Home > Religion, Science > Lord Krishna existed. School texts are wrong.

Lord Krishna existed. School texts are wrong.

So says a nuclear medicine physician.

The interesting interview can be found here.

Categories: Religion, Science
  1. September 17, 2009 at 1:59 AM

    I read the whole article. What sort of ultra-crap was that!

    There’s not a single this that remotely comes close to ‘evidence’ as we know it.

    It’s totally deplorable that the interview was taken so tamely and he wasn’t grilled at all.

    But let me not be dogmatic about (non)existence of Krishna or the occurrence of Mahabharata. What will we set out to prove by that?

    What is the guarantee that the scale of the was comparable to as depicted in our scriptures or that Krishna wielded the kind of extraordinary powers we traditionally associate with him?

    If today I write a novel based in Mumbai, and write about a disease called bird flu, wherein people on getting infected develop wings, and fly out into the sky, never to return, will latter become the truth only because a drowned Mumbai would be found to have existed 2000 years from now?

    I remember, in ToI, there was an article by a neurosurgeon criticizing and belittling the efforts of cyclotron experiment near Geneva, boasting how Indian hermits had always known about atoms and relativity, and that knowledge can be found not through experiments but looking “within”! That was outrightly ridiculous to say the least! I don’t know why newspaper people give courage to such opinions!

    Thanks for the immensely entertaining newspiece!

    TC.

  2. September 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM

    The article doesn’t talk anything about Krishna wielding super powers. It merely states he did exist.

    Btw, We define on our own what is logic and if something doesn’t fit our logic, it is imaginary. Is it?

  3. September 17, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    “I don’t know why newspaper people give courage to such opinions!”

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. – Voltaire

  4. September 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM

    Ambi,

    I agree the article merely states that Krishna existed. And even I’ve not tried to disprove that if you read my comment above.

    What makes that newspiece justified?

    I’ve never objected to the doctor voicing his opinion. What makes the article justified is his calling ‘history textbooks wrong!’. In which academic history book have you read specifically written that Krishna did not exist? At least my history textbook didn’t say that.

    Which means he’s objecting to the fact that Krishna wasn’t mentioned, right?

    But then, how many kings have been mentioned in school books?

    Krishna was not mentioned because:

    1. In archeological surveys it was not found that such a king existed.

    2. His kingdom was not vast enough to have found a mention unlike say, Ashoka’s or Akbar’s.

    But then don’t you think, likewise as more archeological sites are excavated we’ll find newer kings? What would be the criterion to include them in history textbooks? Obviously, that they should’ve altered the course of documented history significantly.

    Do Mahabharata war and Krishna fit the criterion?

    In Maharashtra, Shivaji is virtually worshipped, but in CBSE books, he’d found only a passing mention, and no other Maratha king was ever mentioned! So does that imply the author of those textbook meant no other Maratha king ever existed?

    I repeat, I was not objecting to his voicing his opinion, but to newspaper giving coverage (there was a typo–‘courage’ instead of ‘coverage’; sorry, about that. I type through my cell phone). If I claim today that I’ve developed a pill, which would prolong everyone’s lifespan to 150 years, and this finding is totally unsubstantiated, I do have a right to say this as aloud as I can, but would newspapers be right in giving dissipation to such ideas? That too without asking me to explain how I performed this feat? Don’t confuse his uttering a few astrological terms that the common man can’t understand as ‘explanation’. If in my explanation I simply utter words like mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, actin, myosin that won’t constitute explanation! That would merely be my trying to awe people into believing me because of their lack of comprehension of what I speak!

    If that doctor is implying that Krishna was some insignificant obscure king, then even if he were correct, his findings would not be so ground-breaking as to warrant a space in newspapers. Why? Because newsprint is a very precious resource.

  5. September 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM

    Regarding, logic, I again consider it the faculty which helps us establish cause-and-effect relationships as I outlined in comment about science. If logic would start being ‘subjective’ rather than being objective and verifiable, we’ll have over 6 billion different logics as many humans are there on Earth!

    Unlike my hands and feet, etc., I was not born with a logic. As I observed, and grey up, I’ve acquired logic. I don’t consider it my own.

    Also, specifically, which assertion of Dr. Pandit were you referring to as ‘his’ typical logic? Then only would I be able to comment upon what you say.

    To the extent I can make out, his ‘logic’ is this: That some 3000 years ago there was a total solar eclipse, and that planetary positions were also just like how are mentioned in Mahabharata. Is my interpretation right, Ambi?

    That’s why I specifically pointed out giving the example of ‘my novel’ that wherein I write that, in a city called Mumbai (Mumbai exists today), in year 2008 (year 2008 occurred), there was an epidemic of bird flu (there was such an epidemic!) in which people on getting infected, grew wings overnight and flew into the sky never to return (something, which according to my knowledge did not happen). If such a book is found 2000 years from now, would people be right in believing that just because first three facts are true, the last one, apparently absurd also had to be true?

    What would you conclude 2000 years from now on finding such a book? That indeed people had developed wings in seconds, or that the book is very nicely written piece of fiction? Okay, to complicate things, let me write one of the famous Bollywood stars also suffered from bird flu and flew into the sky. Would you believe it only because in one of the issues of filmfare, 2000 years from now, you find the name of that film star written in some other context?

    Which of the two conclusions do you find more ‘logic’al?

  6. September 17, 2009 at 5:57 PM

    You are wasting too much time in typing out such a lengthy argument.

    Most school time references to Krishna are always as “mythological figure”. Even Mahabharata is part of “Indian Mythology”.

    And hence his assertion that history textbooks are wrong.

    I still don’t understand… if you are not contesting the point that Krishna existed, what are you trying to prove by your arguments? Where did this whole idea of bird flu novel fit in?

  7. September 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM

    I’m only trying to say since last two comments that the bases of his opinion, and the consequences of his findings were not such that he warranted that much space in newspaper (coverage by newspaper people).

    The novel analogy came in because I was trying to point out why his logic is flawed.

  8. September 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM

    I think I have just come back to the same question as I asked before:

    What makes 2 individuals, having the same skills at analysis and ability to ascertain things and their causes, end up with completely different conclusions and yet lets them feel the other person’s conclusion is the wrong one?

    You feel it is absurd, he feels he has something to say…

    You said: “That requires two people to start right from fundamental premises they agree upon, and then reach one conclusion after the other, and then see, exactly at which point do they depart. And that’s why I do occasionally enter an argument with intelligent theists as I’d be curious, at what point does their chain of thoughts depart from mine.”

    Since there is no fundamental premise on which you both agree, why even take the effort to base an argument?

  9. September 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM

    Well, if you are talking in context of the arguments put forth by Dr. Pandit, then, I agree with him that possibly, 3000 years back, there was a total solar eclipse, and the planetary positions could’ve been the same as described in Mahabharata. Where I do not agree with him, is that it leads us to this conclusion that a king called Krishna must have existed.

    Why still call Mahabharata mythology?

    Because, if you agree, mythology is a synonym for ancient fiction (whether written or oral).

    Even if someone proves that a king called Krishna existed, Mahabharata still remains in the domain of mythology unless and until he proves that the Krishna he found through his evidences is the same Krishna as described in Mahabharata.

    For Mahabharata to get labeled as factual, historical account as against mythology, he’ll have to prove that all the acts performed by Krishna (like lifting a hill using his little finger) were true.

    That’s why I’d given you the analogy of a Bollywood star. Just because the actor lives today, if I attribute extraordinary deeds to him, some time in future, my work of fiction will still remain a work of fiction. One can say that my work of fiction had as its central character a real person, but my account of the person will still remain fictitious, and not turn biographical in nature.

    So, even if a textbook writes that Mahabharata is mythology, they’re not wrong. BTW, I’d not come across descriptions of Ram or Krishna in my history text books.

  10. September 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    For that matter, how do you believe that there was someone called Issac Newton? How do you prove that all the historical records actually point to ‘the same’ Issac Newton?

    Therein comes the matter of faith. Its not a question of whether Newton existed or not, but what is your means and how do you trust that source of information?

    “Don’t confuse his uttering a few astrological terms that the common man can’t understand as ‘explanation’.”

    Should I apply the same logic to a scientist who is trying to explain the origin of this universe from the big bang? Or to the one who is trying to claim that free will is simply the firing of neurons?😉

    Unfortunately, what you call as astrological terms is pure astronomy, based on constellations, moon cycle and sun cycle. Any good historian can give you ample proof that our ancestors did have a finely refined knowledge of astronomy.

  11. September 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM

    Why will I doubt that it’s not the same Isaac Newton? If along with propounding a few brilliant theories, and writing books and developing calculus, had his accounts also contained that he had lifted a mountain with his little finger, I’d have put as much faith in his existence as I put in the existence of Krishna as depicted in Mahabharata. Fundamentally, nothing has been attributed to Newton that’d make me skeptical or doubtful of what all he did.

    Yes, sorry I confused astrology with astronomy. But that didn’t make a difference because I’ve already accepted his argument that 3000 years back there was a solar eclipse and that planetary positions were same as described in Mahabharata!

    Regarding big bang, the theory, as you know has been propounded on the basis of doppler shift–the sound wave equivalent of which can be experienced in your day-to-day life. But I’d still like to remind that it as a hypothesis has still not got firmly established.

    Free will, as a result of firing of neurons, is also merely a speculation on my part. You may not believe it. But despite my knowing about that subject in some more details, I will not expect newspaper people to interview me on that!

    But if you’re doubting the very basis of theory of genesis of action potential, then, you’ll question the very basis of what we ‘know’ and the confidence with which we know it. In which case, God bless you!😉

  12. September 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM

    I am yet to get you started on the modes of acquiring knowledge and also the fundamental axioms of science…

    “But if you’re doubting the very basis of theory of genesis of action potential, then, you’ll question the very basis of what we ‘know’ and the confidence with which we know it. In which case, God bless you! ;)”

    Well, it is you who said we need to keep experimenting and improving upon what we know. In that case, nothing is established and is subject to change, isn’t it?

  13. September 18, 2009 at 12:15 AM

    Of course, nothing of what we know is immutable. But, I’ll start showing distrust in a theory only when events contrary to its predicted outcomes start happening. But I’ll not leave out the possibility that a theory might have to be revised if a new set of data is acquired. Till that time comes the theory remains actionably valid. By ‘actionable’ I mean, I’ll use it in my daily life-situations.

  14. September 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM

    Mr. Ketan, you are a doctor, right? How long did it take for you to get that qualification?

    • September 19, 2009 at 12:18 AM

      It took me about 5-and-a-half-years from the month I got admission to finish the course including internship.

  15. September 19, 2009 at 9:01 AM

    You were willing to spend 5.5 years of your life of studying medicine… what made you make that decision?

  16. September 20, 2009 at 6:05 AM

    I was most interested in cell biology. But there is very little scope for genuine research in India, more so in life sciences. So, I chose the closest compromise–MBBS, which would deal with subjects of my interest, offer reasonable scope for sufficient income and employment-guarantee.

  17. September 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM

    Then my question should have been “what made you interested in cell biology in the first place?”.

  18. September 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM

    Dear Ketan and others,

    I fully expected to face such comments from the educated class in India.
    But unfortunately, you buck the whole lot of scientific evidence and go into cell biology. It is probably more useful to answer the question.
    You may notice that not a single historian rose up to argue the point.
    You know why?
    Because it is very hard to debate the truth.
    And the truth is that this is peer reviewed scientific research done by Dr. Narahari Achar and me and we challenge anybody to prove us wrong.
    Otherwise, as they say, accept it.
    When the Krishna Karna Samvada found in the Mahabharata is proved to be right and every event, including all the events given below, it strikes me as slightly absurd that people can still believe that Mahabharata is myth.

    Mahabharat War started on November 22, 3067 BC. This comes out of astronomical evidence. And the astronomical juxtapositions are not arbitrary or those that could happen in any decade or such… but some of them have not happened since. They are THAT rare a phenomenon.

    Saturn at Rohini and Mars at Jyestha with two eclipses – a Lunar eclipse at Kartik and Solar eclipse at Jyesth. (these are from Udyoga and Bhisma Parvan).

    (1)Amavasya occurs in Jyestha in 19 years
    (2) (1) PLUS Solar Eclipse in Jyesth occurs in 340 years.
    (3) (2) PLUS Saturn at Rohini occurs ONCE in 7000 years.

    So, that constellation in astronomy has NOT occured since Mahabharat. The date – exact one – when that would have happened is Nov 22, 3067 BC.

    Not only that, but the latter events like destruction of Dwarka (based on the astronomical events mentioned around that) occur at EXACTLY as the text says – 36 years later.

    And on top of that the lunar phase dates mentioned for Balarama’s pilgrimage fit this date so exactly that the only logical conclusion is that there were people at that time who actually observed these events.

    Here are a few dates that can be identified with respect to the dates by Dr. Achar:

    * Lord Krishna, on His final peace mission, set out for Hastinapur on 26th September, 3067 B.C. when the moon was at the asterism Revati.
    * Lord Krishna arrived Hastinapur on 28th September, 3067 B.C., when the moon was at the asterism Bharani.
    * The full moon and lunar eclipse at Krittika occurred on 29th September, 3067 B.C.
    * The solar eclipse at Jyestha occurred on 14th October, 3067 B.C.
    * Lord Balarama set out for pilgrimage on 1st November, 3067 B.C.
    * The War began on 22nd November, 3067 B.C.
    * Lord Balarama concluded His pilgrimage on 12th December, 3067 B.C.
    * The winter solstice occurred on 13th January, 3066 B.C.
    * Bhishma died on 17th January, 3066 B.C.
    * The comet Mahaghora appeared at the asterism Pushya in October, 3066 B.C.

    My view is to view things in the cool light of rationality.
    We have researched this ad nauseam, the reason to make a film on it, is because the common man reads the history text books which start with the Aryan invasion, which never took place.
    The common man does not read the science journals.
    I would advise you to research this yourself using astronomy software, it is easy enough.

    Regards
    Dr Pandit

  19. September 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM

    Sir Dr. Pandit,

    Thanks for your patient response.

    I’ve never argued against the fact that the astronomical events described in Mahabharata must have occurred some time around 3000 BC.

    But what I am asking is how does it lead to this conclusion that all the events described in Mahabharata occurred exactly that way?

    I’ll give you a hypothetical scenario.

    I write a novel, which involves a famous Bollywood actor called–‘Amrit Kapoor’ (AK). He asks me to make a fictional biopic on him. I write a very elaborate script involving the Gateway of India, with dates like 26th November, 2008, involving some technologies like Mumbai local train, a few solar and lunar eclipes, etc. In the movie screen play, I show AK doing gravity defying stunts, flying into the sky and kicking a comet to pieces, etc. But one day, a huge tsunami drowns Mumbai.

    Now, 2000 years later, humans discover Gateway of India, the Mumbai local trains, also the investigation reports of Mumbai attacks, and along with that my movie script on the adventures of AK, and film magazines with interviews of AK. Would the future generations be more logical in concluding that AK did all of the things as mentioned in the movie script and start worshiping him or think it to be a piece of fiction based on real-life characters and situations?

    I concede the possibility that Aryans might have always been present in India. But then, in that case one would also have to account for striking similarities between Sanskrit and ancient European and Iranian languages. Also one would’ve to account for descriptions of ‘som’ drink, the plant of which does not grow in India, but in Iran, etc.

    You may of course, hypothesize that it’s not Aryans who immigrated to India, but emmigrated from here to Europe and Iran! But then that would contradict all the theories they have for the origin of their civilizations (based on peer-reviewed studies)!

    A more complex, but all-resolving theory I offer in light of data available to me through my knowledge as well what you state is as follows:

    1. Dwarka discovered belonged to Harappan civilization.

    2. Krishna was a deity worshipped in Iran by Aryans.

    3. Mahabharata was composed in Iran around 3000 BC. Same astronomical positions and solar eclipses would be visible from both Iran and India. It was later written after coming to India (in Indian context) owing to oral tradition.

    4. The seal found was made in Iran, but brought to India later….

  20. September 20, 2009 at 6:43 PM

    …5. Some war occurred in Delhi/Iran region around 3000 BC (for which I’m not sure if archeological evidence is available or not–if lakhs of soldiers and animals die in an area of few squared kilometers–mass graves inundated with sophisticated weapons must be discovered in the corresponding stratum of soil).

    Do let me know what all flaws you find in my ‘composite’ hypothesis.

    Thanks, again!

    Regards.

  21. September 20, 2009 at 7:02 PM

    Also sir Dr. Pandit, considering your and Dr. Achar’s findings are peer-reviewed and thus now established as facts, it would be a great injustice to allow the current and future crop of school students to learn what is based on flawed evidences.

    It would be very much in interest of the cause of truth if you challenge those text books in the court of law, and get them replaced by more accurate evidence-based historical accounts. That way, the truth about the true glory of Indian heritage would dissipate much faster and surely so.

    Regards.

  22. September 20, 2009 at 9:11 PM

    @Dr. Pandit: Thanks for your elaborate response and for visiting my blog.

    @Ketan:

    You can stay away from, if not hypothesis, at least sarcasm, yes?

  23. September 20, 2009 at 10:04 PM

    Ambi,

    Which of my statements was sarcasm?

  24. September 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM

    Ketan,

    Your last comment suggesting legal proceedings comes across as being sarcastic. Now, don’t get started on another explanation on why you think its necessary, but for a person who holds no interest in ‘heritage’, to put forth such a statement and claim genuine intent is kind of stretching the limit.

    I may be wrong and maybe you just write stuff like how you like it… but anyone reading Dr. Pandit’s comments and your response will not miss out the challenge, though put in a very humble manner, is nothing but.

    I got time to read over some posts in your blog this weekend and frankly speaking I got the impression that you do not consider many other people to be capable of honest introspection. Too bad.

    • September 21, 2009 at 10:33 PM

      Ambi,

      1. Where have I stated I want the Indian heritage glorified? But yes, definitely I would like the truth to come out. Partly because I’m curious about our country’s very impressive history and civilization.

      The new light shed on glorious Indian past would make the other citizens happy; I’d be pretty neutral about it. Because it would be past! But most important, Dr. Pandit has made a mention of truth being on his side, so what’s wrong in suggesting a legal course to establishment of truth? Of course, it’s his prerogative if he would like to pursue that course or not.

      2. You’re entirely entitled to your judgement of my attitude, but I’d like it better if you could point out specific comments on my posts which made you feel, I by default consider others less able than me of honest introspection.

  25. September 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM

    Dear Ambi, Ketan and others,

    I have a script for a future documentary which debunks the Aryan invasion comprehensively.
    BTW, Ketan, the reason you have formed your hypothesis is good, and its ground work is good, but again it is not true, I know something which you don’t. I will bring it out in a documentary in the next two years.
    Lets put it this way, it is a series of archaeological findings which proves that the Aryans were always in India and favours their immigration.
    I will give you a clue and keep silent thereafter.
    :Remember when Left parties wanted a moratorium on archaeological excavations in India? Nobody asked why, all of a sudden, they wanted a stop to archaeological excavations.

    2.
    As far as mounting a legal challenge, too complicated, and I have a better idea anyway. I don’t mind your suggesting it but it involves time and money to burn.
    My day job is that of a physician so I can’t do that just yet.
    I intend doing a mass distribution of this media at a future stage when I have some sponsorship.
    I have been contacted so far by thousands of people all over the world who will be willing to take part in this novel concept.

    This happens on the backdrop of invitations to lecture extensively on these concepts by the Indian scientific establishment, the Americans and some universities in England.

    Regards
    Dr Pandit

    • September 22, 2009 at 12:31 AM

      Sir Dr. Pandit,

      I suspect there’s a typographic error in your following sentence:

      “Lets put it this way, it is a series of archaeological findings which proves that the Aryans were always in India and favors their immigration.”

      Did you by any chance mean, ‘favors their immigration into Iran‘, or ‘favors their emmigration out of India‘, or ‘disproves their immigration’?

      • September 22, 2009 at 12:53 AM

        Aryans as they are known have no racial basis (for that word), I use it here for Indians in general.
        It can be proved that the reason that there are archaeological findings for the Vedic dieties all the way upto Syria and indeed Lithuania is because of migration of Indians out of India to these places,(in fact just like Indians are doing even now).

  26. September 21, 2009 at 5:56 PM

    Dear Ketan,

    As far as the scifi scenario you have mentioned, that could happen today and your work will not survive 2000 years.
    Why?
    Because there is no oral tradition to take down your findings.
    The ancient Indians were masters at this. They realised that natural catastrophes could destroy the way their life functioned, so they used the spoken word( Shruti and Smriti)
    Of course those guys did not waste much time learning thousands of verses by rote if the findings themselves were imaginary.
    Just try and imagine how long it would take you to learn just a few shlokas of any of these epics. It is a quarter to a half life’s work.
    And so Vyasa chose those people who could accurately reproduce these findings of his as he saw them.
    It was only later on that writing came into the equation and still longer till people could write Akshay Kumar’s stunts down and take photos like we do.

    Just to give further fuel to this imagine that there were a natural catastrophe and that let us say destroyed most of mankind.
    Not much knowledge would survive except…… what?

    The oral tradition of the Vedas and other Puranas would survive as long as there was just one reciter of that stuff around. The Mathematics and other stuff could, but nothing else of our so called advanced knowledge.
    That is the way Indians managed to preserve history for so long.

    There are many things which I have not revealed in the first documentary but wait and see, there are many bits of knowledge that none of you could have imagined those Indians had in those times.

    Kind regards
    Dr Pandit

    • September 21, 2009 at 11:16 PM

      Sir Dr. Pandit,

      Since you’re talking of some evidences I’m not privy to, it would be inappropriate if I comment any further on the comparative veracity of currently accepted theories and the ones put forth by you. Also since, the evidence you possess is of archeological nature, it would be unwise to argue against it.

      I’m much younger than you, and I have no idea of the moratorium you’re referring to, but I’m entirely aware of possibilities of political interference in such matters. In fact, in my opinion, not just facts about ancient history, but even fairly recent ones relating to our independence have not been dissipated properly.

      Yes, you must be having a better idea of how to dissipate the knowledge you possess, but possibly, there could be a few lawyers, who too might want truth to be out. If they share this this vision with you, some of the difficulties in the legal course might be resolved. But of course, this is just my speculation.

      With regard to authorship of Mahabharata, is it an outcome of documenting of events told and recounted over generations, or was it written by Lord Ganesha exactly at the same time as dictated by Sage Vyasa? In my CBSE Hindi curriculum I was taught an abridged version of Mahabharata–‘Sankshipt Mahabharata’ and in the text the authorship was attributed to Vyasa and Lord Ganesha (who had written it down, obviating the need for further transfer of facts through the oral tradition).

      Also, there’s one thing that you’ll have to account for, and that being the greater degree of urbanization of what we call Harappan culture hinted at by their archeological sites, and relative paucity of such sophistication in soil strata above (and hence, the ones which would be encountered earlier in the process of excavating) them, which would correspond to later times (what we today call Vedic culture). Except for in there’d be huge calamities, or invasion from some other civilizations, a particular culture should at least not lose out their technological advances with progression of time. But if the new information that you have and can’t part with (for instance, the less known excavation sites), also accounts for this seemingily ironic situation, I can understand, a lot of what we think today about ancient Indian history is wrong.

      All the best in your ventures!

      Thanks again for taking efforts to clarify things!

      Regards.

  27. September 21, 2009 at 7:02 PM

    @Dr.Pandit: Even though I already have been convinced that Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth, I would very much like to see the proof you offer.

  28. September 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM

    “2. You’re entirely entitled to your judgement of my attitude, but I’d like it better if you could point out specific comments on my posts which made you feel, I by default consider others less able than me of honest introspection. ”

    I did see that exact wording in one of your replies to the comments on your posts… forgot which one… think it is the one related to communalism.

  29. September 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM

    Ambi,

    Quite possibly, you were referring to the following comment I’d made in response to Indian Home maker’s:

    http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/03/communalism.html?showComment=1241525040000#c8594003546198752555

    But did you read my another comment on the very same post where I have expressed skepticism at my own ability to honestly introspect every time? The sentence starts with “I’ve not implied that I’m absolutely free of communal prejudices.”. It’s the eighth paragraph.

    http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/03/communalism.html?showComment=1242732240000#c4676563087121286533

    But most importantly, do you know the context of that post? It was written immediately after attacks by foreign terrorists on Mumbai. And most direct reason for their killing many people rampantly has been thought to be communal hatred against those not following Islam. So, what’s wrong in my doubting ability of those terrorists’ ability for honest introspection? I feel had they asked themselves the questions I’ve raised in that post, they would have never killed mercilessly those people whose name also they didn’t know!

    Going by your original comment, you got this impression that I by default consider others as less capable of honest introspection, not from a single isolated post/comment, but multiple ones. Could you point out some other posts that you’ve gone through apart from ‘worship’ and ‘communalism’? You may simply mention what the post had dealt with, and I’ll try to find out such comments.

    TC.

  30. September 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM

    Ketan, I just told you what impression I got… I frankly don’t have the time to go through again searching for references from your blog. May be I am wrong, but it doesn’t matter in any case. So, let’s drop this for now. Ok?

    I will have some time next week, since I am on vacation… looking forward to it a lot, since I can spend some good time on my blogging and of course… interacting with you.😉

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: