Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 Ah, such enthusiasm! My gosh, friends, it would require a greater genius than myself to keep up with the varied nature of your comments! >From Greg__ However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. The boat used to cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed. Upon crossing the river, the boat, the rider, and the river as well disappear into the Self. Greg: This is agreed upon by virtually all teachers in the non-dual traditions. Check your sources on this, Greg. There's nary a Buddhist alive who would ever use the word 'Self', (capitalized or not) to indicate 'enlightenment' or any experience of the absolute of the transcendental variety. The word Self connotes a metaphysicalized statement: a hypostatization of absolutistic experience that cannot absolutized. Enlightened Shaivites would not describe their enlightenment in such terms. We simply say: I Am. We experience all experience as our own body. We don't disappear at all--we vibrate with the effervescence of our own. No taoist would characterize enlightenment experience as above. Neither have Christian mystics that I have read. Now, our friend Harshaji is trying to get away with a lot in his statement. First, he says that the boat will arrive and leave us where we no longer need the boat, the river and so forth. However, the 'place' that Harshaji claims the boat will take us is none other than the vedantic metaphysical interpretation for that 'place.' So, we've got a lovely statement with a number of underlying assertions that are vedantic interpretations of Experience. Of course, this is fine. So long as one does not undertake to claim that ALL experience will result in EXACTLY THE SAME interpretation. Tim: Madhya, I must ask you, from what authority do you speak? Has someone sanctioned you as a realized sage? Since you seem to value authority yourself, I must ask, what are your qualifications for making the statements you have? Now, Tim, why do I need sanctioning to recognize a value judgement when I hear one? Harsha's statement: "Meditation and Samadhi are wonderful and yet can lead to an imagined spiritual superiority and hierarchy." is a VALUE judgement. It is not based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. This may be Harshaji's opinion. That is fine, but then Harshaji ought to state it as his opinion, rather than a 'declaration of fact.' Or, perhaps he ought to offer further clarification and evidential support to explain why he makes this value judgement. Tim, I took some effort in my post to include several examples and quotes from widely accepted spiritual masters, historical and contemporary--from various traditions--that supported my claim that meditation and samadhi are indeed excellent 'communions' with the Divine, or Absolute. And, I added my own 'witness' as our friend Harsha did, to that list. Why then, Tim, do you ask your question? Harshaji writes: "Clever logic and beautiful words are fine and might be useful. But they are of no use in becoming silent." My view is that most of what passes for jnana is "clever logic," (only not so logical) and that while beautiful words may be spoken about boats and rivers and 'self', this may have nothing to do with the use value of these words to lead seekers toward enlightenment. In order for jnana to work at all, one must make the immediate 'leap of faith' that the metaphysical presumptions inherent in the jnana view of Reality are correct, for that is the foundation of jnana. In my view, they are incorrect, and my perspective is that attempting to gain practical experience of the Absolute cannot be served by the "clever logic and beautiful words" of vedantic jnana. Vedanta is, in my view, pseudo-nondualism. It just doesnt wash. >From Harshaji: "However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. The boat used to cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed." This sounds nice. But the writer of this passage pretty much paddles only one canoe. Leading one to ask, when one has reached the other side and abandoned all ways and means, does h/she then also truly leave behind the canoe and the river? Indeed, the question must be asked, "Can one ever truly leave the canoe at all?" The metaphysical presumpion, (clever logic), imbedded in the above assertion is that 'getting there' is a static 'being there' and that implies the assumption that there is nowhere else to go. This may be fine for some, I don't deny this. But it is NOT the wholesale experience of all who experience "enlightenment" nor can it be. Buddhist master Labsant Gyatso says: "Awareness can go from almost a blank mind, almost no awareness whatsoever, to an infinite feeling, an infinite awareness. It can increase without any limit whatsoever." You will forgive me, friends, if I cannot address all of your many concerns regarding my post(s). But allow me to say that if I have appeared to be arrogant to some, let me apologize. This is not my intention. Like most of you, I discourse for the love of writing and of dialogue and of God/Self/No-Self/Christ/Allah/Shiva/Kali.... Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 This is Part I. I'll have to finish up with Part II later. --Greg >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >Ah, such enthusiasm! That's because you are so much fun to talk to!! >However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. The boat used to >cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed. Upon crossing the >river, >the boat, the rider, and the river as well disappear into the Self. > >Greg: > >This is agreed upon by virtually all teachers in the non-dual traditions. > >Check your sources on this, Greg. There's nary a Buddhist alive who would >ever use the word 'Self', (capitalized or not) to indicate 'enlightenment' >or any experience of the absolute of the transcendental variety. You're right about that. What I meant to emphasize as the point of agreement was not the concept of the boat, the river or the Self. But rather the last phrase, about the ultimate disappearance. Even the conduit or the means that seemed to have carried you there will have to disappear. Even the "there" disappears. On this, Buddhists do agree, at least in the Zen tradition. Here is one of my favorite mondos on this point: The student comes to the Master and says, "I don't have anything." The master says, "Then put it down." The student replies, "If I don't have anything, how can I put it down?" The Master says, "Very well, then, carry it away with you." --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:44:50 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya writes: >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >Ah, such enthusiasm! > >My gosh, friends, it would require a greater genius than myself to >keep up with the varied nature of your comments! > There are no geniuses here, Madhyaji, to "keep up" is a matter of time and attention, which we apportion according to the propensities of our nominally individual incarnations. > >From Greg__ > >However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. The boat used to > >cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed. Upon crossing >the >river, >the boat, the rider, and the river as well disappear into the Self. > >Greg: > >This is agreed upon by virtually all teachers in the non-dual >traditions. > >Check your sources on this, Greg. There's nary a Buddhist alive who >would >ever use the word 'Self', (capitalized or not) to indicate >'enlightenment' >or any experience of the absolute of the transcendental variety. The >word >Self connotes a metaphysicalized statement: a hypostatization of >absolutistic experience that cannot absolutized. > As Sri Ramana might have put it, such semantic distinctions are surely "for scholars." Because my first communicative influence in such matters was J. Krishnamurti, the use of "Self" in the capitalized sense was and remains anathemic to me as a writer, and I find the Buddhist avoidance of such terms quite energetic and effective as pointing. When we postulate "Self," "Brahma," or "God" we unavoidably diminish that which thought actually cannot touch, let alone grasp. Communicative preferences aside, I have every confidence that the perceptual states of Sri Ramana and Gautama Buddha were identical in essence. >Enlightened Shaivites would not describe their enlightenment in such >terms. >We simply say: I Am. We experience all experience as our own body. >We >don't disappear at all--we vibrate with the effervescence of our own. > >No taoist would characterize enlightenment experience as above. > >Neither have Christian mystics that I have read. > Let us not confuse charactarization -- yet another communicative preference -- for substantive difference in consciousness itself. No "ism" has a monopoly on "the effervescence" you note, it is a natural aspect of the state that all authentic sages point toward in their distinctive ways, that distinction being one of communicative emphasis rather than conscious state. >Now, our friend Harshaji is trying to get away with a lot in his >statement. Harshacharya contains multitudes, non of whom have in my experience ever been evasive. >First, he says that the boat will arrive and leave us where we no >longer >need the boat, the river and so forth. However, the 'place' that >Harshaji >claims the boat will take us is none other than the vedantic >metaphysical >interpretation for that 'place.' ....and you know this exactly how, Madhyaji? >So, we've got a lovely statement with a >number of underlying assertions that are vedantic interpretations of >Experience. Of course, this is fine. So long as one does not >undertake to >claim that ALL experience will result in EXACTLY THE SAME >interpretation. > To dispense with this in the most universal mannar I can muster, "interpretation" is yet another instance of communicative preference. To find the commonality that underlies such apparent differences, it surely behooves us to see through to the authentic resonance between and behind what are, after all, merely words. >Tim: Madhya, I must ask you, from what authority do you speak? Has >someone >sanctioned you as a realized sage? Since you seem to value authority >yourself, I must ask, what are your qualifications for making the >statements >you have? > >Now, Tim, why do I need sanctioning to recognize a value judgement >when I >hear one? Harsha's statement: "Meditation and Samadhi are wonderful >and >yet can lead to an imagined spiritual superiority and hierarchy." is a >VALUE >judgement. It is not based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. Of course it isn't -- but do read Harshacharya's sentence with the close attention it deserves -- he indicates a *possibility* of (rather than a causal relationship to) a certain ilk of outcome. I don't know of any "empirical evidence" to the contrary, and frankly have found it to be true often enough to see it as a very cogent and worthy admonition. >This may >be Harshaji's opinion. That is fine, but then Harshaji ought to state >it as his opinion, rather than a 'declaration of fact.' If more than one formal meditator or nominal experiencer of samadhi manifests the noted imaginings, it is factual. For this reader, that condition has been more than satisfied. >Or, perhaps he ought to >offer further clarification and evidential support to explain why he >makes this value judgement. > I reiterate that it is not seen as such here, indeed it is verified as factual though long experience. Every course of life is different, so of course your mileage may vary. >Tim, I took some effort in my post to include several examples and >quotes >from widely accepted spiritual masters, historical and >contemporary--from >various traditions--that supported my claim that meditation and >samadhi are >indeed excellent 'communions' with the Divine, or Absolute. Here I would advise we tread carefully -- if we read with the requisite attention we can find there is no contradiction between your claim and Harshacharya's admonition. To whit -- "meditation and samadhi are indeed excellent 'communions' with the Divine" *and* "can lead to an imagined spiritual superiority and hierarchy." There is no contradiction between the claim of benefit and the admonition concerning the possibility of egotistical outcome(s). Many a monstrosity of what Tim calls "spiritual materialism" is a skilled meditator for whom samadhi has occurred. >And, I added my >own 'witness' as our friend Harsha did, to that list. Why then, Tim, >do you ask your question? > I can understand Tim's response, but will leave it to him to answer. >Harshaji writes: "Clever logic and beautiful words are fine and might >be useful. But they are of no use in becoming silent." > >My view is that most of what passes for jnana is "clever logic," Who decides "what passes?" >(only not >so logical) and that while beautiful words may be spoken about boats >and >rivers and 'self', this may have nothing to do with the use value of >these words to lead seekers toward enlightenment. ...or not. I'm glad you included "may." Unless one has a natural propensity toward jnana, one cannot comment usefully on what may be of "use value" to such a person. >In order for jnana to work at >all, one must make the immediate 'leap of faith' that the >metaphysical >presumptions inherent in the jnana view of Reality are correct, for >that is the foundation of jnana. I have no knowledge of jnana in the formal sense, but in essence I do not see it as a "view of Reality" at all, but rather an *approach* to perception of a reality that in essence is no different from the nominal culmination of dozens of other so-called paths. Let us not confuse divergent vehicles with a common destination. >In my view, they are incorrect, and my perspective >is that attempting to gain practical experience of the Absolute cannot >be served by the "clever logic and beautiful words" of vedantic jnana. View noted -- and undoubtedly correct for one without an innate proprensity for jnana. >Vedanta >is, in my view, pseudo-nondualism. It just doesnt wash. > Dueling "isms" is about as far from the inclusive spirit of this Satsangh as can be imagined from here, but you are of course welcome to your view. >From Harshaji: "However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. >The boat used to cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed." > >This sounds nice. But the writer of this passage pretty much paddles >only >one canoe. Leading one to ask, when one has reached the other side >and >abandoned all ways and means, does h/she then also truly leave behind >the >canoe and the river? Indeed, the question must be asked, "Can one >ever >truly leave the canoe at all?" The metaphysical presumpion, (clever >logic), >imbedded in the above assertion is that 'getting there' is a static >'being >there' and that implies the assumption that there is nowhere else to >go. >This may be fine for some, I don't deny this. But it is NOT the >wholesale >experience of all who experience "enlightenment" nor can it be. >Buddhist master Labsant Gyatso says: > >"Awareness can go from almost a blank mind, almost no awareness >whatsoever, >to an infinite feeling, an infinite awareness. It can increase >without any limit whatsoever." > As seen from here, this master's statement is simply an attempt to describe the "other side" of Harshacharya's "river." Crossing the river does not imply camping out on the shore forever. :-) >You will forgive me, friends, if I cannot address all of your many >concerns >regarding my post(s). But allow me to say that if I have appeared to >be >arrogant to some, let me apologize. This is not my intention. Like >most of >you, I discourse for the love of writing and of dialogue and of >God/Self/No-Self/Christ/Allah/Shiva/Kali.... > Baba Nam Kevalam, Madhyaji Much love -- Bruce http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 Part II of my response... At 12:44 PM 6/9/99 -0700, Madhya Nandi wrote: > >Harshaji writes: "Clever logic and beautiful words are fine and might be >useful. But >they are of no use in becoming silent." > >My view is that most of what passes for jnana is "clever logic," (only not >so logical) and that while beautiful words may be spoken about boats and >rivers and 'self', this may have nothing to do with the use value of these >words to lead seekers toward enlightenment. Sounds like some agreement here!! > In order for jnana to work at >all, one must make the immediate 'leap of faith' that the metaphysical >presumptions inherent in the jnana view of Reality are correct, for that is >the foundation of jnana. There are fewer presumptions with advaita (of the type discussed here) than with most other paths. No path is free of presumptions, concepts. People take to what resonates with them. That is why non-dual traditions are just a tiny fraction of the entire spiritual pathlands. >In my view, they are incorrect, and my perspective >is that attempting to gain practical experience of the Absolute cannot be >served by the "clever logic and beautiful words" of vedantic jnana. Vedanta >is, in my view, pseudo-nondualism. It just doesnt wash. Ultimately, how can ANY perspective be correct? What would that mean? Correct, as in accurately represent some kind of objective reality? If so, then this is not what non-dualism talks about. Also, Vedanta is much bigger than the things we've been discussing here. There is dualistic Vedanta, qualified non-dualistic Vedanta, and non-dualistic Vedanta. There are other e-mail lists for these. There is also non-Vedantic, non-advaitic non-dualism, such as the direct path taught Sri Atmananda of Tivandrum and Jean Klein. >But it is NOT the wholesale >experience of all who experience "enlightenment" nor can it be. Buddhist >master Labsant Gyatso says: > >"Awareness can go from almost a blank mind, almost no awareness whatsoever, >to an infinite feeling, an infinite awareness. It can increase without any >limit whatsoever." And what does this quote have to do with enlightenment? And a question for Madhya: What is it about an experience that makes it an experience of enlightenment? Whatever defining characteristics you give such an experience, there have to be major presuppositions at work there. So in what sense can such a definition be true, or taken seriously? There's no general sense of agreement amon traditions on it. So we can say it's just opinion.... --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 At 12:44 PM 6/9/99 -0700, you wrote: >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya >Vedanta is, in my view, pseudo-nondualism. It just doesnt wash. Ahhh. Buddhism, is in *my* view, real nondualism that leaves the key element of the Absolute out (which is OK until someone such as yourself is deceived and led upon a false path by this). Adi Shankara came to heal the spiritual decadence of India of the time, and he did so quite effectively. That is why Vedanta survives today. >You will forgive me, friends, if I cannot address all of your many concerns >regarding my post(s). But allow me to say that if I have appeared to be >arrogant to some, let me apologize. Christ, you're worse than I am. You have your own little corner on truth, and forbid anyone else to discover for themselves what truth is. Arrogance isn't your problem - narrow-mindedness is. >This is not my intention. Like most of >you, I discourse for the love of writing and of dialogue and of >God/Self/No-Self/Christ/Allah/Shiva/Kali.... .... and yet you are lost. Who knows on what point of the "path" you strayed off, but stray off you did. I'm putting you in my "killfile," because your views are distorted, and damaging to my sadhana. Tim ----- Messenge me live with Messenger - For info go to http://messenger./ Visit The Core of the WWW at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 ---------- >Bruce Morgen <editor >There are no geniuses here, >Madhyaji, to "keep up" is a >matter of time and attention, >which we apportion according >to the propensities of our >nominally individual >incarnations. Wow, lighten up, Bruce. It was only a bit of humor! >As Sri Ramana might have >put it, such semantic >distinctions are surely >"for scholars." Now, Bruce, my sensors are detecting a reductionism coming on. Are you going to claim that it is meaningless to speak in any way about experience at all because, a) all experience of an 'absolute' nature is ontologically 'equal' or 'the same?' and, b) thereby claim that all discourse regarding the absolute is valueless since it is 'absolutely' different from the experience itself? So, in order to deal with any and all viewpoints and expressions different from one's own, one need only negate the very possibility of discourse being at all relevant. Then one need never deal with any difference of view by reducing all possible discourse to "semanticism" or, in this case, nonsense. I have every >confidence that the >perceptual states of Sri >Ramana and Gautama Buddha >were identical in essence. Despite your worthy confidence, Bruce, how can you possibly justify making such a claim? It is clearly invalid, since no possibility exists for verification. And first, you must successfully account for your implied assumption that 'all possible enlightened states are identical.' Please explain how this can be so...? >Let us not confuse >charactarization -- yet >another communicative >preference -- for substantive >difference in consciousness >itself. Again, Bruce, you rely on psychologism: All talk about experience is absolutely incapable of saying anything 'real' about that experience and as such, is nothing more than 'characterization' or, 'communicative preference.' Bruce, this is not valid reasoning. >To dispense with this in the >most universal mannar I can >muster, "interpretation" is >yet another instance of >communicative preference. >To find the commonality that >underlies such apparent >differences, it surely >behooves us to see through >to the authentic resonance >between and behind what are, >after all, merely words. Bruce, your argument does not hold water. IF one presumes that Unmanifest Reality is absolutely different from Manifest Reality, then one might be correct in asserting a substantive, ontological difference between one 'True' reality and another, 'False' reality. Then, one might successfully argue that words are absolutely 'different' from the 'true' reality. But first, one must successfully account for the proposed ontological difference between the assertion of two entirely 'different' forms of reality--one Real and the other Not Real. So, to your apparent chagrin, and the chagrin of many on this list, I have expressed another viewpoint. That perspective states that no ontological difference exists between manifest and unmanifest Reality. All reality is Real. Words are not 'false' forms of some other Reality. They are true, dynamic expressions of the Real. This does not mean that all words have equal proportion, value or weight. In fact, this is partly the point. Absolute Reality is absolutely Creative. Therefore, any accounting for enlightened experience must also account for the creative dynamicity of Enlightened Reality. From my perspective--and I have never stated my view as other than my own perspective--one cannot separate the creative Performance, including speaking, acting, et cetera, from the experience of Enlightenment. >View noted -- and undoubtedly >correct for one without an >innate proprensity for jnana. An innate propensity, Bruce? Are you saying that I am jnana-challenged? Is this condition genetic, environmental or perhaps, biological? More importantly, you are making quite a value judgement regarding something for which you have very little information to go on! Its quite a big claim, Bruce! I don't believe we've ever even corresponded before. We certainly haven't met. Wouldn't you require more information to propose such a judgement? Ah, Bruce! You leave me nearly speechless! Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 1999 Report Share Posted June 10, 1999 On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:54:33 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya writes: >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > > >---------- > > > >>Bruce Morgen <editor > >>There are no geniuses here, >>Madhyaji, to "keep up" is a >>matter of time and attention, >>which we apportion according >>to the propensities of our >>nominally individual >>incarnations. > >Wow, lighten up, Bruce. It was only a bit of humor! > OK. >>As Sri Ramana might have >>put it, such semantic >>distinctions are surely >>"for scholars." > >Now, Bruce, my sensors are detecting a reductionism coming on. Are >you >going to claim that it is meaningless to speak in any way about >experience >at all because, a) all experience of an 'absolute' nature is >ontologically >'equal' or 'the same?' and, b) thereby claim that all discourse >regarding >the absolute is valueless since it is 'absolutely' different from the >experience itself? No, I'm not -- what I'm saying is that discourse because of the nature of language itself cannot be directly descriptive and there are myriad communicative choices possible in what such discourse actually is -- a "pointing" toward the indescribable. >So, in order to deal with any and all viewpoints and >expressions different from one's own, one need only negate the very >possibility of discourse being at all relevant. Then one need never >deal >with any difference of view by reducing all possible discourse to >"semanticism" or, in this case, nonsense. > No, but very elaborate inference noted. > I have every >>confidence that the >>perceptual states of Sri >>Ramana and Gautama Buddha >>were identical in essence. > >Despite your worthy confidence, Bruce, how can you possibly justify >making >such a claim? It is clearly invalid, since no possibility exists for >verification. And first, you must successfully account for your >implied >assumption that 'all possible enlightened states are identical.' >Please explain how this can be so...? > I can't, it is inexplicable. >>Let us not confuse >>charactarization -- yet >>another communicative >>preference -- for substantive >>difference in consciousness >>itself. > >Again, Bruce, you rely on psychologism: All talk about experience is >absolutely incapable of saying anything 'real' about that experience >and as >such, is nothing more than 'characterization' or, 'communicative >preference.' Bruce, this is not valid reasoning. > It is not based on reasoning, so from your chosen framework you couldn't be more correct. > >>To dispense with this in the >>most universal mannar I can >>muster, "interpretation" is >>yet another instance of >>communicative preference. >>To find the commonality that >>underlies such apparent >>differences, it surely >>behooves us to see through >>to the authentic resonance >>between and behind what are, >>after all, merely words. > >Bruce, your argument does not hold water. As an "argument" it is as leaky as a cheesecloth dinghy. Once again you are correct. >IF one presumes that Unmanifest >Reality is absolutely different from Manifest Reality, then one might >be correct in asserting a substantive, ontological difference between >one 'True' reality and another, 'False' reality. Who is this "one" you are arguing with -- surely not here, I assure you! >Then, one might successfully >argue that words are absolutely 'different' from the 'true' reality. >But >first, one must successfully account for the proposed ontological >difference >between the assertion of two entirely 'different' forms of >reality--one Real and the other Not Real. > If one is in an undergraduate Rhetoric class, I suppose so. Where have I supposed hinted at "real" and "not real?" >So, to your apparent chagrin, and the chagrin of many on this list, I >have expressed another viewpoint. That perspective states that no >ontological difference exists between manifest and unmanifest Reality. I have no disagreement with that expression, it is accurate and quite eloquent. >All reality is Real. A truism, but true. :-) >Words are not 'false' forms of some other Reality. They are >true, dynamic expressions of the Real. In other words they are real *words,* another truism. >This does not mean that all words have >equal proportion, value or weight. Words are just words -- all "proportion, value or weight" is in the eye of the beholder. >In fact, this is partly the point. This getting too muddy to follow. > >Absolute Reality is absolutely Creative. Therefore, any accounting >for >enlightened experience must also account for the creative dynamicity >of >Enlightened Reality. From my perspective--and I have never stated my >view >as other than my own perspective--one cannot separate the creative >Performance, including speaking, acting, et cetera, from the >experience of Enlightenment. > In non-dual terms nothing whatsoever is separable, there is only the seamless whole. > >>View noted -- and undoubtedly >>correct for one without an >>innate proprensity for jnana. > > >An innate propensity, Bruce? Are you saying that I am >jnana-challenged? Apparently, and you are in the vast majority imo. >Is >this condition genetic, environmental or perhaps, biological? I don't know. >More importantly, you are making quite a value judgement regarding >something >for which you have very little information to go on! It is a mere observation based on your statements about an approach you admit not have followed. >Its quite a big claim, >Bruce! I don't believe we've ever even corresponded before. We >certainly >haven't met. Wouldn't you require more information to propose such a >judgement? > It's not a judgement, it's an observation based on your own words. >Ah, Bruce! You leave me nearly speechless! > Ah Madhya, do consider that that might be an improvement over this hyper-intellectual fugue you've posted. :-) http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. 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.