PDA

View Full Version : Tone: Truth or Opinion



Eastern Mind
21 February 2010, 09:39 AM
Namaste all:

I find that some postings have an overall tone of "This is the way it is", I know what I'm talking about. I find this a barrier to communication. Such phrases as
"Actually this is the way it is.."
"Now this is the truth"
"All Hindus believe.."
"The fact is"
"I know that..."

are all misleading. I would suggest that in all cases the statements are either outright opinion, or interpretation gathered by the individual because of his particular readings of scripture or interpretation of scripture. In other words it's the old "I am right, and you are wrong" attitude.

Sometimes it has even gotten to the point of denying another person's personal experience, which is the epitome of vanity, IMHO. It's like telling an afraid child that they aren't afraid.

Let's face it. We are a diverse group. We build Hindu Solidarity by learning a bit about how others view things. We destroy Hindu Solidarity by telling others they are wrong. Nobody is wrong. There are just different viewpoints.

I much prefer phrasing such as the following:

"Perhaps I can offer a different POV..."
"IMHO..."
"My personal ideas on this are..."

At least then it doesn't come across as insulting, or abusive, or superior.

Thank you all for reading this.

Aum Namasivaya

MahaHrada
21 February 2010, 11:06 AM
Namaste all:

I find that some postings have an overall tone of "This is the way it is", I know what I'm talking about. I find this a barrier to communication. Such phrases as
"Actually this is the way it is.."
"Now this is the truth"
"All Hindus believe.."
"The fact is"
"I know that..."

are all misleading. I would suggest that in all cases the statements are either outright opinion, or interpretation gathered by the individual because of his particular readings of scripture or interpretation of scripture. In other words it's the old "I am right, and you are wrong" attitude.

Sometimes it has even gotten to the point of denying another person's personal experience, which is the epitome of vanity, IMHO. It's like telling an afraid child that they aren't afraid.

Let's face it. We are a diverse group. We build Hindu Solidarity by learning a bit about how others view things. We destroy Hindu Solidarity by telling others they are wrong. Nobody is wrong. There are just different viewpoints.

I much prefer phrasing such as the following:

"Perhaps I can offer a different POV..."
"IMHO..."
"My personal ideas on this are..."

At least then it doesn't come across as insulting, or abusive, or superior.

Thank you all for reading this.

Aum Namasivaya

I have the completly oppositte opinion, I find postings that are full of useless ambiguities like:

"Perhaps I can offer a different POV..."
"IMHO..."
"My personal ideas on this are..."

hypocritical and i usually do not even read or react to such postings because most of the time this is nothing but a polite lie, but besides being hypocritical they are also boring to read because of the longwinded sentences that these people need as excuses for having an opinion

In a discussion you must know what the other persons thinks if this is drowned by ambiguities discussion becomes impossible.

Having expertise and knowledge is not something one has to be ashamend of.

Not everything is an opinion there is also something like the truth about a subject and there are other aspects where we have no certain knowledge but we have opinions, both these cases can exist.

If i know the truth about a subject, not because i am convinced of it but because i have studied it for a long time and have expertise about it , and nonetheless pretend that it is only a point of view because it is the political correct way of expression, this is for me an absolutely disgusting hypocritical communication.

When everyone is afraid of a clearly expressing what he thinks and know , the postings would become long winded boring monologues, with nobody responding because nothing definite is stated, why react to someone who is afraid to define himself?

When everybody is always using ambiguites and all kind of delusions and errors and crackpot ideas are accepted as just another POV, nothing of real value is achieved.

yajvan
21 February 2010, 11:15 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


regarding ' it must be, it is, it is absolutely this way' ; ' its only this way' .

Svāmī Lakṣman-jū has said ignornace is not so much about what you don't know, but what you do know that's just not right.

praṇām

Ganeshprasad
21 February 2010, 01:10 PM
Pranam all
 
 
I am all for tolerance and respect for different point of view, since there are a lot of paths in SD branching from reading the same Shastra's

Pushpadant sings thus

2. Atitah panthanam tava ca mahima vanmanasayor

Atad vyavrttya yam cakita mabhi dhatte srutirapi,

Sa kasya stotavyah katividha gunah kasya visayah

Pade tvarvacine patati na manah kasya na vacah.



Your greatness is beyond the reach of mind and speech. Who can properly praise that which even the Vedas describe with trepidation, by means of' 'not this, not this'? How many qualities does He possess? By whom can He be perceived? Yet whose mind and speech do not turn to the form later taken by Him (saguna) ?

There is bound to be difference of opinion but I feel our discussion and opinion should be grounded in Shastra’s and Sadhu, differences there in should be respected, here is what Shree Krishna says.
 
One who acts under the influence of their desires, disobeying scriptural injunctions, neither attains perfection nor happiness nor the supreme goal. (16.23)

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
21 February 2010, 01:57 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

What we can say without too much conjuring is that speech falls under the niyama¹ of śauca and the yama of ahiṁsā called out by by Patañjali-ji.

This śauca is considered purity, integrity, honesty, clean-ness and we know ahiṁsā as non-injury. Hence it seems reasonable that speech take on these two qualities. Pleasant & factual speech I think is possible. It needs to be an intention on the side of the speaker, and not just an accident that occurs.

praṇām

words

niyama
We consider niyama as observances, yet if look at this word, perhaps it tells us something, ni+yama. This ni has the meaning of do, back, into or down into.

Another view: ni(negating) + yama ( in this application) yama as death. That is, niyama can been seen as the negation death,
therefore birth… One can then view niyama as giving birth and life to the observances, that bring life and substance.

Another: It can also be looked at the negation of disease, ni+ya+ ama; ni - the negation and + ya - restraint of + ama -disease. Hence this view suggests niyama is to negate and/or restrain disease (or dis-ease, that cause for mind-body dis-harmony).

What are the 5 niyamas?
The yamas and niyamas are not mutually exclusive but support each other and bring sustenance to each quality.

Śauca - cleanliness. Yet in essence, purity. We can consider the purity of the heart and mind ( thinking and emotions)
Santoṣa - contentment. The absence of greed and possessing in excess ( hoarding)
Tapas - is from tapa , to consume by heat or fire; this tapas blooms as tapasya. Most think austerity; some think religious austerity, penance, even severe restrictions. From a practical perspective , tapasya is self-control. This tapas compliments the yama of aparigraha (to back-away from and release i.e. non-hoarding).
Svadhayāya - is considered study. It is also self-knowing. The study that can assist the individual to become SELF-knowing.
Īśvara-praṇidhāna - this is the notion of recognizing and advancing ( some say adoring) Īśvara. Creating that personal relationship with Sarvesvara (Lord of All).

praṇām

Jivattatva
21 February 2010, 05:01 PM
Namaste


I agree with MahaHradaa.


I think the OP of Eastern Mind is the mother of all cop outs!

There are many ways to discern the truth and there are types of truth. Thats for another topic because its a very big subject .

devotee
21 February 2010, 08:47 PM
Namaste EM,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. My admiration for you increases manifold by considering the fact that this priceless wisdom has come from a person who in this life was not born & brought up as a Hindu in India. You are a lovely Hindu in true sense. :)

What I have noticed that the problem you have pointed out is mostly in those Hindus who are not born Hindus or even if they are born Hindus, they are not brought up in India. However, we can't do much with these esteemed members as you must have realised by reading some of the posts here in reply to your post. Some members have placed themselves a bit too high to listen to your words of wisdom. Please don't get disheartened ... imho, there is greater number here that supports your views.

I wonder, if someone really claims to "know" (absolute knowledge and not relative), what he gains in a discussion on a forum like this ?

OM

yajvan
21 February 2010, 09:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Jivattatva



I think the OP of Eastern Mind is the mother of all cop outs!

Can you help me better understand your point of view - what is the cop out in this application of the phrase?

To avoid fulfilling a commitment or responsibility -- is this how you are applying the word/phrase?

praṇām

atanu
21 February 2010, 10:37 PM
Namaste All,

After eating an apple, if I say "I think I ate an apple", that I think, will be too much.

On the other hand, regarding the truth, JT is probably wrong when he says: there are types of truth. And when he says: There are many ways to discern the truth, is he not contradicting himself?

Regarding knowing, even the highest of sages say:

Kena U.


II-1. If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the gods (too is but little). Therefore Brahman is still to be inquired into by you. I think Brahman is known to me.
II-2. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 February 2010, 11:02 PM
This reminds me.

My father used to adore and listen to Bade Ghulam Ali and K. L. Saigal. We, his sons, were very emphatic that those artists were sh-t. I particularly gave a lot of pain to my father but he used to smile. Then, we saw how Kishore Kumar (whom we adored), adored K. L. Saigal and Bade Ghulam Ali, with daily worship.

I cite above, because of a reason. Similar thing happened, when I saw a picture of Shri Lakshman Joo with folded palms praying to Shri Ramana Maharshi. This does not mean that one is greater than the other but that only the Jnani knows the Jnani and the Jnana.

We can only pit one opinion against another and pose to be speaking the only truth, helped by caustic language.

Om Namah Shivaya

proudhindu
22 February 2010, 05:48 AM
While one can see that the veterans have fragile egos here.It appears Eastern mind is not immune to this.

I always wonder why one rarely see quality posts here.The general tone and tenor of this forum is similar to a buddy group where one pats each others back and go home feeling elated.
Yes, one has to be knowledgeable and have discrimination when posting on matters on hindu theology.The immediate provocation for EM outburst appears to be the thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5358

amith vikram
22 February 2010, 07:40 AM
namaste,
i agree with some of the posts here.one has 2 be confident while posting.it is also true that 'buddy thing' occurs here:)
but lets not worry abt such things.personally,i dont care even if people say i am an oxymoron and dont know a thing abt vedanta.all i care abt is true knowledge without any bias.
posting POVs doesnt help any of us.but even when we say its my strong conviction,its still a POV.i feel people should post whatever they know confidently.a better person than us will surely rectify it.
well,even today i wonder why krishna says at the end,it is my opinion.

atanu
22 February 2010, 07:59 AM
Namaste All,


II-2. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.



Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste All,

Contemplating, I find that the truth is not about knowing or not knowing. But we can articulate and argue only in the realm of knowing and not knowing.

I comprehend that not for nothing, Lord Dakshinamurti is silent.

:)
Om Namah Shivaya

coolbodhi
22 February 2010, 01:36 PM
So true my friend. This is why you see a lot of "visitors" instead of "logged in" members. This type of buddy attitude or boys club is not good for the forum.

The ganging up of a few senior members is preventing a lot of good, knowledgeable posters from saying anything for fear of backlash by the senior members.

I have been reading this forum silently for years and hardly every post anything for the same reason.

I am surprised that Eastern Mind has a fragile ego too. From his past posts it doesn't seem that way.

I disagree that there are no quality posts here. Have you not read Yajvan or Sai devo's posts?


While one can see that the veterans have fragile egos here.It appears Eastern mind is not immune to this.

I always wonder why one rarely see quality posts here.The general tone and tenor of this forum is similar to a buddy group where one pats each others back and go home feeling elated.
Yes, one has to be knowledgeable and have discrimination when posting on matters on hindu theology.The immediate provocation for EM outburst appears to be the thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5358

coolbodhi
22 February 2010, 01:44 PM
What I have noticed that the problem you have pointed out is mostly in those Hindus who are not born Hindus or even if they are born Hindus, they are not brought up in India.


What does place of birth have to do with anything?



Some members have placed themselves a bit too high to listen to your words of wisdom.

This is the type of attitude that keeps most of us members silent.

Eastern Mind
22 February 2010, 02:27 PM
Namaste coolbodhi: Good to see you posting. I welcome any members to post.

I am not sure where anyone got the idea of fragile egos from. I certainly didn't attempt to post some crazy angry reaction. Of course, ego is rather personal, and between a devotee and God. If you or anyone else feels the need to pass judgment on me in this way, go right ahead, I guess.

As far as the old boys club goes, I just want to point out that on several occasions I have disagreed with Saidevoji, Atanuji, Devoteeji, and even Yajvanji. If truth be told, philosophically, from what I have seen, I probably have more in common with MahaHrada. But that wasn't my point in the beginning of this thread. The point was more in how to disagree, not to become emotional over it, and to accept others as beings entitled to having views. It all about remaining civil, in my view. If we are in agreement on 95% of the stuff, then why should we focus on the 5% where we do disagree?

And to clarify once again, as I believe I have stated many times before, I stand totally against the idea of new-agers becoming enlightened from some magical shortcut provided to them by some Guru wannabe regurgitating wise words of someone else.

Aum Namasivaya

proudhindu
22 February 2010, 03:03 PM
I am surprised that Eastern Mind has a fragile ego too. From his past posts it doesn't seem that way.

It seems, it is a temporary aberration.I read many of his posts and find them level headed.


I disagree that there are no quality posts here. Have you not read Yajvan or Sai devo's posts?

The few quality posts get submerged in useless chatter.I find saidevo posts informative and to the point.I had some open and private discussions with Yajvan.While he certainly appears to be knowledgeable his posts lack clarity and discrimination(neti neti).As pointed out by amith,POv kind of posts are of no use to anybody.

satay
22 February 2010, 03:12 PM
pranam bodhi,

I am a little bit disturbed to read your post though in the past some members have told me the same thing regarding staying silent.

I think that HDF is a welcoming place. In fact, Eastern Mind takes upon himself to welcome personally most if not all new members of HDF! So I don't understand your comments about Eastern.

If you have been reading the posts here silently, you would know the members that have no or little ego or are indifferent to threads that turn into ego match. I recall, Yajvan used to start his posts or threads with 'leave your ego at the door'.

Why didn't you PM me or email me earlier if you felt this way re HDF? There are many western hindus here and you should feel right at home. Eastern, Yajvan, Maha are all western hindus!

We Indian members do sometimes show our nationalistic pride and bring that in HDF but that's harmless in my opinion. Where else on the net should we indians go to show that pride?

I hope that you and others will continue to post.

smaranam
22 February 2010, 03:17 PM
I had some open and private discussions with Yajvan.While he certainly appears to be knowledgeable his posts lack clarity and discrimination(neti neti).As pointed out by amith,POv kind of posts are of no use to anybody.

praNAm

It can't be 'of no use to anybody'.

In the little while I have been here, what I find valuable in Yajvanji's approach

1. The Sanskrt root word break-up , etymology that suddenly throws a lot of light on shastra, where the thought presented was coming from, lot of VedaVyAsji's secret divine tactics , etc. POVs show the various meanings the same verse can take.

2. Peace (shanti), patience (saburi) and such qualities that radiate from the writing itself , which are not explicitly mentioned, which set a good example of overall behaviour of a sadhak, not just in forums, in life.

3. Some posts try to bring "so what is to be done about this" (upaya) more to the surface , in a thread. From various authoritative sources in scriptures, in a non-dogmatic way.

4. Diliberately leaving open ends , for us to think about it and come up with possible answers.

Of course, this is not to dampen any valuable feedback like one above, just what I see in the posts. I am sure he will make them more legible to suit other tastes :)

yajvan
22 February 2010, 10:52 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


namaste,
well,even today i wonder why krishna says at the end,it is my opinion.

I am happy you wrote this... We find this statement in several upaniṣad's and even by Kṛṣṇa Hiimself. Why so? Nīcā - humble.

It seems this quality has become a limited quality and rago-guna has raised it's head.

praṇām

Mohini Shakti Devi
22 February 2010, 11:22 PM
i wonder why krishna says at the end,it is my opinion.

Free-will

in your face.

Prima-fascia.

Krishna concludes the entire Hour and a half dissertation (the Gita) to his cousin Arjuna by saying, [IMHO, Krsna says this with a sigh and stare straight in the face of Arjuna] "Okay I finished telling the BEST OF ADVICE, if I do say so myself" and he finally finishes with, "Now do what you wish to do"

atanu
22 February 2010, 11:33 PM
i wonder why krishna says at the end,it is my opinion.

Free-will



Shri Krishna also says "Arjuna you will fight".

18.59 Yadahankaaram aashritya na yotsya iti manyase;
Mithyaisha vyavasaayaste prakritistwaam niyokshyati.
18.59 If, filled with egoism, thou thinkest: “I will not fight”, vain is this, thy resolve; Nature will compel thee.

18.60 Swabhaavajena kaunteya nibaddhah swena karmanaa;
Kartum necchasi yanmohaat karishyasyavasho’pi tat.
18.60. O Arjuna, bound by thy own Karma (action) born of thy own nature, that which from delusion thou wishest not to do, even that thou shalt do helplessly!

Om Namah Shivaya

Jivattatva
23 February 2010, 01:03 AM
Namaste All,

After eating an apple, if I say "I think I ate an apple", that I think, will be too much.

On the other hand, regarding the truth, JT is probably wrong when he says: there are types of truth. And when he says: There are many ways to discern the truth, is he not contradicting himself?

Regarding knowing, even the highest of sages say:

Kena U.


II-1. If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the gods (too is but little). Therefore Brahman is still to be inquired into by you. I think Brahman is known to me.
II-2. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.

Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste


Sorry, I had a long reply but lost it because I lost internet connection or maybe I accidentally pressed something and I can not recreate at this time , so will reply later on. That is why I hate using laptop.

MahaHrada
23 February 2010, 02:23 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I am happy you wrote this... We find this statement in several upaniṣad's and even by Kṛṣṇa Hiimself. Why so? Nīcā - humble.

It seems this quality has become a limited quality and rago-guna has raised it's head.

praṇām



I feel the absolute opposite is true , a humble person will always be truthful, kind and straightforward, because he has no regards of what other people think of him, whether it is good or bad, but his only regard is satyam, rtam and dharmam, he prefers to speaks the truth. Always using only pleasant words that appease everybodys ego, shows this persons rajo guna, his pride. Appeasement and the wish to appear humble and be liked by all, is not humility, it is really due to a strong ego and an indomitable pride that has to masquerade and hide his true face, appearing in the guise of perfect humility. I have a deep seated dislike of the artificial politeness and exchange of pleasantries, the op suggested, because of its vanity and the resulting pride of the ego in its own false glory i dislike it even more than a straightforward lie right into my face. There is more truth in this then in false pretense.

satyaM brUyAt priyaM brUyAt na brUyAt satyam apriyam priyaM ca nAnRRitaM brUyAt eSha dharmaH sanAtanaH
One should speak the truth, which is pleasing, not the truth which is unpleasing. One must not speak an untruth which is pleasing. This is the eternal way of life.

yajvan
23 February 2010, 12:32 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I feel the absolute opposite is true , a humble person will always be truthful, kind and straightforward, because he has no regards of what other people think of him, whether it is good or bad, but his only regard is satyam, rtam and dharmam, he prefers to speaks the truth. One must not speak an untruth which is pleasing. This is the eternal way of life.
I do not see out of your eyes... yet I respect what you say. I struggle to see how it is absolutely opposite. How so ? I did not state any thing firmly to be opposite of; My words were of nīcā. I will conclude you have inferred and advanced the idea perhaps, and that is fine, lets take it further.

That said, speaking the truth should bring no harm. And I clearly see your point of speaking a untruth that is pleasing - in this case I
would not speak, silence.

praṇām

yajvan
23 February 2010, 12:47 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Nīcā is as a worthy trait to possess and practice as it comes with growth and maturity. The rāmāyaṇa tells us the following story as I see as an example of divine nīcā:

One day sītā was obducted by rāvaṇa. As rāvaṇa carried her through the sky sītā thought to cast Her bangles and jewelery to the ground. Her plan was simple - śrī rāmaḥ ( some prefer śrī rām) wondering in the forest would find the bangles and would know the route by which She was obducted.

It just so happened the bangles fell close to where hanumān-ji and sugrīa were sitting. They took the bangles immediately to śrī rām. Śrī rām recognized sītā's bangles immediately. Yet for confirmation he asked śrī lakṣmaṇ for him to concur. Śrī lakṣmaṇ replied, I cannot recognize the ornaments/bangles which see wore on Her ears or Her wrists. I can only recognize the one's she adored on Her feet and nothing else. I have not seen her face.

praṇām

MahaHrada
23 February 2010, 01:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I do not see out of your eyes... yet I respect what you say. I struggle to see how it is absolutely opposite. How so ? I did not state any thing firmly to be opposite of; My words were of nīcā. I will conclude you have inferred and advanced the idea perhaps, and that is fine, lets take it further.

That said, speaking the truth should bring no harm. And I clearly see your point of speaking a untruth that is pleasing - in this case I
would not speak, silence.

praṇām

We are accepting that the shastras state the truth, they are not merely an opinion.

How can it be truly humble to make the impression that what we say or write is mereley an opinion or POV while in reality it is based on the shastras?

Isn´t that an untruth voiced merely to appease and please others that might be offended?

If it isn´t based on the shastras but really one´s own opinion of course we should or can mention that, but as i understand the op that is not what he meant.

The shastras ask us to never tell the untruth just because it is pleasing. And of course we shouldn´t try to appear more humble than we really are only for the reason to be praised by others and liked by all.

So if we base our postings on the shastras it is bad conduct for us to state that what we write is mereley an opinion. We should clearly point out that it is the truth. When we state that our opinion which is not based on the shastras is merely an opinion, how can that be a sign of humility, it is merely a fact.

So however you turn it we must disagree. Thats why i think our views in this matter are opposed. What i think is papa you consider punya, I do not consider that we differ here is a very important fact but i still think we do.

I think we agree that truth is more important than ego appeasement.

namo brahmaNe namaste vAyo tvAmeva pratyakShaM brahmAsi tvameva pratyakShama brahma vadiShyAmi RitaM vadiShyAmi satyaM vadiShyAmi, tanmAmavatu, tadvaktAramavatu avatu mAM avatu vaktAram (Taittiriya Upanishad 1.1.2)

Salutations to Supreme Brahman, Salutations to Vayu (Mukhyaprana), you are verily the visible or manifest Brahman, I say you are the only perceptible Brahman, I say the right thing, I say the Truth, Let this protect me and also the speaker of this truth, let me be protected as also one who utters this truth.

Eastern Mind
23 February 2010, 03:58 PM
Namaste all: I'm going to try the original from a slightly different slant as I feel perhaps it wasn't clear.

In Grade school there is a standard common example for teaching meaning in context. Please read this example.

There is a tear in my _________.

One's immediate reaction is to mentally fill in the blank. The previous word 'tear' either rhymes with 'hair', or 'here' totally depending on what the individual put in the blank. This in turn would depend on that person's experience. A doctor or physiotherapist may have seen 'muscle', or 'tendon'. A person who had an emotional upset that day probably saw 'eye'.
Yet others saw 'shirt' or 'jacket' or 'pants'.

In a typical grade 6 class, there is no argument to follow. Each accepts that neither pronunciation or meaning is correct, and yet each one is correct to his or her own mind.

Similar ideas can be seen in translations. Two days ago I did an English speech assessment for 3 Tamil speakers attempting to learn English. The English short 'a' sound you hear in hat was hard. (To my surprise) So was TH, (there, not thing) d, and t. (Not to my surprise) (My old ears had to work hard, and may have missed others.) I had an ESL student from China whose name was Xian. The best I could get when listening was a zh followed by a w blended. So it was like measure, but more like meazhwer. I know of no word in English having this blend.

So words have connotations as well as denotations. Lets take the word, 'Guru' for example. For some it brings up bliss as an emotion. For others it brings out a negative feeling. Still others only think of computer gurus not spiritual gurus. Still others think nothing at all as they have had no experience at all. The word is completely new to them.

I learned here yesterday that my personal connotation for the word 'hallucination' is a negative one associated with psychoactive drugs of the 60s. (I wish I could remember the post where that was pointed out as a possibility, and I'd offer a 'Thank You' but I can't.) Others have a medical association with the term.

There have been at least 15 translations of the Bhagavad-Gita. (referring only to English ones) Why is this? There are only two reasons I can think of. One is each translator in turn didn't know previous translations existed. The second and more probable one is that each new (in terms of chronological time) translator thought he could do a 'better' job. I'm guessing at this very minute someone else is translating it somewhere. Each translation has to go through the subconscious mind of said translator. Each of these minds is different based on the different experiences that person may have had. It may go from Sanskrit to French, Sanskrit to Tamil, or it may even go from Sanskrit to English, and then to Portugeuse, who knows?

(We also have various dictionaries such as Oxford, and Websters, for similar reasons.)

So even though 10 of us here could read the identical passage of any given scripture, we would get 10 different color/feeling/thoughtforms. Why? Because we all have had a different experience of Hinduism, or life. Many of us would glean a new meaning the very next time we read the exact same words, as it may depend on the mood we are in at that moment of time.

So even if the scripture is as narrow as one particular quote or verse from the Rg Veda, which none of us would doubt its authenticity, still we will glean different meanings, or different feelings.

This is more in the line of what I was trying to say in the op. Perhaps the term 'opinion' delivers a negative connotation. Perhaps 'interpretation' or 'personal interpretation' would have been better.

But as with the group of Grade 6s not arguing about the meaning or pronunciation of 'tear' in the above analogy, I see no point in arguing this. One's experience is one's experience only, and as Yajvanji put it, "I do not see out of your eyes."

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
23 February 2010, 06:13 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


We are accepting that the shastras state the truth, they are not merely an opinion.
How can it be truly humble to make the impression that what we say or write is mereley an opinion or POV while in reality it is based on the shastras?
Isn´t that an untruth voiced merely to appease and please others that might be offended?
If it isn´t based on the shastras but really one´s own opinion of course we should or can mention that, but as i understand the op that is not what he meant.
The shastras ask us to never tell the untruth just because it is pleasing. And of course we shouldn´t try to appear more humble than we really are only for the reason to be praised by others and liked by all.
So if we base our postings on the shastras it is bad conduct for us to state that what we write is merely an opinion. We should clearly point out that it is the truth. When we state that our opinion which is not based on the shastras is merely an opinion, how can that be a sign of humility, it is merely a fact.

I think I now see your point and can respond in a meaningful way.
When I write ( I can only talk for me) it's to the best level of my comprehension. What I write comes from śāstra-s and I do the best I can to offer the insight/understandings that I see or have been taught. This does not suggest my comprehension is the final authority on a śloka.

The śāstra-s are no doubt filled with truth, but is our consciousness aligned with ( tuned-to) it, the highest truths, is the perpetual question. For that I say this is my POV, or opinion, etc. - ever clear that the original author's awareness resides and operates from brahman and perfect clarity. My humbleness to clearly convey I stand on another's shoulders is right & truthful. That is, I am not the author, or originator of these ideas I offer, and when I do take the liberty to offer my opinion I wish to do it with full disclosure. Now is this the same for all on HDF - I cannot say, I can only speak for myself.

It is clear to me when reading the veda that saṃketa ( inference, hint,etc.) is the methodology used. To suggest I know their core meaning on 3 levels¹ and to articulate them without fault is beyond my abilities ; hence I wish to let the reader know I will do my best, but always look to be corrected; then too I will also learn. There is no blemish on the orgianl work, only the possibility for me to miss a point or insight.

This is my point of view on this matter and take full responsibility for how I write, offer or suggest insights.

praṇām

words
3 levels of knowledge : trayoḥ arthaḥ sarva-vedeṣhu
(trayoḥ) three (arthaḥ) meanings (sarva) all (vedeṣhu) vedas -or-
There are 3 aims or meanings one can find throughout the various vedas or bodies of knowledge.

These are considered inherent in the veda'-s and great bodies of work one may be introduced to.
What are these 3 aims?

ādhiyajña - ritualistic meaning; that of yajña or yaj sacrificing , worshipping , a sacrificer
ādhidaiva- relating to deities; that of the devatā, the higher creative impulses of creation
ādhyātma - spiritual or esoteric meaning

devotee
23 February 2010, 07:11 PM
Ah ! I think I need to re-learn something :

a) Statement-1 made :

All POVs are useless. It is either Truth or it is not.

Question : If that is so, why there are six varying vedic darshanas arising out of same Vedas ? Why there are different Vedanta Schools deriving their understanding from the same source : Vedanta ?

If I assume the statement-1 to be true then I must agree that the person who gave this statement is more knowledgeable than Shankara, Madhava, Ramanujam, Gaurang Prabhu and others who promoted these various schools. In fact, they are certainly more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna Himself as he uses "me matam" at quite a few places in BG. This is the first lesson.

b) Statement-2 made :

People using such tones like POV etc are actually egoist. Their humility is false.

Question : If that is so, then I must always say that, "I alone am right in interpretation of the scriptures & all others are wrong". This will show that I am humble.
This is the second lesson to be learnt.

However, if everyone starts talking in the same manner ... will anyone listen to anyone ? May be I am unable to understand this subtle issue. I was not taught to discuss issues in this manner. So, I need this lesson.

000000000000000

There are many other lessons to be learnt. But I am first working on the two mentioned above. Till that time please bear with me if I use the terms, "my POV", "imho" etc.

OM

Jivattatva
24 February 2010, 01:58 AM
Pranam

Jajvan

I mean the opening statement is a cop-out because it seems like a escape hutch for a deflated ego who wants to save his face when he loses a debate. "We are are all just stating our own respective opinions".

Generally, people who enter into a philosophical arguments such as the ones here in HDF are expected to bring substance and confidence into the debate. Why else join the fray?

I think the OP implies that unless we have a PhD (although it would greatly help), or be at the scene of the event or at Time 1, we cant make factual and truthful assertions. That everything is just a personal opinion. My point is : NOT NECESSARILY. (of course in areas like medicine for example, my point won't apply. We need that degree in expertise in the area). But we can make inferences from a set of conditions/circumstances, and make educated conclusions, and adopt claims of people of authority.

Maharaada's #2 post is in this same line of thinking.

Atanu

When I say there are types of truth. Im thinking of the ff. examples. Truth that are inherently true. Ex. Bachelors are unmarried men. This statement is logical truth and does not need proof and stating it is not stating an opinion but stating a fact.

We do not have to be at the scene to make truthful assertions that a group is a cult. We take as truth words of authoritative people.

When my mother says your father is Bob, I believe her because there is an inherent trust between a mother and daughter. (unless proven to the contrary).

When I believe that other people have mind, because I have mind that is taken as truth because how can you prove otherwise.

Also like in scielnce. We believe the Big Bang because althought we obviously can not be at the point of singularity at Time 1, the truth in mathematical logic consistent with observation makes it compelling.


I agree that sometimes HDF has the tendency to be club for the boys. You can reasonably predict who will defend which member.

Please do not take my post personally.

MahaHrada
24 February 2010, 02:14 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I think I now see your point and can respond in a meaningful way.
When I write ( I can only talk for me) it's to the best level of my comprehension. What I write comes from śāstra-s and I do the best I can to offer the insight/understandings that I see or have been taught. This does not suggest my comprehension is the final authority on a śloka.

The śāstra-s are no doubt filled with truth, but is our consciousness aligned with ( tuned-to) it, the highest truths, is the perpetual question. For that I say this is my POV, or opinion, etc. - ever clear that the original author's awareness resides and operates from brahman and perfect clarity. My humbleness to clearly convey I stand on another's shoulders is right & truthful. That is, I am not the author, or originator of these ideas I offer, and when I do take the liberty to offer my opinion I wish to do it with full disclosure. Now is this the same for all on HDF - I cannot say, I can only speak for myself.

It is clear to me when reading the veda that saṃketa ( inference, hint,etc.) is the methodology used. To suggest I know their core meaning on 3 levels¹ and to articulate them without fault is beyond my abilities ; hence I wish to let the reader know I will do my best, but always look to be corrected; then too I will also learn. There is no blemish on the orgianl work, only the possibility for me to miss a point or insight.

This is my point of view on this matter and take full responsibility for how I write, offer or suggest insights.

praṇām

words
3 levels of knowledge : trayoḥ arthaḥ sarva-vedeṣhu
(trayoḥ) three (arthaḥ) meanings (sarva) all (vedeṣhu) vedas -or-
There are 3 aims or meanings one can find throughout the various vedas or bodies of knowledge.

These are considered inherent in the veda'-s and great bodies of work one may be introduced to.
What are these 3 aims?

ādhiyajña - ritualistic meaning; that of yajña or yaj sacrificing , worshipping , a sacrificer
ādhidaiva- relating to deities; that of the devatā, the higher creative impulses of creation
ādhyātma - spiritual or esoteric meaning

That is about the same what i wrote, after evaluating one´s abilties and knowledge one can choose to state that this is just an opinion.

But that is only a plain fact where does the humility come in?

If after evaluation you come to the conclusion that you are aware of the truth about a subject one may state this if that is needed.

But a sadhak should speak the truth simple and straightforward, when he has knowledge of the truth, and he pretends it is just an opinion, it would be speaking the untruth and be misleading, just to please others.

Therefore I do not see the possibility that any mentioning of the suggested statements can be true humilty.

atanu
24 February 2010, 02:30 AM
Pranam

Atanu

When I say there are types of truth. Im thinking of the ff. examples. Truth that are inherently true. Ex. Bachelors are unmarried men.

Namaste Jivatattva,

Nice examples and I have no difference. Please remember that I said the same. I said that After eating an apple no one, except an ignorant person, is likely to say tentatively that "I think I ate an apple".

However, my point is that in respect of Self-Atman-Brahman-God, we all are ignorant. I welcome views but hope that one will not be casual without proper shravana, manana, and niddhyasana.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
24 February 2010, 02:36 AM
Namaste all: I'm going to try the original from a slightly different slant as I feel perhaps it wasn't clear.

In Grade school there is a standard common example for teaching meaning in context. Please read this example.

There is a tear in my _________.

One's immediate reaction is to mentally fill in the blank. The previous word 'tear' either rhymes with 'hair', or 'here' totally depending on what the individual put in the blank. This in turn would depend on that person's experience. A doctor or physiotherapist may have seen 'muscle', or 'tendon'. A person who had an emotional upset that day probably saw 'eye'.
Yet others saw 'shirt' or 'jacket' or 'pants'.

In a typical grade 6 class, there is no argument to follow. Each accepts that neither pronunciation or meaning is correct, and yet each one is correct to his or her own mind.

Similar ideas can be seen in translations. Two days ago I did an English speech assessment for 3 Tamil speakers attempting to learn English. The English short 'a' sound you hear in hat was hard. (To my surprise) So was TH, (there, not thing) d, and t. (Not to my surprise) (My old ears had to work hard, and may have missed others.) I had an ESL student from China whose name was Xian. The best I could get when listening was a zh followed by a w blended. So it was like measure, but more like meazhwer. I know of no word in English having this blend.

So words have connotations as well as denotations. Lets take the word, 'Guru' for example. For some it brings up bliss as an emotion. For others it brings out a negative feeling. Still others only think of computer gurus not spiritual gurus. Still others think nothing at all as they have had no experience at all. The word is completely new to them.

I learned here yesterday that my personal connotation for the word 'hallucination' is a negative one associated with psychoactive drugs of the 60s. (I wish I could remember the post where that was pointed out as a possibility, and I'd offer a 'Thank You' but I can't.) Others have a medical association with the term.

There have been at least 15 translations of the Bhagavad-Gita. (referring only to English ones) Why is this? There are only two reasons I can think of. One is each translator in turn didn't know previous translations existed. The second and more probable one is that each new (in terms of chronological time) translator thought he could do a 'better' job. I'm guessing at this very minute someone else is translating it somewhere. Each translation has to go through the subconscious mind of said translator. Each of these minds is different based on the different experiences that person may have had. It may go from Sanskrit to French, Sanskrit to Tamil, or it may even go from Sanskrit to English, and then to Portugeuse, who knows?

(We also have various dictionaries such as Oxford, and Websters, for similar reasons.)

So even though 10 of us here could read the identical passage of any given scripture, we would get 10 different color/feeling/thoughtforms. Why? Because we all have had a different experience of Hinduism, or life. Many of us would glean a new meaning the very next time we read the exact same words, as it may depend on the mood we are in at that moment of time.

So even if the scripture is as narrow as one particular quote or verse from the Rg Veda, which none of us would doubt its authenticity, still we will glean different meanings, or different feelings.

This is more in the line of what I was trying to say in the op. Perhaps the term 'opinion' delivers a negative connotation. Perhaps 'interpretation' or 'personal interpretation' would have been better.

But as with the group of Grade 6s not arguing about the meaning or pronunciation of 'tear' in the above analogy, I see no point in arguing this. One's experience is one's experience only, and as Yajvanji put it, "I do not see out of your eyes."
Aum Namasivaya

The above posting of yours is a very good description of the jiva caught in the snares of the differentiated awareness giving rise to egotistical desires and fears and the continuing rounds of rebirth.

You cannot expect from a Sadhak, Sadhu, Tyagi or Yogi to pay respect to the Avidya, the world of differentiation and false ego you describe so eloquently.

All he is striving for is the dissolution of these differentiated states and overcoming the delusions arising form the egoity, reaching a level of universal truth that is free of the 3 limiting impurities, Anava Mala, (Ego) Mayiya (Illusion) Mala and Karma (limited actions) Mala or the 5 Kleshas Ignorance, Egoism, attachment aversion and fear of death that are the causes of the miserable state of "personal interpretation" you describe so wonderfully.

I must say i find this open call to constantly appease the false ego, and thereby indirectly disfavouring the truth, by adding hypocritical introductions in front of every statement perplexing, Also that you wrote two cross postings because you intensly oppose something as harmless and plain as my statement that it is the truth that a sadhak must overcome illusions in the iniitial stages of meditation is a little weird.

atanu
24 February 2010, 07:02 AM
The above posting of yours is a very good description of the jiva caught in the snares of the differentiated awareness giving rise to egotistical desires and fears and the continuing rounds of rebirth.

You cannot expect from a Sadhak, Sadhu, Tyagi or Yogi to pay respect to the Avidya, the world of differentiation and false ego you describe so eloquently.

All he is striving for is the dissolution of these differentiated states and overcoming the delusions arising form the egoity, reaching a level of universal truth that is free of the 3 limiting impurities, Anava Mala, (Ego) Mayiya (Illusion) Mala and Karma (limited actions) Mala or the 5 Kleshas Ignorance, Egoism, attachment aversion and fear of death that are the causes of the miserable state of "personal interpretation" you describe so wonderfully.

I must say i find this open call to constantly appease the false ego, and thereby indirectly disfavouring the truth, by adding hypocritical introductions in front of every statement perplexing, Also that you wrote two cross postings because you intensly oppose something as harmless and plain as my statement that it is the truth that a sadhak must overcome illusions in the iniitial stages of meditation is a little weird.




Om Shiva

Namaste All,

The above is much toned version of what was originally posted - so toning is good as this post is good. While agreeing that we may not expect a Sadhak, Sadhu, Tyagi or Yogi to pay respect to Avidya, it impels me to wonder what then a Sadhak, Sadhu, Tyagi or Yogi should do -- Sniff mala everywhere?

We cannot expect many to understand why the initial criticism of viewing (white) light as illusion/hallucination is not mere harmless comment to EM.

I can empathise why EM is bleeding. We all have our deity for meditation. Guru gives a support to hold on to. My support is the awareness of "I". If some one came along and passed an insensitive comment about meditating on an illusion/hallucination, I will fight back, not for my sake but for Guru. Though i accept that the fightback will still be for the sake of ego yet ego must fight for Guru.

Being Hindus, and not Muslims or Christians, I request all to be a bit more sensitive.


Regards to all.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 February 2010, 07:04 AM
Song for broken heart

For a sadhaka, an adversary is the greatest friend, since both the sadhaka and the adversary are striving to kill sadhak's ego.

Shri Ramana

MahaHrada
24 February 2010, 08:11 AM
Om Shiva

Namaste All,

I hope satay will allow me this.

The above is much toned version of what was originally posted - so toning is good as this post is good. While agreeing that we may not expect a Sadhak, Sadhu, Tyagi or Yogi to pay respect to Avidya, it impels me to wonder what then a Sadhak, Sadhu, Tyagi or Yogi should do -- Sniff mala everywhere?

We cannot expect many to understand why the initial criticism of viewing (white) light as illusion/hallucination is not mere harmless comment to EM.

I can empathise why EM is bleeding. We all have our deity for meditation. Guru gives a support to hold on to. My support is the awareness of "I". If some one came along and passed an insensitive comment about meditating on an illusion/hallucination, I will fight back, not for my sake but for Guru. Though i accept that the fightback will still be for the sake of ego yet ego must fight for Guru.

Being Hindus, and not Muslims or Christians, I request all to be a bit more sensitive.

I expect Satay to read this fully and then decide whether to throw away this post, if required.


Regards to all.

Om Namah Shivaya

The specific comment about the nature of the light Einherjar was seeing was personally adressed to Einherjar who described a specific situation, and he was very pleased with my advice and satisfied. Can you tell me what caused EM to think that he is Einherjar, has been studiying the works of Aleister Crowley, and that he had just done this retreat and i am therefore adressing him?

You do that for me, please find that out, because honestly i can not imagine any reason, maybe a name change?

If i am qualified or not to give a personal advice to Einherjar about his experience, is none of your or EM´s business this is something i alone decide, maybe this is different in christianity or islam :) but in sanatana dharma we do it that way. Just for the record you both are the ones that constantly interfere in a matter of a personal advice and relationship not the other way around.

If EM is not able to read an advice given to another person without starting to "bleed" he probably should not attend an open internet forum but close the doors and shut himself up in a room without windows because othewrwise perchance he might start eating all the pills that where prescribed to his grandmother.

So i advice you again if you have a problem with what i wrote refer to the actual text of my postings not to your own abstractions about what evil i could have meant or implied but somehow did not dare to write.

The general advice that we must use discrimination, and that Illusions appear in the beginning stages of meditation, is well founded on the shastras and i have given ample shastra pramana for this, and it is given as a general advice by every Guru of whatever darshana to his disciples before a retreat is commenced.

These are facts that are so well known that i repeat again that this is the truth laid down in all the Yoga shastras and taught by all the Rishis and Sages. It is my duty to insist that Yoga and meditation cannot be practised without this discrimination.

So what exactly is the problem you or EM have, please ?

satay
24 February 2010, 05:25 PM
namaskar atanu,

Part of your post directed towards me has been moved to http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=379

Thanks,

yajvan
24 February 2010, 08:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

As I read the posts above I see much heaviness. This is not me, or my approach. I cannot see what good comes of it, but again that is me.

So what brings me comfort, upliftment when it comes to speech and the exchange of ideas? I look to the Owner. I look to the inspiration of sarasvatī for many reasons that will remain with me to avoid bragging or defending, but let me offer one from the ṛg ved. This section (1.3.10 to 1.3.12) are hymns to sarasvatī . She is the devatā of vāc ( speech), some say vāg.
What is offered is the the wisdom/insight of ṛṣi madhucandāḥ. I feel in good company when considering & exercising true and pleasant speech.
I take note on how She is addressed... I will just 'lightly' address a few key words that gives the overall flavor of sarasvatī's esteem and my attraction to Her and the upliftment that is offered:

codayitrī sūnṛtānām cetanī sumatīnām |
yajñam dadhe sarasvatī ||

She is codayitrī sūnṛtānām cetanī sumatīnām |
coda = inspiring , promoting
sūnṛtā = kind and true speech ; sūnṛta is pleasant and true
cet = awakener ~recovery~ of conciousness
sumati = good mind or disposition , benevolence , kindness , favour

sarasvatī then is She that inspires & awakens pleasant and truthful speech.

It is when She is awakened in you that these qualities begin to take hold - one gravitates to this approach more and more.

( hymn 1.3.12) She brings the vast (maha) ocean or flood (arṇa) of truth or brightness (ketunā¹)

For me, I will resign to the side lines and let others that choose jalpa¹ to continue.... some will say this is not jalpa but healthy debate. Perhaps , but one is not looking out of my eyes on this matter.

praṇām

words

vāc speech , voice , talk , language (also of animals) , sound (also of inanimate objects as of the stones used for pressing) ;most frequently she is identified with bhāratī or sarasvatī , the devatā of speech
ketunā - is ketu - bright appearance , clearness , brightness ; intellect , judgement , discernment
jalpa - dispute - overbearing reply and disputed rejoinder

devotee
24 February 2010, 10:22 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

As I read the posts above I see much heaviness. This is not me, or my approach. I cannot see what good comes of it, but again that is me.

So what brings me comfort, upliftment when it comes to speech and the exchange of ideas? I look to the Owner. I look to the inspiration of sarasvatī for many reasons that will remain with me to avoid bragging or defending, but let me offer one from the ṛg ved. This section (1.3.10 to 1.3.12) are hymns to sarasvatī . She is the devatā of vāc ( speech), some say vāg.
What is offered is the the wisdom/insight of ṛṣi madhucandāḥ. I feel in good company when considering & exercising true and pleasant speech.
I take note on how She is addressed... I will just 'lightly' address a few key words that gives the overall flavor of sarasvatī's esteem and my attraction to Her and the upliftment that is offered:

codayitrī sūnṛtānām cetanī sumatīnām |
yajñam dadhe sarasvatī ||

She is codayitrī sūnṛtānām cetanī sumatīnām |
coda = inspiring , promoting
sūnṛtā = kind and true speech ; sūnṛta is pleasant and true
cet = awakener ~recovery~ of conciousness
sumati = good mind or disposition , benevolence , kindness , favour

sarasvatī then is She that inspires & awakens pleasant and truthful speech.

It is when She is awakened in you that these qualities begin to take hold - one gravitates to this approach more and more.

( hymn 1.3.12) She brings the vast (maha) ocean or flood (arṇa) of truth or brightness (ketunā¹)

For me, I will resign to the side lines and let others that choose jalpa¹ to continue.... some will say this is not jalpa but healthy debate. Perhaps , but one is not looking out of my eyes on this matter.

praṇām

words

vāc speech , voice , talk , language (also of animals) , sound (also of inanimate objects as of the stones used for pressing) ;most frequently she is identified with bhāratī or sarasvatī , the devatā of speech
ketunā - is ketu - bright appearance , clearness , brightness ; intellect , judgement , discernment
jalpa - dispute - overbearing reply and disputed rejoinder

Very sensible ... very inspiring for those who care .... as usual.

Thanks, Yajvan ji ! :)

OM

atanu
24 February 2010, 11:26 PM
The general advice that we must use discrimination, and that Illusions appear in the beginning stages of meditation, is well founded on the shastras and i have given ample shastra pramana for this, and it is given as a general advice by every Guru of whatever darshana to his disciples before a retreat is commenced.

So what exactly is the problem you or EM have, please ?

namste mahahrada,

You are correct that illusions appear. To steady the concentration, different devotees are given different support to hold on to. Even same Guru may give two different supports to two different devotees and they may argue as to which support is better. If you see EM's posts you will see him talking about going to a fixed support at will and effortlessly. And you are also pointing to ability to drive away distractions, delusions, hallucinations etc. I gave an example that two people may fight on the meaning of mouse in today's computer age.

As far as I know, Actinic White Light is teaching of his Guru.

I do not have any affinity or aversion to EM or you. Sincerely.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
25 February 2010, 03:32 AM
namste mahahrada,

You are correct that illusions appear. To steady the concentration, different devotees are given different support to hold on to. Even same Guru may give two different supports to two different devotees and they may argue as to which support is better. If you see EM's posts you will see him talking about going to a fixed support at will and effortlessly. And you are also pointing to ability to drive away distractions, delusions, hallucinations etc. I gave an example that two people may fight on the meaning of mouse in today's computer age.

As far as I know, Actinic White Light is teaching of his Guru.

I do not have any affinity or aversion to EM or you. Sincerely.

Om Namah Shivaya

I ask you again if you have any objection against my postings please refer and quote the actual text, not what you abstract i could have meant or implied but for some reason did not write.

Otherwise i cannot understand your objection and remedy the situation.

Also regarding the instruction EM received from his Guru, please provide a quote from my postings where i refer to him or his instructions.

Gurus are like Doctors they prescribe different medicines for different people after diagnosis.

I stated it over and over again that my advice is directed to Einherjar after a diagnosis of his situation. It was clearly a counselling situation. So the Question remains unanswered why EM applied a personal advice adressed to Einherjar and his situation to himself.

If EM grabs half of somebody elses medication from the doctors table and gulps it down himself, and doesnt feel well afterwards, why do you blame the doctor? Clearly there was a name tag written on it.

Fortunatley he couldn´t grab the other half have since i sent it securely by email to Einherjar.

So what is the problem you and EM have ? Do you think that for some reason i am not allowed to even give as little as one half of a personal advice if asked?

atanu
25 February 2010, 08:54 AM
I ask you again if you have any objection against my postings please refer and quote the actual text, not what you abstract i could have meant or implied but for some reason did not write.

Otherwise i cannot understand your objection and remedy the situation.

Also regarding the instruction EM received from his Guru, please provide a quote from my postings where i refer to him or his instructions.

Gurus are like Doctors they prescribe different medicines for different people after diagnosis.

I stated it over and over again that my advice is directed to Einherjar after a diagnosis of his situation. It was clearly a counselling situation. So the Question remains unanswered why EM applied a personal advice adressed to Einherjar and his situation to himself.

If EM grabs half of somebody elses medication from the doctors table and gulps it down himself, and doesnt feel well afterwards, why do you blame the doctor? Clearly there was a name tag written on it.

Fortunatley he couldn´t grab the other half have since i sent it securely by email to Einherjar.

So what is the problem you and EM have ? Do you think that for some reason i am not allowed to even give as little as one half of a personal advice if asked?


Namaste MahaHrada,

Its OK. You are auspicious to me and to all. But I hope that you know that too.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
25 February 2010, 12:18 PM
Namaste MahaHrada,

Its OK. You are auspicious to me and to all. But I hope that you know that too.

Om Namah Shivaya

You accuse me of misbehaviour and when you can not provide one single piece of evidence for your accusations you retreat into the narcisstic pose of an enlightened person where all and everybody is only auspiciousness? Did i get that right? You may answer no i am only being the nice guy today, so you think you have succcesfully arranged a win-win situation for yourself that is unassailable? I doubt that very much, i agree most people are stupid most of the time but they are not THAT stupid all of the time.

And then you think that after first damaging the reputation of another person you can leave the "scene of the crime" with such an artifical pose of superior knowledge, evading all responsibility for the damage, and get away with that?

atanu
26 February 2010, 08:51 PM
You accuse me of misbehaviour and when you can not provide one single piece of evidence for your accusations you retreat into the narcisstic pose of an enlightened person where all and everybody is only auspiciousness? Did i get that right? You may answer no i am only being the nice guy today, so you think you have succcesfully arranged a win-win situation for yourself that is unassailable? I doubt that very much, i agree most people are stupid most of the time but they are not THAT stupid all of the time.

And then you think that after first damaging the reputation of another person you can leave the "scene of the crime" with such an artifical pose of superior knowledge, evading all responsibility for the damage, and get away with that?

Namaste MahaHrada,

Sorry that you construe that i accuse you of misbehaviour. Actually I acknowledge that 'You' are auspicious for me (and for others). (For the obvious reason that you sqeeze out mala).

Kindly read whether i sermonised and whether i wrote that every being and everything is auspicious Shiva (though that is true). I additionally asked whether you knew that you are doing good? It seems that you did not get it.

Well. Kindly lighten up.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 03:06 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

Sorry that you construe that i accuse you of misbehaviour. Actually I acknowledge that 'You' are auspicious for me (and for others). (For the obvious reason that you sqeeze out mala).

Kindly read whether i sermonised and whether i wrote that every being and everything is auspicious Shiva (though that is true). I additionally asked whether you knew that you are doing good? It seems that you did not get it.

Well. Kindly lighten up.

Om Namah Shivaya

you have only been the nice guy yesterday :) you become predictable. First you accuse me than you even fight me with all your ego for the Guru, then you acknowledge me , but with the supremacist enlightened pose of daring to tell me that you hope i am as knowledgable about my self than you are?
Who do you think you are? This is like someone who first punches you in the face for no reason and than calls the police telling them that this gentleman has just ruined your white shirt with his blood falling over on the ground, but you nonetheless helped him up and will not press for charges, being mr. nice guy today.

coolbodhi
13 March 2010, 03:28 PM
you have only been the nice guy yesterday :) you become predictable. First you accuse me than you even fight me with all your ego for the Guru, then you acknowledge me , but with the supremacist enlightened pose of daring to tell me that you hope i am as knowledgable about my self than you are?
Who do you think you are?

I don't think you will get an answer. Typical.