[Advaita-l] true colour of Chameleon

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Abhyudaya Mandal via Advaita-l wrote:

> I conveyed that homosexuality is lesser of an adharma (if it is adharma at
> all to begin with)

The evidence shows that certain homosexual acts are adharmic while others 
are tolerated.

> than dvijas not maintaining daily fires etc., or
> so-called traditional sannyasis not living the yati-lifestyle.

Now you are making a claim.  Based on what?  Explain your thought process.


> So if we feel the urge to criticize personal conduct, then we need not 
> look as far as Pattanaik.
>

I am not aware of any quota on criticism.  Why can't we criticize both?

I must say however I am very intrigued by your efforts to get dvijas to 
establish fire and I'm sure other members of the list would be too.  Can 
you write more about this?

> The sexual orientation of an author has little to do with his ability to
> interpret any texts. Yes, it may inform and shape his interpretation, but
> it neither defines it nor invalidates it.


What "informs and shapes" an interpretation is more than enough grounds 
to invalidate it.

The sources of dharma according to Smarta Sampradaya are Shruti, Smrti, 
and Shishtachara.  Shruti is the Vedas.  Because they do not always provide
full information on the exact method of performing karmas, they are 
supplemented by Smrtis (Including Purana, Itihasa etc.)  Who is a shishta? 
One who by his examplary practice and knowledge of the tradition is capable of
impartially analyzing the meaning of Shruti and Smrti.

Noone in this thread has actually defended Patnaiks bona fides to 
interpret anything.  If it turns out he is not himself living a dharmic 
lifestyle it goes a long way (granted not all the way) towards explaining 
why he is so often wrong.

> If we disagree with an author's interpretation, then we should respond 
> to it without trying to demonize the author by mocking his sexual 
> orientation (or gender or caste, for that matter). Venkata-ji's post -- 
> a news-article about the author's homosexuality plus the title "true 
> color of a chameleon" -- is an ad hominem.
>

"demonize" and "mock" are hardly neutral descriptive terms either.  Why 
should Venkatji hold himself to a higher standard than you are prepared to 
follow?

Nevertheless I would agree that in theory atleast, the mere fact of 
homosexuality should not be a disqualifier.  As I wrote previously, I was 
impressed that Amaradasa Wilhelm made a good faith attempt to divine the 
true astika position on this topic even if I didn't fully agree with him. 
My experience however tells me that he is not particularly representative 
of the kind of people pushing this agenda.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>