Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Mar 20, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You have started to dispute arguments 1 and 2, so I shall first need to

clear these up before moving onto 3. With regards my summary of your

arguments:

 

1)Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON only because he was

the Founder Acarya.

 

2)Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON only because there

were no other diksa gurus available at the time.

 

You wrote:

 

> These are not my statements. You added the word "only".

 

I never said they were your statements, I said they were your arguments.

They are a summary of your arguments. And since you only dispute one word,

they were a pretty accurate summary as it happens.

 

In English the word ‘only’ implies that Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa

guru for the sole reason or reasons you gave, and not for any other reason

or reasons. Therefore by saying WHY you think he became the sole diksa guru

you are automatically eliminating other explanations. That is why I used the

word ‘only’. If you are now saying that your explanations are just two

amongst potentially unlimited others, then could you please confirm that. In

any case my rebuttals still apply with or without the word 'only'.

 

With regards my rebuttal of your argument 1:

 

If being the Founder Acarya means that one would of necessity be the sole

diksa guru for that institution

 

You wrote:

 

> Who claimed that? Please tell her that she is wrong.

 

Er...you had written:

 

> "Of his own volition" is incorrect. (...) 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.

 

(Ramakanta dasi Nov 20, 2005 - 08:01 AM)

 

Above you are arguing, like it or not, that the indication is that Srila

Prabhupada was only the sole diksa guru from the very earliest times BECAUSE

he was the founder acaraya; ‘he did it as the founder acaraya’. Therefore,

like it or not, you are ‘indicating’ that just the fact of his being the

founder Acarya explains why he was the sole diksa guru.

 

If you do not dispute the above I shall go to the next point. Any delay is

of your own making since all am trying to do is systematically deal with

arguments YOU made, and then deal with the strange, Hitchcockian Psycho-like

shifting of blame for those arguments to some new female who has suddenly

entered the debate.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu