Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jun 28, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

So for the ELEVENTH TIME.

 

Your current line of argument will get you nowhere for the following

reasons:

 

1)The Hamsadutta letter was used by YOU to support YOUR position, therefore

YOU have to prove YOUR interpretation is correct. You have not done so.

Instead you are illogically shifting the burden. It is not MY evidence, it

is YOURS, therefore the burden of proof falls with you to prove your

interpretation is correct, even if you consider mine wrong.

 

2)Our interpretation (and I happily admit it is only an interpretation) is

consistent with a law or etiquette YOU used to support YOUR position.

Therefore if anyone must accept our interpretation it would be YOU.

 

3)Our interpretation is also consistent with what Srila Prabhupada actually

DID (letter to Revatinandana das etc).

 

4) As I explained, the Hamsadutta letter is not in any way central to our

position since we never use private mail as prime evidence for establishing

what Srila Prabhupada ordered for his global mission. We consider that

approach dishonest and a blatent form of cheating.

 

5)On the other hand you have produced not one tiny bit of evidence to prove

that your interpretation of the Hamsadutta letter is correct. This is again

fatal since it was YOUR evidence not MINE, therefore the burden of proof

falls on YOU not ME.

 

5)If you were somehow or other able to prove that the Hamsadutta letter WAS

referring to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples initiating their own disciples,

perhaps by 1975, then all you would have achieved would be to negate both

your positions. In other words, if you prove that Srila Prabhupada gave

completely contradictory instructions then clearly you cannot use either

instruction since they cancel each other out. Therefore you would still be

defeated.

 

6)Your attempt to get round the 'etiquette' by arguing that Srila Prabhupada

could simply give his permission (like previous acaryas) only leads you into

further trouble since:

 

a) Once again, even after repeated requests, you have never produced a

statement from Srila Prabhupada saying he may be willing to waiver the ‘law’

or ‘etiquette’ YOU used to establish YOUR position, therefore you are stuck

with this prohibition and thus remain self-defeated due to your

interpretation of the Hamsadutta letter that clearly violates it (‘by

1975’).

 

b) If you were somehow able to prove that Srila Prabhupada DID say somewhere

he might lift the prohibitive ‘etiquette’ or ‘law’, then this would render

the law or etiquette meaningless. Then Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence

would be irrelevant to whether or not successor gurus could emerge since he

could give this hypothetical ‘permission’ at any time. Thus diksa succession

would have nothing to do with his presence, only his permission. But then

you would be rendering your own argument: “Unlike 2) Srila Prabhupada

explicitely confirmed 1)” redundant, and hence once again you would have

defeated yourself.

 

c) As if all the above were not reason enough to concede defeat you are

also, in suggesting Srila Prabhupada might lift the prohibitive ‘etiquette’

or ‘law’, contradicting an authority you appear to hold as above all life

currently existing on this planet:

 

> ISKCON is a unique institution in the history of Vaisnavism. We must

> assume that as Founder-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada had the vision to set down

> a law--a law suitable for that unique institution, a law we would

> transgress at our peril.

(the GBC).

 

Ramakanta prabhu, you really are finished here.

 

I have explained eleven times now your self-defeat, yet still you do not

concede, indeed I doubt you ever will.

 

Contradiction is a sure sign of mental speculation according to Srila

Prabhupada, and I do think this is your main problem.

 

I would invite you now to give one last summary statement explaining how you

think you defeated our position, and then I’ll give one last statement-

since it is our web site I think it fair we have the last word (though of

course you will be free to post yet another reply on your own forums). I

suggest this since as far as I am concerned you have been defeated very

clearly, not just once, but on several previous occasions where I caught you

in self-contradiction. Otherwise, if you want to carry on I shall just keep

repeating the above points over and over again since you clearly have no

answer. It’s really up to you now.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu