Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja Feb 09, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

 

I can see you have tried your best to change the subject away from your

latest self-contradicitons. But as well as being in a state of

self-contradiction over those last two gaffes, you are now re-contradicting

yourself again over a previous contradiction which I pointed out to you, you

then re-worded to get yourself ‘off the hook’, but have now re-asserted.

Just to remind everyone, you had written:

 

> “I did not write that Srila Prabhupada announced he would stop being the

> diksa guru for ISKCON. So this is a straw man argument.”

(Ramakanta Dec 10, 2005 - 05:09 AM)

 

 

Yet when I answered your question:

 

> “Did Srila Prabhupada announce that he will stop being the sole diksa-guru

> for ISKCON?”

 

Ramakanta Dec 02, 2005 - 10:43 PM

 

 

With the following:

 

"Based on available evidence, which is the only evidence that matters with

regards how ISKCON is meant to run, he did not."

 

You disagreed with me and said:

 

> He announced it:

>

> On April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said, "Yes. I shall choose some guru. I

> shall say, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorized.' I am waiting

> for that. You become all acarya. I retire completely. But the training

> must be complete."

> (By "guru" he meant "regular guru" as confirmed on May 28, 1977 by "When I

> order, 'You become guru,' he becomes regular guru.")

(Ramakanta Dec 03, 2005 - 07:15 PM)

 

Thus you had contradicted yourself.

 

‘He announced it” (Ramakanta das)

 

If you recall when I pointed this out to you, you tried to wriggle out of it

for days on end until finally you changed your position so that in your NEW

POSITION Srila Prabhupada was no longer *the* diksa guru for ISKCON, but

only *a* (one of potentially many) diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

You changed your position here:

 

> 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)

 

I mentioned at the time you shifted position:

 

> you are now saying something quite different from before. That’s fine. It

> rather eccentrically implies the existence of a plurality of diksa gurus

> at that time; fair enough, you should say it how you see it. The curious

> ramifications for your new wording I shall discuss with you once we get

> back to point b), if we ever do.

 

 

Well now its come back to bite you.

 

You have once again slipped back into agreeing with your previous position,

where the singular ‘the’ is used:

 

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

> was *the* sole diksa-guru he set up things like that.

(Ramakanta: 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.)

(Ramakanta Jan 17, 2006 - 07:06 AM)

 

And again just now you imply the same:

 

> 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)

 

Therefore you have contradicted yourself yet again. We will now need to go

back again to clear up this earlier self-contradiction, then sort out your

latest two new gaffes, and then after that I can return to destroying your

latest arguments.

 

Clearly your ‘position’ shifts from day to day. This is simply opportunism.

Every time you are caught contradicting yourself you do the following:

 

Try to bluff that you did not contradict yourself;

 

claim I am wasting time in pointing out your self-contradictions,

 

try to change the subject;

 

claim it is irrelevant for me to point out the fact that you have

contradicted yourself;

 

claim you meant something different to what I thought you meant;

 

Delay explaining what you really meant for as long as possible;

 

then finally, when all else fails, come up with any thing that springs into

your head that you think will get you ‘off the hook’.

 

But then inevitably this leads you into further contradiction.

 

The reason this is happening, the reason you are making such a complete

spectacle of yourself, is because you are trying to defeat the truth. This

is the fault of mental speculation.

 

“That is the defect of the speculators: they contradict themselves.(…) Yes.

So contradiction mean imperfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge means who

sticks to his principles. That is perfect knowledge. One who does not stick

to his original proposal, his knowledge is imperfect.” (Srila Prabhupada,

Immanual kant discussion)

 

best wishes

ys

Yadu