[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
Just a side note - the FAQ I posted is old, and I should change the
information about the proponents to reflect changes in who is still in
the group.
In article <ghenDuGMA8.Ap4@netcom.com>, sns <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The reorganization proponents again mislead
>people...
>What can you make out from the following statement?
That anyone claiming things to the contrary are flat-out lying.
>" 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.
You're being more than a little misleading yourself. Either point out
what is wrong with the statement or admit that you're trying to just
cause confusion.
>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.
I have stated before and I'll state it again - some (most) Vaishnavas
are Hindus, but that does not mean that Vaishnavism = Hinduism. I don't
see the point of trying to ram that equivalence down anyone's throat.
Check out books written in the past 30 years and you'll find that
quite often, the term "Hindu" is used to talk either about a region or
a culture. In fact, that is the position advocated by the Hindutva
brigade. I'll point this out below.
But, if you want to make this charge, then please show me the
orthodox definition. Even the HSC does not state this, and in
fact, calls Hinduism a "cultural ethos".
>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.
Lie. Please show me where I disparaged the Lingayats at all. Be
specific, or admit that you are totally lying about this. I have
copies of my posts where I discussed the punk virashaivites in the US,
and I know what I said. You, apparently, don't.
>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.
This has been so often refuted that you are, of course, making a fool
of yourself. Here's what the HSC says about Hinduism:
"Who is a Hindu? The word Hindu embraces
* all the people who believe in, practice and respect or follow the
eternal values of life, ethical and spiritual, that originated in the
historical land of the Hindus (Indian subcontinent).
* all those who live outside of Bharat, but follow Hindu dharma
=> Hindu Dharma includes Buddha, Jain, Sikh, Vaishnav, etc. al. Dharmas.
This system is compromised of many philosophies, religions, and
values. It is a cultural ethos"
Now, if you want to claim something different, then take it up with
the Hindu Students Council, who seem to have a hand in sponsoring all
of the moderation accounts, etc., for this newsgroup.
>That was the rationale used in not having the
>name "Hindu" associated with SRV.
See above.
-Vivek
