Hagiography

Source: TW

Glad to see the investment in hagiographic excesses pay out handsomely for all sides. Keep investing in anRta and prepare for the beautiful returns. 🙂 Your side makes a claim, gets rebutted and then you expose the ridiculous claims of the ones who rebutted your claims and the cycle continues.

Also, it’s delightful to see people uphold hagiographic excesses when it’s in their favour but use objective data to challenge others’ claims.

If your claim is about something that happened in historical time at an actual place on earth, self-serving hagiographic narratives are not going to be determinative in and of themselves. That claim has to be assessed fairly in line with objective, historical data. He said, she said—won’t work. No office—however exalted for you—will magically validate your preferred narratives.

The best would be for everyone (of all sides) to give up all hagiographic claims on sites & lores which, frankly, have no real relation to their Sampradāya—or at least restrict them to private consumption of insiders (which is not good but better than putting it out in the public).

But giving up the attachment to hagiography (I’m referring to the particular kind of interloper’s hagio that is manufactured at the expense of other Āstika Sampradāyas) is a strong man’s game—not for everyone and not for anyone who prefers to subordinate “satyaM vada” to a limited conception of gurubhakti.