My Shirdi trip- some thoughts and questions

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

....I do not know for sure who all the 'Dons' here are!Regards

This is the point, always keep it ambiguous, is it EVR, is it EVR's so called goons, or is it Nara, or is it all of them. If it is the first two, they are not here to defend themselves, so all this amounts to cheapshot. If it is me, then name me, let us talk about it freely. I know there is a visceral hatred for EVR among Brahmins, but, let us try to at least understand why he is so revered by everyone else.

I know some of you will point to some opposition to EVR even among NB and dalits and that is a fair point. First, we need to acknowledge those NBs who criticize EVR are a sliver of a miniscule section of Tamil population. Even among them, there are two kinds, (a) politically motivated, e.g. the Hindutva types, and (b) some dalit criticism of EVR not doing enough for them. While we can ignore (a), the criticism of (b) must be taken seriously and we need to examine whether the criticism is valid. My opinion is it is a valid criticism to some extent. But, EVR's comment they quote has a context. I don't want to get into that argument now, but the point is, outside of Brahmins, EVR is respected and revered by almost all. If he was such an evil person as TBs make him out to be, don't you want to know why he is so revered by everyone else? Nobody has this intellectual curiosity? You can still hate him, but why don't you find out why everyone else love him.

Finally, I am also puzzled by this need to bring up EVR even in unrelated discussions, even though the very mention of the three letters was forbidden. Of course I have violated the ban, only because the ban has already been circumvented by many with the use of the term "Big River".

 

[tks]

Post #176

Hi Nara

Actually I have no interest in the lives of any figure - historical or otherwise.
I certainly do not want to talk about someone that has been deemed not allowed in the forum

In general I am interested in the teachings of people if they are applicable to me. I have no reverence for anyone but only to their teaching.

I will respond at a later time in more detail

Regards

 

[Vaagmi]

Vaagmi, you are again being dismissive by saying it is not worth engaging me in a serious discussion. The truth is you have no argument that will stand up to rational scrutiny and you don't want to admit to it, so you are coming up with these silly statements about EVR.

As I stated in my last post, I am not one to gloat if you had conceded, we all find ourselves in such a situation one time or another, but you are kicking up a dust storm. Why is my educational qualification and work experience relevant? I am not applying for a job. I have established my credentials through the posts I have made in this forum, and for the kind of "intellectual" discussions we have here that is more than enough.

My first question to Vaagmi was what is the rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge. The answer of course is none. By this I don't mean it is full of nonsense in its entirety. The ritualistic poorva mimamsa is of course full of nonsense, this is why people like tks never talk about it, they always focus on upanishads, and by this they have already conceded that there is no rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge.

Even if we narrow the scope to uttara mimamsa, we see that among the 108 upanishads several are filled with utter nonsense. If we further restrict the scope to the major ones, we find they are a mix of some profound thoughts and totally ridiculous ideas about reality, creation, etc. My opinion is, there is some value in studying these upanishads, but in a critical manner carefully rejecting the inane stuff and focusing only on the profound ones. Further, profound ideas are not unique to upanishads, contrary but equally profound ideas can be found in other non-vedic texts from ancient India, and other places like ancient Greece.

Vaagmi, I wish you had acted honorably by admitting to your inability to argue in a rational manner, but by bringing in EVR, and saying stuff like it is futile, and not worth it, and saying "God Bless" to someone you know is an atheist, you have shown you are not an honorable opponent.

Nara,

I am dismissive because the counter party (you here) who comes forward to argue with me tries to hide himself behind the anonymity completely. It is my right to know "who" I am arguing with. Your parrot like repetition that there is no argument that will stand rational scrutiny is recycled rhetoric. I can ask you to please tell me what you mean by "rational". For more than 500 years of recorded history people - intellectuals-have been trying to come to a common understanding of that term.
Your "area of specialization" becomes your "educational qualification" and your "subject of interest" becomes your "work experience" for you in a funny misinterpretation of terms used by me. And to add insult you have rhetorically asked me whether I am going to interview you for a job. This is not the intellectuals behaviour. For your benefit, may I explain a little bit? I wanted to know your area of specialization because I did not want to talk past you in a language which will make a completely different meaning to you than what is meant. The logic gate algorithm and the street corner milk vendor-please read my post again. And you have patted yourself on your back and given yourself a certificate saying "I have established my credentials through the posts I have made in this forum, and for the kind of "intellectual" discussions we have here that is more than enough." I would just politely say I am unable to agree with you on that statement.

Your words about what you know about Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa are again shallow recycled stuff and there is no value addition there.

I intend to write about vedas, upanishads, your "rational" thoughts, science etc., as I address other "intellectual" members in this forum for whom you have only contempt. I wont argue with you.

While you have added the bigriver to your signature permanently as if it is the most treasured possession with you, you can not have any complaint about others bringing that 3rd standard dropout occasionally into the conversation here when relevant.

I say God bless you because I believe in Him. You can tell Him to mind his business when he comes to bless you at my pleading.

 

[tks]

Post #176

Hi Nara

Actually I have no interest in the lives of any figure - historical or otherwise.
I certainly do not want to talk about someone that has been deemed not allowed in the forum

In general I am interested in the teachings of people if they are applicable to me. I have no reverence for anyone but only to their teaching.

I will respond at a later time in more detail

Regards

I realized there is not much more to add for details ..

Human mind likes to create division when it truly does not exist and superimpose potentially negative qualities and attributes that are meaningless for self serving purposes. Violence and wars are thereby created resulting in blood shed. A recent example is genocide in Rwanda between two tribes that most people outside the region cannot describe. A million people were murdered.

Anyone who makes generalizations of any kind without exceptions on someone's identity on which they had no control over is not worthy of any discussion in my book.

 

[tks]

.
.
.

My first question to Vaagmi was what is the rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge. The answer of course is none. By this I don't mean it is full of nonsense in its entirety. The ritualistic poorva mimamsa is of course full of nonsense, this is why people like tks never talk about it, they always focus on upanishads, and by this they have already conceded that there is no rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge.

Even if we narrow the scope to uttara mimamsa, we see that among the 108 upanishads several are filled with utter nonsense. If we further restrict the scope to the major ones, we find they are a mix of some profound thoughts and totally ridiculous ideas about reality, creation, etc. My opinion is, there is some value in studying these upanishads, but in a critical manner carefully rejecting the inane stuff and focusing only on the profound ones. Further, profound ideas are not unique to upanishads, contrary but equally profound ideas can be found in other non-vedic texts from ancient India, and other places like ancient Greece.

.
.

Sri Vaagmi has responded already..

A framework for *logical* discussion is to absorb what the other person is saying before responding and disagreeing.
If one is looking for knowledge that section happens to be only at the end of the Vedas by design. I prefer to not use Sanskrit words if there is a simpler description available.

If after I say that (i.e, knowledge section is only at the end of Vedas) and the comment is "[people like tks] conceded that there is no rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge" implying an expectation of 'knowledge' on other sections then that is illogical.

If the question is about how the earlier sections of Vedas fit with the last section which is a 'breakaway' from the last that is a reasonable question. Or if the question is about usefulness of the earlier sections that is a reasonable discussion point.
Or if the question is how come many Vedic rituals have described animal sacrifices that is a reasonable quesiton.

Whoever said the metric to judge 'knowldge' is by number of Upanishads that provide discussion points for a forum.. I said elsewhere that all Upanishads address only one item from different perspective. There are inherent assumption is statements that are causing illogical statements in my view.

There is no logical basis for discussion of such topics in a forum. Let me amplify,.

We all come to this forum for various reasons. I come here to waste time (Quadrant 4 activity the way Steve Covey defines the quadrant - meaning there is no value of this for me in terms of life goals but tends to be pleasurable). I do not have any confusion in my mind of the topics like Vedanta and when I have questions I have qualified sources to go to (which I do)

If someone is interested in having a discussion about such topics I am all game to spend time if it is pleasurable. Quadrant 4 activities like watching most movies tend to offer momentary pleasure. Also I like people I have met here (and my brotherly love is extended to all also )

But I have to see credentials for rational discussion established by the way someone is presenting their arguments. Then it can be fun.

I have no intentions to even attempt to change anyone's mind. Sometimes due to my own immaturity I have fallen into the trap of arguing here with words that are not always kind and I apologize for that.

If someone thinks all these topics are nonsense that is fine - I have no desire to respond. If someone asks a question and if I think I have an answer I will respond and even debate provided the intention to seek the truth is there (as opposed to be viewed as right and be stuck in a position).

Let me make one more point. Studying certain topics in Science (Theoretical Physics for example) or Vedanta one needs be able to have discussion at the subtle level. A person mostly committed to the Gross reality only will find it distasteful to study these topics

There are two more basic requirements for engaging in any debate involving Vedas,Upanishads etc.
One needs to have very clear answers in their mind.

1. What do you think the subject (Vedas and vedanta) is about?
2. What problem do you think it addresses?

Based on your answer there may be no reason for debate.

 

[Vaagmi]

I know there is a visceral hatred for EVR among Brahmins, but, let us try to at least understand why he is so revered by everyone else...........outside of Brahmins, EVR is respected and revered by almost all. If he was such an evil person as TBs make him out to be, don't you want to know why he is so revered by everyone else? Nobody has this intellectual curiosity? You can still hate him, but why don't you find out why everyone else love him.

He is not revered by everyone else as claimed. Any research data available? Citations needed. Period.

I know some of you will point to some opposition to EVR even among NB and dalits and that is a fair point. First, we need to acknowledge those NBs who criticize EVR are a sliver of a miniscule section of Tamil population. Even among them, there are two kinds, (a) politically motivated, e.g. the Hindutva types, and (b) some dalit criticism of EVR not doing enough for them. While we can ignore (a), the criticism of (b) must be taken seriously and we need to examine whether the criticism is valid. My opinion is it is a valid criticism to some extent. But, EVR's comment they quote has a context. I don't want to get into that argument now.

Why ignore (a)? because you are anti hindutva? Okay. Let it be so. But what authority you have to presume every one here is anti hindutva like you and will automatically agree with you that "while we can ignore (a)....". And what is this "some extent"? What extent is some extent? Why only such an extent only and not more or not less? Your "some extent" is relevant to the context here and so your attempt to do a "பூசி மெழுகுதல்" of that is not acceptable to members here. Be specific and clear in your presentations please.

You can choose not to answer.

 

[ashwin_ash]

He is not revered by everyone else as claimed. Any research data available? Citations needed. Period.



Why ignore (a)? because you are anti hindutva? Okay. Let it be so. But what authority you have to presume every one here is anti hindutva like you and will automatically agree with you that "while we can ignore (a)....". And what is this "some extent"? What extent is some extent? Why only such an extent only and not more or not less? Your "some extent" is relevant to the context here and so your attempt to do a "பூசி மெழுகுதல்" of that is not acceptable to members here. Be specific and clear in your presentations please.

You can choose not to answer.

Dear Vaagmi,

Nara cannot wear his hatred on his sleeves in India, he can choose to do so from the comfort of his living room in the States. Like I maintain, he must try to sell his atheistic (atheism is not wrong, using atheism to spread hatred is so so wrong) agenda in the states such as Alabama, Louisiana and so on. He can also educate the populace of those states on Big River and his hate filled agenda, he might find himself in prison for slander.

Big River referred to Islamists as "dirty treacherous Saibus" and to Dalit women as topless night soil gatherers. Big River may have roused the consciousness of some, but certainly not many. A 90 year old man marrying a teen can never be revered even among hardcore ideologists.

 

[Nara]

....Anyone who makes generalizations of any kind without exceptions on someone's identity on which they had no control over is not worthy of any discussion in my book.

tks, I would like to recommend this speech, it is slightly over 1 hour, you may not agree with everything he says, but at least you will get some perspective. Think of it as understanding poorva paksham ....

?????????? ???????? ?????????? - YouTube

 

[Raji Ram]

....... ?????????? ???????? ?????????? - YouTube

I was wondering why ?????????? Then I knew why!

 

[tks]

tks, I would like to recommend this speech, it is slightly over 1 hour, you may not agree with everything he says, but at least you will get some perspective. Think of it as understanding poorva paksham ....

?????????? ???????? ?????????? - YouTube

I will listen and get back..

Poorva Paksham applies if all parties coming to debate have a unique doctrine but their commitment to search the truth is unconditional !

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Vaagmi,

Nara cannot wear his hatred on his sleeves in India, he can choose to do so from the comfort of his living room in the States. Like I maintain, he must try to sell his atheistic (atheism is not wrong, using atheism to spread hatred is so so wrong) agenda in the states such as Alabama, Louisiana and so on. He can also educate the populace of those states on Big River and his hate filled agenda, he might find himself in prison for slander.

Big River referred to Islamists as "dirty treacherous Saibus" and to Dalit women as topless night soil gatherers. Big River may have roused the consciousness of some, but certainly not many. A 90 year old man marrying a teen can never be revered even among hardcore ideologists.

EVR's comments on Islamists is interesting. Because, sometime back, a Muslim Forum
conducted a discussion in Chennai. The topic was 'did EVR accept Islam'. Some of the participants were Amir (a Film Director) and late Periardasan, who got converted
to Islam from Buddhism.

I noticed in one of DK's noticeboards, EVR said the world will prosper only if Christianity
and Hinduism are destroyed. He has not touched upon Islam. It seems he might have
a soft corner for Islam.

 

[Vaagmi]

I will listen and get back..

Poorva Paksham applies if all parties coming to debate have a unique doctrine but their commitment to search the truth is unconditional !

tks,

I listened to it. It is just a lot of shallow knowledge delivered with elan because a stage for provided and there was a readily available captive audience. Someone trying to see a Mao Zedong in a Rockfeller. LOL. There is no purva -paksham of any sort there of any concept or a view point. Fortunately there is no gaffe by the speaker as he is known for such things (I heard him saying once in TV that Narmada river empties into Bay of Bengal). Please get back with your views after listening. I am just curious to know what you think. Thanks.

 

[Nara]

...Poorva Paksham applies if all parties coming to debate have a unique doctrine but their commitment to search the truth is unconditional !

That is all I ask, listen to it with an open mind and with a commitment to seek truth, however unpalatable or sweet it may seem to you at the moment.

 

[tks]

That is all I ask, listen to it with an open mind and with a commitment to seek truth, however unpalatable or sweet it may seem to you at the moment.

Sri Nara

I spent the full 72 minutes listening - in fact I even went back to listen some sections. So I spent 90 minutes and stayed late.

Not sure why you suggested that I view this. I am sharing my notes below.

Since my knowledge of the people involved was limited to Aananda Vikatan level reading during my high school years I can say I listened without any bias.

What are the take-away messages? Not sure I have any

Let me share my notes . You are welcome to correct my notes. I have noted my comments in parenthesis.

=======================notes =========================

1. Compare the person of your admiration (PYA) with another person
(What was the main intent of this comparison? Is it to show that PYA is a reasonable person with deep thoughts?)

2. Man (human being which includes woman) is the most evolved animal - self respect and mutual respect ought to be the goals

3. Man by nature is selfish (only animal that steal milk of other mammals), man hunts for pleasure

4. PYA believed that there is nothing more to life - it is all nature .. alarm clock stops but that is just nature since clock needed winding

5. Need to distinguish between someone intelligent and smart/wise. We need wise ones to be ruling a place. A person who helps the society is the wise person

6. Bhakthi and other beliefs are actually self centered expression for man

7. Real penance is about sacrifice for sake of others. PYA is a person engaged in this his whole life

8. Offering to images and idols is meaningless - it is not really any offer, just selfish acts

9. Community Service for betterment of others should be the goal

10. The greatest teachings to follow are
a. treat others like you would like to be treated
b. Do your duty
c. Human beings are interdependent - when we eat anything many people's labor has gone into this, hence we need to be doing work for others (such thinking was predominant with PYA even at age 94)

11. PYA taught the above ideas like the 'other person'

12. Temples are built by labor of many - so why a person who never had anything to do with this work be the only one allowed near the deity (I assume a Pujari?)

13. Science alone is not enough to guide us, we need philosophical thinking - science teaches how to kill, Philosophy teaches us who to kill?

14. Tamil Tholkappium and other literature taught the world about the five elements (earth, space, air, fire, ...) etc 2500 years ago and yet we have people believing in Ganesha idol drinking milk and elephants in temples are made to beg

15. Main difference between PYA and other person is that the other person believed that

a. society changes when individual changes towards right path but PYA said the society change has to happen first for which violence is necessary against the other class (not sure I got who the enemy is/was)

b. Other person and Gandhi teaching says means are important - PYA says end justifies the means (violence?)


The above are my notes. Obviously I have missed the essence if any. I do not want to give my comments without ensuring I have not missed any point or missed essence of the talk by enumerating the notes.

Let me know

 

[Vaagmi]

Sri Nara

I spent the full 72 minutes listening - in fact I even went back to listen some sections. So I spent 90 minutes and stayed late.

Not sure why you suggested that I view this. I am sharing my notes below.

Since my knowledge of the people involved was limited to Aananda Vikatan level reading during my high school years I can say I listened without any bias.

What are the take-away messages? Not sure I have any

Let me share my notes . You are welcome to correct my notes. I have noted my comments in parenthesis.

=======================notes =========================

1. Compare the person of your admiration (PYA) with another person
(What was the main intent of this comparison? Is it to show that PYA is a reasonable person with deep thoughts?)

2. Man (human being which includes woman) is the most evolved animal - self respect and mutual respect ought to be the goals

3. Man by nature is selfish (only animal that steal milk of other mammals), man hunts for pleasure

4. PYA believed that there is nothing more to life - it is all nature .. alarm clock stops but that is just nature since clock needed winding

5. Need to distinguish between someone intelligent and smart/wise. We need wise ones to be ruling a place. A person who helps the society is the wise person

6. Bhakthi and other beliefs are actually self centered expression for man

7. Real penance is about sacrifice for sake of others. PYA is a person engaged in this his whole life

8. Offering to images and idols is meaningless - it is not really any offer, just selfish acts

9. Community Service for betterment of others should be the goal

10. The greatest teachings to follow are
a. treat others like you would like to be treated
b. Do your duty
c. Human beings are interdependent - when we eat anything many people's labor has gone into this, hence we need to be doing work for others (such thinking was predominant with PYA even at age 94)

11. PYA taught the above ideas like the 'other person'

12. Temples are built by labor of many - so why a person who never had anything to do with this work be the only one allowed near the deity (I assume a Pujari?)

13. Science alone is not enough to guide us, we need philosophical thinking - science teaches how to kill, Philosophy teaches us who to kill?

14. Tamil Tholkappium and other literature taught the world about the five elements (earth, space, air, fire, ...) etc 2500 years ago and yet we have people believing in Ganesha idol drinking milk and elephants in temples are made to beg

15. Main difference between PYA and other person is that the other person believed that

a. society changes when individual changes towards right path but PYA said the society change has to happen first for which violence is necessary against the other class (not sure I got who the enemy is/was)

b. Other person and Gandhi teaching says means are important - PYA says end justifies the means (violence?)


The above are my notes. Obviously I have missed the essence if any. I do not want to give my comments without ensuring I have not missed any point or missed essence of the talk by enumerating the notes.

Let me know

Dear tks,

Thanks for noting down. I thought I would share with you and other members here my thoughts on some of the points. The numbers I have given are the numbers you have assigned to your points for ease of reference.

2. As I said once earlier, can we be sure that man is the most evolved animal? We do not have the opinion of the amoeba on this assertion as yet. And that speaks volumes for the capsule in which we have shut ourselves up. We cant do even what is a simple thing for a lizard. The lizard is able to disconnect a major portion of its body from its tail at will and what more, it leaves a part of its "life" behind in the tail for the tail to throb for a while. It may be just a chemical which is left behind for argument, but then what is life after all?

3. That was an attempt by the speaker to browbeat the audience by belting out a statistics. He even mentioned the total number of mammal species living in the world. And he was wrong in his assertion that man is the only mammal who steals the milk. There is another species-a particular variety of ants in the African jungles which do the same thing. Leaving that aside, it is just a statement of the obvious that man is first and foremost selfish. Not only man, there is whole group of living beings (plants, insects, animals etc.,) called parasites that live on others.

5. a smart play with words.

6 and 8 are position taken by atheists and the speaker is an atheist.

9,10,11 are all inanities.

13. If I refer him to "critique of pure reason" he wont understand a line of what is said there.

I have more but am not writing here because I do not want preempt any independent opinion.

 

[vennki]

As you rightly said, if you keep on telling the same thing again and again that will be considered true though it may be myths... I am now in pune and planning a trip in January... Let me go and come back and post more details

 

[ashwin_ash]

I read SSB practised Khanda yoga- he used to 'remove' his limbs and massage them, and then reattach them. I fail to see how someone can massage ones' limbs after severing them.

He also used to do "dhauti", remove his intestines, wash them and swallow it again (don't know whether to throw up or laugh at peoples' ignorance). And the gullible masses will eat anything.

 

[Nara]

...I spent the full 72 minutes listening - in fact I even went back to listen some sections. So I spent 90 minutes and stayed late.

tks, thanks for taking the time.

The take away is to get to know where they are coming from. These are the people who are vilified as goons in this forum by many members.

Another take away is the fact that it is not impossible to have a dialog between highly theistic people like the group he was addressing and the so called Black Shirts. I hope you see this, if you do, mission accomplished.

If you want to discuss any of the points you have mentioned please do so and I will respond if necessary.

thanks ....

 

[tks]

tks, thanks for taking the time.

The take away is to get to know where they are coming from. These are the people who are vilified as goons in this forum by many members.

Another take away is the fact that it is not impossible to have a dialog between highly theistic people like the group he was addressing and the so called Black Shirts. I hope you see this, if you do, mission accomplished.

If you want to discuss any of the points you have mentioned please do so and I will respond if necessary.

thanks ....

There are many that get vilified unjustly but if they have a message that is based on universal principles then it will stand the test of time. Many well known scientists who were vilified in their life time and even driven to suicide turned out to be celebrated as one of the greatest contributors to Science (like Boltzmann). Though society was not fair to the people in their life time their ideas persisted since truth cannot stay hidden.

Therefore the key thing I am looking for is the message in any address. I am not trying to be critical of this speaker due to any bias since I never heard of his until now.

It seems that the speaker - though eloquent - was going all over the place without reaching really any conclusion. If it was all about just expressing admiration for someone (PYA) that is fine. If he wanted to say he can have conversation with theists that is fine also.

But there was no profundity of thought anywhere that I can use for my growth. Instead there are only dangerous flaws in statements that i find

1. So what is the hard truth that I am supposed to perceive?

2. Man being the most evolved is at best an opinion. Sri Vaagmi pointed this out and elsewhere (and I am not able to locate the exact message since it must be many months ago) I have written about this with more details and examples (and hence will not repeat that here) I still do not know why he made this comment and where he wanted to go with this thought.

3. The speaker does not understand what true Bhakthi is about based on what he says - he seems to have focused on superficial aspects which suggests that he has not taken time to understand the essence of what moves a Theistic person. It is true that there are lots of feudal beliefs and superstitions (miracles like statues drinking milk etc). So what ? This is part of being human. There will always be a set of people wanting to believe in some supernatural acts. If he wants to have a rational conversation he has to show he understands the 'other side' well. He was unable to do that for even the possibility of any intellectual conversation to take place in the future.

4. Speaker makes contradictory statements/conclusions in many places. If PYA thinks that food he consumes is the result of many people's work and everyone involved has done their piece what is wrong if a Pujari is the only designated person in a society to go near a deity even if he did not build the temple? Also whoever said going near an idol is privileged - it is just a job where he does work of worship on behalf of others. It seems the speaker has an agenda that is coming out with unconnected statements.

5. If 'treating others like you would like to be treated' why jump to talk about violence being needed to fix the society. I used to be supporter of communist ideas during my college days in India so I know what Marx and Lenin talked about - they had basic flaws in their assumptions which is why the whole communistic movement failed everywhere. The speaker has not made any compelling connection to that thought with what he said previously. So PYA believed that violence is needed to fix the society before humans will change. This is dangerous and nonsense. First who are his objects of violence and why? This part was skipped over by the speaker except to make a disjoint statement.

6. PYA is deeply flawed if he advocated 'end justifies the means' ....This is a major topic by itself so I do not want to digress. Also what basis does he use to know what the end should be ? How does he know he is correct since means advocated is violence. Even Hitler had an end in mind for the society and his means was violence.

Overall based on what I heard I find that the speaker lacks scholarship, has not made any significant statements and was ill prepared when talking to the Theistic side. There are disjoint, incorrect and deeply flawed ideas that were articulated that if taken to action would be very detrimental to any society.

If the only take away is that such a person is someone we can converse with - I agree. There is no need to vilify anyone.


I am still trying to understand what bitter truth that I am supposed to have perceived....

Regards

 

[Nara]

....
If the only take away is that such a person is someone we can converse with - I agree. There is no need to vilify anyone.

This is it, think of them not as "goons" but as people who disagree with you and if you listen to them then you will realize that what they are saying is not at all bitter, just that something you don't agree with, that is the bitter truth, they are no more goons than any one of us here.

 

[tks]

This is it, think of them not as "goons" but as people who disagree with you and if you listen to them then you will realize that what they are saying is not at all bitter, just that something you don't agree with, that is the bitter truth, they are no more goons than any one of us here.

I never viewed anyone as goons and I have tried to listen to people if they are able to have a dialog (meaning able to listen as well as talk) without resorting to violence and name calling.

 

[tks]

Dear tks,

Thanks for noting down. I thought I would share with you and other members here my thoughts on some of the points. The numbers I have given are the numbers you have assigned to your points for ease of reference.

2. As I said once earlier, can we be sure that man is the most evolved animal? We do not have the opinion of the amoeba on this assertion as yet. And that speaks volumes for the capsule in which we have shut ourselves up. We cant do even what is a simple thing for a lizard. The lizard is able to disconnect a major portion of its body from its tail at will and what more, it leaves a part of its "life" behind in the tail for the tail to throb for a while. It may be just a chemical which is left behind for argument, but then what is life after all?

3. That was an attempt by the speaker to browbeat the audience by belting out a statistics. He even mentioned the total number of mammal species living in the world. And he was wrong in his assertion that man is the only mammal who steals the milk. There is another species-a particular variety of ants in the African jungles which do the same thing. Leaving that aside, it is just a statement of the obvious that man is first and foremost selfish. Not only man, there is whole group of living beings (plants, insects, animals etc.,) called parasites that live on others.

5. a smart play with words.

6 and 8 are position taken by atheists and the speaker is an atheist.

9,10,11 are all inanities.

13. If I refer him to "critique of pure reason" he wont understand a line of what is said there.

I have more but am not writing here because I do not want preempt any independent opinion.

Sri Vaagmi - Hope you will share your other views as well since you spent the time listening !
Regards

 

[Vaagmi]

post #194:

"This is it, think of them not as "goons" but as people who disagree with you and if you listen to them then you will realize that what they are saying is not at all bitter, just that something you don't agree with, that is the bitter truth, they are no more goons than any one of us here".

and in reply:

Originally Posted by tks
....If the only take away is that such a person is someone we can converse with - I agree. There is no need to vilify anyone.
..."I never viewed anyone as goons and I have tried to listen to people if they are able to have a dialog (meaning able to listen as well as talk) without resorting to violence and name calling".

My position is different. I give it here:

My wife,daughter and many friends disagree with me strongly on many things. But I do not think of them as "goons". There are many goons also who disagree with me strongly on many things. I consider them as "goons" not because they disagree with me but for other reasons-like hatred selling (my friend இளவேனில், a die-hard communist, used to call it தமிழக அரசியல் சந்தையில் நடக்கும் அபினி விநியோகம் aptly), displaying a pigheaded stupidity beyond comprehension, believing in and recommending to others violence as an instrument to bring dissent to heel etc.,

 

[tks]

post #194:




and in reply:



My position is different. I give it here:

My wife,daughter and many friends disagree with me strongly on many things. But I do not think of them as "goons". There are many goons also who disagree with me strongly on many things. I consider them as "goons" not because they disagree with me but for other reasons-like hatred selling (my friend இளவேனில், a die-hard communist, used to call it தமிழக அரசியல் சந்தையில் நடக்கும் அபினி விநியோகம் aptly), displaying a pigheaded stupidity beyond comprehension, believing in and recommending to others violence as an instrument to bring dissent to heel etc.,

I can understand your position and it is not actually different.

I think anyone who is sincere and want to engage in a civil debate *provided they are qualified* is always welcome. This qualification aspect is required if the subject matter requires specific domain expertise for a debate to be meaningful. I for example cannot have a debate about politics in India.

While I am against name calling of any person, I think *repeated behavior* exhibiting incivility, violence and general lack of integrity means that such a person is not worthy of being listened to. It is an orthogonal consideration from the views they may hold

 

[Vaagmi]

I had said this in my post #190 referring to the speakers claim:

3. That was an attempt by the speaker to browbeat the audience by belting out a statistics. He even mentioned the total number of mammal species living in the world. And he was wrong in his assertion that man is the only mammal who steals the milk. There is another species-a particular variety of ants in the African jungles which do the same thing. Leaving that aside, it is just a statement of the obvious that man is first and foremost selfish. Not only man, there is whole group of living beings (plants, insects, animals etc.,) called parasites that live on others.

Now I give the link to a reference for those who look for proof. Please go to this: Aphid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those for whom only seeing is believing this: [h=3]Ants and Aphids (Super Macro/Close-up) - YouTube[/h]

12. Temples are built by labor of many - so why a person who never had anything to do with this work be the only one allowed near the deity (I assume a Pujari?)

What a childish argument this. The less about logic in it, the better it would be.

13. Science alone is not enough to guide us, we need philosophical thinking - science teaches how to kill, Philosophy teaches us who to kill?

What a peculiar way to look at science. Luckily we have not handed over the nuclear button to these stupid fellows.

14. Tamil Tholkappium and other literature taught the world about the five elements (earth, space, air, fire, ...) etc 2500 years ago and yet we have people believing in Ganesha idol drinking milk and elephants in temples are made to beg

what is said in scriptures is much more accurate than this tholkappiyam quote.

15. Main difference between PYA and other person is that the other person believed that
a. society changes when individual changes towards right path but PYA said the society change has to happen first for which violence is necessary against the other class (not sure I got who the enemy is/was)
b. Other person and Gandhi teaching says means are important - PYA says end justifies the means (violence?)

Dont ever believe that these chaps have the sincerity and devotion to a cause like Che Guvera or Mao Zedong. Please read my signature below.