Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

In your attempt to prove your claim that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to

be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON you presented a new unproven claim:

 

If it was not Krishna’s plan to have Srila Prabhupada become the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON in 1966, then that would mean Srila Prabhupada was acting in

defiance of Krishna’s plan.

 

The burden of proof is on your side. But I shall nevertheless show that this

statement in not true just to make the debate shorter. You recently

presented a similar claim, so my refutation of your new claim is similar to

the previous one.

 

Your claim must be true for any plan of Krishna not wanting Srila Prabhupada

become the sole diksa guru. Therefore following statement must be true also:

 

If it was Krishna plan to have multiple diksa gurus for ISKCON in 1966 with

Srila Prabhupada as one of them, then that would mean Srila Prabhupada was

acting in defiance of Krishna’s plan.

 

(Note that the question is not whether this was Krishna's plan or not. The

question is only whether this statement is true or not.)

 

This statement is not true because if it was Krishna's plan to have multiple

diksa gurus for ISKCON in 1966 with Srila Prabhupada as one of them, then in

1966 Srila Prabhupada acted exactly according to this plan: He asked his

godbrothers to help him in ISKCON (certainly not to wash the pots) and he

initiated disciples. So he certainly did not act in defiance of Krishna's

plan.

 

Then you tried to refute my refutation of your claim that if it was not

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

ISKCON in 1966, then Srila Prabhupada would not have been a bona fide

spiritual master. But you gave up after dealing with my first way of

refutation. You did not try to refute my second way of refutation.

 

So we have now at least three unproven claims:

 

1) In 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

2) If it was not Krishna’s plan to have Srila Prabhupada become the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966, then Srila Prabhupada would not have been a

bona fide spiritual master.

 

3) If it was not Krishna’s plan to have Srila Prabhupada become the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966, then that would mean Srila Prabhupada was

acting in defiance of Krishna’s plan.

 

If you continue like this, you will just be piling up unproven claims.

 

And I have following request: If you are trying to prove one of these

claims, then, unlike in your last text, please tell us which claim you are

trying to prove.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa