The SAC’s mistake is just like quoting the Vedic injunction that the stool of an animal is impure and then using inference to say that because a cow is an animal, its stool is also impure. Shastra is quoted, but the conclusion itself is still based on inference, not shastra. This is a mistake, however, because there is also a Vedic injunction that says that the stool of a cow is pure. The SAC made the same kind of mistake when they created their overarching principle.Continue Reading

Share:

Sitalatma Das’s First Post In the above post of Sitalatma Das, Damodara Dasa has replied several comments which are as follows, over that Sitalatma Das also replied: Below highlighted lines in Blue color from the first post of Sitalatma Das Damodara Dasa’s Comments:  <<<None of these people are qualified toContinue Reading

Share:

Disclaimer: “This article appeared on my personal Facebook page where I share my thoughts with a certain audience in mind. It isn’t a standalone article either but continues a topic I have been discussing in other posts and comments for quite some time now. I don’t feel I have theContinue Reading

Share:

In the paper The Sunīti Pramāṇa and Set Theory, the authors apply formal logic to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statement in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.12.32 in order to prove that it does not indicate that women are generally disallowed from becoming dīkṣā-guru. However, their application of logic depends on three erroneous maneuvers: 1) accepting the possibilities of falsity or intentional ambiguity within that statement; 2) the unnecessary use of lakṣaṇā-vṛtti (indirect meaning) instead of the statement’s mukhya-vṛtti (direct meaning); and 3) oversimplification of the statement’s grammar to support a naïve, inadequate model of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intent.

Before addressing the authors’ errors of interpretation, I would like to briefly state what the correct understanding of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text is and why it should be read this way.Continue Reading

Share: