Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,
PAMHO AGTSP
For post-samadhi initiations in ISKCON you propose N.C.I.P. (No change in ISKCON paradigm) referring to a temporary pre-samadhi system in the 9 July letter, yet in the same breath your proposal incorporates the most unauthorised change in the history of Vaisnavism.
Is this a contradiction or what? Under the name of "no change" you are dangerously misguiding your readers with a massive "bogus change" to disciplic law!
In defiance of guru, sadhu, and sastra your unconfirmed idea 'breaks' the law of disciplic succession which both Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya dared not to break and thus puts our beloved Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position.
You can fool those who are philosophically unsound, emotionally unstable, or with an axe to grind but not otherwise. More surprising than the daftness of your concoction is the fact that a few unfortunate people actually believe it.
In your Introduction to this debate you said:
"Thus the GBC:
A) Cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada
B) Or introduce anything other than that already given by Srila Prabhupada."
The above which you call NCIP (no change in ISKCON paradigm) is your unauthorised opinion, not Srila Prabhupada's words. Besides that, NCIP lacks plain common sense what to speak of having any support from guru, sadhu, and sastra . An 'honest' study of Srila Prabhupada's teachings clearly reveals that Srila Prabhupada gave us two types of instructions:
1. 'Major' management and philosophical principles that never change
2. 'Minor' management and philosophical details that can change.
The total collapse in your NCIP idea is that you either naively missed or purposely avoided all the instructions where Srila Prabhupada instructed the GBC to change minor management details. Let's remember that you said, "The GBC cannot change anything". But Srila Prabhupada disagees:
"…if the editorial board is not expert enough they should be changed... See if the board can be changed. These things are to be seen to immediately by the GBC. The board should be judged immediately and be changed if required."
(SPL to Rupanuga dasa, 23rd September, 1976)
You say the GBC cannot change anything but Srila Prabhupada clearly said in 1976 that the GBC can make a change if required.
- Who are we going to believe?
Real Prabhupada-anugas (followers) will follow Srila Prabhupada's 'change if required' instruction, not your 'no change' speculation.
Here is another example in which Srila Prabhupada instructs the GBC to make a change:
"This change of presidents is to be made in the GBC meeting. In the middle of the year there is no question of change. Tejyas can continue as president. Three times changing president is not good. It should first be conjointly considered by the GBC" (SPL to Gopala Krsna dasa, 11th July, 1976)
Where does that leave your 'no-change' idea? No-where! The above 'can change' instructions from Srila Prabhupada prove that your N.C.I.P. 'no change idea' is a gross cognitive distortion. I could post many more examples but I trust that our readers have sufficient common sense to understand the dishonest and impossible nature of your 'no change' fabrication.
An example of a management principle that cannot be changed is that Srila Prabhupada said the GBC authority must be accepted in all circumstances, as quoted in my Introduction. Your rebellion against this instruction undoubtedly displeases Srila Prabhupada.
Additional proof of the unacceptable nature of your NCIP creation is its 'impossibility of implementation'. The more one looks into the implementation the more contradictory and ludicrous the whole idea becomes! Let's put your idea to the test and see if it is 'practical'. I'm sure you would agree that Srila Prabhupada would not have given us a post-samadhi initiation system that was not only unauthorised but 'hilariously impractical'.
Question 3:
a) Given that it is a fact that the eleven ritvik priests Srila Prabhupada authorised in the 9 July letter are either unavailable, unqualified, or unwilling to be ritvik priests, and given that this fact alone renders your NCIP posthumous initiation idea as 'impossible to implement', and given that it would be hopelessly hypocritical of you to attempt to change your NCIP 'no-change' logic and add more ritvik priests, isn't your whole NCIP idea just a concocted, farcical, self-defeating impracticality??
b) Given that even if one of the eleven ritvik priests nominated in the 9 July letter did agree to be a ritvik priest the whole system would shortly grind to a self-defeating halt upon his demise with no available authorised replacements. Is it not therefore an undeniable fact that Srila Prabhupada never intended such a bizarre, impractical NCIP system in the first place?
You have already lost the debate in your answer to my Question Two by your own 'omission' of guru, sadhu, and sastra . You are in serious breach of this most important debate rule. So please don't bother answering this question if you can't follow the Vaisnava debate rule of strictly adhering to guru, sadhu, and sastra . As Srila Prabhupada said: "Sastra is the centre for all."