muktika upanishhad (was Re: Brahmana)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Jaldhar Vyas wrote:

>There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a person whose arguments have
>so run out of steam he is reduced to name calling and wilful misquotation.

But that did not happen!  In any case more pathetic is pretending to be have
read the shruti and expounding on them when ignorance of basic facts like
brahma loka is evident.

>I've defended my views (and secured your agreement on most of them.) and

I thought of stopping replying to you. But _you_ secured _my_ agreement?!!! I
think you are under some major confusion. Let me make myself clear. You secured
my agreement on nothing, nada, zilch (on the topics we argued about). On the
other hand you have been forced to take back statements about the purANa-s and
more importantly brahma loka (with Giri).

>you've made your own position clear.  The results are in the list archives
>for those who wish to take a look.  If you want to continue your diatribe
>feel free to email me I shall confine my remarks to the parts of your

No thanks. I thought you were talking about shrI sha.nkara and his views. But
in the last post you made it clear that shrI sha.nkara is not St Peter and it
is your grandfather you have in mind when you elucidate on "dharma"!! Huh, you
can keep that stuff to yourself.

Ramakrishnan.
--
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/