>I disagree with Sri Vissa that it is a pity that people approach
>the epics from a mythological-devotional point of view than an analytic
>one. The former is also a valid approach.
Thanks for pointing out this. Certainly, I was not perfect in my expression
on that occasion. For sure, the pity is towards 'they being ridiculed' but
not for their approach. Though I still personally feel that they may change
their approach. I do know thouroughly well that I am not the person to
suggest that and they may do that at their own discretion. For sure, I am
not trying to be smart just changing the expression, it is the truthful
intension. As I too have my likings and kept myself conscious not to
dislike anything and at least be neutral about the rest. So, I owe you an
apology, if I hurt your feelings.'
>Shared myths are what give a people cohesion. Exchange of myths is
>what forms bridges between peoples, leading ultimately to universality.
>
>At least, that is one aspect of nationhood and universality.
I feel the other side of the coin is not looked at.
(Indeed, I touched upon this but deleted for the length of the original post.)
Here only one of the three possible interactions i.e., the cohesion due to
the shared myths was pointed. This reminds me that in mathematics, the
product of two positives is a positive. If so, it is always a healthy
interaction/cohesion and I am for it and do not ask for analytical/rational
approach in the 'myth'. But I am afraid the recent 'ayOdhya' issue and its
consequences do not suggest the same.
Similarly, the product of two negatives also can be positive. For e.g.,two
anti-Hindus or for that matter any two antis- also can be cohesive, which
is not a healthy interaction from a moral point of view. It may bring them
pleasure, but I am afraid it may be sadistic. This aspect can not certainly
bring universality, at anytime in my view. I am afraid such association is
always 'destructive'.
The third is the product of a positive and a negative is always a negative.
Our history itself is the biggest example for this. Though our scriptures
do insist that 'god is one' or at least 'no difference between Siva and
vishNu', the consequences of the 'myths of Saivaas' and 'vaishNavaas' and
the results were evident in Indian history.
Quite honestly, I personally feel that the increasing knowledge of human
beings is being utilized to find and magnify the differences under
'microscopes' on one hand, and fustify their 'point' by some logic on the
other. People have not yet reached a sincere decent level to live in
harmony with the identified differences. If at all they appear to be,
mostly it is found to be 'very tentative/brittle' or 'hypocritic' rather
than due to any authentic 'magnanimity' or 'compassion'.
medaDE perigi, hRdayam tarigi
naruDE EnaaDu, vaanaruDainaaDu (daaSaradhi kRshNamaachaarya)
These were my reasons behind feeling for an analytical/rational approach
for the mythological believes. I reiterate that there is no intension to
either hurt or ridicule anybody's feelings. These are just my thoughts. I
wish I am wrong.
With regards,
Prabhakar