Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

01-02-2007, 02:03 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Please admit that you have, thus far, not provided any statement from
> Srila Prabhupada to the effect that:
>
> “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept
them as a proof. I do not want to discuss this further now. Maybe later.

> You won’t even tell us what on earth you meant by the term ‘initiate the
> delivery’.

I have already explained it. Here is again the explanation:

"The spiritual master initiates the disciple to deliver him, and if the
disciple executes the order of the spiritual master and does not offend
other Vaisnavas, his path is clear." (CC Madhya 1.218, purport)

You may also consult your dictionary.

If in your point b) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who imparts or
explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada),
then it becomes:

"b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole
guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge for ISKCON."

Please present some evidence of this claim or withdraw your claim that Srila
Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole diksa
guru (the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge) for ISKCON.

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-02-2007, 11:03 AM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!
I had requested closure on the following point before moving on:

> Please admit that you have, thus far, not provided any statement from
> Srila Prabhupada to the effect that:
>
> “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

To which you respond:

them as a proof. I do not want to discuss this further now. Maybe later.>

This makes no sense.

If you have already proved that…

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

…then the debate could be over (given that the term ‘initiate the delivery’-
which you won’t even explain- actually refers to an aspect of diksa that Srila
Prabhupada states absolutely requires his physical presence on the same planet
as the disciple). Why not stick to your guns? If it’s proven then I must accept
it or I would be a big rascal.

OK, well let’s eliminate the evidence that you have thus far presented to prove
the above, one piece at a time.

Do you agree that the letter to JPS (material universe) that you quoted does
not prove your claim? To help you out please note:

The quote does not mention the term ‘initiate the delivery’-It deals with
delivering the initiated.
The quote does not mention ‘this planet’- it mentions only 'the material
universe'.
The quote does not mention the word ‘incarnated’,
The quote does not contain the word ‘cannot’.

Aside from that it was certainly brilliant evidence. If you agree this does not
prove your claim I’ll go to the next piece of evidence. Baby steps.

OR, if you want you can just post your star piece of evidence and I’ll have
another look at it. I’m not moving on till we agree on whether or not your
claim has already been proven prior to your latest challenge. Once you admit it
has not been proven I will then destroy this too; that’s a promise.
Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Initiations in ISKCON
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:03:00 AM
Subject: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Please admit that you have, thus far, not provided any statement from
> Srila Prabhupada to the effect that:
>
> “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
> without being present (incarnated) on this planet”

I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept
them as a proof. I do not want to discuss this further now. Maybe later.

> You won’t even tell us what on earth you meant by the term ‘initiate the
> delivery’.

I have already explained it. Here is again the explanation:

"The spiritual master initiates the disciple to deliver him, and if the
disciple executes the order of the spiritual master and does not offend
other Vaisnavas, his path is clear." (CC Madhya 1.218, purport)

You may also consult your dictionary.

If in your point b) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who imparts or
explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada),
then it becomes:

"b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole
guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge for ISKCON."

Please present some evidence of this claim or withdraw your claim that Srila
Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole diksa
guru (the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge) for ISKCON.

ys Ramakanta dasa

--------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-03-2007, 03:00 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> I had requested closure on the following point before moving on:

I have closed this point. I do not want to discuss it further.

If in your points b) and c) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who
imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila
Prabhupada and agreed by you), then they become:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole
guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts
or explains transcendental knowledge.

Please present some evidence of these claim or withdraw them.

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-03-2007, 11:20 AM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!

I had requested closure on your claim; to which you respond:

Before I defeat any further challenges of yours I want either your admission
that none of the evidence you presented thus far proves the following claim:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

Or for you to provide evidence that actually MATCHES your claim. It is simply
madness to keep hopping and skipping onto new challenges without resolving
previous ones. So I offer the following choices:

1) You can admit you have not yet proved the above claim. In which case I shall
happily dismember your latest challenge.

2)We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly prove
your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

3) You can present just your star piece of evidence that you think exactly
matches the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has been
‘proved’.

Just let me know which of the above you wish to choose. Otherwise, like you, I
will not ‘want to discuss it further’.
Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Yaduraja das
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2007 6:19:00 AM
Subject: Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> I had requested closure on the following point before moving on:

I have closed this point. I do not want to discuss it further.

If in your points b) and c) we replace "diksa guru" with "the guru who
imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" (the meaning given by Srila
Prabhupada and agreed by you), then they become:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole
guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts
or explains transcendental knowledge.

Please present some evidence of these claim or withdraw them.

ys Ramakanta dasa

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-04-2007, 02:39 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Otherwise, like you, I will not ‘want to discuss it further’.

I don't mind if you don't present any evidence of following claims:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole
guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts
or explains transcendental knowledge.

(These statements are your points b) and c) with "diksa guru" replaced with
the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada and agreed by you.)

These two claims are definitely untrue because Srila Prabhupada many times
instructed his disciples to explain transcendental knowledge. So you are
defeated. You did not even try to prove these two claims.

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-04-2007, 10:11 AM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!

You write:

Aside from the fact that the claims you go on to attribute to me were not
copied and pasted from any of my postings- I also don’t mind at all if you
don’t present any evidence that exactly matches the following claim:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

A claim I DID copy and paste DIRECTLY from your posting; a claim you have not
provided any MATCHING evidence for despite claiming it proven; and a claim
which preceded your latest challenge which is itself based on claims I never
made.

We can leave it there then if you're happy.
Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Initiations in ISKCON
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2007 7:39:00 AM
Subject: Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> Otherwise, like you, I will not ‘want to discuss it further’.

I don't mind if you don't present any evidence of following claims:

b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole
guru for ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge.

c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole guru for ISKCON who imparts
or explains transcendental knowledge.

(These statements are your points b) and c) with "diksa guru" replaced with
the meaning given by Srila Prabhupada and agreed by you.)

These two claims are definitely untrue because Srila Prabhupada many times
instructed his disciples to explain transcendental knowledge. So you are
defeated. You did not even try to prove these two claims.

ys Ramakanta dasa

--------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-05-2007, 01:24 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru
for ISKCON.

But you do not claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru
for ISKCON who imparts or explains trancendental knowledge.

So the meanings of these two statements must be different. In the second
statement I replaced "the diksa guru" with "the sole guru who imparts or
explains trancendental knowledge". Since there is no other change, the
meaning of "the diksa guru" and the meaning of "the sole guru who imparts or
explains trancendental knowledge" must be different. So please tell us what
the difference is.

If you cannot tell us the difference, then please tell us what exactly you
mean by "diksa guru" in your point b). The meaning given by Srila Prabhupada
and agreed by you is "the guru who imparts or explains trancendental
knowledge".

If you cannot tell us that either, then please tell us what exactly it is
that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. He ordered his
disciples to explain transcendental knowledge (the very definition of
diksa). So what is it that he did not authorize?

If you cannot tell us that either, then admit that you do not know what you
are talking about.

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-05-2007, 06:56 AM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!

With the greatest respect, it makes absolutely no sense to jump to another
challenge (in which you ineptly present claims I have never made as if they
were mine) if you have already defeated us by proving that starting initiation
somehow requires the guru to be on the same planet as the disciple (if that’s
what you mean by ‘initiating the delivery’- you still won’t tell us and the
quote you gave is worded differently):

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

The very fact that you feel such a strong need to jump to another challenge
indicates you are not as confident as you pretend to be about what you claim to
have proven. Why not just admit the fact that your claim above is unproven thus
far so we can move on to your latest challenge which you are obviously more
confident in?

As I stated, I offer the following choices.

1) You can admit you have not yet proved the above claim. In which case I shall
happily dismember your latest challenge.

2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly
prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS). I have
already given you some help on that one.

3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you
think exactly matches the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has
been ‘proved’.

Just let me know which, if any, of the above you wish to choose. I shall not
‘want to discuss it further’ until we close off on the above..
Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Initiations in ISKCON
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 6:24:00 AM
Subject: Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

You claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru
for ISKCON.

But you do not claim following:

Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru
for ISKCON who imparts or explains trancendental knowledge.

So the meanings of these two statements must be different. In the second
statement I replaced "the diksa guru" with "the sole guru who imparts or
explains trancendental knowledge". Since there is no other change, the
meaning of "the diksa guru" and the meaning of "the sole guru who imparts or
explains trancendental knowledge" must be different. So please tell us what
the difference is.

If you cannot tell us the difference, then please tell us what exactly you
mean by "diksa guru" in your point b). The meaning given by Srila Prabhupada
and agreed by you is "the guru who imparts or explains trancendental
knowledge".

If you cannot tell us that either, then please tell us what exactly it is
that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. He ordered his
disciples to explain transcendental knowledge (the very definition of
diksa). So what is it that he did not authorize?

If you cannot tell us that either, then admit that you do not know what you
are talking about.

ys Ramakanta dasa

--------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-06-2007, 01:43 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> In which case I shall happily dismember your latest challenge.

You will not.

> 2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly
> prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

Yes, you can write an essay explaining why you think that my statement is
unproven. But you will have to do it without my help.

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what you are talking
about:

On Nov 30, 2006 you wrote that "on the absolute platform there is in any
case no difference between siksa and diksa". This is speculation. Srila
Prabhupada never said that.

"Just see how rascaldom. You do not know something perfectly, and still, you
are talking about it." (Lecture, Bg 1.45-46, Aug 1, 1973)

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!

With regards ‘option 2’ which I had offered you:

"2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly
prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS). I have
already given you some help on that above."

You write:

unproven. But you will have to do it without my help.> (Ramakanta das)

Oh dear me! I am not asking you to help me prove your statement is unproven, I
am suggesting we systematically examine the evidence you have offered in
support of the following claim...

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

....to see how any of it is relevant. Maybe I am missing something. This is your
chance to explain how the evidence you have presented EXACTLY MATCHES, or at
the very least directly supports your claim.

Thus far your claim appears to be a statement manufactured by a tiny brain;
according to your own criterion.

If so you are contradicting your own previously expressed criterion for what
constitutes proof in debate.

I have already proven that your evidence is irrelevant to your claim (see again
below) without any ‘help’ from you. It is you who needs ‘help’ to prove any of
the evidence you have presented proves your claim. So, as usual, you have
everything up-side-down and back-to-front.

To remind you of why you need ‘help’ with regards the evidence you have
presented so far:

a) None of it contains the phrase ‘initiate the delivery’.
b) One quote you offer contains the words ‘initiates’ and ‘deliver’ but says
nothing about needing to be on ‘this planet’ or ‘same planet’ in order to do
it, so is irrelevant to your claim. (We all agree the guru initiates the
disciple to deliver him- what’s the big deal?)
c) in fact not one of the quotes you offer contains the phrase ‘this planet’ or
‘same planet’ or even the word ‘planet’.
d) None of the quotes even deals with the circumstances in which diksa or
initiation ‘cannot’ take place, and are thus ALL irrelevant to your claim.
e) None of the quotes even contain the word ‘cannot’, do they?
f) The first two quotes you offered refer to people who are already disciples,
not people who have yet to be initiated, and are therefore irrelevant to your
claim.

I could go on.

Given the above it’s just completely ludicrous that you continue to maintain
you have proven your claim. What is the point in having a debate if anyone can
make any claim they want and not have to support it with matching evidence? For
one thing it violates the very rules of this discussion, as set out by Sudama
prabhu, which you emailed me.

Let’s be systematic shall we! Let's sort this out before lurching onto yet
another of your challenges.

Do you at least agree that the letter to JPS (material universe) does not prove
your claim? To help you out please note:

The quote does not mention the term ‘initiate the delivery’-It instead deals
with delivering the initiated.
The quote does not mention ‘this planet’- it mentions only 'the material
universe'.
The quote does not mention the word ‘incarnated’,
The quote does not contain the word ‘cannot’.

If you are correct, then by sticking to this claim I am actually helping you
since, if you have ALREADY proved it as you so boldly claim, then the debate
could already be over RIGHT NOW.

If the term ‘initiate the delivery’ actually means something, and if you have
proven that this very ‘something’ is stated by Srila Prabhupada as
necessitating the guru being on the same planet as the disciple to achieve it,
then you will have already won. No need for endless more verbiage. If you had
done this, and I did not accept it, I would indeed be a big, fat, demoniac
rascal, and you would be perfectly within your rights to broadcast this fact to
everyone in ‘ISKCON’ who did not already think this was the case (which I admit
would probably not be many people).

Just asking me more and more questions about siksa and diksa in a, thus far,
ill-fated attempt to prove I am not an expert on the subject (and hence
according to the way you use that quote a ‘rascal’) will only have relevance to
this debate if you can prove that the thing I do not understand or ‘know’ is
the very ‘something’ that needs the guru on the same planet as the disciple to
achieve.

All you have managed to do so far is to expose your own ignorance (and hence
‘rascaldom’- by your own criterion) since, for one thing, I had to explain to
you the definition of the word diksa after you challenged it. Maybe it’s not
your fault, maybe it’s your ‘senior devotee’ advisors. If so I’d get rid of
them if I were you.

I repeat, I offer you 3 options:

1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING evidence, or at
the very least evidence that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS it. In which case I shall
happily, and with great relish dismember your latest challenge.

2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly
prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS). I have
already given you some help on that above.

3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you
think exactly matches the claim you have made, and which you still maintain has
been ‘proved’.

Until you accept one of the above there is no question whatsoever of me moving
onto yet another of your apparently distractive, half-baked, ill thought-out
challenges.

Please note the following very carefully since it will not change:

If you do not choose one of the above 3 options, and continue to offer no
reasonable explanation as to why you will not present evidence that matches, or
at the very least directly supports, your claim, a claim you maintain is
already ‘proven’, I shall simply keep repeating them.
Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Yaduraja das
Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2007 6:43:00 AM
Subject: Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> In which case I shall happily dismember your latest challenge.

You will not.

> 2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly
> prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

Yes, you can write an essay explaining why you think that my statement is
unproven. But you will have to do it without my help.

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what you are talking
about:

On Nov 30, 2006 you wrote that "on the absolute platform there is in any
case no difference between siksa and diksa". This is speculation. Srila
Prabhupada never said that.

"Just see how rascaldom. You do not know something perfectly, and still, you
are talking about it." (Lecture, Bg 1.45-46, Aug 1, 1973)

ys Ramakanta dasa

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-07-2007, 03:37 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> What is the point in having a debate if anyone can make any claim they
> want and not have to support it with matching evidence?

Very wise. Please remember this whenever I ask you to back up by a quote
what you are saying.

So please present a matching evidence of your claim that on the absolute
platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa.

> 1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING evidence,
> or at the very least evidence that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS it.

After having read your text I can only repeat what I already wrote:
I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept
them as a proof. (If this does not make sense to you, then what can I do?)

You could set a good example and admit that you have not yet proven that for
the initiation the physical present of the diksa guru is not required. The
quotes you offered refer to people who are already disciples, not people who
have yet to be initiated, and are therefore irrelevant to your claim. And
none of these quotes contain the word "diksa" or "initiate".

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what we are talking
about:

On Nov 12, 2006 you believed that delivery means to vanish in a puff of
smoke.

On Nov 30, 2006 you believed that delivery means to suddenly drop dead.

Rupa Gosvami said, "jivan muktah sa ucyate".

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-07-2007, 01:09 PM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!

I am so glad you agree that there is no point in having a debate if anyone can
make any claim they want and not have to support it with matching evidence? So
please set a good example by providing evidence that matches the following
claim which you used to challenge point c) after a whole year’s worth of your
previous challenges were systematically defeated:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

Since you have said this approach is ‘very wise’ I am sure you will now follow
your own advice.

You say:

This is true. But none of the evidence you presented matches your claim, as I
just explained:

a) None of it contains the phrase ‘initiate the delivery’.
b) One quote you offer contains the words ‘initiates’ and ‘deliver’ but says
nothing about needing to be on ‘this planet’ in order to do it, so is
irrelevant to your claim. (We all agree the guru initiates the disciple to
deliver him- what’s the big deal?)
c) Not one of the quotes you offer contains the phrase ‘this planet’ or ‘same
planet’ or even the word ‘planet’.
d) None of the quotes even deal with the circumstances in which diksa or
initiation ‘cannot’ take place, and are thus all irrelevant to your claim.
e) None of the quotes even contain the word ‘cannot’, do they?

Given the above it’s just completely ludicrous that you continue to maintain
you have proven your claim. Your claim preceded your latest barrage of
ill-thought-out challenges, but since I am attempting to deal with challenges
and claims you make systematically, you can be confident that I shall answer
even the most foolish of them in due course. So why not set a good example and
do what you have just said is ‘very wise’?

I repeat, I offer you 3 options:

1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING or DIRECTLY
SUPPORTIVE evidence. In which case I shall happily, and with great relish
dismember your latest challenge.

2) We can go through each piece of evidence you have offered to supposedly
prove your claim one at a time (starting with the letter to JPS).

3) You can present for my analysis just your star piece of evidence that you
think exactly matches or directly supports the claim you have made, and which
you still maintain has been ‘proved’.

If you cannot prove your claim it puts you in a similar position to the GBC,
who you agree have never, to this day, provided any evidence proving that they
were authorised to initiate their own disciples in ISKCON, despite their many
claims to the contrary, and despite the fact that they were only authorised to
manage the systems ALREADY put in place by Srila Prabhupada. I wonder what your
local GBC would think if he knew what you really thought. Don't worry, I won't
tell him.

Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Initiations in ISKCON
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:37:00 AM
Subject: Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> What is the point in having a debate if anyone can make any claim they
> want and not have to support it with matching evidence?

Very wise. Please remember this whenever I ask you to back up by a quote
what you are saying.

So please present a matching evidence of your claim that on the absolute
platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa.

> 1) Admit you have not yet proved the above claim with MATCHING evidence,
> or at the very least evidence that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS it.

After having read your text I can only repeat what I already wrote:
I presented several statements by Srila Prabhupada. But you did not accept
them as a proof. (If this does not make sense to you, then what can I do?)

You could set a good example and admit that you have not yet proven that for
the initiation the physical present of the diksa guru is not required. The
quotes you offered refer to people who are already disciples, not people who
have yet to be initiated, and are therefore irrelevant to your claim. And
none of these quotes contain the word "diksa" or "initiate".

Here is another point that shows that you don't know what we are talking
about:

On Nov 12, 2006 you believed that delivery means to vanish in a puff of
smoke.

On Nov 30, 2006 you believed that delivery means to suddenly drop dead.

Rupa Gosvami said, "jivan muktah sa ucyate".

ys Ramakanta dasa

--------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-08-2007, 02:24 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> So please set a good example by providing evidence that matches the
> following claim ...

In this debate I have learned from your example not to do that. You are the
expert in debating, I am just following your footsteps.

Since you gave up and no longer answer my challenges, I will no longer
present challenges, but just facts.

You claimed that Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop
being the diksa guru for ISKCON. You claimed that he did not authorize
anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. But you were unable to tell us what you
mean by diksa guru. You could not tell us what exactly it is that Srila
Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. And you don't know how a
devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. So you are defeated
because your claim is just a statement by a person who does not know what he
is talking about. There is no need to disprove it.

And you are so proud of having explained to me the meaning of the word
"diksa" (which I already knew). You seem to believe that you can understand
the spiritual science simply by looking at the meaning of the words.

You don't know what 'initiate the delivery' means. You incorrectly believe
that delivery means to suddenly drop dead. Therefore I don't want to discuss
delivery with you.

ys Ramakanta dasa

01-08-2007, 09:18 AM

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,
PAMHO. AGTSP!

You have now stooped to lying in order to divert attention from the fact that
you cannot prove the following claim:

“Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet
without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das)

I never, ever stated that I believe:

“delivery means to suddenly drop dead.”

Please withdraw this lie immediately.
Best wishes
Ys
Yadu

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

To: Initiations in ISKCON
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2007 7:24:00 AM
Subject: Re: Please prove your claim or withdraw it.

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> So please set a good example by providing evidence that matches the
> following claim ...

In this debate I have learned from your example not to do that. You are the
expert in debating, I am just following your footsteps.

Since you gave up and no longer answer my challenges, I will no longer
present challenges, but just facts.

You claimed that Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop
being the diksa guru for ISKCON. You claimed that he did not authorize
anyone to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. But you were unable to tell us what you
mean by diksa guru. You could not tell us what exactly it is that Srila
Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to do. And you don't know how a
devotee is authorized to be a diksa guru in ISKCON. So you are defeated
because your claim is just a statement by a person who does not know what he
is talking about. There is no need to disprove it.

And you are so proud of having explained to me the meaning of the word
"diksa" (which I already knew). You seem to believe that you can understand
the spiritual science simply by looking at the meaning of the words.

You don't know what 'initiate the delivery' means. You incorrectly believe
that delivery means to suddenly drop dead. Therefore I don't want to discuss
delivery with you.

ys Ramakanta dasa

--------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

01-09-2007, 02:07 AM

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

> I never, ever stated that I believe:
>
> “delivery means to suddenly drop dead.”

On Nov 27, 2006 you wrote:

> To try to get around this you then bizarrely argued that delivery takes
> place at the time of initiation. Yet if we again apply reductio ad
> absurdum this would mean that the souls of all Srila Prabhupada’s newly
> initiated disciples would have been transferred to the spiritual sky at
> the end of the initiation ceremony (that is how the term ‘delivered’ was
> defined in the evidence YOU put forward- letter to JPS).
>
> If this had been the case then initiation ceremonies would have appeared
> rather morbid affairs to onlookers, whereby, at the dropping in the fire
> of the last banana, all the disciples would suddenly drop dead.

On Nov 27, 2006 you also wrote that the process of diksa may take many
lifetimes. So far you have presented any matching evidence of this claim.

ys Ramakanta dasa