[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Moderator incompetence (was soul merging etc)
Mr. Opinion of the G.aachaaryaas aka susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu
(Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote in his typical style:
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> intended for you. I am still waiting for Ajay's version. But meanwhile, I
> will
> >> answer yours.
> >
> >Then don't post it to srh. Send it as personal e-mail. If you want to post
> >something on a public-forum be prepared for replies from anyone.
>
> I *did* send it via e-mail. Submissions by e-mail are how the moderator
> receives postings. Apparently he was not able to figure out from the content
> that it was addressed to him.
How about marking it as personal e-mail? After all you might have very well
taken up the issue of his not posting it on srh as another topic for
campaigning. I don't know Mr Shah personally, but I doubt if he's clairvoyant.
> >I certainly did give reasons in quite a few postings. BTW, I attacked the
> >opinions of Vaishnavite aachaaryaas. So you say I indulged in personal
> attacks.
>
> You gave no reasons in the original posting. Thus, I rightly construed it as
> nothing more than an attack.
1. I was arguing with Vivek,
2. In previous posts I indicated the reasons for my opinions.
3. Vivek and I exchange a few posts and then you jump in after reading what was
my 4th or 5th posting on the subject.
4. You plainly did not bother to see previous posts or did see it and are
pretending not to.
5. The post attacking me was your first post of yours after a long time. If I
remember right you stopped reading srh saying that you had better work. In
fact you publicly posted a request to e-mail any article to you if we wanted
a reply from you. I DID NOT e-mail you any of my replies on this thread.
6. If at all there was a personal attack, it could have been only on Pai and not
on you since you hadn't been on srh for quite a long time.
7. There was in fact no personal attack, but only attacks on the ridiculous
arguments given by Prabhupaada.
You arguments are quite silly. I thought you were not in srh anymore and was
peacefully arguing with Pai. Then you butt in and claim that I was attacking
you personally. I suppose logic like yours is held in high esteem by ISKCON.
Seeing Prabhupada's writings and with my few meetings with ISKCON dudes in
airports etc, that's not very surprising.
> >Thus I am forced to conclude that you are an opinion of the Gaudiya
> aachaaryas.
> >Sorry, Mr. Opinion, for the personal attack. I did not know that the opinion
> of
> >Gaudiya aachaaryas had a separate existence called HKS.
>
> Gosh, that was really funny. huh. huh. huh.
It certainly was.
> But not in the original post of this thread. That's my point.
Read my above explanation again.
> Yes, that apology was ever so humble. You apologized, and then attacked again.
> At least that time, you presented some semblance of an argument. I did respond
What are you talking? Do you read posts before replying? Ask Vivek on what
really happened. I was quite serious in my apology and that was purely about
the confusion between GVS and ISKCON. It certainly wasn't for pointing out the
ridiculous arguments given by Prabhupada.
> And yet, your Mayavadam post *still* contained personal attacks. I addressed
> that point in my response, and I certainly did not see any indication from
> Shah regarding it.
Certainly not. Please post where I attacked YOU. I did attack Prabhupada's
ideas. If you are Prabhupada's ideas then I apologize.
> Ramakrishnan, I really respect you. Your bhaasya is total tripe, and without
> humor. But I do respect you. Really.
Yes, it is possible. You could respect me though you totally disagree with me.
I have no problems with that.
> >that you think if I oppose your point of view, that I am indulging in
> personal
>
> If you could mount an intelligent basis for opposing my point of view, it
> would be most welcome. Your problem is that you think simply denouncing
> someone's arguments as unintelligent or absurd is the basis for an opposition.
>
> >attacks and being arrogant. In that case don't post your views on a public
> >forum. People are bound to have contrasting views.
>
> That's hardly an excuse for your behavior. I have had contrasting views with
> others before on alt.hindu/SRH, long before you showed up on SRH. But you are
There is no excuse necessary. Prabhupada, by all reports was pious man.
Unfortunately his logic was quite poor. Now, being pious and logical do not
necessarily go hand in hand. I merely pointed out that Prabhupada's bhashyas
were absolute tripe. If you can't take direct criticism, please stop reading my
posts. I am quite an expert at KILL files, and can give you a tip or two by
e-mail.
> Put it this way, Ram. What is wrong, according to your version of Advaita?
> Apparently, meat-eating isn't wrong. Reading Kama Sutra isn't wrong. Making
> money and using it for your own sense pleasure isn't wrong.
Let's put it this way Hari. There are two types of karmas, one which
aid self-realization and the second which doesn't. I suppose one could call the
former good and the latter bad. Advaitins obviously advocate "good karma". If I
thought "meat eating" would aid in self-realization, pray explain to me why I
am a strict vegetarian. And let me tell you - the fruits you eat were grown at
the expense of a lot of insects and bugs, the water you drink caused the death
of so many earthworms.
Also, in the same vein, I suppose you would consider the Gita-Govinda a
pornographic piece. Smaartaas, luckily are not usually that narrow minded.
Let me tell you that the contents of both KS and GG are quite similar. I read
the KS purely for one thing: the translator had explained in detail the social
structure of India at that time. I happen to be interested in history, ofcourse
intellectual pursuits like reading about history is something which ISKCONites
cannot comprehend, so I am not surprised at your interpretation of things.
Also, you might be surprised to know that about 1/2 of KS is about social
structure and behavior, 1/4 is about magical practices and 1/4 is about
techniques of lovemaking. Now, I think that one would have to be a genius in
calisthenics to implement some of the techniques :-). I had a hearty laugh
reading those, I laughed more, only when I read your post on "esoteric
questions" for Gaudiyaas.
Also, earning money for sense pleasure is definitely not good karma and
I don't plan doing it. But you know what, Hari, according to me that is much
better than not earning money for sensual pleasures, and trumpeting about it to
all and sundry. After all, after some indulgence, any reasonable man will
realize it's futility and change. But, the people who are totally convinced of
their moral superiority will never lose their myopic vision. That is the fact
of life.
Ofcourse, ISKCON is a organization which thrives because their members are
brainwashed into thinking that they are morally superior and you can see them
at various places: airports, roads etc. I met this dude in the airport who
tried to palm off another of those ridiculous books by Prabhupada and ofcourse
I politely asked him to get lost. Our man was quite persistent and asked for my
name. I told him and our man asked me if I was a follower of Ramakrishna :-).
Really! I told yes (I guess in a roundabout sort of way, I am). Then our man's
parting shot : "But they kill chickens to feed people, is that fair?". If I had
time I would have asked him about the earthworms and bugs killed because of
him. It wouldn't have helped anyway, ISKCONites are usually quite lacking in
logic and it's quite impossible to argue with them.
But, Advaitins don't go around criticizing others for their morality, you know
why, Hari? It's because we realize the danger of it. You know, Hari, there is a
story in the mahaabhaarata about one ascetic who was humbled by a house-wife
and then sent to a butcher to learn about what penance truly was. Also, in the
Shiva puraaNa, strict warnings are issued to be moral, but almost atonce it
asks people not to criticize others. Is that surprising to you Hari? Well, it
gives the story of a courtesan who was a devotee of Shiva and was
realized, but continued in her profession because that was her dharma. Now,
Hari, you might have heard the story of Arunagirinathar, a Tamil saint, who was
a licentious wretch, but attained realization all of a sudden. So, the upshot
of all this Hari, is that advaitins ask their followers to be moral, but not
criticize others. One never knows what will happen. Pious people were out still
without any clue and Arunagiri attained God. Ofcourse, this does not mean being
licentious will lead to faster salvation :-). Just clarifying, since the ISKCON
mind always has a unique way of interpreting things (juuuusst like Prabhupada).
> I submit to you that your standards, as well as the moral standards of most
> neo-advaitins these days, are made so deliberately easy to follow so that the
> will appeal to people who aren't interested in any kind of regulation.
Your submission is rejected, since it lacks any basis.
> >Well, there was nothing humorous in it. Ofcourse it's a matter of opinion.
> >Ofcourse Ken thought it was a personal attack also.
>
> Naturally he would say that, since I exposed his whimsical attitude vis-a-vis
> the acharyas.
No, Ken politely and logically refuted all your arguments and as usual you
resorted to personal attacks.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Sitting quietly doing nothing, spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
