Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja Sep 01, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

With regards your non-existent counter evidence you write:

 

> You remained silent regarding these statements.

 

Discussing an order that no-one, neither you, me nor the GBC knows anything

about is a complete waste of time and indeed rascaldom:

 

"Just see how rascaldom. You do not know something perfectly, and still, you

are talking about it." (Lecture, Bg 1.45-46, August 1, 1973)

 

Our point b) as is elaborated in the NCIP paper, refers specifically to

orders given to the GBC since they were responsible for managing ISKCON. It

is perfectly reasonable to claim that an order was not given to the GBC if

there is no evidence of such an order. Just as it would be reasonable to

claim the following:

 

Srila Prabhupada never ordered the GBC to stop printing his books

Srila Prabhupada never authorised the GBC to do whatever they wanted

Srila Prabhupada never ordered the GBC to stop his daily guru puja etc, etc.

 

If I were to argue that the GBC could do any of the above simply on the

basis that there may be some order that no-one knows anything about I would

be a big rascal. I’ll let our readers draw their own parallel.

 

I also notice you do not dispute the following facts, and therefore you must

accept them:

 

1)Srila Prabhupada left the GBC to manage ISKCON strictly in accordance with

a pre-ordained system of management that they were not authorised to change.

 

2)Srila Prabhupada left in place a system of initiation whereby he was the

sole diksa guru for the institution.

 

If there is no order from Srila Prabhupada to the GBC authorising them to

replace him and install a successor then the status quo you agree he

established in 1966 remains firmly intact. If there is such an order then

please present it or stop talking about it since that is rascaldom.

 

You ask:

 

> You admit that the GBC, and thus all the ‘gurus’ in ISKCON, claim their

> authorisation to initiate was given in recorded instructions issued by

> Srila Prabhupada prior to his departure. Do you claim that they have not

> been authorized to be diksa gurus?

 

We simply point out that the contradictory GBC papers in which these

recorded instructions are presented do not match their claim. They even

withrew their main position paper admitting it contained lies and stretched

the truth, so its not just us who thinks something is wrong. You must agree

that there is no such recorded evidence since otherwise why do you keep

trying to talk about phantom orders that no-one knows anything about?

 

If you agree with the GBC then please tell me which one of their

contradictory papers is the correct one with the real ‘order’? (I bet you

don't do this)

 

You go on:

 

> Do you claim you know better than the GBC and the ISKCON gurus, despite

> the fact that you don't know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa

> guru?

 

We DO know how initiation is authorised to run within ISKCON. The process

was set out by Srila Prabhupada in signed directives. Please read NCIP since

you seem to be very confused here.

 

If the GBC are not following the orders Srila Prabhupada gave them, which

they clearly are not, then even a child could ‘know better’.

 

If you are claiming that there is some unrecorded order authorising a

successor (and it is a fact that as well as not knowing anything about the

phantom order you keep wanting to discuss no-one even knows clearly what

your position is since you petulantly refuse to tell us) then clearly YOU

would ALSO be claiming to know better than all these so-called ‘gurus’.

 

If you are not claiming this then please show us the recorded order to the

GBC in which Srila Prabhupada details the management procedure by which:

 

A) they were authorised by Srila Prabhupada to remove him as the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON.

 

B) they were given a management system whereby a successor or successors

could be identified and then installed.

 

Whats the betting that Ramakanta will not produce this RELEVANT evidence but

rather carry on trying to discuss evidence he does not know anything about

like a big rascal?

Best wishes

Ys

yadu