Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

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

> 'initiation',

 

This answers the question why you wrote, "you cannot use this physical

presence issue to challenge point c)". Thank you for answering a question

that I did not ask.

 

But I asked you why you wrote, "we can know for certain his physical

presence is not absolutely required in order for the diksa ceremony to

proceed. ... Therefore you cannot use this physical presence issue to

challenge point c)".

 

If there is a reason why I cannot use this physical presence issue to

challenge point c) ("Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru for ISKCON"),

then it is definitely not because we can know for certain his physical

presence is not absolutely required in order for the diksa ceremony to

proceed, unless you equate 'initiation' with 'initiation ceremony'. So

either you equate 'initiation' with 'initiation ceremony', or your argument

is meaningless.

 

Remember, it was you who brought 'initiation ceremony' into this discussion:

 

"The quote says he initiates them ‘to deliver them’. Initiation allows the

delivering to occur. The initiation ceremony itself is not the actual

delivery back to the spiritual sky, otherwise at the end of the ceremony all

the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." (Yaduraja, Nov 12, 2006)

 

So at that time you must have believed that the initiation ceremony is the

initiation itself.

 

 

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

> Prabhupada:

 

I am not challenging Srila Prabhupada's statement. I am challenging your

interpretation of it. You should simply repeat Srila Prabhupada's words

without any change. You should not change "X means Y" into "Y the very

(precise) definition of X".

 

Do you really think that you know the science of initiation simply after

having read some statements here and there without the guidance of a

spiritual master who can correct you if you misunderstood it? If you still

believe that you know it, then please reply to the following:

 

When I asked you if there are other constituents of diksa besides

transmission of knowledge, you answered, "destroying the disciple’s sinful

reactions". So far you have not backed this up by a quote. And you did not

answer following questions: Is this the only other constituent? If yes,

please confirm this by a quote. Otherwise, if there are other constituents,

do they require the physical presence of the guru or not?

 

 

> 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’.

 

No. Did speculate that I do? If not, why are you asking these questions?

 

 

> 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’?

 

Where did you read that the word for "impart" is "upadeksyanti"?

 

 

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

> master is not essential.

 

I already showed that one of these quotes is no evidence that for the

initiation the physical presence of the diksa guru is not required. I don't

have the time to do this for all these quotes. So please present your star

piece of evidence.

 

 

> 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

> separate occasions, the quotes referred to both siksa and diksa.

 

I don't know which statements you mean, but probably you misunderstood me.

 

 

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

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

 

Yes, that was my point. They were already initiated. So these were

instructions on what to do after initiation.

 

 

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

> directive,

 

I do not have to prove statements that I did not make.

 

 

> 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.

 

You misunderstood my position.

 

 

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

> disciplic succession who did not physically meet his diksa guru:

 

Were are discussing the initiation of devotees by a representative of

Krishna, not the initiation of Brahma by the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Himself. And what do you mean by "physically meet"?

 

 

Summary: So far you did not present one single statement by Srila Prabhupada

explicitly saying that for the initiation the physical presence of the diksa

guru is not required, as you claim.

 

A few days ago you started an attempt to prove this claim by enumerating

different aspects of initiation and trying to prove that they do not require

the physical presence of the diksa guru. You just stopped this attempt. Did

you already give up?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa