Srila Prabhupada WILL accept new disciples

Anyone who follows the directions of Srila Prabhupada (as in his order of July 9th),
can now and into the future be accepted by Srila Prabhupada himself, as one of his disciples.

In his recent article on the Sampradaya Sun, titled “Automatic?,” Mahavidya Prabhu argues that the supporters of Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order are denying him his right to reject aspiring disciples. I’ve appreciated Mahavidya’s writing on many occasions,but that accusation is wrong.

There is no need for Srila Prabhupada to accept (or reject) individual disciples now, because historical record shows that he chose to distance himself from that role and delegate it to rtviks instead. This can be shown clearly in four events in 1977:

1. April 22, Tamal Krsna Gosvami tells Srila Prabhupada that he does not think any of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are qualified at the level of guru, and Srila Prabupada agrees, telling TKG that he is waiting for someone to become qualified. This contradicts any earlier evidence someone may put forward saying that he had authorized gurus. As of April 22, 1977, he had not.

Conspicuously absent is any mention by Srila Prabhupada of how he supposedly authorized everyone to be initiating guru with a private letter to Tusta Krsna swami several years earlier.

2. On May 28, Satsvarupa das Gosvami formally asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations were to continue after his disappearance, and he immediately replied, “Officiating acarya… Rtvik, yes.” As if unsatisfied with this, his disciples brought the conversation around to discussion of gurus, and Srila Prabhupada emphasized it would be upon his order, an order that apparently was never given.

3. Srila Prabhupada signed a document dated July 9, 1977, indicating that the rtviks listed therein were to act on his behalf in accepting disciples, which would then be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. (TKG mentioned on at Topanga Canyon on Dec. 3, 1980, that Srila Prabhupada told him more rtviks could be added.) With this document, Srila Prabhupada materiallyremoved himself from the decision-making process in accepting disciples, having already clearly established his standard of 16 rounds, 4 regs, etc. Nowhere in this document is there any termination clause or any other contradiction of Srila Prabhupada’s prior expressed choice to employ the rtvik method for accepting disciples in ISKCON after his disappearance.

4. That Srila Prabhupada dismissed himself from the decision of accepting disciples was confirmed on October 18, when the desire of one man to become his disciple was presented to Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada referred five times to the “deputies” he had made to go to instead. Reading the conversation gives me the impression that he was a little annoyed at being bothered to verbally accept a disciple when he had already delegated that role.

Leaving aside other supporting evidence for the sake of time and space, these four events clearly illustrate the relevant decision that Srila Prabhupada actually made, to continue accepting disciples after his disappearance via the rtvik method he instituted. Therefore it is far better to focus on honoring Srila Prabhupada’s expressed order rather than worrying that someone might wrongly accept a disciple on his behalf and force Srila Prabhupada to save another soul and deliver another devotee to Krishna against his will. Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. Have we forgotten Srila Prabhupada’s mercy?

The way Mahavidya presented it, one unaware might think Srila Prabhupada was big on rejecting his aspiring disciples. We know he accepted several thousand, including some who were just passing through and many whom he never met. How many did he reject? Mahavidya acts as if he knows of one but yet calls him a disciple, so that suggests Srila Prabhupada accepted him too. I would like to know what, if any, evidence anyone has to suggest that Srila Prabhupada would reject an aspiring disciple who would meet the criteria for initiation that he established for ISKCON. In the absence of such evidence, I find it extremely mislead for anyone to stand in the way of aspiring disciples wanting to take shelter at Srila Prabhupada’s lotus feet.

Some, including Mahavidya Prabhu recently if I recall correctly, have presented an argument they seem to find very clever, that if we can be initiated as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples even now, then that means we could just as well be initiated as disciples of any past acarya. They say, devoid of logic, that the rtvik system is invalid because I could become the godbrother of Krishna’s spiritual master, for example. This again ignores the fact that Srila Prabhupada created a worldwide institution and a rtvik method within that institution for accepting disciples in his absence, and he said this was the method to be used after his disappearance. The previous acaryas came in a different time, place, and circumstance, and did not do that. History shows that Srila Prabhupada did.

Others present the idea that somehow a guru cannot accept disciples after his disappearance. I’m not sure whether they think this is a limitation on Krishna’s abilities, on the guru’s, or both.

Considering that an ordinary rich person can give his material wealth after his disappearance to someone he has never met but who meets certain qualifications, I find it impossible to believe that on the spiritual platform a guru cannot give his spiritual wealth in an equivalent situation. Materially, it happens every day. Someone has loads of money and establishes a foundation, with funding, trustees, criteria for awards, etc., and money is given as designated, even after the founder’s death. Srila Prabhupada’s establishment of the rtvik system in ISKCON during his manifest pastimes provides a similar infrastructure, making that system possible even now.

Given that Srila Prabhupada provided the means for accepting disciples after his disappearance, directly said to utilize the rtvik method after his disappearance, widely promulgated a written order following that, referred to the same in laterconversations and letters, and never subsequently contradicting this order… if the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” logic is good for anything, then rtvik system is undoubtedly what Srila Prabhupada wanted to do.

Therefore one should accept the decisions Srila Prabhupada made rather than falsely accusing others of stealing from Srila Prabhupada a decision that he formally delegated. Hare Krishna

——

COMMENT BY COREY

One question for Krsna dasa: Since, according to you, we can’t have Srila Prabhupada as our guru, then WHO are we supposed to take shelter of? Who is your guru, Krsna dasa?

Second question: Where did Srila Prabhupada ever authorize or order anyone to become diksa gurus? He only authorize them to become ritviks. So, unless you can present evidence to the contrary, I will stick with the system of initiation that Srila Prabhupada DID IN FACT establish, the ritvik system.

Good luck finding such evidence, because according to Tamal Krishna, it does not exist:

“You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: “I appoint these eleven as gurus.” It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.” – (Tamal Krishna Goswami, December 3, 1980)

-
Four objections to the ritvik system that has been put
forth in this article. Here are some answers to such objections.

BY COREY

FIRST OBJECTION: supporters of Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order are denying him his right to reject aspiring disciples.

ANSWER: On July 7th, when setting up the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada states that the ritviks could accept devotees as his disciples without consulting him. Thus, Srila Prabhupada was not involved in the process of screening, or approving new disciples. The ritviks had full authority and discretion. Srila Prabhupada’s physical involvement was not required.

Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will depend on discretion.
Tamal Krishna: On discretion.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
(Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)

Furthermore, the names given by the ritviks would be entered by Tamal Krishna Goswami into the “Initiated disciples” book. Thus, externally at least, Srila Prabhupada would not even have been aware of the disciple’s existence. Consequently, the process now would be the same as it was then, since the ritvik has full power of attorney.

SECOND OBJECTION: that if we can be initiated as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples even now, then that means we could just as well be initiated as disciples of any past acarya.

ANSWER: Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:

1. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and other previous acaryas, did not authorise a ritvik system to run “henceforward”.

2. We must approach the current link:

“…in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.” (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)
It is self-evident that Srila Prabhupada is the sampradaya acarya who succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada is therefore our current link, and is thus the correct person to approach for initiation.

THIRD OBJECTION: Others present the idea that somehow a guru cannot accept disciples after his disappearance.

ANSWER: There is nothing in the July 9th Final Order letter that says the instruction for ritviks was only meant for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. In fact, the only information given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. It is significant to note that within the July 9th letter it is stated three times that those initiated would become Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The GBC in presenting evidence for the current guru system have argued vigorously that Srila Prabhupada had already made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, it was an inviolable law that no one could initiate in his presence. Thus the necessity to state Srila Prabhupada’s ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have been an issue, namely after his departure.

For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one had ever questioned whom such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning of the July 9th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are “representatives” of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become fully-fledged diksa gurus. Srila Prabhupada’s emphasis on disciple ownership would therefore have been completely redundant were the system to operate only in his presence, especially since as long as he was present he could personally ensure that no one claimed false ownership of the disciples. As mentioned above, this point is hammered home three times in a letter which itself was quite short and to the point:

“So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final.” (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 27/11/68, Los Angeles)

The July 9th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were to be sent “to Srila Prabhupada” – Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the ritvik system must therefore be invalid.

The first point to note is the stated purpose behind the names being sent to Srila Prabhupada, ie., so they could be included in his “Initiated Disciples” book. We know from the July 7th conversation (please see Appendices) that Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with entering the new names into this book, it was done by his secretary. Further evidence that the names should be sent for inclusion in the book, and NOT specifically to Srila Prabhupada is given in the letter written to Hamsadutta, the very next day, where Tamala Krishna Goswami explains his new ritvik duties to him:

“…you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada’s ‘Initiated Disciples’ book.” (Letter to Hamsadutta from Tamala Krishna Goswami, 10/7/77)

Their is no mention made here of needing to send the names to Srila Prabhupada. This procedure could easily have continued after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. Nowhere in the final order does it state that if the “Initiated Disciples” book becomes physically separated from Srila Prabhupada all initiations must be suspended.

The next point is that the procedure of sending the names of newly initiated disciples to Srila Prabhupada in any case relates to a post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend or in any way interrupt pre-initiation, or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik’s role being already fulfilled well before the actual initiation ceremony takes place). Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent, the initiation has already occurred.

The last point is that if sending the names to Srila Prabhupada were a vital part of the ceremony, then even before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the system would have been invalid, or at least run the constant risk of being so. It was generally understood that Srila Prabhupada was ready to leave at any time, thus the danger of not having anywhere to send the names was present from day one of the order being issued. In other words, taking the possible scenario that Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated through the ritvik system, according to the above proposition, the disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada’s books that the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service. Certainly there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being entered into His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book even now. This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time.

FOURTH OBJECTION: It is absolutely clear that Srila Prabhupada wanted the disciplic succession to continue and not terminate with him.

ANSWER: The disciplic succession, or guru parampara, is eternal; there is no question of it stopping. According to Srila Prabhupada, the Sankirtan Movement, (and hence ISKCON), will only exist for the next 9,500 years. Compared with eternity 9,500 years is nothing, a mere blip in cosmic time. This would appear to be the time period during which Srila Prabhupada shall remain the “current link” within ISKCON, unless he or Krishna countermands the July 9th order, or some external circumstance renders the order impossible to follow (such as total thermo-nuclear annihilation).

Previous acaryas have remained current for long periods of time, thousands (Srila Vyasadeva) or even millions of years (see quote below). We see no reason why the duration of Srila Prabhupada’s reign as “current link”, even if it extends right till the end of the Sankirtan Movement, should pose any particular problem.

“Regarding Parampara System: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps [...] we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system – namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamperfrom understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from him [...] We have to pick up from the authority of the acarya in whatever sampradaya we belong to.” (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dayananda, 12/4/68)

Gaps in the Disciplic Succession: Regarding your third question—”Why are there apparent time‐gaps in the line of disciplic succession as listed in the Bhagavad‐gita? Is Arjuna an instructor Spiritual Master and not an initiator Spiritual Master and therefore not listed?” The time gap mentioned by you is inevitable, because the disciplic succession sometimes becomes disconnected, as we find from the Bhagavad‐gita. This is the influence of material energy, and to link it up again, it takes some time. That some time may appear to our calculation a big gap, but in relation with the eternal time, it is not even as instant. So this big gap or small gap of time is relative. Just like our 24 hours and Brahma’s 24 hours, there is much difference. Our 24 hours is not even a fraction of his second….” (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga Hawaii 14 March, 1969)

Disciplic Succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially
Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna and Brahma was also a disciple of Krishna. Thus there is no disagreement between the conclusions of Brahma and Arjuna. Vyasadeva is in the disciplic succession of Brahma. The teachings to Arjuna was recorded by Vyasadeva verbatim. So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other. We are not exactly directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva. Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. (Srila Prabhupada letter to Dinesh Tittenhurst 31 October, 1969)

The July 9th order is significant since it means thatSrila Prabhupada shall be the Prominent Acarya, at least for members of ISKCON, for as long as the Society exists. Only the direct intervention of Srila Prabhupada or Krishna can revoke the final order (such intervention needing to be at least as clear and unequivocal as a signed directive sent to the entire Society). Thus until some counter-instruction is given, the science of devotional service shall continue to be transmitted directly by Srila Prabhupada to successive generations of his disciples. Since this is a common phenomenon in our disciplic succession, there is no cause for alarm. The succession can only be considered “ended” if this science of devotional service is lost. On such occasions, Lord Krishna Himself usually descends to re-establish the principles of religion. As long as Srila Prabhupada’s books are in circulation, this “science” shall remain vigorously intact, and perfectly accessible.

The speculative idea that the July 9th letter only applied to when Srila Prabhupada was ill is debunked - Part 2

By: 

Yashodanandana Dasa, Los Angeles, California

Originally GK tried to use the Oct 18th conversation as evidence that July 9th only applied to while Srila Prabhupada was sick. He said that July 9th, Srila Prabhupada appointed ritviks because he was sick, and then said that in Oct Srila Prabhupada had deputed the 11 ritviks to be regular diksha gurus because he was sick. I asked him, which was it? Had he deputed them to be ritviks because he was sick, or deputed the ritviks to be regular gurus because he was sick? How can it be both? He did not answer. What he was trying to assert was that on Oct 18th SP had deputed JP to initiate as diksha, not just as ritvik, because SP was now stopping THIS initiation. He claimed that THIS initiation could not be the ritvik aspects because he claimed that SP had already stopped those aspects on July 9th, and thus he claimed the only initiations he could be stopping in Oct was the diksha aspects.

But, after praying to Srila Prabhupada what the facts were, SP revealed to me that he had not actually stopped anything as of Oct 18th. The 11 had not yet started to perform the duties he had deputed them to do. Not one ritvik initiation had been held. And the most unique feature of the July 9th letter was that SP had turned over to the ritviks the duty to make the final decision whether someone could be initiated or not. This, clearly, SP had not yet stopped because there he was on Oct 18th making that very decision regarding one Bengali man whom SP just made the final decision for him to be initiated. Thus disproving GK's argument that SP had stopped those ritvik aspects back in July. No, he was stopping them, finally, on Oct 18th.
Besides that, Oct 18th SP is referring to that PAST where he had already deputed JP, and all he had deputed in the past was as ritvik. SP also repeatedly referred to Where, in what document, he had already deputed him. It was There in That List, the List of Names which was the July 9th letter. He was not asking them to become diksha guru at that time.
Also, I noted that SP told JP to initiate (via the ritvik process on SP's behalf) that Bengali man because JP was ritvik acharya for Mayapur. Because he was the Nearest. One does not take diksha from someone, accepting them as eternal guru just because they happen to be nearest. In so many ways I kept defeating his [GK's] points, and not one single time did GK admit, even once, that I was right and he was wrong. He just kept trying to come up with another angle, another point, somehow or the other to try and trip me into some trap.
But he never answered most any of my questions or addressed the ramifications. And the unanswered questions were increasing with each new point he raised.
The questions and ramifications demand to be addressed, because no matter what other angle he put forth, those issues would stand, regardless of any new point. But in the end he remained silent and chose not to address the issues. At the end I reminded him that failure to answer was a sign of defeat. He ignored that and tried to push on with his plan to come up with new ways to trap me into some web he was weaving.
It is accepted principle, and he quotes also, that to avoid replying means defeat.
I am setting up a new website where I plan to post more detailed excerpts of the discussion and of the topic, to try to provide a place on the internet for propagating the arguments in support of the on-going ritvik side. I have the website, www.rtvik.org, but have not had time to work on it. I was about to do so when this discussion ate up all my spare time. But, the discussion came at just the right time, because now I will be able to incorporate the essential points of both sides and more conclusively present our arguments.
The conclusion:
The speculative idea that the July 9th letter only applied to when Srila Prabhupada was ill is debunked. It has no basis, no evidence to support it, and to do so has serious ramifications that their side refuses to address. Thus, it cannot be accepted. The Oct 18th argument that Srila Prabhupada had stopped diksha initiation and deputed JP and the others to be diksha was also debunked. This was the main evidence the GBC and GK were using to support their theory. These arguments were shown to be insufficient and in the end, disproved.
Also, in conclusion, I would like to point out the following analysis. These people are obstinate in thinking that they are right. I see two main foundations for this obstinacy:
1) Is that some are totally convinced that an on-going ritvik process is bogus. No past Acharya ever did this. It "has" to be bogus. For them, they feel there is absolutely no way Prabhupada could have ever meant this to be. They are so convinced of this that they try every which way they can to prove this is not what Srila Prabhupada wanted... When the evidence shows it is what he wanted, they either ignore the evidence or try their best to discredit it. Many times they wind up discrediting Srila Prabhupada in the process, but do not realize it. (Such as insisting that Srila Prabhupada intended the July 9th letter to mean something totally different than what it says.) That path leads us to question Srila Prabhupada's mental capacity at the time. Had he become senile? Absent-minded, forgetful, befuddled, confused? This, they will not answer. They do not believe this (and of course the facts do not support this), but they cannot answer the questions and so try to gloss it over and try to side skirt those challenges to find another way to prove their losing case.
2) Another cause of their obstinate behavior is that some are or very much want to become regular diksha guru. They are very motivated to want to prove that the on-going ritvik is bogus and were not what Srila Prabhupada actually wanted. (They can be regular guru, no one can stop them.) But, they cannot imagine how the two, an on-going ritvik process and their becoming regular guru can go on side-by-side. They kept arguing as if one nullifies the other. That concept was shown to exist only inside their heads alone, and in reality, both processes can go on, side by side. Even one person can be both a regular diksha guru for those who desire his direct shelter, and can facilitate a ritvik initiation on behalf of Srila Prabhupada for those who feel their direct relation is with Srila Prabhupada.
I wish to point out that there is also stronger potential to be motivated beyond the truth from their side. Especially those who have desire to become guru. Actually, they are free to become guru, but they want to become ISKCON guru. ISKCON has its guru, Srila Prabhupada. If they want to become guru, they need to start their own ashram, as Srila Prabhupada had done, as he set the example. All past gurus are gurus of their own ashram.
What is our motivation? What do I personally have to gain by arguing that SP wanted an on-going ritvik system? The only motive I can find is my desire to establish that which I see that Srila Prabhupada wanted. I have nothing to gain from promoting this stand. I have no disciples to gain, no dakshina to gain, no fame, adoration, distinction, profit, etc. Rather, the ritviks are today put down by most in ISKCON. They are seen as deviants, as rogues and rascals, as fallen. We are called names, denied services, sometimes kicked out of temples, slugged in the face for trying to show others that the GBC has been wrong. Personally, I do not see that I have anything personally to gain, but have stood to lose a lot by taking this stand. Why else would I do so other than I am convinced this is what Srila Prabhupada wanted?
Aspiring to become your humble and most obedient servant,

The speculative idea that the July 9th letter only applied to when Srila Prabhupada was ill is debunked - Part 1

By: 

Yashodanandana Dasa, Los Angeles, California

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:10:07 -0400
From: Ameyatma das

Subject: My conclusion

PAMHO, All glories to ISKCON's Founder-Acharya, ACBS - Srila Prabhupada!
The following are my conclusions from the recent ritvik email discussions. I am sending to all as Blind Carbon Copy as I do not want this to continue as another long thread. I am sending as FYI. Please accept my apologies if you are not wanting this email.
I am not interested in prolonging the discussion. Everyone has aired their views well enough, and no one is prepared to accept the view of the other side. I see no further need in more round-n-round discussions.

Background (for those who were not part of the discussion):

There were two origins of the discussion. The first was that Basu Ghosh sent out a copy of Nrsinghananda's email regarding the GBC's lack of action regarding Satsvarup Gosvami’s fall down (and for the most part their seeming lack of even knowledge or awareness of his recent fall down with another devotee's wife). In response to this, I had mentioned the Direction of Management, that its implementation would solve many of these sorts of issues. And, I had put forth questions to Basu Ghosh concerning how multiple gurus (spiritual MASTERS) can function in a single ashram where that ashram (ISKCON) has a superior Master, the GBC, who is the authority over and above the Guru (master). Normally a Guru is the sole Master of his own Ashram. And I then brought in the ritvik aspects (actually pointing out that the current gurus, not being the actual master of the ISKCON ashram, were functioning more as ritviks of the GBC, rather than as regular diksha gurus). Basu Ghosh wound up deferring those questions to Gaur Keshava Prabhu, who had extensively studied agama/pancharatra shastras. GK, due to being too busy, did not respond for a month or more. During that lapse in time, Praghosh then sent out emails regarding ritvik articles he was posting on Sampradaya Sun, which sparked the main ritvik debate. It appears that Gaur Keshava was also sent questions that were posted in that email discussion. When Gaur Keshava finally responded, he did not really address my original questions (regarding multiple subordinate gurus in an ashram that has a higher ashram authority), but jumped into the ritvik discussions. It is my understanding that GK, as well as Basu Ghosh and Krishna Kirti (also part of the discussion) are often tapped by the GBC to research scripture in support of their position).
The following are my conclusions from the several months of discussion.
In my discussion with Gaur Keshava I asked him to address a number of questions, to which, in my view, he side skirted and never directly answered. Even he refused to answer at times. A most common tactic was to ignore my question and introduce new points and questions for me to answer that were aimed at defeating the basic premise, thus hoping to avoid having to answer the questions I had asked him that were difficult. I always addressed all new points and questions he would pose, but so many of my questions he simply failed or refused to address.
I am not going to detail here. In summary, I had asked him that if he accepted the ritvik process while Srila Prabhupada's body was breathing, but rejected the same process as bogus after his body stopped breathing, then was he saying that the temporarily breathing body of the guru is what empowered the process (as opposed to his living eternal instructions)? This was among my initial ritvik questions to him. He never replied because he thought he could defeat the 'ritvik' arguments by proving this was not what Srila Prabhupada wanted. However, those questions remain unanswered. If answered they would provide a basis to where he is at or to what is acceptable or not acceptable to him. He avoided addressing that issue and introduced so many arguments to try and prove that on-going ritvik was bogus and/or to prove that Srila Prabhupada had not wanted this to continue after his departure. I responded to all the new angles and arguments he came up with. I kept asking my questions and as we went I added to the number of questions for him to address. Again, just to point out, he never did reply to my original question.
He then introduced the speculation that Srila Prabhupada did not intend for the July 9th letter to apply to after he departed, that it only applied to when he was sick. I asked him to give direct and verifiable evidence to this mentally concocted speculation. The only evidence he or the GBC can give is that THEY SAY this is what it is, therefore it is. That is not an answer; it does not address the actual question because it does not provide verifiable evidence.
I asked him to address the ramifications of accepting this speculation. Again, no direct reply to my questions. The ramifications are that the letter itself says it is Prabhupada's follow-up to when he had said he would soon appoint ritviks. The letter explains this took place at a recent meeting with the GBC. This provides us with verifiable evidence, because it is verifiable fact that such a meeting had recently taken place on May 28th, and it is verifiable fact that at that meeting Srila Prabhupada had said that he would soon appoint ritviks — and — what hits this on the head is that this was Srila Prabhupada's reply to the most serious and grave, all-important question as to how initiations would go on after he departs. Since GK (Vasu Ghosh and the GBC) put forward the mental concoction that this is NOT what Srila Prabhupada intended, but rather he intended that the letter only applied to while he was sick, the ramifications are: WHY did Srila Prabhupada sign a letter which did not state what he intended, and rather makes statements and references that clearly lead us to a totally different conclusion than what he intended? THEY SAY this applied only to while he was sick. They give no other evidence than THEY SAY. How anyone can take what THEY SAY over what Srila Prabhupada signed?
My questions demand answers. Why Srila Prabhupada signed an important letter that did not state what he wanted?
I gave the following suggestions, not out of sarcasm, but simply because they were the only answers I could come up with: — Was Prabhupada absent-minded and forgot that he had said he would appoint ritviks as his answer to that question? Did he sign it unwittingly, not knowing what he was doing? Had he become senile? Befuddled and confused?
GK chose not to answer my direct questions. He kept putting forward 'other' arguments, new points for me to address, in which his attempt was to debunk the idea in a different way. I kept addressing his new points, and he kept refusing to address my questions. Yet nothing he could say after that point would dismiss those questions. They have to be addressed and answered, because no matter what 'additional' ways he tries to debunk the opposing idea, those ramifications to his speculative theory will remain. Those questions will still stand. Unless and until he addresses them, there was no use in going any further.
According to his own reasoning, silence is a clear sign of defeat.
On Oct 5th, GK wrote to Praghosh:

In so many ways GK's postulates were defeated. So many questions he kept refusing to address or directly answer. Yet to each new point he would raise I was able, by Krishna’s and Prabhupada's mercy, to address and clearly show his points were faulty, if not totally wrong.

Thus, I declared — and declare here — that this mentally concocted speculation that the July 9th letter only applied to while Srila Prabhupada was sick is defeated. It lacks any evidence of support. The only verifiable evidence brings us to different conclusion. There are serious ramifications for accepting this theory, and those ramifications he refused to address. In this way the idea is defeated. It has no basis, no support and has serious consequences.

Your Right To Believe Srila Prabhupada Is Your Diksa Guru

Krishna has given each and everyone of us the freedom of choice, and as in most things it is ones God given right to choose to believe and accept Srila Prabhupada as one’s diksa/only /Guru without intimidation by those who enforce the current status quo.
And in one respect this is the key to the whole debate.” Your choice”, to accept the July 9th letter as a matter of fact, is part of the freedoms that God has given you.
The Iskcon guru policies from 1977 until today, have been policies of Harassment, Black Mail, Intimidation, Violence, and denying converts their emotional freedom to examine the whole guru issue.
Acceptance of the July 9th letter could never be termed as radical. What is Radical is YOU the individual giving over YOUR right, to someone else, or a committee or another person, to decide for YOU, who, will be the intermediary between YOU and YOUR God. That’s Radical!
Any confusion between individual rights, acceptable group behavior, legitimate religion and gurus is a product of woolly thinking, rather than a real problem of definition. And, the accountability of those using the process’s (eg) Iskcon GBC’s, their Temple Authorities, Websites such as Sampradaya Sun or Dandavats should be accountable to the wider community so as standards of behavior can be enforced.
Your right as an individual to choose Srila Prabhupada as your Diksa/Intermediary is Your Choice and such a freedom that must be respected.
Kurma Das

Why were Srila Prabhupada's documents hidden?

PADA: The July 9th letter was also not circulated as was ordered, indeed many folks complained they never saw a copy until we began to publish it widely in 1985. The May 28, 1977 "appointment tape" was also not circulated, until we began to publish that in 1984. The ENTIRE COLLECTION of letters were also not being circulated, and when we got a microfiche of the letters in 1984, Sulochana told me he got a call from Ramesvara saying we (me and Sulochana) would be “dead meat on a hook” if we published. Well we went ahead and published the letters, and Sulochana was then assassinated for doing that, just as they said he would be. And without the help of the police, I would have been assassinated too, they arrested the person who killed Sulochana who was “doing surveillance” on my car. I also got a copy of "the will" out of Hansadutta’s safe, and the will was ALSO not being circulated. None of the 1977 conversations were being circulated AT ALL until a limited edition came out in 1990, and there were many gaps in the tape sequences. In sum, the words of Srila Prabhupada were being suppressed. I read in the 1990 edition of the BBT archives conversations “conversation about poison in hindi,” I had to pray to Krishna for 7 years to get those tapes, these tapes were not being circulated at all, ok until I circulated them. Locananda’s biggest problem is, these things were all being suppressed violently, so how could the people doing that have any authority at all? ys pd

Prabhupada’s direct order

Bringing prior instructions given by Prabhupada to contradict a later direct order – such as the letter of July 9, 1977, the formal directive designating ritvik representatives – is crazy,insanity,madness.

SRILA PRABHUPADA: “I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, “Do it”, your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, “Sir, you said me like this before.” No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. If the captain of the ship says “Five degrees starboard” and the first mate replies, “But captain, before you told me ‘Ten degrees port’,” then it can be understood that the first mate has gone insane.” — lecture by Srila Prabhupada on the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Hyderabad, India, April 15, 1975