truce required

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Ken wrote:

> I'm sorry Ramakrishnan, you still have got the attributions VERY
> WRONG!

I am sorry Ken, I have got it quite correct.

> >I know I had said I wouldn't answer this thread anymore. But, I did point out
> >my mistake in attributions. Actually my arguments with Ken did not result
 from
> >the mistaken attribution. When it was claimed that Ganapati Muni et al were
> >crooks, Ken did quote that and said "I agree dead gurus can't kick butt".
>
> NO, NO, NO !!
>
> You're not reading the messages and you're not reading the
> corrections, either!
>
> The message that I wrote "I agree" did NOT have the names of those 4
> in it, not in my portion and not in the portion I quoted either.

You are merely hiding in the technicality that you did not have the four names
in your quote.

Suppose someone writes "W, X, Y and Z, advisors of Clinton are crooks and
Clinton does not prosecute them inspite of that". Now you reply saying "I agree
Clinton does not kick ass". Even if you don't have the names of W, X, Y and Z in
your quotes, it means you agreed with the statement W, X, Y and Z are crooks.
Similarly it damn well means you agreed with the statement of Natha
likewise, since you replied to the original message saying "... claimed to be
realized *after* Ramana died" with "I agree dead gurus can't kick a*"..

Further when Giri asked for evidence, your kind self posted a philosophical
essay. Now it's like someone asking "How do you know advisors W, X, Y and Z are
crooks" and you replying "What good will it do anyway? All crooks claim not to
be crooks, blah blah ...".

So you chose to give some of your philosophy, rather than answering Giri's
question. Precisely because it agreed with the insinuation of your kind self
that Ramana's "style" leads to false gurus.

> Please go back to the digests, so that I do not have to fill up the
> mailing list's bandwidth by reposting the exact messages.

I advise the same to you. Now I chose to believe in good *faith* when you said
you did not intend to slander Ramana's devotees, inspite of all the *evidence*
(as I pointed above) to the contrary.

> > So I
> >(rightly, I think) thought that Ken agreed with the statement that all those
> >personalities were crooks. Upon which I pointed out the chronological
> >inconsistencies in that slander. Now that Ken has said he does not know
> >anything about these people the matter is resolved.
>
> Which is why I did NOT say anything about them !

You certainly did.

> >> the request by Sri Giri to stop slandering people without any evidence
> >> is not getting much attention either.
>
> I agree ! Stop slandering me without any evidence !  :-)  :-)
>
> >I hope the wrong attributions are no more in place.
>
> Don't hope - read the digests.

I should be saying that.

> > The content of my mail was not significantly changed by that in any case.
>
> That you still think is the problem.

A problem for you perhaps, not for me.

Ramakrishnan.

PS. I apologize to the other readers. I got into this because of the regard I
have for the Maharishi and many of his devotees. I will reply to whatever Ken
has to say by personal mail from now on, rather than filling up the list.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/

>From  Fri Nov  1 18:06:42 1996
Message-Id: <FRI.1.NOV.1996.180642.GMT.>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:06:42 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: truce required
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
Comments: cc: rbalasub at ecn.purdue.edu
In-Reply-To: <3274BE28.4E4 at dk-online.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

I am hereby resigning from the Advaita mailing list.

Ramakrishnan writes:
>Ken wrote:

>> I'm sorry Ramakrishnan, you still have got the attributions VERY
>> WRONG!

>I am sorry Ken, I have got it quite correct.

> [etc.....]

If people are incapable of reading, there is no point in writing.

Appended below in its entirety is the message below where I stated "I
agree...".

As can be seen by anyone who can read, not only does it not state the
names of the four disciples (such as Ganapati Muni), but it does not
talk at all about whether they are enlightened or not or whether they
are gurus or not.

All it talks about is "lineage".

The Subject line of the message was "Re: Guru".
=================================================
Hello,

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:07:36 +0100, Natha Bhaktyananda
<natha at DK-ONLINE.DK> wrote:

>Ramakrishnan has written:
>
>I'll give two examples. I consider dakshiNaamuurti as my guru. But I
>can't
>start saying that I belong to the "dakshiNaamuurti lineage" and start
>asking
>people to buy my books, tapes etc since I belong to the "dakshiNaamuurti
>lineage" in an effort to buy myself legitimacy through dakshiNaamuurti.
>
>Say there is a person who considers H.H abhinava Vidya tiirtha, the
>previous
>pontiff of Sringeri as his guru, say, since he was transformed by his
>books,
>lectures etc. Now he can't go around saying that he belongs to the
>"abhinava
>vidyaa tiirtha lineage".
>------------------------------
>
>        Dear Ramakrishnan,
>
>I think that, in spite of your Indian name, you have a very Westernized
>concept of "guru"; traditionally, the guru is not one whom *you*
>consider as such, but one who *accepts* you as disciple and coaches you.
>In this way we can avoid the confusion of the people who consider
>themselves chela-s of guru-s that have been dead since long, and who
>thus can avoid one of the key-functions of the guru -- that of
>destroying the pupil's ego by methods which are not always pleasant or
>"acceptable". By this phoney understanding, one can then say that
>troubles have been one's guru, or that life itself is one's guru. And
>life *is* a guru, but one that leads to moksha in 10,000 lifetimes. For
>those who do not wish to wait that long, a more "concrete" guru is
>needed.

While I agree with your main point, ( which was concisely stated by a
popular false guru as "dead gurus can't kick your a** " ), I have to
disagree with your statement that a living guru must accept you.

We have evidence otherwise in the Mahabharata in the story of Ekalavya
and his guru Dronacharya.

And there was a person who later became a famous saint (possibly
Kabir?) who surreptiously followed around a master whom he wanted to
take as his guru, until the guru stubbed his toe and yelled "Ram ! "
(instead of a curse word), at which point he considered that he had
received mantra initiation from the guru and went off to practice
"Ram".


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org