[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: New site needs your point of view
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) (not Vijay Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>In article <4htujd$9kf@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) offered:
>>>His question was: "Am I Hindu?"
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Your opinions are welcome.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Why opinions? I have a concrete answer.
>
>>The previous tejas had disappeared and he wore a
>>sheepish grin on his face.
>
>Communications Decency Act Alert! You have mentioned tejas (the
>original name for Texas), sheep, and grinning all in the same
>sentence. We try to keep this newsgroup totally free from anything
>which might run us afoul of the CDA, and this borders dangerously
>close. The only worse thing you could've mentioned would've been the
>K*** S****.
Kama Sutra and sheep??!!! You ISKCONites!
>Suka Gosvami". You see, people, especially ones responsible for
>imparting knowledge, rarely say what they really mean, so we have to
>ignore what is said in some texts and figure out what is really meant,
>even if they might be contradicted by the events described. For
>example, some simpletons will no doubt take a literal approach to
>interpretation when the main character of a story says "worship
>Me". It should be clear, both from ontological and epistemological
>standpoints, that what that person really means is "worship yourself".
Yeah, similarly the same simpletons will invent complicated reasonings when
Krishna says that he is the self of all beings. Somehow simplicity deserts them
then, but that's OK, because then their complicated interpretations are
something they like. Suddenly a simple interpretation is no longer allowed and
Krishna is not the self, but the super-self and the yogi should not concentrate
on the self, but rather on the super-self. Ofcourse he also has to do service.
>>The answer to Vivek's question should now be obvious. *Drum roll*,
>>*** crash of cymbals ***,
>>
>> "HE IS a VAISHNAVA, but NOT a HINDU".
>
>Aha, once again, you are wrong, err, I mean, we all are right:
No, as in most cases I am right and you are wrong.
>You forgot some key parts to the story:
No, I didn't.
>a) the infinitesimally small Vietnamese girl who could only repeat
>"Niy Nauq" repeatedly, which we all know is the name of the HINDU
>GODDESS QUAN YIN, only spelled backwards
Niy Nauq = Ran rauq = Rad hauq = Radha who is held in great veneration
especially by vaishnavites. Thus Niy Nauq is actually Radha. This uses the same
logic as christ = chrishtos = chrishta = Krishna (used by Prabhupada).
I didn't explain this part since I thought you knew.
>- I have been told that the Quan Yin tradition is in fact Hindu,
>appearances and facts notwithstanding, so this should've been
>the first clue that the person is a Hindu. The person is in
>all likelihood not a Vaishnava, because as far as I know, the
>Vaishnavas don't worship Supreme Master Ching Hai or Quan Yin,
>whereas I am told that both are Hindu.
You are wrong, as usual. She is BOTH a vaishnava and Hindu.
>b) He asked if his captors were THUGGIES, and they assured him that
>they were not, and that he'd be released soon.
>
>- I have been told that Thuggees are most definitely NOT Hindu,
>and since the captors were not Thuggees, they are not ruled out.
>Of course, the logic by which Quan Yin is Hindu and Thuggees
>are not Hindu has not been explained to me, but I guess I am
>not prepared for such deep insights.
Thuggies are actually Vaishnavites. This is a slightly more complicated thing,
but let me go ahead:
Thuggie = luggie = buggie = buddhie = buddha = incarnation of Vishnu.
>- I have also been told (really) that all good Hindus should
>unquestioningly take the same viewpoints on the above events.
>I had a girl practically shout at me that Sikhs are Hindus,
>and that they should be told such at every opportunity. I, of
>course, didn't ask _why_ we needed to remind them of such things,
>since that seemed like a pointless "why" question, violating
>the concept of "you will do as instructed by your superiors
>in the Hindu Youth ranks". Anyway, I found one of the Sikhs in
Gee! I don't know why. Maybe you should ask the ISKCON dude who accosted me in
the airport and felt quite compelled to tell me why everyone else's
interpretation of the Gita is wrong. He also seemed quite positive that
everyone else was steeped in sin. And he told all this to me, when I didn't
even ask. I think he is your best bet.
>our department this morning, and told him "deny it if you want,
>but deep down inside, you know you're Hindu".
Of course I have no clue about Sikhism and it's relationship with Hinduism.
Frankly, I don't give a damn. I am from Madras and with a name like R* Bala*,
there's only one party I would support. Yeah, the Congress(I). Maybe you think
I belong to the BJP/VHP/Bajrang Dal/etc because I supported Ajay Shah in some
issues. Well, you are wrong. If you are really keen on knowing my opinions on
how many temples were destroyed by Muslims/Christians/etc, it's the same as
before. Frankly, I don't give a damn.
>While we're not dealing with facts, I just wanted to say that in some
>recent thread, it was stated that someone was politely arguing with me
>when someone else butted in. Of course, that was not me, but
You mean HKS? Sorry about the small mistake. Whether you agreed with the rest of
what I said in that post or not, I am sure you will agree that my mistake did
not change things a whole lot (as far as the discussions were concerned ie).
Ramakrishnan.
--
"One who looks penetratingly into his true self and does not get ensnared in
words, nor stained by the teachings of the Buddhas and the patriarchs, one who
goes beyond the singular road which advances towards enlightenment and does not
let cleverness become his downfall, will, for the first time attain the Way."
Bassui (1327-1387)
