Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I have not said that Srila Prabhupada’s establishment of himself as the

> Founder Acharya of ISKCON was entirely unrelated to his also being the

> sole initiator. So as you would say: I do not have to prove a position I

> have never claimed.

 

You presented following statements:

 

A: Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966.

 

B: Srila Prabhupada said that he is the initiator in ISKCON, and similar.

 

Then you claimed "A because of B". But this is true only if A is the only

reason for B (if one could state "if and only if A, then B"). So you have

actually indirectly claimed that A is the only reason for B. Therefore I

asked you for an evidence that A is the only reason for B. Of course you

cannot present such an evidence because I have already presented another

reason for B. Therefore your statement A is based on the logical fallacy

called "non sequitur" ("it does not follow").

 

Now you said "I have not said that Srila Prabhupada’s establishment of

himself as the Founder Acharya of ISKCON was entirely unrelated to his also

being the sole initiator". "Being the sole initiator" is different from

"established himself as the sole initiator". I agree that Srila Prabhupada

was the sole initiator (initiating his own disciple), but "he established

himself as the sole initiator" is unproven. The first is just a fact. But

the second is an activity, speculated by you.

 

 

> We do, however, claim he established himself as the sole initiating guru

> for the institution he founded in 1966:

>

> “I am the spiritual master of this institution, and all the members of the

> society, they’re supposed to be my disciples. They follow the rules and

> regulations which I ask them to follow, and they are initiated by me

> spiritually”. (Srila Prabhupada radio interview. March. 12. 68.)

 

This is the same logical fallacy. Another possible reason why Srila

Prabhupada said that is because in 1968 there was no other guru available

and in 1968 his disciples were not supposed to accept their own disciples.

 

In an earlier text you wrote:

 

"He never directed the movement by having a conversation with one or two

people, then hope that it was recorded, then hope that it was audible, then

hope that someone would write a transcript, then hope against hope that many

years later someone would realise that this conversation was the key to how

to run the entire ISKCON movement."

 

Can I apply this also to radio interviews? Did Srila Prabhupada direct the

movement by giving statements in radio interviews?

 

 

> Even if you could prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that Srila Prabhupada

> had authorised hundreds of diksa gurus to take over the second he

> departed, they would not have been diksa gurus between 1966 to 1977. Hence

> Srila Prabhupada would still have established himself as both the founder

> Acarya AND sole diksa guru for ISKCON, at least till his departure.

 

I agree with following statement:

 

Srila Prabhupada is the Founder Acarya of ISKCON and from 1966 to 1977 he

was the only diksa-guru for ISKCON initiating his own disciples.

 

 

> It may be we already agree and it is just a language problem.

 

"Establish" has several meanings, but I think none of them is really

applicable here. Which one of the meanings do you mean?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa