"The Final Order" is a book written by Krishnakant. The title was given to explain what he says Prabhupada intended regarding future initiations in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), as well as Prabhupada's continued position in relation to aspiring disciples. The content of this essay about "The Final Order" (TFO) will be familiar to those who have read it. It will also be familiar to those who haven't read it but who are involved in Prabhupada's community of believers. To those who aren't involved either way, there are links below to gain information about Krishna Consciousness, ISKCON, and the "The Final Order".
What follows is a series of responses to Krishnakant’s The Final Order (TFO). The views are expressly mine and should in no way be construed as those of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) or the Iskcon Revival Movement (IRM, aka: Ritvik). However, I must point out that I’m an individual and am within my right to express everything that follows. Right or wrong, they’re my views.
My name is Thomas T. Klugh. I have a Master’s degree in Philosophy of Education from New York University.
I’ve spent my life looking into many different religious ideologies. From Mariology in my teens, to Baptist in my twenties, to both Kashmir Shaivism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism in my thirties, to Zen Buddhism, Native American Drumming Circles, and a bit of Islam in my forties - particularly Sufism, to Kabbalah in my fifties, I’ve run the gamut of spiritual searching. In addition to the above, I’ve also looked into Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, Eckankar and others I can’t recall right now. To balance out everything, I’ve also read many articles on atheism and the anti-cult movement. It’s only fair to point out that while such a background is commendable in the academic world, in the world of religious endeavor it’s frowned upon. Some conclude that too much learning only clouds one’s thinking. Be that as it may – it is what it is.
To me, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the most beautiful. The western world can thank His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupada for the wealth of information about Gaudiya Vaishnavism (see photo - right).
During my searching, nagging questions that have always been at the forefront of my thinking were and still are: “What else is there?”, and “What does the other side have to say?” Sadly, I quickly realized that no matter how spiritual the leaders of any one movement appeared to be, many are intolerant of the teachings of the other ideologies. I'm able to feel comfortable taking part in any of the services of the different religions, but many of the proponents of them are intolerant of all the others. Because of this, I have never been able to dedicate myself to any one religious ideology. Many preach love, but practice hate. They give lip-service to tolerance, but they themselves are intolerant of the beliefs of others and so I find their intolerance intolerable.
The conundrum of all this is that I’ve always tried to see both sides of different religious issues. When I ask challenging questions to side “A”, they think I belong to side “B”. Likewise, when I ask those same challenging questions to side “B”, they think I belong to side “A”. Or, if by some miracle I convince both sides I’m not a plant for the other side, then they think I must be part of a covert operation of some side “C”. And so I’m caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place... “damned if you do; damned if you don’t”. Well, if I’m damned, I’m going to have my say, and I don’t give a jot or a tittle if you don’t like it. This is not to say that if you provide convincing arguments I won’t consider them, but I will challenge you if I see an opening.
Please note - I’m neither a Ritvik nor an ISKCON-ite. I’m just a guy who has read Prabhupada’s books.
Lastly, I must warn you that I will write frankly. If your sensibilities are easily bruised, stop reading now.
Thomas T. Klugh
Original publication: December 11, 2008
Most recent update: April 11, 2010
---------------------
The Beginning
A seeker usually becomes a disciple of his or her teacher. In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition the teacher is a guru.
"Guru" comes from two root words: "Gu" means "dark", and "ru" means "light", and so a guru is one who can dispel the
darkness of ignorance with the light of knowledge.
The guru can accept disciples while he (the guru) is still physically present in his body. Traditionally, when the
guru dies, he stops accepting disciples directly and his disciples then begin accepting disciples of their own - if
they're qualified. Here lies the conflict between ISKCON and the IRM. Some of Prabhupada's disciples claim Prabhupada said He (Prabhupada)
will continue to accept disciples even after his demise. Others say this is nonsense - hence the conflict.
Why, oh why in all the discussions between Prabhupada and his disciples, why didn’t someone ask Prabhupada the direct word-for-word question:
will YOU continue to be the diksha guru?
Such a direct word-for-word question doesn’t exist anywhere. I find this extremely perplexing, and it’s because of the lack of such a direct question (among other reasons) that the present rift exists between ISKCON and the IRM. Even at the risk of offending the guru, with all the times Prabhupada interrupted the queries of his disciples, why didn’t even one of them risk going to hell and interrupt Prabhupada and ask Him the very important, essential, and neglected question above.
Or, why didn't they ask this word-for-word question:
after you leave your body?
It’s precisely because all of Prabhupada’s disciples lacked the gonads to be forceful that the direct word-for-word questions were never asked, and it’s because of this that the present day rift exists. Nice going! The senior disciples of both sides: ISKCON and those of the IRM are to blame for the current predicament.
My Personal Feelings and Beliefs
As previously stated, my personal feelings and beliefs are my own. I don’t need the sanctioning of the IRM (or ISKCON) to express them. The conundrum here is that I have friends on both sides – in both ISKCON and in the IRM. This makes it difficult to write these responses, as I don’t want to alienate anyone. Still, an opinion must be expressed.
Even more than the existence of legal documents and what the IRM says Prabhupada said and when He said it, I get the feeling that the real reason the IRM exists today is because there are a lot of senior devotees that are just plain pissed off at what happened before and after Prabhupada’s departure. From senior disciples trying to change Prabhupada’s words, to “The Big Guru” decade of the ‘80s, to the accumulation of wealth, accusations of murder, of sex-crimes, to the ecclesiastical approval of guru-ship of disciples who themselves haven’t yet reached the level of maha-bhagavata – there’s plenty to be angry about.
However, I believe the issue of Prabhupada being the only diksha guru in ISKCON for the next 9,500 years is nonsense. In short, the diksha issue is a red herring. I’m not saying it’s a deliberate attempt by the IRM to mislead, but the real reason for the IRM's position is actually one of anger and not anything that can be construed by any legal document or wording therein. My feeling is that the IRM is in denial about the real issues and is clouding the real issues with the diksha issue.
I believe there are many senior disciples of Prabhupada in IRM who would give up supporting it, but they’re so angry that they’ll do anything to discredit ISKCON, including clinging to the Ritvik issue.
Lastly, it’s easy for those who knew and received initiation directly from Prabhupada to support either ISKCON or the Ritvik position. They already have their guru. Look what the rest of us have to deal with – a philosophical civil war between two groups, and what appears to be a second-best system with a ridiculous sounding name.
Henceforward, You Will Stop Begging The Question
The definition of begging the question is when the one positing the proposition tries to include his conclusion within the premises that are suppose to lead up to the conclusion. For example:
- Did you hear, Joe says God talks to him.
- Really? How do you know Joe is telling the truth?
- Would someone who God talks to lie?
- The word, “Henceforward” in the July 9th letter means that Prabhupada will continue to be the diksha guru after His departure.
- Really? How do you know?
- Because that’s what “Henceforward” means in this instance, or
- Because it doesn’t say He won’t be.
“Ritvik” Apart From ISKCON
Basically, the term "ritvik" refers to a system where one person acts as a representative for another person if that other person can't be personally present. Prabhupada instituted it prior to His disappearance (death, to the lay person), as it was physically impossible for Him to be everywhere all the time. The IRM believes Prabhupada intended the system to continue after His physical departure from the planet. Other's disagree and say the system was intended only for when Prabhupada was still physically present on the planet and that the ritvik system ended with Prabhupada's disappearance.
Surely the concept of “Ritvik” existed prior to Prabhupada’s arrival in America. It had to exist as a concept prior to Prabhupada’s birth. Most likely, it exists in other religious customs, yet for all their posturing I have yet to see anything written by either ISKCON or IRM about the Ritvik concept in other religious traditions. Why is this? Surely, other religious leaders in the world can shed some light on the concept – both generally and specifically. That’s why TFO is so biased. It doesn’t take into account a more global understanding of the Ritvik philosophy. It's not being objective in its approach.
My contention isn't whether Prabhupada instituted a ritvik system, but whether He intended it to continue after He left His body. For the IRM to insist it must continue because Prabhupada didn't "officially" end it is only an assumption. Isn't it possible Prabhupada knew it would naturally end with His departure, and that He had a natural mindset to this effect?
"Ritvik" in Other Traditions
If you google the word "Ritvik", 38,000 links will come up. "Rtvik" will give you about 4,600 links. Most of them are devotee/ISKCON/IRM-related. In the interests of being a bit more objective, if you would like to read about the concept of ritvik from a non-Vaishnava perspective, you can do so here, and here. At the very least, the sites indicate a ritvik arrangement was intended to be used for the performance of a sacrifice, and that that arrangement was only of a temporary nature. WARNING... remember Prabhupada's injunction, "milk touched by the lips of a serpent..."? Don't blame me if you fall down.
Prabhupada’s Mindset
I feel sad when I think that I missed Prabhupada by seven years. Admittedly, I’m envious of those who had personal contact with Him. Still, I’ve read most of His works. I've read all of: Bhagavad Gita as it is, Srimad Bhagavatam (all twelve cantos - I read the Krishna Books for the tenth canto), Caitanya Caritamrta, and Prabhupada Lilamrta. It took me about three-and-a-half years to get through it all (yes, I'm claiming bragging rights here). From my readings of Prabhupada’s books, I can’t help but think there must have been times when He took a few moments, sat back, and thought to Himself, “What’s wrong with these people? Why are they making this so difficult? Why can’t they grasp what I’m telling them?” I believe the diksha/Ritvik issues are two such issues. I believe Prabhupada had a mindset about the guru/disciple relationship that was first-nature to Him. He came from a culture where the teachings of a guru were a normal occurrence. He had a natural understanding of the teachings. That's not the case with western minds. Sometimes a new concept needs to be beaten into one's head before it can be understood.
Children vs. Grandchildren / Disciples vs. Grand disciples
There is a conversation where Prabhupada refers to future disciples as being "his" "grand disciples". It involves the question of whose disciples the "grand disciples" would be: Prabhupada's or Prabhupada's disciples'. Here's an analogy:
I have children. I also have grandchildren. It would be crazy for me to say my grandchildren are my children because that would imply I’m the father of my grandchildren. That’s just nutty thinking. My children are the parents of my grandchildren. Following the analogy, Prabhupada intended His disciples to be the diksha gurus of Prabhupada’s grand disciples, or Prabhupada wouldn’t have referred to them as His grand disciples. The IRM says when Prabhupada used the word "his", that He was referring to Himself in the third-person. There's no proof of this. The IRM is only speculating here. If Prabhupada had meant His grand disciples were to be His disciples, He would have used the word "my". The use of the word “his” by TFO is only wishful thinking.
The (Very Disjointed) May 28th Conversation
I believe my non-involvement in either ISKCON or IRM allows me to give a more objective point of view. With that in mind, I must say the May 28th conversation is probably one of the most disjointed conversations I’ve ever read. There seems to be gaps in the dialogue; Prabhupada seems to not hear the words His disciples are using, and IRM’s conclusion about the conversation is more like wishful thinking than anything substantial.
Siksha/Diksha Dichotomy
Briefly, siksha refers to instruction; diksha refers to initiation.
There are so many examples where TFO says that Prabhupada is to remain the diksha guru. The problem is that the examples
the IRM gives don’t say if Prabhupada is referring to diksha or siksha. The passages given just say "guru". Every example is supported,
not by any proof to the effect, but by the predisposed view of those who already want Prabhupada to remain the diksha guru.
Taking a position this way is hardly objective. It’s only predicated on a personal predisposition.
Present or Not – Here I come
This is more wishful thinking on the part of the IRM. It tries to lay claim that verses in Prabhupada’s purports say that He will remain the diksha guru. Is Prabhupada still present? Yes, He's in His samadhi tomb. Can we still receive instruction from Him? Again, the answer is yes. We can receive instruction through His works. The problem is that none of us can sit opposite of Prabhupada - eyeball to eyeball (or, eyeball to lotus feet). Therein lies the problem... we can't sit opposite of Him to receive diksha initiation, as has been the custom since time immemorial.
Again, the IRM's claims are only assumptions that Prabhupada is referring to the diksha level. Since the purports never say “diksha” or “siksha”, the IRM can’t explicitly say diksha is intended. I, or anyone can say just as easily that Prabhupada meant siksha. This would fall more in line with the fact that Prabhupada’s books will be the law books for the next 10,000 years, and that anyone will be able to take instruction and receive inspiration from them.
Prabhupada Never Appointed Any of His Disciples To Be Diksha Gurus
Rightly so. Prabhupada thought (in my opinion) his disciples were a bunch of drugged-up, sexed-up western barbarians, but it doesn’t mean Prabhupada didn’t think His disciples couldn’t evolve to the level of a maha-bhagavata. If they do evolve, who will judge them? If any student of Krishna Consciousness anywhere in the world wants to take diksha initiation from any other advanced person, it will be a matter between the student, the guru, and Krishna.
There must be innumerable branches that have come down from Srila Rupa Goswami from which to avail ourselves. Why should we get bogged down in this ISKCON/Ritvik conflict?
In addition, there may come a time when a student/guru relationship develops to a point where both receive special darshan from Prabhupada and Krishna. If so, just how will they be able to convince the IRM they had such an experience? The IRM says in one breath that someone may some day receive such darshan from Prabhupada, but the position they’ve taken implies that they’ve closed the door of such a scenario from being accepted. Will the IRM believe anyone if they tell them it happened? Why should the IRM and the ritviks believe them? More importantly, why should anyone care if the IRM does or not?
Receiving ecclesiastical approval doesn’t make a person qualified to be a diksha guru (recall I wrote earlier that I’m not an ISKCON-ite). I believe the ecclesiastical thing is going to hurt ISKCON in the long run, but I also believe the position of IRM will eventually collapse as well, that or another splinter group will branch off from the IRM, or branch off of ISKCON. If you think having two opposing groups is difficult, just wait until there are three or four!
I’ve heard it said - an advanced disciple can actually help his guru advance. If this is true then it implies that there are levels to being a maha-bhagavata, or at the very least - levels to being a guru who has disciples. If that’s true then this is even more fuel to the fire that the Ritvik philosophy is completely bogus, as anyone can accept anyone else as their diksha guru. Of course, the disciple would have to understand that his advancement will only be as far as that of their guru, so we should be careful who we accept as guru.
Maha-Bhagavata
Prabhupada uses a synonym for "maha-bhagavata". It's "uttama-adhikari" which He translates as: "first-class devotee". He says a first-class devotee doesn't fall down. He also says in Teachings of Lord Caitanya, chapter 11 that a first-class devotee":
But He also says in the purport of Bhagavad Gita chapter 9, verse 3:
At the very least, it implies a maha-bhagavata, one's diksha guru, still has room to grow. So again I say, if
a devotee has faith in a particular guru to be his diksha guru, and the devotee knows the advanced devotee he wants as his
diksha guru still has room to grow but sees His devotion and is content with that, then what is that to the Ritviks?
Are there any ISKCON or IRM gurus qualified to be diksha gurus? I believe there are.
My Recommendations and Conclusions
I believe there is hope for reconciliation between ISKCON and the IRM if they take the following steps:
- The Governing Body Commission (GBC) has to stop using ecclesiastical approval about who becomes a diksha guru. The process of doing so is so bogus it’s almost ludicrous, and I believe many of ISKCON's gurus secretly cringe at the thought of receiving guru-ship from an administrative body.
- The GBC should instruct its gurus to tell each of their disciples that their gurus may not be maha-bhagavatas (some gurus may have already done this). This doesn’t mean the disciple will have to look for another guru, but that any advancement of the disciple may not go beyond that of their respective guru. It will be a matter between the disciple and guru, and quite frankly, is none of the IRM’s business. After all, if a disciple sees that his/her guru is a sincere devotee of Krishna, what else matters?
- The IRM has to give up its ridiculous position about Prabhupada presently being the diksha guru. As I’ve written before, their position is only wishful thinking and is based on anger. There must be some siksha gurus in the IRM (and ISKCON) who are advanced to the point where they could be on the maha-bhagavata level. Who's to say? Any relationship between them and their disciples is just that – between the guru and the disciple, and is none of anyone else’s business.
- Why can’t ISKCON and the IRM see what is really going on here? A cleaving of a group doesn’t make it stronger. The cleaving asunder of anything only makes it weaker. It’s only a matter of time before the two ISKCON groups divide into three, or four or more groups. Religious history has proven this time and again. Modern-day churches are wishy-washy; they’re weak; they’re teachings are watered-down. Do we really want the appellations of “Orthodox”, “Conservative”, and “Reformed” applied to ISKCON's diverging groups?
- The IRM's attempt to deify Prabhupada will result in further division.
- Sometimes an administration has a tendency to act contrary to its own self interests. It's almost as if it has suicidal tendencies. Acting like the administration can do no wrong is a hallmark of one facing future collapse. Its arrogance creates strife and rebellion where there previously was none. Both ISKCON and the IRM should pay attention to this point.
- The political strength of ISKCON and the religious determination of the IRM can save the movement, but only if the two groups work together. Together, they can be a formidable force in the world dominated by Krishna’s external energy. Apart, they will become a plaything of that same energy, and Krishna will grant them the desire of their collective egos: to divide again, and again, and again.
- Prabhupada was, still is, and always will be the diksha guru for those who were directly initiated by Him while He was still in His body. For all aspiring disciples since Prabhupada's disappearance, Prabhupada is and will be their siksha guru.
- Traditionally, "rtvik" was always construed to be a temporary arrangement intended for a particular ceremony; one that ended when the ceremony ended. The master of ceremony was still in his body but due to another engagement couldn't attend and so he designated a viceroy to act on his behalf. To suggest that the viceroy would continue to act as such for all future ceremonies after the demise of the original master of ceremony was unheard of. In the case of the death of the original master of ceremony, the viceroy stopped being just a viceroy and officiated as a new master of ceremony if asked to do so.
- Lastly, the choice of graphics at the top of this page wasn't just a willy-nilly decision. Give this thought some consideration.
If you would like to receive a copy of "The Final Order", or read it online, please go to the IRM's site. If you want to read about Krishna consciousness in general, go to ISKCON's site. Or, here's a very nice article on How To Choose Guru.
Addendum
Since I originally published this essay, I've received numerous responses via email. Most of them have been positive; some neutral; only one negative. One very nice devotee pointed out that almost every devotee in the movement - either ISKCON or IRM has a point-of-view that may be different from others, and I probably won't find a consensus even among devotees within the same faction. For instance, in #12 below, "Present guru(s) is/are only officiating gurus", if it's the Ritvik group thinking about ISKCON gurus, then the answer is "Yes", but if the Ritvik group is thinking about Prabhupada, then the answer is "No". With that in mind, I present a synopsis in table-form below for your perusal. What with all the opinions out in cyber-space, I don't claim it to be completely accurate. If you think an entry should be modified, let me know. My email is at the bottom of this page.
| Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare |
ISKCON | Third Group (Already Forming) |
Ritvik | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prabhupada is still the only diksha guru | No | No | Yes |
| 2 | Prabhupada is sole worshipable guru | No | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | Future disciples are Prabhupada's Disciples? Grand Disciples? | Grand disciples | Grand disciples | Disciples |
| 4 | Prabhupada intended each of His disciples to become a diksha guru | No | Yes/No | No |
| 5 | A disciple must choose a living guru (one still in His body) | Yes | No | No |
| 6 | Letter of July 9th deals only with immediate future while Prabhupada still in His body | Yes | Yes | No |
| 7 | Ritvik system still in effect even after Prabhupada left His body | No | Yes | Yes |
| 8 | Prabhupada is a siksha, but not a diksha, guru | Yes | Yes | No |
| 9 | Present gurus can be diksha gurus | Yes | Yes | No |
| 10 | Present gurus are worshipable | Yes | No | No |
| 11 | Present gurus are acarya | Yes | Yes | No |
| 12 | Present guru(s) is/are only officiating gurus | No | Yes | Yes/No |
If you would like to make a comment, you may contact me at
my email address. I'm open to constructive criticism. I will try to keep this essay updated.
----------