Proof #1 that ritvikvada is wrong

[Guest guest]

> The truth, as shown above, is that you actually amended YOUR statements to

> arrive at the statements in your proof, but you originally claimed it was

> Krishnakant's statements that you amended. Your mistake is now caught and

> documented above in black and white, and faced with such clear-cut

> evidence, it is understandable you will not want to defend what you wrote

> here and instead simply dodge the issue.

 

That's rich coming from you, who is the supreme dodger and obfuscator. What

happened to the evidence you were supposed to come up with regarding your

ridiculous claim, that the July 9 letter is the final words from Prabhupada

on initiations? Every time your bluff is called and you are asked to produce

the evidence, you dodge and squirm. And then you have the nerve to criticize

others for dodging the issue. There is apparently no end to your lame

condition.

[Guest guest]

>Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN) [Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

>What happened to the evidence you were supposed to come up with regarding

your

>ridiculous claim, that the July 9 letter is the final words from Prabhupada

>on initiations? Every time your bluff is called and you are asked

>to produce the evidence, you dodge and squirm.

 

Ramakanta Prabhu wrote: "When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system

(not on July 9th, but already before that date)"

 

Jahnu Prabhu wrote: "He didn't initiate the ritvik system in the first

place, so your point is moot"

 

To read Krishnakant's rebuttal to Jahnu's paper "Point for Point Refutation

of TFO", please click on:

http://www.iskconirm.com/jahnu_pointless_point_for_point.htm

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>> The truth, as shown above, is that you actually amended YOUR

>>statements to arrive at the statements in your proof, but you originally

claimed it was

>> Krishnakant's statements that you amended. Your mistake is now caught and

>> documented above in black and white, and faced with such clear-cut

>> evidence, it is understandable you will not want to defend what you wrote

>> here and instead simply dodge the issue.

 

>What now? Are you able to refute proof #1 or not? I claim you cannot.

 

What now? Simple. Just admit to your mistake and then you will immediately

*SEE* your proof being refuted. But unless we establish a standard whereby

all mistakes and untruths are rectified, then any of us presenting "proofs"

to try and establish the truth becomes meaningless.

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Just admit to your mistake

 

Please carefully read my previous texts.

 

> and then you will immediately *SEE* your proof being refuted.

 

You have not refuted my proof just by saying that. Isn't it?

 

> But unless we establish a standard whereby all mistakes and untruths are

> rectified, then any of us presenting "proofs" to try and establish the

> truth becomes meaningless.

 

Is that your way of saying that you cannot refute my proof? Please confirm.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Please carefully read my previous texts.

 

Is that your way of saying you cannot refute how I have exposed your

statements? Please confirm. Especially since my exposé quotes from all

the previous texts and shows how they contradict each other.

 

Ys

Deepak

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:16 AM

Initiations in ISKCON

RE: Proof #1 that ritvikvada is wrong

 

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Just admit to your mistake

 

Please carefully read my previous texts.

 

> and then you will immediately *SEE* your proof being refuted.

 

You have not refuted my proof just by saying that. Isn't it?

 

> But unless we establish a standard whereby all mistakes and untruths are

> rectified, then any of us presenting "proofs" to try and establish the

> truth becomes meaningless.

 

Is that your way of saying that you cannot refute my proof? Please confirm.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Is that your way of saying you cannot refute how I have exposed your

> statements?

 

Okay, I will say it a third time:

I could refute your speculations and misunderstandings but I don't want to

do that because when I do not admit anything, you will not move on and

refute my proof and thus you will remain defeated by me. Is it now clear?

 

> Especially since my exposé quotes from all the previous texts and shows

> how they contradict each other.

 

If any statement in my proof is not true, then it is your turn do prove

that. (Please note that I wrote "in my proof" and not "about how I got that

proof".)

 

BTW. Why don't you answers my questions? Don't you understand them?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>I could refute your speculations and misunderstandings but I don't want to

do that because when I do not admit anything, you

>will not move on and refute my proof and thus you will remain defeated by

me. Is it now clear?

 

If this was actually your position then you would not have tried at least 3

times to refute what I said ("I meant arguments", "I re-wrote the words", "A

statement is not a literal sequence of words" etc.). You are simply

invoking the above point again, as you have done from time to time, because

you *cannot* answer a very simple point:

 

WHY did you say you amended Krishakant's words when you actually amended

YOUR words to arrive at your so-called

"proof"? Why don't you answer this simple question - don't you understand

it?

 

And you are claiming that until I refute your proof then I remain defeated

by you. Well, according to this argument of yours this also means that

until you refute MY proof regarding your deception on how you arrived at

your proof, you remain defeated by me. Do you agree?

 

If yes, then you are defeated by me, and I will then move on and refute your

proof.

 

If no, then you will have just contradicted your own argument, and I of

course do not remain defeated by your proof, and hence you have no reason to

not try and answer *my* proof.

 

Either way you are stuck!

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If this was actually your position then you would not have tried at least

> 3 times to refute what I said ("I meant arguments", "I re-wrote the

> words", "A statement is not a literal sequence of words" etc.).

 

Was that my thought or is it your speculation?

 

> WHY did you say you amended Krishakant's words when you actually amended

> YOUR words to arrive at your so-called "proof"?

 

I wrote: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my words, and

then added or removed the word "not".

 

In detail:

 

Krishnakant's argument was:

There is not one place in Srila Prabhupada's books where Srila

Prabhupada has stated "the necessity of taking initiation from a Guru

who is physically present". (IRM Newsletter #63)

 

I expressed it in my words:

It is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra that for the initiation the

physical presence of the diksa guru is not required.

 

Then I removed "not" from "not required":

 

Is it now clear?

 

> And you are claiming that until I refute your proof then I remain defeated

> by you. Well, according to this argument of yours this also means that

> until you refute MY proof regarding your deception on how you arrived at

> your proof, you remain defeated by me. Do you agree?

 

Yes, as long as I do not refute your speculations and misunderstandings, it

is not proven that they are wrong.

 

> If yes, then you are defeated by me, and I will then move on and refute

> your proof.

 

I invited you to a debate with me with the sole purpose of refuting my

proofs (on January 6, 2005). You have accepted that invitation and started

to debate with me. The sole purpose is still that you try to refute my

proof. Now if you are not able refute all my proofs, then I have defeated

you in that debate.

 

The purpose is not that you make some statements and ask me to refute them.

That can be done in another debate.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

>I expressed it in my words:

>It is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra that for the initiation the

>physical presence of the diksa guru is not required.

 

>Then I removed "not" from "not required":

 

>Is it now clear?

 

Yes, it's very clear that what you actually DID is completely different to

what you actually SAID:

 

What you SAID:

 

"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." (23 January 2005)

 

What you DID:

 

"This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

words, and then added or removed the word "not"." (31 January 2005)

 

Since presumably Krishnakant and you are two different persons (unless

Jahnu maybe thinks you are also Krishnakant!), and the words you have both

written are *different*, you can not say that you removed the word "not"

from *Krishnakant*'s statement and pass that off as being the same as

removing the word "not" from *your* statement.

 

You said: Took Krishnakant's statements and removed the word "not".

 

You did: *Rewrote* Krishnakant's statements into *your* statement and then

removed the word "not".

 

The evidence is as clear as daylight - you admit in your *own* words that

you SAID one thing but actually DID another. How long can you refuse to

concede something which is as straightforward and clear-cut as this?

 

There is no point me refuting your proof if when it is refuted you will

simply stick your head in the sand and just keep claiming you are not

defeated, like you are doing here? We are *not* having another "debate"

here - we are seeing if you *can* actually debate - means that you have to

be willing to at least acknowledge what is written in black and white. If

you cannot even do this then you would actually be debating only with your

own mind.

 

So let's get this over with. Concede your defeat and then I can refute

your proof. Thank you.

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> There is no point me refuting your proof if ...

 

> Concede your defeat and then I can refute your proof.

 

You are clearly saying that you can refute my proofs only if I concede

something. So you admit that you cannot refute my proofs. Please confirm.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>You are clearly saying that you can refute my proofs only if I concede

>something.

 

No! In the course of my first response to your proof, you responded with a

deception - that you had derived your proof merely by adding/removing one

word to Krishnakant's statements. Obviously before we proceed any further

you must concede your deception, otherwise there is no point even having a

discussion if each time *either* party is defeated they simply wish to

ignore it and move on.

 

Hence my defeating your proof will follow your concession merely as a

point of order - that we should not let misleading statements stand. So

back to the matter at hand, which you are trying to dodge since

you have clearly been caught out in black and white:

 

What you SAID:

 

"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." (23 January 2005)

 

What you DID:

 

"This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

words, and then added or removed the word "not"." (31 January 2005)

 

Since presumably Krishnakant and you are two different persons (unless

Jahnu maybe thinks you are also Krishnakant!), and the words you have both

written are *different*, you can not say that you removed the word "not"

from *Krishnakant*'s statement and pass that off as being the same as

removing the word "not" from *your* statement.

 

You said: Took Krishnakant's statements and removed the word "not".

 

You did: *Rewrote* Krishnakant's statements into *your* statement and then

removed the word "not".

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You wrote:

"Concede your defeat and then I can refute your proof." (February 12, 2005)

 

The main meaning of "can" is "physical or mental ability", and the secondary

meaning is "be permitted". Obviously you did not mean that you are

"permitted to refute the proof" because of course you are permitted. Rather

you meant "able to refute the proof". So you meant: "Concede your defeat and

then I am able to refute your proof." So you said that you will be able to

refute my proof after (indicated by the word "then") I conceded defeat.

 

If you were able to refute my proof without me having to concede anything,

then you would have just said: "I can refute your proof" or "I am able to

refute your proof" (without saying "Concede your defeat and then").

 

This proves that you wrote that you are able to refute my proof only if I

concede defeat.

 

Now you wrote:

"Hence my defeating your proof will follow your concession merely as a point

of order" (February 13, 2005).

 

So we have it in black and white that you made a misleading statement.

Now show us that you know how to debate and concede that it is like that.

 

> There is no point me refuting your proof if when it is refuted you will

> simply stick your head in the sand and just keep claiming you are not

> defeated

 

And the sly fox said: "The grapes are sour anyway".

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I said:

 

"Obviously before we proceed any further you must concede your deception,

otherwise there is no point even having a discussion if each time *either*

party is defeated they simply wish to ignore it and move on."

 

Your response has simply been to do exactly what I warned about here -

which is to ignore a misleading statement you made over 3 weeks ago, and

try and dodge that by trying to move on to a statement I have just made!

Hence in line with my statement above, concede your misleading statement

made over 3 weeks ago, and then we shall move on to either refuting your

proof or dealing with your allegation regarding what I have just said (the

choice is yours).

 

For your reference, here is the misleading statement you made over 3 weeks

ago, and which you have been trying to dodge admitting to ever since:

 

What you SAID:

 

"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." (23 January 2005)

 

What you DID:

 

"This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

words, and then added or removed the word "not"." (31 January 2005)

 

Since presumably Krishnakant and you are two different persons (unless

Jahnu maybe thinks you are also Krishnakant!), and the words you have both

written are *different*, you can not say that you removed the word "not"

from *Krishnakant*'s statement and pass that off as being the same as

removing the word "not" from *your* statement.

 

You said: Took Krishnakant's statements and removed the word "not".

 

You did: *Rewrote* Krishnakant's statements into *your* statement and then

removed the word "not".

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Status: None of my proofs that ritvikvada is wrong has yet been refuted.

 

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

The tactics that I have learned from you are indeed working:

You are not even trying to refute my proof.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

>Status: None of my proofs that ritvikvada is wrong has yet been refuted.

 

Status: Ramakanta continues to run from conceding the misleading statement

he made 3 weeks ago.

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

If your sole aim is to simply avoid conceding an obvious point so that you

avoid even more discussion, then why are you even bothering to debate? In

any debate, it is a standard point of order that if a false statement is

made it must immediately be eliminated before we can proceed further. You

are claiming that your aim is actually to prevent me from debating with you,

and therefore you prefer to violate the rules of debate so that I am stopped

from debating further with you. In which case here is a suggestion - if you

are simply interested in seeing how debate can be avoided, then withdraw

from the conference and you can avoid it altogether.

 

I can understand your desire to avoid being exposed in front of your own

conference, having to admit to your mistake. But you are actually being

exposed by *not* admitting to it, because it is crystal clear that there is

a clear difference between what you claimed and what you said.

 

Here again is the false statement which has been outstanding for over 3

weeks now:

 

What you SAID:

 

"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." (23 January 2005)

 

What you DID:

 

"This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

words, and then added or removed the word "not"." (31 January 2005)

 

Since presumably Krishnakant and you are two different persons (unless Jahnu

maybe thinks you are also Krishnakant!), and the words you have both written

are *different*, you can not say that you removed the word "not" from

*Krishnakant*'s statement and pass that off as being the same as removing

the word "not" from *your* statement.

 

You said: Took Krishnakant's statements and removed the word "not".

 

You did: *Rewrote* Krishnakant's statements into *your* statement and then

removed the word "not".

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I invited you to this debate. So it is my debate and I decide what is

discussed and what the rules are: Since its beginning the sole purpose of

this debate is to refute my proofs.

 

So you can either write: "I am unable to refute your proofs" and leave.

 

Or you can write: "Your statement X in proof Y is wrong because Srila

Prabhupada said / it is stated in the sastras that ...".

 

Or you can ask a question if something in my proofs is not clear.

 

I will not respond to anything else.

 

Of course after this debate has ended you can invite me to another debate

according to your rules about how I got the proofs.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

> If your sole aim is to simply avoid conceding an obvious point so that you

> avoid even more discussion, then why are you even bothering to debate? In

> any debate, it is a standard point of order that if a false statement is

> made it must immediately be eliminated before we can proceed further.

 

In that case I suggest you just leave. Your whole case rests on the false

notion that the July 9th letter is Srila Prabhupada's final words on

initiations in ISKCON. Since you have offered no evidence or argument in

favor of that notion, there is no need for you to make a further fool out of

yourself by contending the obvious.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You wrote:

 

>I invited you to this debate. So it is my debate and I decide what is

>discussed and what the rules are: Since its beginning the sole purpose of

>this debate is to refute my proofs.

>

>So you can either write: "I am unable to refute your proofs" and leave.

>

>Or you can write: "Your statement X in proof Y is wrong because Srila

>Prabhupada said / it is stated in the sastras that ...".

>

>Or you can ask a question if something in my proofs is not clear.

>

>I will not respond to anything else.

>

>Of course after this debate has ended you can invite me to another debate

>according to your rules about how I got the proofs.

 

It was as in response to me refuting your proof that you made the false

statement. I initially began refuting your proof by pointing out how one

could just as easily make it reach the opposite conclusion, and in doing so

I discussed the lines of your proof. You then responded with the false

statement that I have highlighted thus far. All you are effectively saying

above is that you will not answer anything which will expose you as having

made a mistake. Since you are already refusing to acknowledge where you are

wrong in regards to something you said *whilst* I was refuting your proof,

then obviously you can make up more rules as you go along to avoid having to

concede any mistake I show in your proof.

 

YOU are the one who began the discussion regarding *how* you got your

proofs, by falsely claiming you got them from Krishakant's statement, in

response to me pointing out a possible weakness in your proof. It was not I

who started that discussion. Hence YOU should be man enough to admit that

what you stated was wrong. You can't make a false statement and think you

can just walk away.

 

I agree we should not have a debate on another subject, but we are speaking

of a statement you made in response to me refuting your proof.

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Okay let us deal with your allegation (that is your word).

 

On January 28 you wrote "A statement is a literal sequence of words".

 

Please tell me what dictionary says that.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Okay let us deal with your allegation (that is your word).

 

> On January 28 you wrote "A statement is a literal sequence of words".

 

> Please tell me what dictionary says that.

 

 

Yes, I said that this is what a statement is in *response* to your

allegation regarding Krishnakant's statement:

 

"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." (23 January 2005)

 

(I was not, for instance, referring to a statement made by George Bush, nor

referring to what the dictionary says. I was *responding* to what YOU had

said, and how YOU have *used* the word "statement" above.)

 

Now a literal sequence of words means:

 

a) One word following another - "sequence"

 

b) "Literal" - REAL words you can refer to and identify - e.g.

 

"The cat sat on the mat"

 

is a literal sequence of words - since they are words, follow one another

and are literal - they exist and can be identified as "the", "cat", "sat",

"on", "the", "mat".

 

You stated on January 23rd that your proof, which does consist of a literal

sequence of words, was derived by adding/removing one literal word "not" to

Krishnakant's statement.

 

Now it is only possible to derive a literal sequence of words via the

addition/removal of one literal word to another literal sequence of words.

 

So:

 

EITHER Krishnakant's statement was *not* a literal sequence of words, in

which case you could *not* have added/removed one word and derived the

literal sequence of words in your proof;

 

OR

 

It is, in which case my assertion that Krishnakant's statement is a literal

sequence of words stands.

 

Either way your falsehood still stands exposed. So you can take whatever

the dictionary says, and claim that you meant something else other than a

"literal sequence of words", but then the statement you made on January 23rd

now also becomes yet another false statement from you. (E.g. if you what you

really meant was you took Krishnakant's non-existent financial statement

from his non-existent company, then you could *not* have added/removed one

*word* to these numbers and derived statements (2) and (3) in your proof, as

you have claimed.)

 

And please note, even an "argument" is still a "literal sequence of words" -

it is not for instance expressed using a sequence of smarties or sweets - it

it expressed via literal sequence of words.

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

I am privately continuing the debate with Deepak about "statements".

When it has ended I will inform you about the result.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

On February 23 I wrote:

 

> I am privately continuing the debate with Deepak about "statements".

> When it has ended I will inform you about the result.

 

Sorry for the report being so late.

 

I stopped the conversation with Deepak after I wrote him that I will not

write what he wanted me to write, namely to admit that I intentionally made

incorrect statements.

 

Deepak was unable to refute any of my proofs (no-one else was able either).

Rather he tried the tactics "my understanding is correct because you made

mistakes" which is of course nonsense.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa