by Adridharana dasa
The question before the GBC supporter in this debate was very simple:
- What is the Guru, sadhu and sastra evidence that Srila Prabhupada was to be replaced as the Diksa Guru for ISKCON institution?
This is a very simple request and Ajamila has had over 15,000 words to present this simple evidence. If he had presented this evidence the debate would have been over. Instead, over 15000 words later Ajamila has only:
- Fabricated evidence.
- Presented evidence in our favor.
- Admitted that such evidence does not actually exist.
Ajamila Fabricates Evidence
1) He states that Srila Prabhupada used the word 'ritvik-acharya' even though the GBC say the word does not exist:
| "I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially, this is a fact you cannot deny." (Ajamila's Commentary on answer to his 1st question) |
However it's a verifiable fact that such a word was never spoken by Srila Prabhupada, either on the 'appt tape' or anywhere else for that matter. This is a fact that is verified by the GBC in their paper 'Prabhupada's Order', a paper which Ajamila calls 'definitive' and to which he is a contributor:
| "The significant point here is that terms such as ritvik-guru and ritvik-acarya simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit dictionary, nor in any recognized Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There is no such term because there is no such concept." ('Prabhupada's Order, GBC paper, Contributor Ajamila Dasa) |
And without Srila Prabhupada using this word 'ritvik-acarya', Ajamila is left only with 'ritviks', since the word 'ritvik-acarya' was his evidence that the ritviks were supposed to suddenly transform into diksa gurus the moment Srila Prabhupada departed from the planet.
Thus his case is destroyed.
2) Omitting Srila Prabhupada stating 'When I order' BEFORE the phrase 'disciple of my disciple'.
| " "Grand disciple" and "disciple of my disciple" said Srila Prabhupada on 28 May 77 when asked what will be the status of devotees initiated by the Ritviks after his departure. This in fact was Srila Prabhupada's REAL final order on initiations." (Ajamila's Introduction) |
Yet there is something else stated between the 2 phrases quoted by Ajamila above:
"Grand-disciple & When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru, he becomes disciple of my disciple."
(28 May 77 Conversation)
The two phrases above are connected by the all important 'When I Order', which changes the whole meaning, and which Ajamila has forgotten to mention. And it's this order that Ajamila has so far spent 15000 words avoiding presenting.
3) Falsely claiming that the 'law of disciplic succession' states that one must take diksa from a living guru.
| "There are many MAJOR principles in bona fide Vaisnavism that can never be broken, and the law of disciplic succession that one must receive diksa from a qualified LIVING guru is one of them." ('Ajamila's Introduction', Emphasis Provided by Ajamila) |
However the 'law' does not state that 'one must receive diksa from a qualified living guru', or anything of the kind:
"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 Das, 2/12/75)
The words 'diksa', 'must', 'qualified' or 'living' are not even mentioned in the 'law'. Ajamila highlighting the word 'LIVING' merely emphasizes the fabrication.
4) Making up statements that the GBC never made to hide the fact that the 'law of disciplic succession' is neither sastric nor part of vaisnava tradition as Ajamila had claimed.
| 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, (Ajamila's answer to Adri's 3rd question) |
Yet the GBC have never said any of the above, as a simple reading of the paper concerned will reveal. In fact they state the opposite - that it was an actual law given to prevent disciples from initiating in Srila Prabhupada's presence.
Ajamila Wins Debate for the IRM
5) Eliminating his main evidence - tradition - as proof.
| The proof is the unbroken Vaisnava tradition given in sastra which was followed unswervingly not only by every single acarya in our line but also by Lord Caitanya and Lord Krishna." (Ajamila's 2nd question) "There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that can't." (Ajamila's Commentary on answer to his 2nd question) |
So how can something which can change be proof only by virtue of the fact it has not changed?
6) Eliminating the main problem with the IRM case.
We saw in point 1 above how Ajamila had insisted on manufacturing the word ritvik-acarya as coming from Srila Prabhupada's lips. However in doing so he has also conceded that the main obstacle blocking our position has now gone, for the non-existence of this word was declared by the GBC as being the main problem with the IRM case:
| In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it." ('Prabhupada's Order, GBC paper, Contributor Ajamila Dasa) |
7) Agreeing Ritviks perform initiations after departure.
| "On 28 May 77 Srila Prabhupada was specifically asked about initiations that would be performed by the ritvik priests after his departure." (Ajamila's Introduction) |
But the fact that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of ritvik priests and not diksa gurus performing initiations after his departure is the very issue that has defined this issue for the last 20 years. And this is the very fact that Ajamila has now conceded, thus settling the debate in favor of the IRM.
8 ) Agreeing that there exists no evidence that specifically and directly authorizes Diksa Gurus.
| "I know your argument will be show me one place where Srila Prabhupada specifically ordered in writing or verbally that his disciples can become gurus. To this argument I ask you, Did Srila Prabhupada ever receive from his guru the direct order to be guru either in writing or verbal? No" (Ajamila's answer to Adri's 1st Question) |
Ajamila has finally conceded the debate here by admitting that Srila Prabhupada has not:
'specifically ordered in writing or verbally that his disciples can become gurus'
Instead of presenting such evidence, which was the whole purpose of this debate, Ajamila simply tells us that such evidence does not exist nor is it in fact required, since he speculates that Srila Prabhupada never received such an order from his Guru Maharaja.
The readers should bear this in mind the next time they see quotes presented by either Ajamila or the GBC. For it is already admitted that such quotes do not contain the actual evidence that is required to settle this debate, since such quotes do not actually exist.
And at the end of the day, that alone is the bottom line. Everything else is simply rhetoric. And without such direct evidence Srila Prabhupada remains as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.
Srila Prabhupada ki jai!
Your servant, Adridharana dasa