 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
This won't wash, this attempt at throwing in a red herring.
My qualifications - or lack of them - is NOT the issue here. It is
the claim that only Prabhupada's translation of the Geeta is blemishless
and faithful and the others have 'defects.' You made the claim, you
back it up. To use your own words, the burden of proof is on you.
> Your approach to the Gita appears to be empirical rather than
> paramparagata. But you would know that better than me. At any rate,
> it is no harm at all to mention that the standard approach to
> understanding the Gita is, as usual, that which is mentioned in the
> Gita itself. In the beginning of and in the middle of chapter four
> the parampara system is clearly advised. This analysis is most
> reasonable, even from as academic point of view, but one who simply
> can't stand the principle will have little recourse but to call this
> fact "ISKCON blather," in a cheap attempt to evade responsibility.
Gee, "ISKCON blather" has really thrown your operating system into a
loop, Tandy. Are you okay?
> consistent with what you have requested of him. Therefore, please
> publicly post your assesssments as I have requested. You made the
> statements--the burden of proof is on you.
Okay, I hereby withdraw and void my "ISKCON blather" and instead replace it
with "ISKCON Wisdom." Now focus on addressing your unsubstantiated claim.
And don't forget to look up the GHEN archives for my ISKCON post.
Hari bol (not Harry bol, Tandy)
r
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|