A challenge to IRM[10:Defeated]

May 26, 2006

Hare Krishna Krishnakant Prabhu,

Please, accept my greetings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I just called my wife to check on the quote (I don't have the book with me)

and she confirmed that I did make the two mistakes you point out while

transcribing. Nevertherless, the two mistakes from my transcription do not

affect the outcome, namely, your defeat.

In the Vedabase it says, "If one is attracted by a large number of disciples

and material conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as

a bona fide master, the growth of the plant will be impeded."

The phrase you claim I intentionally deleted - "material conveniences

offered by these disciples" - makes it even clearer that this statement

refers to a diksa guru. Thanks for bringing it up. Bona fide means bona

fide. And do they go to this bonafide master for spiritual instructions or

for instructions on how to play Bingo? It is obvious Srila Prabhupada refers

to a spiritual master. Your attempt to go around it is pitiful.

Besides, Srila Prabhupada is not contradicting himself. If one takes his

teachings in their entirety, then a rational being will understand that he

says: A bonafide spiritual master will never become like that, UNLESS he

forgets his duty as a bonafide master. Forgetfulness might come from taking

advantage of the material conveniences offered by these disciples. This is

not a contradiction, but an exception Srila Prabhupada clarifies as a way to

warn us.

To summarize, we have at least one more axiom that may be the cause for the

falldown of a BONAFIDE, if you do not want to accept the second one, namely:

1) Forgetfulness of duty

2) Taking advantage of material conveniences

Hence, if a spiritual master FORGETS HIS DUTY AS A BONA FIDE MASTER, then he

may fall. Certainly, only a bona fide spiritual master can know what the

duties of such a position are. Moreover, it can be inferred that such

forgetfulness might come from being attracted and taking advantage of

material conveniences.

Therefore, since we have two more axioms, B becomes:

IF (guru falls), THEN (he was not authorized OR he forgot his duty as a

bonafide master OR he took advantage of material conveniences).

Even if you do not accept the second axiom, we still get:

IF (guru falls), THEN (he was not authorized OR he forgot his duty as a

bonafide master).

In either case, 'proof' 4 of IRM's Special Issue and The Final Order

miserably collapses. Don't be so stubborn and arrogant. I realize now that

all the insults you showered on me were simply a reflection of your own

crooked nature.

Simply concede defeat. Ask for forgiveness for the offenses committed

against Sripada Gaura Govinda Gurudeva and Sri Srimad Hridayananda dasa

Goswami Acaryadeva. Also, do not forget to ask for forgiveness to all the

other Vaisnavas you have insulted. In addition, at least publically

recognize that Ramakanta Prabhu had already defeated you long ago. Do not

make a show of infallibility. Stop offending the lotus feet of Srila

Prabhupada. May Lord Nityananda have mercy on your soul.

Again, simply concede defeat.

Srila Prabhupada ki! Jaya!

At Srila Acaryadeva's feet,

hector

May 28, 2006

Dear Hector Prabhu,

Please accept my HUMBLE OBEISANCES. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I note you have not even ATTEMPTED to respond to any of the points I made in

my previous mail, which could have been predicted if we review your history

in this debate. For so far, all throughout this debate, every single time

you HAVE tried to respond to my arguments, you have committed huge blunders:

a) You began by challenging me that my proof was incorrect because it could

be applied to the Gaudiya Matha. You realised you had blundered and withdrew

the challenge thus conceding the debate. You also blundered and conceded

that you made a mistake in not separating the first 11 gurus from the next

93. So that was the original debate finished.

b) Then you blundered by claiming a bi-conditional statement was

conditional, which you were able to argue only by DELETING the word

'sometimes' from Srila Prabhupada's actual statement. 3 times it has been

proven to you that the statement is bi-conditional and 3 times you have not

even been attempted to respond.

c) Then you withdrew from the debate admitting you had blundered big time by

even starting the debate since it was 'all nonsense', and you were part of

this.

d) Then you returned to the 'all nonsense' debate and conceded your previous

blunder in challenging my proof by now claiming that statement B in my proof

was correct after all, only it must be proven 'your' way.

e) Then you blundered by trying to apply the Lila of Lord Brahma to show

that members of the authorised disciplic succession fall.

f) And then we finally came to the mother of all blunders - you were caught

well and truly with your hand in the cookie jar, as you tried to change a

whole sentence from Srila Prabhupada to try and win the debate. We can note

this is a Hector habit, since as we noted in point b) above, that he had

previously also tried changing Srila Prabhupada's words to make his

argument.

g) So having made such a huge catalogue of blunders EVERY single time you

have had an exchange with me, you do the only thing that a master of

blundering can do now – and this is to say NOTHING at all, so as to avoid

any further blunders. Rather you simply REPEAT your already defeated point

from your previous mail, prefaced by a handful of sentences simply

DISMISSING and IGNORING, but not ANSWERING, my rebuttal to the defeated

argument you are once again simply repeating.

Anyone can look through the exchanges and see that the summary made here is

accurate, and further that NONE of the points above are even disputed by

Hector, which means he concedes them, for as Srila Prabhupada states:

"Since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu could not escape Sanatana Gosvami’s argument,

He remained silent on this point and thereby indirectly accepted Sanatana’s

statement.”

(CC., Madhya, 20.365)

Therefore, as can be seen from the above summary, so far in the debate, for

every single point I have made, Hector has either refused to directly rebut

what I have said, or conceded what I have said, and therefore Hector has

been defeated on every point made by me. Therefore throughout this whole

debate, Hector has managed to achieve nothing except to prove he is a master

blunderer.

However we will now see, that even his latest attempt to avoid further

blundering, by refusing to even respond to my detailed arguments, he has

still somehow managed to commit another array of non-stop of blunders from

the little he has said. So here we go again ...

Blunder 1

You say:

" I just called my wife to check on the quote (I don't have the book with

me) and she confirmed that I did make the two mistakes you point out while

transcribing."

How can anyone accept that your adding and deleting a whole bunch of words

when copying just ONE sentence, was an innocent mistake, especially when

co-incidentally the changes made just happen to support the arguments you go

onto make!? Even an 8 year old child can accurately copy one sentence from a

book without adding and deleting a whole bunch of words, and yet we are

supposed to believe that an Ivy league graduate and Maths Professor no less,

is not able to do it. I am sure everyone believes you prabhu!

Blunder 2

You say:

“And do they go to this bonafide master for spiritual instructions or for

instructions on how to play Bingo?”

Yes, he will be sharing spiritual knowledge with them, but authorised member

of the disciplic succession is NOT defined as ANY devotee, even if he is a

sadhaka, who teaches disciples less advanced than himself. And to apply such

a definition is very offensive to the parampara, that any master regardless

of his level of spiritual advancement is automatically equated to being a

member of the parampara, simply because he has disciples and he does not

deviate from his bona fide duty of teaching them rather than taking

advantage of them.

Blunder 3

You say:

“It is obvious Srila Prabhupada refers to a spiritual master. Your attempt

to go around it is pitiful.”

So ‘obvious’ and so ‘pitiful’, that you cannot even explain WHY its so

obvious and pitiful, except to REPEAT that the mere

presence of the word ‘disciples’ and ‘bona fide master’ makes it so, even

though this point was already rebutted in my last mail,

which you refuse to even address, because you cannot. As I noted in my last

mail, this is a Hector technique of debating, whereby due to his refusal to

even attempt to rebut my arguments, he is actually childishly saying:

“I am right, but I don’t know why, nor will I explain.”

Blunder 4

You say:

“If one takes his teachings in their entirety, then a rational being will

understand that he says: A bonafide spiritual master will never become like

that, UNLESS he forgets his duty as a bonafide master.”

Only Srila Prabhupada does NOT say this. He does NOT say a Bona fide

spiritual master will

never become like that, UNLESS something else. This again is a statement

from the “Teachings Of Hector”

and not from Srila Prabhupada. This is what Srila Prabhupada actually

states:

“A bona-fide spiritual master will never become like that”.

Note the LAST character in the above sentence. Its called a PERIOD, which is

apt, because

the above is what Srila Prabhupada states, PERIOD. To THEN claim, as Hector

does, that in ANOTHER PLACE entirely,

Srila Prabhupada says:

“A bona-fide spiritual master DOES become like that”,

is a MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE statement to what Srila Prabhupada has already

stated, and is therefore called

a CONTRADICTION. You cannot claim that Srila Prabhupada makes two mutually

exclusive statements in different

places, and that you can just JOIN THEM TOGETHER, and it will not be a

contradiction! This is more childishness.

Here is an example. If someone says in one place:

“Krishna never falls in maya”

and then states in another place:

“Krishna does fall in maya”

then according to the Hector school of understanding statements, you can

simply STICK these two statements together, to produce

a statement which says: “Krishna never falls in maya, UNLESS HE DOES”, and

therefore the above two statements are not a contradiction! And further this

is ‘rational’. Hector’s talent is obviously wasted in ISKCON. Such

word-jugglery would be very much appreciated any advaita mayavada school,

where all is one!

Blunder 5

You say:

“Forgetfulness might come from taking advantage of the material conveniences

offered by these disciples. This is

not a contradiction, but an exception Srila Prabhupada clarifies as a way to

warn us.”

But later on you claim this so-called ‘exception’ is not an exception but

actually an AXIOM:

“Therefore, since we have two more axioms, B becomes:

IF (guru falls), THEN (he was not authorized OR he forgot his duty as a

bonafide master OR he took advantage of material conveniences).”

Further this so-called ‘exception’ is actually an axiom that sits as a

regular cause of fall-down ALONG-SIDE another cause of fall-down, namely

“being unauthorised”, which according to you also is not an exception, but a

standard cause of fall-down. This according to you we have not an exception

to a rule, but actually A RULE itself, which is what an axiom is.

So in summary, simply sticking together two mutually exclusive statements,

and calling one an ‘exception’, is both contradictory both by the

definition of mutually exclusive statements, and by your own acceptance of

this ‘exception’ actually being an axiom. Therefore it is proven once again,

that you ARE claiming that Srila Prabhupada is contradicting himself.

Blunder 6

You say:

“I realize now that all the insults you showered on me were simply a

reflection of your own crooked nature.”

This must win an award for ‘hypocrtical statement of the year’. YOU have

just been caught manufacturing Srila Prabhupada’s words to try and win a

debate, yet it is I who is supposedly ‘crooked’!

Poor Hector. This time you tried to say very little, completely trying to

avoid even responding to my rebuttal of your arguments, and STILL you manage

to produce your regular quota of blunders. Next time, maybe just say nothing

at all, and just keep repeating your already defeated argument and calling

for me to concede ‘defeat’, as you have done here.

Since we have seen Hector simply refuses to even ATTEMPT to answer my

arguments, because he cannot, then by the following axiom:

“"Since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu could not escape Sanatana Gosvami’s

argument, He remained silent on this point and thereby indirectly accepted

Sanatana’s statement.”

(CC., Madhya, 20.365)

I win every time. So here AGAIN, are all the points with which I defeated

Hector last time (re-packaged with one extra!), which he has not even

attempted to respond to this time, and which therefore, by the above axiom,

ensures this debate is already won by me.

8 Reasons Why We Are Dealing With A Sadhaka

The debate before us is simple. Is the following statement describing the

activities of the authorised bona fide members of the disciplic succession,

such as Srila Prabhupada, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati etc., OR is it

describing the activities of a sadhaka as he progresses in cultivating the

Bhakti plant:

“"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as

a bona fide master, the growth of the plant will be impeded."

(Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Page 30)

1) Srila Prabhupada’s Axiom

Since Srila Prabhupada states:

“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.”

(Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14)

we know that Srila Prabhupada cannot later go on to say the opposite,

otherwise we would unnecessarily be foisting a contradiction on Srila

Prabhupada. Otherwise if we were to just DIS-REGARD what Srila Prabhupada

says above, then it would be self-defeating, for then you could just

dis-regard what Srila Prabhupada says anywhere and debate becomes

meaningless. Therefore the above axiom from Srila Prabhupada proves that the

statement from the ‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’ given by Hector, can NOT be

referring to an authorised member of the disciplic succession, as such a

personality NEVER gets carried away by disciples and material conveniences.

Thus at this point the argument is over. Because one cannot defeat an axiom.

Hence all the other arguments below are just for completeness, demonstrating

HOW Srila Prabhupada’s axiom is correct, and why the quote produced by

Hector does not indeed refer to an authorised member of the disciplic

succession, a fact which was already adduced from this axiom.

2) Context For Quote - 1

The section in which the quote appers, begins with a NEOPHYTE receiving the

seed of devotional service. Srila Prabhupada then gives a WHOLE list of all

the things which the neophyte must avoid lest the Bhakti plant will be

impeded. The section begins with Srila Prabhupada stating:

“Lord Caitanya pointed out to Rüpa Gosvämi that there was a certain danger

to be encountered while watering the root of the devotional plant,”

and finishes with:

“If one is not particularly careful, even by watering the plant of

devotional service, unnecessary weeds will grow and hamper progress.”

IN BETWEEN these two sentences, Srila Prabhupada gives the following list of

all the dangers to be avoided:

a) Offending a pure devotee – mad elephant offence

b) Ten offences against chanting the holy name

c) Becoming distracted by material conveniences offered by would-be

disciples

d) Desiring liberation

e) To not follow the 4 regulative principles

So nestled in the middle of this list, is Hector’s quote, and therefore

Srila Prabhupada is not suddenly in the middle of this list describing the

fall-down of an authorised member of the disciplic succession, but simply

listing the dangers to be avoided by a sadhaka desiring to make progress in

Bhakti-Yoga, such as not breaking the 4 regulative principles, not

committing offences against chanting of the holy names etc.

3) Context For Quote – 2

Independent confirmation, that the subject matter of the quote in question

is NOT the fall of authorised members of the disciplic succession, but

Sadhaka’s progressing in Bhakti-Yoga, is provided from the Caitanya

Caritamrta, from which the ‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’ is summarised. The

quote in question comes from chapter 1 of the “Teachings of Lord Caitanya”,

called “Instructions To Rupa Goswami”, which itself is simply a summary of

the same chapter in the Caitanya Caritamrta, which can be found in

Madhya-Lila, Chapter 19. The sections just before and after the quote in

question are summarised from verses 157 to 160 of this section of the

Caitanya Caritmrta Anyone can check and see an exact correspondence between

the two sections in the Caitanya Caritamrta and the Teachings of Lord

Caitanya, which is not surprising, since one is a summary study of the

other! So here are quotes from the Caitanya Caritamrta which bound the

section from which the quote in question is from:

“While the bhakti creeper is growing, the devotee must protect it by fencing

it all around. The neophyte devotee must be protected by being surrounded by

pure devotees. In this way he will not give the maddened elephant a chance

to uproot his bhakti creeper. When one associates with nondevotees, the

maddened elephant is set loose.”

(Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya 19:157)

“If one is misled by unwanted creepers and is victimized, he cannot make

progress back to Godhead.”

(Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya 19:160)

This is clearly describing the progress of neophyte and his progress in

Bhakti, and not the perfected members of the authorised disciplic

succession.

4) Immediate Context in Quote

Now from the context it is very clear, that the quote in question does not

involve speaking about members of the disciplic succession, but sadhakas

making progress in devotional service, as this is the subject matter of the

whole section. Now someone may make a perverse argument that though this

maybe true, when we come to the actual quote in question, the subject matter

suddenly SWITCHES to speaking about members of the disciplic succession,

even though all the discussion BEFORE and AFTER the quote relates to the

progress of sadhakas. But even this perverse argument is defeated, when we

look at the sentence just before the quote:

“When a person advances in bhakti, it is natural that many persons will come

to him requesting to become disciples and will offer him some material

gains. If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded.”

(Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Page 30)

Thus the sentence before makes it clear we are dealing only with a sadhaka

who is advancing in his progress in growing the bhakti plant, and not

someone who is a perfected and authorised member of the disciplic

succession, and the sadhaka who is advancing in Bhakti, needs to then make

sure he does not allow his progress to get checked due to persons offering

to become his disciples due to the advancement he is making.

5) Authorised Bona Fide Spiritual Master Distinguished

Srila Prabhupada has specifically not used the words authorised spiritual

master or Bona Fide spiritual master, in the said quote,

which is what we would expect if Srila Prabhupada was actually contradicting

himself and we were dealing with authorised members of the disciplic

succession. The actual term used is ‘bona fide master’. Nor is this term

being used inter-changeably with ‘bona fide spiritual master’ here, for the

latter does not appear anywhere in the vicinity of the section to be

inter-changed with. Nor does the context support that we are dealing with

the authorised members of the disciplic succession. Rather the difference is

because, at the beginning of the section in which the quote appears, Srila

Prabhupada states:

“Such devotees are empowered by the Lord to distribute devotional

consciousness, or Krishna consciousness, to the people in general. They are

known as authorized spiritual masters, and it is by their mercy that a

conditioned soul gets the seed of devotional service. The causeless mercy of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead is first appreciated when one comes in

touch with a bona fide spiritual master who can bring the conditioned soul

to the highest position of devotional life.”

(Teachings of Lord Caitanya)

Srila Prabhupada clearly states that the neophyte is the RECEIPIENT of the

seed of Bhakti from the ACTUAL Authorised bona fide spiritual master. Srila

Prabhupada then goes on to mention the list of dangers given in point 2

above, to be avoided by the neophyte who has had the seed of devotional

service planted by the Bona fide spiritual master. Thus it would therefore

be ludicrous for Srila Prabhupada to then say that the GIVER and RECEIVER of

the seed of Bhakti are both the same Bona Fide spiritual master:

“The bona fide spiritual master plants the seed of bhakti in the heart of

the neophyte and subsequently as this sadhaka advances, this BONA FIDE

SPIRITUAL MASTER must be careful to make sure his bhakti plant does not get

impeded!”,

and hence only the word ‘master’ is used to distinguish the advancing

sadhaka who has attracted some disciples, from the actual authorised bona

fide spiritual master who planted the seed of Bhakti in him in the first

place.

..6) No Evidence of Authorisation

An authorised member of the disciplic succession would be someone who

has been authorised by his own Bona Fide spiritual master to take up this

service:

“One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the

disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master.

This is called diksa-vidhäna.”

(4:8:54)

Yet there is not even a HINT that the sadhaka ‘master’ in the said quote has

been thus authorised. All we are told is that his Bona fide spiritual master

plants the seed of Bhakti in his heart, and then the dangers he must avoid

to make progress. Rather it says is that others approach him because he is

making some advancement in Bhakti, and THIS is why he starts taking

disciples, with no mention of either that he must now wait until his own

Spiritual master must leave the planet before initiating or that now he must

take permission to be authorised by his own Guru before he can take

disciples. Rather the situation is merely opportunistic – the sadhaka is

making some progress in Bhakti and because of this he gets approached by

others to be his disciples. There is no evidence this is someone who has

officially previously been authorised by his own Guru, but all the evidence

only states he is some ordinary sadhaka who just gets approached by others

for discipleship as he advances.

7) Bona Fide Master

Firstly ANYONE who is approached by disciples, can be referred to as being

their MASTER, simply by virtue of the fact people are asking to become his

disciples. This is not in dispute. But the word master therefore does not

automatically mean ‘authorised member of disciplic succession’. It will be

made clear from the context, what type of master we are dealing with. And as

the context has made it clear, we are dealing with a sadhaka, who simply

after making some progress, attracts disciples. And as soon as he, instead

of helping those who have approached him, takes advantage of them, he will

not be behaving in a bona fide manner. And this is ALL the quote in question

states. Thus the term ‘bona fide master’ is used to denote a sadhaka who

does not take advantage of those who seek to be his disciples, with the word

‘bona fide’ denoting that he must not take advantage of them. The meaning of

words is made clear by the context. One cannot just jump on a word, and

ignore the context, and try to make one’s case in this way, as Hector does.

He simply JUMPS from the word bona fide master to an authorised member of

the disciplic succession, but there has to be some supporting context for

this. As the same word will mean different things according to the context.

Here is an example, using the same Nectar of Devotion verse used earlier to

establish the axiom which makes Hector’s argument impossible, as Srila

Prabhupada does not contradict himself:

“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)

Here we see that the FIRST use of the word ‘spiritual master’, actually

refers to an authorised bona fide spiritual master, and is used

interchangeably with the word bona fide spiritual master, which appears in

the next sentence. Then in the third sentence, the word ‘spiritual master’

does NOT refer to a bona fide spiritual master, but actually refers to an

unauthorised spiritual master. So the same word CAN mean different things,

depending on the context.

Therefore, in this case, the CONTEXT will make it clear, WHAT type of

‘master’ we are referring to. And once it is clear what type of master we

are referring, IF he performs his duty as that type of master, then he will

be bona fide. Thus the words ‘bona fide master’ and ‘disciples’ in

themselves do not establish that we are dealing with an authorised member of

the disciplic succession. We would have to look to the context for that, and

as we have seen above, the context not only does NOT give ANY supporting

evidence that the master referred to is an authorised member of the

disciplic succession, but rather gives ABUNDANT evidence that the master is

just a regular sadhaka progressing in Bhakti.

8) Example Of Hrdyananda Maharaja

This is a reason that would work for Hector, but not anyone else! Since

Hector believes that Hrdyananda Maharaja IS an authorised member of the

disciplic succession, then if he REALLY believes that the quote in question

refers to an authorised member of the disciplic succession, then he must

accept that its description applies to Hrdyananda Maharaja as well. So

according to all the evidence just presented above, it cannot be disputed

that the quote in question refers to:

Some neophyte, who after having had the seed of Bhakti planted in his heart,

makes some initial progress by following the rules and regulations of

Bhakti, and thus gets approached by others for discipleship.

Therefore let Hector declare boldly that:

YES, the above description matches Hrdyananda Maharaja, OR

NO, my Guru is not some sadhaka who has only made some initial progress in

Bhakti

If Hector answers YES, then it really does not say much for Hector’s opinion

of Hrdyananda Maharaja!

If Hector answers NO, he concedes the debate.

But the conclusion has to be ONE OR THE OTHER.

This is what happens when one tries to twist Srila Prabhupada’s words simply

to win a debate. You end up with a conclusion you did not really intend!

Summary

a) Hector BEGINS with a proposition, that an authorised Bona Fide

spiritual master gets carried away by wealth and disciples, which means

Srila Prabhupada had to contradict himself, since Srila Prabhupada states

the opposite. Therefore just on this point alone Hector is defeated, and we

know the quote in question cannot be referring to such a spiritual master.

For any follower of Srila Prabhupada, there is no need to go any further, as

we know Srila Prahupada is a perfect personality who does not contradict

himself, and therefore even before we begin to look at the quote, the debate

is over.

b) Then looking at the quote in question, we know Hector needs to find

a quote which speaks of an authorised bona fide spiritual master falling.

But the quote does not mention either an authorised spiritual master or bona

fide spiritual master.

c) Then we examine the CONTEXT to the quote, and it becomes crystal

clear that we are not dealing with authorised members of the disicplic

succession, but the dangers that sadhakas must avoid in their cultivation of

the Bhakti plant.

So from every single angle – from Srila Prabhupada’s other axiomatic

instructions, from the words of the quote, and the context of the quote –

there is not, nor can there be, any evidence that Srila Prabhupada

contradicted himself and stated that an authorised member of the disciplic

succession gets carried away by wealth and disciples. Any ONE of the 8

reasons above is enough to establish the case, so Hector would need to

refute ALL 8. So far as we have seen he has not even dared to try and even

attempt to refute ANY of them.

Conclusion

a) Hector has made huge blunders in EVERY single exchange of the debate

so far.

b) He did not even attempt to answer the arguments which I gave in my

last mail, presented again above, because he cannot, and therefore he is

defeated by the axiom that silence means acceptance.

c) It is established conclusively that Hector’s whole argument is based

on assuming Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself.

d) Srila Prabhupada does not contradict himself, and therefore the

proof given in BTP Special Issue, and as proven by Hector himself, stands.

Thank you.

Your servant,

Krishnakant

Hector Rosario [hector.rosario (AT) math (DOT) uprm.edu]

26 May 2006 19:41

IRM