What is "Advaita is the supreme philosophy" and "Advaita is the main stream philosophy of the Vedas?" Isn't this propagating own philosophy? How can one support it? How can you accuse others that they are propagating their philosophy and faith when you yourself do such things? Again seeing the posts subtly.. -_-

@NogShine If you didn't have any problem with the concerned user's comment that VA is the philosophy of the Vedas then why do you have a problem with moonstar's comment? Why don't you say the same thing to the concerned user.

@ChinmaySarupria There is a difference between subversive proclamations of defacto-ness of AV contrasted to a user stating their belief is that VA is their favoured interpretation of the Vedas.

@LakshmiNarayanan That's correct, moonstar only posted it in a comment not in Q or A like that user always does. See my main post above for examples.

@ChinmaySarupria I think we had this discussion in moderation chatroom - please feel free to refer it here. As I said, if you want to post a Q&A stating explicitly what your position or understanding is, then by all means post. 2nd, doesn't matter if it is comment or question - my right to call on claims by populism holds. 3rd, let me repeat myself - there is a difference between explicit notes of caution which can be starting point for discussion and subversive pushing of Advaita as defacto interpretation of Vedas.

@LakshmiNarayanan Why don't you also post a comment on the Ghandberunda question I quoted above?

You have already asked my stance on this meta question and we discussed it here earlier. If you have anything more to add, please summarise your specific issues in the V&P chatroom and i'll be happy to discuss.

@LakshmiNarayanan You are using all the arguments - subversive, etc. that are being claimed against the user and their posts and redirecting them to me without absolutely no basis. You are just running around in circles and counter-pointing fingers. Nothing of substance in any of your notes.

@NogShine My notes are in response to the agenda-driven posts of the user in question. I am not peddling my wares like he is which makes the posts spam.

If you are not able to defend your answer then don't write such answers. Instead you go around saying that people are using logic - the same kind used to attack another and hence it's not valid in your case; same logic can be used and misused - it is decided on case-by-case basis. FYI, your last couple of lines is what is called an ad hominem argument - you are attacking me instead of the points i've raised.

@LakshmiNarayanan I am not saying you are using logic. I a saying I see no logic in the arguments. Just an interposition of subject/object. I am fully aware of what ad hominem is and this does not qualify. Dont expect me to argue when there is nothing to argue. Thanks.

Just now you said and I quote, "You are using all the arguments - subversive, etc. that are being claimed against the user and their posts and redirecting them to me without absolutely no basis" Essentially you saying that the original arguments are not logical as well! Also, I do have a basis - it is that you are saying all this while saying that "Advaita is DEFAULT interpretation PROPOUNDED by the Veda" here and refuse to admit your subversive hypocrisy.

@lakshminarayanan no I did not mean the original argument is not logical. Guess I typed in haste.The original arguments are logical.Your counterarguments OTOH, are not disproving the original claim or presenting an alternative viewpoint.You are just in defensive mode and your defense is similar to a this. Person1"grow up". Pereon2 "you grow up ".your arguments are just like Person2's.There is no subversion or hypocrisy in my note. only statement of fact and that too in response to repeated long-term subversion by the user in Q. I am not able to mine anything useful in your notes.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as "you grow up" charades. My argument has been clear from the start - 1) you accuse someone of blatant or explicitly noting certain things you see as disagreeing with your viewpoint and blame that they consistently do it. 2) I note that subversive commentary in the form of Advaitic supremacy and its supposed defacto-ness is peddled in many answers without any "notes of caution" and that compared to this, this user is being targeted more for being honest than being subversive 3) You call me a circle jerker and "counter finger pointer" [1/2]

4) I call out specific statements by you here where you say "Advaita is DEFAULT interpretation PROPOUNDED by the Veda" and I point it out as a specific example of subversive practice of peddling advaita as default without rhyme or reason. 5) You refuse to respond with any logical claims or arguments that actually defend this position and instead default to "many scholars", "popularity", etc,.(see the irony?) both on that question as well as here [2/2]

@LakshmiNarayanan From the start,I have not accepted your notion of subversive commentary. I believe there is none the part of the advaitins. The entire contention here is that such subversive commentary is happening from people of non-advaitic faith. I have nothing further to argue with you there. 1/2

@LakshmiNarayanan My statements about what is propounded by the veda is to let the subverters and propagandists know that not only is their activity incorrect but that they do not have extensive shaastric backing for it. Now you want me to prove that my stance is correct and only then will the propaganda stop? Or if my stance is proved incorrect, does that give you license to continue with propaganda? What are you trying to do here? You are just making jalpa and vitanda type arguments. I am done. Thank you.

1) "From the start,I have not accepted your notion of subversive commentary" - Same here, that is why this is being discussed. 2) There is no propaganda happening - don't conflate things 3) I'm trying to let you know that your definition of subversion is flawed and logically inconsistent. 4) You call me pedantic for calling out hypocrisy and yet you say you make indefensible statements (which you think is what the user is doing as well) and moreover, admit it has basis only in retaliation - "grow up" argument much? 5) Another ad hominem attack, should I be counting these?

@LakshmiNarayanan Yes there is propaganda. That is a main contention. See examples of proselytizing. If you are unable to see the basic contention of this entire HSE debate, you are not offering anything useful to the convo. There is no conflation or lack of understanding on my part. You are using terms in the wrong contexts. Basically, you are arguing for the right to propaganda which is a non-starter Lakshmi. I can def. defend my statements but will not within the context of this discussion as it will hijack the discussion and shift the focus away from the main discussion. Let's let it be.

@moonstar You can't defend your simple claims because quite simply they are indefensible. As for the rest of your rabble - keep doing your ad hominem attacks, I'm done here.

@LakshmiNarayanan Certainly. Just one correction though. I don't think you are a pedant at all. You are assuming that about yourself, it seems and quite inaccurately so.Good wishes.