Go to the Ritvik Page
|Ajamila's Answer to
Adridharan's Second Question
Faking and breaking laws are the ritvik
foundations Structures made of straw-men and created insinuations
(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:
And let me remind you of your answer:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
guru-padasrayas tasmat krsna-diksadi-siksanam
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:
This quote proves that your posthumous diksa idea is a disturbing concoction because it is not authorised by either sruti or smriti sastras.
You challenged me:
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:
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.
Go to the Ritvik Page
|You are here|
|Book editing (changes)|
|Child Abuse Page|
|Letters from readers|
|SP disciple database|
© Copyright November, 2003 by oldchakra.com. All rights reserved.
about this website or to report an
error, write to email@example.com