Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

You wrote:

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

> the law of disciplic succession?

 

I wrote:

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

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

 

You did not reply to that. Do you agree that Srila Prabhupada's letter to

Hamsaduta refers to diksa?

 

 

I wrote:

> 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.

 

You did not reply to that. Do you agree that this is an etiquette for the

disciple, not for the guru? Do you agree that Srila Prabhupada was able and

allowed to instruct his disciple to initiate his own disciple while he is

still present?

 

 

> Ok, read these and weep:

 

Why do you want me to weep? Please explain.

 

 

I asked you to prove following claim:

 

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

> his behalf.

 

You then quoted from Srila Prabhupada's letter to Revatinandana:

 

> "...so I think now you may be appointed by me to give first initiations to

> new disciples by chanting on their beads on my behalf."

 

This is only an indication that Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta could

ALSO be referring to disciples giving first initiations on his behalf. But

it is not a proof that the letter could ONLY be referring to disciples

initiating on his behalf.

 

So now please produce a proof that Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta

could NOT be referring to disciples initiating their own disciples. And make

sure that your proof is complete. If you just mention the etiquette, then it

will not be complete.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa