Recent admin activity

[Singhi Kaya]

Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker

You have had quite a history on this board of misbehavior noticed by me as well as several other people. Therefore, your credibility is very low when you make statements such as this. ~BYS~

Thanks for reminding me and other's of my credibilty.

But I try not to play this line.

[Singhi Kaya]

Originally Posted by satay

namaste
Thanks for the new definition.

welcome

First, I wanted to make clear that there are no "mods" here there is only 'admin' here that is me.

OK

I banned bhava and though I don't need to give anyone any explanation because I respect all the members here I have given already explanations of why he was banned. If you do not agree with me please continue in feedback forum. As far as that specific case, I am not going to keep repeating myself.

I was not demanding an explanation (which you had already provided, I agree), merely observing a point. This has already been moved to feedback.

Now to your defn. it doesn't make sense to me. If I follow your defn. then everyone should be banned on this forum since no "one" person on this forum has the same personal philosophy on hinduism as mine. Heck, you can't sit there and claim to know what my personal philosophy on hinduism is since I have never talked about it in detail!

I don't know your personal philosophy, but I have seen your opposition to ISKCON "preaching" which is surely a part of your ideology. And IMHO is this "preaching" is a part of ISKCON philosophy and lingua-franca. So I don't find it logical to ban people because of voicing their philosophy in appropriate section. By your philosophy I oviosly meant this "anti-preaching" stance nothing more. No need to eterpolate beyond that and get exited.

And why does everyone keep getting bent out of shape when mods or admin takes action? Aren't the site rules clear enough or should I get them translated in sanskrit?

I think people are just finding some actions too harsh and not very logical. I hope you give due consideration to their concern ~ but what action to take is oviously in your hands.

Finally, the forum is a free internet resource to you guys but I am paying for it from my pocket. I ask for nothing in return, heck I even don't allow ads on this forum to keep it a nice clean place to visit...is it so much to ask of the members to just follow 6 simple rules that are common sense to begin with?

Please don't get emotional here. I think I personally have thanked you more than once for the work you have been doing. If it cheers you up I can do it again, but I think you don't require cheering from a few unknown hindu to continue your work. This surely is a karma yoga for you, there is no need to consider other's openion more than looking at it logically.

On cost, I have seen buddhist forums where donations are allowed. I think in future you can make option for voluntary donations. I think it is a nice way to share the burden and I expect many people here would be passionate to continue this site working at the best shape.

Why does everyone end up saying..."I am leaving the forum or if you don't do this and that I will leave the forum" With all due respect to all members...the door is wide open! If someone wants to leave because they don't like the rules or don't agree with my goal to keep the forum clean of nonsense or for whatever other reason...with all due respect please leave and I will not ask you to stay. It's all out of my control anyway...

thanks!

I agree on this one. This is mere show of threat doesn't mean much. I was agitated once early on Islam issue and did a similar show-off which was not good on my part. But I also made a formal request to remove my ID before shwing off in public. If someone want's to leave pls do so without making a big deal out of it.


Thanks again for your work...but I stand back on my comment that this banning stuff and preaching principle is way to harsh and illogical.

Regards--
S

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker

No, I don't. Don't tell me what I need to follow or what I am or am not capable of understanding.

It is not your business who I follow or if I follow anyone especially with such judgmental attitudes.

Again, DO NOT tell me who I must follow or what I must believe. Understand?

I respect your freewill. You are free to follow whatever your blind faith allows you to.

But dont enter into a discussion with others without clarifying your own beleif system, nor do you have any rights to question others when your own beleifs are hanging in the air without any basis.

I will never have any debates with people who dont identify themselves to be from some tradition and guru or have an unconventional beleif- like BYS, TruthSeeker, Arjuna etc. There is no common grounds for discussion with these guys. If you are an advaitin then you must follow Shankara, else how do I know what to answer you? If you beleifs keep jumping every moment then there is absolutely no room for discussion.

If you beleive in "everything" then you have no reasons to complain against anybody else like you do here. If you do haave some fixed and solid beleifs, and then we can examine how rational you are.

[satay]

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

I don't know your personal philosophy, but I have seen your opposition to ISKCON "preaching" which is surely a part of your ideology. And IMHO is this "preaching" is a part of ISKCON philosophy and lingua-franca. So I don't find it logical to ban people because of voicing their philosophy in appropriate section. By your philosophy I oviosly meant this "anti-preaching" stance nothing more. No need to eterpolate beyond that and get exited.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am against the "preaching" aspect of "any" religion including hinduism. I think this has to be clear because I have mentioned it a several times already. The other part specific to "ISKCON" preaching is where the misunderstanding is...I had reqested Bhava Dasa to put like a disclaimer or something like that when he made statemens like Krishna of gita is higher than vishnu and not an incarnation (as he himself explains in gita!) that is not the traditional hindu view. All I wanted him to do was to say, "this is the view of my guru or this is the view of ISKCON." C.Smith is looking for information on Hinduism and I think it would have been an honest thing for bhava dasa to do to say that his views are 'iskcon' views and not traditional hindu views (right or wrong that was irrelvant at that point). That's all I was asking! Plus his posts were breaking other rules and I had already sent him a note about that to which he replied agitated and annoyed and told me that he will leave. So I just made it easier for him not to come back and get distracted...I did him a favour as he needs to focus more on krsna conciousness and there are plenty of places where preaching 'is' allowed.

I think people are just finding some actions too harsh and not very logical. I hope you give due consideration to their concern ~ but what action to take is oviously in your hands.

okay. I am cool with that.

Please don't get emotional here.

First of all, I was not 'getting' anything let alone emotional! Secondly, what's wrong with getting emotional? Is there something wrong?

I think I personally have thanked you more than once for the work you have been doing. If it cheers you up I can do it again, but I think you don't require cheering from a few unknown hindu to continue your work. This surely is a karma yoga for you, there is no need to consider other's openion more than looking at it logically.

I am not doing this for vanity and I think that is already clear, if it wasn't it should be clear now.

I am just trying to have a place for hindus where we can discuss stuff about our own religions because we keep getting hit on the friggin' head with bible and koran all the time and we sit there without knowing what the heck our own religion is about! Then on top of that even two hindus can not seem to agree on the basic points anywhere! How do we plan to fight the aggression when we can't even get together on the basic principles of our own religion and worse yet don't even know what they are! I have seen this type of thing and people all over the net...one hindu says something in response to a chrisitan attack and another one comes along and contradicts the first hindu then they keep fighting between each other and what their guru and sampardaya or org teaches and the missionary sits there and laughs. Or worse yet, what about people like C.smith...where is he supposed to get his information??

On cost, I have seen buddhist forums where donations are allowed. I think in future you can make option for voluntary donations. I think it is a nice way to share the burden and I expect many people here would be passionate to continue this site working at the best shape.

Sorry, I am not sure why I mentioned the cost ( I must have got emotional!!)...bhagwan has started this and he will continue it through me if there is a need...cost is not an issue...

Thanks again for your work...but I stand back on my comment that this banning stuff and preaching principle is way to harsh and illogical.

As explained earlier, I simply wanted bhava to say that his comments are ISKCON view and that's it. I know c.smith knew that but I just wanted bhava to say it that way if another reader reads the forum they won't be confused about it...our religion is already too complex...do we need to make it more complex for the vistors? (it's a rehotrical question)

[satay]

Originally Posted by Sudarshan

I respect your freewill. You are free to follow whatever your blind faith allows you to.

But dont enter into a discussion with others without clarifying your own beleif system, nor do you have any rights to question others when your own beleifs are hanging in the air without any basis.

I will never have any debates with people who dont identify themselves to be from some tradition and guru or have an unconventional beleif- like BYS, TruthSeeker, Arjuna etc. There is no common grounds for discussion with these guys. If you are an advaitin then you must follow Shankara, else how do I know what to answer you? If you beleifs keep jumping every moment then there is absolutely no room for discussion.

If you beleive in "everything" then you have no reasons to complain against anybody else like you do here. If you do haave some fixed and solid beleifs, and then we can examine how rational you are.

Your post reminds me of Selwyn at CF because he won't have a conversation with Paul G. because Paul refused to define his views.

All this "must" follow "must" do "have to do" kind of nonsense belongs in adharmic religions don't you think?

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by satay

Your post reminds me of Selwyn at CF because he won't have a conversation with Paul G. because Paul refused to define his views.

All this "must" follow "must" do "have to do" kind of nonsense belongs in adharmic religions don't you think?

Do you understand why an opponent in a debate has to declare his position? Because you cannot fight in the open ground with an enemy hiding somehere in the trees and shooting at you. Unknown or undeclared position of the rival means only he will be shooting you down and you have nothing of his weakness to fight with. In classical debates, if you deviate from your Acharya in essentials you are considered unfit for a discussion. And people who declare no Acharya are simply thrown out unless he has written commentaries on the shruti.

If I am arguing with an advaitin, and I quote Shankara the opponent indeed has to oblige. If he argues against it he is considered lost - it means shooting oneself down.

I remember Paul G and Selwyn. That clever Paul, he was as shrewed as the "Paul" of chritianity and rained arrows on Selwyn while himself hiding in the trees.

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by satay

I am just trying to have a place for hindus where we can discuss stuff about our own religions because we keep getting hit on the friggin' head with bible and koran all the time and we sit there without knowing what the heck our own religion is about! Then on top of that even two hindus can not seem to agree on the basic points anywhere! How do we plan to fight the aggression when we can't even get together on the basic principles of our own religion and worse yet don't even know what they are! I have seen this type of thing and people all over the net...one hindu says something in response to a chrisitan attack and another one comes along and contradicts the first hindu then they keep fighting between each other and what their guru and sampardaya or org teaches and the missionary sits there and laughs. Or worse yet, what about people like C.smith...where is he supposed to get his information??

Find the common link between all Hindus ( in the midst of all fighting). I beleive Christians have such a link in Jesus Christ. The aggression can be fought collectively with this common link.

And, the infighting in Hinduism is not such a big deal. Haven't we see Christians calling each other a kaffiir and making a laughing stock of themselves? Have you forgotten icxn, arunma, karma2grace( some of these are famous, err infamous at Hindunet!) etc and all these ppl fighting each other?

[Singhi Kaya]

Originally Posted by Sudarshan

Find the common link between all Hindus ( in the midst of all fighting). I beleive Christians have such a link in Jesus Christ. The aggression can be fought collectively with this common link.

And, the infighting in Hinduism is not such a big deal. Haven't we see Christians calling each other a kaffiir and making a laughing stock of themselves? Have you forgotten icxn, arunma, karma2grace( some of these are famous, err infamous at Hindunet!) etc and all these ppl fighting each other?

Infighting is not a big deal as long we are united against the common enemies ~ historically we haven't done that.

Common link for hinduism?? It is that hinduism has tought not to tolerate demons and their ideologies. Be it Vishnu thorugh his avatars or Devi through her many forms ~ they always slay demons.

[ramkish42]

Originally Posted by satay

All this "must" follow "must" do "have to do" kind of nonsense belongs in adharmic religions don't you think?

Sorry at first replying to a message not intended for me.

However, I would like to point out one thing

As your intention goes, you would like to chart out basic principles - fundamental principles underlying Hinduism

If everyone decides not to follow, must not do, no reason indicates that I have to do etc, then practically it goes into infinite regression, probably I might have 5 theories to explain what is god right under the umbrella of Hinduism, how do we account and come to conclusion what is general hinduism - (probably based on my logical sense of presenting setting aside what is truth)

In India, we do get a chat eating material called "Mixture", it is nothing but mixture of many materials. In what proportion I mix and what I mix is left to the person who mixes it. IF one chooses not to make Sev etc, then he will be making one stuff for himself, god only knows what it could be, when such ideas percolates down the generations, what we will be having is mixture of everything at everywhere.

Apt example is Varna - We had recognised only 4+1 varna, but today only in Tamilnadu we have precisely 499 non Forward Caste listings available in state list - Every one preferred to be separate, down the line generations mixed, few retained their individuality, as a result, what we have 499 non FCs.

What I suggest, let us reduce this down to minimum - say max of 10 philosophies - for this we need to follow, must do and must have to do what exists or we should be someone great like Adisankaracharya and Shrimad Ramanuja (and other similar gurus - in short 5 great perceptors) to form a new sect

Look at what we have now

Vaishnavism has 5 sects
Advaita forms a separate category
Kashmiri Shaivism as per Arjuna's statement has 4 sects
When other Shaivism taken into account - I am not sure what to put
Other religions like Shakta - with division like Vamachara and Dakshinachara, Kaumara
Independant religions like Bhaskara

All together we get near about a quarter century counts of philosophy - few points accepted many points negated

If one does not ascribe to a particular philosophy, how do we take "General Hindu View" forward without knowing what to arrive at. I hope you know Ad Nuemerum is fallacy. We cannot decide a fact based on how many people follow it.

Request you to consider this also