PrinceGoutham and Bhaktajan, official thread

[RadhaMukunda]

Princegoutham and Bhaktajan, I am new on this forum and have been browsing through the messages. It seems that everywhere you two post the same old message praising either Shiva (PrinceGoutham) or Vishnu (Bhaktajan) as the Supreme God, while disrespecting the other one.

 

I don't see how it is usefull to paste the same post in every thread. Therefore I open this thread where I challenge you both to debate your position on Shankara and Narayana. Everyone else is also allowed to join the debate.

 

bhaktajan and princegoutham, please defend your views with logic and quotations from the Vedas and Puranas. These shastras are regarded as authoritive by both vaishnavas and Shaivas. Let's limit us to these Shastra's. Quotations from Acharyas are not regarded as Shastra here.

 

*The four vedas:

_Rigveda (Mantra Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads)

_Yajurveda (Mantra Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads)

_Samaveda (Mantra Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads)

_Atharvaveda (Mantra Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads)

 

*The fifth Veda (Itihasa-Purana)

The Eighteen Maha Puranas:

 

_Brahma Purana

_Padma Purana

_vishnu purana

_Skanda Purana

_Shiva Maha-Purana

_Vamana Purana

_Markandeya Purana

_Varaha Purana

_Brahma Vaivart Purana

_Agni Purana

_Bhavishya Purana

_Kurma Purana

_Matsya Purana

_Garuda Purana

_Brahmananda Purana

_Shrimad Bhagavata Purana

_Linga Purana

 

_MahaBharata (Bhagavat Gita)

_Valmiki Ramayana

 

*Bhaktajan, vaishnava, consideres Vishnu/ Krishna to be the Supreme God and separate from all other gods in Hinduism

 

*Princegoutham, Shaiva, consideres Shiva to be the Supreme God and separate from all other gods in Hinduism

 

I open this debate because it's a shame the entire forum is consumed with these posts. Also, I hope we can bring some readers to their senses about the oneness of Vishnu and Shiva or any other Hindu God. It also pains to read all the ignorant messages on this forum.

 

Shivaya VishnuRupaya Vishnave Shiva Rupine

Shivaya Hridaye Vishnur Vishnoscha Hridaye Shiva

(padma purana)

 

Let's for once and for all start this debate without deverting to other topics.

[RadheyRadhey108]

I'm sorry if I'm going off into other scriptures here, dearest Radha Mukunda, but I would like to point out ot Bhaktajan that, in the Radha Sahasranama (which is held to be especially sacred to Gaudiya Vaishnavas), Radhika is revealed to be the same Goddess as Parvati and Saraswati. Saraswati is just as divine as Radhika, and so is Parvati.

 

Bhaktajan, I beg you to please actually take the time to realize the truth that Radhika reveals to you through Her holy names. Here are a few of them from Her Sahasranam:

 

Brahmä's wife (brahma-patné), Goddess Sarasvaté (sarasvaté), the beautiful wife of Lord Çiva (çambhu-käntä and sadäçiva-manoharä), the wife of Lord Çiva (çivä and durgä), and the wife of Lord Çiva who destroyed Kämadeva's body (kämäìga-häriëé), Goddess Pärvaté (himälaya-sutä, sarvä, pärvaté, girijä, and saté), She is Dakña's daughter (dakña-kanyä), Goddess Pärvaté (haimavaté), she who is dear to Çiva, Brahmä, and Viñëu (çiva-brahma-hari-priyä), Lord Çiva's wife (çaçi-çekharä), She is Goddess Durgä (anna-pürëä), mother of the universe (jagad-ambikä), She is the Goddess who resides on Mount Kailäsa (kailäsa-väsiné). She is the beloved the mother (priyambikä), the beloved of Lord Çiva (hara-käntä and hara-ratä), and She who gives bliss to Lord Çiva (haränanda-pradäyiné), She is Lord Çiva's wife (hara-patné), Lord Çiva's beloved (hara-prétä), devoted to pleasing Lord Çiva (hara-toçaëa-tatparä), Lord Çiva's queen (hareçvaré), Goddess Saté (Saté), the nine Durgäs (nava-durgikä), stopped Dakña's yajïa (dakña-yajïa-harä), is Dakña's daughter (däkñé and dakña-kanyä), She is Lord Çiva's beloved (çivä), a great devotee of Lord Çiva (çiva-bhaktä), and Lord Çiva's companion (çivänvitä), the goddess who resides on Mount Kailäsa (kailäsäcala-väsiné), She is the daughter of Nägaräja (nagendra-kanyä), She is Lord Çiva's beloved (nélakaëöha-priyä), She is Lord Çiva's beloved (raudrä), She delights Lord Çiva (rudränanda-prakäçiné), She is Goddess Durgä (dhümrä), She is Lord Çiva's beloved (çaivä), She gives devotion to Lord Çiva (çiva-bhakti-dä), She is the true form of Çiva‘s Çakti (çiva-çakti-svarüpä), and She enjoys pastimes as the beloved who is half the body of Lord Çiva (çivärdhäìga-vihäriëé), She is the Goddess Gangä (gangä and gangä-jalamayé), She is said to be the Ganges (gangeritä), She of the mountains (parvatädhiniväsä), Her form is that of Durgä-devé (dugra-rüpä), when She sits on Lord Çiva's lap (çiva-kroòä), She is Goddess Pärvaté (haimavaté), She resides in Kailäsa (kailäsa-väsiné), She wears a garland of skulls (kapäla-mäliné), the beloved of Lord Çeña, king of snakes (nägendrä), the mother of the snakes (näga-mätä), Lord Çiva's life and soul (hara-präëä and çiva-präëä), and Lord Çiva's companion (çivänvitä), She is Draupadé (draupadé), who is dear to the Päëòavas (päëòava-priyä), She is Pärvaté (kailäsiné), Her form is that of Raudra's beloved (raudra-rüpä), She is the beloved of Lord Çiva, who wears a deerskin (kåñëasära-carma-dharä), She is dear to Kuvera's master, Lord Çiva (kuvereçvara-vallabhä), She is the other half of Lord Viñëu, Lord Çiva, and Lord Brahmä (brahma-viñëu-çivärdhäìga-häriëé). She is Lord Çiva's beloved (çaiva-çiàsapä).

 

Bhaktajan, you are being foolish in continuing this debate. Radha is Saraswati; Saraswati is Radha. Radha is Parvati; Parvati is Radha. And, if Radha is Saraswati, then Krishna is Brahma. If Radha is Parvati, then Krishna is Shiva. Don't you see the truth that is right in front of your face?

[RadhaMukunda]

That's good, RadheyRadhey108. I mentioned it to prevent people from using quotes from their own acharyas to support their own arguments. But if you want to point something out in a scripture in which your opponent or your opponent's Acharya has faith, that's fine. The Radha Sahasranama is from the Narada Pancharatna, if I am right?

 

You made a very good point. In Shakta worship there is no debate on the same Shakti, ParaBrahma taking different forms. Like Maha Laxmi, Maha Saraswati and Maha Kali. Or like the nine forms of Durga and the dasha Maha Vidyaas. Furthermore, even the male devatas like brahma, rudra, vishnu, varuna etc are forms of Durga according the Devi Sukta from the Rigveda.

 

In the Brahmaanda Purana it is mentioned how all the gods sactificed their own body the sacred fire and later reappeared from the body of Lalita Devi. In the Markandeya Purana it is mentioned how a divine glow appeared from the all the devatas. That divine glow took the form of Durga. The essence of these stories is that there is one Brahman who takes many forms.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

That's good, RadheyRadhey108. I mentioned it to prevent people from using quotes from their own acharyas to support their own arguments. But if you want to point something out in a scripture in which your opponent or your opponent's Acharya has faith, that's fine. The Radha Sahasranama is from the Narada Pancharatna, if I am right?

Yea, it is from the Narada Pancharatna

 

You made a very good point. In Shakta worship there is no debate on the same Shakti, ParaBrahma taking different forms. Like Maha Laxmi, Maha Saraswati and Maha Kali. Or like the nine forms of Durga and the dasha Maha Vidyaas. Furthermore, even the male devatas like brahma, rudra, vishnu, varuna etc are forms of Durga according the Devi Sukta from the Rigveda.

Yes, this is very true. All the Devis are but forms of Jagadambe (or, such is my understanding).

 

In the Brahmaanda Purana it is mentioned how all the gods sactificed their own body the sacred fire and later reappeared from the body of Lalita Devi. In the Markandeya Purana it is mentioned how a divine glow appeared from the all the devatas. That divine glow took the form of Durga. The essence of these stories is that there is one Brahman who takes many forms.

Yes, this is true I'm glad you brought it up. In the Devi Mahatmyam, it also devotes a capter to the birth of Durga Devi from the bodies of the Devas and Devis.

[bhaktajan]

I accept with gitty glee. Yeee Haaa!

 

1) Let us establish common terminologies:

 

How do we know who are father is? Ask your Mother!

 

This maxim expresses the absolute nature of 'Truth'.

 

1--In philosophy the priciple is called parampara [family lineage] and/or Sampradaya [disciplic succession].

 

2--This chain of succession is absolute.

 

3--The succession I aim to highlight is the Family Tree of The personalities of Lord Brahmas's Family.

 

4--This Family Tree of The personalities of Lord Brahmas's Family will also relate itself to the origin of the Soul/All Souls before taking birth within the material world [a Brahmanda].

 

5--This Family Tree of The personalities of Lord Brahmas's Family will also relate itself to the origin Brahmandas.

 

6--The origin of 'Brahmandas' [the egg shaped vessel encasing the cosmos] will also relate itself to Maha-Vishnu's Breathing--which expells 'bubbles of Breath' which are called Brahmandas.

 

7--Maha-Vishnu tattva is the External prakriti of Narayana.

 

8--Narayana is Krishna is the rasa of Lord and King of the Kingdom of God.

 

9--Lastly, I, Bhaktajan, am very doubtful that Shivite are earnest in any such claim that any 'demi-dio', 'semi-dios', 'demi-god', 'devata' is equal to Sri Gopala-Govinda-Krishna.

 

9a--Conversely, I, Bhaktajan, am a devote "Mr Brown" [as in, Queen Victoria's Mr. Brown] of the Vedas and the Mahajans and of the Prajapatis--ergo, the Family Tree of The personalities of Lord Brahmas's Family, of which I am one of the babies of the bunch.

 

IOW, the Devas are all senior family members from whom I expect protection --or I'm telling on them to grandpa.

 

So I cannot truely accept that a Shivite is sincere in such assertions that Shiva is God almighty. I feel that such claims are dis-ingenuous and are made at the expense of someones habit to be a contrarian --like a school boy painting graffitti on a school wall--good boy, but bad form.

 

I appologise in advance--I will be pedantic, condescending, doctrinaire, didactic and moralistic --as I feel I am on the side of the Angels and ipso facto, I am on the side of the Devas.

 

NOTE: the discussion may wind up revolving around the nature of particular Devas:

as an avatar and/or;

Devas as an avatara's entourage and/or;

Devas as an 'immaculate conception' and/or;

Devas as an cursed/fallen/volunteer-Boddhisattva-outreacher and/or;

 

versus:

 

Devas as being a finite, miniscule jiva-atma with

great initial-merit taking their very first of very [hopefully] few repeated births dating back to the early years of Lord Brahma's first fifty years of age.

 

--------------------------------

 

The above are talking points thatIsubmit as "bench-marks" to be used as stepping stones or as foundations for establishing MYOWN SIDE OF THE ARGUEMENT.

 

To who it may concern, please fell free to disregard or nullify any such of the above propositions that I am establishing as the essence of my logic and argument:

 

There is only one Transcendent God how is father to all other beings, moving and nonmoving through-out all existence.

 

I pray that I will keep all my reply short and to the point.

 

I will be providing quotes from sastra as listed in the opening post.

 

God Speed.

 

May this be enliving to all the Devas, who are 'On-Line' and who have blessed know Bill Gates & Steve Jobs.

[RadheyRadhey108]

Bhaktajan, why haven't you responded to the point I made through Radha Sahasranam? Isn't it obvious that Parvati and Saraswati are none other than Radha Herself? And, if Radha is Parvati and Saraswati (as is evidenced in Her sahasranam), then Krishna is none other than Shiva and Brahma.

Oh, and, do you still refuse to acknowledge Shaivas as Bhaktas? Well, then I guess you don't consider the very embodiment of Bhakti Herself, Radharani, a Bhakta, since She is both Shiva Bhakta (a devotee of Lord Shiva) and Shiva Bhakti Daa (the giver of devotion to Lord Shiva).

[bhaktajan]

Bhaktajan, why haven't you responded to the point I made through Radha Sahasranam? --Because it is subversive propaganda, and , nothing more.

 

Isn't it obvious that Parvati and Saraswati are none other than Radha Herself? --No. Why would you ask?

 

And, if Radha is Parvati and Saraswati (as is evidenced in Her sahasranam), then Krishna is none other than Shiva and Brahma. --Bugger off, Pratt!

 

 

Oh, and, do you still refuse to acknowledge Shaivas as Bhaktas? --Yes, I still refuse to acknowledge Shaivas as Bhaktas. Why would you ask?

 

Well, then I guess you don't consider the very embodiment of Bhakti Herself, Radharani, a Bhakta, --What? Huh? Why would you ask? ask ... ask ...? If there is some truth to be enlightened to --it would have been duly registered in my Brain.

Take my advise and surrender to a Vaishnava . . . you know what I mean? --Instead of asking me to surrender to you!

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Bhaktajan, why haven't you responded to the point I made through Radha Sahasranam? --Because it is subversive propaganda, and , nothing more.

How so? Can you explain, or are you just making a baseless accusation because you don't know how to rebut the evidence I've provided for you from your own religious tradition?

 

Isn't it obvious that Parvati and Saraswati are none other than Radha Herself? --No. Why would you ask?

How is it not obvious? Her names are those of Saraswati and Parvati. Do you have a different interpretation of names like Brahma-Patni, Kailasha Vaisini, Shiva Bhakta, Shiva Bhakti Daa, Shiva Shakti Swarupa, Nava Durgika, Shambu Kanta, and the many other names that identify Her with Saraswati and Parvati? It appears as if you have no other interpretation for the names of your own goddess, so why not accept the obvious one (that She incarnates as Saraswati and Parvati)?

 

And, if Radha is Parvati and Saraswati (as is evidenced in Her sahasranam), then Krishna is none other than Shiva and Brahma. --Bugger off, Pratt!

 

Aww, poor baby Bhaktajan doesn't know what to do! He can't even offer a decent rebuttal!

 

Oh, and, do you still refuse to acknowledge Shaivas as Bhaktas? --Yes, I still refuse to acknowledge Shaivas as Bhaktas. Why would you ask?

Well, then I guess Radhika (who is both Shiva Bhakta and Shiva Bhakti Daa) isn't a Bhakta.

 

Well, then I guess you don't consider the very embodiment of Bhakti Herself, Radharani, a Bhakta, --What? Huh? Why would you ask? ask ... ask ...? If there is some truth to be enlightened to --it would have been duly registered in my Brain.

Take my advise and surrender to a Vaishnava . . . you know what I mean? --Instead of asking me to surrender to you!

LOL! I love it that you can't offer a real rubuttal. All you can do is ask me to surrender to you [not Krishna] with no given reason (other than that you can't admit defeat). You are SO humble, Oh great saint Bhaktajan!

[RadhaMukunda]

Impressive.

 

Why don't you respond to my arguments? Because, they are bullshit.

[bhaktajan]

You wont be bestowing Mukti to anyone Mukunda.

 

I am a Vaishnava.

 

What are you?

 

I am prohibited from disturbing the minds of the ignorant and non-believerers --but saboteurs in the midsts is a different case.

 

Please re-read my statesments to you and know that I truely stand behind them.

 

The square pegs go into the sqaure holes.

 

Bullshit is good. -- Greed is bad.

 

Get it straight from the servant of the servant of the source.

 

You ain't Guru. Learn who YOUR seniors are. Pay your dues.

[RadhaMukunda]

Shri Guruve namah

 

In one way you are also my guru. You are teaching me how I should never become.

[bhaktajan]

 

Thanks for quoting someone else again. Please, refrain from writing anything yourself. Your writings are unitelligible.

 

Listen Son, you are not qualified to study Vedänta . . . just serve a superior Vaishnava--that is all.

You are dismissed.

CC Adi 2.1:

I offer my obeisances to Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu, by whose mercy even an ignorant child can swim across the ocean of conclusive truth, which is full of the crocodiles of various theories.

CC Adi 2.96:

“One who knows the real feature of Çré Kåñëa and His three different energies cannot remain ignorant about Him.

Adi 7.71-72:

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu replied to Prakäçänanda Sarasvaté,

“My dear sir, kindly hear the reason.

My spiritual master considered Me a fool,

and therefore he chastised Me.

“‘You are a fool,’ he said. ‘You are not qualified to study Vedänta philosophy,

and therefore You must always chant the holy name of Kåñëa.

This is the essence of all mantras, or Vedic hymns.

Ädi 7.96P

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu presented himself in this way:

“I am a great fool and do not have knowledge of right and wrong.

In order to understand the real meaning of the Vedänta-sütra,

I never followed the explanation of the Çaìkara-sampradäya or Mäyävädé sannyäsés.

I’m very much afraid of the illogical arguments of the Mäyävädé philosophers.

Therefore I think I have no authority regarding their explanations of the Vedänta-sütra.

I firmly believe that simply chanting the holy name of the Lord can remove all misconceptions of the material world.

I believe that simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord one can attain the shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord. In this age of quarrel and disagreement, the chanting of the holy names is the only way to liberation from the material clutches.

“By chanting the holy name,” Lord Caitanya continued, “I became almost mad. However, after inquiring from My spiritual master I have come to the conclusion that instead of striving for achievement in the four principles of religiosity [dharma], economic development [artha], sense gratification [käma] and liberation [mokña], it is better if somehow or other one develops transcendental love of Godhead.

That is the greatest success in life. One who has attained love of Godhead chants and dances by his nature, not caring for the public.” This stage of life is known as bhägavata-jévana, or the life of a devotee.

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu continued, “I never chanted and danced to make an artificial show. I dance and chant because I firmly believe in the words of My spiritual master. Although the Mäyävädé philosophers do not like this chanting and dancing, I nevertheless perform it on the strength of his words. Therefore it is to be concluded that I deserve very little credit for these activities of chanting and dancing, for they are being done automatically by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

[RadhaMukunda]

No need to spam, I can read the other topic.

 

Listen Bhaktajan, stop trying to teach other people. Your messages don't make sense. They are annoying to everyone. I don't know who your guru is, but maybe it is wiser to spend some time with him rather than on this forum.

[bhaktajan]

 

Impressive.

Why don't you respond to my arguments? Because, they are bullshit.

 

 

Question:

Why don't you respond to my arguments?

 

Answer[?]: Because, they are bullshit.

 

 

 

It is the same thing when read backwards --maybe that's the trick to writting definitive statements!? [i ammended the sentence only for proper Grammer]:

 

Because, they are bullshit. Is that Why you don't respond to my arguments?

 

John Brown (December 8, 1826 – March 27, 1883) was a Scottish personal servant and favourite of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom for many years. He was appreciated by many (including the Queen) for his competence and companionship, and resented by others for his influence and informal manner.

 

After Albert died in 1861, Brown became Victoria's personal servant, and she was so grateful for his service (and his manner toward her, which was much less formal than that of her other servants, though extremely protective of her) that she awarded him medals and had portrait paintings and statues made of him.

 

Victoria's children and ministers resented the high regard she had for Brown, and stories circulated that there was something improper about it, but there appeared to be no basis for those stories. After Brown's death, she became similarly attached to an Indian servant, Abdul Karim, one of two who had come to work for her in late June 1887, days after her Golden Jubilee celebrating her first fifty years on the throne. She called him the Munshi, and he came to be hated more fiercely than John Brown had been, and for the same reason: the warm regard she had for him.

[RadhaMukunda]

You have no arguments, Bhaktajan. You're constantly quoting off topic or talking unintelligible stuff. I do not wish to waste my time talking to you anymore. I hope you can find another hobby too. Watch a movie or something.

[bhaktajan]

YOUR ARGUMENTS should be my concern?

 

I'm awaiting a dual instigated by some unknown, for his amusement--and you're the only one who has shown themselves.

 

But you are not a party to this affair! Or are you?

 

.........................................................................

 

Originally Posted by RadhaMukunda:

 

Question:

Why don't you respond to my arguments?

 

Answer[?]: Because, they are bullshit.

 

.........................................................................

I just noticed the sub-text you posted:

 

You have no arguments, Bhaktajan.

I accept your acquiescence. And I thank you for the complement.

I too am enlivened by our exchange.

Now please seek out senior Vaishnava, approach them, do some service and ask sincere questions. Sarva Shivam astu te.

 

yours in Krishna's servants' servants,

Bhaktajan

[RadheyRadhey108]

Bhaktajan, can you even make a real argument? Or, is endless rambling your specialty?

[guliaditya]

OM TAT SAT VISHNUH PARAMAM PADAM (Rig Veda)

 

This sloka of Rig Veda cleary tell us that Vishnu is the supreme.Only by reaching to Vaikunth Dham we can get eternal bliss.The same is confirmed in Gita also.

 

Vaishnavanaam Yatha Shambhu (Srimad Bhagavat Mahapurana)

 

In this sloka VedVyas confirmed Lord Shiva to be supreme devotee.Lord Shiva is always immersed in Narayana Bhakti.

 

This is what I have to say.

Sorry for offending anyone's feelings.

 

Pranaam

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

OM TAT SAT VISHNUH PARAMAM PADAM (Rig Veda)

 

This sloka of Rig Veda cleary tell us that Vishnu is the supreme.Only by reaching to Vaikunth Dham we can get eternal bliss.The same is confirmed in Gita also.

How does this negate the idea that one can reach eternal bliss from bhakti to Lord Shiva and attaining Him?

 

Vaishnavanaam Yatha Shambhu (Srimad Bhagavat Mahapurana)

 

In this sloka VedVyas confirmed Lord Shiva to be supreme devotee.Lord Shiva is always immersed in Narayana Bhakti.

And Lord Sri Rama worshipped Lord Shiva. He is immersed in Shiva Bhakti. I'm not seeing how this proves anything. Vishnu worships Shiva, Shiva worships Vishnu. That doesn't make either one of them a demigod.

[Amlesh]

 

Bhaktajan, can you even make a real argument? Or, is endless rambling your specialty?

Bhaktajan has spoken the Truth, anything other than Hari is endless rambling.

[Amlesh]

 

And Lord Sri Rama worshipped Lord Shiva. He is immersed in Shiva Bhakti. I'm not seeing how this proves anything. Vishnu worships Shiva, Shiva worships Vishnu. That doesn't make either one of them a demigod.

Sri Ram came hear to set examplary acts as a Human Being, consequently he had to adhere with the Vedic Rules and give respect to all the entities according to his\her status.

 

Valmiki, Vishwamitra, Janaka, Dashrath... all knew about His Supremacy... but when Sri Ram offered respect to them, they simply smiled and felt themselves blessed knowing to what extent the Supreme can love his Devotees.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Bhaktajan has spoken the Truth, anything other than Hari is endless rambling.

What truth has he spoken? And, what is your proof that it is truth?

He says that Shaivas and Shaktas are not bhaktas and equates their devotion to Shiva with that of a whore's devotion to sex and drugs. He says that any god other than Krishna is a demigod and the only reason why people worship them is because they are selfish. Surely you don't believe such dribble?

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Sri Ram came hear to set examplary acts as a Human Being, consequently he had to adhere with the Vedic Rules and give respect to all the entities according to his\her status.

 

Valmiki, Vishwamitra, Janaka, Dashrath... all knew about His Supremacy... but when Sri Ram offered respect to them, they simply smiled and felt themselves blessed knowing to what extent the Supreme can love his Devotees.

Why, if it is wrong to worship Lord Shiva, did Lord Rama set the example by doing so? He is the embodiment of Dharma. Why would He do something so "adharmic"?

[Amlesh]

 

Why, if it is wrong to worship Lord Shiva, did Lord Rama set the example by doing so? He is the embodiment of Dharma. Why would He do something so "adharmic"?

I've never said that it's wrong in Worshipping Shiva.

I do it myself every Monday at the nearest Shivalaya from my place.

 

I was refering about the Supremacy.

 

But you should ask, what I demand at Lord Shivas Lotus Feet?

[Amlesh]

Dear friends that was my last post concerning the Supremacy Issue...

 

I no longer wish to jump and dance like a monkey when I see the banana topic of Supremacy.