fofo/krk vkSj ,drk dk oSKkfud igyw
¼13 ekpZ 2016½
,d loky iwN jgs gSa] fganh esa cksysa] vaxzsth esa cksysa\‐‐‐ vPNk ckEcs feDlpj esa cksyrs gSaA igyh ckr rks ;s gS fd ,d fe=oj us iwNk tks Vhp&bu dks -Qksyks dj jgs gSa ;wVîwc ij fd] ;kj rqe fdruk Vkbe yksxs\ eSaus dgk D;ksa\ ;kj yksx cM+k vPNk cksyrs gSa exj Vkbe cgqr ysrs gSaA ;kj ?kaVs Hkj cksys tkrs gSaA vkSj vkf[+kjdkj le> esa vkrk gS fd D;k dg jgs gSa ;s] igys D;ksa ugha crkrs\ rks vc ge tSo oSKkfud gSa] ck;ksyksftLV gSa] rks‐‐‐ Vkbe vkmV
Let me ask a question: Dhruv said, science has come up here, but everyone who has spoken here is from social sciences, rks oks science or ;g science D;k vyx gaS\ I have serious difficulties about this. And we will come back to this as we go along, but to go back to my friend, this is for him. So I’m going to do a little three sentence summary, fd D;k dgus tk jgk gw¡A vkSj ?kaVs Hkj ugha cksyw¡xk fpark ugha dhft;sxkA ysfdu vk/ks ?kaVs esa D;k dgus tk jgk gw¡A eSa ;s dgus tk jgk gw¡ fd tc ge lkekftd IySVQ‚eZ~l ij ckr djrs gSa] tc lkekftd ppsZ&cgl gksrs gSaA rks dbZ ckj ;s lkeus vkrk gS fd ge tSo oSKkfud fl)krksa dk vk/kkj ysrs gSa] vkSj mUgsa vkxs djrs gSa fd ge ,sls gSa] gekjk lekt ,slk gSA gekjs O;fDrRo ,sls gSa D;ksafd gekjh ck;ksyth gh oSlh gSA D;k djas] mlds eqrkfcd rks pyuk gh iMsxk uk] fulxZ fu;e gSA dbZ eqíksa ij ;s ckr ckj&ckj lkeus vkrh gSA
And I think that it is important for us to decide how we are going to address this position. There are two ways of addressing this position, one way which is taken by very many of my friends and colleagues in social sciences and humanities is to say natural science is elitist. It is built into and pervaded by power structures and exploitation and therefore we are simply going to ignore natural science. And I suggest to you, perhaps with my biases and prejudices, that is not necessarily the most sensible thing for us to do in progressive movements and so let me offer you an alternative and that alternative is to question these easy, generalizing mythologies that are being perpetrated in the name of, ^lkbal dgrk gS*A rfud iwNsa rks fd lkbal lpeqp D;k dgrk gSA So in pursuit of this argument, I am going to do something that most of my friends have expected me not to do. rks eSaus tc iwNk fd HkS;k D;k cksysa] rks fdlh us dgk fd talk about the history of science and the trajectory of science. fdlh us dgk fd tsusfVDl vkSj dkLV tsusfVDl ds ckjs esa ftlds ckjs esa eSaus vkSj dbZ txgksa ij dqN u dqN dgk gqvk gSA esjh ijs'kkuh ;s gS fd tc Vhp&bu dh ckr gS] rks ;gk¡ tks [kM+k gS] [kM+h gSa] mUgsa vkids lkeus j[kus ds fy, ftl fo"k; ij ckr dj jgs gSa og mlesa rfud lh] FkksM+h lh] bl le> dh ckjhdh gksuh pkfg, ukA rks HkS;k vius fo"k; esa ckr djksA nwljs ds fo"k; esa ugha djksA tc fl[kkus dks pkg jgs gksA So what I’m going to do is try and use examples that are not from the common positions and arguments and mythologies of biology that are used in these kinds of social contexts and circumstances. I’m going to use somewhat unusual ones and I’m going to make points about what biological systems do with notions of unity and diversity. What does unity mean in biological terms and what does diversity mean in biological terms and what I’m going to argue to you are the meanings of these terms and of the implicit value judgements, if you will, in them are extraordinarily diverse within biology itself and I suggest to you that it is important for us to take this into our understanding of what people are talking about. The bottom line of what I’m going to say is that when people tell you what biologists say, what they are really telling you is what they would like biologists to say which is not necessarily the same thing. So this is the summary. ysfdu HkS;k fganqLrkuh gSa] ijaijk,a gSa] ;wa [+k;ky&o;ky dh ijaijk gS] foyafcr rky rks gksuk gh pkfg,A rks ve~ mlesa--- tc ;s iwNsa fd ,slh dksbZ ijaijk gS fd fcydqy FkksM+s esa dg nks\ rks it turns out fd gSA Since I’m doing this off the top of my head, I will make mistakes and please feel free to correct me. How should a speech be? Vaakya, as in that which ought to be said or that which can be said. rks okD; dSlk gksuk pkfg,\ And a really nice description comes to mind: lkFkZe~ rF;e~ fgre~ okD;e~ y?kq ;qäe~ vuqÙkjEkA lkFkZ gksuk pkfg,] rF; gksuk pkfg,] fgrdj gksuk pkfg,] ,slk okD; y?kq gksuk pkfg,A vkSj vuqÙkj.kh; gksuk pkfg,] fd mldk tokc ughaA This is one tradition, but keep in mind that we in the subcontinent have an extraordinary diversity of traditions. So making an unanswerable argument in and of itself is not necessarily safe for you. I will remind you, in the Brihadarankya Upanishad there is one, well, more than one, but there is a ;kKoYD; xkxhZ laoknA rks xkxhZ th us loky iwNs] ;kKoYD; th tokc ns jgs FksA fQj ,d loky is vk x, rks ;kKoYD; th ;k rks mÙkj tkurs ugha Fks] ;k rks nsuk ugha pkgrs Fks] tks dqN Hkh gksA rks tks vuqÙkj.kh; loky iwNk xkxhZ th us] rks ;kKoYD; th us dgk] D;k dgk\ laL—r i<+s cgqr fnu gks x,A ^xkxhZ ekfrçk—fr* dfu fd do not overstep ekrs eks/kk O;irr~ rr ;kfu fd your head will fall off. rqEgkjk lj dV tk,xkA So the unanswerable question can also be addressed in our traditions with violence, ;s Hkh ,d fojklr gS gekjhA ;s Hkh ,d ijaijk gSA We have a multiplicity of traditions that we need to integrate them, as Amartya Sen, I think, said, in our multiple identities as human beings. Actually Yajnavalkya was a very interesting character. ;gk¡ xkxhZ th dks rks flQZ ;s /kedh nh fd lj dV tk,xkA vkSj ,d tukc Fks] D;k uke Fkk fonX/k'kkrY;A rks muls dqN loky tokc gq,] cksypky gqbZA fQj ;kKoYD; th us fonX/k'kkrY; th ls loky iwNk vkSj tc tokc ns ugha ik, rks ;kKoYD; th us u flQZ mudk lj mM+k fn;k] yksefM+;kas dks mudk lj HksaV dj fn;kA There are tragic consequences in our traditions for transiting from ordinary conversations into violence. Although, maybe Yajnavalkya was like one of the hopefully occasional faculty members one sees in universities. He was a character. tud th had kept a debate and the prize of the debate was some x cows and y gold and so on and so forth, so what did Yajnavalkya do? psys dks cqyk;k vkSj dgk] ys tkvks ?kj] without participating in the debate. This is not entirely unheard of amongst university faculty members as characters. Anyway, to go back to the issue of questioning, even though there are consequences to questioning we are still talking about questioning being a tradition to respect no matter what sort of answers you get to the questioning. After all, one of the great sources of so-called traditions says that when somebody very earnestly asks fd HkS;k] I don’t understand why we are fighting in this war. What was the answer given to him? DySO;a ek Le xe% ikFkZ uSrRoj;qii|rs] {kqæe~ ân;nkScZY;e~ R;dRoksfr’B ijariA In other words, this is unmanly, 'kksHkk ugha nsrk rqEgsa ,sls lc loky iwNukA Let us go back to the issue of questions and when we begin to ask questions about the state of society, what we really come up against, is what has come up in this particular debate again and again, which is ;kj i‚fyfVDl D;ksa dj jgs gks\ lcus lquk gS\ ;wfuoflZVh gS] i‚fyfVDl D;ksa dj jgs gks\ So, the reality is that dgk¡ ugha gS\ gka;\ vjs HkS;k gj ?kj esa gSA rks djus u djus dh ckr ugha gS] ekuus u ekuus dh ckr gSA So, and this is where, people begin to make these implicit distinctions, that even Dhruv made, which is fd lkbal dk ft+Ø vHkh rd ugha gqvkA ;kfu fd lks'ky lkbal dk ft+Ø gqvk] ysfdu lks'ky lkbal dksbZ vlyh lkbal ugha gSA rks vc iyk;uokn dks Lohdj dj jgs gSaA lks] lksprs rks ge gSa] lks'ky lkbal vkSj uspqjy lkbal ds ckjs esa ge vyx&vyx lksprs gSaA ,d dgha u dgha fnekx esa vyx lh lksp j[krs gSaA D;ksa j[krs gSa\ otg D;k gS] mldk ewy D;k gS\ so, maybe think about it this way eSa dksbZ mÙkj nsus ugha vk;k gw¡] eSa flQZ cgl NsM+us vk;k gw¡A Maybe think about it this way fd tc ge uspqjy lkbal dh ckr djrs gSa] we see natural science as being outside social interactions, we see social science as being imbued with social interactions so we therefore think that somehow these two are different vkSj tgka rd gekjh viuh ckr gS] rks mlesa i‚fyfVDl cgqr T+;knk vk,xk lks'ky lkbal esa] vkSj uspqjy lkbal esa rks i‚fyfVDl gS gh ughaA Some version of this notion is what we all carry and my problem with that notion is at many levels but for the purpose of this conversation, I suggest to you that a major outcome of this, perhaps unlooked, is that we begin to use tentative, small, explanatory models from the natural sciences and particularly from the life sciences, as universal truths to be imported by analogy into discourses of society. All said and done, argument by analogy is one of our major philosophical traditions, right? fiaM czãkaM cuk gSA So there’s all of this and what that does is, it creates, reinforces and writes into stone the idea of myths as scientific truths, and I’m arguing, therefore, that if at all we want to contest this, we are going to have to examine the details, without which it cannot be done and that’s why, a couple of examples. The issue of, as soon as you say science, particularly life science, and in the context of society, many of my friends said, ;kj rqe oks dkLV tsusfVDl is ckr djksA Simply in the spirit of perversity, let me not talk about that, let me talk about something going a little further back a few tens of thousands of years further back, and let us talk about what biologically for our broad species group ideas of diversity and unity have meant. So think about the human genome sequencing. What the world community of life scientists did almost twenty years ago from now is that they sequenced the human genome. But there is no such thing as the human genome, because if you say the human genome, that’s a singularity, that’s a unity, that’s one thing. And if you look at ourselves, we are clearly not one thing, we’re not copies. So what are the sources of this immense diversity simply in appearances that we have. So there are arguments about nature and nurture, which we will talk about if time permits, but the problem with the human genome as an idea at its core is this: there is no such thing. There is an approximation. Somebody has put together a group of sequences of DNA from one person, actually from, if there are biologists here, they will remind me of three people or four people, but a mixture of three or four people, a DNA of three or four people was sequenced. And what we are looking at as a human genome is actually an approximate guess at best. We’ve done better simply by virtue of technology and the approximation has become less and less and less. But it’s still an approximation. One of the consequences of that sequencing and of other ways of identifying genetic differences between individuals that have grown up out of that process has been a fair amount of support for the ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis that has been in the limelight for many years now as the explanation for the origins of humanity. And the argument there is that as a species we came out of Africa – whether before the Sumatran volcano erupted or little before or little bit after is still open to question and debate but we did indeed. We came out of Africa and we migrated here, there and everywhere, and our argument, therefore, has been most dramatically posited in old hyperbole in the pages of scientific journals about identifying Eve, identifying Adam vkSj ge lc gSa gh vkne gOok dh larku] so there’s all of that. And then people began saying really? Is that quite correct? Has anybody taken a careful look at the data? And people began taking a careful look at the data. Parallely, people began doing genetic sequencing, gene sequencing from non-human species. This is as different as you can get, completely different. Something like, we are homo-sapiens in formal nomenclature terms, the Neanderthals are homo neanderthalensis, so Neanderthal DNA was sequenced. And then somebody went and said if you look at genome sequences, more than ninety per cent of the genome sequences shows evidence of having come out of Africa and therefore, we are all one lineage that has come out of Africa and that is when people began looking at sequences a little more carefully and it turns out fd geesa fuaMjFkky thal Hkh gSaA Consider the kind of problems to the idea of species unity, species homogeneity that it creates. Because it says effectively as one interpretative explanation that we as one species have cross-bred at some point in our ancient evolutionary history with another species. What happened to unity? What happened to homogeneity? And what happened to these great biological myths that are written in stone in public discourse. This is not simply true of the Neanderthals, this is true of other non-human homo lineages such as the Denisovans, for example, who, as far as anybody can tell, were far close relatives of the Neanderthals than of the homo-sapiens. The bottom line in all of this is the clear divisions of species diversity between species and unity and homogeneity within species is not as clear cut as that. And clearly, the old gentleman with a much longer beard than mine, Darwin, knew this perfectly well, because he suggested, or well, the explanation that he suggested has grown to a very interesting perspective of what diversity and unity might mean in biological terms, which is that we generate random diversity amongst ourselves and then from random diversity there is, and I am going to use a phrase I absolutely hate, ‘survival of the fittest’. Please see quotation marks around the phrase, ‘Survival of the fittest’. Very, very good people come to populate the Earth. This is a fairly common notion around here. rks igyh ckr ;s gS fd MkfoZu us ,slk dqN ugha dgkA ysfdu HkS;k MkfoZu lkgc dks ej ds does anybody remember fdrus lky gks x,] dkQh lky gks x,] rks iqjkuh ckrsa D;ksa fudkysa] let us simply say that the reality is that we have no idea of what fitness means. We really don’t. As a matter of fact, what we think of as fitness is simply a matter of local contingent circumstances. ml oä D;k gS] ml oä dSls gS\ rks mlds fy, ,d mnkgj.k nsrk gw¡A eSa rks ;wfuoflZVh esa ugha i<+kA eSa esfMdy d‚yst esa x;kA rks tc esfMdy d‚yst esa ge x, rks esfMdy d‚yst esa dksbZ cgl ugha fl[kkrkA esfMdy d‚yst esa ;kn djuk iM+rk gSA rks oks ckr NksfM+,A When I was in medical college which is now you know, like forty years back, pretty much Darwin’s time, there was a major problem with typhoid fever. Everybody had typhoid fever. There was a major problem with typhoid fever, ,d ,aVh&ck;ksfVd Fkk] tks gekjs lhfu;lZ ds tekus esa dk-Qh vPNk dke djrk FkkA dgrs Fks DyksjsEQsfudyA DyksjksekbflfVu ns nks] cl dke dj tk,xkA vkSj oks dke dj ldrk FkkA tgka rd gks ldrk gS] dke djrk FkkA But by the time we were senior medical students, it became very apparent that the new strains of the bacterium tks ekbØksc gS] VkbQ‚bM Qhoj dk] what am I missing in Hindi, which generates typhoid fever, that microbe had become resistant to chloromycetin. Everybody’s heard of antibiotic resistance? So the microbe had become resistant to chloromycetin. So there was a general opinion amongst physician fd vc DyksjksekbflfVu ugha nks HkS;k D;ksafd dke ugha djrkA As a result what happened? Slowly, but over the years, people stopped using chloromycetin. No surprise here. Now you would think that if an organism, if a bacterium has become resistant to chloromycetin, that is why in a community which is getting typhoid fever and is transmitting typhoid fever – you know our waste disposal systems are what they are, and, therefore, we tend to spread this stuff, because we don’t deal with public health in the effective fashion – the organism has become resistant to chloromycetin. mldh fQVusl c<+ xbZA Bhd gS u\ lc ekus] fd mldh fQVusl c<+ xbZ\ Because it has competed and survived. tc ckdh lc ej x,] bldh fQVusl c<+hA rks bldh fQVusl c<+h rks vukfndky rd bldh fQVusl c<+h jguh pkfg, Fkh u\ nl lky igys tc yksx ns[kus yxs fd ,aVhck;ksfVd jsft+LVsal dh çksQkby D;k gS\ vkt dy ds tks Vk;Q‚bM Qhoj ds cSDVhfj;k gSa] mudh\ rks muesa ls dbZ lkjs DyksjksekbflfVu dks lsaflfVo gSaA ;s dSls gks x;k\ If fitness increases as an absolute value, remember what we keep doing, this is why I’m saying, we make these transitions from tentative ideas that are contingent in the natural sciences into broad brushed mythologies in public discourse. So has fitness increased in some global value? Not at all. All that happened was, ml oä dk-Qh ,aVh&ck;ksfVd b/kj&m/kj Fkk] rks tks jsft+LVsaV Fkk oks c<+kA But in order to be resistant to the antibiotic rks ml cspkjs csDVhfj;k dks Hkh dqN dke djuk iM+k u\ It had to make something that would allow it to become resistant. oks tks dqN cuk jgk Fkk whatever protein the bacterium was making, whatever he (he is a good term to use for bacteria) was making, whatever the species, whatever the population was making, for protecting itself against an antibiotic was a great advantage when the antibiotic was there but it became a great drag when the antibiotic was not there. D;ksafd rks cuk, tk jgk gS] cuk, tk jgk gS] cuk, tk jgk gSA ckgj ,aVhck;ksfVd gS gh ugha fcVokA gS u\ rks mlds tks çfrLi/khZ gSa mudk dke ipkl çksVhu cuk ds py tk jgk gSA ;s bD;kouoka Hkh cuk jgk gSA rks tc T+;knk cuk jgk gS rks T+;knk [kkuk iM+sxkA vkSj tc ;s gksrk gS] then in competitive terms, you now have the situation that the resistant bacterium is less fit. The ideas of ‘survival of the fittest’ are this extraordinarily plastic and contingent on circumstances. This is a major issue and as I said, I am purely for perverse reasons not going to use ordinary, regular examples of diversity, I am going to use other examples. dgrs gSa] especially in my field, eSa bE;qu‚yth esa dke djrk gw¡] ;kfu fd çfrj{kk foKku esa dke djrk gw¡] I and my colleagues work on how the body protects itself, right? Straight forward. And every time, and this is absolutely classic, every time people in my field, my discipline, begin to talk about immune response, the analogy drawn is of a war. It’s like just war doctrine kind of argument made by this analogy. The argument is the body fights a defensive war because the body is attempting to protect its ‘unity and integrity’ – everyone has heard this terminology. And since all of us are here, each one of us at this point in time, has at least won the battle. That’s the interpretation, or at least it should be the interpretation ;s rks ea-twj gS vkidks\ rks ;s loky iwNsa fd ,d ekuo 'kjhj ys ysa] ,d ,sls euq"; dk] tks euq"; dY;k.k ds fy, viuk 'kjhj nsus ds fy, rS;kj gSaA /kzqo HkS;k gkFk Åij dj jgs gSaA vkSj everybody is familiar fd 'kjhj dksf'kdkvksa dk cuk gqvk gSA The body is made up of cells, rks viu ;s djsa] Never mind how we disassemble Prof Dhruv Raina’s body into its composite cells iwjs tSls gSa] oSls ys ysa] and collect cells. Your expectation is that every cell in that test tube full of formerly Dhruv Raina’s cells will consist of Dhruv Raina’s cells, correct? That’s obvious. More than half of those cells aren’t his cells at all, more than half of those cells are bacteria, because half the cell count in your body is actually bacteria. You can debate fd exactly gkQ gS D;k\ dksbZ dgrk gS 30% gS] dksbZ dgrk gS 70% gS ;k dk-Qh cSDVhfj;k gSaA Bhd gS u\ If we have been fighting this immune response war in order to protect the sovereign territorial ‘unity and integrity’ of our bodies, what is this bacteria doing in Dhruv Raina’s test tube? So it turns out that immune responses don’t actually function like that. Do they kill bacteria? Sure. Do they quite frequently not kill bacteria? Sure. How do they decide? That’s trying to figure out how they decide. But t+kfgj gS when half the cells in your body are not your own, there is something wrong with the simplified notion of immune response as a defensive war. And as I was saying this, I was wondering whether I need to underline the implications of this, but I clearly don’t. So I will simply continue telling you this story for a few more minutes. vki iwfN;sxk fd (…) this is a diversity, in your body this is a diversity. Is this simply a diversity that we tolerate? rks ç;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA ç;ksx D;k gS\ vc balku dks ysuk rks eqf'dy gS] ysfdu pwgs dks ys ldrs gSa\ rks pwgk ys yks vkSj iwjh pwgs dh uLy LVsjkby ccy esa j[kksA So, effectively what you are doing is by virtue of engineering technology, you make a germ-free, microbe-free environment, you keep mice, you breed mice within that environment. Do they live? Yeah sure, [kku iku gksrk gS] lc dqN gksrk gS] they live, they breed, everything is okay. No, everything is not okay, so it turns out that in mice that have no exposure to germs, immune system dk ;s vki lkspsaxs fd dksbZ dke gh ugha gS] ysfdu their body parts don’t all develop properly. If you look at their immune organs, if you look at their lymph nodes. So these lymph nodes are organs, rks vius vki cuus pkfg,A ;s ckgjh enn D;ksa yxrh gS\ vius vki ugha cuk ldrs\ And the answer is ugha cuk ldrsA As a matter of fact, many organs in the body are developmentally dependent on signals that look remarkably like the signals the immune system uses when it responds to microbes. What it does in response to microbes, number one, is quite frequently what it also uses to build its own organs, and number two, some of that organ building exercise, it simply cannot complete if there are no microbes. That’s one thing, the second thing which is wrong with these mice that are germ free, is that they are really not very well. Vitamin ugh gksrk, some amino acids, some small hormones, lots of things they are deficient in. Why are they deficient? Because it is bacteria in your gut that is making all of this. rks vki dgksxs] fd ;kj the bacteria in your gut oks rks vanj ugha tkrs u] eryc vanj gSa ysfdu vanj ls vanj ugha tkrs uA rks bl otg ls muds f[k+ykQ fMQsal djus dh dksbZ t:jr ugha iM+rhA ljklj >wB gSA ljklj >wB D;ksa gS\ eksgrjek ls iwfN,] ogk¡ cSBh gSa] fd tc vkidh vkar esa ftrus cSDVhfj;k gSa] mudh tkap ryk'k djsa] rks nks frgkbZ ls T+;knk cSDVhfj;k ds Åij ,aVhc‚Mht gSaA bldk eryc ;s fd vkidk 'kjhj muds f[+kykQ bE;wu jsLi‚Ul cuk pqdk gSA fQj Hkh oks ogha ds ogha gSa] vkSj oks tks dj jgs gSa ml ls vkidks Hkh Qk;nk gks jgk gSA These are the contingent complexities of immune responses. The trivial, linear, foolish narrative of all-out war is simply not biological, it’s human. So, one last point about diversity and the sheer value of diversity. You take cells in your body. In the first place every one of your cells has a somewhat different genome sequence. There are cells in your body which do not have your entire genetic complement and these are the cells in your body, for example, that make anti-bodies. And everybody has heard of anti-bodies. Let’s not worry about what they are and so on and so forth, everybody has heard of anti-bodies. oSfDlUl fn, tkrs gSa] ,aVhc‚Mht curh gSa] çksVsD'ku djrh gSa] oxSjg] oxSjg] oxSjgA Now, if you take the cells that make anti-bodies, each one of those cells individually is different from every other cell. The diversity of your anti-body repertoire is immense. We’re talking about diversity in the millions, right? Here is an example of a diversity in your body of your own cells, so you turn around and ask the same question, is this diversity simply being tolerated, ;s bldk dksb eryc Hkh gS? And repeatedly over the past fifteen years, and I will stop here, because I am now referring to relatively recent biological science, over the past fifteen years, it has steadily become more and more apparent that as we restrict the diversity of the anti-body repertoire, so we limit the ability of the body to make effective immune responses against microbial diseases. There is positive value in diversity even in biological systems. So last point, or more correctly an epilogue. What I’m trying to say is, when we find something that we think is problematic, we have options and choices. One option is ihB Qsj ds pys tkukA vkSj ;s dgsa fd bldk dksbZ eryc ughaA the other option is, [kM+s gksdj iwNsa] vPNk lpeqp\ lcwr gS\ D;k gS\ le>kb, rks\ Because ultimately everything that we are trying to do deals with trying to build more and more nuanced, more and more complex models of understanding. That’s what scholarship is about, that’s what university is all about. Many of my friends in the natural sciences have this tendency of saying ;kj ;s lks'ky lkbal viu fcYdqy ugha le>rs] oks D;k djrs gSaA We are looking for objective truth- lquk gS\ rks vc lR; ds lkFk esjk cM+k isphnk fj'rk gS D;ksafd lR; ds dbZ igyw gSaA And I will remind you again of our own tradition in terms of the dimensions and perspectives of truth. Again, ;kn gksuk pkfg,] lykg gS rks lHkk ds ckjs esa dgsa] u lk lHkk ;= u lafr o`)k] that is not a sabha where there are no elders. u rs o`)k ;s u onafr /keZ] that those are not elders, who do not talk about the right way. uk vlkS /keksZ ;= u p vfLr lR;e~] that is not the right way which does not have the truth. And the last line, u rr~ lR;e~ ;RNys ukuqfc)eA oks lR; ugha gS tks Ny&Nykos ls vksr&çksr vkSj ca/kk gqvk gSA
