An Interesting article - any response?

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Shrisha wrote:

[much nonsense deleted]

>It is amazing that you continually find it convenient to bring up logic
>just whenever it appears to suit your purpose, and yet say the next
>moment that logic does not help reach the ultimate purpose, etc.

I dare you to show one post here or anywhere else where I said logic is
useless. I somehow expected more from you than Hari Krishna Susarla type of
blatherings and random statements. Maybe there is much more to
Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya than I thought after all.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/

>From  Mon Dec  9 16:49:50 1996
Message-Id: <MON.9.DEC.1996.164950.0700.>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:49:50 -0700
Reply-To: dvaita-list at eskimo.com, advaita-l at TAMU.EDU
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at NYX.NET>
Subject: Re: An Interesting article - any response?
Comments: To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU, dvaita-list at eskimo.com
Comments: cc: "H. Krishna Susarla" <susarla.krishna at tumora.swmed.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199612091902.OAA19881 at zebra.ecn.purdue.edu> from "Ramakrishnan
        Balasubramanian" at Dec 9, 96 02:02:47 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ramakrishnan wrote:

> Shrisha wrote:
>
> [much nonsense deleted]

-- without explanation, which makes it hard for any mind not as keen
as your own to appreciate your reasons and know them to be legitimate
ones.

> >It is amazing that you continually find it convenient to bring up logic
> >just whenever it appears to suit your purpose, and yet say the next
> >moment that logic does not help reach the ultimate purpose, etc.
>
> I dare you to show one post here or anywhere else where I said logic is
> useless.

Notice I did not say you said that logic is useless; only that it
[allegedly] does not help reach the ultimate purpose.  This has been
said by your comrades recently, but if it is not your view, then I
stand corrected, and offer my apologies.

> I somehow expected more from you than Hari Krishna Susarla type of
> blatherings and random statements. Maybe there is much more to
> Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya than I thought after all.

It would help if you could actually respond to what I said in some
detail, instead of picking up on one remark in complete isolation,
misinterpreting the same and subjecting me to an irrelevant ad hominem
tirade.  I don't think my posting was all "blatherings and random
statements," while yours, which does not make any substantive points
or responses and simply lowers the level of exchange to a rather base
mud-slinging acrimony, could well be so considered.  It is
questionable practice to demean or vilify Hari Krishna Susarla (with
whom I have as much disagreement as you do, as you are doubtless
aware) in his absence.  I appreciated your saying that one must give
Guruprasad a chance to respond to criticism of him, and would have
liked it if you had shown the same strength of character here as
well.  I'm cc'ing this message to HKS, and if he wishes to follow the
matter up with you or on the Advaita list, let him.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Ramakrishnan.
> --
> Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
> undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse
>                   http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/