Who was 'that' Rama?

[P.J.]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Nope...not for that..I got into a fight with a senior member!LOL

In this Forum, you can even Physically hit a very senior member and get away with it.You got also one Support woman who is brutally Rude!!

 

[Vaagmi]

1. Mr Vaagmi - You now claim I am prejudiced because I am asking questions. This is not staying within the bounds of a point of discussion and resorting to attack of the person posing the questions. Again!

2. Item 2: There is not an universal agreement that what was said was a lie. Reasonable people can disagree about what is right historically. Tulsi Ramayan which may have come afterwards may be thought to provide missing items (by vision of Tulsi, just like it was for Valmiki). No one was there when someone called Rama came to Ramesvaram. To declare what may be honest difference of views to be a lie is resorting to personal attacks because they differ with you. Others can call your account a lie - Is that a way to debate a point? I think not.

3. Your item 3: I did not directly call the Keemayana writer a moron - I said even Moron has equal rights of free speech.

4. Item 4: You say "To put it succinctly, surrender happens when your ego is effaced completely." I wish someone can help me find your post where you did boast about how your ego is intact very much. I will find it somehow if it is not deleted. In the mean time I have given examples where you turn disagreements into attack on a person. That , my friend is a ego response! So your ego is intact and yet you say you have surrendered. It does not add up to simpleton like me. If you have surrendered completely and your ego is effaced who is remaining now and responding?? You cannot get frustrated with sincere questions.

5. Since you will not reply anymore I thank you for your engagement thus far

1.You are prejudiced not because you are asking questions. But because you have confined yourselves to a certain stand point and keep shooting questions. This is very much within the bounds of a discussion. If this is an attack there is no way we can carry on the conversation. A few things need defining first.

2. This is a kangaroo court/kattai panchayat. Words and responses are taken selectively away from the context and twisted for a funny meaning. I do not submit myself to this court. All sappaikkattu arguments and face saving words are taken and given a large value here. To say that Tulsi who came centuries later (not just decades later) gave the missing links can be an acceptable sappaikkattu for you but not for me. Cock and Bull stories are also episodes from the fertile imagination. People who speak bluntly call them also a pack of imaginations-in other words plain lies told to entertain. To look for a defense in Tulsi is looking for a defence in some cock and bull story. The honest difference of views is not this. To accept that there is no aitihasic evidence to support the Rama worshipping Siva at Rameswaram in the original narration and so it might not have happened is the only honest solution. But egos stand in the way and Nattamais holding the katta panchayat are prejudiced. And read again the posts in the relevant thread. In the beginning there was no allegation bluntly that it was a lie. It came only as a response to a vicious personal attack. You appear to have missed the point and that is why you are suspect about prejudice.

3. This is another sappaikattu. The wordings are such that you called the keemayana writer a moron. Any amount of playing with words will not take away the intent behind the words at the time when they were expressed. That was a very smart attempt by you.

4. There is no use arguing about it until you go and read the posts again. Then come back and give me the link. Let us see what we have exchanged there. I believe you know how to use the English language and that is enough. And when a dog comes and bites you after your surrendering to God you do not have to surrender to that dog also. If you think that is what is surrender you need to study the principle of surrender again. Please don't claim to be a 'simpleton' and use it as a cover for your ignorance of the principle of surrender. Try to understand the principle of surrender. You have not yet understood.

You can have the last word by writing another reply to this post by maintaining your stand. Thanks for engaging.

 

[praveen]

Dear Shri a-TB,

Please see the highlighted sentence. My own assessment is that putting down the other's faith intentionally, gives some pleasure to some people and they have enough chance to point the accusing finger at some post somewhere. Unless Shri Praveen intervenes and puts a stop to the saiva-vaishnava arguments, it may not be possible to control the state of affairs.

Will Shri Praveen look into this?

The rule has been added. No more Shaiva vs Vaishnava arguments. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=25498&p=303657#post303657

This thread is now being closed. For those wanting to discuss on the original topic, please open a new thread.