Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

February 11, 2006

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You wrote: "Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position

of the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966."

I understood following:

"An act done by Srila Prabhupada in 1966. Before that act, Srila Prabhupada

was not the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. And afterwards, he was."

You have definitely not proven that.

But if you meant following:

"Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from 1966 to 1977 and

therefore he acted accordingly."

Then, as I already wrote, I agree with it.

I repeat: It is not proven that Srila Prabhupada acted in a certain way with

the result that afterwards he was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON which he

was not before (he acted in that way).

I asked you three times (on 4, 5 and 6 Feb, 2006) if my understanding is

correct. But you did neither say that it is correct nor that it is

incorrect. You just said "It means what the words say!!". For me the words

say what I have understood.

You wrote:

> Most people in the world do not accept ISKCON’s gurus are proven to be

> authorised representatives of God, yet clearly you do.

Then quoting me you wrote:

> My gurus are Harikesa and Prabhupada.

Then you wrote:

> If you accept Harikesa as your guru then you must accept he was authorised

> to act as such.

Did I say that I accept he was authorized to act as such? Please quote.

If you draw a conclusion about "ISKCON's gurus" based on "Harikesa", then

that is the logical fallacy "hasty generalization".

Also, please confirm by a quote that all gurus, also siksa gurus, have to be

authorized representatives of God. (I said "my gurus". I did not say "my

diksa gurus").

I am still asking you to retract your claim.

ys Ramakanta dasa

Recommended Posts