Kind of; I'm saying that he's making a distinction between worshippers of viShNu and the worshippers of other deities (anyadevatAH).
This is what shrIkR^iShNa says (in verse 9.25)
यान्ति देवव्रता...
Well, he clearly distinguishes between the worshippers of viShNu and the worshippers of the anyadevatAH in his bhAShyam on the yAnti devavratA verse from the bhagavadgItA, wherein he states "yAnti madyAjino madyajanashIlA vaiShNavA mAmeva yAnti samAne'pyAyAse mAmeva na bhajante'j~nAnAt tena...
Yes, as per his own nyAyabhAShyam, malla~Nga vAtsyAyana was a brahmachArI, hence why the positions in the kAmasUtra are often considered absurd and/or difficult (because vAtsyAyana himself never engaged in sex); tradition states he first gave the kAmasUtra to his own mother once it was completed.
Pardon my language, but they are treating you like CRAP. Suing you because they overcharged, pathetic. Still, something must be going good in your life, reach out to your friends, family members, or something. Don't let your struggles overwhelm you. Relax, today's Friday and the weekend's coming...
What kind of a ridiculous name is priyaMvada? Well, at least it's not as bad as shunaHshepa (lol, who would want to be named after a dog; dogs are so nasty).
No, sUryA is savitR^i's daughter who is married to soma in the sUktam, not to her father, although the aitareyabrAhmaNam says that she (sUryA) married the ashvins in some sort of svayaMvara (I don't remember the exact reference, I'll have to look it up).
praNAm,
I can understand how painful that must be; to be honest, I've been kind of depressed as of late as well. Still, don't lose your faith, perhaps the community service at the church is in itself a sign that bhagavAn has not forgotten you. :D Also, look on the bright side. At least those...
Let me guess, those few words were "madhurAdhipater akhilaM madhuram," right?
I quoted one of the verses from the madhurAShTakam in a previous post here, although looking back on it, it seems I was kind of upset when I wrote that post, lol.
Are you sure that it's soma vaishvAnara and not soma pavamAna? I'm just asking because usually, vaishvAnara is usualy used to refer to jAtavedaH/agni, athough I agree that it's occasionally used to refer to soma (like in the phrase "yo vA etaM sutatejasaM vaishvAnaraM"). Also, pavamAna can be...
Okay, but considering you don't believe in brahmA, then I assume that in your opinion, no one is a brAhmaNa.
Yes, indra seduced ahalyA and was indeed cursed by R^iShi gautama, but that was according to the rAmAyaNam. Not everyone here accepts smR^iti texts, or else I would have also mentioned...
To be honest, I too would not view every single deity at the same level as viShNu (perhaps some, but not all), because that in itself goes against the shAstra-s. For example, indra as punished for brAhmaNahatya after killing the dasyu vR^itra (who was a brAhmaNa), whereas rAma was not punished...
Uh...okay.
Hey, I'm not casteist like that, nor do I think anyone else is here (well, maybe HLK, but I'm not too sure).
Yes, and ironically, ISKCONites actually use that fact to try to assert the supremacy of the bhAgavatam over the veda-s:
The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam over the Vedas...
Again, you're going back into Indologically based matters in which the conclusion wuld still be no, it is still not the exact same:
"We owe the text that we have, in its two forms, to the painstaking editorial work of Max Müller in the middle of the nineteenth century. Although fully aware that...
When did the discussion ever have to do with reading texts to pass the time?
Not really, I just like to argue my point whenever I disagree with something, even if it's unproductive. After all, isn't rajas guNa supposed to be predominant in kShatriya-s, jk.