Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Your position is that I have to prove that when Srila Prabhupada did

> something, which in this case was to make himself recognized and accepted

> as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON, that he actually wanted to do it.

 

No. I several times explicitly wrote that this is not what I ask you to

prove. Please carefully read my texts.

 

 

In my last text I asked you to quote Srila Prabhupada's statement saying

that if a guru made himself recognized and accepted as X, then he wanted to

be X.

 

But you neither presented such a quote nor did you write that you will

present one. Therefore, following statement is not an axiom and it has to be

proven to make it an accepted truth:

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

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

ISKCON.

 

I shall now show that this statement is not only unproven but even not true

by showing that the contrapositive is not true. The contrapositive is:

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada did not want to be the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON, then in 1966 he would not have made himself recognized and accepted

as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

You recently wrote, "In the context of this debate multiple diksa gurus is

the opposite of sole diksa guru". So with your definition of "not sole diksa

guru" the statement becomes:

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted multiple diksa gurus for ISKCON, then in

1966 he would not have made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

(Note that the question is not whether in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted one

or many diksa gurus for ISKCON. Both is speculation unless proven. The

question is only whether this statement is true or not.)

 

Now, in order to be a truth, according to the rules of logic, this statement

has to be true in all circumstances. That means, if we add another

condition, it must remain true. Like for example the statement "If it rains,

then the streets are wet" is always true, independent of any additional

condition we add.

 

If we add the condition "in 1966 no other diksa guru was available" to above

statement, then it becomes:

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted multiple diksa gurus for ISKCON and in

1966 no other diksa guru was available, then in 1966 he would not have made

himself recognized and accepted as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

This statement is obviously not true. If no other diksa guru was available,

then multiple diksa gurus were simply not possible, and Srila Prabhupada had

no other choice than to make himself recognized and accepted as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

Therefore following statement is not true either (because it is not true in

all circumstances):

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted multiple diksa gurus for ISKCON, then in

1966 he would not have made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

And following equivalent original statement is not true either:

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

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

ISKCON.

 

And any statement based on this assumption as a premise is not proven.

 

 

I shall now give you an example so that even you can see that following

statement is not proven:

 

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

wanted to be the X.

 

Let us substitute X with "sole mridanga player in ISKCON in 1966". So the

statement becomes:

 

If in 1966 Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized and accepted as the sole

mridanga player in ISKCON, then in 1966 he wanted to be the sole mridanga

player in ISKCON.

 

Any intelligent person can immediately see that this is unproven, because

most probably in 1966 Srila Prabhupada did not want to be the sole mridanga

player in ISKCON.

 

(My challenge is not dependent on this example. So don't waste time trying

to prove that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole mridanga player

in ISKCON.)

 

 

Conclusion: Your claim that in 1966 Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the sole

diksa for ISKCON is still unproven.

 

During the last three weeks you were unsuccessfully trying to prove your

claim. So isn't it time now to admit that your claim is unproven?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa