[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <4t4hcl$bu9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.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.
Really. Tell me what is the difference. Both statements mean only this:
There are some vaishnavs who are not Hindu. Do you have the authority to
make that statement? Who gave you this authority?
>
>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.
Let me ask you the same question. Define who is a Vaishnav, and we will
then argue whether this is an exclusive subset of Superset Hindu or not.
>
>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 would first like to get a definition of Vaishnav on which everyone
agrees, and then start from there. Because from my point of view
the claim that some vaishnavs are not hindus is absurd. Those who believe
in Vishnu are Hindu, pure and simple.
There are Ahmadiyas, who believe in Quran, and think they are muslims,
but mainstream muslims say they are not. Here we have an opposite problem.
Some vaishnavs, who don't deny that they are hindus, are arguing that
there are vaishnavs who are not hindus, although hindus say that they
are Hindus. Does Mr. Pai know any vaishnav who claims that he is not
a Hindu, or he is speaking for a group that does not really exist.
Raja
>
