Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> In my previous post I defeated your example regarding sannyas.

 

I ignored your argument because you used the speculative phrase "must have".

 

 

> In doing so I defended once again our position that the guru wants to do

> what he does.

 

I asked you to prove that Srila Prabhupada wanted to BE what he was, not

that he wanted to DO what he did. Don't waste time defending something that

is not questioned.

 

 

> 1) The guru carries out Krishna’s plan.

> 2) The guru wants to do this since he wants to serve Krishna otherwise he

> would not be the guru.

> 3) Since we know Srila Prabhupada acted deliberately to make himself

> recognised and accepted as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966 this

> must have been Krishna’s plan.

> 4) Therefore Srila Prabhupada wanted to do 3).

>

> Please explain which of the above is wrong, or how 4 does not follow?

 

- You used the speculative phrase "must have".

- You claimed that you know Krishna's plan.

- You wasted time proving something that I did not ask you to prove.

 

 

So far your point a) is:

 

Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as the sole diksa guru

for ISKCON in 1966. You also claim that in 1966 he wanted to be the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON, but you cannot or do not want to prove that.

 

If you want to leave it like this, we can move to your point b). Otherwise

please prove your claim that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON. And please note the difference between "to be" and

"to do".

 

ys Ramakanta dasa