Back To Prabhupada, Issue 46, Winter 2014/15
he arguments presented on the previous 4 pages have clearly established that there can actually be no debate regarding the IRM's position that Srila Prabhu-pada did not teach that the diksa guru should be restricted from initiating due to his physical departure. A tacit confirmation of this conclusion was given by ISKCON guru and book editor "scholar" HH Jayadvaita Swami ("JAS"), when he admitted that he had no proof that Srila Prabhupada ceased to initiate just because he had physically departed:
"Now, I recognize that my reasons don't amount to 'proof' that an acarya couldn't initiate 'from the world beyond.'"
(JAS, 4/6/04, PAMHO: 8277952)
However, he and others still attempt to try and generate a debate by engaging in fallacious arguments, which we will expose below.
After presenting the statement above, JAS attempts to try and give a semblance of a debate by claiming that he does not even need to prove that Srila Prabhu-pada is restricted from initiating due to his physical departure; rather it is the IRM who need to prove a negative -- that Srila Prabhupada is not restricted.
"What I'm saying, more precisely, is that I've seen no reason to suppose that he does, and that tradition argues against it. And so, if you want to make a case for it, the burden of proof lies entirely with you."
(JAS, 4/6/04, PAMHO: 8277952)
However, only those who make an assertion have to prove it. If one asserts that Srila Prabhu-pada is restricted from initiating due to his physical departure, then the person making that assertion must prove it. If they cannot, then they have no basis on which to claim that the assertion is true. Thus, if they cannot prove that Srila Prabhupada must be restricted from initiating due to his physical departure, then they cannot claim that he is restricted from initiating due to his physical departure. And it is a fact that Srila Prabhu-pada never taught that he is so restricted, and now we see that those who claim he was are also unable to offer any proof; indeed, they refuse to offer any proof! Thus, since Srila Prabhupada is not restricted from initiating on his physical departure, there is nothing for which the IRM has to even make a case. For then, Srila Prabhupada's position as ISKCON's diksa guru as established in 1966 -- an establishment that is not under dispute -- is not terminated on his physical departure -- and thus he remains ISKCON's diksa guru.
A variant of the previous fallacy was stated by ISKCON guru and GBC, HH Bhakti Charu Swami ("BCS") in the following way:
"[...] it's not mentioned in the scriptures that after one's disappearance one will continue to give diksa. It doesn't happen that way and Srila Prabhupada didn't himself say anything about that."
(BCS Seminar, "Srila Prabhupada's Position in ISKCON", 7/4/14)
This assumes that there should be a natural restriction on the diksa guru initiating after his physical departure. Otherwise, if such a restriction dId not exist, then neither Srila Prabhupada nor scripture would need to make a case for overcoming a restriction that does not need to be overcome. And we have exhaustively shown in this and the previous 4 articles that no evidence for such a restriction exists. Thus, since Srila Prabhupada is not stopped from continuing to give diksa on his physical departure, he continues to do so, since unless an action is stopped, by definition it continues. Hence, there is no requirement to prove Srila Prabhupada continues to give diksa, as he never stopped, and so again there is no debate.
The diagram above summarises the evidences presented in this and the previous 4 articles. These 5 articles have exhaustively documented that the GBC's case for stopping Srila Prabhupada from initiating on his physical departure is so pathetic that they cannot even offer an argument that requires to be debated! And, thus, Srila Prabhupada remains and continues as ISKCON's permanent diksa guru, which is the IRM's position.
Return to IRM Homepage