still stuck in option 2

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

 

I’m not sure why but your last answer did not come through to me but had to be

forwarded by someone else. Just thoutht you should know in case there is a

technical problem.

 

I see you have forgotten that you had challenged the definition of the word

diksa, even after it was explained to you I was defining the word itslelf, and

that it was never my position that disciples go up in smoke. How embarrassing

for you to keep getting things so confused.

 

<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.>

 

But if I am qualified then you must still produce the evidence that authorises

a change in status quo (if you still want to challenge point c), and if you

claim I am not then what is the point of further debate since, according to you

I would never be able to understand it? Therefore it is an irrelevant question.

 

As it happens, anyone capable of distinguishing the difference between the word

‘yes’ and the word ‘no’ is already more qualified than the GBC if ‘Disciple of

My Disciple’ is anything to go by. On the basis of the GBC’s performance in

that paper, any adult above the level of educationally subnormal would be at

least as qualified as the current GBC. So once again your question is

irrelevant.

 

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

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

 

You cannot invent your own injunctions or instructions in this debate, did you

not know that? Yet this is what you have done. How embarrassing for you.

 

> 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.>

 

Fine, then point c) stands unchallenged.

 

<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?>

 

But you have not withdrawn your claim that the following injunction has been

proven:

 

<Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being

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

 

I cannot allow this bogus invention to stand unchallenged. Please now follow

the rules of this debate and prove this injunction with relevant evidence. We

are currently stuck in option 2, but I have no objection if you want to save

time by going to option 3, or just conceding it is unproven. I won't move on

till this is resolved.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

It's here! Your new message!

Get new email alerts with the free Toolbar.

http://tools.search./toolbar/features/mail/