[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <ghenDv4vu2.K23@netcom.com>,
Roy Raja <rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>>> SRV has a FAQ that says that all vaishnavs are not hindus. This is
>>> really a far reaching statement, and I want to know who decided that.
>>
>>I'm calling your bluff. Show me where the SRV FAQ says that. Give an
>>exact quote.
>
> What bluff. FAQ says that not all vaishnavs are hindus. What is the
> difference.
There is a very simple difference. What the FAQ says is that there are
some Vaishnavas who are not Hindu (not all Vaishnavas are
Hindus). What you have claimed is that the FAQ says that _all_
Vaishnavas are _not_ Hindus. There is a big difference, since I would
contend that most (but not necessarily all) Vaishnavas are Hindus.
> Can you give a definition of vaishnav, and then prove that
> there are some vaishnavs who are not hindus.
That would require you to give me a definition of Hindu you'd like to
use. Consider the definitions we have seen here on SRH:
- a recent article said that all Indians, regardless of religion, were
Hindu. This article was presumably written by someone of the
Christian faith, and it was being circulated by the BJP. Their
definition of Hindu, therefore, has nothing to do with religion, and
everything to do with culture and national identity.
- the Hindu Students Council calls Hinduism a "cultural ethos" - note
the use of the term culture.
- one of the Indian politicans stated that anyone willing to fight and
die for India (or something to that effect) was a Hindu, and the rest
were not. Note that this is an explicitly political/nationalistic
definition of the term.
For the sake of argument, I'm willing to use any of the above
definitions, or if you'd like to provide one of your own, I'd be
willing to consider the issue.
-Vivek
