I think he's painting a bit too open and free picture of Hinduism here. Also, the consistent superlatives used in describing the "glorious" open-source Hinduism and the "closed-source" Western/Middle-Eastern religions is a bit drab. He seems like he wants to capitalize on the goodness that is associated with the term "open-source" and link that goodness to Hinduism, and associate the negativity associated to "close-source" with Western/Middle-Eastern religions. They shouldn't be compared like this without painting a false picture.
There are many sects within Hinduism = true. There are many sects within nearly any other religion = true. Should you be able to add something to the body of a religion without any push-back? Can you? I doubt it and it would be silly if you could. Can you do that to any open-source project? Nope, unless you fork, and at that point it's a new "sect" or possibly "religion" anyway.
If you must compare them, they are simply different levels of open.
Comments
I think he's painting a bit too open and free picture of Hinduism here. Also, the consistent superlatives used in describing the "glorious" open-source Hinduism and the "closed-source" Western/Middle-Eastern religions is a bit drab. He seems like he wants to capitalize on the goodness that is associated with the term "open-source" and link that goodness to Hinduism, and associate the negativity associated to "close-source" with Western/Middle-Eastern religions. They shouldn't be compared like this without painting a false picture.
There are many sects within Hinduism = true. There are many sects within nearly any other religion = true. Should you be able to add something to the body of a religion without any push-back? Can you? I doubt it and it would be silly if you could. Can you do that to any open-source project? Nope, unless you fork, and at that point it's a new "sect" or possibly "religion" anyway.
If you must compare them, they are simply different levels of open.