Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 16, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta prabhu, PAMHO, AGTSP,

you say:

 

Quote:

"Someone or something established Srila Prabhupada as the sole initiator for

ISKCON" is also unproven. To conclude that from "Srila Prabhupada was the

sole initiator" would be the same logical fallacy (non sequitur) because

there is at least one other possible reason why Srila Prabhupada was the

sole initiator for ISKCON, namely because he is the Founder Acarya of ISKCON

and it is not the etiquette that a disciples initiates his own disciples

while his guru is still present.

 

Note: By "initiator" I mean "diksa-guru initiating his own disciples". ys

Ramakanta dasa

 

 

 

Whatever the reason WHY Srila Prabhupada was the sole initiator for ISKCON

(and I have noted your own preferred speculation as to why he established

himself as such regarding an ‘etiquette’) you have accepted he WAS the sole

initiator, or diksa guru initiating his own disciples, from 1966 to 1977.

Our position is that it was Srila Prabhupada who established himself in that

role. Whatever he established is what I shall call the 'status quo'. The

following is the basis for our position:

 

1) From the very earliest time in ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada personally

conducted initiation ceremonies in which all the initiates became his

disciples. He did this willingly and of his own volition.

 

2) Srila Prabhupada set all the standards for initiation within ISKCON. And

these standards are meant to remain in place for as long as ISKCON exists.

Only the diksa guru himself can set the standards by which he will accept

disciples.

 

3) Srila Prabhupada established daily guru puja in ISKCON whereby everyone

worshipped ONLY him as the ‘spiritual master’ giving transcendental

knowledge lifetime after lifetime- the function of the diksa guru.

 

4) Srila Prabhupada established the system by which recommendations for

initiations would be made only to himself (or his authorized representative

as in July 9th letter).

 

5) Srila Prabhupada approved of GBC resolutions that reinforced the

standards for initiation he had set, and which were applicable throughout

ISKCON. As stated, only the diksa guru himself can decide the standards by

which he will accept disciples.

 

6) No other authorised initiation ceremonies were carried out in ISKCON

other than those in which Srila Prabhupada was the initiator.

 

7) Srila Prabhupada wrote many letters in which he accepted the

recommendations of temple presidents for new initiates. Recommendations were

only ever sent to Srila Prabhupada (or his representatives after July 9th)

not to any other ‘diksa guru’, and such initiates ONLY ever became disciples

of Srila Prabhupada.

 

8) Letters written by Srila Prabhupada to his GBC leaders (such as

Madhudvisa) simply reinforced his status as the sole initiator guru for

ISKCON and confirmed that which was practically going on all over the world

within ISKCON under his authority.

 

9) The only private letters written by Srila Prabhupada where even the

possibility of his disciples initiating was mentioned was in relation to

ambitious and or disobedient individuals like Tusta Krishna, Hamsadutta and

Brahmananda; the very purpose of such letters (where the ‘etiquette’/’law of

disciplic succession’ is invoked) being to STOP them from initiating, not to

encourage them.

 

10) Srila Prabhupada’s final directive on how initiation was to be conducted

within ISKCON left him as the sole diksa guru, with representatives acting

on his behalf. The letter also confirms that Srila Prabhupada was the diksa

guru to whom recommendations were sent up till that time.

 

11) The process by which initiation is granted in ISKCON, as described in

Srila Prabhupada’s books, is identical to the one in place when he was

physically present, and unavoidably different from the multiple guru system

foisted on the Movement after his physical departure.

 

All the AVAILABLE evidence thus converges on the fact that Srila Prabhupada

established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966; or point a).

This is also a point that is not disputed by our main opponents, the GBC.

You probably agree also with most of the above.

In any case I can support all the above with positive evidence if you wish.

 

So far as the IRM are concerned the above constitutes the status quo as

existed in ISKCON from 1966 to 1977, and it is a status quo established by

Srila Prabhupada himself. So firstly Ramakanta Prabhu, do you agree with the

above or do you wish to refute the 'status quo' with positive evidence to

the contrary? (And please only use arguments that are YOURS, and please only

allude to evidence that EXISTS, not evidence that COULD exist. This will

save a lot of confusion. Please also note I am not asking you to prove that

something did NOT occur. I am simply setting out what we believe to be the

status quo as established by Srila Prabhupada).

Thanks

Ys

yadu