[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>vijia@pop.jaring.my (Singam) wrote:
<deleted>
>>The land of Hindustan has seen the evolution of a variety of
>>religious/social schools, some of which are happy to identify with the
>>exisiting schools while others choose to claim exclusivity.
>Your statement shows that there is strong connection between the land of
>Hindustan and those who consider themselves Hindus. What about those who
>have no real connection to the land of Hindustan, but follow the teachings
>of a religious leader from Hindustan? Are they also Hindus? Do we have the
>right to force them to call themselves Hindus also? These questions have
>particular relevance in the light of SRV, discussed below.
Actually my statement indicates that there is a strong connection
between the land of Hindustan and the religions that evolved there.
Those who adopt a religion that evolved in Hindustan may freely choose
to call themselves Hindu.
I used to say 'should call themselves Hindu' but, as I have stated in
an article titled 'Attachment to a label', that was a wrong view that
I had held. 'Hindu' is just a label of convenience that one may choose
to wear or not. In itself, there is no merit or demerit.
I still harbour hopes that, since the label 'Hindu' encompases a
plurality of religious thinking, it may serve as a focus of unity.
<deleted>
>The non-inclusion of the word Hindu in SRV was discussed at length in the
>RFD for SRV. A simple search on DejaNews or Alta Vista will pull out all
>the relevant articles. Briefly, the reason for not including the
>word hindu was that there are people in the world who have come to consider
>themselves part of a vaishnava sampradaya. But they may not be equally
>comfortable with calling themselves hindu. After all, the very word Hindu is
>only something that we have grown comfortable with. We have no right to expect
>others to also feel so. On the other hand, those vaishnavas who are hindu have
>no such problems. In order to accomodate all people, whether they thought of
>themselves as hindu or otherwise, the simple name of SRV was used.
I now concur with this view. It does not matter whether one was born
an Indian or not. If one believes that one has to have a specific
colour of skin or hair to be a Hindu, that is his choice. If another
believes that, since the Vedas only refer to Vaishnavism and not
Hinduism, he should reject the label 'Hindu', that too is his choice.
It is not for anyone to impose their opinion on others.
Suggest, yes. Discuss, yes. impose, NO.
<deleted>
>>If the proponents of SRV insist on isolating themselves from the
>>'Hindu' community, their presence or interest in SRH is suspect.
>No. Vaishnavas are a subset, though not a proper subset of what we
>have come to understand by the word "hindu". The proponents of
>SRV (except one, who doesn't contribute to SRH anyway) have never
>denied that they are also Hindus. If, as you say, there is no conversion
>to Hinduism, then anyone who is willing to consider oneself Hindu
>is in fact Hindu. Why suspect a few people only? Isn't that also divisive? If
>you still think that the proponents of SRV are being divisive, do not suspect
>their involvement with SRH. Welcome them and try to show them that such
>divisiveness is wrong. (I was one of the proponents of SRV, by the way, even
>though I don't consider myself to be exclusively a vaishnava. I reject the
>premise that proponents of SRV are isolating themselves from the larger Hindu
>community.)
I concur.
>>The use of multiple servers in a newsgroup is a good idea. Current
>>hardware is still not immune from breakdowns. Any practical
>>suggestions to this effect would be welcome.
>>
>>The suitability of Ajay Shah as a moderator has been questioned. I
>>personally have no serious objections. If he can take care of delays
>>caused by his absence or recruit the help of other persons to
>>occasional clear overloads, there really is no need to change
>>moderators or have a panel of medarators.
>How do you suggest to take care of delays or Ajay's absence by recruiting
>other persons? Who will be these other persons? Who decides who these other
>persons are? What happens to the status of these other persons after Ajay
>returns? Isn't it unfair to these other persons not to be designated as
>moderators also? In any case, what great privilege does Ajay lose by admitting
>that these other persons are also moderators? Finally, what specific objections
>are there against the proposed moderators in this RFD? Any or all of them could
>very well be these other persons that you talk about.
In a political situation, the 'wrongdoer' would be voted out. I
suppose Usenet operates on a similar principle.
In a religious group, if we would seek understanding, discussion and
consensus would be better.
But flame and accusation have been fired. And face has been lost. And
face must be saved. I am hopeful that it is still not too late.
>>Allow me say this again. Those who have been vocal about the matter of
>>reorg, please maintain your peace for a few days. Let the others
>>speak. If there is a clamour for change, then let us have change.
>>Otherwise, let well enough alone.
>Excellent suggestion, but really an impossible one.
More improbable than impossible. Egos have been bruised. It is
difficult to let go.
<deleted>
> Also, note that there are many silent
>spectators who probably don't want to discuss this in public, but who will vote
>if it comes to that. Your expected clamor for change may not materialize at
>all, but that silence is no indication of the eventual outcome of the vote. For
>all one knows, the majority of the readers would probably vote for
>reorganization.
Sigh! I suppose it always comes to that.
>Also, one cannot expect the proponents of the RFD to be silent for ever.
Naturally. But silence for a few days may end up being quite
deafening. Would reorg proponents like to take up my suggestion?
> Ajay's
>silence on the compromise proposal essentially means that the issue will be
>decided only by a vote and that requires a CFV to be put out, which the
>proponents of an RFD are duty-bound to do eventually.
Let's give the man another chance.
Ajay, you can believe that I have had no ulterior motives during my
entire participation. This is not a hostile challenge. I would like to
ask two reasonable questions and seek fair answers.
1. Can you give an assurance of better response in managing postings?
Would you like to explain your plan of action to the subscribers of
this group?
2. Do you have any suggestions about how to handle hardware failure.
That the proponents of reorg have not made any clear proposal (if that
is true) should not be an issue. On your part, do you have any
suggestions?
Peace and blessings.
SV Singam
Minden, Penang
