Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu: Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. First of all, thank you for accepting my challenge to IRM. I reiterate my prayer that Krishna, by the grace of his pure devotee Srila Prabhupada, may grant undisputed victory to one of us in this debate. Srila Prabhupada’s mission is much too valuable to be wasted in fratricidal battles. I will accompany my prayer asking for Srila Prabhupada’s forgiveness for whatever offenses we may commit in attempting to render service to his mission. May you and I, and anyone who reads this exchange, attain Krishna-prema. As I stated in my original message, I will disseminate this debate as much as possible. Unless directed otherwise by a recipient, I will continue to send the exchanges in an integral way to the same list. I suggest you also post it on your website, as well as publish the entire exchange in your magazine. I will accept you proposition of answering my original points “one at a time.” However, let us not use that as an excuse to delay addressing other equally important points. Point 1: I am aware that I only quoted part of the passage from your magazine because I took for granted that you were aware of your own words, and hence, only used it as a reference. However, your explanation only further weakens your argument. You assume that the 93 devotees became gurus out of their own volition in exactly the same way. First of all, any rational person would understand that there is a difference between the first eleven and the rest, being that the first eleven, upon the physical departure of their beloved Srila Prabhupada, took what they understood were the necessary steps to preserve Srila Prabhupada’s mission. Then they made some decisions, which we may question, that resulted in today’s situation, which obviously needs substantial reform. (In fact, I will submit some recommendations to the GBC as a service to Srila Prabhupada. I expect to publish them on an auspicious occasion very soon.) Notice, though, that I am debating your arguments using your axioms (or “conclusions” that may be taken as axioms for deductive purposes). However, this axiom of yours, namely that they became gurus “in exactly the same way” is a blanket statement which is highly biased and lacks the seriousness required of a dignified debate. An axiom, by definition is “a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference.” It is also considered a “self-evident truth.” Your axiom does not satisfy this principle, yet I played with it as if it were good to show you that in any case, the reasoning was faulty. Besides, a devotee knows that Krishna and Guru can manifest through the heart and in dreams and you do not know if and how Srila Prabhupada has manifested his wishes in those ways to at least some of those gurus, or whether he expressed his views in private conversations. (After all, remember that Madhvacarya was initiated by Srila Vyasadeva in a very mystical way since there is a gap of several millennia between their physical manifestations.) This is not part of my reasoning, but simply an observation to keep in mind when you claim that they were authorized in the same way. It sheds a dark veil on your ‘axiom’ since it cannot be taken as ‘self-evident’. However, taking your axiom as good (only for the sake of argument) you claim that I “in order to apply THIS reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha, would need to first demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada and all his Godbrothers who became guru, were all authorised *in exactly the same way*”. Given the information available to me, I must conclude that indeed they were. As you know, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not authorize a successor, and he did not need to. As far as I know, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura had only a siksa relationship with Srila Gaura Kishora das Babaji. Furthermore, Srila Bhaktivinoda did not authorize Srila Gaura Kishora to initiate his biological son. Furthermore, the initiation of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was nothing like the ones Srila Prabhupada gave (in terms of external expression). However, we take it as a fact that they were all bonafide solely on Srila Prabhupada’s conviction and words. Remember also, that Srila Prabhupada was given sannyasa by a godbrother. Was his godborther authorized to do this? If not, then Srila Prabhupada would not be authorized to give sannyasa to his disciples. The matter becomes more involved as we go back in the parampara. Thus, another question to you is, can you show that Srila Prabhupada and his godbrothers were NOT authorized in the same way to initiate disciples? I take it for granted that they were. Tradition is upheld: the acarya departs and he may or may not leave a successor. It does not matter much. This does not imply that the successor is the only one who takes disciples. For preaching purposes, if they are qualified, all his initiated disciples should become gurus. Hence, whether we object to the axiom or we use it, your claim crumbles. In the former case, we reject the line of reasoning and on the latter, we reject the conclusion upon finding an unacceptable conclusion when applied to an analogous setting, i.e. that of the Gaudiya Matha. Of course, it is unacceptable because it would a priori invalidate your “proof 1.” I will leave you with something else to consider before you reply. Last night I was watching a ten-minute interview given by Srila Prabhupada in Boston in 1971. You may find it on CD-13 of ITV’s Prabhupada’s DVD Library Collection. I find his words very appropriate to our discussion. Around the ninth minute of the interview Srila Prabhupada states in his lovely intonation: “But Krishna is saying that anyone, that anyone who takes proper shelter of Me. This is very important. Proper shelter means to take shelter of Krishna. BUT in the PHYSICAL absence of Krishna, one has to take shelter of Krishna’s real representative. Then anyone who is understanding Krishna’s philosophy and he will be elevated to the highest platform of understanding” (sic). Again, may Srila Prabhupada forgive any offenses may we commit in this exchange. Wishing you Srila Prabhupada’s kripa, At his feet, Héctor Rosario, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus PO Box 9018 Mayagüez, PR 00681 On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:24:16 +0530, IRM wrote > Dear Hector Prabhu, > > Hare Krishna! > > Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. > > Thank you for your letter. > > I will answer your points one at a time, moving on only after each > point is concluded. > > Beginning with point 1, you quote the Back To Prabhupada Special > Issue thus: > > "Hence the continuous fall-down 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).” > > However you have only quoted PART of the relevant passage from the Special > Issue. Nobody quotes something beginning with the word 'hence' as > being the *reasoning* offered, because the word 'hence' means that > what is to be quoted now DEPENDS on the reasoning just provided in > the preceding sentence. And what reasoning does the preceding > sentence - for which what you have quoted above is the conclusion - > provide? It states: > > "And again, every one of these 93 individuals became guru *in > exactly the same way* (via the Guru hoax part 2), proving that every > one of these 93 Gurus was "not properly authorised and only on his > own initiative" became Guru." > (emphasis added) > > So THIS is the reasoning I have offered IN ORDER to apply the rule > of "one guru falls = no guru authorised." > > Therefore in order to apply THIS reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha, you > would need to first demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada and all his > Godbrothers who became guru, were all authorised *in exactly the > same way*. > > Unless you can do this, your argument is defeated, for you have > applied the reasoning and rule for one set of conditions to a > completely different set of circumstances. > > If you had read the proof in question carefully, you could have > avoided the above 'straw-man' logical blunder - falsely claiming > that we say that "one guru falls = no gurus authorised" applies to > all situations. It applies only when all the gurus in question were > authorised in an identical manner. > > Unless you have any challenge to make to the above point (which is simply > stating what I actually wrote in BTP), I will move onto your next > point, No. 2). > > I trust you will be gentlemanly enough to post this reply (and all other > replies) in full on the HDG Istaghosti and all other places where > you have sent your e-mail. > > I look forward to hearing from you. > > Thank you very much. > > Your servant, > Krishnakant > > > Hector Rosario [hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu] > 28 April 2006 20:20 > irm (AT) iskconirm (DOT) com > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.