By Bhakta Alex
Myth: July 9, 1977, directive wasn’t self-sufficient, final order on initiations in ISKCON, as it had been explained in May 28th conversation: ritviks until Srila Prabhupada’s departure only, then diksa gurus.
Instead of normal quoting from May 28th conversation and other evidence, anti-ritviks often resort to retelling them in their own words and distort the real evidence. One of early examples of this is maya-GBC’s paper called “The Process for Carrying Out Srila Prabhupada’s Desires for Future Initiations (A paper prepared by the GBC in Consultation with higher authorities… Mayapura, March, 1978)”. It says:
“The GBC members met together in Vrndavana and prepared a few last questions to put before Srila Prabhupada. One very important question was how disciples would be initiated in the parampara after the departure of His Divine Grace. When asked this question, Srila Prabhupada replied that he would name persons who could initiate disciples [note: on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, not in their own right] after his disappearance. We then asked him who the spiritual master of such disciples would be.
He replied that the new initiators would be the disciples of those whom he empowered to initiate [note: it’s another false statement, Srila Prabhupada replied that they would also be his, Prabhupada’s, disciples] and that he, Srila Prabhupada would be their grand spiritual master [note: this would be possible only “when I order” which didn’t happen]. Then he said that he would name the initiating gurus later [note: actually, he said “When I order”- this was the clause]. […] Then one day in June [note: in July] he gave his secretary the names of eleven disciples who would be initiating the disciples [note: initiating on his behalf]. […]
On naming these disciples, he ordered that they become “rittvic acaryas”, which means that they were to initiate on his behalf [note: that’s it, but where is your authorization as initiating gurus?]. He indicated, as he had said in May, that these rittvic acaryas named by him would, after his disappearance, continue as initiating spiritual master. [Note: there is no such indication nor in July 7th, 1977, neither in the May 28th conversations]” (End of excerpt from maya-GBC March 1978 paper)
Ameyatma das: “In March of 1978 the GBC wrote and distributed an official paper that dealt with initiations now that Srila Prabhupada was no longer with us. That paper gave the names of the 11 new Acaryas and it mentioned the “list” where Srila Prabhupada had given the names of those 11. Bharadvaj is a senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada and he told me that he had asked Ramesvar who was our GBC in LA, if he could see the list for himself. He just wanted to verify for himself that it was valid. Ramesvara denied Bharadvaj’s request, who was even a more senior devotee than Ramesvara was. He told Bharadvaj that the List or letter was for GBC members only. Ramesvara told him that Srila Prabhupad had given the GBC verbal instructions when they met with him earlier that weren’t given in the List, and that if devotees read that List, they’ll reach the wrong understanding. For that reason, the GBC would not let other devotees see it. He told Bharadvaj that he would just have to trust the GBC. Trust? Trust is when your leaders don’t keep such important instruction given by your own spiritual master from you. Trust is when your leaders act in such a way that you know you can trust them.” (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSilpQNom-k)
If Tamal, Satsvarupa, Ramesvara, etc. were so sure that they were appointed as diksa gurus, why May 28th, 1977, tape had been hidden/suppressed for years (until mid-1980s when it leaked to the public)? It wasn’t presented and distributed at the March 1978 Gaura Purnima festival to the assembled devotees (despite Yasoda nandana’s request to make the evidence available and openly discussed). It wasn’t quoted in the official ‘Back to Godhead’ magazine (the first 1978 issue that was dedicated to Srila Prabhupada’s departure). It wasn’t quoted in GBC 1978 resolutions that declared that 11 “Spiritual Master” were “selected” by Srila Prabhupada (GBC resolution # 16, March 19th 1978. 9:30 am). Etc. They often retell it in their own words.
Yasoda nandana dasa: “Why the GBC did not bring out this so-called appointment tape in front of all the devotees the March 1978 Mayapura meeting? What did they have to hide?” (July 19th 2024)
Maya-ISKCON “guru” Jayadvaita Swami claimed in his “Where the Ritvik people are wrong” paper:
“5. Argument from Srila Prabhupada’s final instruction.
On May 28th, 1977, when a deputation of GBC members asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would go on after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, his last words on the subject were these:
When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. Just see.
“Disciple of my disciple.” The meaning is clear, and it’s consistent with Srila Prabhupada always taught us.
For those who refuse to see it, no amount of argument will help. For the rest of us, there it is.” (End of excerpt)
It’s a case of “physician, heal thyself”. The author quotes the phrase with a clause “when I order”, but refuses to see it. So where is the exact order given to any disciple to become the next initiating acarya in ISKCON? Who, where and when were named in the exact capacity as new diksa gurus? Where are the details of the future multiple initiating guru system in ISKCON given by Srila Prabhupada?
As the founder of their apa-sampradaya admitted, “Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. […] He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. 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. […] You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: “I appoint these eleven as gurus”. It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.” (Tamal Krishna, December 3rd, 1980, Topanga Canyon talks quoted in ISKCON Journal, 1990)
The idea that July 9th letter cannot be properly understood without May 28th 1977 conversation where Srila Prabhupada allegedly authorized diksa gurus, and that conversation (not July 9th directive) was his “final instruction”, and on this basis one should not take the directive too seriously, and one just have to blindly trust the distorted interpretations of the issue by bogus gurus/anti-ritvik party is another misleading.
Myth: July 9th letter wasn’t connected to May 28th conversation, but was the result of July 7th conversation.
According to anti-ritviks, July 9th 1977, directive speaks of the period until Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure as it was the outcome of Jul 7th conversation or the letter appoints ritviks and somehow simultaneously appoints diksa gurus. And that’s no big deal that the directive doesn’t say anything about ritviks until departure only or ritviks turning into diksa gurus, because Srila Prabhupada allegedly authorized this transformation during May 28th conversation.
In their official paper “Prabhupada’s Order” (August 1998) maya-GBC suddenly changed their line of argumentation (compared to their official “Disciple of My Disciple” paper, April 1997) and claimed that July 9th letter arose solely from July 7th conversation: “The letter was a response to a conversation of July 7th”. And “The May 28th conversation deals specifically with the question of what would happen after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and he answers unequivocally that his disciples would accept disciples of their own.”
The truth is the directive was the result of both July 7th and May 28th conversations, and other discussions as well – all of them pointed to ritvik initiations in ISKCON on behalf of Srila Prabhupada to be followed in the future.
July 9th letter starts off by giving an explicit reference to the conversation that took place on May 28th, 1977, when Srila Prabhupada was asked by the GBC how initiations would be conducted “in the future” when he “is no longer with us.”
From Gadadhar dasa’s article “July 9th Appointments: Temporary or Permanent?”:
“”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.”
(1) This section proves that July 9th letter refers [in this place] to May 28th Conversations and not to July 7th Conversations by exploring how many GBCs were there in the world in May 28th, 1977, and how many of them were in Vrindavan on May 28th and July 7th.
(a) From Conversations 770528me.vrn [May 28, 1977, conversation] we learn that there were 23 GBCs as of May 28th, 1977…
Srila Prabhupada: How many GBC’s are there already?
Tamala Krsna: Twenty-three.
[…]
(c) Summary Report of GBC Meetings from May 27th to 29th 1997, states names of following 22 persons who attended those meetings. It was sent to all Temple Presidents.
[…]
(f) I have scanned through “Conversations with Srila Prabhupada” Books I have and found following (Under Documents see “Books – Conversations with Srila Prabhupada”:
(f.1) From May 25th to June 2nd – there are many GBCs around every day. Plus, as shown above, on May 28, 18 GBCs sign GBC Minute Book; Summary Report of GBC Meetings from May 27 to 29 is signed by 22 persons (20 GBCs, one Acting GBC, and 2 non-GBC Members). Furthermore, 15 GBC members are found to be speaking with Srila Prabhupada during May 27, 28, and 29 – as per “Conversations with Srila Prabhupada” Books. I can produce the list if needed.
(f.2) From July 2nd to July 10th only GBC found to be speaking with Srila Prabhupada is TKG – as per “Conversations with Srila Prabhupada” Books.
(g) Comparing (f.1) and (f.2) it is clear that July 9th letter refers to May 28th Conversation because the requirements of the underlined clause in the following statement of July 9th is met by only May 28th conversations, and not by July 7th Conversations.
[…]
“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.”
(h) Above July 9th statement specifically refers to the following May 28th statements:
Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first, and second initiation would be conducted.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas. (End of excerpt from Gadadhar Dasa’s article, source: http://prabhupadanugasworldwide.org/july-9-appointments-temporary-or-permanent/)
Thus, the idea that July 9th directive wasn’t connected to May 28th conversation is another myth. July 9th 1977, letter became the practical outcome of Srila Prabhupada’s promise given on May 28th 1977, to resolve this issue later on. This directive does not say anything that ritvk initiations in ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf should stop in the future, or that ritviks will have to become diksa gurus in ISKCON immediately or soon after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, or that the GBC receives the authority to appoint new diksa gurus in ISKCON by their votes.
Seriously, should we believe that the GBC delegation asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would be conducted in the future particularly when he is no longer with us, and he replied he would appoint ritviks, then he did appoint them in July, 1977 and soon after that the directive addressed to all ISKCON managers was written which refers to the recent GBC meeting with Srila Prabhupada in Vrindavana (May 28th 1977 conversation)… but the directive appoints ritviks and supposedly deals with initiations until Srila Prabhupada’s departure only, and it couldn’t mean post-samadhi initiations as well (as per anti-ritvik version). So, Srila Prabhupada arranged the directive about the issue the GBC didn’t particularly ask him about, and the real issue was just forgotten and wasn’t addressed in any 1977 document? Isn’t it self-exposing make-belief?