Different Historical Perspectives on July 9th Letter
BY: KURMA DASA (NOT THE CHEF)
Mar 15, AUSTRALIA (SUN) Bhakta Suria claimed in his article, "The July 9th Letter": "...while those who were there knew what was Srila Prabhupada's mood and intention. They verily knew that this July 9th Letter was just a temporary provision."
Everyone likes to believe that their version of history is the correct version. Bhakta Suria gives the impression above, that everyone who was there at the time had the same understanding. This is not true! Many devotees who were there at the time did not hear that the July 9th Letter was a temporary provision.
We have two completely different understandings regarding Srila Prabhupada's mood and intentions at this point in time. Those who heard differently and who still to this very day have maintained that Srila Prabhupada's intentions were to continue the ritvik initiation program within his society have been ridiculed, bullied and basically hounded out of the society. Those who have claimed that Srila Prabhupada appointed successors and voted-in gurus, well, these results speak for themselves.
Now, no matter which perspective you choose, this should not determine whether you can or cannot participate fully within Srila Prabhupada's Society. Those who have lots to gain, well it is these people who have been doing all the abuse, the bullying, kicking out, telling lies, etc, it is not the Ritviks.
If you accept that the July 9th Letter was a temporary measure, Bhakta Suria, who do the disciples of the Eleven named in the letter belong to? If they are Srila Prabhupada's disciples, then why were a large majority of them forced by ISKCON's management to take re-initiation? For example, the local temple president here was originally initiated by Bhavananda, and was then obliged by the management to take re-initiation from Bhurijana. Why? According to the July 9th Letter he is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
The whole issue depends on whose historical perspective each one of us chooses to believe.