Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Feb 21, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

You wrote:

 

> Srila Prabhupada said:

> "As the Vedanta-sutra (2.1.11) declares, tarkapratisthanat: 'Logical

> reasoning is inconclusive.'" (NBS 74, purport)

>

> And at www.dictionary.com "speculation" is described as "reasoning based

> on inconclusive evidence."

>

> So when you wrote "This is just simple logic", you actually said "This is

> just simple speculation". Does this answer your question?

 

You have simply repeated your claim that I have speculated. But you have not

explained how my statement ‘that you must accept ISKCON gurus as authorised’

is incorrect. I based my assumption on your statement that Harikesa is your

diksa guru. I am not speculating, therefore, about the nature of the

absolute truth (the subject of the quote) I am drawing a logical conclusion

from a statement you made about your spiritual authority. Therefore your

quote is irrelevant. As they say 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.

I can give you quotes showing logic is vital. Without logic how can any sort

of rational discussion continue?

 

And of course you contradict yourself yet again on methodology since you you

have 'speculated' that I cannot prove point a) just because I have yet to

address your latest argument:

 

> “Thus you confirmed that this is unproven.”

 

Thus you have optimistically drawn a conclusion (or if I had done it you

would no doubt claim ‘speculated’) from something I have yet to address and

have never ‘confirmed’, so surely you will allow me the tiny luxury of

basing my conclusion on what you DID state. That Harikesa is your diksa

guru.

 

So please explain how my conclusion was incorrect. Please do not simply

repeat the accusation as you have just done, which is simply another tactic

you frequently use to avoid answering difficult questions.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu