option 2: next piece of evidence SPL Brahmanananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> > 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)

 

This is not a proof that the GBC must prove to everyone that they were

authorized to do what they are doing.

 

When Srila Prabhupada was challenged in a similar way, his answer was:

 

Indian man: When did he tell you to...?

Prabhupada: What is the business, when did he tell me?

And why shall I disclose to you? It is so very insignificant

thing that I have to explain to you?

Indian man: No, I am just curious when...

Prabhupada: You should be curious within your limit. You should know that

one can become guru when he is ordered by his guru, this much.

(Bg 7.2, lecture, Oct 28, 1975)

 

 

> > 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.

 

Please answer my question.

 

 

> 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?

 

The same thing that convinced you that Srila Prabhupada was authorized to

remove Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur as the sole initiating guru and put

himself in that position.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You wrote:

 

<This is not a proof that the GBC must prove to everyone that they were

authorized to do what they are doing.

When Srila Prabhupada was challenged in a similar way, his answer was:>

 

Srila Prabhupada is the founder acharya of his own mission. The GBC were simply

to manage that mission within the parameters set them by Srila Prabhupada. Why

are you confusing the two as if they were equal?

 

The GBC have presented their so-called justification for hijacking Srila

Prabhupada's mission in various self-contradictory position papers. All of the

evidence they present is recorded and visible and they claim is comprehensive.

Thus in writing such papers as ‘Disciple of My Diosciple’ the GBC have indeed

tried to prove their actions were authorised. Thus even the bogus GBC have

never said “You should be curious within your limit” when asked how they were

authorised to remove Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON’s initiating acarya. So you are

now promoting a position even more bogus than that of the bogus GBC.

Congratulations!

 

Effectively you are now conceding defeat in this debate.

 

If your position is now that the GBC can do whatever they like and I just have

to accept it without evidence then what more is there to discuss?

 

You have now put forward a position that requires absolutely no evidence within

a debate that stipulates that all statements must be supported by evidence!!

You have thus left the parameters of this debate. You are once again defeated.

 

I shall only continue to debate you if you agree to return to the rules of this

debate which you only recently emailed to me.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yaduraja das

 

 

 

 

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 30, 2007 8:12:00 AM

option 2: next piece of evidence SPL Brahmanananda

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> > 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)

 

This is not a proof that the GBC must prove to everyone that they were

authorized to do what they are doing.

 

When Srila Prabhupada was challenged in a similar way, his answer was:

 

Indian man: When did he tell you to...?

Prabhupada: What is the business, when did he tell me?

And why shall I disclose to you? It is so very insignificant

thing that I have to explain to you?

Indian man: No, I am just curious when...

Prabhupada: You should be curious within your limit. You should know that

one can become guru when he is ordered by his guru, this much.

(Bg 7.2, lecture, Oct 28, 1975)

 

 

> > 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.

 

Please answer my question.

 

 

> 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?

 

The same thing that convinced you that Srila Prabhupada was authorized to

remove Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur as the sole initiating guru and put

himself in that position.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

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

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

http://new.mail.

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I shall only continue to debate you if you agree to return to the rules of

> this debate which you only recently emailed to me.

 

Of course I agree that these rules have to be followed. Otherwise I would

not repeatedly ask you to follow them.

 

 

Now please answer my question: Do they have to prove it also to persons who

are not qualified to recognize such a proof?

 

This question refers to following statement by you:

 

> In order for the GBC to change the status quo in a) they must prove they

> have the authority to do so.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I shall only continue to debate you if you agree to return to the rules of

> this debate which you only recently emailed to me.

 

<Of course I agree that these rules have to be followed. Otherwise I would

not repeatedly ask you to follow them.>

 

But you are not following them are you?

 

You have not proven your injunction.

 

You have not proven there is an order countermanding the status quo you agree

Srila Prabhupada established in 1966.

 

If your position is that I am not qualified to understand the order, and that I

am being curious beyond my limit, then what more is there to discuss?

 

But who will accept such a proposition other than someone dying to be cheated

by an unauthorsied imposter?

 

What special 'qualification' did the original 11 ritviks have, when even they

admit they did not understand the order since they operated an unauthorised

'zonal acharya system' for almost an entire decade, driving out of ISKCON

anyone who did not agree with it. Pure madness!

 

Please let me know when you wish to return to sanity and the paramters of this

debate.

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 31, 2007 7:01:00 AM

Re: option 2: next piece of evidence SPL Brahmanananda

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I shall only continue to debate you if you agree to return to the rules of

> this debate which you only recently emailed to me.

 

Of course I agree that these rules have to be followed. Otherwise I would

not repeatedly ask you to follow them.

 

 

Now please answer my question: Do they have to prove it also to persons who

are not qualified to recognize such a proof?

 

This question refers to following statement by you:

 

> In order for the GBC to change the status quo in a) they must prove they

> have the authority to do so.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

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

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.

Try the Mail Beta.

http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> You have not proven your injunction.

 

I followed Srila Prabhupada's instruction and presented statements by Srila

Prabhupada that support my statement. Until you have finished your option 2

and until you showed us that you understood my argument, you cannot say that

I have not proven my statement.

 

On the other hand, you have not presented anything to prove your claim

(posted two months ago) that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa.

 

 

> You have not proven there is an order countermanding the status quo you

> agree Srila Prabhupada established in 1966.

 

I do not have to prove statements that I did not make.

 

 

Now please answer my question that I asked you in my previous text.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> You have not proven your injunction.

 

<I followed Srila Prabhupada's instruction and presented statements by Srila

Prabhupada that support my statement.>

 

No you did not.

 

None of the evidence you presented even mentions the word ‘planet’ or 'earth'

and none of it even deals with the conditions by which initiation ‘cannot’ take

place. Your evidence is thus not relevant to your injunction. You have not

replied to my question regarding the letter to Brahmananda so option 2 is

currently at a standstill.

 

<Until you have finished your option 2 and until you showed us that you

understood my argument, you cannot say that I have not proven my statement.>

 

Until you either prove your injunction is proven by the letter to Brahmananda,

or concede it is not then we cannot move on within option 2.

 

If your ‘argument’ involves asserting an injunction that does not appear within

Srila Prabhupada’s teachings then it lies outside the parameters of this

debate. Please read the rules you sent me and follow them.

 

<Now please answer my question that I asked you in my previous text.>

 

Your many distractive questions will need to wait their turn. But I will say

that if your position is that I am not qualified to understand the alleged

order that allowed the GBC to remove Srila Prabhupada, and that I am being

curious beyond my limit, then there is nothing more to discuss. You will have

left the sane parameters of this debate and entered a no-mans land of

speculation where anything can be asserted without need of proof.

 

If Harikesa was so especially ‘qualified’ to understand Srila Prabhupada's

orders on initiation then how is it he happily participated in the bogus zonal

acharya system for nearly an entire decade, ruthlessly driving out anyone who

dared challenge him, and then later ran off with his therapist and loads of

money? What kind of qualification are you talking about? The qualification of a

kali-chela it seems.

 

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, February 1, 2007 8:27:00 AM

Re: option 2: next piece of evidence SPL Brahmanananda

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> You have not proven your injunction.

 

I followed Srila Prabhupada's instruction and presented statements by Srila

Prabhupada that support my statement. Until you have finished your option 2

and until you showed us that you understood my argument, you cannot say that

I have not proven my statement.

 

On the other hand, you have not presented anything to prove your claim

(posted two months ago) that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa.

 

 

> You have not proven there is an order countermanding the status quo you

> agree Srila Prabhupada established in 1966.

 

I do not have to prove statements that I did not make.

 

 

Now please answer my question that I asked you in my previous text.

 

 

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/

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

Please also comment on following statement by me:

 

On the other hand, you have not presented anything to prove your claim

(posted two months ago) that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa.

 

 

> Until you either prove your injunction is proven by the letter to

> Brahmananda, or concede it is not then we cannot move on within option 2.

 

Is this your admission that you cannot finish your option 2 (for whatever

reason)? Please confirm.

 

 

> Your many distractive questions will need to wait their turn. But I will

> say that if your position is that I am not qualified to understand the

> alleged order that allowed the GBC to remove Srila Prabhupada, and that I

> am being curious beyond my limit, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 

Just answer my question.

 

 

> What kind of qualification are you talking about?

 

A qualified person can immediately say (confirmed by guru-sadhu-sastra) what

he/she would accept as a proof.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Haribol, I sent two answers since I thought the first one had not gone through,

so if you like you can ignore the first one and just answer the second one.

 

 

 

 

 

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, February 2, 2007 7:34:00 AM

Re: option 2: next piece of evidence SPL Brahmanananda

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

Please also comment on following statement by me:

 

On the other hand, you have not presented anything to prove your claim

(posted two months ago) that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa.

 

 

> Until you either prove your injunction is proven by the letter to

> Brahmananda, or concede it is not then we cannot move on within option 2.

 

Is this your admission that you cannot finish your option 2 (for whatever

reason)? Please confirm.

 

 

> Your many distractive questions will need to wait their turn. But I will

> say that if your position is that I am not qualified to understand the

> alleged order that allowed the GBC to remove Srila Prabhupada, and that I

> am being curious beyond my limit, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 

Just answer my question.

 

 

> What kind of qualification are you talking about?

 

A qualified person can immediately say (confirmed by guru-sadhu-sastra) what

he/she would accept as a proof.

 

 

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