Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 28, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta , PAMHO. AGTSP!

I had written:

 

"We say Srila Prabhupada established this status quo on the basis of the 11

points I gave previously, do you have any evidence that we are wrong"

 

You reply:

 

Quote:

I already presented the evidence: I showed that these 11 points prove only

that Srila Prabhupada was the sole initiator. And I wrote that it is a

logical fallacy to conclude from this that he deliberately set himself up as

the sole initiator.

 

 

I am glad we agree that the 11 points I presented prove that Srila

Prabhupada was the sole initiator for ISKCON between 1966 and 1977.

 

However, they also proved that Srila Prabhupada himself set things up like

that. You will notice that all 11 points involve instructions given by Srila

Prabhupada to his movement, either through his books, management directives,

approved GBC resolutions, letters to GBC members etc etc.* All come from

Srila Prabhupada, nobody else. Therefore it was clearly no accident that

Srila Prabhupada was the sole initiator, he deliberately made ISKCON run

that way because he was the Founder of the institution, and as such by

definition he alone had final say over how everything, including

initiations, were run.

 

Therefore if Srila Prabhupada was the only diksa guru in ISKCON between 1966

and 1977, then this is a status quo he must have set up, brought into

existence or established. He was the Founder, and therefore, while he was

present at least, he set up, put in place, inaugurated, institutionalised,

established (please pick whichever word you prefer) the status quo which had

himself as the only person (or sole person) initiating disciples in ISKCON.

That is all point a) says. This status quo existed between 1966 and 1977 as

you have agreed, therefore it started in 1966.

 

Your position seems that this status quo was meant to cease sometime AFTER

November 14th 1977. (Please correct me if this is NOT your position, and

while you are about it maybe you could present your position as a paper so I

don’t keep being accused of twisting what your position is). This issue of

what instructions you think justify successor gurus will be dealt with if we

ever get to point b).

 

Given the above I cannot for the life of me understand why you cannot just

agree that Srila Prabhupada established (or set himself up) as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. Even if you agree with a) you will still be

able to challenge the notion that this status quo should have continued

AFTER 1977 when we get to point b).

 

You say:

 

Quote:

You did not reply to my refutation of your 11 points. Rather you keep saying

again and again that you gave 11 points. This is argumentum ad nauseam.

 

 

Above you accepted that my 11 points prove "that Srila Prabhupada was the

sole initiator” between 1966 and 1977.

 

All the 11 points I gave described management systems, orders and

instructions given directly or approved by Srila Prabhupada, therefore if

you agree the 11 points prove he was the sole initiator, then you must also

accept that this was Srila Prabhupada’s doing. He set things up that way. I

honestly think you are not doing yourself any favours by arguing against

this most obvious point, but I guess that is for your friends to point out

to you.

 

You once again assert:

 

Quote:

It is unproven that someone has deliberately set up this status quo.

 

 

But if you do NOT accept that someone or something "deliberately set up this

status quo" then you would be implying that the status quo you agree existed

came about by chance or accident (something devotees do not even accept

exists-‘chance’ I mean). That is certainly the implication of your Robinson

Crusoe analogy. In other words Srila Prabhupada found himself within a

status quo, just as Robinson Crusoe found himself ship-wrecked on an island.

 

Prabhu, I think you need to think your position through more carefully.

Maybe if you wrote it down, in full, it would help you to iron out the

problems. Perhaps you could get some help, though unfortunately the person

you say is one of your guru's may not be much use since he recently

advocated…

 

“An understanding of spirituality as distinct and free from ‘religion’ as we

know it today. The freedom of the soul and the soul’s inherent right to have

a direct and deep loving relationship with the supreme without a need of

dis-empowering itself to any form of intermediate

‘representative’ of God.”

(Harikesa das on http://www.earthfuture.se/lectures.)

 

Perhaps H.H Jayadvaita Maharaja can assist you since he is very good at

debating and according to your camp is meant to be a member of the disciplic

succession coming from Lord Brahma. At least he still agrees that there

should be gurus, unlike the person you say is one of your gurus.

 

I had said:

 

Unless you can prove that someone or something else established this status

quo then your right to challenge us is severely weakened. You are

challenging us for proof, so what is your proof for an alternative?

 

You quote Krishnakant prabhu:

 

"Whenever any CLAIM is made, the burden of proof rests on the party making

the claim. One cannot simply ASSUME that the claim being made is true. One

needs to provide evidence in order to prove the claim. Until this is done,

the claim remains simply a speculation."

 

You then say:

 

Quote:

I fully agree with that. So it is sufficient to state that your claim is

unproven and to refute your attempts to prove it.

 

 

The 11 points prove:

 

1) Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru in ISKCON between 1966 and 1977.

And

2) It was Srila Prabhupada who set things up that way since all the orders,

instructions etc., came from him and him alone.

 

You have agreed with 1 and you have not proven that someone or something

else set up 1. Unless you prove that 1 was the work of some other party,

then 2 stands un-refuted since all 11 points came about as a result of

orders and instruction issued or approved directly by Srila Prabhupada.

 

You say:

 

Quote:

I have a proof for an alternative. But let us first finish a point before we

jump to other points.

 

 

I fully agree that we can discuss your ‘alternative’ once we get to point

b), if we ever do before one of us dies of old age. Oh dear, I think I am

older than you!

 

I had said:

 

"As one of your gurus said: “Evidence that doesn’t exist is no evidence at

all.”

 

you respond:

 

Quote:

My gurus are Harikesa and Prabhupada. Which one of them said that?

 

 

Well, as you saw above Harikesa das does not accept even the principle of

guru any more. Do you accept that H.H.Jayadvaita is a bona fide member of

the disciplic succession? If you do then why do you not accept his

statement?

 

Either way I shall not allow you to get away with appeals to non-existent

evidence with regards what should be standard practise within ISKCON. So be

warned.

 

I shall deal with the issue of your fallacious 'prove a negative'

argumentative challenges in a separate posting.

Best wishes,

Ys

Yadu

 

*You made some comments on the 11 points which I did not reply to since in

your summary you only disputed the point on 'volition' (which I answered),

but there are things you have not properly understood about those 11 points,

mainly since i did not elaborate them.

 

For example point 11 refers to where Srila Prabhupada describes in the C.c

(which is meant to be applicable for up to 9,500 years) that after following

strictly for 6 months the temple president recommends the new initiate for

initiation(C.c Madhya Lila 15:108, purport). This can only occur if there is

just one initiator who everyone is familiar with on joining ISKCON. With the

new, bogus, multiple acarya successor system, or M.A.S.S. as we call it,

this system is IMPOSSIBLE. ISKCON law now states that for the first six

months new initiates take shelter of Srila Prabhupada, then AFTER that they

can then look for a new ‘guru’ and can only be initiated after a minimum of

six months under the shelter of that ‘guru’.

 

That means that in the system described in Srila Prabhupada's books someone

can get first iniutiation after six months, whereas in the new, unauthorised

system the minimum time period is one year.

 

Therefore the system described in the books directly mirrors the ritvik

system with just ONE initiator, and is completely different (double the time

for first initiation) under the new, unauthorised system. This SUPPORTS our

position; that the system in place PRE-1977 should remain UNCHANGED in order

to comply with Srila Prabhupada's statements about initiation WITHIN ISKCON,

in his books. It supports a single Acarya system, and as it happens it was a

single Acarya system that Srila Prabhupada established with him as that

initiating Acarya. I don't think you knew what I was referring to so I hope

that is clearer now.