[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
-
From: Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU>
-
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 03:56:17 -0500 (CDT)
Shrisha Rao wrote:
> 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.
>
So can we (safely) assume that freedom of speech is one of the most important
rights which should not be curtailed if the posting at least "passes" the
requirements on the FAQ and/or moderator of a particular newsgroup?
Why then was Bio Giovanni's posts killed on SRV? Was this decision based on a
vote? If so, when was the vote announced? And is there such a provision in the
"rules & regulations book" of the SRV? If so, why is it not mentioned in the
SRV-FAQ?
> 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.
>
BTW, the SRV FAQ also states:
quote--
Does one have to be born a Vaishnava?
No. Many Westerners have wholeheartedly taken up Vaishnavism. Historically,
Vaishnavas have often run afoul of caste-conscious brahmanas because anyone can
be a Vaishnava, even those who are considered outcaste.
unquote--
This is absurd. The statement,"Vaishnavas have run afoul of the caste system"
is a contradiction in terms (at least according to the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya)
for the Vishnu Purana says,"Consider him a Vaishnava who does not deviate from
the duties prescribed by his caste". (Please note that a Vaishnava is implicitly
assumed to belong to a caste.) Ramanuja, one of the revered leaders of the Sri
Vaishnava Sampradaya does accept the VP as authentic scripture. So according to
at least one Vaishnava sampradaya, the outcastes are *not* Vaishnavas *at least*
in theory.
So making a generalization as in, "even those considered outcastes can be
Vaishnavas" is simply not true again because at least the Sri Vaiahnavas would
not consider an outcaste a Vaishnava at least in theory.
Also, please enumerate the "Vaishnavas" who have run afoul of the caste system.
If any amongst them is Hindu, can we also say,"Hindus have run afoul of the
caste system, so anyone can be considered a Hindu, even if he is an outcaste" ?
>
> 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,
Sure they do! The Websters gives the meaning of the word "believe" as:
believe\ 1: to have a firm religious faith 2: to have a firm conviction as to
the reality or goodness of something 3: THINK, SUPPOSE
Going by definition #2, do the Maadhvaas "have a firm conviction as to the
reality or goodness of *Vishnu*" ? I should think so, for the Dvaita FAQ
states that Vishnu is real. So we can definitely say,"Maadhvaas have a firm
conviction as to the reality of Vishnu", which makes them "believe in Vishnu".
quote from the Dvaita FAQ---
2> Why is Dvaita known as Tattvavaada?
Because that is the correct, and preferred name; the doctrine asserts
_five_ differences, not just the one referred to above, and its
scholars and proponents call it the "doctrine of reality," where the
three kinds of entities in the universe (insentient or jaDa, sentient
or chetana, and Vishnu or Iishvara) are all real, and the differences
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
between any two are also real.
unquote----
Another point:
Since I do believe that every statement in tattvavaada has proof, there must
be a proof for asserting the reality of Vishnu. If so, then we can say
that having a firm conviction in logic is itself enough for the firm conviction
in the reality of Vishnu, which makes anyone who has a firm conviction in logic
a Vaishnava!
OR we could question whether tattvavaada can really boast of having "proved"
that Vishnu is real.
> at least under any sensible interpretation of
> the term. Are they Hindus or are they not?
They are, if we go by the definition "Hindu=believing in Vishnu", which is what
Roy said, I think.
Also, you had claimed that you were a Hindu. On what definition did you base
that claim ?
>
> > 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.
The SRV FAQ says " A Vaishnava is a worshipper of Vishnu". Is that not a
reasonable definition?
If not, what is the correct definition?
> 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),
I don't see any difficulty with defining "Hindu religion" (separately from
"Hindu culture").
A reasonable definition for "Hindu" (as a person who belongs to the religion
Hinduism) could be:
1) One who believes in the Vedas.
2) One who believes in one or more of the Ramayana/Mahabharata or Puranas as a
religious piece of literature.
3) One who worships or believes in one or more of the deities mentioned either
in the Vedas or the Ramayana/Mahabharata or Puranas.
If one satisfies any one of the three criteria mentioned above, he is considered
to be "Hindu" (in the religious meaning of the word).
By this definition, the Muslims who are born in India are not "Hindu" by
religion.
Is anything wrong with accepting this as a definition?
> 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.
>
By the above definition, Vaishnavas do come under the umberella of "Hinduism".
> 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?
What exactly are you trying to say? Please clarify what you mean by "forcing"
someone against their will.
> Especially so when the exact meaning of `Hindu' has not been defined,
If so, why are you interested in this news-group at all? This is a news-group
which, you claim, does not have an exact definition of the word "hindu", so
essentially, there can be no difference between this and another news-group
named "soc.religion.xyz", where the word "xyz" too does not have an exact
definition. Why don't all the current srh reorg proponents simply create a new
news-group "soc.religion.xyz" and leave the rest of us discuss in peace in srh?
Since both "xyz" and "hindu" defy exact definition, how is one different from
the other (except that the word "Hindu" is used more often that "xyz")?
> 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.
By the definition of "Hindu" that I provided, Vaishnavas are Hindus since
they believe in Vishnu, who is a Vedic deity.
> Regards,
>
> Shrisha Rao
-Kartik
