the challenge to Advaitins: answer questions instead of knocking strawmen

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> > Why is that? Why is it that only the "Hare Krishna" recensions

are

> > debateable and not the "Hare Raama" recensions? Is there some

> > objective basis on which this conclusion is offered?

 

[long irrelevant banter deleted]

 

You have not answered the above question. Why is it that only

recensions of the Upanishad with "Hare Krishna..." are debateable,

but not recensions with the "Hare Raama..." form? Your long and drawn

out grievance with ISKCON has nothing to do with the point made above.

 

Either you have the evidence to support the above claim or you do

not. Rather than crying persecution, you should refrain from making

rash statements which you cannot prove.

 

> the hari nama chanted any ways is productive of results. the fact

> that so many have dedicated their lives to krishna thanks to the

> propagation of this mahamantra is a great glory for srila

prabhupada.

>

 

Thank you for the flattery. Now, when are you planning on answering

the above questions?

 

> just because i say that one should attack sankara by ordinary

people,

> a sectarian opposition is given to my posts.

 

I've given numerous reasons why I disagree with your position about

Advaita vis-a-vis Vaishnavism, and I note that you have not bothered

to answer any of them. Instead, you cry tears that "sectarian

opposition" is present.

 

therefore, i

> put forth the hare rama challenge :

>

> 1) prove that hare krishna version exists in the shruti or smrti

with

> evidence that the original manuscript is at least 500 years old.

 

What does this have to do with your theory? It was your claim that

the "Hare Krishna" recensions were "debateable." When pushed to back

that up, you instead sneak out and put a different question entirely.

 

> 2) prove that the shruti or smrti talks about krishna prema as the

> result of chanting hare krishna mantra based on a manuscript older

> than 500 years.

 

Again, why should anyone here answer your "sectarian challenges" when

you refuse to answer our questions to you? It is rather presumptuous,

don't you think, that you feel you need answers to your questions

while you don't feel compelled to offer them when others question

you.

 

> i will spend my time, money and effort to look at the manuscript

once

> you can point to its location.

>

> in the original "hare krishna challenge", money was offered. i agree

> with SP that gambling with money is bad and therefore i would not

> like to repeat history. so i will gamble with my my life and give it

> for this movement if you can prove this point.

 

Frankly, I really don't care. You can do whatever you want.

 

> or you agree that you are not following the vedic path and stop

> attacking sankara. can you take that ?

 

What does this have to do with disagreeing with Advaita? What does

disagreeing with Advaita have to do with "attacking sankara?" Who

here has attacked Shankara?

 

Isn't a fact that when people come up with perfectly reasonable

doubts about Shankara's Advaita philosophy, you simply dodge them by

crying fanaticism or some such? Isn't it about time you started to

answer on a philosophical basis rather than knocking down strawmen?

You have made at least 3 references in the recent past to alleged

heavy statements by ISKCON members, none of which were said here, and

none of which we have any way of verifying if they are true. Even if

they were true statements, I still fail to see what that has to do

with our objections to Shankara's Advaita philosophy and your claims

that it is compatible with Vaishnava Vedaanta.