Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
bluegreen
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:42 pm

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby bluegreen » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:22 pm

Of course my life is not free of stress, pain, fear, anguish etc. And I do not mean that I have all the answers and do not need to learn. There is a wealth of learning and information to be gained from wiser people than myself, dead and alive and that is why I read and study and ask questions. But i don't take something as "known" because it was mentioned and then translated in some ancient holy book written by ?wise ?ignorant ?wrong men. I just need a little evidence before I believe stuff or follow someone.
I joined this forum as a survivor of an SES school not a member, in the whyaretheydead days. And when you stated your supposition about the purpose of this forum, you seemed to be unaware of us.
St James Girls School 1977-1981

ManOnTheStreet
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:32 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:18 pm

Yes, I think the issue is really about the content of these books/scriptures: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's as simple as that. Other than the unverified subjective personal experiences of some people, we have literally nothing that even comes close to evidence for the various general metaphysical statements in scripture. What is there to set those statements apart from any others made in any other scripture? In any case, there is a difference between "finding lasting happiness in life" and the "Truth" as it is characterised in Vedanta. I.e. I could well find lasting happiness in life without finding any kind of truth lying behind it.

I realise Dr. Alan that you come to this forum to explain and not to prove, and so I am not attacking you for not providing proof. I would be interested however to know what makes you so sure that you can testify to the truth of the claims made by Vedanta and its "wise men".

On the subject of "book-learning" - you did not really provide an alternative way of learning. Your answer to this will no doubt be connected to your answer to my previous point so I'll leave it there as an open question.

On the subject of quotes - quoting is fine, but if you seek to support your argument with quotes from people who already believe as you do and who themselves provide no proof this does seem a little tautological. What we would need is a quote from an independent, disinterested source that included objective evidence for the claims made by Vedantins.

MOTS

StillatSES
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:11 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby StillatSES » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:18 am

As my tag suggests I am still at SES. I have been reading through various topics and especially the Mistakes Against the Shankaracharya posts for a few days now. So I thought it was time to make a few comments about the statements Dr. Alan has been making. From the various bits of information you have given I think I know who you are Dr. Alan, from being at SES in the late 1960's early 1970's and later on going to a teacher in India were some of the clues. However, some of the statements you have made are quite serious as far as SES is concerned, so it is important to ascertain the truth of them. I will be returning later with more information as soon as I have been able to find enough facts to refute the things you have been saying.
Most people currently at SES would not agree with these so called mistakes. I have been at SES for more than 3 decades of my life. All the people I know at SES are happy to remain there in the sure knowledge that they belong to a real school which has the traditional knowledge of Advaita Vedanta. If these mistakes Dr. Alan has stated were true then why would people stay for such a long time?
Many people leave SES all the time. This is their choice. The benefits of remaining at the school for many years are clearly seen in the lives of all those I know. Naturally many people have problems with commitment to giving up some of their free time to help run SES, so eventually thy leave. This happens with all organisations which require some voluntary commitment. This seems to be the main problem people have with SES as far as we are concerned. All these other issues on this forum (except maybe the children's school problems) are due to peoples own personality and their delusions really. But I expect you will not agree with me.
It is possible that many people at SES may consider leaving (or indeed not joining) if they were to find that these mistakes are true. So I have taken it upon myself to refute them with factual information which I am gathering together.
So any current SES members reading this should know that the school does not accept these accusations in any way.
So watch this space.

Leonie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Leonie » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:26 am

Dear StillatSES

Hi, thanks for your post. You wrote, concerning Dr Alan's posts about the SES's Teaching etc:

So any current SES members reading this should know that the school does not accept these accusations in any way.


As you are writing as a representative of the SES please could you identify which school you attend (ie where) and either your name or at least the basis upon which you make the above statement. Who has authorised you to undertake this work?

With best wishes, Leonie

(SES London 1990-2009)

Ahamty2
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Ahamty2 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:15 pm

StillatSES wrote:

StillatSES wrote:Many people leave SES all the time. This is their choice. The benefits of remaining at the school for many years are clearly seen in the lives of all those I know. Naturally many people have problems with commitment to giving up some of their free time to help run SES, so eventually thy leave. This happens with all organisations which require some voluntary commitment. This seems to be the main problem people have with SES as far as we are concerned. All these other issues on this forum (except maybe the children's school problems) are due to peoples own personality and their delusions really.


This is a very sweeping statement to make and quite a conceited one at that; that the only reason people leave the SES and its satellite schools is because they do not want to make a commitment to give up some of their free time. Therein lies the real problem, the egotistical conceit of the organization itself.
For starters, isn’t the SES a fee paying organization in the first instance. The SES is selling a product, ie a course. The students pay up front to receive something in return, it is not a charity in the normal sense of the word, it does have charity status because its profits stay in the organization. If what you say is to have validity, why do millions of people around the world give their time and money freely to help others etc yet do not want to join a School such as the SES. I know the School doesn’t believe in doing it because people in need is a result of their Sanskara.
Your leader Leon McLaren said so! But then, they do not want to serve the Absolute and the Truth like those in the SES do; that’s the rub, isn’t it!
Also, couldn’t you also say that those who stay in the SES and its satellite branches, stay because of their own personality and their own delusions as well! Perhaps they are insecure to live on their own and face the real world outside and seek refuge from it in the SES. Their insecurity results in giving total commitment to the organization, it is a safe haven for them.

Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:12 pm

Thank you, Dr. Alan, for your reply about the '8th mistake'. Very interesting indeed. I would agree about the egoistic approach of Leon Maclaren. The values of the SES regarding men and women are from the Victorian era. Maybe Leon Maclaren was trying to recreate the values of his childhood. Certainly the descriptions of experiences at the children's schools could have come from 'Tom Brown's School Days'.

StillatSES,
I will be interested to read your refutation of Dr. Alan's 'Mistakes' as, based on what I have seen and read, he is right. Like Ahamty2, I find some of your statements rather conceited, for example this one:
All these other issues on this forum (except maybe the children's school problems) are due to peoples own personality and their delusions really.
I'm glad you concede that there may be some validity in the posts about the children's schools, but to dismiss all other posts as due to 'delusions' is insulting to those posters, but actually very SES!

StillatSES
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:11 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby StillatSES » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:38 pm

As I am not happy to be answering these previous items on this same page as Dr. Alan -- Mistakes about the Shankaracharya Tradition page -- I will start a new topic. called "Nothing wrong with SES"

Dr.Alan
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Dr.Alan » Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:59 am

NINTH MISTAKE - NOT UNDERSTANDING THE WAY OF THE HOUSEHOLDER

Despite the recent pollution of this stream by StillatSES - I will continue -with the narrative.

Arising from the EIGTH MISTAKE which was brought to our attention by Joe-Anne Morgan. (well done Joe-Anne) this mistake is about the confusion of SES between the way of the monk and the way of the householder. Monk = recluse, ascetic, anchorite, nun, hermit etc. or anyone who has decided to turn away from human society - for the sole purpose of their own spiritual development. The pre-conditions for this under the Shankaracharya rules are fairly strict. It is not advised unless there is more or less 100% dispassion for any material or worldly niceties etc. None of us would qualify - i.e. we would most likely get 25% - which is not a pass mark.

Therefore SES cannot be the way of the monk - simply by the way it works by drawing from people who live in society. This is why they often say that it is the 4th way - or the way of the householder. This term 4th way was coined by G.I. Gurdjieff and passed it on to Ouspensky - which is where the Study Society and SES got if from. They have read it in books - but they do not understand what it is. It is not a term used in the Shankaracharya system. The term which is the equivalent of householder is used - this is "grihastha" in Sanskrit - which is the term I will use here . It comes from the root "griha" which means house or home.

So let us see if we open this subject up a little and thereby see clearly the SES mistake - and the mistake of many other cult like organisations who also take their membership from people who live in society.

IMPORTANT NOTE -- This exposition is not really for the person who is not seeking to know their true Self or who is not interested in philosophy used for that purpose. For such people all I can say is, read it by all means - but don't let it be a source of annoyance to you. It is not my purpose to be of any trouble to readers on this forum. So if reading this upsets you in any way - look into yourself, rather than point a negative finger at what is written here. This approach would be more beneficial to you.

FOUR STAGES OF HUMAN LIFE

Firstly we need to get a picture of how the Indian system sees human life as a whole.

The ancient system in India recognised that there are 4 stages of human life, in order.
1. Dharma (righteousness) - The stage of learning which includes righteousness.
2. Artha (wealth)- The stage of earning wealth in the world.
3. Kama (pleasure)- The stage of enjoying family life etc.
4. Moksha (liberation) - The stage of reflection and liberation.

The modern world does not emphasise righteousness (dharma) so much. Hence, people may be encouraged into stages 2 and 3 without the controls which righteousness may give them.
The start in our lives of the stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 is taken to be at 8, 25, 50 and 75 years respectively, although these are naturally approximate ages.
Stages 2 and 3 can be joined and thought of as a single middle stage starting after education.

The general plan is that a person would be taught the basics of righteousness before passing into the world to earn a living and raise a family. Therefore for the seeker of Truth, during stages 2 and 3, they would base their understanding on the rules and guidance of righteousness, and would learn that wealth and pleasure are both transitory; they do not bring lasting satisfaction. Just like the huge importance of our favourite toy when a child, it later means almost nothing. All things pass by us in the end in this way.

Pleasure and wealth are not in any way considered to be bad or wrong. They are as much a part of the grihastha's (householders) training and progress as the other two stages. Full exposure to pleasure and wealth are not detrimental as long as there is moderation.
Therefore, if knowledge from the stage of righteousness is applied, cravings or desire for wealth and pleasure would become weaker, if guided by the scriptures during the 50 years of experience in the world.

Without this guidance the cravings and desires are not controlled, meaning that there is less chance for any progress in the final stage of Moksha or liberation. Most people begin to be more reflective and/or spiritual if they are lucky to get to 75 years of age. But if they have no experience of life based on the first stage of righteousness, then all they wish to do is relive, or indeed continue, the experiences gained from pleasure and wealth during the two middle stages, because they have no real aim otherwise. This is not wrong - it is just different and is quite normal for most people in life.

Habits formed in the middle 50 years are difficult to change later in life. Also establishing new practices and habits is more difficult later. If therefore, the seeker has developed a systematic spiritual program during the middle two stages in life, with the controls of righteousness included, then the stage which can lead to Moksha will be easier to embrace.

This is a summary of the way it is applied by the Advaita Vedanta system to the householder seeker.

MONK OR HOUSEHOLDER

Basically the goal for the monk is the same as that of the householder seeker, or grihastha. The true monk is a person who has decided to take vows, where all worldly things will be shunned in every way possible, from the beginning of the journey. This means that by not being exposed to them, no mental muscle is developed to deal with temptation for them.

For the monks way to succeed it is therefore necessary to live apart from society where all the worldly matters and temptations mentioned above will not be present to appear as attractions in any way. This does not mean 100% situation of being without contact with these things, as in many situations monks do depend on normal human society for some things which they need for their living. They need to be constantly vigilant.

All the issues which the monk has decided to shun have also to be dealt with by the grihastha eventually. The difference is that the grihastha deals with them in stages and by being exposed to them in normal daily life. There is only one path to Self-realisation finally; all have to tread that path in the end. But the way of the grihastha is quite different from that of the monk in the stages prior to reaching freedom from all desires.

The grihastha's situation is different. He or she can indulge or give-in to worldly attractions many times, without causing failure of the journey. This is only valid if his giving-in to them results at some stage in the realisation that these things of the world do not lead to lasting satisfaction. This must be the aim. If this is the case, then the attraction to the various things will eventually weaken and naturally fall away, as the realisation slowly dawns that true peace and happiness (ananda) is only to be found within Oneself. If it is believed that the indulgence in the worldly attractions is giving satisfaction and no dissatisfaction arises, then the habit of indulgence will only get stronger as life goes gradually to old age and death, with little or no progress for the individual.

So here we can see the traditional Advaita Vedanta systematic approach of those who follow the Shankaracharya way. It does not mean being half monk and half householder in the middle two stages of life. Which is what SES try to do. This is what confuses so many people who join SES. They did not join to become monks or to turn their back on society in any way. Yet they are made to shun it all - as if they were meant to be monks. This half and half approach has never been shown to work in history - it only tears people apart inside - leaving them not knowing where they belong - either in the world or in this half monk-like organisation called SES.

The mistake of SES is not understanding that the Shankaracharya system uses all the worldly attractions as part of the training ground for the seeker of Truth. Instead SES ask their members to not mix with other people in the world. Not be exposed to worldly issues which are normal. If the SES people never know what ordinary life is like, how can they be of any value to the world - which is one of their claims for their existence.

I rest my case here - it will interesting to see what stillatSES has to say about that.
SES - London 1964-1974 left due to SES interference with private life.

Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:07 pm

Dr.Alan said:
So here we can see the traditional Advaita Vedanta systematic approach of those who follow the Shankaracharya way. It does not mean being half monk and half householder in the middle two stages of life. Which is what SES try to do. This is what confuses so many people who join SES. They did not join to become monks or to turn their back on society in any way. Yet they are made to shun it all - as if they were meant to be monks. This half and half approach has never been shown to work in history - it only tears people apart inside - leaving them not knowing where they belong - either in the world or in this half monk-like organisation called SES.


Precisely. This is the best summation of the about-turn SES members are faced with that I have seen. It seems to happen after the initiation into meditation. Suddenly you have to ‘put School first’, ‘shun bad company’ i.e. people not in the SES. Everything in your normal daily life is ‘not real’ and ‘not true’.

You can’t do a second line because of young family? Get a babysitter. So children are left with babysitters or an increasingly resentful spouse/partner while you.......do what? Serve refreshments to a bunch of people perfectly capable of making their own cups of tea; clean and decorate valuable properties; attend sessions at other valuable properties where you do much of the same. The very fortunate amongst the ladies get to carry out ‘special services’ at these events e.g. bringing morning tea and laying out the day’s raiment for the school leader or other ‘senior’ men in a bizarre twist on the ‘gentleman’s personal gentleman’ motif.

As Dr.Alan says, this approach does tear people apart inside, I became very confused and raised it in the group – we’re not monks and nuns, why are we expected to lead this monk-like existence? The point was completely ignored.

Still Searching
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Still Searching » Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:50 pm

It's up to each individual to be true to themselves. Remember the fall of the Berlin Wall. That whole movement started in Gdansk in the early 90s. Probably before that even. The thing is everyone can step up and say what they really think. Otherwise we become 'victims'. It's not acceptable as adults to be victims. Real change can only happen from inside, and I don't accept for one second that we were victims. I have returned to SES/SOP and can have a positive influence. The basics are there it just needs people with real courage and conviction to effect change for the better. Look to history, nothing good was achieved without struggle and sacrifice.

ManOnTheStreet
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:32 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:21 am

Still Searching wrote:It's up to each individual to be true to themselves.


I agree - but the problem is that our conception of what it means to be true to ourselves was manipulated and distorted. "Being true to ourselves" became "follow the leader no matter what". I know people who still genuinely think that this is ok. They certainly didn't think that when they first entered the School of which I was a member. We were unwitting participants in a social experiment and to that extent I think we were victims.

Still Searching wrote:The thing is everyone can step up and say what they really think.


Could they? It may well be that this is the case now in the Australian SOP, but it was not my experience for 20 years. When you doubt the validity of your own mind how can you ever be truly sure of what you think? That was the main problem - everyone was made to constantly doubt themselves. When everything you think is dismissed as "manas talk" how are you supposed to have confidence and courage in your own convictions? My experience was that "courage" and "self-determination" were systematically undermined from the very beginning. It was not possible to think for yourself and remain in the organisation. Again, I acknowledge that a different state of affairs may exist now, but it is much to simplistic a view to say that we just lacked courage. Would you say that all those living under Communism in Europe last century simply lacked courage? They had bucket-loads of courage, but they also lacked political power. Any one of us here could have changed these Schools for the better in 5 minutes - do you really think we didn't because we lacked courage?

Still Searching wrote:The basics are there it just needs people with real courage and conviction to effect change for the better. Look to history, nothing good was achieved without struggle and sacrifice.


What basics? Do you mean the Teaching? If so, then I have to refer you back to Dr. Alan's posts. In any case, if you say that change for the better must be affected, you are all but admitting that the situation is far from good. As for struggle and sacrifice - we all struggled and we all sacrificed. What Dr. Alan has pointed out so well is that much of that struggle and sacrifice was totally unnecessary.

As for the Berlin Wall - I would say that the equivalent scenario was Mr and Mrs Mavro being removed from the SOP in the late 80's. I have no doubt that the situation at the SOP has vastly improved since they left, but they pursued much the same policies at the SFSK as they had done at the SOP before that. They always talked about how much they did for "the School" but somehow it was always others who ended up doing the hard yards. Re-hashing stolen material from Leon MacLaren and a bit of editing here and there isn't really that hard. We struggled and sacrificed while they enjoyed the fruits of our "service". I thought I was being 'true to myself'; turns out I was just a pawn on a chessboard.

MOTS

Tootsie
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Tootsie » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:54 am

The only mistake the SES and its satellites made was to keep any of the Gurdjieff's teaching. Gurdjieff was a magician who used hypnosis to obtain his pupils energies. I left School in 1990 because I realized 99% of the pupils including the senior tutors were asleep and being used for their energies. The film the Matrix describes symbolically why the energies are required. Who are the 1% ? They are usually connected with powerful people such as the Iron Lady and sometimes they don't even know they are being used.

Just another crazy conspiracy theory like the Mayan Calendar, maybe. But it seems just as crazy arguing which guru knows the truth and which Shankaracharya is enlightened. Today the SES seems more like a gentleman's club (sorry ladies) studying philosophy and enjoying good company.

StillatSES
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:11 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby StillatSES » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:09 am

REFUTATION OF THE MISTAKES AGAINST THE TRADITION

First mistake -- Introduction of other subjects.
Doing this does not go against the Shankaracharya tradition, as we were not told that we should not do it. The Advaita Vedanta philosophy is not so easy to grasp by many people who come. Having other subjects which help them to focus their minds improves their ability to focus on the teaching.

Second mistake -- Not controlling who the teaching is given to.
Here again we were not told that we should not do this. There is so much literature available on Advaita Vedanta, anyone can study it at any time they chose. So it is better that they come to a school where they can hear the teaching given by a Shankaracharya, who has given answers to specific questions about how to apply the teaching. We do not believe that this lowers the value of the teaching in any way.

Third Mistake -- Not understanding the teaching - or teaching given by people who are not Self-Realised.
We do not accept that we do not understand the teaching. It has been studied deeply for many decades by people who are devoted to it. Whereas it may be true that there are not any Self-realised people in the school; but that is why we go to a teacher in India. The school had made considerable progress with teaching which we already had. It was realised by Dr. Roles and Leon MacLaren that there were gaps in the teaching which they had followed from Ouspensky. The Shankaracharya has bridged all those gaps for us. We are now in possession of a complete teaching.

Fourth Mistake -- Improving the society through the teaching.
How can this be a mistake. If people are taught to be more aware, and they are taught to be truthful, how can that make a world which is worse. It is an established fact that people who become a good example to others will have a positive effect on the people with whom they come in contact. This is why we impress on school members that their actions in the world are important for the benefit of all.

Fifth mistake -- Teaching meditation to anyone.
This is also not a mistake. If you search the internet or look in any esoteric type magazine, you will find many offers of meditation systems available to people nowadays. Most of these systems are not of any real spiritual value. It is better for school members that we teach a system which comes from a traditional source. Otherwise they may go and try one of the other systems which will not work in the same way.

Sixth Mistake - Charging for Meditation.
Whereas it is true that the cost to SES for teaching the mediation is negligible, the system of charging was originally introduced my the Maharishi. He had no objection to the charges. Also it means that those who choose to learn it will put some value on it. That has to be a positive thing.

Seventh mistake - teaching children.
We all know that the children's schools were a bit too tough in the early days. This has changed now. The schools are independent of SES and so we have no position of telling them what they should or should not teach. The curriculum is published. Parents know what they are putting their children into. So where is the mistake in that? If at all it could be a mistake of the parents if that is what they choose for their children, not a mistake of the school.

Eighth mistake - Treatment of females.
If you look around the world you will see the effect of liberation as far as women is concerned. They do not know how to dress modestly. There seems to be a trend or a competition of - who dares to show more of the female form when in public -- This has a detrimental effect on the minds of men, leading to more and more offences against women. This mode of dress increases the frustration of men from a very young age nowadays. A better example has to be shown where women can dress modestly. This is only one example of how women are treated differently. What is wrong with that? The role of the women in society has changed so much that many have lost their place in the world as the ones who bear children and love and nurture them in their early years. A generation of children whose mothers have handed their care to others so that they can go back to work, is taking its toll on society. Where is the mistake in trying to restore the dignity and importance of the mother's role in this?

Ninth mistake -- Not understanding the way of the house-holder.
There are very few schools who understand the way of the householder more that SES does. Discipline is very much a part of the Advaita Vedanta teaching. There is no mistake in introducing discipline into peoples lives. We never ask people to turn their back on their responsibilities in the world. So where is the mistake in the way we apply discipline?

So there you have it Dr. Alan - your idea of all these mistakes seems just to be another one of the negative attacks on SES , typical of this forum - but without any substance in it.

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Gerasene Demon » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:18 pm

The schools are, "independent of the SES". Nonsense.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnv1tTcm6t4

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Mistakes against the Shankaracharya Tradition

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:25 pm

So, I am a credited editor. It’s useful in films. In a discussion thread 31 edits, not including a further unseen 4 in Dr.Alan’s profile, and two deletions (at the time of this post) is just dishonest if you are making a genuine, honest point of view or statement.

Dr.Alan said,

by Dr.Alan » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:05 am
GM (aka N.W.)- You must have misunderstood my PM to you which simply said "Hi, I thought your post was more appropriate in the 'Mistakes --' stream" . Which was not a request for you to move it this stream. But as you have done it, you now have two copies of a post which is clearly not a genuine sentiment, since you did not appear to have attended philosophy classes at SES, also you endorse statements which I have not made, i.e. the reference to the Shankaracharya being told about SES. I have not done that. Also wishing me health and happiness in my solitude, when you don't even know me.
Last edited by Dr.Alan on Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Is not entirely true, the original pm I received was,
Re: PR man arrested! Oh... wrong one.
Sent: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:03 pm
From: Dr.Alan
To: Gerasene Demon
Dear Gerasene,

you could move your post from PR man arrested to the " Mistakes against .." stream - maybe.

Best wishes

Alan

So, where does lying and dishonesty fit in with the Shankaracharya Tradition?
I rest my case.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests