harbans wrote:I think the first step should be to reject the definitions of Hindhuism provided by the present setup.
JohneeG when i was talking about this last year you were pretty much on the forefront cricitizing me for saying so. That is why that all Dharmic sampradayas remain united i keep calling for doing away with the Hindu definition and rallying under the Dharmic tag and various Dharmic sampradayas for the choosing. I mentioned it 2 years ago that many sects will break away. Sikhs, Buddhists, Jain have. Hare Krishna have in the USA and will too in India. Many here were arguing hard that HKs are not Hindu's etc..a pointless debate when you're losing out so badly. Vaishnavs and Sai Bhakts etc will all soon be registered separately till we understand and make a meta ethic template compatible with the various Sampradayic Dharmas. Only then we shall have a cohesive force that will stand up for every Dharmic sampradayas interests. Else divided we fall. This must happen prior 2019. BJP/ RSS/ VHP then may have to change tack a bit and rally under a Dharmic banner. That will be the right alternate platform to prevent further damage to the Dharmic sampradayas.
Yep, when I wrote that post I was reminded of you. But after seeing your post, I now realize why I had opposed your points.
The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is:
I am saying:
There is already a clear definition of Hindhuism according to Hindhuism. But, many people(including the judiciary or constitution) don't want to take the definition of Hindhuism by Hindhuism. Instead, they want to come up with their own definition that suits their tastes.
The debate generally starts with the word 'Hindhu' and its supposed foreign origin. But thats a silly issue because Hindhuism has many synonyms. And if the word 'Hindhu' is the problem, one can easily use other synonyms. But the problem is not with the word 'Hindhu', but with the very identity and definition of Hindhuism. People raise the supposed foreign origin of the word 'Hindhu' to argue that there is no identity/definition of Hindhuism. And thats wrong.
Judiciary/state has come up with a strange definition of Hindhuism which is supposed to be everything and nothing...which tolerates everything and opposes nothing...which should not be defined and remain undefinable. This sort of strange way of defining Hindhuism goes against many of the core ethos of Hindhuism. Whenever Hindhus try to assert themselves on any of their cherished values, they are put on a backfoot by this strange definition. Further, Hindhus are guilty of being the majority. Due to that crime, they are supposed to never raise their voice on any of their aspirations as a community.
So, I am saying that if the identity of Hindhu has been corrupted and if being the majority is the problem, then use other identities like sect, caste, region,...etc to achieve the perks and privileges that have been granted to many of the so-called minority creeds. Most of the times, these so-called minority creeds are vastly more powerful than indic religions due to the foreign backing. Infact, globally, they are THE majority creeds. So, for them to claim victim status is the height of irony in my view especially since they were also rulers in the not so distant past.
What you are saying is:
Hindhu identity is a hurdle, so we have to create a new identity. But of course, Hindhu is not just an identity, it is a religion. So, there has to be some compromises in the religion. A new dharmik creed which is an amalgamation of all 'dharmik' sects has to be created.
You are talking of creating a new religion. I am talking of using other identities to achieve the same goal. What I am saying is very different from what you are saying.
Altair wrote:johneeG wrote:For example:
If muslims are allowed to marry 4 times, then Shaaktheyas should also be allowed to marry 4 times. Why should Shaaktheyas come under Hindhu marriage act?
If alimony is unlawful according to muslim beliefs, then Shaivas should also demand that alimony is unlawful according to their beliefs. Why should Shaivas come under Hindhu act?
I think this idea needs further thought processing. Different Hindu sects claiming Minority status. There are Risks associated but if there are advantages we can balance them.
That aside, johneeG, If you are married and come under Shaaktheyas and your SHQ visits this post, you are in trouble!!
Yes, saar. There are risks and it could go horribly wrong with sectarian conflicts.
Traditionally, my family is not Shaaktheya, but I am inclined towards Goddesses.
If Congress is a washout in non-Telangana, 1/4 vote share is clearly bogus. oh! this is CNN-IBN survey.
