Jitesh Hirani

@stepkoki Another point worth mentioning is that the failings or fall-downs of some ISKCON gurus do not automatically establish the ritvik conclusion. At most, they demonstrate that some individuals who accepted the role of guru were not qualified or did not remain qualified. That is certainly a serious issue, but exposing problems within a system is not the same as proving an alternative system. The existence of failed gurus does not, by itself, prove that Srila Prabhupada intended a perpetual post-samadhi ritvik arrangement. That conclusion still requires clear authorization from Srila Prabhupada himself.

Respectfully, this argument seems to address a different issue than the one actually being debated. Few devotees would deny that Krishna in the heart can guide a sincere soul, or that vani is more important than vapu. The real question is whether Srila Prabhupada explicitly authorized himself to remain the initiating guru for all future generations after his physical departure.

The fact that some disciples met Srila Prabhupada physically and later fell down does not prove that a departed acarya can continue accepting new disciples indefinitely. Physical proximity was never the qualification; authority and authorization are the issue.

Similarly, citing Paramatma does not resolve the question. Krishna knows everyone’s sincerity, yet He still established the external guru-disciple system. Bhagavad-gita 4.34 instructs us to approach a spiritual master, inquire submissively, and render service. The existence of Paramatma has never been presented as a replacement for guru-parampara.

It is also worth noting that every disciple initiated by Srila Prabhupada during his manifest presence was personally accepted by him, either directly or through recommendations that received his approval. The question is: where is the evidence that he continued accepting new disciples after November 1977?

The July 9th letter is often cited, but even there the word “henceforward” does not automatically mean “indefinitely” or “for all future generations.” The ritvik representatives Srila Prabhupada named in that letter were not eternal; they would eventually pass away themselves. More importantly, the letter states that these representatives would perform initiations on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf. It does not state that Srila Prabhupada would continue accepting new disciples indefinitely after his departure, nor does it establish a perpetual post-samadhi initiation system.

The statement that “vani is more important than vapu” is certainly true, but it does not automatically establish a post-samadhi initiation system. Otherwise, one could argue that any previous acarya in the parampara should still be initiating disciples today.

Ultimately, the discussion comes down to a simple question: can a clear statement be produced where Srila Prabhupada explicitly says that after his departure he would continue to accept new disciples as the initiating guru for future generations? Without such a statement, many devotees conclude that the traditional guru-parampara model remains the default understanding. The burden is not to show that Krishna can guide sincere souls—that is accepted by everyone—but to show that Srila Prabhupada explicitly replaced the traditional guru-parampara system with a perpetual ritvik system. That is the point that still requires clear evidence.

@stepkokithe problem with your statement is how does the spiritual master know when the disciple is qualified to be initiated?

@stepkokiso i can get initiated by Srila Madvacharya?

@jitheshk.j.2749ISKCON is following what Srila Prabhupada taught, it’s in his books, many of the westerners didn’t know about disciplic succession nor did they know about initiation, Srila Prabhupada taught these things and ISKCON is following the principle of parampara to the gold standard degree!

@jitheshk.j.2749 you didn’t answer my question, Prabhu.

@parveshsangwan01yes Guru is eternal but the question is can I get diksha from eternal Guru, if yes, then I should be able to get diksha from Bhaktisiddhanta or Bhaktivinoda or why stop there? lets me just go to Lord Brahma!

@parveshsangwan01yes Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is eternal, I will get initiated by him.

WithPrince-jj9jv Srila Prabhupada established the GBC, does the GBC recognize him as the successor?

@mathurachandradasa and they also have to repeat what’s in line from previous acharyas…this ritvik doctrine is flawed. Who picks the next Ritviks if Srila Prabhupada meant “Henceforward” to mean forever?

What you say is open to interpretation.

Unfortunately their position is that they are ok with a pure devotee coming down but they expect that in ISKCON diksa only comes from Srila Prabhupada

@joebiden9373 amazing point! Thank you!

The last argument where prabhu mentions Guru is eternal. Does that mean I can get initiated by Lord Brahma? Why stop there…can I get Lord Krsna as my diksa guru?

Did Srila Prabhupada say a diksa-guru is eternal or did he say the guru-tattva is eternal?