SM has raised a bit of conflict in me thus: On one hand I think H should be educated about the texts as they are rather their second hand imaginations regarding them. On the other hand I agree with the below – average H education is simply too poor for them to meaningfully apprehend “difficult” texts that need nuance & historical context. While this may sound elitist, this is exactly what SM has taught me.
There is a certain body of anti-intellectual H who are simply not capable of seeing “difficult” texts as they are leave along points where the text is a bit indirect but has an implication that can be deeply troubling to their sensitivities. In large part, I see this as a result of the broad tendency to accept Abrahmistically inspired fashions that are coercively imposed on the rest of the world by the power of the Occident. The consequent discourse primarily hangs on these fashions rather than the study of the texts themselves.
I’m the first to admit that the ancient could have gotten things badly wrong.+++(4)+++ However, I don’t take that as my starting position – the Abrahamistically conditioned moderns could be the ones who are badly wrong. Hence, we have to weigh the propositions in an ancient text more objectively and test them out against independent or parallel datasets to see if there is consilience. If such exists then they have to be seriously considered even if they are personally uncomfortable. There are many things that are dear to modern occidentally conditioned minds that are deeply at odds with biology & the thoughts of the ancients. I’d rather go with the latter than the figments of the former.
Hence, to degree I can, I see no need to self -censor. Thus, I have put out truths so that a serious reader seeking some education can see them as is. However, stating some truths make the uneducated H go ape on SM. This sort of mirrors their tilting at windmills, like AIT, and a delirious celebration of the ludicrous. SM allows one to measure this – one can see # RTs and follows H accounts posting ridiculous stuff get (I know stating this will make some say I’m jealous. To the contrary — I really have no great desire for this among other things because I cannot handle a large volume of interpersonal interactions, especially in long textual exchanges). In the end, I think H need to develop their own independent intellectual positions regarding their own tradition & how they face up to Abrahamisms & other counter-religions (secularized ones included). That’s my main reason for presenting the texts as is. Rather than shit on others who are doing so, the H who get enraged by the material therein should learn to control their own anger or simply sign out if they don’t want to see it. Nobody is forcing them into an examination of the texts.
As for weaponization – I think everything can and will be weaponized if you have a svabhAvavairin. If one were truly in a state of having nothing that can be “weaponized” that state would be utterly boring, like a world without life.
However, as @GhorAngirasa says (“The beauty of putting “difficult” things out there is that once you do it, those things cease to have that hold on us.”) there is a punch to putting things out there from an insider perspective, while being prepared for the expected onslaught from the vairin-s. Being of an older generation I’ve gone through iterations of this from the beginning of the internet.
The same point which @GhorAngirasa mentions regarding the li~Nga was the focus of an apoplectic discussion on a proto-SM. When scriptural texts were pointed as its foundation at least some H came to realize that it was a scriptural point going back to upamanyu’s teaching. Similarly, pashuvrata and the animal sacrifice etc. can be apprehended once the individual has undergone some “saMskAra”. This saMskAra often takes a while to build up in ones life but not everyone has the knowledge base to develop that saMskAra.