Talk:Hinduism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Varnas and Jatis in Hinduism

Hi,

Suggestions and comments welcome at the following discussion [here] please. Thank you. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Greatness of Hinduism' : Famous quotes on Hinduism & Vedas

Why does this section exist. This is clearly a violation of Neutral POV. Articles must be written with neutral point of view, but not with a purpose to glorify. Desione (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a delete on the basis of "copyright violation", which it clearly is not. However I do think it is irrelevant to the article. I am not sure about NPOV, they are quotes from famous people so if there it would be more WP:UNDUE. I will delete it on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and irrelevance and if anyone reinstates it take it up here on the talk page. I see you have already deleted it, I don't object. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Caste = Religion

In globalization, Caste = Religion and there is NO Hinduism. 4thaugust1932 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom, this is not a discussion forum, we do not take original research, so you need to [WP:CITE|cite]] a reliable source for such a statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Margarine

In Indian Cookery (1969), E.P. Veerasawmy states "The ordinary fats that are used in Western countries, such as dripping, suet, margarine, etc., are quite out of the question amongst the Hindus, and seldom used by the Mohammedan."

I understand the first two, but why margarine? The Margarine article seems to indicate that its composition has changed since those days, so is this still the case? Should something about this go in the Food section? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Arinjatt

I have a feeling that this user does not understand how to use Wikipedia, and he does not respond on his talk page as he probably doesn't know it exists! I think that he will continue to revert Ian.thomson's edits. I propose we attempt to get the message through to him in some way (maybe by creating a user page for him with an explanation of how to behave on Wikipedia) or, as I think we could get nowhere at the moment with him, report him on the edit-warring noticeboard or somewhere similar. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For me to believe that he is unaware of what he is doing would require me to assume a complete inability to contribute in any meaningful way to the project. I'm not aware of any way to not be notified of new messages, and anyone who knows how to edit articles knows how to use talk pages. "I didn't hear that" is a sign of a disruptive editor, and incompetence is not an excuse for continual problems. I'm inclined to continue reverting bad edits and giving warnings, and then reporting him, but if anyone else has time to reach through to him, it's their time. It is only because of WP:AGF that I haven't reported him yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who knows how to edit articles knows how to use talk pages," is a generally true statement, but is not always the case. I said this because he does not respond on his talk page and he, as far as I know, has never directly said anything to another user. It is possible that he knows only how to edit articles, and not about the talk pages. I understand your points, but it does actually seem that he is unaware of what he is doing (see his contributions). If we can't get through to him, then I suggest that the best course of action is to report him - he might notice a temporary ban... Ther's no point prolonging this revertion of edits anymore - he's had enough warnings. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Arinjatt's been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. He has shown he knows how to use edit summaries, which makes me less able to assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK then. Tell me if he starts editing this article again. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism of Hinduism": Treat Hinduism the same as other religions

Again we have a Christian poster who thinks that Hinduism is fair game for unequal treatment. This poster calls removing the category "Criticism of Hinduism" censorship. Come back when you have added "Criticism of Christianity" to the Christianity article and "Criticism of Islam" to the Islam article. If and only if they and other religion articles have such category links would I consider it reasonable to have it here. -- Q Chris (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh... no, look at Arinjatt's other edits (or the ANI report filed about him), and see this. Christianity and Islam link to their respective sections, and if they did not, I would put the link in not only to prove you wrong but to restore balance. Don't assume that just because someone is a Christian that they're bigoted, that's just narrow-minded. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The link was added to the Islam article nearly a month ago with an edit summary saying that it already existed at the Christianity and Judaism pages [1]. You really ought to check before making unfounded assertions. Also, why do you assume that "a Christian poster" is responsible? Hindus can and do criticise Hinduism, as do Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and many others. Paul B (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point Q Chris is trying to make is that Hinduism is over-criticized compared to other religions on Wikipedia. Maybe it's because it allows freedom of belief, but Q Chris is saying "Why target Hinduism? You don't see as much of this as at the Christianity articles, for example". At least half of the posts on articles like Hinduism and Hindu deities (one of my main articles that I contribute to) are about the beliefs and views of Hinduism, and often the debates can get quite heated. Q Chris is just fed up, like I am, of so many people posting and arguing wrongly about Hinduism without having researched it first. Half of the sources on the web give views that are not the main view of Hinduism, a result of this being the aforementioned action, so it is unfair to call that action censorship without checking the reasons behind it e.g. the user may have believed, and possibly rightly, that the section "Criticism of Hinduism" was unfairly biased against Hinduism and that it's opening paragraph may need to more clearly state that some of the views in the section are not main views (a problem I have encountered many times in Hinduism-related articles). Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not the point that Q Chris was making. He was making a wholly false assertion of fact and that is all. Frankly, I see no evidence that Hinduism is "over criticised" in comparison with other religions at all. Not only are there articles criticising Christianity in general there are even separate articles criticising Catholicism, criticising Mormonism (Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Mormon sacred texts) and other specific branches of Christianity, along with Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of the Bible itself, Criticism of Christian doctrine and the role of Christianity in history (Christianity and slavery, Christianity and colonialism, Christian terrorism) There are several articles critical of aspects of Islam (Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism, Persecution of Shia Muslims, Wahhabi#Criticism_and_controversy) and of the life Mohammad (Criticism of Muhammad, Muhammad's views on slavery).
There is nothing remotely comparable by way of criticism of Hinduism in Wikipedia. What I see here are a lot of incohate expressions of outrage about "unfair" treatment with almost no content to them. Why Hindus feel so hard-done-by is something of a mystery to me. Maybe it is because internecine disputes between different sects do not occur as they do in Christianity and Islam, so Hindus feel perescuted by almost any criticism from other faiths. All I can say is that I see no substance to the complaint that Hinduism is over criticised. Even your comment here is based, not on actually looking at the article, but on pure assumption. There was no "section" being disputed, but a link to another article which is in a series of "Criticisms of religion X", and which include all the main religions equally. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the point I was making, but in this case I was wrong and I apologise. I posted quickly before going to work, and thought that I searched for "criticism" in both the Islam and Christianity articles. I probably mistyped it when I put it in the search box, but anyway as it is in both other articles I am happy for it to be here too. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a Hindu, and I think any criticism of Hinduism should be welcomed. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fact correction

The richest temple as mentioned in a picture is no longer Tirupati, but Ananthapadmanabhaswamy temple of Thiruvananthapuram. Vivekmv (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide citation. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.sreepadmanabhaswamytemple.com/richest-temple-in-india-sree-padmanabhaswamy-temple-trivandrum.html Écrivain (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided is not a WP:RS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why though, its the official site of the temple :S, anyway this will do? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/kerala-temple-treasure-found Écrivain (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an acceptable reference. The suggested emendation deserves consideration. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Sources and Footnotes

I recently noticed a few things have "Unreliable Source" written next to it, plus i wanted to add a few sources that are not listed. help? --Lee522 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I'm pretty sure my religion is Hindu not Hinduism, i don't call other religions like Christians and say who is Christianism god!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthkdesai (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation problem in "oldest surviving religion in the world"

Citation 14 by G. Laderman needs to be fixed. Please remove "in the world." written before the author's name. Also, the Judaism is making an uncited claim that it is the oldest surviving religion in the world. The editors there are pretty adamant about this issue. They are claiming that nobody disagrees with this on the talk page and hence it must be true. Is voting the current norm on WP?--70.64.86.187 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Error in citation 14 has been corrected. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The claim by Judaism is quite wrong, the citation they provided is quite okay, but the source clearly states it deals with religions in the Middle East alone and not the world. I'm heading over to their talkpage now. Écrivain (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction - I just noticed, their claim to be the oldest religion, is actually the claim to be the oldest monotheitic religion, except that its not worded so. I shall ask them the same. Écrivain (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes made.

I made some changes to the article since some sources did not say what was claimed. Moreover some tantric Shivas do not accept the authority of the Vedas. This is mentioned in the "Tantric Body" by Flood and also on the Shaivism wikipedia page. Snowcream reversed my changes saying "Ronald Inden's notes are not universally accepted." This is blatantly false. It is hard to find an encyclopedic treatment of Hinduism that does *not* cite Inden. Moreover as Snowcream was the editor that pushed the fringe theories of Buddha's birthplace saying "Wikipedia articulates all significant perspectives," I find this the height of hypocrisy. CO2Northeast (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, thank you for acknowledging this material is valuable. It talks specfically about Hindu gods replacing Buddha, and Buddha becoming an avatar of Vishnu. I will minimize the material and compromise as show of good faith. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. Thank you. CO2Northeast (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that it's important to make that point about Tantric/Dravidian traditions, which raises the wider point about what consitutes "Hinduism" , and, yes, I think the idea that Buddhism can be absorbed is important. It might be worth emphasising the argument that the essential difference is institutional: Buddhism being defined by the institution of the sangha rather than Brahminism. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was Flood who said somewhere that the Kaula tantras, which reject the Vedas entirely, can still be considered Hindu, since they follow a Hindu God Shiva. CO2Northeast (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sanātana Dharma

In the archives there seems to be vehement opposition to the use of "Sanātana Dharma" by multiple people. One source merely says that Sanātana Dharma is a frequently used expression **in** Hinduism, and says nothing about calling Hinduism Sanātana Dharma. The other texts are nationalist political texts. Since this is a modern political term that would be unfamiliar to most Hindus, why is it in the first line of this article?Ecragnol (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What you say is true. Moreover I found sources that explicitly say that this is a nationalistic term, for example here. CO2Northeast (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion by Q Chris

As stated above, the sources do not support what is in the lead. For example "A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals" merely states that sanatana dharma is a frequently used expression within Hinduism. Yet the sentence uses other phrases from this source to imply the source calls Hinduism sanatana dharma. CO2Northeast (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Some Hindus in North India, and not too long ago, came up with the description sanātana dharma to differentiate the age-old practices of Hinduism from the then newly founded school of Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda Saraswati. sanātana dharma is not widely used in India even today. Kanchanamala (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Thank you. CO2Northeast (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Influence of native Dravidian/Tamil religions

Please include the influence of ancient Tamil religion in this article as a lot of important deities that is worshipped in hinduism today such as Shiva,Durga,Indra,Muruga and etc were initially worshipped by the tamils/Dravidians even before the start of vedic civilisation.Shiva statue(in the conceptof Trimurti)which is found in the ruins of indus valley civilisation were the proof of this statement.Even in Tamil Nadu,statues of these deities found in the oldest form before the arrival of vedic hinduism in Tamil Nadu.Later all these deities were absorbed by the sanskrit rituals,which introduces new philosopy based on these deities thus destroying the original concept/philosophy that is followed by the Dravidians.It is also noted that Vedic Hinduism enters Tamil Nadu only in 5th century,where there is a lot of native religion text were written in Tamil before the arrival of Vedic Hinduism in the Tamil country.--Tan Meifen (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you please provide some citations for the statements you have made. It would help. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious Sentence

"Followers of the Bhakti movement moved away from the abstract concept of Brahman, which the philosopher Adi Shankara consolidated a few centuries before, with emotional, passionate devotion towards the more accessible Avatars, especially Krishna and Rama.[42]" Does anyone have the material in relation to Adi Shankara? SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The citation suggests that the observation is made in a published work. How can one object to it even though it is unacceptable to you and me? Kanchanamala (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The agnosticism claim

I think that this is based on this Vivekenanda quote from the reference "Hinduism a way of life": “From the high spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy, of which the latest discoveries of science seem like echoes, to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a place in the Hindu's religion.” This is clearly talking about Hinduism in the inclusive sense, seeing Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. as parts of the Hindu religion. Since the rest of the article assumes the normal definition I will remove this also. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some changes

Hello,

I will be doing some changes to improve order of content and look. Any suggestions/edits welcome.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 16:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it sound alright to move material on Dharma in Objectives of human life section?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

gnosticism claim

Is the gnosticism claim in the article really supported by the references?AssociateLong (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the references but it certainly seems a stretch. The gnosticism article states: "s a modern scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices found among some of the early Christian sects called "gnostic" ("learned") by Irenaeus and other early Christian heresiologists. The term also has reference to parallels and possible pre-Christian influences of the Christian gnostics."

You can see some parallels with some Hindu beliefs but it sounds like quite a misleading statement to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia regular, so maybe someone such as yourself can check the references etc. AssociateLong (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, It is in The man who was a woman and other queer tales of Hindu lore. I am going to remove it from the article as this appears to be:

1. Gnosticism is just an off-hand comment, not something explored in the book.
2. The book seems to be by experts on gay cultures rather than on Hinduism
3. Since Gnosticism is a Christian term also used to highlight parallels its use here seems to be inappropriate. It would be like describing Christianity as "following the Dvaita philosophy", which while at a broad level true implies a lot more than is fact.

For this reason, though there are parallels between the beliefs of some Hindus and gnosticism, I think it is more likely to mislead than inform -- Q Chris (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism includes Hindu atheists. Example ['Hinduism gives you the freedom to deny God'] by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. Link has useful information.ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011 13:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede is inaccurate

This sentence (the first) is either grammatically or factually incorrect:

Hinduism is the predominant and indigenous religion[3][4] of the Indian subcontinent.

Hinduism is the predominant religion on the Indian subcontinent but it is not "the ... (only) indigenous religion of the Indian subcontinent", as this sentence suggests. Both my attempts to correct this were reverted, so we're going to have to work this out somehow. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"The predominant indigenous religion" could imply that there are more predominant imported religions. Maybe "is an indigenous and the predominant" would be clearer? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As you said I was concerned that "Hinduism is the predominant indigenous religion" could be read as though it was the most predominant of the indigenous religions but would think that it was a minor religion, as is the case with indigenous religions in the USA and many other countries. Personally I don't see much wrong with the wording at the moment, it does not imply the only indigenous religion to me, but I will change it to be very explicit. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine now. I made a similar edit last night but that was reverted for some reason. My second attempt to fix it probably was slightly more ambiguous. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dropdown box

I think the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Dropdown box at the end of the page is a bit out of place.The other two "Hinduism topics" and "Religion" should be there for obvious reasons but i doubt the point of having the mk gandhi dropdown box.He was not a very important figure for the religion,he was merely a follower of the religion.Thanks. Ayanosh (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And removed. Thanks for bringing it up! Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the deal with the recent insertion of copyrighted Hare Krishna images?

What is the deal with the recent insertion of copyrighted ISKCON images? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this illegal?BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely (unless they have released them into the commons). Tell us which ones and we will remove them, or remove them yourself. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

History Section

Under the history section, the sentence beginning ' The beliefs and practices... ' overlaps with the relevant picture, thus making it hard to read. Thanks! 94.196.118.147 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma

Why is the mention of the term "Sanatana Dharma" removed from the article. This is the expression which defines the Hindu religion in the most correct manner. Sanatana Dharma is the term used in the ancient scriptures, it's the eternal truth and path of righteousness, the embodiment of all good values and behaviour and goal of human life one can follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.185.6 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some references? This is a claim that is often made in the modern day, but I'd really like to see it in original texts to understand the context of the usage. I am skeptical that the way it is used by modern Hindus (as a catch-all that includes all faiths of Indic origin, or sometimes as a more politically acceptable synonym for Hinduism) is the way it was used in scripture, if at all. Graft | talk 16:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

here one and many more can be found easily. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of the word "Sanātana Dharma" is quite justified. It is certainly not found in any ancient scripture as referring to Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BrahmanAdvaita blocked as a sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Third largest religion It might be nice to have a source for this sentence, although I understand it is linked to another Wikipedia article. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Hinduism is not an indigenous religion Please correct the first sentence of the article. Hinduism is not an indigenous religion. Kulke and Rothermund, in A History of India 4th edition, note: "However, the first clearly documented historical evidence of these Vedic Aryans comes neither from central Asia nor from India but from upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia. About 1380 BC a Mittani King concluded a treaty with the Hittite ruler Suppiluliuma I in which the Vedic gods Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the Nasatyas were invoked. Moreover, among the tablets which were excavated at Boghazkoy, the Hittite capital, a manual about horse traning was found which contains a large number of pure Sanskrit words." They then go on to explain the Aryan migration hypothesis. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Do you mean not indigenous to India? That seems hard to fathom. To begin with the Aryan migration is still a hypothesis and some debate that it was an East to West migration. Some Indian scholars are saying that this is just another example of west-centric interpretation of history. Even if that is not a mainstream idea, you still seem to be equating Hinduism with Vedism and that would seem to be like equating Islam with Judaism. True the Vedas and Vedic deities represent a lineage with that distant past but there are some who argue that the Vedanta is so different in direction from Vedic thought that it quite possibly represents a resurgence of Dravidian thought. Whatever the case, the original Vedism seems to be little more than the remnant of a shed skin when considering the weight of modern Hindu philosophy--the Vedanta and work of Patanjali, Shankara etc: that seems purely of Indian origin. As I've suggested, because Islam accepts the Jewish Bible as an original document doesn't make Islam a Jewish idea. Perhaps I've misread your meaning. --174.7.29.185 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Snowcream's reversion He suggests the sentence I added is "inserted out of place." I don't feel that way. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Your "one-line" addition was too erratic and gave an impression that Buddhism was the dominant religion and then a new religion "Hinduism" replaced it as the dominant religion. It has to be explained in more than one sentence and is moreover undue in the lead. The rise of Buddhism and the later revival of Hinduism has been already described in the history section. You simply can't insert a sentence up there in the lead and disrupt the flow of the article.Snowcream (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Just to add; the above section in the talk you created titled "Hinduism is not an indigenous religion" clearly outs your point-of-view.Snowcream (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what you think you "outed". My language reflects the academic quotes, which were given in the footnotes. Maybe you should try reading them. As of right now, the wrong impression is being given about Hinduism in multiple areas. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yoga

I would like to make a revision to the section discussing Yoga. In particular, I would like to discuss how the Hindu practice of yoga has psychological benefits, as well as a comparison between modern day and traditional Hindu psychology. My proposed revision is as follows: "The practice of yoga in Hindu tradition also has psychological benefits, allowing one to develop control over their mind and body. Rather than adapting the sick or mentally ill mind (the primary focus of modern psychology), traditional Hindu psychology focuses on enhancing the normal and healthy mind through the practice of meditative techniques such as yoga." I would like to make this revision for a class assignment. Thank you. Kozars (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

References Raman, V. V. (2012). HINDUISM AND SCIENCE: SOME REFLECTIONS. Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science, 47(3), 549-574. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01274.x

That would belong in the Yoga article. Yoga was secularized by Buddhism a while ago, and secularized further by the West. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

• Expand the "History" section, with addition of some sub sections.
• Add a section "Culture", with some sub-section discussuing the different cultures within Hinduism.
• Add a section under title "Criticisms of Hindusim" .
• Develop "Concept of God" into a different section. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 15:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus is the real God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.123.210 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (1500–500 BCE) are called the "historical Vedic religion".

If they are called so then it is a very serious mistake. Aryans probably had not gone to the Indo-Gangetic plain or South India during this time, and the indigenous Gods and Goddesses (Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesh, and Kartikeya) along with the village deities must have reigned supreme as they do now. Who remembers the temporary ascendency of the Aryan Gods and Goddesses? Aupmanyav (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical Vedic Religion is what you find in the Vedas. Aupmanyav (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think Wikipedia likes wrong information on its pages. Aupmanyav (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the "wrong information"? The section is arranged chronologically. Historical Vedic religion came before Upanishadic or Puranic streams of Hinduism. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Initiation

In Indian religion what matters is initiation. Initiation in a marga of a Dharma such as some Guru initiating a disciple or anyone accepting him as a Guru in some Bhakti marga, etc.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Shih. I do not have a guru. I have never been initiated. I do not follow bhakti marg. Actually I am an atheist and advaitist. Do I not remain a hindu? 59.178.61.185 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Conversion Section

This section was removed with the comment:

Deliberate and hypocritical topic of "Conversion" added to Hinduism article. Hinduism is the last religion to believe in
conversions. Wiki page for "Christianity", "Jews", "Muslims" dont speak about Conversions, while they waged wars for religious
convers)

On balance I believe that it is useful because the attitude to conversion is different to other religions. I also think it contains useful information. I have therefore restored it. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the section WP:UNDUE in the article for a religion, which does not have "Clear concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization", and play "a marginal role in practice."? Also, FA Islam does not cover it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think its a bit like the Switzerland article explaining that it doesn't have a single head of state, it is the absence of clear concepts of conversion that make it unique. I have restored the header and "see also" for now. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Empty sections are discouraged. Putting in See also. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sanaatan Dharma should not redirect to Hinduism

Dear All

While searching for Sanaatan Dharma on wikipedia, the query redirects itself to Hinduism which should not be the case.

The word Hindu, as many of you would be aware, is a distortion of the word Sindhu which basically signifies a geographical region. This also has been the primary source of confusion why people define Hinduism as a way of life and Hindus as inhabiting a particular region.

However, the systems, beliefs etc belong to what is known as Sanaatan Dharma (which means eternal or universal law). None of the scriptures like Upanishads, Mahabharat etc use the word hindu. But the people who are called hindu today derive their faith and beliefs from these sacred texts. These texts, which elaborate the Sanaatan Dharma, are the fountainhead of the way the Hindu people live.

It is indeed appropriate to disengage the two. As an example, suppose your neighbor is a foreigner whose someone whose is not easy to pronounce. Often times, you will start calling them a name which is convenient to you or that person will change their name altogether. It is very similar case here.

Thanks and Regards

Cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital1981 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Upanishads and Mahabharata do not use the word India, but that is the name in English that we have selected for our country. It is because of common usage and is not an abuse. Aupmanyav (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

India is the country's name in English, and Bhārat is the name in Hindi. English and Hindi are the two official languages of India, for use between the States and the Union, and between the States. Users of Hindi have given currency to India. In the ancient literature of India, Bharata-khaņďa refers to the Indian subcontinent, and Bhārata-varșa includes all the neighboring regions where India's native heritage spread. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of word Hindu

If we search for word Hindu, it is mentioned that quote The Brihaspati Agama (dated?)says:

हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् । तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।। "The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan, with the हिंदु (Hindu) mentioned in word हिंदुस्थानं (Hindusthan)."[4][5]

The usage of the word Hindu was popularized for Arabs and further west by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus[6] and the Persian term Hindū referring to all Indians. By the 13th century, Hindustān emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus".[7] unquote

However if we search for work 'Hinduism', the definition is different - as derived from word 'Sindu'.

Since the we have the reference of the Sanskrit Sloka from a very old literature "Brihaspathi Samhitha", we should go by that definition only. There is no proof for saying the word Hindu is derived from word 'Sindhu', as mentioned in http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/ataglance/glance.shtml - There is no reference mentioned over there.

Request Wiki to correct the information mentioned for 'Hinduism'. I could not edit as the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinuvvv (talk • contribs) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:No original research. On Wikipedia, religious scriptures are treated as literary works, not cosmic truths. The BBC site is the reference, and meets our reliable sourcing guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above source [Bŗhaspati Āgama] is spurious. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Unwanted Images & Lines

The article is flooded with some unwanted images which are out of context.It Would look good if they are removed.Some lines have been removed which do not have a valid supporting authoritative source from Vedic Scriptures e.g.Kapaalikas which do not belong to Hinduism Srisharmaa (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Kapalika was a non-Puranic, tantric form of Shaivism in India (Flood, ref in article). It definitely belongs to Hinduism. However, it is probably not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. On the other hand, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Śrauta are significant enough to deserve a place there. Other statements in your edit like This religion had no name in particular in the past as Hinduism predated all other religions and was the foremost and only religion that was spread all over the world need references for verifiability. Which images do you want to remove? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give sources to say kapaalikas are a non-Puranic, tantric form of Shaivism?.Italic text Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Śrauta are significant enough to deserve a place there.Italic text.Vaishnavism will come under Vishista-advaita sampradya which I have posted in Typology.Similarly,shaivism.There is no sampradya called srauta!.It is a common ritual that needs to be followed by all sampradayas.It does not deserve a place there.Italic text This religion had no name in particular in the past as Hinduism predated all other religions and was the foremost and only religion that was spread all over the world need references for verifiability.Italic textIt is said in "Deivathin Kural","Voice of the Divine" and the ultimate source which is are the teachings of seers etc.,Images to be removed:Ganesh,shivs seal,Valmiki,Navy shoulder board,Krishna vishvarupa.Srisharmaa (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Very Important note:As per Hinduism-references,citations,notes,Books written by western writers are not considered authoritative unless they provide a valid quotation from Vedic Scriptures.Just because one writes a misleading & interpolated book on Hinduism with half-baked Knowledge it cannot be considered authentic.Citations from Veda & Smritis,Purana,Ithihasas and the like are very essential.I can very well declare that MOST of the references given in this article will not be considered authentic by vedic scholars.Srisharmaa (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For Kapalikas being a tantric form of Shaivism see The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p. 212 by Gavin Flood. However, I have no issues with the sentence on Kapalikas being dropped from the lead. Vaishnavism is bigger and older than Vishista-advaita sampradaya, while Shaivism is represented by many other philosophical and theological schools such as Kashmir Shaivism, Pashupatas etc. which are distinct from Vedanta. Please don't replace these sects with Advaita/Vishista-advaita/Dvaita. As for Deivathin Kural, Chandrashekarendra Saraswati is not a scholarly reference. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We can't decide to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and use just Vedic scholars as reliable references for this article. Besides, using Vedas, Puranas etc. directly would amount to original research. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as Kapalikas are concerned I reiterate,As per Hinduism-references,citations,notes,Books written by western writers are not considered authoritative unless they provide a valid quotation from Vedic Scriptures.Just because one writes a misleading & interpolated book on Hinduism with half-baked Knowledge it cannot be considered authentic.Citations from Veda & Smritis,Purana,Ithihasas and the like are very essential.I can very well declare that MOST of the references given in this article will not be considered authentic by vedic scholars.No Vedic citations available at The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p. 212 by Gavin Flood.Hence it is cannot be considered authentic to say that kaplikas belonged to Hinduism.Saying works of the renowned saint Chandrashekarendra Saraswati is ridiculous.("Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable").And also,Published Books of vedic scholars are always reliable if they are provided with vedic quotations.Srisharmaa (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything that Hindus practice is part of Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Kapalikas are not Hindus.Hindus do NOT practice Kapalika religion as they were practicing rituals that were against Hindu Vedic Scriptures.Sri Adi Shankara proved it as a barbaric religion as it was not in accordance with Hindu Scriptures .He re-established Hindu religion by defeating almost 72 religions that were prevalent and against the teachings of Hindu religion during his period of which Kapalika religion was one among them.He defeated these 72 Non-Hindu religions with scholarly debates by referring many citations from Vedic Scriptures.After re-establishing Hinduism into its original form as it was from time Immemorial almost all these non-Hindu religions became extinct.Kapalika religion has become extinct and is no longer practised by people.Thanks tothe efforts of Sri Adi Shankaracharya who was an avatar of Lord Shiva for Protecting Hinduism.If he haven't incarnated for the well-being of Man-kind, Hinduism would have become extinct before many centuries.Hope you understand the difference between Hinduism and other religions that were prevalent centuries ago.Srisharmaa (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavān Śrī Ādi-Śańkarācārya was a proponent of the Advaita school of Vedānta. The Wikipedia article here is on Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say that you understood Advaita and Hinduism to be different.For your Information the major population of Hinduism are followers of Advaita Philosophy.Did you read my above paragraph?.Can you prove that Kapalikas belong to Hinduism ?.Kindly Do NOT post anything without doing proper research which will misguide readers.I do not find time to teach the basics.Srisharmaa (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Advaita is one school of Vedānta. Hinduism is a modern comprehensive term which includes the philosophies and practices of all Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to Readers unfamiliar with Hinduism

My request to Editors is that please DO NOT misguide Hindus with Half-Baked Knowledge after studying Hinduism related books written by the "so-called" western scholars who were mostly as invaders of India and are followers of other religions.Due to vastness of Vedic Scriptures they could not interpret Hinduism in its original form.To profess their intelligence or to make a illusion in the minds of Hindus they started to write rubbish in their books which were not in accordance to Hinduism.They believed that any that were of western people (books,clothes,language,education,lifestyle etc.,) would be regarded as superior and would be readily accepted and revered by Indian people.These western writers authored a "psuedo-history of India",introduced McCauley system of Education Macaulayism and made Children to study this false history of India to make them foget their glorious past!.This Indian History written by westerners are still kept as a syllabus in Indian Education system curriculum and which are still studied by Indian Children these days of which Hindus should feel ashamed of.These people have caused a great damage to Hinduism and India by misguiding people.

I am shocked to see that not even a single Vedic scripture is cited or Books of Indian Vedic Hindu scholars is referred in the "References" column.There are millions of Hinduism related scholarly books in India.Couldn't the editors find any book written by any Hindu scholars?.This proves that this "Hinduism" article is written mostly by westerners by reading books of westerners which lack proper understanding of Hinduism.

Wikipedia takes too much time to UPDATE my Edits.I am fed up with this time aspect of WP.Even if some edits become successful I have to satisfy some editors (who undo edits) with explanations to make them understand Hinduism (Sorry if it seems to be harsh) & about the Importance of my edit, which consumes time.Due to lack of time, I couldn't edit this article in full!.Hence,I conclude that this "Hinduism" article which lacks credibility cannot be considered as a authentic one to understand Hinduism.It is for sure that readers are going to be misguided after reading this "Hinduism" article of Wikipedia!.BEWARE READERS! Srisharmaa (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody objects to the usage of a few quotes from Vedas or other Hindu scriptures. In fact, verses from the Nasadiya sukta of the Rig Veda are quoted in the article. But your suggestion that Vedic texts should be directly used as references instead of scholarly works by western authors (like Gavin Flood) violates half a dozen wikipedia policies and guidelines. For instance, WP:WPNOTRS suggests:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

You might also find the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth helpful. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But your suggestion that Vedic texts should be directly used as references instead of scholarly works by western authors- I haven't said so. I have already cleared it before as follows,

I reiterate,As per Hinduism-references,citations,notes,Books written by western writers are not considered authoritative unless they provide a valid quotation from Vedic Scriptures(in their books).Srisharmaa (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't providing a valid quotation from Vedic scriptures an arbitrary method to determine credibility? Anyone can spew garbage and then add a quote from the Vedas. Wikipedia luckily has a far more systematic process of identifying reliable sources. Even a casual read of WP:RS will tell you why a reference like Introduction to Hinduism by Gavin Flood is a far more reliable source than many others. For starters, the author (Flood) is a Professor and Academic Director of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. The book is published by Cambridge University Press which is a fact checking academic publisher. The book itself is cited 403 times by many other scholars. Therefore, we can be sure that this book is a reliable reference by standards of WP, even if it doesn't quote any verses from the Vedas. Likewise, it should be possible to demonstrate the credibility of a Vedic scholar, if need be, using a similar process. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If any cited source, Indian or Western, looks unacceptable, it should be debated on its own merits. We should not be prejudiced against all non-Indian scholars. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT against the nationality of the writers of Hinduism.I meant that if their views in their books are supported with sources from Vedic Scriptures only then they can be considered authentic.If the books of scholars (both Indian & western) lacks Vedic quotations/references they should NOT be considered as authoritative works on Hinduism to be quoted in "References" section.Hope you get the point.I just want to clear readers that most of the "References" seen in the article are of books of western writers which lacks vedic references to support their research e.g.Gavin Flood's book lacks Vedic citations to support his research.

I conclude from my side that readers must be very careful of this "Hinduism" article which in many places lacks credibility and are misguidingSrisharmaa (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion. Please don't give up. Take up statements in the article which you find objectionable, preferably one at a time, citing sources. I'm sure other users will respond, and let the chips fall wherever they do. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Devanagiri OM Symbol

OM symbol , which is a integral part of hunduism , is written different way in different languages. Why to use Devanagiri alone ? Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Om is a Sanskrit letter and term [omityekākśaram brahma], and Devanāgari is the script of Sanskrit. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic Propaganda and Lies by Hindutva Fanatics

Hindus were not forced to convert to Islam. This is very fallacious and propaganda instigated heavily by anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim Hindutva fanatics, historically supported by the British Empire and now radical elements within the Indian state. Islam came by sufis, traders, and other people who taught through love, peace, intellect, and wisdom. Under the Muslim kingdoms and dynasties Hindus were given freedoms to practice their religion. If Muslims forcefully converted people then 80% of India would not be Hindu. The Catholics forcefully converted people in Spain, Portugal, and the Americas. This is why those areas are 99% Catholic-Christian. This article is totally biased against Muslims and spreads propaganda about Islam. The Muslim perspective is totally neglected here and the Muslim point of view is not allowed to be expressed, because fanatic Hindutva liars and anti-Muslim Western-supremacist bigots who run this page are spreading lies against Muslims. Even the most conservative minded kings allowed Hindus to practice freely. 1000+ years of Muslim rule in India has proven that Islam was not spread by force, but it was spread by peace, love, and tolerance. Individuals like Khwaja Moinuddin Chishtii, Ali Hujwiri, and many others spread Islam in this region and people converted by their own choice. Please stop the Islamophobia and anti-Muslim propaganda within this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk • contribs)

New stuff goes at the bottom, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Do you have any reliable academic sources that specifically counter any of the three sources cited in the article? Also, please assume good faith from other editors. Many editors in this article are neither Hindu nor Indian. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The above unsigned comments are not supported by history a wee bit. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

please remove (through Persian) words from Etymology. and also indo-European

Sakam24 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they're properly sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remove 150 year old scholars

Please remove references to Oldenberg and Neumann, who were born over 150 years ago. Please rely on more modern scholars. Also I see this same sentence repeated in other Wikipedia articles as well. Thanks!ObamaisGreat (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, the reference itself is new, even if the scholars mentioned are more than 100 years old. Opinions of Oldenberg and Neumann are there because they are notable scholars. For instance, we could use Kashi Nath Upadhyaya and Alexander Wynne for the same sentence. However, Wynne, Upadhyaya and Radhakrishnan will not have the same impact as Oldenberg, Neumann and Radhakrishnan simply because not many people know who Upadhyaya and Wynne are. Stretching this argument a bit far you could argue that Gandhi should be removed form the lead sections of Bhagavad Gita and Swami Vivekananda because he is not a new scholar. Or that Adi Shankara's opinion should not be given any weight because his opinion is more than 1000 years old. Oldenberg and Neumann are notable scholars on Indology and Buddhism respectively and their opinion is still valued in modern scholarly works. So, I don't agree that they should be replaced with less notable modern scholars. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Keep whatever reference you wish. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with correctknowledge. Hinduism topic should have references from sources that are prominently Hindu.111.91.95.234 (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you click on this link, you will see you are misrepresenting the reference in multiple ways. ConfusedSapien (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not interested in the opinion of James Bissett Pratt, but in the opinions of Radhakrishnan, Oldenberg and Neumann. Scroll down to bottom of the sampe page (P. 90) of the same book (Abrege De La Grammaire Francais Tamoule) to the note which says, "Prof. Radhakrishnan is convinced that the influence was great... Oldenberg things Buddha adopted his antithesis of... from the Upanishads. Both he and Neumann think many passages in the Buddhist canon show direct Upanishadic influence." If you are dissatisfied with the Pratt reference and want to verify this directly from the works by the three scholars, see P. 40 of Zur Geschichte der altindischen Prosa for Oldenberg's comparison of Brhd. Up. IV. 1 and Samannaphala Sutta, Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Indian Philosophy Volume II, Page 439. Oxford University Press or P. 146. of Hindu monism and pluralism as found in the Upanishads and in the philosophies dependent upon them for Radhakrishnan's opinion and Dhammapada - Der Wahrheitspfad for Neumann's take on this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What about "Eliot and several others insist on that on some points the Buddha was directly antithetical to the Upanishads." And who says 'we are not interested' in the opinions of modern scholars?? Is this Wikipedia policy? ConfusedSapien (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tantra

Tantra is as much Hindu as Yoga is. Need to include Tantra too in as much detail as Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.198 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism is a comprehensive term, and mention of Tantra in the article would be reasonable. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, more content on Tantra should be added to Beliefs, Practices and Scriptures section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

reincarnation

the article says very little about reincarnation. I think it should b larger. Reincarnation is very important in Hisduism. - thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.221.51 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

Festivals Chetti Chand Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheti_Chand) Viranjali (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Pol430 talk to me 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

just i want person who is the founder of hinduism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.25 (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no founder of Hinduism per se. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

religions are prosparity and peace hinduism had many gods and goddesses that were human.some were open minded and some were mental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryman3 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is only one God in Hinduism. That one God is worshiped in the form of as many deities (devatā) as the worshipers choose. Every deity represents the one God (deva) [deva eva devatā]. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

Hindū Dharma or Hinduism (Sanskrit: हिन्दू धर्म, is often referred by its practitioners as Sanātana Dharma, सनातन धर्म; Vaidika Dharma, वैदिक धर्म; or Vedic Tradition) is the spiritual, philosophical, scientific and cultural system that originated in Bharatavarsha (the Indian subcontinent), that is based on the Vedas, and it is the oldest of all living religious traditions still practiced today. A Hindu, as per definition, is an adherent of the spiritual practices, yoga, philosophies and scriptures of Hindu Dharma. 182.71.183.195 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: "Request" consists of general comment with no specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They whet to the gange river and bathed in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.30.116 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Literal Meaning of PurAnah

Concerning the literal meaning of PurANaH (given here as "of ancient times" ), I beg to differ. Infact the etymology of the word "PurAN" (पुराण) is पुरे नवः इति पुराणः ("purE navaH iti purANaH") meaning "that which is new in the city(pura)", as this texts are of relatively newer origin and later than the other tradtional texts of Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.168.197 (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

could you cite your source? where did you get that etymology from, is it from Nirukta? Lokesh 2000 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Apte's dictionary quotes Nirukta as "purā navam". Both Apte and Monier-Williams give the meaning of purāņa as ancient. Kālidāsa uses purāņa (old) and nava (new) as having opposite connotations ["purāņam-ityeva na sādhu sarvam, na cāpi kāvyam navam-ity-avadyam" - Mālavikāgnimitram, I.2]. I am not aware of the claim made by the unsigned user. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

could you kindly translate that sanskrit sentence from Kalidasa?. I'm having hard time following it. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure Lokesh. Translation: Everything [sarvam] is not good [na sādhu] just because [ityeva] it is old/ancient [purāņam], nor is [na cāpi] a literary work [kāvyam] something not to speak of [a-vadyam] because it is [iti] new [navam]. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! that clarifies Lokesh 2000 (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Swastik

Include a swastik and aum are probably the two signs of hinduism. but on any new thing is happening swastik is written not aum,

Please replace aum by either an aum or swastik or swastik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HinduSwastika.svg

Should be added in the right corner.

The icon swastika represents the message that "everything is all right" [su+asti]. Om is one letter, made of three letters 'a', 'u' and 'm', and it represents the ultimate reality brahma [om-ityekākśaram brahma (iti+eka+akśara)]. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: "omityekākśaram brahma" - Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā, VIII.13. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

With this new wikipedia update, i can't really format or put the texts well, kindly format the following lines:-

One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts. [11] These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics. [12] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas. [13]

Into this manner:-

One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts.[11] These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics.[12] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas.[13]

Capitals00 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note on Zimmer

With this edit Yoonadue removed this note: "Heinrich Zimmer: "[T]he history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."(Zimmer 1989, p=218-219)". He gave the following edit summary: "removed recently added note, it talks about Indian philosophy, not about Hinduism religion". This is an artificial distinction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joshua Jonathan, please re-read this note which you added in lead of the article 'Hinduism' :-

"The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."

Do you think this is relevant for this content : "Among its (Hinduism's) direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India and ancient Dravidian culture of Iron age India." Nowhere from this quote, we get to know anything about ancient dravidian culture being the direct roots of Hinduism. Its not relevant to the article and also to the content with which it was posted.

-Yoonadue (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the persistence of your responses it's quite clear that it's relevant. I think you're well aware of the implications: Hinduism is not only based on the ancient Vedic religion, as some people want to believe, but also on the indigenous cultures and religions of India.

Regarding the info given by this quote: it supports the main text, and tells you that the Dravidian culture is among the roots of Hinduism. You paraphrased it, so apparently the quote does contain information which makes sense.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that this quote supports the main text. Can you explain how? Please re-read the quote. It tells about 'Indian philosophy', but not specifically about Hinduism. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Colonial influences

I have been editing this article and correcting errors in syntax, word usage, spelling and punctuation, and improving the writing style where needed, while making an effort not to change meaning. I have come across a sentence that I think is unclear and poorly written, but I hesitate to correct it because I am not sure what the original writer intended. If someone knows the subject matter or the reference, could he or she take a look at this sentence and try to improve it? It is the second sentence in the first paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Joshua Jonathan in the lead of the article

Before this edit by Joshua Jonathan, the lead of the article said: Among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6]. That content was fine and well-sourced which talked about the roots of Hinduism religion.

But the present version of the article's lead after a series of edits by Joshua Jonathan says :-

Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5], among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India.

Dear Joshua Jonathan, you are taking the article's lead to a wrong direction. The content added by you is totally irrelevant for this article as it talks about roots of India/Indian culture, not Hinduism. The article's title is Hinduism, not India or Indian culture. So, please be specific to the article's title. You may add this content in other articles like India, Indian culture or History of India, but not here. So I am reverting your edits. I hope you have got my point. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the mistake, I'll correct it. I guess you know enough about present-day India and it's history to be aware of the Dravidian share of it - also in it's religion - and the ignorance of this share in popular representations of Hinduism. Since Wikipedia aims to give an overview of relevant info, the Dravidian share needs to be mentioned. By the way, the part you delted was well-sourced. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading the present version-

Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5]- Again this sentence is India-specific, not relevant for this article's lead. The source still lacks inline citation/footnote/annotation which is very important for this content.

among the direct roots of Hinduism are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India - What about the earlier version describing "the direct roots of India/Indian culture"? Very recently, you have changed direct roots of India to direct roots of Hinduism. Moreover, the content still lacks inline citations which support the newly added content that Dravidian and tribal culture are among the direct roots of Hinduism. The one footnote which is present there doesn't point to the newly added content to even a small extent. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - I'm having serious trouble to follow your argumentation:

• "Again this sentence is India-specific, not relevant for this article's lead." - It's also about Hinduism; you're making artificial distinctions. It's up to you explain why this is not relevant.
• If you have a problem with this specific part of the sentence ("Although [...] Brahmanical"), then you've got to discuss this specific point, but not remove the whole sentence.
• "The source still lacks inline citation/footnote/annotation which is very important for this content." - Are you really not able to read references? They are given using the [[2]-system].
• "What about the earlier version describing "the direct roots of India/Indian culture"? Very recently, you have changed direct roots of India to direct roots of Hinduism." - What's your point here?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment about the content itself, but I don't understand why Yoonadue is stating the claim is unreferenced, when I see the references right in the line. Are you saying that some part is not in the references given? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not seem proper for any user to remove a well-referenced statement. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Yoonadue : It's up to you explain why this is not relevant. The topic is Hinduism and the lead of this article (after recent edits by you) is saying Although India is portrayed as..... From where does India enter this topic? Why do you think that its relevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times? Why such kind of focus on India in this article's lead. India is a diverse country, secular by law and is inhabited by sizable population of numerous other religious groups like Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists etc. As per me, it is totally irrelevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times.

In the very next words, the article starts describing the direct roots of Hinduism which is very much apt for this title. But the very recent addition to that is "among direct roots of Hinduism are dravidian culure and tribal culture of India". Why don't you provide the inline citations/quotes/footnotes so that it can be verified that which words of the book mentioned by you as reference supports this statement. Reading WP:Verifiability:-

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

After seeing that one quote provided by you, I have strong doubts that the sources really say that Hinduism's direct roots include dravidian culture and tribal cultures. Hence you must provide quotes from the book which support this statement. Otherwise, it is likely to be removed.

That one quote provided by you is : "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."

This quote doesn't hit the mark as it doesn't talk about dravidian/tribal culture being the direct roots of Hinduism. Please note that Indian philosophy and Hinduism are not synonymous. -Yoonadue (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -

• What exactly "Hinduism" is, is a matter of heated debate. See for example Richard King's Orientalism and religion, for an academic treatise, or Malhotra's Being different and Breaking India for non-academic treatises. See also Hindu studies and Hindu politics. It may be irrelevant to you (or so you say), but it's a central issue: who defines what is "true" or "reality"? Who's got the power?
• The references are given; you can check them out. This is the fourth time you say there are no references; try to understand Wiki-make-up, or just stay away if you're not able to understand it. You're persistent remarks on this are WP:DISRUPTIVE.
• The quote from Zimmer is clear: Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism) is the result of the interaction between various cultures.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Yoonadue:

The references are given; you can check them out. This is the fourth time you say there are no references; try to understand Wiki-make-up, or just stay away if you're not able to understand it.

I have never said that there are no references. The point is that references are poor and lack full quotes for important content (dravidian and tribal roots). You must give exact wordings which according to you support the content. The pages of books are too lengthy, but we are unable to know which quote from the book you are referring to.

You're persistent remarks on this are WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Yes, there is disruptive editing going on, but thats not from my side. You definitely understand what I am asking for again and again but you are ignoring it saying that references are there. I know that references are there, but which which quote supports the added content?

The quote from Zimmer is clear: Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism) is the result of the interaction between various cultures.

Read it again :- "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and experience."

It talks about crises of interaction between Aryan and Dravidian thought. It nowhere directs to any dravidian roots of Hinduism, what you are claiming from this quote.

Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism)

Now,you should provide reliable source to support Indian philosophy and Hinduism are synonymous. As far as we know, Indian philosophy comprise of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Carvaka, Shramana and other traditions. And hence both terms are not synonymous. Why do u think 'India' and 'Hindu' are same despite of the fact that major religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are born in India and they form important part of Indian history? -Yoonadue (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To remind you: WP:VERIFY says "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

There are references, no need to give full quotes; please stick to Wiki-policies, instead of creating your own rules. You can search them up. And yes, you did say four times that there are no references. Stop removing resourced info. Regarding the note, it underscores the info on the various origins. You've got a point on Buddhism; yet, this is not a good reason to remove the other info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand the concern. Joshua Jonathan, here's the problem: one of the quotations which you either added or reverted back to, explicitly talked about the roots of "Indian philosophy". By simple definition, that quotation cannot be used to support a claim about "Hinduism", because Indian philosophy and Hinduism are overlapping but non-identical topics. Because of this very obvious error, Yoonadue is now concerned that the other sources you are using/reverting to are also similarly misrepresented. As such, it is reasonable for him to request more specific details about the source, requesting at the bare minimum a quotation, and, even better a copy of the relevant page. Now, rather than remove the material, Yoonadue, it would be better if you first tag the sentences in question with {{verification needed}}. In some cases, it's better to remove first, and discuss later, but that's usually only with highly controversial points, or with BLP info, or with other "problem" situations. So, I guess that leaves the task as:

• Yoonadue should tag the article appropriately, rather than deleting, and allow time for discussion (there's no hurry to change this particular point).
• Joshua Jonathan should provide more information about specifically what those sources say, to verify that they in fact talk about Hinduism, not the more general topic of Indian philosophy.

Meanwhile, let's everyone stop edit warring, okay? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll provide the qoutations within a few days (busy renovating our new house; only time to edit early in the morning). Apologies to Yoonadue if I caused concerns. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I will do as suggested. Thanks Qwyrxian & JJ. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

On Indian philosophy I recommend Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's work "Indian Philosophy" published by George, Allen & Unwin. Kanchanamala (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to Joshua Jonathan. I have read this discussion; it's interesting, and you all know more about India and Hinduism than I do. I have no opinion one way or another on the issues you have been debating here. I mostly edit articles for syntax, word usage, spelling and punctuation, and I noticed a common spelling error in your comment, above, that begins, "Thanks for noticing the mistake, I'll correct it. I guess you know enough about present-day India and it's history to be aware of the Dravidian share of it - also in it's religion ...." Twice, you wrote "it's" when it should be "its". "It's", with an apostrophe, is the contraction of "It is". "Its", with no apostrophe, is one of the three third-person singular possessive adjectives (along with "his" and "her") used for things, animals, ideas, etc. Your comment should read "its history" and "its religion", meaning "belonging to India". If you are actively editing articles, you need to use the right word. It will save someone else having to correct it. Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers.CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Joshua Jonathan

I have removed that content related to dravidian and tribal being the direct roots of the Hinduism. It would be better that you come with the quotations which directly support that content first. -Yoonadue (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the version prior to 13th august was much more detailed and clearer, "Yoonadue" doesn't seem to have a specific point regarding this issue. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it may be detailed and clearer for you, but what about sources? JJ was supposed to come with quotations, but he hasn't provided so far. Atma-jnana point is completely unsourced. It can't be placed in the article. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are simply removing the leading material. You assertion seems to be diverting the viewers to the point that Hinduism or it's roots are basically just 1500 BC old, when it's not. And it's not just composite of the events during Sanskritization, but a lot more than that, which has been mentioned and remains added to this article for last 8 years.

Better than reverting you can simply write down what you want to remain added, and what you want to change, because many of your changes like your removal of "mauritius" and others are just not explained in whole talk. Capitals00 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Mauritius is right as it doesn't come in Indian sub-continent. Mauritius is already mentioned in demographics section. Moreover, Hindu population in Mauritius is actually migrant from the sub-continent.

Why don't you make edits one by one rather than mass reversion to a particular version? -Yoonadue (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Western influences

Regarding the first sentence in this section: I edited the sentence to improve the sentence structure, but I still think the sentence is vague. Hinduism's openness? (Now "its openness") Openness to what?CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If I can be of any help about Hinduism, feel free to ask me. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering. Even though I am far from being an expert on Hinduism, I know when a sentence sounds vague (and thus a bit unclear) to the average non-expert reader. I just pointed out just such a place in the article on Hinduism. If you know enough about Hinduism that you can add a few words after "openness" to increase the clarity of the sentence, why don't you? I read the entire article and did not see any other reference to Hinduism's openness, so I think this needs a little explaining. (There is a reference there, but even with a reference, I think all statements in an encyclopedic article should be clear.). Just a few words would suffice: "openness to.....". (All I did was to change "Hinduism's openness" to "its openness" to avoid repeating the word "Hinduism's" twice in the same sentence.)CorinneSD (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of Hinduism, and the connotation of the word "open" as per Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary, and the context, may I suggest "openness to new ideas". Kanchanamala (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, if you feel confident about it. After I posted my comment, above, I realized that the ideas expressed in this sentence probably came from the source indicated by the reference (small number) at the end of the sentence, so the words that are chosen to complete the phrase starting "openness" perhaps should be taken (either verbatim or as a paraphrase) from that source. Have you read that work? Perhaps there is someone who has read it, or, even better, has the work and can check the reference. It's up to you what you want to do.CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the cited book, but I did take the title into consideration. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you mean that you took into consideration the title of the reference cited at the end of the sentence when you suggested completing the phrase starting with "openness" as "openness to new ideas". I looked again at the title of the work cited. It is "Essays on the Sociology of Fate". I do not see how that title could help you complete that phrase. What in that title led you to write, "openness to new ideas"? I think whoever wrote this sentence took it either verbatim or as a paraphrase from that work, and the only way to complete the phrase correctly is to go back to that work and find out what the author wrote, or meant.CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sociology of Fate": Karma [Fate] is a unique article of faith in Hinduism. We believe that if the result of an act [as you sow] is not fully experienced [so shall you reap] in one's life, then the soul will have to be reborn (punar-janma) as many times as it takes to fully enjoy or suffer the result. Now, thinkers in other religions would have other ideas about this. I, therefore, suggested "new ideas". Kanchanamala (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It was very nice of you to explain what moved you to suggest "new ideas" (although that idea of reincarnation is not exactly a new idea, and hasn't been a new idea for a very long time, has it?). I still think that if any words are added after "openness" (to clarify it), they ought to come from the cited text.CorinneSD (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not reincarnation, but rebirth, and that for the sake of Karma. Anyway, good luck, pal. Kanchanamala (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why, "Good luck, pal?" This is a place for discussing improvements to articles. It is collaborative. Whoever can contribute is welcome, including you. I certainly was not dismissing your ideas. In fact, you can add the words you suggested after "openness" ("openness to new ideas") and see what happens.CorinneSD (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Avaagaa -- Excellent edit. The sentence is clearer now.CorinneSD (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :] I meant to comment on the talk page about the edit, but I forgot. I figured the sentence was trying to comment on just how many ways to practice Hinduism there were, rather than Hinduism being accepting of new practices. AVAAGAA↪ 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

CorinneSD, my friend, no offense taken. On the contrary, you were interested in checking the cited source, and I wished you good luck. Kanchanamala (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I'm glad you were not offended. I suppose what Avaagaa wrote was not directly from the source either, but it seems to make more sense than what was there before.CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It is still a good idea to check the cited source. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. By the way, and no big deal, but the custom on Talk pages is to use the colon to indent from the left. Each person adds one more colon as the conversation progresses. It makes it easier to follow a discussion.CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mushrooms

Mushrooms should be added to the list of foods that ISKCON members avoid. http://content.iskcon.org/culture/food/ states that Mushrooms along with onions and garlic are not encouraged. Please make this changes if they can.

Thanks

Breadinglover (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Added. Capitals00 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Goodfaith17

Hey Goodfaith17 I cant understand why do we need all this stuff related to caste system on this page when there exists an article on caste system. Article Hinduism is not meant to have all the content based on caste system as there exists an article caste system in India. Brief description on castes is already present in the article, rest can be left for the main article. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

there are Articles present on hindu denominations,history,vedic period,gupta empire,god in hinduism, but I don't understant, why are they written here.interesting. to make it understandable to you, I wank tell you that no such content like this exists on Hindu caste system.Goodfaith17 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Putting all of that info here is WP:UNDUE. That's why we have the article Caste system in India. That's the place for lots of detailed caste info. Furthermore, as I've already told Goodfaith17, quite a bit of that was copied from other websites, which is always wrong in every situation, no exceptions.

Goodfaith, if you think some of that info (not the copyvio stuff) should be re-added, please explain specifically here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindutva

Why is there no mention of political Hinduism? The Hindu-Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (founded in the 1980s) is now the second largest party in India and is expected to become the largest in parliament by may 2014. RSS (Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh) has been converting millions of Muslims and Christians back to Hinduism. The Muslim population is stagnating and Hindu Indians have the highest birthrate in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer (talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This article deals with religion/spirituality, rather than what it's adherents are doing in 20th or 21st century. Justicejayant (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a two-sentence summary of the growth of "political Hinduism" in the 20th century, since I think it is a important enough part in the history of Hinduism. Given the lengthy history of Hinduism, not to mention the various other aspects the article needs to cover, I don't think we need to cover the individual electoral ups-and-downs in this article. So I have kept the description short; hope it does not read as too clipped as a consequence (feel fee to tweak). Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Order of precedence

I have removed this section from the article, since it presented a unduly rigid and algorithmic order of precedence for Hindu scriptures without attributing this ordering to any particular tradition or source. It also failed to distinguish between ordering of the these scriptures as per (some) theological traditions versus relative importance in practiced Hinduism. Of course discussing the latter topic would be WP:UNDUE for this article.

That said, the material in the deleted section, properly attributed and contextualized, could be useful in another article. So I'm leaving this note here to provide easy link to the deleted text. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

3 edit requests

Three edit requests:

1. The use of 200 year old scholars such as Oldenberg and Neumann, as well as Hindu nationalists like Radhakrishnan is problematic. Especially since the reference makes the exact opposite point than what is portrayed.
2. The reference is questionable for the phrase "although most Hindus, including the majority of Vaishnava and Shaivite Hindus abhor it."
3. Since the meat is eaten after the animal sacrifice, this should be mentioned.

176.67.169.207 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a long article, it would be helpful to other editors if you would indicate the section, and if possible also the paragraph, in which you feel an edit needs to be made, for each of your points. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure:

• For edit request 1, this section .
• For edit requests 2 and 3, this section.::176.67.169.146 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some user above has called Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at the University of Oxford, as a problematic Hindu nationalist. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of the views of contemporary scholars on Radhakrishnan. Here is just one of an infinite amount of books that say Radhakrishnan was a Hindu nationalist. Then you are unaware of the concept of "Nationalist historians." See page 8 of Upinder Singh's A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Lastly, you are unaware that Radhakrishnan is famous for making dubious claims regarding Vedanta specifically. See the Wikipedia article Neo-Vedanta. Sucheta Mazumdar and Vasant Kaiwar's From Orientalism to Postcolonialism page 36. "....Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion.....Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement - "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "most universal and deepest significance" - is fairly typical."176.67.169.146 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So is anyone going to take care of these 3 edits?176.67.169.207 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC

It is fashionable for some to criticize noted scholars. But to characterize Radhakrishnan as a problematic Hindu nationalist is untenable. Sorry. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful in your paraphrasing:

• Radhakrishnan was called a "Hindu nationalist"; the use of a specific reference was called "problematic";
• The specific reference is Pratt (1996) page 90 note 58. It deals with the question whether the Buddha was influenced by the Upanishads. The note gives several points of view; only the pro-version is given in the article;
• User:176.67.169.146 gave links to underscore his remark; you answer with rhetorics ("It is fashionable for some to criticize noted scholars"), instead of responding to the arguments;
• I think that Radhakrishnan is a primary source;
• Read "Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, for some more remarks on Indian nationalism and the use of religion: "The inclusivist appropriation of other traditions, so characteristic of neo-Vedanta ideology, appears ont three basic levels. First, it is apparent in the suggestion that the (Advaita) Vedanta philosophy of Sankara (c. eight century CE) constitutes the central philosophy of Hinduism. Second, in an Indian context, neo-Vedanta philosophy subsumes Buddhist philosophies in terms of its own Vedantic ideology. The Buddha becomes a member of the Vedanta tradition, merely attempting to reform it from within. Finally, at a global level, neo-Vedanta colonizes the religious traditions of the world by arguing for the centrality of a non-dualistic position as the philosophia perennis underlying all cultural differences."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit 1: All the observations in the article are valid.

Edit 2: Food habits are cultural. Also, in religious places and events, meat is not used. Even with Muslims in India, that is true.

Edit 3: Animals are not sacrificed, and no meat is eaten after the sacrifice as it were.

Kanchanamala (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean animals are not sacrificed? You need to travel to Nirmal during Bonalu. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with edit request 2 is using a press release as a reference. The press release doesn't even say what is claimed. Regarding edit request 3, we should mention the meat is eaten after the animal sacrifice. That's the tradition in Bonalu. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The article on Bonalu says "in olden days". Animal sacrifice and eating meat after sacrifice are not part of mainstream Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you are not Telugu or even Indian. Major goat sacrifice still happens every year during Bonalu. I have participated myself. Its a major festival that everyone from Andhra Pradesh knows. There is no shame in animal sacrifice. The meat was going to be eaten anyway. You are correct that the meat is not eaten at the temple. I never said it was. The meat is taken home and cooked. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual appearance of article

I noticed that, to the right of the box with the table of contents, there is a large blank space. I was wondering if it would be possible to add a picture or two in that space.CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you have any specific images in mind? If not, something appropriate may be avialble in the commons' Hinduism category. Also pinging @Redtigerxyz: who may have a suggestion. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem in adding images. But just wanted to let you know, you being kinda new-ish might be unaware, that the page looks different based on various setting. Your screen size might change blank spaces, some people might have disabled the "table of content" and for them it might be perfectly okay, or mobile versions are more different. So there is no point in adding images to balance out that white space as it might add some white space in some different view. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. I did not realize that the blank space may appear different depending upon settings, etc.CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Consistency needed for quotation format

Several quotations from sacred texts appear with different formats: single vs. double line spacing, italicized or not, amount of indentation. A simple edit would improve page quality IMHO.JeanEva Rose (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, quotations should not be in italics, or any other make-up, but only {{quote|[quote]}}. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is correct; WP:MOS does not allow special formatting for quotations; the only exception is that very long quotations can be put into the quote template so that they are indented. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Preshistoric sentence, yoga estimates

The two sentences that i had changed, from :- "The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India that may have" to "the early evidences for prehistoric religion in India that are noted", as previously it had been discussed too, this change was newly made, last month, the source[2] itself presents nothing like "earliest" nor it's presenting any doubts.

Other one is about the 30 million/5 million estimates, they might be higher now, these stats were from 2008. The year should be mentioned? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blades, the change you made is simply ungrammatical. Also, in the cited source Possehl repeatedly discusses how specifically the evidence is disputed throughout the chapter and explicitly in the sentence, "The proposed historical links between the Indus Valley Civilization and later Indian civilization is a difficult, complex, sometimes contentious, even politicized topic". (Having just read ~100 pages on the topic a few hours back and rewritten the Religion section on the Indus Valley Civilization page, I can cite many more sources along these lines, if needed). Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but that is already added into the paragraph, it's not the "earliest" evidence, that's what i noted above. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the Periodisation section of the article, historical analysis of Hinduism almost universally begins at the IVC stage (with the evidence from the pre-Vedic era being tenuous and somewhat speculative). So I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey by disputing that the discussed evidence from IVC is not the earliest. Can you clarify? Abecedare (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct, may need to reword "for prehistoric religion in India that may have left its traces in Hinduism comes from the Mature Harappan culture (2600-1900BCE)" I guess, you got any suggestion? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blades, in hindsight and as Joshua's edit well demonstrate, claims of "earliest" (just as most such superlative claims) was (is?) just asking for trouble and you were right to challenge it. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Roots of Hinduism

It seems that there are two basic perspectives on the roots of Hinduism:

• An apparently broad scholarly consensus that Hinduism is a synthesis of various Indian traditions, and that this syntheses emerged after the Vedic period, at the beginning of the "Classical" or "Epic and Puranic" period, in the centuries around the beginning of the Common Era;
• The orthodox or popular Hindu view on the origins of Hinduism, which gives a central place to ancient origins via the Vedic religion.

To me it's clear that there is a broad scholarly consensus for the view that Hinduism is a synthesis. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, which contradicts the popular and/or orthodox understanding of Hinduism, but that's no reason to leave out of this article such a fundamental understanding of the origins of Hinduism. In response to this discussion, I have provided extensive quotes at User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside: The irony of course is that what you describe as the "orthodox or popular Hindu view on the origins of Hinduism" is itself largely shaped by 19th century scholarly analysis/critique, and the reform movements they engendered. (Have you read Dalmia & Stietencron's Representing Hinduism or Gauri Vishwanathan's, "Colonialism and the construction of Hinduism" on the topic ?) And of course, this was not even the first time "Hinduism" has undergone such a transformation: it arguably shifted in the opposite direction from Historical Vedic Religion to its more contemporary post-Vedic form under indigenous/Buddhist/Jain/in-grown influence.

Is there something specific you propose to add to the article to clarify these definitional issues? I have only glanced at them briefly but your recent and past edits to Colonial influences and Roots of Hinduism section already seem to speak on all this. Abecedare (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add more, but it's an "understanding in progress". I'm learning while I'm reading, and I was already surprised by Hiltebeitel's term of "Hindu Synthesis". I hadn't realised that "Hinduism" is so recently, and I hadn't realised what a huge cultural development shaped this "synthesis". Somehow it's like a moving picture in my imagination, and then I see those different strands of religious thinking (or understanding), how they meet each other, and what happens then: how the vedic Brahmans took over ideas, rejected others, but where themselves also changing qua status in and part of this developing culture. Some points which might be added, but which are not completely clear to me, is the spread of vedic/Brahmanic culture (when did it reach South India?), and the role of the smriti in the "Hindu synthesis" (see also Smarta Tradition and Bhagavad Gita). Anyway, I understand the appeal of this (modern) "orthodox" vision, but studying Hinduism becomes much more interesting when a realistic framework is being used, and presented, to understand its wide diversity. Just one example: the Bhagavad Gita. Is it 'unique in its synthesis of various schools of Yoga', or is it part of a 'solution' which made it possible to join Vedic-Brahmanic culture and popular worship into a joint culture, which made its appeal to monarchs, and its survival, more likely than the survival of Buddhism? That's an interesting question! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Hinduism has 100 gods. 50.201.104.10 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.. We need to use reliable sources, too. --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one God in Hinduism. The Hindu word for God is Näräyaņa. Hindus conceive of, and represent, and worship God in numerous forms called deities (devatā). Kanchanamala (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Right on Kanchanamala.. He won't name even 40 gods anyway, yet claimed 100 gods. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it 33,000,000? Whatever, the point is: Hinduism incorporates various theistic traditions, and various explanatory frameworks to explain this variety, plus an overarching framework which says that all those Gods are manifestations of the One. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed spelling.CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

please delete or add some sort of disclaimer to this section

>[Th]e history of Indian philosophy has been characterized largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasive Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience. The Brahmans were the principal representatives of the former, while the latter was preserved, and finally reasserted, by the surviving princely houses of the native Indian, dark-skinned, pre-Aryan population."[73][note 12][note 13][note 14]

this part has been thoroughly debunked and is just rubbish.

>No evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains.[3][4][5] The ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia,[6] although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley.[7] According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence for a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found.[8][9][10] At best, there is evidence of small-scale migrations approaching South Asia.[11][12

this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

more importantly: >Around 1800 BCE, signs of a gradual decline began to emerge, and by around 1700 BCE, most of the cities were abandoned. In 1953, Sir Mortimer Wheeler proposed that the decline of the Indus Civilization was caused by the invasion of an Indo-European tribe from Central Asia called the "Aryans". As evidence, he cited a group of 37 skeletons found in various parts of Mohenjo-Daro, and passages in the Vedas referring to battles and forts. However, scholars soon started to reject Wheeler's theory, since the skeletons belonged to a period after the city's abandonment and none were found near the citadel. Subsequent examinations of the skeletons by Kenneth Kennedy in 1994 showed that the marks on the skulls were caused by erosion, and not violent aggression.[79] Today, many scholars believe that the collapse of the Indus Civilization was caused by drought and a decline in trade with Egypt and Mesopotamia.[80] It has also been suggested that immigration by new peoples, deforestation, floods, or changes in the course of the river may have contributed to the collapse of the IVC.[81]

=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Collapse_and_Late_Harappan

this is just racist drivel. why is it on here as fact?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.67.10 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - It is given as a quote; I've added a note:

19th century Indologists hypothesized an Aryan invasion and forceful conquest of north-India by the Aryans.(Klostermaier 2007 p.18) Contemporary scholars find it more likely that is was a gradual migration of Aryan tribes.(Micaels 2004 p.33-34)(Possehl 2002 p.154) According to Possehl, there may have been a "complex pattern of movement"(Possehl 2002 p.154), with seasonal migrations back north into Central Asia and south into India, but also settlement of Indo-European peoples who "preserved their own heritage".(Possehl 2002 p.154)

Read also the accompanying notes; the emphasis is on synthesis and interaction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

References needed

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Improve this section

This section, needs to be improved, the first line of the section is really unsourced, and if i removed it, the section will start lacking it's real meaning. You probably know about it, give your try :) . Bladesmulti (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This book[3] has gave the same 100% text that has been given in the section Hinduism#Diversity and inclusivism, and blamed on court, although i couldn't find if court provided that definition. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Two sources is sufficient, isn't it? Otherwise [4]. Great source, by the way, on Hindutva - I mean, very interesting to read and to get an "inside-impression" of Hindutva". This looks interesting too. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Main point was to highlight, if there's any source who says that these definitions are given by the court. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

May we replace the phrase "tipping of the hat" with the word namaste. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sindhu river

I refer to this sentence in the article: "The word Sindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda." In what way is this piece of info on Sindhu river relevant to the topic? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Let me guess: emphasizing Aryan origins. See [5]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Zimmer

I understand that Zimmer is provocative, and also not completely in line with the idea of a "fusion", where he speaks of "reassertion". So I have re-removed most of it, but reatained a few quotes which illustrate the "fusion".Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Shortening lead?

See [] for a possible compromise, moving part of the info to a note. The statement on Neo-Vedanta, though, is important; neo-Vedanta dominates the popular view of Hinduism. Hinduism is as contingent and historical determined as any other religion or culure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Some can be matter of dispute to describe that "in which mysticism,[28] Aryan origins and the unity of Hinduism[29] have been emphasised" is probably easy, but there's always some refusal, Removed from lead because Aryan origins(it's knowledge) remains controversial towards the Hindu community, but nonetheless, it was still added to the section, noted below. So you think it would be still needed in the lead? Also "under the influence" might be incorrect, it's more like "under the dominance", the word "hinduism" is english word, due to the dominance of major western language, which is english. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it shouls be in the lead because of the great influence on the contemporary understanding of what Hinduism is, both in the west and India (or vice versa). The 'emphasis on Aryan origins' may actually be more Hindutva than neo-Vedanta, though Hindutva has been influenced by neo-Vedanta. Your remark about "dominance" is a good one. How about:

Since the 19th century, under the dominanance of western colonialism and Indology, when the term "Hinduism" came into broad use,[27] the popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by neo-Vedanta,[28][note 8] in which mysticism,[28](note|As reflected in the emphasis on personal "religious experience" as the validation of religious truths) and the unity of Hinduism[29] have been emphasised.[30][31][32][28]"

I've removed the sentence from the roots-section, and moved the references to "Modern Hinduism". Hindutva is mentioned in this section. Maybe it should also be mentioned in the lead, in a note, together with communalism, given the tensions in contemporary Indian society:

Note|Neo-Vedanta also contributed to communalism and Hindu nationalism, though it is "clear that there isn't a neat line of causation that leads from the philosophies of Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan to the agenda of [...] militant Hindus." (Rinehart 2004)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hindu influence

Now it's time to mention the new section, about which i was just talking to other user, named "abecedare", I was talking about adding a new section called "influence on other religions", same way Judaism's influence is highlighted on the page of Judaism. It would be a good idea? We can add like :-

"Hinduism has been notable for influencing religions, such as Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and others. Influence is also notable among the sects of Islam, such as Ahmadiyya."

and merge the other sections like "Conversion", "Spread of Hindu practices" to it? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable? Hmmm... Which religion is not notable for influencing other religions - or being influenced? I think Abecedare already commented on this. Mutual influences are a very complex topic - when you mention "influences", both ways should be mentioned. Otherwise we'll end up with WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:POV, and some sort of "hagiography". Buddhism and Jainism alone yet influenced Hinduism, more: their succes was a main factor in the transition from Brahmanism to the "Hindu synthesis". Any remark on this part should start with "One of the traditions which contributed to the emergence of Hinduism was the sramanic tradition, as exemplified by Buddhism and Jainism". And it's not just Hinduism influencing other religions, it's India being a millennium-long melting pot of cultures and religions. That's a basic fact to start with, I'm afraid. So I think it's a very complicated topic, which asks for a very carefull approach. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist/jain influence was among the communities of Hindus, not certainly religion, for example, hindus won't change there scripture for buddhists, but reinvent there already made scriptures. That's how. Hinduism has been influential for the "creation" of other religions, it can be specified. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll need very good sources. Anyway, I've thinking about it some more; I can think of three to five main "influences":

• The emergence of Hinduism around the start of the CE, when the "Hindu synthesis" started to affect the whole Indian subcontinent;
• The expansion of Hinduism in Southeast Asia; that's a real influence;
• The influence of Islam on Hinduism, and their mutual influence;
• British colonialism, the influence of western culture on Hinduism (neo-Vedanta), the popularisation of neo-Vedanta's understanding of Hinduism in the west (Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Radhakrishnan, Gandhi), and the authority which this western influence gave to those representants and their interpretation in India;
• "Pop"-Hinduism, such as Osho and popular Yoga - but this is not just 'Hindu influence on the west', it's a shared and mutual culture, just like neo-Vedanta.

So, complex indeed. Actually, I think those influences are to be mentioned within the history-sections of the Hinduuism-article, and Indian religions and History of Hinduism. And articles like "Hinduism and...", some links to which you removed... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Would have simply edited directly if unlocked.

Fifth paragraph of introduction: "pelgrimages" to "pilgrimages". Stvpnk

Yes, the page is locked, due to vandalism. But thanks for informing about the error. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

New section suggestion

There should be "temple", before or below "worship" or Under "worship", what you think? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea. Right after Worship would be just fine. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, just added it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BBC History of Hinduism?

Surely there is a better source than a BBC website. You should be ashamed for citing it 4 times. 107.16.116.72 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will replace them with a lot better source anytime soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Correction to References

The correct first name for the reference "Stevens, Stevens (2001), Ariadne's Clue: A Guide to the Symbols of Humankind, Princeton University Press" is Anthony

24.254.238.231 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Mike

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Typographical error in Note 13

Check "literature"

24.254.238.231 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Mike

Onkar Karambe

Changes by Onkar Karambe are introducing barely coherent sentences and material cited to unreliable websites. For example we have "The word hindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda as a Sindu". What does that even mean? Or "the theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan" This is assertion, not summary of the views of reliable sources, and, of course, it is very badly written and difficult to follow. It is cited to an online Pdf file [6] by someone called "Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja" Who? Paul B (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica? Lack of page numbers?

Really? Encyclopedia Brittanica? There has to be a better reference than this anonymous source you cite 2 times. Also, why do half of your references lack page numbers?62.210.201.162 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Write the sources down here, that requires page number. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of the over 300 references have page numbers. The "notes", which make general points, are different from the "references". As for the EB, it is a highly respected source, and two citations out of 327 is hardly excessive, so what is the problem? Paul B (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote that Encyclopedia Brittanica article? My understanding is that they went to an semi-open model, where the public has input. When making bold claims in the lead, shouldn't you use references that people can follow up on? Who the hell is the author? Also the King references in the lead lack page numbers. 62.210.201.162 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The public does not write EB articles. They can make suggestions or point out errors, which are then vetted by the experts, who can then make changes if they think it appropriate. The criteria of WP:RS is that a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which the EB does. I've no idea what you mean by "follow up on". The EB can be accessed. Its criteria and fact-checking systems are public. Some articles are single-authored, others are not. Single authorship does not make something more likely to be accurate. Again, what exactly is the problem? Paul B (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, the EB webpage clearly identifies the article's author - Ann G. Gold. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've added the author's names to those two refrences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the books in the lead lack page numbers. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"The popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by this neo-Vedanta"

Most Hindus never have even heard of Advaita Vedanta or Adi Shankara. There are no Indian cinemas with Advaitic concepts. You guys are vastly overstating the importance of Advaita Vedanta.176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Most Hindus don't give a shit about Advaita Vedanta. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not qualified to talk about Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul B and JJ. What the heck is Dravidian culture?

So I am Munnuru Kapu (lower caste) speaking Telugu ("Dravidian"). Explain to me how my culture is different than any other Hindu, in any other part of India. You guys take western scholarship as gospel, when even Oxford scholars Alexis Sanderson and James Mallinson often point out fundamental errors in others' works. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An "Oxford scholar" is by definition "western scholarship", so you are not making any sense. Of course western scholars agree with one another and disagree with one another. That's how scholarship works, but "you guys", to appropriate your tern, create a fantasy of something called "western scholarship" to demonise, while, of course, appropriating any scholarship you want to agree with. I just said it's a simplification to refer to the absorption of non Indo-Aryan/Vedic traditions to create what we now call Hinduism. Your point is ridiculous because you are speaking from a position long long long after the process being described occurred. It's not a claim that "Aryans" and "Dravidians" are somehow alien cultures. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Western scholarship discredits itself. Mallinson attacks Singleton for not consulting primary sources. Sanderson attacks Muller-Ortega for the same reason. The problem is that most professors cannot read Indian languages. I'm glad you acknowledge all Hindus have essentially the same exact culture, which is something JJ doesn't seem to understand. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You discredit yourself by saying something as asinine as "western scholarship discredits itself". Western scholarship is an all encompassing term for, essentially, modern knowledge as a whole. I certainly do not want to belittle non-Western cultures, but it's laughable to complain that scholars debate with one another. That's how knowledge advances. And it's not a Western invention. Perhaps you should read The Argumentative Indian. Or does "Indian scholarship discredit itself" because Indians argue with each other too? I've no idea what "most professors cannot read Indian languages" is supposed to mean. Different professors are experts on different topics. Paul B (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

They are not "debating" each other. They are being criticized for fundamental lack of scholarship. There is a big difference. And what don't you understand about "most professors cannot read Indian languages"? That's why modern books, like Tantra in Practice, still have to resort to translations by Arthur Avalon. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just childish. Scholars constantly accuse each other of "lack of scholarship". So some book quotes an old translation? What is all this supposed to prove? It's just pointless ranting. The statement "most professors cannot read Indian languages" is meaningless. Most professors are not expected to be experts on Indian languages. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Most professors are not expected to be experts on Indian languages? LMAO. Paul B you are hilarious. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that two intelligent individuals like you stray from a reasoned discussion of specific content that I found interesting until the personal attacks started. IP address 176, I believe there are many professors at western universities who are well-versed in Hindi, Sanskrit, and other South Asian languages. There are also scholars of Hindu culture and religion who come from cultures other than "the West", but they only gain respect internationally if they follow high standards of scholarship. Paul, there may well be some people who do not understand the process of scholarly research, publication, and peer reviews, all leading to new understandings, interpretations and knowledge. If you want to, you might try explaining that in a bit more detail and give an example or two related to the article; then the IP 176 editor might understand what you are talking about. IP 176, read what Paul has to say and respond directly to that; be specific and support your ideas with facts and sources. You may have some valid points, but they get lost in the vague and emotionally-charged exchanges. I urge you both to continue the discussion in a different manner and tone. It could prove interesting.CorinneSD (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just not remotely clear what the IP is complaining of. Of course western universities are full of scholars who know Indian languages. They are also full of scholars who do not, because that is not their field of scholarship. Will there be teachers who comment on Hinduism without detailed scholarly expertise? Of course. A person teaching a module on World Religions, say, can't be expected to learn all the many Indian languages - plus Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic... Nowhere in the world can expect that degree of expertise for everyone all the time. It's not humanly possible. That's why specialisms exist. It's nothing to do with the "West". It's true anywhere. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(I'm sorry, but I don't know how to put the arrow to bring the comments back to the left margin.)

I agree that it is not clear what IP 176 is complaining about, but I think he/she may not be familiar with standards of academic scholarship. I meant to say, and was about to correct my statement before I saw your reply, (and Paul, I know you know this) that scholars and researchers only gain the respect of their peers (fellow researchers in their fields) if they follow accepted standards of scholarship and research, regardless of where they happen to live or from which culture they come. Discussion and disagreement among peers in a field and even with experts in other fields is a regular part of the process of finding, interpreting, and writing about knowledge. Paul is right. No researcher can be expected to know everything. For example, for a very long time, paleontologists disagreed about the relationship between extinct dinosaurs and modern birds and reptiles. With the discovery of well-preserved fossil bones of ancient animals that showed elements of reptiles as well as feathers, paleontologists realized that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds as well as reptiles. (I'm not an expert; only read about this.) I only offer this as an example to show that disagreement is a normal part of research and discovery in any field. IP 176, if you have a specific point you wish to make about Hindu culture or religion, or anything else, try to be clear and specific, and support your statement with facts and sources. It's also all right to ask questions. You may learn something new. It is counterproductive to ask "What the heck is...?" and say "You guys". It would be better to say,

• I don't understand what is meant by "....". I thought X was Y. or
• It's not clear to me what you mean by "...". or
• Could you explain what you mean by "...."? or
• Why do you say that X is Y? I thought.... CorinneSD (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Both in India and outside India scholars talk about issues citing primary and secondary sources without getting personal. I talk about, say, the Bible though I do not know Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous Understanding

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Indigenous Understanding I don't think you should classify or dismiss Breaking India and Invading the Sacred as "indigenous understanding". Neither book is written from an indigenous perspective. And then you are linking both books to the concept of Sanatana Dharma, which is also not fair. Invading the Sacred has many non-indigenous contributors, and Breaking India has very little to do with Hinduism at all. If you want to make a section called "Critique of Modern Scholarship", that would make more sense. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Misreporting references

The references say that Buddhism was outright dominant in royal circles before the eighth century, not merely coexisting. Buddhism was the dominant religion among royal circlees. Also Buddhism continued to be dominant in the Pala region past the eighth century, according to Inden. This is because of Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think same way, they should also add jainism, which had been historically lowered by 8th century. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Jainism was ever dominant like Buddhism. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jainism is a much older tradition than Buddhism. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Should add "Jainism" on lead as well.. I also know that Hinduism co-existed with Zoroastrianism, and still does, which is older than both Jainism and buddhism. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the references specifically talk about Buddhism. You can't just add Jainism just because you feel like it. Jainism and Zoroastrianism were never dominant like Buddhism. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Parsis [Zoroastrians] emigrated to India when Islam was imposed on Persia, and brought their faith with them. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, there is evidence that Zoroastrianism originated in India, but not present day India, and Gujarat has historical Zoroastrian traces, being a part of Sassanid empire as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The book Invading the Sacred

There is a book Invading the Sacred which points out the flaws in modern Hinduism scholarship. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.176.67.169.146 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This book, published in India, is "An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America". Kanchanamala (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There are serious flaws in modern "South Asian" scholarship including the fact that only a handful (Witzel, Sanderson etc.) are competent in Indian languages. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is true, if there was misinterpretation's main fault was bad understanding of language. Arabic, persian, hebrew are easy though, not sanksrit, hindi. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea why Arabic Persian and Hebrew are "easy" but Sanskrit and Hindi are not! That doesn't sound very...scientific. The real question is what the scholarly reception of this collection is. It comes from a very particular and defensive POV represented by Rajiv Malhotra's Infinity Foundation and sulekha.com. In particular it is fixated on the use of Freudian theory in studies of Hinduism, which represents a miniscule fraction of Western scholarly commentary on Hinduism - or any other religion. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Can be, may use other scholar if pov pushing involved. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found only one review, by Rambacharan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's discussed in the OUP book Teaching Mysticism by William B. Parsons: "Finally, the last part of the course would focus on the more complex and volatile debates surrounding the study of Hindu mysticism today, particularly in the United States. Here students could read the critiques of American scholarship on Hinduism, such as Invading the Sacred (Ramaswamy, de Nicholas, and Banerjee 2007), along with the equally powerful responses to these critiques by American scholars (see, e.g., Kripal 2001; Courtright 2004). Kripal, for example, has an entire website devoted to the discussion, critique, and defense of Kālī’s Child, which offers a fine resource for students to engage this complex debate" (p.18). There is also this review [7], which calls it a "tendentious volume". Essentially this is no different from believers in other religions attacking secular scholarship. There are numerous books by Muslim and Christian apologists defending the truths of their faith against secular scholars, often, as with Malhotra, these are financially suppoerted by wealthy businessmen linked to the faith in question. It's just that Hindu responses are of a distinctive and different kind from Christian and Muslim ones, because they are bound up with semi-extraneous issues such as colonialism and Abrahamic ideas of "pagan" religions, which get mixed up in the debate (hence the obsession with characterising critics as part of a "western" attempt to undermine, or even convert, Hindus. Even Muslims don't tend to make these accusations, because they know that secular scholarship is equally sceptical of Christianity). Unfortunately it would be very difficult to treat this encyclopedically without straying into OR. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the book as some sort of religious response against secular scholarship. Your own reference calls it a critique of American scholarship. You say secular scholarship is equally skeptical of Christianity, as if scholars treat Hinduism and Christianity equally in methodology, when that's not the case. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholars treat Christianity and Hinduism differently because they are different. Christianity depends on the historical facts of the life of Jesus, so discussion of Christian origins is very much about trying to distinguish myth from fact. Hinduism does not depend on history in the same way, apart from some very "fundamentalist" versions, so of course secular scholarship is going to address different issues, though historical events so come into it (hence this whole Aryan/Dravidian debate). The very title of the book "Invading the Sacred" implies a preoccupation with a supposed attack on religious beliefs, which is central to the whole issue. But as I clearly stated, indeed the whole point I was making, is that this issue of 'secular scholarship v faith' comes to be utterly mixed up with issues about colonialism and nationalism which actually serve to confuse what's really at issue. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The title is not representative of the book. The book wasn't written by Swamis. You are mischaracterizing the book as one of secular scholarship vs faith, when the book points out factual errors in scholarship because of a lack of peer review. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that I disagree with you. The book has a section on “Exposing Academic Hinduphobia". It's completely preoccupied with the idea that western/secular scholarship is engaged in some sort of "attack" on Hinduism. That's quite different from pointing out errors in this or that book, or arguing for a different point of view. Saying there is lack of "peer review" is almost meaningless. All academic books have peer review. That's just a way of saying "our criticisms are a form of post-facto peer review, and because these particular criticisms were evidently not made by the actual peer reviewers, then they weren't really peer reviews". It's a circular argument. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan and the Lack of Page Numbers

Can someone tell me why Joshua Jonathan does not present page numbers for his references? I am starting to think he is just making stuff up. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be very precise in what you're commenting on. You too are making a personal attack here, by not assuming good faith. For Hiltebeitel (2002) I did not provide page-numbers, because I read it at Google-books. The 2002-edition there does not have page-numbers. For the rest am I very precise at providing references and page-numbers. So please refrain from this kind of accusations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's not the first time as I asked him to provide them and he did. It isn't always possible - I've had similar problems using Google Books. So if the IP has a grief I expect them to be precise and polite. This works both ways - why should we trust an anonymous editor who makes comments like this? Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We must needs assume good faith. Kanchanamala (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Joshua Jonathan will provide the relevant quote from Hiltebeitel since there are no page numbers. I am confused whether its 2002 or 2013 though. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 is the most recent edition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked again; both are the 2007 Digital printing edition. "2002" doesn't have page-numbers, "2013" does. I'll change both to 2007, beginning with the "2013"-references. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vedic period

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Vedic period

Since the issue is heatedly debated, there was reason why it was simply kept that "may have drawn upon elements", Because there can be too much to attribute if we tried. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the info that I added is based on WP:RS, and accepted by mainstream scholarship:

"The Vedic period is named after the Vedic religion of Indo-Aryan pastoralists, who migrated into north-western India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization, bringing with them their language and religion.(Flood 1996)(Hiltebeitel 2007) Their religion was further developed when they migrated into the Ganges Plain after c. 1100 BCE and became pastoralists.(Samuel 2010)"

The fact that some people dispute this is not a valid reason to remove this info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything is ok, but it should be in 2nd paragraph, and "language and religion" can be changed into "culture". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The section provides basic info, which works as an introduction. And "culture" is vague, and bypassing the relevance of this info: the Vedic period is named after the Vedic religion, and it's the language which provides the main argument for the migration-thesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you give the links of the source, with the exact page? It can be viewed better. I would still suggest that this should be kept as 2nd paragraph, or merged with the former first paragraph. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

More direct quotes embedded in the article as "notes", would be extremely helpful. Also citing specific pages instead of a range of pages. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Also vedic period is 1750 BCE, not 1500 BCE, [8], [9], [10]. Moreover it is regarded from 1700 BCE, by more sources.[11], [12] Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not the best sources, I'm afraid, but I've changed the dating back to c.1750, and added a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

First temples

Copied from [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Hinduism - first temples

See http://books.google.com/books?id=PD-flQMc1ocC&q=temples+emerged#v=snippet&q=temples%20emerged&f=false Source writes "the first hindu temples emerged - Durga temple, Aihole, Vishnu temple - Deogarh. But the author is only talking about the first temples of this period, not about the temples like Koneswaram Temple(6th century BCE or older), Amarnath(3rd Century BCE), etc. Also the author is incorrect, because Durga temple, Aihole wasn't built during Gupta Empire. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC) copied to Talk:Hinduism#First temples

He's talking about the first Hindu temples, apparently meaning temples for the devotion toward Vishnu and Shiva. The info on Koneswaram Temple is far from convincing. The Wiki-article does not give sources for the dating; it also says...

"Archaeologists point to its initial phase consisting of a rock cave, multi-layered brick shrine style popularly constructed to Tamil deities of a range of faiths during the Sangam period (see Religion in ancient Tamil country)." (emphasis mine)

The "wide range of faiths" makes sense; as I've pointed to several times before, there was no Hinduism at 400 or 600 BCE, not in north India, and certainly not in south India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems like that they are first hindu temples. Even if you had copied+pasted the same thing from the book, it wouldn't sound like this. You should add "Vaishnava" in the same line though. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me with what you mean with "it seems like that they are first hindu temples". Do you mean Koneswaram Temple, or do you mean the Durga temple and the Vishnu temple in Deogarth? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

All temples. The current sentence depicts that these were the first temples, overall, but they weren't. Don't think it's better idea to add into notes. As one of the temple wasn't built during the Gupta empire either, that has been named. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not really matter, whether the temple was built of bricks previously and now they were built of stones. Matter is the whole temple thing. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Michaels means specific Hindu temples, temples for Hindu-worship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that should be modified, if someone search "temple" on this page, it redirects to this section first, and it cites "first temple"(sounds overall), like explained before. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Source Verification

What is the actual name of the book/reference, that is currently described as Nath, Vijay (2001), "From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition", Social Scientist 2001, pp. 19-50 Bladesmulti (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Social Scientist is a scientific journal: [13]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thapar: [14] I hope that the links works where you live. Otherwise: [15].

"Where chiefs were being converted to landholders and other members of the clan to peasants, the introduction of caste was a useful mechanism of control over the new kshatriyas and shudras."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote wasn't complete, and used the word caste(came much after). So it was confusing, anyways i can access those page as well. Bladesmulti 09:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the improvements you made. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

a fusion of Arian and Dravidian cultures?

No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.

Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.

The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

I agree, we should instead add "fusion of different cultures", at least on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda

Added "multiple cultures", rest is described on article body anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And changed a direct quote. I've corrected the spelling. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Add "indo-aryan"? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The misconception that "Aryans" came to India has long been debunked. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is how everyone will act. The theory was made by 19th century, and today no one accepts it. So what is the point? You saw your talk page too, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'fusion' is not used by Lockard (source) in the book. I think this is definitely unnecessary to describe that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory in the lead. The word 'Fusion' indicates 50-50 share of Aryan and Dravidian cultures, but such kind of language is not used in the source. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, it seems like it has been only used for combining such thought, nothing else really. Sometimes we have to summarize ourselves though, but this seems huge claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding the Aryan migration, the statement that "no one accepts it" is plain nonsense. It's not accepted by some people, who don't seem to care about modern scholarship.
• Regarding "that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory", it's controversial for the same group of people. There is a broad scholarly concensus that Hinduism is the result of a fusion of various strands of Indian culture, and a relatively recent fusion. See note 4, which mentions more sources. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism#Fusion for extensive quotes.
• Regarding the term "fusion", other terms being used are "synthesis" (Lockard 2007 p.52), "Hindu synthesis" (Hiltebeitel 2002), and "classical synthesis" (Samuel 2010).
• Hinduism being a "synthesis" or "fusion" of several strands of Indian culture, is such a basic and essential feature of Hinduism, and such a basic aspect of the scholarly understanding of Hinduism, that it's one of the essential facts to mention about Hinduism. Ask yourself a simple question: how do we explain the immense diversity of Hinduism? Rigth, here's the answer. If you think it's a "huge claim", you show a basic lack of knowledge about the history of Hinduism , and about modern scholarship on the history of Hinduism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So which one is it? Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse? The reason you are contradicting yourself, because you have never been to India, let alone travelled India. Secondly, I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory. This is similar to Paul B's misunderstanding of genetic studies. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. JJ has managed to find a single source in the form of Lockard to justify large chunks of additions to this article. The word 'Fusion' is not used in the context of Hinduism religion. JJ should read those quotes again. Also, Lockard is not reliable for this encyclopedia. JJ should consider reading his works thoroughly before calling him a 'universal scholar'. Moreover other stuff like North-east, Shramana and local traditions being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. No such quotations have been provided which were asked for in an earlier discussion. Also, terms like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" is a clean example of pov editing. Such negative terms are not supposed to be added in the lead of the article.

The lead of the article should be short and shall not include such mass information. The problem with these recent edits by JJ is that the controversial views are being presented as universal.

As far as Aryan-Dravidian issue is concerned, its a very controversial theory and completely opposite theories are also present which have been supported by some modern historians as well. Such aryan-dravidian content may be apt for articles like Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans, but its completely inappropriate for the lead of this article. Such kind of content will make this article confusing and will question reliability of our encyclopedia. In my opinion the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit. JJ should first discuss each content one by one before adding anything. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider the use of the term "vandalism" to be a personal attack and a breach of WP:GOODFAITH, and close to trolling. The term "Hindu synthesis" reflects a broad scholarly consensus. Regarding the quotes, I've pointed before to User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism where extensive quotes are given, though I doubt that you're serious willing to read those quotes. I get the impression that you're not willing to engage in discussion, but only searching for rhetorics to push your personal point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, honestly you might won't have any bad intention, but the way you are presenting is pretty strange, like JJ points. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling an editor a vandal after being blocked for doing just that is such a bad idea. I've given him 72 hours timeout to think about it. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Aryans and Dravidians is simply a linguistic fact. See Dravidian languages. There's nothing remotely controversial about it at all. This is part of the problem with discussions in this area. There is so much half-digested commentary on semi-garbled versions of supposed controversy that the real issues just get lost in the confusion. Yes, it's an over-simplification to say that Hiduism is a mix of "Aryan" and "Dravidian", (after all there's Munda too), but it's a fairly clear way of summing up the fusion of cultures. Even the anti-"Aryan Invasion" people don't dispute that Vedic culture expanded from the Indus to what we now call "India" as a whole, and that as it did so it absorbed local cults and traditions that were integrated into Brahmin-based religious practices. I fail to understand why phrases like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" are "negative". Only the real extremists whop believed the Vedas date from the Stone Age and the Dravidian languages were invented by a Brahmin dispute that there has been a mutual influence of Aryan and Dravidian traditions. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The page in current form, is not problematic at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Belated reply to 176.67.169.146

• "Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse?" - It's not a matter of "homogenization"; that's not what's being meant with "fusion" or "synthesis", as far as I can see. It means that groups of people have adapted to Brahmanical ideas, but it does not mean that all Indians have, or have ever had, exactly the same religious faiths and beliefs.
• "I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory." - I have a serious problem understanding what's being said here. From what I understand about it, Indo-Aryans migrated to (north-western) India, bringing with them their language and religion, approximately around 1500 BCE. Indian had been populated then for millennia already. When the Indo-Aryans moved further east, into the Ganges Plain, around 1000 BCE, they changed to an agrarian way of living, founding one of the earliest "states"/kingdoms of India (Kuru kingdom), adapting their religious system and introducing the Varna-system to "manage" their new-born kingdom and its various cultural and ethnic groups.(Samuel 2010) This system worked remarkably well to provide stability, though another variety developed at the central Ganges Plain, where Buddhism and Jainism developed at about 600-500 BCE, and kshatriyas had the hisghest status. When Buddhism became the "state religion" of the Mauryan empire and subsequent states and empires, the Brahmanical/Vedic religion was further developed, to incorporate shramanic elements, and local cults and religions, of Dravidian origin. This "synthesis" worked, remained part of norhtern Indian culture, and spread further south and east. It was only at the 8th century that Buddhism lost its position at the highest royal courts, and was replaced by the Brahmanical/Hindu religion.

As far as I can see, India is a very complicated society, with an incredible rich and varied history. As a relative outsider, I can afford the luxury to rely on scholarly sources. I really have a hard time trying to understand why other editors don't rely on the same sources, but instead cling to specific, partisan interpretations of Indian history and religion. There's no reason, to my opinion, to ignore this diversity and richness. Be proud of it! But please, be also realistic: "reality", or history, may not be as "simple" or "monolithic" as you think.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What diversity and richness Joshua Jonathan? If you actually travelled to India from North to South, you would know that Hinduism is for the most part exactly the same, except for maybe the styles of the temples and idols. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to JJ and others for such an uncivilized behavior. But I just want to raise a valid point.

Among the recent additions by JJ to the lead is: "From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35][36]" This sentence is exactly contrary to another theory which says Hinduism is indigenous to South India. Why is such a controversial sentence being added to the lead of this article?

In an earlier discussion, JJ was asked to provide proper quotations from the sources. But unfortunately still I can't see much here. All these points regarding religions of Indus valley, Adivasis, local traditions, and north-east India being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. They are confusing for this article. And such points are disputed also. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after facing so many reliable sources he has tried to make as neutral point as he could. But anyways, if we hatch out all of the information from lead, what should be written on the body.. Can you compose your own version in your commons/sandbox? It would be far better idea, so we can know what you want. Just like JJ did composed his own sandbox for a version, and details. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Firtly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India. That's not to say that many of the features we identify as part of pan-Indian "Hinduism" are not indigenous to the South, and indeed may have originated there. That's what the whole "fusion of Aryan and Dravidian" concept means. This is part of the problem with this debate. We have the IP insisting that the whole Aryan-Dravidian difference is a chimera, and now we have another editor insisting that Hinduism is indigenous to the (Dravidian) south. If so, where did the Vedas come from? So in reality there is no contradiction at all between the views you describe. Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture cvomes from the North is poorly sourced? It's pretty much accepted by all sources, even Hindutva ones. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

North to south, simple as that. Since it was all part of Hindu civilization, obviously no hindutva and outsiders would deny, those who claims against these agreements(of both sides) are having obvious bad faith and hidden agenda. We are done with this one. Yoondaue will have to show his own page version(that he will make in sandbox) and the ip you mentioned must show the email, sources, to which he referred, he hasn't presented yet though. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

PaulB, according to Flood, "The actual term 'hindu' first occurs as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus." See page 6 of Introduction to Hinduism.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It comes from "Sindhu" which refers to the Indus river. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Paul B

Firstly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India.

The theory I am referring to is Indigenous Aryans which simply says that Hinduism is indigenous to both North and South India. The only difference b/w north and south as already discussed above is linguistic. Read this. Just because Hinduism is prominent in both North and South India doesn't make it a fusion of aryan and dravidian cultures. Actually the Hindus of south India follow the same religion. They get married with the help of Brahmins doing Sanskrit rituals. Their religious scriptures are also Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana which are originally Sanskrit texts. They also follow caste system and various Brahmin communities form an integral part of south Indian society.

Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture comes from the North is poorly sourced

Firstly there is nothing like non-vedic Hinduism. Hinduism is vedic everywhere from Kashmir to South India. The point I am referring as poorly sourced is that Hinduism is From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35] Presence of such content in the lead is like accepting the agenda of Dravidian politics that Hinduism used to be an alien religion for south India at a time and it got spread in south in some later age. The opposite theory says the history of Hinduism in south goes as long as it goes in case of north.

@ Bladesmulti

I am not going to create any sandbox. As I have already suggested, the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit and JJ should first discuss each point one by one.

@ JJ

Your edits indicate that Hinduism is not a specific religion but a mixture of religions. As per your edits, this mixture contains dravidian, mongoloid, adivasi, north-east, austric elements. Then let us know what does Hinduism take from these multiple traditions so as to term them as "among the direct roots of Hinduism"? You should give some description of that. Wikipedia is not that kind of encyclopedia that someone find a source and write an entire article on that basis of that. Certain points like this need to be discussed.

My opinion:- Hinduism is very much a specific religion. Just because Hinduism is also found among the south Indians, Mongoloid people of Nepal, Bali and austric-speaking people of India, doesn't mean that that these traditions are the direct roots of Hinduism. They have inherited religion from the Hindu faith. Hinduism doesn't inherit anything significant from them. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to present your idea through a sandbox, than i am highly wondering that how you want this article to be looked like. Just check the archives or this same page, we had number of issues on which we have worked on, reverting to a old version is complete loss, and not a progress. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Bladesmulti

It won't be a complete loss as everything would still remain in the record. Th article would look like this. The lead should remain short and there should not be any section named "Roots of Hinduism" as there already exist a similar section 'History'. If JJ has anything to add, he should discuss one by one. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has got policies; one of them is WP:BOLD. If you want to change them, propose changes. But to discuss edits one-by-one because you've got a problem named WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that's not how Wikipedia works. My edits are referenced, by reliable sources, reflecting commonly accepted mainstream scholarship, verifiable to anyone who's simply willing to read those sources. If you think that your opinion or personal understanding of Hinduism reflects the current scholarly insights on Hinduism and its history, surprise us, and give some very good reliable sources which we have overlooked. Otherwise, your opinion is not even WP:OR, but just that: your personal understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, JJ has already discussed them. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lede is supposed to sum up the whole article. Your comments about the "indigenous Aryans" concept just indicate the utter confusion of what you are saying. The "indigenous Aryans" argument simply claims that Vedic culture developed in India (though of course what counts as "India" is rather fluid). It's completely irrelevant to the Aryan/Dravidian distinction, since it presupposes that Vedic culture emerged in North India, probably in the Indus Valley and then spread from there. After all, the Vedas are written in Sanskrit - Indo-Aryan - not Dravidian. So by definition Dravidian peoples have to have been assimilated to Sanskrit-based texts at some point don't they? As I say, even the OIT people accept this. No-one disputes that Hinduism is native to India. You are arguing against a straw man. Indeed it is clear that you don't even understand the point that you are addressing. The fact that you link to an article on genetics just indicates how confused you are. Genetic differences and similarities between the various peoples of India have no bearing on the point at issue. How could they? Paul B (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of Aryan discussion above

In mainstream scholarship, the Aryan Migration Theory is on its deathbed. David Gordon White cites 3 scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion is derived from the Indus Valley Civilizations. See pages 28 and 29 of Kiss of the Yogini. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead conflicts with what 4 mainstream scholars say, when it contrasts the Vedic religion with the Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White's Kiss of the Yogini cites 3 different scholars who say Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White explicitly says its "quite artificial" to make a distinction between Vedic tradition and IVC. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I really appreciate your efforts! Thanks; they're inviting to further inquire into these topics. And, doing so, what I read at White is not that "Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization", but that "the religion of the Vedas was already a composite of the indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations." (White p.28) Nice that you mention this; I'd mentioned something similar in regard to popular beliefs and the Yaksha cults in the Hinduism-article:

"The Vedic texts were the texts of the elite, and do not necessarily represent popular ideas or practices.(Singh 2008 p.184) The Vedic religion of the later Vedic period co-existed with local religions, such as the Yaksha cults.(Samuel 2010)(Basham 1989 p.74-75}}[16]"

Essentially, what White is saying (as far as I understand him), is that there was no "pure" Vedic religion, but that the Vedic religion already was a "composite". Which is actually not surprising, is it, when you think about? People interact, and adapt to new environments, including cultural. The moment we are discussing here, we are also interacting, and changing our minds. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)