IRM says:

ISKCON cannot argue that the parampara stops as soon as the diksa guru leaves the planet, and thus can only be continued with a "living" diksa guru successor, when ISKCON gurus themselves are not providing "living" diksa guru successors to "carry on the parampara" after they leave the planet.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

HH Gaura Govinda Swami � Departed 1996
"Parampara stopped" for 12* years
HH Tamala Krishna Goswami � Departed 2002
"Parampara stopped" for 6 years
HH Sridhara Swami - Departed 2004
"Parampara stopped" for 4 years
HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami - Departed 2005**
"Parampara stopped" for 3 years
HH Bhakti Svarupa Damodara - Departed 2006
"Parampara stopped" for over 1 year

*(At the time of press � 2008)

** "Gurudeva did not leave, or could he possibly leave a successor"
(Bhakti Tirtha Swami disciple�s forum, July 8th, 2006)

The private letter sent by Srila Prabhupada to deviant disciple Tusta Krishna Swami, a follower of Siddha Svarupa Swami, on 2nd December, 1975, given below, is not evidence that Srila Prabhupada should have stopped initiating on his departure.

"But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession."
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"I accept that this quotation doesn�t "prove" that a departed acarya can�t initiate. I never said it does."
(HH Jayadvaita Swami, 4th June, 2004)
 

[ISKCON LAW] Resolved, That ISKCON Law 6.3.2. is amended to state:
As taught by Srila Prabhupada, the etiquette of not initiating in the presence of one�s diksa-guru will be upheld in ISKCON. However, Srila Prabhupada and historical precedents also teach us that disciples may sometimes initiate in the physical presence of their diksa gurus. If a diksa guru desires for this to happen, he can direct his disciple to go through the normal GBC procedure for initiating."
(GBC resolution 303, 2002)

[Note: Thus the GBC have themselves ditched the above "law", now allowing any "grand-disciple" to become "guru" in the physical presence of their "guru", with a number of "grand-disciples" already acting as such.]

IRM says:

In the May 28th, 1977 conversation, Srila Prabhupada only mentions "grand-disciples" and "disciples of my disciples", and thus his disciples becoming gurus, if and when he gives an order for this to happen. This order was never given, but rather simply assumed that it was "intended".

ISKCON�s leadership says:

>When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after
>his physical departure he stated he would "recommend"
>and give his "order" to some of his disciples who would
>initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards as
>"regular gurus," whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada�s
>grand-disciples.

(The above is a quote from the now withdrawn GBC paper "On My Order Understood").
 

"Again, this is what we might reasonably *conclude* from what Srila Prabhupada stated. But it is *not* directly what he stated."
(HH Jayadvaita Swami, analysis of the �May 28th, 1977 Conversation�, 13th December, 2003, accepted by GBC)
 

"Now, I agree that what His Divine Grace intended by this was that these rtviks, after his departure, would initiate disciples on their own and that this is implicit in the conversation."
(HH Jayadvaita Swami, analysis of the �May 28th, 1977 Conversation�, 13th December, 2003, accepted by GBC)
 

"Srila Prabhupada never quite comes out and says: "select some of you to take up the service of initiating new disciples," does he? Yes, I agree it�s implicit."
(HH Jayadvaita Swami, analysis of the �May 28th, 1977 Conversation�, 13th December, 2003, accepted by GBC)
 

"Oh, bull! What Srila Prabhupada said was, "Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru haya. Be actually guru, but by my order." How does that equal "I will give my order"?
(HH Jayadvaita Swami, analysis of the �May 28th, 1977 Conversation�, 13th December, 2003, accepted by GBC)
 

"Who is initiating�he is grand-disciple." - Here it sounds that Prabhupada is saying that actually they are Prabhupada�s disciples. Who is initiating? Who is actually initiating? Prabhupada is initiating�"
(HH Bhakti Charu Swami Conversation with Sridhara Maharaja, Navadvipa, Mayapur, August 18th, 1980)

IRM says:

Srila Prabhupada�s many exhortations to his disciples to "become guru" do not refer to them becoming diksa gurus (and therefore taking Srila Prabhupada�s place), but just to become preachers and teachers to assist Srila Prabhupada.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

[Note: The 4 "circumstances" referred to below are-:

a. Where the order for guruship is given in the present tense - Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated that one should not become a diksa guru unless he has left the planet.

b. When the order for guruship is given to persons who are not yet initiated - Srila Prabhupada states that one would at least need to be his initiated disciple to become a diksa guru.

c. When the order for guruship is given in conjunction with the "amara ajnaya" verse since a relevant purport states: "It is best not accept any disciples" - this is counter to the whole purpose of being a diksa guru.

d. When the order for guruship requires a very minimal level of advancement, such as stating that even children can do it etc., since Srila Prabhupada has stated that ONLY a maha-bhagavata can become a DIKSA GURU - this quote is given in The Final Order (see back page).

The full exchange can be viewed at: www.iskconirm.com/hrdayananda_master_of_evasion.htm]

"What you would have to show here is that in these 4 circumstances, Srila Prabhupada states that one can or should become a siksha guru. If he says simply "become a guru", then guru can be taken to mean a teacher, the literal sense of the word. In the case of siksha and diksha, there is a stage in which one formally accepts a guru and enters into a guru-disciple relationship. Followers of Sridhara Swami of the Gaudiya Matha used to quote Prabhupada as saying that Sridhara Swami was his "siksa guru". But as we know, Prabhupada never entered into a formal guru-disciple relationship with Sridhara Swami. There are other instances in which we can see the word guru being used to mean a teacher of Krishna consciousness. On the other hand, Bhaktivinode Thakur accepted Jagannatha Das Babaji as his siksha guru, and his main guru. Thus the "four cases" you mentioned would not apply to such a primary guru-disciple relationship, on the level of siksha or diksha."
(HH Hridayananda Das Goswami, August 13th, 1997, emphasis added)

IRM says:

ISKCON cannot argue that Srila Prabhupada�s ritvik system must be rejected because it is without historical precedent, when ISKCON itself is not following historical precedent.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"What we were trying to do, now you have to understand, had never been done. It had just never been done, and to me it�s entirely natural that in this case when you�re doing something that had never been done; when you�re going to have a single institution with many different spiritual masters and there are many different disciples who are going to have to work together in a cooperative and unified way. Just hadn�t been done."
(HG Ravindra Svarupa Das, Issues in ISKCON Reform lecture, June 29th-July 3rd, 1999)
 

"This is the first time in Vaisnava history that we see a functioning worldwide institution with a committee in charge. We are in uncharted waters!"
(HH Trivikrama Swami, "Dandavats" website, June 18th, 2007)

IRM says:

Having seen that ISKCON itself is not following tradition, we also find that in any case the ritvik single guru system is based on a traditional model of leadership.

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"Two deviations from Prabhupada�s order - the "zonal acarya" system and the "posthumous ritvik" system - rest on adherence to the traditional idea of leadership."
(HG Ravindra Svarupa Das, Allegiance to Guru, to ISKCON and to Prabhupada, 1998)
 

"In effect, the Matha reverted to an ancient, tradition model of leadership, in which a single guru, recognized by all as possessing exceptional spiritual power is elevated above all others to rule autocratically at the seat at the head of the institution."
(HG Ravindra Svarupa Das, Pillars of Success)

IRM says:

ISKCON cannot argue that Srila Prabhupada�s ritvik system must be rejected because it is not traditional, when ISKCON is not following tradition anyway.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"Now, had it been a situation where the institution wasn�t there, then probably that could have been the case, but generally that was the old traditional understanding in India that the guru leaves the planet and the disciple initiates and then it is that guru�s responsibility to guide his disciples. But ISKCON was something very different from that."
(HH Bhakti Caru Swami, Toronto meeting, July 20th, 2003)
 

"But he was trying to change something, and set up a GBC, but we learn that Bhaktisiddhanta had wanted the same thing to happen and it did not happen, because the idea of this GBC is not exactly traditional."
(HG Ravindra Svarupa Das, Issues in ISKCON Reform lecture, June 29th-July 3rd, 1999)
 

"Usually the guru has an ashram and his disciples come to the ashram and get trained by the guru. [�] Generally the guru has an ashram and he hands over the authority of the ashram to one disciple. He appoints a successor. But Srila Prabhupada didn�t do that in ISKCON."
(HH Bhakti Caru Swami Disciples Meeting, August 1st, 2007)

The guru-disciple relationship does not require the guru to be physically present, since he can guide and offer association through his instructions.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"But I would offer that there is a misconception here in guru-disciple relationship. Of course, it is certainly nice if one can have some personal instruction, a personal direction in one�s life from the spiritual master. But one�s success in Krishna consciousness is not necessarily based on that. [�] Srila Prabhupada personally interacted with his spiritual master maybe three or four occasions. I think, he wrote two letters to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and received one reply. And if one�s advancement in Krishna Consciousness is dependent upon the personal association of the spiritual master, directing one in one�s daily activities, then what are the chances of me in perfecting my Krishna consciousness because my spiritual master passed away in 1977? I haven�t seen Srila Prabhupada almost twenty years. [�] So I think there is a fallacy, there is something wrong in this mentality, that the spiritual master is not taking proper care of his disciples if he is not able to answer each and every one of their letters. The spiritual master is not Krishna. He can�t expand himself in 16,108 forms and personally be with each disciple. [�] That�s the way I follow myself in my relationship with Prabhupada, my spiritual master. I had the liberty in one or two occasions to ask from Prabhupada for some personal instruction, but now, if I need to understand something, I read the books or I can solve it with my godbrothers. So then I ask the disciples to do the same. [�] But we do have the knowledge. It is available in Srila Prabhupada�s books [...]"
(HH Indradyumna Swami, Text COM:1974636, 1999)
 

"[...] a young teenage girl who had been regularly attending my lectures in Kaunas asked me a very important question. She asked me how she could maintain in my absence the same enthusiasm for Krishna consciousness that she was feeling in my presence. [ �] I explained to her that there are two different forms of the spiritual master. One is called his vapuh, his physical presence. And the other is called his vani, his vibrational presence. Although the physical presence is more easily experienced and appreciated, the vibrational presence, although more subtle and difficult to experience, is many, many times more important. [�] Vani, the vibrational presence is the instructions we receive from the spiritual master. This can be in the form of something he personally told us or it can be a general instruction that he has given to everyone. The instruction can be spoken. It can be on an audio or video recording. Or it can be written in a letter, book, or article. No matter in which way the instruction is given and received, it is fully active and potent. By comparative analysis it can be seen that vani is more important than vapuh. [�] The spiritual master cannot be in every place at once."
(GBC voted-in guru, HG Sankarshan Das Adhikari, Lecture 9th November 2007).
 

"Nevertheless, you can rest assured that spiritual relationships are not limited to material time and space. Although you did not meet him when he was physically present you can endeavor to cultivate your relationship with him."
(HH Bhakti Caru Swami Istagosthi, April 10th, 2006)

One cannot insist that ISKCON "gurus" are required as substitutes for Srila Prabhupada since they can provide the constant physical association and direction which Srila Prabhupada can�t, when in many cases they do not do this anyway.
 

"Indeed, most spiritual masters in ISKCON travel and preach all over the world and you may be lucky to spend little time in their physical presence" [�] A "realistic expectation of a spiritual master" is that the disciple should be "prepared to be �blanked�" "
("Spiritual Master and Disciple" course notes, Bhaktivedanta Manor, ISKCON UK)
 

"I have said this before but I will say it again. The disciple guru relationship does not provide all the necessary ingredients to sustain spiritual life. [�] We probably all know one or two ISKCON gurus who, with over 500 disciples have, on occasion, forgotten disciples names, personal circumstances, or just didn�t get to hear about their spiritual struggles until it was too late. The 1-500 ratio does not always make for effective communication, support, confidential discussion, relevant advice, and regular personal encouragement."
(Kripamoya Das, "A surprising truth", The Vaishnava Voice, August 20th, 2007)

IRM says:

Initiation does not require the diksa Guru to be physically present, and indeed Srila Prabhupada initiated many disciples without ever having met them.
 

"For almost five years I had seen and known Prabhupada visually from photos [...] But I had never seen Prabhupada in person [�] Then I understood that the spiritual master is non different than his picture. [�] Srila Prabhupada was a transparent media. He transmitted complete and perfect knowledge with no personal slant. I accepted the information I was receiving from the book as perfect and yet could not recognise its author as my eternal spiritual guide. [�] That was the first personal contact with his Divine Grace, although I had been an initiated devotee for two years."
(HH Sivarama Swami, Meeting Srila Prabhupada)

Verse 4:34 from Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Srila Prabhupada�s original edition, given overleaf) asking us to approach a bona fide Guru actually refers to Srila Prabhupada himself:

"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth."
 

"Q: In Bhagavad-gita Krsna tells us to surrender to the spiritual master. Although in the temple we receive guidance from many senior devotees still somehow the relation between the guru and disciple is very unique. We have the relation with the temple president and other temple authorities to guide and correct us as spiritual masters but sometimes we can�t connect with them in the same way."

A: " [�] Now let us come to your point. Yes devotees need qualified a spiritual master and I will say in ISKCON we have the most qualified spiritual master who is Srila Prabhupada. And everyone in ISKCON is meant to represent Srila Prabhupada. In ISKCON who is the ultimate spiritual master? You need a spiritual master but who is that spiritual master? It is Srila Prabhupada."
(HH Bhakti Caru Swami Disciples Meeting, August 1st, 2007)

IRM says:

Srila Prabhupada should remain the diksa guru for the lifetime of ISKCON, with no other gurus replacing him, just as Jesus is the only guru for the Christians.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"What Jesus is to Christianity and what Muhammed is to Islam, Srila Prabhupada should be that to ISKCON."
(HH Bhakti Caru Swami, Day 3, LA Seminar, �Questions and Answers�, Published on June 11th, 2000)
 

"I had no doubt that Srila Prabhupada was equal to Lord Jesus in every way."
(HH Tamala Krsna Goswami, Servant of the Servant, BBT 1984, p.25, emphasis added)

IRM says:

We must base our conclusions only on the words of Srila Prabhupada, and not try and "jump over" him and quote from outside his teachings.
 

"...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, GBC Press, p.163)

IRM says:

Activities meant to reform deviations from Srila Prabhupada�s orders, even if it involves criticising devotees, is permissible.
 

ISKCON�s leadership says:

"There is no doubt that in the activities of reform I had to criticize many devotees who�deviations and shortcomings notwithstanding�harbored an inviolable seed of devotion to Prabhupada and Krsna."
(HG Ravindra Svarupa Das, Pillars of Success)
 

"As the GBC cannot be expected to take needed action to stop deviations before they become disasters, it seems the only recourse for responsible members of ISKCON is to take the matter to gutter level, i.e. the internet. Painful and undignified as such public laundry-washing may be, it might at least create an awareness of deviations and warn devotees not to get sidelined into weird cults going on in the name of ISKCON."
(HH Bhakti Vikash Swami, PAMHO Text: 7160561, March 23rd, 2003)