Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 25, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

I had asked:

 

If Srila Prabhupada did not establish the status quo in which he operated as

the sole diksa guru from 1966 to 1977, then who or what did?

 

You reply:

 

Quote:

“It is also unproven that someone or something established Srila Prabhupada

as the sole diksa-guru for ISKCON.”

 

 

My question for you is:

 

If someone or something did not establish the status quo in which Srila

Prabhupada operated between 1966 and 1977, then how did it manifest?

 

Something cannot come from nothing.

 

You used the example of Robinson Crusoe who found himself on the island as a

result of a shipwreck.

 

So are you saying that one day Srila Prabhupada just woke up and was

suddenly surrounded by an institution he did not establish, and adoring

disciples he had never met who all forced him into being the diksa guru?

 

Did ISKCON just appear by chance, out of nothing, with no cause, no

organiser? What are you trying to say, you’ve lost me.

 

I only ever claimed B supports A. Srila Prabhupada had already established

himself as the diksa guru long before he wrote to Madhudvisa or gave the

radio interview. He was not the sole initiator BECAUSE he wrote to a GBC

member that he was, he already was. But both those evidences logically

support A as you concede:

 

“I agree that in our case "B supports A" is not fallacious.”

 

Therefore the evidence, as I used it, is not a non sequitor.

 

Your task, if we ever get onto point B will be to prove that C (Founder

Acharyaship) by definition limits the status quo to pre 1978. That will be

interesting.

 

If you ask someone to prove a negative then you are making a logical

fallacy. To defeat Mark you should show where Srila Prabhupada DID appoint a

successor. Whenever devotees on this forum make such claims as ‘Srila

Prabhupada never said or did that’ they are writing on the basis of

available evidence. Do you want someone to sit down with you and read

through the entire folio every time they make such a comment to prove it is

correct? Easier is for you to produce positive evidence that Srila

Prabhupada did do whatever is under question. You will not prove anything by

simply committing a fallacy.

 

This is the story so far on this fallacy issue:

 

First you made these fallacious ‘prove a negative’ arguments on our forum.

 

Then when I challenged you, you said they were not actually arguments.

 

Then when I showed you they were arguments, you then agreed they were

fallacious arguments but they were not yours and had in any case been taken

out of context.

 

Then I challenge you to show how the context makes them logical.

 

Then when we see the context again they remain challenges to prove a

negative, which is still a fallacy.

 

If you make a fallacious argument then you should be honest and take full

resposibility for it, not blame it on the way someone else expressed

themselves, which in any case you have still not countered with positive

evidence to the contrary.

Best wishes,

Ys

Yadu