Talk:Hinduism/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Hindu is the right word

There are people who are unnecessarily deriving defferent names to current Hindu Dharma. Hindu Dharma is fusion of different philosopies. So you can't say the present Hindu Dharma is same Vedic Dharma. Also in India legally only Hindu word is accepted not Vedic OR Sanatan. Truthlover 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well? ^Babub→Talk 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the letter of the law. It is about Hinduism (syncrectic fusions and everything). It is a fact that Vedic Dharma plays a central role in canonical Hinduism (in so far as the word "canon" applies to the Dharmic concept), even post-Vedantic classical Hinduism does not relegate the Vedas to the background IMHO.Shiva's Trident 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should say ancient India not Indian subcontinent

In the introductory it says that HInduism originated from the Indian SUbontinent...BUt this is not 100% true...Because technically HInduism was partly formed from areas that were once part of India, but are technically not on the Subocontinent...For example parts of Hinduism was established in areas like Iran & Afghanistan, and both Iran and Afghanistan were part of ANCIENT INDIA....Another example is parts of it were formed in BUrma, which used to be part of India, but is not technically part of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT....So instead of saying it was formed in the Indian subcontinent...It should say Ancient India instead ... ARYAN818 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Aryans and Hindus met in Afghanistan and Uttarapatha (adjoining portions of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan) for the first time. The region had a strong Hindu presence though it might not have been strictly a part of India. Madras and Kurus among others hailed from here. Aupmanyav 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

"Hinduism is a religion that orginated from the Indian subcontinent. However it must be noted that Hinduism does not have one main holy book and the Vedas were not the only teachings to have influenced the religion."

Eh? Where is the continuity between the two sentences? The introductory paragraph for this important article has always been a mess, with repeated changes and reverts. When you make a change, please read the paragraph once again and ensure that it makes sense.

Serious issues in the article

I would suggest that someone to take time to address the following issues:

Lot of new material has been added in a haphazard manner. I point to the Tantra section which uses all kinds of terms and information with no references or even wikilinking.
Their should be a controversy section in the article. However, any effort to do so has been continuously reverted/deleted or turned into picking on other religions.
Lot of text has been added without any references. Examples: "Though historians do not agree on the specific period,", "In contemporary India, caste differences are slowly disappearing with modernization, but occasional tensions and prejudices still remain." Not a single reference in "Origins of Hinduism" section. I can keep going - basically, people are more interested in adding information pertaining to their own denomination or view on the matter without worrying about evidence.
False references. The reference by Vanita R. should not even be in the article anymore because all the text that was pertaining to that reference is (for some mysterious reason) no longer present in the article. That makes me wonder how many other references are still present in the bibliography but without the relevant text?

In its current stage, I believe that the article does not meet FA criteria any longer and is a candidate for a FARC. --Blacksun 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism--Dangerous-Boy 18:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

hey maybe we can just not have a Hinduism article - after all their can be a main article for every topic in there? Anyways, I already know your position on this matter. It is useless to argue anymore about it. However, as I pointed out, their are various other serious matters with the article. It is not FA quality by a long shot. --Blacksun 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On the section on Tantra:

Pardon my barging in, but I notice that there is already a separate wiki on Tantra. Perhaps we could, for conciseness, mention in a sentence or two about Tantra (particularly its relationship with Hinduism proper) and refer to the Tantra wiki itself. Better still, I feel, would be an omission of this Tantra section altogether. After all, having two separate writings on Tantra is not only superfluous but could lead to the problem of information conflict. With kind regards, Dingodangodongo 08:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it out. Blacksun doesn't like it.--Dangerous-Boy 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I believe it is in all of our interest to keep Wikipedia "wikis" tight and concise, as encyclopedia articles should be. Tidying up could be done for the Tantra section but this need not be limited to that section alone; other sections could be tightened up as well. Some valuable guidance for structuring this wiki could be obtained if we compare it with other encyclopedia articles (online or printed) on Hinduism or other religions. Dingodangodongo 08:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is someone feeling grumpy? --Blacksun 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the tantra section. A lot of it should be removed since it's not cited.--Dangerous-Boy 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Tantra section from the article, as it was wikilined at various places and was without any citaions. Also, I have removed unnecessary addition of Bhakti section because with different approachs, Bhakti is present in Adavita, Davita and others. So, I think there is no need to define Bhakti as an alternate culture of worship. Because of the removal of both Tantra and Bhakti sections, now there is no "Alternate culture of worship" section. - Holy Ganga ^talk 11:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Naming Conventions

Dear Wikipedians,

Among the basic requisites of a quality (and hence, a feature) article is consistency. I notice a lack of consistency in terminology in this article. For example, in some sections of the article, the Rig Veda is referred to as the Rigveda, and vice versa. Similarly, the Bhagavad Gita, in some parts of the article, is spelled as Bhagvad Gita. I also noticed references to Ram (is it equivalent to Rama?)

I highlight only some instances of inconsistencies in spelling. There may be more in the article to the eyes of discerning readers. I therefore suggest that Wikipedians who maintain or edit this site adhere to a fixed set of naming rules. Splashprince 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) --Dangerous-Boy 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation and Substantiation

When a statement is introduced into the article, it is recommended that a reliable source (a peer-reviewed article or a published book) is cited to support the statement. I believe this Hinduism article requires a systematic review to ensure that entries in it are substantiated, as far as it is possible. Admittedly, this is certainly not an easy task, but it would contribute to the article's credibility as a source of reference. This is, after all, a feature Wikipedia article and often a first source of reference for Internet users. Splashprince 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see this as a problem in all religious topics and is the main reason why most have lost FA status. This article is heading the same way. --Blacksun 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review--Dangerous-Boy 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldest existent religion in the world?

"It is the oldest existent religion in the world." - As the second sentence in the article, I believe this statement needs qualifying. Previous editions of this article stated that Hinduism was the oldest of the "major world religions." This is more correct, as Hinduism is undoubtedly this. But the question of what constitutes an 'existent religion' is open to interpretation. The religion of the Aboriginal people of Australia is much older than Hinduism, and is still existent. Whether this is a formal 'religion' is debatable, and even the Wikipedia article religion says the definition of the word is not a sharp one. I suggest we go back to the original statement of Hinduism being the oldest of the world's major religions, because this is not dependent on what definition of 'religion' is used. Cheers.

I believe the above anonymous contributor has a valid point. I hope a credible source is cited to qualify whatever statement is made with regard to the age of this religion. Splashprince 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that the religion of the Austr aboriginal people is older than Hinduism? Are there records of their practice from those days? I agree though that the original statement is safer..--Pranathi 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that both and (and many others) are equally old, right from the dawn of civilization, I would go with the anonymous contributor. Aupmanyav 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the "oldest religion" statement either. Too much ambiguity. If a good reference is not provided, I'm going to change it to something more probably correct like "one of the oldest". Vonspringer 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would hardly make sense to assign any beginning dates for evolved religions (those without a founder, and which keep changing with time.) Clearly, some beliefs can be traced back to the beginning of civilisation itself (possibly, even earlier if we think of primates, which too have some ethical codes.), certainly (in case of Hinduism) a lot can be traced to the Proto-Indo-European religion, and in case of aboriginal Australian religions, to some other prehistorical beliefs. Thus, I don't see any point in trying to figure out which is older. Either the "oldest" statement be qualified with more specific details (like oldest of world's major religions, "major" linked to number of adherents), or just go with the original statement. deeptrivia (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If Hinduism isnt the oldest then which religion is?....I mean Hinduism wasnt established when the Vedas were written...Because the Vedas were passed down orally for centuries....And dont forget their is no main prophet, no main founder, and no main city that founded this religion....It actualy isnt a religion....THe word Hindu isnt even a word...If u people would stop and take the time to read some HIndu scriptures, and understand the notion of Karma and the universe, u will see that these teachings go back to the start of man....I am not a hardcore religoius freak...I am not someone that says Hinduism is the best and everyone else is wrong...But im trying to show u logic here....Hinduism is not someting u can put a date on...SO therefore it is the oldest... ARYAN818 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a non-point. If Hinduism is not something you can put a date on, then it is perforce not old or young, let along "the oldest".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Definition of Hinduism and Against Abramitic Campaign of the "Galileans"

Raj, are you again at it? Two hoots for anyone's personal traditions, I follow the tradition of my family worshipping Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, Saraswati (whom Sankara forgot to include in the Gods permissible for worship, though he added Kartikeya later). Do I have to be a Smarta or a Madhva to be a hindu? I thought we had discussed this in detail. Returned to the page after a few days and find it changed drastically without discussion. I am a polytheist and a hindu. Who are you to define hinduism for me? For that matter, who are Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabhacharya, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Raman Maharshi, Aurobindo, or the Mutt Heads to define Hinduism for me? I will study the scriptures and their views (they views are important for me) but make my own decisions. What authority any one has to call me a non-hindu. Hindus would keep defining Hinduism in their own individual ways. If you mean a Brahman which includes you and me, then 'it' is not even a God, then 'it' does not need to be worshipped. I do not know which 'one God' you are talking about. Neither Smarta Hinduism, nor Madhva Hinduism, nor even your Ramakrishna Hinduism is the only Hinduism. I would keep on contesting people who would like to fetter Hinduism in any way. Aupmanyav 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Raj, would you kindly tell me how did the various traditions in Hinduism came about? People were not satisfied with the explanations available to them at that time and came up with their own explanations which were accepted and followed by other people. Sankara's explanation did not satisfy Madhva, Madhva's explanation did not satisfy Ramanuja and so on. This would and aught to keep on happening. Hinduism is not a dead religion. If we were to be attached to only the existant tradition, there would not have been a plethora of traditions in Hinduism. There is nothing wrong with a Hindu being a polytheist. How many to worship and whom is between me and my God/Gods. Nobody can or should interfere in this. Otherwise 'Vipra badhudha vadanti' is meaningless. Aupmanyav 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(The above messages were archived but I am looking for answers from Raj or other discussants who may hold different views. Please excuse me if I have done something wrong as per Wikipedia rules)

You totally misunderstood me. There are many traditions within Hinduism and I am talking of the four major traditions. You and many others are of course entitled to your opinions. For example, Jehovah's witness, a religion that is considered Christian by some, don't consider Jesus to be God the second member of the the Trinity but merely consider Jesus to be God's first creation. Does that make it Christian? Not necessarily so. You ignore the upanishadic statement: Brahman is one.

There's no right way to define Hinduism; sure everyone has their interpretation but some contradict the Vedic and Upanishad view on the matter.

Raj2004 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Second, Hanuman is not God. He is a great bhakta of God. As for Saraswait, She is an different aspect of Durga. Krishna is the same as Vishnu and non-different. The same goes with Rama. Shiva is the second aspect of God in the Trimurti concept. Even Kartikeya is simply another aspect of Shiva.

Where are all those gods? I can boil down Hinduism into really 3 forms of God: Vishnu, Shiva and power personifed, Devi. All others are simply aspects of them. To even condense further, Brahman is one.

You may be a polytheist but that's your view.

Raj2004 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Raj, you are ignoring the second verse of Hymn One of Book One of RigVeda which says 'Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers, He shall bring hitherward the Gods' (अग्निः पूर्वेभिर्र्षिभिरीड्यो नूतनैरुत | स देवानेह वक्षति ||). There are many other richas like that. Should I quote? Aupmanyav 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are verses like that even in the Bible. Genesis 26: 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Let us seems to indicate more than one God.

So Hinduism evolved from polytheism to monism. Is that any suprise for one of the oldest religions on earth, Aupmanyav?

Raj2004 09:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very uncharitable of you to say that Hinduism evolved from polytheism to Monism, as if monism is in anyway superior to the other beliefs. As an upholder of traditions, this should make you sad. In accepting monotheism or monism, Hindus (including the Aryans) have degressed from their original traditions, which were polytheistic. Then, some of the major traditions are not monist. No, I am not surprised by the fact that Hinduism is the one of the oldest religion on earth. This happened because personal beliefs were not considered important enough to fight for, your views could be different from mine, as long as Dharma (duty/right action) was maintained. Personal beliefs, polytheism to monism, after all, are philosophical speculations only. Please do not give examples from Christianity, they are not worthy in a discussion on Hinduism. Man does not rule over all that move. The likeness with God, is He like the Homo Habilis, or Homo Neandertalis, or Homo Sapiens? And where from did he pickup the likeness of Eve?

Do the Vedas, Upanishads, and Darshanas say one thing? If I go by Samkhya, Vaisesika, or Purva Mimamsa, I would not need a God. Why have you picked just one sentence 'Brahman is one', juxtappose that with Madhva's view that 'Ishwara and Jeeva are essentially different'. You rightly say that "there is no 'right way' to define Hinduism", but then proceed to define Hinduism in your own way. Kartikeya is not Shiva, he is Shiva's son. Saraswati is not Durga, but Brahma's daughter. And Hanuman is a God, why otherwise half the Hindus would visit 'Sankat Mochan' temples all over India on a Tuesday or a Friday? I may warn you that you are in danger of earning the displeasure of a professional wrestler or a Brahmachari who worships Hanuman.

Please spare, do not boil down Hindu Gods to three and then to one, in the process you may boil down Hinduism itself. I do not mind many, whatever my personal beliefs be, the more the merrier, more holidays, more festivals; what is wrong in that? I thank you for your magnanimity when you say 'You may be a polytheist but that is your view'. I respond with the same. You may be a monist but that is your view. Do not foist it in Wikipedia as the Hindu view. Aupmanyav 10:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

well, aupmanyav, neither you should say that polytheism is the Hindu view. I do not define what Hinduism is but I am only defending an Advaitan way. Who said Saraswati is Brahma's daughter? She is Brahma's wife. Even in your definition, you differ from what many Hindus believe and you contradict yourself. There is nothing wrong with many views. Truth is one, the wise call by different names, the Vedas say. Hanuman is not God; all his actions were devoted for Rama. Neither should you foist your view as a Hindu view. I am only defending an Advaitan view.

Raj2004 23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As for your statement, that Karkiteya is Siva's son, that may be true. But Swami Sivananda in his book, Lord Shanmuka and His worship, at http://www.dlshq.org/download/shanmukha.htm said that "Lord Subrahmanya is an Avatara of Lord Siva. All incarnations are manifestations of the One Supreme Lord. Lord Subrahmanya and Lord Krishna are one. Lord Krishna says in the Gita, “Senaninam Aharn Skandah,”—“Of the Generals, I am Skanda.” The Lord manifests Himself from time to time in various names and forms for establishing Dharma and punishing the wicked.

Lord Subrahmanya is a ray born of the Chaitanya of Lord Siva. He is the energy of Lord Siva. Valli and Deivayani are His two Divine consorts. They represent the Iccha Shakti and the Kriya Shakti of the Lord. He is a Pratyaksha Devata in this Kali Yuga, like Hanuman. He bestows on His devotees material and spiritual prosperity and success in all their undertakings, even at the slightest devotion shown to Him. He is worshipped much in South India. Guha, Muruga, Kumaresa, Karttikeya, Shanmukha (he who has six faces), Subrahmanya, Skanda, Velayudha (he who wears the Spear), Saravanabhava are synonymous terms. "

As for Madhva, he also said Brahman was one. Just the soul is separate from Brahman, unlike Advaita.

Raj2004 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Raj, let us call it a truce. Let us agree that none alone from polytheism, monotheism, or monism, represents the Hindu view; and that Hindus may worship many Gods, One God, or may themselves be the God (Purnamadah purnamidam purnaat purnamudachyate, purnasya purnaamadaya purnameva vashishyate). Anybody else who would like to contribute? Aupmanyav 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, I agree with the truce. This view is correct. There is no one Hindu view.

Raj2004 10:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One more beautiful name of Skanda, Senthilnathan (I do not know the meaning). Aupmanyav 11:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We have the following in the description of Hinduism: 'The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought. It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. Many Hindus, influenced by Advaita philosophy, venerate an array of deities, considering them manifestations of the one supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit, Brahman, while many others focus on a singular concept of God, as in Vaishnavism, Saivism and Shaktism.[3]'

Would it be correct to replace it by: 'Hinduism consists of two parts. Dharma (duty, right action) which includes interaction with family and society, the traditions, rituals and practices of a person's society; and Vishwas (personal belief). While the observance of the first is essential, no boundaries are fixed for the second. That is the reason why a Hindu can be a polytheist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, or even an atheist. Followers of Advaita believe in one supreme cosmic sprit, 'Brahman'; while Vaishnavas, Shaivas, and Shaktas focus on a singular concept of God.[3]'

I request opinions from Wikipedians. Aupmanyav 12:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

as for atheism, I don't think the Vedas support atheism. I think a belief in the Vedas define what a Hindu is.

Raj2004 23:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Where are my posts? :) However I 100% Agree with all Aupmanyav's considerations ;), only one note for Raj, Monism isn't incompatible with Polytheism and even Monism isn't Monotheism, Monistic Polytheism historically is a reality, Neo-Platonism for example is a Monistic Polytheism (*), Deities/Divinities/Gods-Goddesses (and also Souls) are emanations or hypostases of The One, this doesn't mean that they are only different parodies or disguises of a Unique GOD (like at a Carneval Party where a GOD-PERSON is all the guests at the same time... and it's always IT or HIM with Its/His personality, this is an abramitic view), every Deity has its own personality and qualities or powers, or if you want it IS (and not only "represent", 'cos this term may suggest the idea of an illusion, a disguise of the same GOD) a different aspect with its own personality and powers of a Unique Supreme Divine Energy or Entity or Reality, The One, Brahman, The Absolute-Infinite, The All, etc. This Supreme Divine Essence can have a Personal or better a Main Coscience, M.C. that can be Personificated, see Ishvara Deva (or Brahma in ancient times) or The Logos, or The Nous; However this is NOT Monotheism... The Absolute-Infinite, Brahman etc. can have a Main Coscience that can be personificated, but subsist the existence of all Deities, each one with its own coscience, personality etc. each one part of The Absolute-Infinite.

(*)Neo-Platonism isn't only the Plotinus' point of view, however Plotinus was a supporter of Polytheism, but other neo-platonic filosophers are more significant about the support and justification of polytheism.

Greetings, --Antioco79 21:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Antioco, I agree with you and respectfully disagree. Monism is not compatible with polytheism. Monism is beyond monotheism, which I do agree. Here are other comments: This system common in Advaitan Hinduism is often perceived as polytheistic; it is also a form of inclusive monotheism, where one God is perceived as having many forms. In contrast, a hard polytheist thinks that two gods are different, i.e., Zeus and Poseidon, for example. An inclusive monotheist such as a Smarta, on the other hand, thinks that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of a common God. For example, the Smarta theologians, influenced by Advaita philosophy, have cited many references to support this view. In one example, they interpret verses in both the Shri Rudram, the most sacred mantra in Shaivism, and the Vishnu sahasranama, one of the most sacred prayers in Vaishnavism, to show this belief. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as the only true God worthy of worship, and worship of other forms as subordinate or simply incorrect.

Raj2004 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As this site [1] states, 'the Paramatman Brahman is one and only one. He it is that creates, sustains and destroys. And it is he who exfoliates as the the many different deities. Why does he do so? He has not cast people in the same mould. He has created them all differently, with different attitudes, the purpose being to make the affairs of the world interesting by imparting variety to them. The Paramatman himself assumes different forms to suit the temperament of different people so that each worship him in the form he likes and obtain happiness. This is the reason why the one and only Paramatman manifests himself as so many different deities.....Those who are capable of looking upon all deities as the manifestations of the one and only Paramatman have no cause for exclusive devotion to any one of them. It is only when we think that one deity is separate from- or alien to- another that the question arises of giving up one for another. If we realise that all are the different disguises of the One Reality, the various gods and goddesses potrayed in the Puranas, with all the differences among them, will be understood to be nothing but the lila or sport of Supreme Being. It is the One alone that seems divided into manifold entities. This is to help men of various attitudes and temperaments. If this truth is recognised we shall be able to see the stories in the Puranas- stories that seem contradictory- in the true light."

Raj2004 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Raj, sorry but Neo-Platonism is a proof that Monism and Polytheism are compatible and complete themselves each other, however if Monism is reduced to a different doctrinal form of Monotheism is not Monism, if The One is the Only One GOD and Deities are only parodies of IT this is not Monism, and the theologians that assert it are in error, this is Monotheism. I go further and I ask you if Brahman is the only Supreme BEING, like it could be a Person, who are you? and what are Souls? are we all disguises of Brahman? are we all puppets of It? the Monistic point of view is based on the concept of the Essential Unity of all the plurality of beings and things, but this doesn't mean that this Supreme Essence is the only existing BEING (in sense of a unique person, personality, being etc.), if Brahman is the only BEING and if All the Reality is only a BEING this is not Monism is ULTRA-Monotheism! and I know that your point of view Raj is not the view of the common indian people, maybe some currents or part of them or some theologians can assert it but however the view of Brahman like a Super-Being-GOD is not the only view, it's more common to consider Brahman as a Supreme Divine Energy that pervades all the reality and IS all the reality but not in sense of a cancellation of the plurality.

Greetings --Antioco79 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheism not in Vedas: I am not aware that Kapila, Kanada, or Jaimini were declared heretics. There are Hindus whose traditions are different from the Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas. Aupmanyav 10:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

May I remind people of the changes I wanted to make (see above), would you kindly give your valued opinions. Aupmanyav 14:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this text needed?

"The eighteen Purāṇas are divided into three groups of six. The groups and their contents are: 1) the Brahmā Purāṇas: the Brahma Purāṇa, Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa, Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, Bhaviṣhya Purāṇa, and Vāmana Purāṇa; 2) the Viṣhnu Purāṇas: the Viṣhnu Purāṇa, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Garuḍa Purāṇa, Padma Purāṇa, and Varāha Purāṇa; and 3) the Shiva Purāṇas: the Vāyu Purāṇa, Liṅga Purāṇa, Skanda Purāṇa, Agni Purāṇa, Matsya Purāṇa, and Kūrma Purāṇa." - This is the only part that I feel still needs wiklinking. However, I am not even sure if having a long list of names is really worth while. Please give feedback on whether or not it should be kept - if you want to keep it then wikilinking is needed. --Blacksun 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should get rid of it. The same list is mentioned and wikilinked on the puranas page. Puranas is already wikilinked on the main hinduism page.--Dangerous-Boy 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

excellent, the article is now down to an acceptable 60k. Thanks for the effort, and try to keep it 'slim' :) btw, if anyone can be bothered, please replace all {{unicode}} marking Sanskrit transliteration with {{IAST}}, it's why we have the template. dab (ᛏ) 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality of references

Please please please understand that it is not just about adding a citation. Quality of citation is even more important. Almost all of the citations used in the article right now would be rejected even in a higschool composition class. For instance, adding a link to a product description page that is for sale does not count as a citation. It is a waste of time to add such references. Try to use books, papers, etc. --Blacksun 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You can change or remove any citation. Please contribute. - Holy Ganga ^talk 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets do one thing. Start discuss all citaions as you said , one by one and select only those which are OK and at the same time keep searching for better ones. I hope you are not interested in only so called western scholars like max muller and witzel recognised citations. - Holy Ganga ^talk 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Really almost everything under "reference" section is appropriate. However, none of it is used directly. Almost everything under "Notes" section is inappropriate unless it is a citation for things like Hindu population. I don't understand if someone read all that material under "Reference" then why did they not use more inline citations from it? And no, I dont care who the scholars are as long as we are not citing website that is selling art. Any thing that is published is better than what we have. --Blacksun 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

your comments are not really useful, holyganga. "please contribute"?? I hope you are aware of the effort Blacksun has put into this article, so who are you to tell him to just fix it? Let's face it, it is extremely difficult to improve Hinduism related articles, because of the constant stream of extremely substandard and naive edits. It would take a couple of Indologists half a day to turn this into an excellent article, but with the never-ending deterioration, it is a Herculean task just to preserve the modest quality already reached. Don't try to portray this as an East vs. West issue. It's a scholarship vs. puerile naivete issue. There are a lot of really erudite Indian editors here, but the plain fact is that they are simply overwhelmed by the crap added each day. dab (ᛏ) 17:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you objecting, dab? I definitely meant what I said and I respect Blacksun capabalities. If Blacksun can request user Rama's arrow and others to contribute, so i can request Blacksun. - Holy Ganga ^talk 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is ok - I took no offense. Let us forget about personal conflicts. I understand that things can get testy from time to time and I am more than willing to ignore that. I would just like to say that going through the article looking for things to improve is a contribution too :) --Blacksun 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On Advaita Vedanta and "Monism"

It is extremely innacurate to associate Advaita with "monism". "Monism" is a western philosophical term for asserting that, in a duality, one term of the duality comes from the other. Advaita Vedanta has nothing to do with such concepts. TwoHorned 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. It depends on what your definition of monism is.

according to www.dictionary.com, monism can mean

1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

I think advaita fits into one of those categories, definitely the first one.

Raj2004 12:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The first definition of monism you have found from www.dictionary.com does not apply to Advaita Vedanta for the simple reason that Western Metaphysics does not contemplate non-manifestation. Then, accordingly, when www.dictionary.com asserts that "that reality is a unified whole" they assume the equality between reality and manifestation, which is in formal contradiction with the most basic Advaita Vedanta statement. You should have looked upon the Wikipedia article for Monism, which explains with better accuracy the term. In that article, you will find the indication they give about substantial monism: "Substantial Monism, (One thing) which holds that there is one substance". The "substance" which is referred to there clearly indicates that, to use Hindu terminology, they don't go beyond Prakriti. Consequently, in the classical Western definition of monism, every duality is resolved, not transcendentally, but by derivation from a single "universal" substance, which is equivalent to the definition of "monism" I gave in the first place, a definition you wrongly declared as untrue. Again, Advaita Vedanta goes infinitely higher than that. If you consider the other significations of "monism", you will also notice that the association of "monism" with pantheism clearly indicate how Advaita Vedanta is foreign to these considerations, because pantheism is clearly related to naturalism, a notion in formal contradiction with Advaita Vedanta. TwoHorned 13:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I agree with your reasoning. Thanks for the clarification. You are indeed correct that Advaita does contemplate non-manifestation. Raj2004 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindu symbolism

In the section "Hindu symbolism", the descriptions associated to the two last items are quite problematic:

1- Swastika. First, an important meaning of that marvellous symbol is not mentionned: the Swastika is a symbol of the action of the Principle on the universal Manisfestation. The four segments are tangent to the circle centered on the cross, and the circle (symbolizing Manifestation) itself is not present, which is a clear indication that the Swastika symbolizes the dynamic action of the centre (Principle) over the Manisfestation, not the Manifestation in itself. Since two orientations are naturally associated with a circle, you easily obtain in that way the two possible orientations for the Swastika. The two possible orientations are present in India, although one is more prevalent in Hinduism, but the two orientations exist and are perfectly orthodox. There is an evident connection with the notion of Pradakshina. Consequently, the evil in the utilization of that symbol by the Nazis does not come from their particular choice of an orientation, but rather from the subversion of an authentic traditional symbol to make it a political one, as they did not understand its meaning. As matter of fact, I think that it is even not worth mentionning the perverted use that the Nazis made of that symbol: after all, the Swastika is being used since millenaries, by Hindus in particular, so why focus on a malevolent and recent interpretation ?

2- Mandala. In a similar vein, the most important signification of the two triangles is missing: it is a symbol based on the number 6 symbolism and it is a symbol of Analogy. It is not at all a symbol of "opposite energies", what is written here is false. And its use as a political flag by Israelis also results, like in item 1 above, (although from an opposite perspective of course) in the political perversion of an authentic symbol by people who don't understand it. A reference to the "Salomon Seal" would have been more appropriate than the "Star of David", if one insists on drawing correspondances with Judaism. And, incentally, please note that this symbol is used in Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and also other traditions.

3- For the Aum symbol, I think that what is written here is correct.

Consequently, I brought little changes to the "Hindu Symbolism" section, to make it more satisfactory. Any reactions are welcome.

TwoHorned 11:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindu symbolism is explained in unlimited ways. It would be a mistake to take one explanation as the only way. Aupmanyav 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This is why I added a sentence: universal symbols have many interpretations in the "Mandala" symbol description. TwoHorned 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism

I hope that all editors of this article realise that the article is on the verge of being stripped off its featured status. Please see discussions on the link above and try to improve the article before the featured status is revoked. -- Lost 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Too late now :(. Hope to see it featured some day again.. -- Lost 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Farewell featured article status...--D-Boy 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

link clean up drive

Well, I know I can at least do one thing to clean up the articles. I going to remove a lot of those links. there's just too much crap down there. anyone is welcome to join me. Be bold! I start in the next couple of days.--D-Boy 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

links removed:

Online Book on conversion to Hinduism
Sarve Samachar - Hindu news
Swaminarayan.info - Information on the Swaminarayan Sampraday
Ten common questions by outsiders and pertinent answers.
VEDA - Vedas and Vedic Knowledge Online
Hinduism articles Bhagavad Gita Sanatana Dharma
The Complete Hinduism Daily articles on all aspects of Hinduism.
Hinduism A Perspective Articles introducing many concepts of Hinduism.
sankaracharya.org Advaita Vedanta and Hindu Upanishads

--D-Boy 03:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

hey look sites such as the swaminarayan site should be kept up. They are apart of Hinduism. Also it is the fastest growing Hindu Sect thus making it neccesary for the link to be there. SO Bro we need it back up

Attitudes Towards Sex

Shouldn't the main page contain an article about this? It is, after all, a rather important part of life, it wouldn't be around without it. Most religions attach some form of importance to it so I'm surprised this article doesn't contain any comment on the subject.--Tiresais 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless a religion has specific directive towards sex, their is little reason to include in the article. Attitudes towards sex is very much cultural rather than religious and it is hard to generalize that in an article about Hinduism to any type of accuracy as cultural attitudes vary from region to region. --Blacksun 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is obviously mention of it in the article, so a general point on the subject could be express. Attitudes from the religion's point of view are set in stone, or ink and paper. Cultural issues are rather a matter of personal perspective and interpretation. A general point from the religion doesn't need to be accurate.--Tiresais 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Attitudes from the religion's point of view are not always set in stone or ink and paper. It is afterall a human that writes things and that always changes. Don't confuse cultural with religious. I am not really aware of any strict sexual guidelines in Hinduism that are not cultural - but then again i am not an expert. --Blacksun 07:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confusing cultural and religious. Take an example of Catholicism, the religion strictly denounces sex before marriage, but cultural differences may put more or less emphasis on the point (Africa is stricter due to prevalent STD's for example). If there are no strict guidelines then fair enough, but it seems a bit weird that they'd not mention it. --Tiresais 08:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is not victorian, it accepts sex as very important to life, makes it into four things which must be done in life (Arth, Kama, Dharma, Moksha), and must be indulged in according to Dharma, never to excess. How otherwise one would be free of pitri-rina, if not by begetting not only sons but daughters too. Giving a daughter in marriage (Kanyadana) is a simplest way to Moksha. As for marriage, nineteen ways are listed, some are looked down upon (Rakshasa Vivah, Paishach Vivah - abduction and rape), some are tolerated (Gandharva Vivah - love), while others are commended (Prajapatya Vivah - marriage arranged with consent of parents and gifts for the couple). Aupmanyav 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We can mention kamashastra. I agree that Hinduism is not prudish by any means. --^Babub→Talk 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

non-vedic schools of thought ?

Maybe there should be a section on non-vedic schools of thought in Hinduism. see: http://www.tamu.edu/chr/agora/sukumaran4.html

No, the article needs to be cut back in its length and made more concise. Adding every obscure school of thought is not the aim. --Blacksun 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mahabharata glossary

I copied this message from WikiProject Hinduism's talk page because that page is slightly inactive. After whizzing through the page I saw that it was more than just a glossary on Mahabharat! I think it should be merged into Glossary of terms in Hinduism. Please discuss. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism And Monotheism

Shouldn't this article note that Hinduism is a monotheistic religion? In reality it is. Most Hindus believe "There is One truth, but paths are many." All Hindu deities are supposedly manifestations of the "One" true God called the Brahman. It is similar to Christianity with the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit being actually three versions of the true "One" God. Shouldn't this be noted in the first section of this article? Zachorious 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There has never been a census of how many Hindus are monotheist or monists or polytheist or atheist or henotheist or pantheist or ...theist. A hindu will be within his rights to change his belief anytime, e.g., from being an atheist to being a polytheist; and return back to atheism after a week's time. Hinduism gives complete freedom to its adherents as far as philosophical speculations go. An opinion on percentages would be very personal. Do not compare Hinduism to Christian belief, they are poles apart. Aupmanyav 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are going raving mad, Aupmanyav, to prove that Hinduism is pure polytheism, monotheism is a sin, and what not, just to prove that we are "different" and let us be different. This is the 21st century, all trying to prove they are "different". PS: I saw your long, illogical aruments with Raj.Cygnus_hansa 18:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Aupmanyav's being perfectly clear that Hindus are not necessarily 'pure' polytheists, and where is there any implication that monotheism is a sin? The passage you've responded to is saying that some Hindus are monotheists, and making no judgement about that either way. Hindus are indeed different from each other, I'm not sure what your point is in this regard? --Oolong 12:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is not monotheistic either if you look critically at it. But we pretend it is because it descends from the Abrahamic tradition, it provides lots of justifications, and it is important to Christians to claim that it monotheistic. Whether Hinduism is monotheism or not, is not important to Hinduism; it is only important in terms of comparisons with Islam and Christianity. There is much more that can be usefully included in this article than comparitive religion. Imc 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is Christanity then? Im pretty sure they only believe in one god. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Imc is referring to the concept of the Trinity, which can in some ways be considered polytheistic (and there are some monotheists who do find the Trinitarianism of most Christianity to be heretical). Oz Lawyer 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is my perception taht Aupmanyav is playing devil's advocate to so much extant, that probably he would like 99 % of the article to scream that Hinduims is atheism + polytheism, and leave 1 % towards a neutral attitude towards monism + monotheism, etc. ANd his declaration of Vaisheshika philosophy as atheistic is fundamentally wrong.Cygnus_hansa 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I say that making Hinduism into a 'purely' monotheistic faith is a sin because it goes against the Vedic injunction 'Vipra Bahudha Vadanti'. It is a sin to desire that a rainbow to have only one color, it will necessarily will have seven. What I have said is that percentages are personal opinions. Christians and muslims beliefs are totally irrelevant here and as IMC said belong to comparative religion page. Cygnus_hansa, you are being unfair and uncivil, I am surprised and pained. It is true, Hinduism is different and there is no other religion like it. Do the Abrahamic religions give this kind of freedom of belief to their adherents. Even in Buddhism you have to accept their standard definition of Karma, Nirvana, and Buddhahood. If what I wrote to Raj was illogical, you could have intervened. You can do that even now and I will reply to your objections as best as I can. How many articles should I send you to establish that many people think 'Vaisesika' to be atheistic? I sent one from 'Times of India' to your talk page. A search on Google with 'vaisesika' and 'atheist' gives me 258 entries (http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=vaisesika+atheist&btnG=Google+Search&meta=). Aupmanyav 17:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfair and uncivil (sic) because I am sick and tired. I never said that Hinduism is purely monotheism. I stand by the "Several deities" paragraph, that I had written. Hinduism does give huge amounts of personal freedom, but you are generalizing some exceptions too much. And for your information, I have had an explicit course in Indian philosophy, + read several books, many of which I can quote. All of them explicitly say that Vaisheshika is theistic philosophy. Only Sankhya and Mimansa were atheistic (that too not horribly atheistic, just mildly so). Original Vaisheshika sutras had only one reference to God, but the total philosophy has to be taken over the centuries. And later philosophers of Vaisheshika do make logical statements and characteristics about God. And about your links: you simply count the heads, not looking inside. 99 % of the links, except positiveatheism.com scream just the opposite that you claim. Cygnus_hansa 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism cannot be contained in explicit courses. If you have done a course and have read several books, I have done a life, which is a bigger course. You yourself say that 'Original Vaisesika sutras had only one reference to God', but the philosophy was modified/defiled/interpolated/additions made later to have it confirm with the main-stream views, shows that the original theory was atheistic. Only that the later philosophers were not as brave as Kanada. Even that one reference to God may have been a later addition. I will come back to you on Vaisesika. In the mean time, you can visit Talk: Vaisesika. Aupmanyav 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

'As there is no reference to Îs`vara and as adrsta proceeding out of the performance of actions in accordance with Vedic injunctions is made the cause of all atomic movements, we can very well assume that Vais'esika was as atheistic or non-theistic as the later Mîmâmsâ philosophers.'

A History of Indian Philosophy, Surendranath Dasgupta (http://hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/philo/ch08.asp)

Cygnus_Hansa, the probable date of Kanada is 600 BC, whereas the first commentary on Vaisesika by Pras'astapada came in 5th or 6th century AD. And what Pras'astapada wrote was not strictly a commentary, he wrote what he believed after reading Kanada's philosophy. The time difference is some 900 years. Many things had changed by that time. The Vedic beliefs had taken a secondary position and indigenous Hinduism had reasserted itself. That is why God became important and the spirit of independant enquiry was lost. That is why whereas there is no reference to God in Vaisesika Sutra, the commentaries show it as theistic. Note that Poorva Mimamsa also considered performance of actions in accordance with Vedic injunctions enough for our life. More over, Vaisesika got entangled with Nyaya and its pecularities were lost. Aupmanyav 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.-Hindus may be atheists, but most of the time they are not horribly so. Yours faithfully also is an atheist, but that does not mean that he does not revere Rama and Krishna. For him, they are heroes of Indian mythology from whose stories he takes his directions for conduct of his life. Such hindus may be atheists but they are not horribly materialistic like Charvakists and still value family and society. Aupmanyav 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also they are not evangelical about their atheism and can exist happily with theists, curtesy Hinduism. Aupmanyav 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian words

I'm no expert on the subject, but aren't many words here spelled weirdly? For instance, shouldn't "Vishnu" be either Vishnu (if simple English) or "Viṣṇu" (if properly transliterated)? It's "Viṣhṇu" in the article—a spelling which seems to be a combination of both, taking both the English "sh" and the "ṣ" which is supposed to replace it. The article Vishnu uses "Viṣṇu" as its Sanskrit transliteration. Oz Lawyer 19:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. It should be one or the other, not both! See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) for details of how we're trying to standardise this across all Indic-related pages (it's a WIP policy at the moment). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya they spell Karm as "Karma"....Shiv as "Shiva"...Buddh as "Buddha"....Ram as "Rama"....Krishn as "Krishna"....I mean the list goes on...I dont know why they do this do Indian words...THey either add an extra letter "A" at the end or do something else to it. ARYAN818 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan, as someone who has told me several times that they've read the Hindu holy books, surely you know that's how they're pronounced in Sanskrit? Did you not know that Hindi/Punjabi have dropped the final short 'a' on most Sanskrit-derived words? :P Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No mention of many Hindu books

I saw a section for the Gita & Shruti, but their was no section for the UPansishads, Puranas, Ramayan, Mahabharat, and the Kama Sutra...Yes I know that some of these were mentioned in sentences...But how come they dont have their own section just like the GIta and SHruti? ARYAN818 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Upanishads are part of Shruti and the others are part of Smriti, which also has a section. The only exception is Kam Sutra, which doesn't have a mention because it isn't really a relgious book. There are few refs to dharma etc., but it is just a Sanskrit book on family relationships and love. Bear in mind that not all existing Sanskrit texts are based on religion. There are also the panchtantra and hitopadesh. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on "core concepts"

Lately, Maleabroad and I have entered into a cycle of insertions and deletions. Like some other cycles--samsara, for example--this one would be good to escape.

As I see it, Maleabroad, the problem is that what you are inserting as "core concepts" of Hinduism are concepts many Hindus may agree with but many others may not.

Could I ask, Maleabroad, that before once again inserting this material you place your suggestions about it here on the Talk page and see whether we can arrive at a consensus? Thank you very much. Respectfully, O Govinda 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian law

I just cut:

However, Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual's caste, while Article 17 prohibits practice of the social stigma of untouchability ^[1]. In contemporary India, caste differences are slowly disappearing with modernization, but occasional tensions and prejudices still remain.^{[citation needed]}

...from the article. This seems to be trying to argue some point about the caste system and Indian law and culture that does not seem to me to be directly relevent to the religion of Hinduism. If I'm wrong, and this is crucial information about Hinduism, I'd like to encourage some rewording to avoid citing specific articles of the Constitution of India and then immediately changing to a breezy tone of unsourced generalisation. Jkelly 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mohit

Can the knowledgeable people comment on this AFD please? Is the article a hoax? -- Lost 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a joke, it is a hoax, it is disrespect to Wikipedia, and disrespect to scholarship of any kind. How come such silly pages take so long to be removed and the person responsible is not banned? Aupmanyav 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No polytheism in Hinduism

After long discussions I was able to add to the Hinduism page that there are Hindus who worship many Gods. I return to the page after some days to find that polytheists have been removed from the Hindu fold and only Monism or Dualism is acceptable to the powers that be. That too without any discussion. It seems that the Hinduism page should be made into in many pages, each detailing the views of only one person, like Aupmanyav's page on Hinduism, or Dangerous-Boy's page on Hinduism, or Cygnus-Hansa's page on Hinduism, or Raj's page on Hinduism, or Holy Ganga's page on Hinduism. That is why Hinduism pages cannot even maintain their FA status. That is the reason we do not find any improvement in Hinduism pages, and there is no one else to blame for this but ourselves. Aupmanyav 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

O_O! What are you talking about? The only thing I touched was the removal of some links.--D-Boy 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

D_Boy, why do take everything so personally? I included your name only as an example. My chief grouse is that the mention that many Hindus are polytheists has been removed without any discussion. I am sure that people have included many silly other things in Hinduism pages. Now, how many times a person can take up the issue again and try to put things right? People should understand that they are spoiling the introduction to Hinduism to millions of people through Wikipedia in this way. Hinduism will always have all kinds of people in its fold, polytheists as well as atheists (like me). I do not know from where some people have picked up this Christian or Islamic trait of exclusivity. Aupmanyav 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you sounded like you were accussing me of changes I did not make. Plus, it feels like we are waging some kind of proganda battle on wikipedia now a days. have you been to the Hindutva section or gujart violence? its being attacked by paks and secularists. even the babri mosque page has gone crazy.--D-Boy 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No I have not been there, will check. This is because we are divided among ourselves. I have started a forum on Wikipedia Hinduism Pages. Will inform you when it is ready to go. I only want that we give equal value to all shades of belief in Hinduism, I am not a polytheist, Tatah kim (so what)? Aupmanyav 07:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why there is not mention of hindu calender

why there is no mention of hindu calender, i.e. the panchang in this page. it is an indispensable part of our culture and religion. it is also the most accurate callender in the world, better than gregorian versions. nids 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment there is only a link under "See Also" to Hindu Calendar. Addhoc 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

dont you think, we can give a slight introduction of hindu calenders, it is an important part of our culture and religion. nids 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheistic views in hinduism

Clause 2(b) of article 25 of Indian constitution says Buddhist and Jains to be Hindu. Buddhist and Jains are athiestic religions as there is no place for creationist god in their philosophy. other links are [2] [3] [4]. moreover Nastika in Hindu terms is related to non-believing of vedas, while atheism refers to non beleiving of existence of God. so, although Nastiq covers only Buddhism, Jainism and Charavaka for Hindu philosophy, athiesm covers nastiqs along with poorva mimamsa and sankhya.

This page just covers about Vaishnavism rather than Hinduism. All the six schools of thoughts covered here are generally considered vaishnavites (I may be wrong here). the current page seems to ignore shavist sects like Aghori as non-Hindus. This page, also, does not adequately covers Shaktism either.

Moreover, I could not find wikipedia policy which bans me from referring to other wikilinks. If somebody could point me to that. nids 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

there is no mention of atheistic views in this page. it is an integral point of hinduism. i can claim myself an adherent of bhagvata gita and a athiest and a hindu at the same time. i shall mention that on the introduction, but i am waiting for the criticism.

also i can just claim myself to be an athiest and a hindu. the wikipedia definition currently denies me the right. it mentioned "even an athiest can be a hindu" in the past, but it has been removed in the current version. nids 03:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You may say atheism is part of Hinduism but I am little puzzled how you can be an adherent of the Gita and atheism at the same time? The Gita is profoundly theistic!

Raj2004 10:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I doubt the view "even an athiest can be a hindu" was removed because other editors though you couldn't claim yourself an "adherent of bhagvata gita and a athiest and a hindu at the same time". The reason was probably you did not include a reference. Addhoc 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

this is a common misconception that gita supports theism. actually the gita is a hard book to understand, not for words but for the meanings. people have and can interpret it as for polythiesm, monotheism and athiesm. but anyway its an outstanding book.

Rebutal to atheism and polytheism in Gita

I disagree about your comment about the Gita. Chapter 16, verse 7 states that demoniac think that the universe is without a moral basis, without a God, born of mutual union, brought about by lust." That comment is strongly theistic. As for polytheism, here are some comments about that: Vaishnavites believe that Krishna himself stated that worship of deities other than Vishnu, are incorrect as such worship would only lead to temporal benefits, rather than mukti, which Vaishnavites believe that only Vishnu can grant. For example, Krishna said: "Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his faith steady. However, their wishes are only granted by Me." (Gita: 7:21-22) Another quote in the Gita states: "O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship other lesser deities (e.g., Devas, for example) with faith, they also worship Me, but in an improper way because I am the Supreme Being. I alone am the enjoyer of all sacrificial services (Seva, Yajna) and Lord of the universe." (Gita: 9:23)

This clearly distinguishes between worship of Vishnu and devas.

People may disagree about these comments but these are common interpretations.

Raj2004 01:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i was just making an point that it deserves to point out that you can be a self proclaimed hindu, even if you are an athiest.

i know several people, who are not allowed to keep mahabharata at their homes (especially upper caste conservative brahmins), and they also do not keep a copy of geeta, (forget about reading it). they say that keeping a copy of mahabharat in home promotes sibling rivalries. arent they hindus then.

i strongly support the inclusion of comment "even an athiest can be a hindu" in the introductory statement. please cite your criticisms. nids 10:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your points are valid only in some homes and families (I'm shocked that such customs exist!), not universally. In Sanskrit, an atheist is called Nirishvara-vadi, such a view is condemned in the Gita. You'd know this if you had read the Gita. Of course, I'm not saying atheism has never been a part of Hinduism. For example, Mimamsakas and Samkhyas were atheists, but all the other schools of Hindu philosophy are theists as per history. --^Babub→Talk 11:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, users who wish to include material have to provide references that support their claims. Persons who question the inclusion of material are not required to produce their own citations. If you want to include "even an athiest can be a hindu", then you require a reference from a reliable source. Thanks. Addhoc 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

babub correctly proves my point. there were athiestic schools of thoughts in Hinduism like the ones mentioned by babub. i just want them to be included in the main article. not their discription, just the mention. (those athiestic schools of thoughts may not be surviving today, but they were very much part of the hinduism)

and babub, even i was surprised when i knew from one of my brahmin friends that they were discouraged to read or even keep a copy of mahabharat in their homes. but believe me, consult a traditional conservative brahmin, and you can easily find this fact for yourself.

nids 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i am sorry i mentioned Gita in my initial post. i just want to include that you can be a Hindu, even if you are an athiest and also if you do not venerate Gita. nids 06:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and no problem. your view is correct. that's correct As Babub correctly pointed out, atheistic schools such as samkya existed but atheism does not exist in the gita.

Raj2004 10:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

can we now include, athiesm to be compatible with hinduism, or precisely that there were some schools of thoughts in hinduism, which were athiestic.nids 10:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, provided you include appropriate references. Addhoc 10:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can refer to the above comment by Babub, 11:08, 9th August. I know that there were athiestic schools of thoughts, but i dont remember their name. i have a hard copy of some Ph.D. theisis on darshans in Hindu philosophy. i shall find that out and post the details here. For now, can i just add in the introductory portion, that an athiest can be a Hindu. Also you do not need a certificate of any organization to be called a hindu, (like being baptized to become christian).

you can also refer to current Mimamsa page for their athiestic history. does it qualify??? nids 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[5] this link says The beliefs of the Mimamsa school include rejection of a creator God . i feel this is enough for my point. nids 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

this link says [6]There is no philosophical place for a creator God in the Sankhya philosophy. please cite your criticism. nids 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

nids seems to be adopting the practice of making wild claims on talkpages in order to itch other editors into doing his work for him. Somebody should take the time to discuss WP fundamentals with him. Fwiiw, a discussion of atheism in Hindu culture would contain a reference to Carvaka. This article could arguably contain a brief reference to that school. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think dab could have read the links posted above in the post and then said what he said. here, i have pointed out just the wikipedia pages and havent even metioned the caraka philosophy. i am refering to mimamsa and sankya philosophy. i have also quoted that. isnt not believing in god "athiesm". caravaka was a different case since they did not believed in vedas. if dab thinks that not believing in vedas is athiesm, i wonder that in that case what will be christianity??? nids 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids, please read WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:NUT thoroughly before contributing further to any article. ^Babub→Talk 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i have read the policies, and i am just pointing out the links here,-

[7]. this link says The beliefs of the Mimamsa school include rejection of a creator God .

[8]this link says There is no philosophical place for a creator God in the Sankhya philosophy. does not believing in god qualifies for "atheism"? if yes, can we include this.nids 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

and what i could get from dab's comments, it seems that there can be an argument to include Carvaka philosophy. but if you disagree, then thats fine.nids 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, but you're just pointing out other wikipedia articles. If you can, please give references from published books. Kindly read all the policies once again before contributing. ^Babub→Talk 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[9] and [10]. well if these kind of links can satisfy, i shall past more of them here.nids 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[11]

Carry on, nids, I am with you. Hindus can be atheists or polytheists. Babub, please understand, being an atheist does not diminish my Hinduism or my love for India. Samkhya, Uttara mimamsa, Vaisheshika, are all atheistic. Raj and others have agreed to it once, but then the page was changed again without any discussion. Now about Vedas or Geeta, I do not believe in God, so there is no question of Vedas being always present or being written by any God, or Geeta being written by a God. The Vedas were written by seers (visualizers, inspired people like those who write poetry or paint), and the geneology of the writers is clearly mentioned for all verses. No doubt, all these books and other scriptures are a store-house of Indian wisdom which is time-less. I believe that Sri Krishna is the hero of our mythology, like Sri Rama, Sita, Hanuman, Bheeshma, Ganesha, and thousands of others. It is from the mythology that a Hindu takes guidance about his conduct in life. If it was not for the mythology, our culture would not have survived. I bow to the idea of Sri Rama and Sri Krishna and so many others, because that has united the hindus in times of distress and given us strength to overcome it. I believe in 'Brahman', something which upanishads say is to be understood and not to be worshipped, like quantum fields and strings. It is the universal substrate which creates space and substance by its own inherent property. I have no objection to people being monotheists or monists, and they should not have any objection about anybody being an atheists or a polytheists. Being dogmatic and enemical to the belief of others is not Hinduism, how can anyone deny 'vipra bahudha vadanti' and call himself a Hindu? Aupmanyav 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in...Hinduism accepts different beliefs and for this to be true, it should be inclusive of atheism. In fact, the paths to truth may be many - and atheism can well be one of them, by seeking truth purely by objective, scientific means or through an opposite belief of non-existence of god (or non-belief). However I am not implying that athiesm is a necessary part of being scientific, just that science does not rely on belief (as theism requires). If there is a truth which is infallible, perfect and all-powerful then it shouldn't matter if one believes in it or not - either way will lead one to the conclusion of that truth's existence and absoluteness...and the same applies to god. Yes, in the Gita, Krishna says the he is the source of all there is - but that in no way implies monotheism. It is simply an artistic way of saying that Krishna represents the vast cosmic energy from which all there is has been synthesised - that we contain that energy. It is simply a poetic way of saying what scientists say today - we are made of the same stuff that stars are made of. The matter for both came from pure energy when spacetime sprang forth from the big-bang singularity. Rohitbd 13:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gita obviously has many interpretations. It seems to inclined towards a theistic view. Krishna is more than the universe. He says, in chapter 10, verse 42, that He stands supporting the universe with a single fraction of His power. This supports a panentheistic view where God is more than the vast cosmic energy from which all there is has been synthesized.

Raj2004 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheistic views in hinduism

thanks for your support aupmanyav. but it seems nobody else seems to agree. we can provide the legal sources, through which we could include nastiq philosophies in hinduism too. Such as Clause 2(b) of article 25 of Indian constitution says Buddhist and Jains to be Hindu. Buddhist and Jains are athiestic religions as there is no place for creationist god in their philosophy. other links for athiesm in traditional hinduism are [12] [13] [14]. also, Nastika in Hindu terms is related to non-believing of vedas, while atheism refers to non beleiving of existence of God. so, although Nastiq covers only Buddhism, Jainism and Charavaka for Hindu philosophy, athiesm covers nastiqs along with poorva mimamsa and sankhya. I can also not understand why are we not allowed to include buddha as ninth avatar of vishnu here, while our puranas are clear for that.

This page just covers about Vaishnavism rather than Hinduism. All the six schools of thoughts covered here are generally considered vaishnavites (I may be wrong here). the current page seems to ignore shavist sects like Aghori as non-Hindus. This page, also, does not adequately covers Shaktism either. in my suggestion, we can do some redistribution of data here. Move some vaishnavism to its respective article and give a brief introduction to other aspects of hinduism like polytheism, athiesm, shaivism, shaktism which are all universally accepted parts of hinduism. hinduism also covers tamsiq ways of worships like alchohol being offered to shaivist deities like bhairon baba.(there is a temple in pragati maidan, delhi where sharaab is offered to the god). there are also temples in nepal where eggs are offered to gods. infact shiva worship is more like tamsiq and it is completely condemned in this page. while as a hindu, we must respect all sects, including Aghori.

Moreover, I could not find wikipedia policy which bans me from referring to other wikilinks. If somebody could point me to that. if i could directly point out to wikilinks, it'll make job a lot easier, where we could also mention the six school of shavism.nids 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph, see where it says "Note: Wikipedia articles should not be cited as sources." on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page. I hope there is also a policy somewhere on starting a sentence with a capital letter. :-) —Wookipedian 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out wookipedian, i missed that (i was searching in the wrong place). i can still point out to original sources which are referred in the wikiarticles. nids 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, nids. This article needs a thourough revision and the people who wrongly insist to restrict hinduism to philosophies of their liking have to give way. The only condition that Hinduism poses is that one should be a 'vipra', a person of good intention, one who fulfills his dharma to family and society. I suppose I am that. Tantra and Aghorapanth are valid philosophies in Hinduism, though they are not meant to be for everybody. There is however, no bar to put charlatans where they should belong. The best evidence that Hinduism is undefinable is from the latest case in Kerla High Court which refrained from defining a hindu. A hindu, simply is one who fulfills his dharma and professes to be a hindu. Aupmanyav 10:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, Wikipedia is not a forum for airing your personal beliefs. Hinduism is based on the Vedas and allied texts and this article must follow the Hinduism of these texts, not some "Hinduism" of yours or nids' wild imagination. If anything, you can start a website of your own and air your views there, but not in an encyclopedia.^Babub→Talk 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

dear Babub, are you saying that Hinduism is restricted to worship of vedas and anyone who does not worship vedas is not a hindu.(according to may be great scholars like griffith, keith, Max mueller and BR Ambedkar). Please be clear. Are you also saying that the legal definitions do not deserve to be part of encyclopedia, including the constitutional and Supreme court jugdements.nids 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, since when have scholars or supreme courts come to have a say in defining a religion? The Vedic religion that is Hinduism is naturally based on the Veda and the Vedic traditions and we don't need any interested parties to tell us what our religion is. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to complain about your nit-pickings and fancy ideas. ^Babub→Talk 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

we have a different page for vedic religion. if you feel that this page should be restricted to monotheistic hinduism and not cover other aspects, atleast be clear. if you want to say that worship of Bhairon Baba temple with alchohol is unhinduistic and related to personal nit-pickings and fancy ideas, atleast be straightforward. You will be perfectly right to restrict Hinduism to the Vedic religion (as said by western scholars) as per wikipedia policies (and i wont argue on that). My only problem is that you are not straightforward in condemning athiesm, polytheism, tantrik, shaivism, shaktism, caravaka as unhinduistic. as for legal definitions, they were cited to explain that even Legal systems abstain from defining Hinduism, while there are simple defintions for Christianity and Islam.nids 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm saying all that in your imagination. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. ^Babub→Talk 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Babub, Since when have you become the arbiterer of what a hindu can believe and what he/she can not? Do you believe in 'Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' RV 1.164.46. Answer. Is that not proof enough? What more proof do you want? First go and learn about Hinduism, you are hardly one. So many people are telling you that what you make out as Hinduism is not correct. (Personal attack removed) we will take the issue to the arbitration committee. Wikipedia is not your personal property. Aupmanyav 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome your taking this "case" to the arbcom. ^Babub→Talk 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

babub, please read my previous comment again. i have not put any of my words into your mouth. i have simply asked you some questions. and it was you who said that "The Vedic religion that is Hinduism is naturally based on the Veda ". Thus, defining Hinduism which no other person on earth previously did.nids 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

if you want to say that worship of Bhairon Baba temple with alchohol is unhinduistic and related to personal nit-pickings and fancy ideas, atleast be straightforward. These are your words. Not mine. I beleive that all these traditions and atheism and much much more are part of Hindu tradition as are the Vedas. But that does not make Hinduism atheistic. If you really and desperately want to become an atheist, why not become one? Why hang around in Hinduism and try to distort it? Samkhya and Mimamsa could help you along the way, but kindly understand that Vedanta (which is the main Hindu philosophy followed by Hindus) is strictly theistic. ^Babub→Talk 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

first, please calm down babub. we still have a different page for Vedanta. In this page, we can restrict ourselves to define different philosophies, including the ones that are already there on the page. i am not saying that hinduism is not monotheistic, what i am saying is that this article deserves a introduction of other ways of hindu beliefs, which include other things rather than just vedanta.nids 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But I am saying Hinduism is not monotheistic :)^Babub→Talk 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Babub, you are basically confused right now. There are a whole lot of monotheists in Hinduism as well on these wikipedia pages. Aupmanyav 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

so do you agree for these changes? if yes, we can wait for others to approve. there is no point in making changes and get them reverted.nids 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Babub, please do not say that Vedanta is the main Hindu philosophy. You are likely to anger a whole lot of those who follow the teachings of Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya and Sri Chaitanya. You are also not likely to please the Shaivites and the Shaktas either. Hindus have not remained united on the basis of such divisive thoughts. Here is what Swami Sivananda said about them: 'All were great souls. We cannot say that Sankara was greater than Ramanuja or Vallabha was greater than Nimbarka. All were Avatara Purushas. Each one incarnated on this earth to complete a definite mission, to preach and propagate a certain doctrine, which was necessary to help the growth of a certain type of people who flourished at a certain period, who were in a certain stage of devotion. All schools of philosophy are necessary. Each philosophy is best suited to a certain type of people.' (http://www.dlshq.org/saints/nimbarka.htm) I hope these words would bring some divine light to the corners of your mind where darkness still persists. Aupmanyav 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

nids, the fact that hinduism has no problems with polytheism, atheism, or even animism, should be included. These facts were removed sometime ago without any discussion. What Hinduism considers unalienable is that a person should follow his Dharma (duty/right action); manasa, vacha, karmana (in thought, in speech, in action). Aupmanyav 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You say: "You are likely to anger a whole lot of those who follow the teachings of Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya and Sri Chaitanya." I say: Ahem, aren't all these teachers Vedantists? Have you had a good look at Vedanta yourself?^Babub→Talk 08:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

babub and aupanyav, please calm down. i feel that both of you agree to the changes in the main article, lets now wait for other editors to approve them.nids 09:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been not seen the whole conseversation but babub is right that all listed are Vedantists. Ramanuja followed qualified monism, and Madhavacharaya followed dualism. It was a tradition of the Vedanta school to write three main commentaries on the Gita, Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras.

Raj2004 09:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Babub. My apologies. At least two philosophies are monotheist. Am I correct? Aupmanyav 14:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Monotheism nor Polytheism apply here

Actually, IMO, none of the Hindu philosophies, even of the Vedanta school, can be "grouped" under monotheism or polytheism. These terms are suited for Abrahamic religions but cause a lot of confusions and misunderstandings when applied to Dharmic religions. ^Babub→Talk 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

may be both can be applied here. as there are people who are monotheists and there are those who are polytheists.nids 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we shouldn't really be arguing so much on trivial matters like this. Instead we should keep on the lookout for User:Yeditor (called at least three of us "brahmin vandal" adn "blatant Hindu vandals"), User:Holywarrior (insulted Hinduism on textbook talk page). We should spend less time arguing and more time keeping Hinduism realted articles free of vandalism and POV crap.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Definately, you are right. But actually i thought that there is something missing till we dont include Polytheism, athiesm and other aspects of hinduism in the intro. Actually the article has grown out of proportions, so i am thinking about removing some of the details of different schools of philosophies. Reply if you think otherwise. As for Yeditor, we can complain against him anytime, as WP is strict for personal attacks. You all should be careful(and please be) that you dont condescend to his standards.nids

Belief in Vedas

Vaisesika accepts only two sources of knowledge, Pratyaksha and Anumana. Vedas are not accepted as one. Aupmanyav 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could kindly condescend to provide some proof for the above, wikipedia would be very glad. ^Babub→Talk 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Babub, I would do that, but let no one consider the freedom of belief in Hinduism as its weakness, actually it is its greatest strength. Hinduism has covered a long distance (perhaps 10000 years) and has a long distance to go, hand in hand with the advancement of science. Aupmanyav 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The six schools of darsana (vaisesikha, samkhya, mimamsa, nyaya, yoga, vedanta) all support and consider vedas the supreme authority. Only vedanta and mimamsa however completely to the character of the vedas. Leafy 05:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Vaisesikas hold that perception and inference are the only proofs. They do not reject the others as proofs, but maintain that the others are reducible to inference, are only different applications of inference. S.N.Gupta (http://fair-use.org/mind/1895/04/the-nature-of-inference-in-hindu-logic) Aupmanyav 12:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Vaisesikas hold that Perception and Inference are the only Proofs. They do not reject the others as proofs, but maintain that the others are reducible to inference, are only different applications of inference. This remark is also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the following opinions" They do not reject the Vedas as per the link you have given. ^Babub→Talk 12:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

True. Vedas also are perception and inference. Some people may consider some inferences to be incorrect. Aupmanyav 03:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes needs cleanup

The "Notes" section needs to be cleaned up using citation templates. ^Babub→Talk 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'vedanta'

The article is written such that there are ONLY three schools of vedanta. In reality they are the three MAIN schools but not the ONLY schools. The ones by sri chaitanya, nimbarka, vallabha are the three other popular schools, excluding schools by many other philosophers such as appaya, bhaskara, etc.. Leafy 05:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

leafy, you deleted this line from the article In India, clause 2(b), article 25 of Indian constitution extends this definition of Hinduism to include Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. I thought it is relevant in the article. Though i am not reinserting this line now, but I want to know why did you object to its inclusion.nids 09:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I support nids on this one.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was an accident. Leafy 11:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

nids, the line is at the wrong place. It should not be included (at least not in introduction). Also, Indian constitution considers Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs as Hindus only in 'law' and not in 'religion'. This difference should be understood clearly. No need to incite Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs to an anti-hindu stance. There is no problem if Hindus on their part do not consider them as any different from them. Aupmanyav 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In no way does it incite them. there are many sikhs who go to sanatan mandirs and keep fasts on hindu festivals. Moreover, constitution includes them in religion as,for example, their marriages are covered in Hindu Marriage Act. But if you think that it should not be included in the intro, you are free to put it anywhere in the article. But it definately belongs to the article, and preferably on the intro, specially for those who consider them Hindus. As a further example, quite a few Sikhs keep their Hindu caste surnames like Bakshi, Ahluwalia etc. Similarly, if you attend a Jain marriage, you can simply observe that they remember their Gotra from their Hindu castes (though this is not allowed in either sikh or jains). their are definately some separatist groups everywhere. What will you say for Dalits then. quite a few of them dont consider themselves Hindu, so shouldnt we include them as Hindus in the article??

We have separate articles where we can speak about the resentments of those separatist groups. but, definately, many Hindus consider these as part of hindus and many Jains,Sikhs consider themselves as part of hinduismnids 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside of India, the definitions are even less fixed. Jains blend in to the Hindu crowd, and Sardars go to Mandirs quite frequently and vice versa. I will say though that the Gurudwaras have better food than the Mandirs.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Every Gurudwara and Mandir cooks differently. But yes, I myself along many Hindus I know go to other places of worship, even some Christian and Muslim holy sites! (though never Mosques). Hinduism is an inclusive religion where the boundaries are not very distinct. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Dharma

It is not called that in Sanskrit. It is only called that in Hindi and other modern Indian languages. The first sentence will have to be reworded. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reappearance of Ayyavazhi

I am looking for some consensus from the other editors regarding the insertion of Ayyavazhi in this article. As far as I know, Ayyavazhi is not a recognised religion in India, The number of followers are not known, It is practically unknown outside a couple of districts of Tamil Nadu. Is it notable enough to be included in this article on par with the other recognised religions? - Parthi 08:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Parthi, its currently not notable to be included in the article.nids 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Going after Wikipedia Notability, I found the conclusion mainly as "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research." - (A whole article or a part.) Verifiability.

I completely accept. But consider not only online but also offline. There are a series of Historians (outside Ayyavazhi) and a set of university publications see Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion. Besides this the LMS Report of about more than 60 years focusing Ayyavazhi. Many of them view Ayyavazhi outside Hinduism. Take care, the LMS Missionaries are of nagative views on Ayyavazhi. Which means, the vision on Ayyavazhi from LMS is a Vision from opposite pole on Ayyavazhi. So the LMS reports is the most valuable source in this matter.

Over all, once the offline sources are considered, then the vision on Ayyavazhi will remain unbiased (for wiki).

Then for official recognition, If a religion have more than some 7000 worship centers running and have a particular crowd behind, If they say themselves says that they were of 'X' religion and say that they don't care about the official recognition, Does they considered as adherents of some other religion(here in wikipedia)?

There are a series of Historians and university reserchers saying that as a seperate religion. Besides this the LMS Reports as peaks. All these could be used as virifiable sources and hence notability may not be a problem.

If I call my self not as a Hindu and as an Ayyavazhi follower and this is evedent from the above told sources, the matter of official recognition only falls next to my vision on myself(proved by universities).

University reserch is treated most seriously than the official considerations. Even as per the verifiability. Because a reserch reflects the very basement of the religion while the recognition comes only after a series of claimes. Wiki NPOV places such Research first and only then the official recog. - Paul Raj 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

From my reply in [15] - Parthi 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that I didn't understand much of what is written above. Verifiability means something that can be independently verified as being published in an independent source. It need not even be true. None of the hundreds of Ayyavazhi pages offer any more citatation than the LMS report and its own religious scriptures written in Tamil. Also, you are confusing notability with verifiability. These two different criteria. Something may be verifiable and may be included in WP. I have no problem in the Ayyavazhi articles as they are. But this faith is not notable to be included in hundreds of remotely related articles such as Menstruation, Duryodhana, Vegetarianism, etc. This is proseletysing.

What is your proof for the 7000 worship centres?
It does not matter what a group of people consider themselves as. To be acceptable in wikipedia, they must be officially recognised by an independent, reliable and neutral authority. Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry can start their own little religion and insert thousands of stub articles in WP, thereby self perpetuating their notability. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Please cite your sources for the university research papers regarding Ayyavazhi.
Do you honestly believe that Ayyavazhi is big enough to be included at the same level as Sikhism, Jainism, etc?

-Parthi 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To say Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion there are a number of publications from several Historians. They all infact noted that Ayyavazhi is still remaining as a sect within Hinduism. But noted a significant deviation of the beleif of Ayyavazhi people and the Ayyavazhi theology from Hinduism, saying it should be placed at a different pole from Hinduism.

The book Religion and subaltern agency from University of Madras give a definite and clear vision in this matter. This is more valid because the fore most point of this reserch came from the top known 33 theologions from Ayyavazhi from Kanyakumari to Chennai. That university book itself say that Ayyavazhi theologions spread across these areas.

Another book on Tamil Nadu history from stone age to modern era - Thamizaka varalarum Panbadum (Tamil) (Author:V.T.Chellam) Says, "Ayyavazhi serves as a reform movement under sociology" and going on telling the diversified nature of it and finally concluded Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion finally saying, "Ayyavazhi religion gets originated" (Tamil:அய்யாவழி சமயம் உதயமாகியது).

In the book Sri Vaikunda Swamikal and the struggle for social equality in SouthIndia (Author:Dr.R.Ponnu) (Madurai Kamarajar University). The Conclusion of this study says "The Followers of Sri Vaikunda Swamigal concentrated upon an independent system of worship and neglected the prevailing Hindu religious institutions." Going on, he say the diversifyied nature of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism. The same author (as far as i've known) published some two or three more books on Ayyavazhi all focusing almost a same point. ("Sri Narayanaswami Sect in Tamil Nadu", "Vaikunda Swami:A case study of Socio-religious Awakening in South-India", "Ayya Vaikundar oru Avatharam" (Tamil) - all were reserch publications.

In the book Land of Charity (Author:Samuel Mateer) this Ayyavazhi's were noted as "this singular people display considerable zeal in the defence and propagation" seeing them against the rest of Hinduism.

And the LMS reports need not be considered as a valid source. But the missionaries were always anti- Ayyavazhi, saying Ayya as "agent of satan", "devil" etc... But to verify the spread of Ayyavazhi could be seen from these repots of them. And hence they in such matters became valid enough.

And overall the main reason for focussing Ayyavazhi outside Hinduism is, Ayyavazhi scriptures says that all the Hindu scriptures (Vedas, Sastras, Agamas, Puranas were all lost their substance right from the biggining of Kali Yuga. No other denominations inside Hinduism says so. Ofcourse, there may be different views between them. But they don't say the other gone awry. This was direct internal evidence for taking Ayyavazhi from Hinduism. But still Ayyavazhi accepts Hinduism for a certain period of Time (Until the end of Dwapara yuga). The view of Ayyavazhi on Hinduism seems to be like the view of Christianity to Judaism.

In the matter of the number of worship centers In the research book "Ayya Vaikundarin vazvum Sintanaiyum" (Tamil) T.Krishna Nathan (for his project fro M.Phil degree, Madurai Kamarajar university) told, "In regions of Tamil Nadu and Kerala there are more than 8000 pathis (Nizhal Thangals) is running.

You asked me "Do you honestly belive?" So Iam qouting the following. These were not sources Iam citing. Patiently see each them. Not all of the following is my view. But different sociological views. All were in Tamil.

[16]
[17]
[18] - Though this is a common discussion, I feel there are some useful messages about Vaikundar. Read by serching the term "அய்யா" and "வைகுண்டர்". Here
[19] - Also here search the terms and read.

Then, on the basis of the number of followers Ayyavazhi is not equvalent (it doesn't mean that Ayyvazhi is not seperate religion) to Sikhism, Jainism etc. But theology, philosophy, mythology, religiosity etc... Ayyavazhi deviates faraway from Hinduism than these religions.

Then in the matter of number of followers, since Ayyavazhi is not an officially recognised religion, there is no report from the side of government. But once I remember in a program in Sun Tv one person infromed this number as more than 7 lakhs (in 1997). Any way Iam not taking that as a citation.

But Bala Prajapathi Adikalar the present considered leader of Ayyavazhi says in one of the interview that he was ready to sign a document for us, witnessing that there are more than 1000000 Ayyavazhi followers. If needed I shall Try to meet him and get a signed document. Don't think his is not notable, he was a state Award winner for communal harmony, and was a figure who laid foundation stones for more than 1000 Nizhal Thangals from across Kanyakumari to Mumbai.

Over all, Myself As an Ayyavazhi follower dislikes the reports of LMS, treats Vaikundar as "Satan" etc... But in such matters, on studying the religious infrastructure of Ayyavazhi, the negative view is important. Again telling, Don't throw them away.

And in the case of Duriyothana, Mensturation cycle,etc... on my vision, if Ayyavazhi stands as a seperate religion, definitely it is notable and especially when the view of Ayyavazhi is different from others (certainly with citing the source) . Thank you. - Paul Raj 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Raj, are you not the same person as Vaikunda Raja? The verbose reply you have written above is identical to the many discussion we have had in the past. They still don't make a whole lot of sense and you still don't understand the nature of Wikipedia. We have no probelems with your beliefs. They are personal. But don't try to insert Ayyavazhi in all and sundry unrelated articles. - Parthi 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the least knowledge about Ayyavazhi. But I want to say one thing, if they are a different religion than Hinduism, then they should not be mentioned on Hinduism-related pages. If Wikipedia agrees, they could have as many pages of their own as they want. Why intereference in Hindu pages? Why should they be here? Aupmanyav 12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of ayyavazhi until I came to wikipedia :). It has never been mentioned in any media or books I've seen. Most of the pages on google on this topic are from various online encyclopedias. And no yahoo or google groups dedicated to ayyavazhi. ^Babub→Talk 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I cited the Tamil discussions and noted the 'Sun Tv' maters from wikipedia, only because you asked, "Do you honestly believe". I don't place them as citations. Then, the previous citations were all university papers and were very much valid to Say Ayyavazh as a religion. If it was a seperate independent religion then can't we place it's views on the articles Reincarnation, Soul etc...

User:Aupmanyav, Please understand that Myself or the religion Ayyavazhi doesn't hates Hinduism. It only says that from the advant of Kali Yuga (due to the cruel nature of Kali, it destroys)the true scriptures (vedas, Agamas etc...). This was even told in Hindu scriptures(Vedic) I think. But this thing is simply told in Hindu scriptures but instead a new was (message from god) given Akilam as per Ayyavazhi.

Also Ayyavazhi was noted in the Hinduism article only at the Related faiths section.

User:Babub, I've already told above that, for Ayyavazhi, there is a lot of offline sources while on online very few. Please take a look. Thank you. - Paul Raj 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to sensitise people about this related faiths business. We need not discuss related or non-related faiths in Hinduism-related articles. That unnecessarily adds to the length of the article. My request is for 'keeping to the subject', otherwise everybody would jump in. Why should we make a hinduism-related article into a comparative study of religions? Aupmanyav 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling that, this discussion about Ayyavazhi should be made somewhere else? If so, I accept. The discussion begins on a debate to keep Ayyavazhi here or not, and extended. Sorry

And the further discussions about this topic (matter) may be made here (If any one need to continue). - Paul Raj 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no need to, I was talking about my view of related and un-related religions unnecessarily being there on Hinduism pages. Aupmanyav 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed

{The vandalism was removed} ^Babub→Talk 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

hello? this is pure reductio ad hitlerum. Hitler built motorways, ergo all motorways are an evil fascist conspiracy. Also, Ancient India was hardly the only Iron Age society with a concept of an outcast class, you know. The problem are, much rather, people today, in India as much as in America and the Near East (and, you guessed it, 1930s Germany), that relapse into an Iron Age mindset.(ᛎ) qɐp 08:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that SrimadBhagwad Geeta is not an ancient Aryan scripture. It is a hindu and vaishnav scripture. Anybody can pick up any symbol, e.g., a cross, and use it for his/her nefarious purpose. The symbol or the rightful users of the symbol cannot be faulted for this. I do not know what was the extent of understanding of of Hinduism of these people, Himmler and Hitler. Had Himmler read something of the book he is supposed to have carried and studied it, I am sure, the effects would have been completely different. Again, Blavatsky and her friends were just people besotted with their own views of orientalism. Nobody thinks of theosophy now. All people have a soft corner for their own people and prejudices for others, the whites and the non-whites, Japanese and the non-Japanese, christians and non-chiristians, the believers and the non-believers, the momin and the kafirs; if Aryans also thought that way, why should it surprise anybody, There is always a categorisation in any society, Europe also had such categorisation. Arya/Anarya division happened when the Aryans first came to India. After they mingled with the inhabitants of India, there were no Aryans, all became hindus. Bonded labour exists even now, and the people who control it are usually the newly powerful OBCs (Other Backward Classes, particularly the Jats and Yadavs), don't blame brahmins for it. If it was carried on during the British days, then the British also were a party to it. Slavery was even worse as practiced in muslim countries, in Europe and in America. You have not seen or read about true racism and aparthied as practiced by the whites in America and Africa, otherwise your views would have been much different. The Hindu caste system which was based on occupations, language, region of residence, food habits, traditions, has a large self-imposed component. Aupmanyav 11:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate

It is very unfortunate to include Hitler and Himmler in an article on Hinduism. What has hinduism to do with them?. They belong to the page 'Nazis', if Wikipedia has one for it. Secondly, how come Helena Blavatsky invades a page on Hinduism. She has nothing to do with Hinduism. Theosophy was an immature philosophy put out by a few westerners who thought they knew more than others and it perished with them. I suppose 'Theosophy' has its own page in Wikipedia. Why burden Hinduism with it??? Aupmanyav 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism gained some notability in the West (Europe, N America) in the 19th century, and even more in the 20th century. There could indeed be a short section dealing with "reception in the western world" or some such. (ᛎ) qɐp 11:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindus have so much to think, so much to discuss. We are really not concerned about 'reception in the western world', unless it involves a serious searcher for truth. A line when Valmiki makes Rama say in his 'Ramayana':

'Satyam eva eeshvaro loke, satyam padmaa samaashritaa; satyamoolaani sarvaani, satyaan naasti param padam.'

(Truth alone is god in this world, all virtues are established in truth; all are rooted in truth, there is nothing higher than truth.) Aupmanyav 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

so? I'm not asking you to write the section if you are too busy thinking. This article is about Hinduism, it is not written from the point of view of Hindus. Wikipedia also isn't about "Truth", it is about verifiability and notability. See, for example, sections like Islam#Islam_and_other_religions, Islam#Controversies_and_criticisms, Christianity#Controversies_and_criticisms which I dasesay would not absolutely need to be present from the point of view of respective adherents. Such aspects are completely lacking from this article. (ᛎ) qɐp 12:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Really so if Harvard published "lies" then it would be fit for wiki? You logic makes no sense at all. But of course I am merely a "chatterbot from BJP HQ".Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, what I meant was that it is not necessary that we should look at the west with expectant eyes for their appreciation. It hardly matters if they received us with admiration or abuse (most christian websites do only the latter). I respect your knowledge and did not mean to get on your wrong side. Aupmanyav 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also unfortunate

This too is unfortunate that this person (61.3.165.195) replaces my post with his. This is vandalism. This is not honest editing. Aupmanyav 10:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP, which was obviously used by banned user Anirudh777 (talk · contribs). (ᛎ) qɐp 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

brahmana and vedas in introduction

I think it is wrong to mention that all hindus regard vedas as supreme and worship one brahmana, atleast in the introduction. as a fact Purva mimamsa, Samkhya and caravaka did not worship any supreme being or brahmana. Amongst personalities, Veer Savarkar was an athiest and he is important because afterall, he was the one who coined the term Hindutva. i feel that it would be correct to remove the statement from the intro and move it inside the article and change it to say that most hindus do this (rather than saying all hindus).--nids (♂) 03:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been telling this again and again, but the misguided 'Vedics' would not listen, just like you don't listen about not including Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Biases. Aupmanyav 09:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove them, you can do it now.--nids (♂) 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Carvaka dont come into the branch of hindus. Purva Mimamsa is an extinct school, while Samkhya isn't preached by many people. So the changes can be made "Hindus...pray to supreme spirit brahman....though some schools such as Carvaka and Purva Mimamsa dont..."Leafy 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i was proposing only this kind of change, Where it is not authoritatively said that hindus pray to just one brahmana. And there are other denominations too. The schools i gave are just examples. Even if they are extinct schools, they are important for an encyclopedic article. and if you want to pick up just from contemporary hinduism, you will still find many atheists. One example is noted above.nids (♂) 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy of the schools is still there and it is a part of Hinduism and its philosophers are still venerated sages of Hinduism. Charvaks or Lokayat philosophy, however strange it was, was a part of Hinduism, that cannot be denied. But a new sort of people have entered the arena. Atheists but hindus. For them Rama and Krishna are mythological heroes, still supremely important, because these people agree that from these stories people learn the way to conduct their lives. Make some space for the likes of us. Aupmanyav 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"oldest"

I am fed up with undifferentiated claims of "ancient, oldest, 40000 BC". The Encarta article contains an informed summary of various historical stages. dharma was used as a term for the religion since the 7th century. 'Hinduism' may be considered to have originated from the 4th century BC. The Shrauta tradition within Hinduism may continue rituals that date to 1000 BC. The oldest textual tradition may reach back to as early as 1700 BC. Saying that "the oldest textual tradition may reach back to as early as 1700 BC" is not equivalent to stating "Hinduism is the oldest religion". A properly phrased statement would read that

parts (non-mainstream) of Hinduism are among the oldest surviving religious traditions.

The intro should either feature such an appropriately phrased statement, or refrain from touting Hinduism as "oldest" altogether. "Hinduism is the oldest religion" merely smacks of uneducated hype. We don't claim that Christianity goes back to Neolithic Europe, even if parts of it (such as worship of Mary, such as Black Madonnas) do. If Hinduism has its roots in the Neolithic, so does every single religion on the planet. (ᛎ) qɐp 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, some of your points are valid but to comparing it with worship of Mary going back to Neolithic worship is a stretch. First, only Catholics venerate Mary. The worship of Mary should not be compared with a worship of a goddess. Mary is not worshipped as a goddess but only as an interceder on behalf on someone who prays to her in order to get God's grace and is not a goddess.Christanity has been around for 2000 years and to compare to neolithic worship is misleading. Neolithic generally means a period between 5000BC to 7000BC and Christianity did not exist at that time. It is possible some form of Hinduism existed during the Neolithic time. Perhaps one could write oral tradition may have suggested that some form of Hinduism existed then but no verifiable written record to date has been found.

Raj2004 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(reply to dab, edit conflict)But Jesus is central to Christianity, and he is documented 2 millenia ago (without Jesus there is no Christianity). I don't see the point to what you are saying, but I guess it is merely an attempt to discredit Hinduism since you are "fed up" of it. Heres a treasure trove of sources to back up the "oldest" fact. [20], [21], [22], [23] (there are about 2.8 million google hits). Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Which encarta are you looking at? None of the Hindu users will accept the Wendy Doniger version so don't try and use that version.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Baka here. Hinduism is often regarded as the oldest existing religion - the other main contender to this title is Zoroastrianism. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be argued that elements of Christianity were borrowed from much older worship systems such as from the Ancient Egypt. There is strong evidence for the roots of the Christian worship in the Egyptian veneration of Isis, Osiris and Horus. Does this mean we can claim that Christianity originated around 2500 BCE during the Fifth Dynasty? Similarly, the current day Hinduism has no resemblance to the worship systems followed by the Aboriginal or migrant communities of Ancient India. If it can be argued that the roots of Hinduism was from the prehistoric times then the same argument will hold for many other religions such as Buddhism and Christianity leading to endless arguments.

What are we trying to achieve by claiming Hinduism to be the oldest? Does oldest automatically mean superior? I hope not. I really don't see the point in some wiki editors inserting the adjectives 'ancient' and 'the oldest' etc relating to numerous Culture of India related articles. - Parthi 02:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point regarding Christianity, however it would probably be original research to insert into its article, or it would be regarded as an extreme minority POV. Reading articles on Hinduism, you'll find that it's often described as "oldest." What that means is up to the individual reader. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not original research. See [24], Isis: Queen of Heaven, The Egyptian Origin of Christianity and it is not a minority view. It has been widely documented and debated for hundreds of years. St.Peter, the first Bishop and the one who gave form to Christianity took elements of existing worship practices and formed the early Christianity.

You haven't answered the importance of the adjective 'oldest' - Parthi 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if the opinion regarding Christianity meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, please do include it. "Oldest" isn't really important to me, but if it's important to others, I don't really see a problem with using that adjective. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

look, I wasn't suggesting that we insert the claim that Christianity has Neolithic roots in the intro of the Christianity article. Prehistoric pagan roots of Christianity may well be discussed, coherently and with clean references. Similarly, I recognize (read my comment!) that Hinduism comprises very old traditions. I did make a workable constructive suggestion:

parts of Hinduism are among the oldest surviving religious traditions.

I fully endorse this statement, and I agree that Hinduism is something special in this regard. Feel free to insert this statement anywhere you like. It is not acceptable to reduce it to mere "Hinduism is the oldest religion" which entails assumptions about all of the terms "Hinduism", "oldest" and "religion". It is very simple: If you want to state such a thing, you'll have to clearly say who is making that claim, per Wikipedia:Notability. Reputable sources will contain statements similar to those I made here, maybe containing superlative claims of "oldest" but always with some sort of qualification ('predecessor', 'roots' or similar). 1700 BC (to confine ourselves to textual tradition) is very old indeed for a surviving tradition, but of course religious traditions are known (notably Ancient Egyptian) that are significantly older, only they do not continue to be practiced today. Also note that possibly the only thing about contemporary mainstream Hinduism that may date to such early times is the Gayatri mantra (minus the om bhur bhuvah svah part): viz., these are fragments of Hinduism, not Hinduism as a whole. (ᛎ) qɐp 07:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You say: "Also note that possibly the only thing about contemporary mainstream Hinduism that may date to such early times is the Gayatri mantra (minus the om bhur bhuvah svah part): viz., these are fragments of Hinduism, not Hinduism as a whole." My reply: Excuse me, just because you are ignorant of contemporary Hinduism, you cannot dogmatically claim such ridiculous statements as true. This is not true because, Vedas are learnt in full (including Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Veda) by innunmerable Hindus (Brahmins) even today. FYI, I personally am learning (orally) the Taittiriya Shakha of the Krishna Yajur Veda and I know several others who have learnt orally the other Vedas in full too. You just can't sit in an European ivory tower and flout such ridiculous claims. Because your "reputation" as a "mainstream scholar" will look ridiculous then and your prejudices are showing up. And mind you, Brahmins are pretty much mainstream. 99% of all Hindus look up to Brahmins for religious guidance, much like how Christians do to Church fathers. So all the Vedas are mainstream today as far as learning them goes, but the observances mentioned in the Vedas may not be followed in full, but is this relevant here?

So Dab, believe me, such statements do flare up Hindus, and such scenes are better not seen on an encyclopedia. IMO that the Vedas are the oldest texts can be mentioned. However since the actual definition of Hinduism is an impossible task, oldest religion may not be the proper word here.^Babub→Talk 08:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pundits are defined as those who have studied and memorised a proportion of the Vedas and there are many pundits in India! The Gayatri Mantra is just the most revered part of Vedas. If you believe that contempory Hinduism are mainly based on Vedant philosophy, then it is still based on the latter parts Vedas and the Upanishads, which are commentaries of the Vedas. Interpretations over the Vedas may have changed over the past few thousand years but they are still in the heart of every Hindu. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, just to clear, I believe that the Gayatri Mantra is recited in full even today, including the "om bhur bhuvah svah" part (if memory serves, it goes "om bhur bhuvah swahaa, tat Savitur varenyam, bharago devsaya dhimahi, dhiyoyo maa prachodayat"). It is an homage to Savita, the gift of the Gods to man (the Sun). How can you construct a coherent prayer without mentioning the introductory "Om bhur bhuvah swahaa", which sets up the mantra as an homage?Hkelkar 09:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Babub, calm down. Hindu topics on Wikipedia could do with a lot less paranoia and "Hesperophobia". So you are learning the TS, that is very nice of course. But how did you get the idea I thought nobody was doing that? I readily accept that the TS was compiled in the 9th century BC. My comment on the Gayatri mantra referred to the 18th century BC date, which is, after all, almost another millennium earlier. The 'minus the om bhur bhuva' part of my comment made allowance that this part is younger (YV) than the Rigvedic 'tat savitr' part. I don't see your point at all, especially since I did grant the "oldest" moniker has some justification, it just needs to be put in some sort of context. And I frankly think it is a little ironic to be accused of 'ignorance' all the time seeing I have to point out the very basics each time I make a comment that assumes a little bit of background knowledge. So, I am sorry if I cause people to 'flare up', I daresay it happens to Christians (the 'bible thumper' kind) over discussions of the Dating of the Bible: let me state that I have as little respect for Christians throwing hysterical fits on those talkpages as I have for Hindus doing the same over Vedic philology; but I am afraid I must insist that people who cannot stand detached discussion of the philology of their religious texts are clearly at the wrong place on an encyclopedia project, and should maybe consider contributing to some denomination-specific devotional forum. (ᛎ) qɐp 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

One cannot say " It can be argued that elements of Christianity were borrowed from much older worship systems such as from the Ancient Egypt. There is strong evidence for the roots of the Christian worship in the Egyptian veneration of Isis, Osiris and Horus." There is no Christianity without Jesus so there is no comparison.

Raj2004 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a long discussion and no comments by me. Let me write just a few lines. So everybody agrees to ancientness of Vedas (even if you disregard Tilak's mention of Aditi period, 6000 BC), what makes you think that Shiva and lingam have not been around for 7000 years, or Vishnu or Mother Godess are not just as old. What is main-stream in Hinduism, everything is. Vedas are, Shiva is, Vishnu is, Shakti is, the local Bhairavas are, Yellamma is, Mariamma is, Hinglaj is, Kamakhya is. The difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions is that whereas there has been a distinct break in their coming up, there is none in Hinduism (not even with migrating or invading Aryans, as different people would take it). Wish the Harappan mystery would somehow clear soon. Thanks. Aupmanyav 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

well, there are major breaks in the history of Hinduism, and no, I am not talking about the ominous Aryans, but about major reform movements such as Buddhism, Vedanta, the Puranas and Shankara, etc. etc.; after each of these, Hinduism changed practically beyond recognition. What makes it special is that it didn't discard its older layers, instead drastically re-interpreting them. The sort of continuity is exactly the same in India, Europe and elsewhere. The difference is that pious Hindus will emphasize continuity (both the Harappans and modern Hindus know moon worship, hence Hinduism must be aged 5000 years!) while pious Christians will emphasize conversions (things that changed, a Druidic altar is now a Christian altar, an entirely different thing!) (ᛎ) qɐp 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism came and went leaving little effect in India. Vedanta and Sankara are only enhancement of ideas already in Vedas (more knowledgeable can argue this, I am a layman). Puranas are indigenous Hinduism, leave out the later ones. People still go to Bhairav temples and offer wine (two in Delhi, one near Old (Shershah's/Indraprastha) Fort, the other near the ancient cremation ground, Nigambodha). Aupmanyav 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, no, i'm not flared up or paranoid. I agree with your edits, but your talk page comments bother me. Thats all. ^Babub→Talk 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that's fine then, I am glad we agree. My annoyance was not directed at you, as I trust you will recognize, but at the editors persistently degrading the accuracy of Hinduism related topic in favour of naive hype. peace, (ᛎ) qɐp 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the real issue in calling it the "oldest living religion". I could find at lest a 100 sources to back it up (out of 1million+ google hits). If you or Parthi think we are going to exploit the facts, you may want AGF. Degrading the accuracy, what a joke. I could have found thousands more (sources) but they arent "western scholarship". Since we established the Vedas are the oldest religoius texts, its logical that Hinduism would be the oldest religion anyways.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An addendum, Bakaman, Vedas, oldest texts, with an even older oral tradition. But then other aboriginal religions may be just as old, Australian, African, etc. So hinduism is an aboriginal religion and oldest among the major ones. :) Aupmanyav 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming the best of faith for you Bakaman, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't faith-based. Wikipedia:Notability isn't about google hits. Your notions are honorable, but not well researched. You are free to quote any reputable source you like, including Puranas, ancient Indian philosophers and what have you, just as long as you stick it into the pertinent section and clearly state the origin of the claim. (ᛎ) qɐp 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

UCLA was one of the sources I used, it provides the facts, as well as "western research". The reason I placed it in the intro section is because that is important info, up there with being the third largest religion in the world. 1.8 million is no small number, that is quite a bit of notability.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Bakaman, I flipped. It happens. Aupmanyav 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The number is amorphous, ranging from 1.4 million to 2.8 million. Its definitely well over 1 million. Btw (aupmanyav), try to have your comments actually make sense, especially with "A rider" and "It happens" I have no idea who/what are you talking about.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I get 943 and some 20,000 for the more generous "oldest religion". Sheesh, do we have to double-check every statement you make, Bakaman? Ever tried "facts"? Even if you could show that "Hinduism" was googlebombed to be the "oldest living religion" - so what? Will we state that GWB is a miserable failure in his article's lead now (147,000 hits)? (ᛎ) qɐp 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I got 1.4 million. The only reason I placed "oldest living religion" in the article was because I thought it was less controversial and perhaps a compromise. On a more conservative search I got 780k. Googlebombed? I think you are assuming bad faith.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

no, for crying out loud, I am merely pointing out that your google hitcounts are completely irrelevant. Your google query by the way counts all pages that contain the terms "oldest" "living" "religion" and "Hinduism" in any order or context. The second link that comes up already describes Varanasi as the "oldest living city". Which isn't true either. Look: google is an important tool to begin looking for references. Your search doesn't end there. You need to find websites that cite their sources, and then possibly go and verify those sources. Yes, that's work. The internet is great for quick and dirty dissemination of text. But finding a lot of hits only proves that the topic has roused some debate in recent years. So I grant you that a google search shows that a lot of Hindus are eager to emphasize the antiquity of "Hinduism". Gee, we knew that. The googlebomb simile also shows that a lot of people believe that G W Bush is a moron. Gee, we knew that as well. Such truisms don't make for factual statements in Wikipedia's voice. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

holy ***! the "oldest living city" came from this very page. I've removed this statement before. It's simply not true. If any city has a claim of being the "oldest living", it would be Jericho. Now it's one thing to insert false statements in good faith because you read them on some webpage. It's another thing to repeatedly sneak them in even after they were found out and removed as mistaken. Could people watching this page please show some integrity and and critical thinking? Otherwise, this sad article will never reach featured status. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stone age implements were found on the ridge near Delhi University. :) Aupmanyav 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Improving?

Per the above discussion, any suggestions about improving this article? It was FA at one time, but now it is very poor in quality, though it has quantity. Vandalisms, edit wars have ruined it. That's why I asked an admin to make it semi-protected. ^Babub→Talk 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

the featuring process was questionable, it was never in a state that would pass FAC as it is now. You may go back to the original featured version, or the version after Blacksun's extensive cleanup and recover passages that have since deteriorated directly. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Linga Purana

This page pretty much is a translation of the text. Somebody has to shorten it. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ekam Satviprahaa Bahudha Vadanti

"Vadanti" is bahuvaachak, right (Vadati, Vadatah, Vadanti Dhaatu Roop)? So should we use the singular "it" in the translation? Presently, the translation says Truth is one, though it is known by many names. Shouldn't it be as follows:

"The Truths are one, though they are said to be many".

If I'm wrong, then please tell me. I studied Sanskrit till 10th standard only, and it was a while back :) .Shiva's Trident 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not kept the two words separate, "Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti'. What you have forgotten in the translation is 'Vipra'. The author of the line is talking about 'good people', he is not talking about bad people. This is important, because bad people may give an intentional wrong description. Good people do not describe it as many, they describe it in many ways. So the correct translation is (IMHO) - 'One exists, good people describe it in various ways'. Aupmanyav 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Per sanskrit dictionaries, Vipra means Brahmin. ^Babub→Talk 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. I see now that the bahuvaachak refers to Vipra. Does Vipra exclusively refer to Brahmins or all Dvijas?Shiva's Trident 00:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The former. ^Babub→Talk 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Check, Babub, Vipra like Arya also means a good, well-intentioned person. Then, it is not 'viprahaa', viprA itself is plural. Aupmanyav 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. There are secondary meanings as you say. but the primary meaning as used in most sanskrit works is Brahmin. ^Babub→Talk 08:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Shiva's Trident, Bahuvachan is for Vipras and not for Sat which, no doubt, is one. Aupmanyav 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

^ "The Indian Constitution". Part III (Articles 15 & 17). "Fundamental Rights"

[indianconstitution-1] "The Indian Constitution". Part III (Articles 15 & 17). "Fundamental Rights"

[1]