Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> With regards your non-existent counter evidence you write:

 

This is fuzzy because you did not write what you meant by "your non-existent

counter evidence". As you many times wrote, this debate is based on what I

write. So please quote my statement where I allegedly presented a

non-existent counter evidence, or stop writing such things.

 

 

> Discussing an order that no-one, neither you, me nor the GBC knows

> anything about is a complete waste of time and indeed rascaldom:

 

I am discussing your point b) which is equivalent to: "Srila Prabhupada

never authorized anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON". You again admitted

that you don't know anything about it. So why do you claim that Srila

Prabhupada never authorized anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON?

 

 

> "Just see how rascaldom. You do not know something perfectly, and still,

> you are talking about it." (Lecture, Bg 1.45-46, August 1, 1973)

 

Your point b) is about authorization to be a diksa guru. So is it rascaldom

to present point b) without knowing how a devotee is authorized to be a

diksa guru? What do you think?

 

 

> Our point b) as is elaborated in the NCIP paper, refers specifically to

> orders given to the GBC since they were responsible for managing ISKCON.

> It is perfectly reasonable to claim that an order was not given to the GBC

> if there is no evidence of such an order.

 

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

claim that the authorization of a devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON must

be some order given to the GBC.

 

 

> If I were to argue that the GBC could do any of the above simply on the

> basis that there may be some order that no-one knows anything about I

> would be a big rascal.

 

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

conclusion"), also known as "red herring".

 

 

> I also notice you do not dispute the following facts, and therefore you

> must accept them:

>

> 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.

 

As I already wrote, you forgot following assumption:

 

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

 

Your whole theory is based on that unproven assumption. So even if 1) and 2)

are true, if 3) is false, your whole theory is false.

 

 

> If there is no order from Srila Prabhupada to the GBC authorising them to

> replace him and install a successor

 

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

claim that the authorization of a devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON must

be an order from Srila Prabhupada to the GBC authorising them to replace him

and install a successor.

 

 

> then the status quo you agree he established in 1966 remains firmly

> intact.

 

This is your point c). We can discuss it after we have finished your point

b).

 

 

> > 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?

>

> We simply point out that the contradictory GBC papers in which these

> recorded instructions are presented do not match their claim.

 

So you don't claim that they have not been authorized to be diksa gurus. Or

do you? Please give a clear answer to my question.

 

 

> You must agree that there is no such recorded evidence

 

Whether I agree or not is not relevant. Please base you arguments on guru,

sadhu and sastra. Not on what I agree with, because that would be the

logical fallacy called "argumentum ad verecundiam" ("argument from

inappropriate authority").

 

 

> why do you keep trying to talk about phantom orders that no-one knows

> anything about?

 

I am discussing your point b) (which is about an order that you don't know

anything about) because you presented it in this debate.

 

 

> We DO know how initiation is authorised to run within ISKCON. The process

> was set out by Srila Prabhupada in signed directives.

 

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

you cannot know whether or not Srila Prabhupada authorized anyone to be a

diksa guru in ISKCON (unless Srila Prabhupada said it).

 

 

> Please read NCIP since you seem to be very confused here.

 

The conclusion in the NCIP paper is based on the unproven assumption that

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

 

 

> If you are not claiming this then please show us the recorded order to the

> GBC in which Srila Prabhupada details the management procedure by which:

>

> 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

claim that the authorization of a devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON must

have this form.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

You did not present any proof of your point b). So it 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