Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Frankly I only want to discuss what Srila Prabhupada DID do, not what he

> COULD have done.

 

Just for the record: You asked me to explain the difference between "he is

the only diksa-guru" and "only he was initiating". Then you turned my

explanation into a straw man argument by twisting words. And when I caught

you, you said that you don't want to discuss what Srila Prabhupada could

have done. So why did you start the discussion about "could have been"?

 

 

> H.H.Jayadvaita Swami is way better at debate and argument than your good

> self, and yet even he has never produced such evidence, or even made such

> a claim, and he’s meant to be one of the gurus!

 

You cannot prove that you are correct by proving that I am a fool.

 

 

> Since you have not provided any evidence that Srila Prabhupada authorised

> anyone else to initiate within ISKCON my original assertion - point a) -

> stands unchallenged.

 

Basically you are saying, "Srila Prabhupada did such-and-such, and the proof

is that you have no proof that he did not". That is a negative proof, a

logical fallacy.

 

 

> I can show you many letters, resolutions and conversations where Srila

> Prabhupada’s position as the sole initiator within ISKCON is confirmed

> again and again. For example here is a letter to one of Srila Prabhupada’s

> leaders:

> The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am in the initiator guru,

> and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and

> doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come to

> this platform. This I want. (4.Aug.75 letter to Madhudvisa)

 

Okay, you have statements like "I am the initiator guru". Now there are at

least two possible reasons why Srila Prabhupada said that:

 

1) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON, and

it is the etiquette that during his presence no disciple should accept his

own disciples.

 

2) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa-guru of ISKCON.

 

To conclude 2) from "I am the initiator guru" is a logical fallacy called

"affirming the consequent" (If A, then B. B. Therefore, A.). One could

equally conclude 1).

 

Unlike 2) Srila Prabhupada explicitely confirmed 1).

 

 

> Notice Srila Prabhupada says: “I am (in) the initiator guru”, not “I am

> (in) one of the initiator gurus”.

 

Every time you present such a statement, I could present a similar statement

that says the opposite. In this case: He did not say either, "I am the only

initiator guru".

 

PLEASE NOTE: "He did not say either, 'I am the only initiator guru'" is NOT

my argument. Neither the earlier statements that I presented saying "Every

time you present such a statement, I can present a similar statement that

says the opposite". I wrote these statements only to show that such

statements are ludicrous. Sorry, I should have explained that before.

 

 

> Do you have a statement from Srila Prabhupada indicating that he had

> authorised hundreds of diksa gurus, or latent diksa gurus?

 

Again you are asking me to prove a statement that I did not make. When you

ask me to prove something, then please quote my statement so that I and

other readers of this thread know what statement exactly you want me to

prove.

 

 

> The onus is on you to prove there was someone else, apart from Srila

> Prabhupada, who he established as initiator/s within ISKCON. The burden of

> proof is on you, not I.

 

This is the fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof". You commit this

fallacy if you make a claim that needs justification, then demand that the

opponent justify the opposite of the claim. You claim that Srila Prabhupada

established himself as the only diksa-guru in ISKCON, and then you ask me to

prove to opposite.

 

 

> Either provide a proof free from your usual logical fallacies, based on

> Srila Prabhupada's statements, or admit that your claim is unproven.

 

My claim is that your statement "Srila Prabhupada established himself as the

only diksa-guru in ISKCON" is unproven. And I have just shown above that

your statement is still unproven, unless we accept proofs with logical

fallacies.

 

Please note that when I say that statement A is unproven, then I don't claim

that the opposite of A is true (or false), as you might incorrectly

conclude.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa