Go to the Ritvik Page
|Ajamila's Answer to
Adridharan's 3rd Question
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:
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 ritvikism. 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org