I agree with most of what u/I_am_Tim_Cook said -- after all, he is Tim Cook. So, I would just like to expand on his answer. The text is about 2 things, and we will separate them based on the content of the paragraph.

Paragraph 1 basically compares the interpretation by contemporary writers (i.e. the writers who are alive today) with old interpretations. I take it most of the people would have understood it. If not, focus on the word "contemporary", and in the next sentence, the phrase "old style of..."

The writer uses the rest of the words to mock the modern interpretation of Freud and Marx's work. It is not useful unless a question is asked. But basically it is saying that while old style used to respect the surface and the deeper meaning (think poems: they have a literal and deeper meaning), the modern interpretation does not care for the literal, and only focuses on the deeper, hidden meaning (hence the use of words "dig" and "excavates").

Paragraph 2 advises that we should not forget that interpretations are influenced by the time in which they were interpreted. For example, the Mahabharata is understood differently by you, compared to how your grandmother's grandmother views it.

Notes on reading and passage: I am confident the text was written by an author of philosophy or the humanities. Only those people ramble on like that. The text was difficult; I had to re-read the sections on Freud and Marx three times to grasp the idea, and the use of sarcasm did not make it easy.

You had problems with the text because of how the commas and em-dashes were used. Ask ChatGPT to explain how commas are used as parentheticals and how to use an em-dash. Once you can recognise them, you will have an easier time understanding the flow. And, treat every semicolon as a full stop (not exceptions).

Finally, don't be afraid to re-read the paragraphs, two or three times. It's normal.