(740524mw.rom Conversations) (750630mw.den Conversations)

---

---

The Ritvik's FAKED Final Order

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Where The Ritvik Controversy Begins

The controversy the ritvik people are virulently pushing is this:

On 9 July 1977, only months before his impending departure, Srila Prabhupada approved a letter addressed to all ISKCON leaders worldwide. In that letter, considering his rapidly deteriorating health and the hundreds of devotees eagerly awaiting initiation, Srila Prabhupada increased to eleven the number of ritvik priests initiating disciples on his behalf. Let us not forget that this ritvik initiation system was a temporary method by which our immensely powerful Founder-Acarya could 'practically' cope with the fast-growing worldwide demand during his deteriorating health.

Otherwise, the ritvik system is not normally practised, as was the case in ISKCON's early days. The ritvik system Srila Prabhupada implemented was simply a temporary arrangement according to kala, desh, patra, time, place, and circumstances. And more importantly, such a ritvik system is never practised posthumously, i.e. one can never take diksa from a guru after his physical departure.

The ritvik people nevertheless argue vociferously that the GBC should not have stopped that temporary system because Srila Prabhupada did not personally stop it. They insist that the temporary system should continue as if Srila Prabhupada were still physically present, and this is where the ritvik controversy begins.

The idea of ritvikism, however, audaciously ignores much unequivocal evidence. For example, six months before Srila Prabhupada's departure he instructed that the temporary ritvik system would automatically discontinue after his departure. This fact is verified herein.

Over the past ten years the GBC have listened patiently and studied carefully all the arguments for ritvikism. The GBC engaged ISKCON's best scholars to conduct a thorough research of Srila Prabhupada's relevant instructions. Subsequently the GBC unanimously concluded in a definitive paper entitled 'Prabhupada's Order' that ritvikism is a dangerous and devious concoction.

Having failed while working within Srila Prabhupada's system, the Ritviks now hope to impose their views on ISKCON through ruthless external means. They hope to force ritvikism on ISKCON's 80-plus gurus, many thousands of their disciples, hundreds of other leaders and tens of thousands of congregational members. These ISKCON leaders and members are disinterested in ritvikism and disgusted by the Ritviks' misbehaviour which Srila Prabhupada strictly prohibited. In spite of the fact that Srila Prabhupada said the GBC must be followed in all circumstances, and in spite of the fact that Srila Prabhupada said philosophical disputes must only be settled within ISKCON, the Ritviks flagrantly disobey both these instructions. Not co-operating with the GBC on this issue when nearly the entire ISKCON reject ritvikism is indefensibly wrong as Srila Prabhupada instructed in a letter to Bali Mardan, 18 September, 1972 as follows:

"The GBC authority must be accepted under all circumstances, not that there will be fighting amongst you. This fighting spirit will destroy everything."

Given that Srila Prabhupada affirmatively said "all circumstances", are the Ritviks not guilty of defying Srila Prabhupada's direct instructions?

The Heart of the Controversy

At the heart of this controversy/debate created by the Ritviks are a 28 May '77 discussion and a 9 July '77 letter, the latter being the Ritviks' main 'evidence'. The Ritviks are trying to convince everyone that their 9 July evidence proves that Srila Prabhupada wanted to break the law of disciplic succession, he wanted to stop the parampara with him, and that he wanted to ignore the examples set by Lord Krishna, Lord Caitanya, and all the acaryas in our line by implementing a system of posthumous initiations for himself after his departure.

Are these not very serious unproven accusations that the Ritviks are inadvertently levying at Srila Prabhupada?

A system of posthumous diksa initiations is so outrageously controversial and radically different it is inconceivable that Srila Prabhupada would have introduced such a system and 'forgot' to explain why! Surely, the Founder-Acarya of Lord Caitanya's brilliant-as-the-sun ISKCON would not have made such a mistake as the Ritviks would like us to believe. Had Srila Prabhupada actually wanted ritvikism he would have certainly left his disciples and future generations with a very detailed explanation. But the Ritviks in their recklessness, imply that Srila Prabhupada on this issue acted irresponsibly! And they also insinuate that Srila Prabhupada "didn't know" that a posthumous diksa system is not mentioned anywhere in the entire history of Vaisnavism.

The Lunacies of a Ritvik System

Here is a short list of the many unresolvable lunacies we would encounter if ritvikism were implemented within ISKCON:

1. An insurmountable obstacle is that the eleven ritvik priests Srila Prabhupada authorised in the 9 July letter are either unavailable, unqualified, or unwilling.
2. Adding more ritvik priests would be hypocritical of the Ritviks since that would contradict their 'no change' logic, the very basis for their 'indisputable evidence' in the 9 July letter.
3. Another reason it would be contradictory of the Ritviks to appoint more ritvik priests is that the Ritviks proclaim there are no qualified acaryas like Srila Prabhupada to appoint more priests.
4. How can the eleven ritvik priests nominated in the 9 July letter be the ritvik priests for the next 10,000 years? Since nobody is authorised to appoint more ritvik priests, upon the demise of the authorised eleven the whole system would grind to a halt. Then what?
5. The same posthumous diksa guru logic that the Ritviks apply to Srila Prabhupada could also be used to take diksa from whichever acarya you like. Why not? For example, a 30-year initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada would have to bite the dust in front of a one-year upstart posthumous diksa disciple of say Rupa Goswami! This is extreme, but then so is ritvikism.
6. Ritvikism cannot be implemented in ISKCON since it has been unanimously rejected by the GBC, which is the body Srila Prabhupada said should be followed in all circumstances and that this principle cannot be changed.
7. ISKCON without a parampara system would become superficial like Christianity. There would be no 'current' guru-disciple relationships without which devotional standards and the whole organisation would eventually collapse.

Does Ritvikism Contravene Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra?

The conclusive rule when speaking on major principles of Vedic philosophy is that sadhus, gurus, and even founder acaryas must always strictly adhere to sastra, as verified in the Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya 20.352 purport as follows:

"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual centre is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the centre for all."

Sastra is the centre for all. This is clear. But the Ritviks assume that Srila Prabhupada wanted to contravene the rules on guru, sadhu, and sastra and that unfortunately is their great mistake.

---

Commentary - 1

Author: Ajamila Dasa

by Ajamila dasa

Adri Dharan Prabhu's conclusion is false and his concocted N.C.I.P. (No change in the ISKCON paradigm) directive portrays cognitive distortion of a kind never seen before.

The essence of Adri's N.C.I.P. gimmick is the assumption that as per Prabhupada's last will and testament nothing at all should change in ISKCON. Isn't this rather silly? This 'wild speculation' covered with an array of phony disguises is an insult to a devotee's intelligence. Here is Adri's assertion:

"Thus the GBC:

A) Cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada;
B) Or introduce anything other than that already given by Srila Prabhupada.

Items A) and B) form the N.C.I.P...."

This is absurd beyond belief. While living in a world of change how can we not change anything? It is impossible! This is a very childish assumption. And if you apply the same absurd principle to implementing a posthumous initiation system you come up with all the ideas I described in my Introduction. Whichever way you look at ritvikism it simply doesn't fall in line with guru, sadhu, and sastra and therefore should be rejected as the GBC have done unanimously.

Common sense tells us that there are certain things that the GBC must change and others that can never change. For example, the GBC must change their clothes, geographical responsibilities when required, resolutions when it is necessary, and so on. This is common sense; some things MUST change. But the GBC can never change major ISKCON principles like initiates must chant a minimum of 16 rounds daily, Deity worship must always be clean and regular, etc.

The big question at hand here is can a guru like Srila Prabhupada initiate posthumously? According to guru, sadhu, and sastra the answer is never, as clearly outlined in my Introduction. Contrary to Adri's N.C.I.P. speculation one thing that ALWAYS changes in Vaisnavism is that upon the departure of a guru he always stops giving diksa initiation since it requires physical presence. There has never been any exception to this. A guru can never continue giving diksa posthumously. This point has also been proved irrefutably in my Introduction. No one can overrule guru, sadhu, and sastra. That is the end of the story. Baaas.

The following Ritviks' N.C.I.P. speculation is downright nonsense:

"In conclusion there is no instruction issued to the institution authorising an individual to take up the role of diksa guru in ISKCON once Srila Prabhupada departs..."

Below we present evidence that directly contradicts Adri's speculations. This evidence was either overlooked or purposely omitted by him. Contrary to Adri's sinister denigration this evidence is not private or irrelevant correspondence but rather a clear PUBLIC instruction by Srila Prabhupada to his disciples to act as acaryas in his future ISKCON institution:

"Evam parampara-praptam imam rajar-sayo viduh. So we have to follow the acarya. Then, when we are completely, cent per cent follower of acarya, then you can also act as acarya. This is the process. Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya." (A PUBLIC Sri Caitanya-caritamrta class_, Adi-lila_ 1.13 Mayapur, April 6, 1975)

There are many, many other quotes where Srila Prabhupada expresses his desire that his disciples initiate after his departure, for example:

"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 disciples…

"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 disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2 December, 1975)

In this letter Srila Prabhupada gave personal direction and additionally instructed his growing institution as he did in 90%-plus of his letters. See Srila Prabhupada Siksamrita. As the compiler of this work and having gone through 7,500-plus of Srila Prabhupada's letters I know that it is a fact that 90%-plus of Srila Prabhupada letters nurtured the growth of his ISKCON institution. Adri tries to dismiss as irrelevant letters that contain evidence unsuited to his contraband agenda. Here is another example of how Adri attempts to minimise more clear evidence:

"a) It is not clear to the GBC what is being said (different transcripts)"

The transcript IS clear. The GBC used the official Bhaktivedanta Archives transcript. The attempt to discredit rather than disprove this evidence verifies the Ritviks' weaknesses and mendacious intentions. Here is the official Bhaktivedanta Archives transcription which after being tested was satisfactorily summarised: "Standard forensic procedures thus far have revealed that there is no editing or tampering of the tapes." This is the official Bhaktivedanta Archives statement (caps for emphasis), and any contrary statement by Adri or any other Ritvik is false.

Here is the officially approved transcription just in from the Archives:

Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.
Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?
Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.
Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...
Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.**
Satsvarupa:** But he does it on your behalf.**
Prabhupada:** Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnya guru hana [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. Be actually guru, but by my order.
Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?
Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?**
Prabhupada:** They're his disciple.
Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is grand disciple.
Satsvarupa: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: That's clear.
Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...
Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it."

"Disciple of my disciple. That's it." It can't be much clearer than that, but not for Adri and the Ritviks who are determined by hook or by crook to force their concocted ritvikism on ISKCON.

Here is the twist Adri puts on the above conversation to denigrate it as GBC evidence:

"However this conversation makes it clear that the representatives to be appointed, as set out in the directive, were for 'particularly at that time' when Srila Prabhupada 'is no longer with us'. Thus this conversation tends to confirm the directive, not contradict it."

What an insulting twist. Let's 'untwist' what Adri has done here. Adri is basically saying that the temporary ritvik representatives that were to be appointed five weeks later on 9 July were given the same 'after departure' mandate as the 'regular gurus' were given on 28 May but of course with an additional posthumous spin. After spinning the evidence in the way he wants he claims it confirms his so-called directive! This is just so silly and so obvious. Adri is trying to twist and juggle things around to form his pre-determined ritvik concoction. I'd generously give him four out of ten for word jugglery and zero out of ten for having any truth.

Adri Dharan further stated:

"b) It is not clear to the GBC what is being spoken of (proxy or diksa guru)"

It is unanimously clear with the GBC since Srila Prabhupada was asked "The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?" and Srila Prabhupada replied, "They're his disciple." and "He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it." This is clear.

"c) It is not clear to the GBC when the answers are applicable (before or after departure)"

It is again unanimously clear with the GBC because Srila Prabhupada's answer to "Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us." is that the person receiving initiation becomes "grand disciple" and the person initiating is a 'regular guru'. This is clear.

"d) It is not clear to the GBC how the gurus are activated. (when the order is given)"

Again it is unanimously clear to the GBC that Srila Prabhupada reconfirmed his standing order for all his disciples to initiate after his departure. In the above conversation he says "he becomes regular guru", responding to the position real the initiating ritvik after his departure. This was the REAL final order. It was a reconfirmation of the order he had been giving his disciples all along.

All this is perfectly clear to all the GBC but only unclear to the Ritviks. Instead of disproving the evidence at hand Adri is deploying a ruthless tactic of 'divide and rule'. Adri is trying hard to create an impression that the GBC are confused and in disagreement about ritvikism, but the fact is that again this year in Mayapura the GBC unanimously rejected ritvikism as a dangerous and devious concoction. Contrary to the opinion of the Ritviks, the GBC on this issue of ritvikism are completely united. Being unable to sway the GBC the Ritviks are now attempting to discredit contrary evidence with cheap ploys to sway and intimidate emotionally unstable and philosophically unsound devotees.

The real insult that Adri has inadvertently levied at Srila Prabhupada is this:

"…there is a third level of proof put in place that indicates Srila Prabhupada's tri-kala-jana sensibilities."

In addition to his spelling mistake, jana instead of jna, Adri puts forward as his so-called 'third level of proof' that Srila Prabhupada's tri-kala-jna sensibilities are a reason for Srila Prabhupada to defy guru, sadhu, and sastra and break the law of disciplic succession. Lord Krishna was more than tri-kala-jna but still He did not break the law of disciplic succession in order to teach 'everyone' by example. Srila Prabhupada was not a law breaker as Adri wants us to believe but rather everything he did was strictly in accordance with guru, sadhu, and sastra. This must not and cannot change under the name of a silly one-sided no change N.C.I.P. concoction.

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

---

Commentary on Ajamila's 'The Ritvik's FAKED Final Order'

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Commentary on Ajamila's

'The Ritvik's FAKED Final Order'

Ajamila’s introduction presents 3 main lines of argument:

1. the May 28th Tape,
2. The 'law of disciplic succession' and
3. the 'Vaisnava tradition'.

However in presenting these arguments Ajamila only succeeds in: -

• Contradicting Himself;
• Contradicting the GBC & eliminating his own evidence.

May 28th Tape - Ajamila Contradicts Himself and the GBC

Ajamila says:

"Srila Prabhupada added acarya to the word ritvik because during his presence they are ritviks and after his departure they are acaryas."
(Ajamila's Introduction)

But 'Prabhupada's Order', which Ajamila was a contributor to, states:

"The significant point here is that terms such as .rtvig-guru and rtvig-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. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture."
(Prabhupada's Order, GBC Paper, Contributor Ajamila)

Thus according to Ajamila (and the GBC) his own argument rests on a concept and word ('ritvik-acarya') that 'does not exist in vedic culture'. Thus he has defeated himself, and further he accuses Srila Prabhupada of propounding this non-existent word and concept by stating that Srila Prabhupada

'added acarya to the word ritvik'.

To round of his contradiction, Ajamila further glorifies the very paper that has just destroyed his key argument:

"Subsequently the GBC unanimously concluded in a definitive paper entitled Prabhupadas Order (downloadable from CHAKRA) that _ritvik_ism is a dangerous and devious concoction."
(Ajamila's Introduction)

Also Ajamila's scholarship is so sloppy that even to make the above point that he then himself defeats, he has to fabricate what Srila Prabhupada stated, since it was H. H. Tamala Krishna who used the word 'Ritvik-acharya' - not Srila Prabhupada:

Prabhupada:

Yes.I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas.

Tamal Krishna:

Is that called ritvik-acharya?

Prabhupada:

Ritvik, yes.

(May 28th Conversation)

Not content with contradicting himself, Ajamila now picks on the GBC. Ajamila states in reference to the May 28th tape:

"There is absolutely no doubt here that the topic of this entire conversation was future initiations after Srila Prabhupadas departure. This is the clear direct meaning."
(Ajamila's Introduction)

However the GBC, when explaining the topic of the May 28th conversation, do not agree with Ajamila's 'clear and direct meaning':

"When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after his physical departure he stated he would "recommend" and give his "order" to some of his disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards as "regular gurus," whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples."
(On My Order Understood, GBC 1995)

Here we see that the GBC disagree with Ajamila that 'future initiations' after Srila Prabhupada's 'departure' was the 'topic' of the 'entire' conversation, since they state the conversation discusses initiations during Srila Prabhupada's 'life-time'. Thus Ajamila contradicts the GBC on the basic point of just what the conversation is about. And to complete Ajamila's embarrassment, this is what the GBC had to say about the above quoted paper:

"The GBC approves of the paper entitled "'On My Order' Understood" which establishes as ISKCON law the final siddhanta on Srila Prabhupada's desire for continuing the disciplic succession after the departure of His Divine Grace."
('Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC 1995, Contributors HH Jayapataka Swami, HG Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, et. al.)

So take your pick - either the 'final siddhanta' of the GBC is wrong, or Ajamila's 'clear and direct meaning' is wrong.

The 'Law of Disciplic Succession & 'Vaisnava Tradition' - Ajamila Eliminates His Own Evidence

Ajamila presents as his main proof, the history of what has happened in the past:

"The rock solid proof that nobody takes diksa posthumously from a departed guru is Vaisnava tradition."
(Ajamila's Introduction)

He then presents as his other main piece of evidence the 'law of disciplic succession':

"The fact that no other bona fide Vaisnava acarya has ever broken the law of disciplic succession is the example we MUST follow. We cannot break that law because it is a principle of sastra"
(Ajamila's Introduction)

Yet this 'law' as stated by Srila Prabhupada, contains the restriction in initiating in the Guru's presence:

"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 GBC agreed that this restriction was integral to the 'law' since they used the 'law' as the basis for their paper that forbids devotees to initiate in the presence of the spiritual master:

"We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril."
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure -An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

Yet in the same paper, the GBC do not agree at all that this 'law' is either part of 'vaisnava tradition' or followed by every vaisnava acarya, or even sastric as claimed by Ajamila:

There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of guru,… This statement proves that acceptance of disciples in the presence of one's spiritual master has been approved by the scriptures. In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present… Even though in the past spiritual masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their presence,
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure -An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

Thus according to Ajamila's own 'rock solid proof' this 'law of disciplic succesion' must be rejected as it is not part of vaisnava tradition. And since this 'law' was stated by Srila Prabhupada that would mean rejecting Srila Prabhupada. Thus Ajamila has destroyed his whole paper, which rests on arguing for 'vaisnava tradition'. Either we accept the 'rock solid proof' of Ajamila and reject the GBC and Srila Prabhupada. Or we reject Ajamila's 'rock solid proof'.

It should be noted that Ajamila attempts to avoid this embarrassing conclusion by a blatant act of cheating and subterfuge. When he first quotes the 'law' in his paper, he only quotes half of it as follows:

"In his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession."
(Srila Prabhupada 2 December 75)

Please compare this version to the real version of the law quoted earlier. Ajamila's cheating in using Capitals for the word 'In', and his omission of the continuity marks '…', tries to give the impression that the restriction of not initiating in the presence of the spiritual master, which he has conveniently omitted is not part of the law. But such subterfuge is easily detected.

In fact Ajamila's whole case for the 'law of disciplic succession' rests on fabricating that it states something which it doesn't:

"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 as we have seen the 'law' does NOT state that 'one MUST receive diksa from a qualified LIVING guru', or anything of the kind. The words 'diksa', 'must', 'qualified' or 'living' are not even mentioned in the 'law'. Ajamila HIGHLIGHTING the word 'LIVING' merely emphasises the fabrication.

Another example of such mis-representation is when he quotes the following:

"As I have five thousand disciples or ten thousand, so you have ten thousand each. In this way create branches and branches of the Caitanya tree."
(Srila Prabhupada, Mayapura 1976)

and attributes the above quote to SRILA PRABHUPADA. But this is another fabrication, since the above statement is from Hari Sauri prabhu's diary. Such 'hearsay' evidence can not be attributed as if it is coming directly from Srila Prabhupada.

More Cheating

Having demonstrated how Ajamila has defeated his own paper, we will now give examples of the blatant mis-representation of our position that constitutes the rest of his paper:

Ajamila states the following:

"But here is the outrageous distortion of that point we found in TFO:

"Prabhupada: (I am) initiating. (My) grand disciple."

Is this not a very desperate attempt at cognitive distortion? This is exactly what the Ritviks printed in TFO, including their parentheses and incorrect grammar. Here the Ritviks are literally putting words in Srila Prabhupadas mouth, implying that Prabhupada would initiate his grand disciple posthumously which is simply ludicrous. If Srila Prabhupada actually intended to make all future generations his direct disciples which is what the Ritviks keep bashing into everyones ears he would certainly not have used the words grand disciple would he?"
(Ajamila's Introduction)

The above statement does not appear anywhere in the TFO. It is a fabrication.

Thus the only thing which is 'very desparate' and is a clear example of a 'distortion' (cognitive or otherwise) is the above blatant fabrication by Ajamila. We challenge Ajamila to state the page number of 'The Final Order' on which the above statement appears, so that we can all verify for ourselves this gross act of cheating.

There are many more such examples of this blatant mis-representation of our real position from Ajamila's introduction:

"Previously the Ritviks were claiming that the word henceforward in that letter was conclusive proof that the temporary ritvik system was to continue permanently after Srila Prabhupada's departure. But when we recently disproved that idea the Ritviks withdrew that claim and are now desperately presenting another misleading argument. Their new goalpost is this: Nowhere in the 9 July letter does Srila Prabhupada tell us to stop the ritvik system after his departure."

This is a straight-forward lie. We stated right in the beginning of 'The Final Order', (1996) - p3 that the word 'henceforward' was not necessary; and in the same paper we also gave the argument that 'Srila Prabhupada does not tell us to stop the ritvik system'.

"They speculate that until a self-effulgent acarya comes and re-kindles the parampara the ritvik system should remain in place."

We state the opposite - see 'The Final Order', p 46-48

And since an uttama will come down to madhyama to preach how can the Ritviks say for certain there are no uttamas in ISKCON when they hardly have any direct contact with most of them

We do not say this - see 'The Final Order', p34-35

"Ritviks proclaim there are no qualified _acarya_s like Srila Prabhupada to appoint more priests."

We do not say this. We say the GBC can appoint priests - see 'The Final Order', p46-48

The Ritviks illogically insist that all the above quotes only apply to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples becoming siksa-gurus, not diksa-gurus.

We state they do deal with diksa - see 'The Final Order' , p12-13

The Ritviks argument that Srila Prabhupada is independent of sastra and therefore he could break a major principle such as the law of disciplic succession is dangerously wrong.

We never 'argue' this.

"But the Ritviks assume that Srila Prabhupada wanted to contravene the rules on guru, sadhu, and sastra and that unfortunately is their great mistake."

We never 'assume' this.

"The Ritviks are trying to convince everyone that their 9 July evidence proves that Srila Prabhupada wanted to break the law of disciplic succession, he wanted to stop the parampara with him, and that he wanted to ignore the examples set by Lord Krishna, Lord Chaitanya, and all the _acarya_s in our line by implementing a system of posthumous initiations for himself after his departure. "

We are not trying to 'convince' anyone of these things.

"The ritvik people consider 9 July letter as their only evidence."

No we don't. We present quotes from the books, the will and other statements. See our introduction and 'The Final Order' and other papers.

"When we challenged the Ritviks to meet with some of those devotees they declined. Is this dubious behaviour from those who profess to propound the truth not contradictory?"

I nor any other member is aware of any such challenge, especially since in any case I have had recent contact with the devotees mentioned: HH Radha Govinda Maharaja & HH Jayapataka Swami.

And on and on and on. We could give many other examples. But we think you get the point. For example he devotes pages to the qualification of the Guru topic and that we use the fall-down of gurus as a justification for our position - a look at our introduction and our papers shows that this is just another false 'straw man' argument, since we never use such an argument.

Conclusion

We have shown conclusively that:

1. That Ajamila contradicts himself.
2. That Ajamila contradicts the GBC.
3. That Ajamila mis-represents evidence
4. That therefore the 3 main lines of argumentation presented by Ajamila - the May 28th tape, the 'law of disciplic succession', 'vaisnava tradition', are destroyed by Ajamila's own paper.
5. That he systematically mis-represents our position - the very position he is supposed to be defeating - indeed 'the Final Order' is only accurately quoted from twice.

Thus from every angle of vision, this paper from Ajamila, is useless as a contribution to this debate, since it defeats its own arguments, and in any case does not even address the actual arguments that are supposed to be the very purpose of this debate.

It is remarkable that such massive mis-representation could have occurred even before the debate has begun. It is very sloppy scholarship and Ajamila should have done his homework. Maybe now CHAKRA readers will begin to understand why the IRM are constantly stating that most ISKCON members have been kept in the dark over this issue for the last 21 years, and that they need to be given the opportunity to freely hear both sides of the debate.

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Untitled Document

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Question No. 1

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,

Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

As an aspiring insignificant servant who wants more than anything to see Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON not disgraced but glorified, I beg you to answer the following question with all honesty at your command.

Srila Prabhupada clearly instructed that the GBC always has the final say in ISKCON. This is a fact which you, being a protagonist for a posthumous ritvik system in ISKCON, have recently admitted. I remind you that on 1 May on COM you wrote:

"I am totally for GBC, only as Srila Prabhupada defined it. I think this is very clear and many devotees are beginning to see the point."

Here is how Srila Prabhupada defined the GBC:

"The GBC authority must be accepted under all circumstances, not that there will be fighting amongst you. This fighting spirit will destroy everything." (SPL Bali Mardan, 18 Sept, ‘72)

So if you really are ‘totally for GBC’ why do you rebel against Srila Prabhupada’s instruction to fully co-operate with the GBC?

Even during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence, objections to GBC resolutions only went through an authorised forum at an appropriate time, or not at all. Srila Prabhupada clearly wanted everyone to co-operate fully with the GBC. Your rebellion against the GBC’s unanimous decision against ritvikism clearly violates Srila Prabhupada’s wishes.

Here is another GBC definition by Srila Prabhupada:

"So far your question, how far should the orders of my duly appointed officers like GBC, etc., be obeyed and followed, the answer is that they must always be followed exactly as he says. Have you not heard me on this point? Why these questions are repeated again and again? This individual begging must be stopped."
(SPL to Jayadharma, 13th December, 1972)

Srila Prabhupada often made it very clear that he was very displeased with devotees who did not co-operate with the GBC. ISKCON must have ‘law and order.’ We cannot have a lawless society.

Over a period of nearly ten years the GBC have rejected all proposals for a posthumous ritvik system in ISKCON. This rejection was based upon extensive research by ISKCON scholars which culminated in a definitive paper entitled ‘Prabhupada’s Order’. This year another ritvik proposal was submitted to the GBC in Mayapur but that too was ‘unanimously’ rejected, surmising that ritvikism is a dangerous and devious concoction.

You stated that the GBC is not the GBC because they unanimously disagree with your ritvik concoction. Based on this most unreasonable explanation you have decided to rebel, defying Srila Prabhupada’s authority system and emphatic instruction not to take a philosophical dispute outside ISKCON.

This illegitimate action of yours is what I would like to call into question.

Do you admit that you have acted illegitimately by

a) rebelling against Srila Prabhupada’s GBC authority structure, being immensely frustrated with your year-after-year failed attempts to influence ISKCON with the ritvik concoction?

b) instigating directly or indirectly unauthorised and sometimes obscene, blasphemous, and harmful propaganda against the GBC, ISKCON, and ISKCON gurus?

c) disobeying Srila Prabhupada’s clear instruction in Caitanya-caritamrita not to take philosophical disputes outside ISKCON since this can only harm the reputation of his preaching mission?

I appeal sincerely to your honesty: Failure to ‘directly’ answer a) b) and c) without any evasion will no doubt be seen as a submission of guilt by the internet assembled devotees.

In your comment to my introduction you claimed that I contradicted myself and the GBC but your proof as usual did not match your claim. Please try to stick to disproving my evidence with REAL evidence rather than creating contradictions that are not only non-essential but unverifiable.

I respectfully remind you also that the purpose of this debate is to discuss the philosophy of initiation and its practical application in ISKCON which can only be truly understood by first observing strictly the ‘proper procedure guidelines’ given by Srila Prabhupada. I believe that your procedural neglect is hampering your ability to understand why the GBC unanimously rejected your posthumous ritvikism as a dangerous and devious concoction.

Hoping to alleviate ISKCON from the grave disturbances caused by your unauthorised ritvikism,

your humble aspiring servant,

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Adridharana's Answer to Question No. 1

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Adridharana's Answer to Question No. 1

by Adridharana dasa

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,

Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

The purpose of this debate, as agreed by everyone, is to discuss the system of initiation for ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada ordered. It is not, as rule 6 states,

"6. Chakra will only post philosophical arguments in this debate. References to the personal lives of the devotees involved in this issue, name-calling, insults and other personal attacks will be edited out. This includes references to any past or present law suits. All such statements will be seen as detracting from the focus of the debate, which is how Prabhupada wanted diksa initiations to continue in his absence."

to discuss the personal actions of any individuals.

Yet this is exactly what you have attempted to do :

"This illegitimate action of yours is what I would like to call into question."

The debate is not about:

-> how 'rebellious' I am
-> whether or not I should have gone outside the GBC
-> or what is the proper procedure for settling disputes in ISKCON

These are all interesting topics, and I am happy to debate them with you personally, without any cessation. But first let's complete this debate, in which I am representing the IRM's views in regards to the evidence for Srila Prabhupada's orders for initiation in ISKCON, and you were supposed to be representing the GBC's views on the same subject.

This attempt to change the subject of the debate is only to be expected since, as we have demonstrated, that even before the debate has properly begun, you have been unable to accurately represent:

-> the GBC position, (contradicting them in the process)
-> or our position.

And added to that was the fact that whatever 'evidence' you were able to muster up, you decided to eliminate.

Thus it is only natural that having already defeated yourself at such an early stage, you would wish to very quickly start a new debate on another subject, before you are exposed any more on the actual subject in hand: the availability of any evidence the GBC may have to justify terminating Srila Prabhupadas role as the diksa guru for ISKCON, and instead replacing him with the current system of 80 multiple acaryas, all authorised via a no objection voting system.

If you do not have this evidence then just say so, concede the debate, and we can start this new debate. Or if your evidence is simply: because the GBC say so then admit that. (Of course in such a case, you will still have conceded the debate, for this is just another way of admitting, that you do not have any evidence from Srila Prabhupada in this regard.)

But please do not try and evade the fact that you can neither counter the evidence we have presented, nor present contrary evidence, by trying to start a debate on another subject.

You again state:

"This rejection was based upon extensive research by ISKCON scholars which culminated in a definitive paper entitled Prabhupadas Order."

But this was the same paper that you already contradicted in your introduction. Let us once again remind the readers of this blunder:

Ajamila says:

"Srila Prabhupada added acarya to the word ritvik because during his presence they are ritviks and after his departure they are acaryas."
(Ajamila's Introduction)

But 'Prabhupada's Order', which Ajamila was a contributor to, states:

"The significant point here is that terms such as .rtvig-guru and .rtvig-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. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture."
(Prabhupada's Order, GBC Paper, Contributor Ajamila)

Thus according to Ajamila (and the GBC) his own argument rests on a concept and word (ritvik-acarya) that 'does not exist in Vedic culture'. Thus he has defeated himself, and further he accuses Srila Prabhupada of propounding this non-existent word and concept by stating that Srila Prabhupada 'added acarya to the word ritvik'.

We fully understand why you may wish to deflect attention from such a contradiction, by trying to change the subject. Also, just for the record, your quotes do not give a definition of the GBC; they only state how the GBC should be followed. (This is given in the 1975 GBC resolution quoted in our introduction, when the word 'definition', was actually used). And the answers to your questions are no, no and no.

So in conclusion, you may now wish to discuss the general topic of how the GBC must be followed regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong. Fair points for discussion. But let us first discuss whether or not they are actually right on this particular issue - which is the actual subject of this debate. To do this you need to counter the evidence we have presented with evidence from Srila Prabhupada, to justify the termination of his role as the diksa guru for ISKCON. If you cannot do this, then just say so, but please don't try and change the subject. Its the oldest trick in the book.

Ys, Adri

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Ajamila's Comment on Adridharana's Answer to Question No. 1

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Comment on

Adridharana's Answer to Question No. 1

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,

Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You stated:

"The purpose of this debate, as agreed by everyone, is to discuss the system of initiation for ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada ordered. It is not, as rule 6 states, to discuss the personal actions of any individuals."

Following the ‘correct procedure’ in discussing the system of initiation in ISKCON is an inseparable part of that system. Your concern about me discussing your personal misbehaviour is unwarranted since I address only your illegitimate abandonment of the authorised ‘correct procedure’ which is directly connected to the debate.

"Yet this is exactly what you have attempted to do:

"‘This illegitimate action of yours is what I would like to call into question.’"

Did Srila Prabhupada or did he not set up a proper procedure for debating GBC resolutions? And have you or have you not disregarded that procedure?

"The debate is not about:

"-> how 'rebellious' I am
-> whether or not I should have gone outside the GBC
-> or what is the proper procedure for settling disputes in ISKCON."

It is simply absurd to separate the proper authorised procedure from the current debate. Are you trying to make irrelevant a point which is directly relevant because you know that I have irrefutable proof that you are guilty of seriously violating the authorised appeal procedure given by Srila Prabhupada?

"These are all interesting topics, and I am happy to debate them with you personally, without any cessation. But first let's complete this debate, in which I am representing the IRG in regards to the evidence for Srila Prabhupada's orders for initiation in ISKCON, and you were supposed to be representing the GBC's views on the same subject."

Following the proper procedure for appealing a GBC decision is very much a major concern of the GBC on the same subject. If you don't believe me, ask them? If not, withdraw your point.

"This attempt to change the subject of the debate is only to be expected since, as we have demonstrated, that even before the debate has properly begun, you have been unable to accurately represent:"

This is but your attempt to avoid my legitimate question about the proper appeal procedure which is an inseparable part of the debate.

"-> the GBC position, (contradicting them in the process) or our position.

"And added to that was the fact that whatever 'evidence' you were able to muster up, you decided to eliminate."

You would do better to prove your points rather than make them up.

"Thus it is only natural that having already defeated yourself at such an early stage, you would wish to very quickly start a new debate on another subject,"

My next question addressing your above point will defeat you completely. Before I do that, I want all the assembled internet devotees to know that you have rejected Srila Prabhupada's instruction to follow the proper procedure for appealing GBC decisions.

"...if your evidence is simply_: because the GBC say so_ then admit that. (Of course in such a case, you will still have conceded the debate, for this is just another way of admitting, that you do not have any evidence from Srila Prabhupada in this regard.)"

I have a store-house of bona fide evidence from Srila Prabhupada whereas you have only concocted wranglings which you call evidence. This has already been demonstrated and will be clearly illustrated again.

"But please do not try and evade the fact that you can neither counter the evidence we have presented, nor present contrary evidence, by trying to start a debate on another subject."

First produce some 'real' evidence. When you present me with a 'faked final order' and wild concoctions I bin them for you, and then you say I'm evading your evidence. First prove your so-called evidence is 'real' evidence. The onus is on you to do that. Come up with something REAL. So far you have only produced concoction after concoction after concoction after concoction.

"You again state:

"‘This rejection was based upon extensive research by ISKCON scholars which culminated in a definitive paper entitled prabhupadas Order.’"

"But this was the same paper that you already contradicted in your introduction."

You are so desperate to find a fault and so you 'create one' where there isn't one. This point that you have alluded to proves my point. The reason ritvik is unimportant in sastra is because it is not a major 'principle' of Vedic philosophy, it is merely a circumstantial detail. That is what I have said and that is what the GBC have said and so there is no contradiction, except in your 'creative' mind.

"Thus according to Ajamila (and the GBC) his own argument rests on a concept and word ('ritvik-acarya) that 'does not exist in vedic culture'. Thus he has defeated himself, and further he accuses Srila Prabhupada of propounding this non-existent word and concept by stating that Srila Prabhupada 'added acarya to the word ritvik'."

I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya) circumstantially, this is a fact you cannot deny. I also said that Srila Prabhupada's usage was not to establish a ritvik priest as a major principle of Vedic culture, and that is a fact. I have always said that and so have the GBC. So you have only succeeded in creating another fabrication and confirming what I and the GBC have said all along. Thank you.

"And the answers to your questions are no, no and no."

Thank you for answering my questions.

Let me remind you of my questions:

"Do you admit that you have acted ILLEGITIMATELY by

" a) rebelling against Srila Prabhupada’s GBC authority structure, being immensely frustrated with your year-after-year failed attempts to influence ISKCON with the ritvik concoction?"

You blatantly say 'no' but everyone knows that you have done so in the past and that you continue to do so now. I can 'prove' this extensively. Would you like me to post some evidence to remind you?

"b) instigating directly or indirectly unauthorised and sometimes obscene, blasphemous, and harmful propaganda against the GBC, ISKCON, and ISKCON gurus?"

How can you say ‘no’ when you play a leading role in IRM who constantly blaspheme the GBC, ISKCON, and all ISKCON gurus? You are not being honest. Would you like me to also post this evidence as a reminder?

"c) disobeying Srila Prabhupada’s clear instruction in Caitanya-caritamrita not to take philosophical disputes outside ISKCON since this can only harm the reputation of his preaching mission?"

Again you say no but the whole of ISKCON knows what you are currently up to in Calcutta. After seeing your untruthful answers to my above rhetorical questions how can anyone seriously respect your 'philosophical' judgement?

"So in conclusion, you may now wish to discuss the general topic of how the GBC must be followed regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong."

I'm not here to enforce the GBC authority upon you, I'm here to remind you about the authority of sastra which you whimsically and dangerously disregard.

"Fair points for discussion. But let us first discuss whether or not they are actually right on this particular issue - which is the actual subject of this debate. To do this you need to counter the evidence we have presented with evidence from Srila Prabhupada, to justify the termination of his role as the diksa guru for ISKCON."

First of all prove you have 'real' evidence for ritvikism. Thus far you have only proved that ritvikism is made up of 100-plus concoctions, the grossest type of philosophical errors you could ever imagine. This is your only ‘success’.

"If you cannot do this, then just say so, but please don't try and change the subject. Its the oldest trick in the book."

Atmavan manyate jagat, you are projecting on others the very trick you so often deploy when all your faked evidence falls apart under scrutiny. Is this the only way you can protect all your feeble ‘straw man’ arguments?

Ys, Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Questions for Ajamila

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Questions for Ajamila

by Adridharana dasa

Dear Ajamila prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You alleged in your introduction that we tried to 'cover' the:

"direct until departure ritvik priests meaning of the 9 July letter"

But this meaning is not given anywhere in the letter itself, where there is no mention of 'until departure', direct or otherwise. So we wish to know from where you have mysteriously obtained this 'until departure' idea for ritvik priests, since it is not stated in the July 9th letter itself, as your statement above implies.

Neither is such a 'until departure' statement for ritviks found on the May 28th tape. On the contrary, the only time ritviks are mentioned on the tape, is for after departure:

Srila Prabhupada:

Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas.

Tamal Krsna:

Is that called ritvik-acharya?

Srila Prabhupada:

ritvik, yes.

(May 28th Conversation)

And this has also been admitted by yourself:

"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)

You have yourself helpfully added the emphasis so that it is clear that the ritviks priests are to act for after departure.

You then attempted to get round your own conclusion here by trying to say that Srila Prabhupada 'added acarya to the word ritvik', to try and show that Srila Prabhupada was not talking about normal ritvik priests, but actually 'ritvik-acaryas' or Diksha gurus. However we have already shown how this attempt to redefine the word ritvik into 'ritvik-acharya', failed miserably for the following 3 reasons:

1. 'Prabhupada's Order', the 'definitive' GBC paper you glorified, stated that the term and concept of 'ritvik-acarya' does not actually exist in vedic culture!
2. A look at the May 28 conversation above shows that Srila Prabhupada did not in any case add 'acarya' to the 'word ritvik'; it was actually only HH Tamala Krishna Maharaja who ever uses the term 'ritvik-acarya' - not Srila Prabhupada.
3. In any case Srila Prabhupada equates the term 'officiating acarya' with the word 'ritvik' not 'ritvik-acarya', which as HH Hrdyananda Maharaja has helpfully told us in 'Prabhupada's Order', does not in any case actually exist in vedic culture.

Above in the May 28 conversation, we see Srila Prabhupada clearly agrees that the word 'officiating acarya' is non-different from 'ritvik': 'ritvik, yes'. Thus with the above 3 reasons, since your attempt at turning the ritvik into a 'ritvik-acarya' has clearly failed, you are actually left only with your original admission:

"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)

An attempt to go the end of the tape will not help in locating this 'direct until departure ritvik priests meaning' for the July 9 letter either. The opening part of the tape refers to 'ritvik priests' not ritvik acharyas, and Srila Prabhupada agrees that 'officiating acaryas' are the same as 'ritviks' - 'ritvik, yes'; (as seen earlier). Therefore the 'regular gurus' spoken about at the end of the tape are clearly another entity. An entity that is produced by a specific order to that effect, and which results in grand-disciples being produced:

"When I order 'you become guru', he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple."
(May 28th tape) (A 'disciple of my disciple' simply being another word for 'grand-disciple'.)

An order which was not given in the July 9th letter or the tape, which as you have admitted speaks only of the ritvik priests acting after departure.

In conclusion we have seen that such a 'direct until departure ritvik priests meaning' of the July 9th letter is not stated in the letter itself, and now we see neither is it stated on the tape - on the contrary according to you the tape supports an 'after departure ritvik priests' meaning.

So I have 2 questions:

a) Where does the 'direct until departure ritvik priests meaning of the 9 July letter' come from?

Note the word 'direct' means your answer has to be literal i.e. it should contain words such as 'until departure', and 'ritvik priests'. No extrapolation permitted. Otherwise you must withdraw your claim that there is a 'direct' meaning.

b) You stated:

"I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially, this is a fact you cannot deny."

Where does Srila Prabhupada use the word 'ritvik-acarya'?

We have seen that it is not on the tape. Please note that your whole interpretation of the tape rests on this unsubstantiated claim. If you can't produce this word 'ritvik-acarya' being stated by Srila Prabhupada, then your whole case collapses.

Thanking you in advance for the answers to my two questions.

Ys, Adri

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Ajamila's Response to Adridharan's 1st Question

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Response to

Adridharan's 1st Question

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

My answer to your first question is as follows:

"a) Where does the 'direct until departure ritvik priests meaning of the 9 July letter' come from?

Note the word 'direct' means your answer has to be literal i.e. it >should contain words such as 'until departure', and 'ritvik priests'. No extrapolation permitted. Otherwise you must withdraw your claim that there is a 'direct' meaning."

First of all you are not authorised to limit the words Srila Prabhupada used to convey a direct or literal meaning, for by such a tactic you exclude vital evidence so as to favour your concoction. If you are authorised to do so, who authorised you? Nobody. Otherwise in debating circles such an attempt to cover evidence would immediately disqualify you. I am surprised you chose to discredit yourself in this way at the outset of your first question.

Now for your question.

The ‘direct until departure ritvik priests meaning’ of the 9 July letter is the self-evident meaning.

Consider the following evidence carefully. On 9 July 1977 Srila Prabhupada was very ill and hundreds of devotees worldwide were eager to take initiation. To solve this impending problem Srila Prabhupada appointed more ritvik priests to perform the initiation ceremonies on his behalf, as he instructed in 9 July letter.

Since Srila Prabhupada does not mention anything at all in the 9 July letter about continuing that temporary system after his departure, and since only five weeks earlier Srila Prabhupada concluded that the ritviks would become regular gurus 'after his departure' and that the initiates would be their disciples and his grand disciples, and since Srila Prabhupada mentioned so many times that he was training his disciples for becoming spiritual masters 'after his departure', and since never before in the history of Vaisnavism have there been posthumous initiations, and since never before has the law of disciplic succession been broken before as per your interpretation of the 9 July letter, and since even Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya and every single acarya in our line had living diksa-gurus, and since your interpretation of 9 July letter rejects the authority of guru, sadhu, and sastra, the self-evident meaning and instruction to us all in 9 July letter is that the temporary ritvik system Srila Prabhupada deployed in that letter was indeed to be used only ‘until his departure’. This is the direct meaning.

But for arguments sake, even if what I just said is incorrect, and I don’t say it is, your case for ritvikism is still wrong because, as Srila Prabhupada mentions, (and you have already admitted this), that on his order he expected all his disciples to become regular gurus who in turn would produce grand disciples. You brushed aside this evidence denigrating it as another entity as if deploring its existence.

You agreed that Srila Prabhupada said that "when I order" you become regular guru. You also agreed that if the order was actually given, then Srila Prabhupada's disciples could initiate. In fact, you have stated this several times. To cancel Srila Prabhupada's order you argue that he didn’t actually give the order to any of his disciples. But Srila Prabhupada’s order for his disciples to become regular gurus after his departure was a standing order that he had been giving his disciples all along, as the following quotes from Srila Prabhupada prove:

"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 disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." New Delhi, 2 December, 1975

"Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. So we have to follow the acharya. Then, when we are completely, cent per cent follower of acharya, then you can also act as acharya. This is the process. Don’t become premature acharya. First of all follow the orders of acharya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acharya. Because we are interested in preparing acharya, but the etiquette is, at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acharya." (PUBLIC Sri Caitanya-caritamrta class, Adi-lila 1.13 Mayapur, April 6, 1975)

"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master." Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.43p

"Everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can make disciples and spread… they are competent to make disciples." Detroit, July 18, 1971

"Every student is expected to become Acharya. Acharya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples…

"Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. Los Angeles, 25 January, 1969

"So how everyone can become a spiritual master? A spiritual master must have sufficient knowledge, so many other qualifications. No. Even without any qualifications, one can become a spiritual master. How? Now the process is, Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya: "On My order." That is the crucial point. One does not become spiritual master by his own whims. That is not spiritual master. He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he’s spiritual master. Amara ajnaya. Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that "You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So we have tried it. That’s all. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior authority. That’s all. This is the secret of success." London, August 3, 1973

And so on, there are many more such quotes.

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. Nevertheless he still received the order. When? In the quote directly above Srila Prabhupada says,

"He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he’s spiritual master. Amara ajnaya. Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that "You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So we have tried it. That’s all."

The simple order Srila Prabhupada received is this:

"You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So we have tried it. That’s all."

That is the ‘simple standing order to be guru’ that Srila Prabhupada received from his guru, and that is the same simple standing order that Srila Prabhupada gave all his disciples hundreds of times. This argument is irrefutable. The overwhelming body of evidence clearly shows that all along Srila Prabhupada was giving the order to his disciples to be guru after his departure. Thus your argument that Srila Prabhupada never gave his disciples the order to be guru is completely false. And ISKCON's regular guru system is correct.

But even if your semantic analysis of the 9 July letter is correct, which it is not, still you are wrong because you have already agreed with us that Srila Prabhupada gave the order for his disciples to become regular gurus and produce grand disciples and I have just irrefutably proved with the above quotes that all along Srila Prabhupada had been giving the order for his disciples to initiate after his departure. So on that basis your argument for ritvikism has been completely defeated.

Furthermore, in 1977, H.H. Radha Govinda Swami took some devotees to Vrindavana to get initiated but Srila Prabhupada directly told the Maharaja to initiate them himself. Srila Prabhupada directly gave him a 'verbal order'. Knowing the Maharaja’s truly renounced and excellent character, I and many others have no doubts that this is true. Srila Prabhupada also gave a similar direct order to H.H. Jayapataka Maharaja, Bhavananda, and a few others. Your response to this was that all those devotees banded together to tell the same lie! When we challenged you to meet with some of those devotees, you declined. I herein again challenge you to put those devotees to a sophisticated lie detector test since such devices have proven to be 85% effective. But when the tests prove negative will you give up your ritvik concoction?

Confirming the total evidence I have presented, your proposed system of posthumous initiations must be a concoction since the whole idea defies and insults the law of disciplic succession and clearly contravenes guru, sadhu, and sastra.

So which ever way you look at it your ritvikism is a dangerous and devious concoction, as the GBC researchers rightly concluded.

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Comments on Ajamila's Response to Adridharana's 1st Question

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

• "a) Where does the 'direct until departure ritvik priests meaning of the 9 July letter' come from?"

You were asked for evidence to prove your above assumed 'direct' meaning. As it happens you were unable to provide any evidence - and instead tried to hide this lack of evidence by simply presenting more assumptions:

But this assumption of yours - that Srila Prabhupada wrote the July 9th letter only to clear the backlog of devotees due to his illness - is just that - an assumption. This assumption is not stated in the July 9th letter itself, and therefore it is just your speculation. You have therefore presented as the evidence for one assumption, just another assumption. If your latest assumption was correct, the July 9th letter would make mention of this speculation of yours and at least state that:

a) This letter is being written to clear the backlog of initiations due to my illness.
b) And that after this backlog is cleared please stop this system.

Since neither of these statements are made in the letter your speculation is defeated, and you have no authority to unauthorisedly terminate the system given in the letter.

You have said that the July 9th letter gives a 'temporary system' - but this is the very assumption - that the July 9th letter sets up a temporary ritvik system - that you have just been asked to provide evidence for - and you simply restate this same assumption as evidence for itself!

The subterfuge of trying to cover one unsubstantiated speculation with just more unsubstantiated speculations is easily exposed.

You also contradict yourself with the following assumption:

But we already caught you out saying that it would be the ritviks who were to be performing initiations 'after departure'.

And we have already seen that your attempt to convert the ritviks into 'regular gurus' via the 'ritvik acharya' entity was defeated by HH Hridaynanda Maharaja in the GBC's 'Prabhupada's Order'. So recycling the already defeated assumption above will not work either.

Next we come to evidence that Srila Prabhupada directly 'ordered' his disciples to 'initiate' 'after his departure'. Though you present some quotes you freely admit that such quotes are not infact direct orders to become diksa gurus - the very evidence you are supposed to be presenting - and further agree that that no such orders actually exist - and then try to justify this lack of evidence by stating that Srila Prabhupada himself never received such a direct order either:

This is a very honest admission from you prabhu to the whole world, that infact no such direct orders to be guru are either needed or indeed actually exist. After years of being told by the GBC, that either that there are actually 'dozens' of such quotes (HH Hrdyananda Maharaja); that the direct order was given on the tape itself ('Disciple of His Disciple, HH Umapati Swami et. al.) etc. etc., it is refreshing to be told that such a 'direct order' does not infact actually exist! This honesty of yours completely destroys the official GBC line. We hope they come to your understanding!

Also your assertion that Srila Prabhupada did not receive a 'direct order to be guru', is another one of your 'assumptions'.

• How can you prove this?
• Were you privy to every instruction that Srila Prabhupada received from His Guru Maharaja?

Further the quote you provide nowhere states Srila Prabhupada never received a 'direct order to be guru'. It tells us that he was ordered to preach, but does not say that this was the only communication on this subject that transpired between him and his Guru Maharaja. Again simply more assumptions.

Also for ISKCON, as already shown, Srila Prabhupada gave a process by which he continues to act as the diksa guru via the July 9 directive. And we have just seen above that you have spectacularly failed in proving your assumption that such a directive was temporary. Thus the order to 'preach' in ISKCON, must be carried out in conjunction with the other instructions that Srila Prabhupada gave for ISKCON as well - not be used as an excuse to terminate them. We can only execute the instructions that we were given - not abandon them by speculating on the instructions that our guru received from his guru maharaja. This principle has never been taught by Srila Prabhupada.

So in conclusion please note what Ajamila has presented so far:

1. On May 28th tape, since Ajamila admits that 'ritviks' act 'after departure', and he has failed in his attempt to turn the ritvik into a diksa guru via a 'ritvik-acharya'.
2. No 'law of disciplic succession' or 'vaisnava tradition', since they eliminate each other due to the fact that the GBC admitted that the 'law' is not infact traditional.
3. No evidence for the assumption that the July 9th letter is temporary - just a restatement of the same assumption.
4. No direct order for any disciple to be a diksa guru.

So the debate has just warmed up, and still at a stroke you have already managed to eliminate all the evidence that has ever been presented by the GBC, probably more effectively then any IRM paper could do. Instead you have rested your whole case to justify the abandoning of a signed directive sent to the whole movement on the extrapolation of a speculation on an order that was given by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura to Srila Prabhupada.
That is you actually have no evidence, and Srila Prabhupada remains as the diksa guru for the whole movement.

Srila Prabhupada ki jai!

Ys, Adri

---

Question No. 2 - by Ajamila dasa

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Question No. 2 - by Ajamila dasa

PREAMBLE

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I’m sure you’ll agree that sastra says the conclusive rule when speaking on major principles of Vedic philosophy is that _sadhu_s, gurus, and even founder _acarya_s must always strictly adhere to sastra.

This is profoundly verified as follows in Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352 purport:

"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru- vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual centre is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the centre for all."

Sastra is the centre for all. This is clear, and I presume you agree. Therefore, until you verify that your posthumous _ritvik_ism is ‘sastra centred’ it must be rejected as nonsense. The most alarming element of your _ritvik_ism is that it puts both place marker you and our beloved Srila Prabhupada in the 'bogus position’ of rejecting sastra as the centre of all. Your _ritvik_ism is not supported by even an iota of evidence from sastra or Srila Prabhupada.

Strictly adhering to guru, sadhu, and sastra simply means that gurus and _sadhu_s must always refer to sastra when applying the ‘principles’ of Krishna consciousness. Gurus and _sadhu_s need not refer to the principles of sastra when adjusting ‘certain’ time, place, and circumstance ‘details’.

Gurus and _sadhu_s MUST always refer to the principles of sastra when adjusting time, place, and circumstance 'details'. If an adjustment flouts a principle, it is apasiddhantika or bogus. All adjustments of details must be in accordance with sastra principles.

Not even a Founder Acarya like Srila Prabhupada, can change ‘any principles’ of sastra. Principles of sastra always remain unchangeable. For instance a guru cannot instruct an initiated disciple ‘don’t chant any rounds’ because that is against a major principle of sastra. A guru or sadhu cannot say that Krishna is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and so on.

What makes _ritvik_ism a dangerous concoction of a is that the directive therein blindly rebels against the fact that principles of sastra can never be changed. You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so powerful as a guru, sadhu, and Founder Acarya that he could change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself! You imply that Srila Prabhupada has become greater than God!

Here is irrevocable proof that one must take diksa from a living spiritual master:

"Krsna, He is within our heart. Hrdy antah sthah. Therefore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Krsna, then from within our heart He gives us favorable instruction so that we can gradually make progress, gradually. Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, _then we have to go to a physical spiritual maste_r. That is enjoined in the next verse. Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya, upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva- darsinah.

(SP Room Conversation, Rome, 23 May, 1974)

According to your _ritvik_ism Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself here when he said,

"...then we have to go to a physical spiritual master."

Here is the critical question: Is the acceptance of a living diksa-guru an unchangeable major principle of Krishna consciousness? The answer is absolutely yes. 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. Sastra considers ‘Vaisnava tradition’ as valid evidence and therefore this proof is irrefutable.

If an interpretation opposes the principles of scripture it can never be accepted, as verified by our sastra Caitanya-caritamrita Adi. 2.73:

"To such a misguided interpreter we may reply, ‘Why should you suggest such fallacious logic? An interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture.’"

The sastra principle that an interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture applies to all Srila Prabhupada’s interpretations too. Nowhere in all Srila Prabhupada’s vani will you find even a hint of an instance where he opposes the principles of sastra. But now after all these years you dig up a ‘hidden’ meaning from the 9 July letter implying that Srila Prabhupada opposed the principles of sastra. This wild inaccurate assertion is not only absurd but a great insult to Srila Prabhupada. You have wrongly concocted that Srila Prabhupada wanted to defy sastra by instigating a posthumous ritvik system that breaks the law of disciplic succession!

Here is more incontestable proof that _ritvik_ism is completely wrong. His Divine Grace again clearly confirms in the following quote that he wanted the disciplic succession to continue after him and not stop with him. Srila Prabhupada clearly says here that he is eleventh in our line of disciplic succession from Lord Caitanya and that his disciples would be twelfth:

"So we have got this message from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. My guru-maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I’m eleventh, you are the twelfth."

(Los Angeles lecture, 18 May, 1972.)

When Srila Prabhupada says "I am eleventh, you are the twelfth" it is very clear that he wanted his disciples to continue the disciplic succession, not discontinue it. If Srila Prabhupada actually wanted to stop the parampara with him he would have said something like ‘I am eleventh, bas. No more after me.’ But he clearly couldn’t and didn’t. Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to be the twelfth generation of diksa-gurus, just like him, as per the unbroken Vaisnava tradition. In the above quote Srila Prabhupada sets the perfect example as the guru and sadhu and Founder Acarya of ISKCON by strictly adhering to a major principle of sastra.

QUESTION TWO

Please prove directly and unequivocally without any evasion tactic whatsoever that your proposed system of _ritvik_ism, a system of posthumous initiation that you declare Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted after his departure, does not put Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of contravening guru, sadhu, and sastra by breaking the law of disciplic succession?

Your servant,

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Comments on Ajamila's Second Question

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Comments on Ajamila's Second Question

by Adridharana dasa

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In your latest offering you:

1. Recycle arguments from your introduction that we do not even present.
2. Recycle arguments that have already been answered in 'The Final Order' in 1996.
3. Recycle assumptions without any supporting evidence, the very assumptions which you have to prove in order to support your case.
4. And finally you end up asking a 'question' that was also already answered in our reply to your introduction.

In conclusion, this is the offering of an already defeated person trying his best to avoid answering the actual arguments we present, because he can't.

Examples follow:

"Your ritvikism is not supported by even an iota of evidence from sastra or Srila Prabhupada."

We have never put forward 'ritvikism'. This is a term invented by you. We simply asked for evidence to justify the removal of Srila Prabhupada as the diska guru for ISKCON - which you still have not presented - your last technique being to say that you don't need any, because you speculate that Srila Prabhupada wasn't ordered. This just another way of conceding the debate.

"You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so powerful as a guru, sadhu, and Founder Acarya that he could change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself!"

We have never argued this.
We challenge you to show where we have.

"What makes ritvikism a dangerous concoction is that the directive therein blindly rebels against the fact that principles of sastra can never be changed."

You are just assuming that which you need to prove.

• Which principle of sastra are we changing?

You have never been able thus far to quote it.

"According to your ritvikism Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself here when he said, "then we have to go to a physical spiritual master."

The 'physical spiritual master' argument was already answered on page 49 of 'The Final Order'. Srila Prabhupada uses the term 'physical spiritual master' to distinguish between the supersoul and the external manifestation of the supersoul, the diksa Guru, who comes via an embodied form in the parampara.

• The issue is how does the disciple 'go to' this external representation of the supersoul?

This cannot involve either the physical presence or physical body of the guru, since thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples did not 'go to' the physical body of the spiritual master, having never met him.

• So if Srila Prabhupada's physical body was not required to give diksa then, how can it be needed now?

"Is the acceptance of a living diksa-guru an unchangeable major principle of Krishna consciousness? [I] 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."

What happened in the past cannot be proof that it must occur now, otherwise by this same foolish logic all the gurus now would have to also be Indian-bodied. That is also an 'unbroken tradition'. Neither could ladies receive gaytri initiation. That is also an 'unbroken tradition'.

• Need we go on?

Your arguments for 'tradition' are the same as used by the smarta brahmanas to criticise Srila Prabhupada.

"But now after all these years you dig up a hidden meaning from the 9 July letter implying that Srila Prabhupada opposed the principles of sastra."

We do not 'dig up' anything. We simply ask a very simple question -

• why did you decide that that the letter was no longer applicable for ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure, even though the letter itself makes no mention of departure?

And all you offer is an attempt at inventing the non-existent 'ritvik-acarya' entity, which resulted in you contradicting yourself, the GBC, HH Hridyananda Maharaja and putting words into the mouth of Srila Prabhupada in the process.

"Sastra considers Vaisnava tradition as valid evidence and therefore this proof is irrefutable."

If you really believe that that 'tradition' is 'irrefutable proof', then why do you ask a question about a ''law of disciplic succession', that the GBC states is neither in sastra or a part of tradition:

"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of guru, [I] This statement proves that acceptance of disciples in the presence of one's spiritual master has been approved by the scriptures. In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present. [I]

Even though in the past spiritual masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their presence, [I] "We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril.
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure -An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

• How many times must we point out this embarrassing and glaringly obvious fact?

"Srila Prabhupada clearly says here [I] that his disciples would be twelfth: [I] Srila Prabhupada says 'you are the twelfth' [I] Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to be the twelfth generation of diksa-gurus,"

This also has been answered in 1996 in 'The Final Order' page 14. You contradict yourself - first you say "his disciples would be twelfth', and then immediately you correctly quote Srila Prabhupada saying "you are the twelfth". You need to impose this contradiction on Srila Prabhupada since as Srila Prabhupada is speaking in the present tense he couldn't possibly be speaking of diksa gurus, otherwise you would be advocating breaking the 'law of disciplic succession', which forbids such diksa succession taking place whilst Srila Prabhupada is still on the planet.

Now coming to your question.

Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa guru for ISKCON could only break the 'law' if the 'law' stated that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' Guru. But the 'law' does not make any mention of this. We already pointed this out the last time you falsely tried to assert that we were 'breaking the law':

"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 as we have seen the 'law' does NOT state that 'one MUST receive diksa from a qualified LIVING guru', or anything of the kind. The words 'diksa', 'must', 'qualified' or 'living' are not even mentioned in the 'law'. Ajamila HIGHLIGHTING the word 'LIVING' merely emphasise the fabrication.
(Commentary on Ajamila's Introduction)

As we have seen the 'law' in question merely states that one is forbidden to be a diksa guru whilst the Guru is on the planet, with such succession only possible after the Guru has departed.

What is ironic about his question is that as we have seen, it is Ajamila who advocates breaking the law, by stating that Srila Prabhupada was authorising diksa gurus in his presence - 'you are the twelfth'. Plus we have seen that Ajamila does not himself even believe in this 'law' since according to the GBC it contravenes his 'irrefutable proof' of 'vaisnava tradition' and is not mentioned in sastra which he claims must always be followed.

• Thus Ajamila only offers arguments that either have already been defeated or that he himself does not believe in, and which also contradicts the GBC, who he is supposed to be defending!

These actions have ensured that Ajamila has already lost the debate.

Ys, Adri

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Untitled Document

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Comments on Adridharana's Answer to Question No. 2

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You have avoided answering my second question which is:

"Please prove directly and unequivocally without any evasion tactic whatsoever that your proposed system of _ritvik_ism, a system of posthumous initiation that you declare Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted after his departure, does not put Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of contravening guru, sadhu, and sastra by breaking the law of disciplic succession?"

You have not answered my question. I have proved herein that by your own omission of guru, sadhu, and sastra you have clearly lost the debate.

I requested you to support your NCIP ritvik idea with evidence from guru, sadhu, and sastra, otherwise it is a concoction. Everything I have said is rooted in guru, sadhu, and sastra since this is the standard in Vaisnava debating. You have violated this standard and have thus disqualified your self and have lost the debate. The more you debate the more you confirm your failure.

Your evasion tactic is your accusation that I recycle the same arguments but that is what we are both doing in order to prove our points of view. Your accusation exhibits ignorance of fair debating. Your evasion only confirms that your posthumous initiation proposal is a devious and dangerous concoction. One of the rules of this debate which you accepted is that everything must be supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra. On this count you have failed. Another standard debating rule is that a question cannot be answered with a question, that is evasion. You have to answer the question, not evade it because you can’t answer it. For example, you answered my question with this question: "Which principle of sastra are we changing?" when I clearly refer to the major principle of the disciplic succession. You also didn’t answer my request for guru, sadhu, and sastra references to prove that your NCIP does not put Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of breaking the law of disciplic succession and defying sastra.

Thus you have lost this debate on the following grounds:

1. Evading a question by using the diversion tactic of answering a question with a question.
2. You have not answered Question Two as requested with evidence from guru, sadhu, and sastra.

Being disqualified in that way you should be honest and withdraw from this debate and stop harassing ISKCON with your concoctions. Anything that is not supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra is a concoction. This is irrefutable. If the deciding factor of this debate is speculative concoctions then you win. But if the deciding factor of this debate is guru, sadhu, and sastra then you have clearly lost because your concoction is rejected by sastra.

The main contention of your speculation is this: Why was Srila Prabhupada removed as the diksa-guru of ISKCON?

Here is a simple answer: In this question you insinuate that Srila Prabhupada was illegally removed out of envy, but every single guru in our very long line of disciplic succession gets removed from being a living diksa-guru by the very nature of their physical departure. Please use your common sense. 

You quoted me as saying: "You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so powerful as a guru, sadhu, and Founder Acarya that he could change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself!"

And then you said: "We have never argued this. We challenge you to show where we have."

My response to your challenge: Your whole NCIP (no changes in ISKCON paradigm) is an illogical, unauthorized, and ‘impossible to implement’ concoction that puts Srila Prabhupada into a bogus position of changing a major principle of Vedic philosophy, the law of disciplic succession that was firmly upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself. If this is the bogus result of your NCIP idea then how can you say you have never argued this?

I said: "What makes _ritvik_ism a dangerous concoction is that the directive therein blindly rebels against the fact that major principles of sastra can never be changed."You said: "You are just assuming that which you need to prove. Which principle of sastra are we changing? You have never been able thus far to quote it."My answer: Here is irrefutable proof from Srila Prabhupada:

"…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 disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."
(Srila Prabhupada 2 December, 1975)

The principles of sastra you are trying to change is the law of disciplic succession that Srila Prabhupada describes above. Your concocted NCIP clearly contradicts what Srila Prabhupada teaches in that instruction and therefore must be rejected without hesitation. As I have explained to you many times in this debate, your NCIP concoction defies a major principle of sastra, the law of disciplic succession that has never been broken and cannot be broken by ISKCON as you wrongly presume it should. 

I said: "According to your _ritvik_ism Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself here when he said, ‘then we have to go to a physical spiritual master.’"

You said: "The 'physical spiritual master' argument was already answered on page 49 of 'The Final Order'. Srila Prabhupada uses the term 'physical spiritual master' to distinguish between the Supersoul and the external manifestation of the Supersoul, the diksa Guru, who comes via an embodied form in the parampara. The issue is how does the disciple 'go to' this external representation of the Supersoul? This cannot involve either the physical presence or physical body of the guru, since thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples did not 'go to' the physical body of the spiritual master, having never met him. So if Srila Prabhupada's physical body was not required to give diksa then, how can it be needed now?"

My comment: The unbroken law and tradition of disciplic succession is that one must take diksa from a living spiritual master, not a departed spiritual master. You say that Srila Prabhupada’s living physical body is not required to give diksa but this is wrong. His living physical body is required according to guru, sadhu, and sastra. The fact that some of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples had very little or no physical association because of the many thousands of disciples taking initiation through a temporary ritvik system is not the point. The point is Srila Prabhupada was at that time a ‘living spiritual master’ who willingly accepted those devotees through the temporary system he adopted. To continue that system after Srila Prabhupada’s departure is a concoction because it defies not only Srila Prabhupada’s instructions but guru, sadhu, and sastra. 

You said: "What happened in the past cannot be proof that it must occur now, otherwise by this same foolish logic all the gurus now would have to also be Indian-bodied. That is also a 'unbroken tradition'. Neither could ladies receive gaytri initiation. That is also an 'unbroken tradition'. Need we go on? Your arguments for 'tradition' are the same as used by the smarta brahmanas to criticize Srila Prabhupada."

My comment: This is a foolish argument and hardly deserves a comment. You are either intentionally or naively mixing sastra’s ‘unchangeable principles’ with ‘changeable details’ so as to mislead your readers. There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that can’t. Details of the past like skin colour and giving women gayatri will of course differ from the present but the major principles cannot change. Please use your common sense. The law of disciplic succession has never been changed and cannot be changed because it is an unchangeable principle of sastra. Need I go on? We believe we are not smarta brahmanas but rather ‘smarter’ brahmanas by following guru, sadhu, and sastra.

I said: "But now after all these years you dig up a hidden meaning from the 9 July letter implying that Srila Prabhupada opposed the principles of sastra."

You said: "We do not 'dig up' any anything. We simply ask a very simple question Ð why did you decide that the letter was no longer applicable for ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure, even though the letter itself makes no mention of departure? And all you offer is an attempt at inventing the non-existent 'ritvik-acarya' entity, which resulted in you contradicting yourself, the GBC, HH Hridyananda Maharaja and putting words into the mouth of Srila Prabhupada in the process.

My comment: The 9 July letter does not even hint at your NCIP theory. The sole purpose of that letter was to inform ISKCON leaders worldwide about the temporary ritvik system and the new priests added to make a total of eleven. Only five weeks earlier Srila Prabhupada made it very clear that the temporary ritvik system would continue until his departure; therefore, he didn’t need to mention such the sensitive departure point again in the 9 July letter. I challenge you to ask the GBC and HH Hridayananda Maharaja whether or not what I have said contradicts what they said. The GBC and I are in total agreement that everything should be based on guru, sadhu, and sastra. And since your argument is not supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra we reject it as a concoction. This is fair. The only words that have gone into Srila Prabhupada’s mouth that weren’t there before is your NCIP concoction. 

I said: "Sastra considers Vaisnava tradition as valid evidence and therefore this proof is irrefutable."

You said: "If you really believe that that 'tradition' is 'irrefutable proof', then why do you ask a question about a ''law of disciplic succession', that the GBC states is neither in sastra or a part of tradition: [Adri is quoting the GBC here.] ‘There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of guru, [I] This statement proves that acceptance of disciples in the presence of one s spiritual master has been approved by the scriptures. In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present. [I] Even though in the past spiritual masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their presence, [I]

‘We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril. (Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure -An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)’"

How many times must we point out this embarrassing and glaringly obvious fact?"

My comment: The GBC have correctly referred to Srila Prabhupada’s right as Founder Acarya to transgress the normal etiquette for preaching which would become a precedent law in ISKCON but not to be confused as a law of disciplic succession. Again you are confusing a major principle with a detail. Another example of a detail that is not a law of sastra but is a law in ISKCON is that all initiates must chant a minimum of 16 rounds daily. Either you intentionally don’t want to hear or you have a serious ‘hearing’ problem. Which is it? The ‘etiquette’ I repeat ‘etiquette’ of not allowing his disciples to initiate in his presence was followed by Srila Prabhupada. But since this is question of etiquette, not disciplic succession law, Srila Prabhupada was seriously considering overriding the normal etiquette so that his disciples could initiate in his presence for the higher purpose of preaching. Details and etiquette can change but major laws and principles like taking diksa from a living guru can never change. Please don’t confuse these two items of ‘law’ and ‘etiquette’ again. 

I said: "Here is more incontestable proof that _ritvik_ism is completely wrong. His Divine Grace again clearly confirms in the following quote that he wanted the disciplic succession to continue after him and not stop with him as you dangerously concoct. Srila Prabhupada clearly says here that he is eleventh in our line of disciplic succession from Lord Caitanya and that his disciples would be twelfth."

You said: "This also has been answered in 1996 in 'The Final Order' page 14. You contradict yourself - first you say "his disciples would be twelfth', and then immediately you correctly quote Srila Prabhupada saying "you are the twelfth". You need to impose this contradiction on Srila Prabhupada since as Srila Prabhupada is speaking in the present tense he couldn't possibly be speaking of diksa gurus, otherwise you would be advocating breaking the 'law of disciplic succession', which forbids such diksa succession taking place whilst Srila Prabhupada is still on the planet.

My comment: First of all, since you can’t refute the evidence itself, you try to create a ‘tense’ contradiction where in fact there is none.

You said: "Srila Prabhupada is speaking in the present tense he couldn't possibly be speaking of diksa gurus." The contradiction you flag down can only be true if I accept your false premise that initiating in the presence of one’s guru contravenes disciplic law, but I don’t, nor does Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada defines not initiating in the presence of one’s guru as the ‘normal etiquette’, and he defines the option for a disciple to accept his own disciples after his guru’s departure as the ‘law of disciplic succession’. Your TFO relies heavily on word juggling and mental concoctions without reference to sastra. Srila Prabhupada taught us to always refer to sastra. You should know that by now. 

I said: "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."

You said: "Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa guru for ISKCON could only break the 'law' if the 'law' stated that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' Guru. But the 'law' does not make any mention of this. We already pointed this out the last time you falsely tried to assert that we were 'breaking the law'."

My comment: The proof that it is ‘disciplic law’ that diksa must be taken from a ‘living guru’ is the unbroken tradition given in sastra where we find that every single acarya in our line and even Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya took diksa from a living guru. Your proposal to deviate from that tradition that nobody ever dared to break defies an unbroken tradition. This is very serious and puts Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of breaking the disciplic law. Hence we reject your NCIP stuff as an insult to Srila Prabhupada. 

You said: "As we have seen the 'law' in question merely states that one is forbidden to be a diksa guru whilst the Guru is on the planet, with such succession only possible after the Guru has departed."

My comment: This is your false interpretation of the law which contradicts Srila Prabhupada’s clear statements. Sastra says that ‘principle laws’ can never be broken but ‘details and etiquette’ can be adjusted circumstantially. In order to support your concoction you have doctored up the ‘etiquette’ to be a ‘law’, which it isn’t. Only the less intelligent will accept your cantankerous word jugglery. Srila Prabhupada could have changed the etiquette; however, he could never have changed the law because not even Lord Krishna Himself dared to change that law which He observed by taking diksa from a living guru. 

You said: "Thus Ajamila only offers arguments that either have already been defeated or that he himself does not believe in, and which also contradicts the GBC, who he is supposed to be defending! These actions have ensured that Ajamila has already lost the debate."

My comment: This Vaisnava debate is not about one-upmanship or word juggling. This debate only concerns understanding initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s departure according to guru, sadhu, and sastra. Thus far you have only proved yourself to be argumentative, peddling concocted arguments without any reference to guru, sadhu, and sastra and issuing unsubstantiated accusations as a smoke screen for your concoctions.

Your failure to prove your NCIP idea with guru, sadhu, and sastra makes you the outright loser of this debate. In fact you have failed to support your premise with even a shred of sastra. Although you have declared yourself the loser by disqualifying yourself, you can always continue the debate and make it clearer to the assembled devotees the greater extent of your defeat. You cannot defeat guru, sadhu, and sastra. So if you have any dignity you will withdraw from the debate admitting that you have no guru, sadhu, and sastra support for your NCIP concoction.Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!!! Guru, sadhu, and sastra ki jaya!!!

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Adridharana's 2nd Question

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Adridharana's 2nd Question

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,

PAMHO AGTSP

I have grouped the response to your lengthy paper as follows:

Answer To Your Question

"You have avoided answering my following second question. You have not answered this question."

This is a lie.

I did answer it:

"Now coming to your question. Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa guru for ISKCON could only break the 'law' if the 'law' stated that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' Guru. But the 'law' does not make any mention of this."

You asked that we show that we are not breaking the 'law of disciplic succession'. We pointed out that since the 'law' does not forbid Srila Prabhupada acting as diksa guru, we could not possibly be breaking it.

• How can this not be an answer to your question?

"Another standard debating rule is that a question cannot be answered with a question, that is evasion. You have to answer the question, not evade it because you can't answer it. For example, you answered my question with this question: "Which principle of sastra are we changing?" when I clearly refer to the major principle of the disciplic succession."

This just another blatant lie.

I answer your question with 2 statements, not the question "which principle of sastra are we changing" - see answer reproduced above.

• Who do you think you are going to fool with such blatant lies?

CHAKRA readers can read, so why waste your time pretending they can't, and hoping they won't notice your blatant fabrication.

Ajamila Contradicts The GBC

"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of guru, [...] This statement proves that acceptance of disciples in the presence of one's spiritual master has been approved by the scriptures. In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present. [...] Even though in the past spiritual masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their presence, [...] We must assume that as Founder-acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril."
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995) "The GBC have correctly referred to Srila Prabhupada's right as Founder acarya to transgress the normal etiquette for preaching which would become a precedent law in ISKCON but not to be confused as a law of disciplic succession."
(Ajamila)

This is a complete fabrication. Anyone who reads the above can see that the GBC do not make any statement that even remotely resembles Ajamila's statement. Firstly no mention is made here of Srila Prabhuada's right to transgress anything - only that he gave a law that we should not transgress. Secondly the GBC quote only one law 'set down' by Srila Prabhupada. There is only one such law mentioned in the whole document, and the GBC had just quoted it before the making the above statement, and this is the 'law of disciplic succession'. So this is the law the GBC are speaking of. The GBC certainly make no mention of a 'precedent law', and they certainly do not state that such a law should 'not be confused as a law of disciplic succession'. As we have seen the only 'law' they even mention is the 'law of disciplic succession'.

"The contradiction you flag down can only be true if I accept your false premise that initiating in the presence of one's guru contravenes disciplic law, but I don't, nor does Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada defines not initiating in the presence of one's guru as the normal etiquette, and he defines the option for a disciple to accept his own disciples after his guru's departure as the law of disciplic succession."

This is another sheer fabrication. Let me quote the 'law' and see for ourselves if such separate definitions are indeed given by Srila Prabhupada:

"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, 2/12/75)

It is very clear that Srila Prabhupada uses the word and to add what is done in his absence to what is done in his presence, and refers to this as the custom. He states that the custom is what is done in his presence and what is done in his absence. Thus Srila Prabhupada has not separated what is done in his presence from what is done in his absence, but joined it with the word and.

Further Srila Prabhupada then refers to the whole of preceding sentence just quoted, and containing both what is done in his presence and his absence, with the word this. He has not singled out the latter clause of the preceding sentence - which deals only with what is done in his absence - and called it the 'law of disciplic succession', as Ajamila claims, but rather through the word this, has referred to the whole of the preceeding sentence, and called it all the 'law of disciplic succession'.

Thus from two different pieces of evidence - the word "and", and the word "this", we have shown that no separate definitions are given by Srila Prabhupada, as Ajamila has fabricated. Unless Ajamila insists on re-defining the plain English meaning of the words 'and' and 'this', which even a child can understand, he is thoroughly exposed once again making yet another false claim.

Thus Srila Prabhupada refers to both what is done in his presence and his absence as an integral custom and law of disciplic succession. Further evidence for this simple fact - that what is done in Srila Prabhuada's presence is also part of the 'law of disciplic succession' - is given in Ajamila's own celebrated 'definitive' paper 'Prabhupada's Order':

He once again makes reference to the physical presence of the spiritual master, and makes clear that the initiation of new disciples depends on the physical presence or absence of the initiator's spiritual master. In this statement, Srila Prabhupada makes clear that this process is how the disciplic succession continues."
('Prabhupada's Order, GBC Paper, Contributor Ajamila Dasa)

Please note that this statement is the actual specific explanation of the sentence in dispute from the letter to Tusta Krishna.

What we have observed here is an example of sheer desperation that has led to Ajamila to resort to outright fabrication and lying. Having realised that his whole case has collapsed since his own GBC have decreed that his main evidence - the 'law of disciplic sucession' - is neither sastric nor traditional, Ajamila has resorted to simply making up what the GBC and Srila Prabhupada say.

• Did Ajamila really think he was going to get away with such a monumental hoax?

And as we have explained many times, the law does not in any case forbid Srila Prabhupada from remaining as ISKCON's diksa guru - since it does not state that one must take diksa from a 'living' guru as Ajamila continues to falsely claim. We challenge you to prove that the law does state this, otherwise do not continue to persist with this lie.

Ajamila Contradicts Himself

"Only five weeks earlier Srila Prabhupada made it very clear that the temporary ritvik system would continue until his departure; therefore, he didn't need to mention such the sensitive departure point again in the 9 July letter."

Again this your belief.

• Where is the evidence?

You say '5 weeks earlier'.

• But why be shy?
• Why not actually present this statement supposedly made by Srila Prabhupada on May 28th that the 'temporary ritvik system would continue until his departure', instead of just claiming it?

We know why you cannot present this evidence - because it does not exist since we have already trapped you making the opposite claim:

"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)

You claim here that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada made it 'very clear' that the ritvik system would continue 'until departure', yet in your introduction you stated the opposite - that ritvik priests would be performing initiations after departure.

"There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that can't. Details of the past like skin colour and giving women gayatri will of course differ from the present but the major principles cannot change."

You now admit that there are things in vedic tradition that can be changed, such as skin colour. So obviously by your own argument, the 'unbroken tradition' alone is not sufficient evidence to determine the validity of something, which was what you originally argued. Now you agree that the key is to determine whether or not an unchangeable 'major principles' is being violated, not simply an 'unbroken tradition'. So never again will you be able to present the 'unbroken tradition' alone as any sort of evidence; rather you will need to prove that we are dealing with 'major principles'. I am glad you have finally conceded this point.

"The proof that it is 'disciplic law' that diksa must be taken from a 'living guru' is the unbroken tradition given in sastra where we find that every single acarya in our line and even Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya took diksa from a living guru."

You have just said that an 'unbroken tradition' is not itself evidence for a 'major principle' - since you can also have 'unbroken traditions' for things which are not major principles such as skin colour. Now you say that the proof for the fact that 'diksa must be taken from a living guru' is a major principle is that it is an 'unbroken tradition'. But you have already agreed that tradition can only be offered as evidence if we already know that we are dealing with a major principle.

• So how then can tradition be offered as evidence for 'living diksa' being a major principle, when you have admitted that it is the presence of a major principle that dictates whether or not tradition can be offered as evidence, and not the presence of a tradition dictating that something must automatically be a major principle?

This circular argument is another evasive trick used when one does not have any real evidence.

Ajamila Does Not Speak According to Guru, Sadhu and Sastra

"I requested you to support your NCIP ritvik idea with evidence from guru, sadhu, and sastra , otherwise it is a concoction. Everything I have said is rooted in guru, sadhu, and sastra since this is the standard in Vaisnava debating."

But the N.C.I.P. simply states that standards and processes that Srila Prabhupada left us cannot be changed unless authorised by Srila Prabhupada. In our introduction I gave evidence for this from Srila Prabhupada. In your introduction you also gave your own theory of what could and could not be changed in ISKCON, and yet you never gave any 'guru, sadhu or sastra' for your claim that the institutional initiating acarya of ISKCON must auotmatically be removed when he departs.

"Here is a simple answer: In this question you insinuate that Srila Prabhupada was illegally removed out of envy, but every single guru in our very long line of disciplic succession gets removed from being a living diksa-guru by the very nature of their physical departure. Please use your common sense."

There is no insinuation of 'envy' - it's a straightforward question.

• Why is it whenever anyone asks a challenging question, instead of just answering it they are just accused of being 'envious'?

The same thing was done to Pradyumna when he asked for evidence to justify the zonal acharya system. I ask a similar question, and I get accused of the same. There is a clear pattern at work here.

• And do we get an answer based on ‘guru, sadhu and sastra'?

No. Instead we are offered the authority of 'common sense'. This is just another way of saying - 'we have no evidence or authority from Srila Prabhupada for this. So instead we will extrapolate from our limited and speculative knowledge of what happened in the past. Prove from 'guru, sadhu and sastra' that one must 'get removed from being a living diksa by the very nature of their physical departure', as you claim. Don't just offer the speculation that this is what has always happened in the past.

"As I have explained to you many times in this debate, your NCIP concoction defies a major principle of sastra , the law of disciplic succession that has never been broken and cannot be broken by ISKCON as you wrongly presume it should."

Firstly, you have argued that everything must supported by guru, sadhu and sastra , so please give the sastric reference for this law. Please reproduce the exact same law above from sastra, since this is a sastric principle you claim we are breaking. Remember we need a quote from sastra explicitly stating this law. Not just another reference to the 'unbroken tradition', which you yourself have now finally admitted is no longer enough. As we noted above, it is unlikely that you will find any such reference since the GBC have said that such a law is not given in sastra.

"You say that Srila Prabhupada's living physical body is not required to give diksa but this is wrong. His living physical body is required according to guru, sadhu, and sastra . [...] To continue that system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is a concoction because it defies not only Srila Prabhupada's instructions but guru, sadhu, and sastra."

But you produce no 'guru, sadhu or sastra' to support these claims. You boast that everything you say 'is rooted in guru, sadhu and sastra, yet as we have seen, you are never able to actually produce the supporting statements from 'guru, sadhu and sastra'. You only make empty claims like the above. We challenge you to produce the Guru, sadhu and sastra to back up these and all your other claims.

"The fact that some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples had very little or no physical association because of the many thousands of disciples taking initiation through a temporary ritvik system is not the point. [...] The point is Srila Prabhupada was at that time a 'living spiritual master' who willingly accepted those devotees through the temporary system he adopted. [...] The sole purpose of that letter was to inform ISKCON leaders worldwide about the temporary ritvik system and the new priests added to make a total of eleven."

But the fact that the ritvik system is temporary is what you were asked to prove in this debate. Thus again you are simply assuming that which you have been asked to prove. Throughout this debate you have simply again and again presented and represented the same unsubstantiated claims - the very claims that this debate was organised for you to present the Guru, sadhu and sastra evidence for. Debate does not mean that you present what you believe - we already have a pretty good idea of that - it means that you should attempt to prove your beliefs with evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra. Simply continually re-stating your beliefs, no matter how many times you do it, will not make them true.

"The 9 July letter does not even hint at your NCIP theory."

We never said it did. The NCIP simply states that standards and processes given to ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada cannot be changed, unless authorised by Srila Prabhupada. The July 9th letter is simply an example of one such process. The NCIP is what is applied to this and all other processes and standards in ISKCON. Thus you have to present your Guru, sadhu and sastra authority from Srila Prabhupada to sanction changing the system of initiation and the identity of the institutional initiating acarya for ISKCON. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada remains as the diksa guru for ISKCON.

"Your accusation exhibits ignorance of fair debating. Your evasion only confirms that your posthumous initiation proposal is a devious and dangerous concoction. One of the rules of this debate which you accepted is that everything must be supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra."

As we have shown, it is you who is using evasive tactics to avoid presenting evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra to support the assertions you make. We have not made any assertions. We have simply asked you to present the evidence to justify the removal of Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru for ISKCON. Instead of answering this straight-forward question with some straight-forward Guru, sadhu and sastra evidence, you have so far tried the following evasive tactics:

1. First you invent an entity - 'ritvik-acarya' - that the GBC say does not exist in vedic culture, and which Srila Prabhupada never mentions.
2. Then you propose we follow 'tradition' and 'sastra' by implementing a 'law' that the GBC have stated is neither sastric nor traditional.
3. Then you fabricate that the 'law' states that we 'must take diksa from a living guru' when it says no such thing.
4. Then you claim that actually no 'direct' evidence is needed to act as a diksa guru because you speculate that Srila Prabhupada himself was never ordered directly by his guru to be diksa guru.

My second question is:

You have stated:

"I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially, this is a fact you cannot deny."

But HH Hridyananda Maharaja and the GBC have stated that the word nor concept of ritvik-acarya exists in vedic culture.

• Giving examples of Srila Prabhupada using (not agreeing with, but 'using' as you claim) this word, please explain why would Srila Prabhupada use a word and concept that does not exist in vedic culture?

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Ajamila's Answer to Adridharan's Second Question

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Answer

to Adridharan's Second Question

Dear Adri,
PAMHO AGTSP

Faking and breaking laws are the ritvik foundations
Structures made of straw-men and created insinuations
And with conspicuous absence of guru, sadhu, and sastra
A 'blunderful' ritvik house is a destiny of complete disaster.

(Well, at least this poem is not as boring as all your ritvik nonsense which unfortunately we are obliged to hear for just a little longer.)

Unless you support your answers with sastra they are asat, useless. By this criteria of sastra you have clearly lost this debate.

In your preamble you stated that I lied by saying you didn't answer my question. I asked for evidence from sastra but instead you only gave an interpretation, without sastra. So you did fail to answer my question 'with sastra' and I did not tell a lie. I would appreciate a Vaisnava apology.

Oblivious to the overwhelming sastric evidence I have presented in this debate thus far, you claim the regular guru position I support has been unsupported by sastra. I'll therefore answer your questions again here and with additional sastric evidence.

Let me remind you of my Question Two:

"a) Please prove directly and unequivocally without any evasion tactic whatsoever that your proposed system of ritvikism, a system of posthumous initiation that you declare Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted after his departure, does not put Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of contravening guru, sadhu, and sastra by breaking the law of disciplic succession?"

And let me remind you of your answer:

"Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa guru for ISKCON could only break the 'law' if the 'law' stated that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' Guru. But the 'law' does not make any mention of this."

Now let me point out that in your answer above there is no mention of reference to guru, sadhu, and sastra. You have only given your interpretation, which has no value. It is 'asat' useless. By your own omission of sastra you have not answered my question and have consequently lost the debate.

You have stated that the (disciplic) law does not state that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' guru. But here is some sastra evidence that proves you wrong:

"As already stated, Brahma is the original spiritual master for the universe, and since he was initiated by the Lord Himself, the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession. After being initiated by the proper spiritual master in that chain of succession, one should engage himself in the discharge of tapasya in the execution of devotional service."
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 2.9.7p)

Srila Prabhupada says that one must approach the 'curent link' meaning the physically present spiritual master. This is sastra. Your ritvik idea contradicts this and is therefore a concoction.

"Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master. That is enjoined in the next verse. Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya, upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva- darsinah. Now, Krsna advises that 'If you want to know that transcendental science, then you just try to approach somebody.' P_ranipatena. Pranipatena, pariprasnena_ and sevaya. What is pranipata? Pranipata means surrender. Surrender. You must select a person where you can surrender yourself because nobody likes to surrender to anyone."
(Srila Prabhupada lecture, August 14th 1966)

Srila Prabhupada says here very clearly, "we have to go to a physical spiritual master." This is guru and sastra. I'm sorry but we don't accept your interpretations. The above evidence is self evident to those who are honest.

Srila Prabhupada said in Room Conversation, Rome, 23 May, 1974:

"God is called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart."

If the 'physical form of spiritual master' is irrelevant for diksa as you suggest then why has Srila Prabhupada even mentioned 'physical spiritual master' and 'the physical form of spiritual master' and so on in the above and other quotes? This evidence is guru and sastra and proves that one has to take diksa from a living diksa-guru. To date you have not provided even a skerric of sastric evidence to support your posthumous diksa concoction.

"But here it is said clearly that 'You have to surrender to a person.' That means you have to find out such a person where you can voluntarily surrender. Without finding, your mission will not be fulfilled. Not only surrender, not blindly surrender. You must be able to inquire. Pariprasna. The next qualification is pariprasna. Pariprasna means inquiry. Without inquiry, you cannot make advance."
(Srila Prabhupada's lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.34, New York, 14 August, 1966)

Again in the above quote Srila Prabhupada emphasises, "you have to find out such a person where you can voluntarily surrender." This is the process and is the unbroken tradition in our line which you are wrongly trying to break.

Here is another quote from Srila Prabhupada from a purport in Srimad-Bhagavatam Seventh Canto:

"To practice bhakti-yoga, one must first accept a bona fide spiritual master. Srila Rupa Gosvami, in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75, advises:

guru-padasrayas tasmat krsna-diksadi-siksanam visrambhena guroh seva sadhu-vartmanuvartanam sad-dharma-prccha bhogadi-tyagah krsnasya hetave

"One's first duty is to accept a bona fide spiritual master. The student or disciple should be very inquisitive; he should be eager to know the complete truth about eternal religion (sanatana-dharma). The words guru-susrusaya mean that one should personally serve the spiritual master by giving him bodily comforts, helping him in bathing, dressing, sleeping, eating and so on. This is called guru-susrusanam. A disciple should serve the spiritual master as a menial servant, and whatever he has in his possession should be dedicated to the spiritual master." (SB 7.7.30-31, purport)

If your posthumous idea is right then Srila Prabhupada's entire purport above is wrong. His Divine Grace specifically talks about personally serving a living guru. And note the word "diksa" in the Sanskrit. Here it is stated that one should take diksa from a guru and personally serve him. Therefore he must be 'personally present'.

Your answer to my Question Two without sastra is a disturbance, as confirmed here by Srila Prabhupada:

"Prabhupada: Sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhis vina. Any system we accept, it must be supported by the evidences of sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki. Aikantike harer bhaktir utpatayai... Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti... Just like Manu-smriti. This is Smriti. And Vedas are sruti. Sruti-smriti-puranadi pancaratriki-vi..., aikantike harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate. Which is not evidence, which is not true by these pramanas, then it is disturbance."

This quote proves that your posthumous diksa idea is a disturbing concoction because it is not authorised by either sruti or _smriti sastra_s.

You challenged me:

"And as we have explained many times, the law does not in any case forbid Srila Prabhupada from remaining as ISKCON's diksa guru - since it does not state that one must take diksa from a 'living' guru as Ajamila continues to falsely claim. We challenge you to prove that the law does state this, otherwise do not continue to persist with this lie."

Rupa Goswami gives the 'law' in Upadesamrita 'satoh vriteh' we must follow in the footsteps of the previous acaryas, not the concoctions of Ritviks. The regular guru system correctly follows the parampara tradition and footsteps of the previous acaryas. Your posthumous diksa idea rejects sastra and the footsteps of the previous acaryas and therefore it is asat, a useless concoction.

More hard sastric evidence lies in the Vaisnava tradition listed the new Bhagavad-gita page 34 in the list of 32 acaryas in our line of disciplic succession. Every single one of those acaryas had a living diksa-guru. Sastra says Vaisnava tradition is evidence. There is your evidence from sastra. We need only follow in their footsteps without any concoction. Satoh vriteh.

Your unfounded name calling stating that I persist with a lie when I quote consistently from guru, sadhu, and sastra only increases your already defeated condition.

Here is your Second Question:

"But HH Hridyananda Maharaja and the GBC have stated that the word nor concept of ritvik-acarya exists in vedic culture. Giving examples of Srila Prabhupada using (not agreeing with, but 'using' as you claim) this word, please explain why would Srila Prabhupada would use a word and concept that does not exist in vedic culture?"

This question is just plain silly. Is is not only a complete waste of time but an insult to the intelligence of the assembled internet Vaisnavas. Didn't Srila Prabhupada use the English language which has no existence in Vedic culture? Of course he did! By the same logic of your argument Srila Prabhupada was wrong to use so many other Western things! Ever heard of yukta vairagya?

First you belittle devotees by saying don't change any little thing, then you give it a fancy name like NCIP, and then you demand that we accept it as some kind of sastra! Then you insult everyone further by completely contradicting your sastra and saying let's make the biggest change in the history of Vaisnavism -- posthumous diksa! This isn't sastra, philosophy, debate, or even a contradiction. It is 'insanity' of a kind never seen before.

Please be honest and just admit you have made one big hell of a mistake. Be honest. If you do, I'll be the first to worship you.

Your servant,
Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Adridharana's Commentary on Ajamila's Answer

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Adridharana's Commentary

on Ajamila's Answer

by Adridharana dasa

Dear Ajamila prabhu,

PAMHO AGTSP

I asked you the following question:

"You have stated:

'I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially, this is a fact you cannot deny.'

But HH Hridyananda Maharaja and the GBC have stated that neither the word nor concept of ritvik-acarya exists in vedic culture.

• Giving examples of Srila Prabhupada using (not agreeing with, but 'using' as you claim) this word, please explain why would Srila Prabhupada would use a word and concept that does not exist in vedic culture?"

You say:

"This question is just plain silly. It is not only a complete waste of time but an insult to the intelligence of the assembled internet Vaisnavas. Didn't Srila Prabhupada use the English language which has no existence in Vedic culture? Of course he did! By the same logic of your argument Srila Prabhupada was wrong to use so many other Western things! Ever heard of yukta vairagya?"

1. You do not quote a single example of Srila Prabhupada using the word ‘ritvik-acarya’, as claimed by you, and as requested of you in the question. This will only confirm to all the readers that you have been caught out yet again, and are trying to dodge the fact that you made a big mistake. As everyone knows Srila Prabhupada never used the word 'ritvik-acarya'. We challenged you to produce the usage here, and you couldn't.
2. You say that the very basis of our question is 'silly', and its logic 'wrong'. But it does not come from us, it belongs to HH Hridayananda Maharaja and was used in 'Prabhupada's Order', which you call the 'definitive' GBC paper, and of which you are a contributor!:

"The significant point here is that terms such as .rtvig-guru and .rtvig-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. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it." 
(His Holiness Hrdyananda Maharaja, 'Prabhupada's Order, GBC paper, Contributor Ajamila Dasa)

• Maharaja clearly says the fact that this word does not exist is a significant point.

You say it is silly.

• Maharaja clearly says the fact that this word does not exist is the main problem with the ritvik idea.

You say its silly.

You obviously have been trapped to such an extent that you are now even having to resort to contradicting HH Hrdyananda Maharaja, and calling his arguments 'silly' and full of 'wrong logic'.

We will let the readers decide who is the most logical between Ajamila and Hrdyananda Maharaja. Whatever the answer, the only thing that Ajamila has achieved in this debate to date is to make a mockery of 'defending' the GBC - the very task he had been chosen for!. His arguments have been so bad that he has not even been able to come up to the standard of at least agreeing with the GBC. In every posting made by Ajamila we have pointed out some contradiction or other that he has made against the GBC, and which he has not been able to answer. The latest was his fiasco over the ‘law’ of disciplic of succession, where he tried to pretend the ‘law’ wasn’t really a law! We see in his reply that again he is silent on our exposing how he has contradicting the GBC on this point.

Further this issue of the 'ritvik-acarya' is not just semantics. It is crucial to Ajamila's whole case. He has already gone on record as saying the ritvik priests, not ritvik-acharyas, were to perform initiations for after Srila Prabhupada's departure - which is exactly what we say!:

"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)

Ajamila then tried to escape from this by proposing that the _ritvik_s magically transform into diksa gurus through the existence of an intermediate entity known as the ritvik-acarya. Therefore proving the existence of this entity is vital to Ajamila's case. If he is unable to quote Srila Prabhupada using this term, he will simply end up contradicting the GBC and agreeing with us, just as he has done here!

Ajamila claims we did not answer his question. He claims we need to show that Srila Prabhupada does not contravene 'guru, sadhu and sastra'. But he needs to first state which statements from 'guru, sadhu and sastra' we are supposed be contravening.

• Until it can be stated what exactly we are supposed to be contravening, how can we even answer whether or not we are contravening it?

And to date he has been unable to state these statements from 'guru, sadhu sastra' that he claims we contravene. His latest attempt is the usual lies he has peddled until now - as we will again prove:

"Srila Prabhupada says that one must approach the 'current link' meaning the physically present spiritual master. This is sastra. Your ritvik idea contradicts this and is therefore a concoction.

But the quote that Ajamila produced states nowhere that ‘current link’ means ‘the physically present spiritual master’.

"His Divine Grace specifically talks about personally serving a living guru."

But the quote produced by Ajamila nowhere states that one should serve a ‘living' guru.

"More hard sastric evidence lies in the Vaisnava tradition listed the new Bhagavad-gita page 34 in the list of 32 acaryas in our line of disciplic succession. Every single one of those acaryas had a living diksa-guru. Sastra says Vaisnava tradition is evidence."

But every one of acaryas listed also had either an Indian or a demigod as a diksa guru.. By Ajamila’s ‘sastric evidence’ that means he has also produced evidence from the ‘tradition’ that one should also only take initiation from an Indian or a demigod! In fact the last time Ajamila was smashed on this point, he immediately conceded the point and agreed that tradition was not evidence for anything unless a major principle was also involved:

"There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that can’t. Details of the past like skin colour and giving women gayatri will of course differ from the present but the major principles cannot change."
(Ajamila)

But he is so desperate for evidence that he has again used the same line of reasoning which he had just conceded was not correct. He is now again using the circular argument:

that the evidence for the existence of a ‘major principle’ is the proof of tradition, and the evidence that tradition is proof is the existence of a ‘major principle’!

In fact the quotes involving ‘physical spiritual master’ were used to distinguish between the unembodied non-physical supersoul spiritual master and the external Guru who comes via the parampara. There is no dispute that one needs the external physically bodied Guru to come, and that one cannot rely on the supersoul alone. The dispute is whether the 'physical form' of the Guru must be physically present in front of the prospective disciple, so that the disciple can 'personally' serve and come in contact with this 'physical form'. And the quotes produced do not state this.

The quote about ‘personally serving’ the Guru is supposed to be followed by the student or disciple. So we would like to know how has Ajamila been ‘bathing, dressing’ etc, his spiritual master. The quote nowhere states that such ‘personal service’ is restricted to the ‘non-initiated’ student, or that it ceases once one takes initiation. On the contrary it clearly states the ‘disciple’ must engage in such personal service. Thus unless Ajamila can find a quote that specifically states that such ‘personal physical’ interaction is only required by the ‘un-initiated aspiring student’ he has no case. All the quotes that Ajamila has ever produced such as ‘tad viddhi’ B.G 4:34 etc. all state that the disciple needs to render such ‘personal’ service

Ajamila’s ‘living guru’ idea is thus defeated by Srila Prabhupada himself. The vast majority of his disciples did not ‘go to’ his ‘physical form’ or ‘personally serve’ him, having never ever met him, nor have any of his disciples rendered such service for the last 22 years.

Thus the more Ajamila persists with his ludicrous idea of the need for physical contact with a ‘living guru’ the more he continues to leave himself and Srila Prabhupada open to ridicule since he is arguing that Srila Prabhupada is preaching something as a necessity that he himself never practised with most of his disciples. And such preaching is also driving his Godbrothers to go outside ISKCON to seek that ‘living personal guidance’ from other 'living sadhus', thus contributing directly to the fragmentation of ISKCON.

So again Ajamila produces no statements from ‘Guru, Sadhu and Sastra’ to support his 'diksa only from a living guru' concoction. He simply provides yet more fabrications from his fertile imagination.

We however do have many statements that directly defeat Ajamila’s ‘physically present guru’ idea:

"Physical presence is immaterial."
(Letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67)

"So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the Spiritual Master, vibration. What we have heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living."
(General lectures, 69/01/13)

"Such association with Krishna and the Spiritual Master should be association by vibration not physical presence. That is real association."
(Elevation to Krishna Consciousness, (BBT 1973), Page 57)

"Therefore, one must take advantage of the Vani, not the physical presence."
(CC, Antya 5 Conclusion)

"To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life."
(SB 3:31:48)

"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent."
(SB 2.9.8.)

"A spiritual master is the principle, not the body."
(Letter to Malati, 28/5/68)

Paramahamsa:

My question is, a pure devotee, when he comments on Bhagavad Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in contact with the commentary, explanation, is this the same thing?

Srila Prabhupada:

Yes. You can associate with Krishna by reading Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their explanations, comments. So where is the difficulty?

(Morning Walk, Paris 11/6/74)

There are dozens more such quotes in the appendix of ‘The Final Order’. Such quotes directly defeat the notion that one has to approach and serve the ‘physical form’ of the Guru, as Ajamila has erroneously tried to preach.

Thus in conclusion:

1. Ajamila wisely ducks out of answering our question since he can’t. But until he does, his presentation of the ‘Appt Tape’ only supports our position.
2. He again gives no ‘guru, sadhu and sastra’ to support his assertion that we are breaking the ‘law of disciplic succession’. He simply fabricates what he claims the evidence states - just as he has done to date.
3. Recycles a defeated argument that he had just himself admitted was wrong;
4. Calls HH Hridyananda Maharaja ‘silly’.
5. And writes a poem.

These are the actions of a desperate man who seems to be just saying anything to get out of the trap he is in. Unfortunately as we have seen, every word he speaks simply results in him digging himself deeper.

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Ajamila's Third Question to Adridharana

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Third Question to Adridharana

Dear Adri Dharan Prabhu,
PAMHO AGTSP

For post-samadhi initiations in ISKCON you propose N.C.I.P. (No change in ISKCON paradigm) referring to a temporary pre-samadhi system in the 9 July letter, yet in the same breath your proposal incorporates the most unauthorised change in the history of Vaisnavism.

Is this a contradiction or what? Under the name of "no change" you are dangerously misguiding your readers with a massive "bogus change" to disciplic law!

In defiance of guru, sadhu, and sastra your unconfirmed idea 'breaks' the law of disciplic succession which both Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya dared not to break and thus puts our beloved Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position.

You can fool those who are philosophically unsound, emotionally unstable, or with an axe to grind but not otherwise. More surprising than the daftness of your concoction is the fact that a few unfortunate people actually believe it.

In your Introduction to this debate you said:

"Thus the GBC:

A) Cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada
B) Or introduce anything other than that already given by Srila Prabhupada."

The above which you call NCIP (no change in ISKCON paradigm) is your unauthorised opinion, not Srila Prabhupada's words. Besides that, NCIP lacks plain common sense what to speak of having any support from guru, sadhu, and sastra . An 'honest' study of Srila Prabhupada's teachings clearly reveals that Srila Prabhupada gave us two types of instructions:

1. 'Major' management and philosophical principles that never change
2. 'Minor' management and philosophical details that can change.

The total collapse in your NCIP idea is that you either naively missed or purposely avoided all the instructions where Srila Prabhupada instructed the GBC to change minor management details. Let's remember that you said, "The GBC cannot change anything". But Srila Prabhupada disagees:

"…if the editorial board is not expert enough they should be changed... See if the board can be changed. These things are to be seen to immediately by the GBC. The board should be judged immediately and be changed if required."
(SPL to Rupanuga dasa, 23rd September, 1976)

You say the GBC cannot change anything but Srila Prabhupada clearly said in 1976 that the GBC can make a change if required.

• Who are we going to believe?

Real Prabhupada-anugas (followers) will follow Srila Prabhupada's 'change if required' instruction, not your 'no change' speculation.

Here is another example in which Srila Prabhupada instructs the GBC to make a change:

"This change of presidents is to be made in the GBC meeting. In the middle of the year there is no question of change. Tejyas can continue as president. Three times changing president is not good. It should first be conjointly considered by the GBC" (SPL to Gopala Krsna dasa, 11th July, 1976)

Where does that leave your 'no-change' idea? No-where! The above 'can change' instructions from Srila Prabhupada prove that your N.C.I.P. 'no change idea' is a gross cognitive distortion. I could post many more examples but I trust that our readers have sufficient common sense to understand the dishonest and impossible nature of your 'no change' fabrication.

An example of a management principle that cannot be changed is that Srila Prabhupada said the GBC authority must be accepted in all circumstances, as quoted in my Introduction. Your rebellion against this instruction undoubtedly displeases Srila Prabhupada.

Additional proof of the unacceptable nature of your NCIP creation is its 'impossibility of implementation'. The more one looks into the implementation the more contradictory and ludicrous the whole idea becomes! Let's put your idea to the test and see if it is 'practical'. I'm sure you would agree that Srila Prabhupada would not have given us a post-samadhi initiation system that was not only unauthorised but 'hilariously impractical'.

Question 3:

a) Given that it is a fact that the eleven ritvik priests Srila Prabhupada authorised in the 9 July letter are either unavailable, unqualified, or unwilling to be ritvik priests, and given that this fact alone renders your NCIP posthumous initiation idea as 'impossible to implement', and given that it would be hopelessly hypocritical of you to attempt to change your NCIP 'no-change' logic and add more ritvik priests, isn't your whole NCIP idea just a concocted, farcical, self-defeating impracticality??

b) Given that even if one of the eleven ritvik priests nominated in the 9 July letter did agree to be a ritvik priest the whole system would shortly grind to a self-defeating halt upon his demise with no available authorised replacements. Is it not therefore an undeniable fact that Srila Prabhupada never intended such a bizarre, impractical NCIP system in the first place?

You have already lost the debate in your answer to my Question Two by your own 'omission' of guru, sadhu, and sastra . You are in serious breach of this most important debate rule. So please don't bother answering this question if you can't follow the Vaisnava debate rule of strictly adhering to guru, sadhu, and sastra . As Srila Prabhupada said: "Sastra is the centre for all."

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Adridharan's Answer to Ajamila's 3rd Question

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Adridharan's Answer

to Ajamila's 3rd Question

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP.

As with all your postings to date, you begin with a lie and then construct the rest of your argument based on this lie. Once this lie is exposed, all your arguments and the 'questions' you submit collapse.

You claim we say:

"The GBC cannot change anything".

What we actually say is:

"In running ISKCON, the GBC: Can only implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada:

'The GBC has no other function or purpose than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace'
(1975, GBC Resolution)

The GBC must keep intact and apply only that which Srila Prabhupada has taught:

'and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form.'
(1975 GBC Resolution)

Thus the GBC:

A) Cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada;
B) Or introduce anything other than that already given by Srila Prabhupada."

Once the GBC resolution on which the N.C.I.P. (No Change in ISKCON paradigm) is actually based is included, your fabrication of our position falls apart. The GBC Resolution above (which is given as the definition of the GBC) states that the GBC should implement and maintain only what Srila Prabhupada has given, not us.

Further the very next paragraph of the same GBC resolution also states that in order to maintain the systems which Srila Prabhupada has given, the GBC can take steps to empower the necessary individuals:

"It is understood that the GBC, as a collective body of 14-members has been authorised by His Divine Grace to make necessary arrangements for carrying out these responsibilities of management. These arrangements may include delegating authority, managing resources, setting objectives, making plans, calling for reports, evaluating results, training others, maintaining spiritual standards and defining sphere of influence of the various GBC members as well as other devotees."
(1975 GBC Resolution)

Thus to maintain the system given in the July 9th directive, the GBC has been specifically authorised to make the necessary arrangements. You yourself have agreed that the details of a system such as who should be the temple president and who should be on the editorial board, can be changed as necessary.

• So why make an exemption for the ritvik priests in the July 9th directive?

This is also a management system that the GBC have been authorised to apply and maintain.

Further, this is a point that the GBC agree with anyway - so by challenging it you have kept up your 'unbroken tradition' of contradicting the GBC at every twist and turn:

(Tamal Krishna Goswami relates the following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected _ritvik_s):

Tamal Krishna:

"Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?"

Srila Prabhupada:

"As necessary, others may be added."

(Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80)

So you are putting forward as defect in the N.C.I.P., the inability to add more _ritvik_s. Yet the GBC have agreed that more can be added. So if you don't have faith in us, at least have faith in them. The above evidence from HH Tamala Krishna Maharaja was used in the GBC's 'anti-ritvik' ISKCON JOURNAL, a document to which you were also a contributor. Yet, as we have seen in your recent attack on HH Hridyananda Maharaja, you seem to have no shame in attacking documents that you are a contributor to. Again this is just more evidence of your desperation in trying to find something to say - that you will even lash out at the GBC just to try and desperately find a hole in our position. Unfortunately you have failed again.

Thus actions that maintain the systems that Srila Prabhupada has given, do not change them, they only assist in continuing and maintaining them, even though the details needed for their application may need to be adjusted.

Thus by:

1. The GBC resolution on which the N.C.I.P. resolution is based;
2. Your own agreement regarding changes in personnel;
3. And the GBC's own evidence;

More ritvik priests can be added to maintain the procedure that was issued to the GBC on July 9th GBC for implementation throughout ISKCON.

Therefore the answers to your questions are NO and NO.

Further, you have never quoted any sastra when answering our questions, in fact you do not even answer them - as we just saw - you were not able to produce a single example of Srila Prabhupada using the word 'ritvik-acarya' as you claimed.

Your questions all start with a faulty premise such as:

That the 'law' of disciplic succession states that one must take diksa from a living guru;

That the N.C.I.P. states that systems given by Srila Prabhupada cannot even be MAINTAINED.

Once we expose these faulty premises, the questions become meaningless. Thus you are not even able to construct meaningful, rational questions that make any sense, what to speak of being able to even ANSWER my questions.

Also you have again repeated the already exposed lies that we are 'breaking the law of disciplic succession' and that the July 9th _ritvik_s system is 'temporary'. You have had thousands of words to try and prove these lies, but each time you get challenged on them, you provide no guru, sadhu and sastra evidence, but instead give more fabrications and repeat the lies, hoping that if you say them enough, people will believe them.

• How long are you going to continue with this dishonesty?

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Ajamila's Commentary on Adridharana's Answer to Ajamila's 3rd Question

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Commentary on Adridharana's Answer to Ajamila's 3rd Question

Dear Adridharan Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP.

In Question Three I signaled ahead, "it would be hopelessly hypocritical of you to attempt to change your NCIP 'no-change' logic and add more ritvik priests" and yet that is precisely what you have done.

First you peddle your invented NCIP (GBC cannot change anything) as if it were sastra, but now that NCIP is defeated you want to change your 'no change'! Instead of honestly admitting NCIP's numerous absurdities you desperately plead for a 'no change' exemption to add more _ritvik_s. Such a suicidal U turn in a one way street confirms you are completely unfit to debate.

Rather than just talk the talk you need to walk the walk by backing your 'big claims' with proof from guru and sastra. To date you have only proved that you are all bluff and no stuff.

You stated:

"As with all your postings to date, you begin with a lie and then construct the rest of your argument based on this lie. Once this lie is exposed, all your arguments and the 'questions' you submit collapse."

Since everything I have presented is totally anchored in guru, sadhu, sastra, and you have not proved anything contrary, your judgement that I lie is nothing more than a reflexive accusation against the very authority you claim to serve.

The onus is on you to 'prove' that my references to guru, sadhu, and sastra are lies. Making empty sound bites proves nothing.

You said:

"You claim we say: 'The GBC cannot change anything'. What we actually say is: 'In running ISKCON, the GBC can only implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada."

Yet again you move your goalposts! Let me remind you of what you actually did say, where you did put your goal posts, in your debate introduction:

"There was no authorisation for any change to be made to the way he had instructed and set up ISKCON to run."

You clearly said "any change"!

You also said:

"The very idea of change and speculation being entirely antithetical to the purposes of ISKCON."

Again you said: "Thus the GBC cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada."

You said, "cannot change anything"

Now you say:

"What we actually say is: 'In running ISKCON, the GBC can only implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada."

This proves you can't be trusted. This is different from what you've said all along. Before you said, "GBC can't change anything" and now you saying the opposite. Either way your NCIP is a loser because it has no sastra. It is just an idea, and you know what Srila Prabhupada says about ideas without sastra....

Yet in spite of your unlawful position you have the gall to impose yourself upon the entire ISKCON accept as their siksa-guru!

You said:

"Once the GBC resolution on which the N.C.I.P. (No Change in ISKCON paradigm) is actually based is included, your fabrication of our position falls apart. The GBC Resolution above (which is given as the definition of the GBC) states that the GBC should implement and maintain only what Srila Prabhupada has given."

With false equivocation you are grappling to create some evidence, claiming that the following GBC resolutions serve your purpose, but they don't:

1. 'The GBC has no other function or purpose than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace' (1975, GBC Resolution)

2. The GBC must keep intact and apply only that which Srila Prabhupada has taught: 'and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form.' (1975 GBC Resolution)

The above GBC resolutions clearly don't give any basis whatsoever for posthumous diksa except in your wishful thinking. On the contrary, the above two resolutions only reinforce the ISKCON regular guru system.

You said:

"Thus to maintain the system given in the July 9th directive, the GBC has been specifically authorised to make the necessary arrangements. You yourself have agreed that the details of a system such as who should be the temple president and who should be on the editorial board, can be changed as necessary. So why make an exemption for the ritvik priests in the July 9th directive? This is also a management system that the GBC have been authorised to apply and maintain."

Not even Srila Prabhupada could authorise the pre-samadhi system in post-samadhi because such action breaks the law of disciplic succession. So how can the GBC be authorised to make such a change?

Some people like to bang their heads against the wall for the sake of it. In a lunatic asylum people actually do this. Are you not similarly banging your head against the wall with your _ritvik_ism? The only thing anyone will ever get out of _ritvik_ism is a headache!

You said:

"So you are putting forward as defect in the N.C.I.P., the inability to add more _ritvik_s. Yet the GBC have agreed that more can be added. So if you don't have faith in us, at least have faith in them.

You have misquoted the GBC yet again. The GBC only spoke of adding more _ritvik_s pre-samadhi, not post-samadhi. To have any _ritvik_s in post-samadhi as you wrongly demand would involve the GBC breaking the law of disciplic succession, and so your idea has been unanimously rejected.

You said:

"The above evidence from HH Tamala Krishna Maharaja was used in the GBC's 'anti-ritvik' ISKCON JOURNAL, a document to which you were also a contributor. Yet, as we have seen in your recent attack on HH Hridyananda Maharaja, you seem to have no shame in attacking documents that you are a contributor to. Again this is just more evidence of your desperation in trying to find something to say - that you will even lash out at the GBC just to try and desperately find a hole in our position. Unfortunately you have failed again."

The whopping hole in your position is that first you say without any authority 'GBC can't change anything' then oh, wait a minute, we need to change something here to make it work, so you shamelessly contradict yourself by proposing the 'biggest change' in the history of Vaisnavism, posthumous diksa. Anyone with half a brain can see you've dug yourself into a whopping big hole and are about to bury yourself alive. Unfortunately you'll be the last person to see it.

You said:

"That the N.C.I.P. states that systems given by Srila Prabhupada cannot even be MAINTAINED."

NCIP is not sastra, it is your whimsical idea. Your above statement is a classic example of a faulty premise. You falsely assume that everyone accepts your NCIP as sastra but NCIP is nothing but a new age invention. Nothing to do with sastra, asat, it is useless. Your premise has no sastra, my premise is completely supported by sastra.

You have quoted predominantly from legal documents, trying to make a legal issue out of a philosophical issue so as to implement a new philosophical idea giving you legalistic controls. In other words you are trying to hijack ISKCON. Is your hidden agenda about philosophy or power and control?

You said:

"Also you have again repeated the already exposed lies that we are 'breaking the law of disciplic succession' and that the July 9th _ritvik_s system is 'temporary'."

The fact that you call your opponent a liar without proof actually 'proves' you are desperate. If you had real evidence you would have no need to debase your self in that way. You would just disprove the point.

You said:

"Thus you are not even able to construct meaningful, rational questions that make any sense, what to speak of being able to even ANSWER my questions."

My answers to all your questions are rooted in guru, sadhu, and sastra. Here is my proof and direct challenge:

Sastra says: satoh vriteh, we must follow in the footsteps of the example of the previous acaryas. I have proof that every acarya in our line took diksa from a living guru to set the example for us. Thus my position is supported by sastra. Now you show me proof from sastra to support your idea. Show me just one example in our line of disciplic succession of anyone taking diksa posthumously? You can't, because there is none. Thus you are defeated.

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Adridharana's 3rd Question to Ajamila

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Adridharana's 3rd Question to Ajamila

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP.

Every single posting you open with how you are anchored in 'guru, sadhu and sastra', and yet the whole of your offering does not contain a single piece of 'guru, sadhu and sastra' evidence. Rather you simply recycle the same claims you have offered throughout the whole debate, but again no supporting 'guru, sadhu and sastra' evidence is quoted. Instead the only evidence you offer is the evidence of 'tradition', which as well as being fallacious, you have already yourself rejected, saying that major principles, and not tradition alone is evidence:

"There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that can't. Details of the past like skin colour and giving women gayatri will of course differ from the present but the major principles cannot change."

Yet again you say:

"I have proof that every acarya in our line took diksa from a living guru to set the example for us. Thus my position is supported by sastra. Now you show me proof from sastra to support your idea. Show me just one example in our line of disciplic succession of anyone taking diksa posthumously? You can't, because there is none. Thus you are defeated."

In fact you have simply defeated yourself and the GBC again. For if the lack of an 'example' from sastra is proof, then the current guru system is already 'defeated' by your own logic since there are no examples of 'non-indian' gurus or 'voting in gurus' in sastra either. Nor are there any 'examples', for that matter, of so many other things, such as women initiated with gayatri mantra etc. By your logic these things are also similarly 'defeated'. Yet you are only 'defeating' Srila Prabhupada since he introduced many things for which there are no sastric 'examples'. You are simply offering the same arguments as the smarta brahmanas who say that Srila Prabhupada is bogus since he introduced so many things for which there is no sastric 'example'.

So you really do need to make your mind up. Which is the evidence - Tradition, or the existence of a major principle. If it is tradition then we win since there is no tradition of foreign gurus. If its the existence of a major principle then you need to state by reference to guru, sadhu and sastra which principle we are violating. So far you have not been able to locate any quote from Srila Prabhupada that we violate. You have tried to say its the 'law' of disciplic succession, but when we ask you how we are violating it you simply go silent and restate that we are - just as we predicted. So either way we win.

Also regarding our N.C.I.P. (No Change in ISKCON Paradigm) position, you again offer up another fabrication:

['In running ISKCON, the GBC can only implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada."] "This proves you can't be trusted. This is different from what you've said all along. Before you said, "GBC can't change anything" and now you saying the opposite."

How can this be 'different and opposite' to what we have said before when:

1. The above statement was quoted in our introduction at the outset of the debate.
2. The above statement is simply the complement to the statement that the 'GBC cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada'. In other words only do what Srila Prabhupada tells you, and do not change what he has told you (unless of course he has told you to do so).

What I objected to was you purposely quoting 'the GBC cannot change anything' as if that was the whole quote, deliberately leaving out the phrase 'already given by Srila Prabhupada'.

The system of using representatives to continue initiations in ISKCON was 'given by Srila Prabhupada'. This system should not be changed. The only way one can ensure that it is not changed is by keeping it maintained through the addition/replacement of representatives as necessary, otherwise the system will die.

Thus the addition of more representatives is not only authorized, but also consistent with the statements we have made from the outset of this debate. Of course Ajamila can continue to pretend that all we said was the 'GBC cannot change anything' and nothing else, but fortunately the readers have the ability to read complete sentences and not only the 4 words in the middle that Ajamila picks out for them.

Now for my third question to you:

When the GBC made the following statement:

"We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law --a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril."
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

• Which 'law' are they speaking of?

Make sure you quote 'guru, sadhu and sastra' and the GBC to substantiate this law. Please also bear in mind the GBC had only just quoted the 'law of disciplic succession' before the above quote, and also have quoted no other law in the whole document.

Either way you are stuck. If you say it is the 'law of disciplic succession' the GBC were speaking of then you have a law that is not sastric, nor a part of vaisnava tradition, thus eliminating your main evidence, since you said the 'law of disciplic succession' was both sastric and part of vaisnava tradition.

If you say the GBC are speaking of some other law, you are also stuck, because no such 'other' law is mentioned by the GBC, nor will you be able produce 'guru, sadhu and sastra' to support this non-existent law.

After refusing to answer my first two questions, let's see if you will try and answer this one.

Good luck.

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Ajamila's Answer to Adridharan's 3rd Question

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Ajamila's Answer

to Adridharan's 3rd Question

Dear Adri,
PAMHO, AGTSP.

Srila Prabhupada's "REAL FINAL ORDER" was given only five months before his departure, he said: "That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it."

That's all folks. Irrefutable!! DISCIPLE OF MY DISCIPLE. That's the REAL FINAL ORDER. Don't settle for any other faked final order, especially if your see the brand 'ritvik'.

Your faked final order relies solely on word jugglery and calculated interpretations, not on sastra. For example, in TFO p.31 you speculate, "It would appear that diksa is not affected by the physical distances between gurus and disciples." Your authority 'It would appear' is not guru, sadhu, or sastra it is downright speculation. Sastra says asat, speculation is useless.

To date you have not provided any guru, sadhu, and sastra evidence to support your "new posthumous diksa" (NPD) idea whereas I have incontrovertibly proved with vast amounts of bona fide evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted a regular guru system (RGS) in ISKCON after his departure.

Your cognitive distortions may enable you to sway devotees who are philosophically unsound, emotionally unstable, or carrying a huge axe to grind but devotees with good brains and hearts will see that your so-called "final order" is faked.

A self-serving equivocation of law and etiquette is what you are pushing for in your third question, since you desperately need a morsel of evidence to support your NPD idea.

You cannot artificially equate ISKCON laws with sastra laws, etiquette, and customs. Your mixing things up like that shows that you are either confused or trying to cheat. I'll elaborate more on that in my answer to your following Third Question:

"When the GBC made the following statement: "We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law --a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril."
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

Which 'law' are they speaking of?"

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, they did not refer to it as a disciplic law as you superimpose. Please don't pretend you can't see the difference. ISKCON has many other unique changeable and unchangeable institutional laws which are all totally different from the law of disciplic succession. How many times do I have to repeat this until you understand that the GBC nor I nor anyone else is saying that an ISKCON would-be law equals disciplic law? Please use your common sense and stop trying to create false contradictions.

Could it be that the tactic behind your contrived contradiction is to divide and rule? It makes good mundane sense: Divide the GBC, create contradictions among them, get them to argue with each other, weaken them so that you can easily conquer a divided party. You have been trying to do this for many years but without any success. But fortunately the GBC stands strong and undivided and have therefore 'unanimously' rejected your NPD idea as a dangerous and deviant concoction.

Over the years you have unsuccessfully tried this 'divide and rule' tactic of trying to create similar artificial contradictions between Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, Badrinaryana Prabhu, Tamal Krishna Goswami, Hridayanada Goswami, Jayadvaita Swami, and others, and now me in this debate. So it is not surprising that you are still up to your old mischievous tricks instead of coming up with some 'real' sastric evidence.

Srila Prabhupada said ISKCON can never be destroyed by the personality of Kali from without, but only from within through the bodies of devotees who try to divide and rule. Given your many attempts to divide ISKCON over the years as shown above, are you not an instrument of Kali for creating quarrel among ISKCON Vaisnavas?

When Kali sees all ISKCON devotees working together he becomes afraid of losing control of his age. But when he sees the Vaisnavas quarrelling and dividing into smaller and smaller groups Kali is very, very happy and his loud laughs can be heard arising from hell. Kali must be very pleased.

Please therefore stop uselessly arguing _ritvik_ism. Stop acting as if you were Kali's instrument. And please stop trying to create fabricated contradictions between the leaders of ISKCON so that you can divide and rule. Quote sastra properly or please leave ISKCON alone.

Again you claim I have not provided any evidence to support the traditional regular guru system current in ISKCON. I again therefore refer you to the numerous directly relevant quotes from guru, sadhu, and sastra presented in my Introduction and throughout this debate which prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ISKCON's traditional regular guru system is totally authorised and that your invented posthumous diksa idea is bogus.

Instead of defeating my sastric evidence which you unreasonably reject, you only create a smoke screen by projecting your own unfortunate position onto me and others. And if you reject guru, sadhu, and sastra, who can save you? So unless you prove the irrelevance of the vast guru, sadhu, and sastra evidence I have already presented, then by your own omission and failure to do that you only confirm your claims as unauthorised, empty, and mischievous.

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Adridharan's Commentary on Ajamila's Third Answer

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Adridharan's Commentary

on Ajamila's Third Answer

Dear Ajamila Prabhu,
PAMHO, AGTSP.

The GBC said:

"We must assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law --a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our peril."
(Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's Physical Departure - An Official GBC Paper, Part of 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON', GBC, 1995)

You were asked which law is being referred to, and to quote 'guru, sadhu, sastra' and the GBC to support your answer.

You quoted nothing.

You simply fabricated something out of thin air, just as you did the last time you tried to explain the GBC's reference to this 'law'.

Last time you said:

"The GBC have correctly referred to Srila Prabhupada's right as Founder Acarya to transgress the normal etiquette for preaching which would become a precedent law in ISKCON but not to be confused as a law of disciplic succession."

We pointed out then that the above was simply your imagination since it is stated nowhere in the said document. We also defeated your attempts to separate the 'etiquette' of not initiating in the Guru's presence from the 'law of disciplic succession':

"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, 2/12/75)

"Srila Prabhupada has not separated what is done in his presence from what is done in his absence, but joined it with the word and. Further Srila Prabhupada then refers to the whole of preceeding sentence just quoted, and containing both what is done in his presence and his absence, with the word this. He has not singled out the latter clause of the preceeding sentence - which deals only with what is done in his absence - and called it the 'law of disciplic succession', but rather through the word this, has referred to the whole of the preceeding sentence, and called it all the 'law of disciplic succession"

Thus this etiquette is an integral part of the law.

You were completely silent on these points then, and you will no doubt be silent again, as your latest fabrications are exposed:

You say:

"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, they did not refer to it as a disciplic law as you superimpose."

1. The GBC state nowhere that it is a 'hypothetical law'.
2. The GBC state nowhere that Srila Prabhupada 'would have instituted this law in ISKCON had he decided to allow his disciples to initiate in his presence'.
3. The GBC state nowhere that this 'law would have been an unique ISKCON law'.
   How could they when they had just said in the same document, the following about the etiquette referred to by the law:

"The etiquette he mentioned here is a common vaisnava etiquette."

How can the 'law' be 'unique' and 'common' at the same time?

4. How can it be a 'hypothetical law' when the GBC clearly states that it was a law that Srila Prabhupada had 'set down' - not 'would have set down'. In English if something is 'set down' it means it actually exists.
5. How could the GBC have been speaking of a law that Srila Prabhupada would have instituted if he had wanted to 'allow his disciples to initiate in his presence', when the law is given by the GBC as the conclusion to a paper that states that Devotees cannot initiate whilst their Guru is still on the planet?
   Just this absurdity alone proves your fabrication.
6. And the 'disciplic law' is the only law mentioned in the whole of the GBC paper concerned, and had been quoted along with other quotes by the GBC just before they made the above concluding statement.
   What other 'law' could they have been referring to?
   Indeed the very fact that you have been forced to invent the above non-existent statements, simply confirms that the GBC must have been referring to the 'disciplic law' they had just mentioned, otherwise you could have given a proper answer instead of just making things up.

And in each case the use of speech marks for these non-existent terms simply reinforces the cheating that is being perpetrated here.

In order to stop devotees whose Gurus were still on the planet initiating, the GBC had to very forcefully assert the 'law of disciplic succession' mentioned in the letter to Tusta Krishna, that specifically deals with the subject of not initiating whilst the guru is still present. The fact that they also had to correctly state that the 'law' was not part of vaisnava tradition or sastric, did not hinder GBC's purpose of using the 'law' to regulate initiations in ISKCON'.

You however have now tried to expropriate this 'law' for a completely different purpose i.e. to try and remove Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON's Diksa Guru. However the GBC statements have trapped you, since to use this 'law', would also mean that you endorse the idea that it is neither sastric nor part of vaisnava tradition. That of course would simultaneously destroy your whole case since you have used 'tradition' and sastra as the basis of your whole argument. Remove these and you have nothing.

One can thus understand why you have been so desperate to put words into the mouths of the GBC, and why you have therefore twice resorted to acts of blatant fabrication, hoping that the readers would simply swallow your false claims instead of taking the trouble of reading the GBC paper concerned for themselves. However you have been exposed again.

Ys, Adridharan das

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Untitled Document

Author: Ajamila Dasa

Debate Conclusion

by Ajamila dasa

Judges Rule Ritviks Lose Debate

Who are the judges anyway? Who will judge what Srila Prabhupada intended for ISKCON post-samadhi initiations? The judges with whom both debaters ‘agree’ are guru, sadhu, and sastra! And since both arguments are mutually exclusive only one can be right. So who is wrong?

Our judges’ position of ultimate authority is confirmed by our pre-eminent siksa-guru Srila Prabhupada in Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352 purport as follows:

"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru- vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual centre is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the centre for all."

So on that basis our supreme judges gave either their ‘support’ or ‘falsification’ of both post-samadhi initiation arguments, which are as follows:

1. (NPD) is a ‘new posthumous diksa’ system argued by the ritvik people, a completely new idea which would entail initiates supposedly becoming direct diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada in his physical absence by way of an unauthorised ritvik ceremony.

2. (TRG) is the ‘traditional regular guru’ system being practised somewhat successfully by eighty or so gurus in ISKCON, defined in sastra as an unbroken Vaisnava tradition or the law of disciplic succession, a timeless law which authorises a sufficiently qualified disciple to accept his own disciples without restriction after his guru’s physical departure.

Here are the results of the conclusive test conducted by our esteemed judges Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra:

Click here to view evidence chart.

The Judges scored:

NPD zero out of 100
TRG 100 out of 100

GURU
Evidence 1

SB 7.7.30-31 purport; Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75; Los Angeles lecture, 18 May 1972; BG 4-34; Srila Prabhupada 2 December ‘75; (Srila Prabhupada 2 Nov ‘67; Srila Prabhupada 25 Jan ‘69; Srila Prabhupada Mayapura 1976; Srila Prabhupada 2 Dec ‘75; Srila Prabhupada 18 July ‘71; Srila Prabhupada 28 May ‘77; Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7 purport; and so on.

SADHU
Evidence 2

Satoh vriteh: Rupa Goswami instructs in Updesamrita that we MUST follow in the footsteps of the previous _acarya_s, and therefore everyone must take initiation from a living diksa-guru. This evidence from our topmost SADHU Rupa Goswami is irrefutable proof from our judge ‘sadhu’.

Bhakti Ratnakara 14.190-191; SB 7.7.30-31 purport; C.C. Antya 2.96; Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75; Los Angeles lecture, 18 May 1972; BG 4-34; SP 2 December ‘75; SP lect 2 Nov ‘67; SP lect 25 Jan ‘69; Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.3.21p; SP Mayapura 1976; SPL to Hamsadutta, 3rd December, 1968; SPL to Kirtanananda, 12th January, 1968; SPL to Kirtanananda, 25th January, 1969; SP lect 2 Dec ‘75; SP 18 July ‘71; SP London, 22nd August, 1973; SP Lilamrta VI, page 167; SP letter to Tusta Krishna, Dec. 2, '75; SP 28 lect May ‘77; Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7 purport; SP Conv. July 18, 1971; SP New York, 26 April, 1968; SP lect, August 14th 1966; and there is much more.

SASTRA
Evidence 3

Teachings of Lord Caitanya: Historical evidence or tradition is called aitihya. The historical evidence we find in sastra and in own line of disciplic succession is that every acarya in our line took diksa from a living guru. Diksa has never been taken posthumously in our line. This evidence from histories given in sastra is a rock solid example that cannot be broken even by Srila Prabhupada or any other guru and is sufficient evidence in itself to prove the TRG case.

Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352

Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.39 sruti-smriti- puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhis vina... Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti then it is simply a disturbance in society.

The nature of the evidence found in the ‘unbroken Vaisnava tradition’ of ‘taking diksa from a living guru’ is equal in its unchangeableness to the principle that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The proof of this statement is the example of Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya Who both needlessly took diksa from a living guru to teach us by example. This example from sastra is irrefutable.

Thus our three judges unanimously rejected NPD and approved TRG.

Unfortunately the ritvik people have clearly demonstrated that they will reject ANY decision that disagrees with their fixated NPD idea, even if their idea places Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of breaking the law of disciplic succession, and even if it means undermining the authority of our esteemed judges guru (Srila Prabhupada), sadhu (Rupa Goswami etc.), and sastra (SB, BG, C.C. and so on). Thus the Ritviks’ position is indefensible and most inauspicious.

Adridharan’s defence of his NPD idea in this debate contains over 100 deviations. Here I’ll present a few of the most ostentatious:

1. Head in the sand philosophy.

I said: "You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so powerful as a guru, sadhu, and Founder Acarya that he could change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself!"

Adri said: "We have never argued this. We challenge you to show where we have."

Adri bravely denies that he never argued Srila Prabhupada wanted to change a major principle like the law of disciplic succession, but if the ‘result’ of his NPD idea clearly breaks that law then how can he irresponsibly disown the illegitimate consequences? This is head in the sand philosophy.

Unfortunately the limit of this summary was restricted to 1,000 words and so the expanded explanations of the following have been withheld.

2. A rebounding absurdity
3. Illegitimately hijacking the onus of proof.
4. Scepticism for Vaisnava tradition's own adjudication process
5. Legalistically ‘monopolising’ acceptable evidence
6. Confusion about parameters of legitimate/relevant evidence
7. Dodging the Vaisnava rationale of guru, sadhu, and sastra
8. Ritvikism is infested with guru and Vaisnava aparadha
9. Dishonestly arguing for argument’s sake
10. Chewing the chewed
11. Absurdity upon absurdity
12. A self-refuting argument
13. Agreeing out of confusion
14. Foolish logic
15. Ritvikism is mayavada

The list goes on and up past 100 such errors.

No matter how many mistakes the GBC has made, is making or makes in the future; no matter how many gurus have fallen down, are falling now or will fall in the future; no matter what other issues may come to pass, none of it gives actual meaning to, nor establishes as a viable true option a concocted posthumous ritvik initiation system that is rejected by Vaisnavism’s own adjudication process of guru, sadhu, and sastra.

Consume _ritvik_ism at your own peril!

Your servant,

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Debate Conclusion

Author: Adridharan Dasa

Debate Conclusion

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:

1. Fabricated evidence.
2. Presented evidence in our favor.
3. 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

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

---

Concluding Statements from the Moderator of the Ritvik Debate

Author: Moderator

Concluding Statements from the Moderator of the Ritvik Debate

by Madhusudani Radha devi dasi

Dear Vaisnavis and Vaisnavas,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

We have now completed 6 rounds of the Chakra "ritvik debate" and all that remains is for our two debaters Adridharan prabhu and Ajamila prabhu to present their conclusions. As you all know, the debate rules called for a re-evaluation of the debate process following 6 rounds. We examined reader response and found that the number of Chakra visited increased during the debate and leveled off somewhere half way through. However, it did not decline. Based on this, we could either have continued or finished. Next, the participants were surveyed regarding their preferences. Adridharan prabhu stated that he would prefer to continue debating until readership actually dropped. However, Ajamila prabhu was equally clear that he did not have the time to continue this debate, primarily due to the fact that his son was returning home from gurukula and he wanted to spend time with him. We then assessed whether others would be interested in continuing arguing Ajamila's position instead. However, none of those approached were interested. So the debate is now officially over and all that remains are the concluding statements. These will be no more than 1200 words including quotes and should be posted tomorrow.

After the last statements have been posted, we will post some of our reader letters. If anyone wants to share their thoughts about the debate, please submit them right away to news@chakra.org. Your opinions about the debate, who "won" and about the "ritvik issue" are all welcome. However, we will not post any texts with offensive language or any anonymous submissions.

Apart from the philosophical aspects, this debate has been important in at least two ways: First of all, it is the sign of a secure and intellectually honest culture that issues are determined by reason and argument and not by censure and information control. From the perspective of freedom of speech, it has thus been encouraging that this debate could even take place. This process has demonstrated that the community of Vaisnavas can tolerate the expression of differences of opinion. This was a milestone. Secondly, by allowing this debate, we hope that Chakra has shown its readers that we respect your intelligence as well as your ability to digest different views and to come to your own conclusions. The community of Vaisnavas do not need predigested opinions shoved down their throats. They need to hear all sides of each issue, presented in a thoughtful and rational manner.

Finally, I want to thank both Ajamila and Adridharan prabhus for agreeing to participate in this debate and for continuing to submit texts even though it got tense at times, and in spite of leading very busy lives away from their computer keyboards. And a very special thank you is also due Anadi Krsna Prabhu, who worked tirelessly to post all the texts in a timely manner, often after midnight and with virtually impossible timelines.

Your servant,
Madhusudani dasi

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!