tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21956427.post8547733433783222875..comments2023-10-05T15:01:01.611+05:30Comments on Of Thought & Action: On HinduismRitwikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00616694597577112758noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21956427.post-25273887192525848132009-04-27T02:56:00.000+05:302009-04-27T02:56:00.000+05:30Sriram : I don't know if Ritwik wanted to be count...Sriram : I don't know if Ritwik wanted to be counted in the broader political group - he seems to be rather unsure about that ( but unlike many other IIM-ites, he doesn't consciously try to be unclear about that ).<br /><br />But as for me "broadening the net" as I "shift perspectives" - I would perhaps have done that if I knew how to write engagingly. If at all anyone seriously contemplates something I write outside my profession, it will be someone deeply committed to Hinduism in a religious sense. So the best I can hope for is to bring those guys to more actively supporting political Hindutva, and perhaps also to boost the confidence of some of them that vEdAnta is not trivial. Okay, I don't want to continue hijacking this thread further ( apologies to Ritwik ).<br /><br />BTW nice to be assured of where you stand :-)froginthewellhttp://kupamanduka.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21956427.post-29768819535622656312009-04-26T21:11:00.000+05:302009-04-26T21:11:00.000+05:30This is much better. Maybe I should have read this...This is much better. Maybe I should have read this first. <br /><br />Vivekananda was just a bombastic bengali who got a US visa long before I did. Why give him so much bandwidth?<br /><br />A better bengali has already answered him: Amartya Sen. Maybe all we can do is to request Kupamanduka to read The Argumentative Indian and spare us his next post.avataramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597255929527656007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21956427.post-11657913928522766642009-04-25T20:05:00.000+05:302009-04-25T20:05:00.000+05:30I did not accuse of shifting perspective, but the ...I did not accuse of shifting perspective, but the whole sequence of you posting-ravikiran refuting-ritwik joining the fray has fallacy of equivocation at work. Like you mentioned in your posts, your unified group excludes Ravikiran and Ritwik, so to speak, and to gain admittance, they need to confirm to your definition of Hindu.<br /><br />Whom you consider Hindu is pretty obvious - from a religious perspective. But the unity that you mentioned was of a political kind based on identity. Which is what interests Ravikiran and Ritwik. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, you need to broaden the net as you go from one perspective to the other. <br /><br />That said, I think Ritwik wants to be counted in the broader political/identity group based on Hinduism, though he does not share your religious ideas. Ravikiran thinks groups of any kind have a net negative effect. He may agree that formation of groups is natural and inevitable, but might want to denounce any active/conscious effort to do so.<br /><br />Btw, just so we are clear, I am one of the "hindu fascists" your post was originally meant to.Alan Smitheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03421286928212470470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21956427.post-34811009197866682692009-04-25T01:05:00.000+05:302009-04-25T01:05:00.000+05:30BTW I wasn't shifting perspectives. My view and pe...BTW I wasn't shifting perspectives. My view and perspective of Hinduism are religious - this should be pretty obvious from my posts. You may say I haven't precisely defined a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to be considered Hindu. But I don't think that matters, it is pretty clear which people I would consider as Hindus and which people I wouldn't ( given that my perspective is religious ).<br /><br />And my intention was to justify the political perspective from the religious perspective.froginthewellhttp://kupamanduka.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21956427.post-6837877220017538442009-04-24T23:05:00.000+05:302009-04-24T23:05:00.000+05:30I think you captured the essence of all the modern...I think you captured the essence of all the modern arguments surrounding Hinduism in the political sphere quite comprehensively when you said <br /><br />"Most generally, the trouble arises when one constantly shifts from a reliogious/theological perspective of Hinduism to an intellectual/philosophical one to an identity/political one as per one's convenience in the argument."<br /><br />Though I believe there is a hierarchy in all this, identity/political aspect being the broadest and least concrete.Alan Smitheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03421286928212470470noreply@blogger.com