ISKCON India ICC Attacks: Acharya Jayapataka swami

[PADA: Ooh ooh pilgrims! According to the India ICC (ISKCON India's managerial board) -- Jayataka swami is their sum total of the demigods messiah of the Jagat. At the same time -- JPS is -- apa-siddhantic; a-shastric; he does not know the shastra; he is compromised with mundane left-wing politics; he is making confusing statements; he cannot even say if Lokanath has atoned for his sins; he is creating a schism; he is working with the mundane feminist's agenda; he is working with a GBC that is making a lot of mistakes; he is the acharya -- and in need of chastisement from the ICC, and so on. 

Meanwhile a disciple of Bhakti Vikas swami (Jayapataka's sannyasa disciple) wrote to tell me their homosexual pedophile acharya system is following the "Narada Pancaratrika" system. Oh really? Narada wanted my kids -- and thousands of other kids -- to worship homosexuals and pedophiles as their acharyas? Where do I sign up? 

No wait, if I sign up to train children to worship pedophiles, won't I be guilty of the crime of corrupting the morals of minors? Why would anyone want their children to worship BVKS' pedophile messiahs? I forgot, because I am not promoting pedophiles as messiahs "I am not following shastra." It never ends with these folks! Hee hee!]    

--------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Pancaratna Dasa <pancaratnadas@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:00 PM

Subject: GBC stance

To: Jayapataka Swami <jayapataka@gmail.com>

Dear most respected Jayapataka Maharaja, please accept our humble

obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Your terminology of VDG (Vaishnavi diksha-guru) is not preferred by us,

because acharyas like Baladeva Vidyabhushana use the term "stri" (women),

not "vaishnavi" when discussing who among Vaishnavas is fit to become guru.

And if you read his commentary to SB 1.13.15, it is clear that women who

are in fact Vaishnavis are being considered. 

Furthermore the SAC 2005 paper itself uses the term "female diksha-guru" in its text and its title. Nobody back then thought the SAC was misguided or demeaning toward women. The fact is that the characteristic of being female is central to our dispute. But renaming it Vaishnavi is an Orwellian corruption of language that

obfuscates rather than clarifies. Hence, we prefer the term FDG (female diksha - guru), because it clearly conveys the concept under dispute.

But more importantly, a fundamental premise of our response is that we must understand that shastra is the center for all kinds of knowledge about dharma. Saintly persons and guru are also sources, but their source is the shastra: "The shastra is the center for all" (CC Madhya 20.352)

The reason why shastra is in the center is that dharma is something that only comes from Krishna – dharmam tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam (SB 6.3.19).

[PADA: OK so Jayapataka is an acharya, he is speaking as Krishna dictates, but he is speaking against shastra. And as such, shastra is superior to what Krishna dictates. Wait? What? Shastra are the words of Krishna and His pure devotees. How can we say the acharyas are getting dictation from Krishna, therefore -- they are speaking rubbish, apa-siddhanta, a-shastric, against shastra and dharma etc?] 

You cannot get it by direct experience or by reasoning about it. Hence, dharma cannot come from any other source than the Lord, or from those who know the Lord. 

[PADA: Right, so Jayapataka is an acharya because -- he does not know the Lord, nor the Lord's shastra.]

Therefore as per SB 7.11.7, dharma mulam hi bhavagan sarva veda mayo harih smrtim ca tad vidam, "The Supreme Lord is the root of the Vedas and the memory of the great sages." Hence, there are fundamentally two main sources of knowledge of dharma – the shastras and those who know the shastras.

That distinction between shastra and those who know the shastra (dharma and dharma-jna) is important because when it becomes necessary to resolve doubts about what shastra or some recognized acharya has said, then it is necessary that the words of the acharya are understood in light of the shastra, not the other way around. Examples of Srila Prabhupada employing this principle are found in his  purports to SB 1.3.15 and also SB 6.19.13. 

[PADA: So when Srila Prabhupada says there will be a GBC after I depart, and not artificial Gaudiya Matha style gurus, that is bogus because it is not shastra?]

There are other examples, too.

This point of "shastra as the center for all" is important because it underlies most of the differences between us in how we are understanding Srila Prabhupada's instructions.

In this regard, you wrote:

". . . in your paper, it is said that a Vaisnavi can be a diksa guru, if I read it correctly, for someone who is already situated in Goloka, . . ."

[PADA: OK so Jayapataka is an acharya already situation in Goloka, therefore, he does not know what is shastra.]

Our remark was in relation to Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hansadutta, dated January 3, 1969, which you cite as evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted FDGs. In following the principle of the shastra as the center for all, we have to consider that the kind of guru that Srila Prabhupada had in mind was the kind who is resident of Krishna Loka. 

This comports with Narada-panchatratra (Bharadvaja-samhita 1.42 - 44), which says that a woman or a shudra cannot become diksha-guru but can if they have direct realization of the Lord.

Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana, quoting these very shlokas in his Vaishnava-nandini commentary on SB 1.13.15 remarks directly that woman or a shudra cannot become the guru of those on a higher status but can if they have directly realized the Lord, like Yamaraja. So, to be in line with the shastra and also with Baladeva Vidyabhushana, we have to understand Srila Prabhupada's letter in the light of the shastra. Hence, the type of guru that Srila Prabhupada had in mind when he wrote that letter was someone who was so highly realized, a "resident of Krishna Loka".

[PADA: Except the GBC already said that Jayapataka is an acharya and a resident of Krishna loka. Every year all sorts of the GBC comes to give Jayapataka an elaborate Vyasa Puja. Why are they now challenging their own resident of Krishna Loka -- as a person who does not know the shastra.]

You also wrote:

"That the GBC decided to make such standards, doesn't mean that everyone has to follow them. You can say that we don’t follow but then we want a high standard for any country that does follow. Also, if some country is following, they should only initiate the people who are residents of that country."

Our point is that the GBC cannot make any law which does not strictly follow guru, sadhu and shastra. Their standards on FDG are ashastriya (against shastra). In particular, the GBC's creation of new categories of protectors for women is against the categories that Srila Prabhupada accepts from Manu-samhita: father, husband, and grown sons. 

As to the rest of the statements from Srila Prabhupada you have quoted, Srila Prabhupada is perfect and there is no fault in them. But they must be understood in light of the shastra. It is possible for us to come to a wrong understanding in the name of Srila Prabhuapda, just like the ritviks. 

[PADA: But the ritviks are not saying the residents of Krishna loka acharyas are apasiddhanta fools who do not know the shastra.]

That is our basic point.

You wrote:

"In any case, according to the GBC law, each national council is able to opt out of this standard which is mentioned in the resolution. As it has been declared, it is a culturally sensitive issue." 

We believe that this law is also ashastriya, because it is against Srila Rupa Gosvami's opinion that one who is qualified to be guru is fit to "make disciples all over the world", sarvam apimam prithivim sa shishyat. If someone is a bona fide guru, then he (or she) must be welcome in all places. 

[PADA: That never happens in GBC land. Kirtanananda did not welcome Gopal Krishna swami, saying he is "Goofball Krishna." Hansadutta did not welcome any of the other acharyas, and in fact he had a "hit list" in his diary saying the other acharyas need to be exterminated. 

Many GBC gurus do not approve of Hrdayananda and his Krishna West. Bhakti Vikas swami does not approve of Radhanath's writings. Many GBC forbade Satsvarupa's books like "A Life of Prayer." Sorry, there is no unified process where all the GBC gurus are accepted everywhere in ISKCON.]

In this regard, the case of Lokanatha Maharaja is a good example. Is he still a bona fide guru, or not? Leaving it up to different regions of ISKCON to decide whether he is fit to be guru or not is extremely divisive. 

[PADA: Well there you have it, some ISKCON leaders approve of Lokanath and some do not. That means that ISKCON has been making regional gurus all along. Jayatirtha told me he was not welcomed in France going back to 1978.]

If he is fit to be guru, then he should be allowed in all places in ISKCON. If he is unfit, then no place should welcome him as guru. Both sides of this are right to expect final clarity on this. And this shows that the GBC as an institution lacks the clarity that a decision backed by guru, sadhu and shastra provides.

[PADA: First of all, the GBC has no authority to make laws, rules and rulings to censure, suspend, remove, exile and excommunicate the acharyas. None of this was ordered by Srila Prabhupada.] 

In 30 years you (the GBC institution) have never been able to say whether Lokanatha Maharaja has in good faith expiated his sins. 

[PADA: Hee hee, Lokanath is an acharya, but he may not have even got rid of his own sins, but he is another Jesus, and he can absorb the sins of others. Are we making sense yet?] 

You have said that Lokanath has complied with GBC's direction in regard for his prayascitta, but you have never said that his sins have been expiated and is without doubt rightly situated. In the case of Ajamila, the Vishnudutas were able to say clearly to the Yamadutas that Ajamila was no longer fit for punishment, and Lord Caitanya was able to say that Jagai and Madhai were free from their sins. 

But you, however, have been unable to say so in the case of Lokanatha Maharaja.

Your inability to give a final and clear verdict on this case and leaving it to regional authorities to decide for themselves is evidence that as an institution, the GBC lacks the adhikara to make such a clear determination. 

[PADA: The GBC rubber stamps acharyas left, right and center, but has no adhikary to determine if someone is qualified or not.]

This applies equally to the matter of FDGs, and this will be at least as divisive as the Lokanatha case has been. Your inability to clearly decide such cases is strongly pushing ISKCON towards divisiveness and schism.

That is also why we really do want a GBC who can give certainty and direction, because ISKCON's unity does in fact depend on the GBC being able to make clear decisions and, especially, remove all doubts.

[PADA: But you are admitting that the GBC cannot determine major issues already, because they do not have the adhikary. Why not wait for them to be properly situated in the higher adhikary before making them acharyas. They cannot make proper decisions, they are speaking against shastra, they are making regional acharyas which is bogus etc., but they are -- acharyas?]

We believe that the cause of this inability is that a majority of GBC men lack faith in shastra. 

[PADA: Oh swell, there we have it -- the majority of GBC acharyas lack faith in shastra. Really? Then why did you declare they are acharyas?]

You all certainly have faith in Srila Prabhupada, but it appears that the same level of faith in shastra is lacking. Yasya deve yatha bhaktir yatha deve tatha guaru, tasyaite katitha hy artha prakashante mahatmanah, "Only to those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the Spiritual Master are all the purports of Vedic literature revealed." Faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are necessary. If we have faith in one and not the other, then the understanding will not manifest.

Otherwise, why along with Srila Prabhupada's statements do you not also accept the evidence we have presented from Narada-pancharatra (and also from Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who himself quotes the same shastra)? 

You have not mentioned once in your letter the shlokas we have quoted from Bharadvaja-samhita or Baladeva Vidyabhushana's commentary. The simple fact is we have faith in it, and all of us should have faith in the shastra. Why shouldn't we? You say that this policy of letting major regions decide for themselves is on account of cultural sensitivity. We think that is also untrue. The fact is that accommodating different cultural practices is built into the traditional system of Vedic law. 

In Vedic law (vyavahara), community customs and even different family traditions may be given the status of law provided that 1) such customs and traditions can be shown to have been extant for a very long time (you didn't just make it up to win a court case), and 2) that such customs are compatible with Vedic literature (i.e. they do not transgress it).

For example, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura liked the English custom of elderly men nearing death approaching persons they knew to beg their forgiveness for offenses they had committed against them. An acharya has liked such a custom, so we can be certain that it is in line with Vedic principles and therefore can be accommodated. Such a custom within the Vedic system of law would have the status of being law, if ever there were a case in which such a custom was being considered. Miniskirts and dating cannot be accommodated.

Shistha (cultured) brahmanas who are fully conversant with Vedic literature can make such decisions. That authority is given to them in Manu-samhita 12.108, in which it is said that on points of law which are not found in either the shrutis or the smritis, whatever a cultured brahmana says is to be accepted as law. That is because by preference and by learning, whatever such brahmanas decide will be in line with Vedic literature. 

As a practical matter, this shows why the GBC struggles with cases like the Lokanatha case or (as we are presently discussing) the FDG case. If as you say gurus should have Bhaktivedanta degrees (and we agree that they should), then shouldn't GBC members also have Bhaktivedanta degrees? We think that this would be very helpful to GBC members in executing their own duties if they also had Bhaktivedanta degrees. That doesn't mean you will

never have difficulty with deciding such cases as we have mentioned, but it will help you in dealing with them.

As to why we think Bhaktivedanta degrees are requirements for gurus but women even with Bhaktivedanta degrees shouldn't be guru, its because of the shastra nirnaya. It's a nisheda (a prohibitive vidhi) that says women shouldn't be guru, even if they have such high qualifications (yes, Narada-pancharatra actually says that). Bhaktivedanta degree is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

You wrote,

"We see that this gender equality thing is fairly widespread. Even in India, we have seen how Her Excellency, the President and others, Prime Minister, previously Indira Gandhi and various chief ministers, are also of the female gender." 

Because bad social customs are popular doesn't mean we should follow them, too. Just like in the Samudra-manthan pastime (Churning of the Ocean of Milk), the demons wanted Lord Vishnu in His Mohinimurti incarnation to decide who gets nectar, but on the Lord's order, the demigods sat far away from all of that. How the demons dealt with Mohinimurti and with each other speaks to our current times.

So, why should we not follow in the footsteps of the Devatas? We should follow in their footsteps. We shouldn't be swayed by social fads, however permanent they may seem at the time. (And for those following the news, it is easy to see that we are just one nuclear exchange away from living in a world where women will be more than happy to let men be totally in charge of their material welfare. The present world order can come crashing down in a single moment. That is why we feel that we should continue following sanatana-dharma even if the rest of the world does not like it.)

You wrote:

"I am wondering, in the paper you said "arthavada". What do you mean by that? Are Srila Prabhupada's purports arthavada? Are letters, conversations, lectures arthavada when he quotes the sastra? We eternally accept Srila Prabhupada but here you are saying arthavada cannot change a standard, cannot establish a rule, something like that. So, we haven't heard this logic before. What is this arthavada and what isn’t?" 

The GBC EC in their reply to us said,

" As discussed many times with the Bureau representatives, we find the quote from the SB 4.12.32 to be descriptive and not prescriptive for all times and places." 

The GBC EC's statement that a prescription cannot be derived from a description is correct and is a rule of interpretation from the Purva Mimamsa - sutras of Jaimini. It is not found anywhere in any of Srila Prabhupada's published works or letters or conversations. So, in this mimamsa-rule, the word for prescription is "vidhi", and the word for description is "arthavad" (artha "value", vad "spoken" – literally "description").

An arthavad may give some encouragement for following a vidhi, describe some benefit for following it, it may give some explanation as to why the vidhi should be followed, etc. 

For example, "You must go to mangala-arati" is a vidhi (a prescription), and "because rising early is good for you" is an arthavad (a description). 

But if you try to derive a vidhi from an arthavad, then you can think of other things that are good for you that do not require rising early, and in this way you can miss mangala arati and not feel guilty about not rising early.

More generally stated, the reason you cannot derive a vidhi (prescription) from an arthavad (description) is that if you could, it would create an alternative vidhi that would render the original vidhi without application or outright nullify it. The Buddhists used to argue that knowing the arthavad attached to some vidhi made it possible to derive new vidhis that contradicted the ones from shastra. And they said that this proved that the Vedas were faulty and therefore useless as a shastra.

You did a similar thing with your decision to create new categories of protectors for women. You reasoned that women have to be protected (that's an arthavad, a stated purpose), and from Srila Prabhupada's example you inferred that Srila Prabhupada created new protectors, but you did so against Srila Prabhupada's own repeated statements that woman has only three stages of life dependent on father, husband and son (see SB 3.24.40 purport, for example, or BG 16.7 purport). 

Your new vidhi, however, makes Srila Prabhuapda's statements that there are only three stages of life for women untrue, what to speak of making untrue Manu's injunction. But neither are untrue. Your conclusion, however, is.

[PADA: There you have it folks, the conclusion of the ICC's acharyas are invalid and untrue.]

As regards to the Suniti purport (4.12.32), aside from the rule that one cannot derive a vidhi from an arthavad, the mimamsa rules of sabdi-bhavana and arthi-bhavna are also applicable. Shabdi-bhavna is words from shastra or guru inspiring one to do something, like if guru says, "Go to mangala-arati", and because he ordered it you go, that is shabdi-bhavana.

Same with shastric vidhis. But if you become aware of some object and develop some desire for it, that desire inspires us to action by which we can obtain it.  That is arthi-bhavana. 

For example, if someone describes a hidden treasure in your house and the means to get it, just because that is an arthavad (description) does not make it useless. One will derive great benefit from that description, because by arthi-bhavana, the inspiration to act on that knowledge arises.

Or for example, if one hears a description of meat-eating as abominable and thereby stops eating meat, that's the principle of arthi-bhavana at work.

Similarly, the principle of arthi-bhavana is applicable to the Suniti purport. Because Srila Prabhuapda is talking about shastra vidhis ("According to śāstric injunctions, there is no difference between śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru, and generally the śikṣā-guru later on becomes the dīkṣā-guru. Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru."), implicitly, there is some shastric injunction that is being described in which being a woman is a disqualification for becoming diksha-guru. Srila Prabhupada is describing shastric injunctions. 

In this case, no vidhi is being created or modified, but the arthi-bhavana is enough to encourage one to follow this. And as we have shown, there is an actual vidhi that prohibits women from becoming diksha-guru.

You wrote:

" If it had only said being a woman, she could not be a diksa guru, that would be one thing. But it is said especially because she was Dhruva’s mother."

It is woman, not mother, because Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana in his purport quoting Bharadvaja-samhita says "woman":

tathā ca viduraḥ kaniṣṭho ‘pi. śūdro ‘pi sākṣād-dharma-rājatvena pratyakṣī-kṛta-pareśāt tasya tad-upadeṣṭṛtvam iti. ata eva bhāradvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ strī-śūdrādīnāṁ tan niṣidhya sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ teṣāṁ tad āha

"And so, though Vidura was younger [to Dhṛtarāṣṭra and] though he was a śūdra [by birth], because he was Dharmarāja himself, he had directly realized the Supreme Lord; therefore, he instructed Dhṛtarāṣṭra. It is for this reason that the Bhāradvāja-samhitā forbids women, śūdras and the like from becoming gurus and allows women, śūdras and the like who have directly realized the Supreme Truth to become gurus."

(Full translation and source at:

https://iisb.co.in/2021/11/29/baladeva-vidyabhusana-on-sb-1-13-15/)

You wrote:

"So I was looking up for Jivan Mukta -  what are the qualifications for someone who is liberated while alive and I got the following quote."

The criterion of pratyakṣī-kṛta-pareśāt given above by Srila Baladeva

Vidyabhushana is different from jivan-mukta. From the liberated state, one can start making progress toward realizing the Lord. Brahma-bhuta prasanatma na shocati na kankshati sama sarveshu bhuteshu mad-bhaktim labhate param. But direct realization of the Lord is at a stage beyond liberation. Such a person is not a sadhaka, but a sadhya-bhakta.

You wrote:

"Previously we had a discussion between the Indian leaders and the GBC, and one of the members on the Indian side said that Vaisnavi diksa guru is asastriya, and would not entertain it. However, we see that in your quote some sastra is there, that in some rare cases it could be considered."

The rare case is when a woman has directly realized the Lord. When that happens, the Lord Himself will make sure everyone knows.

You wrote:

"The Indian Yatra anyway always has the option to opt out since this is stated as a culturally sensitive issue, resolution."

To reiterate, the idea of cultural sensitivity is already built into Vedic law (vyavahara) and is based on the principle that a custom may become law if it is in line with Vedic literature.

You wrote:

" Anyway, if people on a visitor visa or virtually if they take initiation from a Vaisnavi diksa guru, being in India, that would be against your system, against your stand."

That's why we think even practically your convention of limiting a policy of having FDGs or no FDGs to geographical regions is neither enforceable nor practical.

You wrote:

"If you just take the stand that we don’t want any Vaisnavi diksa guru, probably they will ignore you and go ahead, as they already have."

"They" includes "you", Maharaja.

[PADA: Hah hah, yep, they have made acharyas who do not care for their own regulations, rules and laws, because technically, an acharya is not subordinated to a committee.] 

Note that since 2010 at least, the ISKCON India Bureau requested dialog with the GBC, and they were ignored until the GBC finally passed the resolutions they wanted to get passed. Also, even up to now the vote has not been a supermajority consensus. Just simple majority. So, the absolute truth now is going to be decided on simple majority vote? There is no reason for us to believe that you are going to stop doing what has been working for you up to now.

[PADA: Can a majority vote of conditioned souls decide an absolute? Nope.]

And as a matter of principle, we just can't support something that is fundamentally against the shastras.

You wrote:

"Not because they believe in gender equality, but the whole Western world believes in gender equality. Is very hard to preach in the West, if you have a kind of gender inequality as your standard."

The difficulty in preaching in the Western world can be easily explained by the preachers being on a lower platform of spiritual realization. If you are a kansistha-adhikari, then your spiritual vision is tainted with material conceptions. That is why kanisthas are called materialistic devotees. So, it is natural that they will think in terms of material adjustments, like if we have female gurus then everyone will rush to us.

[PADA: Hee hee, their acharya is a kanistha adhikary devotee with material vision, told ya!]

Except that you can find all sorts of females in guru positions in churches and temples in the West. So, the American / European leaders want to become just another, socially Left-leaning religious institution competing with other socially Left-leaning religious institutions. They are already doing that. But they just don't get that their dismal results are *because* they are doing things like that.

An uttama-adhikari, like Srila Prabhupada, because he sees everything and everyone related to Krishna, knows how to inspire and engage such people perfectly. Hare Krishna explosions are to be expected with uttama-adhikari resident-of-Krishna-Loka devotee preachers. Kanishtha and madhyama-adhikaris have to be much more humble about what kind of results they can expect. They do NOT (yet) see everyone and everything connected with Krishna, and so they make all sorts of bad decisions.

So, we should put this thinking that "we need FDGs because the Western world wants them" into the material-solutions-for-spiritual-problems idea box.

Your servants,

The ICC/IIAC/IISB

[PADA: Yup, the GBC is making all sorts of bad decisions. Correct. 

The media people who are interviewing me now want to know, what is the reason the GBC promotes pedophiles as gurus and acharyas, from 1978 to the present day. And the answer is, the worship of pedophiles by children is "transcendental"? Is that what I should tell them when we get the next interview? Or evidently, according to BVKS' disciples, their pedophile worship process is part of the Narada Pancaratna system? Narada wanted my children to worship BVKS pedophile pals? OK! What should I tell them? You tell me, and I will tell them! ys pd] 

angel108b@yahoo.com

==========

Krishna Kirti dasa: Is Srila Prabhupada ISKCON’s Buddha?

According to the Buddhists’ fifth principle, Lord Buddha is the only source for the attainment of knowledge. We cannot accept this, for Lord Buddha rejected the principles of Vedic knowledge. 

One must accept a principle of standard knowledge because one cannot attain the Absolute Truth simply by intellectual speculation. If everyone is an authority, or if everyone accepts his own intelligence as the ultimate criterion — as is presently fashionable — the scriptures will be interpreted in many different ways, and everyone will claim that his own philosophy is supreme. This has become a very great problem, and everyone is interpreting scripture in his own way and setting up his own basis of authority. 

Yata mata tata patha.(CC Madhya 9.49 purport)

Srila Prabhupada is Pramanam,

But Sastra is the Moolam Pramanam

According to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, this is the way an incarnation should be accepted. Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākya, cittete kariyā aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the śāstra. 

The actual center is the śāstra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the śāstra, he is not a saintly person. The śāstra is the center for all. (CC Madhya 20.352 purport)

Conclusion

• Just because ISKCON has successfully avoided some kinds of deviations does not mean it has avoided all kinds of deviations.

• Believing that Srila Prabhupada is our moolam pramanam instead of shastra is a deviation.

• If ISKCON continues to accept Srila Prabhupada as our moolam pramanam, then ISKCON’s disintegration over time is inevitable, in the same way it was with the Buddhists.

• Also, don’t become a Yak.

[PADA: Except Srila Prabhupada introduced a lot of things that are not found in previous shastra, for example making women brahmanas, which is the right of the current acharya.]

=========================

Part 1. A letter given by Prof Tatachar, Director, Academy of Sanskrit Research, 

Melkote, Mandya district, Karnataka.

Prof. M A Lakshimtatachar, Jan 30th, 1999
Director, Academy of Sanskrit Research

Respected Madhupandit ji,

Humble Pranams. Before writing this letter let me introduce myself as a Sayamacharya belonging to the family of Anantanpillai otherwise known as Anandacharya, who was one among the simhasanadipathis appointed by Ramanuja himself to initiate disciples into Srivaishnavism. Further I have also continued the same tradition as I am initiating many into Srivaishnavism in the name of my revered acharya Sri U. Ve. Alwar Tirumala Iyengar Swami who was the 34th successor in the Acharyapurusha parampara. I have also enclosed herewith my bio data, which gives some information about my educational and philosophical background.

Now, I learn that there is some discussions are going in ISKCON regarding succession. The bone of contention is whether Ritviks appointed by His Holiness Srila Prabhupada could be considered only his representatives or should they be considered as acharyas themselves as they are initiating the disciples into the Hare Krishna movement.

I have very carefully gone through the letter of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada, which was issued on July 9th 1977. According to me this letter has five parts.
In the changed circumstances permission to certain disciples to act as ritviks – as his representatives

Specific names of these who can act as ritviks – representatives of Srila Prabhupada

Change of procedure

Stress on the point that after initiation from the ritviks appointed by His Holiness Srila Prabhupada they are considered to be disciples of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada only.

The action to be taken to include the names of the initiated in the disciples book of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada only.

The letter categorically makes it clear that the eleven Ritviks can never claim “acharyaship” as they are the only representatives of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada. They are like the instruments in the hands of acharya for the sake of initiation. The letter stresses again and again that the initiated are the disciples of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada only. Refer to these statements:

“Ritvik – Representative of the Acharya for the purpose of performing initiations”
Ritviks – “These representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada”

“The newly initiated devotees are the disciples of HDG Srila Prabhupada”

“The name of the newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him/her to Srila Prabhupada to be included in HIS DIVINE Grace’s ‘Initiated disciples book'”

There are several such instances in Sri Vaishnava Parampara (tradition). Take the example of Sri Ramanujacharya himself, who was the foremost amongst the Srivaishnavacharyas. He was initiated into the Sri Vaishnava texts and secrets by five great acharyas who are the disciples of Acharya Yamuna. 

That is why is called Panchacharya> Pradarshita. Though he was a disciple of these five Acharyas, just like the Ritviks appointed by His Holiness Srila Prabhupada ji, these ritviks never claimed that they were the Acharyas of Ramanujacharya. On the other hand, it seems Yamunacharya had seen Ramanuja only once in Kanchipuram when he was studying with Yadava Prakasha, and he also showered blessings on Ramanujacharya from a distance. 

Very interestingly, Ramanujacharya mentions Yamunacharya and offers obeisances to him in his benedictory verses found in the beginning of the Vedartha sangraha. This shows that Acharya Ramanuja is considered to be a sishya of Yamunacharya only.

Besides the very concept of Ritvik has a special significance here. In the olden days there would be a yajamana who could engage Ritvik, Adhvaryus etc., for the performance of sacrifice. These people after performing the sacrifice would get some dakshina. But the net result of the sacrifice would go to the yajaman himself, as he was mainly responsible for the performance. 

The ritviks were entitled only to initiate disciples into the Hare Krishna Movement. But the disciples thus initiated by these representatives are always considered to be the disciples of Srila Prabhupada only. Since he is the yajamana who has engaged these ritviks for the performance of initiation.

Again I have to stress that the letter makes it amply clear that the disciples thus initiated by the representatives of Srila Prabhupada are only the disciples of Srila Prabhupada only, not of the representatives.

I also want to confirm that this system can continue perpetually even in the physical absence of His Holiness Srila Prabhupadaji as it has continued in Ramanujas tradition as any person initiated by any acharya has dasyanama like Lakshmittathacharya Ramanuja Dasa though Ramanuja passed away long ago.
Hope, Madhupandit Dasaji, I have made my point clear.

With warm personal regards,
Yours sincerely,
Lakshmi Tatachar (Signed)