Ramakanta forgets what has already been proven.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

<First you have to admit that your points a) and b) alone do not prove your

point c).>

 

The points are a simplification of our position. The evidence proving the

points is not contained within the points, but given separately in NCIP etc.

Did you not realise this?

 

You have agreed with a point a) identical in meaning to the one I gave at the

beginning of this debate. You accepted that Srila Prabhupada deliberately

established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966 by making himself

recognised and accepted as such (I can repost where you agreed this was proven

if you have forgotten).

 

You have offered no evidence whereby the GBC were authorised to change a). You

even say you are not even claiming such evidence exists.

 

Therefore, since the GBC were the body you agree were charged with managing

initiation, and since they were not to change any system they were given to

manage (all proven with evidence) point c) follows. Point c) merely asserts a

continuation of the status quo set out in point a). A status quo you accept as

proven and for which you have no counter-evidence.

 

A child could grasp this. It’s just so simple.

 

> Points a,b,and c, are themselves an extremely simplified and abbreviated

> expression of the IRM’s position, as you well know.

 

<Yes I know that. But your points a), b) and c) are not an argument because

the inference "if a and b then c" confirmed by Srila Prabhupada is missing

and therefore they do not prove anything.>

 

Your current challenge:

 

<You have not proven that the 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.>

 

Is self defeating, and hence a logical fallacy, since:

 

You have not first proven that Srila Prabhupada has authorised that Ramakanta

das (or anyone else) can challenge his visible, signed directives to the GBC on

the basis of theoretical, invisible orders.

 

Thus your challenge suffers from self-referential incoherence.

 

Your challenge demands authorisation from Srila Prabhupada confirming the fact

that evidence must be visible, yet you are unable to justify that very

challenge on the basis of such authorisation from Srila Prabhupada. Do you see

how you have contradicted your own standards for what constitutes proof in a

debate?

 

It is madness to even suggest that Srila Prabhupada would sanction a system

whereby any nutcase can come along and stop a system he personally set in place

(with accompanying orders not to change anything), on the basis of absolutely

no evidence. Yet this is what your challenge involves. It is the product of a

kali-yuga mind for sure.

 

Your challenge also implicitly concedes defeat within a debate where the rule

is the evidence must be visible.

 

You now need to find someone else willing to debate you on the basis of new,

crazy rules that allow visible orders to be challenged or terminated on the

basis of phantom evidence. Good luck.

 

Once you concede defeat I shall destroy your remaining challenges (at least

those that are not neutral).

 

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>

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:15:00 AM

Ramakanta still has no evidence to challenge point c.

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Our position is reinforced by layers of additional argumentation which I

> have not yet deployed against your weak and hopeless challenges, as you

> well know.

 

As I already wrote, you can present them later. First you have to admit that

your points a) and b) alone do not prove your point c).

 

 

> Points a,b,and c, are themselves an extremely simplified and abbreviated

> expression of the IRM’s position, as you well know.

 

Yes I know that. But your points a), b) and c) are not an argument because

the inference "if a and b then c" confirmed by Srila Prabhupada is missing

and therefore they do not prove anything.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

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

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with the Search movie showtime shortcut.

http://tools.search./shortcuts/#news