by Adridharana dasa
Dear Ajamila Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
In your latest offering you:
- Recycle arguments from your introduction that we do not even present.
- Recycle arguments that have already been answered in 'The Final Order' in 1996.
- Recycle assumptions without any supporting evidence, the very assumptions which you have to prove in order to support your case.
- And finally you end up asking a 'question' that was also already answered in our reply to your introduction.
In conclusion, this is the offering of an already defeated person trying his best to avoid answering the actual arguments we present, because he can't.
Examples follow:
| "Your ritvikism is not supported by even an iota of evidence from sastra or Srila Prabhupada." |
We have never put forward 'ritvikism'. This is a term invented by you. We simply asked for evidence to justify the removal of Srila Prabhupada as the diska guru for ISKCON - which you still have not presented - your last technique being to say that you don't need any, because you speculate that Srila Prabhupada wasn't ordered. This just another way of conceding the debate.
| "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!" |
We have never argued this.
We challenge you to show where we have.
| "What makes ritvikism a dangerous concoction is that the directive therein blindly rebels against the fact that principles of sastra can never be changed." |
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.
| "According to your ritvikism Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself here when he said, "then we have to go to a physical spiritual master." |
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?
| "Is the acceptance of a living diksa-guru an unchangeable major principle of Krishna consciousness? [I] The proof is the unbroken Vaisnava tradition given in sastra which was followed unswervingly not only by every single acarya in our line but also by Lord Caitanya and Lord Krishna." |
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 an '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.
| "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." |
We do not 'dig up' anything. We simply ask a very simple question -
- why did you decide that 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.
| "Sastra considers Vaisnava tradition as valid evidence and therefore this proof is irrefutable." |
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:
"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of guru, [I] 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. [I] Even though in the past spiritual masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their presence, [I] "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. |
- How many times must we point out this embarrassing and glaringly obvious fact?
| "Srila Prabhupada clearly says here [I] that his disciples would be twelfth: [I] Srila Prabhupada says 'you are the twelfth' [I] Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to be the twelfth generation of diksa-gurus," |
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.
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. We already pointed this out the last time you falsely tried to assert that we were 'breaking the law':
| "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." ('Ajamila's Introduction', Emphasis Provided by Ajamila) |
However as we have seen the 'law' does NOT state that 'one MUST receive diksa from a qualified LIVING guru', or anything of the kind. The words 'diksa', 'must', 'qualified' or 'living' are not even mentioned in the 'law'. Ajamila HIGHLIGHTING the word 'LIVING' merely emphasise the fabrication.
(Commentary on Ajamila's Introduction)
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.
What is ironic about his question is that as we have seen, it is Ajamila who advocates breaking the law, by stating that Srila Prabhupada was authorising diksa gurus in his presence - 'you are the twelfth'. Plus we have seen that Ajamila does not himself even believe in this 'law' since according to the GBC it contravenes his 'irrefutable proof' of 'vaisnava tradition' and is not mentioned in sastra which he claims must always be followed.
- 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.
Ys, Adri