Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buddhism and Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235132/http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en1 to http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.byomakusuma.org/EnlightenmentBuddhismVis%C3%A0VisHinduism/tabid/72/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Large Buddhist sutra quotes
There are a lot of issues with this article. The first step I have taken is to reorganize the structure a bit, with a simple section listing similarities and another listing differences and one more listing their historical interactions. This seems to be how some other articles comparing two different religions together are structured.

Besides that, I also went ahead and removed a bunch of very large Buddhist sutra quotations that were choking the article. Not sure why many of these were added, but they just do not explain or help in the comparison between these two religions. One example was a quote from a sutra that just listed like 40 or something names of Vedic rishis. Not sure why this was deemed as necessary for this article. Another huge passage from the Samaññaphala Sutta I just outright deleted and outlined the main points made in that sutta passage. There was really no need to quote such a large passage to make the basic point that the Buddha disagreed with many Brahamanical practices like fortune telling etc. In the meditation section, there were also many passages being quoted explaning Buddhist dhyana, but not much was being done explaning Hindu dhyana or comparing these with Hinduism. It just seemed like a parade of sutta quotations again. I removed most of these and outlined the main points in prose.

A lot of work remains to be done cleaning up many of these sections and adding more citations (will see how much more I can tackle in the coming days). There is a lot of awkward prose and passages that don't seem to be doing much helpful explaining - just throwing out all sorts of facts and quotes. But at least now this page is organized a bit more rationally and also does not have all these excessive Buddhist sutta quotations.

I also added a few more sections outlining some very basic ideas, such cosmology, deities that both religions share in common and so on. Javier F.V. 00:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Development of Hinduism
Note: User:MihirakulaChakbast is [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox blocked as a sockpuppet] of User:Prince Of Roblox. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding these edits,
 * diff, edit-summary Added pre-Vedic origin of Hinduism, and
 * diff, edit-summary The sources added are copied from within the Wikipedia page of History of Hinduism page. It doesn't mention OIT or AMT. It talks about pre-Vedic origins of Hinduism., which replaced

with

This is utter nonsense. Hinduism developed after the Vedic period, as a synthesis of Vedic ideology, local religions, and sramanic ideas and practices; see Hindu synthesis. The sources do indeed come from History of Hinduism, yet are used there for the statement Hinduism may have roots in Mesolithic prehistoric religion, such as evidenced in the rock paintings of Bhimbetka rock shelters,[note 18] which are about 10,000 years old (c. 8,000 BCE). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't tag me in this edit, so I didn't get a notification.
 * It's sourced, how is it nonsense? The sources clearly state that Hinduism had a pre-Vedic origin. The Vedic-period post the Aryan-migration caused Hinduism to develop or evolve. See History of Hinduism MihirakulaChakbast (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hinduism has multiple origins, and developed after the Vedic period, in the Kurushetra area. Three major mistakes. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You said it. It has multiple origins. Developmemt and origin is not the same. Hinduism of today, i.e. post-Puranic Modern Hinduism is not the same as Hinduism of the pre-Vedic era. Hinduism did exist before the Vedic period as is sourced by scholarly content extracted from the excavations and paintings of the archaeological site, Bhimbetka. The History of Hinduism page mentions it clearly. I don't understand your denial about this. MihirakulaChakbast (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan Please reply to this so a consensus can be achieved and I can revert the article back after achieving said consensus. MihirakulaChakbast (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you self-revert and gain WP:CONSENSUS; especially since you seem to be aware of this policy. Hinduism did not exist before or during Vedic times. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be editing these pages. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan You're supposed to give me that consensus by looking at the sources I provided and agreeing or stating your reasons and disagreeing by providing sources which state otherwise on this talk page. Something you refused to do. You're just sticking to your claim and calling everything you disagree with as 'nonsense'. You first labelled my edits 'indigenous aryan nonesense', by which you accused me of pov-pushing OIT.
 * Modern Hinduism didn't exist but Ancient Hinduism existed prior to the Vedic period. I've added multiple sources to support that claim. There's a History of Hinduism article which mentions it's pre-Vedic roots on Wikipedia itself. I've mentioned that as well, which you again ignore. I've added sources which quote that the Vedic religion was the precursor of Modern Hinduism, something you also ignore and repeatedly revert.
 * You refuse to talk or corporate to anything. How do you expect me to reach a consensus by this? MihirakulaChakbast (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you actually read those sources? I did, because I corrected the dating of those rock-paintings from 30,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE. That's what those sources are referring to, not to the statement "Hinduism may have roots in Mesolithic prehistoric religion." None of these sources states that HInduism developed during the Vedic period, as expected, since Hinduism developed after the Vedic period. You probably also didn't check the link to Hindu synthesis, which you removed, but which explains, with sources, how the synthesis of Brahmanism, sramanism and local religions developed between ca. 500/200 BCE and 300 CE; see also roots of Hinduism. And you probably also didn't read the sources you added to Punjabi Hindus, in which Witzel states: "... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion." Nor does any of those sources state that this Hindu synthesis developed in the Indus Valley. So, yeah, nonsense indeed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I tried to create a fair version here by largely swapping content instead of changing any wording. I believe it should resolve the dispute in question. Lead is supposed to keep thoroughly undisputed facts while sections can cover range of views. Capitals00 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I first didn't see that you edited and then self-reverted; was strange. Your version, though, removed sourced info and replaced it with unsourced info, losing a lot of additional info. The line
 * which was previously also in the article, is technically not incorrect, but not exactly correct either. More correct would be:
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can replace those sentences but over all, there should be no other problem with my version. Capitals00 (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer my version of course, but this is fine too. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can replace those sentences but over all, there should be no other problem with my version. Capitals00 (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer my version of course, but this is fine too. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Buddhism
according to your latest edit diff, Buddhism did not arise around 500 BCE, but between 600 and 200 BCE. "Modern Hinduism" is also a misrepresentation; Hinduism as such arose after 500 BCE; there was no "Hinduism" before that time. WP:COMPETENCE is required; one more of such a mistake, and I'll ask for admin-intervention. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't think is being helpful. He should agree with the proposal I made above and end this. Capitals00 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Explain removal and general comment
I have removed the following paragraph from the Cosmology and deities section of the article: "According to the biography of the Buddha, before taking his last birth on earth as Gautama, the Buddha was a Mahapurusha (great being) named Shvetaketu, dwelling in the Tushita heaven (home of the contented gods). After attaining enlightenment on earth, there is to be no more rebirth for the Buddha. Before leaving the Tushita realm to take birth on earth, he designated Maitreya to take his place there. Maitreya will come to earth as the next Buddha, instead of him coming back again. Krishna was a past life of Sariputra, a chief disciple of the Buddha." The linked source is dead but perhaps is a reference to this part of Jataka tales translated by W. H. D. Rouse, which possibly supports the last sentence (Krishna was... of the Buddha) but not the rest. Also the paragraph is written so poorly that both its meaning and relevance to the section is hard to decipher. While the sourcing and comprehensibility problems may be solved through a rewrite, my main reason for removal is that wikipedia editors shouldn't be mining the immense corpus of Hindu and/or Buddhist literature, spanning over two-millennia, to come up with instances where the deity of primary importance in one religion are mentioned in the literature of the other. That is the work of scholarship, which should guide us as to what aspects of commonality and difference are due, and perhaps more importantly, the history, significance and reasons for such overlap and differences. The rest of the Cosmology and deities section and large parts of the article could use a review and rewrite. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)