raghu

My guru did teach me the meaning of the Vyasa-sutras. Why did you assume otherwise? Are you just assuming otherwise because you are desperately trying to evade the question? When are you going to explain why it is that you are disagreeing with Vyasa? Anyone who claims to be a devotee of Krishna but disagrees with Vyasa is a renegade. Once again, the relevant sutras illustrating literally beginningless karma: vaiShamyanairghriNye na sApeKShatvAt tathA hi darshayati | 2.1.34 | na karmAvibhAgAditi chennAnAditvAt | 2.1.35 | upapadyate chApyupalabhyate cha | 2.1.36 |

Thank you for finally acknowledging reality and recanting your previous statement. Really? How is that true? Is it true merely because you say it is true, or do you have some scientific proof? Objectively, the end as envisioned by these different religions is not the same as per their respective scriptures. The end sought by Vaishnavas is not the same end as sought by Advaitins, and this is not the same as the end sought by Buddhists, which in turn is different from the end sought by Christians/jews/Muslims. Please explain sensibly how the end these different religions seek is the same, when the respective ends they describe are completely different. Example - remaining separate from God cannot be another way of saying realizing oneness with God. Either one or the other must be true, assuming you have some common sense. Saying they strive for the same thing is not the same thing as saying they are the same. But in any case they do not strive for the same thing if you read about what they each claim to be striving for.

Fine, I give you credit for knowing how to evade the question. Once again, are you going to continue ignoring what Vyasa says in sutras 2.1.34-36? Since you are going out of your way not to consult the relevant evidence, let me provide it here for you: vaiShamyanairghriNye na sApeKShatvAt tathA hi darshayati | 2.1.34 | na karmAvibhAgAditi chennAnAditvAt | 2.1.35 | upapadyate chApyupalabhyate cha | 2.1.36 | Now I would appreciate hearing from you as to why you think karma does have a beginning even though the sutras above clearly say otherwise. Feel free to consult your sampradaya acharya's commentary. Certainly. And you could be looking at cyber-porn and sleeping with prostitutes for all I know. But what does this have to do with what Vyasa wrote in the Vedanta-sutras?

So, in other words, you are going to ignore what the Vedanta-sutra says, right? Nope. This particular section regarding anAdi-karma is very clear and there is very little difference of opinion between the different commentators. Even your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana accepts the idea. You do know that Baladeva is supposed to be in your parampara, right? And that you cannot really claim to represent the views of the parampara when you make statements that disagree with Baladeva? Well your understanding of Srimad Bhagavatam is in conflict with the statements of Vedanta-sutra and your own Vedanta commentator. So, is Srimad Bhagavatam wrong? Or, could it be that you are wrong? The idea that karma has a finite beginning is not found the verses of the Bhagavatam. Vedanta-sutra 2.1.34-36 contains the relevant sutras in very clear detail explaining that karma is beginningless. Guilty as charged. I cannot succesfully prove anything to someone who closes his eyes and refuses to acknowledge the evidence that contradicts his views. As I said, feel free to disagree with Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Sri Vedavyasa, etc. I don't expect you to be consistent with the parampara you claim to follow because my observation is that most so-called gaudiyas on this forum often make claims that are not supported by their own acharyas.

And what you wrote: ..certainly bears some examining, regardless of the context. We don't really know which religions you are referring to. We don't need to split hairs over the word "permanent." Anyone can observe, without any religious bias whatsoever, that "happy" people are sometimes happy and sometimes not happy. No one stays happy all the time, unless they are happy when they lose friends and family, happy when they suffer from disease, happy when they are victims of crime, etc. Here you are obviously generalizing about all religion (unless you wish to qualify your statement). Also, the second part of the sentence does not follow from the first. A religious ideology can certainly acknowledge the ephemeral nature of happiness in this world while still postulating a greater and more lasting happiness in the next. The question isn't one of "absence of happiness" but really "absence of lasting happiness." And we don't have to pretend that we cannot observe that even in our everyday experience. Not everyone recognizes the cyclical nature of enjoyment and suffering. Naturally such people don't look for anything better since they delude themselves into believing they can insulate themselves from any significant suffering in this world. When questioned about the greatest wonder of this world, Yudhishthira replied that the greatest wonder was that people see death and suffering all around them, yet they never fully come to terms with their own mortality. You may not see it, but you can surely acknowledge that there have been those across different cultures and different time periods who have given up their "natural inclinations" (if you define that the way I think you are defining it) voluntarily in pursuit of some intangible, "spiritual" goal. One wonders why so many people do that throughout time and across the spectrum of different cultures when it is supposedly against their basic instincts. If you look at it objectively, you have to acknowledge that your view that "happiness = ability to satisfy materialistic natural inclinations" does not tell the whole story. I would argue that man is also naturally inclined to wonder about the purpose of life (if any), acknowledge the fleeting nature of pleasure and pain in this world, and inquire about the means (if any) of escaping it. You can surely acknowledge that history bears this out.

