[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: soc.religion.hindu.reorg
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: soc.religion.hindu.reorg
-
From: sns@ix.netcom.com (Sam Sanders )
-
Date: 23 Jan 1996 16:57:14 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Netcom
-
References: <4d4htr$6oi@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dksir$kn2@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dnfgh$q3v@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4duf0f$gol@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
Dear Vijay..
what you are saying is exactly my point..
When I say that all vaishnavas are hindus..but you end up saying
"not all vaishnavas are hindus". When the same logic you argue for
creating SRV is used to justify creation of other groups for
madhvacharya, ramanujacharya..etc, you dont agree.
Anyway, I am disheartened to learn that a remove group command was
issued to eliminate SRV, that reeks of intolerance, and whoever did it
needs to accept his/her mistake.
I hope that a compromise is reached. I am sure that a large number of
readers of this group are frustrated as I am to see this group being
held hostage to satisfy individual egos on both sides.
For once let there be one group for all Hindus around the world.
satish s.
In <4duf0f$gol@babbage.ece.uc.edu> vijaypai@mandolin.rice.edu (Vijay
Sadananda Pai) writes:
>
>In article <4dnfgh$q3v@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Sam Sanders <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>hmm...only people who
>>are born in areas close to where Madhvacharya was born are true
>>Vaishnavites..
>
>Sorry, sir, but no Maadhva would say that even if he thought that
>Ramanujites or Gaudiyas were non-Vaishnava. Why? Because Madhvacharya
>traveled up and down India making followers; by the above questionable
>definition, Padmanaabha Tiirtha and Narahari Tiirtha (Madhva's
immediate
>successors) wouldn't be Vaishnavites.
>
>Yours,
>
>Vijay
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin:
srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
>Archives/Home Page:
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
>
