Response to ‘Some thoughts on the IRM/PL paper’

A paper has been written in defence of Dhira Govinda prabhu’s paper ‘Prominent Link’ (henceforward PL), called ‘Some thoughts on the IRM/PL paper’(henceforward STOIP). STOIP was written as a response to our rebuttal of ‘Prominent Link’, and this rebuttal can be found on the IRM website under ‘Dhira Govinda’. STOIP has been written by someone called ‘Alex’, and not by Dhira Govinda prabhu. STOIP consists of  '12 parts’, and contains numerous errors, some of which we will point out here, by referring to the part of STOIP in which it is contained. Quotes from STOIP will be in brackets thus [ ], with our replies underneath in bold.

Part 1

[As far as I'm aware, the PL author does not state that his "Prominent Link (PL) thesis does not directly deal with the initiation controversy that currently rages within ISKCON." What the PL thesis does not deal with are the formalities of the initiation ceremony.]

(The part in speech marks excerpts a quote from our rebuttal to PL).

This is what PL itself states:

"Some devotees may choose to worship a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, such as the Vaisnava who performed the initiation ceremony, as the link to Srila Prabhupada, or in some other philosophical capacity. The PL framework does not directly address this, ..." (PL, Page 19-20) 

 

"While not minimizing the importance of the relationship between the devotee who conducts the initiation ceremony and the initiate, this paper does not primarily address that topic." (PL, Page 49) 

Above we can clearly see that PL is referring to “the relationship between the devotee who conducts the initiation ceremony and the initiate”, not just the ‘formalities of the initiation ceremony’. And PL says it will not ‘primarily address that topic’.

Part 2

[My understanding is that the author of the PL book states that the essence of diksa, of initiation, is the transmission of divya jnana. I've gone though the book and have not seen the PL author claim that "diksa is never defined in terms of the formal ceremony".]

(The part in speech marks excerpts a quote from our rebuttal to PL).

We never claimed the author of PL claimed that "diksa is never defined in terms of the formal ceremony"; we state that the quotes he uses to support his position never define it in this way.

Part 3

[According to the words of the IRM author, the central premise of the PL is: "that there are two types of Diksa - Transcendental Diksa and formal Diksa." The IRM author also states that the central premise of PL "is not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings." In the lecture excerpt from July 29th, 1968, it seems that Srila Prabhupada uses the word "diksa", to use the IRM author's phrase, "in terms of transmitting divya jnana, itself a transcendental process". The "diksa" described here by Srila Prabhupada seems to be transcendental. Could we potentially refer to it as "Transcendental  Diksa"? In the lecture excerpt from 05/21/68, Srila Prabhupada mentions a "diksa" that is "not very essential". If this "diksa" is "not very essential", then what is it? Is it a formality? To borrow the IRM author's words, is it a "formal Diksa"? Does it make sense for the IRM author to seemingly conclude: "the idea that there are two types of Diksa - Transcendental Diksa and formal Diksa" is "not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings"?]

The ‘lecture excerpt from 5/21/68’ DOES NOT EXIST. At least not on the Vedabase. Therefore unless ‘Alex’ possesses access to a lecture which no one else has seen, his argument here is fabricated. And if he does possess access to this lecture, let him please produce the tape for us to check this quote. Thank you.

Part 4

[According to the IRM author, the PL book presents a premise that "there can be 2 types of Diksa Guru acting simultaneously. I haven't found such a premise in the PL book.]

How strange it is then that the author of STOIP was trying to justify such an interpretation in his own paper (though using what seems a made up quote), as just quoted, where he challenges us for concluding that “the idea that there are two types of Diksa - Transcendental Diksa and formal Diksa" is "not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings”.

And indeed here is PL speaking of more than one type of Diksa:

‘Transcendental’ Diksa:

"Therefore, it may be asserted that he is giving diksa, in the transcendental sense of the term." (PL, Page 40) 

‘Formal’ Diksa:

"Still, the PL framework accommodates definitions of "diksa" that rely on the formal component of the initiation process."

(PL, Page 40)

So in part 4 the author not only misses the thesis in PL, but forgets that he himself had made a failed attempt to justify it in part 3 of his own paper.

Part 5

[The author of the IRM paper writes the following about the PL author:

“the Author is in concurrence with the GBC, in that he supports a 'wide latitude of relationships' between the current coterie of 80 GBC appointed 'Diksa Gurus' in ISKCON and their 'disciples'.”

I don't think that this is what the PL author states. These are not the words that the PL author uses.]

But these are the words that PL uses:

"What about the relationship between the Vaisnava who performs the initiation ceremony and the initiate? [...] The PL framework supports a wide latitude of relationships, the litmus test being whether the relationship assists the initiate to strengthen his direct link with Srila Prabhupada." (PL, Page 49)

Once again the author of STOIP proves he has not even read the very paper he is trying to defend. Hopeless. It may be better if the author of STOIP leaves the author of PL to defend his own paper in future, since he is not helping.