Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 Dear Friends, My response is interspersed in between Steven's post. Steven Fair <steven.faircs Re: Vedanta -Digest Number 1216 Greetings, friend! Well, this is exactly the argument or response I have continually run into in regard to this question (at least, from Advaitans!), as I pointed out in my original post. And it may well be an answer. But does this answer you offer in fact reflect *Shankara's* view? And if so, what's all the fuss about saying Shankara "refuted" Buddhism and brought millions of Indian's back to the core message of the Upanishads and Gita, as Aurobindo, among others, contends? What was the "refutation" then? Jai: The crux of the refutation by shankara is 'One can negate everything in the world but not the negator. The negator cannot negate himself'. If I have enough time I will write more with specific references from his Bhasyas. And what "reform" are we talking about if Shankara is in fact a crypto-Buddhist, as your reply would seem to indicate? And why can't I find any *Buddhist* scholars or sages of any real note and historical standing saying anything at all like this, i.e., that the Buddha "really" but "silently" taught the Self? (If one thinks the Enlightened One's anatta only refutes the illusory self, and not the big Self, then one simply doesn't know Buddhism, I must frankly say.) I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but it just doesn't wash, so far as I can see, although I know that sages such as Ramana Maharishi and others have contended that "it's all the same thing." I can't tell you how vigorously and fully most Buddhists I know would disagree with this view. Jai: Modern Vedantins think by saying all paths are same they are very broad minded and politically correct. But truth does not tolerate many opinions nor paths. Truth is vastutantram ( or dependent on the nature of the object known) and it has to be known as it is using the appropriate means of knowledge. Statements like 'All religions lead to the same goal' and 'All paths are valid' etc. were political statements made to keep the Hindus, Muslims and others in India united during the freedom struggle in India. This idea has been carried forward even after independence and that too only by Hindus. If you talk to a christian or Muslim and say 'All religions are same' then he will say 'then why dont you become a christian or Muslim'. Even in the Vedic tradition, I dont think anybody can quote even one sentence like this from books written before 19th century. They have no validity and that can be found even with a little enquiry in to these absurd statements. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 advaitin, "Jaishankar Narayanan" <srijai@e...> wrote: Dear Friends, > My response is interspersed in between Steven's post. > > Steven Fair <steven.faircs@v...> Re: Vedanta -Digest Number 1216 > <snip> > Jai: The crux of the refutation by shankara is 'One can negate everything in > the world but not the negator. The negator cannot negate himself'. If I have > enough time I will write more with specific references from his Bhasyas. > Jai, namaste! And thanks for this specific response. It's a rellief to get some specifics! That is, of course, a truly brilliant refutation and I'd love to hear Shankara's development of it -- it points to one of the most profound conundrums in Buddhist thought, in my opinion -- how is it possible that the Five Aggregates can finally negate themselves, if all there is to the self is the Five Aggregates and if the Four Noble Truths are found *within" the Aggregates, that is,within ourselves? It points also, to the oft asked question, "If there is not Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana?" The typical answer, "no one," simply states a tautology, or else starts an infinite regress. I prefer Ramana Maharishi's answer: "Who is asking?" <G> >From this brief statement of Shankara, one might deduce that the "netti, netti" approach to enlightenment, while immensely important and freeing, finally runs into an insurmountable dead-end, a Nihil that cannot escape or negate tself, and so "itti, itti," this and this, may also well be necessary -- indeed, both netti and itti, and neither and both, to see something of the One that is truly All. To put it another way, even Emptiness must finally become Empty, and then you simply have what is. > And what "reform" are we talking about if Shankara is in fact a > crypto-Buddhist, as your reply would seem to indicate? And why can't I find > any *Buddhist* scholars or sages of any real note and historical standing > saying anything at all like this, i.e., that the Buddha "really" but > "silently" taught the Self? (If one thinks the Enlightened One's anatta only > refutes the illusory self, and not the big Self, then one simply doesn't know > Buddhism, I must frankly say.) > > I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but it just doesn't wash, so far as I can see, > although I know that sages such as Ramana Maharishi and others have contended > that "it's all the same thing." I can't tell you how vigorously and fully > most Buddhists I know would disagree with this view. > > > Jai: Modern Vedantins think by saying all paths are same they are very broad > minded and politically correct. But truth does not tolerate many opinions nor > paths. Truth is vastutantram ( or dependent on the nature of the object known) > and it has to be known as it is using the appropriate means of knowledge. > Statements like 'All religions lead to the same goal' and 'All paths are > valid' etc. were political statements made to keep the Hindus, Muslims and > others in India united during the freedom struggle in India. This idea has > been carried forward even after independence and that too only by Hindus. If > you talk to a christian or Muslim and say 'All religions are same' then he > will say 'then why dont you become a christian or Muslim'. Even in the Vedic > tradition, I dont think anybody can quote even one sentence like this from > books written before 19th century. They have no validity and that can be > found even with a little enquiry in to these absurd statements. > > with love and prayers, > > Jaishankar > What you say about Indian history is very interesting to learn about, and I couldn't agree more with your conclusions. And I think one can say what you just said without being judgmental, in a negative way, or egotistically claiming one has found the "only" way. There are, in fact, great truths that most religions agree upon, at the highest level, if not always on the level of practice. On the face of it, this qualifier might seem contradictory, or a cop out, but the point I'm trying to make is the difference that Huston Smith, among others, makes between the exoteric and esoteric aspects of all religions. But even at the exoteric level, there are profound divergences, and one can't pretend they aren't there or don't exist. (And aside: In terms of Eastern thought, I know of no one who has thought through these very issues more thoroughly and profoundly than Sri Aurobindo, about whom I have come to feel about, in the past 6 months that I have been studying him for the first time, that there may be no greater light in the East. His integral yoga, a kind of Realist Advaita, has it all, at least for me. But pardon my divergence here....<g>) I'd love to hear more from the beloved Shankara, when or if you have time. God's love and grace be with you and yours, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Steven - sorry to interject myself in the middle of interesting discussion between you and Jaishankar. I am sure Jai will find time to respeond to you in detail to the points you have raised. I could not resist making couple of points. >"stevenfair" <steven.faircs >Jai, namaste! And thanks for this specific >response. It's a rellief to get some specifics! >That is, of course, a truly brilliant refutation >and I'd love to hear Shankara's development of it >-- it points to one of the most profound >conundrums in Buddhist thought, in my opinion -- >how is it possible that the Five Aggregates can >finally negate themselves, if all there is to the >self is the Five Aggregates and if the Four Noble >Truths are found *within" the Aggregates, that >is,within ourselves? It points also, to the oft >asked question, "If there is not Self, no Atman, >who realizes Nirvana?" The typical answer, "no >one," simply states a tautology, or else starts >an infinite regress. I prefer Ramana Maharishi's >answer: "Who is asking?" <G> The five agregates themselves are by definition are agregates, since it has been declared that that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never begin to exist - 'naasato vidyate bhaavo naabaavo vidyate satah' - B.G.II. Since the agregates are inert and inert cannot be established to exist independent of the conscious entity - it is the conscious entity that lend its support of existence to the inert which are agregates. The question 'who realizes' is answered eloberately in the Vivekachuudamani and Bhagavaan Ramana puts this cryptically that it is the questioner who feels that he is bound is the one who gets liberated from that feeling of bondage. It also involves the knowledge of the apparent nature of aggregates that is their superposition nature and that they are not real - real being that which exists and that which by definition can never cease to exist. > >From this brief statement of Shankara, one might >deduce that the "netti, netti" approach to >enlightenment, while immensely important and >freeing, finally runs into an insurmountable >dead-end, a Nihil that cannot escape or negate >tself, and so "itti, itti," this and this, may >also well be necessary -- indeed, both netti and >itti, and neither and both, to see something of >the One that is truly All. To put it another >way, even Emptiness must finally become Empty, >and then you simply have what is. sorry to disagree with the statement 'neti neti will lead to insurmountable dead-end' - not so. what ends is the 'iti' aspect since iti involves 'this' - idam and end of 'this' leaves not to the dead-end but to the living presence of the agency - or the conscious entity who has been supporting existence of all 'iti-s' and now who is negating all iti and iti-s. 'iti' is not necessory since 'iti' involves pointer and pointed - intrinsic duality - in the neti neti - what is denied is this intrinsic duality. - what remains is the a-dvaitic state which is ones own state - even the word 'state' falls of its meaning - but used here only for communication. Hence Ramana says in Upadesha saara - 'when false 'I' falls since it is false, what raises spontaneously in its place is the true understanding of 'I' which is full and complete and of the nature existence itslef - "ahami naashabaagi aham aham tayaa| spurati hR^it swayam parama puurna sat" Refutation of Buddhistic thought - mostly madhyamika - is done extensively by Badarayana in Brahmasuutra which was eloberately commented by Shankara and Ramanuja. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2002 Report Share Posted January 21, 2002 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" < k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > Steven - sorry to interject myself in the middle of interesting discussion > between you and Jaishankar. I am sure Jai will find time to respeond to you > in detail to the points you have raised. I could not resist making couple of > points. > >No problem, my friend. Always good to hear from you on this forum! > >"stevenfair" <steven.faircs@v...> > > >Jai, namaste! And thanks for this specific > >response. It's a rellief to get some specifics! > >That is, of course, a truly brilliant refutation > >and I'd love to hear Shankara's development of it > >-- it points to one of the most profound > >conundrums in Buddhist thought, in my opinion -- > >how is it possible that the Five Aggregates can > >finally negate themselves, if all there is to the > >self is the Five Aggregates and if the Four Noble > >Truths are found *within" the Aggregates, that > >is,within ourselves? It points also, to the oft > >asked question, "If there is not Self, no Atman, > >who realizes Nirvana?" The typical answer, "no > >one," simply states a tautology, or else starts > >an infinite regress. I prefer Ramana Maharishi's > >answer: "Who is asking?" <G> > > The five agregates themselves are by definition are agregates, since it has > been declared that that which exists can never cease to exist and that which > is non-existent can never begin to exist - 'naasato vidyate bhaavo naabaavo > vidyate satah' - B.G.II. Since the agregates are inert and inert cannot be > established to exist independent of the conscious entity - it is the > conscious entity that lend its support of existence to the inert which are > agregates. Of course, this assertion, that this is a "conscious entity" that is somehow apart or separate from the aggregrates is nowhere to be found in Buddhist belief, so far as I understand it. There really are only the aggregates, period. They would argue, and I would agree, on this particular point, that your assertion introduces an infinite regress that is itself untenable -- where did this "conscious entity" arise from, and how is it that it is something separate from the aggregates? Simply put, this "answer" and introduction of a "conscious entity" simply begs the question. <g> The question 'who realizes' is answered eloberately in the > Vivekachuudamani and Bhagavaan Ramana puts this cryptically that it is the > questioner who feels that he is bound is the one who gets liberated from > that feeling of bondage. I agree with the blessed Ramana on this point, actually, that is indeed the questioner that gives rise to the sense and feeling of bondage -- thus, he repost: "Who is asking?" We are, of course, now very close to the primal question, what is the origin of error or illusion? The blessed Ramana can only answer, "Who is asking about the origin of error?" or else he answers that the illusion arose in "beginingless ignorance." Christ Jesus said that evil, error, illusion was "a liar and the father of it" -- that is, something which falsely bears witness to itself and only seems true or real to that false witness, which is self-generated. These all seem like wonderful, and in one sense, final answers to me, since the resolution of the conundrum is not a philosophic argument, but enlightenment that final dissolves the false witness, which asks, where do I come from, into its native nothingness. >It also involves the knowledge of the apparent > nature of aggregates that is their superposition nature and that they are > not real - real being that which exists and that which by definition can > never cease to exist. Probably on this we agree, as I point out in my previous paragraph. Of course, there are other answers -- those of the beloved Ramanuja and Sri Aurobindo. But perhaps that is better left to some other discussion! <g> (Sri Aurobindo would certainly argue that there can be a Realist Advaita and not just an Illusionist Advaita!) > > > >From this brief statement of Shankara, one might > >deduce that the "netti, netti" approach to > >enlightenment, while immensely important and > >freeing, finally runs into an insurmountable > >dead-end, a Nihil that cannot escape or negate > >tself, and so "itti, itti," this and this, may > >also well be necessary -- indeed, both netti and > >itti, and neither and both, to see something of > >the One that is truly All. To put it another > >way, even Emptiness must finally become Empty, > >and then you simply have what is. > > sorry to disagree with the statement 'neti neti will lead to insurmountable > dead-end' - not so. what ends is the 'iti' aspect since iti involves 'this' > - idam and end of 'this' leaves not to the dead-end but to the living > presence of the agency - or the conscious entity who has been supporting > existence of all 'iti-s' and now who is negating all iti and iti-s. 'iti' is > not necessory since 'iti' involves pointer and pointed - intrinsic duality - > in the neti neti - what is denied is this intrinsic duality. - what remains > is the a-dvaitic state which is ones own state - even the word 'state' falls > of its meaning - but used here only for communication. I would love to discuss this point, but perhaps it should be in a different thread....also, I'm not sure we are actually in disagreement, except semantically, but briefly, yes, from within "the liar and father of lies" there can only be the reply and spiritual response of "neti, neti" for nothing it can say or bear witness to is true, or finally, real. But where I would guess we may part paths is that I believe, along with, for example, Ramanuja and Sri Aurobindo, that there is also a divine "iti, iti" -- that while the human mind can only get near the truth by "not this, not that" but that the light within, what Aurobindo calls the psychic (not to be confused with the typical use of this term) there is the divine bearing witness to itself in a true and undeniable "iti." Ramanujua makes quite a point of this, especially in regards to the truth content of the Gita, and the fact that the Gita, and Upanishads, do say Brahman *is* this, this and this -- of course, this in developed in his disagreement with Shankara's illusionism. > Hence Ramana says in Upadesha saara - 'when false 'I' falls since it is > false, what raises spontaneously in its place is the true understanding of > 'I' which is full and complete and of the nature existence itslef - > "ahami naashabaagi aham aham tayaa| spurati hR^it swayam parama puurna sat" > Couldn't agree more! Out of the Silence comes the voice of the great I AM, out of final "emptiness" comes the Great Fullness. Even in illusionist adviata, you come full circle: Brahman is the universe, the univese is unreal, and Brahman *is* the Universe. As Ramana said, the third statment explains the first two; it signifies that when the Universe is perceived apart from Brahman, that perception is illusory and flase. What it amounts to is that phenomena are real when experienced as the Self and illusory when seen aprt from the self. Enlightenment is "I AM THAT I AM," not finally, just neti, neti. > Refutation of Buddhistic thought - mostly madhyamika - is done extensively > by Badarayana in Brahmasuutra which was eloberately commented by Shankara > and Ramanuja. I need to learn more about these, although last summer, I "discovered" Ramanuja for the first time, and spent most of my summer reading and studying his thought, especially his Bhasya. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Yes, God bless All and Each, the One and the Many! And thanks, as always, for your helpful and interesting posts! Steve "Surrender is giving oneself to the Divine -- to give everything one is or has to the Divine and regard nothing as one's own, to obey only the Divine will and no other, to live for the Divine and not for the ego." Sri Aurobindo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2002 Report Share Posted January 21, 2002 >"stevenfair" <steven.faircs > >Of course, this assertion, that this is a "conscious entity" that is >somehow apart or separate from the aggregrates is nowhere to >be found in Buddhist belief, so far as I understand it. There >really are only the aggregates, period. They would argue, and I >would agree, on this particular point, that your assertion >introduces an infinite regress that is itself untenable -- where did >this "conscious entity" arise from, and how is it that it is >something separate from the aggregates? Simply put, this >"answer" and introduction of a "conscious entity" simply begs the >question. <g> Steven - I do not think it leads to infinite regress - conscious entity is cannot start - the eseense of sadvidya that jai quoted from ch. Up - sadeva soumya idam agra asiit - existence alone was there in the beginning and later it says - tad aikshata - it saw - this aspect is used by badarayana to establish the existence that was one without a second is a conscious entity since it saw - since there is nothing else to see it saw implies it is a self-conscious entity - Hence my remarks that the existent entity is also a conscious entity - sat and chit. It cannot arise also because of the fact that arise can be established only by a conscious entity - which implies that to establish the riseness a conscious entity has to be pre-existing before the raise implying that no conscios entity can arise. Even in Ramanuja's interpretations - chit ruupa of jiiva and Iswara are eternal existence -He starts with a declarative statement that sat that exists has internal differences that iswara, jiiva and prakR^iti- two conscious entities and one inert entity - constitutes the sat. There are several logical problems in Ramanuja's interpretation and I am happy to learn that you had studied last fall - shreebhaashya. I had also spent some time with Sreemaan S.M.S Chari trying to understand Ramanuja's interpretation. I am trying to prepare notes on shreebhaashya and will start posting on the list and I would be very happy to receive your comments. There was some discussion between myself and shree Nanda chandran who is well versed in Madhyamika philosophy in terms of adviatic vs Bhuddistic interpretation - this was around six months ago. you may be interested to look into archives on the topics. > >I agree with the blessed Ramana on this point, actually, that is >indeed the questioner that gives rise to the sense and feeling of >bondage -- thus, he repost: "Who is asking?" We are, of course, >now very close to the primal question, what is the origin of error >or illusion? The blessed Ramana can only answer, "Who is >asking about the origin of error?" or else he answers that the >illusion arose in "beginingless ignorance." Christ Jesus said >that evil, error, illusion was "a liar and the father of it" -- that >is, >something which falsely bears witness to itself and only seems >true or real to that false witness, which is self-generated. These >all seem like wonderful, and in one sense, final answers to me, >since the resolution of the conundrum is not a philosophic >argument, but enlightenment that final dissolves the false >witness, which asks, where do I come from, into its native >nothingness. But this existence of false witness cannot be established also without the conscious entity preexisting and conscious entity cannot have begining since it is self-existing - goes back to the previous statement. > >Probably on this we agree, as I point out in my previous >paragraph. Of course, there are other answers -- those of the >beloved Ramanuja and Sri Aurobindo. But perhaps that is better >left to some other discussion! <g> (Sri Aurobindo would >certainly argue that there can be a Realist Advaita and not just an >Illusionist Advaita!) I will be addressing Ramanuja's laghu and mahaa puurvapaksha-s and his siddhanta-s soon. About Shree Aurobindo - I am completely lost. Whenever I open his books I get lost in his paragraphs long sentences. Perhaps you can take up the analysis and provide the list what exactly is his teaching and how and where does it differ from adviatic perspective. > >I would love to discuss this point, but perhaps it should be in a >different thread....also, I'm not sure we are actually in >disagreement, except semantically, but briefly, yes, from within >"the liar and father of lies" there can only be the reply and >spiritual response of "neti, neti" for nothing it can say or bear >witness to is true, or finally, real. But where I would guess we >may part paths is that I believe, along with, for example, >Ramanuja and Sri Aurobindo, that there is also a divine "iti, iti" -- >that while the human mind can only get near the truth by "not >this, not that" but that the light within, what Aurobindo calls the >psychic (not to be confused with the typical use of this term) >there is the divine bearing witness to itself in a true and >undeniable "iti." Ramanujua makes quite a point of this, >especially in regards to the truth content of the Gita, and the fact >that the Gita, and Upanishads, do say Brahman *is* this, this >and this -- of course, this in developed in his disagreement with >Shankara's illusionism. > Yes this involves eloberate discussion - this aspect is the one I was referring to in the discussion between myself and nanda chandran some six months ago. It will be interesting if you can go over the discussion - it is around three part post in response to Nanda's comments. There is also a problem in Ramanuja's discussion of object and the atributes of the object etc. and the theoy of 'error' that creeps into the analysis. Yes this requires deeper thinking and Hopefully when I take up discussion of Shreebhaashya this will come up. > >I need to learn more about these, although last summer, I >"discovered" Ramanuja for the first time, and spent most of my >summer reading and studying his thought, especially his >Bhasya. >> >Yes, God bless All and Each, the One and the Many! And thanks, >as always, for your helpful and interesting posts! > >Steve Beautiful Steve - that is exactly what I also did with Shreeman S.M.S. Chari who has published extensively on Ramanuja-s philosophy. He will be coming back this summer. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 Namaste, Could some list members well versed with the Buddhist viewpoint clarify the following basic question. My understanding: I exist and am aware. I perceive the Universe. Now when the Buddhists talk about non-existence, whose existence are they denying ? 1. Is it that my existence - the existence of the witness/ Self, that is being questioned ? Or 2. Is it just the existence of the Universe that is being quesitoned ? I am aware that this issue must have been discussed before. Since I find much of the discussion on this topic confusing, was wondering if someone could post a direct reply to the above question. Thanks and best regards Shrinivas Gadkari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2002 Report Share Posted January 23, 2002 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" < k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > >"stevenfair" <steven.faircs@v...> > > > Steven - I do not think it leads to infinite regress.... <huge snip!> My dear Kuntimaddi, I *loved* your post, and really do want to respond, but a family emergency is going to call me out of town for at least a few days....I promise to get back to you and this excellent discussion just as soon as I can.... With affection, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2002 Report Share Posted January 24, 2002 > My understanding: > I exist and am aware. Sure. But is it always so? When you wake up in the morning you've the feeling of "I" consciousness - you exist and are aware of yourself. This clear feeling of "I"ness can be had anytime you take a deep breath and focus your consciousness on yourself. But if you are watching a movie or you are engrossed with some object, are you really aware of yourself then? Are you aware of yourself during deep sleep? Your "I" consciousness itself is an object of the mind which fundamentally rests on the body. It is only with your body, your senses and your mind that you experience consciousness itself. The mind can have only one object at any point in time. It sometimes rests on external objects, sometimes on your own psycho/physical self. When it rests on the latter you have your "I" sense - when not, you do not have it. So when one says "I exist and am aware", one should be really careful about its meaning. >I perceive the Universe. > > Now when the Buddhists talk about non-existence, whose existence > are they denying ? It is the insubstantiality of the "I" consciousness that the Buddhists assert because it is temporary and exists only when the mind rests on the psycho/physical self. > 1. Is it that my existence - the existence of the witness/ Self, > that is being questioned ? The true distinction between Buddhism and Vedanta is not that between self or no-self, but whether conciousness can be identified with ourself (the "I"ness) or not. Simple question : even as per Vedaanta consciousness exists in itself during deep sleep. But do you have individual consciousness then - are you really aware in that state? So how can you say that you are that consciousness? > Or > 2. Is it just the existence of the Universe that is being quesitoned ? No school of Indian philosophy teaches the non-existence of the universe. If somebody teaches that the world is an illusion then the audience to whom he teaches to, will themselves not exist according to him! Then what's the purpose of him teaching? The maya theory of Mahaayaana Buddhism and Vedaanta has its base in epistemology and not metaphysics. The external world is only what we "know" of it. So they question the very base on which this knowing works and find that the knowledge obtained is not absolute, but only relative. So they say that the world is neither real nor unreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2002 Report Share Posted January 24, 2002 advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: > It is the insubstantiality of the "I" consciousness that the > Buddhists assert because it is temporary and exists only when the > mind rests on the psycho/physical self. > > The true distinction between Buddhism and Vedanta is not that between > self or no-self, but whether conciousness can be identified with > ourself (the "I"ness) or not. > Namaste, Thanks for your post, it gives a better view of the Buddhist thought. Shrinivas Gadkari 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.