[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity
On 9 Jan 1996 01:24:41 GMT, vijia@pop.jaring.my (Singam) wrote in
soc.religion.hindu:
>Much has been said about the reorganisation of SRH. This has been
>claimed to be 'in the interest of all'. Can I then ask the main
>proponents and opponents of the move to maintain their peace for a
>while and allow the others, in whose interest this move is being
>proposed, to have their say?
In accordance with the rules of USENET, everyone is allowed to say
whatever they want on this topic, and no one is preventing them.
>In the first instance, those who proposed SRV, by choosing to exclude
>the word 'Hindu', sought to divide. Surely we do not need that.
This is simply false.
You yourself state:
>While no Indic texts identify a religion called Hinduism, many of us
>have become comfortable with calling ourselves Hindu.
And that is why there is a "soc.religion.hindu".
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.
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.
They took this into consideration in naming s.r.v EVEN THOUGH THEY
CONSIDER THEMSELVES HINDUS.
>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.
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self. Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski
