Truth: This directive was based on Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and written on his order, and then approved by him, whereas TKG’s contradictory explanations given after he masterminded the coup and became a bogus acarya are certainly false and shouldn’t be followed.
By Bhakta Alex. Russsia.
Amazingly, maya-ISKCON tries to downplay Srila Prabhupada’s role in the July 9th, 1977, directive and overall, in ritvik initiation system finalized in 1977, up to the point His Divine Grace supposedly wasn’t the one who really made this arrangement! They try to sell a very strange idea: it was Tamal Krishna Goswami, the then secretary of Srila Prabhupada, who wrote this directive and introduced the whole ritvik initiations concept (off course, they say as a temporary measure), and it was something quite insignificant, so Srila Prabhupada just signed this letter, that’s all.
Hence, they conclude, we should accept what TKG, as the supposed real author of the directive, explained regarding this issue many years later (mostly in the 1990s). They don’t like to recall his public confession made on December 3rd, 1980, that Srila Prabhupada never appointed any diksa gurus in ISKCON but ritviks only, who were to be added as necessary, etc. And that he was sanctioned/suspended as “ISKCON guru” in 1980 and 1995, and that he gave a lot of contradictory versions of the story, never mind his most active participation in the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada’s body in the 1970s, in the ISKCON takeover by zonal acaryas, his promotion of false outside “acarya” Narayana Maharaja in ISKCON in the 1990s, TKG’s sabotage of ISKCON restoration reforms, etc.
Let’s review TKG/GBC arguments by reading excerpts from two publications:
[Maya-ISKCON GBC’s official paper ‘Prabhupada’s Order’ (Aug. 1998) states] “The subject of this conversation was then dictated by Tamal Krishna Maharaja as a letter to all Temple Presidents and GBC’s, letting them know that initiations could again be performed, and which devotees Srila Prabhupada had deputed to oversee the giving of names and chanting on beads:”
[Here and below each quote from ‘Prabhupada’s Order’ is followed by comments from “GBC Fail to Answer The Final Order” paper by Krishnakant] Another plank of this current GBC paper is the absolute insistence that H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja ‘dictated’ the letter. Of course, we only have Maharaja’s word for that. But the issue is not what Maharaja now claims he thought he was writing, or what he claims the letter means – the issue is the words written down in the letter that Srila Prabhupada himself approved.
It was not as though Maharaja developed the ritvik system out of his own mind, picked the representatives names himself, and then decided what was going to be done. Srila Prabhupada instigated the whole procedure. Whatever words were written down, Srila Prabhupada approved them all. Srila Prabhupada never told the Maharaja ‘since this letter is not self-explanatory you better travel all over the world and personally tell everyone what it really means’.
Also, the letter was [meant to be] sent to every TP and GBC, and specifically ‘approved’ by Srila Prabhupada. And Maharaja himself accepts that letters written by the secretary but ‘approved’ by Srila Prabhupada were authored by Srila Prabhupada:
“Prabhupada called his GBC member for the western USA, Karandhara Dasa, to Tokyo to clearly establish the GBC’s responsibilities. In a letter issued by Karandhara, but bearing Prabhupada’s signature of approval, one can sense Prabhupada’s authorship.”
(‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)
And this was an extremely important letter sent to all GBC’s and TP’s. A search through folio does not show us other letters that were also sent to every GBC AND TP.
“Much effort has gone into trying to analyse and make judgements on what is the actual meaning of this letter. Of course, if you want to know what is actually meant by some particular statement, the very best person to ask is the person who made it. As the letter was written by Tamal Krishna Maharaja, we thought it pertinent to allow him to explain what he actually meant by the letter, and particularly the word ‘henceforward’ which is often highlighted to have special significance.”
As stated earlier, we are only interested in the words that Srila Prabhupada approved. Thus Maharaja’s ‘explanation’ of what he thought he wrote, whilst gratefully acknowledged, is not relevant, unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that this is what Srila Prabhupada also meant. We already know the exact words that Srila Prabhupada did approve.
“On July 31st 1998, we contacted His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami by e-mail, asking him to give some first-hand insight about how the word ‘henceforward’ was used in the letter of July 9th, 1977. As the person who wrote this letter, which was later countersigned by Srila Prabhupada, he is in the best position to know what the intended meaning was.”
Since the GBC are using the contents of Maharaja’s mind as prime evidence, it is pertinent for us to carefully examine whether his record on this issue is solid and reliable. Below the reader will see for themselves how Maharaja has offered nothing but a mass of confusing and contradictory positions on what should have happened after Srila Prabhupada’s departure:
1978
1. Maharaja agrees with the rest of the ’11’ that the 11 mentioned in the July 9 letter had been exclusively chosen as the ‘material and spiritual successors’ to Srila Prabhupada. He enthusiastically participated and supported this system, with the big vyasasanas etc. We can see that at the time, Maharaja did not display any outward signs that, he had any idea what the ‘real’ meaning or context of the July 9 letter was. In a document he was party to issued at this time, it states:
“The GBC members met together in Vrndavana and prepared a few last questions to put before Srila Prabhupada. […]
Then he said that he would name the initiating gurus later. […]
Then one day in June he gave his secretary the names of eleven disciples who would be initiating the disciples. […]
A delicate situation may arise when in one ISKCON temple there are disciples of different gurus. The natural way to avoid this is for a guru to perform diksa in his own zone. Srila Prabhupada deliberately chose gurus in different parts of the world to arrange for this. […]
A second seat, however a little below Srila Prabhupada’s vyasasana, should be given to the initiating guru. […]
Those who are already empowered to initiate will extend the number by their consideration. In this way it will have spiritual characteristics. The eleven picked by His Divine Grace will extend themselves. […]
Now these godbrother’s are worshipped by their disciples as genuine spiritual masters. This means for example, that they are to be considered, as stated in the Guruvastakam, as nikunjo-yuno rati keli siddhyai – intimate assistants in the pastimes of Krishna.”
(The Process for Carrying Out Srila Prabhupada’s Desires for Future Initiations; A paper prepared by the GBC in consultation with higher authorities, Mayapur, March 1978)
Maharaja offered the following vivid understanding of what exactly he thinks happened at this time:
“The argument that after the departure of the spiritual master anyone of his disciples can give initiation, cannot be applied in the case of Srila Prabhupada who specifically named 11 persons only at first to fulfil this function. These 11 persons were named by Srila Prabhupada in the beginning of July 1977, in Vrindavana in the back garden of his house.
These names were dictated to me as I was serving as his secretary, and now he had me write a letter to all the GBC’s and Temple Presidents which he also signed as approved on the 9th of July listing their names and defining their function. […]
Thus, we can understand, that in regard to the third definition of acharya, that Srila Prabhupada clearly appointed 11 successors for initiation. Whatever process may have been followed by past acharyas, Prabhupada chose to appoint. […]
Even after having these facts clearly explained, if someone continues to blaspheme the 11 gurus, their legitimacy, blasphemes ISKCON, the spiritual vehicle created by Prabhupada to fulfill his will, blasphemes the GBC – the approved driver of the vehicle – […]
he is not a disciple at all. Rather he is the killer of gurudev and his spiritual whereabouts is unknown.” (Letter to Upananda Das, 13/12/78)
As is accepted by everyone now, including the GBC, Maharaja’s understanding of what the letter meant, and the events that transpired after 1978 based on this understanding of the letter by Maharaja, was an understanding that was absolutely FALSE. Thus, from the very beginning Maharaja had misunderstood the meaning and context of the letter by his own later admission.
1980
2. By this time Maharaja’s understanding of what Srila Prabhupada’s desires for guru-succession were, had become so deviant that even the GBC, who at that time were themselves following a deviated path, suspended him as GBC and guru. At the time Maharaja had become convinced, amongst other things, that (what to speak of his own disciples) even his godbrothers and godsisters could only reach Srila Prabhupada through him!
“Tamala Krishna Goswami, the leader of a large number of sannyasa and brahmacari preachers, insisted that he was now their via media in relating to Prabhupada and expected that his godbrothers follow HIM ABSOLUTELY.”
(‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)
Dec. 3rd, 1980
3. Having been suspended Maharaja now gave a new version of events at Topanga Canyon, California. He admits there that:
“Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus. What actually happened I’ll explain. I explained it but the interpretation is wrong.”
(Topanga Canyon Confessions, 3/12/80)
Here Maharaja is not only confirming that his understanding of the letter in 1978 was totally wrong, but also that now he has finally properly understood what Srila Prabhupada really wanted.
1982
4. Maharaja now changes his mind again and goes back to the version of events that he had supported in 1978 and rejected in 1980:
“I do not think that there is any problem in accepting the spiritual masters who Srila Prabhupada appointed. The first qualification which you should have before you decide on this issue is to chant sixteen rounds and follow strictly Prabhupada’s orders. So far as I seen anyone who is doing this is accepting these acharyas, except in a very few instances. The real proof however is to see that they are acharya, not simply by appointment, but by actions. Our movement is progressing and growing more and more, at least as much as it was during Srila Prabhupada’s time. […]
You have enclosed a clipping from Back to Godhead in which Srila Bhaktipada is advertised as ‘Bona fide Spiritual Master’. You say ‘this is something that seems a little strange to me’. Would you please explain to me what seems strange?
(Letter to Gadai Prabhu, 14/6/82)
5. This metamorphosis of Maharaja’s version of what happened in 1977 is completed by the publication of his book “Servant of the Servant”, in which he states categorically:
“Since the disappearance of our beloved spiritual master, we have seen such disenchanted persons come forward trying to cast doubt on the legacy left by Srila Prabhupada. When SP appointed from among his senior disciples eleven persons to continue the process of initiation, and when after their spiritual master’s departure those whom he selected assumed their duties by his command, the critics began to bark their discontent. […]
The critics may argue that appointment alone is not a guarantee that one has actually achieved this perfectional stage of life; Prabhupada might have appointed disciples for lack of anyone better, or hoping that they might one day achieve the desired realization. To such irresponsible criticism we answer a decisive “No!” SP chose them because they merited his confidence. […]
SP conferred his blessings upon these disciples, seeing that they had dedicated themselves heart and soul to assisting him in the preaching mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Thus, he considered them to be uttama-adhikari, all highly advanced devotees worthy to be accepted as spiritual masters. […]
Critics may doubt whether our ISKCON acharyas are actually liberated. Do they know their rasa (liberated relationship) with Krishna, and will they be able to instruct their disciples similarly? But such questions bring one dangerously near the precipice of spiritual calamity.”
(“Servant of the Servant”, Tamal Krishna Goswami, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1984, Pages 361-365)
Post 1987
6. Maharaja again changes his mind and whole-heartedly endorses the new reforms and agrees that what he and the other 11 had been doing and teaching for the last 10 years was wrong. To support this new understanding he agrees that in new versions of his book ‘Servant of the Servant’ the above quoted passage should be edited out.
1992-95
7. Maharaja’s understanding of guru-tattva takes a further twist. He now leads the formation of the ‘gopi bhava’ club, preaching that Srila Prabhupada had not given us the ‘highest understanding’ but rather that he wanted us to consult with a ‘rasika guru’, who the chairman of the ministry that has sponsored PO considers:
‘…a ‘crooked’ and ‘talented pretender or imposter, who has seduced, beguiled and misled many people.’ (His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, ‘Taking Srila Prabhupada Straight’, 1998)
1995
8. Maharaja now realises that he was wrong in thinking that Srila Prabhupada had not given us everything and that he had wanted us to consult with the ‘rasika guru’, as he had himself done and also persuaded many others to do so, for the previous 4 years.
1996
9. Maharaja again accepts the ‘appointment’ theory that he had rejected in the post 1987 reforms:
“6 months before his own demise, Prabhupada had announced that he would APPOINT some of his disciples to perform all of the functions of initiating new disciples as he had become too ill to do so. Those so initiated would still be Prabhupada’s disciple while those who would be initiated after his demise would become his grand-disciples. Shortly thereafter, Prabhupada selected eleven disciples to begin assisting him, and asked his secretary to communicate their names to the rest of ISKCON. Following Srila Prabhupada’s death and the fateful meeting with Prabhupada’s godbrother Sridhara Maharaja, the eleven gurus NAMED by Prabhupada assumed the extra-ordinary position above all others.” (‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)
Further it will be noted in the above that Maharaja states that Srila Prabhupada’s intention to appoint disciples to assist with initiation, as recorded in the May 28th 1977 conversation, (6 Months before his own demise), was motivated by illness EVEN THEN, and that the ‘naming of the gurus’ done in the July 9th letter flowed directly from the May 28th conversation.
1998
10. Maharaja now tells us that the issue of appointing the ’11’ as occurred via the July 7th garden conversation and the July 9th letter was done independently of the May 28th conversation, though above he has just told us the opposite:
“In writing this letter, it was an organisational letter to explain the practical matter of how things would be dealt with because nothing was really changing. Prabhupada was still their guru but at least the actual operational method of how Prabhupada would deal with new candidates was changed. It was very clear in my mind at that time that what we were discussing was the process of initiation in Prabhupada’s presence, how things would go on after his presence, he had already instructed us when the 5 or 6 of us had met him on May 28th, one had nothing to do with the other.
(Class given by H. H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja on 6th August 1998, in Hong Kong)
Now we are told, that 21 years later, the best way to understand the July 9 letter and how it arose is to understand it from Maharaja, even though it is accepted that he did not understand it at the time, and that he has been greatly confused on this issue over the last 21 years. Surely most normal sane people would not consider the Maharaja a very reliable witness on this issue, with all due respect. The fact that the GBC have placed such store in his testimony in PO proves that they are utterly desperate. Possessing not one scrap of hard evidence, nor even a single sound argument, they are now pinning everything on the testimony of Maharaja. Instead of just reading the letter ourselves, we must for some bizarre reason accept the indirect interpretation of a witness who has merrily bounced from one deviant and contradictory position to another over the last 21 years.
So instead of any factual EVIDENCE, Maharaja’s mental projections must now become the basis on which to justify ‘modifications A & B’ to the July 9th letter – the modifications that led to the abandonment of the ritvik system and the imposition of the previous, current and possibly a future ISKCON guru system?
Please note the above is NOT an ‘ad hominem’ attack. An ‘ad hominem’ attack is when one tries to discredit a philosophy solely by trying to discredit the person who is presenting the philosophy. Here Maharaja is not presenting any philosophy but giving his personal testimony. In evaluating a person’s testimony, the key criterion will be the credibility of the testifier specifically in relation to the subject at hand.
“2. If you worded it, what did you mean by this word?
‘Henceforward’ means something like, ‘in the foreseeable future,’ or, ‘until further notice.’ “
Here the informative Maharaja makes a ‘Freudian slip’, in that he gives a definition of the word ‘henceforward’ that forms the whole basis of the TFO -‘until further notice’. The very ‘further notice’ that was NEVER given. This is exactly what TFO is claiming. Srila Prabhupada never gave this ‘further notice’ and thus the system should still be running.
“Therefore, the word ‘henceforward,’ in fact the entire letter, in no way refers to a situation after Prabhupada’s departure, a situation that I was not prepared to normally think of. That situation was already addressed by Prabhupada in the May 28th conversation, which I make brief mention of at the outset of my letter.”
Here Maharaja must be praying the reader will not notice the glaring contradiction. He makes a ‘brief mention’ to a conversation that deals with what to do ‘after Prabhupada’s departure’, at the outset of a letter that is supposed to deal only with what to do before Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Furthermore, as we have already covered extensively above, the GBC argues that this brief mention proves the letter resulted from what was stated on the May 28th tape, a tape that deals specifically with what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’ departure. […]
“3. Was there any accompanying explanation to this letter given by you to Srila Prabhupada, when you read it to him for his approval, which may shed more light on Srila Prabhupada’s understanding of the term “henceforward” in this context?
Yes, in the sense that this letter was viewed by Srila Prabhupada as a managerial document for how new disciples could continue to be initiated during His illness, not a blueprint for how the disciplic succession would continue after His departure. Though I have no specific memory about such an accompanying explanation, there undoubtedly would have been some exchange between us along the lines of what we discussed in the garden the previous day.”
Maharaja answers ‘yes’, there was an ‘accompanying explanation’ which would ‘shed more light’ on the ‘understanding of the term “henceforward” in this context.’ Then he immediately states that he has no ‘specific memory’ about such an accompanying explanation, but there must ‘undoubtedly’ have been some exchange between them.
If Maharaja has no ‘specific memory’ how can he be so sure that there was ‘undoubtedly’ such an exchange, and further what the exact details of that exchange were?
As we have seen above, 21 years ago Maharaja was not sure at all what Srila Prabhupada intended status for those 11 persons was. Yet today we are supposed to accept his version of events as being accurate even though he admits he does not even have a ‘specific memory’ on the topic. Not entirely convincing we are afraid to say. The fact that in Maharaja’s diary of his time as secretary in the last year, which he has just released, there is absolutely no mention of any of these elusive conversations surrounding the issuing of this letter adds further doubt to his testimony. Evidence, which does not exist, is no evidence at all. Not only is this evidence entirely missing in any hard form such as tapes or approved documents, it appears to have also slipped out through the gaps in the Maharaja’s synaptic junctions.
“Of course, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, the ritvik-theorists take the only possible alternative to attempt to keep to their theory i.e. they try to discredit the evidence of all the most senior devotees in the movement, those whom Prabhupada had personally chosen. However, to write off all of Prabhupada’s hand picked men as being ill-motivated is indirectly an offence to Srila Prabhupada himself, implying that he wasn’t able to judge the sincerity and motives of his disciples.”
Hardly overwhelming. This so-called ‘evidence’ is nothing more than the testimony of someone who, by his own admission, has not been at all clear on Srila Prabhupada’s desires for the past 21 years. Furthermore, the same person also admitted that the ‘most senior devotees in the movement’ had committed the ‘greatest disservice’ in the way in which they had understood and executed Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for what should occur after his departure. Considering his terrible track record on the issue of spiritual authority, the Maharaja must have been very flattered to even have been asked to contribute to such an important GBC paper.
As far as ‘writing off’ goes, the GBC themselves have ‘written off’ a substantial proportion of Srila Prabhupada’s ‘hand-picked’ men.
After all we do not see them rushing to take testimonies from: Hamsaduta, Bhagavan, Ramesvara, Kirtanananda, Harikesa or Bhavananda. We wonder why?
It cannot be the fact that they had ‘fallen’, for Hari Sauri also similarly ‘fell’ and yet they are enthusiastic to distribute his ‘diaries’ all throughout ISKCON. Indeed, they use the contents of those very diaries as one of their main pieces of evidence for Diksa authorisation. Yet would the GBC like to publish and distribute the memoirs of Hamsaduta et. al., over what they think happened in 1977. We think not! We will leave it to the reader to figure out the reason for this glaring double standard (in addition to the fact that it is kali-yuga, and such hypocrisy is only to be expected).
Furthermore, this is what H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja himself had to say recently about Srila Prabhupada’s ‘chosen leaders’:
‘The failure of the attempt at centralization did not mean that Prabhupada’s chosen leaders would cease jockeying for position and control, desires that seem at the heart of each heresy’.
(‘The Perils of Succession’, 1996, H. H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)
(End of excerpt from ‘GBC Fail To Answer The Final Order’ by Krishnakant, source: https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/gbc_fail_to_answer_the_final_order.htm)
Shortly afterwards, in 1999, the GBC funded a video called ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ prepared by ITV to be broadcasted in maya-ISKCON centers (I recall watching it at that time in our local yatra). Below are excerpts from it along with comments from “A response to ISKCON TV (ITV)’s ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ video” by the IRM:
3. H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts GBC Minutes Book
No stranger to contradiction, having changed his story regarding ISKCON’s guru tattva nine times over the last twenty-two years, this was always going to be Tamal Krishna Goswami’s show. He chooses his words as carefully as a soldier picking steps through a minefield. Even so he still manages to contradict one of the video’s most crucial pieces of evidence; the GBC minutes book. The GBC minutes book allegedly contains, amongst other things, a hand-written record of the May 28th meeting between the GBC and Srila Prabhupada. They state that some devotees were to be appointed by Srila Prabhupada to act as diksa gurus for after his departure:
“Srila Prabhupada said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even after his disappearance.”
(GBC minutes book as shown in ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ video).
The people who were specifically appointed by Srila Prabhupada were thus meant to act as initiating gurus after departure, according to the GBC’s official minutes, as presented on the video. On the video Tamal Krishna also recommends we read the minutes as a worthy record of what occurred on May 28th. However, on the same video H.H.Tamal Krishna states:
“Prabhupada did not appoint gurus. He named people who would act as his assistants to give initiation in his presence.”
(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).
Thus H. H. Tamala Krishna and the video promote the GBC minutes book, which presents the old ‘Guru appointment’ theory; and at the same time the video has H. H. Tamala Krishna emphatically stating that Gurus were not appointed! We do not think H.H.Tamal Krishna Goswami should get all the blame for this contradiction, since the GBC body themselves have also contradicted their own minutes book in one of their recent papers:
“There is no appointment of gurus or successors, only a recommendation that certain disciples start the natural process.”
(The entire GBC, in the position paper ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ page 4, 1996).
What an incredible state of affairs that there should be no agreement even on such a basic, fundamental issue. Either Srila Prabhupada did appoint gurus for after his departure or he did not. And after more than twenty years we are still presented with nothing but a tangle of conflicting testimony over the very issue that the video was supposed to be shedding light on. In the end Srila Prabhupada only appointed ritviks- and there is certainly no order from him that they were to change function after his physical departure. We know this for a fact, since the GBC have not produced any such document even for the court case in Calcutta. Had Nrsimhananda allowed that particular fact to infiltrate, he may well have further jeopardised future GBC patronage. One lesson from all this is that devotees should be extremely wary whenever the GBC or their supporters release anything, and especially anything with the title ‘Disciple of my Disciple’; it is just bound to be self-contradictory and misleading. This is especially so since the phrase itself is taken completely out of context. In the original conversation (May 28th ’77) the passage in which the phrase ‘disciple of my disciple’ appears is prefaced with the conditional ‘When I order’. It is this requisite ‘order’ for diksa gurus that the GBC have never been able to locate. Only if they can find such an order will there be any scope for ‘disciple of my disciple’.
4. H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts Himself
In his cautious explanation of the events surrounding the July 9th letter, Tamal Krishna claims the final order on initiations was only dealing with what was supposed to happen whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present:
“I think in the beginning of the letter I make mention that we’ve already met in May, in other words what will happen in the future is not at issue here, we’re not talking about what will happen after Prabhupada departs, we’re talking about now in Prabhupada’s presence – that was what the whole purpose of the letter was.”
(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).
Yet at the beginning of the letter, under Srila Prabhupada’s approval, Tamal Krishna actually starts the letter thus:
“Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavan, 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 and second initiation.”
(July 9th letter, opening paragraph)
According to Tamal Krishna, and the entire GBC, this refers to the May 28th conversation, in which the only issue was what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
So why on earth does mentioning this conversation as the original inspiration for what is to follow in the July 9th letter, tell us that the only issue being dealt with is what to do before departure?
When we look back at the conversation that Tamal Krishna says he is alluding to, we see Srila Prabhupada said he was appointing ritviks as a direct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja’s first question concerning what was to be done after he was no longer with them. Thus by starting the letter with reference back to the May 28th conversation the very last thing anyone would assume is that it was only concerned with what to do whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present. Indeed, this has to be one of the most preposterous statements ever made by a GBC apologist. The Maharaja is contradicting the very letter he is so proud of typing for Srila Prabhupada. Once more we are being asked to believe that Srila Prabhupada went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole movement on a subject the GBC had not asked him about- namely initiation before departure. And yet on the really important issue, the matter they all went to his room to ask him about- namely initiations after departure, Srila Prabhupada issued nothing, no letter to all the movements leaders, no approved GBC resolution – nothing.
5. HH Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts Reality
Tamal Krishna accepts that the letter was approved by Srila Prabhupada with his signature, in other words Srila Prabhupada signed the letter. As Maharaja says:
“… Prabhupada approved it because I thought it would add more weight to it…”.
(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).
Yet Tamal Krishna also contradicts this in the following:
“If Prabhupada himself wanted to change something, first of all he wouldn’t have had someone write a letter for him. He would have written the letter, he would have dictated the letter, and he certainly would have signed it.”
(Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).
Srila Prabhupada did sign the letter as Tamal Krishna has admitted above, and as is plain from just looking at it. Thus, the strain of twenty years of deviations are finally catching up with the Maharaja; he is now completely losing grip of reality.
6. H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Contradicts the English Language
Why does the Maharaja, and others on the video like Dravida das, make such an issue of the fact that it was not Srila Prabhupada’s letter?
What are they so afraid of that they feel it necessary to make such an absurd argument?
All shall be revealed. Even though there is no mention in the July 9th letter (or any other) that the ritvik system was only stop-gap, temporary or solely for Srila Prabhupada’s presence; the argument now being made is that to understand what the letter meant we must approach the real mastermind and author. Never mind what words are used in the letter, that is now irrelevant. Indeed, if we read them, we might even become confused. What really matters is what Tamal Krishna Goswami now tells us the words mean. Even if the meaning he ascribes is not hinted at, or is even contradicted within the letter. As he says himself in the video about the way the July 9th letter turned out:
“It’s just a choice of words that I used, if someone looks in a dictionary and finds it has a different meaning, somehow it gives a permanence, it wasn’t, it certainly wasn’t the intention.” (Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of my Disciple Video’).
So even when we read words in the letter like ‘henceforward’, and no words like ‘temporary system’ or ‘stop-gap measure’ or ‘just while Srila Prabhupada is ill’; we must somehow forget the real meaning of language according to every English dictionary on the planet, and simply understand from the humble secretary what the letter actually meant. The underlying reason for this sinister line of argument would seem to be: -since everyone knows that the Acarya is beyond the four defects it is hard to directly deny the validity of the letter’s wording. But by heavily exaggerating Tamal Krishna’s part in the production of the final order, and minimising Srila Prabhupada’s, devotees will not worry so much about exactly what the letter says. In that way the attention is gently and imperceptibly shifted away from the signed directive itself, and onto the wobbly testimony of a man who has changed his story nine times over the last twenty-two years.- If this was the plan, then it’s been rumbled. The fact is Srila Prabhupada approved the letter with his signature, so he must have agreed with its contents.
End of story.
[…]
Tamal Krishna – The Secretary Who Thinks He is the Boss
In the video Tamal Krishna admits that it was he who blocked the recommendations for initiation that were still being sent to Srila Prabhupada up to July of 1977. He claims this was to protect Srila Prabhupada from all the bad karma since he was sick. When we look at the July 7th Garden conversation, we see Srila Prabhupada immediately ordered for the initiations to be resumed under the new ritvik system, once he learned of Tamal Krishna’s independent initiative. The same system he had first mentioned way back on May 28th. Despite this, Tamal Krishna seems to think the whole thing was his idea, and in one passage of unbridled egotism reveals what he really thinks about his relationship with Srila Prabhupada:
“The letter was written by me, it was not dictated by Srila Prabhupada; it was signed by me – and it’s my letter. It’s not Prabhupada’s letter.”
(HH Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ Video)
Above we see Tamal Krishna Maharaja tries to present the whole ritvik system as his idea, and that he simply got Srila Prabhupada to sign it, almost as an after-thought:
“And it was my suggestion – Prabhupada approved it because I thought it would add more weight to it, so people would know it was authorised.”
(HH Tamal Krishna Goswami in ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ Video)
How terribly thoughtful of Tamal Krishna to let Srila Prabhupada know how he was directing his movement for him, and how generous to allow Srila Prabhupada to sign his own letter. There is just one small problem. Tamal Krishna admits at the beginning of the letter that the whole thing was really Srila Prabhupada’s idea – not his at all. Please read again the beginning of the July 9th letter above. Notice the words ‘Srila Prabhupada indicated’. Look at the transcript of the May 28th conversation and see how it was Srila Prabhupada who first brought up the idea of using ritviks. Notice how even the great self-styled mastermind was asking how the system would run, just as he was on July 7th in the garden. It is Srila Prabhupada who chose the initial eleven devotees who were to act as ritviks.
[Note: Srila Prabhupada said on July 7th, “You can note down these names… That’s nice. Now you distribute.” From Yasoda nandana dasa’s 1977 diary, July 9th: “I heard from Tamal Krishna Maharaja in the afternoon that Srila Prabhupada had told him to send a letter to ‘all the temples’ to explain the ritvik initiation system for the future.”]
And it was Srila Prabhupada who signed the finished draft of the letter, typed by his lowly servant and secretary – Tamal Krishna Maharaja. Tamal Krishna Maharaja is fond of writing academic books that candidly expose all his past deviations. We hope this paper will provide a rich source of new material for future volumes in the continuing saga of the man who could not follow a simple order.
(End of excerpt from “A response to ISKCON TV (ITV)’s ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ video”, source: https://iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/Reply_ITV.htm)
Naveen Krishna dasa: “So much importance given to the person who is the principal person involved with the murderous poisoning of Srila Prabhupadas body, a person who Srila Prabhupada compares to Ravana? Once one finds out his role in this maha mad elephant offence one cannot believe anything coming from his mouth.” (June 29th, 2024)
Yasoda nandana dasa: “Gauri dasa Pandita dasa also personally witnessed and was recording Srila Prabhupada’s statement [made on July 5th, 1977], “Tomorrow I will nominate some ritviks to initiate on my behalf after I leave…” [see: https://vaishnava-news-network.org/world/9801/19-1517/index.html]
Where is that tape recording?
Topanga Canyon excerpt, December 3rd 1980, Tamal Krishna: “The point I want to state on that is this realization, and I feel that the GBC body, if they don’t adopt this point very quickly, if they don’t realize this truth: You can’t show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says, “I appoint these 11 as gurus.” It doesn’t exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.”
The entire initiation system in [maya-]ISKCON is based upon mythology, a complete fabrication mixed in with TKG’s interpretations.” (June 27th 2024)
In conclusion: In 1977, Tamal and his accomplices were trying to poison Srila Prabhupada with heavy metal compounds, which is now a proven fact, to prepare a coup and takeover of ISKCON, by writing rather vague phrases in 1977 correspondence concerning the future of the initiation issue, trying to hide audio recordings and instructions of Srila Prabhupada about the ritvik system for the period after his departure. After the coup was finally carried out in 1978 and TKG became a false acarya, he created schisms and crises in maya-ISKCON, was temporarily suspended from his “guru” position twice- in 1980 and in 1995- shortly before the above quoted maya-ISKCON materials were prepared. But it turns out that soon he suddenly became not a key person who greatly undermined ISKCON and created lots of confusion, but the best, most honest, impartial and conscientious devotee, a true transcendental guru who would now save ISKCON from misunderstandings! That’s gross!
It’s obvious to any more or less sincere person that TKG was re-writing history in the late 1990s. Anti-ritviks present Tamal’s statements made when he was defending his bogus guru position in the 1990s as the best source to understand the issue whereas it’s the worst source and we shouldn’t take to it holding our breath. He wasn’t the real author of July 9th, 1977, directive. Srila Prabhupada had been introducing proxy initiation system in his worldwide movement for years, and finalized it in 1977, and ordered Tamal to “distribute” information regarding this arrangement. So, it was His Divine Grace who ordered ritviks to officially initiate his new disciples in the future, particularly when he is no longer with us.