Logic is to be used in debates
Logic is to be used to arrive at correct conclusion in issues of world or spirituality. You are logically discussing the merits and defects of all the schools present in the city before admitting your son or grandson into school. The entire scripture need not have different meanings in every statement. Only important concepts were interpreted in different ways. Example: Shankara told that this entire world is God in the sense that God is absolute truth and world is relative reality. This is the angle of God to say that anything other than God is unreal (means relatively real). Ramanuja said that all this world is under the control of God and this is the angle of soul for which world is equally real. The same statement that all this is God (sarvam khalvidam…) is interpreted in different ways and correlation is to be done taking different angles. If you take only one angle for both interpretations, they contradict each other.
Egoistic debate
Thinking that I am also a person, who is master of none and jack of all trades, they have gone to the extent of climax of their ego and climax of jealousy (to others), to go to such level to say that I don’t know the meaning of the word ‘Smaarta’ (as user 1 says) and that I have not read the Gita (as user 2 says)! Some people are of the nature to criticize every one without establishing anything from their side and such type of comments are called as ‘Vitandavaada’. Such people have nothing to say to the world except misleading the world and throwing it into chaos. Such people have only one goal, which is that they should be recognized as super intellectuals than anyone else. For this purpose, they criticize everybody without knowing the depth of the other side. They don’t even read and assimilate the others’ knowledge by taking some time to absorb the ideas. They immediately attack the message of anyone as soon as they see it. While reading itself, criticism will come from their mouth! Such criticism doesn’t pertain to the subject presented by other side and they don’t even touch the actual points. Neither they beat the bush, nor they beat the bird in the bush. They beat only around the bush and return as successful hunters of the bird! They touch a word like ‘Smaarta’, misunderstand the word and fight with the other side stressing their misunderstood meaning as the absolute truth. They don’t care about the other side even if God is arguing with them!
Whatever they know, they vomit it whether related to the present context or not, so that the public should think that they have lot of knowledge in their brains! They are very fast in expressing their little knowledge because their aim is only that they should be recognized as greater scholars than any other side opposing them. Their aim is not to understand the subject peacefully and criticize if there is a genuine point. The aim of all My knowledge is world-peace by bringing unity in religions. At least, seeing the value of the goal, a scholar should support the preacher of knowledge even assuming that really there are some genuine mistakes in their knowledge. But, people of this evil lot are not real scholars at all and find faults even if really there is no fault on the other side! They, by themselves, are faulty and find fault with others even if there is no fault on the other side! It is very easy to convince a real scholar, who doesn’t make sound like pot with full of water. On the other side, the really ignorant person like a vacant pot doesn’t make sound and can be convinced with little pain in work. But, the middle person, with little knowledge, who makes a lot of sounds like little or half-filled pot can’t be convinced even by God as said by Bhartruhari (Brhamaapi na ranjayati…).
A scholar knows everything perfectly and has no ignorance at all. Even if he has ego, it can be tolerated because at least there is no ignorance. On the other hand, a person having total ignorance knows that he is ignorant (due to lack of ego) and hence, can be easily convinced even if ignorance exists. But, the middle person having both ego and ignorance like B.P. and Sugar can’t be convinced and becomes very difficult case for a doctor! Such people exist in every religion and are responsible for the split of religions in the world. Along with them, very good people with broad mind also exist in every religion.
