Dear Ajamila Prabhu,
PAMHO, AGTSP.
The GBC said:
| "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." (Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995) |
You were asked which law is being referred to, and to quote 'guru, sadhu, sastra' and the GBC to support your answer.
You quoted nothing.
You simply fabricated something out of thin air, just as you did the last time you tried to explain the GBC's reference to this 'law'.
Last time you said:
| "The GBC have correctly referred to Srila Prabhupada's 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." |
We pointed out then that the above was simply your imagination since it is stated nowhere in the said document. We also defeated your attempts to separate the 'etiquette' of not initiating in the Guru's presence from the 'law of disciplic succession':
| "But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that 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." (Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2/12/75) |
"Srila Prabhupada has not separated what is done in his presence from what is done in his absence, but joined it with the word and. Further Srila Prabhupada then refers to the whole of preceeding sentence just quoted, and containing both what is done in his presence and his absence, with the word this. He has not singled out the latter clause of the preceeding sentence - which deals only with what is done in his absence - and called it the 'law of disciplic succession', but rather through the word this, has referred to the whole of the preceeding sentence, and called it all the 'law of disciplic succession"
Thus this etiquette is an integral part of the law.
You were completely silent on these points then, and you will no doubt be silent again, as your latest fabrications are exposed:
You say:
| "The law the GBC are speaking of is a "hypothetical law" that Srila Prabhupada "would have" instituted in ISKCON "had he" decided to allow his disciples to initiate in his presence. The GBC said that this law "would have" been a unique ISKCON law, they did not refer to it as a disciplic law as you superimpose." |
- The GBC state nowhere that it is a 'hypothetical law'.
- The GBC state nowhere that Srila Prabhupada 'would have instituted this law in ISKCON had he decided to allow his disciples to initiate in his presence'.
- The GBC state nowhere that this 'law would have been an unique ISKCON law'.
How could they when they had just said in the same document, the following about the etiquette referred to by the law:
"The etiquette he mentioned here is a common vaisnava etiquette."
How can the 'law' be 'unique' and 'common' at the same time?
- How can it be a 'hypothetical law' when the GBC clearly states that it was a law that Srila Prabhupada had 'set down' - not 'would have set down'. In English if something is 'set down' it means it actually exists.
- How could the GBC have been speaking of a law that Srila Prabhupada would have instituted if he had wanted to 'allow his disciples to initiate in his presence', when the law is given by the GBC as the conclusion to a paper that states that Devotees cannot initiate whilst
their Guru is still on the planet?
Just this absurdity alone proves your fabrication. - And the 'disciplic law' is the only law mentioned in the whole of the GBC paper concerned, and had been quoted along with other quotes by the GBC just before they made the above concluding statement.
What other 'law' could they have been referring to?
Indeed the very fact that you have been forced to invent the above non-existent statements, simply confirms that the GBC must have been referring to the 'disciplic law' they had just mentioned, otherwise you could have given a proper answer instead of just making things up.
And in each case the use of speech marks for these non-existent terms simply reinforces the cheating that is being perpetrated here.
In order to stop devotees whose Gurus were still on the planet initiating, the GBC had to very forcefully assert the 'law of disciplic succession' mentioned in the letter to Tusta Krishna, that specifically deals with the subject of not initiating whilst the guru is still present. The fact that they also had to correctly state that the 'law' was not part of vaisnava tradition or sastric, did not hinder GBC's purpose of using the 'law' to regulate initiations in ISKCON'.
You however have now tried to expropriate this 'law' for a completely different purpose i.e. to try and remove Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON's Diksa Guru. However the GBC statements have trapped you, since to use this 'law', would also mean that you endorse the idea that it is neither sastric nor part of vaisnava tradition. That of course would simultaneously destroy your whole case since you have used 'tradition' and sastra as the basis of your whole argument. Remove these and you have nothing.
One can thus understand why you have been so desperate to put words into the mouths of the GBC, and why you have therefore twice resorted to acts of blatant fabrication, hoping that the readers would simply swallow your false claims instead of taking the trouble of reading the GBC paper concerned for themselves. However you have been exposed again.
Ys, Adridharan das