henever an argument is offered against the IRM's position by ISKCON's leaders, we have documented that it is very easy to defeat such arguments, because virtually all their arguments fall into three categories:
1) The argument contradicts other arguments that they or other ISKCON leaders have offered and thus is self-defeating;
2) The argument actually ends up achieving the exact opposite of that intended by ‘unwittingly' supporting the IRM's position;
3) The argument can be shown to state the exact opposite of what Srila Prabhupada states.
Please note that to demonstrate that an argument falls under the above 3 categories does not require one to be an expert in "debating" or a scholar. It simply requires one to be able to read correctly. Seeing how easily their arguments are getting ripped apart by us simply reading what they and Srila Prabhupada state, ISKCON leaders have also resorted to offering a 4th type of argument, which can be called simply "crazy desperation", due to it being ridiculous. An example is from ISKCON's "Minister of Communications" and GBC member Anuttama Dasa ("AD"), who claims that the IRM's position (which ISKCON leaders call "rtvik") is that:
"I mean, the extreme is the rtvik folks who go ‘okay, there's been problems with gurus therefore no gurus', you know"
(AD, Interview, 25/5/24)
Thus, AD has had to resort to claiming that the IRM's position that we accept Srila Prabhupada as the guru actually means that we reject the guru: "no gurus".
1) Thus, unless one claims that Srila Prabhupada is not even a guru, this argument is ridiculous.
2) This is the same guru that AD accepts, and thus for him to claim that the guru he accepts as a guru is not a guru, is still ridiculous.
3) Indeed, for anyone in ISKCON to claim that Srila Prabhupada is not a guru, period, is both ridiculous and offensive.
AD could have said that we do not agree that there is a need to accept a guru who is a "physically present GBC voted-in guru", which would have been truthful. But then it would transpire that he also does not accept a guru who is a "physically present GBC voted-in guru", and so he would still be in "ridiculous" territory. Indeed, in order to fully state what he actually means to say, he would have to state that the only difference between the guru he accepts and the guru we accept is that we do not:
"Accept that Srila Prabhupada has to momentarily be situated somewhere within a distance of 12742km at the exact moment one is accepted for initiation by someone else (on his behalf)."
Because, the GBC's position is that, if one had got initiated via the ‘rtvik' representatives established by Srila Prabhupada in the July 9th, 1977 directive to initiate Srila Prabhupada's disciples on his behalf, the day before Srila Prabhupada physically departed, then it would be a bona fide initiation; but not if the initiation took place the day after his physical departure. But the only difference would have been that, in the former case, Srila Prabhupada would have been momentarily present somewhere within the Earth's supposed diameter of 12742km, even though one did not ever require to have any physical contact with him, either before, during or after the initiation. However, if AD blurted out the part in bold to "explain" how our position is somehow completely deviant, then he would still sound ridiculous! And all this is coming from the person who is supposed to be the most expert at "communications" in ISKCON!
GBC voted-in guru HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami ("BVKS") also makes a similar ridiculous argument by claiming that our position is that:
"Rtvik-vad [...] Krsna says to accept a guru, but we can't find anyone around nowadays, so let's go to Prabhupada directly. [...] it's just some kind of trying to cheat Krsna."
(BVKS, "Guru Issues, Part 26", 22/12/23)
But, BVKS has accepted Srila Prabhupada as the guru whom Lord Krsna asks us to accept. And we agree with him that Srila Prabhupada is the guru whom Lord Krsna asks us to accept. Thus, it could not be true that we are accepting Srila Prabhupada only because "we can't find anyone", because, just like him, we have also found Srila Prabhupada as the guru to accept. Thus, if doing exactly what BVKS does means that we are trying to "cheat", then it would mean that he is also trying to cheat! (See page 4 for further information.)
If ISKCON leaders actually had a case, then they would just be able to state that truthfully instead of needing to resort to making ridiculous and fake arguments against the IRM. Thus, this behaviour is very telling.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to Anuttama Dasa Index
Return to Bhakti Vikasa Swami Index
Return to "Physical Presence" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
| Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy! |
