[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: soc.religion.hindu re-org(reply to B.Giovanni)
[reply to email mesg]
To: Bon_Giovanni@earthspirit.org
Subject: Re: Re: soc.religion.hindu --
[excerpts from your mesg are preceded by *]
* The problem today is that a very few
Vaishnavites want to change srh to fit their personal requirements,
requirments which include their views that there is no religion of
Hinduism, since, in their narrow view, Hinduism is just a cultural
label, not a religion.
* I believe those proponents of the RFD to divvy up srh, do so not
as Hindus, but as Vaishnavites, and I am not happy to see such
narrowmindedness nor such ingratitude.
I was neither following srh nor srv. so i do not have the background
information to which you might be privy. but i have read whatever
has been presented on news.groups recently. based on this i have a
feeling that proponents have not actually disowned hinduism. But
they feel that the definition proposed by someone on the net was too
restrictive and that many do not fall into that "particular" definition.
i am not a vaishnavaite. but i do agree that many "hindus" will be left
out by the said definition, even though i myself will be included in.
if they are vaishnavites and claim in fact to be no-hindus as you say,
then what motivation they will have to take the pains of preparing the
RFD and defending it?
* Should my view be in error, I again ask those men: are they
Hindu? Do they belive Hinduism is a religion?
They have repeatedly said that. Even earlier,they only said "there could
be some vaishnavites" who may not be hindus -- again, according to
the definition of hindus presented in the earlier post -- because
some people can genuinely consider themselves to be vaishnavites but
not as hindus. They never said "vaishnavas are not hindus". they only
said "not all vaishnavas are hindus".
I dont think anyone can question the locus standi of S Rao or the
two V. Pai's or Mani in proposing or defending RFD on the ground of
not belonging to Hindu fold. The fact that they argued that some
vaishnavites do not fall in the category of hindus (--as defined
by someone earlier--) does not mean that they themselves are not hindus.
Discussion about the definiton of "hindu" was academic. no one should take
it to personal level. otherwise in future, people will be scared to
participate in such discussion for fear of personal attacks.
* If so, how is it that during srv creation, they assured readers
hinduism is NOT a religion? If not, then why are they suggesting
that soc.RELIGION.hindu be dismembered and restructured?
My understanding is that the RFD has not envisaged 'dismemberment' of
srh. It only asked for reorganisation
* Why? Why because of their personal animosity with the moderator,
Ajay Shah. The evidence of that is in their articles at alt.religion.
vaisnava. Check the archives. See how integral the archives are.
See how my posts appear there?
I cant comment on the personality warfares going on. especially i do not
like to comment on moderator Ajay Shah who is respected by so many people.
But, my own personal feeling is that srv is very focussed moderated group. One
will be more than thrilled to see such educated and informed discussion.
People coming from india and desperately looking for religious debates
should find such groups satisfying. This view is also reflected in one of
your own posts on the net (excerpt annexed at the end)
* The editing in the arv archives is, to my mind, a reflection of the
`integrity' of the proponents, as wellas the lack of value in their
RFD.
I really do not know about "editing"; you have assumed that i would have
the background. i started going through this RFD thread only accidentally...
when i was in fact following the sci.j-k threads.
* I do not wish to see such men divvy up soc.RELIGION.hindu.
My suggestion would be to ignore the personalities behind the RFD. Men may
come and men may go. so, discuss the "Content of RFD".
Thanks for taking pains to write to me.
===============annexed excerpt from your post=================
>
>I have read that Vaishnavite newsgroup from day one, and find it a pleasure.
>Thus far there have been none of the personal insults by Vaishnavas
>against nonVaishnaves that so soured the newsgroup alt.religion.vaisnava.
==================================================================