Purpose of my criticism (Misrepresentation and Vemuri-Rao)

[Guest guest]

Dear Gary,

 

> Narasimha, it is not really important to win the argument, is it?

 

I am sorry you see it that way. The purpose of my mail was to remind people that

what Sri Rao writes is the opinion of Sri Rao and NOT necessarily that of Late

Vemuri. (Of course, you used the word "unseemly" responding to my guru's

criticism of Sri Rao and that is another reason prompting me to reply.)

 

Especially after all the fascinating accounts given by Sri Rao of Late Vemuri,

that name carries weight and it can mislead people into thinking that something

Sri Rao wrote was the opinion of Late Vemuri, which is not necessarily true!!

This can mislead an entire generation.

 

If Sri Rao makes Late Vemuri's readings public, people like me will have an

opportunity to critically evaluate his claims and perhaps say "no, you

misunderstood Vemuri. That's not what Vemuri thought, for so and so reason".

Until then, people should remember that what Sri Rao writes need NOT reflect

what Late Vemuri thought. Many people forget this and it is my responsibility,

as a sincere and committed researcher, to remind them.

 

When I wrote the following, I wrote it in all earnestness. This is only a fair

request:

 

<<<<As long as he doesn't make those papers public, I humbly

think he should refrain from his common refrain - "Good ol' Vemuri said so".

Mentioning Vemuri in controversial things - especially when Sri Rao is about to

lose an argument (like arudha padas or Mandooka dasa argument with Sanjay) is

unfair to great Vemuri - he deserves our benefit of doubt!.>>>>

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

 

 

------

 

eGroups.com home: sjvc

- Simplifying group communications