From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Kalki33
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:41:55 GMT

kalki33! continues:

>Well, we were not trying to set anyone up for humiliation if that is
>what you mean. We do not have such motives. We are very serious about
>spiritual knowledge. Sobriety is absolutely necessary if one is to
>advance in God consciousness.

So, how many are the "we" of kalki33? Don't tell me you got lost
here on your way to alt.beings.from.another.planet.here.to.save.
us.ignorant.earthlings. . .

Score for defensive protestations: C.

>What "preface" do you mean? The statement you underlined? This statement
>is true. The answers to the two questions do form the basis for all
>spiritual truth. What can possibly be known about spirit if one does not
>know what the soul is? If one does not know the purpose of human life,
>what can he possibly know about what lies beyond the human life?

Sez you, bub. Or should that be "bub-ette"? Consider:

A student approaches the master/teacher (you are the student
in this example). The student begins to exclaim (as you have
done) and ask questions which contain their own reply (as you
are doing).

The master pours the student a cup of tea. The student notices
that the master keeps filling the cup, until it is overflowing,
and even then the master keeps pouring.

Finally, the student asks why the master is doing this. The 
master replies that before the student can learn anything,
the student must first empty him/her self of pre-conceived
notions.

The meaning of this parable/koan is left (as-worlds-above-
worlds-below-there-is-no-one-like-him-The-Paul-Harvey would
say) as an exercise for the student. Who is the student? 
That would be you.

Grade: Incomplete.

>> Your tactics seem a bit disingenuous, consider:
>> 
>> >...Anyone who is sober enough to answer these
>> >questions, or humble enough to admit ignorance, will find us more than
>> >willing to share our knowledge.
>> 
>> This attitude is a bit patronizing at best: the emperor's new clothes
>> and all that. . .
>
>Patronizing? You mean we are trying to flatter people into taking the
>test? Listen, we really meant what we said. Yes, we actually meant it.
>Why is that difficult to understand?

It is not difficult to understand. It is your attitude that 
deserves (and has received) attention.

Grade for avoiding the question: C+

>No one would tell the emperor that he was naked because they were
>afraid he would kill them. The emperor was in illusion concerning his
>nonexistent clothes, and he would become angry if that illusion was
>shattered. Are you saying that the emperor symbolizes us, and that no one

Yes. Very Good. B+

>would answer the test truthfully because they were afraid of us? Do you

No. D-. Only the insufferably arrogant would believe that.

>mean to say that we were looking for untruthful answers in order to
>maintain an illusion about the real identity of the soul and the purpose
>of human life? What is that illusion? We say that the soul is a
>nonmaterial living entity whose main attribute is consciousness and who
>is part and parcel of the supreme soul, God. We say that the purpose of
>human life is to reestablish our forgotten relationship with God. Do you
>think this is illusion?

Interesting question. B+

>> You clearly already have an implicit philosophy that you broadcast:
>> 
>> >      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>> 
>> So one cannot take your
>> 
>> >Sincerely,

>Yes, of course. Do you not have an implicit philosophy? Do you not
>broadcast that philosophy? If not, why not? Surely if your philosophy is
>good, it should be broadcast. What is the problem?

You are missing the point. See parable above. Here's another: An
empty barrel makes the most noise.

>If you are simply noting that the test was biased, yes it was. There is
>no teacher alive who can deliver knowledge that is not biased. Since we
>gave this test, we are the teacher, however angry that may make you. We

How can one be angry at a petulant child? You are a teacher
only insofar as someone wants you to be; someone will want you to be
only insofar as they belive you have something useful to offer; 
setting up trick questions is a way of demeaning the learning 
process and the student.

Grade as a teacher: F

Don't forget to chant:   OhwhatagooseIam

Dano