Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> So do you agree with the first two statements which you wrote. Yes or no

> will be fine.

 

I did no expect that question because you just wrote, "I never said our

position was proven by your agreeing". But I will answer anyway:

 

I agree with “the status quo from 1966 to 1977 was that Srila Prabhupada was

the sole initiator”, but "he established himself (deliberately set himself

up) as the sole initiator" is unproven.

 

Do you see the difference between "was" and "established himself

(deliberately set himself up) as"? The first describes a status quo. Whereas

the second describes a past activity.

 

For example:

Robinson Crusoe was the only white man on the island.

Robinson Crusoe established himself (deliberately set himself up) as the

only white man on the island.

 

Do you see the difference? Do you see that the first statement it true,

whereas the second one is incorrect?

 

 

> Unless you were to argue that this status quo was not established by Srila

> Prabhupada, which i think you would be unwise.

 

Now you got it. But whether you consider it wise or unwise is not the

question.

 

 

> You keep on making the same mistake by trying to explain WHY that status

> quo may have existed.

 

You misunderstood me. It is just the opposite: I am trying to explain to you

that from the status quo ("he was the sole initiator") you should NOT

speculate the reason (e.g. "he established himself as the sole initiator").

 

 

> It is irrelevant what your ideas may be about WHY that status quo existed

> since point a) ONLY sets out what the status quo WAS, not WHY it was.

 

That is incorrect. Your statement "Srila Prabhupada established himself as

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966" describes a claimed activity in 1966

("established himself"), a speculated reason, not a status quo ("was").

 

 

> That is why I just gave 11 separate supporting arguments, all of which

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

> diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966.

 

I have shown that these 11 arguments are not proofs that Srila Prabhupada

established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. You wrote

that they are supporting. But I want to see proofs, free from fallacies.

 

 

> Once we both agree on what Srila Prabhupada established we can then go on

> to discuss whether what he established was meant to change.

 

Let us agree on following statement: From 1966 to 1977 Srila Prabhupada was

the sole initiator (diksa-guru initiating his own disciples) for ISKCON.

 

 

> I know you are very eager to try to find a logical fallacy in our position

> after your 'prove a negative' fallacy was exposed to the forum.

 

I thought we agreed to discuss this later. Anyway here is my reply:

 

You quoted me as follows:

“On the other hand, you cannot provide any evidence that Srila Prabhupada

gave no-one the authorization to be diksa-guru. But still you claim that.”

(Ramakanta: Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM)

 

This quote is taken out of context. It was my response to Mark who on Oct. 1

claimed, "No one within ISKCON has been authorised by Srila Prabhupada to

give diksa". And it was not a logical fallacy to state that Mark cannot

prove his claim.

 

Then you quoted me as follows:

“My position is that Srila Prabhupada said that he will choose and authorize

some guru. And that you have no proof that he did not and never will do.”

(Ramakanta: Oct 14, 2005 - 12:52 PM)

 

The first statement is a fact. And I have provided a positive proof by

quoting from the May 28 conversation. So this was not a negative proof.

 

The second statement was my response to Bhakta David who quoted Krishnakant

arguing that Srila Prabhupada did not order anyone to become diksa-guru. And

it was not a logical fallacy to state that there is no proof for

Krishnakant's claim.

 

Then you quoted me as follows:

“But not everything what Srila Prabhupada said and wrote is recorded in the

Vedabase. And the recording stopped in 1977. So you have no proof that from

1978 to 2005 Srila Prabhupada did not authorize anyone to be diksa-guru.”

(Ramakanta: Oct 29, 2005 - 08:59 PM)

 

Also this quote is taken out of context. It was my response to Sudama who on

Oct. 28 claimed, "Srila Prabhupada never authorized any of his disciples to

become diksa gurus". And it was not a logical fallacy to state that Sudama

has not proof for his claim.

 

Generally, merely to say "you have no proof for such-and-such" is just a

statement (which can be true or false). It is not a logical fallacy. One

commits the logical fallacy "negative proof" only if one presents a proof

(as then name of the logical fallacy says), that means an argument. And an

argument consists of one or more premises (the reason), a proposition (the

conclusion), and an inference (one or more statements that lead from the

premises to the conclusion).

 

So if you still claim that I presented a negative proof, then please quote

my assertion where I asked the opponent to proof the contrary, or in other

words, quote the premise(s), the proposition, and the inference that I

presented.

 

 

> You now say you do not agree with the statements you made regarding the

> status quo,

 

You are speculating! I did not write that I don't agree with the statements

I made regarding the status quo.

 

 

> so now i am beginning to wonder if there are two Ramakanta's, one who

> posts arguments and statements, and another who has to come along later

> and deny they were ever his.

 

What is the purpose of such statements?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa