Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Feb 10, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You complain:

 

> What is the purpose of your last text? Do you want to prove something with

> it? Is it an attempt to prove your point a)? IMHO, it was a waste of time.

>

> If you see a contradiction in my words, then you misunderstood me. I will

> not write that I contradicted myself because I did not. Seeing

> contradictions in my words is not a proof of your position.

 

You should be grateful that i do this for reasons I have explained several

times. You cannot defeat our position by defeating your own position time

and time again. It is certainly a waste of time to put forward positions and

then contradict them. You keep contradicting yourself, and then refusing to

admit you have contradicted yourself, claiming everything is a

misunderstanding, and then putting up new positions that you then

re-contradict later on. Its complete madness!! So what is the

misunderstanding here, please clear it up:

 

Is your position that Srila Prabhupada was a diksa guru for ISKCON?

 

Or that he was...

 

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON?

 

You changed position here to avoid a self contradiction:

 

> So my answer to your question is: By "... stop being the diksa guru for

> ISKCON" I meant "... stop being a diksa guru for ISKCON". I did not mean

> "... stop being the sole diksa guru for ISKCON".

 

(Ramakanta: Jan 06, 2006 - 06:18 AM)

 

But now you claim he was the sole diksa guru. Which means your previous

self-contradiction emerges once more to bite you.

 

Here is yet another contradiction. Previously you stated with regards point

a):

 

> No, it is incorrect. It is speculation based on observation. Especially

> the word "sole" is speculation.

 

Ramakanta (Nov 04, 2005 - 11:32 AM)

 

But now your position has shifted back to:

 

> I still agree with what I understood, namely that because Srila Prabhupada

> was *the sole* diksa-guru he set up things like that. Jan 16, 2006 - 08:59

> AM

>

> I understood "Srila Prabhupada set things up that way in 1966 because he

> was *the sole* diksa guru". (I still agree with that.) Jan 17, 2006 -

> 07:06 AM

> And again just now:

>

> 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. (Ramakanta Feb 09, 2006 - 11:56 AM)

 

So it’s a double self-contradiction. Then there are the two latest

self-contradictions that you claim you cannot see. Here they are again for

you:

 

Contradiction 1 in a nutshell:

 

You claimed you refuted my arguments supporting a) yet you agree with all

the facts which, taken together, prove a). Your so-called refutations

(‘founder acaraya’ and ‘he was the only diksa guru available’) are both

irrelevant: In point a) we are establishing WHAT Srila Prabhupada did not

WHY he did it. Furthermore your ‘refutations’ only lend further support to

a) as I explain again below.

 

Here is the detail:

 

This is the section of point 1 of the 11 arguments I offered in support of

a):

 

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...

 

You had boasted how you had refuted all my arguments establishing point a).

The above is the first of those arguments that you claim you refuted.

However it is just an historical fact. One you agreed with:

 

> Of his own volition" is incorrect. (…) 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.

 

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

 

Above you do not dispute the facts as stated in point 1): ‘I agree with your

statement’. (I have taken out the word ‘volition’ for the sake of progress

not because it is incorrect.) But you dispute the conclusion drawn from the

fact. Yet they are one and the same.

 

The fact is identical with the conclusion.

 

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. In fact I would happily exchange the above

wording for point a) since they are interchangeable.

 

All the elements are there, just look again:

 

A) Srila Prabhupada did something.

B) We both agree that however he set things up it 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.

 

You then misguidedly offer, by way of refutation, what you think is the

reason WHY this fact is so. ‘He did it as the founder acarya’. So in effect

all you are doing is giving a reason for why you think our position is

correct. Thank you.

 

As I already explained, whether or not you are correct, the reason WHY 1) is

true is not relevant to point a). In other words the issue is not WHY Srila

Prabhupada 'did it' as you say, but just that he 'did it' (set himself up as

the sole diksa guru for ISKCON).

 

Point 1) and point a) simply state historical fact without giving a reason.

 

Therefore your ‘refutation’ is irrelevant to point 1) above, and thus to

point a) of our overall position.

 

You are ‘refuting’ something that neither 1) nor a) seeks to establish. Thus

logically, whether or not you are correct, both 1) and a) would still stand.

 

Furthermore, if you insist on arguing that being the ‘founder acarya’

necessitates that from the ‘very earliest times’ one would also be the ‘sole

initiator’, then I for one will certainly not argue with you. You are simply

offering a reason for the fact that Srila Prabhupada was the ‘sole

initiator’ for ISKCON from the earliest times. You say 'he did it' as the

founder acarya. OK, no problemo!

 

So you admit 'he did it', and then you say why you think he 'did it'.

 

And since:

 

It was Srila Prabhupada who set things up that way: 'he did it'.

 

And since:

 

We now both agree that however he set things up, it was deliberately.

 

Thus:

 

In effect you are agreeing once again with point a) and my statement of Nov

17th where I paraphrased point a) to which you took such enormous exception.

Only you are offering a REASON for WHY you think a) is true.

 

The only possible way your so-called ‘refutation’ would impact negatively on

our position is if you could show how the facts in 1-11 do not prove point

a), or prove that Srila Prabhupada defined the term ‘founder acarya’ as

someone who must inevitably be succeeded as the diksa guru for his own

institution. You have done neither. Indeed you have petulantly declared that

to do the former would be to accept an illogical shifting of burden, and

with regards the latter you wrote:

 

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

 

I never said you did make such a statement. I am saying it is your only

possible way out of self contradiction. You have now slammed shut your last

possible escape routes from self defeat.

 

Your other argument: ‘that he was the only diksa guru available’ also only

strengthens our position. If he was the only one available, then he must

have set himself up as the sole diksa guru since there was nobody else to do

it. Thanks again. Don’t you see, every time you try to defeat the truth you

just keep confirming it and contradicting yourself? When will you ever

learn?

 

In conclusion

 

You have:

 

Agreed with all the facts I presented in support of a).

And

Provided two additional facts (‘founder Acarya’ and ‘only diksa guru

available’) that do not, in themselves, effect our conclusion drawn from

said facts, but merely lend further support.

 

Since all the facts together prove a) and since you have also claimed you

strongly disagree with point a), you are thus once again in a state of

self-contradiction.

 

 

Contradiction 2 in a nutshell.

 

When I asked you to substantiate your claim that points 1-11 did not prove

a) you claimed I was illogically shifting the burden, yet you had already

attempted to refute the 11 points and even boasted that you had done so,

thus accepting the burden you now claim was never logically yours to accept.

 

The details:

 

I had claimed that you had:

 

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

facts."

 

to which you wrote:

 

> This is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

 

Yet you had previously already tried to disprove those points, and even

boasted you had done so.

 

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

> the founder acarya.

 

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

 

> I refuted your attempts to prove it.

 

(Ramakanta: 25th Jan 06)

 

Therefore you contradicted yourself.

 

If I am illogically shifting the burden then why did you illogically take on

that very burden by trying to disprove points 1-11?

 

Hope that is clearer for you now.

 

I have identified more self-contradictions you have made in relation to

point b) which I shall be bringing up if we ever get to it, so you will have

to get used to this.

 

Generally in a debate such serious self-contradictions (particularly number

1) would lead to a gentlemanly, honourable withdrawal by the perpetrator.

But all you can do is whinge about me pointing out your self-contradictions,

say it is a waste of time, try to bring up loads of pathetic distractions,

and deny you are contradicting yourself when clearly you are, over and over

and over again. Well if you do not like having your self-contradictions

exposed to the world I suggest you stop trying to disprove the truth.

 

I shall deal with all your other distractive points in due course. Fear not.

 

So contradiction means childish. (Srila Prabhupada April 19 , 73 morning

walk)

 

Best wishes,

Ys

Yadu

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

Just a quick bonus point. I had written:

 

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

authorised representatives of God, yet clearly you do."

 

To which you wrote:

 

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

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

 

You wrote previously:

 

> My gurus are Harikesa and Prabhupada.

 

(Ramakanta Nov 27, 2005 - 05:58 AM)

 

If you accept Harikesa as your guru then you must accept he was authorised

to act as such. A diksa guru is God’s representative and must be authorised

to act as such. Harikesa’s authorisation came via exactly the same body, the

GBC, and via the same set of contradictory position papers that authorised

every other guru in ISKCON. Harikesa vehemently supported the GBC’s guru

rubber stamping approval process, and therefore so must you. Therefore if

you accept him as authorised then you must accept all ISKCON gurus as

equally authorised since they were all authorised via exactly the same

process and with exactly the same philosophical justification. This process

and justification was fully and ruthlessly enforced by Harikesa, so you must

also accept it if you are his disciple, which you claim you are.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu