by Krishna Kant

This is a response to the GBC submission presented in the book: �The Rival Positions in the IRM-GBC Controversy within ISKCON.� (IRM = ISKCON Revival Movement; GBC = Governing Body Commission), published by Martin Luther University, Germany. The following points regarding the GBC�s submission (henceforward to be referred to as �the paper�), can be made:

a)       Though the title states we are dealing with the GBC�s �position�, the paper  does not state anywhere in detail what the GBC�s actual position is regarding how the ISKCON Guru system is authorized by Srila Prabhupada. Rather it simply attempts to analyse the IRM�s foundational position paper, �The Final Order� (TFO), and find weaknesses in it.

b)       The paper consists of 3 sections, with only the last section dealing with the IRM�s position. Consequently over the half the paper is not relevant to the dispute in hand.

c)       And even within the relevant last section, only a few pages are devoted to the conclusion of TFO, and this sub-section is called appropriately enough, �The Final Order�.

I shall therefore in this executive summary be presenting a point for point rebuttal only to this section of the paper entitled �The Final Order�, since this is the only place in the paper which is germane to the matter at hand. Following this executive summary we shall for completeness be presenting a rebuttal of the whole paper, even though most of it is irrelevant. Henceforth throughout this executive summary and the rest of the rebuttal, all extracts from the paper shall be boxed, with my responses following immediately underneath.

It is actually a matter of record that this directive IS Srila Prabhupada�s � �final order� on the matter of gurus and initiations�. No other direction on this subject from Srila Prabhupada after July 9^th, 1977, has to date been presented.

What the TFO actually states is that a directive was given by Srila Prabhupada to be followed in ISKCON. The issue of the system continuing after Srila Prabhupada�s departure is raised specifically by the GBC, who TERMINATED the directive on Srila Prabhupada�s departure. Our position is not related to Srila Prabhupada�s departure at all. Our position is that the directive was issued for applicability in ISKCON, and therefore unless another directive was issued terminating the ritvik system, it must be followed in ISKCON.

We actually state that the word �henceforward� means �from now on�, and that therefore the system was to be applicable immediately on July 9^th, 1977 throughout ISKCON.  However the applicability of the system for ISKCON does not depend on this word, for TFO states:

�Furthermore the argument that the whole ritvik system 'hangs' on one word - henceforward - is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure, with no subsequent instruction to terminate it. Without such a counter instruction, this letter must be seen as Srila Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation, and should therefore be followed.�

(TFO, Page 4)

The paper refers here to the subtopic of the �System of Management� and another paper written by the same author of the GBC paper under discussion. This previous paper was comprehensively rebutted at the time, as can be seen for oneself at the following location online INSERT. The author has not subsequently attempted to make any counter-rebuttal to this.

As we will see however, not a single �key argument� from TFO which depends on this word is presented by the paper. Rather, TFO merely states continually that one cannot infer from this word that the July 9^th directive must be terminated on Srila Prabhupada�s departure, which is the action the GBC took.

This is an implied straw-man argument (a straw-man argument refers to an argument which we have not actually made, and therefore the paper defeating such an argument is irrelevant to the debate at hand), since TFO does not state anywhere that the word �henceforward� can NOT be �implicitly limited by other circumstances or instructions previously given.�

And neither does TFO ever state that it is so exempt. Another straw-man argument.

The TFO never states that other instructions cannot be considered. The whole of the TFO after the first few pages is actually devoted to considering the possibility of such other instructions. The TFO does however find that such other instructions which would lead to the termination of the directive do not exist. Yet another straw-man argument.

As we can see, the paper�s over-reliance on the use of the word �henceforward� in constructing straw-man arguments, has become problematic for it.

The paper then proceeds to quote statements from the TFO in which we refer to the word �henceforward� as used in the July 9^th directive, and concludes:

In all of the places quoted by the paper we refer to the fact that Srila Prabhupada gave a directive which was to be followed in ISKCON �from that moment onwards� (or henceforward, with �that moment onwards� simply being the definition of �henceforward�), RATHER than being terminated on his departure. The �ritvik doctrine� therefore does not depend on the word �henceforward�, but on the fact that since a directive given by Srila Prabhupada to be applied within ISKCON was not subsequently terminated by Srila Prabhupada, it therefore still needs to be applied in ISKCON. Even if the word �henceforward� was not in the letter, this conclusion of the TFO is not affected. How then can the word be �indispensable� to the TFO�s conclusion? Another �straw-man� argument.

The quote from the TFO again refers to the fact that the letter only states it should be applied in ISKCON �from now onwards� RATHER than stating that the system can be replaced by the emergence of a qualified Guru. Each time, the word �henceforward� is used as �short-hand� to refer to this whole argument � that the letter only states a system should be applied in ISKCON (from now onwards) RATHER than be terminated on Srila Prabhupada�s departure, and this argument remains even if the actual �word� henceforward� is removed. Another �straw-man� argument.

Since the time-frame of the letter does NOT depend on the word �henceforward� the above is another straw-man argument. As already explained the time-frame of the letter is for ISKCON, and this time-frame will remain unaltered if other instructions from Srila Prabhupada, which could affect this time-frame, do not exist. Most of the TFO is dedicated to considering if such instructions exist, and finds that they do not.

The paper admits that the issue of the time-frame is what this debate is all about. Yet in the �remainder of this section� in which it will now examine this critical subject, the paper devotes only 2 pages out of its 62 page submission, whereas the vast majority of the IRM�s 76 page submission was devoted solely to this subject. This alone gives some indication of the paucity of the GBC�s arguments. The minimal qualifications required to accept disciples are not at ALL relevant to the current debate, since these qualifications will not at all impact on the time-frame for which the directive is applicable.

This �straw-man� argument was covered earlier. The time-frame of the directive does not depend on the word �henceforward�, but on the fact that Srila Prabhupada has issued a directive to be followed by ISKCON. Therefore the time-frame of the directive is tied to that of ISKCON. This time-frame CAN be subject to alteration from Srila Prabhupada�s other instructions, but such instructions do not exist.

There is nothing problematic about this remark, since such a remark has been demonstrated as being applicable to ALL Srila Prabhupada�s disciples becoming siksa not diksa gurus. The paper�s argument, (given in an earlier section) that why would Srila Prabhupada request his disciples to do something they were already doing (acting as siksa gurus) is negated by the fact that in the same remark above, not quoted by the paper, Srila Prabhupada also states:

�At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become the spiritual master.�

Clearly the same disciples were also ALREADY distributing what they were learning � as this is the definition of �preaching�. Thus we see that Srila Prabhupada is indeed asking his disciples to continue doing what they were already doing in his presence � which was acting as siksa gurus.

Another straw-man argument. Our argument is substantiated by the fact that we have a directive issued to ISKCON to be applied within ISKCON. Therefore we say it must continue to be applied in ISKCON. Indeed this is ALL our argument is. It is the GBC�s OBJECTION to this argument, that actually the directive should be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada, which we are defeating whenever we state the fact there is NO such mention of this termination either in the directive, or elsewhere for that matter.

There is no instruction from Srila Prabhupada which actually states that it should be applied after his departure, since ALL his instructions, where issued for ISKCON, are for application within ISKCON, UNLESS stated otherwise. Otherwise the whole cannon of Srila Prabhupada�s teachings would need to have been extinguished upon Srila Prabhupada�s departure, and this debate becomes meaningless as there would be no instructions at all for ISKCON to currently apply, and therefore ISKCON would effectively have ceased to exist. ISKCON operates today due to accepting that all the instructions which they received from Srila Prabhupada were automatically applicable for ISKCON rather than only for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present, unless there are other limiting/modifying instructions, or the instruction itself automatically terminates at some point.

And the July 9^th directive IS issued for application in ISKCON. Here is the evidence:

a)      The directive is issued to all of ISKCON to follow by being sent to all the managers who run ISKCON � the GBC and all ISKCON Temple Presidents.

b)      The directive is issued for the purpose of satisfying a generic ISKCON-related need � the need for initiations.

c)       The directive is issued for implementation by ISKCON entities � Temples - to fulfill a need of the temple � inducting new recruits.

Therefore the time-frame for the directive is that it is to be applied in ISKCON, as long as ISKCON temples exist, managed by Temple Presidents and GBCs, and ISKCON requires to offer new recruits initiations. And if there exist other counter instructions which could limit the application of this directive for ISKCON, then of course the directive would need to be thus modified. But such counter instructions do not exist.

The first reference states the qualification to become the next acarya. The second reference states the principle that the disciplic succession is continued by a disciple. Neither of these instructions are incompatible with the fact that Srila Prabhupada issed a ritvik directive for ISKCON, since neither reference states a time-limit shorter than the life-span of ISKCON by which a disciple MUST become the next acharya. And without such a time-limit, nothing restricts the Ritvik directive being operational for the next few thousand years, whilst ISKCON exists.

