Ramakanta contradicts himself again.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> First please withdraw your previous challenge.

>

> "You have not proven that the only way to authorize a devotee to be a

> diksa guru in ISKCON is an order to the GBC which must have been seen by

> you."

 

<This was not a challenge because I did not ask you to prove it. I just

stated a fact. You don't have to prove it. It is not a challenge.>

 

It is a fact that you have made a self-contradictory critique of our position.

The above 'statement' is self-contradictory and violates the rules of this

debate. Do I need to explain it for a fourth time?

 

Once you decide to base your position JUST on visible evidence, then you will

realise you are defeated since you have no evidence to challenge the status quo

(point a) which you agree existed since 1966. I do not have to prove the

status quo continues since it does so by definition. In this case the status

quo was locked in place with signed directives to the GBC just prior to Srila

Prabhupada's physical departure. I also do not have to prove that the GBC must

follow the orders of the guru since this is axiomatic. You have to prove that

the GBC can stop following the orders they were given (July 9th etc) and thus

change the status quo.

 

So just let me know when you wish to follow the rules of the debate by

presenting orders to the GBC that allow them to change the status quo; or

concede defeat.

 

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, March 3, 2007 7:27:00 AM

Ramakanta contradicts himself again.

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> First please withdraw your previous challenge.

>

> "You have not proven that the only way to authorize a devotee to be a

> diksa guru in ISKCON is an order to the GBC which must have been seen by

> you."

 

This was not a challenge because I did not ask you to prove it. I just

stated a fact. You don't have to prove it. It is not a challenge.

 

 

> .or prove it is authorised by showing where:

>

> "Srila Prabhupada has authorised that Ramakanta das (or anyone else) can

> challenge his visible, signed directives to the GBC on the basis of

> theoretical, invisible orders."

 

I already answered this on Oct 6, 2006 and on Dec 10, 2006:

 

I am not challenging Srila Prabhupada's statement. I am challenging your

interpretation of it.

 

 

> You are contradicting yourself again since you are asking above for

> visible evidence- “a quote” -when your whole challenge to point c) (which

> is merely the logical outcome of a and b within the closed institutional

> system we are discussing) is flimsily based on the theoretical existence

> of invisible evidence.

 

I ignore your strange philosophy that asking you to follow Srila

Prabhupada's instruction is self-contradicting.

 

 

You have not answered following:

 

If you think that you don't have to follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction,

that you can present statements without having the confirm them by quotes,

then please explain why you think that.

 

 

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