All religions are not equally true, a fact that is obvious to anyone who is honest enough to study the subject matter rationally. Vaishnavas and Shaivites disagree with each other as to who God is. Advaitins and Non-Advaitins disagree with each other about what liberation is. Jews and Christians disagree with each other about the second coming. Muslims disagree with almost everyone else. Scientifically speaking, all available evidence (respective scriptures, etc) indicates that these are different religions. Two things which have the same properties could be the same. But if two things have any different properties, then they are not the same. This is common sense. By what sort of methodology do you conclude, in spite of their obvious differences, that all these religions are equally true? Aren't you just being a wishy-washy, politically-correct, sentimentalist who habitually postulates ridiculous assertions and then dismisses all evidence to their contrary?

No, the argument by Vyasa is that God is not partial because the living entities' karmas are beginningless. There is a lot of crass speculation in your post, and rather than me explaining to you why Vyasa (who is supposedly in your "parampara") is right, it might be better for you to actually read the sutras and understand the flow of the arguments. Otherwise, you will just continue to repeat assertions that are just blatantly incorrect.

Some people confuse regulation with repression. All I have to say is that I have never met the man who attained permanent happiness simply by connecting his senses to temporary sense objects over and over again. And who says that happiness is obtained merely via negation? Even the Gaudiyas don't say that. Unless you consider most of the posters here Gaudiyas, in which case anything goes. A philosophy that holds that the path to happiness is through one's "natural instincts" does not benefit the many who don't have luxuries to attain the things you speak of. So either give up some of what you have to help others (thus sacrificing some of your own happiness), or accept that you are naturally selfish, and that you will enjoy while others suffer.

That is not the accusation. The accusation by the purva-pakshin is that God is partial and cruel because people start off unequal/with different karmas. And Vyasa answers the accusation by stating that the karmas are beginningless, hence there is no question of God being cruel since there is no question of the living entities "starting off" unequal.

Accepting for the moment that Rama and Krishna "suffered," the answer to your question is obvious. Ravana, a jiva, abducted Sita and thus was the proximate cause of Rama's "suffering," and Krishna got manipulated into a fight with Jambavan and thus "suffered" because of several jivas trying to posess the Syamantaka jewel. So the statement is correct - the "suffering" was caused by jivas. In fact, you just said it yourself right here: So abandoning dharma will resolve suffering? So if kings abandon their dharma and stop protecting their subjects, this will lead to less suffering? Are you really sure you want to go on record as having made such a dopey assertion?

No, no, no. You haven't read the sutras or you have not understood the logic of the arguments. It is very clear from context that "brahma karma" is excluded from the discussion. The discussion in the sutras clearly centers around karma that is a cause of bondage for the jivas. The question is asked as to why different jivas are in different stations of life, i.e. some are suffering and others are enjoying, etc, and does this not make God partial and cruel. Vyasa's rebutal is that these are due to their different karmas, and thus God is not partial nor curel. Then the objection is examined that if jivas have different different karmas, then they must have started out with different karmas, therefore God is partial and cruel for assigning jivas to different karmas/different stations of life from the very beginning. But Vyasa's rebuttal is that no, God is not partial and cruel, because the karmas of the jivas are beginningless. These are the same karmas that cause their bondage in the material world. There is simply no way you can look at those sutras and honestly claim that "brahma karma" is included in the term karma in that context. Of course, if you aren't against distorting the sutras to support your point of view, that is another matter. Not eternal. Beginningless. If a living entity's karma is eternal then his bondage is eternal. The idea that karma can refer also to spiritual activity is a distortion that is not consistent with the way in which the term is actually used in scripture. You are simply talking through your hat with no clue as to what you are saying. The anadi-karma statement is very clear and specific. The story of Jaya and Vijaya involved the Lord's sanction and does not rebut the anadi-karma statement which refers to pretty much everyone else.

No, what it is saying is that the karma of the jivas is beginningless, which was the point I made earlier, and which is accepted by all genuine Vaishnava Vedantins. And that pretty much negates any idea of "falling into the material world."

Where in scripture is the above mentioned? Because factually this viewpoint is very much at odds with the aphorism in the Vedanta Sutra that explains that the karma of the jIva-s is beginningless. If the jIva-s came to the material world at some point in time then their karma would have a beginning, which brings up the objection of God's partiality. The idea of a compassionate God is not consistent with the idea that God sends people into the material world where they will suffer.

And similarly, Vivekananda and his fanatical, brain-dead followers blame all the religious problems in the world on Dvaita (he says so in his collected works), criticizes icon worship as necessary for superstitious & undeveloped minds (thus managing to insult the faith of millions of Hindus), and decries the study of Bhagavad-Gita as irrelevant and instead recommends playing football as a better means of attaining self-realization. But, don't take my word for it. It's all in his writings and speeches. Factually that is correct. Feeding the poor might eliminate their hunger but does not address the root cause of their hunger. I don't see anything controversial about that statement. This is an atheistic point of view, and as it happens to be the view of Swami Vivekananda and his followers, this just supports my contention that he is nothing more than an atheist dressed in saffron robes. Either God, dharma, and self-realization are real, or they are not. One either accepts that they are real or one does not. If they are real, they are real for everyone, not just for those who happen to have luxuries. The Pandavas were exiled from their kingdom and forced to live under the most austere conditions during exile; religion did not cease to be relevant to them. Suffering and enjoyment are part of a cyclical process that is based on one's karma. An intelligent person wants to end the repeated process of birth and death, knowing that suffering keeps coming back regardless of how much wealth and influence he has. Something the Vivekananda people repeatedly fail to grasp is that you can give charity and spiritual knowledge; these things are not mutually exclusive. Many people who are poor naturally ask why they suffer - that is the beginning of spiritual inquiry, and merely feeding them does not answer that question. Many of those who are poor are also hungry spiritually, something you would know if you actually spent any time *talking* to them. Or you could just continue to use them as examples of your first-class generosity to stroke your already bloated ego as a great benefactor. 1) The Ramakrishna/Vivekananda Mission is a financially strong "religious" organization. 2) They do approach helpless people with an overt motive of converting them to their point of view. 3) That point of view being that all religions are valid in some sense and that real Hindu dharma is some watered down, politically correct form of Advaita. 4) Followers of the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda societies do publicize their campaigns proudly the world over and specifically make it a point to contrast their welfare work with the work of other religious organizations in an effort to prop up their religious credibility. 5) I'm not clear on what one's welfare activities have to do with the strength or validity of his religious point of view. Perhaps it is because the RK/Vivekananda people have very little substance to their "religion" that they must constantly emphasize how superior their welfare work is. But that is just my impression and I am always ready to be corrected.

Prior to liberation, the liberated souls have likely experienced countless lifetimes with the same kind of suffering that is experienced by those who remain in bondage. I don't see it is a problem if (after liberation) they were made unaware of the suffering of those remaining in bondage. After all, they went through it too. On the flip side, I remember reading in some gaudiya writings somewhere that the liberated jIva-s do experience bliss except and save for their compassion for the souls who remain in bondage. I don't remember exactly, but I seem to recall that they considered that even this compassion did not take away from their bliss somehow. This sounds like something one of the gosvamis would write. Not that I am taking a position one way or another. I think it is an interesting question. Certainly one can exempt Advaita's concept of liberation from the criticism since world never existed. But the other problems remain - who gets liberation? Everyone or just a few? Why the difference? Is the experience of suffering real? Why or why not? How can bondage be real if world is not actually real? These seem like far more significant problems with that worldview than the question of the nature of bliss. Let us take parenting as a crude example. Good parenting does not mean constantly controlling your children so as to keep them from making any mistake. Nor does it mean being totally apathetic. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, or else the child will not learn what is actually right and what are the consequences of wrong actions. The Vedantic position has always been that Brahman is impartial and yet bestows His grace on the jIva who seeks Him. Without turning to Him, the jIva is like the bird in the tree who enjoys or suffers endlessly according to his activities. He has got the freedom to do as he wishes but also reaps the fruit of his actions. Eventually, he may learn that trying to enjoy separately from the Lord is merely causing his endless suffering, just as a child gradually learns that bad behavior leads to bad consequences and opts for a path of good behavior. If the Lord forced every jIva to turn towards him then there would be no question of free will, and the very nature of our individual existence would be meaningless. As far as forgetting one's past experience in bondage, I suppose this all gets back to how we define ourselves as individuals. If you define yourself by your previous experiences, then I can see how a liberated state in which you forget your past life experiences might be troubling. But then, if you accept the point of view that our identities as individual units of consciousness are not reducible to merely the experience of memories, the ability to remember one's past is not really that important. That is indeed a paradox, but it is a fact that many self-proclaimed atheists are angry at God. But if someone is truly an atheist, there should be no question of being angry with God since he does not accept the existence of God (though I can understand anger with organized religion, anger with religious leaders, etc). I consider myself a theist, and I honestly do not find troubling the idea of a compassionate all-powerful God existing side by side with a world full of suffering. Just as in the atheist's worldview, we have to accept that enjoyment or suffering are the products of human behaviors. If God exists, we can't assume that He is going to step in and stop all suffering simply by virtue of His existence, any more than a parent is going to do our homework for us, or a gardener is going to be responsible for the welfare of ants living peacefully in an anthill next to his land. Basic problem behind most lay criticism of religion, in my opinion, is that critics accept many basic assumptions specific to Abrahamic religions (i.e. the idea of creation by God, and hence God's direct responsibility for all human affairs) and have a hard time getting out of that worldview when considering the problems of God, existence, salvation, etc.

Since it is rapidly becoming obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is a foregone conclusion that no one else will either. I could tell you that Vedantins (including Vaishnava vedantins) have for years placed the authority of shruti above that of smriti. But then you would just say you accept smriti as equal to shruti and wonder why anyone would disagree. Similarly, I could tell you that a scripture is only useful in an inter-sectarian polemic when both parties accept its authority. There is not much point quoting a "scripture" as "proof" of your views when its authority is only accepted by you. All one needs to appreciate this point is common sense. If you have none, consider finding someone who does. You haven't really responded to the pramAna I have quoted previously establishing Shiva's subordinate position with respect to Vishnu. Instead, you have merely quoted more sources that seem to support your position. This merely reinforces the point that you are just picking and choosing whatever seems to support your view and ignoring the rest, with (and this is a key point) no *objective* or *rational* explanation as to why the pramAna you ignore is unsuitable. When Vaishnava Vedantins put greater emphasis on shruti, they do so because they know shruti has been preserved over the centuries and its authority is accepted by all sampradayas. The same cannot be said for every smriti, some of which are genuine scriptures that have been adulterated by man-made intervention while others are man-made scriptures that are being passed off as divinely inspired. It really becomes a problem when someone insists on being perceived as the most knowledgeable one on a forum like this, especially when he really knows very little. You should spend more time in reading/listening and less in typing/speaking so that you can acquire information instead of wasting life's precious moments trying to come across as more of an authority than you really are. good day. Raghu

That is merely your opinion. Centuries of Vaishnava scholars and their followers would disagree with you. Logically, the burden of proof lies on the one making the ludicrous claim. I have also done the research, and as someone who has examined both the work of Tulasi dasa and of Valmiki, I can tell you that there are irreconciable differences between these texts. No amount of politically-correct fluff is going to change what I can see with my own eyes, and no amount of appealing to the sentiments of unqualified individuals is going to change the fact that traditional scholars do not give the same weight to Ramcharitmanas as they do to Valmiki. None of this is to disparage Tulasi dasa or his poetic abilities in the least. Surely we can appreciate someone's attempts at expressing his 'devotion' without falsely elevating him to a position that he does not really have.

Why do you hold that Krishna "created" misery and suffering? This presupposes the idea that (1) these are created things with a definite beginning in time and (2) that they are "things" that can be created. Creationism is the hallmark of Judeo-Christian religions. Some entities like the jIva-s, paramAtma, jagat, etc are not created but exist always. Misery is the absence of bliss and not a "created" thing as such. Several points here: 1) Centuries of denouncing theism and finding meaning in life by humanitarian efforts divorced of belief in a higher power have not ended suffering in this world. On the contrary, we still have wars, poverty, starvation, ethnic cleansing, etc and no indication to suggest that it will stop anytime in the near future. This of course supports the point of view held by Hindus and Buddhists that suffering is a part of the nature of this world. Hence point #2: 2) People show compassion in different ways based on the assumptions they make about the reality of the world in which they live. On the premise that suffering is a part of existence in this world when separate from Sri Hari, a Vaishnava shows compassion by wanting to offer knowledge about Vishnu and the path to liberation to those who do not know about it. Needless to say, this compassion is not welcome by those who are inimical to the "sectarian" path of Vishnu-worship. 3) On the point about liberated souls being able to enjoy and yet feel for the suffering of those living in bondage: This is certainly an interesting point. I think all are agreed that the liberated jIva does not suffer as he is properly situated in his natural position as a servant of Vishnu. I am not certain if he forgets the suffering of those "left behind" or not, but I see no reason why he cannot still be compassionate for them and still be blissful in his service to Vishnu. I am of course speculating here. I am not attacking Advaita, for all the Advaita groupies out there, but this statement seems absurd taken at face value. Whose duality ends when one attains moksha? Does everyone get moksha if one person gets it? If not, then the duality and experience of suffering remain for those who have not got moksha. If the argument is that there really is no duality then who is suffering, and is suffering real? If suffering is not real, then what about the experience of suffering? If the experience of suffering is not real, then where does the concept of compassion enter into it, since suffering is not real? If suffering is real, then non-liberated jIvas still get it while it ends for liberated jIvas, which makes the above statement illogical. The above is based on the mistaken premise that the world is "created" by God and that He is responsible for the suffering that takes place within it. This is certainly a problem for Abrahamic faiths. But as far as Vedanta is concerned, world is beginningless, karma is beginningless, etc so the issue of God's responsibility does not arise. This seems illogical. How does an atheist deal with the issue of suffering in the world? If he is angry at God and decides not to believe, does that not presuppose the idea that he does believe in God and just wants to make a show of defiance? Otherwise, who is he angry at? And if he truly does not believe in God, then why is no one to blame for the sufferings seen in this world? It would be most logical in such a situation to identify the most proximal cause of any atrocity (the Saddam Hussein and the Kurds, Hitler and the Jews, Islamic fundamentalists and India, etc) and blame them. In which case if an atheist wanted to really do something, he ought to fight all these blameworthy individuals instead of coming to forums like this and denouncing an imaginary God who could not possibly be responsible for any of it.

I'm sorry, but your argument is simply sentimental and wishy-washy. Certainly Tulasi dasa was a gifted poet and had bhakti of a sort for the Lord. But that does not make his work equal to the Ramayana. One cannot simply rewrite the story in his own way and pass it off as equal to the original. Again, you have not given any objective reason to support such a thesis, and the fact that most Vaishnava vedantists would disagree with you just underscores the audacity of your claims.

Ranjeet, Once again you are evading the real issue and throwing up tangential arguments to conceal your own dishonesty. The fact is, Rama did not "become" Shiva (nor vice-versa), and this story is nowhere to be found in the Ramayana of Valmiki. You should just admit when you are mistaken rather than throwing out a bunch of out-of-context quotes to avoid admitting your mistake. Now as far as your limited understanding of these other sources is concerned: First of all, the Bhagavata is smriti and its authority cannot supersede shruti. Secondly, if you are understanding this to mean that Shiva is the same as Vishnu, then you would be hard pressed to explain references (all from the iskcon edition) like SB 4.3: sattvaM vishuddaM vasudevashabditaM yad Iyate tatra pumAn apAvR^itaH in which Shiva declares himself to be a devotee of Vasudeva, SB 8.12.1-43 in which Shiva is bewildered by Vishnu's mohini form, SB 10.63.23-30 in which Shiva is defeated by Sri Krishna on the battlefield, SB 10.88.1-40 in which Shiva is threatened by Vrikasura and requires Vishnu to be freed from the horrible benediction given to him, etc. At best, the Bhagavata contradicts itself on the matter of Shiva's position with respect to Vishnu. But in the vast majority of cases it is clear that Shiva is considered less than Vishnu. Well, the Bhagavata narrates the story of Rama in 9th skandha, adhyAya 10-12 and guess what? There is no story of Rama "becoming" Shiva there, either. It is not an offense to Shiva to correctly describe his position with respect to Brahman based on the evidence. That's probably because their followers believe in getting a comprehensive understanding of shruti, while you seem to think it is acceptable to just pick and choose the evidence that seems to support your view while rejecting the rest. On the matter of the shvetAshvatara u. it is true that the Supreme is referred to as Rudra, Maheshvara, etc. But these are also names of Vishnu, just as names like Indra and so on can also be names of Vishnu in the right context. As per the principles laid out in Vedanta-sutra, when the supreme is being referred to by a name ordinarily associated with a subordinate entity, it should be understood from context that Brahman is being referred to, and not the subordinate entity. By the way, this principle is also accepted by your own Baladeva VidyabhUshana, the gaudiya vedanta commentator. Not that this would mean anything to you. Now as far as shruti pramAna is concerned, we have the Rig Veda which explains that Rudra gets his power by worship of Vishnu: asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat || RV 7.40.5 || This mantra says that Shiva gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu. This contradicts your point of view that Shiva and Vishnu are the same. Either Shiva (Rudra) is the same as Vishnu or he is not. Merely saying that Vishnu is also called Rudra, therefore he is the same as Rudra/Shiva is not sensible. That would be like me saying that anyone whose name is Raghu is also the same as me. As far as traditional Vaishnavas are concerned (i.e. before 16th century Sri Chaitanya), Vishnu and Shiva were always considered separate deities. The attempt of gaudiyas to claim that Vishnu and Shiva are same in some sense seems like nothing more than a ploy to win over followers of mayavada and Shaivism.

I fail to understand what the need is to rewrite the Ramayana when a simple translation into Hindi would suffice. While we are on the subject, I have yet to see a specific, objective argument as to why Ramcharitmanas is as authoritative as the Ramayana when discussing the life of Sri Rama. So far the whole premise of this argument seems to be that the Hindi speaking audience of North India likes it. But since they are the ones by your own admission who would have trouble digesting the Sanskrit from the original, it logically follows that they would be unqualified to make such a judgement. Small wonder then that they are oblivious to the differences between the two.

If no one can know Brahman then this means that any study of scripture is futile. So why all these Vedas? The correct position is that no one can *completely* understand Brahman. The concept simply will not fit in one's head as He is beyond the ability of a finite mind to grasp. But, one can certainly *begin* to understand Him by careful study of the shruti under the guidance of a proper guru.

How do you know? That is merely a statement of blind faith. I have the entire text in the original Hindi and can show you several statements from it that betray a mayavadi bias in the text. And all this from your "realised transcendentalist." There is no need, since Valmiki already did it. Really? Where does he say that? And how does he define sadhu? Are you aware that you have no idea what you are talking about? There are several instances where the Ramayana and the Ramcharitmanas diverge, most notably the one in which it is claimed that Rama became Shiva and vice-versa. This has got to be, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have ever seen written on this forum. And that is truly an accomplishment considering I have read the offerings of theist and ghari against which I have this to compare. Now let me see if I get this straight: You criticize me because you think I have not read Ramcharitmanas. Then you claim the incident in question occurred in the Ramayana because you read it in Ramcharitmanas. Yet you admit that you have never read the Ramayana. Why can't you just admit that you were wrong instead of inventing this bizarre "logic" to justify your wild and unsubstantiated claims?

The question was where it is stated in Ramayana. Ramcharitmanas is not Ramayana. The Ramayana of Valmiki is the oldest Ramayana in existence that is currently available to us. Everyone more or less accepts its authority when it comes to matters pertaining to Rama's life. One cannot simply arrogate to less qualified sources the position of "authority." Merely having faith in something does not make it correct. It is better to think objectively and rationally. ...irrelevant to the question at hand. You claimed that Rama became Shiva and vice versa. Where is the evidence? Changing the topic will not conceal the fact that you are speaking falsehoods. You should retract your statement rather than persist in defending your mayavadi hypothesis.

So in other words, personal forgiveness is ok for you to preach, but not to practice. On the contrary, when you disagree with someone, you fabricate bogus claims to the effect that he insulted your chosen deity figure, and then in this way you rationalize your hatred against him. Can you quote one thing I have stated that supposedly insults Jesus? You and I both know that you cannot.