Talk:Hinduism/Archive 17

Devanagari script
Devanagari is one of the most scientific scripts has traditionally been associated with Sanskrit for long time. Please do not remove a simple devanagari word from the article (Hindu dharma). Look at almost ANY Japanese or Chinese cultural article, you will see terms written in the CHinese/Japanese scripts. Cygnus_hansa 14:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is an English word derived from 'Hindu' which again is not a Sanskrit word. Writing 'Hinduism' in Devanagari makes no sense. The word 'Hindu' is accepted as such in the English language. Writing it in any script of modern Indian languages, including the Devanagari alphabets as adapted by Hindi, also will make no sense.Kanchanamala 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Isvara
The content under Isvara is biased and tries to pass off Advaita views as that of mainstream Hinduism. Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita schools donot accept the position as stated. The concept of Ishwara would be better explained in terms of seperate understanding of all schools, rather than apply a one size fits all policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philosopher123 (talk • contribs).


 * That is a welcome feedback on the section. Do you have any specific ideas on how to reorganize this section ? Perhaps you can take a stab at re-working the section in a user subpage and we all can then comment and arrive at a consensus on a new version. That way we can avert making substantial edits on the main Hinduism page, which all editors may not agree upon.
 * I think all here agree with your viewpoint that the section should not concentrate on a single school of Hindu philosophy, but rather give an brief overview of the different (major) strains of thought. Of course, I emphasize that the discussion will, of necessity, have to be brief, with the details discussed in the pages focussed on the various schools themselves. Abecedare 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops!! I made changes already. Was not sure of the policy adopted in making changes. Would be happy to contribute in the manner stated above. Philosopher123


 * Good job ! I like your idea of defining the general concept of Ishvara, before expanding upon the viewpoints of individual schools. I think the content of the section, as it stands, is quite good though it may need a bit of pruning and clean up for length and to remove redundancies (for e.g., Dvaita school is discussed in 2 different places and deities are discussed both in the Ishvara section and a section of their own).
 * By the way, there is no policy against being bold - it is just more politic to discuss substantive changes  in advance, in order to avoid the possibility of WP:Edit wars. Hope you'll contribute regularly here, and also weigh in on the discussions on the talk page. Abecedare 07:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Samsara
"Samsara", the meaning provided "rebirth" does not seem to be accurate. Rebirth is known as "Punarjanma". "Samsara", means cycle of life, death and re-birth. Does everyone think, it should be suitably corrected? swadhyayee 11:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. Punarjanma is exact. Samsara has a lot more to it (more difficult to explain). Aupmanyav 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add to what Aupmanyavji has explained. There is no word for 'samsaara' in English.  The Sanskrit word refers to our world on earth through which the soul ('aatmaa') passes in its journey.  Aupmanyavji, is that correct?Kanchanamala 07:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kanchan, I am not a teacher. Be bold and think for yourself. 'Samsara', I suppose includes everything, physical as well as philosophical, leaving only God outside its boundaries. Do you think my explanation makes sense? Aupmanyav 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That 'samsaara' does refer to our physical world 'bhu-loka' is one thing I do know from my readings.Kanchanamala 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sindhu or any river.
(Sanskrit: सिन्धु, i.e. the Indus River in particular, or any river in general)., I think, it should be only Indus river. "or any river in general" seems to be incorrect, even if the people living on nearby river banks were known as Hindus. Is "Any other river in general" mis-leading? swadhyayee 11:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The meaning given in the article is correct, as per "Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary". Also note that the term Sapta Sindhu would not make sense if the meaning was restricted to the Indus river alone. Compare with, Himalaya (lit. abode of snow) which refers to a particular mountain range; similarly Sindhu (lit. river) became associated with a particular river - the Indus. Abecedare 12:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say the meaning of "Sindhu" is river? "'Sapta'" I guess means "seven". I guess, there must be seven branches of Sindhu or seven rivers might have merged in to one Indus. I am just asking, if you know. swadhyayee 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sapta = seven. See Sapta Sindhu, Rigvedic rivers (including this image) for discussion on the identities of the seven rivers.
 * One has to be careful in asking what the meaning of Sindhu is as opposed to was at any point of history (including different periods of the Vedic Era). For example, besides a river in general and and Indus in particular, Sindhu can also mean "flood; waters; ocean; sea; a symbolical term for the number 4; reference to Varuna (as god of the ocean); the moisture of the lips; water ejected from an elephant's trunk; the exudation from an elephant's temples; reference to Vishnu; white or refined borax; a particular raga etc." We can perhaps guess how some of these meanings evolved, but I am wary of speculating without definite citations.
 * Anyway, unless you still think that we should to change the sentence in the article, we can continue any further discussion on our user pages, instead of taxing everyone here. :-) Abecedare 14:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The word 'sindhu', from which the modern word Hindu is derived, refers to the Indus River. Any other discussion about it is irrelevant.Kanchanamala 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs
Somebody said that there is a size-problem on this page. I think it shouldn't be an issue as these articles are equally (if not more) long : Einstein, George W. Bush and Relativity priority dispute.

Hinduism is a vast study and this article comes nowhere near that. It gives a comprehensive introduction to Hinduism. So more than size, focus must be on well-divided sections and their number shouldn't have any limit. So readers can read the part that they want to without the intimidation of the size of the rest of the article.

I think the relation-ship between the Khalsa Panth and Hinduism deserves a mention as it is important in the evolution of Hinduism.Indian Air force (IAF)


 * Put your stuff here:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth--D-Boy 05:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

D-Boy, you are too fast and real dangerous. Pl. give reasons for your suggestions. swadhyayee 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors here-in,

I had requested User:IAF to discuss his proposed inclusions. His inclusions have been reverted more than once. I think they are known facts. Contributory editors here-in, should see his reverted inclusions and give their views for or against inclusions.

IAF, Pl. have a second look at the article with positive attitude, yet, if you feel the same is nowhere near and gives comprehensive intorduction, I think we can just give comprehensive introduction only. Longer the article, lesser the interest. All this while everyone has agreed to have a seperate article for sub-subjects and provide a link or cite a ref. to the sub-article. My request to you would be to give your mind to this view.

With Regards,

swadhyayee 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * XD. actually, I was reading through the article, and there is no mention of Hinduism's influence on sikhism.  I think there should be a brief intro on sikhism and Hinduism's influence on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I believe it should be moved to another as D-Boy said. This page is called Hinduism. If you want compare and observe the influence of Hinduism and Sikhism, please go to Hinduism and Sikh Panth. This page shouldn't be a comparison of every religion with Hinduism. There is also Hinduism and other religions, where comparisons are made between Hinduism and Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and Jainism. Size is an important issue. The aim is to make the entire article readable in one go. If there are people who only want to read some sections in more detail, they have their individual pages. Eg. If someone in interested in Hindu festivals and wants to learn more about them, go to Hindu festivals. It is that simple. GizzaChat  &#169; 08:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm afraid its not a comparison, but a relationship between Hinduism and Sikhism, nay the founding principle of Sikhism and Hinduism. Anyways also, there is no religion comparison in any article on religion whether in wikipedia or elsewhere (unless in a separate dedicated article on comparing) because its not appropriate.

Swadhyayee, I agree that a comprehensive introduction can be appropriate as they are known facts. The readers interested in further reading can redirect to the main article Hinduism and the Sikh Panth. Indian Air Force (IAF)

By the way, the article Hinduism and the Sikh Panth itself does not have a trace on why Sikhism was founded. However that is another matter of a long debate. Indian Air Force (IAF)

IAF, As GourangaUK has supported your proposal, I have included them at para 8.4 removing less significant matters. I know, Sikhism was founded by Rev.Guru Gobinsinghji. I have no idea whom the 1st son of Punjabi Hindu family is offered. I would request to make appropriate text change as short as possible. Also pl. italicize "Guru" everywhere and the name of present dignitary whom the first son is offered to be Sikh. swadhyayee 10:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really do think there should be a short summary on the Hinduism's influence on sikhism. it's almost a sect of Hinduism.  but punjabi stuff that was written in the article was just not the right style.--D-Boy 11:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Those statements in the influence part seem incorrent. Sikhism did not become martial until around the time of the 5th guru.  Also, I think the punjabi part is approiate in this article.  I can't explain it but it just doesn't seem right.--D-Boy 11:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

D-Boy, What is appropriate and what is not? Shall we request IAF to correct it? swadhyayee 11:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my recent edits: I have moved, retitled and re-written the section. My idea is to give a brief overview of what Sikhism is and then highlight its proximity (both geographical and cultural) with Hinduism. The details of course, are left to articles Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and Dharmic religions. Let me know your comments/suggestion/objections.
 * Aside 1: I agree with the above discussion that Sikhism should be mentioned in the main article in the Historical context. That aside, we should remember to keep this article concentrated on the philosophical aspect of the religion, with the people aspect handled more appropriately by the Hindu article.
 * Aside 2: As for length, it may be instructive to read this discussion. At its current length of 94 KB the main article is 2-3 times the recommendation - and though that they may mean that the topics are better covered, it also means that fewer readers ever benefit from that better coverage. I would be in favour of rewriting the whole article in summary style - but that utopian dream will be akin to building the Tower of Babel or Sisyphus pushing the rock (two myths every Wikipedian should know), so I won't go there ... :-) Abecedare 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My humble thanks to Swadhyayee and GourangaUK for considering my proposal and addition of the section on Sikhs. D-Boy, you are right that Sikhism did not become openly martial until the later Gurus (5th to be exact).

However when Guru Nanak was imprisoned by Mughal ruler Babur, he wrote numerous verses against his rule while in prison. Babur had put him in prison and was atrocious towards Hindus. It was later that Babur asked forgiveness from Guru Nanak and released him. However, Jahangir and Aurangzeb executed two Gurus in prison instead of asking forgiveness unlike Babur.

So although Sikhism did not turn openly martial from the first Guru, resentment against Mughals had already begun from Guru Nanak's time itself. His writings against the Mughal rule in prison set the ball rolling.

That's why although the Sikh faith became openly martial from 5th guru onwards, the time period between Guru Nanak (1st guru) and Guru Arjan Dev (5th guru) was only 90 years. So the transformation was fastIndian Air Force (IAF)

IAF, Pl. do not mention thanks and state the history instead of your feelings and correct the inclusions accordingly. What about removing or justifying use of "Indian Air Force"? swadhyayee 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made changes in the Sikh section according to what I discussed earlier. It is verifiable and universally accepted. Swadhyayee, although I now use "Indian Air Force" I always write IAF within brackets to avoid confusion. I hope that clears everything :-)

Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * Okay, the history section was the best place to put the Sikhism information. Hinduism influence on Buddhism and Jainism were already mentioned there so Sikhism deserves to be there too. GizzaChat  &#169; 10:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'it is important in the evolution of Hinduism' - IAF. Hinduism evolves in its own way. The effect of Hinduism on Sikhism is a matter to be considered in the 'Sikhism' or 'Hinduism and the Sikh Panth' pages. I disagree that Sikhism has had any influence on Hinduism, which could have been discussed on the 'Hinduism' page. Aupmanyav 10:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

IAF, Nothing justifies your use of Indian Air Force, even if you are from Indian Air Force. I can't cite you exact Wikipedia policy but I have copy pasted opinions of administrators on your talk page and if you ignore them, you may be blocked. You can't have a name like "Indian Air Force" by providing abbreviation IAF in bracket. Hope you will co-operate and remove use of Indian Air Force as your signature. In my opinion, this is grossly wrong and it would be an embarrassment for you if they compel you to remove it. Papaji, tusi samajdar ho. swadhyayee 10:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Up until the Brits invaded Sikhs and Hindus were united. Then the Brits and a group of pseudo-Sikhs called Tat Khalsa managed to drive a wedge between us. Many things in Sikhism are there in Hinduism refer to the Var 1 Pauri 49. Baka man  16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the effect of Hinduism on Sikhism, and that Japji has Rama, Krishna, Govind, and Gopala in each of its verse. But nothing that needs to be mentioned in the Hinduism page, IMHO, it should go to the pages on 'Sikhism' and 'Hinduism and Sikh Panth'. Hindus would not mind sharing the heritage and descent with Sikhs, it is they who object. Aupmanyav 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Same for Buddhism and Jainism. Aupmanyav 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus - Move to Hinduism and the Sikh Panth. Seems like noone disagrees. Baka man  22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Aupmanyav, nobody in India objects actually. In 2005, the Supreme Court declared that "Sikhs and Jains are part of a wider Hindu community" and except some UK based Khalsa separatists, no Sikh and Jain in India objected.

I know all of you will find it very strange and silly, but all this has the backing of seasoned anti-Hindu and ultra secular people starring : Arundhati Roy, Barkha Dutt, Praful Bidwai, M J Akbar, Vir Sanghvi, Pankaj Jha etc. IAF


 * There is a lobby in India also which actively seeks minority status for Sikhs Jains and Buddhists. Even at the time of independence, the secular INC and Ambedkar brought Jains, Sikhs & Buddhists under Hinduism's umbrella while framing the Constitution. Thankfully that has remained intact to date.

But this lobby is zabardasti trying to create further divisions and alienations within India. And we should not play into their propaganda. Like the other day when somebody added Ayyavazhi in the Dharmic religions article, despite the fact that constitutionally it does not find mention even as a cult.

Wikipedia is a very powerful tool, and we must bring to the fore the concept of Dharmic religions as it has been since 3 millenia and not through the prism of the Abrahamic faiths which are very very very intolerant of each other.IAF
 * I understand your point very clearly. It was a cunning strategy of the British, first to separate muslims, and then the other indic faiths. But we cannot put the clock back. Hindus may still not count them as any different, but many of the sikhs, buddhists, and jains, would bristle at the suggestion to be counted with the hindus. I personally would not like controversies and flare-ups. Aupmanyav 07:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How true. The word "Hindu" can be comprehensive or exclusive for the Indians (of India) depending upon how they choose to define it.Kanchanamala 12:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Many scriptures, many paths.
Discussion moved to  Hinduism Notice Board Talk Page, since it dealt with the subject of the article. Abecedare 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

vegetarianism
discussion moved to WT:HNB. I am going to enforce this, ok? theres no reason why the India project has to be better than the Hinduism project. Baka man  16:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It actually started as relevant to the article. Aup. quoted the article when he had a question about vegetarianism. Only afterwards did it become off-topic. GizzaChat  &#169; 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concept of God
Under the concept of God discussion, talking only of advaita vedanta appears out of place, that sentence can probably be moved to "advaitism" in the "Ishvara" category.

Gauranga, as for the change, manifestation is also an appearance only for advaitin's, therefore i changed it to "appears" Philosopher4 16:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gauranga will agree to the explanation i have provided while reversing his edit In case it doesnot happen so, i will put it for discussion. The basic issue is that "appearance" and "manifestation" are quite different. Manifestation is a change itself, whereas appearance is a percieved change but actually there is no change.Philosopher4 16:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Adavita Vedanta is only listed as an example to illustrate how the concept of God in Hindusim may does not fall within the the strict category of monotheism, polythesim etc. Therefore the sentence begins with "For instance"; I don't see why you find it out of place.
 * I also prefer the original wording specified (1) what kind of entity we are talking about, and (2) had the word "may" which is used not to show doubt but to show contrast between the first and second phrases in the sentence (c.f "There is only one sun, which may appear different at different times of the day": a sentence which emphasizes the oneness of the sun; as opposed to "There is only one sun, which appears appear different at different times of the day": a sentence providing two pieces of information without drawing any link between them) (3) provided a refernce (also see this note).
 * For the above reasons I am reverting the edit. Of course if we can change the wording if there is consensus for it after discussion. Abecedare 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The inherent problem with such a broad category as "Hinduism" is that inherently excludes possibilities for classifying any belief system that falls within it as monotheistic. The chief deities of former regional tribes and clans that have been woven into Pauranic narratives are examples of the way any potential monotheism associated with the deity has been obscured, eg. the totemic value of Ganesha being brought into Pauranic lore as the child of Shiva.

Early upanishads, esp. Kena, reveal the possibility of monotheism, but the philosophical developments get crunched together in the cluster bomb of "Hinduism", for better or for worse. There has got to be a better way to describe "Hinduism" than the endless totality of everything that originates within and around the dharmic traditions... Sarayuparin 09:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Try. Aupmanyav 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A response even Mandan Mishra would be envious of! :) Sarayuparin 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism comprehensively refers to the faith or beliefs of the Hindus. The word Hindu can be used by Wikipedia to denote Indians of India who directly or indirectly follow the Vedas. It would include the Jainas, the Bauddhas, and the Sikhs.Kanchanamala 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the endless debate on the definition of "Hindu". Jains and Buddhists do not follow the Vedas. Terms like "vedavid" or even "veda" that may be found in jaina and bauddha texts may not necessarily refer to the Vedas. Even the conception of "the Vedas" was ambiguous, eg. which śākhas are authoritative, which maṇḍalas (family books), are central to the "the Vedas", etc. It's easy to forget that "veda" at one point simply meant "knowledge", even if it had the premise of being smṛti. Sarayuparin 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By Vedas, the four Vedas as we know them today are meant. By including those who do not follow the Vedas directly, but follow it  indirectly, the word "Hindu" should be comprehensive enough to be acceptable.Kanchanamala 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Kanchanamala... I disagree... why "should" the word 'Hindu' be comprehensive enough? The Vedic religious leaders and philosophers and followers themselves separated their systems of faiths into aastika (orthodox) and naastika (heterodox), the orthodox being those who followed or accepted the Vedas (yoga, vedanta, purva mimamsa, nyaya, vaisheshika, samkhya) and those who didn't (charvaka, Jains and buddhists)... your saying buddhists and jains indirectly follow the vedas is disingenuous and contradicts Jains' and Buddhists' OWN doctrines, which often define their faiths as anti or at least ex-Veda!!!! As it is, the very insiders and watersheds of the 'Hindu' movement (particularly the Vedantic leaders, like Vallabhacharya and Shankaracharya, etc) already set a standard for what could be considered Vedist (or, later, Hindu) and what couldn't be... Thus, it seems wrong to call Jains and Buddhists Hindus.... in that case, we don't need a term like Hindu... we could just use Hindu to mean Indian, in which case we could use the term Indian exclusively and say Indian religion, which is a distinctly different idea from Hindu religion. --68.173.46.79 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is upto Wikipedia to define the word Hindu. That definition will determine who gets denoted by that term.  I have only proffered one definition.  If Wikipedia does not like it, it will, I hope, find some other definition.Kanchanamala 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude... we are Wikipedia. --68.173.46.79 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know who I am. I don't know who we are.Kanchanamala 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a very simple defination of who is a hindu. 'A hindu is one who accepts himself to be one.' Philosophies do not matter as Hinduism has freedom of personal belief. Following his 'dharma' would make a person a good hindu, otherwise he/she would be a bad hindu. Aupmanyav 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How Hindu or Hinduism is defined must have everything to do with India or the Indian subcontinent no matter how one looks at that definition.Kanchanamala 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When the hindus are in many countries and people from many countries have embraced hinduism (as in the past), how can hindu and hinduism be defined in a limited sense relating only to India? Did not Scythians, Khuzars, Kushanas, Hunas, Parthians, Pahlavas, and Greeks find their place in hinduism? How do we confine Brahman to Indian boundaries? Did not Arjun see Galaxies, Suns, Earths, and Planets being devoured by Krishna in his Vishvarupa? Aupmanyav 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing more to say.Kanchanamala 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And a lot to learn, keep at it.Aupmanyav 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Namaskar, all, and Happy New (Gregorian) Year. I think we can all agree that Hindus have a diverse range of opinions regarding the relationship of the self to the supreme being, if there is to be one. As I think that we had this section, it enumerated these views as monism, dualism, etc. The reason that I feel that this is inadequate is that those are very technical terms, and if one follows that link to know, "What is monism?" one would be barraged by a plague of strange philosophical concepts. Perhaps it would be easier for the reader if, instead of simply keeping those generic -ism's in our "Concept of God" section, and moving, we could have it be more like, "Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism ... follow a monistic philosophy...". That way, the monistic philosophies of Hinduism may be represented by the schools that propose them, and thus may be taught to readers, within context.

Also, this is more of a WT:HNB proposition, but, I would like to see a Category page of Hindu Philosophy sub-categories, that link to specific Hindu paramparas or sampradayas, that would each present "their take" accurately, thoroughly, and again, within context.

ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very good suggestion. Then a link to 'main article' on schools could be place under the heading "Concept of God" for further clarification without cluttering the already long Hinuism article. Cott12 Talk 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A brief description of of as many Hindu traditions ('sampradaaya') as possible belongs in the main article on Hinduism right after the intro. Those brief descriptions can be individually linked to special articles on those traditions. Kanchanamala 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

God best translates to Deva in sanskrit. The usage of God to denote Brahman is confusing and probably incorrect as well. There are several devas even in a monotheistic system as Advaita, with one supreme reality. Best to translate Brahman as the supreme or simply leave it as Brahman. With due respect, we do not want to find english words for every sanskrit word - at the cost of dilluting the meaning. Brahman can remain Brahman in english - just like the words Dharma, Karma, etc. Shvushvu 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The English language has incorporated the Sanskrit 'brahman' in its Hindi rendering as Brahma. I, for one, would still use the word as Brahman. However, while 'devataa' in English is deity, and correctly so, the word 'deva' is inaptly used to denote god and not God.Kanchanamala 10:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shvushvu, I wholly agree with you. Devas can go for lesser divinity. Aupmanyav 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever we worship a deity ('devataa'), we worship God ('shriman-naaraayana'). There are interesting usages of the word 'deva'. "Eko devah keshavo vaa shivo vaa", "eka eva trayo devaah brahmaa-vishnu-maheshwarah", "yaa devi sarvabhuteshu shakti-rupena tishthati", "sharanye tryambake gauri naaraayani namo-stute", and so forth. We don't have the concept of any "lesser gods" when we worship God in the form of a 'devataa' [not the same as Vedic 'devataa'].Kanchanamala 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As Sujit also may tell you, kashmiris worship a family 'devi' and a family 'bhairava'. Their name has to be recited when we perform a religious ceremony. Not all hindus are monotheists. I know my family 'devi' is Jwala, the bhairava's name was not communicated to me even by my most religious and scholarly grandfather (he wrote the latest hindu smriti, Vishweshwarasmriti, 1947, 8000 verses), so it is 'Amuk' Bhairava. I dont know whom to ask, need to check family papers. Aupmanyav 09:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They all knowingly or unknowingly worship God ('naaraayana'). As the saying goes, "sarva-deva namaskaaram keshavam pratigachati". ["khaamokhaam baat badhaane se koi faayda nahin" (It serves no purpose to make much ado about nothing).Kanchanamala 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a comment. We are neither monotheistic nor polytheistic.

Monotheism is worship of a single god by definition vs. Polytheism. These terms only make sense in a Semitic context where a religion like Christianity or Islam is monotheistic and replaced older pagan beliefs which were primarily polytheistic. Naturally, due to their domination over the years, monotheism has become fashionable and polytheism has been frowned on as a primitive approach to religion. We seem to have picked up this syndrome too. The truth is, we have always been polytheistic right from Vedic times. We had Indra, Varuna, Mitra,etc., during the Rig-Veda period and today we have Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Ganapathi and a horde of other Gods. As a good number of us may believe that these various Gods are different forms of the same single supreme reality, this does not align with the meaning of monotheism nor polytheism. It is important to note that a significant number of rural people in India do not worship any of these mainstream Gods. They worship Gods which are local to the region – for instance, Ayannar in Tamilnadu. For convenience, we try to group them as different forms of one of the better known Gods.

So to say it again, we are neither monotheistic or polytheistic - but if we have to use one these labels, then we are polytheistic and there is no shame in that as it is no less than monotheism in anyway. It is also not necessary to seek approval from other monotheistic factions like Christianity. Shvushvu 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shvushvu, if I may rephrase what you have said, we Hindus worship one God in many ways, many forms, or no form at all. I do not need to use the labels you have used, never did, never will. I am a Hindu, and I am happy the way Hindus express themselves.Kanchanamala 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Permit me to add that the deities ('devataa') that we worship at home or in a mandir or elsewhere are not the same as any Vedic 'devataa'.Kanchanamala 06:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kanchan, do you mean the devataa we worship now are different or do mean the way we worship the devataa or what the devataa represent now is different to Vedic times? I believe in the latter because we still worship the Vedic devataa but of course their symbolism has changed. Some of them like Indra and Agni are occasionally prayed to but generally seen as below Vishnu, Shiva etc. others like Surya and the Navagrah have retained their importance among more Hindus. The third group are those which now considered to be aspects or another name of a modern Hindu deity eg. Rudra is another name for Shiva and the fourth are devas and devis that are still very important but their roles have changed - Saraswati was a river goddess, currently goddess of knowledge/education. Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "devataa" used for a deity worshipped at home or in a mandir or elsewhere, and the word "devataa" as used in the Vedic mantras for say, Agni, Indra, Mitra, and Varuna, are two different words in Sanskrit.Kanchanamala 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Continue review - Etymology + Core concepts
The introduction is now IMO not perfect but acceptable. I made a few adjustments today to try to make everyone happy. If anyone has any major objections, not minor, please state them. Otherwise we move on. Minor objections will be dealt with after we complete the review. Besides, what should be mentioned in the intro will depend on whether it was mentioned later on in the article.

Some of us have discussed the etymology section before. It doesn't talk about what Hinduism is but where the word "Hindu" is derived from, which has some importance but not a lot. From a linguist's point of view, two paragraphs seem unnecessary but if the linguists want that much detail, let them have it (unless we realise the article is too long at the end).

Now to the Core concepts section. I think the first two sentences are fine but the stuff about common traits with Buddhism etc. needs some rewording. Any thoughts? <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would it be more prudent to talk about the etymology of Sanaatana Dharma if possible, or even just have dharma to go along with Hindu Dharma. The article is long...compared to other FAs like Sikhism it is far too long, thus spending a paragraph on historical linguistics which could be spent on the actual etymology of the word dharma or something seems uncalled for.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Sanatan' is eternal, scriptures and grammarians say 'Dharayet iti Dharma', that which should be bourne/supported is 'Dharma', duty or right action. The article certainly is long and nneds a pruning of something like 40%. Aupmanyav 12:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the etymology, I think we should stick to "Hindu" instead of "Dharma" because the name of the religion in English is Hindu. If you want to prune down the etymology section, like I do since it the only section that isn't acutually about Hinduism but the word Hindu, I suggest discussing with User:Magicalsaumy who has studied liguistics and is very keen on having two paragraphs. I haven't asked him why we need two paragraphs on something which isn't even about Hinduism, especially when the article is very long. We need to make the article complete, representing most (all is impossible) sides of Hinduism but brief. One section I instantly see that needs shortening is the Shruti (Vedic literature) section. It goes into too much detail, such as saying how the Vedas are divided into Mandalas, then Shlokas ... As Aup has once said, the Vedas haven't even been read by the majority of Hindus. If Hinduism is a tree, the Vedas are the trunk and the Smriti are the Branches/leaves. Without the trunk, there is no tree, so it is very important. But the leaves are much more beautiful so everybody likes to observe them in more detail. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 12:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to explain the relevance and history of calling the religion Sanatana Dharma. Who first assigned this name to the religion and when? I have not seen this usage in standardscripture like Upanishads and the Gita. I suspect this term is newer than the term Hindu. There is sufficient confusion out there to warrant the necessity of such a description. For instance, iskcon misguides people in the west by distancing themselves from hindus - citing foreign origin of the term as a reason. In their usual confused fashion, they also try to separate Hinduism from Sanatana Dharma although they have no clue on the origin of the term "Sanatana Dharma". Shvushvu 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained it below in the following section.Kanchanamala 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The usage of Sanatana Dharma as a noun has not been known until the 19th century by some religious partiots who frowned at the foreign origin of the term Hindu. Dharma was referred to as Sanatana (eternal) in Manu Smriti, etc., but the usage was always as an adjective. The religion is never named as Sanatana Dharma (used as a noun) in scriptures. For example, people referring to the US as the center of the world does not mean the US has another name - "center of the world". The reality is the other way around - the usage of Hindu as a noun is much older than the usage of Sanatana Dharma as a noun. Please check your sources and I think this is worth mentioning as most people are ignorant about this. Shvushvu 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here again I concur with you. Aupmanyav 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Language Issues, Removal of Posts
As per wish of some of the editors, I am moving this discussion from talk page of Hinduism to this forum. swadhyayee 05:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee... unregistered or not, there is no mandate in Wikipedia laws for editors to have to be reigstered in order to contribute or to have their posts (when they are non-inflammatory and contribute meaningfully to the discussion) respected. Your removal of my comments is in very bad faith and shows a sad unwillingness to hear dissent. Also, the Hindustani comment doesn't solve the problem AT ALL. Hindustani is the middle-range dialect between formal Hindi and formal Urdu. And shunting the objection of citing Hindi or Hindustani as the only language worth mentioning by saying it's an issue of Tamil jingoists is extremely insulting and simple-minded. It is not only Tamils who object to the wholesale Hindification of everything Indian and Hindu. In my opinion, and certainly in that of at least a significant number of other people, it is not right to privilege Hindustani/hindi over other languages without good reason, especially since the majority of Hindus don't speak Hindi. Again, this is the unjustified equivocation of Hinduism with the Indian Republic. Also, Hindu Dharma is used in not just Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), but in several other languages. Hindustani is NOT equivalent to Bengali or Gujrati or Sindhi or Punjabi... By the way, I will bring in moderators who are not prejudiced to combat your censorship of outside views. Just because I don't register as a part of your little Hindu Wiki club with a screenname doesn't negate the validity of my views, especially since I've been following the rules of good faith which ask that anon users don't just go in and change entire sections wholesale without explanation. I request that other users, beside swadhyayee, also inveigh on the issue and try to be somewhat objective. --68.173.46.79 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Swadhyayees removal of my postings, assuming that my comments were not directed towards the Hinduism page, was highly presumptuous. Also, I still object, as an academic (in Columbia U.), as an American, as a Hindu, as an agnostic, as a reasonably educated layman, as whatever you wish to call me, to the as yet unjustified language-specificity of Hindu Dharma and privileging of "hindi" above all other languages. Whereas Sanskrit clearly has a preeminence as the canonical language of the Vedas and pretty much all Vedic-derived philosophy and scripture, even through the rise of the Prakrit-descended languages of today, it is not yet clear why Hindi should take some sort of Hindu-representative-language status. --68.173.46.79 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See the change to "hindi" to "North Indian languages" (since I don't know Tamil, Telugu, Udiya, or Kannada, I can't comment on Dravidian tongues).. though small, it would seem eminently reasonable. Any objections? Thanks for listening. --68.173.46.79 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the above controversy. The credentials stated by the anonymous discussant are solid. Hindi is a relatively new language in India. It also carries the burden of acquiring the status of being made an additional language, alongwith English, as the official language for communication between the Union and the States and between the States. Hindi still cannot claim any equality, let alone superiority, over the much older languages of India.Kanchanamala 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This line should definitely be removed: in several North Indian languages in the intro. Hindu dharma could stay just as long as also know as Hindu dharma.  I really think it should be deleted though.  --D-Boy 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

sanaatana dharma: Let us say that 'sanaatana' means age-old. Any dharma which is age-old will be called so. Example: "satyam brooyaat priyam brooyaat na brooyaat satyam-apriyam, priyam ca na-anritam brooyaat esha dharma sanaatanah". As for "Hindu dharma", it will mean any dharma which is chosen to be denoted by the modern non-Sanskrit word Hindu. It seems the intro of the article is intended to follow whatever is said to be prevalent among those who speak modern Indian languages.Kanchanamala 09:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * D-Boy - the problem is brought to light by Kanchanamala... Hindu Dharma is a much more recent terminology which came into vogue primarily by way of the vehicle of modern Indo-Aryan tongues like Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Gujrati, et cetera... by way of the Persian and British-sponsored (re)naming of what I like to call Vedism as "Hindu"... I'm not going to go deep into the etymology, which anyone on this forum should know (Sindhu/Indus river)... while some may argue that the term Sindhu/Indu(s) has roots in Vedic Sanskrit, the name came about only in the last millenium ('only' is appropriate when considering Vedism's at least four millenia-long history...)... so, citing Hindu Dharma as a common name without mentioning the languages in which it's used is akin to informing lay readers that Hindu Dharma as a phrase has its origin in Sanskrit, which is not correct. Why should "North Indian languages" or, perhaps, "Indo-Aryan languages [derived from Sanskrit]" be an inaccurate or objectionable description? --68.173.46.79 18:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you reading my statements and intentions correctly? I want the hindu dharma removed.  This article shouldn't be centered around indian hinduism.  it should be centered around general hinduism in the broad presective.  Having the northern indian language is a pov.  it shouldn't be there.  the devangari of the sanatana dharma is the most widely used and accepted term.--D-Boy 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am reading what you wrote: "in several North Indian languages in the intro. Hindu dharma could stay"... this implies that "Hindu Dharma" could be left without referring to its language-base. If you would remove it, fine. Also, I do agree with you that North Indian is quite POV... there are 100's of millions of non-North Indian Hindus (in fact, lots of Bengalis don't consider themselves North Indians; they're part of the Eastern Indian region)... and of course the Southerners. But then again, there is the idea that, Hinduism, like Judaism, is the first of a distinct family of religions... there are the Abrahamic faiths (Chr, Jud, Isl) and the Dharma faiths (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and a lot would say Sikhism). Therefore, by analogue (not just to Judeo Christianity, but rather to Buddha Dharma and Jaina Dharma), a "Dharma" specific reference to Hinduism would be important to emphasize Dharma's centrality to Hindu faith... I guess Sanatana Dharma would suffice... but Hindu Dharma is a lot more current in the vernacular speech (not just of North Indians) than Arsh Dharma/Vidya, or Rishi Dharma, or Vedika Dharma)... so I think more people than just you, Kanchanamala and I will need to weigh in on whether or not Hindu Dharma can be excised  or, if it isn't, how it should be categorized in terms of language. Perhaps instead of North Indian languages we could just say "modern Indian languages." --68.173.46.79 23:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "modern Indian languages" seems to be the best description. The identity indicated by the word Indian will be significant because anything Hindu should be of Indian origin and related to the Indian subcontinent.Kanchanamala 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * kanchanamala, I find the "anything Hindu has to be of Indian origin" to be almost anti-Hindu in context. As it is, the fastest spreading regions of Hinduism are not in India (where people change religion for a couple of saris) but in places like Indonesia and the U.S.A. In fact, as Sanskrit is the universal Hindu language, its the only one that should stay. Baka man  04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka,, I was to say the same thing to Kanchanmala that Hindus are not confined to India but your statement that people change religion for couple of Saris is an exception to the general condition in India. In fact, they do not know what is religion, they are poor, un-educated and isolated. They suffer of hunger and social recognition. Any good treatment to them can win them over. This sort of statement create a wrong impression. If, you agree with me, pl. strike out your comments about changing religion for couple of Saris. swadhyayee 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka Thank you very very much, for striking out "changing religion...". I noticed it today only. swadhyayee 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bakaman and Swadhyayee, while anything Hindu should be of Indian origin and related to the Indian subcontinent, it is also true that Hinduism has spread outside the Indian subcontinent (Bharata-khanda). How Hindus conduct themselves anywhere in the world should not affect Hinduism per se.Kanchanamala 07:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kanchan, what do we say to the non-Indian origin hindus? Are they welcome or not? Are they at par with us or not? There are quite a lot of them. Hinduism is comfortable with change, has been changing all the time, in traditions and observances, we call it 'yugadharma'; what cannot change is its basic humane concepts, i.e., the 'dharma'. Aupmanyav 08:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one seems to object to describing "Hindu Dharma"s usage as current in "modern Indian languages", instead of the more restrictive "North Indian languages", I'm going to change it. --68.173.46.79 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of our holy sites are not even in the subcontinent. Mount Meru is in Indonesia, Kailash is in China, etc. Nothing needs to be of Indian origin, even if all of it may as well be. I myself do not believe Hinduism originated in India. If it truly is a sanatanam dharmam it definitely did NOT originate in India (we humans came from Africa). Back on topic, Sanskrit is our universal language for all Hindus (Gedong Badus Oka, Swami Yogananda Giri, Swami Ghanananda are all Hindu and non-Indian leaders who are scholars in Sanskrit). Baka man  18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indain languages shouldn't be there at all. There's already a history section for discussing Indian roots.  The modern indian languages line and hindu dharma should be removed.  Sanskrit should be the only language used in the article.  Does the islam article use urdu in the first paragragh?  it does not.  It uses the language of arabic which is the holy language of the koran.  I never head heard Hindi when the priest are chanting.--D-Boy 19:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with D-Boy... why shouldn't Indian languages be included!!? Many of the major, pivotal movements of modern Bhakti, Hindu philosophy (including Yoga and Vedanta), have been purveyed in non-Sanskrit tongues... for example, the hagiography of Chaitanya (called the Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita) was written in Bengali... Mirabai sang all her songs in a 'Medieval' form of Hindi... the Ramacharitmanas was written in old Hindi... the Tirumantiram was written in Tamil. Ramana Maharshi spoke and communicated in his native tongue, Telugu... and finally, people expounding many significant Hindu-Yogic-Vedantic doctrines wrote or spoke in English (id est Rama Mohan Roy, Swami Vivekananda, Shri Aurobindo, Paramahansa Yogananda)...


 * And let's not forget all the thousands and thousands of religious songs and translated scriptures which are sung and chanted in local languages... like the Hanuman Chalisa, the many prayer books people sing in Bengali, or Tamil... So... while we can debate whether or not to include Hindu Dharma in the header paragraph, I would vote against misleading readers into thinking that Sanskrit is to Hinduism exactly as Arabic is to Islam... Sanskrit is a privileged language, but it is not the exclusive vehicle for religious thought in Hinduism. --68.173.46.79 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the current line. It is correct and unbiased. 68.173 has summed it up pretty well. Hindu Dharma is the more commonly used than Sanatan Dharma in modern Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. There is a slight Sanskrit bias on Wiki at the moment. especially with texts such as the Ramayana where at least tens of millions in North India have read Tulsidas' version (just as there are Bengali, Gujarati, Tamil versions) and the Ramayana page devotes half a section to all of these variants. The rest is about Valmiki's version, a text I doubt one million have read in the original Sanskrit. On another note, I wonder if the "a" (ie. schwa) at the end of dharma in Hindu dharma should be removed, since it is not pronounced in most, if not all modern Indian languages. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear 68.173 - (can I call you that :-) ) - You are absolutely right that besides Sanskrit, a lot of important writing on Hinduism has been in (so-called) vernacular languages. This point should be made in the article in plain English, rather than obliquely by inserting the translations of Hinduism in various languages and scripts - which IMO is a concern of greater interest to the editors of the article, rather than its readers.
 * How about moving the whole "Hindu Dharma" discussion to the Notes section, where it can be accurately explained and other terms like "Vedic Dharma" can also be mentioned. A reader can choose to look it up if so inclined or skip it altogether, if he/she is more interested in learning about the religion than the nomenclature ? Abecedare 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Abecedare, I hope you have also noticed that all the hubbub is about nomenclature: what should we include, and not include, in the newfound word Hindu. By golly, the bickering would make even Carolus Linnaeus blush.Kanchanamala 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm getting a little confused here.  Some of you here were for removing hindu dharma and now some of are not.  Who's for and who's against?--D-Boy 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why all of you are so confused. Sanatan Dharma and the more commonly used expression Hindu Dharma mean the same in Sanskrit and in ALL Indian languages. So forget about Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Hindustani, several Indian languages, North Indian languages, Modern languages, and what not. Just simply say in English that 'Hinduism (Sanātana Dharma or Hindu Dharma) is a religion that originated in the Indian sub-continent.' You are creating problems where there is none. Aupmanyav 12:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

D-Boy and Abecedare, the word Sanatana Dharma as used in the article is a Hindi word used by some people in North India. It is not used elsewhere in India. It is not used universally even in the North. The expresion "Hindu Dharma" is not used anywhere. The colloquial expression is, "I am a Hindu". I don't agree with Aupmanyav. If we prefer to say something in a simple way in English, we may well nigh say, "Hinduism originated in the Indian subcontinent. It comprises all the various ways in which the people of India have been practising their faith." Then the article can say anything to elaborate this statement.Kanchanamala 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to loudly say that Sanatan is a word in other languages too. I have a Gujarati dictionary which was bought and used by my father born in 1922. This dictionary has the word "Sanatan", the English word provided for the same is "Eternal" and "Perpetual". I have heard "Sanatan" n' number of times.

D-Boy, will you pl. stop pressing for one or other thing. I think, sometime the fights are for petty things worth embarrassment in global community. swadhyayee 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka, See the fun. Wikipedia owner anon IP 68.173.46.79 brought this discussion back to talk page of Hinduism from WT:HNB where I had moved. Today only I noticed this discussion going so long. Mera to Bhagya hi Kharab Hai, Aap ki imitation ki to woh bhi revert ho jaati hai. (I have bad luck, even if I imitate you, the same would be reverted). swadhyayee 07:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * en ingles por favor...some of us don't speak north indian languages.--D-Boy 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, you are missing the point. The issue is not whether a Sanskrit word is found in Gujarati or not. The point is how the expression "Sanatana Dharma" is used in the article. I, for one, am only interested in improving the article, not in any linguistic discussion. Why blame D-Boy for being sensible? Cacophony is no fun. Pardon me.Kanchanamala 11:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't be on Wikipedia right now, I'm busy in real life but I need to make one suggestion. Does anybody object to Hinduism, also referred by many of its followers as Sanatan Dharma or Hindu Dharma, is a relgion ... If you really want mention the languages just say Hinduism, also referred by many of its followers as Sanatan Dharma or Hindu Dharma in their respective languages, is a relgion ... Either we say that or we don't mention Sanatana/Hindu Dharma at all. Lets quickly reach a solution. (DaGizza) 220.233.64.218 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism (Sanskrit:  सनातन धर्म "eternal law"; is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent.

I think that line is enough for the intro. You can put the Hindu dharma or what else you want in Etymology section. That's my solution.--D-Boy 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

D-Boy, "Hinduism" is an English word coined without any specific denotation in Sanskrit. "Sanatana Dharma", though made up of two words from Sanskrit, is an expression in Hindi and of Hindi origin. Hindu Dharma is also a modern coinage. That's the reason I have suggested before that the most apt intro would be: "Hinduism originated in the Indian subcontinent. It comprises all the various ways in which the people of India have been practising their faith." Then the article can say anything to elaborate this statement. One more point: it is not proper, and is rather futile, to try to accord the respectability of Sanskrit to the words "Hindu", which is not Sanskrit, and "Hinduism", which is English.Kanchanamala 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. when you make statements like that, you confuse me. just state your suggestion by writing the line you think is most appropiate.  Also, Hinduism is not just practiced in India.  it's practiced all over the world.  Also, India is a secular country.--D-Boy 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

D-Boy, here we go. (1) For intro, I suggest: "Hinduism originated in the Indian subcontinent. It comprises all the various ways in which Hindu Indians have been practising their faith since time immemorial." Then describe as many of the various ways as you wish: Sanatana Dharma, Hindu Dharma, and so on. (2) FYI: Indians practice their religion wherever they live. (3) FYI: India as a secular country means the governments in India are secular. The population of that country is overwhelmingly Hindu.Kanchanamala 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose Kanchanmala has given a very good suggestion and it should be incorporated, thus totally avoiding the language problem. But Kanchan, would you care to tell me if you are a hindu? Aupmanyav 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, of course I am a Hindu Indian. I would be surprised if you never checked my user page. Thanks for your support. It means a lot to me.Kanchanamala 06:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

D-Boy, would you please do the edit?Kanchanamala 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kanchan, of course, I knew (I do not think I have visited your user page, I dont usually). What I wanted to emphasize is that North, East, West, South, and outside the country, everybody knows what 'Hindu Dharma' is, the majority religion in India. Aupmanyav 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, "hindi aur sanskrit mein zameen aasmaan kaa antar hai" (There is a lot of difference between Hindi and Sanskrit).Kanchanamala 10:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kanchan, Zameen asmaan bhi kahin milte hain (For the uninitiated, sky and earth also meet somewhere, actually right here on the surface of earth). Aupmanyav 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Aap muhaavre ko modnaa chaahen to aapki marzi hai" [If you choose to bend a proverb, suit yourself.]Kanchanamala 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversion
The article contains this line ''However, those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu. ''. I found this source in The Hindu which talks of Hinduism and conversion but says that it is a distorted interpretation of Savarkar to say that to be a Hindu one must both adhere to the faith and be born in India.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you heard of the saying 'Munde Munde Matirbhinna' (as many heads, as many theories). None is wrong if the intention is not wrong. I do not think so, and so do many others. Aupmanyav 08:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a general comment: I think we should avoid/minimize the use of newspapers/websites as sources for this article as much as possible; instead relying on books and scholarly articles by credentialed authors. My reasons for saying so are multi-fold, (1) newspapers/websites would never be accepted as reliable sources by, say, journals listed on JSTOR or Britannica, and even on wikipedia their use should be restricted to current-event-type subjects or subjects for which those are the only sources available; that of course is not true for a subject like Hinduism (2) we can find almost anything written about Hinduism if we search far and wide enough on the web or among the 1000s of Indian newspapers and magazines and it is (usually) very difficult to check the trustworthiness of the source/author. This is usually not a problem if we stick with well-known authors/publishers (see for example the current Reference section). The writing in books may still present a POV, but at least it is an attributable POV.
 * Of course, I propose this standard only as an ideal and not a strict rule. What do others think ? Abecedare 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I second.Kanchanamala 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Length
If you want it less than 65k then there's a lot of painful destroying of information to do...unfortunately...so how short do we want it? I think some of the three para sections would have to lose a para, otherwise the article is too long when we do have many many subarticles which could be further expanded and worked on.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * see WP:SS: no "destroying" is necessary. This page is just the summary of information contained in sub-articles. You cannot possibly propose that Hinduism is discussed in anything like exhaustive fashion on a single page? What we want here is a clean summary in generous strokes, not a heaping up of tidbits. dab (𒁳) 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe "destroying of information" is wrong and rearranging into shorter more concise paragaphs is the term, I was just asking how short does it need to get for FAC, or is this length all right and the issues with the article aren't related to length.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And with the recent edits we have reached 100kb!  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We may need to propose an unofficial rule of not allowing the addition of new information to the article even if they were made in good faith. If it was an anon, we'll direct them to the talk page to discuss the additions. Nevertheless, everybody is welcome to be bold in removing unnecessary detail from the article and improving the prose. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism article on SlimFast
At first glance, it seems the biggest sections (which needn't be so big!) are Ishvara, Karma and Reincarnation, Puja, and Ahimsa. We could shrink those sections into more readily digested chunks... Also, maybe a better sectioning of the entire article could be attempted... meaning, for instance, three bigger sections on History and Origins, Scriptures and Philosophy, Worship and Society, or some such potential format... these are just ideas. But it might reduce the imposing size of the table of contents and make the article easier to navigate. For instance, the current "Society" and "Practice" sections are separated but tend to overlap... "God and Soul" could very well be made into a subset of a "Philosophy/Theology/Symbolism-type" uber-section alongside "Hindu Iconography"--68.173.46.79 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more on both the sections that could be excised (for instance you'll note that currently the Ishvara section has more information than the Ishvara article itself !) and the suggested reorganizations. I too think that it would be easier to navigate the article if it was written with broad headings, such as 1. Beliefs/Philosophy, 2.Practices and Society, 3. History  4. Scriptures and literature. etc (these are just top-of-the-head suggestions). Abecedare 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is time to cut down all of the unnecessarily long sections and move the details to . I agree with the reorganisation of the structure and headings. The subsections like 9.1, 9.2 etc. are particularly annoying and is why the contents table is so huge. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay then.... first, organize, then expurgate/cut down? Assuming that order, it seems like Beliefs/Philosophy, Practices and Society, Origin and History and Scriptures and Authorities are good places to start. Note that I've hijacked Abecedare's sections... the first thing to agree on would be ordering (obviously after the header paragraphs, which actually look pretty good). It might seem logical to start with "Origins and History" (potentially including a nod to etymological derivation of "Hinduism"), then "Beliefs/Philosophy" and "Scriptures and Authorities" (or whatever) and end with "Practices and Society"; why end with "Practices..."? IMO, one lays the groundwork for understanding the religion by explaining where it comes from, what it is, what books or major tenets hold, and then end with an explication of how people TODAY practice it (which is essentially what Practices and Society would be... I mean, one might as well name it "Modern Practice and Society" in opposition to "Origins and History".... more discussion awaited.--68.173.46.79 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that your organization is logical; however it seems from the Christianity, Islam, and Bahaism pages that it is customary to lead with Beliefs instead - paerhaps with the view that a lay reader will first of all want to know "what is this religion all about" before getting into the other details. perhaps we can take our cues from those pages ...
 * (as you'll note Judaism does not follow this "script", so there are no hard-and-fast rules. Abecedare 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sikhism (FA), Buddhism (former FA) and Jainism all start with the equivalent of the beliefs section. I personally would prefer that section to come first because a reader totally unfamiliar with Hinduism will learn the main ideas of Hinduism as soon as possible. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 03:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gizza, I just saw your comment, but as you'll see I have just finished reorganizing the sections (nothing has been added or deleted by me yet) as per what you said ! I have tried to organize the article into four broad sections (1) Beliefs (i.e. Philosophy) (2) History and scriptures (these are in two different sections) (3) Practices (i.e. how Hindus express their religious beliefs through rituals and practices) and (4) Society (i.e. how a Hindu society is organized). Does that make sense to others (the subsections may need reordering) ? Once we have a general agreement on the general outline of the article we can then move to trimming the sub-sections and moving their content for length. Abecedare 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Abecedare's proposal is fine. Regarding "Society", there should be room for alternative interpretations of Hindu society as understood by Vedantic/Upanishadic, Bhakti, Tantra practitioners as well as more modern reformers as opposed to the traditionally emphasized Vedic Brahminical caste system. --68.173.46.79 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are soon to cross a milestone, 100 Kilobytes. Aupmanyav 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In Use tag
I have placed an in use tag at the Hinduism page, so that nobody else edits it while 68.173 reorganize the sectioning as per his best judgment. 68.173 : Please remove the Template:Inuse when you are done with your edits. I guess anyone else can remove the template too if they notice that the page hasn't been edited by 68.173 in the past hour or so. Thanks. Abecedare 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Luna and Arjun have reverted a lot of my edits... I was trying to clean up Karma and reincarnation, which was a mess... how it veered off into discussions of devas and what not was beyond me. I'll stop now. You all take it from here.--68.173.46.79 01:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I was in the middle of a revert as you were removing alot of text. Like by the sections. &mdash; Arjun 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The in use tag has been removed. Please feel free to edit the page again and thanks for your cooperation. Abecedare 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Brahman section
This is one of the very long sections. I noticed that the quotes obtained from the Upanishads to describe Brahman repeat much of what has been said in the paragraphs above. Either the quotes go or paragraphs are shortened greatly. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, I would support removing some text and the quotes as this is unnecessary. Also I think that the section on Ishwara needs to be greatly trimmed down. &mdash; Arjun 03:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a consensus-fest out here. :-)
 * I'd just like to point out two things to any editor who takes up the onerous task of trimming:
 * (1) Add whatever text you delete to the relevant "main article", even if it means that that article needs to be cleaned-up as a result. You can do the clean up yourself, or leave a note here and other editors will (hopefully) take up the effort. That way we can improve the Hinduism project rather than the page alone.
 * (2) Be extra careful if you delete any citations. At least add the citation here so they are not just lost in the page history.
 * I know these points have been made before, but I think they are important enough to bear repeating. Abecedare 04:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay good, will do from now on. &mdash; Arjun 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Huge overlap
in sections 5.1 - Puja and 5.9 Mandir/Temples. The second paragraph in the Puja section is about visiting temples. I think this occurs all over the place. If we remove all the redundant material, I am confident the article will be close to an acceptable state in terms of size.

Another point I would like to bring up is that unfortunately we need a "Criticism" section to be consistent with other religion articles. I remember this was brought up before but has now been forgotten. If some of you don't wish to have this section, you will pleased to know that we are allowed to provide some counter-criticism to each of the point raised because the article still has to follow NPOV. Having looked at the page Criticism of Hinduism, the main issues raised will be Women's status (Sati, Dowry, Widow remarriage), Caste and Hindu nationalism (or Hindutva). This means that after we shorten the article, which we are currently doing, we will need some space leftover. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed (again). But it may be better to complete/make progress the (relatively) mechanical task of trimming first before touching the beehive of criticism; else I can foresee us filling up the talk page many time over, with comments related to that issue alone. Abecedare 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that was what I was hoping for anyway. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Isvar section
Does anyone think swapping the main article Ishwar with the section we have in here would be alright? Basically, the section goes into unnecessary detail about different denominations and what they feel about Ishwar when that would do better in the Ishwar article itself.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you check the history, I was the one who shortened the Ishvar article because most of it wasn't about Ishwar but instead about the six darshanas for some unknown reason. It didn't talk about their dfferent view on an Ishvar but just rambled on. I would support the swap and allow three sentences, one each on on the three prominent Vedanta views: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita. Right now, they take three paragraphs which is much too long for something that the common Hindu hasn't ever heard of. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I merged it into one paragraph and moved the more detail paragraphs to the Ishvar article.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job Nobleeagle ! Both in trimming the section and in ensuring that the details are not lost. Abecedare 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Karma and reincarnation section
It is too long at the moment like many other sections. I found this paragraph to be too specific:

''Scriptures divide Karma into three kinds: Sanchita (accumulated), Prarabdha (fruit-bearing) and Kriyamana (current) karma. All kriyamana karmas become sanchita karma upon completion. From this stock of sanchita karma, a handful is taken out to serve one lifetime and this handful of actions which has begun to bear fruit and which will be exhausted only on their fruit being enjoyed and not otherwise, is known as prarabdha karma. In this way, so long as the stock of sanchita karma lasts, a part of it continues to be taken out as prarabdha karma for being enjoyed in one lifetime, leading to the cycles of birth and death. A jiva cannot attain Moksha until the accumulated sanchita karmas are completely exhausted. [44]''

The information in the rest of the section seemed to be much more pertinent so I think this paragraph is a good one to cut. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Apreciate your efforts
I appreciate the efforts of editors presently involved in rearranging and shortening the 'Hinduism' article. I agree while someone has to do the hardwork, somebody has to create the right atmosphere. I like to think that my posts also have helped in some way to create a better 'Hinduism' article, though I am not sure. Aupmanyav 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Aupmanyavji, your views have certainly helped in improving the article. Even though I have not dared edit anything in the article, I have made bold to respond to your views to the best of my ability. I have great respect for you.Kanchanamala 07:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Free will in Hinduism
Can someone with expertise write a section of Hinduism's view in Free will in theology?

Thanks,

Raj2004 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a Hinduism section today, which hopefully covers the major points of view (in summary) to start with. Thanks for pointing out the gap. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Free will is part of karma.Kanchanamala 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)