Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 28, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

 

You say:

 

Quote:

“If you think I made a fallacious argument, then please quote the entire

argument (the premises, the proposition and the inference) that I

presented.”

 

 

Your ‘argument’ was expressed in the crude form of a challenge, as you say:

 

Quote:

“It is a legitimate challenge to ask the opponent to prove the claim he

presented...”

 

 

Had you taken more time and trouble over ‘the premises, the proposition and

the inference’ of your argument then it's possible it would not have been

fallacious. It’s not my fault your argument was poorly constructed.

 

If your challenge was not at least part of an argument* then what were you

doing, agreeing? If you want to now say that you were not opposing Sudama or

Mark prabhu’s statements with counter argumentation then I’m happy to accept

that and we can drop the issue. But this will be hard since you have just

written:

 

Quote:

“It is a legitimate challenge to ask the opponent to prove the claim he

presented...”

 

 

A challenge is an argument, and you have just said that to make such a

challenge as you made was 'legitimate'.

 

The claim made by forum members was that Srila Prabhupada never explicity

appointed or authorised anyone to be guru in ISKCON. This claim is based on

AVAILABLE evidence on folio and is agreed by many devotees on both sides of

the guru issue. It is even agreed by 'gurus' within ISKCON who are meant to

be bona fide representatives of the Supreme Lord Krishna. Here is a

statement from one such ‘guru’:

 

Quote:

 

"And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said "Alright here is the next

acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorised gurus for

the Movement, for the world". He did not do that." (Ravindra Svarupa das,

San Diego debate, 1990)

 

 

here’s another:

 

Quote:

"Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. (...) You cannot show me

anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: 'I appoint these

eleven as gurus.' It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus.

This is a myth." (His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja. (Pyramid

house confessions).)

 

 

and another:

 

Quote:

"The evidence is incontrovertible, its thorough, its exhaustive, its

accepted by just about everyone, we do not need to argue that. Srila

Prabhupada did not appoint anyone to be guru for the future, he appointed

ritviks to continue in his presence. That much is accepted by everyone."

 

"Srila Prabhupada did not appoint anyone to be guru for the future, he

appointed ritviks to continue in his presence. That much is accepted by

everyone." (His Holiness Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja (San Diego 1990).)

 

 

You have also admitted that there is no explicit authorisation from Srila

Prabhupada for anyone to be diksa guru in ISKCON:

 

Quote:

“I did not claim that Srila Prabhupada gave anyone authorization to act

beyond ritvik representative, and I don't have to prove statements that I

did not make.” (Ramakanta Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM)

 

“I agree with you that in the Vedabase it is not recorded that Srila

Prabhupada explicitly authorized anyone to be diksa-guru.” (Ramakanta Oct

29, 2005 - 08:59 PM)

 

 

(I understand that part of your counter argument is based on quotes which

you claim prove intent. Namely that Srila Prabhupada INTENDED to choose some

diksa gurus. But that is not the same as claiming there is evidence of him

actually DOING the choosing. I'll explain more on this if we ever get to

point b))

 

Despite your constant appeals to non-existent evidence as somehow useful to

your argument, in reality we can only meaningfully discuss evidence which

exists. I shall not entertain any appeals from yourself to phantom evidence,

or possible evidence, only real evidence that is on folio.

 

And that is what Sudama and Mark’s claims were based on, evidence that

exists on folio. Thus perfectly reasonable and provable. The GBC have had 27

years to find a clear, explicit authorisation from Srila Prabhupada for a

disciple, or disciples to initiate within ISKCON, and as yet have never

produced one. The GBC’s entire position now rests on the phrase ‘disciple of

my disciple’ which they fail to mention was preceded by the conditional

‘when I order’, the very 'order' we asked them to provide.

 

Thus aside from that one tiny phrase taken out of its sentence, everyone,

the gurus, the IRM, Ramakanta, now agree that there is no available evidence

where Srila Prabhupada explicitly authorised diksa gurus to succeed him. If

you think you have such evidence then you can present it when we get onto

b). If you present such evidence I shall certainly apologise to you and

retract any arguments I may have made against your position, including this

‘fallacy’ one, and I'm sure the GBC will be very grateful to you. They may

even make you a diksa guru.

 

Now, lets look at an example of your response to a member of this forum who

simply asserted that which has been largely conceded and agreed by members

of both camps and yourself, and which is provable by reading through folio.

Let’s look again at an examples of your so-called ‘legitimate challenge’:

 

Quote:

“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.”

(Oct 14, 2005 - 12:52 PM)

 

 

The claim made by members and supporters of the IRM is based on what is

available on folio, and so is perfectly reasonable and provable. Read

through Folio and you won’t find such an explicit authorisation. That is the

proof. Your response to a reasonable assertion was a challenge to prove a

negative. Whereas, to properly counter such a claim you should produce

positive evidence to the contrary.

 

Your argument in the form of a challenge is thus:

 

In order for me (Ramakanta) to accept that Srila Prabhupada did not

authorise gurus you must not only prove he did not do it in the past, but

also that he will not do it in the future.

 

At the very least can you not see that challenging someone to prove that

Srila Prabhupada will NOT do something in the future is completely

illogical? If you cannot at least see that then I give up trying to explain

it to you. We’ll just have to let the devotees reading this decide for

themselves.

 

*("a discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a

proposition, proposal, or case." Definition of the word 'argument' as given

in the Collins English Dictionary)

best wishes

ys

Yadu