Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

All what you just wrote is not a proof that Srila Prabhupada set himself up,

deliberately, in the position of the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966 (as

you wrote on November 17, 2005). So it is still unproven.

 

 

> 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 contradicted 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.

 

First, "it is unproven" does not mean "I deny". Second, "it is unproven that

the status quo 1) was caused by the activity 2)" does not mean that there is

no causal link at all. It just says that a causal link from 2) (as the

cause) to 1) (as the effect) is unproven. A causal link from 1) (as the

cause) to 2) (as the effect) is not denied by what I wrote. Is it clear now?

Or do you still see a contradiction?

 

 

> Why would you agree with point a) if you did not think it was proven?

 

I already explained that. I still agree with what I understood, namely that

because Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa-guru he set up things like that.

Or are you claiming that this is not a possible meaning of these statements?

Note that 1) is before 2) and that in real life the cause is before the

effect.

 

 

> 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,

 

There is no contradiction in what I wanted to say. But you may understand it

differently and therefore see a contradiction.

 

 

> retract what you did not mean to agree with, and then post a point a) you

> do agree with then we can continue.

 

I already did that. Why are you asking this again?

 

 

> Otherwise there are six days till lock down.

 

Yes, at any time you can give up, drop out of the discussion and leave your

point unproven.

 

 

> 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.

 

Let us be accurate. I challenge following statement:

 

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

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966." (Yaduraja, November 17, 2005)

 

I especially challenge the word "deliberately". But I do not dispute "and

remained so till 1977".

 

 

> ... the fact that Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole diksa guru

> for ISKCON in 1966 and remained so till 1977.

 

So it is a fact that Srila remained the sole diksa guru until 1977. Do you

mean "only until 1977"? If not, why do you say "till 1977"? Why do you give

a time limit?

 

 

> 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.

 

This is argumentum ad hominem.

 

Since quite some time you are not presenting any attempts to proof your

points except maybe "the proof is because I saw a contradiction in

Ramakanta's statements". How can I recognize proofs if you don't present

any?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa