Why Vaishnava & Vaishnav Gods Targeted ?

[realist31]

 

I take Prabhupadas words seriously because he manifested certain good qualities that speak for themselves and set him apart from just an average joe. So it isn't just blind faith.

 

There are lot of people who have manifested certain good qualites and are you willing to take their words as well?

[AncientMariner]

 

There are lot of people who have manifested certain good qualites and are you willing to take their words as well?

 

Yeah I will listen to them.

[realist31]

 

Yeah I will listen to them.

 

But they may say Shiva is supreme,would you agree?

[Kulapavana]

 

Why should Prabupadas words be final?Just curious about it thats all,i dont hate him but why is every other prophet or god man or anyones word not taken,Sai Baba claims people are fools who dont realise he is GOD himself,why not take his word and why only Prabupada

 

For some people in this discussion Prabhupada's words are final, but not for me, even as I am initiated in his line. For me he is a Vaishnava acharya in the Gaudiya sampradaya whose words must be understood and accepted in the light of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

 

I do not care too much about Sai Baba. He does not represent the lineage and doctrine I accepted as my way of life.

[realist31]

 

For some people in this discussion Prabhupada's words are final, but not for me, even as I am initiated in his line. For me he is a Vaishnava acharya in the Gaudiya sampradaya whose words must be understood and accepted in the light of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

 

I do not care too much about Sai Baba. He does not represent the lineage and doctrine I accepted as my way of life.

 

Oh so its all left to the individuals,some like Prabupada so they say Krsna is god some like Sai so they say he is god,so who is the one and only god?

Does man create god(according to the doctrine and lineage he accepts or did God create man?)

[shvu]

 

Yeah I will listen to them.

 

AM,

 

Just as you are willing to accept good/positive teachings, regardless of the source, are you also willing to concede that it is not necessary that each source has to be 100% correct on everything?

 

Because as you can see, some people here are of the belief that Prabhupada statements are infallible and ought to be defended at all costs, however ridiculous some of them may be. Sentiments override logic and rational thinking, for these gentlemen as is evident from how each discussion spans across several pages.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

It wasn't a question. It was an assumption. I don't have to 'believe' in Christ loka to know that Christianity fits under the umbrella of Vaisnavism.

 

I don't think that was TB's question.

 

Since you claimed that *all* of Prabhupada's statements are supported by scripture, you are being challenged on this point to present scriptural evidence of "Christ-loka". You cannot claim to not believe in Chirst-loka as Prabhupada is the one who told you folks about it. If you claim to be his follower. but refuse to believe in Christ-loka, then you are guilty of the very problem you are accusing Kulapavana of.

 

And earlier, I notice you claimed all GV acharyas say the same thing and when presented with a quote from Sanatana Goswami which clearly is different from Prabhupada's view [on who is a Vaishnava]. you have gone silent on the topic. Does that mean you accept the inconsistency? I suppose that would be too much to hope for...but you never know.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

I don't think that was TB's question.

 

Since you claimed that *all* of Prabhupada's statements are supported by scripture, you are being challenged on this point to present scriptural evidence of "Christ-loka". You cannot claim to not believe in Chirst-loka as Prabhupada is the one who told you folks about it. If you claim to be his follower. but refuse to believe in Christ-loka, then you are guilty of the very problem you are accusing Kulapavana of.

 

And earlier, I notice you claimed all GV acharyas say the same thing and when presented with a quote from Sanatana Goswami which clearly is different from Prabhupada's view [on who is a Vaishnava]. you have gone silent on the topic. Does that mean you accept the inconsistency? I suppose that would be too much to hope for...but you never know.

 

Cheers

I'm not about to start up every thread and discuss all your straw man misinterpretations I made in this or that context. I don't need to. The topic of this thread has to do with Vaisnava gods being targeted. Do you have anything to contribute. You have gone silent for a lot longer.

There was no question. It was all ad hominem presupposition. After all, without knowledge what other tactic is there? Nothing Prabhupada says contradicts scripture. Do you contend that he does? Nothing I believe depends on Christ loka nor am I aware of Prabuhpada making statements in that regard. I can challenge any guru in the same way, expecting his disciples to support every single statement as being found in sastra.

Neither sastra , nor guru stand alone. They are interdependant.

[shvu]

 

I'm not about to start up every thread and discuss all statements I made in this or that context. I don't need to. The topic of this thread has to do with Vaisnava gods being targeted. Do you have anything to contribute. You have gone silent for a lot longer.

 

I can go silent as I do not have any pending questions to answer. Not the same with you as you made some tall claims and now that you have been asked to walk your talk, you are on the run.

 

 

Nothing Prabhupada says contradicts scripture. Do you contend that he does?

 

He contradicted Sanatan Goswami on the Vaishnava definition - something that you have constantly dodged. Nor can he pull things like "Christ-loka" out of his hat. Sai Baba's devotees make claims about their Guru which do not contradict scripture, but not found in scripture either (just like Prabhupada's Christ Loka). Why do you have a problem with Sai Baba then?

 

I want to say - Walk your talk, CBrahma but then we know you cannot. You have run out of substance, but apparently not out of steam yet.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

I can go silent as I do not have any pending questions to answer. Not the same with you as you made some tall claims and now that you have been asked to walk your talk, you are on the run.

 

 

 

He contradicted Sanatan Goswami on the Vaishnava definition - something that you have constantly dodged. Nor can he pull things like "Christ-loka" out of his hat. Sai Baba's devotees make claims about their Guru which do not contradict scripture, but not found in scripture either (just like Prabhupada's Christ Loka). Why do you have a problem with Sai Baba then?

 

I want to say - Walk your talk, CBrahma but then we know you cannot. You have run out of substance, but apparently not out of steam yet.

 

Cheers

Constantly dodged? It has hardly been discussed. What claim are you challenging that you have deliberately misconstrued one more time?

You are just spouting assumptions and misinterpretation from another unrelated argument. It's off topic at this point. I don't need to address it in this context whatever you imagine you have proven.

[Malati dasi]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Did I EVER deny Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar? He is. Still, that does not make Christianity a true Vaishnaviasm, or justify accepting Jesus to be God.

 

I have heard from some devotees that Prabhupada once said Hitler was also a saktyavesa avatar, because his special DESTRUCTIVE power was given to him by God. You still think every saktyavesa avatar should be worshipped just like Krsna?

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Ancient Mariner: Do you think saktyavesa avatars should be disrespected? At least I got you to clarify that you believe Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar. I think Prabhupada refered to Christianity as a crude form of Vaisnavism so where you get the notion that he was arguing that it is pure Vaisnavism is beyond me. I thought I read a statement of yours once that said Christianity has nothing to do with Vaisnavism or something to that effect but if not then I apologize.

 

Our take:

We should put sentimentalism aside and see things in the light of sadhu, guru, shastra. Srila Sanatan Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilas made a definitive statement on what is a Vaishnava.

 

In my one of our blogs:

 

Bhakta: "Some acharyas saysJesus and Muhammad are shakty avesha avataras."

Answer: "With due respect, the shaktyavesha avataras are mentioned in the first canto of the Bhagavat and the Laghu Bhagavatamrita and Jesus and Muhammad are not mentioned there."

Bhakta: "They could have been closet-Vaishnavas?"

Answer: "Personally I do not believe that preachers keep a substantial amount of knowledge hidden from their audience, and I absolutely disbelieve that they had any knowledge of Vishnu or Krishna."

Bhakta: "Yes, but avataras are described to be like waves in the ocean in the first canto. Only the most prominent ones are described."

Answer: "There are 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims. I dont think that is smalltime."

 

Radhe Radhe

[shvu]

 

Constantly dodged? It has hardly been discussed. What claim are you challenging that you have deliberately misconstrued one more time?

You are just spouting assumptions and misinterpretation from another unrelated argument. It's off topic at this point. I don't need to address it in this context whatever you imagine you have proven.

 

And once again, CBrahma - the greatest dodger of the 21st century - avoided the explicit quote from Sanatana Goswami on the definition of a Vaishnava which is different from the definition that Prabhupada made up to pull in Jesus & Christians.

 

A vaishnava is one who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra - Sanatana Goswami

Anyone is a Vaishnava as long as we say he is. Therefore Jesus and Mohammad are Vaishnavas - Prabhupada

 

You ought to be play dodgeball man. Dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

And once again, CBrahma - the greatest dodger of the 21st century - avoided the explicit quote from Sanatana Goswami on the definition of a Vaishnava which is different from the definition that Prabhupada made up to pull in Jesus & Christians.

 

You ought to be play dodgeball man. Dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge.

 

Cheers

Being logical and on topic is not a dodge.

In your little mind you have grasped at a non-existent straw and think you have somehow won some kind of victory. Dream on. It's off topic and you are arguing across threads all frustrated with the proverbial hair up your orifice. If you want to discredit Prabhupada start that thread and we'll discuss it.

[AncientMariner]

 

AM,

 

Just as you are willing to accept good/positive teachings, regardless of the source, are you also willing to concede that it is not necessary that each source has to be 100% correct on everything?

 

Because as you can see, some people here are of the belief that Prabhupada statements are infallible and ought to be defended at all costs, however ridiculous some of them may be. Sentiments override logic and rational thinking, for these gentlemen as is evident from how each discussion spans across several pages.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Yes I can make the concession that each source does not have to be 100% correct on everything.

[AncientMariner]

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Did I EVER deny Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar? He is. Still, that does not make Christianity a true Vaishnaviasm, or justify accepting Jesus to be God.

 

I have heard from some devotees that Prabhupada once said Hitler was also a saktyavesa avatar, because his special DESTRUCTIVE power was given to him by God. You still think every saktyavesa avatar should be worshipped just like Krsna?

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Ancient Mariner: Do you think saktyavesa avatars should be disrespected? At least I got you to clarify that you believe Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar. I think Prabhupada refered to Christianity as a crude form of Vaisnavism so where you get the notion that he was arguing that it is pure Vaisnavism is beyond me. I thought I read a statement of yours once that said Christianity has nothing to do with Vaisnavism or something to that effect but if not then I apologize.

 

Our take:

We should put sentimentalism aside and see things in the light of sadhu, guru, shastra. Srila Sanatan Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilas made a definitive statement on what is a Vaishnava.

 

In my one of our blogs:

 

Bhakta: "Some acharyas saysJesus and Muhammad are shakty avesha avataras."

Answer: "With due respect, the shaktyavesha avataras are mentioned in the first canto of the Bhagavat and the Laghu Bhagavatamrita and Jesus and Muhammad are not mentioned there."

Bhakta: "They could have been closet-Vaishnavas?"

Answer: "Personally I do not believe that preachers keep a substantial amount of knowledge hidden from their audience, and I absolutely disbelieve that they had any knowledge of Vishnu or Krishna."

Bhakta: "Yes, but avataras are described to be like waves in the ocean in the first canto. Only the most prominent ones are described."

Answer: "There are 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims. I dont think that is smalltime."

 

Radhe Radhe

 

That's fine but I haven't personally experienced that you are qualified to be a guru so your opinion on the subject is noted but is not extremely important to my spiritual life. I have personally experienced that Prabhupada is qualified to be a guru from my perspective so his opinion on this subject holds more weight with me personally but you are entitled to your viewpoint.

[AncientMariner]

 

But they may say Shiva is supreme,would you agree?

 

 

My conception of Shiva as I remember it in Prabhupadas books is that he is an aspect of Krishna and has about 84% of the qualities of Krishna so no I wouldn't say that Shiva is supreme but he has powers that no jiva can ever have.

[shvu]

 

Yes I can make the concession that each source does not have to be 100% correct on everything.

 

That is an admission of a very rare nature from a Prabhupada disciple.

 

It is always refreshing to see someone not take the "I know Vaishnavism better than Indians/Hindus because I have read a couple of Prabhupada books" attitude.

 

Cheers

[tackleberry]

 

Being logical and on topic is not a dodge.

In your little mind you have grasped at a non-existent straw and think you have somehow won some kind of victory. Dream on. It's off topic and you are arguing across threads all frustrated with the proverbial hair up your orifice. If you want to discredit Prabhupada start that thread and we'll discuss it.

 

Cbrahma, answer with a yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in Christ Loka? Don't evade this, don't change the subject.

[Malati dasi]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Malati dasi

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Did I EVER deny Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar? He is. Still, that does not make Christianity a true Vaishnaviasm, or justify accepting Jesus to be God.

 

I have heard from some devotees that Prabhupada once said Hitler was also a saktyavesa avatar, because his special DESTRUCTIVE power was given to him by God. You still think every saktyavesa avatar should be worshipped just like Krsna?

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Ancient Mariner: Do you think saktyavesa avatars should be disrespected? At least I got you to clarify that you believe Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar. I think Prabhupada refered to Christianity as a crude form of Vaisnavism so where you get the notion that he was arguing that it is pure Vaisnavism is beyond me. I thought I read a statement of yours once that said Christianity has nothing to do with Vaisnavism or something to that effect but if not then I apologize.

 

Our take:

We should put sentimentalism aside and see things in the light of sadhu, guru, shastra. Srila Sanatan Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilas made a definitive statement on what is a Vaishnava.

 

In my one of our blogs:

 

Bhakta: "Some acharyas saysJesus and Muhammad are shakty avesha avataras."

Answer: "With due respect, the shaktyavesha avataras are mentioned in the first canto of the Bhagavat and the Laghu Bhagavatamrita and Jesus and Muhammad are not mentioned there."

Bhakta: "They could have been closet-Vaishnavas?"

Answer: "Personally I do not believe that preachers keep a substantial amount of knowledge hidden from their audience, and I absolutely disbelieve that they had any knowledge of Vishnu or Krishna."

Bhakta: "Yes, but avataras are described to be like waves in the ocean in the first canto. Only the most prominent ones are described."

Answer: "There are 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims. I dont think that is smalltime."

 

Radhe Radhe</I>

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Ancient Mariner: That's fine but I haven't personally experienced that you are qualified to be a guru so your opinion on the subject is noted but is not extremely important to my spiritual life. I have personally experienced that Prabhupada is qualified to be a guru from my perspective so his opinion on this subject holds more weight with me personally but you are entitled to your viewpoint.

 

Well, I dont know that I gave the impression that I speak from the position of a guru. You are expressing your opinions too and I never accuse you of taking the role of a guru. I am trying to prove my position with as much convincing backing than you do. This topic has spanned across 2-3 threads already but you and your ilk have only quoted from one source plus your sentimentalism.

 

I at least have pointed out what the shastra says, the opinion of a GV foundational acharya, the opinion of a devotee who has dived deep into GVism and have used common sense.

 

btw, the exchanges are not from my blog.

 

Radhe, Radhe

[cbrahma]

 

Cbrahma, answer with a yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in Christ Loka? Don't evade this, don't change the subject.

How did this become the subject? And what is the relevance? Do you have any idea what the topic of this thread is? If you have a bone to pick about what was said on another thread then address it there, or start a new one. In other forums, more strictly managed, you would be warned and blocked for trying to continue an argument across threads. I refuse to engage in a global argument regardless of what you think that proves.

Sticking to the topic and demanding relevance as I've said before is not evasion.

[tackleberry]

 

How did this become the subject? And what is the relevance? Do you have any idea what the topic of this thread is? If you have a bone to pick about what was said on another thread then address it there, or start a new one. In other forums, more strictly managed, you would be warned and blocked for trying to continue an argument across threads. I refuse to engage in a global argument regardless of what you think that proves.

Sticking to the topic and demanding relevance as I've said before is not evasion.

 

LOL. If you take a look at audarya forum, you'll find that most posts have little or no relevance to the threads at all. I am simply continuing the trend. Anyway, I take it you're incapable of answering, which is why you're dodging it.

[cbrahma]

 

LOL. If you take a look at audarya forum, you'll find that most posts have little or no relevance to the threads at all. I am simply continuing the trend. Anyway, I take it you're incapable of answering, which is why you're dodging it.

It is obvious the forum is not very closely managed but off topicality has also been mentioned in several cases. New threads have been developed and other threads merged by administrators for that very reason. You can assume whatever you like. I really don't care. It seems the only thing you do well. I am tired of repeating myself. Your obtuseness is invincible.

[realist]

An aspiring Vaishnava devotee following Lord Caiyanya, whether one is with ISKCON or the Gaudiya matha, should not tolerate or listen to mayavadi philosophy.

 

This thread is polluted by nonsense mayavadis and impersonalists with their bogus 'Hindu' understanding of the Vedas

 

I have put them on my ignore list and I suggest any serious devotee also put them on your ignore list now, don;t even bother seeing their crazy replies to this post I have written

 

Lord Caitanya forbid us to read or hear their garbage nonsense speculations and views.

 

Many of us within ISKCON and the Gaudiya matha are only interested in the teachings of Lord Caitanya and Krsna as taught by Srila Prabhupada and his Guru disciples, Srila Sridar Maharaj and Srila Narayana Maharaj.

 

Others can say what ever nonsense they like but I suggest that the followers of the above 'bonafide Guru' ONLY have on their list those who want discuss or even argue over THEIR teachings

 

Also what idiot would keep referring to the Hare Krishna's as the 'Hare Christians'? Thankfully I will never have to read that fool again because he is on my ignore list and blotted out where ever I go on this site.

 

The other 'w*****s' on this thread should go get a life.

 

Who am I writting about? well, if the shoe fits, THEN ITS YOU!!

[theist]

 

I have heard from some devotees that Prabhupada once said Hitler was also a saktyavesa avatar, because his special DESTRUCTIVE power was given to him by God. You still think every saktyavesa avatar should be worshipped just like Krsna?

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

LOL I saw this quote in AM's post and had to laugh. "I have heard from some devotees......" is a classic.

[AncientMariner]

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Malati dasi

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Did I EVER deny Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar? He is. Still, that does not make Christianity a true Vaishnaviasm, or justify accepting Jesus to be God.

 

I have heard from some devotees that Prabhupada once said Hitler was also a saktyavesa avatar, because his special DESTRUCTIVE power was given to him by God. You still think every saktyavesa avatar should be worshipped just like Krsna?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Ancient Mariner: Do you think saktyavesa avatars should be disrespected? At least I got you to clarify that you believe Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar. I think Prabhupada refered to Christianity as a crude form of Vaisnavism so where you get the notion that he was arguing that it is pure Vaisnavism is beyond me. I thought I read a statement of yours once that said Christianity has nothing to do with Vaisnavism or something to that effect but if not then I apologize.

 

Our take:

We should put sentimentalism aside and see things in the light of sadhu, guru, shastra. Srila Sanatan Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilas made a definitive statement on what is a Vaishnava.

 

In my one of our blogs:

 

Bhakta: "Some acharyas saysJesus and Muhammad are shakty avesha avataras."

Answer: "With due respect, the shaktyavesha avataras are mentioned in the first canto of the Bhagavat and the Laghu Bhagavatamrita and Jesus and Muhammad are not mentioned there."

Bhakta: "They could have been closet-Vaishnavas?"

Answer: "Personally I do not believe that preachers keep a substantial amount of knowledge hidden from their audience, and I absolutely disbelieve that they had any knowledge of Vishnu or Krishna."

Bhakta: "Yes, but avataras are described to be like waves in the ocean in the first canto. Only the most prominent ones are described."

Answer: "There are 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims. I dont think that is smalltime."

 

Radhe Radhe</I>

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Ancient Mariner: That's fine but I haven't personally experienced that you are qualified to be a guru so your opinion on the subject is noted but is not extremely important to my spiritual life. I have personally experienced that Prabhupada is qualified to be a guru from my perspective so his opinion on this subject holds more weight with me personally but you are entitled to your viewpoint.

 

Well, I dont know that I gave the impression that I speak from the position of a guru. You are expressing your opinions too and I never accuse you of taking the role of a guru. I am trying to prove my position with as much convincing backing than you do. This topic has spanned across 2-3 threads already but you and your ilk have only quoted from one source plus your sentimentalism.

 

I at least have pointed out what the shastra says, the opinion of a GV foundational acharya, the opinion of a devotee who has dived deep into GVism and have used common sense.

 

btw, the exchanges are not from my blog.

 

Radhe, Radhe

 

 

That's fine but I never could figure out which guru you were talking about in that blog so it would be helpful if you had included the name of the guru so I thought that was your blog and you were the guru. Anyway you seem to think anyone who thinks Jesus was a saktyavesa avatara lacks common sense so apparently you think Prabhupada lacked common sense so at least you have clarified that you don't think Prabhupada is a worthy representative of GVism. I have a lot of admiration for Prabhupada but if he is not your cup of tea then take the opinion of the guru that is your cup of tea but I have read many quotes by Prabhupada in regards to Jesus and his position is that Jesus is a saktyavesa avatara and even Kulapavana who is one of your "ilk" agrees that this is true so apparently you even think Kulapavana lacks common sense even though he is one of your "ilk"? Have a nice day.