2nd December 2001
It seems that Locanananda has modified his stance somewhat in that he fully agrees with the conclusion that the final signed written Will should be accepted as supreme and authoritative, and that Srila Prabhupada completely accepted its contents.
However he still makes the following bizzare claim:
If BOTH were acceptable to Srila Prabhupada then the only rational conclusion is that on June 2nd it was acceptable that a property director should at least be an initiated disciple, and then on the 4th June it was further accepted that this initiated disciple must also be an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada. This is accepting both statements, as Locanananda claims we must do. Thus the property director must be:
In which case Locanananda's contention that:
'neither can be used as proof of anything, except that property directors should be initiated devotees',
is incorrect. For if Locanananda accepts BOTH statements then he has to accept that the property director must be an initiated disciple AND that he is initiated by Srila Prabhupada. His assertion that the Will can only be used to prove that the:
'property directors should be initiated devotees'
follows if he accepts ONLY the FIRST statement - that the property be 'an' initiated disciple - and NOT BOTH statements as he claims.
Locanananda is missing a simple point of logic. Being 'an' initiated disciple does NOT exclude one also being an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada. But being an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada DOES exclude being initiated by anyone else, because one can only have one Diksa Guru, as stated in the Caitanya Caritamrta.
Thus acceptance of BOTH statements leads to the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada will be the sole Diksa Guru of ISKCON for as long as ISKCON exists.
So either Locanananda must accept this, for it is a conclusion which FOLLOWS FROM HIS OWN WORDS, or he must back-track again, and change his stance.