Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> > 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 write this because you have not carefully read my entire argument.

 

I also wrote, "If by 'vani is more important than vapu' you understood 'vapu

is not important' or 'physical presence is not important', then you badly

misunderstood Srila Prabhupada".

 

The complete paragraph in Srila Prabhupada's letter is:

 

"Next you ask if I am present in my picture and form? Yes. In form as well

as in teachings. To carry out the teachings of guru is more important than

to worship the form, but none of them should be neglected. Form is called

vapu and teachings is called vani. Both should be worshiped. Vani is more

important than vapu."

 

Even if you take "vani is more important than vapu" out of context and

assume it refers to initiation, then still it does not mean that vapu is not

important.

 

So this letter is no evidence that for the initiation the physical presence

of the diksa guru is not required. If you have another statement by Srila

Prabhupada that you think says that, then you may present it, but please

only one statement at a time. So present the statement that you think is the

best evidence.

 

 

You seem to know the science of initiation. So please answer 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?

 

 

I will later deal with the rest of your text.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa