Whose Final Order?

Discussions with IRM

By Bhima das

On November 14, 1977, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, ISKCON Founder-Acharya, passed away, leaving the Hare Krishna movement (International Society for Krishna Consciousness or ISKCON) in the hands of his young disciples. Five months prior to his departure, he dictated the following letter, addressed to the ISKCON leadership. This letter of July 9, 1977 has come to be called “The Final Order” because it is the last written directive on the matter of initiating disciples. In the letter, Srila Prabhupada named 11 persons and authorized them to act as “rittvik’-representative of the acharya”. The letter is reproduced below. Whose Final Order 2 Whose Final Order 3

Here is the letter, retyped. This letter was written by Tamal Krsna Goswami as dictated by Srila Prabhupada, dated July 9th, 1977. The original bears Srila Prabhupada’s signature at the bottom left corner.

To All G.B.C. and Temple Presidents

July 9th, 1977

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus:

Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently, when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrindavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "rittvik"-representative of the acharya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. HisDivine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:

His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami His Holiness Satsvarupa das Goswami His Holiness Jayapataka Swami His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami His Holiness Hrdayananda Goswami His Holiness Bhavananda Goswami His Holiness Hamsadutta Swami His Holiness Ramesvara Swami His Holiness Harikesa Swami His Grace Bhagavan das Adhikari His Grace Jayatirtha das Adhikari

In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book.

Hoping this finds you all well.

Your servant, Tamal Krishna Goswami Secretary to Srila Prabhupada

Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Whose Final Order 4

This letter of July 9th, 1977 is at the center of a controversy, because ISKCON has said that Srila Prabhupada must have meant for the rittvik initiations to go on only up until the date of his departure on November 14th the same year, and that any and all new initiates from that time are not the disciples of Prabhupada, but of ISKCON gurus or ISKCON the society; whereas a large contingent of devotees note that Prabhupada did not indicate that the initiation process was to be any different after he was gone, and that this is the final written instruction on the matter of initiations and must be accepted as his Final Order. The proponents of “rittvik” initiations call for the new initiates to be recognized as disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

At the heart of the “rittvik” supporters is the understanding that Srila Prabhupada is the spiritual master, and the new initiates are his disciples, but there are differences in ideology amongst the “rittviks”, and they have not been able to pull together to form a unified movement or society.

In 1993, Hansadutta das published a collection of letters and papers under the title Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You. This was circulated amongst ISKCON and “greater ISKCON” devotees who follow Srila Prabhupada but do not accept current ISKCON leadership. The publication is now out of print, but can be found online at Hansadutta’s website “The Bhaktivedantas”: http://www.bhaktivedantas.com. The letter of July 9th, 1977 was included in this publication, and for many devotees it was the first time they had laid eyes on it. At the same time, Hansadutta instructed all those disciples whom he had initiated previously to regard Srila Prabhupada as their spiritual master, and he began to initiate new disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Thus Hansadutta has understood the order of Srila Prabhupada, as given to him personally in the letter of July 9th, 1977 and in two subsequent letters addressed to him personally on July 10th, 1977 and July 31st, 1977 and is demonstrating it practically.

Lately a devotee in Seremban, Mr. Gunalan Krishnan, forwarded to us an email exchange between himself and IRM (ISKCON Reform Movement), in which Krishna Kant Desai of IRM claimed that Hansadutta was not qualified to act as rittvik representative of Srila Prabhupada. This is the discussion that followed. My purpose in publishing it is not to perpetuate a quarrel, but to clarify the IRM’s position and especially to bring to the attention of the devotees that Srila Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th, 1977 is clear and leaves no room for interpretation or second-guessing. Hansadutta is initiating disciples of Srila Prabhupada on that authority. Other “rittviks” have taken it on their own heads to go ahead and initiate. It’s not my intention to pick a quarrel with any one of them. Let everyone do as he likes. But Hansadutta was named by Prabhupada personally and authorized to initiate on his behalf, and he is doing so. I hope IRM will acknowledge Hansadutta is authorized to act as rittvik representative, but the main thing is that Prabhupada recognized him as such and gave him the order. It is not IRM’s Final Order, but Prabhupada’s Final Order for all of us.

Readers can write to KRSNA World or give me a call for more information:

KRSNA WORLD 602 Taman Sentosa Off Jalan Payamas 84900 Tangkak, Johor Malaysia Tel: 06-9787878 Email: [email protected]

Please visit Hare Krishna Malaysia at www.harekrishnamalaysia.com and The Bhaktivedantas at www.bhaktivedantas.com.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Bhima das 13 January 2008 Whose Final Order 5

IRM rejects Hansadutta

The email from IRM forwarded to us by Mr. Gunalan Krishnan

From: “IRM” To: “Gunalan Krishnan” Subject: RE: Hansdutta Dasa the only bonafide Rittvik and BBT Trustee currently………….. Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:25:41 +0530

You are correct that originally Hamsaduta was authorized by Srila Prabhupada to be a GBC, a sannyasi and Ritvik. However he renounced all of these positions by first perpetrating the guru hoax and then falling down. I notice that you do not claim he is still a sannyasi, since he abandoned this position. Similarly he is no longer a ritvik, since he also abandoned this position as well. If it is possible for a person to retain any position regardless of gross misconduct, then we may as well accept him as a sannyasi, and also accept temple presidents who run off with the temple’s money as still being temple presidents etc. What you are actually proposing is a brand new principle with wide ranging implications for the whole world, that:

A person once appointed to a position, will always retain that position regardless of what he may do.

Obviously we cannot only apply this new principle to the position of ritvik, and only for Hamsaduta, just because you say so; we must apply it across the board for all positions and all people. So you need to: first establish that this new principle of yours is indeed in true; and if so, (1) why we cannot apply it to all positions and all people. (2)

I look forward to receiving your evidence for (1) and (2).

Thank you.

Note: This email (above) was received by Mr. Gunalan, who had already exchanged emails as follows: —

From: Gunalan Krishnan Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:45 PM To: IRM Subject: issue 16 received………………

This is a confirmation that issue 16 had been received. If ISKCON is represented by unbonafide gurus, the IRM is represented by unbonafide rittviks. Hansadutta Dasa is the only bonafide Rittvik and BBT Trustee currently. Please visit Bhaktivedantas web site and read Srila Prabhupada,His Movement and You.

Then:

IRM wrote:

Since you claim that Hamsaduta is the ONLY bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada, you will obviously know WHEN he became this ONLY bona-fide disciple – otherwise you could not Whose Final Order 6 make this claim. So pray tell us, on what DATE, did Hamsaduta suddenly become the ONLY bona fide disciple of Srila Prabhupada?

Thank you.

Finally:

From: Gunalan Krishnan Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:44 PM To: IRM Subject: Hansdutta Dasa the only bonafide Rittvik and BBT Trustee currently…………..

According to the July 9Th 1977 letter 11 of the senior disciples supposed to act as Rittvik but after Srila Prabhupadas departure they became full blown gurus, they self title themselves His Divine Grace Jayapataka Swami Acaryapada, His Divine Grace Hirdyananda Dasa Gosawami , His Divine Grace Hansadutta swami and the list goes on.In 1980’s ISKCON underwent dark history, gurus began to fall, you should know all these.

As for Hansadutta Dasa he fell from his Sannyasi’s position so the GBC had him excommunicated in 1983 (please read Srila Prabhupada , His Movement and You at the Bhaktivedantas web site), for 10 years Hansadutta Dasa island himself , in 1992 tried to associate back with ISKCON but welcomed with many rules and regulations. So Hansadutta Dasa formed his own society Nam Hatta World Sankirtan Party (now Bhaktivedantas)

In 1993 Hansadutta Dasa as instructed by Srila Prabhupada became a Rittvik and surrendered all the disciples (which Hansadutta Dasa initiated) to Srila Prabhupada, Hansadutta Dasa repented ( the guru role he had taken formerly) and challenged ISKCON gurus to surrender their guru titles. As Srila Prabhupada states in the Bhagavad Gita As It Is(1972) text 30 purport :

The material contamination is so strong that even a yogi fully engaged in the service of the Lord sometimes becomes ensnared; but Krsna consciousness is so strong that such an occasional fall down is at once rectified.Therefore the process of devotional service is always a success. No one should deride a devotee for some accidental fall down from ideal path, for , as is explained in the next verse, such occasional fall downs will be stopped in due course , as soon as devotee is completely situated in Krsna consciousness.

Srila Prabhupada spent 12 years loaded with many work, do you expect that 11 of the senior disciples to be perfect? First time KC went to the west and many of Srila Prabhupada disciples are westerners, when they put to the test they felldown. Even Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s Indian disciples went astray. Even if IRM devotees who talking out loud now against ISKCON will fell down at that time. So it’s time to rectify the mistakes done and accept the bonafide leader and cooperate. IRM should accept Hansadutta Dasa as a leader and cooperate. That would be a large group and more powerful, in due time ISKCON will be automatically reformed, because Srila Prabhupada’s bonafide instruction is followed.

Currently IRM not bonafide, the Rittviks they self-elected. ISKCON gurus found no more having this His Divine Grace titles, so they are not gurus and not Rittviks, what are they now? Hope to hear your comments.

Thank You Whose Final Order 7

Dear IRM - Back to Prabhupada’s Order

Posted on December 26th, 2007 by Bhima das

Dear IRM Krishna Kant Desai:

Please don’t be offended, but I have to ask,

Who are you and what is your standing?

In the first place, who is this person replying on behalf of IRM? Is it you, Krishna Kant? Please identify yourself. How do we know that this reply is not coming from just any Tom, Dick or Harry? If it is representative of IRM’s official stance, then please put your name and signature to it. (For that matter, what is the hierarchical structure of IRM? Who’s in charge? Is there any such thing as official stance? How do we know that any one of the IRM devotees is speaking with authority and not just off the top of his head? Then we have to ask, Where does IRM derive its authority?)

Assuming that the author of the email below is you, Krishna Kant, we ask What is your standing to denounce Hansadutta as unfit to act in the capacity that Srila Prabhupada ordered him to? Who has authorized you to interpret or otherwise bypass Srila Prabhupada’s Final Order and challenge that Hansadutta has no right to act according to it?

The order of the Acharya still stands

Maybe you think that you accept the principle behind the letter of July 9th, 1977 — that Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to be carried out by rittvik — but you cannot accept the specific instructions in practice because the persons named in the letter have disqualified themselves. But if this is your idea, it means that you are imposing your conditions, and in fact you do not consider the directive to be wholly valid or applicable or relevant, but only partly so. And if you deny that the order is entirely valid or deny the right of those bound by it to execute it, then you place yourself in the same class with those whom you accuse of having neglected and disobeyed the order.

As for Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9, 1977, the order still stands. Failure to act on the instruction of the spiritual master does not render the instruction impotent or null and void. Nor is the order of the Acharya subject to a statute of limitations.

It is presumptuous to say that Hansadutta and the others threw away any right to the post of rittvik representative of the Acharya by failure to act or by disobedience of the order. It’s not left to you and me to decide who is qualified or who is not. Prabhupada named names. When Tamal Krsna suggested that Prabhupada might also deputize Brahmananda (one of the earliest disciples of Srila Prabhupada), Prabhupada replied, “Not unless he is fit.” What was Prabhupada’s criteria for his selection of these men? He did not say. How can we surmise from this that we can fill the post ourselves or that anyone else will be suitable for the job?

It is up to those men whom Prabhupada designated to take up the order or continue to disregard it. As far as we can see, their failure to do so is their only disqualification. But right now, if any one of those persons who were named by Prabhupada (and who are still alive today) were to come back to it, who are we to prevent them? Think for a minute, what does Whose Final Order 8 that make us if we discourage or hinder a disciple from carrying out the order of the spiritual master? It’s too late for some (Jayatirtha, Tamal) and highly unlikely for some others, but Hansadutta has come back to that order, and he has demonstrated his submission to Prabhupada without reservation and duplicity.

Before you, Krishna Kant, had even heard of the July 9th letter, Hansadutta had published it in Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You, and indeed, from that time Hansadutta has taken on the role of rittvik representative of the Acharya, personally authorized to do so by Srila Prabhupada.

You and many of the IRM devotees are young and have no firsthand knowledge of Srila Prabhupada’s dealings with his disciples, but in his letters and conversations there are so many examples where Prabhupada encouraged disciples who had fallen from the standard to resume their duties, take up where they had left off and accepted them back in good standing. 1

Besides that, we can look at the life of Srila Prabhupada and see that whereas Srila Prabhupada received the order from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur to preach the science of Krishna consciousness to the West when he was a young man, more than 40 years passed before he arrived in America. We can understand that he spent all those years inbetween contemplating that order, preparing to execute it. His godbrothers, however, regarded him as a “dirty grihastha” — this by Prabhupada’s own admission. Why? Because he was not an active, full-time participant in the Gaudiya Math. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that some shallow persons might have thought that because he did not immediately take up the order of the spiritual master, then he was either neglecting or disobeying it and therefore asara.

A condensed history

My point is that just maybe we are wrong to presume that every one of those eleven senior disciples whom Prabhupada named as his rittvik representatives deliberately conspired to disobey and misconstrue his instructions. In the interest of truth, we have to allow for the possibility that at least some of them did not fully comprehend the import of that letter or its significance at the time, and were thus misguided or mislead by the persuasions of Tamal and Satsvarupa. This letter was kept on file for more than 10 years without anyone’s recollection of it or making the connection between it and Srila Prabhupada’s designs for continuing to initiate disciples. Many devotees were not even aware of the letter’s existence.

Even supposing — worse-case scenario — someone or all of them did understand what that letter meant and nevertheless chose to ignore it, what can be the objection to one’s endeavor to rectify the wrong? Over and over, Prabhupada reiterates, “Not that one mistake has been done, you should continue. Rectify it.” If anything, the devotee community should come forward to lend support and cooperation to such a sincere devotee, rather than jealously block the way to carry out the order.

Hansadutta has admitted that he was infected with pratistha, ambition, and therefore when he learned that he had been designated rittvik representative of the Acharya, at the time he felt a bit perplexed and even disappointed, as in “But we’re doing this already, so what?” Five months later Prabhupada was gone, and the letter was interpreted to mean that these eleven persons had been singled out by Prabhupada to initiate — which was true — but it was taken

1 Rupanuga reinstated — “You have asked about Rupanuga. So I have asked him to not remain secluded but to work vigorously as grihastha now that he has returned with his wife. There is nothing wrong in his preaching as you are and so many GBCs, as grihastha. So although it is officially a falldown from sannyasa, there is no loss if he will become more enthusiastic by this way. So please continue to cooperate with him and implement all our regular programs.” (Letter to Damodar - Paris, 8 June 1974, 74-06-08) Whose Final Order 9 a step further that the new initiates would be their disciples, thus they became gurus. It is easy to see where this idea came from in the conversations that comprise the so-called “appointment tapes”, but it required instant elevation from senior disciple to “pure devotee”, and this was to prove too tricky to pull off for very long.

In 1978, when I was initiated by Hansadutta in Mayapur, he told me, “I am not actually the guru, but I’m initiating you on behalf of Prabhupada, and Prabhupada is your spiritual master.” On a number of occasions between 1978 and 1983 Hansadutta did speak up that he was not qualified to be guru and that his disciples should worship Prabhupada. When Tamal Krsna confessed at the Pyramid House in Topanga Canyon that Prabhupada had never appointed any of them to become gurus, Hansadutta straightaway had the talks transcribed and brought them to the attention of the devotees in Berkeley, again asserting that he had no qualifications to be spiritual master, and that the devotees should regard Srila Prabhupada only as their spiritual master and understand that he was acting only on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Hansadutta’s outspoken views on this matter and other goings-on in ISKCON and BBT affairs unnerved his fellow “guru” and GBC godbrothers, who banished him into isolation. His defiant return and subsequent falldown from sannyasa — and at the same time, Jayatirtha’s deviations — were a great embarrassment threatening the credibility of the guruship and had to be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Thus Hansadutta was ousted from ISKCON GBC and ISKCON the society in 1984.

By 1989 ISKCON gurus were falling down right, left and center, and reinitiations were rampant. Around this time, Rupa Vilasa and Karnamrta Prabhus began to publish a magazine (under the auspices of Nityananda das) called Vedic Village Review, calling for ISKCON reform and the resignation of all GBCs, and over the next few issues, discussion turned from the topic of ISKCON’s policy of reinitiating all those disciples of the “ex-gurus” to the suggestion that Srila Prabhupada should be acknowledged as the spiritual master of all, and that others were siksa gurus, not diksa gurus, that ours is a shiksha sampradaya. And then Gauridas Pandit happened to recall a conversation in which Srila Prabhupada used the words “rittvik acharya“. The VVR editors caught on to it, and brought it for discussion as an alternative to the guru-acharya system practiced in ISKCON then. The idea was bounced back and forth, evidence given for and against from snatches of conversations, hearsay and tracts from Srila Prabhupada’s books. But then, in 1990, the letter of July 9th, 1977 was resurrected and published in VVR.

Hansadutta had taken an interest in the discussions, and when this letter appeared, he at once understood its significance. It was an epiphany, an affirmation of realizations that had come to him over the years in sorting out his own spiritual jigsaw. Hansadutta followed developments closely, as did ISKCON GBC, who sought to put down the rebellion with a fatwa against VVR and its editors and all further discussion on the proposed rittvik system. Yet the debate raged. Unfortunately, Rupa Vilasa and Karnamrta had a falling out, and the Vedic Village community more or less disbanded. But by this time, Hansadutta was intent on establishing the rittvik system and — more importantly — Srila Prabhupada as not only the head of ISKCON but as the Sampradaya Acharya. He enlisted our assistance to publish a compilation of his letters and papers, Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You. This was in the year 1993. At that time, he initiated a number of devotees, and asked me and my wife to sit in on the fire sacrifice also. I asked him then, “But at the time of my initiation you already did tell me that you were initiating me on behalf of Srila Prabhupada.” Hansadutta replied, “Yes, but this is to confirm that now.”

Hansadutta’s detractors have scoffed that he is merely an opportunist who, when the rittvik train came through, hitched a free ride just to promote himself and at the same time lash out at ISKCON, but Hansadutta says that he is determined to rectify his mistakes and set Srila Prabhupada’s movement back on track, at least as far as he is capable. With this aim in mind, he published Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You, followed by Gopimania, in answer to ISKCON GBC and gurus flocking to Narayana Maharaja, and he stood up to ISKCON and BBTI to defend Srila Prabhupada’s Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and fight the changes to Prabhupada’s books — something IRM failed to see the importance of and never contributed any effort towards. Whose Final Order 10

Falldown from Sannyasa

It has been 24 years since Hansadutta fell from sannyasa and married. It happened long ago. You and others may insist that it is an unpardonable offence or that the only atonement is suicide or ostracizement or whatever you like, but Prabhupada set a different precedent in the case of a number of his disciples who fell from sannyasa. See footnotes 1, 2, 3 and 4.

2 Instructions re sannyasis who fall down — “Prabhupada: No, no. Why not take this… Suppose he is attracted by some woman. Let him dress like a gentleman and keep with the woman as husband and wife and preach. What is the wrong there? Whatever is done, you close up that chapter. Now you become a householder. There is no harm. And live as a gentleman householder and preach. But don’t play duplicity in the dress of sannyasi to keep private relations. That is not good. That is duplicity. Better openly become a respectable householder and serve Krishna. Our service is main thing, either in this dress or that dress. So if you cannot keep yourself sincerely as a sannyasi, then get yourself married. But you cannot keep the girl as friend. That is also not good. Jagadisa: But for Brahmananda, he may remain sannyasi? Brahmananda? Prabhupada: That is his choice. But we say that ‘Don’t be hypocrite.’ That’s all. If he thinks now he’ll be able to continue as a sannyasi, he’ll not fall down, he’ll be careful, let him continue. That will depend on his sincerity. But I say that if you cannot remain as a sannyasi, get yourself married, live like a gentleman and serve Krishna. Why should you give up Krishna’s service? That is my point. As you want to live, any way, comfortably, do it. We never condemned grihasthas. If sannyasa is not suitable for you, you remain as a grihastha. What is the wrong there?” (Discussion on Deprogrammers - January 9, 1977, 770109dc.bom)

3 More instructions re sannyasis who fall down — “And this kind of hypocrisy—they have taken sannyasa and mixing with woman. This is not to be allowed. If you want woman you get yourself married, live respectfully. We have no objection. But this hypocrisy should be stopped. There have been so many fallen down. First of all there will be no sannyasi anymore. I have got very bad experience. And at least, we are not going to create new sannyasis. And those who have fallen down, let them marry, live like respectable gentlemen. I have no objection. After all, young man, fallen down—that’s all right. It is by nature’s way. But marry that girl. That I am insisting from the very beginning, that no friendly liaison.” (Conversation - January 7, 1977, Bombay, 770107rcbom)

4 Atonement for a sannyasi who falls down — “Vishnujana: Srila Prabhupada, how did Chota Haridasa achieve perfection by killing himself after apparently pouring water on his devotional creeper by talking to a woman? Prabhupada: His instance was that even an associate of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can fall down. And if one falls down, his punishment is that, suicide. There is no other punishment. He must commit suicide. This is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s instruc…. Otherwise he is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s personal servant. He cannot fall down. But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu showed this instance that “Even one is My personal servant, he can fall down.” And if anyone by any cause he falls down, his punishment is he must commit suicide. This is instruction. Tamala Krsna: Very strict. Prabhupada: Oh, yes. ‘You have fallen down? You must commit suicide. No more My association.’ Pusta Krsna: Is that the same as in the Bhagavad-gita where Krsna says, ‘For one who is honored, dishonor is worse than death’? Prabhupada: Yes. That is another thing. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu personally taught this. To be victimized by maya is possi…. There is possibility…. Just like Jaya and Vijaya. They were gatekeepers in the Vaikuntha. They also fell down, Hiranyakashipu. So this falldown, there is possibility in any moment because we are very small. We can be captivated by maya at any moment. Therefore we shall be very, very careful. And if you fall down, then punishment is you make suicide. That’s all. Then next life we shall see. Satsvarupa: But Srila Prabhupada, in The Nectar of Devotion it says devotional service is so pure that there’s no prayashchitta necessary. Just again engage in your service. Prabhupada: Yes. This is not prayashchitta. This is exemplary punishment. He was not liable to be punished, but they played that “This is the…. This should be done.” Guru-krpa: He did not kill himself immediately. He waited for a year. Prabhupada: He was waiting if Chaitanya Mahaprabhu would accept him again. But when he saw that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not so lenient, he Whose Final Order 11

Your argument that Hansadutta has renounced all his positions by perpetrating the guru hoax and then falling down is fallacious. First of all, what is the basis for asserting that his sannyasa, GBC position and appointment as rittvik representative were contingent upon the other? He did certainly abandon sannyasa, but he undertook to do the honest thing and married. According to Prabhupada, this was not grounds for removing a disciple from his appointed service in preaching. Why you should cite his fall from sannyasa as disqualification when Srila Prabhupada did not find it so in the case of other disciples?

You further argue that once given up or lost, a position cannot be resumed. Where is the evidence for this? Srila Prabhupada’s conversations and letters (many — not merely the few citations below) refute your argument. What you and I think and say is worthless. Please let us refer to Srila Prabhupada as the authority. You wrote:

If it is possible for a person to retain any position regardless of gross misconduct, then we may as well accept him as a sannyasi, and also accept temple presidents who run off with the temple’s money as still being temple presidents, etc. What you are actually proposing is a brand new principle with wide ranging implications for the whole world, that: A person once appointed to a position, will always retain that position regardless of what he may do.

Hansadutta has in his lifetime many times over demonstrated his faith and loyalty to Srila Prabhupada. He has dedicated his life whole-heartedly to Prabhupada, and although he fell in the line of duty, it is up to Prabhupada and Krishna to adjudicate the matter — not up to you and me. Prabhupada’s leading men made many serious mistakes, and Prabhupada was constantly correcting them, but he did not easily let them give up their duties; instead he urged them to accept their responsibilities and continue their service without interruption.

Hansadutta does not for a day live without regretting his mistakes; he has suffered the consequences. Yet it is somehow not satisfactory to you that he should be allowed to pick up his duties and make things right. Srila Prabhupada’s heart is not so small as yours, and the evidence is there in hundreds of letters and conversations. Ask Rupanuga and Brahmananda, Gurukrpa, direct recipients of Prabhupada’s mercy. Have you done one iota service for Srila Prabhupada that can compare to what Hansadutta did when Prabhupada was here and in all that time since? What is this holier than thou attitude? Are you and I exempt from falling down? Let’s say you were to fall down, would you rather face Prabhupada and pick up your spiritual life again or be subjected to the measures you propose for others, no service, no trust?

My turn to find fault

In your book The Final Order, so named for Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9, 1977, you claim that document to be the basis for your position on rittvik initiations, yet in truth you do not accept that letter in its entirety, as it is, because you do not acknowledge and accept that Hansadutta is a qualified rittvik representative of Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada deputized eleven men. At this time, one is acting on that order, yet you dismiss him together with the other ten.

From this rejection arise the questions how to implement rittvik initiation and who is qualified to initiate and what is the role of the rittvik. Whereas Srila Prabhupada’s directive is simple and straightforward, now coming up with an alternative is problematic. committed suicide. Vajrad api katora. Harder than the thunderbolt and softer than the rose. This is the position. Tamala Krsna: But, Prabhupada, if you were as strict as…. If you were that strict… Prabhupada: No, I am not Chaitanya Prabhu. I am not…. Why you are comparing me? I am an ordinary man. Guru-krpa: So in ISKCON, if someone falls down, it means that he should commit suicide? Prabhupada: No. Gurudasa: We wouldn’t have much of a movement, then.” (Morning Walk - March 11, 1976, Mayapur, 760311mw.may) Whose Final Order 12

Never mind, you take the position that you know what is rittvik and how it is to be executed now that Prabhupada’s plan cannot work. In this way, you have set yourself up as the authorized rittvik camp and have improvised a d-i-y initiation process. From what we’ve heard, there are a few variations — the so-called “50%” initiation, in which the candidate writes his/her name on a piece of paper and puts it in front of Prabhupada, the “90%” initiation by Madhu Pandit, self-appointed rittvik, who gives the name and chants on the candidate’s beads, and the “100%” initiation in which a GBC-appointed rittvik will give the name and chant on the beads (but this has not yet happened, because IRM has not been able to elect a GBC), and then there is your group, which asserts that initiation takes place simply by virtue of reading Prabhupada’s books, and finally the China group headed by Jitarati, in which a three-man committee decides on the name of the candidate and who can initiate him.

But where do you get off thinking that any of these initiation processes is a viable solution, when they are all a departure from the instructions spelled out in Prabhupada’s letter dated July 9th, 1977?

In fact, you are not initiated by anyone, so why should we take seriously anything you have to say on the subject? Of course, you claim to be initiated by Prabhupada’s books. But you also do not accept any instruction from anyone. If, like you, the millions of people who have read Prabhupada’s books are already initiated and likewise assume that they can fabricate whatever they like to do or think and call it Krishna consciousness, what will be the outcome?

“Service means you must take order from the master. That is service. Otherwise it is mental concoction. Actually, the servant requests, ‘How can I serve you?’ So when the master orders, “You serve me like this,” then you do that, that is service. And if you manufacture your service, that is not service. That is your sense gratification. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah. You have to see how he is pleased. Now if he wants a glass of water and if you bring a nice glass of milk, you can say, ‘Milk is better than water, you take it.’ That is not service. He wants water, you give him water. Don’t manufacture better thing. Just like Krishna wanted Arjuna to fight, and he became a nonviolent saint, ‘No, Krishna, I’ll not fight.’ That is disobedience. Krishna says fight, you must fight. Don’t bring philosophy of nonviolence. That is nonsense. What He says, do it. That is service. That he did later on. Sometimes they misunderstand Bhagavad-gita, that Arjuna is not willing to fight and Krishna is inducing him to fight. They misunderstand that Arjuna is better than Krishna. But that’s not the fact. What Krishna says, we have to execute that. We should not manufacture our own ideas. That is not service.” (Bhagavad-gita Lecture, BG 15.15, August 5, 1976, New Mayapur (French Farm), 760805BG.NMR)

Back to Prabhupada or back-biting?

How can you claim to represent Prabhupada when you manufacture your own process? How are you any different from the ISKCON GBC and Gurus you criticize, when you also take it upon yourself to interpret and alter Prabhupada’s order to suit your fancy? ISKCON outright defies the letter, but you sneak around behind it and try to use it as cover for your endless fault-finding and then impose your own ideas for its implementation to bypass the straightforward, obvious instructions — as if Prabhupada’s directive was deficient in any way.

And how can you say that your objective is to reform ISKCON and bring it back to the final order of Srila Prabhupada, when you yourself have reservations about accepting that order as it is and are so unwilling to admit the possibility that there is such a thing as reform for a person like Hansadutta?

ISKCON may be beyond reform. But Prabhupada’s instructions do not beg to be reformed or revised or reshaped to fit our own models, and if the devotees who accept Srila Prabhupada as their spiritual master will unite behind those instructions and cooperate in a spirit of love and trust, putting aside personal differences and old habits of suspicion and back-biting, then Whose Final Order 13

Prabhupada’s ISKCON can live again. But as things are now, there is no unified preaching mission, and outside a hierarchy under Prabhupada and his representative, no one takes anyone seriously, everyone has his own opinion, and there is no parampara.

The bottom line is we either trust Prabhupada or we don’t. We’ve seen the result of not trusting him. All is lost. So what is there to lose by finally adopting his instructions and cooperating with the authorized rittvik representative?

Hope you are well. - Your servant in the service of Srila Prabhupada, Bhima das Whose Final Order 14

Take it from Prabhupada

Posted on December 28th, 2007 by Bhima das

Email received from Krishna Kant Desai in reply to Dear IRM - Back to Prabhupada’s Order

Dear Bhima Prabhu,

PAMHO AGTSP

I had made a simple point which would be applicable to any position and any person on the whole planet, and thus was not specifically attacking Hamsaduta prabhu. Instead of directly dealing with the point, you have gone off on a rant attacking me, the IRM and glorifying Hamsaduta. Let me rephrase my point by breaking it down into a some very simple questions, for which all I want are simple “yes” or “no” answers. Nothing more. The first question is:

Once a person is appointed as a sannyasi, does he remain a sannyasi for life even though he may fall-down?

Please just answer “yes” or “no”.

Thank you.

Your servant, Krishnakant

Reply

Hare Krishna

Dear Krishna Kant Prabhu, obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In your previous email to Mr. Gunalan: -

I notice that you do not claim he [Hansadutta] is still a sannyasi, since he abandoned this position. Similarly he is no longer a ritvik, since he also abandoned this position as well. If it is possible for a person to retain any position regardless of gross misconduct, then we may as well accept him as a sannyasi, and also accept temple presidents who run off with the temple’s money as still being temple presidents etc. What you are actually proposing is a brand new principle with wide ranging implications for the whole world, that:

A person once appointed to a position, will always retain that position regardless of what he may do.

Obviously we cannot only apply this new principle to the position of ritvik, and only for Hamsaduta, just because you say so; we must apply it across the board for all positions and all people. So you need to:

first establish that this new principle of yours is indeed in true; and if so, (1)

why we cannot apply it to all positions and all people. (2) Whose Final Order 15

But Prabhu, what is the value of your postulation? What is the value of my yes or no? In our line, we go by guru, sadhu and shastra — not fallacious logical propositions which cannot be universally applied and which are based on false premises.

I believe Srila Prabhupada answers your question best:

Prabhupada: No, no. Why not take this… Suppose he [speaking of Madhudvisa Swami] is attracted by some woman. Let him dress like a gentleman and keep with the woman as husband and wife and preach. What is the wrong there? Whatever is done, you close up that chapter. Now you become a householder. There is no harm. And live as a gentleman householder and preach. But don’t play duplicity in the dress of sannyasi to keep private relations. That is not good. That is duplicity. Better openly become a respectable householder and serve Krishna. Our service is main thing, either in this dress or that dress. So if you cannot keep yourself sincerely as a sannyasi, then get yourself married. But you cannot keep the girl as friend. That is also not good.

Jagadisa: But for Brahmananda, he may remain sannyasi? Brahmananda?

Prabhupada: That is his choice. But we say that ‘Don’t be hypocrite.’ That’s all. If he thinks now he’ll be able to continue as a sannyasi, he’ll not fall down, he’ll be careful, let him continue. That will depend on his sincerity. But I say that if you cannot remain as a sannyasi, get yourself married, live like a gentleman and serve Krishna. Why should you give up Krishna’s service? That is my point. As you want to live, any way, comfortably, do it. We never condemned grihasthas. If sannyasa is not suitable for you, you remain as a grihastha. What is the wrong there? (Discussion on Deprogrammers - January 9, 1977, 770109dc.bom)

Let us discuss with reference to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, his letters and conversations and personal examples - accepting Srila Prabhupada as our authority.

By your arguments you wish to imply that once a position is given up, it is gone, but there is such a thing as resuming it. We see practical examples of this everywhere around us in the mundane world, and we can see examples of it in Krishna consciousness also — just read Srimad-Bhagavatam. I cited the example of Rupanuga because although he gave up sannyasa, Prabhupada encouraged him to situate himself peacefully in householder ashram and continue his service in preaching and as GBC. Rupanuga was certainly not the only such case, but from this exception alone you have the answer to your questions. Of course falldown is falldown - how can a person be considered a sannyasi when he has fallen down from it? But falldown from sannyasa does not preclude taking it up again in the future. Nor, from the conversation cited above, does it appear that Prabhupada necessarily considers falldown a disqualification from continuing in one’s service.

Hope to hear back from you. I am interested to hear your reply to my admittedly lengthy email, though not nearly so long-winded as some of your attacks on others. I hope I have made my points clear, if not we can further discuss. - Your servant, Bhima das Whose Final Order 16

Three questions for IRM

Posted on December 28th, 2007 by Bhima das

Received from Krishna Kant Desai of IRM, in reply to Take it from Prabhupada:

Dear Bhima Prabhu,

Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

To justify your again not directly answering my mail, which simply called for you to state only one word “yes” or “no”, you write:

“What is the value of my yes or no? In our line, we go by guru, sadhu and shastra …”

Well your previous mail to me was over 3000 words. If for you to simply state just ONE word has no value, then why did you happily state 3000 words in your last mail? Clearly you consider your words to always be in line with guru, sadhu and sastra, otherwise you would not have already sent me 3000 of them? Therefore you can not object to sending me one more word. Indeed you were happy to send me hundreds more words in the same mail where you claim that simply stating one word from you will have no value! You are clearly very fearful at answering my questions directly that to avoid doing so you have to contradict yourself. So try again, and ONLY send me back one word “yes” or “no” (nothing else required at this stage), so that your point will be ‘clear’ for me, as you desire. Here is the simple question again (I believe your answer is “no”, but I just want to be clear, and plus you must learn the discipline of learning to answer the question asked directly, rather than answering something which has not been asked):

“Once a person is appointed as a sannyasi, does he remain a sannyasi for life even though he may fall-down?”

Remember, just “yes” or “no”, nothing more.

Thank you.

Your servant, Krishnakant

You like questions — I like answers

Hare Krishna Dear Krishna Kant, obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Why shall I be beholden to you to answer no more than yes or no? I have answered you already — why do you need now again another one word? Prabhupada’s words are too many or not enough for you? Why this childish impudence? You are either an upstart or a simpleton.

But I can also play the “yes or no” game, if you like. Here are three questions for you: Whose Final Order 17

1. Do you accept Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9th, 1977 in toto? Yes or No

2. Are you in compliance with that letter? Yes or No

3. Do you accept Hansadutta as rittvik representative of the Acharya? Yes or No

From your email exchange with Mr. Gunalan the answer to all three questions is apparently No; and when Mr. Gunalan forwarded it to me, I sought to clarify your position, illuminate the contradictions in it, and call your attention to evidence from Srila Prabhupada to answer your concerns over Hansadutta having left off his duties and sannyasa and whether this was not a disqualification.

Get it straight

Mr. Gunalan had written to you an email :

If ISKCON is represented by unbonafide gurus, the IRM is represented by unbonafide rittviks. Hansadutta Dasa is the only bonafide Rittvik and BBT Trustee currently. Please visit Bhaktivedantas web site and read Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You.

To which you replied:

Since you claim that Hamsaduta is the ONLY bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada, you will obviously know WHEN he became this ONLY bona-fide disciple – otherwise you could not make this claim. So pray tell us, on what DATE, did Hamsaduta suddenly become the ONLY bona fide disciple of Srila Prabhupada?

Huh? Where did you get this idea? Mr. Gunalan had not said anything of the kind. Nonetheless, he tried again, and sent to you another email, urging IRM to accept Hansadutta and cooperate, that “in due time ISKCON will be automatically reformed, because Srila Prabhupada’s bonafide instruction is followed” and further remarking “Currently IRM not bonafide, the Rittviks they self-elected.”

A fallacy

You answered that Hansadutta had renounced his position, and posited that if he can take back his duty to act as rittvik representative then he might as well be accepted as sannyasi again and temple presidents who run off with money might as well be reinstated and that this principle has to be applied “across the board”, implying that the only logical conclusion we can arrive at is that once given up, a position cannot be claimed back. Your premise fails, a dictum simpliciter. You have not established why this must be applied universally in every situation without exception. It does not follow that a disciple cannot be reinstated in good standing or that he cannot resume his responsibilities. You insist on asking this question: “Once a person is appointed as a sannyasi, does he remain a sannyasi for life even though he may fall down?”, and I have answered it already twice by citing conversations with Srila Prabhupada. Since you protest that they are too lengthy and indirect, here’s your mono- syllabic answer: No. BUT neither he necessarily remains fallen for life. You did not dare to ask the question: “Is it possible that a fallen sannyasi might again take to sannyasa in his lifetime?” or the question: “Can a disciple who left off his duties ever take them up again?” Because the answer would have to be yes. There is ample evidence where Srila Prabhupada has urged disciples who fell away to come back to accept their assigned responsibility and resume their service. Whose Final Order 18

Keep to the letter

Who are you and I to dictate terms that might be more palatable to our intellect and senses? Srila Prabhupada gave the order. Your fear that the order will be miscarried again is understandable, but if the person demonstrates willingness to carry it out in all sincerity, what can be the objection? Sincerity is required from all — the rittvik representative and us as well, to surrender to Srila Prabhupada’s instruction and carry it out in good faith. We are all responsible to cooperate and put Srila Prabhupada’s plan into action as dictated by him, with the faith that Srila Prabhupada knew what he was doing and that his order will be successful. [see footnotes 5 and 6] If you are Prabhupada’s Desai-ple, then give your support and cooperation to see that Prabhupada’s order can work, and give up this idea “Kant” — it Can and Must. If there is a discipline that you and I need to learn it is this.

What is the use of continually heaping blame and shame on ISKCON for having neglected the order when you are not prepared to abide by it either?

Awaiting your reply. — your servant, Bhima das

5 “…Spiritual master’s order, you have to accept. There is no argument. In this way you can make progress. Sadhu shastra guru vakya tinete kariya aikya. If we argue… Na tams tarkena yojayet. Achintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet. Things which are inconceivable by you, you cannot argue. Then it will be a failure. You have to accept that axiomatic truth. It is not dogmatic. It is not dogmatic in this sense, because our predecessor acharyas, they accepted. What you are that you are arguing? So that is the proof. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah [Cc. Madhya 17.186]. Tarko ‘pratishthah shrutayo vibhinna. If you argue, there is no conclusion. The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process. Shrutayo vibhinna. Scriptures, in different countries, different circumstances, different scriptures, they’re also different. Then tarko ‘pratishthah shrutayo vibhinna nasau munir yasya matam na bhinnam. And so far philosophical speculation is concerned, one philosopher is putting some theory, another philosopher putting some theory — there is contradiction. And unless you defy another philosopher, you cannot be a famous philosopher. That is the way of philosophical…

“Then where, how to get real information? That is stated, that dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam. The secret of religious process is lying in the cave or within the heart. So how to realize it? Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah [Cc. Madhya 17.186]. You have to follow great personalities. Therefore we are trying to follow Lord Krishna or Lord Chaitanya. That is perfection. You have to take evidences from the Vedas. You have to follow the instruction. The success is sure. That’s all.” (Lecture on Sri Ishopanishad Mantra 5, Los Angeles, May 7, 1970 700507IP.LA)

6 “If we become fixed up in this resolution, that “Whatever we have heard from my guru, the representative of Krishna, I must execute. I do not care for my personal convenience or inconvenience. This is my life and soul,” then your life is perfect. Then your life is… If I make some amendment, addition, alteration, in the name of Krishna, guru, then it is spoiled. No. We should receive the instruction as it is, especially… ” (SB Lecture 1.8.48, Mayapur, Oct 28, 1974 741028SB.MAY) Whose Final Order 19

Krishna Can or Krishna Can’t?

Posted on December 31st, 2007 by Bhima das

From: “IRM” To: “Bhima das” Cc: “Gunalan Krishnan” Subject: RE: Rittvik representative of the Acharya Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:35:09 +0530

Dear Bhima Prabhu,

Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for finally clearly answering my question:

“Once a person is appointed as a sannyasi, does he remain a sannyasi for life even though he may fall-down?”, and I have answered it already twice by citing conversations with Srila Prabhupada. Since you protest that they are too lengthy and indirect, here’s your mono-syllabic answer: No”

So you propose:

When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he does NOT REMAIN a sannyasi.

When a ritvik falls down from being a ritvik he DOES REMAIN a ritvik (Hamsaduta).

Can you please substantiate according to ‘guru, sadhu and sastra’ (since you stated earlier you only speak on this basis), the reason for the DIFFERENCE in operation between these two positions.

Note, the evidence you offer must explain SPECIFICALLY why one course of action is applicable for one post but the OPPOSITE action is applicable for the other.

Note the highlighted words carefully, because none of the quotes you have offered so far match what you are claiming here. I will repeat again - because I can almost predict you will offer evidence that does not specifically state what you are claiming here – please ensure the quotes state exactly what you are proposing here.

Thank you.

Your servant, Krishnakant

Dear Krishna Kant Desai, obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You think by clever manipulation of words and logical fallacy you can wiggle your way out of the Letter of July 9th?

“When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he does NOT REMAIN a sannyasi.” Duh. But we have already pointed out that he is not precluded from taking it up again either Whose Final Order 20 immediately or at sometime in the future. Srila Prabhupada proposed that when a sannyasi falls down, he can either continue his sannyasa (if he feels that he can maintain it) or marry. See Back to Prabhupada’s Order, footnote 2.

It seems to me that what you really mean to say is “When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he is no more sannyasi“.

Fine, let’s test that proposition:

When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he is no more sannyasi. When a rittvik falls down from being a rittvik he is no more rittvik. When a child learning to walk falls down he is no more able to walk. When a man shaves his head he remains bald. When a person holds his breath, he is no more breathing. When the sun descends from the sky it disappears from sight and is no longer visible. When the Pandavas lost their wealth, kingdom and wife they no longer had wealth, kingdom and wife.

All of the above are true statements. But they cannot necessarily be taken as the final conclusion to the story, because they fail the test when we add the tag phrase “until…” or “unless…”. A sweeping generalization cannot stand alone as truth. This idea that once a position has been given up it cannot be taken up again cannot be applied across the board without exception.

Please note that we are not taking the position that “a person once appointed to a position, will always retain that position regardless of what he may do.” Again, that falls into the same category of sweeping generalization.

Srila Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th speaks for itself. It was an order from Srila Prabhupada. Those persons named therein have a duty to pick up that order and carry it out. They may or may not - but the order is there, and it belongs to them specifically. It is their right and responsibility, and only by coming back to it and taking it up can they be situated in service to Srila Prabhupada once again.

If you are not in agreement with any part of Srila Prabhupada’s letter, or if you disagree with Prabhupada’s instructions to sannyasis who fall down to come back in any case to take up their appointed responsibilities in devotional service, then there is no point to discuss the matter further. So again, I ask you to please answer those three questions I put to you the other day:

1. Do you accept Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9th, 1977 in toto? Yes or No

2. Are you in compliance with that letter? Yes or No

3. Do you accept Hansadutta as rittvik representative of the Acharya? Yes or No

If these persons whom Prabhupada named as rittvik representatives are not eligible to pick up the order, that means that you consider they are not able to be reformed. Similarly, all those GBC members and other ISKCON devotees who have defied the order are not able to be reformed and come back to the order. Reformed means “good as new”, at least in Krishna consciousness, where we have been taught that we pick up from where we left off. So if persons who have received all Prabhupada’s blessings and were engaged by him personally in devotional service cannot be reformed, cannot be restored to their service to Srila Prabhupada, what does that say for the rest of us? What is the point, then, of calling your group by the name ISKCON Reform Movement? Maybe you should change the name to “Krishna Can’t Reform Movement”.

At least, this is what I understand from the words of Prabhupada in his Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

“The material contamination is so strong that even a yogi fully engaged in the service of the Lord sometimes becomes ensnared; but Krishna consciousness is so strong that such an occasional falldown is at once Whose Final Order 21

rectified. Therefore the process of devotional service is always a success. No one should deride a devotee for some accidental falldown from the ideal path, for, as is explained in the next verse, such occasional falldowns will be stopped in due course, as soon as a devotee is completely situated in Krishna consciousness. Therefore a person who is situated in Krishna consciousness and is engaged with determination in the process of chanting Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare should be considered to be in the transcendental position, even if by chance or accident he is found to have fallen. The words sadhur eva, “he is saintly,” are very emphatic. They are a warning to the nondevotees that because of an accidental falldown a devotee should not be derided; he should still be considered saintly even if he has fallen down accidentally. And the word mantavyah is still more emphatic. If one does not follow this rule, and derides a devotee for his accidental falldown, then he is disobeying the order of the Supreme Lord. The only qualification of a devotee is to be unflinchingly and exclusively engaged in devotional service.” (BG 9.30, purport)

Unless these persons do take up the order of Srila Prabhupada - his last written directive - they have no service, and they can only remain fallen, outside the grace of Srila Prabhupada.

This is my position, and I don’t care to quarrel endlessly with you on the basis of flawed logic, mental speculation or any other argument that does not take into consideration Srila Prabhupada’s practical instructions. Today is the last day of the year, and I think our discussion on this matter is also concluded. I also don’t have time for it, and if you will not be persuaded by Prabhupada’s own words and example of mercy to his disciples, I don’t know what will convince you. I’m only sorry if we have to agree to disagree.

Wish you all the best. — Your servant, Bhima das Whose Final Order 22

Out of order and out of line

Posted on January 7th, 2008 by Bhima das

From: “IRM” To: “Bhima das” Cc: “Gunalan Krishnan” Subject: RE: Rittvik representative of the Acharya Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:45:28 +0530

Dear Bhima Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.I was concerned, given your performance to date, that you would not offer the evidence required to justify your actual position, but instead offer evidence for another position. You have actually gone further and not attempted to offer any evidence at all! Instead you have decided to throw in the towel and decided to not continue discussing. This is understandable – I would also do the same if I did not have any evidence to justify my position. As usual you avoid dealing with the issue raised, but instead deal with something else. My request for you to supply evidence to justify your double-standard position still remains:

You have simultaneously proposed that one who is appointed to the post of sannyasa does not retain that post after he falls from this position i.e. it is not a life-time appoitment, but one who is appointed to the post of ritvik remains in that post for life even if he falls from it.

We are not discussing whether or not a person who falls from a position, can be reformed to have the opportunity to once AGAIN be appointed into that position – this has never been in dispute, except in your fertile imagination.

We are discussing whether or not the ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT to the POSITION is retained for life, regardless of gross fall-down from the position. In the case of sannyasa you have said it is NOT, but for ritvik, you have said it IS. However you have not even attempted to offer any evidence for this double-standard position of yours, and thus it remains defeated.

Thank you.

Your servant, Krishnakant

Dear Krishna Kant Desai, obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I guess you think your exchange with me is a slam-dunk win, but it looks like you have overlooked a couple of things.

The Acharya has the final say

No, we cannot altogether rule out that the sannyasi who falls might continue his sannyasa. There is evidence for this, cited in my earlier emails (and here below again just in case you Whose Final Order 23 missed it).7 Moreover I have already cited evidence where a sannyasi fell down and re- entered grihastha ashram but continued his service as a GBC under Prabhupada’s instruction with Prabhupada’s blessings.8 This is exactly the situation that you have postulated is not acceptable on principle - where the sannyasa position was not retained but the service was. Double standard? Talk to Srila Prabhupada about it.

All I’m saying is that the order is there, it stands. The order of the Acharya is infallible: it is not voided by nonperformance. Only the Acharya can withdraw it or modify it - that’s not left to you and me.

In the case of falldown from sannyasa, Srila Prabhupada gave explicit instructions what should be done. He set a precedent how to handle the exception to the rule. He allowed that they can either continue in sannyasa or marry. [again, see footnote 7]

In the case of disciples leaving their service, Srila Prabhupada encouraged them to come back and take up their appointed work. So many cases (Rayrama, Hayagriva,

7 Fallen sannyasi may continue or marry

“Prabhupada: No, no. Why not take this… Suppose he is attracted by some woman. Let him dress like a gentleman and keep with the woman as husband and wife and preach. What is the wrong there? Whatever is done, you close up that chapter. Now you become a householder. There is no harm. And live as a gentleman householder and preach. But don’t play duplicity in the dress of sannyasi to keep private relations. That is not good. That is duplicity. Better openly become a respectable householder and serve Krishna. Our service is main thing, either in this dress or that dress. So if you cannot keep yourself sincerely as a sannyasi, then get yourself married. But you cannot keep the girl as friend. That is also not good.

“Jagadisa: But for Brahmananda, he may remain sannyasi? Brahmananda?

“Prabhupada: That is his choice. But we say that ‘Don’t be hypocrite.’ That’s all. If he thinks now he’ll be able to continue as a sannyasi, he’ll not fall down, he’ll be careful, let him continue. That will depend on his sincerity. But I say that if you cannot remain as a sannyasi, get yourself married, live like a gentleman and serve Krishna. Why should you give up Krishna’s service? That is my point. As you want to live, any way, comfortably, do it. We never condemned grihasthas. If sannyasa is not suitable for you, you remain as a grihastha. What is the wrong there?” (Discussion on Deprogrammers - January 9, 1977 - 770109dc.bom)

8 Disciple instructed to continue his service as GBC even though he had left sannyasa

“My dear Rupanuga,

“Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 3, 1974 and I have carefully examined the contents.

“Yes, I could observe that your mind was disturbed on account of meeting your wife privately. There is no need of hide and seek. Better live as husband and wife as householders and in great enthusiasm execute the Krishna Consciousness movement. There are many GBC who are grhastha. you can remain for management of the temples and also work in the schools and colleges for introducing our books in the libraries. The recent reports of this work have been very favorable. Take up this line more seriously helped by your good wife and that will be nice.” (Letter, Paris 8 Jun 1974 - 74-06-08)

“You have asked about Rupanuga. So I have asked him to not remain secluded but to work vigorously as grihastha now that he has returned with his wife. There is nothing wrong in his preaching as you are and so many GBCs, as grihastha. So although it is officially a falldown from sannyasa, there is no loss if he will become more enthusiastic by this way. So please continue to cooperate with him and implement all our regular programs.” (Letter to Damodar - Paris, 8 June 1974 - 74-06-08) Whose Final Order 24

Shyamasundar, Gaurasundar - too many to name them all). There were instances where Srila Prabhupada offered to let a disciple take up a different service if the devotee was too restless or proved unreliable. (Karandhar left his post as BBT Trustee, but Prabhupada persuaded him to come back and act as GBC for India.)9 In the case of the foremost disciples it was left to Srila Prabhupada’s discretion, sometimes to their GBC peers but with Srila Prabhupada having the final say; in the case of the juniors, it was left to the temple presidents or GBCs. It is the special qualification of the Acharya that he ascertains exactly the right engagement for the disciple.10 Do you think that is your business? Is it for you to dictate otherwise when a service has been given by Guru? Do you suppose Srila Prabhupada’s assessment of the eleven men he deputised was somehow inadequate or erroneous? We all know that they were not perfect - far from it. Yet however imperfectly the GBCs and temple presidents carried out their duties, Srila Prabhupada did not readily accept anyone’s resignation; to the contrary, he made a point of correcting them and holding them to their responsibilities, even when some of their mistakes had grave consequences for the movement. There are so many examples – bungling the purchase of the Juhu land in Bombay, the unfortunate incident with the Brijbasis in Vrindaban and Achyutananda’s rejection of the silver swing donated by the Maharaja of Bharatpur, Shyamasundar’s mistake over the gem business and near bankruptcy of the English yatra, Hansadutta’s closing of the Edinburgh center, devotees running off with money, the drug distribution scandal, so many management problems and problems in the devotees’ interpersonal relationships. Prabhupada was a strict taskmaster, but he did not take his own orders casually and did not let his men off the hook.11

9 Change of service

(Welcoming back Karandhar, who had left his service with BBT {ref letter to Jayatirtha, Feb 1974})

“After meeting here in Geneva with Karandhara das Adhikari and several other GBC members, I have decided to send Karandhara to India to replace Tamala Krsna Goswami as the new Governing Body Commissioner for India. I know from experience that Karandhara is a highly qualified devotee and I feel confident in placing him in such an important position for our society as head of affairs in India. It is a great relief for me. Karandhara is very enthusiastic to begin his new assignment and will be leaving for India in a few days. Please give him all cooperation and work together for advancement of our mission to make the people of India Krishna Conscious.” (Letter to Mahamsa, Giriraja, Gargamuni, Jayapataka, Tejiyas, Gurudas - Geneva, 2 June 1974, 74-6-02)

10 Acarya is expert in discerning the proper engagement for the disciple

“The acharya or the spiritual master’s duty is to give direction to the disciples how he can fix up his mind always on the lotus feet of Krishna. He should… He knows how to engage a particular devotee in a particular type of service. Sva-karmana tam abhyarchya [Bg. 18.46]. The… We are, everyone has got some particular talent. So it is the duty of the spiritual master to engage his disciple’s talent in the service of the Lord so that constantly he can think of the Lord. This is spiritual master’s duty.” (Lecture on Nectar of Devotion - Vrindavan, November 13, 1972 - 721113ND.VRN))

“The expert spiritual master knows well how to engage his disciple’s energy in the transcendental loving service of the Lord, and thus he engages a devotee in a specific devotional service according to his special tendency.” (purport, CC Adi-lila 1.35)

“There need be no anxiety over attaining perfection because if one follows the instruction given by the spiritual master he is sure to attain perfection. Our only concern should be how to execute the order of the spiritual master. A spiritual master is expert in giving special instructions to each of his disciples, and if the disciple executes the order of the spiritual master, that is the way of his perfection.” (SB 4.8.71, purport)

11 Correcting a disciple and holding him to his responsibilities Whose Final Order 25

Moreover, Srila Prabhupada expected the junior disciples to fully cooperate with the temple and regional authorities - no question of independently deciding that “So-and-so temple president is not fit and therefore why should I follow his orders?” Any adjustment was to be made by Srila Prabhupada.12

(Ramesvara had failed to keep proper accounts for the BBT and only produced them after repeated requests from Srila Prabhupada)

“My Dear Ramesvara Das:

“Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated September 10, 1974 with enclosed report of the BBT Loan Accounts. Your resignation [from BBT secretary position] will be placed before the GBC meeting at Mayapur and a decision will be taken at that time. I hope in the meantime you will come to your real condition of mind. Your duty is to carry out my orders. There cannot be any question of resignation. If anyone surrenders to Krishna wholeheartedly and engages in His service he cannot say later on I resign. It is not something like material service. Once surrendered, it cannot be withdrawn.

“So never mind. Don’t be agitated. Any complaint may be put before the GBC meeting. In the meantime go on with your duties. That is my request. ” (Letter to Ramesvara - Vrindaban 19 Sep 1974 - 74-09-19)

12 Obedience to Prabhupada’s authorized representatives

“So far your question, how far should the orders of my duly appointed officers like GBC, etc., be obeyed and followed, the answer is that they must always be followed exactly as he says. Have you not heard me on this point? Why these questions are repeated again and again? This individual begging must be stopped. So many questions, it’s not good at all. This question-begging is going on, even some of the important men are doing like that, that I know. So how I can say your question from here? I do not know what you are trying to do by such question. Of course, my authorities and so-called officers, they sometimes also order in such a way that everything becomes topsy-turvy. So you may write to me your grievance—what can I do?—but meanwhile you must follow him exactly whatever he says. If there is complaint, I can make adjustment later. But first of all you must without hesitation obey. It is something like the appealing to the higher court if one is not satisfied by decision of the lower court.” (Letters of Srila Prabhupada, to Jayadhama, Ahmedabad, 13 December 1972 - 72-12-13)

“Guru dasa: If there is a devotees who are not yet purified, if the devotee is not yet purified, why is the temple president a representative of you? If we are not at the purified stage, then why is the temple president a representative of yourself?

“Prabhupada: To carry his order. That is purification. If you create your own atmosphere, then you become impure. If you simply carry out the order of your spiritual master, then you will be benefited. If you do your own business, that is not good. You can not do anything which is not ordered by your spiritual master. Of course, everyone should have sense. It is not that we are dull, stone. Unless it is moved, it cannot… You have got moving power. But the basic issue should be to carry out the orders of his spiritual master. That is your president. Otherwise you are not.

“Harikesa: Sometimes we have the experience of someone in authority who is obviously not following your instructions.

“Prabhupada: Hm?

“Harikesa: Sometimes we have the experience, someone in authority who is obviously not following your instructions.

“Prabhupada: That you have not to judge.

“Harikesa: Ah. Whose Final Order 26

The point I’m trying to make is that the order of the spiritual master cannot be taken lightly. Even when it is not executed perfectly or even if it is neglected, the order is imperative, and only the spiritual master or his authorized representatives can adjust it. As we can see in the examples cited above, there were instances when Srila Prabhupada allowed a devotee to change to a different service, and others when Srila Prabhupada adamantly insisted that the disciple must keep to the prescribed service. So each and every instance being different, how is it possible to issue a blanket decree that failure to undertake the service necessarily means it is forfeited or that the devotee has been disqualified for the service? And who besides Srila Prabhupada has the authority to adjudicate such cases?

“Prabhupada: You are not to judge. You should be, you should know that this man is appointed, and he gets here by spiritual process. I must follow. You cannot judge him.

“Harikesa: Oh.

“Devotee: (indistinct)

“Prabhupada: That is not your business, judging.

“Harikesa: Then we simply wait for further instructions from you and keep….

“Prabhupada: No further instructions.

“Harikesa: Ah.

“Prabhupada: So long he is president you must follow him. If he is wrong, that will be corrected by the spiritual master.

“Harikesa: Right.

“Prabhupada: You cannot correct him. Otherwise obedience is the first discipline. If you do not obey the representative, authority, then there cannot be any discipline. Then everything will be topsy-turvy.

“Harikesa: You would rather have us follow the temple president…

“Prabhupada: Huh? Yes.

“Harikesa: …than to…

“Prabhupada: If he is wrong, that cannot… He will come out.

“Harikesa: Ah.

“Prabhupada: So the steps will be taken by the spiritual master. You cannot, do not try to rectify.

“Harikesa: Our advancement is the same?

“Prabhupada: Huh?

“Harikesa: Our advancement…

“Prabhupada: Yes.

“Harikesa: …is going on.

“Prabhupada: You follow, evam parampara-praptam [Bg. 4.2], gopi-bhartuh pada-kamalayor dasa-dasanudasah [Cc. Madhya 13.80], servant of the servants of the servant of, then this is our.” (Room conversation, Vrindavan, March 16, 1974 - 740316RC.VRN) Whose Final Order 27

Now Srila Prabhupada is no longer physically present, and we are left with this letter of July 9th, 1977 on which to rely as his last written instruction on the matter of representing him in initiating the new disciples.13 Srila Prabhupada is not here to speak to your satisfaction anything different from what’s in the letter. So on what authority do you reject Hansadutta’s right to act as ordered personally by Srila Prabhupada?

Unless you can dredge up any specific instruction from Srila Prabhupada that makes provision for what is to be done in this particular instance, I don’t see how you can put the letter of July 9th or any part of it aside. To do so means that you do not accept the order of the Acharya in toto, but only conditionally - conditions which you set, not Prabhupada.

Do you or do you not accept Srila Prabhupada’s order in toto?

The disciples named in the directive of July 9, 1977 are bound by Srila Prabhupada’s order to act as rittvik representatives of the Acharya - as much as the rest of us are bound by that order to respect Srila Prabhupada’s express wishes.

