Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I notice you are sneakily trying to introduce new words like

> ‘deliberately’ and ‘in the position’.

 

Let’s be accurate shall we. On Nov. 17, 2005 you wrote:

 

> a) I mean Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position

> of the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966.

 

I want you to prove that statement or admit that it is unproven.

 

 

 

> 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."

 

After you explained what you understood by "Srila Prabhupada set things up

that way in 1966", I realized that you understood something different than

I. I understood "Because he was the sole diksa-guru He had no other choice

than to set things up that way". So I no longer agree with the sequence of

words "Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966" because you

understand something different than I. Note that I still agree with what I

understood.

 

 

> Therefore unless you:

> 1) admit your self-contradiction

 

What do you exactly mean by "self-contradiction"? For example, if I say "I

agree with X" and "X is unproven", do I contradict myself just because you

misunderstand "X is unproven" as "I deny X" or "I do not agree with X"?

 

 

> 2) retract it

 

By stating that I no longer agree with the sequence of words "Srila

Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966" I already removed the possibility

of any contradiction that you might see.

 

 

> 3) then replace it with a new position.

 

My position is: What you wrote on Nov. 17, 2005 is unproven, namely that

Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position of the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966.

 

I agree with: Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON from 1966

to 1977.

 

I no longer agree with the sequence of words "Srila Prabhupada set things up

that way in 1966".

 

 

> You remain self-defeated on point a)

 

Even if I self-defeated myself millions of times, this would be no proof

that Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position of the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966 (as you wrote on Nov. 17, 2005).

 

 

> If you cannot honestly admit you have contradicted yourself then how can

> we ever expect you to admit that point a) has been proven?

 

This is argumentum ad hominem.

 

Even if admitted that point a) has been proven, that would not mean that is

has been proven. (Otherwise you could simply find some fool who admits that

it has been proven and then announce it as proven). It has been proven only

if someone provided a proof free from speculation and logical fallacies. Not

in any other way.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa