[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
In article <4sfve0$3c6@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, Shrisha Rao <luxmee@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <ghenDuKtr2.7HJ@netcom.com>,
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>>
>
>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.
>
The exercise to sift "political" from "religious" would be purely an
academic one.
What is political and what is religious, who knows?
How would you classify Mid-East peace process as: "political" or
"religious"? Riots in N. Ireland? Fighting in Sri Lanka? So on and so
forth......
>>> Hmmm... I didn't happen to find even the tiniest bit of
>>> religious content to this article. Whatever happened to
>>> the claim that there weren't articles which were "pure
>>> politics" on SRH? I guess that while the RFD was being
>>> discussed, all of the political types must have been
>>> requested to stay away?
>>
>>If articles about the BJP or VHP had been given, extolling their policies etc,
>>that would have been purely political.
>
VHP is not a political party. VHP programs certainly seem to be of
interest to Hindus, hence they belong to SRH.
Reg. BJP's policies .... it all depends .... is it is the issue of Rama
Mandir, there will be a religious content in that issue, hence the SRH. If
it is Swadeshi (which is based on Hindu economics), then it also belongs
to SRH.
On the other hand if it is Adam Smith, certainly it does not belong to
SR.{any_christian}, as the economic policies in the west have the genesis
in anti-religion movements (Renaissance, French Revolution, Bolshevik
Revolution).
>
>Even that news item about the reservation issue is purely political.
>Tell me, where and what exactly is the spiritual content in it? What
>
I thought we were talking about soc.religion.hindu and not
soc.spiritual.hindu ...... but again, yet, what you consider political and
what you consider spiritual may itself have an intersection set.
Political comes from politics, a derivative of activities of the demos
(the people, the masses). Thus both religious and spiritual can be
political and otherwise.
The term "Hindu" is not religious ALONE, never political ALONE, nor
spiritual ALONE, it is a civilizational term. But then there is no
soc.civilization hierarchy (to the best of my knowledge).
>
>scripture is used?
>
Manu-smriti. Reservations are a (rather feeble) attempt to abrogate
Manu-smriti, IMHO.
>
>Who is the saint whose teachings are applied or
>explained?
>
Mahatma Gandhi ji.
There is no way you can dispute the sainthood of the Mahatma.
>
>What is the higher moral or spiritual truth conveyed?
>
That Manusmriti is invalid today. Casteism is invalid.
>
>Yes, but again, accept that those things are *not* spiritual; they
>relate to the "mundane affairs of life." There may be a very few
>
See term "Hindu" explained above. Mundane affairs of life do effect
Spiritual world. Don't you agree?
Imagine Bakhtiyar Khalji invading East India, and pillaging Buddhist
Monasteries. Okay? What would have Buddha preached in this regard?
>
>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
>
Thanks for the factoid.
>
>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.
>
Sri Advani's struggle for the RJB is akin to Shivaji's crusade for the
Hindavi Swarajya. Shivaji did restore the faith of those who were forcibly
converted to Christianity in Goa, but he did not touch those who had
converted to Christianity of their own voilition.
>
>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.
>
but then it is NOT soc.spiritual.hindu, is it?
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
--
regards,
Rajiv
