Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I am hoping that many of your doubts about our position will be dispelled

> when you finish the NCIP paper (I'm such an optimist) so I’m just

> wondering if you may want to first finish that before we continue.

 

I already read it. I am now discussing with you one of the unproven

assumptions in the NCIP paper.

 

 

> I have explained that our position is based ONLY on evidence that exists

> on Folio, so when I say 'I have seen no such evidence' this means the

> answer must be ‘no’.

 

Are you saying that after 1977 Srila Prabhupada did not do anything because

there is no evidence in the Vedabase and because you can ignore Srila

Prabhupada's statements where he said what he will do?

 

If you want to know what happened after 1977, then you should not look in

the Vedabase because it contains only things that happened until 1977. Isn't

it?

 

So if you are honest, your answer to "Did Srila Prabhupada from 1978 to 2005

order that he stopped being the sole diksa-guru for ISKCON?" must be "we

don't know". What is the use of speculating what Srila Prabhupada did or did

not from 1978 to 2005? Or as you wrote, "I see no purpose in such

speculation."

 

Also, if you base your position on the Vedabase only, then what is the

difference between the time before 2005 and the time after 2005. That year

is not mentioned in the Vedabase. So why did you give two different answers

to my two similar questions?

 

So, can we agree on "we don't know"?

 

 

> You then remind me of Dr. Frog.

>

> But the story of Dr. Frog is not at all applicable here.

>

> It is possible to provide evidence for the existence of the ocean,

 

You cannot prove Dr. Frog the existence of the ocean. His friend tried it,

but did not succeed.

 

 

> yet you have not produced ANY evidence that such an order has been given.

 

You are again committing the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof

(after presenting a negative claim).

 

 

> You have presented highly contentious evidence which could only at best

> prove INTENT to give an order, not the actual order under debate.

 

If you consider evidence in the Vedabase "highly contentious", then why are

you basing your position on the Vedabase?

 

 

> If you are happy with this reply I will go to the next question.

 

No, I do not accept your reply. You will have to change it from "no" to "we

don't know". I accept "no" (or "yes") only from a tri-kala-jna.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa