Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> 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.

 

"Of his own volition" is incorrect. Srila Prabhupada said that one cannot

become guru without being ordered by the predecessor acarya. Therefore Srila

Prabhupada initiated disciples because he has been ordered, not of his own

volition. Otherwise I agree with your statement. But this does not prove

that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole initiator. Rather, the

words "from the very earliest time" indicate that he did it as the founder

acarya.

 

 

> 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.

 

This is no proof that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole

initiator. Usually it is the founder who sets standards. So I would rather

say that he is founder acarya. And that is confirmed by Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

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

> worshiped ONLY him as the ‘spiritual master’ giving transcendental

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

 

The reason why everyone worshiped only him as the spiritual master is

because he was the only diksa-guru. And I have already shown that it would

be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that he established himself as

the sole initiator.

 

 

> 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).

 

The person who receives recommendations for initiations does not have to be

the initiator. This is proven by the July 9th letter. So you cannot conclude

from this that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole initiator.

 

 

> 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.

 

I agree. But what has this to do with "sole initiator"?

 

 

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

> other than those in which Srila Prabhupada was the initiator.

 

The reason is because he was the only diksa-guru. And I have already shown

that it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that he established

himself as the sole 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.

 

Same answer as for 6).

 

 

> 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.

 

Can you please quote those letters where Srila Prabhupada deliberately set

himself up as the only initiator for ISKCON. Please skip those letters that

merely say the he was the only initiator, and there is more than one

possible reason why.

 

 

> 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.

 

You have no proof that these were the only private letters where that was

mentioned. And even if they were the only ones, then your argument would

belong to the category of "Srila Prabhupada did not say, therefore the

opposite is true". I ignore such arguments.

 

 

> 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.

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada was the sole initiator. But to conclude from this that

he established himself as the sole initiator for ISKCON is a logical

fallacy. Also, what is your proof that this was the final directive on how

initiation was to be conducted within ISKCON?

 

 

> 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.

 

How was it in Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's time and afterwards, as described in

Srila Prabhupada’s books? Weren't there multiple gurus?

 

 

> 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).

 

I do not agree as I have just shown.

 

 

> You probably agree also with most of the above.

 

I agree with the facts you listed except "of his own volition". But your

conclusion from these facts is unproven.

 

 

> 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?

 

The status quo (not only from 1966 to 1977, but forever) is that Srila

Prabhupada is the Founder Acarya of ISKCON. And the facts you described can

also be explained with Srila Prabhupada as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON.

The status quo from 1966 to 1977 was that Srila Prabhupada was the sole

initiator. And there is more than one possible reason why he was the sole

initiator.

 

So you have to base your further argumentation on this, unless you can prove

that Srila Prabhupada did or said something where the only reason is that he

established himself (deliberately set himself up) as the sole initiator for

ISKCON, e.g. a statement like "I will be the only diksa-guru in ISKCON, even

after my departure".

 

In the beginning of The Final Order Krishnakant wrote that Srila Prabhupada

was a meticulous person. From such a meticulous person I would expect a

clear statement, not a puzzle (in the July 9th letter a little bit, and in

the testament a little bit, etc.). Such a clear statement indeed exists,

namely "Founder Acarya of ISKCON" written on the front page of every book.

So Srila Prabhupada wanted to be known as the 'Founder Acarya of ISKCON',

not as the 'Acarya of ISKCON'.

 

If Srila Prabhupada had established himself as the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON (also for the time after his departure), then on April 22, 1977 he

would not have said that he will choose and authorize some guru. (And by

"guru" he meant "regular guru" as confirmed on May 28, 1977 by "When I

order, 'You become guru,' he becomes regular guru.").

 

I don't expect that you will admit that "Srila Prabhupada established

himself as the sole initiator for ISKCON" is unproven. But whenever in our

future debate you mention this, I will remind you that it is unproven.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa