A challenge to IRM[9:Defeat?]

May 24, 2006

Hare Krishna Krishnakant Prabhu,

Please accept my greetings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You said:

> Please accept my HUMBLE OBEISANCES. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am ready to offer you my obeisances repeatedly and place your feet on my

head as soon as you sincerely and humbly ask for forgiveness for the

offenses committed at the lotus feet of Sripada Gour Govinda Maharaja and

His Holiness Hridayananda dasa Goswami Acaryadeva.

Remember, "Humility means that one should not be anxious to have the

satisfaction of being honored by others." [Purport to BG 13.8-12]

You said:

> You simply tried to cover-up your defeat by trying to move seamlessly to

> a brand-new debate, not previously mentioned or accepted. Until you are

> gentleman enough to publically concede that “Yes, Krishnakant defeated me

> in Point 1 of the debate I challenged him to, and therefore I am trying to

> debate him with a new challenge”, I will have to keep reminding everyone

> of your dishonesty. If you are unable to defend a point, then do not

> challenge people to debate it with you in the first place. Simple.

Point 1 of the debate is about the logical validity of the argument of your

purported proof 4 on IRM's Special Issue. Bringing up the Gaudiya Matha case

was a mistake on my part because I assumed (incorrectly) that the proof was

sound. If you can show step by step that the proof is sound, then it would

make sense to consider the Gaudiya Matha case. So far, I accept that B

follows from A in the ammended version of your 'proof', with the AVAILABLE

information. I do not need the credit.

Hence, we are debating this argument, which is the ammended and improved

version of the purported proof 4: "One guru falls = no guru is authorized".

A. Nectar of Devotion ‘states’ IF GURU AUTHORIZED, THEN GURU DOES NOT FALL.

B. Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorized.

C. But all Gurus authorized in exactly the same way.

D. Thus all Gurus not properly authorized.

E. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains.

I showed you that with what you had for A on the Special Issue, B does not

follow. However, this is only a minor point, since it doesn't affect the

validity of B, but you are unwilling to accept you made a small mistake.

After all, as conditioned souls, we are fallible.

You said:

> This is the first time in a debate the opponent ends up proving the

> conclusion of his adversary...

This simply shows that, in all honesty and humility, I am willing to concede

defeat if you provide unequivocal evidence or logical arguments. I take the

opportunity to thank you for clarifying the inapplicability of Lord

Brahma's lila. Your arguments have indeed saved me from committing further

offenses at the lotus feet of the Acarya of our sampradaya. I pray Srila

Prabhupada will forgive me for these offenses. I hereby express my sincerest

and deepest gratitude to you.

The quote from SB 3.12.28 sufficed. Namely,

"This extraordinary immorality on the part of Brahma was heard to have

occurred in some particular kalpa, but it could not have happened in the

kalpa in which Brahma heard directly from the Lord the four essential verses

of Srimad-Bhagavatam because the Lord blessed Brahma, after giving him

lessons on the Bhagavatam, that he would never be bewildered in any kalpa

whatsoever. This indicates that before the hearing of Srimad-Bhagavatam he

might have fallen a victim to such sensuality, but after hearing Srimad-

Bhagavatam directly from the Lord, there was no possibility of such

failures." [sB, 3:12:28]

You said:

> The ‘If a guru is unauthorised – guru falls’ PART of the statement given

> in the BTP Special Issue – is a bi-conditional statement, since Logic is

> the drawing of inferences from the AVAILABLE axioms. Since no other axiom

> had been produced stating a bona-fide authorised guru getting carried away

> by wealth and disciples, then the axiom given in the Nectar of Devotion

> Chapter 14, (truncated version, as given in the BTP Special Issue),

> remains the only axiom regarding gurus getting carried away by wealth and

> disciples, and the statement is therefore automatically bi-conditional.

First of all, it is not a biconditional statement with the available axioms,

even though you do not want to accept it. Nevertheless, THERE IS ANOTHER

AXIOM. Indeed, there are TWO more axioms. My wife found them yesterday while

following the instructions of our bonafide guru to read Teachings of Lord

Chaitanya to clarify some doubts she had about avataras.

Here it is.

"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and FORGETS HIS DUTY AS

A BONA FIDE SPIRITUAL MASTER, the growth of the [bhakti] plant will be

impeded. Simply by TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MATERIAL CONVENIENCES one may become

addicted to enjoying material comforts." [Teachings to Rupa Goswami in

Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, p.30]

Srila Prabhupada is so merciful that he not only has provided one, but two

more axioms that may be the cause for the falldown of a BONAFIDE guru,

namely,

1) Forgetfulness of duty

2) Taking advantage of material conveniences

Hence, if a spiritual master FORGETS HIS DUTY AS A BONA FIDE SPIRITUAL

MASTER, then he may fall. Certainly, only a bona fide spiritual master can

know what the duties of such a position are. Moreover, it can be inferred

that such forgetfulness might come from TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MATERIAL

CONVENIENCES. However, since forgetfulness comes from Krishna, you might be

able to explain how forgetfulness should be understood in this context. I am

not yet qualified to enter such topics. I am simply taking Srila

Prabhupada's and Krishna's words as factual.

"I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge

and forgetfulness." [bG 15.15]

Therefore, since we have two more axioms, B becomes:

IF (guru falls), THEN (he was not authorized OR he forgot his duty as a

bonafide spiritual master OR he took advantage of material conveniences).

Do you accept Srila Prabhupada's words as evidence? Do you accept his axioms?

If you do (or even if you don't), then 'proof' 4 of IRM's Special Issue, and

therefore the argument in The Final Order, unequivocally collapses.

With this information that appears in one of the most fundamental books for

us as faithful followers of Srila Prabhupada, we are in a better position to

understand what might have happened in ISKCON with the fall of so many of

its gurus.

If an ISKCON guru falls, there are at least three possible reasons

Srila Prabhupada gives for his falldown, namely, unauthorization,

forgetfulness of duty, and taking advantage of material conveniences. How

would one know which was the reason in each individual case? Only Krishna

knows.

Nevertheless, one likely scenario is that, given ISKCON's vast material

opulence, some gurus took advantage of material conveniences and in the

process forgot their duty as bonafide spiritual masters. As a result, they

fell.

This should not surprise us, since Srila Prabhupada had already warned us

(in the letter to Jagadisha Prabhu) that:

"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."

Any position means any position; anyone means anyone (unless specifically

excluded). Pardon the tautologies, but as you have repeatedly emphasized,

there is no contradiction in Srila Prabhupada's words.

You said:

> Further, as for your other quote (letter to Jagadish), where Srila

> Prabhupada is speaking specifically about the original fall of the souls

> from the spiritual world, and that falls from the spiritual world are not

> limited to those who are in certain rasas with Krishna, this does not

> prevent Krishna from blessing certain individuals acting in the material

> world e.g. a bona fide guru or Lord Brahma after he heard the Bhagavatam,

> to never be disturbed in the service they are performing for Him.

Certainly nothing prevents Krishna from offering such blessings. Yet,

nothing forces him either.

You said:

> Indeed since you have engaged in this offensive behaviour towards Srila

> Prabhupada and Lord Brahma simply to try and avoid defeat in debate by

> myself, to help put a stop to these offences, if you withdraw from this

> debate and therefore end this offensive behaviour, I am even willing to

> never mention that you were defeated in debate, nor to ever print or post

> this debate or forward it to anyone. You did not enter this debate to

> destroy your spiritual life. Therefore take the offer, and go back to

> teaching Maths, which I am sure you are probably good at. Otherwise if you

> continue, you will be like the Brahmana who lost his caste but was still

> hungry. You will sacrifice everything to try and avoid defeat in this

> debate, but still continue to get defeated and humiliated at every turn.

You have my authorization to post all messages in their entirety and in

sequence. Devotees might benefit from these exchanges.

It is interesting to note, however, that I have treated you as a worthy

opponent throughout the debate, with all the respect that a Vaisnava is due.

furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for forgiveness for committing any

offenses against you or against anyone else. Yet, you have repeatedly chosen

derision instead of chivalry. No wonder devotees ignore after a few

exchanges, rather than debate with you. One needs to at least attempt to be

free of false ego before challenging you.

Perhaps until now you had indeed dominated the debate, to use your own

words, from almost "every angle." Yet, you have lost from the decisive

angle. Or shall we call it, The Final Angle?

But in any case, let Srila Prabhupada have the last word.

> So will you choose the path of self-contradiction and offences, or bowing

> out gracefully with no loss of honour?

> The choice is yours.

The two additional axioms provide a different picture now. Do you honorably

and humbly concede defeat?

The choice is yours.

Srila Prabhupada ki! Jaya!

At Srila Acaryadeva's feet,

hector

OM TAT SAT

May 26, 2006

Dear Hector Prabhu,

Please accept my HUMBLE OBEISANCES. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

It seems you will not learn. You are still trying to attempt to show that

Srila Prabhuapda contradicted himself, even though you were warned

last time that trying to do this is very offensive, and injurious to one’s

spiritual life. Only now you have abandoned the attempt to do this via the

example

of Lord Brahma, but instead are now using an even more offensive method,

which is to manufacture the words you claim Srila Prabhupada spoke.

As per the usual custom, I will once again demonstrate how virtually every

line you have written is mistaken, contradictory, or just a bare-faced lie.

Here we go again …

Hector’s Bag of Tricks -1

You state:

“Remember, "Humility means that one should not be anxious to have the

satisfaction of being honored by others." [Purport to BG 13.8-12]

a) Correct. And this is why at no point have I REQUESTED you offer me

obeisances. I have simply NOTED

your flip-flop in happily offering me obeisances through the first half of

the debate, and then suddenly discontinuing

offering me obeisances so as to not be disrespectful to all those I am

supposed to have offended.

Which meant you were perfectly happy to disrespect the same personalities

for the first half of the debate when you were offering me obeisances.

b) Humility also means that one is READY to offer all honour to other

VAISNAVAS. You claim later in the same message:

“that I have treated you as a worthy opponent throughout the debate, with

ALL the respect that a Vaisnava is due,”

yet you cannot even bring yourself to pay obeisances to someone you claim is

a ‘vaisnava’. How can ‘ALL the respect’ a VAISNAVA is due,

not even involve the paying of obeisances? Another contradiction on your

part. I have no desire to have you pay obeisances to me,

but I will continue to point out your contradictory gibberish, which is an

offence to genuine Vaisnavas everywhere.

Hector's Bag of Tricks - 2

You state:

"Point 1 of the debate is about the logical validity of the argument of your

purported proof 4 on IRM's Special Issue. Bringing up the Gaudiya Matha case

was a mistake on my part because I assumed (incorrectly) that the proof was

sound."

Point 1 of the debate, as stated by you is:

"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. 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."

(Hector’s Challenge To Debate, 30th April, 2006)

Thus Point 1 of the debate as stated by YOU, is that ASSUMING the proof is

valid, there is *A logical flaw* in the proof, this being that one can

apply the reasoning of the proof to the Gaudiya Matha. THIS was point 1 of

the debate, as written and challenged by you.

There is a huge difference between the general logical validity of a proof,

where one tries to actually ascertain WHETHER or not the proof is correct,

and ASSUMING the proof is correct and claiming on this basis its application

would lead to a logical flaw. You challenged me to debate the latter

proposition, that accepting the proof as correct one could show a logical

flaw in it by applying it to the Gaudiya Matha; a flaw you were singularly

unable to substantiate, as proven by the fact that you abandoned this

challenge and instead came up with your new challenge to show that the proof

itself was incorrect. If you abandon the actual argument you challenged

someone to debate, just because you cannot substantiate it, and come up with

a brand new argument, you have conceded the debate.

Thus you were defeated in point 1 of the debate you challenged me to.

Hector's Bag of Tricks – 3

You state:

“I showed you that with what you had for A on the Special Issue, B does not

follow. However, this is only a minor point, since it doesn't affect the

validity of B, but you are unwilling to accept you made a small mistake.

After all, as conditioned souls, we are fallible. […] First of all, it is

not a biconditional statement with the available axioms, even though you do

not want to accept it.”

But the ONLY AVAILABLE axiom which had been presented thus far, is that only

if a guru is unauthorised does he get carried away by wealth and disciples.

You claim that “it is not a bi-conditional statement with the available

axioms even though you do not want to accept it”, even though you have yet

to even try and address the argument which I have now made twice to prove

that it IS a bi-conditional statement, and hence you are actually saying “I

am right because I say I am, even though I cannot answer your argument.” Of

course through this creative technique, one can win ANY debate! For the 3rd

time, I will explain AGAIN how the statement is bi-conditional, and for the

3rd time, we will see that you will once again be unable to respond to it:

The inverse of a conditional statement is NOT logically equivalent BECAUSE

there is NOT ONLY ONE cause for the effect. In such a situation though the

cause can be said to give rise to the effect, one cannot assume given the

effect, what the cause was, since there could be more than one possibility.

When however there is ONLY one given cause for a given effect, the

conditional statement collapses into a bi-conditional statement, since now

it is true, that: If Cause -> Effect; the Effect -> same Cause, as now

there is ONLY ONE cause for the effect. Therefore IF it can be shown that

ONLY as a result of being unauthorised leads to one being carried away by

wealth and disciples, then we can also conclude that IF one is carried away

by wealth and disciples, then one was unauthorised. And since to date you

have yet to produce an axiom which states that an AUTHORISED member of the

disciplic succession, will also get carried away by wealth and disciples,

then the ‘available axioms’ are still only ONE, and the statement remains

bi-conditional.

So I will ask you for *3rd* time, what in the above paragraph do you still

not understand? Not what you will IGNORE and just claim you are right, but

what is actually incorrect with the above explanation. I will keep asking

until you are gentleman enough to concede your mistake, instead of just

childishly claiming: “I am right, but I don’t know why, nor will I explain.”

Srila Prabhupada Defeats Hector 7 Times

Now we come to your continued shameful and offensive behaviour in trying to

show Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself. Having not only failed to defeat

my proof via your original challenge (Gaudiya Matha method), and having not

only failed via your new argument (lack of a biconditional statement), but

also having actually demonstrated my argument via another proof yourself,

you continue to resort to the last refuge of a scoundrel to save yourself

when you have been thoroughly defeated from every angle in debate: to claim

that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself. You now attempt to show that

Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself by the following statement in The

Teachings of Lord Caitanya:

“"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and FORGETS HIS DUTY AS

A BONA FIDE SPIRITUAL MASTER, the growth of the [bhakti] plant will be

impeded. Simply by TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MATERIAL CONVENIENCES one may become

addicted to enjoying material comforts." [Teachings to Rupa Goswami in

[Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, p.30]

Not only will your attempt be thoroughly defeated, just as with everything

else you have ever stated, for it is not possible for Srila Prabhupada to

contradict himself, but your true nature as someone who will say and do

anything to try and win a debate will also be exposed. Here in honour of

Srila Prabhupada’s nature as a flawless personality who never contradicts

himself, I present 7 reasons why your assertion that Srila Prabhupada

contradicted himself via the above statement is both offensive and

incorrect.

1) Challenge Self-Defeating

a) When discussing or debating Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, as we are

here, it is AXIOMATIC that Srila Prabhupada is a Bona Fide Guru who does not

contradict himself and is free from error. Otherwise, if we accept that

Srila Prabhupada’s statements contradict each other, the debate becomes

meaningless since we will never know which of the contradictory statements

are correct and which are in error. If you do not accept this axiom then you

have already lost the debate, for your arguments and position rest on Srila

Prabhupada’s authority as a perfect personality whose statements are free

from error. In short, you would simply defeat yourself by ‘showing’ that

Srila Prabhupada statements were in error and therefore nothing can be

concluded definitively. You cannot win a debate by showing the debate can

NOT be won. For let’s be clear. Having accepted that Srila Prabhupada

states:

“A Bona Fide spiritual master will NEVER become like that”, (and therefore

my proof holds),

you can ONLY challenge my proof by assuming the above statement is NOT TRUE

(i.e. that Srila Prabhupada is in error), and ‘finding’ that somewhere else

Srila Prabhupada states the OPPOSITE of the above and contradicts himself.

b) Since your challenge is PREDICATED on the notion that Srila Prabhupada

has contradicted himself, it can NEVER succeed, since Srila Prabhupada is a

perfect personality. Srila Prabhupada clearly and unequivocally states:

“The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation of

wealth or a large number of followers. A bona fide spiritual master will

never become like that. 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.”

(Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14)

This states that an authorised bona fide spiritual master will NEVER be

carried away by wealth and disciples, but sometimes if the guru is

unauthorised, he will. One cannot make a statement clearer and more emphatic

than this.

Thus at this point, given Srila Prahupada’s emphatically conclusive

statement from the Nectar of Devotion above, any person who claims to be a

follower of Srila Prabhupada, would accept that Srila Prabhupada’s statement

is TRUE.

But not you Hector. Like a scavenger, you continue to hang around, hoping

against hope that you can hunt down and dig out some place where Srila

Prabhhupada has contradicted himself. After Srila Prabhupada has clearly

written that a Bona Fide spiritual master

will NEVER become like that, HOW can Srila Prabhupada suddenly go and say

the OPPOSITE somewhere else? How can you assume Srila Prabhupada is someone

who does even remember what he wrote previously?

Such a hellish and offensive mentality, is proven by the fact that when you

THINK that you have found Srila Prabhupada contradicting himself you state

bizzarely:

“Srila Prabhupada is so merciful that he not only has provided one, but two

more axioms that may be the cause for the falldown of a BONAFIDE guru,

namely,”

Pray tell what can possibly be ‘merciful’ about finding that Srila

Prabhupada has contradicted himself?

I made these points when you tried to use the example of Lord Brahma’s lila

to show that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself, to prove to you why your

challenge was doomed to fail, which of course you yourself now concede was

the case. I make the points again to show why your challenge is doomed to

fail here again as well. Indeed why your challenge is always doomed to fail,

for Srila Prabhupada is a perfect personality who never contradicts himself.

2) Hector’s Big Whopper – 1

Since it is impossible for Srila Prabhupada to contradict himself, you have

done the only thing possible to try and challenge my proof, which is to

MANUFACTURE Srila Prabhupada contradicting himself. For the statement quoted

earlier from you from the Teachings of Lord Caitanya, as your ‘evidence’

that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself, is FABRICATED.

You state that the first sentence in the quote says:

“"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and FORGETS HIS DUTY AS

A BONA FIDE SPIRITUAL MASTER, the growth of the [bhakti] plant will be

impeded.”

(Teachings of Lord Caintanya, P30)

But IT DOES NOT SAY THIS. The key word “SPIRITUAL MASTER” is not mentioned

in the quote. It only says ‘MASTER’. If all those reading this do not

believe me, go and pull out your copy of ‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’, and

look it up. The word ‘SPIRITUAL’ has been ADDED by Hector himself, because

he knows that the quote as it stands does NOT, and could not, allow him to

demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself, and therefore he has

HAD TO CHANGE IT. Otherwise if it was possible to make the case that Srila

Prabhupada contradicted himself from the actual words Srila Prabhupada used,

then why not then just make the case from what Srila Prabhupada ACTUALLY

said, instead of shamelessly FABRICATING what Srila Prabhupada said? I will

repeat this point, as this is crucial to understanding what has happened:

*Otherwise if it was possible to make the case that Srila Prabhupada

contradicted himself from the actual words Srila Prabhupada used, then why

not then just make the case from what Srila Prabhupada ACTUALLY said,

instead of shamelessly FABRICATING what Srila Prabhupada said?*

When one is desperate to win a debate and save face, one will do anything,

from not only trying to show that Srila Prabhupada was in error and

contradicted himself, but also FABRICATING what Srila Prabhupada said in

order to show this contradiction on Srila Prabhupada’s part.

3) Hector’s big whopper – 2

But the fabrication and outright deception does not stop there. For this is

not the ONLY thing you have MADE UP that Srila Prabhupada states.

Again you state the first sentence in the quote says:

“"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and FORGETS HIS DUTY AS

A BONA FIDE SPIRITUAL MASTER, the growth of the [bhakti] plant will be

impeded.”

(Teachings of Lord Caintanya, P30)

But there IS YET ANOTHR FABRICATION. You have MISSED out a whole part of

this sentence. After the phrase “large number of disciples”, Srila

Prabhupada also says “and material conveniences offered by these disciples”.

All those reading this can once again go and pull out their copy of

‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’, and look it up. The phrase in question has

simply been DELETED by Hector, because he knows that the quote as it stands

does NOT allow him to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada contradicted

himself, and therefore he has HAD TO CHANGE IT. Otherwise if it was possible

to make the case that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself from the actual

words Srila Prabhupada used, then why not then just make the case from what

Srila Prabhupada ACTUALLY said, instead of shamelessly FABRICATING what

Srila Prabhupada said?

NOTE: These fabrications on the part of Hector cannot be ACCIDENTAL. For he

has first DELETED a whole phrase, and then immediately ADDED another word

which is not there. It is not possible for such an operation to occur by

accident or genuine error. It can only occur via deception and fabrication.

So again at this point the debate is again lost. I already demonstrated in

point 1, that since your challenge DEPENDS on finding Srila Prabhupada

contradicting himself, your challenge will always fail, since Srila

Prabhupada does not contradict himself. (And even if you think he did you

still cannot win the debate). Now to further CHANGE Srila Prabhupada’s words

to try and win the debate, shows that the original words as they stood would

have led to defeat, otherwise there would have been no need for one to

change them, as one could have just argued from the original text. To

summarise the fabrication:

Srila Prabhupada’s ACTUAL words as given in ‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’:

“If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded.”

Hector’s words as given in the ‘Teachings of Hector’:

“If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and forgets his duty as

a bona fide SPIRITUAL master, the growth of the plant will be impeded.”

4) Context of Quote Shows Subject Matter Different

The section in which the quote in question appears is discussing a very

specific topic, which is not the fall-down of authorised members of the

disciplic succession, as Hector would have us believe. The section begins

with a NEOPHYTE receiving the seed of devotional service. Srila Prabhupada

then gives a WHOLE list of all the things which someone desirous to make

progress on the path of Bhakti-Yoga must avoid lest the Bhakti plant will be

impeded. The section begins with Srila Prabhupada stating:

“Lord Caitanya pointed out to Rüpa Gosvämi that there was a certain danger

to be encountered while watering the root of the devotional plant,”

and finishes with:

“If one is not particularly careful, even by watering the plant of

devotional service, unnecessary weeds will grow and hamper progress.”

IN BETWEEN these two sentences, Srila Prabhupada gives the following list of

all the dangers to be avoided:

a) Offending a pure devotee – mad elephant offence

b) Ten offences against chanting the holy name

c) Becoming distracted by material conveniences offered by would-be

disciples

d) Desiring liberation

e) To not follow the 4 regulative principles

So nestled in the middle of this list, is Hector’s star evidence, albeit

altered, and for good reason – for it is clear that Srila Prabhupada is not

suddenly in the middle of this list describing the fall-down of an

authorised member of the disciplic succession, but simply listing the

dangers to be avoided by a sadhaka desiring to make progress in Bhakti-Yoga,

such as not breaking the 4 regulative principles, not committing offences

against chanting of the holy names etc.

5) Sadhaka Advances But Not Perfected

That we are dealing only with a sadhaka who is advancing on his progress in

growing the bhakti plant, and not someone who is a perfected and authorised

member of the disciplic succession, is made clear from the sentence BEFORE

the fabricated version of the quote which Hector provides, and which of

course is not quoted by Hector, lest the true context becomes clear:

“Along with this plant the weeds of material desires also grow. When a

person advances in bhakti, it is natural that many persons will come to him

requesting to become disciples and will offer him some material gains. If

one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material conveniences

offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide master, the

growth of the plant will be impeded.”

(Teachings of Lord Caitanya, REAL Srila Prabhupada version)

Thus the quote refers not to an authorised member of the disciplic

succession, but a sadhaka who is advancing in Bhakti, and who then needs to

make sure he does not allow his progress to get checked due to persons

offering to become his disciples due to the advancement he is making.

In the section leading up to the above quote Srila Prabupada summaries the

growth of the Bhakti plant:

a) One receives the seed from the authorised Bona Fide spiritual

master

b) It is watered by chanting and hearing

c) It then begins to grow freely

d) After being fully grown it surpasses universe

e) Then it penetrates Brahmajyoti

f) Enters Goloka Vrndavana

g) Produces fruit love of Godhead

Thus it is clear, that in the quote in question, Srila Prabhupada is simply

describing the pitfalls the sadhaka may face as his plant tries rises up

these levels, and not an authorised member of the disciplic succession.

6) Real Meaning of Quote - 1

Having seen that we are NOT dealing here with the fall of authorised members

of the disciplic succession, then what ARE we dealing with? Let us once

again look at the REAL quote from the ‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’, and not

the version from the ‘Teachings of Hector’, and see what it ACTUALLY means:

“When a person advances in bhakti, it is natural that many persons will come

to him requesting to become disciples and will offer him some material

gains. If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples, and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded.”

Srila Prabhupada has not used the words ‘Authorised/bona fide Spiritual

master’ here, which would assist Hector in ‘proving’ that Srila Prabhupada

contradicted himself, because Srila Prabhupada used these phrases earlier

when beginning the section preceding this quote, and here he states:

“Such devotees are empowered by the Lord to distribute devotional

consciousness, or Krishna consciousness, to the people in general. They are

known as authorized spiritual masters, and it is by their mercy that a

conditioned soul gets the seed of devotional service. The causeless mercy of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead is first appreciated when one comes in

touch with a bona fide spiritual master who can bring the conditioned soul

to the highest position of devotional life.”

(Teachings of Lord Caitanya)

Srila Prabhupada then goes on to mention the list of dangers given in point

4 above, to be avoided by the neophyte who has had the seed of devotional

service planted by the Bona fide spiritual master. Thus it would therefore

be ludicrous for Srila Prabhupada, to say: “The bona fide spiritual master

plants the seed of bhakti in the heart of the neophyte and subsequently as

this sadhaka advances, this BONA FIDE SPIRITUAL MASTER must be careful to

make sure his bhakti plant does not get impeded!”,

and hence only the word ‘master’ is used. *Because ANYONE, who is approached

by others who seek to be his disciples, can be referred to as being their

MASTER, simply by virtue of the fact people are asking to become his

disciples*. And this is why Srila Prabhupada has used the word bona fide

Master rather than bona fide spiritual master here - to distinguish between

the actual bona fide spiritual master who has planted the seed of Bhakti in

the heart of the neophyte - and the sadhaka who having had this seed planted

in him, must then be careful when dealing with those who approach him to

become his disciples due to his having made some progress in Bhakti. Thus

the CONTEXT makes it clear WHY the word ‘master’ is used, and how in this

case it does NOT refer to an authorised Bona fide Spiritual master who is a

member of the disciplic succession.

(There IS one place where Srila Prabhupada does use the word ‘master’

interchangeably with ‘spiritual master’, but that is made clear from the

CONTEXT, where the word ‘master’ is used in the very next sentence after

‘spiritual master’ is used, and spiritual masters are the subject matter of

the discussion. However, as seen above, this is not the context in the quote

produced by Hector, where the subject matter being discussed is not bona

fide spiritual masters, but sadhakas, who as soon as they make some

advancement, happen to find themselves approached by would-be disciples).

7. Real Meaning of Quote – 2

Similarly we can understand that Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase ‘bona

fide’ with the word ‘master’, because Srila Prabhupada states that the

sadhaka has ALREADY fallen DUE to taking advantage of material assets, and

he forgets his bona fide duty as a master to those who have approached him

to be his disciples:

““If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded.”

Thus if one gets enamoured by the material conveniences offered by

disciples, one will have deviated from being their bona fide master, as

being a bona fide master to those who wish to be your disciples because you

are more advanced than them, will not involve being attracted to taking

advantage of any material gains they may offer.

Summary

i) Note how the real meaning of the quote is deliberately obscured via the

alterations Hector made to Srila Prabhupada’s words. The addition of the

word ‘spiritual’ tries to make us think we are dealing with an authorised

member of the disciplic succession, rather than a sadhaka struggling in his

progress in Bhakti. And the deletion of the phrase “and material

conveniences offered by these disciples”, hides how the sadhaka deviates

from his duty as a bona fide master to those who have approached him for

guidance as disciples. Additionally by this deletion, Hector is also able to

generate ‘two’ rather than one so-called new ‘axiom’, by separating out this

devation of the sadhaka from the first sentence of the quote.

ii) Thus the phrase ‘bona fide master’ here refers not to an authorised

member of the disciplic succession, but a sadhaka who deviates from his duty

of acting properly towards those who have approached him to be his disciple

because he is more advanced than them, by taking advantage of what they have

to offer.

iii) My explanation is supported by the ACTUAL WORDS used, the whole CONTEXT

in which those words are used, and most importantly, my explanation is

supported by the axiom which supercedes all others – that Srila Prabhupada

does not contradict himself – for my explanation, as always, allows Srila

Prabhupada’s statements to be in harmony with each other.

iv) Your explanation is supported neither by the words used (indeed you

needed to change them), the context in which they are used, and is actually

BASED on the premise that Srila Prabhupada contradicts himself.

v) Therefore my explanation will ALWAYS be accepted by ANY follower of Srila

Prabhupada, whether from the GBC or the IRM, because even your Guru Maharaja

and the GBC offer arguments for why the IRM is wrong without needing to

resort to saying that Srila Prabhupada has contradicted himself, like you

do. Hence we are ALL united on the belief that Srila Prabhupada never

contradicts himself and is free from error. You Hector, stand ALONE,

separated from both ISKCON and the IRM.

In conceding you got defeated over your use of the Lord Brahma example in

your previous attempt to show Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself, you

stated one reason was enough to have defeated you, and hence I need not have

given 10. Hence I have eased up this time, and only given 7 reasons!

Conclusion

a) Hector’s bag of tricks cannot obscure the fact that he had

previously already been defeated 4 times:

i) Original challenge made against proof using Gaudiya Matha

analogy

ii) Next challenge made claiming statement in proof was

not bi-conditional

iii) Defeat via his own argument proving statement B of

proof

iv) Conceding defeat in his use of the Lord Brahma’s

lila

b) He has just been defeated again, caught trying to fabricate a

quote of Srila Prabhupada, to try and show that Srila Prabhupada was

contradicting himself.

How much more offensive behaviour do we need to tolerate before you stop?

You are hell-bent on showing that Srila Prabhupada makes mistakes and

contradicts himself, which is a hellish mentality, which you then tried to

show by greatly offending Lord Brahma, more hellish offences, and now you

have tried to show it by changing the holy words of Srila Prabhupada – a

triple whammy of super hellish offences.

What possible offences are you going to commit next? Are you not satisfied

yet? You claim that I treat you with derision. What do you expect if your

whole argument is based on the offence that Srila Prabhupada contradicted

himself? No self-respecting follower of Srila Prabhupada, regardless of his

opinion on the guru issue, will stand for such blasphemy.

Dear Hector, please accept that Srila Prabhupada does NOT contradict

himself, and that therefore you will NEVER be able to show a contradiction

to Srila Prabhupada stating that an authorised bona fide guru will NEVER be

carried away by wealth and disciples.

*So WHY continue to bother looking?*

Surely the very fact that in your TWO attempts to try and contradict Srila

Prabhupada, you had to FIRST get super-offensive to Lord Brahma and try and

use his inapplicable lila, and now you have had to FABRICATE the words

supposedly used by Srila Prabhupada, should be enough evidence for anyone to

give up this fruitless and offensive exercise, which is simply destroying

your spiritual life.

Thank you.

Your servant,

Krishnakant

Hector Rosario [hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu]

24 May 2006 23:48

IRM