irm

By Krishnakant

On ISKCON Germany’s official website – ISKCON.de – ISKCON Germany’s secretary Parivadi Das has attacked the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM) with the usual collection of fabricated arguments. Its amazing how a movement which is supposed to be scholarly and philosophical, still has not acquired the literacy to at least read what it is they are supposed to be answering before answering it. Instead they believe that they can just fabricate arguments as they go along.

Below, excerpts from ISKCON Germany’s attack (which can be found here: http://iskcon.de/iskcon/aktuell/schlammschlacht.htm - the article is in German)
shall be enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with our response following.

“Basically the IRM`s theory is that Srila Prabhupada is still accepting disciples although he has been lost to the sight of most. Priests (so called ritviks) are supposed to accept new followers into ISKCON as disciples of Srila Prabhupada. They refer to an order from Srila Prabhupada dated July 9th 1977. The secretary at that time had told Srila Prabhupada that there are many people who want to become disciples, waiting to receive initiation. That was at a time during which Srila Prabhupada had neither the time nor the physical condition to conduct all the cermonies himself. Thus Srila Prabhupada ordered priests to conduct the initiation ceremony on his behalf.“

Right from the outset, a blatantly false statement is made to provide the foundation for all the lies which will follow.

a) The actual fact is that Srila Prabhupada had not been conducting all the initiation ceremonies himself for many years, leaving it generally to the temple president to perform, so that by 1977 this became the standard, and this is confirmed in the July 9th letter itself:

“After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before.“
(July 9th, 1977 Directive, emphasis added)

b) So clearly Srila Prabhupada could not have ordered ritviks (priests) to conduct the initiation on his behalf, because Srila Prabhupada was not able to perform them himself, since he was not performing them in the main anyway!

c) And the most obvious reason why Srila Prabhupada could not have “ordered priests to conduct the initiation ceremony on his behalf,” is because we just quoted from the July 9th directive, the temple presidents were to continue conducting the initiation ceremony. The only thing the ritviks had to do now was accept a disciple on behalf of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name:

“After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.“
(July 9th, 1977 directive)

And during this period, it can be proven by listening to taped room conversations, that Srila Prabhupada had not lost the use of his vocal chords or his hearing, so he could have continued to accept disciples by issuing spiritual names in the same way he ordered the ritviks to do.

d) Indeed the following conversation proves that up until this time Srila Prabhupada had only been giving out spiritual names:

Tamala Krishna:
 We’re receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.
Srila Prabhupada:
 The local, mean, senior sannyasis can do that.
Tamala Krishna:
 That’s what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were... The local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed, or should we...? I mean one thing is that it’s said that the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he takes on the... He has to cleanse the disciple by... So we don’t want that you should have to... Your health is not so good, so that should not be... That’s why we’ve been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.
Srila Prabhupada:
 No, the senior sannyasis......

(Room conversation, July 7th, 1977)

e) The above conversation also proves initiations had been stopped at this time, not due to Srila Prabhupada’s physical inability to conduct initiation ceremonies, but because Tamal Krishna Goswami had unilaterally decided Srila Prabhupada’s should not take any more karma from initiating disciples, since he speculated this would not be good for his health. However Srila Prabhupada immediately counter’s Tamala Krishna Goswami’s speculation by saying that initiations can continue, and ritviks can be used to do them, since he wanted very much to carry on intiating and thus taking on karma .

So from every angle, the rtvik system was not set up because Srila Prabhupada could not physically conduct initiation ceremonies, since as Tamala Krishna Maharaja himself states above, all Srila Prabhupada was doing anyway was picking out a spiritual name. Rather, as Srila Prabhupada explains later on in the same conversation, the ritviks were used so that from then on initiations could continue without Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence being required:

Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right... That will depend on discretion.
Tamala Krishna: On discretion.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krishna:
 That’s for first and second initiations.
Srila Prabhupada:
 Hm.
Tamala Krishna:
 Okay.

(Room conversation, July 7th, 1977)

“In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done.  The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”
(July 9th, 1977 directive issued to all Temple Presidents and GBCs)

The ritviks were to accept disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada without consulting Srila Prabhupada, for now he was not to be involved in the process at all.

Having completely destroyed the article’s foundation regarding the supposed flaw in the “IRM’s basic theory”, will see that the rest of the article collapses by referring back to the facts established here.

“On May 28th 1977 Srila Prabhupada had explained in a conversation, that his disciples should not act as initiating gurus during his physical presence, but after his departure.“

On the contrary, the only time departure is mentioned in the conversation is at the outset, and here Srila Prabhupada clearly says ritviks, not initiating gurus, will continue to act after Srila Prabhupada’s departure:

Satsvarupa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us.  We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you.  After this is settled up.  I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.
Tamala Krishna:
 Is that called ritvik acarya?
Srila Prabhupada:
 Ritvik . Yes.

(Room conversation, May 28th, 1977)

“Following this logic, all prospective disciples were brought to Srila Prabhupada and he made use of the priests he appointed, to get rid of the ’initiation-jam’ “.

The system was set up to deal with NEW initiation requests, as the quote we gave from the July 9th directive makes clear:

“In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, ...”

If it was meant only to get rid of the ’initiation-jam’, there would have been no need to implement a system for the whole movement, which would continue permanently and indefinitely as the system of initiation for ISKCON from that point onwards. Rather the initiation requests which had already come in (the ’initiation-jam’), could have been cleared ad hoc by certain persons within days, and that would have been that.

“However, it was clear that after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance senior devotees would take up the duties of initiating spiritual masters. Nobody questioned this, since this was in line with the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition and also approved by Srila Prabhupada.“

But the historical fact is that after Srila Prabhupada’s disapparance it was not clear that any “senior devotees” in general would become spiritual masters. Rather it was accepted that only the 11 ritviks, they and they alone, could become spiritual masters. This was the so-called zonal acharya system, which has even been accepted by ISKCON now as being a big hoax:

"By the infuence of maya, illusion, a different idea soon evolved that Srila Prabhupada had appointed eleven"pure devotees" to serve as the only gurus after him… This zonal guru system, as it came to be called, prevailed in ISKCON for about ten years, until its falseness became clear… In 1986, ISKCON's Governing Body Commission formally dismantled the system.  Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, editor in chief during those years, joins with me in apologizing to our readers for BTG's conformity to the "zonal guru" error.  In particular, we express our heartfelt apologies for contributing to the hurts and wrongs devotees endured when ISKCON diverged from Srila Prabhupada's instructions." 
('An Apology', Back to Godhead #25-01, 1991)

So the only thing which was clear after Srila Prabhupada departed, and which was not questioned, was something which was subsequently accepted by everyone to be a big hoax anyway.
Hardly a strong argument!
And there is no evidence that Srila Prabhupada “approved” that the ritviks he appointed should have transmogrified into Diksa gurus upon Srila Prabhupada’s departure. This alleged order from Srila Prabhupada asking the ritviks he appointed to turn into Diksa Gurus upon his departure has never been produced.

“The order from July 9th 1977 was clearly an order to solve the “initiation-jam“. The IRM now questions this and claims nobody was ever authorised to accept disciples in ISKCON.“

Please see above – the argument that the July9th directive was set up for ISKCON’s future to solve a historical log-jam has already been comprehensively destroyed. So there is nothing here to question.
And we have asked for the evidence that Srila Prabhupada asked the 11 ritviks he appointed to turn into Diksa gurus upon his departure, because without such an order they would have to remain as ritviks. But no such order has ever been produced, and we cannot act without the spiritual master’s order:

"The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master immediately becomes useless."
(Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta, Adi-lila, 12:10)

“The order from July 9th 1977 is supposedly valid for all time. All new members of ISKCON shall be direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada. The May 28th 1977 conversation is supposed to have lost its future-orientated relevance due to the the order from July 9th 1977.“

On the contrary, the future-orientated relevace of the May 28th conversation, which appears at the outset, when Srila Prabhupada’s departure is mentioned, says exactly the same thing as the July 9th directive, that ritviks are to be appointed to carry out initiations for ISKCON into the future:

Satsvarupa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us.  We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you.  After this is settled up.  I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.
Tamala Krishna:
 Is that called ritvik acarya?
Srila Prabhupada:
 Ritvik . Yes.

(Room conversation, May 28th, 1977)

“This attack which is being primarly led on the internet has its main cause in the relatively high number of fall-downs of ISKCON-Gurus – which ISKCON regrets.“

The IRM’s main preaching is actually in print – but this is in English, so for German speakers they do have to rely more on the internet – and it is not fuelled by the fall-down of ISKCON gurus. It is based on the fact that Srila Prabhupada’s orders have been disobeyed. The fact that some persons who have these disobeyed orders, have also fallen-down, is only to be expected, and is merely a symptom of the problem we are highlighting, not the cause.

“Still anyone who knows anything about modern propaganda should be alarmed when something is being dismissed in such a general way. [...] We will not answer with mud-slinging methods but leave it up to the critical observer to decide what he thinks about all this.“

Exactly. Anyone who has read the above will be alarmed at how the arguments of the IRM have been dismissed based entirely on fabrication. We will leave the critical observer to read the above and decide who is repeating what Srila Prabhupada has stated verbatim, and who has just fabricated arguments out of thin air.

“One quickly gets the suspicion that those who deprive all ISKCON-members the authorisation, have a guilty conscience themselves because of their unauthorised approach. They claim the current ISKCON-forces are out of place, but practically cannot prove how they have become the true ISKCON-represantitives, since they have never been properly authorised by an ISKCON resolution to initiate disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.“

The IRM does not initiate disicples on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, and never has done so, so the above is yet another false argument.
(The IRM’s position is that initiations first require a proper ISKCON and GBC obeying Srila Prabhupada to be constituted, so there will be some authority for the arrangement).

“We would like to look at the IRM's main point of stopping the disciplic succesion briefly:“

But what the IRM advocates does not stop the disciplic succession, since the parampara continues with Srila Prabhupada. Unless one can show a statement from Srila Prabhupada that one can only be a representative of the parampara whilst he is physically present on the planet, the parampara did not stop when he departed. On the contrary, according to their own arguments, today’s ISKCON is stopping the disciplic succession since a number of their gurus have departed and no one has been appointed as a successor to continue initiations.

“Srila Prabhupada explains (in a similar fashon in innumerable versions of his countless comments):
“Only pure devotees of Krishna can lead others to devotional service. It is therefore important that the preachers of the Hare Krishna movement become pure devotees. (...) When a preacher acts correctly, he will be able to convince others (...)“ (Chaitanya Caritamrita, Madhya-lila 24.98, Purport)
Srila Prabhupada wanted that ISKCON-preachers become pure devotees of Sri Krishna to accept countless disciples and spread the Krishna Consciousness movement everywhere according to the thousands-of-years-old-tradition.“

Srila Prabhupada explains above only that we should become pure devotees – the rest – that we should accept countless disciples according to the thousands of years old tradition – has been frabricated and added by ISKCON Germany’s secretary.

“It lowers Srila Prabhupada's reputation if one claims none of his successors is qualified to advance the conversion of prospective disciples.“

But the IRM has not claimed that none of ISKCON’s devotees can ever be qualified as pure devotees, so this is yet another fabricated argument.
It is perfectly legitimate for Srila Prabhupada’s disciples to become pure devotees and not replace Srila Prabhupada as the initiating guru.
Just as ISKCON argues that no matter how advanced ISKCON’s devotees become, Srila Prabhupada still can’t be replaced as the “pre-eminent  and compulsory instructing guru for everyone in ISKCON” (GBC resolution 409, 1999), without Srila Prabhupada’s reputation being lowered.

“We are  in agreement that Srila Prabhupada can become everyone`s instructing spiritual master, if the candidate takes his message to heart. However, Srila Prabhupada does want to see the preachers of his movement take on spiritual responsibility themselves and transform and instruct others by their own example and purity. In this way they should perform all the functions of an initiating spiritual master.“

Yes Srila Prabhupada has to be the pre-eminent siksa guru for ISKCON, so it is clear that Srila Prabhupada wants the “preachers of his movement” to “instruct others” only in a relatively minor capacity. It can not therefore follow that the pre-eminent siksa guru can NOT be someone’s initiating guru, but the minor siksa guru can, when:

“According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4:12:32 purport)

“Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila, 1:35, purport)

So how can we argue that the minor siksa guru “should perform all the functions of an initiating spiritual master” but the pre-eminent and compulsory siksa guru can NOT?! This is contradictory.

“But even if one accepted theoretically that the philosophy of the ritviks was right (which it is not), the discussion is simpy splitting hairs. Because in ISKCON Srila Prabhupada is in the center, which is the main point of the IRM.“

1) If it was really believed by today’s ISKCON management that the difference was “splitting hairs” then why do they fight to the death to hold onto their position of diksa guru, with IRM members having been issued death threats, violently attacked, and banned from all ISKCON temples?

2) Our main point is simply that Srila Prabhupada’s orders should be obeyed. If these orders were that someone other than Srila Prabhupada should be in the center, than we would support that as well. We are not attached or pre-disposed to any particular pre-conceived outcome.

“The spiritual masters consider themselves assistants who lead their disciples to Srila Prabhupada, the disciplic succession and Sri Caitanya. They do not consider themselves specific saviours, but as servants of the saviour.“

Every member of ISKCON, including the bhakta who has just joined, also takes a person to Srila Prabhupada. So if ISKCON gurus behave functionally in a manner identical to their disciples, then by definition they cannot actually be the diksa gurus of these disciples. Rather the Bona fide Guru is one who takes one to Krishna:

“And if you get a bona fide spiritual master, he will take you to Krsna.”
(The Laws of Nature, Ch. 1)

And it is admitted that this person, the saviour who delivers us to Krishna, is Srila Prabhupada, of whom the ISKCON gurus are just servants, just as every other member of ISKCON is.

“The only difference to the ritvik-philosophy is that the ISKCON-gurus promise their disciples to be loyal / true to tradition and their disicples. In other words: They promise their disciples to be there for them no matter what. The ritvik-priest however does not have this obligation, instead he hopes Srila Prabhupada will take the responsibility for everything. The ISKCON-gurus try to relieve Srila Prabhupada while the ritviks-priests want to have him carry all the burden.“

But this is a contradiction of what was just stated: that Srila Prabhupada is the saviour, not the ISKCON gurus:

“The spiritual masters consider themselves assistants who lead their disciples to Srila Prabhupada, the disciplic succession and Sri Caitanya. They do not consider themselves specific saviours, but as servants of the saviour.“

So they are still leaving the burden on Srila Prabhupada to deliver the disciple. The only difference is that they want all the worship and respect as if THEY are actually acting as the saviour, as anyone who reads the Vyasa-Puja offerings made to any ISKCON guru will see. And it is the duty of every senior preacher to “be there no matter what” for everyone in ISKCON who may be under their authority. So the real difference between the two philosophies is that the IRM believes in helping bring everyone to Srila Prabhupada and letting Srila Prabhupada get all the credit and worship, whilst ISKCON gurus just want all the disciples, worship, awe and reverence which belongs only to Srila Prabhupada.

“The quarrel they cause is another adversity to Srila Prabhupada and his movement. We see the same deviance in Christianity: Everything is being imposed on Jesus Christ, while the community considers itself weak and thus saddle Jesus with the burden of their sins. This is very comfortable but extremely abominably at the same time. You put the messiah on the cross and let him suffer for you instead of taking responsibility for yourself and your fosterlings.“

ISKCON Germany’s spokesman merely compounds his previous contradiction here, because he has already admitted that ISKCON’s gurus are NOT the saviours, and that Srila Prabhupada is. So ISKCON also believes in imposing all the burden of their sins on Srila Prabhupada – the only difference is that they still want to be regarded as saviours and get daily guru-puja, prasadam offered to them, Vyasa-Puja offerings etc. In other words – do as little work as possible for the maximum reward.

“In ISKCON on the other hand we see there have been many starting-problems and fall-outs. But you do not run away. Instead you work on the cleaning of the ISKCON-house, which starts by cleaning yourself. You do not just throw in the towel and claim spiritual bankruptcy to leave everything up to Srila Prabhupada – you want to create spiritual rolemodels in Srila Prabhupada's succession - which are needed in today's society more than ever – who  reveal personal responsibility and leader qualities to save the spiritual souls. Of course they will be supported by Srila Prabhupada in this mission, but like every good father he wishes that his sons and daughters become glorious in every aspect, too.“

Now our ISKCON Germany’s spokesman goes for the hat-trick in repeating the same contradiction. He had earlier declared that it is Srila Prabhupada who is saving souls and the ISKCON gurus simply support Srila Prabhupada in this:

“The spiritual masters consider themselves assistants who lead their disciples to Srila Prabhupada, the disciplic succession and Sri Caitanya. They do not consider themselves specific saviours, but as servants of the saviour.“

Now forgetting what he has just written, our spokesman claims the exact opposite- that ISKCON gurus are needed to “save the spiritual souls” and it is Srila Prabhupada who simply supports them in this!

“Ultimately, it is absurd to initiate disciples without being able to ask a person if that is what he wants. The July 9th 1977-order does not change anything about this principle because Srila Prabhupada was able to revoke it whenever he wanted. Now the IRM wants to keep it intact forever. This degrades Srila Prabhupada to a recipient of orders, who will forever accept whatever one presents him. This contradicts the principles of the Gaudiya-Vaishnava-tradition, common sense and the definition of the disciple-master-relationship. If one gets presented a prospective disciples, he must be able to make the decision wether or not he wants to accept the respective disciple or not and this decision must be perceivable by the disciple.“

1) We already covered this argument about the spiritual master needing to be 'asked' if he wants to accept a disciple. Srila Prabhupada specifically set up a system whereby he was NOT to be consulted on who he accepted as his disciples. He gave full power of attorney to the ritviks to accept disciples on his behalf, and he was not involved in the process at all. Therefore the above argument is not applicable, since the operation of the ritvik system before and after Srila Prabhupada’s departure would be identical.

2) Hence Srila Prabhupada gave a system for initiations for ISKCON, applicable to ISKCON, and if he wished for it to no longer apply in ISKCON upon his departure then he would clearly have terminated it. But he did not.

“As soon as someone leaves the observable sphere of experience, the justification for accepting disciples is no longer possible. That does not mean a deceased person cannot be guru. A guru has different functions. He inspires, he initiates us with transcendental knowledge, he transforms. Srila Prabhupada does all this for us, as long as we follow him. But we cannot claim he has accepted us as his disciple, as long as we have not seen it.“

So Srila Prabhupada “initiates us with transcendental knowledge” but he cannot be our Diksa guru, the definition of which is that he “initiates us with transcedental knowledge”:

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."
(Caitanya-Caritamrta, Madhya, 4.111, purport)

So Srila Prabhupada cannot be our Diksa guru because he only does exactly the same thing which the Diksa guru does!
One has to wonder if this person is actually trying to argue against or on behalf of the IRM!
He is welcome to join us anytime. Membership is free!

“Regardless of the consqequences, the IRM makes a big deal out of this hairsplitting.“

No, it is those who are using death threats, violence, bans and censorship to hold onto their diksa guru positions for dear life, who are making a 'big deal out of this'.
Not the IRM who are simply putting forward arguments for devotees to read.

“They don`t see that Srila Prabhupada, whom they believe to serve, never believed in complicated structures when it came down to practical preaching. He said:

"Every student is expected to become Acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them TO HIS DICIPLES ... Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. 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. I want to see my diciples become bona fide spiritual masters and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (New Delhi, 02.12.1975)."When I order "you become guru", he becomes regular guru. That's all. ... He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it!" (Vrindavan, 28. Mai 1977)

That`s how simple and clear Srila Prabhupadas`s intruction was: Future disciples become disciples of the disciple, but that`s how it goes in Kali-Yuga: The most impudent propaganda finds an echo!“

a) Our ISKCON spokesman is here putting forward a statement from Srila Prabhupada, regarding the 'law of disicplic succession' which ISKCON itself does not follow, for they allow anyone to become guru during the lifetime of their guru, and indeed already have a number of such gurus intiating in their own guru’s physical presence. So they themselves do not follow this “law of disciplic succession” which they claim is their key evidence against the IRM!

b) The second quote states that WHEN Srila Prabhupada gives an order for someone to become a diksa guru, he becomes a diksa guru. But such an order was never given.
“but that's how it goes in Kali-Yuga: The most impudent propaganda finds an echo!”

“If the reader has any remaining doubts, please write to us.“

Conclusion

As can be seen above, ISKCON Germany’s spokesman has made an error in almost every sentence he has written, due to not having acquainted himself with either Srila Prabhupada’s statements or those of the IRM. The key highlights of this veritable error-ridden treatise are:

  1. Falsely claiming that ritviks were appointed because Srila Prabhupada was physically incapable of being able to continue to dicate names.

  2. Falsely claiming that the statements regarding departure mentiond in the May 28th conversation conflict with the IRM’s position.

  3. Falsely claiming that the ritvik system was set up only to clear a one-off historical log-jam of initiation requests.

  4. Falsely claiming that historically it was clear that Srila Prabupada had given an order for the ritviks he ordered to transmogrify into diksa gurus on his departure.

  5. Falsely claiming that the IRM states that none of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples can become pure devotees.

  6. Falsely arguing that the IRM’s position that Srila Prabhupada is the Diksa Guru is incorrect, having already accepted that Srila Prabhupada fulfils the function of a diksa guru by acting as the saviour who delivers the disciple, and that the ISKCON gurus could not possibly be diksa gurus since they function no different to any other member of ISKCON in simply bringing newcomers to Srila Prabhupada,

  7. Falsely arguing that though only Srila Prabhupada can be the pre-eminent siksa of ISKCON, only a relatively minor siksa guru (other than Srila Prabhupada) can become diksa guru, even though the siksa guru generally becomes the diksa guru

  8. Falsely arguing one’s case via a law which one does not even follow oneself!