Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Dec 10, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

Your confusiondeepens further still.

You claim;

 

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

> initiation itself.

 

No, you are wrong. I have not believed this since I read TFO over ten years

ago. It is however a common misconception within ISKCON. It is repeated by

an ISKCON guru on the video ‘disciple of my disciple’ for example.

 

Since you had claimed the diksa guru must come back to the same planet as

the disciple to deliver or initiate him I assumed YOU were talking about the

ceremony since there is no other occasion that requires the spiritual master

or his representative to jointly occupy a specific geographical location,

(your 10 metre fire yugna rule), in other words ‘meet’, other than for the

diksa ceremony. Since you have now changed position from:

 

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

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

 

To:

> 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'.

Dec 02, 2006 - 05:37 AM

 

And since you have now clearly stated that you accept the diksa guru does

not have to be physically present at the ceremony, can we now draw a line

under this issue? We now both agree Srila Prabhupada does not need to be

physically present at the diksa ceremony. This was stated in TFO way back in

1996.

 

With regards your inability to understand the English words ‘means’ and

‘definition’ I suggest you go back to school.

 

If you do not accept Srila Prabhupada’s definition as quoted, and can offer

no alternative that proves he must be physically present for the process of

diksa to work; then what more is there to discuss?

 

> Were are discussing the initiation of devotees by a representative of

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

> Godhead Himself.

 

According to Srila Prabhupada Lord Krishna is Lord Brahma’s diksa guru. Do

you not accept this definition either? Diksa is precisely what we are

discussing.

 

If you no longer accept definitions and statements from Srila Prabhupada as

authoritative then who is now your authority? It can’t be Haricash since he

now denounces the very notion of needing a guru. Do you really think you can

understand the science of Krishna Consciousness by rejecting definitions and

statements given by Srila Prabhupada on the basis of your own personal

whims?

 

You claim with regards the many quotes to Srila Prabhupada’s diksa

disciples, telling them his physical presence was 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.

 

No you did not. You wrote a lot of rubbish:

 

> 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.

(Ramakanta das Dec 02, 2006 - 05:37 AM)

 

Above we see YOU talking about ‘the time of initiation’. What ‘time’ is that

exactly? If you always thought the guru does not need to be physically

present at the 'time of initiation' ceremony, then what are you talking

about here?

 

You never proved the quotes were NOT referring to the process of diksa going

on without the physical presence of the diksa guru. How could you when they

are statements made by a diksa guru to his diksa disciples?

 

Just to summarise:

 

1) You agree with TFO that Srila Prabhupada deliberately established himself

as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

2) You agree with TFO that the GBC (the body Srila Prabhupada left to manage

initiation) have presented no order from Srila Prabhupada that authorises

them to remove him from this position, and appoint successors.

 

3) You agree with TFO that the ceremony is not the entire process of diksa,

but merely a formality that helps mark the beginning of that process.

 

4) You also agree with TFO that the spiritual master does not have to be

physically present at the diksa ceremony.

 

5) You also admit you can find no statement from Srila Prabhupada that

states the spiritual master must be physically present on the same planet as

his disciple in order to impart transcendental knowledge to him, which Srila

Prabhupada says is the meaning of the word diksa. (Yes he does, go back to

school).

 

6) You have also failed to produce an alternative definition of diksa that

proves physical presence is required for diksa. The burden of proof is o you

since YOU are challenging the status quo as set out in 1) above.

 

7) You do not accept the definition of diksa given by Srila Prabhupada and

quoted by me is actually being a definition of diksa.

 

8) You have claimed the many physical presence quotes I gave ONLY apply to

diksa:

 

> Of course, the physical presence of the guru might be immaterial, but only

> after initiation.

(Ramakanta das Nov 29, 2006 - 06:11 AM)

 

9) You have also claimed the SAME quotes may only refer to siksa:

 

> You have not presented a single statement by Srila Prabhupada saying that

> for diksa (not siksa) the physical presence of the guru is not important.

(Ramakanta das Nov 12, 2006 - 06:41 AM)

 

10) To explain how the quotes where Srila Prabhupada is writing to his diksa

disciples, telling them his physical presence is not essential, do not refer

to diksa you talk about the 'time of initiation'. But since we agree this is

irrelevant that means the quotes DO refer to initiation proper, ie, the

transmitting of knowledge and subsequent vanquishing of sinful reactions.

 

11) You do not accept the evidence (Lord Krishna not physically meeting his

diksa disciple Lord Brahma) that proves the diksa guru does not have to meet

the disciple, apparently because it defeats your position.

 

So far your ‘physical presence’ line of argument has got you precisely

nowhere, other than a deep quagmire of self contradiction and confusion.

 

Point c) remains unchallenged by any of your nonsensical arguments.

You remain defeated.

 

Best wishes,

Ys

Yadu