Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jun 06, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

 

You have failed to show how I contradicted myself, the word ‘before’ does

not change the meaning. It is a desperate and foolish point to make since I

could only be referring to the new philosophy I identified in the passage of

YOURS which I quoted. Obviously to identify a new philosophy I would first

need to read it.

 

The irony is that you have contradicted yourself many times on key aspects

of your position, and now, recently, quite fatally.

 

You have used the following as evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted his

disciples to accept their own disciples, not initiate on Srila Prabhupada’s

behalf as actually occurred, perhaps even when he was still present in 1975:

 

> I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title

> of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue

> through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will

> be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will

> be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That

> is my program.

(Letter to: Hamsaduta Los Angeles 3 December, 1968 68-12-03)

 

With regards the above you wrote:

 

> Two years later Srila Prabhupada did not want to be the sole diksa guru

> for ISKCON for its whole duration, as confirmed in his letter to

> Hamsaduta. How do you explain that? Did Srila Prabhupada's desire change?

> Did Krishna's plan change? Or do you claim that by "to initiate" Srila

> Prabhupada did not mean "to initiate"?

(Ramakanta das Jun 05, 2006 - 10:02 AM)

 

Yet previously you wrote:

 

> Okay, you have statements like "I am the initiator guru". Now there are at

> least two possible reasons why Srila Prabhupada said that:

>

> 1) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON,

> and it is the etiquette that during his presence no disciple should accept

> his own disciples.

>

> 2) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa-guru of ISKCON.

>

> To conclude 2) from "I am the initiator guru" is a logical fallacy called

> "affirming the consequent" (If A, then B. B. Therefore, A.). One could

> equally conclude 1).

>

> Unlike 2) Srila Prabhupada explicitely confirmed 1)

(Ramakanta das Nov 12, 2005 - 06:22 AM)

 

And again you wrote:

 

> ...in 1968 his disciples were not supposed to accept their own disciples.

(Ramakanta das Nov 15, 2005 - 08:57 AM)

 

And here again you confirm your position:

 

> ...it is not the etiquette that a disciples initiates his own disciples

> while his guru is still present.

(Ramakanta das Nov 16, 2005 - 06:40 AM)

 

So you emphatically claim:

 

1) The letter to Hamsadutta confirms Srila Prabhupada wanted to allow his

disciples to accept their own disciples within ISKCON, perhaps in 1975 when

he was still present.

 

And

 

2) Srila Prabhupada explicitly confirmed it is the etiquette that during his

presence no disciple should accept his own disciples.

 

These are two mutually exclusive propositions and therefore cannot co-exist.

 

You are thus defeated through the fatal flaw of self-contradiction.

 

Previously when I claimed:

 

"The GBC have seriously deviated ..."

 

You chastised me with the following:

 

> Oh, you are above the GBC and therefore in a positions where you can judge

> the GBC. I always thought that only Srila Prabhupada (and the guru

> parampara) is above the GBC.

(Ramakanta das Apr 06, 2006 - 05:16 AM)

 

Since you obviously must see the GBC as superior to yourself (you being

neither Srila Prabhupada nor the guru parampara) you will need to accept the

following with regards such quotes as the letter to Hamsadutta:

 

"In 1968, did Srila Prabhupada expect to leave the planet before 1975? Or

was he thinking of creating ritvik gurus who would initiate on his behalf by

1975? Whatever the answer may be, when 1975 arrived, Srila Prabhupada took

no steps to give his disciples the responsibility of accepting their own

disciples. Indeed, his statements on this issue in 1975 (Letter to Tusta

Krsna and lecture in Mayapur) leave no doubt that His Divine Grace gave no

authorization for disciples to initiate as long as he remained on the

planet. In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance. (i)

>From these quotations it is clear that Srila Prabhupada did not want his

disciples to initiate, no matter how qualified they may be, as long as their

spiritual master was present. [...] It is prudent to assume that Srila

Prabhupada was speaking as the Founder-acarya of ISKCON, and that he is

restricting all disciples of all gurus in ISKCON from initiating in the

presence of their spiritual masters. Even though in the past spiritual

masters have given disciples permission to initiate in their presence, Srila

Prabhupada emphatically forbids it as a manner of general etiquette. [...]

ISKCON is a unique institution in the history of Vaisnavism. We must assume

that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down a law--a

law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would transgress at our

peril. A disciple's only duty is to worship and serve his spiritual master.

His mind should not be agitated over how he may become a guru. A devotee who

sincerely wants to make spiritual advancement should ty to become a

disciple, not a spiritual master." ("Devotees Initiating Before Their Guru's

Physical Departure: An Official GBC Paper"; Part of Gurus and initiation in

ISKCON, GBC, 1995)

 

So let us see if you will follow the example set by Kesava Kasmiri when he

was caught in contradiction and now concede defeat like a gentleman.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu