Adri's on the run...

[Guest guest]

> > > 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.

>

> > > So Srila Prabhupada empowered them to contradict themselves, and be

> > > contradicted by their supporters. Do you have any evidence for this

> > > odd bit of empowerment, or is it yet another invention of yours?

>

> > > Regarding the new absurd speculation you offer on the May 28th tape,

> > > does it have GBC approval yet? Or are you just being used by them as a

> > > stalking horse? If so they must be extremely desperate since this

> > > would be the fifth different official interpretation of the tape.

>

> > > Give it up prabhu, you can't win this.

>

> Adri, if we can't win this, the only reason will be that you're the only

> judge.

>

> Some of us are still thinking for ourselves, Adri, not just

> swallowing someone else's line as you have done with the final order.

> Thoughtful people can understand that the GBC's position as the ultimate

> managing authority of ISKCON is not absolute in the way you're demanding

> it to be. Managers have to adjust according to time and circumstance in

> order to manage. Management decisions are never drawn in stone. In

> managing the Calcutta temple do you mean to say you've never changed any

> decision or the direction of any project or policy according to the course

> of events? Of course you have.

> Furthermore, your ability to carry out management decisions

> sometimes depends not just on your own conclusions, but on force of

> circumstances, otherwise you'd have built your temple by now. Madhu Pandit

> finished his project while he was at least externally an ardent supporter

> of the GBC and his guru. You haven't been able to finish yours as a

> detractor of the GBC over the years. Perhaps that says something about the

> potency contained in the different approaches.

> You seem to want to hold the GBC body to every word they've ever spoken as

> if they should be absolute, even as they attempt to adjust things

> according to time and circumstances--in this case the arguments of KK

> Desai over the years. A thoughtful person won't buy this illogic, Prabhu.

> The fact that different points have come out in GBC papers doesn't prove

> what you're trying to prove according to the laws of logic and debate. The

> GBC's basic position--that Srila Prabhupada desired and intended that his

> disciples carry on the disciplic succession by accepting their own

> disciples--hasn't changed in any of the GBC papers. Your argument is

> simply false.

> We all accept the fact that the fall downs of the gurus has caused the

> problem. What we can't accept is that Srila Prabhupada intended to change

> the process he consistently described in his teachings regarding the duty

> his disciples have to carry on the disciplic succession by accepting

> disciples after the passing away of their spiritual master. To think that

> he would have done such a thing without clear, on-going instructions over

> a considerable length of time is wishful thinking at best.

> If you open your mind you will see that every institution in the world is

> experiencing the sames kinds of problems we are. By that I don't mean

> that ISKCON is meant to be like any mundane institution, but I mean that

> because we are in this world we are subject to the same forces from the

> material nature as everyone else. To think that our problems have been

> caused by one thing or that they will be solved by one thing is

> simplistic, dogmatic thinking.

> Again you haven't addressed my point, you simply dismiss it as a

> speculation coming from a demented, confused person without offering any

> reason. Please explain to me why this analysis is a speculation. I'm not

> dependent on GBC approval to offer an opinion, am I? The sad truth is

> that you read into everyone else's words your own opinion and therefore

> you are incapable of addressing anything new or accommodating anyone

> else's idea. The ability to co-operate has that prerequisite and that may

> be why you can't accept the authority structure Srila Prabhupada set up.

> If you argue that even Srila Prabhupada disbanded the GBC at different

> times due to mistakes they made, you must also accept that he also sat in

> the meetings the very next day, raised his hand and commented, "You see,

> I'm also a member of the GBC." That was Srila Prabhuapda's basic attitude

> and that is the attitude the present GBC members are attempting to

> emulate. Why do you have such a problem with that?

> You've taunted us like anything, Adri, to come up with something that

> hasn't already been answered by the FO. You tease us that we simply

> recycle already answered arguments. That means you're demanding something

> new. So here it is. Where are your arguments?

>

> > > 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." That's the actual beginning of the conversation. 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.

>

> > > 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 recommendation of initiating gurus, and the >

> > > >

> second

> > > action is the recommendation of officating acaryas.

> > > 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.

>

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

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

> 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.