Talk:Hinduism/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Concept of God

This section needs some addition. As per Hinduism, primary God is nature (Sun, Moon, Planets, Trees,etc) and then is the Trimurti(Holy Trinity. In due course of time, some individuals were considered the incarnation of God for their divine work in their lifetime for eg: Lord Rama, Krishna and most recently Shivaji (yes they do have his temples and worship him as GOD). This is similar to Christianity where they name a person as "Saint" for his humanitarian work or great deeds during his life time, eg: Mother Teresa. It would be appreciated if some one could add this information as it would make the article clear and readers, especially who are not Hindus would better understand Hindu Gods. Bmayuresh (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

mainstream Hinduism is monotheistic, the main article for this is Hindu views on monotheism. The main difference to western monotheism is that in Hinduism, historical polytheism wasn't superseded, but just re-interpreted as representing various "aspects" of God. Your claim that "As per Hinduism, primary God is nature (Sun, Moon, Planets, Trees,etc)" is not true for any stage of Hinduism, it is not even true for the Rigvedic religion, which was still genuinely polytheistic, but by no means restricted in its conceptions of the divine to deifying natural phenomena. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Bmayuresh has misinterpreted Brahman as a pantheistic or panentheistic concept; understandable and natural mistake, but kinda gets it backwards. --Ludwigs2 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia / propaganda ? ?

This article has a major implied POV problem. It looks like it is TRYING to get Hinduism derecognized as a religion. Do you think that three citations are enough to decide that a religion is not a religion and a God is not real? Do you think academics or encyclopaedias or anyone else can decide these questions? These uncivilized academics need education. They do not know about things like "freedom of religion" and "civilized society". Such questions are way beyond the brief of an encyclopaedia.117.198.48.29 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you if you think academics cannot define Hinduism properly. Wikipedia is dicatated by its policies which tell us to summarise academic studies on Hinduism of all major perspectives. There are other websites which you can edit and go to that may be more suited towards your interpretation and aims. Note that the contentious "Is it a religion or not?" question was resolved after examining 20 or so citations, not three, though most of them do not appear within the article. The full discussion can be found somewhere in the archives. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How many religions (do you think) HAVE been defined properly by academics so far? Why do we have weasel terms in the article eg. "Sometimes referred to as a religion..."? If you guys are sure that 20 citations are enough to decide the recognition of a religion, and that an encyclopedia should do this, I suppose you guys know where this rule will take you.117.198.52.57 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

IP, If you really want to understand how we decide what content to include and present in this and other articles, read wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, and neutral point of view, and then help further improve this article. If instead you just want to use this page as a soapbox to rail how wikipedia is trying to get Hinduism derecognised as a religion, or prove that God is not real ... your time will be better spent on other fringe forums. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of Christianity is "Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a monotheistic religion[1] centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament." while the first sentence of Islam is "Islam (Arabic: ar-al_islam.ogg الإسلام; al-'islām (help·info); pronounced [ɪs.ˈlæːm][note 1]) is a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion originating with the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a 7th century Arab religious and political figure." Both of these definitions are close to perfect though Islam could also mention that its central tenets are in the Quran. Compare this with Hinduism, which has a plethora of religious texts and no one authoratative figure, and for that matter very few binding beliefs. We encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia's Hinduism related articles but you can no longer feed your personal agenda. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi DaGizza, Hi Abecedare.Thanks for revealing the reasons for the discriminatory treatment of Hinduism. And also for guiding me to the Wiki NPOV and reliable sources policies. I have taken a look. I must say that they are most educative, and far more developed than I ever expected. Anyway, this article breaches the NPOV rules completely, and in a number of ways. Wikipedia does not make any assertions or suggestions regarding the validity of any religions. No sources are regarded as reliable enough for such a purpose. Academic sources are also not regarded as reliable for such a purpose. Any academic sources which make such assertions or suggestions should be regarded as unreliable and should be ignored. Such sources are obviously propaganda material, and not at all academic or reliable. Wiki editors do not have the right to override this policy under any circumstances and they are also not allowed to form a consensus to override NPOV policy. On 4/7/07 a consensus and policy was formed to make a negative assertion on the validity of Hinduism. The call for forming such a policy was given on 1/07/07. Based on this policy, a number of negative assertions have been made on the validity of Hinduism. There are about 12 places in the article where such an assertion has been made. It has been done in a deceptive way, and in a suggestive way. Implanting suggestions deceptively is considered most despisable, and a hallmark of propaganda materials. These negative assertions and suggestions have turned this encyclopedic article into a propaganda piece. What this 4/7/07 policy is doing amounts to making a halfway negative assertion on the validity of Hinduism. No Wiki editors have the right to make such an assertion or suggestion. This policy, and its consequences are both completely against Wiki NPOV rules. This policy should be abandoned immediately and all modifications in the article which conform to this policy must be removed. Wiki editors also do not have the right to form their own views by comparing religions, much less to assert the results of such a comparative analysis. I would also request that some uninvolved administrators take a look at this issue because of conflicts of interest issues here and because of some narrow minded editing and analyses being performed here. And I have better things to do than helping improve a propaganda piece. The first and best way to improve this article is to stop trying to compare different religions, and abandon the 4/7/07 policy, which is based on the consensus results, and academic results, of such a comparative analysis. Wiki editors and administrators should have enough common sense to
NEVER COMPARE RELIGIONS.117.198.52.119 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>
IP, I'm lost. I read through your allegations of propaganda, conflict of interest, deception, and hidden agendas and conspiracy theories, but still have no idea of what exact content/source(s) you are objecting to. If you care to spell it out calmly and succinctly, we can address or dispel your concerns. If you continue soapboxing, your talk page posts will either be ignored or reverted. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare.No deal

• You can't use me
• You can't buy me
• You can't threaten me
• You don't own wikipedia
• You don't own the article
• You don't own Hinduism
• You are not superior to me in any way

Kindly lose the authoritative and threatening tone and insulting mannerisms. Soapbox, revert, block, troll etc. are all classic intimidatory tactics. If you are not involved, why are you getting so alarmed. You and Gizza have no authority to block me due to conflicts of interest. The issue I am raising closely involves you and it is related to the content of this article. If you get your friends to do so, then too, you and your friends may owe an explaination. So kindly have a good reason to do so. This issue requires the attention of some uninvolved administrators. Your responses, so far, are against WP:BITE,WP:BP,WP:BULLY too. Reverting is of no use. I am not moving to a distant nebula tomorrow. Please do not try to scuttle my attempts to raise this issue any further. I have a serious and valid issue. There is no getting around it now. The issue is, that a policy and consensus has been formed to make a persistent negative assertion on the validity of Hinduism. It was formed by performing a comparative analysis of different religions and was also based on materials which perform such an analysis. It is being implemented in a deceptive and suggestive way. It overrides core WP:NPOV. It is being continued even after a delist vote (10 oct 08) on this article identified the consequenses of this policy as the reasons for delist. Wiki editors do not have a right to sabotage NPOV by forming a consensus. Do not pretend to not to understand my point. I have already explained it, and you were the one who started it. This is the issue I am trying to raise and kindly allow uninvolved administrators to take a look and decide. Content and sources that I am objecting to are somewhat secondary, and kindly wait until I list them. You may ignore my post if you like. I have added a line and link to my post above which may further clarify my issue to other interested readers. As yet, I am not suggesting that anyone called for a formation of a policy on the validity of Hinduism with a predetermined conclusion in mind. I am also not suggesting that anyone used other unsuspecting participants in the discussion. The motives in starting such a discussion, and the attempts, to scuttle my attempts to raise this issue, require a review by some senior authorities in wikipedia. Regards.117.198.49.156 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I am the IP in the above discussion. I have finally realized the benefits of registering. All my future posts will be as Civilizededucation.117.198.50.2 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

'Scuse me for butting in, but a few thoughts have struck me:

• I don't think the comments about the difficulty of defining Hinduism are necessarily a slight on Hinduism, they're scholarly opinions that seem to be reasonably well-supported by facts.
• I mainly edit articles on zoology and paleontology. Defining phyla can be difficult, and I quite often use feature comparison tables early in articles to help give an idea of what the significant similarities and differences are - see e.g. Mollusc, about a phylum that ranges from brainless filter-feeders to intelligent predators. Other examples at [Cnidaria]], Ctenophore, Sponge. Would a feature comparison of Hindu sects (or whatever the right word is) help?
• Some of the preceding discussion centres round a comparison of with Christianity. This may be based on an under-estimate of the diversity within Christianity (look at Calvinism for an extreme example). At the same time I was surprised to see that Christianity seems to under-emphasise the central position of belief in the literal truth of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection - my understanding (?) is that without such belief it's hard to distinguish Christianity from traditions that interpret the Old Testament's Messiah as a philosopher / prophet / teacher rather than a political leader.
• This is a controversial subject. In such cases the sources are often not neutral, and their POVs may be unconscious and culturally-determined. In such cases looking for a "consensus" among sources is futile. IMO it's better to cite a set of sources that represents the range of non-fanatical opinion. In particular it would be good to make more use of Indian scholars or scholars raised as Hindus. --Philcha (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on this thread seems to be stalled. As such, I will put up a gist of my views, objections...whatever.

1) There seems to be an ongoing mischievous attempt to simply define Hinduism out of existence. Wikipedia should not become a part of such attempts.

2) Use of alternate terms like “religious tradition”, “tradition”, “faith”,” mythology”…etc. should be regarded as an attempt in this direction. The term “religion” should be used in a simple and straightforward way.

Regarding Philcha’s claim of scholarly facts, it should suffice to say that no scholar has ever been able to disprove a word of the sacred Bhagwat Gita. Scholars have no authority in temporal matters. If scholars start deciding the validity/recognition of religions/sects by preparing comparison tables, can you imagine the chaos it will cause? Please just try to imagine it first. I shall ignore any attempts to debate this issue because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This para is for Philcha only and this should end here.

I have already highlighted the issues in detail. I have full faith that Wiki administrators have the good sense and courage required to recognize and deal with violations of NPOV and other core Wiki policies. With this I invite any senior Wiki administrators to take this issue in their hands and request them to clear this matter quickly. Thanks.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The theologians in question are not commenting on the validity or veracity of the religion. They're just locating it within a categorical system. Saying Pluto isn't a planet isn't saying Pluto doesn't exist or isn't as good as Mars, it's just saying they're different in some significant ways.

"I shall ignore any attempts to debate this issue". Man, you really don't get Wikipedia. Ilkali (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference between recognition and validity. If Hinduism is not a religion, it's sacred texts would become story books. So the distinction is of no use to our discussion. My promise to ignore restrains me from putting forward this reply.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"If Hinduism is not a religion, it's sacred texts would become story books". Take it up with the scholars. Wikipedia just reports significant scholarly viewpoints. It's not our job to ask if those viewpoints are correct or diplomatic. Ilkali (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know NPOV. Reporting viewpoints is allowed. Asserting them is not. There are also people who think Hinduism is more than a religion.Civilizededucation (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If NPOV worked like you think, Apple would start with "The apple is identified by most botanists as the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree". We don't qualify every statement with a textual attribution. We're allowed to make bare assertions about the universe, as long as they are appropriately referenced. Ilkali (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean - NPOV allows you to make negative assertions on the validity of religions?Civilizededucation (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with validity, and NPOV is not a promise that you will not be offended. Ilkali (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Negation of validity is a necessary and immediate consequence of negation of recognition of a religion. Negation of validity / recognition of a major religion is a terrible idea. No encyclopedia is expected to make any such assertion. And if the validity remains un-negated, how can it be "not religion"? There is a severe inconsistency in your arguement. How can there be a religion which has validity, but is "not religion"? If the validity of Hinduism remains un-negated, then it immediately and necessarily follows that it is a religion. You can and should make this necessary assumption.Civilizededucation (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"If the validity of Hinduism remains un-negated, then it immediately and necessarily follows that it is a religion". Complete non-sequitur. Ilkali (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) I think it makes good sense. Just read it slowly please. You will get it. Just that line in isolation.Civilizededucation (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you have as much difficulty with civility as you do with neutrality. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is driven by consensus. Getting along with other editors is paramount. Ilkali (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ilkali. There is no offence there. I said "please" and I tried to explain that the line makes sense. And I suggested the ways to read it so that you may be able to see my intended meaning in that line, and so that we may be able to move forward in our discussion. I was just sitting here, waiting and waiting and waiting for your response. Would I have done that if I did not respect you. In your first post, you too had suggested that I had problems understanding some things. I never regarded it as anything more than a way of getting a response. Did I? And is this civility thing not taking us away from the issue at hand. Regarding neutrality, do you think asserting "Hinduism is not a religion / less than a religion", is neutral.Civilizededucation (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've made my position pretty clear. Ilkali (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As yet, no one has said it clearly. How can you hold a position which you cannot even say clearly? If you are avoiding to say it, you must be knowing that it is a terrible idea.Civilizededucation (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

At present the article has severe neutrality problems. I have seen some versions of the article from January 2007. They seem to be far better and also make for pleasent reading and have beautiful wording and language. As such, I think, it is best to revert to that time. If no one objects in a day or so, I intend to do it.Civilizededucation (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. Ilkali (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok. I read through this entire thread, and as far as I can tell there isn't a single place where a concrete, specific problem with the article is pointed out. Civilizededucation, can we get away from talking about what editors are doing, and get back to talking about the article?

I'll tell you, I don't really see the problem you're advancing. in fact, I might be a little concerned if this article did insist hinduism was 'a religion' because (in fact) the thing we in the west call 'Hinduism' is actually a number of interrelated faiths that european colonials lumped together in one undifferentiated mass (If you must know, I have the same quibble with people who lump Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and etc. under the rubric 'Abrahamic Faiths'). so please, if you can point to a specific passage (or 12) that you don't like, do so. we'll see what we can do with them. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. Thanks for coming up with your views. That,s the way to have a proper discussion. We come up with views and counter views and try to convince each other. That's how a discussion goes. It is an essential and normal part of discussion. I will be coming up with my views in a few hours or so.Civilizededucation (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. In my post dated 25/4/09, I have indicated the words/terms to which I object. The complicated language to which I object is best described in the GAR report. If you are still not convinced, I shall try to do more. I think your view of Hinduism is based on scholarly views of Hinduism. Am I correct?Civilizededucation (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

did you mean this post? you made a number of edits to this talk page on 25/4/09, but this seems to be the most likely candidate. if you're going to reference earlier posts, it's much easier on everyone if you provide diffs to the exact edit you mean to point to.

looking at this post, and the GAR you pointed to, I can see the issue you're having in a general way, but it would really help if you could bring up specific passages in the article that you think need revision. The GAR issues have been corrected somewhat, so that's not a lot of help. having something concrete to look at will also help in the more general sense:once we start working on something specific, other things will come to our attention. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Civilizededucation (talk · contribs) obviously has some way to go in their understanding of the term "religion" (and also of the term "encyclopedia", and possibly of the terms "education" and "civilized"). "Religion" is a term designed for ancient Rome, and inherited by Christianity. Applying the term "religion" to anything implies comparison with the cult of ancient Rome. This comparison is perfectly valid in many cases, which is why comparative religion is a good idea, but calling Hinduism a "religion" would be western-centric indeed. It has some aspects similar to the concept of a "religion", but others that do not fit exactly. This is what the article reflects, and properly so.

Wikipedia's article on Hinduism has the aim of portraying "scholarly views of Hinduism", nothing more and nothing less. If you don't like that proposition, you should go elsewhere for your information. Statements like "it should suffice to say that no scholar has ever been able to disprove a word of the sacred Bhagwat Gita" are a non-starter. Wikipedia isn't a denominational website, and it isn't the place for exchanging pious sentiment. If, on the other hand, you have a scholarly source discussing "the notion of scriptural authority in Hindu revivalism", then you can discuss Hindu revivalist notions regarding the Bhagavad Gita, in scholarly fashion, at our Hindu revivalism article. If this just happens to be your own religious alignment, you want to discuss your faith on some religionist forum, not here. You are welcome to discuss scholarly sources on Hindu revivalism regardless of whether you consider yourself an adherent or not. It really doesn't matter what you yourself believe, since you are not here to share your beliefs, but to share whatever scholarly sources you think should be presented in the article.

"GAR reports" are useless for writing better articles, they can tell you if you missed a comma somewhere in the finished article, but they are completely unaware of the subject matter. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

dab: as far as I'm concerned everyone has a way to go in their understanding of religion. religious topics are polemic things that tend to tweak the egos of everyone involved (including atheists and agnostics). I actually understand CE's point, though so far he hasn't been expressing himself well: the Bhagavad Gita and related texts are focal points for discussions of faith in wide ranges of the Indian subcontinent, in much the way that the bible is a focal point for Christianity, the Torah (et al) for Judaism, and the Quran for Islam. it's not like Roman pantheism (which was mostly a means of accommodating regional deities), but has an extensive body of unifying philosophy. My objection to calling Hinduism a religion, above, is not a rejection of Hinduism as a religion per se but an objection to the narrow, rigid way that most westerners use the term.

further, do I need to note that 'scholarly' is not a euphemism for 'western-philosophical-academic'? there are gobs of religious scholars in the east who have written about hinduism as a faith; can't just dismiss them all. --Ludwigs2 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. Thanks (I too am trying to fulfill some promises and requests). I think your view on the term “Abrahamic religions” is very correct. They are different religions. Why should we make it appear as though they are one religion? Now, how do we know they are different religions? IMO the most important consideration in this respect is “What do the people of these religions think?” Since the people of these religions think they are from different religions, we accept that they are different religions. Who are we to suggest or impose or assert on them that they are one religion? Who is anyone else to do so? I know, some scholars think they are one religion. Scholars are entitled to express and explain their opinions. OK. But all scholars do not think so. In such a situation, how can we be sure which view is correct? Even if some scholars take the view that they are one religion, should we assert this view on people of different religions and expect them to be happy about it? We cannot. That is why; we do not make such an assertion. Now, I shall try to explain why I think Hinduism is one religion. I know that your view on Hinduism is found in some books on Hinduism. But the difficulty with this view on Hinduism is that only some scholars take this view. There is no unanimity among scholars regarding this view on Hinduism. Secondly, this view does not seem to be having a direct attribution. I mean: Who is the owner of this original idea? Even if we have citations and books on this view, should we not know who propounded this idea first? Now comes the most important consideration ( IMO ). What do the Hindu people think? There is no indication to show that Hindus regard themselves as belonging to more than one religion. The idea is totally unknown to them. In such a situation, why should we take the view that they are not one religion? Since the Hindu people think they are one religion; they are one religion. Even though there are 100s of sects in Hinduism, they all seem to agree that they are Hindu. There is no sign of any disagreement in this regard. Should we ignore this unanimity among Hindus, and assert scholarly views on Hinduism, even when there is no unanimity among scholarly views. Unless there is some proof of disagreement among Hindus, I see no reason to regard them as belonging to different religions or faiths. Some people lump together Indian religions like Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism...under the term “Dharmic religions”. I too dislike this lumping. They are different religions. But Hinduism is one religion ( IMO ). I think we can proceed to editing only after some clarity in this regard.Civilizededucation (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

CE: unfortunately, we don't have access to 'the Hindu people' or what they think. I find it very hard to imagine that Hindus ranging from the southern tip of india to Pakistan to the foothills of Tibet have a uniform and unified understanding of anything, but we don't have access to that. what we have access to is your opinions, and mine and others', and the opinions of people who've written scholarly works on the subject. who do you suggest we rely on?

as of now your argument is a combination of "I don't like that" and "one billion Hindus can't be wrong", neither of which is really convincing, or helpful in solving the problem. not that they are bad arguments, mind you; they are just not convincing or helpful. what would be helpful would be for you to suggest specific and concrete revisions of the article text for us to discuss. I've already asked you for this at least twice, and you've avoided providing it each time by slipping into some philosophical debate. I'm asking you for something specific again, here and now. If you don't provide specific suggestions for revisions this time, then I am going to have to assume that you are not serious about improving this article, and I'm going to unilaterally archive this entire discussion, and leave a note on your talk page about wasting other editor's time.

I'm not fooling, CE: I'm more than happy to work with you to make this article better, but if all you're going to do is vent, then I have better things to do. make your choice. --Ludwigs2 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I assure you I am here only to help improve this article and I do have concrete and specific editing suggestions. From now onwards, you can expect serious editing suggestions only. I am a new user and it takes me some time to properly formulate my editing suggestions. So, I will be coming up with them by Monday (tomorrow is a Sunday). Secondly, I am from a different time zone, so we will have to work on it in a staggered manner. It is difficult for me to stay up late continually. Thanks.Civilizededucation (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Hi Ludwigs2, couldn’t come in on Monday due to some unavoidable reasons. I was trying to list my editing suggestions and eventually got engulfed by “too many” syndrome. I have decided to come up with one suggestion for today.

If you look at the second sentence of the lead, it reads like this; - Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma, a Sanskrit phrase meaning "the eternal law", by its adherents. - In the term “Sanātana Dharma”, the word “Dharma” has been translated as “law”. This is a wrong translation. The correct translation of the word “Dharma” is “religion”. It seems the word “Dharma” has been translated wrongly just to avoid using the term “religion”. IMO the sentence should read like this; - Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma, a Sanskrit phrase meaning "the eternal religion", by its adherents.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

take your time, there's no hurry. wikipedia will still be here if you don't respond for a couple of days.

However, I'm not sure religion is a good translation of 'dharma' either. dharma (as best I understand it) is a principle of correct practice - Given karma as a universal principle of action, dharma is the best practice for operating within karma's bounds. in other words, dharma is an element of hindu faith, but equating dharma with religion as a whole is a pretty drastic overstatement, and not something that I've seen in any formal translation of the word. plus, the first sentence says that 'hinduism is the predominate religion of ...' which makes the concern about avoiding the word 'religion' seem unjustified. --Ludwigs2 16:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, re religious topics are polemic things that tend to tweak the egos of everyone involved (including atheists and agnostics), this may very well be the case, but it is perfectly irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and whoever decides to edit here has to leave alignments like "atheism" or "theism" at the door. I see no reason why reporting on religious studies should tweak the egos of the encyclopedists doing the reporting. Obviously, editors personal views often transpire in real-life Wikipedia discussions, but strictly speaking anyone arguing from their own convictions rather than on the basis of the academic sources they cite should be admonished, and if that doesn't help sent to the warn-block-cycle. In a nutshell, WP:TIGERS. Hindu and non-Hindu editors are equally welcome to edit here, just as long as they stick to discussing scholarly literature and their behaviour does not permit any second-guessing of their personal allegiances.

As far as I can see, Civilizededucation has not bothered to cite a single source yet to back up their "criticism", nor do they appear to be aware even of our dharma article, which has a detailed explanation of the history and meanings of the term. It is my opinion that Civilizededucation's complaints should not be honoured with any further replies as long as user fails to present any kind of argument based on references. --dab (𒁳) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dab, just because you are a veteran editor does not mean that you can place restrictions on the use of the term “religion”. You don’t have the copyright to that term. If you do happen to have the copyright to the term “religion”, I would also like to know all the other terms to which you have a copyright ( Sacred? Holy? Divine?...). I would also like to know whether you have previously prevented other editors from editing this article. If you want references, you might consider asking for it wherever required. I stand by my view that the correct translation of “Dharma” is “religion”. I am happy to provide references wherever required.

Since you have difficulty accepting Hinduism as a religion, you may read an article on such issues. Kindly give special focus to the first line of the article and the section “The element of objection”. It’s here.

Besides references, there are many things concerning editorial judgment which can be discussed without references. We were just getting into the stage where references become necessary and your assumption that I can’t provide references is premature. This is not the only issue that I want to take up for editing, there are some statements in the Definitions section which are controversial and which do not have proper attributions. Some of our sources also have a criticism from a scholarly source. These issues are severely affecting the neutrality of the article. These issues need to be addressed. They will come up as the discussion progresses. You are requested to allow this discussion to progress properly. Thanks.Civilizededucation (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the most synonymous, common and pertinent translation of the word “Dharma” is “religion”. I have consulted an English to Hindi dictionary in this regard. It is authored by Father Camil Bulcke and published by S. Chand & Co. Ltd. (20005 edition). In that dictionary, (pg 429), the first translation of “religion” is given as “dharma”. It also gives some other translations, but the first one is “dharma”. Since this dictionary uses the Devnagiri script in the writing of the word “Dharma”, you may take my word that the first translation is “Dharma”. You may ask some other person (who is familiar with Devnagiri script) to confirm it.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been recommended above please read wikipedia's own article on dharma for understanding why the word is most commonly translated as law in English. The page is wikilinked from the article lede to provide further details to the interested reader. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The word dharma literally translates as that which upholds or supports, and is generally translated into English as law. Is this the reason for your objection to the proposed edit?Civilizededucation (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word dharma have been discussed quite a bit in past years on this page. The word has such a wide range of meanings it takes Apte five columns to cover them all, standing alone and in compounded forms (Apte entry for धर्मः pp. 522-523). That is why some texts take the easy way out and do not translate this virtually untranslatable word. Definition #1 in Apte is "Religion, the customary observances of a caste, sect, &c.". Definition #2 is "Law, usage, practice, custom, ordinance, statute." The point of this, as I see it, is that the word actually has no exact single equivalent in English and the best we can do is try to educate ourselves about the constellation of ideas that it suggests. Monier-Williams' page with the entry for dharma is available online at http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ebooks/mw/0500/mw__0543.html Buddhipriya (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Buddhipriya, I think we have to choose the translation which is best suited to context. IMO the most suitable translation in the present context is “religion”. The term “Sanatana Dharma” is used to identify the religion of Hindus. In Indian languages, we find that various religions like Jain religion, Sikh religion...are all known as Jain Dharma, Sikh Dharma... and so on. So, the translation in this usage would be “religion”. This is why, I think that the translation in the present context would be “religion”. It would be very helpful to know your opinion on the best translation in the present context.Civilizededucation (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the proper translation depends on the context. The Rigvedic Sanskrit word means "wooden peg". The modern Hindi (not Sanskrit) word means "religion". Historical meanings in Sanskrit range between these two extremes. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) And what's the best translation in the present context?Civilizededucation (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism - a minor change in the page

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the third line in the opening paragraph of 'hinduism' to:-

Hindu beliefs vary widely, with concepts of God and/or gods ranging from Panentheism, pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism with Vishnu, Shiva and Shakthi/Devi being the most popular deities.

The current version is as follows:-

Hindu beliefs vary widely, with concepts of God and/or gods ranging from Panentheism, pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism with Vishnu and Shiva being the most popular deities.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicy saffron (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. haz (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is the sources to such a statement? If we do not know how panentheism is described in the articel or Devi worship is one of the 'most' popular, we can not summarize like that. We have to have a summary in the LEDE, not a free-write. Wikid^as© 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing quoted above is highly misleading to say the least. I have tried to fix it. But I think the "Typology" section is redundant with the "Denominations" section. This should be addressed. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism and Islam

Articles in WP are literally going "down the drain". I have returned to write a big article on WP after a very long time.

Somebody please cleanup the Hinduism article, instead of just claiming citation requirement. The Caste section and vegetarianism sections are filled with some unencyclopedic sentence, somebody just remove them. My version of Hinduism used to be such a great, encyclopedic and NPOV version, but was edited to oblivion years ago. Now I have lost the desire to bring back necessary clean-up.

Anyways, what I wanted to say that I want to expand the tiny article Hinduism and Islam which has only a couple of paragraphs yet. The current WP trend is to "ask for citation in every line and word in any good, informative, NPOV article, failing which, slash the whole article to 1/10ths, neglect it for months, till some anonymous user fills up 2 or 3 paragraphs with POV and poorly written stuff, which the article enjoys continued neglect even long after". Please refrain from this trend in Hinduism and Islam, and try to come up with your own citations and references instead of rubbing off sections. Your inputs on the expansion will be appreciated. Regards, Cygnus_hansa (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hinduism article degrades very quickly. Mostly due to the efforts of pious Hindus, it appears. I agree it isn't worth trying to restore it, because it will simply deteriorate again after a couple of weeks. I don't know what to do about this. We simply do not have the manpower of good editors needed to counterbalance the influx of bad edits, in such situations, the wiki principle simply breaks down. There is nobody you could ask to "refrain from this trend", because there isn't any clear group of people responsible for this problem.

Any sub-article, such as Hinduism and Islam, will be much safer, because the drive-by editors mostly edit the main article on a topic, not sub-articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Varna Section

I found the existing varna section containing many unencyclopedic and POV lines, which I have edited.

• "Although the scriptures, since the Rigveda (10.90), contain passages that clearly sanction the Varna system, they contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of the religion.

None of the Vedic passages "clearly sanction" the varna system in a prescriptive way. It is the interpretation that sees the mentions as prescriptive."

• "The oldest scriptures, the Vedas, strongly sustain the division of society into four classes (varna) but place little emphasis on the caste system, showing that each individual should find his strengths through different ways such as his astrological signs, actions, personality, and appearance, and do his job for the good of that individual as well as society."

This is highly POV and unencylopedic. As I said above, it cannot be proven that the Vedas "strongly sustain" the division. The sentence also seems self-contradictory.

• Being cast into a class because of what parents he was born from was a political problem and not from the actual science of the religion.

Totally POV.

Instead, I have added:

• Among the scriptures, the Shrutis do contain verses that mention the Varna system, but very sparingly and descriptively (i.e., not prescriptive). Indeed, the only verse in the Rigveda which mentions all four varnas is 10.90, the Purushasūkta. The other varnas, the Brahmā (i.e. Brahmins) and Rājanya (i.e. Kshatriyas) are mentioned separately in some other verses in the Rigveda (e.g. RV 1.80.1) and the other Vedas, and rarely in the Upanishads. Some—definitely including most Smriti texts, have interpreted these as prescribing the division of society in the four varnas.
• The Smritis, having interpreted the Vedic mentions of the varnas as prescriptive, clearly sanction the division of the society into the four varnas, and also mention various sub-divisions within these varnas, which would later emerge as the present birth-based caste system.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalsaumy (talk • contribs)

I am not sure what you want to suggest.

Obviously, we just report opinions found in secondary literature, we do not "interpret the Vedas" here on Wikipedia. If there is a scholarly consensus, fine. If not, also fine. It is completely undisputed that Vedic society had classes. It is also clear that the full-blown Hindu caste system is medieval, not Vedic. I am not sure what is being disputed here. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Dharma

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.35.82 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish to state that Dharma is really more correctly defined as 'rationalized canonical civil code'. The single word 'law', while not totally incorrect, does not do justice to the true sense of the word 'Dharma'. The user civilizededucation (CE) is totally incorrect in purporting that Dharma is a religion. It is not. I propose it ('rationalized canonical civil code') be added in the defination of Dharma- as law or 'rationalized canonical civil code' to help readers understand the term better. While modern laws in many countries can be looked as Dharma, the vedas being the source of Dharma, required it to be rational, devoid of contradictions, and canonical in nature. (Many countries have laws that are not rational, or are self contradictory.) Dharma is a standalone distinct entity in the vedas and may today also be called 'vedic dharma'. It must also be clarified that dharma is not a religion, but that many do misuse and misunderstand the term as 'religion', for the sake of correctness and completeness and also to help out many like CE know what is correct and not just what is common misconception. Also Dharma in no way has any correlation or dependency to the existence or nonexistance of any god/gods. Indeed most vedics were and are agnostics or atheists.

This can be easily verified from any expert on vedas. While I recognize the onus is upon me to provide references, I have not found any suitable web references. I will post if and when I find any. I encourage anyone to verify my claims. Thanks, D Chakraborty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.35.82 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.... I do agree with Chakraborthy. Actually, peaople who follow "Sanathana Dharma" don't even accept thay they are "Hindus". "Hindu"/"Hinduism"/"Hinduthwa" being pretty recent words when compared to Sanathana Dharma. And Sanathana Dharma actually professes the Varnas(castes) and a set of rules for each varna. They followed Vedas not Ramayana/Mahabharata and there was no concept of tepmles/shrines. They just did the rituals at thair homes(Sandhya vandanam/yagnas/daily devotion/homas etc..)[Sorry, I may be going a little away from the topic..] I am quoting these from a book (and also from sundry other sources)- "The Last Brahmin" by Rani Siva Sankara Sarma. You might refer that book. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.206.167 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC) hindu religion is lier religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.97.19 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dharma is explained as any principle which is adopted [to be upheld by the individual who chooses to adopt it]: 'dhaaranaat dharmetyaahuh'. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove the word Hinduism and replace it by Sanatana Dharma. Hindu and Hinduism are terms coined by Arabs/ Westerners and it doesn't correctly reflect true meaning of Sanatana Dharma.

Deleted a couple of links in the "Related systems and religions" section

Confucianism and Taoism aren't related to Hinduism except for later influence from Buddhism on the first two religions. Might as well include a link to the Druid article in the Pythagoras article. Islam and Hinduism do not come from the same sources, but Islam is partly responsible for the idea of Hinduism as a distinct religion through Muslim conquerers of India needing a term to refer to the religion of the Indus people. So I left that in. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian, Islam, too, has nothing to do with Hinduism. FYI. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogmatic openness

"The characteristic of comprehensive tolerance to differences in belief, and Hinduism's dogmatic openness, makes it difficult to define as a religion according to traditional Western conceptions." I like the phrase 'dogmatic openness', but what does it mean? :-) Would it mean the same if it were rewritten as "...and the openness of Hindu[ism's] dogma"? Shreevatsa (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the intended meaning is that: openness is a dogma ("intrinsic trait") of Hinduism. While the rhetorical flourish is cute, it is also IMO too flowery and hyperbolic for sober encyclopedic writing. Ditto for comprehensive tolerance.

I haven't checked the source to see what it actually says, but note that the citation gets the book name wrong. It is titled For Weber: essays on the sociology of fate and is a series of essays on the Marxism and Max Weber; don't know if this is an ideal source for the topic. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a flowery oxymoron, and I wonder whether it's even true (i.e., whether the openness is actually dogma ("tenet"/"doctrine") or simply has been practice). Actually, a lot of the sources in the article seem to be non-ideal. Not knowing the history of this article, I'd guess that it got this way under the standard Wikipedia model, where first someone adds things that are "obviously true and well-known", then someone tags every sentence with , and random sources are hastily found for the statements. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism is just a term of convenience. There is no dogma per se in Hinduism. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Shreevatsa reverted my edits here, so as asked I will justify on talk.

1. Caste System - Hindus are not debating scholars. Many scholars claim that Caste is not a part of Hinduism, while many Hindus (infact most, in my experience) believe it is. Therefore the phrase "Hindus and scholars debate" unnecessarily places an antagonistic relationship between the two groups. In this case, passive voice is far more neutral and accurate.
2. Not prominent/ISKCON - The idea of them being absent is factually false, since the Bhagavad Gita obviously encourages conversion/proselytization in a limited form. The ISKCON view was used as a source of "some". The status quo version is at best a misconception and at worst a tool for Hindu partisans & Anti-Hindus to characterize "conversion" (for an example of this read The anthropology of religious conversion page 43). We can Hinduism is not a religion in which words
3. Conversion/Reconversion - This was a rather inane revert. Now we have both Hindus and Muslims claiming everyone is born of their religion.
4. Most/some, some/other - No source says "most" except a dime a dozen swami. Some/others is a far more accurate and viable wording.
5. Hindu view of human rights - Completely irrelevant at the outset, also this whole paragraph is sourced from someone with very little expertise/qualifications in the field.

Well, there is my two cents.Pectore^talk 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I actually agree with you on some of those changes; I undid them mostly because I felt the changes were significant enough to need discussion. :-) Specific points:

1. It didn't occur to me that "Hindus and scholars" could be read as antagonistic; I read it as "there is debate, both among Hindus and among scholars, whether..." (And the point of debate is the "so-called caste system", i.e, the caste hierarchy and caste-based discrimination, rather than the existence of communities themselves.) In any case, given that "Hindus and scholars" can be ambiguous, I agree that "There is debate" is better.
2. It is not at all obvious to me that the Bhagavad Gita encourages conversion/proselytisation in any form. Those verses quoted by Prabhupada (or whoever) might be taken to suggest that anyone who follows the <specified> path can reach <whatever goals> (i.e., "anyone who follows Hindu beliefs and practices is a Hindu"), which is not the same as conversion, and definitely unrelated to proselytisation. (Of course, they have little bearing anyway, dating from times when "everyone" was Hindu, and we shouldn't be interpreting primary sources this way in the first place.) Of course, if you know that these themes are present in other Hindu texts, that's a different matter...
3. I actually wanted to put "reconversions" in quotes, but somehow didn't, probably because it was explained in the next sentence. The point is that the "Hindu revivalist movement" calls them "reconversions", so in that context, that's what we should probably use? (At least, say 'conversions have risen, as "reconversions".')
4. Most/some: I don't know about this. My personal experience is that sects are always happy to ostracise people and only grudgingly accept newcomers, although this may be wrong :-) A source would help here.
5. It seems relevant to the Hindu view on 'conversion'. The source BTW in turn sources it to Arvind Sharma, who seems to have sufficient expertise/qualifications, and to someone from Arya Samaj, who might not.

Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I however, am not a fan of long discussions on rather minor points. Its better to make bold non-vandal edits than to edit step by step, which wastes time and server space. Either way, I know you're trying to improve the article just like I am, so its a moot point.

1)We both agree.

2)Prabhupada is in fact encouraging sharing the message of the Gita in his interpretation (on that webpage). That's why I put his quote in there. Yes he doesn't say the word "proselytization" (but if it quacks like a duck......), however its rather obvious he encourages some form of it. We are intelligent wikireaders, we can add 2+2 and call it 4 (or naala) as we say.

3)On number 3, only RSS/VHP/assorted khaki shorts wearing individuals call them reconversions. A number of people "converted" to Hinduism, such as some of the Kushan/Greek invaders, people in the NE of India, SE Asia, and even the random Sri Lankan king or two. We can't let a political word be used, as it stains the whole page and arguably justifies a certain movement. Just look at the Category:Converts to Hinduism for examples of conversion both ancient and modern.

4)Some/other is just more salient wording. Its unfortunate your coreligionists would be so insular, though I would attribute that more to Indian cultural failings than Hinduism itself.

5)That sort of phrase belongs in Religious conversion (the wiki article) not really this article. It doesn't help someone better understand religious belief, practice, or theology.

Thanks.Pectore^talk 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the being bold, and major changes are usually fine, but minor points matter! The big points are the same everywhere modulo biases, and what one takes away from any reading are the diffs.

2)Yes, ISKCON (and a handful of other sects) clearly proselytise, and most of Hinduism doesn't. This is already in the article, but could be made clearer. The point is that Prabhupada's message cannot be used a ref to make the (IMHO, false) claim that Hindus think of the Bhagavad Gita as encouraging proselytisation (again, except for ISKCON, for whom the Gita is essentially the Hindu Bible.)

3)The point was not about conversion in general but the specific phrase "with the rise of the Hindu revivalist movement, conversions to Hinduism have risen" without further context. Anyway, either phrase is fine.

4)I'd really not like to decide "some-other"/"most-some" based what sounds viable or 'salient' :-) The fact/claim/falsehood that some/most Hindu sects do not seek converts is independent of how it came about, and whether it is a cultural failing or not, since Hinduism is an Indian cultural institution anyway, and each Hindu sect is one by definition.

5)Yes, I realised the rest of the section covers this adequately... this can go, I guess. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While conversion can be a matter of individual choice, proselytizing is definitely an act of deliberate mischief as has been long practiced in the name of Christianity and Islam. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, proselytization is merely the act of converting people to one's faith. A missionairy necessarily proselytizes. Arumuga Navalar proselytized in Jaffna, the early Tamil's proselytized in SE Asia (otherwise you would not have indigenous Hindus in places like Vietnam, Malaysia, or Indonesia). Arvind Sharma argues that non proselytization arose as a reaction to Islam, much like the same sort of idea in Judaism rose from Christian persecution of Jews. Whatever Christians do in Sri Lanka in India is proselytization, but it does not define proselytization. There is quite a healthy history of Hindu proselytization, which isn't generally violent.Pectore^talk 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proselytization is anathematic in Hinduism. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence for this assertion? Or is this just another attempt at what I documented above (Some Hindus claim their religion is superior solely for "not proselytizing", even when confronted with overwhelming evidence it does).Pectore^talk 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect to your comment on superiority: Hinduism recognizes all paths (i.e religions) to god as equal provided that the path is sincerely followed. Perhaps it would be best if you update your knowledge on Hinduism before wasting time here. Desione (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anekantavada (the philosophy you Hindus claim as your own) is not a part of Hinduism at all, it is fully Jain. This is akin to the UK claiming America is part of the Commonwealth just because its a country that speaks the English language.

Onto your other point, Vaishnavism promotes Krishna exclusively (Rosen, Saiva Siddhanta literally defines non-Hindus as "ignorants" (see Navalar, Hudson). The only person wasting time is you, by merely criticizing me, without any real theological backing for your arguments.Pectore^talk 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the Vaishnavism article on wikipedia. Vaishnavism considers Vishnu as the supereme god and Rama and Krishna are avtars of Vishnu. Vaishnavism still recognizes other gods (Shiva for example). Please don't confuse ISKCON (which does not even consider itself a Hindu orgnization) with Vaishnavism. Desione (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting to get an answer from you: where does Bhagwat gita encourage conversion/proselytisation? Desione (talk)

The point I made was that "Hinduism considers all paths to god as equal provide that the path is sincerely followed." If you feel this statement is incorrect, please bring up reliable sources to prove the point false. Otherwise, I really don't care whether the idea originated in Hinduism or was borrowed from Jainism. Desione (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent). First you can start off by not posting in the middle of my posts, which is why I didn't respond, since I did not see it.

1. You lecture about reliable sources, yet cite Wikipedia, which incidentally is not one.
2. If you want reliable sources on Vaishnavism they are Rosen 2006:176, Jagadeesan 1977:316, Vishwanathan 2001:303. Each notes Vaishnavism exclusively worships Vishnu. Recognizing a deity, does not equal accepting a deity. Growse 1996:191 states the acceptance of the Bhagavad Gita as the defining scripture unites Vaishnavas.
3. Using Prasad's translation 18.68/69 of the Gita encourage proselytization, and Prachupada explicitly says in his commentary that this leads to salvation.
4. Anekantavada is not Hindu by any means. What you care about is immaterial, the point is that this is not backed up by Hindu doctrine, it is backed up solely by Jain doctrine. Nanda 2002:358 calls anekantavada a flawed "romanticized view of Hinduism". Jackson 1978:253 affirms your point with a catch; "Hinduism is more equal than the others". Pandipallil 2001:208 states that "Vedantins believe that all religions must acknowledge that they find their unity in Vedanta", which directly affirms Vedanta as the "best" path. Misra 1996:200 states "it cannot consider all the religions as equal in every respect". It has no roots in Hinduism, inasmuch as Jainism is not Hindu, and apparently had no standing before Gandhi (who was far more Jain than Hindu) termed it as Hindu.Pectore^talk 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Pectore, this is getting silly. (2) Yes, some/many/most Vaishnava sects "recognise" other deities but do not worship them. Most Hindus do not worship Allah or Christ either. So what's your point? (3) Firstly, the passage 18.68 clearly says "mad-bhakteṣu", "among my devotees". Secondly, and more importantly, you cannot claim that the Gita encourages proselytization by reading into a translation directly; you must see how it has been interpreted by different sects (say, by the commentaries produced in them). (Thus, for example, it is valid to claim that ISKCON/Prabhupada interprets the Gita as encouraging proselytisation, because he says so, but nothing more.) (4) You're setting up a straw-man, by exaggerating the claim to "all religions are equal in every respect" or specialising it to Anekantavada, and knocking it down. [Also, Jainism might not consider itself Hindu, but Hindu philosophy does acknowledge Jain and Buddhist philosophy (in India), albeit as the "other" or nastika ones. Is the claim that Gandhi was "far more Jain than Hindu" your own opinion?] Shreevatsa (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(2) My point was that, Vaishnavism does not encourage the worship of other "Gods" as desione claims. I provided a plethora of sources to back up the claim. (3) I found the only commentary on that verse that was available in English. Also, proselytizing (in the contextual sense) need not be between religions. It can be inside Hinduism itself, telling members to share the "gospel" of Krishna as it were. It still encourages the spreading of the Gita, nonetheless. (4) I was responding to Desione's point that "Hinduism...equal all religion...blah blah blah". The sources directly contradict his assertion in which the alleged straw man is only a minor point of the claim I make, which you apparently did not read, since Jackson and Pandipallil attack the equality doctrine. Just because Hinduism classifies Jainism as nastika does not mean it acknowledges it as part of the religion, though a lot of khaki-wearers claim Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs as Hindus. Nastika philosophies are heterodox, meaning that they are in opposition to and separate from the orthodox, or Astika. They are not Hindu.Pectore^talk 17:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. (2) I can find only Desione's comment that "Vaishnavism still recognizes other gods (Shiva for example)"; the claim that "Vaishnavism" encourages the worship of other Gods does not seem to have been made. (3) See some other commentaries here; commentaries by Sankara, Sivananda etc. can also be found e.g. here. In any case, it does not suggest proselytizing inside Hinduism either, because it only says "among my devotees". (Not all religious instruction is proselytisation! :p) (4) I think we both agree that the "equal" claim is an exaggeration, but Hindu sects do acknowledge other paths as valid even if not the "best". Also, please refrain from calling names. See the article on Hindu philosophy: the framework of Hindu thought does consider there to be 6 astika and 3 nastika darshanas (or, in a later classification not mentioned on the page, 6 astika and 6 nastika, there being 4 Buddhist darshanas). "Heterodox" and separate from the "orthodox", yes, but I don't know about their being considered non-"Hindu"... I would be happy to read about it, though. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, "Hinduism considers other paths as valid" is probably more accurate as this statement does not get into the issue of superiority, equality of paths, etc; however, it is not uncommon to find "Hinduism considers other paths as equally valid" as well in various sources. Desione (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In my reading of several ancient texts of Indian traditions in original, I have not noticed anything about conversion, let alone about proselytization. On the contrary, Hinduism does not like anyone messing with anyone's faith. To quote one 'evidence' or 'documentation', "Do not weaken religious devotion of any kind." ["The Bhagavadgita", III.26, S. Radhakrishnan, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1948, p. 142]. Hinduism is a way of life, and the Hindu spiritual leaders and masses can be seen as shunning proselytization. I have nothing more to say in this matter. If any non-Hindu chooses to misrepresent Hinduism, let it be his funeral. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk)

From a personal note I have found Hindus very accepting. I have visited many Western Mandirs and people are happy for me to take part in the puja. In my own Mandir some people sometimes forget that I am not of Indian descent and try to speak to me in Hindi. I know that this counts as OR, but I have heard many other Westerners say that they have been welcomed. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not surprised by that. Its only people with an ethnocentric and exclusive view of Hinduism that would claim you are any less a Hindu for not being Indian. Its especially ironic for American Hindus to claim conversion is anathematic, when 90% of the Hinduism information they find on the web is from converts (Subramuniyaswami of Hinduism Today, ISKCON's "Heart of Hinduism", Frank Moraes at about.com). How is that for irony? Kanchanamala, note Growse 1996:191 where he states "means correct to assert of modern Hinduism that it is essentially a non-proselytizing religion; accidentally it has become so".Pectore^talk 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful and would also help in keep this discussion more organized, if you stuck to NPOV reliable sources rather than stating personal opinions. Thank you. Desione (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Of note are two more discussions on the matter (1, 2).Pectore^talk 17:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide full citations (with web links if available). Simply saying "Growse 1996:191" does not appear to be satisfactory. Desione (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhagvadgita and conversion

Pectore cited Chapter 18, verse 68 to support his claim. However the context is laid in verse 67 (don't pass the knowledge randomly to anyone and everyone) and elaborated in verse 68 (pass the knowledge only to devotees):

you should never disclose this science to one devoid of austerities, nor to one who is not devoted, nor to one adverse to spiritual advancement, and never anyone who is envious of me.

— Bhagvadgita Chapter 18, verse 67, http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-63.html

one who promulgates this paramount of confidential secrets amongst my devotees attains transcendental devotion unto me and comes to Me certainly without a doubt.

— Bhagvadgita Chapter 18, verse 68, http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-64.html

There is no scope for concluding, even with esoteric interpretations of these two verses, that Bhagwadgita supports conversion, evangelization, or proselyzation.

[By the way, who has posted the above comments? Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)]

S. Radhakrisnan has commented on 18:67 and 18:68 thus: "Only those who are disciplined, loving and have a desire to serve are capable of understanding the message; others may listen to it and abuse it." and "It is the duty of those who are previously initiated to initiate their uninitiated brethren." The two verses have nothing to do with proselytization. To see evangelic overtones here would be like saying, "I have a duty toward my woman, and therefore I also have that duty toward any and every other woman." Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

languae un-equivalence

Hinduism and budhism are wrongly stated as religions, religions which have dharma as main center of focus. Instead, when in reality, hinduism and budhism are them selves Dharma.

Dharma is wrongly said to be equivalent to religion.

i think english is forcefully used to en-shorten the article, because if we stop using the word religion, then it would take a lot to describe these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoks (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. 'Dharma', along with 'Artha', 'Kama' and 'Moksha' is part of any individual's way of life, and an individual can choose to follow any of the several existing traditions, or go alone. To be able to write about the so-called Hinduism, just the knowledge of English is not enough. One should know India, but unfortunately one can quote from any published source and get away with it. There is no editorial oversight in place. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated link

The link at the bottom needsw updating as follows: (hope i got this template right)

{{editsemiprotected}} CHANGE:

• Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies Lectures and seminars in MP3 audio format by the OCHS as reference material for scholars and students.

TO:

• Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies Lectures and seminars in MP3 audio format by the OCHS as reference material for scholars and students.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkdasa (talk • contribs)

 Done—SpaceFlight89 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin Intervention

Since User:Pectore is not willing to discuss changes here and develop a consensus, I am wondering if it is time to call for admin intervention. Desione (talk)

I have been more than willing to discuss my edits, but I am not willing to repeat myself to an obviously obstinate and ignorant crowd. For example Desione claims that I have not been a) sourcing or b) providing full citations. Interestingly however, if Desione was capable of or cared enough to scroll down the page the sources were expanded in the proper location. Not only those edits, but on the accumulated scale of my edits, unsourced information and assumptions were removed and a plethora of reliable sources were provided to justify whatever assertions I made, or that were presently on the page (See 1, 2, 3 for examples). Pectore^talk 14:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As for this supposed consensus, Desione was rebuffed at numerous junctures in the past (See Talk:Hinduism/Archive_23#Resolving_Conversion, and Talk:Hinduism/Archive_22#Conversion). In the status quo, Shreevatsa and I both agree on the text, and Desione is the only person advocating change to the unsourced, subjective, and myopic interpretation of conversion, formulated by a number of Indians but with little actual theological, historical, or factual backing.Pectore^talk 14:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Lets not personalize the issue, and call each others edits WP:vandalism (they are not!). I haven't compared the two versions that are being promoted in any details, but at first glance, neither seem "completely whacko" and I think we should be able to discuss and arrive at an high-quality version based on the the sources being cited, and possibly further literature review. To help the process, can someone quote the two versions below along with the corresponding references ? Please don't add "support" or "oppose" comments in the discussion section - this is supposed to be a effort at collaboration and not a competition. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A very sensible and reasonable suggestion. Let's do what Abecedare has suggested. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible article merger?

Would it be worth bringing the content of the "Hindu_mythology" article under the title of the "Hinduism" article or might a simple change to "Hindu mythology" title alternatively be considered.

The contents of "Hindu mythology" article are listed:

1 Sources 2 Vedic mythology 3 Epics 4 Cosmogony 5 The wars 5.1 The weapons 6 The Deluge 7 The peoples of the epics 7.1 Sapta Rishis 7.2 Pitrs 8 Worlds 9 Deities 9.1 Incarnations 10 House of Ikshvaku 11 Bharatavarsha

The contents of the "Hinduism" article are listed as:

1 Etymology 2 Typology 3 Definitions 4 Beliefs 4.1 Concept of God 4.2 Devas and avatars 4.3 Karma and samsara 4.4 Objectives of human life 4.5 Yoga 5 Practices 5.1 Rituals 5.2 Pilgrimage and festivals 6 Scriptures 6.1 Shruti 6.2 Smritis 7 History 8 Society 8.1 Denominations 8.2 Ashramas 8.3 Monasticism 8.4 Varnas 8.5 Ahimsa and vegetarianism 8.6 Conversion

I have recently raised the issue of the neutrality of the title of the 'Creation myth' article in that articles discussion page and have questioned the ethical use of the use of mythology related terminologies in relation to certain religious stories.

This was done from the perspective of someone who has no personal belief in a personal god and who only has a basic knowledge of Hinduism but who acknowledges the possibility that, within conceptions of a god of great power, anything might be possible.

Gregkaye (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindus killing Christians!

[1]

It's very scary...

Definitely would add this info to this article. --71.106.212.251 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The website has poor grammer ("I am born"), it assumes that Greek mythology was derived from Hinduism (instead of being from the same source -- after all, there is no Greek form of Shiva, and Dravidian words simply have no real analogs in Greek), it denies the Indo-Aryan migrations (by using a spinned version of the outdated term "invasion"), it is mainly an attack on Christianity, it shows ignorance of Christianity (it claims that the decline of Christianity in the west is a result of people not becoming priests and nuns, when most Catholic countries other than France are still majority Christian, and many countries are Protestant and haven't had priests or nuns for centuries but remained mostly Christian for a long time). Overall, does not qualify for NPOV, and isn't even really about Hindus killing Christians. It was dishonest of you to say that is what that website was about. Plus, the rest of that website is mainly there to sell books, and we don't use sites created to advertise products as sources, unless perhaps we are talking about the product advertised. Since this article isn't about the books written by Stephen Knapp, it wouldn't be appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DFTT.Pectore^talk 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo in the Conversion section

{{editsemiprotected}}"proselyzation" needs to be changed to "proselytization".

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism

There is no single founder of Hinduism. People who believe in Hinduism believe in heaven called Moksha and believe in their god named Brahman. They believe in the caste system. A caste system is a social group that you are born into and cannot get out of. They have no single sacred text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockon9057 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism is not a religion. It is a modern coinage meaning anything and nothing. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan gave it some sense by having it as referring to a view of life. There will always be as many views of life as there will be Hindus at any given moment. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Caste system is a social system, a bad aspect in Hindu culture, just like slavery in Christianity or in Islam social systems.

The above comment is neither signed nor dated. Anyway, the caste system is not bad. It serves a useful purpose. But, unfortunately, it has been grossly abused in the Hindu society for millenniums. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism

I improved the section on God of the article Karma in Hinduism. Experts in this field, please take a look.

Raj2004 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Raj, according to the Bhagavadgita, the consequence of karma has got to be experienced. There is no escape. Even Kulashekhara Alwar, a Vaishnava devotee, says in his "Mukundamala Stotra": 'yad yad bhavyam bhavatu bhagavan purva-karma-anurupam'. And purva-karma or bhaagya or daiva is unseen ['a-drishta'] by us, and is known only to God as Vidhaataa. God created the law of karma, and God will not violate it. God does, however, give courage and strength if asked. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversion discussion

Version 1

Socially conversion to Hinduism has not been possible because of the existence of the Caste System and division of the Hindus into different Varnas including the four major Varnas namely the Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sundra; and since the question of Varna remains for one converted to Hinduism from any other religion of the world.To which Varna a learned Christian or Muslim converted to Hinduism will belong? Cerainly he or she will be considered as a Sudra; then who respectively having beloged to any religion will cherish the desire of becoming a Hindu inspite of the high philosophy of the Upanisada or the Gita? The Caste System of the Hindus, therefore, has been the main hindrance on the way of conversion to Hinduism. Secondly, Hinduism has never been a missionary religion based on social welfare works; it rather devides the people into watertight compartments; it does not unite, it does not invite other people to become Hindus in the name of God, to tell the truth the Brahmanas who should have taken the mission of propagating the religion, spread instead the virus of social exclusiveness and not of cohesion. It is a fact indeed that in the Yoga philosophy as well as in the symbols of Hindu Gods and Goddesses there has been much elements of science and logic; but that scientific part has been suppressed throughout the ages for the sake of the interest of people spreading the ideas of many meaningless rituals.(vide, Sailen Debnath, 'The Meanings of Hindu Gods, Goddesses and Myths', Rupa & Co. Delhi, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailen Debnath (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization are rarely found in the Hindu texts and in practice have never played a significant role in the religion. Early in its history, in the absence of other competing religions, Hindus considered everyone they came across as Hindus and expected everyone they met to be Hindus.

Hindus today continue to be influenced by historical ideas of acceptability of conversion. Hence, many Hindus continue to believe that Hinduism is an identity that can only be had from birth, while many others continue to believe that anyone who follows Hindu beliefs and practices is a Hindu, and many believe in some form of both theories. However, as a reaction to perceived and actual threat of evangelization, prozelyzation, and conversion activities of other major religions many modern Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion from (any) one religion to (any) other per se.

With the rise of Hindu revivalist movements, conversions to Hinduism have risen. Reconversions are well accepted since conversion out of Hinduism is not recognized.

There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life. A ritual called shuddhi ("purification") sometimes marks the return to spiritual life after reconversion. Most Hindu sects do not seek converts, as they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, as long as it is practiced sincerely. However, some Hindu sects and affiliates such as Arya Samaj, Saiva Siddhanta Church, BAPS, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness accept those who have a desire to follow Hinduism.

Version 2

Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization are absent from Hindu texts and in practice have never played a significant role, though acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common. Early in its history, in the absence of other competing religions, Hindus considered everyone they came across as Hindus and expected everyone they met to be Hindus.

Hindus today continue to be influenced by historical ideas of acceptability of conversion. Hence, many Hindus continue to believe that Hinduism is an identity that can only be had from birth, while many others continue to believe that anyone who follows Hindu beliefs and practices is a Hindu, and many believe in some form of both theories. However, as a reaction to perceived and actual threat of evangelization, prozelyzation, and conversion activities of other major religions most modern Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion from (any) one religion to (any) other per se.

Hindus in Western countries generally accept and welcome willing converts, whereas in India acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common. With the rise of Hindu revivalist movements, reconversions to Hinduism have also risen. Reconversions are well accepted since conversion out of Hinduism is not recognized. Conversion into Hinduism through marriage is well accepted and often expected in order to enable the non-Hindu partner to fully participate in their spiritual, religious, and cultural roles within the larger Hindu family and society.

There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life. A ritual called shuddhi ("purification") sometimes marks the return to spiritual life after reconversion. Most Hindu sects do not seek converts, as they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, as long as it is practiced sincerely. However, some Hindu sects and affiliates such as Arya Samaj, Saiva Siddhanta Church, BAPS, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness accept those who have a desire to follow Hinduism.

In general, Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize.

Version 3

Conversion

See also: List of converts to Hinduism

A ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") may mark the beginning of Hindu life after conversion; while as, a ritual called shuddhi("purification") may mark the reentry into Hinduism after reconversion.

Hindu literature notes that the Rishis were responsible for the spread of Hinduism in ancient times. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation. Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu. However, other Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion, from one religion to another per se.The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize.

Reconversion among people who were formerly Hindus or whose ancestors were formerly Hindus has picked up pace with the growth of Hindu revivalist movements. National organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (India) and Parisada Hindu Dharma (Indonesia) actively facilitate such reconversions. Reconversions, in general, are well accepted within Hindu society since conversion out of Hinduism is not considered valid in the first place. Conversion through marriage is well accepted within Hinduism and often expected in order to enable the non-Hindu partner to fully participate in their spiritual, religious, and cultural roles within the larger Hindu family and society.

Evangelization by Hindus, and large scale conversion to Hinduism has occurred throughout the ages as well. In Southeast Asia the merchant, sailor, and priestly class accounted for much of the spread of the religion. Many foreign groups including Gujjars, Ahoms, and Hunas converted to Hinduism after generations of Sanskritization. In the 18th century, Manipur was evanglelized by Hindu priests. In India and Indonesia today many groups still convert to Hinduism on a large basis.

Discussion

There aren't huge differences between the two versions, my reverts have more been about preserving the integrity of the page by reintroducing sources (which Desione consistently removed, even when they were sources added to completely unrelated paragraphs). The utter stupidity becomes more apparent on posts placed on my talk page 1. In these Desione has misrepresented my edits in an insulting and idiotic fashion. Look at the discussions above or the diffs on article page where I have provided numerous reliable sources to back up whatever I say, as opposed to religiocruft.

Of note is the fact noted in Glaziers The Anthropology of Religious Conversion page 43 in which he notes that fallacious claims of Hindus not engaging in the conversion game are used as a backdoor way to assert the superiority of the religion. That removes us from the land of NPOV.

The paragraph on "religious freedom" is one absent from V1, because there is no real Hindu view on such a concept. In the view of the Hindu Right, it certainly is untrue (the VHP aggressively evangelizes non-Hindus in parts of India), and therefore should not be taken as gospel truth on Wikipedia. As for the other flaws of V2, they include unsourced statements (on marriage), the assertion that only Western Hindus welcome converts (both unsourced and false), and a lack of tight sourcing (which V1 takes care of).Pectore^talk 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't mean that concepts of conversion/evangelization/proselyzation are NOT absent from Hindu literature. Desione (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 43 of Anthropology of Religious Conversion is simply saying that "reconversions" are accepted eventhough "conversion" is not accepted. This point has already been clarified in the original text of conversion section. See quotation below:

Hindu nationalist claim that people convert to Christianity either because they have been tricked by missionaries or becuase they have been seduced by offers of material remuneration. By effectively linking conversion with issues of national security and cultural actualization, they argue that proselytezing is part of conspiracy to destroy Indian culture and to destabilize Indian polity. These objections have led to numerous protest rallies and speaches and, in some specific instances, to violent confrontation between Hindus and Christians. However, Hindu nationalist criticism of conversion and proselytizing is fraught with contradictions in both theory and practice. For instance, the movement has been actively "reconverting" Christian tribals to Hinduism, yet assert that Hinduism does not engage in conversion

— Anthropology of Religious Conversion, Page 43

The current text under conversion section also clearly states that some of the reason why Hindus are opposed to religious conversion can be attributed to a reaction to perceived or actual threat of conversion activities of other major religions. Desione (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to as "non-Hindus" are actually people who were (or whose ancestors were) Hindus originally. Mainstream view is that one does not cease to be a Hindu just because he/she converted to any other religion (let me know if you need reliable sources for this). The concept of conversion is alien to Hinduism and was never imagined within Hinduism, so if you tell me that a particular person converted out of Hinduism and hence is a non-Hindu, I, as a Hindu, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about because I have never seen, heard, read, felt, imagined, or perceived "conversion". For all I know, that person has been a Hindu in all or his/her previous incarnations before his current birth and will continue to be a Hindu in all or his/her future incarnations after current death. A Hindu can become misguided, but that does not mean that he/she is not a Hindu anymore. Keep in mind that VHP does not attempt to "convert" people who were never Hindus or whose ancestors where never Hindus. There is a difference between "reconversion" and "conversion" in Hinduism (left, right, or center wing). Desione (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear: No group or sect or affiliation within the banner or Hinduism represents all Hindus and this is certainly true for any left or right wing organizations such as ISKCON and VHP. We need to oppose inclusion of text in this article based on either ISKCON views and activities or VHP views and activities. Desione (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle on the major differences first. We can deal with these later. Desione (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The following, in my opinion, are two most contentious differences in the original text and the proposed text (see diff). If these can be resolved, resolving other differences should be easy.

Difference 1:

Original Text: Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization are absent from Hindu texts and in practice have never played a significant role, though acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common.

Proposed Text: Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization are rarely found in the Hindu texts and in practice have never played a significant role in the religion.

Quotes from ISKCON's version of BhagwadGita were used in order to support the claim that Hinduism in some shape or form encourages conversion/proselyzation/evangelization. However, these have been dismissed multiple times both in discussions that were carried out months earlier and in the current discussion (See section and and conversion section above, so not how concepts of conversion/evangelization/prozelytization became "rare" in Hindu texts as opposed to "absent."?

Difference 2:

Original Text: In general, Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize.

Proposed Text: text removed from proposed text.

This original text is from an academic paper that discuss religious conversion based on views of experts in Hinduism such as Arvind Sharma (academic expert) and Swami Agnivesh (religious expert) and can be found in academic paper Right to Religoius Conversion: Between Apostasy and Proselytization. Desione (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, please stop inserting your statements in the middle of mine. This doesn't help the discussion in any way. Second off, you continue to remove properly sourced relevant information in your blind reverts. I will address the other issues within a week or two.Pectore^talk 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Swami Agnivesh as a religious expert is a bit rich, the only people that think he is an expert on Hinduism are violent Islamic extremists. The "Hindu" (if one can even extrapolate enough to call it that) view on "human rights" really isn't something relevant to the matter of the role of conversion as a consistent part of Hinduism through history. This version was seen in the consensus version (which you ceremoniously opposed using the same "I heard it from a rich Indian swami" logic) of early 2008. I'll place that version on the table as well.Pectore^talk 00:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Next off, page 43 of religious conversion was meant to say just that. The idea that Hindus do not convert is utter hypocrisy. You displaying the quote only displayed that myth in quotes to the world.Pectore^talk 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita verse was hardly dismissed in earlier discussions. The quote exhorts spreading the word (as it were) of the Gita. In terms of other sources, Tamil history has a number of Tamil Saiva saints as converts for other religions. For example Sambandar converted the King of the Pandya empire (Lorenzen 45). These saints, the Nayanar, are bedrocks of Saivism, and were beatified as members of South India's 75 Apostles of Bhakti. So to say that Hindu religious texts (some of which were written by these saints and discussed these saints) lack any mention of concepts or conversion and proselytization is to utter a falsehood. Pillai 4, talks about how Agastya, and brahmins descended from him spread Murugan worship in South India. Not only that but the Tamil Ramayana notes Agastya spread Vedic Hinduism and the Tamil language across South India.Pectore^talk 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pectore, please cite all the verses from the Bhagavadgita which you think endorse proselytization. Let me discuss them with you. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk)

Swami Agnivesh is a sanyasi in the tradition of Arya Samaj and one of the people who represented Hinduism in Millinium Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders at UN. see - World council of religious leaders, i.e he is well recognized as a Hinduism leader and hence the views he articulates are significant. Please produce text from [reliable sources|WP:RS] to back up your claim that the only people that think he (Swami Agnivesh) is an expert on Hinduism are violent Islamic extremists. Desione (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The section has a very open-ended title called Conversion, so views of Human rights related to conversion is very much part of this section. Also before you attempt to narrow down the scope of the section to the role of conversion as a consistent part of Hinduism throughout history, please show that there is such a thing called conversion in Hinduism. Desione (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Utter hypocrisy only if you don't understand the difference between conversion and reconversion. Desione (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what (Lorenzen, 45) or Pillai 4 is. Is there a wikipedia policy that states that one should obfuscate sources by not producing quotes of relevant text and not provide full citation? Desione (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please stop posting within my posts, as that breaks up the discussion.Pectore^talk 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia policy that says indented replies are not allowed? Using indented replies is a common practice on wikipedia discussions. It helps in narrowing the discussion to particular points or wording of a particular point. Desione (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agnivesh is also seen as an extremely controversial figure, one that is despised by the Hindutva movement, which like it or not represents a large swath of Hindu consciousness. The VHP has not only outright criticized him [2], but there are questions within the Arya Samaj and other groups as to the validity of his position. Agnivesh Kicks off Storm at Puri[3]. He is notable as an activist, and not as a self-styled Swami.)

As for conversion in Hinduism, so many people have converted to Hinduism through the ages that displaying it is a mere google search away (http://books.google.com/books?id=QYIDlzneRvUC&pg=PR37&dq=%22converted+to+hinduism%22#v=onepage&q=%22converted%20to%20hinduism%22&f=false). Perhaps some random Indian swami believes everyone is born Hindu (just like everyone is born Muslim in Islam), but if people change religion that is conversion. Reconversion also happens in India, but get it into your head that tribals and Southeast Asians were never Hindu to begin with until their conversion.

"It is not quite correct to say one must be born a Hindu, since Hinduism has grown by gradually hinduizing the wilder tribes of India and the process still continues" (Eliot xxvii). "Hinduism does not convert people in the overt way in which Christianity and Islam do, but this does not mean that there is no conversion in it." (M.N. Srinivas 1976:574). "The only sense in which Hinduism is not proselytizing is that there is no formal mechanism for the conversion of individual non-Hindus." (Srinivas 576). This basically correlates to what the article says about no formal method of conversion, and also agrees with the notion that diksha/shuddhi have been used in a number of cases in conversion. Doniger 2009:576 (text is online) states that early in the fifteenth century even brahmins had developed methods of conversion and rituals to justify it. Its always been present, even if not prominent (which is the same reason Jews do not evangelize; they have been under "infidel" domination for so long).

The "Hindu view of Human rights" is a laughable concept, not only because you cited prominent Hindu leader and defender of the faith Swami Agnivesh, but because so many Hindu groups engage in obvious proselytization that its hypocritical.Pectore^talk 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Assimilation of distinct groups of people into Hinduism does take place over many generations where the gods(s) and method of worship of a group would get incorporated into Hinduism and various aspects of Hinduism get incorporated into the belief system of the group. This is not conversion as it is commonly understood today. it is a process of mutual assimilation and mutual cultural enrichment that takes generations and may also involve intermarriages over several generations. There are many groups in India that went through such as process of assimilation. This does not mean that Hinduism desires such a process (like Christianity and Islam desire conversion) as there are many groups in India that have managed to maintain their religious identity distinct from Hinduism while co-existing peacefully with Hinduism (Parsis for example). The spread of Hinduism into south-east asia was through such an assimilation process that lasted around a 1000 years and was driven by intermarriages between Hindu traders and local population in south-east asia. The source that you refer to above is alluding to (but not directly talking about) this assimilative process. Again mutual cultural and religous assimilation over several generations is not what is commonly understood as "conversion". Desione (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He current role can probably be best described as a liberal reformer within Hinduism hence many of his views are controversial. VHP and Shankracharya of Puri have a much more conservative position on conversion within Hinduism as compared to Swami Agnivesh. Although I would agree with you that both Shankracharya of Puri and VHP are more influential within Hinduism than Swami Agnivesh. Given your position on conversion, I am surprised that you are trying to discredit Agnivesh. He should be your best friend. Desione (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to to back up your claim through reliable sources that the only people that think he (Swami Agnivesh) is an expert on Hinduism are violent Islamic extremists Desione (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC

Pectore, can you be specific? If not, your assertion attributing proselytization per se to Hinduism will deserve to be ignored. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically people didn't "convert" to Hinduism, the gods that they believed in got incorporated into Hinduism over several generations. At the same time Hindu gods got incorporated into the belief system of these people. This is cultural and religious assimilation, not conversion. There was some text to clarify this point in the conversion section, but I guess someone removed it for some reason. Desione (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The only group that I know of which carries out proselytization is ISKCON and ISKCON does not even consider itself a Hindu organization. Do you have realiable sources that show that "many hindu groups engage in obvious prselytization"?Desione (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Again desione, please stop posting in the middle of my posts. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that this is annoying and obfuscatory, but its just one of many things you seem to be unwilling to grasp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 October 2009

See Talk page: thread your posts and threaded discussion Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and you're also not supposed to edit my posts. Having a threaded discussion is different than inserting your posts within my own, which is more or less editing my comments.Pectore^talk 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to Hinduism could be an assimilation of gods (and in many to most cases was, I'm not disputing that). In quite a few cases it wasn't, old gods were rejected and a conversion in the Western sense occurred. Lets start out with the Hun King Mihirakula, converted from Buddhism to Saivism in the early 6th century. There is Rudradaman_I in the second century CE, and Heliodorus (minister) of the second century BCE. In Manipur, old gods were rejected (see source). Your claim all conversions were through assimilation is completely false, as Hindu missionaries have been operating since at least the 3rd century BC (Coedes 1968:14-35), and definitely since the Mughal era (check Doniger and the conversions in Manipur). So historically people did convert to Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 October 2009

The issue is not around following a particular god (like Mihirakula following Shiva). You don't have to believe in (any) god and can still be a Hindu. Hinduism doesn't not restrict anyone from following any god (whether Hindu or not) or none at all. The issue is whether one will get accepted as a Hindu by following a particular god and/or practices. Historically, acceptance into the Hindu fold has involved a process or assimilation that takes generations much like what you see among immigrant communities who move into foreign countries.

One of the problems with Hinduism is that it does not fit into the conventional definition of religion used to denote Christianity and Islam, so you cannot take particular Christian/Islamic practices (such as conversion) and expect to find it in Hinduism as well just because Hinduism is also conventionally defined as a religion. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Hinduism historically has had ethnic/geographical overtones and has often been defined as a way of life, so historically one has to assimilate into Hinduism much like an immigrant has to assimilate into a foreign culture. Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mihirakula was not Buddhist. He went around destroying various Buddhist supas and monasteries. Do you have a reliable source to show that Mihirakula was Buddhist? Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindu influence already existed among Huns:

Various forms of Zoroastrian beliefs were widespread in Central Asia and northern and western Afghanistan in competition with Buddhism. There were also many adherents of Hindu belifs in Afghanistan and in Tokaristan.

— [|History of Civilizations of Central Asia by Boris Abramovich Litvinovskiĭ, Volume 3, Page 147]

On assimilation of Huns:

After Mihirakula no great leader arose among the Hunas to reassert their hegemony. But inscriptions and literally works amply prove that for many centuries afterwards, they remained a potent factor in the political situation of nothern India until they were gradually absorbed into the Hindu social polity.

— [| History of Ancient India by Rama Shankar Tripathi, page 283]

Neither of the sources directly contradicts the assertion the ruler converted to Hinduism and made a break with his earlier faith. Also the historical examples under the Mughal empire and Manipur stand as well. Academic words don't adjust just because it hurts your feelings to see actual historical facts placed in front of you.Pectore^talk 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The only available historical records show that Mihirakula was a follower of Shiva. There are no records to indicate that Mihirakula converted. Manipur is an exception (even in north-eastern India with several other population groups like manipuri people). People in Manipur were converted to Hinduism in 17th, 18th century - apparently Aurangzeb, in his attempt to supress Hinduism, put some Hindu brahamins out of work and they migrated to Manipur. Currently approx 48% of Manipur population is Hindu (i.e 1.1 million people). You still have the other 1 billion to account for :-). Desione (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the first sentence of the conversion section, the possibility of exceptional cases such as manipur has not been discounted: "Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization are absent from Hindu texts and in practice have never played a significant role, though acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common". I would be ok with adding a footnote to this sentence as further clarification for Manipur. Desione (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DN Jha notes Mihirakula's family was Jain before "He is said to have been converted to Jainism. In AD 515 he was succeeded by his son Mihirakula" (Jha). Then on the subject of Mihirakula, "He was converted to the Shaiva faith" (Political history of India from the earliest times to the 7th century [sic] A.D), "certain it is that Mihirakula had become a convert to Hinduism" (Journal of ancient Indian history‎). Also Usha Sharma notes "Greeks and others embraced Hinduism and were freely admitted in Hinduism" (Cultural and Religious Heritage of India: Hinduism).Pectore^talk 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tormana, Mihirakula's father, converted to Jainism, because Jain literary works say so (see [4]). Desione (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mihirakula followed shiva because the Gwalior inscription (supposedly commissioned by Mihirakula himself) says so and coins sanctioned by Mihirakula carrying the image of the Shiva further validate this. There is no historical work or record that says Mihirakula "converted" whatever that is supposed to mean in the context to Hinduism. Desione (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As for Indo-greeks, they are extremely well known to be widely influenced by Buddhism not Hinduism. (See Religions_of_the_Indo-Greeks). Desione (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I already provided a number of historical works which stated he converted to Hinduism. At least six. Please do display your obstinacy on a different topic. The Indo-Greeks converted to Hinduism en masse, as I noted with Sharma. Your Swami-history really doesn't interest me when actual Hindu history (as noted by Hindus and academics in the sources I provided) displays conversion has always been part and parcel of religious practice.Pectore^talk 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Versions one and three only suggest that conversion has played a significant role in the geographical spread of the religion and that conversion and proselytization occurred across a number of centuries (which corroborated with provided sources). Version 2 claims proselytization is a neologism of sorts wrt Hinduism, which by counterexample is false.Pectore^talk 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

These are isolated, insignificant, and dubious examples and there is no discussion of concepts in question within Hindu texts. Except Manipur, a complete lack of any real evidence. This opposed to other major religions (Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam) where "conversion" is a central theme that is discussed in their respective literally works, played a significant and undisputed role in their history as well as present, besides being further verified by independent historical records. At this point, I think we are beating a dead topic.Desione (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

There is more than enough real evidence that I have provided (over 30 academic and expert sources) that states Hinduism has spread through Sanskritization, Conversion, and in some cases even proselytization. There is also no dispute that these events happened, since a dispute is between two valid points, rather than you and others with a warped view of history denying outright facts. As for whether the concepts are in the texts, texts like the Tirrutontar Antati talk about proselytization, while the Tirumurai talks about conversion to Saivism (http://books.google.com/books?id=RhsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA353&dq=Tirutondar&as_brr=1&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Tirutondar&f=false).Pectore^talk 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And how many academic and expert sources have you found stating that Hinduism is non-converting religion? Desione (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't grasp logic, the idea of counterexamples demolish academic anachronisms. I don't deny a lot of sources claim Hinduism doesn't convert, but unfortunately the presence of real examples of this being untrue allows us to discount those statements in conjunction with a large number of sources which discount the myth that Hinduism doesn't convert. Just because proselytization and conversion are not seen as very important does not instantly imply they have not played a significant role in its spread, both historically and in the status quo.Pectore^talk 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that there is at least some agreement (Hinduism being generally non-converting) and Manipur being converting. As for the rest, your completely ridiculous counterexample of BhagwadGita supporting proselytization speaks for itself. Desione (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So therefore we also agree that in a number of Hindu texts as stated above, concepts and examples of converts and proselytization are outlined, that conversion to Hinduism has always occurred, that Hindus have always proselytized, that numerous Hindu organizations engage in conversion, that Hinduism is not exclusive, and that certain interpretations even of the Bhagavad Gita seem to support a limited form of proselytization. Version three or one accurately defines the realities on the ground, while version two unfortunately is a reflection of a myopic, indocentric, exclusive mindset.Pectore^talk 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No Desione (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of Agnivesh, he's viewed with extreme suspicion by the Hindu right. Neither he nor you nor the VHP are my "friends" in any way or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 October 2009

ISKCON's acrobatics on the matter are interesting. Here's an ISKCON website that indicates otherwise. Besides ISKCON, Saiva Siddhanta converts, the VHP does, Parisada does, and Swaminarayan seeks converts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 October 2009

Don't get offtrack. The original point was whether Hindu sects proselytize or not and I asked you for reliable sources that state that Hindu sects proselytize. Do you have such reliable sources? Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Next, even if some Hindus consider everyone to be born Hindu (which a number of missionaries did), Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 October 2009

Please produce reliable sources to show that "Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't" Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The onus on you is to prove Wikipedia is supposed to reflect your worldview.Pectore^talk 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing someones religion in conversion, and only reconversion if they practiced Hinduism at some earlier point in this life.Pectore^talk 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You continue to apply concepts from Islam and Christianity which limit Hinduism despite all the discussion so far. You would need to step outside the mindset of Islam and Christianity to understand Hinduism. Conversion is irrelevant in Hinduism and Hindu concept of religion extends beyond (both before and after) this life Desione (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Words don't change meaning just because you wish for them to. Time and time again I have provided sources showing proselytization has been undertaken by Hindus and played a significant role in its expansion. Unlike you, I have also sourced my assertions.Pectore^talk 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pectore, you are entitled to your views and definitions. However, the fact remains that proselytization per se is not part of Hinduism, period. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that, and in fact from what I have seen most Hindus would be horrified at the suggestion that they proselytise. However certainly in the West they are accepting of non born-Hindus. An incident that illustrates this happened the other week. I was in our Mandir and a Christian group were visiting from a local Church. One of the Christians started talking to us, and several Hindus came and said that they help those who ask but never encourage anyone to change religion. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have amply demonstrated, proselytization is part and parcel of the spread of Hinduism. If it horrifies "most Hindus", then so be it, they obviously lack an understanding of their own history.Pectore^talk 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

has no single founder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.124.237 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

grammatical error

"Worshiping at the dawn" should be "worshiping at dawn." Can't fix the error because the article is locked.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done under 5.1 Rituals. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Defame of indian gods

i have seen that people at http://www.monstropedia.org have copied text from here and they have pasted it under a monster. they cite god Narasimha as monster. check it here http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Narasimha Swaminworld (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The characterization of the appearance of God as an avatara in Nara-simha [man-lion] has a significance. The Hindus believe in that significance, some knowing that significance and others not knowing it, and they all worship Narasimha as an avatara of God. The perception of Narasimha as a monster by those who are not Hindus is due to their ignorance of that significance. Among those who are not Hindus, some seek knowledge, some wallow in ignorance. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

monstropedia.org can put on their site anything they like. Wikipedia does not have, nor does it aim for, any control over the content of monstropedia.org. Good luck patrolling the internet at large for content you don't like. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pandeism

Some branches of Hinduism are unquestionably closer to pandeism then mere pantheism or theism. Please reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.203.131 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the description of pandeism I disagree with it being close to Hinduism, God is not in a state where he/she cannot be reached. However if there are any established claims (not WP:OR) then feel free to add them to the article. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

HINDUISM

Point no.1

The etymology of the name Hindu given is not accurate. The etymology takes into account only the popular western version. The name 'Indhu' in Hinduism refers to the planet moon. Majority of Hindus always follow the calendar based on moon. This is known as Chandrayana calendar, as distinguihed from Sun Calendar, which is known as Souramana Calendar. Therefore the term Hindu comes from the Sanskrit word Indhu, meaning moon, as the entire Hindu almanac, ceremonies were based on moon calendar.

Point No.2

Hindusim is the oldest religion in the world. Originally therefore there was no name for this religion. It is correct to say that it was called as Sanathana Dharma.

Point No.3

Some of the basic scientific truths and invenetions found in this milleneum have already been given in ancient Hindu texts. Hindusim is only religion which gives the correct age of the universe as 4.5 billion years, as this the life of Brahma. Other major religion does not give the age of Universe more than 8000 years, which is scientifically incorrect. Again Hindusim is the only religion, which recognises, diffrent time scales for different parts of thsi Universe. I am prepared to write a detailed article on this subject, if administartors show some ineterst in this subject.

My source is the knowledge I gained over years from interaction with several elders in my religion and my own reasearch. For Hindus most imporatnat things are always gained by word of mouth from elders, eg. the Vedas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasturi srinivasan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Response:

Point No. 1: The modern word Hindu is the Persian pronunciation of the word Sindhu meaning the Indus river. It has nothing to do with the word Indu meaning the moon.

Point No. 2: Hinduism is not a religion. It is a word that has been coined to collectively refer to the various spiritual traditions followed by the Hindus, the people of the Indian subcontinent. The currently popular label Sanatana Dharma was coined not too long ago to refer to the ancient practice of Vedic traditions to differentiate it from the twentieth century practice started by Swami Dayananda Saraswati and called the Arya Samaj. There is no one label to refer to the various spiritual traditions of India. When S. Radhakrishnan needed a title for his work on philosophy, he chose the word Indian and not Hindu. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

further reply to Kasturi srinivasan:

• you mean indu, not indhu, a Sanskrit word for "drop", and then also "Soma" and hence "Moon". The word has nothing to do with Hindu
• the term Sanatana Dharma for Hinduism dates to the late 19th century. It is younger than, and in fact a reaction to, the English term "Hinduism"
• please read the article before making random false claims that are already fully addressed by the article. It is fair enough to base your understanding on the word of your elders, but Wikipedia doesn't operate like that. If your elders turn indu into indhu this means they don't know Sanskrit, it doesn't mean we have to rewrite all dictionaries retroactively.

--dab (𒁳) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Conversion

Given the well established history of invasion and immigrations in India even from pre-Christian and pre-Islamic times the possibility of conversion through assimilation into Hinduism is a reality, though this is not stated specifically.

Looking at the multi-racial character of Hindus in all parts of India and the rich cultural variations within Hinduism it can be said that rather than being a proselitizing religion, Hinduism has been an assimilative and is a highly evolved religion.

There are also specific communities in India like the Jats, Chitpavan Brahmins and Bhojak Brahmins whose origins can be traced to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik27061973 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

new source

I found this book which discusses Hinduism from a beginner's viewpoint... http://books.google.com/books?id=4ho54fq0sYQC&lpg=PP1&dq=Satguru%20Sivaya%20Subramuniyaswami&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

(I liked it and thought others might too, I wasn't sure how to add it to the page so... here it is :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia helps me with school!

I just wanted to say this site is a great source for things and epexilly for all the school projects so far so yeah :) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCS student (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Too add to that i have to say this article is fantastic, especially when compared to other articles on major religions. The language is accessible, yet also correct and meaningful. Congratulations to the editors is in order.--Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

bhagavad gita,vedas and lord krrishna are not the only hinduism

bhagavad gita,vedas and lord krrishna are not the only hinduism

other gods are also is there like lord shiva,lord muruga,lord saraswathi,etc

vedas praises lord indira who is a biggest womeniser in the world who made sex with gautam maharishi's wife ahalia by changing his face into gautam maharishi.

i also heard that gautami's maharishi wife ahalia kew who came is indira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.m82 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism

Hinduism is not polytheistic. Hinduism is the religion of the Vedas, and the Vedas are purely monotheistic, all they describe are different qualities of God.

Rig Veda 1.164.46,

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,

ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."(trans. Griffith)

124.181.116.41 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Levent Sengul:

He was one of the best students and teachers on Hinduism, he told all the secrets about this beautiful religion. He knew all of this from his parents, Georgios Karantoulis and Giulia Gruden.

I am not sure Levent really existed but this is what I was told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindel84gab (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is only one God in Hinduism. That God is viewed and worshiped in numerous and various forms referred to as deities. Some are more popular than others. Kanchanamala (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not say that hinduism is a religion, an atheist can be hindu. Hindu, as written below is a representative title for the merge of Dravindian and Aryan cultures. Hinduism should then not be approached with a lexical system of religious definition, rather a more broad sociological system. Originally, the word Hindu represented people who lived in Hindustan.

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add the following text while describing Etymology:

The word Hindu first appeared in the Old Persian language and most likely was derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent.[3]

'Hindus' came to be used for people regardless of their religious affiliation and mainly as a geographical term. It was only towards the end of the 18th century that the European merchants and colonists referred collectively to the followers of Dharmic religions in Hindustan—which geographically referred to most parts of the northern Indian subcontinent—as Hindus. Eventually, it came to define a precisely religious identity that includes any person of Indian origin who did not practice Abrahamic religions or religions such as Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism or Buddhism and came to be known as a Hindu, thereby encompassing a wide range of religious beliefs and practices.[6]. The word 'Hindu' is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and did not originate in India, which was known as Bharata. It was not used in Indian writings until the 17th century. The term Hindu was originally a secular word meant to describe all inhabitants of India and it acquired religious and communal overtones during British Raj [1].

This text is taken from Wikipedia for Hindu and seems more appropriate and less confusing. - Thanks

Sad101 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done There are no references. I need references before making the edit.

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove these words "and Hinduism's dogmatic openness". What is meant by "Dogmatic Openness" ??

Sad101 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Request was processed with this edit; marking as done.  Chzz  ►  23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Hinduism and Islam

Dear Hindus, Muslims and others, I have worked very hard and practically completed the article on Hinduism and Islam, almost from scratch. Please see the article and give comments and suggestions. I have kept the language simple and explanatory, so that the article does not remain only for rocket scientists of religions, but is understood by the common man. The style I used is explanation of each concept and then comparison. I have kept NPOV to the best of my knowledge and abilities, and a respectful tone for both the religions. As of now, I could not get any citation(s), because I don't have the time for it. If you all can provide some citations by looking at the text, it would be great. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Article says: "Between 400 BCE and 1000 CE Hinduism expanded at the expense of Buddhism.[98]" probably should read: 'Between 400 BCE and 1000 CE Buddhism expanded...'

Although i am not sure we can call it Hinduism at this point in its evolution,... maybe Brahminism ?

-JB3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.57.76 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction about origin of 'Hindu'

The article states that 'The term Hindu in origin is a Persian word in use from the time of the Delhi Sultanate, referring to any tradition that is native to India as opposed to Islam. Hindu is used in the sense of "Indian pagan" in English from the 17th century,[24] '

This is not entirely true. The word "Hindu" was used by the Persians to specifically refer to the inhabitants of South Asia (Modern-day India) without any religious affiliations. The Persian Sufi Al Ghazali called the Kingdom of Sultans of Northern India as "Dominion of the Hind" in this book Sawanih, Chapter 39. In several poems of Mowlana Rumi, he referred to Indian Muslims as 'Hindus', An example of Indian Muslims referred as 'Hindus' by Rumi, is a story of elephant brought from Indian by Hindus (Indian Muslims) and kept in a dark house.

According to Dr. Farhadi, 'Hindu' was used in Persian poetry to refer to Indian Muslims originally, those who worshipped India's navtive religion as opposed to Islam were specifically called Hindu-e-Mushrik (Hindu Idolators) by the Persian poets. Only in later years, after European Colonization, did the term "Hindu" come to mean in Persian a worshipper of Hindu faith. Source: Rumi & Islam: Selections from his Poems and Stories, Page: 187. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Vedic Quote

"I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn."

The article states that this quote is from the Rig Veda. However, it makes reference to the grinding of corn. Corn wasn't available in the Old World until Christopher Columbus made his voyage to the Americas in 1492. Something doesn't seem to add up. How did the writers of the Vedas know about corn?? Or was this passage translated incorrectly?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokie Tech (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

seems like whoever put that quote misquoted it. Corn was clearly a New World crop. It was definitely not known in India. Raj2004 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

the problem with the quote was not the "corn" (="grain") but the fact that the quote was not attributed. I have replaced it with Griffith's translation. Another problem is that the context in which the quote is brought up is completely off topic to this article. This is the Hinduism article. Not the history of Hinduism one, not the Historical Vedic religion one and not the Vedic period one. The purpose of this article is to discuss the contemporary religion. Of course this will mean that classical traditions are discussed, as contempoary Hinduism is steeped in medieval tradition. But it is unclear why speculation about the particulars of Iron Age society are discussed in any length in this article. Discussion of the predecessors of the traditional Hindu varna system would seem to belong under Varna_in_Hinduism#Etymology_and_origins. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"I have replaced it with Griffith's translation." But Griffin's translation still uses the word "corn"... Hokie Tech (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Hokie Tech

Sorry, I disagree that the Vedic period is offtopic. While I am aware that modern scholars see the "Vedic religion" as distinct from "Hinduism" (and indeed the difference in emphases is clear), this is not the view of most Hindus, either now or in the past, who see/saw their religion as an unbroken stream starting from the Vedas. At any rate, Hinduism has often relied on the Vedas for its self-definition and sorting out questions (e.g. what is sanctioned by the scriptures). Any description of the varna system should discuss its fluid nature, and the Vedic period seems a good place to start the discussion. Certainly if it's too long then parts can be trimmed, but I don't agree it's offtopic. ("contempoary Hinduism is steeped in medieval tradition" — you seem to consider anything with origins before the first century or after the 19th century not to be "real" Hinduism!) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

excuse me, I did not say the Vedic period was off topic to this article, I said "the context in which the quote is brought up is completely off topic". The verse in question is relevant to a discussion of the history of the caste system to be sure, but this is the main "Hinduism" page, and it is in WP:SS. There is simply no room to go off on tangents that already have their own standalone articles, such as the history of the Indian caste system. --dab (𒁳) 21:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've now moved the parts that were about the Vedic period (rather than simply Vedas-as-scripture) to the history article. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is 2010 CE, and it is high time we stop treating Griffith's translation as definitive. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was definitive? We have already established that the "corn" does not translate any noun in Sanskrit. Griffith's translation is ok, readily available and it is in the public domain. If you want to know the details, you can always go to the original. --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, dab. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No mention to Aryan heritage?

Its raelly amazing how the India article and the Hinduism article doesnt have alot of reference to Aryan hertiage and / or culture then . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The so-called Aryan heritage is a claim which lacks documentary evidence to support it. Published writers talking about it is not evidence. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 183.177.124.7, 10 June 2010

Hindū is the Persian name for the Indus River, first encountered in the Old Persian word Hindu, corresponding to Vedic Sanskrit Sindhu, the Indus River....

The term was used for those who lived in the Indian subcontinent on or beyond the "Sindhu"....

The Persian term (Middle Persian Hindūk, New Persian Hindū) entered India with the Delhi Sultanate and appears in South Indian and Kashmiri texts from at least 1323 CE, and increasingly so during British rule.

Since the end of the 18th century the word has been used as an umbrella term for most of the religious, spiritual, and philosophical traditions of the sub-continent, excluding the distinct religions of Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

The term Hindu was introduced to the English. It generally denotes the religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions native to India.

Hinduism has been perceived as one of the world religions we know today only since the 19th century, when the term 'Hindu-ism' started being used by leaders of Hindu reform movements or revivalists, and, often considered to be biased, Western orientalists or the "first Indologists".

From the western point of view, the understanding of Hinduism was mediated by Western notions of what religion is and how it relates to more ancient forms of belief. It is further complicated by the frequent use of the term "faith" as a synonym for "religion".

{{editsemiprotected}}

183.177.124.7 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. and provide reliable sources for verification along with establishing consensus. Thanks! SpigotMap 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

??? Hindu

Hindu is derived from Sindu from the Rig Veda! not Persians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.153.235 (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Simply not true. sindhu is Vedic, "Hindu" is Persian [of the people, not Farsi]. Kanchanamala (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bali Sacrifice

The addition of a section on this is contentious. It seems to be an extremely obscure practice (3440 google hits) that seems to be practices once in a blue moon in Nepal. User:Sikh-history seems to claim otherwise. Looking for more opinions on the issue.Pectore^talk 17:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bali Sacrifice? isn't this redundant?. (Bali itself means sacrifice). Again I am not sure if it is a cultural phenomenon or religious, but animal sacrifice as a part of worship is very common among Hindus in Tamil Nadu, India. Similarly a state by state search in gnews archives shows, it is prevalent in many states in India. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting food for thought. I am still curious though, if Bali Sacrifice really merits its own heading on the page. From the links you have provided, it seems like that some of the events are Hindu (the Kamakhya temple traditions, and I'm assuming the ones in Kolkatta) and some (like the one in Karnataka) appear to be more local in nature and almost pagan. It seems that these traditions, nonetheless are not especially popular. The Kamakhya sacrifice appears to also be opposed and criticized by a number of people as well. I'm still doubting that, as Sikh-history claims, hundreds of millions of people believe it to be a pillar of Hinduism.Pectore^talk 18:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The "almost pagan" classification has heavy political overtones :-). Hindus want to count all of those doing pagan rituals as "Hindus" for numerical strength, but frown on when those "Hindus" do things like kill animals and use meat as offering to gods. can't have it both ways . I am not sure about "hundreds of millions" but where i come from (Tamil Nadu) at least tens of millions definitely consider it as a "pillar of their religion" (and they call themselves Hindus). The ban the ADMK govt imposed on the slaughter snowballed into an election issue and became one of the main causes of the defeat of the party in 2004 elections. Once its unpopularity was proven electorally, the govt ate humble pie and overturned the ban. I am still not sure about the religious background though. But as a cultural practice, it is enormously popular. And it is not limited to Hindus and is also followed in Roman Catholic shrines like Velankanni--Sodabottle (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it is certain editors didn't remove content on this, namely Pectore^talk and leaving abusive messages like this, on my talk page. If you note I have even found quotations from Princeton University, that quotes this practice to be very common today in Nepal, Assam, Bengal and other Eastern states. Furthermore, I have witnessed Bali Sacrifice regularly in Jaipur. This is performed by Kashatriya, and Rajputs. Removing this information is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:Censor. If editors have a problem with this I suggest WP:Mediation. Thanks

--Sikh-History 09:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This section does strike me as a bit like saying "speaking in tongues is common in Christianity" without making it clear that it is only a few minority sects and rejected by the majority. I get the impression that the inclusion of this section in the article is an attempt to discredit Hinduism. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Q Chris Please assume good faith. I suggest you read the reference from Princeton University I have included. Hinduism is a diverse religion. At the moment this article seems to be skewed towards Vaishnavs.Thanks--Sikh-History 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise. I think that this marginal practice being part of the Hinduism page would be akin to having sections on Flagellation#Christianity Flagellation and Snake handling in the main Christianity page. That said I should not have assumed negative motivations for this. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Our intention should be to give a fair and balanced view of Hinduism. Discrediting Hinduism would do great disservice to our readers. Spin doctors should spare this article. Anyway, like Muslims in India sacrifice goats for Bakr Id even now, Hindus long discontinued sacrificing animals after Buddha spoke against it two and one half millenniums ago. Slaughter of animals for food is not bali [sacrifice for propitiating God or any deity of God]. Kanchanamala (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanchanamala please Assume Good Faith. Thanks--Sikh-History 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict)) I don't think that Bali sacrifice is so important in Hinduism that it merits its own section in the article. Many links in "Rituals" (like yajna) are more important. The article is an WP:UNDUE here. Though Bali sacrifice is still part of Shakta and Tantric rites, it is not pan-Hindu. This article should have only pan-Hindu (not sectarian or regional) rituals. Every regional rite can't be mentioned with a section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict), repeating Redtigerxyz) The guiding idea for inclusion should not be whether animal sacrifice is "good" or "bad" or "real Hinduism" or whatever, but how prevalent it is, and what its role is in the great scheme of things. It is practised in some villages and so on (BTW, "pagan" is not an insult unless you're a Christian. :p The pagan strand in Hinduism is of course of great importance), but it would be WP:UNDUE to talk too much of it in the general article on Hinduism if it's only practised by a relatively smaller population only on special occasions (and if other sections disapprove of it). Perhaps it's worth a more detailed mention on another page. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear people are not WP:Assuming Good Faith therefore I will ask for WP:Mediation. Please stop removing the referenced section till we have this resolved. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need: it seems that everyone's mostly assuming good faith (please assume the assumption of good faith), and we're having a reasoned discussion about the criteria for inclusion. Could you care to discuss Redtiger's point? This will be more productive with discussion. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking for WP:Mediation, there clearly is no talking to you guys. You are not assuming good faith and are trying to introduce WP:POV deliberately to wikipedia. Well it won't work. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the issue here. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are assuming all editors are "deliberately" trying to introduce WP:POV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No Redtigerxyz ^Talk stop misusing warning templates. I have assumed good faith all along, but some of the comments above and the abuse on my talk page have left me dumbfounded. I have a suggestion, change the name of this page to Vashnavism, then there will be no dispute. People are clearly WP:Game the system, and I will take this up as a separate issue with admin. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What is all this talk about good faith? Give me a break. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Try reading WP:AGF, it is the foundation of Wikipedia, and you shouldn't be editing here unless you understand it!. Thanks

Ya, ya, ya. Kanchanamala (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As a fact, I know that the 'bali' ritual is extremely prevalent in Nepal (since i've been there), but, I don't think it merits a section of its own. Thanks. MikeLynch (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If the sacrifice of a goat on Eid al-Adha does not merit inclusion in the Islam article, I fail to see how a tradition out of touch with mainstream Hinduism merits any inclusion on the page.Pectore^talk 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This article encompasses historical Hinduism as well as "mainstream" Hinduism. The oldest sections of the Rig Veda, the earliest Hindu scripture, are dedicated to describing how when and where animal sacrifice should be performed. Sources from that period describe how it was extremely widespread and it is only recently that there has been a movement away from sacrificing animals in Hinduism. Its also clear that elements of animal sacrifice are still prevalent in Hinduism as seen by the large number of Indians attending the sacrifices to Gadhimai. We should also be aware of systemic bias, because it appears that older schools of thought in Hinduism are being censored.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree Profitoftruth85 is will continue to work on the Bali (sacrifice) article, untill we get some consensus here. Thanks

--Sikh-History 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali is well known, but not a part of common contemporary Hindu culture, and most Hindus would not even condone Bali today, or agree to be a party to it, (like sati pratha - widow burning). Hope this info helps.--122.173.230.29 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Varna

The sanskrit term Varna should not mean color. Just does not seem logical - it simply cannot be the vedic scholors would describe people of different occupations/parentages as having different skin color. The Sanskrit term varna is also a word used to say 'describe'. I believe that would be a better translation to the word (since the name of the varna - brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/shudra describes the profession of that class This is a link to an English to Sanskrit dictionary that confirms the same.

Chunduru10 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

braahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra, are four classes [varna], and when one chooses [vrinoti] a profession [karma] depending upon his/her nature [guna] one is said to belong to the class which comprises that profession. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh..Ok.. Didnt know that! But even if Varna werent inherited by birth, and if it is something decided by a voluntary choice of profession, shouldnt varna still not mean 'color'? I have an objection to the translation suggested in the article for Varna... (Sanskrit: "colour, form, appearance"). Feels a little non intuitive that someone would call a class based on a person's choice of profession 'varna' if it does mean color or appearance. Chunduru10 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

varna meaning color is another word different from varna meaning class. One has nothing to do with the other. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Data in lede?

Should there be some kind of date indicating how old the religion is in the lede? I know there is a bit a little later in the article but I came here to quickly see how old the religion is so I could compare to others but it mentions only a vague 'indian iron age'. I know it might not be as simple as one date, but a vague time frame might be useful. maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OllyThe23rd (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't even know when Jesus was born. But we 'know' that Christianity is about 2000+ years old. Let's not get obsessed with precisely dating Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

somebody please remove the email address "indiayogi@hotmail.com" from the article- thanks 117.204.88.6 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's for author identification, since the website for the source doesn't identify the author any other way. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify are you the owner of the email address and asking for it to be removed? (If this is the case then we will remove it and worry about identification of the source later!) -- Q Chris (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be better if the actual email address emailed the foundation to prove that is indeed him? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Having an email address in an article reference is highly unusual. I am not sure that it really gives any identification in a meaningful way so I would remove it on his word. I am sure the email address is getting a lot of spam through this. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Madhyahnikam

The article Madhyahnikam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find support for the content of this article, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mādhyānikam is a well-established religious routine practiced by brāhmaņas. Why be in a hurry to delete any article on it? Why not help it with whatever it lacks? Kanchanamala (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Prakashkitty, 1 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Prakashkitty (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please state what you'd like to be changed. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sekharnet, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under conversion, I think the following should be mentioned Conversion into or from Hinduism was never recognised. Hinduism is believed to be a way of living and any person living in that pre-defined way by belief or marriage can claim themselves to be called as Hindu. There is no documented process of converting into Hinduism unlike Christianity, Islam etc because Hinduism is a very old way of living compared to most other religions which were born out of conversion of people from other faiths(religions).

Conversions into Hinduism seem to be done in modern era by Hindu converts into other Religions mainly to avail reservation benefits of BC, SC, ST castes. Modern reasons for conversion into Hinduism can be understood by the following explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India When a person from BC.A, BC.B, ST, SC denominated castes converts into other minority religions they loose most of their their reservation benefits and become BC.C (as minorities). Such person can obtain their original reservation status by (doing the so called process of Conversion - Shuddhi) converting into Hinduism. As there was no official process originally mentioned in the Vedas for conversion, the process of Shuddhi [ christened by Swami Shraddhanand(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddhi)] has been employed as the official process.

Sekharnet (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This sounds like very interesting information, but to include it we will need reliable sources to document this idea. If you can find some (see WP:RS for explanation of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source) please make a new request with that information. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been evolution of traditions in Hinduism. Proselytization per se arrived in India with Islam and Christianity. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. Historically Hinduism has been open to conversion (hence why Bali for instance has Hindus). Claims to the contrary are made very often by members of Hindu nationalist parties claiming some sort of moral high ground for the religion.Pectore^talk 03:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pectore, I am not a "Hindu Nationalist". Natural spread of Hinduism should not be characterized as proselytization. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New Discussion

There is an ongoing discussion [here] on moving the term Avatar from the popular film back to its original place as a primary topic. Please participate. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

I found the article by and large to be inadequate and confusing, if not confused. The multiple hands at work here, not all in agreement with each other, show. In particular the traditional conception of Hinduism as a triune system gets short shrift, with an emphasis on what seems to be a quadruple godhead that ignores Brahma. All in all, a good illustration of the inherent limits of the the Wiki model of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.74.168 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit and improve it then. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to come up with a new model too. Anything but whining, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.161.200 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, someone who knows Hinduism should. I get the impression that this has been largely written and edited by people who do not have a very good knowledge of Hinduism. Do doubt, this is a fascinatingly confusing article. Gingermint (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Knowing Hinduism is hard. You really have to feel it. I didn't understand this concept until recently. People that have been enlightened try to explain Hinduism, but it gets lost in translation. Not language translation, but translation from the realization during periods of meditation into words that will explain that realization. It is difficult, but I just started a blog, in which I am going to go thru this journey to enlightenment. I am starting to understand it completely, so I am giving my story from the beginning. My blogDivyap121 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Same as above: Feel free to edit and improve it then. Any contribution towards intelligibility will sincerely be very appreciated. I sometimes feel "connoisseurs" try deliberately to make Hinduism an as obscure concept as they can. It would be OK somewhere else, but this is an Encyclopedia after all, so epistemology should be prefered instead of esotericism. Regards, Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.57.1.57, 28 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Valmiki's Ramayana illustrated with Indian miniatures from the 16th to the 19th century, Diane de Selliers Publisher, 2011, ISBN : 978-2-903656-76-8

81.57.1.57 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is that this would be a spam link, advertising a product. Perhaps if you explain in what context you would like this added and how it enhances the article it will give us a better idea of whether it should be included. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That's definitely not an appropriate external link. In order to be included, we would have to determine if it's a reliable source (I'm guessing not), and then only if it supports a specific assertion in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Q Chris and Qwyrxian. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Terms Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma

Indus is a river that flows from Himalayas through India and Pakistan to the Arabian sea. "Arabs" referred to the people living on the other side of Indus as "Hindus" and that country as "Hindustan" which over a period transformed to "India". India itself called "itself" "Bharata Desam" (as demonstrated in titles such as Maha Bharata")

The ancient "Indians" (lived a life, following vedic priniciples. Vedas (Complete Knowledge) do not have any scientifically proved human source. Traditionally Vedas (Complete Knowledge) are considered to be not authored by any human. In fact, Vedas were and are today passed on from generation to generation of Vedic Pundits through "oral" teaching - and has been done for at least several thousands of generations ! This is because, Vedas are not supposed to be "written down" and "read".

The vedic life style is called "Sanatana Dharma". Here Dharma translates to "The correct way to live for an invidividual based on the individual's role" or can be summarized as "Way to Live To Reach God" or "Path to God". The term "Sanatana" carries several mystical meanings, it is simultaneously eternal, without a beginning or an end, and also "ancient".

A reasonable definition (using English vocabularly) for Sanatana Dharma is "The Ancient Path of Living To Reach God"

"Dharma" is a "role-based" definition of how to live - there is the "Raja Dharma" (Dharma of the King), "Putra dharma" (The dharma of a son), "Vidukta Dharma" (The Dharma of the job) and so on !!

As such - Dharma has no equivalent purely English word.

I request the maintainers of this page to change the introduction as follows:

"Hinduism is the popular term used to refer to the way of life followed by followers of Vedas - and is more correctly referred to as "Sanatana Dharma" - or the ancient path(s) of life to reach god."

While the meaning "eternal" is also appropriate, the term "ancient" better carries the true weight of "Sanatana" in english.

Sanatana Dharma - by definition includes many paths, as such, there are several, often conflicting paths defined in the various families of philosophy that fall under Sanatana Dharma (Gnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Sankhya Yoga, Karma Yoga are some).

Note - here "Yoga" refers to "becoming one with God" (or attaining moksha) - the aim of all paths to God.

Hinduism therefore does not refer to a religion. Sanatana Dharma does not have a way for some one to become a Hindu or un-become one ! There is no concept of "becoming" a Hindu, other than by following Sanatana Dharma.

In that way, Hinduism is complementary to religion, in fact all relgions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.54.208 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The word dharma means any principle which is adopted to be upheld [dhāraņāt dharmetyāhuħ -Mahabharata] by an individual in his/her life like ahimsā. Any dharma which has been upheld for ever is called sanātana (age-old) dharma [eşa dharma sanātanaħ -Apte's Dictionary]. "Hinduism" is a word which is neither Indian nor ancient. "Sanatana Dharma" is a modern coinage used to distinguish ancient Vedic traditions from the modern Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Hinduism is a comprehensive word which refers to all the native Vedic (vaidika) and non-Vedic (avaidika) traditions of India. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan preferred to use the word Indian when he wrote his work Indian Philosophy. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good addition to the original post, clearly Hinduism is not a religion in the traditional sense of the term religion. But it is not a tradition either. Why is a principle upheld - with what goal ? It will be good to see a reference to the history of "Sanatana Dharma". This page on Hinduism is at best a raw introduction to Hinduism. What are "non-Vedic" traditions of India ? Considering "Vedas" are considered as "Complete Knowledge" by Hindus, there is no question of a "Non-Vedic" tradition existing. References will help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.134.120 (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy was translated as "Bharatiya Tatva Sastram" in Telugu by Bulusu Venkateswarulu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnanajyothi (talk • contribs) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose Split of topic and move to proper name

I agree proper term is "Sanatana Dharma". This is most accurate. Hindoo was term given by invaders Islam and then English.

Should read "Hinduism is the popular term in the English speaking world used to refer to the way of life followed by followers of Vedas which is more correctly referred to as "Sanatana Dharma" ..."

In fact, topic main topic on religion should be "Sanatana Dharma". Topic on "Hinduism" should just be about the use and misuse of the word. How would they feel if we gave Islam or Christianity a different title?

This is making our religion into something different.

Let's split topic! (Januarythe18th (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).

Edit request from Lawsonstu, 27 March 2011

Please change the word 'mistankenly' to the correct spelling 'mistakenly' in the Definitions chapter (second paragraph, first line).

Lawsonstu (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to make Hinduism rigid

Google books cannot be considered a reliable source and also I removed those citations which said the word hindu appears in rig veda as I went to the link and did not find the word,all I found was the word sindhu,not hindu so stop trying to make hinduism rigid by giving a definition to it,some hindus in kerala eat beef,so can we say they are not hindus, why dont you people accept that the word hindu was given to us by muslim invaders,it does not appear in any hindu religious texts and i have read all of them,the best definition of hinduism was given by a muslim called zakir naik saying hindus believe everything is god,stop trying to make hinduism rigid and falsely quoting from unreliabe sorces and links in which nothing is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahaalChakravarti (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please mention where you did not read the word Hindu. I see the word Hindu mentioned as true as daylight! Please mention the sources you inspected where as mentioned there is no word Hindu.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

.."why dont you people accept that the word hindu was given to us by muslim invaders".. well it is difficult to answer this question but not if the word itself is mentioned in Hindu literature. Thats the whole point. Please don't read about Hinduism as per what non Hindus like Zakir Naik say, it goes against the logic of presenting Hindus understanding Hinduism and not what non Hindus, especially those proselyting other religions understand what they perceive as Hinduism! Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How to roll back two edits

Hi, could someone explain how to roll back two different adjacent edits please? Thanks.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you need help simply go to Wikipedia:Help desk. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Section on Typology

Below is the section added from a reliable source to the article. Discussion is welcomed - this section does not deal with History of Hinduism but rather with types of Hinduism making it clear for anyone as to the structure to the variety. (Oxford Handbook on religion and emotion 2007)

Typology

There are six major types or traditions in Hinduism and a number of minor forms. Of the major types the oldest is Hindu folk religion, which is represented in the worship of local deities or other sanctified forms. It is normally handed down in oral tradition and there is an emotional element that plays a considerable role it it. Second major part is Vedic Hinduism, which is based or recorded in Hindu scriptures, specifically Vedic texts of which the most important one is Rig Veda. The third type is Vedantic Hinduism and is related to Upanishads. The yogic Hinduism forms the forth type and is often represented, but not limited to the yogic sūtras of Patanjali. The last two traditions are based on tapasya, or austerity as an element of its practice. The firth type of Hindu tradition is dharmic Hinduism, sometimes referred or called as a daily morality, while this type is widespread today, it speaks a little about specific beliefs of people. The six type of Hinduism is refereed as bhakti or devotionalism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidas (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of word Hindu/Hinduism

Hi, I would like to point out occurrence of word Hindu in Sanskrit literature so that this tendency of understanding Hinduism from within can be followed and w.r.t. non Hindus can be avoided: 1) The Brihaspati Agama says:

हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् ।

तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।।

(The land created by the gods and stretching from Himalayas to the Indu (i.e.Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan.) This is explicit mention of Hindu word.

2)Meru tantra, a Shaiva text, comments on 'Hindu':

hInaM cha duShyatyeva hindurityuchyate priye |

"Hindu is one who discards the mean and the ignoble."

3)In Shabda Kalpadruma:

hInaM duShyati iti hindu |

4)Parijat Haran Natak describes Hindu as:

hinasti tamasA pApAn daihikAn duShTamAnasAn |

hetibhiH shatruvarga cha sa hindurabhidhIyate ||

("Hindu is one who with penance washes one's sins and evil thoughts and with arms destroys one's enemies.")

5) Vriddha Smriti defines Hindu as:

hiMsayA dUyate yashcha sadAcharaNatatpara |

vedagopratimAsevI sa hindumukhshabdabhAk ||

("One who abhors the mean and the ignoble, and is of noblebearing, who reveres the Veda, the cow, and the deity, is a Hindu.")

More information ink here. The point here is that origin of Hindu word have no link to Persian or others, and as a religion willing to accept new understandings it has some literature or the other explaining the same, immaterial of whether other religions have been formed by then and practiced how much. Such behavior reflects willingness to understand at time and can not be interpreted otherwise in any manner is what I fee.Thisthat2011 (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sourcing guidelines. Sources that were not scrutinized and fact-checked by a third-party publisher are not accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that it is difficult to get a document of Brihaspati Agama online. It is exactly as strange to find that there are attempts made in the wiki page to explain some Hinduism in terms of other religions without any context provided for. For example this explanation of word Hindu mentioned in Persian text which is find, without any sources, at the same time mentioning that the Sanskrit word Sindhu is mentioned in Vedas from which it is derived. It is but natural that Persians called Indians as Hindus though that hardly means that Hindus realized own identity after Persians cited Sanskrit words! In case of Sanskrit literature mentioning the word Hindu in Smritis etc., this becomes obvious that it is a mischief since Persians being next to Hindus will call Hindus as Hindus but that can not be passed off as defining feature of Hinduism.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Guess this is a good source here. If this can be considered as one, do let me know please so I can make changesThisthat2011 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another reference here on this page.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The book on Google books is acceptable. It comes from a publishing company that specializes in academic works, so the author's work would have been scrutinized.

The Google pages site is not an acceptable source. Like Tripod sites, it is ultimately a self-published site. Google sites will host any webpage as long as it is legal. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All the five sources cited above are simply suspect. They have absolutely no validity. Kanchanamala (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How are these suspect when sources are mentioned in articles itself? Please read the article again with sources mentioned. It is somehow simple to suspect what Hindus say about themselves but not what Arabs and Persians say because they hear Hindus say so. What an irony!Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also please understand that the religion has many divergent understandings and therefore definitions. One can not see the diversity and make say its incomplete because some other religion has other ordered way to define itself.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User Thisthat2011, whoever you are, I am an Indian, a Hindu, and a Sanskrit scholar. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. However you do doubt what I have put forth and therefore I must point out that the material is referenced well. It is indeed strange that instead of replying to what I have suggested i.e. Please don't read about Hinduism as per what non Hindus like Zakir Naik say, it goes against the logic of presenting Hindus' understanding Hinduism and not what non Hindus, especially those proselyting other religions perceive as Hinduism! when indeed the sources are mentioned. As also that the word Hindu is mentioned in Brihaspati Agama and other sources mentioned there.

There is this attempt made repeatedly to define Hinduism by how neighbors of Hindus and others who came into contact and referred to. This is incorrect way to define Hinduism., The right to define religions do not belong to just some people like Persians and Arabs when Hindus have defined the lifestyle and varied and diverging ways.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My friend, modern writings in Sanskrit are just that, modern writings. Example: timsā-nadī-tīr-avatamsabhũtam bhūmandanam laņdana-nāmadheyam about London on the banks of Thames river. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Which sources mentioned here are considered by you to be as modern as those describing London on the banks of Thames? Avoid trivializing origins of Hinduism.Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. We should "avoid trivializing origins of Hinduism" [a modern name for something ancient] by quoting sources which are simply suspect and have absolutely no validity. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Which sources are suspect as per you? This is a good secondary source.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not a reliable source. I have nothing more to say. Kanchanamala (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, can you please give your reasons for saying that the source quoted is not reliable? Let us keep with the wiki spirit of consensus and discuss things before arriving to any conclusions. I am neither supporting Thisthat2011 nor opposing his statement, however if someone is disputing a reference I feel they should give their reasons for the same. I understand you may be a sanskrit scholar and thus have noticed something that others have not, however do share your reasoning with the rest of us if your rejecting a neutral source. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How would it look if, say, someone cites some ancient sounding primary sources in some secondary source to claim that, say, the Swaminarayan tradition [31 December 1801 CE] is referenced in ancient Indian scriptures, and quotes some verses in Sanskrit? If any user cites a primary source to lend antiquity (!) to the modern term Hindu it is the responsibility of that user to show that the source is well established by ancient commentators, and is then also aptly recognized by modern scholars. As I have said before, I have nothing more to say. Kanchanamala (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

One can find 5 or 10 different definitions of Hinduism. There is no BEST or WORST or ordered definition as I understand and it is mentioned in definition section too.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:Kanchanamala, Im referring to the Brihaspati Agama sourced (being very frank I have never heard of it, however that does not go to say that it is or is not an important ancient Hindu scripture - as a sanskrit scholar I trust you know better). Its been cited in a neutral source, which is why I requested you to expand your response so as to give us some insight. With regards to the Swaminarayan tradition, often several ancient verses are quoted in context to Narayan in form of Krishna taking avatar as Swaminarayan - however lets not bring that into this. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not in any position to accept the cited primary source as a pramāņa. The burden of proving its authenticity and establishing its acceptability as a pramāņa rests on the user who cites it and adduces it as an evidence. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What is to be proved for this source exactly?

I would like to say that as discussed in definition section also, there is no unique or no best or no worst definition of Hinduism in culturally plural traditions. To observe many definitions should not cause any alarm as such. Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another source here (on this archieve). It is in Sanskrit to search with this text "ihNÊxmR". Is this source good enough?Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please specify where in Brihaspati Agama (page no., verse no., chapter no., etc) the writings you are quoting are mentioned? Please also specify where in Vriddha Smriti (page no., verse no., chapter no., etc) again the writings you are quoting are mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.120.32 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A source here at | Sabdakalpadrumah (vol4) archieved at | here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)