Respectful Posts

[Guest guest]

I have said to people many times in respect of so-called 'intimidating

behaviour', the intimidation is not really in the person exhibiting the

behaviour but in the one being offended by it. It is really up to oneself

whether one 'feels timid' or not. Nevertheless, when this experience is in

respect of a group of drunken yobs shouting loudly at one from the other

side of the street, it seems there can be little doubt that it is also in

the minds of the other to *make* one feel timid!

 

All this is, of course, talking in everyday terms, not in Advaita terms. If

one genuinely believes that there is effectively no free will, that one's

behaviour is a cause and effect consequence of genes and upbringing, then

neither the intimidator nor the object of his behaviour has any real choice

in the matter. It is, when all is said and done, all the play of liilaa; all

Brahman.

 

In the end, therefore, we are bound to admit that Sandeep is right in what

he says. His arguments are inarguable on our own terms, hoist by our own

petard as it were. However, to return to everyday standards - and let's face

it, most of us are still ego-bound and only paying intellectual lip-service

to the tenets of Advaita - there is no question but that Sandeep's words and

manner of expressing them are certain to be offensive to many. Personally, I

don't mind too much but then I do not have a Hindu background. It seems to

me that it would not make advaitic 'sense' to ban him from the list,

especially since much of what he writes is so stimulating (in a good or bad

way!) I believe that all we can reasonably do is to say 'look, this sort of

behaviour is simply not respectful in such a forum'. Eventually, one

assumes, when this has happened enough times, the accumulation of causes in

his nature will have an effect and he will cease to correspond in that sort

of way. Until that time, just take the grain from what he has to say and

ignore the chaff.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

namaste shri Dennis,

 

Your post is quite timely and is the type of feedback

I am looking for as I am grappling with the task of

- you guessed it - how to tackle the 'problem' of the

manner of Sandeep's expressing his views. Eventually,

the team of moderators has to tackle this matter and

feedback such as yours is very valuable. I would encourage

and request other members, not only those who regularly

post but also people who regularly only read, to express

their view on this matter.

 

Personally, I feel the views can be expressed in a more

'civilized' manner, without diluting the firmly-held

view, but expressing them in a more palatable way. While

Dennis (and may be Frank by 95%) may agree fully with the

views of Sandeep, I do not. Any meaningful discussion is

lost when the civility is not directly visible in the

debate. I am sure you agree with Robert Burton's saying

in the book ANATOMY OF MELANCHOLY " .. A blow with a word

strikes deeper than a blow with a sword...". A blow to

the sages and teachers whom one holds in high esteem is

a more serious one than a blow to an individual's post.

Ultimately, in the present case, it is to be evaluated

whether disrespectful sayings towards the sages and

postings liberally sprinkled with slang words of the

english language are to be balanced against any grain

of Truth that we can glean from the posts. And, in this,

I would like to have members' feedback, either by personal

e-mail to me or on the List.

 

Now, specific comments on what shri Dennis wrote:

 

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Dennis Waite wrote:

> [...]

> In the end, therefore, we are bound to admit that Sandeep is right in what

> he says. His arguments are inarguable on our own terms, hoist by our own

> petard as it were.

 

I must say I cannot agree with that assessment. While

there are glimpses of Truth there, there are what I think

absurd statements as well.

 

As an example, shri sandeep says: there is no jIvA.

 

my comment: If there is no jIvA, who is it that is

writing? Who is it that is signing it as Sandeep?

There is not even a single mention of Atman/Brahman

in any of shri Sandeep's writings. Does he accept That

as the basic substratum of all? Does he accept adhyAsa,

the fundamental tenet of shri shankara's philosophy?

 

> However, to return to everyday standards - and let's face

> it, most of us are still ego-bound and only paying intellectual lip-service

> to the tenets of Advaita -

 

Probably so. However, whether our advaitic endeavours are

intellectual lip-service or a genuine desire to know the Truth,

only the individual can answer for him/herself.

> there is no question but that Sandeep's words and

> manner of expressing them are certain to be offensive to many. Personally, I

> don't mind too much but then I do not have a Hindu background. It seems to

> me that it would not make advaitic 'sense' to ban him from the list,

> especially since much of what he writes is so stimulating (in a good or bad

> way!)

 

This List is built (thanks to shri Ram Chandran) as a model of

civility in the jungle of internet discussion groups. We have

to think whether we consider profane language is acceptable

on this List. Once what shri Sandeep calls ROFLMAO is acceptable,

the standard four letters of the english language will not be too

far behind.

 

> I believe that all we can reasonably do is to say 'look, this sort of

> behaviour is simply not respectful in such a forum'. Eventually, one

> assumes, when this has happened enough times, the accumulation of causes in

> his nature will have an effect and he will cease to correspond in that sort

> of way. Until that time, just take the grain from what he has to say and

> ignore the chaff.

>

 

True. But how far can we do that? Once it is acceptable for one,

another will step forward next week with his/her own personal

brand of philosophy and his/her own unique language. The List has

to think whether it is acceptable.

 

> Dennis

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----