Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

You are evading my challenge to prove your claims.

 

 

> It is often quite difficult to pin down exactly what your position is

 

Since you now realized that, I suggest you stop speculating about my

position and simply ask me instead. Please also note that you cannot prove

your claims by discussing my position.

 

 

> > I do not accept any statement that contains any trace of intention to be

> > the SOLE diksa guru. Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru, but there

> > is no proof that he intended to be the SOLE diksa guru.

>

> The direct implication of the above assertion is that:

>

> even though Srila Prabhupada acted for year after year as the sole diksa

> guru for ISKCON, starting in 1966 right through till 1977, this was

> completely unintentional on his part.

 

This conclusion is the logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam

(argument from ignorance): There is no evidence for X. Therefore, not-X.

 

 

> It was all some sort of accident, like a shipwreck!

 

Did Dr. Frog tell you that this is the only alternative? It could also have

been his spiritual master who made him a diksa guru for ISKCON. And the

reason why he was the sole diksa guru could have been that no other diksa

guru was available.

 

Example: Elisabeth is the sole queen of England. She acted accordingly and

in this way made herself recognized and accepted as the sole queen of

England (you would say "establish herself as"). Now did she set herself up

as the sole queen of England? No. Or was it some sort of accident, like a

shipwreck? No. She has been crowned queen by someone else. (Please correct

me if I am wrong about Elisabeth.)

 

 

> How do you know Srila Prabhupada did not intend to be the sole diksa guru

> for ISKCON even though he was for several years?

 

Why do you speculate that I know this? In this regard I only know that there

is no proof that he intended to be the SOLE diksa guru. (Please note the

emphasis on "SOLE").

 

 

> Do you have any evidence for this astonishing assertion?

 

I assume you mean following assertion:

"There is no proof that he intended to be the SOLE diksa guru".

 

The evidence is that the Vedabase contains no statement by Srila Prabhupada

saying that in 1966 he intended to be the SOLE diksa guru. (Please note the

emphasis on "SOLE").

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa