text:
H.G. RAVINDRA SVARUPA'S .... FOUR-STEP-VADA
This is a response to a paper entitled "Srila Prabhupada's Guru System vs. Ritvikvada: The Facts Plain And Simple". This paper was posted by Jahnu Dasa (a disciple of H.H. Harikesa Swami) on 27/4/98, and subsequently, onto vaisnava discussion/news web sites, with His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu named as the author.
It is a curious title to begin with, since as far as we can determine ritvik WAS Srila Prabhupada's chosen guru system. The continued following of this system in no way entails the crafting of any separate philosophy or vada as seems to be implied. It strikes us as bizarre, therefore, to set Srila Prabhupada in opposition with his own explicit signed order. To even contemplate making such a proposition one would think H.G.Ravindra Svarupa prabhu (henceforth referred to as 'the author') must have stumbled onto some very convincing evidence proving that the ritvik system was meant to stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the 11 ritviks were then to transmogrify into as-good-as-God diksa gurus (modifications A & B from 'The Final Order'). So does the author offer clear explicit evidence supporting modifications A & B? Unfortunately not. His 'evidence' comprises of nothing more than repeating these modifications in a condensed form:
It was understood that these proxies (ritviks) would go on to initiate their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure.
We were already aware as to what the GBC now say was 'understood' - (leaving aside the fact that this 'understanding' was itself radically altered in the mid-eighties by the author himself) - that is why we formulated them as modifications A & B and stuck them on page 2 of 'The Final Order'. What we were really hoping to see was evidence which supports these modifications. To just say modifications A and B were 'understood' completely misses the whole point of 'The Final Order' paper. Instead of providing the requisite evidence, the author presents his own 'four-step-vada', relying heavily on a conversation (May 28th) which supports the ritvik system after departure, and which in any case has been rendered currently inadmissible by the GBC's own investigative expert. Thus once more we are offered an article riddled with inaccuracy, misrepresentation and irrelevancy.
There are two things notable about the paper - "Srila Prabhupada's Guru System vs. Ritvikvada: The Facts Plain And Simple". Firstly, the author offers very little by way of his own words or new arguments. 95% of the paper is simply him directing us to look at three other papers - "Where the Ritvik People Are Wrong", "Disciple of My Disciple", and the "Timeless Order". He seems oblivious to the fact that these papers have already been soundly rebutted, (and that in any case all three contradict each other and the author himself). For the debate to continue meaningfully the author needs to address our refutations, not merely re-present defeated arguments. We noted a similar problem with another recent GBC paper, 'Ritvik Catechism'. Is it that the GBC are deliberately targeting a temple audience who may not have had the chance to read the relevant counter arguments? Or perhaps they are hoping that most people will not take the time and trouble to follow the debate. We cannot think of any other explanation for the continual recycling of already rebutted arguments. If this is the GBC's strategy, it is certainly high risk, and could back-fire on them very badly. At the very least there should be some attempt to explain why all the numerous counter-arguments, thus far presented by us, are not valid.
Secondly, apart from the three occasions he quotes directly from the "The Final Order', the author consistently fails to address our stated position, offering instead numerous 'straw man' arguments. Once again this is in keeping with other recent GBC papers including one by the author (please see 'His Grace Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu Defends his MASS). Why the GBC should constantly avoid a proper point for point rebuttal of 'The Final Order' is bewildering since this is what devotees on both sides of the debate have been calling for. The GBC and their supporters have gone to all the trouble of preparing many papers claiming to address the 'ritvik' question, but not one attempts a point for point rebuttal of the definitive ritvik paper that the GBC originally commissioned- 'The Final Order'. Instead they present assertions and arguments we never make, and defeat them instead. For example we clearly demonstrated that approximately 50% of the GBC's official response to 'The Final Order', called 'Disciple of my Disciple', consisted of straw man arguments (please see- 'The Final Order Still Stands'). Our complaint has never been challenged by anyone. Surely someone in the GBC must recognise the futility of such an approach. As long as they do not, the controversy can only grow.
Below we shall concentrate on arguments made by the author which have not already been refuted in our responses to - "Where the Ritvik People Are Wrong", "Disciple of My Disciple", and the "Timeless Order". Quotes from the author shall be boxed. Our responses will follow.
The Case For Proxy-Initiation:
1. "Henceforward" in July 9th Letter
2. Statements That Support Proxy-Initiation
3. "My Disciples" and "System Of Management Should Not Change" in Srila Prabhupada's Will
4. "But When I Order" &"When I Order" in May 28th Conversation
5. Topanga Canyon Talk
6. Guru Qualification & Authorization
Above the author inaccurately summarises our position without once quoting from 'The Final Order', or even referring to its central argument regarding modifications A & B.
A letter dated July 9th, 1977 was composed by Tamal Krishna Goswami and approved by Srila Prabhupada as follows:
It is irrelevant and speculative to state the letter was 'composed' by His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami. Can the author prove exactly how the letter arose? Maybe Srila Prabhupada composed or dictated it? In any event, since Srila Prabhupada 'approved' it, every word has the same authority as if it came from Srila Prabhupada himself.
The proxy-initiation adherents postulate that the above letter constitutes a "final order" or "policy document" on how initiations will take place after Srila Prabhupada's departure.
In what sense is it mere 'postulation' to state that this is a 'policy document', or that it is a 'final order'? It is definitely an order. And unless the author has uncovered other subsequent orders relating to the system for initiation to be used within ISKCON, it is most certainly Srila Prabhupada's 'final order'- by definition. Also since it was sent officially to every GBC and Temple President in the movement, it was definitely a 'document' setting out a 'policy' to be applied throughout the whole society. Thus it is unclear how making such factual statements can be classified as mere postulation. Does the author dispute these facts?
They emphasize the word "henceforward" as proof of the eternal nature of this instruction and point out that Srila Prabhupada never issued an instruction to rescind it.
We have never once stated that the word 'henceforward' is proof that the instruction is 'eternal'. The author would know this had he actually studied the position paper which the GBC themselves commissioned. We make it perfectly clear that the July 9th order is only applicable for the duration of ISKCON ('The Final Order' page 36, point 10). Since ISKCON is anticipated to last no more than 10,000 years, it is clear that we have never claimed that this instruction is eternal.
There are obvious flaws with this attempt at trying to isolate the July 9th letter. Notice the first line of the letter states:
"Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana..." This refers back to the May 28th conversation, when Srila Prabhupada was asked specific questions by the GBC on how initiations would be conducted after his physical departure. Srila Prabhupada answered with "regular guru", "his disciple", "disciple of my disciple" and "grand-disciple."
Firstly the author is still apparently clinging to a piece of evidence which the GBC's own world expert examiner has classified inadmissible unless a full forensic investigation is carried out, due to suspected tampering. Even without such tampering, a court of law would never see such taped evidence as precedential over signed legal documents such as the July 9th ritvik order. Even allowing for such evidence to be considered there are other serious points of objection with regards using it to modify Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiations within ISKCON.
If it is indeed the case that the July 9th letter is specifically referring back to the May 28th conversation, and not some other discussion, then the very fact that the letter does not advise the reader to listen to that conversation tape, or read a transcript of it, would clearly indicate that Srila Prabhupada considered the July 9th letter an accurate and complete summary of the conversation. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that a letter relating directly to such a momentous conversation, and which begins by promising to impart the very conclusion of that discussion, would then go on to omit the two most important points, namely modifications A & B. We already covered this point in detail in 'The Final Order' pages 9, page 22, page 25 etc.
Furthermore, the author is misleading his readers by claiming Srila Prabhupada 'answered' with 'regular guru', 'his disciple', 'disciple of my disciple' and 'grand-disciple' the question concerning how initiations would be conducted in his absence. This is simply a fabrication. The author should well know that the question of 'how initiations would be conducted after his physical departure' was the first question asked at the beginning of said conversation. The ANSWER given to THIS question was 'Officiating acarya' and 'ritvik'. Other questions were asked subsequently. The words "regular guru", "disciple of my disciple" and "grand-disciple", were spoken at the very END of the conversation segment in answer to OTHER questions. The words 'his disciple' were also spoken later in the conversation in answer to another question. This misrepresentation is ultimately futile since anyone who studies the conversation can instantly see through it. It is interesting to note at this point how having re-produced the July 9th letter in full, the author has NOT produced the tape transcript he refers to. Doing so would immediately have discredited his supposed version of events about what was 'answered' with what by Srila Prabhupada. For an understanding of what really transpired on May 28th might we humbly refer the reader to 'The Final order' pages 21-26.
Next the author offers his four-step-vada, which he believes proves Srila Prabhupada's desire to implement the M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya successor system) within ISKCON for after his departure:
The guru-succession adherents see the July 9th letter as part of a continuum, a series of events over which Srila Prabhupada directed the transition from his being the sole initiating spiritual master to his disciples' carrying on after his physical departure.
By describing his camp as 'guru succession adherents' the author clearly implies that we do not believe or accept the principle of succession. This is another misrepresentation, albeit subtly executed. As we have said, Srila Prabhupada shall remain our current link in the succession for as long as ISKCON exists.
So here is step one:
First there is the May 28th conversation, where Srila Prabhupada states that he expects his followers to be come regular gurus after his physical departure.
The above is demonstrable nonsense. Nowhere in said conversation does Srila Prabhupada 'state' - 'I expect my followers to become regular gurus after my physical departure'. We challenge anyone to locate such a sentence. It is pure phantasmagoria. Srila Prabhupada clearly answers H.H. Satsvarupa Goswami's first question in favour of the ritvik position: 'officiating acarya', 'is that called ritvik acarya', 'ritvik yes'. No amount of word jugglery can get around this stubborn fact. Later in the conversation Srila Prabhupada only links the possible emergence of 'regular' gurus (a term used here for the first and only time) to his issuing an order, not to his departure. Thus step one on the way to M.A.S.S. heaven does not factually exist, except in the author's mind.
Second, there is the garden conversation of July 7th, where Tamal Krishna Maharaj asks what to do about the backlog of initiations, held up until Srila Prabhupada regains his health. Srila Prabhupada discusses handing over the process of initiation to his senior disciples, who will act as proxies while he is physically present.
Srila Prabhupada never limits the activities of these soon to be appointed proxies to during his physical presence ONLY. To imply that he did would thus be sheer dishonesty. Anyone who reads the conversation will see for themselves that no such statement is ever made.
(That the proxy-initiation system is based on Srila Prabhupada's physical presence is reinforced when Srila Prabhupada is listing which senior devotees should act as proxies for him. Srila Prabhupada says the aspirants should write "whoever is nearest." Tamal Krishna Maharaj asks about initiation requests coming in from India and Srila Prabhupada responds, "India, I am here.")
This 'India I am here' argument has already been dealt with twice before in 'The Final Order Still Stands' (page 14-15) and '...Best Not To Any Accept Disciples' pages 24-25). Suffice to say the author fails to mention that directly after saying 'India I am here' Srila Prabhupada goes on to say 'We shall see. In India Jayapataka.' Why would he say this if the proxy system was only to run during his presence? Thus the second step is also dangerously rickety. Let us see if the third step of the author's M.A.S.S.-vada is any more solid.
Third is the July 9th letter confirming the garden conversation of two days previous and highlighting which senior devotees should start the process.
The July 9th letter sets up the ritvik system and makes absolutely no mention of anyone other than Srila Prabhupada acting as diksa guru for ISKCON. It also says nothing at all about anyone starting any sort of 'process', other than acting from that time onwards as ritviks. To suggest otherwise is wishful fantasy. This third step actually only leads to the ritvik system, the very place the author does not wish to go. At present the author is hovering precariously in mid air, with nowhere to stand. Will the last step offer some support?
Step four:
Finally, after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, those devotees first selected as proxies, step into the role prescribed by Srila Prabhupada in the May 28th conversation: regular gurus.
The only role prescribed by Srila Prabhupada was to act as ritviks. If 'regular guru' means 'diksa guru', then that particular entity cannot act without a specific 'order'. That order was never given. The only order was for ritviks. Further there is no order for these ritviks to 'step into' anything. All step 4 above is, is a statement of what actions the GBC took after 1977, not the evidence to support such a sequence of events.
The above arguments are more fully developed in our responses to the GBC papers 'Disciple of My Disciple' and 'Ritvik Catechism', respectively titled 'Final Order Still Stands' and 'Institutional Cataclysm'.
To summarise our objections to the four-step-vada: there is no EVIDENCE presented by the author to support it. There are no clear explicit statements, or signed documentation from Srila Prabhupada, which in any way demonstrate or support the transition from proxy to diksa guru that the so-called 'guru-succession adherents' claim to 'see'. Without this evidence the author has no case. Simply re-stating that which needs to be proven does not in itself constitute any sort of proof.
We might also ask the following. How can the May 28th Conversation, which 'Disciple of My Disciple' (the official GBC reply which Ravindra prabhu directs us to) claims makes NO reference to proxies, be an explanation of how to modify a letter which 'Disciple of My Disciple' claims deals ONLY with proxies? Perhaps the author will answer this for us.
There are a number of questions to be asked when considering the July 9th letter as a final order on how to conduct initiations after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure:
1.Why would Srila Prabhupada use one letter to introduce a new system of continuing the parampara that went against all of his teachings on the subject for ten years previous?
We have repeatedly asked to see all these 'teachings' from the 'previous ten years' that allegedly prove that Srila Prabhupada must be replaced as the Diksa Guru for ISKCON on his departure. So far we have seen nothing (the evidence offered by the author has already been dealt with and in any case does not even mention the terms 'ritvik' 'diksa' or 'initiate' and is thus irrelevant). Again just stating something does not make it true. Instead of wasting web site with such empty claims, the author would be better advised to produce the actual supporting evidence. In this way we can quickly settle the matter. These bluffing tactics may have worked for the last 20 years, but no longer. Let us see these all these teachings the ritvik system would contravene were it to be re-introduced.
In any case, even though there was NO new system of continuing the parampara introduced, there was not just 'one letter' either. Over 108 'letters' were sent out to every temple president and GBC. There were of course also other supporting instructions. (Please see the 'Final Order').
If Srila Prabhupada had wanted to set up a new system of initiation, that went against the parampara norm, why didn't he write about this in his books? Even after the July 9th letter was issued, during the four month period that followed before Srila Prabhupada's departure, we find no mention of a proxy-initiation system in any of his purports.
How can it be a 'new' system when the use of representatives to assist in initiation ceremonies became the 'norm' after 1973? In fact the ONLY system of initiation for ISKCON that is mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books is fully consistent with the system that was in place when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet. There is certainly no mention of the multiple acharya system, in place in ISKCON now, in Srila Prabhupada's books. Thus the only statements that are in the books regarding initiation in ISKCON are fully consistent with the continuation of the system that was in place in ISKCON when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet. The use of ritviks after July 9th was merely the devolving to representatives the final aspect of initiation that was still performed by Srila Prabhupada - the formal acceptance through the issuing of a spiritual name. Everything else - the pariksa, the subsequent recommendation for initiation, the fire yajna, the chanting on the beads etc., had already been devolved. There is no mention in Srila Prabhupada's books that this system must be replaced with the current multi-guru system, with all its many associated rules and regulations. This subject has already been dealt with extensively in 'The Final Order' pages 27-29.
3. "The Final Order" states: "We have no interest in conspiracy theories..." If the proxy-initiation adherents are not into conspiracy theories, why wouldn't they ask Tamal Krishna Goswami what was meant by the July 9th letter, since he wrote it?
To say we have no interest in 'conspiracy theories' is not synonymous with saying we totally agree with His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami's interpretation of this letter. Maybe he is confused about the letter, perhaps due to the enormous emotional trauma he was experiencing prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure. After all he has given several different interpretations of the letter already. What we are saying is that it is certainly not necessary to bring up unpleasant accusations involving a concerted and deliberate group effort to cover up Srila Prabhupada's instructions in order to establish the ritvik position. We might also humbly point out that it is the proper etiquette, when referring to our sanyasis, to always prefix their name with 'His Holiness'.
As mentioned above, over the years His Holiness Tamal Krishna Maharaja has frequently changed his mind on the exact understanding of this letter:
In 1978 he agreed with the 'zonal acharya' understanding of this letter. In 1980 at Topanga Canyon he gave the 'M.A.S.S.' or multi-guru system version. In 1984, in his book 'Servant of the Servant' he referred back to the 'zonal acharya appointment' theory. In 1986 he supported the 'MASS' version of events. His current position is not known since the official 'final siddhanta' as given in 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON' has resurrected the old 'appointment' theory.
4. If the July 9th letter is indeed such a clear and undisputed policy document, why did it take ten years to be presented as such?
This argument makes no sense since it took the GBC a similar amount of time to understand Srila Prabhupada's 'clear and undisputed' instructions that the zonal acharya system was utterly bogus.
5. Why place so much importance on the word "henceforward" when Srila Prabhupada used the word numerous times in a time-bound sense?
This is just a 'straw-man' argument since the 'Final Order' does not do this. It actually states one could REMOVE the word 'henceforward' from the July 9th letter and not alter the fact that it should have continued to operate after Srila Prabhupada's departure (please see 'The Final Order' page 3). We fully concede that the word 'henceforward' can be used in a time-bound sense. We simply argue that in the final order the word is time-bound to the duration of the ISKCON, the movement for whom, and to whom, the letter was written (please see 'The Final Order' pages 7 & 8).
For a more in-depth study of the above, we suggest you read "Disciple Of My Disciple", "Where The Ritviks Are Wrong" and "The Timeless Order."
Apart from the fact that all these documents have already been rebutted, the author has committed a sloppy blunder in recommending them since, as we have demonstrated in our rebuttal papers, they actually contradict each other (and him).
The author quotes from the July 7th garden conversation, then makes the following observation:
Now, he was naming proxies who were to receive requests for initiation directly, give spiritual names and chant on their beads-all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf while he was physically present.
By stating that this arrangement was meant to occur only for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present, the author has once again simply stated that which needs to be proven. His assertion never appears in the July 7th conversation, nor anywhere else for that matter.
This was quite a big change and immediately puts these newly chosen proxies into a special category. As explained in the first section of this paper, Srila Prabhupada used a four-step continuum of turning the initiation process over to his disciples: May 28th he spoke of his disciples initiating their own disciples after his departure, July 7th he appointed proxies to initiate on his behalf while he was physically present, July 9th Tamal Krishna Goswami composes a letter to inform the Society of what Srila Prabhupada had set up on July 7th, and finally after Srila Prabhupada's departure these proxies begin initiating their own disciples.
Having understood Srila Prabhupada's intentions, let us take another look at those statements:
Again the author has repeated the four-step continuum vada he mentioned earlier without any proof. He is simply saying 'this is what we believe happened. We do not need to present any evidence for this version of events since if we believe that is what happened, then it must have happened'. This then appears to be the process by which Srila Prabhupada's intentions have been 'understood'.
"...the process for initiation to be followed in the future."
"...continue to become ritvik and act on my charge."
"...continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf."
"Future" refers to the formal designation as one of the proxies chosen personally by Srila Prabhupada to perform initiations on his behalf while he was physically present. "Continue" means to preach and act as proxy while Srila Prabhupada is physically present. It was understood that these proxies would go on to initiate their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. This understanding is in line with what Srila Prabhupada said in the May 28th conversation. Tamal Krishna Goswami, who composed both letters and who took part in the room conversation confirms that this was Srila Prabhupada's intent. To conclude that these statements "clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation" is not supported by the May 28th conversation nor the tenor of Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
Again the author has just re-stated that which he had already decided to be the case. Thus we can forget normal dictionary definitions of English words as we know them. Words like "henceforward","future" and "continue" must now only refer to Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, because the author is already committed at the outset, without any evidence, that the ritvik system was to be replaced by the M.A.S.S., after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. The author then goes on to interpret every other piece of evidence in line with this original groundless dogma. The very dogma that is under the microscope. This is circular reasoning in four steps:
Let us assume that the '4-step continuum' is what happened. (1)
Because of (1) the ritviks system is wrong. (2)
All evidence must be interpreted in line with (1) above. (3)
Thus all the evidence proves that the ritvik system is wrong. (4)
The author's four step vada rests on the dogmatic belief that somehow the May 28th conversation magically turns the July 9th letter into a special dispensation for the ritviks to go on and be diksa gurus. Needing to see the PROOF and EVIDENCE for this 'magic' is the very issue under debate, and yet this is the very evidence we are denied. Please note above how the author tacitly admits that there is no factual tangible evidence for this mystical transformation of the ritvik order into an order for 11 diksa gurus:
"It was UNDERSTOOD that these proxies would go on to initiate their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure"
Note the word 'understood'.
Not stated.
Not ordered.
Not written down.
Just understood. But understood by whom, and on what grounds? This is never clarified.
The author is thus hopelessly mired in an amorphous world of baseless groundless beliefs. This can be swiftly remedied if he would simply follow the final July 9th order.
To use His Holiness Tamala Krishna Maharaja's understanding as some sort of reliable evidence merely increases our concern for the author's own judgement since, as we have demonstrated above, the Maharaja has already changed his mind about what happened at least 3 times.
We also note the author has again just ASSUMED that the 'tenor of Srila Prabhupada's teachings' contradict the ritvik system. Which specific teachings he might mean the author fails to divulge.
3. "System of management should not change" and "My disciples" in Srila Prabhupada's Will
In this section the author merely repeats arguments verbatim from the 'Timeless Order' and 'Where the Ritvik People Are Wrong'. (Please see 'Best Not To Accept Any Disciples' and 'Response to H.H. Jayadvaita Maharaja').
4. "But By My Order" & "When I order" in May 28th Conversation.
Here the author simply repeats arguments verbatim from 'Disciple of My Disciple'. (Please see 'The Final Order Still Stands').
5. Topanga Canyon Talks .
Here the author simply repeats an accusation made by the paper 'Timeless Order' against our use of the 'Topanga canyon Talks'. (Please see 'Best Not To Accept Any Disciples')
In this section the author simply reproduces quotes that have already been answered in the 'Final Order', 'Best Not To Accept Disciples' and CHAKRA'S Army Still Off Target'.
Additionally the author produces the following quote and rationale:
"A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons. This Krsna consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of material nature. Lord Caitanya therefore says: 'By My order you may become a spiritual master.' One can immediately become a spiritual master by having full faith in the transcendental words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and by following His instructions." (SB 4.18.5p)
Are we to believe that Srila Prabhupada is speaking about siksa only here? If so, what is the need of being liberated? He's saying that a strict follower is liberated and thus qualified to be guru, period.
This is most astonishing since this same quote has been use previously in several other GBC publications, and in a paper by the author himself, as evidence that the Guru does NOT need to be liberated. Indeed in the most recent official GBC paper 'Ritvik Catechism', the GBC have used this quote in a section that counteracts that idea that the Guru must be on the highest platform. We will therefore refrain from answering the above point until the GBC can agree amongst themselves as to what this week's official interpretation of the above quote might be.
The author also offers the following quote and explanation:
"When a neophyte devotee is actually initiated and engaged in devotional service by the orders of the spiritual master, he should be accepted immediately as a bona fide Vaisnava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaisnavas, one may be found to be very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord and strictly following all the regulative principles, chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads and always thinking of how to spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Such a Vaisnava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikari, highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought." (NOI 5p)
Srila Prabhupada saw his disciples with such qualifications as pure devotees. Are we qualified to judge them differently? Does the fact that some gurus fell, mean that all are fallen?
The 'Final Order' does not state this point or even talk about judging devotees in the movement, and on the contrary states that the movement may be full of pure devotees. No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to allow initiations to continue. Whether or not Srila Prabhupada created pure devotees is not relevant to his clear and unequivocal final order. As disciples our duty is simply to follow the instructions of the guru. It is inappropriate to abandon the guru's instruction and instead speculate as to how many pure devotees there are now, or will be in the future, It is nowhere stated that it is mandatory for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru. Such persons would be delighted to work within the ritvik system if that was their guru's order (please see 'The Final Order' page 34). Thus this is yet another 'straw-man' argument that can be safely disregarded.
Finally the author offers one other quote not dealt with specifically in all our previous papers:
"Sanatana Gosvami clearly defines the bona fide spiritual master. One must act according to the scriptural injunctions and at the same time preach. One who does so is a bona fide spiritual master. Haridasa Thakura was the ideal spiritual master because he regularly chanted on his beads the prescribed number of times. Indeed, he was chanting the holy name of the Lord three hundred thousand times a day. Similarly, the members of the Krsna consciousness movement chant the minimum number of sixteen rounds a day, which can be done without difficulty, and at the same time they must preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the gospel of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. One who does so is quite fit to become a spiritual master for the entire world." (Cc Ant 4.103p)
Chanting the holy name and preaching are the qualifications for becoming a spiritual master for the whole world. Does this mean siksa only? Srila Prabhupada says "spiritual master." Many of our senior devotees have been preaching for 25-30 years! Do they not have the above mentioned qualifications?
Firstly the same devotees who have been preaching for 25-30 years are the same ones who have recently fallen down - Jagadisha prabhu and Rohini Kumar prabhu were two of the most senior men left in the movement. Thus just preaching for 25-30 years does not in itself prove a person is very advanced, or qualified or authorised to initiate.
How does the phrase 'spiritual master' automatically preclude siksa guru?
Since any new bhakta also chants 16 rounds and preaches according to the Bhagavada As It IS, could not the above quote also apply to them? Is the author then suggesting that every new bhakta is a mahabhagavat (the minimum qualification for diksa guru)? Devotees who chant and preach are spiritual masters for the whole world, since they are qualified to preach, or give siksa, to anyone, anywhere in the whole world.
In conclusion the author offers a mixture of previously defeated arguments from papers that contradict each other, straw man arguments, and unsubstantiated statements of dogmatic belief. Not very appetising it has to be said.
The author's total incapacity to even attempt to deal with 'The Final Order' and give relevant explicit evidence for Modifications A & B, is quite unnerving, and does not augur well for an early resolution to this issue. Such evasive and irrelevant verbiage appears to be very much de rigueur amongst the current GBC's and their apologists. We humbly pray for an early shift in paradigm.


A 14-year-old adolescent with short stature and delayed puberty, was admitted in a Paediatric Endocrinology outpatient clinic. His familial target height was on percentile 3–10. After a careful investigation, he was found to have a 45,X/46,X,idic(Y)(p11.32) mosaicism.
A 38-year-old with sickle cell disease-associated Pulmonary hypertension and acute chest syndrome was successfully managed with inhaled and oral pulmonary vasodilators in the setting of persistent elevations in pulmonary vascular resistance leading to acute RV failure and cardiogenic shock.
A 35-year-old patient was admitted to endocrinology outpatient department with complaint of pain in the neck. Physical examination revealed 2 cm nodule on the thyroid right lobe. Serum thyroid hormone levels were within normal range. Ultrasonography revealed a 23x15 mm hypoechoic nodule with micro calcifications and cystic areas on the right lobe.
A 63-year-old male with severe iron deficiency anemia on biweekly intravenous iron infusions and weekly packed red blood cell transfusions presented with melena over several months. Upper endoscopy demonstrated a clean-based gastric body ulcer and nonbleeding gastric varices. Histology of the gastric ulcer was suggestive of iron-induced gastric mucosal injury.
A 51-year-old man came with Rasmussen's aneurysm that was successfully treated by proximal coil blocking with n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) injection via the pulmonary artery alone. With proximal coil blocking, a sufficient amount of NBCA could be injected without unintended reflux of the NBCA cast to the proximal pulmonary artery.
A 31-year-old male with a history of OCD had orofacial dyskinesia with prominent tongue dystonia and tongue protrusion on feeding. The patient exhibited involuntary self-mutilating behavior with biting of tongue and cheeks and severe bruxism. Sequencing of the VPS13A-gene revealed a novel homozygous mutation (c.1186del) with subsequent nonsense-mediated RNA-decay confirming the diagnosis of chorea-acanthocytosis. The patient's parents were both heterozygous for the mutation.
62-year-old man underwent resection of a hepatic tumor arising after gastric GIST surgery that was resistant to imatinib and sunitinib. A 40-mm tumor in the left lobe of the liver and three small nodules in the right lobe were detected. Hepatic left lobectomy and partial resections for three lesions were performed. According to the histopathological and immunohistochemical findings and c-kit gene mutations analysis, the main tumor was diagnosed as a PLMS.
This case series describes two individuals with appendicitis presenting to the ED. One case is of a patient with Amyand's hernia and another case is a patient with De Garengeot's hernia with an adjacent abscess. Both individuals were managed with appendectomy and hernia repair without the use of mesh.
26-year-old male suffering from microstomia resulting from radiotherapy about 12 years ago following cavum carcinoma classified as T3N0M0. The preliminary impressions were made with irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Oral hygiene instructions and prosthesis insertion and removal were imparted. The patient was satisfied with the esthetics and functional ability of the dentures.
Case presenting with a complication of delayed presentation from a vascular injury at the time of retropubic sling arm removal which has not previously been documented in the literature. Prevention is accomplished by proper visualization of pelvic vasculature and/or eliminating tension on sling before excision.


