Talk:Hinduism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

TOPICS UNDER DISCUSSION

Nomenclature: Copied from text

' The relatively new nomenclature raises many points of discussion. Many consider Hinduism to be a way of life rather than an organized religion, and it is telling that neither has the Hindu religion established a practice for formal conversion, nor does it actively seek converts. The term Hindu was often used to refer to an ethnicity ([1][2][) (historically by people from outside the Indian subcontinent) just as Jew is used to refer to a particular ethnicity. Hinduism however, attaches minimal significance to the ethnicity in its scriptures, in contrast to Judaism and other Abrahamic religions where the concepts of Promised land and tribes of Israel are held as significant. The use of the term Hindu to identify an ethnicity is falling out of common use, also because Hindus comprise a larger ethnic group than that with which they were traditionally identified. '

This passage needs work on its prose. When I mentioned prosletyzing originally I did so intentionally to draw a line between native ethnic hindu's, who are not at all known for seeking to convert outsiders, and non-ethnic hindu's who feel they have converted to sanatana dharama, or have created their own form (hare krishna, trancendental meditation, etc...) who in my experience are quite vigorous about attempting to convert others. Sam Spade 08:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, Feel free to re-edit it, please. But, I would appreciate it if you could quote the exact examples in the main article too. Regards Chancemill 08:36, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

To be honest its an area which I am not entirely confident/comfortable as how to best express, so I am open to suggestions or others attempts. Sam Spade 08:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. "Hinduism, however, attaches minimal signifance to the ethnicity in its scriptures," is misleading at best. Keep in mind that the caste division has ethnic implications as well (the lowest class tends to include the autochthons), and the traditional religion administered by the priestly caste is thus de facto ethnocentric...कुक्कुरोवाच 08:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is quite debatable, indeed. The question here is "what is prescribed in the scriptures" vs. "what is followed". As explained later in the article, caste used to be determined by individual preferences/tendencies rather than by birth. That it has come to be an ethnic issue, is a clear distortion of the Hindu scriptures by a section of the upper caste to retain hegemony. But, at the moment, I am not going beyond this reply. I leave this point upto the future editors to sort this issue out. Chancemill 09:06, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly there are varied views on this, and we must be careful to express all POV's fairly and accurately Sam Spade 09:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chancemill: Your claims that at lower levels Hinduism is polytheistic are baseless since even what Indians call 'gaav-wallas', who are ostensibly the followers of more 'popular' Hindu religion, admit of fundamental unity and oneness. Ekam Sat Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti is very much a believed tenet, if not quoted. Western scholars have been universal, even the most biased, in their praise or criticism of how willingly Hindus are able to acknowledge another God as being part of the same truth since all paths lead to the same God. Hinduism at lower levels is too monist/monotheist in its conception to be called polytheism. Henotheism is better, but even then this broad generalization of Hindu belief is inadequate as the beliefs of Hindus across india, let alone the rest of South /South-East Asia, are as varied as the Vedic scripture itself.

The talk about Jewish ethnicity is so in-depth as to be tangential and at best should go under Hindu as an Ethnicity. I think, in the prefatory remarks, making mention of the fact that Jewish identity is ethnically-bound and contrasting that with Hindus is important but that further explication can remain in the ethnicity section. Otherwise, we end up going crazy in the intro.

Also, on that note, there IS a very great importance attached by Hindus to Bharat varsha, which has been shown to signify the Indian subcontinent and immediately surrounding areas. While it is NOTHING like Zionism, there is a great deal of lore around India as the mother, Bharat Mata, and most of Hinduism's holy sites, in fact practically all, are located in modern-day India, Nepal, Tibet, Pakistan or Bangladesh. Should we not make mention of the centrality of India to the Vedic faiths? --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:12, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, on conversion: there are certainly no conversion ceremonies and there have never been historic movements or scriptural injunctions to change people's faith, since all that was wanted was fundamental morality: dharma. That was religion enough. Ekam sat and all that. But there have been notable converts in Indian history, such as Haridas (the most beloved of Chaitanya's disciples) who was a Muslim and became a Hindu saint of Puri, Orissa and of course Sheikh Muhammad, who was an avid Bhakta. Others, more regional, surely exist.

In that sense, we've also missed the crossovers. The singing Bauls of Bengal imbibed so much of Bhakti and Vedanta but also draw from Islamic culture that they flouted both Islam and Brahminical Hinduism altogether.

And someone like Kabir, who though he professed to be without religion, used so much Hindu terminology, indeed more Vedanta and Bhakti ideas (his Guru was a Vaishnav saint) that it is hard to separate him from the Hindu fold. At the very least, in the Hinduism page, mention should be made of how India's sufi culture was affected and in turn blended with Hindu streams of thought and resulted in new 'mix' cultures.

Lastly, we are sorely lacking in the puja, mandir, bhakti and devotional literature (Gita Govinda, Ramcharitmanas, etc.) sections. And what of our beloved cow? It might be fun to mention that a popular West Bengali insult, Hindu of course, is 'goru khaaki' (beef eater). Or maybe not. Whatever. We need to talk about Hindu 'Bovinity.'

--LordSuryaofShropshire 15:23, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Article length/splitting it off

You seem to be having great ideas for this article indeed. Please go ahead and edit the contents. But, the article already seems to be very long to stand as a single article. May be we need to think about splitting it up ? Chancemill 05:19, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

You are quite right, the recent aditions have been wonderful overall, and I for one am quite excited and intently watching for new additions, but there does come a point where making a seperate page for in depth discussion of a metter, while of course leaving a modest mention/overview of it, becomes necessary. I think the areas where this would be most benificial are rather obvious, as they are the longer portions, and the more contentious portions. Hinduism and Ethnicity and Hinduism and Caste would both seem to be useful as would Bhakti schools (and other schools), Hinduism and Other Faiths, and perhaps others. The information on Hindu scriptures could probably be merged with pre-existing articles on these individual scriptures (bhagavad gita being a good example), while leaving an overview. Thanks to LordSurya and others for all the many fine additions, Cheers, Sam Spade 21:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hindu msg

Does anyone know how to edit the msg thing at the very bottom for Hinduism? It should include Yoga and Tantra to be complete.--LordSuryaofShropshire 02:23, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Its at Template:Hinduism -- Arvindn 03:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:35, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Regarding the following sentences-

Historically, the word Hindu predates the reference to Hinduism as a religion; it did not denote a system of religious belief, the term is of Persian origin and first referred to people who live on the other side (from a Persian point of view) of the Sindhu, or the Indus river.

The term Hindu was often used to refer to an ethnicity ([1][2]) (historically by people from outside the Indian subcontinent) just as Jew is used to refer to a particular ethnicity. The use of the term Hindu to identify an ethnicity is falling out of common use, also because Hindus comprise a larger ethnic group than that with which they were traditionally identified.

I had a problem with the use of the word ethnicity with Hindu( see discussion above). Now I see that there are two parallel references to the word Hindu in the first para after the TOC. Are these two references to Hindu within the same chronological context- meaning does the second sentence elaborate on the first? If so then these two should be merged and I agree with the ethnicity reference. Or does the second sentence refer to a later/more current usage in the 20th century( which is what I objected to). Can anyone please clarify? KRS 10:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That section can be cleaned up for the redundancy. The use of Hindu as an ethnicity is an old one, and dying out with more awareness. When I rearranged everything, passags saying the same thing but found on different spots on the page were meshed together, like here. Rewording can be done. --LordSuryaofShropshire 12:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

The Census

"Among the dualists, Vaishnavas, according to one census...." What is this census exactly? Where did it come from, where did they poll? On what basis?

One must also take into account that a Vaishnav is automatically someone who is dualist, or does not believe in Brahman, but rather Vishnu (or an avatar thereof) as being the Ultimate Form of God. Same with Shaivaites. There are plenty of Hindus who don't identify themselves as EITHER and many who don't believe in God-worship at all. It sounds very flawed as a study, and it needs citing if its presence is justified. I say this because with information like beliefs of Hindus, other people are around to discuss and counter, whereas quoting a mysterious poll without citing it or its methodology is almost an act of faith that other people are forced to accept. This needs clarification like butter into ghee. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:43, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Citations (04/02/04)

We need citations. I saw that one of the comments holding the article back from Featured Article status was citations (although I must say that most articles, featured or not, lack proper citations). I am going to slowly start adding them in, but could others try and help with the process? It would be great if people could, if they see particularly important material (especially numbers, facts, broad statements of trends), add references that are satisfactory. I will begin on anything I see, including a lot of the stuff I wrote. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:02, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

RESTRUCTURING

Restructuring As Of March 31st 2004

I have added a brief discussion on the theisms and -isms of Hinduism... namely Henotheism, Polythiesm, Monism and Monotheism. In addition, I rearranged the page a lot. i felt that the two discussions on cast should just be grouped together. Also, the Index was looking clumpy so I tried to institute some order and classification. The 'what is hinduism' section is sort of a heading for the whole article, and so we ended up giving way too big an intro (a lot to do with my own posts!). So, it could probably be shortened more.

Also, I think we could do with maybe a tripartite division, or quartered, whatever, of the page. It could be along the lines of 'Summary,' 'History,' 'Philosophy/Movements' and 'Scripture/Worship'

We might not actually LABEL it such, but the general arrangement could offer more order and cohesiveness. Any further ideas? Criticisms? --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:07, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I like what you have done/are doing. I have to admit I havn't read over every addition, so there may be a sentance or two that need a tweak, but all that I have seen is good, and I ask you to continue. Be bold! Cheers, Sam Spade 05:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have made a bit of rephrasing to the Overview part - considering the objections in this page. I believe the current version is more accurately descriptive, and more balanced. If Lord Surya believes the section should be shortened, I believe the current balance should be maintained when doing that, so as not to over-emphasise on the ethnicity issue. Thanks Chancemill 06:39, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Restructuring As Of Friday, April 2nd, 2004

Okay... I've finished a lot. There were unfortunately a LOT of redundancies left in the original article (as it stood before 10:00 pm, Thursday, April 1st, 2004). I slashed a lot and also there still needs to be some more clarity. Also, I think we should have a section (I've started it: called Themes) under which each major theme of Hinduism is hit upon... I did the form vs. formless one... we could think about my 'Bovinity' idea, etc. all under themes. We need to keep the article clean if we want to forward it as a 'feature article candidate' ;) --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:34, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

As you can see, I have also 'restructured' (getting sick of that word) this Talk: room. I have ONLY moved sections around to one Discussion part and one Restructuring part, and have left all communications completely untouched. I thought it would help to make work easier. I think I mentioned this before, but the article and talk page are beginning to reflect the wild rambles and tangents that Hinduism itself exhibits. {I apologize if organizing the talk page goes against protocol; I should have possibly consulted first, so please correct me if I erred and we can revert) --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:01, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Added Appraisal of Muslim/Hindu relations at the bottom of the page. Feel free to have at it for NPOV or more (accurate) information. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Question Re:Authorship of the Upanishads

"Often, critics of the Hindu/Vedic tradition will use the term Brahminical to imply a karma-kanda, or ritual-based mode of worship, sort of stuck in the four Vedic books and Brahamanas (Vedic ritual books). However, it is widely acknowledged that those who wrote the mystic verse of the Upanishads were in all likelihood Brahmins as well."

I seem to recall my translation (Robert Hume's) of the Upaniṣads mentioning there being considerable evidence for kṣatriya authorship. Not that I'm asserting that there's something contradictory about being mystical and Brahmin at the same time...

I have the Hume translation but am still studying Ghosh and Radhakrishnan (also Easwaran). Why don't you add that in? I would, however, like to see if his opinion has ever been seconded by other comparable scholars. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:58, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Understandable. At some point in the quasi-near future I'll try to track down my copy and pull the appropriate sections, and see whom he footnotes.

My Hume copy has been dusted and I have read what you saw. In fact, what you're referring to are the teachings imparted to scholars within the context of the Upanishad. Meaning, tropes utilized were that the varnas were turned on their heads by the teaching of a Brahmin by a Vaishya or a Kshatriya king, much like Janaka. But this implies nothing, from my reading, about the actual composers of the Upanishads and Aranyakas. In essence, what is most likely is that a Brahmin/priest writing the Upanishad, sought to impress the point of castelessness and unified identity. Traditional norms were reversed and thus emphasized the nature of the soul transcending ritualism or mere intellectualism and, instead, embracing an intuition that is shared equally by all members of humanity, regardless of social status. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:31, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I dug mine out and came to pretty much the same conclusion. (doffs hat)कुक्कुरोवाच 14:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ancient Indian religion and Hinduism

A while back, there was some discussion on one of the Buddhism-related pages about whether it was appropriate to use the term "Hinduism" to refer to Indian religions of 2000+ years ago. The conclusion we reached at the time was basically that it is not appropriate. I think this was intended not as a slight to Hinduism's ancient provenance, but rather to be sensitive to the enormous differences between ancient religions and modern Hinduism. There was an article written under Brahmanism (not Brahminism) apparently based on this way of thinking (I contributed a little editing to that article). However, looking at some of the recent changes to Hinduism, I wondered if we should revisit the issue, and decided to check with some people that actually know something about Hinduism specifically. Should Indian religion and philosophy from 1500-3000 years ago be referred to as Hinduism? If not, is Brahmanism appropriate, or is there some other term that should be used? - Nat Krause 10:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The term to use is Sanatana Dharma. As we have been debating on this page in the recent past, 'hinduism' is a modern term, based on ethnicity, which has a related meaning to sanatana dharma. The truth of sanatana dharma has never been absent, but the vedas were once unwritten, and various modern hindu customs were once not utilized. However the fact that modern hindu's follow the oldest religion of any, and the fact that the term hinduism has become relatively synonymous with sanatana dharma cannot be ignored. Sam Spade 10:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I double with Sam Spade. There is a simple reason. The fact that a religion is different from what it was a while ago is a silly reason to start slicing it up. the continuinty is proven beyond a doubt, all the texts and much of the thought either remained or was developed, not broken away from. I doubt that most people argue that early Judaism, pre-Christ, was so different as to perhaps 'be a different' religion than it currently is today. But that's flawed reasoning. Secondly, while Hinduism is a new name, the name itself doesn't negate the existence of a very real mass of connected Vedic and Agamic beliefs. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the entity is new. Brahminism, by the way, is a good way of describing early HInduism, but scholars are at a consensus that it has developed into what we know today. It is evolution of the same species, not the creation of a completely new one. Hinduism IS Veda Dharma, and Veda Dharma includes early vedic culture. By the way, I won't go into Buddhism's insecurity issues about Hinduism, nor Hinduism's with Buddhism. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:16, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed, throughout America especially, a noticeable attempt to do away with Hinduism at all as an entity and instead to reduce it to a mass of 'unconnected' belief systems and 'myths' known as Indian Philosophy. It's a pretty pathetic attempt, in my opinion, to cover insecurities about Yoga. But that's just me. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:18, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

First sentence should be a definition

The first sentence should introduce the word. So its necessary to mention that Hinduism is a religion first. Only after this can the complexities of the religion be brought out. I checked randomly in two other pages (Christianity and Buddhism), the same rule applies. So I am adding this again in the first sentence. LordSuryaofShropshire, I request you to accept the convention and not revert. KRS 11:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Relax KRS. Your change is fine. I only objected to your original change, which was different: saying it's the oldest religion and has this many followers, which is what you originally did. That reduced it to a statistic. If you check Buddhism and Christianity, along with mentioning the 'religion' status, they also describe a certain major facet of their religion, like C: monotheistic ; B: way of life. Originally, Hinduism was just a number. Now it's balanced with reference to its diverse beliefs. So I hold no objection. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:22, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Actually you don't know the long history behind the 'mere statistic':-)You will understand why I am touchy about it. I started of expanding the statistic(which was already exising) with Hinduism being a 'way of life ' and all that, then found that a few others started adding more restricted definitions. So there was some debate and the only compromise was to shift the whole complexity to the paragraph after the TOC. In fact, I am glad that the complexity has come back.

Another issue is the assumption(it looks as though you also seem to subscribe to this view, looking at your latest edits) that Hindus have started looking at things differently, want to call the religion Sanatana Dharma, and so on. The reason for this is generally seen as a sense of loss leading to the search for an ideal Hinduism. According to historians/ social scientist/ whatever(I can't cite the sources)this has more NRI origins. But Hinduism as it is practised in most of India is neither dogmatic nor does it search for an absolute truth. So to harp back to a golden age is a response just like the situation during the colonial era- romantic 'Orientalism' of the Germans/British and the appropriation of that by the nationalist Indians. There is a major difference between Hinduism as an absolute religion and Hinduism as a way of life that is resilient, changing and evolving. I am apprehensive of the former viewpoint drowning out the latter in the article and in an encyclopedia.

Another aspect is that, as someone had pointed out earlier, Brahmanism was the term used to refer to the early practices and not early Hinduism as you have mentioned in the first para.

Right now I can't contribute much to wikipedia so I can't/ shouldn't complain about other's edits:-) I just hope that you strike a balance between fact and subjectivity. KRS 15:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you're interested in subjectivity then you'll realize that 1) Sanatana Dharma is a term that has been around for years and is indicative entirely of the whole way of life ideology, as opposed to rigid dogma. It's an umbrella term for a diverse and often irreconcilably different bunch of ideas and traditions that stemmed from one source of thoughts, even if only nominally.

2) This stratification of Brahminism is not a universally held and firm viewpoint, and he who was judging it on that ground was alluding to Romila Thapar, whose authority is not without question in India. And to then slap hindutva on all dissenters is to merely suppress dissent. To have the same source books (Vedas), to retain practices, customs, prayers and Gods and Goddesses and to develop ones philosophies all from the Vedas is an objective testament to oontinuity. Thus, you will notice that the term Hindu has been applied to Vedic Philosophy by many scholars, well-known and otherwise, from Radhakrishnan to Woodroffe, even Gandhi himself, not to mention many today.

I am the first to attest to the great growth and distinctive splits between classic and early Hinduism. The sacerdotalism (love that word) of the early Vedics, and I believe aptly termed Brahmanist society, was soon reformed through more mystic writers and thinkers. The Upanishads show no complete sundering from the original Vedas. If we acknowledge that Shankara is what one might call a Hindu, or a member of Sanatana Dharma/Veda Dharma, and his philosophies are without doubt rooted in Vedanta texts that in turn draw all support from the Vedas without denying their authority or doctrines, how can one posit complete separation or the idea of two separate religions? Christianity, for instance, clearly split with Judaism by announcing a Messiah and 'annointing' themselves followers of the Christ, creating a separate body, a Church, and abandoning the order of rabbis and the Jewish order as supreme. The complete opposite is seen for early Hinduism, wherein the Vedas and their authority, even if the inherent rituals or injunctions were discarded, were held in highest esteem and continued to play an active role in young Brahmins' lives and their worship. But if you'd like, you can talk about this debate, which is indeed neccessary for approach, and mention, even in some detail, how many eminent scholars feel that Brahminism and early vedic culture, I guess from before Buddha, is distinctly not part of Hinduism and realistically speaking, the Hindu or Sanatana Dharma tradition truly began in the 4th century BCE. go for it. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:10, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Dharma

Hinduism is Dharma and vice versa. Check out the the Dharma article and see if you can add more to this article, which is currently very undernourished. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:46, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sanatana dharma

As I have mentioned earlier, Hinduism is not a dogmatic religion and most Hindus in India do not refer to their religion as Sanatana Dharma. So I have added the word 'purists'. I have removed the sentence that refers to the growing practice of Hindus to refer to themselves as 'Sanatanists'. It is definitely not a growing or a majority practice. KRS 15:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay... purist is certainly true. But it is the proper term, in that it is the only long-standing reference to the Vedic religion that is to be found within Vedic texts. Secondly, most Hindus, while not referring to Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma, know the term quite well. The practice to refer to oneself as a Sanatanist is definitely not majority, or close to, but it is growing and there is a large culture of Hindus living outside of India who are developing that term as a standard. See my amended statement in the page itself and let's keep discussing. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:56, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

'English speakers'- 'English speaking diaspora' True. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:21, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma would be the correct or more accurate name for Hinduism. Sanatana Dharma is the term which was used by Hindus themselves to describe their religion before the terms Hindu or Hinduism were coined(by outsiders). Also, I do not understand how it is dogmatic to use Sanatana Dharma. --SV 03:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'Sanatanist' is a very poor choice, since it is a cognate for 'satanist'. I use sanatana dharma to describe my beliefs myself, esp. since I'm not an ethnic Hindu. Sam Spade 03:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If two words sound similar, it does not make them cognate. Sanatana and Satan are not cognate, there is no equivalent for Satan in Hinduism or the Indian languages (except the borrowal shaitan).--SV 03:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

we are speaking in english. in english, 'Sanatanist' is a very poor choice, since it sounds like 'satanist'. Sam Spade 04:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

you are right about them not being cognates tho, I stand corrected. I simply didn't know what 'cognate' ment. Sam Spade 04:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You know, if we used that logic, foreign languages and countries would all be molded to suit aesthetic sensibilities of English-speakers. The word Sanaatan, which is very beautiful and means, as we know, eternal or perennial, has been around much longer than Satan. Also, the only people who would find Satanic connections would be those who want to, since no one who knows anything, or is even partly interested in knowing, will make that connection when hearing the word, especially in a Hindu context.

Also, beyond the fact that I would never change these appelations for ignorant (someone who confuses Satan with Sanaatan, and also doesn't bother to find out) people who are bent on misunderstanding, it's not about debating if it's a good choice or not... people are using it. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:43, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Its not a particularly encyclopedic discussion anyways, unless we know of actual circumstances of any of this happenening. I disagree with Surya about some of the above, being a salesman I know the importance of labeling and subliminals, etc... but its neither here nor there unless we start having some real world verifiability, rather than simply musings, as has been the case with my above concerns. Sam Spade 19:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just ctrl+f and search for "sanatanist"

• Frontline Indian Mag
• Some random essay, just to show it's out there in public consciousness and not just org's

I will say one thing though... there are some who use the term to mean an orthodox Hindu, while there are others who are trying to spread it as a universal term, a replacement title for Hindu. The point is it's extant, even if minority. Also, in response to the idea of 'labelings and subliminals.' Hindus name themselves for themselves, not to properly sell themselves to other cultures. I mean, I understand what you're saying, kind of, but we haven't stopped using the word 'satin', as in silk? Everyone uses it, and it's far more similar to Satan that Sanaatan.--LordSuryaofShropshire 20:01, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Caste

I have done a minor rewording of the first para under "Caste". Comments welcome.
The second para has some horrible stereotyppes. Could the person who put that in please give some references?--SV 03:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They're not stereotypes. "Each varna was said to possess certain characteristics" Said. Varnas were colors. If I see someone swearing and cursing in a restaurant, I might call him a boor. Same deal. That was a belief. A big source is Manusmriti. Note that no one said that these are what shudras or Brahmins today are like, and that was not believed then either. Indeed, the point about that is that today's system really has little to do with the original conception of society in varnashram. I'll work on getting pages for the info but it'll take some time as the dharmashastras are huge. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would call it stereotyping or caricaturing on the part of whoever said that (Manusmriti?). But don't waste your time digging up references for this.
I would like to compliment you on the huge amount of work you put into this page.--SV 04:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First off, thanks... I would really like to start considering how to, if neccessary, further streamline the page without losing valuable and cool info. and nominate it for featured article status soon. It might get brilliant prose if we could work out some of the sloppier sections (many of which are mine). I need to work on the mantra section, which was badly done, and maybe create a new section (incorporating others) that's small but gives a nice overview of traditional Hindu practice.

Second... they're not stereotypes because they were originally meant that way. A stereotype is when you take a large group of people and brand them a certain personality or type based on only a few members. This is different because the very terms themselves originated as descriptions. In fact, if you get what i mean, this was a case of "reverse-stereotyping," the term ready-made and just shoving people under it, as opposed to taking a group of people and then labeling them. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:07, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)