Adri's famous last words

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi & Madhu

PAMHO AGTSP

 

All I have to say about your text below is that I have got not

16 points but around 50 points which YOU have not answered.

 

You have adopted the mayavada technique of avoiding the clear

direct meaning of Srila Prabhupada's instructions and covering

those direct meanings with your own INDIRECT meanings, slanting

the reader to your super-imposed concoction that Srila

Prabhupada wanted to break the law of disciplic succession.

 

Every single one of your tongue-and-cheek points listed below

are unsubstantiated claims. You claim you have defeated our

arguments but your claims are just EMPTY claims. (Empty vessels

make the most sound???)

 

Adri since you have rejected all our evidence as invalid, will

you also say the same about H.H. Radha Govinda Maharaja who was

instructed by Srila Prabhupada in 1977 to initiate his own

disciples? Is this not living proof that Srila Prabhupada wanted

his disciples to be diksa-gurus? Or is Adri saying the Maharaja

is a liar? And what about the other senior devotees who were

also personally ordered by Srila Prabhupada to be diksa-gurus?

Or are you going to back away from this point like you did last

time, confused and unable to speak?

 

And what would the court say if these devotees personally

testified that Srila Prabhupada ordered them to be diksa-gurus?

Your case would be thrown out on the Calcutta streets where it

belongs.

 

Adri, I wish you all the ill-luck in the world for your court

case. We'll be praying that Lord Narasimhadeva protect Srila

Prabhupada's ISKCON from your vicious attack on the head of

ISKCON. You are like mindless children with knives raised to

perform brain surgery. My Lord please save us from these Ritviks

gone berserk. Hare Krishna!

 

Yatra yogesvara krishno....

 

ys

 

ada

 

> Dear Maharaj's & Prabhus, Please accept our humble obeisances.

> All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> Since myself and Madhu will be busy on the court case for the

> next few weeks we shall not have time to respond to members of

> this conference as we have been doing. We just wanted to say

> thank you for all your questions and points. We have recieved

> much encouragement from less vocal devotees, fearful of

> reprisals, who say they have found our postings very helpful

> in understanding the relevance of Srila Prabhupada's

> instructions on the issue of initiation.

>

> We have seen nothing on this conference which comes close to

> the evidence requested in TFO, and now by us in the high

> court. There is no direct order from Srila Prabhupada which

> states that the ritvik system must stop on his departure, and

> that the ritviks (and everyone else) must then turn into diksa

> gurus. We have seen nothing close to this. Only indirect

> evidence has been offered, and of this nearly all was dealt

> with previously in TFO over two & half years ago.

>

> Private unpublished (in 1977) letters setting out a law which

> does not exist either previously, or in Srila Prabhupada's

> books or general instructions to the whole movement, will not

> convince us any more than they will the court. The best

> evidence (Hassan) was only discovered accidently two years

> ago, and in any case is only indirect (in that it does not

> address the ritvik system) and fails in other key areas as

> explained previously. Although H.H.JPM had claimed dozens of

> such quotes, in the end HS only produced 14 which we refuted

> with no counter-response from him. Generally the approach of

> members of this conferance has been to simply re-present

> endlessly points that were addressed by the IRG already

> previously. This was pointed out numerous times to little

> effect. Some even boasted that they had no intention of even

> reading the very position paper they were supposedly

> defeating. In this way, through sheer sloppinness and

> laziness, so much time was wasted.

>

> The following points were raised in this discussion, and we

> feel our answers have not been refuted:

>

> 1) No-one has been able to prove from Srila Prabhupada's

> teachings that the guru must be physically present at the time

> of the initiation ceremony. Hari Sauri prabhu has since

> accepted the guru only needs to be within the same universe,

> and so is very close to accepting our position since Srila

> Prabhupada said he remains in the universe until all his

> disciples are liberated.

>

> 2) Although many devotees go on about the ritvik system being

> unprecedented, this form of argument is itself unauthorised

> and unprecedented. Nowhere did Srila Prabhupada ever teach

> that a guru's orders can be rejected solely on the basis that

> it may not have been given in an identical form previously.

> And in any case to prove the system unprecedented requires

> relevant historical evidence that is also missing.

>

> 3) It was argued by Basu Gosh prabhu that Srila

> Bhaktissidanta's critical term 'ultra metampsychosis' meant

> accepting an historical figure as one's saviour. This we

> disproved and we heard nothing back.

>

> 4) Basu Gosh's defence of Pradyumna's observations of the

> Gaudiya Matha was also defeated.

>

> 5) No-one could disprove the fact that diksa is defined as the

> transmission of transcendental knowledge from guru to

> disciple.

>

> 6) No-one could prove that in all the statements where Srila

> Prabhupada said such transmission did not require the physical

> presence of the guru, he was only reffering to siksa. The

> supposition that only diksa relationships require physical

> presence was thus never demonstrated.

>

> 7) Conference members constantly confused the issue of

> accepting an external 'physical' guru, with the idea that such

> a guru did not need to be physically present'. Srila

> Prabhupada clearly teaches both things, so therefore the

> quotes about 'physical' guru must mean what we say or he would

> be directly contradicting himself. No-one could refute the

> point that these are two entirely seperate issues.

>

> 8) Although endlessly accused of stopping the parampara,

> no-one dealt with our response, that Srila Prabhupada will

> only remain current for the duration of ISKCON.

>

> 9) No-one could refute the fact that current links may remain

> current for long periods of time.

>

> 10) Badra Balaram prabhu had said there are over two hundred

> quotes where Srila Prabhupada directly states that he wants

> his disciples to become diksa gurus on his departure. Yet he

> has failed to produce any. He has also just given new quotes

> which no-one has ever seen before, though sadly without

> references.

>

> 11) Badra Balaram was also unable to show where Srila

> Prabhupada ever said we needed to have the help of a current

> ISKCON guru to get the full effect from his books.

>

> 12) No-one could refute the fact that Srila Prabhupada

> approved the July9th letter, and that this rendered irrelevant

> any talk of how the letter came to be typed by his secretary.

>

> 13) Ajamila presented evidence in a way that contradicted the

> GBC's understanding of the 'law of disciplic succession'. We

> then pointed out where exactly he had contradicted the GBC and

> he was unable to refute the point. He then lied to everyone

> saying that he had not contradicted the GBC. He then tried to

> worm out of it by saying he had only contradicted the GBC's

> assumption, which of course means he contradicted them.

>

> 14) Ajamila has used every ill term possible to describe the

> ritvik system and those who advocate its re-instatement, yet

> he described as 'learned' Mayesvara who has consistently

> taught that both the ritvik system and the current guru system

> should run in parallel within ISKCON. When this was pointed

> out to Ajamila he at first denied it with a torrent of

> characteristic invective. When we proved through quoting

> Mayesvara's papers that we were correct, he then privately

> tried to get Mayesvara to do a 'U-turn' in order to save face.

> Mayesvara did not comply and even after all that Ajamila ended

> by saying he still thought Mayesvara was learned, and hence

> that his ideas were well founded.

>

> 15) Let it be known that as a result of the above Ajamila

> supports the idea that ritvik should run alongside the current

> guru system within ISKCON.

>

> 16) Ajamila has no idea what argumentum ad hominem means,

> since he constantly uses such arguments, but then denies that

> he uses them.

>

> We could go on and on, but the message should be clear. We

> were not in the least convinced or impressed by any of the

> arguments put forward in favour of abolishing Srila

> Prabhupada's ritvik system.

>

> Moreover the sheer stubbornness of members merely increases

> the realisation that our current course of action in the

> courts is right and proper.

>

> Srila Prabhupada's movement is currently dominated by

> individuals who are inimical to his instructions, who cannot

> hear good advice, and who are set on a path that would bring

> ISKCON to ruin eventually. Although our action may be

> unpopular with some, we must persue it for the sake of the

> many.

>

> For the time being we shall be debating your great champion

> Ajamila on CHAKRA. So we suggest you send him any further

> points you think will help him win the debate.

>

> ys Adri and Madhu