[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : The Re-Organisation Mess
In article <4skjqc$aa4@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Sabberwal Suraj <sabberwa@NCSMSG02TR.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
>
>Namaste,
>
>As I browsed soc.religion.hindu today after a gap of about 20 days, I was
>aghast at the "Campaign of MALICE and HATRED" that certain people are
>carrying out with reference to Re-organisation.
>
>FRIVILOUS issues like whether Vaishnavites are Hindus or not are being
>thrown in . The limit of absurdity was when one writer went to the extent of
>asking for a DEFINITION of Hinduism WITH his own pre-conditions ! This is
>ridiculous.
However, how is it indicative of "MALICE and HATRED," even if it is
ridiculous? If it isn't, then it is not a very good example. If it
is, then perhaps you could tell us exactly how. Note, in this regard,
that the alleged (in)equation of Vaishnava and Hindu was raised by
Ajay Shah and another writer, not by me.
>One Mr. Rao wanted a definition that should not violate the Supreme Court
>declaration that Hindutva is Indian - ness !! The same Mr. Rao brings in
>MERE MORTALS like Hussain, Sunderlal Patwa and Sikander Bakht to DEFINE
>HINDUISM !!
>
>MERE mortals cannot DEFINE the DIVINE , Mr. Rao.
Very well. Then, show me that Hinduism is divine. Or at least accept
that your point is predicated upon acceptance of your notion of
divinity -- if I don't accept it (say because I'm inclined towards
pragmatism rather than spiritual virtuosity), then your point is
useless.
The reason I brought in MERE MORTALS like Hussain, et al, is that I
consider them Hindu, and they consider themselves Hindu as well. This
point will come up slightly later.
>Well, for such UNLEARNED writers, the answer is simple - there is no
>definition for Hinduism.
Thank you. In that case, do you dispute or discard the Supreme
Court's view? You are at full liberty to, with no objection from me.
But in the absence of a proper definition, I will not entertain any
claims for what Hinduism is and isn't, because it is clear that your
assertions are dogmatic rather than rational.
>Hinduism, as a religion, provides an individual with a path to attaining
> spiritual bliss. Our HOLY BOOKS SUGGEST ways and means of how to become
>one with GOD. There is nothing dogmatic about Hindu religion - therein lies
>its BEAUTY.
I beg your pardon. Your understanding seems to be monistic
(neo-Advaitic?) or some such; my understanding, as laid out on the
Dvaita Home Page (http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html) is that
never, ever, under any circumstance, can anyone become "one with GOD"
and that no scripture teaches such a message. Also, while Tattvavaada
(Dvaita) is not "dogmatic" in a strict sense, it often appears to be
from the outside, because it revels in taking up and rejecting every
possible counter-hypothesis. There is no scope for the "all roads
lead to Rome" approach in it, unlike what you say.
I am not asking you to accept this -- I am only asking you to accept
that according to you, only monists can be Hindus, and that dualists
like me are not.
But then, since you have rejected me from Hinduism, why should I
accept anything you say? Your exclusivist notions are of no value to
me.
>Contrast this to the EXTREME RULES & REGULATIONS of other faiths - quite
>often the cause of untold miseries on this planet. Even modern day scholars
>say that religion is a PERSONAL ISSUE.
Once again, I must point out that EXTREME RULES & REGULATIONS exist in
Tattvavaada, or even for that matter in Advaita -- that most people
who are supposedly adherents do not choose to follow those doesn't
mean they aren't there.
I know of no modern scholar of any repute (except perhaps the late
Surendranath Dasgupta) who has any significant understanding of
Tattvavaada -- in fact, religion in the traditional western sense has
no meaning in our traditional context, and one cannot say that it is
personal or social.
>For God's sake, do not confuse a beautiful concept like RELIGION with the
>REGIMENTATION IN AN ARMY !!!
>
>IF YOU want DOGMAS, go to an ARMY barrack ; don't toy around with RELIGION.
Has it occurred to you that *YOU* are the one being dogmatic here?
You've barracked others for speaking about religion, yet you go on to
do a worse case yourself, by making all sorts of dogmatic assertions
which you expect others to swallow wholesale, with no rational basis.
>Chew upon this tiny morsel - We can NEVER completely define a SMALL
>PAINTING, even if we use up all the words in the English dictionary, WHAT TO
>SAY OF RELIGION !!!
Aha! Actually, this point is one of genuine philosophical
significance, and your intuitive understanding is to be commended for
its worth, since it conjured this very significant point, which is
originally a Buddhist argument against the Vedas.
The answer given by Tattvavaada is that while one cannot say that one
has _completely_ defined the painting, one can certainly say that one
has _correctly_ defined it, to whatever extent one has.
That is, that one has not completely grasped every nuance of the
painting in a description is not a reason to dismiss the description
wholesale. Rejection is only when one is able to point out an error,
and if _all_ descriptions, including the ones where the error of
another is pointed out, were useless, then there could be no rejection
at all. One would merely have total anarchy where no sentence
conveyed any meaning.
That is, supposing that it in fact were the case that because one
cannot describe every possible aspect of a painting in a description,
description is useless, then _language_ itself would be completely
useless. There would be no purpose to anything said. However, from
experience, one does not have the idea that all language is completely
useless -- one does use it to good effect; above that, if language is
useless, then what worth to your own argument about the inadequacy of
description? Because that too is stated in language, it too must be
discarded. Thus, your thesis strikes at the roots of its own
existence, and is subject to the flaw of "apa-siddhaanta-doshha"
(refer Dvaita FAQ).
>The moment you bring in BIZZARRE rules and regulations, as is the case with
>some faiths and religions, you bring in the issue of "" RELIGION for the
>sake of promoting POLITICAL FORCE and BRUTE MIGHT."" A case in point is
>Islam. It is no secret that Prophet Mohammad used Islam for making
> sweeping conquests in Arabia, the Middle-East and Asia. If we keep emotions
>out of the picture totally, it is not incorrect to say that Mohammad's
>islam was MORE POLITICAL and LESS RELIGIOUS.
I agree with you about Islam. But the fact is, there are specific
doctrines, Tattvavaada for example, which do embody what you'd call
"BIZARRE rules and regulations." It is certainly not political, but
it emphasizes rationality to the utmost, even to the extent where
adherents of opposing schools would find it frivolous or worse.
>2. Vaishnavas as Hindus
> ----------------------------------
>Ofcourse they are Hindus.
>Ask a majority of Vaishnavas spread out throughout the world and you will
>get the answer.
But, if asking people whether they are Hindus is the answer, then why
would you not accept that Hussain, Bakht, Patwa, etc., are Hindus?
There also are other problems. One cannot have a notion based upon
the alleged views of a certain majority, instead of a proper
definition. There are many difficulties with such an approach, of
which I name four:
1> If one has to determine whether the sky is blue by asking a large
number of people "is the sky blue"? and recording their answers, one
might conclude that the sky is blue; but, and this is very significant
-- one will never have a proper notion of "blue-ness." That is, one
may know that a certain object or class A satisfies property P, but
one will not know what the defining characteristic of P is, so that
when another object B comes up, one can determine whether or not it is
P for oneself. In this case, one might know that Vaishnavas are
Hindu, but one would not know what Hinduism is. I'm sure this isn't
hard to see.
2> One cannot know if all the people one is asking mean the same thing
when they agree -- how does one account for differing understandings
of the same word? If, to take an extreme example, there is a
Vaishnava who thinks that `Hindu' means "an ambidextrous person," and
he happens to be one, then he might say he's a Hindu, although he
means something altogether different than what someone else who gives
the same answer does. Thus, in the absence of a common notion back of
the questions and answers, one cannot claim agreement even if there is
unanimity.
3> The approach is impractical, because one can never conduct an
experiment to prove it. In fact, I could counter it merely by saying
"ask a majority of Vaishnavas whether they are Hindus, and they will
say no" -- and you cannot possibly counter it by experiment. Thus,
your assertion is dogmatic, and cannot counter the inverse dogma.
4> Your argument embodies the "tyranny of the majority," where a
person is defined and cast into a specific class whether or not she
likes it, merely because of the views of others; i.e., a Vaishnava who
did not consider herself or himself a Hindu would still be called
one. However, the freedom of religion, and also the non-dogmatism of
Hinduism which you have claimed, clearly do not allow this to happen.
>Hinduism enshrines religion as a PERSONAL way of becoming one with God.
Sorry, beg to differ.
>Since there is nothing DOGMATIC about this great religion, the small variety
>of Vaishnavites who say that they are not Hindus are entitled to their
>beliefs. They are free to get OUT of the Hindu fold.
Or to not be accepted into it in the first place?
>HOWEVER, IT IS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO SAY THAT "ALL VAISHNAVITES ARE NOT HINDUS."
Who said this, and when? Show me.
>This is where you are "borrowing DOGMAS from religions such as Islam."
Please! First put your own house in order. Get rid of your own
dogmas before you accuse others of them.
>Contrast this greatness of Hindu Religion with other faiths in order to
>appreciate the full beauty .
>AHMEDIYAS are labelled as "heretics" "non-believers" by Muslims. Their
>"so-called" crime - they believe in the teachings of a religious teacher
>AFTER Mohammad.
>Hinduism has thousands of people following religious teachers and they still
>remain HINDUS since there is nothing such as "Following BIZZARRE RULES &
>Regulations" in our religion.
In other words, anyone who follows "BIZARRE RULES & Regulations" would
automatically become a non-Hindu? That itself is a _very_ BIZARRE rule
or regulation! :-)
>It is quite apparent to a person who can read,speak & write plain simple
>English that there is an " ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN ON to CLOSE DOWN
> soc.religion.hindu. Prima facie, this is the view one gets by simply
>browsing through various messages. Even a 2nd grade child can make this out.
And yet, a 2d grade child often makes mistakes, and here's where she
would be making one.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>regards
>suraj
