|
Reply To Mahesh |
Tue, 9 May 2000 -
| There is some whirling
pool in the water. That is compared with the arguments. Sometimes
these logicians, they create argumental calamity in the process of
devotional service. But Rupa Gosvami recommends that we should not
be deviated by the arguments, karmis, jnanis and yogis. Let them do
their own business. We do not care for them. We give them respect as
far as possible, but we don't, don't accept the path of
karma-jnana-yoga. Jnana-karmady-anavrtam. Jnana-karmady-anavrtam. Anyabhilasita-sunyam jnana-karmady-anavrtam. We should not be deviated by the process of karma-jnana-yoga. That is pure devotional service, suddha-bhakti. Suddha-bhakti. We should stay. We should fix up in suddha-bhakti path.(The Nectar of Devotion Lecture Vrndavana, October 27, 1972) |
Dear Mahesh prabhu,
PAMHO AGSTP
Thank you for your reply. I had asked you for comments on the rebuttal to
Mukunda's paper, wherein it has conclusively been shown that there are no
contradictions in the IRM paper that Mukunda analysed, since you had
previously promoted Mukunda's paper stating it had made many 'good
points'. You have not given any comments on this rebuttal claiming that
you have no
time, but rather you have instead found time to offer your own unsolicited
paper on the subject. Please allow me to reply to this new paper of yours
here. Your comments shall be in speech marks.
| " (C)What may APPEAR as INDIRECT can ALSO APPEAR as DIRECT. Acintya bedabeda tattava. Inconceivable sumultaneous oneness and difference. |
- But that is NOT relevant to the point WE made. We do not dispute whether or not that which is 'indirect' can also 'appear' direct. We only state that Srila Prabhupada does not make a 'direct STATEMENT' where he agrees that he has definitely been poisoned. That's all. A point you do not seem to dispute. To address our actual point what you would need to have argued is that -: An indirect STATEMENT has the same meaning as a direct STATEMENT.
- Thus your example regarding the discipleship of Krsna Das Kaviraja from the Caitanya Caritamrita is not relevant since it seeks to support a point which does not in any case address the point we made. Rather to show the fallacy in our reasoning you would have needed to:
- Give an example whereby Srila Prabhupada makes an INDIRECT STATEMENT.
- Then give a statement from Srila Prabhupada whereby he equates the INDIRECT STATEMENT just mentioned with the meaning of a DIRECT STATEMENT.
In your example you have not done either of the above, since you have simply presented:
- 2 DIRECT statements from Srila
Prabhupada which appear to be in
contradiction - that Krsna das Kaviraja WAS and WAS NOT a direct disciple; - You have then resolved this
contradiction by presenting a 3rd DIRECT
statement from Srila Prabhupada - that he followed, and was a direct disciple since he followed the instructions of Rupa Goswami.
All very nice. But it does not satisfy a) or b) above, which you would need to do if you wish to attack our premise regarding Srila Prabhupada making 'direct statements' on his alleged deliberate poisoning. In any case even if you COULD succeed in making the point you needed to, you still would not have defeated our central point - that Srila Prabhupada does not make a direct statement. You would simply have shown that an indirect statement can mean the same as a direct statement.
| "NOW we will notice *how* LATER ON Srila Prabhupada states DIRECTLY that some has poisoned him. Note: Vahi bat NOT ONLY means "That same discussion" but can ALSO mean: the SAME words or the SAME talk. Srila Prabhupada: Vahi bat... je koi hamko poison kiya. Translation: That same discussion . that someone has poisoned me. So instead of the above translation we have: Translation: That SAME words... THAT: "SOMEONE HAS POISONED ME"." |
- This translation is impossible since the plural of 'that' is 'those'. So you have to say either 'that same word' OR 'those same words'. But 'that same words' is simply nonsensical. So even without getting getting into the Hindi, just your English is wrong. So your translation must be wrong.
- Further you cannot choose 'that word' - since more than one word is referred to - so you would have to pick 'those words'. So you would then have to argue that the translation was:
| Srila Prabhupada: | "Those same words ... that someone has poisoned me". |
But then the Hindi translation becomes very irregular - 'Words' is not the usual translation of 'bhat', but even ALLOWING for that, since bhat is a singular noun, the rendition is usually in the form of 'that same discussion' or 'that same subject' or 'that same talk' etc, not THOSE same words.
- In any case EVEN if we accept your incorrect translation, the new translation now states the opposite of what you are trying to assert. Because the phrase in question was given as an ANSWER by Srila Prabhupada in response to being asked what the cause of his 'mental distress' was. Your new translation now states that the cause of this mental distress was simply 'THOSE SAME WORDS - 'that someone has poisoned me'. According to your translation, Srila Prabhupada is NOT referring to the FACT that 'someone has poisoned him', but only to the WORDS "that someone has poisoned him". Your new translation therefore actually weakens the case for Srila Prabhupada stating directly that 'someone has poisoned me'. Indeed it is is ironic that your new translation weakens your claim even more than the original IRM translation of "that same discussion/talk/subject", that you tried to replace. At least originally we had a whole discussion that was the causing 'mental distress'. You have now simply reduced this down to a few WORDS!
In conclusion the IRM contention that Srila
Prabhupada did NOT make a direct statement where he definitely
agrees that he has been poisoned stands. And as we have pointed out
continuously - this is ALL we say. I am at a loss to see what all
the fuss is about to be honest. You asked at the outset of your
paper that you 'hope we can clear up any misunderstanding'.
I hope this has done that.
Thank you very much.