Ramakanta still tries to change the subject

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> You need to prove that Srila Prabhupada authorised the GBC to operate an

> alternative initiation system to the one he locked in place prior to his

> departure.

 

<In other words, you are asking me to show you an order to the GBC by which

Srila Prabhupada authorized a devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON.>

 

The burden of proof is on you to justify a change to the status quo you have

already agreed existed since 1966. He who proposes a change to the status quo

must justify such a change.

 

< So your challenge is based on the unproven assumption that only way to

authorize a

devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON is an order to the GBC which must have

been seen by you. >

 

My challenge is based on the way in which the burden of proof works in a

debate.

 

The rule of this debate is that all statements must be supported with evidence

from Srila Prabhupada. This evidence must thus be perceivable, tangible,

existent and visible.

 

Your challenge, however, is based on the unproven, speculative assumption that

there may be an order to the GBC allowing them to to operate an alternative

initiation system to the one Srila Prabhupada locked in place prior to his

physical departure (see VISIBLE evidence I presented). But you are unable to

prove such an order exists, and now imply pathetic excuses for not being able

to present it such as 'I am enquiring beyond my limit', 'I am not qualified'

etc etc.

 

These are just different ways of saying:

 

‘I have no evidence relevant to my challenge to point c).’

 

This being the case you are defeated.

 

If you want to start a new debate based on new, crazy rules that require no

visible evidence, then you will need to find someone else to argue with. How

many more times will I have to explain this basic, simple point?

 

Why not just admit:

 

'The GBC have presented, thus far, no evidence that would allow them to remove

Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON, and hence the status quo

(point a) should continue.'

 

That's basically all the IRM are saying. And its clear, after more than a year

of argument, you have no evidence to challenge this position.

 

<But you did not present any visible evidence that Srila Prabhupada was

authorized to be a diksa guru.>

 

This is not the subject of our debate. I can understand why you would want to

change the subject, given that you have been completely defeated, but you will

not get away with it on my watch.

 

This debate already assumes that Srila Prabhupada is an authorised diksa guru

and bona fide member of the infallible disciplic succession. No-one is

disputing this point. The GBC accept he is and so do the IRM, and I assume so

do you. If he were not then obviously he could not initiate, nor authorise

anyone else to do so, hence the entire debate would be meaningless. Therefore

this is not the subject of contention. You are trying to shift the subject in

order to mask your own crushing defeat.

 

The subject of this debate is what instructions Srila Prabhupada gave for how

initiation was to be conducted in ISKCON.

 

If the ISKCON ‘gurus’ want to 'follow' Srila Prabhupada’s example and leave

ISKCON, start their own Movement, write their own books, set their own

initiation standards etc etc then good luck to them I say, bon voyage! But they

didn't do this did they? So you are not comparing like with like are you?

 

We are meant to be talking about what is meant to be happening WITHIN ISKCON,

did you not realise that?

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

 

 

 

Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:25:00 AM

Ramakanta tries to change the subject of the debate.

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> You need to prove that Srila Prabhupada authorised the GBC to operate an

> alternative initiation system to the one he locked in place prior to his

> departure.

 

In other words, you are asking me to show you an order to the GBC by which

Srila Prabhupada authorized a devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. So your

challenge is based on the unproven assumption that only way to authorize a

devotee to be a diksa guru in ISKCON is an order to the GBC which must have

been seen by you. This is unproven and you will never be able to prove it

because there is another way. Therefore your argument (points a, b, and c)

is incomplete and your point c) is unproven.

 

 

> This is not the subject of our debate.

 

Of course it is. Please look at your point c). It says, "Srila Prabhupada

remains the diksa guru for ISKCON". But you did not present any visible

evidence that Srila Prabhupada was authorized to be a diksa guru. Therefore,

according to your rule, your point c) is unproven.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

Be a PS3 game guru.

Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Games.

http://videogames./platform?platform=120121