Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shri KRS,

I am definitely not an expert on advaita but with the knowledge I have on advaita I think I have the grip to defend it. I have no objection to the ways of my opponents as of now

I will definitely support my views with views of scholars but at this point since I am presenting ideas that have never been dicussed by the vedic scholars, I am not doing that now.

Good to see the voice of sanity back!

 

[subbudu1]

Assume our consciousness is enlarged and we perceive 20 min experience as a unified one instead of present one which is in seconds, I assume, in humans. Will it have any impact on your theory of time? It should as I suppose your notion that clock measures something fixed or measures a reality would become false. It is because you are now viewing the universe differently and this undermines the physical basis of time. Extend this logic. As your consciousness keeps expanding and is large enough to cover the life span of the universe. Would you see the universe in the same way, if at all you see anything physical?

Whether or not consiousness can expand like that is any one's guess. There is no proof my dear son. Give me the name of one person who has expanded consiousness beyond himself. Not the whole world but atleast his closest friend or sishya. You are talking about hypothetical situation. That is the biggest fault of advaita. It is all theoritical and no practical . Point me one individual who can speak with expanded consciousness.

Assume our consciousness is enlarged and we perceive 20 min experience as a unified one instead of present one which is in seconds, I assume, in humans.

This is an example of your vague statements. This can mean anything. Consciousness has no relation to material events. Because these events take place without the presence of consciousness. For example the science behind the birth of a star. Because events take place time exists. That is all.

I would like to modify this statement of KRS.

Advaitha Philosophy is as valid as any of the other two major philosophies of our tradition

.............................Advaitha Philosophy is as invalid as any of the other two major philosophies of our tradition


Advaita talks of unified consciousness without any practical proof but it is still not able to undue the duality in its philosophy.
It is a self serving manipulative pessimistic philosophy. The only positive contribution it seems to have made is bringing the different hindu sects together and promoting a broad outlook to God.

Vishishtadvaita tries to compromise with the concept of duality. But it talks of some unknown god about whom there is no evidence. It miserably fails in giving a proper evidence of the attributes of the Lord. Positive and negative attributes are relative. If God is responsible for good things that happens in the world, I say with all the confidence in my life, that he is responsible for all the bad things also.If we go by this philopsophy the best that we can dream of is the place of some guard or a bhakta in Vaikunta or may be the chakra and shanku of God or get somehow embedded in the body of God like a drop in the ocean. There is again no evidence of this kripa or grace of god, who rescues his devotees. This god also has some special preference to people who brand the god's marks on their body.

Dvaita is self evident. But the philosophy is a slavish mentality philosophy. In this philosophy people are reduced to permanant slaves with no beginning and no end. It is idol worshiping avatar of Mohammedanism. If you are lucky you will become an avatar like prahlada. But even then you cannot be immortal. You will have to be reborn as another guru in madhva sampradaya.

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

Let me try to explain what a unified experience would mean.

A unified experience is something where disorder in space and time look reduced. As the extent in that experience increases the activities would seem slower and slower. Activity has to do with movement which is one way order in something is reduced. Thus anything that moves fast then its order decreases. The other source representing disorder in the physical world is the mass, and increasing the unified experience , the perception of mass will also decrease.

Thus expanding consciousness brings about the perception of stillness and when your consciousness consummates nothing physical or mental is perceived but only a pure spiritual experience

 

[sravna]

Whether or not consiousness can expand like that is any one's guess. There is no proof my dear son. Give me the name of one person who has expanded consiousness beyond himself. Not the whole world but atleast his closest friend or sishya. You are talking about hypothetical situation. That is the biggest fault of advaita. It is all theoritical and no practical . Point me one individual who can speak with expanded consciousness.

This is an example of your vague statements. This can mean anything. Consciousness has no relation to material events. Because these events take place without the presence of consciousness. For example the science behind the birth of a star. Because events take place time exists. That is all.

I would like to modify this statement of KRS.
.............................Advaitha Philosophy is as invalid as any of the other two major philosophies of our tradition


Advaita talks of unified consciousness without any practical proof but it is still not able to undue the duality in its philosophy.
It is a self serving manipulative pessimistic philosophy. The only positive contribution it seems to have made is bringing the different hindu sects together and promoting a broad outlook to God.

Vishishtadvaita tries to compromise with the concept of duality. But it talks of some unknown god about whom there is no evidence. It miserably fails in giving a proper evidence of the attributes of the Lord. Positive and negative attributes are relative. If God is responsible for good things that happens in the world, I say with all the confidence in my life, that he is responsible for all the bad things also.If we go by this philopsophy the best that we can dream of is the place of some guard or a bhakta in Vaikunta or may be the chakra and shanku of God or get somehow embedded in the body of God like a drop in the ocean. There is again no evidence of this kripa or grace of god, who rescues his devotees. This god also has some special preference to people who brand the god's marks on their body.

Dvaita is self evident. But the philosophy is a slavish mentality philosophy. In this philosophy people are reduced to permanant slaves with no beginning and no end. It is idol worshiping avatar of Mohammedanism. If you are lucky you will become an avatar like prahlada. But even then you cannot be immortal. You will have to be reborn as another guru in madhva sampradaya.

Shri Subbudu,

There are two cases, one is consciousness of physical and the other is the mental experience. I would say the mental thing evolves first because that is the real you. There is stillness and peace in the mind and all perturbations are stopped. Once the mind is evolved it has the power to unify the physical experiences.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

Let me try to explain what a unified experience would mean.

A unified experience is something where disorder in space and time look reduced. As the extent in that experience increases the activities would seem slower and slower. Activity has to do with movement which is one way order in something is reduced. Thus anything that moves fast then its order decreases. The other source representing disorder in the physical world is the mass, and increasing the unified experience , the perception of mass will also decrease.

Thus expanding consciousness brings about the perception of stillness and when your consciousness consummates nothing physical or mental is perceived but only a pure spiritual experience

This is another of your pet theories doing the rounds in the name of Advaita.

anything that moves fast then its order decreases.

and increasing the unified experience , the perception of mass will also decrease.

You have made two baseless statements and concluded this....

Thus expanding consciousness brings about the perception of stillness and when your consciousness consummates nothing physical or mental is perceived but only a pure spiritual experience

Anyway there is nobody with this unified consciousness so we have to take your theories to be the prophecy of the times. It is surprising that your theories do not talk of nuclear energy becoming matter.

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

Let me try to explain what a unified experience would mean.

A unified experience is something where disorder in space and time look reduced. As the extent in that experience increases the activities would seem slower and slower. Activity has to do with movement which is one way order in something is reduced. Thus anything that moves fast then its order decreases. The other source representing disorder in the physical world is the mass, and increasing the unified experience , the perception of mass will also decrease.

Thus expanding consciousness brings about the perception of stillness and when your consciousness consummates nothing physical or mental is perceived but only a pure spiritual experience

On the one hand, activities would seem to come to a still because all the forces are removed. But on the other, the connectedness takes the place of forces and a holistic perception of the physical world without perceiving any details would occur. You just know what is going on without recognizing the details.

Having said the above, let me say that it is only an hypothetical exercise to illustrate my point about time.

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

Every theory is a pet theory in a sense. Also, no scientist can claim to have understood nature perfectly. There are a number of holes in any theory given that none has come even close to explaining truth.

If you can restrain from comments that are of little value to anybody but instead think of valid objections, the discussions would carry substance.

 

[sangom]

Folks,
In just came across this thread.

Sri Sangom Ji makes all sorts of inferences tat are not supported by any recorded history and Sri subuddu1 Ji, makes statements with his fragmented knowledge.

What is actually amusing to me is Sri Sangom's assertion that Dwaitha is an allied philosophy of Visishtadwaitha as opposed to Advaitha!

Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

Reading the above comments of yours, I would have normally kept quiet but since you are also the SM, I would be grateful if you will kindly cite the posts (in this thread, I presume, and that you are not bringing from other places) and the sentences to exemplify your allegations against me, i.e.,

1.inferences tat are not supported by any recorded history

2. assertion that Dwaitha is an allied philosophy of Visishtadwaitha as opposed to Advaitha! and how it is wrong.

3. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs.

I will decide to participate, based on your response and after appraising my own ability to come up to your expected standard.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

Every theory is a pet theory in a sense. Also, no scientist can claim to have understood nature perfectly. There are a number of holes in any theory given that none has come even close to explaining truth.

If you can restrain from comments that are of little value to anybody but instead think of valid objections, the discussions would carry substance.

Dear Sravna,

My essential objection is to your statements is that you are saying things which no advaita acharya has said. You are talking about granularity of perception. This is not something I have ever heard of. Can you please cite some reliable advaitic scholar on this? I am willing to take back my statement on pet theory.

In any case, as I said advaita is an impractical subject. What we know, the best real experience of shankara might be the vision of devi. Even lord Shiva did not show himself directly. He came as an Untouchable. That is if we take all these stories to be true. Thus shankara seemed to be living life in duality, yet he wrote tonnes of theories on non duality. If this is the case with the founder, what about the rest?

 

[sravna]

Stephen Hawkings hypothesis that universes can be created out of nothing cannot be taken seriously. In effect he is saying that self creation is possible. What does it mean when you say something creates itself?

The problem with today's scientists is that they have become so reliant on experimentation and use of technology that they want to experiment and find out the truth even with ideas that are self contradictory

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

It is not that I do not want rely on the advaitic scholars tosupport my arguments. I will definitely do that. But as I said earlier my attempt is to proceed in the way science does- to use concepts that are not esoteric because you cannot rely on logic that way.

My example on perception is not from real life but mainly used to illustrate my point. But now consider the consciousness of a human and a lesser being. Do they have the same perception of time? You can ask this differently as , do they have the same duration of consciousness?

Dear Sravna,

My essential objection is to your statements is that you are saying things which no advaita acharya has said. You are talking about granularity of perception. This is not something I have ever heard of. Can you please cite some reliable advaitic scholar on this? I am willing to take back my statement on pet theory.

In any case, as I said advaita is an impractical subject. What we know, the best real experience of shankara might be the vision of devi. Even lord Shiva did not show himself directly. He came as an Untouchable. That is if we take all these stories to be true. Thus shankara seemed to be living life in duality, yet he wrote tonnes of theories on non duality. If this is the case with the founder, what about the rest?

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

Anyone who lives in this world has to live a dual life because a mind needs a physical body to exist. You may have to do certain things which everybody does. But then it is your mind that has to think and practice non-duality as the body really doesn't represent you.

 

[Nara]

....Good to see the voice of sanity back!

Yes, now name calling and put-downs can resume in all earnest.

 

[Nara]

....I will decide to participate, based on your response and after appraising my own ability to come up to your expected standard.

Dear Shri Sangom sir,

I agree with your sentiments. Who will moderate the super moderator is a question beyond our pay grade. But, I request you to ignore these frivolous potshots and continue to participate, your sane voice is like tonic to people like me.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

Here is a list of what I think needs to be discussed to get into the core of advaita.

1. The reality is non-dual
2. Brahman is eternal and nirguna
3. Avidya or maya is a power of brahman
4. Avidya is neither real nor unreal and is incomprehensible
5. The effect of avidya is ignorance
6. Brahman is not affected by avidya
7. The relationship of brahman to the world

If light is thrown on the above in the discussions using a logical approach, I think a fresh and clear perspective on advaita is possible

Sravna I think the discussion has been revolving around the same questions. You must learn to use arguments which do not presuppose advaita. Then you can prove it.

Let me drill down your core questions and it is my sincere hope this discussion will lead somewhere.

Be ascertained that if your Advaita defense proves logically consistent I will wholeheartedly support your views. I have no vain pride and I will fully take back my statements on Advaita.

Also please avoid circular logic.

Let us start from class 1 and not go to higher classes until class 1 is cleared.
This will be your statements on advaita. We can proceed only when this is clear.
1. reality is non-dual- Define reality. What is the source of your definition. Does it match with the views of any scholar.
2. Brahman is eternal and nirguna- Define brahman. Define nirguna. How does it match or differ with the idea of other scholars.
3. Avidya or maya is a power of brahman - same requirements for definitons. What is difference between Avidya and maya. What is same about them. Where do they exist and how do they come into existence if they exist.
4. Avidya is neither real nor unreal and is incomprehensible. How do you know something to be comprehensible or incomprehensible, real or unreal. same requirements for definitons as above
5. The effect of avidya is ignorance. Is this your statement or has it been said somewhere. What is difference between the two. same requirements for definitons as above

The last two points I believe are higher concepts. Let us deal with definitions.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom sir,

I agree with your sentiments. Who will moderate the super moderator is a question beyond our pay grade. But, I request you to ignore these frivolous potshots and continue to participate, your sane voice is like tonic to people like me.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

When the Super Moderator himself suddenly comes on the scene like Vishnu with his Chakra and what not, makes allegations to the effect that I have been making inferences tat are not supported by any recorded history, and [FONT=&quot]who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs, etc., it is a clear case of which way the decision has already been made.

I thought I should, for the sake of propriety, quit this forum itself after informing Praveen but thought that will be too much of a brusque decision and considered buying time as the second best course. You have now come to my timely help. Let me now state, with all humility at my command, that my honour does not allow me to continue participating in a forum of this sort where the (Super) Moderator himself takes sides and also announces it in such plain language. Wish you ALL all the best, if your skin is thick and you decide to continue.

As regards any inputs I have so far made to this forum, well, that was my foolishness in not knowing about this forum truly till now.

[/FONT]

 

[Nara]

.....[FONT=&quot] that my honour does not allow me to continue participating in a forum of this sort where the (Super) Moderator himself takes sides and also announces it in such plain language. Wish you ALL all the best, if your skin is thick and you decide to continue.
[/FONT]

Yes sir, my skin is indeed quite thick, a couple of weeks back he said it is people like me who do most harm in this world and, irony of ironies claimed what I was saying was offensive, without a thick skin how can I take such vitriol and keep going? Now, he says I am using my knowledge of SV, this, the fact I have not said anything SV in this thread not withstanding, is nothing compared to the earlier bitter attack.

Anyway, I stand in solidarity with you. If you go, I go. I will participate in discussions here only if Shri Sangom gets justice.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sravna I think the discussion has been revolving around the same questions. You must learn to use arguments which do not presuppose advaita. Then you can prove it.

Let me drill down your core questions and it is my sincere hope this discussion will lead somewhere.

Be ascertained that if your Advaita defense proves logically consistent I will wholeheartedly support your views. I have no vain pride and I will fully take back my statements on Advaita.

Also please avoid circular logic.

Let us start from class 1 and not go to higher classes until class 1 is cleared.
This will be your statements on advaita. We can proceed only when this is clear.
1. reality is non-dual- Define reality. What is the source of your definition. Does it match with the views of any scholar.
2. Brahman is eternal and nirguna- Define brahman. Define nirguna. How does it match or differ with the idea of other scholars.
3. Avidya or maya is a power of brahman - same requirements for definitons. What is difference between Avidya and maya. What is same about them. Where do they exist and how do they come into existence if they exist.
4. Avidya is neither real nor unreal and is incomprehensible. How do you know something to be comprehensible or incomprehensible, real or unreal. same requirements for definitons as above
5. The effect of avidya is ignorance. Is this your statement or has it been said somewhere. What is difference between the two. same requirements for definitons as above

The last two points I believe are higher concepts. Let us deal with definitions.

Shri Subbudu,

Agreed.

The essence of Advaita ( I am copying most of the content from one of my previous posts on advaita and that is my take on advaita)

There is existence of one and only ultimate reality called brahman. Other existences are said to be only relatively real but are also in essence brahman. The relationship of these to brahman is one of lower realities to a higher reality. From the point of view of brahman there is no plurality in existence as all the lower realities are transient in nature and eventually merge in brahman. Brahman in its pure nature has only the unified experience. From the point of view of the lower realities they are under illusion when they perceive plurality and they ultimately realize that there is only one reality.

What is the importance of the physical world? From the wordly perspective, it is the field where jivas or the lower realities learn and evolve. It can be said to form the substance of brahman. From the point of view of brahman they are the basis of the experience that brahman enjoys.

 

[sravna]

Maya and Avidya

Maya is something which is in the nature of brahman. It is inseparable from brahman and just as brahman is beginningless it is beginningless too. The existence of relative reality is ascribed to this nature of brahman called maya.

Avidya is the effect of maya. It is found in jivas which experience only the lower reality. This is because veiling of truth by maya keeps projecting physical worlds. The veiling denies access by jivas to brahman which is the higher reality. The veil though doesn't deny access the other way. Brahman enjoys the unified experience and is not affected by maya

Note: The obscuring veil of maya affects every jiva and the jiva has to learn its way through to establish connections with brahman.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

First of all, as a Moderator, I hope I have been looked upon as impartial. In fact if I have been partial, lots of folks, including Professor Nara Ji, whose world views are exact opposite of mine would not be members here.

It has been a long established tradition of this forum that the Moderators are allowed to express their views freely and openly. The rules of this Forum are firmly established, and while judgement is involved in moderation, we do allow civilized expression of any idea as long as those do not descend to personal attacks and injure the sentiments of a class of our audience (like alleging various things about Sri Saibaba for instance).

I can back up my statements about your stated ideas.

Can you provide firm evidence that Adi Shankara's idea about Avidya (maya) came from the Buddhism?

Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion. Please cite your logic here when you say something else.

Sir, I am not here to attack you. But when you make statements without backing them with any evidence, I will call you on it. I am not at all averse to apologize if you offer proof and show me wrong.

I hope you do not quit on the basis of my questioning as a Forum member, rather than a Moderator. By the way, I am very disappointed with Professor Nara Ji, who I am very fond of as a person, egging you on, about the Moderation. He should know better. I guess it is his idea that he can use the moderation against me to silence my views!

I think that you have very good ideas about our religion. You are a way better learned man. But, sometimes I do not agree with your ideas. I owe it to myself and other Forum members to express them. Please let me know, when you think that I am crossing the line of civility, because I am not above making a mistake.

But I do not think that my last posting crossed any lines of civility.

Regards,
KRS

 

[nachi naga]

krs,bravo.whenever krs has used his moderator cap on,he uses blue color fonts.i am presumptious to think,he participated in his expression as cap wearing forum member.In fact krs,has been such a long standing participant wishing for the welfare of all of,if i may write so.as a matter of fact many a member were participant of hindu dharma forum as well and beat a hasty retreat,when confronted with idealogical differences.when we know god exists in all his creations as well,i think atheist,agnostics are part of his leelas,imho.if atheists,agnostics are not there with their convictions,to whom else we need this debate to go on.advaitha is a religion for me not just a darshana.the ability to understand,experiance advaitham is its uniqueness.variety is spice of life.stephen hawkins is hawking his pet theory of 'no god' and writes books to earn money,and one should see the man himself talking with a synthesiser,for brilliant brain who took the post of Newton.I am glad stephen hawkins did not say he is swayambhu himself and claim he is anti-god avatar.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I am very surprised indeed! What I said was that you are Polyannish, which to me is a complement. You are extremely idealistic, and I don't understand how you can take it as a personal attack.

Go back and read your postings on Advaitha started by Sri Sangom Ji, in a different thread. You did state there the seven Advaitha untenables there as expressed by Acharya Ramanuja! So, am I wrong?

Seems to me that you are working on kicking me out as a Moderator

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS:

.... By the way, I am very disappointed with Professor Nara Ji, who I am very fond of as a person, egging you on, about the Moderation.

If anything I requested Shri Sangom to not take this seriously and continue to post. See here. To your eyes this appears as egging him on. So much for impartiality!!

In the past, when there were personality clashes in this forum I worked behind the scenes to get the temperature down and bring the offended members back. So, your completely unfounded accusation that I egged him on seems a clumsy attempt to transfer responsibility for the current problem on to me.

....I am very surprised indeed! What I said was that you are Polyannish, which to me is a complement. You are extremely idealistic, and I don't understand how you can take it as a personal attack.

Shri KRS, You have a funny way of paying complements. The word is never used as a complement and you know it, so please stop playing games.

Pollyanish:
[1] Belittling and often insulting term (emphasis mine) for being absurdly optimistic and good-hearted, believing in a good world where everything works out for the best all the time. Often in combination with being God-fearing and perceiving oneself standing on a higher moral ground than others.

[2] a person characterized by irrepressible optimism (emphasis mine) and a tendency to find good in everything

Whatever the word may mean, this is an unnecessary ad hominem, promoting only ill will. There are several members here in this forum who resort to such tactics often, unfortunately Shri KRS is one of them.

Further, it is not just this one word, you made several disparaging comments, look at my response to your unfortunate post here.

Seems to me that you are working on kicking me out as a Moderator

I have absolutely no such intentions. The main issue here is how Shri Sangom's concerns get addressed. As I have said, my continued participation in this forum is dependent on him returning. Until then, I will only respond to set the record straight when untrue accusations are made.

Thank you ...

 

[sangom]

[FONT=&quot]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

I can back up my statements about your stated ideas.

Can you provide firm evidence that Adi Shankara's idea about Avidya (maya) came from the Buddhism?

Dear Shri KRS,

Having seen your post, and since you have challenged my (our) integrity, I feel it will not be honourable on my part to go away in silence. So, here are my comments.

Kindly see the web pages—

Maya (illusion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reality in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also see this portion from Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"According to Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi, Advaita Vedanta has been influenced by Buddhism, specifically the Madhyamaka tradition. They state in their 2004 book The Essential Vedanta:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." (p. 126)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." (p. 157)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However Advaita, and other traditions of Vedanta, officially base themselves chiefly on the teachings of the Upanishads, a collection of philosophical texts that include Pre-Buddhist, Buddhist era and Post-Buddhist texts. Radhakrishnan in fact considers the Buddha himself to be a part of the philosophical tradition that began with the earliest Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In addition to the above I can adduce the general epithet pracchanna bauddha given to Sankara. In a vernacular (Malayalam) book which I read many years ago, this theme of Sankara having been a student at Nalanda, getting back to Hinduism and so on had been very well discussed but I am no longer a member of that (Kerala University) library and to trace the book without knowing anything about it now, will be impossible. This of course, you need not treat as "firm evidence".

Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion. Please cite your logic here when you say something else.

KRS, it is your typical style - probably driven by the moderator's chair, to make some profound-looking statement like the above one and then ask the other party to provide evidence, arguments, etc., in support of his/her contention. I tend to think that this superiority complex arises because no one has so far brought out this great shortcoming of yours to your notice and by yourself, perhaps you can't analyse and improve. Let me now say, it is you who first stated that "Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha"; so please provide your logic with firm evidence and supporting citations for that, before treating the members here as if they are your slaves and ever at your beck and call. If you come with your logic and supporting, firm evidences, I will, on my integrity, reply as soon as I see your post, though I do not propose to visit this forum everyday, anymore.

Sir, I am not here to attack you. But when you make statements without backing them with any evidence, I will call you on it. I am not at all averse to apologize if you offer proof and show me wrong.

Sir, I am somewhat averse to putting myself in a position where I will have to apologize later. So, unlike you perhaps, I take more care in what I write. After all [/FONT]कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते... [FONT=&quot]is it not? In the para just above this, you have made statement without backing evidence and I have called you on it. May I see the response?

I hope you do not quit on the basis of my questioning as a Forum member, rather than a Moderator. By the way, I am very disappointed with Professor Nara Ji, who I am very fond of as a person, egging you on, about the Moderation. He should know better. I guess it is his idea that he can use the moderation against me to silence my views!

I am quitting not because you questioned me, not even because you questioned me as another forum member, not because of Shri Nara’s egging me on, but because you let yourself cross the line of decorum when you made allegations against Shri Nara, Shri Subbudu and myself and also called our integrity - and especially mine - into question when you let yourself go as " If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs."

I wish to avail of this occasion to inform Shri Praveen that he ought to consider removing you from the SM's post if he wants to run this forum civilly.

I think that you have very good ideas about our religion. You are a way better learned man. But, sometimes I do not agree with your ideas. I owe it to myself and other Forum members to express them. Please let me know, when you think that I am crossing the line of civility, because I am not above making a mistake.

But I do not think that my last posting crossed any lines of civility.

Regards,
KRS

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whether your posting previous to this one crossed the lines of civility or decorum is there for everyone to see, though many may sing your paeans because you are the SM for the time being. Apart from being highly derogatory of three members, without any substantiation of the allegations made therein, you have chosen to defend the indefensible; if you see the many assertions made by Shri Sravna without any firm evidence even though at one stage I even went to the extent of imploring him (thinking that he will be moved by a sense of pity at least), and your efforts now to pat him on the back for getting in to a subject, in my opinion, without adequate preparation and is not ready to defend a Philosophy on Epistomoligal (sic) terms, the world at large will definitely realize what is wrong here in this forum. My nature does not permit me to continue any more with such a topsy turvy forum.[/FONT]

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

INMHO, if the supermoderator while participating in discussions as a member indicate his name with"veteran' and uses the term"SM' only when he plays the role of SM,we can avoid such misunderstanding.
I request all the three knowledgeable members to be calm and cool and continue contributing and sharing their knowledge with other members.
When a difference of opinion in a family come to the open,,we do get heated up and exchange hot words.After sometime all of us cool down.It is not a custom in any good family that one member just leaves the house because of difference of opinion with head of the family.
Let us give proper guidance to the youngsters of this forum and other Guest members who may open threads and read.
PEACE.