Guest guest Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Bhakta Mark wrote: > Ramakanta has attempted to claim that an interactive relationship(not in > His books or lectures etc) is not possible with Srila Prabhupada anymore. > > Srila Prabhupada say's it is possible! > > Disciple: "Srila Prabhupada, when you are not present with us, how is it > possible to receive instructions--for example, on questions that may > arise?" > Srila Prabhupada: "Well, the answers are there in my books." > Disciple: "Other than that--for example, [questions] that we would ask you > in [specific daily matters]. Do you direct us, also, through the heart? > Besides the Paramatma?" > Srila Prabhupada: "If your heart is pure. Everything depends on purity." > (Conversation, May 13, 1973, Los Angeles) > > So here we can see that an interactive relationship IS possible! You are constructing a straw man argument (creating a position that is easy to refute, then attributing that position to your opponent). I did not write that it not possible for anyone to have an interactive communication with Srila Prabhupada. Also please note that Srila Prabhupada said "If your heart is pure". Is the heart pure at the time of initiation? Is your heart pure and can you have an interactive communication with Srila Prabhupada? > By the way can Ramakanta point us to where Srila Prabhupada uses the words > (interactive relationship) in his books lectures or tapes? Neither Srila Prabhupada nor I used that phrase. What does it mean? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > You admit that you took Krishnakant's statement and *re-wrote* it in your > own words, and then amended YOUR words: Please note that since we are arguing "statement" means "argument". If you understand something different, then that is your fault. > But you earlier contradicted what you are saying now, by saying you did > something different - that you took Krishnakant's words and added the word > "not" to HIS words: Please don't twist my words. I did not write that I took Krishnakant's words. I wrote that I took Krishnakant's statements (= arguments). > Here you falsely claim that it was Krishnakant's statement you removed the > word "not" from, not that statement re-written in your own words. I recently explained that it was NOT Krishnakant's literal sequence of words I removed the word "not" from. Didn't you read that text? > So are YOUR words the same as Krishnakant's statements? Please tell me what in above question you mean by "your words" and "statements". > Now you have invented a new system of language whereby the statements of > others re-written in YOUR words, *remain* the statement that was > re-written! Please quote me where I said so. > (Like claiming someone else's statement is the same as re-writing that > statement in YOUR own words. Someone else's words are THEIR statement. > That statement re-written in YOUR words, becomes YOUR statement. Such a > simple kindergarten point.) Please quote me where I said so. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.