Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> There is no GBC resolution based on Srila Prabhupada returning to the GBC

> meetings to change the orders he left pre-departure.

 

Which orders do you mean? There is no order from Srila Prabhupada that

contains the phrases "after my departure" and "sole diksa-guru". And as a

meticulous person he would have given such a clear order, especially since a

posthumous ritvik system is neither mentioned in his books and lectures nor

confirmed by sadhu and sastra.

 

Also, Srila Prabhupada can authorize a diksa-guru without having to change

any order. And he can do it without having to inform you.

 

 

> 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.

 

Why not dreams? There are many stories in the vaisnava literature where

orders have been received in dreams.

 

 

> So my answer is no, until you produce the goods.

 

(My question was: "Did Srila Prabhupada from 1978 to 2005 order that he

stopped being the sole diksa-guru for ISKCON?")

 

So your answer is "no" because the GBC did not say that Srila Prabhupada

ordered anyone to be diksa-guru. Did they really not say that? I don't

believe that.

 

 

> Clearly Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, at least the ones mentioned, were

> not qualified to act as any type of guru.

 

A good spiritual master tells his disciple that he is a rascal. And a good

disciple considers himself an unqualified rascal. But you commit a great

offence if you then say that this disciple is an unqualified rascal.

Therefore I ignore your offensive speculation that Srila Prabhupada's most

advanced disciples are unqualified rascals.

 

 

Is it IRM's official interpretation that on April 22, 1977 by "I shall

choose some guru. Now you become acarya" Srila Prabhupada meant

"siksa-guru"? I am asking this because from IRM members I have heard three

different interpretations of "guru, acarya" said in this conversation:

diksa-guru, siksa-guru, and ritvik. (Even the IRM members contradict each

other).

 

"Siksa-guru" does not make sense for following reasons:

 

Every devotee is already authorize by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to be

siksa-guru. So why would Srila Prabhupada have to say, "You become

authorized"?

 

Srila Prabhupada's disciples were already siksa-gurus. They opened centers

and preached. So why would he have to say, "I shall choose some (siksa)

guru. Now you become acarya (siksa-guru)"?

 

Only "diksa-guru" makes sense.

 

Also note, that the context changed when Tamal Krsna Goswami said, "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 but not now." Before, they were talking about the past and present

situation, but then the talked about the future.

 

And Srila Prabhupada's answer was: "Yes". And then: "But the training must

be complete." So after the training is complete, his disciples are qualified

to be diksa-guru. Or are you saying that Srila Prabhupada is unable to give

such a successful training?

 

 

> In the purports following the ‘Amara ajnaya guru hana’ 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.

 

This is speculation. "It is best not to accept any disciples" does not mean

"I will never authorize any diksa-gurus". Like "it is best to remain alone

as a brahmacari, sannyasi or vanaprastha and cultivate Krsna consciousness

throughout one's whole life" (SB 3.33.12 Purport) does not mean that Srila

Prabhupada never married disciples.

 

You quote "It is best not to accept any disciples", and then you claim that

Srila Prabhupada is going to accept millions of disciples. That's funny.

 

 

> 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.

 

I did not write that Srila Prabhupada announced he would stop being the

diksa guru for ISKCON. So this is a straw man argument.

 

 

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

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

> simply retired.

 

That is not true. Madhvacarya became diksa-guru before Vyasadeva departed or

retired. Vyasadeva became diksa-guru before Narada Muni departed or retired.

 

 

> 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.

 

Please explain why when Srila Prabhupada says "You become guru", it does not

means that 'he becomes regular guru'. The 'amara' verse is not the

explanation as shown above.

 

 

> 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.

 

Sorry, that my statement (not argument) was not clear enough. So I repeat it

here more detailed:

 

It is not recorded in the Vedabase that Srila Prabhupada said that he will

continue to be the sole diksa-guru for ISKCON after his departure. There is

no such statement by Srila Prabhupada that contains the phrase "sole

diksa-guru" (or similar) AND the phrase "after my departure" (or similar).

 

 

Quoting me out of context you wrote:

> “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)

 

And then you wrote:

> This is another illogical argument.

 

I am glad to see that you agree that this is an illogical argument. Please

remember this whenever you present an argument that starts with "Srila

Prabhupada did not say". I would never present such ludicrous argument,

except present it as an example of a ludicrous argument as I did on Nov 3,

2005.

 

 

> 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.

 

Your conclusion is not confirmed by sadhu and sastra. And that is it what

counts, not speculations.

 

 

> 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.

 

Sitting outside Srila Prabhupada’s room waiting for the bell to ring does

not depend on Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. Therefore my example

relates to your position.

 

 

> 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.

 

We already went through that. I do not agree that Srila Prabhupada

established the status quo. Should I explain it again?

 

 

> 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’?”

 

Please ask this the person who claimed that.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa