Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If he made himself accepted and recognised as the sole diksa guru for

> ISKCON, which you agree is proven, then he must have wanted to do that

> since everything he did was deliberate.

 

Sorry, that is not a proof of what I have asked you to prove for following

reasons:

 

I did not ask you to prove that Srila Prabhupada must have wanted to make

himself accepted and recognized as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON, or that

he must have wanted to be accepted and recognized as such, or that he wanted

to be accepted and recognized as such. I asked you to prove your claim that

in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

What you have presented is a logical fallacy like for example: "The streets

are wet. Therefore, it must have rained." As you probably know, there are

other possible reasons for wet streets. Similarly, there are other possible

reasons why Srila Prabhupada made himself accepted and recognized as the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON. For example: He wanted several diksa gurus but

no other diksa guru was available. Or he is the founder acarya of ISKCON and

no other diksa guru was available.

 

Even if for the sake of argument we assume that Srila Prabhupada wanted to

be accepted and recognized as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON (for reasons

that only he as a pure Vaisnava knows), this does not necessarily mean that

in 1966 he wanted to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

"He must have wanted" does not mean "he wanted". According to

www.dictionary.com the meaning of "must" applicable here is "used to

indicate logical probability or presumptive certainty". Logical probability

or presumptive certainty is not a proof but speculation.

 

"To be accepted and recognized as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON" is not the

same as "to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON". For example, in the

beginning Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa guru for ISKCON, but he was

not yet accepted and recognized as such.

 

So please try again to prove your claim, or admit that it is unproven.

 

BTW. Maybe you should look up the meaning of "I will not answer your

question" (which I wrote on April 22).

 

ys Ramakanta dasa