[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <ghenDvCC24.I56@netcom.com>,
Roy Raja <rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>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.
You asked by what authority we make statements, so the question has
been put to you. Now do you understand what Shrisha said?
> 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.
Am I correct is understanding that from the above, you do _not_
believe that the Earth is round? That's a side issue, and a humorous
one, but that's not important here.
What is important is your question of the burden of proof. Just
because a notion is popularly held does not mean that it escapes the
burden of proof. Every assertion should be provable, or else you could
just get enough people believing something without ever questioning
it.
> The fact is you are spreading a monumental lie, and I have every reason
> to question how did you come to that conclusion.
And I have every reason to question how you can prove your claim that
the statement in question is a monumental lie. Your saying so does not
make it so, but if you could prove it, that would be another matter.
>>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,
And you came to the conclusion that he failed to define Hindu how?
Have you actually read the FAQ?
> how did
> you come to the conclusion that there are some vaishnavs who are not
> Hindu?
You haven't yet defined Hindu, but you've been making assertions based
on the term all this time. Would you please finally go ahead and
define the term?
-Vivek
