurus or successors, only a

recommendation that certain disciples start the natural process. But a

recommendation from the spiritual master is as good as an order, and the

recommendation of certain devotees in the July 9th letter is a follow-up to the

order that Srila Prabhupada's disciples should take up the work of spiritual

master after his departure.

 

Srila Prabhupada is promising to do something. He will do it in the July 9th

letter, and one of the people that Srila Prabhupada is now speaking to will

write that letter. How, then, can the proxy-initiation adherents say that the

July 9th letter can be understood only without reference to this conversation?

Rather, the July 9th letter begins the process Srila Prabhupada is describing

here.

********************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

The term "ritvik acarya" is brought in here by Tamala Krsna Maharaja. The word

"ritvik" plays a large part in the arguments of the proxy-initiation adherents,

but their definition of the word is false. The Controversy Paper says:

 

"Ritviks, by definition, are not the initiators."

 

The definition of "ritvik" in the Sanskrit dictionaries and in Srila

Prabhupada's books is not "proxy" or "non-initiator" or anything of the sort.

The definition of "ritvik" is simply "priest," and a look at Srila Prabhupada's

books will show "ritvik" defined as "priest," or something similar, again and

again. In fact, in the next passage Srila Prabhupada will say that the person

called "ritvik" is the guru. Thus, Srila Prabhupada does not give any weight to

the idea that "ritvik" means "proxy." Many times Srila Prabhupada himself

performed the fire sacrifice, and on those occasions, Srila Prabhupada acted

both as ritvik (officiating priest) and as initiating guru but not as proxy.

 

Of course, a priest, may act as a proxy at times like anyone else, and in a

later conversation Srila Prabhupada directs Hamsaduta to act as a proxy ritvik.

But one cannot disregard all the other examples of Srila Prabhupada's use of

the word and say that ritvik can be used only in this sense. In the present

conversation, Srila Prabhupada does not refer to proxy initiations at all, not

even in connection with the word "ritvik." (The Sanskrit-dictionary definition

of "ritvik" and some examples of Srila Prabhupada's usage of the word are

included as an appendix to the present paper.)

 

Tamal Krsna Maharaja, however, does seem to think that "ritvik" means "proxy,"

and his question shows that the GBCs were ready to accept whatever Srila

Prabhupada said, even if he told them to become proxies after his leaving. In

fact, it is they, not Srila Prabhupada, who bring up the idea of proxy

initiation. This refutes the charge that those devotees who accepted the

responsibility of guru were eagerly waiting in the wings or usurped the

position.

 

The proxy-initiation adherents say that Srila Prabhupada should stop speaking

at this point, although he does not. The Controversy Paper says:

 

"Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly revealed,

piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. The problem with

that proposition is that, in issuing instructions like this, Srila Prabhupada

would only correctly answer the original question posed by Satsvarupa Maharaja

if the following conditions were satisfied.

"a) That somebody took it upon themselves (sic) to ask more questions. &

"b) That by sheer serendipity they would happen upon the right questions to get

the proper answer to Satsvarupa's original question."

 

In other words, the proxy-initiation adherents say that the conversation

continues because the GBCs are trying to prompt Srila Prabhupada into giving

them the answer they want. But Tamal Krishna Maharaja has already shown the

willingness of the GBCs to accept any answer Srila Prabhupada gave.

 

The questions continue because the disciples want clarification of their guru's

words. And at the end of the discussion, when the GBCs are ready to move on to

another topic, Srila Prabhupada himself continues the discussion, offering

final and definitive statements on this question.

 

The Controversy Paper says that something is wrong if "the full answer is only

properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the

conversation." But how else is knowledge revealed? Is everything revealed in

Bhagavad-gita 2.11? Or is "the full answer ... only properly revealed,

piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation"? Indeed, it is

the duty of the disciple to ask the guru for clarification, and no one can

blame him. The proxy-initiation adherents thus go against Srila Prabhupada's

teachings: "Not only should one hear submissively from the spiritual master,

but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service

and inquiries." (BG 4.34, purport)

 

How casually the proxy-initiation adherents play with the words of Srila

Prabhupada! They say that the word "henceforward" in the July 9th letter is of

the utmost importance but the words of this conversation should never have been

spoken, or are at best an "old taped conversation."

