[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
Shrisha Rao wrote:
This is another post which I did not post to any group other than srh. Please,
please, post your replies to srh also and with some indication that you
crossposted your replies to other ngs so that I can forward my replies to
those groups.
> In article <ghenDuKtr2.7HJ@netcom.com>,
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
> >
> >Reservations based on religion is certainly of interest. While you may not
> >have had problems with reservation etc, let me assure you that I personally
> >know tons who were. A new reservation for muslims is certainly of interest
>
> That's fine; we can both accept that the political aspects of being a
> Hindu are of interest to both of us. But let us at least agree to
> call a spade a spade -- accept that such postings *are* political
> rather than religious (vide your statement about "mundane affairs of
> life," etc.) That is the point Vivek was trying to make, I think.
> Any claim that SRH does not carry political articles is flat-out
> wrong.
As far as I remember Ajay told that purely political articles would not be
allowed. If I may hazard a guess:
1. What the BJP is supposedly doing.
2. What the RSS is supposedly doing etc.
won't be allowed.
I don't see why only "purely" religious articles should be carried. I remember
Ajay Shah saying only "purely political" articles would not be carried. I
think that's fine.
> Even that news item about the reservation issue is purely political.
> Tell me, where and what exactly is the spiritual content in it? What
> scripture is used? Who is the saint whose teachings are applied or
> explained? What is the higher moral or spiritual truth conveyed?
Please don't go on and on about "moral and spiritual truths". The article
conveyed the direct consequences of being a hindu, viz you would have to face
reservations for other religions also. A Hindu ng, IMO, can talk about these
also. If you feel everyone should be as spiritual as you are, then I can't say
anything.
The post was not hatred inciting or anything like that in any case. The point
is that Vivek Pai catches some trivial point and goes on and on about it to
prove the moderator's "incompetence". This is not the first time, I might add.
Why can't we all agree that not all topics in Hinduism are of the same
interest to everyone and agree to get along?
> >ayodhya - Ram temple - not hindu?
> >
> > ''All I have said is that anyone who was responsible for
> >> |> the unfortunate happenings at Ayodhya and has not been
> >> |> prosecuted would be brought to justice,'' he said.
> >
> >current action on ayodhya incident - not hindu related?
>
> Yes, but again, accept that those things are *not* spiritual; they
> relate to the "mundane affairs of life." There may be a very few>
> people, such as my guru's guru Sri Pejavar Swamiji (sometime
> vice-president of the VHP), who believe that by getting involved in
> this issue they are serving the Lord, but they are exceptions. The
> vast majority, including people like L.K. Advani, etc., treat it as a
> purely political exercise, a "symbolic redressal of past grievances,"
> "an exercise in national character-building," etc. They are not
> Ram-devotees in the main.
Look, I don't care whether Mr Advani indulges in hatred or whatever. I am
against the policies of the BJP etc anyway. However, my point is that there
are happenings which are not spiritual and also of interest to a Hindu ng,
since they are direct consequences of belonging to Hinduism. What happens to
the Ram temple is certainly, very much, Hindu related. It's a temple for
heaven's sake. If interest about what happens to a temple is not spiritual, I
can't see what is.
There is no need to blanket out news on this, or sweep it under the carpet in
the name of spirituality.
> As such, while we may agree that these kinds of things are of interest
> to Hindus, we *must* accept that they are of interest in a political
> sense, and have nothing to do with spirituality per se. The claim
> Vivek was trying to refute was that political postings were not/would
> not be allowed on SRH.
The claim I am trying to refute is that it was purely political. It was about
the political and socio-economic consequences of being a hindu and certainly
is on-topic in a moderated hindu forum.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
