[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
Namaskar,
On 12 Jan 1996, Vijay Sadananda Pai wrote:
> In article <4d2a2t$6oi@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> >I have already proposed that those who favor better representation of
> >Hindu dharma on the net welcome, with open mind several new Hindu
> >newsgroups. These newsgroups may be
>
> >a. philosophy oriented, along the lines of SRV, such as
> >soc.religion.hindu.shivism, etc.
>
> Well, I don't know if you've been following the "Definition of Hindu"
> thread on SRH (which sometimes also pops up on SRV), but pretty
> much everyone has agreed that Lingaayats/Virashaivas have the right to consider
> themselves non-Hindu if they like (and, indeed, there was one Virashaivite
> who had posted on news.groups during the SRV debate that said she
> was a non-Hindu), and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Lingaayats
> are Shaivites. So once again, this may be a case of a poorly named proposal.
I disagree. Just as I disagreed with the statement that "some Vaishnavas
are not Hindus".
> As far as I can tell, Ajay, you are not a Shaivite, and neither am I,
How do you know about me?
This is your guess, and it is without any factual basis! Just as I
requested someone not to dis-inherit me from my Vaishnava heritage, I
request you not to dis-inherit me of my Shivite heritage.... I am sure,
you can respect this wish of mine.
I am proud of my comprehensive and cumulative "HINDU" heritage, sans labels.
And my personal mode of worship shoud not be an issue!
> so we have no business trying to start up a Shaivite group. Mind you,
Since this statement is based on your previous guess, I do not see how I can
be deprived of doing any activity that enhances any aspect of Hindu dharma.
> if some Shaivites, like the Hinduism Today paper or a Lingaayat group,
> _want_ to start such a newsgroup, I will be the first to vote YES for it
> and will help them in any way that I can with my newsgroup creation
> experience.
>
I will help too. I did not say "I would like to moderate the newsgroups
I am proposing". People who have interest in these areas would be
moderating.
> >b. Specific scriptures oriented, such as:
> >soc.religion.hindu.vedas
> >soc.religion.hindu.bhagwadgita
>
> Once again, poorly named; the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita are _universal,
> non-sectarian_ scriptures, so they cannot be tied just to Hinduism
> in this fashion. Furthermore, neither Vedas nor Bhagavad Gita
> is a religion; they are scriptures that establish a religion. I know
> of no soc.religion.christian.bible, for example.
Perhaps you should look up the .newsrc file again. There is indeed a
newsgroup called:
soc.religion.christian.bible-study
I am proud of the fact that vedas and Shree Bhagawad Gita are indeed HINDU
scriptures. They are the gift of Hindu dharma to the world. They are
Universal in their applicability, but they are indeed Hindu scriptures, IMHO!
>
> >etc.
>
> >c. Oriented towards customs etc. such as
> >soc.religion.hindu.bhajans
> >soc.religion.hindu.yoga
>
> Once again, this is not the best choice of names. Bhajans are not
> specifically Hindu; Lingaayats have bhajans, Sikhs have bhajans,
> etc -- in fact, it seems to me that bhajan is just the Sanskrit word
> for "devotional song", so technically _every_ religion has bhajans.
My definition Bhajans = Devotional Hindu songs, poetry etc. So
SRH.Bhajans is justifiable.
> Similarly, yoga is by no means exclusively Hindu. Yoga is also practiced
> by atheists, Buddhists, new-agers, etc. (and even some Christians I know
> that practice hatha-yoga). If you want to propose a yoga newsgroup, maybe
> we can start soc.yoga, or something like that; then you can have underneath
> that soc.yoga.karma, soc.yoga.hatha, etc, as the time became appropriate.
Just as Christian reading of Shree Bhagwad Gita does not make it a
Christian scripture, Christian practice of yoga does not make yoga a
non-Hindu practice. The fact remains, these are ancient Hindu
traditions. It is the gift our ancestors, our rishies and sages have
given to the world.
>
> >etc.
>
> >I am surprised that the proponents have shown no aptitude to such broad
> >minded expansion of Hindu dharma on the net.
>
> The proponents are being very broad minded by not trying to unnecessarily
> divide in this fashion. For example, if I wanted to talk about Shaivite
> bhajans, where would I do it under the scheme you've proposed?
>
Vaishnava or Shaivite bhajans (as well as others) could all be discussed
under the proposed SRH.bhajans.
I do not think that removing the word "Hindu" from every name proposed is
a sign of broadmindedness.
regards,
ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
References:
