[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re:Hindu category is inferior to Vaisnava category?
In article <ghenDv34F8.GnJ@netcom.com>, rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu (Roy Raja)
quotes me and writes:
>>Vaisnavas who are worshipers of Visnu are not 'muslims' or 'jews' or of
>>any of other so-called dhama.
>>
>
> Are you implying that vaishnavs are not hindus at all? We can discuss
> that, but what is your logic in claiming that some vaishnavs are
hindus,
> and some are not. Logically, either all vaishnavs are hindus, or none
> of vaishnavs are hindus. Can you tell what is your view before we
> proceed?
<<Logically, either all vaishnavs are hindus, or none
of vaishnavs are hindus.>>
The point that I'm trying to bring is that 'hindu' is not valid category
to be
compared in terms of logic. All 'birds' are 'wonderful', or none of
'wonderful' are 'birds' In the same way you ask me if I say 'some
wonderful are birds, and some are not.' But the terms are of a different
nature. Wonderful are 'extraordinary', 'not horrible'. Best way to define
Vaisnava is to understand what is 'non-vaisnava'. Like Hanumanji is a
vaisnava and Ravana is non-vaisnava (and look one is Hindu and what you
will say about the vaisnava Sri Hanumanji?)
If you will find anywere statment that Hanumanji was hindu we can continue
this argument.
