Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Jul 06, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You complain:

 

> You are committing the logical fallacy "argumentum ad nauseam" ("argument

> to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition"). This is the fallacy of

> trying to prove something by saying it again and again.

 

Well if you were like Kesava Kasmiri I would only need to point out one

contradiction, once. However it is kali yuga, and now I have to point out

many contradictions, and some of them over and over again, and still you do

not concede defeat. So you only have yourself to blame.

You argue:

 

> Your explanation which you are repeating is based on the wrong assumption

> that it is impossible that while Srila Prabhupada was present his

> disciples were allowed/empowered/competent to initiate/make their own

> disciples and at the same time there was the etiquette that they do not do

> so in his presence.

 

The ‘wrong assumption’ you refer to above is of course your own position:

 

“Srila Prabhupada explicitely confirmedi it is the etiquette that during his

presence no disciple should accept his own disciples.”

( Ramakanta das Nov 12, 2005 - 06:22 AM)

 

Assuming you believe that the above NEW position you offer is supportable

with quotes, you are now implying the following:

 

Prabhupada explicitly confirmedi that during his presence disciples can

accept their own disciples provided they wait till they are

“allowed/empowered/competent”.

 

This means you have contradicted yourself YET again.

 

First you claim there is an etiquette preventing Srila Prabhupada’s

disciples from initiating their own disciples during Srila Prabhupada's

presence, and then you contradict this with the assertion that the only

thing preventing them is that they must wait to be

“allowed/empowered/competent ”, which could occur 'by 1975'.

 

So you remain self-defeated as I explained previously:

 

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 explicitly confirming 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).

 

I would rather not have to explain all this again if it is making you

nauseous, so maybe now you will like to present your final statement

explaining how you 'smashed' us, then I will give one last statement, and we

can call it a day. Its up to you as I already said. If you persist I shall

obviously need to keep pointing out the above since your only reply, after

16 chances, is to further contradict yourself as I have shown above.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu