Thank You

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Greg Goode <goode at DPW.COM> wrote:

> question.  As it happened, the thread was definitely non-textual, so
much
> so, that I even posted my first non-textual, non-hermeneutic replies
to
> Robert alone, till I was urged by several folks to post them
publicly.  No
> one told anyone in that thread to stick to texts, though the
conversation
> did head that way, as is natural and expected on this list.

When it is the expected, why object?

> Well, as an essentially religious list, it should be even further
from
> flamefests than it is.  Why don't more people emulate their teachers
in
> their manner of communicating?  I find it hard to believe that the
swamis
> at the Shankaracharyan mathas treat people that way.

Examples of people who left this list:

1. One claiming the atharva veda was written by primitives
2. One fellow claiming "traditional advaita" was mistaken in that it
didn't adopt some of Rajneesh's obnoxious philosophies
3. Another person when pointed out a statement by Sureshvara directly
contradicting what he said, claiming that he preferred sha.nkara and
did not like later advaitins. The obvious implication is that he knew
better about sjha.nkara than sureshvara.

I'll have to inform you that if any of these folks went and argued
thus in front of the swamis in the sha.nkara mathas they would get an
earful. Trust me, the list has been very gentle with these folks in
comparison to what the swamis would have told them.

Let me inform you and Robert and other new people on this list. The
list was formed by people who follow the veda to have discussions. It
is fine if non-believers come and ask questions. Surely there is a
limit to what people can say.

Rama