Welcome sir On Tue, 13 Jan, 2026, 18:32 Markendeya Yeddanapudi, < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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/CAL5XZopfQRj959WZuJyMiCcXoRvC4E4zwWbM1hnkc0OC%3DJ3qSg%40mail.gmail.com.
