Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> 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.

 

Just an example: Bhaktivinoda Thakur instructed his son to take initiation

from his disciple Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji while he was still present.

 

You did not prove that unlike the other acaryas Srila Prabhupada was unable

or not allowed to instruct his disciples to accept their own disciples while

he is still present. And since you will never be able to prove that, this is

the end of our discussion about the contradiction you saw in my statements.

 

 

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

> the law of disciplic succession?

 

Sorry, but "to initiate disciples" (e.g. in Srila Prabhupada's letter to

Hamsaduta) definitely refers to diksa. "Diksa" means "initiation".

 

 

Srila Prabhupada wrote:

> 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.

 

If you carefully read this statement, you will notice that Srila Prabhupada

said, "you bring the prospective disciples to him [your spiritual master]".

So this is an etiquette (or law) for the disciple, not for the guru. This

etiquette in no way says that after a prospective disciple has been brought

to the guru, the guru must not instruct his disciple to accept him as his

own disciple.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada wrote:

> I am in due receipt of your letter undated and accept upon your

> recommendation the following as my initiated disciples.

 

If you carefully read this statement, you will see that at the time when

Srila Prabhupada wrote the letter, he has already accepted them as his

initiated disciples. So it was Srila Prabhupada who initiated them, not

Prabhavisnu or anyone else.

 

 

You wrote:

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

> disciples to carry out initiations:

 

Srila Prabhupada wrote:

> You should have a fire sacrifice

 

Your statement is not confirmed by Srila Prabhupada. In your statement you

should replace "carry out initiations" with "carry out fire sacrifices".

 

 

Let me repeat my challenge to you:

 

> the Hamsadutta letter could only be referring to disciples initiating on

> his behalf.

 

Please prove that. Please present one statement by Srila Prabhupada where he

used the phrase "initiate on behalf of" or similar, or one statement by

Srila Prabhupada where "to initiate" does not mean "to initiate one's own

disciple". Please tell us where in his letters to Hamsaduta and Kirtanananda

Srila Prabhupada writes that by "to initiate" he did not mean "to initiate

one's own disciple". As a meticulous person he would have written it, if he

had meant something else, something never mentioned before.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa