If we could only see what the material univese really looks like?

[sandrajenkins 0]

I wish people would stop fighitng and save this nice thread. It contains a lot of interesting viewpoints. That said, it's not easy to believe everythjng you read, and likewise, if we dont believe, we're not following the religion perfectly and fully. It's a tricky situatio to be in.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

I must say there is something in your personality that brings out the worst in me. Presently I would like to wring your scrawny little neck for that last comment.

 

As was just pointed out you are so clueless as to consider Vaisnavism as a religion that you can join. You poor little sectarian soul you.

 

 

I'm not reading his messages coz he's on my ignore list, but you're right on, Theist. Him and that Suresh loser aka tackleberry are both ignoramuses of the same stripe. Typical Southern Indian narrow sectarians!

[theist 1]

The funny thing is what got me mad was him saying I reject the form of the Lord? You as an Advaitin do reject that from and we know we are both in deep disagreement on that issue. I just hate being so mischaracterized.

 

Anyway we must honor sandra's request posted just above. Nor more bickering.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

Indeed, his posts smack of literalist fundamentalism of the most abject variation. I am at variance with you on much, but I deeply respect your entire approach and for me, belief should not be equal to jettisoning the capacity to use one's mind in order to try to make sense of what we read in shastra.

[cbrahma 0]

The problem is that Dark Warrior along with a couple of others on this forum have no idea how to debate with valid logical arguments. They make pesonal attacks and 'non sequiturs'. Offense is their first line of defense.

They are not gentleman and pose as brahmana and Vaisnava. This is very important because it is self-justifying, or should I say self-righteous.

[Malati dasi 0]

Dark Warrior said: EDIT: By the way, it would be foolish to say that Vedanta is against Science. The Vedic concept of time and space is extremely advanced, and puts forward ideas such as String Theory, which has only recently been suggested by mordern science. The whole Pralaya, Kalpa and other such things are in accordance with science. The cyclical nature of time is alson outlined in the Vedic Scriptures. The Bhagavatam has described how an embryo develops into a baby. Some scholars also point out that ideas of cloning have also been hinted by this text.

In Sayana's commentary on the Rig Veda, he accurately mentions the speed of light to be 186,000 miles per second. Therfore, our texts are concordant with science. It is all a matter of reinterpretation.

 

You have my support Dark Warrior. I also found Vaishnavism in my case Gaudiya, superior in many respects. I can appreciate that you have a deeper understanding of the Vedas than most of us here. But most importantly you have the faith.

 

The Vedas or even the bhagavatam express some ideas that are so advanced. In 2003, I read an article about the theory pf multiverses being discussed by a top physicist in Australia. And you know what immediately came to my mind? The illustration of MahaVishanu lying in the causal ocean with the multple universes as the background. Actually, the illustration in the article has an uncanny resemblance to the ISKCON illustration we are all very familiar with.

 

Also, the concept of cyclical time which can be found in the Vedas or Bhagavatam is a subject worth discussing by physicists and many other theories have spawned from it.

 

If the vedas is not a part of God's shakti, where does its knowledge come from? And if this is indeed part of God's shakti then it must be real in some dimension.

 

Of course, there are many things there that on our level are difficult to imagine, let alone understand.

 

Let's think for a second, has anyone here in this forum ever imagined in his/her wildest dream that this phenomenon known as the internet will ever come about?

 

However, my advice to you Dark Warrior is to keep your cool and show some ettiquette. We are winning the debate anyway.

 

Radhe Radhe

 

 

[cbrahma 0]

 

Dark Warrior said: EDIT: By the way, it would be foolish to say that Vedanta is against Science. The Vedic concept of time and space is extremely advanced, and puts forward ideas such as String Theory, which has only recently been suggested by mordern science. The whole Pralaya, Kalpa and other such things are in accordance with science. The cyclical nature of time is alson outlined in the Vedic Scriptures. The Bhagavatam has described how an embryo develops into a baby. Some scholars also point out that ideas of cloning have also been hinted by this text.

In Sayana's commentary on the Rig Veda, he accurately mentions the speed of light to be 186,000 miles per second. Therfore, our texts are concordant with science. It is all a matter of reinterpretation.

 

You have my support Dark Warrior. I also found Vaishnavism in my case Gaudiya, superior in many respects. I can appreciate that you have a deeper understanding of the Vedas than most of us here. But most importantly you have the faith.

 

The Vedas or even the bhagavatam express some ideas that are so advanced. In 2003, I read an article about the theory pf multiverses being discussed by a top physicist in Australia. And you know what immediately came to my mind? The illustration of MahaVishanu lying in the causal ocean with the multple universes as the background. Actually, the illustration in the article has an uncanny resemblance to the ISKCON illustration we are all very familiar with.

 

Also, the concept of cyclical time which can be found in the Vedas or Bhagavatam is a subject worth discussing by physicists and many other theories have spawned from it.

 

If the vedas is not a part of God's shakti, where does its knowledge come from? And if this is indeed part of God's shakti then it must be real in some dimension.

 

Of course, there are many things there that on our level are difficult to imagine, let alone understand.

 

Let's think for a second, has anyone here in this forum ever imagined in his/her wildest dream that this phenomenon known as the internet will ever come about?

 

However, my advice to you Dark Warrior is keep your cool and show some ettiquette. We are winning the debate anyway.

 

Radhe Radhe

 

 

Vaisnavism must be more than fanatical belief in a text, to justify attacking anybody who raises logical objections to its literal interpretation.

[Malati dasi 0]

Well, you can see that I adviced him to be civil.

 

But you can't deny that he has explained his position in a more exhaustive and very specific way.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Well, you can see that I adviced him to be civil.

 

But you can't deny that he has explained his position in a more exhaustive and very specific way.

He has dodged many of the objections with respect to the literal understanding of the Vedic cosmology. The earth being flat, being on the back of a turtle, the four elephants, all of these subtle representations of gross animals and mundane objects like chariots.

[Malati dasi 0]

CBrahma: He has dodged many of the objections with respect to the literal understanding of the Vedic cosmology. The earth being flat, being on the back of a turtle, the four elephants, all of these subtle representations of gross animals and mundane objects like chariots.

 

Can someone please give me the references for these stories, I'd like have a look at them. Thanks

[Dark Warrior 0]

 

He has dodged many of the objections with respect to the literal understanding of the Vedic cosmology. The earth being flat, being on the back of a turtle, the four elephants, all of these subtle representations of gross animals and mundane objects like chariots.

 

cBrahma, you certainly do nothing to enhance your image. Utter nonsense without substance.

 

I have explained this same issue in the Jesus thread. Search for it if you wish.

 

EDIT: To shut this fanboy up,

 

The Vedic Scriptures say that the world to be supported upon twelve massive pillars, during the hours of darkness, the Sun passed underneath, somehow managing to thread its way between the pillars without hitting them. According to the Hindus, Earth stood on the back of four elephants, the elephants in turn rested upon the back of a huge tortoise, while the tortoise itself was supported by a serpent floating in a limitless ocean."

In fact, after the chaff is removed, the Puranas have a kernel and exhibits what may be termed a reverse symbolism. The twelve pillars that support the world are evidently the twelve months of the year, and they are specifically mentioned in the Vedic hymns. The four elephants on which Earth rests are the Dikarin, the sentinels of the four directions. These in turn rest, in turn, on a tortoise and a serpent. The tortoise is Vishnu's Kurma or tortoise avatar and symbolizes the fact that the Earth is supported in space in its annual orbit around the Sun. Finally, the coiled serpent represents Earth's rotation. Vishnu, or the Sun, himself rests upon a coiled snake - the Ananta, or Adisesha, which represents the rotation of the Sun on its own axis.

 

The Scriptures do not say that the Earth is flat. They only say that the Earth is flat at the poles

 

Now people may say, because the chakra of Vishnu revolves around his finger indicating that the Universe revolves around God, the form of Vishnu is an allegory. However, I take it this way - It is BECAUSE of Vishnu's form that the Universe also follows the same pattern.

[Dark Warrior 0]

 

Dark Warrior. Speak for yourself and do not speak for me.

 

 

 

Now here is a good example of what a brain dead character you are. I have never called myself a Vaisnava and I accept the form of Krsna as eternal and the source of the brahmajyoti and everything else.

 

I must say there is something in your personality that brings out the worst in me. Presently I would like to wring your scrawny little neck for that last comment.

 

As was just pointed out you are so clueless as to consider Vaisnavism as a religion that you can join. You poor little sectarian soul you.

 

HaHa...Theist, I am not so scrawny. You are a Jesus freak who has created an unappealing mixture of Christianity and Vaishnavism, whereas my whole generation is in 'disciplic succession', as Srila Prabhupada puts it.

 

I see, you accept 'Krsna'. But this same description of Krishna is in the Bhagavatam, which also describes Ugrasena. So, how do you accept the form of Vishnu and not Ugrasena?

 

Theist, you are a Christian. Your Krsna does not represent Gokula Vasudeva. Your 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' is ideally the father of Jesus, the great 'Savior'.

 

Tell me Theist, how am I sectarian? Did I say all Christians will go to hell? On the contrary, Sri Hari gives moksha to anyone He likes.

 

I used the word 'religion' simply because its easier to type. Sanatana Dharma is more like it.

 

BUT, I accept that God has taken avatars only in India. Why? Who really knows how Vishnu acts or thinks? Perhaps in another Yuga all the avatars may be in America. But of course, Theist will say, the idea of God incarnating in only one place is 'illogical'. Because his precious Jesus came in Judea!!

 

Theist, have you ever gone to a temple and drunk in the beauty of the Lord in His archa form? Ever witnessed the grandeur of Lord Balaji or Lord Ranganatha? I suspect not, because of course, your 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' rejects Idol Worship!!

 

Theist, many people bathe in the ganges to get moksha. But only a few do so with the knowledge that the ganges comes from the feet of Sri Hari. So, while the others will have a little 'transcendental experience', the few who know the truth alone benefit.

 

You reject the fact that the Rasa Lila is historical, yet you accept Vishnu's form as real. Tell me, who is contradictory here? I am aware that you accept the 'transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead' as you put it. But Rasa Lila is apparently a literary sense to you, so do you really believe that Krishna is now in Goloka, or that His form is also literary? Or, do you just believe that there is a Personal God with an unknown form in the heavens?

 

If you believe that Krishna's form is real, you have to believe the Rasa Lila is historical. If you believe Krishna's form is also real in a literary sense, then you are saying that only a personal god with some personal form that is unknown exists. Can you reconcile this?

 

Your views are extremely distorted. But whatever floats your boat. I care two hoots about Hare Christnas.

 

Vishnu is not partial. He gives divine experience to everyone. But the true knowers are those who are in absolute knowledge, as verified by Krishna,

 

'Those who know of my birth will get moksha'.

 

He wouldn't be saying this if He didn't want us to think His birth is historical.

 

You see Theist's posts. All the time he yammers about 'Krsna' and 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead'. Does he ever talk about the greatness of Trivikrama, Narasimha, or Rama, for instance? Never. Because his 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' is that monotheistic God of the New Testament.

 

You have never called yourself a Vaishnava? Good. But I seem to recall heavy debates where you asserted that Jesus and all christians are Vaishnavas. But Adi Sankara and his followers are demons, according to you. Explain this?

 

Stop this childish pretence. I have had enough of Jesus fanboys telling me what Vaishnavism is. Your confusion is obvious. 'I accept Krsna as eternal, all mayavadis are damned, consider Rasa Lila as allegory and accept Jesus as his only son'. Give me a break.

[cbrahma 0]

 

cBrahma, you certainly do nothing to enhance your image. Utter nonsense without substance.

 

I have explained this same issue in the Jesus thread. Search for it if you wish.

 

EDIT: To shut this fanboy up,

 

The Vedic Scriptures say that the world to be supported upon twelve massive pillars, during the hours of darkness, the Sun passed underneath, somehow managing to thread its way between the pillars without hitting them. According to the Hindus, Earth stood on the back of four elephants, the elephants in turn rested upon the back of a huge tortoise, while the tortoise itself was supported by a serpent floating in a limitless ocean."

 

In fact, after the chaff is removed, the Puranas have a kernel and exhibits what may be termed a reverse symbolism. The twelve pillars that support the world are evidently the twelve months of the year, and they are specifically mentioned in the Vedic hymns. The four elephants on which Earth rests are the Dikarin, the sentinels of the four directions. These in turn rest, in turn, on a tortoise and a serpent. The tortoise is Vishnu's Kurma or tortoise avatar and symbolizes the fact that the Earth is supported in space in its annual orbit around the Sun. Finally, the coiled serpent represents Earth's rotation. Vishnu, or the Sun, himself rests upon a coiled snake - the Ananta, or Adisesha, which represents the rotation of the Sun on its own axis.

 

The Scriptures do not say that the Earth is flat. They only say that the Earth is flat at the poles

 

Now people may say, because the chakra of Vishnu revolves around his finger indicating that the Universe revolves around God, the form of Vishnu is an allegory. However, I take it this way - It is BECAUSE of Vishnu's form that the Universe also follows the same pattern.

 

My image with you is my least concern, considering yours. The earth's shape is the least problem. You did not address my statement of the earth's flatness anywhere else. I added that by mistake. I mentioned that the system was geocentric elsewhere. Now you admit that the description is symbolic. Is that also in the Bhagavatam?

[Avinash 0]

Why is it that the names of ancestors given in Valmiki Ramayan are not the same as given in Bhagavatam?

[Dark Warrior 0]

 

My image with you is my least concern, considering yours. The earth's shape is the least problem. You did not address my statement of the earth's flatness anywhere else. I added that by mistake. I mentioned that the system was geocentric elsewhere. Now you admit that the description is symbolic. Is that also in the Bhagavatam?

 

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.

 

 

Why is it that the names of ancestors given in Valmiki Ramayan are not the same as given in Bhagavatam

 

Difference in Yugas.

 

I end with this:

 

 

 

ShAntAkAram bhujaga sayanam padma nAbham surEsam

VishwAdhAram gagana sadrusam megha varNam SubhAngam

Lakshmi kAntam kamala nayanam yOgi hrudyAnagamyam

VandE vishNum bhava bhaya haram sarva lokaika nAtham

MEgha syAmam peeta kausEya vAsam

SrI vatsAnkam koustubhOdbhAsitAngam

PuNyopEtam pundarIkAyatAksham

VishNum vande sarva lOkaika nAtham

Lord of highest bliss and tranquility, who is resting on the thousand hooded Adi sesha, with a lotus flower sprouting from His navel, the Lord of lords

The Lord who is bigger than the biggest, the support of the skies, who is in black cloudish colour, the most auspicious Lord

Who is always served by Srimati Lakshmi devi, the One with lotus like eyes, the One who is worshipped by the perfected yogis in their hearts

I bow unto the holy feet of such Lord Vishnu, who removes all miseries from those who take His exclusive refuge; He is the Lord of all universes.

He is Megha syAma and adorned with Koustubha mani,

The first Person, One who has innumerable forms,

The Lord who is adorned with sankha(conch), chakra(discus), kirita (crown), silk cloths, the Lord with Kousthubha mani on His chest, the Lord with four arms, the Lord in black cloudish hue, sitting on the royal throne and who is the Lord of Rukmini and satyabhama.

 

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.

[cbrahma 0]

 

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.

You know the Vedas? That is an hilarious claim. It would take a lifetime to read them all. I can read English as well you can. You are puffed up indeed over a competence that is available to a schoolboy. But you only respond with more offense and no direct relevance to the point, such as the geocentricity and the allegorical nature of the cosmology. You seem to care enough about myself and Theist to develop the most childish ad hominems of which you are capable. Nobody cares about the personal opinion of an obnoxious and supercilious individual as yourself. You are no gentlemen, and only a scholar in your opinion. You have so far not exhibited any symptoms that could be remotely described as Vaisnava.

[Dark Warrior 0]

 

You know the Vedas? That is an hilarious claim. It would take a lifetime to read them all. I can read English as well you can. You are puffed up indeed over a competence that is available to a schoolboy. But you only respond with more offense and no direct relevance to the point, such as the geocentricity and the allegorical nature of the cosmology. You seem to care enough about myself and Theist to develop the most childish ad hominems of which you are capable. Nobody cares about the personal opinion of an obnoxious and supercilious individual as yourself. You are no gentlemen, and only a scholar in your opinion. You have so far not exhibited any symptoms that could be remotely described as Vaisnava.

 

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.

[Kulapavana 0]

I appeal to all of you:

 

Please find some humility in your heart to end this bickering as it is only creating a bad impression on visitors to this site.

 

Lately, discussions on many interesting topics just seem to disintegrate into verbal battles and personal attacks. I have done my share of similar battles before and I ask your forgiveness for that. But please try to rise above such squabbles.

[cbrahma 0]

 

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.

Right. Your self-righteous posturing can impress only yourself and doesn't intimidate me in the slightest. I doubt we will be so fortunate as to hear the last of your puffed up vituperations.

I'm not invested in the appearance of brahmanism or Vaishnavism nor ever claimed either, unlike yourself. Your first and almost single strategy is to insult and make knowledge claims which never materialize. It is the self-styled brahminism which is childish resorting immediately to name calling and not much else. As far as obvious stupidity is concerned, you along with several other puffed up self-styled pseudo-jnanis, don't even have the basic debating skills, which is a knowledge of fallacious arguments.

[cbrahma 0]

 

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.

I'm not invested in the appearance of brahmanism or Vaishnavism nor ever claimed either.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

I'm not invested in the appearance of brahmanism or Vaishnavism nor ever claimed either.

 

When you quote Vaisnava sastras or gurus which you have done dozens of times on this forum then you will be associated with them on some level.

[cbrahma 0]

 

When you quote Vaisnava sastras or gurus which you have done dozens of times on this forum then you will be associated with them on some level.

That's a new one.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

That's a new one.

Not really, because this is true if you quote them (sadhus and sastra) as an authority which you have done many times. Of course if you're quoting them to criticize, then it is different. It's best to show some integrity and have a consistent position, unless one can admit that they have been in illusion or mistaken about a particular subject.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Not really, because this is true if you quote them (sadhus and sastra) as an authority which you have done many times. Of course if you're quoting them to criticize, then it is different. It's best to show some integrity and have a consistent position, unless one can admit that they have been in illusion or mistaken about a particular subject.

I don't think that quoting from authority of a certain belief-system necessarily implies one endorses that belief system. One can quote any 'authoritative' text on any subject, such as Darwin for evolution or Neitzche for nihilism without embracing either theory. Besides Vaisnava isn't a college credential.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

I don't think that quoting from authority of a certain belief-system necessarily implies one endorses that belief system. One can quote any 'authoritative' text on any subject, such as Darwin for evolution or Neitzche for nihilism without embracing either theory.

Of course one can quote an authority on a particular belief system to refute it or show how it compares and contrasts with another system.

 

 

Besides Vaisnava isn't a college credential.

If you are not still an aspiring Vaisnava then the above statement is confusing. One might write something like, "According to the Vaisnava creed, Vaisnavism is a belief that just requires the faith of the practitioner. Therefore they do not see the need for an official credential." But the way you have written it gives one the impression that you continue to identify with Vaisnavism to some extent or are in some kind of state of religio-spiritual confusion.