Hare Krishna,
I will grant you that, given the axioms you have chosen, the conclusion would indeed follow logically. However, if we accept the argument as sound, then we must be able to apply the same reasoning to other cases. Let us apply it to the Gaudiya Matha. It is well known that ‘some’ of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s disciples acting as gurus fell, or at least did not show the purity expected of someone holding such a post. Therefore, if we apply your rule of
and its reasoning, then we would be forced to conclude that Srila Prabhupada is not bonafide. I do not think neither you nor I are willing to accept that. Hence we must revise or abandon the argument altogether. It would be wise to do the latter. 2) You claim that the original eleven ritviks are fallen. Some of them, perhaps the majority, clearly betrayed Srila Prabhupada. They should certainly not be accepted as gurus by anyone. However, they still deserve the mercy of Vaishnavas, as Vaishnavas are more than just - they are “magnanimous,” as Srila Prabhupada teaches us in The Nectar of Devotion. However, for the sake or argument, let me accept your conclusion that none of the original eleven chosen ritviks are qualified to represent Srila Prabhupada. If the original ritvik system is defunct, how would you reinstate it? Srila Prabhupada chose those eleven devotees and you would not question his judgment. However, how would we choose the next ritviks? We could not vote for them, since you do not accept that means as a legitimate way of deciding the representatives of Srila Prabhupada. So what would your objective criteria be? 3) It is accepted that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any successors. However, neither did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Should we reject all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples as well, including of course, Srila Prabhupada? 4) I also have some comments to make about your magazine Back to Prabhupada. First of all, the editorial style (no offense meant) resembles more that of a tabloid than the style of a spiritual publication. In addition, you would present a stronger case if you would publish at least some letters to the editor that are in disagreement with the views expressed in the magazine. Do not discriminate against them for holding opposing views. That is akin to temple bannings against respectful IRM members 5) To help substantiate the claim above, for instance, when you give a summary of the original eleven ritviks, you do exclude important information about them, and simply present information that would seem to satisfy your agenda. For five of them you simply said that they left or were thrown out after
Now, being engaged in illegal activity, however minor, would automatically disqualify one to be a guru. However, in all fairness, you should state what the “illicit activity” in each case was. It is obviously not the same to smoke than to rape a child, and the sastras indicate that the latter is a far greater sin. Also, you mention that H.H. Jayapataka Swami is
First of all, you do not give dates for said investigation, and neither do you give information as to in what country or province the alleged acts occurred. You seem to be blinded by your conclusion that Jayapataka Swami is not an authorized guru, instead of being just and rational while presenting the information. Besides, those of us who have been politically persecuted know very well that anyone can present false charges against an individual. In fact, the argument can be so credible that someone might be given capital punishment…just to find out weeks after the execution that the alleged culprit was innocent. Again, at least be fair and give more information. If you claim that the GBC withholds information that is unfavorable to its interests, please avoid doing the same. 6) In all fairness to H.H. Hrdayandanda das Goswami, if you wanted to attack him, you should have presented a stronger case. All you have to hold against him is that he
By the word ‘college’ in the United States it is usually
understood a four-year college. However, he went to Harvard
University to pursue doctoral studies. It is a tradition in
Vedic culture for sannyasis
to continue their studies through philosophical debate. If you
read his doctoral dissertation, you will realize that he was
preaching all the while, which leads me to the last point for
now.
|
| Post subject: Krishnakant's 1st reply |
| On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:24:16
+0530, IRM wrote Dear Hector Prabhu, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I will answer your points one at a time, moving on only after each point is concluded. Beginning with point 1, you quote the Back To Prabhupada Special Issue thus:
However you have only quoted PART of the relevant passage from the Special Issue. Nobody quotes something beginning with the word 'hence' as being the reasoning offered, because the word 'hence' means that - what is to be quoted now DEPENDS on the reasoning just provided in the preceding sentence. And what reasoning does the preceding sentence - for which what you have quoted above is the conclusion - provide? It states
So THIS is the reasoning I have offered IN ORDER to apply the rule of
Therefore in order to apply THIS reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha, you would need to first demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada and all his Godbrothers who became guru, were all authorised in exactly the same way. Unless you can do this, your argument is defeated, for you have applied the reasoning and rule for one set of conditions to a completely different set of circumstances. If you had read the proof in question carefully, you could have avoided the above 'straw-man' logical blunder - falsely claiming that we say that
applies to all situations. It applies only when all the gurus in question were authorised in an identical manner. Unless you have any challenge to make to the above point (which is simply stating what I actually wrote in BTP), I will move onto your next point, No. 2). I trust you will be gentlemanly enough to post this reply (and all other replies) in full on the HDG Istaghosti and all other places where you have sent your e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much. Your servant, Krishnakant
|
| Post subject: A challenge to IRM 2 |
| Sent: 01 May 2006 23:44 To: IRM Subject: RE: A challenge to IRM Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu: Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. First of all, thank you for accepting my challenge to IRM. I reiterate my prayer that Krishna, by the grace of his pure devotee Srila Prabhupada, may grant undisputed victory to one of us in this debate. Srila Prabhupada’s mission is much too valuable to be wasted in fratricidal battles. I will accompany my prayer asking for Srila Prabhupada’s forgiveness for whatever offenses we may commit in attempting to render service to his mission. May you and I, and anyone who reads this exchange, attain Krishna-prema. As I stated in my original message, I will disseminate this debate as much as possible. Unless directed otherwise by a recipient, I will continue to send the exchanges in an integral way to the same list. I suggest you also post it on your website, as well as publish the entire exchange in your magazine. I will accept you proposition of answering my original points “one at a time.” However, let us not use that as an excuse to delay addressing other equally important points. Point 1: I am aware that I only quoted part of the passage from your magazine because I took for granted that you were aware of your own words, and hence, only used it as a reference. However, your explanation only further weakens your argument. You assume that the 93 devotees became gurus out of their own volition in exactly the same way. First of all, any rational person would understand that there is a difference between the first eleven and the rest, being that the first eleven, upon the physical departure of their beloved Srila Prabhupada, took what they understood were the necessary steps to preserve Srila Prabhupada’s mission. Then they made some decisions, which we may question, that resulted in today’s situation, which obviously needs substantial reform. (In fact, I will submit some recommendations to the GBC as a service to Srila Prabhupada. I expect to publish them on an auspicious occasion very soon.) Notice, though, that I am debating your arguments using your axioms (or “conclusions” that may be taken as axioms for deductive purposes). However, this axiom of yours, namely that they became gurus “in exactly the same way” is a blanket statement which is highly biased and lacks the seriousness required of a dignified debate. An axiom, by definition is “a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference.” It is also considered a “self-evident truth.” Your axiom does not satisfy this principle, yet I played with it as if it were good to show you that in any case, the reasoning was faulty. Besides, a devotee knows that Krishna and Guru can manifest through the heart and in dreams and you do not know if and how Srila Prabhupada has manifested his wishes in those ways to at least some of those gurus, or whether he expressed his views in private conversations. (After all, remember that Madhvacarya was initiated by Srila Vyasadeva in a very mystical way since there is a gap of several millennia between their physical manifestations.) This is not part of my reasoning, but simply an observation to keep in mind when you claim that they were authorized in the same way. It sheds a dark veil on your ‘axiom’ since it cannot be taken as ‘self-evident’. However, taking your axiom as good (only for the sake of argument) you claim that I
Given the information available to me, I must conclude that indeed they were. As you know, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not authorize a successor, and he did not need to. As far as I know, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura had only a siksa relationship with Srila Gaura Kishora das Babaji. Furthermore, Srila Bhaktivinoda did not authorize Srila Gaura Kishora to initiate his biological son. Furthermore, the initiation of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was nothing like the ones Srila Prabhupada gave (in terms of external expression). However, we take it as a fact that they were all bonafide solely on Srila Prabhupada’s conviction and words. Remember also, that Srila Prabhupada was given sannyasa by a godbrother. Was his godborther authorized to do this? If not, then Srila Prabhupada would not be authorized to give sannyasa to his disciples. The matter becomes more involved as we go back in the parampara. Thus, another question to you is, can you show that Srila Prabhupada and his godbrothers were NOT authorized in the same way to initiate disciples? I take it for granted that they were. Tradition is upheld: the acarya departs and he may or may not leave a successor. It does not matter much. This does not imply that the successor is the only one who takes disciples. For preaching purposes, if they are qualified, all his initiated disciples should become gurus. Hence, whether we object to the axiom or we use it, your claim crumbles. In the former case, we reject the line of reasoning and on the latter, we reject the conclusion upon finding an unacceptable conclusion when applied to an analogous setting, i.e. that of the Gaudiya Matha. Of course, it is unacceptable because it would a priori invalidate your “proof 1.” I will leave you with something else to consider before you reply. Last night I was watching a ten-minute interview given by Srila Prabhupada in Boston in 1971. You may find it on CD-13 of ITV’s Prabhupada’s DVD Library Collection. I find his words very appropriate to our discussion. Around the ninth minute of the interview Srila Prabhupada states in his lovely intonation:
Again, may Srila Prabhupada forgive any offenses may we commit in this exchange. Wishing you Srila Prabhupada’s kripa, At his feet, Héctor Rosario, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus PO Box 9018 Mayagüez, PR 00681
|
| Post subject: Krishnakant's 2nd reply |
| Wed, 3 May 2006 Dear Hector Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. You have said:
Prabhu again I must humbly request that you actually READ what was written in the BTP Special issue. There it is explained in great detail how the first 11 were NOT part of the 93 devotees you refer to above, and that they became gurus in a manner DIFFERENT to the 93. Therefore again your point above, like the previous point you made, is another 'straw-man' argument, which could have been avoided if you had actually carefully read the text you are supposed to be challenging. If you accept this point, (which is simply stating what I actually wrote in BTP), I will move onto to your other point below which addresses my last response. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Your servant, Krishnakant
|
| Post subject: Hector - act 3 |
| Hare Krishna, Krishnakant
Prabhu, Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I get the impression that you are diluting the discussion by apparently trying to clarify details. We do not want to become masters of evasion. Let us clarify details, but not stop the discussion as if all other issues depended one particular detail. The truth is one, and if we are truly sincere and humble, it will shine quickly. Remember that our goal as sincere devotees is not trying to determine who has more endurance but to discover the truth. In fact, I was informed that Ramakanta Prabhu defeated you and IRM in an 18- month long debate that finished with you silently dropping out of the discussion when you could not explain a quote from Srila Prabhupada. Ramakanta Prabhu asserted that you had misunderstood Srila Prabhupada's instruction to always compare guru with sadhu and sastra.
Can you explain that quote now? Of course, whether he defeated you or not is not an issue in our debate, but please let us not extend it more than necessary. I am beginning to realize that I made a mistake by accepting your terms that we discuss the issues one by one. Take what ever time you need, but please answer then all at once. I trust you are intelligent enough to handle that. Remember, there are potentially thousands of devotees reading these exchanges and we also want them to share the findings. Let us now proceed with the debate in an honest way. You claim you do not assume anything, yet you assume that I did not “actually read” what you wrote, instead of suggesting I might have misunderstood your arguments. That is more respectful. I will rephrase your argument keeping the essentials, as mathematicians and logicians do. This will help avoid the verbiage that has characterized this debate so far. SP’s dictum: If guru falls, then guru was not authorized (bonafide). Event: At least on guru falls. Conclusion: Guru was not authorized (bona fide). IRM’s Assumption: All gurus were authorized in the same way. (Divide it in two sets, namely the first 11 and the other 93, and apply the same reasoning to both.) IRM’s Conclusion: Since at least one guru fell, the authorization process itself is not authorized (bona fide). IRM’s Corollary: No guru authorized in such way is authorized (bona fide). Your assumption cannot be taken as objective and hence has little to no value, for the reasons I outlined in my second message, e.g. Vyasadeva- Madhvacarya, Goura Kishora-Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Furthermore, even if we take the assumption as valid, the conclusion does not logically follow, unless SP’s dictum is a bi-conditional statement. In the way I remember it from what I read, it is only a conditional statement. As a bi-conditional statement, the dictum becomes: A guru falls if and only if the guru is not authorized. For our readers, it is not the same to say that: If it rains, then Prabhu takes his umbrella. If Prabhu takes his umbrella, then it rains. Hence, even if you can show that Srila Prabhupada’s dictum is a biconditional statement, your assumption is unacceptable. It is your biased perception, and you and I suffer from the four defects, right? However, if we decide to accept your assumption, then we would have to apply the reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha and you would conclude that Srila Prabhupada is not bona fide (unless you can prove that he was authorized in a different way as those of his godbrothers who fell). If you are humble and sincere you will accept defeat at least on this point. However, you have many other issues yet to address from the original challenge to IRM. To recapitulate, 2) How would you reinstate the ritvik system if, according to IRM, none of the original 11 ritviks is a bona fide representative of Srila Prabhupada? 3) It is accepted that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any successors. However, neither did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Should we reject all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples as well, including of course, Srila Prabhupada? 4) Do you think there is an editorial need to include letters of dissenting opinions in your magazine, for the sake of fairness to your readers? (The tendency to cheat is there in us all, but as devotees we should shun it.) 5) Do you think there is a need to give more relevant information when talking about the fall of a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. “Illicit activity”, although disqualifying for a guru however minor, is too vague a term. It borders on slander and libel when we do not present the information fairly. 6) Besides the ‘proof’ in point one (now defeated), your only objection to H.H. Hrdayananda das Goswami (Srila Acaryadeva) being a guru is that he earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Have you read his doctoral dissertation? What else do you have against him? 7) As devotees, our main business is Krishna-katha. Do you feel that IRM’s satisfies that criterion in its publications? The only thing that seems to qualify as such is the mahamantra at the bottom of each page. And of course, I would be glad to hear your reactions about the importance that Srila Prabhupada how we take shelter of Krishna in His physical absence. This quote would seem to deny the very essence of those who vehemently oppose Iskcon’s prerogative to initiate devotees through what they understand are the qualified devotees.
I will wait for your careful and detailed response to all points. That will make it more relishable. With all best wishes, At Srila Prabhupada’s feet, hector -- Héctor Rosario, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus PO Box 9018 Mayagüez, PR 00681
|
| Post subject: Krishnakant's 3rd reply |
| Thu, 4 May 2006 08:25:07 +0530
Dear Hector Prabhu, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. It has only been 3 days, and you already want to engage in evasion of your statement:
I am sorry but I will not allow you to evade your agreement here. Because the most common technique of evasion in debate is to discuss any point one decides, along with any other number of points, at any time, as a way to try and hide one's defeat under verbiage. Which is exactly what you have done here. For I just rebutted your first point in response to my answer to your challenge point 1 - henceforward to be referred to as 'answer 1' - by stating:
Did you accept your defeat on this point in a straight-forward and honest manner? No, you did not even respond directly to this point, and instead evaded it by asking me to start a completely different debate! Thus in just a matter of days you are already trying to evade both the agreed points for debate and also the agreed manner of debate. I will not allow it. Therefore anything else you want to debate will be added to the list of your 7 points, to be answered after these 7 points have been dealt with in order. We are currently discussing your first point. So I will ask you again, to directly state whether or not you accept:
Please answer directly and honestly, either yes or no. (Please do not let me to have to ask you this question for a third time. Thank you). If you answer yes, then you have been defeated on the first point you made in response to my answer 1, and we can then move onto your other point in response to my answer 1, regarding the authorisation of the Gaudiya Matha godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Your servant, Krishnakant
|
| Post subject: Hector - act 4 |
| Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu, Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Prabhu, the only thing I am trying to evade is wasting time on non- essentials. Yes, I did made a mistake when I did not separate the first eleven gurus from the other 93, yet that does not alter the structure of the argument I presented in my third message. However, the logical flaws of your argument still hold. Simply apply your
rule to each case separately. I took the pains to strip your arguments of non-essentials so that we could better analyze the situation. If you have any objection to how I have presented your argument--by simply looking at the structure to test for logical flaws-- then please point where you think I have erred. Let us use that model with whatever adjustments we agree must be made. This is what logicians and mathematicians do precisely to avoid hiding behind words. Politicians do the opposite. I have no problem accepting to have committed a mistake, but I wonder why Ramakanta Prabhu does not appear on your website as a debater who defeated you. You list all those you think to have defeated, yet you do not mention this debate with him. Remember, as devotees we must shun the tendency to cheat. Furthermore, I have admitted another mistake, namely, having accepted your terms that we discuss the issues one by one. Yesterday I suggested we do them all at once, but if you are afraid I may use that to confuse you, then forget it. We will continue to take them one at a time, but that means taking point one at once, not dissecting it into several fragments. Keep in mind, though, that if you extend this debate longer than necessary, the readers will get tired with your evasions and realize you are simply pretending to be sleeping; hence nobody will be able to wake you. Notice that in your response you do evade your own terms, for you again simply took part of the arguments and claimed I was trying to evade you. In fact, you did not address any of the issues in my third message. Let us be truthful. I will repeat my argument. Also, remember that the Gaudiya Matha case belongs to point one. Follow your own rules and address it as part of point one. There is new text towards the end, so I will encourage you to read my words carefully. I have also added two more points to the list, as per your suggestion. Let them be points 8 and 9. SP’s dictum: If guru falls, then guru was not authorized (bonafide). Event: At least on guru falls. Conclusion: Guru was not authorized (bona fide). IRM’s Assumption: All gurus were authorized in the same way. (Divide it in two sets, namely the first 11 and the other 93, and apply the same reasoning to both.) IRM’s Conclusion: Since at least one guru fell, the authorization process itself is not authorized (bona fide). IRM’s Corollary: No guru authorized in such way is authorized (bona fide). Your assumption cannot be taken as objective and hence has little to no value, for the reasons I outlined in my second message, e.g. Vyasadeva- Madhvacarya, Gaura Kishora-Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Furthermore, even if we take the assumption as valid, the conclusion does not logically follow, unless SP’s dictum is a bi-conditional statement. In the way I remember it from what I read, it is only a conditional statement. As a bi-conditional statement, the dictum becomes: A guru falls if and only if the guru is not authorized. For our readers, it is not the same to say that: If it rains, then Prabhu takes his umbrella. If Prabhu takes his umbrella, then it rains. Hence, even if you can show that Srila Prabhupada’s dictum is a biconditional statement, your assumption is unacceptable. It is your biased perception, and you and I suffer from the four defects, right? However, if we decide to accept your assumption, then we would have to apply the reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha and you would conclude that Srila Prabhupada is not bona fide (unless you can prove that he was authorized in a different way as those of his godbrothers who fell). If you are humble and sincere you will accept defeat at least on this point. However, you have many other issues yet to address from the original challenge to IRM. To recapitulate, 2) How would you reinstate the ritvik system if, according to IRM, none of the original 11 ritviks is a bona fide representative of Srila Prabhupada? 3) It is accepted that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize any successors. However, neither did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Should we reject all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples as well, including of course, Srila Prabhupada? 4) Do you think there is an editorial need to include letters of dissenting opinions in your magazine, for the sake of fairness to your readers? (The tendency to cheat is there in us all, but as devotees we should shun it.) 5) Do you think there is a need to give more relevant information when talking about the fall of a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. “Illicit activity”, although disqualifying for a guru however minor, is too vague a term. It borders on slander and libel when we do not present the information fairly. 6) Besides the ‘proof’ in point one (now defeated), your only objection to H.H. Hrdayananda das Goswami (Srila Acaryadeva) being a guru is that he earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Have you read his doctoral dissertation? What else do you have against him? 7) As devotees, our main business is Krishna-katha. Do you feel that IRM’s satisfies that criterion in its publications? The only thing that seems to qualify as such is the mahamantra at the bottom of each page. 8] What is IRM’s position with regard to the importance that Srila Prabhupada gave to how we take shelter of Krishna in His physical absence?
9) Do you accept that Ramakant Prabhu defeated IRM in a debate? With all best wishes, At Srila Prabhupada’s feet, hector -- Héctor Rosario, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus PO Box 9018 Mayagüez, PR 00681
|
| Post subject: Krishnakant's 4th reply |
| Fri, 5 May 2006 Dear Hector Prabhu, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. You have said:
I am glad you have finally directly admitted your mistake. If you had done this earlier, we could have saved time and words. You had earlier claimed that your withdrawn argument mentioned above was evidence of how my argument was 'weakened':
Hence due to your grave charge that you had 'weakened' my argument, your point had to be firmly defeated, which it now has been. Now we move onto your other point in response to my answer 1. I had correctly pointed out the condition required for your challenge 1:
You accepted this condition, and in response as evidence to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada and all his Godbrothers were authorised in exactly the same way, you have responded:
This is not evidence that they were. Otherwise anyone could win any debate on any subject simply by saying "I take it for granted!" Further asserting that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did NOT leave a successor would be evidence of what did NOT happen. You have to demonstrate what DID happen - i.e. that all the subsequent gurus became authorised in the same way. You have also said:
But it is not up to me to show the opposite. This is a logical fallacy called 'shifting the burden'. YOU have asserted that my proof "crumbles", because:
So YOU need to prove your assertion that it was indeed an analogous setting. You cannot assert something, and then say either "I take it for granted", or that your opponent must prove the opposite. I am surprised I have to point out such an elementary logical fallacy to a supposedly 'mathematical brain'. Hence your challenge is already defeated for lack of evidence. In addition what makes your "I take it for granted" claim regarding gurus being 'authorised in the same way', is that you had previously stated that such an assumption is:
Yet when it suits you, you are more than happy to apply such an assumption to the Gaudiya Matha! (Further, as you will clearly see in BTP, *we* did not just assume the 11 and the 93 were authorised in the same way, but demonstrated it via the GBC's own statements. But this is NOT relevant here, since you have challenged to show the flaw in our proof accepting our 'axioms' as true.) Therefore to summarise: a) You challenged that our proof was flawed by asserting that when it is applied to an analogous situation - i.e. the Gaudiya Matha - the conclusion would need to be rejected. b) However you have failed to demonstrate that the Gaudiya Matha was indeed an analogous situation in which you could apply our proof. You have simply
(If you claim that it is not possible to be able to prove this, then your challenge still remains unproven.) c) You have further conceded that you have no evidence for your claim, by committing a logical fallacy in asking me to show the opposite. But I do not need to show anything, since it is not my name which is Hector, nor am I challenging myself. d) Further compounding all this, you have even destroyed the very assumption on which your unsubstantiated argument rests, by stating that such an assumption would in any case be "biased, not objective, of little or no value' etc. So in conclusion your challenge 1 has failed due to lack of evidence, relying only on an assumption, buttressed with the logical fallacy of shifting the burden, and in addition you have further self-defeated even the assumption on which you hang your argument. So unless you have can provide evidence that Srila Prabhupada and all his godbrothers were authorised in exactly the same way your challenge 1 is defeated, and we will move onto your challenge 2. WARNING: Do not respond with methods of evasion like asking me further questions (they will simply go onto the end of the list), or any other unrelated verbiage, or complaining I have not answered something else, or been defeated by others etc. These things did not do you any good previously, nor will they help here. *Respond with anything short of the evidence requested above, and your challenge will still remain unproven, and I will simply keep pointing this out.* Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you, Your servant, Krishnakant
|
| Post subject: Hector - act 5 |
| Hare Krishna, Krishnakant
Prabhu: Please accept my sincere obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I followed your advice and went back to the Special Issue to carefully read your words and study your arguments, receptive to the idea of being wrong. Remember that I opened this debate with a prayer to Krishna asking that Srila Prabhupada would grant undisputed victory to one of us. His great mission deserves no less. Hence if you defeat me in point one, I will accept you have Srila Prabhupada’s blessings. While going over your arguments, I realized I had overlooked a much simpler logical flaw that would have avoided much time and words in establishing the truth of point 1, that is, to establish the logical invalidity of your purported Proof 4 in IRM’s The Final Order:
Keep in mind that my assertion from the beginning in point 1 was that “there is a logical flaw in your purported Proof 4.” So my responsibility was to find such flaw. In the process, I was deluded by pride, and Krishna, unpleased by that, prevented me from seeing the truth. Please, forgive me for any offenses I might have committed against you while deluded by pride. Please, study this simple argument carefully, and you will immediately realize that ‘proof 4’ is no proof at all, since from the very beginning it suffers from a serious logical flaw. In the Special Issue you write:
Here is the flaw: B does not follow from A. Let us look at the logical structure of the statements. Let P be the statement “guru not authorized”. Let Q be the statement “guru falls.” Srila Prabhupada establishes in the Nectar of Devotion that
I will accept your interpretation that being
constitutes a falldown. Now, there are at least two ways to show B does not follow from A. I do not think you will be much pleased with the first one, but I’ll present it anyway. CASE 1. The word ‘sometimes’ is not conclusive, something may or may not happen. If a guru is not authorized, then he may or may not fall. We cannot conclude anything further than that. CASE 2. For the sake of argument, let us ignore the word ‘sometimes’: P: guru not authorized Q: guru falls Prabhupada’s dictum becomes: If P, then Q. (I accept that I was deluded by pride and unintentionally changed Prabhupada’s dictum in my previous messages to “If Q, then P”) In B you claim, “If Q, then P”, that is “if guru falls, then he was not authorized.” If you can show that B holds, *independently* of A, then you would have the stronger biconditional statement: “P if and only if Q”, which is an abbreviated form of saying “If P, then Q - AND - If Q, then P.” The accepted rules of inference of logic show that A and B are different; so much so that the greatest joy in mathematics and logic is to find statements with this property. Consider the following example: If it rains in the morning, then Prabhu takes his umbrella. If Prabhu takes his umbrella, then it rains in the morning. Here, Q is the statement “it rains in the morning.” P is the statement “Prabhu takes his umbrella.” They are obviously different statements with distinct truth values, as discussed in mathematics and logic. Sometimes it is not so easy to see that two statements written in standard English are independent. That is why mathematicians and logicians look at the structure of arguments, precisely to avoid making false claims. In summary, B does not follow from A. If you want to establish the validity of B, then you would need additional arguments. A direct quote from Srila Prabhupada stating “if a guru falls, then he was not authorized” will suffice. Find it and we will go, in order, to steps C, D and E of your recapping. Of course, we have unnecessarily already debated this at large. However, if you cannot show the validity of B *independently* of A, then the entire argument collapses and we can avoid much disturbance to our Vaishnava readers. Until then, ‘Proof 4’ in IRM’s “The Final Order” is no proof at all. I think my prayer has been answered. At Srila Prabhupada’s feet, hector
|
| Post subject: Krishnakant's 5th reply |
| Mon, 8 May 2006 Hector Prabhu, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Prabhu, you really must stop doing this. Every time you are defeated, you simply evade your defeat by making some new point. If you wish to make yet ANOTHER point which was NOT made by you in your original challenge, which is what we are debating, I can discuss accepting it, but ONLY after you FIRST concede defeat on the actual challenge you already made to me. To re-cap, your challenge point 1, was that:
I just defeated this point of yours by demonstrating you have not been able to apply the above reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha. If you are humble and sincere enough to actually accept defeat on this point, rather than just trying to evade the defeat, we can consider your new challenge for proof 4 below. I even KNEW you would try and evade your defeat and HENCE I gave you the following warning:
We can only move onto new challenges once we have finished with the challenge you made to me and announced to the whole world on April 30th. If you concede defeat on this challenge point 1 (and if you wish you can withdraw the others), THEN we can discuss immediately answering your new challenge below. (as then it will not need to be added to the end of the list as challenge No. 10 as per the rules.) Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. Your servant, Krishnakant
|
| Post subject: Hector - act 6 |
| Sent: 10 May 2006 22:35 To: IRM Subject: A challenge to IRM[Final] Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu: Please accept my greetings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I am writing to inform you of the end of this debate. I have tried to treat you with all the respect a Vaisnava deserves, and have repeatedly asked for forgiveness for any offenses I might have committed against you or any other Vaisnava as we engaged in this exchange. Yet, you seem disturbed in your replies and hence it is wiser for me to avoid falling pray to anger, which might lead to vaisnava-aparadha. Nevertheless, I will leave you with a detailed explanation of the first and only point we were able to debate to help you see the falseness of your claim. Please, save it for future reference as you might never hear directly from me again. Firstly, I have admitted to making mistakes in the progression of this debate, some of them pointed out by you. However, those mistakes only helped to refine the arguments and our search for truth, which is to what, as sincere devotees, we should aspire. I will leave here the best I can offer in terms of deductive reasoning, which I admit is not the proper way to understand spiritual matters. However, since you have attempted to use the deductive reasoning approach (i.e. the ascending process) to establish the ‘veracity’ of your claims, I used the same method to show you where your argument in IRM’s “The Final Order” went wrong. If you want a verification of the pristine logic of the arguments hereby presented, look for the kind assistance of a mathematician or a logician. However, if you are interested in understanding spiritual matters, simply surrender to Krishna through His bona fide representative. The descending process of spiritual realization will then take place and you will be free to abandon all this nonsense, to which I have been part. As I said in my previous message, I followed your advice and went back to IRM’s Special Summary Issue to carefully read your words and study your arguments. Needless to say, I derived no spiritual benefit from the reading itself, but the reading gave me an opportunity to serve Srila Prabhupada by refuting your arguments. Remember Srila Prabhupada instructed us to use our writing abilities to spread Krishna Consciousness, not to become an impediment in such spreading. My original claim in Point 1 was that your purported Proof 4 in IRM’s The Final Order:
was not logically sound. Again, please, study this simple argument carefully, and you will immediately realize that ‘proof 4’ is no proof at all, since from the very beginning it suffers from a serious logical flaw. In the Special Issue you write:
Here is the flaw: B does not follow from A. Let us look at the logical structure of the statements. Let P be the statement “guru not authorized”. Let Q be the statement “guru falls.” You quote Srila Prabhupada in the Nectar of Devotion thus:
I will accept your interpretation that being
constitutes a falldown, which is only the agreed interpretation of two conditioned souls. Now, there are at least two ways to show B does not follow from A. CASE 1: Consider the word ‘sometimes’: The word ‘sometimes’ is not conclusive, something may or may not happen. If a guru is not authorized, then he may or may not fall. We cannot conclude anything further than that. Let P and Q be the following clauses: P: guru not authorized Q: guru falls -P: guru authorized (This is the negation of P.) -Q: guru does not fall (This is the negation of Q.) Remember that by a conditional statement is meant a statement of the form “if...then.” Using this notation, Srila Prabhupada’s conditional statement becomes: If guru not authorized, then guru falls OR guru does not fall. (Notice that the inclusive “or” logically represents “sometimes.” In the abbreviated notation, the statement becomes: If P, then (Q or –Q). This conditional statement is always true, regardless of the truth values of P and Q. Nothing further can be logically concluded. B does not follow from A. CASE 2: Ignore ‘sometimes’: For the sake of argument, let us ignore the word ‘sometimes.’ This might be an offense since we are changing Srila Prabhupada’s words. However, I do it only to show you that ‘Proof 4’ is no proof at all, at least logically speaking. Srila Prabhupada’s dictum becomes:If P, then Q. In B you claim, “If Q, then P”, that is “if guru falls, then he was not authorized.” This is called the inverse of the conditional statement. These two statements, namely the conditional and its inverse are not logically equivalent. A high school textbook on geometry or on introductory logic will help you see the truth of this. An introductory text on Boolean algebras will also do. After all, the entire structure of mathematical truth is built on these grounds. In summary, B does not follow from A. If you want to establish the validity of B, then you would need additional evidence or arguments. A direct quote from Srila Prabhupada stating “if a guru falls, then he was not authorized” will suffice. However, if you cannot show the validity of B *independently* of A, then the entire argument collapses. It gets a little worse than that for IRM if we consider the contrapositive of Srila Prabhupada’s dictum (that is, ignoring ‘sometimes’). As you might already know, a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, that is, the following two statements are equivalent: i) If P, then Q. ii) If –Q, then –P. Saying “If guru not authorized, then guru falls” is equivalent to saying “If guru does not fall, then guru is authorized.” That was not your intended conclusion, but is what logically follows. Again, the introductory textbook on logic might help you with these fine points. If one is conversant with the rules of deductive reasoning, one should not attempt to use it, especially in spiritual matters, as one may commit many offenses. With the evidence you have provided in “The Final Order” one can reach a different conclusion than IRM’s, simply by adhering to the standard rules of inference. There is more that can be said about these matters, especially if one reads Srila Prabhupada’s words carefully. In fact, there is a CASE 3 that can be considered to render your claim useless yet again. However, please do not waste your time on preparing a revised edition of The Final Order to make up for these mistakes. As a sincere devotee, that is the least you could do. You would not want to cheat others, having been warned of a logical flaw in your argument. Nevertheless, there is something much better you can do: focus on distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books, and not your own. Always remember that we must cultivate the hearing process as a way to promote the validity of the descending method for realizing spiritual truth. My only advice to you is to devote your energies to discussing Krishna-katha. Ask for forgiveness from all those you might have offended throughout the years, even if unintentionally, and take shelter at Srila Prabhupada’s feet. I will end this debate with a quote from our beloved Srila Prabhupada:
I pray not to have committed this offense. At Srila Prabhupada’s feet, Hector P.S. Here is a list of Srila Prabhupada’s quotes compiled by Madhudvisa Prabhu that serve as ample evidence of the falsity of the ritviks. You may post them on your website, along with our exchanges in their entirety. ********************************* 761210DB.HYD Lectures So we got this information from His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that knowledge is still going on. You are receiving through his servant. And in future the same knowledge will go to your students. This is called parampara system. Evam parampara prap... It is not that you have become a student and you'll remain student. No. One day you shall become also guru and make more students, more students, more. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, not that perpetually... Yes, one should remain perpetually a student, but he has to act as guru. That is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. It is not that because I am acting as guru, I am no longer student. No, I am still student. Caitanya Mahaprabhu taught us this instruction that we shall always remain a foolish student before our Guru Maharaja. That is the Vedic culture. I may be very big man, but still, I should remain a foolish student to my guru. That is the qualification. Guru more murkha dekhi' karila sasana. We should be always prepared to be controlled by the guru. That is very good qualification. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah. Ara na kariha mane asa. So we should become always a very obedient student to our guru. That is the qualification. That is the spiritual qualification. 660729BG.NY Lectures There is no consideration of material impediment. So it is open for everyone. Catur-varnyam maya srstam. That is a chance given, that you can become a brahmana, you can become a great devotee of Lord Krsna, and you can become the spiritual master of the world. That is the... And I think you should take seriously. 750406CC.MAY Lectures And to become acarya is not very difficult. First of all, to become very faithful servant of your acarya, follow strictly what he says. Try to please him and spread Krsna consciousness. That's all. It is not at all difficult. Try to follow the instruction of your Guru Maharaja and spread Krsna consciousness. That is the order of Lord Caitanya. 680817VP.MON Lectures Now, this spiritual master's succession is not very difficult. Of course, my students, they offer me so much respect, but all these respects are due to my spiritual master. I am nothing. I am just like peon. Just like peon delivers one letter. He is not responsible for what is written in that letter. He is not responsible for what is written in that letter. He simply delivers. But a peon's duty is that he must sincerely carry out the order of the postmaster and deliver the letter to the proper person. That is their duty. Similarly, this parampara system is like that. Every one of us should become a spiritual master because the world is in blazing fire. (aside:) You can give them prasadam. Now, of course, time is very high. So to understand the spiritual master... Spiritual master is not a new invention. It is simply following the orders of the spiritual master. So all my students present here who are feeling so much obliged... I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become the spiritual master. That is the science of becoming spiritual master. Spiritual master is not any... To become a spiritual master is not very wonderful thing. Simply one has to become sincere soul. That's all. Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. In the Bhagavad-gita it is said that "By disciplic succession this yoga process of Bhagavad-gita was handed down from disciple to disciple. But in course of time that disciplic succession is now lost. Therefore, Arjuna, I am teaching you again the same philosophy." Songs Purport to Sri-Sri-Gurv-astakam 690102PU.LA We should always remember that the spiritual master is in the disciplic succession. The original spiritual master is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He blesses his next disciple, just like Brahma. Brahma blesses his next disciple, just like Narada. Narada blesses his next disciple, just like Vyasa. Vyasa blesses his next disciple, Madhvacarya. Similarly, the blessing is coming. Just like royal succession--the throne is inherited by disciplic or hereditary succession--similarly, this power from the Supreme Personality of Godhead has to receive. Nobody can preach, nobody can become a spiritual master, without obtaining power from the right source. Therefore the very word, it is stated here, praptasya. Praptasya means "one who has obtained." Praptasya kalyana. What he has obtained? Kalyana. Kalyana means auspicity. He has received something which is auspicious for all the human kind. Praptasya kalyana-gunarnavasya. Here is another example. Gunarnava. Arnava means ocean, and guna means spiritual qualities. Just like the same example is going on. It is very nice poetry. There is nice rhethorics and metaphor. The example is set, blazing fire, and it is to be extinguished with the cloud. And wherefrom the cloud comes? Similarly, wherefrom the spiritual master receives the mercy? The cloud receives his potency from the ocean. Therefore the spiritual master also receives his power from the ocean of spiritual quality, that is, from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So praptasya kalyana-gunarnavasya. Such kind of spiritual master, one has to accept, and vande guroh sri-caranaravindam, and one has to offer his respectful obeisances to such authorized spiritual master. (end) 710718RC.DET Conversations Prabhupada: Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters. 770415rc.bom Conversations Prabhupada: "Like father, like son." You should be. Gaurangera bhakta..., jane. Everyone. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, amara ajnaya guru hana tara' ei desa. He asked everyone, "Just become guru." Follow His instruction. You become guru. Amara ajnaya. Don't manufacture ideas. Amara ajnaya. "What I say, you do. You become a guru." Where is the difficulty? "And what is Your ajna?" Yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa. Bas. Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gita. You simply repeat. That's all. You become guru. To become a guru is not difficult job. Follow Caitanya Mahaprabhu and speak what Krsna has said. Bas. You become guru. 750302BA.ATL Lectures So you are hearing this philosophy daily. Try to understand more and more. We have got so many books. And this is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and, by disciplic succession, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, then my spiritual master. Then we are trying our level best. Similarly, you will also try your level best on the same principle. Then it will go on. Same principle. It doesn't matter whether one is born in India or outside India. No. When Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, prthivite ache yata nagaradi-grama, "As many towns and cities and villages are there," He did not say it to make a farce. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So sometimes I am very much criticized that I am making foreigners a brahmana. The caste brahmanas in India, they are very much against me. But this is not fact. When Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that all over the world His message will be broadcast, does it mean that it will be simply a cinema show? No. He wanted that everyone should become perfect Vaisnava. That is His purpose. 720518AR.LA Lectures So we have got this message from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge. People are suffering. They are simply fighting on some false thing, maya. They should be given the real fact of happiness. 68-12-03 Letter: Hamsaduta Next January there will be an examination on this Bhagavad-gita. Papers will be sent by me to all centers, and those securing the minimum passing grade will be given the title as Bhakti-sastri. Similarly, another examination will be held on Lord Caitanya's Appearance Day in February, 1970 and it will be upon Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita. Those passing will get the title of Bhakti-vaibhava. Another examination will be held sometimes in 1971 on the four books, Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, and Nectar of Devotion. One who will pass this examination will be awarded with the title of Bhaktivedanta. I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program. So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self-realization.
|
| Post subject: Krishnakant's 6th reply |
| Fri, 12 May 2006 Dear Hector Prabhu, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. 1) Just a few days ago you challenged me to a debate, praying that victory will be granted to one of the parties. Now you have suddenly bowed out of the debate, being unable to concede your defeat on the inapplicability of my proof to the Gaudiya Matha. You have also said that the whole process of you trying to debate my points through logic and argument was "nonsense, to which I have been part." 2) Further the most basic qualities of a vaisnava are humility and freedom from passion and anger. Having been defeated in debate, not only are you now bowing out without having the humility to admit your defeat regarding your Gaudiya Matha argument, but you also no longer are able to offer your 'humble obeisances' to me as you have done in every mail so far. Now all of a sudden, you can only offer your 'greetings'! Additionally you say you must bow out of the debate because you will fall prey to anger. So in just a handful of exchanges, you have demonstrated both a complete lack of humility and inability to control your anger whilst debating, resulting in you needing to flee the battle-field. Hence your proud boast to the world how you were challenging me to debate hoping you would emerge victorious was all over in just a few days. Like they say - don't give up your day job just yet! 3) Further you have also decided that you are more intelligent than the whole of the GBC. For you have also decided to advise the GBC that they should all be dismissed from their posts, and a completely new GBC be established! In addition you have said that whilst this happens there should be a complete moratorium on initiations. To establish a new Bona Fide GBC and stop all initiation by the current ISKCON gurus, is of course also the goal of the IRM! It seems your defeat in this debate has had some effect in that you have come some way to adopting our goals! Further you have asked for advice as to how to rectify ISKCON by asking:
to one Madhudvisa Das, who is a self-confessed ritvik, having got the name Madhudvisa das via ritvik initiation. He also gave himself ritvik sannyasa initiation, and was known for sometime as Madhudvisa Swami. Thus both your proposal to the GBC, and the source of your proposal, are heavily influenced by the ritvik idea, and this is all very apt, coming as it is after your defeat in a debate by a ritvik! Conclusion Since you have already been defeated in the actual debate you challenged me to, having withdrawn from it completely rather than concede defeat on your challenge 1, (about how you cannot apply my proof to the Gaudiya Matha), this debate is indeed over. I thus forced you to withdraw from a debate which YOU initiated and challenged me to, in just 10 DAYS. However you have tried to distract from your defeat and subsequent withdrawal by giving a completely new challenge. This will also now be defeated, so in just a matter of a few days, you will have been defeated in two different debates. You have advised me to read some elementary texts on logic, but I will now show that you are not even aware of the definition of logic. Logic is the process of drawing inferences from given truths (axioms). In this case, our axioms are the statements of Srila Prabhupada, since they are self-evident truths. In both your case 1 and case 2 of your new challenge, you completely ignore this basic definition of logic. Using the same notation you have given where: P = guru not authorised Q = guru falls Srila Prabhupada states as you correctly say in case 1 that: If P then Q or -Q. You end your case 1 at this point, saying nothing further can be concluded. You repeat the same point for Case 2 by telling us that: If P then Q is a conditional statement, and its inverse If Q then P are not logically equivalent, and hence again nothing further can be deduced from if P then Q. Both your arguments here ARE correct if we ASSUME that 'If P then Q' is a conditional statement. But it is not, it is a bi-conditional statement. A bi-conditional statement is where the INVERSE of a statement IS true e.g. in the statement “If I marry you, then you will be my wife” – in this case the inverse – “if you are my wife, I married you” – is also true. Now usually one mistakes a conditional statement for a bi-conditional statement, and this is the logical fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent', and arises because in a situation where: If P then Q, the inverse If Q then P, will NOT follow since Q can have OTHER causes than P. E.g. If P = rain; Q = Streets are wet: then whilst "if it rains the streets will be wet" (If P then Q), is true, the inverse, "if the streets are wet, it rained" (If Q then P), is not true, since Q (streets being wet) can have many other causes, than just rain. (P). e.g in addition to "if it rains the streets will be wet", other axioms are "if is snows the streets will be wet", "if I am cleaning the street, they will be wet" etc. then we can see how ‘If P then Q’ is a conditional statement, and the inverse can NOT be inferred. Thus a conditional statement depends on the availability of more than one axiom or truth. As soon as you have more than one available axiom or truth regarding how streets become wet, then If P then Q, becomes a conditional statement. However IF the only available axiom was: "If it rains, the streets will be wet", and NO OTHER truths about how the streets becoming wet were available, THEN if somebody found the streets wet they COULD correctly infer it had rained - for this would be the only known cause of wetness, as no other truths regarding wetness had been given, and the statement would become bi-conditional, and the inverse would become true. Just as in the example regarding marriage and a wife given above, there are no other axioms available regarding how one becomes a wife other than marriage. But if there existed another axiom say such as “If you are my girl-friend for more than 10 years, you are automatically my wife’, than in the example given, the statement “If I marry you, you are my wife” would be converted into a conditional statement, since now the inverse would no longer be true, as the result (becoming my wife) can have more than one cause, and it would cease to be a bi-conditional statement. So logic is the process of drawing inferences from the GIVEN axioms or truths. If only one such axiom is given, then from this axiom we can correctly infer a bi-conditional statement. If more than one relevant axiom is given, then from any such axiom we can only infer a conditional statement. Thus in both your case 1 and case 2, you have incorrectly assumed the relevant part of the statement in question (If P then Q) is conditional rather than bi-conditional, even though the only available axiom for a guru falling involves the guru not being authorised. There is no other statement from Srila Prabhupada giving the cause of guru fall-down outside of being UNauthorised – that is, nowhere does Srila Prabhupada state that a guru fall-down will occur as a result of a guru actually being correctly AUTHORISED. Therefore by the simple definition of logic, proof 4 draws an inverse inference from the available axiom, and the conclusion it derives is correct, since no other available axioms which could change this conclusion exist, and therefore the statement was bi-conditional. So sometimes if a guru is not authorised, he falls - axiom given by Srila Prabhupada. If a guru has fallen he was not authorised - it follows: AS NO AXIOM STATING THAT A GURU FALLS DUE TO BEING AUTHORISED EXISTS. Therefore given the available axioms, I have logically drawn the correct inference. It is ironic that here, as in your mistaken Gaudiya Matha analogy, your arguments fail both times due to you being unable to demonstrate first with available evidence, the very premises you have assumed. A conditional statement ASSUMES the existence of other relevant axioms, just as asserting that my proof also applies to the Gaudiya Matha ASSUMES that the guru authorisation process for the Gaudiya Matha was analogous to that followed in ISKCON. In both cases your arguments were defeated due to your inability to substantiate the very assumptions on which your arguments rested. You stated in last but one e-mail that:
Since you have been defeated comprehensively on point one, please be happy that Krishna has granted your prayer. Your servant, Krishnakant
|
| Post subject: Hector - act 7 |
| 16 May 2006 20:37 Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu, Please accept my greetings again. All glories to Srila Acaryadeva and Srila Gurudeva, the most faithful servants of Srila Prabhupada. By glorifying their names we can get the mercy of Srila Prabhupada; by offending them we can only condemn ourselves. I have received authorization from Srila Acaryadeva (H.H. Hridayananda das Goswami) to proceed with the debate, if there is a purpose to it. As you know, I began this debate without authorization from my Guru Maharaja, but upon the suggestion of Shyam Krishna Prabhu from Vrindavana dhama, I requested the authorization of Srila Acaryadeva. The purpose then is to share with you my realizations, based on shastra-guru-sadhu, as to what to do when guilty of committing offenses against devotees. As an aside, I will summarize the arguments showing some of the logical flaws in IRM’s “The Final Order” once again. First of all, if I do not offer my obeisances to you any longer, it is not due to pride; it is simply due to respect for those you have offended. Remember, even if Srila Prabhupada might have said harsh words against some of his Godbrothers, it is not our position, as conditioned souls, to imitate him and utter harsh words against his Godbrothers. Hear from Srila Prabhupada:
Hence, we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and not his lilas. Never did he instruct us to blaspheme someone who has dedicated his life to spreading Krishna Consciousness. Indeed, it is the worst offense against the chanting of the Holy Name. In particular, we should be extremely careful, if we are anxious at all to obtain Srila Prabhupada’s mercy, not to offend the disciples of his who have dedicated their lives to such service. You have not cared for that instruction and have dedicated a substantial part of your life to such grave offense against the chanting of the Holy Name. You might claim that they are fallen devotees, but only a fool would fail to realize that Srila Gurudeva (H.H. Gour Govinda Goswami) is a pure devotee of the Lord. I doubt Srila Prabhupada will ever forgive you for such an offense. In 1977, a few months before his disappearance pastime, Srila Prabhupada begged to be with his beloved son, Gour Govinda Maharaja. Upon Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, no recorders were allowed during his 17 days of intimate conversations with his most advanced disciple. This is unusual for Srila Prabhupada, who always wanted everything recorded. Yet, that was his mercy. That pastime reminds me of Lord Chaitanya’s pastime with Ramananda Raya. Unfortunately, neither you nor I were qualified to receive the mercy of being present during those most intimate exchanges. Nor are we qualified to receive it now as sound vibration or in written form. In fact, they might be lost to us forever, unless they were revealed to someone intimately close to them who might later record such a wonderful lila, someone like Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. My advice to you is very simple: you must immediately ask for Srila Prabhupada’s forgiveness. This realization is based on the pastime of Durvasa Muni and Ambarisa Maharaja. The only thing that saved Durvasa Muni from Vishnu’s sudarsana cakra was asking for forgiveness at the lotus feet of Ambarisa Maharaja. In that mood, you must ask for Srila Prabhupada’s forgiveness through Gour Govinda Maharaja. However, since he is no longer physically present either, you are forced to do it through any of his disciples. Take advantage of such an opportunity and ask for forgiveness from all those you have offended. That will be very beneficial to you. Dismantle the IRM and change the focus of Back to Prabhupada to discussing Srila Prabhupada’s lilas, like his lila with Gour Govinda Maharaja. However, you must become qualified before you take to that path. If you are proud and do not follow this advice, you will certainly remember these words in your deathbed, if you get such a chance. By then, it might be too late. To finish the debate, for you completely ignored my advice not to use deductive reasoning in trying to realize spiritual knowledge, I will clarify a few more points. However, always remember that spiritual knowledge is only received via the descending method, through the mercy of the guru. This deductive reasoning approach is as dry as a desert. Remember, we must swim and drown in the ocean of Bhakti: the ocean of tears for Krishna-prema. As I have stated three times already, the original claim in Point 1 was that your purported proof 4 in IRM’s The Final Order:
was not logically sound. Again, please, study this simple argument carefully, and you will immediately realize that ‘proof 4’ is no proof at all, since from the very beginning it suffers from a serious logical flaw. In the Special Issue you write:
Here is the flaw: B does not follow from A. Let us look at the logical structure of the statements. Let P be the statement “guru not authorized”. Let Q be the statement “guru falls.” You quote Srila Prabhupada in the Nectar of Devotion thus:
I will accept your interpretation that being
constitutes a falldown, which is only the agreed interpretation of two conditioned souls. Now, there are at least two ways to show B does not follow from A. CASE 1: Consider the word ‘sometimes’: The word ‘sometimes’ is not conclusive, something may or may not happen. If a guru is not authorized, then he may or may not fall. We cannot conclude anything further than that. Let P and Q be the following clauses: P: guru not authorized Q: guru falls -P: guru authorized (This is the negation of P.) -Q: guru does not fall (This is the negation of Q.) Using this notation, Srila Prabhupada’s conditional statement becomes: If guru not authorized, then guru falls OR guru does not fall. In the abbreviated notation, the statement becomes: If P, then (Q or –Q). This conditional statement is always true, regardless of the truth values of P and Q. Nothing further can be logically concluded. B does not follow from A. The inverse of this sentence is: If (Q or –Q), then P. That is, if guru falls or not falls, then guru not authorized. This is what we get with the out-of-context quote from Srila Prabhupada. CASE 2: Ignore ‘sometimes’: For the sake of argument, let us ignore the word ‘sometimes.’ This is an offense since we are changing Srila Prabhupada’s words. However, I do it only to show you that ‘proof 4’ is no proof at all, at least logically speaking. Srila Prabhupada’s modified dictum becomes: If P, then Q. In B you claim, “If Q, then P”, that is “if guru falls, then he was not authorized.” This is called the inverse of the conditional statement. These two statements, namely the conditional and its inverse are not logically equivalent. However, you decided to completely ignore the fact that we are changing Srila Prabhupada’s words by deleting the word sometimes to make the conditional statement “If P, then Q”. To change Srila Prabhupada’s words to suit our needs is an even greater offense. I only accepted the deletion to show you yet another deficiency of the argument. Instead, to salvage your argument, you decided to go around this offense by stating that this was a biconditional statement. Nevertheless, even if we commit yet another offense and now add meaning to Srila Prabhupada’s words, we still come to the following demolishing argument for IRM’s The Final Order. As you already know, a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, that is, the following two statements are equivalent: i) If P, then Q. ii) If –Q, then –P. Furthermore, whether the inverse of a statement is true or not, does not make any difference to the logical equivalence of the statement and its contrapositive. Hence, consider the contrapositive of Srila Prabhupada’s modified dictum (that is, ignoring ‘sometimes’). Saying “If guru not authorized, then guru falls” is equivalent to saying “If guru does not fall, then guru is authorized.” Again, “If guru does not fall, then guru is authorized.” With this reasoning, the result of our deletion of ‘sometimes’ your purported proof 4 not only collapses, but gives a conclusion contrary to some of IRM’s conclusions. Why should we bother to apply this reasoning to the Gaudiya Matha when the argument is self- collapsing? It was a mistake on my part to bring up the Gaudiya Matha for not having yet realized the gross logical flaws at the beginning of the purported proof 4. Only when Krishna impelled me to purge your arguments and use symbolic logic was I able to see the fallacy. Please do not waste your time on preparing a revised edition of The Final Order to make up for these mistakes, but instead focus on distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books and not your own. After asking for forgiveness from Srila Gurudeva through one of his disciples, this will please Srila Prabhupada very much and enhance his transcendental pleasure. To address one more point that you brought up, anyone may fall down by misusing one’s independence. It is better for me to simply quote Srila Prabhupada, since I am not qualified to speak on these matters.
Please, ask for Srila Gurudeva’s and Srila Prabhupada’s forgiveness through a disciple of Gour Govinda Maharaja. That will be the beginning of your revived spiritual life. At Srila Acaryadeva’s feet, hector OM TAT SAT
|