Aletheia wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 1:45 am
Even were it the case that Srila Prabhupada is a direct biological descendant of a deity (Lord Krishna), that's not the same as demonstrating that there is an unbroken chain of verbal instruction being passed down.
You say he is "recognised" as agent, but WHO recognises him as such, and WHAT is the evidence they are basing that recognition upon?
and knowledge is passed from `1 successor to another. and this chain is unbroken chain started from Lord Krishna himself.
and Srila Prabhupada ( current successor or say authority aka mother ) was recognized by the previous authority ( Srila Bhakti Sidhanta Saraswati Thakur Maharaja )
and yes Srila Prabhupada has seen Krishna Practically.
But you must have the
qualification? Suppose something is wrong with a motorcar; it is not running. Everyone is seeing it, but a mechanic sees it differently.
He's qualified to see it with greater understanding. So he replaces some missing part, and immediately the car runs. But although for seeing a machine we require so much qualification, we want to see God
without any qualification. Just see the folly! People are such rascals, they are such fools, that they want to see God
with their imagined qualifications.
Sinful rascals, fools, the lowest of mankind? they inquire
like that.
and yes recognized agent of Lord Krishna has seen Krishna. and evidence is his work, and this Practical explanation is the evidence,
here is the Practical explanation which is the evidence of his authority. but what explanation you do have ? which supports your terrorists politicians ?
who stolen the damn land ? which is now called the america ? ( huh ? ) after all its an stolen property.
and who gave you that land ? huh? what explanation you have got to support your foolish politicians ? evolution, big bang, moon landing, life comes from chemicals this or that etc what explanation you have to support your rascal scientists who are funded by your poltiicians ?
have explanation you hvae got ? i have evidence and that i have explained at first and than opened my mouth.
but you boast without explainining anything at all.
and im not right in the matter of religiousness, but also politically, historically, scientifically, whatever topic you are going to take if we touch all of them than you will find that im right in thos all of them.
and you are not. and i have given my evidence already but now its my turn to ask that what evidence your scientists gave you ? to support them ? huh ?
what evidence you have ?