Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja Feb 08, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You ask:

 

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

> ISKCON before he conducted the first initiation ceremony in ISKCON?

 

Oh yes of course. But he was not the sole diksa guru for ISKCON before

ISKCON existed, as you were previously trying to argue.

 

> 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.

 

I provided 11 arguments. the covergence of those arguements proves beyond

all doubt point a). You agreed with the facts, but claimed the conclusion we

drew from those facts was wrong. I am asking you why you think they do not

prove point a). So you need to show WHY our proof is not proof since that is

your claim. I am not shifting the burden, I am inviting you to establish the

basis of your objection.

 

If you contradict yourself twice in a row then you need to clear that mess

up before trying to change the subject, don't you think?

 

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

> Therefore your point a) is unproven.

 

Just because EVERYONE does not accept our position as proven does not mean

it is not proven. Most people in the world do not accept ISKCON’s gurus are

proven to be authorised representatives of God, yet clearly you do. So you

do not follow this standard yourself do you? Anyway the GBC have never

challenged this point. So far you are the first person in the world to do

so.

 

You claim:

 

> 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.

 

This is a classic circular argument:

 

Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON because he was 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.

 

So, the act of setting himself up as the sole diksa guru was not an act of

setting himself up as the sole diksa guru. Crazy statement! It was Srila

Prabhupada who ‘made the streets wet’ through deliberate acts.

 

I have already answered the rest of your points. You must now either:

 

Prove that Srila Prabhupada defined the term ‘founder acaraya’ as an entity

that cannot remain the sole diksa guru for the society he founds.

Or

1) admit your last self-contradiction.

2) Retract it.

3) Then replace it with a new position.

 

The usual procedure in other words.

 

I shall not move on till we deal with your self contradiction. In the past

people were decent and honest enough to concede defeat if they contradicted

themselves in debate. It is a very serious matter. Fatal infact. Yet you

shrug it off as though it were an irritating waste of time that I should

bother you with such things:

 

> You say something contradictory and become angry when this is pointed out.

> (Adi 2.87)

>

> It is a defect of M€y€v€da commentaries that they make one statement in

> one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to

> refute the Bh€gavata school. (Adi 5, 41)

>

> Here is another great fault. You have arranged the word ‘bhav€n…-bhart’

> to your great satisfaction, but this betrays the fault of contradiction.

> (Adi 16.62)

>

> “It is contradictory to hear that Lord Siva’s wife has another husband.

> The use of such words in literature creates the fault called

> viruddha-mati-krt. Adi 16.64

>

> When he heard this judgment from Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the pandita

> sorrowfully wondered why mother Sarasvati wanted to defeat him through a

> small boy. (Adi 16.96)

 

best wishes

ys

Yadu