05-13-2005, 08:41 PM
<b>rajesh_g</b>,
You're spot on with most of what you said. My intention was to open a discussion at <i>how best</i> this can be done -- and to <i>spread an awareness</i> among Hindus and non-Hindus that this is the case.
This is trickier than it sounds, and there may be "stress" between the twin objectives of allowing free theological discourse and preserving 'Hindu unity'. Strong language will play a part in debate, because its not simply a philosophical discourse, but there are psychological issues involved. This is actually a very interesting point, and is at the heart of the way religion (and religious rhetoric) has evolved worldwide over the last 3000 years -- the sudden ban on "idol-worship" in the Semitic traditions, The Buddha's decision to shove the Vedas into the background, how Sripad Sankara took it from there, and so on. I gotta run now, but I'll prolly be back later to briefly explain my understanding of this point.
You're spot on with most of what you said. My intention was to open a discussion at <i>how best</i> this can be done -- and to <i>spread an awareness</i> among Hindus and non-Hindus that this is the case.
This is trickier than it sounds, and there may be "stress" between the twin objectives of allowing free theological discourse and preserving 'Hindu unity'. Strong language will play a part in debate, because its not simply a philosophical discourse, but there are psychological issues involved. This is actually a very interesting point, and is at the heart of the way religion (and religious rhetoric) has evolved worldwide over the last 3000 years -- the sudden ban on "idol-worship" in the Semitic traditions, The Buddha's decision to shove the Vedas into the background, how Sripad Sankara took it from there, and so on. I gotta run now, but I'll prolly be back later to briefly explain my understanding of this point.