-
Prem Ritvik posted an update 4 years, 7 months ago
This is to complete tresponse to Jivan Alok, who mentions that as an argument, Lokesh only knows what he experienced while I should experience first before judging.
Jivan, this is a proposition, not an argument.
It has an inherent weakness, played backwards to source being talked about, you have created the situation where we can say that only Osho knew what he had said, and Lokesh not judge what he has said. Only Osho knows.
The argument at source is refuted by your proposition.
At the same time, you cannot say that I have not said without experience, because what I know, only I know, and you cannot judge me by whatever I write, while mentioning that my argument comes without experience is a judgement, that I bear no experience.
We cannot know whether anyone, Osho, Lokesh or me bear any experience if we stick to your proposition.
Therefore your proposition is empty of any conclusion.
I request you to please eliminate my argument by some other method, if it can be done.
Request to admin: put this as my reply to Jivan in response to my comment on Witnessing: An Incomplete Teaching if it can be done.
Ritvik, your comment sounds like something coming out of the back benches at the UKs house of commons. Your rhetoric does nothing to dispel the fact that you are young and going by your comments and posts about selfless giving as an experiment you have little in the way of the kind of insight that comes with experience. You are also pretty naive to believe that people cannot see that..
’The argument at source is refuted by your proposition.’ My ass.
I am in complete agreement that I am naive and inexperienced.
But please do not leave a person like this.
State your case in a way more elaborate than ”My ass”
Or ”Rascal”
Or ”Idiot”
Why and where can you find a hole in my finding?
And indeed I will then agree, that, the argument is a failure.
Just to tell you, it was between me and Jivan, but if you really have something, you are welcome to correct me here.
Ritvik, it has nothing to do with finding a whole in your finding, a finding that I am not interested in.
It has to do with the pompous way you present yourself.As if something really important is going on when it is just a bunch of thoughts kicking around in your head who all want to be right. I enjoy plain language, a language that anyone can understand. You dressing up what you have to say in apparently sophisticated language shows that you are not particularly sophisticated. You have not learned what is meant by the writer’s saying, ’Don’t use a ten dollar word when a ten cent one can serve you just as well.’
You are not alone in this., Veet does that to excess, to the point that it it is hard to understand what he is trying to get across. Maybe it is a case of what is important is not his message but rather showing how intelligent in the use of words he is. I suspect that, but do not know.
My original argument was, simply put that the thought that witnessing will lead to an end of enlightenment itself had to be witnessed, and not concluded upon.
You are free to believe as per your free will.
His logic is quite good though .
Unfortunately, Ritvik, this can’t be done at the last thread (as explained here to Swamishanti, e short while ago).