option 2: next piece of evidence SPL Brahmanananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You wrote:

 

<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).>

 

This debate is based on VISIBLE evidence, did you not realise that? It’s in the

rules you sent me. It is not based on evidence that only exists in Ramaknata’s

mind. This debate was an opportunity for you to prove that we missed something;

that there is some relevant, existent, visible evidence that we have not seen

or appreciated properly, but which authorises the GBC to remove Srila

Prabhupada as the sole initiating guru for ISKCON. Since no-one, including you,

has produced this evidence it is perfectly reasonable and logical to insist we

maintain the status quo (point c). I do not have to prove the status quo

prevails since it does so by definition.

 

You ask:

 

<Where did you read that the GBC must prove that they were authorized to do

what they are doing?>

 

Do you recognise this quote:

 

"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)

 

There is therefore no dispute on this point. Everyone agrees that they need to

justify their statements and actions on the basis of Srila Prabhupada’s

teachings and instructions (which for us are as good as sastra). It is also the

rule of this debate. So why are you wasting time with such a stupid question?

 

<Do they have to prove it also to persons who are not qualified to recognize

such a proof?>

 

Clearly you must be such an unqualified person since you cannot recognise where

this proof is.

 

<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.">

 

This is not how the burden of proof works. If you want to change or challenge

the status quo then YOU tell ME what evidence you have that justifies this. So

far I have seen none.

 

Let’s start with directives from Srila Prabhupada to his management body, the

GBC. What have you got in that category that convinced you Harikesa was

authorised, along with his cohorts, to remove Srila Prabhupada as the

initiating guru for ISKCON and plonk themselves in his place?

 

<I will do it only if you admit that you cannot finnish your option 2 which

was:>

 

You must be joking! You have already admitted your JPS letter does not directly

prove your injunction. Let’s now just deal with the second piece of evidence

you used when you first posted your injunction:

 

"So far as I am concerned, in relationship with my disciples who are so

> kindly cooperating with me in the matter of my rendering service to my

> Spiritual Master, for them I am always ready to come back from Goloka

> Vrindaban, if they are not delivered along with me."

(Letter to Brahmananda, 15 Nov, 1969)

 

 

Do you admit the above evidence also does not directly prove your injunction,

or do I have to spell it out like I had to for the JPS one, over and over and

over again?

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 28, 2007 9:13:00 AM

Re: JPS letter 'not direct evidence' Jai!!!

 

 

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

 

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

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