Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Since ISKCONIRM.COM has agreed to host an official

discussion with Ramakant prabhu. I will cease posting

here so as to not create any diversion.

 

The following was posted by Yadhuraja dasa.

 

Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread Posted:

Oct 30, 2005 - 04:23 PM

 

It is quite extraordinary how Ramakanta prabhu thinks

he has somehow defeated ritvik, when, as we all

recall, he could not defeat the following official IRM

position:

 

a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966.

 

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever

stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru

for ISKCON.

 

Ramakanta eventually agreed with a) and b). Statement

c) is simply the logical outome of a) and b);

therefore technically he accepts our position, unless

he can disprove either a) or b) which he has already

previously agreed with.

 

(P.S. Even Ramakanta's current main argument- around

the conversation with Tamal and Bhavananda- requires

proof defeating a) or b) since whatever we think Srila

Prabhupada may have meant by any given remark, we can

only go by what he actually ESTABLISHED within the

institution of ISKCON to understand what he WANTED. He

never directed the movement by having a conversation

with one or two people, then hope that it was

recorded, then hope that it was audible, then hope

that someone would write a transcript, then hope

against hope that many years later someone would

realise that this conversation was the key to how to

run the entire ISKCON movement. This is surely not

Ramakanta's position since it would be absurd.

Therefore he still requires positive proof in the form

of institutional directives that support his

contention)

 

 

 

Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax

ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja today ..

 

Ramakanta’s position is based on a classic logical

fallacy: ‘trying to prove a negative’.

 

Whilst we wait for Ramakanta prabhu to refute point c)

from my previous post, I wanted to make a general

observation of his stated position and show that it is

based on an illogical argument.

 

The IRM’s position is that Srila Prabhupada

established himself as the diksa guru for ISKCON, and

that there is no evidence he ever ordered anyone to

succeed him in that capacity.

 

As it happens Ramakanta agrees with the above

position:

 

Quote:

“I did not claim that Srila Prabhupada gave anyone

authorization to act beyond ritvik representative, and

I don't have to prove statements that I did not make.”

(Ramakanta Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM)

 

“I agree with you that in the Vedabase it is not

recorded that Srila Prabhupada explicitly authorized

anyone to be diksa-guru.” (Ramakanta Oct 29, 2005 -

08:59 PM)

 

 

However, to get around this lack of evidence for such

successor authorisation Ramakanta presents a classic

logical fallacy. He claims that the IRM must ‘prove a

negative’, i.e., prove that Srila Prabhupada did NOT

do something:

 

Quote:

“On the other hand, you cannot provide any evidence

that Srila Prabhupada gave no-one the authorization to

be diksa-guru. But still you claim that.” (Ramakanta:

Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM

 

“My position is that Srila Prabhupada said that he

will choose and authorize some guru. And that you have

no proof that he did not and never will do.”

(Ramakanta: Oct 14, 2005 - 12:52 PM)

 

“But not everything what Srila Prabhupada said and

wrote is recorded in the Vedabase. And the recording

stopped in 1977. So you have no proof that from 1978

to 2005 Srila Prabhupada did not authorize anyone to

be diksa-guru.” (Ramakanta: Oct 29, 2005 - 08:59 PM)

 

 

The only way to prove that somebody did NOT do

something would be to have that person under 24 hour

surveillance for his entire life. In the case of the

Spiritual Master this surveillance would need to

continue past his physical departure, since he remains

active, and cover all transcendental interactions with

all his disciples all over the world right up to the

present day. That is why such an argument is

illogical. To save Ramakanta future embarrassment I

have posted below an explanation of this logical

fallacy so he can avoid it in the future.

 

Just for the record, the IRM has never claimed that

Srila Prabhupada cannot order someone in the future to

be a diksa guru; only that for this to occur within

ISKCON Srila Prabhupada would somehow need to

personally revoke the orders he left in place, since

he only authorised the ritviks system so far as we

know, as Ramakanta wisely concedes.

 

Krishna can do anything, so it would be possible for

example, for every murti of Srila Prabhupada in the

world to suddenly and simultaneously stand up and

issue a new signed order on initiation for ISKCON. We

cannot discount something like that happening, however

unlikely it may seem. But as numerous members of this

forum have pointed out already, the onus of proof is

always on the person proposing a change to the order

of the acraya, never on those who simply wish to

continue following it.

 

So when and if Srila Prabhupada revokes his order on

initiation for ISKCON perhaps Ramakanta ji would be

kind enough to tell us when, where and how it

happened. Claiming that Srila Prabhupada said he would

do something is not the same as proving that he did do

it. In fact Ramakanta has not even proven the former

since the conversation he constantly refers to (April

22 1977) equates the type of guru in question with the

‘amara’ verse, the purports for which warn ‘It is best

not to accept any disciples’. Until Ramakanta can

prove precisely when, where and how Srila Prabhupada

authorised his replacement as ISKCON’s sole diksa

guru, the final order still stands.

Ys

Yadu

 

Quote:

Negative proof

 

>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the

negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following

form:

 

"This exists because there is no proof that it does

not exist."

 

Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use

of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of

empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue

that something exists simply because there is no proof

to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven

that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that

alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no

evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above)

that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they

might exist, but this alone does not prove them to

exist.

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

> Posted by Yaduraja today ..

>

> Ramakanta’s position is based on a classic logical

> fallacy: ‘trying to prove a negative’.

 

Since you are not able to, maybe Yaduraja can explain why KK Desai should be

considered an authority on guru-tattva?