History of Mughalstan (or so it was)

[Robert Zydenbos]

Am Mon, 4 Sep 2000 schrieb nanda chandran:

> schrieb Robert Zydenbos :
> [...]
> That the brahmanic ideal was spiritual, is something that I just said in
> the passing. But you blew up that particular point and went into the
> - spiritual east vs materialistic west, Vivekananda myth, religious
> propoganda etc - mode. Was that justified? The same is the case with
> comparing India with Europe.

Perhaps you should consider the following: if you do not want anyone to
read and respond to something you write, then it may be better not to write.

> Though you didn't explicitly mention Buddhism, the tone of the argument
> is pretty typical of Euro centric/leftist interpreters of Indian history
> who try to glorify Buddhism at the expense of Vedic Hinduism. And the
> comparison between Buddhism and Hinduism, I'd also presented it in
> quotes,
> which obviously wasn't from your post. It was only a general reference
> to an
> attitude so typical of some biased historians. So there's little need
> for
> your imagination run riot about people trying to accuse you of something
> that you didn't say. If you do not want others to mistake you as part of
> this clique, then you should be careful about what you write.

We have seen a good many amateuristic and unreasonable things on this list
in the past years, but this looks like a special case: something like an
attempt at a methodological justification of unreasonableness. No one (also
not I) can be held responsible for whatever weird ideas others impute to them,
and no one can reckon with the randomness of prejudice / eccentricity etc.
which some persons in the reading public may come up with. To defend oneself
in advance against all possible unforeseen imputations is plainly
impossible, and nobody should expect it. In future, please just see what others
write, instead of imagining what they might write, or what you would want them to
write, etc.

> >Please let us know whether you are joking and want a bit of polemic
> just
> >for fun.
>
> Maybe you could answer it for me.

Does this mean that you cannot answer by yourself? All right, after
reading your previous message: yes, you _are_ doing it just for the fun of the
polemic.

RZ

--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net