the quotes are not direct evidence (Ramakanta das) JAI!!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Oops, you missed out the next sentence I wrote:

>

> “And then at your prompting I adjusted my example to make it more accurate

> (dropping dead).”

 

Okay, if we replace "(puff of smoke)" with "(dropping dead)", then your

argument is:

 

"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 (dropping dead)."

 

Did you read that somewhere or is it just your opinion?

 

 

> You only conceded the letter to JPS was not direct evidence. If you are

> now conceding that none of your evidence directly proves your injunction

> then this matches my position. Your so-called reductio absurdum argument

> was thus based on evidence that bore no direct relation to the subject

> within your injunction, and hence collapsed in its own absurdity.

 

Let me give an example:

 

A: "Siva is not the Supreme Lord. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada would not have

said that Krishna is the Supreme Lord."

 

B: "Srila Prabhupada's statement does not contain the word 'Siva'. Therefore

it is irrelevant. Admit that your statement is unproven."

 

A : "My argument is a reductio ad absurdum where the quotes are not direct

evidence."

 

B: "If you are now conceding that your evidence does not directly prove your

statement, then this matches my position. Your so-called reductio ad

absurdum argument was thus based on evidence that bore no direct relation to

the subject within your statement, and hence collapsed in its own

absurdity."

 

Do you see that the arguments of B are stupid?

 

 

Since you obviously did not understand my argument, I shall now present an

argument (option 3) that is easier to understand:

 

Srila Prabhupada never said that he can initiate disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet. From this it logically

follows that he cannot.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You wrote:

 

<Okay, if we replace "(puff of smoke)" with "(dropping dead)", then your

argument is:

 

"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 (dropping dead)."

 

Did you read that somewhere or is it just your opinion?>

 

We cannot enter the spiritual sky in our material bodies, did you not know

that? This is not just my opinion. Surely you are not challenging such a basic

tenet of our philosophy!

 

> You only conceded the letter to JPS was not direct evidence. If you are

> now conceding that none of your evidence directly proves your injunction

> then this matches my position. Your so-called reductio absurdum argument

> was thus based on evidence that bore no direct relation to the subject

> within your injunction, and hence collapsed in its own absurdity.

 

<Let me give an example:

 

A: "Siva is not the Supreme Lord. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada would not have

said that Krishna is the Supreme Lord.">

 

This is a faulty analogy.

 

Srila Prabhupada states DIRECTLY both that Siva is not the Supreme Lord, and

that Krishna is. This is not the case with your injunction.

 

With your injunction there is no positive, DIRECT affirmation (as you have at

last conceded).

 

<Since you obviously did not understand my argument, I shall now present an

argument (option 3) that is easier to understand:>

 

I understand English, but your argument was not reductio absurdum. So far as I

understand an absurdum argument takes the opponents proposition and shows how

it must be faulty since its repercussions are clearly absurd. You have not done

anything like this. You have started with your OWN proposition, and then

presented evidence that is not absurd since it is Srila Prabhupada's teachings;

teachings that do not prove your injunction or proposition, as you have just

admitted. You only started to pretend that you were making an absurdum argument

AFTER I explained over and over and over again why your evidence was

irrelevant.

 

<Srila Prabhupada never said that he can initiate disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet. From this it logically

follows that he cannot.>

 

No this is an illogical proposition. For this to be a valid proposition Srila

Prabhupada would have to have stated somewhere, something along the following

lines:

 

“I am now going to give a comprehensive list of all the places I can be

physically present wherefrom I can continue to initiate disciples on this

planet.”

 

The list would then need to consist of ONLY geographical locations on this

planet. Then your proposition would make sense. But then various absurdities

would follow. For example, would Srila Prabhupada be able to initiate if he

were flying above the earth in an airplane at the moment of an initiation

ceremony being conducted by his representatives in a temple on Earth? According

to your philosophy he would not since he would not be 'on this planet'. That is

just one of the possible absurd repercussions of your philosophy. Now do you

understand how a reductio absurdum argument works?

 

Your arguments are going nowhere, point c) remains unchallenged, you remain

defeated.

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 9, 2007 7:46:00 AM

"the quotes are not direct evidence" (Ramakanta das) JAI!!!!

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Oops, you missed out the next sentence I wrote:

>

> “And then at your prompting I adjusted my example to make it more accurate

> (dropping dead).”

 

Okay, if we replace "(puff of smoke)" with "(dropping dead)", then your

argument is:

 

"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 (dropping dead)."

 

Did you read that somewhere or is it just your opinion?

 

 

> You only conceded the letter to JPS was not direct evidence. If you are

> now conceding that none of your evidence directly proves your injunction

> then this matches my position. Your so-called reductio absurdum argument

> was thus based on evidence that bore no direct relation to the subject

> within your injunction, and hence collapsed in its own absurdity.

 

Let me give an example:

 

A: "Siva is not the Supreme Lord. Otherwise Srila Prabhupada would not have

said that Krishna is the Supreme Lord."

 

B: "Srila Prabhupada's statement does not contain the word 'Siva'. Therefore

it is irrelevant. Admit that your statement is unproven."

 

A : "My argument is a reductio ad absurdum where the quotes are not direct

evidence."

 

B: "If you are now conceding that your evidence does not directly prove your

statement, then this matches my position. Your so-called reductio ad

absurdum argument was thus based on evidence that bore no direct relation to

the subject within your statement, and hence collapsed in its own

absurdity."

 

Do you see that the arguments of B are stupid?

 

 

Since you obviously did not understand my argument, I shall now present an

argument (option 3) that is easier to understand:

 

Srila Prabhupada never said that he can initiate disciples on this planet

without being present (incarnated) on this planet. From this it logically

follows that he cannot.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

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

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.

Ask your question on www.Answers.

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> We cannot enter the spiritual sky in our material bodies

 

Please follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and the rules of this debate

and at once confirm this statement by a quote.

 

Please also confirm by a quote your claim on Feb 3, 2007 that Srila

Prabhupada can initiate disciples on this planet without being present

(incarnated) on this planet.

 

 

> With your injunction there is no positive, DIRECT affirmation

 

The very fact that you call my statement an injunction proves that you

misunderstood it.

 

 

> > Srila Prabhupada never said that he can initiate disciples on this

> > planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. From this it

> > logically follows that he cannot.

>

> No this is an illogical proposition.

 

Why? You only wrote what you would consider a valid proposition, but you did

not write why my argument is illogical. You also tried a reductio ad

absurdum, but you could not prove that there is a contradiction.

 

 

> point c) remains unchallenged,

 

Your point c) remains an unproven claim based on "we have not seen" without

any positive, direct affirmation.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> We cannot enter the spiritual sky in our material bodies

 

<Please follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and the rules of this debate

and at once confirm this statement by a quote.>

 

Are you joking? Should I also prove Krishna is God? You're not some sort of

Jehova's Witness are you?

 

<Please also confirm by a quote your claim on Feb 3, 2007 that Srila

Prabhupada can initiate disciples on this planet without being present

(incarnated) on this planet.>

 

Please first:

 

a) Post exactly where I made this claim.

b) prove your challenge has any relevance to this debate by first showing that

initiation is in any way restricted by the physical distances between the guru

and disciple.

 

> With your injunction there is no positive, DIRECT affirmation

 

<The very fact that you call my statement an injunction proves that you

misunderstood it.>

 

The very fact that you deny your statement is an injunction proves you do not

understand English. Whatever YOU may want to call it, since it places a

theoretical, absolute restriction on Srila Prabhupada’s ability to initiate, it

is in effect an injunction; one produced from a tiny pea brain it seems. Please

admit it is not proven.

 

 

> > Srila Prabhupada never said that he can initiate disciples on this

> > planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. From this it

> > logically follows that he cannot.

>

> No this is an illogical proposition.

 

<Why? You only wrote what you would consider a valid proposition, but you did

not write why my argument is illogical. You also tried a reductio ad

absurdum, but you could not prove that there is a contradiction.>

 

It is illogical because unless Srila Prabhupada has specifically stated all the

different locations from which he CAN initiate, then you cannot prove there is

a physical location from which he CANNOT initiate simply by the fact he did not

mention it. In other words, if he did not provide a comprehensive list of

specific locations from which he COULD initiate, then the mere absence of

specific mention of a location does not, in and of itself, prove that he cannot

initiate from that location. For example Srila Prabhupada never stated:

 

“I can only initiate disciples when I am located in a physical location I have

already stated, in advance, I can initiate disciples from’.

 

Yet your proposition relies on such an assumption- that if he did not say he

could initiate from a certain location (off world) then he cannot do it. Thus

your proposition is illogical. Do you understand now, or should I go through it

again for you?

 

point c) remains unchallenged,

 

<Your point c) remains an unproven claim based on "we have not seen" without

any positive, direct affirmation.>

 

This debate is based ONLY on evidence that can be seen. Did you not realise

that? If you have seen it then please, please, please show it to us. If you

cannot show it to us then you are defeated within the rules of this debate.

Though in your own fantasy dreamland you are no doubt a great, heroic debater.

 

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 10, 2007 8:16:00 AM

Re: "the quotes are not direct evidence" (Ramakanta das) JAI!!!!

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> We cannot enter the spiritual sky in our material bodies

 

Please follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and the rules of this debate

and at once confirm this statement by a quote.

 

Please also confirm by a quote your claim on Feb 3, 2007 that Srila

Prabhupada can initiate disciples on this planet without being present

(incarnated) on this planet.

 

 

> With your injunction there is no positive, DIRECT affirmation

 

The very fact that you call my statement an injunction proves that you

misunderstood it.

 

 

> > Srila Prabhupada never said that he can initiate disciples on this

> > planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. From this it

> > logically follows that he cannot.

>

> No this is an illogical proposition.

 

Why? You only wrote what you would consider a valid proposition, but you did

not write why my argument is illogical. You also tried a reductio ad

absurdum, but you could not prove that there is a contradiction.

 

 

> point c) remains unchallenged,

 

Your point c) remains an unproven claim based on "we have not seen" without

any positive, direct affirmation.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

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

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

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

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

Be a PS3 game guru.

Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Games.

http://videogames./platform?platform=120121

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> Should I also prove Krishna is God?

 

You are evading my challenge. Srila Prabhupada many times said that Krishna

is God or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But it is not stated in the

Vedabase that we cannot enter the spiritual sky in our material bodies.

 

So now please follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and the rules of this

debate and at once confirm by a quote that we cannot enter the spiritual sky

in our material bodies.

 

 

> a) Post exactly where I made this claim.

 

On Feb 3, 2007 you wrote, "your bogus injunction which I say is false".

 

So now please follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction and the rules of this

debate and at once confirm by a quote that my statement is false.

 

 

> It is illogical because unless Srila Prabhupada ...

 

Thank you for your analysis of my reply to your option 3).

 

 

> This debate is based ONLY on evidence that can be seen.

 

Does the evidence has to be seen by everyone? Or is it sufficient that it

can be seen by qualified persons?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa