Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

Currently we are discussing your point b): "Srila Prabhupada never ordered

that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON". This is

equivalent to: "Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone to be a diksa guru

in ISKCON".

 

 

In my last text I wrote:

 

> 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.

 

You remained silent regarding these statements. As Krishnakant wrote:

Silence means acceptance. So you have accepted them.

 

 

> As I already explained, and as is explained in the paper NCIP which you

> claim you read, our position is based on the following facts:

>

> 1)Srila Prabhupada left the GBC to manage ISKCON strictly in accordance

> with a pre-ordained system of management that they were not authorised to

> change.

>

> 2)Srila Prabhupada left in place a system of initiation whereby he was the

> sole diksa guru for the institution.

 

You forgot one assumption:

 

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

 

Your whole theory is based on that unproven assumption. We can discuss 'your

position' only after we have finished that point (your point b).

 

 

> Therefore a successor diksa guru could only LEGITIMATELY emerge within

> ISKCON if Srila Prabhupada had issued the GBC with instructions whereby:

>

> A) they were authorised by Srila Prabhupada to remove him as the sole

> diksa guru for ISKCON.

>

> B) they were given a management system whereby a successor or successors

> could be identified and then installed.

 

You don't know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru. But still you

are talking about how to find out whether or not a devotee has been

authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. This is rascaldom.

 

 

> Since you have been unable to produce any order from Srila Prabhupada to

> the GBC detailing A or B, then so far as we are concerned the status quo

> you agree Srila Prabhupada deliberately established in 1966, and which he

> left intact on his physical departure, must remain (point C).

 

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

from ignorance"). Please note that absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

 

 

> Obviously we cannot stop orders to the GBC that exist as official, signed

> documents from the Founder Acharya on the basis of evidence that does not

> exist.

 

This is the logical fallacy called "ignoratio elenchi" ("irrelevant

conclusion"), also known as "red herring". Currently we are not discussing

whether or not orders can be stopped. We are discussing your point b).

 

 

> Your position is in any case completely irrelevant to this debate since

> the GBC, and thus all the ‘gurus’ in ISKCON, claim their authorisation to

> initiate was given in recorded instructions issued by Srila Prabhupada

> prior to his departure. Surely the ‘gurus’ themselves would know how they

> were supposedly authorised. Or do you claim you know better than all 80 or

> so ISKCON 'gurus'?

 

I cannot answer your question because you did not write what you meant by

"your position".

 

You admit that the GBC, and thus all the ‘gurus’ in ISKCON, claim their

authorisation to initiate was given in recorded instructions issued by Srila

Prabhupada prior to his departure. Do you claim that they have not been

authorized to be diksa gurus? Do you claim you know better than the GBC and

the ISKCON gurus, despite the fact that you don't know how a devotee is

authorized to be a diksa guru?

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Your point b) is unproven. And since your whole theory is based on that

point, your whole theory is unproven.

 

If you agree with that, we can move to your point c). But probably you do

not agree and you will continue to present logical fallacies and other

statements that do not prove your point b).

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa