Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jan 19, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP,

 

OK then, I am withdrawing my offer regarding the re-wording of point a)

since it does not appear to interest you. You should not confuse leniency

with weakness.

 

I had written previously:

 

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.

 

To which you wrote:

 

> “First, "it is unproven" does not mean "I deny".

 

I then asked you why you agreed with something which you thought was not

proven, to which you wrote:

 

> “I understood "Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966 because he

> was the sole diksa guru". (I still agree with that.)

Ramakanta das Jan 17, 2006 - 07:06 AM”

 

To which I would make the following points:

 

A) In 2) above nothing is said about the reason WHY Srila Prabhupada set

things up that way, it just says he ‘set things up that way’. Giving your

speculative reason for WHY is therefore irrelevant to point a), the point

under discussion.

 

B) In your Jan 17th version of 2), which I never wrote or agreed to but

which you somehow ‘understood’, you seem to be saying:

 

Because he was the sole diksa guru, and therefore had no choice BUT to set

things up that way, he therefore set things up that way. (Please tell me if

I have misunderstood your position here.)

 

But you can only be the ‘sole diksa guru’ for an institution if you have

already set things up like that. He could not be the sole diksa guru for an

institution that did not exist. If there was just one other diksa guru in

the world then he would not be the sole diksa guru in any general sense.

Therefore we can only say for certain that he was only the sole diksa guru

within the context of ISKCON. If there was no ISKCON he would not be ‘the

sole diksa guru’ for it. As soon as ISKCON existed he was then the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON, but not before. Therefore he became the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON after he had set things up like that, not before. So your

hastily cobbled together explanation for how you ‘understood’ point 2) does

not actually help you out of your self-contradiction.

 

C) Also if we examine what you claim you ‘understood’, you are in any case

STILL admitting that Srila Prabhupada DID set things up that way. You admit:

 

“Srila Prabhupada set things up that way”

 

The word ‘that’ refers to the status quo expressed in 1).

 

This is all 2) states, yet you contradictorily claim that there is no proven

causal link between 2) and 1).

 

D) To ‘set things up’ is a deliberate act. Yet you contradicted even what

you now claim you ‘understood’ when you wrote:

 

> "I especially challenge the word "deliberately".

(Ramakanta das Jan 16, 2006 - 08:59 AM)

 

Unless you now want to argue that Srila Prabhupada set things up like that

accidentally, not deliberately.

 

E) Your argument is also circular, another classic logical fallacy. To

paraphrase, you are saying:

 

Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole diksa guru because he was the

sole diksa guru.

 

But he was only the sole diksa guru for ISKCON because he set things up that

way. In theory he could have chosen not to set up an institution called

ISKCON at all; or he could have chosen to set up ISKCON with someone else as

the sole diksa guru; or he could have chosen to have no-one as the diksa

guru- just siksa gurus etc, etc.

 

So in summary:

 

Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON as a result of actions

he took. To set something up is an action, and we must assume Srila

Prabhupada was acting deliberately, not as a robot or accidentally.

The reason WHY he took those actions are not relevant to point a) as

expressed in 1) and 2).

 

You are STILL contradicting yourself in exactly the same way as I explained

FOUR TIMES PREVIOUSLY. You are still agreeing with:

 

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

2) Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966

 

Only with the absurdly redundant and illogically circular caveat that Srila

Prabhupada only set himself up as the sole diksa guru because he was the

sole diksa guru. A point which is also utterly irrelevant since it still

accepts that he set things up that way, which is all 2) claims.

 

When you write:

 

> “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.”

 

By saying ‘I no longer agree’ you are admitting that you used to agree with

something, but now you do not. But why do you no longer agree with something

you used to agree with if you do not agree you contradicted yourself? And

yet you still refuse to honestly admit you contradicted yourself. And, as we

have seen, even with what you claim you 'understood' you still contradicted

what you had agreed with.

 

Most fatally for you in terms of credibility in this debate, even your

all-new, revised, carefully considered, revamped explanation for what you

‘understood’ and thought you were agreeing to (and hence must have been

proven in your own mind) still admits that Srila Prabhupada DID set things

up that way:

 

“I understood "Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966 because he

was the sole diksa guru". (I still agree with that.) Jan 17, 2006 - 07:06

AM”

 

So since you still, IN EFFECT, agree with point a) as expressed in 1) and 2)

above, then why on earth should I need to prove it yet again to you,

especially when you seem to be the only person on the planet perplexed by

this simple, basic, common sense point. In any case above are yet more

arguments proving our position (‘deliberately’ etc).

 

And all the while you are telling me to stop pointing out your

contradictions and prove point a). And yet your contradictory statements

accept point a) as already proven!

 

You are sort of half admitting you contradicted yourself by saying ‘I no

longer agree’, but then you keep slipping back to trying to justify why you

didn’t really contradict yourself according to what you ‘understood’ (which

was not what we had agreed), and in that way you just keep digging yourself

deeper and deeper into a deep, dark hole, instead of setting off to the

‘base camp’ of the IRM’s gleaming, robustly mountainous position which you

are supposed to be conquering.

 

If you cannot understand this contradiction point I am concerned you may

have trouble understanding other points I may make proving our position?

That is why I keep pushing it.

 

So in conclusion:

 

You agreed with point a) but then contradicted yourself by saying an element

of it was unproven (the causal link between 2) and 1).

 

You then tried to explain how what you ‘understood’ by point a) (which was

never expressed in the English language) was not contradictory. Yet this

presented yet another new contradiction over the word ‘deliberately’ and

simply confirmed your original self contradiction.

 

In trying to establish the above you also presented a circular argument,

which is a classic logical fallacy.

 

So you remain self-defeated on point a).

 

You may want to concede defeat to save further embarrassment. You have so

far suffered the same fate as all the other ‘gurus’ and GBCs’ who have tried

to dispute Srila Prabhupada’s rightful status as ISKCON’s sole diksa guru.

 

Now, don’t you just wish you’d and accepted my generous new version of point

a), instead of trying to score a cheap point? Too late.

Ys

Yadu

 

(P.S. you also clearly have no idea what the correct definition of an ad

hominem argument is. After we’ve sorted the above out I can explain this to

you if you like. Otherwise you have twice falsely charged me with making

them when, according to the English definition, I did not. I am not sure

what the definition is in Ramakantese though).