Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> You would be better off asking “which of these questions has any relevance

> to a debate about what Srila Prabhupada established within ISKCON

> regarding initiation”. The answer would be NONE!

>

> As I already explained, we DO know EXACTLY how Srila Prabhupada ordered

> initiation to run within ISKCON. He ONLY authorised an initiation system

> with himself as the SOLE diksa guru for ISKCON and left in place a GBC to

> maintain it with no authority to stop it.

 

Your suggested question and your explanation is irrelevant to our current

discussion because currently we are discussing your point b) and not what

Srila Prabhupada established within ISKCON regarding initiation. We can

discuss this after we finished your points b) and c).

 

I know it's difficult for you, but please try to focus on your point b).

 

 

> So your general philosophical point, which seems to be that there is no

> set method by which authorisation must take place (a point I agree with)

> is utterly irrelevant to this debate.

 

You misunderstood. I wrote that you (thou) don't know how a devotee is

authorized to be a diksa guru. When I write "you", I do not mean "one".

 

This debate is about your points a), b) and c) presented by you on Oct 30,

2005. Currently we are discussing your point b):

 

"Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa

guru for ISKCON."

 

Srila Prabhupada stops being the sole diksa guru for ISKCON if and only if

he authorizes a devotee to be a diksa in ISKCON. In logic this is called

equivalence (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if ).

Therefore your point b) is equivalent to following statement:

 

"Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON."

 

You confirmed this on April 2, 2006. Then on Aug 28, 2006 you explained why

you don't know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru. So isn't it

rascaldom to present point b) without knowing how a devotee is authorized to

be a diksa guru?

 

You also claim that an order from Srila Prabhupada that he should stop being

the diksa guru for ISKCON is not on the Folio. I want to verify that. So

please tell me what query you entered in the query box of Folio when you

checked whether such an order is there or not.

 

 

> Our position rests on positive evidence that proves Srila Prabhupada

> established a status quo with a managing body to oversee it with no

> authorisation to EVER change it (NCIP, TFO etc).

 

You forgot one little detail: Srila Prabhupada is not dead and he can still

authorize a devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. And when he does, he is

obviously no longer the sole diksa guru in ISKCON. Therefore your whole

theory is based on your point b). Otherwise why did you present point b)?

 

 

> You have no evidence to counter the status quo you agree Srila Prabhupada

> established in 1966, and which he perpetuated in signed orders to the GBC

> just prior to his physical departure.

 

I have. But we can discuss this after we have finished your point b).

 

 

The rest of your text isn't a proof of your point b) either. Remember:

 

"The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by

the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back

up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport)

 

 

You did not answer following questions:

 

Are you qualified to recognize an evidence of the contrary of your point b)?

Do you know how a diksa guru orders that he should stop being the diksa guru

for his institution? What exactly do you want to see? What would you accept

as an evidence?

 

If you cannot answer these questions, then your challenge to prove the

opposite of your point b) and your statements like "point b) remains intact

since you have no evidence to refute it" are meaningless.

 

 

Summary:

 

You again presented all kinds of things but no proof of your point b).

 

So your point b) is unproven. And since your whole theory is based on that

unproven assumption, your whole theory is unproven.

 

If you agree with that, we can move to your point c). But probably you do

not agree and you will continue to waste time by presenting statements that

do not prove your point b).

 

 

BTW. I noticed that your texts are again becoming more and more ad hominem.

Is that a sign that you realized that I have defeated you?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa