Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Your question is meaningless since there is no sastric principle mentioned

> in Srila Prabhupada's books restricting HOW the order is given, ONLY the

> principle that an order, or authorisation must be given.

 

This answers my question: You don't know how a devotee is authorized to be a

diksa guru. You even explained why you don't know it.

 

So the facts are as follows:

 

1. You don't know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru.

 

2. Therefore you cannot know whether or not Srila Prabhupada authorized

anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON (unless Srila Prabhupada said it).

 

3. Still you claim that he did not.

 

4. According to Srila Prabhupada this is rascaldom.

 

If you don't agree, please tell us which one of above statements is wrong.

 

Needless to say that your point b) is unproven.

 

 

> So far as our debate is concerned the only relevant evidence are those

> orders given to the GBC since it is they who would manage the replacement

> of Srila Prabhupada and his successor's installation.

 

By saying this you imply that the authorization of a devotee to be a diksa

guru in ISKCON must be an order given to the GBC and it must have been

recorded. But you just wrote that there is no sastric principle mentioned in

Srila Prabhupada's books restricting how the order is given. So please tell

us why you still think that the authorization of a devotee to be a diksa

guru in ISKCON must be some recorded order given to the GBC.

 

How can you claim that Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone to be a

diksa guru in ISKCON simply because it might not be on record? Did he ever

say he would never authorize anyone?

 

 

> I note you still present no evidence that such a pre-ordained

> institutional mechanism was ever given by Srila Prabhupada to his managing

> authority.

 

I do not have to prove statements that I did not make.

 

 

> In which case the status quo must remain in place and you, my friend,

> remain defeated.

 

This is your point c) which we can discuss after we have finished your point

b). And it is the logical fallacy called "argumentum ad ignorantiam"

("argument from ignorance").

 

 

> we cannot stop the status quo on the basis of evidence that no-one,

> including yourself, knows anything about. That would be rascaldom.

 

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.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa