Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Oct 14, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You say:

 

> You presented arguments that the GBC was not authorized to change the

> initiation system in ISKCON on their own initiative. We can discuss this

> after we finished your point c) ("Srila Prabhupada remains the [sole]

> diksa guru for ISKCON").

 

You miss the point.

 

C logically follows because of b.

 

In other words, because the GBC were left to manage ISKCON, with no

authority to change any system of management, then whatever system was in

place for them to manage must remain. As you know a representational

initiation system was left in place for them to manage whereby future

disciples were to be Srila Prabhupada's.

 

Therefore c logically follows from b. It's that simple.

 

I had challenged:

 

"Therefore the burden of proof falls on you to show where, when and how the

GBC were suddenly authorised to change the system of initiation."

 

To which you respond:

 

> As I already wrote several times, when you ask me to prove something, then

> please quote my statement that you want me to prove.

 

If you agree the GBC were left to manage a ritvik system with no authority

to change it then c logically follows. Debate over. If you don't agree then

the burden of proof falls on you as stated above. Just make up your mind.

 

With regards the occasions when Srila Prabhupada is directly asked who would

succeed him you write.

 

> I found only two statements. Srila Prabhupada said them to guests in

> conversations. But you consider conversations with guests irrelevant

> regarding initiations in ISKCON. Or do you consider conversations with

> guests relevant if they fit in your theory, and irrelevant if they don't

> fit in your theory?

 

You missed the point again.

 

We never use such conversations as primary evidence (ie, evidence proving

how Srila Prabhupada authorised initiation to run within ISKCON). We would

only use such evidence as secondary or supporting evidence. But if you

insist on using such conversations as primary evidence (most likely because

you have nothing directly relevant to the actual debate), then you have the

problem of trying to explain away such answers as “I am already successful’,

and of course our primary evidence such as the July 9th letter, which

eliminates all possibility of anyone other than Srila Prabhupada

legitimately initiating in ISKCON.

 

> I am waiting for the quotes that confirm your point c), quotes from Srila

> Prabhupada saying that his disciples are not authorized to be diksa gurus

> in ISKCON, that they cannot make their own disciples.

 

Point C is ALREADY confirmed by the fact that the only instructions the GBC

recieved on how initiation was to be conducted in ISKCON kept the status quo

locked down.

 

Where is the question of Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiating if the only

system of initiation he authorised excludes all possibility of anyone other

than Srila Prabhupada initiating? Thus a very foolish challenge from you.

You are once again illogically shifting the burden of proof, despite

previously conceding the status quo has Srila Prabhupada established as the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON!

 

Before Srila Prabhupada physically departed he locked down , via

institutional management directives, the status quo you agree he established

way back in 1966.

 

best wishes

ys

Yadu