Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Apr 07, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

I had asked:

 

"Please tell me which definitions of the word ‘established’ that appear in

your dictionary you find objectionable."

 

The first objectionable definition you quote from your dictionary is:

 

‘To set up’.

 

I told you some time ago it was this definition I was meaning by the word

‘establish’.

 

So why do you object if you agree that Srila Prabhupada made himself

recognised and accepted as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON? Your objection

makes no sense.

 

The way Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON

was by making himself recognised and accepted as such. If he made himself

recognised and accepted as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON then in English it

is perfectly correct to say he established or set himself up as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON. And obviously this must have been a deliberate act,

so I still cannot fathom why you object to my Nov 16, 2005 statement. It all

just baffles me, sorry.

 

Anyway we cannot move to point b) until you can explain why it is wrong to

say Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON even

though this is precisely what he did, starting in 1966, by making himself

recognised and accepted as such.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu