Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 advaitajnana , Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: A comment on my losing my seat on due to people insecure with their devotion........... --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Caspar De Groot <caspardegroot wrote: Caspar De Groot <caspardegroot Re: A personal view. jeff Cc: not_2, aoclery, Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 6:38 PM Hi Jeff, (cc: Peter, Tony) You wrote: " A recent exchange cost someone his seat here. " Indeed. I posted a lengthy message in regard to this matter, expressing my reservations about the group's reaction to a dissenting voice. And guess what? My message got " moderated " . I've attached it here. Be careful who you trust. Regards, Caspar. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Jeff Belyea <jeff wrote: Jeff Belyea <jeff A personal view. Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:34 PM It seems that there are 'teachers' with incredible clarity, and testimony of powerful life-changing awakenings... but then some seem to narrow their POV (point of view) and argue with the model of POV from which another awakened is coming. A recent exchange cost someone his seat here. Sankara recognized this, and his philosophy was so open as to even refer to a 'sort of' reality in maya - that only 'exists' (sort of) before awakening - or from a singular POV. 'The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.' --- from http://www.sankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php Jeff PS: A recent post of mine may have seemed off the wall and irrelevant to this group; the one about " Walk Ins " . By way of explanation, I was looking for analogy with Ramana's shift from the I sense of being to the awakend I-I, the " Walk In " may have been too much of a stretch, and just a stroll through the field of vivid imagination. --- Hm, so Tony can't post anymore. I don't know the guy, so I reviewed his recent posts. They don't seem to be uncivil, and in fact he tried to abort the recent discussion in several posts, noticing himself that it wasn't going anywhere. What is also worth pointing out, is that in the recent discussion Tony never said that the teachings of Ramana and/or Shankara were wrong. He was just claiming to make an addition to them. Furthermore, regarding the distinction between saguna and nirguna brahman, as far as I recall Ramana never really elucidated that. It appears that sometimes he did indeed refer to the Unborn/Unmanifest with the term " Self " , but at other times he seemed to have been referring to *Being*, which, I agree with Tony, is *not* the Unmanifest. And I agree with this not on the basis of academics, but on the basis of simply having seen pure Being. This insight cannot be conveyed, but anyone that's had it, knows it beyond doubt. This pure Being is most definitely *manifest*. As for the Unmanifest, I have no direct realization of it, but whatever it is, it cannot be pure Being. Perhaps Ramana's insight evolved over the course of his life and he came to re-define certain terms for himself, or perhaps certain distinctions were lost in translation. That the latter can happen should be obvious, for example, from the mistake made by Godman, of equating Turiya and Turiyatita in the introduction to Teachings. And this kind of mistake may be indicative of another problem: many a seeker/follower/devotee hopes so much that his level of insight is *the* insight, that he starts wiping evidence to the contrary, under the rug. It is odd that a scholar such as Godman deluded himself that a man like Ramana would use two clearly related but different terms to refer to the same state. Turiya and turiyatita are as different as the terms " natural " and " supernatural " , and would certainly not have been used interchangeably by the sage. I dare suggest that some here (Peter?) are equally eager to close their eyes to possibly dissonant information. In general, Peter, you allow yourself quite a bit of room when you interpret Ramana's teachings. Apparently several on this group were quite impressed with your rebuttal of Tony's point re. nirguna vs. saguna brahman, but I found it rather wobbly. In particular, you slip up severely with this bit: " Nir-guna means to be without attributes (without gunas). Only something that truly exists (whose Being is Real) can be without something else. " Uh no, you're getting this really, really wrong. Anything that *exists* inevitably has gunas. You then continue to restate the same fallacy as follows: " A non-existent thing simply doesn't exist and can therefore neither possess attributes nor be without them. " What's ironic and even sad, is that it's been suggested on somewhere in the discussion that Tony's posts might be misleading to new seekers, while in fact you are doing the misleading here -- although I'm sure you didn't mean to. Last, to find out a little bit more about Tony, I Googled his name. This revealed an enormous can of worms. Assuming that there is some truth to all the dirt, and assuming that the Tony that's been posting here, and the infamous Tony O'Clery that Google turns up, are one and the same, I must say that he's been extremely well-behaved in the recent discussion -- and not at all lacking " self control " as Harsha was saying. Quite to the contrary, he seems to have shed some bad habits, and it's regrettable that that's not being acknowledged. Perhaps the recent discussion rubbed old wounds with some of the moderators here, I don't know. Anyway, from where I'm standing, Tony's recent posts hardly seem reason to put him on " permanent moderation " . In closing, what bothers me in general is that the tolerance for dissent is prettylow on groups like this. Dissenters get treated with a mix of condescenscion, mockery and abuse, and finally " moderation " . Some of you might object that you have been " reasonable " with Tony by offering counter arguments supported with references etc., but actually that's exactly what I mean by condescension. You're really not being " reasonable " when you respond with scripture quotes and Advaita 101 to a poster that's obviously done his homework. And in fact, the eagerness to revert to quoting scripture betrays a lack of confidence in your own insight. Regards, Caspar. , " Harsha " <harsha@> wrote: > > Dear Tony, > <SNIP> > On the advice of several good people and in agreement with them, you are > again being placed on moderation. This time permanently. > <SNIP> --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > advaitajnana , Tony O'Clery <aoclery@> wrote: > > A comment on my losing my seat on due to people > insecure with their devotion...........> > --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Caspar De Groot <caspardegroot@> wrote: > > > Caspar De Groot <caspardegroot@> > Re: A personal view. > jeff@ > Cc: not_2@, aoclery@, > Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 6:38 PM > > > Hi Jeff, (cc: Peter, Tony) > > You wrote: " A recent exchange cost someone his seat here. " > > Indeed. I posted a lengthy message in regard to this matter, > expressing my reservations about the group's reaction to a dissenting > voice. > > And guess what? My message got " moderated " . I've attached it here. > > Be careful who you trust. > > Regards, > Caspar. > > > > --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Jeff Belyea <jeff@> wrote: > > Jeff Belyea <jeff@> > A personal view. > > Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > It seems that there are 'teachers' with > incredible clarity, and testimony of > powerful life-changing awakenings... > > but then some seem to narrow their > POV (point of view) and argue with > the model of POV from which another > awakened is coming. A recent exchange > cost someone his seat here. > > Sankara recognized this, and his > philosophy was so open as to even > refer to a 'sort of' reality in maya - > that only 'exists' (sort of) before > awakening - or from a singular > POV. > > 'The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara > is impersonal. It becomes a personal > God or Saguna Brahman only through > Its association with Maya.' > > --- from http://www.sankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php > > Jeff > > PS: A recent post of mine may have > seemed off the wall and irrelevant > to this group; the one about " Walk Ins " . > By way of explanation, I was looking > for analogy with Ramana's shift from > the I sense of being to the awakend I-I, > the " Walk In " may have been too > much of a stretch, and just a stroll > through the field of vivid imagination. > > > --- > > Hm, so Tony can't post anymore. I don't know the guy, so I reviewed > his recent posts. They don't seem to be uncivil, and in fact he tried > to abort the recent discussion in several posts, noticing himself that > it wasn't going anywhere. What is also worth pointing out, is that in > the recent discussion Tony never said that the teachings of Ramana > and/or Shankara were wrong. He was just claiming to make an addition > to them. > > Furthermore, regarding the distinction between saguna and nirguna > brahman, as far as I recall Ramana never really elucidated that. It > appears that sometimes he did indeed refer to the Unborn/Unmanifest > with the term " Self " , but at other times he seemed to have been > referring to *Being*, which, I agree with Tony, is *not* the > Unmanifest. And I agree with this not on the basis of academics, but > on the basis of simply having seen pure Being. This insight cannot be > conveyed, but anyone that's had it, knows it beyond doubt. This pure > Being is most definitely *manifest*. As for the Unmanifest, I have no > direct realization of it, but whatever it is, it cannot be pure Being. > > Perhaps Ramana's insight evolved over the course of his life and he > came to re-define certain terms for himself, or perhaps certain > distinctions were lost in translation. That the latter can happen > should be obvious, for example, from the mistake made by Godman, of > equating Turiya and Turiyatita in the introduction to Teachings. And > this kind of mistake may be indicative of another problem: many a > seeker/follower/devotee hopes so much that his level of insight is > *the* insight, that he starts wiping evidence to the contrary, under > the rug. It is odd that a scholar such as Godman deluded himself that > a man like Ramana would use two clearly related but different terms to > refer to the same state. Turiya and turiyatita are as different as the > terms " natural " and " supernatural " , and would certainly not have been > used interchangeably by the sage. > > I dare suggest that some here (Peter?) are equally eager to close > their eyes to possibly dissonant information. In general, Peter, you > allow yourself quite a bit of room when you interpret Ramana's > teachings. Apparently several on this group were quite impressed with > your rebuttal of Tony's point re. nirguna vs. saguna brahman, but I > found it rather wobbly. In particular, you slip up severely with this > bit: > > " Nir-guna means to be without attributes (without gunas). Only > something that truly exists (whose Being is Real) can be without > something else. " > > Uh no, you're getting this really, really wrong. Anything that > *exists* inevitably has gunas. You then continue to restate the same > fallacy as follows: > > " A non-existent thing simply doesn't exist and can therefore neither > possess attributes nor be without them. " > > What's ironic and even sad, is that it's been suggested on somewhere > in the discussion that Tony's posts might be misleading to new > seekers, while in fact you are doing the misleading here -- although > I'm sure you didn't mean to. > > Last, to find out a little bit more about Tony, I Googled his name. > This revealed an enormous can of worms. Assuming that there is some > truth to all the dirt, and assuming that the Tony that's been posting > here, and the infamous Tony O'Clery that Google turns up, are one and > the same, I must say that he's been extremely well-behaved in the > recent discussion -- and not at all lacking " self control " as Harsha > was saying. Quite to the contrary, he seems to have shed some bad > habits, and it's regrettable that that's not being acknowledged. > > Perhaps the recent discussion rubbed old wounds with some of the > moderators here, I don't know. Anyway, from where I'm standing, Tony's > recent posts hardly seem reason to put him on " permanent moderation " . > > In closing, what bothers me in general is that the tolerance for > dissent is prettylow on groups like this. Dissenters get treated with > a mix of condescenscion, mockery and abuse, and finally " moderation " . > Some of you might object that you have been " reasonable " with Tony by > offering counter arguments supported with references etc., but > actually that's exactly what I mean by condescension. You're really > not being " reasonable " when you respond with scripture quotes and > Advaita 101 to a poster that's obviously done his homework. And in > fact, the eagerness to revert to quoting scripture betrays a lack of > confidence in your own insight. > > Regards, > Caspar. > > > , " Harsha " <harsha@> wrote: > > > > Dear Tony, > > > <SNIP> > > > On the advice of several good people and in agreement with them, > you are > > again being placed on moderation. This time permanently. > > > > <SNIP> > > --- End forwarded message --- uh...huh. so it's all about Tony. Whew! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Namaste, No its not about Tony, only when other people make it so...I wish they wouldn't .....Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Namaste, > > No its not about Tony, only when other people make it so...I wish they > wouldn't .....> i'm not interested in that either. and most likely no one else is. just drop your concerns.. especially as they concern yourself. what 'others' are of concern to you? take the log out of your own eye.. before concerning yourself with twigs.. in the eyes of imaginary others. if you feel yourself without sin.. cast the first stone. otherwise..leaver the dead to bury the ded. let them judge you but do not judge in return. the only one you hurt is you.. and there isn't even really a 'you' from the beginning. " get it " ? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > No its not about Tony, only when other people make it so...I wish they > > wouldn't .....> > > > > > i'm not interested in that either. > > and most likely no one else is. > > just drop your concerns.. > > especially as they concern yourself. > > what 'others' are of concern to you? > > take the log out of your own eye.. > > before concerning yourself with twigs.. > > in the eyes of imaginary others. > > if you feel yourself without sin.. > > cast the first stone. > > otherwise..leaver the dead to bury the ded. > > let them judge you but do not judge in return. > > the only one you hurt is you.. > > and there isn't even really a 'you' from the beginning. > > " get it " ? > > .b b.b. > No do you 'get it' your are such a pompous supercilious prig.......Tony 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.