Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Feb 05, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You wrote:

 

> Currently we are not discussing whether Srila Prabhupada was the sole

> diksa guru for ISKCON or not (the status quo). We are discussing your

> point a) (an activity):

 

Oh no, you don't change the subject so easily with me, you should know that

by now. Nice try though.

 

I am more than happy to discuss whatever you want, but it is being held in a

queue and will be dealt with in turn. We need to sort out your latest faux

pas first. You claim that in my observation that you had…

 

"Provided no evidence that disproves my conclusion drawn from those very

facts."

 

I had made...

 

> the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

 

Wrong again.

 

1-11 support our proposition. You have agreed with the facts but state the

proposition false. If you agree with facts that clearly support a

proposition, but hold the proposition false, then the burden of proof

automatically falls on you since you are the one making the claim that our

proposition is false.

 

We are happy to just let the facts speak for themselves if you do not want

to prove our conclusion false. That’s entirely up to you.

 

But just look again at the first fact you agreed with (omitting the last

sentence since I am not sure whether or not you have accepted my

clarification of the word ‘volition’). Point 1) states:

 

>From the very earliest time in ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada personally conducted

initiation ceremonies in which all the initiates became his disciples. He

did this willingly…

 

The above is simply another way of saying:

 

Srila Prabhupada established himself, willingly, as the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON from its earliest times.

 

Which is all point a) claims.

 

All the elements are there, just look:

 

A)Srila Prabhupada did something.

B)It was deliberate since we both accept everything he did was deliberate.

C)He initiated everyone in ISKCON.

D)Thus he was the diksa guru for everyone in ISKCON.

E)He was the only person doing this, thus he was acting as the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON.

F)He started doing this from ISKCON’s ‘earliest time’. This means from 1966

(September not January by the way).

 

Point 1 is historical fact. It is historical fact that you agreed with:

 

> the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

 

(Ramakanta Nov 20, 2005 - 08:01 AM)

 

Not only did you agree with 1) as factual, you agreed with all 11 facts:

 

> I agree with the facts you listed except "of his own volition". But your

> conclusion from these facts is unproven.

 

(Ramakanta Nov 20, 2005 - 08:01 AM)

 

I answered the ‘volition’ point. You have not challenged my reply. This

means that you agree with every fact present in 1 through to 11. But you

then make a claim:

 

> your conclusion from these facts is unproven

 

Since you are making this claim the burden of proof AUTOMATICALLY falls on

you to prove it.

 

Since 1-11 clearly support point a) then as far as I am concerned you have

agreed with our position. But you say our position, or our conclusion drawn

from these facts, is wrong.

 

Then when I ask you to disprove our conclusion you claim I am shifting the

burden. You have no idea what you doing do you!

 

If you make a claim then back it up or don’t make it.

 

In any case you DID try to disprove it:

 

> Rather, the words "from the very earliest time" indicate that he did it as

> the founder acarya.

 

(Ramakanta Nov 20, 2005 - 08:01 AM)

 

And you even boasted to everyone that you did so:

 

> I refuted your attempts to prove it.

 

(Ramakanta: 25th Jan 06)

 

But you have obviously already forgotten that you did this, or maybe it was

another Ramakanta, who knows, or even cares at this stage?

 

Thus you have contradicted yourself YET AGAIN since you pompously claim I am

shifting the burden when reasonably asking you to prove YOUR CLAIN that our

conclusions are wrong, yet on the other hand boast to the world that you

have done precisely that. But why do that if I was illogically 'shifting the

burden'?

 

And when we look at your so called ‘refutation’ we find it is completely

pathetic since it simply offers a reason for why you think a) is true

(founder acaraya), a reason that does not in any case prevent Srila

Prabhupada from remaining the sole disksa guru.

 

So as I say you are still in a state of self-contradiction and you can add

this latest gaffe to the ever growing list.

 

If you do not have any proof that our conclusion drawn from facts 1-11 is

wrong, then just admit it and concede defeat with some honour still intact.

You will be in very esteemed company in our matrix of defeated challengers

on the home page. They all contradicted themselves and each other too!

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu