Pointless points

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Sauri Prabhu, Please accept our humble obeisances. All Glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

> The ritviks have spuriously tried to dismiss the top quote from the

> letter to Tusta Krsna on the grounds that it was written as a private

> letter to an ambitious disciple. They also say that since it was not made

> public for many years it cannot be counted as evidence.

>

> However, the Detroit conversation quote says the same thing, 4 years

> before, in an open, public forum.

 

The conversation with the one-off visitor in Detroit was only discovered two

years ago, so it is even less relevant to why the GBC stopped an

institutional system in 1977. We have explained all kinds of other problems

with the quote in our response to 'Prabhupada's order' that can be found on

the IRG web sit(www.irg.zetnet.co.uk).

 

> It does not mean the law was invented to deal with that one person.

> It is the law for everyone regardless of whether they follow it or not.

> The law is the law.

>

> The ritviks had no answer for this at that time. Desai was

> completely silent and could not reply.

 

The above is a complete misrepresentation of what occured at the meeting. If

you recall Krishnakant asked your side why you said it was a law when in the

GBC book 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON' it said it wasn't a law. Indeed if

it was a law it was broken by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. It was you who could

not decide whether it was a law or not, and if it was who it was a law for?

That is why we remained silent, so you could make up your minds.

 

Now that you have had time to think about it, please answer the following :

 

a) Is the law of disciplic succession as expressed in the private letter to

Tusta Krishna a general principal for all time?

 

b) Is the above mentioned law a law that is only relevant to members of

ISKCON?

 

c) Is the above mentioned law only applicable to the individual it was

directed at in the letter?

 

If your answer is a) please explain why the GBC says it isn't, and why

Srila Bhaktissidhanta broke it?

 

If your answer is b) please explain how it could be a law for the whole

of ISKCON if it was never mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, or

instructions to the whole movement?

 

Are you saying it only became a law for ISKCON after 1986 when someone

bribed a member of the BBT to release the letters?

 

If your answer is c) then how can you use this law to terminate a system

that was sent to the entire movement?

 

We are sure you will ignore these points just as you have many of our

others, but at least everyone else can understand the cheating that's going

on here.

 

Cheating that we must now challenge in court.

 

These are the types of complexities Hari Sauri seems to be oblivious of, and

so he just drifts along in the illusion that somehow Srila Prabhupada

ordered ritviks to change into diksa gurus, even though there is no

institutional directive that states this. If you have any more arguments

then I suggest you send them on to your great pandit Ajamila who is soon to

debate us on CHAKRA.

 

ys Adri & Madhu