Did someone say that the kind of Hinduism practised at Puri is what
Assam >should practise to be part of India?
*** But Ram did not make a distinction either. We all know how
Hinduism is rife with this kind of abomination. Ram actually tried to
do damage control by suggesting ALL religions have problems like that
and that Assam Hindus may not be any different.
Lighten up.
*** Actually my initial response was in jest too.( See: *** And why
not :-)? ) It is YOU who missed it :-)
Now on the incident at Puri - Change is bound to happen if the
educated and >liberated Hindus in India stop visiting or donating to
the temple. Temples need >money to run. Absence of money will cause
a quick change in the thought process >of the priests and the board
of trustees.
*** Question is WHAT is holding them back ?
At 10:05 AM -0800 3/2/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
Ramgopal succeded in sending you off on a tangent by taunting you on
a subject so dear to you. Lighten up.
You said, " *** And I asked WHY NOT? If the kind of Hinduism the
custodians of one of its holiest seats are practising, is cited as a
reason for Assam to NOT seek independence, then SHOULD Assam ought
to buy such reasoning from those who seek continued control over
Assam by India?"
Did someone say that the kind of Hinduism practised at Puri is what
Assam should practise to be part of India? Ramgopal has not. The
incident at Puri definitely can't be a reason for Assam to secede
from India. That will be no better than what the priests did when a
non-Hindu (polluter in the eyes of the priests) entered the temple,
in fact it is the same kind of reaction - rejection.
Now on the incident at Puri - Change is bound to happen if the
educated and liberated Hindus in India stop visiting or donating to
the temple. Temples need money to run. Absence of money will cause a
quick change in the thought process of the priests and the board of
trustees.
Dilip
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 9:19 AM -0800 3/2/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS AGAIN FROM YOUR OWN EMAIL - " *** And why not
:-)? It does underscore, once again, the hollowness of the
Hinduism that SOME proponents of Indian servitude for Assam wave as
a reason." and THINK WHY I WROTE THE WAY I DID.
*** Yes, I read that. And comprehended it too. And I remember the context too:
Ram's taunt of
>I hope people don't jump up and down, and use this as a show case
to show why >Assam should gets its independence
*** And I asked WHY NOT? If the kind of Hinduism the custodians of
one of its holiest seats are practising, is cited as a reason for
Assam to NOT seek independence, then SHOULD Assam ought to buy such
reasoning from those who seek continued control over Assam by India?
You tell us if it is a reasonable argument. Or if such an argument
should be given any respectability?
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
