[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao) very long
[Thanks for Drubaji's post about Lord Krishna's assertion. i am
merely following it up as academic excercise on the def by VK Rao]
In article <4cgd3i$jgv@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao <vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <DKBuD9.968@ecf.toronto.edu>
>gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (name_is_nothing_but_fame) wrote:
>
>>This is reg the definition of the term Hindu given by VK Rao:
>>[Paragraphs with * before them are excerpts from V.Rao's post]
>To decide whether Jainism is part of
>Hinduism, one must also ask Jains. If Jains refuse to call their religion
>a sect of Hinduism, then what Hindus think does not matter.
>>(h) My understanding of vira shiva (lingaayat) -- based on discussion
>>with a lingaayat -- is that they do not accept the authority of vedas.
>Some Lingaayats consider their religion to be separate, not an `offshoot
^^^^^
>of Hinduism' (see, Ishwaran, `Speaking of Basava'). Whom do I trust?
[only emphasis added by gopal]
>>* Another argument that S. Rao offers is `X is a Hindu, but he does not
>> follow my interpretation of Vedas. So he is not Vedic.'. This is
>> non-sense because, Hindus have always had the freedom to interpret
>> Veda. They cannot be said to disregard the Veda just because they
>> they differ from you. [Such arguments are common in sectarian
>> polemics. But Eastern Orthodox do not cease to be Christians because
>> some evangelist says so.]
>[Note that S. Rao was not responding to my post in the next line.
>Gopal's editing, which cleverly omitted the usual `>'s for my post,
>is likely to mislead those who count `>'s to follow the sequence.]
(i have clearly stated that your statements were preceded with *. i
have put your statements on an issue at one place show that i find
possibly some contradiction. if you can, show that there is no such
contradiction in your arguments)
>>[following one line from S Rao]
>>> 3> [this definition implies that] Jains and Buddhists are not Hindus.
>>* So now Buddhists are Hindus too?
>>Are you saying that Buddists do not cease to be hindus because some
>>buddists say so? (before arguing 'all' buddists say so --or 'all' eastern
>>orthodox's say so-- please define what you mean by a buddist. if you say
>>buddists are those who consider buddha as god, heena yanis dont count but
>>most hindus count. if you say one who will believe in buddist philosophy,
>>many hindus count. if you say buddist is one who clamis he is one and not
>>the one who does not claim so, then all those vaishnavas that claim
>>themselves to be vaishnavas but not as hindus, cease to be hindus).
>This is the kind of deliberate misconstruction that Gopal uses instead
>of real arguments. The thread of posts and the question mark at the
>end of the quote from my post clearly imply that I do not consider
>Buddhists to be Hindus. The reason, given by various people for the
>last 2000 years, is that they reject the authority of Vedas.
There is no "misconstruction" here. i am just showing the inconsistency
in your stand from your position on evangilists.
i am not saying that you have claimed budhists to be part of hinduism.
i am just trying to link your statement on Eastern Orthodox:
"Eastern orthodox do not cease to be christian just becasue some
evangilists say so".
on this basis can we (or will you) argue that budhists are also part
of hinduism because "they dont cease to be hindus, just because some
budhists say so?"
(we are dealing with the term hindu here so it is valid in this thread),
you "might", then, argue that "no. not just "some" budhists but "all"
budhists say so... that is, they say they do not belong to hinduism, so,
they are not hindus'-- as against "some" evangilists saying so w.r.t.
eastern orth,.... and therefore budhists are no-hindus.
Then, if you want to say that "all " budhists say so, then we need to
understand who are those "all", because there are certainly budha
worshippers in hindu fold, who do not get included in that "all
budhists say so" argument.
on the other hand, if you argue that it is not
necessary for "all" budhists to say that they do not belong to
hinduism, and that those who say so do not belong to hinduism,
and those who do not say so belong to hinduism (see also your
argument on jains and lingayats, specifically the latter for similarity):
Then: the evangilists saying eastern orthodx are no christians can make
them non-christian[because they say so]
But interestingly we will then, in this hypothetical scenario, have two
corralaries:
(1) Some vaishnavites who claim they are not hindus, cease to be hindus.
(2) We have a simpler definition for the term hindu (one who considers
explicitely or implicitely to be a hindu)
>Now, why is this not in news.groups?
I answered it in my opening para of my prv post: i did post the relevant
aspects to news.groups, also a note that i am posting this elseshere.
since you are insisting, i will post this to news.groups again.
