[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Hindu category is inferior to Vaisnava category?
Hello,
: >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?)
: Please answer this question : Do you consider Hanuman-ji a vaishnavite *and*
: a non-hindu ?
: or Are you implying that all non-vaisnavas are like Ravana-s :-)
This but not that? I thought Hinduism was above that? Also saying that
someone correct (or agreeing with your beliefs) is like Hanuman or Sita
and someone incorrect (disagreeing with your beliefs) is like Ravana or
the Kauravas.
What of Bhima? What of Drona? What of Krishna's soldiers. All were on
the side of the Kauravas. What of Balaram, Krishna's brother, who could
not bring himself to war. What of the Pandava's Uncle Satyaki who was
tricked onto the Kaurava side.
Saying that everything not this is that is clearly wrong!
If the only thing right are devoutees of the Maha-Vishnu, then Krishna is
wrong because he did not worship Rama, Vishnu, or any of the other aspect
of the Maha-Vishnu. Sri Ramakrishna is likewise wrong, because, although
he to was an incarnation of Vishnu, he was a devoutee of Kali.
: >If you will find anywere statment that Hanumanji was hindu we can continue
: >this argument.
"Hanuman knew the vedas and was schooled in their teachings." He probably
knew them better than all of you put together. I can't quote it BCV,
because the version I have doesn't include BCV. But the quote is there.
Is that good enough.
: Show me an statement in the purana-s that say Ravana is a hindu.
Ravana is quoted as "being a brahmin and vituous, knowledgable in the
veda and their precepts", although he let his greed overtake him. Oh
sorry, that's the Ramayana, not a purana.
Bests,
Jay
