Radha, Vyasa, and Shuka Muni

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Sri Radha's name is not mentioned directly in Srimad Bhagavatam because Sri Shuka Muni, being the topmost rasika bhakta, would enter nirvikalpa samadhi by just once hearing the divine name of Radha. Such a state of unconscious bliss would last for many days. Parikshit maharaj had just seven days before his death, thus Shuka Muni avoided directly uttering the name of Radha, and instead hinted about Her by the word "aradhana".

 

In other Puranas the descriptions of Radha are given directy, especially in Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana.

 

For those who have a preset conception, it is useless to cite evidence. Any text that has the name Radha will be disregarded in favour of one's own opinion. One will conclude that such texts are either of recent time periods (without actually having any proof in this regards), or the particular verse will be called an interpolation (again without having proof in this regards either). We have seen how such people react when evidence is cited. For example, if an Upanishad has the name Krishna in it, they conclude that the Upanishad must therefore be a recent text, or that it must be refering to another Krishna whom no one knows about.

 

Or to quote another example:

 

"Any book talking about Radha and Krishna's romance is no older than 700 ad."

 

Thus such discussion is trully a waste of time. This is where we get the famous statement "One who knows, knows not. And one who does not know, truly knows."

 

As far as the rasa-lila, it occurred when Lord Krishna was eight years of age, but to the gopis the Lord appears as a youth of sixteen years old. The Lord manifests His form according to the desire of the devotee. We find in Srimad Bhagavatam a description of the rasa dance. There it is mentioned that it lasted for the period of one kalpa, which in our calculations would be millions of years. The activities of the omnipotent Lord are inconceivable and beyond mundane logic. For the Lord it is not difficult to manipulate time and space, for they are His energies. Lord Krishna also expanded into numerous forms during the rasa lila as well as in Dwaraka. Such topics cannot be understood by one who tries to judge Krishna in terms of material history.

 

Those who accept Krishna as an ordinary person will naturally have difficulty in accepting His supernatural activities. Whether it be Krishna's marrying 16,108 wives, or Krishna's lifting of Govardhana hill, neither can be accomodated in terms of material experience.

 

All of the great bhakti schools in India accept the transcendental existence of Radha and Krishna. Some schools may not give special significance to these forms of the Lord, but they certainly accept such worship as authorized. Vishnuswami, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabhacharya, and Chaitanya all accept the transcendental position of Sri Radha. Though some think the worship of Radha is of recent origins, this is not the case. But it is true that in recent times the importance of Radha worship has been especially stressed by Sri Chaitanya. It is interesting that the "radha kalyana" festival is most common in South India, where there is little influence of Sri Chaitanya's teachings.

 

The madhurya-rasa (conjugal relationship with the Lord) is nothing new or sectarian. The Azhvar Sri Andal sung extensively about the madhurya-rasa.

 

About the Puranas:

 

Many people here refer to earlier Puranas and later Puranas. The concept that the Puranas were written over a period of several hundred years in the recent history has its origin from the British indologists. If we accept such a conclusion, that would mean the Puranas are lies, as they state their origin differently. According to the Puranas, Sri Vyasa Muni was the author, and he authored the last and most recent Purana over 5,000 years ago.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this regard. I personally accept the statements of the sadhus and the scriptures over the statements of the British indologists. The indologists had a not so hidden agenda of establishing Christianity as the original religion of the world. Thus all of their writings were an attempt to prove that the Hindu religion was of recent origins. They did a great job if we judge it by its effectiveness. Most Indians nowadays accept what ever the indologists stated without question. In that sense the British were really able to conquer India because they managed to destroy its culture and history. Today those born in Brahmana families are wearing pant and shirt and working as engineers in New Jersey. Nothing wrong with that - but the Moghuls were never able to accomplish such a feat, nor the French, nor the Portuguese. Hats off to the British.

 

About Krishna:

 

After rereading this thread I think I finally found out where the problem in discussion is occuring. The devoted are speaking of a Krishna who is the absolute truth. The non-devoted are speaking of a "Krishna" who was a historical person that lived and died. Unfortunately this two people are quite opposite. Thus there is a break in communication. If someone were to ask me to prove that the second "Krishna" existed (one who was born and died like a common man), I cannot do it because I don't believe there was such a person. In the same way, if I write something super-natural about Krishna, a non-devoted person will think I am attributing it to the second Krishna (the common man who died), and thus it becomes a stupid statement. How can a common man do that? In this way we have each defined a word (in this case "Krishna") differently and are trying to converse with each other.

 

If I think the word "car" refers to a green potato, no matter how much you describe and glorify your car, I will still think your insane. Thats the situation we are in.

 

Regarding Vyasa not knowing:

 

Vyasa is a tri-kala-jnani who knows past, present, and future. Furthermore he is an empowered incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The statement that Vyasa may or may not know was originally made by Lord Shiva, but it seems to have been misunderstood. I have not read the article linked previously, so I cannot say whether the author is mistaken or the interpretation of the article is mistaken.

 

The point is that (according to Padma Purana) Shuka heard Srimad Bhagavatam directly from Lord Shiva in a previous age. Shukadeva was present as a parrot, and he overheard Lord Shiva recite Srimad Bhagavatam to Devi. Thus Shuka is a disciple of Lord Shiva in this regards. As such, Lord Shiva makes the statement that "I know Srimad Bhagavatam, and Shuka (who has heard from me) also knows Srimad Bhagavatam, but Vyasa may or may not know." Since Vyasa was not a disciple of Lord Shiva, Lord Shiva chose not to comment on whether Vyasa knew or not. Of course he did know, and Lord Shiva, being omniscient, knew that Vyasa was a knower of Bhagavatam. Lord Shiva simple chose not to confirm whether or not Vyasa knew. Foolish people will conclude that therefore Vyasa didn't know. Anyone who says Vyasa did not know the meaning of Bhagavatam is mistaken, regardless of which school of philosophy he belongs to. If the above linked article does state that Vyasa didn't know Bhagavatam, I would have to disagree with it. Even Lord Shiva did not say Vyasa did not know. Therefore an intelligent person will not be so bold. Vyasa did know Radha when it came to Brahma Vaivarta Purana.

 

About scriptures:

 

Srimad Bhagavatam is considered as an authentic and spotless text by all Vaishnavas. Other recent texts written by gurus and acharyas may also be authentic in the sense that their conclusions are in line with the scriptures, but still they receive their authenticity from the scriptures. No one would reject the scripture by which one's own text receives authoritativeness.

 

 

[Gauracandra]

With regard to British Indologists using their position to convert Indians to Christianity I would like to reference a passage from "Vedic Archeology":

 

*********************************************

The attempt to edit the [Mora Well] inscription is instructive. Many early archeologists in India were Christian - and they made no bones about their motivation. In the early 1800s, for instance, some of the greatest progress in the field of Sanskrit and Indological study was made at Oxford University. H.H. Wilson became the first Boden Professor of Sanskrit at that particular school. His successor, the famous professor M. Monier-Williams, has clearly delineated the original purpose and motivation for Indological study: "I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its founder, Colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated August 15, 1811) that the special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of scriptures from Sanskrit - so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion."

*********************************************

 

Just something to think about when discussing European views of Indian History.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu]

 

Hello All,

 

---

Sri Radha's name is not mentioned directly in Srimad Bhagavatam because Sri Shuka Muni, being the topmost rasika bhakta, would enter nirvikalpa samadhi by just once hearing the divine name of Radha.

---

 

What can I say ?

 

---

Such a state of unconscious bliss would last for many days. Parikshit maharaj had just seven days before his death, thus Shuka Muni avoided directly uttering the name of Radha, and instead hinted about Her by the word "aradhana".

---

 

Again, what can I say ?

 

---

In other Puranas the descriptions of Radha are given directy, especially in Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana.

----

 

I have already explained why, in the earlier postings.

 

---

For those who have a preset conception, it is useless to cite evidence.

---

 

That is true both ways.

 

---

Any text that has the name Radha will be disregarded in favour of one's own opinion.

---

 

Let me correct that. Any text that mentions Radha and is no older than 700 ad is to be diregarded if we are looking at authenticity and dates.

 

----

One will conclude that such texts are either of recent time periods (without actually having any proof in this regards)...

----

 

Correction. There has to be proof to show that the book is older than 700 ad. People who claim that it is old are the ones to come up with the proof. I hope that much is clear.

 

---

...the particular verse will be called an interpolation (again without having proof in this regards either).

---

 

Correction. That is a possibility considered because of the lack of evidence to show that the concept of Radha is earlier than 700 ad.

 

---

For example, if an Upanishad has the name Krishna in it, they conclude that the Upanishad must therefore be a recent text, or that it must be refering to another Krishna whom no one knows about.

---

 

An upanishad containing the name of Krishna is definitely a matter of interest. Because according to the Shastras [accepted by all Vaishnavas], the Sruti was revealed, which means they were in existence before the time of Rama himself. So how can they possibly have a reference to a later person like Krishna?

 

Coming to the point that the Krishna in Chandogya not being Lord Krishna,

 

The Chandoya says that Ghora Angirasa taught Krishna the son of Devaki, all the truths which quenched his thirst for any other knowledge. I must also mention here that I checked this up with other Vaishnava Scholars [not GVs] and they all say this Krishna cannot be the one. The reasons given by them follow,

 

1. Because Krishna's Guru was Sanidipini and this Ghora Angirasa is not mentioned in any of the stories of Krishna. Which is unlikely because a person who taught Krishna all the basic truths, would surely be worth mentioning.

 

2. According to the stories of krishna, he was a know-all. So there is no question of him hearing any truths which would quench his thirst to learn anything else.

 

3. The point that Sruti is believed to have been in existence long before the time of Krishna.

 

Note : There is a different view of this which I will present later, as there is some more Info, that I am waiting to receive.

 

----

Or to quote another example:

 

"Any book talking about Radha and Krishna's romance is no older than 700 ad."

----

 

I would be very interested to come across a book that talks about Radha and can be proved to be older than 700 ad.

 

----

Thus such discussion is trully a waste of time. This is where we get the famous statement "One who knows, knows not. And one who does not know, truly knows."

-----

 

That statement is from the Kena Upanishad and says that Brahman cannot be known. With due respect, I can safely say that it has no relevance here.

 

----

We find in Srimad Bhagavatam a description of the rasa dance. There it is mentioned that it lasted for the period of one kalpa, which in our calculations would be millions of years.

----

 

Well, that should explain it. It definitely was not an actual incident during the lifetime of the person of Krishna. Which is what is meant by 'how could a 8 year old indulge in romance'? It is a way of describing the greatness of the Lord by the Author and not an actual, physical occurence.

 

Hope that is clear.

 

----

The activities of the omnipotent Lord are inconceivable and beyond mundane logic.

----

 

Which is precisely why one should not/cannot attempt to record them and pass them on to other people. It will invariably be false.

 

---

Such topics cannot be understood by one who tries to judge Krishna in terms of material history.

---

 

May I point out that such things cannot be understood by anyone? Going by your own logic that it is all inconceivable and beyond time and space.

 

---

Those who accept Krishna as an ordinary person will naturally have difficulty in accepting His supernatural activities.

----

 

Yes, that is true. When we have facts there is no question of accepting or denying anything. This problem has come up, because of lack of evidence.

 

---

Whether it be Krishna's marrying 16,108 wives, or Krishna's lifting of Govardhana hill, neither can be accomodated in terms of material experience.

---

 

Does that mean, you accept that Krishna did not physically lift a mountain ? Which is exactly my point too.

 

---

All of the great bhakti schools in India accept the transcendental existence of Radha and Krishna.

---

 

1. All the present day schools came after 700 ad. So that is not surprising.

 

2. When we discuss dates, we are talking about the physical existence of Krishna and Radha or anyone else. Transcendental existence is something that one cannot talk about. It is a matter of faith.

 

---

Many people here refer to earlier Puranas and later Puranas. The concept that the Puranas were written over a period of several hundred years in the recent history has its origin from the British indologists.

If we accept such a conclusion, that would mean the Puranas are lies, as they state their origin differently.

---

 

Not necessarily. The Puranas may have been inititated by one person although even that is unlikely. Why would a person want to write 18 huge Puranas which mostly has redundant information?

 

---

According to the Puranas, Sri Vyasa Muni was the author, and he authored the last and most recent Purana over 5,000 years ago.

---

Where were these Puranas for 3700 years?

 

----

Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this regard. I personally accept the statements of the sadhus and the scriptures over the statements of the British indologists.

----

 

History dates a work by the date of the author. When a date is not available for the author, the next best thing to do is to go by the earliest reference to the work in other sources, and/or to go by the references made to other known sources in the work.

 

---

The indologists had a not so hidden agenda of establishing Christianity as the original religion of the world.

---

 

Yes, but only where there was room for manipulation. The ycould not do so with Budhhism or the Vedic religion. Because of clear-cut evidence. Which was not available in the case of the Puranas.

 

---

Thus all of their writings were an attempt to prove that the Hindu religion was of recent origins.

---

 

Not really. They did accept that the Vedic religion, Buddhism and Jainism was older than their religion. That is an exagerration of our people who were vexed with the Aryan invasion theory of Max Muller.

 

---

In that sense the British were really able to conquer India because they managed to destroy its culture and history.

---

 

Our history still remains as is. Whatever is considered as Mythology can always turn to History with proper evidence.

 

As for the destruction of culture, we are responsible. We had a choice and we opted for the western style. Anyway culture is something that keeps changing with changing times. So it was a change for the better.

 

A more comfortable life-style and better living standards are always better. Otherwise our people would still be living in huts, struggling with farming, fishing, and making pottery.

 

---

The devoted are speaking of a Krishna who is the absolute truth. The non-devoted are speaking of a "Krishna" who was a historical person that lived and died. Unfortunately this two people are quite opposite. Thus there is a break in communication.

---

 

Exactly. There is nothing to talk, discuss or debate about Krishna the absolute truth. That is not something that one can set out to prove or disprove to someone else. it is a matter of belief.

 

But the existence of a person Krishna is a different matter and needs evidence to be really accepted. Because of all the impossible feats attributed to this person.

 

----

If someone were to ask me to prove that the second "Krishna" existed (one who was born and died like a common man), I cannot do it because I don't believe there was such a person.

----

 

Well said. Either that or there may have been such a person who was grossly exagerrated.

 

---

In the same way, if I write something super-natural about Krishna, a non-devoted person will think I am attributing it to the second Krishna (the common man who died), and thus it becomes a stupid statement.

---

 

As you yourself said, there is scope for misunderstanding here. But I think that a person can still be devoted to the Supreme Krishna and not believe everything that has been written about the person Krishna.

 

Our people claim that everything about the Puranas is real, factual history. The Indologists claim that it is all mythology. In the absence of evidence one has to lean towards Indology. While the only reason to lean towards the other option is patriotism.

 

It is a simple thing of uncovering evidence. That will clear up this situation.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra]

Hi Shvu,

 

You have mentioned in a previous post that Rama and Krishna are mythical characters while Buddha and Jesus are historical characters. Yet you offer no proof that either the Buddha or Jesus ever actually existed or performed the activities attributed to them. While you may question the existence of Krsna I can assure you there are other ‘Shvu’s’ of the world who question the very existence of Jesus Christ. The reason why you accept Christ as an historical personage, is not because there is proof of his existence [in point of fact there is no historical proof that he existed at all] but because western civilization, the dominant civilization today, accepts his existence. Let me state that I personally accept Jesus Christ as a divine historical figure. Yet you can not offer any more proof that Christ existed than you expect others to provide with regard to Krsna. I will not outline the debate on the historicity of Christ here, as it would take a long time to develop, but simply leave with this parting thought. What some consider to be mythology others consider to be history. The winner writes the history books. The dominant civilization today is western civilization and as such its stories are considered to be “true”. Unfortunately, due to cultural imperialism the history of other cultures has been subjugated and relegated to “mythology”.

 

Gauracandra

 

[dd77]

Dear jndas,

 

You narrate somewhere else the story of this hunter to whom Narada Muni told to chant repeatedly the name of MARA so that he would indirectly chant the name of RAMA and be engage in the path of liberation.

 

If it works in this sens can you explain how is it that Shuka Muni did not fall in samadhi while uttering "aRADHAna", if simply by hearing the name of Radha he would fall unconscious.

 

Thanks.

 

[shvu]

Hi Gauracandra,

 

Your points are valid.

 

I will get back to you on the Jesus and Buddha issue soon.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

Hi dd77,

 

Suka explaining the Bhagavatam to Parikshit, itself is a questionable issue. It contradicts itself as I have explained in another posting. Some scholars who dislike to think that the Bhagavatam may be interpolated, reason that it was another Parikshit [?].

 

Anyway I find it surprising that nothing would happen to Suka, while uttering the names Narayana, Maha-Vishnu, Vaasudeva and Krishna. But yet, the name of Radha would cause instant Samadhi.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

Hi Gauracandra,

 

---

You have mentioned in a previous post that Rama and Krishna are mythical characters while Buddha and Jesus are historical characters. Yet you offer no proof that either the Buddha or Jesus ever actually existed or performed the activities attributed to them.

---

 

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is available thru multiple sources [excluding the NT]. The Jews have a record written soon after his death, where they have written unfavorable things about Jesus. The Romans have an entry in their history about the prosecution of Christus, the creator of the name by Pilot. And this was at a time, when the Romans were totally against the concept of christianity. There is a Roman general's diary that talks about Jesus. All these people had no business writing about a fictious personality. None of them were christians.

 

All this shows that a man named Jesus did exist during that time and was prosecuted. But it does not/cannot show that this man performed miracles or came back from the dead. And I don't believe that either.

 

Coming to the Buddha, there is still some controvery over his dates. But the discrepancy is very low, and they all point towards 500 bc. The growth of Buddhism from the point of his death, is clear. And from the time of Askoha [300 bc], history is more or less very clear. The Buddha was an ordinary man, who lived an ordinary life, something that one can believe and accept. Why would anyone doubt his existence?

 

---

While you may question the existence of Krsna I can assure you there are other ‘Shvu’s’ of the world who question the very existence of Jesus Christ.

---

 

Good, I like that. If our Indians had done this a few 1000 years back, things would have been ver different. And for those who doubt the existence of jesus, there is proof, if they are willing to investigate.

 

btw do you know why these people do not doubt Aristotle or Plato, although they lived before Jesus? Because they do not have miracles like turning wine into water, born to a Virgin, etc attributed to them. Which is the same reason why one doubts Krishna.

 

---

The reason why you accept Christ as an historical personage, is not because there is proof of his existence [in point of fact there is no historical proof that he existed at all]

---

 

Sorry there....as I have explained above.

 

---

...but because western civilization, the dominant civilization today, accepts his existence.

---

 

Does the dominant western civilisation accept that Adam was the first man and was created by God? I doubt it. I think most people today are in favor of the theory of evolution. They recognize the OT as a religious book written mainly for the Jews of Israel and is not to be taken as a historical account of mankind and the world.

 

---

Yet you can not offer any more proof that Christ existed than you expect others to provide with regard to Krsna.

---

 

Sorry again...There is proof for the existence of Jesus while there is absolutely none for Krishna.

 

---

What some consider to be mythology others consider to be history. The winner writes the history books.

---

 

Yes, but there is a limit to how much of manipulation that the winner can introduce. If things were that way, probably the British would have ended up claiming that the Vedas were written after the Christ. That was not so. Max Muller learnt Sanskrit and took up the big task of translating all the principle Upanshads into engish making them available to the whole world. What was the 'hidden motive' there?

 

Anyway, our Indians have been doing considerable research in this area to show that the Aryan Invasion theory is false, and to show that the Vedic religion is much older than believed. Why do you think they haven't come up with anything yet? There is no foreign intervention now.

 

---

Unfortunately, due to cultural imperialism the history of other cultures has been subjugated and relegated to “mythology”.

---

 

Let us take a simple example. The Bhagavatam which is perhaps the most detailed account of the History of Hinduism and Krishna says this,

 

O Great King ! I have narrated to you the stories of many who lived to make their names famous in their life time and then to pass away and become a memory soon after. These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation. They have no significance in themselves and are not to be taken as literal facts.

 

-SB 12.3.14

 

What do you say to this?

 

However our people will conveniently avoid such statements. They like to and want everyone to believe that all the Puranas are true accounts. From all this, I personally believe that the British scholars are being shown in a bad light by our own for obvious reasons.

 

While patriotism is good, I am sure that you may have noticed that the average westerner is more rational and realistic in his approach than the average Indian. Let us see our scholars achieve the task of having our Indian [atleast] history text-books rewritten to demolish the AIT theory. Then perhaps, we can begin to take their statements more seriously.

 

I assure you, I would be very happy to see evidence that Krishna really lived 5000 years back or earlier.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

A correction :

 

I wrote,

 

---

Does the dominant western civilisation accept that Adam was the first man and was created by God? I doubt it. I think most people today are in favor of the theory of evolution.

---

 

I mean most people who have some background in science are in favor of Evolution. I am ruling out the 'Believers' here.

 

Just like some of our people think that there was a Narda, who used to travel everywhere and would meet all kinds of people. But for some secret reason suddenly stopped doing so, after history began to be documented. That is until some 2000 years back.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

I am working on a project for school and i have come to see that buddhism maybe the religon i am looking for. like the right anwsers to life.

[Guest guest]

Here we go again with the same old medicore pseudo-scholarly drivel.

 

When we speak of evidence, we must consider all the evidence, in attempting to determine whether or not there is an historical Krishna. The fact that He is mentioned in the mahAbhArata, most purANa-s, and countless other smRti texts is certainly preliminary evidence of His existence. There is no objective reason to doubt these sources on that point at least.

 

It is certainly a reasonable point to argue about the presence (or lack thereof) of corroborative evidence from other cultures (presumably neutral third parties). However, kindly use your brain for a moment. When we are speaking of events that occurred 5,000 years ago on the Indian subcontinent, what other non-Indian evidence could possibly exist?

 

Most historians today accept that there was a Trojan War, that there was a city of Troy, that there probably was a Priam, a Paris, an Agamemnon, etc. Yet the empirical evidence to substantiate the events chronicled in the Iliad is no stronger than the evidence supporting the historicity of the bhAgavata. This is because historians commonly accept that ancient literature does reflect real-life events, if even exaggerated or interpolated over time. The point remains that assuming some level of historicity exists even for "religious" or "supernatural" literature is commonly done in the academic community.

 

Why do lackeys of the European Indology community continue to return to religion forums such as this and arbitrarily reject the historicity of people and events from Sanskrit literature? And that too when Europeans do not extend the same standard towards their own mythology?

 

It has nothing to do with science. One cannot engage in parrot-like repetition of someone else's theories and call himself a scholar. True scholars remain objective and unattached to any explanation. Our resident sepoy scholars would do well to recall that "scholarly detachment" is a virtue.

 

Most likely what is happening here is that some former, disgruntled members of the iskcon are constantly trying to rationalize their new, materialistic makeover. They want the meat and the women, but they somehow find the life unfulfilling. Finding no joy in it, they do the only thing they know how to do: they return to Audarya and spew their half-baked theories in an effort to torment devotees.

 

Getting back to our current example, it is difficult to ascertain the exact cause of Shvu's dissatisfaction with materialism. If he is simply unable to attract that woman he's been drooling over, then he can surely find a plastic surgeon to fix his looks. And if the problem is that he simply can't "perform" for her, then there are drugs for that kind of problem these days. If his problem is lack of money, then he can certainly get a more advanced degree and a better job. If he lacks some material facility, then surely he can afford a better place to stay. If he has discovered that his current guru is bogus, then he can surely find another bogus guru to tell him what he wants to hear.

 

The point here is that if he is so sure that materialism is the way to go, then he can surely apply himself better in that way rather than returning here blindly repeating theories whose basis he does not understand.

 

I do not know why it is so difficult to get through to these professional nay-sayers. All we want is someone who can speak intelligently and provide evidence for his views, rather than some shmuck who merely quotes someone else whose authority is assumed because of a PhD or a publication. Is this so difficult to grasp? If so, then the disgruntled Hindus like shvu can always go back to chewing the chewed and leave off of harassing devotees with medicore pseudo-scholarship.

Raghu

[Guest guest]

You've put the lackey in his place. Guys like Shvu are not materialists, or they wouldn;t return to religious forums off and on. He's a desperate man, prolly a UGK nut.