[Advaita-l] Modern science and Vedanta.

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Sir
>
> I will definitely respond to your main points, once you publish your
> research. Why do I not react in your reasearch phase? I saw you sitting on
> judgement when others responded in good spirit to your questions and I
> thought it was not right that they help you in * your * research which will
> be published by you, and having received something from them, you give
> back judgements, usually caustic! All the while, your own views are not made
> known for them to be criticised.
>

RV: I respect scholars and practioners and am indebted to every interaction.
I do not stand in judgement of the individual but the work and not from a
judge's seat but as a researcher. I know that many of you in this forum have
a long and deep understanding of different subjects in advaita tradition.
However, I have to look for supporting evidence for arguments from a
research point of view. I accept that which is well worked out. For example,
Sri Subrahmanian's work on equivalence of bhakti and jnana based
on compilation of references to the terms in Sankara Bhashya. I have to
reject and state reasons why when it is incorrect. For example, Sri
Subrahmanian's post that Madhusudana is critical of Sankara  in BG 6.20 and
could have avoided making that statement. I have given my reasons why I dont
agree with that and also stated my position that with reasons why. If I am
wrong, I will correct myself and wiser through learning which is the point
of any interaction.

To be fair, I think from the tone of your posts that you might be a Don (if
that is the term the British use) or a Professor given to evaluating
repsonses in daily life and you might have just carried that to the list.
Some of your questions did bother, did challenge my limited understanding
but whenever I thought of pursuing it further, the mean streak in your posts
used to put me off. So, I will wait for the finished product and respond to
it, not work in progress.

RV: I have to evaluate answers to my question for supporting evidence and
reject the answer it if the supporting evidence or logic is incorrect. From
your point of view, volunteering time and sharing knowledge, this may be a
put-off. I request support during research but cannot allow dilution of
quality of the work with weak arguments. By IshvarAnugraha, I hope to get,
as so far, all the support to understand and publish the position of bhakti
in advaita.

Now when I know that all these questions are by somebody who is not willing
to accept that gotra and udara have no connection, well, that explains the
curious unintelligibility in your earlier posts - and the futility of
engaging with you regarding Sanskrit terms.

By the way, I was taught that when the base for any number is not mentioned,
it is to be assumed as 10. Of course, you - who can count in base 16 - would
be perfectly aware of that. It is only the urge to score a point, the
combination of high IQ and low empathy, that leads to these kinds of
paaNDitI-prakarsha.

The reason that I took this route is given in one of your earlier emails
where you explained why you decided to make fun of Sri Subrahmanian, quite
incorrectly as it turned out. If apparently imprecise use of words is fair
game, somebody who talks big without having fundamentals in place also ought
to be fair game.

RV: We are not on a hunting expedition. If we hurt, we apologize. If we are
are wrong, we admit. If we are right, we assert. I dont think fundamentals
are absolute constants because they rest on assumptions, which when changed
lead to a different conclusion.

N. Siva Senani