Why this obstinate refusal to surrender to it? Do we not have faith that Srila Prabhupada’s order will be successful? Do we not have faith that Srila Prabhupada can make any and all adjustments to rectify any mistake as long as we are sincere and surrendered?

“Whatever imperfections and discrepancies may exist, if you all agree to my directions and cooperate in the right spirit then everything will turn out, but it will require everyone involved to be responsible and cooperate in executing and following the instructions of the Spiritual Master.” (Letter to Gurukrpa, Yasodanandana - Los Angeles, 25 Dec 1973 - 73-12-25)

Bringing arguments based on faulty logic and mundane morality to contradict the order of the Acharya is sheer impudence. Bring evidence from Srila Prabhupada’s practical instructions and example to support your position.

Srila Prabhupada’s instruction is simple and straightforward. The persons he named are charged with the responsibility to act as rittvik representatives of the Acharya. Hansadutta has taken up the order. So far the others have not. We are not so daft as to try and say that they are now rittvik representatives of the Acharya, but even though they have not yet accepted that they must act in that capacity, they are bound by the order, and so are we bound to acknowledge the one(s) named by Srila Prabhupada who do undertake to obey the order in all sincerity and humility.

Not only do you reject Hansadutta as rittvik representative of the Acharya, but you go even further to propose that new rittvik representatives can be appointed. By whom? Under whose authority? By what criteria? Is it to be determined by vox populi? Or by a GBC elected from amongst yourselves? From where do you derive your authority? How is this all not a concoction? I can’t seem to find it in Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th or any subsequent letters. Maybe you can tell us where Prabhupada says so.

To make allowance for confusion and honest error, I wanted to point out to you that you are circumventing Srila Prabhupada’s order and ask you to clarify your position. For this reason I asked you those three questions, and ask again (you have not yet answered):

1. Do you accept Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9th, 1977 in toto (in toto means totally, in its entirety, as it is, without addition or subtraction)? Yes or No

13 Instruction of the spiritual master nondifferent from the spiritual master

“There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SPIRITUAL MASTER’S INSTRUCTIONS AND THE SPIRITUAL MASTER HIMSELF. In his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple.” (CC Adi-lila 1.35) Whose Final Order 28

2. Are you in compliance with that letter? Yes or No

3. Do you accept Hansadutta as rittvik representative of the Acharya? Yes or No

If you have not faith in Srila Prabhupada’s words, we might have a problem with taking you as some kind of authority. Non-disciples might not see any disqualification in accepting the letter on principle but not in practice, but disciple means discipline, acting on the instruction of the spiritual master. “Obedience is the first law of discipline.” Discipline means to be directed; not that you come up with your own process of devotional service. Try substituting “Letter of July 9th, 1977” for Bhagavad-gita and “Prabhupada” for Krishna in the following paragraph:

“Our present movement is based on Bhagavad-gita—Bhagavad-gita as it is. We don’t interpret. We do not interpret foolishly because… I say purposefully this word “foolishly,” that why should we interpret Krishna’s words? Am I more than Krishna? Or did Krishna leave some portion to be explained by me by interpretation? Then what is the importance of Krishna? If I give my own interpretation, thinking myself more than Krishna, this is blasphemy. How I can become more than Krishna? If actually we want to take advantage of this Bhagavad-gita, then we must take Bhagavad-gita as it is. Just like Arjuna took. Arjuna, after hearing Bhagavad-gita, he said, sarvam etam ritam manye: “I accept all the words, my dear Keshava, whatever You have said. I accept them in toto, without any change.” This is understanding of Bhagavad-gita, not that I take advantage of the Bhagavad-gita and I interpret in my foolish way so that people will accept my philosophy.” (Cornerstone Laying - Bombay, Jan 23, 1975 - 750123CS.BOM)

“Anyone following the principle in this line accepts the guru as Krishna, and the student must represent Arjuna. Krishna is speaking as the spiritual master of Arjuna, and Arjuna says, ‘Whatever You are saying I accept.’ Read it like that—not: ‘I like this, so I accept it; this I don’t like, and so I reject it.’ Such reading is useless nonsense.” (Krishna Consciousness The Topmost Yoga System, How Bhakti-yoga Works)

Therefore please answer these three questions (above) so that it will be clear to all concerned where you stand.

Don’t be too cocky

You have set aside the points I raised in my first letter to you dated December 26, 2007, expecting to “defeat” me with logic, but Prabhupada’s own words and examples shatter your premise. Moreover, you have repeatedly dodged answering the three questions given above. So talking of “defeat” is a little premature, don’t you think? I will accept defeat when you have convinced me beyond a doubt that your vision of the rittvik system and how it is to be implemented is crystal clear and with the full sanction of Srila Prabhupada. You say that the Final Order applies for the next 10,000 years, but exactly how it is to be put into action you haven’t yet figured out - in other words, you haven’t been able to get it off the ground yet, and I venture to say that for as long as you hold out against accepting any of Prabhupada’s appointed rittvik representatives who demonstrate in all sincerity and humility a willingness to act in that capacity, even if you go on for 10,000 years in this way you will not meet with success.

You delude yourself and others if you think that you have a direct link to Srila Prabhupada. Most of Srila Prabhupada’s initiated disciples did not have a direct link in service, but served in a transparent chain of command - a vehicle for the flow of parampara. Thus although they for the most part did not receive personal instruction from Prabhupada, they were tightly packed up in his association. Whereas you are very junior, and not even properly initiated, yet you take it upon yourself to determine what is to be done or not done without reference to anyone else - except ostensibly to Srila Prabhupada. Actually, when it comes down to it, you Whose Final Order 29 have a problem with the practical implementation of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and have created a work-around. How then can you be sure that you are connected to the parampara? That you are not misguided by your own mind? You may have a sharp brain, but no one can make advancement on the path of Krishna consciousness on the strength of brain power alone.

“Brahma praises Kardama because he carried out the orders of the spiritual master in toto and without cheating. A conditioned soul in the material world has the disqualification of cheating. He has four disqualifications: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to be illusioned, he is prone to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. But if one carries out the order of the spiritual master by disciplic succession, or the parampara system, he overcomes the four defects. Therefore, knowledge received from the bona fide spiritual master is not cheating. Any other knowledge which is manufactured by the conditioned soul is cheating only. Brahma knew well that Kardama Muni exactly carried out the instructions received from him and that he actually honored his spiritual master. To honor the spiritual master means to carry out his instructions word for word.” (SB 3.24.12, purport)

“Actually, any activities performed favorably for the satisfaction of the Lord, under the direction of the spiritual master, are spiritual. But for a person to disregard the order of the spiritual master and act by concoction, accepting his nonsensical activities to be spiritual, is maya.” (CC Adi-lila 14.29, purport)

“When disciples do not stick to the principle of accepting the order of their spiritual master, immediately there are two opinions. Any opinion different from the opinion of the spiritual master is useless. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation. There is no scope for adjusting spiritual advancement to material ideas…. Persons who strictly follow the orders of the spiritual master are useful in executing the will of the Supreme, whereas persons who deviate from the strict order of the spiritual master are useless.” (CC Adi-lila 12.8-10)

You did not in this lifetime meet Srila Prabhupada in person, nor had the opportunity to be directed by Srila Prabhupada personally - as did so many senior disciples, among them Hansadutta. Those persons who were trained up personally by Srila Prabhupada and pushed the movement tirelessly and with full dedication for the ten years or so that they had Srila Prabhupada in their presence received all his blessings, and they have much experience and expertise in recruiting and training devotees to serve Srila Prabhupada and Krishna. How are you better qualified than them? Why do you think you know better than they do what Srila Prabhupada would do or how to serve Srila Prabhupada? Why do you think you do not need to accept their representation of Srila Prabhupada?

“There is a common saying that one should first love the dog of the beloved before one shows any loving sentiments for the beloved. The stage of pure devotion is attained by sincerely serving a pure devotee of the Lord. The first condition of devotional service to the Lord is therefore to be a servant of a pure devotee, and this condition is fulfilled by the statement ‘reception of the dust of the lotus feet of a pure devotee who has also served another pure devotee.’ That is the way of pure disciplic succession, or devotional parampara.” (purport, SB 2.3.23)

“Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu then continued speaking to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya: ‘Consider this point. The servant of the spiritual master is always respectable for Me.’” (CC Madhya-lila 10.142)

“… [Prahlada] considered his teachers, spiritual masters and older Godbrothers to be as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead….” (SB 7.4.32, cited in Spiritual Master and the Disciple, Chapter 4) Whose Final Order 30

“To answer your last point, one who teaches can be treated as Spiritual Master. It is not that after we become initiated we become perfect. No. It requires teaching. So if we take instruction from them, all senior godbrothers may be treated as guru, there is no harm. Actually, you have only one Spiritual Master, who initiates you, just as you have only one father. But every Vaisnava should be treated as prabhu, master, higher than me, and in this sense, if I learn from him, he may be regarded as guru. It is not that I disobey my real Spiritual Master and call someone else as Spiritual Master. That is wrong. It is only that I can call Spiritual Master someone who is teaching me purely what my initiating Spiritual Master has taught. Do you get the sense?” (Letters of Srila Prabhupada, to Sri Galim, 20 November 1971 - 71-11-20)

It is a mistake to discount the disciples of Srila Prabhupada who are higher up the totem pole from you.

“Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science. Uddhava, being well aware of all these technicalities of transcendental science, advised Vidura to approach Maitreya Rishi to receive transcendental knowledge. Vidura wanted to accept Uddhava as his spiritual master, but Uddhava did not accept the post because Vidura was as old as Uddhava’s father and therefore Uddhava could not accept him as his disciple, especially when Maitreya was present nearby. The rule is that in the presence of a higher personality one should not be very eager to impart instructions, even if one is competent and well versed.” (SB 3.4.26, purport)

Even if you don’t want to take guidance from the authorized rittvik representative of the Acharya, at least you ought to take guidance from other faithful senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada and set the right example for so many persons who look to IRM for a way to be plugged into Prabhupada.

Hope you are well. — your servant, Bhima das

P.S. If you have got this far, you will surely complain that this is a very long letter, why it has taken so many words to reply your simple question. But these are only a few words. Srila Prabhupada’s books are comprised of volumes of hundreds of thousands, millions of words. It will take a lifetime for us to go through them all and understand them … maybe more than a lifetime. I believe these are points worthy of sincere consideration, but if you don’t have the time for them, I’m sorry I’m not good at brevity. Your own book Final Order went through so many pages but has not come out with anything conclusive after all that.

P.P.S. I’m posting this exchange in its entirety up on http://www.harekrishnamalaysia.com/krsnablog. Whose Final Order 31

Everyone must comply with the order

Posted on 13 January 2008 by Bhima das

From: “IRM” To: “Bhima das” Cc: “Gunalan Krishnan” Subject: RE: Rittvik representative of the Acharya Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:53:14 +0530

Dear Bhima Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I see that your previous ‘new year’s resolution’ to end our discussion since you did “not have time for it”, lasted less than a week. Unfortunately there was no need for you to have broken this resolution since you have not come back to the table with any evidence, but rather have again been unable to justify your proposition that ‘special rules’ must suddenly apply only if Hamsaduta falls down from a position, as I will now demonstrate.

Your statements will be enclosed in speech marks thus “ “, with my responses being in bold.

[Bhima das: To make it easier to read, I’m taking the liberty to format my statements in blockquote, and leave Krishna Kant Desai’s words in normal text.]

Bhima das: “I guess you think your exchange with me is a slam- dunk win, but it looks like you have overlooked a couple of things.”

The ‘slam-dunk win’ is based entirely on your continued inability to justify your propositions with evidence from ‘guru, sadhu and satra’, which is what you earlier claimed you always speak according to, and not on what I may or may not ‘think’. And we are discussing Hamsaduta’s status as the only bona fide ritvik on the planet as originally claimed by Gunalan. That is the subject. No matter how bogus I or the IRM may or may not be, this does not at all help you with the actual subject of this discussion – demonstrating why Hamsaduta alone continues to retain authorised status. Once you have demonstrated the truth of your proposition we can move onto to a completely different and new discussion regarding the IRM or any other group or person or proposition.

Bhima das: “No, we cannot altogether rule out that the sannyasi who falls might continue his sannyasa. There is evidence for this, cited in my earlier emails (and here below again just in case you missed it). [footnote1].”

The evidence you refer to is not evidence for a sannyasi who has given up his position coming back many years later claiming he still retains the position. The quote from Srila Prabhupada in question states the following:

“So if you cannot keep yourself sincerely as a sannyasi, then get yourself married.”

This is hardly evidence that a fallen sannyasi always continues to remain in that position. Whose Final Order 32

In regards to Brahmananda who was struggling with his sannyasa, Srila Prabhupada simply asks him to make a choice. Its not that Brahmanada had ALREADY MADE the choice, given up his sannyasa post for many years, and then was aiming to suddenly reclaim it, and Srila Prabhupada allowed it:

“Jagadisa: But for Brahmananda, he may remain sannyasi? Brahmananda?

Prabhupada: That is his choice. But we say that ‘Don’t be hypocrite.’ That’s all. If he thinks now he’ll be able to continue as a sannyasi, he’ll not fall down, he’ll be careful, let him continue. That will depend on his sincerity. But I say that if you cannot remain as a sannyasi, get yourself married, live like a gentleman and serve Krishna.”

Again the same message – if you can’t stay as sannyasi give it up.

Not that, AFTER you give it up, you can STILL claim being a sannyasi for life whenever you feel like it.

We are specifically discussing someone who has ALREADY given the position up, and is then coming back many years later to claim that he can resume in that position due to the initial appointment. Like imagine Brahmananda TODAY claiming he is sannyasi because he was originally appointed as a sannyasi by Srila Prabhupada. Would you accept him today as a sannyasi BECAUSE he was originally appointed as a sannyasi? No, because he gave the post up. THIS IS what the discussion is about, since Hamsaduta fell down from and abandoned his ritvik post almost immediately upon being appointed to it:

“rather, he gave conditional authority and responsibility to some leading disciples to “act as Rittvik representatives of the Acharya.” Having failed to carry out this responsibility and having assumed that automatically upon Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance the rittviks would become Gurus, we find everything has gone off track, and the whole ISKCON movement is in shambles.” (“Role of Ritvik Representative of the Acarya, Hamsaduta Prabhu, posted on the web 9/1/99)

So almost immediately upon being made a ritvik, Hamsaduta gave this post up, and instead assumed the post of a guru hoaxer and destroyed the whole movement with his 10 guru hoaxer pals. Now many years later, Hamsaduta has decided to claim he is an authorized ritvik because of the initial appointment. THIS is the situation being discussed.

Bhima das: “Moreover I have already cited evidence where a sannyasi fell down and re-entered grhastha ashram but continued his service as a GBC under Prabhupada’s instruction with Prabhupada’s blessings. [footnote2] This is exactly the situation that you have postulated is not acceptable on principle - where the sannyasa position was not retained but the service was. Double standard? Talk to Srila Prabhupada about it.”

Please try and follow the discussion. We are discussing if a person who gives up his post still retains THAT post for life. I will spell it out in even simpler ‘baby’ steps so you can finally follow this time:

Rupanuga was a GBC.

Rupanuga was ALSO a sannyasi.

These are two DIFFERENT posts. Whose Final Order 33

Rupanuga fell down from ONE of his posts as a sannyasi.

But he was allowed to continue in his OTHER post as a GBC, because he had not fallen from THAT post and Grhastas were allowed to be GBCs. Its not that he gave up his post as a GBC, and instead went on a rampage destroying the movement, and then one day came back and said he is still GBC because of the original appointment as GBC many moons ago, and Srila Prabhupada allowed it.

Hence, AGAIN your ‘evidence’ has ZERO relevance to the situation at hand. We are NOT claiming that BECAUSE Hamsaduta fell down from sannyasa THEREFORE he fell down from being a ritvik. Rather, Hamsaduta fell down from, and abandoned his post as a ritvik, many years before he fell down from sannyasa. Indeed it happened almost immediately upon him being given the post of a ritvik (see above).

Bhima das: “All I’m saying is that the order is there, it stands. The order of the Acharya is infallible: it is not voided by nonperformance. Only the Acharya can withdraw it or modify it - that’s not left to you and me.”

With this statement you destroy your whole argument. If the above is the case, it cannot only apply only in the case of Hamsaduta and his ritvik post. It would also apply in the case of so many other authorized positions – GBC, BBT Editors, etc. Yet neither Hamsaduta nor you currently accept any of the persons initially authorised by Srila Prabhupada, accept by coincidence, Hamsaduta Prabhu! Do you for example accept Jayadvaita Maharaja as a lifetime BBT editor, since he was authorized originally by Srila Prabhupada as a BBT editor? And if not, what is the reason – remember you cannot cite “non-performance”, you would have to cite a SPECIFIC order from Srila Prabhupada stating exactly why and how a BBT editor can be removed from his post (just as you demand for the ritvik post), and then also explain why such a standard does not apply to a ritvik. After all “only the acharya can withdraw or modify” as you have just claimed. And the same argument can be made for any number of persons originally authorised by Srila Prabhupada, none of whom Hamsaduta today accepts as being authorised. Indeed he does not submit to anyone accept himself, which means his position would have to be the ONLY one on the planet which is still authorised by Srila Prabhupada.

The more you write the more you dig yourself into a hole, writing contradictory statements, which is the only way you can put forward your contradictory ‘special rules apply only to Hamsaduta - everyone else is rejected’ philosophy.

REMEMBER, we are NOT discussing whether in theory someone can come back and be reformed. We are discussing someone coming back to reclaim exactly the SAME POST they had earlier after having gone on a rampage for many years, and, *WHY CAN ONE POST CAN BE RECLAIMED BUT NOT ANOTHER*. It is specifically only for the part in asterisks that evidence is required.

So you will understand, I will give some examples so you can finally understand this point:

If a person gives up his sannyasa, can he come back many years later and resume THE SAME sannyasi post there and then on the BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL appointment? Whose Final Order 34

If a persons give up his GBC post, can he come back many years later and resume THE SAME GBC post there and then on the BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL GBC appointment? And so on.

And if “NO”, why “no” in these cases, but “yes” in the case for the ritvik post? (It is only for this DIFFERENCE you need to supply evidence).

Everything else you have written, like the above, does not provide evidence from Srila Prahupada for the proposition you have put forward:

That a sannyasa post CANNOT be retained many years later after having been given up (see below), but Hamsaduta’s RITVIK post CAN be retained (and thus reclaimed) many years later after having been given up.

(Evidence for first part of Bhima’s proposition:

“You insist on asking this question: “Once a person is appointed as a sannyasi, does he remain a sannyasi for life even though he may fall-down?”, and I have answered it already twice by citing conversations with Srila Prabhupada. Since you protest that they are too lengthy and indirect, here’s your mono-syllabic answer: No.” (Bhima Das, 28/12/2007)

Once again I request you to forward some RELEVANCE EVIDENCE justifying the DIFFERENCE for the propositions you have put forward (NOT the propositions themselves, but why the DIFFERENCE). You are not only claiming that Hamsaduta retains his initial Ritvik post for life regardless of what he may have done. You are also claiming that others in OTHER POSTS do NOT retain this right. I am not currently disputing either of these propositions. I am simply asking you first to justify the DIFFERENCE in the propositions.

Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Your servant,

Krishnakant

P.S. Please do post the *ENTIRE* exchange up – you can rest assured I will be doing so as well!

Hare Krishna Dear Krishna Kant Desai:

Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Whether a disciple can come back to his designated service

Krishna Kant Desai: “We are discussing Hamsaduta’s status as the only bona fide ritvik on the planet as originally claimed by Gunalan. That is the subject. “

No, that is Mr. Gunalan’s email to you. I entered into the discussion when you denied flatly that Hansadutta has a right to act as rittvik representative. You wrote to Mr. Gunalan that Hansadutta had renounced it together with his sannyasa. That’s when Mr. Gunalan forwarded the email exchange to me. I am arguing that Hansadutta has every right to act as rittvik representative, and it is a mistake to refuse to recognize him as one of the rittvik representatives of Srila Prabhupada. Whose Final Order 35

You are unwilling to allow that he has come back to the order of the spiritual master. By your reckoning he has forfeited his service, and it is too late to now carry out the order.

So far you have not cited any authority for your stance; you have presented an argument of logic, which has been shown to be a fallacy in the category of sweeping generalization. Nor have you been able to show any evidence to strike out any portion of Srila Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th, 1977 or to support your own interpretation of it.

First you came with the postulation that: –

Hansadutta was a sannyasi. Hansadutta was a rittvik representative of the Acharya. Hansadutta renounced both positions by falldown.

And you asked for evidence how he could have retained the one post when he did not the other; you asserted that the same thing necessarily applied “across the board” to all such situations where a position had been given up.

First of all, anyone with half a brain can understand that this is not always the case in real life. And to be sure, Prabhupada did not follow your rule, as we have pointed out in the case of Rupanuga.

Now you come and try to fit the situation of Rupanuga to back up your earlier argument, like Cindarella’s stepmother tried to squeeze her own daughter’s foot into the slipper: –

Krishna Kant Desai: “Please try and follow the discussion. We are discussing if a person who gives up his post still retains THAT post for life. I will spell it out in even simpler ‘baby’ steps so you can finally follow this time:

Rupanuga was a GBC.

Rupanuga was ALSO a sannyasi.

These are two DIFFERENT posts.

Rupanuga fell down from ONE of his posts as a sannyasi.

But he was allowed to continue in his OTHER post as a GBC, because he had not fallen from THAT post and Grhastas were allowed to be GBCs.”

But no, Rupanuga had left. Period. He had given up his service also. But he communicated with Prabhupada, who called him back to it. So he had indeed given up sannyasa and his service, albeit only for a short period of time. There were other devotees besides Rupanuga who gave up their service, and Prabhupada called them back to it. You can try to argue that the length of time is the deciding factor, but what is the acceptable length of time, Prabhu? Five minutes? Five hours? Five days? Five weeks? Five months? Five years? Two times five? Three times five? In the vast span of eternity, a few days or 16 years are mere blips. So who is going to decide what is reasonable and what is allowable? What seems to be acceptable for you will not be acceptable to someone else. The platform of relative truth cannot approach the Absolute Truth. In a matter involving a disciple and his service to the spiritual master, where is your authority to intervene? I say only Srila Prabhupada can decide. It is not your business. Read the letter again carefully. Is there any indication whatsoever in the letter that Srila Prabhupada’s instruction will expire on such and such day and month and year or that it is conditional in any way?

An aside, just to clarify: you lay stress on the word post or position. Sannyasa is not a post. It is the antithesis of post. It is the undoing of all posts. We can say position in the sense that the sannyasi takes the position that he renounces worldly connection - women, prestige, wealth, love, friendship and society, but sannyasa is not post; it is a phase or chapter in life, an ashram. And then there is temple president, GBC, BBT trustee, rittvik representative… these can be said to be posts, but better understood to be work assignments, meaning Whose Final Order 36 service, and should be seen in that way, not as a post or elite peerage, but as a service. Ashram and service are two different things.

Also, you use the word “retain”, but even a child can understand that while a person who falls from sannyasa might not retain his sannyasi status, he is not precluded from one day coming back to sannyasa. As for a disciple having left his service, does it mean the service has gone away? No, the disciple might have gone away, but Prabhupada’s order is there, the service remains, and it is for the disciple to return to it in obedience to the spiritual master. So “retain” or “come back to” - either way, this is what Prabhupada says,

“Svalpam apy asya dharmasyatrayate mahato bhayat: ‘A little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.’ (Bg. 2.40) Even if we do a little on the path of bhakti, it goes to our account. For instance, if we deposit only two dollars in a savings bank, it is kept in our account, and it will increase with interest. Similarly, if one performs even a little devotional service, it is not lost. One may come and join this Krishna consciousness movement, render some service and after a while fall down. However, whatever service has been rendered is to one’s permanent credit. That will never be lost. When one begins again, he begins at the point where he has left off.”

That point being in the good grace of spiritual master. When a disciple renews his resolve to surrender to and serve the spiritual master, he is reinstated in devotional service under the protection of the spiritual master, his consciousness reawakened to that where he left off. You may protest, “That doesn’t mean he returns to the same service as before,” but Prabhupada is not appearing right before our eyes to announce any different engagement for Hansadutta and to revoke his previous assignment. The letter of July 9th, 1977 is the last indication Prabhupada gave what he wanted Hansadutta to do.

The order belongs to Prabhupada

Actually, Srila Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th is not just about Hansadutta or the other 10 persons named in it, nor about their position and rank. It’s much bigger than that. The letter is an order, giving instructions how the new devotees shall be initiated and connected to Srila Prabhupada. It is about the parampara, it is about Prabhupada’s position as the Acharya, and it is addressed to all GBC and Temple Presidents for everyone to accept and follow. The rittvik representatives are supposed to initiate on behalf of Prabhupada, and it falls to the rest of us to accept and give support to their representation. When everyone understands his place in terms of the order, i.e. we are all the recipients of Prabhupada’s mercy, and supposed to act as his instruments in acknowledging and carrying out the order, then we can convey his mercy to others further downline.

Yes, I firmly stand by the assertion that Srila Prabhupada’s order stands, and that it is infallible and inviolable, not voided by nonperformance. This is where we differ, Prabhu. You would put an expiration date on the order, tag your own terms and conditions onto it.

You suppose that I would have a problem with any number of other persons who might lay claim to lifetime positions. Not at all.

Krishna Kant Desai: “Do you for example accept Jayadvaita Maharaja as a lifetime BBT editor, since he was authorized originally by Srila Prabhupada as a BBT editor?”

I don’t at all object to Jayadvaita carrying out his assigned service. I do not have any problem whatsoever with him or anyone else doing what they are supposed to do. I fervently wish he would and others too. It is another question whether he does so in all sincerity and in good faith. I do object to Jayadvaita overstepping his authority. BBT editor is not a blank cheque to change Prabhupada’s books without authorization, undermining the integrity of Srila Prabhupada’s works and siddhanta. How he does serve Prabhupada can be aslo be Whose Final Order 37 questioned on the grounds of his and the other ISKCON GBCs’ answers to interrogatories submitted by ISKCON and BBTI during the BBT courtcase, claiming that Prabhupada was only a hired worker of ISKCON, that his books were the property of ISKCON, never belonged to Prabhupada, and on the grounds of their complicity in bypassing and attacking the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. This goes into a different topic, which I do not care to discuss with you. But back to the point, I say again, if a disciple, having been awarded a particular service, takes it up and demonstrates sincerity and surrender … whether within five minutes or five years or fifty years or next life or crores of lifetimes later, it’s not yours and it’s not my place to object and place obstacles or refuse cooperation.

Next, you come again and argue that if “sannyasa post cannot be retained many years later after having been given up” then likewise the same necessarily applies to the “rittvik post”: it cannot be “retained”. Again, either “retain” or “come back to”, your premise fails - a dictum simpliciter. You have not established why this must be applied universally in every situation without exception. Nor have you allowed for the possibility that a devotee can return to sannyasa. Here you have added the words “many years later” for effect. But the question is what has Srila Prabhupada said and done. Maybe you can show us evidence, for once, why this has to be accepted as a rule that applies across the board.

We have already cited evidence that Prabhupada didn’t play by your rules. Many times it happened that when a disciple fell away from his service, Prabhupada called him back to it, holding him to his responsibilities. In some cases, Prabhupada did allow for change of service also, just as a doctor may modify or change a prescription for his patient where deemed appropriate or more effective. Prabhupada gave specific instructions what was to be done in the case of falldown from sannyasa. A precedent was set for all sannyasis who might fall down. But in the matter of deciding a person’s service, it was done on an individual case basis. Prabhupada could do that. He allowed the GBC to do that. But can you? How have you become authorized to alter the prescription or discontinue it? Prabhupada is not here to say anything different now about the letter of July 9th, 1977. It is the Final Order, his final written instruction on the matter. And it is dangerous and foolhardy to presume other than what Srila Prabhupada’s letter states word for word and to impose a limitation on it. You come now to contradict it, arguing time, place and circumstances. But that is for Prabhupada to factor in, not for you.

This is the mistake that ISKCON made and still makes. They say that the letter of July 9th was intended only for the period of time between July 9th and the departure of Srila Prabhupada. They dispute the connotation of the word “henceforth”. Now you are also imposing a time limit to the letter. So it was good only up until how many years ago? Maybe it was only good up until five minutes after Prabhupada’s departure, by which time the 11 had failed to put it into action and taken a different course. Are you sure it’s the time lapse you have a problem with?

I’m sorry that you do not find Srila Prabhupada’s words to be relevant, whereas I do. You don’t find that Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding devotees falling down and coming back, taking up their service again have anything to do with a disciple appointed by Srila Prabhupada personally to act as his rittvik representative coming back and taking up his designated service. You also brush aside Prabhupada’s words regarding accepting the spiritual master’s instructions word for word.

What is your authority to challenge Prabhupada’s order?

You goad me with sarcastic remarks, such as that I have to learn the discipline of answering your questions, but so far you have not answered mine nor Mr. Gunalan’s, nor cited any authority in support of your position. Here are my questions for you again: –

1. Do you accept Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9th, 1977 in toto? 2. Are you in compliance with that letter? 3. Do you accept Hansadutta as rittvik representative of the Acharya? 4. If not, what is your standing or from where do you derive your authority to denounce him? Whose Final Order 38

5. Where is the evidence that once given up, a disciple cannot resume his assigned service? 6. Where is the authority for IRM’s deviation from the standard instructions spelled out in the letter of July 9th, 1977 to construct your own initiation process(es)?

You are not prepared to allow that the persons who somehow or other did not put the July 9th letter into immediate action after Prabhupada’s departure maybe did not do so because they failed to understand it. Nor are you prepared to allow that any one of them who demonstrates willingness and sincerity can take it up now. You say that it is too many years, too much water over the dam, too late. Too late for reform. Now I can understand that your ISKCON Reform Movement does not allow any of these persons to reform. But you want everyone to reform according to your dictation. You want to contain their reformation.

What it comes down to is that you, Johnny Come Lately, who are not properly initiated - not according to the terms of the letter of July 9th - believe that you are fully authorized to conjure up new terms and conditions for Prabhupada’s order which he somehow or other forgot to include in the deficient letter of July 9th. What this really means in plain English is that you cannot accept Srila Prabhupada’s letter in toto.

Without any evidence to back your position, without citing any authority and without following or accepting any authority, you say you have defeated me. If this is defeat, I accept. But I am reminded of the incident when Lord Balarama won twice in a gambling bout with Rukmi. His opponent insisted that he was the winner, not Balarama. Of course, I am not Lord Balarama, not at all. But Prabhupada is, and his order is nondifferent from himself. I’m willing to wager everything I own that Prabhupada’s order will win out over your protestations. For me, Prabhupada’s last words on the subject are weightier by far than yours. That is the meaning of the word Guru - heavy, immovable like the Himalayas.

Error in presumption

You waste your breath to argue for the elimination of all the eleven men named in Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th, 1977. You have no authority to bar any one of them from coming back to the order.

It is a rash, reckless statement to say that all these eleven persons abandoned the rittvik post. It would be accurate and true to say that they failed to carry out the instructions of the letter at the time of Srila Prabhupada’s departure. But you have not established without a doubt that it was by deliberate defiance. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is only fair to make allowance for a genuine mistake from misunderstanding what was meant by the letter and in what circumstances it applied. The May 1977 conversations with Prabhupada, Tamal Krsna and Satsvarupa contributed to the confusion. We know now that those two persons are the chief engineers of the so-called “appointment” to become gurus. I have already reported what Hansadutta explained to me, that he did not know that they were supposed to continue as rittvik representatives. He accepted the role handed to him by Tamal Krsna, Satsvarupa, as did the others, believing it to be Prabhupada’s wish, though he did not doubt that he was unqualified for it. Reread my letter to you (Dear IRM - Back to Prabhupada’s Order).

In 1990, when the letter of July 9th, 1977 came to the surface, and Hansadutta came to the realization what that letter (and subsequent letters addressed to him personally on July 10th and 31st) signified, he did not hesitate to speak up and call attention to the mistake that had been made. Immediately he sought to rectify it, apologizing for his part to the devotees, and redirecting devotees of every rank and camp to regard Srila Prabhupada as their spiritual master, indeed, as the Sampradaya Acharya. When Hansadutta published Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You in 1993, at the same time he began to initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, demonstrating practically what was to be done and his own faith and sincerity. No one else up until that time had figured out what to do or even whether rittvik acharya system was the for-sure way to go. Shortly after Hansadutta began to initiate, Kapindra came along and did so. There was no IRM (nor IRG) back then. Whose Final Order 39

Now 14 years later you declare that Hansadutta had forfeited his service and should be replaced. Where was the replacement in all the years between 1977 and 1993? If there was a time when replacement arguably should have been done, it was then, because no one was acting. But no call for replacement at that time. No one knew anything. Then, from the time Hansadutta understood the import of the July 9th, 1977 letter, he stepped up to the plate, as he believes Prabhupada would have expected him to do, to rectify the mistake and humbly act on Prabhupada’s behalf as he had been doing before and as he was designated to do in the letter, and by so doing, be restored to Prabhupada’s shelter and grace. Why now call for him to be barred and replaced? That’s like breaking something that has already been fixed just so you can tinker around and either fix it again or throw it away in a childish whim. Another example: If the bone has been set into its proper place and is in the process of healing, very soon it will be as good as new, or at the very least, capable of performing its natural function. But what you are saying is that the bone cannot be set, it will never be serviceable and has to be discarded and replaced with something of your own invention.

It’s not your bone, Prabhu. Hansadutta doesn’t belong to you; he belongs to Prabhupada, he answers to Prabhupada. Likewise the Final Order originated from and belongs to Prabhupada. If you think something needs fixing, first fix yourself. Test your glue out on your own camp. If you believe you or anyone else can do better, fine, go ahead and initiate. So far, however, there is no unanimity or cohesion amongst IRM members as to what should be done. So what kind of connectivity to Prabhupada can you demonstrate? Success depends on the mercy of the spiritual master; you cannot storm the gates of Vaikuntha on the strength of self-righteousness and indignation or by jumping over the heads of others who are senior to you.

“You always have my blessings, the father always wishes that the son may be more successful than himself. This is the spiritual conception. If one is doing well, then the materialistic persons become envious and try to check his progress. This was actually so with Prahlada Maharaja, he was only 5 years old, he was preaching Krishna consciousness to his school friends, and the father Hiranyakasipu became so envious that he attempted to kill his 5 year old son in so many ways. Krishna consciousness is just the opposite, if someone is doing well then the attitude of the devotee is to give him all facility to go on and improve more and more.

“Yes we are running on the mercy of the spiritual master, to understand this point is to get mercy more and more. Yasya prasadat bhagavata prasada.” (letter to Yogescandra, Vrindaban, 7 Dec 75, 75-12-07)

We can understand that you are trying to do something for Prabhupada, but just as you criticise that ISKCON’s hand-picking gurus is bogus, similarly your hand-picking rittvik representatives is also questionable, given that you have rejected Prabhupada’s own selection and given that you are not properly initiated yourself. But it’s not my intention to check you or stop you from serving Prabhupada; my purpose is to point out to you the mistake you make in trying to check Hansadutta in his service to Srila Prabhupada, personally given to him by Srila Prabhupada, specifically instructed in not just the one letter but in three separate letters. You owe it to Prabhupada and to the devotees to acknowledge the sincere attempt of Prabhupada’s disciple to come back to his service. If you cannot find it in your heart to do so, and remain stuck up in your vicious mentality, then I feel very sorry. Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th, 1977 demands acknowledgement and compliance from everyone - not just from the 11 persons named as his representatives, but from all devotees to bow and give support to the express wishes of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada’s order is the essence, the focal point - it’s not about the eleven, though they are named in it; it’s about the parampara and how we can be connected to Prabhupada and the disciplic succession. Everyone has a role to play. It is very clear that Srila Prabhupada is giving the mandate, and all others - the 11 and the rest of us as well - are merely instruments, recipients of his mercy for carrying out and giving support to the mandate. You have criticized ISKCON for having defied the order, but you defy it also.

Please don’t make a fool of yourself to continue to offer the same flawed argument again. You have not cited evidence from Prabhupada’s books, conversations and letters to back up Whose Final Order 40 your position. I don’t care for anything else you might say; if your intention is to contradict Prabhupada’s order, you are in trouble. Why should we waste our time back and forth when you do not accept Srila Prabhupada’s Final Order as it is, applicable today as much as yesterday?

Wish you all the best. - Your servant, Bhima das