My only issue was with the highlighted bit below.
As for Atwood, what I understood was that she said that the ecology was more
important to her than the political dispute in the region, which is fine at
one level; on the other hand, I know I would certainly strain every sinew to
rationalize if 500K or whatever is at stake; I have no idea if Atwood is a
better person than I am or not in this regard.
Bapa Rao
> bapa, this is what i said:
>
> > i don't quite know what is a proper response to this - why confront this
> > one human suffering when there are so many other human sufferings. a very
> > hindu outlook about suffering in general that in the grand scheme of the
> > universe and karma, *why bother about confronting the misery of a few?
> *
> i did not say anything about what hindus think or "universal suffering." i
> also did not say anything about hindus "not confronting specific miseries."
> how people actually behave and what their religion espouses as a philosophy
> are very different things. we are human and we respond to suffering no
> matter what we call ourselves.
>
> it strikes me that what atwood was saying does fit in with hinduism's view
> of life - that it is indeed full of misery, nothing but, and the only thing
> that is going to save you is prayer (japa), striving for moksha, charity,
> and detachment from life. oh, and don't forget your guru. Bhaja Govindam is
> one text i quote for support, but this theme repeats itself in other
> discourses. nowhere am i saying this is not a valid, effective, rational way
> of living and it does not preclude sympathy for those who suffer.
>
> but this is where we may differ, and i may be wrong in the way i interpret
> this, but i have given it a lot of thought: such a philosophy as the Bhaja
> Govindam proposes, where human bonds are all false and only leads to misery,
> virakti is the only true virtue and is essential to realize true knowledge,
> if taken literally, can lead one to think, what is the point in doing
> anything to alleviate misery, anywhere, for anyone. each individual is alone
> at the end to work out his own karma, on his own path. in my opinion it is
> somewhat of a harsh attitude. very few hindus i know live this philosophy,
> but you can certainly see shades of it.
>
> again, i have no problem with atwood rejecting the boycott. but her reason
> was lame. it is like when someone is having a heart attack and you are asked
> to call 911, you say not now, i am working global warming already. on top of
> it she was saying "why only poor me? why are you not attacking the other
> guy, that ghosh fellow?"
>
> champa
>
> > Champa, not to drag this on but what I objected to was your saying
> > that
> > Hindus just think suffering is a universal thing, therefore "why
> > bother
> > about confronting the misery of a few" (your words). Everyone will
> > have
> > their own way of looking at the world and that's fine and I have no
> > problem
> > with it, but randomly asserting that therefore Hindus don't bother to
> > confront specific miseries of specific segments is just a baseless
> > canard,
> > it amounts to a kind of bigotry if you'll excuse my saying so.
> >
> > Bapa Rao
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >As for what you deride as "the hindu
> > > > attitude",
> > >
> > > bapa, i am not deriding the hindu way of looking at suffering. i am
> > just
> > > saying it is what it is, that in the grand scheme of things, of time
> > that is
> > > immeasurable, you as you and i as i and life as it is are not the
> > true
> > > reality, but karma is, suffering does not have the same meaning as
> > it does
> > > for say, the christian way of seeing things, where this is one and
> > only life
> > > and then eternal damnation. how many times have you heard people
> > say, in all
> > > seriousness, when they see human suffering that it is karma. this
> > does not
> > > mean hinduism prevents us from alleviating it but it does give us a
> > unique
> > > perspective on suffering.
> > >
> > > >isn't it, after all, a fact that suffering is, in fact,
> > > > pervasive, and everyone has the privilege of choosing which
> > battle
> > > > they wish
> > > > to fight? If Atwood is more moved by the perils of global warming
> > than
> > > > by
> > > > the suffering of the Palestinians, then so be it--it's a bit
> > childish
> > > > and
> > > > dare I say totalitarian to set up a ruckus that this individual
> > is
> > > > required
> > > > to care about the exact same things that one cares about and to
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > extent.
> > >
> > > i don't have a problem that atwood is refusing to be coerced into
> > doing
> > > something she does not believe in. i fully support her right to do
> > whatever
> > > she pleases to do and i am glad for the recognition she is
> > receiving. she
> > > does not owe any explanations to anyone. but forgive me if i find
> > her
> > > explanation that she does give lame. worldwide feminism and global
> > warming
> > > in the face of the condition of life that palestinians are enduring
> > every
> > > single day? please. she sounds petulant.
> > >
> > > champa
> > >
>
)
