namahatta.org - Congregational Development Ministry

by Kaunteya das

This morning, during darshan-arati here in Mayapur, it somehow came to my mind that today is the thirtieth anniversary of the famous “July 9 letter.” I smiled to myself.

For those who are (lucky enough to be) unfamiliar with the whole controversy, on 9 July 1977, HH Tamal Krishna Maharaja, then serving as Srila Prabhupada's personal secretary, after consulting with Srila Prabhupada, wrote a letter to all temple presidents explaining how bhaktas and bhaktins would take initiation (from Srila Prabhupada) through the local leaders.

Srila Prabhupada had been severely ill, and to avoid burdening him with more karma, initiations had been stopped for a few months and there were dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of devotees anxiously waiting. Srila Prabhupada selected eleven devotees who, on his behalf, would chant on the new initiates’ beads, choose their new names, etc., and HH Tamal Krishna Maharaja conveyed the message. In one sense it was a matter of ordinary administration. That’s it.

That is, that’s it for those satisfied with the facts; that’s it for those who accept the letter as it is, for what it says. But not for the ritviks—oh no, not for them! In their hopeless efforts to find (non-existent) support for their baseless theory, they misconstrued this letter as a statement of how the sampradaya should continue—or rather, should not continue—after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

They manage to imagine (do they really believe it?) that instead of a simple communication explaining a temporary arrangement, the July 9 letter was actually a statement establishing the ritvik theory for all future times. The message they interpolated: There shall be no more initiating spiritual masters after Srila Prabhupada; all future generations will be his disciples and his disciples only—for everlasting eternity.

I am still smiling. I smile while remembering the months of discussions (transmogrified also in bizarre court cases) when the issue was hot in India, some ten years ago. In fact a team of us, under the guidance of HH Jayapataka Maharaja, compiled a book—100 Deviations of Ritvikism—addressing the fallacies of the theory.

Below I am enclosing the relevant chapter, discussing the misinterpretations of the July 9 letter. Some of you might find it interesting—perhaps even instructive.

Ch. 4 - Misrepresentation of  the Letter of July 9, 1977

1. Misrepresenting as relevant a letter which is irrelevant to the issue of initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s departure;
2. All bluff, no stuff;
3. Misrepresenting the letter as a “final order” (the word ‘order’ is not even mentioned);
4. Disregarding the fact that the letter was not worded by Srila Prabhupada but by his secretary;
5. Disregarding the dictionary meaning of the word “henceforward;”
6. Disregarding Srila Prabhupada’s usage of the word “henceforward;”
7. Disregarding the logical consequences of taking the word “henceforward” in the sense of “forever;”
8. Imagining that Srila Prabhupada would revolutionize all he ever said about disciplic succession by the single adverb "henceforward" in a letter written by his secretary;
9. Disregarding that the Temple Presidents to whom the letter is addressed wanted to know how their bhaktas and bhaktins could get initiation, not how initiations would continue after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance;
10. Disregarding the connection to the May 28 May conversation;
11. Disregarding the connection to the July 7 conversation;
12. Disregarding that Srila Prabhupada indicated that he himself could continue to handle initiation requests from India;
13. Disregarding the sentence, “The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada;”
14. Disregarding the direct explanation of the author of the letter;
15. Misrepresenting the lack of temporary references as meaning that the letter was forever;

The July 9 letter is completely irrelevant to the discussion of how initiations should be conducted after Srila Prabhupada physical disappearance because the subject of Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance is not mentioned at all.

Here is the famous “July 9th letter”, written by Tamal Krishna Maharaja:

From “Prabhupada’s Order”:

The subject of this letter is used in TFO [“The Final Order”] as the irrefutable 'final order',, which attempts to prove the case of the ritvik philosophy. The letter was a response to a conversation of July 7th, where Tamal Krishna Maharaja brings to Srila Prabhupada's attention the dilemma of what to do about all the devotees who wanted to take initiation but had been told to wait due to Prabhupada's sickness.  Although this conversation is a follow-on from the one of May 28th in the fact that Prabhupada actually names those devotees who would act as 'officiating acarayas', the reason behind the conversation is significantly different. The May 28 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. In contrast, this conversation, from the very beginning, deals with the question of what to do about the backlog of new initiation candidates:

Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada? We're receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.

Prabhupada: The local, mean [men?], senior sannyasis can do that.

Tamala Krsna: That's what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were... The local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed, or should we...? I mean one thing is that it's said that the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he takes on the... He has to cleanse the disciple by... So we don't want that you should have to... Your health is not so good, so that should not be... That's why we've been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.

Prabhupada: No, the senior sannyasis...

Tamala Krsna: So they should continue to...

Prabhupada: You can give me a list of sannyasis. I will mark who will...

Tamala Krsna: Okay.

Prabhupada: You can do. Kirtanananda can do. And our Satsvarupa can do. So these three, you can give, begin.

Tamala Krsna: So supposing someone is in America, should they simply write directly to Kirtanananda or Satsvarupa?

Prabhupada: Nearby. Jayatirtha can give.

Tamala Krsna: Jayatirtha.

Prabhupada: Bhavanan..., er, Bhagavan. And he can do also. Harikesa.

Tamala Krsna: Harikesa Maharaja.

Prabhupada: And... Five, six men, you divide who is nearest.

Tamala Krsna: Who is nearest. So persons wouldn't have to write to Your Divine Grace. They could write directly to that person?

Prabhupada: Hm.

Tamala Krsna: Actually they are initiating the person on Your Divine Grace's behalf. Those persons who are initiated are still your...

Prabhupada: Second initiation we shall think over, second initiation.

Tamala Krsna: This is for first initiation, okay. And for second initiation, for the time being they should...

Prabhupada: No, they have to wait. Second initiation, that should be given...

Tamala Krsna: Should... Some devotees are writing you now for second initiation, and I'm writing them to wait a while because you're not well. So can I continue to tell them that?

Prabhupada: They can do second initiation.

Tamala Krsna: By writing you.

Prabhupada: No. These men.

Tamala Krsna: These men, they can also do second initiation. So there's no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who gives initiation is doing so on your behalf.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: You know that book I'm maintaining of all of your disciples' names? Should I continue that?

Prabhupada: Hm.

Tamala Krsna: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikesa Maharaja, he should send the person's name to us here and I'll enter it in the book. Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

Prabhupada: India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapataka.

Tamala Krsna: Jayapataka Maharaja.

Prabhupada: You are also in India.

Tamala Krsna: Yes.

Prabhupada: You can note down these names.

Tamala Krsna: Yes, I have them.

Prabhupada: Who are they?

Tamala Krsna: Kirtanananda Maharaja, Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayatirtha Prabhu, Bhagavan Prabhu, Harikesa Maharaja, Jayapataka Maharaja and Tamala Krsna Maharaja.

Prabhupada: That's nice. Now you distribute.

Tamala Krsna: Seven. There's seven names.

Prabhupada: For the time being, seven names, sufficient. You can make Ramesvara.

Tamala Krsna: Ramesvara Maharaja.

Prabhupada: And Hrdayananda.

Tamala Krsna: Oh, yeah. South America.

Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right... That will depend on discretion.

Tamala Krsna: On discretion.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That's for first and second initiations.

Prabhupada: Hm.

Tamala Krsna: Okay. Shall I send a kirtana party, Srila Prabhupada? (break)

The reason for this conversation, as stated above, is that there was a backlog of hundreds of devotees who wanted to take initiation from Srila Prabhupada. However, the initiations had been stopped, as Tamal Krishna Maharaja explains, because the devotees close to Prabhupada were concerned about Prabhupada havingto accept the karma of his disciples in his weakened condition.

The practice of having his disciples perform initiations on his behalf had been instituted by Prabhupada since the early days of the movement. He accepted this as a necessary step to spread Krishna Consciousness worldwide. The only difference now was that devotees could write directly to any of the senior disciples named by Srila Prabhupada, and he would initiate them, give them a spiritual name and send the record of initiation to Prabhupada in Vrindavana.

There are also two very clear evidences in the conversation that Srila Prabhupada and Tamal Krishna Maharaja were talking specifically about that time, i.e. when Prabhupada was present there in Vrindavana, and not for ever after. The first is where Tamal Krishna Maharaja states, "So if someone gives initiation, like Harikesa Maharaja, he should send the person's name to us here and I'll enter it in the book." This quite clearly confirms the context of the conversation, which had been set at the beginning; it was regarding the question of initiations while Srila Prabhupada was sick in Vrindavana.

Another confirmation of this comes when Tamal Krishna Maharaja asks Srila Prabhupada, "Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?" and Prabhupada answers, "India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapataka..." this clearly reveals Srila Prabhupada as accepting the context of the matter being discussed related to what should happen at that time, when he was present, but not physically fit to perform initiations. Therefore to claim that this conversation and the distribution of its message via the July 9th letter as a 'final order', which once and for all establishes the future of initiations for all time in ISKCON totally neglects to understand the clearly stated purpose for the conversation, and its context, from it’s beginning right to the end.

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.

The fact that this arrangement was not intended to be for all time is again confirmed in the letter resulting from the above conversation, where Tamal Krishna Maharaja says, "The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's 'Initiated Disciples' book."

Much effort has gone into trying to analyze and make judgments on what the actual meaning of this letter is. Of course, if you want to know what is 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 that letter, and particularly the word ”henceforward,” which has been highlighted as having special significance.

On July 31st, 1998, we contacted His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami by e-mail, asking him to give first hand insight about how the word ”henceforward” was used in the letter of July 9th, 1977. As the person who wrote the letter, which was later countersigned by Srila Prabhupada, he is in the best position to know what the intended meaning was. He was asked three questions; his answer follows each question.

Question: Who actually worded the letter of July 9th stating 'henceforward'?

HH Tamal Krishna Goswami: I did.

Question: If you worded it, what did you mean by this word?

HH Tamal Krishna Goswami: 'Henceforward' means something like, 'in the foreseeable future,' or, 'until further notice.' My service was to encourage Srila Prabhupada to survive his illness. I made every effort, both when speaking with him, and in correspondence, to be positive about recovering from his disease and continuing to physically lead the Krishna Consciousness Movement in a healthy condition. In fact, I believed this is exactly what would happen, and not until the final days did I ever think otherwise. 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.

Question: 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?

HH Tamal Krishna Goswami: 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.

Hope this makes things a little clearer.

Hare Krishna.

your servant,
Tamal Krishna Goswami

The ritvik-vadis, who stick to their misinterpretation of the word “henceforward” as meaning “forever,” run into an unsolved paradox, as explained by HH Jayadvaita Maharaja in “Where the Rttvik People are Wrong” (January 1996):

Taking "henceforward" to mean literally forever, never will the rttvik-guru system come to an end. By this "hard" version of the doctrine, even should an uttama-adhikari someday appear, he will never initiate disciples of his own. At most, he will serve merely as a rttvik. For according to this hard version of the doctrine, Srila Prabhupada is the final member of the disciplic succession. The succession has come to an end. Srila Prabhupada is the only guru forever after. Henceforward, all new devotees will be his disciples, through his appointed rttviks.

And since we're insisting that "henceforward" must mean literally forever, we must apply it not merely to a selected portion of what Srila Prabhupada's appointment letter says but to the letter in its entirety.

"Temple presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee... The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as his representative."

If we're being literal, as the argument says we must, then let's be literal. Though the letter says that Srila Prabhupada has "so far" given a list of eleven rttviks, he never added to the list. So this is it. The only authorized rttviks are these eleven. There is no mention that any of them may ever be removed or replaced, nor is there any mention of any successor. Nor does Srila Prabhupada provide that the list may be altered by the GBC. Henceforward, these eleven.

Of these, one—Jayatirtha Dasa—fell into intoxication and illicit sex and is now dead. How he will continue to serve as rttvik henceforward is unclear. But presumably he must, provided we can find out where he is so we can send him requests for initiation from the temples nearest.

And then we have Kirtanananda Swami, Bhavananda Goswami, Ramesvara Swami, and Bhagavan Dasa Adhikari, all fallen from their spiritual vows but serving eternally as rttviks nonetheless.

Or Hamsadutta Swami. His falldowns have become the stuff of literature, yet now that he has become humble, perhaps he is available to serve as a rttvik guru from now till the end of time. For some, perhaps, once again, Hamsadutta is the only way.

If these choices somehow don't suit you, you're left with Harikesa Swami, Jayapataka Swami, Hrdayananda Goswami, Tamal Krishna Goswami, or Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami. The problem here, of course (aside from the possibility that you may not like them), is that all of them are sure they were supposed to serve as rttviks only until Srila Prabhupada's departure. As far as they're concerned, the post-samadhi rttvik doctrines are bunk. Now these devotees wouldn't serve as rttviks for love or money. So if you're looking for an authorized rttvik, go back to the other names on the list.

And remember, henceforward—from now till the end of time—these are the only authorized rttviks.

My apologies for the sarcasm, but a person who puts forward an argument is obliged to live with its consequences. And if the consequences are absurd, so is the argument.

More Analysis of the Word “henceforward”:

By Drutakarma Prabhu, from “Krishnakant Desai: All Bluff, No Stuff”

But let's get back to this supposed final order by Prabhupada. Actually, if it is a final order it is a final order by Tamal Krishna Goswami, because he wrote and signed the July 9 letter. Prabhupada is referred to only indirectly, in the third person, and his signature is below Tamal Krishna Goswami's as an approval of Tamal Krishna Goswami's words. Furthermore, the whole process that resulted in the letter was begun not on the initiative of Srila Prabhupada but on the initiative of Tamal Krishna Goswami, who put to Srila Prabhupada a specific question, on his own accord, without any prompting from Srila Prabhupada. That question, unrelated to Prabhupada's departure, was this: what to do with the backlog of initiations that had accumulated during the time when Prabhupada was not answering letters. This can be seen from the start of the July 7 conversation on this topic.

Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada? We're receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.

Prabhupada: The local, mean [men?], senior sannyasis can do that.

Tamala Krsna: That's what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were... The local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed, or should we...? I mean one thing is that it's said that the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he takes on the... He has to cleanse the disciple by... So we don't want that you should have to... Your health is not so good, so that should not be... That's why we've been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.

Prabhupada: No, the senior sannyasis...

Tamala Krsna: So they should continue to...

Prabhupada: You can give me a list of sannyasis. I will mark who will...

Tamala Krsna: Okay.

So Srila Prabhupada was not responding to a question about how initiations would go on after his departure. He was responding to a question about what to do with a backlog of requests for initiation from devotees desiring initiation from Srila Prabhupada. Tamal Krsna Goswami indicated that the whole concern was Srila Prabhupada's health. The devotees were thinking Srila Prabhupada was so weak that the karmic burden of accepting new disciples would not be good for him. This places the whole episode in the context of what was to be done during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. There is no mention at all of Prabhupada's departure or how initiations were to be conducted after his departure.

Srila Prabupada went on to name several other devotees. Here is another significant part of the conversation:

Tamala Krsna: Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?

Prabhupada: India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapataka.

The rtvik advocates say that Srila Prabhupada was completely withdrawing from the initiation process and setting up a system that was designed to operate in an unbroken way even after his departure. But Srila Prabhupada indicated the possibility that he himself would continue to handle initiation requests from India, by saying "India, I am here."

In conclusion, on July 7 neither Srila Prabhupada nor the devotees present say anything about Prabhupada's departure or how initiations were to go on after his departure. In fact, Srila Prabhupada himself contemplated the possibility that he might again take a direct role in the initiation process, if he recovered his health. This is evident in the following statement made by Srila Prabhupada in Vrndavana on October 18, 1977. Conversation:

Prabhupada: Hare Krsna. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?

Tamala Krsna: Yes. Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.

Prabhupada: So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?

Tamala Krsna: Yes. Actually... Yes, Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: So I think Jayapataka can do that if he likes. I have already deputed. Tell him.

Tamala Krsna: Yes.

Prabhupada: So, deputies, Jayapataka's name was there?

Bhagavan: It is already on there, Srila Prabhupada. His name was on that list.

Prabhupada: So I depute him to do this at Mayapura, and you may go with him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?

Tamala Krsna: Stopped doing what, Srila Prabhupada?

Prabhupada: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?

Giriraja: It's clear.

Prabhupada: You have got the list of the names?

Tamala Krsna: Yes, Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: And if by Krsna's grace I recover from this condition, then I shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to initiate. It is not good.

Here, several months after the July 9 document, which the rtvik supporters say establishes the rtvik system forever, Srila Prabhupada is contemplating stopping it and taking up his initiation duties again. It seems clear that he regarded it as simply a temporary measure, related to his health, and did not see it as a system that was going to continue after his departure.

Krishnakant Desai, however, has his own opinion, and he bases it on the occurrence of the word “henceforward” in the July 9 letter. The first thing we have to consider is that henceforward is Tamal Krishna Goswami's word, not Srila Prabhupada's. Tamal Krishna Goswami is therefore the best authority for the intended meaning of the word, and he has said he did not intend that word to mean from now until eternity.

So taking the letter at face value, whatever Tamal Krishna Goswami intended to say (including his intended meaning of the word henceforward) was approved by Srila Prabhupada. But even if we take it as a word approved by Prabhupada in a sense different from that intended by the author of the letter, I have carefully studied Srila Prabhupada's use of the word "henceforward" and have found many instances in which he uses the word in a time-limited sense.

Here are some examples of Srila Prabhupada's use of the word “henceforward.” Many more could be cited.

1. "As I told you, that 2,500 years ago, or 5,000 years ago Vyasadeva wrote about Lord Buddha's appearance. Still, there is appearance of Kalki from this time, henceforward, after 400,000's of years Kalki will appear." (Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam, London, August 16, 1971).

In this case, Srila Prabhupada uses “henceforward” to refer to a specific time in the future, a specific number of years from the present. It is not used in the sense of a ceaselessly executed action.

2. "Regarding printing 20,000 copies of Back To Godhead, I have appealed to 4 centers, namely New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and London to contribute $750 monthly. I have got confirmation from Los Angeles, so I shall be glad to hear from New York also whether this center is going to hand over to me $750 per month. I have no objection if this $750 is collected in the way of advertisements from New York, but charges will be increased because we are going to print 20,000 copies henceforward." (Letter to Rayarama, February 20, 1969).

Let us imagine that Srila Prabhupada had left the planet soon after this letter had been written. Would it have been wrong for devotees to have printed more than 20,000 copies in the future? The word henceforward is obviously tied to a certain set of circumstances that could change in a
very short period of time. Henceforward means, "given the current situation, we shall do like this."

In the case of the July 9 letter, the same implication is there. Given the current situation (Prabhupada still on the planet but too weak to even answer letters, devotees still requesting initiation from him) the process for initiation will go on as stated in the letter. Given that the usual system throughout history is that when a guru departs he ceases to accept disciples, Srila Prabhupada's departure would mark a major change of circumstances requiring a change in the system outlined in the July 9 letter.

Therefore, the rtvik reading of the July 9 letter would only hold true (in unambiguous fashion) if the word “henceforward” had been qualified to mean that it applied even across such a major change of circumstance as Srila Prabhupada's departure. In other words, for the rtvik case to be made unambiguously the July 9 letter should have read "henceforward, even in the event of Srila Prabhupada's departure from this world, this system will continue." But the letter does not read that way. The word “henceforward” stands alone, and given that Srila Prabhupada sometimes used  this word in a time-limited sense, the intended meaning in the July 9 letter is unclear.

The rtvik supporters argue that it is up to their opponents to show that the word “henceforward” was qualified to mean the system would stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure. Given that the normal system down through history is that a guru's departure signals the time for him to stop accepting disciples by diksa, it is, on the contrary, up to the rtvik supporters to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada intended the word “henceforward” to apply to the time after his departure.

3. "I have again begun speaking on the tapes and very soon you will get transcribed copies of my dictaphoning for being edited and laid out for printing, chapter-wise, the fourth canto. Let the second and third cantos be finished quickly so that the fourth canto can be started. Henceforward I shall be supplying material for all cantos and you must do the rest; editing, layout, printing, etc."  (Letter to Candanacarya, March 23, 1971)

It is obvious here that the time period represented by the word “henceforward” will have an end to it, although this is not specifically stated by Srila Prabhupada. The end will come when the work on the Bhagavatam is completed. This is not stated, but it is clear from the context. Furthermore, it is obvious that the word “henceforward” would cease to apply if Srila Prabhupada were to leave his body. What this means is that the word “henceforward” does not always mean continuing into the future, forever, without end. It could mean that, but not necessarily so. In the case of the July 9 letter, the departure of Srila Prabhupada would represent a major change of circumstances. So it is not at all clear from the context that the word “henceforward” was taken by Srila Prabhupada to mean that the system described in that letter was to continue after his departure. The general system is that gurus do not accept disciples after their departure. So the word henceforward, if meant to apply after this major change of circumstance, would have to be properly qualified to indicate this. That is not the case with the July 9 letter.

Summary: “Henceforward” is a word that means “from now on,” but it can be qualified, either directly or indirectly. It does not mean in all cases "from now until eternity."

In short, there is no sign at all that the July 9 letter is Prabhupada's final order about how the disciplic succession was to continue in his absence. It was simply a temporary measure, tied to his health. Srila Prabhupada indicated that the system could change at any moment. Therefore it is not true that he intended the word "henceforward" to mean from now to eternity, as the rtvik advocates falsely say. The July 9 letter cannot therefore be used as unambiguous evidence of how Srila Prabhupada intended the disciplic succession to go on in his absence. First of all, it does not contain Prabhupada's direct words and, more importantly, it makes no direct mention of his departure or how initiations were to go on after his departure. Krishnakant Desai can speculate and interpret and juggle words "henceforward" (from now until eternity), but the fact is that the July 9 letter says nothing about Prabhupada's departure and how initiations were to go on thereafter—and that is the question we are trying to answer.

Krishnakanta Desai asserts that if we say the July 9 letter was not written by Prabhupada that is like saying that Prabhupada's books were not written by Prabhupada. That is not true. Srila Prabhupada's books were either directly written by him or they were dictated by him on tapes which were transcribed and minimally edited. Those who typed the transcripts were typing Prabhupada's words, not theirs, and the editors were editing Prabhupada's words, not theirs. In his books, Srila Prabhupada chose his own words and always wrote about himself in the first person (I did this, or I said this) and not in the third person. He also listed himself as the author of his books. He did not let typists and editors like Jayadvaita Prabhu (now Swami) or Hayagriva Prabhu list themselves as the author, and merely sign his name "approved".

On the other hand, what we have in the July 9 letter is Prabhupada's secretary's understanding of some things Prabhupada said on July 7 and May 28, written in the secretary's own words.

Just to give some idea of how there is a difference between a letter directly written by Prabhupada and signed by him directly and a letter written by Prabhupada's secretary and merely approved by him, we can consider the following:

Letter to: All Centers

[note: here Kaumodaki Devi Dasi typed the letter, which was written by Karandhara Prabhu, and it was signed approved by Prabhupada]

I can imagine that some of the disciples of Prabhupada who were not "very important" might have wondered about this letter. Is it really true that Prabhupada does not wish to see us, or let us go on walks with him? They probably would have liked to hear that directly from Prabhupada. And what about the temple presidents who are admonished not to invite Prabhupada to their centers? Sure, it is a letter from  Prabhupada's secretary, and there is Prabhupada's signature—approved. But I suspect there were many temple presidents who might have thought, "Hmm. I would like to hear that from Prabhupada directly that he does not want me to invite him to my temple." So certainly there is a difference between a letter by Prabhupada's secretary (even if signed "approved" by Prabhupada) and a letter written or dictated by Prabhupada himself. Maybe we'd like to see a tape of the conversation, or confirm it directly from Prabhupada—just to be absolutely sure.

Specifically regarding the July 9 letter, we have to be careful about trying to read between the lines and put all kinds of hidden meanings into particular words, which may not have been directly chosen by Prabhupada. Of course, in the case of the July 9 letter, we do have a copy of the conversations that inspired the letter (July 7 and May 28), so we can be fairly certain that in this case the secretary faithfully recorded, in a general sense, Prabhupada's intentions. But nowhere in the May 28 conversation, and even more importantly, nowhere in the July 7 conversation, which was the immediate cause of the July 9 letter, do we find any statement by Prabhupada directing Tamal Krishna Goswami to say that Prabhupada was going to continue to initiate disciples after his physical departure. And, as one might expect, one therefore finds no direct mention at all of Prabhupada continuing to initiate disciples after his physical departure in the July 9 letter. Krishnakant Desai and his gullible followers may wish that such a thing was there. But it is not. It just is not there! Case closed! (Except for Krishnakanta Desai and his hardcore followers).

So whatever Tamal Krishna Goswami understood and wrote down in his own words was approved by Prabhupada, and Tamal Krishna Goswami certainly did not have the understanding that Prabhupada was saying he was going to continue to initiate disciples after his departure, especially after Prabhupada had just said on May 28 that his disciples were going to become regular gurus who would initiate their own disciples, who would be Prabhupada's granddisciples, disciples of Prabhupada's disciples. If it was Prabhupada's desire on July 7 that he change the direction he gave on May 28, then he would have explicitly said that he would continue to initiate his own disciples after his physical departure, and Tamal Krishna Goswami should have written this into the letter. But nowhere (in Prabhupada's entire life!) is there any statement in which Prabhupada has said he would give initiation to disciples after his own physical departure. In particular, nothing like that is said in the July 7 conversation, which was the immediate cause for the July 9 letter being written.

There is not much more that really needs to be said on this subject, but as I predicted in my Thoughts on the Rtvik Heresy, Krishnakanta Desai has continued and will continue to recycle his same old arguments.

Krishnakanta Desai asks why I don't quote anything from his paper. It's simple. I cannot find anything in the document that is worth quoting.

Srila Prabhupada is who we should be quoting. Not Krishnakanta Desai. I defy Krishnakanta Desai to produce any statement in which Prabhupada directly says in his own words, "I am going to continue to directly initiate diksa disciples after my physical departure from this world." There is no such statement in the July 7 conversation, the July 9 letter or the May 28 conversation. In fact, in the May 28 conversation Prabhupada directly says that those taking initiation from the new gurus would be "disciple of my disciple" and "my granddisciple." He also said that the gurus would be "regular gurus" but should wait until after his departure to accept disciples. It should not be done in the physical presence of Prabhupada. And that is exactly what Srila Prabhupada said from beginning to end, throughout his life.