Mayesvara Aims At Will

By Krishnakant

Apr 19, 1999 - In a desperate bid to find some fault with 'The Final Order', and propagate his own absurdly self-contradictory AIM doctrine, in his latest paper- 'Did He Or Didn't He'- H.G. Mayesvara prabhu audaciously proposes that Srila Prabhupada made a mistake in his Last Will and Testament. For all their faults it must be said that the GBC body have never officially stooped so low as this.

Mayesvara's paper is full of mundane references, from the Gulf war to the assassination of Kennedy, to the ideas of his favourite management gurus.

All this is jumbled together in support of his own invented, non-existent sastric principle- that if something is not right you can improve it by adding another completely bogus thing. In terms of 'practicality' then, Mayesvara is the most impractical and isolated person in the whole guru debate, since on his present form no one, neither GBC nor IRG, are ever going to take his proposals seriously.

Readers will know of Mayesvara prabhu's two recent attempts to answer 'The Final Order'. Each time I responded giving many examples of straw man arguments, contradictions, recycling of defeated arguments etc. (Please see 'Mayesvara Fails Challenge', and 'Mayesvara's AIM is Maya'). In particular I pointed out that simply ignoring our answers to his points would not help his case. Unfortunately again Mayesvara has just ignored all the points which were made in the response to his last article and simply tried to find some more 'flaws' in 'The Final Order' paper (TFO), as well as repeating his already defeated arguments. For instance he still gives no answer to the conundrum of how the 'ritvik' system is simultaneously totally bogus and also 'authorised by the pancaratrika system' and something which should be introduced within ISKCON? How can the conclusions of TFO be 'laughable' and yet be something we should all want implemented within ISKCON? The only thing that is 'laughable' is the author thinking that either side will take him seriously. The GBC will agree with his attacking TFO, and laugh at his suggestion that ritvik should also be introduced within ISKCON. Whilst the IRG will simply note that he has presented similar arguments to the GBC that have all been answered, and like the GBC the author has simply ignored these refutations and again recycled the identical discredited arguments.

Particularly sad is the lengths the author has had to go in order to fill up space and appear knowledgeable and muni-like, and distract attention from the fact that he has not counter-refuted any of our previous points.

For instance he spends one whole page comparing us to Saddam Hussein! He also tries to fill up space with another page on the Kennedy assassination, attempting to draw parallels with how TFO is similarly guilty of faulty reasoning (something we that show later he also fails to do).

As usual the author's comments shall be boxed, with our responses following below.

That question is straightforward and can be stated very simply: "What system of initiation did Srila Prabhupada want ISKCON to follow?"

The question is not 'what system of initiation did Srila Prabhupada want ISKCON to follow'. That is already known. On July 9th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada undeniably left us an initiation system to be followed. This is not disputed by anyone on either side. The real question is why was this system stopped. This simple question forms the basis of TFO - the question being phrased as the need for evidence supporting Modifications A & B.

Once the answer to this question is given the debate is over. Not only has the author not been able to give this answer, he simply dodges the issues by ignoring the basic fact that a system to be followed by the whole of ISKCON was given in writing, directly approved by Srila Prabhupada.

Thus having started with a false dilemma, or the wrong question, most of what follows from the author is necessarily irrelevant.

This is really the question that has been placed into the court of devotee arbitration and it can be boiled down even further into the following succinct sutra; "Did he, or Didn't he?" That is the essence of the question before use. nothing else.

But it is already known and agreed by everyone that he did - on July 9th, 1977. The real question is WHY WAS WHAT HE DID ON JULY 9th STOPPED ON NOVEMBER 15TH? The author of course never answers this question.

An example of this type of absurd challenge would be if someone were to begin questioning whether or not Srila Prabhupada ever asked his disciples to follow the four regulative principals. Only an extra-terrestrial from Mars would question this directive in light of all the overwhelming evidence that clearly indicates that he did so all the time and always quite emphatically!

Then the author must be such an extra-terrestrial, for according to his logic, unless Srila Prabhupada SPECIFICALLY always stated that the 4 regulative principles should be followed AFTER HIS DEPARTURE, then this instruction become invalid on departure!

The debate would be over if we had a written statement from Srila Prabhupada that said; "After I leave this body I order my disciples to carry on as initiating, diksa Guru, Spiritual Masters that I also order them to accept their own disciples, for the very purpose of sprouting many new branches on the tree of Disciplic Succession, exactly as it has traditionally been done by Vaishnavas for thousands of years."

We couldn't agree more. The author has summarised the debate perfectly well. However, the author then spectacularly fails to provide such a statement. Instead he just argues that even if such a statement existed, people would still dispute it. How can he possibly know this? Even if it were true that still cannot hide the fact that such a statement does not actually exist, and therefore by the author's own analysis, the debate is definitely NOT OVER.

Just for a moment lets set aside the July 9th letter and see if there is any other reasonable evidence that supports the theory that Srila Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to adopt the type of convoluted RtVik system that the scholars of the FO-sastra are suggesting.

The author needs to catch up with what actually happened. There is no issue about whether or not Srila Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to adopt the system. It was adopted, bas. The question is, why was it stopped? It is for this act of termination the author needs to supply supporting evidence. Instead the author pretends that we are trying to impose something on ISKCON, and then goes looking for the wrong evidence. Thus again much of what follows from the author is irrelevant.

It would seem that if His Divine Grace intended to make such radical changes we would find all sorts of things expressing that intention.

There is nothing at all radical in having Srila Prabhupada as the diksa Guru for ISKCON, using a method that he himself set up and practised. What is radical about that? Indeed it is the ISKCON tradition. It is the only thing anyone in ISKCON would have experienced.

On the contrary, what is radical is that after having Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON's sole diksa Guru for 12 long years- (primarily using a representational system that is later formalised and confirmed in writing to the whole society just before he departed) - and then to be told that the representatives are suddenly to act in the OPPOSITE manner to the way they were originally authorised, and supplant Srila Prabhupada's place as diksa Guru. An action made even more 'radical' by the fact that there is no evidence supporting this change. Yes we definitely would find 'all sorts of things' expressing this radical change. And neither the author nor the GBC have been able to give any evidence whatsoever for the termination of the July 9th directive - except 5 different interpretations and transcripts of the May 28th conversation.

We invite the educated readers of this article to go out to your garage and dig the FO-sastra out from under all the accumulated newspapers you use for starting your fireplace and open it up one more time.

Yet the author claims that it is we who are insulting?

So what we have is a 100 page document that offers three pages of evidence in the main text to help us find an answer to our sutra. "Did He Or Didn't he?"

As we have already explained, the author wastes his time with this futile exercise, since the TFO does not need to provide evidence, since there is nothing to prove. Srila Prabhupada left us a system in ISKCON. This is an indisputable fact. The 100 page document simply sets this fact out, and then sees if there is any evidence for Modifications A & B. This is the primary purpose of TFO and is explained as early as page 2. The 'Evidence' we present in the first few pages simply re-affirms the central starting point - that Srila Prabhupada set up a system for ISKCON to run from July 9th onwards. The aim is not to seek even more evidence for something that is not in dispute. It is to seek evidence to answer that which is in dispute - i.e., why was the system stopped on Srila Prabhupada's departure?

It appears that the FO-Pundits are anxious to present the statements made by Tamal Krishna, at the Pyramid House in 1977, as additional evidence to support their theories when it appears they might do so.

As the author seems to acknowledge, the Pyramid House conversation is not used in TFO to directly prove the idea that Srila Prabhupada left us the July 9th letter as the system for ISKCON. In fact we only mention it briefly, once near the end of TFO, to confirm the fact that the GBC, who still accept this conversation, do not disagree with the principle that they had authority to add more ritviks. We put the conversation in the appendix, since it will definitely be of interest to readers. But we never refer to it as evidence to prove that the July 9th directive was meant to be followed within ISKCON.

Now lets look at item number four, the letter that Tamal Krishna wrote to Hamsadutta on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. Leaving aside the fact that the IRG has made it clear they do not trust Tamal Krishna's intentions, competence, or integrity they have none the less presented this letter to support there theories as additional evidence.

The IRG have drawn attention to H.H. Tamal Krishna Maharaja's proclivity to change his interpretation and understanding of what various statements and documents meant. The Maharaja himself has candidly and honestly admitted to this fault in one of his own books. We have never attacked his competence as Srila Prabhupada's secretary, in which capacity he wrote some of the letters expressing Srila Prabhupada's desires. He was a very good secretary at the time, one reason no doubt Srila Prabhupada kept him on in that capacity. However, the letters speak for themselves. We do not need Maharaja to interpret them for us with whatever his latest understanding is 22 years on. The evidence speaks for itself.

What is remarkable about this apparent piece of evidence is that it is another example of a glaring double standard found in FO-Fables. Remember on page thirteen? The FO-Pundits told us: "To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an authorized form at that time. If such (personal) letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for up to ten thousand years, surely Srila Prabhupada would have made their publication , and mass distribution , a matter of utmost urgency."(7) And we aren't done with this table of evidence yet. It gets even more embarrassing.

The letter in question is not used to 'form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977'. That is done by the July 9th letter, which everyone agrees was readily available at the time in question. All these other instructions are simply produced to re-confirm this point in a supporting sense. Indeed they appear in a section which is very clearly titled 'Supporting Instructions'. The word 'Supporting' means we are simply re-confirming something that has already been established. Thus the only thing that is 'embarrassing' is the author's inability to understand chapter headings. The above point we had already made in our last reply incidentally. Is the author hoping no one will notice that he is simply recycling defeated points?

Notice how nearly every point that follows the introduction to FO-Fables is designed to clear the way for eliminating objections that would kill the possibility of Srila Prabhupada requesting a RtVik system.

Srila Prabhupada most certainly did order the system - on July 9th, 1977.
How many times must this be repeated till it finally sinks in we wonder? It is not just a 'possibility'. And every point that follows, as explained on page 2 of TFO, investigates if there is any reason why the system should have been terminated. Thus the objections that are eliminated simply 'kill' the idea that the system should have been terminated.

The FO-sastra has been laid out to grab the unsuspecting reader's curiosity, and then seductively lead one through a labyrinth of gates intended to usher in the hypothesis that Srila Prabhupada ORDERED his disciples to adopt a RtVik system.

As already explained, the idea that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to adopt the ritvik system is not a 'hypothesis' but a fact, that occurred on July 9th, 1977. A fact which nobody on either side disputes. What is a 'hypothesis' is the idea that Srila Prabhupada ordered this system to be terminated on his departure, or that it should only run in his presence.

It is this hypothesis that both the author and the GBC have spectacularly failed in providing evidence for.

The FO-sastra gets the reader so focused on the questions posed by Modifications a & b stated on page two that one might fail to realize how both of these apparently key issues are based on the assumption that our FO-Scholars interpreted the July 9th letter correctly! Let us not forget that the letter is the very thing that is in dispute!

Either the author has not read modifications A & B; or he is just deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Let us refresh his memory:

Modification a)  That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
Modification b)  Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.

Maybe the author can tell us how these modifications, which relate to actual historical events which occurred in 1977-8, depend on interpreting the July 9th letter? The modifications simply detail factual actions that were taken. Actions that are not sanctioned in the July 9th letter. That's just a plain and simple fact.

While we may all have our own interpretations of what Srila Prabhupada really meant by the word "henceforward" when he issued the July 9 letter, objective devotees will concede that it is extremely controversial evidence at best.

We apologise to the readers since we have lost count how many times we have had to repeat this section of TFO:  

"Furthermore the argument that the whole ritvik system 'hangs' on one word - henceforward - is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure, with no subsequent instruction to terminate it." (TFO, Page 3)

So what is the relevance about what the word 'henceforward' means? Instead of struggling with elevated subjects such as hermeneutics and the like, the author would do better to take a course in how to read simple English.

Before we go any further let us draw the readers attention to the following sentence found in the introduction of FO-Fables. "It is therefore imperative that constant vigilance is maintained in ensuring it does not stray even one millionth of a hair's breath from the managerial and philosophical parameters set out by our Founder-acarya" (20) What makes this sentence so interesting is how dramatically it overstates the simple point that we should all do our best to follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions as nicely as we can. But here on the first page of the FO-sastra the authors are setting up the drama to intimidate the reader into accepting everything that follows as not straying "even one millionth of a hair's breath.." from what Srila Prabhupada told us to do on July 9th.

But the sentence does not say that what 'follows' will not be 'straying even one millionth of a hair's'. It simply states that this principle is important for ISKCON, as is clear from the sentences surrounding the one quoted. The authors fully admit their own frailties. If the GBC have not deviated then where is the intimidation?

What now follows shows the author surpassing any nonsense we have seen coming from the GBC.

Srila Prabhupada makes a statement in his Will that all future executive directors for the lifetime of ISKCON will be 'My Initiated disciples'. The implication of this statement is that directly initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada will always populate ISKCON. Now in all their attempts at explain away this phrase the GBC, to their credit, have never officially resorted to stating that Srila Prabhupada plain made a mistake. The author has no such qualms. Being unable to answer why this phrase should be there, this is exactly what the author says:

the straightforward explanation for the sentence that has been submitted as Exhibit #2 is very simple. The exact wording was not an issue at the time nor did Srila Prabhupada ever expect that it would become an issue.

[e] Perhaps the skeptical reader is uncomfortable with the suggestion that Srila Prabhupada wasn't as focused on the exact wording of his will as our FO-Scholars seem to be.

How low can you get? When he finds something that does not fit in with his way of thinking, his Spiritual Master must simply have made a mistake! After all it can't be the author who has made the mistake. It must His Guru who is the culprit!

The issue is not 'could Srila Prabhupada have ever made a mistake'. The issue is that the author needs to prove that Srila Prabhupada definitely did make one right here.

Before making such an outrageous claim the author should have considered the following points:

1.      The author states that:

"If that small word (my) was replaced with the word "an" the meaning of the entire sentence would completely change."

But the argument that the word 'an' was what Srila Prabhupada really meant is rendered highly implausible when we learn that the first draft of the Will originally had the word 'an':  

"a successor committee member or committee members may be appointed by the remaining committee members, provided that the new committee member is an initiated disciple and following strictly all the rules and regulations of ISKCON as detailed in the books of His Divine Grace..." (Reading of the draft of the Will, June 2nd, 1977)

This was then deliberately altered to:

"a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple following strictly all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books, e" (Final Will, June 4th, 1977)

Notice how the draft has been changed, and specifically that the word 'an' has been changed to 'my'. This obliterates the very notion that the word 'my' was an oversight that just got in by accident.

2.    Also the idea that Srila Prabhupada did not understand the long term implications of using the word 'my' in the Will is ludicrous, when one considers that the Will was set up specifically to guide ISKCON for hundreds of years after Srila Prabhupada's departure. That is what Wills deal with, what will happen after the departure of the person who is writing it. It is practically an insult to suggest Srila Prabhupada did not understand the significance of the Will document. Thus we are not looking for 'miracles' or 'magic' from Srila Prabhupada, just basic common sense, which he possessed in great abundance.

3.    The argument that Srila Prabhupada specifically appoints 4 executive directors for a temple after having given the general provision that ISKCON temples be managed with 3, is also not evidence of a mistake. Srila Prabhupada simply sets out general principles in paragraphs 1 and 2, and then he gives other specific detailed directives and exceptions, as is quite normal and acceptable in a Will of this complexity. There is no contradiction here. The fact is that the Will can be implemented as a document in its entirety, by combining both the general and specific provisions.

4.    The addition of the codicil to clarify and expand on certain points in the original will, proves Srila Prabhupada was paying detailed attention to all the intricacies and aspects of the Will. So how did he miss 'my', when he meant 'an', and further why did he not clear it up in the codicil? The fact that the codicil was written without this clarification, weakens, not strengthens the author's claim.

Thus there is no evidence that Srila Prabhupada made a mistake here. Just trying to imply that Srila Prabhupada could make a mistake is not the same as proving that he did in a particular instance. Especially not this instance - as demonstrated above. The author is just hoping that because Srila Prabhupada forgot someone's name etc., he also made a mistake in his Last Will and Testament. By saying Srila Prabhupada made a mistake the author hopes he will be let off the hook and not have to deal with the clear implications. Why not just go all the way? Why not just say the whole July 9th letter was a 'mistake'? That would get him and the GBC off the hook even more!

It is also unfortunate, and indicative of the level to which the author has now sunk, that he needs to spend so much time meditating on what he perceives as the 'imperfections' of Srila Prabhupada. And all because he so desperately, desperately wants to find fault with TFO. Very unhealthy, very sad.

But what they fail to explain is why they do not have equal alacrity for following the instruction found in clause #1 of the same will? "The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness." (24)

We have already explained in our release 'Announcing IRG Vs GBC Legal Action' why the current group of individuals are not acting as the GBC, and also the justification for the court action. I suggest the author reads it and responds to the specific points in that. The author really does need to keep up with the debate.

The FO-sastra offers us just Exhibit A and Exhibit B. In both cases the conclusions the authors reach rely heavily on a generous amount of extremely controversial Yak like reasoning. In the July 9th letter everything pivots on the single word "Henceforward" and in the Will everything rests on the word "my".

We have already shown that with regards the word 'Henceforward' the author is just plain wrong. The level of misrepresentation and foolish oversight employed by the author is just overwhelming.

1. The traditional system is consistent with twelve years of elaborate purports describing the science of the parampara and how essential it is to the successful transmission of Transcendental Knowledge.

Srila Prabhupada acting as the diksa Guru for ISKCON is the traditional ISKCON system, and he is the current parampara Guru. There is nothing traditional about the current ISKCON 'foreign gurus/under the GBC/paedophiles in the parampara/majority votes required/ no fall-down in the last 5 years/ Guru system. If he can find an identical system to the current bogus ISKCON guru system mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books we will reward the author with a years free supply of Yak milk to help strengthen his brain.

2. The traditional system honors the following prayer found in the Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.34 where Srila Prabhupada shares with us these intimate feeling: "sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikunthaloka." The traditional system preserves the memory of His Divine Grace as the humble servant of his Spiritual Master.

Just because Srila Prabhupada continues to give diksa does not make him any less humble. This is the same as what some in the Gaudiya Matha say - that 'Swami Maharaja took too many disciples and therefore he became puffed up'.

3. The traditional system honors Lord Caitanya requested that each and every one of us become so serious about spiritual life that we become fully qualified to fill the post of Spiritual Master and deliver all that we meet Back Home, Back to Godhead!

So does the 'No Change' system. We can all try and 'become guru' as given in the amara ajnaya verse, and 'stay in our position' and 'not accept any disciples'.

4. The traditional system preserves the personal loving teacher/student relationship that is completely unique to the process of Krishna Consciousness. The dynamic application of the parampara system, when practiced with real living people, is the inspiring force that touches the heart of the disciple even if it only happens infrequently and it has been demonstrated that such an encounter can have the potency to last for an entire lifetime.

There is no absence of 'living people' in ISKCON. As far as diksa goes, there is no need for this so-called 'living' interaction, as demonstrated when Srila Prabhupada was here. The above is hypocritical coming from the author, since how much 'living' interaction did he have with Srila Prabhupada? Many, many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples did not even meet him once.

5. The traditional system does not require a 100-page document that relies on selective quoting, bad research, Yak like logic, political motives, pathetic mistakes, double standards, and embarrassing conclusions.

As we have seen in our responses, and in the author's conspicuous silence to our responses, the above has only been demonstrated in his own writing.

6. The traditional system is based on a path that is consistent with the collective conclusions of Srila Prabhupada's most trusted and intimate senior disciples and the decisions of the GBC who were appointed by His Divine Grace to lead ISKCON.

The fact that something is consistent with 'the collective conclusions of Srila Prabhupada's most trusted and intimate senior disciples' would- given ISKCON's 22 year history- only be evidence confirming that it is most probably WRONG! It seems the author, having made no inroads whatsoever with the IRG, is trying to prepare himself for moving closer to the GBC.

7. The traditional system does not need to be politically campaigned for outside of every temple nor does it rely heavy on faultfinding, endless criticism, lawsuits, and a complete disregard for Vaisnava Aparada.

The issue is what was Srila Prabhupada's desire. If the IRG is correct then every step must be taken to reinstate Srila Prabhupada's desires in ISKCON. And if the IRG is wrong then that is all the author needs to show.

Anything else is just dodging the issue. Further, my responses have always been philosophical. It is the author who claims we are like Saddam Hussein.

8. The traditional system keeps the responsibility on both the Teacher and the Student holding both accountable to their own relationship with paramatma and their respective initiating diksa Spiritual Masters.

How is the author accountable to his diksa Guru? We can all be just as accountable as he is.

9. The traditional system is consistent with the example set by Krishna, Lord Caitanya, and all the other great Vaishnava acaryas in our tradition.

The example set by the acaryas does not match the current Guru system in ISKCON as already mentioned. Yes the Guru may have been on the planet when the initiation took place (though not in B.g. 4.1), but this is not a sastric principle, anymore than the need for the Guru to be Indian bodied, which was also always the case.

10. The traditional system is based on a straightforward understanding of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, does not rely on a fanatical hairsplitting fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures, or the English language, and honors the rigorous science of Hermanutics that is respected by scholars around the world.

We have already shown that the above negative accusations apply only to the author's own writings, a fact he has been unable to deal with, as evinced by his silence to our last two replies.

The concept is actually quite simple and the reason why I suggest it is that it would reunite devotes under the victorious leadership of Srila Prabhupada's mission. It is authorized by the Paicaratriki-Vidhi principal and it concurs with the psychology of problem resolution and the nature of human dynamics.

But we have also been told that it 'mutates the dharma of the parampara'.
Why would anybody want to adopt something like that?

have always made it very clear that the validity of AIM is based on what I have stated above, not the tawdry conclusions of FO-Fables.

But if the conclusion of the TFO is bogus then how can the AIM method bear any fruit? How can a tree that is rotten bear fruit? What is practical about such a bogus system. How can the FO's conclusions be bogus, but the ritvik system be OK? The conclusion of TFO is that we should have back the ritvik system!

After being granted opportunity to perform service cooperatively with other Vaishnavas, the sradha of the AIM devotee would increase and could even culminate in a desire to take second initiation from a senior devotee who is accepting disciples.

As pointed out in the last article the author is again promoting the acceptance of more than one diksa guru, which is forbidden in the CC.

An AIM should not be necessary but it is because of the terribly troubled and difficult times we currently face. It's justification is that it gives those who are unable to surrender to a living guru a practical way to formally participate in the victorious army led by the master of all mystics Krishna and the supreme archer Arjuna.

So ritvik is philosophically bogus but we should do it because it accommodates devotees who cannot accept the real system. By this logic one could do away with anything in order to accommodate devotees who want to follow a bogus philosophical system. And where and how does the pancaratrika system authorise this accommodation and subsequent 'mutating the dharma of the parampara'? The author is writing complete nonsense here, with all due respect.

Why not just let the readers decide for themselves the merit, substance, readability and validity of their literary presentations, which is the professional standard practiced by most writers?

The 'professional standard practised by most writers' when engaged in debate is that when your arguments are answered, you must respond to those refutations. Not to just keep recycling already answered arguments. That is what we are trying to point out to the author.

Again as predicted in our last replies, we doubt if the author will respond to the refutations of his arguments that are given here. No doubt he will just continue recycling the same old defeated points, as well as coming up with some more that have no relevance to the issue at hand, but nevertheless fill space and make him feel important. We shall thus repeat our previous summary since it is just as applicable once more.

Readers are advised to consider the following when reading anything by this or any other author:

1.    Read the TFO and check that he is addressing only what we do say.
Quoting us verbatim will greatly assist in this simple task. This will eliminate 'straw man' arguments. (Though the present author does give quotes, they do not actually state what he claims we say, and thus are still 'straw man' arguments)?

2.    Check that any points he makes have not already been answered in either 'The Final Order' or one of the other IRG replies to the GBC.

3.    Check Srila Prabhupada's teachings with care to see if the author is making statements that are just plain wrong (philosophically).

Of course if the author himself had followed 1, 2 and 3 here, he would not have been able say virtually anything. Let us see next time how many VALID points he can make. Furthermore as well as making valid points, the author must also make relevant points:

4.    Deal with the actual challenge of TFO - Modifications A & B.

We wait with interest to see if the author will indeed be able to write anything on TFO that follows these 4 simple guidelines.

Unfortunately not only did the author not follow these valid guidelines, he also committed further errors. Thus we must issue him 2 more guidelines once again:

5.    Check to see if the arguments you are proposing are just as applicable to what Srila Prabhupada himself set up and practised when he was on the planet. If they are then you need to explain why your objections are only relevant to after Srila Prabhupada departed, and not before.

6.    If any arguments given are meant to demonstrate that the ritvik idea is against Srila Prabhupada's teachings, then explain how can you propose such a deviant idea be included within ISKCON at all? (It could be argued that to not follow the '4 regs' is also quite 'practical', considering all the problems that the devotees have with them, but one could not propose this because it would go against what Srila Prabhupada taught).

Number 6 of course totally destroys the author's entire thesis and shows him to be extremely confused. We have been asked why we bother replying to such articles if they are so poor? Because each time we do, it simply helps confirm again and again for the readers that no one, not the GBC or anyone else, can defeat Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation by supporting Modifications A & B from 'The Final Order'. Certainly Mayesvara prabhu needs to AIM much higher if he is not to repeat the same nonsense he has here.

Furthermore we suggest he stop targeting Srila Prabhupada's Final Will in the way he has here, since he is in great danger of committing Guru aparadha.