Guest guest Report post Posted August 20, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! Thank you for your question. Although Srila Rupa Goswami has already given the autorization to initiate about 500 years ago (Upadesamrita 1), the spiritual master or his representative must still determine who has controlled the six urges. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 22, 2005 Ramakant prabhu Pamho. AgtSP. You wrote ..... "Although Srila Rupa Goswami has already given the autorization to initiate about 500 years ago (Upadesamrita 1), the spiritual master or his representative must still determine who has controlled the six urges." However when I look at the verse in question. I see NO mention of either authorization or diksa. What I do see is a statement of the QUALIFICATIONS of one who can make disciples. Please remember that what we are discussing is the authorization to initiate, NOT the qualifications of the diksa guru. I'll be happy to discuss THAT point after we clear-up this point of authorization. vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apimam prthivim sa sisyat SYNONYMS vacah—of speech; vegam—urge; manasah—of the mind; krodha—of anger; vegam—urge; jihva—of the tongue; vegam—urge; udara-upastha—of the belly and genitals; vegam—urge; etan—these; vegan—urges; yah—whoever; visaheta—can tolerate; dhirah—sober; sarvam—all; api—certainly; imam—this; prthivim—world; sah—that personality; sisyat—can make disciples. "A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind’s demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." [NOI 1] As I said before this verse states the principle. ie: one who is qualified can make disciples. However as previously stated Srila Prabhupada clearly says ..... "One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa -vidhana." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport) Thus the "authorization" must come from the predecessor acarya. If Srila Rupa Goswami was authorizing anyone who was qualified - as above [NOI 1}, (as you suggest) then diksa-vidhana as described by Srila Prabhupada becomes meaningless. Furthermore can you give me a quote from Srila Prabhupada to confirm your statement, "Srila Rupa Goswami has already given the autorization to initiate about 500 years ago (Upadesamrita 1)" --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Thank you for your question. Although Srila Rupa > Goswami has already given > the autorization to initiate about 500 years ago > (Upadesamrita 1), the > spiritual master or his representative must still > determine who has > controlled the six urges. > > ys Ramakanta dasa > > ----------------------- > To from this mailing list, send an email > to: > Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com __ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 22, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! Can we please deal with only one point at the same time before jumping to other points. I had asked you why you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru but not Sankarsana Prabhu. (If you don't know the answer, then just tell me, and I will no longer ask you questions about initiations.) I cannot discuss authorizations with you before I know what you mean by authorization. After we finished that point, we can discuss other points like the May 28 conversation or the statement by Rupa Gosvami. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. I already gave an answer to your question as to why I do not accept Sankarshan as a bona-fide guru on 15th August. "Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so many things that ``Prabhupada said.''" [sPL 75-09-02] What we DO have in writting is an order for ritvik representatives. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Can we please deal with only one point at the same > time before jumping to > other points. I had asked you why you accept Srila > Prabhupada as an > authorized diksa guru but not Sankarsana Prabhu. (If > you don't know the > answer, then just tell me, and I will no longer ask > you questions about > initiations.) I cannot discuss authorizations with > you before I know what > you mean by authorization. After we finished that > point, we can discuss > other points like the May 28 conversation or the > statement by Rupa Gosvami. > > ys Ramakanta dasa > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I already gave an answer to your question as to why I > do not accept Sankarshan as a bona-fide guru on 15th > August. > > "Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so > many things that ``Prabhupada said.''" [sPL 75-09-02] You answered half of my question. Thank you. I will look at it later. Now it is still not clear to me why you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru although there is no autorization in writing for him? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. You wrote.... > Now it is still not clear to me why you accept Srila > Prabhupada as an > authorized diksa guru although there is no > autorization in writing for him? 1] How do you know this? Unless you have it in writing (or tape) from Srila Prabhupada - that he never received his authorization from Bhaktisidhanta in writing. Then it is speculation, is it not? "Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so many things that ``Prabhupada said.''" [sPL 75-09-02] >You answered half of my question. Well actually I answered it all, but you never understood. 2] Furthermore Srila Prabhupada made this statement in relation to himself and his disciples. If Srila Bhaktisidhanta had made a similar statement in relation to himself and his disciples, then we would look for Srila Prabhupada's written authorization. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Now it is still not clear to me why you accept Srila > > Prabhupada as an > > authorized diksa guru although there is no > > autorization in writing for him? > > 1] How do you know this? The question was not if there is an authorization in writing for Srila Prabhupada or not. The question was why you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru although, as you wrote on August 16, Srila Prabhupada never disclosed how he got the order, we probably will never know the answer to how he got the authorization. > Unless you have it in writing (or tape) from Srila Prabhupada - that he > never received his authorization from Bhaktisidhanta in writing. >From where did you get this "or tape"? Is that your speculation? Here is the quote again: In the purport to CC Adi 12.8 Srila Prabhupada said: "Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya." You already commented on this text, but because you did not confirm your conclusions by quotes from Srila Prabhupada, I ignored them. > "Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so > many things that ``Prabhupada said.''" [sPL 75-09-02] Please confirm by a quote from Srila Prabhupada that an instruction given in a personal letter to Omkara dasi has to be followed by everyone. > Well actually I answered it all, but you never understood. How can I understand you if you don't properly answer my questions? > 2] Furthermore Srila Prabhupada made this statement in > relation to himself and his disciples. Which statement do you mean? If you mean "Unless it is there from me in writing", then please note that this is a statement in relation to himself and Omkara dasi, not all his disciples and granddisciples. > If Srila Bhaktisidhanta had made a similar statement in relation to > himself and his disciples, then we would look for Srila Prabhupada's > written authorization. Your statement is meaningless because you don't know if he made a similar statement. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. You wrote.... "Please confirm by a quote from Srila Prabhupada that an instruction given in a personal letter to Omkara dasi has to be followed by everyone." I find that a trifle obtuse. Since YOUR proof of authorization for ISKCON diksa gurus includes the testimony of Sankershan which is basical just his word that Srila Prabhupada told him to be a diksa guru. No quotes from Srila Prabhupada as evidence are given by Sankershan simply his word. Yet you have no problem with that at all! At least try and be consistent if you are unable to be equipoised. True not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied universally (for example in one letter he advised a devotee, who was not good with spices, to just cook with a little salt and tumeric; clearly this advice was not meant for the entire Movement). However, this obviously is an instruction which could be followed by the entire movement. Indeed in H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja's lecture 'Memoirs of 1977', Maharaja relates how, after he showed the July 9th letter to H.H. Jayadvaita Swami and told him that he had been appointed a Guru, H.H. Jayadvaita Maharaja wisely advised him that that was not what the letter actually stated, and that if he really thought that he had been appointed a Guru, he should GET IT IN WRITING. You wrote.... "If you mean "Unless it is there from me in writing", then please note that this is a statement in relation to himself and Omkara dasi, not all his disciples and granddisciples." The letter is certainly addressed to Omkara dasi, but unless you have a quote from Srila Prabhupada which states that "all statements in my letters are ONLY between myself and the recipient". Then I have to conclude that your above statement is certainly in the realms of speculation. Just by reading the letter we can conclude that the statement is made in relation to a PUBLIC ISSUE. ie: "I never said there should be no more marriage. By all means legally you can get married. How can I object? THEY misunderstand me." Therefore it can be concluded that Omkara dasi was being instructed NOT only for HER benifit, but also to instruct others, .... "THEY misunderstand me". Here it is in it's entirety .... Vrindaban 2 September, 1975 75-09-02 Los Angeles My Dear Omkara dasi: Please accept my blessings. I have seen your letter dated August 17, 1975 and have noted the contents. I never said there should be no more marriage. By all means legally you can get married. How can I object? They misunderstand me. Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so many things that ``Prabhupada said.'' I have no objection to marriage, but to bless it by a fire sacrifice, that I am thinking that if they don't stay together, then it is not good. But if they can remain together for one year, then there can be fire sacrifice. But changing three times in a month husband and wife, that is not good. I hope this meets you in good health. Your ever well wisher, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com __ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You are evading my question: Why do you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru although, as you wrote on August 16, Srila Prabhupada never disclosed how he got the order, we probably will never know the answer to how he got the authorization? Please write a concise anwer, or "I don't know". I will comment on your text after you have answered above question. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 29, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. The answer to your question - is within the question you ask. I accept Srila Prabhupada as a bona-fide spiritual master because he was authorized by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. "he got the order", "he got the authorization". Again I am perplexed as to the difficulty you are having in understanding this relatively simple point? --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > You are evading my question: > > Why do you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized > diksa guru although, as > you wrote on August 16, Srila Prabhupada never > disclosed how he got the > order, we probably will never know the answer to how > he got the > authorization? > > Please write a concise anwer, or "I don't know". > > I will comment on your text after you have answered > above question. > > ys Ramakanta dasa > > ----------------------- > To from this mailing list, send an email > to: > Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 1, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I accept Srila Prabhupada as a bona-fide spiritual > master because he was authorized by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. > "he got the order", "he got the authorization". Oh, you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru because on August 16 you wrote "Since Srila Prabhupada never disclosed how he got the order, we probably will never know the answer to how he got the authorization". That's interesting. So you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorize diksa guru just because he said so. For no other reason. You don't know what form the authorization must have and you don't care. You came to this conclusion without the guidance of a spiritual master whom you can ask questions. And if some day you find a statement saying that the instructions by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur must be in writing, then you will no longer accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru. In January you did not know what you would accept as an authorization to initiate (otherwise you would have answered by question). So in January you rejected Sankarsana Prabhu's authorization for no reason. Then seven months later, you suddenly found a reason: a personal letter to Omkara Dasi. And you conclude (without the guidance of a spiritual master) that the phrase "Unless it is there from me in writing" (it's not even a complete sentence) means that any statement from Srila Prabhupada must be in writing. And you conclude that this also applies to the authorization to initiate (which according to Srila Prabhupada is beyond your limit of understanding). > Again I am perplexed as to the difficulty you are having in understanding > this relatively simple point? You are perplexed because you did not carefully read my question. My question was not "why do you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru". If you still think that this was my question, then read it again, I mean, the entire question. Now please allow me to smash your other arguments: > I find that a trifle obtuse. Since YOUR proof of > authorization for ISKCON diksa gurus includes the > testimony of Sankershan which is basical just his word > that Srila Prabhupada told him to be a diksa guru. No > quotes from Srila Prabhupada as evidence are given by > Sankershan simply his word. Yet you have no problem > with that at all! At least try and be consistent if > you are unable to be equipoised. Please don't remove my request from it's context. It refers to YOUR claim that an instruction given in a personal letter has to be followed by everyone. My position is consistent and equipoised: I accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru and I accept Sankarsana Prabhu as an authorized diksa guru. Whereas your position is not. > True not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied > universally Who decides what should be universally applied and what not? Is it you? (Don't forget the four defects of material life.) > The letter is certainly addressed to Omkara dasi, but > unless you have a quote from Srila Prabhupada which > states that "all statements in my letters are ONLY > between myself and the recipient". Come on! Statements in personal letters are not meant for everyone, except explicitly stated otherwise. > Then I have to conclude that your above statement is certainly in the > realms of speculation. On April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said that he will verbally give the authorization. He said: "I shall say, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorized.'". But you say: "No, Srila Prabhupada made an incorrect statement. The authorization must be in writing, and Srila Prabhupada did not do what he said he will do". So who is speculating? > However, this obviously is an instruction which could > be followed by the entire movement. > Just by reading the letter we can conclude that the > statement is made in relation to a PUBLIC ISSUE. To me statements containing "obviously" or "conclude" look like speculation. (A famous sect is often using such words to support their speculations.) ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. "Now please allow me to smash your other arguments" Thanks for the lesson in teutonic humour. I'll reply when I finally manage to stop laughing. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > I accept Srila Prabhupada as a bona-fide spiritual > > master because he was authorized by Srila > Bhaktisiddhanta. > > "he got the order", "he got the authorization". > > Oh, you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized > diksa guru because on > August 16 you wrote "Since Srila Prabhupada never > disclosed how he got the > order, we probably will never know the answer to how > he got the > authorization". That's interesting. > > So you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorize diksa > guru just because he > said so. For no other reason. You don't know what > form the authorization > must have and you don't care. You came to this > conclusion without the > guidance of a spiritual master whom you can ask > questions. And if some day > you find a statement saying that the instructions by > Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati Thakur must be in writing, then you will > no longer accept Srila > Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru. > > In January you did not know what you would accept as > an authorization to > initiate (otherwise you would have answered by > question). So in January you > rejected Sankarsana Prabhu's authorization for no > reason. > > Then seven months later, you suddenly found a > reason: a personal letter to > Omkara Dasi. And you conclude (without the guidance > of a spiritual master) > that the phrase "Unless it is there from me in > writing" (it's not even a > complete sentence) means that any statement from > Srila Prabhupada must be in > writing. And you conclude that this also applies to > the authorization to > initiate (which according to Srila Prabhupada is > beyond your limit of > understanding). > > > Again I am perplexed as to the difficulty you are > having in understanding > > this relatively simple point? > > You are perplexed because you did not carefully read > my question. My > question was not "why do you accept Srila Prabhupada > as an authorized diksa > guru". If you still think that this was my question, > then read it again, I > mean, the entire question. > > Now please allow me to smash your other arguments: > > > I find that a trifle obtuse. Since YOUR proof of > > authorization for ISKCON diksa gurus includes the > > testimony of Sankershan which is basical just his > word > > that Srila Prabhupada told him to be a diksa guru. > No > > quotes from Srila Prabhupada as evidence are given > by > > Sankershan simply his word. Yet you have no > problem > > with that at all! At least try and be consistent > if > > you are unable to be equipoised. > > Please don't remove my request from it's context. It > refers to YOUR claim > that an instruction given in a personal letter has > to be followed by > everyone. > > My position is consistent and equipoised: I accept > Srila Prabhupada as an > authorized diksa guru and I accept Sankarsana Prabhu > as an authorized diksa > guru. Whereas your position is not. > > > True not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters > can be applied > > universally > > Who decides what should be universally applied and > what not? Is it you? > (Don't forget the four defects of material life.) > > > The letter is certainly addressed to Omkara dasi, > but > > unless you have a quote from Srila Prabhupada > which > > states that "all statements in my letters are ONLY > > between myself and the recipient". > > Come on! Statements in personal letters are not > meant for everyone, except > explicitly stated otherwise. > > > Then I have to conclude that your above statement > is certainly in the > > realms of speculation. > > On April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said that he will > verbally give the > authorization. He said: "I shall say, 'Now you > become acarya. You become > authorized.'". But you say: "No, Srila Prabhupada > made an incorrect > statement. The authorization must be in writing, and > Srila Prabhupada did > not do what he said he will do". So who is > speculating? > > > However, this obviously is an instruction which > could > > be followed by the entire movement. > > > Just by reading the letter we can conclude that > the > > statement is made in relation to a PUBLIC ISSUE. > > To me statements containing "obviously" or > "conclude" look like speculation. > (A famous sect is often using such words to support > their speculations.) > > ys Ramakanta dasa > > ----------------------- > To from this mailing list, send an email > to: > Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com __ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > "Although Srila Rupa Goswami has already given the autorization to > > initiate about 500 years ago (Upadesamrita 1), the spiritual master or > > his representative must still determine who has controlled the six > > urges." > > However when I look at the verse in question. I see NO mention of either > authorization or diksa. What I do see is a statement of the QUALIFICATIONS > of one who can make disciples. Please remember that what we are discussing > is the authorization to initiate, NOT the qualifications of the diksa > guru. I'll be happy to discuss THAT point after we clear-up this point of > authorization. Srila Prabhupada gave two translations of this verse. In one translation he says "is permitted" and in the other one "is qualified". I suggest you study Srila Prabhupada's words under the guidance of a spiritual master. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2005 Ramakant prabhu Pamho. AgtSP. You wrote .... "I suggest you study Srila Prabhupada's words under the guidance of a spiritual master." Can you give a quote to verify what you have just said. The quote from Srila Prabhupada MUST say as YOU claim. ie: "To understand my words you need the guidance of ANOTHER spiritual master". You are going from laughable to non-sensical, its such a crazy situation that it is difficult to determine whether non-sensical is an improvement on laughable or whether it is Ramakant reaching an all time low. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > > "Although Srila Rupa Goswami has already given > the autorization to > > > initiate about 500 years ago (Upadesamrita 1), > the spiritual master or > > > his representative must still determine who has > controlled the six > > > urges." > > > > However when I look at the verse in question. I > see NO mention of either > > authorization or diksa. What I do see is a > statement of the QUALIFICATIONS > > of one who can make disciples. Please remember > that what we are discussing > > is the authorization to initiate, NOT the > qualifications of the diksa > > guru. I'll be happy to discuss THAT point after we > clear-up this point of > > authorization. > > Srila Prabhupada gave two translations of this > verse. In one translation he > says "is permitted" and in the other one "is > qualified". I suggest you study > Srila Prabhupada's words under the guidance of a > spiritual master. > > ys Ramakanta dasa > > ----------------------- > To from this mailing list, send an email > to: > Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > What we DO have in writing is an order for ritvik > representatives. > > There is nothing in writing that instructs how > additional ritvik > representatives should be authorized. How will that > be done? The July 9th document does not state that only Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may never be added to. There are other systems of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada, such as the GBC, where new members are freely added or subtracted whenever it is felt necessary. It is illogical to single out one system of management, and treat it entirely differently from other equally important ones. This is particularly so since Srila Prabhupada never even hinted that the approach to maintaining the ritvik system should differ in any way from the upkeep of other systems he personally put in place. This argument has become popular, so we invite the reader to consider the following points: 1) In the Topanga Canyon transcript Tamal Krsna Goswami relates the following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected ritviks: Tamal Krsna:"Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?" Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be added." (Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80 ) Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that could be deemed a 'necessary' circumstance for more ritviks to be 'added'. 2) The July 9th letter defines ritvik as: 'representative of the acarya'. It is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone to represent Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, Temple Presidents or indeed GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus it should be easily within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests to act responsibly on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. 3) The July 9th letter shows Srila Prabhupada's intention was to run a ritvik system 'henceforward'. Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate managing authority in order that they could maintain and regulate all the systems he put in place. The ritvik system was his system for managing initiations. It is the job of the GBC to maintain that system, adding or subtracting personnel as they can do in all other areas over which they are authorised to preside. 4) Letters issued on July 9th, 11th, and 21st all indicate that the list could be added to, with the use of such phrases as 'thus far', 'so far', 'initial list', etc. So a mechanism for adding more ritviks must have been put in place, even though it has yet to be exercised. 5) When trying to understand an instruction one will naturally consider the purpose behind it. The letter states that Srila Prabhupada appointed 'some of his senior disciples to act as "rittik" - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations ...', and that at that time Srila Prabhupada had 'so far' given eleven names. The aim of an obedient disciple is to understand and satisfy the purpose of the system. The purpose of the final order was clearly not to exclusively bind all future initiations to an 'elite' group of individuals ('some [...] so far') who must eventually die, and in so doing end the process of initiation within ISKCON. Rather the purpose was to ensure that initiations could practically continue from that time on. Therefore this system must remain in place as long as there is a need for initiation. Thus the addition of more 'senior disciples' to act as 'representatives of the acarya', as and when they are required, would ensure that the purpose of the system continued to be satisfied. 6) Taken together with Srila Prabhupada's will (which indicates all future directors for permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst his initiated disciples), it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada's intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply managing the whole thing. Having said this it is always possible that Srila Prabhupada could revoke the order if he wanted to. As stated previously the counter instruction would need to be at least as clear and unequivocal as the personally signed letter which put the ritvik system in place in the first place. With Krsna and his pure devotees anything is possible: Newsday Reporter: You are now the leader and the Spiritual Master. Who will take your place? Srila Prabhupada: That Krsna will dictate, who will take my place. (SP Interview, 14/7/76, New York ) However, we feel it is safer to follow the orders we did receive from our acarya, rather than speculate about ones that may or may not come in the future, or worse still invent our own. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > I accept Srila Prabhupada as a bona-fide spiritual > > master because he was authorized by Srila > Bhaktisiddhanta. > > "he got the order", "he got the authorization". > > Oh, you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized > diksa guru because on > August 16 you wrote "Since Srila Prabhupada never > disclosed how he got the > order, we probably will never know the answer to how > he got the > authorization". That's interesting. Yes, it is. > > So you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorize diksa > guru just because he > said so. For no other reason. You don't know what > form the authorization > must have and you don't care. Where did I say that? >You came to this > conclusion without the > guidance of a spiritual master whom you can ask > questions. When Srila Prabhupada was physicaly present how many of his 10,000 disciples were able to ask him questions? How many of them even physical even met Srila Prabhupada? "Physical presence is immaterial. Presence of the transcendental sound received from the Spiritual Master should be the guidance of life. That will make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very strongly about my absence you may place my pictures on my sitting places and this will be source of inspiration for you." (Letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67) "Vani is more important than vapuh." (Letter to Tusta Krishna Das, 14/12/72) Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you're not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise... Srila Prabhupada: Well the questions are answ...ANSWERS ARE THERE IN MY BOOKS. (Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73) So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then ALL your questions will be answered. (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76) >And if some day > you find a statement saying that the instructions by > Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati Thakur must be in writing, then you will > no longer accept Srila > Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru. > Where did I say that. Also how do you know that Srila Prabhupada did not receive his authorization in writing? > In January you did not know what you would accept as > an authorization to > initiate (otherwise you would have answered by > question). This is just more nonsense. If you remember you were debating with Deepak in January NOT me! >So in January you > rejected Sankarsana Prabhu's authorization for no > reason. No. My reasons for rejecting Sankarshan are valid. > > Then seven months later, you suddenly found a > reason: a personal letter to > Omkara Dasi. And you conclude (without the guidance > of a spiritual master) > that the phrase "Unless it is there from me in > writing" (it's not even a > complete sentence) means that any statement from > Srila Prabhupada must be in > writing. And you conclude that this also applies to > the authorization to > initiate (which according to Srila Prabhupada is > beyond your limit of > understanding). > Again try and remember correctly I asked you to provide a quote from Srila Prabhupada which states that, "All my letters are private mail and the instruction within are ONLY between myself and the recipient" I am still waiting for this elusive quote to substantiate your claims. > > Again I am perplexed as to the difficulty you are > having in understanding > > this relatively simple point? > > You are perplexed because you did not carefully read > my question. My > question was not "why do you accept Srila Prabhupada > as an authorized diksa > guru". If you still think that this was my question, > then read it again, I > mean, the entire question. Please demonstrate in what way I have failed to answer your question. > > Now please allow me to smash your other arguments: > > > I find that a trifle obtuse. Since YOUR proof of > > authorization for ISKCON diksa gurus includes the > > testimony of Sankershan which is basical just his > word > > that Srila Prabhupada told him to be a diksa guru. > No > > quotes from Srila Prabhupada as evidence are given > by > > Sankershan simply his word. Yet you have no > problem > > with that at all! At least try and be consistent > if > > you are unable to be equipoised. > > Please don't remove my request from it's context. It > refers to YOUR claim > that an instruction given in a personal letter has > to be followed by > everyone. That's the reason Srila Prabhupada wrote so many letters - to give us all instruction. No one can force you to follow it. > > My position is consistent and equipoised: I accept > Srila Prabhupada as an > authorized diksa guru and I accept Sankarsana Prabhu > as an authorized diksa > guru. Whereas your position is not. Narayan Maharaja claims that Srila Prabhupada told him to be the successor acarya of ISKCON. Do you accept this? If not why not? > > True not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters > can be applied > > universally > > Who decides what should be universally applied and > what not? Is it you? > (Don't forget the four defects of material life.) > The obvious answer to that is if the instruction in the letter is addressed to the individual recipient then it is a personal instruction. If the instruction addresses others - then it is a precious instruction for all. Also I'm not the only one who quotes from Srila Prabhupada's letters. HH Jayadvaita Swami also quotes from them and he also admits to being affected by the 4 defects. So you can't find fault with me for doing so without also faulting some of the most senoir devotees in ISKCON, BECAUSE THEY ALL QUOTE FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA'S LETTERS. Tell me 1 who doesn't? > > The letter is certainly addressed to Omkara dasi, > but > > unless you have a quote from Srila Prabhupada > which > > states that "all statements in my letters are ONLY > > between myself and the recipient". > > Come on! Statements in personal letters are not > meant for everyone, except > explicitly stated otherwise. We are not discussing mundane personal letters here. This you should try and remember. Srila Prabhupada used the mail to preach and his letters were seldom if ever kept private. Where is the proof for your above speculation? > > > Then I have to conclude that your above statement > is certainly in the > > realms of speculation. > > On April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said that he will > verbally give the > authorization. He said: "I shall say, 'Now you > become acarya. You become > authorized.'". But you say: "No, Srila Prabhupada > made an incorrect > statement. The authorization must be in writing, and > Srila Prabhupada did > not do what he said he will do". So who is > speculating? Please read again, he says ""I shall say, 'Now you become acarya..." he DOES NOT SAY ... "I shall VERBALY say, 'Now you become acarya...." As you claim. This is just more evidence of your rascaldom. > > > However, this obviously is an instruction which > could > > be followed by the entire movement. > > > Just by reading the letter we can conclude that > the > > statement is made in relation to a PUBLIC ISSUE. > > To me statements containing "obviously" or > "conclude" look like speculation. > (A famous sect is often using such words to support > their speculations.) Since you are expert in speculating I'll take your word for it. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > "I suggest you study Srila Prabhupada's words under the guidance of a > spiritual master." > > Can you give a quote to verify what you have just said. SB 6.1.39 lecture, Los Angeles, June 5, 1976: We have to learn everything through the spiritual master. You cannot understand directly. SB 1.15.30 lecture, Los Angeles, December 8, 1973: So if you want to understand Bhagavad-gita, then we must understand in the same way as the person who directly heard from. This is called parampara system. Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya. Who is your spiritual master? > The quote from Srila Prabhupada MUST say as YOU claim. ie: "To understand > my words you need the guidance of ANOTHER spiritual master". This is not what I wrote. Please do not speculate. You must learn the spiritual science under the guidance of a spiritual master whom you can ask questions. This is confirmed by Sri Krishna and Srila Prabhupada in Bhagavad-gita 4.34. > You are going from laughable to non-sensical, its such a crazy situation > that it is difficult to determine whether non-sensical is an improvement > on laughable or whether it is Ramakant reaching an all time low. You cannot defeat the arguments I am presenting by personally attacking me because you don't know whose statements they are. You only risk offending a vaisnava (not me of course). ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 5, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > "I suggest you study Srila Prabhupada's words > under the guidance of a > > spiritual master." > > Srila Prabhupada is a spiritual master His words are the words of a spiritual master So in fact what you ARE saying is that ANOTHER spiritual master is required to give guidance on how to understand Srila Prabhupada words. > > Can you give a quote to verify what you have just > said. > > SB 6.1.39 lecture, Los Angeles, June 5, 1976: > We have to learn everything through the spiritual > master. You cannot > understand directly. This quote does NOT say that another spiritual master is required to understand the words of the spiritual master Srila Prabhupada. > > SB 1.15.30 lecture, Los Angeles, December 8, 1973: > So if you want to understand Bhagavad-gita, then we > must understand in the > same way as the person who directly heard from. This > is called parampara > system. Suppose I have heard something from my > spiritual master, so I speak > to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. > You cannot imagine what > my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some > books, you cannot > understand unless you understand it from me. This is > called parampara > system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, > neglecting the next > acarya, immediate next acarya. > > Who is your spiritual master? Srila Prabhupada. "Yes, I am the spiritual master of this institution, and all the members of the society, they’re supposed to be MY disciples. They follow the rules and regulations which I ask them to follow, and they are INITIATED by me spiritually. So therefore the spiritual master is called guru. That is Sanskrit language." > > > The quote from Srila Prabhupada MUST say as YOU > claim. ie: "To understand > > my words you need the guidance of ANOTHER > spiritual master". > > This is not what I wrote. Yes it is. >Please do not speculate. Don't worry I never speculate. > You must learn the > spiritual science under the guidance of a spiritual > master whom you can ask > questions. This is confirmed by Sri Krishna and > Srila Prabhupada in > Bhagavad-gita 4.34. However the truth is that a large number of Srila Prabhupada's disciples never even met him, when Srila Prabhupada was physicaly present. Neither were they able to ask him any personal questions. Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you're not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise... Srila Prabhupada: Well the questions are answ...answers are there in my books. (Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73) So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then all your questions will be answered. (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76) Your arguments are all defeated! I'm sorry if your are offended. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com __ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 6, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! It seems you have not carefully read my question. So here is it again: There is nothing in writing that instructs how additional ritvik representatives should be authorized. How will that be done? By posting a text by Krishnakant you have answered the question if additional ritvik representatives can be added. But my question was: How will that be done? Please answer that question, if you can. > The July 9th document does not state that only Srila Prabhupada can chose > ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may never be added to. Here is it again this ludicrous argument: "It is not stated, therefore the opposite is true". I could equally argue: The July 9th document does not state that others than Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may be added to. > There are other systems of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada, > such as the GBC, where new members are freely added or subtracted whenever > it is felt necessary. Srila Prabhupada described how the members of the GBC should be elected. Please name one system of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada where he did not explain how the members should be chosen, as it is the case with the ritvik system. Please also confirm by a quote from Srila Prabhupada that the ritvik system is a system of management. > Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be added." > (Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80 ) Do you have this in writing from Srila Prabhupada? If not, then you have to reject this statement. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 8, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > It seems you have not carefully read my question. So > here is it again: > > There is nothing in writing that instructs how > additional ritvik > representatives should be authorized. How will > that be done? > > By posting a text by Krishnakant you have answered > the question if > additional ritvik representatives can be added. But > my question was: How > will that be done? Please answer that question, if > you can. > Perhaps you need to learn to read English better than you do. Since the question you again ask was answered fully in my last post. "How will that be done?" Regarding the addition of ritvik representatives. This was a part of the answer ... "It is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone to represent Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, Temple Presidents or indeed GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus it should be easily within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests to act responsibly on Srila Prabhupada's behalf [......]it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada's intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply managing the whole thing." The full answer was ... The July 9th document does not state that only Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may never be added to. There are other systems of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada, such as the GBC, where new members are freely added or subtracted whenever it is felt necessary. It is illogical to single out one system of management, and treat it entirely differently from other equally important ones. This is particularly so since Srila Prabhupada never even hinted that the approach to maintaining the ritvik system should differ in any way from the upkeep of other systems he personally put in place. This argument has become popular, so we invite the reader to consider the following points: 1) In the Topanga Canyon transcript Tamal Krsna Goswami relates the following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected ritviks: Tamal Krsna:"Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?" Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be added." (Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80 ) Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that could be deemed a 'necessary' circumstance for more ritviks to be 'added'. 2) The July 9th letter defines ritvik as: 'representative of the acarya'. It is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone to represent Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, Temple Presidents or indeed GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus it should be easily within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests to act responsibly on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. 3) The July 9th letter shows Srila Prabhupada's intention was to run a ritvik system 'henceforward'. Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate managing authority in order that they could maintain and regulate all the systems he put in place. The ritvik system was his system for managing initiations. It is the job of the GBC to maintain that system, adding or subtracting personnel as they can do in all other areas over which they are authorised to preside. 4) Letters issued on July 9th, 11th, and 21st all indicate that the list could be added to, with the use of such phrases as 'thus far', 'so far', 'initial list', etc. So a mechanism for adding more ritviks must have been put in place, even though it has yet to be exercised. 5) When trying to understand an instruction one will naturally consider the purpose behind it. The letter states that Srila Prabhupada appointed 'some of his senior disciples to act as "rittik" - representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations ...', and that at that time Srila Prabhupada had 'so far' given eleven names. The aim of an obedient disciple is to understand and satisfy the purpose of the system. The purpose of the final order was clearly not to exclusively bind all future initiations to an 'elite' group of individuals ('some [...] so far') who must eventually die, and in so doing end the process of initiation within ISKCON. Rather the purpose was to ensure that initiations could practically continue from that time on. Therefore this system must remain in place as long as there is a need for initiation. Thus the addition of more 'senior disciples' to act as 'representatives of the acarya', as and when they are required, would ensure that the purpose of the system continued to be satisfied. 6) Taken together with Srila Prabhupada's will (which indicates all future directors for permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst his initiated disciples), it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada's intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply managing the whole thing. Having said this it is always possible that Srila Prabhupada could revoke the order if he wanted to. As stated previously the counter instruction would need to be at least as clear and unequivocal as the personally signed letter which put the ritvik system in place in the first place. With Krsna and his pure devotees anything is possible: Newsday Reporter: You are now the leader and the Spiritual Master. Who will take your place? Srila Prabhupada: That Krsna will dictate, who will take my place. (SP Interview, 14/7/76, New York ) However, we feel it is safer to follow the orders we did receive from our acarya, rather than speculate about ones that may or may not come in the future, or worse still invent our own." Can you explain in detail how this fails to answer your question? > > The July 9th document does not state that only > Srila Prabhupada can chose > > ritviks, or that the list of acting ritviks may > never be added to. > > Here is it again this ludicrous argument: "It is not > stated, therefore the > opposite is true". > The only thing "ludicrous" here is your ability to ridicule truth. > I could equally argue: The July 9th document does > not state that others than > Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, Who could stop you doing so? > or that the list > of acting ritviks may > be added to. What would be wrong with this statement? > > There are other systems of management put in place > by Srila Prabhupada, > > such as the GBC, where new members are freely > added or subtracted whenever > > it is felt necessary. > > Srila Prabhupada described how the members of the > GBC should be elected. > Please name one system of management put in place by > Srila Prabhupada where > he did not explain how the members should be chosen, > as it is the case with > the ritvik system. This is not true, the ritvik representatives were choosen & named in the July 9th document. > Please also confirm by a quote from Srila Prabhupada > that the ritvik system > is a system of management. Do you have a quote from Srila Prabhupada to say it is NOT a system of management? > > Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be > added." > > (Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80 ) > > Do you have this in writing from Srila Prabhupada? > If not, then you have to > reject this statement. Why should I reject this statement? True, the source of the evidence is not so reliable, but that does not call for rejection. It is supportive evidence. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 8, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > So you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorize diksa guru just because > > he said so. For no other reason. You don't know what form the > > authorization must have and you don't care. > > Where did I say that? You did not directly say that. It was my attempt to find out what you would accept as an authorization to initiate. If my guess was wrong, then why do you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru but none of his disciples? So is following correct? You accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru because you wrote "Since Srila Prabhupada never disclosed how he got the order, we probably will never know the answer to how he got the authorization". You don't accept Sankarsana Prabhu as an authorized diksa guru because you read a personal letter from Srila Prabhupada to Omkara Dasi where it says "Unless it is there from me in writing" and you concluded that this applies also to the authorization to initiate. Is there any other reason why you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru? Is there any other reason why you don't accept Sankarsana Prabhu as an authorized diksa guru? > When Srila Prabhupada was physicaly present how many of his 10,000 > disciples were able to ask him questions? Everyone could send him a letter. > How many of them even physical even met Srila Prabhupada? What do you mean by "physically meet"? > "So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. > Then ALL your questions will be answered." (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76) Okay, then please answer following question by referring to Srila Prabhupada's books only: When was the ritvik system to be stopped? If you use anything else than the books, then you are not following above instruction. > Also how do you know that Srila Prabhupada did not receive his > authorization in writing? I think we all agree that Srila Prabhupada is an authorized diksa guru. So what is the purpose of your question? > This is just more nonsense. If you remember you were debating with Deepak > in January NOT me! In January you were debating with me. From January 16 to 20 you sent me about 7 replies. Don't you remember? > Again try and remember correctly I asked you to provide a quote from Srila > Prabhupada which states that, "All my letters are private mail and the > instruction within are ONLY between myself and the recipient". I am not aware of such a statement. But that does not mean that the opposite it true, unless you provide a quote from Srila Prabhupada which states that, "Some of my letters are public mail and the instruction withing are for everyone". > Please demonstrate in what way I have failed to answer your question. I asked: Why do you accept Srila Prabhupada as an authorized diksa guru although, as you wrote on August 16, Srila Prabhupada never disclosed how he got the order, we probably will never know the answer to how he got the authorization? (Note that I wrote "authorized diksa guru"). You answered: I accept Srila Prabhupada as a bona-fide spiritual master because he was authorized by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. "Bona-fide spiritual master" could also mean "bona-fide siksa guru". > Narayan Maharaja claims that Srila Prabhupada told him to be the successor > acarya of ISKCON. Do you accept this? If not why not? I did not hear or read this from him directly. And I don't believe that he said it, if you write it without confirming it by a quote from him. > The obvious answer to that is if the instruction in the letter is > addressed to the individual recipient then it is a personal instruction. I have never heard that in the spiritual science there are 'obvious answers'. We are not discussing mundane topics here. This you should remember. > Also I'm not the only one who quotes from Srila Prabhupada's letters. Quoting is okay. But concluding (speculating) something that is not explicitely written in the letter is bad. Example: Srila Prabhupada said that cow dung is pure and that the cow is an animal (see in the Vedabase). So to quote these two statements is okay. But to conclude by applying logic and reason that animal dung is pure is wrong. > Please read again, he says "I shall say, 'Now you become acarya...'" > > he DOES NOT SAY ... > > "I shall VERBALY say, 'Now you become acarya...." According to www.dictionary.com, "to say" means "to utter aloud; pronounce". The other meanings of say do not apply here. Please quote the dictionary that says that "I shall say" means "I shall write". > This is just more evidence of your rascaldom. Please again note that you cannot defeat the arguments that I am presenting by personally attacking me. You have to attack the arguments. Isn't it? (If a rascal, lier, fool, speculator, or whoever repeats a statement that he has heard from his guru, then that statement is correct.) ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > "I suggest you study Srila Prabhupada's words under the guidance of a > > spiritual master." > > Srila Prabhupada is a spiritual master. His words are the words of a > spiritual master. So in fact what you ARE saying is that ANOTHER > spiritual master is required to give guidance on how to understand Srila > Prabhupada words. If you replace "what you ARE saying" with "what I (Madhusudana) understood", then I agree with your statement. Note that (besides Krishna) I am the only person who can authoritatively say if you correctly understood me. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur is a spiritual master. His words are the words of a spiritual master. But Srila Prabhupada told his disciples, that they cannot learn from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati directly, only from Srila Prabhupada. If you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, then you should learn the spiritual science under his guidance. "Under his guidance" means "following his instructions". One of Srila Prabhupada's instruction is that you must always compare the words of the guru with sadhu and sastra. You did not do this when your read the July 9th letter, therefore you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction, and therefore you did not learn under his guidance. Therefore I suggested that you study Srila Prabhupada's words under the guidance of a spiritual master (which is Srila Prabhupada if you are a Prabhupada disciple). If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask them. > This quote does NOT say that another spiritual master is required to > understand the words of the spiritual master Srila Prabhupada. That is correct. You must not jump to another spiritual master unless so instructed by your spiritual master. (This is confirmed for example in the lecture to SB 1.15.30). > > Who is your spiritual master? > > Srila Prabhupada. If you are an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada, then following is true: There was an initiation ceremony, the person who performed the initiation ceremony declared that you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, and you are included in Srila Prabhupada's book of Initiated Disciples. Is it like that in your case? > "Yes, I am the spiritual master of this institution, and all the members > of the society, they’re supposed to be MY disciples. They follow the rules > and regulations which I ask them to follow, and they are INITIATED by me > spiritually. So therefore the spiritual master is called guru. That is > Sanskrit language." I have a better argument for you that no-one can defeat: When you look at the list of names (disciplic succession) at the end of the introduction to the Bhagavad-gita, you will see that there is no name listed after Srila Prabhupada's. So you have the evidence right there in Srila Prabhupada's book (which is the law book for the next ten thousand years) that none of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are initiating gurus and that Srila Prabhupada is the only initiating guru in ISKCON. > However the truth is that a large number of Srila Prabhupada's disciples > never even met him, when Srila Prabhupada was physicaly present. Of course they met him. They were all on the same planet. Or do your restrict "to meet" to "to be within a distance of 20 meters"? For me "meet" means "an interactive communication is possible". > Neither were they able to ask him any personal questions. They could send him letters. > Your arguments are all defeated! You defeated strawman arguments. But maybe you should try to defeat the arguments I present. For example following one: You misunderstood the July 9th letter because you tried to directly understand a letter that was not meant to be read and understood by you diectly. You did not learn its meaning through the parampara, that means from those to whom the letter was addressed. > I'm sorry if your are offended. I don't feel offended. It is just a waste of time to personally attack me. I also see a circular conclusion in your arguments: You claim to be Srila Prabhupada's disciple, therefore you can understand him correctly by directly hearing from him, therefore your understanding that he is the only diksa guru for ISKCON is correct, therefore you are Srila Prabhupada's disciple. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2005 Ramakanta prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Is there any other reason why you don't accept > Sankarsana Prabhu as an > authorized diksa guru? 1) He has NO verifiable authorization to initiate. 2) His claim to be authorized contradicts the written documented evidence from July 9th 1977. 3) By waiting until 2004 to stake his claim to diksa guru authorization he contradicts Jayadvaita Swami's "Rule of thumb". Thus his claim will be doubted by all. In other words there are many similarities between King Paundraka and the present ISKCON - so called -gurus. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 10, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > The full answer was ... Did you really expect that I will read Krishnakant's text a second time? > Can you explain in detail how this fails to answer your question? Krishnakant wrote who could choose the ritviks. But my question was how. You don't have to answer that question if you don't know the answer. > > or that the list of acting ritviks may be added to. > > What would be wrong with this statement? Nothing would be wrong with that statement. It is just not stated in any document. > This is not true, the ritvik representatives were choosen & named in the > July 9th document. Srila Prabhupada did not instruct how to choose the ritviks, he chose them. That is a different thing. You did not name one system of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada where he did not explain how the members should be chosen. > Do you have a quote from Srila Prabhupada to say it is NOT a system of > management? I didn't write that the ritvik system is not a system of management or that it is a system of management. And I don't have to confirm statements which I didn't make. But you claim that the ritvik system is a system of management. So please confirm that. > Why should I reject this statement? > True, the source of the evidence is not so reliable, > but that does not call for rejection. It is supportive evidence. So you believe Tamal Krishna Goswami but neither Satsvarupa das Gosmai nor Sankarsana Prabhu. Who told you to do so? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 11, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Is there any other reason why you don't accept > > Sankarsana Prabhu as an authorized diksa guru? > > 1) He has NO verifiable authorization to initiate. He presented the same authorization that also Srila Prabhupada presented. > 2) His claim to be authorized contradicts the written documented evidence > from July 9th 1977. The July 9th document does not say that no disciple of Srila Prabhupada is authorized to initiate. Rather on April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said that he will authorize acaryas. > 3) By waiting until 2004 to stake his claim to diksa guru authorization he > contradicts Jayadvaita Swami's "Rule of thumb". Thus his claim will be > doubted by all. Srila Prabhupada also waited a long time before he started to initiate disciples. So what do you want to say by above statement? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
