Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON of

> his own volition

> ...

> Srila Prabhupada establishing himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

> 1966

> ...

> supporting the fact that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole

> diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966

 

Now you are committing the logical fallacy "argumentum ad nauseam"

("argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition"). This is the

fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no

matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or

less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to

state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the

repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

 

 

> I meant that after having been so authorised or ordered, Srila Prabhupada

> established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON of his own volition,

> in other words he willingly and deliberately took the position he was

> authorised or ordered to take. Free will exists by which one could choose

> NOT to act as authorised or ordered. In acting willingly with the orders

> he was given Srila Prabhupada establishing himself as the sole diksa guru

> for ISKCON in 1966.

 

Can you please confirm by a quote that Srila Prabhupada has been authorized

or ordered to established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

 

> Whatever reason you may want to give for WHY that status quo existed (and

> I have noted your idea), the fact is you must agree that it DID exist.

 

The status quo from 1966 to 1977 was that Srila Prabhupada was the sole

initiator. And there is more than one possible reason why he was the sole

initiator. One possible reason is because his disciples were not supposed to

initiate their own disciples. Another possible reason is that he establish

himself (deliberately set himself up) as the sole initiator. It would be the

logical fallacy "non sequitur" ("it does not follow") to conclude from

"Srila Prabhupada was the sole initiator" that he establish himself as the

sole initiator, or to conclude that his disciples were not supposed to

initiate, or to conclude that any other possible reason is the truth.

 

If any of these statements is wrong, please tell me which one.

 

 

> You then go on to confuse point b) with point a):

>

> “If Srila Prabhupada had established himself as the sole diksa guru for

> ISKCON (also for the time after his departure)”

>

> We will discuss what provisions Srila Prabhupada made ‘for the time after

> his departure’ NEXT. That comes under point b).

 

You misunderstood my statement because you did not carefully read it. I

wrote "also for the time after his departure", and that does not exclude the

time before his departure. So I am removing the reference to the time after

his departure and state following:

 

If Srila Prabhupada had established himself as the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON, then on April 22, 1977 he would not have said that he will choose

and authorize some guru.

 

Anyway, here is another evidence:

 

If Srila Prabhupada had established himself as the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON, then he would not have written following:

 

"Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate

disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate

and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program." (Letter to

Hamsaduta, 3 December, 1968)

 

I know Krishnakant's speculation and mind reading that in this letter Srila

Prabhupada meant "as ritviks". But even if Srila Prabhupada had meant "as

ritviks", then still he would not have written above. As a meticulous person

he then would have added "as ritvik representatives" or similar.

 

Please also note the word "generations" (plural). This means disciples,

grand disciples, great grand disciples, etc. Not just Srila Prabhupada and

his disciples.

 

 

> finally, praise the Lord, you have agreed:

>

> “The status quo from 1966 to 1977 was that Srila Prabhupada was the sole

> initiator.”(Ramakanta das)

 

If you had carefully read my text, then you would have noticed that I do not

agree. I wrote "I do not agree as I have just shown." So I repeat: I do not

agree that Srila Prabhupada established himself (deliberately set himself

up) as the sole initiator for ISKCON.

 

 

> So prabhuji, whenever you claim we have not proven point a) I shall just

> keep on posting the above sentence where you state it as a fact.

 

This is the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" ("argument from

inappropriate authority"). Even if I agreed, that would not mean that it is

proven. Please base your arguments on what Srila Prabhupada said, not on

what I agree with. I do not accept proofs that are based on my statements.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa