[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <ghenDv34H7.H8D@netcom.com>,
Roy Raja <rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>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?
The difference is very simple.
For illustration, consider the statement "not all water is fit for
drinking" and compare with "all water is not fit for drinking."
The former means that not all water found wherever it may be is clean
enough to drink, but the latter means that water itself is not
drinkable. If the statements were equivalent, then life as known on
Earth would be impossible.
So also, a very simple mapping shows that "not all Vaishnavas are
Hindu," and "all Vaishnavas are not Hindu" are not equivalent. Both
statements do not mean that there are some Vaishnavas who are not
Hindu. The former means that there are some (or that there may be
some), but the latter that no Vaishnava can possibly be a Hindu.
Your query re Vivek's authority is unfounded. What authority do you
have to query him, or to doubt anything said in the SRV FAQ or
elsewhere? Who gave you this authority? Obviously, it is assumed
that freedom of speech and thought entails the right to reason and
express oneself without having to seek the approval or unnamed
authorities all the time.
>>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.
The SRV FAQ, which you incorrectly referred to, defines Vaishnava as
"a devotee of Vishnu." Note, however, that unless *both* `Vaishnava'
and `Hindu' are defined, no sensible argument can be made to show that
the former is entirely subsumed by the latter.
>>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.
Is that a definition of `Hindu', then? If not, then what is the
definition of `Hindu' according to which you reach the conclusion that
those who believe in Vishnu are Hindu? Also, note that Maadhvas do
not "believe" in Vishnu, at least under any sensible interpretation of
the term. Are they Hindus or are they not?
> 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.
Your statement "... are arguing that there are Vaishnavas who are not
Hindus, although Hindus say that they are Hindus" is logically
infeasible.
For the present, assume that `Vaishnava' is well-enough defined, at
least to the extent that it can be universally accepted that someone
is either a Vaishnava or is not -- as the case may be. Given this,
and given that `Hindu' has not been defined from the same perspective
(since there exists the possibility, if not the reality, of a dispute
about whether or not some people are Hindus), it cannot be said that
some people claim to be non-Hindu while Hindus claim that those people
are Hindu. See what I mean? It is more proper to say, therefore,
"some Vaishnavas, who don't deny that they are Hindus, are arguing
that there are Vaishnavas who are not Hindu, although some people who
consider themelves Hindus think those are Hindu as well."
The natural consequence of the modified statement is the query as to
what exactly is the notion by which some consider themselves Hindu,
and how can it be shown that this notion extends to the Vaishnavas as
well.
If that query is not answered, the problem is: is it possible to
*force* someone to be a Hindu, in spite of his or her will?
Especially so when the exact meaning of `Hindu' has not been defined,
and such can lead to any kind of abuse? Is it Hindu to forcibly
convert someone into Hinduism, or to force someone to call himself or
herself a Hindu? If yes, then your notion of Hinduism is
significantly at variance with mine, and at odds with history as
well. If no, then your objection has no substance.
I repeat: if you wish to show that all Vaishnavas are Hindus, define
both terms and show how the set fitting one definition is contained
within the set fitting the other. All other attempts will lead to
nowhere.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Raja
