Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 12, 2005:

 

dear Ramakanta prabhu,

PAMHO AGTSP,

 

I had said:

 

Quote:

Since you have not provided any evidence that Srila Prabhupada authorised

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

stands unchallenged.

 

 

you say:

 

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.”

 

OK, for the fourth or fifth time. There are dozens of statements from Srila

Prabhupada indicating he was the only initiating guru within ISKCON. The

Final Order proves he left things so this would simply continue. Please read

the first chapter of TFO called THE EVIDENCE. Our position is not based on

asking you to prove something DID NOT happen. We are asking you to prove

that something DID happen, namely that Srila Prabhupada authorised

successors. Our proof is not that you have no proof that he did not do

something. Will I have to explain this yet again?

 

I had quoted a letter where Srila Prabhupada refers to himself as the only

in intiator:

 

Quote:

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)

 

You reply:

“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). “

 

I respond:

 

In 1) above Srila Prabhupada would still have established himself as the

sole initiator within ISKCON between 1966 to 1977 which is point a) of the

IRM's position.

2) above is more or less a repeat of point a) only omitting the year in

which he did it.

 

Your challenge is to prove that Srila Prabhupada authorised new initiator/s

to replace him. Do you have a shred of relevant evidence for this? Why not

post your very best piece of evidence for this just to prove to us all you

are not just speculating about what Srila Prabhuupada ‘COULD’ have done.

 

I had said with regards the letter to Madhudvisa:

 

Quote:

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

one of the initiator gurus”.

 

 

You claim:

 

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

statement that says the opposite.”

 

OK, then please post a quote from Srila Prabhupada where he says he is one

of several initiators within ISKCON. That would be the 'opposite'.

You say:

 

“In this case: He did not say either, "I am the only initiator guru".”

 

I respond:

 

In English the sentence quoted uses the singular ‘the’. Singular as in ‘the

only one’. This matches our position and contradicts the idea of a plurality

of diksa gurus.

 

You say:

 

”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. “

 

Sorry, you lost me here.

 

You quote me:

 

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

authorised hundreds of diksa gurus, or latent diksa gurus?

 

and you say:

 

“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.”

 

You said had said:

 

"There could have been hundreds of authorized diksa-gurus, but none of them

initiating his own disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada was present because

that is not the etiquette." Ramakanta: Nov 09, 2005 - 05:15 AM

 

Above is your claim, that something COULD have occured. If you cannot prove

that it DID oiccur then it is a useless statement, and you would do well to

retract it.

 

Before you said:

 

“I did not claim that Srila Prabhupada gave anyone authorization to act

beyond ritvik representative” (Ramakanta Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM)

“

Which is a safer position I think.

 

you quote me:

 

Quote:

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.

 

 

and then you claim:

 

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

fallacy if you make a claim that needs justification."

 

The claim I make (point a) is agreed by both the GBC and IRM. If both

parties to a dispute agree then it is not a claim that needs to be proven.

You have also said:

 

“I did not claim that Srila Prabhupada gave anyone authorization to act

beyond ritvik representative” (Ramakanta Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM)

 

"From 1966 to 1977 he (Srila Prabhupada) was the only person in ISKCON who

initiated his own disciples".

 

Both claims support our position that Srila Prabhupada established himself

as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. Now we need clear evidence from

you that proves:

 

Srila Prabhupada authorised disciple/s to succeed him as the diksa guru for

ISKCON.

 

Do you have such evidence, yes or no?

 

If yes then please post your very best piece of evidence, and if no then you

will need to accept the status quo, as established by Srila Prabhupada.

Thanks

Ys

Yadu