Conceptions of the Absolute

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

[The following is from Tattva Prakasha 1.6]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am doing a project on Hinduism at school, so could you please

give me some imformation on the Hindu conception of the Supreme

Being.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

In Hinduism the concept of the Supreme Being entails comprehension

of three different divine features. Though each feature appears

unique, factually they are one and the same Supreme Person. This

is described in the Vedic text known as Bhagavata Purana as

follows:

 

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvam yaj jnanam advayam

brahmeti paramatmeti

bhagavan iti sabdyate

 

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding

by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are

identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as

Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan."

 

These three features, known technically as Brahman, Paramatma and

Bhagavan can be understood as follows.

 

Brahman is the all-pervasive impersonal form of God; Paramatma is

the localized form of God within the heart of every living entity;

and Bhagavan is the personal form of God who resides in His

spiritual abode.

 

These three features are factually the same Supreme Person. This

can be understood by a simple analogy as told by our spiritual

master Srila Prabhupada:

 

"These three divine aspects can be explained by the example of the

sun, which also has three different aspects, namely the sunshine,

the sun's surface and the sun planet itself. One who studies the

sunshine only is the preliminary student. One who understands the

sun's surface is further advanced. And one who can enter into the

sun planet is the highest. Ordinary students who are satisfied by

simply understanding the sunshine-its universal pervasiveness and

the glaring effulgence of its impersonal nature-may be compared to

those who can realize only the Brahman feature of the Absolute

Truth. The student who has advanced still further can know the sun

disc, which is compared to knowledge of the Paramatma feature of

the Absolute Truth. And the student who can enter into the heart

of the sun planet is compared to those who realize the personal

features of the Supreme Absolute Truth."

 

There is another story on similar lines:

 

There once were three brothers who lived in a village. They had

never gone to the city before, and they had no understanding of

what a train was. One day they went to the city to see for

themselves what a train was. As they waited they heard the sound

of the train's whistle, and they turned to another man and asked,

"Is that the train?" And the man answered, "Yes." Hearing this one

of the three brothers returned to his village and told everyone

that the train is the sound of a whistle. The other two brothers,

not being convinced with the answer, waited, and soon they saw the

head light of the train in the distance. They turned to another

man and asked, "Is that light the train?" The man replied, "Yes."

Hearing this, one of the brothers was satisfied, and he returned

to his village and explained how actually a train is not just a

sound, but a bright light as well. After waiting some more time,

the third brother saw the train pull into the station, and he was

surprised at what he saw. There were doors and compartments, and

so many people getting in and going out! There were food vendors,

and ticket collectors, old men and young children! There was so

much variety. After seeing this he was satisfied and he returned

to his village to inform everyone what a train actually was. It

wasn't just an impersonal sound or a localized light. It was

complete variety.

 

Thus the Supreme Person possesses three unique features, one

impersonal and all-pervading, one localized within the hearts of

all living entities, and one as a supreme individual residing in

His spiritual abode. To understand the Absolute Truth, one must

comprehend all three of these features simultaneously.

 

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>These three features are factually the same Supreme Person. This can be understood by a simple analogy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

With due respect, this analogy is incorrect. The second example is also incorrect. To describe Brahman as impersonal is incorrect too. If anyone is interested, let me know and I will explain how both examples are incorrect.

 

I am bringing this up, because some people may actually believe it to be true.

 

Cheers

 

[Gauracandra]

Jndas,

 

Very nice example. By the way, when is the next issue coming out? Looking forward to it greatly.

 

Gauracandra

[Guest guest]

Premise:

 

vadanti tat tattva-vidas / tattvam yaj jnanam advayam

brahmeti paramatmeti / bhagavan iti sabdyate

 

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan."

 

Dear Shvuji, pranamam

 

For certain we are all curious to known your speculation on this sloka. Please do not employ only your spelling book meant for mayavadis missionaries.

 

We have a question to you:

 

Is the saguna-brahman the same as the para-brahman (Bhagavan) aspect?

 

BTW: we use 'us' instead of 'I' due a problem of identity. Behind the keyboard there are a jivatma, paramatma, pañca-bhuta, mana, buddhi, ahankara, dasa-indryia, devatas and so on, therefore it is a conglomerate of entities who is typing!!! Not only the Brahman.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

>Dear Shvuji, pranamam

 

Pranams, Srila Satyaraja Dasa,

 

>For certain we are all curious to known

>your speculation on this sloka. Please do

>not employ only your spelling book meant

>for mayavadis missionaries.

 

If you take a closer look, I did not

question the sloka. It was the examples. So

we are talking about different things. My

spellings have been satisfactory so far,

thank you. Any objections are usually by

Gaudiyas, which further shows that the

spellings are perfect.

 

>Is the saguna-brahman the same as the para-

>brahman (Bhagavan) aspect?

 

Yes.

 

>BTW: we use 'us' instead of 'I' due a

>problem of identity. Behind the keyboard

>there are a jivatma, paramatma, pañca-

>bhuta, mana, buddhi, ahankara, dasa-

>indryia, devatas and so on, therefore it is

>a conglomerate of entities who is typing!!!

>Not only the Brahman.

 

All these entities combined is the Jiva

which you yourself will agree to. So when

others type, they use 'I' to refer to this

single Jiva and use a 'we' to refer to

multiple Jivas.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

 

>Is the saguna-brahman the same as the para-brahman (Bhagavan) aspect?

Yes.

 

That is the point. Not always. Some people use to attribute an imaginary aspect to the formless Brahman, only to make their practices (such as meditation) easier, but actually this saguna-brahman is not to be considered eternal. This saguna-brahman is only a concoction and nothing else. It is not an aspect of the Absolute Truth such as this sloka from Srimad Bhagavatan explains.

 

If someone is worshiping Sri Krsna as follows: "O Yadunandana, I have come to You out of fear of material existence. I chant Your name, day and night. Please grant me moksa. O Sri Hari You are Brahman. I have fallen into the snare of maya. Please deliver me from this entanglement and let me merge in oneness with You."

 

These sentiments are jñana-misra-bhakti. This is only a semblance of bhakti (abhasa) and may give one mukti in the form of Brahman. Here saguna-brahman is not the real aim, as it is only a way to attain the nirguna-brahman. It cannot be considered as the same as the Bhagavan aspect.

 

The aspect of the Absolute Truth named Bhagavan is not attained by this kind of bhakti. He is attained only by suddha-bhakti, the kind of bhakti completely free of jñana and karma. That means that the practitioner is not interested in attain the aspect of the Absolute Truth called Brahman. Therefore he should be apart of jñana, as jñana is the main steam to attain nirguna-brahman.

 

In the Gita (6,47) it is said:

 

sraddhavan bhajate yo mam sa me yuktatamo matah - "I consider one who worship Me with faith to be the best of all yogis."

 

The bhajana Sri Krsna is referring to in this sloka is suddha-bhakti. This is the kind of bhakti that may control Bhagavan. When this suddha-bhakti is perfect, it is prema. This process may take many lifetimes to be perfect matured. This is the way to attain nitya-siddja-bhava. This kind of bhakti have nothing to do with mukti in the conception of brahma-vadis.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

That is the Gaudiya interpretation and you are welcome to it. I have no problems with that. In Advaita, the forms of Bhagavan are Saguna-Brahman as you mentioned. Bhagavan remains a distinct entity as long as there is duality.

 

Advaita accepts all forms of Bhagavan and all duality as real just like Dvaita. The difference arises in the definition of Mokhsa. Advaita states that Moksha is the end of duality, while Dvaita states that duality is eternal and continues even after Moksha.

 

Cheers

[amanpeter]

Srila AC Bhaktivedantha Swami Prabhupada:

 

"Regarding your questions: The spark soul has certainly form which means

hands, feet, etc. This we learn from Bhagavad-gita. The body is described there

as Vasamsi, which means dress. So unless one has got originally hands and

legs, how the dress, coat and pants and shirt, takes such form? Therefore the

spirit soul has original form. When he is in the material energy the dress is

evolved materially and when he is in the spiritual energy, the dress is evolved

spiritually. This is also not very difficult to understand, as our students before

coming to my contact, he was supposed to be materially dressed, attached to

sense gratification, and after devoting himself in Krishna Consciousness, he is

gradually developing a spiritual dress. That means attached to satisfying the

senses of the Supreme.

 

Your second question, how the impersonalists mistake the difference between

the soul and the Supersoul--The mistake is due to their obstinacy. The

impersonalists masquerade as Vedantists, but actually they are defying

Vedanta. In the Vedanta it is clearly said, the Original Source of all being; in

the Upanisads it is clearly said that the Supreme is the Supreme being of all

living beings. So all the Vedas affirm it vehemently that the Supersoul and the

soul are two different identities, although qualitatively one. But the

impersonalists they accept Vedas as authority, but they go against the verdict

of the Vedas. Lord Caitanya has depicted this impersonalist class of men as

more dangerous than the Buddhists. The Buddhists plainly declare that they do

not accept the authority of the Vedas, but the impersonalists masquerade

themselves as followers of Vedas, but actually they are hidden Buddhists. The

idea is, if a person is actually fast asleep, it is easier to awake him but if a

person pretends to be sleeping but actually is awake, then it is very difficult to

wake him up. So from all Sastric point of view, the living entity and the

Supreme Lord, or the Supreme Living Entity are always simultaneously

different and one. One in quality, and different in quantity. this simple thing is

understandable by any common man, but these impersonalists, they will simply

invent jugglery of words to mislead innocent people. Therefore Lord Caitanya

has warned not to associate with these impersonalist mayavadis because they

will spoil one's life by diverting one from devotional service.

 

It is very difficult to bring to reason the obstinate impersonalists. For example,

Prahlada Maharaja, such a great authority, could not convert his father to

devotional service, who preferred death, and still did not agree to accept that

God is different from him. So better to avoid the impersonalists as far as

possible."

 

 

[shvu]

 

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The impersonalists masquerade as Vedantists, but actually they are defying Vedanta. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Funny, considering that this statement is from Prabhupada who in my opinion, was probably not even aware of how many upanishads there are. The term 'impersonalist' as used by him says it all.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For example, Prahlada Maharaja, such a great authority, could not convert his father to devotional service, who preferred death, and still did not agree to accept that

God is different from him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Yet another false example by Prabhupada. Hiranyakshipu was of the opinion that there was no one powerful than him. This why Prahalada could not convince his father. Hiranyakshipu never claimed that Hari was non-different from him, as falsely concoted by Prabhupada.

 

Prabhupada was either a non-scholar parading as one or he was a blatant liar. It is not without reason that scholars call him as one

who provided imaginary translations of scriptures. He conjured up stories off his hat, at will.

 

It was a good thing for him that the average knowledge level of his audience about Indian scriptures ranged from poor to nothing. It worked out very well in his favor. Innocently they swallowed everything that he dished out.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>> The difference arises in the definition of Mokhsa. Advaita states that Moksha is the end of duality, while Dvaita states that duality is eternal and continues even after Moksha.

 

We fully agree. In our line moksa means to attain eternal seva. This is only possible while one is considering the Bhagavan aspect of the Absolute Truth. This aspect is sahlila, one may be placed at one of these lilas and thereafter he will reciprocate prema with Bhagavan.

 

If one considers mukti as the realization of the Brahman aspect of the Absolute Truth, this aspect is nihlila, there is no possibility of any kind of mutual exchanges between Brahman and Brahman Himself.

 

These two possibilities are real and may be attained according one's svarupa. That's a matter of individual disposition.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

The reason behind Prabhupada's enemity towards Advaita :

 

Vivekananda came to the US and broke the western myth that Hinduism was barbaric. Within one year of his visit, the funds alloted to the christian missionaries in India was cut down drastically. The westerner came to respect Hinduism as a parallel religion, thus making way for Hinduism to enter the western countries. Vivekananda was more an advaitin and hence Vedanta spread across the west from an advaitic perspective.

 

Now Prabhupada's Guru got the bright idea of going west. Prabhupada accordingly, prepared himself for this mission and came west. However he had to establish himself amidst Vivekananda's already established Mission. So as some marketing people do, he began to describe Advaita in a bad light. The fact that he did not know the basics of Advaita did not stop him. He simply concocted stuff as he went along. That was his technique of marketing. He came up with statements like, "Intelligent people will not listen to lectures on Mayavada". Loosely translated, this means, "Do not go to the Ramakrishna mission".

 

His scape-goat followers are continuing this marketing trend. Of course, there is nothing wrong with it, from a business perspective.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>> It is not without reason that scholars call him as one who provided imaginary translations of scriptures.

 

Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami was a pioneer in his line. He has played the role of a kidgarten teacher. He cannot be judged by those who are not in the same line.

 

His books are the most significant work of translation of emotional and transcendental moods, that are very hard to be expressed even in Sanskrit, what to say in a kali-yuga language. Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami has magnificently translated very subtle moods such as rasa, prema, bhava, and their different stages and classifications and made them very clear to ordinary people understanding.

 

One cannot imagine how deep was his work, because the English words that he has employed was also translated into many other languages, following the same schedule. Many people all over the planet are now able to talk on rasa, bhava, and so on, and we all could understand the meaning of these terms due Srila A C Swami Gowami's translation.

 

All the other Vedic darsans had also been beneficiary by his translations, and now are able to introduce their points of view with a better understanding to people who otherwise could not be fit to follow them.

 

Why to be so stingy on him?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why to be so stingy on him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No one has any issue with Prabhupada's literature about his own philosophy. The problem is with his false allegations on Advaita, which he used to show the Ramakrishna mission in a bad light. As one can see, there are people like Aman peter who are still following that trend of bashing Advaita without knowing a thing about it. Just like Prabhupada.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Dear Shvuji

 

>> Vivekananda came to the US and broke the western myth that Hinduism was barbaric.

 

Nice article, congratulations. It is true. Now most of Westerns who are really interested in the 3 aspects of the Absolute Truth as stated by Vedic lore are trying to separate the pure teachings from the interpolations made by Indians. In other words, most are trying to adapt the essence of these teachings to the Western samskaras. It is not an easy task, many generations will have to work on it. Many dogmas are included in both side.

 

One may raise a question: "Are these truths real eternal and therefore a patronage to all living entities, or they are only meant to Indians?"

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...all the accumulated karmas of the past as well as prarabdha karmas of the future are destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

If the prarabda karmas are destroyed, the body should cease to exist. In the Vedanta-sutra it is clearly said that the muktatma retains the prarabda karmas in order to bless the conditioned souls with his presence. If the liberated soul immediately vanished, the conditioned souls would never have a chance for sat-sanga.

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One may raise a question: "Are these truths real eternal and therefore a patronage to all living entities, or they are only meant to Indians?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

As far as I know, there are no teachings restricted to Indians only. However there are certain traditions that are restricted to Brahmins only. But the philosophies are unrestricted and available to all of mankind.

 

Besides, what is eternal? The christians think that the word of Jesus is eternal. The Advaitins, Dvaitins etc, think that the Sruti is eternal and is the basis of all. The Gaudiyas believe that Chaitanya's teachings are eternal. And so on. Everyone has his/her own definition of what qualifies as eternal. Theoritically only or none of these can be true. So one who believes that his own belief is the eternal one, automatically believes that everything else has to be false. It is a matter of individual opinion.

 

Coming to what the westerner will accept in the years to come, is anyone's guess. It basically depends on whose marketing is more most intense and aggressive. Christianity and Buddhism spread worldwide only because of quality marketing. So one can only guess.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>> The problem is with his false allegations on Advaita, which he used to show the Ramakrishna mission in a bad light.

 

We do not think it works. In my personal example, the first Gita that I read was Rmakrsna's commentary and translation, sent by my brother who has entered into a mayavada mission in India. It was during 1966, and I never agreed with Ramakrsna's commentaries. After that I read many other commentaries on Gita, by scholars, Christians, others advaitavadis, and finally I was captivated by Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami's Gita.

 

The opposite way is also a fact. Many people hates Srila Swami Goswami's Gita and adopt mayavada and other darsanas after reading his commentary. So, this is a clear matter of jiva's svarupa, samskaras and so on.

 

Actually it was Sriman Mahaprabhu Himself who advised His followers to never approach mayavadi's philosophy. As this philosophy is not suitable for Bhagavan's aspect realization, those who intend to follow this marga should avoid it. This is quite natural, as mayavadis should also avoid saviseva-abheda-vada

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

The word Brahmin:

 

Brahmana is the right term. The english as usual, could not pronounce it right. They ended up pronouncing it differently and wrote it in english as Brahmin. Today even Indians say Brahmin!

 

Hindu:

 

Sindhu is the right term. The persians had trouble pronouncing the 'S'. So when they said Sindu, it sounded like Hindu. When foreigners invaded India, they referred to it as Hindustan and the indigenous people as Hindus.

 

Bangalore:

 

The actual name was Bengalluru. Again the english had trouble pronouncing it right. It ended up as Bangalore and even Indians today say Bangalore.

 

An example of how strongly Indians today, are influenced by the west.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mixed world!

 

The word 'curry' for example comes from Portuguese, 'carril'. When Portuguese people arrived at India they could not buy a great amount of first class spices that were too much expensive. So they got the massala that was already powdered, and it came to the market into bullocks cars, in Portuguese 'carril.' As the British people could not pronounce 'carril', they made it 'curry'. Nowadays even in India massala is curry.

 

[shvu]

 

The basic problem is that the Roman script cannot properly define how a word has to be pronounced. For example read can be pronounced in 2 ways, where one will sound the same as reed and another as red.

 

This problem is not there in Indian scripts, where once a word is written down, there is only one right way of pronouncing it. The trade-off is that the Indian scripts have more letters and the writing can also be more complex than in Roman.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

That is interesting.

 

Have you noticed how the word Buddha is pronounced differently in India and in the US? Such a thing is not possible, if the script is clear. Or for example, take common words like Mantra, Guru, Padma, etc. English just does not capture the Swaras [accents] correctly.

 

The Indologists when they first studied Indian languages where impressed by the unique Swaras. Apparently even classical Greek did not have such swaras.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>> But DON'T try your MISSIONARY PROPAGANDA TACTICS to BRAINWASH the SINCERE SEEKERS and the well educated

 

Stay calm darling. We known that this tactic won't give any results with gopis like you. Rasa-lila time gopika!!! Krpalu is playing his flute, can't you hear it?!

 

[amanpeter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>shvu

posted 05-01-2001 09:11 AM PT (US)

 

 

quote:

 

Why to be so stingy on him?

 

 

No one has any issue with Prabhupada's literature about his own philosophy. The problem is with his false

allegations on Advaita, which he used to show the Ramakrishna mission in a bad light. As one can see, there are

people like Aman peter who are still following that trend of bashing Advaita without knowing a thing about it.

Just like Prabhupada.

 

Cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

As usual Shvu, you assume others to be somewhat less than yourself. As a matter of fact, I have been involved with the local Ramakrishna Mission and know the sanyasi in charge personally. I also have in my possession many books purchased from them, as well as others that are relevant to these topics, from many different sources. while obviously not as `scripturally inclined` (some might say `shastrically handicapped`) as yourself and Satyaraj prabhu, I have done some homework over the last 30 years since first becoming involved, yes, through Srila Prabhupada. One pamphlet I picked up from The Ramakrishna Mission is entitled simply `Hinduism` by Swami Lokeswarananda (printed by Ramakrishna Mission): "God is impersonal, without a name and without a form, and this universe is His gross manifestation. In His subtle manisfestation, He is the ultimate in moral values like truth, goodness and beauty.

 

God can also be personal, but only as a symbol and only as a temporary device, since, for most people, it is difficult to conceive of an impersonal God."

 

This and my previous quote from Srila Prabhupada are meant solely as a contribution to the philosophical discussion here. Neither is an expression of my own personal belief system. That revolves only around Srimati Radharani as the personification and source of Divine Grace. My conclusions are based on personal direct experience and merely confirmed by scripture. God must, by definition, remain far beyond any and all limited conception. To say that God is only this or definitely not that seems to me utterly ridiculous and the height of arrogance, which in itself will prevent any actual realization of the Absolute Truth. Still, as long as you're enjoying yourselves, I guess there are worse ways to pass the time. Then again, I'm certain there are much better, as well. HARIBOL!

[shvu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As usual Shvu, you assume others to be somewhat less than yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

With due respect, this is your assumption about me and you are welcome.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have done some homework over the last 30 years since first becoming involved, yes, through Srila Prabhupada.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Here are a few lines from your posting on Advaita.

 

..impersonalists masquerade as Vedantists.

 

The idea is, if a person is actually fast asleep, it is easier to awake him but if a

person pretends to be sleeping but actually is awake, then it is very difficult to

wake him up.

 

...but these impersonalists, they will simply

invent jugglery of words to mislead innocent people.

 

It is very difficult to bring to reason the obstinate impersonalists.

 

I trust that a person who has done his homework for 30 years, can explain such statements and the reason for posting them here.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>My conclusions are based on personal direct experience and merely confirmed by scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Good for you.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>God must, by definition, remain far beyond any and all limited conception. To say that God is only this or definitely not that seems to me utterly ridiculous and the height of arrogance...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Perhaps to you. But remember that if this were not the case, there would not be an ISKCON this day. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas were formed after disagreeing partly/wholly with all the other existing traditions of their time. In other words, Chaitanya did exactly what you call as ridiculous and arrogant. So did Prabhupada in the same article that you posted.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Still, as long as you're enjoying yourselves, I guess there are worse ways to pass the time. Then again, I'm certain there are much better, as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

May I gently point out that, this applies to you too? Every person at every moment does wht he thinks is the best thing to do at that moment. He may regret it later, but at that moment, that was the best thing that he felt he should be doing.

 

Cheers

[amanpeter]

Shvu, My purpose in posting was previously stated as was the basis of my own faith. Obviously I'm not as involved as you in this thread. Actually the Prabhupada quote was more for Satyaraj's benefit. I do not enjoy conflict of any kind and wish I had what it takes to resolve this seemingly endless discussion. That's what this forum's all about though, isn't it? I'll try to contribute more positively next time, God willing. Soul long for now. Peter