Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

January 2, 2007

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Please admit that you have, thus far, not provided any statement from

> Srila Prabhupada to the effect that:

>

> “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept

them as a proof. I do not want to discuss this further now. Maybe later.

> You won’t even tell us what on earth you meant by the term ‘initiate the

> delivery’.

I have already explained it. Here is again the explanation:

"The spiritual master initiates the disciple to deliver him, and if the

disciple executes the order of the spiritual master and does not offend

other Vaisnavas, his path is clear." (CC Madhya 1.218, purport)

You may also consult your dictionary.

If in your point b) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who imparts or

explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada),

then it becomes:

"b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole

guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge for ISKCON."

Please present some evidence of this claim or withdraw your claim that Srila

Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole diksa

guru (the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge) for ISKCON.

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 2, 2007

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

I had requested closure on the following point before moving on:

> Please admit that you have, thus far, not provided any statement from

> Srila Prabhupada to the effect that:

>

> “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

To which you respond:

<I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept

them as a proof. I do not want to discuss this further now. Maybe later.>

This makes no sense.

If you have already proved that…

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

…then the debate could be over (given that the term ‘initiate the delivery’-

which you won’t even explain- actually refers to an aspect of diksa that Srila

Prabhupada states absolutely requires his physical presence on the same planet

as the disciple). Why not stick to your guns? If it’s proven then I must accept

it or I would be a big rascal.

OK, well let’s eliminate the evidence that you have thus far presented to prove

the above, one piece at a time.

Do you agree that the letter to JPS (material universe) that you quoted does

not prove your claim? To help you out please note:

The quote does not mention the term ‘initiate the delivery’-It deals with

delivering the initiated.

The quote does not mention ‘this planet’- it mentions only 'the material

universe'.

The quote does not mention the word ‘incarnated’,

The quote does not contain the word ‘cannot’.

Aside from that it was certainly brilliant evidence. If you agree this does not

prove your claim I’ll go to the next piece of evidence. Baby steps.

OR, if you want you can just post your star piece of evidence and I’ll have

another look at it. I’m not moving on till we agree on whether or not your

claim has already been proven prior to your latest challenge. Once you admit it

has not been proven I will then destroy this too; that’s a promise.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

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

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:03:00 AM

Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Please admit that you have, thus far, not provided any statement from

> Srila Prabhupada to the effect that:

>

> “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept

them as a proof. I do not want to discuss this further now. Maybe later.

> You won’t even tell us what on earth you meant by the term ‘initiate the

> delivery’.

I have already explained it. Here is again the explanation:

"The spiritual master initiates the disciple to deliver him, and if the

disciple executes the order of the spiritual master and does not offend

other Vaisnavas, his path is clear." (CC Madhya 1.218, purport)

You may also consult your dictionary.

If in your point b) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who imparts or

explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada),

then it becomes:

"b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole

guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge for ISKCON."

Please present some evidence of this claim or withdraw your claim that Srila

Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole diksa

guru (the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge) for ISKCON.

ys Ramakanta dasa

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

January 3, 2007

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> I had requested closure on the following point before moving on:

I have closed this point. I do not want to discuss it further.

If in your points b) and c) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who

imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila

Prabhupada and agreed by you), then they become:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole

guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts

or explains transcendental knowledge.

Please present some evidence of these claim or withdraw them.

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 3, 2007

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

I had requested closure on your claim; to which you respond:

Before I defeat any further challenges of yours I want either your admission

that none of the evidence you presented thus far proves the following claim:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

Or for you to provide evidence that actually MATCHES your claim. It is simply

madness to keep hopping and skipping onto new challenges without resolving

previous ones. So I offer the following choices:

1) You can admit you have not yet proved the above claim. In which case I shall

happily dismember your latest challenge.

2)We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly prove

your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

3) You can present just your star piece of evidence that you think exactly

matches the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has been

‘proved’.

Just let me know which of the above you wish to choose. Otherwise, like you, I

will not ‘want to discuss it further’.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

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

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Yaduraja das <yadurajadas >

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 6:19:00 AM

Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> I had requested closure on the following point before moving on:

I have closed this point. I do not want to discuss it further.

If in your points b) and c) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who

imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila

Prabhupada and agreed by you), then they become:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole

guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts

or explains transcendental knowledge.

Please present some evidence of these claim or withdraw them.

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 4, 2007

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Otherwise, like you, I will not ‘want to discuss it further’.

I don't mind if you don't present any evidence of following claims:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole

guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts

or explains transcendental knowledge.

(These statements are your points b) and c) with "diksa guru" replaced with

the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada and agreed by you.)

These two claims are definitely untrue because Srila Prabhupada many times

instructed his disciples to explain transcendental knowledge. So you are

defeated. You did not even try to prove these two claims.

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 4, 2007

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

You write:

Aside from the fact that the claims you go on to attribute to me were not

copied and pasted from any of my postings- I also don’t mind at all if you

don’t present any evidence that exactly matches the following claim:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

A claim I DID copy and paste DIRECTLY from your posting; a claim you have not

provided any MATCHING evidence for despite claiming it proven; and a claim

which preceded your latest challenge which is itself based on claims I never

made.

We can leave it there then if you're happy.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

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

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Thursday, January 4, 2007 7:39:00 AM

Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Otherwise, like you, I will not ‘want to discuss it further’.

I don't mind if you don't present any evidence of following claims:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole

guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts

or explains transcendental knowledge.

(These statements are your points b) and c) with "diksa guru" replaced with

the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada and agreed by you.)

These two claims are definitely untrue because Srila Prabhupada many times

instructed his disciples to explain transcendental knowledge. So you are

defeated. You did not even try to prove these two claims.

ys Ramakanta dasa

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

January 5, 2007

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru

for ISKCON.

But you do not claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru

for ISKCON who imparts or explains trancendental knowledge.

So the meanings of these two statements must be different. In the second

statement I replaced "the diksa guru" with "the sole guru who imparts or

explains trancendental knowledge". Since there is no other change, the

meaning of "the diksa guru" and the meaning of "the sole guru who imparts or

explains trancendental knowledge" must be different. So please tell us what

the difference is.

If you cannot tell us the difference, then please tell us what exactly you

mean by "diksa guru" in your point b). The meaning given by Srila Prabhupada

and agreed by you is "the guru who imparts or explains trancendental

knowledge".

If you cannot tell us that either, then please tell us what exactly it is

that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. He ordered his

disciples to explain transcendental knowledge (the very definition of

diksa). So what is it that he did not authorize?

If you cannot tell us that either, then admit that you do not know what you

are talking about.

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 5, 2007

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

With the greatest respect, it makes absolutely no sense to jump to another

challenge (in which you ineptly present claims I have never made as if they

were mine) if you have already defeated us by proving that starting initiation

somehow requires the guru to be on the same planet as the disciple (if that’s

what you mean by ‘initiating the delivery’- you still won’t tell us and the

quote you gave is worded differently):

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

The very fact that you feel such a strong need to jump to another challenge

indicates you are not as confident as you pretend to be about what you claim to

have proven. Why not just admit the fact that your claim above is unproven thus

far so we can move on to your latest challenge which you are obviously more

confident in?

As I stated, I offer the following choices.

1) You can admit you have not yet proved the above claim. In which case I shall

happily dismember your latest challenge.

2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly

prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS). I have

already given you some help on that one.

3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you

think exactly matches the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has

been ‘proved’.

Just let me know which, if any, of the above you wish to choose. I shall not

‘want to discuss it further’ until we close off on the above..

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

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

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Friday, January 5, 2007 6:24:00 AM

Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru

for ISKCON.

But you do not claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru

for ISKCON who imparts or explains trancendental knowledge.

So the meanings of these two statements must be different. In the second

statement I replaced "the diksa guru" with "the sole guru who imparts or

explains trancendental knowledge". Since there is no other change, the

meaning of "the diksa guru" and the meaning of "the sole guru who imparts or

explains trancendental knowledge" must be different. So please tell us what

the difference is.

If you cannot tell us the difference, then please tell us what exactly you

mean by "diksa guru" in your point b). The meaning given by Srila Prabhupada

and agreed by you is "the guru who imparts or explains trancendental

knowledge".

If you cannot tell us that either, then please tell us what exactly it is

that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. He ordered his

disciples to explain transcendental knowledge (the very definition of

diksa). So what is it that he did not authorize?

If you cannot tell us that either, then admit that you do not know what you

are talking about.

ys Ramakanta dasa

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

January 6, 2007

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> In which case I shall happily dismember your latest challenge.

You will not.

> 2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly

> prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

Yes, you can write an essay explaining why you think that my statement is

unproven. But you will have to do it without my help.

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what you are talking

about:

On Nov 30, 2006 you wrote that "on the absolute platform there is in any

case no difference between siksa and diksa". This is speculation. Srila

Prabhupada never said that.

"Just see how rascaldom. You do not know something perfectly, and still, you

are talking about it." (Lecture, Bg 1.45-46, Aug 1, 1973)

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 6, 2007

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

With regards ‘option 2’ which I had offered you:

"2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly

prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS). I have

already given you some help on that above."

You write:

<Yes, you can write an essay explaining why you think that my statement is

unproven. But you will have to do it without my help.> (Ramakanta das)

Oh dear me! I am not asking you to help me prove your statement is unproven, I

am suggesting we systematically examine the evidence you have offered in

support of the following claim...

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

....to see how any of it is relevant. Maybe I am missing something. This is your

chance to explain how the evidence you have presented EXACTLY MATCHES, or at

the very least directly supports your claim.

Thus far your claim appears to be a statement manufactured by a tiny brain;

according to your own criterion.

If so you are contradicting your own previously expressed criterion for what

constitutes proof in debate.

I have already proven that your evidence is irrelevant to your claim (see again

below) without any ‘help’ from you. It is you who needs ‘help’ to prove any of

the evidence you have presented proves your claim. So, as usual, you have

everything up-side-down and back-to-front.

To remind you of why you need ‘help’ with regards the evidence you have

presented so far:

a) None of it contains the phrase ‘initiate the delivery’.

b) One quote you offer contains the words ‘initiates’ and ‘deliver’ but says

nothing about needing to be on ‘this planet’ or ‘same planet’ in order to do

it, so is irrelevant to your claim. (We all agree the guru initiates the

disciple to deliver him- what’s the big deal?)

c) in fact not one of the quotes you offer contains the phrase ‘this planet’ or

‘same planet’ or even the word ‘planet’.

d) None of the quotes even deals with the circumstances in which diksa or

initiation ‘cannot’ take place, and are thus ALL irrelevant to your claim.

e) None of the quotes even contain the word ‘cannot’, do they?

f) The first two quotes you offered refer to people who are already disciples,

not people who have yet to be initiated, and are therefore irrelevant to your

claim.

I could go on.

Given the above it’s just completely ludicrous that you continue to maintain

you have proven your claim. What is the point in having a debate if anyone can

make any claim they want and not have to support it with matching evidence? For

one thing it violates the very rules of this discussion, as set out by Sudama

prabhu, which you emailed me.

Let’s be systematic shall we! Let's sort this out before lurching onto yet

another of your challenges.

Do you at least agree that the letter to JPS (material universe) does not prove

your claim? To help you out please note:

The quote does not mention the term ‘initiate the delivery’-It instead deals

with delivering the initiated.

The quote does not mention ‘this planet’- it mentions only 'the material

universe'.

The quote does not mention the word ‘incarnated’,

The quote does not contain the word ‘cannot’.

If you are correct, then by sticking to this claim I am actually helping you

since, if you have ALREADY proved it as you so boldly claim, then the debate

could already be over RIGHT NOW.

If the term ‘initiate the delivery’ actually means something, and if you have

proven that this very ‘something’ is stated by Srila Prabhupada as

necessitating the guru being on the same planet as the disciple to achieve it,

then you will have already won. No need for endless more verbiage. If you had

done this, and I did not accept it, I would indeed be a big, fat, demoniac

rascal, and you would be perfectly within your rights to broadcast this fact to

everyone in ‘ISKCON’ who did not already think this was the case (which I admit

would probably not be many people).

Just asking me more and more questions about siksa and diksa in a, thus far,

ill-fated attempt to prove I am not an expert on the subject (and hence

according to the way you use that quote a ‘rascal’) will only have relevance to

this debate if you can prove that the thing I do not understand or ‘know’ is

the very ‘something’ that needs the guru on the same planet as the disciple to

achieve.

All you have managed to do so far is to expose your own ignorance (and hence

‘rascaldom’- by your own criterion) since, for one thing, I had to explain to

you the definition of the word diksa after you challenged it. Maybe it’s not

your fault, maybe it’s your ‘senior devotee’ advisors. If so I’d get rid of

them if I were you.

I repeat, I offer you 3 options:

1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING evidence, or at

the very least evidence that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS it. In which case I shall

happily, and with great relish dismember your latest challenge.

2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly

prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS). I have

already given you some help on that above.

3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you

think exactly matches the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has

been ‘proved’.

Until you accept one of the above there is no question whatsoever of me moving

onto yet another of your apparently distractive, half-baked, ill thought-out

challenges.

Please note the following very carefully since it will not change:

If you do not choose one of the above 3 options, and continue to offer no

reasonable explanation as to why you will not present evidence that matches, or

at the very least directly supports, your claim, a claim you maintain is

already ‘proven’, I shall simply keep repeating them.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

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

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Yaduraja das <yadurajadas >

Saturday, January 6, 2007 6:43:00 AM

Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> In which case I shall happily dismember your latest challenge.

You will not.

> 2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly

> prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

Yes, you can write an essay explaining why you think that my statement is

unproven. But you will have to do it without my help.

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what you are talking

about:

On Nov 30, 2006 you wrote that "on the absolute platform there is in any

case no difference between siksa and diksa". This is speculation. Srila

Prabhupada never said that.

"Just see how rascaldom. You do not know something perfectly, and still, you

are talking about it." (Lecture, Bg 1.45-46, Aug 1, 1973)

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 7, 2007

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> What is the point in having a debate if anyone can make any claim they

> want and not have to support it with matching evidence?

Very wise. Please remember this whenever I ask you to back up by a quote

what you are saying.

So please present a matching evidence of your claim that on the absolute

platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa.

> 1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING evidence,

> or at the very least evidence that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS it.

After having read your text I can only repeat what I already wrote:

I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept

them as a proof. (If this does not make sense to you, then what can I do?)

You could set a good example and admit that you have not yet proven that for

the initiation the physical present of the diksa guru is not required. The

quotes you offered refer to people who are already disciples, not people who

have yet to be initiated, and are therefore irrelevant to your claim. And

none of these quotes contain the word "diksa" or "initiate".

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what we are talking

about:

On Nov 12, 2006 you believed that delivery means to vanish in a puff of

smoke.

On Nov 30, 2006 you believed that delivery means to suddenly drop dead.

Rupa Gosvami said, "jivan muktah sa ucyate".

ys Ramakanta dasa

January 7, 2007

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

I am so glad you agree that there is no point in having a debate if anyone can

make any claim they want and not have to support it with matching evidence? So

please set a good example by providing evidence that matches the following

claim which you used to challenge point c) after a whole year’s worth of your

previous challenges were systematically defeated:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

Since you have said this approach is ‘very wise’ I am sure you will now follow

your own advice.

You say:

This is true. But none of the evidence you presented matches your claim, as I

just explained:

a) None of it contains the phrase ‘initiate the delivery’.

b) One quote you offer contains the words ‘initiates’ and ‘deliver’ but says

nothing about needing to be on ‘this planet’ in order to do it, so is

irrelevant to your claim. (We all agree the guru initiates the disciple to

deliver him- what’s the big deal?)

c) Not one of the quotes you offer contains the phrase ‘this planet’ or ‘same

planet’ or even the word ‘planet’.

d) None of the quotes even deal with the circumstances in which diksa or

initiation ‘cannot’ take place, and are thus all irrelevant to your claim.

e) None of the quotes even contain the word ‘cannot’, do they?

Given the above it’s just completely ludicrous that you continue to maintain

you have proven your claim. Your claim preceded your latest barrage of

ill-thought-out challenges, but since I am attempting to deal with challenges

and claims you make systematically, you can be confident that I shall answer

even the most foolish of them in due course. So why not set a good example and

do what you have just said is ‘very wise’?

I repeat, I offer you 3 options:

1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING or DIRECTLY

SUPPORTIVE evidence. In which case I shall happily, and with great relish

dismember your latest challenge.

2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly

prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you

think exactly matches or directly supports the claim you have made, and which

you still maintain has been ‘proved’.

If you cannot prove your claim it puts you in a similar position to the GBC,

who you agree have never, to this day, provided any evidence proving that they

were authorised to initiate their own disciples in ISKCON, despite their many

claims to the contrary, and despite the fact that they were only authorised to

manage the systems ALREADY put in place by Srila Prabhupada. I wonder what your

local GBC would think if he knew what you really thought. Don't worry, I won't

tell him.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

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

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:37:00 AM