Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jan 23, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

you wrote:

 

> 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.

 

But you agreed with point a) THREE TIMES. Point a) has 2) as the cause of

1). Since you agreed with this THREE TIMES I saw no point in proving it. why

go to all the trouble of proving something yet again when:

 

A) Our main opponent the GBC have never queried it.

B) Ramakanta prabhu agreed with it three time.

 

Then when you tried to explain how you really did not agree with it you

still agreed with it, and then you did the same again!!

 

You have only just presented a new position that does not agree with a)

which I shall dismantle too in due course.

 

If I did not take the time and effort to keep pointing out your self

contradictions then you would still have at least two stated positions in

this debate that did not reflect what you say you now really, really, really

mean. So you should be exceedingly grateful that I keep forcing you to

clarify your position, but I must confess you do not seem very grateful at

all. You write:

 

> Do you have a proof? If yes, why don't you present it? If not, then I have

> defeated you.

 

I just laughed when I read this. You've got chutzpah I'll give you that. I

shall certainly re-prove our position, a position you agreed with THREE

TIMES and which no-one aside yourself has ever challenged on this planet,

after we deal with the self-contradiciton issue.

 

> > If you do not think you have contradicted yourself, and it is just my

> > imaginings, then why not stick with what you wrote. The fact that you

> > keep changing your position means:

>

> My position is still the same: Your claim that Srila Prabhupada set

> himself up, deliberately, in the position of the sole diksa guru for

> ISKCON in 1966 is unproven.

 

Still ‘the same’ as it was five minutes ago. Ha! You are funny. How can your

position be 'the same' when even you admit you removed statements that I saw

as contradictory:

 

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

> statements where you saw contractions.

 

If you keep having to withdraw contradictory statements then obviously your

STATED position cannot be said to remain 'the same'. Please look up the word

'same'.

 

> You can defeat me regarding this point only if you provide a proof. Not in

> any other way. So don't waste time.

 

Yes don't worry, you shall experience defeat upon defeat, but remember it

was you who did not want the debate to move forward when I generously

offered a revised point a). So first things first.

 

 

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

> > > the statements where you saw contractions.

> >

> > I am sure you would not withdraw them unless you saw them to. So can I

> > take the above as an admission that you contradicted yourself twice in a

> > row and that you DO care really, contrary to what you claim above?

>

> No.

 

But why withdraw statements then? Why not leave them all in place if you are

not conceding they are contradictory? If you withdraw statements only

because I claim I saw something contradictory, not becuase you agree they

ARE contradictory, then why not withdraw your opposition to the continued

application of Srila Prabhupada's July 9th altogether? I see that as highly

contradictory I can assure you. Yet you don't seem so keen to do that do

you? So clearly you are removing statements which you can see ARE

contradictory. Only you are not honestly admitting that this is what you are

doing. Is this not the case?

 

If you will not admit you made self-contradictory statements then we’ll need

to go through the whole thing all over again. You must realise and fully

appreciate how you have contradicted yourself in the English language. See

it as further education if you like:

 

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.

 

So please explain how the above was NOT a contradiction.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu