by Adridharana dasa
Dear Ajamila Prabhu,
Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
The purpose of this debate, as agreed by everyone, is to discuss the system of initiation for ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada ordered. It is not, as rule 6 states,
| "6. Chakra will only post philosophical arguments in this debate. References to the personal lives of the devotees involved in this issue, name-calling, insults and other personal attacks will be edited out. This includes references to any past or present law suits. All such statements will be seen as detracting from the focus of the debate, which is how Prabhupada wanted diksa initiations to continue in his absence." |
to discuss the personal actions of any individuals.
Yet this is exactly what you have attempted to do :
| "This illegitimate action of yours is what I would like to call into question." |
The debate is not about:
-> how 'rebellious' I am
-> whether or not I should have gone outside the GBC
-> or what is the proper procedure for settling disputes in ISKCON
These are all interesting topics, and I am happy to debate them with you personally, without any cessation. But first let's complete this debate, in which I am representing the IRM's views in regards to the evidence for Srila Prabhupada's orders for initiation in ISKCON, and you were supposed to be representing the GBC's views on the same subject.
This attempt to change the subject of the debate is only to be expected since, as we have demonstrated, that even before the debate has properly begun, you have been unable to accurately represent:
-> the GBC position, (contradicting them in the process)
-> or our position.
And added to that was the fact that whatever 'evidence' you were able to muster up, you decided to eliminate.
Thus it is only natural that having already defeated yourself at such an early stage, you would wish to very quickly start a new debate on another subject, before you are exposed any more on the actual subject in hand: the availability of any evidence the GBC may have to justify terminating Srila Prabhupadas role as the diksa guru for ISKCON, and instead replacing him with the current system of 80 multiple acaryas, all authorised via a no objection voting system.
If you do not have this evidence then just say so, concede the debate, and we can start this new debate. Or if your evidence is simply: because the GBC say so then admit that. (Of course in such a case, you will still have conceded the debate, for this is just another way of admitting, that you do not have any evidence from Srila Prabhupada in this regard.)
But please do not try and evade the fact that you can neither counter the evidence we have presented, nor present contrary evidence, by trying to start a debate on another subject.
You again state:
| "This rejection was based upon extensive research by ISKCON scholars which culminated in a definitive paper entitled Prabhupadas Order." |
But this was the same paper that you already contradicted in your introduction. Let us once again remind the readers of this blunder:
Ajamila says:
| "Srila Prabhupada added acarya to the word ritvik because during his presence they are ritviks and after his departure they are acaryas." (Ajamila's Introduction) |
But 'Prabhupada's Order', which Ajamila was a contributor to, states:
| "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." (Prabhupada's Order, GBC Paper, Contributor Ajamila) |
Thus according to Ajamila (and the GBC) his own argument rests on a concept and word (ritvik-acarya) that 'does not exist in Vedic culture'. Thus he has defeated himself, and further he accuses Srila Prabhupada of propounding this non-existent word and concept by stating that Srila Prabhupada 'added acarya to the word ritvik'.
We fully understand why you may wish to deflect attention from such a contradiction, by trying to change the subject. Also, just for the record, your quotes do not give a definition of the GBC; they only state how the GBC should be followed. (This is given in the 1975 GBC resolution quoted in our introduction, when the word 'definition', was actually used). And the answers to your questions are no, no and no.
So in conclusion, you may now wish to discuss the general topic of how the GBC must be followed regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong. Fair points for discussion. But let us first discuss whether or not they are actually right on this particular issue - which is the actual subject of this debate. To do this you need to counter the evidence we have presented with evidence from Srila Prabhupada, to justify the termination of his role as the diksa guru for ISKCON. If you cannot do this, then just say so, but please don't try and change the subject. Its the oldest trick in the book.
Ys, Adri