[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
Shrisha Rao wrote:
> >insulting shaivas. It's not very surprising given the history of feuds between
> >lingayats and vaishnavas (sometimes violent) in Karnataka.
> >
> >This is very typical I must say.
>
> Very typical of what? I'm not sure what you're talking about, because
> I do not recall any reference to a "lingayat homosexual" or any such
> by anyone.
The "typical" referred to Vivek's general innuendos against personalities he
does not like. Sorry for the confusion.
As for "lingayat ...", it was admitted by Mr Vivek Pai himself (in srh today).
> I also do not know what "history of feuds... in Karnataka" you're
> talking about, either. Most Vaishnavas in Karnataka are Maadhvas, and
> if anything they've been too passive and unassertive; there certainly
> hasn't been any noticeable history of feuds between them and any other
> community. Also, some of them, like Vaadiraaja Tiirtha, Vyaasa
> Tiirtha, Vijayiindra Tiirtha, etc., have actually made the mistake of
> getting along well with Lingayats and other Shaivas -- and even worse,
> the temple of Manjunatha (Shiva) in Karnataka that is one of the prime
> pilgrimage spots for Shaivas, was actually founded by Vaadiraaja
> Tiirtha.
OK, maybe my info was wrong. I was given to understand that this was one of
the reasons the saura puraaNa (which attacks Madhva explicitly) was written.
May be it was other shaivas/non-vaishnavites who were behind this. No offence
to Madhvas was meant.
> >I voted YES for srv and hardly care if some vaishnavas consider themselves
> >hindu or not (though the mind boggles at such a possibility). However, I am
> >against the RFD for other reasons I have already cited, for which I received
> >no satisfactory answers.
>
> I beg your pardon; it would be more fruitful if you could state the
> reasons, or give a pointer to wherever you stated them before, rather
> than re-state your dissatisfaction at not having received answers.
> Otherwise, some might be inclined to ask if you were really serious
> about getting answers in the first place. Just a thought.
Please refer the archives, if you never read my replies in srh. Just a
thought. I am not keen on reposting my entire objections and answers to them
and the counter objections to them each time. Also I remember posting this to
srh only. I don't read any of these groups usually and read one by chance
today. If you are randomly including replies to my post in srh to alt.fan.*
and alt.flame.*, I'd like some indication that you are doing so. Further, if
you are cross posting replies to my posts to news.groups please give an
indication, unless your intention is that new.groups should not see my reply.
If somehow my original message had gone to all these ngs, sorry, I thought I
posted it only to srh.
In any case this is going to be one of my last posts on this thread. I wish
you luck in changing Dale Lawrence's mind. I don't agree with his decision,
but I can't see what I can do about it. (I think the readers of srh should be
allowed to decide). But if you succeed in getting the CFV through, I'll be
there to vote NO.
Ramakrishnan.
