Supporters of the unauthorized self-appointed diksha guru system currently active in ISKCON have long argued that the ritvik system of initiation was only ever meant to be a temporary arrangement. They point to Srila Prabhupada’s own words — phrases like “disciple of my disciple” and “grand-disciple” — as proof that the ritvik system cannot be considered authentic or scripturally sound.

This article takes a close look at the two most important pieces of evidence on this question: the May 28th, 1977 GBC meeting with Srila Prabhupada, and the July 9th, 1977 directive that followed it. To start with, the May 28th meeting will be analysed.

Why This Meeting Still Matters

Before examining the meeting itself, it is worth understanding why a conversation from the year 1977 carries so much weight today, decades after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. This is crucial to the subject matter at hand. To understand that, we need to return to the events of that year.

An Early Warning Sign: April 22nd, 1977

A month before the GBC meeting in question, a revealing conversation took place between Tamal Krishna Goswami and Srila Prabhupada. An excerpt from that conversation is produced below.

Room conversation, Apr 22, 1977:

Prabhupäda: People complained against Haàsadüta. Did you know that?
Tamäla Kåñëa: I'm not sure of the particular incidences, but I've heard general...
Prabhupäda: In Germany. In Germany.
Tamäla Kåñëa: The devotees there.
Prabhupäda: So many complaints.
Tamäla Kåñëa: Therefore change is good.
Prabhupäda: No, you become guru, but you must be qualified first of all. Then you become.
Tamäla Kåñëa: Oh, that kind of complaint was there.
Prabhupäda: Did you know that?
Tamäla Kåñëa: Yeah, I heard that, yeah.
Prabhupäda: What is the use of producing some rascal guru?
Tamäla Kåñëa: Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and it's clear fact that we are all conditioned souls, so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible...
Prabhupäda: Hmm.
Tamäla Kåñëa: ...but not now.
Prabhupäda: Yes. I shall choose some guru. I shall say, "Now you become äcärya. You become authorized." I am waiting for that. You become all äcärya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete.

In the above conversation, Tamal Krishna Goswami acknowledged that, as of April 1977 — barely seven months before Srila Prabhupada’s departure — no one within ISKCON was yet qualified to become guru. Srila Prabhupada confirmed this assessment. The conversation however, did not stop there. It continued, as below:

Room conversation, Apr 22, 1977 :

Tamäla Kåñëa: The process of purification must be there.

Prabhupäda: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahäprabhu wants that. Ämära äjïäya guru haïä "You become guru." [laughs] But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower...

Tamäla Kåñëa: Not rubber stamp.

Prabhupäda: Then you'll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gauòéya Maöha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and "guru." What kind of guru? No publication, no preaching, simply bring some foodstuff... My Guru Mahäräja used to say, "Joint mess," a place for eating and sleeping. Khäoyä däoyä äòòä khänä: "Joint mess." He said this.

As seen above, Srila Prabhupada stated plainly that a “rubber stamped” guru would not be effective. The underlying principle he articulated was simple: to become a guru, one must be ordered to do so, by one’s own guru. Anyone who takes up the position without such an order — however sincere — is, in Srila Prabhupada’s words, merely “rubber stamped.”

Srila Prabhupada’s Health Declines

By May of 1977, Srila Prabhupada’s health suddenly deteriorated considerably. Devotees decided to move him to Rishikesh, currently in the state of Uttarakhand in India, hoping that the change of environment would aid his recovery. The devotees reasoned that on the banks of the Ganga, the salubrious weather of Rishikesh could prove beneficial for Srila Prabhupada’s health. Accordingly on May 7^th, 1977, devotees took Srila Prabhupada to Rishikesh by a night train.

In Rishikesh, an accommodation as comfortable as was possible, was identified for Srila Prabhupada. Devotees tried their best to provide Srila Prabhupada with rest and recuperation. The stay went smoothly initially, but not for long. Barely a week later, on the night of May 14th, a violent thunderstorm struck — a power cut, lightning, thunder, and strong winds kept devotees awake through the night. The devotees were shaken by the fury of nature. The very next day, on May 15th, Srila Prabhupada instructed the devotees to prepare a will - a clear signal that he had decided to bring his manifest pastimes in the material world to a close.

The day after that, at 2:30 in the morning on May 16th, Srila Prabhupada called the devotees and said: “If I am going to die, then let it be in Vrindavan.” His intention was now unmistakable. Devotees scrambled to arrange transport — in all probability, unable to secure train tickets at such short notice, they instead arranged a car, taking Srila Prabhupada first to Delhi, where the party stayed overnight, and then on to Vrindavan the following day, May 17th.

Five days after arriving in Vrindavan, on May 22nd, Srila Prabhupada said it would be better to plan for the worst, and asked that all GBC members come to Vrindavan. This then formed the background for the famous GBC meeting of 28^th May 1977 with Srila Prabhupada. The meeting of 28^th May was neither fortuitous nor happenstance. It was deliberate and the GBC as well as Srila Prabhupada were fully aware of the significance of that meeting and it’s background – the background being Srila Prabhupada’s imminent disappearance and the urgent need for the GBC to seek specific directions from Srila Prabhupada for the inevitable time when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be physically present amidst them.

The GBC Meeting of May 28th, 1977

The GBC — 23 members at that time — convened in Vrindavan on May 28^th, 1977. After due deliberation, they settled on five questions they wanted Srila Prabhupada to answer regarding the future of the movement after his departure:

i. How long should GBC members remain in office?

ii. How can GBC members who leave be replaced?

iii.In the absence of Srila Prabhupada, what is the procedure for first, second, and sannyasa initiations?

iv.What is the relationship of the person who gives this initiation to the person he gives it to?

v. Is there any provision for publication of other translations of Vaishnava scriptures by the BBT, after the departure of Srila Prabhupada?

Every one of these questions was framed with the period after Srila Prabhupada’s departure in mind. Until that point of time, Srila Prabhupada himself appointed GBC members. Hence the GBC naturally wanted clarity on how that process would continue. The same forward-looking logic applies to the initiation question: initiations had already been running smoothly in ISKCON for eleven years, so there would have been no reason to ask how they would be “conducted” unless the question specifically concerned the time after Srila Prabhupada was no longer present.

Why Was the Question Phrased So Indirectly?

It is worth noting how convolutedly questions 3 and 4 were worded. The GBC could simply have asked, “Who will be the next acharya?” or “Who will be your successor?” Instead, they asked about the procedure for initiations, and separately, about the relationship between the initiator and the initiated. What could have been running in the minds of the GBC when they framed these two questions in this manner? Did they not expect any one amongst them to succeed Srila Prabhupada as the diksha guru and acharya of ISKCON? Or did they already have an inkling of what was to come – that Srila Prabhupada was not going to name any successor, but instead, he would continue to remain the diksha guru and acharya of ISKCON even after his disappearance? Could that have been in running in the minds of the GBC, which influenced them to frame the questions the way they did?

Tamal Krishna Goswami explained the reason for this indirect phrasing during the Topanga Canyon discussions of December 3rd, 1980.

Topango Canyon discussions on 3^rd Dec 1980:

Tamal Krishna Goswami: What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned that he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons and they went to Prabhupada – five or six of us. We asked him, “Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?

According to Tamal Krishna Goswami’s account, Srila Prabhupada had already mentioned that he intended to appoint ritviks to carry on initiations in ISKCON after his disappearance. Since the GBC knew that Srila Prabhupada was contemplating appointing rtviks to carry on initiations after his disappearance, the GBC decided to approach Srila Prabhupada and ask him directly: after his departure, if they initiate devotees, whose disciples will they be — his, or theirs? Because Srila Prabhupada had already indicated he would appoint ritviks, the GBC’s questions at the May 28th meeting were framed specifically around how these ritviks would function and what their relationship to their initiates would be — not around who the “next guru” would be, since that question had, in effect, already been ruled out. That should explain the peculiar nature of the manner in which the two questions were framed, instead of what would normally be expected in such circumstances.

With this background established, the GBC selected seven of its senior-most members — those among the original twelve appointed by Srila Prabhupada in the Direction of Management of July 1970 — to bring these five questions to him directly.

The Answers to Questions 3 and 4

Srila Prabhupada by this time, was bed-ridden and confined to his room next to the guest house on the ground floor behind the Krishna Balaram temple in Vrindavan. The committee of seven members lost no time in carrying out the task assigned to them by the GBC. They met Srila Prabhupada in his room on that very same day, on 28^th of May 1977 and posed all the five questions before Srila Prabhuapda. These questions carried immense significance for the entire institution of ISKCON. For, Srila Prabhupada’s responses would undoubtedly decide the future course of the entire movement. In the context of the enormous import of this meeting of the GBC with Srila Prabhupada, it is indeed quite surprising that all that the GBC took was not more than 10 minutes and 35 seconds to elicit Srila Prabhupada’s responses to these five questions and to record it. Even more substantially astonishing is that fact that the portion of the May 28th recording dealing with initiations – which is part of the entire 10 minute 35 second meeting - lasted less than three minutes – all of two minutes and six seconds, to be precise. It goes without saying that the GBC should have spent hours, days and weeks, if not months, discussing this all important topic on initiations which would tremendously impact the life of every one of the millions of devotees in the entirety of the future of ISKCON. They should have discussed amongst themselves as well as with Srila Prabhupada for hours and days on end. But sadly enough, the GBC deemed it fit to not extend the discussion beyond two minutes and six seconds.

It is this brief exchange of less than three minutes, that supporters of the current self-appointed guru system point to — particularly the phrase “he is his disciple” — as evidence that Srila Prabhupada was appointing successor gurus. Which naturally requires us to analyse closely this short discussion on the initiation system meant for the time particularly when Srila Prabhupada was no longer with us.

Question 3: The Procedure for Future Initiations

The exchange between the GBC members and Srila Prabhupada on 28^th May 1977, regarding question 3, proceeded as follows:

Satsvarupa: 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.

Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.

Tamal Krishna: Is that called ritvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Ritvik, yes.

The response from Srila Prabhupada to this question is unambiguous, and notably, no GBC member present asked any follow-up question. Srila Prabhupada did not say he would recommend future diksha gurus or acharyas — he specified “officiating acaryas,” and confirmed, when asked directly, that this meant ritvik.

The absence of any follow-up by the GBC members is itself significant. No one asked what a “ritvik” was, whether the concept had scriptural precedent, or whether Srila Prabhupada was not capable of naming successor gurus outright or that it was against sastra or that it was against tradition or that it would stop the parampara. The silence indicates that the GBC already understood and accepted what was being proposed — consistent with Tamal Krishna Goswami’s 1980 account that this had already been discussed with Srila Prabhupada beforehand. Whatever objections might be raised decades later, the GBC had every opportunity to raise them on May 28th, 1977, and did not. This then is their biggest blunder, that they did not raise any further question on Srila Prabhupada’s decision nor did they seek further clarification for his response on question 3. They had the opportunity then. They did not utilize it. They had another almost five and half months from then on to Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance to still seek clarifications. They did not utilize that opportunity either. To put it bluntly, they blew it. And having not asked Srila Prabhupada even a single clarification on the matter, they have no right whatsoever to raise objections to Srila Prabhupada’s order after his disappearance.

It is a matter of historical record that Srila Prabhupada went on to name eleven such ritviks in the July 9th directive, discussed below — consistent with what he indicated in this meeting. But before we get there, let us look closely at Srila Prabhupada’s response to question 4.

Question 4: The Relationship question

The fourth question and :

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.

Srila Prabhupada’s answer to the fourth question can be read in two parts. First, he restated a principle he had already expressed in the April 22nd conversation a month earlier — quoting the amara ajnaya verse, which holds that no one becomes guru except by the order of their own guru:

Satsvarūpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...
Prabhupada: He’s guru. He’s guru.
Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order… Amara ajnaya guru hana [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. Be actually guru, but by my order.

In this portion of Srila Prabhupada’s response to question 4, Srila Prabhupada draws a distinction between two roles: the one who gives initiation (himself), and the one who officiates on his behalf (the ritvik). Satsvarupa Goswami had actually intended to ask about the relationship between the ritvik and the disciple, but the way the question came out, Srila Prabhupada understood it as being about the initiator — himself — and answered accordingly. Satsvarupa Goswami seemed to confuse the initiator for the officiator and hence he ended up asking Srila Prabhupada whether they would still be considered his disciples. To which Srila Prabhupada replied, “Why consider?” Tamal Krishna Goswami, immediately latching on to the difference in understanding between Srila Prabhupada and Satsvarupa Goswami, interjected by clarifying Satsavarupa Goswami’s question.

Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?
Tamal Krishna: No, he’s asking that these ritvik-acaryas, they’re officiating, giving diksha. Their… The people who they give diksha to, whose disciple are they?
Prabhupada: They’re his disciple.
Tamal Krishna: They’re his disciple.
Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is grand-disciple.
Satsvarupa: Yes.
Tamal Krishna: That’s clear.
Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer…
Prabhupada: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it…

A Closer Look at the Interruption

This final portion of Srila Prabhupada’s response to question 4 is where most of the current controversy centers. But there is a case to be made that Tamal Krishna Goswami and Satsvarupa Goswami, believing they had their answer, spoke over Srila Prabhupada before he had finished his sentence. Removing the interjections, which did not contribute in any significant way to the entire conversation, Srila Prabhupada’s reply reads as a single continuous statement:

Prabhupada: They’re his disciple… Who is initiating, he is grand-disciple… When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it…

Taken as “who is initiating, he is grand-disciple,” the sentence is incoherent. The initiator, meaning the spiritual master, obviously cannot become his own grand disciple. Which brings us to the only other possible alternative. Read instead as “they are his disciple, who is initiating” — meaning, the disciples belong to the one who is initiating — the sentence makes complete sense, and is fully consistent with everything Srila Prabhupada had already said: that the initiator is himself, and the officiator is the ritvik. Under this reading, the full reply becomes:

Prabhupada: They’re his disciple, who is initiating. He is grand-disciple when I order, “You become guru” — he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it…In other words, the disciples belong to the initiator (Srila Prabhupada). That is a statement of fact. Srila Prabhuapda followed up the statement of fact (that the disciples belong to the person who is initiating), with a statement of principle. Which is that a ritvik only becomes a “regular guru” — with disciples of his own, making them Srila Prabhupada’s granddisciples — at the point when Srila Prabhupada specifically orders him to become guru. This is, again, the same amara ajnaya principle repeated for a third time in the conversation. If the rtvik at any time in future gets an order from Srila Prabhupada to become a regular guru, then he initiates his own disciples who become Srila Prabhupada’s grand-disciples. If there is no such order from Srila Prabhupada, the rtvik simply continues being a rtvik. Read this way, there’s no contradiction between Srila Prabhupada saying moments earlier “they are disciples… why consider?” and the closing lines — both consistently affirm that the disciples are his.

Even Allowing for Ambiguity

Even if one grants, for the sake of argument, that the answer to Question 4 remains genuinely ambiguous about whose disciples the initiates would become, the answer to Question 3 was not ambiguous at all — it was accepted without objection by every GBC member present that Srila Prabhupada was appointing ritviks, not diksha gurus. On that point alone, the case for temporary ritviks who would later become independent diksha gurus does not hold up. If at all there is any confusion, then it is only that of the relationship between the rtvik and the person receiving initiation, which was question 4. There is no confusion that the future initiations would be carried out by rtviks and that there would be no diksha gurus or acharyas after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance. Any lingering ambiguity about Question 4 specifically was, in any case, resolved in the July 9th directive that followed, which repeatedly and explicitly states that new initiates are disciples of Srila Prabhupada himself.

What the GBC Recorded — and What They Didn’t

Despite this, the official minutes taken by the GBC on May 28th, 1977 read:

“Srila Prabhupada said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even after his disappearance. The disciples they accept shall be their disciples and Srila Prabhupada will be their grand spiritual master.”

One important point to be noted here is the alacrity with which the GBC worked on that fateful day of 28^th May 1977. Considering the tremendous significance of the meeting and the impact it was going to have on the future of the entire movement, it is indeed inexplicable that the GBC made such haste. The GBC met on 28^th May 1977 and drew up five questions for the future on the same day. The GBC then identified a committee of seven members to take these questions to Srila Prabhupada. This committee then met Srila Prabhupada on the very same day for less than eleven minutes. Then the committee, that very same day on 28^th May 1977, brought back it’s version of the meeting with Srila Prabhupada to the GBC. And the GBC again met on exactly the same day and captured the committee’s version of Srila Prabhupada’s responses in it’s meeting minutes on the very same day of 28^th May 1977. In hindsight, the GBC seems to have worked at the speed of light on that day! A matter which needed days, weeks and months of deliberation and planning as to how to implement the Founder-Acharya’s specific final instructions concerning the entire future of ISKCON – which was a huge organization stretching far and wide, spanning innumerable countries, operating 108 temples and involving more than five thousand full time missionaries – was apparently given only a cursory treatment by the GBC. Which is strange, given the circumstances surrounding this entire meeting and the full awareness of the GBC about it.

Even more remarkably enough, it was – and still continues to be in 2026 – the GBC’s general practice to meet only once a year in Mayapur during Gaura Purnima. Very rarely did the GBC meet at other times of the year. And the GBC had already met for the year in March of 1977 at Mayapur during Gaura Purnima, as they usually did. Hence to meet suddenly, that too with a mere five day notice, on the express order of Srila Prabhupada, at Vrindavan, meant that the GBC was fully aware of the significance of the meeting and the decisions given by Srila Prabhupada to their questions. As a responsible topmost management leadership of a worldwide organization, the GBC would justifiably be expected to pour over each of Srila Prabhupada’s responses for hours, days, weeks and months and seek hundreds of clarifications on each of Srila Prabhupada’s responses on their execution. But strangely enough, the entire matter was completed at breakneck speed in a matter of few minutes, and never followed up with even a single question or clarification to Srila Prabhupada. This strange behaviour of the GBC, adds another layer of mystery to the whole event which was of utmost significance to the future of the worldwide behemoth that ISKCON was.

Irrespective of how hastily the entire matter was dealt with, all GBC members present signed these minutes. Notably, however, Srila Prabhupada’s own signature was never obtained.

A Deliberate Omission?

According to Satsvarupa Goswami’s own account in his Recent Memoir of 1977, this omission was not accidental. He recalls that Jayadvaita Swami pressed him strongly to get the matter in writing directly from Srila Prabhupada, warning that without it, the understanding would later be contested. Satsvarupa Goswami approached Tamal Krishna Goswami about it, explaining that people would not understand that Srila Prabhupada had named regular gurus while he was still alive. Tamal Krishna Goswami, however, was confident he already knew Srila Prabhupada’s intention and declined to pursue getting anything signed.

This matters because if the minutes truly reflected an appointment of independent diksha gurus, that appointment is nowhere to be found in writing, signed by Srila Prabhupada himself. Here is the matter described by Satsvarupa Goswami himself.

