[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Religious unity
In article <4d2a26$6og@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
SV Singam <vijia@pop.jaring.my> wrote:
>>In accordance with the rules of USENET, everyone is allowed to say
>>whatever they want on this topic, and no one is preventing them.
>
>My concern here is that, as usual, the 'silent majority' don't really care
>what is happening. As a result, the 'outspoken few' have their say and very
If the silent majority don't care one way or another, they will likely
not vote. I assume that this issue will come to a vote unless a
compromise is reached, so it's like just about anything else in life -
if you don't care enough to do something one way or another, then the
outcome will likely happen without your involvement. However, in
Usenet votes, there have to be at least 100 votes in favor to win, so
this ensures that there is some body of people who want the change.
>likely push their preferences through on the pretext that it is for the
>benefit of 'everyone'.
The response time will get better, a new unmoderated forum will be
created, a group for announcements will be created, and SRH will
remain essentially the same if the reorg happens. So, if all you cared
about was the religious discussion on SRH, then life won't really
change. However, if you want to see the other discussions, then you
have some extra newsgroups. If you wanted to discuss topics which
weren't popular on SRH, then you have an unmoderated group for doing
so.
Overall, it looks like those who rarely read the group have their lives
basically unchanged, and others are now potentially better served.
>I am not proposing to prevent anyone from speaking out. I am simply
>suggesting that those who have had much to say simply volunteer to maintain
>their peace for a few days and observe how important this issue is to the
>'everyone' that they are thinking of.
Given that most people "lurk", then I don't think that this approach
will prove anything. Look at the soc.culture.indian.karnataka vote -
the discussion during the RFD was very slim - maybe 10 messages total,
if I recall. However, there were over 200 votes on that. The simple
fact is that most people who will vote one way or another won't speak
up at all during the RFD, especially if their point is already
represented.
>I believe we are seeking peace and this seems to be one practical approach.
A compromise solution is the practical approach, and it will avoid the
CFV almost entirely. Note that Mani's plan is quite simple, but Ajay
has not responded to it at all.
>My suggestion is that instead of looking for factors that divide us, let us
>look for factors that unite us.
>
>Just as the Vaishnavas can isolate themselves, so can the Shaivas, the
>Shaktas, Ramakrishnaites etc...
No offense, but the above statement is based on a flawed claim. I'm
willing to bet you that most of the Vaishnavas you're thinking about
have been heavier contributors to alt.hindu and soc.religion.hindu
than the average person, so this claim of "isolat[ing] themselves" is
bunk.
>Instead of having a plurality of religions,
Just curious, but is there something inherently undesirable in having
a plurality of religions? I'd like to point out one statement from the
HSC definition of who is a Hindu - "This system is compromised of many
philosophies, religions, and values. It is a cultural ethos"
Note the words "many religions" - even the HSC acknowledges this.
>I am suggesting that all
>religious traditions that originated on the Indian Sub-continent be happy
>about associating with each other, be happy to share a common label. The
>label can be as clumsy as 'Religious traditions of Hindustan' or as simple
>as Hindu.
This is where the last sentence from the HSC statement is useful. The
state is that Hinduism is a "cultural ethos", and that's fine with me
and with many of the others who have spoken on this issue. If you find
some reason to disagree with the definition, please let me know.
Otherwise, I think the definition is fine by me. The definition, in
full, is
"Who is a Hindu? The word Hindu embraces
* all the people who believe in, practice and respect or follow the eternal
values of life, ethical and spiritual, that originated in the historical
land of the Hindus (Indian subcontinent).
* all those who live outside of Bharat, but follow Hindu dharma
=> Hindu Dharma includes Buddha, Jain, Sikh, Vaishnav, etc. al. Dharmas.
This system is compromised of many philosophies, religions, and values.
It is a cultural ethos"
>>However, BECAUSE no Indic texts identify a religion called Hinduism,
>>and because all Vaishnava texts call it "Vaishnava", the newsgroup is
>>called "soc.religion.vaishnava" because it was desired to have the
>>name be precise in denoting what the newsgroup was about.
>
>By so doing, they are isolating themselves from the other religions of
>India.
Given the existence of newsgroups devoted to Buddhism, to Sikhism,
etc., in what way is a Vaishnava newsgroup any different? Was there a
campaign to rename soc.religion.sikhism to soc.religion.hindu.sikhism?
If not, why not?
The GHEN most definitely counts Sikhism as part of Hinduism, and the
HSC definition does the same. So why was there never a campaign to
change the name of srsikhism, but there was a campaign for SRV?
>Such desire for isolation is the culmination of centuries of 'enmity'
>(for want of a better word). I am suggesting that all of us should encourage
>a closing of that gap.
a) I don't believe such a gap exists
b) I don't suscribe to any claimed enmity from the past
>>And, as the s.r.v have stated over and over again, there ARE some
>>people who are Vaishnavas who do not consider themselves Hindus.
>
>The word Hindu has become a pigeonhole with a narrow meaning. Who IS a
>Hindu?
See the HSC definition above.
>Going by what these Vaishnavas impute, we may as well drop the word
>Hindu from common usage and each group simply call themselves by whatever
>specific name they choose.
That's a lie - most of the people involved with these proposals have
quite readily called themselves Hindus. If you didn't follow the
debate on the inclusion of the word Hindu, you should read about if
first before making such accusations as above. If you did follow the
debate, then you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said.
>But that will not lead us to unity.
Then I'd suggest that those who want unity at all costs should quickly
issue RFDs which attempt to rename soc.religion.sikhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.*, talk.religion.buddhism, and of course,
alt.religion.barfing-yak, since none of these groups has Hindu in
their names.
Now, tell me, do you think that forcing "Hindu Unity" on these people
will generate good-will toward these people? I know that there are
more Hindus on the net than members of any of those other groups
(well, with the possible exception of the barfingyakkers), so it's
very possible. The question you have to ask is "Is it desirable?"
I would contend that insulting someone, or browbeating them, etc.,
etc., is _not_ conducive to unity, and in fact, does the exact
opposite. It becomes a "tyranny of the majority" situation, and rather
than generating good will, it shows what absolute power does.
>I am suggesting that all Vaishnavas seek to view the label Hindu with a new
>perspective. Being Hindu does not 'reduce' them to the level of the
>'others'.
And have any of the Vaishnavas claimed that it does? No.
This point was made abundantly clear throughout the SRV discussions,
and it's been reiterated time and time again on SRH. I am a Hindu, and
at the same time, I try to be a Vaishnava.
>It simply identifies them as believing in a religion that
>originated in Hindustan.
Being Hindu is much more than that - it is being part of a specific
culture. This is why so many converts are _not_ considered Hindus by
the mainstream Hindus, and I'm not talking about just Vaishnavas. I
have a friend who is a Shiva/Shakti worshipper, and while he is Indian
and can go to just about any temple in India, his Caucasian American
wife, who has been a Hindu for about 2 _decades_, is barred admission
in many temples. The Indian Muslims and Christians are allowed entry,
but she is not, even though she is Hindu by your definition.
>>They took this into consideration in naming s.r.v EVEN THOUGH THEY
>>CONSIDER THEMSELVES HINDUS.
>
>This would have been a terrific starting point. Since they consider
>themselves Hindu, they must understand there is no conflict with being
>Vaishnava and Hindu at the same time.
But does belonging to one group mean belonging to another? No.
Most of them are also probably engineers, but you didn't see the word
engineer in the name of the newsgroup.
>They would have been the perfect
>vehicle for promoting s.r.h.v. They can still do so. If they can work
>towards persuading those 'non-Hindu' Vaishnavites
What is the point of "persuading" anyone, especially if all it entails
is a label for the sake of appeasing some other group? In this case,
it doesn't seem that you care at all about those people, but you just
want them to don your label.
>that there is no demerit in associating with other schools of belief,
>they would have done very much in the path towards fostering unity.
Please outline the Hindu "school of belief". Be specific. Once again,
that HSC definition is starting to make more and more sense, isn't it?
>>>The suitability of Ajay Shah as a moderator has been questioned.
>>
>>It really has not, especially when you consider that the RFD
>>proponents still are allowing Ajay Shah to be one of the moderators.
>
>If Ajayji has been doing a good enough job as moderator, additional
>moderators should not be necessary.
See my stats page, listed in the Organization line of my messages.
>If those who felt Ajayji help wished to
>help/support him had worked this out with him, all would have been well. To
We have been trying to work with him. However, certain things, such as
the unmoderated group, etc., require a vote.
>impose additional moderators is to imply that Ajayji was not coping well
>enough. To do so over Ajay's objections appears hostile.
Additional moderators would speed up response. The old response time
was often on the order of 5-10 days, which many people found dampened
discussion.
>To 'allow him' to join the others seems to add insult to injury.
What is the insult, and what is the injury?
>We are not talking here about politics or hostile takeovers.
Hostile takeovers generally don't involve one party inviting the other
for pre-RFD discussion, becoming a party to the RFD, or compromise
solutions.
>We are talking
>about a newsgroup that has, as its objective, an enhancement of our
>religious understanding. We are (I hope) seeking to elevate our spiritual
>attainment.
By all means, and the RFD spells out what sort of non-religious
material would get rejected.
>Everyone one of us must do everything we can to foster unity and harmony.
>Act in consensus following discussion. I don't think Ajay is such an
>unreasonable person. There is no need to force his hand.
I think that implying such an act, when the facts show otherwise, is
bad form. We have tried to build consensus - would you like me to send
you all of the notes trying to reach a compromise solution?
-Vivek
(Thu Jan 11 12:01:49 CST 1996)
