Again, a strawman - more below.
>Furthermore, the major sects among the Vaishnavas, Saivas,
>and Saktas at least pay lip service to the Vedas, and the
>names each use for worshipping the Divine are all mentioned
>in the Vedas.
Still misses the "core" of each.
>To claim that Vaishnavism, Saivism, and Saktaism are not
>related is utter ignorance.
To set up a fake strawman is worse, don't you think?
I asked for the relation analogous to the ones drawn for the sects of
Christianity. That part of the article was snipped and is reproduced
below:
----
Your "more proper" analogy itself is flawed - more below. However, All
of the above groups can be called Christians because
a) they derive from (and believe in) Jesus Christ
b) they share the New Testament - a central holy book in Christianity
----
Now, if Vaishnavism, Saivism, and Saktaism have either a shared
founder or a shared _central_ holy book, then the claimed analogy
holds. If the best you can do is to say "well, they have a shared
world-view" or "most of them don't deny the Vedas", that's not
quite as strong a comparison. (*)
Remember - Krishna's comparison was challenged by someone trying to
equate Vaishnavism, Saivism, and Saktaism to various sects within
Christianity. No basis has been given yet.
-Vivek
* - in fact, the shared world-view issue is fairly weak, especially if
you assume what you label as "mythology" is in fact viewed as
"history".