Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Mar 21, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Right, so now having demonstrated that your arguments 1 and 2, which were

originally the only opposition you put up against my 11 arguments proving

point a), were at best irrelevant and at worst simply supportive of point

a), I shall now dismantle your last remaining argument against point a). A

sort of argumentative Custer’s last stand then. Let us just look again at

what it says:

 

3)Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from the moment he

incorporated the society and so could not have later established himself

again as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

Since you agree Srila Prabhupada was the person who incorporated the

society,

 

And

 

Since incorporating a society is a deliberate act,

 

and

 

Since you claim it was from this point he became the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON,

 

Then according to you:

 

Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON at

the moment he incorporated the society.

 

Since he did this in 1966 that would mean you would logically have to agree

with the statement:

 

Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966.

 

Therefore whether or not you are correct about precisely when and how he set

himself up as the sole diksa guru, point a) still holds true. You are simply

offering an explanation for why you think a) is true. You are in effect

simply arguing that he established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON

on the instant he signed some legal papers or ‘since the foundation of

ISKCON’, whereas I had inferred a process culminating in September 1977. But

whichever it is, it makes no difference to our overall position. You made

several points on this same subject which I shall now refute:

 

> Your 11 points are not a proof of your point a) because they are acts done

> when Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

But they are things he would not be able to do unless he was the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON, so they prove he must have established himself as such in

1966, even if many of them only prove this retrospectively.

 

> So these acts could not have set him up in the position of the sole diksa

> guru for ISKCON.

 

They prove he must have set himself up in that position at some point.

 

> They at most prove the status quo, namely that Srila Prabhupada was the

> sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

A status quo Srila Prabhupada must have established.

 

> And from the status quo you cannot conclude the act (e.g. your point a))

> that caused the status quo. That would be a logical fallacy.

 

They prove such an act, or series of acts occurred, otherwise the status quo

would not exist. Everything has a cause. Srila Prabhupada is the person

responsible for the status quo, he established it, he alone set its

parameters and is thus its immediate cause.

 

> Like for example: "The streets are wet (status quo). Therefore it rained

> (act by the demigods)."

(Ramakanta das Feb 08, 2006 - 06:37 AM)

 

We see both the result, and we can trace the cause. The result is the status

quo, and the cause was the conscious acts of Srila Prabhupada as he

established himself in that position. You imply he did it the instant he

formed the society with himself as the Founder Acarya, and I see more of a

process, but whoever is correct point a) is left intact.

 

Your argument does not in effect challenge the fact that Srila Prabhupada,

somehow or other, established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966.

 

So you still, in effect, agree with point a).

 

Thus when you write:

 

> Your point a) is fuzzy. Therefore, to clarify it, I want to know if your

> point a) means that before Srila Prabhupada conducted the first initiation

> ceremony in ISKCON he had already set things up to be the sole diksa guru

> for ISKCON.

 

It is irrelevant since whether he set things up at the point of

incorporation, or in September, point a) would still be true.

 

With regards my position that Srila Prabhupada was factually the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON before he fully established himself as such institutionally,

let me give an example you may be able to relate to.

 

Let us suppose you were born with the wonderful gift of yodelling. Indeed

your yodelling was so powerful and sweet that you were factually the

greatest yodeller in the world. Yet if you did not yodel in public; if you

did not enter the correct yodelling competitions and become recognised as

the greatest yodeller amongst the yodelling fraternity, then you would not

have fully established yourself as the greatest yodeller in the world, even

though factually you were. Once you were established fully within the hearts

and minds of the yodelling community as the greatest then it could be said,

with HINDSIGHT, that even before you were awarded that greatest of yodelling

accolades, champion yodeller of the world, you were still factually the

greatest yodeller in the world.

 

Similarly we know with HINDSIGHT that Srila Prabhupada was the saviour of

the world before he left India for New York on the Jaladutta; but in order

to establish himself as such he performed various devotional activities so

that this fact became manifest on the physical platform.

 

Similarly, even though we know through HINDSIGHT that factually Srila

Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from the very beginning, in

order to fully establish himself in that role on the observable, physical

platform, he had to arrange things deliberately to make it happen.

 

The function of the diksa guru is to initiate disciples. If Srila Prabhupada

had incorporated ISKCON but then immediately returned to India, or just

acted as an instructing spiritual master, then he would not have established

himself as the diksa guru for ISKCON. Thus it is only with HINDSIGHT that we

now know he was the diksa guru for ISKCON all along because of what later

transpired. It was not necessarily fully manifest on the physical platform

(which is what we are referring to by the word ‘established’) from day one

of the existence of the legal entity called ISKCON.

 

To establish oneself as the sole diksa guru for a society you need to first

incorporate the society,

 

Then you need to set the standards for that society,

 

Then you need to attract followers who are willing to accept those

standards,

 

Then you need to get those followers to accept you as the ultimate authority

within that society,

 

Then you need to train them, observe them, and finally offer formal

initiation to those followers when you think they are ready.

 

At that last stage it would be fair to say you were firmly established as

the sole diksa guru for that society.

 

Therefore there is a process.

 

The complete establishment of his sole diksa guruship within the hearts and

minds of his followers was not complete or instantaneous on signing some

legal papers. It took great effort on Srila Prabhupada’s part; deliberate,

meticulous, devotional effort; to fully establish himself in that position

within the society he founded. Even after establishing himself as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON through his activity of setting all the standards,

observing and initiating all the bhaktas and then performing the ceremony,

he occasionally had to re-establish himself as such in reaction to ambitious

deviants like Tusta Krishna etc. by telling them they could not initiate in

his presence.

 

Srila Prabhupada achieved all this in 1966, and in that way, through such a

programme of deliberate activity (or ‘making the streets wet’), he fully

established himself, on the physical platform, amongst the minds and hearts

of the society’s’ members, as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in September of

that year.

 

In Jan 1966 there was no society called ISKCON. By the end of 1966 there was

a society called ISKCON, with Srila Prabhupada fully and firmly established

as its sole diksa guru through deliberate acts on his part.

 

That is what we mean when we say:

 

Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966.

 

I do not know a single person in the world conversant with ISKCON’s history

who has ever challenged this fact. After discussing this single sentence

with you for months you still do not accept it. I have tried my best, but

clearly failed to convince you. But even if I were to prove our position to

your satisfaction it would still mean nothing since according to you:

 

> Even if I agreed, that would not mean that it is proven. Please base your

> arguments on what Srila Prabhupada said, not on what I agree with. I do

> not accept proofs that are based on my statements.

(Ramakanta Nov 22, 2005 - 12:25 PM)

 

> Even if I agree with something, that does not mean that it is proven.

> Otherwise you could just find a fool who agrees with your point a) and

> then announce it as proven.

(Ramakanta Jan 21, 2006 - 06:43 AM)

 

Of course even on this point you cannot agree with yourself since you, or

the other Ramakanta contradicts this by also demanding proof that you or he

agrees with:

 

> So please first provide a proof accepted by me that the fact mentioned in

> your point 1) proves your point a).

(Ramakanta 09, Feb 2006 - 11:56 AM)

 

Added to this futility is the fact that I have not convinced anyone else

either, since everyone else was already convinced of this fact so far as I

am aware. If you do not accept this fact then I do not see how we can move

further in this debate. If you want to claim it is unproven then fair

enough, as I said fly it up the flag-pole and see who salutes it. Tell the

world that the IRM has not proven that Srila Prabhupada established himself

as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966 and see who takes you seriously.

Not many I should guess.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu