Guest guest Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > It was clear I was about to point out what I perceived to be the absurd > repercussions of a position that APPEARED to assert that disciples were > transferred back to the spiritual sky at the moment they are initiated; > not put forward a theory I personally believed. You also wrote that you had assumed that I was talking about the ceremony. So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual sky at the end of the initiation ceremony? If you cannot tell us, then your reductio ad absurdum failed. > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” I do not want to discuss this further. My final statement is: I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept them as a proof. You tried to prove the opposite, but you failed. You could not present one single statement by Srila Prabhupada saying, "the diksa guru need not be physically present when he initiates a disciple". 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". But I will continue the debate about your points a), b) and c). So I am repeating my latest challenge: You claimed that Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON. You claimed that he did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. But so far you could not answer following questions: What do you mean by diksa guru in your point b)? What exactly is it that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do? What exactly is it that changes a siksa guru of a person into a diksa guru of that person? You agreed that it is not the initiation ceremony, and you said that the siksa guru also imparts transcendental knowledge (the very definition of "diksa"). So what is it? And how is a devotee authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON? If you cannot answer these questions, then you are defeated because then your claim is just a statement by a person who does not know what he is talking about. There is no need to disprove it. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You ask: <So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual sky at the end of the initiation ceremony?> Conditioned souls cannot enter the spiritual sky in their material bodies. Did you not know that? Therefore if every disciple was automatically transferred back to the spiritual sky at the end of the fire yugna he would have to drop dead so his soul could then be so transferred. So far as I know not a single disciple ever died just after throwing his banana in the fire. Nor did Srila Prabhupada ever state that his disciples would automatically be transferred to the spiritual sky immediately after the formal ceremony is completed. Therefore it is an absurd proposition, and I was fully justified in pointing this out. My reductio ad absurdum succeeded perfectly since it forced you to distance yourself from the idea that such transference occurred immediately at the ceremony: <Neither Srila Prabhupada nor I wrote "initiation ceremony". So this is a straw man argument. You misunderstood it.> (Ramakanta das Dec 02, 2006 - 05:37 AM) But since you are now asking: <So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual sky at the end of the initiation ceremony?> It seems my original assumption may have been correct after all, especially since you consistently refuse to tell us what you mean by the ‘moment’ and ‘time’ of initiation. Or are you making yet another challenge on a point when you already know that I am correct, like you now childishly claim over the definition of the word diksa? You challenged my definition of the word, argued against the evidence I presented, and then were finally forced to concede. And then you childishly claim you knew it already. In future when you make a challenge I shall ask you if you are making it because you disagree, or because you simply don't know the answer. Hopefully that approach will eliminate a lot of your distractive challenges. We have already agreed on point a) and point b). We are left only with c). You challenged C) with the following claim: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” This was your challenge to point c) after an entire year’s worth of your previous challenges were horribly mutilated. If you cannot prove it then point c) remains intact. Your later challenges will only have relevance to this debate if they can prove, not just that I am not a world expert on siksa and diksa, but that the very thing you claim I do not understand about diksa matches your claim above. So you need to provide this proof anyway to make your current challenges germain to the debate. So you cannot escape proving your claim. In other words: Your apparent goal (proving I do not know something about diksa- that something being the very thing that requires the guru to be on the same planet as the disciple to achieve) will ONLY be achievable if you can prove your claim. So you better prove it to stay in the debate. You had written: <I chose 2). But you will have to do it without any input from me.> The letter to JPS does not contain the following injunction: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” I shall wait until you either agree with me or prove it does contain your injunction before moving to the next piece of evidence. If you do neither then I shall assume you are ‘dropping out’ of the debate for the reasons given 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 12, 2007 7:37:00 AM option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > It was clear I was about to point out what I perceived to be the absurd > repercussions of a position that APPEARED to assert that disciples were > transferred back to the spiritual sky at the moment they are initiated; > not put forward a theory I personally believed. You also wrote that you had assumed that I was talking about the ceremony. So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual sky at the end of the initiation ceremony? If you cannot tell us, then your reductio ad absurdum failed. > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” I do not want to discuss this further. My final statement is: I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept them as a proof. You tried to prove the opposite, but you failed. You could not present one single statement by Srila Prabhupada saying, "the diksa guru need not be physically present when he initiates a disciple". 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". But I will continue the debate about your points a), b) and c). So I am repeating my latest challenge: You claimed that Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON. You claimed that he did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. But so far you could not answer following questions: What do you mean by diksa guru in your point b)? What exactly is it that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do? What exactly is it that changes a siksa guru of a person into a diksa guru of that person? You agreed that it is not the initiation ceremony, and you said that the siksa guru also imparts transcendental knowledge (the very definition of "diksa"). So what is it? And how is a devotee authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON? If you cannot answer these questions, then you are defeated because then your claim is just a statement by a person who does not know what he is talking about. There is no need to disprove it. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing./arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > So delivery means to be transferred to the spiritual sky (Yaduraja, Jan 9, 2007) > Therefore if every disciple was automatically transferred back to the > spiritual sky at the end of the fire yugna he would have to drop dead so > his soul could then be so transferred. (Yaduraja, Jan 12, 2007) Do you believe that delivery means to drop dead? If not, why did you write above? I ignore your statements that you have not confirmed by quotes. "The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport) "Therefore you must confirm by quotes every statement that you make. Otherwise it is rascaldom." (Yaduraja, Oct 16, 2006) "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?" (Yaduraja, Jan 7, 2007) For your information: When I talk about diksa, guru, Krishna, Prabhupada, etc., then I am not talking about the words "diksa", "guru" ("heavy"), "krishna" ("black"), "prabhupada" ("the master's feet"), etc. I never wrote that the delivery happens at the initiation ceremony. You must have badly misundertood me. So what is the guarantee that you correctly understood Srila Prabhupada? You asked me what "moment they are initiated" means. Well, it was you who wrote that phrase the first time. So you should know what it means. And you asked me what I mean by "time of initiation". That depends on the context. I assume you know what "time of such-and-such" means. If not, look up in your dictionary. > We have already agreed on point a) and point b). The points a) and b) that we agreed on are: a) Srila Prabhupada made himself recognised and accepted as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. b) Amongst all the orders from Srila Prabhupada to the GBC that the GBC have so far presented on the guru issue to justify their actions, there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen whereby Srila Prabhupada authorises the GBC to remove him as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. (Yaduraja, Oct 05, 2006) After we agreed, I found out that by "diksa guru" we probably meant different things. I do not agree with these statements if by "diksa guru" you mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" and nothing else. So please tell us what you mean by "diksa guru" in these two statements. So far you could not tell us. > We are left only with c). Basically your point c) is a conclusion based on "we did not see an order" (see point b above). > You challenged C) with the following claim: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” This was not my only challenge of you point c). The other challenge alone is sufficient to refute it. Probably you did not understood it. Should I repeat it? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You write: <Basically your point c) is a conclusion based on "we did not see an order"> Point C) logically follows from a) and b) since one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada. That is why it is important you prove the following… “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” …with relevant evidence. Something you have so far failed to do. We have seen orders to the GBC, the body you agree were meant to manage initiation, from Srila Prabhupada whereby he left intact the status quo (point a)) within which he is the sole diksa guru for ISKCON (eg., July 9th letter), but no statements whereby he authorises the GBC to remove him from that position (point b). The burden of proof always falls on the person proposing a change to the status quo. In this case it is the GBC and anyone who tries to justify the removal of Srila Prabhupada from his position as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. I do not have to prove the status quo remains the status quo since by definition the status quo remains the status quo. You quote me: > So delivery means to be transferred to the spiritual sky (Yaduraja, Jan 9, 2007) > Therefore if every disciple was automatically transferred back to the > spiritual sky at the end of the fire yugna he would have to drop dead so > his soul could then be so transferred. (Yaduraja, Jan 12, 2007) And then ask: <Do you believe that delivery means to drop dead? If not, why did you write above?> I did not write ‘delivery means to drop dead’ did I? If you misunderstand such a simple thing it’s no wonder you cannot undertstand Srila Prabhupada’s orders on initiation. I have never, ever claimed ‘dropping dead’ = ‘delivery’. I have claimed ‘dropping dead’ necessarily PRECEDES ‘delivery’ (since we cannot enter the spiritutal sky in a material body). You claim: <I never wrote that the delivery happens at the initiation ceremony.> If the above is true then why did you just ask?: <So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual sky at the end of the initiation ceremony?> Ramakanta das What is the purpose of such a silly question other than to divert attention from the fact that you cannot prove your claim? Do you now understand why it is absurd, or do I have to explain it all yet again? You write: <You asked me what "moment they are initiated" means. Well, it was you who wrote that phrase the first time. So you should know what it means.> Ok, so the implication of this is that if I want to know what YOU meant by such phrases as the ‘time’ and ‘moment’ of initiation, I cannot get the information from you, I instead need to ask myself. That certainly makes it simpler. I was referring to the ceremony. So that means you were too. Which means I was right to challenge your position with my reductio ad absurdum argument since no-one left their body just after they threw their banana into the fire. You write: <I do not agree with these statements if by "diksa guru" you mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" and nothing else.> Please tell us what ‘else’ you had in mind, and how it is relevant to this debate. Also please note, I have never used the phrase ‘nothing else’ in relation to the way in which a diksa guru functions (as opposed to the definition of the actual word), and that subject shall ONLY be dealt with once we finish option 2. Speaking of which I see you have still failed to either agree or prove wrong my challenge that the following injunction does not appear in the letter to JPS: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” Remember: "The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport) So please stop avoiding proving your claim by creating more and more distractive challenges such as above. Please either prove your injunction is contained within the letter to JPS, or concede it isn’t so we can move on to the next piece of ‘evidence’. If you do neither I will assume you are dropping out of the debate. 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> Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:58:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > So delivery means to be transferred to the spiritual sky (Yaduraja, Jan 9, 2007) > Therefore if every disciple was automatically transferred back to the > spiritual sky at the end of the fire yugna he would have to drop dead so > his soul could then be so transferred. (Yaduraja, Jan 12, 2007) Do you believe that delivery means to drop dead? If not, why did you write above? I ignore your statements that you have not confirmed by quotes. "The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport) "Therefore you must confirm by quotes every statement that you make. Otherwise it is rascaldom." (Yaduraja, Oct 16, 2006) "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?" (Yaduraja, Jan 7, 2007) For your information: When I talk about diksa, guru, Krishna, Prabhupada, etc., then I am not talking about the words "diksa", "guru" ("heavy"), "krishna" ("black"), "prabhupada" ("the master's feet"), etc. I never wrote that the delivery happens at the initiation ceremony. You must have badly misundertood me. So what is the guarantee that you correctly understood Srila Prabhupada? You asked me what "moment they are initiated" means. Well, it was you who wrote that phrase the first time. So you should know what it means. And you asked me what I mean by "time of initiation". That depends on the context. I assume you know what "time of such-and-such" means. If not, look up in your dictionary. > We have already agreed on point a) and point b). The points a) and b) that we agreed on are: a) Srila Prabhupada made himself recognised and accepted as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. b) Amongst all the orders from Srila Prabhupada to the GBC that the GBC have so far presented on the guru issue to justify their actions, there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen whereby Srila Prabhupada authorises the GBC to remove him as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. (Yaduraja, Oct 05, 2006) After we agreed, I found out that by "diksa guru" we probably meant different things. I do not agree with these statements if by "diksa guru" you mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" and nothing else. So please tell us what you mean by "diksa guru" in these two statements. So far you could not tell us. > We are left only with c). Basically your point c) is a conclusion based on "we did not see an order" (see point b above). > You challenged C) with the following claim: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” This was not my only challenge of you point c). The other challenge alone is sufficient to refute it. Probably you did not understood it. Should I repeat it? ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. http://autos./new_cars.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Point C) logically follows from a) and b) Your point c) may follow from "there is no order". But it does not follow from "we have not seen an order" (your point b). If someone who does not know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON has not seen such an authorization, then this does not mean that there is no such authorization. > one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported > by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada. Why don't you follow this rule and present relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada confirming that he did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON? > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” Thank you for repeating this statement so many times. Since my reply to option 1 did not make sense to you, I chose option 2 which does not say that I have to prove or admit anything. So if you want and if you understood what 'initiate the delivery' means, you can, as you offered, go through each statement of Srila Prabhupada I have presented. But you will have to do it without any input from me. In case you forgot my reply to option 1, here is it again: "I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept them as a proof." Maybe some friend can explain it to you. > The burden of proof always falls on the person proposing a change to the > status quo. In this case it is the GBC and anyone who tries to justify the > removal of Srila Prabhupada from his position as the sole diksa guru for > ISKCON. What do you mean by 'diksa guru' in this statement and in your points b) and c)? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'? > I have claimed ‘dropping dead’ necessarily PRECEDES ‘delivery’ (since we > cannot enter the spiritual sky in a material body). I ignore this statement because you did not confirm it by a quote. "one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada." (Yaduraja, Jan 14, 2007) > <I never wrote that the delivery happens at the initiation ceremony.> > > If the above is true then why did you just ask?: > > <So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual > sky at the end of the initiation ceremony?> Ramakanta das I already explained it immediately before I asked this question (on Jan 12). Please carefully read what I wrote. I repeat my question: What do you mean by 'diksa guru' in your points b) and c)? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! I had written: > Point C) logically follows from a) and b) To which you write: <Your point c) may follow from "there is no order". But it does not follow from "we have not seen an order" (your point b). If someone who does not know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON has not seen such an authorization, then this does not mean that there is no such authorization.> We have already been over this. The burden of proof is on the person trying to challenge the status quo left in place by Srila Prabhupada for the GBC to manage (point a). To simply suggest there MAY be an order I don’t know about is not evidence. You need to prove that an order was given to the GBC authorising them to remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru (the guru who initiates) for ISKCON; otherwise the status quo must remain intact. Your challenge is thus based on thin air, nothing more. But this debate is meant to be based on evidence not speculation. Also you seem to forget that our argument is with the GBC, not one temple president in Switzerland. The GBC have never said there is an unrecorded order from Srila Prabhupada authorising them to remove him as the diksa guru (the guru who initiates) for ISKCON. So our debate is only concerned with recorded evidence. Both sides agree on this. There is no argument on this. They claim their authorisation was openly given and recorded. So you first need to convince the GBC that there may be an order no-one has seen; then come back to us. I had asked: > one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported > by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada. To which you write: <Why don't you follow this rule and present relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada confirming that he did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON?> I don’t need to prove the status quo continues. You need to prove it should change. And now, since you agree with the principle that claims must be supported please can you do this for the following: > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” You write yet again: <"I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept them as a proof." Maybe some friend can explain it to you.> Maybe some friend can explain to you that in a sane debate the evidence must match the claim being made. In the letter to JPS there is: 1) No mention of ‘initiate the delivery’. 2) Only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated. 3) No mention of ‘this planet’. 4) No mention of ‘same planet’. 5) No mention of ‘planet’. 6) No mention of ‘being present’. 7) No mention of the word ‘cannot’. 8) No mention of ‘incarnated’. Please can you either prove that your injunction is contained within a quote that has no corresponding points, or concede that it is not so we can continue with option 2. Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. 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> Monday, January 15, 2007 7:39:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Point C) logically follows from a) and b) Your point c) may follow from "there is no order". But it does not follow from "we have not seen an order" (your point b). If someone who does not know how a devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON has not seen such an authorization, then this does not mean that there is no such authorization. > one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported > by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada. Why don't you follow this rule and present relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada confirming that he did not authorize anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON? > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” Thank you for repeating this statement so many times. Since my reply to option 1 did not make sense to you, I chose option 2 which does not say that I have to prove or admit anything. So if you want and if you understood what 'initiate the delivery' means, you can, as you offered, go through each statement of Srila Prabhupada I have presented. But you will have to do it without any input from me. In case you forgot my reply to option 1, here is it again: "I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept them as a proof." Maybe some friend can explain it to you. > The burden of proof always falls on the person proposing a change to the > status quo. In this case it is the GBC and anyone who tries to justify the > removal of Srila Prabhupada from his position as the sole diksa guru for > ISKCON. What do you mean by 'diksa guru' in this statement and in your points b) and c)? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'? > I have claimed ‘dropping dead’ necessarily PRECEDES ‘delivery’ (since we > cannot enter the spiritual sky in a material body). I ignore this statement because you did not confirm it by a quote. "one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada." (Yaduraja, Jan 14, 2007) > <I never wrote that the delivery happens at the initiation ceremony.> > > If the above is true then why did you just ask?: > > <So why is it absurd if disciples are transferred back to the spiritual > sky at the end of the initiation ceremony?> Ramakanta das I already explained it immediately before I asked this question (on Jan 12). Please carefully read what I wrote. I repeat my question: What do you mean by 'diksa guru' in your points b) and c)? ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv./collections/265 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > You need to prove that an order was given to the GBC authorising them to > remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru (the guru who initiates) > for ISKCON I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. What do you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'the guru who initiates'? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'? > Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. How will you know that I dropped out of a discussion about a certain point? Would it be sufficient to several times write that I do not want to discuss it further? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! I had observed: > You need to prove that an order was given to the GBC authorising them to > remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru (the guru who initiates) > for ISKCON To which you respond: <I do not have to prove statements that I did not make.> Without an order to the GBC authorising them to remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole initiating (diksa) guru for ISKCON then the status quo you agree he established in 1966 should prevail. The debate in that case would be over. Point C) would stand unchallenged. Since you assure me you are not claiming such an order to the GBC ( the body you agree are meant to manage initiation) exists we are only left with evidence that DOES exist. I do hope that from now on we do not have to discuss evidence that you claim I don’t know about, which you won’t tell us anything about, which the GBC have never mentioned and which is not on Vedabase. You ask: <What do you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'the guru who initiates'? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'?> You said that you thought that the term ‘diksa guru’ mentioned in pont a) and b) meant the guru who initiates. I agree with that. We also agree on the definition of the word diksa. Once you either prove or withdraw the following claim… > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” …I shall address your other challenges. But not before. I simply cannot allow you to claim you have proven a point that would defeat our position in one blow (given that ‘initiate the delivery’ actually means something) unless you actually have. If you have already proven that some aspect of delivery absolutely and in all circumstances requires the guru to be on the same planet as the disciple then you will already have won this debate. So clearly I cannot let this slide. It is a crucial point and must be cleared up. We are on option 2: In the letter to JPS there is: 1) No mention of ‘initiate the delivery’. 2) Only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated. 3) No mention of ‘this planet’. 4) No mention of ‘same planet’. 5) No mention of ‘planet’. 6) No mention of ‘being present’. 7) No mention of the word ‘cannot’. 8) No mention of ‘incarnated’. Please can you either prove that your injunction is contained within a quote that has no corresponding points, or concede that it is not so we can continue with option 2. Of course if you want to drop out by doing neither then I am very happy to end the debate here. You decide. 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 16, 2007 7:16:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > You need to prove that an order was given to the GBC authorising them to > remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru (the guru who initiates) > for ISKCON I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. What do you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'the guru who initiates'? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'? > Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. How will you know that I dropped out of a discussion about a certain point? Would it be sufficient to several times write that I do not want to discuss it further? ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Games. http://games./games/front Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! The status quo remains unchanged only if there is no order to change it. But so far you could not prove that there is no order. Your only argument is "we have not seen an order" which does not mean that there is no order. Therefore your point c) is unproven. If by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is definitely wrong because Srila Prabhupada is not the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge. Otherwise, please tell us what you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'the guru who initiates' or 'initiating guru' in your statements. > In the letter to JPS there is: > ... > 2) Only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already > initiated. This implies that one does not have to be initated again in the next life. So do you claim that if one has been initiated in a previous life, then in this life one is already initiated since birth? If not, then your argument is meaningless. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Ramakanta, There is something wrong with my address book. There are no names in it except the ones I have added myself. Can you help? Something weird happened after I reinstalled wincom. I saved the fcab and address book, but now my address book is empty. Also suddenly the wincom appeared with bigger and bolder fonts in the menus. Now when I go to commands I can't read it because the fonts are all tangled up. Do you know what is wrong? I can also not double klick on my name to get my different aliases up. Ys, jdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You write: <The status quo remains unchanged only if there is no order to change it.> Correct. And since you have never produced such an order to the GBC (the body you agree were meant to manage initiation) you now know who is defeated in this debate. < But so far you could not prove that there is no order. Your only argument is "we have not seen an order" which does not mean that there is no order. Therefore your point c) is unproven>. Oops! It is a classic logical fallacy to demand someone proves a negative. I thought I made that clear to you many months ago. I do not have to prove that an order was not given. It is sufficient for me to relay the observation that the GBC, who claim their position is based on recorded evidence, have never produced an order that actually constitutes authorisation to change the status quo (remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa (initiating) guru for ISKCON). That is what is explained in the NCIP paper I asked you to read as support for point b). Point b) is claiming that the GBC have not produced their order or authorisation to change the status quo. If you want to challenge our position then the burden of proof is on you to produce the evidence which DOES authorise them to change the status quo, not simply ask us to prove a negative. Is there no-one you know who can explain to you the rudiments of rational argument? Also with regards your, as yet, unproven claim: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” Let me help you out since you have failed to either concede that the above injunction is not contained within the following, nor prove it is (instead you simply try to distract with yet more questions that are being held in an ever increasing queue): "You have asked if it is true that the Spiritual Master remains in the material universe until all of His disciples are transferred to the Spiritual Sky. The answer is yes, this is the rule. Therefore, every student should be very much careful not to commit any offense which will be detrimental to this promotion to the Spiritual Kingdom, and thereby the Spiritual Master has to incarnate again to deliver him." (Letter to Jayapataka, 11 Jul, 1969) Let’s examine carefully whether your injunction appears in the above quote shall we? I shall go through the injunction one word at a time and see if we can place it within the quote. The words ‘Srila Prabhupada’ could be said to correspond with the words ‘spiritual master’, so I’ll aloow those through. The word ‘cannot’ is nowhere to be found. Indeed, the quote does not deal with the circumstances in which delivery cannot take place, and thus is irrelevant to your claim. The word ‘initiates’ does not appear in the quote. The word ‘the’ does appear several times in the quote so I’ll let that through. The word ‘delivery’ does not appear but is very close to ‘deliver’ which does, so I’ll let that through. The word ‘on’ does not appear. The word ‘this’ does appear. The word ‘planet’ does not appear. The only location mentioned is ‘material universe’. The word ‘without’ is not present. The word ‘being’ is not present. The word ‘incarnated’ is not present but since it is very close to ‘incarnate’ I shall allow it through. The word ‘on’ is not present. The word ‘this’ is present, so I’ll allow it through even though it relates to different concepts. The word ‘planet’ is not present. So even if I am very generous the only corresponding words or near meanings I can see are as follows: "Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this." So you have ONLY proven the above injunction; nothing more. If you agree I’ll move to the next quote. Please can you either prove that… ‘Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this’. …matches your injunction, or concede that it is not so we can continue with option 2. Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. 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> Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:39:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! The status quo remains unchanged only if there is no order to change it. But so far you could not prove that there is no order. Your only argument is "we have not seen an order" which does not mean that there is no order. Therefore your point c) is unproven. If by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is definitely wrong because Srila Prabhupada is not the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge. Otherwise, please tell us what you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'the guru who initiates' or 'initiating guru' in your statements. > In the letter to JPS there is: > ... > 2) Only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already > initiated. This implies that one does not have to be initated again in the next life. So do you claim that if one has been initiated in a previous life, then in this life one is already initiated since birth? If not, then your argument is meaningless. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers. and get answers from real people who know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > And since you have never produced such an order to the GBC ... It is proven that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to be gurus who impart or explain transcendental knowledge (the meaning of "diksa guru" given by Srila Prabhupada). If by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean. It is a logical fallacy to conclude "there is no order" from "we have not seen any order". Therefore your point c) is based on a logical fallacy. > Also with regards your, as yet, unproven claim: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” One of your arguments in this regard is: > In the letter to JPS there is: > ... > 2) Only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already > initiated. Let us finish this argument before we jump to other arguments. So please either admit that your argument is meaningless, or prove that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You had stated: <The status quo remains unchanged only if there is no order to change it.> I agree completely with you, 100%! We (the IRM) are only claiming we have seen no such order to the body you agree were charged with managing initiation (the GBC). Obviously I cannot comment on evidence that I have not seen, you will not produce, the GBC have never mentioned, is not on Vedabase and which is thus technically OUTSIDE the parameters of this debate. Thus technically the debate was over the moment you agreed to point b). If you like we can end it here. You can tell everyone that the IRM have now admitted that their position is ONLY based on tangible evidence on Vedabase, not on invisible evidence that no-one knows anything about. <It is a logical fallacy to conclude "there is no order" from "we have not seen any order". Therefore your point c) is based on a logical fallacy.> By ‘there is no order’ we mean ‘we have not seen any order’. This was clear from the beginning of our discussion of point b) (NCIP only disusses visible evidence used by the GBC to justify their actions) and the re-worded point b) (which you agree with) also makes this perfectly clear, so why are you trying to start another argument? Oh yes, of course, it must be because you want to distract attention from having to prove your claim. You write: <It is proven that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to be gurus who impart or explain transcendental knowledge (the meaning of "diksa guru" given by Srila Prabhupada). If by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean.> I agree with the definition of the actual word ‘diksa’ and the phrase ‘diksa guru’ you have said you also agree with. We agree, 100%. You also agree that the GBC have never proven that they were authorised to remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. Again we agree, 100%. Your challenge would only make sense if siksa and diksa were identical on every level. But if that were so there would not be TWO words. So why make an argument where there isn’t one? Oh yes, I forgot, you want to distract attention from proving your claim. <So please either admit that your argument is meaningless, or prove that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life.> The quote says: "You have asked if it is true that the Spiritual Master remains in the material universe until all of His DISCIPLES are transferred to the Spiritual Sky.” It is dealing with people who are already disciples. It is not talking about ‘initiating the delivery’ (whatever that means). Thus it is irrelevant to your claim. That is all I am arguing. Thus the following is yet another desperate attempt to distract attention from the fact you cannot prove your claim: “This implies that one does not have to be initated again in the next life.” I imply nothing other than what I have stated. If you want to speculate that they do need to be initiated again then that’s up to you; but you have still not proven your claim. If someone has to be 'initiated again' then he is being 're-initiated'. You would then have to prove that Srila Prabhupada equated the phrase 'initiate the delivery' with the concept of 're-initiation'. Thus you are simply digging a deeper hole for yourself with each distractive challenge you make. As I explained with regards your injunction: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” (Ramakanta das) Your JPS letter evidence only proves: ‘Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this’. …which is just meaningless jibberish. No wonder you keep trying to distract attention. As you say: <Let us finish this argument before we jump to other arguments.> Please concede that the letter to JPS does not contain, prove, or directly support your injunction (or prove it does) so we can continue with option 2. Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. 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 18, 2007 7:25:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > And since you have never produced such an order to the GBC ... It is proven that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to be gurus who impart or explain transcendental knowledge (the meaning of "diksa guru" given by Srila Prabhupada). If by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean. It is a logical fallacy to conclude "there is no order" from "we have not seen any order". Therefore your point c) is based on a logical fallacy. > Also with regards your, as yet, unproven claim: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” One of your arguments in this regard is: > In the letter to JPS there is: > ... > 2) Only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already > initiated. Let us finish this argument before we jump to other arguments. So please either admit that your argument is meaningless, or prove that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase./promo-generic-14795097 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > By ‘there is no order’ we mean ‘we have not seen any order’. Oh yeah. But please, can have we have this debate in British or American English where "there is no such-and-such" means "there is no such-and-such". > I agree with the definition of the actual word ‘diksa’ and the phrase > ‘diksa guru’ you have said you also agree with. We agree, 100%. Well, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is: "Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." This is definitely wrong. Otherwise, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean. > You also agree that the GBC have never proven that they were authorised to > remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. You misunderstood me. > Your challenge would only make sense if siksa and diksa were identical on > every level. But you cannot tell us the difference. So why are you talking about it? > But if that were so there would not be TWO words. This is a stupid argument. Don't you know that in Sanskrit several words can mean the same thing? > Your JPS letter evidence only proves: > > ‘Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this’. You only make a fool of yourself if you present such crazy arguments. > Please concede that the letter to JPS does not contain, prove, or directly > support your injunction. I see no reason to do that because the only non-stupid argument you presented ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated.") is meaningless unless you claim that an initiated devotee remains initiated and is therefore already initiated in the next life since birth. But I see that you have not understood my argument. You even don't know what 'initiate the delivery' means although Srila Prabhupada explained it so perfectly. And you had some strange ideas (e.g. people vanishing in a puff of smoke, or that one has to drop dead in order to be delivered). Therefore it makes no sense to discuss this point with you. But I have no objection if you continue your option 2. But you will have to do it without any input from me. If you fail, I can offer you option 3. Option 1 already failed because you did not understand my answer. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > By ‘there is no order’ we mean ‘we have not seen any order’. <Oh yeah. But please, can have we have this debate in British or American English where "there is no such-and-such" means "there is no such-and-such".> I explained from the very beginning I would only be discussing visible evidence and it is within the rules of this debate that all statements be supported by evidence from Srila Prabhupada. Therefore all evidence in this debate must be VISIBLE, or evidence that can be seen with the human eye. Sorry this was not clear to you. So now you understand our position you must accept that if we go purely by the evidence that exists, point c) stands. I had written: > Your challenge would only make sense if siksa and diksa were identical on > every level. To which you write: <But you cannot tell us the difference. So why are you talking about it?> This is another lie. I already gave several differences between siksa and diksa, you just forgot them. Are you saying they are identical in all respects? Is that your position? I had written: > But if that were so there would not be TWO words. To which you respond: <This is a stupid argument. Don't you know that in Sanskrit several words can mean the same thing?> The above is a stupid argument revealing further your deep ignorance of this subject; just as when you challenged my definition of the word diksa only to then be forced to agree with it. Don’t you know that the definition of the word ‘siksa’ is different from the definition of the word ‘diksa’ and that Srila Prabhupada states they have different dealings? You have just proven you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim: <You even don't know what 'initiate the delivery' means although Srila Prabhupada explained it so perfectly.> I have not found where Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase ‘initiate the delivery’, or where he explains what the phrase means. We all agree the spiritual master initiates the disciple to deliver him, but there is no statement either that to do this the guru must be present on the same planet as the disciple. This is your own concocted philosophy. <And you had some strange ideas (e.g. people vanishing in a puff of smoke, or that one has to drop dead in order to be delivered).> You cannot enter the spiritual sky in a material body, did you not know this? I replaced the puff of smoke with the dropping dead if you recall. But you now assure me when you use phrases such as ‘initiate the delivery’ and the ‘time’ and ‘moment’ of delivery you are not talking about the ceremony. Though you refuse to tell us what you do mean. With regards what you have proven: ‘Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this’. You write: You only make a fool of yourself if you present such crazy arguments. Ok, lets go through it again. I shall go through the injunction one word at a time and see if we can place it within the JPS quote. The words ‘Srila Prabhupada’ could be said to correspond with the words ‘spiritual master’, so I’ll aloow those through. The word ‘cannot’ is nowhere to be found. Indeed, the quote does not deal with the circumstances in which delivery cannot take place, and thus is irrelevant to your claim. The word ‘initiates’ does not appear in the quote. The word ‘the’ does appear several times in the quote so I’ll let that through. The word ‘delivery’ does not appear but is very close to ‘deliver’ which does, so I’ll let that through. The word ‘on’ does not appear. The word ‘this’ does appear. The word ‘planet’ does not appear. The only location mentioned is ‘material universe’. The word ‘without’ is not present. The word ‘being’ is not present. The word ‘incarnated’ is not present but since it is very close to ‘incarnate’ I shall allow it through. The word ‘on’ is not present. The word ‘this’ is present, so I’ll allow it through even though it relates to different concepts. The word ‘planet’ is not present. So even if I am very generous the only corresponding words or near meanings I can see are as follows: The delivery this incarnated this. Please tell me if I missed something. So you have ONLY proven the above injunction; nothing more. If you agree I’ll move to the next quote. Please can you either prove that… ‘The delivery this incarnated this’. …matches your injunction, or concede that it is not so we can continue with option 2. Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. 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 19, 2007 7:38:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > By ‘there is no order’ we mean ‘we have not seen any order’. Oh yeah. But please, can have we have this debate in British or American English where "there is no such-and-such" means "there is no such-and-such". > I agree with the definition of the actual word ‘diksa’ and the phrase > ‘diksa guru’ you have said you also agree with. We agree, 100%. Well, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is: "Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." This is definitely wrong. Otherwise, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean. > You also agree that the GBC have never proven that they were authorised to > remove Srila Prabhupada as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. You misunderstood me. > Your challenge would only make sense if siksa and diksa were identical on > every level. But you cannot tell us the difference. So why are you talking about it? > But if that were so there would not be TWO words. This is a stupid argument. Don't you know that in Sanskrit several words can mean the same thing? > Your JPS letter evidence only proves: > > ‘Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this’. You only make a fool of yourself if you present such crazy arguments. > Please concede that the letter to JPS does not contain, prove, or directly > support your injunction. I see no reason to do that because the only non-stupid argument you presented ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated.") is meaningless unless you claim that an initiated devotee remains initiated and is therefore already initiated in the next life since birth. But I see that you have not understood my argument. You even don't know what 'initiate the delivery' means although Srila Prabhupada explained it so perfectly. And you had some strange ideas (e.g. people vanishing in a puff of smoke, or that one has to drop dead in order to be delivered). Therefore it makes no sense to discuss this point with you. But I have no objection if you continue your option 2. But you will have to do it without any input from me. If you fail, I can offer you option 3. Option 1 already failed because you did not understand my answer. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. http://smallbusiness./r-index Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You have not commented on following point: > I agree with the definition of the actual word ‘diksa’ and the phrase > ‘diksa guru’ you have said you also agree with. We agree, 100%. Well, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is: "Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." This is definitely wrong. Otherwise, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean. > So now you understand our position you must accept that if we go purely by > the evidence that exists, point c) stands. I agree provided you write your point c) as follows: "No IRM member is authorized to be a diksa guru for ISKCON". Only this follows from "IRM has not seen any order". > I already gave several differences between siksa and diksa, you just > forgot them. If you know the difference, then please tell us what exactly it is that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. He authorized them to be gurus who impart or explain transcendental knowledge (the meaning of "diksa guru" given by Srila Prabhupada and agreed by you). So what is it? If you cannot answer this question, then I was right when I wrote that you cannot tell us the difference. > You cannot enter the spiritual sky in a material body What has this to do with dropping dead? One can be delivered (liberated) without having to drop dead. This is confirmed by Rupa Gosvami who said, "jivan muktah sa ucyate". > I shall go through the injunction one word at a time and see if we can > place it within the JPS quote. I have put this at the end of the queue and will deal with it after you have admitted that your other argument ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated.") is meaningless for reasons I already explained. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! I note you cannot produce a quote where Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase ‘initiate the delivery’ or where he explains what it means, not to speak of prove the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple in order to do whatever it is. You are thus once again completely defeated on a point. I’ve lost count now. I had said: > So now you understand our position you must accept that if we go purely by > the evidence that exists, point c) stands. To which you respond: <I agree provided you write your point c) as follows: "No IRM member is authorized to be a diksa guru for ISKCON". Only this follows from "IRM has not seen any order". > Who has seen this order then? Have you seen it? Can I see it too please? How is it you have not shown it to me for the past year even though it would completely defeat our position? Are you just lonely and need my company? I thought you recently said you are not even claiming such an order to the GBC even exists!! How can the GBC remove Srila Prabhupada as the diksa (initiating) guru for ISKCON without authority? They are just managers. Until I see their authorisation to change the status quo you agree existed since 1966 I shall stick with that which is supported by evidence rather than foolish speculation if you don’t mind. So far as the evidence goes, point C) stands in its original form. <If you know the difference, then please tell us what exactly it is that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do.> First answer my question: Are you claiming the terms siksa and diksa mean exactly the same thing, and that they operate in exactly the same way? Is this your position? <One can be delivered (liberated) without having to drop dead.> As you well know our discussion was in relation to the JPS quote wherein Srila Prabhupada equates delivery with transference to the spiritual sky. You now try to cheat by introducing a totally different quote dealing with a different subject: ``A person, who is always anxious to render service unto the Supreme Lord Hari, as His eternal servitor, in all conditions of life he is considered to be liberated even though within the material body'' To be considerd liberated even whilst in a material body (and hence in the material universe) is obviously not the same as being transferred into the spiritual sky, which cannot be done in a material body. Just see what cheating tactics you use in debate! Are you sure you really want the truth? <I have put this at the end of the queue and will deal with it after you have admitted that your other argument ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated.") is meaningless for reasons I already explained.> I have already defeated your point, please read my rebuttal again since clearly you have forgotten: The JPS quote says: "You have asked if it is true that the Spiritual Master remains in the material universe until all of His DISCIPLES are transferred to the Spiritual Sky.” It is dealing with people who are already disciples. It is not talking about ‘initiating the delivery’ (whatever that means). Thus it is irrelevant to your claim. That is all I am arguing. Thus the following is yet another desperate attempt to distract attention from the fact you cannot prove your claim: <This implies that one does not have to be initated again in the next life.> (Ramakanta das) I imply nothing other than what I have stated. If you want to speculate that they do need to be initiated again then that’s up to you; but you have still not proven your claim. If someone has to be 'initiated again' then he is being 're-initiated'. You would then have to prove that Srila Prabhupada equated the phrase 'initiate the delivery' with the concept of 're-initiation'. Thus you are simply digging a deeper hole for yourself with each distractive challenge you make. As I explained with regards your injunction: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” (Ramakanta das) At best your JPS letter evidence only proves: ‘Srila Prabhupada the delivery this incarnated this’. …which is just meaningless jibberish. No wonder you keep trying to distract attention. As you say: <Let us finish this argument before we jump to other arguments.> Please concede that the letter to JPS does not contain, prove, or directly support your injunction (or prove it does) so we can continue with option 2. Of course you are always free to 'drop out' if you want. 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> Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:50:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You have not commented on following point: > I agree with the definition of the actual word ‘diksa’ and the phrase > ‘diksa guru’ you have said you also agree with. We agree, 100%. Well, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is: "Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." This is definitely wrong. Otherwise, if in your point c) by 'diksa guru' you mean something else, please tell us what you mean. > So now you understand our position you must accept that if we go purely by > the evidence that exists, point c) stands. I agree provided you write your point c) as follows: "No IRM member is authorized to be a diksa guru for ISKCON". Only this follows from "IRM has not seen any order". > I already gave several differences between siksa and diksa, you just > forgot them. If you know the difference, then please tell us what exactly it is that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. He authorized them to be gurus who impart or explain transcendental knowledge (the meaning of "diksa guru" given by Srila Prabhupada and agreed by you). So what is it? If you cannot answer this question, then I was right when I wrote that you cannot tell us the difference. > You cannot enter the spiritual sky in a material body What has this to do with dropping dead? One can be delivered (liberated) without having to drop dead. This is confirmed by Rupa Gosvami who said, "jivan muktah sa ucyate". > I shall go through the injunction one word at a time and see if we can > place it within the JPS quote. I have put this at the end of the queue and will deal with it after you have admitted that your other argument ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated.") is meaningless for reasons I already explained. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Games. http://videogames./platform?platform=120121 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I note you cannot produce a quote where Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase > ‘initiate the delivery’ or where he explains what it means I used the phrase "initiate the delivery" and I already wrote several times that by this phrase I mean following: "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) So by "initiate the delivery of disciples" I mean "initiate disciples". (I hope it is now clear also to you). > How can the GBC remove Srila Prabhupada as the diksa (initiating) guru for > ISKCON without authority? What do you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'initiating guru' or 'the guru who initiates'? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'? > First answer my question: > > Are you claiming the terms siksa and diksa mean exactly the same thing, > and that they operate in exactly the same way? Is this your position? No, it was your speculation: "on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa" (Yaduraja, Nov 30, 2006) Srila Prabhupada never said that. Now please tell us what exactly it is that changes a siksa guru of a person into a diksa guru of that person. You agree that it is not the initiation ceremony and you wrote that the siksa guru also imparts or explains transcendental knowledge. So what is it? If you cannot tell us, then I was right when I wrote that you cannot tell us the difference between siksa and diksa. > The JPS quote says: > > "You have asked if it is true that the Spiritual Master remains in the > material universe until all of His DISCIPLES are transferred to the > Spiritual Sky.” > > It is dealing with people who are already disciples. Your argument ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated") makes sense only if an initiated disciple remains initiated in the next life. If your argument were valid, then you would have refuted my argument. Therefore I insist that you either admit that your argument is meaningless or prove that an initiated disciple remains initiated in the next life. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You wrote: <I used the phrase "initiate the delivery" …> I know, but Srila Prabhupada doesn’t. …and I already wrote several times that by this phrase I mean following: "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)> Then your claim should be worded correctly to reflect this: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the disciple to deliver him on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” (Ramakanta das) Can you please now either prove the above injunction is contained within the letter to JPS or concede it is not. Where does Srila Prabhupada ever state that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple? If you can prove this then the whole debate is over. If you cannot then please withdraw your claim. It certainly is not stated in the letter to JPS. You cannot prove this claim by simply inventing more and more distractive challenges. So why not just prove your claim? <How can the GBC remove Srila Prabhupada as the diksa (initiating) guru for > ISKCON without authority? What do you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'initiating guru' or 'the guru who initiates'? > What did you mean by 'diksa guru' when you agreed to our re-worded a) and b). You previously said the guru who initiates, and I have said I agree with that. So what is your problem? You cannot say… 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge' …is wrong since you have also agreed, eventually after initiatially challenging it, that this is the very definition of the word. You have also stated you are not claiming: ”the terms siksa and diksa mean exactly the same thing, and that they operate in exactly the same way.” So if they are not identical they must be different. What did you think was the difference such that you agreed with point a) and b)? Clearly to Srila Prabhupada there was a difference between the guru who instructs and the one who initiates: “The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the INITIATOR guru…” (SPL Madhudvisa 4.8.75) “Yes I am the spiritual master of this institution and all the members of the society, they’re supposed to be my disciples. They follow the rules and regulations which I ask them to follow, and they are INITIATED by me spiritually.” (SP radio interview March 12.68.) “…these representatives may accept the devotee as an INITIATED disciple of Srila Prabhupada…The newly INITIATED devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada…” (July 9th directive 1977 to all Temple Presidents and GBC’s) Do you not know what the difference is, is that why you’re asking? Or is it to distract attention from your unproven claim? 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 21, 2007 7:18:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I note you cannot produce a quote where Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase > ‘initiate the delivery’ or where he explains what it means I used the phrase "initiate the delivery" and I already wrote several times that by this phrase I mean following: "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) So by "initiate the delivery of disciples" I mean "initiate disciples". (I hope it is now clear also to you). > How can the GBC remove Srila Prabhupada as the diksa (initiating) guru for > ISKCON without authority? What do you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'initiating guru' or 'the guru who initiates'? Do you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge'? > First answer my question: > > Are you claiming the terms siksa and diksa mean exactly the same thing, > and that they operate in exactly the same way? Is this your position? No, it was your speculation: "on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa" (Yaduraja, Nov 30, 2006) Srila Prabhupada never said that. Now please tell us what exactly it is that changes a siksa guru of a person into a diksa guru of that person. You agree that it is not the initiation ceremony and you wrote that the siksa guru also imparts or explains transcendental knowledge. So what is it? If you cannot tell us, then I was right when I wrote that you cannot tell us the difference between siksa and diksa. > The JPS quote says: > > "You have asked if it is true that the Spiritual Master remains in the > material universe until all of His DISCIPLES are transferred to the > Spiritual Sky.” > > It is dealing with people who are already disciples. Your argument ("In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated") makes sense only if an initiated disciple remains initiated in the next life. If your argument were valid, then you would have refuted my argument. Therefore I insist that you either admit that your argument is meaningless or prove that an initiated disciple remains initiated in the next life. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. http://autos./new_cars.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Then your claim should be worded correctly to reflect this: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the disciple to deliver him on this > planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” (Ramakanta das) No. When I wrote that by "initiate the delivery of disciples" I mean "initiate disciples", then your should replace "initiate the delivery of disciples" with "initiate disciples". Please carefully read what I write. So my statement is: Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. > Can you please now either prove the above injunction is contained within > the letter to JPS or concede it is not. Where does Srila Prabhupada ever > state that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as > the disciple? I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. You will never get this, isn't it? I never claimed that my statement is contained within the letter to JPS. I never claimed that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple. > If you cannot then please withdraw your claim. This is your option 1, but I chose option 2. You have not yet finished it. If you are unable to do it, please tell me, and I will offer you option 3. > What did you mean by 'diksa guru' when you agreed to our re-worded a) and > b). I meant this: "initiation means that one is being accepted as student by the spiritual master to promote him gradually to the purified state, where he can realize himself and God." (Initiation, Sep 4, 1969) You see, unlike you, I could immediately answer it. So who is the one who does not know what he is talking about? > So what is your problem? The problem is that you do not always mean what the words mean you use. For example by "there is no order" you mean "we have not seen any order". Therefore I am asking you what you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'initiating guru' or 'the guru who initiates' in your statements. I know what these phrases mean, but I don't know what you mean by these phrases in your statements. If by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is: Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge. This is definitely untrue. And probably you do not mean that. But you cannot tell us what you mean by 'diksa guru' in your point c). You cannot tell us what exactly it is that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. You cannot tell us what exactly it is that changes a siksa guru of a person into a diksa guru of that person. > So if they are not identical they must be different. On Nov 30, 2006 you wrote: > on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa > and diksa Thank you for refuting your own statement. From where did you get the idea that there is no difference between siksa and diksa? I am just curious. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You appear to be contradicting yourself again. On the one hand your re-worded injunction states: <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) But on the other you also state: <I never claimed that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) If you are not claiming that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple, then why are you claiming that Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet? <I never claimed that my statement is contained within the letter to JPS.> Since you now say you are not claiming your injunction is contained in the evidence you presented to prove it, then please admit that it has not been proven so we can move on to your other challenges. I had correctly asserted: “on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa” Yaduraja das To which you write: <Thank you for refuting your own statement. From where did you get the idea that there is no difference between siksa and diksa? I am just curious.