[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <ghenDv4vtn.Jxr@netcom.com>, Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net> wrote:
>In article <ghenDv34H7.H8D@netcom.com>,
>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 don't need any authority to question Pai. If you are saying something
contrary to popularly held notions, the burden of proof is on you.
If I say that earth is round, then I have to prove that, and nobody
is wrong in questioning me.
The fact is you are spreading a monumental lie, and I have every reason
to question how did you come to that conclusion.
>
>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.
Let me turn the table on you. If you failed to define Hindu, how did
you come to the conclusion that there are some vaishnavs who are not
Hindu?
Raja