 

Srila Prabhupada condemned such picking and choosing of the words one likes and

dislikes. Srila Prabhupada's words are the same as scripture, and to reject

this conversation is the same as rejecting a chapter of Bhagavad-gita.

 

************************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

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

initiation and the...

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

 

ANALYSIS:

 

The Controversy Paper says:

 

"Sometimes the curious theory is put forward that when Srila Prabhupada says

'he is guru,' he is really talking about the ritviks themselves. This is

clearly absurd since Srila Prabhupada has only just defined the word ritvik as

'officiating acarya.' Literally a priest who conducts some type of religious or

ceremonial function."

 

The word "acarya" does not mean "priest," so "officiating acarya" cannot

literally mean "officiating priest." Nor is the word "officiate" limited to

the meaning of performing a ceremony. According to the American Heritage

Dictionary, "officiate" can also mean "to perform the duties and functions of

an office or a position of authority." Literally speaking, then, "officiating

acarya" can only mean "someone who performs the functions of an acarya."

 

The Controversy Paper mentions the word "ritvik" here, so let us see what the

conversation would look like if "ritvik" were the same as "proxy." The

conversation would run like this:

 

"Tamala Krsna: Is that called proxy-acarya?

"Prabhupada: Proxy, yes.

"Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the

initiation and the...

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

 

In this case, the conversation would make no sense. How can the proxy be the

guru? One may say, of course, that the proxy and the person who gives the

initiation are not the same, but Satsvarupa Maharaja is referring to them as

the same person. The proxy-initiation adherents would have to say, then, that

Srila Prabhupada either is not answering the question or does not understand

it.

 

The Controversy Paper thus suggests a contradiction- the proxy would be the

guru- but tries to save itself by giving Srila Prabhupada a habit he did not

have: The paper says that when Srila Prabhupada uses the word "he" he is

talking about himself (and that to think otherwise is "clearly absurd").

 

The paper says:

 

"When discussing philosophical or managerial issues surrounding his position as

acarya, Srila Prabhupada would invariably refer to himself in the third

person."

 

The proxy-initiation adherents are saying here that when Srila Prabhupada would

speak of himself, he would not say "I," as other people do, but would say

"he," and that this was his invariable way of speaking. In other words, they

say that when Srila Prabhupada would want to say "I am your guru," he would

invariably say, "He is your guru," and leave the bewildered disciple to guess

what he meant.

 

But Srila Prabhupada spoke in such a way rarely if at all. When he spoke about

the spiritual master in general, he would use the third person, and when he

spoke about himself, he would use the first person, the same as everyone else.

One has only to look through Srila Prabhupada's letters and conversations on

the Folio for proof. Thus the proxy-initiation adherents say that Srila

Prabhupada spoke clearly and directly about important issues (we all agree),

but go on to say that when Srila Prabhupada says "he" he means "I."

 

But their argument is too easy. They take any word they want, give it any

meaning they want, and make Srila Prabhupada appear to say anything they want.

So "he" means "I." Why not "black" means "white"? How about, "When Srila

Prabhupada says 'Krishna,' he means 'Darwin' "? Who can say where it would end?

 

In fact, Srila Prabhupada uses the word "I" to refer to himself in this very

conversation, so according to the proxy-initiation adherents' theory, Srila

Prabhupada would sometimes say "I" and sometimes "he" when speaking of himself,

even at the same time. If the proxy-initiation adherents think Srila

Prabhupada's use of language is so imprecise and confusing, how can they attach

so much importance to one single word in the July 9th letter?

 

To further test the proxy-initiation adherents' premise, let us take this

segment of the conversation and substitute "I" for "he," as well as "proxy" for

"acarya":

 

"Tamala Krsna: Is that called proxy-acarya?

"Prabhupada: Proxy, yes.

"Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the

initiation and the...

"Prabhupada: I'm guru. I'm guru."

 

It would seem, then, that Srila Prabhupada is not answering the question at

all. He would simply be declaring himself guru and giving no information about

"that person who gives the initiation." The proxy-initiation adherents may

argue that the "person who gives the initiation" is really Srila Prabhupada,

but then Srila Prabhupada would simply be saying that he is the guru of the

people he initiates, something Satsvarupa Maharaja already knows.

 

When Satsvarupa Maharaja says "that person who gives the initiation," he is

speaking not about Srila Prabhupada but about the person who will perform the

ceremony or take charge of the new disciple after Srila Prabhupada's departure.

That is the whole point of the conversation. Are we to think that Srila

Prabhupada does not understand what anyone is talking about here?

 

Srila Prabhupada did not call the GBCs to his side just to tell them that he is

the guru of the people he initiates. He called them in to answer their

questions about what to do after his departure. The proxy-initiation adherents'

version that Srila Prabhupada says "he" when he means "I" turns the

conversation into nonsense. This point will become more obvious later on. On

the other hand, Srila Prabhupada's words- "He's guru"- literally say that his

disciples will be gurus after his departure.

 

**********************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

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.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja says "on your behalf, " again suggesting the possibility of

proxy initiation and the willingness of the GBCs to accept whatever Srila

Prabhupada would say. Satsvarupa Maharaja is certainly not prompting Srila

Prabhupada or trying to trick Srila Prabhupada into giving one answer or

another. But Srila Prabhupada answers here that "on my behalf" does not mean

acting as a post-samadhi proxy but means becoming an actual guru. And in the

garden conversation of July 8th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada says that proxy

initiation is a formality to be observed during his presence:

 

"Tamala Krsna: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikesa Maharaja, he

should send the person's name to us here and I'll enter it in the book. Okay.

Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

Prabhupada: India, I am here."

 

The statement "India, I am here" shows that Srila Prabhupada is talking about a

system for use during his physical presence. One may argue that there is no

order for the disciples to stop the proxy initiation and become initiating

gurus after Srila Prabhupada's departure, but that order had already been given

on May 28. In other words, in the May 28th conversation Srila Prabhupada orders

his disciples to take up the work of initiating guru, and in the July 9th

letter, based on the July 8th garden conversation, Srila Prabhupada describes

proxy initiation as a system to be followed during his physical presence.

 

When Srila Prabhupada says "on my behalf, on my order...," the proxy-initiation

adherents say that he is speaking of an order to come in the future, that if

this statement itself were the order, then Srila Prabhupada would have said

something like, "Now I am giving the order."

 

Why?

 

"Be guru, but by my order" is in the present tense, with no indication of

future. The "but" does not indicate future, since "but" can be used in any

tense: "I am a guru, but only by the order of Srila Prabhupada," or "I became a

guru, but only by the order of Srila Prabhupada." It is unreasonable to impose

an idea of future tense on a statement that is in the present. When Lord

Caitanya said, "On My order, become a spiritual master," He did not have to

repeat Himself and say, "Now I am giving the order." The words "on My order"

themselves point to the order.

 

Here, Srila Prabhupada says "on my order" as a clarification of "on my

behalf:"

 

"So on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but

by my order."

 

One becomes a spiritual master on behalf of his own spiritual master, on the

order of his spiritual master, carrying on the disciplic succession. Srila

Prabhupada is telling his disciples to become spiritual masters, but as his

servant, in the same way that Srila Prabhupada himself became a spiritual

master on behalf of His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura.

 

Srila Prabhupada says, "In my presence one should not become guru." Some may

argue that because Srila Prabhupada is present in his books, the order is that

no one may initiate for ten thousand years. But Satsvarupa Maharaja's opening

question says "initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're

no longer with us." Satsvarupa Maharaja is clearly talking about Srila

Prabhupada's physical presence. If Srila Prabhupada's answer "in my presence"

is about the presence of his books, Srila Prabhupada is either ignoring the

question or playing a trick on the GBC, two unlikely possibilities.

 

********************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

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

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja again suggests the possibility of proxy initiation. Srila

Prabhupada could say yes, but he does not. On the contrary, Srila Prabhupada

suggests that the question does not make sense. Therefore, Tamal Krishna

Maharaja will ask for clarification.

*******************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

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.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Again, Srila Prabhupada does not take the word "ritvik" to mean "proxy." In

fact, the word "ritvik" seems to have no bearing on the conversation at all.

Srila Prabhupada says that those who are initiated by the ritvik acaryas become

the granddisciples of Srila Prabhupada. They become the disciples of the ritvik

acaryas. The passage is clear, logical, easy to understand, and in line with

our teachings. And Srila Prabhupada says that the new initiate is the disciple

of the ritvik.

 

Again, let us substitute "proxy" for "ritvik":

 

"Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these proxy-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."

 

Again, the passage would contradict itself. If the new initiate is the disciple

of the proxy, then the proxy is not a proxy. And again, the proxy-initiation

adherents try to resolve their contradiction by putting a twist on the passage.

They read the passage differently, maybe because of a lack of clarity in the

recording. They read it as:

 

"Prabhupada: Who is initiating. His granddisciple." ("He is granddisciple"

becomes "His granddisciple.")

 

The Controversy Paper says:

 

"In his question Tamal Krsna is asking about ritvik acaryas, not diksa gurus.

Therefore we know, even before Prabhupada answers, that any disciples referred

to can only belong to the initiator, Srila Prabhupada. As we have shown, this

is the very definition of ritvik, he acts on someone else's behalf."

 

The above paragraph has two faults. First, it assumes that Srila Prabhupada is

the initiator without Srila Prabhupada's having said so. Nowhere in this

conversation does Srila Prabhupada say that he will continue to be the

initiator after his departure. Second, their "very definition of ritvik" is

wrong again. "Ritvik" means "priest," and a priest is not obliged to act on

someone else's behalf. The yajna brahmanas of Vrndavana were ritviks and were

acting on their own behalf. One may argue that their yajna was not an

initiation, but still they were acting on their own behalf, as opposed to the

Controversy Paper's "very definition of ritvik."

 

The Controversy Paper continues:

 

"Line 19-20. Tamal Krsna repeats the answer, and Srila Prabhupada continues:

'who is initiating. His grand disciple.' We have chosen the transcript version

'His grand disciple' over the version 'he is grand disciple' since it most

closely resembles the tape, and seems to flow best with what is being said."

 

But Srila Prabhupada may have said "He's grand disciple," in which case, "His

grand disciple" would not resemble the tape more closely. The Controversy Paper

continues:

 

"We have established that in speaking in the third person Srila Prabhupada must

be speaking of himself."

 

They have established no such thing. They have proposed it, but the Folio

proves the contrary. Again, Srila Prabhupada would speak of himself in the

first person, like everyone else.

 

The Controversy Paper continues:

 

"To help us understand more clearly what Srila Prabhupada is saying, let us

replace third person with first person statements, shown in brackets, for lines

17-20."

 

Two faults here: First, it is only an assumption, that Srila Prabhupada is

speaking about himself in the third person. Second, by inserting words in

brackets one could make Srila Prabhupada appear to speak any words one might

want, even Mayavada philosophy. The Controversy Paper continues:

 

"TKG. .... Whose disciples are they?

"S. Prabhupada. They are (my) disciples.

"TKG. They are (your) disciples.

"S. Prabhupada. (I am) initiating. (My) grand disciple."

 

Why not "[He is] initiating. [My] grand disciple." Who can say which brackets

are better?

 

Because the proxy-initiation adherents read "he is" as "his," they insist that

"initiating" and "grand disciple" must both be preceded by pronouns in the same

person ("I am initiating my granddisciple" or "He is initiating his

granddisciple"). Thus they assume that the new initiate is the granddisciple of

the initiator And since the new initiate cannot be the granddisciple of the

ritvik, he must be the granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada, and therefore Srila

Prabhupada is the initiator.

 

But their logic goes in circles because they assume beforehand that their

parenthetical insertions are correct: The insertions are correct because this

is what Srila Prabhupada must have meant, and Srila Prabhupada must have meant

this because of the inserted words. Here is the "classic circular argument" the

proxy-initiation adherents mention in one of their papers: it is their own

argument.

 

The proxy-initiation adherents would have Srila Prabhupada say, "I am

initiating my granddisciple." Thus they admit that even according to their own

view the new initiate is a granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada as opposed to the

direct disciples initiated during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. There

would still be a one-generation difference between those initiated during Srila

Prabhupada's physical presence and those initiated later. But how can some be

direct disciples and others be granddisciples if the initiator is the same and

pre-samadhi or post-samadhi makes no difference?

 

And why the obscure language? If Srila Prabhupada were speaking about himself

as the initiator, why would he say "who" instead of "I"? "Who" (meaning "he

who") refers to a general principle, not a particular person. Again, Srila

Prabhupada's habit was to say "I" when speaking of himself. Why a sudden

departure from his usual way of speaking and from clear language? The reading

"He is granddisciple" requires no interpretation or stretching of the

imagination. It is straightforward and logical, in line with Srila Prabhupada's

usual way of speaking.

 

But whatever the reading, whatever the insertion, the fact remains that the new

disciple is the granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada and cannot be the Godbrother

or Godsister of the pre-samadhi disciples. No amount of word-twisting can

change it:

 

"Prabhupada: They're his disciple.

"Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.

"Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple."

*************************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

 

Satsvarupa: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That's clear.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

This passage does not give any information.

************************************************

 

The May 28th conversation continues:

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.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja is ready to move on to another question, but Srila

Prabhupada continues the discussion. Although the proxy-initiation adherents

say that Srila Prabhupada should have stopped speaking at the beginning of the

discussion, Srila Prabhupada himself wants to continue.

 

Then Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"When I order, 'You become guru,' he becomes regular guru."

 

Taken out of context, the sentence could seemingly point to a future order, but

in the context of the conversation it could only be a re-statement of the order

given above by Srila Prabhupada. Otherwise, why would Srila Prabhupada say

"That's all"?

 

The comment "That's all" implies that the instruction is complete, that there

is no more to add. Srila Prabhupada is summing it up, not reversing it. One may

say that the word "when" indicates a future order, but "when" does not

necessarily indicate future any more than "but." ("When I see a sunrise, I

think of Krsna.")

 

Then Srila Prabhupada says, "He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it,"

another simple restatement of what has already been said. This final statement

is clear and needs no elaboration: "disciple of my disciple."

 

Again, let us test the proxy-initiation adherents' theory by substituting "I"

for "he":

 

"Prabhupada: When I order, 'You become guru,' I become regular guru. That's

all."

 

Thus, the proxy-initiation adherents' theory about "he" and "I" would

ultimately reduce the conversation to nonsense.

 

In short, Srila Prabhupada has stated the principles of post-samadhi

initiations, and he will confirm his order by naming some people to begin the

process. This conversation is Srila Prabhupada's last official response to the

question, How will initiations go on after your departure? Srila Prabhupada

answers with terms such as regular guru, disciple of my disciple, and

granddisciple.

 

There is nothing in this conversation to indicate that people initiated after

the departure of Srila Prabhupada would be the disciples of anyone other than

the person who gives the initiation, call him ritvik or not. The new initiates

will be the granddisciples of Srila Prabhupada. Thus we find in this discussion

an affirmation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings of the previous twelve years, in

harmony with the Vedic tradition.

 

*******************************************

 

PART 3

 

An Analysis of the Word "Henceforward"

 

The proxy-initiation adherents base their theory of post-samadhi proxy

initiation on the word "henceforward" in the following passage of the July 9th

letter:

 

"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."

 

The standard dictionaries define "henceforward" as "starting from now." The

word "henceforward" signals that a process must begin immediately, but it

offers no precision as to when the process, once begun, must stop. In fact, no

standard dictionary defines "henceforward" as "starting from now and continuing

forever."

 

The following are some examples of Srila Prabhupada's using "henceforward" in a

non-eternal aspect:

 

" As I told you, that 2,500 years ago, or 5,000 years ago Vyasadeva wrote about

Lord Buddha's appearance. Still, there is appearance of Kalki from this time,

henceforward, after 400,000's of years Kalki will appear." (From Prabhupada's

Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1971, 710816SB.LON)

 

"Regarding printing 20,000 copies of Back To Godhead, I have appealed to 4

centers, namely New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and London to contribute

$750 monthly. I have got confirmation from Los Angeles, so I shall be glad to

hear from New York also whether this center is going to hand over to me $750

per month. I have no objection if this $750 is collected in the way of

advertisements from New York, but charges will be increased because we are

going to print 20,000 copies henceforward." (Letter to: Rayarama : 69-02-20

Los Angeles)

 

" I have again begun speaking on the tapes and very soon you will get

transcribed copies of my dictaphoning for being edited and laid out for

printing, chapter-wise, the fourth canto. Let the second and third cantos be

finished quickly so that the fourth canto can be started. Henceforward I shall

be supplying material for all cantos and you must do the rest; editing,

layout, printing, etc." (Letter to: Candanacarya: 71-03-23 Bombay )

 

In each of these cases the period beginning with "henceforward" will have an

end, whether or not specifically stated by Srila Prabhupada. Thus,

"henceforward" does not necessarily mean "continuing forever," either in the

dictionary or in Srila Prabhupada's usage.

 

One cannot say, then, that the "henceforward" in the July 9th letter

necessarily means that the proxy initiations must continue after Srila

Prabhupada's departure, especially in the light of the May 28th conversation.

 

It is unreasonable to impose one's own definition on a word and then use that

imposed definition as proof of what Srila Prabhupada must have wanted. The July

9th letter in itself neither confirms nor denies the possibility of Srila

Prabhupada's disciples becoming initiating gurus, but taken in the context of

the May 28th conversation, the July 9th letter can only be the recommendation

of proxies who would later start the process of post-samadhi initiation by

Srila Prabhupada's disciples.

 

Prabhupada: "When I order, 'You become guru,' he becomes regular guru. That's

all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it."

 

end

 

APPENDIX A

 

The Conversation of May 28, 1977

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

APPENDIX B

 

The Garden Conversation of July 7, 1977

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Srila Prabhupada? We're receiving a number of letters

now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since

your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.

 

Prabhupada: The local, mean [men?], senior sannyasis can do that.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: That's what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were...

The local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing

to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. So should that

process be resumed, or should we...? I mean one thing is that it's said that

the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he takes on the... He has to

cleanse the disciple by... So we don't want that you should have to... Your

health is not so good, so that should not be... That's why we've been asking

everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more

time.

 

Prabhupada: No, the senior sannyasis...

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: So they should continue to...

 

Prabhupada: You can give me a list of sannyasis. I will mark who will...

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Okay

..

Prabhupada: You can do. Kirtanananda can do. And our Satsvarupa can do. So

these three, you can give, begin.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: So supposing someone is in America, should they simply

write directly to Kirtanananda or Satsvarupa?

 

Prabhupada: Nearby. Jayatirtha can give.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Jayatirtha.

 

Prabhupada: Bhavanan..., er, Bhagavan. And he can do also. Harikesa.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Harikesa Maharaja.

 

Prabhupada: And... Five, six men, you divide who is nearest.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Who is nearest. So persons wouldn't have to write to

Your Divine Grace. They could write directly to that person?

 

Prabhupada: Hm.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Actually they are initiating the person on Your Divine

Grace's behalf. Those persons who are initiated are still your...

 

Prabhupada: Second initiation we shall think over, second initiation.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: This is for first initiation, okay. And for second

initiation, for the time being they should...

 

Prabhupada: No, they have to wait. Second initiation, that should be given...

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Should... Some devotees are writing you now for second

initiation, and I'm writing them to wait a while because you're not well. So

can I continue to tell them that?

 

Prabhupada: They can do second initiation.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: By writing you.

 

Prabhupada: No. These men.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: These men, they can also do second initiation. So

there's no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation.

They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your

disciples. Anybody who gives initiation is doing so on your behalf.

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: You know that book I'm maintaining of all of your

disciples' names? Should I continue that?

 

Prabhupada: Hm.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikesa Maharaja,

he should send the person's name to us here and I'll enter it in the book.

Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

 

Prabhupada: India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapataka.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Jayapataka Maharaja.

 

Prabhupada: You are also in India.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Yes.

 

Prabhupada: You can note down these names.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Yes, I have them.

 

Prabhupada: Who are they?

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Kirtanananda Maharaja, Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayatirtha

Prabhu, Bhagavan Prabhu, Harikesa Maharaja, Jayapataka Maharaja, and Tamal

Krishna Maharaja.

 

Prabhupada: That's nice. Now you distribute.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Seven. There's seven names.

 

Prabhupada: For the time being, seven names, sufficient. You can make

Ramesvara.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Ramesvara Maharaja.

 

Prabhupada: And Hrdayananda.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: Oh, yeah. South America.

 

Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right...

That will depend on discretion.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: On discretion.

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Tamal Krishna Goswami: That's for first and second initiations.

 

Prabhupada: Hm.

 

APPENDIX C

 

The Letter of July 9, 1977

 

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

Prabhupada, 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 Secretary to Srila Prabhupada

 

Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

APPENDIX D

 

Definition of "Ritvik"

 

The following is contributed by Hridayananda dasa Goswami:

 

In my explanation, I will use a dot before the r to indicate a vowel r, and a

capital vowel means that vowel is long.

 

The word .rtvik is a combination of two elements:

 

1. .rtu means, in Monier-Williams (MW), "any settled point of time, fixed time,

time appointed for any action, especially for sacrifices and other regular

worship, thus the right time, etc." In the Bhagavatam and Mahabharata, the word

usually means "season." For example, a woman's fertile "season" is called

..rtu-kAla. Similarly, when we hear of seasons being disturbed or inverted in

Kali-yuga, the word is usually .rtu.

 

2. ij comes from the root yaj, "to sacrifice." In the word .rtvik, the 'v'

comes from the 'u' of .rtu, and the 'k' comes from 'j'. I will spare you more

technical explanations of the phonetic rules that cause this.

 

Thus .rtvik means, in MW, "sacrificing at the proper time, sacrificing

regularly; a priest (usually four are enumerated, viz. Hot.r, Adhvaryu,

Brahman, and UdgAt.r etc." These are the well known priests that officiate at

Vedic ritualistic sacrifices.

 

The significant point here is that terms such as .rtvig-guru and .rtvig-acarya

simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit dictionary, nor in

any recognized Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There is no such term because

there is no such concept. In other words, our friends are proposing something

that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it.

 

*************************************************

 

The following is contributed by Suhotra Swami:

 

Re rtvik, I have this definition from The Puranic Encyclopedia by Vettam Mani,

published by Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi-Patna-Varnasi, 1979 reprint), p. 654:

 

RTVIK: A Priest who officiates at a yaaga. Those who perform yaagas like

Agnisadhaana, Agnishtoma, Paakayana etc. are called Rtviks. Manusmrti, Chapter

2, Verse 143.

 

The Manu-samhita reference is at least one sastric source for the word that

could be referred to; though an argument has to be provided to bridge that

sense to the sense under discussion in our paper. But that's not difficult.

The connection is rather obvious: an official priest at a sacrificial

ceremony--in our sense, the ceremony of Vaisnava initiation.

 

APPENDIX E

 

A Reply to the Comments of Krsna Kant Prabhu

 

by Badrinarayan Dasa

 

Dear Krsna Kant prabhu:

 

Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I have read your critique of our paper, "Disciple of my Disciple" (the correct

name, for future reference), and I appreciate your getting back with us so

quickly. As you have spoken bluntly, I hope you will not mind if I reply in

kind. Frankly, to my reading of your letter, it seems that it attempts to

dismiss our paper out of hand, without seriously addressing the points raised

in it.

 

You note that on this topic, there have been differing comments and differing

interpretations by various GBCs and senior ISKCON members over the years.

 

It strikes me as no wonder that there appear to be contradictory statements.

Rather, this should come as no surprise to anyone: the issue has been under

discussion for close to twenty years now. The general understanding has

evolved from the days of automatic uttama adhikaris and "zonal acharyas" to

madhyama adhikaris (for those who deem themselves able to measure these things)

who are humbly and sincerely serving Srila Prabhupada by carrying out his

order. Thus our title, "Disciple of My Disciple."

 

You may argue that we now need to complete that "evolution" to accepting the

concept of permanent proxies, or the proposed rtvic system. I would counter

that while how to properly carry out the order from Srila Prabhupada has been

under discussion for over twenty years, the basic principle of "regular

gurus"..."grand-disciple"...."disciples of my disciples" has never once been

in doubt from any of the sources you point to as giving "contradictory

statements".

 

Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the matter are a continuum from the May

conversation to the July garden discussion to the July letter. It unfolds in a

series of instructions and acts by His Divine Grace (as we state in our paper:

in the same fashion that the full understanding of the Bhagavad Gita unfolds

over eighteen chapters) .

 

The same is true for Srila Prabhupada's use of the word "rtvik." It must be

understood according to the whole context.

 

You do not see it this way, choosing instead to focus solely on the July letter

and your interpretation of the word "henceforward." Therefore, it is

predictable that you will draw a conclusion different from our paper's. On

these points, it appears that we can only agree to disagree.

 

As for your request that we carefully study, research, and respond to all the

points in your paper, "Final Instruction," we are trying to balance these

concerns with your simultaneous request of quick responses. Our conclusion on

how to best proceed was to release our work in steps, as it is completed. The

subject is deep and has many important aspects. To do it justice, will require

a number of papers.

 

Here is the history of how "Disciple of My Disciple" came into being and an

outline of the GBC's plan to address the rest of these issues. As you know, we

had our meeting with several advocates of the permanent proxy system in New

Dvaraka. After that meeting, we concluded that it might be a more fruitful

dialogue if done in writing. There was some discussion amongst those of us

interested in the topic, and as a result of those talks, Umapati Maharaj,

Giridhari Maharaj, and I approached the GBC with our plan to research the issue

and write a paper based on that work.

 

We presented that paper to the GBC philosophical committee in Mayapur this year

and it was agreed by them that it should be distributed as an approved ISKCON

position paper.

 

"Disciple of My Disciple" is only the first step in the process. As mentioned

to you previously, there will also be a serious consideration of the other

points made in your paper "The Final Order" to come out as another paper within

the next month or two. There is also a research committee to study the

authenticity of the May conversation tape, the claims of missing tapes, to

interview those present in Vrindaban at the time, etc. The committee is just

beginning work, and has Kalakantha prabhu and Dr. Burke Rochford as members, to

insure an unbiased, neutral study. Finally, the GBC has commissioned a number

of authors to study and submit papers on the vast range of the underlying

issues. (The topics include studying the mistakes of the zonal acharya system

days, developing a better understanding and appreciation of siksa disciple

relationships, madhyama adhikari gurus or uttama adhikari only, standards for

becoming a guru, and a number of other items.) These papers will come out in a

book, scheduled for conclusion by Gaura Purnima 1998.

 

But as we have said repeatedly, we have to start at the beginning, that being,

What were Srila Prabhupada's instructions when clearly and specifically asked,

"How will initiations go on in the future, particularly at that time that you

are no longer with us?"

 

Our paper "Disciple of My Disciple" focuses on this bedrock issue. I would ask

you to please read it again, with this in mind and in light of the above

comments, and let me know what you think.

 

Thank you for your correspondence,

 

Your servant,

 

Badrinarayan dasa