Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

If you make a statement, then it remains unproven until you provide a proof.

No-one has to say or prove that it is unproven.

 

You have not provided a proof accepted by everyone of your point a).

Therefore your point a) is unproven.

 

Your 11 points are not a proof of your point a) because they are acts done

when Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. So these

acts could not have set him up in the position of the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON. They at most prove the status quo, namely that Srila Prabhupada was

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. And from the status quo you cannot conclude

the act (e.g. your point a)) that caused the status quo. That would be a

logical fallacy. Like for example: "The streets are wet (status quo).

Therefore it rained (act by the demigods)."

 

If you claim that it rained, then you have to provide proof that it rained.

A proof that the streets are wet is not sufficient because the fact that the

streets are wet is not a proof that it rained. It only supports it. There

are other possible reasons why the streets are wet.

 

Similarly, if you claim that Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON, then you have to provide proof of that act. A proof

that Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON is not sufficient

because the fact that Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON is

not a proof that he set himself up as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. It

only supports it. There are other possible reasons why Srila Prabhupada was

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

BTW, you did not answer my question:

 

Do you accept that Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON before he conducted the first initiation ceremony in ISKCON?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa