mystic_seeker Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Dear Murali_Mohan_das, gHari has already admitted he should not have written that sentence, so why continue to protest? It is wrong for a person to write: "Dr. Dawkins says he doesn't accept quantum mechanics" when that person is unsure what Dawkins' personal opinion on quantum mechanics is. Truthfulness (satya) is important in life. How would you like it if someone put your name "Murali_Mohan_das" in sentence about science or scripture that you felt inaccurately reflected your opinion? You would probably protest: "Hey, that sentence is untrue, I don't believe that!" And you would be right to protest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 gHari is a humble (and truthful) Vaishnava who is more careful about what he says than just about anybody on this forum. Still, he would rather apologize than struggle with the thick and the slow who can't appreciate any subtlety. As I see it, it is *you* who owes *him* an apology, and not the other way around. Still, there's plenty of self-righteous indignation to go around, isn't there? Have a spiritual day!! Dear Murali_Mohan_das, gHari has already admitted he should not have written that sentence, so why continue to protest? It is wrong for a person to write: "Dr. Dawkins says he doesn't accept quantum mechanics" when that person is unsure what Dawkins' personal opinion on quantum mechanics is. Truthfulness (satya) is important in life. How would you like it if someone put your name "Murali_Mohan_das" in sentence about science or scripture that you felt inaccurately reflected your opinion? You would probably protest: "Hey, that sentence is untrue, I don't believe that!" And you would be right to protest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystic_seeker Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Dear Murali_Mohan_das, You really must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today. I and gHari both disagree with Dawkins' atheism. I like gHari. I only, kindly I might add, pointed out to him that he should not say things about Mr. Dawkins if he is not sure they are true. He agreed. The conversation was always nice and civil. I even gave him the benefit of the doubt that it might have been only sloppy language on his part rather than an intent to misrepresent Dawkins. Nevertheless, we should be careful when we write because we don't want to accidently misrepresent someone. I am stunned that you cannot see the importance of not misrepresenting the other side in a debate. That was my only point to gHari, and it is an important point because satya (truthfulness) is a yama. God bless you, and have a nice day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 My apologies for having offended you. Perhaps it's best to always be perfectly clear in our use of language. That, of course, makes it much harder to *play* with language, though. Forgive me, but language has been a plaything of mine since I could speak. As for debates, there is no debate as far as I am concerned. Beggar posted a nice excerpt from "Sri Guru and His Grace" on another topic. Kindly allow me to reproduce a portion of that here: A certain section says, "There is God. Surely He exists." Others say, "No, there is no God, He never existed." This quarrel is useless; still it will continue. In a particular section this argument will have no end. Those who have no eyes will be unable to see the sun. They will say there is no sun (mattah para-nistat amsa-lokam ). This misconception will continue for those who deny the existence of both the soul and the Supreme soul. For those who have direct experience, however, there is no question: it exists! But for the owl section who cannot admit the existence of the sun, the sun does not exist. It is something like that. Our own realization of a thing will be the greatest proof of its existence: vastu-tattva-jnana haya krpate.One may be born blind, but if somehow or other his eyes are opened, he will be astonished to see the particular aspects of the environment. But if one has no vision, he can see no color or figure. Those who have vision will feel, "How can I deny the fact? I have seen it. I am feeling it, it is so magnanimous, so great and so benevolent, I can't deny all these things. You are unfortunate; you cannot see." Some see, some cannot see. In the same place, one can see, another cannot. Those to whom Krsna wishes to reveal himself can see him; others cannot. Dear Murali_Mohan_das, You really must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today. I and gHari both disagree with Dawkins' atheism. I like gHari. I only, kindly I might add, pointed out to him that he should not say things about Mr. Dawkins if he is not sure they are true. He agreed. The conversation was always nice and civil. I even gave him the benefit of the doubt that it might have been only sloppy language on his part rather than an intent to misrepresent Dawkins. Nevertheless, we should be careful when we write because we don't want to accidently misrepresent someone. I am stunned that you cannot see the importance of not misrepresenting the other side in a debate. That was my only point to gHari, and it is an important point because satya (truthfulness) is a yama. God bless you, and have a nice day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.