-9

I posted the question Why don't we start a sect-wise SEs in Hinduism? on March 10, 2020, with a view to eliciting opinions of members of this site.

As of today, at the time of posting this question, the earlier question has received 14 downvotes and 5 upvotes. Good thing that atleast 5 members out of the 19 members, preferred this idea. The remaining members remained silent.

After posting the above question, many of my questions/answers in the main site were either downvoted, or attempted to close down.

For example:

I posted the question Why did (Late) Sri K. M. Ganguli consider Anushasana Parva to be an interpolation? in the main site, as I had some doubts on this topic.

The following are comments under an answer of the above question, between one member ram and myself:

@SrimannarayanaKV, of course there is groupism. every sect will try to enforce their values. what i'm saying is that you are using the groupism-blame to cover up your lack of providing evidence and your unacceptance of provided evidence. – ram 22 hours ago

I know how groupism works in this site. It is very common for a group of members to harass and hound members like user965167. It is also common for downvoting the unpleasant answers like this one posted by members like me and passing sarcastic remarks. @ram – Srimannarayana K V 20 hours ago

When the group of members, who follow Sri Ramanuja, could not provide evidence for claiming Narayana and Lakshmi as SUPREME God heads, from Rig Veda, Why are you asking me for showing evidence? Further, what type of evidence are you expecting from me? Can you explain? @ram – Srimannarayana K V 20 hours ago

@SrimannarayanaKV, I don't know what discussion you had earlier and who provided what evidence from where. But I have a simpler question - Why restrict your choice of evidence to ONLY Rig Veda ? Can you show proof that YOU exist from Rig Veda ? – ram 9 hours ago

@SrimannarayanaKV, i don't see any sarcastic remarks in the ashvamedha answer you posted. I also don't see any evidence for your claim that it is an interpolation other than your assumption that ashvamedha yagna can only be for 1 purpose. putra kameshti is specifically for getting sons. ashvamedha is generally for lordship over earth. no yagna bears fruit if the doer is very sinful. so part of yagna is also prayaschitta to get rid of sins. You go from an assumption (ashvamedha yagna has 2 results mentioned) to claim (so uttara kanda is fake). It rightly deserves downvotes, although I did not. – ram 8 hours ago

You failed to see the sarcasm because you are also with the Idea that the Uttarakanda is not interpolation. It is because the content in Uttarakanda suits to your Idea that Sri Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu, which is not. Anyways, be happy alongwith other members in your illusions and sarcasm. However, as yourself had admitted the groupism is existing in this site, and your silence regarding harassment and hounding of members like user965167 by your group members will itself indicates the very fact that how valid my post in META about division of HSE into sect wise SEs. @ram – Srimannarayana K V 5 hours ago

Finally, the member ram stated as follows:

@SrimannarayanaKV, wait a minute - so you actually think that Sri Rama is not an avatara of Vishnu ?? No wonder you feel there is groupism on this site. I realize I have wasted my time talking to a troll. – ram 2 hours ago


When a member of a particular sect himself admitted that there is groupism in this site, and calls other member as troll and the lone biased moderator looks on silently, what more can be expected from this site?

Today, the attitude of the above member ram and his group of members, belonging to one particular sect and behaving in autocratic manner, proved once again that this site is soon going to die.

Perhaps, the lone moderator of this site belongs to that particular sect.

Is it not a right time to divide the HSE sect wise?

11
  • 2
    Sectarianism and intolerance will always exist. We have to tackle them with sound arguments based on scriptural evidences. – Rickross Sep 15 '20 at 7:35
  • @Rickross: 1) The comment on troll had already been flagged. Let me wait for the action of the moderator. (2) This question was posted in order to highlight the issue again. (3) Yes, I know that miracles are not going to happen with my META post :-). It is only an attempt to bring the burning issue to the notice of all concerned – Srimannarayana K V Sep 15 '20 at 8:01
  • 1
    @SrimannarayanaKV You're very welcome to bring issues on meta; however saying things like "Is it not a right time to divide the HSE sect wise?" is not good IMHO! – TheLittleNaruto Sep 15 '20 at 8:28
  • @TheLittleNaruto: Why not? When a group of members, belonging to one sect, start harassing and hounding other members, in order to prove their point, and at the same time, the moderator remains silent, what option left with me ? – Srimannarayana K V Sep 15 '20 at 10:09
  • 1
    "Is it not a right time to divide the HSE sect wise?" - Just curious, if we divided up by sects, what sect would you belong in? – Ikshvaku Sep 15 '20 at 13:47
  • 1
    Definitely not in Vaishnavism.SE @Ikshvaku – Srimannarayana K V Sep 15 '20 at 14:14
  • 1
    @SrimannarayanaKV You may want to read this thread: hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/34331/647 – TheLittleNaruto Sep 15 '20 at 16:50
  • 1
    I can bet you even Shiva and Shakti- followers take offense if you say Sri Rama is not Vishnu avatara. I stand by my name-calling, because I engaged with you in ideological terms UNTIL you made that conspiracy-theory-level statement. You don't need to be a vaishnava to believe that Sri Rama is an avatar of Vishnu. No sect, no acharya, no authentic book backs up your opinion. You are very vocal about groupism on this site, and I tried to defend that this site is just a reflection of society. But once i realized the reason for your complaining, I realized it's a waste of time talking to you. – mar Sep 15 '20 at 18:03
  • I am not bothered much about the down voting @Pandya. I am more concerned about harassment and hounding the members belonging to other views. If you don't act, being a moderator, a chaotic situation will creep in and many fanatic members like the one in question, will make other normal members, take exit from the site. It is your turn now – Srimannarayana K V Sep 15 '20 at 18:48
  • @SrimannarayanaKV "Definitely not in Vaishnavism.SE" - that is surprising considering your name. – Ikshvaku Sep 18 '20 at 12:47
  • Your doubt is genuine :-). What can I do? I cannot change my name given by my parents. Can I? @Ikshvaku – Srimannarayana K V Sep 18 '20 at 12:52
2

I think you are confused with how the structure of a forum is and trying to see similar features on Hindusim.SE. But that is not possible.

Forums are designed to have sub-sections/sub-forums but there is no scope of having similar sub-sections here. It is just a question and answer site and it is not designed to have sub-sections like forums have.

Now, if you think that sites like Shaivism.SE etc. are really needed then you need to propose them but such proposals should be posted on Area 51 and not here.

So, what you are proposing is not possible to come into effect due to how the site is designed. In other words, it is not possible to "divide" HSE into various sub-sites like you are suggesting.

2

Sectarian issues are not to be solved by dividing Hinduism Stack Exchange, it should be solved by proper guidance and corrections. And that's why following guidelines have been posted whenever the critical problems are felt on this site:

In my opinion dividing Sanatana Dharma into sects would make it weaker, we actually need integration. I don't have a solid reference to cite but the goal of Sampradya would be to focus on particular philosophy/doctrine and following certain practices which are headed down through Guru-Shishya Parampara. Sects would not be intended to fight among each other to provide something like "only we are true and others are false", would neither purposed to create complications but to simplify the things.

Anyway, dividing into sect would not solve the problem e.g if you'll divide into Shaivism, Vaishnavism, there will still exist difference in doctrines and practices among sub groups within particular sects.


Taking about Stack Exchange QA model, Area51 suggest "Bigger is Better" that means it is more successful to have a big site containing wide topics rather than having number of small sites:

...In general, if a site makes sense as part of a bigger site, it's better to have one big site than a bunch of little niche sites....

You'll also face the problem of lack of enough activity to run the site e.g questions per day, visits per day, number of users etc. Another problem is many questions are general and not limited to particular sect e.g Which are the methodologies for interpreting Vedas?. If you run Hinduism Stack Exchange along with Shaivism.SE or Vaishnavism.SE, the following criteria will be applied from Area51

Site X should be subsumed by site Y if:

  1. Almost all X questions are on-topic for site Y
  2. If Y already exists, it already has a tag for X, and nobody is complaining
  3. You're not creating such a big group that you don't have enough experts to answer all possible questions
  4. There's a high probability that users of site Y would enjoy seeing the occasional question about X

So, those (Shaivism.SE, Vaishnavism.SE) would not be viable site proposals, however one can try on Area51.SE


In brief, I insist on solving sectarian frictions if we have and never recommend dividing Hinduism Stack Exchange into sects.

15
  • Thanks! It couldn't be put any better! Hope OP would understand now that there is no need of dividing HSE! – TheLittleNaruto Sep 16 '20 at 7:36
  • Whatever you had mentioned in your answer are appearing to me like Subhasitas, moral rules. On one hand, when I have been reporting of harassment by members of one particular sect, you are remaining silent without any action, perhaps you belong to the same sect, and you are preaching Subhashitas here. – Srimannarayana K V Sep 16 '20 at 8:12
  • When I had raised the issue of purging of a atrocious tag 'neo-vedantin", which is hurting sentiments of a particular section of people, you had given an evasive reply and did not take action on that issue and harassment is being reported, you are preaching Subhasitas. So What is the moderation for in this site? Can you explain? @Pandya – Srimannarayana K V Sep 16 '20 at 8:15
  • 1
    @TheLittleNaruto: you are not feeling the pinch, as you are not victim of harassment. Be happy in your world – Srimannarayana K V Sep 16 '20 at 8:25
  • 1
    @SrimannarayanaKV when you find a harrassment/bigotry comment, flag it. – Pandya Sep 16 '20 at 8:45
  • @Pandya: I had already flagged the harassment to you. What did you do then? – Srimannarayana K V Sep 16 '20 at 8:47
  • @Pandya: Mere deleting the comment made by the other member does not send any positive signal to the members. Shall I take your inaction as your approval for calling names of the other members of my choice, especially members belonging to fanatic Vaishnava Sect? – Srimannarayana K V Sep 16 '20 at 9:59
  • @Srimannarayana K V. If one,two,three or be it all vaishnavas in this site mocked you, how fair it is to call Sri Vaishanavas as fanatic Vaishanava Sect. There are other Sri Vaishanavas living on Earth, if you want to mention them anywhere call them by names (ie Ikshvaku,ram or whomsoever). Visishtadvaita is already a less popular philosophy in Internet, even here there are not many Q/A on Sri Vaishnava's philosophy nor any knowledgable users belonging to VA. This wouldn't been the case if you called some advaita shaiva/shakta/kaumara or any shiva parivara devata bhaktas as fanatic. – Satya Sep 19 '20 at 10:11
  • @Satya:How fair is it to call Swami Vivenkananda, Sri Ramakrihsna, Sri Dayananda Saraswati, etc, as Neo-vedatins by some group Vaishnavaites (I am not bothered whether they belong to which sect of Vaishnavism) and how fair is it on the part of other Vaishnavaites to remain silent, when the above group of pranksters making fun of great people of the country? And, how fair is it on the part of the moderator in remaining silent, when I had requested to take action on those pranksters? What would have you done, had you were in my place? – Srimannarayana K V Sep 19 '20 at 10:23
  • Again don't link their fanaticism or whatever to Vaishnavism. And yes, you are helpless here. If I was in your place I would do the same I am doing now. Asking how fair that was to do. I would have a discussion as to why they are doing so. Still facing problems? I would have ignored them. I as a Vaishnava do not bother seeing something against my views and would give respect to them,their believes and their sampradaya.@Srimannarayana K V. – Satya Sep 19 '20 at 10:33
  • Reaction will differ from person to person @Satya That was my way of reacting, whether right or wrong. – Srimannarayana K V Sep 19 '20 at 10:35
  • Make sure your reaction is only on those those you made you react. Don't defy Newton's Third Law of Motion 😁@Srimannarayana K V – Satya Sep 19 '20 at 10:39
  • I am aware of Newton's Third Law of Motion. There was a saying in scriptures @Satya. If one remains silent, when a respectable person (Guru or somebody else) is dishonoured publicly, it is sin. One should either react or should leave the place. I give respect to all sages of this country and I had reacted in my own way. – Srimannarayana K V Sep 19 '20 at 10:42
  • @SrimannarayanaKV I have already responded on neo-vedanta here. – Pandya Sep 19 '20 at 10:51
  • @Pandya: You are reacting like Dhritarastra. What is the use of mere preaching for Peace? – Srimannarayana K V Sep 19 '20 at 10:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .