Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Dec 08, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

you ask:

 

> Then why did you write following unless you drew the above conclusion?

> Your point c) is about diksa, not diksa ceremony.

 

Because in challenging point c) you had equated 'delivering' with

'initiation', and then when I asked you where Srila Prabhupada must come

back to to do this 'delivering' you speculated:

 

> Back to the place where his disciple took birth so that he can meet him.

(Ramakanta das Nov 22, 2006 - 06:13 AM)

 

Of course you then later contradicted your own speculation:

 

> And if you had carefully read my statement you would have noticed that in

> this statement I did not write that Srila Prabhupada 'must come back to

> the same planet they are living on'. So this is a straw man argument.

Dec 02, 2006 - 05:37 AM

 

As you can now see it was not a straw man, you just forgot what you wrote.

If you had properly read my previous posts and understood TFO then you would

know our position is not that the ceremony is the entire process of diksa.

You are such a poor scholar. But at least now we both agree he does not need

to be physically present at the diksa ceremony.

 

You once again foolishly challenge the definition of diksa given by Srila

Prabhupada:

 

> I do not agree that 'to impart knowledge' is the very definition of diksa.

> Where did you read that? Do you believe that "means" means "is the very

> definition"?

 

The word ‘means’ comes from the noun- ‘meaning’ which means:

 

> The sense or significance of a word, sentence, symbol etc.; import;

> semantic or lexical content.'

(Collins English Dictionary)

 

> Define: to state precisely the meaning of (words, terms etc)

(Collins English Dictionary)

 

Thus, if someone gives you the meaning of a word he is giving its

definition. You need to learn English. No wonder you have such difficulty

understanding Srila Prabhupada's instructions on initiation.

 

Srila Prabhupada states:

 

"Diksa actually means *initiating* a disciple *with transcendental

knowledge* by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."

(Madhya-lila, 4:112, Purport)

 

He could not be any clearer. He is telling us what the word 'diksa' means;

he is defining it for us. If you think there is an alternative definition

that supports your case then please present it. As they say, 'put up or shut

up'.

 

And I ask again:

 

Are you saying that the transcendental knowledge mentioned in the above

quote is NOT imparted by the spiritual master?

 

Are you saying that B.g 4.34 is wrong where it says: ‘The self-realized soul

can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth’.

 

Are you saying Srila Prabhupada was wrong in his transliteration of the

verse when he translated, and thus defined, the word for impart-

‘upadeksyanti’- to mean ‘initiate’?

 

> tat—that knowledge of different sacrifices; viddhi—try to understand;

> pranipatena—by approaching a spiritual master; pariprasnena—by submissive

> inquiries; sevaya—by the rendering of service; upadeksyanti—initiate;

> te—unto you; jnanam—knowledge; jnaninah—the self-realized; tattva—truth;

> darsinah—the seers.

(B.g 4.34 transliteration)

 

You keep asking the same question:

 

> Why don't you simply present a statement by Srila Prabhupada saying that

> for the initiation the physical presence of the diksa guru is not

> required?

 

Yet I gave many quotes proving that the physical presence of the spiritual

master is not essential. Please note the following:

 

1) The term ‘spiritual master’, unless further qualified by context, can

refer both to siksa or diksa. In you bewildered state you have claimed, on

seperate occasions, the quotes referred to both siksa and diksa. You are

clearly very confused.

 

2) Many of the quotes are instructions to Srila Prabhupada’s diksa

disciples, thus how can you claim they are not referring to diksa??

 

3) The burden of proof is on YOU to prove we cannot follow the July 9th

directive, not for me to simply carry on following it, thus YOU have to

PROVE the diksa guru MUST be physically present to act as diksa guru to his

disciples. You have not done this and now admit you cannot find any

statement on folio to the effect that the spiritual master must be

physically present on the same planet as his disciples to impart knowledge

to them, which is the definition of diksa.

 

4) If we test your position by taking it to its logical conclusion, then

none of Srila Prabhupada’s original disciples would now have a diksa guru.

Unless you want to argue he is on the planet somewhere, in which case your

objection to point c) would again collapse.

 

5) You clearly never read the following example of a member of our disciplic

succession who did not physically meet his diksa guru:

 

"Lord Brahma heard the occult sound tapa, but he did not see the person who

vibrated the sound. (...) There is no difference between the Lord and sound

vibration coming from Him, even though He is not personally present. The

best way of understanding is to accept such divine instruction, and Brahma,

the prime spiritual master of everyone, is the living example of this

process of receiving transcendental knowledge. The potency of transcendental

sound is never minimized because the vibrator is apparently absent. (...)

The secret of success is to receive the sound from the right source of a

bona fide spiritual master. (...) The disciple, however, must be ready to

execute the order of the bona fide spiritual master as Lord Brahma executed

the instruction of his spiritual master, the Lord Himself.” (SB 2.9.8

purport)

 

You are finished in this debate.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu