A challenge to IRM[4]

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu,

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Prabhu, the only thing I am trying to evade is wasting time on non-

essentials. Yes, I did made a mistake when I did not separate the first

eleven gurus from the other 93, yet that does not alter the structure of the

argument I presented in my third message. However, the logical flaws of your

argument still hold. Simply apply your “one guru falls = no guru authorised”

rule to each case separately. I took the pains to strip your arguments of

non-essentials so that we could better analyze the situation. If you have

any objection to how I have presented your argument--by simply looking at

the structure to test for logical flaws-- then please point where you think

I have erred. Let us use that model with whatever adjustments we agree must

be made. This is what logicians and mathematicians do precisely to avoid

hiding behind words. Politicians do the opposite.

 

I have no problem accepting to have committed a mistake, but I wonder why

Ramakanta Prabhu does not appear on your website as a debater who defeated

you. You list all those you think to have defeated, yet you do not mention

this debate with him. Remember, as devotees we must shun the tendency to

cheat.

 

Furthermore, I have admitted another mistake, namely, having accepted your

terms that we discuss the issues one by one. Yesterday I suggested we do

them all at once, but if you are afraid I may use that to confuse you, then

forget it. We will continue to take them one at a time, but that means

taking point one at once, not dissecting it into several fragments. Keep in

mind, though, that if you extend this debate longer than necessary, the

readers will get tired with your evasions and realize you are simply

pretending to be sleeping; hence nobody will be able to wake you.

 

Notice that in your response you do evade your own terms, for you again

simply took part of the arguments and claimed I was trying to evade you. In

fact, you did not address any of the issues in my third message. Let us be

truthful.

 

I will repeat my argument. Also, remember that the Gaudiya Matha case

belongs to point one. Follow your own rules and address it as part of point

one. There is new text towards the end, so I will encourage you to read my

words carefully. I have also added two more points to the list, as per your

suggestion. Let them be points 8 and 9.

 

SP’s dictum: If guru falls, then guru was not authorized (bonafide).

Event: At least on guru falls.

Conclusion: Guru was not authorized (bona fide).

 

IRM’s Assumption: All gurus were authorized in the same way. (Divide it in

two sets, namely the first 11 and the other 93, and apply the same reasoning

to both.)

IRM’s Conclusion: Since at least one guru fell, the authorization process

itself is not authorized (bona fide).

IRM’s Corollary: No guru authorized in such way is authorized (bona fide).

 

Your assumption cannot be taken as objective and hence has little to no

value, for the reasons I outlined in my second message, e.g. Vyasadeva-

Madhvacarya, Gaura Kishora-Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Furthermore, even if we

take the assumption as valid, the conclusion does not logically follow,

unless SP’s dictum is a bi-conditional statement. In the way I remember it

from what I read, it is only a conditional statement. As a bi-conditional

statement, the dictum becomes: A guru falls if and only if the guru is not

authorized. For our readers, it is not the same to say that:

 

If it rains, then Prabhu takes his umbrella.

If Prabhu takes his umbrella, then it rains.

 

Hence, even if you can show that Srila Prabhupada’s dictum is a

biconditional statement, your assumption is unacceptable. It is your biased

perception, and you and I suffer from the four defects, right? However, if

we decide to accept your assumption, then we would have to apply the

reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha and you would conclude that Srila Prabhupada

is not bona fide (unless you can prove that he was authorized in a different

way as those of his godbrothers who fell).

 

If you are humble and sincere you will accept defeat at least on this point.

However, you have many other issues yet to address from the original

challenge to IRM.

 

To recapitulate,

 

2) How would you reinstate the ritvik system if, according to IRM, none of

the original 11 ritviks is a bona fide representative of Srila Prabhupada?

 

3) It is accepted that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any successors.

However, neither did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Should we reject all of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples as well, including of course, Srila Prabhupada?

 

4) Do you think there is an editorial need to include letters of dissenting

opinions in your magazine, for the sake of fairness to your readers? (The

tendency to cheat is there in us all, but as devotees we should shun it.)

 

5) Do you think there is a need to give more relevant information when

talking about the fall of a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. “Illicit

activity”, although disqualifying for a guru however minor, is too vague a

term. It borders on slander and libel when we do not present the information

fairly.

 

6) Besides the ‘proof’ in point one (now defeated), your only objection to

H.H. Hrdayananda das Goswami (Srila Acaryadeva) being a guru is that he

earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Have you read his doctoral

dissertation? What else do you have against him?

 

7) As devotees, our main business is Krishna-katha. Do you feel that IRM’s

satisfies that criterion in its publications? The only thing that seems to

qualify as such is the mahamantra at the bottom of each page.

 

8) What is IRM’s position with regard to the importance that Srila

Prabhupada gave to how we take shelter of Krishna in His physical absence?

 

“But Krishna is saying that anyone, that anyone who takes proper shelter of

Me. This is very important. Proper shelter means to take shelter of Krishna.

But in the physical absence of Krishna, one has to take shelter of Krishna’s

real representative. Then anyone who is understanding Krishna’s philosophy

and he will be elevated to the highest platform of understanding” (sic).

 

9) Do you accept that Ramakant Prabhu defeated IRM in a debate?

 

With all best wishes,

At Srila Prabhupada’s feet,

 

hector

--

Héctor Rosario, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Mathematics

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus

PO Box 9018

Mayagüez, PR 00681

 

 

 

On Thu, 4 May 2006 08:25:07 +0530, IRM wrote

> Dear Hector Prabhu,

>

> Hare Krishna!

>

> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> It has only been 3 days, and you already want to engage in evasion

> of your statement:

>

> "I will accept you proposition of answering my original points “one

> at a time.”

> (Hector Rosario, 1st May, 2006)

>

> I am sorry but I will not allow you to evade your agreement here. Because

> the most common technique of evasion in debate is to discuss any

> point one decides, along with any other number of points, at any

> time, as a way to try and hide one's defeat under verbiage. Which is

> exactly what you have done here. For I just rebutted your first

> point in response to my answer to your challenge point 1 -

> henceforward to be referred to as 'answer 1' - by stating:

>

> " the first 11 were NOT part of the 93 devotees you refer to above,

> and that they became gurus in a manner DIFFERENT to the 93."

>

> Did you accept your defeat on this point in a straight-forward and honest

> manner? No, you did not even respond directly to this point, and instead

> evaded it by asking me to start a completely different debate!

>

> Thus in just a matter of days you are already trying to evade both

> the agreed points for debate and also the agreed manner of debate. I

> will not allow it. Therefore anything else you want to debate will

> be added to the list of your 7 points, to be answered after these 7

> points have been dealt with in order. We are currently discussing

> your first point.

>

> So I will ask you again, to *directly* state whether or not you accept:

>

> "the first 11 were NOT part of the 93 devotees you refer to above,

> and that they became gurus in a manner DIFFERENT to the 93."

>

> Please answer directly and honestly, either yes or no. (Please do

> not let me to have to ask you this question for a third time. Thank

> you).

>

> If you answer yes, then you have been defeated on the first point

> you made in response to my answer 1, and we can then move onto your

> other point in response to my answer 1, regarding the authorisation

> of the Gaudiya Matha godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada.

>

> I look forward to hearing from you.

>

> Thank you,

>

> Your servant,

> Krishnakant