5/10/2008 2:57 PMmg chandrakanth wrote:
Foolish, idiotic speech which totally misrepresents India's tradition and culture. It is a pity that such speeches are put on the net to bring down the country's image by a totally misunderstood Professor Reply to this
5/12/2008 7:33 AMmg chandrakanth wrote:
Dear Sri Sunil Thanks for making me to listen to your speech, perhaps “helping” me to understand Professor Balu. Here are my observations listening to your lecture on Prof Balu’s thoughts. If my language is intimidating, there is nothing personal. But it is just my reaction and please do not attach anything personal here. It is purely academic.
First U say that Balu found that Westreners made an assumption /hypothesis that all cultures have religion and India is no exception to this. Making hypothesis before doing empirical research is the very basis of research methodology. I donot think any social scientist goes about dong research without hypothesis. So Professor Balu is fundamentally wrong in saying that westerners made a hypothesis that every culture has a religion is a fundamental fallacy and then I am afraid he is not a trained as a sound researcher in social science. Thus, if American astronauts had not made a hypothesis that the gravitational power on moon is 1/6th of that of the earth, Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts would have been dead in the space !!!
So please tell Balu that making a hypothesis before doing research is the fundamental principle and method of social science research and westerners are totally correct by making a hypothesis that all cultures have religion.
God has given true doctrine to everybody in the world, and is corrupted in all traditions. And is rerevealed. And this is also a good assumption and there is nothing wrong and the same explanation as above holds good.
And that there is a false doctrine in other cultures is in correct is agreeable. Even without giving laxana of religion, westerners assumed that there is religion to look for evidences. God has given true doctrines to all cultures is also a wrong assumption. You say. Both are wrong.
Vegetarianism is a practice, practice is due to a doctrine. What is a doctrine, refers to a set of principles, a set of guidelines, certainly belongs to Religion. And rats are sacred, cows are sacred therefore treat them as god, they believe, what is wrong in this?
I am a veg because animals should not be hurt, they assume that a practice is based on a doctrine and my doctrine is that I do not want to hurt an animal. So what is wrong to say that I am a veg because I do not want to do ahimsa. What is wrong in my reply? I am a veerashaiva and I believe in Ahimsa. Ahimsa paramodharmaha is a doctrine or a religion from India.
How westerners looked at Indians. Culturally specific things are not science. OK as if science can answer all questions. Why giving science supreme place? This in itself is your /his mistake. Science is one of the windows, thru which you see something. There is also a social science window, there is religion window, there is a religious window, there is a poetic window which needs more imagination, there is a bird eye view window. What u see in one window, u cannot see in other window. So what you see in one window, an Reply to this
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here and comment section is probably not the right place to discuss. Let me suggest two things -
1. please go through the plenary session videos on my blog - http://indian-renaissance.com 2. bring these questions and comments up in the heathen forum for a thorough discussions and clarification. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenInHisBlindness/
5/13/2008 10:06 AMM.G.CHANDRAKANTH wrote:
There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. Perhaps it is on your part and Prof Balu's part. I have made everything clear reg hypothesis and I do not know how can any one can misunderstand that, as I have also given the example of landing on Moon. I only say this, if you know Kannada which Balu knows; I quote Nijaguna shivayoji's last poem "Jyothi belaguthide vimalaparanjyothi belagutide, Mathumangangalindattatta meerida sathishayada nirupadhika nirmala jyothi belagutide". If you or he cannot understand I can explain further. But if you or he can, then perhaps that explains a lot. That religion cannot be explained be in words and hence even without language or even without eye sight or any of the indriyas, a person can feel religion and be religious. Perhaps you and Balu are so much obsessed with the language, words, semantics, definitions. If we are bhavukas, we can understand music which may be in any language. I sing classical music and I can fully appreciate Bethoven, a khawali, Rabindra sangeeth, an opera, virtually in any language. Thus religion crosses the borders of language, words, upadhi. In one of the lectures Balu says, if a person is asked why you worship, he does not know the answer. I say I worship even without a purpose. It is called Nirupadhi. St Tyagaraja says in one of his compositions NIRUPADHIKUDAI ARCHINCHU. I feel sorry that both of you are not exposed to the various religious literatuer, religious experiences in India, be it classical music compositions, or shankaracharya's nirvana shathaka, or ravana's shivatandava stotra, Pushpadantha's shivamahimha stotra, Annapurnashtaka, Vishnu sahasrahama, the Maha Mruthyunjaya manthra, ... Unless you/balu understand the inner meaning, feeling, emotions involved, with just verbose nothing can be appreciated. For instance there are many who worship or puja (I am not very impressed with the great differences you make between the two words), without seeking anything from the almighty - which is Nirupadhi. Listen to Shivashiva shiva bho, mahadeva shambho of Jayachamaraja Wodeyar'Akhilandeshwari Rakshamam of Mutuswami Deekshthar. In addition to Anubhava, there is another deeper word Anubhaavi. Anubhavi and Anubhaavi are different. Anubhava is more mundane and physical. But Anubhaavi is more to deal with bhavanathmaka sambhandha. I once again repeat that those who speak on religion or teach Religion need not be religious which I feel is constraining Balu and his students and fellow workers perhaps. If he were to be also a religious person, then he would not have made fundamental mistakes and would not have persistently continued to mislead students and fellow researchers in Ghent. Perhaps take these comments in a positive way and try to be a bhavuka. It is easy to speak on religion but it is extremely difficult to be religious. To be religious, you need to be more sacrificing. No one wants to do this perhaps having enjoyed so many facilities in the west. God bless you. Reply to this
None of what you write indicate to me that you have any understanding of the matter. anyways, if you want to bringup these questions and concerns, the best place to raise them is heathen forum.
Foolish, idiotic speech which totally misrepresents India's tradition and culture. It is a pity that such speeches are put on the net to bring down the country's image by a totally misunderstood Professor
Reply to this
Chandrakanth,
go through my lecture katopanishad part8 where i explain Balu's lecture.
This might help better understanding of Balu's research.
link -
http://blog.indianrenaissance.com/2008/03/30/season2-katopanishad-part-8.aspx
-sunil
Reply to this
Dear Sri Sunil
Thanks for making me to listen to your speech, perhaps “helping” me to understand Professor Balu. Here are my observations listening to your lecture on Prof Balu’s thoughts. If my language is intimidating, there is nothing personal. But it is just my reaction and please do not attach anything personal here. It is purely academic.
First U say that Balu found that Westreners made an assumption /hypothesis that all cultures have religion and India is no exception to this. Making hypothesis before doing empirical research is the very basis of research methodology. I donot think any social scientist goes about dong research without hypothesis. So Professor Balu is fundamentally wrong in saying that westerners made a hypothesis that every culture has a religion is a fundamental fallacy and then I am afraid he is not a trained as a sound researcher in social science. Thus, if American astronauts had not made a hypothesis that the gravitational power on moon is 1/6th of that of the earth, Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts would have been dead in the space !!!
So please tell Balu that making a hypothesis before doing research is the fundamental principle and method of social science research and westerners are totally correct by making a hypothesis that all cultures have religion.
God has given true doctrine to everybody in the world, and is corrupted in all traditions. And is rerevealed. And this is also a good assumption and there is nothing wrong and the same explanation as above holds good.
And that there is a false doctrine in other cultures is in correct is agreeable.
Even without giving laxana of religion, westerners assumed that there is religion to look for evidences. God has given true doctrines to all cultures is also a wrong assumption. You say. Both are wrong.
Vegetarianism is a practice, practice is due to a doctrine. What is a doctrine, refers to a set of principles, a set of guidelines, certainly belongs to Religion. And rats are sacred, cows are sacred therefore treat them as god, they believe, what is wrong in this?
I am a veg because animals should not be hurt, they assume that a practice is based on a doctrine and my doctrine is that I do not want to hurt an animal. So what is wrong to say that I am a veg because I do not want to do ahimsa. What is wrong in my reply? I am a veerashaiva and I believe in Ahimsa. Ahimsa paramodharmaha is a doctrine or a religion from India.
How westerners looked at Indians. Culturally specific things are not science. OK as if science can answer all questions. Why giving science supreme place?
This in itself is your /his mistake.
Science is one of the windows, thru which you see something. There is also a social science window, there is religion window, there is a religious window, there is a poetic window which needs more imagination, there is a bird eye view window. What u see in one window, u cannot see in other window. So what you see in one window, an
Reply to this
Dear Chandrakanth,
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here and comment section is probably not the right place to discuss. Let me suggest two things -
1. please go through the plenary session videos on my blog - http://indian-renaissance.com
2. bring these questions and comments up in the heathen forum for a thorough discussions and clarification. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenInHisBlindness/
i do appreciate your comments
thanks
Reply to this
There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. Perhaps it is on your part and Prof Balu's part. I have made everything clear reg hypothesis and I do not know how can any one can misunderstand that, as I have also given the example of landing on Moon. I only say this, if you know Kannada which Balu knows; I quote Nijaguna shivayoji's last poem "Jyothi belaguthide vimalaparanjyothi belagutide, Mathumangangalindattatta meerida sathishayada nirupadhika nirmala jyothi belagutide". If you or he cannot understand I can explain further. But if you or he can, then perhaps that explains a lot. That religion cannot be explained be in words and hence even without language or even without eye sight or any of the indriyas, a person can feel religion and be religious. Perhaps you and Balu are so much obsessed with the language, words, semantics, definitions. If we are bhavukas, we can understand music which may be in any language. I sing classical music and I can fully appreciate Bethoven, a khawali, Rabindra sangeeth, an opera, virtually in any language. Thus religion crosses the borders of language, words, upadhi. In one of the lectures Balu says, if a person is asked why you worship, he does not know the answer. I say I worship even without a purpose. It is called Nirupadhi. St Tyagaraja says in one of his compositions NIRUPADHIKUDAI ARCHINCHU. I feel sorry that both of you are not exposed to the various religious literatuer, religious experiences in India, be it classical music compositions, or shankaracharya's nirvana shathaka, or ravana's shivatandava stotra, Pushpadantha's shivamahimha stotra, Annapurnashtaka, Vishnu sahasrahama, the Maha Mruthyunjaya manthra, ... Unless you/balu understand the inner meaning, feeling, emotions involved, with just verbose nothing can be appreciated. For instance there are many who worship or puja (I am not very impressed with the great differences you make between the two words), without seeking anything from the almighty - which is Nirupadhi. Listen to Shivashiva shiva bho, mahadeva shambho of Jayachamaraja Wodeyar'Akhilandeshwari Rakshamam of Mutuswami Deekshthar. In addition to Anubhava, there is another deeper word Anubhaavi. Anubhavi and Anubhaavi are different. Anubhava is more mundane and physical. But Anubhaavi is more to deal with bhavanathmaka sambhandha. I once again repeat that those who speak on religion or teach Religion need not be religious which I feel is constraining Balu and his students and fellow workers perhaps. If he were to be also a religious person, then he would not have made fundamental mistakes and would not have persistently continued to mislead students and fellow researchers in Ghent. Perhaps take these comments in a positive way and try to be a bhavuka. It is easy to speak on religion but it is extremely difficult to be religious. To be religious, you need to be more sacrificing. No one wants to do this perhaps having enjoyed so many facilities in the west. God bless you.
Reply to this
Dear Chandrakanth,
None of what you write indicate to me that you have any understanding of the matter. anyways, if you want to bringup these questions and concerns, the best place to raise them is heathen forum.
-sunil
Reply to this
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your making me understand that there exists a difference between anubhavi and anubhaavi.
Anubhavi
Reply to this