Talk:Hinduism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Recent corrections

It is me who has made some recent corrections and corrected some fallacies, largely based on my recent Indian Philosophy course in which I got AA grade (yuppeee). The clarifications I want to give are:

• Yoga believes in Sankhya theory of Purusha and Prakrit and seeks their disunion through theistic means.
• Mimamsa firmly believes in Vedic ritualism, and follows the theory of Svatah Pramanyavada of knowledge (knowledge is self proved), but, if there is a doubt, then the authenticity of that knowledge must be proved by reasoning.
• In Advaita, Ishvara is that Brahman whom the man tries to know throgh his mind.
• The true paths for liberation are: Knowledge in Advaita; Karma along with Bhakti in Vishishtadvaita and Bhakti in Dvaita.
• Minor corrections about diacritical marks. I think everyone should give some time to correct the diacritical marks in the Romanized Sanskrit words, to let the article conform to a standard of good quality and uniformity.

Cygnus_hansa 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

New portal on religion

Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim ^1m 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose Deeptrivia and Anirudh are looking after Hinduism portal. Please comment if this is not true. Aupmanyav 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Some problems

A couple of questions...

Regarding the Hindu Nationalism section: Are we all right-wing Sangh supporters here, or does someone else notice the complete lack of any mention of the Sangh's role in anti-Muslim violence? Are we really going to believe that the VHP and Bajrang Dal no role in this sort of violence?

And what evidence (prior to 19th century testimony) is there that the Babri mosque was built atop a Ram temple? None, to my knowledge. The fact that this article states the Ram temple movement aims to RE-build the temple is not historically grounded, and stating that the Mughal commander "probably" destroyed the temple in his "alleged frenzy of iconoclasm" is just slightly biased, no?

nope. -- --Dangerous-Boy 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

When you look for Sangh's role in anti-muslim violence, also look for the role muslims, congress, and other so-called secular parties play in the game. 'None, to my knowledge', now, whose fault is this, how do you forget mention by Babur's historian? Traditions also contain truth, that is how Troy was found. No, stating that the mughal commander destroyed the temple in his frency of inconoclasm is not biased.

Aupmanyav 07:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Babri mosque

I was me who wrote the Babri Mosque lines - and I think I have written it as objectively and neutrally as possible. The words probably, alleged, etc show this (to do it in brief). And what is so wrong in that? Is it not true that it is a sin to worship idols and tolerate idols in Islam? Have early Muslim invaders not broken countless temples? And can you be so sure that there was no temple over Babri mosque? How? Because communist leaders say so? I am neither sure that this was a birthplace of Rama, and hence I have put "alleged" and "believed". What more can I do? As for your anti-Muslim violence of the Sangh (which is true), you are welcome to add ONE line in that section, since the Hinduism article is already very long. User:Magicalsaumy 221.135.196.50 06:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity

Magicalsaumy:

You are right that "alleged" does show a degree of objectivity. I suppose i take issue with your statement that he "probably" destroyed the temple, and that the movement aims to "rebuild" (instead of "build") a temple on the site. These two statements are not objective. Additionally, the section mentions the hypothetical destruction of a Ram temple, but no mention of the destruction of the babri mosque.

As to your questions: 1.The fact that idol-worship is forbidden in Islamic scripture is hardly evidence for the prior existence or destruction of the Ram temple. 2.Yes, early Muslim invaders destroyed many temples. They also left many temples intact. Do I know for certain that there was no Ram temple? No, of course not. But this is an encyclopedia not a weblog - information should reflect knowledge, not opinion - what evidence is there that it was "probably" destroyed? I have no objection to the inclusion of the fact that certain people believe a Ram temple existed there and that they believe he destroyed it. 3.Also, i'm not sure where communism comes into this. Actually none of my information on this topic is coming from any political leader, but rather multiple scholarly works of research. I don't think these scholars are communists, but in the off chance that they are, i don't see its relevance to this topic.

Please, understand, I am not trying to imply that you are part of some anti-muslim conspiracy and i'm not trying to senselessly pick away at details. I simply feel that given the sensitive nature of this topic, and given all the bloodshed that has erupted because of it, we should be very careful about how we explain it.

Anybody notice? Typos that are non-editable.

There is a typo in the caption under the picture of Pashupatinath Temple near Denominations: Shaktism. You guys spelled Katmandu wrong. It says, '...Kathmandu...'. I have no idea how to edit that so please do it for me, someone! Asking nicely, Websurfer11 23:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Kathmandu

Actually, 'Kathmandu' is the correct spelling...so no corrections needed

transliteration under mantra

can some fix it? It's displays:

Transliteration: OM bhūr bhuvə svəḥ | tət səvitūr vəreṇyəm | bhərgo devəsya dhīməhi | dhiyo yo nəḥ prə-çodəyāt ||

--Dangerous-Boy 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm, what's wrong? Looks perfectly fine to me... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing squares on my browser. --Dangerous-Boy 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see characters that I think belong in Azeri! In 'prə-çodəyāt' the third char is the upside down 'e' of Azeri, and the fifth is a c with a cedilla under it. Imc 19:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is a non-standard transliteration (not 15919) but none the less it looks reasonably okay. This would probably be better:

'om bhūrbhuvasvaḥ | tat saviturvarēṇyam | bhargō dēvasya dhīmahi | dhiyō yō naḥ pracōdayāt

The upside down e (schwa) the the IPA symbol for the phonetic sound used in the inherent 'a' of some Indian languages.

Still seeing squares ḥ at the end of bhūrbhuvasva, saviturvarē, and na. --Dangerous-Boy 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a problem with your browser software/operating system. I'm running Firefox and Windows XP and it appears fine. I know IE 6 is a pain with Unicode characters it doesn't recognise. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Schwa (upside down e) is the best representative of the corresponding letter 'a', which is a mid central vowel. I have proposed this to enable pure pronunciation, since schwa is the standard phonetic symbol used in all english dictionaries. Cygnus_hansa 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but is this a fully IPA transliteration? If it's half and half it really serves no advantage. The standard used for Indic transliteration is not the IPA but ISO 15919 or other similar schemes. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Sukh. It raises the question of whether we should provide pronounciation guides or transliterations from the original. Pronounciations are likely to differ somewhat, depending on the native language of the speaker. There are differing transliterations used through English Wikipedia, depending on the language, but for Sanskrit / Hinduism related articles we normally use IAST. Imc 10:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me changing it? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Need to delete repititions

I think there is a terrible need to delete repititions occuring in all sorts of odd places in this article. In most of the icons, mother goddess, female divine energy, repitition of the characteristics of Brahman, etymology of Hindu, etc etc are repeated. I urge someone to clean up the article and conform it to a good style - in an organized way (already too long!), otherwise I myself will delete repeating sentences in a few days. Cygnus_hansa 06:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

it's a horrible mess. it would be a heroic task cleaning it up, knowing that it will be cluttered again in two weeks :( dab (ᛏ) 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted that a while ago. But with so much traffic on this page, it will be cluttered again. good luck !--Pranathi 19:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

consider a deep revert, re-adding anything of substance that may have been added since. Which is your cleaned up version? We need some editors comitted to having a good Hinduism article running a tight ship here. Have a look at how things are going on Islam: That article is in good shape, and essentially stable, since people are required to give good reasons if they add material. Every section has "main" sub-articles, and there is rarely a good reason to add stuff to the central article and not to the sub-articles. I am sure there must be some Hindu editors here who care about having a decent article on Hinduism! dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for a smaller article (well within limits - 32 kb) with fewer images, basic web-design principles. I suppose the sub-articles have many repititions. Aupmanyav 15:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hindu mythology

Now that wikiproject Hinduism is pretty much active, I'm trying to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Hindu mythology more active. If anyone would like to help, the Hindu mythology sections need a lot of organization. --Dangerous-Boy 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Caste

Normally the Eurocentric view of Hinduism of only about the notorious caste system. As it was not mentioned anywhere, I have added a section mentioning the reality behind it.Cygnus_hansa 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

that was a good edit, it seems reference to the castes was missing so far. It is also well that you removed the confused claim of the Gita being "one of three epic books". But please use IAST, i.e. spelling Purāṇa, not Purāņa (just a minor point, of course). dab (ᛏ) 09:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot use the ISAT because there is no /n/ with a dot beneath it in the insert box below the editing window; thats why I have to use n with cedilla beneath it.202.68.145.230 22:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) User:Magicalsaumy

(1) go to IAST. (2) copy any letter you need into clipboard. (3) paste it into your text. dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Drawings

I dont like the drawings that are on the page, most of them seem ocidentalized and not following the "sacred steps" when doing hindu art. i'm not fanatical or anything, but i think in the article all the images should reflect more the religion, and less "drawings from mystical magazines". --Ratone 04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is Hare Krishna cruft, and shouldn't be sprawling over the general "Hinduism" article. On Krishna, maybe; on ISKCON, certainly (assuming "fair use"), but not here. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Plea for help

Miracle has almost nothing on Hindu, and I (ignorant as I am) added that - a one-liner plus a brief account of the milk drinking statues, which really ought to be in the Modern miracles section on that page. Would some of you please come over to Miracle long enough to write a brief paragraph (or preferably several on Hindu miracles? Thank you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We are not Christians or Muslims, should not we keep away from miracles? And why only Raghavendra Swamy, are not Shirdi Sai Baba and Puttaparthy Sai Baba are supposed to have performed miracles. In India, every Tom, Dick, and Harry, can perform miracles. Even the evangelist christian healers perform miracles and fire walking is not one, it is done all over the world. Hindus should stop looking at these happenings from the miracle angle and go for a more plausible explanation. Aupmanyav 15:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

spellings

please try to keep the worst confusions out of the spellings of Sanskrit terms. "rişhis", for example (see my last edit): rishis is fine; you can also spell ṛṣi, but not riṣhi, let alone rişhi. At this stage, we are just adding funny squiggles to random letters. dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try to plead the moderators to incorporate a few english alphabets with a dot beneath in the insert box given at the bottom of the Edit page. Myself I don't know any moderator.Cygnus_hansa 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

you mean 'developers'. We cannot have a complete Unicode table in the edit window. Just compile a keymap for those you use frequently, or just use copy-paste. But in this case, rishi is fine, I am not saying we must use IAST. I am saying we should avoid confused "semi-IAST". dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Try this tool: [1]. I think this follows the ISO transliteration scheme not IAST, but could be wrong. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

no need; just copy this to your userpage:

ā ī ū ṛ ḷ ṃ ṇ ṅ ñ ḍ ṭ ṣ ś Ṇ Ṅ Ñ Ṣ Ś Ḍ Ṭ Ṛ Ṝ

and keep it open in a tab (or separate window) to copy-paste from as required. It's only a handful of glyphs, after all. dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

However, the ICU tool convert the whole text sequence automatically - good for even moderately large pieces of text. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I still see nothing but squares. --Dangerous-Boy 08:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, a font issue. I'm using Windows XP with Firefox 1.5 and see them perfectly fine. Ensure you've set up your computer for Indic support AND you've got a Unicode font such as Code2000.

Well, I see the first mantra up on the top fine. There are no problems. It's only the one on the bottom. Shouldn't we be making this article friendly for all browsers? --Dangerous-Boy 19:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. If we were making it friendly for all browsers, we'd be using ASCII without Devanagari text and no diacritics! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Those who talk of making simply "user friendly" pages forget that slight changes in the pronunciation of Sanskrit words causes "artha" to become "anartha". And the Roman script is not our characteristic script.Cygnus_hansa 09:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is ITRANS, which allows lossless Devanagari transcription. However, there is a lot of Unicode on Wikipedia, and the few remaining people with broken browsers should not prevent us from using IAST: The problem will go away by itself with the next browser generation or so (or, you can upgrade your fonts or your browsers now -- use Firefox, for example). dab (ᛏ) 19:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a user-specific problem that should prevent us using IAST or ISO 15919. I'm particularly against ITRANS because it isn't necessary now with Unicode and it's ugly :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Brahminism"

Hinduism was known as "Brahmanism", and the term may be mentioned for historical interest, It seems the 1911 Britannica had an article Brahmanism [unsure?], hence our Brahmanism. The point is that this article should be merged here, since it is not acceptable to have a variant article treating exactly the same topic. dab (ᛏ) 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See, all these point are Western perceptions of Hinduism. If the Britishers created a religion called Brahmanism, it has nothing to do with us. You may mention in some section that some historians "termed" the early form of Hindu religion, based on its ritualism and Brahmanas' precepts as Brahmanism. The Wbster's dictionary defines Brahmanism as the religious doctrines and system of the Brahmans. But Brahmanism is the term used by Indian communists that there exists nothing as Hinduism and whatever exists is Brahmanism - the religion imposed by Brahmins.Cygnus_hansa 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

that's what I'm saying, precisely. I am not suggesting we move this article to Brahminism, I am saying we need to do something about the existing Brahminism article. If we redirect, we can mention the term as an outdated synonym here. After all, even "Hinduism" has nothing to do with "you", it is just a convenient umbrella term. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The religion imposed by Brahmins: This was decided by whole of the hindu society. Brahmins were given the task of keeping the scriptures alive. They were supposed to provide education to the eligible sections of the society (mind you the education in those days did not amount to much unless it was study of scriptures, and one could even do without it), and live by the charity of the society. They were supposed to follow strict regulations in life and their diet. I suppose, the brahmins did their job well and should be thanked for it, rather than cursed for it. This is unfair. Which religion does not have ritualism. The so-called progressives and communists have their own interest in that, especially when India is ruled by UPA. Aupmanyav 15:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ISKCON

I think we need to mention ISKCON at least once, which I have done in Vedanta section.Cygnus_hansa 09:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone who has seen the ISKON art or read the books published by them will realize that the photos used are copyrighted by them. --Aravind Parvatikar 09:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

We should remember that Krishnas have said that they are not hindus, something like christians and then muslims. They are taking another road. Aupmanyav 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Advaita

Please see this page Advaita Vedanta, mostly made by me, and give your suggestions.Cygnus_hansa 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

MOST sacred shrine of Hinduism needs attention.

Mount Kailash and Lake Manasarowar near it are considered as MOST sacred and spiritual places on Earth by Hnduism and some other religions. These are also MOST sacred shrines of Hinduism along with Buddhism, Jainism and Tibet Bompo Faith. I think these two articles needs more attention and they should be linked at appropriate places with main article.--Holy Ganga 22:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Vaishno Devi and Amarnath shrines are equally important --Deepak|वार्ता

15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See, you cannot start describing important shrines, because for each Hindu, his important shrine is unique. I had added the four holies Mathas only in order to make a passing reference to the Shankaracharyas. Another wonderful idea is to make a section at the bottom entitiles "List of important pilgrimage centres in Hinduism", and give ONLY the list of some important ones (not only in India but Nepal, Pakistan too.).Cygnus_hansa 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse, we can't describe all sacred shrines on main page, I agree we need a separate section linked to the main page describing all major sacred places in best possible way.--Holy Ganga 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

According to me making a List of sacred Hindu shrines, adding its link in the See also section and expanding the concerned articles is the best solution. --Deepak|वार्ता 13:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Need help in the Rajput article

There a re a lot of Pakistanis making huge claims about being Rajputs and being descended from Pandavas of the Mahabharat. If anyone has a speciality or cares to help could they please come over and help fix this situation. SOS, thanks.

Gorkhali 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

spelling of Bhagvad Gita and other points

I have added a ा mark to reflect the correct case (called Apaadan in Sanskrit - I cant remember its english eqv - to reflect the sense of from), since the litt meaning of the word is Song from (the mouth of) Bhagvan. Had it been Song of Bhagvan (Dative case), the word would have been Bhagvasya Gita!!!

I have included some mild grammar and punctuation, but one major point is that the Bhagvad Gita is the most popular text of Hinduism - being the core is debateable since there are several Shaivaites who will beg to differ, though they themselves shall agree that it is popular. Moreover, it is a summary and not a summation of all the diff philosophies - its a (pretty lengthy!!!) gist, but is not the sum-total.

Pizzadeliveryboy 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

mild POV

Not adding a refernce to the fact that the Babri Masjid is essentially a dispute, with a section of people claiming an opposing view puts a mild POV tone. Hence I removed the prev edit in that para. The rest of the edits remain.

Pizzadeliveryboy 01:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Crititicism section

I have changed ref. of "adherents of Abrahamic Religions" to just Westerners - better to have a social classification rather than a narrower religious one since the criticism stems out of ignorance in a social context, rather than because some perceived sense of religious superiority. Moeover several critics in the past have been agnostics/atheists and not staunch Christians or Jews or Muslims.

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Hinduism/temp

What's up with Talk:Hinduism/temp? It's barely been edited in months. Is it still an active page or should it be deleted? -Will Beback 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

factually incorrect view of Hinduism and reply

this article seems to be strongly influenced by the revisionistic hindutva view of hinduism along with the view of hinduism that the brahmin class views and represents the minority view in hinduism. to state that hinduism is not a polytheistic religion is wrong and contradicts the history of its practice in ancient times and how it is practiced today by the vast majority of hindus. it also contradicts the vast literature that has been written by hindus prior to the advent of the colonialist times. this view seems to be a revisionistic view of the world by the brahmin class. To state that the Hindu religion is a direct descendent of the Vedic religion is false given the fact that no one knows how the people in india practiced the vedic religion. to also state that it came from a monolithic religion is wrong information given the fact that all evidence points to the fact that hinduism is derived from a fusion of indiginous religions along with the beliefs that the central asian aryans brought with them to india. the star of david, by the way is not a mandala! the star of david shares similarities in design to other hindu symbols but to state that the star of david originates from hindu symbolism by stating that it is a mandala is false. how hard is it to create a picture of a star? most likely they are just images of a star that shared structure but were invented separately.

Along with this, this article has statements that are terribly biased. the whole section on criticism is biased and should be removed.For instance the statement... "Hinduism is more tolerant of God as defined by other religions and does not subscribe to similar ideas of false god or idolatry. " is biased. Further, the removal of any statement relateing to caste and stateing that it is a social event is wrong given the fact that the caste system is described in Hindu texts and religiously enforced until recent times.

1) As for polytheism, a Vedic verse states: Truth is one, the wise call by different names. This shows an inclusive monotheistic view. Thus to state that Smarta Advaita Hinduism is polytheistic is wrong.

2) I kind of agree with the author that Hinduism may be a fusion of Vedic and non-Vedic elements. In fact, Saivism may have adopted some non-Vedic elements.

3) Yes, the caste system is wrong. But slavery, was accepted in the Bible. Does that mean Christianity is a bad religion No. Any religion is a fusion of true religious beliefs and social beliefs of its time, which can be discarded as they are not of prime importance, as Swami Vivekananda said. see also, Ed Viswananth's article about Hinduism: http://www.indianest.com/hinduism/036.htm An affirmative action program is in place in India. In some places in education systems in India, 50% of seats in medical and engineering schools are reserved to lower caste Hindus.

Ed Viswanathan, a Hindu writer said this: "Unlike in the Holy Bible, where Slavery is discussed and accepted even by St. Paul (Holy Bible verses Col. 4:11; Exodus 21:21 1: Lev. XXV:44- 55 Thessalonians 3:22), there is no statement in the entire Hindu scriptures to ill-treat lower castes, except Sage Manu's Code, where punishments of lower castes are severe comparing to punishments for the higher castes for the same offense. There is no word "untouchable" in the entire Hindu scriptures. ... Even though slavery is mentioned and accepted as a practice in the Holy Bible, even though during Civil war many such as Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America quoted from the Bible to support slavery, Christians took it upon their chin and eliminated slavery completely."

Manu's code is not Shruti or primary scripture, so it need not be followed.

4) This is not a false statement. Hinduism is more tolerant than other religions. Were there any great pogroms perptuated by Hinduism's adhrerents? It is only when you believe your view of God is the only acceptable view, then persecuting others is a problem. Even hard core Vaishnavites simply state that if you don't worship Vishnu, it does not lead to eternal damnation but worshipping other than Vishnu leads to temporal benefits, not mukti. Yes, many Hindus may have persecuted Jains and Buddhists (a minority) but for the vast majority of Hindus have tolerance.

Raj2004 00:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

you just don't get it do you? You are mixing religion with history. You are mixing your feelings about your religion with what is historical fact. You are mixing religious interpretations currently with historical practices. The fact is you can not state in an article that Hinduism is a more tolerant than christianity or other religions when it comes to god; that is a biased statement. The statement itself ironic in that it is a very intolerant statement. You can not state that hinduism is derived directly from vedic religions because that is not true. You can not go around and cite religious philosophers on their interpretation of the caste system historically because they are not historians and this is an encyclopedia and not a religious textbook. You can not state that hinduism is a monotheistic religion because even today it is not a monotheistic religion. The vast majority of hindus do not ascribe to the brahmanistic view of hinduism. they worship their own particular gods. in the past, the vast majority of hindus worshiped their own gods. Most established historians believe that hinduism occured as a fusion of multiple indiginous religions. Hence the multiple pantheon of gods and the multiple radical differences in how they practice religion. The current brahmanistic view that the current practices resulted from a fracture of worshiping one god is backwards thinking. It makes no logical sense. This article has degenerated into a sentimental outcry from the religious upper class within india that is currently being influenced by nationalistic and religious ideals. Hence the POV statement and Hence the inaccuracies. I believe along with others that this is just a totally inaccurate article in many respects. If you notice the discussion board that went on for 4 pages and has multiple links, this article has always had probelms with POV and inaccuracies.

lol. It's like saying most Americans believe in monsters, ghosts and witches because they celebrate Halloween. deeptrivia (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with you that Hinduism is a mixture of Vedic and non-Vedic practices. I disagree with you on Hinduism as not being a monothesitic religion. The term Hinduism itself is an amorphous concept. If you are a Saivite, you believe that Shiva is the supreme God. If you are a Vaishnavite, you believe Vishnu is the supreme God. Only an Advaitan or a Smartaconsiders multiple forms of God to be acceptable. A religious scholar's view is one point of view just as a historian.

In one example, [Swaminarayan]], founder of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect, according to this site,[[2]], said in verses 47, 84, of their scripture, Shikshapatri said,[[3]] "And the oneness of Narayana and Shiva should be understood, as the Vedas have described both to be brahmaroopa, or form of Brahman, i.e., Saguna Brahman, indicating that Vishnu and Shiva are different forms of the one and same God. Thus even he recognizes a Advaitan view although he considers Vishnu-Narayana to be his Ishta-deva. Historians, as we know, are not unbiased. So called Western science, for example, is based on Hindu-Arabic numerals. I think advances in science may have been stiffled if they relied on Roman numerals. I agree with you that the person who put the statement, "Hinduism is more tolerant than other religions" is only expressing a point of view and that may be construed as a biased statement. I did not put those statements there. Thus, I will write that some believe that Hinduism is more tolerant, which I will do. As for a sentamentalistic outcry, even if you argue that Ramanuja was the first to consider Vishnu as the supreme God, that happened in 1100s, way before the current nationalistic thinking.

As I said before, Hinduism is an amorphous concept and is composed of several different schools of thought. That's why there's so much discussion.

The same goes with any religion. See Islam with many archived discussions. People's ideas of religion certainly has evolved.

You criticize this article anonymously but don't sign off. Please sign with a user name.

Raj2004 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindu symbolism

We also need a mention of the Shivalinga in this section.

Pizzadeliveryboy 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

there's already an article on it --Dangerous-Boy 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

bindi

Please remember that bindi is essentially a tattoo.

Also teep is used almost exclusively in Bangla!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

edits by 61.246.156.115 in Criticism sec

Please vet commented out section added by 61.246.156.115 in Criticism sec. It sounds repetitive of what is already written, and language needs to be toned down.Pizzadeliveryboy 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The section added by 61.246.156.115 doesn't add much substance to the article but sounds more like a response to a criticism, similar to the kind found on messageboards. The only part of that edit which sounds informative is in the first paragraph:

the core ideals of the religion as founded in the Vedas (and the various schools of thought that form a part of it) still bind the Hindus together, despite minor differences in the actual practice. Although over the years many local practices and traditions have changed with the passage of time, and the evolution society and the religion itself, the essence of Hinduism still remains the same.

Then again the Criticism section contains a lot of weasel words which give the section poor readability. The edits by 61.246.156.115 should be removed and the section rewritten as a whole, an example of which I give below:

(Current revision)

Hinduism is criticized based on current or past regressive social customs such as Dowry, Sati and casteism.

Many Westerners maintain that Hinduism is polytheistic and promotes idol worship. The term, "Hinduism" is an amorphous concept. Only an Advaitan or a follower of Advaita philosophy, such as Smartas believe that multiple forms of God are equivalent. For example, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu to be the supreme God and Saivites consider Siva respectively as the supreme God. The Hindu counter argument is that Hinduism, specifically Smarta or Advaitan Hinduism is not polytheistic, though it may present an appearance of being so to external observers not familiar with its philosophy. Monism or Monistic Theism is a more apt definition of the Hindu worldview. The existence of numerous human forms and idols of God is an implied principle in Hindu thought. Each human form or idol is associated with an important fable, and these representations help people remember and contemplate over them more easily.

Many believe that Hinduism is more tolerant of God as defined by other religions, and does not subscribe to similar ideas of false God or idolatry, since they believe that Hinduism is not fixated on one concept of the Divine. Furthermore, some Westerners see the Hindu "gods and goddesses" and mythology as only sexuality and violence — which consequently makes the Hindu deities appear immoral. Hindus strongly condemn such interpretations, most of which, according to them, is not only a shallow analysis of the Hindu religion but also willfull and gross misinterpretation of Hindu iconography and mythology.

(Suggested revision)

Hinduism is criticized for current or past regressive social customs such as dowry, sati and caste and is perceived as being polytheistic and promoting idol worship. Only followers of Advaita philosophy believe that multiple forms of God are equivalent. For example Vaishnavites consider Vishnu to be the supreme God whilst Saivites consider Siva to be the supreme God. However, Hinduism and specifically Smarta or Advaitan Hinduism is not polytheistic, though it may appear so to external observers not familiar with its philosophy. A more appropriate definition of the Hindu worldview is Monistic Theism. The existence of numerous human forms and idols of God is an implied principle in Hindu thought. Each human form or idol is associated with an important fable, and these representations help people to remember and contemplate them.

Hinduism is tolerant towards other religions definitions of God, and does not subscribe to similar ideas of false God or idolatry because Hinduism is not fixed on one concept of the Divine. Hindu "gods and goddesses" and mythology are sometimes incorrectly perceived as being solely focussed on sexuality and violence — which makes the Hindu deities appear immoral.

The suggested revision would present the criticisms and clarification without the need to go into weasel words. Green Giant 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree with the current revision as it is more NPOV.

Raj2004 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The current revision contains several sentences which begin with weasel words in the style mentioned at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words such as - Many Westerners maintain that Hinduism , Many believe that Hinduism , Furthermore, some Westerners see the Hindu "gods and goddesses" and Hindus strongly condemn. That style of writing belongs in discussions and messageboards but not in encylopedia articles.

The end of the final sentence is definitely POV - is not only a shallow analysis of the Hindu religion but also willfull and gross misinterpretation of Hindu iconography and mythology. Green Giant 01:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I took a second look at both. I agree with you now. I am changing the line now. Hinduism, specifically, Smarta/Advaitan Hinduism has be viewed as a tolerant religion because does not subscribe to similar ideas of false God or idolatry because this branch of Hinduism is not fixed on one concept of God. I say Smarta/Advaitan Hinduism because although Vaishnavites generally are tolerant, they focus on God primarily as Vishnu.

Raj2004 02:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Offensive Drive

I am yet again on an offensive drive to convert all Sanskrit words into proper IAST translierations (except for the fact that sh I am using for both ś and ṣ, as sh and ṣh for modernity, and vowel ṛ as ri--because modern Hindu do not use IAST, and it must not be that they find their own words in a new script as completely foreign!). As per the recommendation of Webster's dictionalry for writing English, I am also italicizing all Sanskrit words as they are foreign to English. I am splitting the God section into two for clarity and viwes on the so-called polytheism.Cygnus_hansa 16:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I still see squares.--Dangerous-Boy 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Its only the first section, beliefs and practices that I have amended as of yet. I hope u dont see squares in that!Cygnus_hansa 20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No squares in the first section. Now if only you could fix the mantra section. --Dangerous-Boy 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Polytheism

I've edited this and a couple of other articles to reflect the fact that the question of whether Hinduism is polytheistic is not uncontroversial. One or more people have evidently gone out of their way to make sure Wikipedia reflects their view that Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion, as if this were an established and unarguable fact, only disagreed with by mistaken westerners and "illiterate, superstitious" Indians. That ain't so.

If Wikipedia's coverage of Hinduism is going to conform with its Neutral Point of View policy, it's going to have to acknowledge some controversy in this area. Call me an ignorant westerner, but I have the strong impression that Hinduism as practised by the overwhelming majority of Hindus fits Wikipedia's definition of polytheism as "belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities." Indeed, it fits almost all definitions of polytheism I can find. Whether this is also true of Hinduism as expounded by Hindu scholars is another question, and an interesting one at that - perhaps someone would like to delve into this? There is of course some divergence between Hinduism as practised and Hinduism as viewed by priests and scholars.

Anyway - that the religion also fits the definition of henotheism is uncontroversial; what is not clear is whether henotheism should not be considered a form of polytheism: "monotheism in principle and a polytheism in fact" as Max Müller himself put it.

--Oolong 12:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people who contribute here do not present Hinduism in its own terms. They are far too sensitive to certain western prejudices about religion, and far too anxious to present their religion in the best possible light to the prejudiced in the west. Whatever they say, some Christians will of course still forget the polytheistic tendencies in the concept of the Trinity and continue to regard Hindus as polytheists. As some Muslims will forget their idolatrous reverence for each physical copy of the Koran while calling Hindus 'stonewashers'.

Let's talk plainly; a large proportion of Hindus are indeed polytheists (and idolaters), as these words are commonly understood in English. This includes the traditions that I was brought up in. It is nothing to be ashamed about. Imc 14:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See, get your terms and facts correct. Let the Semantics be alright, everything else will follow. I have time and again clearly said that all Hindus believe that Ishvara is one. Brahman is one. Devas could be many, and they are worshipped as such. If you want to call Devas as gods, its your own sweet will. Not only will you then confusae yourself, but also today's generation of Hindus, who learn everything through English language.Cygnus_hansa 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not unique to Hinduism. The very concept of "god"/"deus" is subject to the same problem. Following your line of argument, it will only follow that there is no such thing as true polytheism. Polytheists venerate finite, non-eternal beings. There is no fundamental difference between the veneration for a leader/guru, for ancestors, and for polytheistic gods. Therefore it is incorrect to call polytheistic gods "gods" (here is the fallacy, viz. an appropriation of the term 'god' by a monotheistic mindset), therefore there is no polytheism. Additionally, it should be recognized that "Hinduism" is no single religion but a procrustean umbrella term imposed on "anything spiritual from India" by westerners. To say "Hinduism is [mono/poly]theistic" is almost as bad as saying "religion is [mono/poly]theistic". Some aspects of Hinduism are classical polytheism. Others are henotheistic. Yet others are philosophical monotheism. Yet others are classical monotheism. I don't see any problem with that, nor do I like the implication that polytheism is in any way inferior to monotheism. dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously being picky here, but it's really "anything spiritual from India (except Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism)"... also, I wonder how accurate it is to say that it is 'imposed by Westerners'? --Oolong 12:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very, very correct--Hinduism is actually anything spiritual from India / originating in India except those sects who has wilfully got separated. But the problem is, if you go so much generalizing, it would be absolutely impossible to write such Hinduism even in a complete 1000 page encyclopedia! So here we are limiting ourselves to that Hinduism which follows the Vedic tradition and the Hinduism practised by mainstream Hindus.202.68.145.230 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

removing the Neasden Temple pic

Does anyone object to removing that pic? The whole temple and geographic distribution part of the looks to squished with the images. The Neasden Temple is already on Hinduism in the United Kingdom. --Dangerous-Boy 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So no one objects?--Dangerous-Boy 08:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:YoungBrahminBoy.jpg not tagged properly!

File:YoungBrahminBoy.jpg

It says it will be deleted soon. Does anyone know the proper tag?--Dangerous-Boy 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoken article

Hallo! Please dont waste your time to create a spoken article out of Hinduism, because I have already started this spoken article in my own voice! I have already made one complete recording of this article (around 28th Feb, 06) for 93 min, 54 MB. But my institute's servers do not allow me to upload any file greater than 10 MB. So I have started it in parts. I have rerecorded the first section, but still its 15 MB! I mean that I am already in the process of the spoken article. The accent is Indo-British English, and the Sanskrit words have original Sanskrit pronunciation. (So kindly don't make very heavy changes in the content for a few days). Cygnus_hansa 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoken article completed by me. I have successfully uploaded the sound files and associated them with this article. Hinduism is now a spoken article. Cygnus_hansa 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, Cygnus. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness article help requested

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Hinduism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Hinduism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Temp page

There is a temporary page at Talk:Hinduism/temp that hasn't been edited in almost two weeks. Someone should see if there is anything worth saving and then tag the article with this ({{db|temp page}})tag. Pepsidrinka 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

--Pranathi 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)==Smarta - smarta== This is wrong friends. Everywhere, wherever a generalized statement to Hinduism is made, some people cleverly add there " in Smarta Hinduism " . We are making a generalized statement and the article must be read as a whole. In the later lines, it is time and again mentioned that note that in Vaishnavism and Shaivism, Vishnu and Shiva are solely regarded as God. So what is the need to colour the whole article with " in smarta hinduism", "in smarta hinduism". I am especially talking of the recent edit in the topmost paragraph. Cygnus_hansa 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is an amorphous concept and I think we should emphasize what branch of Hinduism holds this philosphy.

Raj2004 11:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is in reference to the opening paragraph describing Hinduism.

'Hinduism (Sanskrit/Hindi: हिन्दु धर्म; also known as Sanatana Dharma - सनातन धर्म, and Vaidika Dharma - वैदिक धर्म) is ... one Supreme monistic Brahman, are venerated.'

I have objections to some of the information provided: Why should Vedas be called of 'Indo-Iranians' and why not just of just the 'Aryans'? They were all over Central Asia also. Which was the monolithic religion from which Hinduism is supposed to have evolved? Just because the write-up is done by a Smarta Brahmin does not mean that only the Smarta tradition should find a special mention. I hope the writer will realize the short-coming.

Given below is my version of the opening paragraph. I have not yet made the changes and would like to hear from other users before I do that.

'Hinduism (Sanskrit/Hindi: हिन्दु धर्म; also known as Sanatana Dharma - सनातन धर्म, and Vaidika Dharma - वैदिक धर्म) is a worldwide religious tradition which is a synthesis of Aryan Vedic beliefs and those of the other inhabitants of India. Both these traditions have no beginnings in history and have continued unbroken since then, making Hinduism the oldest living major religion of the world. Hinduism makes belief about what God/Gods to worship a personal matter. It gives more importance to a person's duty to the family and the society. In the Hindu synthesis, place was found for all beliefs or traditions and nothing was ever thrown away. This is why it has so many traditions, major and minor Gods, even regional and village deities, and an equal number of philosophies.

Aupmanyav 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, I personally don't like the new intro. It is making specific claims -

• Hinduism makes belief about what God/Gods to worship a personal matter. the variations on who to worship depends on denomination. For the general populace that don't belong to any denomination it may be true. But it is not true for all of Hinduism. I think a more appropriate statement is something on the lines of 'belief in some core concepts such as Dharma, Karma etc tie the religion together rather than belief in the same God'.
• It gives more importance to a person's duty to the family and the society. Vaishnavism gives more importance to God for example. I think the sentence is just another point of view.
• In the Hindu synthesis, place was found for all beliefs or traditions and nothing was ever thrown away. Where does that leave Buddhism and Jainism - part of Hinduism? I don't consider Hinduism to be a free for all.
• This is why it has so many traditions, major and minor Gods, even regional and village deities, and an equal number of philosophies. Many village dieties may be local tradition but most of the devas and concepts of Ishwar (Shiva or Vishnu) stem from the Puranas and scriptures. All major philosophies are based on the scriptures and can be validated by different interpretations of the scriptures. Again I don't think it's a free for all. I think the original sentence - It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. spells out the differences without trying to explain them. This sentence was also in the Christianity article a while ago.

There may be some POV in the old version that is being discussed but I don't think this parah fixes the issues. --Pranathi 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am reverting the new edits on the introduction and in Basic beliefs for a foreigner's conversion. These new edits are unencyclopedic, written with a personal bias and not with NPOV, and are the views of only a minority. There earlier paras were more well-thought of and better written.

Cygnus_hansa 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_hansa, let me first thank you for the work you have done on the Hinduism pages. But we have our differences and you are young. Your saying that you 'personally do not like the new intro' does not help much. Now the debate:

Hinduism makes belief about what God/Gods to worship a personal matter: I suppose you would agree that what you call 'the general populace' represents the majority. Even those who belong to some denomination do so due to their own choice and not because of any compulsion. They can change their beliefs if they so desire. Let me state that the denominations you talk about are more prevalent in South India, the smartas, the SriVaishnavas. In the rest of the country hindus do not attach much importance to any denomination and are free birds. So basically worship of a God or even none is a person's choice in hinduism. Nobody can touch Dharma in hinduism (Duty, the three debts, right action). This is the most important thing. You can otherwise have any belief. I am an atomist and an advaitin. I do not believe in karma. So who can question my belief. That is what I was trying to say in my correction. Worship of Gods is a personal choice; belief in karma, rebirth, heaven, or hell is a personal choice; hindus will have many interpretations; what is unchangeable is Dharma.

In the Hindu synthesis, place was found for all beliefs or traditions and nothing was ever thrown away: Buddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism separated by their own choice. Hindus did not throw away their belief. Hindus even accommodated Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. Bodh Gaya was administered by hindu priests for nearly 2500 years. There are many Jains among the hindus, people who reverted to their original religion. So many hindus worship and follow Guru Nanak and the Granth Sahib. There must be at least a million hindu households in North India where one of the sons is a Sikh and 20 million hindu/sikh families which have marriage relations with each other. Buddha praised the brahmins in his sermons. Chandragupta Maurya is supposed to have embraced Jainism in his old age. Bimbisara is supposed to be favourable to Shramanic order (that is perhaps what Buddhism was known as in its early life), Ashoka accepted Buddhism. His descendents reverted to hinduism. Their is a long list of the satrap, the Indo-greek, and Kushan rulers who oscillated between Buddhism and Hinduism. Why, because initially the two were not considered separate. Look at the lore of mother-godesses all over India, Mariamman, Hinglaj, Santoshi, Vindhyavasini; they were initially different, but they were coalesced into one and termed as various forms of Durga. Look at Bhairavas, these were different regional and village gods who were coalesced into one and made officers in Shiva's army. Look at the various avatars of Vishnu, perhaps they are also the deities worshipped in different regions (Nrisimha in Andhra, Vaman in Kerala, or Tirupati Balaji, North India is generally not even aware of them) who were coalesced into one as various forms of Vishnu. Shiva also appeared as various avatars all over the country. This is how hinduism has worked. Not throwing anything but combining. The Vedic Rudra transformed into Shiva. Ask RSS and VHP, they would still bristle at the idea that Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs are anything other than hindus.

Even if hinduism is not a free-for-all, it is does give freedom to its adherants to search for truth in their own way accepting that different people will find different answers and that all answers will be valid, otherwise it would not have had so many different traditions. Smritis and Puranas, everyone wrote them, some of the later no better than trash. Even my grandfather wrote one (Vishweshwarasmriti, 1945, 8000 verses). They are basically the records of their times. So any ideology will find support in them. My grandfather recorded that there is no harm in education of Shudras or in widow remarriage, and that there are 92 elements whereas the classical scriptures mention only five. Kindly understand that hinduism is not a static religion, it is evolving even today. Rejoice in that strength.

So, dear friend, there is a lot more to hinduism than just the Smarta tradition or SriVaishnava tradition, you would realise more as you grow old. I will wait for your reply and that of Pranathi, before making any further corrections, but what the intro carries is restrictive and insufficient. It belittles Hinduism. It promotes fractitiousness. Ask any Tamil, Malayalee, or Gond, Bhil to read it.

Aupmanyav 11:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, you stated that hinduism began in 3,102 B.C. That is what we take as beginning of Kaliyuga and the end of Krishnavatar. Do you mean that hinduism did not exist before that? Actually the Veda and Avesta are much older than that. They record rising of sun in the constellation of Punarvasu and the ice-ages (at least 15000 years ago). The non-aryan hindu beliefs also cannot be dated. They were here as long as humans have been here. there has been no break.

Aupmanyav 11:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_hansa, would you be kind enopugh to visit my user page, and comment.

Aupmanyav 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Removal Candidacy

This article, as a featured article of one of the worlds great religions, needs many more references than it has right now. Unless some get added, I think it should be nominated for downgrading. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added few more references.Cygnus_hansa 04:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Samskaras

Please remove Samskaras. Its not followed uniformly by all Hindus, rather, only by Brahmin caste. It is not followed by all regions. And in the modern world it is not practiced by even most Brahmins! It is a long section which just eats up space.Cygnus_hansa 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks out place.--Dangerous-Boy 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review

the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review is now online. Would anyone like to start to make a request? This will help articles with no references. --Dangerous-Boy 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

98% of hindus are in india claim

Although some simple math can *almost* prove this, do we really need to keep this sentence? I am wondering if replacing it with "vast majority" would not work just as well. I have not been able to find a citation for that exact figure. We need it or do some simple math using the following data: 80% of India = Hindus = ? & World population of Hindus - and then put a note at the bottom. Either way, whoever is associated with the project more than me should get on it right away.

The best way to avoid overedited wars on the subject is to generalize it. I've taken care of that now. AreJay 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of points that need referencing

In order to ward off the article from losing its feature status, we need more sources. This should not be tough as the article is pretty high quality. However, I am more used to scientific papers and it is not clear cut to me what are the things that require referencing. So, plesae lets make a list of things that we should find sources for. Also, if the original writers are still around they can provide some inline citations from the material they had used originally. I will start the list with few things I think probably need references:

• 1) Under origins of hinduism, we can probably use some references for all the dates.
• 2) Also, references for people who reject the dates in the same section.
• 3) Stuff in etymology section needs references, especially the statement that starts with "According to Historical linguists."
• 4) "Altogether, bhakti resulted in a mass of devotional literature, music and art that has enriched the world and given India renewed spiritual impetus, one eschewing elaborate rituals."

Please, cross out the lines when you find proper references and add things that you feel need referencing. Please, try to abstain from doing a google search and using the first random website that supports any of these. We have like two weeks to fix this. Lets get on it!!--Blacksun 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Murti + denomination section

We really need to get the article to atleast 60kb, in order to not lose the FA tag. The original FA was around 35kb. Unfortunately, over time, people have been adding more and more information. I think that this two section need to be kept in summary form with the details shipped out to a main article. Denomination already has a main article which is simply a copy and paste of the current section in Hinduism. I am going to go ahead and chop out the specific subsections for each denomination.--Blacksun 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

referencing effort

since Blacksun is making an active effort to improve the referencing situation, I think we should give the article some time before revoking its featured status. It should just be very clear that in its present shape, it would stand no chance on FAC by Wikipedia's present FA standards. I suggest the FA removal request should be put on hold for two weeks or so, but I would support re-submitting it if that means that improvement efforts cease. Now, concerning the references, there are a couple of footnotes now, but they are far from satisfactory. Fn 1 is already misquoting its source. The statement "generally regarded as the oldest major religion still practiced in the world today" is backed up by a source stating that "Judaism ... shares with Hinduism the distinction of being the oldest of the major religious traditions." That's hardly equivalent. Fn 2 is supposed to source the rather tall claim that Hinduism evolved from a "monolithic religion into a multitude of traditions over a period of the last 4000 years". The reference for this is a random pdf document found on the internet? Very little is known about the predecessors of Hinduism 4000 years ago^*. There is a reasonably certain knowledge for times 3000 years ago, hardly supporting anything like a "monolithic" nature. I would avoid making controversial statements in the lead section, and if you do, you should source them much better than what we have now.

* For such early, Proto-Indo-Iranian, times, we are reduced to compare the Rigvedic testimony with evidence from Mitanni and Avestan sources. We can confidently say that there was a Soma cult and horse sacrifice, and likely the gods Mitra, Varuna and Nasatya in 2000 BC, but that's about it.

dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

transliteration

also, do me a favour and don't spell Ṛig Veda. That's doubly wrong. First, Ṛgveda is a tatpurusha compound, and thus a single word. Second, it's either Ṛg- or Rig-, but certainly not Ṛig-. Sorry to sound pedantic, but I've been correcting this sort of thing dozen of times now. dab (ᛏ) 12:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry DAB, I cannot do you this favour. I have deliberately chosen such transliteration, because the IAST transliteration has become redundant in modern India. It is no more used, we the modern Hindus use only normal Roman script. Don't scare off the real Hindus by weird spellings like Krsna, Siva, Rg, etc. Please do not make such recorrections. As for me, I am going to make an associate page with Hinduism, stating there clearly the modified IAST transliteration that I am using. Note that IAST is used only by Indologists--and wikipedia articles are not for specialzed Indologists only--its for all. Cygnus_hansa 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

oh dear. either you didn't pay attention for one second, or your browser is broken. Never mind that the statement "the IAST transliteration has become redundant in modern India" makes no sense at all: I am not asking you to use IAST. I am asking you not to use pseudo-IAST. Once again, very slowly:

1. "Rigveda" -- (R, i, g) great! modern Hindus are pleased
2. "Ṛgveda" -- (R-underdot, g) fine with me! but modern Hindus will be scared
3. "Ṛigveda" (R-underdot, i, g) -- no cookie! a failed attempt at looking all scholarly and encyclopedic.

ok? or shall I explain again? dab (ᛏ) 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to use a variant of IAST which is loseless and does not scare off my countrymen and co-religionists and yet maintains a correct pronunciation. I shall link a page explaining the transliteration scheme used--now whats the problem?Cygnus_hansa 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

what is your lossless scheme, then? Is it known by any name among Sanskrit transliterations? So you use Ṛi for Ṛ. But what do you use, for example, to convey cerebral consonants? I'll say it again, do not use your homegrown transliteration scheme. On a collaborative project like WP, this will only result in chaos. Use common anglicizations when using terms, like, Rigveda, Krishna, Vishnu, no problem. Give the correct IAST when the term is introduced, or discussed qua term. What is the problem here, which part of this is controversial or less than self-evident? dab (ᛏ) 15:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a sin to pronounce terms wrongly in Hinduism.202.68.145.230 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

and just how is 'Ṛi' doing a better job than 'Ṛ' at conveying a syllabic consonant? If you want to dig into Sanskrit phonology, you'll have to read much more than just our entire Sanskrit article. Your average Hindu has no chance of pronouncing stuff with even remote historical accuracy. dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)