Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[nachi naga]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

instead of flaw in advaitha,i find flaws in humans aka brahman.

 

[subbudu1]

Please read the informative threads on Avidya and Adhyasa and let me know your views
[Advaita-l] A Vichara on Avidya and Adhyasa
[Advaita-l] A 'vichAra' on the terms ‘avidyA’ and ‘mAyA’ - Part 2
[Advaita-l] A 'vichAra' on the terms ‘avidyA’ and ‘mAyA’ - 3 (concluded)

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Shri.KRS here uses the word explicitly. But in numerous other discussions, it was used in a cloaked way.

Thank you for acknowledeging the word was used. It does not matter how it was used. Once I throw away a 12 year friendship in the dump when one guy suspected my integrity. Later on when my innocence was proved, it was way too late for him to patch up with me. Integrity to a person is like 'கற்பு' to a woman. One doesn't muck around with that explicitly or implicitly.

There are a number of people who always say that there is something wrong with you. The trick is in the way you react and if you react in a considered way the problem is not aggravated but is brought under control.

Sri.Sangom reacted in a gentlemanly behaviour. He gave the benefit of doubt, requested for an explanation, tried to keep any reaction under control; as of now, he is keeping his reaction under control. But he needs to get justice. When his integrity is questioned, he is keeping cool; But, his lack of integrity is not proven beyond doubt yet from the moderator. It is Sri.KRS who called Sri.Sangom's integrity; onus is on Sri.KRS to prove the lack of integrity from Sri.Sangom.

My point is, even if someone is being very offensive to you, it is you who are going to decide whether you will be offended.

Then why some of the members are offended by views expressed by Sri.Sangom or for that matter, Sri.Nara? To start with, neither of the gentlemen are offensive in presenting their views; they use, but only scholarly language; why so many members are offended by those remarks? From what you say, may I deduce that it is neither Sri.Sangom nor Sri.Nara's fault?

Also, I think the members of this forum are civil in general so that it should not be difficult to gloss over some occasional lapses.

Sure; members should gloss over occasional lapses.... provided such occassional lapses are regretted and apologies are sought.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Shri Raghy,

I know you are one person who thinks that fairness should not be compromised at any cost. I know you won't let even your ego come in the way. I have great respect for you for that.

What I am saying is Shri.Sangom committed a certain mistake which not only he is guilty of but also a number of others. Shri.KRS pointed it out because his status being different from other members in the forum. He has done this to a number of other members. In my opinion he has intervened most of the times when it was required.

Also, I think there is no need to make such a big issue of the word "integrity". It should be understood given its context and the specific accusation of Shri.KRS. If seen in the right light I think we realize we can indeed gloss over it. And seeing such big names in the forum taking it up as an issue, I am indeed surprised.

 

[sangom]

Shri Sangom,

A few statements which you made without substantiation.

"Sankara seemed to have learnt all the lessons from Buddhism and used those to counter Buddhism itself; and this includes part of Buddhistic philosophy (śūnyavāda)."

"Only the Brahman can make any statement about itself and by definition, it can't because it is Nirguna, without any attribute; see how Sankara has taken the entire hindus for a ride"

"I also suspect that when he (sravna) talks about absolute and relative realities, he is borrowing from Relativity Physics; that is perhaps the reason for his confidently asserting what the view/s of the nirguna brahman is/will be, like:

I suspect there are a few more of such statements.

When you make unsubstantiated statements such as "sankara has taken the hindus for a ride" you are not exercising the caution that is needed when you critique any revered person. When ordinary mortals like us feel slighted at innocuous remarks, how can one insult a person whose contribution to Indian philosophy is immense?

I think Shri KRS would have been prompted by such remarks to say what he said.

Respected members,

I wrote in my post #189 (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6457-flaws-advaita-real-perceived-19.html#post79896) that I assure you, on my integrity, that I will not be making any post except in this thread, as and when necessary to continue our mutual discussion. Shri Sravna, who has been keeping quiet till now, even though he is the originator of the thread, has at last woken up from his slumber – or so it seems to me – and has started assailing me now. This itself is proof, if any proof was needed at all, to show how cowardly he is. Anyway, since there is a direct attack on me, I chose to break my promise of making further posts as and when necessary to continue our mutual discussion (with KRS). Kindly excuse this.

Shri Sravna,

I was not aware that in any debate, one side is free to present whatever it wants while those who oppose what was initially said, have to substantiate their each statement. May I present some instances from the initial posts of yours where statements have been made without substantiation?


“Pure brahman with its power of maya allows for alternate transient realities where it exists in lesser forms. It is the lower reality forms whose knowledge is clouded. Pure brahman is unaffected by maya.”

“Whereas brahman has a unified experience in spite of the veil of maya, the jivas do not because of the veil. Jivas see through the veil and become one with brahman when they become spiritual and establish the interconnectedness.”

“Brahman indeed is unchanging. But the physical realities could be the basis of its experiences which it enjoys in totality. Do not ask me to cite verses that support this interpretation.”

At some stage member Saarangam pointed out the deficiency on both sides in the following words:

“IMO when a member is either defending or contradicting the advaita philosophy of Samkara
the arguments should be supported by citations from Samkara's works.In the absence of such references the POV expressed by the person can only be considered as his personal views and not as an argument for or against Samkara's philosophy.”

But you did not consider doing that, even much later and continued to make pronouncements as usual; some examples—

“If you connect all the expereinces of a jiva that it underwent in all its lives the result would be one of peace /bliss. This is because the expereince of a jiva at any birth I would think, depends on the totality of the experiences it underwent.”

”To sum up it is the nirguna feature of brahman that is the reason for its blissful existence.”

It was then that I thought of gently bringing to the notice of one and all that perhaps, you were borrowing ideas from Physics also to carry on your defense of Advaita, and made the following statement:

“I feel Sravna thinks that if some things are asserted then they have to be accepted as true. In addition, I also suspect that when he talks about absolute and relative realities, he is borrowing from Relativity Physics; that is perhaps the reason for his confidently asserting what the view/s of the nirguna brahman is/will be, like:

The experience of brahman can be thought of as the sum of experiences of all the jivas.

To sum up it is the nirguna feature of brahman that is the reason for its blissful existence.

The point is even though brahman is the cause of avidya it is not affected by it. The relative realities keep coming and going. In each such reality, jivas come into being afflicted by avidya.

For the jivas the physical realities are a totally learning experience going through all sorts of stages and expereinces so that finally they become totally balanced or nirguna. Nirguna should taken as meaning having no excess or features of one guna but a perfect balance of them
etc., etc.,

Whereas the conditions in different space-time frames can be mathematically arrived at, the conditions of/obtaining in the so-called nirguna parabrahman is only imaginable. Nevertheless, Sravna has no qualms about making categorical statements about the nirguna parabrahman, how its state of bliss / its state of total balance of all experiences, etc., are there, as though he has first hand experience/testimony/ citation regarding them.

I guess he knows the lacunae in his statements because he has answered Shri Saarangam as follows:
If this is what is in accordance with the tradition of these debates and how this debate is desired to be conducted, I agree to provide the citations.”

You have obviously chosen to lift only the portion "I also suspect that when he (sravna) talks about absolute and relative realities, he is borrowing from Relativity Physics; that is perhaps the reason for his confidently asserting what the view/s of the nirguna brahman is/will be, like:”and try to project it to your advantage.

I only request impartial readers to go through all the posts in this thread patiently, list out the dicta-like statements made by each poster and arrive at who has the top score in this.

Sravna,

[FONT=&quot]Your defence of “Advaita” (non-duality) itself has created so much duality here in this forum, that any further efforts in this direction may break it into pieces
[/FONT]

 

[gopaindu]

Dear Member Raghy,(Post No.192)
I am of the view that, as a hindu you can be atheist. You can term the entire scriptures and other works like philosophy as rubbish. However, no member, whosoever he may be should not hurt the feelings of the person who believes that every thing is real and of supreme importance. It is wrong on the part of a member who opined that so and so has created a thread without knowing the basics of the subject. The intention to create a thread could be to know more on the subject matter. It is likely that the person might have heard or read something and might have liked to know how far is his knowledge is correct. Notwithstanding, as Hindu no one, even atheist has no right to criticise the beliefs of other person(s), because this forum is meant for sharing of information and not proselytisation. Hinduism teaches only tolerance and also sympathy to others who are ignorant. Thiis
should not be construed as being given a right to criticise the beliefs of ohers and hurting their feelings. Belief need not even be based on any authority. In case, you disbelieve in some thing, you are not given a right to condemn those who believe in it. This could be applicable to single person or a group of persons. raja48.

 

[Nara]

.... I know you won't let even your ego come in the way. I have great respect for you for that.

[...]

Also, I think there is no need to make such a big issue of the word "integrity".

sravna, I keep seeing this word "ego" used. I am not sure what is meant by that. Taking objection to unnecessarily insulting personal attacks is ego? Well alright then, I am egotistical.

A few months back there was a poster, I think Vivek was his name, he said Shri Sangom was "morally bankrupt" and he was warned. When he repeated this charge he was thrown out. Do you think saying "morally bankrupt" is a serious offense, but questioning one's integrity is no big deal? To my egotistical mind they both belong to the same category.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Shri Sangom,

I myself agree that I have made several statements as assertions only and later agreed to rectify that mistake. Therefore the point is not one of who made more assertions but whether you realize that you have to substantiate those assertions.

An assertion cannot stand by itself but needs logical support but that alone is not the problem. But when that is a personal attack, it lacks in ethics too. So the assertions need attention only when they are directed towards a person.It is for everyone to see that there are several statements of yours directed towards others which seem to be baseless.

My intention is not to discredit you in any way. I have only said that I consider you valuable to the forum but as the initiator of the thread and as someone who is involved in the issue, I wanted to express my views and in a way that is fair to all involved

 

[sravna]

sravna, I keep seeing this word "ego" used. I am not sure what is meant by that. Taking objection to unnecessarily insulting personal attacks is ego? Well alright then, I am egotistical.

A few months back there was a poster, I think Vivek was his name, he said Shri Sangom was "morally bankrupt" and he was warned. When he repeated this charge he was thrown out. Do you think saying "morally bankrupt" is a serious offense, but questioning one's integrity is no big deal? To my egotistical mind they both belong to the same category.

Cheers!

Shri Nara and Other esteemed members,

Let's not set Vivek's incident as a precedent. In the present incident each group has to take its share of responsibility for the wrongs done and if both the groups realize that, justice would have been done for the other. So let's bury it with that realization and move on to fruitful discussions.

 

[nachi naga]

Books certainly written by Adi Shankara:
The “Crest-Jewel of Discrimination” or Viveka Chudamani, one of his most famous works, which summarises his ideas of non-dual Vedanta
The commentary Bhasya on the Brahma Sutra
The commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
The commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad
The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita
The Thousand Teachings or Upadesasahasri
A hymn to Krishna as the Herder of Cows, known as Bhaja Govindam
Benedictory invocation to Siva and Sakti, namely Sivanandalahari and Saundaryalahari respectively
Commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama
Books he probably wrote are:
The commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika to the Mandukya Upanishad
The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, though there is no scholarly agreement on this.

 

[sravna]

Please read the informative threads on Avidya and Adhyasa and let me know your views
[Advaita-l] A Vichara on Avidya and Adhyasa
[Advaita-l] A 'vichAra' on the terms ‘avidyA’ and ‘mAyA’ - Part 2
[Advaita-l] A 'vichAra' on the terms ‘avidyA’ and ‘mAyA’ - 3 (concluded)

Shri Subbudu,

Having gone through the above web sites and other sites on the same topic I find there are differences in opinion on the meaning of the following: maya, avidya, adhyasa.

My interpretation of what Sankara would have meant is as follows:

Adhyasa being the false perception of the reality as plurality is caused by avidya or lack of knowledge. In other words adhyasa is the effect of avidya. Maya which is the power to create illusion or cause ignorance is the cause of avidya. Thus I would relate the three as follows:

Maya -> Avidya -> Adhyasa

 

[Nara]

.... So our intellectual prowess by reading various resources on the topic is quite impressive, the intuitive prowess which can only come through a deeksha from a Guru and through "experiencing" it by the self is pretty much low.

Dear anand, IMO, and no surprise , Advaitam is not that difficult a concept to understand, it is proving it that needs real intellectual gymnastic. When serious questions are raised, the usual response is along the lines you have suggested -- i.e. it is to be experienced, you need power of intuition, etc.

If you say it is your faith, then there can be no argument. But, when it is presented as the ultimate truth, a little more rigor is needed than declaring such subjective assessments as intuition and experience.

This is my 1 cent

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

... If we observe the practice of lay vaishnavas things are much different.

Dear Subbudu sir, In my experience, I would classify SVs into three groups, (i) the orthodox, (ii) the weekend SV orthodox wannabes, and (iii) don't know the difference between SV and Iyengars.

The ones of the first kind take all the inconveniences that come with orthodox SV life and yet do respect Smartas for their Vedic learning. Srimat Ahobila Matam conducts 5-day Veda/Dhivya Prapanda parayanam for important Thirunakshatrams and other occasions -- averages at least one every month. The Veda Goshti is predominantly Samrthas from everywhere, particularly Andhra. They are well paid, very well respected, and given special honors.

The third kind does not know very much and does not care. They may be as pious as the next person, but don't take organized religion very seriously.

The second kind is the dishonest hypocrites. They have one leg in the river and one leg in the mud, as the saying goes. They act as though they are very orthodox during the weekend, adorning 12 thiruman, wearing panca kaccham badly, singing Azhvar pasurams with gusto, and generally showing off their connections in the secular world like I am MD here, I know this cabinet minister there, and then demanding whether one is a brahmin or not to be let into the pandhi.

I have a lot of respect for the first kind, I understand the third kind and will have a jolly good time with them, it is the second kind that I have no respect for.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.... Belief need not even be based on any authority. In case, you disbelieve in some thing, you are not given a right to condemn those who believe in it. This could be applicable to single person or a group of persons. raja48.

Dear raja sir, I agree that condemning people is unacceptable. I hate to be put down and insulted just because I hold views that are different from the main stream. In a similar vain, I hate to put down an opponent in a personal way just because I disagree with his/her view.

Having said that, I am convinced that criticizing the views in a logical and civil way is not the same as condemning the person holding such views. Condemning an idea is not the same as condemning a person holding the idea, no?

I have been hearing the word "ego" tossed around, usually against those who dare to hold contrarian views, but don't you think it is ego that comes in the way when an idea is logically challenged and yet the holder of the idea refuses to accept, but resorts to name calling, etc.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

I know you are one person who thinks that fairness should not be compromised at any cost. I know you won't let even your [COLOR=#da7911 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]ego[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] come in the way. I have great respect for you for that.

Thanks for your opinion, sir. I am flattered. I wish to see fairness in Sri.Sangom's case. Sir, I am not only discussing with you, but also with many other members who are silently observing our conversation. So, kindly bear with me, if you personally feel my persuation seems a bit tiresome.

What I am saying is Shri.Sangom committed a certain mistake which not only he is guilty of but also a number of others. Shri.KRS pointed it out because his status being different from other members in the forum. He has done this to a number of other members. In my opinion he has intervened most of the times when it was required.

Sir, we seem to have difference of opinion at this juncture. Firstly, Sri.Sangom had not commited any mistake. Secondly, mistakes don't justify calling for 'integrity'. Only fradulent actions justify call for integrity; did Sri.Sangom commit any fradulent action here? if he did, what is that fradulent action, I pray ask you, ask Sri.KRS and ask the silent observers, please.

It is not that I accept Sri.Sangom's views. Most often than not, most of our conversations are from the opposite ends. In most situations, I only found myself opposing his views. Sri.Sangom may be one member who 'likes' most of my views; but, I rarely expressed liking to his views, because my views are different.

When considering the 'trio' in question here, seldom there is a conversation with Sri.Nara; we differed in our opinions so much. ஆனால் நியாயம்ன்னு ஒண்ணு இருக்கு. The trio in question had not offended anyone in this thread at all. The whole thing just started out of the blue.

Sir, you consider Sri.Sangom's assertions without valid references as 'mistakes'. I am requesting you to apply the same principle here, please.... Have you stopped to ask for the valid reason to call for his integrity? Discussions/debates and even arguments are based on 'நா நயம்'; it is fun to certain extend, at the end of it, we all go back to what were doing before. But calling for one's 'நாணயம்' in a discussion should have a valid reason, in my opinion. I don't know all Sri.Sangom's posts; I did not even read most of his messages since I am only interested in lighter subjects. So, can someone be kind enough to show me (and other members like me), where Sri.Sangom behaved fradulently, please. Thanks.

Also, I think there is no need to make such a big issue of the word "integrity". It should be understood given its context and the specific accusation of Shri.KRS. If seen in the right light I think we realize we can indeed gloss over it. And seeing such big names in the forum taking it up as an issue, I am indeed surprised.

Sir, if Sri.Sangom makes a big issue about the word 'integrity', I think it is his right to do so. All I am seeking is a justifiable reason to call for integrity. I may not know the whole truth; Sri.Sangom's integrity may very well be in question, all I am seeking is the reason, please.

Sri.Sravna sir, kindly don't take my discussions as personally directed towards you; it is not. My discussions are directed not only towards you, but also towards other silent observers, please.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri.Raja, Greetings.

Dear Member Raghy,(Post No.192)
I am of the view that, as a hindu you can be atheist. You can term the entire scriptures and other works like philosophy as rubbish. However, no member, whosoever he may be should not hurt the feelings of the person who believes that every thing is real and of supreme importance.

I am not opposing your views. Hinduism is a strange religion; atheism is built in the religion. Most if not all the realised souls become atheists at the end. They may not be propagating atheism though; it is for every individuals to experience. Scriptures are there for questioning. Unless we question we may not seek answers. Questioning scritures may be seen as treating them as rubbish; unless we value the scriptures, we may not be questioning them, we may not be conducting discussions from them. I don't see why a believer should be hurt by mere discussions or debates. Only a person who is passionate about a particular subject would be discussing/debating about that subject.

It is wrong on the part of a member who opined that so and so has created a thread without knowing the basics of the subject. The intention to create a thread could be to know more on the subject matter. It is likely that the person might have heard or read something and might have liked to know how far is his knowledge is correct.

Sir, to my knowledge, there was only discussions in this thread. Nobody commented on the knowledge of the thread creator in a derogatory way. If the thread creator was not seriously, there would not have been so many contributions in this thread. I did not even pay much attention to this thread since I know next to nothing on the subject in discussion (after going through this thread, my knowledge still is next to nothing on the subject discussed so far).

as Hindu no one, even atheist has no right to criticise the beliefs of other person(s), because this forum is meant for sharing of information and not proselytisation. [COLOR=#da7911 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Hinduism[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] teaches only tolerance and also sympathy to others who are ignorant. Thiis should not be construed as being given a right to criticise the beliefs of ohers and hurting their feelings.

Sir, there is a difference between 'criticising' and 'ridiculing'. All the developments are possible only through criticising and critical thinking. Gautama Buddha critically thought about animal sacrifices in Yagnas.. that lead way to new philosophies and principles; Adi Sankara critically thought about difference of opinions and fights between the followers of 'Shan Madha'... that paved way for him to combine them under one umbrella, now known as 'Hinduism'.

When I joined this forum, in my introductory message, I introduced myself as an atheist. I have not hurt anybody's feelings. My messages speak for themselves. Sir, only views are expressed in messages. I don't know views could hurt other's feelings. I am really at loss here, please.

Belief need not even be based on any authority. In case, you disbelieve in some thing, you are not given a right to condemn those who believe in it. This could be applicable to single person or a group of persons.

Sir, faith need not have any substantiation. But, belief is accepting something or someone as an authority. Sir, disbeliever do not condemn believers; but, most often, only believers condemn disbelievers. It is true for not only in Hinduism but also for all the other religions. As per the Abrahamic religions, all the disbelievers are condemned be roasted or burned in hell at very high temperatures just because they don't believe.

Sir, I am a Humanist. My views are slightly different. The aim of post #192 is to show Sri.Sangom's right to be critical about revered persons. Nobody needs to be hurt by that.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Subbudu sir, In my experience, I would classify SVs into three groups, (i) the orthodox, (ii) the weekend SV orthodox wannabes, and (iii) don't know the difference between SV and Iyengars.

The ones of the first kind take all the inconveniences that come with orthodox SV life and yet do respect Smartas for their Vedic learning. Srimat Ahobila Matam conducts 5-day Veda/Dhivya Prapanda parayanam for important Thirunakshatrams and other occasions -- averages at least one every month. The Veda Goshti is predominantly Samrthas from everywhere, particularly Andhra. They are well paid, very well respected, and given special honors.

The third kind does not know very much and does not care. They may be as pious as the next person, but don't take organized religion very seriously.

The second kind is the dishonest hypocrites. They have one leg in the river and one leg in the mud, as the saying goes. They act as though they are very orthodox during the weekend, adorning 12 thiruman, wearing panca kaccham badly, singing Azhvar pasurams with gusto, and generally showing off their connections in the secular world like I am MD here, I know this cabinet minister there, and then demanding whether one is a brahmin or not to be let into the pandhi.

I have a lot of respect for the first kind, I understand the third kind and will have a jolly good time with them, it is the second kind that I have no respect for.

Cheers!

You are probably right. I know a vadakalai lady who was very proud of her family, not withstanding the fact that some of her nephews have said goodbye to caste marriage and food habits. This lady is very particular about food and the daily puja. I found it amusing that she suddenly put me into cross-questioning about my subcaste. Her first question during my introduction with her was - Are you a vadama? Seeing my hesitation in answering such a question,(because I knew from which angle this question came from, not that I am really ashamed of being one thing or another) she continued or you might be a brahcharanam or vathima etc and she proudly said she knew all about Iyer subcastes. Well this is not such a big deal. But she is so very caste protyped that even the servant maid she hired was based on the person's caste. She once remarked that I have hired her because she does not belong to such a low caste. In my family we have never seen this kind of curiosity to know a servant maid's caste. All things apart, this is one thing I was really disgusted. She was reciting Vishnu Sahasranama and when I made my appearance, she started using some very bad words against a person she did not like as she got distracted from her prayers.

However I know quite a few gentlemen and good ladies from this community. But because I lived for a long time outside of TN, I have seen some very broadminded Iyengars. There seems to be still a fussiness about visiting Shiva temples and some leftover habits they brought along with them from TN. I dont have any means to judge their orthodoxy because lot of things are never really discussed in public. But by and large outside TN, this community has become more broad minded.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
The process , as I have explained countless times before is, if YOU, as a person may feel injured by the statement, write me a pm. I am the Law in this Forum, not a third party.

If you want to know the exact circumstances as to Why I said this to Srimathi HH Ji, (who by the way, I consider as my sister), there is a recent history you are not aware of. I wish, you to send me a PM on this, instead of questioning the Moderation.

If you think that what Sri Raju Ji is not acceptable, please let me know in a PM, why you think so, describing the reasons. I will consider and take any actions. Srimathi HH Ji, is not a moderator.

Regards,
KRS

I am fully aware that what is written in red is beyond reproach, but this involves me. It is a very strange rule indeed that one member has the right to ask another member to leave the forum, but a third member, however outraged he/she may feel, must let the law of the street to prevail and stay out, or else, an example will be made out of him or her.

I really don't know where this is going, in case I am still around posting in this forum, I would like to welcome anybody to jump in in a conversation between me and anyone else, against me or in support of me. This has been the rule all along, but things seem to be changing now.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sister,

You level a very big charge on the mutts. 'Caste Discrimination', is not just a word to throw around. What do you mean by this word?

Doing somethings against the Indian laws is also a crime. This is why I specifically asked you what you mean. I think you are confused between what is caste prejudice (which is not illegal), with caste discrimination (which is definitely illegal). I just want to make sure, you understand the differences between the two.

As I have said, as a Moderator, when I say certain things and warn everyone to abide, and if they do not, then we have to make it a rule. I have had several conversations with you on this general topic over a different person. I have told others too. It is Professor Nara Ji's responsibility to come to me to do the moderation. It is not your business to act as a moderator. When you say to Sri Raju Ji, 'Who are you to say this to Professor Nara Ji', you are clearly taking over my job as the moderator. This type of interference creates more issues. Instead of making my job easier, it just makes it hard, irrespective of my support of your views in general.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS ji,

Everyone knows mutts indulge in caste-discrimination. And everyone also knows caste-discrimination is illegal and banned bDear Sistery law. Its open and clear. So i do not think any kind of elaboration is required here.

AFAIK, anyone can intervene with their points. I suppose you want to bring in a new rule suddenly now. You were always welcome to edit out anything you please.

In this case, i wud like to know on what basis can Raju ask Nara sir to leave? I know you and Praveen can ask anyone to leave because you are the SM and Praveen is the owner of this forum. But how Raju? I would like to know this sir.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I have told all of you not to make any comments on the 'incidence' till I can separate the items not related to this thread and answer all the postings. Sri Raghy Ji, obviously did not read my post as well as some others.

Now I have more work to do. So, till I do this, I will DELETE any postings going back to the 'integrity' issue'. You are fairly warned.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Raghy]

Sri.KRS Sir, Greetings.

I don't mean to intrude. I won't be making any more posts in this thread until you clear things out. I felt bad to see the developments.We are discussing and moving like a family here. It is very painful to see frictions here. I am sure you would be working on this. I hope I have not caused any inconveniences.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Raghy Ji, Sir,

As you Australians say, no issues.

It is just that I am inundated, and want to give everything and everyone a fair hearing.

I am working this out. Thank you for your patience.

Regards,
KRS

Sri.KRS Sir, Greetings.

I don't mean to intrude. I won't be making any more posts in this thread until you clear things out. I felt bad to see the developments.We are discussing and moving like a family here. It is very painful to see frictions here. I am sure you would be working on this. I hope I have not caused any inconveniences.

 

[suraju06]

No matter what you say, Shri Raju, "brahmanism" that is, casteism and birth-based labour laws are banned by law. Discrimination against anyone based on caste is illegal. Yet this "nefarious" practice of caste-discrimination is continued by 'brahmins' at the highest level (that is, at the mutt-level or institutional-level). Sooner or later they will be answerable for it (please mark these words). Shri Nara, is in fact trying to help his folks, by making them see reason.

Who are you to tell Shri Nara to go away? Why do you rub/inflcit your casteism on us ?

Shri Raju, your "inventing theories" stands no chance. The public is a lot more aware of the "obfuscation" done in the name of "faith". Irrespective of whether or not Shri Nara speaks about it, public awareness is no less these days.

Dear HH,

Your post does not deserve a reply for the following reasons:
1. You had once earlier demanded a proof from me for a certain statement I made and when I gave it, you discounted it whimsically and called me a lier(fibbing is the term you used there). So logically you should not be dealing with a "lier" and the person whom you called a lier has the right to treat your posts the way he chooses. If you are ready to express regret then I may continue to engage you.
2. Mr. Nara is more than capable of answering my question and the request that I have made in my post addressed to him directly. I do not think he has appointed you his mouthpiece for this purpose. If I am wrong let Mr. Nara please clarify on this also. I do recognise that , you as a member of this forum can post your views only. You have no business to take cudgels on behalf another member on an imaginery issue and jump into the fray(I did not ask Mr. Nara to leave this or any other forum. Please read carefully what I have posted and then come here).
3. I have already informed you once that I am not interested in engaging you in a debate on anything for valid reasons and You have already celebrated it with a pat on your back by posting that I had nothing to come up with as a reply to your very "smart questions".

In case you are going to post a reply to this post and if it deserves a reply from me( dont attempt to twist out of context again-please read last line of point 1 above) you will have to wait for the next 20 days as I am going away to a place where I do not intend to access internet.

Cheers.

 

[renuka]

The main problem here is almost everyone misunderstood Surajs post.
i will put a punch dialogue here hope this clears things up:


Yen Vali Thani Vali..so if your way and my way dont see eye to eye..you are free to go your way and I am free to go my way but no one needs to take the highway out of here..

 

[suraju06]

The main problem here is almost everyone misunderstood Surajs post.
i will put a punch dialogue here hope this clears things up:


Yen Vali Thani Vali..so if your way and my way dont see eye to eye..you are free to go your way and I am free to go my way but no one needs to take the highway out of here..

Dear Renuka,
I think it can be put this way correctly:
சாதிகள் பத்தி உன் கருத்து உனக்கு சரி. என் கருத்து எனக்கு சரின்னு ஆனப்புறம் உன் கருத்தை ஏன் எல்லா விஷயத்திலேயும் கொண்டு வந்து புகுத்தி எங்க மேல தேய்க்கிறே? அதை பூண்டு ரசம் எப்படி பண்ணறது என்கிற சாதாரண விஷயத்துலேருந்து quantum physics, advaitam, Sri vaishnavam என்கிற serious விஷயம் வரை எல்லாத்துலயும் கொண்டு வந்து கொட்டித்தான் ஆகணுமா? கையிலே எடுத்த விஷயத்தை மட்டும் விவாதிச்சா எவ்வளவு நல்லா இருக்கும்? இதை ஏன் புரிஞ்சுக்க மாட்டேங்கிறேப்பா?.