1

BTP 23 - SPRING 2009

By Krishnakant

Please find below a reply to an article written by HH Bhakti Vijnana Goswami, a GBC for Russia, and a GBC voted-in ISKCON guru, which was posted on the ISKCON Russia website on 20/1/09. The article by Bhakti Vijnana Goswami is an answer to a question about “ritvik” from a devotee named Renat. The question from Renat and the answer from Bhakti Vijnana Goswami shall be enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with our reply following underneath.

“Question from Renat:
I have run into "preaching" of ritviks. […] The problem is they have written responses to all the ISKCON articles, and thus the final word is theirs. I know there is no use in arguing with fools, but outsiders (there are many such people) are getting the impression that their theory is better reasoned and is closer to the truth. That's the real nightmare. I know people who accepted their theory because of this, or took the neutral position, which in my opinion is no better stance. […] It's pity that bhaktas, who haven't sorted through this issue, who have seen confirmation of some of their doubts, which in turn may well be reasoned by general imperfections of modern ISKCON, go to them. […] I lack knowledge and intelligence to refute their arguments. Please tell what's to be done?”

The question from Renat refers to the IRM websites and publications which are the only place where all the various papers, statements and philosophies of ISKCON’s current GBC and their supporters are answered (“they have written responses to all the ISKCON articles” – please see www.iskconirm.com and www.iskconirm.ru and www.iskconirm.com/ru.htm so you can see what Renat is referring to).

Renat states the following:

  1. Since the IRM have written responses to all the ISKCON articles without any counter-reply, the final word on the subject is ours.
  2. Therefore there are many people who are getting the impression that what the IRM says is better reasoned and closer to the truth.
  3. He personally knows people who have been swayed by the IRM’s arguments.
  4. That ISKCON Bhaktas are also being swayed by our arguments and coming to us.
  5. He does not have the knowledge or intelligence to refute our arguments.

This sets the scene, and from Renat’s observations above, two conclusions follow:

  1. That the IRM has been very successful in attracting large numbers of persons to their viewpoint due to their writings which, right or wrong, are clearly powerful in influencing many persons.
  2. Given this state of affairs, which is caused solely by the fact that there is no response to the IRM’s arguments, and given that Renat is specifically asking for help because he also cannot refute our arguments, any sane response would obviously include a refutation of our arguments.

Please bear these conclusions in mind as we now proceed to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s bizarre answer. As we shall see, Bhakti Vijnana Goswami basically tells poor Renat that the solution to the problem of IRM’s writings swaying lots of people because there is no answer to them, is to give no answer to them! This is not a joke, but what Bhakti Vijnana Goswami actually proposes. Not for nothing does former ISKCON GBC chairman, and leading ISKCON GBC, guru and scholar, His Grace Ravindra Svarupa, state:

“The first and foremost is that ISKCON - I put it starkly - has no brain.”
(HG Ravindra Svarupa Das, GBC Chairman, “ISKCON and Varnasrama Dharma: A Mission Unfulfilled”, January 29th, 1999)

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s response represents not just a lack of a brain, but also a complete lack of leadership, and simply reinforces the very notion that poor Renat has asked Bhakti Vijnana Goswami to help counter: that the IRM’s arguments cannot be refuted!

All the quotations which follow will now be from Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s answer to Renat.

“My experience of intercourse with adherents of such views shows that it's impossible to talk them around. They will endlessly give some quotes and recite all the shortcomings of ISKCON, both real and fake.”

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami opens by unwittingly stating that it is impossible to refute the IRM because we present FACTS – quotes and real shortcomings! Clearly it would be impossible to refute anyone if they “endlessly give some quotes” from Srila Prabhupada, since that is what we are supposed to do! As we warned at the outset, Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s answer is very bizarre indeed.

“There is no sense in refutation of their articles - they have a lot of spare time, since they don't do anything constructive and only engage in argumentation.”
  1. How can there be no sense in refuting our articles when Renat’s whole point is that the reason lots of people are being swayed by our arguments is because no one refutes them?
  2. What Bhakti Vijnana Goswami actually means to say is that the IRM can NOT be refuted, because as he states we only present quotes and facts.
  3. And if what we are stating is the truth about Srila Prabhupada, backed by “endless quotes”, then this would be the most constructive activity, since Krishna consciousness is based on following the order of the spiritual master, and in order to do this, one must of course first know what this order is:

“The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master immediately becomes useless."
(CC, Adi, 12:10)

To first determine exactly what Srila Prabhupada ordered is therefore the most constructive activity, otherwise all our activities will immediately be rendered useless.

“I understand that their propaganda affects innocent people. It is only for them, perhaps, it may be worth to enter into debate. But it's the same as to plow the sands. Srila Prabhupada never accepted in parallel cases the logic and the rules of the game, which an opponent imposed upon him; therefore I am not going to repeat all the threadbare arguments.”

Up until this point readers may have forgiven Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s bizarre response as being due to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s not understanding the problem. Here Bhakti Vijnana Goswami firmly dispels such a notion by clearly stating:

1. The IRM’s arguments are swaying innocent people
2. At least for their sake the IRM’s arguments should be refuted
3. But still it should not be done!

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami therefore compounds his initial bizarre response by actually admitting that he is happy to allow the IRM to continue swaying lots of innocent people! And the rationale he offers for taking such a strange stand is even more bizarre (if such a thing were possible!):

That the IRM is unfairly imposing a certain logic and rules, which Srila Prabhupada has never accepted.

But Bhakti Vijnana Goswami has just admitted that all the IRM does essentially is offer “endless quotes” from Srila Prabhupada. How then can it be argued that Srila Prabhupada rejected that we should determine what he ordered by studying what he ordered?!

Ironically Bhakti Vijnana Goswami is displaying the very behaviour which poor Renat has come to him to counter: the inability of ISKCON’s leadership to refute our writings!

“In my opinion, the strongest argument against them is the very volumes of arguments written by them.”

Here Bhakti Vijnana Goswami makes the absurd claim that the “strongest argument” against us is the fact that we have written many arguments, which as already admitted, have not been refuted. So the strongest argument against arguments which have not been refuted, is the fact that there exist all these arguments which cannot be refuted!

Clearly this is an insane statement.

“I'll explain why Srila Prabhupada recited many times a Sanskrit proverb phalena pariciyate - one should judge by results. The 'ritviks' advertise themselves as true followers of Srila Prabhupada who obey him in all respects, up to a letter. Whereas ISKCON, in their view, transgresses the will of Srila Prabhupada. But what is the results of their "following"? Just tonnes of hopelessly crapped up paper. Everyone knows that Srila Prabhupada wanted his followers to distribute his books. One may ask how many books the Russian ritviks distributed during Srila Prabhupada's marathon? […]
Maybe they make huge festivals? Teach people systematically the philosophy of Krishna consciousness? Work out bhakti-sastri, bhakti-vaibhava and bhakti-vedanta courses? No, their height is to distribute leaflets at festivals arranged by ISKCON.” (Bhakti Vijnana Goswami pictured right)		 bvg

1) Bhakti Vijnana Goswami now attempts to explain the insanity of the previous statement by engaging in a logical fallacy which he will repeat throughout his article. It is a common tactic, used by someone unable to refute the arguments presented, to deflect attention by discussing the behaviour of the person presenting the arguments. This logical fallacy is known as argumentum ad hominem. It is a logical fallacy because the truth of a statement does not depend at all on the person who presents it. For example, even if a drunk man states that Krishna is God, this statement remains true, regardless of who is presenting it. Thus you can not determine the truth of WHAT is presented by examining WHO is presenting it. What is presented stands or falls on its own merits. Hence you can only evaluate the validity of an argument by evaluating the argument itself, and not the person presenting it. But BECAUSE Bhakti Vijnana Goswami cannot refute these arguments, he tries to hide this fact by instead attacking the behaviour of those presenting the arguments - that they do not preach enough to the public - and claiming as we noted earlier that there is no point in refuting these arguments.

2) So the fact that we present evidence from Srila Prabhupada proving he is ISKCON’s Diksa Guru, can not be refuted by pointing out anything about the person who may repeat these statements from Srila Prabhupada.

3) Though any deficiency in the behaviour of the IRM cannot change the validity of the statements we repeat from Srila Prabhupada, what Bhakti Vijnana Goswami points out about the IRM is not in any case a deficiency. The IRM’s mission is to concentrate on preaching to ISKCON devotees rather than the public, since someone must help those devotees who have already agreed to serve Srila Prabhupada, but are being misled in his name. If devotees coming to Srila Prabhupada’s movement were not being cheated by Bhakti Vijnana Goswami in the first place, then the IRM would happily abandon its activities and simply go back to preaching to the public.

As Krishna says:

“For one who explains the supreme secret to the devotees, devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear.”
(Bhagavada Gita, 18:68-69)

So there is clearly no dishonour in concentrating on preaching to devotees, and part of the supreme secret is to know that one cannot reach Krishna unless one serves the Guru. And the bona fide Guru for ISKCON is Srila Prabhupada, not Bhakti Vijnana Goswami, who is claiming to be his successor.

Thus the IRM had to be set up to preach the truth about Srila Prabhupada to ISKCON devotees since they were being cheated, and Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s argument consists solely of pointing this fact out.

More insanity.

“I can't recall Srila Prabhupada standing before some Gaudiya Math temple and passing to everyone leaflets explaining how his godbrothers deviated and do not execute the will of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.”

The above example is not applicable since Srila Prabhupada, as the sampradaya acarya, established his own society. IF we had been authorized to become such acaryas and establish our own society, THEN it could be argued that following Srila Prabhupada’s example, we also should not preach to our Godbrothers, but instead concentrate on establishing our own society like Srila Prabhupada did. But since this is not the case we cannot imitate his position. However, we can understand why Bhakti Vijnana Goswami would be confused on this point since he, and all the other ISKCON gurus, have declared themselves successor acaryas to Srila Prabhupada, and so naturally have such ‘acarya’ thinking.

“Ask anyone who is still able to impartially judge things: who is implementing Srila Prabhupada's instructions better and in their whole volume - ISKCON or revered followers of ritvik "philosophy"?”

Srila Prabhupada’s instructions have no meaning unless they are used to establish him as the Guru. Just as preaching Krishna consciousness would have no meaning if the end result was that nobody accepted that Krishna was God. No matter how many books were distributed, how many temples were opened, how many harinamas were conducted etc., it would all be meaningless if the end result was that ISKCON’s official position was that Krishna was not the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that Srila Prabhupada was not the Guru, since the very purpose of these activities is to make persons surrender to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna. Currently the books are being distributed with the sole purpose that everyone in Russia will surrender and worship Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (and his other Guru colleagues). Therefore Srila Prabhupada’s instructions are not being implemented at all, but rather suBhakti Vijnana Goswamierted, since Srila Prabhupada wanted his books be distributed so that the persons who read them surrendered to Krishna via the agency of the bona fide Guru – namely himself.

The IRM meanwhile is implementing Srila Prabhupada’s instructions since the result of our activity is that whomever we preach to only worships and surrenders to Srila Prabhupada, and not anyone else ( and we concentrate first on preaching to ISKCON devotees rather than the public since they are being misled in Srila Prabhupada’s name).

“It's logically to assume that if their philosophy is so right and spotless then they can consolidate and create something like shadow ISKCON with shadow GBC. Nothing of the kind. So called IRM (ISKCON Reform Movement) failed. The main representatives of ritviks scrapped among themselves and walked to different sides. Moreover, one doesn't need to be a prophet in order to foretell a simple thing, namely the followers of this "philosophy" will NEVER unite into some serious movement, will never obey anyone, will never be able to create even some resemblance of the Governing Body (GBC), because every one of them was pushed to accept this philosophy by a deep rooted anartha - desire of independence.”

1) It is NOT logical to assume that if the IRM is deficient in organization their beliefs are also deficient.

Of course not. This alone proves how his argument is false. Bhakti Vijnana Goswami is again presenting the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. No matter how hopeless the ritviks may be at organizing, this cannot change what Srila Prabhupada ordered over 30 years ago. Just as no matter how good we are at organizing also can not change what Srila Prabhupada ordered over 30 years ago. The two things are unrelated. The fact that over 30 years ago Srila Prabhupada established a ritvik system, and never authorized Bhakti Vijnana Goswami or anyone else to take his position as the Diksa Guru of ISKCON, stands unaffected by what some conditioned souls may or may not do over 30 years later.

2) It is a fact, preached extensively by the IRM in their magazine “Back To Prabhupada”, that many ritviks have only accepted this philosophy due to a deep rooted anartha – the desire for independence. So much attention have we given to explaining this phenomenon that we have called it the “great guru hoax part 3”.

More insanity from Bhakti Vijnana Goswami.

“I'll take the liberty of stating that it is this desire of independence, and not letters and conversations with Srila Prabhupada in 1977, is the true base of this entire trend in modern Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is this desire that is impossible to refute by any arguments.”

Yes the desire for independence cannot be refuted. But it was not to refute this that Renat asked Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s help. He asked Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s help to refute the evidence the IRM has presented proving that Srila Prabhupada is the Diksa Guru of ISKCON. Simply stating that some ritviks are misusing the truth does not change the fact that it is still the truth. The letters and conversations of Srila Prabhupada in 1977 may not be the base of some ritviks, as the IRM already preaches. But that does not change WHAT these letters and conversations state, and that we must follow what is stated there. Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s response is to simply refuse to even discuss what is stated there, because he cannot refute it. Instead Bhakti Vijnana Goswami continues to present a fallacious argumentum ad hominem.

“One more important argument. When did Srila Prabhupada instruct that offences to Vaisnavas must become our lifelong credo? So many times in his books Srila Prabhupada warns about the dangers of Vaisnava aparadha! It is stated in sastras when you see a Vaisnava and don't feel joy it is already an aparadha, what to speak of scavenging his old misdeeds and sins. But if you take all the ritvik papers it's the greatest collection of Vaisnava aparadhas in the world.”

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami demonstrates that he has not grasped the most basic points of our Krishna conscious philosophy. It is not possible to commit aparadha by stating the truth, otherwise truth or dharma would itself be the greatest offender. There is not a single statement made in our papers which is untrue, and therefore they cannot possibly contain any aparadha. If there was a single untrue statement in our papers, you can be certain Bhakti Vijnana Goswami would have pointed it out. But being unable to do so, he instead tries to falsely accuse us of committing ‘aparadha’. As Srila Prabhupada explains:

“Apaisunam means that one should not find fault with others or correct them unnecessarily. Of course to call a thief a thief is not faultfinding, but to call an honest person a thief is very much offensive for one who is making advancement in spiritual life.”
(Bhagavada Gita, 16:1-3)

Therefore unless Bhakti Vijnana Goswami can point out how anything we have stated is untrue, we cannot be accused of aparadha or fault-finding. Rather Bhakti Vijnana Goswami would be guilty of committing aparadha against the IRM since he would have falsely accused us of being aparadhis, when we are not. And Srila Prabhupada states to make a false accusation is what is “offensive”, not stating the truth.

“Does ISKCON ever descended to the level of such arguments against the followers of this "philosophy"? Falldowns of Vaisnavas, moreover Vaisnavas at prominent positions, occurred during the times of Srila Prabhupada. Did Srila Prabhupada expose these stories for public view? No. His verdict in such cases was unambiguous, "Anyone, who publicly discusses a falldown of another Vaisnava, will fall himself."

1) Any information contained in “Back To Prabhupada” is taken directly from the GBC – where else do you think we get the information?! Therefore Bhakti Vijnana Goswami is contradicting himself, and is guilty of hypocrisy for criticising us for merely repeating information the GBC have themselves broadcast. A case in point: On the GBC funded English website Dandavats, a detailed report was given regarding the fall-down of His Holiness Bhakti Bhallabha Puri Goswami (Balabhadra Das). This was fully accessible to the public and indeed received many thousands of views! We merely repeated a small portion of it in BTP!

2) Moreover we only discuss the fall-downs of false gurus who have usurped Srila Prabhupada’s position, and such false gurus must be exposed, because Srila Prabhupada also exposed cheating gurus and asked that we do this:

“Our business is to point out who is not a saint.”
(Srila Prabhupada Morning Walk, 10/4/1975)

Those who usurp Srila Prabhupada’s position and claim to be his successors are not saints, and the innocent devotees must be protected from such cheaters. One good example is the former guru of Russia, Harikesa, who was Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s own guru. This person left with large sums of money and a female follower, after having cheated many tens of thousands of devotees in Russia for many years. Of course Bhakti Vijnana Goswami would prefer that we stay quiet about such cheaters, and let them usurp Srila Prabhupada’s position.

“If we put aside the psychological analysis of this "philosophy" and just try to look fairly at this watered down version of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, which they offer as the only right one, the picture will be clear as well. Guru is needed for us so that a disciple can change himself in its depth, not in surface.”

If accepting Srila Prabhupada as Guru is a “watered down version of Gaudiya Vaisnavism”, then most of ISKCON’s leaders who have Srila Prabhupada as their Guru, must also be guilty of practicing this “watered down version of Gaudiya Vaisnavism”.

“Krishna consciousness demands a drastic change of our heart. Conceptions which constitute our false "I" are the most difficult to eradicate, since they are closest to soul. But a devotee must change them by converting the ego of enjoyer into the ego of servant. The mechanisms of self-delusion are very sublime, because the subconsciousness insensibly guides our thinking processes in such a way that the status quo is justified.”

Agreed. The biggest obstacle to achieving this change of heart is to usurp the position of the bona fide Guru, and instead desire to be worshipped unauthorisedly as a “Good as God/sum total of the demi-Gods” Guru oneself. The biggest self-delusion is to think that one can be a self-made guru without authorization from Srila Prabhupada:

“Guru cannot be self made. No. There is no such single instance throughout the whole Vedic literature. And nowadays, so many rascals, they are becoming Guru without any authority. That is not Guru. You must be authorised. Evam parampara praptam imam ra... As soon as the parampara is...kalena yogo nasta parantapa, immediately finished. The spiritual potency finished. You can dress like a Guru, you can talk big, big words, but it will never be effective."
(Srila Prabhupada's Lecture, February 27th 1977, Mayapur, India)

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami is a self-made Guru. Srila Prabhupada never ordered Bhakti Vijnana Goswami to succeed him as ISKCON’s Diksa Guru - how could he have when Srila Prabhupada never even ordered Harikesa, Bhakti Vijnana Goswami’s own Guru, to succeed him as ISKCON’s Diksa Guru - a fact that even ISKCON now admit since Harikesa fell down and ran off.

“This problem may only be resolved by Guru whom I sincerely allowed into my heart. Without the presence of such a person in our life all our attempts of changing will be similar to baron Munchausen's attempts to drag himself out of a swamp by pulling his hairs.”

Agreed. This person is Srila Prabhupada.

“Let me say in advance: I don't think myself that the guru institute in ISKCON functions satisfactorily. We also have a lot of formalism, a lot more than I want. Very often everything comes up in a formal ceremony of taking a new name. But at least this formalism in ISKCON is not raised to the rank of official philosophy, therefore some hope remains. And we can see how many devotees actually change. Alas, I afraid the adherents of ritvik "philosophy" don't have such a hope.”

The reverse is the case. It is those persons who follow false gurus who have no hope, especially when so many run off and abandon them, just as Bhakti Vijnana Goswami was himself cheated and abandoned by his guru, Harikesa. Those who accept Srila Prabhupada are the only ones who are guaranteed such hope. Indeed the GBC often tell disciples of their openly fallen gurus to "take full shelter" of Srila Prabhupada, the very thing Bhakti Vijnana Goswami claims is hopeless!"

“If I am mistaken and will suddenly see the usually morose "ritviks" suddenly become brightened and will shine and become filled with ecstasy of spiritual love, I will only be sincerely glad. But even this won't make me abandon the relations with Spiritual Master, which for me personally is the only hope.”

The IRM’s position is based on the fact that only by the grace of the Bona Fide Guru, Srila Prabhupada can we progress. Again Bhakti Vijnana Goswami is insanely thinking that by agreeing with the IRM he can refute them!

“So this is all I wanted to say. Who knows, maybe in the next publication of ritviks there will be refutation of these arguments in many pages with sections, subsections, linguistic analysis and other casuistry. I am not going to read it anyway - I am too busy.”

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami himself knows he is speaking rubbish and it will get exposed, just as he knows that the arguments of the IRM cannot be refuted, and this is why he dare not even try to refute them. Of course Bhakti Vijnana Goswami will not read his arguments being exposed– he has already demonstrated that he cannot refute anything we say, and therefore his policy is just to bury his head in the sand and instead criticize us for concentrating on preaching to ISKCON devotees.

“Finally, in October Sri Nathaji Prabhu, who had close association with Srila Prabhupada, told me an interesting story. Srila Prabhupada came to their house with Jayapataka then brahmacari and asked his farther, a member of India's Parliament, to adopt Jayapataka Maharaja so that he can receive Indian citizenship. Young Sri Nathaji (Narendra Desai) resented at this request of an unconversant sannyasi - he didn't want to have some strange American as a step brother. Seeing his resent, Srila Prabhupada replied with proud for his disciple: "You don't understand. Several years will pass and this young boy will become a famous Guru. Thousands of Bengali people will take initiation from him."

As Bhakti Vijnana Goswami says, this is a “story”.

In the absence of evidence from Srila Prabhupada, naturally he must take shelter in such “stories”.

Simple – because he never said this!

“Off course, these words were spoken before the fateful "henceforward" in a letter written by Tamal Krishna Maharaj on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, and when Srila Prabhupada spoke them, he didn't know yet that soon he will revoke the Guru system in ISKCON and remain as the only Guru for all times.”

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami has no evidence that "these words were spoken"; it is simply a story. Srila Prabhupada never revoked the Guru system in ISKCON, since the Guru system in ISKCON was that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada had established himself as the sole Diksa Guru for ISKCON, and the ritvik method of conducting initiation ceremonies he personally ordered for ISKCON via his secretary (Tamal Krishna Maharaja), merely left it to continue unchanged.

“Again: I would be glad if the followers of this philosophy stop offending Vaisnavas and finally will begin spreading the glory of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the holy name, and show practically their allegiance to Srila Prabhupada and thus refute my arguments against them. But this won't affect in any way my belief that only the grace of spiritual master can save me.”
  1. Then Bhakti Vijnana Goswami must be glad since we have never offended any vaisnavas having never stated a single lie about them.
  2. Bhakti Vijnana Goswami has offered no arguments against us to refute. Claiming that the IRM concentrates on preaching to the devotees rather than the public is not an “argument” – it is simply stating what our mission is. Someone has to help devotees who are being cheated and misled in the name of Srila Prabhupada – that is the IRM.
  3. Again the IRM’s position is that only the grace of the spiritual master can save us. So again Bhakti Vijnana Goswami attempts to refute us by agreeing with us!

CONCLUSION

Unable to refute the arguments of the IRM, Bhakti Vijnana Goswami takes shelter in two fallacies:

  1. He claims that what the IRM preaches about Srila Prabhupada must be wrong because we do not preach to the public as much as we preach to ISKCON devotees. But nothing can change what Srila Prabhupada ordered in 1977. No matter how bad or fallen the “ritviks” are, nothing can change the truth of the statements we present from Srila Prabhupada – that he is the Diksa Guru of ISKCON.

  2. He claims that stating the truth about ISKCON’s unauthorized gurus is “aparadha” or “offensive”. But one cannot make offences by stating the truth. Bhakti Vijnana Goswami here presents the common argument that “because I cannot refute what you say, I will simply attack you FOR saying it.”

These two fallacies are commonly used by politicians to try and discredit people who point out the truth about them. For example someone will expose a politician cheating, and a politician will try and protect himself by criticising the character of the person who exposed him, hoping this will deflect attention from the fact that he has been exposed cheating. Similarly they will attack people who point out the truth about them by claiming that it is “unpatriotic, offensive, hurtful, shameful” etc. to do this, again hoping to distract attention from the fact that WHAT has actually been said about them cannot be refuted.

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami has therefore:

  1. Confirmed Renat’s original point that no one is able to refute the arguments of the IRM and therefore they have the “final word”.
  2. Proven that he is no more than a politician, trying to evade the truth.

If Bhakti Vijnana Goswami actually had even one scrap of evidence that what we stated was incorrect, he would present it, rather than give this long irrelevant diatribe which achieves nothing except to confirm the very point he is hoping to challenge: that the arguments of the IRM cannot be refuted.