Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Apr 04, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You wrote:

 

> I don't mind if you don't prove your point b) because then your point c)

> remains unproven and I have defeated you.

 

You cannot defeat me by challenging me to prove a negative. You are simply

defeating yourself since you are making a classic logical fallacy. I thought

I had explained this.

 

Our position is based precisely on instructions Srila Prabhupada gave in

signed directives and approved GBC resolutions and the status quo he left in

place as a result of such instruction, whereas your challenge is based on

asking us to prove that Srila Prabhupada did NOT do something, which is a

logical fallacy. You write:

 

> Further, it is Srila Prabhupada who is asking you to back up what you are

> saying:

>

> "The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld

> by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to

> back up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport)

>

> And this instruction supersedes everything that you might have read about

> mundane argumentation and logical fallacies.

 

I agree completely with this quote, Thank you very much for positing it.

 

This is the very instruction you are not following since your position is

based not on any ORDER or instruction that was actually GIVEN that you can

produce, but on challenging us to prove that an instruction was NOT GIVEN,

which is a logical fallacy.

 

You write:

 

> Or I can say that it is unproven. If a murderer claims that he has never

> shot a policeman, then this is unproven, although before one can punish

> him one has to prove that he shot a policeman.

 

The burden of truth in common law rests with the accuser, not with the

defendant. One is innocent until proven guilty. You must prove that Srila

Prabhupada gave an order, we do not have to prove he did not.

You wrote:

 

> I found following on the Internet

> (e.g. at www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm ):

>

> "The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or

> proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of 'argumentum

> ad ignorantium,' is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person

> who denies or questions the assertion being made."

 

This is a very good definition indeed, thank you very much for posting it.

 

I was hoping that by now you would have realised that we are not proposing

anything. We are simply saying the status quo remains in place. This is not

an assertion or proposition that needs to be proven since it applies by

definition. The status quo always prevails unless there is proof to the

contrary. We are asking YOU for that contrary evidence. This is not shifting

the burden, it is identifying on whom the burden falls. In this case it is

on you.

 

Our assertion in point b) is based on the fact that we have seen no evidence

that Srila Prabhupada ordered the status quo to change. Such an order could

only be applicable for the institution of ISKCON if it was delivered by

Srila Prabhupada to the body he placed in charge of managing his directives

within the institution of ISKCON. The GBC have seriously deviated but they

have never claimed any instruction from Srila Prabhupada on initiation post

1977. You can check this for yourself.

 

If we are WRONG, and there is such an order then where, when and how was it

given?

 

Obviously we cannot stop orders Srila Prabhupada DID give on the basis that

any Tom, Dick or Harry is claiming there is possibly some new hidden,

esoteric instruction for which there is not the slightest scrap of evidence.

Surely you can understand this!

 

Thus you need to prove something happened which legitimately changed the

status quo within the institutional framework of ISKCON, we do not have to

prove it did not.

 

You have agreed with point a) which has Srila Prabhupada established as the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON via activities we have both agreed with. We are

very happy with that status quo. We are not proposing any change to that

status quo.

 

Thus we are not proposing ANYTHING. If the status quo had simply continued

then we would not be having this argument. If you want to suggest the status

quo should, has or will change, then the burden of proof naturally falls on

you since you are proposing a change to the status quo you already agree

existed up until November 14th 1977. If you are not suggesting this then you

must accept the IRM’s official position and now work to re-instate Srila

Prabhupada back to the position he held prior to the GBC minutes of 1978

where they falsely claimed he had authorised successors.

 

So you decide, either:

 

a)Accept the status quo established by Srila Prabhupada for how initiation

was to be conducted within ISKCON.

Or

b) Prove that this status quo must change.

 

So far you have done neither. Thus you inhabit a no-man’s land of doubt,

self-contradiction and confusion. I think you would be wise now to concede

this debate since you cannot possibly win it on the basis of an illogical

challenge, which appears to be the only weapon left in your rather poorly

stocked armoury.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu