Loveology

September 13, 2002

Mahak

Surfing the web and on an off-chance saw your comments.

Please post comments about Loveology there so that people can discuss.

It is incorrect to come to 3rd party websites before discussing there.

Most websites have policies and so discuss it there.

September 13, 2002

Forum Policy Quote

"Some unchanging opinions against philosophy over time become like nodules on a tree that stifle personal growth thus forum cleaned for audience needs"

http://www.loveology.com/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=6716059311&f=2886011411

stonehearted · September 13, 2002

Our anonymous Guest wrote, of Luvology's policy: "Some unchanging opinions against philosophy over time become like nodules on a tree that stifle personal growth thus forum cleaned for audience needs."

So we're left to presume that some convictions (read: most likely those that don't jibe with Guest &co.'s unchanging opinions) are "against philosophy," (whatever that means--presumably whatever Luvology wants it to mean) are parasitic and must be excised, while the unchanging opinions of Guest & crew, regardless of how clearly they fly in the face of the philosophy given Sri Rupa and Sanatan, must be propagated.

Just wondering.

September 14, 2002

The initiation methodology argument has been completed in the last 9 months.

So Stonehearted (!) & Mahak should not deliberately (Closedmind classification) ignore this.

stonehearted · September 14, 2002

Our esteemed Guest writes: "The initiation methodology argument has been completed in the last 9 months."

stone: I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that no one argues this point anymore? (I doubt it.) Or that a conclusion has been reached? (I hadn't heard. If so, to whose satisfaction?) I'd be delighted if you'd share new, conclusive evidence here that is also supported by guru, sahdu, and shastra. I'm not as closed-minded as you might think. The fact is that there are serveral variants of the ISKCON ritvik idea. The idea was introduced to discussions among devotees rather late (not until the late '80s, if I remember correctly), and one of the original proponents lives here on this island, a short drive from my house. We visit somewhat frequently, and heand his wife are very generous, gracious hosts.

I have discussed the issue with many of its proponents. Many of them are long-time, close friends (not just acquaintances), and the problem is that they haven't yet presented evidence that convinces me that this is indeed what Srila Prabhupada intended and that it is consistent with the teachings of the Goswamis. I am, as I have said before, in accord with hem regarding the problems in ISKCON, especially since November '77, and find the idea intriguing. But I can no longer respond on the basis of sentiment or just go along to get along. As mahaksha mentioned, he and I have done so as many times as we could.

Show me something I haven't seen. My mind is not closed, just trained. I teach critical thinking at the college level, so I need real evidence. (Lately, the poison-vadie have made a case that the lack of evidence is proof. That ain't enough, yet.) And I'm trained in rhetoric, so I've been very interested in the manner in which discussion of issues are discussed. In this case, I'm not particularly impressed with the way either the ritviks or the GBC apologists have conducted themselves. I attended the entire "debate" in San Diego in the early '90s (I lived just a block from the temple), and was very disappointed with both parties (and party spirit was very much in evidence). Both sides "argued" more like lawyer wannabes than like vaishnavas--looking for openings to score points rather than looking for truth.

Short version? I'm listening, but you gotta give me something here.

September 14, 2002

Stonehearted(!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Your personal posts were telling in the phase of the initiation methodology arguments and also other posts. So your personal (closeminded) opinions are predictable. Copy and pasted is answer to Theist(!!!!!!!!!!!!!) because your personal invitation is a trap:

Having a qualities is positive but Theist (!) you give Theology a bad name if others have to keep repeating the answers to your same questions. This is not a quality and reflects a

Closedmind. So it is just as that game eg:

(Emphasis through repetition)

Statement: The world is round cuz.....etc