can someone give sastric and sadhu validations for ritvikism

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>My arguments use statements from Srila Prabhupada, from me and from others.

>I can use a statement from others even if I do not agree with it

>(especially

>if it is Krishnakant's statement), if it serves the proof.

 

If a proof consists of *untrue* statements, then it is not possible for the

proof to be *true*.

 

Please tell me HOW an untrue statement "serves" a proof which is supposed to

be true?

 

Also, please declare NOW in advance, whether *every* statement and argument

you have made is something you agree with, or yet another supposedly untrue

statement, so that you do again renounce something you have said when it is

used to defeat you.

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

_______________

Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!

http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

[Guest guest]

> Also, please declare NOW in advance, whether *every* statement and

> argument you have made is something you agree with, or yet another

> supposedly untrue statement, so that you do again renounce something you

> have said when it is used to defeat you.

 

Quit dodging the subject. You were asked to provide proof for your claim

that the July 9th letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's final words on

initiations in ISKCON after his departure. Before you have proven that there

is no need to discuss anything else.

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If a proof consists of *untrue* statements, then it is not possible for

> the proof to be *true*.

 

I agree with you. But please note that I wrote "unproven", not "untrue".

 

> Please tell me HOW an untrue statement "serves" a proof which is supposed

> to be true?

 

I agree with you that an untrue statement cannot serve a proof. But please

note that I wrote "unproven", not "untrue". An unproven statement can be

true.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta prabhu,

 

Hare Krsna! PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I am so glad that you have taken the reigns of these

discussions and steered them toward their proper

place, namely arguments that are based on the details

of arguing. By doing so, you are showing just how

ridiculous the rtviks are in arguing their meaningless

conclusions in the first place! I love to see persons

like Deepak and Bhakta Mark trying desperately to

argue you back. Reminds me of a monkey on a stick. Too

bad the other rtvik advocates dropped out so soon.

Naturally all the other ISKCON Vaishnavas in this

forum have gone back to their blissful devotional

service, with big smiles on their faces. Since the

rtviks are simply pasandis at the feet of the ISKCON

preachers and have nothing but criticism and hatred,

it is great that you are engaging such snakelike

personalities by reversing back at them their own

rules for inane discussion.

 

Hoping the rtviks can put down their anger long

enough to see their own folly and join us in our

preaching work of spreading Krsna Consciousness.

Although they may be acting like snake birds, that can

easily change by the mercy of Lord Chaitanya.

 

In the service of Sri Guru and Gauranga!

 

Mahashakti dasa

--- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich -

CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote:

 

> Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> > If a proof consists of *untrue* statements, then

> it is not possible for

> > the proof to be *true*.

>

> I agree with you. But please note that I wrote

> "unproven", not "untrue".

>

> > Please tell me HOW an untrue statement "serves" a

> proof which is supposed

> > to be true?

>

> I agree with you that an untrue statement cannot

> serve a proof. But please

> note that I wrote "unproven", not "untrue". An

> unproven statement can be

> true.

>

> ys Ramakanta dasa

>

>

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

> To from this mailing list, send an email

> to:

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

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meet the all-new My - Try it today!

 

[Guest guest]

ALL GLORIES TO SRILA PRABHUPADA

 

PAMHO

 

Ramakanta say's

 

Quote:

Do we need Shastric evidence for Ritvik?

 

Yes. Srila Narottama Das Thakur said "sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya cittete koriya

akya".

 

> OR Do they(Ramakanta) need to provide evidence to show that Srila

> Prabhupada WAS NOT a bonafide Acarya?

 

Nonsense! No comment.

 

 

Why no comment Ramakanta prabhu?

 

We have already established that Srila Prabhupda established Ritvik system!

And you agree with this. You have provided no evidence that the Order was to

stop.

 

Yes Guru,Sadhu, Sastra, should all match!

 

But what you are saying is that they should match on Ritvik and Not the

Order of the Bonafide Acarya.

 

So you seem to be arguing that Srila Prabhupada was not Bonafide and

therefore had no right to make such an Order.

 

Please provide evidence, guru, sadhu, sastra, that the Bonafide Spirtual

Masters Order should not be followed.

 

In my previous post I provided you evidence in practical terms where Srila

Prabhupada initiated devotees without being physically present.

 

You have chosen not to comment about this. Why?

 

So I guess that disproves your theory that He has to be there physically to

perform the Diksa initiation ceremony.

 

But what is of more interest to me is, why' you are saying that Guru, Sadhu,

Sastra, are not in agreement that we should follow the Bonafide Spiritual

Master's Order.

 

How do you draw that assumption?

 

ys

Mark

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta Mark, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Why no comment Ramakanta prabhu?

 

The nonsense is that anyone could get the idea that anyone considers that

Srila Prabhupada was not a bonafide Acarya. I do not comment such nonsense.

(Please correct me if I misunderstood your question).

 

> We have already established that Srila Prabhupda established Ritvik

> system! And you agree with this. You have provided no evidence that the

> Order was to stop.

 

And you have not provided any evidence that the order was to be continued.

 

> But what you are saying is that they should match on Ritvik and Not the

> Order of the Bonafide Acarya.

 

Can you please quote my statement where I said that.

 

> In my previous post I provided you evidence in practical terms where Srila

> Prabhupada initiated devotees without being physically present.

 

What do you mean by "physical present"? Please define.

 

> You have chosen not to comment about this. Why?

 

I commented about it, saying that Srila Prabhupada was not talking about

physical presence.

 

> So I guess that disproves your theory that He has to be there physically

> to perform the Diksa initiation ceremony.

 

Please note my definition of physical presence: "An interactive

communication is possible". According to my definition, the body of the guru

does not have to be within a radius of 20 meters around the fire at the time

of the initiation ceremony.

 

> But what is of more interest to me is, why' you are saying that Guru,

> Sadhu, Sastra, are not in agreement that we should follow the Bonafide

> Spiritual Master's Order.

 

Can you please quote my statement where I said that.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

>"Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN)" <Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

 

>Quit dodging the subject. You were asked to provide proof for your claim

>that the July 9th letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's final words on

>initiations in ISKCON after his departure. Before you have proven that

>there

>is no need to discuss anything else.

 

Before you try and jump in and help Ramakanta Prabhu debate with myself,

maybe you need to stop contradicting Ramakanta Prabhu.

 

You claimed:

 

"He didn't initiate the ritvik system in the first place, so your point is

moot. [...] You only have KK Desai's word in TFO that SP instituted a ritvik

system."

 

Yet Ramakanta claims that Srila Prabhupada not only instituted the ritvik

system, but he did it way before 1977:

 

"When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system (not on July 9th, but

already before that date)," (Ramakanta, 12 January 2005)

 

Hence you saying that "You only have KK Desai's word in TFO that SP

instituted a ritvik system", can change to at least "You only have KK Desai

and Ramakanta's word that SP instituted a ritvik system."

 

Regardless of when the Ritvik system should *end*, you should at least have

the common courtesy to agree with Ramakanta regarding *who started* it. You

would be better off doing that first before you jump in trying to 'assist'

him.

 

_______________

Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

BTW. We received your text twice.

 

> Before you try and jump in and help Ramakanta Prabhu debate with myself,

> maybe you need to stop contradicting Ramakanta Prabhu.

 

I always assumed that Jahnu Dvipa Prabhu meant a permanent ritvik system.

 

Jahnu Dvipa Prabhu, is my assumption correct?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

1) You said the following regarding the same statement, and it was this

statement of yours I was referring to:

 

>The fact that I quoted the statement *does not mean that it is true* or

>that I agree with it."

(20 January 2005)

 

Since you have agreed with me that only true statements can serve a proof,

the above is not correct. You have quoted the statement to serve a proof

and therefore it *must* be true.

 

2) Also it is incorrect to say:

 

>You are trying to defeat my argument by using an unproven statement (from

>Krishnakant) which > I do not agree with."

 

Since you now agree that Krishnakant's statement must be *true* in order to

serve your proof, you have to agree with it - or are you in the habit of

disagreeing with truth? If so, it would explain your opposition to the

ritvik system!!

 

3) Just as only *true* statements can render a proof as *true*, only

*proven* statements can render a proof as *proven*. Hence you cannot use

any statement unless it BOTH *true* and *proven*, as part of a proof. Once

all the individual statements of your proof are *proven* to be *true*, THEN

the proof is automatically proven. That is how a proof works.

 

Therefore you need to FIRST PROVE Krishnakant's statement before it can be

used to serve a proof.

 

In conclusion:

 

Statements used to serve a proof must:

 

a) Be *true*

 

b) Agreeable to you if you believe in truth (which you must do otherwise why

bother with "proofs"? You could just present "lies" instead).

 

c) Be *proven*

 

Ys

Deepak

 

>"Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)"

><Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

>"Deepak Vohra" <dv108 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>, "Initiations in ISKCON"

><Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

>RE: can someone give sastric and sadhu validations for ritvikism

>Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:54 +0100

>

>Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> > If a proof consists of *untrue* statements, then it is not possible for

> > the proof to be *true*.

>

>I agree with you. But please note that I wrote "unproven", not "untrue".

>

> > Please tell me HOW an untrue statement "serves" a proof which is

>supposed

> > to be true?

>

>I agree with you that an untrue statement cannot serve a proof. But please

>note that I wrote "unproven", not "untrue". An unproven statement can be

>true.

>

>ys Ramakanta dasa

 

_______________

Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!

http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Do you want to play argumentation games with me, or do your want to refute

my proofs?

 

> Since you have agreed with me that only true statements can serve a proof,

> the above is not correct. You have quoted the statement to serve a proof

> and therefore it *must* be true.

 

Are you aware of what you are saying? I just have to quote a statement to

serve a proof and then that statement automatically must be true? Well:

 

"Srila Prabhupada did not introduce a permanent ritvik system because (now

the statement that serves the proof:) Srila Prabhupada did not introduce a

permanent ritvik."

 

I am not perfect. So first I can think that a statement is true and use it

in my proof. And then later realize that the statement is not true. I have

already removed that statement from my proof #3. Soon I will post the

revised proof #3, provided I have time. In the mean-time you can try to

refute my proofs #1 and #2.

 

> Since you now agree that Krishnakant's statement must be *true* in order

> to serve your proof,

 

I do not agree that Krishnakant's statement is true. I will no longer use it

to serve my proofs.

 

> Therefore you need to FIRST PROVE Krishnakant's statement before it can be

> used to serve a proof.

 

Which statement do you mean?

 

I do not need to proof following statement because I no longer agree with

it, I don't think that is it true, and I will not use it in my proofs

anymore:

 

"Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct

application of his instructions."

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

> >"Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN)" <Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

>

> >Quit dodging the subject. You were asked to provide proof for your claim

> >that the July 9th letter constitutes Srila Prabhupada's final words on

> >initiations in ISKCON after his departure. Before you have proven that

> >there

> >is no need to discuss anything else.

>

> Before you try and jump in and help Ramakanta Prabhu debate with myself,

> maybe you need to stop contradicting Ramakanta Prabhu.

>

> You claimed:

 

Before we get into the usual irrelevancies you always launch into to dodge

the subject, let's look at what YOU claim:

 

You claim that the July 9th letter constitute the final words from

Prabhupada on how initiations in ISKCON were to proceed in his absence. What

is your proof of that? This I need to know from you before we can discuss

any further, because that is what it boils down to. You always try to escape

by issuing forth a barrage of claims and counter claims. But in your

eagerness you have forgotten that he onus of proof is entirely on you. It is

exactly like Sankarsana Prabhu told you, no one in ISKCON has anything to

prove to you. YOU have to prove YOUR claim. Without resorting to various

obfuscations please state clearly what is the proof of you claim?

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>Do you want to play argumentation games with me, or do your want to refute

>my proofs?

 

To help you see that you were inconsistent in the use of your arguments is

not an "argumentation game", but rather the process of argumentation itself.

You should be glad that this inconsistency of yours has been exposed and

cleared up.

 

>Are you aware of what you are saying? I just have to quote a statement to

>serve a proof and then that statement automatically must be true?

 

As is clear from what I wrote, I was referring to what would constitute a

consistent position for YOU - that is YOU should only use statements that

you believe to be true in a proof, otherwise it is deliberately misleading.

Now who is playing "argumentation games?"

 

Now that you have eliminated an incorrect method presenting your proofs -

using as part of a proof a statement you believed to be untrue - I will move

on next to refuting your proof. Because everything must be done in order,

one step at a time. All incorrect statements must be eliminated as soon as

they are made.

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

_______________

Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Guest guest]

> Now that you have eliminated an incorrect method presenting your proofs -

> using as part of a proof a statement you believed to be untrue - I will

> move on next to refuting your proof. Because everything must be done in

> order, one step at a time. All incorrect statements must be eliminated as

> soon as they are made.

 

That's rich coming from you.

 

Your first incorrect statement is that the July 9th letter constitutes the

final words from Prabhupada on how initiations in ISKCON were to proceed in

his absence. Let's eliminate that to begin with.

 

You try to glide off by issuing forth a barrage of statements and counter

statements, but you seem to have forgotten that he onus of proof is entirely

on you. It is exactly like Sankarsana Prabhu told you, no one in ISKCON has

anything to prove to you. YOU have to prove YOUR statement. Without

resorting to various obfuscations please state clearly what is the proof of

your idea that the July 9th letter is Prabhupada's final word on initiation?

[Guest guest]

>

> Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN) [Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

> Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:40 AM

> Deepak Vohra; Initiations in ISKCON

> RE: can someone give sastric and sadhu validations for

> ritvikism

 

>Quit dodging the subject.

 

> You claim that the July 9th letter constitute the final words from

> Prabhupada on how initiations in ISKCON were to proceed in his absence.

What

> is your proof of that? This I need to know from you before we can discuss

> any further, because that is what it boils down to.

 

 

How can I discuss with you when the ritvik system ends, when you will not

even concede that Srila Prabhupada STARTED it?

At least Ramakanta Prabhu admits Srila Prabhupada instituted the ritvik

system. I will remind you again of the subject YOU are dodging:

 

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

You claimed:

 

"He didn't initiate the ritvik system in the first place, so your point is

moot. [...] You only have KK Desai's word in TFO that SP instituted a ritvik

system."

 

Yet Ramakanta claims that Srila Prabhupada not only instituted the ritvik

system, but he did it way before 1977:

 

"When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system (not on July 9th, but

already before that date)," (Ramakanta, 12 January 2005)

 

Hence you saying that "You only have KK Desai's word in TFO that SP

instituted a ritvik system", can change to at least "You only have KK Desai

and Ramakanta's word that SP instituted a ritvik system."

 

Regardless of when the Ritvik system should *end*, you should at least have

the common courtesy to agree with Ramakanta regarding *who started* it. You

would be better off doing that first before you jump in trying to 'assist'

him.

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

 

I shall keep posting this until you answer. So either answer or kindly butt

out of my conversation with Ramakanta Prabhu. Thank you.

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

There is no use to debate about the ritvik system if we mean different

things by "ritvik system".

 

By "ritvik system" I mean that another person than the diksa guru is

performing the initiation ceremony.

 

What do you mean by "ritvik system"?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

> How can I discuss with you when the ritvik system ends, when you will not

> even concede that Srila Prabhupada STARTED it?

> At least Ramakanta Prabhu admits Srila Prabhupada instituted the ritvik

> system. I will remind you again of the subject YOU are dodging:

 

Your whole claim of ritvikvada rests on your premise that the July 9th

letter is Srila Prabhupada's final words on initiations in ISKCON. Since you

haven't provided one single piece of evidence in support of that claim nor

the premise, your claim is empty and not worth discussing any further. So, I

ask you again, What is your evidence that the July 9th letter is

Prabhupada's final words on initiations in ISKCON?

[Guest guest]

> Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN)

 

>Your whole claim of ritvikvada rests on your premise that the July 9th

>letter is Srila Prabhupada's final words on initiations in ISKCON. Since

>you haven't provided one single piece of evidence in support of that

>claim nor the premise, your claim is empty and not worth discussing any

>further. So, I ask you again, What is your evidence that the July 9th

>letter is Prabhupada's final words on initiations in ISKCON?

 

How can I discuss with you when the ritvik system ends, when you will

not even concede that Srila Prabhupada STARTED it?

 

At least Ramakanta Prabhu admits Srila Prabhupada instituted the ritvik

system. I will remind you again of the subject YOU are dodging:

 

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

You claimed:

 

"He didn't initiate the ritvik system in the first place, so your point

is moot. [...] You only have KK Desai's word in TFO that SP instituted a

ritvik system."

 

Yet Ramakanta claims that Srila Prabhupada not only instituted the

ritvik system, but he did it way before 1977:

 

"When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system (not on July 9th,

but already before that date)," (Ramakanta, 12 January 2005)

 

Hence you saying that "You only have KK Desai's word in TFO that SP

instituted a ritvik system", can change to at least "You only have KK

Desai and Ramakanta's word that SP instituted a ritvik system."

 

Regardless of when the Ritvik system should *end*, you should at least

have the common courtesy to agree with Ramakanta regarding *who started*

it.

 

You would be better off doing that first before you jump in trying to

'assist' him.

 

I shall keep posting this until you answer. So either answer or kindly

butt out of my conversation with Ramakanta Prabhu. Thank you.

[Guest guest]

> How can I discuss with you when the ritvik system ends, when you will

> not even concede that Srila Prabhupada STARTED it?

>

> At least Ramakanta Prabhu admits Srila Prabhupada instituted the ritvik

> system. I will remind you again of the subject YOU are dodging:

 

There is no need to discuss any further with you since it is obvious that

you have no proof of your ridiculous claim that the July 9th letter is Srila

Prabhupada's final and conclusive words on initiations in ISKCON. That you

keep arguing a case even though you have provided no proof of it just proves

that you are a lawyer, and so you can stop your whole charade of posing as

some bhakta from England, ok? If you are a bhakta I am the pope.