Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

After you explained what "Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966

because he was the sole diksa guru" actually means in English, I no longer

agree with that wording. I meant something else.

 

I don't care if you think that I contradicted myself because that would be

no proof of your claim.

 

 

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

> he took.

 

This action was: Srila Prabhupada founded ISKCON as the founder acarya. And

this action is proven. If you claim that there were other actions with the

result that he was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON, then you have to prove

that.

 

 

> To set something up is an action, and we must assume Srila Prabhupada was

> acting deliberately, not as a robot or accidentally.

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, as something. But

"deliberately as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966" is unproven.

 

Srila Prabhupada is the Founder Acarya of ISKCON. This is proven.

 

 

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

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

 

I understood the contradictions that you saw and therefore I withdrew the

statements where you saw contractions.

 

 

> And yet your contradictory statements accept point a) as already proven!

 

Even if I agree with something, that does not mean that it is proven.

Otherwise you could just find a fool who agrees with your point a) and then

announce it as proven.

 

 

Conclusion:

The statement "Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the

position of the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966" is still not proven (by

a statement from Srila Prabhupada).

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa