Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    Dear Krishna Kumar,   1        Sophisticated Idea and Simple Terminology.   Don*t you see a problem there when you suggest use of simplistic wording
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Krishna Kumar,

       

      1       
      Sophisticated Idea and Simple Terminology.

       

      Don*t you see a problem there when you suggest use of
      simplistic wording to represent sophisticated ideas? Isn*t there a proportional
      relationship between the two?

       

      You are possibly talking about simplicity of later sequential
      interpretations. What about the maiden/ basic definitive expression that would
      by and by emanate the later sequential interpretations in bits and pieces.

       

      If it is a case of sparse/ sporadic writing, your suggestion
      is immensely considerable. But if the writing project is about protracted
      building-up of a *unified theory* / *theory of everything* or its like, the
      maiden expressions ought to be etymologically sophisticated.

       

      The first line of targeted people need not be ordinary
      public, by the way. The target line is that of extra-ordinary readers from whom
      the unusual idea would percolate to lay populace drop by drop. It is a long
      process.

       

      I think I have successfully nurtured in me the requisite
      patience for such a protracted project. It is towards the end of the third
      decade of the project that I have met you.

       

      2       
      Uniqueness of Sanatana Dharma.

       

      Would you be interested in eternal uniqueness? Have you
      imagined the consequences of eternal uniqueness? Its perils? *Silent apocalypse*
      is the other name for what you prescribe in the name of *eternal uniqueness*.

       

      Being *uniquely evolutionary* is the supreme attribute we
      should be looking for. But it brings along with it perplexing consequences.
      Understanding of post-evolution vivacity and perplexity is the objective of study,
      analysis and ensuing wisdom.

       

      Transition of current religious identity strikes one as the
      greatest contingency and is mistaken for fatal peril. You have to come out of
      that selfish horror and be prepared for religious/ spiritual metamorphosis and
      actual cultural mutation.

       

      What you identify as complex and unique Sanatani thought
      process may not be that complex really. Anyway, it needs to be augmented/
      complemented. We have to develop the *evolutionary uniqueness* of Sanatana
      Dharma.

       

      To say that Sanatana Dharma is endowed with inherent
      evolutionary uniqueness doesn*t befit a speaker who doesn*t even accept the *cardinal/
      empirical index of religiosity/ spirituality* for own religion.

       

      The supreme index of religiosity and culture and morality is
      the current crime/ immorality status of its people. Set amidst the worst
      criminal scenario, there is every reason for castigating ourselves for being
      superfluously proud of the ineligible. We should deem ourselves as potential
      criminals, at least figuratively, until we cause the scenario to change.

       

      Relative religious eligibility of Sanatana Dharma lies in
      our hermeneutic power (power of interpretation) that could synthesize interface
      anomalies seamlessly. Harping on some internal pronouncements of altruistic and
      inert tenor doesn*t suffice the Herculean task of propagating this great
      religion.  

       

      3       
      Linguistic Power of Sanskrit.

       

      As I say this, I do appreciate the linguistic value of
      Sanskrit language (including semantic value of its terminology). Let me compare
      this mother language with its daughter languages (in spite of comparing it to
      English) to indicate its shortfalls (viz, its relative lack of accuracy or vitality)
      as a prelude to my attempts to pull you out of the obsession of considering the
      daughter as evolutionarily inferior.

       

      You are surely aware of the biological fact that the
      offspring is genetically superior to the parent and so the former is potentially
      a contender for higher morality. Applying this analogy to Sanskrit language, it
      may be proposed that its linguistic heir apparent ought to be by far a superior
      language.

       

      Many would tend to think skeptically about the existence
      (reality) of an heir apparent of this classical language, implicitly taking it
      for granted that the heir apparent could have perished in some historical
      linguistic epidemic. They are wrong.

       

      Out of the three eligible contenders for direct linguistic
      inheritance of *Sanskrit linguistic age* (viz. Odia, Bengali and Assamese),
      take the case of Odia (the language of Odisha) which is believed to be the
      eldest of these three sisters. This daughter*s inherent Sanskrit etymology and
      an evolved grammar would make the level of its apparent similarity with its
      mother rise to the metaphorical 101%.

       

      An elite Odia poem or an elite passage in prose would almost
      be indiscernible from a Sanskrit sloka except for the narrow grammatical
      crevices strewn sparsely over the body of the narration.  If we further reckon the expressive prowess
      of this daughter language with respect to the mother, the former would score
      much higher than its apparent parental similarity.

       

      There is a reason why this language (Odia or rather, Odriyaa
      – the language of Odra Desha) could be a contender to such dignity and glory.
      As history unfolds in unprejudiced new anthropology (after shedding off western
      anthropology about Indian History), genesis of erstwhile original and tiny India (original
      and tiny AaryaaVarta) becomes ascribable to internal affair of erstwhile
      Odisha. That is another subject altogether.

       

      The
      present concern is the need for casting away linguistic necrophilia about
      Sanskit in order to develop greater linguistic dimensions to be commensurable
      with evolutionary aspect of Sanatani philosophy and to rescue the drowning
      present.




      (Bhanu
      Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


      You may
      reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0 as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended
      discussions.



      --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...> wrote:

      From: Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...>
      Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
      To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: greenlogic@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 6:37 AM
















       









      Dear Mr. Bhanu Padmo,
      Luckily I saw this just as I was going to bed. The point I was making is not to avoid sophistication of thought, but your statements are highly complex sentences that defeat the purpose of conveying the thought itself to a wide readership. With increase in written word sophistication, the analysis required to ensure we understand what your saying, and the number of interpretations this gives rise to defeats your very purpose. This serves no purpose at all, with the purpose being conveyance of a singular thought unsullied by misinterpretations. You may perhaps use Rajiv Malhotra's definitions in his book, 'Being Different' for the purpose.

      On the other hand, I will submit that a better way is to use Sanskrit words to convey the meaning properly. English as a language is highly inadequate in conveying complex thought processes that are unique to Sanatana Dharma. While the medium forces us to use English as a common language, it is perhaps best to use English only as a link language to the correct Sanskrit terminology. Else, your memos are in danger of looking almost like pontification.(Again, a term which perhaps eulogizes the Christian hierarchy, but I am searching for terms here!)

      Regards,
      Krishna

      On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:
















       











      Dear
      Krishna Kumar,

       

      (Verbose Complexity
      and Verbal Ingenuity)

       

      We
      are not looking for what has been said down the ages to inadequately explain
      dharma, but trying to complement the inadequacies; looking forward to a *you-me
      binary dialectic* in that context, therefore.

       

      Critical
      thinking is greatly advanced in such binary dialectics, not in multi-lateral
      information-seeking. I would certainly abide by your suggestion to not resort
      to complex verbiage, if this complexity connotes verbose complication. You may
      kindly note the other connotation of complexity viz. verbal sophistication.

       

      If
      a straight and simple wire was to serve as the filament of a bulb (an electric
      circuit) or was to sing a song (when set in a radio-circuitry), we wouldn*t opt
      for complex wire-work.

       

      Sophistication
      (sophisticated configuration) yields result. Bare simplicity seldom gives
      desired result. *Simple sophistication* is another thing altogether. It is
      ingenuity or creativity proper.

       

      If
      your call for avoidance of verbal/ verbose complexity means obviating verbal
      sophistication or verbal ingenuity, I will request you to kindly rethink.




      (Bhanu Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


      You
      may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
      as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



      --- On Tue, 2/5/13, Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...> wrote:


      From: Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...>
      Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -

      To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013, 6:58 PM
















       






      Hi Bhano,
      Religion and Dharma are not the same. For complete explanation of what these words mean, and how correct usage changes our perspective and that of the Western thinkers, read Rajiv Malhotra's 'Being Different' and 'Breaking India'. 


      I would also request you to not use complex verbage to discuss any of the points you are trying to make. It clouds the message you are trying to give. It probably shows that you are hiding behind language complexity instead of writing with thought complexity. A simple and straight forward messaging will give enough room for others to participate and challenge you; that is unless you are trying to avoid exactly that.


      Regards,
      Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri

      On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM, devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...> wrote:

















       









      "When the word was spoken to me the image would appear vividly"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kcsXiwNbo%c2%a0

      > BHANU: What else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term
      *samskriti* in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?


      No indeed:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/4173


      Gulati


      From: Bhanu Padmo
      <greenbhanu@...>
      To: greenlogic@...


      Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:29 AM
      Subject: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -


















       








      - web post



      Reply to sender



      Reply to group


      Start a New Topic


      Messages in this topic
      (7)












      Recent Activity:



      New Members
      72




      Visit Your Group







      Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback



















      .























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bhanu Padmo
      Dear Gulati, (1) No two theories about the same context will be equally correct and equally plausible.   (2) Academic and Philosophical Blackmail.  The
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Gulati,

        (1) No two
        theories about the same context will be equally correct and equally plausible.

         

        (2) Academic and Philosophical
        Blackmail.  The
        so-called scientific theories are about *objectivity* only. Their themes do not
        include any form of *subjectivity-objectivity connectivity*. How could anybody
        be able to or expect to experience *subjectively-objectivity relationship* in
        the course of a so-called scientific experiment?

         

        The implicit
        complaint which your statement connotes is about the definition of *science*. Science
        ought to deal with the *unified theory* which can not exclude epistemic/
        subjective aspect of this cosmos/ creation. Moreover, the subjective aspect of
        knowing needs to be *prioritized* over objective aspect, though the latter is *absolutely
        indispensable* as well.

         

        The *truncated
        science* of academy fails to integrate the two aspects as it decisively
        amputates the subjective aspect off and yet it continues to boast of its
        endeavors after offering us a unified theory which can never take off as such.

         

        The problem is
        over when we differentiate *objectivity-dwelling non-science* from *objectivity-intensive
        science* and *integral science*. The latter two would undertake the task of
        complementing the unified theory by way of taking both subjective and objective
        aspects into consideration while ascribing primacy to the subjective aspect and
        acknowledging absolute indispensability of the objective aspect.

         

        It may be noted
        that the classical subjectivists had been committing the grave error of denying
        or ignoring *absolute indispensability* of objectivism when they were to
        explicitly acknowledge it. Thus they propagated *exclusive subjectivism* often
        in the name of religion and spirituality. The latter act is tantamount to
        philosophical blackmail.

         

        They were as
        erroneous as the modern objectivists who propagate *exclusive objectivism* in
        the name of science. This is academic blackmail.

         

         

        (3) There can
        be many interpretations of a passage/ discourse/ theory that can be seen as
        phases of the hermeneutic (meaning-mutating, meaning-updating) process. The objective
        of the sequence of interpretations is evolution of meaning. With this objective
        out of view, interpretations would go awry and be infinite in number.

         

        (4) Yes. That
        is why we have to start with given or acknowledged or average meaning of words.
        If any doubt crops up in the course of a discussion, the contending parties
        would seek clarification.

         

        (5) Academic Sapience.  You are going too far in
        generalizing the matter. The contenders are not blind people. They should have
        basic qualification which is confirmed by the fact that they have agreed to
        commence the conversation.

         

        Their verbal
        juxtaposition couldn*t bring out unlimited linguistic or semantic variation,
        unless one or both of them suddenly decides/ decide to enter respective narrow
        capillary-like academic tunnel/ tunnels.

         

        Sapience of
        academic specialization (that has lost sight of unified knowledge) is the
        greatest danger against philosophical advancement. That is why it is essential
        that the contenders assent to *civility* (of civil research) qualifiably even
        if they are academicians.

         

        Let*s broaden
        the meaning of the term *academician*. For our purposes, it should not mean
        only *tax-supported/ salaried professor who has not been able to cast off the
        slavish hangover and who has not been able to transcend the salary-thick
        information-barrier*.

         

        The causal
        essence of such a status is *protracted unconditional/ unlimited/
        disproportionate social-financial security*.

         

        If you apply
        this causal essence to other fields, the curtain is raised to disclose the
        identity of other type of culture-supported academicians who erroneously enjoy
        implicit sapience over learned philosophy conditioned by direct/ indirect
        materialistic concerns.

         

         (6) Which speaker do you have in mind? Me?
        You? If any of us prove to be sapient and adamant and so cracked, the content
        will slip through our fingers. Right!!

         



        (Bhanu
        Padmo)

        http://www.bhanupadmo.com


        You may
        reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ as well

        or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended
        discussions.



        ......................


        TheRampaPath] Re: [greenlogic] Re: [Wisdom-l] Re:
        [TheBecoming] Fw: The soul,re;latest missive. / Concept of Physical Life

        Friday,
        February 15, 2013 5:25 AM

        From:

        "devindersingh gulati" <dgulhati@...>

        Add sender to Contacts

        To:

        "greenlogic@..."
        <greenlogic@...>, "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
        <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
        <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>... more

        Several
        different theories may offer equally plausible accounts of the same
        situationScientific
        theories are "undetermined" by experience

        There
        are infinite interpretations of a discourse depending on the context Words
        have a meaning only relative to the other words they are connected to in
        the sentences that we assume to be trueThe
        meaning of a sentence depends on the interpretation of the entire
        language. Its meaning can even change in time.The
        meaning of language is not in the mind of the speaker

         

        Gulati


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.