Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> No you are wrong yet again over your Latin terms. This is not an illogical

> ad hominem. I am not saying you are wrong BECAUSE you are funny, I have

> already exposed your arguments as leading to absurdity (I repeat these

> below since you seem to have forgotten them), and on top of that I am

> simply commenting that you are funny.

 

Sorry, I did not expect that your reply ("You are funny") to my argument has

no purpose regarding my argument.

 

 

> The reason you are funny is that your own position, that Srila Prabhupada

> cannot deliver disciples when he is not physically present, is itself

> rendered utterly absurd if taken to its logical conclusion or reductio ad

> absurdum, since it would render this debate completely redundant for

> reasons I have had to repeat over and over again.

 

You did not understand my argument. So here is again part of it:

 

The guru must be present (incarnated) on this planet, because otherwise it

would not be possible to go to him as Srila Prabhupada instructed:

 

"Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested,

then we have to go to a physical spiritual master." (Lecture on Bg 4.34, Aug

14, 1966)

 

 

> I never claimed we do not need Srila Prabhupada himself, but only his

> books etc,

 

"Srila Prabhupada is a physical guru, who physically manifested on this

planet and left physical by-products (books, tapes, videos, murtis’,

temples, GBC etc etc) that were sufficient to guide all ISKCON members

regardless of his physical proximity to them." (Yaduraja, Nov 16, 2006)

 

It seems that by "sufficient" you did no mean "sufficient".

 

 

> I only claimed we do not need Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, a

> claim based on what Srila Prabhupada stated over and over again.

 

This is fuzzy because you did not explain what you mean by "physical

presence" and you did not explain for what we don't need it.

 

And please present one single statement by Srila Prabhupada saying that for

the initiation the physical presence of the diksa guru is not required, as

you claim.

 

 

> So I shall take it you still agree that Srila Prabhupada remains in the

> material universe until his disciples are delivered.

 

On Nov. 8 I wrote you that this contradicts Srila Prabhupada's statement.

Did you already forget? Why do you speculate that I agree? How can he come

back from Goloka Vrindaban, if he remains in the material universe?

 

 

> To remind you, your stated position is that the spiritual master MUST by

> physically present on the same planet as the disciple in order to deliver

> him. Yet this is never once stated by Srila Prabhupada,

 

Prabhupada: "So Krsna, if you cannot meet Krsna, you can meet with Krsna's

representative. Krsna may not be physically present, but His representative

is physically present. You can talk with him. That is the system of

Bhagavad-gita. Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. Parampara. Krsna

says that "I talked with the sun-god." Imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham

avyayam. "First of all I talked with the sun-god." Vivasvan manave praha.

"Then he talked with his son, Manu. Then Manu talked with Iksvaku. In this

way..." Evam parampara-praptam, there is a disciplic succession. So if you

can be in touch with that disciplic succession, then Krsna's representative

is there. If you talk with the Krsna's representative, then you talk with

Krsna. Just like in office, there are different departments, and the, there

is a man, departmental-in-charge. So if you can talk with that

departmental-in-charge, if you can please him, that means you are pleasing

the proprietor or director. There is no doubt. Because he is representative.

So physically you may not meet Krsna, but in higher stage, you can meet. But

accepting that you cannot..., but He, you have to be in contact with His

representative. That is coming in disciplic succession. Then you talk with

Krsna. It is not difficult. The acaryas are there. Acaryam mam vijaniyam.

Krsna says. "All the acaryas," mam vijaniyam, "they are Myself." Navamanyeta

karhicit, "Never disregard acarya." Acaryam mam vijaniyam navaman..., na

martya-buddhyasuyeta "Do not be envious: `How he can be? He's ordinary man.

How he can be representative?' " No. Anyone who is talking of Krsna as Krsna

talked, he's Krsna's representative. Krsna says that "I am the Supreme." So

if anyone says, "Krsna is supreme," then he's Krsna's representative. It is

not very difficult. Because the same talking. Krsna says, sarva-dharman

parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. If somebody says that "You surrender to

Krsna," then he's Krsna's representative. But if somebody says, "Krsna is

not God. I am God," then he's not representative. To talk with Krsna is not

difficult. You find out the representative, talk with him, and you are

talking with Krsna. That's all." (Room Conversation, July 11, 1973, London)

 

How can I talk with the guru, if he is not present on this planet?

 

 

> To try to get around this you then bizarrely argued that delivery takes

> place at the time of initiation.

 

You misunderstood me when I wrote following:

 

"Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet. Otherwise he would not

have written that he has to come back from Goloka Vrindaban to deliver those

disciples who are not delivered along with him."

 

So by your reductio ad absurdum you have refuted a straw man argument.

 

 

> If this had been the case then initiation ceremonies would have appeared

> rather morbid affairs to onlookers, whereby, at the dropping in the fire

> of the last banana, all the disciples would suddenly drop dead.

 

Until Nov. 1977 Srila Prabupada did not 'drop dead'. Are you saying that

therefore he was not delivered before Nov. 1977?

 

 

You again misunderstood me several times. So what is the guarantee that you

correctly understood Srila Prabhupada? (This is another question that you

are unable to answer).

 

 

Summary: You did not understand my argument. What to speak of having refuted

it.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa