Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Because, for the THIRD time, the evidence you used to prove:

>

> "In 1968 Srila Prabhupada did not want to be the sole diksa guru for

> ISKCON for its whole duration"

>

> ...states that this ‘allowance’ may be granted by 1975, not merely at some

> point in ‘ISKCON’s whole duration’.

 

The evidence that I use is Srila Prabhupada's statement. Are you saying that

Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself?

 

 

> As we all know Srila Prabhupada was still present in 1975!

 

Did Srila Prabhupada know this in 1968? If not, then your argument collapses

because my statement is about what he wanted in 1968. So please prove that

he knew it in 1968, or retract your accusation that I contradicted myself.

 

 

> You are now desperately trying to distance yourself from the VERY SAME

> evidence you used to establish your position.

 

I am not distancing myself from the evidence. Srila Prabhupada's letter to

Hamsaduta is one of the proofs of my position. But we can later discuss

whether you accept it as a proof or not. Let us first finish a point before

we jump to other points.

 

So please explain why the statement

 

"Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase

the numbers of the generations"

 

contradicts the statement

 

"It is not the etiquette that a disciples initiates his own disciples while

his guru is still present".

 

If you cannot explain it, then you will have to retract you accusation that

I contradicted myself.

 

 

> Thus you remain defeated.

 

Everyone can say that, but only the intelligent can explain why.

 

Are you refuting the straw man argument "Srila Prabhupada wanted that in

1975 his disciples accept their own disciples"? If not, please quote my

argument that you think it refuted due to a contradiction.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa