ISKCON Fails Again to Reply to TFO
Back To Prabhupada, Issue 84, 2025
IISB quotes the conclusion of our article, which emphasises how the IISB videos had spectacularly failed to refute TFO. For our article showed that the points made by IISB either contradicted themselves, or did not even refer to what TFO states, and thus were full of illiteracy and ignorance. But the only response the statement makes to this BTP article is to claim that I, TFO's author, am uninitiated:
This same point is mentioned 5 times using different wording, and that is all the statement says. Thus, IISB was unable to reply to our article, and consequently TFO, either in its statement of "response" or elsewhere. Hence, the conclusion of our article quoted by IISB above, remains true, and thus there still remains "no glove laid on TFO".
As noted, this claim is the sole argument made by IISB in its statement. But TFO actually "recommends" that:
1) ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda defined "real" initiation as one's inner determination to follow.
2) Therefore, a physical initiation ceremony is a formality, not an essential.
The above points are derived from ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda's statements, and are stated on pages 46-47 of TFO. One may or may not agree with the above points. But one cannot disagree that TFO makes them (by quoting ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda), and thus one has to agree that not having a formal initiation ceremony is not inconsistent with the recommendation of TFO. And thus, the only argument made by IISB in response to our refutation of its many videos - is in any case false!
We have already shown TFO recommends that it is not essential for initiation to be formalised by į¹tviks. But, even if this was not the case, it can still be proven that IISB's claim is not correct. Because, in regard to į¹tvik initiation, TFO states on pages 81-83 that:
1) The 11 į¹tviks appointed by ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda should function as į¹tviks, not dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus.
2) The GBC can appoint further į¹tviks.
TFO was requested by, and addressed specifically to, the GBC. Thus, it did not even discuss what should be done if the GBC refused to follow the above "recommendation". And, therefore, strictly speaking, still waiting for the GBC to first authorise such į¹tviks, which has not been done, before taking formal initiation, would be in line with what TFO stated.
Thus, just as with their videos which the BTP 83 article exposed, the one and only claim made by IISB's statement again simply reveals their illiteracy and ignorance. For they are again not even aware of what TFO states ā the very book they are supposed to be refuting!
IISB alleges that its claim about me supposedly not following TFO, alone "shows" that TFO is "bogus" - "That is all". Now, we have already noted that IISB's claim that I do not follow what TFO states is in any case false. But even if this claim was true, it still would not "show" that what TFO recommends is "bogus", as we shall now prove.
It is possible for TFO to state something that is true rather than bogus, even if the author does not follow what TFO has stated. For example, TFO also gives the general recommendation that we should follow ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda's orders, something IISB agrees with (even if they may disagree regarding what those exact orders are). And yet, if I did not personally follow any of ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda's orders, then according to IISB's "logic", this would "show" that this recommendation of TFO to obey ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda is "bogus". But, as already noted, IISB itself does not agree this is the case. Thus, whether or not what TFO states is true depends entirely and only on whether the statement itself is true, and not on whether I follow it. Because the truth of a statement stands on its own - it is not dependent on being followed by me or anyone else.
TFO's "recommendations" are based on what ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda ordered 50 years ago. Thus, what Krishnakant, TFO's author may or may not do cannot possibly undo these orders, because Krishnakant did not issue these orders - ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda did.
The only way Krishnakant's behaviour would have any relevance to orders issued by ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda, would be if "Krishnakant" was actually ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda. We have already seen ISKCON India confuse their GBC gurus with being on the same authorised platform as ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda. And now it seems they are also confusing me with ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda! But I am not he, nor did I issue any "į¹tvik" orders for ISKCON 50 years ago. Thus, misidentifying me with ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda cannot challenge the fact that TFO simply restates those same orders ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda issued.
We have already proved that not having a į¹tvik initiation ceremony is not failing to follow my "own standards". But even if it was, and I am the world's biggest spiritual failure, this still would have no relevance to what TFO states. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem, where one tries to defeat what is stated by attacking the person making the statement rather than the statement itself. Thus, if a drug addict, or indeed anyone for that matter, no matter how "fallen", states that "Kį¹į¹£į¹a is God", that statement would still be true regardless of the qualification of the person who made the statement.
1) IISB was unable to reply to BTP 83 showing IISB's spectacular failure to answer TFO, and thus was forced to take shelter instead in only attacking the author for supposedly not following TFO's recommendations.
2) But even this personal attack has been exposed as being false and irrelevant from every angle.
3) This failure of an irrelevant personal attack was due to the same reason that caused their original response to TFO to fail - illiteracy and ignorance of TFO's contents!
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to "ISKCON India Scholars Board" Index
Please chant: Hare Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Hare Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Hare, Hare,
Hare RÄma, Hare RÄma, RÄma, RÄma, Hare, Hare ā and be happy!