A challenge to IRM[Final]

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I was wondering why Hector Prabhu had not posted Krishnakant Prabhu's

reply to his final challenge. Anyway, I asked Krishnakant for his reply,

and here it is for your interest. Hare Krsna.

---------

 

Dear Hector Prabhu,

 

Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

 

1) Just a few days ago you challenged me to a debate, praying that victory

will be granted to one of the parties. Now you have suddenly bowed out of

the debate, being unable to concede your defeat on the inapplicability of

my proof to the Gaudiya Matha. You have also said that the whole process

of you trying to debate my points through logic and argument

was "nonsense, to which I have been part."

 

 

2) Further the most basic qualities of a vaisnava are humility and freedom

from passion and anger. Having been defeated in debate, not only are you

now bowing out without having the humility to admit your defeat regarding

your Gaudiya Matha argument, but you also no longer are able to offer

your 'humble obeisances' to me as you have done in every mail so far. Now

all of a sudden, you can only offer your 'greetings'! Additionally you say

you must bow out of the debate because you will fall prey to anger. So in

just a handful of exchanges, you have demonstrated both a complete lack of

humility and inability to control your anger whilst debating, resulting in

you needing to flee the battle-field. Hence your proud boast to the world

how you were challenging me to debate hoping you would emerge victorious

was all over in just a few days. Like they say - don't give up your day

job just yet!

 

 

3) Further you have also decided that you are more intelligent than the

whole of the GBC. For you have also decided to advise the GBC that they

should all be dismissed from their posts, and a completely new GBC be

established! In addition you have said that whilst this happens there

should be a complete moratorium on initiations. To establish a new Bona

Fide GBC and stop all initiation by the current ISKCON gurus, is of course

also the goal of the IRM! It seems your defeat in this debate has had some

effect in that you have come some way to adopting our goals!

 

 

Further you have asked for advice as to how to rectify ISKCON by asking:

 

"I understand you have serious resistance to how ISKCON does things. In

all humility, what steps should be taken to correct the mistakes? Also,

how would one go about deciding who is qualified to offer diksa so that

the parampara is not broken?"

 

to one Madhudvisa Das, who is a self-confessed ritvik, having got the name

Madhudvisa das via ritvik initiation. He also gave himself ritvik sannyasa

initiation, and was known for sometime as Madhudvisa Swami. Thus both your

proposal to the GBC, and the source of your proposal, are heavily

influenced by the ritvik idea, and this is all very apt, coming as it is

after your defeat in a debate by a ritvik!

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

Since you have already been defeated in the actual debate you challenged

me to, having withdrawn from it completely rather than concede defeat on

your challenge 1, (about how you cannot apply my proof to the Gaudiya

Matha), this debate is indeed over. I thus forced you to withdraw from a

debate which YOU initiated and challenged me to, in just 10 DAYS.

 

---------

 

However you have tried to distract from your defeat and subsequent

withdrawal by giving a completely new challenge.

 

This will also now be defeated, so in just a matter of a few days, you

will have been defeated in two different debates.

 

You have advised me to read some elementary texts on logic, but I will now

show that you are not even aware of the definition of logic.

 

Logic is the process of drawing inferences from given truths (axioms).

 

In this case, our axioms are the statements of Srila Prabhupada, since

they are self-evident truths. In both your case 1 and case 2 of your new

challenge, you completely ignore this basic definition of logic.

 

Using the same notation you have given where:

 

 

P = guru not authorised

 

Q = guru falls

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada states as you correctly say in case 1 that:

 

 

If P then Q or -Q.

 

 

 

You end your case 1 at this point, saying nothing further can be concluded.

 

You repeat the same point for Case 2 by telling us that:

 

 

 

If P then Q is a conditional statement, and its inverse If Q then P are

not logically equivalent, and hence again nothing further can be deduced

from if P then Q.

 

 

Both your arguments here ARE correct if we ASSUME that 'If P then Q' is a

conditional statement. But it is not, it is a bi-conditional statement.

 

A bi-conditional statement is where the INVERSE of a statement IS true

e.g. in the statement “If I marry you, then you will be my wife” – in this

case the inverse – “if you are my wife, I married you” – is also true.

 

 

Now usually one mistakes a conditional statement for a bi-conditional

statement, and this is the logical fallacy known as 'affirming the

consequent', and arises because in a situation where:

 

 

If P then Q, the inverse If Q then P, will NOT follow since Q can have

OTHER causes than P.

 

 

E.g. If P = rain; Q = Streets are wet:

 

 

then whilst "if it rains the streets will be wet" (If P then Q), is true,

the inverse, "if the streets are wet, it rained" (If Q then P), is not

true, since Q (streets being wet) can have many other causes, than just

rain. (P).

 

 

e.g in addition to "if it rains the streets will be wet", other axioms

are "if is snows the streets will be wet", "if I am cleaning the street,

they will be wet" etc.

 

then we can see how ‘If P then Q’ is a conditional statement, and the

inverse can NOT be inferred.

 

Thus a conditional statement depends on the availability of more than one

axiom or truth. As soon as you have more than one available axiom or truth

regarding how streets become wet, then If P then Q, becomes a conditional

statement.

 

 

However IF the only available axiom was: "If it rains, the streets will be

wet", and NO OTHER truths about how the streets becoming wet were

available, THEN if somebody found the streets wet they COULD correctly

infer it had rained - for this would be the only known cause of wetness,

as no other truths regarding wetness had been given, and the statement

would become bi-conditional, and the inverse would become true.

 

Just as in the example regarding marriage and a wife given above, there

are no other axioms available regarding how one becomes a wife other than

marriage. But if there existed another axiom say such as “If you are my

girl-friend for more than 10 years, you are automatically my wife’, than

in the example given, the statement “If I marry you, you are my wife”

would be converted into a conditional statement, since now the inverse

would no longer be true, as the result (becoming my wife) can have more

than one cause, and it would cease to be a bi-conditional statement.

 

So logic is the process of drawing inferences from the GIVEN axioms or

truths. If only one such axiom is given, then from this axiom we can

correctly infer a bi-conditional statement. If more than one relevant

axiom is given, then from any such axiom we can only infer a conditional

statement.

 

Thus in both your case 1 and case 2, you have incorrectly assumed the

relevant part of the statement in question (If P then Q) is conditional

rather than bi-conditional, even though the only available axiom for a

guru falling involves the guru not being authorised. There is no other

statement from Srila Prabhupada giving the cause of guru fall-down outside

of being UNauthorised – that is, nowhere does Srila Prabhupada state that

a guru fall-down will occurs as a result of a guru actually being

correctly AUTHORISED.

 

Therefore by the simple definition of logic, proof 4 draws an inverse

inference from the available axiom, and the conclusion it derives is

correct, since no other available axioms which could change this

conclusion exist, and therefore the statement was bi-conditional.

 

So sometimes if a guru is not authorised, he falls - axiom given by Srila

Prabhupada.

 

If a guru has fallen he was not authorised - the , follows:

 

 

AS NO AXIOM STATING THAT A GURU FALLS DUE TO BEING AUTHORISED EXISTS.

 

 

Therefore given the available axioms, I have logically drawn the correct

inference.

 

It is ironic that here, as in your mistaken Gaudiya Matha analogy, your

arguments fail both times due to you being unable to demonstrate first

with available evidence, the very premises you have assumed. A conditional

statement ASSUMES the existence of other relevant axioms, just as

asserting that my proof also applies to the Gaudiya Matha ASSUMES that the

guru authorisation process for the Gaudiya Matha was analogous to that

followed in ISKCON . In both cases your arguments were defeated due to

your inability to substantiate the very assumptions on which your

arguments rested.

 

 

You stated in last but one e-mail that:

 

 

“Remember that I opened this debate with a prayer to Krishna asking that

Srila Prabhupada would grant undisputed victory to one of us. His great

mission deserves no less. Hence if you defeat me in point one, I will

accept you have Srila Prabhupada’s blessings.

 

Hence if you defeat me in point one, I will accept you have Srila

Prabhupada’s blessings.”

 

Since you have been defeated comprehensively on point one, please be happy

that Krishna has granted your prayer.

 

 

Your servant,

 

Krishnakant

 

 

 

Text PAMHO:11560128 (401 lines)

Internet: "Hector Rosario" <hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu>

10-May-06 14:13 -0300

hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu

Bcc: Initiations in ISKCON [1540]

A challenge to IRM[Final]

---------------------------

 

---------- Forwarded Message -----------

"Hector Rosario" <hrosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu>

"IRM" <irm (AT) iskconirm (DOT) com>

Wed, 10 May 2006 14:04:46 -0300

A challenge to IRM[Final]

 

Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu:

 

Please accept my greetings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I am writing to inform you of the end of this debate. I have tried to

treat

you with all the respect a Vaisnava deserves, and have repeatedly asked

for

forgiveness for any offenses I might have committed against you or any

other

Vaisnava as we engaged in this exchange. Yet, you seem disturbed in your

replies and hence it is wiser for me to avoid falling pray to anger, which

might lead to vaisnava-aparadha. Nevertheless, I will leave you with a

detailed explanation of the first and only point we were able to debate to

help you see the falseness of your claim. Please, save it for future

reference as you might never hear directly from me again.

 

Firstly, I have admitted to making mistakes in the progression of this

debate, some of them pointed out by you. However, those mistakes only

helped

to refine the arguments and our search for truth, which is to what, as

sincere devotees, we should aspire. I will leave here the best I can offer

in terms of deductive reasoning, which I admit is not the proper way to

understand spiritual matters. However, since you have attempted to use the

deductive reasoning approach (i.e. the ascending process) to establish

the ‘veracity’ of your claims, I used the same method to show you where

your

argument in IRM’s “The Final Order” went wrong. If you want a verification

of the pristine logic of the arguments hereby presented, look for the kind

assistance of a mathematician or a logician. However, if you are

interested

in understanding spiritual matters, simply surrender to Krishna through

His

bona fide representative. The descending process of spiritual realization

will then take place and you will be free to abandon all this nonsense, to

which I have been part.

 

As I said in my previous message, I followed your advice and went back to

IRM’s Special Summary Issue to carefully read your words and study your

arguments. Needless to say, I derived no spiritual benefit from the

reading

itself, but the reading gave me an opportunity to serve Srila Prabhupada

by

refuting your arguments. Remember Srila Prabhupada instructed us to use

our

writing abilities to spread Krishna Consciousness, not to become an

impediment in such spreading.

 

My original claim in Point 1 was that your purported Proof 4 in IRM’s The

Final Order: “One guru falls = no Gurus authorised” was not logically

sound.

Again, please, study this simple argument carefully, and you will

immediately realize that ‘proof 4’ is no proof at all, since from the very

beginning it suffers from a serious logical flaw.

 

In the Special Issue you write:

 

“Here is the proof recapped:

 

a) Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorised – sometimes

the Guru falls.

b) Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorised.

c) But all Gurus authorised in exactly the same way.

d) Thus all Gurus not properly authorised.

e) Ritvik system authorised by July 9th directive remains.”

 

Here is the flaw: B does not follow from A. Let us look at the logical

structure of the statements. Let P be the statement “guru not authorized”.

Let Q be the statement “guru falls.”

 

You quote Srila Prabhupada in the Nectar of Devotion thus: “But sometimes,

if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own

initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an

accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.”

 

I will accept your interpretation that being “carried away by an

accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples” constitutes a

falldown, which is only the agreed interpretation of two conditioned

souls.

Now, there are at least two ways to show B does not follow from A.

 

CASE 1: Consider the word ‘sometimes’:

 

The word ‘sometimes’ is not conclusive, something may or may not happen.

If

a guru is not authorized, then he may or may not fall. We cannot conclude

anything further than that.

 

Let P and Q be the following clauses:

 

P: guru not authorized

Q: guru falls

-P: guru authorized (This is the negation of P.)

-Q: guru does not fall (This is the negation of Q.)

 

Remember that by a conditional statement is meant a statement of the

form “if...then.”

 

Using this notation, Srila Prabhupada’s conditional statement becomes:

 

If guru not authorized, then guru falls OR guru does not fall.

(Notice that the inclusive “or” logically represents “sometimes.”

 

In the abbreviated notation, the statement becomes:

 

If P, then (Q or –Q).

 

This conditional statement is always true, regardless of the truth values

of

P and Q. Nothing further can be logically concluded. B does not follow

from

A.

 

CASE 2: Ignore ‘sometimes’:

 

For the sake of argument, let us ignore the word ‘sometimes.’ This might

be

an offense since we are changing Srila Prabhupada’s words. However, I do

it

only to show you that ‘Proof 4’ is no proof at all, at least logically

speaking.

 

Srila Prabhupada’s dictum becomes:

 

If P, then Q.

 

In B you claim, “If Q, then P”, that is “if guru falls, then he was not

authorized.” This is called the inverse of the conditional statement.

These

two statements, namely the conditional and its inverse are not logically

equivalent. A high school textbook on geometry or on introductory logic

will

help you see the truth of this. An introductory text on Boolean algebras

will also do. After all, the entire structure of mathematical truth is

built

on these grounds.

 

In summary, B does not follow from A. If you want to establish the

validity

of B, then you would need additional evidence or arguments. A direct quote

from Srila Prabhupada stating “if a guru falls, then he was not

authorized”

will suffice. However, if you cannot show the validity of B

*independently*

of A, then the entire argument collapses.

 

It gets a little worse than that for IRM if we consider the contrapositive

of Srila Prabhupada’s dictum (that is, ignoring ‘sometimes’).

 

As you might already know, a conditional statement is logically equivalent

to its contrapositive, that is, the following two statements are

equivalent:

 

i) If P, then Q.

ii) If –Q, then –P.

 

Saying “If guru not authorized, then guru falls” is equivalent to

saying “If

guru does not fall, then guru is authorized.” That was not your intended

conclusion, but is what logically follows. Again, the introductory

textbook

on logic might help you with these fine points. If one is conversant with

the rules of deductive reasoning, one should not attempt to use it,

especially in spiritual matters, as one may commit many offenses. With the

evidence you have provided in “The Final Order” one can reach a different

conclusion than IRM’s, simply by adhering to the standard rules of

inference.

 

There is more that can be said about these matters, especially if one

reads

Srila Prabhupada’s words carefully. In fact, there is a CASE 3 that can be

considered to render your claim useless yet again. However, please do not

waste your time on preparing a revised edition of The Final Order to make

up

for these mistakes. As a sincere devotee, that is the least you could do.

You would not want to cheat others, having been warned of a logical flaw

in

your argument. Nevertheless, there is something much better you can do:

focus on distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books, and not your own.

 

Always remember that we must cultivate the hearing process as a way to

promote the validity of the descending method for realizing spiritual

truth.

My only advice to you is to devote your energies to discussing Krishna-

katha. Ask for forgiveness from all those you might have offended

throughout

the years, even if unintentionally, and take shelter at Srila Prabhupada’s

feet.

 

I will end this debate with a quote from our beloved Srila Prabhupada:

 

“The scripture known as the Brahma-yamala states: “If someone wants to

pose

himself as a great devotee without following the authorities of the

revealed

scriptures, then his activities will never help him to make progress in

devotional service. Instead, he will simply create disturbances for the

sincere students of devotional service.”” (The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter

7)

 

I pray not to have committed this offense.

 

At Srila Prabhupada’s feet,

Hector

 

P.S. Here is a list of Srila Prabhupada’s quotes compiled by Madhudvisa

Prabhu that serve as ample evidence of the falsity of the ritviks. You may

post them on your website, along with our exchanges in their entirety.