Debate on Facebook between Ajit Krsna dasa and Vidura dasa regarding HDG Srila Prabhupada being available as one’s Diksa guru today.
The debate begins here with a response from Ajit Krsna dasa to the article written by Vidura dasa titled “Bhakta Torben and Ajit Krsna are changing Srila Prabhupada’s books!”
What you have presented is a mishmash of quotes and statement, and then you have postulated that there is a logical connection between these leading to the conclusion that you can become a diksa-disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
But I do not see that logic at all. I see logical fallacies. Your case is unintelligible.
Vidura Das The logic of my article is that Diksa is…this, and depends on…this. The standard of establishing that is Srila Prabhupada’s statements. If you wish to assert that it depends on additional circumstances, you must also show evidence from Srila Prabhupada which prove so.
If you cannot see this simple logic, then you do not know logic.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Again, I can only repeat my statements about your lack of logic.
Let me understand one thing: Do you not think that mutual agreement between a guru and his prospective disciple must be there in order for the prospective disciple to become a diksa-disciple of the guru?
Yes or no?
Vidura Das Yes. Mutual agreement must be there. That is not being argued. As i cited in my article: “one must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master.” My assertion is that this test is not on the basis of physicality but spirituality – in the sincere and submissive execution of the spiritual masters instructions. Then the spiritual master automatically blesses spiritual understanding, seeing the genuine attitude of the disciple. One should not claim that the spiritual masters ability to see the genuine attitude of a disciple is limited to his physical presence. This is my argument. This is what my article seeks to establish.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Vidura Das,
No one is arguing that the spiritual master need to be physically present to bestow spiritual knowledge. What is argued is that you cannot introduce an initiation system were you do not know for sure, and where you cannot prove, that your diksa-guru has accepted you as diksa-disciple.
What you are stating above is like the Vaisesika philosophy. They claim that there is no need to worship and serve the demigods or the Supreme Godhead, because if you simply act in a certain way then they MUST give you benedictions. Thus they propound a mechanical process. But bhakti is not mechanical. It is not an automated process. You cannot argue that if you just follow this and that, then you are automatically a diksa-initiated disciple of a guru of your choice – even though you do not actually know, and cannot prove, that he has agreed to accept you as diksa-disciple.
Vidura Das We do know for sure that Srila Prabhupada has accepted us. Because we know what his test is. If we pass his test, we are automatically blessed with spiritual knowledge. This blessing is his acceptance. Read Bhagavad-gita As It Is 4.34 Purport.
Feel free to prove that this testing depends on his physical presence. I think you are having trouble doing that.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Strawman again. Same as before. We have never said this. It just depends on mutual agreement. And you cannot prove there is mutual agreement when it comes to rtvik initiations post-1977.
You are claiming – based on Bg. 4.34 p. – that any devotee can take diksa-initiation from any guru in our sampradaya?
Why have we not seen any bona fide guru in our sampradaya use this method?
Why is this method not seen in sastra?
“One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding.” (Bg. 4.34 p.)
You cannot use this as an argument, because the quote says that “a disciple” must pass the test. But you have not even begun to prove that you have been accepted as a disciple.
So you are engaging in another fallacy – circular reasoning.
You have failed miserably in your attempt to establish your case.
There would be NO NEED for diksa by anyone but Krishna if Vidura is correct. Because then everyone could just take diksa from Krishna and get siksa from other devotees. In other words, if Vidura is correct then the idea of sampradaya as traditionally understood and practiced becomes unnecessary.
In this way Vidura Das‘ argument is also defeated by the method of “reductio ad absurdum” – reduced to absurdity.
Vidura Das Ajit Krsna dasa, here is your next reply.
1) there is mutual agreement. One approaching a spiritual master must pass the test of the spiritual master, then the Divya jnanam is blessed. This is the criteria, or mutual agreement – whatever you wish to call it. If a different test is required, kindly show me where Srila Prabhupada says so.
2) Let’s remember that this verse is in regards to approaching a spiritual master. How can one be a disciple before the approach? Within this approach there is a test though; its not that one can approach a spiritual master without submissiveness – that is not a genuine approach. When the bonafide spiritual master sees the genuine approach (submissive inquiry), then the test has been passed; the spiritual knowledge is now automatically blessed. Thus the word disciple is used interchangeably here with one who has genuinely approached a spiritual master. A beautiful arrangement of terminology by Srila Prabhupada, perfectly consistent, of course, with how Srila Prabhupada describes an actual disciple and actual initiation.
3) not everyone can take diksa from Krsna today, or any other acharya before Srila Prabhupada, because Srila Prabhupada is the current authorized link in our Parampara. The difficulty comes when you imagine that being the currently authorized link is impossible unless physically still present. This you have not been able to prove in principle, but only through previous example at best, which is not valid proof since the acharya’s activities are sometimes unprecedented, as in many cases with Srila Prabhupada.
Ad 1) This is not mutual agreement on diksa. There is NOTHING in the purport stating such a thing.
Ad 2) Passing on knowledge is not the same as passing on diksa.
Ad 3) Why can one only take diksa from the current link? Where is that stated?
Vidura Das 1) The very concept of a test implies a mutual agreement. In any field, a test is there in order to ensure that certain requirements and qualifications are met. If one must pass the test of the spiritual master in order for spiritual understanding to be blessed by the spiritual master, how is this not mutual?
2) Kindly refer back to the article to see how Srila Prabhupada defines Diksa. You are generalizing my statements so that they could be open to more critique. I never used the term “passing on knowledge” exactly. This could apply to any Siksa relationship. I used the word “blessing” and this blessing is specifically used by Srila Prabhupada to indicate genuine spiritual understanding, which is what Diksa is: “Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.” (C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)
3) “…in order to receive the real message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.” (SB 2.9.7 Purport)
“So if you want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we must understand in the same way as the person who directly heard from. This is called paramparā system. Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is paramparā system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called paramparā system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next ācārya, immediate next ācārya.” (SB Lecture 1.15.30 — Los Angeles, 12/8/73)
[24 hours pass before his next response. Ajit Krsna begins to engage in debate with a different devotee on the same thread, seemingly forgetting about our debate.]
Vidura Das Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa, could you please respond to those three points?
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Vidura Das, will get back to you.
[another 24 hours later]
Vidura Das If you cannot adequately respond to these points, one by one, within a reasonable time frame, perhaps the honest thing would be, as far as the etiquette of debate, to accept defeat, at least for the time being.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Vidura Das: “The very concept of a test implies a mutual agreement. In any field, a test is there in order to ensure that certain requirements and qualifications are met. If one must pass the test of the spiritual master in order for spiritual understanding to be blessed by the spiritual master, how is this not mutual?”
We are talking about agreement on diksa-initiation. Not agreement on testing. The spiritual master might agree to test you. But if the spiritual master is not physically present, then you do not know what the result of the test will be – have you been accepted as diksa-disciple or have you been rejected! You do not know if he will agree to give you diksa-initiation. Therefore you cannot call yourself a diksa-initated disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
Vidura Das: Kindly refer back to the article to see how Srila Prabhupada defines Diksa.
Your logic is flawed. Your line of reasoning is:
Premise 1: Diksa means A
Premise 2: A
This is a formal fallacy called “s affirming the consequent” which looks like this:
Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P
I hope you can see the flaw in this line of reasoning. From my side you have already lost this debate, because you have committing several logical fallacies without correcting them. This is just another one added to the list. In a Vedic debate your would have been declared the loser long ago, since no debate can progress when one party commits fallacies and does not correct them.
Vidura Das: You are generalizing my statements so that they could be open to more critique. I never used the term “passing on knowledge” exactly. This could apply to any Siksa relationship. I used the word “blessing” and this blessing is specifically used by Srila Prabhupada to indicate genuine spiritual understanding, which is what Diksa is: “Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.” (C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)
This is again the same flawed logic as above. Also, you are basically just claiming that “blessings” equals “initiation”. Obviously it does not. You might read Srila Prabhupada’s books, and you might be blessed by Srila Prabhupada for doing that. You might even be following the process. But nowhere is it stated that this is enough to be diksa-initiated by Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada might want to honour the traditional way of becoming diksa-initiated which is that you choose the “current link” as you yourself cited. The current link is a physically manifest guru. Because you do not know what Srila Prabhupada want you cannot call yourself his initiated disciple.
Vidura Das: “…in order to receive the real message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.” (SB 2.9.7 Purport)
What is it that you would like this to prove?
Vidura Das: “So if you want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we must understand in the same way as the person who directly heard from. This is called paramparā system. Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is paramparā system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called paramparā system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next ācārya, immediate next ācārya.” (SB Lecture 1.15.30 — Los Angeles, 12/8/73)
This confirms what I have been saying all along. You are jumping over to Srila Prabhupada ignoring the immediate guru. And you are speaking about an initiation system which NO GURU in our sampradaya has ever spoken of before. You are just “reading some books” and speculating your way to the rtvik conclusion without any sound arguments to support it. Your view has so far only been supported by logical fallacies and quoting things that disproves your own case.
So far we have been overly lenient with your behavior. But we must ask you to either remove your lie about us changing Srila Prabhupada’s books and give us a public excuse. Or else you have to leave this group.
You need to act on this fast.
Vidura Das Haribol. Thank you for your response. My reply is as follows.
First, in addressing your new threat to kick me from the group and forcefully end our debate here, I am asking you to prove that my accusation that you and your friend are changing Srila Prabhupada’s books is a lie. That you are changing the books is an essential fact, because you are preaching contrary to the conclusions of the books. Therefore there is no difference, only a methodically. This is the very purpose of our debate, so that you can prove my accusation wrong. You have yet been able to prove this. Rather, you have continued to argue the same defeated points about how in the primary evidence I’ve brought forth (Bg 4.34 Purport) does not establish a mutual agreement, to which I have explained how it clearly does. Allow me to respond to your most recent counter-arguments. I feel you are getting frustrated in coming up with answers to my points, and that this is becoming a real struggle for you (your last response took about 48 hours). Please don’t back out of this debate by threatening to ban me from the group. I don’t care if you ban me, but if the conduct of an honest debate means anything to you, you will continue to address my points. If you feel I am not addressing your points, please explain how and I will try my best to address them, as I have been.
In regards to the mutual agreement required between spiritual master and disciple, I assert that you have failed to understand the clear and direct purport (Bg 4.34) by Srila Prabhupada. Furthermore, it is clear that you are not at all acquainted with the process of Diksa as presented by Srila Prabhupada; perhaps the absence of any quotes from you by Srila Prabhupada is indicative of this. You have obliged me to conduct a precise breakdown of the process of Diksa. Henceforth, I request you to kindly make sure that you have ascertained this process before attempting to rebuke the points thus established by me.
The Bg 4.34 purport by Srila Prabhupada is in fact referring to Diksa, not merely on an agreement of testing without knowing the results of that test. Srila Prabhupada says:
“Siksa and diksa. Siksa means learning. diksa, or initiation, means the beginning of spiritual realization.” Letter 71-04-30
And, again, the Bg 4.34 purport, which you claim does not speak of Diksa, says:
“The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself.”
So we are in fact talking about agreement on Diksa because the purport says:
“One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding.”
Diksa is genuine spiritual understanding or realization. Srila Prabhupada says in the purport that in order to obtain this, one must pass the test of the spiritual master. That test is passed when the spiritual master sees the genuine desire of the disciple (submission and service). When the spiritual master sees the genuine submissiveness in the approach, then the test is passed and spiritual understanding is blessed as a result. This is the agreement. Why have you written that we do not know what the result of the test will be? Have you even bothered to read the purport? Srila Prabhupada clearly states that upon passing the test of the spiritual master, genuine spiritual understanding is blessed. The test is how serious and determined or submissive the person is.
“it is the duty of the spiritual master to test the disciple to see how seriously he desires to execute devotional service. Then he may be initiated.” SB 4.8.32 : Purport
“To accept guru means “Now I accept you, guru, my instructor, without any argument,” and that is acceptance. “Whatever you say, I shall do.” That is agreement.” Morning Walk — October 17, 1975, Johannesburg
“The initiation performance is an agreement by the disciples to abide by the order of the Spiritual Master. Therefore, if the Spiritual Master is bona fide and the disciple is serious to abide by His order, then the success is sure.” Letter — 11 January, 1970
Diksa requires two things: the agreement of the disciple to submissively abide by the spiritual master’s orders, and the spiritual master to be bon afide. This is what the Bg 4.34 purport says. There’s a test in this process of Diksa, and that test is the submissiveness and service attitude of the disciple. When that test is passed, the bona fide spiritual master automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. AUTOMATICALLY! When you pass the test, finished. Results are there. Spiritual understanding is blessed. That’s all. That’s how Srila Prabhupada puts it, can’t argue with that.
As far as your usual lesson on the raw steps of logic, which you found lacking in my previous response, I assert that my logic is correct and that on the contrary, my logic does not even fall within the category of “affirming the consequent.” Allow me to demonstrate.
If Diksa means the initiation of transcendental knowledge, the beginning of spiritual realization, then recieving transcendental knowledge by Srila Prabhupada (“genuine spiritual understanding”) makes Srila Prabhupada ones Diksa guru. In theory, sure, there could be other factors preventing one from having such a Diksa relationship with Srila Prabhupada but I contend that physical presence is not one of such factors. Indeed, the matter of physical presence is the very subject of this point of debate. Therefore, unless you can show me where Srila Prabhupada teaches that physical presence is an actual factor within the process of Diksa, my line of logic leading to this conclusion stands correct. And next time, for the sake of clarity, please translate exactly what argumentative value of mine you attribute to point P and point Q, because I honestly think you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Either that or through your attractive display of the rules of logic as a tool, you completely misrepresent the simple points i’ve been making in order to fog the issue and escape direct defeat.
2) Again, I assert that my logic is not flawed. Rather, you have inserted another straw man argument into the debate. No where have I written that blessings equal initiation. What I have written is only what Srila Prabhupada has written, which is that in the approach of a spiritual master, upon passing the test of the spiritual master, it is genuine spiritual knowledge that is blessed unto the disciple, not just “blessings”. And that the imparting or blessing of genuine spiritual knowledge is also known as Diksa, as can be seen in the above quote and quotes in my article. Also, I have never asserted that simply by reading or being simply “blessed” by Srila Prabhupada is what constitutes Diksa. I say that in order to receive Diksa, the spiritual master’s test must be passed. This test is, once again…a test of sincerity, determination and submissiveness. Once this test is passed, transcendental knowledge is blessed.
Please stop generalizing my statements. Don’t try to refute my arguments in the disguise of paraphrasing what I wrote, because you your paraphrasing is completely inaccurate and thus your responses to those paraphrased statements are futile. This is called straw-man argument.
I’m glad I could help you understand that one must approach the current link after all. You did not know this yesterday: “Why can one only take diksa from the current link? Where is that stated?” Yet you do not confess to this obvious shortcoming of yours. This is not honesty. I hope this debate does not continue along the same line. Anyway, please show me where Srila Prabhupada says that the current link is or must be a physically manifest guru. I challenege you on this point directly; you must show me where.
3) In case it isn’t obvious to you, I quoted this to prove you wrong when you challenged my statement that one must approach the current link in the disciplic succession. Thus you are also proven wrong when you argued that, according to my stance, one could approach even Krsna or any other acharya today.
Finally, I am not jumping over Srila Prabhupada because he is the immediate guru. You have failed thus far in proving to me, with Srila Prabhupada’s statements, that an acharya being the current link or immediate guru depends on physically manifest presence. You defend this unsubstantiated view of yours on the assumption that whatever the acharya does must have been spoken of by previous acharyas. But, once again, I emphatically state that the activities of the acharya may sometimes be completely unprecedented by previous example or – in action or words – and that therefore this fails as a valid argument. The fact is that the ritvik system of initiation does not change the principle of initiation: the reception of genuine spiritual understanding / transcendental knowledge.; only the formalities of initiation have changed slightly. Here is another challenge: having used such an argument, please show me where Srila Prabhupada teaches that the formalities presented by the acharya must have been spoken of by previous acharyas.
Feel free to deal with one point at a time, lest quality of argument be lost.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Vidura Das,
Let me first address this statement of yours:
“That you are changing the books is an essential fact, because you are preaching contrary to the conclusions of the books. Therefore there is no difference, only methodically.”
For this to be true you must accept as universally true that anyone who deviates just a tiny bit, due to ignorance or on purpose, from pure devotional service, as explained in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, is changing Srila Prabhupada’s books.
If you preach just a tiny bit wrong by your actions or your words, then you are guilty of changing Srila Prabhupada’s books – according to your logic.
Obviously Srila Prabhupada would never had said that every one of his disciples who deviated just an inch were guilty of the maha-aparadha of changing his books. He never said that anyone, except some of his editors were changing his books.
Thus your accusation is both trivial (because if it is true (which it is not), then everyone, including yourself, is guilty of it) and hideous.
The conclusion is that you must retract your false and insolent allegation against us and offer an apology. Or else you are cordially invited to leave the group. And we shall show you the door if you cannot find it.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa
Vidura Das Thanks for replying. My reply soon to come.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa That will be your last reply before you either apologize or leave. And then I have been very accomodating.
Vidura Das Then i better make it good J
Vidura Das Ajit Krsna, I see that you have opted out of responding to the initial three points we’ve been discussing. It’s clear you’ve been defeated on these points, especially the third, where you challenged the notion that one must approach the current link, and then I proved this to you with a quote from Srila Prabhupada. You did not acknowledge this short-coming of yours, but your answer was basically “what’s your point?” I am emphasizing this relatively small point(3) in order to demonstrate with the most obvious example that you have been avoiding acknowledging defeat this entire debate, as i’ve repeatedly proven with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings that 1) mutual-agreement is there, regardless of physical manifest presence. 2) Transcendental Knowledge (Diksa) can be blessed upon anyone by Srila Prabhupada today who accepts the discipline of Srila Prabhupada sincerely and submissively (submissive approach).
Now to address your other angle of argument. You are apparently striving to preserve Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, as this Facebook group would have others know. The principle and purpose is to preserve the authentic teachings of the acharya. However, you are asserting a philosophy that is completely contrary to what is taught by Srila Prabhupada as represented through his books today. Therefore, while not literally changing the actual books, what you are preaching defeats THE VERY PURPOSE of not literally changing the books. This is why I said ESSENTIALLY you are changing the books.
A devotee who presents himself as a follower of Srila Prabhupada may by accident speak something unsubstantiated in Srila Prabhupada’s books. When such a devotee is corrected with the actual facts, he would naturally correct those statements if he is honest (still it is incumbent upon everyone to verify that what they are speaking is fluent with Srila Prabhupada’s books). If he insists on not correcting those statements but continues to preach in the same concocted way, then he is guilty of working against the preservation of the acharyas teachings, to some extent or the other. I would say that you, Ajit Krsna, fall into the category of someone who extensively insists on preaching a concocted philosophy, along with your side-kick, co-admin “Bhakta” Torben. Rocana also definitely falls into this category. In fact you are all actually in the desert; your understanding of the philosophy is very dry and has no substance. THE SPIRITUAL MASTER LIVES THROUGH HIS VANI AND NEVER DIES. HE LIVES FOREVER THROUGH HIS BOOKS AND WE SHOULD UTILIZE! You can take your departed-guru philosophy back to the desert!
I assume you are going to ban me from this group now. That’s alright – I would have left either way after defeating your blasphemy. Hare Krsna, All Glories to Srila Prabhupada – the living Diksa guru!
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa Vidura Das,
“Ajit Krsna, I see that you have opted out of responding to the initial three points we’ve been discussing.”
I wrote: “Let me first address this statement of yours…”
The second thing I wanted to do was to answer Viduras “three points”. No one opted out.
These three points have been defeated days ago. But Vidura kept repeating them and adding new logical fallacies to his “arguments”. He from very beginning he did not even have a case. This have been demonstrated.
The rest of what Vidura wrote in that post was only further explanations of his points. It was not evidence that the points were correct.
Vidura: “First, in addressing your new threat to kick me from the group and forcefully end our debate here, I am asking you to prove that my accusation that you and your friend are changing Srila Prabhupada’s books is a lie.”
It has been done, but Vidura is not able to debate on the level of logic, so he cannot see his own logical fallacies. Therefore no real debate ever took place. From Vidura we simply had a series of assertions with no evidence to prove them true, and then we had me proving that the so-called evidence presented was for the most part logical fallacies.
Vidura: “That you are changing the books is an essential fact, because you are preaching contrary to the conclusions of the books.”
This point has been addressed. Vidura has no reason to think that I am preaching contrary to the conclusions of Srila Prabhupada’s books, but I showed him that he has every reason to think that he preaches against the conclusions of Srila Prabhupada’s books.
VIDURA’S CORE ARGUMENT DEFEATED
In our debate with Vidura he has consistently presented a logical fallacy as the core argument of his case. If this core argument can be defeated, then Vidura’s whole case will shatter.
So here I will simply focus on and defeat that core argument of his:
Vidura Das: VD:
“If Diksa means the initiation of transcendental knowledge, the beginning of spiritual realization, then receiving transcendental knowledge by Srila Prabhupada (“genuine spiritual understanding”) makes Srila Prabhupada ones Diksa guru.”
Vidura’s logic is flawed. His line of reasoning is:
Premise 1: Diksa means genuine spiritual understanding.
Premise 2: Genuine spiritual understanding is present in a devotee.
Conclusion: Therefore that devotee has been diksa-initiated.
This is a formal fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent* which looks like this:
Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P
Let me give an example to illustrate further. We all know that Srila Prabhupada said that:
Being Krishna conscious means being vegetarian. But being vegetarian does not necessarily make you Krishna conscious.
“A vegetarian is not necessarily a devotee, nor is a nonviolent person. But a devotee is automatically both vegetarian and nonviolent. We must conclude, therefore, that vegetarianism or nonviolence is not the cause of devotion.” (NOD, Ch. 14)
In the same way, diksa means spiritual understanding. But spiritual understanding does not necessarily mean diksa.
We must conclude, therefore, that “genuine spiritual understanding” is not the cause of diksa.”
I must admit that I failed miserably in my attempt to help Vidura understand how his arguments were fallacious. Somehow I am just not able to explain it better than what I just did. But a fallacy is a fallacy, and in a Vedic debate a fallacy must be acknowledged and corrected. Otherwise one has lost the debate.
Ajit Kṛṣṇa Dāsa
This above defeats whatever else Vidura has been trying to prove regarding the rtvik idea.
Vidura Das Ajit Krsna, you have completely misrepresented my core argument and then defeated that argument you created. Another straw-man. If you were to have accurately portrayed my points of logic in your response, it would have looked like this:
Premise 1: Diksa means the INITIATION or BEGINNING of genuine spiritual understanding.
Premise 2: A devotee has begun to receive genuine spiritual understanding from Srila Prabhupada.
Conclusion: Therefore that devotee has been Diksa-initiated by Srila Prabhupada.
In other words, if one can begin to receive genuine spiritual understanding today from Srila Prabhupada (a point that you have not yet been able to disprove), then Srila Prabhupada could be such a persons Diksa guru. Your further examples given do not even apply because they are based on the same straw-man argument that has just been explained; my argument looks nothing like your vegetarian analogy.The core of my argument stands undefeated by you, as do the other points which you have chosen to ignore.
[Ajit Krsna had banned me from his page after his last reply, preventing me from replying any further. This last reply by myself has been presented here only.]