Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I withdraw following statement:

 

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

for its entire duration.

 

And replace it with following:

 

In 1971 Srila Prabhupada did not want to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON

for its entire duration. This is confirmed by following:

 

"Now, they’re competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the grhasthas,

they are called dasa adhikari, and brahmacaris, everyone can, whoever is

initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette

they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the

etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can make disciples and

spread." (Room Conversation, July 18, 1971)

 

If you still see a contradiction in my statements and therefore consider me

defeated, please tell me.

 

Now it's your turn to complete your proof of your claim that Srila

Prabhupada's letter to Hamsaduta on Dec 3, 1968 could not be referring to

disciples initiating their own disciples. You still have to prove that by

"to be allowed" Srila Prabhupada meant "not forbidden" and not "empowered",

and that in 1968 he expected to be still present in 1975.

 

And don't forget following unproven claims:

 

a) In 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON for

its entire duration.

 

b) Until today Srila Prabhupada did not authorize anyone to be diksa-guru.

 

I refuse following stupid arguments:

 

"Ramakanta conceded that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. Therefore, in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to

be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON for its entire duration."

 

"We do not have to prove our claim because it is a negative. The burden of

proof of the opposite of our claim is on you."

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

BTW, the administrator of the IRM forum unlocked the thread, and I could

post my replies.