nirvisesa -sunyavadi?

[Guest guest]

More sarcasm? What ever happened to proving a point and being a gentleman, let alone being a humble devotee?

 

So now you want to go off and suggest that I am saying that anything goes? Talk about your strawman!!! This is going nowhere so why continue?

 

I already told you that showing that one is karmically implicated if he/she eats meat is not the same as proving 'one can make no spiritual advancement' and engage in meat eating. You failed to even acknowledge the point even though it is correct. Everything one does without it being dovetailed in service to Krsna and authorized through his representative will bring more karmic debt. Apparently you think that being a vegetarian makes one immune to incurring any karmic debt. Being a vegetarian automatically brings one spritual advancement? The other important point that you fail to understand is that when one calls out in the core of his/her heart to God, he hears that call. You want to focus on the aspect of karma or vikarma and suggest that this alone makes one ineligible for any genuine spiritual progress. Unfortunately it doesn't add up either based on scripture, sense perception or logic. No points for you in terms of your argument.

 

Which gets me to another point. You want to claim authority of scriptures and saints and I agree with you on that point. However, until such time as we become genuine experiencers of truth and reach the stage of bhava bhakti we all need good guidance in order to make sense out of the vast body of literatures which we use (of course we are all students forever and in that sense we will always need good guidance). You know who my Guru Maharaja is. For making sense of that which I am unclear on I go to him as my authority. May I ask you who it is that you go to for clarification regarding scripture and how to apply it?

 

You have tried to place many words in my mouth which I didn't speak. I have merely tried to show you that your approach is similar to that of Christian fundamentalists who think they have a monopoly on truth. I also tried to point out to you that your approach is lacking in common sense and leaves one with the expectation of simply ignoring the fact that there are Christians who are spiritually advanced and that there have been many followers of Christ throughout the ages that have been great experiencers of truth. Brushing this aside with the weak argument that this truth is subjective will not do. Why? Because the same can be said of Vaishnava mystics and saints. No one can provide universally acceptable objective evidence as to the attainment of anyone. However, if you can remove your prejudice and look carefully at some of the examples of Christian saints throughout history you will see that they were decorated with the saintly quailities we expect to find in such persons based on our own scriptures.

 

Lastly you seem to have a problem with the nomenclature used by Christians to call on God. Those who are narrow minded from that group have a problem with the names we use as well. Why not find out what their definition of God is and see if they are talking about the same 'one' God? Is that too much to ask? Or will this somehow make you seem ignorant in the eyes of the tattva-vadis or the Sri Vaishnava's?

 

Enough.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

An interesting conversation:

 

 

Priest: Name Krsna, Allah, Jesus, (indistinct), what is the...

 

Prabhupada: Allah is not name. That is...It is not the name. It is just like the idea of God.

 

Priest: Yeah.

 

Priest: Allah means also (indistinct).

 

Prabhupada: But that is not the name. That is...Just like the President and Mr. Nixon. The President may be another person. Not only Nixon, but another person also may be. So President is the general understanding of the post. But still, one who occupies the post, he has got a name.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mr. Krishna s

 

You said:

 

—All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds.—

 

Well then you don't know very much. No one gets liberation from doing the kinds of things the Hare Krishna's are best known for either.

 

Yes, you don't slatughter cows, and perhaps you are very morally upright in all respects. That makes you a pious person, but do you have any spiritual experience? Can you say that you are as detatched from matter as the many Catholic saints were? Can you embrace the kind of austerity they did in their quest for God? Indeed has you devotion even been seriously tested as their's was? These are important questions to ask yourself.

 

Maybe you should study the lives of the Christian saints. Perhaps they could help you develop the humility that Lord Caitanya spoke of that seems to have eluded you.

 

[Guest guest]

Yep,

 

There are primary and secondary names of God. Primary names being those that refer to him and his pastimes directly and secondary ones reffering to the position. It doesn't mean that the name refers to someone else. I believe this is dicussed in Harinama Cintamani.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

That makes you a pious person, but do you have any spiritual experience?

 

 

Your post was really quite shallow and cowardly, just a bunch of personal insults directed to Krishna S. questioning his spiritual practices and sincereity. At least have the guts to sign your name.

 

My guess is that you are a registered member here and therefore violating the policies of the board by attacking another user without identifying yourself.

 

[Guest guest]

You say my post was shallow, but your reply was less than shallow.

 

I do not believe that it is insulting to state what I believe to be the facts: Many Catholic saints have exhibited extraordinary spiritual qaulities that Krishna S does not have. Maybe he does have these qualities, and in that case I would be wrong and would apologise. But I doubt that he does for obvious reasons. If he exhibited the qualities of St. Francis, I think he would be well known by now and recognized a spiritual authority by many people.

 

I assumed that he was pious in all respects, so in this respect I have been generous. But, again, I seriously doubt that he is as detatched from matter, as renounced, as many of the Catholics saints of the past. Since the saints detachment was a result of their devotion, I doubt that Krishna S is as devoted as they were.

 

This all seems reasonable to me, not insulting. And I have only brought it up becasue he has placed himself above all of these saints. At least I believe that this is implicit in his posts. If not, then as I read it he needs to distinguish between the expressions of Christianity that he condems and those that he does not, and if there are those that he does not condemn then Christianity does or did at some point have some spiritual merit.

[Guest guest]

JNdasa,

 

Your speculation about my identiy was wrong and in fact a bit insulting.

 

Ramnam

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Your IP is an exact match of another registered user who is a close friend of Audarya Lila prabhu and who has contributed in many other threads of Audarya Lila's in his defense. You can try to play games, but that is not adviseable.

 

Regardless, guests are not allowed to attack other users, so such posts of yours are not welcome.

 

[krishna_s]

Misguided fundamentalist that I am, I shamelessly wrote:

 

All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds.

 

 

 

To which Theist of bona fide sampradaya correctly responded:

 

Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress.

 

 

 

I deeply apologize. You are correct. Bhaktivinod's example shows that one can get liberation even if he continues to slaughter millions of innocent animals for food. See, sometimes that fundamentalist in me gets loose, and I just need someone like you to knock that false ego out of me.

 

But please be assured that I am making progress in my spiritual life, what with my newfound understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and all. Why, just today, one of my Vivekananda worshipping friends came up to me and expressed doubt about some scriptural remarks which seemed to condemn meat-eating, saying such fundamentalist things as, meat-eaters would become animals in their next life, would reincarnate as many times as there are hairs on the slain animal, etc. I assured him that there were many other possible interpretations of these seemingly straightforward statements, and anyway, I pointed out that many other great saints (whose names I could neither point out nor give evidence as to their status in the afterlife) were meat eaters and nevertheless had great spiritual experiences, proving that one can eat meat and still make spiritual advancement. He was happy with this and started to leave, but then stopped and reflected: it turned out he was going to a local chapter of the Hindu Students Council meeting, where the main course for dinner would be McDonald's hamburgers. He asked me whether it would be a problem for him spiritually to eat cow meat, to which I reassured him that even many Christians eat hamburgers, but were obviously spiritually advanced given how nice I thought they were and how much they gave of themselves to help their community. Then my HSC friend presented yet another doubt: he heard that some Hare Krishna followers were saying that cow-eating was sinful. I again reassured him, pointing out that the Hare Krishna's founder was a milk-drinker, and hence a hypocrite; after all, if you already drink milk, how could it possibly be any more sinful to eat cow meat? My friend thanked me profusely for this revelation of Sanatana-dharma which I bestowed upon him.

 

All my misconceptions are, one by one, being dissolved by my newfound faith in Jesus and my decision to begin hearing philosophy in his parampara. ONce in a while I say something fundamentalist, but I am confident that with help from my good friends here, enlightened Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedantists all of them, I will overcome these fundamentalist tendencies. Please be patient with me.

 

Your servant,

 

- K

 

[krishna_s]

 

More sarcasm? What ever happened to proving a point and being a gentleman, let alone being a humble devotee?

 

So now you want to go off and suggest that I am saying that anything goes? Talk about your strawman!!! This is going nowhere so why continue?

 

 

 

You're just envious of me cuz you don't have any Jesus-shakti.

 

a former fundamentalist,

 

- K

[theist]

If you paid as much attention to critical reading as you do to critical speaking you would understand what I said:

 

 

Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress.

 

 

Try again school boy

 

 

[krishna_s]

 

All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds.

 

 

Theist immediately wrote:

 

Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress.

 

and yet in that same post he says ?!?:

If you paid as much attention to critical reading as you do to critical speaking you would understand what I said:

 

 

Perhaps you should try taking your own advice. Maybe you need a little more Jesus-shakti in your cheerios?

 

peace,

 

- K (a former fundamentalist)

 

[theist]

I don't think this _s person was insulted. His insults directed towards Lord Jesus Christ is being tolerated though. I wonder why that is?

[krishna_s]

 

I don't think this _s person was insulted. His insults directed towards Lord Jesus Christ is being tolerated though. I wonder why that is?

 

 

Blasphemer! Don't make me come over there and smite you!

 

K-man

[theist]

But you better be ready for the real thing.

[Guest guest]

We are closing this thread for now as it is getting a little heated and not addressing any real points in a constructive manner- admin5

[Guest guest]

This thread has been reopened.

[theist]

round two of Muay Thai boxing begins.

 

Nah just kidding. You were right to call an intermission. My mind has calmed and I have lost my taste for the battle.

 

Om Shanti Shanti...

 

(but I rest with one eye open /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

Meat eating = unnecessary karma = spiritual regress

 

Spiritual practice reduces karma, association with the inferior energy until liberation with the Lord is achieved. As spritual practice continues, eventually the Lord will enlighten a sincere surrenderer, to no longer engage in unnecessary karma which binds to maya more.

 

Engaging in unnecessary karma gives the extra burden of paying for it, unnecessarily lengthening the time to reach the goal of spiritual practice. Example Jada Bharat which has been cited in this thread earlier.

[dhaa]

 

Pointing out the irreconciable differences between Vaishnavism and modern Christianity isn't fundamentalism; it's honesty......My point remains that those who truly accept the Vedas will not accept Christianity on the same level as Vaishnavism.

 

 

Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity?

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but <font color="red">the basis of devotional theism.</font color> We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged theism, but only the basis. It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect.

 

[...]

 

Only a general idea of our relationship with God is given there, but when we have to define in detail the characteristics of God, and in which relationships to approach Him, Christianity gives us only a hazy idea.

 

Once some Christian priests told our guru maharaja that madhurya rasa (conjugal relationship with God) is also found within Christianity. In the middle ages, there was a fashion amongst the Christians to consider Christ as a bridegroom, and some parable is also given where Lord Jesus Christ is considered as a bridegroom. So, they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupada told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God." Son means guru, the deliverer.

 

[...]

 

To conceive of God as our Father is an incomplete understanding, for parents are also servitors. He must be in the center; not in any extremity of the whole...I am speaking about Jesus, who has given the ideals of Christianity. I am speaking about the principles of Jesus. He has given some understanding by installments, but not full knowledge. We agree about the strong foundation of theism. Jesus was crucified because he said, "Everything belongs to my Father. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is His." So, the foundation is very good; it is laudable, but that is only the first installment of the theistic conception.

 

[...]

 

We must cross the threshold given by Jesus. He has declared, "Die to live." The Lord's company is so valuable to us that we must risk everything for Him. This material achievement is nothing; it is all poison. We must have no attraction for it. We must be ready to leave everything, all our material prospects and aspirations, including our body, for Him. God is great. But what is His greatness? What is my position? How can I engage myself in His service twenty-four hours a day? Here, Jesus is silent.

 

We receive no specific program from the Christians at this stage, so Vaisnavism comes to our heart's relief, to satisfy our inner necessity, whatever it may be. Our inner thirst will be quenched there. ~The Search For Sri Krsna Reality The Beautiful~

 

 

Bhaktivinoda: Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.

 

The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fruitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world. (From Tattva-viveka commentary)

 

 

Pancadravida: ...that these Old and New Testament and Koran, they are the sastras of the (sic:) yauvanas. They are not the same as the Vedic sastras. They are not as... They are not bona fide like that.

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Pancadravida: Does this mean they are not authentic or... How did they come here?

 

Prabhupada: Who?

 

Pancadravida: These Bible and Koran, how did they get here? They were just inventions or what?

 

Prabhupada: Convention means they are partially good for the time being, that’s all. They are not eternally... Just like in the Bible it is said, “Thou shalt not kill.” (chuckles) But this is not, does not come within the category of eternal religion. People were so corrupted that they were forbidden, “No, don’t do this.” “Thou shalt not covet,” a little moral instruction. That also, they could not follow. There is no religion. And <font color="red">little God consciousness, “There is God, kingdom of God,” little idea for the persons who could understand.</font color> Otherwise, do you think that if somebody says, “Thou shalt not kill,” is that any religious principle? It is ordinary thing. Where is the question of God? ~Morning Walk April 20, 1974~

 

 

Prabhupada: So on the principle that God is Supreme, God is Great, I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us and the Christians. But the Vedic literatures being older and disseminated by many, many <font color="red">superior acaryas</font color> we can find out how God is great, how the creation took place one after another. These details are not found in any other scriptures in the world ~Letter to Tosana Krsna, June 23 1970~

 

 

Prabhupada: "There is no difference between chanting and hearing or remembering or worshiping in the temple. Çravaëaà kértanaà viñëoù smaraëaà päda-sevanam, arcanam [sB 7.5.23]. The temple worship is called arcanam. Vandanam, offering prayers. The Christians, the Muhammadans, they offer prayer. <font color="red">Of course, not to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but impersonal feature or some idea. But that prayer is also one of the processes of bhakti.</font color> Anyone who accepts the supremacy of God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his process of worship has to be considered in the category of bhakti-yoga (740422sb.hyd)

 

 

Prabhupada: If you think that “I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God,” no, that is also not possible. srutayo vibhinnah. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is “Thou shall not kill.” That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction? And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ. So that society was not very enlightened society. So a scripture for a society which is not very enlightened and a scripture for a society which is very enlightened must be different. Just like a dictionary. For the schoolboy, a pocket dictionary. And for a college student, international, big dictionary. <font color="red">Both of them are dictionaries. But the small pocket dictionary is not equal to the big dictionary.</font color> Because it is different made for different classes of men. So scriptures are made according to different classes of men ~Lecture September 23, 1969~

 

 

Prabhupada: Caitanya Mahaprabhu informs us that in every country and in every scripture there is some hint of love of Godhead. Unfortunately no one knows what love of Godhead actually is. The Vedic scriptures, however, are different in that they can direct the individual in the proper way to love God. Other scriptures do not give information on how one can love God, nor do they actually define or describe what or who the Godhead actually is. <font color="red">Although they officially promote love of Godhead, they have no idea how to execute it.</font color> But Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives a practical demonstration of how to love God in a conjugal relationship. (TLC Intro)

[Guest guest]

 

Prabhupada: The Christians, the Muhammadans, they offer prayer. Of course, not to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but impersonal feature or some idea.

 

 

Interesting. So Christians and Muslims don't really pray to God, but to some other idea? Is this supposed to be a more charitable way of dealing with other religions than the poster who earlier wanted to describe differences between Christianity and Vaishnavism?

 

 

Prabhupada: Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is “Thou shall not kill.” That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction?

 

 

Christian apologists who follow Prabhupada earlier on this very thread saw no real problem with Christians eating meat, since it is allowed in their religion. On the contrary, Hindus pointing it out as an irreconciable difference between the two religions drew not the expected and honest acknowledgement, but rather shrill counter-accusations from Prabhupada followers.

 

 

And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ.

 

 

The Romans had him executed, since they considered him to be a political threat.

 

 

So that society was not very enlightened society. So a scripture for a society which is not very enlightened and a scripture for a society which is very enlightened must be different.

 

 

This makes sense to me, but I don't think Prabhupada followers will like it. From my observations, Prabhupada followers regard all non-Vaishnava Hindus as less enlightened, even if they have strong family values, are vegetarian, don't drink liquor, etc. But on the other hand, they seem more charitable with Christians and their beliefs despite even the grossly offensive acts which people of that religion perform, such as eating beef and so on.

 

[Guest guest]

Interesting. So Christians and Muslims don't really pray to God, but to some other idea?***

 

Correct.

 

Is this supposed to be a more charitable way of dealing with other religions than the poster who earlier wanted to describe differences between Christianity and Vaishnavism?***

 

Probably.

 

Christian apologists who follow Prabhupada earlier on this very thread saw no real problem with Christians eating meat***

 

We are living in Christian countries. IF we speak the truth and call a spade a spade, the christians will drop meat and have us for breakfast. This is why we are okay with christians eating meat.

 

On the contrary, Hindus pointing it out as an irreconciable difference between the two religions drew not the expected and honest acknowledgement, but rather shrill counter-accusations from Prabhupada followers.***

 

Hindus are correct but are not controlling christian countries where we live. So even if they are right, we ought to say they're wrong and even if christians are wrong, we must say they are right...for our own sake. It is called practicality.

 

The Romans had him executed, since they considered him to be a political threat.***

 

True, or perhaps, Christ may not even be a real person. Still, we love christ and his supposed devotion to Krishna (yes, Krishna!) even though there's no mention of krishna, visnu, anything. But then again, christ refers to krishna, yahweh to Vishnu (don't tell me you don't see the breathtaking similarities!), so we love christ due to these unmistakable similarities. Not convinced yet? then you're an evil, sectarian hindu tryng to defame christians.

 

From my observations, Prabhupada followers regard all non-Vaishnava Hindus as less enlightened, even if they have strong family values, are vegetarian, don't drink liquor, etc***

 

All this is immaterial. Even if Hindus are veggies, never speak a lie, undergo austerities, live as renunciates, we will call them 'less enlightened' if they do not chant at least 100000000 harinams a day. Simple, eh?

 

OTOH, Christians can eat meat, kill and convert people to spread love of christ, curse krishna at least 100000000 times etc., but we will consider them enlightened because first of all, they love christ as much as they hate vaishnavas. And since their hate for vaishnavas is 100%, their love for christ must also be 100%.

 

With so much love in the christian's heart, how can we not love christians and abuse the evil Hindus who aren't even smart enough to hate us. So your question is ridiculous and I am not going to entertain any more from an evil, sectarian hindu!

 

P.S.

 

In case you notice sarcasm, it is your imagination. I don't like to be held responsible.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"OTOH, Christians can eat meat, kill and convert people to spread love of christ, curse krishna at least 100000000 times etc., but we will consider them enlightened because first of all, they love christ as much as they hate vaishnavas. And since their hate for vaishnavas is 100%, their love for christ must also be 100%."

 

"Hindus are correct but are not controlling christian countries where we live. So even if they are right, we ought to say they're wrong and even if christians are wrong, we must say they are right...for our own sake. It is called practicality"

 

 

Good points.

[Guest guest]

 

Still, we love christ and his supposed devotion to Krishna (yes, Krishna!) even though there's no mention of krishna, visnu, anything.

 

 

Surely Christ can be devoted to a Deity he never mentions by name. Duh. Aren't you just being an envious fault-finder?

 

 

But then again, christ refers to krishna, yahweh to Vishnu (don't tell me you don't see the breathtaking similarities!), so we love christ due to these unmistakable similarities.

 

 

Why stop there? One Gosvami out there who is a practicing Catholic in addition to a Vaishnava (I bet his weekly confessions are interesting) claims that Jesus is the incarnation of Balarama. Not that he presented any scriptural evidence to back that up, but hey, he said it with a nice smile and a twinkle in his eye. And besides, I like how it makes me feel, so it must be true, right?

 

There was some other guy, I think his name was Isa das or something along those lines. He was claiming that Yahweh is in fact the same as Brahman. It was another one of those word games, although in retrospect I don't see any similarity at all. But then, I've always been envious I guess.

 

I read one book called Om Shalom which told me that Hindus and Jews have a common origin because "108" (which is sacred to Hindus) is related to "9" (which is sacred to Jews or something like that). Since the digits in "108" add up to "9," QED Hinduism and Judaism are related. Brilliant, don't you think?

 

 

All this is immaterial. Even if Hindus are veggies, never speak a lie, undergo austerities, live as renunciates, we will call them 'less enlightened' if they do not chant at least 100000000 harinams a day. Simple, eh?

 

OTOH, Christians can eat meat, kill and convert people to spread love of christ, curse krishna at least 100000000 times etc., but we will consider them enlightened because first of all, they love christ as much as they hate vaishnavas. And since their hate for vaishnavas is 100%, their love for christ must also be 100%.

 

With so much love in the christian's heart, how can we not love christians and abuse the evil Hindus who aren't even smart enough to hate us. So your question is ridiculous and I am not going to entertain any more from an evil, sectarian hindu!

 

 

Why start trouble? Obviously they do not hate Hindus. They just need Hindus to understand that they are to be criticized for having abandoning their ways, and for having misguided ways in the first place. Note that it's criticism either way - if they come to West to escape poverty, then we criticize them for having abandoned their spiritual culture. But if they maintain their spiritual standards, then we criticize their ways as not really being the essence of pure devotion. Essence here being defined as whatever we can understand, the point being that if it is something we are not familiar with/do not follow, then it is obviously extrinsic to pure devotional service. One ISKCON devotee demonstrated that principle very nicely when he criticized a Sri Vaishnava guy who was talking about visiting the 108 Divya Desams (sacred temples on Earth where Vishnu and Sri reside). Apparently, the poor SV fellow's only fault was in describing a vratam that was beyond the myopic comprehension of the iskcon fellow, who (sadly) was also Indian.

 

Meanwhile, we poor superstitious Hindu folks are just speechless when we watch these guys propose adharmic ideas like "homosexual marriages" or brazenly fictional stories about UFOs and secret cults. These being the same guys who criticize us for not staying true to our spiritual heritage. Perhaps if we could prove that we like UFOs and concocted ashramas, they would like us more. Oh well.

[Guest guest]

 

Not that he presented any scriptural evidence to back that up, but hey, he said it with a nice smile and a twinkle in his eye.

 

 

Malarky. Didn't ya see all the scripture he used all complacent style as evidence? Our system is undeniable. Present complacent evidence. Garble and wave toodles to counter evidence.

 

 

And besides, I like how it makes me feel, so it must be true, right?

 

 

Complacency is great! :-D