Re : Adri loses ritvik debate by his own ommission of sastra

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna Mukhya Mataji, Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

In response to Ajamila Prabhu's article, I am sending my reply. Kindly post

it on Free forum, so that the devotees can read my reply also.

 

Thanking you in advance,

 

Ys, Adri

=========================================================================

 

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,

 

PAMHO AGTSP

 

I have grouped the response to your lengthy paper as follows:

 

Answer To Your Question

 

"You have avoided answering my following Second Question. […] You have not

answered this question."

 

This is a lie. I did answer it:

 

"Now coming to your question.

 

Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa guru for ISKCON could only break the

'law' if the 'law' stated that diksa must be taken from a 'physically

living, present on the planet' Guru. But the 'law' does not make any mention

of this."

 

You asked that we show that we are not breaking the 'law of disciplic

succession'. We pointed out that since the 'law' does not forbid Srila

Prabhupada acting as diksa guru, we could not possibly be breaking it. How

can this not be an answer to your question? Who do you think you can fool by

stating this blatant lie?

 

Secondly your 'question' is in any case itself invalid, since you cannot ask

for proof of a negative, and then claim the lack of such counter-evidence as

proof. HH Jayadvaita Maharaja explains this law of debate:

 

"This is simply a classic argumentative blunder, a textbook fallacy.

 

'How do we know that you don't beat your wife?' demands the rumor-monger.

And then you're stuck there, trying to come up with evidence to counter a

groundless accusation.

[…]

One must support one's views by evidence, not by assertions that a lack of

counter-evidence makes them true. Enough said.

('Where the Ritvik People are Wrong, 1996, HH Jayadvaita Maharaja)

 

You have done exactly the same. You have asked us to prove that the law of

disciplic succession is not broken by our proposal. This the same as asking

me to prove that I do not beat my wife. You cannot ask someone to prove that

something is not the case; you have to show that it is. Otherwise it is just

a 'groundless accusation'. You say we break the 'law' of disciplic

succession. Prove that we do. You can't. So as a technique to cover up the

fact that you don't have any evidence that we do, you simply ask us to prove

that we don't, and then claim that our answer is not 'supported by guru,

sadhu and sastra' and claim victory. Such childhish tactics are easily

exposed and condemned even by HH Jayadvaita maharaja. So support your

assertion that we 'break' the 'law of disciplic succession' with evidence,

as is required by the rules of debate. Do not just claim that 'a lack of

counter-evidence makes it true'.

 

This question has exposed you completely since it reveals that you have no

evidence to support your main assertion that we break the 'law of disciplic

succession', and without this evidence your whole case collapses. If you had

this evidence you would have simply stated it. But you haven't. Instead you

have tried to hide this fact by trying to get us to prove we don't break it.

Fortunately the rules of debate do not allow you to get away with such

evasive tactics.

 

"Another standard debating rule is that a question cannot be answered with a

question, that is evasion.

You have to answer the question, not evade it because you can't answer it.

For example, you answered my question with this question: "Which principle

of sastra are we changing?" when I clearly refer to the major principle of

the disciplic succession."

 

This just a neither blatant lie. I answer your question with 2 statements

not the question "which principle of sastra are we changing" - see answer

reproduced above. Who do you think you are going to fool with such blatant

lies? CHAKRA readers can read, so why waste your time pretending they can't,

and hoping they won't notice your blatant fabrication.

 

Ajamila Contradicts The GBC

 

"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving

initiation in the presence of guru, […] This statement proves that

acceptance of disciples in the presence of one s spiritual master has been

approved by the scriptures. In the scriptures there is no specific

instruction about a disciple

not giving initiation when his guru is present. […] Even though in the past

spiritual masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their

presence, […] We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had

the vision to set down a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a

law we would transgress at our peril."

(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official

GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

 

"The GBC have correctly referred to Srila Prabhupada's right as Founder

Acarya to transgress the normal etiquette for preaching which would become a

precedent law in ISKCON but not to be confused as a law of disciplic

succession." (Ajamila)

 

This is a complete fabrication. Anyone who reads the above can see that the

GBC do not make any statement that even remotely resembles Ajamila's

statement. Firstly no mention is made here of Srila Prabhuada's right to

transgress anything - only that he gave a law that we should not transgress

the 'law'.

Secondly the GBC quote only one law 'set down' by Srila Prabhupada. There is

only one such law mentioned in the whole document, and the GBC had just

quoted it before the making the above statement, and this is the 'law of

disciplic succession', given in the letter to Tusta Krishna. So this is the

law the GBC are speaking of. The GBC certainly make no mention of a

'precedent law', and they certainly do not state that such a law should 'not

be confused as a law of disciplic succession'. As we have seen the only

'law' they even mention is the 'law of disciplic succession'.

 

"The contradiction you flag down can only be true if I accept your false

premise that initiating in the presence of one's guru contravenes disciplic

law, but I don't, nor does Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada defines not

initiating in the presence of one's guru as the *normal etiquette*, and he

defines the option for a disciple to accept his own disciples after his

guru's departure as the *law of disciplic succession*. "

 

This is another sheer fabrication from Ajamila. Let us quote the 'law' and

see for ourselves if such separate definitions are indeed given by Srila

Prabhupada:

 

"But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of

your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his

absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation.

This is the law of disciplic succession. "

(Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2/12/75)

 

It is very clear that Srila Prabhupada uses the word and to add what is done

in his absence to what is done in his presence, and refers to this as the

custom. He states that the custom is what is done in his presence and what

is done in his absence. Thus Srila Prabhupada has not separated what is done

in his presence from what is done in his absence, but joined it with the

word and.

 

Further Srila Prabhupada then refers to the whole of preceeding sentence

just quoted, and containing both what is done in his presence and his

absence, with the word this. He has not singled out the latter clause of the

preceeding sentence - which deals only with what is done in his absence -

and called it the 'law of disciplic succession', but rather through the word

this, has referred to the whole of the preceeding sentence, and called it

all the 'law of disciplic succession'.

 

Thus from two different pieces of evidence - the word and, and the word

this, we have shown that no separate definitions are given by Srila

Prabhupada, as Ajamila has fabricated. Unless Ajamila insists on re-defining

the plain Engish meaning of the wors 'and' and 'this', which even a child

can understand, he is thoroughly exposed once again making yet another false

claim.

 

Thus Srila Prabhupada refers to both what is done in his presence and his

absence as an integral custom and law of disciplic succession. Further

evidence for this simple fact - that what is done in Srila Prabhuada's

presence is also part of the 'law of disciplic succession' - is given in

Ajamila's own celebrated 'definitive' paper 'Prabhupada's Order':

 

However, we see that Srila Prabhupada did also consider his physical

presence to have some significant relevance in the issue of disciplic

succession, and this aspect is mentioned in many of his other statements.

[…]

He once again makes reference to the physical presence of the spiritual

master, and makes clear that the initiation of new disciples depends on the

physical presence or absence of the initiator's spiritual master. In this

statement, Srila Prabhupada makes clear that this process is how the

disciplic succession continues.

('Prabhupada's Order, GBC Paper, Contributor Ajamila Dasa)

 

Please note that the first statement refers to the letter to Tusta Krishna

whilst the last statement is the actual specific explanation of the sentence

in dispute from the letter to Tusta Krishna.

 

 

What we have observed here is an example of the most sheer desperation, that

has led to Ajamila to resort to sheer fabrication and lying. Having realised

that his whole case has collapsed since his own GBC have decreed that his

main evidence - the 'law of disciplic sucession' - is neither sastric nor

traditional, Ajamila has resorted to simply making up that:

 

a) Srila Prabhupada actually gives two separate and distinct laws, and

defines them separately.

b) The GBC have also given 'two laws', and further that they advice us that

the 'precedent law' must 'not be confused with the 'law of disciplic

succession'.

 

However he has been thoroughly defeated by:

 

A) by the actual words of the GBC paper in question,

b) by the words of his own definitive GBC paper 'Prabhupada's Order'

c) and by Srila Prabhupada's own words used to define the law - 'and' and

'this'.

 

Did Ajamila really think he was going to get away with such a monumental

hoax?

 

"I challenge you to ask the GBC and HH Hridayananda Maharaja whether or not

what I have said

contradicts what they said."

 

But the evidence is there in black and white for everyone:

 

"The significant point here is that terms such as .rtvig-guru and

..rtvig-acarya simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit

dictionary, nor in any recognized Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There

is no such term because there is no such concept. In other words, our

friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture."

(H.H. Hridayananda Maharaja, Prabhupada's Order, GBC Paper, Contributor

Ajamila)

 

Ajamila says:

 

"I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially,

this is a fact you cannot deny."

 

Here Ajamila clearly contradicts both the GBC and HH Hridayananda Maharaja,

for they say the word 'ritvik-acharya' is bogus; and Ajamila also puts words

into Srila Prabhupada's mouth since Srila Prabhupada never used this word on

the May 28th tape - as we have seen it was HH Tamala Krishna who spoke it,

and since when did HH Tamala Krishna Maharaja become Srila Prabhupada?

 

Ajamila Contradicts Himself

 

"Only five weeks earlier Srila Prabhupada made it very clear that the

temporary ritvik system would continue until his departure; therefore, he

didn't need to mention such the sensitive departure point again in the 9

July letter."

 

Again this your belief. Where is the evidence? You say '5 weeks earlier'.

But why be shy? Why not just present this statement supposedly made by Srila

Prabhupada on May 28th that the 'temporary ritvik system would continue

until his departure', instead of just claiming it? We know why you cannot

present this evidence - because it does not exist since we have already

trapped you making the opposite claim:

 

"On 28 May 77 Srila Prabhupada was specifically asked about initiations that

would be performed by the ritvik priests *after his departure*."

(Ajamila's Introduction)

 

You claim that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada made it 'very clear' that

the ritvik system would continue 'until departure', yet in your introduction

you stated the opposite - that ritvik priests would be performing

initiations after departure.

 

"There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that

can't. Details of the past like skin colour and giving women gayatri will of

course differ from the present but the major principles cannot change."

 

You now admit that there are things in vedic tradition that can be changed,

such as skin colour. So obviously by your own argument the 'unbroken

tradition' alone is not sufficient evidence to determine the validity of

something, which was what you originally argued. Now you agree that the key

is to determine whether or not its is unchangeable 'major principles' that

are being violated, not simply an 'unbroken tradition'. So never again will

you be able to present the 'unbroken tradition' alone as any sort of

evidence; rather you will need to prove that we are dealing with 'major

principles'. I am glad you have finally conceded this point to us.

 

"The proof that it is 'disciplic law' that diksa must be taken from a

'living guru' is the unbroken tradition given in sastra where we find that

every single acarya in our line and even Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya took

diksa from a living guru."

 

You have now been trapped in a circular argument. You have just said that an

'unbroken tradition' is not itself evidence for a 'major principle', since

you can also have 'unbroken traditions' for things which are not major

principles such as skin colour. Now you say that the proof for the

'disciplic law' being a major principle is the 'unbroken tradition'. You are

presenting as proof that something is a major principle something which you

have just admitted is not proof unless a major principle is involved! This

circular argument is another evasive trick used when one does not have any

evidence.

 

Ajamila Does Not Speak According to Guru, Sadhu and Sastra

 

"I requested you to support your NCIP ritvik idea with evidence from guru,

sadhu, and sastra, otherwise it is a concoction. Everything I have said is

rooted in guru, sadhu, and sastra since this is the standard in Vaisnava

debating."

 

But the N.C.I.P. simply states that standards and processes that Srila

Prabhupada left us cannot be changed unless authorised by Srila Prabhupada.

In our introduction we gave evidence for this from Srila Prabhupada. Yet you

also gave a similar theory to the NCIP, even using the same example we used

of something that could not be changed under the N.C.I.P. - the chanting of

16 rounds:

 

"While it is true that there are things in ISKCON that cannot be changed for

the next 10,000 years such as following the four regulative principles,

chanting 16 rounds daily, and so on there are many other things that MUST

change and that's why we have GBCs and so many managers to deal with all the

changes."

(Ajamila's Introduction)

 

Yet you never gave any 'guru, sadhu or sastra' for this statement, despite

your claim that everything you say is 'rooted in 'Guru, sadhu and sastra'.

So do not be a hypocrite. Back up your statements with 'guru, sadhu and

sastra', otherwise we must reject them as a concoction.

 

"Here is a simple answer: In this question you insinuate that Srila

Prabhupada was illegally removed out of envy, but every single guru in our

very long line of disciplic succession gets removed from being a living

diksa-guru by the very nature of their physical departure. Please use your

common sense."

 

There is no insinuation of 'envy' - it's a straightforward question. Why is

it whenever anyone asks a challenging question, instead of just answering it

they are just accused of being 'envious'? The same thing was done to

Pradyumna when asked for evidence to justify the zonal acharya system. I ask

a similar question, and I get accused of the same. There is a clear pattern

at work here. And do we get an answer based on 'guru, sadhu and sastra'? No

instead we are offered the authority of 'common sense'. This is just another

way of saying - 'we have no evidence or authority from Srila Prabhupada for

this. So instead we will extrapolate from our limited and speculative

knowledge of what happened in the past.' Prove from 'guru, sadhu and sastra'

that one must 'get removed from being a living diksa by the very nature of

their physical departure', as you claim. Prove that this is a sastric

principle. Not simply something that you think may always happened in the

past.

 

"As I have explained to you many times in this debate, your NCIP concoction

defies a major principle of sastra,the law of disciplic succession that has

never been broken and cannot be broken by ISKCON as you wrongly presume it

should."

 

Firstly, since you have argued that everything must be referenced by guru,

sadhu and sastra, so please give the sastric reference for this law. Please

reproduce the exact same law above from sastra, since this is a sastric

principle you claim we are breaking.

 

It is unlikely that you will find any such reference since the GBC have said

that such a law is not given in sastra:

 

This statement proves that acceptance of disciples in the presence of one's

spiritual master has been approved by the scriptures. […] In the scriptures

there is no specific instruction about a disciple

not giving initiation when his guru is present.

We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to

set down a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would

transgress at our peril.

(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official

GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

 

Secondly you have never explained how we are breaking this 'law', since the

'law' makes no mention of diksa only being given by a 'living' guru, as you

claim. And instead of answering this point you simply keep repeating the

empty claim that we are breaking the 'law' without demonstrating how we are,

just as you have done here.

 

"You say that Srila Prabhupada's living physical body is not required to

give diksa but this is wrong. His living physical body is required according

to guru, sadhu, and sastra.

[...]

To continue that system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is a concoction

because it defies not only Srila Prabhupada's instructions but guru, sadhu,

and sastra."

 

But you produce no 'guru, sadhu or sastra' to support these claims. You

boast that everything you say 'is rooted in guru, sadhu and sastra', yet as

we have seen, you are never able to actually poduce the supporting

statements from 'guru, sadhu and sastra', only to make empty claims like the

above. We challenge you to produce the Guru, sashu and sastra to back up

these claims.

 

"The fact that some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples had very little or no

physical association because of the many thousands of disciples taking

initiation through a temporary ritvik system is not the point. [...]

The point is Srila Prabhupada was at that time a 'living spiritual master'

who willingly accepted those devotees through the temporary system he

adopted. [...] The sole purpose of that letter was to inform ISKCON leaders

worldwide about the temporary ritvik system and the new priests added to

make a total of eleven."

 

But the fact that the system is temporary is what you were asked to prove in

this debate. Thus again you are simply assuming that which you have been

asked to prove. Throughout this debate you have simply again and again

presented and represented the same unsubstantiated claims - the very claims

that this debate was organised for you to present the Guru, sadhu and sastra

evidence for. Debate does not mean that you present what you believe - we

already have a pretty good idea of that - it means that you should attempt

to prove you beliefs with evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra. Simply

continually re-stating your beliefs, no matter how many times you do it,

will not make them true.

 

"Your accusation exhibits ignorance of fair debating. Your evasion only

confirms that your posthumous initiation proposal is a devious and dangerous

concoction. One of the rules of this debate which you accepted is that

everything must be supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra."

 

As we have shown, it is you who is using evasive tactics to avoid presenting

evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra to support the assertions you make. We

have not made any assertions. We have simply asked you to present the

evidence to justify the removal of Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru for

ISKCON. Instead of answering this straight-forward question with some

straight-forward Guru, sadhu and sastra evidence, you have so far tried the

following evasive tactics:

 

1) First you invent an entity - 'ritvik-acarya' - that the GBC say does

exist in vedic culture, and which Srila Prabhupada never mentions.

 

2) Then you propose we follow 'tradition' and 'sastra' by implementing a

'law' that the GBC have stated is neither sastric nor traditional.

 

3) Then you claim that actually no 'direct' evidence is needed to act as a

diksa guru because you speculate that Srila Prabhupada himself was never

ordered directly by his guru to be diksa guru.

 

4) Now your latest dodge is to ask us to prove that we do not break the

'law' of disciplic succession to hide the fact that you have no evidence for

the groundless accusation that we do break it, which is the evidence you

were supposed to be presenting in the first place! (see later)

 

"Anything that is not supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra is a concoction.

This is irrefutable."

 

So present evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra that Srila Prabhupada was to

be removed as the initiating acarya from his own institution. So far,

instead of this clear evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra, we have only

been given the 4 evasive tactics listed above. No doubt as the debate

progresses, you will add to this list of evasive tactics and dodges.

 

False Claims & Lies

 

"Your evasion tactic is your accusation that I recycle the same arguments

but that is what we are both doing in order to prove our points of view."

 

We do not recycle points that have already been answered long ago, nor do we

recycle statements that are falsely attributed as having been made by the

opposing party, when they haven't.

 

"The main contention of your speculation is this: Why was Srila Prabhupada

removed as the diksa-guru of ISKCON?"

 

The above is not a 'speculation', it's a fact. Srila Prabhupada was removed

as the institutional initiating acarya for ISKCON - a position he held for

11 years until he was removed. And we simply ask why? And all this you call

a 'speculation'. You must be desperate to avoid dealing with this simple

fact.

 

 

"If this is the bogus result of your NCIP idea then how can you say you

have never argued this?"

 

First you stated that we argued that Srila Prabhupada could change a major

vedic principle. Now you admit that its actually you who argues that the

consequence of what we say is that a vedic principle will become violated.

So now you have changed your claim having been caught out yet again.

 

"The unbroken law and tradition of disciplic succession is that one must

take diksa from a living spiritual master, not a departed spiritual master."

 

Again you have repeated the lie that the 'law' is that:

"One must take diksa from a living spiritual master, not a departed one."

 

But as we have pointed out many times, the 'law' makes no mention of this -

only the time period until a disciple must wait before it is possible for

him to take disciples. What is the point of continuing to persist with this

lie? You are fooling no one but yourself. Each time I ask you how I am

'breaking' or 'changing' the 'law of disciplic succession'. And each time

instead of answering me, you simply repeat this lie. But no matter how many

times you repeat this lie, it will not become the truth.

 

I will repeat again, the 'law of disciplic succession', does not state that

'one must take diksa from a living diksa guru, and not a departed one' as

you claim.

 

The readers should remember this point the next time Ajamila makes this

false claim, which we can predict he will most likely do since he has no

evidence to offer.

 

"The law of disciplic succession has never been changed and cannot be

changed because it is an unchangeable principle of sastra."

 

You say the 'law of disciplic succession' is the major principle that we

'change', but we have asked you 3 times now how we can be changing this

'law' when the law makes no mention that 'one must take diksa from a living

guru, not a departed one', which you persist in falsely claiming.

 

"This is your false interpretation of the law which contradicts Srila

Prabhupada's clear statements."

 

Next let's come to the 'law' itself. Let's repeat what it says:

 

"But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of

your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his

absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation.

This is the law of disciplic succession." (Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2/12/75)

 

But we explained exactly what the law above states:

 

"As we have seen the 'law' in question merely states that one is forbidden

to be a diksa guru whilst the Guru is on the planet, with such succession

only possible after the Guru has departed."

 

Now anyone can see that we have paraphrased the 'law' above accurately .

 

We have repeated what is said, and Ajamila pretends that we give a 'false

interpretation' that 'contradicts Srila Prabhupada's clear statements'.

Which debate is Ajamila following? It can't be this one since there is 'no

false interpretation' or 'contradiction' made here. Is Ajamila so desperate

for material that he has to just make things up?

 

"The 9 July letter does not even hint at your NCIP theory."

 

We never said it did. The NCIP simply states that standards and processes

given to ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada cannot be changed, unless authorised by

Srila Prabhupada. The July 9th letter is simply an example of one such

process. The NCIP is what is applied to this and all other processes and

standards in ISKCON. Thus you have to present your authority from Srila

Prabhupada to sanction changing the system of initiation and the identity of

the institutional initiating acarya for ISKCON. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada

remains as the diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

My second question is:

 

You have stated:

 

"I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially,

this is a fact you cannot deny."

 

But HH Hridyananda Maharaja has stated that the word nor concept of

ritvik-acarya exists in vedic culture. Why would Srila Prabhupada use such a

word?

 

Ys, Adri