Adri loses ritvik debate by his own ommission of sastra

[Guest guest]

>From Ajamila Prabhu ACBSP:

 

 

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

 

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus

PAMHO AGTSP

 

CHAKRA website, www.chakra.org is currently hosting a ritvik

debate in which Adri Dharan a protaganist of ritvikism has lost

the debate by seriously violating the Vaisnava debate rule of

supporting all one's statements with guru, sadhu, and sastra.

 

By his own ommission of sastra Adri has warranted defeat.

 

Below is an example of the latest debate exchange. We are

currently in the middle of the debate. You can read about the

earlier part of the debate on CHAKRA, and don't forget to click

on the opinion button of your choice. Your opinion will count.

 

Adri offensively claims that ISKCON's current eighty or so gurus

are all bogus, so please voice your opinion now.

 

Guru, sadhu, and sastra ki jaya.

Srila Prabhupada ki jaya.

 

ys

 

ada

 

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

 

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

You have avoided answering my following Second Question:

 

"Please prove directly and unequivocally without any evasion

tactic whatsoever that your proposed system of ritvikism, a

system of posthumous initiation that you declare Srila

Prabhupada supposedly wanted after his departure, does not put

Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of contravening guru,

sadhu, and sastra by breaking the law of disciplic succession?"

 

You have not answered this question. Thus I have proved herein

that by your own ommission of guru, sadhu, and sastra you have

clearly lost the debate.

 

I requested you to support your NCIP (no change in ISKCON

peradigm) 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. You have violated this standard and have thus

disqualified yourself and have lost the debate. The more you

debate the more you confirm your failure.

 

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. 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. On this

count you have failed. 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 canÕt

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. You also didnÕt answer my request for guru, sadhu,

and sastra references to prove that your NCIP does not put Srila

Prabhupada in a bogus position of breaking the law of disciplic

succession and defying sastra.

 

Thus you have lost this debate on the following grounds:

 

1. Evading a question by using the diversion tactic of answering

a question with a question

2. You have not answered Question Two as requested with evidence

from guru, sadhu, and sastra.

 

Being disqualified in that way you should be honest and withdraw

from this debate and stop harassing ISKCON with your

concoctions. Anything that is not supported by guru, sadhu, and

sastra is a concoction. This is irrefutable. If the deciding

factor of this debate is speculative concoctions then you win.

But if the deciding factor of this debate is guru, sadhu, and

sastra then you have clearly lost because your concoction is

rejected by sastra.

 

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

Prabhupada removed as the diksa-guru of ISKCON?

 

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.

 

 

 

 

You quoted me as saying: "You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so

powerful as a guru, sadhu, and Founder Acarya that he could

change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly

upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself!"

 

And then you said: "We have never argued this. We challenge you

to show where we have."

 

My response to your challenge: Your whole NCIP (no changes in

ISKCON paradigm) is an illogical, unauthorised, and Ôimpossible

to implementÕ concoction that puts Srila Prabhupada into a bogus

position of changing a major principle of Vedic philosophy, the

law of disciplic succession that was firmly upheld even by Lord

Krishna Himself. If this is the bogus result of your NCIP idea

then how can you say you have never argued this?

 

 

 

 

I said: "What makes ritvikism a dangerous concoction is that the

directive therein blindly rebels against the fact that major

principles of sastra can never be changed."

 

You said: "You are just assuming that which you need to prove.

Which principle of sastra are we changing? You have never been

able thus far to quote it."

 

My answer: Here is irrefutable proof from Srila Prabhupada:

 

"É 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. I want to see my disciples become bona fide

Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very

widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

(Srila Prabhupada 2 December, 1975)

 

The principles of sastra you are trying to change is the law of

disciplic succession that Srila Prabhupada describes above. Your

concocted NCIP clearly contradicts what Srila Prabhupada teaches

in that instruction and therefore must be rejected without

hesitation. 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.

 

 

 

 

I said: "According to your ritvikism Srila Prabhupada

contradicted himself here when he said, Ôthen we have to go to a

physical spiritual master.Õ"

 

You said: "The 'physical spiritual master' argument was already

answered on page 49 of 'The Final Order'. Srila Prabhupada uses

the term 'physical spiritual master' to distinguish between the

supersoul and the external manifestation of the supersoul, the

diksa Guru, who comes via an embodied form in the parampara. The

issue is how does the disciple 'go to' this external

representation of the supersoul? This cannot involve either the

physical presence or physical body of the guru, since thousands

of Srila Prabhupada's disciples did not 'go to' the physical

body of the spiritual master, having never met him. So if Srila

Prabhupada's physical body was not required to give diksa then,

how can it be needed now?"

 

My comment: The unbroken law and tradition of disciplic

succession is that one must take diksa from a living spiritual

master, not a departed spiritual master. You say that Srila

PrabhupadaÕs 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. The fact that some of

Srila PrabhupadaÕs 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 Ôliving

spiritual masterÕ who willingly accepted those devotees through

the temporary system he adopted. To continue that system after

Srila PrabhupadaÕs departure is a concoction because it defies

not only Srila PrabhupadaÕs instructions but guru, sadhu, and

sastra.

 

 

 

 

You said: "What happened in the past cannot be proof that it

must occur now, otherwise by this same foolish logic all the

gurus now would have to also be Indian-bodied. That is also a

'unbroken tradition'. Neither could ladies receive gaytri

initiation. That is also an 'unbroken tradition'. Need we go on?

Your arguments for 'tradition' are the same as used by the

smarta brahmanas to criticise Srila Prabhupada."

 

My comment: This is a foolish argument and hardly deserves a

comment. You are either intentionally or naively mixing sastraÕs

Ôunchangeable principlesÕ with Ôchangeable detailsÕ so as to

mislead your readers. There are things in Vedic tradition that

can be changed and things that canÕt. Details of the past like

skin colour and giving women gayatri will of course differ from

the present but the major principles cannot change. Please use

your common sense. The law of disciplic succession has never

been changed and cannot be changed because it is an unchangeable

principle of sastra. Need I go on? We believe we are not smarta

brahmanas but rather ÔsmarterÕ brahmanas by following guru,

sadhu, and sastra.

 

 

 

 

I said: "But now after all these years you dig up a hidden

meaning from the 9 July letter implying that Srila Prabhupada

opposed the principles of sastra."

 

You said: "We do not 'dig up' any anything. We simply ask a very

simple question Ð why did you decide that the letter was no

longer applicable for ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure,

even though the letter itself makes no mention of departure? And

all you offer is an attempt at inventing the non-existent

'ritvik-acarya' entity, which resulted in you contradicting

yourself, the GBC, HH Hridyananda Maharaja and putting words

into the mouth

of Srila Prabhupada in the process.

 

My comment: The 9 July letter does not even hint at your NCIP

theory. 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. Only five weeks earlier

Srila Prabhupada made it very clear that the temporary ritvik

system would continue until his departure; therefore, he didnÕt

need to mention such the sensitive departure point again in the

9 July letter. I challenge you to ask the GBC and HH

Hridayananda Maharaja whether or not what I have said

contradicts what they said. The GBC and I are in total agreement

that everything should be based on guru, sadhu, and sastra. And

since your argument is not supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra

we reject it as a concoction. This is fair. The only words that

have gone into Srila PrabhupadaÕs mouth that werenÕt there

before is your NCIP concoction.

 

 

 

 

I said: "Sastra considers Vaisnava tradition as valid evidence

and therefore this proof is irrefutable."

 

You said: "If you really believe that that 'tradition' is

'irrefutable proof', then why do you ask a question about a

''law of disciplic succession', that the GBC states is neither

in sastra or a part of tradition: [Adri is quoting the GBC

here.]

ÔThere 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,

ÔWe 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)Õ

"How many times must we point out this embarrassing and

glaringly obvious fact?"

My comment: The GBC have correctly referred to Srila

PrabhupadaÕs 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.

Again you are confusing a major principle with a detail. Another

example of a detail that is not a law of sastra but is a law in

ISKCON is that all initiates must chant a minimum of 16 rounds

daily. Either you intentionally donÕt want to hear or you have a

serious ÔhearingÕ problem. Which is it? The ÔetiquetteÕ I repeat

ÔetiquetteÕ of not allowing his disciples to initiate in his

presence was followed by Srila Prabhupada. But since this is

question of etiquette, not disciplic succession law, Srila

Prabhupada was seriously considering overriding the normal

etiquette so that his disciples could initiate in his presence

for the higher purpose of preaching. Details and etiquette can

change but major laws and principles like taking diksa from a

living guru can never change. Please donÕt confuse these two

items of ÔlawÕ and ÔetiquetteÕ again.

I said: "Here is more incontestable proof that ritvikism is

completely wrong. His Divine Grace again clearly confirms in the

following quote that he wanted the disciplic succession to

continue after him and not stop with him as you dangerously

concoct. Srila Prabhupada clearly says here that he is eleventh

in our line of disciplic succession from Lord Caitanya and that

his disciples would be twelfth."

You said: "This also has been answered in 1996 in 'The Final

Order' page 14. You contradict yourself - first you say "his

disciples would be twelfth', and then immediately you correctly

quote Srila Prabhupada saying "you are the twelfth". You need to

impose this contradiction on Srila Prabhupada since as Srila

Prabhupada is speaking in the present tense he couldn't possibly

be speaking of diksa gurus, otherwise you would be advocating

breaking the 'law

of disciplic succession', which forbids such diksa succession

taking place whilst Srila Prabhupada is still on the planet.

My comment: First of all, since you canÕt refute the evidence

itself, you try to create a ÔtenseÕ contradiction where in fact

there is none. You said "Srila Prabhupada is speaking in the

present tense he couldn't possibly be speaking of diksa gurus."

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

your false premise that initiating in the presence of oneÕs guru

contravenes disciplic law, but I donÕt, nor does Srila

Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada defines not initiating in the

presence of oneÕs guru as the Ônormal etiquetteÕ, and he defines

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

guruÕs departure as the Ôlaw of disciplic successionÕ. Your TFO

relies heavily on word juggling and mental concoctions without

reference to sastra. Srila Prabhupada taught us to always refer

to sastra. You should know that by now.

I said: "There are many MAJOR principles in bona fide Vaisnavism

that can never be broken, and the law of disciplic succession

that one must receive diksa from a qualified LIVING guru is one

of them."

You said: "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. We already

pointed this out the last time you falsely tried to assert that

we were 'breaking the law'."

My comment: The proof that it is Ôdisciplic lawÕ that diksa must

be taken from a Ôliving guruÕ 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. Your proposal to deviate from that tradition that nobody

ever dared to break defies an unbroken tradition. This is very

serious and puts Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of

breaking the disciplic law. Hence we reject your NCIP stuff as

an insult to Srila Prabhupada.

You said: "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."

My comment: This is your false interpretation of the law which

contradicts Srila PrabhupadaÕs clear statements. Sastra says

that Ôprinciple lawsÕ can never be broken but Ôdetails and

etiquetteÕ can be adjusted circumstantially. In order to support

your concoction you have doctored up the ÔetiquetteÕ to be a

ÔlawÕ, which it isnÕt. Only the less intelligent will accept

your cantankerous word jugglery. Srila Prabhupada could have

changed the etiquette; however, he could never have changed the

law because not even Lord Krishna Himself dared to change that

law which He observed by taking diksa from a living guru.

You said: "Thus Ajamila only offers arguments that either have

already been defeated or that he himself does not believe in,

and which also contradicts the GBC, who he is supposed to be

defending! These actions have ensured that Ajamila has already

lost the debate."

My comment: This Vaisnava debate is not about one-upmanship or

word juggling. This debate only concerns understanding

initiations after Srila PrabhupadaÕs departure according to

guru, sadhu, and sastra. Thus far you have only proved yourself

to be argumentative, peddling concocted arguments without any

reference to guru, sadhu, and sastra and issuing unsubstantiated

accusations as a smoke screen for your concoctions.

Your failure to prove your NCIP idea with guru, sadhu, and

sastra makes you the outright loser of this debate. In fact

you have failed to support your premise with even a shred of

sastra. Although you have declared yourself the loser by

disqualifying yourself, you can always continue the debate and

make it clearer to the assembled devotees the greater extent of

your defeat. You cannot defeat guru, sadhu, and sastra. So if

you have any dignity you will withdraw from the debate admitting

that you have no guru, sadhu, and sastra support for your NCIP

concoction.

Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!!!

Guru, sadhu, and sastra ki jaya!!!

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari