[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <ghenDvCDuD.KIG@netcom.com>,
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
>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
Vaishnavas have run afoul of the caste system imposed by society, not
some caste system within Vaishnavism.
>Also, please enumerate the "Vaishnavas" who have run afoul of the caste
Haridas Thakur comes to mind. He was born into a Muslim family, and as
a result, he was not allowed to enter some rather famous temples in
India.
>system. If any amongst them is Hindu, can we also say,"Hindus have run
The only definition by which Haridas would be considered a Hindu would
be "Hindu= anyone born in India (or the subcontintent in general)"
>afoul of the caste system, so anyone can be considered a Hindu, even if
>he is an outcaste" ?
People are not considered Vaishnavas _because_ they have run afoul of
the caste system, but rather, people who are considered Vaishnavas
_have_ run afoul of the caste system. So, your argument does not make
sense.
[ about the Tattvavaadis ]
>They are, if we go by the definition "Hindu=believing in Vishnu", which is
>what Roy said, I think.
If you believe that equality, then Shaivites who do no believe in
Vishnu would not be Hindu according to you. I have a hard time
believing that you or Roy would endorse such a definition, so I
suggest you look for something with significantly fewer flaws.
>By this definition, the Muslims who are born in India are not "Hindu" by
>religion.
Are Jains Hindus? Are Buddhists Hindus? Are Nastiks Hindus?
-Vivek
