Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > 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. Your position is based on what you have not seen. But you claim that the GBC has not seen any order. Therefore it is irrelevant what you (or anyone else besides the GBC) have seen or not. Relevant is only what the GBC has seen. So you will have to present some visible evidence that the GBC has not seen any order. For example a statement by the GBC saying, "we have not seen any order". > > Do you claim that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated > > again in the next life? > > No, Your argument was: "In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated". So in your argument you wrote that the letter to Jayapataka refers to 'already initiated' disciples only. But now you say that you do not claim that they are 'already initiated'. Therefore your argument is meaningless. > If you are correct that I ‘speculated’ then you must be saying I am wrong, Please look up "speculate" and "speculation" in your dictionary. > Therefore surely you should be saying I am wrong to speculate, and that > you disagree? You were wrong to speculate, but I do not say that the result of your speculation is true or false. Now please either present some evidence of your claim, or admit that it is speculation and withdraw it. > > 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. If an argument starts with "Otherwise he would not have ..." or similar, then the argument is a reductio ad absurdum. Didn't you know that? Didn't you notice that my argument started with "Otherwise he would not have ..."? > 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): I see no reason to do that because you have not presented any new argument. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Dear Ramakanata Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > 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. <Your position is based on what you have not seen.> No this is incorrect. We have mountains of evidence supporting point a) as you found out to your great cost. In order for the GBC to change the status quo in a) they must prove they have the authority to do so. Point b) simply points out that this authority has not been proven since the GBC’s evidence, all of which is recorded and in the public domain, and which they claim is comprehensive, demonstrably does not include such an order. <But you claim that the GBC has not seen any order.> We claim the GBC have not produced, in any of their position papers, resolutions, Vedabase or explanations any order from Srila Prabhupada that authorised them to remove him as the sole initiating guru for ISKCON. And neither have you for more than a year. If you HAVE seen it then can I see it too please? <Therefore it is irrelevant what you (or anyone else besides the GBC) have seen or not.> If you have not seen it and cannot produce it then why are you bringing it up in a debate where ALL statements must be supported by evidence from Srila Prabhupada? You have effectively left the parameters of this debate. This means you are once again defeated. < Relevant is only what the GBC has seen. So you will have to present some visible evidence that the GBC has not seen any order. For example a statement by the GBC saying, "we have not seen any order".> The GBC do not claim that there is an order pertinent to their authority to initiate that they have NOT made public. Where did they ever state this? You are allowing your own private dreamworld to impinge on this debate. If you now want to claim that there is an order that ONLY the GBC have seen then the burden of proof is on you to prove this. Why should I just believe you? And if the GBC claim this why should I just believe them either? They would be changing their story yet again after thirty years of claiming all the evidence was 'on the table'. Everytime you try to bring up the subject of an order from Srila Prabhupada you cannot produce you are breaking the rules of this debate. Do you not understand this very simple point? <So in your argument you wrote that the letter to Jayapataka refers to 'already initiated' disciples only. But now you say that you do not claim that they are 'already initiated'. Therefore your argument is meaningless.> Once again: I am ONLY claiming the JPS quote is talking about remaining in the universe to deliver people who are already disciples. It is not talking about initiating fresh disciples (or re-initiating old ones) on earth or this planet. This may be explained in detail in another quote that you have yet to produce, but not in the one we are currently discussing, the JPS letter. That is all I am claiming. You have now finally admitted that your JPS evidence never proved your injunction, and that it was never your intention that the quote should do so; so your argument is even more meaningless than before, and even then it was completely meaningless. <You were wrong to speculate, but I do not say that the result of your speculation is true or false.> But if what I stated was correct then how do you know I speculated? If I was right all along (which I am) I may have been knowingly stating a principle that I knew was part of our teaching. If you are not saying it is true or false then you are neutral, like Switzerland. If you are neutral then it is not a challenge. Just like in war the Swiss never want to take any side, so they never challenge anyone. If you clearly state that I am wrong then you are making a challenge worthy of response (once we resolve your injunction issue). What do your learned ‘senior devotee’ advisers say about it? <If an argument starts with "Otherwise he would not have ..." or similar, then the argument is a reductio ad absurdum.> No I did not know that. I thought you were trying to prove your injunction with evidence. I wrote: “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)”: To which you respond: <I see no reason to do that because you have not presented any new argument.> You now claim the evidence you presented does not prove your claim. Indeed according to you it was never meant to. So how can you possibly continue to claim you have proven: <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) Where, when and how did you prove it? 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 26, 2007 9:32:00 AM JPS letter 'not direct evidence' Jai!!! Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > 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. Your position is based on what you have not seen. But you claim that the GBC has not seen any order. Therefore it is irrelevant what you (or anyone else besides the GBC) have seen or not. Relevant is only what the GBC has seen. So you will have to present some visible evidence that the GBC has not seen any order. For example a statement by the GBC saying, "we have not seen any order". > > Do you claim that an initiated devotee does not have to be initated > > again in the next life? > > No, Your argument was: "In the letter to JPS there is only mention of delivering those who are disciples, and thus already initiated". So in your argument you wrote that the letter to Jayapataka refers to 'already initiated' disciples only. But now you say that you do not claim that they are 'already initiated'. Therefore your argument is meaningless. > If you are correct that I ‘speculated’ then you must be saying I am wrong, Please look up "speculate" and "speculation" in your dictionary. > Therefore surely you should be saying I am wrong to speculate, and that > you disagree? You were wrong to speculate, but I do not say that the result of your speculation is true or false. Now please either present some evidence of your claim, or admit that it is speculation and withdraw it. > > 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. If an argument starts with "Otherwise he would not have ..." or similar, then the argument is a reductio ad absurdum. Didn't you know that? Didn't you notice that my argument started with "Otherwise he would not have ..."? > 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): I see no reason to do that because you have not presented any new argument. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search./shortcuts/#news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Your position is based on what you have not seen. > > No this is incorrect. Your point c) is based on your point b) and your point b) is basically "we have not seen any order". "By ‘there is no order’ we mean ‘we have not seen any order’." (Yaduraja, Jan 18, 2007) > In order for the GBC to change the status quo in a) they must prove they > have the authority to do so. Where did you read that? Is this your personal opinion? Do they have to prove it also to persons who are not qualified to recognize such a proof? > Point b) simply points out that this authority has not been proven since > the GBC’s evidence, all of which is recorded and in the public domain, and > which they claim is comprehensive, demonstrably does not include such an > order. This is incorrect. In your point b) you say, "there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen". > We claim the GBC have not produced, in any of their position papers, > resolutions, Vedabase or explanations any order from Srila Prabhupada that > authorised them to remove him as the sole initiating guru for ISKCON. And > neither have you for more than a year. If you HAVE seen it then can I see > it too please? What would you accept as such an order? > The GBC do not claim that there is an order pertinent to their authority > to initiate that they have NOT made public. This is not a visible evidence. When did the GBC say that they do not claim it? Please quote. > But if what I stated was correct then how do you know I speculated? If I > was right all along (which I am) I may have been knowingly stating a > principle that I knew was part of our teaching. You did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and your own rules. "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) "one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada." (Yaduraja, Jan 14, 2007) "But this debate is meant to be based on evidence not speculation." (Yaduraja, Jan 15, 2007) "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." (Yaduraja, Jan 19, 2007) You have effectively left the parameters of this debate. > What do your learned ‘senior devotee’ advisers say about it? I will tell you after they told me. > You now claim the evidence you presented does not prove your claim. You misunderstood me. I suggest you carefully read what I wrote. Please inform me when you have finished your option 2. If you are unable to finish it, then tell me, and I will offer you option 3. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You are all confused again. Point c) is the conclusion of our argument. Our position is not based on our conclusion. This is never the case in rational argument. Nor is our position based solely on the absence of counter evidence (point b). Our actual position is based on evidence that does exist, and which you have agreed exists (point a) and which the GBC have not disputed. Point b) merely points to the fact that no-one has produced any order that can change the status quo in a). Point c) logically follows until such evidence is produced. Our position is thus not based on something we have not seen, it is based on evidence we have seen. Your challenge however, is wholly based on evidence that so far has not materialised, and hence lies outside the parameters of this debate. As H.H.Jayadvaita Maharaja once astutely commented (and I quote from memory here so forgive me if it’s not verbatim) ‘Evidence that doesn’t exist is no evidence at all’ And what you have my friend, to counter the status quo set out in point a), is ‘no evidence at all.’ > In order for the GBC to change the status quo in a) they must prove they > have the authority to do so. <Where did you read that?> Do you have a problem with your memory? Do I have to repost all the evidence defining how the GBC was meant to function yet again? Do you now think the GBC were authorised to do whatever they wanted? <This is incorrect. In your point b) you say, "there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen".> When we got to point b) I asked you to read NCIP as its explanation, do you remember this? Thus point b) is a highly abbreviated statement of our position. <What would you accept as such an order?> What have you got in the way of management directives issued by Srila Prabhupada to the GBC? So far I have seen NOTHING from you in this category, not to speak of anything supporting a challenge to point a,b or c. > The GBC do not claim that there is an order pertinent to their authority > to initiate that they have NOT made public. <This is not a visible evidence. When did the GBC say that they do not claim it? Please quote.> You obviously have no understanding of this debate. Please read all the GBC papers on this issue such as ‘disciple of my disciple’ ‘prabhupada’s order’ etc etc and you will not find a single statement that their authorisation to remove Srila Prabhupada was given clandestinely, or was unrecorded, hidden or in any way ‘off the record’. They produce recorded, visible evidence ONLY in support of their position. How can you not know this? You really need to catch up with this debate; you seem to have no idea what it’s about. <You did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and your own rules.(…) You have effectively left the parameters of this debate.> You left it first. If you re-enter it by: Not challenging the status quo on the basis of a hypothetical order you cannot produce, And Proving your injunction …then I will happily prove my assertion correct, if you are actually challenging it. At the moment you are neutral so no need to bother. Just like if I say Krishna is God, it is commonly understood, and so I would not expect you to ask me to prove it. You yourself have even made a few statements in this debate that I have not asked you to prove since I know they are correct. In a debate you normally only challenge something if you disagree or do not have any knowledge of it. Which is it for you over my assertion? And do let me know what your advisers say. It would be great to take out the whole lot of you in one blow once we clear up your injunction. <If you are unable to finish it, then tell me, and I will offer you option 3.> So far there has been no noticeable incapacity on my part to prove your evidence does not directly support your injunction… <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta, 22 Jan 07) …since, after pounding the very first example (letter to JPS) unremittingly for the last weeks with my arguments, you have finally agreed it does not. I can continue this process but it would certainly be quicker if you take up option 3: 3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you think exactly matches or directly supports the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has been ‘proved’ So yes, please do this. Remember your injunction is now highly specific. You have said it may only apply to this planet, and only Srila Prabhupada is mentioned within it as the subject of such a restriction. Good luck! We now wait with baited breath for this star evidence that will prove your 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> Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:28:00 AM Re: JPS letter 'not direct evidence' Jai!!! Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > Your position is based on what you have not seen. > > No this is incorrect. Your point c) is based on your point b) and your point b) is basically "we have not seen any order". "By ‘there is no order’ we mean ‘we have not seen any order’." (Yaduraja, Jan 18, 2007) > In order for the GBC to change the status quo in a) they must prove they > have the authority to do so. Where did you read that? Is this your personal opinion? Do they have to prove it also to persons who are not qualified to recognize such a proof? > Point b) simply points out that this authority has not been proven since > the GBC’s evidence, all of which is recorded and in the public domain, and > which they claim is comprehensive, demonstrably does not include such an > order. This is incorrect. In your point b) you say, "there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen". > We claim the GBC have not produced, in any of their position papers, > resolutions, Vedabase or explanations any order from Srila Prabhupada that > authorised them to remove him as the sole initiating guru for ISKCON. And > neither have you for more than a year. If you HAVE seen it then can I see > it too please? What would you accept as such an order? > The GBC do not claim that there is an order pertinent to their authority > to initiate that they have NOT made public. This is not a visible evidence. When did the GBC say that they do not claim it? Please quote. > But if what I stated was correct then how do you know I speculated? If I > was right all along (which I am) I may have been knowingly stating a > principle that I knew was part of our teaching. You did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and your own rules. "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) "one of the parameters of this debate is that all claims must be supported by relevant statements from Srila Prabhupada." (Yaduraja, Jan 14, 2007) "But this debate is meant to be based on evidence not speculation." (Yaduraja, Jan 15, 2007) "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." (Yaduraja, Jan 19, 2007) You have effectively left the parameters of this debate. > What do your learned ‘senior devotee’ advisers say about it? I will tell you after they told me. > You now claim the evidence you presented does not prove your claim. You misunderstood me. I suggest you carefully read what I wrote. Please inform me when you have finished your option 2. If you are unable to finish it, then tell me, and I will offer you option 3. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers./dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > You are all confused again. Point c) is the conclusion of our argument. > Our position is not based on our conclusion. This is never the case in > rational argument. In this debate I am discussing your three points: a) Srila Prabhupada made himself recognized 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. c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru for ISKCON. In your point b) you clearly say, "there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen". And your point c) starts with "Therefore". So your point c) is based on "there is no order that we (the IRM) have seen". If your position is different, then we can discuss it later. Let us first finish your points a), b) and c). > Your challenge however, is wholly based on evidence that so far has not > materialised, and hence lies outside the parameters of this debate. You misunderstood my challenge. Should I explain it again? > Do you have a problem with your memory? Do I have to repost all the > evidence defining how the GBC was meant to function yet again? Do you now > think the GBC were authorised to do whatever they wanted? You misunderstood my question. My question is: Where did you read that the GBC must prove that they were authorized to do what they are doing? I am not asking you whether or not they were authorized. I am not asking you whether or not they must prove it. I am asking you where you read it. You did not answer my other question: Do they have to prove it also to persons who are not qualified to recognize such a proof? > > What would you accept as such an order? > > What have you got in the way of management directives issued by Srila > Prabhupada to the GBC? So far I have seen NOTHING from you in this > category, not to speak of anything supporting a challenge to point a,b or > c. You asked me, "If you HAVE seen it then can I see it too please?". My answer is, "No, you are unable to see it because you cannot tell us what you would accept as such an order." > then I will happily prove my assertion correct, You will not. > So far there has been no noticeable incapacity on my part to prove your > evidence does not directly support your injunction. Then I shall wait until you have finished your option 2. > 3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that > you think exactly matches or directly supports the claim you have made, > and which you still maintain has been ‘proved’ > > So yes, please do this. I will do it only if you admit that you cannot finnish your option 2 which was: "2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS)." ys Ramakanta dasa 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.