Guest guest Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > it was never my position that disciples go up in smoke. Then why did you write following argument? "The initiation ceremony itself is not the actual delivery back to the spiritual sky, otherwise at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." (Yaduraja on Nov 12, 2006) > But if I am qualified then you must still produce the evidence that > authorises a change in status quo That is one way to challenge your point c). I chose another way. > 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? Yes, if you are unqualified, then you are defeated, and the debate ends. > You cannot invent your own injunctions or instructions in this debate, did > you not know that? Yet this is what you have done. I repeat my question: What command by me do you mean? > Fine, then point c) stands unchallenged. Your point c) remains an unproven claim based on "we have not seen". > We are currently stuck in option 2 Please confirm that you cannot finish your option 2, that you are stuck in option 2. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > it was never my position that disciples go up in smoke. <Then why did you write following argument? "The initiation ceremony itself is not the actual delivery back to the spiritual sky, otherwise at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." (Yaduraja on Nov 12, 2006)> I am wondering if you may have a problem with your memory. Do you see the word ‘otherwise’ above. Please look it up. As you well know I modified this reductio absurdum argument to ‘dropping dead’ for greater relevance. And as I already explained in relation to this modified reduction absurdum argument, from the words: “Yet if we again apply reductio ad absurdum...” It was perfectly clear I was about to point out what I perceived to be the absurd repercussions of a position that APPEARED to assert that disciples were transferred back to the spiritual sky at the moment they are initiated; not put forward a theory I personally believed. You later claimed you were not talking about the ceremony, but I still have no idea what you mean by phrases such as ‘the time of initiation’, ‘the initiation’ or ‘moment of initiation’. You simply never told us. This lack of clarity over your terms is also a logical fallacy known as equivocation. > But if I am qualified then you must still produce the evidence that > authorises a change in status quo <That is one way to challenge your point c). I chose another way.> You cannot challenge point c) unless you have evidence authorising the GBC (the body you agree were meant to manage initiation) to change the status quo (point a). Simply implying I am unqualified may be a great insult, but it is not evidence. You cannot prove anything simply by implying your opponent is unqualified. Where did you learn how to debate? Also I must be at least as qualified to understand things as the GBC since, unlike them in 'Disciple of my Disciple', I can easily discern the difference between the word 'yes' and 'no'. So your question is irrelevant and inept on several levels. > You cannot invent your own injunctions or instructions in this debate, did > you not know that? Yet this is what you have done. <I repeat my question: What command by me do you mean?> Wow your memory must be bad. Here is the injunction you insist is proven: <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.> (Ramakanta das) Do you remember this injunction? You wrote it. You are Ramakanta, remember? And as I have tried to explain the above injunction may exist in your own private dreamland, but it is not found within Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. <Please confirm that you cannot finish your option 2, that you are stuck in option 2.> You must be joking! You have already admitted the JPS letter does not prove your injunction. I am quite capable of proving how each piece of evidence you have presented falls in this same category, believe me. Just look back and count how many times the word 'planet' or 'cannot' appears in your so-called evidence if you think I am bluffing. You are the one who cannot seem to finish option 2 since you childishly refuse to respond. If you cannot prove your injunction then why not be honest and just admit it? Then I might feel obliged to answer all your other challenges that you seem so proud of; or at least those that are not neutral. 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> Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:23:00 AM still stuck in option 2 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > it was never my position that disciples go up in smoke. Then why did you write following argument? "The initiation ceremony itself is not the actual delivery back to the spiritual sky, otherwise at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." (Yaduraja on Nov 12, 2006) > But if I am qualified then you must still produce the evidence that > authorises a change in status quo That is one way to challenge your point c). I chose another way. > 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? Yes, if you are unqualified, then you are defeated, and the debate ends. > You cannot invent your own injunctions or instructions in this debate, did > you not know that? Yet this is what you have done. I repeat my question: What command by me do you mean? > Fine, then point c) stands unchallenged. Your point c) remains an unproven claim based on "we have not seen". > We are currently stuck in option 2 Please confirm that you cannot finish your option 2, that you are stuck in option 2. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing./arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Do you see the word ‘otherwise’ above. Please look it up. You wrote, "otherwise at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke". This "otherwise" means "or else; if not" (see www.dictionary.com). So what you wrote is equivalent to following: "If the initiation ceremony itself were the actual delivery back to the spiritual sky, then at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." > As you well know I modified this reductio absurdum argument to ‘dropping > dead’ for greater relevance. This was after I wrote following: "People vanishing in a puff of smoke? Maybe you should get your knowledge from Srila Prabhupada's books instead of fairy-tales. You seem to believe that the material body is also transferred to the spiritual sky." (Ramakanta, Nov 14, 2006) > Here is the injunction you insist is proven: > > "Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being > present (incarnated) on this planet." (Ramakanta das) This is not a command. > I am quite capable of proving how each piece of evidence you have > presented falls in this same category, believe me. Then I invite you to finish your option 2. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Do you see the word ‘otherwise’ above. Please look it up. You wrote, "otherwise at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke". This "otherwise" means "or else; if not" (see www.dictionary.com). So what you wrote is equivalent to following: "If the initiation ceremony itself were the actual delivery back to the spiritual sky, then at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." The word ‘if’ above is conditional. Thus I am not claiming this ever happens. I am saying that ONLY ‘if’ I am wrong, and if disciples are indeed delivered back to the spiritual sky at the moment of initiation (which I assumed meant the ceremony) then this would result in something absurd (puff of smoke). And then at your prompting I adjusted my example to make it more accurate (dropping dead). > As you well know I modified this reductio absurdum argument to ‘dropping > dead’ for greater relevance. <This was after I wrote following: "People vanishing in a puff of smoke? Maybe you should get your knowledge from Srila Prabhupada's books instead of fairy-tales. You seem to believe that the material body is also transferred to the spiritual sky."> (Ramakanta, Nov 14, 2006) Yes, I agreed that the puff of smoke example was not a good one. They would have to drop dead. But of course since I am giving examples in an attempt to illustrate the absurd ramifications of what I thought was your position, it is a complete cheating, lying falsehood to imply that I personally believed that either example was what ACTUALLY happens. This is such a simple point. Clearly you are using this as a desperate attempt to divert attention from the fact you cannot, since last October, prove your injunction. > Here is the injunction you insist is proven: > > "Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being > present (incarnated) on this planet." (Ramakanta das) <This is not a command.> OK, whatever! But it is an injunction since it is placing a theoretical, absolute limitation on what Srila Prabhupada can do as an initiating guru. It is also clearly fabricated from your own mind. Please be honest and admit this is your own invention. I will not move from this point till it is resolved; even if it takes many years for you to admit the truth. > I am quite capable of proving how each piece of evidence you have > presented falls in this same category, believe me. <Then I invite you to finish your option 2.> The ball is now in your court. We are on the letter to Brahmananda. I am saying it does not contain the words ‘planet’ or ‘cannot’. It does not even deal with the conditions under which initiation cannot take place, and thus is completely irrelevant to your injunction. So you must show us where your injunction is hiding within that quote or admit it is not, as you sensibly did with the letter to JPS. If you want to drop out then we can end the debate now. I don’t care either way. The inability to continue is with you, not me. I am not refusing to respond on this point, you are, thus it is you who is currently dropping out of the debate through some apparent inability to continue, not I. Thus as usual you have everything upside down, topsy turvy, and back to front. 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, February 7, 2007 10:00:00 AM Re: still stuck in option 2 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Do you see the word ‘otherwise’ above. Please look it up. You wrote, "otherwise at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke". This "otherwise" means "or else; if not" (see www.dictionary.com). So what you wrote is equivalent to following: "If the initiation ceremony itself were the actual delivery back to the spiritual sky, then at the end of the ceremony all the disciples would vanish in a puff of smoke." > As you well know I modified this reductio absurdum argument to ‘dropping > dead’ for greater relevance. This was after I wrote following: "People vanishing in a puff of smoke? Maybe you should get your knowledge from Srila Prabhupada's books instead of fairy-tales. You seem to believe that the material body is also transferred to the spiritual sky." (Ramakanta, Nov 14, 2006) > Here is the injunction you insist is proven: > > "Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate disciples on this planet without being > present (incarnated) on this planet." (Ramakanta das) This is not a command. > I am quite capable of proving how each piece of evidence you have > presented falls in this same category, believe me. Then I invite you to finish your option 2. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net _____________________________ _____ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Small Business. http://smallbusiness./domains/?p=BESTDEAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > if disciples are indeed delivered back to the spiritual sky at the moment > of initiation (which I assumed meant the ceremony) then this would result > in something absurd (puff of smoke). Did you read that somewhere or is it just your opinion? > The ball is now in your court. I see no reason to repeat my argument. And on Jan 25, 2007 I already wrote that my argument is a reductio ad absurdum where the quotes are not direct evidence. Now it's your turn to prove that the quotes are not indirect evidence either, that there is no contradiction if my statement were true. Or you could simply confirm my statement that you did not accept my argument as a proof. On Feb 3, 2007 you claimed that Srila Prabhupada can initiate disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. Please follow the rules of this debate and prove this claim with relevant evidence. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.