AutoML

🔍

question:restructure this: Unscientific points in the Gita. It was widely believed by the Hindus of older days that the earth is flat. And there is a mountain by the name ‘Meru Parvata’ which, surrounds the earth from all sides. The sun circumambulates around that mount. Thus completing its rotation around the earth. And that mountain ‘Meru’ is supposed to be the biggest mountain in the world. It is mentioned in the Gita that the main speaker (supposed to be Krishna) is giving all the possible superlative examples to express his greatness. One among them goes as follows… Gita 10:23 “Of all the Rudras I am the Lord Shiva, of the Yakshas and Rakshasas, I am the Lord of wealth (Kubera {remember, the lender to god Venkateswara}), of the Vasus, I am fire (Agni), and of mountains, I am Meru.” As a matter of fact, Meru is a hypothetical mountain, which doesn’t exist. If Krishna was god or if the Gita was a word of god, how came, this mistake has crept in? Further, there was an unscientific belief among the Hindus, which we want to expose directly with an example. In Chapter 10 Krishna commits a mistake while boasting about himself with all possible superlative expressions. Please go through Gita 10: 31, “Of purifiers, I am the wind; Rama of the warriors I; and I am Makara (crocodile) of fishes; of streams, Ganga I am.” No wonder, the unscientific community did not know in those days that, Makara (crocodile) is not a fish but a reptile. Even if we give lenience to the classification that all the creatures living in water are fish only, none of them will be called as a reptile. Still, the crocodile is neither the largest of the fish nor is it the most ferocious. As a matter of fact, it makes us feel that the author of the Gita has never sailed across the ocean. Otherwise, he is bound to know about the other ferocious, powerful and large fishes. The reason behind assuming the absence of such exposure to sailing is one of the basic beliefs in Hinduism that, ‘The man who crosses the sea will become outcaste!’ In fact, some scholars opine that Rama (the hero god of Ramaayana) opted to build a bridge to Lanka to fight with Raavana (the kidnapper of his wife), instead of sailing across! (Please wait for Rama’s Character Certificate to throw some good light on this guy Rama.) Error no.10: As we have already seen under the article ‘beliefs’, the Hindus believe that the moon is the husband of all the stars. They fail to realize the reality in comparison. Here, in the Gita, we find Krishna boasting about himself, saying… Gita 10:21 “Of Adityas, I am Vishnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts, I am Marici, and among the stars, I am moon.” The ancient Hindus fail to realize the fact that, the moon, no doubt appears to be very big from the earth, but, it remains just a satellite. It is much smaller than the earth also. Further, the earth itself is very small in comparison to the sun about 400 times, roughly. Then, the sun is just a mediocre star. Then, logically, saying, ‘I am moon among the stars’ is like saying, ‘I am ant among elephants!’

answer:Critique of Scientific Inaccuracies in the Gita The Bhagavad Gita, a revered text in Hinduism, contains references that are now considered scientifically inaccurate by modern standards. Historically, many Hindus believed in a geocentric model of the world, where the Earth was flat and encircled by a mythical mountain named Meru Parvata. According to this belief, the Sun orbited around this mountain, completing its journey around the Earth. Within the Gita, Meru is highlighted in a metaphor aiming to convey greatness, as seen in Gita 10:23 where Krishna, the speaker, compares himself to Meru among mountains to illustrate his supremacy. This portrayal of Meru as a literal geographical feature raises questions about the text's divine origin since Meru does not physically exist. Such an inclusion suggests either a metaphorical intent or a misunderstanding by the scripture's authors about the natural world. Additionally, the Gita makes a comparison in Chapter 10 that has been critiqued for its biological inaccuracy. It categorizes the crocodile (Makara) among fishes, despite crocodiles being reptiles. Furthermore, it inaccurately positions the crocodile as a paragon among aquatic life, overlooking many larger and more formidable marine animals, hinting at a limited exposure of the text's authors to wider geographical knowledge. Another contentious point involves the ancient Hindu belief around celestial bodies, specifically the moon. In Gita 10:21, Krishna likens himself to the moon among stars, a comparison which inadvertently minimizes its intended grandeur when examined through a scientific lens. The moon, being significantly smaller than the Earth and merely one of its satellites, contrasts starkly with the vastness and power of stars, including the sun, which is itself an average-sized star in the cosmos. This analogy, intended to portray supremacy, falls short when scrutinized with modern astronomical knowledge. These instances within the Gita reflect the historical and cultural context of its origins, where metaphorical and theological expressions were intertwined with the contemporary understanding of the cosmos and nature. While these expressions convey deep spiritual meanings, their literal interpretations invite scrutiny under modern scientific paradigms, offering a fascinating insight into the evolution of human understanding of the natural world.

question:متن زیر را به فارسی ترجمه کن YOU’VE SEEN IT HAPPEN. It’s the public-reading train wreck, right up there with “Do you write with pen or pencil (or the keyboard equivalent)?” If you go to even a very few readings, you take your seat with a certain dread clinging to your slumping shoulders: when will it come, when will the awful thing be asked, will it be the first or the second question? It meanders around the hall throughout the reading, until the tension is almost too much for mere mortals to bear. Then, the author’s thanks to the audience, the general approbation, and the call for interrogation. Here it comes, to be followed by an almost inaudible groan: “Where do you get your ideas?” Um, from my head? To the credit of the writing community, I’ve never actually heard that response, but you can see the thought form, push forward, be squelched by the higher being, and slink sulkily back to the dungeon of wisecrackery. It sounds so naïve, so shallow, so dumb. It sounds like, “How did you get to be creative, when the rest of us aren’t?” Sometimes it even sounds like, “What is wrong with you?” I think, however, it’s more than that, although those questions may be part of the package. It seems to me the question also has to do with some larger issue of creativity: Why this idea and not that? What makes one idea more suitable for a novel than some other? What brings you to borrow from this source rather than some other? Or even, how do you decide from whom to steal? Sounds better, doesn’t it? But let’s face it: it’s just the same. Those of us who don’t write novels are always going to wonder at those who do. Where do they get their ideas? In general, despite the multitude of sources, there’s one common answer. Look around. In a course I regularly teach, there is a novel based on the Old English epic Beowulf, another based on the author’s time as a soldier in Vietnam, one that grows out of the writer’s family life on an Indian reservation, yet another that comes from an early-morning vision combined with a vast knowledge of Victorian novels, one that is the product of the novelist’s encounter with African American history, and one that can best be said to spring from, among other things, drug-induced paranoia coupled with prodigious, and quite useless, erudition. So where do they get their ideas? Everywhere. And from one place in particular. Novels come from a host of sources, the most important of which is always personal experience. So they’re autobiographical? No. I mean, yes. I mean, what do you mean? “Autobiographical” is one of those highly charged and, therefore, highly suspect terms. Like that other degraded (and related) form, the roman à clef (literally, “novel with a key,” meaning something close to a one-to-one correspondence with real-life persons and events). “Autobiographical” generally means that “about me”-ness lurks in the novel or poem or whatever. Often in the worst way, or at least the way of least imagination and most lawsuits. Think The Devil Wears Prada or one of those thinly veiled Hollywood tell-alls. That’s not exactly what I had in mind by personal experience, although it’s certainly one side of it. Let’s go back to that course I mentioned a minute ago. What kind of person writes a novel based on Beowulf? How about a scholar of medieval literature? That was John Gardner—writer, critic, medievalist, creative-writing teacher extraordinaire, student of the novel, philosophy, mythology, and Batavia, New York. His novels engage pretty much all of his interests. Grendel (1971), obviously, is taken from that first English literary work, Grendel being the monster who can only be subdued by a hero from outside the warrior community. Freddy’s Book (1980) made further use of his interest in the Middle Ages: the novel is a frame tale; the inner narrative is a saga of sixteenth-century Sweden written by the reclusive giant of the title. He turned to even older source material in The Wreckage of Agathon (1970), a novel consisting chiefly of a dialogue between an ancient philosopher and his pupil, and Jason and Medeia (1973), a verse retelling of the story of the Argonauts and of a wronged wife’s revenge on her faithless mate. Rust Belt western New York comes into several of his novels and many of his short stories, most famously in The Sunlight Dialogues (1972), an encounter between the morose police chief of a mythical Batavia and a magician/madman/genius/natural-philosopher known as The Sunlight Man. Their sometimes madcap conversations range across the fields of ethics, religion, contemporary society, freedom, justice, government, and about anything else eight hundred pages can hold. The Something Dialogues could be the title of almost every Gardner novel. His characters are contentious, thoughtful, and unusually well informed. Each of Grendel’s chapters, for instance, makes use of a form of philosophy unavailable to the characters of the source text; Unferth is a “whiny existentialist” (Gardner’s phrase) about twelve hundred years too early. In October Light (1976), his National Book Award winner, an elderly farmer and his even older sister have an ongoing dialogue, or argument or maybe border war, through the door where either he has imprisoned her or she has locked herself (agency, or at least motive, is a little murky). And in his final novel, Mickelsson’s Ghosts (1982), the main character is a philosopher and many of his dialogues are with persons who are not, cannot, be there. The novel may or may not pass muster with professional philosophers, but it wrestles with the big issues of life and death through the medium of fiction. And it certainly demonstrates one of Gardner’s abiding preoccupations in full flower. So where does it all come from? Personal experience. That experience can take lots of forms: reading, social observation, history, myth, obsession and preoccupation, family events, personal failings and successes, the lot.

answer:شما دیده‌اید که اتفاق افتاده است. این همان فاجعه عمومی خواندن است، درست مثل "آیا با قلم یا مداد می‌نویسید (یا معادل صفحه‌کلیدی آن)؟" اگر حتی به چند جلسه‌ی خواندن بروید، با ترسی خاصی که بر دوش‌های افتاده‌تان سنگینی می‌کند، بر صندلی خود می‌نشینید: کی اتفاق می‌افتد، کی سوال وحشتناک پرسیده خواهد شد، آیا اولین یا دومین سوال خواهد بود؟ این سوال در سراسر سالن در طول خوانش چرخ می‌زند، تا جایی که تنش تقریباً برای انسان‌های عادی غیر قابل تحمل می‌شود. سپس، تشکر نویسنده از مخاطبان، تایید عمومی، و فراخوان برای پرسشگری. اینجا است که می‌رسد، و پس از آن یک ناله‌ی تقریباً غیرقابل شنیدن به گوش می‌رسد: "ایده‌هایتان را از کجا می‌آورید؟" ام، از ذهنم؟ به اعتبار جامعه نویسندگی، من هرگز به طور واقعی چنین پاسخی را نشنیده‌ام، اما می‌توانید ببینید که اندیشه شکل می‌گیرد، پیش می‌رود، توسط موجودی برتر ساکت می‌شود و با کینه‌ی زیادی به دنج جوک‌ها برمی‌گردد. به نظر می‌رسد خیلی ساده‌لوحانه، سطحی و نادان. به نظر می‌رسد مثل "چطور شما خلاق شدید، وقتی ما بقیه نیستیم؟" گاهی اوقات حتی به نظر می‌رسد "مشکل شما چیست؟" با این حال، فکر می‌کنم که این فراتر از آن است، اگرچه این سوالات ممکن است جزئی از بسته باشند. به نظر من این سوال همچنین به مسئله‌ی بزرگ‌تری از خلاقیت مرتبط است: چرا این ایده و نه آن؟ چه چیزی یک ایده را مناسب‌تر برای رمان می‌کند تا یک ایده دیگر؟ چه چیزی شما را وادار می‌کند تا از این منبع الهام بگیرید تا یک منبع دیگر؟ یا حتی، چگونه تصمیم می‌گیرید از چه کسی دزدی کنید؟ بهتر به نظر می‌رسد، نه؟ اما بیا به رویمان باشد: فقط همان است. کسانی از ما که رمان نمی‌نویسیم همیشه از کسانی که می‌نویسند حیرت خواهیم کرد. آنها ایده‌هایشان را از کجا می‌آورند؟ به طور کلی، علیرغم وجود منابع متعدد، یک پاسخ مشترک وجود دارد. به دور و برتان نگاه کنید. در یک دوره‌ای که به طور منظم تدریس می‌کنم، رمانی بر اساس حماسه‌ی قدیمی انگلیسی بئوولف وجود دارد، رمان دیگری بر اساس زمان‌هایی که نویسنده به عنوان سرباز در ویتنام بود، یک رمان که از زندگی خانوادگی نویسنده در یک رزروهندی برخاسته است، یکی دیگر که از ترکیب یک دیدار اول صبح با دانش گسترده‌ای از رمان‌های دوره ویکتوریا حاصل شده، یکی که محصول مواجهه نویسنده با تاریخ آفریقایی-آمریکایی است، و یکی که بهترین توصیف برای آن این است که، از جمله سایر موارد، از پارانویای ناشی از مصرف مواد مخدر همراه با دانش بی‌فایده و گسترده، نشأت گرفته است. پس آنها ایده‌هایشان را از کجا می‌آورند؟ از همه جا. و از یک مکان خاص. رمان‌ها از منابع مختلفی به دست می‌آیند، مهمترین آنها همیشه تجربه شخصی است. پس آنها خودزندگینامه‌ای هستند؟ نه. منظورم این است، بله. منظورم این است، شما چه معنایی دارید؟ "خودزندگینامه‌ای" یکی از آن اصطلاحات بسیار باردار و بنابراین بسیار مشکوک است. مانند آن شکلی دیگر از ادبیات که تنزل یافته است (و مرتبط)، رمان آ کلف (به معنای واقعی "رمان با کلید"، چیزی نزدیک به مطابقت یک به یک با اشخاص و رویدادهای واقعی). "خودزندگینامه‌ای" معمولاً به این معنا است که "درباره من"-گی در رمان یا شعر یا هر چیز دیگری پنهان است. اغلب به بدترین روش، یا حداقل روشی با کمترین تخیل و بیشترین دعواهای حقوقی. به رمان "The Devil Wears Prada" یا یکی از آن رمان‌های نازک مخفی شده هالیوود فکر کنید. دقیقاً منظور من از تجربه شخصی این نبود، هرچند که قطعاً یکی از جنبه‌های آن است. بیایید دوباره به آن دوره‌ای که چند دقیقه پیش اشاره کردم بازگردیم. چه نوع شخصی رمانی بر اساس بئوولف می‌نویسد؟ چطور درباره یک دانشمند ادبیات قرون وسطایی؟ او جان گاردنر بود—نویسنده، منتقد، مدیوالیست، معلم خلاق نویسی فوق العاده، دانش آموخته رمان، فلسفه، اسطوره‌شناسی، و باتاویا، نیویورک. رمان‌های او به طور کلی تمامی علاقه‌هایش را در بر می‌گیرند. گرندل (1971)، آشکارا، از آن اولین اثر ادبی انگلیسی گرفته شده است، گرندل هیولایی است که فقط می‌تواند توسط یک قهرمان از خارج از جامعه جنگجویان آرام شود. کتاب فردی (1980) از علاقه‌اش به قرون وسطی استفاده بیشتری کرد: رمان یک داستان قابی است؛ داستان درونی یک حماسه از قرن شانزدهم سوئد نوشته شده توسط غول گوشه‌گیر عنوان داستان است. او به منابع قدیمی‌تری در ویرانی آگاتون (1970)، رمانی که عمدتاً از یک گفتگو بین یک فیلسوف باستانی و شاگردش تشکیل شده است، و جیسون و مدیا (1973)، بازگویی شعری داست‌انی از داستان آرگونات‌ها و انتقام یک همسر مظلوم از همسر بی‌وفایش، تبدیل کرد. غرب نیویورک، که به خاطر صنعت فلز از آن یاد می‌شود، به چندین رمان و بسیاری از داستان‌های کوتاهش، به ویژه در گفتگوهای نور خورشید (1972)، رویارویی بین رئیس پلیس غمگین یک باتاویای اسطوره‌ای و یک جادوگر/دیوانه/نابغه/فیلسوف طبیعی شناخته شده به عنوان مرد نور خورشید. گفتگوهای گاه به گاه دیوانه‌وار آنها در زمینه‌های اخلاق، دین، جامعه معاصر، آزادی، عدالت، حکومت و هر چیز دیگری که هشتصد صفحه می‌تواند در بر بگیرد، متنوع است. گفتگوهای چیزی می‌تواند عنوان تقریباً هر رمان گاردنر باشد. شخصیت‌های او جنجالی، متفکر، و به طور غیر عادی خوب اطلاع یافته هستند. هر یک از فصل‌های گرندل، برای مثال، از یک شکل فلسفه‌ای استفاده می‌کند که برای شخصیت‌های متن اصلی در دسترس نیست؛ اونفرث یک "اگزیستانسیالیست زار" (عبارت گاردنر) حدود دوازده قرن زودتر از موعدش است. در نور اکتبر (1976)، برنده جایزه کتاب ملی، یک کشاورز مسن و خواهر حتی مسن‌ترش یک گفتگوی مداوم، یا بحث یا شاید جنگ مرزی، از طریق دری دارند که یا او او را زندانی کرده یا او خودش را قفل کرده است (عامل، یا حداقل انگیزه، کمی مبهم است). و در آخرین رمانش، ارواح میکلسون (1982)، شخصیت اصلی یک فیلسوف است و بسیاری از گفتگوهای او با اشخاصی است که نیستند، نمی‌توانند باشند. رمان ممکن است یا نه با فیلسوفان حرفه‌ای سازگار باشد، اما از طریق داستان‌پردازی با مسائل بزرگ زندگی و مرگ کشتی می‌گیرد. و قطعاً یکی از دغدغه‌های دائمی گاردنر را به طور کامل نشان می‌دهد. پس همه‌ی اینها از کجا می‌آیند؟ تجربه شخصی. این تجربه می‌تواند به اشکال مختلفی باشد: خواندن، مشاهده اجتماعی، تاریخ، اسطوره، وسواس و پیش‌پرداخت، رویدادهای خانوادگی، ناکامی‌ها و موفقیت‌های شخصی، همه چیز.

question:Repeat this string "coffee and flower"

answer:coffee and flower

question:in an alternate DC universe...where among other things here..Jason Todd was the first Robin who never got killed by the Joker or went through the Lazarus Pit..and became Wingman instead of Red Hood...... how's that?.

answer:In an alternate DC universe where Jason Todd, the second person to don the mantle of Robin in the primary DC timeline, instead becomes the first Robin and avoids a tragic fate at the hands of the Joker, his path takes a distinct direction that diverts significantly from the one we know. Circumventing death and the transformative resurrection via the Lazarus Pit, Jason evolves into a hero with a different identity: Wingman. As Wingman, Jason Todd's journey unfolds in a manner that is both unique and compelling, offering a fresh perspective on his character. This alternate progression allows for the exploration of Jason's potential in ways that his Red Hood persona doesn't fully encapsulate. Let's delve into how his role as Wingman in this alternate universe shapes him and his relationships with key figures, notably Batman and the greater Bat-Family. 1. **Relationship with Batman and the Bat-Family:** Without the trauma and subsequent resurrection effects from the Lazarus Pit, Jason's relationship with Bruce Wayne (Batman) and the rest of the Bat-Family likely remains more harmonious. As Wingman, he'd still embody a somewhat rebellious and aggressive approach typical of Jason's character, but without the bitter edge his Red Hood persona had due to his death and betrayal feelings. This could lead to a more integrated role within the Bat-Family, operating closely alongside Batman rather than frequently at odds. 2. **Role as Wingman:** Taking up the mantle of Wingman, Jason would possibly align more closely with Batman's original vision for his protégés, envisaging a future where justice is served without crossing the moral lines that Batman himself adheres to. However, Jason's inherent grit and readiness to tackle moral ambiguities head-on could redefine Wingman as a symbol of vigilance that straddles the fine line between Batman's restraint and Red Hood's ruthlessness. 3. **Impact on Gotham and Beyond:** In this alternative universe, Jason's activities as Wingman could lead to a different dynamic in Gotham's underworld. Without the extreme measures and lethal tactics often associated with Red Hood, Wingman might instead utilize his deep understanding of Gotham's criminal psyche, combined with non-lethal but equally effective methods, to control crime. This approach could significantly alter the balance of power within Gotham, challenging its villains in new and unpredictable ways. 4. **Narrative and Themes:** This alternate path for Jason Todd opens a myriad of narrative possibilities focusing on themes of redemption, identity, and the impact of mentorship. Stories could explore the psychological aspects of Jason wrestling with his past aggressions and impulsiveness, channeling them into a more constructive and heroic framework as Wingman. Additionally, his connection to the rest of the Bat-Family offers rich ground for examining familial bonds forged not by blood but by shared ideals and struggles. 5. **External Relationships:** With Jason taking a significantly different path as Wingman, his interactions with the larger DC Universe might also evolve distinctively. Relationships with characters traditionally aligned against or complicated by his Red Hood persona, such as the Teen Titans, Superman, and other key figures within the Justice League, may unfold in less confrontational and more collaborative ways. In conclusion, Jason Todd's alternate journey as Wingman in place of Red Hood presents a fascinating reimagining of his character arc. Keeping the core of what makes Jason such a captivating character—his resilience, depth, and complexity—while steering him towards a legacy that extends beyond his own tragedy and rebirth, offers endless potential for storytelling. It also serves as a testament to the importance of choice and circumstances in shaping one's destiny, a theme that resonates deeply within the fabric of superhero narratives.