Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 PLEASE POST ---------- --- Dear Hector Prabhu, Please accept my HUMBLE OBEISANCES. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. 1) So having first said you were at the ‘end of this debate’, then that you were going to ‘proceed with the debate’, then that you will ‘finish the debate’, you are once again continuing the debate. Neither are you able to keep to your previous promise to desist from using deductive reasoning to debate me, which you claim is ‘all nonsense’, nor are you able to devote all your energies to discussing ‘Krishna-katha’, as you advised me to do, and so on. No, when Hector’s ego and pride are at stake, he will happily turn on its head everything he has said previously, rather than be truthful to his own words. Obviously since you cannot even be truthful to your own words, it is no surprise that you are unable to accept the truth of Srila Prabhupada’s words, as we will see once again. 2) I note that you have not again even tried to challenge my point that you have already lost the debate which you challenged me to. You had challenged me to debate that my proof was incorrect because one could apply it to the Gaudiya Matha. And in this connection you wrote: ““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” (Hector Rosario, May 16th, 2006) You simply tried to cover-up your defeat by trying to move seamlessly to a brand-new debate, not previously mentioned or accepted. Until you are gentleman enough to publically concede that “Yes, Krishnakant defeated me in Point 1 of the debate I challenged him to, and therefore I am trying to debate him with a new challenge”, I will have to keep reminding everyone of your dishonesty. If you are unable to defend a point, then do not challenge people to debate it with you in the first place. Simple. Right now I am indulging you in your new debate, even though you have yet to concede the original debate, because your pronouncements are a classic example of what happens when one tries to defeat Srila Prabhupada’s words. So now to your latest contradictory ramblings. Below I will demonstrate how virtually every single statement you have written is either contradictory, mistaken or simply a lie. Here we go again … Hector’s Bag of Tricks – 1 You begin with: “Hence, the part of the quote that you claim I am excluding was due to your excluding it in the Special Issue.” I NEVER claimed YOU ‘excluded’ any ‘part of the quote’. *I* stated an extra part of the quote, but I never said YOU EXCLUDED it, since as will be seen later, my proof does not DEPEND on this extra part of the quote. Last time you falsely claimed *I* had deleted the word ‘sometimes’, when I had not, and now you are falsely accusing me of saying you excluded part of the quote. Hector’s Bag of Tricks – 2 You state: “So, based on what you wrote on the Special Issue, it does not follow that if a guru falls, the he was not authorized.[…] You do not have, as you claimed, a biconditional statement. […] At least be a gentleman and admit that you never had a biconditional statement, as you claimed in your last two messages, although you do get the conclusion you wanted, namely B.” Realising that point B of my Proof DOES hold, YOU have re-worded the proof, to show that my proof holds only due to YOUR putting it together in the ‘correct’ way with a new point A, and therefore though you DO concede Point B of my proof is correct, you argue my reasoning was flawed. In this way you hope to salvage something from your having to finally admit that the key point of the proof which you had challenged, statement B – that if a guru was carried away by disciples and wealth, he was not authorised – is correct. This is the first time in a debate the opponent ends up proving the conclusion of his adversary, and then berates his adversary for not doing it right to begin with! You did not need to challenge me to a debate to do that. You could simply have written to BTP with suggestions for how we could make the arguments therein even stronger! Having got defeated so comprehensively in trying to challenge BTP, maybe you now want to switch sides, and show how valuable your ‘mathematical brain’ could be for BTP? Hence even if what you say here is accurate, statement B still holds, and all you have achieved is to demonstrate this via an alternative method. And I still win the debate, since you are unable to challenge point B of the proof, that a guru who falls was unauthorised. Thanks for demonstrating I was correct all along, and for finally conceding that you can not break Proof 4. But alas this was not necessary, for though the way you have re-worded my proof DOES give yet ANOTHER method by which to show that the conclusion – if a guru falls, he was not authorised – is correct, the way the proof was worded originally in the Special Issue also works just fine. I already explained 2 e-mails ago, and which you did not challenge, that: The ‘If a guru is unauthorised – guru falls’ PART of the statement given in the BTP Special Issue – is a bi-conditional statement, since Logic is the drawing of inferences from the AVAILABLE axioms. Since no other axiom had been produced stating a bona-fide authorised guru getting carried away by wealth and disciples, then the axiom given in the Nectar of Devotion Chapter 14, (truncated version, as given in the BTP Special Issue), remains the only axiom regarding gurus getting carried away by wealth and disciples, and the statement is therefore automatically bi-conditional. The EXTRA part of the quote which I just provided in my last mail, (your new point A of the proof) was simply to demonstrate, that not only is there no axiom stating that bona fide authorised gurus get carried away by wealth and disciples, but that an axiom exists which states the contrary – that authorised gurus would NEVER get carried away by wealth and disciples. So Hector, I hope you FINALLY get the point, and stop embarrassing yourself. Simply ignoring my argument because you cannot defeat it, will not help you. For I will simply keep repeating it, like I have done above. All you have achieved with this latest bag of tricks, is to simply give ANOTHER proof for the conclusion that “if a guru falls, he was not authorised.” Like I said before, THANKS. Hector’s Bag of Tricks - 3 You state: “Now, before we move on to C, we should address some problems with B. You claim: "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 occurs as a result of a guru actually being correctly AUTHORISED." Can you prove this claim? Furthermore, can you prove that you know every statement of Srila Prabhupada, even the non-recorded ones? Without knowing every statement, you do not have the complete set of axioms, and therefore you cannot conclusively say that above statement is true.” The above statement of yours is contradictory, since you have JUST finished showing there is NO problem with B, if we replace statement A, with YOUR version. What you refer to above relates to an argument made by me in relation to MY statement A (which I have just shown is in any case correct), but since you have replaced it, and then gone onto say that now B is ‘proven’, and therefore has no problem, how can you again go on say there are ‘some problems with B’? So EVEN if you still do not accept MY way of arriving at B, since you have said B IS proven via YOUR way of arriving at it, then, there are NO PROBLEMS with B. Of course your points above can easily be refuted, but what is the need when you already accept there is no problem with B? Hector’s Bag of Tricks – 4 You state: “If our guru falls, then we should think that it was his lila. That is why I quoted Srila Prabhupada in my last message thus: (quote about Lord Brahma follows)” This is another bare-faced Hector lie to be added to shameful ones I have already pointed out. In your last message, you actually quoted the same statement from Srila Prabhupada for the following reason: “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: [ same quote about Lord Brahma]. Hence, we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and not his lilas.” So previously you had used the quote to claim that “we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and not his lilas.” And now you are claiming to use the quote to show “If our guru falls, then we should think that it was his lila.” These are two different propositions, and your attempt to equate them to show you were arguing the same thing all along, has not only failed, but revealed you yet again as a liar. Lord Brahma’s Top Ten Defeats Hector Now we come to the final and most shameful part of your message. Having not only failed to defeat my proof via your original challenge (Gaudiya Matha method), and having not only failed via your new argument (lack of a biconditional statement), but also having actually demonstrated my argument via another proof yourself, you resort to the last refuge of a scoundrel to save yourself when you have been thoroughly defeated from every angle in debate: to claim that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself. And you attempt to show that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself by offending Lord Brahma by trying to use his apparent fall-down to do this. Not only will your attempt be thoroughly defeated, just as with everything else you have ever stated, but your true nature as someone who will say anything to try and win a debate will also be exposed. Here in honour of Lord Brahma, I present 10 reasons why your following assertions: “Notice that Srila Prabhupada warns us not to see fault in the guru. But that doesn’t change the Vedic fact that Lord Brahma was chastised by Lord Siva for his apparent falldown, even though he was authorized by Krishna Himself. But he’s the acarya of our sampradaya, so we offer our obeisances to him.We are warned not to see fault in the guru, yet Srila Prabhupada further warns us that *anyone* may fall down. That is the purpose of Lord Brahma’s lila, that ANYONE may fall down. So, even though Srila Prabhupada did something logically equivalent to what claim in B, that quote must be seen in the context of all his teachings, including these two quotes. Therefore, we cannot proceed to C.” to try and contradict Srila Prabhupada, using Lord Brahma’s apparent fall-down, are both offensive and incorrect. a) Nature of Challenge Contradictory 1). You have already ACCEPTED in unqualified terms, that statement B – “Hence if Guru falls, he was not properly authorized” is correct: “However, *I will admit* that if for A you instead use “A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that”, then we can write […] If guru falls, then guru is not authorized. Of course, *this is the statement you want*, but it does not follow from the quote you cited.” “*I will accept B, which was proved* *independently* of what you had for A. […] Notice the simplicity of this argument, […] although *you do get the conclusion you wanted*, namely B.” As we noted earlier, you are accepting here that conclusion B of my proof is correct, because YOU had proved in ‘your way’. Obviously getting ‘carried away’ yourself at having given such a ‘brilliant’ yet ‘simple’ proof for statement B, you cannot then state that there is anything wrong with it, and therefore your ego forces you to state in unqualified terms that statement B of my proof is correct, as we note above. Having done this, you realize a few seconds later, that though it is ‘your’ proof and thus has to be correct, you still do not want to concede the debate, and so immediately try and challenge the same proof which you had just claimed was correct, with the example of Lord Brahma’s apparent fall-down. In doing so, you have contradicted yourself, for as you know, proofs are precise – they are either correct or they are not proofs at all. Hence either what you say above about statement B being ‘proved’ is WRONG, and therefore ‘your’ proof was not correct after all, OR your subsequent challenge to it based on using Lord Brahma is WRONG. You can’t have it both ways – first claim statement B is correct due to your proof for it, and at the same time claim later it is not correct by stating that we are not able to move forward to Point C. 2). Also note that your proof to arrive at statement B depends entirely and only, as you boast, on Srila Prabhupada’s statement: “A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that”, (and therefore, you brag, is a much more efficient proof than mine). Thus you are arguing that Srila Prabhupada’s words directly here lead to the conclusion that “If a guru falls, he was not authorised”. However to then claim we cannot move forward to Point C, can only be if B is wrong (if it was correct, we could move forward). But since according to you B rests entirely on Srila Prabhupada’s words, the only way B can be wrong is if Srila Prabhupada’s words are wrong. Therefore the only way that B can be challenged is if Srila Prabhupada’s words on which B is based are not correct. That is after having claimed that a Bona Fide guru NEVER falls, you would need to argue that Srila Prabhupada later claims the opposite. Therefore Hector, you are in effect trying to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself – a challenge which is self-defeating, for if it WAS the case that you ‘showed’ that Srila Prabhupada’s statement “A Bona Fide Guru spiritual master will NEVER become like that (carried away by wealth and disciples),” was WRONG, then you would still lose the debate, since you would only have proven that you are contradicting your OWN proof, and you cannot win a debate by proving that you have contradicted yourself! Or, Srila Prabhupada’s statement is CORRECT, in which case your challenge fails and you still are unable to defeat me. In short, the only way you can challenge statement B of my proof is to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself. Either way, your challenge is both offensive to Srila Prabhupada and foolish, for either way you still cannot win the debate – only commit offence. b) Example Not Applicable 3). Srila Prabhupada states that the story of Lord Brahma’s apparent fall-down was only a lila meant to teach something specific: “We should not take him that he was subjected to lusty desires, but he made a show that “Even I am also subjected.” And he gave up this, changed the body for that.” (Morning Walk, 11/5/75) "There is a purpose for the exhibition of such a tendency by Brahma, and he is not to be condemned like an ordinary living entity". (SB 3.12.48, purport) Therefore one CANNOT from this one lila treat Lord Brahma like a regular fallen guru and deduce a general principle about fallen gurus from it, such as: “if one has been properly authorized, he will be carried away by disciples and wealth”, which is what is needed in order to counter statement B, which you say is proven by the following direct words of Srila Prabhupada: “A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that”. (carried away by disciples and wealth). 4). Also, as it was only a special lila, it was also NOT a real non-lila fall-down like the one we are currently debating: “But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples. *His is not a very high grade of devotional service. If a person is carried away by such achievements, then his devotional service becomes slackened*. Srila Prabhupada makes it clear that here we are discussing genuine fall-downs, not temporary lilas meant for show, because as a result of the fall-down, the person is not of a “very high grade of devotional service”, and his “devotional service becomes slackened.” Whereas in the case of Lord Brahma, following his lila, neither was it the case that he was “not of a very high grade of devotional service” or that “his devotional service became slackened”, for straight after performing his special lila, Lord Brahma immediately gave up his body and continued his devotional service without any interruption: “"Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation" (SB 3.12.49) 5). In commenting on this incident of Lord Brahma, you yourself state that this incident actually meant that: “Hence, we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and not his lilas.” Therefore by your own reasoning, what is important is NOT lilas, such as this lila of Lord Brahma, but an INSTRUCTION from Srila Prabhupada to the effect: ““if one has been properly authorized, he will be carried away by disciples and wealth” which is what you would need to show Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself, and therefore defeat statement B of my proof. Do not forget, as mentioned earlier, the ONLY way you can defeat statement B of the proof, is to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself. However BECAUSE you do NOT have such a contradictory INSTRUCTION from Srila Prabhupada, you are now resorting to a LILA from Lord Brahma. That is, having already told us that the example of Lord Brahma shows us that Srila Prabhupada’s INSTRUCTION is more important than any lila, you are NOW arguing that this example shows us that a lila is what matters, not Srila Prabhupada’s instruction! Another classic Hector flip-flop! 6). We have already shown that Lord Brahma’s example was a Lila and therefore not applicable to the debate before us. Therefore the only way that Lord Brahma’s example could even be relevant to the current debate is if the 34 ISKCON Gurus who fell were also all acting out some special ‘lila’ to teach us something, just like Lord Brahma was. So Harikesa, who now preaches that gurus are not even necessary for spiritual life, along with all his other shenanigans, would actually be acting out some divine lila. So dear Hector, if that is your argument, then do enlighten us as to the real nature of the ‘divine lilas’ of Kirtanananda, Bhavananda et. al. Otherwise, Lord Brahma’s incident has no connection to the fall-downs currently being discussed as described in the Nectar of Devotion. 7) Finally, Srila Prabhupada has given his verdict on anyone who dares to try and use this special this lila of Lord Brahma, to try and draw any conclusion regarding the nature of Bona fide authorized acaryas, just like you are trying to do: Akñayänanda: I was recently told by one devotee that the äcärya does not have to be a pure devotee. Prabhupäda: What? Akñayänanda: That the äcärya does not have to be a pure devotee. Prabhupäda: Who is that rascal? Akñayänanda: Well, he said it. Who said it? Prabhupäda: Who said? Who is that rascal? The äcärya does not require to be a pure devotee? Akñayänanda: He said it. Nitäi said it. He said it in this context. He said that Lord Brahm is the äcärya in the Brahma-sampradäya, but yet he is sometimes afflicted by passion. So therefore he is saying that it appears that the äcärya does not have to be a pure devotee. So it does not seem right. Prabhupäda: So who is that rascal? I want to know who has said. […] Prabhupäda: He manufactured his idea. Therefore he’s a rascal. Therefore he’s a rascal.[…] Akñayänanda: So there’s no doubt that Lord Brahma is a pure devotee? Prabhupäda: Whatever he may be, he is äcärya. So you... Then Kåñëa is also passionate. Kåñëa is also passionate. Kåñëa danced with so many gopés; therefore He is passionate. They... These things are to be seen in this way, that “Such exalted person, he sometimes become passionate, so how much we shall be careful.” This is the instruction (Morning Walk, 10/12/75) Srila Prabhupada here thoroughly condemns as a big rascal, one disciple who tried to apply the lila of Lord Brahma to draw a conclusion about the nature of acaryas, that they cannot be pure. Similarly you are trying to apply the lila of Lord Brahma to derive a similar conclusion about authorized acaryas, that: “Authorized acaryas get carried away by wealth and disciples”, in order to defeat Srila Prabhupada’ words and show him to be a self-contradictor. Srila Prabhupada states that trying to apply the lila of Lord Brahma is rascaldom, and you doing this specifically to contradict Srila Prabhupada is double-rascaldom. You will not agree if I call you a rascal, but at least listen to Srila Prabhupada. c) Lord Brahma’s Position Not Applicable 8). Yet another reason which mitigates against this lila of Lord Brahma having any applicability at all to the debate before us, is the fact that at the time this lila happened, Lord Brahma had not yet been authorized to assume his duties of transmitting the knowledge of the Bhagavatam through the parampara for us to currently receive: “This extraordinary immorality on the part of Brahmä was heard to have occurred in some particular kalpa, but it could not have happened in the kalpa in which Brahmä heard directly from the Lord the four essential verses of Srimad-Bhägavatam because the Lord blessed Brahmä, after giving him lessons on the Bhägavatam, that he would never be bewildered in any kalpa whatsoever. This indicates that before the hearing of Çrémad-Bhägavatam he might have fallen a victim to such sensuality, but after hearing Çrémad-Bhägavatam directly from the Lord, there was no possibility of such failures.” (SB, 3:12:28) “In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead informed Lord Brahma about the purport of the catuh-sloké. Again, Lord Brahma explained this to Narada Muni, and Narada Muni explained it to Srila Vyasadeva. This is the parampara system, the disciplic succession." (Cc Madhya 25.97, purport) "There are four verses written in this connection, and these are explained to Brahma by Lord Krsna Himself. In his turn, Brahma explains them to Narada, and Narada explains them to Vyasadeva. In this way the purport of the verses of Srimad-Bhagavatam come down through disciplic succession." (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, 22) “As already stated, Brahmä is the original spiritual master for the universe, and since he was initiated by the Lord Himself, the message of Çrémad-Bhägavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Çrémad-Bhägavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.” (SB, 2:9:7 purport) Therefore Lord Brahma was not at the time of his lila such a current link in the chain of disciplic succession, from whom one could receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam, since he had yet to hear the message of the Bhagavatam himself. 9). Further confirmation for the above argument demonstrating the non-applicability of the lila to the debate before us, is the statement that after Lord Brahma got authorized to transmit the message of the Bhagavatam through the parampara, he was blessed by Lord Krishna himself to: “never be bewildered in any kalpa whatsoever. This indicates that before the hearing of Çrémad-Bhägavatam he might have fallen a victim to such sensuality, but after hearing Çrémad-Bhägavatam directly from the Lord, there was no possibility of such failures.” (SB, 3:12:28) Thus Lord Brahma’s position AFTER being authorized with the message of the Bhagavatam, matches the statement which you are now trying to contradict: “A bona Fide spiritual master will NEVER become like that.” Indeed as Srila Prabhupada states, after Lord Brahma became authorized to transmit the message of the Bhagavatam via the disciplic succession there was not even any possibility of such a fall-down happening to Lord Brahma. Therefore even though the apparent fall-down lila of Lord Brahma is not applicable for all the reasons given above, we see that it may not be relevant for an even more obvious reason. Lord Brahma had yet to achieve the type of authorized status which we are discussing in the current proof – authorized to transmit the message of the Bhagavatam via the disciplic succession - and indeed we see that once Lord Brahma achieves this type of status, his position of not ever falling down fits exactly with the proof in question. d) Type of Fall Not Applicable 10). Now the above has made it very clear from so many angles, that Lord Brahma’s apparent ‘fall-down’ was not a fall-down that has any application to the debate before us. However even if we were to admit the example COULD in theory be applicable, the nature of the incident itself also gives mitigating factors. One thing which is sometimes forgotten in the rush to meditate on Lord Brahma’s ‘fall-down’, is that Lord Brahma did not actually DO ANYTHING: “Brahmä has a fabulous duration of life, but he was obliged to give up his body due to his grievous sin, even though he had merely contemplated it in his mind without having actually done it.” (SB. 3:12:33) Whereas in the discussion before us, we are discussing a very specific type of fall-down, which is a real external fall-down, where one actually gets carried away by wealth and disciples, not sins of thought. This is also made clear in the BTP Special Issue, where the whole article in which the proof under discussion is mentioned, deals only and specifically with external fall-downs. Similarly, again just comparing gross ‘like with like’ details, we are also not dealing with fall-downs, where after being ‘carried away’, the gurus immediately quit their body, as Lord Brahma did. Hence even if Lord Brahma’s lila could be applied in theory, just the nature of the fall itself prevents direct applicability to the specific type of fall-downs the proof deals with. ---------- -------- So here you have 10 different reasons why Lord Brahma’s lila cannot be used to defeat statement B, which has EVEN PROVEN BY YOU! Any ONE reason is enough to establish the point, so unless you can refute ALL 10, you have no case. And EVEN if you ‘thought’ you had refuted all 10, you would only actually be refuting Srila Prabhupada’s words and trying to contradict him. (And also contradict yourself). Further, as for your other quote (letter to Jagadish), where Srila Prabhupada is speaking specifically about the original fall of the souls from the spiritual world, and that falls from the spiritual world are not limited to those who are in certain rasas with Krishna, this does not prevent Krishna from blessing certain individuals acting in the material world e.g. a bona fide guru or Lord Brahma after he heard the Bhagavatam, to never be disturbed in the service they are performing for Him. So there is NO contradiction between the statements of Srila Prabhupada. As I said before, your approach is a losing proposition. Once you have proven something using Srila Prabhupada’s words, you must accept the conclusion and leave it alone. Not try and find fault with it, simply to save face in a debate, for even if you ‘think’ that you found such a fault, you would only show that you have contradicted yourself and still not win the debate. So why bother? Conclusion It has been demonstrated that: 1. You already lost long ago the actual debate you challenged me to. 2. You have also been defeated in the new argument (lack of biconditionality) you have used to attack proof 4. 3. Indeed you have additionally proven statement B in proof 4, via yet another route. 4. So you have been defeated in the current debate TWICE – once by my myself and once by yourself. 5. Given all this, to avoid defeat again, you have taken shelter of the last refuge of a scoundrel, which is to try and show that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself. For having accepted that the proof for statement B rests DIRECTLY on Srila Prabhupada’s words, rather than just accept the statement is correct, you have now entered down the road of guru-aparadha to try and show that therefore Srila Prabhupada must have contradicted himself. 6. And to try and defeat Srila Prabhupada’s words, you have engaged in equal rascaldom by trying to take advantage of Lord Brahma’s lila, to show that Srila Prabhupada has contradicted himself. 7. I have given 10 different evidences that Lord Brahma’s lila cannot be used to defeat Statement B of the proof, and therefore Srila Prabhupada’s statement that a bona fide guru NEVER falls, stands in perfect harmony with Lord Brahma’s lila. Therefore dear Hector, I urge you to accept these evidences, and immediately end this offensive endeavour to show that Srila Prabhupada’s statement that a “bona fide guru will NEVER become like that”, is wrong, and subject to contradiction by Lord Brahma’s lila. Better to just accept simple defeat, rather than to also add the ignominy of being offensive to both Srila Prabhupada and Lord Brahma. For even if you thought you could defeat Srila Prabhupada’s words, you would still lose the debate, since you will have only proven that you have contradicted yourself again, since you have already accepted statement B to be PROVEN. Indeed since you have engaged in this offensive behaviour towards Srila Prabhupada and Lord Brahma simply to try and avoid defeat in debate by myself, to help put a stop to these offences, if you withdraw from this debate and therefore end this offensive behaviour, I am even willing to never mention that you were defeated in debate, nor to ever print or post this debate or forward it to anyone. You did not enter this debate to destroy your spiritual life. Therefore take the offer, and go back to teaching Maths, which I am sure you are probably good at. Otherwise if you continue, you will be like the Brahmana who lost his caste but was still hungry. You will sacrifice everything to try and avoid defeat in this debate, but still continue to get defeated and humiliated at every turn. So will you choose the path of self-contradiction and offences, or bowing out gracefully with no loss of honour? The choice is yours. Thank you Your servant, Krishnakant Hector Rosario [hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu] 18 May 2006 19:17 VSNL; irm (AT) iskconirm (DOT) com Cc: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net A challenge to IRM[8] Hare Krishna, Krishnakant Prabhu, Please accept my greetings. 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. You claim: >“Proof 4 as presented in the BTP Special Issue, is derived from the following words of Srila Prabhupada: “The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation of wealth or a large number of followers. A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that. But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.” >(Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14)” However, I based my argument on the quote you presented on the Special Issue, namely, “But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.” Furthermore, your recapped ‘proof’ reads: A. Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorised – sometimes the Guru falls. B. Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorized. C. But all Gurus authorized in exactly the same way. D. Thus all Gurus not properly authorized. E. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains. Hence, the part of the quote that you claim I am excluding was due to your excluding it in the Special Issue. You quoted Srila Prabhupada beginning with a ‘but’, something you had warned me not to do, yet you did it yourself in your widely distributed Special Issue. So, based on what you wrote on the Special Issue, it does not follow that if a guru falls, the he was not authorized. However, I will admit that if for A you instead use “A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that (that is, “carried away by an accumulation of wealth and disciples”),” then we can write: If guru authorized, then guru will not fall. The contrapositive of this statement (and hence logically equivalent) is: If guru falls, then guru is not authorized. Of course, this is the statement you want, but it does not follow from the quote you cited. You do not have, as you claimed, a biconditional statement. You simply have two conditional statements, namely, 1) If guru not authorized, then guru may or may not fall. 2) If guru authorized, then guru will not fall. Again, notice that you do not need the first conditional statement at all to show B. You simply needed to consider the contrapositive of 2). Therefore, your ‘proof recapped’ should change to: A. Nectar of Devotion ‘states’ IF GURU AUTHORIZED, THEN GURU DOES NOT FALL. B. Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorized. C. But all Gurus authorized in exactly the same way. D. Thus all Gurus not properly authorized. E. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains. Now, that point is settled. I will accept B, which was proved *independently* of what you had for A. Notice the simplicity of this argument, just consider the contrapositive of a quote you apparently ignored in your Special Issue. At least be a gentleman and admit that you never had a biconditional statement, as you claimed in your last two messages, although you do get the conclusion you wanted, namely B. Now, before we move on to C, we should address some problems with B. You claim: "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 occurs as a result of a guru actually being correctly AUTHORISED." Can you prove this claim? Furthermore, can you prove that you know every statement of Srila Prabhupada, even the non-recorded ones? Without knowing every statement, you do not have the complete set of axioms, and therefore you cannot conclusively say that above statement is true. Now, pay attention to the quotes I cited in my last message. That is why they were there. It would be offensive to say that an authorized guru has fallen. If our guru falls, then we should think that it was his lila. That is why I quoted Srila Prabhupada in my last message thus, ******************* 75-05-11. Morning Walk. Perth Devotee (2): So, Srila Prabhupada, isn’t Lord Brahma the original spiritual master in our sampradaya? Prabhupada: Yes. BUT WE SHOULD TAKE THAT IT WAS HIS LILA TO SHOW THAT “EVEN I AM SUBJECTED. How much you should take risk here.” WE SHOULD TAKE LIKE THAT BECAUSE HE’S OUR GURU. We should not take him that he was subjected to lusty desires, but he made a show that “Even I am also subjected.” And he gave up this, changed the body for that. THEREFORE WE SHOULD NOT OBSERVE IF THERE IS A SHOW OF A FAULT OF THE GURU. We should take a different way. [...] You should not imitate them; simply you should imitate their instruction. ******************** Notice that Srila Prabhupada warns us not to see fault in the guru. But that doesn’t change the Vedic fact that Lord Brahma was chastised by Lord Siva for his apparent falldown, even though he was authorized by Krishna Himself. But he’s the acarya of our sampradaya, so we offer our obeisances to him. ********** 70-02-27 Letter to Jagadisa “Regarding your questions concerning the spirit souls falling into maya's influence, it is not that those who have developed a passive relationship with Krishna are more likely to fall into nescient activities. USUALLY ANYONE who has developed his relationship with Krishna DOES NOT FALL DOWN in any circumstance, BUT because the independence is ALWAYS there, the soul MAY FALL FROM *ANY* POSITION or relationship by misusing his independence. But his relationship with Krishna is never lost, simply it is forgotten by the influence of maya, so it may be regained or revived by the process of hearing the holy name of Krishna…” ****************************** We are warned not to see fault in the guru, yet Srila Prabhupada further warns us that *anyone* may fall down. That is the purpose of Lord Brahma’s lila, that ANYONE may fall down. So, even though Srila Prabhupada did something logically equivalent to what you claim in B, that quote must be seen in the context of all his teachings, including these two quotes. Therefore, we cannot proceed to C. At Srila Acaryadeva’s feet, hector ------ 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.