We continue our famous “An error in every sentence” series, where various ISKCON leaders are shown speaking so much contradictory gibberish on the issue of Guru in ISKCON, thereby making practically an “error in every sentence”. This time it’s the turn of another GBC voted-in Guru hoaxer, His Holiness Indradyumna Swami (IDS). Comments from him are taken from a lecture entitled “Attack on ISKCON” which he gave in Moscow on 28/11/98, and shall be enclosed in speech marks “ ” thus, with our comments following underneath.
Yes there is a very strong rtvik movement going around the world, which is even stronger today, headed up by the IRM.
But IDS’s claim about how we substantiate our position is a Straw man argument (meaning a false argument ascribed to an opponent to discredit him usually because what he actually says cannot be refuted).
Srila Prabhupada’s position as ISKCON’s diksa guru does not depend on his unauthorised successors falling down. Even if they did not fall Srila Prabhupada would still be ISKCON’s diksa guru by virtue of establishing himself in this position, and not authorising any successors.
And in the time that Srila Prabhupada was present, what he established for ISKCON was a system whereby most persons got initiated simply on the recommendation of the temple president, never actually meeting Srila Prabhupada either before, during or even after the initiation.
This was the standard.
And shortly before his departure, Srila Prabhupada formalised this system so it could operate permanently in ISKCON without the need for his physical presence, by appointing ritviks.
Yet when the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada established is mentioned, instead of just accepting that “his principles of ISKCON in the way in which he asked us to execute ISKCON, are also perfect” as IDS claims, he will later contradictorily claim that it can not possibly be perfect since it has not been done before by someone else!
Yet when it comes to the ritvik issue, IDS and his GBC colleagues hypocritically take the opposite position – that Srila Prabhupada could not possibly have set up the ritvik system for ISKCON because “it is not in sastra”.
So the GBC argument that Ritvik is not valued because it's not in the scriptures, is a bogus argument. It undermines Srila Prabhupada's position. He's a fully self-realized soul, pure devotee of the Lord.”
Yes Srila Prabhupada did not say any person should become his successor spiritual master for ISKCON. Rather he only said the GBC would be the “ultimate managing authority”.
- So why did the GBC deviate by making not one, but almost 80 successor spiritual masters for ISKCON?
ISKCON is the society founded by Srila Prabhupada in 1966, in which he established himself as the sole Diksa Guru for the society.
This society no longer exists – rather we have an organisation of the same name which instead of Srila Prabhupada as the spiritual master has 80 successor unauthorised gurus, one of whom is IDS himself.
If ISKCON today is deviating from the organisation which Srila Prabhupada founded, then it is not the ISKCON which Srila Prabhupada founded.
Therefore it is this deviant organisation which has itself abandoned Srila Prabhupada.
- But why isn’t Maharaja’s blood boiling that he and many others also abandoned the ship which Srila Prabhupada established in 1966 with him at the helm as the captain, and instead established their own ship with himself and 80 other new successor captains who will be responsible to guide all newcomers as the movement’s gurus?
Clearly if that mistake is having usurped the position of the Guru, Srila Prabhupada, then what you have left is not the ISKCON which Srila Prabhupada established, but some other deviant organisation simply having the same name.
Yet the devotees who attempt to help ISKCON correct its mistakes – the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM) – are themselves asked to leave by ISKCON’s management, since no one is allowed to speak the truth about the guru hoax – even though it can be documented via the words of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON’s own leaders
– please see BTP Special Issues 1 and 2.
But if a disciple’s ISKCON Guru falls down, then by ISKCON’s own policies the disciple is no longer considered “born” of that fallen guru. And if as IDS claims the Gaudiya Matha is meant for “going back to Godhead” and have “many exalted members”, then such disciples would be justified in going to the Gaudiya Matha.
- Does IDS think before he speaks?
1) We cannot go to the Gaudiya Matha because we must stay with the person from whom we are born, and this is Srila Prabhupada, from whose mercy we are born.
So IDS’s instructions can be freely adjusted depending on whether he is speaking about himself or a rival competitor guru. And later on we will see that IDS wonders why no one is buying his contradictory hypocritical double-talk.
- As we said before, does he even think before he speaks?
It is only because of Prabhupada that these people like IDS and the other unauthorised ISKCON gurus have any access to anyone as well. Yet this has never stopped them from taking lots of disciples for themselves.
So following their example, others have also followed suit.
IDS also simply takes advantage by poaching persons who are made devotees via Srila Prabhupada’s books. In both cases, a person is made a devotee by Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and is attracted to Srila Prabhupada. Then someone else comes along and takes advantage of this and takes the person as his own disciple – whether it is an ISKCON guru or a Gaudiya Matha guru.
IDS is effectively saying that only he and his ISKCON guru colleagues have the right to steal from Srila Prabhupada, and the other would-be thieves should not disturb their stealing program.
Actually Srila Prabhupada stated that he was worried his own disciples would do the same thing as the Gaudiya Matha:
Here Srila Prabhupada agrees that his own disciples may try and become Guru just like the Gaudiya Matha by proposing that “very strong management and vigilant observation” are required to check this.
And yet IDS will propose later on, that the very next day after Srila Prabhupada stated the anti-guru measure above, Srila Prabhupada went ahead and appointed 11 men to be successor gurus!
More contradictory double-talk from IDS.
It is not possible for a Vaisnava to have any jealousy:
Envy and jealousy are manifested by mundane people, not by Vaisnavas.
(C. C., Madhya 1:218)
Yet IDS claims that Sridhara Maharaja was both jealous and he went back to Godhead!
So to try and justify his concocted, convoluted and contradictory - “Srila Prabhuapada is the Guru (when talking about the Gaudiya Matha)/Srila Prabhupada is not the Guru (when talking about myself)/Gaudiya Matha are great-but we must stay away from them”
– IDS ends up just speaking nonsense upon nonsense.
But the same argument also applies to the ISKCON gurus who are also replacing Srila Prabhupada as the Diksa Guru of ISKCON. They wish to hypocritically argue that they can replace Srila Prabhupada but other Gurus cannot.
And as our papers, magazines and books document in copious detail, the ISKCON gurus are also saying more than just one thing different from Srila Prabhupada!
So when it comes to the Gaudiya Matha, all of a sudden Srila Prabhupada is wheeled out as the personality to whom we should owe allegiance.
Yet in ISKCON itself, allegiance to Srila Prabhupada without allegiance to an unauthorised successor guru like IDS will lead to one being branded a heretical ritvik.
Any sane person would be dumb-founded that IDS is dumb-founded, when it is IDS who is telling everyone that:
- The Gaudiya Matha takes you back to Godhead, and one of their main leaders has definitely gone back to Godhead.
- The Gaudiya Matha is full of many exalted great souls, with Narayana Maharaja himself a “very advanced soul”.
- And its possible they may actually say the same thing as ISKCON and not criticise ISKCON.
- Meanwhile tons of ISKCON’s gurus have fallen.
Given all this, IDS is still surprised that devotees would want to take instruction from the Gaudiya Matha!
- Like we have repeatedly said, does IDS even think before he speaks?
Here is a perfect example of IDS being guilty of the very deviation he gives as a reason for not going to the Gaudiya Matha: saying something different to Srila Prabhupada. IDS claims that a lower level realised Guru is sufficient for taking a person back to Godhead. Srila Prabhupada states the opposite:
“One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.”
(Nectar of Instruction, text 5)
And as IDS correctly stated earlier, saying even one thing different from Srila Prabhupada creates chaos, as we have seen in ISKCON, with many of these unqualified gurus having decided to abandon their disciples leaving them stranded.
But when IDS joined the movement as a neophyte, he also delivered exactly the same perfect letter in the form of Srila Prabhupada’s books and teachings. So IDS is not doing anything different from what he did previously as a neophyte devotee.
- Why then does IDS suddenly need to be worshipped as good as God, and be seen as a successor replacement Guru to Srila Prabhupada?
IDS has effectively admitted that he is a janitor still doing janitor work, who has decided to occupy the boss’s seat just because the boss has left the building.
- Why can’t he just continue doing the same janitor work of handing over Srila Prabhupada’s message but stay as a janitor?
Now IDS admits what we quoted earlier, that he actually is not able to elevate the disciple back to Godhead.
IDS admits that actually Srila Prabhupada is taking everyone back to Godhead, and all he does is bring the person to Srila Prabhupada, which means he is acting no differently to any other preacher in the movement. Because during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence, IDS would preach and bring the person to Srila Prabhupada to be taken back to Godhead. And now he admits he is doing exactly the same thing.
Yet magically, now he has to be worshipped as Good as God, and regarded as Srila Prabhupada’s successor Guru, without whom one is not able to access Srila Prabhupada’s mercy directly.
- And the reason for this?
- What extra ingredient is IDS providing?
- What is missing?
Nothing.
We follow Srila Prabhupada and he delivers us back to Godhead exactly as was being done before, with ISKCON devotees simply connecting us to Srila Prabhupada by giving us his books and performing initiation ceremonies.
And IDS is even admitting all this!
Yet he still wants to be worshipped as Srila Prabhupada’s good as God successor.
This is cheating of the highest order!
Again, IDS is claiming that the Gaudiya Matha gurus are “millions of lives more advanced” than himself. And yet this is supposed to be IDS giving arguments as to why his disciples should NOT go to take their association!
- What more could IDS possibly say if he was actually trying to promote the Gaudiya Matha gurus, rather than keep persons away from them!!
- So why be naive about the motivations of ISKCON “janitors” who by their own admission are still doing the same janitor work as previously but who now demand that they must be worshipped as good as God, and have usurped Srila Prabhupada’s position to achieve it?
IDS states here that we should “take instructions from those on higher level”, and he has already said that the Gaudiya Matha Gurus are on a very high level, so according to him ISKCON members should take instructions from them!
Yet IDS is supposedly offering all these arguments to justify why one should NOT take instruction from them!
- As we keep needing to point out, does he even think before he speaks?
“So that's one attack on ISKCON. When you attack someone, you hurt them. So I speak like that, Gaudiya Matha's attack on ISKCON, in the sense it's taking valuable ISKCON members, it's confusing ISKCON members.”
The only thing confusing is IDS’s hypocritical double-talk: Gaudiya Matha Gurus are the most exalted souls possible, millions of lives more advanced than himself, they will take you back to Godhead, they may not be speaking anything different to ISKCON, and we must take instructions from those who are more advanced than us
– and yet IDS argues all this still means that we should NOT take instruction from them!
Srila Prabhupada as the Acarya set the example of what a Diksa Guru is. He is the only example of a Diksa Guru we had in ISKCON. Clearly he never set the example that a Diksa Guru is an impure person who will never even progress to reaching his level of purity.
He has never taught that such impure persons are eligible to be Diksa Gurus.
- Why can’t the disciples just hear what Srila Prabhupada has said from Srila Prabhupada?
IDS himself is reading and listening to what Srila Prabhupada is saying, so we know it is possible. IDS has concocted a system whereby Srila Prabhupada’s instructions must be re-heard via IDS, so that IDS is able to concoct a role for himself as a successor guru to Srila Prabhupada.
No, Srila Prabhupada stated that though non-realised devotees accept disciples, it should not be done:
“One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.”
(Nectar of Instruction, text 5)
So our philosophy is the opposite of that stated by IDS.
Its amazing IDS is claiming we should not go to the Gaudiya Matha, because even if they say one word different from Srila Prabhupada then there will be chaos, when he has given a whole philosophy different from Srila Prabhupada!
We are specifically talking about Diksa Gurus in the parampara (disciplic succession), of which Srila Prabhupada states:
“A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal, and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord as they were imparted millions of years ago to the sun-god, from whom the instructions of Bhagavad-Gita have come down to the earthly kingdom.”
(BG, 4:42, Purport)
Knowing that this is the case, IDS instead tries to cheat by speaking about something else - sannyasis.
**1. ** We have to understand Srila Prabhupada’s teachings from Srila Prabhupada himself, not from a book he never even mentioned!
2. However, even using the book offered by IDS, he can be defeated using his own argument, since in the same book it states:
"a disciple who listens to the words of other Vaisnavas, even if their instructions are proper and true, but does not re-confirm those teachings with his own spiritual master and instead directly personally accepts these instructions, is considered a bad disciple and a sinner."
(verse 49)
Therefore since IDS has not first had these instructions from Narahari Sarkara confirmed by Srila Prabhupada, he is a “bad disciple and a sinner”, by the authority of the very same book which he is promoting here.
- Need we say yet again – does he think before he speaks?
We saw earlier that IDS accepts that the concept of GBC is also not traditional since it is not mentioned in the scriptures. But he does not reject the GBC due to lack of tradition, but rather states that if Srila Prabhupada set it up then it must be accepted. So another hypocritical double-standard.
- Srila Prabhupada did not even say this once, never mind “many times”.
This is just a bare-faced lie.
We challenge IDS to produce Srila Prabhupada ever saying that “after a spiritual master passes away he can’t accept any more disciples”.
- And how was it possible that IDS is himself trained, enthused and inspired in Krishna consciousness, when he has had no “living representative himself” for 32 years?
He is hypocritically proposing that we need him as a “living guru” even though he himself does not need one.
- Again does he even think before he speaks?
No he never said this.
Let us help IDS out. The quote he is trying to ineptly give, is different, and states:
“One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master. Brahmaji, as a disciple of the Supreme Lord, received the real knowledge and imparted it to his dear disciple Narada, and similarly Narada, as spiritual master, handed over this knowledge to Vyasa and so on.”
(SB, 2:9:43)
Srila Prabhupada here describes how the parampara came down from Lord Brahma. Srila Prabhupada is not stating that his disciple, “if he is qualified, he will be spiritual master in the future”.
As IDS himself explained earlier there are two types of spiritual master, and Srila Prabhupada said:
“The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am in the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come to this platform.
This I want.”
(Letter to Madhudvisa, 4/8/75)
So Srila Prabhupada wanted his leading disciples to be trained to come to the platform of becoming instructing spiritual masters.
- But where did Srila Prabhupada ever order any disciple to displace him as ISKCON’s Diksa Guru?
- Without such an order how can we possibly remove Srila Prabhupada from his position?
How can this be a valid example since all the disciples (apart from Srila Prabhupada) who started initiating in the Gaudiya Matha were not authorised to do this:
“His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected. So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them.”
(Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)
IDS had earlier alluded to the last sentence of the above letter to stop his disciples from going to the Gaudiya Matha. But he completely rejects the rest of the letter to justify his concoction that its possible for conditioned souls to initiate and for Diksa gurus to fall down.
- Again, does he think before he speaks?
- Is it that he just has no knowledge of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings or he does and he just blatantly lies and cheats?
Srila Prabhupada states the opposite:
“Unless one is self-realized and knows what his relationship with the Supersoul is, he cannot be a bona fide spiritual master.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.28.2, purport)“A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal, and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord as they were imparted millions of years ago to the sun-god, from whom the instructions of Bhagavad-Gita have come down to the earthly kingdom.”
(BG, 4:42, Purport)
And as IDS himself stated, preaching even one word different to Srila Prabhupada leads to chaos, and IDS’s deviant philosophy that unqualified persons can become Diksa Gurus has definitely caused mass chaos in ISKCON, with tons of gurus having fallen and left.
- So why doesn’t IDS follow his own advice and preach the same as Srila Prabhupada?
Here is what Srila Prabhupada named these eleven men to do:
“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.”
(July 9th, 1977, directive)
So they were supposed to read a letter, maybe chant on a thread, and then send back a name. None of these functions required travel. So again IDS has just fabricated his argument out of thin air. The initiating ceremony meanwhile, which IDS refers to, was in any case performed by the Temple President, as the directive in question itself states:
“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.”
(July 9th, 1977 directive)
- Again is it that IDS just has no knowledge of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings or he does and he just blatantly lies and cheats?
We have just established that the ritviks were not appointed to cover for Srila Prabhupada because he was sick and could not travel. Rather as the directive itself states they were appointed only “for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation”. And they were appointed to do this immediately and continuously from July 9th, 1977 onwards, the day the directive was sent out.
- So on what basis, apart from his mental speculation, does IDS insist that the ritviks who were appointed to continue to accept disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada from July 9th onwards, were not meant to continue?
- From where did IDS get the authority to terminate on Srila Prabhupada’s departure, a system authorised by Srila Prabhupada to continue within in ISKCON?
Another bare-faced lie from IDS. Here is the question and answer:
Notice the answer for what will happen “when you leave” is not “they will be disciples of my disciples” but “they will be ritvik”.
IDS does exactly what he claims we do: he twists everything and takes references from other places - because at the END of the above conversation, Srila Prabhupada states:
“When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru, that’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.”
But this order for “regular” or Diksa gurus was never given, and clearly the impending order for ritviks just quoted, is not the order for Diksa Gurus.
The IRM’s position is that one can only be a successor Diksa Guru to Srila Prabhupada if specifically ordered by Srila Prabhupada to do this, and not on one’s own initiative just because Srila Prabhupada has departed. Srila Prabhupada confirms the IRMs position by:
- Stating, when asked at the start of the conversation “what about when you leave” - “they will be ritvik”.
- Stating at the end of the conversation that only “when I order you to become Guru will you become Diksa (regular) Guru”.
- So how can confirming what we are saying throw it out of the window?
- Again is it that IDS just does not have a clue about anything, or he does and is deliberately lying?
Either way it’s not good!
Yes we are very organised because we speak the truth and quote what Srila Prabhupada actually taught, rather speaking contradictory gibberish and speaking the opposite of what Srila Prabhupada taught, as we have thoroughly documented IDS doing thus far.
And yes we came to Russia!
So IDS’s answer to getting some literature from us is to advise the disciple to say exactly the same as what the followers of Narayana Maharaja (NM) say (“my guru has not fallen, he is connecting me to Srila Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada is my siksa-guru). And to also add that Srila Prabhupada stated that there would only be successor Diksa Gurus to him if he ordered them, but he did not, he only ordered ritviks (the “disciple of my disciple” conversation).
And remember this whole lecture from IDS is meant to keep persons away from NM and the ritviks!
We would like to read what IDS would say if he was actually trying to get his disciples to follow the Gaudiya Matha and the ritviks!
1) The system IDS follows is a hybrid of the 2 systems below:
a) You become Diksa Guru by being appointed not as a Guru but as a Ritvik. And this Ritvik appointment magically means one is automatically a Diksa Guru by dint of being appointed a Ritvik. And only if you get appointed a Ritvik can you be considered a Diksa Guru. This was the system followed in ISKCON from 1977-1986, and its basis is still considered bona fide since those 11 ritviks who became Diksa Gurus via this method are still accepted as having been authorised as Diksa Gurus via this Ritvik method. Indeed IDS just argued this, saying the phrase “disciples of my disciples” means those appointed as Ritviks get to magically turn into Diksa gurus via dint of this Ritvik appointment. Let us call this the Ritvik-Diksa system.
b) Then the guru franchise was opened up to others, such as IDS, who became authorised as Diksa gurus by getting the necessary number of majority votes from the GBC, and has been in operation in ISKCON since 1986. Let’s call this the Diksa-vote system.
So the hybrid system IDS and ISKCON follows is a mixture of the two above, called the Ritvik-Diksa/Diksa-Vote (RiDiksoe) system. So since when has the Ridiksoe system been in place since time immemorial?
2) The actual system has always been that the bona fide Diksa Guru initiates and he is succeeded if and only when he authorises a successor, which is that followed by the IRM.
- So exactly which eternal principle has Srila Prabhupada changed by exercising his right to initiate disciples within his own organisation for the lifetime of the organisation?
Well a few years after the above lecture one person did just this and write to IDS with a question. And IDS’s answer was:
“May I ask a question: are you into to Ritvik philosophy? Or are you simply trying to better understand the matter of diksa guru (qualifications-service ) in ISKCON? Do have a disagreement with the particular way ISKCON chooses it's guru's? I'm just wondering what is your interest. I don't mind replying to strengthen your faith in an existing process, but I would be hestitent to gradually enter into a debate if you have any leanings towards Ritvik.”**
(IDS E-mail to inquiry about ritvik, 28/6/2005)
In other words if you are influenced by the ritvik idea I will not answer any of your questions about ritvik.
Only if you are already convinced that ritvik is bogus will I respond!
By IDS’s own definition he cannot be a Guru, since we have demonstrated in detail that he does not repeat the message of Srila Prabhupada, but rather deviates from it.
IDS is arguing here that if Srila Prabhupada did not talk about something then it is not bona fide.
We agree.
Srila Prabhupada never talked about the ‘Ridiksoe’ guru system (see earlier) currently in place in ISKCON, for example.
So if something is not bona fide due to Srila Prabhupada not having spoken about it, then so is the basis of ISKCON’s whole guru system not bona fide.
- So then why is IDS speaking contradictory nonsense which simply justifies persons being attracted to these groups?
We have demonstrated that his hypocritical double-talk merely increases the appeal of the very things he is supposed to be warning his disciples against.
Conclusion
Again we apologise for the length of this treatise, but we wanted to demonstrate that the “error in every sentence” title is not an exaggeration (though we have omitted other statements made by IDS which are either already covered by the rebuttals above or do not deal directly with the Guru issue).

