[Y-Indology] indology and nazism

[Guest guest]

I note with interest that Thompson-ji has chosen to respond to my

quotations. Let us see what he says in response;

 

INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote:

> Dear List,

>

> Second, I was accused of belittling Sri Aurobindo. Look at the

evidence that

> is offered in defense of this accusation. I explicitly conceded in

the cited

> passage that Sri Aurobindo was "a profound philosopher and an

enlightened

> human being." These are my exact words!

 

Response - The exact quote was "Sri Aurobindo may well have been a

profound philosopher and an enlightened human being in his own right."

 

There is a world of difference between saying SA 'may well have been'

(not really conceding the accolade) and saying 'was' a profound

philosopher. Even a scholar should recognize the difference. It is

like my saying 'Jesus Christ may well have been a profound religious

prophet' recognizing that a vast section of the world brooks no doubt

on the matter and would consider such equivocation insulting and a

putdown.

 

 

 

What is the offending statement

> here? Well, I go on to assert that in my opinion his

interpretations of the

> Rgveda were anachronistic. I still believe that that assertion is

true. And

> I am prepared to defend it with evidence and argument. But I'm not

going to do it in this forum.

 

Response. Maybe . It is worthwhile doing so(defend the statement,

after all this is the INDOLOGY forum), but I am not unduly concerned

with this characterization which was perhaps gratuitously thrown in

to minimize the monumental contributions that SA made to the

renaissance and rejuvenation of Indian civilization that took place

in the 20th century.

>

> It is fanaticism that prevents these individuals from seeing that

even their

> own evidence argues, directly and explicitly, against their claims.

Rational

> discussion with these individuals is impossible.

 

Response - There we go again. The f-word. I do not understand where

fanaticism enters into this and why this makes me a fanatic. I have

not uttered a single derogatory phrase against Shri Thompson. I did

not call him a fanatic or a racist, or that his work is anachronistic

or that he is a quack, words which roll of his tongue faster than the

insults which lead to street brawls.

 

As for rational discussion being impossible, how does he know . He

has yet to try it. All he has done till now is to refer to me and

others on this list by a bunch of epithets. Note that I refuse to

respond in kind.

>

> List members can decide for themselves.

 

Response - True.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time with this.

 

Response - Then why resort to name calling in the first place, if it

is such a waste of time.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> George Thompson

 

Response - Namaste

 

Kaushal