The last reference has been rejected by the GBC since they do not accept that the above �law of disciplic succession� is indeed a law, having declared both that not only was this �law� never practiced historically, but also that they themselves have decided to break it. One is puzzled therefore as to how the GBC can make an argument which relies on utilizing this �law� when they themselves do not agree with it?

The TFO definitely does not argue this, so this is yet another implied straw-man argument.

The latter is used by the TFO as an argument that one cannot be a Diksa Guru in ISKCON unless so ordered. Without this order, the issue of the qualification of a Diksa Guru is irrelevant.

Conclusion

Thus ends the rebuttal of the section of the paper which the paper itself admits actually deals with the issue before us � the applicability or otherwise of the July 9^th directive to ISKCON. As we have seen, the paper has been able to do nothing more than cobble together a bunch of straw-man arguments to try and argue that the July 9^th directive was not for general application in ISKCON. But there has been presented absolutely nothing of substance which may make one even pause to consider that the July 9^th directive was not meant for general application within ISKCON

We will now for completeness rebut the arguments from the rest of the paper which have not been covered above, even though this is not strictly necessary, since the these other sections of the paper do not even attempt to directly address the actual issue before us � the applicability of the July 9^th directive to ISKCON. 

Rebuttal of Rest Of Paper 

This is an interesting statement from the GBC, since it is putting the motivation of the IRM par with the GBC, in that it is admitted that both are acting only with sincere theological considerations. This is a departure from the normal demonisation of the IRM as a movement which exists only to either destroy or take-over ISKCON etc.

TFO only deals with (2). Indeed the existence of (2) is what we claim is itself the chief moral and spiritual deficiency. So (1) is a straw-man argument.

Again another straw-man argument, since nowhere does TFO claim that moral weakness is the proof of theological misunderstanding.

On the contrary the success of �Back To Prabhupada� magazine, which has received thousands of letters of support would seem to indicate the influence is growing rather than waning.

No. Another straw-man argument. Such a concept is not stated in TFO.

It is ironic to note therefore that the very author of this paper, is not one of these persons, since he claims his own spiritual master HH Hridyananda Swami does not even understand such a basic point as what constitutes �illicit sex�, the prohibition of which is one of the fundamental regulative principles of Krishna consciousness:

�(HH Hridyananda Goswami) gives a decidedly different definition of illicit sex than what can reasonably be considered Srila Prabhupada�s view of illicit sex.�

Points (1) and (2) are amazing �straw man� arguments since the paper even quotes a passage from the TFO, but this does not state anything even remotely like what the paper claims the TFO states. Hence since the paper takes as its base this completely false summary of the TFO, it is not surprising as we have seen and will see, the paper misrepresents the TFO�s position all the way through.

Another miasma of straw-man arguments. We do not argue that Srila Prabhupada is physically present. In the TFO we actually state that Srila Prabhupada is physically ABSENT, not physically present:

�It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefiting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been *physically absent* for nearly two decades).�

(TFO, Page 54, emphasis added)

We do not describe �at length� that the current ISKCON gurus are not qualified. Indeed in the TFO we do not even touch on this subject. It is the GBC who routinely announce that their gurus are falling and therefore unqualified to occupy this post.

On the contrary it is the GBC who have now claimed that this letter does not give a broad conclusion. For as mentioned previously, the quote above comes from a letter mentioning the �law of disciplic succession�, which the GBC have said is not a �law� at all since it was never followed before Srila Prabhupada, nor will it be followed by the GBC now after Srila Prabhupada. Thus it is the GBC who are implying that therefore this �law� was invoked by Srila Prabhupada as a one-off only for the benefit of certain individuals! And as we will see later, it is the paper itself which is happy to consider certain instructions of Srila Prabhupada as not always advocating �broad conclusions� but actually �circumstancial� instructions only meant for �individuals�:

�Although the ritviks regard this to be an absolute instruction, it is in fact circumstantial. At the various times Srila Prabhupada gave this and similar instructions, it was to disciples who were not much inclined to study his books:�

(GBC Submission, Next Section)

We have never offered a private letter to one individual as evidence of an instruction to the whole society meant to over-rule a directive which was sent to the whole society. And in the TFO we never concede that Srila Prabhupada�s states something in a private letter which proves the GBC�s case, and therefore must be ignored. On the contrary we show that none of the letters cited as evidence by the GBC actually give any evidence for terminating the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada�s departure, which is what the GBC actually did.

