Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Oct 30, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You claim:

 

> You have not confirmed your statements in your last text by quotes from

> Srila Prabhupada. Therefore it is just speculation, not worth discussing

> it.

 

I am more than happy to leave it there if you consider it ‘not worth

discussing’ since I think you have been completely defeated over point c) as

indeed on ever other point for the last year. However, you contradict

yourself once more by going on to ‘discuss it’ (see below). Clearly you are

not as confident as I am over how this debate has panned out are you?

 

I had written:

 

> "I believe most people reading this will recall that I have proven, with

> quotes, that the GBC...

>

> 1) Were to manage initiation.

> 2) Were told precisely how to manage initiation (July 9th).

> 3) Were not authorised to change the system of initiation that locked in

> place the status quo you agree Srila Prabhupada established in 1966.

>

> The above proves point c)."

(Yaduraja das)

 

To which you respond:

 

> Even if 1), 2) and 3) are proven, your claim "The above proves point c)"

> is an unconfirmed conclusion drawn by your imperfect brain.

 

No, it is the logical outcome. Our duty is to follow the orders of the guru,

that is axiomatic. The guru ordered the GBC to manage initiation, told them

EXACTLY how to manage it, and never authorised them to change the way they

managed it. Very simple and logical. There is no statement in Srila

Prabhupada's books that contradicts or modifies in any way the orders given

to the GBC for how initiation was to proceed in ISKCON. I challenge you to

produce one.

 

I notice you have not asked me to provide the quotes that prove 1,2, and 3,

so for now I shall assume you accept they HAVE been proven by the quotes I

provided. As you go on to 'discuss it' you erroneously compare my 1,2 and 3

above with the following:

 

> Like in following example:

>

> 1) Cow dung is pure. (proven)

> 2) The cow is an animal. (proven)

> 1) and 2) prove that animal dung is pure. (speculation)

 

Here we have an excellent example of the fallacy of “faulty analogy.” This

flaw in reasoning is committed when the analogous or compared things have

more differences than similarities.

 

What on earth has your analogy of cow dung got to do with the institutional

framework within which an acarya set in place a management system that could

not be changed, and which kept him as the sole initiator?

 

Your ‘analogy’ has many more differences than similarities and is hence

faulty, and thus another logical fallacy.

 

With regards your latest self-contradiction you irrelevantly accuse:

 

> You saw a contradiction because you don't know or misunderstood what Srila

> Prabhupada meant by "delivered".

 

Whatever Srila Prabhupada may mean by the word ‘deliver’ you have still

contradicted yourself since you claimed:

 

“Srila Prabhupada cannot deliver disciples on this planet without being

present (incarnated) on this planet. Yes, I claim that.”

(Ramakanta das Oct 22, 2006 - 11:35 PM)

 

But then claimed:

 

"Srila Prabhupada cannot deliver disciples on this planet without being

present (incarnated) on this planet (not necessarily during the whole

lifetime of his disciples)."

(Ramakanta das Oct 28, 2006 - 05:24 AM)

 

This is a self-contradiction since if you are conceding that Srila

Prabhupada can deliver a disciple who 'outlives' him (whatever definition of

the word 'deliver' you may wish to ascribe) then that would mean he CAN

deliver disciples even whilst not physically present on this planet.

 

We can leave the issue here if you like since I am confident you have been

completely defeated on this point. But not by me; by Ramakanta das.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

P.S. Regarding your humble enquirey. Please look up the word 'manage'; then

apply this concept to the system given in the July 9th letter.