Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> > 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.

 

Thanks. I assume you are not claiming that before Srila Prabhupada conducted

the first initiation ceremony in ISKCON he was the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON by accident. So why was he? Which one of following is the reason?

 

1) Srila Prabhupada is the founder acarya of ISKCON and no other diksa guru

was available. (Directly confirmed by Srila Prabhupada. Proven without

doubt. Accepted by everyone.)

 

2) Srila Prabhupada set himself up as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. (Not

directly confirmed by Srila Prabhupada. Not proven or proven only by a

logical fallacy. Not accepted by everyone.)

 

I don't expect an answer from you. Let the other readers of this thread

decide themselves.

 

 

> But he was not the sole diksa guru for ISKCON before ISKCON existed, ...

 

Of course not.

 

 

> ... as you were previously trying to argue.

 

This is a false accusation.

 

I wrote:

> You wrote that Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the

> position of the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. But this is possible

> only if in 1965 Srila Prabhupada was not the diksa guru for ISKCON. So

> please prove by a statement from Srila Prabhupada that in 1965 Srila

> Prabhupada was not the diksa guru for ISKCON, or in your claim replace

> "1966" with "1965".

 

This is in no way a claim that Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON before ISKCON existed. (Where did you learn English?) You then

replied that "ISKCON" started in 1966 confirming it by quotes. This was the

proof that I asked you for, and that closed this point for me. So what are

you talking about now?

 

I then wrote:

> Note that although ISKCON has been incorporated in 1966, it already

> existed in 1965. This is confirmed by Srila Prabhupada who in a lecture on

> March 2, 1975 said: "And thus this movement was started in 1965 from New

> York".

 

Are you challenging Srila Prabhupada's statement? That's not a very good

idea. Or are you claiming that by "this movement" Srila Prabhupada did not

mean ISKCON?

 

 

> 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 explained that in my last text. Please carefully read it again, or let

someone whom you trust and who understood it explain it to you.

 

And please don't twist my words. I did not claim that the conclusion you

drew from those facts was wrong. Rather, I wrote that it is a logical

fallacy.

 

 

> 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?

 

Yes, but I did not contradict myself. You misunderstood me.

 

 

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

> it is not proven.

 

Yes. And just because some persons accept your position as proven does not

mean it is proven.

 

If you want to effectively revive ISKCON, then you have to provide proofs

that ISKCON accepts. Isn't it?

 

 

> Most people in the world do not accept ISKCON’s gurus are proven to be

> authorised representatives of God, yet clearly you do.

 

Please quote my statement where I said that I do. Otherwise please refrain

from writing such speculations ("yet clearly you do"). Thanks.

 

 

> 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.

 

What is the purpose of this statement? To prove something? To waste time?

 

 

> > 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.

 

Pardon?

 

 

> > 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.

 

You misunderstood me. If Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru

for ISKCON since the foundation of ISKCON, then later he could not have set

himself up again as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. One cannot make the

street wet if they are already wet. Is it clear now?

 

 

> It was Srila Prabhupada who ‘made the streets wet’ through deliberate

> acts.

 

Please provide a prove of these deliberate acts that happened at the time

(not later) when Srila Prabhupada became the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

 

> 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.

 

Since we are discussing your point a) I assume you mean "remain the sole

diksa guru from 1966 until 1977". If you mean "after 1977", then this is

your point c) which we can discuss later.

 

As I already wrote, I agree that Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa for

ISKCON from 1966 until 1977.

 

And as I already wrote too, Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa for ISKCON

because he is the founder acarya of ISKCON and because no other guru was

available.

 

I don't have to prove statements that I did not make.

 

 

> Or 1) admit your last self-contradiction.

 

Sorry, I don't see a self-contradiction. But I admit that it is possible

that you see contradictions in my words (or anyone's words).

 

I do not agree with your point a). I never did.

 

You wrote:

> 1) 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 and of his own volition.

 

I wrote:

> ... Otherwise I agree with your statement. But this does not prove that

> Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole initiator. Rather, the

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

> acarya.

 

Even if I agree with the fact mentioned in your point 1) (except "on his own

volition"), this does not mean that I agree with your point a). If you think

that 1) proves a) and therefore you see a contradiction in my words, then

that is not my fault. So please first provide a proof accepted by me that

the fact mentioned in your point 1) proves your point a).

 

 

> 2) Retract it.

> 3) Then replace it with a new position.

 

Please quote the statement that you want me to retract. Please tell me the

new statement that you want me to write instead.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa