Dear Y, since the time you announced yours is an IRM and that your wife is a TB, there seems to be a sort of morbid curiosity to sniff out your erstwhile religious antecedent. Now, it seems these same people think that outing that antecedent may be fun. Some are direct, and others are coy preserving plausible deniability for being nosy. While it is entirely your decision whether to reveal it or not, I encourage you to keep the curious cats guessing.
I also notice these same people delight in denigrating us. (From here on let me use first-person pronouns as I don't want to expose you for even more wrath on account my "rant" here.)
I have tried to be as plain and straight forward as I can in this thread, as in other threads. As in several instances in the past, here also I withdrew from discussing with those who started belittling. But the personal vilification does not seem to stop. Ad hominem does not prove anything.
Mainly tks, but to a lesser extent DrBarani and others, cannot seem to be content with presenting their case, but have to question my motive, my sincerity, my honesty, my psychology, etc. Disagreeing with me is not enough -- I must be pseudo, and my argument has to be rant. sravna is an exception, while I have not very much to agree with him, I really appreciate his civility.
Y, this is not new to me. Since the beginning I have been subjected to a mother load of name-calling. I have lost my cool on occasion in the past and those instances shall remain my shame. But, in the most part, I have not crossed the rubicon of decency and civility and resorted to personal destruction tactics, and that is a matter of quiet satisfaction for me.
Cheers!
p.s.:
Regarding Upanishad, what I said
here can be summarized as (i) Upanishads mostly contain inane stuff, and (ii) whatever little interesting speculations we find in them are so vague that many great and revered scholars have arrived at diametrically opposite interpretations.
Both (i) and (ii) are demonstrably true.
tks says "forget Nara's rants based on literal translation". From this it is apparent that the claimed treasures are sufficiently concealed to the extent that literal translations cannot convey. If these buried treasures are to be revealed only through "proper" study, under the guidance of "proper" guru, with "proper" shraddha, how come there are great traditions that claim that what they themselves found was the real deal and what the others found are pure poison? Further, how come what interpretation is considered the real deal and what is rejected as poison, perfectly aligns with the tradition into which one is born?
1. Nara - Paraphrasing your past comments on some posts I say - "this is getting to be tiring". I mean this spin of playing victim all the time!
2. There is no morbid curiosity on anyone's part that I can think of- I think it is proper etiquette to voluntarily disclose
while attacking or making disparaging statements about another religion as to how one was raised. Again my question to Sri Y was not to disclose if he did not want to but only answer why he chose to not answer. Once again it comes across to me that either you may not read the post fully before responding or just love to spin my question.
By the way, I did not know what IRM meant and Dr Renu playfully ended up 'outing' this carefully guarded secret. I dont think anyone will think of Y any differently if he disclosed - we will all still give him a big e-Hug if he disclosed
Even if he chose not to, it is his business - but I think it raises questions. If there was no attack on Hindu traditions then I think most would not care as to how Mr Y was raised. After all most of has 'outed' our religious background - past and present voluntarily!
3. In my view, you have not been an exemplary member in terms of your online persona here for all of us to look up and emulate. In terms of action it is not too long ago you were hounding Sri ShivKC whether he is a Christian.
Recently you went to the 'Sai Lives' forum to denigrate Dr Renu's belief system requiring Dr Renu to request closure of thread or move it to another place. I have seen you say vile things, like Brahminism is evil and that many who follow are victims. That too in a forum visited by good number of self proclaimed Brahmins. Then you demand everyone to kowtow and show respect to your positions
This is comical.
You have also browbeat-ed new comers in the past!
4. You say you are logical but it seems to me you have a script that you cannot get out of. I do not see you advance a discussions by answering tough questions (e.g., you use the word 'reality' and 'basis' in denigrating the Upanishads and you dont want to define those terms when I asked you because it might get you out of your script) or put forth your own position. When people explain painfully I see that you keep saying 'those are all just assertions' and 'handed down wisdom'.
When DrBarani showed you that there are issues with binary logic and provided references all I could sense was this mocking of 'superior logic'! So I say this type of debating style or content is illogical. Note I am not critiquing you as a person but only your post and how your 'logic' comes across to me. Let us not spin this into another 'poor me' , 'I have thick skin' etc
5 But then if someone slips up and make a statement in borderline area of possibly stretching the forum rules I see a few coming to rescue with manufactured outrage! This has happened more than once. In the last time people had to show by digging past posts as to why you are not 'holier than thou'
6 So with that let us not play victim, play holier than thou and debate properly and logically.
7. When you question Upanishads and say "treasures are sufficiently concealed" I view these as disrespectful statements.
8. Let me say once more. You cannot 'get this' subject matter unless you really, really want to - for that you will need to have a strong reason 'why'. I showed you long ago that your reason will never get you to understand this subject. This has nothing to do with your intelligence. I think you are a very intelligent man. Secondly - I have asked you a few times what this subject matter teaches. If your answer is some 'philosophy' then you are wrong and again you can never get this in my view.
9. Not all verses are profound and all Upanishads for most part address the same topic area. They are cryptic and literal translation is often meaningless. This seem to be a style several thousand years ago and I do not know the reason. The Sutras are also cryptic.
10 Let us take an example from another field - Sutras in Mathematics
=========================
Let us take the Sutra: ऊर्ध्वतिर्यग्भ्याम्
This means 'Vertically and crosswise' - pretty meaningless and borrowing your favorite word - inane
Since I do not have interest in such research I may not care to research into this. But there are people that have written books on such topics.
The above rule can be used to do multiplication of two large numbers almost by inspection.
Let us see an example: 5693x8724.
5 6 9 3
X 8 7 2 4
= (5.8)(5.7+6.8)(5.2+6.7+9.8) (5.4+6.2+9.7+3.8) (6.4+9.2+3.7) (9.4+3.2) (3.4)
= (40) (83) (124) (119) (63) (42) (12)
=
49665732, which is the correct answer. These calculations can be done mentally with intense concentration
Why it works:
This algorithm is based on the following: Let A = a0.R0+a1.R1+a2.R2+a3R3 +… anRn And B = b0.R0+b1.R1+b2.R2+b3R3 +… bmRm Where R is the radix or the base of the number system. R=10 in the decimal system. However, the method is quite general.
a0, a1, a2.. and b0, b1, b2 .. are the coefficients for the apprpriate power of the radix.
Now the product,
A.B = C = = c0.R0+c1.R1+c2.R2+c3R3 +…
cn+mRn+m
We further know in general:
ck = a0.bk + a1.bk-1 + a2.bk-2 + …+ ak.b0
In particular c0 = a0.b0, c1 = a0.b1 + a1.b0,
c2 = a0.b2 + a1.b1 + a2.b0 etc.
We have to remember to add any applicable carries from the lower order digit computation.
(Original reference Vedic Mathematics: Motilal Benarsi Dass, 1992 and the above explanations came from an article that I received in email)
So anyone can see that the inane sutra has a lot of treasure buried.
11. If you claim things are retrofitted by people, I say it is hard to make them consistent. I have not inconsistency in the interpretations so far.
12. Lastly if your concerns are about people following Advita, VA, Dwitha coming to different reasoning they are all resolved by two things. Advita includes all of the other two, and some of the issues raised had to do with being locked up in binary logic which Adi Sankara has resolved.
In any case, I will stay off critiquing your posts if you agree to stop denigrating scriptures or practices or traditions of people. While I am personally not offended I usually respond underlying behavior issues.
Let us hit Reset once more !
Regards
lease tell Doc Renu that we are Christians and God protects us from disease .
