Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jan 14, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You write:

 

> I never accepted any of your statements as an evidence that Srila

> Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position of the sole diksa

> guru for ISKCON in 1966.

 

I notice you are sneakily trying to introduce new words like ‘deliberately’

and ‘in the position’. Let’s be accurate shall we. This is what you agreed

to:

 

> "I accept your point a) provided you replace it with following statements:

>

> 1) Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from 1966 to 1977.

> 2) Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966."

 

(Ramakanta das Nov 30, 2005 - 10:38 AM)

 

and again here:

 

> This is what we agreed:

>

> Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from 1966 to 1977.

> Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966.

 

(Ramakanta Dec 31, 2005 - 08:36 PM)

 

And again below you qualify the wording you would find acceptable:

 

> Also if you combine these two statements, you have to combine them by the

> word "and", nothing else:

>

> 1) Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from 1966 to 1977.

> AND

> 2) Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966.

 

(Ramakanta Jan 02, 2006 - 04:25 PM)

 

I generously agreed to all the above. The above came after lengthy

negotiation and my presentation of numerous arguments and evidence. But you

then contradict yourself by saying:

 

> Statement 1) describes a status quo and 2) describes an activity. It is

> unproven that the status quo 1) was caused by the activity 2). But your

> combined statement says exactly that.

 

(Ramakanta Jan 02, 2006 - 04:25 PM)

 

Your self-contradition relates directly to point a). Therefore unless you:

 

1) admit your self-contradiction

2) retract it

3) then replace it with a new position.

 

You remain self-defeated on point a), the very point under discussion.

Devotees can decide for themselves whether my arguments and evidence

established point a). But there is no doubt whatsoever that you have

contradicted yourself over this crucial point. If you cannot honestly admit

you have contradicted yourself then how can we ever expect you to admit that

point a) has been proven?

 

So if you maintain the following:

 

> I am determined. I will not discuss with you anything else than your point

> a) until you either admit that it is unproven or you provide a proof that

> I accept.

 

That will be entirely your own choice. In which case I shall request a lock

down on this thread. The whole debate can then be accessed on the home page

where it will join the hall of fame of all the other challengers who

contradicted themselves, each other and Srila Prabhupada over this issue. I

shall give you seven days to decide whether or not you will remain so

‘determined’.

best wishes

Ys

Yadu