Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> 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).

 

So your philosophy is that the only difference between a diksa guru and a

siksa guru is that the diksa guru gives both Harinam and Gayatri mantra by

formal fire ceremony and is the focus of daily worship for his disciples.

And it is even not always the diksa guru who gives both Harinam and Gayatri

mantra by formal fire ceremony; sometimes it is the siksa guru.

 

Are you saying that it is the fire ceremony that turns a siksa guru into a

diksa guru? That would contradict your previous statement that the ceremony

is not the initiation itself. And it would contradict your position that the

person who performs a fire ceremony after 1977 is not the diksa guru.

 

Are you saying that a siksa guru who imparts knowledge does not initiate the

disciple by doing so? That would contradict your previous statement that

imparting knowledge is the very definition of initiation.

 

Sorry, but your philosophy is strange. Either you have poorly presented it

in this debate or you don't know perfectly what you are talking about.

 

So try again to explain what a diksa guru is, or admit that you don't know

it perfectly.

 

 

> 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?

 

My challenge is that your point c) is unproven. And the basis of my

challenge is the fact that you have not presented any evidence that Srila

Prabhupada did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON.

 

Your point c) ("Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru for ISKCON.") is an

unproven claim by a someone who does not know how a devotee is authorized to

be a diksa guru in ISKCON, and who does not know perfectly what diksa is.

 

On Dec 11, 2006 you wrote:

> “Physical presence is not important.”

> (Room Conversation, Vrndavana, 6/10/77)

 

You quoted this statement out of context. You did not write for what the

physical presence if not important. Can you please tell us the context of

this statement.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa