Go to the Ritvik Page
|Ajamila's Commentary on
Adridharana's Answer to Ajamila's 3rd Question
Dear Adridharan Prabhu,
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 ritviks. 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.
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.
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:
You clearly said "any change"!
You also said:
Again you said: "Thus the GBC cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada."
You said, "cannot change anything"
Now you say:
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!
With false equivocation you are grappling to create some evidence, claiming that the following GBC resolutions serve your purpose, but they don't:
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.
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 ritvikism? The only thing anyone will ever get out of ritvikism is a headache!
You have misquoted the GBC yet again. The GBC only spoke of adding more ritviks pre-samadhi, not post-samadhi. To have any ritviks 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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