Hopefully as some readers of this blog may have noticed, I have taken off my immediately preceding article the above mentioned topic.
It was intended to provide a rebuttal to some of the most adverse and antagonistic comment-responses on an earlier article on casteism, but considering the barrage of responses, it does appear that I clearly exceeded my brief and having relied upon an ostensibly leftist interpretation of some tales in the epic, was obviously exposed to counter-attack from critics, which relies on currently prevailing version of the epic on Sacred texts.com.
While I am entitled to my perception of what kind of morality the epic seems to convey, it obviously did not cut any ice with other critics and skeptics. So I see little value in persisting with my convictions on it, however strong they may be. I am also not in a position to provide any substantive response to their calling out of my factual errors. Though some critics did call my stance as sexually regressive and not progressive, though it is very uncharitable and unfair, I would have to let that pass as a consequence of the hazards of being an aggressive and polemical blogger.
As is only to be expected and anticipated, I retract my use of the mermaid word for the Satyavati character of Mahabharata. As regards the duel over bestiality and debauchery in parts of the epic, though I feel that my perspective and way of looking at things would lend support to that perception, I have no quarrel with critics who would disagree with or contradict that.
I would also refrain from joining in on any argument with the extent of my negative characterization of Veda Vyasa. I can agree to disagree in any conflicts of opinion on that . The point I really wanted to make was that Vyasa is not the real deal of a Sudra role model that he is made out to be.
Though I really believe that there was a lot of provocation and name-calling at the other end of critical spectrum as well, I will have to move on with the hope and prospect that future exchanges and debates will be more civil and purposeful.
It was intended to provide a rebuttal to some of the most adverse and antagonistic comment-responses on an earlier article on casteism, but considering the barrage of responses, it does appear that I clearly exceeded my brief and having relied upon an ostensibly leftist interpretation of some tales in the epic, was obviously exposed to counter-attack from critics, which relies on currently prevailing version of the epic on Sacred texts.com.
While I am entitled to my perception of what kind of morality the epic seems to convey, it obviously did not cut any ice with other critics and skeptics. So I see little value in persisting with my convictions on it, however strong they may be. I am also not in a position to provide any substantive response to their calling out of my factual errors. Though some critics did call my stance as sexually regressive and not progressive, though it is very uncharitable and unfair, I would have to let that pass as a consequence of the hazards of being an aggressive and polemical blogger.
As is only to be expected and anticipated, I retract my use of the mermaid word for the Satyavati character of Mahabharata. As regards the duel over bestiality and debauchery in parts of the epic, though I feel that my perspective and way of looking at things would lend support to that perception, I have no quarrel with critics who would disagree with or contradict that.
I would also refrain from joining in on any argument with the extent of my negative characterization of Veda Vyasa. I can agree to disagree in any conflicts of opinion on that . The point I really wanted to make was that Vyasa is not the real deal of a Sudra role model that he is made out to be.
Though I really believe that there was a lot of provocation and name-calling at the other end of critical spectrum as well, I will have to move on with the hope and prospect that future exchanges and debates will be more civil and purposeful.
Thank you so much. This is all we really wanted.
ReplyDeleteBest.
It makes us happy to be finally acknowledged as "skeptics" and "critics," not "cultural vigilantes" and "Hindutvadis."
DeleteYou are welcome and I appreciate your acknowledgement of my retraction and apology.
DeleteThanks
Awesome. Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteThe tone of the two posts is very different. In the withdrawn one, you called us cultural vigilantes. In this one, you have acknowledged us as skeptics in critics.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
In the future, please be aware that not everyone who disagrees with you is a Hindu apologist. Please do not assume the same unless you have good reason.
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteGreat. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteIt is best to use scholarly versions of Sanskrit texts or whatever to avoid getting biases in translation. Unfortunately, Hindu translation are very commonly inaccurate. Leftist retellings are no different, often falling into the project of mythological revisionism -- which is fine as long as it doesn't masquerade as the original text.
DeleteYou guys are being too charitable. He was socially pressured into being reasonable since even Nirmukta people started to call him out.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if he really saw reason in our post, why the Jekyll and Hyde change of tone in a matter of hours!! His first post was chest-thumping that he had defeated the "Hindutva brigade!!"
DeleteIt is clear that he is not using this blog to critically think but as a platform to thump his own chest...
DeleteThank you :)
ReplyDeleteLol. What a joke. When the Nirmuktans came in, he had to do this to save face.
ReplyDeleteIMO, this has not been face-saving, but actually loss of face and quite a bit of credibility as well for me. But then as I mentioned one has to move on.
DeleteYou can enjoy the joke at my expense. There will be low-aimed blows like the ones above that have to be taken in one's stride and continued.
Cheers