Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! “you would have to present some visible evidence that the GBC has not seen the order, and that no-one else has seen the order either.”Ramakanta das If such an order exists in a visible form then you must produce it or not keep alluding to it; according to the rules of this debate. If you no longer wish to follow the rules of this debate then please make that clear so we can end it now. Our position is based on recorded, visible statements (Vedabase) that the GBC (the body specifically charged with managing the very thing we are discussing) claim contains all the pertinent orders given to them on this issue. You ask: <Do you claim that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated again in the next life?> No, I claim the JPS quote is talking about remaining in the universe to deliver people who are already disciples. It is not talking about needing to be on this planet in order to initiate (or re-initiate) people. That is all I am claiming. I had asked with regards siksa and diksa being the same on the absolute platform: What do your ‘senior devotee’ advisers say? To which you reply: <I will tell you after they told me. By these questions you are just trying distract from the fact that you speculated.> If you are correct that I ‘speculated’ then you must be saying I am wrong, but you said: <I neither agree nor disagree.> This means you are neutral (like Switzerland) towards speculation. But we should be against speculation, don’t you think? Therefore surely you should be saying I am wrong to speculate, and that you disagree? How can you be neutral? Yes please let me know the decision of your advisers, then maybe I can defeat them all too if they agree with you. <You misunderstood my argument. Didn't you notice that it is a reductio ad absurdum where the quotes are not direct evidence?> No I did not notice this. You have just yesterday started to claim that the evidence you presented was not actually evidence proving your claim. This is what I’ve been claiming since you produced it. > Once you either concede you have not proved your injunction, or prove it > with RELEVANT evidence, we can proceed. <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.> But now you have said that your 'evidence' is “not direct evidence” supporting your injunction, which is what I have been saying all along. Are you feeling ok? So if you are now conceding the fact that the evidence you have presented so far does not prove your injunction (now in its third incarnation): <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) …we can proceed. Please confirm clearly that you are not claiming that the evidence you have presented so far proves the above injunction. 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 25, 2007 7:03:00 AM Re: option 2- letter to JPS Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > So are you saying you don’t know if I’m right or wrong? No. > What do your ‘senior devotee’ advisers say? I will tell you after they told me. By these questions you are just trying distract from the fact that you speculated. > And yet this was the first piece of evidence you had put forward to prove > your injunction which, in its most recent incarnation, reads: You misunderstood my argument. Didn't you notice that it is a reductio ad absurdum where the quotes are not direct evidence? > Once you either concede you have not proved your injunction, or prove it > with RELEVANT evidence, we can proceed. 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. > 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. Your argument is incomplete. It does not prove your point c). To complete it you would have to present some visible evidence that the GBC has not seen the order, and that no-one else has seen the order either. > 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. You cannot refute a point just by saying that you have refuted it. Do you claim 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 _____________________________ _____ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile./services?promote=mail 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.