[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao) very long
In article <4cnn7u$ob2@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <gopal@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>In article <4cgd3i$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)
The point is that S. Rao was responding to an eariler article, not the
quotes preceeded by the '*'. Mucking around with the '>' or its equivalent
obscures the thread. That is my complaint.
>>>[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)
Here are the two statements expressed as logical sentences with variables:
(1) Xs cease to be Ys of Xs say so.
(2) Xs do not cease to be Ys if Z says so and Z is not an X.
The hypotheses, on who is talking, are disjoint. I fail to see how they
can contradict each other when they apply to disjoint domains.
Perhaps Gopal can us his logic which I, with my puny intelligence, fail to
grasp.
--
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]
