Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> 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.

 

This is not my argument. My argument is:

 

"If Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for ISKCON since the

foundation of ISKCON, then later he could not have set himself up again as

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON." (Feb 9, 2006)

 

And I several times wrote that by "set himself up as" I understand that

Srila Prabhupada did something with the result that afterwards he was the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON which he was not before.

 

So my argument is:

 

"If Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for ISKCON since the

foundation of ISKCON, then later he could not have done something with the

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

not before (he did that something)."

 

I don't think that you are going to dispute that argument.

 

 

> Since you claim it was from this point [at the moment he incorporated the

> society] he became the sole diksa guru for ISKCON,

 

I did not claim that. You make only a fool of yourself if you take a phrase

by me out of context and present it as my claim. This time you removed the

word "if" from my statement (quoted above) and presented the remainder

("Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for ISKCON since the

foundation of ISKCON") as my claim.

 

 

> > 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.

 

Please explain and confirm by quotes why it must have been Srila Prabhupada

who set him up in that position. Why could it not have been his spiritual

master or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu?

 

If the streets are wet, why do you conclude that is must have rained? Why

can it not have snowed?

 

 

Then in your long text you just confirmed my position that Srila Prabhupada

was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON and as such acted accordingly (and made

himself know as such, etc.). You called it "established himself as the sole

diksa guru".

 

But I challenged following claim:

 

"Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position of the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966." (Yaduraja, Nov 16, 2005)

 

You never wrote that my understanding of "set himself up" (see above) is

wrong. So I am challenging following claim:

 

In 1966 Srila Prabhupada did something, deliberately, with the intended

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

not before (he did that something).

 

Please prove this or drop it.

 

 

Also, you could still not prove (by quotes from Srila Prabhupada) following

claims:

 

Before Srila Prabhupada conducted the first initiation ceremony in ISKCON he

had already set things up to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

"he was the very person who set himself up as the founder Acarya for that

institution" (Yaduraja, Mar 19, 2006)

 

 

With your new explanation of "established himself" your point a) is now

following:

 

Srila Prabhupada was to sole diksa guru for ISKCON and in 1966 he acted as

such, and thus made him recognized and accepted as the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON (one of the meanings of "established himself as"). In 1966 there was

no indication that he intended to be the SOLE diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

Do you agree with that phrasing?

 

(I do not accept any statement that contains any trace of intention to be

the SOLE diksa guru. Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru, but there is

no proof that he intended to be the SOLE diksa guru. There is no proof that

he would not have accept an additional diksa guru, if available.)

 

ys Ramakanta dasa