|
The online Encyclopedia of guru-tattva Philosophical exposition of guru-tattva Page Two contents- Discussion #4 - Why not take initiation from Krsna, or Arjuna, or Srila Jiva Gosvami? [first discussion on page] Discussion
# 5 - Who
is the real author of the 7/9/77 letter? Discussion # 6 -The first question and answer of 5/28 is clear, but the rest is confusing, why? Discussion # 7 - Not so confusing after all Discussion #8 - Re-construction of Iskcon history Discussion #4 - Why not take initiation from Krsna, or Arjuna, or Srila Jiva Gosvami? Devotee_2:
That
people initiated via IRM are initiated as Srila Prabhupada's disciples,
are I have a question to all, how is it there any scriptural injunctions
to substantiate this practice? Devotee_1:
Yes,
it is in scripture. All scripture says that the disciple must obey his
spiritual master. It is the duty of all devotees within Iskcon to obey
Srila Prabhupada as their founder-acharya, and not question or challenge
him. Scripture
says that a sincere disciple should approach a bona-fide spiritual
master and submit inquiries unto the spiritual master with a submissive
attitude. This is what happened on May 28th, 1977, wherein
SDG asked this question unto Srila Prabhupada; “…at
that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and
second initiation would be conducted[?]” Srila
Prabhupada then answered with his plan for officiating acharyas, or
ritviks, as some prefer to call them. So,
the scripture says to make questions to the spiritual master, and we
must accept the spiritual master’s answer. Therefore, we must accept
Srila Prabhupada’s answer on 5/28/77, which is; Prabhupada:
Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall
recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas. Srila
Bhaktivinode Thakur also says that if one is a member of an institution,
he must be loyal to the conclusions of the founder-acharya. Devotee_2:
Where
in Srila Prabhupada's books it is said such practices are bona fide, if
so why not just take initiation from Krishna, Arjuna, Jiva Goswami or
Bhaktisiddanta for that matter? Devotee_1:
Generally,
all devotees agree that Srila Prabhupada’s words of instructions in
his conversations, his direct answer to a question, his instructions
given in his Will and Testament, and those instructions finalized in his
formal letters sent to all temples, are as important as his written
instructions in his books. Devotee_2:
Why
not just take initiation from Krishna, Arjuna, Jiva Goswami, Rupa
Gosvami, so on? Devotee_1:
The
answer is that Srila Prabhupada did not set up an officiating acharya
system for Krishna, Arjuna, Jiva Goswami, so on, he set it up for his
Iskcon, and the 7/9/77 letter clearly says that new disciples will be
his, and his Will and Testament says the same. Also Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta did not set up such a system, but Srila Prabhupada did.
We are not on any platform to question why Srila Prabhupada did this,
our only duty is to obey him. Devotee_2:
If
this were standard Vaishnava procedures, surely it would be exemplified
through out the disciplic succession; it would be in Srila Prabhupada's
Books and else where in the Vedas. Devotee_1:
The
standard in scripture, in the disciplic succession, in Srila
Prabhupada’s books, in the Vedas, they all say the same thing – the
sincere disciple must obey the Spiritual master, we must obey Srila
Prabhupada, our founder acharya. Many devotees all over the world wish
to obey those officiating acharya instructions given by Srila Prabhupada
in 1977. Some disagree, so they can make their case on this website.
Meanwhile no person can rightfully stop all these hundreds of devotees
from taking initiation via Srila Prabhupada’s officiating acharya
system. Devotee_2:
I
am a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and not once have I heard Srila
Prabhupada made any such mention with references and cross references to
support what he says, as per usual with His writings! Devotee_1:
Many
devotees have heard him talk about the officiating acharya system for
after 77. Pita dasa heard Srila Prabhupada talk about this ritvik system
dozens of times in 77, there are several other witnesses who directly
heard Srila Prabhupada say as such. Devotee_2:
So
far, I see only interpretations with no connection to Srila Prabhupada
whatsoever as far as that is concern, how you explain that or make the
connections, how can the IRM justify this? I am confused. Devotee_1:
To
directly obey Srila Prabhupada is not interpretation. There is a
definite direct connection to Srila Prabhupada per his words and his
formal letter to the whole society. Devotee_2: In the Bhagavat there's mention that when the Guru leaves the planet there's chaos amongst his disciples and factions are form; only the few sincere ones will stay and push on; here we see it has come to pass. Hello, What’s going on? please give me a direct explanation. Devotee_1: You are right about the chaos. Srila Prabhupada was disobeyed on his instructions, and chaos ensued. There are endless arguments and yet his answer above is clear to many hundreds of disciples. They are carrying on with this understanding. Hare Krishna. Discussion
# 5 - Who
is the real author of the 7/9/77 letter? Devotee_2:
Some
devotees say that the July 9th letter of 1977 is written by Tamal
Krishna Gosvami, and therefore such claims that this letter establishes
a future ritvik system is nullified. There are two angles on this. First,
there are Iskcon devotees who dismiss the argument by saying, “oh,
Tamal wrote that letter.” This is to say that since Tamal wrote the
letter, and Iskcon believes in his veracity, and he says the ritvik
system was only meant to be temporary, therefore he is the authority of
the 7/9 letter, because he is the author of this letter, therefore he
knows all the details about the ritvik business done in 1977. Secondly,
there are devotees who take another angle, saying that we cannot trust
TKG, and since he wrote this letter, we cannot accept this evidence
which is tainted by an untrustworthy person, such as TKG. And he did
this in a clandestine manner unknown to Srila Prabhupada, to trick the
society, so on. Devotee_1: Point
1. Tamal wrote it, he knows. First
we discuss the authorship of the 7/9 letter. They say that Tamal wrote
the letter, we ask them to understand the circumstances. This letter was
written on letterhead from the office of Srila Prabhupada. Usually in
business, a letterhead from a particular office means that all
correspondence done on such letterhead is the business of the executive
person in charge of that office, usually the person in charge of the
entire business. Such letters give executive orders, so on. Often the
letter will be dictated to the secretary, who may also give signature on
the letter, and perhaps some minor composition. Srila Prabhupada would
often ask his secretary to type a letter with some small freedom of
choice of words, etc. Tamal was only the secretary of the office of the
executive, Srila Prabhupada, Tamal was only the typist, taking dictation
from Srila Prabhupada. Evidence to this point is conclusively made later
on in this response, at the bottom of this post. So to this comment we
say that Tamal was only the typist with minimal freedom of composition,
and all authority comes from the executive of office, Srila Prabhupada,
who directed his secretary, Tamal to type this letter. Therefore we make
conclusions from the content of the letter, not from the interpretation
of the typist. Point
2. Tamal tricked us by this letter. The
second angle of vision is the assumption that Tamal wrote the letter
without the knowledge of Srila Prabhupada, to trick us, etc. We
take use of the categorization of statements made in the beginning of
the philosophical exposition. First
is pending action. Number 11 category [see link]
of statement refers to a
“notice of a near future pending action.” This is the category of
the statement Srila Prabhupada made in the 5/28 conversation wherein he
said, “Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I
shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.” [5/28
conversation] Second
is the execution of order itself. Number 12 statement refers to “a
statement of action, of order.” This
is the category of the statement made by the 7/9 letter, which is the
actual execution of order of ritviks, referred to previously by the
“notice of pending action” 5/28 statement, and noted in the letter
introduction itself, given here; “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.”
[intro to 7/9 letter] Third
are references to a prior action. Number 13 category statement, or that
“which refers to a previous order by Srila Prabhupada, after the fact,
which confirms this particular previous statement.” Here are such
reference quotes- July
19th: "Make your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on
my charge" July
31st: (TKG quotes SP in letter to Hamsadutta): "Make your own field
and continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.'"
Thus
we see that first there is the announcement of the intention of
execution, [5/28], then the actual execution of order [7/9], and thirdly
there are references to the execution after the fact, 7/19 and 7/31. Srila
Prabhupada knew about the appointment of ritviks prior to the actual
execution, via his own words, and confirmed he knew about it after the
fact, via the statements such as “continue to become ritvik.” It is
reasonable to understand he knew of the actual execution of the order,
via the letter, since he talked about it before and after the fact. For
a secretary to use company letterhead and write a letter without the
knowledge of the CEO, and then distribute this letter to all the
branches of such company throughout the world, and expect this maneuver
to be clandestine from the knowledge of the CEO is an amazing feat of
espionage in anyone’s estimation. It would take an amazing amount of
chutzpah to pull off such a ruse, since any devotee could tell Srila
Prabhupada about this letter, which was circulated worldwide, and foil
the plan. Then
there is the question of motivation. To say that Tamal wrote the letter
without Srila Prabhupada, is to assume some kind of trickery on Srila
Prabhupada and his followers. We are lost as to what motive he had in
mind by writing such a false letter which names ritviks? This only
bolsters the ritvik side. We don’t see any deception here in his
favor. Here
are two evidences that Tamal did not write the letter on his own
authority or secretly from the knowledge of Srila Prabhupada: July
12th- (TKG to Sucandra and Avinas Chandra cc-ed to HARIKESA):
"[handwritten] P.S. Information on the process for conducting
initiations is co[ntained] in a letter already sent to Ramesvara for
xeroxing. Prab[hupada] has name 11 persons, inclu[ding] yourself, to act
as 'rittik', H[is] representatives for initiating." - [on folio] Here
Tamal says there is a letter on the process of initiations, wherein
Srila Prabhupada has named 11 persons as ritviks, thus stating that the
letter is designed by Srila Prabhupada, not himself, Srila Prabhupada
executed this order on his own authority, Tamal was merely the typist.
Also- Tamal
wrote made this confession 12/3/80- “Before
I got ready to type the letter, I asked him, two: 'Srila Prabhupada is
this all or do you want to add more?'. He said, 'As is necessary, others
may be added.'" (TKG, December 3rd 1980) This
confirms that Srila Prabhupada was directing TKG to type the 7/9 letter,
by Tamal own admission, with Tamal asking Srila Prabhupada questions
about the contents of the letter. End of response.
Discussion # 6 -The first question and answer of 5/28 is clear, but the rest is confusing, why? Devotee_2:
Some prabhus say that … everything
from the first full sentence question, and full sentence answer, is
suspect, because therein lies the wording that a forger and power-tripper
might use to argue for self-aggrandizement.
Plus note all the breaks and interruptions from that point on. Devotee_1:
This is shared by many prabhus. The first question and answer remains
intact. The rest confuses the question and answer, and for this reason,
some devotees throw out this document, like lawyers do in court cases,
they discredit the whole evidence. We choose not to do that, because the
answer stands on it’s own. We will not dismiss Srila Prabhupada's
words and instructions on the grounds that some disciples muddled the
situation and created a confusion. The confusion belongs to them, not to
Srila Prabhupada. Devotee_2:
Some prabhus say that this tape was determined by professional forensic
scientists to show strong evidence of falsification and editing. Notice
that which follows the first 2 clear and complete sentences is composed
of a questioning where much clarification is needed, and some statements
do not follow the others in a way that any reasonable person would feel
was clear. Devotee_1: We agree, it is not clear, and it appears devious to some devotees, which suggests tampering. What we have is different categories of gurus. The “regular guru” who has his “own disciples” is not described with titles like ”officiating acharya” and “ritvik” and “deputy guru” and “monitor guru.” These are all different categories of gurus. Therefore Srila Prabhupada’s original answer is not the same category as the guru who has “disciple of disciple.” This is made clear in the 7/9 letter, which defines the officiating acharya and states 3 times that new disciples belong to Srila Prabhupada. Therefore Srila Prabhupada is not giving his answer of "officiating acharya" and then claiming they will have their own disciples, but what we have is either- 1. tampering, or 2. A sudden change of context, whereas Srila Prabhupada answers the question, and then the subject matter changes to "regular gurus" wherein Srila Prabhupada says, "when I order." It
makes no difference how the subject matter changes, either by tampering,
or by diversion caused by the questions of Tamal. Either way the focus changes So, some devotees hear the question, the answer, and then the rest of incongruent statements like “disciple of disciple” and they immediately assume that Srila Prabhupada is talking about appointments of diksa gurus. But he isn’t. They
immediately dismiss the original answer of officiating acharyas and
ritviks, and they don’t want to talk about these terms anymore, in
fact, the GBC bans any talk on these terms. But many
devotees contend that Srila Prabhupada meant “officiating acharyas,”
because he said it! And this is his premeditated plan for the
future, and he then talked about another category of gurus, thus there are
two different subject matters within this conversation. The
question and answer- On
May 28th 1977, Srila Prabhupada was approached a Satswarupa:
"Our next question concerns initiations in Srila
Prabhupada : "Yes; I shall recommend some of Devotee_1
continues- First
note the assumption that something would need to change when Srila
Prabhupada was no longer physically present. For these men, who by then
should have been knowledgeable about the current system, the
understanding should have been that the only role Srila Prabhupada had
at that point was that he was available should Pradyumna have any doubt
about a candidate, and was hesitant to give a name. This would mean that
he had some knowledge of a problem. Or perhaps Tamal, his secretary,
received a recommendation and had some inside knowledge that the GBC or
TP was not upholding standards. He could request Prabhupada's
involvement even though that was supposed to be a GBC duty, which is to
uphold the spiritual standards of the temples. Thus
if they had put any thought into the matter, they would have seen that
when Srila Prabhupada was gone, things
would largely be the same. I have never heard of a time when Pradyumna
felt a need to reject giving a name, and made a fuss. So what could
possibly be the strong motivation for asking about changes in the
future? Perhaps
we can tell from the reaction to Srila Prabhupada's answer, which again
was... "Yes;
I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall
recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas." A
reasonable person would imagine an obedient disciple to then reply. "Ok,
for those recommended to be such, what is their duty?" But what we see is a line of questioning built on assumptions and leaps to false conclusions that Srila Prabhupada is forced to clarify, all leading to reveal the minds of these people, almost every one of which is known today to have been overly ambitious and repeatedly disobedient to the point of criminality. They were trying to determine whether the "officiating acharya" would be a Guru and have their own disciples. One way of understanding is that Srila Prabhupada knew the ambition of these 11 disciples, and made Tamal type the letter of 7/9 in such a way, [as explained in discussion #5], to make it very clear what their actual position was to be in the plan for the "when no longer with us" scenario, that they were not going to be "regular gurus" but were designated "ritvik-representatives of the acharya" and that the new disciples were to be owned by Srila Prabhupada, and not these ritviks. And they were to remain in such post until such further orders, ["when I order"], when they were complete in training, and qualified and ordered by Srila Prabhupada, then perhaps they can be "regular gurus." This was the case with Srila Prabhupada himself. At the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's passing, there was no formal naming of a successor acharya, but later it was obvious that Srila Prabhupada was ordered in a transcendental way by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta because of Srila Prabhupada's obvious self effulgence and obviously being qualified. And
this tape was determined by professional forensic scientists to show
strong evidence of falsification and editing. Notice that which follows
the first 2 clear and complete sentences is composed of a questioning
where much clarification is needed, and some statements do not follow
the others in a way that any reasonable person would feel was clear. Here
is the link for the entire conversation, for reference- link So
here we have the beginnings of the negotiations on who will be involved
in the formal initiation ceremony in the future and what their role will
be. Discussion # 7 - Not so confusing after all Revealing Disclosures When the acharya declares 3 times, it is confirmed. Devotee_1:
I wrote to a godbrother,
who is a temple president, who doesn't accept the ritvik idea. Our
exchange was about the appointment tape, 5/28/77, wherein they say that
Srila Prabhupada ordered them to be gurus. He says that devotees in
Iskcon feel that the ritvik idea is offensive to Srila Prabhupada and
therefore ritviks should not be allowed in Iskcon temples. Devotee_2: Ok, we will discuss their view on this appointment tape, and why they think the ritvik idea is offensive to Srila Prabhupada. Devotee_1:
The question and answer on
the appointment tape goes as follows- (1)
“on my order...” (2)
“Be actually guru, but by my order.” And then Prabhupada
says, (3)
“When I order, you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all.
He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it." The
interesting thing is, how Prabhupada repeated himself three times, which
is the method of final confirmation mentioned in the sastra. Adi
lila 17/23 Translation: “This verse repeats the word “eva” [or
certainly] three times for emphasis, and it also three times repeats
“harer nama” [the holy name of the Lord], just to make common people
understand. PURPORT : To emphasize something to an ordinary
person, one may repeat it three times, just as one might say, “You
must do this! You must do this! You must do this! Madhya
lila 25/15 "To stress something important, one repeats it three
times." Devotee_1:
JAS [Jayadvaita Swami]
and other leaders and gurus say it doesn't exist. I was sitting in a
class that was being given by JPS [Jayapataka] at NT and he said in
class that “well actually Prabhupada never did appoint any one to be a
guru, he was going to but I guess he forgot or something!!” Can you
believe that JPS would say that Prabhupada would forget something as
important as that? Devotee_2: Of course Srila Prabhupada wouldn’t forget naming the next acharya(s). He told us how important this appointing the next acharya was, in this conversation of 8/15/76: Srila Prabhupada - "They did not even consider common sense - that if guru maharaja [Srila Prabhupada’s guru maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta] had wanted to appoint somebody as acharya, why he did not say? He said so many things and this point he missed? The main point? And they insisted on it. They declared, 'Come on unfit persons to become acharya…' Devotee_1: Yes, it seems clear to most devotees, that if Srila Prabhupada wanted these 11 to be diksa gurus at that time, he would have said so, right there and then, on 5/28/77. He would have said they would be diksa gurus, when he was asked the question of what he wanted after he was no longer with us. So, Srila Prabhupada said so many things in 1977, but this main point, he missed? No, that did not happen, he said exactly what he wanted. Devotee_2:
His answer was officiating acharyas, not diksa gurus. He put off the
diksa appointment idea, [which is what they really wanted to hear], by
saying 3 times, “when I order.” Srila Prabhupada didn't
appoint any one as diksa guru because he knew that no one was
qualified at that time. If he thought so, he would have said “diksa”
instead of “officiating acharya.” If
he had ever named them diksa gurus after 5/28, you can be sure they
would have advertised that recording or document all over the movement.
Since we find no such evidence, it only proves that Srila Prabhupada
never appointed any disciple to be diksa guru. TKG
[Tamal Krishna Gosvami] confirmed this point, when he confessed
this at a Topanga Canyon meeting, saying “Actually Prabhupada never
appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed
them gurus.” SDG
[Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami] also was reported to say, in the old journal,
Vedic River Review, that any of his disciples could accept him as a
ritvik acharya, if they wanted to, thereby admitting that he was an
officiating acharya. Hamsadutta said something similar, as did Ramesvara
and Kirtanananda. Devotee_1: Praladananda
Maharaja, [Iskcon guru], has been reported by a recent BTP publication
to have said that there are “no uttama devotees in Iskcon.” Devotee_2: He should know, since he associates with most of the gurus. So if he says so, it must be true. And he should also know that Srila Prabhupada writes in “Nectar of Instruction” that he only recommends the uttama devotee to be diksa guru, and that kanistha and madhyma gurus can only give “insufficient guidance.” Srila Prabhupada therefore does not order any devotee who is less than uttama to be diksa guru. Praladananda Maharaja is therefore saying that no guru has been ordered by Srila Prabhupada to be diksa guru. Many
gurus have privately said that they felt themselves to be officiating
acharyas, not full gurus, and some gurus have given secret ritvik
initiations. TKG [Tamal] did this, he gave ritvik initiation to 2
devotees, with the knowledge that Srila Prabhupada was their guru, the
ceremony being after Srila Prabhupada left our sight. So action speaks
louder than words. TKG railed against the ritvik notion so many times,
but he did it himself! So where is his conviction on the issue? All his
negative debate on the ritvik issue is rendered nil and void. Devotee_1: Well, that’s pretty clear, since we see several gurus saying that Srila Prabhupada never ordered them gurus. There seems to be no argument on that, since the gurus admit it. So, why are devotees still arguing this point? The conclusion seems very clear, so why keep arguing? Why don’t all the devotees just own up to the truth? Many of these gurus have made their sudden disclosure of a candid revelation of what they really think, [because the truth tends to suddenly come out at some point in time] that they are officiating acharyas. The writing is on the wall, so all others should just admit to the truth. Now, on the matter of why the ritvik idea is offensive to Srila Prabhupada, as they say. Why would it be offensive to Srila Prabhupada? Devotee_2: Since it was Srila Prabhupada himself who introduced the terms and ideas of ‘ritvik’ or “officiating acharya,” it seems a bizarre notion that such ideas are offensive to him. Devotee_1: There may be two possibilities in this objection. Perhaps they think that the ritvik devotees, or some of them, are offensive to them, and Srila Prabhupada’s movement, and therefore offensive to Srila Prabhupada himself. Or, they think that the idea of ritvik representatives is offensive to Srila Prabhupada, because they think it’s a preposterous idea. Devotee_2: Yes, perhaps they think that ritvik devotees are offensive. Well, there are several sectors of the ritvik contention. Just like there are many sects of all main religions. There are the orthodox Jews, and secular Jews. And there are many denominations of Christians and Muslims, some fanatic, some not. In a similar way, there are several sections of so-called ritvik devotees, some fanatic, some not, and in Iskcon there are fanatics and tolerant and reasonable devotees as well. Both types of devotees are found on both sides of the fence. Devotee_1: Some ritvik devotees are verbally offensive, [in writing], to the Iskcon gurus and devotees. Devotee_2: True, and some aren’t. Some just want to have scholarly discussions. On the other hand, some Iskcon devotees who were physically abusive to the ritvik devotees. Like in India, they were planning to use weapons and bombs against the ritvik devotees. Planning to wreak physical harm to devotees is more offensive than mere verbal abuse, some might say. So, this goes both ways, both sides are offensive. Devotees of Lord Krishna never resort to physical and verbal abuse in order to make a point. They only use philosophical persuasion, and if that doesn’t work, they give it up, they don’t get violent. Devotee_1: That’s true. So, how is the ritvik idea offensive to Srila Prabhupada? They seem to think that the idea of having ritvik representatives of the acharya, who accepts disciples after he is not in our vision, is a preposterous idea. Devotee_2: Yes, I think this is the main objection. They think it’s preposterous, but … to whom? Is it offensive to Srila Prabhupada, or is it really offensive to them? In argumentation, we usually follow three steps, 1. First you make your postulation [or theory]. 2. You demonstrate your theory, you give your data and evidence and logic, which supports your theory. 3. You make a conclusion, after extensive debate or discussion, covering all the angles of evidence and logic, you come to a conclusion, which is acceptable to all reasonable devotees. So, in this question of the ritvik idea being offensive to Srila Prabhupada, we have #1, the theory. What we need next is the #2 part, the demonstration of evidence and logic. We know it’s offensive to them, but where is the demonstration of logic and evidence? You cannot build your argument on the opinions of neophyte devotees, who recently became devotees in the last 20 or 30 years. You must base your theory on the authority of your own guru and previous acharyas, and sastra. So the real question is, where did Srila Prabhupada say anything negative about the ritvik idea? Where have previous acharyas said anything bad about officiating acharya ideas? Does sastra say any negative thing on this subject? We don’t get any such evidence from the proponents of this theory of “ritvik is offensive to Srila Prabhupada.” We think the only negative thoughts are from these gurus, who somehow think that the ritvik idea will be inauspicious for them. Devotee_1: Where is there evidence for the other way, that this ritvik idea is normal? Devotee_2: Srila Prabhupada says- “the Christians are following Christ, a great personality….You follow some mahajana, great personality….. you have to follow one great personality, acarya…. acaryopasanam, following the acarya. So we have got recognized acarya, just like you said, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Nimbarka, Visnu Svami, Caitanya Mahaprabhu…..You follow one acarya, like Christians, they follow Christ, acarya. >> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation with Dr. Copeland, - May 20, 1975, Melbourne Srila Prabhupada says to follow the great acharya, even Christ, which is all auspicious for any new person who wants to follow the Bible. He doesn’t say that one must surrender to the less-than-pure priests of the church of Christ. So, naturally, he would not recommend new devotees to surrender to the priests of Iskcon, who are still conditioned souls. But, if a disciple actually becomes uttama and is ordered via transcendental medium from Srila Prabhupada, to be diksa guru, even after 1977, we have no objection, we give all support to such uttama devotee. Generally, we are not seeing that. We see the officiating acharya system as being a very good idea for our Iskcon, and several gurus have admitted the same. We see a similar system of officiating acharyas in the Madhva and Ramanuja lines, where new persons take full shelter of Madhva or Ramanuja. And we have three Vedic authorities, Sri Bannanje Govindacharya, and HH Rangapriya Swami, and Lakshmi Tatachar, who all endorsed the idea of officiating acharyas. Some Iskcon leaders approached them, hoping they would debunk the ritvik idea, but in the end they endorsed the ritvik plan of Srila Prabhupada. After reading the 7/9/77 letter, and they all supported Srila Prabhupada’s decision for ritvik representatives. Srila Prabhupada supported it himself, he made the plan, he never said anything negative about it, he never said it was only a temporary plan. All evidence points toward the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada made an officiating acharya plan for the future, it is not offensive to him. We hope this conclusion is acceptable for all devotees. If not, they are invited to add their points to this website. End of discussion #7. If any devotee wants to comment on this, please do so, all entries are rendered as anonymous. Perhaps
we can add more points on this discussion in the future.
Hare Krishna, more later.... The companion Dipikapedia site for Srila Prabhupada quotes To make comments or challenge a point, click here- Comments
|