tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11023403.post5840562766300447870..comments2024-02-07T13:43:03.364+05:30Comments on Musings: Hare Rama, Hare Krishna - Part 2Balaji Chitra Ganesanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12946132372838633092noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11023403.post-80661473101722121802007-10-27T07:07:00.000+05:302007-10-27T07:07:00.000+05:30and btw the duh here "Do you know who wrote that? ...and btw the duh here "Do you know who wrote that? Krishna! duh?!" was supposed to mean "obviously". i have corrected it!Balaji Chitra Ganesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12946132372838633092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11023403.post-82218347492194336732007-10-27T06:38:00.000+05:302007-10-27T06:38:00.000+05:30->> 1. you are an atheist because you do not know ...->> 1. you are an atheist because you do not know anything else.<BR/><BR/>If you know Vijay personally, you can ask him why I'm atheist. I think he is satisfied with my reasoning for being atheist. anyway, I plan to write the part 3 of this series where I'll try to put some of that in words.<BR/><BR/>->> 2. you have read a few spiritual texts here and there.<BR/><BR/>true. i have admitted as much in my earlier posts! but i have a feeling that you might be underestimating my level of reading and thought.<BR/><BR/>->> 3. the inchoate ideas imbibed from (2) have made you feel that you are an authority on the subject.<BR/><BR/>If I sound stupid, I think its more because of my limitations with words than thought.<BR/><BR/>->> "Do you know who wrote that? Krishna! duh?! "<BR/>->> I salute your ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Why do you think this Rishi Devakiputra Krishna of the Chandogya Upanishad may not have been the author? Ofcourse Vyasa might have reproduced it as a conversation between God Krishna and Arjuna.<BR/><BR/>->> "So this great king Krishna (who incidentally is God!) could help the Pandavas only as a Charioteer?..."<BR/>->> Point?<BR/><BR/>Krishna, the philosopher may not have been present in the Pandava-Gaurava story. Vyasa who wrote Mahabharata as a philosophical riddle might have introduced Krishna, the God there.<BR/><BR/>->> There is a discontinuity in the reasoning when moving to the last line. What you are saying, simply, is that "Y might be at point X; but I don't care, since I don't believe that Y could be at point X."<BR/><BR/>It just means unless I believe in God, its not possible to accept Krishna as God. Since I'm atheist, I'm disregarding all aspects of Mahabharata which seem fictional to me. But I understand why Vyasa wrote that fiction.<BR/><BR/>->> Perhaps you can support your statement?<BR/><BR/>I will in the third part.<BR/><BR/>->> It is easy to criticise. (refer above lines). In the absence of logic, criticism becomes a tortuous rant.<BR/><BR/>Who did I criticize in this post? Vyasa, Krishna, God? I just tried to throw some light on who Krishna might have been.Balaji Chitra Ganesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12946132372838633092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11023403.post-85366438759558021482007-10-27T05:56:00.000+05:302007-10-27T05:56:00.000+05:30Balaji,I came here from Vijay's blog, and was quit...Balaji,<BR/><BR/>I came here from Vijay's blog, and was quite "amused" by your emphatic delcarations. <BR/>However, in your enthusiasm to "dethrone" Krishna/Vyasa, you have created a bombastic epic of your own, I must say. <BR/><BR/>Based on your post, I suspect the following::<BR/><BR/>1. you are an atheist because you do not know anything else.<BR/>2. you have read a few spiritual texts here and there.<BR/>3. the inchoate ideas imbibed from (2) have made you feel that you are an authority on the subject.<BR/><BR/>A few of your assertions that stood out:<BR/><BR/>"Do you know who wrote that? Krishna! duh?! "<BR/>->> I salute your ignorance.<BR/><BR/>"So this great king Krishna (who incidentally is God!) could help the Pandavas only as a Charioteer?..."<BR/>->> Point? <BR/><BR/>"Well, yes. God may have come, born as Krishna, killed Kamsa, ... to take on evil. But then, I'm atheist."<BR/><BR/>->> There is a discontinuity in the reasoning when moving to the last line. What you are saying, simply, is that "Y might be at point X; but I don't care, since I don't believe that Y could be at point X." <BR/><BR/>"And guess what, this Rishi Krishna propagates atheism in the Bhagwad Gita!<BR/>"<BR/>->> Perhaps you can support your statement?<BR/><BR/>It is easy to criticise. (refer above lines). In the absence of logic, criticism becomes a tortuous rant.shakunihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09272470102683228141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11023403.post-22652952752719129652007-10-23T17:02:00.000+05:302007-10-23T17:02:00.000+05:30I guess any "Puja" will be a happy occassion, but ...I guess any "Puja" will be a happy occassion, but for the aethist....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com