raaabo said:
mediator said:
The context you are trying to present revolves only around the analysis and research in the physical domain and for that matter you have unknowingly presented a paradox in the process of the reasoning. If the whirpool, the tornado of the ever changing atoms which present an "image" of raaabo to my lower conscious frameworks i.e senses and the mind, the light from which was received some nano-seconds in the past, then how can that perceived image alone be "measurable, verifiable and provable"?
Like I asked, which was ignored, what are we trying to prove here? The subject that we are trying to prove has become the past at the very moment of our analysis, let alone conclusions. If we apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to it, then it becomes even more difficult to prove your own existence. The moment I apply any source of energy to measure or verify the ever changing whirpool of atoms in an illusory shape of Raaabo, in the sense of dynamism, then can I really measure you, or verify or prove you?
The irony hence presented is a subject of unverifiable, unproven, unmeasured essence called Raaabo is trying to analyze the world where he percieve everything as a belief, yet seeks permanence in the chaotic dynamism.
There is no logic here,
if everything occurs in the past, we must have already finished this debate. There is a time and place to bring in relativity. If you were travelling away from me at relativistic speeds, I’d be happy to discuss space-time with you. You’re not, and instead harping on a point which leads down a path to nowhere. Perhaps you think my concepts in space time are weak and are trying to exploit it in what you think is a duel of words. However, I should tell you that space and science-fiction and quantum theories are in fact really is my only area of interest, so it’s kind of pointless. You cannot have it both ways, either you accept the reality that you were born, grew up started thinking, started with the Vedas and then developed interesting (though perhaps sometimes flawed) ideas, or we argue existence and what we feel about it.
Read my questions again. You seem to have generalized again.
I did not say "everything occurs in the past". There is a difference between what is being proven and what is happening. An electron can continue to move i.e a happening, but the moment you view it by using energy, it has been changed already! Similarly, you actions i.e a happening, but the moment you try to prove that you exist, it has changed! Therefore, actions are still being done, discussiong continues and debate has not "ended"!
Raaabo said:
mediator said:
Bhakti yog, explained by Gita as well, is an art of perfection of listening/devotion/surrender. It is not the bhakti you see on TV shows or temples where people are busy ringing the temple bells or putting sweets in front of the idols. Bhakti essentially means devotion or surrender to that which you seek, a higher art or science. For a guitarist, his bhakti lies in practicing devotedly, a surrender of ego, where the person "does" withhout a sense of "I" for in the moment of that devotion, he cannot think of anything else, not even himself. The same bhakti can be seen in many students one day before exams, where they don't even listen to their hunger and thirst, let alone a sense of "I".
From your post, it is clear enough that your interest is not genuine for your interest is "based on what they see in it that you didn't". For one who truly seeks does not care about others, a competition from them or what they found that you didn't. Many people take up arts, not because arts is a fashion, but because arts is their nature. Similarly, some take music, not because music is in fashion, but music is what resonates in their inner being. Their interest is not based on what other see in it that they didn't!
Sorry, but you just haven’t understood human psychology as is visible and displayed. Musicians love music,
yes, but they practise because they want to learn everything, try new things, and be good at what they do. Seeking improvement is in fact “I”, or else musicians would be happy to sit and listen to nature and all other music made before them. At heart, we’re all creationists, and we want to do things for the “I” in us. As much as you may not want to admit it, this whole debate is both you and me trying to prove that the “I” is more knowledgeable than the “you”. There’s another clue as to whether we exist or not.
In fact all seeking of knowledge is to enhance the sense of “I”. Even seeking knowledge from the Vedas is to make “yourself” better, not the world. This is simple logic and human nature, and yet you keep sidestepping it.
Again you did not understand my reply.
I'm not talking about what the musicians want, but what happens during their yog with the music itself. Its not really difficult to understand that.
raaabo said:
mediator said:
The evolution in this adventure, the rise in consciousness is something that happens naturally not because you want it and hence for that matter, everyone dwells at various levels of consciousness. Some at low and some at high depending of various factors, perhaps inborn or upbringing, parents, teacher or guidance from the shruties or may be "few good quotes", tragedies in life etc.
Ah so then evolution happens?
It is called evolution of consciousness, not darwin's evolution that I referred to.
raaabo said:
I only stated that science is a study of what’s observable, and even it requires leaps of faith, and I am sure the Vedas do too. However, they seem to me to observe less and abstract more, and thus get called “higher consciousness”, whereas perhaps they are not, which is what science is slowly eroding away at. I never claimed that both the Vedas and sciences cannot co-exist. It’s the usurping of the Vedas by a religion that made them irrelevant to the rest of the world.
And thats the flaw in many science theories (not all) that they are a study of what is "observable" or you can say an analysis of the limited more like sample testing, where the sample may or may not represent the total population and even if it represents it is hardly a 100% match! Hence my question to you,
mediator said:
My simple question to you : First, it was assumed that there is "contracting and expanding" universe. Now when universe is observed to be expanding, they deduce something called "dark energy" and used scientific words like "mysterious" to explain it. What is the guarantee that this universe will continue to expand even faster? Suppose by any chance a deceleration is observed, are we going to rip off the "dark energy" and go back to "contracting universe" or have a pudding of both?
And no Vedas do not research upon the lowest realms of consciousness to deduce a "theory". It is a science which seeks to know the highest truth and then percieve the world from that level of consciousness. Here the concept of "direct knowledge" comes into the picture, which enables a seer to have the direct understanding of the truth at various levels of existence. It is not some analysis or research in lower levels of consciousness and hence my example of eucalyptus tree which you did not take seriously.
mediator said:
A simple example :
Raaabo is sitting at the top of eucalyptus tree and Mediator down. Earth being round, your best friend comes from far where you can see but I cannot. For you, your friend is more like present-tense, but for me he is future-tense as I cannot see him. When he comes near me, where I can see him, he becomes present. For you he still remains present. When he leaves and goes at a distance where I cannot see him, he becomes past. But for you he is still more like present tense. You could see the flow, but I could not!
This eucalyptus tree here is a reflection of the scale of consciousness here, where that which is beyond the realms of time and space, cause and effect can see the cause and effect, for whom past, present and future all become one! Hence Mahakaal is called as trikaaldarshi whereas human level of consciousness can only dwell in or percieve a limited framework of cause and effect and hence there exists a science to raise one's consciousness to the Shiva/Mahakaal/Mahadev/trikaaldarshi/supreme consciousness!
raaabo said:
mediator said:
Only those who see with equal vision the Ultimate Truth in a brahman endowed with Vedic knowledge and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, in a dog and in the lower animal eating members of humanity are learned in genuine wisdom. (Bg 5.18)
So already an assumption is made that animal eaters are “lower”, and it doesn’t say what this ultimate truth is… I suspect it’s the “truth” referred to is “Do it our way or else!” Though assumption could be wrong, just as the translation could be wrong.
Indeed it is and its not an assumption, but again a "knowing", a nature of happening based on the science of satva,rajas,tamas.
If you don't have deep knolwedge of these, then it is obvious you are bound to make assumptions, conclusions or ignore what has been said. It is again an example where you are viewing the shruties through the limited frameworks of modern science.
Raaabo said:
mediator said:
Just like the experience of your father and mother on the matters of life is "higher" than you, but in terms of living, as citizens of the country etc you, your father, mother, me etc are all equally inclined. Naturally, the NASA engineer who spent years in a specialization is bound to have "higher" level of specialization and wisdom than you. Is "higher" a condescending word here?
Not at all, in fact you’re making my point for me, I’m the one who says that a NASA engineer who builds rockets that take people into space is more attuned to the realities around us and “understands” the physics of our universe better. Yet I keep hearing about how the Vedas were so great they explained the physics of the world as well as the chemistry, the make up, and thus everything in the universe. Thus the title “higher consciousness” to those who read and understand them and practice meditation, etc. That is your belief. I believe that I can read the Vedas, extract only what I need, and not follow everything they say, and not take leaps of faith as they expect me to, and that is also very much alike the “higher consciousness” that you claim to get. I also believe that many quantum physicists have attained that higher consciousness and explained the universe without the Vedas, and some have done it with ideas from the Vedas, this makes it very easily provable that they’re not the only way to a higher consciousness as you seem to portray. Also as a joke, I’d much rather fly in an aeroplane built by engineers than sadhus!
Not really, here I'm just affirming the concepts of bhakti and karma yog. EVen though, the NASA engineer is a specialized person with "higher expertise", his understanding is only limited to the realms of the physical world. But yes, through his own experience and inner intuition, he can indeed draw analogy of things happenings where he may understand the limitedness of his own actions and the nature of the higher truth.
Here "higher expertise" does not at all mean "higher consciousness". Here the "higher" has been used by me in addition to your post to show you only that "higher" can mean something different as well and not necessarily an attitude that condescends!
Raaabo said:
The absolute truth is what I seek, and yes I freely admit that there are some interesting thoughts in the old texts (original wisdom, not translated conveniently wisdom as on the blogs you linked to). However, the search for absolute truth also requires you to take questions that very well might suggest that perhaps your interpretations are flawed in some ways.[/b] The very first step to higher consciousness would logically be to question whether such a state exists at all, and had you done that, you would have much easier answers to share with me. However, since there are none, it makes me assume that perhaps you believe too easily in these concepts, perhaps because you are drawn in by the mysticism of the writings of others who claim to have attained this level.[/b]
Just as you have criticised other religions here of not being able to admit to flaws in their “logic”, I am doing the same for your belief system. And yes, I am the first to say that the science I hold dear does NOT know even 1/millionth of what is to be known yet, before you start questioning what I believe.
The question you put forward is like asking is there a state at which a person can lift 200 kgs on chest, or people walking on mountains without oxygen supply? The former can be achieved by practicing the external which requires high will power as well. The latter can be seen in the life of sherpas alone.
The state that you questioned has been put forward by different sages/seers, the authours of various Upanishads, Tantras, contributors of Veda etc. It is called as SHruti (the heard, not a physical hearing) because they experienced it and not because they debated or did some research at "physical level of consciousness".
ANyways, I have questioned the religion of Islam for I have read QUran whereas you are simply assuming and believing on the science which you have never experienced, have no interest in and have hardly read about, perhaps a few quotes out of the riddles and thereby stripping it of its poetry and riddles like you did with the atharveda text, let alone the translation.
Moreover, if you want people not to discuss other religions, then perhaps you should tell that to the clerics and perhaps raise your voice against such verses. There are many like this :
O you who believe,
take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoever amongst you takes them for friends he is indeed one of them.
Surely Allåh guides not the unjust people. (Quran 5.51)
Raaabo said:
To the first part, yes. It’s simple proof. It happens too often, across species lines, and that forms a pattern. Again, it’s a theory, but certainly more plausible than god created us. There are intelligent parts to the Vedas and there are superstitious and religious parts, why is it you can point out flaws in logic for everything else except that?
A mosquito net is evolution, as is the electric powered All-Out I have on in my room. Science is evolution in itself. I have no troubles with you challenging science on logic, which you attempt to do often, more power to you if you prove science wrong. Heck they’ll give you a Nobel Prize and a million USD, and now is the best time to get dollars anyway… Why are you so against people challenging the knowledge of some texts written ages ago. No offense, but despite you claiming otherwise, it sounds more and more like you believe in it most believe in their religion – with blind faith.
I will be the first to point out that Big Bang theory is in fact a theory with some evidence, but certainly no definitive proof. Also there are more probable theories now that suggest there was no big bang. Or that it’s possible that evolution was not as per the timelines suggested, but the overwhelming proof being found cannot just be ignored just because it’s inconvenient. I am all for listening to theories as to how evolution is against the ways of nature, and something that proves how mankind has always existed in the current form. As long as there’s proof and logical data to support a claim, I am all for it. Otherwise it’s just abstract claims – even more abstract than the Big Bang Theory.
Earlier I asked you questions on evolution, and you gave me a link to "wikipedia" on evolution. If my simple questions cannot be answered by you and you want to play the game of link then here you for the evolutionfairytale
Great Scientist Debunks Evolution DR John Sanford - YouTube
Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
*www.vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
The links are too many for you to read. Here are my questions
What really happened to the dinosaurs or the explanation is again a plausible theory? Since the survival of the fittest, adaptation and mutation enables the species to grow to a more suitable environment, is it necessary that the eating habits would change too? How were the senses developed? Did they happen in one day or incrementally? Most importantly when did the life come? Do you understand the history of E.Coli experiment and its advancements so far? The questions are many. Let see how far can you talk on these alone from the framework of "proven or measured or seen".
Moreover, I haven't really found a flaw in the shruties yet and the more I propound it to you, the only thing you have to say is that it is a belief.
I asked you to prove your existence, and your reply was "You don't exist then as well". I argued " how will you prove if the subject to prove has become past at the moment of analysis, let alone conclusion" and you replied "Hey, then this debate already ended". I explained the bhakti-yoga and your reply was "We have a sense of I for what we want", "I explained the essence of higher in context of consciousness" and you judged it as "higher" is condescending. To me, it only looks like you are trying to dodge my questions in every possible way.
Raaabo said:
A mosquito net is evolution, as is the electric powered All-Out I have on in my room. Science is evolution in itself. I have no troubles with you challenging science on logic, which you attempt to do often, more power to you if you prove science wrong. Heck they’ll give you a Nobel Prize and a million USD, and now is the best time to get dollars anyway… Why are you so against people challenging the knowledge of some texts written ages ago. No offense, but despite you claiming otherwise, it sounds more and more like you believe in it most believe in their religion – with blind faith.
Again my questions to you, if you are done with the humour of "all-out", "Nobel-Prize" and again dodging my questions.
mediator said:
So we found different varieties of fossils and made an assumption that "evolution happened"? A land species which looked similar in structure to the air one and hey, we found a missing link? When was the first flight from land to air evolution happened? Is that recorded or an assumption connoting a time scale? Is that measurable, verifiable and proven? If thats the case, then perhaps humans should have evolved to be resistant to "mosquito bites" alone or does mutation, adaptation and survival of the fittest are completely silent on the diseases caused by food habits, deficiency of vitamins, minerals, protiens etc, heat, cold, insect bites etc? There are many other factors which can be put and are not really registered in the dictionary of mutation, adaption and the survival of the fittest.
Can you please simply answer my questions?
Raaabo said:
I will be the first to point out that Big Bang theory is in fact a theory with some evidence, but certainly no definitive proof. Also there are more probable theories now that suggest there was no big bang. Or that it’s possible that evolution was not as per the timelines suggested, but the overwhelming proof being found cannot just be ignored just because it’s inconvenient. I am all for listening to theories as to how evolution is against the ways of nature, and something that proves how mankind has always existed in the current form. As long as there’s proof and logical data to support a claim, I am all for it. Otherwise it’s just abstract claims – even more abstract than the Big Bang Theory.
What you can as proof is actually called an assumption based on observations. We have have the understanding of mutation and adaption and similarities between two fossiles and we immediately assume "Hey, thats evolution". To me thats an assumption, just like two similar looking boys can be assumed to be brothers.
But anyways, with the science of consciousness you really don't need to run after "probably theories", spoonfeeding of evidences before the atheists can "safely" start using it in their arguments. One who has already transcended doesn't need Veda and thats the beauty!
For your amusement : Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue?: Northwestern University News
Raaabo said:
Space time = 0 for the big bang theory, but only because the laws of physics break down at a singularity. Thus what existed before a singularity cannot be calculated. Even with beliefs, scientists have to be able to calculate their way back. Since they cannot calculate past the big bang, they have conveniently called space-time relative for observers. A nano second after the big bang, observation is possible, physics exists again, and space-time comes into being.
Absolute time also exists in quantum theories, which is independent of physics, and thus can go back beyond the big bang, but it is meaningless, as we have no reference frame of it. Thus it could be a trillion trillion years in absolute time, but it’s easier to say 20 billion years since the big bang. Also, I already said the big bang is a theory, and perhaps not the best fitting one with the evidence at hand.
I think, you yourself are not aware, as to how illogical that sounds! Now my question, why do tha laws of physics break down at singularity? What made us assume so? And lets say, even if another "big-bang" happens, is it necessary that the laws of physics to be the same as in today's universe?
If you already made so many assumptions which are not really "measurable, verifiable or proven", then why did not we "assume" more on what was before t=0?
Raaabo said:
The universe is expanding like a balloon expands when you blow air into it. Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy, and tracing it back brings us to some point in space where scientists assume the big bang happened. However, it doesn’t have to be a creation point. In fact other theories suggest that the universe is not infinite, and in fact space-time itself could be spherical in shape like the earth, thus you could theoretically travel across the universe to arrive back where you came from. I am aware that the Vedas suggest the universe is like an egg that’s rotating, and many physicists like to quote the Vedas here, while others point out that the model that mathematically works doesn’t rotate, and their egg theory perhaps came from seeing the solar system rather than a much higher understanding of quantum physics, since there are no colourful examples provided. If they really understood the concept, then there would have been something like “Descending from Brahma’s forehead, you can travel to the ends of the universe and find that you never moved at all” Or something that even remotely suggests that they also thought this way. It’s more likely that the text was referring to the vastness of the universe, and centering it around earth came up with the shape of the spinning egg – since all the stars seem to spin around the sky. However, what you get from the abstracts, in not what a physicist gets, and it may spark him into new theories.
Also remember, you are quoting science theories, which are basically ways of trying to understand the universe mathematically. They are theories, and no one calls them fact. Just as evolution is still a theory, despite all of the evidence in its favour. However, you not flying off the face of the earth, and why, is a fact. The same way we accurately measured the gravity of the moon just by looking at it through a telescope, and also of Mars and Venus and even Mercury, and were thus able to send probes and landers there, correctly finding the right orbit to take, the amount of rocket thrust to land on the surface. Too much thrust you take off again, too little you crash into the planet destroying everything you spent billions on… This is proof, evidence, empirical data, things you can see. Sitting in another city you can say things to me, that’s something you’re doing. I know you like to question the very existence of everything, but then why is it you do anything at all. Why did you get out of bed today? Why do you continue to breathe? Let’s move beyond the silly existential stuff and understand that you live in a physical world, and you have to accept its laws. I don’t mean the police’s laws, I mean physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics.
“What if” is a double-edged sword, so understand it cuts you as well as someone else. All of the logic science uses, it welcomes to be used against it. Every theory that’s put up is debated, and even if ALL the leading thinkers and researchers agree (rarely happens anyway) it’s still just a more plausible theory until proven with physical evidence. If a religion was running the LHC, I have no doubt they would have found something of global importance by now. However science is not afraid to say, “Hey, we tried, we spent a trillion dollars, we ran our experiments, we found nothing!” Even if it were just a belief, I’d rather believe in something like that, than something that crumbles when questioned by mere logic – which is something every human is born with. Even little children who put their fingers into a flame and get burnt never do it again, because they learn…
Again you have totally dodged my questions and started explaining how modern science works and the meaning of Big-Bang .
My questions should have been answered already by an "atheist", an astute scientific mind like yours by now. My questions :
mediator said:
And so the big-bang happened. What was before that t=0? Where did that concentrated chunk of matter come from? Why did it concentrate in the first place? Remember, the "mysterious dark energy" which is trying to "explain" the faster expanding universe is contrary to the "contracting universe" side of the theory! This is what I call a research work, analogous to sample testing in marketing and not really a science! You observe and you "assume and make conclusions" and when those conclusions don't fit in the newly revealed play of Shakti, you do your homework again and make new "conclusions and assumptions" telling others "This is how modern science progresses"!
My simple question to you : First, it was assumed that there is "contracting and expanding" universe. Now when universe is observed to be expanding, they deduce something called "dark energy" and used scientific words like "mysterious" to explain it. What is the guarantee that this universe will continue to expand even faster? Suppose by any chance a deceleration is observed, are we going to rip off the "dark energy" and go back to "contracting universe" or have a pudding of both?
Raaabo said:
Ah I can see that the only defence you have left now is to attack the very science you were once quoting and finding parallels with in the ancient text. Look! They also said the earth was round! See how smart they were…. Has now become an entire superstition? I suppose it’s a global scale conspiracy, and Neil Armstrong was filmed in a studio in California, every government has always lied to us, and NASA is an even bigger PR machine spewing out falsehoods than NaMo’s team. You’re making this into a science vs Vedas debate, when it’s purely a question of whether “you” (mediator) are actually looking at them as a faith or as a science, and “me” (Raaabo) questioning the lack of logic in your findings… Again, I have nothing against the Vedas except my original statement of them being irrelevant to the masses now (for good) and having too much religious-like leaps of faith required for them to ever appeal to the non-hindus and scientists, thus again, making them irrelevant in a grander scheme of things. I also contest the achieving of higher consciousness itself, and even if it can be done, assuming the Vedas are the only way to do so is again belief, and reeks of a more religious than scientific bent of mind.
Again an instance where you are rather curious towards my percieved intentions rather than what I have posted.
If you you read my posts clearly, then I have stated parallels as well as differences. A few examples -
Parallels :
- Parallel Universes
- Quantum theory, which state evverything is a dance of energy. It is the only science in modern age which is close to the Vedic science
- Gravity, mathematics etc
Differences
- No concept of vedic mathematics in modern thinking
- Time is linear as per modern science, but cyclic as per Vedic, just liek tides from the ocean example.
- The evolution theory and the big bang are like fairytales at the conception of higher levels of consciousness.
- The shruties speak of evolution of conciousness where evolution at physical domain has no meaning. The consciousness can evolve as well as devolve
The golden egg, FYI, is again a metaphor. It is a part of Rigveda, where the metaphor implies the deepest secrets of manifestations. The golden connotes the element of life force where garbha means womb, i.e the realm of matter. From the nature of Tantras also this can be explained, a dance of Shiva (golden) and Shakti (garbha). But apparently, to an atheist like you who have hardly read any scriptures or devoid of basic nature if the riddles and metaphors, this is bound to look like Big-Bang, perhaps because a few people attached to "Hinduism" say so and hence your judgement which is again based on the acts of people that thinks that for the students of Indian science like me it means "Big_bang"?
Raaabo said:
True knowledge is something anyone can absorb. Give them a book and if they can understand it, it’s knowledge. Teach a child on his fingers to count from 1 to 10. That’s knowledge. Teach a child a language to be able to communicate and share ideas, that’s knowledge. Explain to him why he throws a ball at 45 degrees it travels furthest, but at 30 degrees with more force it goes swifter and is a good angle for the wicket keeper to keep an eye on it all the time – that’s knowledge. Knowledge is something we can use in everyday life, to relax, to learn, to build, and yes to think. Even the Vedas are knowledge, as is Sanskrit, as are the books of all religions, not just yours. Even the thoughts of every commenter on this forum is a form of knowledge. As long as all knowledge is taken in as is, without blind belief it’s beneficial.
Wrong again! When attachment comes into the picture, the greatest of the knowledge can become ignorance and hence the people attached to evolution theory have no idea about the superstition they are dwelling in. Similarly, it doesn't matter if one mugs up all the vedic mantras. Even if they understand it from only a linguistic point of few and the meaning of the words, it really proves no use.
Stephen_Hawking said:
Both Vedic and modern science agree upon a continuous dance of creation and annihilation of particle energy everywhere in the universe - Siva tandavam as per Hindu mythology, Rigveda discusses this cycle in detail.
Vedic View: The Universe rotates, shaped like an egg.
Modern View: The Universe is still and it resembles the surface of a sphere.
McCauley’s Educational Act of India (dated Feb 2nd 1854) aims at transforming Indians to be English in taste, morals and opinion. I strongly feel the process of westernization has brought about a psychological slavery among Indians who’d opt to be Engineers rather than Vedic scholars, given a choice.
To conclude, Vedas are a vast storehouse of knowledge, abundant information and solutions waiting to be discovered by dedicated youngsters
Can you please provide me the sanskrit of the above bold for even the manifestation in the infinite can rotate and revolve.
Raaabo said:
I absolutely agree with you 100%. I am not, have not, and never will be as well-versed as you are in the Vedas because I have not even a 1/100th the interest you have. I never claimed to have an interest in them, I have an interest in the mind, psychology, how humans think, why they believe certain things and not the other, what is this higher consciousness, why do marijuana smokers report the exact same symptoms, etc. I only offer arguments based on that interest, and have never claimed to be taking any stance but that. I also have made it clear from the beginning of this discussion that I require proof, facts and will not take anything on faith. Just as both you and me will not accept that any Abrahamic god built the universe, I also refuse to just accept that any other force called Brahma / Brahman did, and accept that humans know exactly how long he lives, because he told them!
Had you stated this in the start only, you would have saved your time and mine as well.
Raaabo said:
@mediator: I hope you will finally understand why I spent so much time questioning you, and I hope you take this in the right spirit:
I perceived an arrogance regarding your understanding of the Vedas – perhaps related to knowing Sanskrit, or just for feeling that you know more than anyone else in general. You are obviously also interested in science, yet you are letting your love for the Vedas even get in the way of logic. This is the point where a science starts turning into a religion, and as I said before, arrogance of faith leads to an end of learning
To be honest, There are many people who say this to me. But this is my natural style of debating. I'm not trying to be arrogant or attached to any kind of knowledge at all and hence here telling the history of brahminism, cast system, attachment of Veda leading to a fashionable cult to (dwivedi, trivedi, chaturvedi etc just like atheism is a cult born out of attachement to modern science). Just like a Haryanvi/Punjabi may sound arrogant to delhite or a delhite may sound aggressive/arrogant to a south indian. Similarly, I guess people are attached to my style of writing.
Arrogance is only a perception here and hence I often request people to transcend beyond names, style, forms etc and understand the underlying essence. If this is the only reason you debated, then you may ignore my post!
But like I said earlier, even if it sounds arrogant, then this is Fight Club which has no place for those who are disturbed by arrogance or provocations.
