On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:44 AM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 20 Jul 2008 2:55:55 pm Charles Haynes wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Has anyone ever looked at Hinduism as the ultimate decentralization of >> > religion, which is what it is. >> >> The "ultimate" decentralization of religion is each person defining >> religion for themselves. >> >> As long as some arbiter of Hinduness can refuse me entry to a temple >> because I'm not Hindu enough, then Hinduism is hardly the ultimate >> decentralization of religion. >> >> ... especially when "not Hindu enough" in practice means "not Indian >> looking enough" regardless of what I might actually believe. > > Hence the loss of meaning from quoting only part of what I wrote. For > completion, may I repeat rest of my post which was meant to address what you > have said after quoting what suits your view? > >> But it is open to poaching by anyone who tries >> to create a central attractor. >> >> Decentralization works. For a bit.
It sounds like you are defining "Hinduism" as the bits you like, and the bits you don't (whatever those might be at any given time) have been "poached" or perverted? Convenient. But if Hinduism is really that decentralized, are not the views of those other Hindus just as valid as yours? You can't have it both ways. Either Hinduism is decentralized, and their view of Hinduism is just as valid as yours, or you are setting yourself up as a centralized authority on who is really Hindu. ... and they seem to disagree with you. -- Charles
