A challenge to IRM[3]

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu,

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I get the impression that you are diluting the discussion by apparently

trying to clarify details. We do not want to become masters of evasion. Let

us clarify details, but not stop the discussion as if all other issues

depended one particular detail. The truth is one, and if we are truly

sincere and humble, it will shine quickly. Remember that our goal as sincere

devotees is not trying to determine who has more endurance but to discover

the truth.

 

In fact, I was informed that Ramakanta Prabhu defeated you and IRM in an 18-

month long debate that finished with you silently dropping out of the

discussion when you could not explain a quote from Srila Prabhupada.

Ramakanta Prabhu asserted that you had misunderstood Srila Prabhupada's

instruction to always compare guru with sadhu and sastra. "You have to

corroborate whether guru, what guru is speaking, whether it is

there in the scripture; what scripture is speaking, whether that is in the

character of guru, or in the sadhu, saintly persons, or spiritual master. So

you have to always make comparison with three things: sadhu, sastra, guru."

(CC Madhya 20.119-121, New York, November 24, 1966)

 

Can you explain that quote now? Of course, whether he defeated you or not is

not an issue in our debate, but please let us not extend it more than

necessary. I am beginning to realize that I made a mistake by accepting your

terms that we discuss the issues one by one. Take what ever time you need,

but please answer then all at once. I trust you are intelligent enough to

handle that. Remember, there are potentially thousands of devotees reading

these exchanges and we also want them to share the findings.

 

Let us now proceed with the debate in an honest way.

 

You claim you do not assume anything, yet you assume that I did

not “actually read” what you wrote, instead of suggesting I might have

misunderstood your arguments. That is more respectful. I will rephrase your

argument keeping the essentials, as mathematicians and logicians do. This

will help avoid the verbiage that has characterized this debate so far.

 

SP’s dictum: If guru falls, then guru was not authorized (bonafide).

Event: At least on guru falls.

Conclusion: Guru was not authorized (bona fide).

 

IRM’s Assumption: All gurus were authorized in the same way. (Divide it in

two sets, namely the first 11 and the other 93, and apply the same reasoning

to both.)

IRM’s Conclusion: Since at least one guru fell, the authorization process

itself is not authorized (bona fide).

IRM’s Corollary: No guru authorized in such way is authorized (bona fide).

 

Your assumption cannot be taken as objective and hence has little to no

value, for the reasons I outlined in my second message, e.g. Vyasadeva-

Madhvacarya, Goura Kishora-Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Furthermore, even if we

take the assumption as valid, the conclusion does not logically follow,

unless SP’s dictum is a bi-conditional statement. In the way I remember it

from what I read, it is only a conditional statement. As a bi-conditional

statement, the dictum becomes: A guru falls if and only if the guru is not

authorized. For our readers, it is not the same to say that:

 

If it rains, then Prabhu takes his umbrella.

If Prabhu takes his umbrella, then it rains.

 

Hence, even if you can show that Srila Prabhupada’s dictum is a

biconditional statement, your assumption is unacceptable. It is your biased

perception, and you and I suffer from the four defects, right? However, if

we decide to accept your assumption, then we would have to apply the

reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha and you would conclude that Srila Prabhupada

is not bona fide (unless you can prove that he was authorized in a different

way as those of his godbrothers who fell).

 

If you are humble and sincere you will accept defeat at least on this point.

However, you have many other issues yet to address from the original

challenge to IRM.

 

To recapitulate,

 

2) How would you reinstate the ritvik system if, according to IRM, none of

the original 11 ritviks is a bona fide representative of Srila Prabhupada?

 

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) Do you think there is an editorial need to include letters of dissenting

opinions in your magazine, for the sake of fairness to your readers? (The

tendency to cheat is there in us all, but as devotees we should shun it.)

 

5) Do you think there is a need to give more relevant information when

talking about the fall of a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. “Illicit

activity”, although disqualifying for a guru however minor, is too vague a

term. It borders on slander and libel when we do not present the information

fairly.

 

6) Besides the ‘proof’ in point one (now defeated), your only objection to

H.H. Hrdayananda das Goswami (Srila Acaryadeva) being a guru is that he

earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Have you read his doctoral

dissertation? What else do you have against him?

 

7) As devotees, our main business is Krishna-katha. Do you feel that IRM’s

satisfies that criterion in its publications? The only thing that seems to

qualify as such is the mahamantra at the bottom of each page.

 

And of course, I would be glad to hear your reactions about the importance

that Srila Prabhupada how we take shelter of Krishna in His physical

absence. This quote would seem to deny the very essence of those who

vehemently oppose Iskcon’s prerogative to initiate devotees through what

they understand are the qualified devotees.

 

“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).

 

I will wait for your careful and detailed response to all points. That will

make it more relishable.

 

With all best wishes,

At Srila Prabhupada’s feet,

 

hector

--

Héctor Rosario, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Mathematics

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus

PO Box 9018

Mayagüez, PR 00681

 

 

On Wed, 3 May 2006 02:17:18 +0530, IRM wrote

> Dear Hector Prabhu,

>

> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> Thank you for your letter.

>

> You have said:

>

> "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."

>

> Prabhu again I must humbly request that you actually READ what was written

> in the BTP Special issue. There it is explained in great detail how the

> first 11

> were NOT part of the 93 devotees you refer to above, and that they became

> gurus in a manner DIFFERENT to the 93.

>

> Therefore again your point above, like the previous point you made,

> is another 'straw-man' argument, which could have been avoided if

> you had actually carefully read the text you are supposed to be

challenging.

>

> If you accept this point, (which is simply stating what I actually

> wrote in BTP), I will move onto to your other point below which

> addresses my last response.

>

> I look forward to hearing from you.

>

> Thank you,

>

> Your servant,

> Krishnakant