More food for thought... from a godbrother...

[Guest guest]

> > The ritviks have numbered the sentences in a way that leaves out one

> > essential statement. It should read:

> >

> > (4) Srila Prabhupada: Yes, I shall recommend some of you.

> >

> > (5) After this is settled up

> >

> > (6) I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya(s).

> >

> > If you want to be literal and split hairs you must put the full stop

> > after Srila Prabhupada's first statement, "I shall recommend some of

> > you." Thus Srila Prabhupada's initial response to the direct

> > question how first and second intiations would be conducted after he was

> > no longer with us was "I shall recommend some of you." Period.

 

> OK so where is the reccommendation for some of his disciples to act > as

diksa gurus. Notice he says some, not all. If you want to take it like >

that fine, but then you will be contradicting the GBC, who now say >

everyone must be guru on departure, not just some. As we all know the

>'recommendation' was for 11 ritviks, with no instruction that their >

function should ever change.

 

Dear Adri, in case you missed it the first time, here it is again.

Srila Prabhupada said "I shall recommend some of you." He did that. Or don't

you think he's a man of his word? And then "after that was settled up" he

recommended the same disciples as to act as "officiating acaryas." Can't you

accept what Srila Prabhupada said and did directly? He left the GBC to

decide how they would be increased. (As you've already admitted.)

Oh well, at least you understand that he said some should initiate.

That ends the debate. You've admitted your absolute stand on ritvik is

false, so at least you've admitted defeat and we perhaps we can get on with

our lives with Krsna in the center instead of you. But I think there's too

much at stake now for you to allow us to get on with our lives without you

in the center.

And as we all know Srila Prabhupada's statement "I shall recommend

some of you." was directly in response to the question how would initiations

be conducted after he was no longer with us.

 

> > Srila Prabhupada says, AFTER this is settled

> > up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya(s). That

> > means Srila Prabhupada did two things here, not just one as the

> > ritvik "philosophers" and "legal beagles" want us to believe.

> >

> > The first action is the selection of initiating gurus, and the second

> > action is the selection of officating acaryas.

 

> This is a new one. So he made two seperate selections, ok fine. So we've >

all

> seen the selection of ritviks, now can we see his selection of diksa gurus

> please? Where do you get the idea of initiating gurus from, they are not

> mentioned, only officiating acaryas, which Srila Prabhupada agrees are

> defined as ritviks?

 

Again, it's delightful to hear you admit something could be true

that's not already contained in your new "Gita" the FO. It's not a new one

Adri it's what happened according to Srila Prabhupada's direct words,

confirmed by those who were witnesses. He wouldn't have made the second

selection unless the first one was "settled up". This is the way of

presenting evidence.

You didn't seem to get it on the second try. Here it is again.

You're saying we've all seen the selection of ritviks, now can we see his

selection of diksa gurus? Well, that's what the conversation says. First he

selected them as gurus to conduct first and second intiations, then he

selected the same devotees as "officiating acaryas" to initiate on his

behalf until he departed. That's what the rest of the conversation is

about. That's what "disciple of my disciple" means. And that's what

"because in my presence one should not become guru" means. Why can't you

directly accept what your spiritual master is saying in these statements,

rather than refer us back to a paper that doesn't explain what these

statements mean, but rather tries to discredit Srila Prabhupada's precise

words through word jugglery or a false allegation that the tape was rigged?

 

> > If the ritvik "philosophers" play fair by their own rules they must

> > accept that Srila Prabhupada's first order came immediately for some of

> > his disciples to act as initiators.

 

> But 'initiators' are not mentioned here at all. Nor were initiators ever

> selected. Furthermore this interpretation contradicts the GBC paper >

Disciple

> of my Disciple which says the whole conversation ONLY relates to after

> departure, and that the word ritvik means diksa guru in this context. And

> you have the cheek to call us word jugglers.

 

In case you didn't get it the third time around, here it is again.

Remember, three strikes means you're already out. In repsonse to the direct

question about how first and second initiations would be conducted after he

was no longer with us, Srila Prabhupada's immediate reply was "I shall

select some of you."

 

> > The later statements of Srila

> > Prabhupada, "disciple of my disciple", "regular guru", and "my grand

> > disciple" fit, then. into the context of the conversation without word

> > jugglery, as confirmations of Srila Prabhupada's initial statement.

> > That makes the conversation consistent and coherent.

 

> Those diksa gurus were never reccommended though were they? If so where? >

If

> not then how can this relate to the beginning where reccommendation was to

> be made? And diksa gurus could only arise 'when I order' not 'when I

> reccommend'.

 

You already admitted he said "some" and "not all" and you always try

to discredit the GBC for doing their duty to select more. Please try to

listen to yourself Adri before you speak so you won't continue to make these

big mistakes and embarrass yourself. Read the text again, Adri. This is (4).

Srila Prabhupada did recommend them in the beginning, not in the next

sentence, which was AFTER those he selected was settled up. The problem is

you can only repeat what you've heard from the FO, but this point is not

addressed in the FO. Maybe you should consult KK for a reply?

 

> This whole interpretation is deranged, and in any case contradicts the >

very

> people it is trying to defend.

 

Why is it deranged? Because you think it so? Because it isn't in

the FO? I thought you were a philosopher. Answer the point, Adri, don't try

to discredit a devotee by name calling so quickly, something you've already

condemned others for doing to you. This argument isn't meant to defend

anyone. That's (again) your interpretation. It only contradicts the FO,

which I thought you were inviting us to do.

 

> > The second statement, "After this is settled up (this meaning the

> > selection of some of you to act as initiators),

 

> This is just speculation.

 

How is it speculation? It's a straight forward answer to a straight

forward question. Let's hear some argument rather than dismissal, which you

don't seem fond of when applied to yourself. Except of course if you're the

only judge.

 

> > I shall select some of

> > you to act as officiating acaryas.", refers to what will happen while he

> > is still with us.

 

> But this contradicts the entire GBC's position. That means the GBC are all

> wrong and confused even today, just as we suspected. Only so is the person

> who wrote this load.

 

This doesn't contradict the entire GBC's position. They were

empowered by Srila Prabhupada's will to make adjustments as time warranted.

Again you're answering for them and then saying they're wrong and confused

even today. You've decided for them again, Adri, as the only judge. Let them

speak for themselves. And you speak for yourself. Again you're name calling

and pointing to someone else rather than answering the point. Pity that.