Why would Srila Prabhupada sign an important letter if it did not state what he wanted?
An email from Ameyatma dasa (ACBSP)
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.
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.
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,