One last time

[Guest guest]

I have said this before and I will say it again. This will be the

last time. Ram, either answer my questions first or stop expecting

any answers to yours.

 

Note the word "FIRST." It does not mean ignore my questions, and then

promise to answer them only after throwing out challenges of your

own.

 

My level of patience is worn thin. I only unmoderated this group

because you seem utterly incapable of reading the rules, choosing

instead to hurl all kinds of accusations at me in private because of

your inability to follow them. I guess this is what Advaitins do to

level the playing field; since they cannot defend their philosophy,

they just attack anyone who disagrees.

 

Now that I have removed moderation for the sake of encouraging

intelligent debate, you have proceeded to fill this list with useless

noise devoted solely to the propagation of your particular version of

Advaita propaganda. Somehow, I thought that you would take it upon

yourself to read the rules and follow them, but apparently I was

mistaken. One of those rules you will recall refers to not prolonging

arguments needlessly (by avoiding questions, etc). I was hoping to

encourage intelligent debate; fanatics who cannot even write in

complete sentences don't fit that bill.

 

I think I would rather prefer your accusations of my alleged bias via

e-mail then the noise you currently visit upon this list.

 

Here is my ultimatum to you, concerned as I am with preserving this

list's spirit. Your next posting will answer the questions I posed to

you in the messages I referenced earlier. If you post something else,

I will delete your messages and remove you from this list permanently.

 

I think we both know how this will end up. You will leave because you

have no answers to the questions I raised. And yet you demand answers

to your challenges. Well, you can't have it both ways. Debate

requires give and take. You are doing a lot of taking, but not much

giving.

 

If anyone else here thinks Raja_Ram's arguments are intelligent and

thought provoking, I will take that into consideration. Otherwise, he

had better start answering the challenges put to him before offering

any further challenges of his own. If he cannot comprehend this, then

he gets the boot.

 

Raja_Ram's example has truly become the epitome of "useless

argumentation." I will have no more of it here.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

> I have said this before and I will say it again. This will be the

> last time. Ram, either answer my questions first or stop expecting

> any answers to yours.

>

> Note the word "FIRST." It does not mean ignore my questions, and

then

> promise to answer them only after throwing out challenges of your

> own.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Well i will suggest that we start a fresh. I mean lets take one

question at a time and give him the chance to answer. Raja Ram you

can choose which one to start with. We will go question by question.

In this way things will be clear from the outset. See forget the past

and lets start afresh. Make sure all your answer have proper

references[acarya, book and verse numbers etc...] and of course you

are free to build your arguement on them. This is essential for a

meaningful debate.

 

I guess you would be aware of the following from Nyaya darshan:

 

Vaad [DIALOGUE/DISCUSSION]: (Com)passionate deliberation between two

parties [could be teacher/disciple] carried out ***with a mutually

shared curiosity*** to find out the ultimate fact or truth.

 

Jalpa [bALDERDASH]: It simply represents unmindful adherence to some

logic either in favour or against anything with a desire to win over

the situation in any condition. The main feature of balderdash is

that a party tries to prove its point without solid footing [usually

specious "arguments" of the hit-and-run type].

 

I think we all should follow the first type - Vaad. Please do

cooperate with us. As i said LETS START AFRESH.

 

Its totally upto you to pick anyone. I request everyone including the

moderator to kindly let him make a start. Once one issue is resolved

we can move to other. And it is in best interest of both parties to

keep discussion on philosophical topics.

 

Raja Ram lets follow Mahaprabhu's example. He simply sat there with

mayavadis in varanasi and engaged in vaada as mentioned above. We

will do the same here. Lets make discussion philosophical. I mean

based on tenets of Advaita and Gaudiya/Vaishnava siddhanta. No point

arguing over this verse is interpolated, you quoted false scripture

etc..... such bablings are of no use. Lets apply logic to understand

what Srutis says. In my opinion Krishna prabhu won't mind if you

ignore any of his or anyone elses non philosophical questions

[provided you don't raise non phil. issues again] and only stick to

debate on things philosophically significant like advaita theory of

maya or jiva brahma ekatva etc......... We are more than happy to

have someone who can discuss advaita here with us. If you think

Gaudiyas know just to quote Padma Purana verse against Sankara and

they have nothing else, then you are mistaken. We vaishnavas can

offer scriptural defence for all of our tenets.

 

Last time when you raised that issue on jivaatman i didn't have

Govinda bhasya with me, but now since i have it i can get actively

involved too.

 

Lets together try to determine what is truth - advaitam or

vaishnavism through a vaada type discussion. Its a simple request

from myside. I wonder if you know Sankara's advaita and you have

materials[advaita sastra] in your possesion then why do you not share

it here substantiating your personal thoughts ?

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

 

> Well i will suggest that we start a fresh. I mean lets take one

 

Suggestion noted. But ultimately not practical. Any and all of

Gaudiiya Vaishnava criticisms of Advaita will be brushed aside by

Raja Ram based on his revisionist theory that they refer to some

other "mayavadi commentator" on the Vedaanta besides Shankaraachaarya.

 

Before hearing anything else, Raja Ram needs to establish who is this

other Mayavadi commentator on Vedaanta who is mentioned in Chaitanya

Charitamrita and who is taken by Prabhupada and others to be

Sankaraachaarya. If he cannot provide the identity of this "mayavadi

commentator" and some good reasons why it has to be this individual

and not Shankaraachaarya, then he must conceed his error and admit

that CC does refer to Shankaraachaarya in its criticisms of mayavada.

 

Once we get past this point, we can discuss Sri Jiva Gosvami's

criticisms of Advaita as described in the Sandarbhas. But first let

us put to rest this revisionist theory that they are criticizing the

philosophy of someone other than Shankaraachaarya.

 

Like I said, he can begin by answering this question, either by

supporting his point or admitting his mistake, or he can post

elsewhere.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

 

> Before hearing anything else, Raja Ram needs to establish who is

this

> other Mayavadi commentator on Vedaanta who is mentioned in

Chaitanya

> Charitamrita and who is taken by Prabhupada and others to be

> Sankaraachaarya. If he cannot provide the identity of

this "mayavadi

> commentator" and some good reasons why it has to be this individual

> and not Shankaraachaarya, then he must conceed his error and admit

> that CC does refer to Shankaraachaarya in its criticisms of

mayavada.

>

 

In response to this, after publicly disagreeing with Prabhupada's

view, as well as the common sense view, that the mayavadi commentator

referred to in CC is in fact Shankaraachaarya, Raja_Ram now claims

that only a tri-kaala-jna can know the identity of this commentator.

This posting is waiting for approval at this time.

 

So, on one hand he knows it is not Shankaraachaarya. No reason given

as to why. But on the other hand, he is not tri-kaala jna, so he does

not have to tell us who that mayavadi commentator is.

 

This is what is known as incorrigible.

 

Furthermore, Raja_ram now claims that Caitanya Caritamrta is not an

authority on Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's teachings. He makes various

claims of contradictions, none of which he provides any evidence to

support. Then he argues that actually it is merely the fiction

invented by Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja - "what you attribute to caitanya

should actually be attributed to krishnadasa."

 

Sumeet, Raja_Ram's challenges are getting so incredibly ludicrous

that I fail to see what actual value they pose for this group. Please

carry on your conversation with him in private, if you wish. If you

can convince him to start saying something that sounds even remotely

sensible, whether it is in agreement with us or in disagreement with

us, then maybe he will manage to get a posting through. As it is, I

feel like I held up my end by spelling out the requirements for his

continued membership here, which he has failed.