Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Instead of conceding the point...

 

I conceded the point on June 24 when I wrote, "This is only an indication

that Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta could also be referring to

disciples giving first initiations on his behalf". Please carefully read my

texts.

 

 

> It proves I was not ‘fabricating’ anything as you had alleged.

 

Oh, you understood that I alleged that you fabricated something. No, I did

not. If I did, then I would have written "that was ludicrous" instead of

"that would be ludicrous".

 

 

> ...it is you who claimed that Srila Prabhupada had ‘explicitly confirmed’

> that ‘it is the etiquette that during his presence no disciple should

> accept his own disciples’. This is YOUR position.

 

This etiquette is actually Srila Prabhupada's position. Isn't it?

 

> Since Srila Prabhupada was still present in 1975 you obviously have to

> accept he could not be talking about his disciples initiating their own

> disciples since that would contradict YOUR POSITION.

 

I see no contradiction. Is it your position that Srila Prabhupada could not

be talking about his disciples initiating their own disciples when he said

that his disciples can make disciples and at the same time said that it is

the etiquette they do not do so in his presence? Is it your position that

this would be a contradiction?

 

 

> The letter only says they may ‘initiate’...

 

No, Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta on Dec 3, 1968 does not say "may

initiate". It says "allowed to initiate". Please don't change Srila

Prabhupada's words.

 

 

 

> If you want to add the words ‘on their own behalf’ then you will need to

> provide proof for that.

 

The proof that Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta (Dec 3, 1968) and his

letter to Kirtanananda (Jan 12, 1969) referred to disciples initiating their

own disciples is Srila Prabhupada's meticulous nature. If by "to initiate"

he had not meant "to initiate one's own disciples", but something never

mentioned before, something neither mentioned in his books and lectures nor

confirmed by sadhu and sastra, then he would have written that in these two

letters.

 

 

> I have explained in detail your defeat here:

 

Your argument that I contradicted myself is based on your misunderstanding

that Srila Prabhupada meant "may (maybe will) initiate" when he wrote "are

allowed (empowered) to initiate".

 

What is the purpose of repeatedly stating that I have been defeated?

 

 

Your claim that Srila Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta on Dec 3, 1968 could

only be referring to disciples initiating on his behalf is unproven since 16

days. Please follow Srila Prabhupada instruction and at once back up your

claim by quotes.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa