by Adridharana dasa

Dear Ajamila prabhu,


I asked you the following question:

"You have stated:

'I said Srila Prabhupada used the word ('ritvik-acarya') circumstantially, this is a fact you cannot deny.'

But HH Hridyananda Maharaja and the GBC have stated that neither the word nor concept of ritvik-acarya exists in vedic culture.

You say:

"This question is just plain silly. It is not only a complete waste of time but an insult to the intelligence of the assembled internet Vaisnavas. Didn't Srila Prabhupada use the English language which has no existence in Vedic culture? Of course he did! By the same logic of your argument Srila Prabhupada was wrong to use so many other Western things! Ever heard of yukta vairagya?"
  1. You do not quote a single example of Srila Prabhupada using the word ritvik-acarya’, as claimed by you, and as requested of you in the question. This will only confirm to all the readers that you have been caught out yet again, and are trying to dodge the fact that you made a big mistake. As everyone knows Srila Prabhupada never used the word 'ritvik-acarya'. We challenged you to produce the usage here, and you couldn't.
  2. You say that the very basis of our question is 'silly', and its logic 'wrong'. But it does not come from us, it belongs to HH Hridayananda Maharaja and was used in 'Prabhupada's Order', which you call the 'definitive' GBC paper, and of which you are a contributor!:
"The significant point here is that terms such as .rtvig-guru and .rtvig-acarya simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit dictionary, nor in any recognized Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There is no such term because there is no such concept. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it." 
(His Holiness Hrdyananda Maharaja, 'Prabhupada's Order, GBC paper, Contributor Ajamila Dasa)

You say it is silly.

You say its silly.

You obviously have been trapped to such an extent that you are now even having to resort to contradicting HH Hrdyananda Maharaja, and calling his arguments 'silly' and full of 'wrong logic'.

We will let the readers decide who is the most logical between Ajamila and Hrdyananda Maharaja. Whatever the answer, the only thing that Ajamila has achieved in this debate to date is to make a mockery of 'defending' the GBC - the very task he had been chosen for!. His arguments have been so bad that he has not even been able to come up to the standard of at least agreeing with the GBC. In every posting made by Ajamila we have pointed out some contradiction or other that he has made against the GBC, and which he has not been able to answer. The latest was his fiasco over the ‘law’ of disciplic of succession, where he tried to pretend the ‘law’ wasn’t really a law! We see in his reply that again he is silent on our exposing how he has contradicting the GBC on this point.

Further this issue of the 'ritvik-acarya' is not just semantics. It is crucial to Ajamila's whole case. He has already gone on record as saying the ritvik priests, not ritvik-acharyas, were to perform initiations for after Srila Prabhupada's departure - which is exactly what we say!:

"On 28 May 77 Srila Prabhupada was specifically asked about initiations that would be performed by the ritvik priests after his departure." 
(Ajamila's Introduction)

Ajamila then tried to escape from this by proposing that the ritviks magically transform into diksa gurus through the existence of an intermediate entity known as the ritvik-acarya. Therefore proving the existence of this entity is vital to Ajamila's case. If he is unable to quote Srila Prabhupada using this term, he will simply end up contradicting the GBC and agreeing with us, just as he has done here!

Ajamila claims we did not answer his question. He claims we need to show that Srila Prabhupada does not contravene 'guru, sadhu and sastra'. But he needs to first state which statements from 'guru, sadhu and sastra' we are supposed be contravening.

And to date he has been unable to state these statements from 'guru, sadhu sastra' that he claims we contravene. His latest attempt is the usual lies he has peddled until now - as we will again prove:

"Srila Prabhupada says that one must approach the 'current link' meaning the physically present spiritual master. This is sastra. Your ritvik idea contradicts this and is therefore a concoction.

But the quote that Ajamila produced states nowhere that ‘current link’ means ‘the physically present spiritual master’.

"His Divine Grace specifically talks about personally serving a living guru."

But the quote produced by Ajamila nowhere states that one should serve a ‘living' guru.

"More hard sastric evidence lies in the Vaisnava tradition listed the new Bhagavad-gita page 34 in the list of 32 acaryas in our line of disciplic succession. Every single one of those acaryas had a living diksa-guru. Sastra says Vaisnava tradition is evidence."

But every one of acaryas listed also had either an Indian or a demigod as a diksa guru.. By Ajamila’s ‘sastric evidence’ that means he has also produced evidence from the ‘tradition’ that one should also only take initiation from an Indian or a demigod! In fact the last time Ajamila was smashed on this point, he immediately conceded the point and agreed that tradition was not evidence for anything unless a major principle was also involved:

"There are things in Vedic tradition that can be changed and things that can’t. Details of the past like skin colour and giving women gayatri will of course differ from the present but the major principles cannot change."

But he is so desperate for evidence that he has again used the same line of reasoning which he had just conceded was not correct. He is now again using the circular argument:

that the evidence for the existence of a ‘major principle’ is the proof of tradition, and the evidence that tradition is proof is the existence of a ‘major principle’!

In fact the quotes involving ‘physical spiritual master’ were used to distinguish between the unembodied non-physical supersoul spiritual master and the external Guru who comes via the parampara. There is no dispute that one needs the external physically bodied Guru to come, and that one cannot rely on the supersoul alone. The dispute is whether the 'physical form' of the Guru must be physically present in front of the prospective disciple, so that the disciple can 'personally' serve and come in contact with this 'physical form'. And the quotes produced do not state this.

The quote about ‘personally serving’ the Guru is supposed to be followed by the student or disciple. So we would like to know how has Ajamila been ‘bathing, dressing’ etc, his spiritual master. The quote nowhere states that such ‘personal service’ is restricted to the ‘non-initiated’ student, or that it ceases once one takes initiation. On the contrary it clearly states the ‘disciple’ must engage in such personal service. Thus unless Ajamila can find a quote that specifically states that such ‘personal physical’ interaction is only required by the ‘un-initiated aspiring student’ he has no case. All the quotes that Ajamila has ever produced such as ‘tad viddhi’ B.G 4:34 etc. all state that the disciple needs to render such ‘personal’ service

Ajamila’s ‘living guru’ idea is thus defeated by Srila Prabhupada himself. The vast majority of his disciples did not ‘go to’ his ‘physical form’ or ‘personally serve’ him, having never ever met him, nor have any of his disciples rendered such service for the last 22 years.

Thus the more Ajamila persists with his ludicrous idea of the need for physical contact with a ‘living guru’ the more he continues to leave himself and Srila Prabhupada open to ridicule since he is arguing that Srila Prabhupada is preaching something as a necessity that he himself never practised with most of his disciples. And such preaching is also driving his Godbrothers to go outside ISKCON to seek that ‘living personal guidance’ from other 'living sadhus', thus contributing directly to the fragmentation of ISKCON.

So again Ajamila produces no statements from ‘Guru, Sadhu and Sastra’ to support his 'diksa only from a living guru' concoction. He simply provides yet more fabrications from his fertile imagination.

We however do have many statements that directly defeat Ajamila’s ‘physically present guru’ idea:

"Physical presence is immaterial."
(Letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67)

"So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the Spiritual Master, vibration. What we have heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living."
(General lectures, 69/01/13)

"Such association with Krishna and the Spiritual Master should be association by vibration not physical presence. That is real association."
(Elevation to Krishna Consciousness, (BBT 1973), Page 57)

"Therefore, one must take advantage of the Vani, not the physical presence."
(CC, Antya 5 Conclusion)

"To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life."
(SB 3:31:48)

"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent."
(SB 2.9.8.)

"A spiritual master is the principle, not the body."
(Letter to Malati, 28/5/68)

Paramahamsa: My question is, a pure devotee, when he comments on Bhagavad Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in contact with the commentary, explanation, is this the same thing?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. You can associate with Krishna by reading Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their explanations, comments. So where is the difficulty?

(Morning Walk, Paris 11/6/74)

There are dozens more such quotes in the appendix of ‘The Final Order’. Such quotes directly defeat the notion that one has to approach and serve the ‘physical form’ of the Guru, as Ajamila has erroneously tried to preach.

Thus in conclusion:

  1. Ajamila wisely ducks out of answering our question since he can’t. But until he does, his presentation of the ‘Appt Tape’ only supports our position.
  2. He again gives no ‘guru, sadhu and sastra’ to support his assertion that we are breaking the ‘law of disciplic succession’. He simply fabricates what he claims the evidence states - just as he has done to date.
  3. Recycles a defeated argument that he had just himself admitted was wrong;
  4. Calls HH Hridyananda Maharaja ‘silly’.
  5. And writes a poem.

These are the actions of a desperate man who seems to be just saying anything to get out of the trap he is in. Unfortunately as we have seen, every word he speaks simply results in him digging himself deeper.