Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

May 20, 2006

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

In my last text I presented a proof that following assumption is wrong:

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON, then in 1966 he wanted to be the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON.

You did not comment on that proof. Did you understand it? If not,

Krishnakant can explain it to you. He is an expert in such things.

So above assumption is unproven. But a proof of this assumption is required

to complete your proof of your claim that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to

be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON because so far you have only proven that

in 1966 Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON.

Conclusion: Your claim that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON is unproven.

If you agree with that, then we can move to your point b).

Otherwise please prove your claim. Your prove must be complete, that means,

it must be based on proven premises and it must end with "Therefore, in 1966

Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON".

Here are my comments on what you just wrote. No discussion on these points

please.

> But if such a statement existed ...

Such a statement does not exist. So there is no need to waste time

discussing what to do if it existed.

> Why are you using a completely irrelevant examples like the following:

As I wrote, my challenge is not dependent on that example. So don't waste

time discussing it.

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

But you don't know Krishna's plan. So don't waste time discussing what

Krishna's plan might have been.

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

> right to his physical departure in 1977.

Currently we are discussing what happened in 1966. We can later discuss what

happened afterwards.

ys Ramakanta dasa

Recommended Posts