Six proofs

[Guest guest]

I have read the six so-called irrefutable proofs presented by Krishnakant in

the special edition of BTP. And I was surprised to see how weak they are.

None of them is really a proof.

 

 

Proof 1 - Summary of evidence establishing ritvik system for ISKCON's

duration

 

Krishnakant presents following evidences:

a) The July 9th directive

b) Follow-up letters

c) Last Will and Testament

d) Purports to Madhya 24.330, Madhya 15.108, and Adi 17.265

 

And his conclusion is:

 

"So we have clear, direct, irrefutable evidence from Srila Prabhupada's

books and signed directives, proving that the system which was set up by

Srila Prabhupada for initiations in his presence was the system set up for

ISKCON's lifetime."

 

This conclusion is based on the unproven assumption that Srila Prabhupada

did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON.

 

There are also following flaws:

 

- "My initiated disciple" in the Last Will and Testament does not mean that

there will be no granddisciples.

 

- In none of the mentioned purports it is stated that the disciple is

initiated by Srila Prabhupada. So these purports are no proof of a ritvik

system. Rather they prove the opposite because if Srila Prabhupada had meant

"initiated by me", then he would have said so.

 

 

Proof 2 - GBC reveals it does not know how its Gurus were authorized.

 

Krishnakant presents several quotes indicating that the GBC does not know

how the gurus were authorized. His final statement is:

 

"So this is proof that no Gurus were ever authorised, for if the truth of

Guru authorisation existed, the GBC would be able to state that one truth.

But they can't and haven't, which means the truth of Guru authorisation does

not exist."

 

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

from ignorance"). Or, in other words, it is based on the incorrect

assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

 

Proof 3 - GBC admits its Guru systems are false

 

Krishnakant presents some quotes saying that the guru system was/is wrong.

 

But this is definitely no proof that Srila Prabhupada gave or did not give a

certain instruction.

 

 

Proof 4 - One Guru falls = no Gurus authorised

 

The proof recapped is:

 

a) Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorised – sometimes

the Guru falls.

b) Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorised.

c) But all Gurus authorised in exactly the same way.

d) Thus all Gurus not properly authorised.

e) Ritvik system authorised by July 9th directive remains.

 

This proof is based on following two unproven assumptions:

1. All gurus have been authorized or became gurus exactly in the same way.

2. Once a guru is authorized, he remains authorized forever.

 

There is also following flaw:

Point b) does not follow from a), as Hector has shown.

 

 

Proof 5 - Definition and application of diksa

 

Krishnakant presents some quotes from Srila Prabhupada about diksa and then

presents his conclusion, as if he completely understood what Srila

Prabhupada said. His conclusion is:

 

"Therefore Srila Prabhupada continues acting as diksa Guru of ISKCON for ALL

devotees, pre- and post his departure. This is confirmed by the fact that

Srila Prabhupada set up the ritvik system via the July 9th directive to

facilitate this giving of diksa to all persons who would join ISKCON in the

future - a directive whose operation did not require the physical presence

of Srila Prabhupada, but instead specifically employed the use of ritviks to

accept disciples on his behalf without consultation with Srila Prabhupada."

 

Also this conclusion is based on the unproven assumption that Srila

Prabhupada did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON.

 

Furthermore, Krishnakant does not explain what he means by "physical

presence". Therefore his argument about physical presence is meaningless.

 

 

Proof 6 - GBC defeated by The Final Order

 

Krishnakant presents some statements by the GBC conceding that they were

wrong and then he writes:

 

"Thus the GBC's position on their Guru system is admitted to have been wrong

and has been withdrawn, and has not been replaced with another paper which

even attempts to document precisely how, when and who was authorised to

replace Srila Prabhupada. Rather we are simply given a conclusion - that

Srila Prabhupada made us Gurus. However, this is not proof, and therefore

the GBC does not have a position paper which currently rebuts the arguments

in TFO. In the absence of this, the conclusion of The Final Order are once

again upheld."

 

Also this is the logical fallacy called "argumentum ad ignorantiam"

("argument from ignorance").

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa