Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on May 19, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

you wrote

 

> In my last text I asked you to quote Srila Prabhupada's statement saying

> that if a guru made himself recognized and accepted as X, then he wanted

> to be X.

 

But if such a statement existed then once again, according to the logic of

your challenge, you would have to prove that he wanted to make that

statement. In accepting a statement as proof of intent, but not other forms

of activity, you are inventing a sastric principle the likes of which I have

never heard.

 

Furthermore, we are discussing a specific position that is mentioned in

scripture (diksa guru), applied within an institution requiring specific

pre-ordained standards and training to appreciate, along with a specific

ceremonial confirmation in which all parties agree to participate. Why are

you using a completely irrelevant examples like the following:

 

> Let us substitute X with "sole mridanga player in ISKCON in 1966".

 

Furthermore it is axiomatic that the guru is carrying out Krishna’s plan. I

have proven this. Therefore we have two choices.

 

Either:

 

Krishna’s plan was to have Srila Prabhupada become the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON in 1966.

 

Or

 

This was not Krishna’s plan.

 

If it was Krishna’s plan then obviously Srila Prabhupada wanted to fulfil

it. argument over.

 

If it was not Krishna’s plan then this whole discussion is a waste of time

since obviously Srila Prabhupada was not the a bona fide spiritual master as

described in the B.g. quote.

 

He not only took the role of sole diksa guru in 1966, but he carried it on

right to his physical departure in 1977. He referred to himself as the diksa

guru for ISKCON without apology and left in place a system whereby he could

continue on in that role indefinitely. So if you give an example please try

and fine one that better matches the topic.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu