Talk:Ājīvika

Untitled

The second external link (http://www.rev.net/~aloe/ajivika/) is satirical.

"Of course, ajivikas are not allowed to own animals. However, ownership by an animal is not prohibited."

"Ajivikas are discouraged from wearing clothing when it is unnecessary to do so. Swimming, running, and volleyball are among the sacred activities that Orthodox Ajivikas perform in the nude. The spirit must be free to travel through the pores of the skin."

Yeah right, the sacred Ajivika tradition of nude volleyball. Other parts of that site are also obviously satirical:

   *"Suggestions for enjoying nude recreation in Delaware:
   * Ben Dover and moon.
   * Point your Henlopen toward the ocean.
   * Skinny-dip along the coast.
   * Move in, run for the state legislature, and change the laws.
   * Join a religion that forbids clothing." 

(http://www.rev.net/~aloe/delaware/)

I'm removing it.

Dates

In the article it is said:

The Ajivikasa are thought to have existed in India in the 14th Century, but the exact dates and extent of their influence is unclear. Inscriptions from southern India make reference to the Ajivikas as late as the 13th Century, but by this point in history the term Ajivika may have been used to refer to Jain monks or ascetics from other traditions.

Is it correct? Is it XIV century or XIV century Bce? If it is XIV, it does not fit with the rest of the article. --

It's the 14th Century CE/AD, not BC. While most of the specific information that we have about the Ajivikas is about events and individuals of the last few centuries BCE and the early CE centuries, there are sporadic references to them in literature up until the 14th Century. Detailed information stops coming in during the post-Ashokan era, but the odd mention still occurs- however, it's not clear if these sporadic mentions indicate a truly continuous tradition with the Ajivikas mentioned at the time of the Buddha, or if Adjivika came to be a generic term for individuals who were renunciants who begged for alms. I think one of the articles in the links/citation portion makes this more clear. --Clay Collier 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable references to the Ajivikas are found in Tamil classics Manimekalai and Nilakesi, both not later than 6th cent CE. They seem to have disappeared/assimilated in North India much earlier. Mentions after them are quite ambiguous. 14th Century CE/AD inscriptions refer to a tax "Acuvam Avalambanam", which some scholars interpret as a tax on Ajiviakas.Malaiya (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A good example of conflation of Nirgranthas and Ajiviaks is seen in Asokavadana#Ashoka's Buddhist kingship.Malaiya (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Āstika and nāstika

Is Ājīvika a nāstika school? I thought it was, but can't find a reference saying that. --SJK (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I also thought that it was, and was supported by random stupid blogs, but a deeper study shows that many of them were Brahmins, astika offcourse. Like chanakya! 106.78.13.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ajivika - Part of Hinduism?

Is "Ajivika population statistics have been included with hindus", a proper reason/reference to include Ājīvika to Hinduism?. There are literature evidences like Manimekalai dated 100 AD-200AD which explains 6 different types of religions(philosophies) in ancient India, in which Vaidhika(Current Hinduism) and Ājīvika are treated as different philosophies. Ājīvika researcher A.L.Basham also mentioned in his book "History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas" that Ajivika is not a part of Hinduism. He mentioned that Ajivika and Hinduism as different religions. Please provide proper reference to include Hinduism tag to this page. -- Maverick (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Read "History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, a Vanished Indian Religion" on Page 170 it writes that ajivika served Narayana, anyways, Jatila, Ajivika, or Carvaka are similar to each other, regarded as school of Hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The religions of Ajivika, Charvaka, Buddhism and Jainism are not considered as part of Hinduism. They might share some common religious figures, like Islam and Christianity share Adam, Abraham etc. but that does not make those religions as a part of one another. --Rahul (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No one talked about Buddhism or Jainism. It is already proven that "charvaka" are hindu, one of the traditional school. Don't need further explanation. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Avijika those who serve Narayana. This remarkable passage was noted by Kern, who inferred from it that the Ajivikas were orthodox Vaisnava ascetics. His view was supported by Buler. The passage was studied by Hoernle, who commented on it fully. Bhattopala states that the Ekadandines or Ajivikas were devotees of Narayana, that is Vishnu." From History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, a Vanished Indian Religion, page 170. The book is linked above already. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The given book does not say that ajivika were followers of Hinduism. --Rahul (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Vaisnava are hindus. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Vaisnava are hindus or not. This article is about Ajivika not Vaisnava. --Rahul (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess we are done. Read the source, that is given above. It is clear that number of scholars agree that they are indeed Vaisnava, i.e Hindu. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "Hinduism" did not come into use to mean a religion (popular Hinduism as we know today) until about 19th century. The term Hindu as used in India, as well as outside implied an ethnicity until 19th century. It is a misuse of the term to use it for the period in question. In the time of Makkhali Goshal, the word Hindu was totally unknown in India. Note Ajivikas have been extinct for along time. Note that Jains also worship Rama and Hanumana as moksha-gami, and use the term Narayana, the heritage is not exclusive to a specific religious group. Malaiya (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Malaiya, first use of "Hindu", dates back to 6th Century BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

By who? "Hindu" was used by Persians to designate people who lived east of the Sindu river, the Persians substituted "H" for "S" and it becomes the "Hindu" river and thse people East of it are the Hindus.106.51.104.6 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't read what I had written.Malaiya (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rahul, can you explain how the source is misrepresented? When it says that "Avijika those who serve Narayana. This remarkable passage was noted by Kern, who inferred from it that the Ajivikas were orthodox Vaisnava ascetics. His view was supported by Buler. The passage was studied by Hoernle, who commented on it fully. Bhattopala states that the Ekadandines or Ajivikas were devotees of Narayana, that is Vishnu." Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Hindu and Jain Wikipedia editors should work together to provide reliable unbiased information about Dharmic traditions, which is Wikipedia's mission; rather than wasting time and effort engaging in frivolous confrontations like this.Malaiya (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Don't know what you are talking there. But Rudolf Hoernlé was well learned. So were Buler, Kern. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy of Basham's "History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas" on my shelf. I have had it for about 25 years. It is heavy reading, it was Basham's 1950 PhD dissertation. I have read it. Incidentally Romila Thapar was Basham's student.Malaiya (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Basham makes it clear that Bhattotpal, the 10th cent commentator of Varahamihira, "confused them with Vaishnavites". He explains that the confusion arose because "ekadandin was a word which embraced a large class of mendicants".Malaiya (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, Only because Vinayaka worship, Murugan(Arugan) worship, Swasthika, etc are common between Ajivika, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism(Vaitheeka), doesn't mean that Ajivika, Jainism, Buddhism are part of Hinduism(Vaitheeka). You are referencing the work "History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, a Vanished Indian Religion" written by A.L.Basham and published in 1951. But, he also wrote another(new) book in 1971 named 'Ajivikism: a vanished Indian religion(Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture (Calcutta))'. Many of the views and concepts, which u are referencing in his old book, are changed in his new book. I suggest u read that book and give references. -- Maverick (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors continue to insert comments about the orthodox "Hindu" nature of Carvaka, which is clearly not supported by the sources. Carvaka is a materialist, atheist stance that is no more "Hindu" than Buddhism, Ajivikism or Jainism are/were. Ogress _smash! 21:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it Hinduism?

I removed the Hinduism sidebar but it has been re-insterted again. Ajivika was a sramana religion and was anti-vedic and anti-Brahminical like Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka. The Hinduism sidebar must be removed from the Ajivika page. -Mohanbhan (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't Hinduism although it is Indian philosophy, the sidebar version of which includes Jainism and Buddhism. It also oddly includes Sikhism under "nastika", which needs to be fixed like yesterday, holy cow. Ogress _smash! 19:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: You need to provide a reliable source for your edit. I have read this talk page. Basham is alleged to be stating, "Ajivika is not a part of Hinduism". I checked Basham's thesis and later publications. I could not verify. Do you have a page number?

Some scholars include Ajivika as a Hindu philosophy, which the article states. Ajivika were a Sramanic tradition and they rejected the Vedas, which the article also states. Sramana (श्रमण) just means "seeking/laboring", "ascetic/mendicant". Discussions about Sramana is found in Vedic texts, such as the Shatapatha Brahmana. If you, or @Ogress, find a reliable source that states "Ajivika were not a part of Hinduism", please add such text and the source. But don't remove text or scholarly citations which present a different perspective, because that violates WP:NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not removing anything. I'm investigating. I am doing three separate things at once (as wikignomes often do) and one of those things is investigating cites' validity as I standardise their usually terrible format. I'll be back later and I remind everyone that this isn't a rush job. I do wonder how the Ajivikas can be "Hindu" given that the Jains and Buddhists are not. Is this one of those "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy" situations? It's beyond question that Hindus claim everything not nailed down as Hindu sometimes, and I'm just a little unclear how a heterodox - which is a polite way of say "heretical" -, atheist, materialist shramana movement is "Hindu". Ogress _smash! 20:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lets ignore personal opinions and those claiming "everything not nailed down as Hindu sometimes". Lets stick with reliable sources. Some scholars include heterodox schools within Hinduism, because historically Astika (orthodox) was not about any deity or rituals, it was about the belief in "Self, Soul" or some other detail found in the Upanishads or another part of the Vedas. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Jains also believe in ātman, and yet Jainism isn't Hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism are nāstika schools of Indian philosophy, but they aren't Hindu. I'm trying to figure out from the cites what makes the Ajivika and Carvakas special that they are still Hindu. Also, the Ajivikas were organised: as it states all over the page, the Ajivikas had centers of activity, caves, were explained as traveling in troupes, and had a sangha community center in Sri Lanka. Why did you tag "citation needed" on the statement in the lede? First, the lede is cited only in exceptional situations; second, the evidence is all over the page. (Note that there is no such evidence for the Carvakas as far as I am aware.) On this page, Ajivikas are described as a community; their renunciate lifestyles are described in Jain and Buddhist texts living simple ascetic lives without clothes or material possessions; they had a residential site at the oldest rock-cut caves, the Barabar Caves, with meditation areas and a region that probably held a stupa; they were rivals to the Jain and Buddhist movements; Indian texts state Ashoka had many Ajivikas who were not Buddhists or Jains put to death; it discusses the spread of the Ajivika movement into Gujarat and Sri Lanka. Ogress _smash! 00:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This would be fine: "Ājīvikas were organised renunciates who formed communities." That would summarize the corresponding text in the main article. I am concerned with wording that compares them with organization building and community activities of Jains and Buddhists. I assumed you might have a reliable source for "engaged in similar practices of community-building". If you don't, I suggest rewording. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ajivika, Ājīvika, and INDICSCRIPTS

@Ogress: Ajivika is common (for example, 1). The WP:MOS states, "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines". An occasional mention of Sanskrit scripts (or Japanese, Chinese, other languages) is fine, and useful, in wikipedia. The WP:INDICSCRIPTS discussion was about the excessive use of various Indian language scripts in the lead. It did not ban Sanskrit script from wikipedia, in cases where the word/concept/name has Sanskrit roots. If it did, I will appreciate a page link. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that "Ajivika" is common. The reference you provided is in korean. One of the most authoritative books on Ajivika is A L Bassam. It uses Ājīvika. Can you point out some reliable sources in English which uses "Ajivika"? --Rahul (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If we want to move the page, then start a ref to move it. Otherwise, all I did was take a minority of words and match their spelling to every other appearance of Ājīvika in the text. Don't yell at me, I'm just standardising the page, which was like 80% Ājīvika, 20% Ajivika, and has the official title Ājīvika. Ogress _smash! 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rahul: 1 (first column), 2, 3, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to run a name change, do so, but please don't undue my edits that standardise the page for WP:POINT. Ogress _smash! 23:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINT refers to "a policy or guideline is being applied". Can you link me to the policy or guideline page you are applying? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Literally, I am incorrect. Kudos: you win, I was citing the policy wrong. I see that. However, the page does note, "If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics." The consensus is, e.g., Ājīvika. When I standardised the spelling on the pages (aside from quotes and book titles), you reverted because you don't prefer the consensus. I find your reversions to be disruptive rather than constructive; you don't like it so you are reverting my edits. If you want to change Wikipedia's decision, fine. Let's talk diacriticals. I didn't participate in any vote for or against them on either page. There's also policy about IAST/NLK and romanizing it, although I admit some of it conflicts confusingly. Ogress _smash! 00:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please paste a link to the page that shows the "consensus is Ājīvika" should always be used, and "Ajivika should never be used" in this page. The consensus guideline, BTW, does not mean we can violate the core content policies of wikipedia: no OR, NPOV, verifiability in RS, and so on. Perhaps, once you paste the page link, I will appreciate your concern. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Indic scripts

@Ms Sarah Welch: No, it definitely did not ban Indic scripts. This is totally separate from the WP:INDICSCRIPTS thing and is limited to devanagari. I'm not hacking away Tamil, Punjabi, Nepali, Hindi, Urdu (yeah, yeah, not Indic but close enough) or Oriya/Odia or Bengali. This is strictly a classical languages of India thing.

Why? Despite common understanding, devanagari is not a "Sanskrit script" - it's a common North Indian script that people started using for many languages (primarily spoken) because it was easy to learn and write compared to many other scripts. The appearance of Sanskrit and Pali in Devanagari is a 19th century phenomenon that matches the development of IAST for Sanskrit in roman letters. It's an Indological tool of the 19th century, not an authentic ancient script associated with Sanskrit or Pali, and it was aimed at Indic language speakers trying to learn Sanskrit. Basically, while very useful for students of classical languages such as Sanskrit and the Prakrits, and especially for literacy movements for Indic speakers, it is not actually a very old script. It first appears in dribs and drabs in the 10th century. It's also got lossless romanisation systems in the form of IAST/NLK romanisations.

If we are quoting a text, like the Lanman's reader, we'd use their Devanagari, because 19th century Indologists as well as modern (Northern) Hindu and Mahayana Buddhist publishers often use it for very sensible reasons. But it's not historic, and there's no need to add it to phonological discussions or the like because IAST and/or its daughter NLK transliterate every letter. It's duplicating what is at least a marginally legible and lossless romanisation for the sake of... well, for the sake of what? There's no reason to repeat the information in an alphabet that is unfamiliar. Pali doesn't even usually use it outside of specific Indology circles; various Pallava scripts use special letters for missing ones as they are the equivalent of IAST for the languages of Theravada Buddhism such as the Burmese alphabet, the Thai and Lao alphabets, and the Singhalese alphabet. Pali dictionaries are usually in one of these scripts, not in Devanagari. And in South India, Hindus predominantly use Grantha scripts for Sanskrit, not Devanagari, which is a North India/Himalaya thing. Traditionally, Siddhi scripts were used in East Asia, and Tibetan uses the Tibetan alphabet's extra special letters.

So what I'm saying is that aside from special circumstances like the AUM syllable, where it's made its way into world culture, it's not in any way "genuine" or "special". It's just foreign, and it's not foreign in a way that is useful, because it's a modern invention. IAST does the job without trying to jazz up the place artificially. Ogress _smash! 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Until wikipedia issues a policy ban on Devanagari-Sanskrit, it should stay. A lot of scholarly work, from 19th century Monier-Williams and Max Muller to numerous modern ones are based on manuscripts in Devanagari-Sanskrit, and it makes sense to keep it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it makes sense... what gain is provided by putting Sanskrit? People who can read it already know from the (obligatory) IAST/NLK how it is spelled, and people who can't just see characters they don't understand. It seems to me to be needlessly obscurantist. Half the time it just adds clutter to the page and, for example, in this article, it is being added to a discussion of the etymology of the word. There's literally zero reason to add Devanagari. That Orientalist scholars favored it to stabilise the reading and writing of sacred texts doesn't make it helpful for Wikipedia readers. By the time you can read Devanagari you don't need anyone to add extra Devanagari to pages to tell you how to spell something... Ogress _smash! 23:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The gain is the link to published literature, and to manuscripts. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information. It is not to fashion it based on what you "like" or "don't like" (WP:JDLI). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I could aim "I just (do/don't) like it" at you, too. What "link to published literature, and to manuscripts"? That's why IAST and NLK exist: so experts can know what the Sanskrit name is. Transliterating the name into Roman letters doesn't break the link or Wikipedia pages would be in foreign scripts instead of romanised forms. Ogress _smash! 00:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The goals of IAST, NLK and ISO transliteration standards are complicated, and wikipedia/web search engines have their limitations given the keyboard layout inconsistencies worldwide. Some inclusion of Sanskrit etymological roots or text in wikipedia articles is not only good for reasons I explain above, it is consistent with wikipedia's Accessibility initiative, multilingual aims, ease of verifiability and wiki guideline pages on non-Latin scripts. Numerous English wiki pages on Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and other language concepts/words include scripts (even though ISO transliteration standards for various languages might feel sufficient to some). See Four Noble Truths, for example, it has a translation box with scripts. This reads, "Articles on the English Wikipedia may contain words or texts written in different languages and scripts". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch, Ogress has taken pains to explain why Devanagari is not suitable here, how it is a 19th century script etc. Your adding Devanagari script is not serving any purpose other than making Ajivika "closer" to North Indian Hindi-speaking people. But if you look at the religion historically it is in South India that both Ajivika and Jainism had managed to take root, and it was in non-Devanagari scripts like Brahmi and later Kannada script that literatures (esp. of Jainism) of these religions were written. So your insistence on including Devanagari transliteration here does not make any sense. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: This Ajivika talk page is not the right place for your comments on Jainism, however correct or incorrect they may be. Can you identify a reliable source for, "Ajivika texts were in Brahmi and Kannada scripts". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan's global edits

@Mohanbhan: Please don't do global "find and replace" type change from Hinduism to Brahminism. This caused wiki links to change, such as from Ātman (Hinduism) to Ātman (Brahminism). Similarly, check PT Raju source - it does read Hinduism. Same with a few others. Remember, wherever you are changing Hinduism to Brahminism because you allege there is no reliable source, you must also find reliable source of Brahminism. I have changed some text in two places, hopefully that will address your concerns. If you have specific concerns not addressed so far, let us discuss on this talk page and reach consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Your "Hinduism term is anachronistic as it didn't exist then" personal opinion is irrelevant here, because the content is summarized from WP:RS. Note, the first use of the English-language terms Greek and Greek philosophy are traceable to the 14th century, the first use of terms Christianity and Christian philosophy is traceable to early 16th century, the terms Buddhism, Zen and Buddhist philosophy to late 18th/early 19th-century, and so on. It does not mean Christianity didn't exist before the 16th-century. To verify, check any etymology WP:RS. For this article, we must stick with summarizing the cited sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch: Please observe WP:Civil, read WP:BRD and stop casting aspersions. YOU did the find-and-replace edit by changing the word Brahminism to Hinduism. I only reverted your edit. Following WP:BRD cycle you should have discussed the controversial edit on the talk page, instead you chose to edit war by calling my revert an edit war. Your disruptive and tendentious editing style is becoming too predictable and obvious. And, once again, I will leave it for other editors to address this as I am sure there are editors other than me who are noticing your POV pushing. Also, how does the fact that the term and the concept of Hinduism did not exist before 19th century become "my opinion" and how is it irrelevant here? If it was "my opinion" why do you make the strange etymological claims that you make? Of course the word Greek, or any other word for that matter, wouldn't have existed in "English" as the English that is recognizable to us, Early Modern English, developed in 14th-15th centuries. What has that got to do with the conception of Hinduism as a collection of various Indian sects in the 19th century by Ram Mohun Roy and others? (See: Who invented Hinduism by David Lorenzen) Even Indian and Hindu scholars, and perhaps the greatest historian Indian philosophy, Surendranath Dasgupta, uses the term Brahminism and not Hinduism in his A History of Indian Philosophy. Why then would YOU use the term to describe influences on a 5th century BCE religion if not to push a POV? If both the concept and term Hinduism did not exist before 19th century how could it have influenced a 5th century BCE religion? Also, pls avoid using my name in the header when you write on the talk page, especially if you are planning to accuse me of something that you did yourself, like the global edit you did in the Ajivika article by changing the word Brahminism to Hinduism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: The first global "find and replace" was done by an IP user here. I reverted it, which is where WP:BRD starts (not after your edits which you prefer in this article and other wiki articles where you edit war with multiple editors). After my first revert, you @Mohanbhan, then re-reverted to the version created by the IP user. At that point you owned the "global find and change" change, because you did the undo and save (you can't blame me or the IP user). I am puzzled by your edit warring in this article and the rest of your behavior, because many wiki admins have already warned you in recent weeks (see links).

As to the rest of your comment, please identify where "Ajivika and Brahminism" are mentioned together, in a non-fringe recent reliable sources, with page numbers. We can then discuss if anything should be added to this article in order to improve it. Your habit of naming the whole book, without giving page numbers, as you have done in multiple articles where you have edit warred, is not helpful. You have a right to opinions such as, "Debiprasad C was the greatest philosopher and Surendranath D was the greatest historian", but it is your POV and irrelevant to this article. Be specific and give page number. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch, that edit war warning was posted by you after edit-warring and doing tendentious editing on the Allama Prabhu article which has been clearly explained on its talk page. So it only reflects poorly on your behaviour. Again, stop casting aspersions (this is getting a little tiresome), stop attacking editors and stop discussing other articles when we are discussing your edits on this page. I have already presented my case, with link to an article which supports my claim, and have nothing to add to it. As I said, I leave this issue to be addressed by other editors. And, the point is not whether Surendranath Dasgupta is the greatest historian of Indian philosophy or not, (good try at diverting attention) the point is the term he uses to describe the religion which holds the Vedas, Upanishads etc as its central texts is Brahminism. And, I am not editing the article because I do not have the time to look for references. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lorenzen disagrees with your POV, and there is nothing in the 1999 Lorenzen paper that is relevant or WP:DUE for this article, or will help improve this article. If someone or you identifies a page number/para from it or another source, we can consider it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "disagrees". It is relevant because we are discussing the use of the term Hinduism and the influence of this 19th century religion on the 5th century BCE religion Ajivika. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: read the complete paper. Is there a particular page and para in it that discusses Ajivika, that you propose we consider summarizing for this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have already discussed the article here. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to your talk page. I found your puzzling POV-y OR, but nothing about Ajivika there, nor any Ajivika-related page number from the Lorenzen article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with you Sarah Welch? Why can't you observe WP:Civil and have a normal conversation without casting aspersions? When did I say the discussion was about Ajivika? The discussion is about the origin of the term and concept of Hinduism, and I have explained how and why it is relevant to this article. Why does everything which does not agree your POV become "puzzling" to you? And why do you ask for "Ajivika-related page number" when I have written this: And, I am not editing the article because I do not have the time to look for references. English -- I hope you can read and understand it. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Why Remove Tamil related information of Aseevaham. It is also called by many researchers like Neduncheziyan in his book on Aseevaham and K Pandiyan.

Dont Remove without reading the materials 90.243.105.206 (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)