Christianity and Vaisnavism

[cbrahma]

 

cBrahma knows no Veda, nothing at all...just ajnana, and a blind dependence on Srila Prabhupada's translations

Depending on a qualified Brahamana's translation is not blind. It is what is called intelligence. Your rejection of them is blind. There are so many translations. Are we supposed to blindly accept your advice as to which is correct? Are you bona fide guru?

[Dark Warrior]

 

How is Bhagavad Gita out of context? I am very careful to keep things in context, logical - there is no 'again;.

 

cBrahma, you and logic are just as far apart as chalk and cheese.

 

I said, you take things out of context. Not the Gita. Quoting that one sloka without understanding what context Krishna was employing it in is what I meant.

 

Even atheists are following Krishna and He rewards them accordingly. An atheist accepts the reality of the Universe, and appreciates its grandeur. Hence, the Universe is the body of the Lord, and so, in a round-about fashion, even the atheist is unknowingly acknowledging the Lord.

 

Vishnu is always optimistic. He looks at the glass as half full, rather than half empty. That is why He is karuna sagara.

 

In any case, if anyone wants to know more about cBrahma's bloopers, refer to the older Jesus thread where he argued with me. After about a 100 posts, he was essentially reduced to an inane blabberer.

 

He ended his argument by saying, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he is a Vaishnava, because Shaivas are Vaishnavas, as Shiva is a Vaishnava. Golden words. Comedy material.

 

How can a person be so incredibly stupid? Real talent it takes, to refrain from using your brain.

[cbrahma]

 

cBrahma, you and logic are just as far apart as chalk and cheese.

 

I said, you take things out of context. Not the Gita. Quoting that one sloka without understanding what context Krishna was employing it in is what I meant.

 

Even atheists are following Krishna and He rewards them accordingly. An atheist accepts the reality of the Universe, and appreciates its grandeur. Hence, the Universe is the body of the Lord, and so, in a round-about fashion, even the atheist is unknowingly acknowledging the Lord.

 

Vishnu is always optimistic. He looks at the glass as half full, rather than half empty. That is why He is karuna sagara.

 

In any case, if anyone wants to know more about cBrahma's bloopers, refer to the older Jesus thread where he argued with me. After about a 100 posts, he was essentially reduced to an inane blabberer.

 

He ended his argument by saying, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he is a Vaishnava, because Shaivas are Vaishnavas, as Shiva is a Vaishnava. Golden words. Comedy material.

 

How can a person be so incredibly stupid? Real talent it takes, to refrain from using your brain.

 

Now you misquote me out of context. I said Shiva is a Vaisnava. Not Shaivas. That would be begging the question- like you do.

 

Your language of course is so specific. "Things out of context" and the sweeping 'again'. I am not intimidated by the claims you make for yourself. Nor your unsupportable personal attacks. They are completely beside the point and prove nothing - they are truly 'out of context'.

 

In spite of your childish attempts at flaming you haven't addressed the point that Krsna makes. "Everyone follows my path in all respects".

[Dark Warrior]

 

Now you misquote me out of context. I said Shiva is a Vaisnava. Not Shaivas. That would be begging the question- like you do.

 

And you fail to understand me. Need some vitamins to up your brain function?

 

In any case, if anyone wants to see cBrahma's goofs, please go to the older thread. What is the point of arguing the same thing again, when all things have been said, done and recorded for posterity in an earlier thread?

 

Vaishnavas argued with Shaivites based on scripture, with Buddhists and Tarkikas based on logic, etc. cBrahma knows no scripture, and he lacks logic.

 

A toothless and clawless animal is good as dead, or useless. Hence, I shall not say the same things again and again. The older threads are proof enough.

 

 

Your language of course is so specific. "Things out of context" and the sweeping 'again'. I am not intimidated by the claims you make for yourself. Nor your unsupportable personal attacks. They are completely beside the point and prove nothing - they are truly 'out of context'.

 

Thank you very much. Do not take it personally. The fact that your inadequacy is so obvious is very much a reality and not a 'personal attack'.

 

 

In spite of your childish attempts at flaming you haven't addressed the point that Krsna makes. "Everyone follows my path in all respects".

 

Sorry, I have addressed it. You lack the ability to comprehend.

 

I don't remember any Vaishnava saying that a Shaiva is following the same path.

[Amlesh]

 

Taking things out of context, again, cBrahma?

 

Yes. Even Shaivites who mistakenly worship Shiva as supreme are in reality surrendering to Krishna. Because, He is the only one who takes care of everyone.

 

However, such surrender is without jnana, and hence, will not fetch moksha. Krishna clearly says Men of less intelligence worship demigods.

 

He rewards them in whatever way they approach Him. Vaishnavas who approach Him directly have the chance to ge moksha. Shaivites and Nastikas will get better births, but not moksha.

 

Same goes for Nastika religions. Even if a devotee sincerely prays to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his prayer reaches Vishnu. Doesn't mean the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is authentic.

 

cBrahma knows no Veda, nothing at all...just ajnana, and a blind dependence on Srila Prabhupada's translations.

 

 

Ok Dark Clouded.

 

 

Got anything useful to say?Or are you simply going to prattle on about Universal Religion and the Transcedental Pastimes of the Krsna, Father of Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

 

Gotta admit, I love making fun of Theist's style.

 

Good things are not appreciated these days.

[cbrahma]

 

And you fail to understand me. Need some vitamins to up your brain function?

 

 

The inadequacy is your misrepresentation. Vitamins will not help - only character reformation. I never said Saivites are Vaisnavas. I said Siva is a Vaisnava. Prove otherwise.

 

I am not about to re-debate everything I've said on other threads. Your desperate attempts at evasion are painfully obvious - you are grasping at non-existent straws.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The inadequacy is your misrepresentation. Vitamins will not help - only character reformation. I never said Saivites are Vaisnavas. I said Siva is a Vaisnava. Prove otherwise.

 

In which case, if Jesus was a Shaivite, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. It becomes Shaivism.

 

Can you identify the 'God' of Bible as any Vedic deity? Nope. Hence, it is negated.

 

In any case, Vishnu Purana says no avatars have occured after Buddha, and I take it at that.

 

 

I am not about to re-debate everything I've said on other threads. Your desperate attempts at evasion are painfully obvious - you are grasping at non-existent straws.

 

Haha...that is a sentence I have seen you say so many times to me, Shvu, Raghu and all those others who opposed you. The fact is, you are just a parrot who has been taught to say one thing. Or maybe a broken tape recorder that is stuck on 'repeat'.

 

For all to see, here is cBrahma's famous declaration from the other thread:

 

 

You keep comparing Christianity to Shaivites which is ok since there are similarities between all bona fide religions. If we carry the analogy further, then Jesus is like Siva, and since Siva is a Vaisnava, then so is Jesus. What is your point?

 

 

It has to do with lord siva - now stay with here-- Shaivites worship Siva- See the connection?

 

 

I actually have no problem with the analogy that Christians are like Shaivites because Jesus and Lord Siva have an important quality in common - compassion for the most fallen

 

 

So, comparing Christianity to Shaivites is ok, because that makes Jesus like Siva, who is a Vaishnava. And apparently, Shaivism is 'bonafide' for cBrahma, whereas Vaishnavas assert that it is a wrong path altogether.

 

Laughable. How embarrassing that the great tradition of Vedanta, with all its logic and reasoning, is claimed to be upheld by the likes of cBrahma nowadays. Truly Kali Yuga.

[cbrahma]

 

In which case, if Jesus was a Shaivite, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. It becomes Shaivism.

 

 

 

Obviously this is still sticking in your craw but it's OFF TOPIC and I refuse to discuss it here. You can and will conclude whatever you like from it. I don't care.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Obviously this is still sticking in your craw but it's OFF TOPIC and I refuse to discuss it here. You can and will conclude whatever you like from it. I don't care.

 

Obviously, I never meant to discuss it with you. It was meant to educate more intelligent members and show them that its futile to argue with the likes of you and Theist, the 'true followers of the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead who's transcendental pastimes and transcendental doings are known only to the pure devotee Jesus who came to rescue all Vaishnavas'.

 

Oops, I did it again.

[cbrahma]

 

Obviously, I never meant to discuss it with you. It was meant to educate more intelligent members and show them that its futile to argue with the likes of you and Theist, the 'true followers of the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead who's transcendental pastimes and transcendental doings are known only to the pure devotee Jesus who came to rescue all Vaishnavas'.

 

Oops, I did it again.

Yawn. Your mindless ad hominems have been noted.

[Dark Warrior]

You always 'note' a lot of things, unfortunately, they slip out of your head like water through a sieve.

 

In any case, its a done deal with you. Theist, of course, will continue raving over Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as he keeps ducking arguments with others.

[cbrahma]

 

You always 'note' a lot of things, unfortunately, they slip out of your head like water through a sieve.

 

In any case, its a done deal with you. Theist, of course, will continue raving over Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as he keeps ducking arguments with others.

 

Don't worry, your ramblings have been documented on the internet for the posterity. Now go away.

[Dark Warrior]

Well, considering that my 'ramblings' have been supported by pramana from sastra, whereas your stupidity is pretty much up for all to see, I should think I am done with you. However, its still fun...

 

All you can do is call Jesus a 'pure devotee', quote Bhaktivinoda and Srila Prabhupada, ignore sastra and simply prattle on without an idea in your head. To boot, you lack the basic knowledge of different Vaishnava systems.

 

 

Anybody can see the pseudo-reasoning here, called begging the question. The hidden presumption that Vyasa actually claimed that Vaisnavism is only for Indians.

Of course there is no sastric support for that. A vedic axiom is that we are not the body. Why would God limit himself to a race of men? Is he tricked by his own Maya?

 

Ah, I never saw this, so I did not address it.

 

Vaishnavism is not only for Indians. But the Lord's avatars, His pastimes, have all occured in Bharatavarsha. At that time, Bharatavarsha was not a country, but a continent. Srirangam, Tirupati, etc, which are places where the Lord self-manifested, are all in India.

 

If you are a Vaishnava, you need to believe that Rama came in Ayodhya and Krishna in Mathura. For some reason, I repeat, an unknown reason, Lord chose this strip of land to enact His pastimes.

 

Ganga comes from Trivikrama's lotus feet. The Himalayas find mention in Gita. Salagramas are found close to Nepal. Badrinath is where Narayana instructed Nara. Gaya is in India.

 

Again, it sounds fantastic, but what the father of Vyasa says goes.

 

Pramana - I have mentioned it. Vishnu Purana mentions Bharata as Punya Bhumi. And only here will all karmas bear fruit in Moksha.

 

Brahman is not limited to anything. If He wished, He could come to America. But we cannot fathom what the Lord will do anytime. This yuga, He chose India. Heck, if the Gita had been delivered in America, people would be claiming that the Lord only chose America!!

 

So, anybody can follow Vaishnavism, but the actual appearance of Vedic Knowledge is in India. Makes this land the spiritual capital of the world. And no, I am not patriotic, just acknowledging what the Puranas say.

 

So, Jesus has no significance to Vaishnavism.

 

 

Idiocy is to practice dharma on the bodily platform - the practice the Vedic principles as though they only benefited those of a particular race of men, in a particular kind of body.

Since Vedas is spiritual knowledge, it is not only idiocy, it is a contradiction in terms.

 

Atman is one. This whole issue is not about race. There is no 'chosen people'. However, there apparently is a 'chosen land'. From this land, all spiritual knowledge will disseminate, because the Lord's lotus feet graced it.

 

An American will get moksha if he practices Vaishnavism. But even He will have to believe that Krishna came in Mathura, not America.

 

And the possibility of the Lord coming to America or other lands is negated by Vishnu Purana. I do believe even Mahabharata says that Bharatavarsha is blessed, not sure.

 

In any case, Vyasa and Parasra have clarified. If the Lord had come to other lands, we would atleast see *some* people following an austere Vaidika life there. Unfortunately, the Vedas are not accepted there.

[cbrahma]

Go away.

[Dark Warrior]

Funny, you posted that just to say 'go away'? I wonder when you will ever start to post with substance.

 

cBrahma, if you were ever sincere in your spiritual progress, you would cast away all these pretenses, sit down, read Vishnu Sahasranama and divine the deep meanings from it. Sadly enough, you are wasting precious time on useless sentiments, and in complete ignorance.

[cbrahma]

 

Funny, you posted that just to say 'go away'? I wonder when you will ever start to post with substance.

 

cBrahma, if you were ever sincere in your spiritual progress, you would cast away all these pretenses, sit down, read Vishnu Sahasranama and divine the deep meanings from it. Sadly enough, you are wasting precious time on useless sentiments, and in complete ignorance.

At this point go away is as much substance as is warranted in your case. Now GO AWAY.

[Dark Warrior]

 

At this point go away is as much substance as is warranted in your case. Now GO AWAY.

 

Haha...and you actually had something to say before? Your posts have never had any substance.

 

No knowledge of sastra, and you think you are defining 'Vaishnavism'. Cool.

[Dark Warrior]

 

There are so many translations. Are we supposed to blindly accept your advice as to which is correct? Are you bona fide guru?

 

I never read this, so I reply to it.

 

El stupido, you are not supposed to go by ANYBODY's words on mere faith. However, if you choose a sampradaya to follow, you should read up on what the other sampradayas have said, how they have criticised your sampradaya. Then, you gain a little knowledge on your own, and find out if your acharya's words have remained true to the text or not.

 

At a glance, one can easily say that Srila Prabhupada has got many things wrong, as has Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

Bhagavad Gita 'as it is' is not 'as it is' because Srila Prabhupada said so. A person can be a devotee of Vishnu and still make mistakes (Mirabai, for instance was a bhakta without philosophical knowledge). It does not reduce Srila Prabhupada's stature, but we need knowledge and must seek it from the right source.

 

Vedanta is a scientific method. Research, find the truth, reject the falsities.

 

Sri Ramanuja makes an excellent point in his bhasya. He writes, 'Do not accept things just because I said so. Observe and decide the truth by your own merit'.

 

EDIT: This thread was not about whether Lord has taken avatars in other lands. It is about whether Christianity is linked to Vaishnavism.

 

And there is no link between the two faiths, because Vishnu Purana, along with the necessary criterion of philosophical strength found lacking in Christianity, rules out any chance of Jesus being a Vaishnava.

[cbrahma]

 

I never read this, so I reply to it.

 

El stupido, you are not supposed to go by ANYBODY's words on mere faith. However, if you choose a sampradaya to follow, you should read up on what the other sampradayas have said, how they have criticised your sampradaya. Then, you gain a little knowledge on your own, and find out if your acharya's words have remained true to the text or not.

 

At a glance, one can easily say that Srila Prabhupada has got many things wrong, as has Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

Bhagavad Gita 'as it is' is not 'as it is' because Srila Prabhupada said so. A person can be a devotee of Vishnu and still make mistakes (Mirabai, for instance was a bhakta without philosophical knowledge). It does not reduce Srila Prabhupada's stature, but we need knowledge and must seek it from the right source.

 

Vedanta is a scientific method. Research, find the truth, reject the falsities.

 

Sri Ramanuja makes an excellent point in his bhasya. He writes, 'Do not accept things just because I said so. Observe and decide the truth by your own merit'.

 

EDIT: This thread was not about whether Lord has taken avatars in other lands. It is about whether Christianity is linked to Vaishnavism.

 

And there is no link between the two faiths, because Vishnu Purana, along with the necessary criterion of philosophical strength found lacking in Christianity, rules out any chance of Jesus being a Vaishnava.

This is too repetitious and boring. Consider yourself ignored.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Dark Warrior:

"Srila Prabhupada's words, which aren't pramana."

Please explain to me what is meant by Srila Prabhupada is not 'Pramana'.

 

Was Srila Prabhupada 'sectarian'?

[cbrahma]

The meaning changes (ironically) depending on who you're talking to.

Pramana (IAST Pramāņa) (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit) is an epistemological term in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. Pramana forms one part of a tripuţi (trio) concerning Pramā (the correct knowledge of any object arrived at by thorough reasoning, Sanskrit), namely,

 

1. Pramāta, the subject, the knower
   
2. Pramāņa, the means of obtaining the knowledge
   
3. Prameya, the object, the knowable

In Hinduism

 

Different systems of Hindu philosophy accept different categories of pramanas.

 

Advaita Vedanta

 

In Advaita Vedānta, the following pramanas are accepted:

 

• Pratyakşa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
  
• Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
  
• Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy
  
• Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge
  
• Āgama — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramana)

Sankhya

 

According to the Sankhya school, knowledge is possible through three pramanas:

 

• Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
  
• Anumāna — logical inference
  
• Śabda — Verbal testimony

Nyaya

 

The Nyaya school accepts four means of obtaining knowledge (pramana), viz., Perception, Inference, Comparison and Word.

 

• Perception, called Pratyakşha, occupies the foremost position in the Nyaya epistemology. Perception is defined by sense-object contact and is unerring. Perception can be of two types:

   

  • Ordinary (Laukika or Sādhārana), of six types, viz., visual-by eyes, olfactory-by nose, auditory-by ears, tactile-by skin, gustatory-by tongue and mental-by mind.
    
  • Extra-ordinary (Alaukika or Asādhārana), of three types, viz., Samanyalakshana (perceiving generality from a particular object), Jñānalakşana (when one sense organ can also perceive qualities not attributable to it, as when seeing a chili, one knows that it would be bitter or hot), and Yogaja (when certain human beings, from the power of Yoga, can perceive past, present and future and have supernatural abilities, either complete or some). Also, there are two modes or steps in perception, viz., Nirvikalpa, when one just perceives an object without being able to know its features, and Savikalpa, when one is able to clearly know an object. All laukika and alaukika pratyakshas are savikalpa. There is yet another stage called Pratyabhijñā, when one is able to re-recognise something on the basis of memory.

   

   

 

• Inference, called Anumāna, is one of the most important contributions of Nyaya. It can be of two types - inference for oneself (Svarthanumana, where one does not need any formal procedure, and at the most the last three of their 5 steps), and inference for others (Parathanumana, which requires a systematic methodology of 5 steps). Inference can also be classified into 3 types: Purvavat (infering an unperceived effect from a perceived cause), Sheshavat (infering an unperceived cause from a perceived effect) and Samanyatodrishta (when inference is not based on causation but on uniformity of co-existence). A detailed analysis of error is also given, explaining when anumana could be false.

 

• Comparison, which is the rough transplation of Upamāna. It is the knowledge of the relationship between a word and the object denoted by the word. It is produced by the knowledge of resemblance or similarity, given some pre-description of the new object beforehand.

 

• Word, or Śabda are also accepted as a pramana. It can be of two types, Vaidika (Vedic), which are the words of the four sacred Vedas, and are described as the Word of God, having been composed by God, and Laukika, or words and writings of trustworthy human beings.

Vaisheshika

 

Epistemologically, the Vaisheshika school accepts perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumāna) as valid sources of knowledge.

 

In Buddhism

 

Buddhism, along with hard science and classical Western philosophy, rejects many of the premises of Hindu Pramana, especially the use of religious texts (Agama) as a source of valid knowledge alone.

In Buddhism, the two most important scholars of pramana are Dignaga and Dharmakirti.

 

 

 

<CENTER>svatah pramana veda- pramana-siromani

lakshana haite svatah pramanata hani </CENTER>

 

The self-evident Vedic literatures are the highest evidence of all, but if these literatures are interpreted, their self-evident nature is lost. C.C. Adi 7, 139

 

<CENTER>pramanera madhye sruti pramana pradhana

sruti ye mukhyartha kahe sei se pramana

svatah pramana veda yei satya kahe

lakshana karile svatah pramanya hani haye </CENTER>

 

Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence.

 

The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.

 

C.C.Madhya 6, 135, 137

 

The works of the Gosvamis such as the Sandarbhas and Caitanya Caritamrita of Krishna das Kaviraja are included among the anuvyakhyas. Therefore Vedas, Puranas, histories, Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras, the commentaries by the Vaishnava acaryas are all considered authoritative knowledge. These sources of authoritative knowledge are glorified in the Bhagavatam.

 

<CENTER>kalena nashta pralaye vaniyam veda samjnita

mayadau brahmane prokta yasyam dharmo mad atmakah

tena prokta svaputraya manave

yabhir bhutani bhidyante bhutanam patayas tatha

evam prakriti-vaicitryad bidyante matayo nrinam

parasparyena keshamcit pashanda-matayo'pare </CENTER>

 

(Sri Krishna speaks to Uddhava)

I first recited the Vedic message to Lord Brahma, telling him about the ultimate path of pure devotion. That message is eternal. At the time of devastation, it disappears and at the time of creation I explain it clearly to Lord Brahma. Brahma spoke this knowledge to his son Manu and others. Thereafter, the devatas, risis, and mankind all received this knowledge. The living entities and their lords are all different, receiving natures according to the three modes, goodness, passion and ignorance. According to these different natures, various philosophies have been produced by various interpretation of the meaning. O Uddhava, those who received the actual statements of the Vedas through guru parampara anuvyakhya (explanations) from Brahma have the real truth. All others philosophies have become the servants of various offensive teachings.

 

[Dark Warrior]

 

Please explain to me what is meant by Srila Prabhupada is not 'Pramana'.

 

Was Srila Prabhupada 'sectarian'?

 

'Pramana' means, sastric proof.

 

Now, let us take an example. A devotee of Sri Ramanuja will argue that Moksha means equality in bliss for all jivas. A devotee of Sri Madhva will say that is wrong.

 

Both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva, are by definition, 'pure devotees'. However, both these views are not right. So, how do we find out who is wrong? By referring to scripture only.

 

Similarly, Srila Prabhupada was a pure devotee, a great bhakta. But that doesn't mean whatever he says is true. A bhakta may be great, but his philosophy needs to be verified by scripture.

 

Christians say God exists because Bible say so, and Bible exists because God gave it. See a contradiction here? In Vedanta, we do not accept such things. According to Vedanta, only legitimate proof is the Vedas and of course, Logic, Perception, etc.

 

ISKCON followers like cBrahma say the same thing as Christians 'XYZ is a pure devotee because he said so, and whatever XYZ says is right because he is a pure devotee'.

 

To reiterate, I am not biased. I view all people equally, as atman only. I am not fond of homeland or patriotic. Heck, I have only been in India for 3 years, having spent my life abroad. BUT, I follow what sastra says.

 

Sastra says moksha dharma is unique to India. Anyone can get moksha, but the facilities are available only here.

 

Bhagavan is strange. Consider the Sandhyavandanam ritual that Brahmanas do. Vaishnavas know Vishnu is supreme, yet they are ordered by the Lord to do this ritual where we must worship every other deva while understanding that Vishnu is the antaryami. What is the point of doing this ritual when we can worship Vishnu directly?

 

We do not know the point. All we know is, it is our duty to do it because Vishnu wants us to. Similarly, we do not know why India is Moksha Bhumi. However, we accept it because that is what Sri Parasara Muni says.

 

 

The meaning changes (ironically) depending on who you're talking to.<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

The meaning of pramana only changes when you are arguing with persons of different religions. I will argue with Christians and Buddhists based on Logic, with Advaitins based on scripture, etc.

 

cBrahma, you claim to be a Vaishnava who accepts the Vedic way. Hence, the pramana here only refers to Scripture, which is the only common ground we have for debate.

[guliaditya]

One thing is clear Dark Warrior.U have given enough evidence to prove your point but still peoples like Cbrahma are not ready to accept it.Actually they are not in a position to reply back to your points.I dont think it is advisable on your part to go further & explain them from Sri Vaishnava point of view.

[Dark Warrior]

I guess so, Guliaditya.

[cbrahma]

 

One thing is clear Dark Warrior.U have given enough evidence to prove your point but still peoples like Cbrahma are not ready to accept it.Actually they are not in a position to reply back to your points.I dont think it is advisable on your part to go further & explain them from Sri Vaishnava point of view.

There has been enough evidence to disprove his points. His posts are filled mostly with self-serving personal attacks that can hardly be called evidence of anything but his desperation and ignorance of the rules of debate.