Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

> BTW. What is the use of opinions? Even you presented two different

> opinions:

>

> "Srila Prabhupada established himself as the Diksa Guru of ISKCON" (April

> 18, 2005)

>

> "Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

> 1966." (November 1, 2005)

>

> Better accept what Srila Prabhupada wrote.

 

Yes, like for instance the May 28 conversations with the GBC, where

Prabhupada makes it clear, that he wanted his disciples to TAKE THEIR OWN

disciples. What kind of intellectual retardation must one suffer from to not

be able to understand that?

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 4, 2005:

 

dear Ramakanta prabhu,

 

Our discussion is following two threads now simultaneously, one dealing with

our (IRM's) official position (a,b and c) and the other dealing with my

allegation that you have presented a logical fallacy. To make things run a

little quicker i shall treat these as two seperate threads and I shall

attempt to answer your points in the order they appear in each one.

Otherwise it will take forever for me to get to answer all your points. So

below I post my response to your response to my posting entitled:

 

Ramakanta’s position is based on a classic logical fallacyPosted: Nov 02,

2005 - 01:09 PM

 

Dear Ramakanta prabhu, thanks for your reply posted: Nov 03, 2005 - 05:03

PM.

 

You claim I have defeated myself with regards:

 

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

prove a negative’.

 

You comment:

 

> ”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.”

Ramakanta: Nov 03, 2005 - 05:03 PM.

 

I reply:

 

I am glad you said our position is different from the one described in

Wikipedia. It is different in that it is not based on proving, or rather

challenging others to prove a negative. We are not proving that Srila

Prabhupada is the diksa guru for ISKCON on the basis that there is no

evidence to the contrary. We base our position on EXISTING instructions

Srila Prabhupada gave to the institution establishing himself as its sole

diksa guru. If you take the time to read The Final Order you will see that

the first chapter is called ‘The Evidence’, and contains positive evidence,

not just statements challenging others to prove Srila Pabhupada did not do

something. We also mention that there is no existing evidence countermanding

these positive instructions that are applicable to the whole institution

with regards initiation.

 

On the other hand you appear to substantiate your position (which I admit is

far from clear to me) on the basis of challenging us to prove that Srila

Prabhupada did NOT do something as here:

 

> “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

 

Your position is thus at least partially based on the idea that we ‘have no

proof that’ Srila Prabhupada ‘did NOT’ do something. That ‘something’ being

the authorisation, either in the past or the future, of a successor diksa

guru or gurus for ISKCON. This is identical to the fallacy described in

Wikipedia. Not only are you challenging us to prove that Srila Prabhupada

did not do something in the past, apparently we must also be able to prove

he will not do something in the future. So your position is quite absurd.

Instead of admitting your mistake you launch the following feeble defence by

way of a distraction:

 

You say:

 

> “Sudama wrote, "Srila Prabhupada never authorized any of his disciples to

> become diksa gurus". And I replied, "prove that claim!". Just that, no

> argument.”

Ramakanta: Nov 03, 2005 - 05:03 PM.

 

It is simply disingenuous for you to claim, as you do above, that you are

not trying to present an ‘argument’ here. Let us look at the following

exchange between you and Sudama prabhu:

 

> The evidence is the entire body of Srila Prabhupada's writings. I submit

> to you therefore, the entire contents of the Vedabase, which do not

> contain one single instance of Srila Prabhupada authorizing any of his

> disciples to become diksa gurus. Sudama.

 

 

You replied to Sudama thus;

 

> ”I agree with you that in the Vedabase it is not recorded that Srila

> Prabhupada explicitly authorized anyone to be diksa-guru.

 

> 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)

 

Above you are clearly trying to undermine Sudama’s position on the basis of

challenging him to prove Srila Prabhupada did not authorise anyone to

succeed him. You are saying we have no proof that Srila Prabhupada did NOT

do something, namely authorise gurus, therefore we are wrong to claim what

we do. This challenge is an argument, and a fallacious one as explained.

 

Unless you are challenging or ‘arguing’ against the idea that Srila

Prabhupada should remain the diksa guru for ISKCON (and hence imply that

another guru has somehow been authorised to take his place) why say: “So you

have no proof that from 1978 to 2005 Srila Prabhupada did not authorize

anyone to be diksa-guru.”

 

If you are not arguing against our position, then what on earth are you

doing on this forum? So contrary to your accusation I did not present a

straw man argument; rather I quoted verbatim fallacious arguments you have

made on our web site to challenge our position. You use your illogical,

prove a negative, arguing technique in the most preposterous ways, such as

the following:

 

> “And you have no proof that following did not happen:

> Srila Prabhupada authorized some disciples to be guru and put it in

> writing. But when the eleven ritviks saw that they were not on the list,

> they destroyed the paper. Or the paper was lost for some other reason.”

(Ramakanta: Oct 29, 2005 - 08:59 PM)

 

This is such an appalling example of debate it beggars belief. It seems

there is practically no scenario, no matter how absurd or fantastically

baseless, you would not rather entertain than the very simple, straight

forward one that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the diksa guru for

ISKCON via signed documentation.

 

If Srila Prabhupada ever manifests himself to revoke the written directives

for ISKCON and replace them with new ones then perhaps you will let us know.

In the meantime we do not accept any ISKCON guru as authorised. We must try

to follow the orders Srila Prabhupada did give, not sit dreaming and

speculating about ones he may have given in the past for which there is no

evidence, and others he may somehow return to give in the future.

 

So in summary:

 

Our position is based on existing instructions from Srila Prabhupada

establishing him as the sole diksa guru for the institution, along with the

observation that there is no existing evidence to the contrary regarding

what was meant to be standard managerial policy within ISKCON (both points

you will have to concede I think)* Whereas one of your key arguments is

based on challenging us to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

Please be honest and admit your mistake so we can move on to some of your

stronger points.

 

May thanks

Ys

Yadu

 

*I shall deal with your point regarding positive evidence for disciple

authorisation next.