Puranjana dasa says:
Dear Locanananda, You are prevaricating, again. Once again, using your technique of answering our question with another question. Stalling technique. In a technical and formal debate, you would have been disqualified. Another question is not an answer.
First of all, since you keep saying — for some years if not decades now — that “they are his disciples,” you need to tell us who is the “him” you keep saying has disciples? Again, why can’t you answer your own point, who is the “him” you keep telling us has disciples? Please give us his name?
Or else admit, there is / are no current “him” who has disciples, thus it seems you are really not talking about “anyone at all” who actually exists. Your “him” is a phantasm. Or what?
In short, you keep avoiding YOUR own point, once again NOT answering your own question, which you yourself have begged for years and years, you keep saying there is a him, who has or will have disciples. PLEASE! Just tell us once and for all — “him” who?
Or are you just talking about about thin air, a ghost, a non-existing person? Or what? Just tell us please, you have kept us in suspense for years now, who is the “him” you keep saying is (or was) going to have “his own” disciples? And please do not answer with another question, this is not allowed in formal discussions, its called diverting, prevaricating, ok Srila Prabhupada called this word jugglery.
If you cannot even answer your own question, that you yourself raised already, years ago, what is your point? That you cannot understand your own previous statements? Answering a question with another question, that is what the five years old children next door do when you ask them who is stealing the cookies. They ask another question, “Who said I knew about any cookies”? Stalling technique. ys pd
****** dasa aks:
I am addressing the below question to the following persons.
1. Puranjana dasa 5. Iskcon Bangalore/Madhu Pandit dasa
2. Pratyatosa dasa 6. IRM/Krishna Kanth or anyone else who claim to be ritviks.
3. Mahesh Raja
4. Amar Puri
I understand the Ritviks say that Srila Prabhupada wanted initiation by ritvik for all future devotees
in iskcon after his departure and the initiated becomes Srila Prabhupada’s disciple. Their point of reference
or proof that Srila Prabhupada wanted this is the July 9th 1977 appointment letter. If this is true then
tell us where in that letter does Srila Prabhupada say that this initiation process by ritvik must
continue after his departure and the initiated becomes his disciples?
Puranjana dasa says:
The answer to this is:
1) Srila Prabhupada said hundreds, perhaps even thousands of times — after he departs there will only be managers and not gurus. And moreover that his disciples are not fit to be gurus. He did not make “one letter” about this, he stated this idea hundreds of times, over and over and over. Thus, later on he made the July 9th letter to simply CONFIRM what he had ALREADY said hundreds of times, there will only be mangers, representatives, proxies, and not successors. And he also said this hundreds of times — “do not change anything,” i.e. he will continue as the acharya.
2) Srila Prabhupada also warned us not to let others touch our feet, because then we would be acting as gurus, and we would be taking other’s karma, and we would get sick, fall down or both. In case you have not noticed, the post-1977 false gurus are having an epidemic of getting sick and falling down. In sum, he said we are NOT qualified to be gurus, and therefore what he said he wanted was “no changes” i.e. his worship should continue by a managerial body. Notice that when they violated that order, there has been an epidemic of catastrophic “guru” failures, which was recorded in all the news media, and which severely hampered his mission. OK he had ALREADY said repeatedly — they would fail, exactly as he said would happen — if they artificially tried to be gurus. Where does he say the neophytes can act like an acharya or another Jesus? He does not, he says they CANNOT DO SO.
3) Srila Prabhupada also told us perhaps thousands of times: do not try to be come gurus like the Gaudiya Matha did, and destroy his mission. He said we are not qualified, that means only he is, and thus — do not try to imitate. He was saying that a lot in 1977.
4) Srila Prabhupada said in January of 1977 that he was suspending sannyasa because they were making a laughing stock out of sannyasa. If they are clearly barely fit for sannyasa, how are they fit to be gurus?
5) On May 28th Srila Prabhupada said initiations would continue by ritviks. This was confirmed in the July 9th letter and subsequent conversations where he said he had made deputies, agents and so on.
6) The “will” says only his initiated disciples can be allowed as directors of ISKCON. That means he expected his initiated disciples to continue henceforward.
7) Srila Prabhupada said (here in Berkeley) that he would live forever in his books. The diksha guru thus gives (now through his books) pure divyam jnanam which destroys sins aka diksha. The diksha guru also absorbs sins like Jesus, therefore the only person qualified to (a) give pure divyam jnanam through his books and (b) absolve sins like Jesus is — Srila Prabhupada. Is there any other candidate that can be named? If not, he is the diksha guru by default, which is what is even happening gradually in ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada is gradually being emphasized because his dubious replacements simply are not up to the task.
8) In case you have not noticed, we have so badly hammered these false gurus by now that the biggest adherents of the living guru idea like Locanananda, Rocana, George A Smith, Kailasha chandra, many GBC, many Gaudiya Matha, and similar others, they all refuse to name their living guru. Why? Because they know we will immediately pounce on the person they named as their current diksha guru as a fraud. Notice how Locanananda does the same exact thing, he says there is some “him” named as the guru who will have disciples, but notice — he never tells us who that “him” is, because he knows better. Locanananda knows, as soon as he names the alleged “him” he implies was named as the current living guru, we will immediately identify this person as a fraud. So now they are hiding the name of their living guru, because, they know that their whole system has no credibility. That means de facto, they are admitting we are right, there is no other guru other than Srila Prabhupada.
9) If there was any other system ordered or named, what is it? No one has ever identified any, or produced documentation to prove some ANY other idea was ordered. OK, our idea wins by default. ys pd
=================================LOCANANANDA PRABHU (LD): Puranjana Prabhu — You keep asking me who it is that was authorized by Srila Prabhupada, i.e., given the order to act as guru. My answer is simply that the order was given by Srila Prabhupada for the devotees he would recommend to act as officiating acaryas, particularly at that time when he would no longer be physically present.
[PD: OK why are you STILL not specifically naming who these alleged diksha gurus are? Are you saying the post-1977 11 people, who all started running amok with money, women, followers, drugs, homosexuality, criminal action, ad infinitum, are your idea of gurus? You are also going in circles. It says there will be ritviks giving initiations after he departs. It does not say these ritviks will be gurus after he departs, it says they will be ritviks after he departs. I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the 11 are your idea of parampara messiahs? It seems like you are?]
LD: According to the May 28th, 1977 conversation, anyone receiving diksa in ISKCON during Srila Prabhupada’s lifetime would be considered directly initiated by Srila Prabhupada.
[PD: No, it says they will be ritivks after he departs.]
LD: When asked about those who would receive initiation in ISKCON after he was no longer physically present, Srila Prabhupada referred to them as his grand disciples.
[PD: No, he said they would be gurus when he gives an order, but no order was given. Are you saying Srila Prabhupada appointed the 11 as gurus because he had no idea of who or what a guru is?]
LD: There was never any mention of anyone having to leave ISKCON to give diksa.
[PD: Well the 11 all left right away, in March of 1978 they all went to Sridhara, Narayana, BV Puri, BP Puri, Fakir Mohan and so on and so forth. So you raise another good point, they all left right away but there is no order to do so. So they are deviants and not gurus, agreed.]
LD: We all know Srila Prabhupada did not want to see any kind of schism within our movement. He expected everyone to follow his directives, especially concerning how things would be managed after he left this world. So his order was, “I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.”
[PD: Yes, May 28th also says when the ritviks deviate they will have to be replaced. OK, that means they are not gurus because gurus do not deviate and have to be replaced. Or are you saying the parampara is full of deviants, who then have to be replaced? You are confusing us, again.]
LD: The modern ritvik idea is that Srila Prabhupada continues to give formal initiation, even though he himself never said he intended to do that after entering samadhi.
[PD: Where does he say that? He says his books (the source of divyam jnanama which destroys sins aka diksha) would live on forever. Where did he says his books and their diksha potency would die?]
LD: Only the followers of Chubby Checker are willing to twist that kind of obtuse meaning out of the spiritual master’s direct statements which actually have no need of interpretation.
[PD: Right, he said in the future when he is not here, they are going to be giving initiations as ritviks, that is the first thing that is said on the tape.]
LD: The July 9th letter, for example, mentions nothing about post-samadhi initiations, so the twisters take the word “henceforward” as their cue to construct a new model of how they want the guru parampara to be perpetuated.
[PD: So according to you the 11, who were part of a group of leaders always tending towards illicit sex, drugs and so on, all along from the 1960s, are diksha gurus? That means you never understood what a diksha guru is?]
LD: The dance party continues with an analysis of the will and the phrase “MY initiated disciple,” words that were inserted into the text of the document by a lawyer after Srila Prabhupada had already approved the wording “AN initiated disciple” as acceptable to him.
[PD: So persons inclined towards illicit sex, homosexuality, drugs and so on, were intended to give pure jnanam and absorb sins like Jesus? And that was "the order" of Srila Prabhupada? You are making no sense at all. Where does he order that the conditioned souls on the GBCs can give diksha?]
LD: How could this possibly be taken as evidence that Srila Prabhupada would continue to initiate disciples directly after entering maha-samadhi if these were the lawyer’s words?
[PD: You do not need to be a lawyer, any five year old child knows that you need to worship a pure devotee, whether the pure devotee is so-called departed or not, and that worship of criminals, perverts and deviants is bogus.]
LD: And which acarya in our line or any other line ever proposed continuing to give diksa after leaving this place and to do so from wherever Krishna arranged for him to go to carry on the preaching mission? Who can even say that Krishna ordered Srila Prabhupada to remain in the material world to preach Krishna consciousness? Were you privy to that most intimate conversation between the Lord and His pure devotee whereby his future service was made known to him? Then how could you be so sure of Srila Prabhupada’s current role in serving his worshipful Lord at the present moment?
[PD: Well its simple, he said do not worship bogus people like the Gaudiya Matha does, stay on target and worship the acharya.]
LD: I read Pratyatosa’s one page explanation of the ritvik position and there is nothing new there. I’ve heard all this before, and it is the ongoing chewing of the chewed. He makes personal attacks instead of philosophical points. His logic is faulty. It is what we call argumentum ad ignorantum. His reasoning is defeated by the statement of sastra that no one can approach the activities of the pure devotee by logic and reason because they are inconceivable in their dimension.
[PD: No elaborate logic and reason is required? Even cannibals do not worship persons engaged in illicit sex with men, women and children as the GBC's bogus messiahs program does, the cannibals even know that is bogus because they have enough God given intuition to know that is totally bogus. You cannot go back to God by worship of deviants, plain and simple, you have to worship the pure devotee. That is stated everywhere.
I also note that you are STILL not giving the specific names of the people you claim are diksha gurus either, that would be too embarassing for you would it not? Tell us who in your opinion are the diksha gurus now who have pure jnanam and the potency to absorb sins like Jesus, and give us their names. Why are you STILL not giving us the names, that was our original question to you? More shuffling on your part, simply tell us the specific names of the people you are saying either are, were or could have been the post 1978 diksha gurus for ISKCON. Name them! You are going around in circles! Just name the 1978 and current diksha / parampara / messiah / Krishna's successors / gurus you keep alluding to, tell us once and for all, who are they? Why is this like pulling teeth to get a simple list of names? ys pd]