text:
Women of the Confederacy (Pt. 9)
Mary Chesnut
Of all the written works created during the Civil War, Mary Chesnut's diary is one of the most well known. Because of her ability to frankly describe the events that transpired, her diary is considered by historians to be the most important work by a Confederate author, and a true work of art.
Born to Congressman Stephen Decatur Miller and May Boykin on March 31, 1823 at Mount Pleasant plantation near Stateburg, South Carolina, Mary Miller was the eldest of four children. In 1829, her father became governor of South Carolina, and in 1831, he served as a U.S. senator. Mary was educated at home and in Camden schools before she was sent to a French boarding school in Charleston at age 12. She spent her school break at her father's cotton plantations in Mississippi, but when he died in 1838, she returned to Camden. She met James Chesnut Jr., eight years her senior, in 1836, when he was at the boarding school visiting his niece, and although he began to court her, Mary's parents opposed it. However, on April 23, 1840, when Mary was 17, the two were married.
For the next twenty years, Mary spent her time between Camden and Mulberry, her husband's family plantation. James was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1858, so Mary accompanied him to Washington, where she nurtured friendships with many upper-class citizens, including Jefferson and Varina Howell Davis, John Bell Hood, and Wade Hampton III. When talk of war escalated in 1860, James was the first to resign his senate seat on November 10, The Chesnuts returned to South Carolina, where he participated in drafting an ordinance of secession, and served on the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America. From February 1861 through July 1865, Mary recorded her experiences. She was in Charleston when Ft. Sumter was fired upon on Friday, April 12, 1861, and watched the skirmish from a rooftop. In her diary, she described the city's residents, along with what is now known as The Battery, sitting on balconies and drinking salutes to the advent of hostilities.
James subsequently served as an aide to General P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis. He was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general. During the war, Mary accompanied him to Montgomery, Columbia, and Richmond, where she entertained the Confederate elite.
After the war, the Chesnut's returned to Camden, struggling unsuccessfully to get out of debt. James had inherited two plantations when his father died in 1866: Mulberry and Sandy Field. They were heavily damaged by Federal troops, and slaves who had become freedmen still depended on him. James and Mary's mother died within a week of each other in January 1885. According to his father's will, the land was to be passed down to a male heir, and because he and Mary never had children, she lost her claim.
Mary's writing revealed her strong opinions concerning slavery and women's rights, as well as criticism for conservative decisions made by Southern leaders, her husband included. She expressed her repulsion for lapses in morality caused by the male-dominated society of the South, using her father-in-law's liaison with a slave as an example.
In the 1870's, she edited her diaries in an attempt to publish them, but failed. She tried her hand at fiction, writing three novels, but was also unsuccessful at having them published, so in the 1880's, she revised her diaries into a book entitled Mary Chesnut's Civil War. Only a small excerpt was published in the Charleston Weekly News and Courier as "The Arrest of a Spy." Her final years were spent supplementing her $100-a-year income by selling eggs and butter. She died of a heart attack on November 22, 1886. Historians believe she wasn't finished with her work. In 1905, and again in 1949, her diaries were published in truncated and heavily edited versions as A Diary from Dixie. In 1981, C. Vann Woodward published a version that included her complete work, and won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 1982.
Posted in Civil War, Uncategorized and tagged A Diary from Dixie, Alabama, American history, Charleston, Civil War, Columbia, Confederate, Confederate States of America, diary, Federal, Ft. Sumter, historic, historical, history, Jefferson Davis, John Bell Hood, Mississippi, Montgomery, P.G.T. Beauregard, Richmond, senator, slavery, South, South Carolina, Southern, troops, Varina Howell Davis, Virginia, Wade Hampton

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
In Love & Light vol III releases
After many many years of work and rework "In Love & Light vol 2" is finally ready for release... it has been too long and I apologize for the length of time it took to complete this one but I hope you enjoy it.
Been at it again and after many years of recording and writing and rewriting mastering and remastering and all the things that go into a thoughtful production of art I can finally say it is ready for release. Featuring many new artists and talents such as the percussionist Pezhham Arkvass, the vocalist Sonja Drakulich, harpist Diana Rowan, , and returning once again to the series vocalist Aida Shahghasemi, Bauback Yeganeh and Dominique Pe'lerin. I also worked with an artist I hadn't worked with in 15 years by the name of Devika Chawla whom I recorded for the album Satyriasis back in 2000. That album was really the sonic genesis of this series and having Devika back really brought it full circle. Look out for an EP from Devika and I later this year. Having recorded the majority of this album in San Francisco after I was invited to record and engineer a gathering of Israeli and Persian artists I was in awe of the music I was hearing and had to invite the artists to record with me on some of the ideas I had been coming up with for the next record. These sessions led to more relationships with other artists in the Bay Area and abroad. I even had the delight to work with master mandolin player Marla Fibish on the song 'Strong Enough'. I've stretched my knowledge of the art of recording and engineering these last few years and I think the results can be heard in these recordings. With the use of ribbon microphones and small condensers with microphone preamps that bring out the subtle tonal aspects of the artists instruments I was really able to get the sounds I was looking for and blend them into the mix with a depth and clarity I had yet to achieve. I will soon be releasing another series that is a spin off of the music I've began writing in the pursuits of this series. More lounge style listening music for casual environments... Not as emotionally demanding of the listener is they so choose to surrender themselves to the undertones of tragic beauty that is often found in 'In Love & Light'.
The album can be purchased on iTunes digitally and on CD from CDBaby.com and Amazon.
Please take a listen and support the music and the artists by sharing with your friends this work and others you may discover. I hope this music can find a home in your life.
Ayriliq: The Remixes Out Now
Finally Made it to Buddha-Bar
Ives partners with Six Degrees


Just wondered if anyone has found any 75mm backing pads with an 8mm bolt that would fit my machine.
I am hoping the Flex XFE 7-12 80s might fit?
I was told that maybe the Rupes LHR75 Mini plate might fit, but I think that takes a 6mm bolt?
Alternatively could one cut down a 6" plate on a lathe? , but that looks pretty problematic to me.
Not to mention getting rid of all the plastic swarf one might find entrapped in the hook and loop material .
The LHR75 plate could be bored out to fit the larger bolt but it's a really light backing plate. I did this and put it on a Duetto and the vibration was horrible.
You may have the same problem if you shave a stock one down.
You may have to worry about spacing/clearance issues with another companies BP also.
I did see this Flex one looking around and it appears similar, possibly.
To describe the feel of a large tool with a tiny backing plate and pad under it and then buffing horizontal panels. Not so bad when buffing vertical panels BECAUSE at this point you are forced to support the weight of the tool anyways AND then push the tool towards the panel.
To me, to put a 3" backing plate on a large tool like the Makita PO5000C would definitely make it tippy.
I can check and see if the backing plate on a FLEX 3" Mini Polisher will attatch to the Makita?
Thanks to all the respondees.
Much appreciated. My tardy replies are not lack of interest. But because I just had a pretty tricky back operation.
I have to pick my moments!
I looked at the LHR as a possible bore out job.
I agree cutting down composite pads also looks like it could give problems.
The Flex pad you linked looks hopeful. Odd its not red ... as it says its a direct replacement .
I was looking at the red pad Order no. 454.141.
However I noticed there seem to be a few members with problems on these pads disintegrating!
Maybe the one you linked which is black is of upgraded quality.
I too wondered about the "tippy" effect. But hope I can cope with it. The majority of the car will be done using the 6" and if I can get one the 5" pads. This is really just for around the front bumper, Led running / fog lamps and air intake grill things.
The only alternative would be to buy a Flex XFE 7-12 80 ..... and thats hard to justify along with a Makita for maintaining one car.
I would be extremely grateful if you could check out tne xfe 7-12 80 backi g pas on a PO5000C .
It would be good to know if the securing bolt is 8mm.
I would also like to know what is the direction of rotation on this 7-12 80?
I ask becuase the centre on the Makita looks like a spring washer. The relevance being I noticed on the Makita the direction is counter clockwise (viewed from the top, say as it is used).
I am wondering if Makita used a sort of spring steel disc where the bolt clamps up ... to counteract the rotation effect undoing this bolt.
Last thing one needs is the pad and the bolt flying off as you perfect the bonnet!
Did you have any luck fitting the Flex 3" mini to the Makita?
Yes. The 3" backing plate that comes with the FLEX 3" Mini Polisher will fit onto the Makita PO500C and the bolt that holds the Makita backing plate will also hold on the FLEX backing Plate.
I also check the RUPES 3" backing plate for the RUPES Mini - it will fit on the Makita PO5000C but the center hole on the backing plate is too small for the Makita bolt to fit through, so you would have to waller her out.
Thanks Mike you are a Star!
when you say the Flex mini polisher. I assume you mean the DA XFE 7-12 80 .
Other Question, if I find it too tippy or the Makita body is too big, to get access .
Do you think the PE 8 -4 80 being a Rotary is a little dangerous for Newbie ? I was just a little concerned that its min speed was 1,300 rpm ( but I appreciate it is a very small pad.).
a) having no throw, it might be easier to get around and tight up to grills and running lights and b) yes its a fair bit cheaper.
But if you think its a lot more dangerous then I woukd take your advice.
Note I will only be doing final fine finishing no compounding.


Glenn County, CA – Recruiting all high school students. Since 1987, the local Resource Conservation District (RCD) has offered an Annual Speak–Off Contest for High School students. Created by the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD), this contest is open to all Glenn County students in the 9th – 12th grade levels.
This year's speech topic is "How can RCDs help landowners reduce the threat of fires?" Therefore, interested students may show off their talents by preparing a speech on the topic and providing it to an audience at the next RCD Meeting September 17th.
Speakers will first provide the speech at the local level. The top speaker will advance to the regional contest. The top regional speaker will advance to the State contest. In addition to the possibility of advancing, in the local Glenn County contest, first place wins $100, second place wins $75, and third place wins $50.
Glenn County students must return the Speak-Off Contest Application to the Glenn County RCD office by September 7, 2018. Local competition will be held on September 17, 2018 at 1 PM; location TBA. Continuing competitors will speak at the Sacramento Valley Region of RCDs fall meeting, and finally, if chosen at the regional level, the speaker may have the opportunity to represent their school, RCD, and county at the CARCD annual meeting held in San Diego, November 2018.
All high school students are encouraged to participate in this exciting RCD Connects with Kids challenge.
For further information, questions or to download the Speak-Off Contest Application, click here or call (530) 934-4601 x5.


text:
POINTING PEOPLE: NEALE BLACKBURN
Posted: Tuesday, 30th November 2021
Author: Jake Exelby
Photo: Neale Blackburn
Snapper Neale Blackburn has been a familiar face on the pointing scene for over 20 years. Official photographer for the South Midlands Area, he is also a regular visitor to fixtures in East Anglia and the South East in particular. Formerly an officer for the Metropolitan Police, where he worked in covert intelligence, Neale is possibly as well-known for his spaniels and "Matron" (his charming wife Jacinta) as he is for his images! Jake Exelby caught-up with him to find out about the transition from policing to photography, life imitating art and who he'd like to see smile more, illustrated by some of his favourite photos.
How did you get into taking photographs at point-to-points?
I'd always been into racing. My grandad was a stable boy in Stockport at the time Noel Murless was riding, then a kennelman at Bolton dog track. He taught my brother and I all we ever needed to know about betting – my brother ended up managing a betting shop, now I go racing and don't have time to have a bet all day.
In 1998 I was seriously ill, had been off work for six months and was considering my options. A friend said to me, "You like horse racing – why don't you go to Kimble and take some photos?" He saw the photos and said I should send them to Chiltern & Thames magazine. They published some… and gave me money. Blagging was probably the only transferable skill I picked up as a copper, so I went to Lockinge two days later then rang Horse & Hound, who printed some I'd taken there. I felt better mentally then than I had done for at least a year.
The editor of Chiltern & Thames asked me to keep going pointing and – as I'd taken a journalism course at night school – I replied, "Do you want reports too?" So I went off to become the next Brough Scott, started writing and sticking my nose in, got to know people and felt at home – not just at point-to-points, but pony racing, one day events and hunter trials. It was at the time two girls named Andrews from Hertfordshire were riding ponies with mad abandon.
What's the favourite photograph you've taken?
I don't know – I've taken about 200,000! The photo I'm most interested in is the next one I take. It's like when you decorate a room and notice the joins in the wallpaper - when I look at a picture, I think, "I could have done that better."
Seriously, I took a black and white photo at Edgcote last year of Luke Harvey and Ben Bromley when Gina Andrews just beat Ben on the line. The different expressions indicate just how much a £150 race means to the people involved. Luke in particular is doing it because he loves it – and that's what I like about the sport.
Despair for Ben Bromley, joy for Gina Andrews
Do you make a living taking photographs at point-to-points?
No, I don't make any money from it – if it pays for my diesel, that's a good day. If this was my bread and butter, I couldn't do it – I make money from weddings and football (Neale is also official photographer for Beaconsfield SYCOB FC). But it's a pleasure to be able to go to places like Cheltenham and Stratford for what's really my hobby.
Changeofluck taking avoiding action at Stratford
Who's inspired you most in the world of pointing?
On the photography side, John Beasley and Trevor Meeks, who was the Horse & Hound staff photographer.
Who have been your favourite horses?
I had a soft spot for Start Royal, who was a wonderfully consistent horse, whatever the conditions. And his owner Stewart Nash is such a lovely man – it's nice to see people you like getting something back.
Broken Eagle was great – a spectacular jumper who stood off his fences and made good photographs. And Dabinett Moon – I couldn't leave out the mighty "Moon".
Broken Eagle - spectacular jumper
Which jockeys have you most admired?
Bridget Andrews was the most stylish, but I'd be on sister Gina if my mortgage payment was on the line. But anyone who's prepared to take on three miles and 18 fences has my immense respect, from the rawest novice to Phil York, who's probably my all-time favourite. He's just as enthusiastic now as he was 20 years ago.
What are your favourite courses and why?
Guilsborough is beautiful and picturesque and Ampton is small and compact with a good atmosphere. I particularly like it there at the bottom of the hill by the church.
What have been the highlights of your time in the sport?
Gina Andrews riding five winners at Mollington, Alan Hill's Cheltenham double with Harbour Court and Quinz, Phil York's 300th winner at Kingston Blount, Gina again beating the record of winners for a lady rider in a season at Edgcote – those were all days to remember. I'm fortunate to work in the South Midlands Area, where we have plenty of milestones.
Gina Andrews celebrates a five-timer at Mollington
What changes have you seen during your time, for better and worse?
I like the Oriental Club sponsorship and think that's positive as it offers good exposure to the smaller operators and I like the PPORA getting behind Novice Riders races. However, I do raise an eyebrow at the flat racing, although I admit that I don't know the numbers involved.
I'm also a big fan of pony racing, as it gets youngsters into the sport and teaches them good habits and tactics. I've seen riders graduate from ponies to points and beyond – Jordan Nailor is a good example.
Pony racing at Kingston Blount
I appreciate that the world changes, but is it sustainable for pointing to effectively be the Conference (non-league) of National Hunt racing without the prize money? I wonder how long the hunts will be able to keep going.
What would you do if you were in charge of the sport?
I'm not really qualified to say and wouldn't want the job – there are a lot of interests to balance and mouths to feed. But I do think we should do as much as we can to encourage the true amateurs with one or two horses.
What do you love most about pointing?
It's like being a member of a travelling circus. You end up in a field with a bunch of people – it's the same bunch every week, just a different field! I've developed relationships with people I'd never have come across if it wasn't for pointing.
As for the sport itself, it's being inside the rails hearing the hooves of a horse at full tilt followed by the silence as they jump, hoping I'll get the perfect shot. I can't imagine a better way to spend the afternoon.
Too Late To Sell and Katy Lyons in full flight
What do you think the effect of lockdown on pointing will be?
I'd have been more fearful if we'd continued without spectators, although I'm not sure how many owners and trainers have fallen by the wayside. Personally, I didn't mind operating during lockdown, as it was easier to get around the course! Overall, I think the sport's dealt with it very well.
What do you think of live streaming?
It's been fabulous and I hope it will continue as it's a way to grow the sport. When the weather's bad, you can watch the racing without having to stand in the rain with idiots like you and me!
Sausolito Sunrise wins at a very wet Cocklebarrow
What are your non-horsey hobbies?
I love cooking and do it all at home – Matron went to the kitchen once in 1983, didn't like it and hasn't been back since. My first job was in catering but I didn't like the long hours and low pay. My signature dishes are all slow-cooked – cottage pie, lamb tagine, beef brisket. I couldn't cope on MasterChef – if Gregg Wallace told me I had 45 minutes, I'd go down the chippy!
So who would be your ideal dinner party guests?
Lester Piggott at the top table – he was the man when I was growing up. And Tony Benn – while my politics are middle of the road, people at extreme ends of the spectrum interest me, and particularly him, coming from a privileged background but very left-wing.
What are your favourite films and TV programmes?
I tease Matron that she's watched every Scandinavian crime drama known to man. I've just re-watched The Wire, which is one of my favourites and I love the Sweeney, the most realistic cop show ever on British television. I had special dispensation to stay up late to watch it as a child. When I joined the police, I worked with the Flying Squad and it was like life imitating art – both the behaviour and the wardrobes.
What superpower would you choose and why?
I'd like to be able to fly, for the thrill of it, into the blue and towards the face of God. Maybe it's because of my liking for birds of prey – I'm always taking photos of the red kites at Kingston Blount. But I've never wanted to fly a plane – I think the mechanics would let me down and I wouldn't win an argument with the ground.
Is there anything else you'd like to say?
Jockeys. I appreciate that you like to look mean and moody, but smiling after you've won a race makes for a better picture!
Back to news/features


Buy Oliver Gal Damask Canvas Wall Art (Set of 4) from $624.99 at Bed Bath & Beyond. Fill a wall with the beautiful designs featured on the Damask Canvas Wall Art from Oliver Gal. The 4-panel set creates a cohesive image in rich, rustic hues of green, orange and yellow, and has a white geometric overlay.Fill a wall with the beautiful designs featured on the Damask Canvas Wall Art from Oliver Gal. The 4-panel set creates a cohesive image in rich, rustic hues of green, orange and yellow, and has a white geometric overlay.
The Oliver Gal Waterweb Wall Art captures an everyday phenomenon. It reveals the natural symmetry and pattern work of water droplets collected on spider silk. Add this breathtaking perspective to your décor as a reminder of nature's wonders.
Add a touch of elegance to your home with the Auronzo Aged Squares by Uttermost. This set of 2 decorative relief plaques features an aged ivory finish with stone grey undertones and rust distressing. Adds classic sophistication to any room.
The At Dawn Canvas Wall Art from Albena Hristova features a beautiful abstract design that adds a contemporary look to your decor. Boasting wide circular marks, this expressive painting is accentuated by grey and neutral tones. Comes ready to hang.
Bring a whimsical, yet contemporary piece of art into your home with Suzane Song 3 Canvas Wall Art. The fun and vibrant colors of the flowers and vines will make this piece stand out amongst all of your home décor.
Bring a whimsical, yet contemporary piece of art into your home with Suzane Song 2 Canvas Wall Art. The fun and vibrant colors of the flowers and vines will make this piece stand out amongst all of your home décor.
Just go with the flow and buy the Connecting Stream 2 Canvas Wall Art. The drip-effect of the black, blue, and orange water colors is a very unique and beautiful contemporary way of doing art. Your home décor will be the talk of the town with this piece.


text:
This is a list of listed buildings in Jammerbugt Municipality, Denmark.

Listed buildings

9440 Aabybro

9460 Brovst

9492 Blokhus

9690 Fjerritslev

External links

 Danish Agency of Culture

References

Jammerbugt

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text: By Sheikh Mushtaq SRINAGAR, India, Feb 4 (Reuters) – Authorities imposed a curfew in Kashmir's main city on Thursday to thwart anti-India protests that have grown in the past week, pointing to possible increasing trouble in the region after a period of relative calm. If the government does not find a way to check the protests, they could hurt efforts to improve relations with Pakistan and weaken the ruling coalition's efforts to reach out to moderate separatists. But it also must take care not to undermine its own efforts reach out to moderate separatists to secure peace in the region. "The situation is reflective of the deep rooted resentment and discontent (against India), and unfortunately New Delhi has not been making any serious and bold attempts in addressing it," said Noor Ahmad Baba, dean of social sciences at Kashmir University. "If not seriously addressed, the situation may get seriously out of hand today, tomorrow or sometime in the immediate future." The killing of a teenager by police earlier this week triggered demonstrations that have evolved into wider anti-India protests, similar to huge street protests seen in 2008 that embarrassed New Delhi. The teenager's death was the fifth in the past month that locals have blamed on government forces. "New Delhi is pushing the people towards violence and Kashmir has been turned into a police state," senior separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said in a statement. At least 400 people have been injured in pitched street battles between government forces and large groups of rock-pelting Muslim protesters over the past three days. On Thursday, thousands of police and soldiers in riot gear patrolled deserted streets, erected barricades and warned residents to stay indoors in Srinagar, Kashmir's summer capital. "We have imposed restrictions in the whole of the city to protect the life and property of the people," said Mehraj Ahmad Kakroo, a senior government official. Although Kashmir seldom goes more than a few days without incident, the protests come after a period of relative calm during which the region voted in a new government, and amid speculation New Delhi could be holding secret peace talks with Farooq and other Kashmiri separatist leaders. The rise in tension in Kashmir, which India and Pakistan claim in full but rule in part, comes at a sensitive time, coinciding with a spike in border skirmishes and violence by militant groups, most of them Pakistan-based. In fresh violence in the past 24 hours, Indian soldiers shot dead three militants, including two senior members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group, in fierce gun battles, police said. Officials say more than 47,000 people have been killed since simmering discontent against Indian rule broke out in 1989. (Editing by Krittivas Mukherjee and Jerry Norton)


text:
Q: notifyjs disappears without hide effect I have a notification with notifyjs jQuery plugin.
var notifyProps = {};
notifyProps.showAnimation = 'slideDown';
notifyProps.showDuration = 2500;
notifyProps.hideAnimation = 'slideUp';
notifyProps.hideDuration = 2500;
notifyProps.style = 'myStyle';
notifyProps.clickToHide = true;
var insertId = ("myId"+ Math.random()).replace('0\.',''); //just an id
$.notify({title: $('

').append(elem.element)},notifyProps);

The notification appears correctly with the showAnimation of slideDown, but when clicked, it just disappears instead of sliding up, or fading out if fadeOut is set as hideAnimation.
I'm using addStyle to define myStyle like so:
$notify.addStyle("myStyle", {
  html:
 "
" +
      "
" +
          "

" +
          "
" +
      "
" +
"
",
css: "-webkit-box-shadow: 0px 2px 4px 0px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);-moz-box-shadow: 0px 2px 4px 0px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);box-shadow: 0px 2px 4px 0px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);"
});

debugging this, the show() method of Notification is being called with false as a parameter, but when it reaches the final line of this function:
return elems[fn].apply(elems, args);

The notification div just disappears at once instead of transitioning out. What else can I check?

A: It is because of these lines, in Notification.prototype.show :
callback = function() {
  if (!show && !_this.elem) {
    _this.destroy();
  }
  if (userCallback) {
    return userCallback();
  }
};

For some reason, _this.elem is always undefined, which I guess in turn destroys the notification element. I just comment that check out of the callback, and everything seems OK.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange