In Question Three I signaled ahead, "it would be hopelessly hypocritical of you to attempt to change your NCIP 'no-change' logic and add more ritvik priests" and yet that is precisely what you have done.

First you peddle your invented NCIP (GBC cannot change anything) as if it were sastra, but now that NCIP is defeated you want to change your 'no change'! Instead of honestly admitting NCIP's numerous absurdities you desperately plead for a 'no change' exemption to add more ritviks. Such a suicidal U turn in a one way street confirms you are completely unfit to debate.

Rather than just talk the talk you need to walk the walk by backing your 'big claims' with proof from guru and sastra. To date you have only proved that you are all bluff and no stuff.

You stated:

"As with all your postings to date, you begin with a lie and then construct the rest of your argument based on this lie. Once this lie is exposed, all your arguments and the 'questions' you submit collapse."

Since everything I have presented is totally anchored in guru, sadhu, sastra, and you have not proved anything contrary, your judgement that I lie is nothing more than a reflexive accusation against the very authority you claim to serve.

The onus is on you to 'prove' that my references to guru, sadhu, and sastra are lies. Making empty sound bites proves nothing.

You said:

"You claim we say: 'The GBC cannot change anything'. What we actually say is: 'In running ISKCON, the GBC can only implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada."

Yet again you move your goalposts! Let me remind you of what you actually did say, where you did put your goal posts, in your debate introduction:

"There was no authorisation for any change to be made to the way he had instructed and set up ISKCON to run."

You clearly said "any change"!

You also said:

"The very idea of change and speculation being entirely antithetical to the purposes of ISKCON."

Again you said: "Thus the GBC cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada."

You said, "cannot change anything"

Now you say:

"What we actually say is: 'In running ISKCON, the GBC can only implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada."

This proves you can't be trusted. This is different from what you've said all along. Before you said, "GBC can't change anything" and now you saying the opposite. Either way your NCIP is a loser because it has no sastra. It is just an idea, and you know what Srila Prabhupada says about ideas without sastra....

Yet in spite of your unlawful position you have the gall to impose yourself upon the entire ISKCON accept as their siksa-guru!

You said:

"Once the GBC resolution on which the N.C.I.P. (No Change in ISKCON paradigm) is actually based is included, your fabrication of our position falls apart. The GBC Resolution above (which is given as the definition of the GBC) states that the GBC should implement and maintain only what Srila Prabhupada has given."

With false equivocation you are grappling to create some evidence, claiming that the following GBC resolutions serve your purpose, but they don't:

1. 'The GBC has no other function or purpose than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace' (1975, GBC Resolution)

2. The GBC must keep intact and apply only that which Srila Prabhupada has taught: 'and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form.' (1975 GBC Resolution)

The above GBC resolutions clearly don't give any basis whatsoever for posthumous diksa except in your wishful thinking. On the contrary, the above two resolutions only reinforce the ISKCON regular guru system.

You said:

"Thus to maintain the system given in the July 9th directive, the GBC has been specifically authorised to make the necessary arrangements. You yourself have agreed that the details of a system such as who should be the temple president and who should be on the editorial board, can be changed as necessary. So why make an exemption for the ritvik priests in the July 9th directive? This is also a management system that the GBC have been authorised to apply and maintain."

Not even Srila Prabhupada could authorise the pre-samadhi system in post-samadhi because such action breaks the law of disciplic succession. So how can the GBC be authorised to make such a change?

Some people like to bang their heads against the wall for the sake of it. In a lunatic asylum people actually do this. Are you not similarly banging your head against the wall with your ritvikism? The only thing anyone will ever get out of ritvikism is a headache!

You said:

"So you are putting forward as defect in the N.C.I.P., the inability to add more ritviks. Yet the GBC have agreed that more can be added. So if you don't have faith in us, at least have faith in them.

You have misquoted the GBC yet again. The GBC only spoke of adding more ritviks pre-samadhi, not post-samadhi. To have any ritviks in post-samadhi as you wrongly demand would involve the GBC breaking the law of disciplic succession, and so your idea has been unanimously rejected.

You said:

"The above evidence from HH Tamala Krishna Maharaja was used in the GBC's 'anti-ritvik' ISKCON JOURNAL, a document to which you were also a contributor. Yet, as we have seen in your recent attack on HH Hridyananda Maharaja, you seem to have no shame in attacking documents that you are a contributor to. Again this is just more evidence of your desperation in trying to find something to say - that you will even lash out at the GBC just to try and desperately find a hole in our position. Unfortunately you have failed again."

The whopping hole in your position is that first you say without any authority 'GBC can't change anything' then oh, wait a minute, we need to change something here to make it work, so you shamelessly contradict yourself by proposing the 'biggest change' in the history of Vaisnavism, posthumous diksa. Anyone with half a brain can see you've dug yourself into a whopping big hole and are about to bury yourself alive. Unfortunately you'll be the last person to see it.

You said:

"That the N.C.I.P. states that systems given by Srila Prabhupada cannot even be MAINTAINED."

NCIP is not sastra, it is your whimsical idea. Your above statement is a classic example of a faulty premise. You falsely assume that everyone accepts your NCIP as sastra but NCIP is nothing but a new age invention. Nothing to do with sastra, asat, it is useless. Your premise has no sastra, my premise is completely supported by sastra.

You have quoted predominantly from legal documents, trying to make a legal issue out of a philosophical issue so as to implement a new philosophical idea giving you legalistic controls. In other words you are trying to hijack ISKCON. Is your hidden agenda about philosophy or power and control?

You said:

"Also you have again repeated the already exposed lies that we are 'breaking the law of disciplic succession' and that the July 9th ritviks system is 'temporary'."

The fact that you call your opponent a liar without proof actually 'proves' you are desperate. If you had real evidence you would have no need to debase your self in that way. You would just disprove the point.

You said:

"Thus you are not even able to construct meaningful, rational questions that make any sense, what to speak of being able to even ANSWER my questions."

My answers to all your questions are rooted in guru, sadhu, and sastra. Here is my proof and direct challenge:

Sastra says: satoh vriteh, we must follow in the footsteps of the example of the previous acaryas. I have proof that every acarya in our line took diksa from a living guru to set the example for us. Thus my position is supported by sastra. Now you show me proof from sastra to support your idea. Show me just one example in our line of disciplic succession of anyone taking diksa posthumously? You can't, because there is none. Thus you are defeated.