option 2: still stuck on SPL Brahmanananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> We’ll deal with it when we get to it, but since you said you are not

> saying my statement is false I do not see the reason to prove it.

 

On Dec 1, 2006 you wrote that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa. Since you did not confirm your

statement by a quote, you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and

your own rules for this debate.

 

 

> What did your advisers say?

 

I will tell you after they told me.

 

 

> 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.

 

If you can finish your option 2 without any input from me, then do it and

inform me when you have finished it. Otherwise admit that you cannot do it.

 

 

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

 

I want you to say, "No, they don't have to prove it to unqualified persons".

 

 

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

> authorised to operate within the bogus zonal acarya system, and which you

> also accepted as proof?

 

Let us first finish your points a), b) and c) before we jump to other

points. Everything has its turn.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You wrote:

 

<On Dec 1, 2006 you wrote that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa. Since you did not confirm your

statement by a quote, you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and

your own rules for this debate.>

 

But way before then, on Oct 23, 2006 - 05:35 AM you started presenting quotes

to prove your injunction, which now reads:

 

<Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being

present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta das)

 

But none of the quotes you presented mentions ‘this planet’ ‘same planet’

‘earth’ or even the word ‘planet’, nor do any of them even deal with the

conditions under which diksa ‘cannot’ take place. Thus you ‘did not follow

Srila Prabhupada's instruction and your own rules for this debate’.

 

In order to avoid either proving your injunction or admitting it is a bogus

concoction you went on to make a whole series of challenges, though with

regards the above you have not said my statement was false, and therefore I do

not accept it as a challenge. Whatever the case It will be dealt with in due

course when we finish with your bogus injunction which I say is false,

unproven, unheard of and pure invention. Now that’s how you make a challenge

worthy of response.

 

> What did your advisers say?

 

<I will tell you after they told me.>

 

You should ask them before you decide to leave the neutral zone. You don’t want

to embarrass yourself again like you did over the definition of the word diksa.

 

<If you can finish your option 2 without any input from me, then do it and

inform me when you have finished it.>

 

Well by this argument I could say you cannot finish this debate if I simply

stop responding. What a stupid position to take. So childish.

 

<I want you to say, "No, they don't have to prove it to unqualified persons".>

 

But what relevance is this to our debate? You will still have to prove your

injunction and that the GBC were authorised to change the status quo (point a).

You cannot avoid doing this just by asking a daft question.

 

Besides which, papers such as ‘disciple of my disciple’ have been made

generally available by the GBC with no restriction on the basis of

‘qualification’. In that paper we can see the biggest brains, the most

‘qualified’ ‘gurus’ in ISKCON not even able to distinguish the difference

between the words ‘yes’ and ‘no’ (for details please read our rebuttal). The

GBC also concede they completely misunderstood Srila Prabhupada’s orders for

nearly an entire decade, and some ‘gurus’ say they are still going ‘in the

wrong direction’ even now over their guru system. So what position are the GBC

in to know who is or is not qualified?

 

So please answer my question with regards the letter to Brahmananda so we can

proceed with option 2. Of course if you want to ‘drop out’ you are always free

to do so. We can end it now if you like.

 

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, February 3, 2007 7:43:00 AM

option 2: still stuck on SPL Brahmanananda

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> We’ll deal with it when we get to it, but since you said you are not

> saying my statement is false I do not see the reason to prove it.

 

On Dec 1, 2006 you wrote that on the absolute platform there is in any case

no difference between siksa and diksa. Since you did not confirm your

statement by a quote, you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and

your own rules for this debate.

 

 

> What did your advisers say?

 

I will tell you after they told me.

 

 

> 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.

 

If you can finish your option 2 without any input from me, then do it and

inform me when you have finished it. Otherwise admit that you cannot do it.

 

 

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

 

I want you to say, "No, they don't have to prove it to unqualified persons".

 

 

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

> authorised to operate within the bogus zonal acarya system, and which you

> also accepted as proof?

 

Let us first finish your points a), b) and c) before we jump to other

points. Everything has its turn.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

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

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

TV dinner still cooling?

Check out "Tonight's Picks" on TV.

http://tv./

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> You don't want to embarrass yourself again like you did over the

> definition of the word diksa.

 

It was not at all embarrassing because you talked about the meaning of word

"diksa" and I talked about diksa. Just like when someone talks about Krishna

(the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and another one talks about the meaning

of the word "krishna" ("black"). It seems you still believe that you can

learn the spiritual science by looking at the meaning of the words. But it

must have been quite embarrassing when I had to tell you that devotees do

not vanish in a puff of smoke when they are delivered.

 

 

> > I want you to say, "No, they don't have to prove it to unqualified

> > persons".

>

> But what relevance is this to our debate?

 

It is relevant because on Jan 26, 2007 you wrote, "In order for the GBC to

change the status quo in a) they must prove they have the authority to do

so". So please answer my question.

 

 

> You will still have to prove your injunction

 

"Injunction" means "command", "order", "instruction". So what command by me

do you mean? Please also explain why commands have to be proven.

 

 

> You will still have to prove ... that the GBC were authorised to change

> the status quo (point a).

 

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

 

 

> So what position are the GBC in to know who is or is not qualified?

 

Let us first finish your points a), b) and c) before we jump to other

points.

 

 

> Of course if you want to ‘drop out’ you are always free to do so.

 

How will you know that I dropped out of a discussion about a certain point?

Would it be sufficient if I wrote several times that I do not want to

discuss it further?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa