Proof #1 that ritvikvada is wrong

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta Mark, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> FACT: He was NOT there physically to perform the ceremony.

>

> What you have been arguing is that He MUST be there.

 

I never wrote that the guru must be there physically to perform the

ceremony.

 

> Interactive communication is something different. And according to Srila

> Prabhupada we can still have active communication with Him even if He is

> not there!

 

By "interactive communication" I mean following: A person asks a question to

another person, the other person receives the question and answers it, and

the person who asked the question receives the answer.

 

> Disciple " I feel so far away from you, you know when your not here."

>

> Srila Prabhupada " Oh-- that you should not think. There are two

> conceptions: the physical conception and the vibration conception. So the

> physical conception is temporary. The vibration conception is eternal.

> Just like we are enjoying or we are relishing the vibration of Krishna's

> teachings. So by vibration He is present. As soon as we chant Hare Krishna

> or chant Bhagavad gita or Bhagavata, He is present immedietely by His

> vibration. He's Absolute. Therefore try to remember His words of

> instruction-- you'll not feel separation. You'll feel that He is with you.

> So we should associate by the vibration, and not by the physical presence.

> That is real association." (Questions and answers following a lecture,

> August 18, 1968, Montreal)

 

Until November 14, 1977 an interactive communication (as I described above)

with Srila Prabhupada was always possible. Maybe difficult, but still

possible.

 

> This is not my interperatation. This is a FACT it happened Srila

> Prabhupada DID NOT follow what you have quoted in Hari Bhakti Vilas!

 

You cannot understand the truth just by observing how a pure vaisnava did

something.

 

> No-one has yet been able to tell me how I can approach Srila Prabhupada

>

> I'll tell you now!! Go to your local Temple President tell him you would

> like to be initiated! (assuming you have been following for at least six

> months).

> Now; the Temple President (IF HE IS NOT A CROOK OR A CHEATER) will

> recommend you to be initiated by someone who is currently representing

> Srila Prabhupada in your area!

> After this you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada! (NO ONE ELSE)

 

That is not the dictionary meaning of "approach".

 

> Quote:

> Oh, in 1968 the physical presence was required, but not after 1973.

> When exactly was the change?

>

> Actually I believe the change started to occur in 1973 I dont know of any

> Ritvik initiations before this.

 

Did the change happen in ISKCON only? Or did it change on that date for all

gurus on the planet? Did it change on all planets or even in all universes?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>I took Krishnakant's statements, simply removed the word "not" in statement

>(2), and added the word "not" to statement (3), and used Krishnakant's

>statement to defeat himself. If you revert the change, then of course you

>will again get Krishnakant's statements.

 

 

You have claimed your "proof" is derived from taking statements Krishnakant

has made and simply adding or subtracting the word "not". Could you please

give me the reference of where Krishnakant states exactly what your proof

states (minus or plus the word "not"), so I can first see the background of

where all this is coming from, before responding to your derived "proof"?

 

Thank you.

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

_______________

Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!

http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> You have claimed your "proof" is derived from taking statements

> Krishnakant has made and simply adding or subtracting the word "not".

> Could you please give me the reference of where Krishnakant states exactly

> what your proof states (minus or plus the word "not"), so I can first see

> the background of where all this is coming from, before responding to your

> derived "proof"?

 

You don't have to know the background of a proof. It could have been

produced by millions of monkeys running over a typewriter or however.

Proof is proof. Either you accept it or you refute it:

 

(1) "A statement is true, if the opposite is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or

sastra."

 

Do you agree with that? Yes or No?

 

(3) "It is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra that for the initiation

the physical presence of the diksa guru is not required."

 

Probably you don't agree. So please present the quotes saying the opposite.

 

(5) "Srila Prabhupada is not physically present anymore".

 

Probably you agree with that.

 

 

Just to satisfy you curiousity, here are some quotes from Krishnakant:

 

"The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow

the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could

only follow it in his physical presence." (TFO)

 

"There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with

physical presence." (TFO)

 

"Such a sastric principle - stating that continuing initiation without the

physical presence of the Diksa Guru is a violation - is not found anywhere

in Srila Prabhupada's teachings."

(www.iskconirm.com/bhadra_balaram_monkeybusiness.htm)

 

"There are NO sastric injunctions preventing a diksa guru from initiating

just because he is not physically present on the same planet as his

prospective disciple." (www.iskconirm.com/unpresidented.htm)

 

Obviously he used following argument:

 

"A statement is true, if the opposite is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or

sastra."

 

ys Ramakanta dasa