An Invitation to Swami Jagad Guru
Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa.


Dear Swami,

You might recall me having written to you on the 7 November 2000, regarding, what I consider, ill-founded comments you made in your
booklet 'Understanding Karma' , (1995). These comments, int. al., included:

1. Recurrent vilification of Christians.

2. Superinducing upon Christians generic philosophical questions, concerning the doctrine of metempsychosis and karmic law;
accompanied with untutored, unauthenticated replies,

3. Fabrication of Jesus' words to support the Hindu doctrine
of 'karma', and 'metempsychosis.'

Swami, you have not responded to my letter in the ensuing four and
a half year period nor accepted my invitation to debate these issues
on my web site. Would you be prepared to accept my invitation to debate
these issues here on the board.culteducation.com.

Swami, it was brought to my attention that, on 20 October 2003, between 1:43 and 4:49PM, you, and presumably some of your devotees, posted 23-items, bandying puerile, flippant remarks, and irrelevant assumptions about me on the istagosthi web site, evidently, responses of sorts, to my posting on my open letters page on my web site. I believe the appearance of those postings, on the same day, and within a 186-minute period, was very rather suggestive of a Machiavellian design than a coincidental factor; wouldn't you think?

Moreover, some of those postings, consisted for the most part, of pastings,
6 to be precise, cut from my web site accompanied with unfounded,
demeaning glib comments, and aspersions, added by yourself, and your devotees, v.g., "Phew, Maximiadis indeed. Here's more on him..., "Anglo-Celtic-Australian...prostitutes in New South Wales...". "Sounds like our friend Chatter!"

Swami, I'm curious to know if the "phew" was suppose to denote 'surprise' or 'contempt'? And also curious to know what reference, to the matter in hand, has these accompanying glib comments? Additionally, there were other postings consisting of irrelevant assumptions about me, e.g., you, yourself, made the following generalized disapprobations:

“This is the way that sectarian propagandists work. It is really most unfair. The purpose is not to find light and friendship, but to muddy the waters and prove one's own superiority over others”.

Swami, if you care to peruse my web site, in its entirety, you'll conclude
from the absence of any evidence that you were sorely mistaken in having alleged that I'm a propagandist'. If you had read the 'Nota Bene' statement, you would not have made such an incautious assertion.

I believe that you have made misuse of the nouns: sect, sectarian and propagandist. Firstly, the Church to which I belong, viz., the Greek Orthodox Church, can hardly be described as a 'sect', because, it can be demonstrated on the historic record, that it has existed since the first century vid., F.L. Cross, ed, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd ed. 1974, pp. 591, 1012-14.

A 'sect' is a comparatively small body of followers who are inclined to reject the established Church, its teachings, and traditions, and estrange themselves from society vid., Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed, 1997-99, p. 1092d.

Secondly, it would be inapplicable to delineate me, or my fellow priests, as "sectarian". And thirdly, the fact that I do not propagate any particular beliefs, dogmas, or practice; nor proselytize is plainly attested throughout my web site; thus your 'sectarian propagandist' allegation disappears. If you disagree, I invite you, yet again, to debate this topic, with me, here on the board.culteducation.com Forum.

In your opinion, I don't seek "light and friendship", and I supposedly "muddy the waters" to evince "superiority over others". You also censured me for alleged 'unfairness', and "make(ing) things up".

I observed no character of "light and friendship" in your patent breach
of common courtesy electing not to deal with me directly, but rather conduct clandestine oblique quibbling, about me, safely among your obliging devotees; agreeable to all your sentiments and opinions.

And as for my alleged 'unfairness', and "make(ing) things up",
I challenge the veracity of your accusations by inviting you to debate
this on the board.culteducation.com Forum, on these allegations; with evidential supports.

And more particularly, demonstrate to visitors to board.culteducation.com Forum that you yourself do not "make(ing) things up" by quoting the actual chapter and verse, in the Bible, where you alleged ( in your booklet 'Understanding Karma', (1995), p.6. ), that Jesus said: "As you sow, so shall you reap". So who really 'makes things up?' Would you be willing to answer this on this Forum?

You obviously prefer the oblique modus operandi, in your own comfort
zone, amongst your own unquestioning devotees - easy to go with the audience who claps the loudest - rather than making yourself available for public scrutiny, in an open rational debate, with me, on the very subject matters you yourself pontificated on, in your own publication, l.s.c. I wrote you a 1,757-word letter of serious content, and you responded clandestinely with 106-word flippant irrelevancies. In my opinion, your standard of internet behaviour is sadly wanting.

In response to your assumption, that I "muddy the waters" to evince
"superiority over others", I present a proposition from a psychological
perspective, for your perusal, and response. A ascribes personal unconscious sentiments, values and subjective processes upon B assuming B 'muddies waters to prove superiority over others'. I perceive this as A’s denial, or defense mechanism against recognizing these same processes within A itself. I think it reasonable to assume that this is an avoidance mechanisms of A to: muddy(ing) the waters, to negate B rather than negotiate.

You said:

"The good father is pretty good. I think he would make mincemeat
of most devotees in a debate. Hridayananda would probably be able
to take him on if he still has the taste for that kind of thing. ... Of course,
it is less pleasant to be the object of misrepresentation, especially when
the person doing the misrepresenting is obviously doing so maliciously.
... he's criticizing, albeit with the gloss (or shield) of scholarship."

I would not gain pleasure from, as you, a vegetarian, so garishly put it,
"make mincemeat of most devotees in a debate" or anybody else
for the matter of that. Yes, it would be "... less pleasant to be the object of misrepresentation" if one was, ipso facto being 'misrepresented',
which in your case you were quite clearly not. These are quite manifestly
diversions you deploy, to gain points, by deflecting attention away from
my discussions to some extraneous matters. If you believe that you were
'misrepresented with obvious malice', indicate the precise sentence - if you can - from my letter; and discuss on this Forum.

And your suggestion, to your devotees, that 'Hridayananda would probably be able to take me on...' is tantamount to calling someone else to clean up your mess. My letter was addressed to you, not Hridayananda. You're the author of 'Understanding Karma' in which you yourself denigrate Christians, misreported Jesus Christ. It's your mess, not Hridayananda's. So you ought to accept full responsibility for it.

Yamaraja, presumably one of your devotees, comments:

“Coming from the Christian background, I can tell you that 90% of the
Chritians "SEE" all those that are not in-line with their doctrine as inferior
and in need of conversion. I know I have been in the same state of mind
before. Even the humblest and most kind Christian will have the elitist
judging voice in the back of their head!! The doctored version of the
bible has conditioned its followers to this mentality! No matter what
point the Rev. has made, it is all tainted by his "conversion" mentality.
He only argues these points out of his desire to convert. If he was truly
following Jesus, he never would of read the said pamphlet”

Yamaraja, I'm eager to learn about your unique ability to "know"
the "state of mind" of "90% of the Chritians" who "have the elitist judging voice in the back of their head!!" 'Knowing' the 'state of mind' of "90%" of 2.1 billion Christians, or approximately 33% of the world population [David B. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 1994 ], is no small feat even by a very long chalk . And, by the by, would you please name the source from where you extrapolated that figure of "90%", and persuade me to believe that you really haven't "the same state of mind" now, in your newfangle Jagad's pseudo-Hindu cult?

You refer to "the doctored version of the bible". Perhaps you can
enlighten me by discussing this unheard-of "doctored version" on this Forum. If not, at least let us know where I may obtain a copy?

Your opinion that I have a "conversion" mentality is utterly ungrounded.
Firstly, where, on my web site, can evidential support be found to demonstrate my supposed "conversion" mentality?

Secondly, how did you reach that conclusion that I desire to
convert ? You cannot assume what I desire, whether it be
to 'convert' or otherwise, unless: (a) I disclose my intention to you,
specifically what it is I'm suppose to desire, or (b) that you
provide evidential support, v.g., a cerebral roentgen-ray
image of my desire to convert. Or are your assumption, that
I desire to convert, based upon some hypothesized telepathic
ability you have to read my mind?

And thirdly, your argument that: "If he was truly following Jesus,
he never would of read the said pamphlet!!!" Yamaraja, what I read
was a 'booklet' not a "said pamphlet" vid., The Concise Oxford
Dictionary 9th ed., 1999 p.126 1a, and p. 859.

You are saying that whether or not one reads 'pamphlets' ( or 'booklets' ), would be a decisive factor of a 'true follower' of Jesus?

As well as booklets and pamphlets, would the reading of material on the
internet also act as a decisive factor, whether or not one was a 'true
follower' of whoever?

If so, I would deduce from this that you would not be a 'true follower' of
Jagad Guru if you had have read my article on the internet.

I wouldn't think you'd have any worries about this because I don't believe
that you read beyond the opening page - if that - nor do I believe you came from a "Christian background" that encouraged very much cerebral activity in learning the more perceptive understanding of Biblical theology and Ecclesiology. However, I wish you Peace, Love and Happiness for your spiritual journey, and hope that you'll participate in a future debate, with me, on this Forum.

In conclusion, I invite Swami Paramahamsa to debate on all, or some of these issues on board.culteducation.com Forum.


Rev. Father Maximiadis.