05-14-2005, 01:13 AM
Carl,
You are talking in riddles. Let me explain..
1. We were talking about the representation of certain sects in the academia and your point was that a majority of hindus dont actually practice some of the schools and I think that you agree that most paths have validity and that we all belong to the tree - call it hinduism, or sanatanism or whatever. We can all differ on what is the best branch and what not.. I dont think the dispute is about that since you are saying that this just proves the vitality of the hindu spiritual traditions.
2. The point of contention I guess then -> there are some sects that are not well represented in the academia. Your opinion is this is due to chauvinistic etc individuals who just want to play their own tune. Hence your solution in one of the early posts was to ask the question "who speaks for hinduism". My understanding of that was -> ok Carl is saying Vaishnavs should speak for Vaishnavs, Shaivites for Shaivism and so on.. IOW rather then talk about hinduism people should talk about Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc.
3. But then on my suggestion that the definition/representation of hinduism should be at a higher level (meta level if you will) you sort of agreed with me. I dont understand why. Every one of us are then actually saying the same thing then and we are back to square one. We have 'hinduism' back as a whole and not as parts ? which is not the same thing that I understood you were saying in #2 ?
4. Am I to understand then that the ONLY disagreement that we have is about which branch bears the better fruit ? But in light of your comment about "taking sides too early" wouldnt it be better for the english-educated-hindu seeking his/her philosophical heritage to read about ALL these branches anyway ?
Where do we differ ?
Edited : some grammatical errors.
You are talking in riddles. Let me explain..
1. We were talking about the representation of certain sects in the academia and your point was that a majority of hindus dont actually practice some of the schools and I think that you agree that most paths have validity and that we all belong to the tree - call it hinduism, or sanatanism or whatever. We can all differ on what is the best branch and what not.. I dont think the dispute is about that since you are saying that this just proves the vitality of the hindu spiritual traditions.
2. The point of contention I guess then -> there are some sects that are not well represented in the academia. Your opinion is this is due to chauvinistic etc individuals who just want to play their own tune. Hence your solution in one of the early posts was to ask the question "who speaks for hinduism". My understanding of that was -> ok Carl is saying Vaishnavs should speak for Vaishnavs, Shaivites for Shaivism and so on.. IOW rather then talk about hinduism people should talk about Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc.
3. But then on my suggestion that the definition/representation of hinduism should be at a higher level (meta level if you will) you sort of agreed with me. I dont understand why. Every one of us are then actually saying the same thing then and we are back to square one. We have 'hinduism' back as a whole and not as parts ? which is not the same thing that I understood you were saying in #2 ?
4. Am I to understand then that the ONLY disagreement that we have is about which branch bears the better fruit ? But in light of your comment about "taking sides too early" wouldnt it be better for the english-educated-hindu seeking his/her philosophical heritage to read about ALL these branches anyway ?
Where do we differ ?
Edited : some grammatical errors.