What is a discourse and are there any guidelines?

[Marblehead]

Okay.  I'll try to behave myself.

 

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It seems the hierarchy is already at work here Karen. People like you, Siva, etc get to call the shots  

 

 

Is anybody calling any shots?  Very little as far as I can see.  Some people, including myself, think there should be more shots pulled and occasionally make a fuss about it, but fat lot of good we get for our trouble.  This place stumbles on much the same as it always has;  the post that outraged me today will be forgotten tomorrow, buried under a pile of words, never to be read again by any but the most dogged of forum researchers.

 

And so it goes.  People here don`t discourse about Hinduism or nutrition or politics the way I`d like them to, and, sadly, I can`t seem to convince them to do it right.  Much as in my off-line life.  Sigh...

 

    

[Marblehead]

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Much as in my off-line life.  Sigh...

Belly laughs.

 

Life just flows that way some times.  Even rivers flow backwards some times.

 

[Kar3n]

12 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Okay.  I'll try to behave myself.

 

Please don't. The place just wouldn't be the same. 

[dwai]

29 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

Discussion is one thing but to try to establish guidelines or qualifications for discussion outside of a PPD as you have done in another topic is something I will stand against with every fiber of my being and I will make no apologies for it.

I didn't ask for an apology. Nor will I give one.

 

29 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

 

It is one of my jobs here to see that the founding principles are adhered to and it is my hope that you are now clear where I am coming from and the basis of my strong response to yet another topic on how bums should interact in general areas of the forum.

  It seems like you are hell-bent on silencing my voice.  I was merely voicing my opinion. If you didn't like it, why not let the thread alone and it'd die a slow and painful death? 

 

Obviously some chord was struck that drove such vehement and passionate responses. I'll be happy to stay quiet if you can explain to me why discussing this topic is wrong or a violation of anything.  Are the bums incapable of making up their own minds? Why do you presume they will care for the ramblings of an old fool like myself? If anything, it might be source of some entertainment or indifference for a few minutes (and then will be forgotten). 

 

 

[Kar3n]

57 minutes ago, dwai said:

I didn't ask for an apology. Nor will I give one.

 

  It seems like you are hell-bent on silencing my voice.  I was merely voicing my opinion. If you didn't like it, why not let the thread alone and it'd die a slow and painful death? 

 

Obviously some chord was struck that drove such vehement and passionate responses. I'll be happy to stay quiet if you can explain to me why discussing this topic is wrong or a violation of anything.  Are the bums incapable of making up their own minds? Why do you presume they will care for the ramblings of an old fool like myself? If anything, it might be source of some entertainment or indifference for a few minutes (and then will be forgotten). 

 

 

I have explained myself already I see no point in reiterating what I have already stated about discussions as opposed to imposing rules or guidelines outside of the parameters of the founding principles. 

[Fa Xin]

I find the different kinds of interactions interesting. Thanks for sharing them Dwai. 

 

I also have a feeling that, being the internet, the conversations here will surely run the range of all, from samvada to vitanda. 

 

People will be how they will be.  We can’t really control it. 

 

Maybe you can start a side group with people who’d like to participate in the style you prefer?

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Fa Xin

[dwai]

17 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

I have explained myself already I see no point in reiterating what I have already stated about discussions as opposed to imposing rules or guidelines outside of the parameters of the founding principles. 

The founding principles are high level guidelines. It is perfectly logical and practical to dig a bit deeper than that.

 

But then again, it is the prerogative of powers that  rule the roost so to speak (I mean the board of course).

 

Who are mere mortals like me to want to be so presumptuous and impertinent to expect civility AND facts in discussions?

 

Geez...I mean we should be grateful just for the ability to make posts. 😁

 

 

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

I find the different kinds of interactions interesting. Thanks for sharing them Dwai. 

 

I also have a feeling that, being the internet, the conversations here will surely run the range of all, from samvada to vitanda. 

Agreed  

2 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

People will be how they will be.  We can’t really control it. 

Is it really about controlling? Why does it come down to that? Why not, discuss ways to amicably exchange ideas, even when they might be contrary to our beliefs? 

2 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

Maybe you can start a side group with people who’d like to participate in the style you prefer?

 

 

Thanks Jonny. I’m not particularly interested in forming groups. This thread was for people who might find this topic of value and interest.

It might open some eyes and minds...who knows? Or maybe nothing at all. I’m okay either way.

 

 

 

 

[3bob]

A foray on the side:

In complete silence He spoke 10,000 volumes and more, yet  not a single word could be refuted.  

[Fa Xin]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

Agreed  

Is it really about controlling? Why does it come down to that? Why not, discuss ways to amicably exchange ideas, even when they might be contrary to our beliefs? 

 

I don’t follow all of the threads you guys participate in, but I’ll take a stab...

 

I think for the most part our conversations here come down to an exchange of ideas, with a few variables:

 

* Level of clarity - If i were you discuss Vendanta philosophy with you, the convo may naturally take a samvada feel to it. That’s because you know WAY more than me, and your quite confident in it. To someone outside looking in, it could appear to be condescending.

 

* Being stuck in concepts - Going off the example above, the person on the outside may have a different view of Vendanta and consider your teaching as Jalpa. Even though we are having a great samvada exchange, the third party enters what they see as a Jalpa conversation. 

 

Ignoring the highly subjective nature of spiritual teachings, I feel like the above scenario happens a lot on the forum (or something similar).  Meaning it fluctuates. It’s the nature of the beast (Internet forums). All we can do is to try and keep our yards clean, and maybe lead by example. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Fa Xin

[Jeff]

13 hours ago, s1va said:

This topic should clearly go under 'Hindu' discussion and not in General section, if it is about some Hindu methods of discourse.  If there is concern once again on what other members can discuss or not discuss, then it should go under the 'Forum and Tech Support' section.  I don't see this as a General topic of spiritual discussion.

 

I think it should be moved to the appropriate section of the forum.

 

I do not see why the topic should have been moved. While Hindu terms may have been used, the topic itself seem to be about the nature of interaction among members and the nature of debate itself. While I am personally not a fan of trying to limit what members can say or not say, or have an approved methodology from debate, I do feel that this is a “general” topic.

[dwai]

9 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

 

I don’t follow all of the threads you guys participate in, but I’ll take a stab...

 

I think for the most part our conversations here come down to an exchange of ideas, with a few variables:

 

* Level of clarity - If i were you discuss Vendanta philosophy with you, the convo may naturally take a samvada feel to it. That’s because you know WAY more than me, and your quite confident in it. To someone outside looking in, it could appear to be condescending.

 

9 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

 

* Being stuck in concepts - Going off the example above, the person on the outside may have a different view of Vendanta and consider your teaching as Jalpa. Even though we are having a great samvada exchange, the third party enters what they see as a Jalpa conversation. 

Jalpa implies that one puts the other one down (strawman/ad hominem). To teach or explain my tradition if I begin by misrepresenting another, then it is jalpa.

9 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

 

Ignoring the highly subjective nature of spiritual teachings, I feel like the above scenario happens a lot on the forum (or something similar).  Meaning it fluctuates. It’s the nature of the beast (Internet forums). All we can do is to try and keep our yards clean, and maybe lead by example. 

Agreed on all counts. It helps to avoid jalpa (and acknowledge when we do descend of that level, if not in public, then at least to our own relative selves). Vitanda is another matter. If someone has the wisdom to see that they’re resorting to vitanda, that means they are aware of how their ego is floundering. It can be a learning experience. 

[Jeff]

14 hours ago, dwai said:

Over the recent few weeks it has become clear that discourse is a topic that is much misunderstood by many members and on various internet fora in general.  

 

I'm going to rely on an ancient tradition of discourses in the Indic traditions to articulate the different types there can be. 

An exchange between two parties can be categorized as follows --

 

• Samvāda - An exchange between a student and a Teacher
• vāda - An exchange between two equals
• jalpa - An exchange between two parties who are convinced that each of them is right and the other is wrong
• vitanda - Where the sole purpose is to defeat the other person, by whatever means possible

 

In any discourse it becomes evident (fairly quickly) when it descends down to the level of jalpa and vitanda. In some cases it can be samvāda, like for instance when an expert writes about something and other interact with him/her for the sake of learning (asking clarifying questions and clearing doubts). In most cases, on egalitarian internet fora such as TDB, it should really be vāda that is the status quo. Two sincere and equally interested parties, giving each other due respect, start a discourse. The nature of the discourse is amicable and the objective of the discourse being a better understanding of each others' perspectives. It could even be a debate, but the proper rules of debating in that case need to apply. The outcome of said debate could be that one parties' views and opinions emerge as the better perspective and then the other would concede their view (or concede temporarily while they go back to work on their view and see where they might have missed out). 

 

If a discussion is started by positing erroneous and/or deliberately misrepresentative points about the others' perspective,  it is more than likely  jalpa. 

 

A civil discourse (vāda) has the following characteristics --

 

• No strawman arguments
• No ad hominem attacks
• A sincere attempt to understand and articulate the other's perspective/position (Purva Paksha) and then proceeding to articulate one's own position (Uttara Paksha) which would be the rebuttal (khandana) of the Purva Paksha. 
• When sound points are made by either party, they are treated with respect and addressed appropriately.
• If a sound rebuttal is not possible, concede the point(s). 

 

This way, people can grow and learn from each other, rather than descend down to "wrestling with in mud". In another thread recently someone commented, that if they were to follow all these guidelines, there would not be any exchanges on internet fora. While for the majority of the fora that might be true, I think for a forum such as TDB, with a lot of highly knowledgeable and sincere members, it should not be that difficult a task.

 

I hope you all feel free to share your thoughts as you feel necessary. 

 

 

To me, the challenge with your description above is that it implies that there is somehow a higher (or absolute) view defining that someone’s comments fit in one of your four buckets. Without some absolute judge catorgizing the discussion, the perceived difference between a vada, jalpa, or vitanda is left to the respective parties of the discussion. If you are the one being disagreed with (and believe yourself to be correct), you will fight to prove your point. So whether something is vada, jalpa or vitanda is totally subjective based upon the perceptional mind view (and individual prejudices) of that individual.

 

A good example has been our an many past discussions regarding in Daoism whether the One=Dao (your view) or the One emerges from the Dao (my view). While I consider our discussion to be of equals, you repeatedly ignore the teachings of the TTC which clearly describe that the Taoist view is that the One emerges (based upon your personal AV perspective). In such a case, since you have never agreed with what the TTC actually says, should I assume that on your part the discussion is a jalpa because you have not respected the Taoist view? Or a vitanda? When my own personal view is that I am engaged from a vada perspective.

 

Food for thought...  

[Fa Xin]

37 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Jalpa implies that one puts the other one down (strawman/ad hominem). To teach or explain my tradition if I begin by misrepresenting another, then it is jalpa.

Agreed on all counts. It helps to avoid jalpa (and acknowledge when we do descend of that level, if not in public, then at least to our own relative selves). Vitanda is another matter. If someone has the wisdom to see that they’re resorting to vitanda, that means they are aware of how their ego is floundering. It can be a learning experience. 

 

It could be that the person misrepresenting it is not doing so on purpose however. That they just have misunderstood the teachings somewhere along the line. Who is to say what is right and wrong ?

[dwai]

27 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

To me, the challenge with your description above is that it implies that there is somehow a higher (or absolute) view defining that someone’s comments fit in one of your four buckets. Without some absolute judge catorgizing the discussion, the perceived difference between a vada, jalpa, or vitanda is left to the respective parties of the discussion. If you are the one being disagreed with (and believe yourself to be correct), you will fight to prove your point. So whether something is vada, jalpa or vitanda is totally subjective based upon the perceptional mind view (and individual prejudices) of that individual.

Well not entirely. If you put down another tradition by misrepresenting it’s tenets then it is of dubious credibility, and jalpa or vitanda. 

How frequently do trolls get banned from this forum? Trolls usually start with jalpa and end up with vitanda as an instrument of instigation...

 

Moreover, these four categories are conversation starters. Food for thought  

Quote

A good example has been our an many past discussions regarding in Daoism whether the One=Dao (your view) or the One emerges from the Dao (my view). While I consider our discussion to be of equals, you repeatedly ignore the teachings of the TTC which clearly describe that the Taoist view is that the One emerges (based upon your personal AV perspective). In such a case, since you have never agreed with what the TTC actually says, should I assume that on your part the discussion is a jalpa because you have not respected the Taoist view? Or a vitanda? When my own personal view is that I am engaged from a vada perspective.

 

Food for thought...  

Yes but I don’t put down your perspective or make up fake stuff about your views.  I’ve always been open to seeing what you mean. Only that I am not convinced with your perspective on the matter entirely  

 

 

For that matter our interactions vis-a-vis TTC and AV have made me understand AV better. And help illuminate where there was murkiness.

 

I’ve  never ever felt that our mutual exchanges  have ever been anything but vada. Sometimes even Samvada as you’ve taught me many things too. Do you think I’d have ventured to work with you if didn’t respect you and your views? 

Edited September 28, 2018 by dwai

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

It could be that the person misrepresenting it is not doing so on purpose however. That they just have misunderstood the teachings somewhere along the line. Who is to say what is right and wrong ?

Agreed that it could be the case. Would it not be prudent then to course correct  and acknowledge that it might be possible that they’re wrong? 

[Jeff]

14 minutes ago, dwai said:

Well not entirely. If you put down another tradition by misrepresenting it’s tenets then it is of dubious credibility, and jalpa or vitanda. 

How frequently do trolls get banned from this forum? Trolls usually start with jalpa and end up with vitanda as an instrument of instigation...

 

Moreover, these four categories are conversation starters. Food for thought  

Yes but I don’t put down your perspective or make up fake stuff about your views.  I’ve always been open to seeing what you mean. Only that I am not convinced with your perspective on the matter entirely  

 

 

For that matter our interactions vis-a-vis TTC and AV have made me understand AV better. And help illuminate where there was murkiness.

 

I’ve  never ever felt that our mutual exchanges  have ever been anything but vada. Sometimes even Samvada as you’ve taught me many things too. Do you think I’d have ventured to work with you if didn’t respect you and your views? 

 

No, I think that you have been respectful and I have enjoyed our discussions (otherwise, I would not have engaged in the first place).  

 

But, if you look at your above response to me, you have not at all responded to my actual point.  My actual point was...

 

42 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

To me, the challenge with your description above is that it implies that there is somehow a higher (or absolute) view defining that someone’s comments fit in one of your four buckets. Without some absolute judge catorgizing the discussion, the perceived difference between a vada, jalpa, or vitanda is left to the respective parties of the discussion. If you are the one being disagreed with (and believe yourself to be correct), you will fight to prove your point. So whether something is vada, jalpa or vitanda is totally subjective based upon the perceptional mind view (and individual prejudices) of that individual.

 

Essentially, arguing that it is a subjective point and hence not really possible, unless at the gross extremes (ongoing trolling). Instead, you took my example and twisted the actual discussion into some point about questioning my respect for you (when I would hope that after all of these years, you would know that I do). In essence, with your own response to me, you made a back door ad hominem attack twisting away from my actual point in the thread.  Or, at least this is an obvious interpretation that one could draw from your response to me.

 

My point is not to say that I felt attacked, but to once again demonstrate the challenge to your suggested approach.  It is all subjective. It is very much like having a dress code at a restaurant.  We can all agree that you should not be allowed to go naked, but are jeans inappropriate?

 

[dwai]

 

28 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Essentially, arguing that it is a subjective point and hence not really possible, unless at the gross extremes (ongoing trolling). Instead, you took my example and twisted the actual discussion into some point about questioning my respect for you (when I would hope that after all of these years, you would know that I do). In essence, with your own response to me, you made a back door ad hominem attack twisting away from my actual point in the thread.  Or, at least this is an obvious interpretation that one could draw from your response to me.

huh?

All I was saying is "our interaction vis-a-vis TTC and AV helped me better understand AV".

 

 Any debate has ground rules. Otherwise it will devolve into ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Do you think that if someone unknowingly buys into straw man arguments (because someone else has said so), then they are absolved of the responsibility to remedy that when brought to their attention?

 

In spiritual discussions, the authority is the scripture. For Advaita Vedanta it is the Upanishads and recognized commentaries thereof. Sankaracharya, Gaudapada, etc. When debating AV, one should always fall back on the scriptures as final authority. These are things that have been tested over 1000s of years and withstood the test of time. 

 

For instance, if you say that "AV doesn't allow for Brahman to be embodied in any sense", then I'll counter and say "That's not correct. Look at Mandukya Upanishad...it, along with Gaudapāda's Māndukya Kārikā clearly articulates that the universe is the physical body of Brahman, the universal mind is its subtle body and God (ishwara) is its causal body".  There is no question of debate there. That IS the position according to AV. Now one may choose to agree with that position or not. That is there prerogative and I have no issues with people doing that. 

 

Or for that matter, when someone says "KS says there are infinite Nondual Shivas", that is clearly wrong. KS is clear on the Nonduality of Shiva, as being one without a second.  How can we know? By referring to scriptures and trusted commentary (Such as Shiva Sutras by Swami Lakshmanjoo, etc). 

 

That is the reason why people quote from texts and scriptures right?

 

It gets murky when we see straw man arguments being prefaced in said commentaries about another tradition. Like Shiva Sutras says certain clearly incorrect things about AV.  That could be the source of the straw man arguments being proposed by some innocent student, who's only read Shiva Sutras and not really spent the time understanding AV.  When someone who knows AV comes and corrects those misconceptions, it can lead to jalpa, if the student who quoted those straw man arguments didn't actually want to take the trouble to understand where the AV person was coming from. 

 

That's where a structured discourse can help. It goes like this - "You have every right to critique whatever you want, but for the sake of making sure we are actually discussing the right subject, why don't you articulate my position first, so I can confirm that we are on the same page, so to speak?" 

 

28 minutes ago, Jeff said:

My point is not to say that I felt attacked, but to once again demonstrate the challenge to your suggested approach.  It is all subjective. It is very much like having a dress code at a restaurant.  We can all agree that you should not be allowed to go naked, but are jeans inappropriate?

 

 

I don't see how that analogy fits. I don't have the ability or capacity to prevent anyone from entering any discussion here. Just because I write something doesn't mean others will follow (or even care for it). 

[s1va]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

I do not see why the topic should have been moved. While Hindu terms may have been used, the topic itself seem to be about the nature of interaction among members and the nature of debate itself. While I am personally not a fan of trying to limit what members can say or not say, or have an approved methodology from debate, I do feel that this is a “general” topic.

 

Well, I will try to expand a little bit more on why I thought this is a Hindu discussion.

 

There are multiple orthodox or traditional Hindu schools/systems or philosophies that are taught even today as part of Vedanta curriculum in traditional schools. They are the saddarshanas listed below.  The six systems comprising of Sankhya, Yoga, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.  The topics of discourses listed in this topic is part of the Nyaya school of thought which would fall entirely under the domain of Hindu philosophy and thoughts.  

 

Moreover, there is additional background to these terms.  Advaitins over the centuries have used the last two as a derogatory term against anyone that proposed any arguments against their system.   Even today in India, the vitanda-vada  is colloquially used even by common man in many places to put down the other person's arguments as pointless and confrontational.  This is why I referred to the some of the recent actions as despicable.

 

Quote

Hindu philosophy refers to a group of darśanas (philosophies, world views, teachings)^[1]that emerged in ancient India. These include six systems (ṣaḍdarśana) – Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.^[2] These are also called the Astika (orthodox) philosophical traditions and are those that accept the Vedas as authoritative, important source of knowledge.^{[3][note 1][note 2]} Ancient and medieval India was also the source of philosophies that share philosophical concepts but rejected the Vedas, and these have been called nāstika (heterodox or non-orthodox) Indian philosophies.^[2][3]

 

 

@Dwai -  If your intentions were truly good in creating this topic and to discuss the 'discourses', you also state your intentions are noble, you like everyone here, and you never argue to win.  I would like to ask some questions.  When the topic was moved, you could have sent a PM to me or other staffs asking for the reason and request to move it back, before blaming on the post about the intention of misuse of moderation, etc.  Did you take any such steps?  As a next step, you could have reported the post and requested it moved back.  But you decided to come all out and attack in the thread.  Also, you write more things like 'People like you.....' naming me and Karen.  Not really sure what such characterizations mean. 

 

I am not convinced with the arguments you make so far.  They are all in attacking style and not really sound like an effort to resolve the issue.

[dwai]

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

Well, I will try to expand a little bit more on why I thought this is a Hindu discussion.

 

There are multiple orthodox or traditional Hindu schools/systems or philosophies that are taught even today as part of Vedanta curriculum in traditional schools. They are the saddarshanas listed below.  The six systems comprising of Sankhya, Yoga, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.  The topics of discourses listed in this topic is part of the Nyaya school of thought which would fall entirely under the domain of Hindu philosophy and thoughts.  

 

Moreover, there is additional background to these terms.  Advaitins over the centuries have used the last two as a derogatory term against anyone that proposed any arguments against their system.   Even today in India, the vitanda-vada  is colloquially used even by common man in many places to put down the other person's arguments as pointless and confrontational.  This is why I referred to the some of the recent actions as despicable.

These rules of discussion are applicable across darshanas, including Buddhism, Jainism, etc. 

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

 

@Dwai -  If your intentions were truly good in creating this topic and to discuss the 'discourses', you also state your intentions are noble, you like everyone here, and you never argue to win.  I would like to ask some questions.  When the topic was moved, you could have sent a PM to me or other staffs asking for the reason and request to move it back, before blaming on the post about the intention of misuse of moderation, etc.  Did you take any such steps?  As a next step, you could have reported the post and requested it moved back.  But you decided to come all out and attack in the thread.  Also, you write more things like 'People like you.....' naming me and Karen.  Not really sure what such characterizations mean. 

WRT a PM, I could turn it around and ask you - why didn't you send me a PM before unceremoniously moving the post to a different sub-forum than where it was originally posted?

 

If you look at the chronology of events, my response was to Karen's accusation to me, and an observation rather than a counter-accusation. 

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

I am not convinced with the arguments you make so far.  They are all in attacking style and not really sound like an effort to resolve the issue.

From my side, I don't have any animosity towards you or anyone else on the forum. I think we are all here for a reason and that reason is to share, learn and grow with each other. It is a satsang, even when sometimes we have disagreements.  

 

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

These rules of discussion are applicable across darshanas, including Buddhism, Jainism, etc. 

WRT a PM, I could turn it around and ask you - why didn't you send me a PM before unceremoniously moving the post to a different sub-forum than where it was originally posted?

 

If you look at the chronology of events, my response was to Karen's accusation to me, and an observation rather than a counter-accusation. 

From my side, I don't have any animosity towards you or anyone else on the forum. I think we are all here for a reason and that reason is to share, learn and grow with each other. It is a satsang, even when sometimes we have disagreements.  

 

 

Staff move things from one part of the forums to other from time to time to arrange the topics and to make sure the topic falls under the right category.  There are other posts that have been moved before.  We rarely ever get attacked for this.  Typically if there are any concerns, the person sends an inquiry asking why the topic moved to a different section.  If their intentions were noble and they just wanted a discussion.

[Jeff]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

huh?

All I was saying is "our interaction vis-a-vis TTC and AV helped me better understand AV".

 

Yes, but one could easily read what you posted to me and subjectively see it as you questioning my respect and taking the discussion of topic with it to distract me. With your “huh?”, are you not saying that you are saying that you dont see my point at all and disagreeing with me.  That you are not acknowledging my point as a reasonable (but different) view.  Again the subjective nature of such views.

 

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

 Any debate has ground rules. Otherwise it will devolve into ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Do you think that if someone unknowingly buys into straw man arguments (because someone else has said so), then they are absolved of the responsibility to remedy that when brought to their attention?

 

In spiritual discussions, the authority is the scripture. For Advaita Vedanta it is the Upanishads and recognized commentaries thereof. Sankaracharya, Gaudapada, etc. When debating AV, one should always fall back on the scriptures as final authority. These are things that have been tested over 1000s of years and withstood the test of time. 

 

For instance, if you say that "AV doesn't allow for Brahman to be embodied in any sense", then I'll counter and say "That's not correct. Look at Mandukya Upanishad...it, along with Gaudapāda's Māndukya Kārikā clearly articulates that the universe is the physical body of Brahman, the universal mind is its subtle body and God (ishwara) is its causal body".  There is no question of debate there. That IS the position according to AV. Now one may choose to agree with that position or not. That is there prerogative and I have no issues with people doing that. 

 

Or for that matter, when someone says "KS says there are infinite Nondual Shivas", that is clearly wrong. KS is clear on the Nonduality of Shiva, as being one without a second.  How can we know? By referring to scriptures and trusted commentary (Such as Shiva Sutras by Swami Lakshmanjoo, etc). 

 

That is the reason why people quote from texts and scriptures right?

 

Yes, but how is that any different than my previous example with the Tao Te Ching? Are you not doing the exact same thing as your multiple Nondual Shivas? Stating that you totally disagree with the authortative text that completely states that the One emerges from the Dao?   

 

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

It gets murky when we see straw man arguments being prefaced in said commentaries about another tradition. Like Shiva Sutras says certain clearly incorrect things about AV.  That could be the source of the straw man arguments being proposed by some innocent student, who's only read Shiva Sutras and not really spent the time understanding AV.  When someone who knows AV comes and corrects those misconceptions, it can lead to jalpa, if the student who quoted those straw man arguments didn't actually want to take the trouble to understand where the AV person was coming from. 

 

That's where a structured discourse can help. It goes like this - "You have every right to critique whatever you want, but for the sake of making sure we are actually discussing the right subject, why don't you articulate my position first, so I can confirm that we are on the same page, so to speak?" 

 

I don't see how that analogy fits. I don't have the ability or capacity to prevent anyone from entering any discussion here. Just because I write something doesn't mean others will follow (or even care for it). 

 

Again you just stated a new position that I have somehow stated that I think you have the power or capacity to prevent someone from entering into such a discussion.  As you are well aware, I have made no such statement. You have just violated your own rules again with using a straw man technique against me in this discussion.  

[dwai]

Just now, s1va said:

 

Staff move things from one part of the forums to other from time to time to arrange the topics and to make sure the topic falls under the right category.  There are other posts that have been moved before.  We rarely ever get attacked for this.  Typically if there are any concerns, the person sends an inquiry asking why the topic moved to a different section.  If their intentions were noble and they just wanted a discussion.

The timing of your move seemed too coincidental, in light of your clarifying post thereafter, where you and Karen accused me trying to establish a hierarchy. 

 

Quote

I appreciate you spelling this out very clearly.  That is exactly what is going on, some trying to establish an hierarchy over other members here.

 

It's just despicable and they just don't seem to give up, and just keep at it obsessively!

 

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

These rules of discussion are applicable across darshanas, including Buddhism, Jainism, etc.

 

No, they don't.  Buddhism and Jainism are considered to fall under Nastika (Atheist systems since they oppose Vedas).  They are not part of Hindu philosophy and they don't subscribe to the beliefs listed in the original topic of this post.  That is why it is listed as other Indian philosophy and not as Hindu philosophy in wikipedia.  I don't have to prove this, anyone familiar with the sad darshanas will know these other systems are Nastika and fall outside Hindu belief systems.

 

Quote

Nāstika Indian philosophies include Buddhism, Jainism, Cārvāka, Ājīvika, and others.^[6]