"Have to"s of the Ramanamaharshi group

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Sri Sandeep,

You wrote:

Suffering is intrisically related to the "have to"

There are several "have to"s for membership of this group.

You wrote:

This was perfectly exampled by the dude Jesus on the cross.

"Hey Dad, why ye kick me ass", he screams on the cross

You will "have to" observe decency in the use language.

You will "have to" restrict your posts to the Group objectives.

You will "have to" avoid disruptive posts that interfere with the discussions in
the study groups.

You will "have to" avoid promotional postings whether be it your website, your
own brand of philosophy, or any other personal agenda.

I am afraid you will have to accept the
Suffering intrisically related to the "have to"s
of this group if you wish to continue to have posting privileges in this group.

Your are now moderated. Your posting privileges will be restored if you agree to
abide by these "Have to"s.

om gurave namah
suri
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
Post your profile.

Dear Sri Suri,
I hope that Sandeep will stay on the list and continue to benefit from
the presence of devotees of the Sage of Arunachala.
Love to all
Harsha
srinivasan suryanarayan wrote:
om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Sri Sandeep,

You wrote:

Suffering is intrisically related to the "have to"

There are several "have to"s for
membership of this group.

You wrote:

This was perfectly exampled by the dude Jesus on the cross.

"Hey Dad, why ye kick me ass", he screams on the cross

You will "have to" observe decency in the use
language.

You will "have to" restrict your posts to the
Group objectives.

You will "have to" avoid disruptive posts
that interfere with the discussions in the study groups.

You will "have to" avoid promotional
postings whether be it your website, your own brand of philosophy, or
any other personal agenda.

I am afraid you will have to accept the
Suffering intrisically related to the "have to"s
of this group if you wish to continue to have posting privileges
in this group.

Your are now moderated. Your posting privileges will be restored
if you agree to abide by these "Have to"s.

om gurave namah
suri

Dear Srinivasan,
Personally I find nothing offensive in Sandeep's posting below, also
he has had much of value to say in previous postings and I sure that
Sandeep speaks from the heart, even if his expression is sometimes a
little over enthusiastic.

I do however find the suggestion of censorship slightly offensive...
and humbly request that Sandeep be allowed to stay without
confrontation.

regards, your friend

--- In RamanaMaharshi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, srinivasan suryanarayan
wrote:
> om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya
>
> Dear Sri Sandeep,
>
> You wrote:
>
> Suffering is intrisically related to the "have to"
>
>
> There are several "have to"s for membership of this group.
>
> You wrote:
>
> This was perfectly exampled by the dude Jesus on the cross.
>
> "Hey Dad, why ye kick me ass", he screams on the cross
>
>
> You will "have to" observe decency in the use language.
>
> You will "have to" restrict your posts to the Group objectives.
>
> You will "have to" avoid disruptive posts that interfere with the
discussions in the study groups.
>
> You will "have to" avoid promotional postings whether be it your
website, your own brand of philosophy, or any other personal agenda.
>
> I am afraid you will have to accept the
> Suffering intrisically related to the "have to"s
> of this group if you wish to continue to have posting privileges in
this group.
>
> Your are now moderated. Your posting privileges will be restored if
you agree to abide by these "Have to"s.
>
> om gurave namah
> suri
>
>
> Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile.

Thank you..........RL



--- In RamanaMaharshi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, srinivasan suryanarayan
wrote:
> om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya
>
> Dear Sri Sandeep,
>
> You wrote:
>
> Suffering is intrisically related to the "have to"
>
>
> There are several "have to"s for membership of this group.
>
> You wrote:
>
> This was perfectly exampled by the dude Jesus on the cross.
>
> "Hey Dad, why ye kick me ass", he screams on the cross
>
>
> You will "have to" observe decency in the use language.
>
> You will "have to" restrict your posts to the Group objectives.
>
> You will "have to" avoid disruptive posts that interfere with the
discussions in the study groups.
>
> You will "have to" avoid promotional postings whether be it your
website, your own brand of philosophy, or any other personal agenda.
>
> I am afraid you will have to accept the
> Suffering intrisically related to the "have to"s
> of this group if you wish to continue to have posting privileges in
this group.
>
> Your are now moderated. Your posting privileges will be restored if
you agree to abide by these "Have to"s.
>
> om gurave namah
> suri
>
>
> Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile.

Is it not true that Sri Bhagavan Himself followed the rules of the Ashram and
that when visitors did not act in a way that was considered appropriate at Sri
Ramanaashram that they were asked to leave?

If we wish to have Satsang with other devotees and speak of Sri Ramana and His
teachings, then we have to respect the decisions of the moderators of groups
devoted to Sri Ramana and take the decisions as Bhagavan's grace.

Once when I was 21, I was meditating at a center and waiting for my teacher to
talk. He had not arrived and the musicians were on the stage fine tuning their
instruments and were going to sing. They always sang Bhajans and songs before
the lecture started.

So I was sitting with my eyes closed and all of a sudden the singing started,
"Arunachala Shiva, Arunachala Shiva, Arunachala Shiva, Arunachala Shiva. Om
Shakti, Om Shakti, Om Shakti, Om, Om Shakti, Jnana Shakti, Para Shakti Om!"

All the hair on my body literally stood up and I did not know what was happening
to me. It was as if thunder and lightining bolts had exploded all around and I
was in the center completely stunned with the unexpected wonder of it.

So who can understand devotees of Sri Ramana other than Sri Ramana devotees. The
mere mention of the name of Ramana brings tears to the eyes of some. Reading
stories of Bhagavan floods my heart and leaves me speechless.

So people come and say many sophisticated things. Such talk means nothing to a
devotee of the Sage of Arunachala.

We are simple devotees and Sri Ramana has given the teaching, in words and in
silence. His Grace and beauty and power is so utterly overwhelming. If one has
looked in His Eyes for a fraction of a second, or thought of Him in the mind
with devotion, the Eternal Heart is Realized.

So people come and say many interesting things about truth and so forth. Would
it not be better to say interesting and sophisticated things on other lists
since this is a list of Sri Ramana's devotees.

Love to all
Harsha


> From: "waveydata"
> Date: 2003/10/02 Thu PM 04:09:05 EDT
> To: RamanaMaharshi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: "Have to"s of the Ramanamaharshi group

Dear Srinivasan,
Personally I find nothing offensive in Sandeep's posting below, also he has had
much of value to say in previous postings and I sure that Sandeep speaks from
the heart, even if his expression is sometimes a little over enthusiastic.

I do however find the suggestion of censorship slightly offensive...and humbly
request that Sandeep be allowed to stay without confrontation.

regards, your friend


http://www.harshasatsangh.com

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

Ramana Maharshi

2/10/03 3:50 PM +0100 srinivasan suryanarayan
srinivasan_suryanarayan (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.in wrote:
> There are several "have to"s for membership of this group.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> This was perfectly exampled by the dude Jesus on the cross.
>
> "Hey Dad, why ye kick me ass", he screams on the cross
>
> You will "have to" observe decency in the use language.
>
I also wish to register this observation. 'Ass' IS NOT an offensive word itself.
It denotes bottom, behind, bum etc. I also see nothing offensive in having an
ass, even a baboon's.
Neither is there any offense, deliberately or otherwise in Sandeep's use of the
word. It seems you wished to warn Sandeep, and jumped on this sentence as an
excuse.
We must all be able to take criticism. Sandeep and yourself too. But any
critique should be presented with guidance if you have it, and discussion.
So, people entering into discussion with Sandeep can learn or guide. Unless
you yourself enter discussion with Sandeep, you have failed this proviso, and
are merely like a failed author-cum 'newspaper critic', employing personal bias
instead of kindness in collaboration and, true learning. Entering into
discussion once is not enough. Moreover, Sandeep's views may not be wrong, and
you and I may have to learn from Sandeep. Is not Sandeep's position, though not
accepting any expedient, and therefore idealistic, a constant reminder to us of
something we may unfortunately easily forget? It is tantamount to saying
communicate with God, progress with blessings, not with false ego's
command...'spiritual materialism'. It is a plea for authenticity.
I am afraid you will have to accept the
Suffering intrisically related to the "have to"s
of this group if you wish to continue to have posting privileges in this group.
This group ruling is not infliction of suffering at all, but moderation or
censorship. It can only hurt the moderator. Sandeep presents a part of Ramuna's
teachings in his discourse of real human suffering and 'have to', or
imperatives. It makes us think and is spiritually challenging and rewarding.
I personally believe in the use of ANY expedient on the path which works;
Sandeep takes the position of either these are futile, or limited. I agree they
all limited, and this is to see them in a true light, and keep our mind on the
living goal. In fact, I see birth in this realm as expedient, even if not of
our own device or choosing. Here again, we must not lose sight of the goal, and
get lost in this the world. That living goal is beyond technique, and progress
may be practiced without technique and simply mindfulness and devotion, as is
taught in Baghavad Gita.
> He has a mind; but no heart
This kind of statement, written by someone else, about Sandeep, clearly shows
sandeeep has aroused some indignation, but indignation is surely not the
intelligence behind moderation of a group? It is a foolish rebuke, lacking
grace and possessing arrogance. Yet surely, even this was a slip, not something
to be 'moderated'. Something to discuss. Recall, what we venture to offer as our
opinion, what is on our lips, even Sandeep's, is what we most wish to change in
ourselves. Whilst Sandeep may deeply wish to possess a routine as sadhana,
others may need to break with misappropriated rituals. This is all part of
growth. Otherwise Sandeep would not be joining in this group, perhaps. At least
he wants his views tested, I should imagine, and so to interact.
Furthermore, Sandeep has been most conscientious and generous ( a gentleman) in
thought in his replies to questions . What may annoy someone or other, is that
he has a position, from which he clarifies spiritual urges. I do not suppose he
thinks he has the only useful advice for people, and his is one contribution, so
why seek to curtail it?
Regards,
John Plum

2/10/03 10:57 PM -0400 harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:
> Is it not true that Sri Bhagavan Himself followed the rules of the Ashram
> and that when visitors did not act in a way that was considered
> appropriate at Sri Ramanaashram that they were asked to leave?
I do not see how Sandeep has contravened a rule. Could you demonstrate? For
rules must not be spoke of in passing without demonstrating a breach, or they
are a cause for personal bias.
Regards,
John Plum

Dear John,

SNIP>
> > He has a mind; but no heart
> This kind of statement, written by someone else,
> about Sandeep, clearly
> shows sandeeep has aroused some indignation, but
> indignation is surely not
> the intelligence behind moderation of a group? It is
> a foolish rebuke,
> lacking grace and possessing arrogance. Yet surely,
> even this was a slip,
> not something to be 'moderated'.

-------------------reply follows----------------------
I wrote the statement "He has a mind; but no heart".
Thank you for your offering an excuse of a "slip" for
me; but it wasn't a slip. I fully intended to write
that message.

What did I mean by that? I meant that this forum has
purposes and objectives that Sandeep chose to ignore.
If he cared about people. The people that have
started and nourished this group, if he cared about
the people who are devoted to a certain ideal or
method, if he really cared then he would never have
written some of the things that he has written. He
has made disparaging remarks about Ramana and Ramana's
methods. He has made them repeatedly.

In my opinon Sandeep is a highly intelligent
individual. But when I said that he doesn't "have a
heart", I meant that obviously he doesn't always care
about the feelings of others and I will stand by that
statement. This is not a forum for any type of remark
or discussion. This is a forum for the cultivation of
the understanding of the teachings and the life of
Ramana Maharshi.

A great sage Sri Ramakrishna has said (I paraphrase):
"When you plant a young tree you must hedge it about
so that the cows do not eat it and people do not
trample it and kill it. But after it is grown, you
may tether an elephant to it and it will not be
harmed." (paraphrased) There is nothing wrong with
persons having a protected forum for dissemniation of
the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I find this
particular forum to be quite liberal and tolerant.

I am not indignant about Sandeep. In the right place
I'm sure that I would like to visit with him. I
actually have a lot of respect for his intellect. And
there are plenty of other forums in cyberspace that
Sandeep and others can utilize for other discussions.
In addition he has a forum of his own and you can find
him there and discuss forever whatever it is that he's
talking about.

To repeat, he has made disparaging remarks about
Ramana and he has made disparaging remarks about self
inquiry and there isn't any excuse for that here. If
a person doesn't like Ramana and they don't like Self
Inquiry and they don't like sadhana then they are in
the wrong place and further more they do not respect
the feelings of others and in my opinon therefore they
are heartless.

I didn't really want to write this because I would
like to see the group settle back into its focus; but
I hope that this will be the end of it. If it isn't
quite the end let's all of us try to move on. Perhaps
you can see how Sandeep has been a bit of a
distraction.

Love,

michael


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Michael, thanks for your message. I understand what you say here, and see good
sense in it. I cannot know the truth of this, because I am not a long term
member. I thought Sandeep may have been respectful of the 'Self-Enquiry' or
Devotion.
4/10/03 12:39 PM -0700 Michael Bowes rmichaelbowes (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:
> he has made disparaging remarks about
> Ramana and he has made disparaging remarks about self
> inquiry and there isn't any excuse for that here. If
> a person doesn't like Ramana and they don't like Self
> Inquiry and they don't like sadhana then they are in
> the wrong place and further more they do not respect
> the feelings of others and in my opinon therefore they
> are heartless.
Regards,
John Plum

Michael,
I do not read all the posting here, but I have never seen anything
disparaging from Sandeep. I understood he had been barred for the
one particular posting referred to line by line. Now you say that is
not the case and it was because of earlier postings. Out of fairness
to Sandeep and for clarities sake, would you please say what
disparaging remarks he has made.

Surely under objective 1 of the group Sandeep should be allowed to
put forward his (mis)understandings and have other members comment on
(correct) them? I have found some of his postings challenging, but
in a positive way that has promoted growth.

I had an email from Sandeep which he asked me to post which I did not
do as I did not wish to prolong this disruption, now you have made
further comments it seems that this will not go to sleep.
peace and goodwill to all,
regards your friend,

--- In RamanaMaharshi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Michael Bowes
wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> SNIP>
> > > He has a mind; but no heart
> > This kind of statement, written by someone else,
> > about Sandeep, clearly
> > shows sandeeep has aroused some indignation, but
> > indignation is surely not
> > the intelligence behind moderation of a group? It is
> > a foolish rebuke,
> > lacking grace and possessing arrogance. Yet surely,
> > even this was a slip,
> > not something to be 'moderated'.
>
> -------------------reply follows----------------------
> I wrote the statement "He has a mind; but no heart".
> Thank you for your offering an excuse of a "slip" for
> me; but it wasn't a slip. I fully intended to write
> that message.
>
> What did I mean by that? I meant that this forum has
> purposes and objectives that Sandeep chose to ignore.
> If he cared about people. The people that have
> started and nourished this group, if he cared about
> the people who are devoted to a certain ideal or
> method, if he really cared then he would never have
> written some of the things that he has written. He
> has made disparaging remarks about Ramana and Ramana's
> methods. He has made them repeatedly.
>
> In my opinon Sandeep is a highly intelligent
> individual. But when I said that he doesn't "have a
> heart", I meant that obviously he doesn't always care
> about the feelings of others and I will stand by that
> statement. This is not a forum for any type of remark
> or discussion. This is a forum for the cultivation of
> the understanding of the teachings and the life of
> Ramana Maharshi.
>
> A great sage Sri Ramakrishna has said (I paraphrase):
> "When you plant a young tree you must hedge it about
> so that the cows do not eat it and people do not
> trample it and kill it. But after it is grown, you
> may tether an elephant to it and it will not be
> harmed." (paraphrased) There is nothing wrong with
> persons having a protected forum for dissemniation of
> the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I find this
> particular forum to be quite liberal and tolerant.
>
> I am not indignant about Sandeep. In the right place
> I'm sure that I would like to visit with him. I
> actually have a lot of respect for his intellect. And
> there are plenty of other forums in cyberspace that
> Sandeep and others can utilize for other discussions.
> In addition he has a forum of his own and you can find
> him there and discuss forever whatever it is that he's
> talking about.
>
> To repeat, he has made disparaging remarks about
> Ramana and he has made disparaging remarks about self
> inquiry and there isn't any excuse for that here. If
> a person doesn't like Ramana and they don't like Self
> Inquiry and they don't like sadhana then they are in
> the wrong place and further more they do not respect
> the feelings of others and in my opinon therefore they
> are heartless.
>
> I didn't really want to write this because I would
> like to see the group settle back into its focus; but
> I hope that this will be the end of it. If it isn't
> quite the end let's all of us try to move on. Perhaps
> you can see how Sandeep has been a bit of a
> distraction.
>
> Love,
>
> michael
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

Dear Friend,

--- waveydata wrote:
> Michael,
SNIP

, would you please
> say what
> disparaging remarks he has made.

I have said all that I am going to say about this. I
am not a moderator of this group. I feel no need to
repeat disparaging remarks. As a member of this group
I wish that we would all just forget about this.

>
> I had an email from Sandeep which he asked me to
> post which I did not
> do as I did not wish to prolong this disruption, now
> you have made
> further comments it seems that this will not go to
> sleep.
> peace and goodwill to all,
> regards your friend,

Sandeep was given the opportunity to rejoin the
discussion; but evidently he doesn't want to abide by
the rules. But as you just stated above, he asked you
to post an email for him. This is enough proof of
that fact that he doesn't have good intentions in
regard to this group.

Please don't address any more of this Sandeep
discussion to me, because I will not respond.

Thank you,

michael


> --- In RamanaMaharshi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Michael Bowes
>
> wrote:
> > Dear John,
> >
> > SNIP>
> > > > He has a mind; but no heart
> > > This kind of statement, written by someone else,
>
> > > about Sandeep, clearly
> > > shows sandeeep has aroused some indignation, but
> > > indignation is surely not
> > > the intelligence behind moderation of a group?
> It is
> > > a foolish rebuke,
> > > lacking grace and possessing arrogance. Yet
> surely,
> > > even this was a slip,
> > > not something to be 'moderated'.
> >
> > -------------------reply
> follows----------------------
> > I wrote the statement "He has a mind; but no
> heart".
> > Thank you for your offering an excuse of a "slip"
> for
> > me; but it wasn't a slip. I fully intended to
> write
> > that message.
> >
> > What did I mean by that? I meant that this forum
> has
> > purposes and objectives that Sandeep chose to
> ignore.
> > If he cared about people. The people that have
> > started and nourished this group, if he cared
> about
> > the people who are devoted to a certain ideal or
> > method, if he really cared then he would never
> have
> > written some of the things that he has written.
> He
> > has made disparaging remarks about Ramana and
> Ramana's
> > methods. He has made them repeatedly.
> >
> > In my opinon Sandeep is a highly intelligent
> > individual. But when I said that he doesn't "have
> a
> > heart", I meant that obviously he doesn't always
> care
> > about the feelings of others and I will stand by
> that
> > statement. This is not a forum for any type of
> remark
> > or discussion. This is a forum for the
> cultivation of
> > the understanding of the teachings and the life of
>
> > Ramana Maharshi.
> >
> > A great sage Sri Ramakrishna has said (I
> paraphrase):
> > "When you plant a young tree you must hedge it
> about
> > so that the cows do not eat it and people do not
> > trample it and kill it. But after it is grown,
> you
> > may tether an elephant to it and it will not be
> > harmed." (paraphrased) There is nothing wrong
> with
> > persons having a protected forum for dissemniation
> of
> > the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I find this
> > particular forum to be quite liberal and tolerant.
> >
> > I am not indignant about Sandeep. In the right
> place
> > I'm sure that I would like to visit with him. I
> > actually have a lot of respect for his intellect.
> And
> > there are plenty of other forums in cyberspace
> that
> > Sandeep and others can utilize for other
> discussions.
> > In addition he has a forum of his own and you can
> find
> > him there and discuss forever whatever it is that
> he's
> > talking about.
> >
> > To repeat, he has made disparaging remarks about
> > Ramana and he has made disparaging remarks about
> self
> > inquiry and there isn't any excuse for that here.
> If
> > a person doesn't like Ramana and they don't like
> Self
> > Inquiry and they don't like sadhana then they are
> in
> > the wrong place and further more they do not
> respect
> > the feelings of others and in my opinon therefore
> they
> > are heartless.
> >
> > I didn't really want to write this because I would
> > like to see the group settle back into its focus;
> but
> > I hope that this will be the end of it. If it
> isn't
> > quite the end let's all of us try to move on.
> Perhaps
> > you can see how Sandeep has been a bit of a
> > distraction.
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > michael
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
> search
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com