a counter example / Beware of Kali's agents

[Guest guest]

Something is terribly wrong here. I don't know if others see it too. It is

as by definition, that no devotee can not possibly come from certain course.

Why? Just because person leading course became ritvik!

 

With due respect, this logic cannot pass. It is just blaspheming. If some

devotee would come from certain "ISKCON-bonafide" course, nobody would say,

that "it is impossible to conclude that this course caused someone to move

into a Hare Krishna ashram. Event A, event B, ...." Quite the opposite,

everybody would be glorifying this course, for producing devotees. And

possibly the same was with DG course, before he was labeled ritvik (or

whatever) and so on. Like Radhadesh college, if one becomes initiated after

attending there, it is advertised wide and allaround. But imagine, if

Radhadesh one day becomes recognized as not really up to ISKCON standard.

Then we will be hearing, how that program couldn't possibly make any

devotees, and actually there must be other history to their personal life,

which lead them to surrender?

 

Bad logical reasoning. Good for ISKCON institution commited followers, but

looks funny otherwise. (hmmm, this seems to say a bit about my current

commitment too....)

 

We are patting each other on the back, that we are ok. We are not so bad, is

it? Actually we are quite ok! Just see the others! Others are bad, and we

are fine. We may have some mistakes, and there may be tons of nonsense going

on in ISKCON, but actually we are allright. But one, who became ritvik,

cannot possibly do any good, and even if he did any good, we will prove,

that it was actually not so... We will drag him down, the demon that he is,

and discredit him to the bone! And others...., we will do the same with

them!

 

This is way below..... What goes arround, comes arround. We will touch our

own bright future. Krsna has his plan. m€re k™¢a r€khe ke, r€khe k™¢a m€re

ke

 

your servant Giri-nayaka das

 

 

> > For what it is worth:

> >

> > Yesterday, Akhila Prabhu, a godbrother in Germany, told me that a

> > teenager became a shaved-up devotee and joined the Berlin temple after

> > taking Dhira Govinda's course. Previously, this young man was enrolled

> > in school, wore his hair long, and bummed around or stayed with his

> > mother (a fixed-up devotee) and his two younger brothers. Now his

> > younger brothers are imitating their older brother's devotional

> > behavior.

> >

> > --ys, td

>

> Here's an interesting comment on what Tattvavit Prabhu has theorized

> herein above:

>

> > Just because event A is followed by event B, it does not mean that event

> > A caused event B. This is known as the Post Hoc fallacy. (Post hoc,

> > ergo propter hoc.)

> >

> > For example, someone might see another leaving a pot of warm milk in an

> > oven (or other warm place) over night, and when the next morning the

> > milk becomes yogurt, he concludes that leaving warm milk in a warm place

> > for long enough turns milk into yogurt.

> >

> > In the same way, this counter example is a product of such faulty

> > reasoning. We know that the notion to join an ashram never occurs to

> > the vast majority of people who go to a therapist, yet it frequently

> > occurs to people who associate regularly with devotees. It is most

> > likely is that the boy has had sufficient contact with devotees in the

> > past, and that because the course was taken in the association of

> > devotees. That additional association was what he needed to inpsire him

> > to join the ashrama.

> >

> So, without providing us the details of this boy's history of association

> with devotees or who his fellow seminarians were, then it is impossible to

> conclude that Dhira Govinda's course caused someone to move into a Hare

> Krishna ashram.