on middle ground I think many of your statments are viewed from within philosophy and therefore the middle ground itself is far away from where you stand.

For example when you say there were no authors to vedas and it was got by meditation, you are looking at the end product of a scientific experiment.

The philosophy behind meditation itself is science. Why? One should linearize( if there is such a word, kind of english equivalent to Tamil's "orungNaindhu")all senses into one to meditate. Math plays an important role in all of this.

Then about the vedas themselves. The first one never talked about god and the later ones identified and discussed god.This is probably because, they were experienced(not written, i better be careful this time) and different Times and by different society (advanced from the previous).

I am in no dispute with philosophy's existence and its place on Time, what is disputed is the stickyness of people to either of the two, that is science and philosophy, and the claims that one is superior than the other.

Magic is something that is done by a single person to make others believe. If vedas and upanishads and our epics are equated to this,which I hope you are not doing, that is more of trivializing them.

And about the Atom bomb thingy, well you are arguing on my side, Isn't thought process highly scientific?

on the Kandavar vindilar thingy. If one has seen it, he does not need to explain. If such is the case, then none of the religious guys who went around proposing and arguing with other religions to uplift theirs is a kandavar. From what I have heard, RamaNa maharishi comes to my mind. I have heard that he never talked about anything.

Bhagavad gita has a lot of nice things, but it also is supposed to have been said by a person, who practically cheated and won a war and also claimed "HE IS" and everything is "HIM". It is more like the leg teaches the hand how to walk. or the ears teaches the eye how to hear.

And about who all conduct bagavad gita classes, they try to manipulate it to make them popular among a set of people.

For example, I have always loved this about Ramayana. Most of us will know the way Rama met Sita, but then there was this person who wrote about Kamaba RamayaNam and asked
why did the author put Sita on a balcony and Rama as walking on the street on that scene?
And the explanation was that the Indian woman always had there head bowed while the Indian men had there head "held High", and that is why Kamban wrote it thus.
When I first heard this, I was simply amazed how well and convincing the narrator justifies the rendition of the author. He went on with "aNalum nOkinAL, avaLum nOkinAL.." in a similar way.

Private Reply to Ganesh Ram (new win)