Proof #1 that ritvikvada is wrong

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta Mark, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> What you are saying doesn't make sense!

 

What statement from me didn't you understand? You can always ask, if

something is not clear.

 

> So how does Sankarsan das ask Srila Prabhupada a question now?

 

He can ask Srila Prabhupada a question but there will be no interactive

communication unless he does channeling.

 

> Interactive communication (as you put it) is still there!!!

>

> Srila Prabhupada:"Although a Physical body is not present, the vibration

> should be accepted as the presence of the spiritual master. Vibration ---

> what we have heard from the spiritual master---That is living".

> (Lecture, January 13, 1969, Los Angeles)

 

This is a one-way information flow (siksa) from the guru to the disciple.

 

> If physical interactive communication was needed as you say?

 

Please don't twist my words. I wrote "is possible", not "is needed".

 

> > You cannot understand the truth just by observing how a pure vaisnava

> > did something.

>

> Above is a typical BOGUS answer!

 

So CC Madhya 23.39 is bogus.

 

> Are you saying that approach is confined to physical approach?

 

What do you mean by "physical approach"?

 

> > Did the change happen in ISKCON only? Or did it change on that date for

> > all gurus on the planet? Did it change on all planets or even in all

> > universes?

>

> Does this Matter?

 

I was just curious. I just wanted to know for example if in the future one

can also take initiation from Narayana Maharaja even after he departed.

 

> Are you ready to accept Srila Prabhupada's ORDER?

 

Yes.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

If I may briefly interject. In response to the question:

 

> > So how does Sankarsan das ask Srila Prabhupada a question now?

 

Ramakanta Prabhu responded:

 

>He can ask Srila Prabhupada a question but there will be no interactive

>communication unless he does channeling.

 

 

Ramakanta Prabhu fails to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada communicates

interactively through his books:

 

 

Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you're not present with us, how is it

possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise...

 

Srila Prabhupada: Well the questions are answ...answers are there in my

books.

(Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)

 

"So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books.

Then *all* your questions will be answered." (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76)

 

"If it is possible to go to the temple, then take advantage of the temple. A

temple is a place where by one is given the opportunity to render direct

devotional service to the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna. In conjunction with this

you should always read my books daily and *all* your questions will be

answered and you will have a firm basis of Krishna Consciousness. In this

way your life will be perfect." (Letter to Hugo Salemon, 22/11/74)

 

"Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice, in the

morning and evening, and *automatically all questions will be answered*." (

Letter to Randhira, 24/01/70)

 

"In my books the philosophy of Krsna Consciousness is *explained fully* so

if there is anything you do not understand, then you simply have to read

again and again. By reading daily the knowledge will be revealed to you and

by this process your spiritual life will develop." (Letter to Brahmarupa

dasa, 22/11/74)

 

Paramahamsa: My question is, a pure devotee, when he comments on Bhagavad

Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in contact

with the commentary, explanation, is this the same thing?

 

Srila Prabhupada: YES. You can associate with Krsna by reading

Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their

explanations, comments. *So where is the difficulty*? (Morning Walk, Paris

11/6/74)

 

"So there is *nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have

spoken in my books*. Now you try to understand it and continue your

endeavor. Whether I am present or not present, it doesn't matter."

(Vrindavan, Arrival Speech 17/5/77)

 

Please note:

 

1) SP emphasises that ALL questions are already answered in his books.

 

2) SP emphasises that his physical presence is irrelevant in answering

questions, since he has already given ALL the answers in his books.

 

3) With regard to Sankarsan Prabhu, Ramakanta Prabhu states:

 

>He can ask Srila Prabhupada a question but there will be no interactive

>communication unless he does channeling.

 

I assume Sankarsana Prabhu agrees with this statement from Ramakanta Prabhu,

which then naturally begs the question: WHO is the "living guru" with whom

Sankarsana is interactively communicating with?

 

Ys

Deepak

 

_______________

It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You had tried to refute my first response to your proof - that one can

simply add and subtract the word "not" to reach an opposite conclusion - by

claiming that you had done precisely the same to the statements of

Krishnakant to derive your statements in the first place:

 

>I took Krishnakant's statements, simply removed the word "not" in

>statement (2), and added the word "not" to statement (3), and used

>Krishnakant's statement to defeat himself. If you revert the change, then

>of

>course you will again get Krishnakant's statements."

 

But in order to do this you have needed to quote Krishnakant stating the

following:

 

>The statement 'for the initiation the physical presence of the diksa guru

>is NOT required' is true, if the opposite is not mentioned by guru, sadhu

>or

>sastra. (2)

 

>It is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra that for the initiation the

>physical presence of the diksa guru is required. (3)

 

But none of the 4 quotes from Krishnakant you have produced match the above

two statements. Thus we see that you have been exposed again, because the

statements you have produced from Krishnakant do NOT produce statements (2)

and (3) of your proof via the addition and subtraction of the word "not" as

you claimed.

 

This is the second time that you have falsely tried to invoke Krishnakant's

statements to serve your statements, and the second time you have been

caught out. Kindly try and learn to be ACCURATE in what you say, otherwise

your errors will continue to be pointed out.

 

As I said in my other post, now that your false statements have been

exposed, I can move on to refuting your proof. Thank you.

 

Y/s

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: Proof #1 that ritvikvada is wrong

>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:42 +0100

>

>Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> > You have claimed your "proof" is derived from taking statements

> > Krishnakant has made and simply adding or subtracting the word "not".

> > Could you please give me the reference of where Krishnakant states

>exactly

> > what your proof states (minus or plus the word "not"), so I can first

>see

> > the background of where all this is coming from, before responding to

>your

> > derived "proof"?

>

>You don't have to know the background of a proof. It could have been

>produced by millions of monkeys running over a typewriter or however.

>Proof is proof. Either you accept it or you refute it:

>

>(1) "A statement is true, if the opposite is not mentioned by guru, sadhu

>or

>sastra."

>

>Do you agree with that? Yes or No?

>

>(3) "It is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra that for the initiation

>the physical presence of the diksa guru is not required."

>

>Probably you don't agree. So please present the quotes saying the opposite.

>

>(5) "Srila Prabhupada is not physically present anymore".

>

>Probably you agree with that.

>

>

>Just to satisfy you curiousity, here are some quotes from Krishnakant:

>

>"The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow

>the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could

>only follow it in his physical presence." (TFO)

>

>"There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with

>physical presence." (TFO)

>

>"Such a sastric principle - stating that continuing initiation without the

>physical presence of the Diksa Guru is a violation - is not found anywhere

>in Srila Prabhupada's teachings."

>(www.iskconirm.com/bhadra_balaram_monkeybusiness.htm)

>

>"There are NO sastric injunctions preventing a diksa guru from initiating

>just because he is not physically present on the same planet as his

>prospective disciple." (www.iskconirm.com/unpresidented.htm)

>

>Obviously he used following argument:

>

>"A statement is true, if the opposite is not mentioned by guru, sadhu or

>sastra."

>

>ys Ramakanta dasa

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Ramakanta Prabhu fails to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada communicates

> interactively through his books:

 

This is not the dictionary meaning of "interactive". The dictionary meaning

is "acting or capable of acting on each other" or "mutually or reciprocally

active".

 

And this is not what I meant by "interactive communucation". Please

carefully read again my definition.

 

> I assume Sankarsana Prabhu agrees with this statement from Ramakanta

> Prabhu, which then naturally begs the question: WHO is the "living guru"

> with whom Sankarsana is interactively communicating with?

 

There is no interactive communucation between the living entities on this

planet and Srila Prabhupada possible anymore, unless one does channeling.

 

For most or all of us only the one-way flow of information from Srila

Prabhupada's books is possible.

 

If you still think that you can interactively communicate with Srila

Prabhupada, then please ask him where he is now or what is his name now, and

tell us the answer.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> There is no interactive communucation between the living entities on this

planet and Srila Prabhupada possible

> anymore, unless one does channeling.

 

But even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, the vast majority of

devotees had NO "interactive communication" (according to the definition you

intend) with Srila Prabhupada at all, having never seen him or communicated

with him personally. So how did THEY become initiated disciples without

such personal "interactive communication"? How did THEY "approach",

"inquire from" and "render service" (Bg. 4.34) to Srila Prabhupada?

 

> For most or all of us only the one-way flow of information from Srila

Prabhupada's books is possible.

 

Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you're not present with us, how is it

possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise...

 

Srila Prabhupada: Well the questions are answ...answers are there in my

books.

(Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)

 

Questions and answers are a two-way flow of communication.

 

> you still think that you can interactively communicate with Srila

Prabhupada, then please ask him where he is now or what is > his name now,

and tell us the answer.

 

You should know, since you write Vyasa Puja offerings to Srila Prabhupada

every year.

 

"Krsna and his representative are the same. Similarly, the spiritual master

can be present wherever the disciple wants. A spiritual master is the

principle, not the body. Just like a television can be seen in thousands of

place by the principle of relay monitoring." (Letter to Malati, 28/5/68)

 

"You have asked if it is true that the spiritual master remains in the

universe until all his disciples are transferred to the spiritual sky. The

answer is yes, this is the rule." (Letter to Jayapataka, 11/7/69)

 

So from these two statements we can ascertain that:

 

1) Srila Prabhupada is present wherever the disciple wants.

 

2) Srila Prabhupada remains in the universe.

 

So you need to start seeing Srila Prabhupada as a SPIRITUAL master, not as a

PHYSICAL master ("A spiritual master is the principle, not the body.")

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

>

> Ramakanta Prabhu responded:

>

> >He can ask Srila Prabhupada a question but there will be no interactive

> >communication unless he does channeling.

>

>

> Ramakanta Prabhu fails to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada communicates

> interactively through his books:

 

K. Kant Desai (Deepak) fails to acknowledge that he has not yet provided any

proof for his claim that the July 9th letter is THE final word from

Prabhupada on initiations in ISKCON. So I ask again what is the evidence of

his claim? The more he ignores this reasonable request, the more obvious it

will be to everyone that he cannot back up his case. That he cares more for

word-wranglings than the truth shows that he is an atheist.

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I used Krishnakant's arguments, not literally though. If I used them

literally, then I would have written so, I would have witten: "Krishnakant

wrote: 'blah blah.'".

 

Anyway, it is not important how the proof has been produced.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> But even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, the vast majority of

> devotees had NO "interactive communication" (according to the definition

> you intend) with Srila Prabhupada at all, having never seen him or

> communicated with him personally. So how did THEY become initiated

> disciples without such personal "interactive communication"?

 

Please don't twist my words. I wrote "is possible", not "is required".

 

By "interactive communication" I do not mean reading books, letters or

transcribed lectures and conversations, or listening to recorded lectures

and conversations after the other person has left the body.

 

(I did not write this earlier because I thought that my definition

"the other person receives the question" made this obvious.)

 

Generally it is not a good idea to speculate. You can always ask me if you

correctly understood my statements or not, instead of investing time to

refute a argument which I never wrote.

 

> Srila Prabhupada: Well the questions are answ...answers are there in my

> books. (Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)

>

> Questions and answers are a two-way flow of communication.

 

Did he say "questions are answ...answers" or "questions er answ...answers"?

Both sound very similar (remember that is was a morning walk with a reduced

acoustic quality of the recording). The first certainly does not mean

"questions and answers" and the second just means that he wanted to say

"answers" instead of "questions".

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>I used Krishnakant's arguments, not literally though. If I used them

>literally, then I would have written so, I would have witten: "Krishnakant

>wrote: 'blah blah.'".

>

>Anyway, it is not important how the proof has been produced.

>

>ys Ramakanta dasa

 

It is important that you not make mis-leading statements to refute what I

say.

 

Unfortunately you are doing it *again* here. You did not say that you were

using Krishnakant's "arguments". An "argument", of course, is not

necessarily a literal re-production of words.

 

You, however, said you used Krishnakant's STATEMENTS. A statement is a

literal sequence of words.

 

You said you added and subtracted a literal word "not" to these statements,

to then produce another set of statements, which you even produced for us -

statements 2 and 3 from your proof - an exact literal form of words.

Obviously we can only *end up* with a literal form of words in your proof,

to which a literal word "not" is added or removed, if you *begin* with a

literal

form of words. This is such an obvious point, I am surprised you are still

trying to argue it. This is what you said:

 

> I took Krishnakant's statements, simply removed the word "not" in

statement

> (2), and added the word "not" to statement (3), and used Krishnakant's

> statement to defeat himself. If you revert the change, then of course you

> will again get Krishnakant's statements.

 

Thus you claimed to literally take some exact words used by Krishnakant

(="statements"), add or remove a precise literal word ("not"), to produce

the resultant exact literal form of words, which you have given as

statements (2) and (3) of your proof.

 

So you have compounded your misleading postings:

 

You first claimed that you used Krishnakant's words literally to derive your

proof. You then showed yourself that this was actually not the case - no

such statements from Krishnakant existed.

 

Now you claimed that you never stated that you used Krishnakant's exact

words. And I have just shown that you did state this. So the more you keep

trying to avoid conceding the truth of your actions, the more misleading

your postings become!

 

If it is not important how you derived your proof, then why are you making

so many misrepresentations about it? Why not just admit the fact that the

way you came up with the proof had nothing to do with adding or removing the

word "not" to Krishnakant's statements, as you claimed? Thank you.

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Thank you for your answer. But since you have not proven that statement (1),

(3), or (5) in proof #1 is wrong, you have not refuted the proof. (And I

don't mind if you don't.)

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

K.Kant posing as Deepak wrote:

 

> It is important that you not make mis-leading statements to refute what I

> say.

 

There is no need to refute anything you have said, because you have not said

anything substantial. Your claim that the July 9th letter is the final words

from Prabhupada on initiations in ISKCON is an unsubstantiated claim, since

you have provided no evidence of it, so there is no need to discuss any

further until you have come up with some evidence in support your claim.

[Guest guest]

> K. Kant Desai (Deepak) fails to acknowledge that he has not yet provided

> any proof for his claim that the July 9th letter is THE final word from

> Prabhupada on initiations in ISKCON. So I ask again what is the evidence

> of his claim? The more he ignores this reasonable request, the more

> obvious it will be to everyone that he cannot back up his case. That he

> cares more for word-wranglings than the truth shows that he is an atheist.

 

The ritvik movement is doomed to follow the course predicted by Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta (below). As long as they deny Krsnas right to appear as the

Guru to whomever He wishes, whenever He wishes, they must fall into the

category of 'lifeless', no matter how successful they may appear in this

damned world. Unfortunate souls.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur wrote:

 

Atheism under the Convenient Guise of Theism

 

The church that has the best chance of survival in this damned world

is that of atheism under the convenient guise of theism. The churches

have always proved the staunchest upholders of the grossest form of

worldliness from which even the worst of non-ecclesiastical criminals

are found to recoil. It is not from any deliberate opposition to the

ordained clergy that these observations are made. The original

purpose of the established churches of the world may not always be

objectionable. But no stable religious arrangement for instructing

the masses has yet been successful.

 

The Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in pursuance of the

teachings of the scriptures, enjoins all absence of conventionalism

for the teachers of the eternal religion. It does not follow that the

mechanical adoption of the unconventional life by any person will

make him a fit teacher of religion. Regulation is necessary for

controlling the inherent worldliness of the conditioned souls. But no

mechanical regulation has any value, even for such a purpose.

 

The bona fide teacher of religion is neither any product of nor the

favourer of, any mechanical system. In his hands no system has

likewise, the chance of degenerating into a lifeless arrangement. The

mere pursuit of fixed doctrines and fixed liturgies can not hold a

person to the true spirit of doctrine or liturgy.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>Thank you for your answer. But since you have not proven that statement

>(1), (3), or (5) in proof #1 is wrong, you have not refuted the proof.

>(And I don't mind if you don't.)

 

Thank you for your response. As I stated, your proof will refuted as soon

as you concede that you have made misleading statements. You already did

that for the first thing I pointed out, and as soon as you do it here, we

can proceed. Otherwise there is absolutely no point trying to talk

about 'proof' and 'truth' if you will not even admit your mistakes in

making incorrect statements.

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> As I stated, your proof will refuted as soon as you concede that you have

> made misleading statements.

 

You wrote: "A statement is a literal sequence of words."

 

That is only one of the meanings of "statement". When you look in the

dictionaries (e.g. at www.dictionary.com), you will see that there are other

meanings:

 

- An abstract of a commercial or financial account showing an amount due;

a bill.

(This is not a literal sequence of words but mainly consiste of numbers.)

 

- An elementary instruction in a programming language.

(This is not a literal sequence of words but consists of symbols and

digits.)

 

- An overall impression or mood intended to be communicated, especially by

means other than words. A nonverbal message.

(This is not at all expressed by words.)

 

- The presentation of a musical theme.

(This is not at all expressed by words.)

 

- A fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true.

[syn: argument]

 

The meaning has to be taken according to the context. For example if we are

talking about finances, then "statement" means "statement of account", or if

we are talking about computer programs, then statement means "computer

instruction".

 

Since we are arguing, the obvious meaning of "statement" is "argument". If

you understand something different, then that is your fault. My proof is not

refuted just because you misunderstood me.

 

This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

words, and then added or removed the word "not".

 

BTW. Who wrote following literal sequence of words? Krishnakant?

 

"There is not ONE place in Srila Prabhupada's books where Srila Prabhupada

has stated "the necessity of taking initiation from a Guru who is physically

present," what to speak of such a statement being “emphasized” repeatedly.

If Tripurari or anyone else can find such a statement from Srila

Prabhupada's books, the IRM will immediately give them a $1000 reward."

 

Isn't "the necessity of taking initiation from a Guru who is physically

present" identical to "For the initiation the physical presence of the diksa

guru is required"?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

> Thank you for your response. As I stated, your proof will refuted as soon

> as you concede that you have made misleading statements. You already did

> that for the first thing I pointed out, and as soon as you do it here, we

> can proceed. Otherwise there is absolutely no point trying to talk

> about 'proof' and 'truth' if you will not even admit your mistakes in

> making incorrect statements.

 

That's rich coming from you. You won't even admit that you keep beating a

dead horse, since you have offered absolutely no evidence for your claim

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

initiations in ISKCON. So what's it going to be? Are you going to provide

some proof of your claim, and if you can't, will you be honest enough to

admit it? Personally I think you wouldn't know honesty if it fell on your

head, but let's see what you come with. Another obfuscation, I bet.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You admit that you took Krishnakant's statement and *re-wrote* it in your

own words, and then amended YOUR words:

 

> This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

> words, and then added or removed the word "not"."

 

But you earlier contradicted what you are saying now, by saying you did

something different - that you took Krishnakant's words and added the word

"not" to HIS words:

 

> I took Krishnakant's statements, simply removed the word "not" in

statement

> (2), and added the word "not" to statement (3), and used Krishnakant's

> statement to defeat himself.

 

Here you falsely claim that it was Krishnakant's statement you removed the

word "not" from, not that statement re-written in your own words.

 

You admit that after *taking* Krishnakant's statement, you arrived at YOUR

words:

 

> then expressed it in MY words.

 

So are YOUR words the same as Krishnakant's statements?

 

In trying to avoid conceding the obvious, your arguments are, with respect,

becoming more ludicrous. Now you have invented a new system of language

whereby the statements of others re-written in YOUR words, *remain* the

statement that was

re-written!

 

In refusing to admit the obvious - that you misled the conference in

claiming it was Krishnakant's statements you removed one word from to arrive

at your statement, rather than admitting it was your *own* RE-written words

which were used - you are simply making more and more nonsensical arguments.

 

(Like claiming someone else's statement is the same as re-writing that

statement in YOUR own words. Someone else's words are THEIR statement. That

statement re-written in YOUR words, becomes YOUR statement. Such a simple

kindergarten point.)

 

So please concede the obvious and we can move on in our discussion,

otherwise I will be forced to continue to show how ludicrous this new system

of language you have invented is. Thank you.

 

Ys,

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> So please concede the obvious and we can move on in our discussion

 

You remain defeated by me until you have refuted my proofs. So of course I

am not at all interested that you refute my proofs. Therefore I will not

concede anything so that you will not move on in our discussion and refute

my proofs.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa