Apology

[vanamali]

Wow, I didn't even say specifically what I was sorry for. I didn't even mention a particular incident, yet everyone is getting all sorts of issues out on the table. This is what I call a successful thread. So ambiguous, yet it draws out a rainbow of responses.

 

And by the way guestji, I'm very sorry that I hurt your feelings. That post to which you referred was not directed at you specifically.

 

Cheers, devotees. And by the way my spritual difficulty has been resolved. Jai Sri Krishna!

 

~Vanamali

[i_luv_krishna]

 

...which is not the point. But being devotee does mean being *loyal* to shAstra. It's one thing to say "I don't know," or "I didn't know that was in shAstra." But it's another thing to say, "well so what if that's in shAstra, I didn't agree with you before, and now that you have proven your point, I can't change my mind since I already made it up, so the conclusion is that you you are an envious snake...."

 

 

 

I think I made the point already. There are people of various dispositions and capabilities. I don't know if people here are ready to be called "devotees" as per your definition. Their definition of "loyalty" may also differ. As much as I can gather, people in this forum come not specifically with an objective to discuss the various angles of shastra, so it does upset them when there is an insistence of towing that line. Here, a few talks about Krishna and His pastimes suffice. The way they put it may not be very polite, but it does give others an idea of what they are trying to say.

 

 

Again, this is all relative. Being a public forum, anyone has a right to post,

 

 

 

And thus the poster should probably expect some caustic remark when the post goes against the *mood* of the forum.

 

 

Telling the person who questions to go elsewhere is the equivalent of anti-intellectualism.

 

 

 

I don't think that anybody is outright against intellectualism, only that it is not necessarily welcomed with a red carpet. People, however, are intelligent enough to sense the baggage of conceit that usually follows it. And respond to *that* in a manner they are habituated to.

 

Reiterating, posting against the *mood* of a forum is asking for trouble. (unless you like the trouble ;-)

 

 

Of course, if that's where we are going with this, i.e. "not everyone likes to be loyal to scripture, so let's protect them by sending people like you somewhere else," then let's just admit that and be done with it.

 

 

 

Nobody is going to say that explicitly and it may not be this strong, but at the end of the day, I think that's about it.

 

 

vadavali/

I go there too. It's a much more nicely run forum, where people stick to philosophy instead of petty character attacks.

 

 

 

I would say, I haven't seen a better managed forum.

 

 

It concerns me, however, that on forums like Audarya, people continue to drag my religion into the mud by

....snip....

strawman while continuing to encourage mental speculation.

 

 

 

You don't have to get too worked up about this. I would assume there are a few hundred forums that are "dragging your religion into mud" right now....

[i_luv_krishna]

I was just replying to prabhuji's grouse:

 

 

However, it seems to be the case in forums like these that when someone wants to think deeply about something, others will criticize one for debating things he or she does not personally understand.

 

 

 

Well, whatever his intentions may be and they certainly seem praiseworthy, prabhuji takes a very confrontationist attitude in an alien forum. My piece of advice was just that you can't tell even the right things to the wrong kind of people at a wrong place and that too in a wrong manner. And if you do that, you are going to get blasted.... again and again and again....

 

and then again, he says:

 

But anyway, most people are like that here. So I was not expecting an apology, and in fact others will probably cheer you on when you make comments like this.

 

 

 

Well Prabhuji, knowledge is very good, however, in my opinion again, unless tempered by a good dose of humble tone in the presentation, fails entirely in achieving the intended result.

 

I think that this and the previous advice applies to me as well, so I'll stop responding to him.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I think I made the point already. There are people of various dispositions and capabilities. I don't know if people here are ready to be called "devotees" as per your definition. Their definition of "loyalty" may also differ. As much as I can gather, people in this forum come not specifically with an objective to discuss the various angles of shastra, so it does upset them when there is an insistence of towing that line.

 

 

I'm sorry, but that's just plain unacceptable. It's one thing if someone wants to speak Krishna-katha only. It's wrong of them to get upset when someone wants to discuss philosophy.

 

This attitude of intolerance towards the philosophy taught by one's sampradAya elders is absurd.

 

 

Here, a few talks about Krishna and His pastimes suffice. The way they put it may not be very polite, but it does give others an idea of what they are trying to say.

 

 

I'm also different from you in that I don't see "philosophy" and "talks about Krishna" as different. This is in contrast to people of this forum who differentiate between the two.

 

 

And thus the poster should probably expect some caustic remark when the post goes against the *mood* of the forum.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you are just making excuses for bad behavior and anti-intellectualism. And in effect, you are insulting the members of this forum by suggesting that they cannot be expected to adhere to a standard.

 

 

I don't think that anybody is outright against intellectualism, only that it is not necessarily welcomed with a red carpet. People, however, are intelligent enough to sense the baggage of conceit that usually follows it. And respond to *that* in a manner they are habituated to.

 

 

That's a convenient fiction that people invent in order to drive away intellectual discussions, the idea that there is something wrong with the other guy. The truth is, all of us have to deal with out personal demons, our bad qualities, etc.

 

Justifying anti-intellectualism by accusing the other guy of conceit is just plain hypocritical. Another conceit is when people go against the grain of shAstra. Why is this not addressed by you?

 

 

 

Nobody is going to say that explicitly and it may not be this strong, but at the end of the day, I think that's about it.

 

 

Hence, anti-intellectualism. "We don't like thinking here, so take it somewhere else. We have all good qualities, and if you don't agree with us, then you are arrogant."

 

 

You don't have to get too worked up about this. I would assume there are a few hundred forums that are "dragging your religion into mud" right now....

 

 

Then you admit it is happening. Good. Now we are making some progress.

 

The way I see it, people here speak out against Hindus and Hinduism because Hindus say things which are against shAstra. All very fine and good, and I applaud them for sticking to principle. But then they turn around and also make up things that are not in shAstra, and expect that their conjectures must be accepted as absolute fact.

 

This is hypocrisy.

 

Someone needs to decide whether this forum is loyal to the Vedas, or opposed to the Vedas. Then we can decide who needs to go - the people who insist on determining what the Vedas are saying, or the people who say to hell with the Vedas.

 

 

Well, whatever his intentions may be and they certainly seem praiseworthy, prabhuji takes a very confrontationist attitude in an alien forum. My piece of advice was just that you can't tell even the right things to the wrong kind of people at a wrong place and that too in a wrong manner. And if you do that, you are going to get blasted.... again and again and again....

 

But anyway, most people are like that here. So I was not expecting an apology, and in fact others will probably cheer you on when you make comments like this.

 

Well Prabhuji, knowledge is very good, however, in my opinion again, unless tempered by a good dose of humble tone in the presentation, fails entirely in achieving the intended result.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree. Any difference of opinion is "confrontationist" as far as you are concerned. I am not the one who makes the confrontations - it's usually people like ghari, theist, pritha, and and a whole plethora of others who get upset and start firing off character attacks. It shows the underlying intolerance of this forum to anyone with a different opinion, even when that opinion is based on shAstra. Despite attempts to show the conclusion of shAstra, they are consistently the ones who attack strawmen, publicly question your motives, or blatantly attack their perceptions of your character.

 

It's unfortunate that you have become an apologist for this sort of fanatical behavior. Like I said, someone should decide which is more appropriate for this forum: ignorant, fanaticism or discussion tempered by the knowledge contained in the shAstra-s.

 

[i_luv_krishna]

You win prabhuji !! Does that satisfy you? Probably not!! So open your fridge and get hold of a budweiser.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Guest guest]

 

You win prabhuji !!

 

 

You are mistaken. It is the mob who wins. You know what I mean - the ones who are driven by passion and sentiment rather than logic or authority - the ones who get things done by drowning out the force of Reason with as much noise as possible. Might makes right, as far as they are concerned. As long as they can socially ostracize anyone who disagrees with them, they can continue to guard their interests and promote their agenda. And that is how something can start of as a genuine spiritual tradition and simply degenerate into a mindless cult.

 

 

 

[i_luv_krishna]

 

You are mistaken. It is the mob who wins. You know what I mean - the ones who are driven by passion and sentiment rather than logic or authority - the ones who get things done by drowning out the force of Reason with as much noise as possible. Might makes right, as far as they are concerned. As long as they can socially ostracize anyone who disagrees with them, they can continue to guard their interests and promote their agenda. And that is how something can start of as a genuine spiritual tradition and simply degenerate into a mindless cult.

 

 

 

Gee Prabhuji, there must be something wrong with me that I don't see the mob out here. Some people, just don't like writing theses on punctuation marks which is what it comes down to when we really really REALLY go the way you want. And I don't agree, however much you may say it loudly, that talking about Krishna is the same as talking about Shastra. I have wasted half my life in this mortal world doing that and I have achieved little (except for, may be, learning some finer nuances of sanskrit grammar). And if this makes me a Hindu heretic, so be it, I don't care....

[Guest guest]

 

Gee Prabhuji, there must be something wrong with me that I don't see the mob out here.

 

 

It was figurative, of course. But... never mind.

 

 

Some people, just don't like writing theses on punctuation marks which is what it comes down to when we really really REALLY go the way you want.

 

 

I guess my whole position all along was that people should not make up things, and they should be true to shAstra. I didn't realize "be honest" was such an unreasonable demand.

 

 

And I don't agree, however much you may say it loudly, that talking about Krishna is the same as talking about Shastra. I have wasted half my life in this mortal world doing that and I have achieved little (except for, may be, learning some finer nuances of sanskrit grammar).

 

 

You wasted half of your life talking about something, but it was not shAstra. If you don't understand that the entire Vedas leads to Lord Vishnu, then you have misunderstood.

 

You can never maintain the pretense of false humility. Eventually, You will just trip over your own sarcasm.

 

 

[i_luv_krishna]

 

I guess my whole position all along was that people should not make up things, and they should be true to shAstra. I didn't realize "be honest" was such an unreasonable demand.

 

 

 

PLEASE!! That age old argument to batter those who do not necessarily understand the difference of reference from value. We are not doing C programming here. No, there is no mob out here and people are not making things up. They may not necessarily dress the dishes up to the last detail as you like them to be, may be one wrong ingredient here or there but not necessarily intentional, but I guess that is OK for Krishna. And they do get troubled when somebody interferes with his nose high up in the air.

 

And if somebody troubled you with your talk, I would say the same to him also. Leave this guy alone.

 

As for those who like some help on a school assignment titled "Krishna and His usage of cocaine", I prefer to ignore them cause Krishna has given most people enough intelligence to know what is right from what is wrong. They do not necessarily need to wait for the blue book of rules to be laid down to the last detail because in most case it ain't needed. Even then, if the guy is not too disruptive, people ignore him thinking that, may be, the guy will correct himself eventually. Blast them if you want to but do not explicitly drag NAMES to the mob party. It was VERY VERY dirty of you to do that. Those people who you have included in the mob are benign for the most part I have seen them operating here, even though I know they would not agree with what I stand for and believe in.

 

 

You wasted half of your life talking about something, but it was not shAstra. If you don't understand that the entire Vedas leads to Lord Vishnu, then you have misunderstood.

 

 

 

I do not know why you are trying to beat around the bush. Good for those who like to go to Vishnu through Shastra of your definition, but that is not what everyone likes to do!! Dig? Pardon if this is inaccurate, but I have a hunch that you must have seen somebody making some round comment that just did not fit your square hole and you could not resist bringing up your purist philosophy and when the masses blasted you, you just started bad mouthing them....

 

 

You can never maintain the pretense of false humility. Eventually, You will just trip over your own sarcasm.

 

 

 

What do you think.... people are fools? Your cold satire shows in all its rotten infestation ....

 

You know what, your friends tried to do the same thing all these years. They failed. Cause the world now is neither exclusively their place nor exclusively their time. They just keep quiet nowadays. They have their place and they are intelligent enough to keep to themselves.

[i_luv_krishna]

 

I didn't realize "be honest" was such an unreasonable demand.

 

 

 

Your honesty is all but dripping from your body. I guess according to your "shastra", being honest means to respond to an apology with a nasty comment. If being honest, entails becoming like you, then God save this world from "honest" people.

[Guest guest]

I am firm in my position that one who considers himself a devotee of Vishnu should be honest and loyal to shAstra-s. That means if one says something which is later found to be in contrast to what is said in shAstra, he should then retract his statement.

 

I don't have time to respond to refutations of strawmen.

 

As it is your position that no one here says anything "made up," (your exact words were "No, there is no mob out here and people are not making things up") perhaps you could enlighten me on the shAstric evidence for the following:

 

"In Vedic society Soma, Ganja, and alcohol were the intoxicants that were used and accepted, in moderation they were always a part of the Vedic cultural milieu.

 

Most people have a strong desire for some form of intoxicant and therefore in trying to create a Vedic microcosm I feel these traditional intoxicants should be seen as culturally correct"

 

or this:

 

"...Jesus is Bhakti personified so of course He is the only way."

 

I request you to correct me in my wayward thinking to the effect that the above statements, though spoken on this forum, have no basis in shAstra. If only you could do this, I could retract my misguided thinking to the effect that some people here are clearly uninterested in the actual facts given in the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

One person said: "

 

"According to the Bible, Jesus says "I am the the way, the light and the truth. No one cometh to the father but by me"

 

Bible is full of doctored verses - just study the early history of Christianity.

 

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

 

The reply was:

 

"Some scholars claim it was an added verse. I don't know. The way I hear it is Jesus is Bhakti personified, so of course He is the only way. "

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

 

All the second poster was saying was that BHAKTI was the only way, no need to get so excited about it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

as far as statements like:

 

"In Vedic society Soma, Ganja, and alcohol were the intoxicants that were used and accepted"

 

and you saying:

 

" some people here are clearly uninterested in the actual facts given in the Vedas."

 

Why don't you just point out statements from the Vedas where such things are not permited, or why they are not permited in your line, in a calm way.

 

[i_luv_krishna]

Dear Prabhuji, I do not arrogate to myself the status of devotee of Vishnu. I, and most others here, like to hear and talk about Krishna and what He does as in some folk lores and kirtans. We do that because we *like* to do that not because it is the shastric dictate. Of course from time to time there are some sensible and unambiguous statutes from Shastra that we find convenient to further our involvement.

 

And if this leads me to andha-tamah, I couldn't care less.... I think this should be as clear as it could get....

 

You Prabhuji, on the other hand, find that a devotee of Vishnu has to necessarily fight tooth and nail over some fringe topics of the Vedas. I wish you good luck. It doesn't bother me if you continue to do otherwise, however, my sincere advice still is, that you should try to seek company which is able to understand you.

[Guest guest]

 

as far as statements like:

 

"In Vedic society Soma, Ganja, and alcohol were the intoxicants that were used and accepted"

 

and you saying:

 

" some people here are clearly uninterested in the actual facts given in the Vedas."

 

Why don't you just point out statements from the Vedas where such things are not permited, or why they are not permited in your line, in a calm way.

 

 

I will do no such thing. This is completely purile.

 

The burden of proof is on the challenger, not the defender. By your standard of logic, "proof by absence of specific prohibition" could be used to justify just about any kind of nonsense.

 

There is no prohibition in the Vedas against brahmanas watching television. Nor is there a prohibition against looking at pornographic websites, accepting an elephant as a guru, or engaging in worship of Bugs Bunny. One does not need to find specific prohibitions for these things, because there is no basis for doing them in the first place, especially when they clearly violate principles laid out in shAstra.

 

The burden of proof is on *you* to show that smoking ganja is acceptable in varnAshrama culture. Otherwise, you should admit that some individuals on this forum are indeed making up things, and consequently you should retract your claims to the contrary.

 

I am also waiting for your proof from the Vedas that Jesus is "bhakti personified." By the way, here is another statement that we are supposed to accept at face value, even though it too is never said in the Vedas:

 

"Jesus is Guru

 

He is the external manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Supersoul, Paramatma, caitya-guru, Ksirodakashayi Vishnu who resides in the heart of every living entity."

Is this statement:

A) Supported by explicit shabda-pramANa (if so where?) or

B) Made up by someone?

 

The answer is either A or B. Which is it?

 

You shouldn't be mad at me for stating the truth. Either my thesis that some people make up things not found in Vedas is true, or it is false. If you are unable to demonstrate that it is false, then you should admit it is true. Simply because you are unable to admit the truth is no excuse to attack me.

 

Anyway, don't worry about truth; instead, call me offensive. Most people here will side with you. We don't care about truth. We just want to gang up on the detractor, right? Might makes right.

 

Time to watch the mob in action...

 

[theist]

 

The burden of proof is on the challenger, not the defender. By your standard of logic, "proof by absence of specific prohibition" could be used to justify just about any kind of nonsense.

 

 

Just reverse it and you may see something. Try to meditate on *dis-proved by absence of specific acknowledgement*.

 

See the point? Or do you only accept one side of a coin?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

And I don't agree, however much you may say it loudly, that talking about Krishna is the same as talking about Shastra.

 

 

It's interesting to note that Krishna Himself does not agree with the above statement. Now, since I am going to quote from shAstra, it can only be due to personal conceit.

 

But still, Krishna very explicitly says:

 

adhyeSyate ca ya imaM dharmyaM saMvAdam AvayoH |

j~nAnayaj~nena tenAham iShTaH syAm iti me matiH || 18:70 ||

 

...which, in the Bhaktivedanta translation, reads as:

 

"And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me by his intelligence."

 

Interesting, isn't it? Since Krishna's own statement above indicates that those who study His words are devotee who worship via the intelligence, one would think that those who claim to worship Him would accept such people also as devotee.

 

Yet in fact such devotees who worship with their intelligence are ostracized and treated as untouchables on forums like this one which are supposedly dedicated to those who "just want to talk a little Krishna lila."

 

Indeed, this was the very attitude:

 

 

Of course, if that's where we are going with this, i.e. "not everyone likes to be loyal to scripture, so let's protect them by sending people like you somewhere else," then let's just admit that and be done with it.

 

 

I_luv_krishna wrote: "Nobody is going to say that explicitly and it may not be this strong, but at the end of the day, I think that's about it."

 

An explicit admission that some devotees are just not welcome here. Hardly the attitude of compassion and tolerance one would expect to find among Vaishnavas, now is it?

 

Actually, this line of argument is pointless. The pUrva-pakshin will then argue, as most Hindus do these days, that saying anyone's view is wrong and that the scriptural view is correct, is itself lacking in compassion and fundamentalist. So, his view of compassion is that you should embrace all misconceptions just because "devotees" spoke them.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Just reverse it and you may see something. Try to meditate on *dis-proved by absence of specific acknowledgement*.

 

See the point? Or do you only accept one side of a coin?

 

 

 

Ok, I surrender. Show me where in the Vedas it says that brahmins cannot smoke cigarettes.

 

(which, in case you could not figure it out, is not my point. my point is that proof by "absence of explicit prohibition" is absurd, and can be used to justify any nonsense)

 

So, if you cannot come up with the specific prohibition, then you must conceed that brahmins are permitted to smoke cigarettes. Which of course would be ok if you secretly admired Vivekananda, I guess.

 

[theist]

It is very difficult to try and speak to someone who tries so hard not to understand.

 

I accept your point below:

 

 

which, in case you could not figure it out, is not my point. my point is that proof by "absence of explicit prohibition" is absurd, and can be used to justify any nonsense)

 

 

But I accept both sides of the coin. Not every prohibited action could possibly be written down in the vedas. Therefore there is guru who knows the essence and can guide one in applying that essence in one's present life situations.

 

Now the other side of the same coin. Not everyone of the unlimited number of avatars of God can possibly be listed in what we call the vedas or any number of holy books throughout the entire universe. Therefore there is guru who can recognize these incarnations due to his having assimilated the same essence.

 

It is not a difficult point. You shouldn't have much trouble with it unless you are unwilling to accept such from a melecha born as myself. In which case why speak to me at all as you are not my guru and I have not sought out your teaching on the matter.

 

 

[Guest guest]

smoking is not a spiritual quality.

[i_luv_krishna]

Prabhuji,

 

I must apologize for my conduct!

 

There is no sound in Krishna's stick but it is very swift and hard. I think I had forgotten the purpose behind the original apology posted here. That offence against a vaishnava, whoever he may be, is a road to destruction. Even a durachari who is devoted to Krishna is to be considered sadhu since his devotion will cure him of his anarthas. api cet su duracharo bhajate mam anayabhak sadhur eva sa mantavyah samyag vyavasito hi sah. Then you Prabhuji seem to be a very learned devotee of Sri Vishnu. Perhaps whatever I wanted to say, I could have said in a softer tone. Then again I think now that whatever I wanted to say was simply an ego trip to satisfy an itch to reply anyway. I should have kept quiet. It was wrong of me to use harsh words against you. I think you had your reasons for your displeasure and were just expressing that. I have unnecessarily interfered. Kindly forgive me if you can....

[Guest guest]

 

It is very difficult to try and speak to someone who tries so hard not to understand.

 

 

 

What a coincidence. I've sometimes felt that way in conversing with you.

 

 

Now the other side of the same coin. Not everyone of the unlimited number of avatars of God can possibly be listed in what we call the vedas or any number of holy books throughout the entire universe.

 

 

The above is fine. The problem is below:

 

 

Therefore there is guru who can recognize these incarnations due to his having assimilated the same essence.

 

 

Now, this is a non-sequitur.

 

Just because an "avatAra" is not mentioned in the Vedas, it does not follow that he must be an avatAra because a guru says so. The problem of saying anything that is not scripturally based is precisely this. Anyone else can disagree with it, and that is their right.

 

The problem of course, is that on this forum, everyone gets huffy and puffy if one does not accept everything their guru says (i.e. Jesus is an avatAra) at face value. They don't seem to understand vedAntic epistemology. They assume that everyone's beliefs are based on faith, solely because their own beliefs are based on faith.

 

Ironically, some of these same individuals themselves are not 100% faithful to their guru, as we can see from the recent postings sanctioning drug use within the scope of varnAshrama dharma. Obviously, this is a separate issue.

 

 

It is not a difficult point. You shouldn't have much trouble with it unless you are unwilling to accept such from a melecha born as myself. In which case why speak to me at all as you are not my guru and I have not sought out your teaching on the matter.

 

 

 

I don't care who you are. I will still subject your opinions and those of everyone else's with the same degree of scrutiny to weed out misconceptions and get at the Truth.

 

 

[theist]

 

Just because an "avatAra" is not mentioned in the Vedas, it does not follow that he must be an avatAra because a guru says so.

 

 

Then the quality of the "guru" is in question. If the guru has genuine spiritual sight and says so then its a fact.

 

At least you now accept that just because an avatar isn't specifically mentioned in India's portion of the vedas that is not a dis-qualification.

 

Since that was the basis of your objection you may now remain silent on the issue or at least not try to pontificate. Actually you are saying Prabhupada was wrong on the basis of his not understanding veda as well as you. You may want to rethink that position.

 

Again please get a name of some sort.

[Guest guest]

 

Then the quality of the "guru" is in question. If the guru has genuine spiritual sight and says so then its a fact.

 

 

And then the question remains... how does one determine "genuine spiritual sight?" And the problem is that you cannot answer this question without citing personal, blind faith.

 

 

At least you now accept that just because an avatar isn't specifically mentioned in India's portion of the vedas that is not a dis-qualification.

 

 

Oh boy, here we go again....

 

This is exactly what I mean about trying to argue with iskcon devotees. It is precisely this obvious attempt at trying to seem dense that gives them that cultish quality.

 

First: I never said absence of evidence = proof to the contrary.

 

I have always maintained that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and that without such proof it is merely an issue of personal, unenforcable, faith.

 

This point was stated so clearly in so many different ways, that one need only have a 6th standard level of English comprehension and a basic ethic of honesty to accept it. If one lacks either, then one can attack a strawman, as you just did.

 

Second: This whole "India's portion of the vedas" thing... Well, if there is an "India's portion," I have yet to hear of anyone else's "portion" manifest on this planet. Do you have something to suggest the contrary? Or is this another clandestine attempt on your part to suggest that other scriptures are equally acceptable as pramAna as vedas?

 

Theist, you use exactly the same politically-correct "arguments" that most Sai Baba devotees use.

 

 

Since that was the basis of your objection you may now remain silent on the issue or at least not try to pontificate.

 

 

Please. If you are going to cop an attitude, at least make it a point to know what it is you are talking about.

 

 

Actually you are saying Prabhupada was wrong on the basis of his not understanding veda as well as you. You may want to rethink that position.

 

 

No, I'm saying that Jesus is not mentioned in the Vedas, and that those who say otherwise have no proof and are either misinformed or blatantly lying.

 

We've already seen on this forum once, that the so-called bhaviSya purANa verses quoted substantiating "Jesus as avatAra" are nowhere to be found in that purANa. So far, no response to that by the Jesus crowd. But they continue to make the same claim.

 

Theist, I feel it is wrong to attribute things to a scripture which are clearly not there. It really is quite shameless and dishonest.

 

 

Again please get a name of some sort.

 

 

 

I'll be happy to do that after you take a course in remedial English comprehension.

[Avinash]

I'll be happy to do that after you take a course in remedial English comprehension.

 

How is some member's knowledge of English comprehension related to you identifying yourself?