Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> So can you please tell me who else, apart from Srila Prabhupada, was

> initiating their own disciples within ISKCON between 1966 and 1977?

 

You should base your arguments on what Srila Prabhupada said, not on what I

think.

 

Srila Prabhupada established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON. From

1966 to 1977 he was the only person in ISKCON who initiated his own

disciples (because he established himself as the founder acarya, not

necessarily because he established him as the sole diksa-guru).

 

From

 

"If Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa-guru, then from

1966 to 1977 he was the only initiating guru in ISKCON"

 

and

 

"From 1966 to 1977 he was the only initiating guru in ISKCON"

 

you cannot conclude

 

"Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa-guru".

 

This logical fallacy is called "affirming the consequent" (If A, then B. B.

Therefore, A.)

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 6, 2005

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You quote me:

 

Quote:

 

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.

 

 

You comment:

 

”Then simply remove statements like "there is no evidence he ever ordered

anyone to succeed him in that capacity" from your argument. Then the fallacy

of trying to prove something by the lack of proof of the opposite will be

removed. “

 

I reply:

 

I note that you have dropped the feeble defence that you were not presenting

an ‘argument’ based on your logical fallacy. Very wise. Also, if you recall,

you have already conceded that I am not doing the same thing as mentioned in

Wikipedia.

 

It is a shame you will not honestly admit that your arguments on this forum

have been illogical with regards asking us to prove a negative. everyone can

now see that this is what you have been doing, it cannot be hidden.

 

To distract attention you now imply that we are making the same fallacy,

when we are clearly not.

 

Let me explain the difference once again for you:

 

1) If there is no evidence for something, in this case Vedabase containing

an order from Srila Prabhupada authorising diksa successor/s (as you have

already conceded), then it is not illogical to state that fact.

 

2) You, however, are attacking our position on the basis of challenging us

to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not do something. You are essentially

saying, ‘although Vedabase does not have evidence of Srila Prabhupada

clearly authorising successor/s, you cannot prove that he did not’. This is

a fallacy. This is your argument!

 

3) We are not asking you to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not do

something; we are asking you to prove that he DID do something, namely

authorise a successor or successors, or at the very least a successor system

for ISKCON’s management to install future initiators in an orderly and

authorised manner.

 

Do you see the difference? If not I’m not sure I can explain it any simpler.

It will be to your credit if you can now honestly concede the point that you

have made fallacious arguments on this forum.

 

You quote me:

 

Quote:

 

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:

 

 

And then you comment:

 

“So you admit that my position is not clear to you.”

 

I answer:

 

I fully admit your overall position is not clear to me at all. Have you

written a position paper, or do you just make your position up as you go

along?

 

You say:

 

“I can confirm that you misunderstood my position. To not correctly

understand the position of the opponent and then to refute what you have

understood is also refuting a straw man argument. (From Wikipedia: Present a

misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that

the opponent's actual position has been refuted.)”

 

I reply:

 

What is clear is that you have made fallacious arguments on this forum. I

have attacked the statements you have made by quoting you verbatim. That is

not straw-man. Aside from your illogical assertions your overall position

remains a mystery to me. Is there more to your position than illogical

assertions then? I do hope so.

 

You say:

 

"Also note that you cannot prove that your position is correct by proving

that my position (what you understood as my position) is incorrect."

 

I agree, that is a logical argument. But we will both more likely be correct

if we base our position on orders Srila Prabhupada actually gave, rather

than asking others to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not do something in

the past, and will not do something in the future. I do hope i will not have

to point this out for a third time.

Ys

Yadurajadas

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

(I will not repeat what I already wrote.)

 

The arguments that you presented as my arguments by quoting my statements

out of context are indeed fallacious. But they are not my arguments. Don't

worry, when I present a statement, I will confirm it by a positive proof.

 

You wondered what my position is. Well, my position is: Many statements by

IRM and IRM members are unproven.

 

For example Sudama Prabhu wrote, "Srila Prabhupada never authorized any of

his disciples to become diksa gurus".

 

Or you wrote, "Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru

for ISKCON in 1966".

 

ys Ramakanta dasa