[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus
In article <ghenDvCC1y.I3C@netcom.com>,
Roy Raja <rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>In article <ghenDv4vtp.JyM@netcom.com>, Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net> wrote:
>>
>>How does it follow logically that either all Vaishnavas are Hindus, or
>>else none are? What is the inference rule used here, and what is the
>>basis for it? Does it similarly follow that all Vaishnavas are
>>left-handers, or else none are?
>
> It is like this. Either you are a human or a monkey, you can not be
> both at the same time.
Your "logic" is shoddy at best and embarassing at worst.
Can someone be a Hindu and a Shaivite? Yes.
Can someone be a Hindu and a Vaishnavite? Yes.
Can someone be a Hindu and a Shakta? Yes.
Can someone be a Hindu and an atheist? Some say yes.
Can someone be a Hindu and a Christian? An article posted on
SRH recently would say yes
So now, we've hopefully established that you can be Hindu and
something else at the same time. Let's look at the converse:
If you are Hindu and Vaishnavite, does that mean that you must be
a Shaivite? No.
This shows that there is not an equality relation as some have
claimed. Otherwise, if A=B and B=C, then A should equal C. Since
someone can be a Hindu and a Vaishnavite without being a Shaivite,
then it shows that no two of the three are equal.
> We have a situation here that some of the vaishnavs are not hindus.
> Can you tell me the difference between vaishnav hindus, and so-called
> non-vaishnav hindus.
Culture.
> If there is no difference, then all vaishnavs must
> be either hindu or non-hindu. Frankly I don't see any difference.
This has been explained before at length.
> Now please explain in detail what is the difference between hindu and
> non-hindu vaishnavs, so that we can make a reasonable arguement.
Answer some of the larger questions and you'll see what a slippery
slope you're on. Specifically, go ahead and give us your definition of
Hindu as a starting point.
-Vivek
