Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Dec 13, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You write:

 

> Therefore I use Srila Prabhupada's definition: The spiritual master who

> initiates.

 

That’s good.

 

> You wrote that the very definition of diksa is to impart knowledge. So by

> "diksa guru" you mean "the spiritual master who imparts knowledge". So

> your point c) is "Srila Prabhupada remains the sole spiritual master who

> imparts knowledge in ISKCON". In other words, you are claiming that Srila

> Prabhupada did not authorize anyone to impart knowledge. But you have not

> backed up this claim by quotes.

 

On the absolute platform both the siksa and diksa gurus impart

transcendental knowledge. If you had read TFO properly you would have

realised we acknowledge this. We can accept unlimited siksa gurus who may or

may not be on the absolute platform (provided they preach in line with the

diksa guru), but we must only have one diksa guru (or sad guru as he is also

known). Under the pancaratrika system, introduced quite recently into our

sampradaya by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, the diksa guru gives both Harinam and

Gayatri mantra by formal fire ceremony and is the focus of daily worship for

his disciples (guru puja, daily bhoga offerings etc). The GBC state:

 

> The siksa guru who gives initiation with the holy name and gayatri mantra

> becomes known as the diksa guru, and those vaisnavas who elevate one to

> transcendence by their teachings are also siksa guru.

GBC 1999 resolution 409

 

They just got confused that Srila Prabhupada only authorised them to act in

an instructing capacity. Since the GBC admit that Srila Prabhupada is the

‘pre-eminent siksa guru for ISKCON’ then logically and according to Srila

Prabhupada’s teachings they should also accept he must then go on to become

the diksa guru for everyone in ISKCON:

 

> The initiator spiritual master is one only because in the scriptures

> acceptance of more than one initiator spiritual master is always

> forbidden. But there is no limit for accepting a number of instructor

> spiritual master. Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a

> disciple in the matter of spiritual science becomes the initiator

> spiritual master later on.

(Srila Prabhupada BTG March 20th 1960)

 

You are challenging the fact that Srila Prabhupada should, or can even in

theory, remain the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. On what basis are you making

this challenge?

 

Why can’t Srila Prabhupada still be the sole initiating guru for ISKCON as

per his final directives to the body he left to manage initiation?

 

For over a year you have not provided one valid reason.

 

You were the one who brought up the issue of 'physical presence', yet we

only find statements saying that his physical presence is not important for

a disciple.

 

You ask a self-defeating question:

 

> 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?

 

Who is your spiritual master? Is it Haricash, the guru who says you don’t

need a guru...ha, you are funny.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu