Moderation

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> > This is the same basic fault as Shankara, although Madhva does

> > come to the conclusion of

> > Vishnu-sarvottama.

>

> sumeet is discussing madhwa - gaudiya issue and in this context

this

> is an uncalled for attack on sankara.

 

Gerald is making a point about Gaudiya views on Madhva by using

Gaudiya views on Shankara as an example. I see nothing wrong with the

above. Ram, you are overreacting.

 

is sankara's work as an example

> for any thing faulty ? is this is the standard of respect you are

> taught to to have for other schools of vedanta ?

 

Having respect is not the same thing as agreeing.

 

what to expect when

> some bonafide leaders of iskcon have called sankara's

philosophy "wet

> stool".

 

I don't know what "bonafide leaders" of ISKCON have said about it or

what that has to do with this discussion. I would never make such a

comment, but this is not an ISKCON forum anyway. And you need to

avoid making accusations about other individuals without providing

specific evidence.

 

i wont be surprised if sankara's work is cited as an example

> if your kids do their home work wrong.

>

> krishna_susarla, now you may better understand why sometimes your

> request for debate is ignored.

 

Fine by me. Please feel free to post elsewhere. This is neither an

ISKCON forum nor an Advaita forum. When I moderated you, you

complained about it. Now I have lifted moderation on everyone

including you, and you still complain about it.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either you learn to follow the rules

that everyone else follows, or you put up with everyone else being

unmoderated so that you can participate without moderation.

 

In my opinion, it is your inability to make clear, coherent, and

evidence-based arguments in your defense that makes you frustrated

with this forum. You have to get used to the idea that most people

here don't agree with Shankara. If you cannot see the difference

between "disagreeing" with Shankara and "disrespecting" Shankara,

then there is nothing further to say. If you can control your temper

and limit your discussions to philosphical disagreements regarding

Shankara, then you might find this a useful place to hash out your

ideas.

 

I am not moderating anymore, so I can hardly be accused of bias. I

only delete things that are blatantly offensive, irrelevant, etc. I

would very much like if people on this forum could develop a standard

of debate that includes understanding what is said by the opposite

party and then responding (if at all) based on evidence rather than

opinion or unfounded speculation.