Fw: A challenge to IRM

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded Message -----------

"Hector Rosario" <hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu>

irm (AT) iskconirm (DOT) com

Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:50:03 -0300

A challenge to IRM

 

Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu:

 

Please accept my sincere obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Yesterday, April 28th, I received some unsolicited mail from India, which I

nevertheless welcomed. The envelope contained two “Back to Prabhupada”

issues, including the Special Summary Issue. I read both magazines in their

entirety and have decided to present a challenge to some of your principal

arguments, based solely on deductive reasoning flaws.

 

As a matter of introduction, I shall state that I have no qualifications to

speak about Krishna-katha, but that simply by the grace of the Lord, my

mathematical brain handles deductive reasoning fairly well. I shall also

state what I expect from this debate: truthfulness. I shall treat you as a

Vaishnava and as my worthy opponent, and as such, you will receive all due

respect. I only pray that Krishna, by the grace of His humble servant Srila

Prabhupada, will grant undisputable victory to one of us. The other one

shall humbly accept defeat. Needless to say, I do not expect this debate to

end swiftly, for as we progress, I hope more intelligent arguments and

evidence will surface.

 

I shall also add that I will try to disseminate this debate as much as

possible. I am confident you will do likewise.

 

In addition, in order to clarify my relationship with Iskcon and not give

the impression of having a hidden agenda, I shall state that I have asked

H.H. Hrdayanda das Goswami for diksa and he has kindly accepted. That is

scheduled to happen this June in Atlanta at the Panihati Festival. I have

not informed him of this initiative I have now undertaken and honestly do

not know how he will react.

 

As you say, let us “Take action – discover the truth – live the truth.”

Hence, without any further delay, let us begin.

 

1) In “The Final Order” you claim to have six “proofs” to establish the

ritvik case. However, there is a logical flaw in your purported Proof 4: One

guru falls = no Gurus authorised.”

 

Certainly, it is shameful for a Vaishnava to fall to the depths many Iskcon

gurus have. It is even more shameful that the GBC has sometimes hidden the

information from devotees. That being said, allow me to proceed.

 

You state:

 

“Hence the continuous falldown of the Gurus, in whatever system the GBC have

adopted for manufacturing them, is itself proof positive that the whole

operation is unauthorised. Thus, the fact that some ISKCON Gurus have not

fallen down (visibly at least) does not in any way indicate they were

authorised – the fact that their fallen colleagues were authorised via the

same process is all the evidence we need that they were also not properly

authorised, even though they may have not yet externally exhibited signs of

gross sense gratification (which we know of).”

 

I will grant you that, given the axioms you have chosen, the conclusion

would indeed follow logically. However, if we accept the argument as sound,

then we must be able to apply the same reasoning to other cases. Let us

apply it to the Gaudiya Matha. It is well known that ‘some’ of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s disciples acting as gurus fell, or at

least did not show the purity expected of someone holding such a post.

Therefore, if we apply your rule of “One guru falls = no Gurus authorised”

and its reasoning, then we would be forced to conclude that Srila Prabhupada

is not bonafide. I do not think neither you nor I are willing to accept

that. Hence we must revise or abandon the argument altogether. It would be

wise to do the latter.

 

2) You claim that the original eleven ritviks are fallen. Some of them,

perhaps the majority, clearly betrayed Srila Prabhupada. They should

certainly not be accepted as gurus by anyone. However, they still deserve

the mercy of Vaishnavas, as Vaishnavas are more than just - they

are “magnanimous,” as Srila Prabhupada teaches us in The Nectar of Devotion.

 

However, for the sake or argument, let me accept your conclusion that none

of the original eleven chosen ritviks are qualified to represent Srila

Prabhupada. If the original ritvik system is defunct, how would you

reinstate it? Srila Prabhupada chose those eleven devotees and you would not

question his judgment. However, how would we choose the next ritviks? We

could not vote for them, since you do not accept that means as a legitimate

way of deciding the representatives of Srila Prabhupada. So what would your

objective criteria be?

 

3) It is accepted that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any successors.

However, neither did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Should we reject all of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples as well, including of course, Srila Prabhupada?

 

4) I also have some comments to make about your magazine Back to Prabhupada.

First of all, the editorial style (no offense meant) resembles more that of

a tabloid than the style of a spiritual publication. In addition, you would

present a stronger case if you would publish at least some letters to the

editor that are in disagreement with the views expressed in the magazine. Do

not discriminate against them for holding opposing views. That is akin to

temple bannings against respectful IRM members

 

5) To help substantiate the claim above, for instance, when you give a

summary of the original eleven ritviks, you do exclude important information

about them, and simply present information that would seem to satisfy your

agenda. For five of them you simply said that they left or were thrown out

after “caught engaging in illicit activity.” Now, being engaged in illegal

activity, however minor, would automatically disqualify one to be a guru.

However, in all fairness, you should state what the “illicit activity” in

each case was. It is obviously not the same to smoke than to rape a child,

and the sastras indicate that the latter is a far greater sin. Also, you

mention that H.H. Jayapataka Swami is “under police investigation for

abetment to suicide.” First of all, you do not give dates for said

investigation, and neither do you give information as to in what country or

province the alleged acts occurred. You seem to be blinded by your

conclusion that Jayapataka Swami is not an authorized guru, instead of being

just and rational while presenting the information. Besides, those of us who

have been politically persecuted know very well that anyone can present

false charges against an individual. In fact, the argument can be so

credible that someone might be given capital punishment.just to find out

weeks after the execution that the alleged culprit was innocent. Again, at

least be fair and give more information. If you claim that the GBC withholds

information that is unfavorable to its interests, please avoid doing the

same.

 

6) In all fairness to H.H. Hrdayandanda das Goswami, if you wanted to attack

him, you should have presented a stronger case. All you have to hold against

him is that he “went back to college to get education.” By the

word ‘college’ in the United States it is usually understood a four-year

college. However, he went to Harvard University to pursue doctoral studies.

It is a tradition in Vedic culture for sannyasis to continue their studies

through philosophical debate. If you read his doctoral dissertation, you

will realize that he was preaching all the while, which leads me to the last

point for now.

 

7) There is not a glimpse of Krishna-katha in you magazine. Devotees relish

in relating the pastimes of Sri Sri Radha Govinda, yet you do not share with

us your insights into those most intimate affairs. A little devotion might

suit you better.

 

At the service of Srila Prabhupada,

 

Héctor Rosario, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Mathematics

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus

PO Box 9018

Mayagüez, PR 00681

------- End of Forwarded Message -------

 

 

--

Héctor Rosario, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Mathematics

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus

PO Box 9018

Mayagüez, PR 00681