Dear Shri KRS,
I don't have a major quarrel with you on this matter. We have a disagreement and I can live with that. Nevertheless, I will try to give answers to at least some of your criticisms.
.... what all I request is that you consider the perspectives others bring as well, regardless of the merit of such povs in your view.
I don't understand what prompts you to make this request, when have I resisted considering perspectives that I don't agree with? I reject the premise of this comment.
My plea to not continue the current discussions was only that - a plea, in the interest of the Forum. If you want to go ahead and continue, please do so.
Noted...
Again, sarcasm that diminishes another person and ridicules is the one that is not permitted. As you might have noticed, I did not edit out your comments on Sri RP Ji to Sri Kunjuppu Ji. And that was sarcasm, albeit on a border line. If it was made by a newcomer, that would have been edited out. But because, you are a veteran and I know you, I gave you the benefit of doubt.
What kind of sarcasm diminishes a person and what does not, is hard to define, and, no surprise, your definition is very vague too. Here is what I said in my post you are referring to:
Wow K, you got him really really angry. What can one do if you get shouted down like this? You have to admit K, he has stronger lungs than you do, and less shame.
Take care my dear friend, let your god bless you and your family, Jai Canada!
Except the last "Jai Canada!" there is nothing sarcastic here. Only when RP started shouting and abusing K with "don't be a racist" and "God will punish you" I tried to show some support to K. I see no obligation to direct my comments to RP.
At that point RP was all riled up, shouting and was calling K names without any shame. So, my comments accurately and literally defined what K was facing, there was no sarcasm at all. But you saw sarcasm, albeit right up there on the border line, needing benefit of doubt to give it a pass. Since you are a moderator and you get to make the call, for all practical purposes, sarcasm is denied to me as a tool of rhetoric. With only a vague description of what is permitted and what is not, might as well ban it, and let irony be banned as well. In the case of irony, not many here will notice it anyway -- how is that for some real sarcasm!!!
I DO NOT WANT OTHERS INTERVENING HERE - IF THEY DO, I WILL DELETE THEIR RESPONSES. This way, we can put this matter behind us.
You are straddling the line between being a moderator and a member. What if I want anyone to jump in? The reason I am saying this is not because I want to be difficult, but to point out that in this discussion between the two of us, the playing field simply cannot be level. But, I will take it, whatever the field may be.
Saying that our religious practices have certain meanings/import that we do not understand is one thing -
[...]
I am surprised that as a logical person, you have chosen this type of reasoning to call others here as 'hypocrites'.
Shri Sangom wrote about this Tarpana mantra that lets the karta say a mantra that implies he cannot be sure of the morals of his own mother. This was on November 9th. The excuse of not understanding the meaning of this mantra fell by the way side on that date.
Contrast this with what K said:
beyond your grandparents, none of us (emphasis mine) are even sure of our parentage. we do not have any written log of who married who and where. were our ancestral women the prize booty of conquerors, do we know? why are so many tambrams so fair skinned, and others dark as charcoal?
K was only asking questions about all of us, not a specific person. Beyond our grandparents, how many of us are sure of our parentage, i.e. ancestral descent -- by which the morals of nobody is questioned, only that some of our ancestors may not have been brahmin, either by icm or mass conversion. He was pointing to the fact that we have all kinds of skin tones among TB to drive home this point, namely, any claim of varna purity is a myth.
How RP responded is now well known and that really does not bother me much. What bothers me much, very much, is the way Shri Sangom responded and others followed behind him. Barely a month ago he was commenting on the tarpana mantra that questioned the very morality of one's own mother. Shri Sangom took pains to show how precise these mantras are. A month later he was leading the support brigade for RP arguing that RP had every reason to take K's comments as equal to questioning RP's parentage. If this is not hypocrisy, we might as well get rid of that word from our vocabulary.
As for others, in this very thread Shri Sangom repeated his earlier comments on Tarpana mantra. Here is what he said:
Apart from the above, our smṛti kartas were rather ultra realistic and provided for the contingency of the 'apparent' pitṛ not being the actual, de facto, pitṛ, due to unfaithfulness of the women. Kindly see post Pithru tharpanam.
All K did was to raise questions about varna purity of TB, and many here felt, and expressed as much, that the wrath he was subjected to was well deserved. Now, Shri Sangom has reminded of this Tarpana mantra, this time in this therad itself. From Shri Sangom's explanation it is clear that it is this vedic Tarpana mantra that is actually questioning the parentage of all TBs, in a much more odious and personal terms. I am sure those who missed the first post are acutely familiar with this now. So, I wonder, why are they not saying they were wrong to say RP was justified to abuse K for saying something that was along the same lines, but nowhere near as offensive as this mantra?
Shri Sangom says this tarpana mantra "
provided for the contingency" that one's mother may have slept with someone other than one's father. K was not talking about anything so "
ultra realistic", all he was suggesting was some very realistic possibility, a way of providing for the contingency that some of our ancestors may not have been brahmin. Active support for RP then, and not a peep now, is hypocrisy, though not an active kind, but a passive one, more an error of omission than commission. That is all I pointed out.
Many here know of K much before I joined the forum. So, I am sure you know, just as much as I do, that K is not a racist, K is not a castiest, K did not deserve to be punished by the god in whom he has faith. Yet, he was subjected to this tirade, not many came to his defense, some actively supported the aggressor. This is a travesty.
What do I want, I don't know, I can say like a child, I want K back. But too much water has flown under the bridge for me to be optimistic about that possibility. But, at least an attempt could be made. Praveen and sf could try to persuade him to come back.
Cheers!
