Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

I wrote:

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

> you are claiming that until today Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any

> person to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. That is rascaldom.

 

You remained silent regarding this statement. So you accept it.

 

I wrote:

> Do you believe that your point b) is proven? If yes, why?

 

You have not answered my question. So you don't know whether your point b)

is proven or not.

 

You did not comment on the rest of my last text either, except confirming

what your point b) is. So you accept what I wrote.

 

 

> Our position is based on the orders Srila Prabhupada gave to the GBC as

> explained in NCIP.

 

This is fuzzy because you did not write what you meant by "our position". If

you meant something else than your point b), then we can discuss it later.

 

 

> 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.

>

> Since the GBC can only do what Srila Prabhupada authorised them to do, and

> since he ONLY authorised an initiation system in which he remained in

> place as the sole diksa guru, then it follows he did not authorise the GBC

> to replace him as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON.

 

This is no proof of your point b). Rather it is based on your point b)

because you wrote, "since he ONLY authorised an initiation system in which

he remained in place as the sole diksa guru".

 

 

> In that case the status quo must remain.

 

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

b).

 

 

> Since you cannot refute point b) with positive evidence to the contrary it

> remains intact,

 

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.

 

Are you qualified to recognize such an evidence? Do you know how a diksa

guru orders that he should stop being the diksa guru for his institution?

What exactly do you want to see? What would you accept as an evidence?

 

 

> and thus point c logically follows.

 

No, your point c) does not logically follow from your points a) and b).

Other conditions must be fulfilled also. But we can discuss this after we

have finished your point b).

 

 

> You have contradicted yourself over and over again and hence are

> technically self defeated (I can repost all these if you have forgotten).

 

Yes, I remember that funny discussion. You were unable to explain why being

allowed/empowered to initiate one's own disciples contradicts the etiquette,

although you tried 15 times. But let us now finish your point b).

 

 

The rest of your text isn't a proof of your point b) either.

 

 

Summary:

 

You presented all kinds of things but no proof of your point b).

 

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

unproven assumption, 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 waste time by presenting statements that

do not prove your point b).

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa