Why Achintya is Moderated

July 19, 2004

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> The following is a chat where one of the discples offers defense

> against some of my charges.

Ignoring for the moment the "philosophical content" of this chat, I

missed the part where Jahnu das explicitly gave his permission for

this to be posted to Achintya. As you know, Achintya rules are very

specific on this point, that one must have permission from others to

post their remarks from other forums, e-mail, etc here.

This is yet another example of a posting I would have sent back for

resubmission, were it not for the fact that my insistence that

Raja_Ram read the rules only results in him accusing me of moderator

bias.

Though in all fairness, I know Jahnu das and I'm sure he probably

would not have a problem with this chat transcript being posted here.

It's not as if he has somehow been "defeated" or anything like that.

> grammar it may be considered a literary flaw. now as far as srila

> prabhupada is concerned, he translates Sveteshvatara Upanishad

(4.9)

> kesagra verse incompletely leaving out the words bhaaga anantyaaya.

> based on this one of his grand disciples concluded that the atomic

> has a definite material dimension!!

This argument again. This is an example of a person who cannot admit

when he is wrong, and thus looks for an error, any apparent error,

even one completely orthogonal to the original point, in an effort to

seems as if his "objections" are undefeated.

Svetaashvatara Upanishad 4.9 does say that the jiiva has a particle-

like size/character. This is obvious. How you translate the last

part "sa chaanantyaaya kalpate" makes no difference in this. For what

it's worth, Patrick Olivelle translates it as "partaking of infinity"

(whatever that means). The translation of the Gaudiya Math translates

it as "qualitatively same as the infinite" or something like that.

However you translate it, it does not change the fact that the jiiva

is a hundreth of a hundreth of a tip of a hair in size, as stated in

the earlier part of SU 4.9.

Raja_ram has introduced this concept of "material dimension,"

although Srila Prabhupada never refers to "material dimension" in his

translation. Indeed, I asked Raja_Ram to clarify what he meant by

that, and he ignored the question (well, now that I think about it,

he ignored everything else in that posting also -- any surprises

there?). Instead, he carried on with his "material dimension" theory

and continues to implicitly assert that it is a problem with Srila

Prabhpada's translation. How can it be a flaw of a translation when

it is not *in* the translation? There is nothing about "small size"

that indicates "material" vs "spiritual."

No matter how you slice it, Raja_Ram simply disagrees with the

Upanishad on the jiiva's particle-like size, but he cannot admit

this. So instead he carries on about how one translates "anantyaaya,"

because it is better for one to do that than to admit that one

disagrees with shruti.

Actually, I supported that understanding, which is already clear in

and of itself, with more pramaana from the Bhaagavatam.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

I asked him to prove his premise that the jiiva is Brahman, which was

the premise for his original question.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

I pointed out to him that the suutras he quoted to support the idea

that jiiva's small size is allegorical, actually are in reference to

Brahman and NOT the jiiva.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

I pointed out several objections to Raja_Ram's theory about the

transmigration of the soul referring to its illusory transmigration.

These were numbered 1a-1f.

Raja_Ram ignored all of them.

Lest I seem uncharitable, readers can note the posting in which I

brought up these points (Message #4762) and look at Raja_Ram's

responses. Note that although he has posted responses, and although

he has been free from moderation since that time, nevertheless he

never responded to these points.

In fact, while we are on that subject, let me also recall the

arguments we had previously, which Raja_Ram also ignored.

Raja_Ram claimed in the past that "maayaavaada," even as used by

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas in their writings, does not refer to Advaita but

instead to some other philosophy. I asked Raja_Ram to describe which

philosophy was actually this "maayavaada" and which commentary was

actually this "maayavaada bhaashya" in order to prove his point.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

(but he remains steadfast in his view that Advaita is not maayavaada

according to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas and our equating the two is a fault

on our part)

Raja_Ram claimed that Shankara never equated the jiiva to Brahman.

But when I quoted his exact statements from Vivekachuudaamani (see

Message 3948) in which he did in fact do this, Raja_Ram dismissed it

as a "maayavaadi translation." Though he was never able to translate

it himself. Now, subsequently, he claims that the jiiva *is* Brahman,

which members may recall was the basis of the alleged "flaw" which he

found in GV siddhaanta regarding the particle-like jiiva.

Raja_Ram claimed that the Padma Puraana was interpolated, and

consequently objected to the section describing Lord Shiva's descent

as a braahmana would would spread maayavaada. I asked for his

evidence that this particular section was interpolated.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

When that did not work, Raja_Ram argued that since other Vaishnavas

have not commented on Padma Puraana, Padma Puraana is therefore

heavily interpolated and one can ignore everything in it if one

choose (see Message 3986). I asked him to show how not commenting on

something makes it interpolated and unfit for quoting in discussion.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

Raja_Ram claimed that the Puraana must be received in a Vaishnava

paramparaa in order to be regarded as pristine; otherwise, the claims

of interpolation remain. Yet he quoted the opinions of M. Winternitz

and PSS Shastri that Padma Puraana sections in question were

interpolated. I asked him to demonstrate what the paramparaa is of

Winternitz and Shaastri, and why they take precedence over Srila

Prabhupada's paramparaa and their opinions. (Message 3986)

Raja_Ram ignored that.

Raja_Ram claimed that the Giitaa 2.16 states that the jiiva is

illusory. I challenged him to substantiate that view.

Raja_Ram ignored that.

Raja_Ram claims that Shankara's views are not maayavaada. I asked

Raja_Ram to show from Shankara's writings where it is that he accepts

that (1) Krishna's individuality and personality remain so even on

the liberated platform, and (2) that the jiivas remain eternally

distinct and render devotional service to the Lord on the liberated

platform. (see message 4030)

Raja_Ram ignored that.

Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I would never sleep if

I had to mention each and every point Raja_Ram ignored so that he

could keep arguing. All of this merely serves to illustrate why

Achintya is moderated, and why one of the rules on Achintya is as

follows:

"6) Sincere, even controversial discussions are acceptable, but

stubborn argumentativeness is not. Examples of the latter include,

but are not limited to: (6.1) Strawman arguments, or in other words,

criticizing an opinion attributed to an opponent even when it is

obvious that he/she never wrote such an opinion, (6.2) Evasive

arguments, or in other words, deliberately ignoring answers or

evidence offered in previous postings and rehashing an argument as if

it had never been answered, and (6.3) repeatedly ignoring requests to

substantiate opinions with evidence. These kinds of arguments merely

lengthen the daily list mailings and waste the time of those who

participate."

Raja_Ram makes many claims about what Shankara wrote or did not

write. But he rarely quotes Shankara at all. Thus it is only

reasonable to wonder whether Raja_Ram is properly representing

Shankara, or merely his own vision of Shankara (Shankara

revisionism?). Hence, another rule of Achintya is:

"3) Avoid arguments based solely on unsubstantiated personal

opinions. One must quote from primary sources (scriptures and/or

their commentaries, the writings of aachaaryas, etc), especially when

requested to do so. Postings which repeatedly and knowingly express

opinions contrary to guru, saadhu, and shaastra will not be accepted."

All of this illustrates why Achintya is moderated, and why, contrary

to the expectations of some critics, it is not a forum for "endless

wrangling" or "mundane arguments." But of course, if some members

cannot follow the above rules, and I am not allowed to enforce those

rules for fear of accusations of "moderator bias," then the forum

does indeed become a place of endless arguments which go nowhere.

Now, keep in mind that Raja_Ram has been unmoderated for the past one

week and continues to remain so. He is the only member whose postings

go through automatically, because everyone else is prepared to follow

the rules while Raja_ram refuses to do so.

Taking advantage of his new freedoms, Raja_ram has posted an article

entitled "Re: some of the flaws in GVV and how advaitam resolves it."

Raghu_sury and Sumeet both posted responses, but these responses have

gone ignored as of this writing. <--- This appears to be the fate of

the "no moderation" policy - self-appointed critics of Srila

Prabhupada and the Gaudiiya siddhaanta just keep harping on

new "flaws" which they imagine, only to ignore the rejoinders and

look for something else to criticize.

Has this freedom to post raised the standards of debate here?

Has Raja_ram actually proven anything he has set out to prove, now or

in the recent past?

I do not feel that it/he has. But others may have a different

opinion. So, Raja_Ram will stay unmoderated for now. In fact, I am

going to remove the moderation requirement for everyone. After all,

if Raja_Ram can say whatever he wants, why not allow others the same

freedom?

As of today, Achintya is now an unmoderated forum with respect to

postings, at least temporarily. I will take a poll of member opinions

after one month and decide whether to return Achintya to moderation

or not. Members can feel free to vote for it to remain unmoderated if

they want - I promise I won't take it personally. I'm just tired of

being accused of all sorts of things by people who don't know how to

carry out a mature discussion.

PLEASE NOTE: If anyone posts anything that is blatantly offensive or

irrelevant (attacks on aachaaryas, blatant character attacks,

matrimonials, advertisements) I will simply delete the postings when

I find them and kick the offenders off. Considers yourselves

forewarned. "No moderation" simply means that all postings get

automatically approved.

July 19, 2004

Hare Krishna,

I think one simple question to ask raja_ram is if he's initiated in Sankara's

sampradaya by a bonafide guru, especially when he makes a revolutionary claim

that Sankara's original teachings are not understood properly by his 'mayavada'

followers!

If he's not, then I don't think it is possible to have any meaningful debate,

particularly when he doesn't care to address the points! - it is simply a waste

of time

I have always wondered why he never raised the issue (that Sankara's advaita is

not mayavada and that he was actually a vaishnava) in an advaitic forum - I do

know you he's a member there!

in your service,

Aravind.

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: