Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Dec 05, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO, AGTSP,

You ask:

 

Quote:

Are you saying that after 1977 Srila Prabhupada did not do anything because

there is no evidence in the Vedabase and because you can ignore Srila

Prabhupada's statements where he said what he will do?

 

 

ISKCON policy with regards initiation and how the Movement was to be meneged

was set up by Srila Prabhupada through directives and approved GBC

resolutions issued between 1966 and 1977. This is what i established for

point a) which you have agreed with.

 

Vedabase ALSO contains all GBC resolutions from 1975 onwards and I accept

that as valid evidence for GBC shenanigans since that time. There is no GBC

resolution based on Srila Prabhupada returning to the GBC meetings to change

the orders he left pre-departure. The entire rational for the GBC’s guru

activities is claimed to be based solely on instruction given by Srila

Prabhhupada pre departure. If it was in anyone’s interest to claim that

Srila Prabhupada had come back to change his orders it would be the GBC’s,

and they have never made such a claim.

 

Still I am so kind and generous that even if the GBC somehow missed this

manifestation I am so unlike Dr Frog that I will still consider any evidence

you may have on the matter. What is not tolerable is appeals to non-existent

evidence on any matter, and especially on how initiation should run WITHIN

ISKCON, which is an institution running on the basis of physical, signed

instructions, not dreams or wispy unfounded claims. So my answer is no,

until you produce the goods.

 

Also since you keep repeating the following unfounded claim:

 

Quote:

He announced it:

 

On April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said, "Yes. I shall choose some guru. I

shall say, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorized.' I am waiting for

that. You become all acarya. I retire completely. But the training must be

complete."

 

 

I shall now deal with your star piece of evidence.

Firstly let us look at a bit more of the context of this statement you keep

repeating, almost one could say, ad nauseum. Here is an earlier section of

this same conversation:

 

Quote:

Prabhupäda: He cannot make any comment. These are facts. Two parties there

were. One party, to use guru as their instrument for self-aggrandizement,

and another party left guru. So both of them are offenders. This Kunja Babu,

this Tértha Mahäräja’s party, he wanted to enjoy senses through guru. And

the Bagh Bazaar party, they left.

Tamäla Kåñëa: Väsudeva.

Prabhupäda: So both of them are severe offenders.

Tamäla Kåñëa: What about Çrédhara Mahäräja?

Prabhupäda: Çrédhara Mahäräja belonged to the Bagh Bazaar party. And I was

living aloof. My Guru Mahäräja approved. He said, “It is better that he is

aloof from them.”

Tamäla Kåñëa: He could understand that his disciples were not...

Prabhupäda: No, he was very sorry. At the last stage he was disgusted.

 

 

Above we see the subject is disciples deviating so badly that they

‘disgusted’ Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. This leads onto the following:

 

Quote:

Tamäla Kåñëa: But that... That doesn’t mean that your disciples should think

also, “I will remain aloof just as our Prabhupäda...”

Prabhupäda: No, that I have not said. Therefore I used so strong word on

the, our Surabhé’s action. This was made independently. He has written. He

has given photograph. That is not good.

Tamäla Kåñëa: Yeah, I took that as a good instruction to all of us, your

rebuking.

 

 

Above we see the subject comes onto Srila Prabhupada having to ‘rebuke’ his

own bad disciples. Srila Prabhupada brings up Hamsadutta who, amongst other

things, humbly put his own photograph on the altar in Germany:

 

Quote:

Prabhupäda: I told him that “You cannot do so independent. You are doing

nice, but not to do in the... You admit.” People complained against

Haàsadüta. Did you know that?

Tamäla Kåñëa: I’m not sure of the particular incidences, but I’ve heard

general...

Prabhupäda: In Germany. In Germany.

Tamäla Kåñëa: The devotees there.

Prabhupäda: So many complaints.

Tamäla Kåñëa: Therefore change is good.

Prabhupäda: No, you become guru, but you must be qualified first of all.

Then you become.

 

 

So the whole discussion so far has been about bad disciples deviating and

disgusting their spiritual master, acting independently and having to have

‘strong words’ used against them. Then Srila Prabhupada says:”No, you become

guru, but you must be qualified first of all.” How can he be seriously

referring to diksa, which requires a pure, liberated, fully surrendered

soul, when all he has been talking about so far is the very opposite?

 

Clearly Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, at least the ones mentioned, were not

qualified to act as any type of guru. The very disciple Srila Prabhupada was

talking to, H.H.Tamal Krishna, himself admitted in an academic book he wrote

(The Perils of Succession), to being the source of several serious

deviations and disruptions. These are the qualifications of a demon, not a

qualified disciple, and certainly not a member of the disciplic succession.

The conversation continues:

 

Quote:

Tamäla Kåñëa: Oh, that kind of complaint was there.

Prabhupäda: Did you know that?

Tamäla Kåñëa: Yeah, I heard that, yeah.

Prabhupäda: What is the use of producing some rascal guru?

 

 

Again Srila Prabhupada clearly hints that his disciples are acting like

rascals. Where is the possibility he could seriously be discussing them in

the same breath as very soon becoming members of the disciplic succession?

Isn’t it just amazing that the only evidence people seem to be able to

produce to support successor acarayas comes in the context of Srila

Prabhupada berating his errant so-called disciples (Tusta Krishna etc) !!

 

Quote:

 

Tamäla Kåñëa: Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and

it’s clear fact that we are all conditioned souls, so we cannot be guru.

Maybe one day it may be possible...

Prabhupäda: Hm.

Tamäla Kåñëa: ...but not now.

Prabhupäda: Yes. I shall choose some guru. I shall say, “Now you become

äcärya. You become authorized.” I am waiting for that. You become all

äcärya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete.

 

 

Given the above it is clear Srila Prabhupada just wanted his disciples to

stop acting as disobedient rascals. If they at least became obedient then

they could act as guru (of some sort at least) and instruct others,

otherwise it was not possible for them to be of any use. And the proof that

Srila Prabhupada wanted them to come to the level of siksa gurus comes next:

 

Quote:

Tamäla Kåñëa: The process of purification must be there.

Prabhupäda: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahäprabhu wants that. Ämära

äjïäya guru haïä. “You become guru.” (laughs) But be qualified. Little

thing, strictly follower...

 

 

In the purports following the ‘Ämära äjïäya guru haïä’ verse it states:

 

‘It is best not to accept any disciples.’

 

This proves that this is an order to instruct, not to initiate one’s own

disciples.

 

It’s so obvious from both this verse, and the context. If Srila Prabhupada

was pleading with his disciples to at least stop being rascals, how can he

seriously have been contemplating authorising them as sampradaya initiating

acaryas? The very idea is preposterous. Maybe Ramakanta Prabhu did not read

the whole conversation, just as he has clearly not studied our NCIP paper.

It goes on:

 

Quote:

Tamäla Kåñëa: Not rubber stamp.

Prabhupäda: Then you’ll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be

effective. Just see our Gauòéya Maöha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a

small temple and “guru.” What kind of guru? No publication, no preaching,

simply bring some foodstuff... My Guru Mahäräja used to say, “Joint mess,” a

place for eating and sleeping. Amar amar ara takana (?)(Bengali): “Joint

mess.” He said this.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada directly criticises his Godbrothers for all posing as diksa

gurus: “Everyone wanted to become guru”. This is the very mentality the GBC

have now instituted with similar disastrous results. The person Ramakanta

prabhu claims is his guru came as a direct result of this deviancy.

 

Since Ramakanta Prabhu has mentioned this conversation so many times I

assume it is his main evidence. I shall now summarise the reason it does not

support his position:

 

1)The words ‘I will stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON’ do not appear

anywhere in the above quote, nor anything remotely like it. Thus this

evidence does not directly support Ramakanta’s position that Srila

Prabhupada announced he would stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON. Thus at

the very best it could only be indirect evidence.

 

2)Nor do the words ‘initiate’ ‘diksa’ or ‘on my departure’ appear in the

conversation, so it is not proven that he is talking exclusively about diksa

authorisation for after his departure.

 

3)The word acarya and guru can apply equally to siksa or diksa guru. You

have to analyse the context to know which is being referred to.

 

4)Srila Prabhupada says if they become acaraya: “then I retire completely.”

Yet they could only become diksa gurus when he departed, not when he simply

retired. (Remember the etiquette Ramakanta Prabhu? Srila Prabhupada was

constantly asking his leaders to become competent so he could ‘retire’ from

management to write his books).

 

5)The main subject of the conversation is deviant, independent, disobedient,

rascals who disgust their spiritual master and require chastisement. Such

people are not even disciples, not to speak of siksa gurus, not to speak of

potential diksa gurus.

 

6)The very person Srila Prabhupada was talking to was one of the worst

disciples of the lot, as he himself admitted in his own book!!

 

7)Srila Prabhupada equates the type of guru he wants with the ‘amara’ verse

which, as relayed to us by Srila Prabhupada, is ONLY authorisation for siksa

not diksa.

 

8)The ‘announcement’ Ramakanta prabhu alleges took place in the above

conversation in any case never became part of the management system for

ISKCON, and thus even if it existed, which we have seen it does not, it

would still be completely irrelevant to this debate.

 

9)So far as Ramakanta’s speculation: By "guru" he meant "regular guru" as

confirmed on May 28, 1977 by "When I order, 'You become guru,' he becomes

regular guru." It remains just that, speculation. The use of the ‘amara’

verse precludes any possibility he could be referring to diksa.

 

10)So far as the following challenge:

 

Also note that Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he will continue to be

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON after his departure.

 

This is dealt with in the TFO and the NCIP papers, both of which you claim

you have read. You made a similar point previously:

 

Quote:

“For example: Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should continue being

the diksa-guru for ISKCON after his departure, therefore he stopped being

the diksa-guru for ISKCON on his departure.” (Ramakanta Nov 03, 2005 - 09:10

AM)

 

 

I shall simply repeat my previous answer:

 

This is another illogical argument.

 

Since, so far as the evidence goes, Srila Prabhupada left himself in place

as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON, and since there is no counter instruction

for the institution that anyone, including your good self, can produce; then

that remains the status quo.

 

Logically you never have to prove the status quo, since the status quo, by

definition prevails.

 

Your argument is ludicrous since it implies that at the end of potentially

unlimited, arbitrarily determined time periods, Srila Prabhupada would need

to keep on issuing new orders, again and again, reassuring everyone that he

is still the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. For example:

 

1) The July 9th letter does not say it should be followed in the afternoon

of July 9th. So maybe it was meant to stop at midday on July 9th 1977.

 

2) The order does not say the ritviks system should continue on July 10th,

so according to your argument it should or could have been stopped then.

 

3) Someone could ludicrously challenge: “Srila Prabhupada never wrote ‘this

instruction should also be carried out after July 15th’, therefore we should

stop following it on July 15th!.”

 

Your example of the devotee sitting outside Srila Prabhupada’s room waiting

for the bell to ring does not relate to our position.

 

We do not deny that there are many instructions that Srila Prabhupada gave

(for example requesting his daily massage) that wholly depended on his

physical presence. However, there are many other instructions Srila

Prabhupada gave to that same devotee which he would have been perfectly

correct to continue following, such as chanting his rounds, following the

principles and worshipping Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

Since you are challenging the status quo established by Srila Prabhupada for

the institution of ISKCON, the onus is on you to support your challenge with

positive evidence.

So my question for you is:

 

“Where does Srila Prabhupada ever teach that after his departure all his

orders and instructions for ISKCON should be stopped unless he has

specifically written somewhere that they ‘should be continued after his

physical departure’?”

 

If you are happy with all the above I shall address your next point.

 

Best wishes,

Ys

yadu