Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jan 15, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

 

You ask:

 

> 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"?

 

You agreed with the following:

 

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

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

 

You then wrote:

 

> 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).

 

The reason you have contraditcted yourself is that in 2), the phrase ‘that

way’ refers directly to the status quo as outlined in 1).

 

Therefore by agreeing with 1) and 2) but then denying a causal link between

2) and 1) you have contradicted yourself. Why would you agree with point a)

if you did not think it was proven?

 

This is what the words mean in English. You have contradicted statements you

agreed with in the English language, using other English words (and

numbers). It has nothing to do with so-called 'understanding'. The words

mean what they mean.

 

So if you admit that you have done this, retract what you did not mean to

agree with, and then post a point a) you do agree with then we can continue.

Otherwise there are six days till lock down.

 

You are the only person in the world I have ever come across who has

disputed the fact that Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON in 1966 and remained so till 1977. The fact that you have

contradicted yourself over a point that no-one else would even bother to

challenge indicates you will not easily recognise a proof even if it came up

and bit you.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu