[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The definition of HINDU (Was about VK Rao's def) .. very long

[I see no reason to cross-post this thread; so I am limiting th
distribution.]

In article <4d29sr$6mr@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
GOPAL  Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <gopal@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>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. 

Your explanation is wrong. I was responding to S. Rao's and Pai's articles,
with a note pointing out that somebody was posting articles based on
partial information, and in groups where the original article appeared.

For those who are interested, the root article id is
		4b6j04$t5h@math.mps.ohio-state.edu
I never saw any article by Gopal Ramana that was directly attached to this
article. Hence my claim that he is basing his argument on later posts and
not on the root article.

>[you might like to see http://www.dezanews.com for your article, if you
>have forgotten what you have written in it]

I confess that, as a www-illiterate, I am unable to find the root article
there. If anyone can send me a copy of the article, thank you.
[I did find the follow-ups, but could not locate the root article,
which the follow-ups give the message-id as the root article in the
references line.]

>
>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"]

I did not `dilute' the notion of belief. I simply pointed out that there is
no >the< Webster's dictionary, quoted an except from Collin's "Webster's"
New World Dictionary to point out that `belief' does not include absolute
certainity'. Apparently, it is ok for Ramana to quote dictionaries, when
I cannot do the same to point out his mistakes.
>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.

I have said, and I still maintain, that if Vaishnavas want to say that
Vaishanavism is a separate religion from hinduism, I will accept their
claim. But my argument with S. Rao and Pai was (when the first phase
of the argument erupted with my reply to Ms.~Breish) that they claimed
that Hinduism is not a religion, while Vaishnavism etc. are. 

My argument is that either Vaishanvaism is a separate religion or it is
a subgroup of Hinduism. My criticism is for the point of view that
some Vaishnavas are not Hindus but others are. My claim is simply that
if some Vaishnavas are Hindus, then all Vaishnavas are Hindus, and that
if some Vaishnavas are not Hindus then none are.
-- 
Vidhyanath Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu		the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341			[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.