Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 22, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Sorry you’ve lost me here. You previously made the following statements:

 

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

initiator.”(Ramakanta das)

 

you then make it again in your last reply:

 

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

initiator." (Ramakanta das)

 

but you then say with regards the above:

 

Quote:

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

will be fine.

 

If no then why did you write them?

 

If yes then you must accept point a), since this is the status quo expressed

in point a). Unless you were to argue that this status quo was not

established by Srila Prabhupada, which i think you would be unwise.

 

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

may have existed. Do you not see that the very MOMENT you attempt to explain

WHY something existed then you are AUTOMATICALLY accepting that it existed.

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. Your

evidence for why the status quo was meant to CHANGE is only relevant when we

come to point b), as I have explained several times now. We are still on

point a), and may remain on this point for a very long time by the look of

things.

ys

yadu

 

P.S.

I agree that just repeating something does not make it true. 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. Once we both agree on what Srila Prabhupada established we can then

go on to discuss whether what he established was meant to change, whether he

was authorised to establish it etc etc. But first thing's first.

best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

 

further to my last reply, with regards my statement:

 

Quote:

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.

 

 

you said:

 

"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. "

 

I never said our position was proven by your agreeing. So once again your

latin words are not applicable. 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.

 

Such agreement from you on the status quo simply undermines YOUR own

position since you would be both disputing and agreeing with a point at the

same time.

 

You now say you do not agree with the statements you 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.