Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Where did I claim to be anything? On the one hand I am accused of endless argumentation and on the other of not thinking. I am able to argue effectively because I debate 1) Logically (which requires thinking) 2) with appeal to authority (which requires knowledge) And why is this about me? What is your excuse?
  2. No I don't know what that is. But you are obviously a jnani philosophical speculator and to some extent so am I. Prabhupada was involved in serious debating, not because he liked debating, but to strike away the mental tricks that blocked the truth and people can get really stubborn in their attachments to illusory ideas. The problem is where does debating stop and service begin. On the one hand there are those who distinguish themselves by their sadhana, following all the rules down to every detail. On the other hand there are those who are more interested in knowledge. I call attention to the following letter by somebody I consider to be a first rate bhakta.
  3. I don't fight with everyone. I ignore a lot of people. Gimme a break parroting that cheap argument. Besides it is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm hardly religious and nobody considers me a fanatic. It's just that few people, especially religious ones know how to debate logically and validly so it takes a while to make the point.
  4. Are you suffering from a serious illness? (not sarcastic).
  5. SP didn't need popularity, to steal Sankara's thunder. He was just noting that Sankara wasn't a true impersonalist.
  6. This is a discussion forum about spiritual topics. If somebody makes a philosophical point like adwaita is attractive, I will debate it since it is misleading and fallacious. If you're not about the truth how can you be spiritual? To trivialize the whole thing as being argumentative is a cheap evasion in my opinion. You are searching obviously, which is the speculative path - the jnana yoga. But honestly I don't know where you're coming from. But then it doesn't really matter.
  7. No I'm asking where you got these instructions. I don't think it needs faith so much as intelligent realization. A dead body without spirit is just a lump of matter. No personality. Clearly whatever constitued that personality was not identical with that lump of matter. I'm somewhat amazed that you melt into agreement with DW who uses Sankara to prove adwaita is 'flexible' (whatever that means). According to Prabhupada, and yes I will quote him since he is the most reliable source, Sankaracarya is a 'covered' personalist since he accepts that Krsna is bhagavan.
  8. You have personal mis-identified with embodied. Our individuality is not reduceable to bodily existence.
  9. The many ways the I can identify itself shows that it exists seperately from them but not that it is impersonal. 'Without bodily identification' does not equal impersonal.
  10. Yes I already am practicing Christianity. It isn't simple in the sense of easy , but it isn't complicated with dozens and dozens of little rules that make every day life impossibly stressful. That's what the Old Testament did and the Pharisees were the perfect examples of that fussy rule-following. They plotted to kill Jesus precisely because He understood the Spirit rather than the letter of the law. It would be interesting to take a poll as to how many members of this forum actually prepare prasadam according to all the rules stated in the krsna post, if they do at all. It takes up so much time, that a working person wouldn't have time for anything else.
  • Create New...