Talk:Dharmic religions

Hinduism and the Philippines
You never mentioned Hinduism's influence on the Philippines. The Philippines during pre-Spanish times was very influenced by Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. By leaving the Philippines out you are denying and degrading who we Filipinos are, including our culture, our pasts. And you are also ditching and insulting our ancestors who have created and passed on the traditions that we have (eg. our dances, vocabulary, etc.). This is well documented. Please take a look at http://www.waltokon.com/Jolo25.html. There are more sources to follow.


 * Hinduism in Philippines --Dangerous-Boy 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community-based encylopedia - if you want to add the Philippines to the article, feel free to do so. Sfacets 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism a Dharmic faith
-I read somewhere that Zoroastrians follow a concept called "Daena" which has similar connotations to "Dharma" and acknowledged as a possible cognate for Dharma. Would it be possible to call this a distant Dharmic faith, because of the common concept, even thought it arrives to it through an ultimately different approach and did not originate under the South Asian brand of Indo-Iranian culture?


 * We would have to find a reliable source that suggests this. You are probably correct, on the basis that there are many similarities between the Ancient Iranian and Indian relgions. However, there would be too many people who won't believe such a thing unless you verify.  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 05:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Zend Avesta is definitely a deviation from the Rig Veda and perhaps the earliest of the monotheistic scriptures. But certainly Zoroastrianism cannot be regarded as an Abrahamic religion.

Ayyavazhi
Can this really be included in this article? It is officialy an offshoot of Hinduism (From Shakta origins apparently) this is even stated in it's main article. Ayyavazhi Please discuss, Sfacets 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not? the only demerit is lack of official recognition. The conception of Dharma in Ayyavazhi concentrates far away to the others. One step up, we can guess that the difference between ayyavazhi and hinduism in this matter is more than that of Buddhism or Jainism to Hinduism. - Vaikunda Raja 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ayyavazhi merits such a separate listing under Dharmic religions. If that is so, why not the Sects of Lingayats, Arya Samajis and maybe even the Kodavas from Coorg? The Coorgis are ancestor worshippers and at the most worship river Kaveri as a deity. Of course present day Coorgis do practice vedic rituals and worship in connection with House warming ceremonies etc. In any case the term 'Hinduism' should include all schools of thought which are 'thought' based and not 'belief' based. Anyone who thinks about God can be a Hindu and this is why Hinduism accomodates even the atheist in its sweep.


 * But in Akilam it is stated that, as soon as Kali Yukam begins all the Hindu Puranas, Agamas, sashtras had lost their substances. And instead of that the New Scripture is given by God and that is Akilattirattu Ammanai. All the other schools in Hinduism though differ from each others in beliefs or thoughts, they don't say that others were lost or not to be followed. But in Ayyavazhi mostly all the saivite Vashnavite and other scriptures were mentioned but said as lost. If you accept Ayyavazhi inside Hinduism you may have to see with equal value the Akilattirattu Ammanai with other scriptures of Hinduism and if so have to accept that all the others had lost their substance and instead have to accept whole-heartedly Akilattirattu as the supreme ond only scripture.

Apart from these there is also a lot of ideological variations between Ayyavazhi and Hinduism. - Vaikunda Raja 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, there are various movementsts like Ayyavazhi in India, which have a far greater following than it. Examples : Osho, Aryasamajis, Ananda Marg, ISKCON, and a whole galaxy of cults. That does not mean that they be granted the status of a religion. Period. A few Deemed or undeemed South Indian Universities may recogniz the Ayyavazhi cult, but as Ayyavazhi is not recognized as a religion by the Indian Constituion, it is merely a Cult, and not a religion. I repeat, Ayyavazhi is a cult, not a religion. Otherwise India will have a few hundred religions and pantheons. IAF


 * You might want to see this for the extent of penetration of the Ayyavazhi spam in WP. - Parthi talk/contribs 06:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ayyavazhi is not recognised as a religion by the Universities. The religions studies from the University says that, the basic of Ayyavazhi is autonomous. Also Universities can't offically recognise a religion. Also if Indian Constitution doesn't recognise Ayyavazhi as a religion, then it is valid in India official matters. Indian Constitution doesn't control Wikipedia. Wiki is an encyclopedia, and it says the basic and expanded structure of Ayyavazhi. And for that, as per wiki guidelines valid sources are used for citation. And that valid sources here used are the Universities and their books. But still the wiki article has to mention the view of Indian constitution. That had already mentioned right in the beggining in every cross reference of Ayyavazhi.


 * Wiki has to mention the view of India constitution, But the ultimate view of wiki article cannot follow the view of India Constitution. So Please understand friend. Thanks. - Paul 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, If smoking is prohibited as per Indian Penal code, we can't write that "Smoking is a prohibited thing" in wiki article, but can mention that Indian law prohibites Smoking. The whole article can't be written with a prohibited tone. So pleas edon't delete the contents. - Paul 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul, I must ask what you think of Osho, Aryasamaj, Ananda Mrag and ISKCON. Do you classify them as religions or cults ? You will automatically get your answer where does Ayyavazhi stand.IAF


 * Ananda Marga and ISKCON, these two are (may be a religious or social) organisation or movent as per here and as per the name (Krishna Conciouseness Organisatin) itself respectively.


 * Arya Samaj is a reform movement or may be to some extend a sect within Hinduism.


 * Osho page have two dissambiguation. In any of the both cases, they may be a reform movements with in any religion.


 * But don't understand  'Where Ayyavazhi stand'  from knowing all these organisations. And if you compare Ayyavazi with any of these movements or sects, I may say that you are throughly mistaken. Because these are based on Hindu or some other scriptures and may be secular but based on Hindu Structure


 * ISKCON - Based on Bhagavatham and Bagavad Gita.
 * Arya Samaj - Vedas


 * These two are movements or sects based on Hindu scriptures, but may be different view on those from other Hindus.


 * Ananda Marga - Probabily secular (but this was a organisation)
 * Osho - Rajneesh Chandra Mohan Jain a reformer


 * These two are reform movements or organisations.


 * Ayyavazhi is not based on any other religions. I was telling right from the beggining that they (Ayyavazhi) have seperate independent scriptures. And these scriptures says that the origina vedas were destroyed at the beggining of Kali Yuga and the present day vedas are nothing but which are made by Kaliyan. And also bythe incarnation of Vaikundar, all prevoious Puranas, Agamas, Sastra, etc have gone awry, and Akilam was given as a alternative for that. (i.e)The Ayyavazhi's have seperate scriptures and they don't follow that of Hindus. How do you compare Ayyavazhi with all the above religious movements or sects based on Hindu or other religious structures?


 * Also I can't understand why wiki users are not understanding this simple thing even though I repeate the same, many times. - Paul 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source saying that Ayyavazhi is more than a sect/nrm based on Hinduism? If no sources can be provided, then we may as well include all other sub religions based on Hinduism. Or we could remove it. Sfacets 23:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Friend, I've told this many time for different users. See the discussion page of Ayyavazhi. Then Iam once again telling that I've cited the source for Ayyavazhi's (religious structure) autonomouse nature with University Papers. Also cited the book's online reference. What more I could do? - Paul 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Some doubts I may clarify with incomplete knowledge
Well, I'm gonna speak of what i feel is the answers for your questions:

About hinduism and philipines, just edit the article and add the lines. I dont think it's against the permissions allowed by wiki, cuz the edits aren't detrimental...

About Ayyavazhi and Zoroastrianism... First off, Dharmic and Abrahamic aren't the only two types of religions in this world. Take for example, Asatru, Hellenic, Shinto, Satanism and many others...

Anyways, even though zoroastrianism is too closely related with dharmic faiths, such as daena = dharma (as u said) daeva/deva = evil demons ahura/asura = holy angels (the 's' sound became misinterpreted or something as 'h', same goes for sindus being called hindus) The language Avestan is also closely bonded with sanskrit as well, and many hindus, as you said, believe they are some lost texts of hinduism. However, its roots, antithesis (though they accept that thesis and antithesis are the same Supersoul, just as with shiva), mono-birth(im not sure of this though), and such concepts may not let us classify it as a complete dharmic faith. Its the absence of concept of rebirth that i believe may not let us classify it as such. I feel this would need discussions with some authorised zoroastrian authorities to actually come to a proper conclusion..

As for Ayyavazhi, i believe we may need to keep it as seperate religion, because if we include it, in the same sense we should include christianity and islam into judaism. The difference is in the scriptures that the adherents of religion refer to. There lies the difference in the presence of antithesis, and the concept of yuga, and many such stuff as well...

On a sidenote, i believe there are more jains than ayyavazians, as jainism has about 4.5 million adherents.


 * Ayyavazhi is not a recognised religion in India and even some of the followers consider themselves Hindus. It is not notable enough to warrent a separate mention. See - Parthi 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

@parthi: yea, i read that later in the ayyavazhi articles - but i dont think it can be removed from there as of yet

On the other hand, i think the articles need to be expanded - one liner defintions wont do any good.


 * OK just assume for a moment that Ayyavazhi is a religion (which it is not). Then it still cannot come under Dharmic Religions, because the root of Dharmic Religions is the Vedic religion and/or Hinduism. Where does Ayyavazhi fit into this picture ?? You can have a separate page if you want to, but please do not include it under Dharmic Religions. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * Why not? Ayyavazhi theology revolves around the centrality of Dharma. See the Dharma section in Ayyavazhi article. But not based on Vedas or Hinduism. (i.e) Ayyavazhi give a different definition to Dharma. - Paul 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Balinese Hinduism
In Indonesian language, "Agama Hindu Dharma" means "Dharmic Hindu religion". It is what majority of Balinese call their religion. They like to use it to emphasize the similarities with "Indian Hinduism", rather than "Balinese Hinduism"; which is likely to pronounce the differences. Matur suksema ("Thanks", in Balinese) XoXo 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Infoboxes
I dont think only the hinduinfobox should be here. I also think putting the hindu portal link is alittle half-stepping. RamaChandran's solution is cool, but i still think the page should be free-and-clear of all religious infoboxes, period. any thoughts on this? Pirus 05:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the Hinduism infobox must be there. I am not being communal, but Hinduism is the largest representative of these 3 religions. Sikhs, Jains, accept Hindu Gods and Goddesses, and the social-fabric of India regards these 3 as sub-sects of Hindus only. Unlike the orthogonal Abrahamic Faiths, there is congeniality, and unision amongst the Dharmic faiths.

On a more practical level, the Indian law does not distinguish between the Dharmic faiths and regards them under the Hindu fold. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are not minorities in India (if at all then only as a populous minority and NOT as beneficiaries of reservations et al).

Somebody added the cult called Ayyavazhi, whose addition I highly disapprove of, but there is consensus over it and so I can't do much. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * The problem here is that we need to take a wiki kind of world point of view - while we can present the obvious "indian" point of view, it is also important to note that dharmic religion has spread beyond the gates of india, and that some have slowly grown into an identity of thier own. Putting the hindu infobox here may seem alittle biased, because there are many people of dharmic faith who may not identify with hinduism (i even hate using that word considering the vastness of it all, but its an umbrella within itself!). We simply cannot say that Buddhist Sri Lankans or Punjabi Sikhs can be branded under hinduism. While it is obviously true that Dharmic religons have an incredible amount of cohesion between its followers (like between hindus and buddhists in nepal), that isnt a proper reason to include the hindu infobox (or ANY infobox, for that matter) in this article. Pirus 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pirus, actually 99% of all Sikhs and Jains ar in India, and they don't deliberately assert themselves as "We are separate". Only separatist Khalistani Sikhs in UK and filthy rich Patels in UK/US actually do. Hindus are found anyday in langars, Sikhs are found daily in temples, Jains organize Garba dances and celebrate Gujju festivals with gutso. There is so much intermarriage between Sikhs, Hindus and Jains without giving a second thought to religion.

All this separatism between Hinduism and the Dharmic faiths is a campaign started by the English media in India. The likes of those pseudo-secular Hindu-bashers have wantonly stroked the embers of separatism. When Narendra Modi a few months back proposed a law that would not require registration for Buddhists, and Jains converting within any Dharmic faith, the English media created a stink. Jain and Buddhist youth were subjected to "surveys" whether they consider themselves Hindu or not. The very raising of the question of identity of their religion triggered doubts of an identity crisis, and many replied in the negative. In normal circumstances, religion does not cross their mind. Of course a majority were coaxed by their hardliner leaders also. Dalit Buddhists also replied in the negative obviously (thank you Dr. Ambedkar!).

Although Modi needs to be shot on sight, on this particular issue I don't think he was wrong. Constitutionally also, this would be perfectly allowed.

Anyway coming back to the point, since there is no Sanatana Dharma infobox, a Hinduism infobox would be appropriate in this article. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * First of all, you should go ahead and check the indian government's cencus figures. They do assert the fact that sikhs and buddhists are different. And anyone who has spent more than an hour studying/comparing Buddhist/Vaishnu Hindu Dharmas can see that they are more than separate enough to be considered separate religons, however similiar they are. Personally, my local hare khrisna temple and tibetian buddhist retreat have shown me two totally different perspectives on dharmic religion. No "english media" of any sort influenced me here. If you want to label them both as simply "hindu", go ahead. Dont spread that kind of bull**** around here.


 * Second of all, i take very personal offense to your whole thing about "separatist Khalistani Sikhs in UK and filthy rich Patels in UK/US actually do" . In all my life, of the HUNDREDS OF PATELS i have met, i have NEVER, EVER, EVER met one that questioned their hindu faith. Ones i know arent exactly poor either. You are totally ignorant of gujaratis in diaspora; keep your mouth shut before you comment on them.


 * Regarding the jains - since many of them are guju, of course theyre gonna take part in guju festivals, this is no brainer.


 * Also regarding the intermarriage - ask any real hindu family (or from my personal perspective, gujarati family) about marrage to a sikh family, and theyll have your *** on a platter. This is nonsense. Getting alittle too friendly with your comments here.


 * And regarding Mr. Modi? While i have no personal qualm against him (<.< >.> AAHOA here), its pretty obvious why his Hindutva style shoudlent be presented here. Dont use him as an example, anyone whos read anything about him knows his current status.


 * There are millions of Buddhists that are not living in India which need to be accounted for in this article. Saying this, we should not take an indian point of view here.


 * I dont sympathize with the neo buddhists or the extremist hindus you mentioned in your article. Im here to just state that, there should not be any infoboxes (OR PORTALS not in alpha order) in this article. Plain and simple, it doesnt make sense to me. peace. Pirus 03:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look Pirus, if you are illiterate then I can't help it. If you are an illiterate out of India, then the more I can't help it, since I am here in India.

I have already stated previously that Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are treated as a populous minority and NOT as a religious minority who are entitled special treatment. Do you even know that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are covered under the Hindu Marriage Act ? Do you know that Hindu inheritance laws govern Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains ?

Here, for your pea-brain, is a Supreme Court judgement of 2005 :'

The Bal Patil Judgment

''In 2005, the Supreme Court of India declined to issue a writ of Mandamus towards granting Jains the status of a religious minority throughout India. The Court however left it to the respective States to decide on the minority status of Jain religion.''

In the judgment, the Supreme Court opined, "... Thus, 'Hinduism' can be called a general religion and common faith of India whereas 'Jainism' is a special religion formed on the basis of quintessence of Hindu religion.

''In para 27 of the Bal Patil Case quoted above the Hon'ble Court noted Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the wider Hindu community which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies. In various codified customary laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and other laws of pre and post-Constitution period, definition of 'Hindu' included all sects, sub-sects of Hindu religions including Sikhs and Jains. With deference to the Hon'ble Court the observtion of amounts to deciding an issue which may not be completely supported by the provision of laws which are intended to support it. The Sections of the various Hindu personal codes are quoted above for reader's own perusal and analysis. An explanation is put into the end to elucidate how the Hon'ble Court might have been erroneous.''

http://www.answers.com/topic/legal-status-of-jainism-as-a-distinct-religion These same laws apply to Buddhists also.

And by Patels, I meant Jains although I did not explicitly state so earlier (are you a Patel ?). Buddhists philosophy of Nirvana, Moksha, Cycles of life-birth are mentioned in Hindu scriptures pre-dating Buddha.

Talkig of marriage, a Hindu Patel won't get married to a Tamil Iyer Brahmin either and neither will a Maharashtrian Goud Saraswat Brahmin get married to a Rajasthani Marawari despite all being Hindus. The example that you gave has nothing to do with religion, but casteism.

Yet the cultures, customs and religious practices amongst the Dharmic faiths are more cohesive than repellant and so I think that the Hindu infobox would be appropriate. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * For your "pea brain", from my previous post


 *  There are millions of Buddhists that are not living in India which need to be accounted for in this article. Saying this, we should not take an indian point of view here. 


 * next time actually read what i write


 * this article is not supposed to be taking an indian stance, its supposed to be taking a world stance. plain and simple, get out of your "indian air force" shell and start thinking about people who follow dharmic religions outside of india


 * and youre an idiot for your assumtion regarding patels and jains. that statement alone speaks for itself. and yes, i happen to be a patel. not that it matters here on world view wikipedia.


 * and please stop pointing out the similarities between the buddhists and hindu bases. these are well known, but they do little to track both belief systems under one umbrella. Pirus 17:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh Patelji, in that case keep a Buddhism portal superseded by the Hinduism infobox. 50-50. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * One more thing : Please see my latest edit in the Hinduism page regarding the relationship between Sikhs and Hindus. Indian Air Force (IAF)

Ayyavazhi
I am not convinced that Ayyavazhi deserves a separate mention. I believe this may be giving undue weight to the POV that Ayyavazhi is a "separate religion".
 * First, I am not convinced that the majority of followers of Ayyavazhi consider themselves to be a separate religion. There is a vocal editor who believes so, but websites devoted to Ayyavazhi seem to contradict him.
 * Second, it is not uncommon for a sect to hold the views that
 * Hindus have religiously gone astray
 * The founder of the sect is an avatar of god
 * The founder has provided new teachings which restore the original essence of Hinduism,
 * Thus, although followers of Ayyavazhi may (and I'm not asserting the majority do) believe Ayyavazhi to be a "separate religion", this POV is not necessarily the only one that should be considered in Wikipedia, or even given the greatest weight.

Unfortunately, discussions on this subject tend to be extremely voluminous and not very fruitful. I would very much like to avoid long discussions about Ayyavazhi on every page in which it is mentioned, and would be grateful for suggestions regarding how to proceed. --BostonMA talk 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BostonMA, I agree with you, and this very issue has been discussed previously. Ayyavazhi is not a religion, but a cult because :

It is highly unknown, has too few followers, and is too recent (invention of new religions was stopped after Ba'hai). But some memebrs think it deserves a separate mention. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * Iam going to speak more not. Ayyavazhi is a seperate religion as per University papers which are considered as most valid in WP. - Paul 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Portals
I believe the portals of the four major Dharmic religons belong on this article. I request that Pirus, who has not discussed this, stop edit warring and engage in discussion. It's not his decision, but the decision of all the editors of this article. A Ramachandran 13:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Portals are OK for me, although Hindu Infobox would have been more appropriate. Also, we do need to have a vote on the inclusion of Ayyavazhi. I think it has gone too far that it is included under Dharmic religion. 9.9999 out of 10 people have not even heard of it, and it finds mention under Dharmic religions. Someday, every tiny cult and practice will find mention under Dharmic religion.

I vote for Ayyavazhi's removal, with all due respect.Indian Air Force (IAF)

I vote to keep Ayyavazhi in the article. A Ramachandran 23:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merely because of I haven't heard about some thing, I can't argue that it doesn't exist. Then, Ayyavazhi is mentioned here since a religion and not a sect. It was already cited with even university papers. - Paul 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Legalese 19:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)"These two faiths are either regarded as subsects, or sub-castes of the broader Hindu religion, primarily due to the coherence in ideologies, interworship and social intermingling of the followers of these religions." This version is not correct. It has been taken from the Bal Patil Judgment [2005] but has been improperly quoted. And the Supreme Court has since revised its stance in the UP Siksha Parishad Judgment, hence this statement becomes factually inaccurate.

Category:Dharmic Religion stubs nominated for deletion
Hi, Category:Dharmic Religion stubs has been nominated for deletion. I believe that this category is a necessary aid to prevent unnecessary duplication of articles. There are a number of religious traditions that are referred to as Dharmic religions. There are concepts which are shared by all of these religious traditions. When a stub is created and placed in say stubs related to Hinduism, it may remain unnoticed by Buddhists. As a result, a similar article may be created under a different name. The cost of duplicate articles in terms of effort is much greater than the cost of maintaining a category of stub types in my opinon. Although the category only has four articles in it at the moment, I don't see that as a convincing argument for deletion. I have responded to this nomination here. Your input is encouraged. --BostonMA talk 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This category was kept and renamed to Category:Dharmic religion stubs. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

=Bigger Umbrella and Paganism=

Look I'm far from an expert on the subject but the classifying of all the Dharmic religions under "Hindu" is just wrong. I"m a Buddhist, I don't believe in Brahma, I don't believe in the caste system, how am I a Hindu. I'm not. I respect Hinduism and know that there are many Hindus against the notion of "Dharmic religion=Hindu". Hell why not just put Dharmic religion under pagan. I consider myself a pagan why is there no mention of the classification of the Dharmic religions as pagan. "17 year old Mexican Buddhist, Long Beach CA" 12/29/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.40.119 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC).


 * To me, pagan is somewhat of a derogatory term given used primarily by those with a cultural background of Abrahamic religions. Hindus, Buddhists and Jains may be "pagan" by some definitions, but I imagine most would not use that term to describe themselves.  Also, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism all share many common concepts which gives them a unity which is not found between, say, Hinduism and Greek or Roman paganism.  Paganism is to me a sort of negative unity based on being non-Abrahamic.


 * As an aside, belief in caste system has nothing to do with whether one is Hindu. Many Hindus reject caste rules, many non-Hindus such as Christians and Muslims practice caste rules.  --BostonMA talk  00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pagan is a much broader term, and there is ambiguity whether Dharmic religions fall in that category or not. See the map on the right for example. It classifies Dharmic religions as non-pagan, while others classify them as pagan because of many apparant similarities. I don't "believe" in Brahma or caste system, but I am a Hindu. However, I thought you'll benefit by reading Brahma (Buddhism). deeptrivia (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 24.182.40.119, that's the main problem. Earlier I suggested a Hinduism template followed by a Buddhism portal, but then it appears that Buddhism gets sidelined. I am thinking of creating a template on the Dharmic faiths.

That the Dharmic religions are technically pagan is nothing to be ashamed of and is not derogatory (see my edits in Paganism page).

Yes they are pagan because we worship nature, idols, may be polytheistic and worship female dieties. 'Pagan' is no longer a derogatory term in this modern world. It was derogatory in the Middle Ages.

We must stop these efforts of getting approval from the Abrahamic faiths and start being proud of the Dharmic faiths as they are.IAF


 * One more thing. I am deleting Ayyavazhi from this, because :

a) It is not recognized as a religion by the Constitution of India, and by any other country.

b) Globally, in the study of religions the Dharmic faiths consist of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainisma and Sikhism. There is no recognition to Ayyavazhi. If at all give it a separate article, but don't include it here.

c) Simply because some university records classify it as a religion is not sufficient reason enough to declare it as a religion.

d) A religion must stand the test of time. Zorastranism does. Buddhism does. Ayyavazhi does not.IAF


 * Certainly there are Hindus who worhip nature, idols, multiple gods of female deities. There are also Hindus who worship none of these.  --BostonMA talk  16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if The Constitution of India or that of some other countries is added as a guideline here in WP!!! Ayyavazhi as a religion and it's dharmic deviation is cited with university papers, the valid citations. University papers are deep, neutral, third party, original reserch sources. I don't know on what ground it was continiously disagreed and not even considered equal to News papers. Also, if one which only stand the test of time is a religion, then Bahaism etc... shouldn't be given religious status. Ayyavazhi to be added here - Paul 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul, points of view need to be given appropriate weight. A university paper that lists Ayyavazhi as a Dharmic religion (if indeed your paper makes such an assertion) may deserve mention in Wikipedia.  But it may not deserve mention in every place that a given editor might feel appropriate.  In particular, if there are many papers of equal authority, or scholarly books, which list the Dharmic religions but don't list Ayyavazhi, we must give weight to those papers as well.  The weight that we give in a Wikipedia article depends upon the weight of these different points of view among the experts in the field.  In this case, experts on Dharmic religions.  I will suggesst to you once again that you attempt to articulate back to me your understanding of the argument that I have raised.  If you do so, it would give me greater confidence in the discussion.  --BostonMA talk  21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you telling that a report of a doctoral theisis is not to be considered as a view of an expert? Once again Iam telling, university papers are more important than news paper reports, views of organisations, single expert's views, etc... which may be more affected by POVs.


 * You know, doctoral theisis is not a simple thing to throw away or to treate as mere. Each and every lines of a project submitted to universities are to be velified by a series of experts over a period of time. More over that university, University of Madras is one of the three oldest universities in India. Also this study is verified by also other university proffesors before accepted and published. Throwing all these away, i feel good not, about mentioning tones as "mere university reserch" etc...


 * Also I was not mentioning it every where. But where evre appropriate. The book clearly deviates the Ayyavazhi dharma from Hindu. Only so I backed that source and placed Ayyavazhi here. - Paul 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am not saying that a doctoral thesis should not be considered as a view of an expert. A doctoral thesis is an excellent source for Wikipedia.  Could you try again to restate your understanding of my argument?  Thanks.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Iam sorry if i understand your discussions wrongly. But the research papers should not be seen only as an expert view. If this man Patrick published a book outside university then his view could be considered as one among the views of other experts. But since it was publised from an important university this coudn't be considered as an expert view but as fact and it finds primary placement. - Paul 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow ! So doctoral thesis of Universities are now more important than the Constitution of the Republic of India. As though the country's Supreme Court is a fool.

Arre, go and convince somebody in the Parliament or Supreme Court to recognize this part-time cult called Ayyavazhi as a religion, before you vandalize articles here.

And besides, in the studies of Dharmic religions worldwide, only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are included. No artificial 19th century cults are there. So Ayyavazhi cannot be included as a Dharmic faith.

At this rate, tomorrow I'll also start my own religion and include in the article. Please don't feed us the bunkum of University papers !! Anybody anywhere can write any nonsense in third-tier South Indian Universities. That doesn't mean that Ayyavazhi becomes a religion.IAF


 * It does not change the result of the argument, but I believe that if the majority of doctoral theses or other academic papers disagreed with the Constitution, then these sources would in fact outweigh the constitution.  However, that is not the situation in the present case.  The majority of academic papers on the subject list the Dharmic faiths as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.  One or two add Ayyavazhi to the list.  --BostonMA talk  03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arre man, those few hardliner South Indian Universities will obviously write gloriously about Ayyavazhi, because people like Paul occupy their offices ! You really believe some Tier-III University papers ?? Ask Paul to reproduce them here first and add Ayyavazhi later. Ninety-nine million, nine hundred, ninty nine thousand, nine hundred ninty nine people out of 10 million have never heard of Ayyavazhi even in India. So how can this cult be a religion ??


 * At this rate, tomorrow Swadhyayee BostonMA, DaGizza, Dangerous Boy and I will invent a new religion and add it in Dharmic religions. I'll be the first Guru and First Tirthankara. IAF


 * First of all please slow down you tone. Something in the pathway of personal attacks is of no use in any way.


 * Iam made here to repeat what I told earlier. What to do ?!!! I shall,


 * Iam not treating or considering the parliament and Supreme court. Don't you understand the sense in which Iam speaking?


 * Let me repeat, Indian Parliament and the supreme court has to follow Indian Constitution and have to treat it officially as the guideline. If indian constitution doesn't recognise some thing, then supreme court and the Parliament (to a large extend) have to shut down it's mouth. But not wikipedia. It has it's own guideline and as per it third party sources are treated valid especially University reaserch. No place for point of views in University reaserch since it has to pass a series of criteria from a series of experts on appropriate fields from various universities. More over the validity of the source depends upon the credibility of the University. Here this university is one among the three oldest universities in India.


 * May be people like me may have written the book. But since it goes through several dozens of expert's criticisms and verifyability which is then accredited by the university, it has to be accepted, surely as per wiki rules. Once again to high light, no place here for POVs. It seems that the main reason Ayyavazhi not included in world-wide dharmic reserch because it was seen as a hindu denomination and so unaware of it. It doesn't meent that such a thing does not exists factually. And here cited the valid sources for the factual presence of Ayyavazhi and it's dharma especially it's deviation. And so we need not convince anybody in the Parliament or Supreme Court to find a mention in a wiki article.


 * Also Iam not taking the following to discuss but still like to remain --> If I read out correctly, the supreme court of India has made a decisson is some case that Buddism is also seen as Hindu denomination finding some unity between them! Backing it could Buddhism considered as a Hindu sect here in wikipedia?


 * Also if i was asked to place the original sub-heading on Ayyavazhi Dharma on that University paper, I will.


 * Then, if Ninety-nine million, nine hundred, ninty nine thousand, nine hundred ninty nine people out of 10 million never heared about a festival declared as a holiday for three districts, which was ever first in Tamil Nadu History,  then it may be some others mistake and that souldn't be placed as a reason to reject something kept here.


 * Also sources are cited from that of universities also for the presence of thousands of worship centers.


 * Iam once again telling Constitution, parliament and supreme court are official but university papers are factual. No place here for POVs. Thanks- Paul 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Buddhists are governed by Hindu Laws only in India and are constitutionally regarded as a sub-religion only in India.

The PoV of a few University papers is no match for the UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism as Dharmic faiths. These have stood the test of time and are recognized faiths world-wide.

The PoV of a few University papers is not the ultimate Truth. University papers are known to be full of blunders, mistakes, plagiarisms, etc.

Tomorrow I'll publish a paper in Amity University stating that Einstein's theories are all wrong. Just because its a University paper will it become true then ?

'''Bahá'í Faith followers also revere Mohammad, Jesus, Adam, Noah and Moses. Does it become an Abrahamic faith ?? Answer yes or no.''' Your answer will be the same for the question whehter the part-time hobby called Ayyavazhi is a Dharmic Faith or not.

I would like other members also to express their views on this, form a consensus and decide Ayyavazhi's inclusion in this article. IAF


 * Still I don't understand your logic considering University papers as POVs!!! A copy of a reserch work is sent to various universities for verifications and experts approval before publishing it and awarding the resercher as a doctor. University papers are the least affected sources to POVs undoubtfully.


 * Then first prove that Einst' theory are all wrong and let the university accredit it. An university is not a place where people play with barbies and teddies. They have their own responsibility and credibility. And the university from which i cited source is one among the three oldest in India.


 * Then Bahaism is already added as a Abrahamic religions see here


 * And if the philosophy and theology of a religion center on the concept of Dharma they are dharmic religions. Ayyavazhi rightly fits here. The aim of Ayyavazhi theology lies on Dharma Yukam, the age of Dharma.


 * If some thing is proved by original reserch in uiniversities, if it was considered unvalid then what is the definition for the term 'Fact' ? - Paul 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever added Bahai to Abrahamic faiths is mistaken, because Bahatullah was inspired by Krishna and Buddha also. Bahai is the first "contact" faith between the Abrahamic and Dharmic faiths.

Anyway, Dharmic religions are bound temporally. Just because Toyota also now has an office in Detorit, it does not join the league of the Detroit Trinity of GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, because this trinity is bound spatially. Just as Toyota is an outsider in Detroit, Ayyavazhi is toooo late to be included in the foursome group.

You are confusing a 19th century cult, which has fewer followers than Mumbai University has students in the study of "History of Japanese cartoons", AS A FULL-FLEDGED RELIGION.

Forget being not recognized ANYWHERE officially. Even Tamil-Nad does not recognize Ayyavazhi fully. I've never heard of this cult in any news channel, news paper, internet, etc.....except on this page.

Look :- A religion must pass the test of time. Invention of new religions has stopped after Sikhism (Bahai is a cult-faith not a religion). A religion must have a legacy (like Zorastrianism has). A religion must NOT be artificial.

Now Ayyavazhi has NOT stood the test of time, and Does NOT have a legacy and IS artificial. And that too with so few followers that it can be registered as an NGO in a Govt. office.

Include Ayyavazhi as an NGO. It's not even a cult like Osho or Ananda Marg. IAF


 * Weather Bahai is a religion, Abrahamic religion or not. Also religion may or may not pass the test of time. Discuss in the appropriate discussion article. Currently the Abrahamic religion article includes Bahai. Govt recognisations won't be used as wiki guidelines. Students of Mumbai university may study that topic. BuT, Mumbai university likely don't accredit Japa'se cartoons as full-fledged religion. It has it's own credibility. Are the universities in India a play ground for lunatics to say non-senses? But if it accredit so then it is a valid source as per wiki guidelines. That's all. Then I want to be no more for a long discussion since the re-play for all your present suggestions are given by me clearly earlier. And if I go for a long talk, it may be nothing but repeatations. If Iam made to, I am ready even for that. But it will be of no use.


 * Summing up, As per wiki policy I've cited Ayyavazhi as a religion with a valid most third party sources. - Paul 12:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Can you tell me the estimated number of Ayyavazi followers ? Be honest, don't exaggerate. Also cite some sources.

I'll see if that number is less than the number of students studying under "Department of African Studies" in Mumbai University. The example of Jap cartoons was a hyperbole.

Also, the argument that a religion must have passed the test of time was given to prove that Ayyavazhi is not one. Its very relevant to this discussion. You can't just invent a new group and call it a religion.

Swadhyayee, Gizza, Dangerous-Boy, Aupmanyav, Gouranga, I request all your views on this. IAF
 * For what little it's worth, I certainly disagree that a religion needs to stand the test of time, for primarily two reasons. One, many religions will continue to have adherents, even if only covert adherents, who are not necessarily recognized, who continue on a religion long before or after the time of it's regular lifetime. The Greek gods, for instance, continue to have worshippers to this day in Athens, as per a report on the BBC's "Reporting Relgion" program during the Athens Olympics. Two, for the purposes of encyclopedic content, even a religious group which may have died a quick death, like several Christian millenarist groups, are significant enough to be included, and should be considered to fall within the "religions" grouping, particularly if they don't fall within the scope of any of the smaller groupings. Badbilltucker 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those modern Greeks "worship" them as a fad, and not traditionally. Christian millenarist groups are under Christianity's umbrella, just like Sikhism and Jainism are under Hinduism's umbrella. So, religions do have to stand the test of time. You can't invent religions anymore more. OK ?

I appreciate that Ayyavazhi was useful in fending off Christian missionaries from Tamil Nadu who were hell-bent on converting.

Ayyavazhi can at best be called a sub-sect of Hinduism just like Shaivite, Vaishnavite and AryaSamaj subjects. I still don't think it merits mention as a whole new religion.

With this, I'm done arguing. IAF


 * Badbilltucker, just for your info, the Ancient Greek religion has been artificially revived by a bunch of bored professionals in Greece. It's just a passing fad, although the Greek Govt. unbanned it.

Here's an interesting quote :

''At the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs, Konstantinos Kontogiannis, general director of the religion directorate, claimed recognition of the movement was being considered "at the highest levels". But he added:''

"We might love Manchester United, but we can’t say it’s a religion."

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=14722&sec=73&cont=5

So Ayyavazhi ain't a religion. I hope everyone appreciates the magnanimity and sanctity of the word "religion". A bunch of followers don't constitute a religion. IAF


 * Ayyavazhi is a sub-sect of Vaishnavism or saivism!!! I wonder of your this comment.


 * Ayyavazhi's won't go to worship to the worship centers other than Ayyavazhi. How could you call XXXX as sub-sect of YYYY, where XXXX not even enter the worsip centers of YYYY? Also Ayyavazhi's worship only Vaikundar. They consider the Hindu scriptures had gone awry. Assume if AAAA is the scripture of BBBB religion; CCCC people consider that AAAA had gone awry and they doesn't follow that. Then how could you say that CCCC is a sub sect of BBBB religion?


 * Above all,


 * Iam once again telling; "A religion should pass the test of time, it shouldn't be artificially created", all those may be your POVs. But as per Wiki policy here need valid sources. And I've cited my stand with valid most third-party sources from one the most credible university.


 * Bunch of followers? Regarding number of followers, Ayyavazhi was not recognised officially, so no chance for independent source for it. But see three dists are declared Holiday for an Ayyavazhi festival. An official holiday only be given iff that area have a considerable number of people. Even 20% of those three dists cross over 1 millon followers(But definetely more than that.


 * More over, "8000 worship centers across India" cited with source from another important university's paper. - Paul 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You yourself said that Ayyavazhi is based on the concept of Dharma, but now you say it rejects Hindu scriptures. The Ayyavazhi article itself states that Ayyavazhi began life as a Hindu-sect, but now Paul Raj is hell-bent on declaring it a "religion". So where was I wrong ?

Whatever be the case, tommorrow can I form my own "religion" after rejecting Hindu scriptures ? That's why I said that a religion must stand the test of time coz you can't artificially invent religions anymore. This is what you're doing with Ayyavazhi--> coming up with a century and a half old cult and exhibiting it as a "religion".

It's clear that you do not understand the magnanimity of the word "religion". In your book, anyone can form a religion anytime by rejecting scriptures.

Sure, the third oldest University (God knows which one it is) tells that its a religion, and it may have "8000 worship centers" (there are more coaching-class centres in Mumbai) but still it is very very similar to the Warkari cult of Maharashtra. This cult reveres saints like Tukaram, Ramdas and Gyaneshwar. They don't necessarily worship Hindu gods/scriptures. ANd this cult is atleast 3-4 centuries older than Ayyavazhi.

Also, warkaris number in the millions. And they have more than 8000 "worship centres" all over Maharashtra.

If you call Ayyavazhi a religion, then Warkari is also a religion. Warkaris don't cry hoarse for a religion status, despite being 400 years old. They call themselves Hindus. Now you take warkaris as a yardstick and decide what Ayyavazhi is--a religion or a cult. IAF


 * It isn't nessesary for a dharmic religion to follow Hindu Scriptures. Also Ayyavazhi's Dharma is extremely different from that of Hindu. In turn it could be told that Ayyavazhi and Hinduism have different POV on Dharma.


 * Then see the Christianity article; There a sentence as, "Christianity began in the 1st century AD as a Jewish sect". Are the both the same? Similarly Incarnation of Vaikundar is on 1833 AD. Akilam is written on 1841 CE. Ayyavazhi began to be noticed in the society right from the incarnation of Vaikundar. But no ideological deviation founded out. It was noticed just as a crowd gathereing in front of a Hindu Saint. But when Akilam is written down, the teaching of Akilam is considered as a base of Vaikundar's teachings and to Know Who Vaikundar is. There startes the deviation of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism. Then on it was considered as seperate. Feeling the autonomouse nature LMS reports recorded it. Till the time Akilam was written all of them (Ayyavazhi followers and others) consider it as a continuation of Hindus, since it was taught that Vaikundar was an incarnation of Vishnu. (Note that the teaching of Vaikundar to common people is too low when compared to the contents of Akilam. He taught only the "immedetly needed things" to common people.) Only after Akilam is written all understand the ideological, philosophical, theological, mythical diversions and also the religious reason for the incarnation of Vaikundar. So Ayyavazhi found to be autonomous from the period Akilam was written. That was mentioned in the article.


 * Then, Place your POVs with your self in the matter of test of time etc... What ever warkaris call them selves. Wiki need valid sources and I've cited with the most valid sources. - Paul 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Einstein failed in a polytechnic entrance test. So did I. Therefore, I am Einstein ! This is your logic in a nutshell.

Christianity is 2000 years old. Sure it started life as a Jewish sect, but over many many centuries it established itself as a religion. But guess what ? Even if 2000 years pass Ayyavazhi ain't gonna get recognition as a religion because history has recorded that you are artificially propping it as one, coz the last date for invention of religions ended with Sikhism. Ayyavazhi missed the last date by 4 centuries. Tut tut.

You say that's my PoV, then what is that you are saying ? The holiday in TN that you talk about is simply to honour Ayya Vaikunda Swamy and is NOT as a recognition to Ayyavazhi as a religion. I can't read Tamil so you have to tell me about the Daily Thanthi report. I'm 100% sure that is a holiday simply to honour an Ayyavazhi saint and is NOT a recognition to Ayyavazhi as a brand new religion.

Now we have Shri G. Patrick (a guy from the British Raj), who wrote articles declaring Ayyavazhi as a religion. That doesn't have a ground to stand on because that was his PoV. Ayyavazhi must be reviwed by legal experts and neutral experts from the SC and Universities alike in today's date and age to determine whether its a religion or a mere cult.

I have nothing personal against Ayyavazhi (or you) for that matter, but I seriously I think that your views are deep-rooted in a larger contempt for the Brahmanical/North that speaks Sanskrit and rekindling of the Tamil/Dravida nation-hood that speaks Tamil. The artificial make-up of Ayyavazhi as a religion may be a first-step to break away culturally, religiously and ethnically from the North.

As a homework before posting next, read this to see what GourangaUK has to say on Ayyavazhi IAF


 * I am not going to take a long discussion here since you don't understand what I say.


 * "A religion should pass the test of time, it shouldn't be artificially created"'', all those may be your POVs. Then Ayyavazhi was not created artificially. If so by whome? That's all. Ayyavazhi is naturally autonomouse (as based on the ideology in Akilam). I was writing article based on Akilam and by citing valid sources.


 * Then the holiday declaration reported on the News papers; Iam ready to scan the news paper page. It call Ayyavazhi as a religion and not a sect or cult. You may veirify it by asking some tamil users here from the scanned image. That (Daily Thanthi) is supposed to be the news paper which has the highest readership in India.


 * Once again it makes me laugh with open mouth that you call University papers as POV. Friend Iam once again telling a book is accredited by university only after passed the review from a series of experts from various universities. I wonder if you don't understand this simple thing. SC and legal expert's views are not guidelines to WP. (i.e) If some thing is official it could be argued as factual. but at the same time if some thing is not official it couldn't be argued as not factual. Once again repeating Ayyavazhi exists factually and so it was oted in wikipedia with valid third party sources.


 * And all the questions from User:Gouranga(UK) are already answered earlier here


 * Don't make me repeat once again all these. - Paul 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we add Ayyavazhi, we will have to add Brahma Kumaris, ISKCON etc. BK and Hare Krishnas are more different from mainstream Hinduism IMHO. There are more Hare Krishnas than Ayyas and all of them say it is not Hinduism. And to IAF, in case you are wondering Ayyavazhi is a sub-sect of Smartism/Advaita Vedanta. GizzaChat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear User:DaGizza, I've explined social, religious, ideological variations of Ayyavazhi from the so called Hindu denominations on Talk:India/Ayyavazhi. But here see just the valid citations from leading universities from india accrediting the basic strucure of Ayyavazhi as autonomuse (not official). Please don't compare a religion (beleif system) with religious organisation or reform movements.


 * Reform movements are generally based mostly on reform activities which make social change. but a beleif system (though some make social changes) rests mostly on faith and beleif. Ayya Vaikundar is not treated as a leader of Ayyavazhi but as an incarnation of God. The Akilam is not treated as POV of Vaikundar but as a scripture or Holy book of Ayyavazhi. Reform movements make POVs. But religious scriptures make "words of faith". Also reform movements are invented; But religions are not human-constructions (on their view points) - Paul 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul, you have not yet answered some questions of mine :


 * Who is Shri G. Patrick to declare Ayyavazhi a religion in circa. 1932 ?


 * The University at that time was under the British Empire, which is now defunct. So how do you say that the PoV of Shri G. Patrick in his own personal commercial book, published by a University whose recognition is now defunct is the gospel truth ? (that Ayyavazhi is a religion)?

So how did you infer that all this means that Ayyavazhi is a religion ?
 * The English newspaper reference that I gave, does NOT say that Ayyavazhi is a religion. You lied earlier. The holidays in memory of Vaikunda are to honour him only, and do NOT declarae of Ayyavazhi as a religion.


 * You say that one Tamil newspaper that said that Ayyavazhi is a religion. Isn't that a PoV? Or is that Tamil newspaper the gospel truth ? Even my letters have been published in newspapers in India and abroad. That doesn't make my viewpoint absolutely true coz that's a PoV.

Newspaper clippings and Shri G. Patrick, Distinguished member of the British Empire (now defunct) in India in 1932 are not sufficient to declare Ayyavazhi as a religion. IAF


 * FIRST OF ALL DON'T USE THE WORDS THAT "I LIED" AND ALL. I only mentioned the citations for the holiday publised on the news paper. I won't get some 100 million dollors for lying with anonymous people like you.


 * Then I think you are mixing up all different citations together. Please read carefully the following.


 * The autonomous religion status for Ayyavazhi is not official in India. And so here in India, no universities or any experts can call Ayyavazhi as a officially recognised religion. But definitly have right to undergo reserch to a religios phenomenon and publish research papers and out put the nature of that phenomenon. On that way, the author G.Patrick, publised the reaserch papers on Ayyavazhi collecting elements from more than 100 books, LMS Reports of more than 50 years (from 1829 to 1885 which maily focus to the social history of Ayyavazhi). More over I really bow my heads before your logic which call University papers as POVs. Friend!!!! A book to be accredited by a university was refered by a series of experts from various universities across the nation. The university -papers are the less affected sources for POVs. (Imagine that how many time I've told this same thing to you)


 * The Tamil News paper (Daily Thanthi) I am ready to cite is the one with the largest readership in India. Still I don't like to argue that News papers are valid. But not the University papers. They are valid The University is one of the three oldest universities in India. So it has it's own credibility. Such a credible university won't allow people to publish factual errors on behalf of the university.


 * The book was not published in 1932 but on 2003, based on recorded elements collected over 150 years. Calling an university publication as Personal Commercial Book???!!! - Paul 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what little it might be worth to the various individuals above, I am currently compiling lists of all the articles which are relevant to the various extant WikiProjects out there. Upon the completion of these lists, which probably won't be anytime soon, I expect that I shall be spending a long time trying to fix some of the unusual categorizations that I now see. There is at least one Eastern Orthodox saint classified as a primary figure in Catholicism, one Buddhism article classified in a distinctly non-Buddhist category, and a few other glaring, sometimes laughable, categorizations, given the current categorization structure. I personally think that there will almost certainly be significant changes to the categorization structure, and that Dharmic religions of all kinds will certainly be one of the primary issues addressed. However, I do ask all interested parties to at least wait until we have all the data in hand before suggesting categorization changes or making them rashly, so that it can be addressed in a neutral, well-informed context later. Badbilltucker 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether G. Patrick's book was published in 1932 or 2003. It is a fact that it was written in 1932. Also, G. Patrick's book was NOT published by Madras University because it was true. It was published simply because it was a classic piece of work, and it was an unbiased description as seen by him. If I'm not mistaken G. Patrick calls Ayyavazhi a religion in just one chapter.

Many Englishmen wrote University papers on Aryan Invasion Theory, Manu Smriti, Indus Valley civilization etc. That does not make it ALL true. Manu Smriti is a nutcase book. It cannot be the religious book of any religion. The Aryan Invatsion model was also prophesized by a few Europeans, but its still a theory. No body knows what's true.

So G. Patrick's opinion that Ayyavazhi is a religion is his opinion. The fact that Madras University published his book does NOT mean that Madras University declared Ayyavazhi as a religion. It simply is an honorary publication of a classical piece of work by a Briton who studied at Madras Univ. in 1932. So they got happy and published it.

Before publishing, the Madras Univ. guys went through the book and saw whether it was "publishable" or not, unlike some biased and racist works by other Britons. They saw that G. Patrick wrote with an anthropologist's eye and an unbiased mind. They liked it and published it.

That Ayyavazhi's a religion is a PoV of G. Patrick. I see that your entire arguments rest on his book, without which your arguments don't have a ground to stand on. IAF


 * I don't whant to know with which mind the University published the book. But it was publised by Madras University. And it's a valuable and most important source considered for citations in wikipedia as per it's policy.


 * I don't stand only on this book. I found refernce to Ayyavazhi related matters from many University books from (Madurai Kamaraj university, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Kalady), News Paper reports, LMS reports, Theological books on Ayyavazhi etc... See the Ayyavazhi article; Was the whole article cited with only this book? But even I cite only this book of Patrick How can you find fault with that? It is credible and valid source as per wiki guidelines.


 * Also I don't understand this statement, "The fact that Madras University published his book does NOT mean that Madras University declared Ayyavazhi as a religion." If so, are you telling an university will allow all kind of childish activities to be published on it's behalf? Then immediatly contact the wiki administrators and argue with them 'not to consider valid sources' and change this cyclopedia as an 'Official announcement project' which publish only official claims. - Paul 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I also said, "Before publishing, the Madras Univ. guys went through the book and saw whether it was "publishable" or not, unlike some biased and racist works by other Britons. They saw that G. Patrick wrote with an anthropologist's eye and an unbiased mind. They liked it and published it." So, that's not a University endorsement of Ayyavazhi as a religion.
 * Firstly, read my entire sentence. I quote it for you again, ""The fact that Madras University published his book does NOT mean that Madras University declared Ayyavazhi as a religion.It simply is an honorary publication of a classical piece of work by a Briton who studied at Madras Univ. in 1932. So they got happy and published it."

'''You should know that whatever any University publishes means that, "We are publishing it because it is publishable for public reading". It does not mean, "We fully endorse what is written by xyz author and that's why we publish it". And this is not my PoV, but the way Universities act. G. Patrick was not awarded a Ph.D and recognition for his work by Madras University'''

Secondly, do those many other books that you read also specifically say that Ayyavazhi is a religion ? I don't want simple references to the word Ayyavazhi.IAF


 * The University won't publish any silly things and grant the author a doctorate. It has it's own credibility. And, it's fun to hear that an university publication is something, unrecognised by the own university!


 * Series of LMS Reports a set of theological books call Ayyavazhi as a religion since it was based on the study of religion. Several other University books was not based on life History of Vaikundar, Reform of Vaikundar, etc.. and hence no chance for view the religion but all under is seen as a reform activity of Vaikundar and obey Indian constitution which says Ayyavazhi as a sect. Also since they don't study the religion they can't tell Ayyavazhi as a religion since it was not officially recognised. That book Religion and Subaltern Agency was a case study on Ayyavazhi and hence it reserched Ayyavazhi as a religion. Also btw, if something is cited with one valid source it dosn't mean that it was not to be accepted.


 * Then do you definitely know that he was not accredited as a doctor by the University? Then please see this. - Paul 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Scroll down to the sub-section "No dialogue, no theology". - Paul 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * scroll to the 5th page. - Paul 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Patrick did get a Ph.D on his book on Ayyavazhi.

But you should know that "subaltern religion" does not mean a new religion, but an alternative sub-form of an existing religion. This is very clearly mentioned here.

As far as G. Patrick is concerned, does he specifically call Ayyavazhi as a religion ? I think he merely calls it a subaltern religion, just like Dalit Christianity is described in the url that I just gave. IAF


 * G.Patrick don't call Ayyavazhi as a Subaltern Religion. But since the study is made from a Sociological perspective he try to reveal the subaltern agency generated in the early history of Ayyavazhi. Here, in this book the word 'subaltern' is used to mention the socially suppressed or ill-treated people.


 * Also you asked, "As far as G. Patrick is concerned, does he specifically call Ayyavazhi as a religion ?", the answer is, No. It could be understood by going through the conclution of the book, which I already placed. - Paul 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You said that G. Patrick doesn't call Ayyavazhi a religion, but it must be concluded that he does. You also say that he doesn't call Ayyavazhi as a subaltern religion, but then going by the title of his book and the definition that I gave earlier, shouldn't it be concluded that he DID mean Ayyavazhi as a subalternate religion ? IAF


 * Where did I told "G. Patrick doesn't call Ayyavazhi a religion". Throughout the book he called Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion. Since Ayyavazhi was not officially recognised he had no right to call Ayyavazhi as a religion in a 'quote' refering to the book and so he called " A sub-altern religious phenomenon". This was not a reserch statement. But a simple quote to refer what the book is about, from an official POV.


 * But on the other hand, this is not the title of the book. The title is "Religion and Subaltern Agency". To repeat once again, "since the study is made from a Sociological perspective he try to reveal the subaltern agency generated in the early history of Ayyavazhi. Here, in this book the word 'subaltern' is used to mention the socially suppressed or ill-treated people." But in the reserch thoughout the book he called Ayyavazhi as a religion. That is what I am telling from the beggining. Ayyavazhi exists with autonomous religiosity factually and not officially. Officially it was still a sect of Hinduism. The book of Patrick well discribe this factual independent existence and so it become valid here in wikipedia. - Paul 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)