[Posted October 26, 2007]

Arguments against Rittvik debunked

Ameyatma das

The speculative idea that the July 9th letter only applied to when SP was ill is debunked.

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:10:07 -0400
From:
Subject: My conclusion

PAMHO, All glories to ISKCON's Founder-Acharya, ACBS - Srila Prabhupada!

The following are my conclusions from the recent rtvik email discussions. I am sending to all as Blind Carbon Copy as I do not want this to continue as another long thread. I am sending as FYI. Please accept my apologizes if you are not wanting this email.

I am not interested in prolonging the discussion. Everyone has aired their views well enough, and no one is prepared to accept the view of the other side. I see no further need in more round-n-round discussions.

The Bhaktivedantas World Sankirtan Party and Inside Nam Hatta are hosted by Hansadutta das, a senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada and trustee of The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Participate or learn more about World Sankirtan Party.

Get Real

Rittvik is Not a Quick Fix Hansadutta das

The solution is to act as Rittvik representative of the Acharya, and by demonstrating, by example, the sincere souls will naturally gravitate towards and be truly connected to Srila Prabhupada, leaving dead connections (dead telephones) aside. If your telephone is connected, people will use it; if your telephone is not connected, how can they use it? more

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

There were 2 origins of the discussion. The first was that Basu Ghosh sent out a copy of Nrsinghananda's email regarding the GBC's lack of action regarding Satsvarup Gosvami''s falldown (and for the most part their seeming lack of even knowledge or awareness of his recent falldown with another devotee's wife). In response to this, I had mentioned the Direction Of Management, that it's implementation would solve many of these sort of issues. And, I had put forth questions to Basu Ghosh concerning how multiple gurus (spiritual MASTERS) can function in a single ashram where that ashram (ISKCON) has a superior Master, the GBC, who is the authority over and above the Guru (master). Normally a Guru is the sole Master of his own Ashram. And I then brought in the rtvik aspects (actually pointing out that the current gurus, not being the actual master of the iskcon ashram, were functioning more as rtviks of the GBC, rather then as regular diksha gurus). Basu Ghosh wound up deferring those questions to Gaur Keshava Prabhu, who had extensively studied agama/pancharatra shastras. GK, due to being too busy, did not respond for a month or more. During that lapse in time, Praghosh then sent out emails regarding rtvik articles he was posting on Sampradaya Sun, which sparked the main rtvik debate. It appears that Gaur Keshava was also sent questions that were posted in that email discussion. When Gaur Keshava finally responded, he did not really address my original questions (regarding multiple subordinate gurus in an ashram that has a higher ashram authority), but jumped into the rtvik discussions. It is my understanding that GK, as well as Basu Ghosh and Krishna Kirti (also part of the discussion) are often tapped by the GBC to research scripture in support of their position).

The following are my conclusions from the several months of discussion.

In my discussion with Gaur Keshava I asked him to address a number of questions, to which, in my view, he side skirted and never directly answered. Even he refused to answer at times. A most common tactic was to ignore my question and introduce new points and questions for me to answer that were aimed at defeating the basic premise, thus hoping to avoid having to answer the questions I had asked him that were difficult. I always addressed all new points and questions he would pose, but so many of my questions he simply failed or refused to address.

I am not going to detail here. In summary, I had asked him that if he accepted the rtvik process while SP's body was breathing, but rejected the same process as bogus after his body stopped breathing, then was he saying that the temporarily breathing body of the guru is what empowered the process (as opposed to his living eternal instructions)? This was among my initial rtvik questions to him. He never replied because he thought he could defeat the 'rtvik' arguments by proving this was not what SP wanted. However, those questions remain unanswered. If answered they would provide a basis to where he is at or to what is acceptable or not acceptable to him. He avoided addressing that issue and introduced so many arguments to try and prove that on-going rtvik was bogus and/or to prove that SP had not wanted this to continue after his departure. I responded to all the new angles and arguments he came up with. I kept asking my questions and as we went I added to the number of questions for him to address. Again, just to point out, he never did reply to my original question.

He then introduced the speculation that SP did not intend for the July 9th letter to apply to after he departed, that it only applied to when he was sick. I asked him to give direct and verifiable evidence to this mentally concocted speculation. The only evidence he or the GBC can give is that THEY SAY this is what it is, therefore it is. That is not an answer, it does not address the actual question because it does not provide verifiable evidence.

I asked him to address the ramifications of accepting this speculation. Again, no direct reply to my questions. The ramifications are that the letter itself says it is Prabhupada's follow-up to when he had said he would soon appoint rtviks. The letter explains this took place at a recent meeting with the GBC. This provides us with verifiable evidence, because it is verifiable fact that such a meeting had recently taken place on May 28th, and it is verifiable fact that at that meeting SP had said that he would soon appoint rtviks — and — what hits this on the head is that this was SP's reply to the most serious and grave, all-important question as to how initiations would go on after he departs. Since GK (Vasu Ghosh and the GBC) put forward the mental concoction that this is NOT what SP intended, but rather he intended that the letter Only applied to while he was sick, the ramifications are: WHY did SP sign a letter which did not state what he intended, and rather makes statements and references that clearly lead us to a totally different conclusion then what he intended? THEY SAY this applied only to while he was sick. They give no other evidence than THEY SAY. How any one can take what THEY SAY over what SP signed?

My questions demand answers. Why SP signed an important letter that did not state what he wanted?

I gave the following suggestions, not out of sarcasm, but simply because they were the only answers I could come up with: — Was Prabhupada absent-minded and forgot that he had said he would appoint rtviks as his answer to that question? Did he sign it unwittingly, not knowing what he was doing? Had he become senile? Befuddled and confused?

GK chose not to answer my direct questions. He kept putting forward 'other' arguments, new points for me to address, in which his attempt was to debunk the idea in a different way. I kept addressing his new points, and he kept refusing to address my questions. Yet nothing he could say after that point would dismiss those questions. They have to be addressed and answered, because no matter what 'additional' ways he tries to debunk the opposing idea, those ramifications to his speculative theory will remain. Those questions will still stand. Unless and until he addresses them, there was no use in going any further.

According to his own reasoning, silence is a clear sign of defeat.

On Oct 5th, GK wrote to Praghosh:

Sorry I don't accept this type of homework assignment from someone who will not answer my questions. If you wish to pose as my teacher please answer my emails and questions. I believe I have asked them in a respectful way. I deserve some sort of answer.

If you can't answer just continue to ignore me. Silence is defeat.

Your godbrother
Gaura Keshava das

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

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

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

But, after praying to Srila Prabhupada what the facts were, SP revealed to me that he had not actually stopped anything as of Oct 18th. The 11 had not yet started to perform the duties he had deputed them to do. Not one rtvik initiation had been held. And the most unique feature of the July 9th letter was that SP had turned over to the rtviks the duty to make the final decision whether someone could be initiated or not. This, clearly, SP had not yet stopped because there he was on Oct 18th making that very decision regarding one Bengali man whom SP just made the final decision for him to be initiated. Thus disproving GK's argument that SP had stopped those rtvik aspects back in July. No, he was stopping them, finally, on Oct 18th.

Besides that, Oct 18th SP is referring to that PAST where he had already deputed JP, and all he had deputed in the past was as rtvik. SP also repeatedly referred to Where, in what document, he had already deputed him. It was There in That List, the List of Names which was the July 9th letter. He was not asking them to become diksha guru at that time.

Also, I noted that SP told JP to initiate (via the rtvik process on SP's behalf) that Bengali man because JP was rtvik acharya for Mayapur. Because he was the Nearest. One does not take diksha from someone, accepting them as eternal guru just because they happen to be nearest. In so many ways I kept defeating his [GK's] points, and not one single time did GK admit, even once, that I was right and he was wrong. He just kept trying to come up with another angle, another point, somehow or the other to try and trip me into some trap.

But he never answered most any of my questions or addressed the ramifications. And the unanswered questions were increasing with each new point he raised.

The questions and ramifications demand to be addressed, because no matter what other angle he put forth, those issues would stand, irregardless of any new point. But in the end he remained silent and chose not to address the issues. At the end I reminded him that failure to answer was a sign of defeat. He ignored that and tried to push on with his plan to come up with new ways to trap me into some web he was weaving.

It is accepted principle, and he quotes also, that to avoid replying means defeat.

I am setting up a new website where i plan to post more detailed excerpts of the discussion and of the topic, to try to provide a place on the internet for propagating the arguments in support of the on-going rtvik side. I have the website, www.rtvik.org, but have not had time to work on it. I was about to do so when this discussion ate up all my spare time. But, the discussion came at just the right time, because now I will be able to incorporate the essential points of both sides and more conclusively present our arguments.

The conclusion
The speculative idea that the July 9th letter only applied to when SP was ill is debunked. It has no basis, no evidence to support it, and to do so has serious ramifications that their side refuse to address. Thus, it cannot be accepted. The Oct 18th argument that SP had stopped diksha initiation and deputed JP and the others to be diksha was also debunked. This was the main evidence the GBC and GK were using to support their theory. These arguments were shown to be insufficient and in the end, disproved.

Also, in conclusion, I would like to point out the following analysis.�These people are obstinate in thinking that they are right. I see 2 main foundations for this obstinacy:

1) is that some are totally convinced that an on-going rtvik process is bogus. No past Acharya ever did this. It "has" to be bogus. For them, they feel there is absolutely no way Prabhupada could have ever meant this to be. They are so convinced of this that they try every which way they can to prove this is not what SP wanted... When the evidence shows it is what he wanted, they either ignore the evidence or try their best to discredit it. Many times they wind up discrediting SP in the process, but do not realize it. (Such as insisting that SP intended the July 9th letter to mean something totally different then it says.) That path leads us to question SP's mental capacity at the time. Had he become senile? Absent-minded, forgetful, befuddled, confused? This, they will not answer. They do not believe this (and of course the facts do not support this), but they cannot answer the questions and so try to gloss it over and try to sideskirt those challenges to find another way to prove their loosing case.

2) another cause of their obstinate behavior is that some are or very much want to become regular diksha guru. They are very motivated to want to prove that the on-going rtvik is bogus and was not what SP actually wanted. (They can be regular guru, no one can stop them. ) But, they cannot imagine how the two, an on-going rtvik process and their becoming regular guru can go on side-by-side. They kept arguing as if one nullifies the other. That concept was shown to exist only inside their heads alone, and in reality, both processes can go on, side by side. Even one person can be both a regular diksha guru for those who desire his direct shelter, and can facilitate a rtvik initiation on behalf of SP for those who feel their direct relation is with Srila Prabhupada.

I wish to point out that there is also stronger potential to be motivated beyond the truth from their side. Especially those who have desire to become guru. Actually, they are free to become guru, but they want to become ISKCON guru. ISKCON has its guru, Srila Prabhupada. If they want to become guru, they need to start their own ashram, as Srila Prabhupada had done, as he set the example. All past gurus are gurus of their own ashram.

What is our motivation? What do I personally have to gain by arguing that SP wanted an on-going rtvik system? The only motive I can find is my desire to establish that which I see that SP wanted. I have nothing to gain from promoting this stand. I have no disciples to gain, no dakshin to gain, no fame, adoration, distinction, profit, etc. Rather, the Rtviks are today put down by most in ISKCON. They are seen as deviants, as rogues and rascals, as fallen. We are called names, denied services, sometimes kicked out of temples, slugged in the face for trying to show others that the GBC has been wrong. Personally, I do not see that I have anything personally to gain, but have stood to lose a lot by taking this stand. Why else would I do so other than I am convinced this is what SP wanted?

Aspiring to become your humble and most obedient servant,

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada