Dark Warrior

OMG, we have another expert here. Let me remind cBrahma of this quote: Its funny that a complete ignoramus like cBrahma, who doesn't even know the basic meanings of a common hymn like the Purusha Suktam, can accuse me of not knowing the 'basics'. And its quite funny that a loser who hasn't even read the Ramayanam properly can accuse me of not knowing the sastras. Incompetent clown. 1) Tell me, when Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, etc. propagated Vaishnavism, did they ask their followers to include Christianity? No. 2) Do all orthodox Vaishnavas say that Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism? No. Therfore, you fall in a minority. 3) Shaivism has been refuted thoroughly by Vaishnava acharyas. Why then, is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism? 4) Bhaktivinode Thakura has also blasted Christianity elsewhere. Ever read that? 5) What makes you, a convert, attempt to argue with Vaishnavas who have been raised in an atmosphere of devotion and love for Vishnu? 6) Do Christians say that their religion is linked with ours? No. So, even the Christians will disagree with you. 7) You speak of me being ignorant of the sastras. I ask you again, do you know anything about the Lord? Are you aware of the significance of His names? Do you know the purpose of Trivikrama Avatar was to bless all Jivas with a touch of His Lotus Feet? Or how devotees performed service to Rama in different ways? Or how Lord Krishna emulated Hanuman's service in being a messenger for the Pandavas? Not one iota of realisation, and these fools call themselves authorities on Vaishnavism. Look at what you posted about Lord Krishna. It gives me great disgust to even reproduce this: The fact that your endorse such misinformation shows exactly where you stand. And you, a blasphemous little wart, have the cheek to call me a Pseudo Vaishnava? Gaudiya Vaishnavism is known for its single minded devotion to Lord Krishna. I am sure this isn't authenticated by any acharya from that parampara. Might I ask, what credentials do you possess to label me as a 'pseudovaishnava'? You are such a moron that you can't even accept the fact that NO orthodox Vaishnava endorses your ridiculous opinions. Your brand of Christian Vaishnavism is definitely Pseudo-. How dare you question my lineage? Your retarded opinions only sprung up in the 20th century when many Christians converted to Vaishnavism. However, we orthodox Vaishnavas have been following our gurus for ages before morons like you attempted to ruin our culture. First learn the meaning of 'sectarian'. Vaishnavas do not condemn everyone to hell, like Christianity. Sriman Narayana may give moksha to Christians as well. I already explained it in the other thread. So, shut it. Moron, I have given sufficient evidence to prove my point. When morals, renunciation and devotion to God are present in other religions, then how is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism? Bhaktivinode Thakura never attempted to equate Christianity with Vaishnavism. Fact remains, He was a great Krishna bhakta and had no affliation with Christianity either. So, stop taking quotes out of context. I am the only one who disagrees with him? Please tell me, do all Vaishnavas allow Christians to hang up a Cross in temples? Where in all of Vaishnavite literature is Christianity even mentioned? Persistent idiots like cBrahma are seriously annoying.

Keep yammering away. Until you learn to go to the temple of Lord Parthasarathy in Thiruvallikeni and appreciate Him from top to toe, admiring His beautiful large forehead, His cute nose, His wide-open eyes, and His glorious ornaments as I do daily, you have no argument.

I will conclude by saying, it is a shame that mlecchas like cBrahma consider themselves as authorities on Vaishnavism, when they do not even appreciate what the tradition is about. There are many nice christians, and there are many converts who have wholeheartedly become true Vaishnavas. But then again, there are nincompoops like cBrahma who read a couple of books by Srila Prabhupada and consider themselves as experts on Vaishnavism. cBrahma, by his quote on Lord Krishna, has proven himself to be an ignorant mleccha of the highest order. Therfore, debating with him is useless. I would like to ask cBrahma, exactly what does he know about Sri Hari to talk about vaishnavism in this way? Does he know the swamitvam, vatsalyam, sousheelyam and soulabhyam of the Lord? Does cBrahma know the significance of Lord Rama's avatar in which He allowed everyone to do some sort of devotional service? Does he know the significance of Vibhishana's saranagati, or of Bharata's devotion? Has cBrahma ever realised that the beauty and majesty of Lord Krishna can only be brought out by a tradition like Vaishnavism, which is timeless and eternal? How dare he even associate it with a 2000 year old mleccha faith like Christianity? He has the nerve to question myself and others, who have been born and brought up in a Vaishnava household, about our knowledge, when he himself is a failed byproduct of ISKCON. He also has the gall to question the logic of our scripture when we point out the failings in the bible. Without understanding the metaphysics of the Vedas, how can this fool even say that the Vedas are inconsistent with Science? It took our acharyas a long time to divine the truths of our scriptures. No two bit convert will ever be able to understand the Vedas. Lastly, he still evades this question - WHY is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism, when Shaivism is not? Just because a couple of mordern acharyas talked of the merits of Christianity, it does not make it so. For one thing, there is no sastric pramana. Secondly, no acharya before Sri Bhaktivinode has mentioned such a thing. Thirdly, Christianity does not even have a proper conception of God. We cannot accept an acharya's opinion just because he is a devotee. I do not accept Achintya Bheda Abheda, yet I respect the Goswamis of Vrindavan for their bhakti. Just because we disagree with an opinion of an acharya does not mean we do not respect them for their bhakti. Fact remains, before Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura, no acharya of even the Gaudiya Parampara has EVER linked Christianity with Vaishnavism. I would like cBrahma to go to a Vaishnava website of any sampradaya and see if Christianity is mentioned there. No Vaishnava will accept Jesus, cBrahma or Christianity.

Moron, the fact is, you know nothing about Lord Krishna or Vaishnavism, and that quote proves it. Vaishnavism is 'Worship of Vishnu'. Either do that, or get out of here. I have read most of the works of Sri Ramanujar, Sri Desikar, Sri Manavala Mamunigal and the Divya Prabandha. I have a deeper knowledge of the eternal truths revealed in the Smritis than you ever will know. Simply reading Srila Prabhupada's commentaries on Gita and Bhagavatam does not make one an expert. Yes, these two books are sufficient for knowledge, but ONLY if the seeker has no bias. Its a joke to say you know vaishnavism, when you haven't even read and appreciated the meanings of Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam. Do you even know how the supremacy of Vishnu is proven in the Vedas? I am not anti-christian. If you only professed to be a Christian, there would be no argument. You have no call to link Christianity with Vaishnavism. Moron, if baptism was the same category as wearing tilak, so would decorating oneself with the ash of Shiva be so. But it isn't. Therfore, Bhaktivinode Thakura was simply mistaken. I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnava and hence have no obligation to affirming the opinions of Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura or Srila Prabhupada. I strongly suspect that these two acharyas were simply compromising for the sake of their times. Before the time of Bhaktivinode, no acharya has ever addressed Christainity. So I suggest you shut up and either follow one faith or the other, instead of getting stuck in between.

I found this little hypothesis somewhere on the net: Meru Mountain is always considered to be the nucleus of the universe (as per science it is nothing but dense particles or a black hole that is in the centre of this universe and no physical object can possibly cross it) It is quite possible, of course, that there is a Super Massive Black Hole at the center of the Universe, considering that each Galaxy has a Black Hole at its center. So, Meru Mountain may be a literal mountain emerging from a Black Hole at the center of the Universe, or the Black Hole may be the root, leading to the Mountain located beyond the Universe...who really knows?

Archa form is not just a representation. The archa form is verily an avatar of the Lord Himself. We are not able to see the Lord at Vaikuntha, and we weren't present during His avatars such as Rama and Krishna. We are unable to see the Lord indwelling within us. But the archa form is accessible to even chandalas. In fact, Lord Ranganatha of Srirangam and Lord Venkateswara of Tirupati are held as self-manifested avatars of Vishnu. The Vedic sanction of meat eating is allowed in previous Yugas. However, the people of Kali Yuga lack the know-how to properly perform such a sacrifice. You are not even a Vaishnava in the first place. What you know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even other traditions of Vaishnavism, can fit into the surface area of a pinhead. Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura lived during a time when he was exposed to foriegn religions like Christianity. Therfore, he stressed on the harmony of various religions. But this only means that he considered Krishna to be the God of all people. It does not mean he considered Christianity to be compatible with Vaishnavism. Again, answer this simple question - What makes Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism when even Shaivism, a personal religion, is not?

Actually, the main error lies in assuming that Jesus is a Vaishnava just because he promotes moral values and advocates worship of a God. But these moral values and devotion are present in religions other than Vaishnavism as well. The Bible contains mistakes. Heck, even the message of Jesus is not perfect. Now, Shruti is infallible and apaurusheya, and all Smriti is judged as authoritative only with Shruti as a yardstick. Thus, if we apply the same technique to the Bible, we find that except for general morals, the philosophy/spirituality of Jesus is incompatible with Shruti. Therfore, to say Jesus is in 'union' with Krishna is based on your own experience. It has no backing in sastras.

*Sigh*. Doesn't it speak for itself? Where is sastric evidence that says Jesus was a Vaishnava? Tell me, did Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya or anyone say Christianity is Vaishnavism? Many Vaishnava acharyas were aware of a religion named Shaktism, but nobody even cared to debate with shaktas (except Sankaracharya). This does not mean Shaktism is Vedic, but rather that Shaktas are not worth arguing with. The same goes for Christianity. Our acharyas have refuted a personal faith like Shaivism. How long do you think it would take for them to refute Christianity? Why should any acharya even bother with an immature faith like Christianity? Christianity is incompatible with Vaishnavism for the following reasons: - Lack of spiritual knowledge. The Gnostics had something in the vein of advaita, and the traditional Christians are completely clueless about the basics. Hence, refuted. - The message is way too hazy and confusing. - It is not even clear who the man Jesus was. Hence, to call him a Vaishnava is preposterous. - Jesus did not even have my realisation of God. What makes him and other christian mystics Vaishnavas? - It is NOT mentioned in our sastras anywhere that Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism. But Sastras do warn us of other spurious faiths. Jesus is often called a Saktyavesa avatar. This is refuted as follows: - A shaktyavesa avatar either glorifies Sri Hari (Narada) or remains silent about God (Buddha). Jesus talked of a 'God', but he did not specify which God in the Vedic Pantheon he was talking about. - A shaktyavesa avatar should atleast talk of the Vedas. Jesus doesn't mention it. - Jesus is not even mentioned in texts. Now, Sri Hari can act independent of the sastras, but He never does, because He wishes people to place full faith in scriptures. - The Bhagavatam mentions there are innumerable avatars. This does not mean there are unknown avatars, but rather pertains to the antaryami, the archa avatars and also the avatars of countless yugas. Not to Jesus. Your blind belief is simply preventing you from realising that Christianity is not even as deep as Shaivism. Therfore, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. EDIT: Since I have no desire to pull away cBrahma from his beliefs, I will end with this. 1) No acharya has ever recognised Christianity as a bonafide religion. 2) The basic morals of Christianity are found in Buddhism, Jainism and other such religions. 3) Mysticism is also found in all religions. When a soul aspires to find God, no doubt, he gets an experience. Vaishnavas are not mystics, because what they have is a result of what Vishnu gave them. It isn't mysticism because we don't attempt to commune or anything;He gives it to us by His own volition. 4) Christianity is not even as spiritual as the vibrant tradition of Shaivism. With a few morals and a random desire to devote oneself to god, how can it pass off as Vaishnavism? 5) Jesus and Christianity is not mentioned in Sastra. To assume that Jesus was a Vaishnava therfore, is foolishness. It is quite plausible that the God of Christians is Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Indra or any deity other than Vishnu. One cannot make dangerous conclusions. Equating Vishnu with a Jiva is an offense. 6) Jesus is not a Shaktyavesa avatar. An avataric personality never gives ambiguous messages. He or She is always clear on all accounts. 7) The philosophy of Christianity (both gnostic and traditional) is not compatible with Vedic Philosophy. Hence, it is rejected. Thus, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. Sentimentalists can worship Jesus for all I care. Their Karma.

That is Yuga Bheda. In Treta and Krita Yugas, people were stronger, taller and lived longer. Therfore, their bodies may have been more compatible with the demands of child marriage. In Kali Yuga, where people are not so perfect in physicality, problems arise. People in the lower castes often eat meat and have other such habits. Therfore, it is adviced to not mix with them. But certainly, if a lower caste person is a Vishnu Bhakta, I will have no problems in falling at his Lotus Feet.

Love your enemies - Lord Buddha. Do your Duty - Nayanmars, the devotees of Shiva. Do the will of the Lord - Shaiva Siddantha is all about Saranagati, ie, surrender and loving devotion to Shiva. Ahimsa - Central to Jainism. Read Mahavira's teachings. Jesus was crucified for whom? Shiva or Vishnu? The fact is, loving one's enemies, doing good, doing one's duty are central to non-vaishnavite faiths like Buddhism, Jainism and Shaivism. Then HOW is Christianity Vaishnavism? Let me tell you a story. There was a great devotee of Siva. He used to treat all Siva bhaktas with the greatest reverance. One day, Shiva himself came to this person, disguised as an old man, a Siva Bhakta and said: Shiva - please wash my clothes. Finish the job before nightfall, otherwise I shall freeze to death in the cold night without clothes. Devotee - I shall do so. He was unable to complete the job by night. So, rather than acknowledging that he was unable to serve a Siva bhakta, he attempted to commit suicide by ramming his head against a wall. Then, Shiva stopped him and revealed his identity. This is a very touching story. But these people are not regarded as Vaishnavas. They are regarded as those who have not realised God fully. So tell me, how is Jesus related to Vaishnavism, when a great Siva bhakta like this person is not? Shiva Purana contains information about Samsara, transmigration, and other such stuff. But it is classified as Tamo Guna. So, where is the sastric evidence that the Bible, which doesn't even contain the basic knowledge, is a Vaishnavite book? Tell me, is the 'Kingdom of Heaven' Kailasa, Indra Loka or Vaikuntha? We do not know, because the Bible does not say which. Hence, Jesus is not a Vaishnava.

Raghu, I know you disapprove of my aggressive approach when it comes to refuting Hare Christnas (my fault!), but I certainly respect your views, which is the most sensible and rational way of looking at things. It is indeed a lovely idea to assume that God likes people to approach Him by different paths, or that all deities (Vedic and Non-Vedic) are equal in every respect. But unfortunately for 'secularists', 'universalists' and 'transcendentalists', this isn't the case. Scripture clearly advocates the worship of ONLY Vasudeva and no other. Christianity only has a concept of a 'personal' god and surrender. Shaivism is replete with Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Kaivalya and Saranagati to Shiva. Yet, our acharyas reject Shaivism, despite its great antiquity and legacy of Shiva bhaktas. cBrahma and Theist are prime examples of persons who haven't completely shed their sentiments. They want us to accept Christianity. When we say Christianity is unvedic, they will start questioning the logic of our own Vedic Scriptures. This clearly shows the hypocrisy of Christian Vaishnavas. I would never hurt a Christian's sentiments by telling him his faith is false. But since these Christian Vaishnavas pretend to follow our faith, I have no problems in pointing out the failings of that faith. And then, they accuse us of sectarianism. But consider this - Vaishnavism says that other faiths are not valid. BUT, we DO NOT DENY that the people of other faiths will have divine experience. Certainly, Sriman Narayana is impartial. Even if a Jiva has no jnana, He may, out of His independence, give that Jiva moksha. So, a Christian may get some blissful experience of God, or he may even get Moksha despite his inadequate knowledge. But it is to be understood that such divine experiences are NOT due to the validity of the faith, but due to the fact that Sriman Narayana is independent and His decisions are unquestionable. He may give a Christian moksha and a Vaishnava may be left in samsara. But even so, Vaishnavism is still the path to follow. Thus, Vaishnavism is not sectarian. cBrahma and Theist have meagre knowledge of who Sriman Narayana really is. That is because they haven't let go of their sentiments. Therfore, I cannot explain it to them either. It is only to be understood by your own realisation. And I may add that not all converts are like this. During my stay abroad, I met many American Vaishnavas, who had completely shed all sentiments and embraced Vaishnavism fully. I had a great time chatting with them about the Kalyana Gunas of the Lord. Even in South India, there is a convert named Joseph who denounces Christianity as unvedic. Too bad all people are not like them. Incidentally, I may add that chanting names like 'Jesus', 'Elohim' or Christ' is in no way equal to chanting Vishnu's names. Before these people say, 'why only Sanskrit names', let me point out the deep and lofty meanings of Sri Vishnu Sahasranama which depicts the gunas of the Lord. Also, each and every name of the Lord brings out something to this effect. 'Vishnu' indicates His all-pervading aspect. 'Vasudeva' signifies that everything is in Him. 'Narayana' indicates His gunas, His functions and roopam. Therfore, chanting 'Allah' or 'Jehovah' is useless.

That's all I needed. cBrahma has effectively proven my point quite inadvertantly. For one thing, it is to be noticed that cBrahma plays the good samaritan act. He says we shouldn't argue. Then, he keeps arguing and counter arguing to show why we shouldn't argue. Similarly, he starts a thread on why brahminical debates are useless, only to keep arguing. As far as I am concerned, in order to reply to this, I need to repeat whatever I have said in this entire thread, and elsewhere. So, I see no need to do that, and hence, shall desist. cBrahma can stick to his own conclusions for all I care. EDIT: Just one thing. The stuff about Prabhupada saying that the 'Essence' and not historicity is important is extended by Theist to the Rasa lila and Kurukshetra War. However, Prabhupada was explicitly clear that these two were historical, and shouldn't be taken in any other way. No acharya supports such views of Hare Christnas.

Flame Wars aside, neither you nor your buddies have come up with a reasonable explanation of your stance. And I have proven that Theist has simply taken Prabhupada's quote out of context. If you have eyes, search and see. These christians who convert also carry with them their prejudices often. Proof of that is here in this thread. That lowlife comment was directed at Bhagavatalover, not Theist. Again, read the thread before posting.

Yet, they have no right to claim that theirs is the most logical opinion. Kapish? Is disrespecting an acharya simply because you disagree with his philosophy justified then? If any Vaishnava acharya is called 'foolish', you expect me to respect the person? Anyone who disrespects an acharya is a lowlife. If you have a problem with that, it can't be helped. And indeed, the 'persons I attacked' have responded with their own diatribe, so no issues for you.

I am a microbiologist, and I can certainly say that I have never seen a case of Human Papilloma Virus producing such symptoms. The point about the shirt is good. It could be a hoax.

Scriptures say that those who insult acharyas are the lowest of the low. Therfore, I have no problem in denouncing Bhagavatalover as a worthless piece of trash, as he has insulted Vaishnava acharyas. Such scum shouldn't even be endorsed by Vaishnavas. In addition, his retarded views on Vaishnavism being 'sectarian', that advaita is superior to all other philosophies and that the Vedas are contradictory in portions is enough to substantiate that. Given the time, I could dismantle his views, but of course, what is the need? Bhagavatalover is like an ingrown toenail...he should be discarded and disregarded, rather than being considered seriously. I am quite surprised that this forum, which is supposed to be full of sattvik people, harbors such low-lives. This pathetic loser, Bhagavatalover, has just accumulated a life's worth of bad Karma by his utter disregard for respected teachers. An animal has more sense than he does. Remember the Upanishadic injunction, 'Guru Sakshat Parabrahman'. Never commit the mistake of insulting Bhagavatas. The Lord never forgives, nor forgets offenses to His devotees. One of His avatars, ie, Narasimha Avatar was entirely for destroying such a lowlife, ie, Hiranyakasipu. Even if you differ in philosophy, attack only the philosophy, not the acharya, if he is a Vishnu Bhakta. I do not harbor any sort of hate as far as Theist is concerned (except some random name calling). I only have issues with him freely distributing opinions to everyone, without sastric basis.

An atheist in a Christian Background. Whatever. In any case, I have seen your posts. I am not fixated on you. Trust me, devotees like you, I could certainly do without (Ignore list? Nobody gives a damn!!). But since this is a forum in which you have expressed your views, there is a necessity for correction, or it will simply mislead more people. But your contradictory views stand out plainly. You appear to be the type who simply formulates his own views and then convinces everyone that yours is the right way. Look at the Literary Incarnation thread. Firstly, you haven't even understood what the meaning of 'Literary Incarnation' is, and then you keep raising objections. Even in the past threads, I have noticed that you kept asking sincere believers, 'Why did Ugrasena have so many bodyguards?' Apparently, this question was not posed only to me. Shows your juvenile understanding of sastras. You have been going at this for a long time, haven't you? Bottomline - Just stop bandying your opinions as the logical conclusion. We already have enough people distorting the message of our acharyas. Don't need more. The fact that Bhagavatalover agrees with you shows exactly how distorted your reasoning is (no offense to you). It should be apparent to everyone that Bhagavatalover has dung for brains. At least in that sense, Theist does not disrespect acharyas or talk nonsense about Vaishnavism being unvedic. Coming to that moron, Bhagavatalover, he has been exposed to be a prat, who doesn't even have the necessary brainpower to sustain an argument. No sense in reasoning with him. You only have to take a look at most of his posts to see the nonsense he spews out. Apparently, he worships Max Muller, and disrespects Vaishnava acharyas. That's the sorry state of affairs nowadays.

Really? I hadn't noticed that you were capable of even understanding the basics of true Vaishnavism. 'Literal' does not cut it. I mean a historical Rasa Lila that took place 5000 years ago, not your weird beliefs that the lilas are restricted to literature alone. You define literal differently than all Vaishnavas, so therfore your opinions do not count for a general belief. Certainly, people who don't to Vaishnavism are welcome to call it a myth. I couldn't care less. But this is a different matter, when self styled 'pure devotees' try to say that this event is literal and has only 'transcendental value', but isn't historical. The whole reason why Hari Katha is called sanctifying is because it is regarded as the history of the Lord's descent. If our acharyas had wanted us to take it 'literally' and forget its historicity, then why didn't they recommend Siva Purana? After all, that Purana has certainly inspired Shaivites. When the Purana says that Shiva is greater than Vishnu, Shaivites have had 'transcendental experiences'. But we know it isn't true, don't we? Theist, owing to your christian background, you are unable to understand what Vaishnavism really is. And you also do not understand what is the significance of our literature, and what our acharyas intended. You have a little understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and even that tradition you don't follow properly. Your knowledge of Vaishnavism in general is zero. Some people profess to be believers. But the fact is, they do not accept Scripture AS IT IS. They are unable to understand it, so they make their own watered-down interpretations. For instance, take the instance where Theist argues so vehemently about Ugrasena's bodyguards. He cannot accept its historicity because it appears illogical to him. So, he chooses to take what he wants, ie, take the essence, the spirituality, and treat it as quaint mythology. But he forgets that: -Bhagavatam states this as history. So, either he is saying that Bhagavatam is lying, or that he is a disguised atheist who milks what he wants out of scripture. -He fails to take into account that the Lord is omnipotent and cannot be limited by the beliefs of an individual. This is against all Vedic Laws. If you accept Valmiki or Vyasa as authority, you take their word. When Krishna said that the Bhagavatam is a literary incarnation, He meant that He will dwell in its pages to sanctify it. It doesn't mean that all His lilas are to be taken as valid only within the literature. Just like the Gayathri Mantra is an avatar of Narayana, the Bhagavatam is also an avatar of Narayana. But it does not mean every 'experience' is confined to the pages itself. I repeat, there is no acharya who endorses your views. Therfore, this is your opinion alone. You are welcome to it, but do not try to pass it off as the most logical conclusion. Even Lord Krishna warns, yaH shaastravidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaamakaarataH | na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || Gita 16.23 || This is Krishna's own condemnation of those who simply take what they want from sastra and ignore the rest.

The Lord is extremely lovable. Even in the Gita, He cannot resist trumpeting about His beauty and loveliness. And yet, He does it so innocently, like a child proudly talking about his acheivements. For instance, see the verse in Gita where He tells Arjuna, 'See how wonderful my mystic power is!!' Only devotees can realise the innocent pride in these words. In one of his discourses, Sri Velukkudi Swami said, 'If a Jiva possesses ego, he becomes an undesirable character. But for Sriman Narayana, His ego is His greatest attribute'.

Thank you. Since Krishna's avatar is historical for all sincere Vaishnavas, the Rasa Lila, Him lifting Govardhana, dancing on Kalinga, etc....all these events are also historical. I am not assailing Theist for his beliefs, but rather, he seems to think that his views are the most logical and hence, should be taken up by everybody.

Nobody takes the cosmology literally, because it isn't literal. Bhu Mandala, for instance, is the orbital plane. Theist has taken this point and extended it to the portions of the Bhagavatam describing the lilas of the Lord, and to the Mahabharata War itself. Now, I am not a Hare Krishna and hence, have no obligation to take Srila Prabhupada's words seriously, but tell me, did he say that Rasa Lila and the War should be taken as allegorical? The Bhagavatam does contain some allegories. But what they are, have been outlined by the Bhagavatam itself. Now, one may claim that it is unscientific to assume Ugrasena could fit a billion bodyguards in Mathura, but are you not aware that Sriman Narayana is not bound by our limited perception? the idea that the omnipotent Lord is NOT capable of doing this is illogical. Understand my position. By all means, accept the cosmology as allegorical. But consider two points, 1) The cosmology should not be thought to be the product of a primitive mind. It isn't incorrect, but rather, has some deeper meaning, 2) This allegory theory CANNOT be extended to the Lilas of the Lord. No acharya endorses it.

That's good. Your belief. But don't try to pass it off as logical beliefs of ALL Krishna Devotees. As far as I know, my opinions are in full agreement with great acharyas like Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya and the other gurus in the respective parampara. I do not formulate my own beliefs. I am not trying to convert theist or cBrahma. That job was undertaken by stalwart Vaishnavas like Srila Prabhupada, Sri PB Annangrachariar Swami and many others, who performed it admirably. I am only asking people like Theist and cBrahma to understand that their opinions are theirs only, and not authenticated by any acharya. Kulapavana made a request for people to desist, and so I shall.

Suprabhatam is amazing. It is the stotra that is used to wake up the Lord in South Indian temples. There is Venteswara Suprabhata for Tirupati, Ranganatha Suprabhata for Srirangam, Parthasarathy Suprabhatam for Triplicane, etc. A sample of it is available on YouTube.

I don't feel the need to argue anymore. Christian Vaishnavas are incurable. This is rich. Trust me, if your ideal description of a Vaishnava is someone who won't lose his temper at your stupidity, you have to search really hard. Your other thread about Brahminical Debates was also equally childish. I certainly know more than you do. And in any case, if you feel yours is the right path, who's stopping you? I am more concerned about meditating on Sriman Narayana's soft lotus feet, His beautiful eyes, His auspicious attributes, and His acharyas' daya. So, no cBrahmas can hamper this.

This is my last post. I don't care whether cBrahma or Theist continue propounding their silly views, I am not here to sort out the troubles of a Hare Christna. cBrahma, you do not know anything about the Vedas. Why do you even try to argue? Your ridiculous questions are seriously annoying. Do you know that even the Vedantic way of debating is scientific? You are simply making yourself look silly. I am trying to be patient here. If you are not a Vaishnava, then why don't you shove off and read the Bible? I have no problems with a pure christian. I am not here to teach fanboys the nuances of Vedanta. The descriptions are symbolic ONLY if they are undoubtedly false, if taken literally. We know for sure that there are no elephants below the Earth, so it is symbolism. This is approved by all acharyas. In case of Bhagavatam Cosmology, nobody has traversed the entire Universe to verify it. Meru Mountain may be visible only to Devas. Nobody knows. Therfore, at best, we can speculate. It CANNOT be wrong because like I said before, scripture is infallible. And in case of episodes like Gajendra Moksha, it is true because it is about the Kalyana Gunas of the Lord. Even Sri Vishnu Sahasranama has some names that refer to this episode. Logically, think about this - Upanishads prescribe many ways to meditate on Brahman, such as Brahman within the sun, within the Earth, ground of all being, etc...do you think the meditators were unable to see whether Earth is flat or round? In fact, the scriptures only say that the Earth is flat at the poles. Srimad Bhagavatam describes Bhu Mandala as a flat disk. But this Bhu Mandala is not the Earth. It is the Earth's orbital plane, as the dimensions match closely. This is explained in 'Mysteries of the Sacred Universe'. "In India, we see the beginning of theoretical speculation of the size and nature of the earth. Some one thousand years before Aristotle, the Vedantins asserted that the earth was round and circled the sun. A translation of the Rig Veda goes: " In the prescribed daily prayers to the Sun we find..the Sun is at the center of the solar system. ..The student ask, "What is the nature of the entity that holds the Earth? The teacher answers, "Rishi Vatsa holds the view that the Earth is held in space by the sun". "Two thousand years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its center."<O:P> "Twenty-four centuries before Isaac Newton, the Hindu Rig Veda asserted that gravitation held the universe together. The Sanskrit speaking Aryans d to the idea of a spherical earth in an era when the Greeks believed in a flat one." </O:P <O:P</O:P <O:PThis is taken from a book published by a scholar. Don't ask me for more pramanas. I am no Vedic Scholar. </O:P Your accusations of a flat earth idea stems from your christian background. Bible posits meaningless tales in genesis, whereas Mandukya Upanishad, with its spider analogy, is able to address both Big Bang and Big Crunch. Since you are aware of the inadequacy of your faith, you try to find the same in Vaishnavism. Typical Jesus mark. The Vedantic Model of the Universe is more complex than Hare Christnas can conceive. There has been a 15 part series addressing it. I don't care about either Theist or cBrahma. They can talk about the 'Supreme Personality of Godhead', 'Jesus the pure devotee' and 'Krsna' for all they want. Its not my problem if they can't even dwell on the attributes of the Lord as a real thing properly. Their Karma. Difference in Yugas. I end with this: There is a magnificent Brahmotsavam coming up. The Lord of Sri Parthasarathy temple will be bathed, dressed and adorned in beautiful garments and will give much pleasure to devotees. I find it far more attractive than debating with a fool like cBrahma, so I give up on them.