Back To Prabhupada, Issue 57, Vol. 1 2018
elow, we shall see that disagreement with the IRM is not due to a genuine philosophical conviction. Rather, arguments that ISKCON gurus themselves do not believe in are dishonestly espoused just to help them hold on to their unauthorised guru position.
GBC-elected diksa guru, HH Trivikrama Swami ("TKS") had stated that Srila Prabhupada's arrangements for ISKCON were historically unprecedented:
"Therefore Srila Prabhupada left the GBC as the final authority. This is the first time in Vaisnava history that we see a functioning worldwide institution with a committee in charge. We are in uncharted waters!"
(TKS, GBC-funded website, 18/6/07)
Thus, TKS accepts that Srila Prabhupada can make an arrangement for ISKCON that has never been done in a systematic, organized way, by any Vaisnavas in all of history.
Yet, when arguing against the BTP editor, he stated the exact opposite – that Srila Prabhupada cannot be the diksa guru for ISKCON because there is no historical precedent for it:
"you created this new path where the previous spiritual master continues to give diksha initiation after his manifest vapu is no longer visable on the planet. This has NEVER been done in a systematic, organized way, by any Vaisnavas in all of history. So why are you recommending it? It reveals your stupidity instead of your intelligent to think that you know better than ALL the previous acaryas."
(TKS email to BTP Editor, 20/9/17)
Thus, TKS will put forward a historical precedent based argument that he does not even accept – just so he can oppose Srila Prabhupada's diksa guru position.
In the previous issue (please see "Srila Prabhupada's List of Deputies"), we quoted TKS claiming that Srila Prabhupada ordered HH Jayapataka Swami ("JPS") and others on 18/10/1977 to immediately "begin initiating their own disciples" in Srila Prabhupada's physical presence (TKS email to BTP Editor, 11/8/17). TKS claims this despite there being no evidence that anyone in ISKCON at the time, between October and November 1977, claimed that Srila Prabhupada had ordered his disciples to begin acting as diksa gurus in his physical presence. Thus, TKS does not accept what everyone in ISKCON may have thought is of any relevance to the validity of his belief that Srila Prabhupada did order diksa gurus to initiate in his physical presence.
Yet, just one month later, TKS states the opposite. He puts forward what he claims everyone was thinking in ISKCON at the time as an argument against why we cannot accept Srila Prabhupada issued the July 9th, 1977 directive to continue initiating permanently in ISKCON:
"Srila Prabhupada was an expert communicator. How was it possible that NO ONE thought that his directive of having his disciples give initiation on his behalf was to continue after he left his body. NO ONE!!!"
(TKS email to BTP Editor, 25/9/17)
Thus, in order to deny Srila Prabhupada's diksa guru's position, TKS will happily use a mass opinion based argument that he does not even accept.
TKS quotes the following statement from The Nectar of Devotion (NOD):
"if someone is seriously inclined to become a disciple, the sannyasi always accepts him. The one point is that without increasing the number of disciples, there is no propagation of the cult of Krishna consciousness. Therefore, sometimes even at a risk, a sannyasi in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu may accept even a person who is not thoroughly fit to become a disciple."
(NOD, Part 1 (1970), quoted in TKS email to BTP Editor, 20/9/17)
TKS thus agrees that there is no restriction on a sannyasi accepting disciples, and instead he will "always accept" one who wants to be his disciple. Consequently, since Srila Prabhupada is a sannyasi, TKS has to also agree with the principle that Srila Prabhupada will always accept those who wish to be his disciples.
But, in the very same email, TKS states the opposite, that he is sure (based entirely on simply speculating what he believes would be the case), that Srila Prabhupada will not be ready to always accept disciples:
"I have had a lot of association both vani, and vapu, of Srila Prabhupada and I am 100% sure that he would not be ready to accept as his diksha disciples everyone who joins his movement for the next 10,000 years."
(TKS email to BTP Editor, 20/9/17)
Thus, in order to deny Srila Prabhupada's diksa guru status, TKS will reject a principle he himself has accepted.
TKS states, when referring to the statements of HH Tamala Krishna Goswami ("TKG"), that:
"certainly I don't believe that Tamal was always right."
(TKS email to BTP Editor, 28/9/17)
Thus, TKS does not accept TKG is an infallible authority whereby what he states must be always accepted as evidence. Yet, in the very same email, when arguing against the July 9th, 1977 directive, wherein Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON's diksa guru, TKS puts forward the authority of TKG as evidence:
"You take one word, "henceforth", written by his disciple to hang you whole movement on???? And when ask, Tamal informed us that when he used that word he was thinking until Srila Prabhupada left his body."
(TKS email to BTP Editor, 25/9/17)
Thus, TKS offers TKG's testimony as being authoritative evidence, even though TKS states that he does not accept TKG as an authority. In addition, this argument about "henceforth" is in any case a straw man argument, because in The Final Order (the IRM's foundational document) we say the exact opposite regarding "henceforward":
"Furthermore, the argument that the whole ritvik system "hangs" on one word – "henceforward" – is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure with no subsequent instruction to terminate it."
(The Final Order)
If ISKCON's leaders simply became honest, displayed integrity, and accepted their own statements and beliefs, their so-called "philosophical" opposition to the IRM's position would be over.
Return to Trivikrama Swami Index
Return to IRM Homepage
