[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: soc.religion.hindu.reorg
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: soc.religion.hindu.reorg
-
From: Shrisha.Rao@launchpad.unc.edu (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: 22 Jan 1996 17:31:24 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
Expires: 29 Feb 1996 23:59:59 GMT
-
Followup-To: soc.religion.vaishnava
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
-
References: <4d4htr$6oi@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dksir$kn2@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dnfgh$q3v@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Summary: Maadhvas vs. Vaishnavas.
In article <4dnfgh$q3v@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Sam Sanders <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Anyway.. not all followers of Madhvacharya consider followers of
>Ramanujacharya or Chaitanya as Vaishnavites so...hmm...only people who
And wherefrom does one come to this conclusion?
>are born in areas close to where Madhvacharya was born are true
>Vaishnavites.. the others are not "culturally" vaishnava so we can start
>a new newsgroup alt.religion.madhvacharya
I have never seen a "cultural" definition of Vaishnava, much less one such
given by Maadhvas. Furthermore, it is a historical fact that great saints
in the Tattvavaada lineage, such as Vaadiraaja Tiirtha, Vyaasa Tiirtha,
and Raaghavendra Tiirtha, have accorded much respect for Vaishnavas of
other sampradaayas. Presumably, then, these great personages were unaware
or uncaring of the finer points of being a "true" Vaishnava?
Madhvaachaarya's school has always held that one needs must understand
other doctrines in full depth: thus we find that whilst a specific
doctrine itself may be rejected as incorrect, its adherents are never
reviled. Vedanta tradition has always made a clear distinction in this
matter, and Madhva's lineage is no exception.
Followups set to soc.religion.vaishnava.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
