Not 100%

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru implied that I agreed with Sandeep in all that he has been saying.

Not so! I was pointing out that his assertion that whether or not we

objected to the tenor of his posts was not a question of choice was

unarguable on our own terms. Similarly, like it or not, it seems to follow

that he himself has no choice but to adopt such a tone. In fact there have

been a few points in the things that he has said that did not ring true and

Steven's recent harangue has set me wondering even more.

 

Before continuing incidentally, my first reaction to Steven's post was that

it was an interesting coincidence. He has only just joined the list -

precisely in time to respond to Sandeep, 'giving as good as he gets' (and

better), so to speak. My second thought was that now Sandeep was really

going to blow his top. It was almost a tribute to him that he restrained

himself from so doing. The third thought was that, unfortunately, Steven, by

reacting as he did, was behaving to a degree in a similar way to that being

condemned in Sandeep. My fourth thought was that the moderators might soon

have to intercept all mails from certain parties and censure them - for this

list to degenerate into the 'flame wars' that presumably still occur on

unmoderated newsgroups would be totally unacceptable. (I recall that a

similar sort of situation contributed to making me leave the Advaita List a

long time ago.)

 

The useful element that emerged from all of this for me was the concern that

Sandeep might indeed be having fun at our expense. If we were all having fun

with him, this would be fine but if it is just an intellectual game of

one-upmanship for the ego then it is inappropriate for this list. As someone

else quite rightly pointed out, we are participating because of our wish to

learn from our discussions and from the posts of other members and mutual

respect is intrinsic to this process. Nevertheless, as I said, I found this

useful because, if it is true, then it highlights (as suggested by Steven)

that we are gullible in this respect. So much of our discussion revolves

around the intellect playing with ideas. (As Sandeep so rightly says,

everything on the list comes down to concepts in the end.) The intellect can

never take us 'all the way there'. Reality is forever beyond its grasp. We

know that sages say one thing to one 'person' and something different,

possibly contradictory, to another. Someone who is well versed in all of the

theory and who is quick-witted and gifted in argument etc. could easily play

with us in this way, just as Steven implies.

 

So, the question is Sandeep, are you on the level or just having fun at our

expense? The trouble is that, given your style, it seems most likely that

you will be unable or unwilling to give a straight answer. If you are, it

has been instructive and certainly interesting but it is now time to stop, I

think! If not, I apologise for suggesting it - but then you only have

yourself to blame. If on the level, please drop the style that some members

find so antagonistic - we could all learn much from your obvious knowledge.

Otherwise, one would be bound to say "Get thee behind me, Sandeep!"

 

Dennis