Talk:Hinduism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Edits reverted unreasonably and without consensus inspite of mentioned references

Hi, the edits [this] need to be rolled back. I dont know how to deal with this in spite of replies given to arguments like "why dont you people accept that the word hindu was given to us by muslim invaders", "the best definition of hinduism was given by a muslim called zakir naik saying hindus believe everything is god" (Hinduism has many varied definitions, not the best or worst), "stop trying to make hinduism rigid and falsely quoting from unreliabe sorces and links in which nothing is mentioned" - this is factually incorrect as it is, "modern writings in Sanskrit are just that, modern writings", (sources) "have absolutely no validity" and so on. After reasons has been given, no activity is done to revert those edits and users are going tangentially or even presenting incorrect understanding like "falsely quoting from unreliabe sorces and links in which nothing is mentioned" and so on. There must be a policy in Wikipedia where extraneous sources are not preferred over indigenous sources, which is common sense.Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"The followers of Dvaita (dualistic) schools identify themselves as part of Brahman"

The above sentence in the text is wrong. Dvaita does not admit any part of Brahman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.157.52 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Need exact translations here of another definition of Hindu at the link | Hindu

Hi, can a Sanskrit Guru translate another definition of Hindu - line by line - please? The scan is an image so one can read after magnifying the lines too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011

The online page is hard to read, but in the interests of making the passage more accessible here is an IAST transliteration of it. We need to be cautious about original research, but the editor has asked a factual question about what a reliable source says. Where I could not make out the source text clearly I have put the possible transliteration in brackets. The source is Śabdakalpadruma p. 537 (५३७), available at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/sabdakalpadrumah05devauoft#page/534/mode/2up

The entry includes a quotation from Merutantra 33, which seems like an odd source to cite for this matter. Keep in mind that the Śabdakalpadruma was composed in the 19th century. I know nothing about Merutantra but it seems to be a very late work, probably post-colonial in composition. If so, the entry in Śabdakalpadruma is probably reflecting a colonial perspective.

After looking at the passage in Śabdakalpadruma I was able to locate a parallel source at:

http://muktalib5.org/DL_CATALOG/TEXTS/ETEXTS/purascaryaarnava-2-HK.txt

The passage that is quoted in Śabdakalpadruma is almost identical to lines 8-813 through 8-819 in that text, where you can see that the quotation is part of a longer passage. The passage in the Śabdakalpadruma contains an interpolated line that does not appear in the other source. The interpolation is apparent due to the use of an English exclamation mark in the text, a type of punctuation that appeared in Indian texts during the British period. The interpolated remark is set off with double daṇḍas and is only one half-verse, unlike the other surrounding full ślokas. To show the parallel between these sources, here is my transliteration of Śabdakalpadruma (noted as SKD) interleaved with the Harvard-Kyoto version from Muktalib (noted as “Muk”). I am sure I have made some errors here, and hope that someone will help improve on this effort to render the text more accessible so that the editor’s question can be answered.

SKD text begins:

hinduḥ, [y]uṃ, (hinaṃ dūṣayatīti | duṣa + ḍuḥ |

[p]ṛṣodarāditvāt sādhuḥ |) jātiviśeṣaḥ | hiMdu [using candrabindu for nasal mark, which I type here as M]

iti bhāṣā | yathā, —

[Quotation of Merutantra begins]

"paścimā[mn]āyamantrāstu proktaḥ pārasyabhāṣayā | (SKD)

pazcimAmyamantrAstu proktAzcArabbabhASayA | (Muk)

aṣṭottaraśatāśītiryeṣāṃ saṃsādhanāt kalau || (SKD)

aSTau zatAnyazItizca yeSAM saMsAdhanAt kalau || (Muk) 8-813 ||

pañca khānāḥ sapta m[au]rā nava śāhā mahābalāḥ | (SKD)

paJca khAnAH sapta mIrAH nava zAhA mahAbalAH | (Muk)

hindudhar[m?]praloptāro jāyante cakravarttinaḥ || (SKD)

hindudharmapraloptAro jAyante cakravarttinaH || (Muk)8-814 ||

hīnañca dūṣayatyeva hindurityucyate priye ! ||- (SKD) interpolated text, note exclamation mark and incomplete śloka, apparently an editorial comment]

pūrbbāmnāye navaśataṃ ṣaḍaśītiḥ prakīrttitāḥ | (SKD)

pUrvAmnAye navazataM SaDazItiH prakIrttitAH | (Muk)

phiraṅgabhāṣayā mantrāsteṣāṃ saṃsādhanāt kalau || (SKD)

phiraGgabhASayA mantrAsteSAM saMsAdhanAdbhuvi || (Muk) 8-815 ||

adhipā maṇḍalānāñca saṃgrāmeṣva[p]arājitāḥ | (SKD)

adhipA mandarANAM ca saMgrAmeSvaparAjitAH | (Muk)

iṃrejā nava ṣaṭ pañca laṇḍrajāścāpi bhāvinaḥ ||” (SKD)

iGgrejA navaSaTpaJca landrajAzcApi bhAvitAH || (Muk) 8-816 ||

[end of passage in SKD, Muk continues:]

vidyA bauddhanidArzinyAM paJca proktAstu yA mayA |

tadbIjapUrvAH sarve'pi manavo vAmasiddhidAH || (Muk) 8-817 ||

dakSiNAcAraphaladaH kArttavIryArjuno nRpaH |

vAmAcAreNa zUdrANAmiha loke phalapradaH || (Muk) 8-818 ||

na vAminAM hitArthaM tu kArttavIryaM prayojayet |

saptajanmasu dAridryaM paizAcyaM prApnuyAdbijaH || (Muk) 8-819 ||

iti kArttavIryaprakaraNam | (Muk)

I will let someone else take the first try at translation. Best regards, Buddhipriya (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cremation

The article suggests; "Cremation is typically performed by wrapping the corpse in cloth and burning it on a pyre"

Actually, corps is not wrapped in anything.... The tradition is that, we come to this world without anything and we leave this world as such... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radisesh (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop putting a space ' ' at the beginning of the line.

At the end of message, please put 4 '~' marks like this :"~ ~ ~ ~"(without spaces and see what happens. It is a convention). Thanks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Japa and Mantra

I was wondering if we could incorporate the matter and snap from here http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Hinduism#Japa_and_mantra, in this article.-VonBismarck (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism and Paganism

I've removed the following:

,but Hindus are not pagans as their religion is a mixture of [[pantheism]] and [[mysticism]]<ref>http://www.paganroots.net/history/paganism-in-a-nutshell</ref>

A number of pagan movements are/were pantheist, and many of them embrace(d) mysticism. Furthermore, the source, an article from paganroots.net, does not meet the reliable source guidelines. It is a self-published source, and it cites Wikipedia as one of its sources. It is a fluffbunny's overglorified forum post, and a highly inaccurate one at that (Aliester Crowley was not a pagan, he was a Thelemite! The Mongols and the Romans did not practice the same religion! The Persians were monotheists, not "Nature-worshipping polytheists," which is what that source defines paganism as!). I went to look on Google books for a reliable source that distinguishes between the two. Of the texts that meet the reliable source guidelines, this 2005 book published by NYU press, this 2005 book by ABC-CLIO (a "Publisher of reference books, CD-ROM products, and research publications"), and this 1995 book by Psychology Press identify Hinduism as forms of paganism that survived into the modern era. Although neopaganism is distinct, paganism is a blanket term, as is Hinduism. Both terms were used to refer to native religious traditions.

The only text I've found that both meets WP:RS and actually gives any good distinction between them (instead of throwing out red herrings or hand-waving the issue) was this one. It describes paganism as world-affirming, and Hinduism as world-denying. One of the other sources that described Hinduism as pagan also brought that up. If someone wants to distinguish it on those grounds, fine. If someone wants to point out how the concept can be seen as invented, fine. As long as it meets WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thigle's poor understaing of sourcing issues

Thigle, FYI just being recent is no qualification for becoming a good source. If one know-nothing professor says something yesterday, it does not mean that it is better than what some knowledgable professor said 50 years ago. That someone is a professor or Phd holder of physics does not mean that he can be an RS for matters ranging from quantum mechanichs, to space shuttle engineering, to heat transfer dynamics, ....., aircraft engineering......, theory of relativity,...., deep space astronomy,... Folks can be RS only for their specific field. Hinduism is not Paul Williams' field. As such, he is worthless as a source for this article. My assertion that Hinduism is not Paul Williams's field is unchallenged as yet. As such, the material cited to him should be deleted.--117.198.58.203 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

These are recent sources by well known PhD scholars / professors / department heads at major universities. Many even have their own wikipedia page.Thigle (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not sufficient to be an RS. I have already explained it. And having a WP page does not make one an RS.-117.198.50.49 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle's poor behaviour

Why is Thigle shouting continuously? Why does he keep shouting even after exhortations to refrain from doing so? Why does he not apologize for his misbehaviour and admit his mistake? Why is he indulging in edit warring instead of defending his edits on the talk page with some logical reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.58.203 (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When have I shouted? I have defended my edits, going as far as typing out full passages of the sources. You are simply a Hindu fundamentalist. Thigle (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ludicruous. You see me as a Hindu fundamentalist. I see you as an ill intentioned, ill informed, narrow minded christian bigot out to create trouble. You think typing out the text from your sources constitutes a great defence of your edits? If that is your defence, it is grossly inadequate. You have to take on the criticisms which have been put up. You do not seem to have the inclination to do so. Maybe because you too know that your sources are worthless. As for shouting, this page itself is witness to your shouting. Do you forget so quickly? Look in the above threads. Who is shouting there, if not you?-117.198.50.49 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As a sidenote, a Christian bigot as a follower has nothing to do with Jesus, there is no point going tangential. Better to keep the finger pointing to the matter at hand. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Thigles's way of thinking, it is properly sourced. It is sourced to a PhD holder university professor, is a recent statement and the professor has a WP page too.-117.198.50.49 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And Thigle is persisting with shouting in lower threads too. He should be banned for gross, unabashed misbehaviour and for vandalizing my comments.-117.198.50.84 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any more instances of him "shouting" (i.e. typing in all caps). While Thingle was wrong to remove comments pertaining to article improvement, you were wrong to engage in personal attacks (as was he), and it is wrong to say that another editor is doing something they clearly are not. I recommend that you do not talk about or to him and only discuss the subject matter of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TheMandarin mistaken on WP:SYNTH

WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This obviously shows, that TheMandarin, has been wrong the whole time. My conclusions are explicitly stated by atleast one of the sources cited. Thigle (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how the article can be a place for comparative studies. The article is on Hinduism and that is about it. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What comparative studies? What are you talking about? Thigle (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion. The contents at the most should be present in History section according to me, if at all. Not in the introduction part of the article on Hinduism. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Again the double standard? You talk about Iron Age India in the lead. Also, the sources you use for the lead are extremely dubious sources. But do I make a big fuss about that? No, I let that slide. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity and Encyclopedia of relationships are not great sources, and you know that. You are even missing full citations! Thigle (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering how the substance should not be present at all is also in question, it is only wise to put the suggested material in History section if at all. Otherwise it is completely misplaced on this article.

Your intimate knowledge of Wikipedia perhaps is an indicator that this account is a sock-puppet created perhaps just to add something irrelevant in Hinduism article, especially in the lead. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your argument again? Explain it for me one more time. Why does the lead talk about the "historical vedic religion", without even full citations? Thigle (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you are changing the topic. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not. Why do you get to talk about "historical vedic religion" using crappy sources, and I can't talk about fundamental Hinduism ala Shiva, Vishnu etc using amazing sources?. Thigle (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier too, and I am mentioning here again, as have others, that the matter need not be mentioned in the lead/introduction. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you state a single reason? Please just state a single reason. I removed "the Buddha" phrase already per your discussion above. Thigle (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mandarin has demonstrated with specific examples that your material is synthesis. You are refusing to see things that are as clear as daylight. Besides that, I have already showed that your sources are worthless and as such, the material is unfit for any place in the article, let alone the lead. It is dishonest to behave as if no reason has been shown to you to show how your material is unfit for the article. It is even more dishonest when you cannot show anything to prove that these criticisms are unjustified. Enough reasons have been given to you. Instead of asking others to give more reasons, it is now up to you to show that these criticisms are unjustified. And you have still not apologised for misbehaving with others.

These are recent sources by well known PhD scholars / professors / department heads at major universities. Many even have their own wikipedia page. Thigle (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle, adding "in many cases significantly after" is synth and WP:EDITORIALIZING. One should also take care to avoid usage of "However" (see WP:EDITORIALIZING) which is not neutral. To give another example of synth, combining "samsara" and "moksha" of Flood, Gavin. Olivelle, Patrick inline with Williams, Paul does not provide a accurate meaning and is synthesis. Adding this line in lede is clearly undue. Before you edit war against the consensus again, why don't you try WP:RFC or WP:DR? --TheMandarin (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

788 CE (pg. 161 The Essential Vedanta) is more than one thousand years after 500 BCE. That is "significantly after". That is not a novel conclusion. That is the English language. The Buddha lived after 500 BCE, so the Paul Willams source does NOT conflict with the Flood/Olivelle source. There are no conclusions that I have merely invented. Thigle (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why don't YOU try WP:RFC or WP:DR? Don't act like there is a consensus. You and Thisthat2011 differ. You actually have a reason. Thisthat2011 hasn't given a reason yet. Thigle (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that Tantra did begin way before 700 AD, perhaps about 100AD, not too sure. Then of course, I mentioned that Shiva as the main deity was revered Shankaracharya Temple (2629 BC) atleast about 2629BC and so on. Perhaps you, or the Authors you mention did not notice. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A tourist's guide from the eighties is not a valid source according to Wikipedia rules. Secondly, if you date tantra to 100 AD, 100 AD is still after 500 BCE. Thigle (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is more on the king Sandiman - reign], [Shankaracharya temple built by Sandiman], I guess there is a link there. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your own junk sources contradict you. One of your sources says "supposed to have been built by Sandiman", indicating that it is merely myth. You have been warned numerous times about your behavior in the past on your discussion page. Do you have any acceptable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines or do you admit you are a Hindu fundamentalist? Thigle (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you just remove the discussion on bigots and are now falling back on Hindu Fundamentalism. I guess you can't straighten a dog's tail. The discussion was perhaps correct, the only bigot around here is perhaps you. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been warned numerous times about your behavior on your discussion page. Don't turn this around on me. Your own sources say "supposed to have been built by Sandiman", indicating that it is merely myth. If you have a real source, that validates your position, post it. Thigle (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hindu fundamentalism and the Integrity of this article

There is no other wikipedia page that would reject the edits I have made using recent sources by well known PhD scholars / professors / department heads at major universities. Currently the lead uses junk sources such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity and Encyclopedia of Relationships to substantiate that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. One of the sources is not even full citations. What is "Morgan, Sarma 1953"? The elephant in the room is that there are Hindu nationalists who refuse to allow proper change to go forward. I have painstakenly defended my edits, to the extent of typing out full passages. No one has of yet given me one reason why this information does not belong in the lead. They can't because there is no reason. They are simply Hindu fundamentalists. Furthermore TheMandarin does not understand WP:SYNTH, as I previously demonstrated. Or he is using it as a pretext for Hindu fundamentalism, which is more likely since he also has never given a reason why this info does not belong in the lead. Thigle (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is something to tell on transforming an understanding that Hinduism as the oldest religion into something otherwise, please be more clear. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Vedism IS the oldest surviving religion. But you are currently using junk sources to substantiate that. Thigle (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Vedism, Brahminism, ... upto the current movements like Arya Samaja are all part and parcel of Hinduism. You should understand this much well. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. All I am saying is that you use junk sources. Thigle (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

117.198.50.49 needs to be banned

117.198.50.49 needs to be banned. He is attacking me for no reason. I am actually 100% Indian from Andhra pradesh, raised Hindu, but that is besides the point. Thigle (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed his offensive posts. Thigle (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how posts can be just removed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[| vandalism] by user:Thigle

Hi, please take note of vandalism of the user. I request the user to be edit banned on this page for some time, and vandalism restored. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be hilarious. I would love Wikipedia to restore those offensive passages. You have been warned numerous times about your behavior on your discussion page and thus you are the one to be banned along with the mysterious IP editor 117.198.50.49. Thigle (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing offensive posts selectively is one thing, vandalizing everything not suitable to personal taste is quite another. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We both can let the higher powers at Wikipedia decide. I am quite comfortable with that. Thigle (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, looking over this, everyone just needs to quit for a bit. I think it's best that none of y'all talk to each other for a bit. TheMandarin's past behavior has me capable of not seeing anything wrong with his behavior and I'd trust him to be able to talk with other editors in this issue.

I'm inclined to agree that the lede is not the place for Hinduism's relationship with Buddhism. The lede summarizes the article, write a section on Hinduism's relationship with Buddhism first. I'm inclined to say that none of y'all should remove anything that anyone else writes for such a section, but add on with evidence to the contrary or come to the talk page and explain why part of that section is unsourced, poorly sourced, original research, or undue weight. When you do so, do not mention any other editors at all. I would trust TheMandarin's judgement in removing such material.

I'm not an admin, but I'm considering letting them know about this mess. Cripes. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually we are way beyond buddhism. Please read the whole thing before commenting. There are no references to buddhism. But do please let admins know about this mess. Thigle (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please also let the admins know that Thigle has been shouting at others all the time, has irritated others by calling them vandals, while he himself is vandalizing the talk page, and has instigated others by calling them Hindu fundamentalists. He has also been claiming that he is not shouting, while continuing to shout and has claimed that no reasons have been shown how his edits are wrong, while such reasons have been amply provided already. I concur with the point that thigle should be banned. He is the troublemaker.-117.198.60.174 (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Unresolved Issue (For Newcomers, Copied from above)

Thigle, adding "in many cases significantly after" is synth and WP:EDITORIALIZING. One should also take care to avoid usage of "However" (see WP:EDITORIALIZING) which is not neutral. To give another example of synth, combining "samsara" and "moksha" of Flood, Gavin. Olivelle, Patrick inline with Williams, Paul does not provide a accurate meaning and is synthesis. Adding this line in lede is clearly undue. Before you edit war against the consensus again, why don't you try WP:RFC or WP:DR? --TheMandarin (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

788 CE (pg. 161 The Essential Vedanta) is more than one thousand years after 500 BCE. That is "significantly after". That is not a novel conclusion. That is the English language. The Buddha lived after 500 BCE, so the Paul Willams source does NOT conflict with the Flood/Olivelle source. There are no conclusions that I have merely invented. Thigle (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For simplicity purposes, Would someone kindly please provide a diff to the information that is being disputed (if recently added)? - SudoGhost™ 22:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be my last edit to the main Hinduism article. Don't know how to post it. Here are the relevant source passages:Thigle (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Olivelle writes: "The second half of the first millennium BCE was the period that created many of the ideological and institutional elements that characterize later Indian religions. The renouncer tradtion played a central role during this formative period of Indian religious history....Some of the fundamental values and beliefs that we generally associate with Indian religions in general and Hinduism in particular were in part the creation of the renouncer tradition. These include the two pillars of Indian theologies: samsara - the belief that life in this world is one of suffering and subject to repeated deaths and births (rebirth); moksa/nirvana - the goal of human existence....."

Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi write: "The Gita can be placed roughly about the beginning of the Christian era, within a margin of two centuries, and the authors must have seen the appeal of the soteriologies both of the "heterodox" traditions of Buddhism and Jainism and of the more "orthodox" ones of Samkhya and Yoga." pg. 61

Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi write: ".....according to Vedantic tradition, the real founder of the school was Samkara....He was born in the village Kaladi in Kerala in 788...." pg. 161

Paul Williams writes: "And much of what we nowadays call 'Hinduism', such as the centrality of the gods Siva, or Visnu, the ideas of Samkara's Advaita Vedanta, the themes of the Bhagavad Gita, Tantric practices, and so on developed after the time of the Buddha. In some cases they were influenced positively or negatively by Buddhism."Thigle (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said previously I have not violated WP:SYNTH in any sense. I do not make any novel conclusions. 788 CE (pg. 161 The Essential Vedanta) is more than one thousand years after 500 BCE. That is "significantly after". That is not a novel conclusion. That is the English language. The Buddha lived after 500 BCE, so the Paul Willams source does NOT conflict with the Flood/Olivelle source. There are no conclusions that I have merely invented.Thigle (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• What we would suggest you is to break this line into separate sentences of different authors and state each author, instead of merging everything into one line with editorial comments. In the current form, the sentence is confusing and with weasel words like "many"/"significantly", etc., (see Weasel_word#Forms) and is problematic. Another thing, avoid WP:SHOUT. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To see how to post diffs, see WP:DIFF. This appears to be the edit in question. The word "significantly" is editorializing. It is up to reliable sources to determine if the difference in time is significant or important. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Over one thousand years is not significant? Ok do you have better wording? Thigle (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Under WP:NPOV, we are allowed to state that there is a difference in time. That's it. If we want to say anything about the difference in time, we need sources which comment on that difference in time, and we need to properly attribute it in text. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I get it. Do you have better wording? Thigle (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How is synthesis the only unresolved issue. I have explained that Paul Williams is non RS for this article. Why is this point being ignored even when nobody has been able to challange my assertion. Paul williams and the material cited to him should be removed if nobody can show that he is an RS for this article. Citing a non RS for some material is like having no source at all and is original research. That material should be deleted if the source cannot be defended by anyone.--117.198.50.84 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking this not to be argumentative, but because I truly do not know. Why do you say he isn't a reliable source? - SudoGhost™ 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy that you have taken up discussion of this issue. I do not, even for a moment, think that you are argumentative. Paul Williams is not an RS for this article because he is not a scholar of Hinduism. His field is Buddhism. Hinduism is not his field. He does not have any published works on Hinduism.-117.198.50.84 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Are the statements that are sourced to him being contradicted by a source that specializes in Hinduism? - SudoGhost™ 02:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Williams has a PhD and is a noted published academic. He is not even buddhist for god's sake. Thigle (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the content of the preceding paragraph to the one you wrote above (The Paul Williams one)? (As a note, Thigle and I had a bit of a disagreement over a Buddhist article last month, so I don't think it would be proper for me to weigh in one way or the other concerning this content dispute. However, I would like to ask questions for clarification so that the exact details of the dispute are clear. I would highly advise someone putting the RfC tag: {{rfctag|reli}} at the top of this talk page section, so that a qualified third-party can neutrally weigh in on this dispute of content. - SudoGhost™ 03:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Can you put the tag? (I can't figure out this stuff). Thigle (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you quotes, from the Paul Williams book, what paragraph was above it? - SudoGhost™ 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a LONG paragraph in the Paul Williams book, and I only quoted 2 sentences from it. Are you asking me to type something out? Thigle (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm asking what the book was talking about before that quote, so that we know its context. - SudoGhost™ 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He was clarifying the extent to which Hinduism developed at the Buddha's time, to demonstrate exactly what the Buddha was reacting to. Thigle (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is actually another author of that book, Anthony Tribe. Both Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe are professors at major universities. Anthony tribe has a doctorate in Indian Religions from Oxford. Thigle (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you shouting again, (in your comment just above this comment)? How many books has Anthony Tribe written on Hinduism? How have they been received?-117.198.56.222 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A doctorate in Indian religions from Oxford is a proper source. Period. Why don't you answer what SudoGhost asked you? He asked you "Are the statements that are sourced to him being contradicted by a source that specializes in Hinduism?"Thigle (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A doctorate in Indian religions from Oxford is a proper source. Period. It isn't. One has to have published, well received works on the topic at hand. Then only one is an RS for a topic. Period. As for contradictory sources, I have not looked for any. I see poorly sourced material to be same as unsourced material. Poorly sourced material from non expert sources cannot be regarded as reliable info even if there is no contradictory statement for weird and insignificant claims. If what Paul Williams says is correct, one should be easily able to source it from some well regarded scholar from the field of Hinduism studies. I also note that you are unable to show any published works on Hinduism from Anthony Tribe. That should mean that he too is a non RS for this article.-117.198.61.221 (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can easily show other sources. Gavin Flood says Shaivism only begins in 200 BC to 100 AD on pg 205. Gerard Colas says the earliest Vaisnava tradition is from the second to first century BC on page 230. Both of these are the Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. I can list many sources. Thigle (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is atrocious. You continue to shout even after repeated exhortations to refrain from doing so. You even claim that you are not shouting. How is your above post not "shouting". Do you think it is proper to shout at others? Is this what you learned at school?-117.198.61.221 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He was clarifying the extent to which Hinduism developed at the Buddha's time, to demonstrate exactly what the Buddha was reacting to. Did Paul Williams make an effort to show the logic behind his points related to Hinduism. Did he go on to argue how he arrived at the conclusions for the points which he states about Hinduism? If he does not show the arguements behind the claims which he makes, he is not a source for that point. A proper source for a point would generally identify beforehand what proposition he is going to hold or argue for, and then go on to construct some sort of reasonable argument to say what he says. Does Paul Williams do that for the points related to Hinduism?-117.198.66.95 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Besides the criticism that your source is non RS for points related to Hinduism, the book is also off topic, and the sentence which you have picked up is a case of cherry picking. i.e. quoting something out of context.-117.198.66.95 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Have you read any of the books which you name here? Are you just googling on to them through googlebooks and then coming here with cherry picked comments from them and claiming that they are top RS sources?-117.198.66.95 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I have these books. I have already typed out full passages from these same books earlier. Google Books only has a limited preview, not the entire book. Like I said earlier, you don't need Paul Williams or Anthony Tribe to substantiate these basic claims. Thigle (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is good that you have tried to answer at least one question. It is good to know that you have those books. If you read my question properly, you might notice that my question was not whether you possess the books. My question was whether you have read them (in a cover to cover way)? Am I getting myself understood now? If you have, you should have been able to answer my question regarding the context in Paul Williams says what he says. Since you ignore my questions, I assume that you agree that your understanding of sourcing issues is as atrocious as your behaviour. You now agree that Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe are worthless sources for this article? You now agree that the book is off topic and is worthless for that reason as far as this article is concerned? You agree that the sentence which you picked from their work was poorly chosen because it is a case of cherry picking? If you agree, we can leave it and discuss your other "top sources".-117.198.53.231 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As per my explanation above, I don't feel it would be proper for me to weigh in on this dispute between editors, so I went ahead and placed the {{rfctag|reli}} tag at the top of this section. If anyone feels that this is improper or unnecessary, please feel free to remove it, but I believe that RfC is the best route in this situation, as it will allow a neutral third-party to comment and hopefully help resolve the dispute. - SudoGhost™ 04:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TheMandarin's weasel word tag is not warranted. I read Wikipedia's criteria for that tag. It is not justified. 788 CE is centuries after 500 BCE. More than ten centuries in fact. How can a factual statement be a weasel word?Thigle (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment I'm also concerned that the content is a close paraphrase of the source (at least the Williams source) to the point that it may constitute a copyright violation. It seems to me as though what is in the article is very similar to the source, with a few key words simply switched with synonyms. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, so I'd like to err on the side of caution and remove the section temporarily, until it can be determined that it is not in fact a copyvio. I would ask that editors please not restore the content without discussing it here first. - SudoGhost™ 04:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is also desirable that Thigle should quit shouting and quit bandying accusations and concentrate on the issues related to the article and quit ignoring what other's say and try to show how his sense of sourcing is proper.-117.198.61.221 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A doctorate in Indian Religions from Oxford is a proper source. You should be banned for your offensive tirades in which you called the Virgin Mary a whore among other things. Why do you refuse to answer SudoGhost's question "Are the statements that are sourced to him being contradicted by a source that specializes in Hinduism?"Thigle (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have said many times that a Doctorate degree is not enough and also described what is. As for "my" claims, they are not my claims. You have to talk to the doctorate degree holder university professor Gwho talks about those claims. As for SudoGhost's question, I have already responded to it. There is no reason for reliable sources to contradict weird and irrelevant and obscure claims.-117.198.61.221 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What obscure claims? I have already shown Gavin Flood says Shaivism only begins in 200 BC to 100 AD on pg 205. Gerard Colas says the earliest Vaisnava tradition is from the second to first century BC on page 230. Both of these are the Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Eliot Deutsh and Rohit Dalvi say Advaita Vedanta started in the eighth century on page 161 of their book. They also say the Bhagavad Gita is from around the Christian era, and post Buddha on page 61. Patrick Olivelle says that samsara and moksha are post 500 BCE. Thigle (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do any of them say that Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe are valid sources for Hinduism related points. Are the claims of your sources backed by any ancient texts which say the same thing or are they just fantisies of western scholars?-117.198.61.221 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Khristapurana is not good source on Hinduism

Hi, why is this source referenced in the topic on Hinduism? I have removed sourced material taken from it. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It was worthless as a source for this article. Since that trash has been removed, we can now breathe (a bit) easier. Just think, christian missionaries openly becoming sources for this article.-117.198.53.231 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hindu Dharma" - the title of the page, instead of Hinduism.

Hi,

Suggesting here that the name of the page should be "Hindu Dharma" instead of Hinduism. "Hinduism" can be directed to the page though. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How about "Sanatan Dharma"?-117.198.57.219 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the same thing according to me, Hindu Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Eternal Law, Law of Being, etc. etc. I am fine with Sanatana as well. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you promoting old European orientalism? When Europeans came to India, they thought Hinduism was a monolithic religion, unchanged for thousands of years. You are promoting the very same idea, which is known as orientalism. I thought you guys were against Western biases, but you promote old Western biases more than anyone here. Thigle (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle, see WP:CIVIL. Your post has no point to it. Thisthat, I disagree as per WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost™ 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my point is please do not to promote old European biases, that ALL scholars (Western and Indian) have rejected in modern times. Thigle (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear as to what you're referring, and saying ALL scholars have rejected something offhand without any sort of evidence to support it gets you nothing. - SudoGhost™ 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Um if the flaws of old European scholarship are taught at the undergraduate level as the first lesson in an Indian Religions course, wouldn't you assume that graduate scholars from all over the world would be familiar with this?Thigle (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle, I appreciate your point, but I cannot see how it applies to the naming question. If anything, I think "Hinduism" is the name that implies a single unified belief-system. However, we have to use it because it is the standard name. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Thigle's argument really applies to this proposal, but it does to some other claims. However, the reason for using "Hinduism" is WP:NAME. It is overwhelmingly the common name used in English. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Diversity is an essence of Hinduism ("Truth is one; sages call it by various names," says Rig Veda) - just my 2 cents here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle, besides saying irrelevant things, you are also continuing with your shouting. Improve your behavior. Your shouting is intolerable. Although I was a bit inclined to using the newly proposed names, I think I agree with SudoGhost's contention that the present name is more appropriate for the English Wikipedia. However, creating some new redirects, (if they don't already exist), could be a good idea.-117.198.54.220 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained to you by others, bolding something does not count as shouting. Thigle (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolding entire lines of text, however, is. - SudoGhost™ 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

But calling the Virgin Mary a whore is ok right? I reported that directly to your discussion page. Explain to me why you are humoring a banned user's claims that Western professors are no longer acceptable sources at Wikipedia? Are you qualified to make new Wikipedia policy? Thigle (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Shows how absurd random references based on different criteria at different times can get to. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're jumping all over the place trying to argue things that have nothing to do with anything. This section is about the naming of the article, and you have yet to even touch that subject. If you have problems with an editor, take it up with the administrators. This is not a forum, it is a talk page for discussing the editing of the article. - SudoGhost™ 19:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just asking a simple question. Are Western professors / department heads qualified under Wikipedia policy to be sources? This goes to the naming issue, because I have Western sources in hand to cite. Thigle (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are, as long as their professorship is in a relevant field. That's policy and no-on on this talk page can unilaterally change that. Paul B (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Except you and I both know that if I cite a noted Western Hinduism professor right now, there will be chaos. And this partly to do with SudoGhost's actions. Thigle (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to your copyright violations, that is not my doing, but your own. If you're referring to my responses involving the content disputes between you and person X, again, that is not my doing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. - SudoGhost™ 02:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You will face opposition only if you continue to cherry pick material which would be offensive to the Hindu mind. And just having a PhD in the relevant field does not make one an RS. The WP:V is somewhat longer than that.-117.198.54.220 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't represent me. I am Telegu from Andhra Pradesh raised Hindu. You promoting old European biases such as monolithic Hinduism is offensive to me. Thigle (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. What's offensive to one "Hindu mind" is not to another - that's really the whole point of diversity. We have just had one Hindu stating that it is an insult to Hindus to deny that the Nazis were influenced by Hinduism. 117.198.54.220 does not speak for the "Hindu mind" anymore than that editor does. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please link

who said this about Nazism and Hinduism and related insult to deny this? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul B, it is good that you report me on the ANI, at least you may get a clarification now. I am no banned user. And Thigle, I did not even realize that I was talking about the monolithic nature of Hinduism. And I do not think that just because someone is a "raised Hindu", he is necessarily still a Hindu.-117.198.54.220 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked for assistance on policy matters. If you are not a banned editor create an account, because messages to your talk page do not get picked up, as the page keeps changing along with your IP. Paul B (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you could have more of an impulse to seek assistance on "policy" matters as you have no good logic for what you are arguing. I don't see frequent change of my I.P. as a big problem. I think I have good reason to not to register and I am not going to tell you those reasons.-117.198.50.16 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the views of Hitler were and how does it matter on Hinduism page, and yet there should not be an efforts made to drag it into this discussion, by Hindus or non Hindus or atheists or non-atheists (I think that's exhaustive for 'anyone'). The claim pointed out should not randomly divert discussion as usual from the topic. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which may concern this article. Any interested parties should feel free to comment there. --Jayron32 03:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

English equivalent words for better understanding of Hindu religion

Hi,

Can someone point out English equivalent words for ("Dharma",?), ("SarvaDharmaSamaBhaava",?). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 22:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a Hindu concept, the English word is "dharma". See wikt:dharma for a definition. Fences&Windows 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Although "Dharma" can have an infinite number of meanings, Klostermaier has comprehensively argued in his book that Dharma=Religion. As for the other concept, I think there is no English equivalent. Why?-117.198.50.16 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think its necessary to explain what dharma is, but not to replace the word, if that's the word the sources use. - SudoGhost™ 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying to explain what is "Dharma" may be a mind numbing affair. Scholars have debated its meaning for long and show hundreds of nuances and are still unsatisfied that they have captured its meaning. I agree that we do not need to replace "Dharma" with religion. These two words are not equivalent. However, we could add the translation of "Sanatan Dharma" as "Eternal Religion", besides "Eternal Law".-117.198.50.16 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's exactly why I think it shouldn't be replaced with another word. I don't think the complexity of the concept can be correctly captured by a related English word. Certainly, Dharma cannot be replaced by the same word in every context. Sanatan Dharma is one thing, as it has a more direct meaning, but the general concept of Dharma itself shouldn't be replaced with another word, if the source we draw from uses the word Dharma itself. - SudoGhost™ 03:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We have wikilinks for that: Dharma. Brief explanations or other words may be desirable depending on the context of the sentence in question. Paul B (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree fully with SudoGhost that the word "Dharma" cannot be replaced with any other word if the source itself is using that word. In that case, only the word "Dharma" is suitable for the meaning. Whether a translation and explanation is needed can depend on specific situations. But replacement is inappropriate.-117.198.56.203 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So then what would be equivalent of other words such as SarvaDharmaSamaBhava? like "AllDharmaEquivalenceBhava"?

I think a lot of ideas in Hinduism are completely novel to a lot of non-Hindus and vocabularies, symbolism, etc. So do we invent words here for ideas? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

The sentences that keep getting removed say the following; "Fire-sacrifices, called yajña were performed, and Vedic mantras chanted but no temples or icons were built.[25] The oldest Vedic traditions exhibit strong similarities to Zoroastrianism and other Indo-European religions." Now what exactly is disputed about this? How does it represent bias, or "Christian missionary" ideas? If you don't like the sourcing, it is easy enough to find better ones. We should be improving the article, not gutting it. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been adding that sentence back in because it seems to be reliably sourced and non-controversial. ThisThat, who keeps removing it, should really explain why he/she is doing so. BrendanFrye (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been claimed that the first source is "missionary", mainly because it is a book analysing a 17th century Christian missionary's experiences in India, but partly because the author seems to write mostly about church history. The second note links to Bartleby, a web site that provides online access to source texts. I suspect this is a case of a "broken" weblink that once pointed to a specific source but does not do so now. Clearly the statements being deleted are non-controversial, so I would suggest that other sources be found. Paul B (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The first source itself is no reliable source on Hinduism, to be mentioned prominantly on this page as an authority on Hinduism is something still being discussed, and is biased considering it is an (unbiased) analysis of a missionary's (biased) experiences in India. This substance is not a from a reliable source is something disputed when the author doesn't claim that either.

The other part is itself a broken link for which no justification is given on why this should be maintained, effectively therefore an unsubstantiated substance, for which I am sure there are better words, not specially reserved for Hinduism page only. I have a feeling that after some time when some users are banned someone will point out some links & make a glorious edit, thus being a knight in a shining armor. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's only one user close to getting a WP:BLOCK (not a WP:BAN) ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow I just answered talk:BrendanFrye 's question, I am sure answering a query is not an automatic cause of WP:BLOCK etc. If you ask him, this is the first time he is writing on the talk page after I notified him about the edits and I am answering him for the first time, too. Please point out a better way. Please also point out how the user's views should be considered when he doesn't look like an experienced editor/admin (or whether I don't know more). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out the aspects of your behaviour that is questionable on your usertalk page. You would be wise to read the policies linked from there, and adapt your editing style ASAP. To suggest on my talkpage that your reply to that very polite warning was somehow here on this pages is odd - my warning to you (given as a neutral observer) was quite clear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but how many chances does this guy get? He does not let in noted Western professors and instead cites dubious tourist guides from the 1980's.Thigle (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources that have a discussion of of Yajna: Drama and ritual of early Hinduism by Natalia Lidova covers it in detail. W. J. Johnson's A Dictionary of Hinduism (OUP) has entries on the relevant topic. Ancient to modern: religion, power, and community in India, also OUP, discusses the historical transition from Yajna to Puja. I will add these or other sources if Thisthat2011 will be explain whether it is just the sources or something about the text itself he has a problem with. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind quotes even directly from religions books of other religions included in here, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Avestan/Zoroastrianism. Though I think it should be a reliable source on Hinduism, which is not present here at all(according to me). I hope User:Thigle is not diverting this topic to point out something again and again, and pushing his authors as generic who are notable in separate branches of Hinduism like Shaivism, where the views would be more apt. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a chapter specifically about Vedism in the Blackwell Companion. Thigle (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sources and slightly tweaked the text. I changed "icons" to "idols". I know some Hindus don't like "idols" because it has historically negative connotations in English, but it is more accurate than "icons", which will just confuse the reader. However, it could be changed to "images of gods" or some such phrase. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the context of the change, but there is a difference between an Icon and an Idol. Maybe creating a wikilink to icon would help, instead of changing to a word which may or may not be as accurate (as I said, I don't know). - SudoGhost™ 15:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing the word did change the wikilink. The point is that we have no statues of gods from the Vedic period. The term idol is more accurate than icon to refer to such objects, but I've changed it to "cult images" which goes to an appropriate page. There was also a grammar issue; one does not "build" an icon. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Idol has a slight negativity about it in the Western world, but nowhere near as bad as the word cult, I would highly advise against that word as a substitute, unless its what the source uses. Idol isn't always negative in Western thought, such as this, but cult is almost always used in a negative sense. - SudoGhost™ 15:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"cult image" is the title of the article, and on idol is specifically described as 'neutral'. It's not true to say that the word cult is "almost always used in a negative sense". I'm shortly going to an exhibition called The Cult of Beauty [1]. We have articles on the Cult of Reason - a term used by the originators of the idea - and other cults. There are numerous books on the cults of saints [2]. That's the normal term. I think you are referring to the use of the phrase "a cult" in the context of so called NRMs (New Religious Movements), but that's actually a rather specialised minority usage. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak for what I know, but in the southeast United States, using cult when referring to an aspect of a religion brings a negative light on it. Cult is used in a secular sense (cult movies, cult following, so on), but when used to describe religious matters, its seen as negative and insulting. I'm not saying don't use it, but I was just trying to point out that as far as replacing idol due to its negative associations in the West, cult is not the best word to replace it with. - SudoGhost™ 16:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholics themselves speak of the "cult of St Catherine". It's from the Latin cultus and is used in official church language. See Cult (religious practice). I think you are referring to the use of the term as a proper noun - as in "these people are part of a cult". Paul B (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am, when the word "cult" is used in a religious sense, that is what most people (around here) think of. Wasn't trying to be argumentative, just wanted to point that out. - SudoGhost™ 16:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents on cult images of Hinduism: In Hinduism, murtis (lit. embodiment) are not cult images but 'embodiment' of sacred, more on it here Murti. Moreover, a deity is venerated across different sects, Hindus pray to different deities and as such, deity worship is not limited to a sect. Moreover, a deity can be worshiped little differently by different people. Going even further, many religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. worship deities that are the same(common across religions) and present the same Divine/Spirit/Essence/Form/Body/Figure/Embodiment/Incarnation/Manifestation. A little more on ['deities']. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this 'idols' or 'icons' referred are Murti s as referred to in Hinduism, as I may perceive so? As discussed just earlier, nomenclature may take some efforts for more clarity on this page, I am assuming. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

After all that posturing, you are not a Hindu? LOL Ok anyway, yes thats the term I am familiar with "Murthi". Since there is already a Wikipedia article on Murthi, use Murthi and link to it. Thigle (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "cult" is highly offensive when used in the religious sense. There is no doubt about it and it is mischievous to say that it is not so.-117.198.50.30 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a sign on the wall of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Phnom Penh, it says: Ministry for Religion and Cults. By religion they mean Buddhism, and cults is everyone else. PiCo (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many European/Arab countries that do not recognize Hinduism as a registered/valid religion/sect/etc. and in fact officially take actions against any attempts to recognize anything as such. In fact, there are examples where a sect is not recognized as such by another within religions, and so on. I don't think this is a page for such a discussion, however interesting. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[| Edits] by user:Sikh-history

Hi, regarding the mention of Buddhist influence, it would be better to have the details mentioned in History section, rather than mention it in the introduction itself. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not about buddhist influence. We are merely using the Buddha as a time reference as the sources do. Secondly it belongs in the introduction, since it follows directly on the sentence beforehand. Thigle (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How does it follow the sentence beforehand and why do we need to refer to Budha as a time source in the introduction? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All Hindu scholars use the Buddha as a timemark. Regarding your second concern, of course it follows the sentence beforehand. It qualifies the statement that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. Now, if you want to eliminate the word "Buddha" thats fine with me. But then what are you going to insert in its place? All academic Hinduism books use the Buddha as a reference point. Please read The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism edited by Gavin Flood for example. I have this book in my hand right now. Thigle (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the sources here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc. do not have Budha mentioned in the introduction part of the book.

I am not sure if the Blackwell Companion Series book on Hinduism may also have Budhdha mentioned in the introduction itself. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you just have a problem with this info being in the lead, not the info itself. It belongs in the lead, to clarify the previous statement that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. We are not orientalists are we? By the way in academic books on ancient India, Buddha is mentioned right after the Vedas like the lead does. Please read Bujor Avari's "India, the Ancient Past". Thigle (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits are already present in the History section.

I think that mentioning Buddha in the intro of Hinduism is improper, taking attention to Buddhism right from the beginning when the topic is indeed Hinduism. Otherwise, we must also mention Jainism, Sikhism, and so on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you seen how the current lead says "historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India"? In EVERY academic book on ancient India / Hinduism, a section on the Vedic Age is followed immediatley by a section on the Buddha. You can confirm this easily. So according to you every scholar is "improper". For your information, Sikhism is a recent religion, so its obvious you know nothing about these subjects my friend. Thigle (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The topic here is Hinduism, not India nor Buddhism.

If a book on Buddhism says so, let it be mentioned in the page on Buddhism. It is as it is mentioned in the History section, so why is it to be mentioned in the introduction section? Which books on Hinduism mention Buddha in the introduction part? I have linked 8 or so which don't. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, you know nothing about these subjects based on your comment on Sikhism. You don't seem to understand that Hinduism and Buddhism are discussed together in academic books on Hinduism. And the Buddha is talked about right after the Vedic Age in every academic Hinduism book. Please read Gavin Flood's "Introduction to Hinduism". Thigle (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are dodging the point on mentioning the substance right at the introduction part, or am I not getting through? If you are talking about Buddhism, why not Jainism, or Sikhism because Jain saints and Sikh Gurus could have influenced Hinduism too whenever. There is again no reason to mention these in the introduction part and lets not repeat this again. By the way, which books discuss Buddhism with Hinduism and so does that mean that the page on Hinduism must mix up with Buddhism because I don't think so. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Flood talks about Buddha A LOT in the introduction to "Introduction to Hinduism". You don't seem to understand that. And also none of your books jumps right to Iron Age India. You don't seem to understand that. According to your logic, you need to remove the references to Iron Age India currently in the lead. Thigle (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets see what I talk about - I say that mention of Buddhism should be avoided in the introduction, and I have presented 8 different sources that mention Buddhism, not in the introduction, but somewhere else.

You are making this an exercise in putting Buddhism at the introduction. Lets not start giving incorrect presumptions and then stretching it even further. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First off your sources are grossly inferior to the sources I mention. My books are written by the top scholars in the field. Many of your books are for the general reader. Secondly, Gavin Flood talks a LOT about Buddha in his introduction. Thirdly, you can't mention Iron Age India and the Vedic Age and not mention Buddha. Thats a double standard, because every academic book on Hinduism, yes Hinduism, follows up on the Iron Age with Buddha. Even your books. You can't have it both ways my friend. By the way, I can easily post many Hindu books that talk about Buddha in the introduction, and you know that. Thigle (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no BuddhaThigle (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(In ref to current version) I would recommend that instead of saying certain certain elements developed after 500 BCE; we should go for something like "..development spans many millenniums .... from the Stone Age well into the Common Era ... ". Arjun^codename024 09:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because that is not correct. Also the Blackwell source specifically talks about 500 BCE. Thigle (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was no paradigm shift at 500 BCE. So, why fixate with this? Just because your source does ? Arjun^codename024 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there was a huge paradigm shift. It is called the renunciation movement. Read the source. Thigle (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that Buddhism went immediately viral in the early 5th century BCE in a manner so as to revolutionize orthodox Hindu thought is not something that borrows credence from the sources. It took centuries for the process.Arjun^codename024 08:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP BUDDHA FOR? THE SOURCE TALKS ABOUT HINDU RENUNCIATION MOSTLY. FORGET ABOUT BUDDHA. SEE BELOW Thigle (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you shouting. You never met anyone who could show you how to behave properly? Say "Sorry".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.51.93 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems quite proper to use Buddha for reference of time as many scholars have done. By the way, Buddha is also a Hindu avatar, and thus belongs to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with you,but then before Buddha what mythology and which gods did the people of the subcontinent worship,u have to make that clear and provide many more sources on it.I have heard some people say that Gita was influenced by Buddha,see the wikipedia articles on Gita and Buddha,Buddha was born in 563 BCE while most scholars say Gita developed around 200BCE,300 years after death of Buddha,which clearly shows that Buddha might have influenced the concepts of Karma and Rebirth found in Hinduism.117.204.130.213 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on the sourcing: The Essential Vedanta. Bloomington: World Wisdom. pg. 61. and The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Malden: Blackwell. pg. 273-4. do not support the material. Only the material from Buddhist Thought is relevant, but still this sentence has problems of WP:TONE and WP:SYNTH. However, I feel that including the opinion of one author in lede is WP:UNDUE. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You did NOT read the sources. Patrick Olivelle writes: "The second half of the first millennium BCE was the period that created many of the ideological and institutional elements that characterize later Indian religions. The renouncer tradtion played a central role during this formative period of Indian religious history....Some of the fundamental values and beliefs that we generally associate with Indian religions in general and Hinduism in particular were in part the creation of the renouncer tradition. These include the two pillars of Indian theologies: samsara - the belief that life in this world is one of suffering and subject to repeated deaths and births (rebirth); moksa/nirvana - the goal of human existence....." Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi write: "The Gita can be placed roughly about the beginning of the Christian era, within a margin of two centuries, and the authors must have seen the appeal of the soteriologies both of the "heterodox" traditions of Buddhism and Jainism and of the more "orthodox" ones of Samkhya and Yoga." Thigle (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how far the authority on the History of Hinduism is aware, but here are some examples that demonstrate that the deities revered by Hindus were prominent earlier too. Examples are Mundeshwari Temple - oldest functioning temple from 105 AD onwards, Shankaracharya Temple (2629 BC), there can be more such examples. I think the authors have not taken note of enormous Iconoclasm and massacre of Hindus and literature that affected notion of History as it was from 700AD onwards, with invasions in the name of God and apparent efforts to make Hindu heathens into 'civilized people' ready to do the same to others what happened to Hindus earlier. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Thigle, I am not sure if you got my point above. I suggest you to read WP:SYNTH before combining pieces from different sources into a single sentence. "in many cases significantly after" is WP:OR; To give another example including "samsara" and "moksha" of Flood, Gavin. Olivelle, Patrick inline with Williams, Paul does not provide a accurate meaning. Also edit warring to put the material in lead is not a good idea, consider WP:RFC or other forms of dispute resolution. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle has been railing against others you know nothing about these subjects.... However, it is not clear how much he himself might know. Looking at the trash grade sources he is insisting on does not inspire much confidence in his understandin of these matters. For example, Paul Williams is a non RS for this article. Why is he being used in this article? Hinduism is not his field at all. Even the book is off topic. It should be deleted immediately from this article. There is no need for such inappropriate sources to be used. It degrades this poorly written article even further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.55.47 (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have better sources mention them. I challenge you. Thigle (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have come up with suitable sources if I had wanted to add some material into the article. Since I am not trying to add any material to the article, how can I come up with sources for non-material. You have put up an illogical demand.

I have pointed out how your sources are complete non RS and how your attacks on others for not knowing anything are laughable and how your sense of source selection is zero.

Since you are to one who wants the material in, the responsibility to show that your sources are good is on you. (Since you are criticizing others for not knowing anything, you also need to show that your own knowledge of these matters is of an acceptable level.) Since you cannot show anything to justify that Paul Williams is an RS for this article, just accept that your source is worthless and your sense of source selection is inadequate and your criticisms of others is unjustified, and just delete the material. That material is serving no purpose except to increase the amount of trash in the article.

I also notice that instead of defending your sources with some reasoning, you are just trying to push the material in by resorting to edit warring and misbehaviour. You just do not seem to understand that if you want some material in, you have to be able to defend it on the talk page with some logical type of reasoning. So far, you show no ability or inclination of this type and you are just trying to make illogical demands like a demand for sources from someone who is not even trying to add any material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.50.155 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

buddhism can never come back in india again.there is a story in mahabharat.the teacher of pandavas and kauravas,a brahmin called drona is killed while he is sitting in meditation after hearing about the death of his son who was not dead,this was a lie spread by pandavas to make sure drona lays down his arms and sits for meditation.this story will forever prevent budddhism from ever coming back to india because of the psycological effect it has.teachings of gita are more superior than buddhist teachings in my view and mahabharat is one of the greatest epics ever writen guiding all hindus for all times.Arishen05 (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in Article

Hinduism in no way "birthed the original school of Yoga". Yoga predated even the Buddha's time and was found in the Sramana movements. Read Dr. James Mallinson's Khecarividya of Adinatha . If you are talking about a codified school, the first one would be buddhism, which Patanjali borrowed from. Thigle (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Yoga article Prehistory section there was an early form of yoga in the Brahminic tradition and in early Upanishads. There is even evidence for it in the Rig Veda. I agree that Buddhism gave the first highly codified school -- Q Chris (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jainism was already well-established during Buddha's times. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sramana tradition predates even earliest Upanishads. Thigle (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it comes down to "what is Hinduism". If you take the view that early Hinduism was part of the Indus valley civilisation then Sramana is part of the Hindu tradition. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is so wrong on so many levels. Thigle (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see what's wrong with it.-117.198.60.57 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The avatāra of Ādinātha tīrthańkara Ŗşabhadeva precedes the avatāra of Gautama Buddha as described in Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāņam. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

Hi,

Just suggesting that the Etymology section should have more information about words like Dharma, Sanaatana, etc.

..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't support statement

The sources don't support the statement that "Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma by its adherents". As mentioned by others, only a few Hindus use this extremely modern phrase. The only source that even uses "Sanatana Dharma" in fact says "popularly called Hinduism" and "out of respect for tradition and common usage, let us use the term Hinduism." Thigle (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, please put page numbers in your sources. Thigle (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More on Sanatana-Dharma, it is not a too modern term at all. here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support your sentence. Not even close. Where does it say that "Hinduism is most frequently expressed as Sanātana Dharma"? Thigle (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It says 'one of the most frequently used', check the link please. I can see that once I click the link, perhaps at the bottom of the page. Other frequently used expressions can be added I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So what if the phrase was "frequently used" in the Indian tradition that also includes buddhism and jainism? Where does it say that Hinduism is frequently called that?Thigle (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph is present in 'Ethics in Upnishadic and Advaitic philosophy' section as seen on the top of pages about it. The following explanation and paragraphs also talk of Vedic, Upnishadic, etc traditions. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

But it does not say the Hinduism is called "Sanātana Dharma" by name. In fact it sounds like that "Sanātana Dharma" is just one of a thousand concepts. Thigle (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep on deleting much more than usual. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I deleted your sentence. There is no basis for it whatsoever. Even one of your own sources DIRECTLY contradicts you, as I mentioned in my first statement. Thigle (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You deleted more than what was under consideration, and the substance I did present were well sourced. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No its not well sourced at all. Read my first statement. The whole sentence should be deleted. The sources directly contradict the sentence. Here is the summary of the issues. One of your sources admits that Hinduism, and NOT SD, is "popularly" used in the "common usage" and "tradition". Your new source does not even state that SD is another name for Hinduism, yet you are using it to say that SD is a frequently used synonym for Hinduism. And the rest of the sources don't even talk about SD. Thigle (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Websites are not proper sources of information

Please replace the obviously dubious websites lacking proper authorities with better sources.Thigle (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you remove other's comments ([an example!]) and also leave your comments as it is? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Sudoghost I was implying a wrong wikipedia policy. I deleted my own comments as well. Thigle (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Websites are not proper sources of information

Websites are fine for statistics and such. In fact they may even be preferred. But for general information, websites are not proper information. Please replace websites with Hinduism professors at universities. Thigle (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Where did you get this idea that websites are not proper sources? - SudoGhost™ 18:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am obviously talking about some of the dubious websites used. Do I have to list them? Thigle (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if true, a dubious website does not equate to "websites are not proper information". To suggest otherwise is incorrect. - SudoGhost™ 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't suggest that then. Thigle (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is what you suggested. I would also ask that you not remove entire threads when others have commented on them, as doing so with a proper reason is against Wikipedia policy. Removing your own comments when others have responded is not strictly forbidden, but is not considered good practice. - SudoGhost™ 21:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets get this straight. Banning western university professors in the entirety, provoked little reaction from you, even though it is a clear violation of NPOV. Now you are harrassing me for something you are misreading out of context? For general information on Hinduism, websites are generally NOT good sources of information, because there are NO Hinduism websites by any Hinduism authority, like a scholar (except links to journal PDFs). I was told by last year by senior members that websites have to be from good authority, like a scholar. So yes I am right. I will accept your apology again, like you apologized to me before. Thigle (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Any source has to be reliable, be it website, book, whatever the medium. Every source is judged individually based on its individual merits, and to attempt to remove a website as a source merely by the criteria that it is a website is far from proper. If you had said "Let's go though and check each source to see that it is a reliable source" that would be one thing. But you did not. Unless you can show where these "senior members" said these words to you, it can only be assumed that it is a miscommunication that caused this line of thought. Your exact words, in all of their context, can be read at the top of this section. I was not aware that you had a master map of the internet, and checked every website to see if they were appropriate to be used as a source, because this seems to be what you're suggesting. Since you brought it up, I apologized for opening a copyright investigation against you in an attempt to show good faith after you threw a tantrum on your talk page, but your editing history has shown that you have not learned from your blocks, as you continued to introduce copyright infringements into Wikipedia. - SudoGhost™ 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What you call copyright violations, I call sticking to WP:SYNTH. This sentence "Much of what is referred to as 'Hinduism' such as the primacy of the gods Shiva or Vishnu, the ideals of Advaita Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, mature concepts of samsara,moksha, various tantra denominations and so on developed after (in many cases centuries after) approximately 500 BCE" is not really that close to the source at all. Besides I cite the freakin source. Thigle (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what WP:SYNTH is. Changing a couple of key words to their synonym but otherwise writing the text word for word is still a copyright violation, and has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH in any aspect. - SudoGhost™ 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think you believe that, because you just noticed a vague similarity between the two sentences. You actually didn't compare the two. I will post the two sentences on your talk page. Thigle (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is about combining two sources in a way that does not reflect what the sources intended to demonstrate. It has nothing to do with your copyright violations. - SudoGhost™ 00:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well just to be clear. It is only YOU who has ever judged me of copyright violations, based on your own mind and feelings. That is just fact. Thigle (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. - SudoGhost™ 00:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats the best you got? From when YOU were edit warring with me? LOL Wow. That other person says that "a question of copyright that has been raised". Who is that person who raised the copyright issue? That person is YOU!! Jesus Christ. Thigle (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the editing of the current article, so this is becoming pointless. C'est la vie, je suis fait. - SudoGhost™ 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not this should be in the lead

The paragraph in 'belief' section states

Hinduism grants absolute and complete freedom of belief and worship.[64][65][66] Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity.[67][68][69] Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy and blasphemy.[70][71][72][73]

As this feature of Hinduism is unique and distinguishing factor from other mainstream religions and contributes to better understanding of this religion to a non-hindu, why not this be in the lead? Not sure if this aspect is already discussed and for some reason not put lead. Can anyone let me know? Lokesh 2000 (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the above observation about Hinduism does not belong anywhere in the article. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's delete it? (I am the IP in the above discussions).-MangoWong (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As it is properly sourced it should not be deleted. lets put it in the lead. what are the reasons for not putting it in the lead? why do you think it does not belong anywhere in the article? Lokesh 2000 (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is sourced. That something is sourced does not mean that it is always suitable for inclusion in the article. Folks have been writing volumes upon volumes on this subject. All the material in those volumes can be sourced. But this does not mean that all of it could/should be included in the article. So, just having some sourced material is not enough reason for inclusion of that material. The reason why I suggest that this should be deleted is that the material is conveying wholly fictitious ideas about Hinduism. Let's also see what are Kanchanamala's reasons for saying that it does not belong in the article.-MangoWong (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

could you please clarify why do you think the account is fictitious? many facts stated are obvious to any hindu, for example freedom of worship etc.. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, about the freedom of worship thing, I agree that there is great freedom of worship. But it is plain wrong to say that the freedom is absolute. There are many things which would be unacceptable for a Hindu to do or worship. For example, where is it given in Hinduism that one can be a devotee of Yahweh, and be a Hindu. Again, you are probably familiar with the self styled "Bhagwan Rajneesh" who preached the message of free sex and thought that sex is a form of worship. He had outraged the people of India with his activities. Where is it given that one should eat beef, or convert to another religion, and still be a Hindu? The point I am trying to make is that even if there is great freedom of worship and belief, the freedom still has some limitations. The freedom is not absolute. The freedom is limited by the scriptures and the prevalant traditions and society. So, the material in the article is plain wrong. What the material is saying is that one can do absolutely anything and say absolutely anything and there would be no incompatibility with Hinduism. That is not so.-MangoWong (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That something is sourced is not enough. The source should be acceptable. Let me give one example. A source here has quoted "ekam sat viprāh bahudhā vadanti". What should it mean? You be the judge.This statement appears in the Ŗgveda. It is about a physical phenomenon called agni: "indram mitram varuņam-agnimāhuh ... ekam sad-viprāh bahudhā vadantyagnim yamam mātarişvānamāhuh". Translation: "Agni is called Indra, Mitra, Varuna. ... The phenomenon [sat] is one, the scholars speak about it [agni] variously; Agni is called Yama, Mātarişvā." Kanchanamala (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Another source quoted here is "Vasudhaiva kutumbakam". The complete quote is: "udāra-caritānām vasudhaiva kutumbakam". Translation: "For broad-minded people world itself is family." Kanchanamala (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Atleast we could have retained the sentence about freedom of worship which mangowong found to be ok without the words "absolute" and "complete". It is unfair to delete that sourced portion when it could have been corrected with proper wording. Also we did not discuss about how the third statement about heresay or apostacy is incorrect. Kanchanamala's observations about rigvedic text at best can be termed as original research. Not peer reviewed. couldn't participate in discussion for sometime because I was sick whole last week. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lokesh 2000. I had deleted the material because the material was misleading. I did not know that you were unwell. Even then, I did wait for a few days for a response from you. So, I hope you don't mind. I hope you are better now. If you want to recover something from the deleted material, I may be agreeable to doing that to some extent. Please suggest the new wording. As for Kanchanamala's "original research", I think it is quite good, and very valuable. Do you see anything wrong in what she is saying? If you don't see anything wrong in what she says, then, a source should not be needed. We are not trying to note in the article what she has said here.--MangoWong (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mangowong. I would say lets retain the first statement without words that imply freedom of worship is limitless. something like "Hinduism grants a greater degree of freedom of belief and worship." and regarding second item, I think we can remove "single family" stuff. But I don't know how to reword it. please provide your comments on why do you think the third statement regarding heresy is also not true. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposed sentence. Just that "greater" should be substituted with "great". In the third sentence, the point about heresy seems correct. However, one can become an apostate by eating beef or by converting to other religions. About blasphemy, the point is evidently wrong because Hindus have taken offence to the activities of people like M. F. Husain and derogatory portrayal of Hindu deities by Western scholars. The scriptures too pronounce dire warnings to those who speak against the deities. So, the point is wrong.--MangoWong (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, new sentence - "Hinduism grants a great degree of freedom of belief and worship. Also, concept of heresy is absent". lets put it in the lead as it distinguishes this religion from other abrahamic faiths. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No comments from anyone yet on the new sentence. I'll put it in the lead if there is no objection. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On "Sanatana Dharma"

In Sanskrit there is no expression such as "sanātana-dharma". The usage we have is, "This dharma is age-old" eşa dharma sanātanah. When a writer talks about a particular dharma [adoptable or adopted principle], and wants to point out that it is a time-honored dharma, the writer says eşa dharma sanātanah. "Sanatana Dharma" is a modern expression coined in contradistinction to Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it that 'Sanaatana' is a characteristic of Dharma symbolizing unchanging/across-birth etc., amongst many other characteristics? Because the word is one of the most frequently used. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The word dharma is common noun. There is nothing like Dharma with a capital 'D'. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Approach and Objectivity

       Normal  0          false  false  false    EN-US  X-NONE  X-NONE

I stopped reading the article halfway through as it just got too uncomfortable - and I am not even a Hindu. I would imagine Hindus getting more than uncomfortable reading this. Hinduism, in this article (forgive me if I appear harsh), is treated very disrespectfully. Comparative to the attention to detail and relevant citations of other religions in Wiki, this one appears to be so... out of place.

Religion degenerates. This is a fact. However, it would be wrong to define a religion by its degenerative, or offshoot practices. Do we define Christianity by the Mormon's Endowment ceremony undergarments? Or do we define Islam based on several sects of their Shia Muslim habits of mutilating themselves? Why did this article consider it appropriate to do so for Hinduism? Being the oldest religion in the world, with the oldest scriptures at that, surely some citation from its scriptures would not be out of place? Understanding the difference between the actual religion, hereditary communal tradition and modern communal tradition, as well as the multitude branches of the religion, is essential for anyone writing this article. Heavy reliance on English language scholarly articles, with minimal emphasis on works written in the various Indian languages, smacks of an easy fix.

I find it disturbing that the work of Rene Guenon, a Muslim metaphysicist, is used as the primary basis for classifying Hinduism as a 'religious tradition', among hundreds other more relevant and credible sources. Calling it as anything other than monotheistic is also a fallacy. Hinduism was the first monotheistic religion. It has a singular primeval consciousness, a Supersoul, that manifests in the material world under different forms.

“The avatära, or incarnation of Godhead, descends from the kingdom of God for material manifestation. And the particular form of the Personality of Godhead who so descends is called an incarnation, or avatära. Such incarnations are situated in the spiritual world, the kingdom of God. When they descend to the material creation, they assume the name avatära.” Madhya 20.263–264, Caitanya-caritämåta

"He is the prime eternal among all eternals. He is the supreme living entity of all living entities, and He alone is maintaining all life." Kaöha Upanishad, 2.2.13

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." Bhagavad Gita, Verse 4, Chapter 9

"I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings." Bhagavad Gita, Verse 20, Chapter 10

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, O son of Påthä, see now My opulences, hundreds of thousands of varied divine and multicolored forms." Bhagavad Gita, Verse 5, Chapter 11

I could continue dissecting this (halfway through, I spotted at least seven contentious statement, but what would this achieve if the approach towards, and objective of, the article are not define and/or understood? I considered for a moment of making my own edits, but realizes that it would only invite instant rollbacks. Thanks Misha Atreides (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article has been victim of bias and purposeful potrayal as though it is a substandard religion. just look at the picture of vishwa-rupa-darshana of vishnu some one put in the article to make it look like funny. There are just too many biased (or shall we call so called "secular"?) wiki editors who wish to supress positive image of hinduism (image which is quite obvious to anyone who is practicing or living in hindu society or anyone who is familiar with it scriptures). I dont have time/energy to spend on in endless talk threads and so has been of the view that if there is some substance/truth/strength in a religion it need not be fought zealously as truth will outshine and emerge on its own strength. unlike other faiths which need zealots gaurding its image 24/7. If you happen to have time/energy/right-sources, and want to make changes in the article, be bold, go ahead and do it. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay Lokesh. I will make an attempt. Schedule's a little tight at the moment, but I will start something by next weekend. I am particularly keen on a new definition/intro, and bringing back the role of Bhagavad Gita into the forefront, which has been repeatedly sidelined in the last century despite its fundamental role in Hinduism. While the Upanishads provide the philosophic basis of Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita provide its tenets and central core. A distinction must also be made between scriptural, literary and speculative texts that blurs the line between Hinduism as a religion and a/an animistic/spiritual/shamanistic/cultural practice. I will also try to search for better graphics for the page. I agree with you that the existing graphic is a mockery to the religion. Thanks Misha Atreides (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gita should be brought into the forefront as it is the core for many Hindus, but however this is done it should reflect that not all Hindus see the Gita as a primary scripture. Remember this article is not about Vaishnavism, even though that accounts for about 75% of Hindus. Saivas and Shaktis follow other books as their spiritual core, for example the Tirukkuṛaḷ and Tirumurai. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted, Christ. Thanks. Misha Atreides (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am personally offended that you say Hinduism is only monotheistic. And as a Hindu I am particularly proud that it is a religious tradition. Gizza^{Talk ©} 12:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be offended, discuss improvements to the article. I am quite happy with the statement that "Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism among others". A lot depends on your definition of monotheistic, if you include one God multiple aspects and allow for other demigods or divine beings then that would make the belief of most Hindus monotheistic. If you exclude multiple aspects of God then you would also have to say that Christianity is not monotheistic. Of course there are some branches of Hinduism that are completely monotheistic, and some that are truly polytheistic. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Q Chris, I agree with you completely. I said I was offended more in response to the first comment in this section which was about feeling "uncomfortable" that Westerners are degrading Hinduism by calling it a religious tradition and more than just monotheistic. This is what the reliable sources say from the West, India and everywhere else in the world. I also don't think we should elevate one holy text above the rest. From some Hindus, the text they read the most may be the Gita. It may also be the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas. I just feel that some of the editors over the years to this article want Hinduism to appear a lot like Christianity and Islam. I do think that the Gita is the closest in some ways to being the main text of Hinduism, but it is still no Bible or Koran. The article for Hinduism cannot be structured along the lines of Christianity or Islam because of its sheer diversity which IMO makes it more interesting anyway. Gizza^{Talk ©} 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gizza. Being a Hindu myself and having had studied Hinduism at GCSE and A-level, I think that Hinduism can be described as a way of life, as its' beliefs vary and it permits freedom of thought unlike other major reliions. I do not believe that there are any major issues with this article, but that the Hindu mainstream view is possibly a little understated like Lokesh said. But I think it is wrong to say that anyone should be 'uncomfortable' with this article - Hinduism allows its followers to express different opinions, so why should anyone feel uncomfortable about these diverse views being displayed in this article? GoldRock23 (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian bigotry and integrity of this article =

In an above thread, an ed has been complaining that this article has become an object of editing by Hindu fundamentalists. If that be so, one would expect to find Hindu fundamentalists being used as sources in this article. Instead of that, what do we find? There are Christian missionaries being used as sources in this article. On further investigation, one finds that almost all the sources being used in this article are Christian/Western. If this article is subject to editing by Hindu fundamentalists, how could this state of affairs come to pass. Looking at the confidence with which a christian bigot expected to insert offensive material into this article, and looking at the number of Christian/Western sources in this article on Hinduism, there is every reason to conclude that this article has been subject to editing by Christian bigots. No other article on a major religion is sourced so overwhelmingly from hostile sources. The present sources are presenting a largely distorted, offensive and fictitious picture of Hinduism and they can only be expected to do so, given their ill informed and hostile nature. As such, an effort should be made to delete the Christian/Western sources being used, and to find and add Hindu sources into this article so that at least 90% of the sources being used be Hindu sources.-117.198.54.252 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use "Christian" and "Western" as the same thing, westerners are not automatically Christian and there are plenty of Christians outside of the west. Is Richard Dawkins Christian by merit of his birthplace? No. Was Shusaku Endo not born in Tokyo simply because he converted to Christianity?

As for Western sources, geography is a non-issue in determining whether or not a source is reliable. An author's religion is only an issue if they fail to write from a secular perspective (and it is wrong and insulting to say that all Christians can never write from a secular perspective). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are these mysterious "Christian missionaries being used as sources in this article"? I see none. Nor do I see any evidence that "hostile" sources are being used. Specify, or your complaint is empty. Paul B (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The point he is making is that a lot of understanding of Hinduism might have been published by Western sources in context of/w.r.t. difference Christian dogmas and/or for local audience.

Just because it is Western/Christian does not mean that it is secular and have better authority than others, in particular about Hinduism. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not use top Indian sources like A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India by Upinder Singh? She is the daughter of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Here is the Amazon link to buy it: http://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-Early-Medieval-India/dp/813171120XThigle (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is "A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century"., not Hinduism! I am not sure how it will treat religious dogmas, belief systems, traditions, and so on, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I mean no disrespect here, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. If we only pull sources from the POV of the source itself, many articles would be radically different. That's not to say most sources in this article shouldn't be from the source itself, in this case adherents to the religion itself. I'm only speculating (because I admittedly know very little about this subject, only how it relates to Buddhism) but the problem may be that there are few English resources that are not written by Eastern people, simply because English is a Western language, and until a century or so ago, people in the West knew very little about Hinduism, so the only knowledge there was came from Christian missionaries who provided their view of the religion (many believed that Hindus and Buddhists were different priest castes of the same religion).

I do think that the article needs to be improved with proper sources, but I don't necessarily think that the Western sources should be removed, nor do I think they were added with maliciousness towards the subject. Rather, I think they were added through ignorance of the subject (I mean lack of knowledge, not meant to be an insult) that many Western people perhaps share. To this, I would suggest that some of the sources be kept in the article, but changed to demonstrate that Western missionaries had a differing view of what Hinduism was than the Hindus themselves. - SudoGhost™ 19:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. For example, [| Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines|], the author doesn't look like a Christian evangelist but more like someone dealing with Metaphysics of religions. Though the link is a good read, I am not sure how Hindus would agree to his views. Just an example, though his audience looks western, for all his comparisons as comparative discourse may not be a correct way to understand Hinduism, with all the varied understandings, traditions, disciplines, and so on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India by Upinder Singh be considered a "top Indian source"? It's not about the definition of a religion; it's a generic history. Also, being the daughter of the prime-minister is not a qualification in either history or religious studies. That has to be determined by her own merits. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as Indians like Dr. Upinder Singh are current professors at major universities, they are excellent sources. Period. Thigle (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They do not have to be currently professors. Emeritus professors are fine. Also being a professor per se is not adequate. It depends what one is a professor of. So no, not "period", rather more "colon". I am not saying anything about Upinder Singh's qualifications, merely pointing out that being Indian and the daughter of the Prime Minister are not among them. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway there is MUCH about Hinduism in Dr. Singh's book. I have read it (interlibrary loan that you wait weeks for). Also, there is much about Hinduism in Burjor Avari's India: The Ancient Past. Here is the link to buy: http://www.amazon.com/India-Ancient-History-Indian-Sub-Continent/dp/0415356164Thigle (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A generalist history is an acceptable source, for sure, but not a "top" one. However, if it helps to minimise the melodrama about "western" and "missionary" sources, all to the good. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have come across non-Hindu writers who have been honest about Hinduism, and Hindu writers who have been servile to the Christian West. Kanchanamala (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Hi Ian, you sure show interesting examples. Shusaku Endo was an interesting personality. And the example, (from a place which is antipodal to the “West”), could not have been more apt. I am sure millions more examples can also be found. However, I know that Christianity is a global religion, and the number of Christians outside “the West” is actually greater than the number of Christians inside it. But that does not contradict what I was saying. Christianity is still the predominant religion in the West. And was more powerful earlier on while most of the Western literature on Hinduism was being produced. The point being, as ThisThat2011 has explained, most of it was written in context of/w.r.t. church dogma. Even now, folks like Richard Dawkins can also be probably described as “cultural Christians”, even if they be avid atheists. In India, the situation is even more hilarious. Here, atheists born in a Hindu family would proudly continue to describe themselves as “Hindu”, (even when they become avid Hindu baiters), and nobody would bat an eyelid. And geography may not be an issue for subjects like Mathematics, Physics, etc. But, do you think that it would be good to write a piece called “All about swimming” from the works of a hypothetical body of scholars from the Sahara desert who are all seriously allergic to water and who have rarely seen a real water body, and who have a serious phobia about setting foot in water, and most of whom are affiliated to a religion which somehow wants to dry out and capture all water bodies on the planet, and to make the whole planet look the same as their own countryside? What could such a book do except to explicate the ills associated with entering a water body like a lake/swimming pool/river/ocean and go on to say that water bodies are bad? What I am saying is that the studies in religions started under the moniker “Comparative Religions”, and were started with the assumption that Christianity was the only true religion, all other religions are inferior and abusrd, and the people of all other religions need proselytization, and these studies would facilitate the dialogue necessary to achieve this proselytization. Hinduism was, and is assumed to be “heathen”, and is viewed in a derogatory way. Christianity is an evangelical religion and is foundationally bound to assume that it only is right, all other religions are inferior and wrong, and thus, Christians are bound to see other religions in a derogatory way, particularly religions which are thought to be polytheistic, or performing worship of various types of statue imageries. Simply having religious icons in temples and worshipping them is somehow an unpardonable ….“evil” to the Christian mind. He He. Believe me, Hi Hi Hi Hi, this is true. They simply assume that worshipping an icon is wrong, even when the other person does not expect them to do the same, and no amount of reasoning can convince them otherwise. They will never perform worship of an icon, (not that anyone wants them to), and are stubbornly adamant that others should give up this practice too. Hi Hi. Since Christians are bound by their religion to see their own religion as superior to others, and since they have a particular hostility towards the beliefs and practices of Hinduism, they are bound to present Hinduism in a derogatory light. There is no way they could regard Hinduism as an equal without violating some important tenets of their own religion. Almost all the Western literature on Hinduism is produced with a view to somehow show the beliefs of Hindus to be absurd. How is such literature not hostile? As such, Christians cannot be expected to write in a neutral way about Hinduism. To be fair, Hindus too cannot be expected to see Christianity in a neutral way. We are all humans, and there is nothing insulting in admitting that much. Our ways of thinking are shaped irredeemably by the society around us, and by our childhood experiences. Scholars are no exception to this rule. It is hard, even near impossible to get over those set ways of thinkings. You say that geography is not an issue in determining the reliability of an author. Well, suppose if there be a group of scholars in Thailand who produce a large amount of works on Judaism, while still living in Thailand. Could their scholarship be regarded as credible? If you are going to do an interview on “tropical diseases”, is a doctor who practiced all his life in Switzerland the best person to interview on this topic, even if he has a degree in “tropical diseases”, which was obtained from a (say) top British medical college? I don’t think so. A doctor who has practiced in the tropics for a decade is a better person to know what he is talking about. So, geography is an issue. The Western/Christian (de)constructions of Hinduism cannot be regarded as having much credibility. They are ill informed, hostile studies. I am not saying that all Western/Christian sources in the article should be expunged, some can be kept, and as SudoGhost has said, some can be used to show the difference between what Western sources say and what Hindu sources say. But it is unacceptable that most of the sources be Western/Christian. In the present situation, I don’t think the article is presenting a correct picture of Hinduism, and I don’t think that it has much credibility. An additional problem is that too many Christian/Western sources are saying too many baseless things. In using any source (Western or not), high preference should be given to those sources which show some ancient document, whether of paper/ stone/ wood/ whatever. When the sources show some ancient documents, those ancient documents should also be noted in the article and there should be some discussion as to how it is important. Apart from sourcing this article mostly from Hindu academics, the Hindu religious point of view should also be noted while noting scholarly views. For example, what do the Hindus believe about the start of their religion? What do they think about the original settlement of their peoples, particularly Aryans? If anyone thinks what I say about Western/Christian literature on Hinduism is wrong, please see what a major Western scholar says about his colleagues “Many a book on Hindu mythology, on the gods and goddesses of India more often than not does not attempt to tell the reader how contemporary Hindus understand these divinities and how and why they worship them, but frequently tries to prove a Freudian, a Jungian, or some other psychological or anthropological thesis, playing around with structuralist, functionalist, or other theoretical models which are clever and appear plausible to Western intellectuals, but explain little and often distort a great deal of Hindu reality. Given the enormous mass of writings associated with Hinduism, it is very easy to find supportive quotes for each and every thesis. It is another question whether the thesis would be acceptable to Hindus and whether it fits the context in India.” (K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, p3). Please look at the words closely, …"more often than" not, i.e. most reconstructions are absurd, how can the field have credibility? …"but explain little and often distort a great deal"…hmmm, they distort often, not seldom, and they distort a “great deal”, not a bit here and there. And the absurdities which Western scholars produce do not fit in the Indian context. Do I need say more? Are these reconstructions of any use, except to Christian missionaries who too want to present a distorted picture of Hinduism, or to the Westerner who wants to gawk at the “other” and feel superior? It may also be noted that the discipline of Indology was founded by Max Muller. He was, and is extolled as a great scholar of Hinduism, although neither he, nor anyone else thought it necessary that he should visit India even once. His theories were designed to take into account the biblical narratives of creation of the world and these accounts are no longer thought to have any historical value, except by some extreme Christian fundamentalists. He only manages to see Hinduism as absurd and says only derogatory things about Hinduism, assuming that only Christianity is right. How can a field instituted by such a narrow minded and ill informed man be regarded as having any credibility? He is also in the article. And Paul B, I accept that I should have pointed out which Christian missionary source was being used in this article. The issue has been discussed in the thread just above this thread, you can take a look at it. As for my “melodrama”, it is not melodrama, it is real. It is easy to see that the article is bursting with Western/Christian sources. No other article on Wikipedia is sourced so overwhelmingly from hostile sources. If you can show me any, I would object on those articles too. It makes no sense to write articles like that. If anyone thinks that the religion of a scholar is not an issue, here is a scholar of Christianity saying that the number of Christian scholars in his field is not enough, there should be less scholars from other religions, and there should be more Christians in the field. [3] (I wonder how Christians might feel if almost 100% of the article became sourced from Jews or agnostics or atheists or ex Christians.) He also says that Christians have trained themselves to not to think historically, are interested in giving each other the “right answers”, and seems to be saying that everyone’s scholarship is shaped by their faith. Please take a look, its an eyeopener. And Kanchanmala, I agree with what you say, exceptions are always there. But I hope this would not contradict what I am saying. Do you not think that sourcing this article mostly from Hindu scholars could improve the picture being provided? I hope the picture provided by using Hindu sources would not be more distorted than the picture obtained by using mostly Western/Christian sources? And it would be immensely pleasing to find out who are the scholars who provide an honest assesment of Hinduism. This piece of information could go a long way in improving this article. In keeping Western sources, we could keep the one's which are honest and delete others.-117.198.52.109 (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Talk pages are for constructive suggestions, not long rambling essays. Yes, early "comparative religion" was based based on the assumption that Christianity was true, but that was hundreds of years ago. Your argument is like attacking modern Western medicine by pointing out that doctors used to believe in four humours. It's no argument at all. You even 'prove' your point by quoting from the German scholar Klaus Klostermaier! Unless you have specific objections to specific sources do not waste our time and talk page space. In short: put up or shut up. You say that Max Mueller never visited India. True. It would have been utterly pointless, since he would have learned nothing about Vedic Sanskrit by doing so, any more than a scholar of Cicero would learn anything useful by visiting modern Rome. It is wholly untrue that "his theories were designed to take into account the biblical narratives of creation of the world". You read this on Hindutvadi websites, but there's not a shred of evidence for it. Indeed Mueller specifically rejected what he called the "biblical school" of exegesis (see his Lectures on the science of language). As for the "Christian missionary", I've still no idea who this is. Most of your previous complaints seem to be about Paul Williams, but I see nothing about any Christian bias in his writings. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What has Medicine got to do with religion? In fact it is religions who have jailed, even killed scientists. In short, western science has nothing to do with Christianity and taking an example of western medicine is absurd.

I am sure you will be fine when material on Christian pages will be taken from comparative authorities. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What I say does not get contradicted simply by calling it TLDR. You have to find some other way to contradict it. Klostermaier is German. So? Are you trying to say that he could not have written what I say he has written simply because he is German, and could have written only in German because of that reason? If you want to contradict him, you have to find some good source saying that the Western literature on Hinduism is not crappy, or something like that. Otherwise, what Klostermaier says should be accepted. I have also shown a source which says that the scholarship of folks is shaped by their religion. If you want to contradict that, find a source that says that this is not so. Your claim that it would have been pointless for Muller to visit India is completely ignorant on your part. Don’t call other people “stupid”. Hinduism and the history of India is not synonymous with “Sanskrit”. He was making research related to Hinduism and the history of India, not just making translations or writing a commentary on some literary works. Historical research does necessitate visiting India and spending considerable time here. His theory of Aryan Invasion is truly designed to accommodate biblical myths. And your contention that I am putting my head into Hindu websites is also false. If you want explication of these points, you have to put up with some TLDR posts. How your claims are false cannot be shown without a bit of a TLDR. If you want the explanation, but no TLDR, you would be making an illogical demand. In that case, you shut up. And I don’t need your permissions to put up comments here. You don’t own Wikipedia. If you like, I can take up points one at a time, as a way of having shorter comments. And I have already explained that my complaint is that the overall sourcing of this article is problematic. I think it is specific enough, how can I make it more specific? Besides some complaints, my above posts also contain some suggestions for improving the article. As long as my posts are related to improvement, it is legitimate material for the talk page. All you can say is that it was long. But calling it misuse of talk page is wrong. And it is peculiar that you could not find the thread which is just above this thread. It is still there. Look closely. It has only two comments, and there is no Paul Williams in there.-117.198.48.239 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I will answer this on your talk page because it has next to nothing to do with the content of this article. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see problems with the overall sourcing of this article. How could it have next to nothing to do with this article? If you want a reply, post your comment here, so that others too can see what we are saying to each other and participate in the conversation. If you don't, I will have to assume that you agree with what I say and treat the issue as "settled".-15:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments about religion and science are bizarre, irrelevant and prove only that you cannot understand an analogy. I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian pages", but material should be taken from accredited scholars, whatever their geographiocal origin. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My comments about "What has medicine got to do with religion" and "western science has nothing to do with western religion" are very apt, and are meant to avoid reinforcing the understanding that "any atheist/non-Hindu sources are as good as Hindu source" with a twisted analogy from your side that "is like attacking modern Western medicine by pointing out that doctors used to believe in four humours", which itself is absurd as western modern medicine has moved on, that the medicine is a science and not religion. Please avoid giving scientific analogies in religious topics.

About claims of 'As for the "Christian missionary", I've still no idea who this is'- could you please care to explain this part?

I am sure a headline like Hindu Given Death for Killing Missionary would look completely secular to you. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply too stupid to talk to in a meaningful way. I realise this is not proper talk page ettiquette, but I cannot help it. My analogy was a response to a point made by the IP. It was in reply to his point about the origins of Comparative Religion ij the west. I made an analogy with the origins of medicine, and example of what is known as a reductio ad absurdam. Look it up. Yes, the headline "Hindu Given Death for Killing Missionary" does indeed look entirely secular. It's a fair description of outcome of the case being reported on. If it was the other way round the headline would be "Missionary Given Death for Killing Hindu". Both are equally clear and neutral. But is it used as a source in this article? No it isn't. So it is not the "Christian missionary" supposedly used as a source here is it? Your answers are just non sequiturs that don't even address the points raised. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is more stupid, giving scientific analogy in religion in Hinduism page, or calling anyone who points that out "stupid".

The other way around for "Hindu Given Death for Killing Missionary" would be "Christian given death for killing Hindu" or something even more absurd, like "Scientist given death for killing a Archeologist" or worse still, "Man given death killed a woman" etc. What looks secular to you looks very absurd to me, but I may be biased. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ganesa as an "example of a story representing the primal Oedipal triangle of a son, father and mother" - this as it was in 1991, in USA, Department of South Asian studies, University of California, Berkeley. Is this also secular since it was part of very legitimate a department of SA studies, or is it that the entire western discourse on Hinduism is completely based on such biased views? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Freudianism is nothing to do with Christianity. It was invented by a jewish atheist. I'm not a fan of Freudian theory, but it's a legitimate scholarly viewpoint. Why do you think it represents 'bias'? It's just a theory. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What about Western scholars who have been initiated into Shaivism by Indian gurus? I am talking of course about Alexis Sanderson, unquestionably the world's most prominent Shaivism expert. Of course he is also a Oxford professor with a PhD etc. Thigle (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Hindus writing on page of Christianity based on comparative Thigle, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but aren't you getting somewhat personal? Kanchanamala (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how Thigle's comment about Alexis Sanderson can be construed as 'personal'. As for mine, I am responding to the arguments and to the misuse of the talk page. Paul B (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is still a tendency to get only western sources for material on Hinduism. It is not too neutral, is it? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources have to be judged on their merits. English Wikipedia prefers sources in English, but they do not have ot be Western. Why do you assume that they are not "neutral"? Paul B (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, "Kuruvachira, Jose (2006), Hindu nationalists of modern India, Rawat Publications" - mentioning this as a source in Hinduism written by a Christian priest (his other work here, looks totally misplaced. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look into my TLDR (i.e. loong comment), there is an external link there, it will show you a Christian scholar saying that his, and everybody else's scholarship is shaped by their religion. And the two of you look like you have lost "it". Better take a break for some time.-117.198.48.239 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC) And Paul B, your behaviour and diplomatic skills leave much to be desired, quit calling other people "stupid" etc.-117.198.48.239 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When attempting a rational discussion with people incapable of coherent argument one does become frustrated. I see that you have not replied to any substantial points. If I wanted to be diplomatic I would not have written what I did. There was no point in being "diplomatic" in that case. So it was not lack of "skill". I am sure we are all shaped by our background, but that is not an argument that has any bearing on Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources, nor does it logically follow that such writers are biassed in a negative way - perspective is not the same as bias. You are obviously familiar with Wikipedia, but are writing as an IP, which is grounds to suspect that you may be a banned user. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Which points are not replied to from his side, could you point those out please?

I wonder why such wild assumptions are made, and why would anyone ban such a user. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are ignoring a number of points which I have made. Even if you don't accept that there is bias, despite the source clearly saying that his scholarship is "absolutely" shaped by his religion, I think you now accept that religion/background can shape the "perspective". OK, I think it is wrong to write this article from a predominantly Christian/Western perspective. Do you have any problem with that? And I am no banned user, and I have a right to remain anonymous. I am not going to out myself simply because of your ... unintelligent allegations. Quit making baseless allegations, stop wasting other people's time with things like that and concentrate on the meaningful issues.-117.198.57.219 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No one has ever disputed that everyone is influenced by their background, so this is just a truism. We can't be clear how people are influenced by it though. Perhaps they react against it; perhaps they are biassed by it; perhaps they try even harder to be unprejudiced. Perhaps they can see things from their perspective that someone from a different background would not be able to see. We can speculate for ever. What we can't do is make sweeping judgements about people based on nationality or religious background. And we caertainly can't assume that someone from a Hindu background is unprejudiced. They are just as likely to be prejudiced for or against various theories as anyone else. All we can do is judge people by their qualifications according to WP:RS. If a Hindu writes a book about Christianity published by an academic press it can be used on a relevant article about Christianity. And vice versa. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That everyone is influenced by their background is not a simple truism. It is generally hard to get people around to accepting this much. I make no claim that Hindu's would be any less influenced by their background than any other person of any religion. Actually, I have already stressed this point in my TLDR. It is wrong to say that we can't make sweeping judgements about folks based on their nationality/religion etc. For example, if we are going to write about the Arab-Israeli conflict, we could not source the article mostly from one side and claim that all our sources are WP:RS, so there is no problem. If we are going to write the article properly, we have to be careful that we do not get an imbalance like that. Similarly, I do not dispute that a Christian can be a source for this article or a Hindu being a source for articles related to Christianity. But writing an article on Hinduism which is predominantly sourced from Westerners/Christians gives an undue Western/Christian perspective to this article. Similarly, it would be wrong to source a Christianity related article overwhelmingly from atheist/jewish/agnostic/ex-christian sources. The article would have an anti Christian perspective and would have little credibility. We can make a judgement like that. Do you now see what I am saying?-117.198.54.220 (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point about the Arab-Israeli issue illustrates the weakness of your argument. There are Jewish scholars who are wholly opposed to Israel. We cannot balance arguments based on ethnicity, only on POV. The background of the person is not what we judge. But we do judge a point of view in relation to others. The problem with your argument is that you are conflating POV with backround, including merging "Christian" with "Western". Instead of complaining about bias demonstrate what the bias ison the basis of the range of scholarly POVs, not on the basis of geography. Paul B (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That there are a few Jewish scholars who are anti Israeli does not weaken my argument in any way. Exceptions are always there. But it still does not mean that we can source the article mostly from Jewish sources. Can we? My argument is simple and one should be able to see it by using common sense. And there is also Klostermaier, how do you deal the fact that we have a source saying that western sources distort reality and do not fit in the expected context?-117.198.54.220 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If all notable points of view were footnoted to scholars who happened to be Jewish there would be no problem with that, according to WP:NPOV. Klostermaier's opinion is only relevant to the extent that it is notable. The fact that he says something does not make it fact, and indeed we are in the territory of the Liar paradox. If what he says is true, it must be false - since he is himself a western source and therefore must be distorting reality. As a matter of fact Klostermaier has become a rather marginal figure in contemporary scholarship. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If all notable points of view were footnoted to scholars who happened to be Jewish there would be no problem with that, according to WP:NPOV.I had thought that you would have known better. If all the sources in an article on Arab-Israeli conflict happen to be Jewish, the NPOV would look like a big joke. My argument stands. And it is easy to see that Klostermaier is not at all into the Liar Paradox territory. He is a Westerner, and is making critical comments on Western scholarship. What he is saying is that most of Western scholarship is crappy, nowhere does he say that his own scholarship is also crappy. And there is no contradiction, he is well placed to know Western scholarship. A further nuance which rules out any paradox is that he does not regard all Western scholarship as crappy. He leaves out some from his criticism, and one can easily infer that he is not criticizing himself. As a matter of fact Klostermaier has become a rather marginal figure in contemporary scholarship. If you are going to say something like that, and also call it a "fact" too, prove it. Otherwise, withdraw your remark. Proving a "fact" should not be hard.-117.198.50.30 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul B, I am still waiting for a response. The Klostermaier statement and my argument using the Arab-Israeli conflict article analogy stand unless you can make them fall. If you can't substantiate your claim about Klostermaier, please withdraw it.--MangoWong (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

because it happens all the time. No "Christian missionary" was ever used as a source as far as I can see. A scholarly book about his experiences was used. That's a completely different thing. 'Thisandthat' also deleted undisputed facts in his edit [4] Paul B (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Undisputed facts from ["Kristapurāṇa of Thomas Stephens"], an "an epic poem on the life of Jesus Christ" by Thomas Stephens, a missionary. This also on Hinduism page- now this discussion is going out of limits of discussion into realms of humor. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a study of him. Hence the subtitle: "a study of inculturation in the Kristapurāṇa of Thomas Stephens". The book is a scholarly study of Stephens' encounter with Hinduism. The undisputed facts were those in the later passage you deleted in the same edit, which had nothing whatever to do with with Stephens. This is indeed a joke. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How is "Kristapurāṇa" a reliable source?

How is Nelson M. Falcao and his books list here reliable sources on Hinduism? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Kristapurāṇa" is not and never was used as a source. I cannot comment on Falcao, who may or may not be sufficiently good a scholar to be worth using, but that's a completely different issue. And as I say, you deleted material that had nothing to do with Stephens. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this an issue mentioned here since what was deleted was not from a reliable source? How is bartleby.com a reliable source? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bartleby is not a source. It is a link to sources. Paul B (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What sources and how would the sources be reliable? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What is there to show that Fr. Nelson Falcao is not a missionary?-117.198.54.220 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea whether he is or not. It's irrelevant. If there is a Muslim or Hindu or Jewish believer who is also an accredited scholar, that's all that matters. We don't disqualify sources because of their beliefs. Paul B (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how an author of the book "a study of inculturation in the Kristapurāṇa of Thomas Stephens" an authority on Hinduism. Please explain. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He may or may not be. It depends what the relevant claim is in context. What we need to do is to be concerned with is accuracy of content. Some sources may be valid for some content but not for others - but witch-hunting on the basis of suppositions about the author just creates a negative and "conspiratorial" atmosphere. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How is this "What sources and how would the sources be reliable" witch hunting? How does one decide accuracy of the content of the said author? How is it valid for some content only? How does this form any 'negative' or 'conspiratorial' atmosphere? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Incessant questions like this get us nowhere. I can't answer all these questions without explaining policy in pages and pages. Study WP:RS and WP:V. The validity of sources always relates to specific content. The conspiratorial atmosphere is created by labeling people in ways that imply they are undermining Hinduism. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Kanchanmala. Earlier on, you said that you have come across some Western scholars who give an honest assessment of Hinduism. Could you please show me the names of those scholars? I think it could be a great help to know those scholars.-117.198.48.239 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I shall not get personal. The point I tried to make is let us be fair and have an open mind when we come across writers on Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I had put up this same request in an above comment and imagined that you might have missed it because this thread was long. I now realize that it was wrong on my part to repeat the request. Please pardon me for my mistake. It is perhaps better that I should do my own research on this field so that I may have a closer familiarity with a larger number of sources. I am sure you have good reasons for not answering my question. Letting me know that there are some Western sources who give an honest account of Hinduism is also a great help.-117.198.53.173 (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to quote what 117.198.53.173 said halfway through this arguement: "Christianity is an evangelical religion and is foundationally bound to assume that it only is right, all other religions are inferior and wrong, and thus, Christians are bound to see other religions in a derogatory way, particularly religions which are thought to be polytheistic, or performing worship of various types of statue imageries. Simply having religious icons in temples and worshipping them is somehow an unpardonable ….“evil” to the Christian mind." This is a fairly biased comment against Christianity, forgive me but the above quote is unfounded in my opinion. Also, Hinduism is generally believed by Hindus and many others to be monotheistic, and a general belief is that Hindus do not worship idols or statues, they worship God, but only through these idols - they are to present God in a form that Hindus can relate to. Being a Hindu myself, I think if Christians are so untolerant as is your view, you are displaying yourself to be untolerant of Christians by posting that rant. So, in other words, if Christians were really that untolerant, you would be 'sinking down to their level'. And Christians, in my view, are generally not so untolerant of other religions, even if their history suggests to you that they might be, and this is an unfounded accusation to make. GoldRock23 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Having said all that, I find Paul B's method of argueing to be very unreasonable and insulting, and I would like to congratulate 117.etc. on how he has responded to these blatant insults. Well done. GoldRock23 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

hinduism

Hindu's do not call their faith hinduism does anyone no what they call it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.104.29 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course we call it Hinduism. Sanātana Dharma is a modern political term. My grandparents never used the term Sanātana Dharma and would not have known what that meant. Even my parents don't know what Sanātana Dharma is. Thigle (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hindus do call their faith in English as Hinduism. In their own languages Hindus use the name of their traditions [sampradāya]. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan preferred to use the word Indian. Sanātana Dharma, a modern coinage, is used by a small group of Hindus of North India. Kanchanamala (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hindus didn't call their faith anything at all until the 19th century, when English scholars (and German to an extent) described it and gave it a name. Muslims prior to that lumped everyone in India together - they didn't distinguish between what we now call Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. The Indians themselves called all these religions by the same name - ""dharma". Why doesn't anyone use some decent books for this article? PiCo (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is correct that before the 19th century, Hindus used to call their religion "Dharma" only. This situation came into being because being the oldest religion, there was a time when there was no need to distinguish it from any other religion. However, this word has now become a generic term in Hindi and numerous other languages. And the name "Hinduism" was not invented by any German or Brit. It was first coined by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who was a Hindu and an Indian. Raja Ram Mohan Roy had used the spelling "Hindooism", someone else tweaked the spelling only by taking away two "o"s and inserting only one "u" in its place.-117.198.50.238 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The standard view is that Charles Grant coined the term Hindooism in 1787, well before Roy. The spelling "Hindoo" rather than "Hindu" was normal in English during the 18th century, slowly replaced by the now standard "u" spelling during the 19th century. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't dispute the details. But I do think it's important for the article that it makes clear that "Hinduism" as a concept is very recent. Whatever RMR's role, the 19th century scholars began with a concept, "religion", and then went looking for examples to fill it with. Everyone had to have a religion, because the intellectual framework required it. It's not an exaggeration to say that they created Hinduism, fitting it into the mental straightjacket required by the concepts of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In fact the religions of China and India didn't fit that model at all, and later scholarship has gradually come to recognise this fact. But as I said above, some solid academic sources are needed. PiCo (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? I'd like to take the lead, which isn't bad really, and just go through it trying to improve it. As I said, it's not bad already, but I think it can be improved. PiCo (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Their is no word in Sanskrit or any Indian language for the English word religion. It certainly ain't dharma. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is English wiki and we have to work in English. But what do you think of my suggestion that we do a drive to improve the lead and make it a little essay on Hinduism? PiCo (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The 19th century scholars had invented Hinduism only as much as the person who invented coined the term "Himalayan ranges" had invented the Himalayas. Only the word "Hinduism" is recent, and that is already clear in the article.-117.198.53.35 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're an unwitting slave of Western thought-categories.

• Hinduism is the predominant and indigenous religious tradition of the Indian Subcontinent. Yes it's predominant and indigenous, but the very concept of a "religious tradition" is European.
• Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma No it's not - this phrase is never heard outside very limited circles.
• "[Sanātana Dharma] [is] (a Sanskrit phrase meaning "the eternal law", "the eternal law that sustains/upholds/surely preserves" No it's not - "law" in connection with religion is a Jewish and Islamic concept, not a Christian one (there's no Christian "law") and certainly not an Indian one (there's no law-code comparable to the Torah or the Hadith).
• by its adherents. Wanna bet? Find me a Telugu fisherman who's ever heard of it.
• Generic "types" of Hinduism that attempt to accommodate a variety of complex views span folk and Vedic Hinduism to bhakti tradition, as in Vaishnavism. And a great deal more. Here you're being a slave of 19thj century European preoccupation with "high" religion.
• Among other practices and philosophies, Hinduism also birthed.. Birthed? Not good English. You mean "gave birth to."
• the original school of Yoga (cf. Patanjali and Patanjali's Yoga)(and sundry derivative yogic traditions) Very true, and quite trivial.
• while it also includes a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "daily morality" Rubbish. There are no "laws" in Hinduism as there are in Islam. You're trying to accommodate Hinduism to Islamic ideals. Pakis win!
• based on the notion of karma, dharma, Yes, these are important concepts in the "high" religion - but you show no awareness that there's any such thing as a "high" religion.
• and societal norms such as Hindu marriage customs. That's it? A bit thin don't you think? PiCo (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For Brahma's sake, find yourself a decent book. And find out where your thinking is dependent on European and Islamic models. PiCo (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What are suggestions from your side for the substance pointed out, could you clarify more please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I was a little annoyed by the anonymous IP who said that Hinduism has always existed, just like the Himalayas. This is not true: "The Himalayas" were indeed invented, as was "America", and everything else in our world. That's because we are humans, a thinking animal (my dog is not a thinking animal and is not aware that I exist - he knows the food I set before him, the walks I take him on, but he lacks the mental tools to know me beyond that). This might sound weird, but it's normal in philosophical thought, and even in Hinduism, which has a marvelous and rich tradition of philosophy.

So, Hinduism has not always existed. Neither has Christianity. Even today, Christianity doesn't quite exist. Are Mormons Christians? They say they are, but most Americans say they're not. Are snake-handling Southern Baptists who believe in the rapture and speaking in tongues Christians? They say yes, but the Vatican says they're nut cases. Does America exist, as a concrete body of knowledge separate from our thoughts? You might say it does, since you can stand on it and get a passport from it - but is Mexico (a country) the same as America (a continent)? And if it is, then does that mean Mexico is the same as Canada? They're both America, after all.

So to your question, suggestions for substantive review. I simply suggest taking one sentence at a time from the lead, starting with the first, and subjecting it to a simple question: what's the source? Is the source reliable? Does it adequately reflect that source?

I'll try to behave myself in future, too. PiCo (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The challenge really is that Hinduism is not a "faith", it's a "way of life". As noted, it's the Europeans who insisted on pigeonholing things that call it a religion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity was also a way of life, once, long ago. Then, thanks to religious wars and the rise of rationalism, "faith" came to define religion - one was what one believed, not what one did. No other religion has suffered this transition - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, all rely more on being than believing. Although of course you could make a very good case that peasant societies in, say, Sicily or the Greek mountains are still very much communities where faith hasn't been divorced from the rest of life. Anyway, your observation is very true and very apt, and we should keep it in mind. (Incidentally, I've lived lost of my life in Muslim and Buddhist countries where religion doesn't figure as a separate category - despite the concept of "din", which translates very well as religion, my Moroccan and other friends don't separate any area of their lives off as "not 'din'")PiCo (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pico. I guess I am destined to keep explaining from time to time that I am no more anonymous than anyone else in this room. I agree with your assertion that interpreting Hinduism as law makes little sense. At least not in the way like Judaism and Islam. I had often wondered how this “law” thing comes from into Hinduism and thanks to you, I now know. Since I am addicted to Western books, I think your assertion that I am a slave to Western thought categories may have some substance. But maybe not. Let’s see. You seem to be saying that Hinduism is not a religion because it is a “way of life”. If that be so, how do you explain the existence of places of worship where people go to pray and to communicate with their Gods. How do you explain even the concept of God in Hinduism. Then what about the vast body of sacred texts, the theology and dogma. Then there are a billion Hindus who all are sure that they have a religion. Who are we to say that they don’t? Indeed, you seem to be saying that the Indian religions and the Chinese “religions” are “not religions” in the Western sense of the term. If that be so, then how could it be that the Western religions would be religions in the Eastern senses of the term. And why should we look at things from a Western perspective only. Why not look from an Eastern perspective and say that it is the Western religions which are “not religion”? Kanchanamala above says that “Religion” is not “Dharma”. If that be the case, how does one explain the fact the all the Eastern religions use the suffix “Dharma” after them in native languages, e.g. Jain Dharma, Sikh Dharma , Boudh Dharma (Buddhism), etc. Indeed, even the Western religions describe themselves as Christian Dharma, Yuhadi Dharma (Judaism) etc. If Dharma is not religion, all of these would also become “not religion” in native languages. I think your understanding that Hinduism not a religion is brought on by looking too closely at some aspects of Hinduism, while neglecting others. You are missing the big picture. For example, you say that Christianity too was a way of life once. I agree. But during that time, do you think it was “not religion”. I think it was. After that, it lost some part of it and simply became a theology mostly. But the theology was all there even when it was a way of life. At that time, it was something more than a religion. One should look at Hinduism in the same way. Hinduism is more than a religion. It’s a way of life. So are so many other Eastern religions. It makes no sense to say that there is no such thing as faith in any of these religions.-117.198.60.57 (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, if you have sources, please go ahead and make changes. Thigle (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is unfair on nineteenth century writers who were perfectly well aware that there were a multitude of Indian traditions and practices. Muller and Monier-Williams both say that. But they also wanted to define what was common and distinctive to the network of ideas, practices and traditions, so it was necessary to create meaningful overall labels: including the big overarching one "Hinduism". Some authors preferred to use "Brahmanism", which has a different significance. But they were well away of distinctions between Saivites and Vaishnavites, for example, and of the difficulty of defining whether some specific local practices could be said to be part of "Hinduism" or not. There is also the sheer administraticve process of defining a modern state with specific rights etc in which codifying religious labels become significant. Part of the problem here is that it is in the ideological interests of some modern Hindus to promote the idea that it is a unitary ancient and continuous belief system. Paul B (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong if someone does not wants to give up his heritage? As for "Hinduism", I have already explained that the word was coined by a Hindu, not anybody else. Plus, religions keep changing with time. For example, the Christianity before the "Great Schism" was not the same after it. Does that mean it was not Christianity.-117.198.60.57 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained that the word wasn't coined by a Hindu. Of course religions keep changing, but there are also times when we can say a religion is no longer "the same" one. Christianity started as form of Judaism. It's highly arguable whether Buddha or Nanak thought they were starting a "new religion", or even if that concept would have been meaningful to them. But we speak of their traditions as separate religions. This is not a straightforward matter. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"it is in the ideological interests of some modern Hindus to promote the idea that it is a unitary ancient and continuous belief system." -- could this be explained in a more detailed manner please? Is this a special standard for this page to keep on passing remarks or is this common to other Wikipedia pages too?! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea what "keep on passing remarks" is supposed to mean, nor why you expect me to repeatedly explain to you every thing I say. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If Paul B would not allow any requests for explanations of what he is saying, please let me say what I think he is saying. It seems that he is saying that some Christians who have an interest in making mischievous claims are facing problems from some modern Hindus.--MangoWong (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No I am not. I am sayuing that there is a particular strand in modern Hinduism that wishes to ennphasise a unity and eternity to a sinngle coherent "Hindu religion" and that they have ideological reasons for doing so. Since is what I clearly said, I don't see why you have to invent some statement that is totally different and wholly spurious. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it not an ancient belief system? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

""

I'm afraid you're an unwitting slave of Western thought-categories.

• Hinduism is the predominant and indigenous religious tradition of the Indian Subcontinent. Yes it's predominant and indigenous, but the very concept of a "religious tradition" is European.
• Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma No it's not - this phrase is never heard outside very limited circles.
• "[Sanātana Dharma] [is] (a Sanskrit phrase meaning "the eternal law", "the eternal law that sustains/upholds/surely preserves" No it's not - "law" in connection with religion is a Jewish and Islamic concept, not a Christian one (there's no Christian "law") and certainly not an Indian one (there's no law-code comparable to the Torah or the Hadith).
• by its adherents. Wanna bet? Find me a Telugu fisherman who's ever heard of it.
• Generic "types" of Hinduism that attempt to accommodate a variety of complex views span folk and Vedic Hinduism to bhakti tradition, as in Vaishnavism. And a great deal more. Here you're being a slave of 19thj century European preoccupation with "high" religion.
• Among other practices and philosophies, Hinduism also birthed.. Birthed? Not good English. You mean "gave birth to."
• the original school of Yoga (cf. Patanjali and Patanjali's Yoga)(and sundry derivative yogic traditions) Very true, and quite trivial.
• while it also includes a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "daily morality" Rubbish. There are no "laws" in Hinduism as there are in Islam. You're trying to accommodate Hinduism to Islamic ideals. Pakis win!
• based on the notion of karma, dharma, Yes, these are important concepts in the "high" religion - but you show no awareness that there's any such thing as a "high" religion.
• and societal norms such as Hindu marriage customs. That's it? A bit thin don't you think? PiCo (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"" Just quoting the above - religious tradition was probably meant as to mean 'a way of life' and so in my opinion is fine. Hinduism is commonly referred to as Sanatana Dharma - read the book Explaining Hindu Dharma by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (UK) so I don't understand your point there. I understand there is no 'law' in Hinduism, but you have misinterpreted the meaning of Sanatana Dharma - it means 'eternal laws of nature' not of Hinduism! Read the book I said about before - it is written by a professor in Hinduim. And I could easily find a Telegu fisherman who's heard of Sanatana Dharma. And this 'high' religion has nothing to do with Vaishnavism! This is merely a sect of Hindus that have diverse concepts, has Hinduism allows! I agree with the 'birthed' thing, though. This trivial info on Yoga - could you give us sources as to how it is trivial? Also, it says laws of daily morality, and though morals can be are a typr of law in a way, not all laws have to be followed! Karma and Dharma are very important - see the boof aforementioned. And the marriage comment. Thin in what way??? Please answer my questions - only then will I be satisfied with your arguement! GoldRock23 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Between 400 BCE and 1000 CE Hinduism expanded at the expense of Buddhism."

Hi,

Why this POV pushing is done in the History section? The decline of Buddhism is majorly because of foreign invaders 700 AD onwards. The sentence looks like blaming Hindus without bothering about details. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

wrong buddhism had to a great degree vanished from india much before islamic invaders came.there are many many sources to prove this point.every buddhist is aware of it.Arishen05 (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

During Golden age of India i.e. Gupta Empire, Buddhism progressed as Hinduism, which is known by every Buddhist too. You seem to ignore that Buddhism flourished on Western borders of India too, including current-day Pakistan and Afghanistan. Your assertions are not correct at all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

... and there's nothing at all in that phrase that implicates/blames Hindus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement implicitly blames Hinduism as if progress in Hinduism was at the cost of Buddhism. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no ... not in English grammar at least. Given a set population, changes to any demographic data is a zero-sum situation; if one gains, the other(s) must therefore lose. In the UK, the Anglican Church gained at the expense of Roman Catholicism ... the oceans are rising at the expense of glacier fields ... this is not a "blame", it's a common description. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It has some perception value - a comment above from Arishen05 demonstrates it too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Buddha was a Hindu prince. He was interested in the traditions he was born into. Buddhism did not flourish in India. But foreigners have nothing to do with it. The pre-Buddha traditions naturally prevailed. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindu is a modern word currently used to refer to an ancient people. As for the article on Buddha, feel free to emend it. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ancient people"? :) ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 ; As you might have realized by this time, wikipedia is higly biased against Hindus mostly because it is edited by mostly non-Hindu editors. These guys are teaching us what is Hinduism. The situation is ridiculous. In this article, I read that Hinduism has never converts in large numbers. They forgot to mention Indo-China, Central Asia and other places where Hindu kingdoms and people once thrived. Sad to see the situation. No wonder Mumbai was attacked again on 13th July. I felt nothing when I heard the news. Sadly I have become accustomed to it.Varanwal (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please go through all the conversion discussion that is to be found in Hinduism topic discussion archives. There is plenty of discussion regarding south-east asia and Hinduism in the context of conversion. After that if you are still not convinced come back and we will discuss conversion and south-east asia more. Best Regards Desione (talk)

I concur absolutely. You don't find the Christianity section talking about how the idea of Jesus as the light of the world came from the earlier Roman Mithraic religion, this is left to a section in the Mithras article. You don't find the article on Islam saying that the crescent and stars symbol was adopted from followers of the polytheistic beliefs of Tengriism, this is left to the Crescent#In the Islamic World article. On the other hand the Hinduism article is fair game for people of other faiths to put in what they want, and because there are many published sources Christians dedicated to eradicating Hinduism they can always back it up with a "reputed article". Any works by Hindu scholars are seen as secondary or biased compared to the Christian Western scholars and rejected. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment above was in a rather humerus tone, not serious at all. The editor Kanchanamala is, according to me, amongst the most balanced, well-recognized and knowledgeable editor on the topic is my view.

About Varanwal's comments, it will be worthy to consider the points raised i.e. "forgot to mention Indo-China, Central Asia and other places where Hindu kingdoms and people once thrived", etc. and find out info on it and properly placed.

About yesterday's bomb blasts, I actually heard one of the blasts from a kilometer away. In short, it sounded like an actual single thunder coming in a very directed fashion(i.e. from some direction, unlike an actual thunder which comes from the clouds) from that far. The only reason I am mentioning it is for knowledge. What happened immediately thereafter etc I understood more from the TV. It is in short very alarming, to put it that way, when you hear a blast and should put your best foot forward is what I can say. It is not for everyone to be afraid of, and all I can say is that what goes around, comes around. There are hardly any moderates remaining in Kashmir, other than political parties - is all I can point to as something to notice.

I understand Q Chris's comments, and myself only understand that these are apparently from 'reliable sources' on Hinduism, but it is enforced by admins in such a fashion.

What I would suggest is that we need more secondary sources, and more people to contribute as a first step. There are many editors here for correction/better understanding.

I also would like to say that if there is systematic bias, one should not blame anyone and indulge into wikibans. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It was Western scholarship that rediscovered the most important things about Indian history such as Ashoka or the Indus Valley Civilization. Indian scholars such as Dr. Upinder Singh cite mostly Western scholars in her works. If Indian scholars cite Western sources, who are you to say otherwise? By the way none of you know jack shit about Buddhism in India. Buddha was not a Hindu prince. Hinduism did not even exist when Buddha was alive. The majority of the population was Buddhist at one point and only later converted to Hinduism. The most important Indian empires were Buddhist. Why don't you all read Dr. Ronald Davidson's "Indian Esoteric Buddhism" before you embarrass yourselves further? What we call "Tibetan Buddhism" is the main surviving branch of Vajrayana which was practiced in India for hundreds of years all over in India. Have any of you heard of Nalanda? The Muslim Invasions annihilated Buddhism and much of true Hinduism in the North. Thats why even Western scholars such as Gavin Flood acknowledge that true Hinduism is practiced only in the South and parts of Nepal. Thigle (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this some POV? Where it is written than Buddha was not a Hindu/Dharmic prince? Where is it written that (Hindu)Dharmic practices were absent then? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism is a modern term used to refer to the ancient Vedic traditions. "Rejection of the authority of the Veda and the denouncement of the Brāhmaņa priests ... helped the downfall of the Chārvākas. ... Jainas and the Buddhists also have been equally contemptuous towards them." Professor Chandradhar Sharma, D.Phil., D.Litt., Sāhityaratna, Shāstri, Department of Philosophy, Banaras Hindu University, Indian Philosophy, Nand Kishore & Bros., Banaras, 1952, pp. 49. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@view "By the way none of you know jack shit about Buddhism in India." that does not mean anyone can feign knowledge and give random statements that "The majority of the population was Buddhist at one point and only later converted to Hinduism. The most important Indian empires were Buddhist." Who is giving wild statements here now and from which western sources? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)