Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 01, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta prabhu

PAMHO, AGTSP,

You claim:

 

> It is not a claim. It is a fact that in this debate you have not quoted

> Srila Prabhupada saying one of following:

>

> "I will remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON because ..."

> "If ..., then I will remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON."

> "... Therefore I will remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON."

> "I will remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON."

 

It is not a claim. It is a fact that in this debate you have not quoted

Srila Prabhupada saying one of following:

 

"I will not remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON because ..."

"If ..., then I will not remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON."

"... Therefore I will not remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON."

"I will not remain then sole diksa guru for ISKCON."

 

Yet you agree he established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966 and have produced no order to his managing authority that would

authorise them to remove him as such. Thus you remain defeated.

 

You ask:

 

> If Srila Prabhupada does not have to be present to deliver his disciple,

> as you claim, then why did he write that he has to come back from Goloka

> Vrindaban to deliver those disciples who are not delivered along with him?

 

Since you have defeated yourself over the issue of ‘delivering’ whilst not

being on the same planet I am surprised you keep bringing it up. Either he

can or he can’t (regardless of your definition of the verb), and you have

claimed both.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu