Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Mar 29, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You quote me and then comment:

 

> > OK, once again here is my explanation of the deliberate acts Srila

> > Prabhupada carried out in order to establish himself as the sole diksa

> > guru for ISKCON:

>

> We already finished that point. Yes, Srila Prabhupada made himself

> recognized and accepted (established himself) as the sole diksa guru for

> ISKCON. Why did you dig it out again?

 

But that’s point a)!!! If you agree with point a) then we can move onto

point b). If you agree that ‘Srila Prabhupada established himself as the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966’ then what on earth have we been arguing

about since last November???.

You say:

 

> But following claim is still unproven. And whenever I asked you whether I

> correctly understood it, you could not answer.

>

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

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

 

We already agreed that however Srila Prabhupada ‘set things up’ it was

‘deliberate’. In English to ‘establish’ something means to ‘set things up’

in a certain way. I already explained this. Look it up in the dictionary. So

the above statement means the same as point a) in English provided you

accept that Srila Prabhupada always acted deliberately, not as a robot or

automaton. If you find it confusing then just ignore it and stick with point

a) as I originally expressed it months ago; then we can move back onto point

b).

 

> In case you did not get it yet: I don't want you to prove that Srila

> Prabhupada 'established himself as ...'. I want to see a proof for 'set

> himself up ...'. That is different.

 

NO!!!! In English it means the same thing provided you accept Srila

Prabhupada acted deliberately, not as a robot.

 

> A few of your 11 points only prove that Srila Prabhupada was the sole

> diksa guru and as such acted accordingly in 1966. And the rest of your 11

> points do not even describe acts in 1966.

 

Since you now accept point a) there is no point in further discussion of my

11 arguments proving it. They appear to have done the job. So just let me

know if the above is now clear and we can go on to point b) since I am very

much looking forward to pointing out a very serious self-contradiction you

have made in relation to your star piece of evidence which you presented to

disprove it.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu