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
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.
* - in fact, the shared world-view issue is fairly weak, especially if
you assume what you label as "mythology" is in fact viewed as