Dear Ajamila Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
- "a) Where does the 'direct until departure ritvik priests meaning of the 9 July letter' come from?"
You were asked for evidence to prove your above assumed 'direct' meaning. As it happens you were unable to provide any evidence - and instead tried to hide this lack of evidence by simply presenting more assumptions:
| "On 9 July 1977 Srila Prabhupada was very ill and hundreds of devotees worldwide were eager to take initiation. To solve this impending problem Srila Prabhupada appointed more ritvik priests to perform the initiation ceremonies on his behalf, as he instructed in 9 July letter." |
But this assumption of yours - that Srila Prabhupada wrote the July 9th letter only to clear the backlog of devotees due to his illness - is just that - an assumption. This assumption is not stated in the July 9th letter itself, and therefore it is just your speculation. You have therefore presented as the evidence for one assumption, just another assumption. If your latest assumption was correct, the July 9th letter would make mention of this speculation of yours and at least state that:
a) This letter is being written to clear the backlog of initiations due to my illness.
b) And that after this backlog is cleared please stop this system.
Since neither of these statements are made in the letter your speculation is defeated, and you have no authority to unauthorisedly terminate the system given in the letter.
| "Since Srila Prabhupada does not mention anything at all in the 9 July letter about continuing that temporary system after his departure, [...] the self-evident meaning and instruction to us all in 9 July letter is that the temporary ritvik system." |
You have said that the July 9th letter gives a 'temporary system' - but this is the very assumption - that the July 9th letter sets up a temporary ritvik system - that you have just been asked to provide evidence for - and you simply restate this same assumption as evidence for itself!
The subterfuge of trying to cover one unsubstantiated speculation with just more unsubstantiated speculations is easily exposed.
You also contradict yourself with the following assumption:
| "since only five weeks earlier Srila Prabhupada concluded that the ritviks would become regular gurus 'after his departure' " |
But we already caught you out saying that it would be the ritviks who were to be performing initiations 'after departure'.
| "On 28 May 77 Srila Prabhupada was specifically asked about initiations that would
be performed by the ritvik priests after his departure." (Ajamila's Introduction) |
And we have already seen that your attempt to convert the ritviks into 'regular gurus' via the 'ritvik-acharya' entity was defeated by HH Hridaynanda Maharaja in the GBC's 'Prabhupada's Order'. So recycling the already defeated assumption above will not work either.
Next we come to evidence that Srila Prabhupada directly 'ordered' his disciples to 'initiate' 'after his departure'. Though you present some quotes you freely admit that such quotes are not infact direct orders to become diksa gurus - the very evidence you are supposed to be presenting - and further agree that that no such orders actually exist - and then try to justify this lack of evidence by stating that Srila Prabhupada himself never received such a direct order either:
| "I know your argument will be show me one place where Srila Prabhupada specifically ordered in writing or verbally that his disciples can become gurus. To this argument I ask you, Did Srila Prabhupada ever receive from his guru the direct order to be guru either in writing or verbal? No" |
This is a very honest admission from you prabhu to the whole world, that infact no such direct orders to be guru are either needed or indeed actually exist. After years of being told by the GBC, that either that there are actually 'dozens' of such quotes (HH Hrdyananda Maharaja); that the direct order was given on the tape itself ('Disciple of His Disciple, HH Umapati Swami et. al.) etc. etc., it is refreshing to be told that such a 'direct order' does not infact actually exist! This honesty of yours completely destroys the official GBC line. We hope they come to your understanding!
Also your assertion that Srila Prabhupada did not receive a 'direct order to be guru', is another one of your 'assumptions'.
- How can you prove this?
- Were you privy to every instruction that Srila Prabhupada received from His Guru Maharaja?
Further the quote you provide nowhere states Srila Prabhupada never received a 'direct order to be guru'. It tells us that he was ordered to preach, but does not say that this was the only communication on this subject that transpired between him and his Guru Maharaja. Again simply more assumptions.
Also for ISKCON, as already shown, Srila Prabhupada gave a process by which he continues to act as the diksa guru via the July 9 directive. And we have just seen above that you have spectacularly failed in proving your assumption that such a directive was temporary. Thus the order to 'preach' in ISKCON, must be carried out in conjunction with the other instructions that Srila Prabhupada gave for ISKCON as well - not be used as an excuse to terminate them. We can only execute the instructions that we were given - not abandon them by speculating on the instructions that our guru received from his guru maharaja. This principle has never been taught by Srila Prabhupada.
So in conclusion please note what Ajamila has presented so far:
- On May 28th tape, since Ajamila admits that 'ritviks' act 'after departure', and he has failed in his attempt to turn the ritvik into a diksa guru via a 'ritvik-acharya'.
- No 'law of disciplic succession' or 'vaisnava tradition', since they eliminate each other due to the fact that the GBC admitted that the 'law' is not infact traditional.
- No evidence for the assumption that the July 9th letter is temporary - just a restatement of the same assumption.
- No direct order for any disciple to be a diksa guru.
So the debate has just warmed up, and still at a stroke you have already managed to
eliminate all the evidence that has ever been presented by the GBC, probably more
effectively then any IRM paper could do. Instead you have rested your whole case to
justify the abandoning of a signed directive sent to the whole movement on the extrapolation of a speculation on an order that was given by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
Thakura to Srila Prabhupada.
That is you actually have no evidence, and Srila
Prabhupada remains as the diksa guru for the whole movement.
Srila Prabhupada ki jai!
Ys, Adri