Dear Adri,

Faking and breaking laws are the ritvik foundations
Structures made of straw-men and created insinuations
And with conspicuous absence of guru, sadhu, and sastra
A 'blunderful' ritvik house is a destiny of complete disaster.

(Well, at least this poem is not as boring as all your ritvik nonsense which unfortunately we are obliged to hear for just a little longer.)

Unless you support your answers with sastra they are asat, useless. By this criteria of sastra you have clearly lost this debate.

In your preamble you stated that I lied by saying you didn't answer my question. I asked for evidence from sastra but instead you only gave an interpretation, without sastra. So you did fail to answer my question 'with sastra' and I did not tell a lie. I would appreciate a Vaisnava apology.

Oblivious to the overwhelming sastric evidence I have presented in this debate thus far, you claim the regular guru position I support has been unsupported by sastra. I'll therefore answer your questions again here and with additional sastric evidence.

Let me remind you of my Question Two:

"a) Please prove directly and unequivocally without any evasion tactic whatsoever that your proposed system of ritvikism, a system of posthumous initiation that you declare Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted after his departure, does not put Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of contravening guru, sadhu, and sastra by breaking the law of disciplic succession?"

And let me remind you of your answer:

"Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa guru for ISKCON could only break the 'law' if the 'law' stated that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' Guru. But the 'law' does not make any mention of this."

Now let me point out that in your answer above there is no mention of reference to guru, sadhu, and sastra. You have only given your interpretation, which has no value. It is 'asat' useless. By your own omission of sastra you have not answered my question and have consequently lost the debate.

You have stated that the (disciplic) law does not state that diksa must be taken from a 'physically living, present on the planet' guru. But here is some sastra evidence that proves you wrong:

"As already stated, Brahma is the original spiritual master for the universe, and since he was initiated by the Lord Himself, the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession. After being initiated by the proper spiritual master in that chain of succession, one should engage himself in the discharge of tapasya in the execution of devotional service."
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 2.9.7p)

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

"Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master. That is enjoined in the next verse. Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya, upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva- darsinah. Now, Krsna advises that 'If you want to know that transcendental science, then you just try to approach somebody.' Pranipatena. Pranipatena, pariprasnena and sevaya. What is pranipata? Pranipata means surrender. Surrender. You must select a person where you can surrender yourself because nobody likes to surrender to anyone."
(Srila Prabhupada lecture, August 14th 1966)

Srila Prabhupada says here very clearly, "we have to go to a physical spiritual master." This is guru and sastra. I'm sorry but we don't accept your interpretations. The above evidence is self evident to those who are honest.

Srila Prabhupada said in Room Conversation, Rome, 23 May, 1974:

"God is called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart."

If the 'physical form of spiritual master' is irrelevant for diksa as you suggest then why has Srila Prabhupada even mentioned 'physical spiritual master' and 'the physical form of spiritual master' and so on in the above and other quotes? This evidence is guru and sastra and proves that one has to take diksa from a living diksa-guru. To date you have not provided even a skerric of sastric evidence to support your posthumous diksa concoction.

"But here it is said clearly that 'You have to surrender to a person.' That means you have to find out such a person where you can voluntarily surrender. Without finding, your mission will not be fulfilled. Not only surrender, not blindly surrender. You must be able to inquire. Pariprasna. The next qualification is pariprasna. Pariprasna means inquiry. Without inquiry, you cannot make advance."
(Srila Prabhupada's lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.34, New York, 14 August, 1966)

Again in the above quote Srila Prabhupada emphasises, "you have to find out such a person where you can voluntarily surrender." This is the process and is the unbroken tradition in our line which you are wrongly trying to break.

Here is another quote from Srila Prabhupada from a purport in Srimad-Bhagavatam Seventh Canto:

"To practice bhakti-yoga, one must first accept a bona fide spiritual master. Srila Rupa Gosvami, in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75, advises:

guru-padasrayas tasmat krsna-diksadi-siksanam visrambhena guroh seva sadhu-vartmanuvartanam sad-dharma-prccha bhogadi-tyagah krsnasya hetave

"One's first duty is to accept a bona fide spiritual master. The student or disciple should be very inquisitive; he should be eager to know the complete truth about eternal religion (sanatana-dharma). The words guru-susrusaya mean that one should personally serve the spiritual master by giving him bodily comforts, helping him in bathing, dressing, sleeping, eating and so on. This is called guru-susrusanam. A disciple should serve the spiritual master as a menial servant, and whatever he has in his possession should be dedicated to the spiritual master." (SB 7.7.30-31, purport)

If your posthumous idea is right then Srila Prabhupada's entire purport above is wrong. His Divine Grace specifically talks about personally serving a living guru. And note the word "diksa" in the Sanskrit. Here it is stated that one should take diksa from a guru and personally serve him. Therefore he must be 'personally present'.

Your answer to my Question Two without sastra is a disturbance, as confirmed here by Srila Prabhupada:

"Prabhupada: Sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhis vina. Any system we accept, it must be supported by the evidences of sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki. Aikantike harer bhaktir utpatayai... Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti... Just like Manu-smriti. This is Smriti. And Vedas are sruti. Sruti-smriti-puranadi pancaratriki-vi..., aikantike harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate. Which is not evidence, which is not true by these pramanas, then it is disturbance."

This quote proves that your posthumous diksa idea is a disturbing concoction because it is not authorised by either sruti or smriti sastras.

You challenged me:

"And as we have explained many times, the law does not in any case forbid Srila Prabhupada from remaining as ISKCON's diksa guru - since it does not state that one must take diksa from a 'living' guru as Ajamila continues to falsely claim. We challenge you to prove that the law does state this, otherwise do not continue to persist with this lie."

Rupa Goswami gives the 'law' in Upadesamrita 'satoh vriteh' we must follow in the footsteps of the previous acaryas, not the concoctions of Ritviks. The regular guru system correctly follows the parampara tradition and footsteps of the previous acaryas. Your posthumous diksa idea rejects sastra and the footsteps of the previous acaryas and therefore it is asat, a useless concoction.

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. There is your evidence from sastra. We need only follow in their footsteps without any concoction. Satoh vriteh.

Your unfounded name calling stating that I persist with a lie when I quote consistently from guru, sadhu, and sastra only increases your already defeated condition.

Here is your Second Question:

"But HH Hridyananda Maharaja and the GBC have stated that the word nor concept of ritvik-acarya exists in vedic culture. Giving examples of Srila Prabhupada using (not agreeing with, but 'using' as you claim) this word, please explain why would Srila Prabhupada would use a word and concept that does not exist in vedic culture?"

This question is just plain silly. Is 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?

First you belittle devotees by saying don't change any little thing, then you give it a fancy name like NCIP, and then you demand that we accept it as some kind of sastra! Then you insult everyone further by completely contradicting your sastra and saying let's make the biggest change in the history of Vaisnavism -- posthumous diksa! This isn't sastra, philosophy, debate, or even a contradiction. It is 'insanity' of a kind never seen before.

Please be honest and just admit you have made one big hell of a mistake. Be honest. If you do, I'll be the first to worship you.

Your servant,
Ajamila Dasa Adhikari