Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> OK, for the fourth or fifth time. ... Will I have to explain this yet

> again?

 

Don't think that I am stupid just because I cannot well express my thoughts.

 

 

> There are dozens of statements from Srila Prabhupada indicating he was the

> only initiating guru within ISKCON.

 

Please present your very best piece of evidence for: Srila Prabhupada was

the only guru within ISKCON initiating his own disciples because he

established himself as the only diksa-guru in ISKCON, and for no other

reason (e.g. because he established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON,

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

his own disciples).

 

BTW. You correctly wrote, "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.

 

I have read it. It is just speculation of the type "Srila Prabhupada said A.

Therefore we can conclude B", or more often "Srila Prabhupada did not say C.

Therefore we can conclude D".

 

 

> 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.

 

If you say "Srila Prabhupada did such-and-such and the proof is

such-and-such", then this is okay. But if you say "Srila Prabhupada did

such-and-such, please prove the opposite", then this is the logical fallacy

of 'shifting the burden of proof'. So please don't commit this fallacy and

ask me to prove the opposite of your statements.

 

 

> 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.

 

So do you accept that one of the possible reasons why between 1966 and 1977

Srila Prabhupada was the only person in ISKCON initiating his own disciples

is because he established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON, and it is

the etiquette that during his presence no disciple should accept his own

disciples?

 

 

> Your challenge is to prove that Srila Prabhupada authorised new

> initiator/s to replace him.

 

That is a straw man argument. My challenge is that some of your statements

are unproven.

 

 

> 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 misunderstood me! When I write for example "I could say that the moon is

made of cheese", then this does not mean that I claim that the moon is made

of cheese, only that I could make such a stupid statement.

 

 

> You 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 occur then it is a useless statement, and you would do

> well to retract it.

 

There could have been hundreds of authorized diksa-gurus, because Srila

Prabhupada was an authorized diksa-guru and as such he was authorized to

make authorized diksa-gurus (hundreds if required). But as we already

agreed, let us discuss this later (or never).

 

But why are you quoting my explanation out of context and turn it into a

claim? You only make a fool out of you.

 

My complete statement was:

 

The difference between "Srila Prabhupada was the only/sole diksa guru in

ISKCON from 1966 to 1977" and "From 1966 to 1977 he (Srila Prabhupada) was

the only person in ISKCON who initiated his own disciples" is that 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.

 

I could equally quote following statement from you out of context:

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

ISKCON".

 

 

> Before you said: ... and then you claim: ... You have also said: ...

 

Please base your arguments on what Srila Prabhupada said, and on sadhu and

sastra. I don't accept proofs that are based on my statements.

 

 

> 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.

 

I am not representing the GBC or IRM. And I don't agree with your statement

that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa-guru in ISKCON.

He established himself as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON (or 'first

diksa-guru' in case you don't like the words that Srila Prabhupada used).

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa