Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » RAGANUGA REMNANTS
Whatever is left over from the archives of the old Raganuga.Com forums after most of the substantial threads were moved to the relevant areas of the main forums.

Ksamabuddhi's 14 points - A suggestion for having them answered

vamsidas - Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:48:20 +0530

Almost 10 days ago, you compiled a list of Ksamabuddhi's scattershot accusations/assertions/novel opinions. You came up with a list of 14, and asked him to substantiate those points with EVIDENCE (not just his typical "I think...") before proceeding further with his ramblings.

Perhaps I have not paid close enough attention, but although 10 days have passed I don't think I have seen Ksamabuddhi address even ONE of those 14 points in a systematic fashion. Maybe he considers that his answers have been woven into the seemingly ever-expanding list of new points he has raised since then. If so, Ksamabuddhi would have no trouble compiling his answers to those 14 points into a list for us. But I suspect he simply hasn't adequately addressed them at all.

As a forum moderator, do you have the ability to restrict the forums and/or topics in which a member can post? If so, I wonder whether it might be a helpful exercise to restrict Ksamabuddhi to posting in just one topic, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANSWERING EACH OF THOSE 14 POINTS, and not letting him expand his attention-starved diatribes across so many other topics until he either defends each of those points, or acknowledges point-by-point which ones are simply the sputterings of his fertile imagination with no basis in fact.

By way of a reminder, here are the 14 points, as listed in the original message where they were raised:

QUOTE (Madhava @ Nov 11 2003, 08:59 PM)
I just came in from work, opened my pc and read a couple of pages full of funky opinions and insights. References, I want to see references. Evidence.

Here are some ideas derived from the writings of Ksamabuddhi in this thread I've disagreed on, and for which I want to see references, if he has any:

1. According to Rupa Gosvamin, one must be free from material contamination before engaging in raganuga-sadhana. Where does Rupa say this?

2. According to the acaryas, one may follow raga-marga without being concerned with astakaliya-lila and nevertheless attain the nitya-lila of Radha-Krishna (which means astakaliya-lila).

3. I would like to see Bhaktivedanta Swami's precise teachings on the method of raganuga-sadhana, and particularly on the meaning of service in siddha-rupa, which is mentioned in BRS 1.2.295 and CC 2.22.157.

4. According to the acaryas, one must have realized his siddha-deha before practicing raganuga-bhakti.

5. Sravana and kirtana are something distinct from both vaidhi- and raganuga-sadhana, they are included in bhava-bhakti.

6. One can preach bhava-bhakti without bothering with the lower stage of sadhana.

7. I would like to see Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's precise teachings on the matter of raganuga-sadhana, and review them parallel to the teachings of Rupa and Jiva Gosvamin to ascertain whether they are the same.

8. According to the acaryas, one must not reveal the subject matter of raganuga-bhakti unto others, discussing it only among a small circle of practicing devotees.

9. According to the acaryas, bhava-bhakti is not attained by any form of sadhana.

10. According to the acaryas, bhava-bhakti is only attained through sravana and kirtana.

11. According to the acaryas, we should follow the gopis and sing about the pastimes and qualities of Krishna instead of practicing sadhana-bhakti.

12. According to the acaryas, there are two different paths of bhakti, the gosthyanandi path and the bhajananandi path, and the gosthyanandis can neglect the practice of lila-smaranam because they are so busy.

13. According to the acaryas, there is something called bhagavat-marga which is different from traditional raganuga-sadhana. Where is this bhagavat-marga described?

14. According to the acaryas, some siddha-mahatmas cannot be absorbed in astakaliya-lila because they are too busy preaching and traveling around here and there.

These are some of the points Ksamabuddhi made and to which I responded, and got no adequate from him in return. These points should be proven beyond "my opinion against your opinion". Ksamabuddhi, you must follow up on points you make and provide evidence to back up your statements, otherwise this discussion will get nowhere.

If some of the points I attributed to Ksama are not in fact what he meant, I apologize for that and expect to see evidence to back up the rest of his points (instead of being hammered down for making strawmen).

I understand that Ksamabuddhi likes the attention caused by his failure to respond to others' inquiries. When he is challenged for making an absurd or seemingly indefensible statement, he tends to fail to defend it, and ends up saying "Here's another point for you to consider"; rarely if ever does he say "Here's where guru, sadhu and shastra confirm my point" or "I cannot defend my point; I admit I was wrong."

I suspect that in the last 10 days, rather than answer those original 14 points, he has gone on to ADD at least a dozen other questionable assertions that he has failed to defend properly.

So I wonder: would it be helpful to Ksamabuddhi, and to the overall tone of, if Ksamabuddhi were banned from all but one thread, so that he could embark on a program of defending his many curious assertions there, without spoiling the tone of the rest of the board? Once he has done so, perhaps the moderators could then restore his ability to post freely elsewhere.

If Ksamabuddhi is primarily here because he's a lonely fellow seeking attention, such a restriction would surely disappoint him, though I'm sure we would all be willing to keep him company in his own private thread, where he would be the center of attention.

But if he's really here to learn, and to compare his tradition's understandings against the "orthodox" understandings, I suspect that such focus could be beneficial for him, and for all.

This idea may not be technically feasible, and even if it is technically feasible it may or may not be psychologically feasible, given how we have seen Ksamabuddhi react in other forums whose tone he has affected by his presence. But he has done such a great job (at least by his standards) of maintaining a civil tone, that I think it would be worthwhile if he could be allowed to continue in JUST ONE TOPIC for a while, until he has tied up the many loose ends (perhaps more than just the above 14) he has created.
Madhava - Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:13:55 +0530
I agree with vamsidas on this. As I recall, there was an administrative note to that effect a good while ago in the Monopoly-thread, which was neglected.

We all need to be honest and able to admit if we've said something off the wall and become exposed. Otherwise, our discussions become a meaningless tirade.
Mina - Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:23:44 +0530
Shy of supporting evidence from guru, sadhu and shastra, he should at least come up with something logical and rational. Instead it is a bunch of completely bizarre propositions that he clearly spawned forth with little or no forethought. There is such a thing as deductive reasoning, and he should become acquainted with it, if only to avoid further embrassment for himself.

The three categories of authority mentioned above are only viable on account of being reasonable and non-whimsical. Otherwise, what purpose would they serve?
Madhava - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:30:50 +0530
[ Henceforth Rasesh (aka Ksamabuddhi) is restricted from posting into any other thread until he comes clean with the 14 points mentioned in the opening post of this thread. Other posts will be promptly removed. ]
Madhava - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:49:02 +0530
I am splitting off Ksamabuddhi's response to the first point, so we can give it the attention it deserves. This thread might become too cluttered with responses to 14 distinct points.
Madhava - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:33:18 +0530
Here are links to the separate threads dedicated to each of the points.

[*] Point 1 - Freedom from Anartha as Qualification

[*] Point 2 - Astakaliya-lila is not Necessary

Whenever one is addressed and gets going, another one is opened.
Madhava - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:35:29 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Nov 21 2003, 08:00 PM)
[ Henceforth Rasesh (aka Ksamabuddhi) is restricted from posting into any other thread until he comes clean with the 14 points mentioned in the opening post of this thread. Other posts will be promptly removed. ]

Since the administrator is not very strict in following self-imposed rules and regulations, it seems that Ksamabuddhi can also post to other threads as long as he makes sure that the 14 odd points are gradually addressed. We are accommodative here.