[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Request For Discussion (RFD) moderated group soc.religion.vaishnava
-
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion (RFD) moderated group soc.religion.vaishnava
-
From: Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu>
-
Date: 3 Oct 1995 06:19:07 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 336 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: U.T. Southwestern Medical Center
-
References: <441eie$fhu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Xref: news.ece.uc.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu soc.religion.hindu:336 news.groups:137855
"Rajan P. Parrikar" <parrikar@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>All of the Vaishnava philosophy and culture can be put under the umb=
rella
>of soc.religion.hindu. Why do you want to create a new group? (If yo=
u say,
>"O we Vaishnavas are not Hinduss", remember that you are NOT speakin=
g for
>all Vaishnavas.)
First of all, this discussion is supposed to take place on news.group=
s where others interested can also comment. By posting your response =
here, you are avoiding the actual discussion, so do not be suprised i=
f most of the SRV proponents do not notice.
The reason for forming SRV, I believe, is that the term Hindu is not =
adequate to describe Vaisnava theology. If you ask any two Hindus wha=
t Hinduism means, you will likely get two very superficial answers wh=
ich say nothing, or two totally different answers. There is little cu=
ltural and philosophical cohesion to what is popularly known as Hindu=
ism, and part of this reason is the fact the term has only been widel=
y used in the last few hundred years to lump all of the people of the=
Indian subcontinent under one umbrella term. These people have in co=
mmon the claim that they follow the Vedas (which may or may not be tr=
ue in individual circumstances) but other than that there is wide var=
iation in ideas and practices.
Vaisnavism is essentially a devotional tradition, based on both the s=
hruti and smriti, which is monotheistic and personalist. This at leas=
t is the understanding of the Vaisnava acharyas in the various sampra=
dayas. There exists a vast body of literature and philosophy on Vaisn=
avism, and a separate forum for the discussion of such topics, free f=
rom mundane (i.e. - nontheistic) interpretations, is clearly necessar=
y.
>
>Unless I hear a convincing argument, I am likely to vote NO. I will
>however be willing to reconsider a new group under the hierarchy
>soc.religion.hindu.*
>
This seems like a very picky argument. It takes too much time and tro=
uble just to get an RFD out for a new newsgroup, what to speak of hav=
ing to do it all over again just to change the name. I see no reason =
why any tolerant Hindu who claims to respect all beliefs and religion=
s should vote no to the formation of this new group. Hindus must be w=
illing to acknowledge that there may be people who have different bel=
iefs than they do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html (Soon!)
