[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <4t1rf6$hba@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Roy Raja <rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
> SRV has a FAQ that says that all vaishnavs are not hindus.
No, it doesn't. The statements "Not all Vaishnavas are Hindus" and
"all vaishnavs are not hindus" are not at all equivalent from a
logical standpoint.
> If some vaishnavs are not hindus, then who are they?
Vaishnavas.
> What does it take to be a Hindu?
I've asked for someone to define Hindu, and I'm sure that Shrisha has
also asked for people to define Hindu, but so far, nobody has. Rather
than being indignant about the statement, it would be a good idea to
think about what you're _really_ arguing about.
Think it over calmly at first and ask yourself if you _can_ come up
with a definition of Hinduism which everyone agrees upon. Then present
it here and ask yourself why not everyone agrees with your definition.
> I want to hear on this from the netters, as I believe that this point
> is closely related to SRH reorganisation issue.
Actually, I believe that you're mistaken, and should take a look at
the answers in the SRH reorg FAQ about this question. The FAQ is
available at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
Awaiting your reply,
-Vivek
