[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The definition of HINDU (Was about VK Rao's def) .. very long
In article <4cvipg$2g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao <vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>>OWN post on the net obliquely addressing it to me as a "certain netter"
>>so before making allegations, check what you have posted.
>
>Let me repeat myself once again: I posted an article in which I proposed
>a definition of Hindu. S. Rao followed up, to which I answered. Now which
>of these is being referred to by `YOUR OWN' post? If it is the last,
>clearly, the quotation from the root article had been subject to editing.
>
>My claim is that criticisms of the definition must be based on the root
>article. Otherwise, it is based on secondhand information.
How many times we need to go over this? I have *not* taken any article
that S Rao posted or you responded to S Rao. I have posted direct response
to your post, in which addressed to *ME* (though obliquely) which
you claimed will present the entire past debate for me. YOU
*have* included your debates with S Rao with *several* comments of your
own explaining me the [apparent] flaws in S Rao's arguments etc.
So if there were errors, take responsibility instead of blaming on and on.
[you might like to see http://www.dezanews.com for your article, if you
have forgotten what you have written in it]
But any way, i have already explained, most sections of my arguments
do still hold, since you have argued the "infallibility" of vedas.
You have diluted since then
(1) the notion of "belief" [now you say it is not necessary to
have notion of "truth" or "actuality"]
(2) belief in vedas [(a) now you say they need not even know the
existence of vedas, if their teachers, teachers' teachers...
know it is fine as well. (b) you also seem to argue that "infallible"
is not that infallible after all (c) now even not rejecting vedas
is also same as believing vedas. (d) worshipping a vedic god is now
same as having belief in infallibility of vedas.
(3) "the" karma doctrine [now you argue that there is no "the" karma
doctrine for the sophisticated, and what is understood by commonman
is what all you meant]
You seem to vehemently argue that Jains are no-hindus since they say so
Lingayaths are no-hindus since some of them say so, but vaishnavas who
say they are not hindus are still hindus.
Peace.
