[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
In article <4t1r99$ha3@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Rajiv Varma <rvarma@stallion.jsums.edu> wrote:
>The exercise to sift "political" from "religious" would be purely an
>academic one.
That's fine; neither of us is shy of academics or academic issues.
>What is political and what is religious, who knows?
Anyone who wishes to use the words `political' and `religious' in a
sensible way has to know what they mean. If the concepts are
un-knowable, then there cannot exist words for them. Indeed,
something that is inconceivable cannot even be a concept, by the very
notions involved. This is an elementary point. Nothing that is
unknowable can be described, and conversely, anything that is
described is knowable.
>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......
Political, all of them.
>VHP is not a political party. VHP programs certainly seem to be of
>interest to Hindus, hence they belong to SRH.
Ok.
>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.
This is something you'll have to convince Ramakrishnan about -- he's
the one who said BJP-speak is not on topic for 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).
I could argue with you on that one, but the exercise would be
pointless.
>>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.
In a Hindu context, `religion' does not have a meaning. Accept?
"Spiritual" is closer to "dharma" than `religion' is.
As such, your point is not of much note.
Besides, observe that in saying so far that the political and the
religious have an intersection, or are even inseparable or
indistinguishable, you are definitely running down the worth of Ajay
Shah's statement that purely political articles would not be allowed.
If politics and religion are not distinguishable, then Ajay's
statement is totally meaningless.
>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).
See above.
>>scripture is used?
>>
>
>Manu-smriti. Reservations are a (rather feeble) attempt to abrogate
>Manu-smriti, IMHO.
Rubbish. Whatever be the genesis of reservations, it is not the case
that any article about reservations is ipso facto about the Manu Smrti
-- even if one accepts that reservations have anything to do with the
M.S. -- which I do not. The article quoted Taslimuddin, and it is
surely a stretch to say that his views have anything to do with the
M.S. By a similar token, any article which mentions "truth" even once
must be related to the Taittiriiya Upanishad, because that text has
"satyaM vada" (speak the truth) in it.
>>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.
I'll grant you that -- but only for argument's sake. Even so,
Taslimuddin did not quote Gandhiji even once, and the reservation
policy is the artifact of Nehru's thinking rather than Gandhiji's
-- you have no basis for saying that Gandhiji is a saint quoted
whenever the reservation issue is discussed.
Besides, per your own thesis, the reservation issue is related to the
Manu Smrti, but Gandhiji, even if he be a saint, had nothing to do
with the Manu Smrti -- he is not quoted in it, he did not expound upon
it, use its teachings in his life, etc. As such, it is seen that you
have merely taken two unrelated entities and presented them together,
although they don't properly plug into a proper whole (or even relate
to the article separately).
>>What is the higher moral or spiritual truth conveyed?
>>
>
>That Manusmriti is invalid today. Casteism is invalid.
Which of Taslimuddin's statements quoted in the article, or the
background to them, led you to that conclusion? If you are supplying
that as an extraneous piece of information, then it cannot be asserted
that it is the truth conveyed in that article.
>>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?
No, do not agree. You have no basis for that statement. One has no
experience of a spiritual world on which to assert that mundane
affairs affect it; any scripture that speaks of a spiritual world also
invariably asserts its independence from the world of one's
existence. As such, any source that tells us of a spiritual world
also tells us that it is unaffected by everyday life.
>Imagine Bakhtiyar Khalji invading East India, and pillaging Buddhist
>Monasteries. Okay? What would have Buddha preached in this regard?
I don't see what this has to do with your previous point, but never
mind that.
Keep in mind that the Buddha's preachment was that the world is
totally illusory. Thus, he would no doubt have had to say that Khalji
and his invasion were illusory as well.
>>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.
You're welcome.
>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.
Fine; but what does that have to do with anything under discussion?
>>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?
I've already covered that. In any event, as I said, the point is that
if you're first going to say that purely political postings will not
be allowed, and are then going to turn around and argue that politics
cannot be distinguished from religion, then your total thesis will not
make any sense.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Rajiv
