, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In my last retort to the woefully uninspiring bigots at Nirmukta, I was met with some vitriol spewing and personal attacks of being ‘intellectually dishonest’, ‘pathetic’ etc. etc…. without giving any real substance or evidence for their views. I have mentioned in a previous post that if anti-Hindus really want to stick to the claim that caste based discrimination is inherent in societies that have followed the Vedas and Upanishads then they should explain

-How Brahminism developed

-Evidence of oppression or exclusion of Shudras and Dalits from education (particularly religious).

-What impact the humanist and rationalist movements have really had on lower caste emancipation.

What is even more annoying is their refusal to publish my replies to some of their twisted comments. So I have mentioned them here

Let’s start off with the first statement

“I cited an example from the Mahabharata itself. Looks like you chose to ignore it.”

That example was not an example at all. The children of royalty (kshatriyas) were brought up in royal families and it was inevitable that they would be trained in warfare. I thought it be obvious why I would ignore such a painfully ignorant statement as “Even in the Mahabharata every single one in the Pandava and Kaurava families was a kshatriya.”

“Going by the dictionary, what Krishna said would be “Arjuna, stop acting like a woman!”. The implication is that women are cowardly and can’t fight. The sexism is pretty obvious. So how long are you going to play this stupid game? First it was “unmanly is not so bad”. Then when I pointed it out, it became “I’m not justifying it”. Then when I asked why Krishna even needed to use that phrase, you are back to your original assertion? Pathetic.”

Here one of the bigots is trying to put words into the mouth of Krishna. Krishna never said ‘stop acting like a woman’. This kind of mischief of finding parallels in meaning and fitting them in does not work. Unmanly is a word that was used to mean cowardy, not ‘lilke a woman’. It is an expression that was not invented by Krishna. Words can have different meanings in different contexts and it is clear what the context of the word is. So this is clearly NOT sexism. That was my point about the word ‘unmanly’.

The bigot here is also confused about what I said. The bigot seemed to think in his distorted head that I was swaying between justifying sexism and not justifying sexism based on convenience when in fact, I was first denying that unmanly was a sexist word in the context it was used and additionally saying that any provocation, sexist or not, using the word unmanly or cowardly, was unjustified. Then again, when I look back at the Gita, I find that this provocation is what caused Arjun to breakdown and ask Krishna for his guidance. So who am I to say that the provocation is unjustified?

That is why Krishna says that it is better to do a half-assed job of your varna’s duties than to perform duties of somebody else’s varna perfectly. So much for the fluidity of varna, eh?”

Again the dishonesty and mischief are at play here. Sva-dharma here means literally ‘one’s own dharma’. Arjuna’s job (I’m glad the bigot recognizes that dharma means job or occupation here) was to fight in battle. He wanted to run away and beg instead. Krishna is saying you could be a wonderful beggar or sweeper or priest. But right now, you have to fight. Plain and simple. This does not say that one cannot choose varna at an early age. It just says ‘it is better’ to try and try again at one’s profession. It is a practical message. So ill-fitted change in meaning and the fluidity of varna arguments both fail miserably.

“It’s obvious that you hate the author. So stop pretending like you have made some unbiased observation.”

What the heck?! So, I ‘hate’ the author because I have a blog that takes a go at his article! Since when does disagreeing mean you hate somebody?!

Or perhaps it is because I keep calling them bigots. If that is the case, then their website is CONSTANTLY calling anyone who tries to adhere to Hindu principles a ‘Hindu apologist’ and ‘Hindutvavadi’. So where is the unbiased observation in writing polemics on Hindu scriptures then? Also, if we look at the definition of a bigot “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” we see that this label fits them perfectly.

“Since all matter is made up of the same constitutions, lead in theory is potentially gold. So much for mental exercises.”

Again, word twisting. This guy seems to like misunderstanding and/or making strawman arguments. I said that in theory, all matter can have the potential for consciousness, since matter in our brain can cause consciousness. Supposing that matter outside the brain is incapable of consciousness. Chemistry would allow that one form matter has the potential to acquire different properties if its atomic arrangements or constituents are changed. So in theory lead actually is potentially gold and the bigot doesn’t have a good understanding of chemistry. So much for what this guy thought was a good argument!

“And nice try dressing up your original defense of the nonsense of Brahman with “oh its just a mental exercise”. All you seem capable of is changing your stance as per your convenience.”

This is as ignorant a rebuttal as it gets. Vicara or contemplation is a major part of Vedantic study and any Vedantin or even free-thinker worth his two cents would tell you that contemplation is how civil people discuss opinions. The guy here is incapable of seeing this basic human characteristic and his refusal to actually educate himself on the issue of Brahman while at the same time raving and ranting at Hindus shows that he truly is A BIGOT. Ad-hominem intended.