shvu 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2004 Excuse me, folks; this is not really a topic. Just dropped in to say Hi to my one time sparring partners - Jndas, Gauracandra & Maitreya(now theist). Hope you are all doing well. After all these months, neither you people have changed your beliefs nor have I /images/graemlins/wink.gif. You will still say "Rama stroked the Indian squirrel" where I will say genetic mutation, to explain the stripes. To think, we wasted all that time slugging it out. Anyway, keep the flame burning, friends and good luck with the quest! If you change your beliefs at some point, then you should definitely try the Tiramisu from Eli's Cheese cakes. It is out of the world. But you will need to change because I am pretty sure it will contain some quantity of egg and a tiny portion of brandy or rum. Anything that maybe perceived as a pattern in nature, is just a coincidence - Shiv (myself) Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 5, 2004 After all these months, neither you people have changed your beliefs nor have I . By this, are you referring to your tendency to indiscriminately accept verbatim the theories proposed by university Indologists? Or perhaps you are referring to your allegiance to the pseudo-guru UGK who believes there is nothing out there to believe in? I'm sure people would change their beliefs if you had something better to offer them. Unfortunately, I don't see that this is the case here. Some erroneous remarks were made by you, likely with the sole purpose of inflaming iskconites, regarding the rAmAyaNa and other canonical literatures of the vaiShNava tradition. These have been responded to http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=84670&Forum=All_Forums&Words=shvu20speaks&Match=And&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=84670&Search=true#Post84670 ... and I would be interested in seeing you either argue your way out of them or admit your error. I can't help but notice that you have a tendency to take a position based solely on the fact that others here will disagree with it or find it distasteful. If it is in this regard that you say you have not changed, then that is indeed regretable. A nobler approach would be to forge one's beliefs based on truth, rather than on deriving a position based on misrepresentation of facts for the sole purpose of angering someone else. Raghu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pankaja_Dasa 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2004 No Hi or hell'o just straight in there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theist 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2004 I wondered where you had drifted off to. I have experienced change, but in the same direction. Hopefully some of that change is growth. Our exchanges were good and just by engaging with such an agile opponent my beliefs in the Supreme Personality of Godhead were strengthened. You may feel the same way about your impersonalist leanings, of course we would consider that unfortunate. /images/graemlins/wink.gif These days I am dodging debates in favor of experiencing a more simple way of thinking of God. Argue a little maybe but then let it go. Too much thinking is now a burden to me. Cheesecake? I see my veganism never got to you either. Oh well you are a stubborn one. Brandy and rum? Never tried either, don't like alcohol I although I occasionaly like to drink a non-alcoholic beer or two on a hot day. I'm a real party animal sometimes. Cheers and Hare Krsna What is with this thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 5, 2004 No Hi or hell'o just straight in there. I prefer the direct approach. It still remains the best way to expose a hypocrite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
