A challenge to IRM[Summary]

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu,

 

Please accept my greetings again. All glories to Srila Acaryadeva and Srila

Gurudeva, the most faithful servants of Srila Prabhupada. By glorifying

their names we can get the mercy of Srila Prabhupada; by offending them we

can only condemn ourselves.

 

I have received authorization from Srila Acaryadeva (H.H. Hridayananda das

Goswami) to proceed with the debate, if there is a purpose to it. As you

know, I began this debate without authorization from my Guru Maharaja, but

upon the suggestion of Shyam Krishna Prabhu from Vrindavana dhama, I

requested the authorization of Srila Acaryadeva. The purpose then is to

share with you my realizations, based on shastra-guru-sadhu, as to what to

do when guilty of committing offenses against devotees. As an aside, I will

summarize the arguments showing some of the logical flaws in IRM’s “The

Final Order” once again.

 

First of all, if I do not offer my obeisances to you any longer, it is not

due to pride; it is simply due to respect for those you have offended.

Remember, even if Srila Prabhupada might have said harsh words against some

of his Godbrothers, it is not our position, as conditioned souls, to imitate

him and utter harsh words against his Godbrothers. Hear from Srila

Prabhupada:

 

*******************

75-05-11. Morning Walk. Perth

Devotee (2): So, Srila Prabhupada, isn’t Lord Brahma the original spiritual

master in our sampradaya?

Prabhupada: Yes. But we should take that it was his lila to show that “Even

I am subjected. How much you should take risk here.” We should take like

that because he’s our guru. We should not take him that he was subjected to

lusty desires, but he made a show that “Even I am also subjected.” And he

gave up this, changed the body for that. Therefore we should not observe if

there is a show of fault of the guru. We should take a different way.

(Sanskrit). Just like the sun is soaking water from urine, but we should not

imitate that, that “We also, let us take urine.” Then you’ll die. He can do

so. (Sanskrit). The sun can do that. Still he is not affected. Everyone

knows the sun soaks water from the urine. But should you imitate that: “Oh,

let me take urine”? No. It is not for you. That is advised. Isvaranam, those

who are isvaras, the controllers, there is no fault. You should not imitate

them; simply you should imitate their instruction.

********************

 

Hence, we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and not his lilas.

Never did he instruct us to blaspheme someone who has dedicated his life to

spreading Krishna Consciousness. Indeed, it is the worst offense against the

chanting of the Holy Name.

 

In particular, we should be extremely careful, if we are anxious at all to

obtain Srila Prabhupada’s mercy, not to offend the disciples of his who have

dedicated their lives to such service. You have not cared for that

instruction and have dedicated a substantial part of your life to such grave

offense against the chanting of the Holy Name. You might claim that they are

fallen devotees, but only a fool would fail to realize that Srila Gurudeva

(H.H. Gour Govinda Goswami) is a pure devotee of the Lord. I doubt Srila

Prabhupada will ever forgive you for such an offense. In 1977, a few months

before his disappearance pastime, Srila Prabhupada begged to be with his

beloved son, Gour Govinda Maharaja. Upon Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, no

recorders were allowed during his 17 days of intimate conversations with his

most advanced disciple. This is unusual for Srila Prabhupada, who always

wanted everything recorded. Yet, that was his mercy. That pastime reminds me

of Lord Chaitanya’s pastime with Ramananda Raya. Unfortunately, neither you

nor I were qualified to receive the mercy of being present during those most

intimate exchanges. Nor are we qualified to receive it now as sound

vibration or in written form. In fact, they might be lost to us forever,

unless they were revealed to someone intimately close to them who might

later record such a wonderful lila, someone like Krishnadasa Kaviraja

Goswami.

 

My advice to you is very simple: you must immediately ask for Srila

Prabhupada’s forgiveness. This realization is based on the pastime of

Durvasa Muni and Ambarisa Maharaja. The only thing that saved Durvasa Muni

from Vishnu’s sudarsana cakra was asking for forgiveness at the lotus feet

of Ambarisa Maharaja. In that mood, you must ask for Srila Prabhupada’s

forgiveness through Gour Govinda Maharaja. However, since he is no longer

physically present either, you are forced to do it through any of his

disciples. Take advantage of such an opportunity and ask for forgiveness

from all those you have offended. That will be very beneficial to you.

Dismantle the IRM and change the focus of Back to Prabhupada to discussing

Srila Prabhupada’s lilas, like his lila with Gour Govinda Maharaja. However,

you must become qualified before you take to that path. If you are proud and

do not follow this advice, you will certainly remember these words in your

deathbed, if you get such a chance. By then, it might be too late.

 

To finish the debate, for you completely ignored my advice not to use

deductive reasoning in trying to realize spiritual knowledge, I will clarify

a few more points. However, always remember that spiritual knowledge is only

received via the descending method, through the mercy of the guru. This

deductive reasoning approach is as dry as a desert. Remember, we must swim

and drown in the ocean of Bhakti: the ocean of tears for Krishna-prema.

 

As I have stated three times already, the original claim in Point 1 was that

your purported proof 4 in IRM’s The Final Order: “One guru falls = no Gurus

authorised” was not logically sound. Again, please, study this simple

argument carefully, and you will immediately realize that ‘proof 4’ is no

proof at all, since from the very beginning it suffers from a serious

logical flaw.

 

In the Special Issue you write:

 

“Here is the proof recapped:

 

a) Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorised – sometimes

the Guru falls.

b) Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorised.

c) But all Gurus authorised in exactly the same way.

d) Thus all Gurus not properly authorised.

e) Ritvik system authorised by July 9th directive remains.”

 

Here is the flaw: B does not follow from A. Let us look at the logical

structure of the statements. Let P be the statement “guru not authorized”.

Let Q be the statement “guru falls.”

 

You quote Srila Prabhupada in the Nectar of Devotion thus: “But sometimes,

if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own

initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an

accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.”

 

I will accept your interpretation that being “carried away by an

accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples” constitutes a

falldown, which is only the agreed interpretation of two conditioned souls.

Now, there are at least two ways to show B does not follow from A.

 

CASE 1: Consider the word ‘sometimes’:

 

The word ‘sometimes’ is not conclusive, something may or may not happen. If

a guru is not authorized, then he may or may not fall. We cannot conclude

anything further than that.

 

Let P and Q be the following clauses:

 

P: guru not authorized

Q: guru falls

-P: guru authorized (This is the negation of P.)

-Q: guru does not fall (This is the negation of Q.)

 

Using this notation, Srila Prabhupada’s conditional statement becomes:

 

If guru not authorized, then guru falls OR guru does not fall.

 

In the abbreviated notation, the statement becomes:

 

If P, then (Q or –Q).

 

This conditional statement is always true, regardless of the truth values of

P and Q. Nothing further can be logically concluded. B does not follow from

A.

 

The inverse of this sentence is:

If (Q or –Q), then P.

 

That is, if guru falls or not falls, then guru not authorized. This is what

we get with the out-of-context quote from Srila Prabhupada.

 

CASE 2: Ignore ‘sometimes’:

 

For the sake of argument, let us ignore the word ‘sometimes.’ This is an

offense since we are changing Srila Prabhupada’s words. However, I do it

only to show you that ‘proof 4’ is no proof at all, at least logically

speaking.

 

Srila Prabhupada’s modified dictum becomes:

 

If P, then Q.

 

In B you claim, “If Q, then P”, that is “if guru falls, then he was not

authorized.” This is called the inverse of the conditional statement. These

two statements, namely the conditional and its inverse are not logically

equivalent.

 

However, you decided to completely ignore the fact that we are changing

Srila Prabhupada’s words by deleting the word sometimes to make the

conditional statement “If P, then Q”. To change Srila Prabhupada’s words to

suit our needs is an even greater offense. I only accepted the deletion to

show you yet another deficiency of the argument. Instead, to salvage your

argument, you decided to go around this offense by stating that this was a

biconditional statement.

 

Nevertheless, even if we commit yet another offense and now add meaning to

Srila Prabhupada’s words, we still come to the following demolishing

argument for IRM’s The Final Order.

 

As you already know, a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its

contrapositive, that is, the following two statements are equivalent:

 

i) If P, then Q.

ii) If –Q, then –P.

 

Furthermore, whether the inverse of a statement is true or not, does not

make any difference to the logical equivalence of the statement and its

contrapositive. Hence, consider the contrapositive of Srila Prabhupada’s

modified dictum (that is, ignoring ‘sometimes’).

 

Saying “If guru not authorized, then guru falls” is equivalent to saying “If

guru does not fall, then guru is authorized.” Again, “If guru does not fall,

then guru is authorized.” With this reasoning, the result of our deletion

of ‘sometimes’ your purported proof 4 not only collapses, but gives a

conclusion contrary to some of IRM’s conclusions.

 

Why should we bother to apply this reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha when the

argument is self- collapsing? It was a mistake on my part to bring up the

Gaudiya Matha for not having yet realized the gross logical flaws at the

beginning of the purported proof 4. Only when Krishna impelled me to purge

your arguments and use symbolic logic was I able to see the fallacy.

 

Please do not waste your time on preparing a revised edition of The Final

Order to make up for these mistakes, but instead focus on distributing Srila

Prabhupada’s books and not your own. After asking for forgiveness from Srila

Gurudeva through one of his disciples, this will please Srila Prabhupada

very much and enhance his transcendental pleasure.

 

To address one more point that you brought up, anyone may fall down by

misusing one’s independence. It is better for me to simply quote Srila

Prabhupada, since I am not qualified to speak on these matters.

 

**********

70-02-27.Jag Letter: Jagadisa

“Regarding your questions concerning the spirit souls falling into maya's

influence, it is not that those who have developed a passive relationship

with Krishna are more likely to fall into nescient activities. Usually

anyone who has developed his relationship with Krishna does not fall down in

any circumstance, but because the independence is always there, the soul may

fall from any position or relationship by misusing his independence. But his

relationship with Krishna is never lost, simply it is forgotten by the

influence of maya, so it may be regained or revived by the process of

hearing the holy name of Krishna…”

 

******************************

 

Please, ask for Srila Gurudeva’s and Srila Prabhupada’s forgiveness through

a disciple of Gour Govinda Maharaja. That will be the beginning of your

revived spiritual life.

 

At Srila Acaryadeva’s feet,

hector

 

OM TAT SAT

 

-----------------------------

On Fri, 12 May 2006 05:12:18 +0530, IRM wrote

> Dear Hector Prabhu,

 

> Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

> 1) Just a few days ago you challenged me to a debate, praying that victory

will be granted to one of the parties. Now you have suddenly bowed out of

the debate, being unable to concede your defeat on the inapplicability of my

proof to the Gaudiya Matha. You have also said that the whole process of you

trying to debate my points through logic and argument was "nonsense, to

which I have been part."

> 2) Further the most basic qualities of a vaisnava are humility and freedom

from passion and anger. Having been defeated in debate, not only are you now

bowing out without having the humility to admit your defeat regarding your

Gaudiya Matha argument, but you also no longer are able to offer

your 'humble obeisances' to me as you have done in every mail so far. Now

all of a sudden, you can only offer your 'greetings'! Additionally you say

you must bow out of the debate because you will fall prey to anger. So in

just a handful of exchanges, you have demonstrated both a complete lack of

humility and inability to control your anger whilst debating, resulting in

you needing to flee the battle-field. Hence your proud boast to the world

how you were challenging me to debate hoping you would emerge victorious was

all over in just a few days. Like they say - don't give up your day job just

yet!

> 3) Further you have also decided that you are more intelligent than the

whole of the GBC. For you have also decided to advise the GBC that they

should all be dismissed from their posts, and a completely new GBC be

established! In addition you have said that whilst this happens there should

be a complete moratorium on initiations. To establish a new Bona Fide GBC

and stop all initiation by the current ISKCON gurus, is of course also the

goal of the IRM! It seems your defeat in this debate has had some effect in

that you have come some way to adopting our goals!

 

> Further you have asked for advice as to how to rectify ISKCON by asking:

> "I understand you have serious resistance to how ISKCON does things. In

all humility, what steps should be taken to correct the mistakes? Also, how

would one go about deciding who is qualified to offer diksa so that the

parampara is not broken?"

> to one Madhudvisa Das, who is a self-confessed ritvik, having got the name

Madhudvisa das via ritvik initiation. He also gave himself ritvik sannyasa

initiation, and was known for sometime as Madhudvisa Swami. Thus both your

proposal to the GBC, and the source of your proposal, are heavily influenced

by the ritvik idea, and this is all very apt, coming as it is after your

defeat in a debate by a ritvik!

> Conclusion

> Since you have already been defeated in the actual debate you challenged

me to,

 

> having withdrawn from it completely rather than concede defeat on your

challenge 1,

 

> (about how you cannot apply my proof to the Gaudiya Matha), this debate is

indeed over.

 

> I thus forced you to withdraw from a debate which YOU initiated and

challenged me to,

 

> in just 10 DAYS.

 

> However you have tried to distract from your defeat and subsequent

withdrawal by giving a completely new challenge.

 

> This will also now be defeated, so in just a matter of a few days, you

will have been defeated in two different debates.

 

> You have advised me to read some elementary texts on logic, but I will now

show that you are not even aware of the definition of logic.

 

> Logic is the process of drawing inferences from given truths (axioms).

 

> In this case, our axioms are the statements of Srila Prabhupada, since

they are self-evident truths. In both your case 1 and case 2 of your new

challenge, you completely ignore this basic definition of logic.

 

> Using the same notation you have given where:

 

> P = guru not authorised

 

> Q = guru falls

 

> Srila Prabhupada states as you correctly say in case 1 that:

 

> If  P then Q or -Q.

> You end your case 1 at this point, saying nothing further can be concluded.

 

> You repeat the same point for Case 2 by telling us that:

> If P then Q is a conditional statement, and its inverse If Q then P are

not logically equivalent, and hence again nothing further

 

> can be deduced from if P then Q.

 

> Both your arguments here ARE correct if we ASSUME that 'If P then Q' is a

conditional statement. But it is not, it is a bi-conditional statement.

 

> A bi-conditional statement is where the INVERSE of a statement IS true

e.g. in the statement “If I marry you, then you will be my wife” – in this

case

 

> the inverse – “if you are my wife, I married you” – is also true.

> Now usually one mistakes a conditional statement for a bi-conditional

statement, and this is the logical fallacy known as 'affirming the

consequent',

 

> and arises because in a situation where:

 

> If P then Q, the inverse If Q then P, will NOT follow since Q can have

OTHER causes than P.

 

> E.g. If P = rain; Q = Streets are wet:

 

> then whilst "if it rains the streets will be wet" (If P then Q), is true,

the inverse,

 

> "if the streets are wet, it rained" (If Q then P), is not true, since Q

(streets being wet) can have many other causes, than just rain. (P).

 

> e.g in addition to "if it rains the streets will be wet", other axioms

are "it is snows the streets will be wet", "if I am cleaning the street,

they will be wet" etc.

> then we can see how ‘If P then Q’ is a conditional statement, and the

inverse can NOT be inferred.

> Thus a conditional statement depends on the availability of more than one

axiom or truth. As soon as you have more than one available axiom or truth

regarding how streets become wet, then If P then Q, becomes a conditional

statement.

> However IF the only available axiom was: "If it rains, the streets will be

wet", and NO OTHER truths about how the streets becoming wet were available,

THEN if somebody found the streets wet they COULD correctly infer it had

rained - for this would be the only known cause of wetness, as no other

truths regarding wetness had been given, and the statement would become bi-

conditional, and the inverse would become true.

 

> Just as in the example regarding marriage and a wife given above, there

are no other axioms available regarding how one becomes a wife other than

marriage.   But if there existed another axiom say such as “If you are my

girl-friend for more than 10 years, you are automatically my wife’, than in

the example given, the statement “If I marry you, you are my wife” would be

converted into a conditional statement, since now the inverse would no

longer be true, as the result (becoming my wife) can have more than one

cause, and it would cease to be a bi-conditional statement.

> So logic is the process of drawing inferences from the GIVEN axioms or

truths. If only one such axiom is given, then from this axiom we can

correctly infer a bi-conditional statement. If more than one relevant axiom

is given, then from any such axiom we can only infer a conditional statement.

> Thus in both your case 1 and case 2, you have incorrectly assumed the

relevant part of the statement in question (If P then Q) is conditional

rather than bi-conditional, even though the only available axiom for a guru

falling involves the guru not being authorised. There is no other statement

from Srila Prabhupada giving the cause of guru fall-down outside of being

UNauthorised – that is, nowhere does Srila Prabhupada state that a guru fall-

down will occurs as a result of a guru actually being correctly AUTHORISED.

> Therefore by the simple definition of logic, proof 4 draws an inverse

inference from the available axiom, and the conclusion it derives is

correct, since no other available axioms which could change this conclusion

exist, and therefore the statement was bi-conditional.

 

> So sometimes if a guru is not authorised, he falls - axiom given by Srila

Prabhupada.

 

> If a guru has fallen he was not authorised  - the , follows:

> AS NO AXIOM STATING THAT A GURU FALLS DUE TO BEING AUTHORISED EXISTS.

> Therefore given the available axioms, I have logically drawn the correct

inference.

 

 

> It is ironic that here, as in your mistaken Gaudiya Matha analogy, your

arguments fail both times due to you being unable to demonstrate first with

available evidence, the very premises you have assumed. A conditional

statement ASSUMES the existence of other relevant axioms, just as asserting

that my proof also applies to the Gaudiya Matha ASSUMES that the guru

authorisation process for the Gaudiya Matha was analogous to that followed

in ISKCON . In both cases your arguments were defeated due to your inability

to substantiate the very assumptions on which your arguments rested.

 

> You stated in last but one e-mail that:

> “Remember that I opened this debate with a prayer to Krishna asking that

Srila Prabhupada would grant undisputed victory to one of us. His great

mission deserves no less. Hence if you defeat me in point one, I will accept

you have Srila Prabhupada’s blessings.

 

> Hence if you defeat me in point one, I will accept you have Srila

Prabhupada’s blessings.”

 

> Since you have been defeated comprehensively on point one, please be happy

that Krishna has granted your prayer.

 

> Your servant,

 

> Krishnakant