[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <4t4hbu$bu6@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, <sns@ix12.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hello:
>
>Here is a portion of a post by Vivek. It was a response by
>him to post by me where I argued that Hinduism can be defined as anyone who
>follows the six-darshanas and is
Interestingly, enough, while you reproduce the quote today, I don't
believe you ever answered the question asked by it.
More interestingly, the quote you reproduce below is oddly nothing
like the claims you made about it earlier. Should I take it that this
is an implicit apology for the distortion in your earlier post?
>not just a socio-cultural definition and his
>argument was that - Hinduism isn't a
>single religious philosophy that can be tested for orthodoxy.
>the following is Viveks quote..
> "However, for the sake of discussion, let me throw out an example:
>there are punk Virashaivites. Are they Hindu? Why or why not? They
>dress like punks, they act like punks, they might even be gay, and
>they worship Shiva in lingam form. Would all Hindus accept them as
>Hindus? Why or why not?"
>_________________________________________
>
>I am sure that both of us are gentlemen enough to
>argue in a civilized way as has been the way upto this
>point and we definitely can keep it that way.. on the
When you made erroneous statements about what I said, all I asked was
that you either back them up with proof or retract them. Then, both
you and RB kept on repeating the same claims, while never providing
proof.
I don't consider such conduct gentlemanly.
>points that we differ on. However, I do find that the
>points we do differ on is minor when we take a larger
>view of Hinduism :-) and appears to be major when we get
>get too close ...its all relative, I presume
I find the armchair warriors who claim to represent the one, true
Hinduism to be something of a farce, especially when all they can do
is lie about what their opponents said and repeat the same claims ad
nauseum hoping that eventually, they will be perceived as truth.
Even more interesting is the case of imaginary Hindus, like
Venkatraman O. Iswaran, who votes from
stallion.jsums.edu. Interestingly enough, JSU has no record of such a
person, and that account, voi@... was formerly used by the Voice Of
India.
Of course, all of this ties into the repeated lie that "person X
claims not to be a Hindu," where person X is usually one of the reorg
proponents. I have stated that I'm a Hindu, and I've stood up for
Hindus on more than one occasion. However, Hindus shouldn't have to
resort to petty con games and outright lies to support Hinduism, and
the fact that some choose to do so should indicate that perhaps they
don't have a whole lot of faith in what they claim to stand for.
If blatant lies and vote fraud are needed by certain people to
"defend" Hinduism, what exactly is the next generation supposed to
learn about Hindu values?
-Vivek