> I would only be refuting my statement if I was claiming there was a difference between siksa and diksa on the absolute platform. Where did I claim that? If you do know that what I have said is true then why are you curious? If you do not know then please admit this. Otherwise you will probably later childishly try to claim you ‘already knew it’ like you did with the definition of the word diksa. So if you now concede that your evidence does not prove your injunction I shall move onto to dismember your other challenges. Best wishes 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> Monday, January 22, 2007 8:49:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Then your claim should be worded correctly to reflect this: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the disciple to deliver him on this > planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” (Ramakanta das) No. When I wrote that by "initiate the delivery of disciples" I mean "initiate disciples", then your should replace "initiate the delivery of disciples" with "initiate disciples". Please carefully read what I write. So my statement is: Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. > Can you please now either prove the above injunction is contained within > the letter to JPS or concede it is not. Where does Srila Prabhupada ever > state that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as > the disciple? I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. You will never get this, isn't it? I never claimed that my statement is contained within the letter to JPS. I never claimed that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple. > If you cannot then please withdraw your claim. This is your option 1, but I chose option 2. You have not yet finished it. If you are unable to do it, please tell me, and I will offer you option 3. > What did you mean by 'diksa guru' when you agreed to our re-worded a) and > b). I meant this: "initiation means that one is being accepted as student by the spiritual master to promote him gradually to the purified state, where he can realize himself and God." (Initiation, Sep 4, 1969) You see, unlike you, I could immediately answer it. So who is the one who does not know what he is talking about? > So what is your problem? The problem is that you do not always mean what the words mean you use. For example by "there is no order" you mean "we have not seen any order". Therefore I am asking you what you mean by 'diksa guru' or 'initiating guru' or 'the guru who initiates' in your statements. I know what these phrases mean, but I don't know what you mean by these phrases in your statements. If by 'diksa guru' you mean 'the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge', then your point c) is: Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge. This is definitely untrue. And probably you do not mean that. But you cannot tell us what you mean by 'diksa guru' in your point c). You cannot tell us what exactly it is that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. You cannot tell us what exactly it is that changes a siksa guru of a person into a diksa guru of that person. > So if they are not identical they must be different. On Nov 30, 2006 you wrote: > on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa > and diksa Thank you for refuting your own statement. From where did you get the idea that there is no difference between siksa and diksa? I am just curious. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on TV. http://tv./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > If you are not claiming that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on > the same planet as the disciple, then why are you claiming that Srila > Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present > (incarnated) on this planet? There are other planets where it could be different. Therefore I restricted my statement to this planet. Since "same planet" and "this planet" mean different things, there is no contradiction. > I had correctly asserted: > > “on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa > and diksa” Yaduraja das This was speculation. Srila Prabhupada never said that. > So if you now concede that your evidence does not prove your injunction I > shall move onto to dismember your other challenges. I see no reason to do that because the only non-stupid argument you presented so far is meaningless. You will not dismember my other challenges. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! I had asked: If you are not claiming that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on the same planet as the disciple, then why are you claiming that Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet? To which you reply: <There are other planets where it could be different.> So your position is that your injunction definitely applies to earth, but may not apply to other planets. Your main problem, of course, is you have not proven your injunction applies to ANY planet? <This was speculation. Srila Prabhupada never said that.> So do you definitely disagree that on the absolute platform there is no difference between siksa and diksa? I had suggested: So if you now concede that your evidence does not prove your injunction I shall move onto to dismember your other challenges. To which you respond: <I see no reason to do that because the only non-stupid argument you presented so far is meaningless.> The really stupid thing is to go on claiming you have proven an injunction when you clearly have not: <I never claimed that my statement is contained within the letter to JPS.> Ramakanta das If you now concede that the evidence you posted does not prove your re-worded injunction... <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) ....which apparently only definately applies to earth and not necessarily other planets, I shall happily and with enormous relish dismember your remaining challenges. Otherwise I am happy to wait. 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 23, 2007 7:19:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > If you are not claiming that to initiate a disciple the guru must be on > the same planet as the disciple, then why are you claiming that Srila > Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present > (incarnated) on this planet? There are other planets where it could be different. Therefore I restricted my statement to this planet. Since "same planet" and "this planet" mean different things, there is no contradiction. > I had correctly asserted: > > “on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa > and diksa” Yaduraja das This was speculation. Srila Prabhupada never said that. > So if you now concede that your evidence does not prove your injunction I > shall move onto to dismember your other challenges. I see no reason to do that because the only non-stupid argument you presented so far is meaningless. You will not dismember my other challenges. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center. http://autos./green_center/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > So do you definitely disagree that on the absolute platform there is no > difference between siksa and diksa? I neither agree nor disagree. I just wrote that is was speculation. If you were not speculating, then you would have now presented Srila Prabhupada's statement confirming your claim instead of asking me whether or not I agree. > If you now concede that the evidence you posted does not prove your > re-worded injunction... I see no reason to do that. You probably did not understand my argument which is a reductio ad absurdum. To refute it you would have to prove that there would be no contradiction if my statement were wrong. For example by proving that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life. > I shall happily and with enormous relish dismember your remaining > challenges. You will not. Probably you will dismember straw man arguments. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! I had asked: > So do you definitely disagree that on the absolute platform there is no > difference between siksa and diksa? To which you respond: <I neither agree nor disagree.> So are you saying you don’t know if I’m right or wrong? What do your ‘senior devotee’ advisers say? I asked: If you now concede that the evidence you posted does not prove your re-worded injunction... to whcih you reply: <I see no reason to do that.> It’s only if you want me to continue answering your endless flow of challenges. You have stated: <I never claimed that my statement is contained within the letter to JPS.> Ramakanta das And yet this was the first piece of evidence you had put forward to prove your injunction which, in its most recent incarnation, reads: <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) To help you decide if any of your evidence proves your claim please note that: 1) None of the evidence you presented mentions ‘Earth’ or ‘this planet’, and is thus irrelevant to your now highly specific injunction. 2) none of the evidence even deals with the conditions under which ‘initiation’ CANNOT take place, and thus again is all irrelevant to your highly specific and apparently concocted injunction. Once you either concede you have not proved your injunction, or prove it with RELEVANT evidence, we can proceed. Otherwise I am very happy to leave things as they stand since you have offered not one shred of evidence that could possibly challenge point c) other than a hypothetical order you cannot show us and an injunction you cannot prove. Not very impressive, though I am sure in your own mind you have completely smashed us. On the basis of visible evidence (which is the ONLY evidence allowed within the rules of this debate) there was no authority for the GBC to change the status quo you agree Srila Prabhupada established way back in 1966. If you want to claim that it is only the IRM who have seen no such order to the GBC, then please prove this by producing the counter order we haven't seen. If you can't produce such an order (which after more than a year you never have) then you cannot legitimately imply there is an order that everyone but the IRM have seen. Best wishes Ys Yadu P.S. with regards <For example by proving that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life.> I have already refuted this point. Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:46:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > So do you definitely disagree that on the absolute platform there is no > difference between siksa and diksa? I neither agree nor disagree. I just wrote that is was speculation. If you were not speculating, then you would have now presented Srila Prabhupada's statement confirming your claim instead of asking me whether or not I agree. > If you now concede that the evidence you posted does not prove your > re-worded injunction... I see no reason to do that. You probably did not understand my argument which is a reductio ad absurdum. To refute it you would have to prove that there would be no contradiction if my statement were wrong. For example by proving that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life. > I shall happily and with enormous relish dismember your remaining > challenges. You will not. Probably you will dismember straw man arguments. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center. http://autos./green_center/ 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.