Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 13, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Quote:

 

OK, for the fourth or fifth time. ... Will I have to explain this yet again?

 

Don't think that I am stupid just because I cannot well express my thoughts.

 

 

Ok, I won’t think you are stupid if you please stop accusing us of basing

our position on challenging you to prove something did not happen. That is

not what we are doing. Only if someone makes a challenge, such as ‘Srila

Prabhupada wanted the ritviks system to stop in November 1977’ do we ask

them to prove it with evidence. That is asking for positive proof for an

assertion. This is not shifting the burden, it is identifying on whom the

burden of proof falls. The burden falls on he who proposes a change from the

previous status quo. Once we both agree what the status quo was within

ISKCON up till 1977, then we will be able to agree, at least in theory, on

whom the burden of proof falls. I think you may appreciate, this is

completely different from challenging someone to prove a negative.

 

I had said;

 

Quote:

There are dozens of statements from Srila Prabhupada indicating he was the

only initiating guru within ISKCON.

 

 

You challenge:

 

“Please present your very best piece of evidence for: Srila Prabhupada was

the only guru within ISKCON initiating his own disciples because he

established himself as the only diksa-guru in ISKCON, and for no other

reason (e.g. because he established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON,

and it is the etiquette that during his presence no disciple should accept

his own disciples).”

 

I have not said that Srila Prabhupada’s establishment of himself as the

Founder- Acharya of ISKCON was entirely unrelated to his also being the sole

initiator. So as you would say: I do not have to prove a position I have

never claimed.

 

We do, however, claim he established himself as the sole initiating guru for

the institution he founded in 1966:

 

Quote:

“I am the spiritual master of this institution, and all the members of the

society, they’re supposed to be my disciples. They follow the rules and

regulations which I ask them to follow, and they are initiated by me

spiritually”.( Srila Prabhupada radio interview. March. 12. 68.)

 

 

Even if you could prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that Srila Prabhupada

had authorised hundreds of diksa gurus to take over the second he departed,

they would not have been diksa gurus between 1966 to 1977. Hence Srila

Prabhupada would still have established himself as both the founder Acarya

AND sole diksa guru for ISKCON, at least till his departure. If you can

agree with this then we can discuss what specific institutional mechanisms

he had put in place by which he could be succeeded as the sole diksa guru.

 

I think we need to agree on this before we can go on. It may be we already

agree and it is just a language problem.

Thanks

Ys

Yadu

 

P.S. By the way when I said ‘your challenge’ you misunderstood me, I meant

our challenge for you, not your challenge for us, sorry if that was not

clearer. You may not be impressed with TFO but the GBC were forced to

withdraw their main position paper justifying their guru system which TFO

originally set out to disprove, admitting it ‘stretched the truth’. On the

other hand TFO remains undefeated, which is why the GBC have to keep writing

new position papers, contradicting their previous ones.