Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.