On Monday 21 Jul 2008 4:42:51 am Charles Haynes wrote: > 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.
I think you are choosing to judge me without understanding what I am trying to say. The people who turn you away from temples think that they are the arbiters of Hinduism, But they are not the arbiters of Hinduism any more than the people who are turned away from temples. Your statement seemed to accept that the people who turned you away from temples were the arbiters of Hinduism. Furthermore I get the impression that you think I somehow belong to the group that turns you away from temples. That is why you make a rather strong accusation that "I am trying to have it both ways" in which there is centralization and I am claiming decentralization. If you take a deep breath and read what I am trying to say before shooting off a reply - it is entirely possible that you might see what I am trying to get at. Let me try again. Hinduism is decentralized. In that decentralized environment any number of people have taken it upon themselves to claim ownership of Hinduism. And one group among those self appointed owners of Hindusim are the people who have made you so worked up and angry (with me too?) - i.e the people who turn you away from temples. shiv
