[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <4secbo$cmr@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, sns <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>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.
Very well, sir. I'll bite.
YOU give me an "orthodox" definition of Hinduism as a religion. One
is always willing to learn.
And in doing so, keep in mind that your definition must:
1> not contradict the Supreme Court declaration that `Hindutva' is
"Indian-ness," which has been accepted by the Sangh Parivar, the
standard-bearers of Hinduism;
2> not contradict Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi's
statement that those who are patriotic (towards India) are Hindus,
and the rest are "traitors";
3> include such people as Sikander Bakht, M.F. Hussain, Sunderlal
Patwa, etc., within its ambit;
4> be able to explain how an atheist could be a Hindu.
I could come up with other points, but I'll reserve them until later,
pending your response to the above.
If you insist that Vaishnavism "comes under" Hinduism, as you seem to
put across via your BOLDFACE STATEMENT OF OUTRAGE, then I'd request
you to:
i> define Hinduism;
ii> define Vaishnavism;
-- and who how anything that fits definition ii> will always fit
definition i>. That would be the precise and unambiguous codification
of "comes under."
>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'm not sure what you're talking about here. But as I recall, you'd
come up with some objections to the SRV FAQ's statements on the
Hindu-vs.-Vaishnava issue, and didn't care to respond when
clarifications were given. Now you're merely re-asserting your
previous, incorrect understanding.
>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.
I for one am neither an ISKCON member nor an ISKCON sympathizer; this
should be evident to all. If you want to know about my background,
try
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
-- a web page that I have collaborated in creating.
Also, it is not worth your while to try proof by re-assertion; come up
with some solid arguments and a coherent response, and then I'll
accept that you have a valid case for your claims.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>danyavaad
>sudheer
