Shankaracharya controversy about worshipping Sai baba by Hindus - Page 5

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Originally posted by: _Angie_

@ the statement regarding not worshiping Gods who were not mentioned in the Vedas:

Originally posted by: souro

If this the game you like playing, let's indulge you for a while longer.

Let me refresh your memory. In the not so distant past, you posted this:

Look at the italicised words that I posted. That is one statement of Shankaracharya, based on which I said that he has clearly stated his reason for objection to be the non-authorisation by the Vedas and the shastras, and not Sai Baba's Muslim identity. To which you posted the second statement of Shankaracharya, to say that from the second statement it is 'crystal clear' to you that the objection is due to Sai Baba's Muslim identity.

Therefore, you used the second statement to override the first statement. I'm using the first statement to override the second statement. Both of us are doing the same thing but with exactly opposite intention. Yet, you feel you should be allowed to do that but I should not be allowed to do the same. That's quite hypocritical.

And now, you accept that both statements have the same subject, speaker and context, but yet you believe that I am not allowed to use the two statements together. Lol, that's quite rich. Change the rules, shift the goal posts according to your whims and fancies, whenever the opposition tries to prove a point. And then throw a tantrum that I don't want to play this way. You are quite amusing. 😆

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Funny that as a DT you crossed your limits by taking the offensive stand & call me a troll & yet here u r goin on & on without even reading the post on which you based such an ABSURD observation...

You yourself admitted to your trollish activity. I merely pointed out that such activity is called trolling. Why blame me? 😆

Why do you always assume that I haven't read the post? Is that some kind of standard line that you incorporate in your posts? 🤔

I have lost the count of how many times I suggested it to you, but here it is again - RE-Read The Post !!..

Lol, there you go again. 😆

I am talking about the post where you feel like I tried to override the second statement of Shankaracharya with his first statement..the post where you feel that i made it "crystal clear" that Sai Baba's Muslim Identity is the only reason for this fiasco when it was not..

The post clearly states that Sai Baba's Muslim Identity was a 'Major "CONTRIBUTING" Factor"...and dont blame me if u arent in capacity to distinguish between a "Major Contributing Factor" & "The Only Reason"..thats your fault not mine..

First of all, the post didn't clearly state that Sai Baba's Muslim identity was a 'Major "Contributing" Factor'. You just mentioned the word 'Crystal Clear' as if that in itself proves something. 😆 It would have been crystal clear, had you managed to post a quote of Shankaracharya where he claims that his objection stems from the Muslim identity of Sai Baba. Didn't see that yet from you. 😉

Secondly, the debate was not about the difference between "Major Contributing Factor" & "The Only Reason". Lol, the shifting of goal posts continues. 😆

My arguments later on were purely a counter argument to ur stand that his first statement is irrelevant because of his second statement.. I was of the opinion that his first statement is just as important as his second statement.. the GIMMICK used by you was purely yours, stop passing it on as mine ,

You call it gimmick, I prefer to call it reasoning. 😛

And sir, if you refer to the post that I cited previously, it's quite clear that you were the first one to use one statement to counter the other. I had merely posted one statement. How can I counter one statement with another when I didn't even have 2 statements to begin with. 1 + 0 = 1. You on the other hand had one statement posted by me and another statement that you posted to counter my statement. 1 + 1 = 2. Understood? Phew.

And then I only used the same 2 statements used by you and showed a different point of view. And as admitted by you, those 2 statements have the same subject, speaker and context, and therefore can be logically used together to prove a point.

its just another desperate attempt to make ur point.. or else it can be attributed to poor lack of observation..

And again. You're beginning to bore me with the same accusation that I haven't read the post.

i would go by the second, u displayed it on other thread while dealing with me & other member as a DT..u completely turned a blind eye to the other member's offensive stand / provocations/ instigation & branded me a "troll"...

I didn't brand you a troll, I only did the honours of naming the activity that you described yourself indulging in. Big difference.

Originally posted by: souro

Originally posted by: zorrro

whooahh 😲 its getting impossible to know who siad what, who quoted whom and meant what

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

I know...😆 😆

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Originally posted by: souro

Yes, yes, to you it seems everyone else is ignorant and has not read the posts and articles before commenting. But then it seems to you, and I'm not bothered about what 'seems' to you but what you can prove. Prove that the objection is because of Sai Baba's Muslim identity, like you claimed. That's all I'm interested in. If you can, good. If you can't, stop bringing in lots of other unrelated issues to side track the argument and hoping that I will forget about the main issue here.