[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (Where is the compromise!)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (Where is the compromise!)
-
From: ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari)
-
Date: 26 Jan 1996 15:12:19 GMT
-
Followup-To: soc.religion.hindu,news.groups
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
-
References: <4bdstk$j39@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dnfba$q3n@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dpf93$mpd@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4e15jv$lj9@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4e8vd4$oas@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
<Deleted for brevity>
: ====================================================
: What is your concept of compromise?
: When Mani V made a compromise proposal you asked:
: "where is the compromise?"
: now see where the compromise is from the proponents
: (i mean, if the proposal meets approval from everyone)
: (1) ajay shah can join as moderator (a conceding point
: w.r.t. RFD. (2) second *moderated* info group is dropped
: (3) even an unmoderated info group opposed by Jai M is
: is not envisaged (4) 2 of the moderators can now be picked
: up by ajay shah, so arun malik's apprehension that ajay might
: be removed by the other moderators is set to rest
: What you need to concede are (1) separation of articles
: based on the focus of the articles. if the focus of article
: is about hindu dharma, sastras, spiritualism etc they go
: to srh, else to talk group. (2) multiple moderators.
: please remember that you had supported the idea of multiple
: moderators as well as separation of articles, earlier,
: after a prolonged discussion.
1. I am not averse to a talk group. But that
should not imply that we actually filter
articles, on the basis that they have a
mixture of religion and politics. Caste
is religion and politics. Cow killing/
saving is religion and politics. The
advice of Krsna to Arjun to raise the arm
is politics as well as religion. If you
start separating these issues, then IMO
you do the following (knowingly or unknow-
ingly):
a) Reduce the comprehensive nature of Hindu
thought, by making it just one more
version of theology.
b) Reduce the 'real' element in Hindu thought
since, you know what to achieve (social
justice, nirvaana, ..) but refuse to talk
about as to "how" to achieve it.
The above two points, IMO are very important.
A religion, which just tells me as to what
is good/bad, and refuses to tell me as to
how to achieve it, is a pretty useless one.
I do not want my religion to be a useless
one. All the religions, (semitic as well as
Indic) have an elements of religion, state
craft, jurisprudence ... in them. And it is
for this important reason, that they capture
the imagination of its followers. Take the
issue of abortion. The faithful Christians,
have very strong opinions about it. And it
comes from religion. And there opinions are
visible in politics. Take Gandhi. His entire
political thought was driven by a very strong
belief in Ram-Rajya and Ahimsa.
So to argue that a religion group is not good enuf
for articles that dabble with religion and
politics, is NOT a good idea. I cannot compromise
on that issue. The very idea strikes at the
comphrensiveness of my thought pattern. It
reduces the grandness of my religion. In
fact, this is THE MOST important implication,
of the proposed re-org, that I object to.
Ajay Shah, et al. though important, are
secondary issues, in that sense.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
=====================================================
750 Tall Oaks Drive 118 Patton Hall
Apt. # 3600 I Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060. Blacksburg, VA 24061.
(540)-951-3979 (540)-231-4611
=====================================================
