[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
-
From: sns <sns@ix.netcom.com>
-
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:28:11 +0100
-
Organization: sns
-
References: <ghenDuExp7.DKE@netcom.com>
The reorganization proponents again mislead
people...
What can you make out from the following statement?
" The proponents _never_ said that all Vaishnavas are
not Hindus by default. What _was_ said was that
there are people
(especially outside of India) who follow Vaishnava
religious practices, but are not culturally Hindus."
Infact I have received mail messages from Mani (the
person who works at SGI) specifically stating that
not "all" vaishnavas are Hindu as followers of
vaishnavism in other countries are not "culturally
hindu". By adding the words "by default" to their
statement they totally mislead readers.
The reorg proponents DO NOT BELIVE THAT
VAISHNAVISM ALSO COMES UNDER HINDUISM AND
THAT ALL VAISHNAVAS ARE HINDUS as Hinduism
is only a cultural identity and has no "orthodox"
definition as a religion.
Anyone who reads the FAQ of Soc.religion.vaishnava
will understand the situation better. The SRV FAQ
describes Hindu as just being a cultural identity.
Infact in one of
the messages that Mr. Vivek Pai had posted on SRV
argued that there is no "orthodox"(read western or
semitic) way of defining Hinduism and made
disparaging remarks about Lingayats.
I would suggest all SRH supporters to understand the
background of the RFD proponents.All of them are
ISKCON members or ISKCON sympathisers and consider
their "Hindu" identity as only a "cultural" one.
That was the rationale used in not having the
name "Hindu" associated with SRV.
danyavaad
sudheer
