01-12-2005, 10:52 PM
These are side issues but important enough to be addressed right away.
Ashok, I dont think there has been a blatant abuse of power and the justice system. It clearly shows now that the system is slow, but working. I spoke on caste issues on another thread, now trashed. These kanchi events is a brahmin vs brahmin vs brahmin thing and there is no need to pull the rest of the subcontinent into this by default of non sympathy. Our hands are full with caste discrimination, poverty and now this tsunami thang. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The SC has not agreed anything, except that bail cannot be denied, which is the right thing to do. Nothing more to read into this.
I am on nobody's side on this issue, but this itself is causing great consternation. Why dont you see the kanchi sampradaya as just another Hindu sampradaya, one of hundreds, and whether it lives or not does not make the big Hindu picture change! I give it a 0.04% influence on Hinduism, just no more importance than any one of those beachside Hindu temples washed away by the tsunami. Even Adi Shankara in just a grain of sand on a long beach of a galaxy of Hindu saints and sages. Why dont you see this view?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding calling "Vaishnavism' and 'Shaivism' as different religions, I disagree. Religions typically provide mutually exclusive paths to salvation. Ask Jew, Christian or Muslim clerics. According to their dogma, people of other religions would not be 'saved'. Is that the way 'vaishnavism' and 'shaivism' differ in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. We Hindus do not believe in exclusivism. This is semitic thinking. This answers your question. By describing saivism and vaishnavism as 'religions', we emphasise the completeness and wholesomeness of both. By describing them as 'sects', we emphasize the relatedness. Both descriptions are valid and necessary, not one more important than the other.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There has been a lot of discussion whether Hinduism, Budhism etc should be called 'religions'. By terming these 'dharmas' religions, we unwittingly adopt a term which is unfairly loaded against the basics of the 'dharma'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont see a problem at all. Hinduism is both a religion as well as an overarching dharma too. But I do not see a conflict. I dont see how its limiting or shortchanging us. Since we speak to the non Indian world, we use the terms that best suit satisfactory explanation.
Regarding ISKCON, they are believers of the book, and as they quite readily say, they are not Hindus. It is we who find it difficult to stomach that. Why dont we just accept their belief system instead of trying to categorise them. Prabhupada knew what he was doing and he does not need counsel from us.
Saivism is quite different in this regard; it has less to do with beliefs and more with conduct or practices. If you notice in siddha.com.my , more than half the page is devoted to 'Hindu Practices'.
Still beliefs are important: there is no concept of avatar in saivism, which conceptually puts it far away from vaishnavism and closer to buddhism, and puts vaishnavism closer to the semitic religions, with son of god and prophets. Not starting an issue here but just to stress that all these things have been thoroughly thought out. At this point I better explain that me and my family have had a real experience with Lord Hanuman, who, under directions from Lord Ganapati, personally saved us from serious predicaments. He is a real being. So the sectarian relationships are real and close, far more than conceptualists would admit. And by the way, he is not a monkey. He is a Lord.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have developed a great liking for Kashmir shaivism and hold it as one of the greatest philosophical and meditational systems. Although I am really a shAkta.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Siddha.com.my serves as an entry portal to saivism for non-Indians. The Iskcon and Bochasanwasi websites serves as an entry portal for vaishnavism. If you are a Sakta, why dont you start one for Saktism, Ashok. Make it mirror mine.
Regards.
Pathma
Ashok, I dont think there has been a blatant abuse of power and the justice system. It clearly shows now that the system is slow, but working. I spoke on caste issues on another thread, now trashed. These kanchi events is a brahmin vs brahmin vs brahmin thing and there is no need to pull the rest of the subcontinent into this by default of non sympathy. Our hands are full with caste discrimination, poverty and now this tsunami thang. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->The SC has not agreed anything, except that bail cannot be denied, which is the right thing to do. Nothing more to read into this.
I am on nobody's side on this issue, but this itself is causing great consternation. Why dont you see the kanchi sampradaya as just another Hindu sampradaya, one of hundreds, and whether it lives or not does not make the big Hindu picture change! I give it a 0.04% influence on Hinduism, just no more importance than any one of those beachside Hindu temples washed away by the tsunami. Even Adi Shankara in just a grain of sand on a long beach of a galaxy of Hindu saints and sages. Why dont you see this view?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding calling "Vaishnavism' and 'Shaivism' as different religions, I disagree. Religions typically provide mutually exclusive paths to salvation. Ask Jew, Christian or Muslim clerics. According to their dogma, people of other religions would not be 'saved'. Is that the way 'vaishnavism' and 'shaivism' differ in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. We Hindus do not believe in exclusivism. This is semitic thinking. This answers your question. By describing saivism and vaishnavism as 'religions', we emphasise the completeness and wholesomeness of both. By describing them as 'sects', we emphasize the relatedness. Both descriptions are valid and necessary, not one more important than the other.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There has been a lot of discussion whether Hinduism, Budhism etc should be called 'religions'. By terming these 'dharmas' religions, we unwittingly adopt a term which is unfairly loaded against the basics of the 'dharma'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont see a problem at all. Hinduism is both a religion as well as an overarching dharma too. But I do not see a conflict. I dont see how its limiting or shortchanging us. Since we speak to the non Indian world, we use the terms that best suit satisfactory explanation.
Regarding ISKCON, they are believers of the book, and as they quite readily say, they are not Hindus. It is we who find it difficult to stomach that. Why dont we just accept their belief system instead of trying to categorise them. Prabhupada knew what he was doing and he does not need counsel from us.
Saivism is quite different in this regard; it has less to do with beliefs and more with conduct or practices. If you notice in siddha.com.my , more than half the page is devoted to 'Hindu Practices'.
Still beliefs are important: there is no concept of avatar in saivism, which conceptually puts it far away from vaishnavism and closer to buddhism, and puts vaishnavism closer to the semitic religions, with son of god and prophets. Not starting an issue here but just to stress that all these things have been thoroughly thought out. At this point I better explain that me and my family have had a real experience with Lord Hanuman, who, under directions from Lord Ganapati, personally saved us from serious predicaments. He is a real being. So the sectarian relationships are real and close, far more than conceptualists would admit. And by the way, he is not a monkey. He is a Lord.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have developed a great liking for Kashmir shaivism and hold it as one of the greatest philosophical and meditational systems. Although I am really a shAkta.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Siddha.com.my serves as an entry portal to saivism for non-Indians. The Iskcon and Bochasanwasi websites serves as an entry portal for vaishnavism. If you are a Sakta, why dont you start one for Saktism, Ashok. Make it mirror mine.
Regards.
Pathma