Review of Srila Prabhupada’s Hidden Glories: His Inconceivable Tolerance and Mercy

by bhakta Eric Johanson

yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa

āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa
“Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.” Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 7.128

This two book set definitively presents the evidence that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna movement, was poisoned in 1977, most probably by his disciple/caretakers. Nothing is spared to make the convincing case, including extensive refutations of any possible objections. Having established this, the books present some excellent quotes that the pure devotee of the Lord never comes under the control of the material energy, maya. This then leads to a very nice elaboration on Srila Prabhupada’s departure pastime wherein his transcendental position, with it’s tolerance of the sins of the poisoners/disciples, is brought to the fore. Earlier in the books he is cited as following the example from the Srimad Bhagavatam of the bull of religion’s tolerance of Kali’s tortures in not blaming his tormenters. The books also present extensive criminological analysis concerning this case’s particulars as well as poisoning in general.

A great deal of the content is very well thought out, devoted to His Divine Grace and truly impressive, and many sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada are cited in this regard. There is also some effort made to impartially appeal to all of Srila Prabhupada’s followers regardless of their positions on or in the various factions. Unfortunately a strong undercurrent favoring the sectarian interest of one of these groups runs through both the books. The back and forth between these two positions sadly makes for a type of schizophrenia.

In regard to the sectarian cause, the author of Srila Prabhupada’s Hidden Glories is given as the “Prabhupada Truth Commission.” Although this word “truth” is featured prominently in both the authors’ name and the book’s beginning, there is a certain motivated sectarian deception pervading much of the two books. As such, all of the strict objective truth regarding the poisoning and ISKCON institution history becomes a kind of cover for that faction’s recruiting purposes. ISKCON is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the institution most associated with Krishna consciousness by the public. In this regard, the leaders of that institution are accused of misleading “naïve neophyte” new devotees in regard to how Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted them to become initiated after his disappearance, something those leaders are certainly guilty of (just not exactly how the books describe).

Unfortunately, through the aforementioned deception, the “Prabhupada Truth Commission” engages in pretty much the same tactic to mislead a different set of naïve neophytes with their supposedly authorized, alternative “rittvik” interpretation of the same instructions. Regarding these specific instructions, the Hidden Glories books do mention Srila Prabhupada’s key May 28, 1977 GBC conversation (ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission) and the July 9, 1977 rittvik appointment letter throughout, but any kind of objective analysis is withheld until the end of book 2, and that is easily seen to be hardly objective or authorized. Therefore, for the whole of both books the unsubstantiated, flawed rittvik interpretation is singly held up as the alleged “suppressed truth,” supposedly censored by the zonal acaryas and other ISKCON institution leaders, most particularly the chief poisoning suspect Tamal Krishna Swami.

Regarding alleged impartiality, it is claimed towards the beginning of book 1 that, due to the primacy of the poisoning evidence, that discussion or “proof” of the rittvik theory is withheld until the end of book 2 so as to not distract diverse devotees from unifying around the poisoning. Why then is rittvik repeatedly given in both books as the only alternative to the ISKCON institution’s zonal acarya and other ecclesiastical “guru” methods? It is too easy to see this limitation as a type of deceptive recruiting far too similar to the devices of the ISKCON institution leaders. To have been truly honest and impartial, this deceptive slant should have been avoided and other non-rittvik views of Srila Praghupada’s desires for initiations after his departure should have been given early in book 1.

Nityananda prabhu, one of the commission members, was among those who formulated the rittvik doctrine that was unsuccessfully presented to the GBC around 1990. Regardless of his involvement with this, he does deserve immense appreciation for almost single-handedly compiling and standing behind all the evidence of Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning. This alone makes the Hidden Glories books a necessary read. For this kind service he has been shunned and persecuted by practically all ISKCON institution leaders.

What Order?

Although there are any number of interpretations of the rittvik doctrine, something that should hint at its lack of authority, they all share that Srila Prabhupada supposedly ordered in the above referenced conversation and letter that he wanted to continue accepting practically unlimited disciples after his physical departure, which occurred on November 14, 1977. Any follower of Srila Prabhupada who conducted the initiation ceremony would thus not be the disciple’s initiating guru but a mere priest or rittvik; hence the name. Although this may make certain sense to its advocates in the context of the ISKCON institution, it is completely unprecedented in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, where the agreement of the three authorities of guru, sadhu (saintly persons) and sastra (scriptures) strictly define what is bona fide. The fact that this doesn’t really matter to the advocates does not speak well of their undeestanding of basic Krishna consciousness.

Even if we go so far as to grant that Srila Prabhupada actually wanted the above, there is absolutely no support for such an arrangement in the sastras. There all gurus cease accepting disciples on their physical departures. However, the evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered rittvik is tenuous at best, just one of many competing interpretations of the May 28 conversation. The Hidden Glories books do a pretty good job of discrediting the 1978 interpretation of the eleven zonal acaryas and GBC that was used by them to become supposed gurus and take over the ISKCON institution, but do little to firmly establish the rittvik theory. Due to its lack of authorization by guru, sadhu and sastra, all these rittvik arguments become little more than mental speculation.

In regard to understanding the conversation, it is important to first know how to recognize what in entailed in a clear order of the guru. To be unequivocal, and therefore be a self-evident injunction, a supposed order must not be contradicted by opposing orders. To its detriment this basic logical requirement is not met by the supposed rittvik order because, throughout his twelve years of preaching, Srila Prabhupada regularly ordered all his disciples to become gurus, often citing Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s instruction to all devotees at this article’s beginning.

“Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of His bona fide representative, can become a spiritual master, and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world.” Letter to Madhusudana from Navadvipa on November 2, 1967

These many orders clearly contradict the rittvik idea that Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted to be the only guru after his physical departure. You can’t have both; either he will be the only guru in the future or some of his disciples will be gurus. This is the main reason the rittvik advocates attempt to get around this by calling their supposed order, “The Final Order.” “Final” meaning that this one supposedly superseded the others. However, real gurus don’t contradict themselves on such a fundamental topic as initiation, and Srila Prabhupada was a real guru. Real gurus always agree with the other Vaishnava authorities of sadhu and sastra, which is what he was doing when he ordered all his disciples to become gurus “in my absence.”

“One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and sastra. The actual center is sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. Sastra is the center for all.” Purport, Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 20.352

The rittvik idea that a guru continues to initiate new disciples after his physical departure is not found in any sastra. It is therefore extremely doubtful that a powerful mahabhagavat guru like Srila Prrabhupada would ever order such a contradictory apa-siddhanta (contradiction of Vaishnava philosophy). However, not to be denied, the rascal rittvik advocates desperately claim that Srila Prabhupada was such a powerful guru that he could blatently contradict the sadhus, the sastras and what he himself wrote any number of times in his own books. Such a proposal as rittvik, therefore, does not present him too well. No version of the rittvik idea can be found anywhere in those books.

The very idea of a final order is itself logically contradictory. Srila Prabhupada gave any number of orders after the May 28 conversation and July 9 letter. Why can’t one of them be the final order? Which one do you pick? A final order that supercedes the others is therefore an absurdity. There are only orders, and they are all consistent with sadhu and sastra. It’s simply a question of knowing the absolute consistency of the genuine guru. In this regard, on October 19th 1977 Srila Prabhupada even talked about personally resuming the physical duties of giving initiation, thus indicating that any “final“ interpretation of the May 28 conversation or the July 9 letter was incorrect. Rittvik was simply a temporary fix to initiate the large number of people waiting while he was weak.

Prabhupada: Hare Krsna. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?
Tamala Krsna: Yes. Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.
Prabhupada: So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?
Tamala Krsna: Yes. Actually… Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
Prabhupada: So I think Jayapataka can do that if he likes. I have already deputed. Tell him.
Tamala Krsna: Yes.
Prabhupada: So, deputies, Jayapataka’s name was there?
Bhagavan: It is already on there, Srila Prabhupada. His name was on that list.
Prabhupada: So I depute him to do this at Mayapura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?
Tamala Krsna: Stopped doing what, Srila Prabhupada?
Prabhupada: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?
Giriraja: It’s clear.
Prabhupada: You have got the list of the names?
Tamala Krsna: Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
Prabhupada: And if by Krsna’s grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.
Room Conversation 18th October, 1977

Out of thousands of Srila Prabhupada’s other recorded conversations and lectures, the alleged rittvik order comes from just this one May 28 question and reply:

Satsvarūpa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
Prabhupāda: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating ācāryas.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Is that called ṛtvik-ācārya?
Prabhupāda: Ṛtvik, yes. – Conversation with GBC, May 28, 1977

This first question asks about “initiations in the future.” That future also contains the period from May 28, 1977 until Srila Prabhupada’s departure, as well as after. Srila Prabhupada had employed rittviks before to conduct his initiations when he wasn’t physically available, and the understanding was always that he was the new disciples’ initiating guru. So his answer about making appointments for the period before his departure was not anything unprecedented or contradictory of the sadhus and sastra. However, to continue employing rittviks after his departure would be. Therefore the answer that the rittvik initiations were only for the period prior to his departure has precedent and is consistent with the sadhus and sastra. This would mean anyone genuinely concerned with following guru, sadhu and sastra, bona fide Vaishnava philosophy, would eliminate the rittvik interpretation that this appointment of priests was meant to continue after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

Nonetheless the rittvik advocates intrepidly soldier on with their opposing idea, mostly because Satsvarupa’s question contains the phrase, “particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us.” We should keep in mind that this wasn’t repeated or otherwise made specific by Srila Prabhupada in his answer, and that he was under absolutely no obligation to answer in any particular way. In other words, he was free to choose whatever section of “the future” he wanted to answer about. It isn’t necessarily the unlimited future the rittvik advocates envision. Despite this gaping hole in their supposed “final order,” however, the rittvik advocates stand ready to fall on their swords over this doubt-filled contradictory interpretation. The July 9, 1977 letter signed by Srila Prabhupada merely announced the eleven rittvik priests:

“Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “ritvik – representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.”

The letter then named the eleven men, the future zonal acaryas, and contained the following:

“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.”

Now this letter wasn’t even written by Srila Prabhupada; he only signed it. The author was Tamal. Srila Prabhupada didn’t even choose the words. Nevertheless, because the word “henceforward” was used the rittvik advocates claim that Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the only guru for the foreseeable future or, for some, the next 10,000 years. “Henceforward” can also be seen as describing a simple management necessity for the pre-departure initiations – so even this pivotal rittvik “proof” word is also subject to multiple interpretations. The above October 18^th 1977 conversation should indicate exactly to any honest person that Srila Prabhupada intended the “henceforward” to end when he got strong enough to resume the initiation duties himself. It was a mere management necessity.

If we pick up where we left off in the May 28 conversation, we will find a number of other contradictions of a supposed “final” rittvik order. Srila Prabhupada’s answer about recommending officiating acaryas brought on the following confused questions:

Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the…..
Prabhupāda: He’s guru. He’s guru.
Satsvarūpa: But he does it on your behalf.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order . . . āmāra ājñāya guru hañā (CC Madhya 7.128). Be actually guru, but by my order.
Satsvarūpa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupāda: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, he’s asking that these ṛtvik-ācāryas, they’re officiating, giving dīkṣā. Their . . . the people who they give dīkṣā to, whose disciple are they?
Prabhupāda: They’re his disciple.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They’re his disciple.
Prabhupāda: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.
Satsvarūpa: Yes.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s clear.
Satsvarūpa: Then we have a question concer . .

Prabhupāda: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it. – Conversation with GBC, May 28, 1977

Satsvarupa may be trying to understand if the rittvik priests will be initiating their own disciples or disciples of Srila Prabhupada; Srila Prabhupada’s answers appear somewhat cryptic for him. Therefore Tamal interrupts to supposedly get a clear answer. However, Srila Prabhupada’s answer is still pretty cryptic due its shortness and use of pronouns. However, the answer, “in my presence one should not become guru” and the use of the term “granddisciple” both blatantly contradict the idea that Srila Prabhupada had just changed his mind about his disciples being gurus after his departure. His last remark above, however, “When I order, ‘You become guru,’ he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it,” should totally dispel this idea that Srila Prabhupada did not want his disciples to be gurus after his departure. Unfortunately the rittvik advocates are incapable of this honest admission. Please keep in mind that all three of these uses are after the rittvik’s “final” order. Why can’t some of us declare them to be the real “final” order? They come after the rittvik’s final order. That’s how logically absurd the rittvik case is. It’s really for people who can’t think straight.

In regard to this conversation approving those eleven to be named in the July 9 letter to begin initiating their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, there is also no self-evident order. It’s all pronouns, and Srila Prabhupada’s answers can be taken as just general guru-disciple philosophy. There is no direct answer to this effect, something that should also be obvious to any honest person. No specific individual or group is ordered, “You become guru.” In fact the same last remark cited above should have made clear that no one as yet had been so ordered, and that such an order for some disciple of Srila Prabhupada to become an initiating guru was to come in the future. In short, the eleven zonal acaryas were never specifically named or ordered to be diksa gurus, something Tamal later admitted in the Topanga Canyon conversation.

In conclusion, it is hard to even find a rittvik order in the May 28 conversation. Then whatever is there is hardly unequivocal or self-evident. Srila Prabhupada is merely answering a question. He never stops to restate this supposed “rittvik for eternity” idea in the form of a self-evident injunction or order. Because this is the case one is left to choose from any number of interpretations of his answer, some of which don’t violate the Vaishnava necessity of agreement with sadhu and sastra. Not fulfilling this necessity is what really makes the rittvik idea stink.

This also applies to any idea that the July 9 letter constitutes the rittvik order. The first part of the letter quoted above clearly makes the letter’s meaning dependent on what was established in the May 28 conversation – “Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “ritvik – representative of the acarya.” We are thus left with the flimsy May 28 “evidence.” This means the supposed rittvik “order” is a mere interpretation, an inference from what Srila Prabhupada said and signed. It’s hardly strong enough evidence to establish an unprecedented new initiation procedure for the next 10,000 years, or even tens of years.

With such questionable proof that Srila Prabhupada wanted to singlehandedly overturn the method used for initiations for all of previous eternity it is no wonder that the rittvik advocates fall back so heavily on a conspiracy theory. The Hidden Glories books thus attempt to claim that the lack of corroborating evidence to what’s in the conversation and letter is further proof of rittvik. In this regard Tamal is repeatedly accused of disappearing tape recordings and any and all other records of Srila Prabhupada supposedly establishing rittvik. While it is interesting that so many day’s recordings during Srila Prabhupada’s last days are suspiciously missing and that Tamal was in charge, this is hardly positive proof of rittvik. Neither is the lack of corroborating accounts any support of Gauri dasa Pandit hearing Srila Prabhupada supposedly order rittvik in garden conversations with Tamal. A lot of nothings can’t suddenly become a something. To overturn thousands of years of initiation standard something more than conspiracies and the memory of a conditioned soul is needed.

The gaping hole/chasm in this conspiracy is that if Srila Prabhupada really wanted to make himself the only guru for the foreseeable future, there was a very easy way to get around Tamal or anything else. All he would have had to do was call multiple GBCs to his bedside and announce it. He didn’t do that, period, end of story! There were plenty of other devotees coming and going from his room that could have been ordered to call the GBCs, all free from Tamal’s alleged censorship.

An Institutional Tug-of-War

It is perhaps not coincidental that the Hidden Glories books utilize the same deceptive technique to bewilder naïve neophytes into thinking that Srila Prabhupada is still the only initiating guru for his followers. In this regard the books make repeated calls for a major housecleaning of the GBC:

“The honest investigation into Srila Prabhupada’s departure under suspicious circumstances is of great relevance and importance to the future success of the Hare Krishna Movement, even though many years have passed. The evidence will show that Srila Prabhupada was indeed poisoned, as a fact. And it appears that Srila Prabhupada’s poisoners ‘became’ initiating gurus and then deeply influenced ISKCON with unauthorized and invented policies and doctrines which were never given by Srila Prabhupada. This is the subject of this two book set; the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada’s body and then his mission. Everything in ISKCON since 1977 would be colored by this poisoning and the poisoners. As we will see in ISKCON’s history, the Hare Krishna Movement was hijacked and spoiled. How can this be good? The ramifications of such pollution of Srila Prabhupada’s mission are enormous and requires a complete reformation. The slate must be cleaned and we must go back to the start line and begin over.” Srila Prabhupada’s Hidden Glories, Ch.4, p21

History has shown that getting the GBC to make this kind of major change requires both a large number of devotees and a scandal. The 1979 zonal acarya critics led by Yasodanandana dasa, Pradyumna dasa and Kailasa Candra dasa found out that mere sastra and brahminical politeness was not enough to keep them from being run out of the movement by the GBC. It was only when scandals had weakened the zonals and a large number of temple presidents and middle managers signed on that the 1985-87 guru reformers led by Ravindra Svarupa dasa, Atreya Rsi dasa and others were able to implement some superficial changes to over-the-top zonal behavior. Similarly women devotees were able to take advantage of the 90’s child abuse publicity to achieve greater roles in leadership. Nevertheless, even these scandals and numbers of reformers were unable to do much more than force the incumbent GBCs to share their power more widely. The incumbents didn’t resign en-mass but just brought key reformers into their circle. They still held most of the marbles.

Therefore, as expressed throughout the Hidden Glories books and in the quote above, to expect that the poisoning evidence, as damning as it may be, will be able to force mass-resignation among the incumbent “gurus” or the GBC, the alleged benefactors of the poisoning, is extremely unlikely. Pretty much, the amount of reform, much less resignations, will be proportional to the number of devotees the Prabhupada Truth Commission can bring over to their side with these books and other preaching. Hence the need for as many naïve neophytes as possible.

The ask of the Prabhupada Truth Commission is even greater if one includes the supposed reform of replacing the existing ISKCON institution “guru”-disciple succession arrangement with rittvik. This means throwing out the existing “guru”-disciple relationships of virtually all the institution’s devotees. In this regard, there were also many hardline reformers in ’85-87 who wanted all the zonals to step down and give up their disciples. But it meant alienating maybe 70% of the movement’s membership (the zonal’s disciples) and therefore risked too big of a schism. So even though the hardliners were on the side of truth and scripture they lost out when their leaders agreed to be bought in by the incumbent zonal-GBCs.

Since not everyone who accepts the poisoning evidence also accepts rittvik, this further decreases the number who can pressure the GBC to replace the existing “guru”-disciple arrangement with rittvik. History shows that the best the Prabhupada Truth Commission is likely to achieve is some kind of inclusion on the GBC, along with some kind of rittvik “initiation” choice being made available to the institution’s future naïve neophytes. At worst the Commission will not breach the required level of outrage and numbers and just end up being ignored. Their dual asks of major resignations and rittvik just threaten too much of the institution’s status quo.

Exceptionalism

The GBC and the Hidden Glories rittvik advocates share more than a desire to control the movement through GBC decisions. Most of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples were Westerners, particularly his leaders. Western culture had and has whole different conceptions of what a guru is than what is found in India, much less bona fide Vaishnavism. This means that, among other things, the view of Srila Prabhupada possessed by many of his followers is mixed with all their Western notions of celebrity. And many of the so-called gurus of the ISKCON institution currently conduct themselves in this manner – “spiritual celebrities.” Radhanatha Swami’s attempt to crash Ringo Starr’s birthday party is a good example.

In a similar vein, Westerners have a whole different conception of institutions than what Srila Prabhupada had for his ISKCON. Institutions are the major players in Western society – corporations, governments and churches to name a few. In fact, many Westerners define themselves simply by giving a list of their institutional loyalties. Part of Srila Prabhupada’s genius was that he gave his followers a Krishna conscious alternative institution to identify with. They weren’t just devotees, they were “ISKCON devotees.”

The reality of genuine Vaishnavism is something else, however, but, as long as things were as he directed, Srila Prabhupada also more than provided that. That purely spiritual reality, the essence of bona fide Krishna consciousness, is the association and guidance of the mahabhagavata devotee:

rahūgaṇaitat tapasā na yāti

na cejyayā nirvapaṇād gṛhād vā

na chandasā naiva jalāgni-sūryair

vinā mahat-pāda-rajo-‘bhiṣekam

“O King Rahūgaṇa, the perfectional stage of devotional service, or the paramahaṁsa stage of life, cannot be attained unless one is blessed by the dust of the feet of great devotees. It is never attained by tapasya (austerity), the Vedic worshiping process, acceptance of the renounced order of life, the discharge of the duties of household life, the chanting of the Vedic hymns, or the performance of penances in the hot sun, within cold water or before the blazing fire.” Srimad Bhagavatam 5.12.12

In our modern context, one could add “joining an institution” to that “never attained by” list. In other words, it’s the person of the pure devotee that does the delivering, not the institution that he may have founded. The institution is merely his tool, as long as it acts under his direction. When it deviates, as extensively described in the Hidden Glories books, it becomes a horse of a darker color.

Another prominent Western concept is exceptionalism, Although this is more recently associated with the United States, even that is a descendant of it’s predecessor, European colonialism. In any case, when combined with the Westernized concept of a “divine” institution, adding an exceptionalist element means that traditional Vaishnava standards are’t necessarily binding in the ISKCON institution. Ravindra Svarupa dasa’s attempt to justify in Srila Prabhupada: Founder Acarya of ISKCON that their “gurus” must submit before the mundaners on the GBC is a more than appropriate example. This is also unprecedented in Vaishnavism. The rittviks attempt to make their warped initiation method the rule is a similar exceptionalist imposition.

Rittvik is a New (Apa) Sampradaya

In recent years the rittvik advocates have come up with a new philosophical term for those who disagree with them. They call them “living guru” devotees. Take for example this characterization of Kailasa Candra dasa, a longtime opponent of rittvik, as found on p576 of book 1: “By 1989 he had become a living guru radical who had become an apologist for the living guru argument. He remains antagonistic to the rittvik order of Srila Prabhupada.”

The thing is, and this also spotlights a big dishonesty of most rittvik advocates, in 1989 most devotees had never heard of rittvik, including them. Previous to that virtually all followers of Srila Prabhupada assumed that when one talked about getting initiated by a guru, it meant approaching a person who was physically manifest, what they now call a “living guru.” That’s because that is how Srila Prabhupada always framed it in his books and talks.

“Krishna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master. That is enjoined in the next verse.
tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadekshyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah” Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.34, New York, August 14, 1966

Rittvik advocates often get dodgy when you ask if they had this same physical “living guru” conception before 1989 or whenever they first heard of rittvik. In any case, that’s because the “living guru argument” is the rule in all the sastras. There we don’t find any instances of disciples surrendering to or taking initiation from gurus who are physically departed. And there certainly are departed devotees who are at least on the same level as Srila Prabhupada, like Srila Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya Himself.

It was Lord Chaitanya who established our Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, and it was He who ordered everyone therein to become a physical “living guru” themselves.

yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa

The fact that rittvik advocates have no use for this order means that they are following something else. They think it is wrong to follow this order because then one would be ambitiously trying to replace Srila Prabhupada as the only diksa guru. This means they aren’t any longer in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. They reject one of the big orders of its founder, who is also the supreme Lord. They also reject the example of all the previous acaryas who were all “living guru” advocates.

Categorically rejecting such an order in such a manner is completely different from someone who is just too weak or fallen to be guru. It means you are creating a new (apa)siddhanta or philosophy. You are then in a different or new (apa)sampradaya.

The idea of becoming a guru entails completely transforming oneself by getting beyond all ones anarthas, or materialistic habits, and becoming fixed in Krishna thought. One of those bad habits is the ambition to be guru. One thus becomes dhira or brahma-bhuta, self-realized, liberated.

“Those who are dhira – dhira means sober, thoughtful – they are not bewildered. But those who are not dhira, adhira . . . There are two classes of men: dhira and adhira. Dhira means one who is spiritually situated. He is called dhira or brahma-bhutah prasannatma, dhira.” Lecture on Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta, Madhya-lila 20.101-104, Bombay, November 3, 1975

When Srila Prabhupada was physically manifest it was a common conception among his followers that they were in the process of transforming themselves to become pure devotees so that they could fulfill the above order of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. They saw themselves following in Srila Prabhupada’s footsteps to eventually take disciples. That’s why so many, including many current rittvik advocates, believed it in 1978 when the zonal acaryas lied that they had become so qualified.

So what happened to cause so many to give up this key pursuit of fulfilling the above order of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu? It was all the cynicism generated by the faithless bad example, the pretence, of the zonal acaryas. Of course, those zonals also ran the lion’s share of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples out of the temples and the crucible purifying environment that previously was enabling their transformation.

Anyway, faithlessness is contagious. The zonals didn’t believe the process Srila Prabhupada gave us would eventually produce a self-effulgent pure devotee, so they jumped up like monkeys and lied about their level of advancement. The cynicism of seeing “the best” devotees fall so quickly to such a level engendered more faithlessness in those who served them in their mischief after 1978. Part of that faithlessness manifested in the en-mass giving up of the above order that is rittvik.

One other point is the rittvik argument that one can get divya jnana (divine knowledge) from simply reading Srila Prabhupada’s books and thus become his initiated disciple. However, entailed in that jnana-knowledge is the understanding that one is the eternal servant of God and must surrender to the orders of guru and Krishna. One of those orders is to find and surrender to a physically manifest spiritual master.

tad viddhi praṇipātena

paripraśnena sevayā

upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ

jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ
“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” Bhagavad-gita 4.34

The rittviks preach that divya jnana is easily available from the books, but is it? How many so-called rittvik disciples of Srila Prabhupada are simply imagining that they’ve received the bhakti-lata-bija (seed of devotional service)?

Madhudvisa: His question was that can you take initiation by accepting the spiritual master in your heart without actually taking…
Srila Prabhupada: These are bogus proposition. It has no meaning. (laughter) It has no meaning. If you think within yourself, “I am eating,” will you be satisfied? You starve and simply think, “I have eaten everything.” (laughter) Is that very practical proposal? You must eat. We don’t say all these bogus proposition. All right. Thank you very much. – Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.1, Melbourne, May 21, 1975

Conclusion

It is pretty much unnecessary to go through the rittvik rationalizations and “proofs” presented in parts 18 & 19 in the Hidden Glories book 2. Their renunciation of Mahaprabhu’s order puts them all “outside of the sampradaya.” This then relegates all those rationalizations and “Final Orders,” etc. to the realm of unauthorized mental speculation.

“In the parampara system, the instructions taken from the bona fide spiritual master must also be based on revealed Vedic scriptures. One who is in the line of disciplic succession cannot manufacture his own way of behavior. There are many so-called followers of the Vaishnava cult in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who do not scrupulously follow the conclusions of the sastras, and therefore they are considered to be apa-sampradaya, which means ‘outside of the sampradaya.’” Purport, Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi 7.48