The GBC state the same in one of their publications:

�"...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous acaryas." (Our Original Position, p. 163, GBC Press)

The paper then devotees considerable time to trying to demonstrate that we should consult the works of the previous acaryas, which is an irrelevant subject since the debate is about whether or not Srila Prabhupada�s gave instructions for the termination of the ritvik system in ISKCON. This undue emphasis on writings other than those of Srila Prabhupada, is another sign that the GBC actually have no evidence from Srila Prabhupada to put forward to terminate the ritvik system as set up by Srila Prabhupada.

Another straw-man argument. We have never rejected the authority of the previous acaryas. We have rather stated that Srila Prabhupada�s represents the previous acaryas and therefore whatever is stated by Srila Prabhupada is sufficient to conduct our spiritual lives and it is not required to �jump over� Srila Prabhupada to try and understand what he is saying via the previous acaryas, as the GBC statement quoted above also states.

This is the conclusion to a section which again tries to argue that we are denying that Srila Prabhupada is physically absent, but as we stated earlier, the TFO does accept that Srila Prabhupada is physically absent, and this section of the paper is therefore just one big straw-man argument. Rather in TFO we actually quote Srila Prabhupada stating that physical presence is immaterial, and not that Srila Prabhupada himself has not left planet:

"Physical presence is not important." (SP Room conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan)

"Physical presence is immaterial." (SP Letter, 19/1/67) 

We do of course state the fact that Srila Prabhuapada did leave physical byproducts such as his books etc. But we do not state, that therefore Srila Prabhupada never physically departed, as is implied by the paper. Rather this byproducts continue to assist us even though Srila Prabhupada is not physically present.

Here the paper devotes a whole section to what it admits is only a �minor issue� of �typographical emphasis�. That is, it cannot in anyway shape or form have any bearing whatsoever on the actual debate before us, which is the applicability of the July 9^th directive to ISKCON. Clearly the author of the paper was desperate to simply find something to say to fill up space, rather than tackle the issue head-on. We however shall not be uselessly filling up space arguing over whether a not a word should have been in bold or underlined or not!

The paper here accepts that IF a DIRECT order to cook food is given, this DIRECT order could include an indirect order to use a stove. But this is accepting that in order to know WHAT needs to be done (cook), a DIRECT order for this action must be given. Similarly, we are stating that in order to know what to do � stop Srila Prabhupada from acting as the Diksa Guru of ISKCON � we need a direct order to this effect.

This argument about Srila Prabhupada not explicitly stating that an �explicit order� is required, is very similar to the argument made by the paper earlier regarding the July i9th directive not explicitly stating that it shall apply for �after Srila Prabhupada�s departure�. And just as we explained in relation to this argument that all of Srila Prabhupada�s directives for ISKCON are predicated on the assumption that they are for ISKCON unless stated otherwise, similarly authority from the spiritual master is predicated on the assumption that such authority is communicated via a direct order. Otherwise again ISKCON�s whole basis of claiming that all which it says or does is authorititative BECAUSE they have an order from Srila Prabhuapda justifying it, collapses. Because if authority from Srila Prabhupada did not require an order directly stating that authority, anything is possible.

If the GBC wish to state that:

Only where Srila Prabhupada explicitly states that an instruction must be accompanied by the words �will apply after my departure�; (1)

And Srila Prabhupada�s authority for any action does NOT require an explicit order to that effect unless Srila Prabhupada explicitly states there must be an �explicit order� (2)

Then by (1) ISKCON today would never get off the ground on any level, and by (2) any action could by justified as being authoritative, since one would never need to produce a direct order to that effect.

Therefore it is the height of hypocrisy that though the GBC would never even dream of invoking (1) and (2) as general principles to be followed as the correct means to obey Srila Prabhupada, they will happily invoke them only in one situation which just co-incidentally allows them to replace Srila Prabhupada as �good as god� gurus!

But from where does this �indirect order� thesis come from? The term �indirect order� is never used by Srila Prabhupada. The paper would need to FIRST establish that to follow the guru in an authorised manner means being able to follow the guru via means of �indirect orders�. Only after such a thesis is established by the paper, we can think about even considering these arguments. For example, we consider chanting 16 rounds a day in ISKCON as being an authorised course of action, because we have a DIRECT order to this effect. Srila Prabhupada does not only tell us to �chant some mantra�, and allows us to fill in the rest, but he tells us to exactly what should be chanted and how much. Indeed, nowhere as far as we can see, is any activity in ISKCON claimed to be authorised on the basis of an �indirect� order except in the most crucial and important matter of Guru succession! How convenient!

Yes, in the case of the Gaudiya Matha, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta specifically gave an order that the next acarya of the Gaudiya Matha was not be nominated, but that actually he will �self-effulgent�:

�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.�

(Letter to Rupunga, 28/4/74)

Therefore we can conclude:

a)       Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura definitely did not nominate any acharya to succeed him as the head of the Gaudiya Matha. But Srila Prabhupada did not become an acharya in the Gaudiya Matha. So the fact that Srila Bhaktisddhanta Thakura did not authorize someone to succeed him as the head of the Gaudiya Matha, does not prove that Srila Prabhupada was not authorised to accept his own disciples. We are dealing with two separate things: becoming acharya of the Gaudiya Matha, and becoming acarya of another society. It is possible to receive an order for one without an order for the other.

b)      However the argument that Srila Bhaktsiddhanta did not nominate a successor is however applicable to both the members of the Gaudiya Matha who DID become initiating acaryas in the Gaudiya Matha without this order, and the current gurus in ISKCON, who all became initiating acaryas in their gurus� societies without an explicit order to do so.

c)       Further Srila Bhaktisiddhanta DID give an explicit order by which he wanted to next acarya to be chosen � not nomination but self-effulgence. Therefore EVEN if for the sake of argument we accept that Srila Prabhupada WAS subject to the orders Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja gave for the Gaudiya Matha, there was still an explicit order as to how the next acharya would come � he would be self-effulgent. But for ISKCON Srila Prabhupada did not state any �self-effulgence� system for succession. Rather he did not state any system for being succeeded. On the contrary he explicitly gave a system for NOT being succeeded � the July 9^th directive establishing the ritvik system.

d)      In any case the root of ISKCON�s guru system is not in any case based on self-effulgence, but nomination, since the GBC have not repudiated the principle that the first 11 gurus WERE selected by Srila Prabhupada to take up this position. They have only stated that guruship should not be LIMITED to them (the zonal acharya system).

This refers specifically to the authorization required to PREACH. Srila Prabhuapada answers that discipleship is sufficient for this. But this has no relevance to the subject at hand, which is whether an order is required to succeed one�s guru and become a Diksa guru oneself. Yet another irrelevant argument from the paper.

Another straw-man argument. In the section of the TFO devoted to this conversation, we devote a whole 11 pages to analyzing the conversation, but only 1/2 page to mentioning that since there are many different official transcripts for the conversation, its credibility may be questioned.

Yet the paper does not give a single argument to show how �grammar and reason� has been dispensed with.

There is no admission that TFO uses �hermeneutics� in a �creative� fashion. We simply state here that OTHERS accuse us of this (like the paper has done here). Therefore TFO simply stating that others accuse TFO of being �creative� is not itself evidence that TFO is actually admitting that it is creative. And even a GBC transcript, which was �checked and edited� by ISKCON�s current chief editor of all of Srila Prabhupada�s books, Jayadvaita Swami, has Srila Prabhupada speaking in the 3^rd person.

So this was yet just another �space-filling� exercise from the paper, where a whole of bunch accusations were made without any attempt made to substantiate them. 

However as can be seen, nowhere above does Srila Prabhupada says �that although it is preferable that a spiritual master be a maha-bhagavata, others who are not on the level of a topmost may also accept disciples.� This concession is not stated above. Rather the paper has had to fabricate this concession to avoid the conclusion that they are actually stating that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself, having just admitted that Srila Prabhupada DID say that the Guru MUST be on the topmost level. Therefore if we accept the paper�s conclusion that a Diksa guru does NOT need to be on the topmost level, then we would also need to accept that Srila Prabhupada contradicts himself. This is the only way that the conclusion put forward by the paper here can stand. Fortunately a literal reading of the above quote allows Srila Prabhupada�s statements to stand without contradiction. For the quote merely states that in theory it is possible for a disciple to carry their guru with them. This theoretical point is not incompatible with the principle that the Diksa guru should still be a topmost devotee. It is simply emphasizing that a very powerful CAN transfer their power to their gurus.

But the phrase �the instructor� here refers specifically to Suniti, who was Dhruva Maharaja�s �instructor� in this �incident�:

�This incident proves that the �ik��- or d�k��-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Mah�r�ja can be carried by the disciple even though the *instructor is not as advanced. Although Sun�ti was an instructor to Dhruva Mah�r�ja, she could not go to the forest because she was a woman, nor could she execute austerities and penances as Dhruva Mah�r�ja did.�

The fact that it is POSSIBLE for something to be done, is not incompatible with the fact that it may not NEED to be done. The former merely emphasizes a point, (the power of a disciple), and the latter just states the reality on the ground.

To re-iterate, the above literal reading of the quotes, where nowhere does Srila Prabhupada either say that a non-maha bhagavata Diksa Guru is a permissible concession, or that a Diksa Guru will not be a maha-bhagavata, is the only reading possible lest we unnecessarily foist a contradiction on Srila Prabhupada, as the paper attempts to do. Because as the paper concedes, Srila Prabhupada does state emphatically that a Diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata.

But Diksa is defined as accepting ALL the sinful reactions of one�s disciples:

"In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness."
(C.c. Madhya, 9.61, purport)

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."
(C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa."
(C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport) 

Yet Srila Prabhupada clearly states that these gurus do not accept ALL the sinful reactions of their disciples:

�Unless he is very powerful, he cannot assimilate all the sinful reactions of his disciples and has to suffer the consequences.�

Note Srila Prabhupada does not state that all the reactions of SOME of the disciples are assimilated. This understanding is supported by the other place where Srila Prabhupada speaks of non-uttama adhikari gurus taking disciples:

�One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhik�r�. A neophyte Vai��ava or a Vai��ava 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-adhik�r� as a spiritual master.�

(Nectar of Instruction, 5, Purport)

It is clear that these non-uttama gurus can give Diksa to their followers since they cannot reach the ultimate goal of life and receive insufficient guidance. Whereas we have just seen that Diksa means �receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness�, not �insufficient guidance�. Note here Srila Prabhupada does not state that SOME of the disciples advance, and others do not. But rather that NONE of them receive Diksa.

So in conclusion:

a)      Non-uttama gurus are not be accepted, nor should a person aspire to become such a guru.

b)      Further such a guru is not able to give diksa to their disciples, being unable to assimilate ALL their sinful reactions or give them full knowledge.

c)       Most importantly, again, this literal acceptance of the words used by Srila

     Prabhupada is the only possible understanding lest we again foist a

     contradiction on Srila Prabhupada, since he has stated emphatically that only a

    topmost devotee must be a Diksa Guru.

And as stated previously, in any case, the outcome of the issue of the necessary  qualification of the Diksa guru, does not in any case affect the outcome of this debate, which is the time-frame of the July 9^th directive. If the time-frame is shown to be the life of ISKCON, then future Diksa gurus will have no place in ISKCON and therefore their necessary qualification is irrelevant.

No, as we have seen these arguments were not only false, but were in any case completely irrelevant to the ritvik position, which is that Srila Prabhupada is the Diksa Guru of ISKCON. Even if all these arguments the paper gave were true, they would still not directly impact the TFO�s conclusion that the July 9^th directive is applicable to ISKCON.

Again another straw-man argument. We accept this doctrine, and the fact that Srila Prabhupada as the Bona Fide guru embodies  this doctrine, since the guru is automatically always in line with sadhu and sastra.

The first assertion has been shown to be false, but the latter assertion is not even MADE by the paper! It seems that the author of the paper does not even remember what was written earlier. The paper only tries to argue that the time-frame of the July 9^th directive is NOT �indefinite�, but never states that the directive must cease on Srila Prabhupada�s departure.

The paper only refutes the idea that there was an explicit nomination for the next acharya of the Gaudiya Matha, an idea that is neither put forward by the TFO nor relevant to what Srila Prabhupada actually did.

Summary Conclusion

The GBC�s submission, as we have seen, is very bizarre for what us supposedly a scholarly submission. At such a level, one is expected to at least be aware of the position one is refuting and not just fill one�s paper almost entirely with �straw man� arguments, for this only requires that one possesses no more scholarly ability than that of being able to read. Further there are a number of accusations, where there is not even an attempt made at substantiation. Again bizarre for a scholarly submission whose sole aim was to rebut an opposing position. And finally we have masses of text devoted to offering arguments, which even if they were correct, would not affect the conclusion of the position which is being rebutted. This one assumes was done simply therefore to fill up space, to try and disguise the sheer paucity of the GBC�s arguments. Indeed the paper even offers 3 pages at the end, offering an admitted �crystal ball� speculation as to what could happen in the future. We have ignored this section entirely, not wishing to contribute to such speculation in what is supposed to be a scholarly submission. Indeed the paper devotes more text to this �crystal-ball gazing� section than it does to the examining what is admitted as being the core of the debate � the time-frame of the July 9^th directive.