Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 To Advaitin Satsang, Namaste, This is with respect to recent "controversial" postings and subsequent policy of Intervention by Moderators. First we have to accept that in any list of this nature, Moderators are required. This is a legal condition to form the list itself (under e-groups), otherwise it would be a chat session. Like the Jury, they are selected on some credible basis and the their track record of performance is good so far. Next, what is the purpose of this list? It is essentially to learn more about Adi Sankara's Adviaitin list in particualr in the context of Hindu scriptures in general and comparison with commentaries of other Acharyas. Anything which is distractive of this purpose should be cut out. Finally the character of the list is slightly intellectual and informative. It is not an entertainment center. If one or 2 commentators like to hijack it with very high volume of posting and in a manner contrary to the general nature of the discussions over the last 2 years, then the moderators should intervene and restore normalacy. It is perhaps an opportune time to also impose some kind of word limit to contributions on a weekly basis unless it is a lecture series like Gita or Brhama Sutras. Unless the list discussions are comprehensible, and have a focus the list has no value. Last 5 days have been a disaster. Everyone is free to form his own list. It is not just a matter of posting, there is a lot of IT housekeeping work involved in it. No body is paying for all these services which takes so much time. So the example of wetting the living room by a guest,as given by Murthyji is indeed no exaggeration. It is better to nip such behavior in the bud rather than break up the list later. The list discusses, a highly sensitive and intellectual subject and please keep it that way. Others tend to take liberty because the Hindu behavior is tolerant to the extent of being licentious. We know from experience that not everyone respects tolerance. Many understand it as weakness. There is no shortage of icnoclasts in this world. Hindus worship idols and do not have to give an explanation to anyone for it. I vote to get tough. Nothing is better than Non-sense. Pranams & Hari OM Rajan __________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 Superbly stated. Let us follow what has been written. Dedication to the ideals and discipline are qualities in a seeker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 "Aum Bhadram Karnebhihi Srunuyaama Devaaha Bhadram Pashyemaa Kshibhirya Jatraaha Sthirai Rangai Stushtuvaamsa Stanoobhihi Vyashema Devahitam Yadaayuhu Aum Shanti Shanti Shantihi " "Aum Devaas, who are in the form of light, let our ears hear all good things.Worshippable Devas, let our eyes see good and holy things. May we spend this life given to us by God in continued prayers to You with a strong body, sound in health. " "Om vang me manasi pra-tish-thita mano me vachi pra-tish-thitam avira aveer ma edhi, vedasya ma aneesthah shrutam me ma prahaseeh anena adheetena, aho ratram sandha dhami ritam vadishyami, satyam vadishyami tan mama-avatu tad vaktaram-avatu avatu maam avatu vaktaram, avatu vaktaram Om shantih, shantih, shantih." "Om. let me speech be rooted in the mind. Let my mind be rooted in my speech. Let Brahman reveal Himself to me. Let my mind and speech enable me to grasp the Truth of the Vedas. Let not what I hear forsake me. Let both day and night be continuously spent by me in study. I think Truth. I speak Truth. may that Truth protect me. may that Truth protect the teacher. Protect me, protect the teacher. Om Peace, Peace, Peace." I quoted these Mantras to enforce the point that speech should be disciplined and auspicious. The power of communication should not be misused. The present downpour of posts is like the advent of a Monkey in the garden. Very comical at first, but destructive in the end. Anand Get email at your own domain with Mail. http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 Namaste Murthyji and friends, I do agree with Murthyji that Sandeepji could put across his views as suggested by the former. There is a 'way' to be followed regardless of whether you are a brahmajnani or a jnanashunyam. And that is Dharma. And if this list is for the discussion of Advaita Vedanta and not just Advaita, then it will be nice and preferred that we comuunicate with this Upanishadic dictum in mind: Satyam Vada and Dharmam Chara!!!!!!! Sincerely, Kathi Gummuluru Murthy advaitin 25/03/01 4:45 Re: Respectful Posts 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 ---- <http://rd./M=170603.1361494.2950176.2/D=egroupmail/S=170007599 1:N/A=613970/?http://www.newaydirect.com> www.newaydirect.com <http://us.adserver./l?M=170603.1361494.2950176.2/D=egroupmail/ S=1700075991:N/A=613970/rand=437366831> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server For details, visit: /local/news.html </local/news.html> Post message: advaitin Subscribe: advaitin- Un: advaitin URL to Advaitin: advaitin <advaitin> File folder: advaitin <advaitin> Link Folder: advaitin/links <advaitin/links> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages <advaitin/messages> Terms of Service <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 25032001 Namaste Shri All This is in response to Murthyjis appeal. One thing i understand that if list bans Sandeep than probably we shall be going away from the very purpose and principle of the list. After discussing and practicing Advait at such a detailed and disciplined manner, if LIST does not know how to tackle "Sandeep" and feels like banning him then are we not again going to same medivial society of brahmanical outcasting.?(Atleast cyber-space should be devoid of this). We must either follow him and reason out his postings or otherwise strart following him and treat him as any other member of the list. I personally feel like banning,ignoring,outcasting,hurting,egoing,are not the real issues we should be dealing with. The list is open and should be open. Why are some so serious about it.? He has given good quote "Seriouseness is a disease". There is absolutly no good reason to feel sorry about the language use by him since he has cleared his understanding of it. He pretends to be casually serious and at the same time seriously casual. He might be sounding little bit more knowledgable and good at English but why should list worry about it? It is a welcome testing situation for all of those who are practicing and discussing Advait for some time. As a responsible member one has to think from the entire list view, I understand but I personally think list like this should never go into the discussion of banning ANYBODY. Although, I dont enjoy with the Sandeep way of expression I dont 'feel' anything about it. Why should we enforce anybody to 'behave' in a manner that suits us.? We must consider him as any other member but with a difference. It is finally up to the more active members of the list to make the way. Prabodh Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy advaitin <advaitin> Sunday, March 25, 2001 2:22 AM Re: Respectful Posts > > >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 >---- > > > > > > > > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server >For details, visit: /local/news.html >Post message: advaitin >Subscribe: advaitin- >Un: advaitin >URL to Advaitin: advaitin >File folder: advaitin >Link Folder: advaitin/links >Messages Folder: advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 Namaste Sandeepji: I hope that you take sometime to listen carefully for few minutes. Please don't use the delete key and please read and take a moment or two to think. First, when you become a member of this list, you were given a set of guidelines for posting and it seem that you deleted that welcome letter without reading and understanding the implications. Please read carefully the statements below which addresses the problem: The moderators will not hesitate to exercise their right to curtail discussions when they consider the discussion is drifting away from the primary focus. The moderators request members to avoid personal attacks and remarks demeaning religions, religious leaders, individuals or groups. Members who violate will be subject to moderation and repeated violations will force the moderators to ban the violator from posting to the list. Second membership in this list is a privilege and is not anyone's right and I hope that you understand. All members and other moderators of this list respect the Chief Moderator, Sri Gummuluru Murthy and he has the overall authority in determining the list policies. He has sent several postings addressing your ‘uncivilized language usage and replies.' You have acquired enough language skills and intelligence to read understand the point blank message of Sri Gummuluru Murthy. Sri Sadananda, Sri Anand, Sri Dennis, Sri Frank, Sri Harsha, Sri Geetha and Sri Stephen have indicated in their message about their displeasure on your language use. I strongly suggest that you read their message several times and you will certainly get the hidden notes. The members of this list (other than you) are polite and don't want to hurt your feelings and instead have searched for hidden ‘treasure' inside a mountain of garbage. Third, Diamonds can't be recognized by ordinary people when they are raw. But after properly cut and polished, diamonds get the recognition and value that they deserve. When your language is polished, we can recognize the value of your message and your scholarship. If you strongly want to pursue convincing your hypotheses and thoughts, a win-win strategy for you is to polish your language and manners. Aren't you better off by posting materials by making sure that it offends none and at least beneficial one. This is a well known formula suggested by the economist Pareto known as "Pareto Optimal" to formulate public policies. Fourth, if you believe that you have strong conviction to your hypotheses and language style etc. please start your own list in .com. Starting such a group is quite simple and it is free. If you need some help setting up a list with a title of your choice, please let me know. I will more than happy to help you. You have the option to set guidelines that suit your beliefs and philosophy. You can send an invitation to Dennis, Frank and others who are interested in reading your preaching to join your list and enjoy your language. From what I hear from the list members, they all agree with the current list policies and the guidelines. Everyone other than you follow those guidelines without hesitation. I do assume that you are reasonable and you possess the discriminating intelligence and should be able to post your articles according to the list guidelines. Finally, we all have our obligations and responsibilities in our life journey where mutual respect to each other is quite fundamental. All religions and civilized societies define rules and responsibilities and everyone is expected to follow such rules and regulations. Honestly, rules and regulations are unnecessary if everyone is responsible and everyone can enjoy freedom and liberty without any controls. But unfortunately exceptions do occur and some enjoy disobeying common norms of decency and rules and regulations get evolved. The moderators and the Chief Moderator have obligations to enforce the policies and guidelines of the Advaitin List. This list is quite fortunate that we have a group of respectable and responsible group of members who fully comply with the list policies and regulations. I also just want Sri Sandeep to know that he still enjoys the freedom to express his ideas and hypotheses as long it follows the Pareto Principle of not hurting anyone's feeling willingly. Please also understand that when the scholarship is expressed with humility, there will be more listeners and it will be more beneficial. I strongly recommend Sandeep to communicate with the Chief Moderator, Sri Gummuluru and agree to comply with the list rules and guidelines. This will be my last post to Sandeep on this subject matter and I hope that listens and does necessary and appropriate remedy. warmest regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2001 Report Share Posted March 26, 2001 I am an avid reader of the posts of the learned members of this group. Though I do not claim any 'ONENESS' or 'I AM'ness I would like to put in my 2c's worth. In my humble understanding the height of spirituality is the dissolution of EGO, but here on this list, for sometime I found the dominance of EGO. I remain a humble reader trying to find the light. I am not here to argue that LIGHT itself is MAYA or LEELA or otherwise for I knoe not. Arul ------------------ Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2001 Report Share Posted March 26, 2001 Namaste. Greetings to all. Well said Rajan. Yesterday I sent a message, which I believe bounced. At the risk of repetition (for those who did get this message I beg your patience), I am reiterating my posting: For quite some time I have remained silent, yet I now can no longer withhold myself from speaking. Bhagavad Gita XVIII, 67 keeps coming to mind: Idam te naatapaskaaya naabhktaaya kadaacana Na cashushruushave vaacyam na ca maam yo'bhyasuuyati. This shall not be spoken of by you to one who is without austerity, Nor to one who is without devotion, Nor to one who does not render service, Nor to one who does not desire to listen, Nor to one who speaks evil of Me. The teaching of the Advaita Tradition is precious. Brother Gummuluru Murthy is right to insist on respect for Advaita in speech. Speech is the light of man. Brothers Dennis Waite, Steven Fair, et. al. are reasonable to seek refined, honest discussion of the Tradition. The Sermon on the Mount (Mathew 7,i-vi) is also most helpful: "Judge not that ye be not judged./For with what judgmentye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again./ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?/ Or wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the moteout of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?/ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye./ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under thy feet, and turn and rend you." All the best, Kenneth Larsen > Hiya Gummuluru, > > - > Gummuluru Murthy > advaitin > Friday, March 23, 2001 11:51 PM > language used in the postings > > > > > namaste shri Sandeepji, > > I congratulate you for your enthusiasm and for the different outlook > brought in. I echo shri Dennis Waite's comment that, may be, a slower > presentation of your thoughts may be digestible. > > > San: > Fine. > Your wish is my command.<s> > > > > Also, I have a > particular concern with the language. > > As moderator of this List, I am concerned about the cavalier usage > of the language. > > San: > > LOL. > > I liked the phrase "cavalier usage of language". > My dear friend, the biggest illusion is that there is something in and about > the phenomenal world, the Leela to be serious about. > > Enjoy the leela and your role in it. > > It was put up for your show, by you. > > > > I give examples below from your postings of the past > two days: > > You described upanishadic sages as singing farmers; > > > San: > That was exactly what they were. > Total householders, following whetever was their talent was, to make a living. > OK all of them were not farmers, but at that time agriculture was more of less > 100% of the national activity (not that there was a nation at that time). > > And all bromides were sang and conveyed from mouth to ear, preserved through > oral singing. > All texts, all scriptures today are the edited "versions" of these pristine > songs. > > > > > you say gItA > as the song of Krishna to keep control; > > > San: > > No. > I said, the song of Krishna to Arjun, was subsquently recorded and in that > recording, the intrepretations came into recordings and this set of pages, has > been used to establish and perpetuate control by Organised Religion. > > Same thing for the Bible, and the Koran. > > > The symbol is never the thing and yet the symbol has become the controller. > > Let's take the Gita. > What is typically the essence of of it, taken today. > Usually two tenets > > Do your karma, don't lust for the fruits of your karma (paraphased) > > And yet isn't it somehwere, left unnoticed, uncorrupted by the subsequent > translators > > "Shivo Bhokta, Shivo Bhojya > Shivo Karta, Shivah Karmah, > Shivah Karanatmakah" > > Meaning... > Shiva is the experiencer ands the heighest object of experience. > Shiva is the sadhak and Shiva is the sadhna and teh goal of sadhna. > > To know this is to be Shiv. > > What is the other modern tenet of Gita that power brokers of Organised > Religion peddle > > "Parivartan he Sansar can niyam haya" (Phonetic translation of the Hindi) > > Meaning, Change is the essence of Life. > > Hilarious, > > There is a show , a dream in which there is an apparent change". > > In essence the term change or no-change themselves are not relevant. > > Why? > > In Oneness (a conceptual term), who is changing to what. > > Further for Oneness to affirm that it also not-chnaging, to whom can even this > be affirmed. > Thus both terms of change and no-change have to be transcended. > > That is why, a concept was offerred > > The absence of presence and the absence of the absence of presence." > > Incidentally, my comments on Gita are in reference to the Bhagwad Gita. > > Ashtavakra's Gita or Avadhut Gita, well, they are just Dobeeeeee Do beeeeee > Dooooooo. > Or even Ladeeee daaaaaa deeeeee. > > They go so much deeper. > There are no compromises, no corruptions, becuase the perpetuaters of > Organised Religion saw these did not have the mass appeal. > > > you say amr^itAnubhava as > *prattling* of jnaneshwar, etc. > > > San: > > LOL. > You picked the "word" and missed the splendour of the prattling. > No doubt appropriate. > > Indeed it is a prattling, including what is appearing through the entity > "Sandeep" on this List. > What do I mean to convey through that term? > > Anything said, or conveyed by whichever means, by anybody to somebody, > anywhere, at anytime, ever, is a concept. > > Such usage of language can cause uneasiness to members. May be > that is your style of writing. But you should be aware of the other > members who hold the gItA with the highest esteem; > > > San: > > Any unease, please direct them towards this end. I will happy to "unease" them > further. <LOL> > > My submission, look for the essence, not the symbol. > Look at the moon, not the finger pointing to the moon. > > > who regard highly > the upanishadic sages as the seers of Truth. > > > San: > > My calling them singing farmers disqualifies them ? > > In fact they, by being exactly what they were, point to a bigger truth. > > That Truth can be found standing in front of the washing machine, in the > market place as well, as in the vale of green mountain. > > > 'prattling' is a word > used in the english language in a derogatory way as the expression > of a deluded. > > San: > > Derogation is never in the word, any word. > It is the mind of the receipient. > > If I called you a fool, Gummuluru,and you became angry, all that has happened, > is that you have lended a truth to my statement. > > Otherwise how can an iota of a ripple disturb your consciousness? > > If I called Krishna or Jesus or Mohammed the biggest idiots that walked this > planet and the Bajrang Dal or VHP want to break my head or the Christian > missionaries wished to damn me to eternal Hell or the Muslim fanatics issue a > fatwa to behead me for blasphemy on me, really what is happening? > > What is happening is that all of them accept that Krishna, Jesus or Mohhamed > become idiots by my saying so. > > LOL. > > > > Such a cavalier usage of the language is not acceptable > on this List. > > San: > > See what I have meant to convey by the usage of the word "prattling". > > If after that, it is still not acceptable, and being "your" List, I think > Dennis will get his desires fullfilled quite soon. > > I am sorry Gummuluru, you or anybody or for that matter even Sandeep have no > say on the manner in which, whatever comes up, comes up, through this entity. > > > This is a List for serious seekers of the Truth. > > San: > > Seriousness (of any kind, about anything) is a disease. > > Remember the dude Jesus prattling "It is the child who will enter my Dad's > pad". > > > > I do > hope you will re-read your messages before posting and correct/replace > any unrequired words. > > > San: > > No. > There is no volition to do so, my friend. > > And you have the full right to disallow these posts, appearing on this List. > If that is to happen, that will happen, no matter what Sandeep or > Gummuluru,does or does not. > > Are you getting me Gummuluru? > > This is in no way to curb your enthusiasm of posting. > > > San: > > "My" entusiasm????? > > > Please treat > this as a lecture hall on advaita and be considerate of the listeners > and of the sages of the ancient times and their teachings. > > > San: > Ahaaa Gummuluru, > > It's too late for this entity to be reverential to anything in phenomenality. > I am too busy enjoying the splendour of the show, both the profanity and the > profoundity, which I put on for for myself. > > Who is the other, that I must revere? > > As the dude Dattatreya prattled in Avadhut Gita <g> > > How can I salute the Self, which is indestructible, which is all Bliss, which > in Itself and by Itself pervades everything, and which is inseparable from > Itself? > > I alone am, ever free from all taint. The world exists like a mirage within > me. To whom shall I bow? > > > To whom shall I bow Gummuluru? > > Cheers > To Advaitin Satsang, > Namaste, > This is with respect to recent "controversial" postings and subsequent > policy of Intervention by Moderators. > > First we have to accept that in any list of this nature, Moderators are > required. This is a legal condition to form the list itself (under e-groups), > otherwise it would be a chat session. Like the Jury, they are selected on some > credible basis and the their track record of performance is good so far. > > Next, what is the purpose of this list? It is essentially to learn more about > Adi Sankara's Adviaitin list in particualr in the context of Hindu scriptures > in general and comparison with commentaries of other Acharyas. Anything which > is distractive of this purpose should be cut out. > > Finally the character of the list is slightly intellectual and informative. It > is not an entertainment center. If one or 2 commentators like to hijack it > with very high volume of posting and in a manner contrary to the general > nature of the discussions over the last 2 years, then the moderators should > intervene and restore normalacy. > > It is perhaps an opportune time to also impose some kind of word limit to > contributions on a weekly basis unless it is a lecture series like Gita or > Brhama Sutras. Unless the list discussions are comprehensible, and have a > focus the list has no value. Last 5 days have been a disaster. > > Everyone is free to form his own list. It is not just a matter of posting, > there is a lot of IT housekeeping work involved in it. No body is paying for > all these services which takes so much time. So the example of wetting the > living room by a guest,as given by Murthyji is indeed no exaggeration. It is > better to nip such behavior in the bud rather than break up the list later. > > The list discusses, a highly sensitive and intellectual subject and please > keep it that way. Others tend to take liberty because the Hindu behavior is > tolerant to the extent of being licentious. We know from experience that not > everyone respects tolerance. Many understand it as weakness. There is no > shortage of icnoclasts in this world. Hindus worship idols and do not have to > give an explanation to anyone for it. > > I vote to get tough. Nothing is better than Non-sense. > Pranams & Hari OM > Rajan > > > > __________________ > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman > and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server > For details, visit: /local/news.html > Post message: advaitin > Subscribe: advaitin- > Un: advaitin > URL to Advaitin: advaitin > File folder: advaitin > Link Folder: advaitin/links > Messages Folder: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2001 Report Share Posted March 26, 2001 On 3/26/01 at 10:06 AM arul wrote: ºI am an avid reader of the posts of the learned members of this group. ºThough I do not claim any 'ONENESS' or 'I AM'ness I would like to put in ºmy 2c's worth. Such a claim would actually be to state the reverse: the thought to make a statement as such couldn't arise. 'Oneness' or the 'natural state' is 'factual' already - what could make statements about it is what seemingly veils it. Do you need a reminder to remember your name - Arul - ? That is unlikely - even Alzheimer patients know their name. But the "natural state" is more natural than one's name given at birth - hence not a single thought about it will arise - unless as a response. º ºIn my humble understanding the height of spirituality is the dissolution ºof EGO, but here on this list, for sometime I found the dominance of EGO. Swami Sivananda, in his book "practice of yoga" (an oldie perhaps) gives a few examples, how saints and yogis behave when "insulted" - insulted in the eyes of the "unenlightened onlookers" that is. The moral of those stories is, recognize & apply as not to stumble over the same stone twice.... And to be grateful to those, showing these "soar spots"... But I have to admit, not being able to understand much of the behavior of humans... For instance, why the pigeon as the symbol of peace? Pigeons are rather aggressive birds because they don't have anything to defend themselves - contrary to the birds of prey... And with humans, it is the same - unless skilled in a martial art or Self-realized or both, fear and vulnerability (defense) will show in behavior. º ºI remain a humble reader trying to find the light. I am not here to argue ºthat LIGHT itself is MAYA or LEELA or otherwise for I knoe not. º ºArul The term "light of consciousness" is appropriate - and as many seekers start at an age of 40 or more, there is little opportunity for de-conditioning already... Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.