Discussion of forum tone/rules, Split from Dragging Krishna out topic Options

[Tapati]

Dear Talasiga,

We feel it is up to Satyabhama to decide what tone of relationship she wishes to set with Krishna as she understands Him. Our purpose here is not to guide anyone in their spirituality, but rather to share our undertanding as just that--not absolute truth. If this were worded as your preference in your relationship it would be a great insight to share, but it sounds rather like you are correcting her. Perhaps a slight reworking? Thanks--Tapati

[0talasiga0]

Dear Talasiga,

We feel it is up to Satyabhama to decide what tone of relationship she wishes to set with Krishna as she understands Him. Our purpose here is not to guide anyone in their spirituality, but rather to share our undertanding as just that--not absolute truth. If this were worded as your preference in your relationship it would be a great insight to share, but it sounds rather like you are correcting her.  Perhaps a slight reworking? Thanks--Tapati

Dear Tapati,

I feel it is up to me how I respond to Satyabhama and up to her how she responds to me. My post may be guiding to some, sharing to others, misguided to some and so forth. People are entitled to interpret my heartfelt posts how they will.
I think I am entitled to express my insight without editorialising by a moderator. There is nothing obscene in my post.

Putting aside your hat as a moderator, if, as a member, you see my post as a corrective, you are entitled to respond accordingly as a member. If some see it as a challenge - so be it. On another forum, Satyabhama had, on many occasions, challenged the visionary impetus of topics that I commenced. Personally I do not enjoy topics, albeit poetic ones, where I end up talking to myself and I appreciated Satyabhama's input in those topics.

I will not, on principle, change the wording in my previous post. Nor do I expect you to change yours.

Yours sincerely
Talasiga.

[Chanahari]

Talasiga,

there is nothing obscene in your post, and none of us edited your post. However, there seemed to be a lecturing sounding in the text - it sounded not like you voiced your opinion; it sounded like a guru revealing to the disciple. It didn't sound like it is "you" are who thinks the text you wrote - it sounded like an absolute moral principle. That's why you was kindly asked to reword it.

It is nothing personal against you, just to ensure others don't have to feel judged by other members.

[0talasiga0]

Talasiga,

there is nothing obscene in your post, and none of us edited your post. However, there seemed to be a lecturing sounding in the text - it sounded not like you voiced your opinion; it sounded like a guru revealing to the disciple. It sounded not like "you" are who thinks the text you wrote, but it is somewhere in the Vedas. That's why you was kindly asked to reword it.

It is nothing personal against you, just to ensure others don't have to feel judged by other members.

No body edited my post but it was suggested I edit it - the suggestion coming from the owner and a moderator of this forum. Thats pretty persuasive, don't you think? I am not angry . I am just calling copper copper and brass brass.

My post was less persuasive because it has no authority but the merit or demerit of its contents. That my post did not sound like my opinion because it appeared to you to be revelatory is a matter of your own projections.

On the topic of rewording, would you kindly reword this for I am having difficulty understanding it:
"It sounded not like "you" are who thinks the text you wrote, but it is somewhere in the Vedas. "
Thank you.

[0Satyabhama0]

I, myself, imagine that when you cognise Krishna it is you who will be dragged ragged and your pockets will be holey.

Thank you for your concern talasiga. I don't feel at all odd to joke about Krishna, even in a "cartoonish" way. Krishna is not so anal retentive that He is going to blast me with a lightening bolt if I speak of Him lightly.

I choose not to speak too seriously about Krishna in the forums because those sentiments are reserved for private talks between myself and Him.

[0talasiga0]

Satyabhama speaks for herself!

[Chanahari]

I reworded it. Sorry if my inadequate English caused difficulties in understanding what I wrote, Talasiga. Now it is your turn. We didn't edit your post, but it still would be useful for you to edit it yourself, using the "I message", in order not to sound like you exert some kind of knowledge-based authority over Satyabhama or others.

Would you kindly remove the above intrusion from my post. Please do not use your editorial powers as an administrator to post your message in my post. Make your own post. Please do not meddle with the integrity of my post when there is no moderation centred reason for you to so intrude.

I did feel that there is a moderation centred reason for me to do so - your post's tone -, and I didn't want to use policing to grow postcount. (As you said, wanderer is best.)

[0talasiga0]

I did feel that there is a moderation centred reason for me to do so - your post's tone -, and I didn't want to use policing to grow postcount. (As you said, wanderer is best.)

the title, not the count.

[0Satyabhama0]

might I suggest a thread split?

[0talasiga0]

Thank you for your concern talasiga.  I don't feel at all odd to joke about Krishna, even in a "cartoonish" way. Krishna is not so anal retentive that He is going to blast me with a lightening bolt if I speak of Him lightly.

.........

If you were to be not so distracted by the intrusions in this topic you will see from my first post in this topic that I am not against humour per se. You will see my post was pitched towards the impetus of devotional imagining.

[0Satyabhama0]

Well, again thank you for your concern.

[0talasiga0]

might I suggest a thread split?

I think all posts by the moderators and my responses to them here could be split off. I would agree to that. They do not agree with our robust but friendly and productive history.

We have had projections about gurus and disciples, anal retentive and now the suggestion of a split. Lets get past this Freudian episode!

[Chanahari]

I waited for this reply. I'm sorry for us clogging Satyabhama's topic.

[0talasiga0]

I think, on a point of fairness, readers need to be appraised of the post that triggered the comments by Tapati and Chanahari. Here it is:-

Dear Satyabhama,
Spiritual imagining need not be without humour but it is not a cartoon.
Although I have said elsewhere that
"Our capacity to imagine is our likeness in God's image"
one need be prudent how one imagines the Divine.

I, myself, imagine that when you cognise Krishna it is you who will be dragged ragged and your pockets will be holey.

Imagination that nourishes spiritual life is not triggered by mental conceptions but, rather, driven by the inimitable impetus of heartfelt emotions.  This is why Grace is first felt in the heart.

Talasiga

The discerning reader may note that this post is made in a topic commenced in the "Questions" forum and

[0Satyabhama0]

I should not have put my post in "questions." It was not a question.

Moderators can move it to the correct area.

[0talasiga0]

..................The discerning reader may note that this post is made in a topic commenced in the "Questions" forum and

.... and

You're free now!

Spread out your wings and fly!

applies to me as much as to anyone else?
I think that Satyabhama's personal expression of her experience and my response to it based on my experience is an expression of the freedom allowed here. Non? Personal exchanges between two individulas who are non-sectarian may be as "interfaith" as exchanges between persons representing institutionalised viewpoints.

[Homer]

If she had not been feeling heartfelt emotions, she would not be talking of Krishna in the first place. One need not take too much burden on one's shoulders to instruct the aborigines in civilization. In any case, I learned that whatever I or others may say, you still feel "heartfelt emotions" thinking kRSNa is remembering rAdhA while in rukmiNI's embrace.

Amazing!

Srila Prabhupada says in the story of Agasura that it is impossible to think of Krsna without devotion.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Krsna

[0Satyabhama0]

Look, I do not find our exchanges "boistrous" or fun at all talasiga, nor do I much appreciate this attempt to "help."

So you may comment all you want but the so-called "nurturing" nature of comments such as:

when you cognise Krishna it is you who will be dragged ragged and your pockets will be holey.

is quite obscure to me. Maybe you can explain to me how you thought your comment would be helpful.

Let me also say that although I consider Lakshmi to be the Supreme Goddess (a fact well established in shastra and in my heart) I do not slander your Goddess in public places, although I can name a whole list of others (yourself included) who have no qualms about slandering mine. Why?

[0kishalaya0]

Srila Prabhupada says in the story of Agasura that it is impossible to think of Krsna without devotion.

It reminds me of what one tattvavAdI said about caitanya. "pracchanna avatAra good lord! what in existence can cover the Lord?"

[0Satyabhama0]

I think that Satyabhama's personal expression of her experience and my response to it based on my experience is an expression of the freedom allowed here. Non?

I think the moderators are attempting to keep the dialogue civil, and rightfully so.