Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> ... and which was left in perpetuity by him on July 9th 1977, ...

 

I ignore your statement because you did not confirm by a quote that on July

9, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said "in perpetuity" or "forever" or similar.

 

 

> We cannot stop an order given by Srila Prabhupada to the entire movement

> just on some whimsy or fancy that he MAY issue, or may have issued a

> counter instruction can we?

 

You are now committing the logical fallacy called "ignoratio elenchi"

("irrelevant conclusion"), also known as "red herring". This is the logical

fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which

proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to

prove or support. The argument that we cannot stop or change Srila

Prabhupada's order is not a proof that Srila Prabhupada did not give a

certain order or authorization.

 

Remember, your point b) is "Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should

ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON", which is equivalent to "Srila

Prabhupada never authorized anyone to be diksa guru". We are discussing

that.

 

 

> Philosophically speaking, as soon as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada were

> authorised to initiate within ISKCON then Srila Prabhupada would cease to

> be the current link and hence would be removed as any type of diksa guru

> since we must approach the current link, not the previous acaraya for

> initiation.

 

I ignore your statement because you did not confirm it by a quote.

 

 

> Is not anywhere on folio,

> Is not anywhere on any approved GBC resolution, etc etc.

 

What exactly did you search? Please tell us. How can you credibly claim that

an order to be diksa guru is not anywhere, if you don't know what to look

for?

 

 

> Absolutely crazy.

 

Your reply is not a very philosophical statement. For me it is rather a sign

that you realized you have been defeated. You cannot refute an argument

simply by saying that it is crazy. And if you wanted to say that I am crazy,

then you committed the logical fallacy called "argumentum ad hominem".

 

 

> I am not trying to cut you off, but what more is there to discuss since

> you have conceded that you have no counter evidence to the status quo

> established in 1966. this being the case point c) logically follows, end

> of story.

 

You don't want to commit the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof

("argumentum ad ignorantiam") by saying that your claim is proven because

no-one has proven the opposite. Right? Therefore, your claim remains

unproven.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa