Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Firstly, for the record, none of your last post provides any validity to

> your speculative challenge that Srila Prabhupada may have acted

> deliberately to put himself into a position opposite to what he originally

> intended.

 

I never claimed that.

 

You based your argument on following assumption:

 

If Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as X, then he

wanted to be X.

 

But instead of presenting a proof of this assumption, you asked me to prove

the opposite of it. This is the logical fallacy called "shifting the burden

of proof".

 

But I will nevertheless prove what you asked me to prove by giving an

example where Srila Prabhupada acted deliberately to put himself into a

position opposite to what he originally intended:

 

Srila Prabhupada did not want to take sannyasa, but he did.

 

 

> Our argument is that the very fact that Srila Prabhupada made himself

> accepted and recognised as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON proves that he

> set things up like that deliberately, since all activity in Krishna

> Consciousness is deliberate. Clearly Srila Prabhupada wanted to serve

> Krishna, and Krishna has a plan. The plan must have been for Srila

> Prabhupada to become the sole diksa guru for ISKCON since that is exactly

> what happened, through deliberate actions by Srila Prabhupada.

>

> Therefore at some point, no later than September 1966, Srila Prabhupada

> must have decided to make himself accepted and recognised as the sole

> diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

You twice used the phrase "must have". According to www.dictionary.com the

meaning of "must" applicable here is "used to indicate logical probability

or presumptive certainty". So it is nothing but speculation.

 

Also note that I did not ask you to prove that Srila Prabhupada must have

decided to make himself accepted and recognized as the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON. I asked you to prove that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the

sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

So please try again. Your proof must contain the phrase "In 1966 Srila

Prabhupada wanted to be the sole diksa guru for ISKCON because ..." or

"Therefore, in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON". Otherwise it is obviously not a proof of what I ask you to prove.

 

Don't present a proof that Srila Prabhupada acted deliberately, or that he

wanted to act in a certain way, or that he must have decided to act in a

certain way, or that he did something in a certain way. Do you know the

difference between "to be" and "to do"/"to act"?

 

And please, don't claim that you know Krishna's plan.

 

 

> If we are wrong then it would mean either that:

>

> Krishna never planned to have Srila Prabhupada set up as the sole diksa

> guru for ISKCON in 1966.

> Or

> Srila Prabhupada did not know what Krishna’s plan was.

> Or

> Srila Prabhupada wanted to do the opposite to Krishna’s plan, but was

> thwarted by external events.

>

> Take your pick.

 

I pick what Srila Prabhupada said:

 

"I do not know what is Krishna's desire" (Letter to Janardana, 7 Feb, 1968)

"I do not know what is Krishna's desire" (Letter to Malati, 28 May, 1968)

"I do not know what is Krishna's desire" (Letter to Yamuna, 13 Mar, 1969)

 

The other two statements are speculation.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa