12-05-2010 02:42 PM
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?"
----- "K.V. Bapa Rao" <> wrote:
12-05-2010 06:24 PM
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.
12-05-2010 09:29 PM
----- "K.V. Bapa Rao" <> wrote:
i don't know if that has been resolved or not. i tried my best:-)
her acceptance speech was equally barf worthy.
as much as i support both the writers' right to do whatever they wish to do, there is something slimy about the whole affair. i wish they would just stop talking, take their prizes, and go home.
13-05-2010 03:03 AM
The super rich manage to hold forth by the sheer size of their wealth. Meg Whitman, a billionaire, is spending $60 million of her own to become the governor of California -- without having anything remotely worthwhile to say. The super idle, in exact parallel, manage to hold forth by the sheer amount of time at their disposal.
Posted on the SASIALIT mailing list. Go to https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/sasialit to subscribe.
18-05-2011 01:52 PM
here - http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/2674/ghosh_5_15_11/
"The author Amitav Ghosh discusses the link between anthropology and
writing, The New Yorker’s edit of his essay on the Iraq war, and John
Updike’s worst book."
28-05-2011 09:41 AM
i liked well enough ghosh's books.
this interview makes me dislike him as a writer talking about writing and about other writers. he responded to the request for cultural boycott of israel that his writing in not political and now in this earlier interview claims all writing is political. bleh.
he seems very peeved about america and everything american. it does not seem to agree with him.
28-05-2011 01:11 PM
Reading writers' interviews is this two-edged sword. Sometimes it cleaves us all the stronger to them; sometimes it cleaves us apart.
Ghosh seems drunk with India in this interview.
28-05-2011 06:22 PM
except that ondatje is srilankan and not indian.
and every writer is entitled to his own perception of what he sees of india, shaped by his own story and location. there is no incorrect one as ghosh asserts naipaul's is.
sometimes he seems to say these things because he's supposed to say them, not that he's truly committed to those ideas.
----- "Ajit Dongre" <> wrote:
28-05-2011 07:43 PM
Feet of Clay: Amitav Ghosh and the Imperial Indian Gaze
FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 (after 2pm)
#784 Nr Lourdes Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India