Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> > "Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa

> > guru for ISKCON"

>

> Yes, this is our stated position.

 

As you confirmed on April 2, this is equivalent to following statement:

 

"Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON".

 

So I am asking you: Do you know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa

guru?

 

 

> Since you cannot provide an order from Srila Prabhupada to his managing

> authority (the GBC) to the effect that he ‘should ever stop being the

> diksa guru for ISKCON’ I shall assume our position is correct

 

This is the logical fallacy called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ("argument

from ignorance"). You commit this fallacy when you argue that something must

be true, simply because it has not been proved false, or that something must

be false because it has not been proved true.

 

 

> and that the status quo which you agree he established in 1966, and merely

> perpetuated in July 1977, simply continues.

 

This is your point c) ("Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru

for ISKCON"). We can discuss it after we have finished your point b).

 

 

> To justify removing Srila Prabhupada from his position as the sole diksa

> guru for ISKCON on the strength of a hypothetical order that :

>

> You cannot produce,

> The GBC have never mentioned,

> You do not know even exists,

> You do not know even how its existence could ever be ascertained,

> Is not on folio,

> Does not appear in any GBC minutes in any year since its formation,

> we also do not claim exists,

>

> Etc etc would be akin to not knowing something but still talking about it.

 

You are again 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.

 

 

> So I promise never to discus this non-existent evidence again if you do.

 

You can only credibly claim that something did not happen, if you know how

it happens (or have heard from Srila Prabhupada that it did not and will not

happen). Therefore I am asking you again: Do you know how a devotee is

authorized to be a diksa guru?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa