Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Torben / Ajit Krishna Replies

Ajit Krishna: In our debate with Vidura he has consistently presented a logical fallacy as the core argument of his case. If this core argument can be defeated, then Vidura's whole case will shatter.

So here I will simply focus on and defeat that core argument of his:

Vidura Das: VD:

“If Diksa means the initiation of transcendental knowledge, the beginning of spiritual realization, then recieving transcendental knowledge by Srila Prabhupada ("genuine spiritual understanding") makes Srila Prabhupada ones Diksa guru.”

Vidura's logic is flawed. His line of reasoning is:

Premise 1: Diksa means genuine spiritual understanding.
Premise 2: Genuine spiritual understanding is present in a devotee.
Conclusion: Therefore that devotee has been diksa-initiated.

[PADA: A person who is connected to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna will be following the principles forwarded by them. Whereas Ajit's gurus cannot even connect themselves to Krishna, at least not very steadily, since most in fact have fallen down, and thus it is self evident they are not connected to the parampara, ok -- which is why they keep falling down. How can people who are not connected to the parampara connect others to the parampara? As for Kailash chandra, he has connected himself to living in isolation in the desert, he has no program to connect others to Krishna.]

This is a formal fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent* which looks like this:

Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P

Let me give an example to illustrate further. We all know that Srila Prabhupada said that:
Being Krishna conscious means being vegetarian. But being vegetarian does not necessarily make you Krishna conscious.

[PADA: Right, some of Ajit's "living gurus" have been taking drugs, engaging in illicit sex, and some are now eating meat, thus they cannot even connect themselves to the basic points of the religion, never mind act as agents to connect others to the parampara. And fools like Maha Vishnu swami endorse this above deviant's guru lineage of debauchees etc. 

Whereas our Prabhupadanuga people are, for the most part, following and not falling. In any case our people are worshiping a pure devotee even if they cannot follow the process themselves, at least they can direct others to the proper connection to the parampara aka Srila Prabhupada.

Ajit says our people, who are following the basics, are NOT connected, whereas the deviant guru lineage -- whose members often cannot follow the basics -- in most of the examples of their acharyas since 1977, are the people Ajit thinks ARE connected. Ajit and Torben claim these "living gurus" are not only "the only ones who are connected," we need to worship the debauchee acharyas program to be connected ourselves? Those who are not debauchees and do not worship debauchees are not connected, while those who are debauchees and who worship a debauchee guru line are connected. Does this make sense?] 

"A vegetarian is not necessarily a devotee, nor is a nonviolent person. But a devotee is automatically both vegetarian and nonviolent. We must conclude, therefore, that vegetarianism or nonviolence is not the cause of devotion." (NOD, Ch. 14)

In the same way, diksa means spiritual understanding. But spiritual understanding does not necessarily mean diksa.

We must conclude, therefore, that "genuine spiritual understanding" is not the cause of diksa."

I must admit that I failed miserably in my attempt to help Vidura understand how his arguments were fallacious. Somehow I am just not able to explain it better than what I just did. But a fallacy is a fallacy, and in a Vedic debate a fallacy must be acknowledged and corrected. Otherwise one has lost the debate.

Your servant,
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa

[PADA: OK so genuine followers of the guru (the people following his orders) are not following, whereas people who are not following left, right and center, are not only connected, we need to worship these dis-connected people who are not connected to be connected ourselves? 

Or we need to worship a fool like Maha Vishnu whose program says gurus are mostly debauchees, which is not the siddhanta? This makes no sense, Ajit says the people who do follow are NOT connected, while the debauchee guru process ARE connected and following, that means any ten year old walking down the street could defeat Ajit. Every ten year old knows that God's successors are not debauchees and  a debauchee guru line is not connected to God? Why doesn't Ajit know that? ys pd] 


  1. Good question: Worship of deviants is the cause of diksha? And why are Torben and Ajit working with the GBC guru program leaders like Maha Vishnu swami, a program which is changing the books? Another good question!

  2. OK so if Torben and Ajit are disciples of the departed Maha Vishnu swami (2010) that means they are acting as his ritviks, or representatives? In any case that means they have no living guru? This is getting very convoluted!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.