Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jun 22, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

OK, so I can see we need to go through and explain your self-defeat again

for the SEVENTH TIME.

you wrote:

 

> Your argument is that Srila Prabhupada could not have instructed his

> disciples to accept their own disciples while he is still present because

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

> his guru is still present.

 

This was YOUR position, do you not recall:

 

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

his guru is still present". Ramakanta das.

 

You used the above argument here:

 

> 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)

 

So it is YOUR argument.

 

You wrote:

 

> But maybe you think that my position is: "Srila Prabhupada wanted that in

> 1975 his disciples accept their own disciples" (this is not my position).

 

This is why you are defeated. You used evidence which DID give the date

1975, asserting it was referring to diksa, and thus you contradicted your

previous position regarding the ‘etiquette’ which Srila Prabhupada also

referred to as a ‘law’. You use evidence to support a position and then,

when you are caught out, try to Tipex out the date within THAT VERY SAME

EVIDENCE.

 

Instead of conceding defeat you now make the following desperate ploy to

distract attention from your defeat:

 

> But you did not prove that the etiquette not to initiate one's own

> disciples while one's guru is still present prevents Srila Prabhupada from

> instructing his disciples to accept their own disciples while he is still

> present. If he is not prevented from doing so, there is no contradiction

> in my statements.

 

It is YOUR position that you have contradicted. Thus it is YOU who will need

to prove that Srila Prabhupada taught the 'etiquette' or 'law' could be

nullified in the way you describe. Please do not post again till you have

done so, or conceded defeat.

 

> Also, your claim that Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta could only be

> referring to disciples initiating on his behalf is unproven since six

> days.

 

How can he be referring to diksa when it would violate the etiquette and the

law of disciplic succession? The ‘law’ was introduced in 1975, THE VERY SAME

YEAR your evidence (at least the way you have speculated its meaning) says

the VERY OPPOSITE:

 

But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of

your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his

absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation.

This is the law of disciplic succession."(SP Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2/12/75)

 

As your authority confirms:

 

> 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.

(GBC)

 

So in 1975 Srila Prabhupada introduced a law which outlawed the very thing

you would have us all believe he was sanctioning in 1968.

 

Not only that but by 1975 Srila Prabhupada did in any case authorise his

disciples to carry out initiations:

 

> My dear Prabhavisnu das,

> Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter undated and

> accept upon your recommendation the following as my initiated disciples.

> For first initiation, their spiritual names are as follows: Martin

> Webster--Akhandadhi; Gordon Stocker--Prithvipati; John

> Morgan--Dharanidhara; Frank Jokson--Yajnanga; Terry Maloncis--Adi Kurma;

> Lynn Avionis--Sri Kama dasi. I also accept the following as twice-born

> brahmanas and their threads and mantra sheets are enclosed: Krpamoya das,

> Yasodadulal das, Sarvasagara das, Gokulananda das; Ragudvaha das,

> Cittavinodama das, Vamsivadana das, Anjana devi dasi. You should have a

> fire sacrifice and the second initiates should hear through the right ear

> the mantra on my recorded tape. The beads may be chanted upon by

> Hamsaduta.

(SPL 13.11.75)

 

And all these initiations were carried out ON HIS BEHALF. So once again it

is obvious the letter you have used to support multiple diksa gurus, and

which contradicts your own previous position, was only referring to some

type of representational system. We know this since Srila Prabhupada:

 

1)Outlawed even the prospect of his disciples initiating in 1975, in 1975.

 

2)Authorised a representational procedure whereby his disciples conducted

initiations ON HIS BEHALF.

 

You are finished in this debate, please be honest and admit it.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu