Ajamila finally ends up putting words in Krsna's mouth!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajamila Prabhu, Please accept our humble obeisances. All Glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

> That has nothing to do with the fact that Lord Krishna said that

> it did stop previously. Adri has avoided the point there and

> changed the subject. Politicians do this all the time and get

> thrown out of office for it, eventually, when people wise up to

> it.

 

Lord Krsna never used the word 'stop' which is the issue here. You are

putting words into Krishna's mouth. And how can we be avoiding the point,

since we use the words 'stopping' and 'eternal', which if one consults the

dictionary, would mean that we are saying that the parampara can never come

to a halt permanently. (The word 'stop' according to the dictionary means to

bring to an 'end'). If something had permanently ceased it could not be

continuing today.

 

> How can something be broken and not stopped? If it is broken it

> is stopped. Full stop.

 

We use the words 'stopping' and 'eternal', which if one consults the

dictionary, would mean that we are saying that the parampara can never come

to a halt permanently. (The word 'stop' according to the dictionary means to

bring to an 'end'). Since a 'break' occurred but the parampara is still here

today, this proves that our point is correct - the parampara does not 'end'.

Even when the temporary break does occur, the science can only 'appear' to

be lost, not be actually lost. If we had said that the succession can never

be 'broken', as Krishna said it did, then Ajamila would have a point. But we

did NOT say that. And what we DID say is correct. - no permanent cessation

or ending ('stopping') of the parampara can and does occur.

 

> Krishna said that the parampara was broken and the science lost,

> as plain as day, a direct meaning.

 

This is NOT what Krishna said. Krishna said the science 'as it is APPEARS'

to be lost. Ajamila just quoted Krishna saying this. How sloppy can you get.

Again more putting of words into Krishna's mnouth.

 

> False again. Krishna said it stopped and He started it up again

> so that we could have it now.

 

Again Ajamila is very sloppy and again puts words into Krishna's mouth.

Krishna never used the word 'stopped'. Infact he didn't SAY any of the

above.

 

> Adri, every time you open your mouth you put your big foot in

> it.

 

As we have shown, the only one who is putting anything into anyone's mouth

is Ajamila, who has put words into the mouth of Krishna, which Krishna never

SPOKE. He has also put words into our mouths, by implying that we were

speaking against the parampara having a 'beak' in it, when what we actually

said was that it is 'eternal', that is, it not does not come to a permanent

'end' i.e. stop.

 

Oh yes, and by the way all this means also that Ajamila has out his foot in

his mouth again, just as he did when he contradicted the GBC, and when he

stated thatMayesvara was 'learned' for proposing the ritvik system etc. etc.

 

> Actually, the above specualtion sounds like Desai's mayavadism.

> Am I right?

 

This has to be the height of paranoia.

 

Kamsa only saw Krishna everywhere.

 

Now it seems:

 

Ajamila only sees Krishnakant everywhere.

 

Please get a grip. All the IRG papers have been on the IRG website for a

long time. There you will find over 30 replies to official GBC papers etc.

Thus ANYONE who reads the website can defeat your hopeless arguments. Infact

it could n't be any easier since 90% of what you write is either a 'straw

man' argument, or has already been answered previously. For instance the

above argument from you has been lifted straight out of 'Prabhupada's Order:

 

TFO:

 

"the disciplic succession is eternal, there is no question of it stopping."

 

Firstly, this claim is directly denied by Lord Krishna Himself:

 

"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic

succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course

of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is

appears to be lost."

(Bhagavad-gita 4.2)" [Prabhupada's Order - GBC 1998]

 

At least you should have had the deceny to credit the source (even if you

were listed at the time as one the 10 or so co-authors). And 'Prabhupada's

Order 'was answered 9 months ago. And I have just used the answer that was

given then here. See, it couldn't be easier, its child's play. And that's

how I can answer all your arguments so qucikly - since you are only bright

enough to come up with already answered objections in the main. Anyway lets'

see if you come up with some new material for the debate.

 

So don't flatter yourself that what you write is so powerful that there is

only ONE person on the planet who can answer you!

 

ys, Adri & Madhu