paryAyavAk

Learned readers may read an article by a scholar of our times, Dr. R. Ganesh (RG from here on) here . The title of the article is "The Hindu view on food and drink" and has been published in Indiafacts. As the article touches quite a few aspects spanning history, dharma etc., it is difficult to write a comprehensive response in the comments section. A few disclaimers Dr. Ganesh is a respected personal friend and I have benefited intellectually from his long but irregular association.  The association is old enough for me to analyze his article's position vis a vis his positions about other issues that he has held in the past. To this extent, my judgment of RG and his article is coloured. Certain points of his article are analyzed here avoiding personalizing the argument to the extent possible. This article is not about RG’s scholarship for which he doesn't need any certificates. Food and drink v/s airplanes in ancient India or the "utility&quo

http://thewire.in/2015/06/30/sanskrit-needs-new-study-fresh-analysis-and-students-not-a-joint-secretary-in-the-mea/    One is at an utter loss in trying to comprehend the monumental ignorance of those who pass for writers these days. 1. Sikha pantha minus Punjabi is nothing because the guru grantha sahib, the dasham grantha, etc. have been written / composed in punjabi. Anyone wishing to know about them "correctly", has to have a knowledge of Punjabi. Hence, Punjabi is indeed the language of Sikhism and this cannot be escaped. Same goes for Islam. The authentic interpretations of Islam come from commentators who know the tradition of Islam and Arabic. 2. None of the Vedanta books the author has quoted are non-sanskrit. 3. If it was the decision of the constituent assembly to have "India that is Bharat" then, what prevents any democratic government from overturning this and making it "Bharat that is India" by way of a constitutional amendme

http://www.niticentral.com/ 2015/06/03/maggi-noodles-ban- imperils-livelihood-of-lakhs- 316363.html 1. The article is full of logical fallacies. The cleverest way to counter sound argument is to introduce material which is not core to it. This is what the mandarins of Offstumped seem to be learning. Sorry to convey to them the news that they have failed miserably. The whole article is filled with material which is not related in any way to the question at hand. The question at hand is whether maggi which contains mono sodium glutamate (MSG) and lead is harmful  to people or not (and hence deserving a ban or not). 2. The standard method of making rats diabetic in lab experiments is to feed them MSG. This is what the half literate Offstumped writers should get into their thick skulls. 3. If lead were safe, why would we have unleaded petrol as a standard across the world? Still, offstumped will have us believe " Why go after trace quantities of lead in noodles w