>> Rajan P. Parrikar <parrikar@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>> > In article <ghenE3EvA4.email@example.com>, <Madhava.Kumar@lana.zippo.com> wrot>e:
>> > > Modern Discoveries in Ancient Works
>> > > ===================================
>> > >
>> > > By : Pujyasri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati
>> The purpose of this post is to just set some basic facts
>> right. The quoted Author was one of the personalities who long graced
>> our times and truly belonged to the lineage of ancient rShi's
>> that India has always been known for. I have read printed
>> versions of his discourses, heard his talks, have had the
>> opportunity of discussing with people who knew him well and
>The religious stature of a person cannot be used to defend what he says
My posting NEVER meant to foist the impression of Sri
Chandrashekarendra Sarasvati as a Scientist. There was a shade of
name calling in one of the postings and my posting just meant to
remind the folks of the stature of the person. Personally my
respect to every individual is for who he is, and not what he is.
In the case of Sri Chandrashekarendra Sarasvati too, my respects are
for his attainments in the domain of spirit and insights into them but
certainly not for his views on science.
Further, if he meant to garner credit for the Hindu mind, it was
his opinion and to defend which, the person not being around - name
calling with personal biases is certainly not the bent of mind
to be displayed.
In the spirit of true discussions, Shri Rajan has posted his
apology for name calling and so the matter ends there as far as
I am concerned.
>well within their rights to point out his mistakes - "nahi nahi rakshati
This certainly was uncalled for, but you have every right to
>> My request to people who want to garner credit for the Hindu
>> accomplishment by citing realized souls is just this -
>> Please do not quote 'out-of-context, non-existent, convenient-
>> to-the-point' articles without verifying the authenticity of
>> such. In the recent times, especially since the RJB times,
>> claiming everything to be of the Hindu origin is a fad that
>> better be checked.
>I don't understand the sentiments you espouse here. I doubt that the
I think I am clear. It is just that there is no point in quoting
religious texts with apparent scientific leanings, in scientifc
contexts. Even if it is a book, it is still worthwhile to cite
the name and chapter than just lift text and post it. I still
hold that reading much more than what the Hindu mind has
actually achieved is going a way much overboard.
>article quoted originally by Madhava Turumella is 'non-existent'.
>Madhava could not have made up the entire article. What would have been
>his motive? Of course, he could have given some references, but I guess
>it was from one of the numerous Kanchi-math-approved English
>translations of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati's Tamil speeches. Under
>the circumstances, aren't you attributing the fad (that everything is of
>Hindu origin) to Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati himself?
Certainly I did not mean it that way, unless you personally had
something against Sri Chandrashekarendra Sarasvati himself to
imagine that I am doing so.