Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja

 

 

> 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:

 

I could not yet defeat the 'official IRM position' because that discussion

has been interrupted because of a failure of the IRM forum.

 

 

> a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON

> in 1966.

 

More correct and confirmed by Srila Prabhupada is that he established

himself as the 'Founder Acarya of ISKCON', especially for the time after his

departure.

 

 

> b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa

> guru for ISKCON.

 

This is an unproven statement. You can only say that it is not recorded in

the Vedabase that Srila Prabhupada ordered that he should ever stop being

the diksa-guru for ISKCON.

 

And if you conclude from this that Srila Prabhupada is still initiating

disciples in ISKCON, then this is a ludicrous argument. Remember, every time

you present a statement that begins with "Srila Prabhupada did not say" or

similar, I can present a similar statement that says the opposite. For

example: Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should continue being the

diksa-guru for ISKCON after his departure, therefore he stopped being the

diksa-guru for ISKCON on his departure.

 

 

> c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

This is speculation by your imperfect brain, unconfirmed by guru, sadhu and

sastra.

 

If you accept this kind of logic, then you must also accept following

argument:

 

a) Since Madhvacarya the acaryas stopped initiating disciples on the earth

when they departed.

 

b) Srila Prabhupada never said that he changed that system. Rather during 10

years he described that system and several times he said that he did not

change anything.

 

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada stopped initiating disciples on the earth when

he departed.

 

BTW. Do you think that something is wrong with the answer from the bhakta in

following story? If yes, then why are you using such an argument ("Srila

Prabhupada did not say ...")?

 

Once Srila Prabhupada visited a temple and told one bhakta, "From now on you

wait at the door of this room and whenever I ring the bell, you immediately

enter". So the bhakta did that. After some days Srila Prabhupada again left

the temple, but that bhakta was still sitting at the door of Srila

Prabhupada's room and doing nothing. When asked by the temple commander what

he is doing there, why he does not do any service, the bhakta replied, "This

is my service. This is Srila Prabhupada's instruction, and he did not tell

me that I should stop doing it".

 

 

> Ramakanta eventually agreed with a) and b).

 

Even if I agree with a statement, that does not mean that it is correct

because we both could be wrong. Please base your arguments only on what

Srila Prabhupada said (not on what he did not say), and on sadhu and sastra.

 

 

> Statement c) is simply the logical outcome of a) and b);

 

Srila Prabhupada does not agree with you:

 

"It has been described in the Bhagavata that tarko 'pratisthah. If you want

to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and

argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man,

but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very

strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all

conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical

conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not

possible. Tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinnah." (Bg. 3.21-25 Lecture, New

York, May 30, 1966)

 

You misunderstood Srila Prabhupada's words because you did not follow his

instruction that we must always compare guru with sadhu and sastra:

 

"You have to corroborate whether guru, what guru is speaking, whether it is

there in the scripture; what scripture is speaking, whether that is in the

character of guru, or in the sadhu, saintly persons, or spiritual master. So

you have to always make comparison with three things: sadhu, sastra, guru."

(CC Madhya 20.119-121, New York, November 24, 1966)

 

 

> therefore technically he accepts our position, unless he can disprove

> either a) or b) which he has already previously agreed with.

 

I don't agree. And even if I accepted your position, that would not mean

that it is correct.

 

 

Ramakanta

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Ramakanta’s position is based on a classic logical fallacy: ‘trying to

> prove a negative’.

 

You have defeated yourself:

 

You wrote, "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".

 

Then you quoted Wikipedia, "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.'"

 

I know that your fallacy is not exactly what you and Wikipedia described,

but it is very similar: Trying to prove something by the lack of proof of

the opposite.

 

 

> He claims that the IRM must ‘prove a negative’, i.e., prove that Srila

> Prabhupada did NOT do something:

 

You defeated a straw man argument.

 

I did not say, "Srila Prabhupada authorized some guru. Please prove the

opposite". Your straw man said that.

 

Rather, Sudama wrote, "Srila Prabhupada never authorized any of his

disciples to become diksa gurus". And I replied, "prove that claim!". Just

that, no argument. I suggest you carefully read what I wrote.

 

 

> 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.

 

What about statements in Srila Prabhupada's book and letters where he

authorized disciples to be guru if some conditions are fulfilled? Actually

such statements exist, but since you are reading Srila Prabhupada's work

only through the glasses that Krishnakant has given to you, you are unable

to see them.

 

 

> Just for the record, the IRM has never claimed that Srila Prabhupada

> cannot order someone in the future to be a diksa guru

 

Does IRM claim that Srila Prabhupada never authorized any of his disciples

to become diksa guru?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa