heated exchange (was: EB)

[Guest guest]

At 18:27 14.03.99 -0500, you wrote:

> " meerakesav " <meerakesav (i.e. Keshava Rao Tadipatri)

>

>Dr. Zydenbos wrote on 3 Mar 1999[...]

>

>I am sorry to say that this kind of response is crudely offensive and

>factually false,

>ill-informed, and prejudiced. But I am disgusted by the vulgarly bellicose

>superciliousness of Dr. Zydenbos' remarks.

 

Tit for tat! Nice -- even though I think there is a bit of a qualitative

difference between the situation in which I wielded such phrases and the one

here.

 

Indeed I should have been less bellicose. Irritated by Shrisha Rao's pompous

" *chomp*'s " on the Dvaita List wherever he wanted to cursorily dismiss and

avoid discussing something that was actually of importance, by his repeated

distorting of what I wished to convey (Madhvacharya, for me, is *not

primarily* a 'socially liberal' thinker, no matter how S. Rao interprets my

words. I probably would not have found Madhva interesting enough to read, if

that were his main characteristic. But I do believe that this is one of

several distinctive features in him, one that is worth mentioning) and by

his sweeping generalisations (we have seen examples again recently, e.g.:

'if one accepts the idea of, e.g., borrowings from Jainism, then one must

also accept that things were borrowed from Christianity and elsewhere'; or:

'if something has been borrowed from Jainism, then Dvaita is derived from

Jainism'. I still believe that such questions should be explored on a

case-to-case basis), I deliberately wrote something provocative, and this

very quickly got out of hand completely (leading to a hardening of

positions, still less willingness to really listen, and other unpleasant

consequences). Yes, as KANEKAL suggested: I should have

had a more 'philosophical' attitude.

 

>Also in the thread of EB discussion this was quite irrelevent.

 

No, not completely so. The point is that if we approach the EB for a

correction, it should not be done in a similar way that inspires mistrust

and a hardening of positions. I thought I had stated this sufficiently

explicitly. If not, then my apologies.

 

>Just as this is a starting point for personal attack in this list,

>the following extract from Dr. Zydenbos

>

> " In his Sadaacaarasm.rti, Madhva writes that we should bathe daily by

>[...]

>And in the

>K.r.s.naam.rtamahaar.nava, he writes that after seeing a face without the

>uurdhvapu.n.dra (which by definition is like acremation ground), one ought

>to look at the sun. You must be doing that all the time! [...]

 

Yes, something went very wrong here, and S. Rao continued with statements like:

 

> Let us grant without reservation that my conduct is, in all respects,

deplorable by

>all standards [etc.]

 

If what I had written was taken as a " personal attack " , I am sorry. Yes, I

was deliberately provocative. But I did not at all intend to convey that I

thought Sri Rao was not serious as a follower of Madhva, or that he is a

dreadful sinner, or anything of the sort. I wanted to provoke him to move

away from bookishness, to rethink his position, on the basis of his

seriousness, and to make him ask himself whether a literal, face-value

interpretation of all of Madhvacharya's statements is realistic and

appropriate. As we now know, my provocation was taken in a spirit completely

different from what I intended, and this attempt of mine failed miserably,

leading to one person whose attitudes are " beneath contempt " telling the

other that he is an " adolescent with no concrete answers " , and more of that.

This is not at all good. In this spectacularly fast degeneration of

communication I too could have acted differently. I seriously misjudged the

sensitivities that are at play here and instead hardened my position. This

was wrong; I regret what happened, and I hereby apologise if any sincere

feelings were hurt in the process.

 

 

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Mysore (India)

e-mail zydenbos

[Guest guest]

Dr. Zydenbos wrote on 17 Mar 1999[...]

>I should have had a more 'philosophical' attitude.

 

>...If not, then my apologies.

 

>If what I had written was taken as a " personal attack " , I am sorry. Yes, I

>was deliberately provocative. But I did not at all intend to convey that I

>thought ..etc...

>This is not at all good. In this spectacularly fast degeneration of

>communication I too could have acted differently. I seriously misjudged

the

>sensitivities that are at play here and instead hardened my position. This

>was wrong; I regret what happened, and I hereby apologise if any sincere

>feelings were hurt in the process.

 

I am glad to see such response from Dr. Zydenbos and I hope what is bygone

is bygone. I am sure all of us will accept your apologies gratefully. The

rest of the academic discussions can be done in very congenial fashion. But

the refusal of many issues raised in the article with proofs/explanations

will still be done as anything that concerns the core of tattvavaada is of

highest priority to entire Maadhva community. If at any point, I

overstepped my limitations, I am sorry.

 

Keshava Rao