Rajaram Sir, Prodigy is a very inadequate word to describe you.My God you are not even Sahasravadhani.You are Sathasahasravadhani,you can answer more than many thousands at the same time. YM Sarma
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 2:44 PM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]> wrote: > Dialogue: The Last Untouched Places > > > > I went through the whole. It is not a question of what the > industry and the owner doing, is killing or not the nature; it is not > Shantiniketan is the best, or worst educational system (why shanti Niketan > is never heard or seen at all? Reasons?). Whether where bio war is > practiced by the villains whether Hiranyakashipu or Chinese premiere or > Venezuela or USA or UK , when asylum in the closed doors are not safe, will > it be worth, in the open? Suppose, 100 is the demands likely to shoot up by > say 150 after one consumer spreads goody about; and the TATA produces only > 50 to protect nature, and the demand shoots up the price to tribble and in > a short time goes out of market as unavailable, the media and Public will > say, hoarded or greedily shooting up the prices which are untrue as I > REVEALED ON FACTS, THEY WILL NEVER KNOW. On the other side, TATA > manufactures 500 units and only 300 sold at low price, and 200 goes to > closing stock, incurring a loss, Media and Public will ignore the TATA and > by pass and say TATA can afford. THUS, LIFE OF NATURE OR NOT LIVING IN > NATURE, MAY NOT ALTER THE MINDS OF THE THAMO GUNAS AND SATVA GUNAS DO NOT > THING CARTESIAN OR OTHERWISE. WHEN MEN WEAR WEARING 2 PIECE AND WOMEN ALSO > A KIND OF 2 PIECE ONLY HIDING THE BODY [OR 2 ½ PIECE?] ARANYA WAS A PLACE > OF SCHOOL; BUT WHEN WOMEN ARE WEARING 5 PIECES UNCOVERED FULLY AND MEN 7 > PIECES FULLY COVERED, SPENDING IN LAKHS FOR DRESS ALONE, WILL ARANYA SUIT? > UNDOUBTEDLY PRAKRITI ISS IMPORTANT BUT EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS ALSO THE > PURUSHA THE HUMAN AND NOT MALE ONLY. With 2 pieces one may sit anywhere in > any style but with well dressed only on a modern furniture and not the > Aranya. Hence wanted to give my ideas too. K RAJARAM IRS 13126 > > Industrialist: You must understand, Mr. Sarma, the world needs > minerals. Electric cars, renewable energy, satellites—none of these exist > without mining. Alaska, Antarctica, Greenland—these are vast, underutilized > resources. > > You: You call them resources because you have already erased their > existence as living systems. They are not underutilized. They are simply > not yet violated. > > KR: WE DO KEEP INVENTING ALTERNATE RESOURCES AS OUR ECONOMY AND > EDUCATION IN CONCRETE STTRUCTURES, INFUSED US WITH A LOT OF IDEAS AND HAD > SHOWN US DIFFERENT RESOURCES TO EXHAUST. NATURE GIVES IN BOUNTY THUS. > > Industrialist: But we will mine responsibly. Minimal footprint. Advanced > technology. Environmental safeguards. We are not barbarians. > > You: No invader ever believes he is a barbarian. Responsibility is > always declared before destruction, never after. > > KR BUT WHEN I THREATEN SHARMA I WILL ENTER HIS HOME AS ACTING GOOD > DOER TO SNATCH AWAY WHAT I LIKE , NONE SEEMS TO STOP THE INVADERS; THEN WHY > DO YOU BLAME THE INVADERS AS BARBARIANS; ALSO ALL WERE ONLY BARBARIANS ONCE > BUT DO BELIEVE THEY HAVEE BECOME NON-BARBARIANS NOW; IS THAT WRONG? ON THE > CONTRARY, NON- INVADERS ARE NOT BARBARIANS FRIGHTENED CHICKENS? > > Industrialist: We cannot stop development. Civilization must move > forward. Humanity’s needs come first. > > You: You speak of humanity as if it floats above Earth, not born from > it. A civilization that survives by killing its womb is not moving > forward—it is committing delayed suicide. > > KR YES IF WOMB IS MARRED; BUT WHERE ONE WOMB IS NON-PROCREATIVE, > KNOWLEDGE SHOWS ANOTHER WOMB TO DEVELOP; IF SO, NATURE IS ABUNDANR WITH > WOMBS WHICH WERE UNKNOWN TO BARBARIANS BUT NOT TO THE KNOWLEDGEABLE TODAY. > ALSO PRIME NEEDS OF ENLARGED COMMUNITY NEED CONSUMPTION OF RESOURCES > EQUALLY AND ONE CANNOT TEACH TO REFRAIN FOR RARTION AS IT IS CSERVATISM > UNDER THE CAPITALISM. HENCEE PROGRESS IS PRIORITY. PROGRESS IS EVEN IF > DEFINED AS SURVIVAL. > > Industrialist: These regions are mostly empty. No cities, no > agriculture, barely any people. Surely mining there causes less harm than > elsewhere. > > You: Empty to whom? > > To machines, silence looks like emptiness. > > To life, silence is intelligence at rest. > > KR SILENCE IS NOT EMPTY; PARTICLES AND WAVES ARE TRAVELLING IN SILENCE; > NOW IT DOES NOT NEED ANY PROGRESS BUT MAY NEED LATER WHEN SPACE IS BEING > CLOSED PERHAPS. > > Industrialist: If we don’t mine them, someone else will. Better that > ethical corporations do it than rogue states. > > You: That argument has justified every atrocity in history. “If I > don’t destroy, someone worse will.” Ethics that depend on inevitability are > already dead. > > KR THAT IS WHAT SOMEONE SPOKE YESTERDAY TOO; CHINA OR RUSSIA MAY GRAB; SO > BETTER TO DO NOW; RIGHT OR WRONG ONLY HISTORY CAN BLAME LATER; HAVE WE NOT > LOST THE TERRITORY *GRABBED* BY PAKISTAN AND CHINA? WORLD WAS SILENT SO > WILL BE IN FUTURE TOO. > > Industrialist: We are talking about minerals, not forests or animals. > Rocks don’t feel pain. > > You: Pain is not the only measure of life. Mountains regulate climate. > Ice remembers history. Soil holds futures you cannot price. You mistake > silence for permission. > > KR Absolutely; but those regulations in order also turns off > disorderly periodically affecting the Aranyavasis or Nagaravasis; so nature > even without getting injured, yet will reduce the population or change the > Geography or paths of rivers or even displace the mountains vertically and > horizontally where big animals and humans in millions got destroyed; so > human thought that the nature is a villain from whom we shall protect > ourselves; so built dams and used it also; chopped woods and shortened the > forests and without wasting used all of them; even mountain stones were > used as Agni creators or puja materials or tools of war. There is always > an imbalance between the nature and the human because even among the 5 > sensed animals. So, all are fine and there is no righteousness in love and > war. EVEN WHEN THERE IS PAIN DUE TO SEVERAL FACTORS, THERE ARE, ROCKS LIKE, > STHITHAPRAGNANS ON THIS EARTH. SO INANIMATE OBJECTS DO NOT EXPRESS PAINS > AND SO THE EXCAVORS ARE RIGHT; AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN YOU PROTECT THE > NATURE ALSO, THEY DO NOT FEEL ELATED TOO. ARAVALLI TODAY WAS NOT THE > ARAVALLI A MILLION YEAR BACK. > > Industrialist: Technology today is different. AI, precision drilling, > satellite monitoring—we can correct mistakes. > > You: Nature is not a software update. Some errors are irreversible > because they are not errors—they are violations of trust. > > KR Nature will neither feel your trust not its distrust. Nature will > behave according to the pressures it received, even when human are so nice. > So, nature may be treated as we treat our parents. They must develop us and > we must take care of them; an act of mutuality; as long as we have none to > challenge the ruffians either as Govt or as people, why we worry so much > about it. Rather let’s do to our best of abilities. > > Industrialist: What is your alternative? Stop all mining? Return to > caves? > > You: That question reveals the poverty of imagination produced by > your economics. Between caves and collapse, you see no third path—because > your system was never designed to see one. > > KR WHAT IS THE THIRD PATH; WHAT IS HIGH AND LOW; WHERE THE WORK WILL > STOP OR CONTINUE? ANYDEFINITION? DHARMA THUS UNDEFINED. > > Industrialist: The global economy would collapse without new mineral > sources. > > You: Then perhaps the economy deserves to collapse. Any system that > requires destroying the last untouched places to survive has already > declared itself unfit for the future. > > KR COLLAPSING DUE TO NATURE IF AWAITED AND TOLERATED, THEN, > COLLAPSING IS AN ORDER OF THE EVOLUTIONS. WE ACCEPTED WHEN SO MANY THINGS > PERISHED INCLUDING THE NATURE. SO NATURE IS A SUBJECT MATTER AS HUMAN AND > ALL OTHER SPECIE AS GROWTH AND DESTRUCTION ON IOTS OWN. > > Industrialist: You are being emotional. Policy must be rational. > > You: Emotion is not irrationality. Emotion is how life defends > itself when logic is hijacked by profit. > > KR EMOTION IS ALSO A FORM OF CORRUPTION OBSTUCTING THE > CIVILISATION. RAIONALITY ALSO HAS ITS LIMITATIONS. BUT RATIONALITY IS A > FPRM OF SURVIVAL WHILE EMOTION BINDS THE PERSON FROM REACTING. MAJORITY > DOES NOT REACT WHEN PERCEIVING THE EVIL, ONLY BECAUSE OF EMOTIONAL > CONFLICTS. > > Industrialist: What gives you the authority to deny humanity these > resources? > > You: I claim no authority. I speak as a messenger from what cannot > speak your language—ice, wind, microbes, future generations. Your > authority comes from contracts. Mine comes from consequences. > > KR CONSEQUENCES ARE KNOWN NOT AT THE START BUT ONLY AT THE END; > SO FAR I HAVE NOT SPOKEN ABOUT THE WORK KARMA AND THE FATE KARMA. IN THE > PERFORMANCES, WHAT IS THE END WE CANNOT PROPERLY MEASURE; SO CONSEQUENCES > OF PRESENTATIONS ARE NOTHING BUT THE HISTORY HAPPENED, WHERE ONLY NEGATIVE > HISTORY WAS EXPOSED BUT GOOD HISTORY IS NEVER EVEN GOSSIPPED. NATURE ONLY > FRO WITHIN IN ALL THESE BILLION YEARS WAS GIVING YOU, IT’S WEALTH AND YET > EXIST IN VASTNESS; HOW? NATURE KNOWS TO SURVIVE AND BENEFIT THE OCCUPANT > SPECIE AND ALSO TO DESTROY WITHOUT NOTICE WHICH IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE > NATURE, EVEN IF YOU SPEAK TO IT OR SMELL IT. NATURE IS MOTHER SO PROTECT > HER; SHE IS ALSO KALI SO………. > > Industrialist: So you want these regions locked away forever? > > You: Not locked away—left alone. There is a profound difference > between protection and imprisonment. Nature does not need management. It > needs restraint—from you. > > KR EVEN IF YOU LEAVE IT ALONE EXPANDING SPECIE WILL LACK SPACE TO LIVE. > > Industrialist: You are asking for sacrifice. > > You: No. I am asking you to stop calling destruction progress and greed > necessity. Sacrifice implies loss. What you propose risks everything. > > KR SACRIFICE IS NOT EXPECTING ANYTHING IN RETURN; SO BY SACRIFICE > HOW ONE MAY LIVE WITHOUT NATURE? > > Industrialist: History will judge us kindly if we power the future. > > You: History is written by survivors. If your future depends on mining > Antarctica, there may be no one left to write your footnotes. > > KR BUT THEY SAY ARCTIC MELTING MAY RAISE THE LEVEL OF SEA AND DROWN > THE SANTHOME AND VISHAKAPATNAM; CAN IT BE ALLOWED? THERE WNT BE HISTORY > WRITERS AT ALL ACCORDING TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. > > Industrialist (after a pause): So what do you propose, then? > > You: That some places remain inviolable. That limits be treated as > wisdom, not weakness. That civilization proves its maturity not by how much > it can extract—but by how much it can refuse. > > KR LEAVE NATURE ASIDE; VIOLATION OF YOUR NEIBOR ON YOUR AREA > ENCROACHMENT HPPENED BECAUISE HE WAS SO GOOD TO NATURE OR ORGHERWISE? > VIOLATION IS SUBJECTIVE; THE POOR SAY THAT THEY SHALL NOT DEMAND BUT GRAB; > SO TOO THE NATURE; NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION; SO THE RAMP WALK > WILL GO FOREVER. > > Industrialist: That would change everything. > > You: Yes. And that is precisely the point. > > KR IS THAT A RIGHT STATEMENT? BILLION YEARS GOBBLINGS BY A FEW, > MADE VEDICS TO COMMENT ON NATURE AND ITS TRUE. BUT THE HARDLY FEW 1000 > YEARS GOBBLED UP AMAZON AND ARCTIC OR JUST KODAIKANAL BALDNESS AND MICHIGAN > FALOW LANDS MAKE ONE CRY OVER THE SPLIT MILK? BILLION YERS OF NATURE SAFE > GUARDING ITSELF WILL BE MISSING BECAUSE OF OUR CRIES OVER THE ROOF OR EACH > MAY DO WHAT BEST HE OR SHE CAN LEAVE IT TO KARMA? > > NB-- KR : 350 TRILLION YEARS PASSED ACCORDING TO VEDAS; AND 200 > BILLION TEARS FROM WEST ANGLE; Ramayana and Mahabharata speak about not > only flora and fauna, but in war many forest nature, in Indian forests, Sri > Lanka Ravana Palace where hanuman burnt, in Mahabharata where to build a > capital forests and snakes were burnt etc., ; yet from nature > destructions, nature survived all these years; nature also destroyed specie > and human in snow winds and glaciers. Dryness of copious SARASWATI RIVER > made people migrate up to Kerala. So nature deprived welfare of good people > also; and Good people suffered by the deed of bad people punishing the > nature. These are all karma the fate. But ultimate winner is always the > nature withor without people help. Thus, we can only do what best we may > and we are not PRAKRITI PUNARUDHAARANA KARTHA. Of course on the day when we > do our swadharma challenging the bad act of people openly (which is > impossible as majority is away from the justice acts) prakriti protection > may not be necessary at all as all will be saving the nature. > > K Rajaram IRS 13126 > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 07:14, Yeddanapudi Markandeyulu < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Below is a *dialogue* framed deliberately within the *non-Cartesian, >> natural-ecology paradigm* you are working from. >> The industrialist uses *fig-leaf defenses*—progress, necessity, >> inevitability, legality, technology, humanity—while *you* respond from >> an *ecological, civilizational, and ethical standpoint*, not a >> technocratic one. >> ------------------------------ >> Dialogue: *The Last Untouched Places* >> >> *Industrialist:* >> You must understand, Mr. Sarma, the world needs minerals. Electric cars, >> renewable energy, satellites—none of these exist without mining. Alaska, >> Antarctica, Greenland—these are vast, underutilized resources. >> >> *You:* >> You call them *resources* because you have already erased their >> existence as living systems. They are not underutilized. They are simply >> not yet violated. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> But we will mine responsibly. Minimal footprint. Advanced technology. >> Environmental safeguards. We are not barbarians. >> >> *You:* >> No invader ever believes he is a barbarian. Responsibility is always >> declared *before* destruction, never after. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> We cannot stop development. Civilization must move forward. Humanity’s >> needs come first. >> >> *You:* >> You speak of humanity as if it floats above Earth, not born from it. A >> civilization that survives by killing its womb is not moving forward—it is >> committing delayed suicide. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> These regions are mostly empty. No cities, no agriculture, barely any >> people. Surely mining there causes less harm than elsewhere. >> >> *You:* >> Empty to whom? >> To machines, silence looks like emptiness. >> To life, silence is intelligence at rest. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> If we don’t mine them, someone else will. Better that ethical >> corporations do it than rogue states. >> >> *You:* >> That argument has justified every atrocity in history. “If I don’t >> destroy, someone worse will.” Ethics that depend on inevitability are >> already dead. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> We are talking about minerals, not forests or animals. Rocks don’t feel >> pain. >> >> *You:* >> Pain is not the only measure of life. >> Mountains regulate climate. Ice remembers history. Soil holds futures you >> cannot price. >> You mistake *silence* for *permission*. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> Technology today is different. AI, precision drilling, satellite >> monitoring—we can correct mistakes. >> >> *You:* >> Nature is not a software update. Some errors are irreversible because >> they are not errors—they are violations of trust. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> What is your alternative? Stop all mining? Return to caves? >> >> *You:* >> That question reveals the poverty of imagination produced by your >> economics. >> Between caves and collapse, you see no third path—because your system was >> never designed to see one. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> The global economy would collapse without new mineral sources. >> >> *You:* >> Then perhaps the economy deserves to collapse. Any system that requires >> destroying the last untouched places to survive has already declared itself >> unfit for the future. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> You are being emotional. Policy must be rational. >> >> *You:* >> Emotion is not irrationality. >> Emotion is how life defends itself when logic is hijacked by profit. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> What gives you the authority to deny humanity these resources? >> >> *You:* >> I claim no authority. >> I speak as a messenger from what cannot speak your language—ice, wind, >> microbes, future generations. >> Your authority comes from contracts. >> Mine comes from consequences. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> So you want these regions locked away forever? >> >> *You:* >> Not locked away—*left alone*. >> There is a profound difference between protection and imprisonment. >> Nature does not need management. It needs restraint—from you. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> You are asking for sacrifice. >> >> *You:* >> No. >> I am asking you to stop calling destruction *progress* and greed >> *necessity*. >> Sacrifice implies loss. >> What you propose risks everything. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> History will judge us kindly if we power the future. >> >> *You:* >> History is written by survivors. >> If your future depends on mining Antarctica, there may be no one left to >> write your footnotes. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist (after a pause):* >> So what do you propose, then? >> >> *You:* >> That some places remain *inviolable*. >> That limits be treated as wisdom, not weakness. >> That civilization prove its maturity not by how much it can extract—but >> by how much it can refuse. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Industrialist:* >> That would change everything. >> >> *You:* >> Yes. >> And that is precisely the point. >> ------------------------------ >> >> If you want, I can next: >> >> - >> >> Make this dialogue *more confrontational or more subtle* >> - >> >> Adapt it for *a public debate, courtroom, or policy hearing* >> - >> >> Turn it into *a short play or philosophical parable* >> - >> >> Or rewrite it with the *industrialist slowly unraveling his own logic* >> >> Just tell me the direction. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "societyforservingseniors" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAPYPc14SJuSVio5ZL7%3DwdgwgzZ1zkAL07r%2B%3Djr_QmeXcjuBN%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAPYPc14SJuSVio5ZL7%3DwdgwgzZ1zkAL07r%2B%3Djr_QmeXcjuBN%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- *Mar* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKGppcV2%3D0zyHDQTy0jRA5-PnO9n-Le_JxMgbKHMXd6Kg%40mail.gmail.com.