Satsvarupa Goswami in “Recent Memoir of 1977” (about May 28, 1977 minutes):

Jayadvaita Maharaja…did say strongly that I had better get this in writing from Srila Prabhupada. He said this was very important and that it was really not clear. He said that unless it was in writing it would be contested by devotees later. I was surprised to hear that because it all seemed quite clear to me. But Jayadvaita Maharaja insisted that I get it in writing from Prabhupada. So on his advice I thought he must be right that it was very serious. I went down to Tamal Krishna Maharaja and asked about it…I asked Tamal Krishna Maharaj to please get this in writing. He asked, “Why?” I said, “Because people will not understand that Prabhupada picked regular gurus when he named the persons who would initiate while he was still with us.” Tamal Krishna Maharaja replied that he himself knew very well what Prabhupada intended and that was good enough for him. I tried again to ask him to ask Prabhupada to sign something, but Tamal Krishna was not willing.

Following the Logic Either Way

Now let us see what is the outcome, if suppose, hypothetically, the minutes of the May 28^th 1977 GBC meeting are taken at face value — that Srila Prabhupada intended to appoint independent diksha gurus whose initiates would be their own disciples. If that is true, then the question to be asked is, where is the actual appointment? The eleven ritviks named on July 9th, 1977 were named specifically as ritviks — representatives of the acharya — not as diksha gurus. If the ritvik role was meant to lapse after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance on November 14th, 1977, then some separate appointment of diksha gurus should exist for the period afterward. The GBC resolved on 28^th May 1977 that ““Srila Prabhupada said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even after his disappearance.” The resolution was that Srila Prabhupada would appoint diksha gurus. Where is that appointment from Srila Prabhupada of diksha gurus? The fact is that no such appointment exists. Hence either way – whether we take it that on May 28^th Srila Prabhupada decided to appoint rtviks or regular gurus, the current diksha guru system in ISKCON is unauthorized.

The GBC’s own resolutions over the following decades reflect this reality. In a March 1978 resolution, the GBC resolved that:

GBC Resolution 16 of March 1978:

“ The GBC will consider each year at Gour Poornima the appointment of new Spiritual Masters to

be approved by a 3/4 vote. However,for 1978,no new Spiritual Masters shall be appointed other than the 11 selected by Srila Prabhupada.”

The GBC resolved that new spiritual masters would be considered annually, but that for 1978, no new spiritual masters would be appointed “other than the 11 selected by Srila Prabhupada” — implying Srila Prabhupada himself had chosen eleven diksha gurus. Yet by 1999, GBC Resolution 403 told a very different story, acknowledging that “shortly after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, the GBC Body allowed for an unauthorized ‘zonal acarya’ system to evolve in ISKCON, elevating eleven exclusive successor diksa gurus.” In other words, the GBC itself, twenty one long years later, admitted that the GBC, not Srila Prabhupada, had elevated those eleven devotees to the position of diksha guru.

Whichever direction this reasoning is taken, the conclusion is the same: Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks on July 9th, 1977 — not diksha gurus. No documented appointment of diksha gurus by Srila Prabhupada exists at all. Which brings us to the next important document evidencing that Srila Prabhupada authorized only a rtvik system of initiations for ISKCON particularly for the time after his disappearance, and that the current diksha guru system in ISKCON is unauthorized – the July 9^th directive.

The July 9th, 1977 Directive

The July 9th directive, issued shortly after the events described above, reads as follows:

To All G.B.C., and Temple Presidents

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “rittik” [ritvik] — representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:

His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami
His Holiness Jayapataka Swami
His Holiness Tamala Krsna Gosvami
His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami
His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami
His Holiness Hansadutta Swami
His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
His Holiness Harikesa Swami
His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari
His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari

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

Hoping this finds you all well.

Your servant, Tamala Krsna Gosvami, Secretary to Srila Prabhupada

Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

This directive states, in four separate places, that newly initiated devotees are disciples of Srila Prabhupada — not of the eleven representatives performing the initiation on his behalf. It’s opening line also directly ties it back to the May 28th meeting: “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 ‘rittik.’” The only GBC meeting prior to July 9^th which happened in Vrindavan, and where Srila Prabhupada said he would appoint rtviks is the May 28^th meeting. Hence the connection between the May 28^th GBC meeting with Srila Prabhupada and the July 9^th directive is irrefutably established.

Attempts to Seek Further Clarity

Devotees did try, on at least one occasion, to get further clarification directly from Srila Prabhupada. Yasodanandan Swami’s diary from late July 1977, recorded that in the Krishna Balaram temple courtyard, Guru Kripa Swami and Bhagavan Das discussed going to Prabhupada to ask exactly how the ritvik system would work — who besides the eleven named could do it, and what the GBC’s role would be. Tamal Krishna Goswami, however, discouraged the visit, saying Srila Prabhupada was unwell and busy, and that the matter was “clear anyway.”

Several other testimonies from the period corroborate the understanding that the ritvik appointments were intended to continue after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance:

Gauridasa Pandita Dasa, writing in On My Behalf (1998), recalled that Tamal Krishna asked Srila Prabhupada whether more ritviks could be appointed in the future, to which Srila Prabhupada replied that the GBC at Mayapur could appoint more, and that the GBC could remove a ritvik who fell down from his position.

Yasodanandan Swami’s diary entries from July 8th–10th, 1977 record Tamal Krishna Goswami explaining that Srila Prabhupada had named eleven ritviks who could initiate on his behalf, that others could be added later, and that after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, “they’ll be ritviks. That’s what Prabhupada said. It’s all on tape.”

Chyavana Swami, posting on Facebook in September 2016, recalled Srila Prabhupada saying he would continue to accept disciples even after he was no longer physically present, adding, “I will have millions of disciples.”

Pita Das, writing for Vaishnava News Network in December 1998, recalled hearing the word “ritvik” directly from Srila Prabhupada many times during his final weeks in Vrindavan.

Lochanananda Das, quoted in Srila Prabhupada’s Hidden Glories (Book 1, Chapter 63), recalled Pita Das mentioning that he’d heard Srila Prabhupada say at least a dozen times in 1977 that initiations would be performed after his departure by the “ritvik acharya.”

B.V. Puri Maharaja of Sri Chaitanya Chandra Ashram — notably, someone outside of ISKCON entirely — recalled asking Srila Prabhupada directly: “You have established eleven gurus… Guru must be one.” Srila Prabhupada’s reply: “I have not selected eleven gurus. I have appointed eleven ritviks.”

Conclusion

Taken together, the events leading up to the May 28th, 1977 meeting incontrovertibly demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada had decided to wind up his manifest pastimes on the earth and had called the entire GBC to Vrindavan specifically to settle questions about the future of his movement. The meeting itself produced a clear, immediate answer to the question of how initiations would proceed — through ritviks, or officiating acharyas, not through newly appointed diksha gurus — and no GBC member present raised any objection or sought clarification at the time.

Whatever ambiguity may be read into the second half of the exchange on Question 4, it was resolved definitively by the July 9th, 1977 directive, which states four times over that newly initiated devotees are disciples of Srila Prabhupada himself. Multiple independent testimonies, from within and outside ISKCON, corroborate that this was Srila Prabhupada’s clear and repeated intention. The GBC’s own later admission, in 1999, that it — not Srila Prabhupada — had elevated eleven “zonal acharyas” only reinforces the point.

The July 9th, 1977 directive was not a temporary measure. It was Srila Prabhupada’s final, standing order for how initiations in ISKCON should be conducted — and it remains in effect even today. And that establishes beyond all doubt that the current diksha guru system in ISKCON invented by the GBC is unauthorized.

All glories to Vishwa Guru Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.

The May 28th, 1977 GBC Meeting: Re-Examining the Evidence for the Ritvik System of Initiation