By Bhaktisiddhanta Dasa (ACBSP)
Oct 2, Vrindavan, India — Has everyone forgotten what happened in the past? In the early ‘70’s Srila Prabhupada started his own ritvik system, surprise! At some point it became too much to chant on everyone’s beads and give the new spiritual names so what to do? He appointed some of his senior men to cover these details so he could go on with his writing and management of a world organization.
My wife and I were initiated in 1975 in Los Angeles, Srila Prabhupada had left the day before to go to San Francisco, by this time he deputed his personal secretary and Sanskrit scholar to look up the names; and then he would approve or disapprove.
During the fire sacrifice it was Hridayananda Maharaja that was standing next to the Vyasasana and handed out the beads and asked for the four regulative principles. Each time a new name was given there was a loud HARIBOL and everyone applauded.
In our group there was a Gaur Kisori das which opened a few eyes, and generated a loud response then I was called. I paid my obeisances to Srila Prabhupada’s picture on the Vyasasana and stumbled through the four regs. Then Maharaja handed me my beads and gave my name;
“Your name is Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati das!”
The temple exploded, what a name — who is this rascal getting such a name? I was shocked I still have no idea what it meant, also in our group there was a devotee whose new name was ‘great kirtan leader’ this fellow was so shy he didn’t speak much to anyone let alone lead a kirtan or look like a great kirtan leader; so I thought my name was also the antithesis of my foolish character.
The point is – forget the political connotations and let us all remember it is Srila Prabhupada who is always in the centre and the force behind everything at all times.
So it is understandable that if anyone is now taking the role of Acharya and not handing his initiates over to the source then, what is the fate of both the new guru and their initiates?
This movement would undergo a drastic change if all the new gurus who are initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada would recognize this fact and not take glorious worship and stand down to allow all new comers to this society full access to Srila Prabhupada who sweated blood and tears for each one of us who joined this movement.
This is how it was in the beginning when Srila Prabhupada was physically with us and was not able to directly attend the initiation ceremony.
I am not a political antagonist but most of all my god brother’s and god sister’s like myself are all ritvik. Most of us were initiated when Srila Prabhupada was not physically present. This was not such a big deal to us we were all disciples of His Divine Grace.
Srila Prabhupada didn’t hand me my beads or give my name directly; so what is the difference today? Let’s make this movement a better place for all who have joined and will join in the future how we can deny anyone the right to take Srila Prabhupada as their life and soul.
I am told there are over 90 gurus now acting as diksa gurus instead of allowing Srila Prabhupada that privilege.
To actually put Srila Prabhupada in the centre means to not stand in his way and to allow everyone unrestricted access to Srila Prabhupada like it was in the early days.
Hare Krsna.
This article sounds like another really confused piece.
It is wrong to compare the time when Srila Prabhupada was with us physically present-Vapuh, and Vani-vibrational presence,that the same dynamics can carry on the same.They cant.
To apply the “rittik”-representative of the Acharya process of Initiation through the via medium of an appointed devotee by Srila Prabhupada whilst He was physically present to His feature of vani-eternal vibrational presence -is inappropriate.
The two seperate features of presence, Vapuh and Vani, are not equally disposed to representation and the homogeneous application of the representative process to these two conceptions of presence does not work.
Vani is eternal vibrational presence which is universally accessible to all devotees for all time but Vapuh is only temporarily accessible which means that the representative process is only applied to this conception of presence.
The July 9th letter outlines the principle of the representative process that Srila Prabhupada appoints “rittik” for that purpose and the appointees are listed as the eleven named but the next appointees were never appointed.
The “rittik” process is one of via medium representation that was used in the presence of Srila Prabhupada-Vapuh.
The July 9th letter does not allow or empower for the process to continue after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance,which would have been an ideal opportunity for that communique-its not there!
The process is only related to Vapuh not Vani as Vani is unable to be representated .The disciple directly experiences Vani through transcendental sound vibration just as we read Bhagavad-Gita and experience Krsna’s Vani directly.
“We can touch Krsna immediately by sound vibration;therefore we should give more stress to the sound vibration of Krsna and of the Spiritual Master-then we’ll feel happy and wont feel seperation.”
Elevation to Krsna Consciousness.pages 57-58.
And this direct relationship with Vani is further elaborated in Cc Adi Lila Text 19 purport.
“The Gaudiya vaisnavas who strictly follow in the line of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu worship the Divinity by chanting transcendental sounds meant to develop a sense of one’s transcendental relationship with the Supreme Lord, a reciprocation of mellows of mutual affection, and ,ultimately , the achievement of the desired success in loving service….”
In our relationship with our Spiritual master , Srila Prabhupada, we directly approach through Vani,transcendental sound vibration.This is also further described in Srila Jiva Goswami’s Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda153.
The two processes there are descibed as “mantropasanamayi”or worshipping through chanting mantras and “svarasiki” or direct relish of rasa,which is exactly the same as Adi Lila Chapter I Text 19 purport.
For further corroboration from Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 3 Chapter 9 text 11;
“O my Lord, Your devotees can see You through the ears by the process of bona fide hearing, and thus their hearts become cleansed,and You take your seat there.You are so merciful to your devotees that you manifest Yourself in the particular form of transcendence in which they alwaus think of You.”
The whole thrust of Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy is how to associate with Krsna and the Spiritual master in sound form and how to come to percieve Krsna and the Spiritual master face to face eternally.There are no mentions whatsoever of any intermediary or via medium representatives in this process.The application of “rittik”-representative of the Acharya are interpolations to this philosophical process of approaching directly the conception of Vani presence.
The ritvik process is only applicable to the Vapuh presence of the Spiritual master for the purpose of Initiations.After the Spiritual Master disappears the dynamic of the representative process for the purpose of Initiations is finished.
wishing you well,your servant dusyanta dasa.
pamho Dusyanta prabhu, firstly, it is the most basic axiom of spiritual life that we can only make advancement by properly following the orders of the guru. If the guru asks for milk and we bring him water, how will he be pleased? And if the guru is not pleased, how will we ever approach Lord Krishna?
For nearly three decades ISKCON has not been doing what Srila Prabhupada ordered. Since Srila Prabhupada left us physically we have not allowed him to initiate even one person via his ritvik, or representational, system. This is the only system of initiation Prabhupada ever authorised to continue within the Society.
If ISKCON members once more start to follow his order, then naturally they will please Lord Krishna, and all spiritual success should naturally follow. Also, with everyone having the same direct relationship as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, factionalism will be eliminated.
For the first time in nearly thirty years there will be united team spirit, with everyone working for the same goal – the service and glorification of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Krishna. Many ISKCON “gurus” have fallen prey to gross sinful activities; and when they leave they often take with them hundreds of thousands of dollars and many of their followers.
This continual loss of properties, faith and personnel will be eliminated as faith is only placed in Srila Prabhupada, and not in fallible substitutes. Money currently siphoned off by the 90 or so “gurus” from their disciples in daksina (see: Bhakti Caru Swami’s Finances) will instead go to temples, making them healthy and strong.
agtys ys
seva das
haribol
I am not at all happy about the continued prevarication and obfuscation surrounding this issue of ritvik initiation over the past decades. Through my studies on this issue I have read the words of Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada and various legalistic arguments from parties on both sides of this argument.
Prabhupada stated that non of the people with him (prior to his premature passing from this world through poisoning with arsenic, by those who in truth desired to destroy his movement, to leave in it’s stead only an ineffectual counterfeit) were in good enough spiritual standing to carry out the duties of a diksha guru.
Prabhupada himself stated that were anyone to prematurely assume the role of diksha guru, such an attempt being entirely unauthorised and without any spiritual merit or authentic connection with Krishna, then the spiritual link with Krishna would no longer be properly present, so we can definitely assume that the perpetrators of his assassination were not only fully aware that what they were doing would have this effect, they fully intended it to have that effect.
Today we can see certain senior Iskcon members denying that Prabhupada knew what he was talking about, that he exceeded his authority in contradicting the mundane materialistic science of the karmis currently running this world; it is a sell-out.
And the origin of Tamal Krishna Goswami and the self-professed intention of the ‘religious’ faith of his previous religious background, to destroy all other religions, commonly done by inserting destructive agents to sabotage other religious movements from within, was again evidenced by the concerted plan (listening to the tape of Prabhupada being given a drink poisoned with arsenic, where two voices are heard clearly discussing the issue) by more than one senior member of Iskcon at the time when Prabhupada was murdered.
Non of the senior members of Iskcon then surrounding Prabhupada were recognised by his good self as being ready to effect anything other than a ritvik role in initiation, on his behalf, with Prabhupada himself acting still in the rule of diksha guru, with this arrangement intended to be carried on still even after Prabhupada passed on.
The diksha guru, whose divine initiating potency resided only within the diksha guru outer form of Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, and inwardly as Krishna within the soul of Prabhupada, is a specific potency that did not reside within any other incarnate member of Iskcon at that time, as evidenced by the massive fall down of several so-called diksha gurus who effectively (or rather ineffectively), attempted to steal the grace of such a position like the stolen blessing of Jacob in the mythical Hebrew Bible story. The light of Sri Madhusudana was no longer available, especially not from within those responsible for his murder and it’s cover-up. Fortunately, Supreme Lord Krishna is not the blind fool these idiots take him for, and he sees clearly through all their chicanery.
If the senior members of Iskcon had a single bone of sincerity and spiritual decency within them (I will state here that I do fully recognize the genuine sincerity and thorough good intentions of the more recent devotees who are very uninformed of this terrible affair, or simply disbelieving of it), they would acknowledge firstly the large amount of evidence pointing to the murder of Prabhupada, and thoroughly distance themselves from the GBC, and submit Iskcon to a massive restructuring back to what it was, with only Prabhupada still being diksha guru.
Prabhupada said that even after he passed on, he would still be available through his books, and I can testify that I feel his potency as a living soul with me personally, beyond that which results purely from when I look upon his image, or read his words, or hear his recorded voice, though his living spiritual vitality is of course present in those too.
The new initiates of Iskcon are simply used, in all innocence, without ever suspecting it, as shills, adding to a false impression of a genuine Iskcon. It is an utter obscenity that Prabhupada was murdered by certain corrupt members of Iskcon, and that the murderers then took over Iskcon and that they even maintain copyright of the words that passed through him from Krishna.
I know Tamal Krishna Goswami (Hertzog) died some years ago in a road traffic accident, though I do not know of the identities or current status of the other spiritual terrorists involved in the murder of Prabhupada; if they are still running Iskcon, people should step well clear of them and turn to Prabhupadanuga groups to have the potential to engage in genuine relationships with Krishna.
How can anyone possibly succeed in cultivating a good relationship with Krishna in Iskcon today, when Prabhupada, the founding diksha guru himself was murdered and Iskcon usurped by those responsible.
If someone murders your parents at home whilst you are away studying at school, is it reasonable that when you return home from school that you should forget this and then adopt the murderers of your true parents as your new parents and rightful owners of the family home? Of course it is not, and some means must be found to evict the criminals responsible who are currently illegally occupying the position of gurus in Iskcon, together with all their cronies, who add to lending them an air of authority or genuineness..
At the very least, a powerful campaign must always be maintained to ensure that the young and easily-influenced potential new devotees who are eager to place their trust in a guru should not continue to suffer being exposed to these pretentious and harmful false gurus, who are merely continuing the criminal business of those pseudo gurus who murdered Prabhupada in order to appear like him, and then to purposely run Iskcon into the ground, whilst maintaining an outer veneer of sincerity, so as to prevent people having real contact with Krishna in the full intended measure.
See how the teachings that Krishna originally gave through Prabhupada are being wrongly interpreted and explained by today’s Iskcon: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-10/editorials5834.htm
Please see my essay ‘metanoia’ http://rtr.org/blogs/25049/9663/metanoia on the criminal nature of a religion that states openly it’s intention to subvert and destroy all other religions in order that it alone will come to dominate the entire world, with it’s members each possessing slaves from those of us that survive the wars they plan.
All religions are attacked by this particular criminal cult, and for this type of attack to affect Iskcon and massively damage the propagation of Krishna consciousness, it was necessary to destroy Prabhupada, especially before he completed his translation and commentary of Srimad Bhagavatam, for it is written that if one completes reading all the Srimad Bhagavatam, they will become enlightened, and a certain group of what I will term spiritual terrorists of criminal and megalomaniac intent have struck Iskcon as well, whilst leaving an outer facade that inwardly contains only the palest vestige of true spiritual consciousness.
How can people murder Prabhupada then offer genuine Krishna consciousness to people, the answer is obvious, they cannot, no matter how they parrot his words, the spiritual current is no longer there, merely a base facsimile.
Haribol
mothman777
Seva prabhu has made a good point, and dusyant prabhu has underminded the importance, the acharya, the pure devotee can do. In the event of his leaving his body, he understood the need to continue this sankirtan movement, although it is UNPRECIDENTED, he did it fully knowing his senior disciples were far from qualified, he made the GBC to continue, he left his 11 representatives.
Surely Tamal krishna maharaj was dictating, oh, Srila Prabhupada this devotee and this one oh ok add him to the list, and Brahamananda —- no , it does not matter if maharaj was setting up, for he was a TOOL being used to further Srila Prabhupada’s movement, and to think ahh such instructions he left is unauthorised, not heard of in Gaudiya sampradaya, never heard of and keep nonsensical arguments, all in undermining the pure devotee Srila Prabhupada, now after his vaphu is gone we dare to challenge him, only creating mad elephant apradha. For he is a PURE DEVOTEE, an ACHARYA and who are we now, if we doubt his INSTRUCTIONS than surely we are back to mouse . Simply said.
pamho prabhus agtACBSP
SRILA PRABHUPADA says that Iskcon can be distroyed mainly from within the movement not from outside.
Prabhupada: “Now we are world organization. There is spiritual side, and there is material side also. That is not material side. That is also spiritual side, means systematic management. Otherwise how it will be done? Just like Gaurasundara sold the house, and there is no trace of the money. What is this? He did not ask him, anyone. He sold the house, and where is the money, there is no trace….” (December 5, 1973, Los Angeles)
The punishment for this life regarding all their misconducts in Iskcon by disobeying SRILA PRABHUPADA and cheating people will be over in Patalaloka unless they surrender to the final order of SRILA PRABHUPADA and return Iskcon back to the founder acarya.
No mercy for the robbers – it is better they pay the karma now otherwise they will suffer without end in their next lifetimes.
ys seva das
haribol
Hare Krsna.
I did not say that what Iskcon is doing via the GBC authorised Diksa Guru’s is the option open to us.
Also i did not say Srila Prabhupada is not the Diksa Guru for Iskcon,you have made many assumptions in your pieces above.
If you read the words i wrote rather than what you think i wrote then you will have a better idea of what i said thus making a better arguement against what i actually did say.Your arguements are all superflous.
None of your arguements are dealing with the actual points i made but as usual the ritviks are by-passing the subject.If you read the “Final Order” most of it does not deal with the matter at hand and is surrounding points.
Why dont you deal with the points i made so we can discard them.????
How does a “rittik”-representative of the Acharya represent the Vani of Srila Prabhupada?
The July 9th description and prescription only empowers the “rittik” to represent the Vapuh.
The evidence i presented from Srila Prabhupada’s books only emphasisies the direct relationship a disciple has with Srila prabhupada and Krsna through Vani-eternal sound.
Why dont you prove that is wrong then you will have a case otherwise i agree with some of your points but they are irrelevant to this main point which is How does a “rittik” -representative of the Acharya represent Vani?
It did not happen when Srila Prabhupada was physically present because the representatives were only representing His vapuh-physical presence.
Just stick to this point please and forget about all the peripheral stuff.!!!!!!!!!
Also i did not say Srila Prabhupada is NOT Initiating today-please get it right and stop speculating ,assuming and diverting.
your servant dusyanta dasa.
Dusyanta wrote:
“The TWO SEPERATE FEATURES OF PRESENCE, VAPUH AND VANI, ARE NOT EQUALLY DISPOSED TO REPRESENTATION and the homogeneous application of the representative process to these two conceptions of presence does not work.”
Srila Prabhupada said:
“So although a physical body is not present, THE VIBRATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS THE PRESENCE OF THE SPIRITUAL MASTER, vibration. What we have heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living.” (General lectures, 69/01/13)
Dusyanta wrote:
“After the Spiritual Master disappears THE DYNAMIC OF THE REPRESENTATIVE PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATIONS IS FINISHED.”
That’s not what Srila Prabhupada said when asked about initiations after his disappearance:
Satsvarupa Maharaja: “Then our next question concerns INITIATIONS IN THE FUTURE, PARTICULARLY AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER WITH US. We want to know how first and second initiations will be conducted.”
Srila Prabhupada: “Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as OFFICIATING ACARYA.”
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: “Is that called ritvik-acarya?”
Srila Prabhupada: “RITVIK. YES.”
Dusyanta has directly contradicted Srila Prabhupada’s own words. Not a good sign.
Hare Krsna.
To Jay.
Yes you have also made the same mistake that many ritvik supporters make by interpreting the May 28th conversation.
You have capitalised those offensive words and offensive question like so many of the rittvik followers do.
So then perhaps you could explain in one sylable words ,because i am so foolish, when exactly is the “time when you (srila prabhupada) are no longer with us.”
Does such a time exist at all?
Seems to me that you have made the same offence by considering there is a time when Srila Prabhupada is no longer with us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way,jay, the question was NOT about Initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s DISAPPEARANCE, it was quote,”Particularly at the time when you ARE NO LONGER WITH US.”
I thought that the Spiritual Master is present in His Vani eternally.
But according to you, jay, you seem to back up that offensive question that Satsvarupa Maharaja asked concerning the “time when you are no longer with us”.
Is not Srila Prabhupada always with us ?
Dont you understand the connection through transcendental sound vibration,its an eternal link/connection.
Srila Prabhupada is with me through His instruction always and i always feel His presence,but for you,jay,Srila Prabhupada is no longer with you,sorry to hear that.
But the question was NOT concerning Initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s DISAPPEARANCE as you have interpreted.
The question was,quote ad verbatim,
“……INITIATIONS IN THE FUTURE PARTICULARLY AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER WITH US.
How comes you cant even quote accurately?Why have you equalised the words “no longer with us ” to “disappearance”,thats your interpolation.
Your next mistake was your interpretation of the two seperate conceptions of presence of the Spiritual Master.
“There are TWO conceptions of presence-the physical conception and the vibrational conception.The physical conception is temporary, whereas the vibrational conception is eternal…..”
Elevation to Krsna Consciousness pages 57-58.
What you have done is the classic flaw of homogenising the TWO different conceptions of presence.Otherwise it would be all ONE but it isnt.
The physical presence-Vapuh-is temporary whereas the Vibrational presence is eternal-Vani- and the representative process for the purpose of Initiations is directly related to the Vapuh-physical presence which was manifest during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence and is described and prescribed in July 9th letter witten by TKG and approved by Srila Prabhupada in His Vapuh.
Looks like you have directly mis quoted Srila Prabhupada’s words and misapplied them to your own understandings.Not a good idea!
your lowly servant, dusyanta dasa.
Dear Dusyanta
Hare Krsna.
You state: “the question was NOT about Initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s DISAPPEARANCE, it was quote,”Particularly at the time when you ARE NO LONGER WITH US.”
What does “Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us” mean, then, if it is not about initiations in the future, particularly after Srila Prabhupada’s physical disappearance?
You claim that this was an “offensive question” asked by Satsvarupa. Yes, so offensive that Srila Prabhupada did not object to the question, but rather answered it directly! His reply was:
“Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as officiaiting acarya.”
Tamala Krsna then asks: “Is that called ritvik-acarya?” to which Srila Prabhupada replies: “Ritvik. Yes”
You state: “Dont you understand the connection through transcendental sound vibration, its an eternal link/connection. Srila Prabhupada is with me through His instruction always and i always feel His presence, but for you, jay, Srila Prabhupada is no longer with you, sorry to hear that.”
I never said that Srila Prabhupada was not present in his vibration or that he i sno longer with me. In fact, at the very outset of my reply to you, I quoted Srila Prabhupada stating that he is always present through his sound vibration:
“So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the spiritual master, vibration. What we have heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living.” (General lectures, 69/01/13)
It really would be a good idea to read what is written.
Your lowly servant,
Jay
Dear Jay,
Thanx for your reply.
Yes the difference between the terminology is simple.
The question was specifically dealing with the time in the future when Srila Prabhupada is no longer with us.
You are interpreting that terminlogy to mean “disappearance”.
The two terminologies are not equal as you suggest.
“No longer with us ” does not equal “disappearance” especially in a disciples perception of their Spiritual Master,in this case Srila Prabhupada.
Thats why it is an offensive question.
Of course Srila Prabhupada answered the question and was able to give His disciples exactly what THEY wanted.
If you read the rest of the transcription of the converstion it is apparent that they have not got a clue what they are talking about because they even try to correct each other.Its common history in Iskcon .The conversation has to be viewed in context of the whole piece not just one part or another part.The conversation is a whole dialogue together.
The other part of my point is that the terminolgy of the question refers to a time in the future when Srila Prabhupada is no longer with us.
That time does not exist because Srila Prabhupada is always present in His Vani.The contradiction is this;how can Srila Prabhupada be no longer with us if He is present in His Vani.
The question is dealing with when Srila Prabhupada is NOT with us.Not disappearance.The two conceptions are polarized.
If you accept that question then you accept that Srila Prabhupada is no longer with us and then you accept the answer that Srila Prabhupada gave to that specific question.When you marry up that question to that answer then the different paradigms that come from that scenario are out of context with the rest of the conversation and the Gaudiya Vaisnava eternal philosophy of transcendental sound vibration presence.
If you say that all disciples receive Initiation through the via medium of ritvik representatives AFTER Srila Prabhupada has disappeared then what is the point in Vani?
“Diksa actually means Initiating a disciple with Transcendental Knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.”
Cc madhya 4.111.
If we have received that Transcendental Knowledge through Srila Prabhupada’s Books and Vani then what is the point in representation AFTER Srila Prabhupada has disappeared?We have already received Initiation according to the above quote from Cc.
So there is a massive contradictory paradigm going on.
The next point you made i totally agree with yes you are right.Sorry if i offended you.
The next point is just following up to the same point about Vani,there is no representational process in Vani,its a direct relationship as quoted from Cc Chapter 1 Text 19 purport.
In the absence of the Spiritual Master His words of direction should be the pride of the disciple.There is no difference between the Spiritual Master’s Instructions and the Spiritual master Himself. From Cc Chapter 1 Text 35.
The Vani of the Spiritual master is identical to the Spiritual master Himself .The presence of the Spiritual master if fully manifest through His sound vibration and through that transcendental eternal sound vibrational presence the direct relationship ,reciprocation of rasa and achievement of loving service is developed.(Cc 1.19)This is Vani.
Ritvik representation is not available, required and necessary in the relationship of a disciple to the Vani of his Spiritual master-Srila Prabhupada directly Instructs through His Vani to His disciples.
“We can touch Krsna immediately by sound vibration;therefore we should give more stress to the sound vibration of Krsna and the Spiritual Master -then we will feel happy and wont feel seperation.” Elevation to Krsna Consciousness pages57-58.
The ritvik representational process of via medium acceptance of disciples does not figure in the process of Vani.Because Vapuh-physical presence-is temporary and Vani is eternal then Srila Prabhupada directly Instructs us through His Vani to stress the Vani of Himself .He is non different to His Vani and so we can associate directly through His Vani.
your servant ,dusyanta dasa.
Dear Dusyanta
Hare Krsna. Thank you for your more measured reply this time.
Actually, we are pretty much in agreement. If you had carefully read ‘The Final Order’ by Krishnakant, you would have seen that the sections titled ‘Does the Guru need to be physically present?’, ‘Follow the Instruction not the body’, ‘The Books are enough’, and ‘Srila Prabhupada is our Eternal Guru’ are simply filled with quotations from Srila Prabhupada stating that the spiritual master is always present in his vani. So you are not actually claiming anything new here that hasn’t already been dealt with before.
Your point of contention is that since Srila Prabhupada is always present in his vani, therefore the ritvik system of initiations is invalid. However, this makes no sense since Srila Prabhupada was of course also giving his vani while he was physically present. In that case, there would have been no need for him to give initiations at all since his vani was always there! For example, you have correctly quoted Srila Prabhupada’s definition of diksa as given in the Cc: “Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental Knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.” Srila Prabhupada was certainly giving transcendental knowledge to everyone while he was physically present, but yet at the same time he had ritvik priests giving initiation on his behalf. So this very fact alone invalidates your argument.
The point about Srila Prabhupada’s use of ritvik priests is that they are simply functionaries performing an initiation CEREMONY on his behalf. The ritviks themselves do not “give diksa”. That is only given by Srila Prabhupada, the diksa guru. The whole problem in ISKCON arose when the ritviks decided that they were giving diksa after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance and magically transformed into diksa gurus – and the rest, as they say, is history.
Thus Satsvarupa’s question on May 28th is only about how to conduct initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s physical disappearance. Please read it again:
“Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations will be conducted.”
Of course on the spiritual platform you are correct: there is no time when Srila Prabhupada is “no longer with us”:
“So spiritually appearance and disappearance, there is no difference” (Lecture, 13/12/73, Los Angeles)
But there IS a time when Srila Prabhupada is physically present and not physically present:
“As long as the Spiritual Master is physically present, the disciple should serve the physical body of the Spiritual Master, and when the Spiritual Master is no longer physically existing, the disciple should serve the instructions of the Spiritual Master.”
(S.B. 4:28:47, purport)
So Satsvarupa’s question is about how to conduct initiations in that time “when the Spiritual Master is no longer physically existing”.
Srila Prabhupada clearly replied that he would appoint ritviks, and that the newly initated disciples would be his. But it seems that the GBC didn’t like this answer!
Of course at the end of the day real initiation means to follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions:
“Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation.”
(Srila Prabhupada, BTG, Search for the Divine)
The abandonment of the ritvik system of initiations to continue in ISKCON was just another one of the many orders of Srila Prabhupada that was not followed after his physical departure.
Your servant,
Jay
Hare Krsna
Dear Jay, Working through your points again in some kind of chronological way.
Yes we are in agreement on some points and i have made an exhaustive research of “The Final Order” since i first received it many years ago.
In Auguat this year i spent a two week period going through it once more with a fine tooth comb and pencil.There are many mistakes in TFO that need updating to make it relevant.The points that you illustrate dont have a bearing on the issue of rittvik though but are just Guru Tattva issues.Alot of the surrounding issues that rittviks bring into the debate are not related to the rittvik issue but they think ir supports it but it does not.
For example in your piece later on you have focussed on how the abandonment of the rittvik issue in iskcon was one of the many orders not followed after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure.However there was alot of that whilst He was physically present and right from 1967 there were moves to replace Srila Prabhupada BUT that does not help the ritvik issue in the slightest.Just because certain things are not right in Iskcon does not make the ritvik issue right.Thats just putting something else down in order to put you up,which does not work,devotees are way more intelligent than that.
The question of being a Bona Fide disciple does not seem to matter much in the ritvik world from how you have used the evidence.There is much said about the Bona Fide Spiritual master by ritviks but ironically they never discuss the Bona Fide disciple issues which do contradict themselves especially in the use of evidence for ritviks.
You dont question the Bona Fide nature of the May 28th question to Srila Prabhupada by Satsvarupa Maharaja because it suits your cause.But you do question the Bona Fide nature of the Gbc/Iskcon/ Ritvik representatives by not following the Insructions since Srila Prabhupada physically departed.Again this suits your cause ,but its not consistent ,cogent and coherent.
In the May 28th conversation you dont question the Bona Fide nature of TKG questions where he says “NO>He is asking that these ritvik acharyas.they are officiating,giving DIKSA,their….the people(disciple) WHO THEY GIVE DIKSA to,whose Disciples are they?”Srila Prabhupada answers They are HIS disicples.”
This HIS refers to the ritvik acharyas as they are the object of the question from TKG.So in the context of the copnversation we have different outlooks.We can all take parts from the same evidence to prove opposite conclusions.
The next part is equally interesting .
TKG says “They are his disciples.”
SP “Who is initiating , His grand disciple.”
In the context and evidential truth from the comversation TKG thinks the ritvik is Initiating and so Srila prabhupada says “They are his disciples.” which refers to the ritvik because the ritvik is the object of the question TKG is asking rhetorically.
I dont see how you quote from S.Bhagavatam is evidence of your rather peculiar theseis that there is a Time when Srila Prabhupada is physically present and NOT physically present,i think you need to re-think that one or use different terminology so its clearer what you are trying to convey.You maybe right but its not clear to me.
Ans so we move on to the credibility and validity of your presentation.You have tried to present my contention but you have concluded wrongly.
My contention is this .
How does ritvik representation represent Srila Prabhupada’s Vani?
Disciples receiving ritvik representational Initiation AFTER Srila Prabhupada has physically departed dont have a chance of serving His Vapuh.The disciples can only serve His VANI. So how does the ritvik Initiation represent HIS VANI which it has to do in order to receive Initiation in that way?
You unwisely showed that the Ritvik is a representative of Srila Prabhupada’s Vapuh exclusively ,NOT HIS Vani,because you said Vani was already being given. So you established that the ritvik opinion is that the ritvik is representing only Vapuh,thats clear.So after the temporary Vapuh is finished how does the ritvik representative represent Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence when His Vapuh is finished??????Temporary means lasting for a short time relative to the physical world.
Srila Prabhupada defines Vapuh as “physical conception is temporary.”
So your saying that AFTER the Vapuh is finished the ritvik representative represents the Vapuh, period by accepting disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada.How does the ritvik represent a temporary phenomena?
Now your misquotes,which is another ritvik quality.
Funnily enough you have quoted this May 28th conversation incorrectly to me.
You say that after the wierd question from Satsvarupa Maharaja Srila Prabhupada answered clearly that He would appoint some ritviks.But its “Yes.I shall RECOMMEND some of you……”Not appoint. The appointment word is from July 9th letter from TKG. Srila Prabhupada never said appoint its TKG terminology.And then you added that the newly Initiated disciples would be his. Again you have made the same mistake,that quote is from July 9th letter again written by TKG not spoken by Srila Prabhupada.
Your next flaw was the definition of ritviks as “simply functionaries performing an Initiation CEREMONY on His behalf.” But look at the July 9th letter that is not the description of ritviks. The Temple Presidents are the perfomers of the Fire Yajna,the CEREMONY.All the ritviks do is accept the disciples by giving spiritual names or chanting on the threads and seding them in a letter to the Temple President,thats the instruction written by TKG in the July9th letter.The ritvik does not even have to be at the ceremony.
Your spin on the question of Satsvarupa Maharaja”Particularly at the time when you are no longer with us” to make it a more credible question just suits your side. The question is what the question is ,there is no disguising it or dressing it up,the question stands for all time foe all to see.
When we juxtapose that question in the context of the rest of the conversation and now the July 9th letter we can easily see the provisional and temporary nature of ritvik representation.If we just take the simple direct meaning of english grammar and add that to the mood and meaning of the GBC at that time history has shown exactly the Gbcs’ intentions and there have been so many interpretations of these documents together.TKG even gave 18 seperate meanings to his July 9th letter what he intended by it.
But if we look carefully at the July 9th letter in it lies the secret to the provisional and temporary nature of the process described.
From the sentence thus;
“Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives,Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these representatives are mearest their Temple.”
The Temple Presidents send recommendation to these representatives.
Srila Prabhupada authorised this July 9th letter as it is.Nothing more nothing less.The recommendation for Initiation can only be sent by the Temple Presidents to THESE representatives.Thats it.No more no less.Until they leave their bodies or Iskcon or devotional service.Then this process outlined in the July 9th letter is finished because THESE representatives are finished.
Dusyanta dasa on 7. October 2011 at 11:34 am said:
“The appointment word is from July 9th letter from TKG. Srila Prabhupada never said appoint its TKG terminology.And then you added that the newly Initiated disciples would be his. Again you have made the same mistake,that quote is from July 9th letter again written by TKG not spoken by Srila Prabhupada.”
TKG said:
“[…] The argument that after the departure of the spiritual master any one of his disciples can give initiation, cannot be applied in the case of Srila Prabhupada who specifically named 11 persons only AT FIRST to fulfill this function. These 11 persons WERE NAMED BY SRILA PRABHUPADA in the beginning of July, 1977, in Vrindaban in the backgarden of his house. These names WERE DICTATED TO ME as I was serving as his Secretary, and HE HAD ME write a letter to all the GBC and Temple Presidents which he also signed as APPROVED on the 9th of July, LISTING THEIR NAMES and DEFINING THEIR FUNCTION. [….]
I then asked Srila Prabhupada whether he wanted to select or whether there would be others and he replied, “others may gradually be added latter.” ”
(TKG letter to Upananda 13.12.78, emphasis added)
Hare Krsna
Dear Jay, Working through your points again in some kind of chronological way.
Yes we are in agreement on some points and i have made an exhaustive research of “The Final Order” since i first received it many years ago.
In August this year i spent a two week period going through it once more with a fine tooth comb and pencil.There are many mistakes in TFO that need updating to make it relevant.The points that you illustrate dont have a bearing on the issue of rittvik though but are just Guru Tattva issues.Alot of the surrounding issues that rittviks bring into the debate are not related to the rittvik issue but they think it supports it but it does not.
For example in your piece later on you have focussed on how the abandonment of the rittvik issue in iskcon was one of the many orders not followed after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure.However there was alot of that whilst He was physically present and right from 1967 there were moves to replace Srila Prabhupada BUT that does not help the ritvik issue in the slightest.Just because certain things are wrong in Iskcon does not make the ritvik issue right.Thats just putting something else down in order to put you up,which does not work,devotees are way more intelligent than that.Its what i call smoke and mirrors scam.
The question of being a Bona Fide disciple does not seem to matter much in the ritvik world from how you have used the evidence.There is much said about the Bona Fide Spiritual master by ritviks but ironically they never discuss the Bona Fide disciple issues which do contradict themselves especially in the use of evidence for ritviks.
You dont question the Bona Fide nature of the May 28th question to Srila Prabhupada by Satsvarupa Maharaja because it suits your cause.But you do question the Bona Fide nature of the Gbc/Iskcon/ Ritvik representatives by not following the Instructions since Srila Prabhupada physically departed.Again this suits your cause ,but its not consistent ,cogent and coherent.
In the May 28th conversation you dont question the Bona Fide nature of TKG questions where he says “NO>He is asking that these ritvik acharyas.they are officiating,giving DIKSA,their….the people(disciple) WHO THEY GIVE DIKSA to,whose Disciples are they?”
Srila Prabhupada answers, “They are HIS disicples.”
This HIS refers to the ritvik acharyas as they are the object of the question from TKG.So in the context of the conversation we have different outlooks.We can all take parts from the same evidence to prove opposite conclusions.
The next part is equally interesting .
TKG says “They are his disciples.”
SP “Who is initiating , his grand disciple.”
In the context and evidential truth from the conversation TKG thinks the ritvik is Initiating and so Srila prabhupada says “They are his disciples.” which refers to the ritvik because the ritvik is the object of the question TKG is asking rhetorically.
Is this not evidence that the Bona Fide disciple issue needs to be looked at throughout all these conversations and evidences.Otherwise we are just accepting words on paper to be truths.
I dont see how your quote from S.Bhagavatam is evidence of your rather peculiar thesis that there is a Time when Srila Prabhupada is physically present and NOT physically present,i think you need to re-think that one or use different terminology so its clearer what you are trying to convey.You maybe right but its not clear to me.
And so we move on to the credibility and validity of your presentation.You have tried to present my contention but you have concluded wrongly.
My contention is this .
How does ritvik representation represent Srila Prabhupada’s Vani?
Disciples receiving ritvik representational Initiation AFTER Srila Prabhupada has physically departed dont have a chance of serving His Vapuh.The disciples can only serve His VANI. So how does the ritvik Initiation represent HIS VANI which it has to do in order to receive Initiation in that way?
You unwisely showed that the Ritvik is a representative of Srila Prabhupada’s Vapuh exclusively ,NOT HIS Vani,because you said Vani was already being given when Srila Prabhupada was physically present. So you established that the ritvik opinion is that the ritvik is representing only Vapuh,thats clear.So after the temporary Vapuh is finished how does the ritvik representative represent Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence when His Vapuh is finished??????Temporary means lasting for a short time relative to the physical world.
Srila Prabhupada defines Vapuh as “physical conception is temporary.”
So you’re saying that AFTER the Vapuh is finished the ritvik representative represents the Vapuh, period, by accepting disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada.How does the ritvik represent a temporary phenomena when it no longer exists after it no longer exists?
Now your misquotes,which is another ritvik quality.
Funnily enough you have quoted this May 28th conversation incorrectly to me.
You say that after the (wierd) question from Satsvarupa Maharaja Srila Prabhupada answered clearly that He would appoint some ritviks.But its “Yes.I shall RECOMMEND some of you……” Not appoint. The appointment word is from July 9th letter from TKG. Srila Prabhupada never said appoint its TKG’s terminology.
And then you added that the newly Initiated disciples would be his. Again you have made the same mistake,that quote is from July 9th letter again written by TKG not spoken by Srila Prabhupada.
Your next flaw was the definition of ritviks as “simply functionaries performing an Initiation CEREMONY on His behalf.” But look at the July 9th letter, that is not the description of ritviks. The Temple Presidents are the perfomers of the Fire Yajna,the CEREMONY.All the ritviks do is accept the disciples by giving spiritual names or chanting on the threads and sending them in a letter to the Temple President,thats the instruction written by TKG in the July9th letter.The ritvik does not even have to be at the ceremony.
Your spin on the question of Satsvarupa Maharaja,”…particularly at the time when you are no longer with us” to make it a more credible question just suits your side. The question is what the question is ,there is no disguising it or dressing it up,the question stands for all time for all to see.
When we juxtapose that question in the context of the rest of the may 28th conversation and now the July 9th letter we can easily see the provisional and temporary nature of ritvik representation.If we just take the simple direct meaning of english grammar and add that to the mood and meaning of the GBC at that time, history has shown exactly the Gbcs’ intentions and there have been so many interpretations of these documents together.TKG even gave 18 separate meanings to his July 9th letter, what he intended by it.
But if we look carefully at the July 9th letter in it lies the secret to the provisional and temporary nature of the process described.
From the sentence thus;
“Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives,Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these representatives are nearest their Temple.”
The Temple Presidents send recommendation to these representatives.
Srila Prabhupada authorised this July 9th letter as it is.Nothing more, nothing less.The recommendation for Initiation can only be sent by the Temple Presidents to THESE representatives.Thats it.No more no less,until they leave their bodies or Iskcon or devotional service.Then this process outlined in the July 9th letter is finished because THESE representatives are finished.
Bang goes the theory.!
Finally on a positive note we do agree on many other points.Sorry for any offences on the way they were not intentional.Hare Krsna.!
your servant dusyanta dasa.
Dear Dusyanta
Hare Krsna. Thanks for your reply.
You said: “your rather peculiar thesis that there is a Time when Srila Prabhupada is physically present and NOT physically present”.
I’m surprised this was not clear to you. Srila Prabhupada was physically present on this planet until November 14th,1977. After that he was no longer physically present. Why is this a peculiar thesis? The point being that the section of the May 28th conversation we are discussing is about what to do regarding initiations after his physical disappearance. Srila Prabhupada said he would recommend some to act as officiating acaryas / ritviks. This ‘recommendation’ was confirmed in the July 9th letter as an appointment:
“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”-representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.”
You ask: “My contention is this .
How does ritvik representation represent Srila Prabhupada’s Vani?”
I never said that ritviks represent Srila Prabhupada’s vani? What ritviks do is stated in the July 9th letter. They “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” .
Yes, you are right, the ritviks don’t have to be at the ceremony, but there is no reason why they can’t be – it doesn’t alter their function.
You said: “The recommendation for Initiation can only be sent by the Temple Presidents to THESE representatives.Thats it.No more no less,until they leave their bodies or Iskcon or devotional service.Then this process outlined in the July 9th letter is finished because THESE representatives are finished.
Bang goes the theory.!”
The Final Order answers this objection as follows:
“It is sometimes claimed that since the July 9th letter only authorises the original 11 appointed ritviks, the system must stop once the 11 persons nominated die or deviate.
This is rather an extreme argument. After all the July 9th letter does not state that only Srila Prabhupada can choose ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may never be added to. There are other systems of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada, such as the GBC, where new members are freely added or subtracted whenever it is felt necessary. It is illogical to single out one system of management, and treat it entirely differently from other equally important ones. This is particularly so since Srila Prabhupada never even hinted that the approach to maintaining the ritvik system should differ in any way from the upkeep of other systems he personally put in place.
This argument has become popular, so we invite the reader to consider the following points:
1) In the Topanga Canyon transcript Tamal Krishna Goswami relates the following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected ritviks:
Tamal Krishna: “Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?”
Srila Prabhupada: “As necessary, others may be added.”
(Pyramid House confessions, Topanga Canyon, 3/12/80)
Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that could be deemed a “necessary” circumstance for more ritviks to be “added”.
2) The July 9th letter defines ritvik as: “representative of the acarya”. It is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone to represent Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, Temple Presidents or indeed GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus it should be easily within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests to act responsibly on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf.
3) The July 9th letter shows Srila Prabhupada’s intention was to run a ritvik system “henceforward”. Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate managing authority in order that they could maintain and regulate all the systems he put in place. The ritvik system was his system for managing initiations. It is the job of the GBC to maintain that system, adding or subtracting personnel as they can do in all other areas over which they are authorised to preside.
4) Letters issued on July 9th, 11th, and 21st all indicate that the list could be added to, with the use of such phrases as “thus far”, “so far”, “initial list”, etc. So a mechanism for adding more ritviks must have been put in place, even though it has yet to be exercised.
5) When trying to understand an instruction one will naturally consider the purpose behind it. The letter states that Srila Prabhupada appointed “some of his senior disciples to act as “rittik” – representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations …”, and that at that time Srila Prabhupada had “so far” given eleven names. The aim of an obedient disciple is to understand and satisfy the purpose of the system. The purpose of the final order was clearly not to exclusively bind all future initiations to an “elite” group of individuals (“some […] so far”) who must eventually die, and in so doing end the process of initiation within ISKCON. Rather the purpose was to ensure that initiations could practically continue from that time on. Therefore this system must remain in place as long as there is a need for initiation. Thus the addition of more “senior disciples” to act as “representatives of the acarya”, as and when they are required, would ensure that the purpose of the system continued to be satisfied.
6) Taken together with Srila Prabhupada’s Will (which indicates all future directors for permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst his “initiated disciples”), it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada’s intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply managing the whole thing.”
Yes, we do agree on other points, and sorry for any offences caused.
Your servant
Jay
Hare Krsna
Sorry for not replying sooner but have had some problem with Computer.
Yes i must say i dont share your trust,belief and faith in the “Final Order” and its author as you do.
I dont agree with the point that it is an extreme view whatsoever.
And the July 9th letter does allude to just Srila Prabhupada appointing Ritviks.Srila Prabhupada only approves of this letter,the July 9th one.In it there is a portion that says
“Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples…”
The English grammar refers to Srila Prabhupada as the appointee and that He would appoint some disciples.Only some.
The approval in the July 9th letter is for His appointing disciples ,there is no indication in July 9th letter of a 3rd party doing this appointing.And there is no indication that the appointments will be for any more disciples.That part indicates a provisional temporary process.
The other problem with the authors tactic of stateing what is not included in the letter is a backward kind of logisticl trap..
There are innumerable things that are not included in the July 9th letter butr it does not make them significant or valid.
The next concern is that the author says that the GBC replacement process is based on “feelings”.
In reference to your numbered points which is a good way of reference i think.
1. I also dont share your trust,faith and belief in the Topanga statements as Truth by TKG. He must have changed them so many times it makes his evidence unreliable and his credability questionable so i dont count this .Then to add more “rittviks” would be authorised by TKG speculative statements from Topanga as if he was speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. But as we know from history this is not the case.
2 But we dont believe this to be the case either.just because the GBC approve “diksa gurus” does not mean they actually do.Just because the GBC have made it their remit to do this does not mean they are qualified to do this and if they are qualified then the rittvik process is finished by the replacement of the Disciplic Succession process the Gbc are approving.Another case of a logistical trap type brief.
The “rittvik” are described as Representatives on many occaisions in the July9th letter.So HOW do they represent Srila Prabhupada/Through Vapuh or Vani?Thats the whole point of my contention.Either they represent Vapuh or they represent Vani.
I say they cant represent Vani because its an eternal transcendental sound vibration that the disciple has a direct relationship with.
The only other alternative is they represent Vapuh,which is temporary!So how do they represent a temporary phenomena,Vapuh,when it no longer exists AFTER it no longer exists?
3. Yes we accept the word “henceforward” as meaning “from now on” which can be applied in many different ways which the author now agrees with.It has different time sensitivities depending on its objective.Some times its a short period and sometimes its longer but the word itself does not determine the length of time ,the word “henceforward” is an adverb so it pertains to the subject of the sentence it is in context with.In the context of the July 9th letter which is where it appears and can only be applied to this letter it has little effect.If you take the word “henceforward” out there is no change in meaning.
4. These phrases dont indicate that a mechanism had been put in place per se.The phrases must also be viewed in the context that they were written in to understand the proper meaning to these phrases.Its just a conjectural statement by the author ,he does not know.Its just some waffle that looks good.
5 This looks like a keen effort in “spin”.Which bona fide disciples is he talking about?Why has the author had to make up the idea of purpose to apply to what he has called the final order.Its only his final order because its to be taken subjectively when the Spiritual master gives orders.
6. This is another highly disputable point made.Taken out of context again just because it seems to suite the rittvik issue.The tieing together of Srila Prabhupada’s will to the ritvik issue is highly contentious and the evidence given by the devotees who were personally involved in the will dont agree with this conclusion by Krsnakant Desai.But from my perspective it looks fairly good evidence.
But i dont agree with most of his points at all.As i said before i have been through the “Final Order” scrupulously and i find many, many mistakes all the way through it.My suggestion is for him to re-write it all to update the many aspects that have been proved wrong. lets just agree to disagree Jay and leave it at that, but looking forward to any future discussion i remain your servant dusyanta dasa..
Hare Krsna Dusyanta Prabhu
You said: “As i said before i have been through the “Final Order” scrupulously and i find many, many mistakes all the way through it.My suggestion is for him to re-write it all to update the many aspects that have been proved wrong.”
So why don’t you list all the “many, many mistakes” that apparently are all the way through The Final Order which you have so scrupulously read? There is no need for Krishnakant Desai to re-write the book to “update the many aspects that have been proved wrong”, because in 15 years no one has been able to prove it wrong, so I’m not sure which “proof” you are talking about! Where is this proof? Where is it published? Who has written it?
Regarding your main contention: “The “rittvik” are described as Representatives on many occaisions in the July9th letter.So HOW do they represent Srila Prabhupada”,
this is already answered in the July 9th letter – which, may I remind you, is signed as “Approved” by Srila Prabhupada. The answer as given in the letter is:
“ritvik–representative of the acarya, **for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation**”.
So they represent Srila Prabhupada for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. Can’t be more clear than that really!
By the way, if you accept that Srila Prabhupada is still continuing to give diksa – transcendental knowledge that destroys sins – then you accept Srila Prabhupada as your diksa guru. The ritvik system of initiations is simply the formalisation of this relationship.
Can you show me another system which Srila Prabhupada authorised for initiations after July 9th 1977? Or are you argiung that all initiations were meant to stop forever after November 14th 1977?
Your servant,
Jay