Venkataraman ramakrishnan

[CHANDRU1849]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dec, 17, 2013

Dear Members,

Recently I have come across an interview conducted by NDTV, in
which the Nobel Laureate Venkataraman Ramakrishnan has said he
has no faith in God.

It was said that Prof Chandrasekar, another Nobel Laureate, had also
similar view. His wife who passed, away recently in US, was an atheist.

Any comment.

 

[zebra16]

Dec, 17, 2013

Dear Members,

Recently I have come across an interview conducted by NDTV, in
which the Nobel Laureate Venkataraman Ramakrishnan has said he
has no faith in God.

It was said that Prof Chandrasekar, another Nobel Laureate, had also
similar view. His wife who passed, away recently in US, was an atheist.

Any comment.

He is right. There is no verifiable proof that God exists.

 

[vgane]

Mr Chandru,

It is an individual choice..Just because the Noble laureate said that does not make it a gospel truth...In case you feel strongly believe in God, please go ahead! Do not base your decision to believe in God based on what an individual says...

Atheist is supposed to be 2.01% while non religious is supposed to be 9.66% of world population..Rest 88.33% are religious

You can count your self among the minority or majority but do not be endlessly ruminating about this!It is not going to take you anywhere! Especially knowing about the noble laureate's proclivity on this matter which can only be gossip matter!!

 

[sangom]

Dec, 17, 2013

Dear Members,

Recently I have come across an interview conducted by NDTV, in
which the Nobel Laureate Venkataraman Ramakrishnan has said he
has no faith in God.

It was said that Prof Chandrasekar, another Nobel Laureate, had also
similar view. His wife who passed, away recently in US, was an atheist.

Any comment.

There is no God with the any of the powers attributed to IT by the religions. But there is a power which makes you, me and everything else in this world to live (and die away). That power is the real GOD. But, again, ITs powers are not known except that it manifests here as what we call Life.

Some people come to understand the truth of the first sentence in the above paragraph and then say that they have no faith in god, he is an atheist, etc.

When, and if, they think deeply further, they will come to understand the truth in the second and third sentences above. But religions of all kinds successfully market their gods and beguile most of the people, so there are very few to get out of the mesmerising clutches of religion.

இருக்கும் இடத்தை விட்டு இல்லாத இடம் தேடி எங்கெங்கோ அலைகின்றார் ஞானத் தங்கமே!

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

I am able to see GOD in every Human Being including 'Believers'& 'Non Believers'

 

[9868836164]

God exists everywhere.

He is right. There is no verifiable proof that God exists.[/QUOTE

A supernatural power exists. This is God.

 

[sarang]

Most of the modern scientists agree that a supernatural power exists. They do not know how to define it or explain it. He has named his son 'raman'.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

He may be telling the truth of his mind and it does not matter if he is an atheist. It does not matter to God either, if he exists. Once when accolades were pouring on him, he just asked "what is this? what I have done?". He must just be a plain man. Let there be one such man in our midst!

 

[weblogic]

Individuals perspective towards life changes with passage of time and with experiences assosiated. So one may be Athesit Thesist or whatever but as Shri.Sangom has very rightly explained the unexplained/unexplainable Power (LIFE) can be termed God.
One cannot always approach this issue with the sceptic scientic rational approach as Man Knew that earth wasa flat in 17th century (science said so) and now whatever the Science rational has provided insights is not complete or fool proof.
One example for this lies within the science realm of explanation of basic matter where every thing is made of particle chemicals and every compoent is tried and explained by its composition within periodic table.
Whereas the periodic table is itself incomplete still which still accomadates the ambiguity in it which is again - what we can term as God!

 

[tks]

No 'faith' in God does not automatically imply characterization as an Atheist or any other label though I do not know (or particularly care to know) what anyone including Nobel Prize winners believe or not believe.

 

[kunjuppu]

Most of the modern scientists agree that a supernatural power exists. They do not know how to define it or explain it. He has named his son 'raman'.

dear sarang,

how can you come to such a conclusion re modern scientists agree that a supernatural power exists. They do not know how to define it or explain it. if you dont mind tracing your thought into simple words for my benefit. i would appreciate it. thank you.

also by naming his son 'raman' do you feel that he has a secret religiosity even though he says that he does not believe in God? can not raman be a name he liked. i know a fellow named christian, whose father and he, both are agnostics. but love the name.

and there are quite a few mohammeds in the world i would think, who do not believe in allah. but are named such.

even xxx was named ramasamy. he did not deem it necessary to change it, even though major part of his life, he was anti the samy who was rama.

 

[9868836164]

In reply to my post saying that a Supernatural power exists everywhere and that is God, he has replied that scientists agree that a Supernatural Power is there. He wants to know what it is. If it can be explained, it cannot be termed Supernatural power. If I say that something is sweet how can others understand unless they taste it. Like that it is to be experienced. I shall just narrate a small example: Let us take a new born child. Who teaches him to cry when he is hungry, or to express other feelings like feeling cold, etc. Who teaches him to move and grow up. Like that not only human beings but all living beings. Who makes them grow. If we just pull up their hands and feet can they grow. I hope this example is sufficient to understand the Supernatural Power and that is God.

 

[sarang]

Ramasamy's parents were religious and vaishnavites. The little one was toeing parents beliefs for half his lifetime. Belief changed when he smelled power and money in current affairs.

If we apply the same logic, son is named because of faith in something by the father. If the son renounces then it is his problem. We do not know when the father changed his religion, philosophy and faith in god (assuming he had inherited it from his parents). Contributing causes may be many - inability to find a job or even a reply after making 60 applications (said in his tv interview), marrying a person of different culture, race and religion, professional environment and pressures, revelation - he is the right person to answer your doubts.

What he was and what he is with respect to belief in god is not an issue and does not concern me. As long as he does not blame or abuse believers.

May be he wanted a piece of his and his father's name to be transmitted, without any faith or religious connotation.

dear sarang,

how can you come to such a conclusion re modern scientists agree that a supernatural power exists. They do not know how to define it or explain it. if you dont mind tracing your thought into simple words for my benefit. i would appreciate it. thank you.

also by naming his son 'raman' do you feel that he has a secret religiosity even though he says that he does not believe in God? can not raman be a name he liked. i know a fellow named christian, whose father and he, both are agnostics. but love the name.

and there are quite a few mohammeds in the world i would think, who do not believe in allah. but are named such.

even xxx was named ramasamy. he did not deem it necessary to change it, even though major part of his life, he was anti the samy who was rama.

 

[vgane]

Does name connote only that so and so is son of so and so...

It is much more beyond that..

It connotes to me one's Religion, location, God, Birth star, Numerology or any other prediliction ie favourite aspect; any or all of these play a role when name is finalized...

By looking at a Name you can more or less identify the culture, country, language and gender ...

Raman( spelt ராமன்) to me just indicates that the person is a Tamil, male gender of Hindu lineage

Can we talk with conviction about the belief quotient of the person who proposed Raman as the name for his kid?

Deliberating or judging that is beyond my capability!

 

[sarang]

stalin, castro, trosky are some names given to sons because the father likes and respects the originals for what they were and what they did.

I read somewhere, the son visits cheenai during the december music season because of his interest in karnatic music. KM without bhakti is difficult to imagine.

Does name connote only that so and so is son of so and so...

It is much more beyond that..

It connotes to me one's Religion, location, God, Birth star, Numerology or any other prediliction ie favourite aspect; any or all of these play a role when name is finalized...

By looking at a Name you can more or less identify the culture, country, language and gender ...

Raman( spelt ராமன்) to me just indicates that the person is a Tamil, male gender of Hindu lineage

Can we talk with conviction about the belief quotient of the person who proposed Raman as the name for his kid?

Deliberating or judging that is beyond my capability!

 

[vgane]

stalin, castro, trosky are some names given to sons because the father likes and respects the originals for what they were and what they did.

I read somewhere, the son visits cheenai during the december music season because of his interest in karnatic music. KM without bhakti is difficult to imagine.

A Carnatic music connoisseur without belief in God, should be a rarity, indeed!

 

[kunjuppu]

I read somewhere, the son visits cheenai during the december music season because of his interest in karnatic music. KM without bhakti is difficult to imagine.

may i please say, that this is more a limitation on our thinking?

i know numerous whites, who love visting their ancient churches in europe with their elaborate stain glasses. they love the religious chants. also many portion of western music is religious oriented. they love them, without feelilng any softness for christianity or jesus christ.

same goes for any music. in fact it is good to have an eclectic taste in music without painting it with religious overtones.

for example, hindustani music was prior to islamic invasion was all religious in nature. but with the muslim kings, the ragas were re named to secular names like morning raga or evening raga or such.

CM has been spared the overwhelming demands of an islamic invasion and so we have continued our old tradition. good music can still bring tears to your eyes, with or without bhakti. that is what i think.

i feel the same with many of kannadasan's songs.

btw higgins bhagavathar was a practising christian. so was abraham pandithar, whose contribution to classical music is completely ignored today, maybe because he was christian, and we tambrams believe only the trimurthis gave fillip to carnatic music, taking the 'tamil' away from it. i think it is a deep shame of silence.

 

[kunjuppu]

A Carnatic music connoisseur without belief in God, should be a rarity, indeed!

rarity, i agree. impossible...no!!

 

[Nara]

A Carnatic music connoisseur without belief in God, should be a rarity, indeed!

Why? This is just an assumption ...

 

[tks]

Most thinking top scientists are confused about the nature of reality.
There was a nice documentary that aired a year or so ago (perhaps summer of 2012) - one of Stephen Hawking's special.

It was called "The meaning of life"

You can watch it here (45 minutes or so)

There are good conclusion about experience of free will. But there are inherent assumptions made at the start that leads to a very wrong model in my view.

That assumption is taking Descarte's "I think therefore I am" as a total basis for life.

Science deals with specifics -

1. Body which is inert and is clearly seen to obey the laws of science
2. Mind which in the conclusion of Stephen Hawking and Descarte's philosophy is different from the body.

The part Science cannot deal with objectively is the 'power of life' - power of vision, power of movement by our limbs etc - why they remain for sometime and disappear. In other words in discussing the meaning of life they do not discuss the grand meaning of death which itself speaks to certain assumptions.

Stephen Hawking concludes that reality is dependent on every being and it is relative. One does not know if there is an ultimate reality but he says it is a model driven reality meaning we work with current best model at the moment.

While some of the conclusions and line of thinking are on the mark (and have already been discussed by Sri Sankara in his Bhashyas) basic inability to reach a satisfactory conclusion on such topics lie in their inability to explore the assumptions built in.

By the way those that care to explore, Sankhyas who were atheirsts (no concept of personal God for them and this is in alignment with Vedas) believed in Pradhanam an inanimate Jadam as root of all the reality of the universe. It is very much like big bang (a possible Jadam as a phenomena) being the cause of the consciousness.

One of the reasons why it is useful (in my view for those that care) to study Sankara Bhashya is because he refutes the most respected thought leaders of his time, which include Sankhya people in a logical and respectful manner (using the protocol of Purva Paksha).

I think Stephen Hawking is an open minded person (this has nothing to do with his brilliance) and if he was exposed to what was taught by Sri Sankara then he could present a much better picture of the universe. All he has to work with are Descartes and Greek thoughts to guide his understanding on items that are really beyond the scope of Science.

Perhaps a challenge can be posed to Venkataraman Ramakrishnan . .. I know someone who is related to him

 

[sangom]

A Carnatic music connoisseur without belief in God, should be a rarity, indeed!

Dear Shri Gane,

The word connoisseur means "An expert able to appreciate a field; especially in the fine arts". I am not an "expert" but can claim much familiarity with Carnatic Music because my younger brother is a connoisseur and also can play veena. I do not believe in the existence of any of the gods in the hindu or christian pantheon and you may well say that the formless Allah appeals better to me.

FYI, there was one very expert singer of Kathakali music which is Carnatic and more difficult in some ways. As a devout muslim he also had no belief in our gods.

[video=youtube;qc7khpPVEzU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7khpPVEzU[/video]

 

[vgane]

Dear Shri Gane,

The word connoisseur means "An expert able to appreciate a field; especially in the fine arts". I am not an "expert" but can claim much familiarity with Carnatic Music because my younger brother is a connoisseur and also can play veena. I do not believe in the existence of any of the gods in the hindu or christian pantheon and you may well say that the formless Allah appeals better to me.

FYI, there was one very expert singer of Kathakali music which is Carnatic and more difficult in some ways. As a devout muslim he also had no belief in our gods.

[video=youtube;qc7khpPVEzU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7khpPVEzU[/video]

I did not say no...A few here and there may be non Hindus...Mostly,the people trooping the Music Sabhas are resplendent in their colorful costumes and religious symbols......This is the scenario in Chennai, Delhi or Mumbai...Incidentally those who listen to Yesudas are also predominatly Hindus...
Besides TB, Nagarathar, Pillai's also love Carnatic Music