option 2: still stuck on SPL Brahmanananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You write:

 

<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.>

 

We’ll deal with it when we get to it, there is an ever growing queue, but since

you said you are not saying my statement is false I do not see the reason to

prove it. I do not accept 'neutral' challenges from you anymore since you

childishly pretended you 'already knew' the definition of the word diksa after

you had previously challenged it. Why should I waste time proving things you

'already know'? If you don't know then please make that clear.

 

What did your advisers say about it?

 

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

reason)? Please confirm.>

 

No, it is me pointing out that in the context of this debate you need to either

explain how the Brahmananda letter proves your injunction, or admit it does

not. We eliminated the JPS quote but you seem to be stuck on this second quote.

 

<Just answer my question.>

 

Everything has its turn, but what is the purpose of your question? What is your

point, other than to draw attention from the fact you have not proven your

injunction?

 

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

he/she would accept as a proof.>

 

What did Harikesa say was the proof he had accepted that he had been authorised

by Srila Prabhupada to operate within the now discredited, bogus zonal acraya

system, and which you also accepted as proof? Let's start with that.

 

Clearly you have no idea how the burden of proof works in a debate. I can’t be

bothered to explain it again, see my many previous explanations.

 

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, 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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

Don't pick lemons.

See all the new 2007 cars at Autos.

http://autos./new_cars.html