Talk:Hinduism/Archive 23

Resolving Conversion
Here is a partial rewrite based on points mentioned in the consensus. I also added an ACCURATE versions of historical events (pending citations) that have shaped current notions of conversions within Hinduism. I don't think anyone is going to have any major disagreements with this, although modifications and adjustments are probably unavoidable. I will start adding citations slowly. Desione (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY is perfect (thats just human nature) Desione (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

''Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselyzation are absent from Hindu literature and in practice have never played more than a significant role, though acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common. The acceptance of conversion into Hinduism has varied through ages. Early in its history, in the absence of other competing religions, Hindus considered everyone they came across as Hindus (Sanathan Dharm) and expected everyone they met to be Hindus. Hence, there was no need to convert into Hinduism. With the advent and rise of hierarchical and heridiatry caste system, conversion into Hinduism became problematic. As a persons position and status in society, under the caste system, was largely determined by birth, the open theory of conversion into Hinduism under Sanathan Dharm became a closed 'by birth only' theory under the caste system. Although, the caste system still permitted assimilation of migrating communities into Hinduism over several generations.''

''The modern view of conversions into Hinduism is influenced by the demise of caste system (caste identities still remain) combined with the persistence of age old ideas of Sanathan Dharm. Hindus today continue to be influenced by historical ideas of acceptability of conversion. Hence, many Hindus continue to believe that Hinduism is an identity that can only be had from birth, while many others continue to believe that anyone who follows Hindu beliefs and practices is a Hindu, and many believe in some form of both theories. However, as a reaction to perceived and actual threat of evangelization, prozelyzation, and conversion activities of other major religions many modern Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion from (any) one religion to (any) another per se.''

''Hindus in Western countries generally accept and welcome willing converts; while as, in India acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common. With the rise of Hindu Revivalist movements, reconversions into Hinduism have also picked up pace. Reconversions are well accepted since conversion out of Hinduism is not recognized. Conversion into Hinduism through marriage is well accepted and often expected in order to enable the non-Hindu partner to fully participate in their spiritual, religious, and cultural roles within the larger Hindu family and society. ''

''There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life after conversion and a ritual called suddhi("purification") marks the return to spiritual life after reconversion. Most Hindu sects do not seek converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, as long as it is practiced sincerely. However, some Hindu sects and affiliates such as Vedanta Society, Arya Samaj, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and the Self-Realization Fellowship accept those who have a desire to follow Hinduism.'

''In general, Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize ''

Folks, please keep the following in mind: Desione (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It resolves two extreme notions of conversion into Hinduism (1. Everyone is already a Hindu - Sanathan Dharm, and 2. Hinduism is an identity that can be had only from birth).
 * It explains the basis of what and why hindus feel what they do about conversion.


 * Desione, I think that in general it is a very good compromise. The only bit that I would change slightly is the last paragraph, which seems to contradict some of the earlier paragraphs. I would suggest that the paragraph is talking about active attempts to convert people, rather than accepting willing converts, so maybe it should be changed to say:


 * Concepts of evangelization, and proselyzation are absent from Hindu literature....


 * or


 * Concepts of actively seeking converts, evangelization, and proselyzation are absent from Hindu literature....


 * I can see that you have worked hard to give balance and represent conflicting viewpoints here. I believe that this is a good basis for a way forward, and I hope that others see it in the same light. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your work on the re-write Desione. Thanks Chris for helping with the direction of the discussion. I'm not sure about the first line (I just tagged it with fact), which although possibly true, does sound a bit speculative - but the rest of it reads better than what was there before. It makes the distinction between the different viewpoints more clear, which is good. What are your thoughts Bakaman? Can you see anything else which is unclear or not covered? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good pragmatic compromise version. However, I take issue with two things:


 * 1) Original research/historiography (we all know what this is)
 * 2) The last paragraph, its content and placement
 * As Q Chris reiterated, the "concepts...absent" sends the wrong message and that it should talk about active proselytization (since passive proselytization brought a good 70-80% in the fold). In fact, I personally think the last paragraph is unneeded, and that the one sentence about "Concepts...absent" should start the section, since that is the most important soundbite. The middle paragraphs are good. Baka man  23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The text "...in the absence of other competing religions..." is paraphrased from a book in google books. Although I lost the link and can't find it anymore. Though the reasoning seems to be fairly common and I added two citations for it.
 * Modified the text "Concepts of ..." to "Concepts of ..., though acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common." as in the conversion section currently on the main page. Desione (talk)
 * Moved "Concepts of ..." to the first paragraph as per Baka's suggestion, but I thought it was better in the last paragraph.

Desione (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to change wording of the "...under the cast system..." part to show assimilation of migrating communities. Desione (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont feel that with the amount of good sources available, that a Islamist professor at a Catholic University really needs to be cited on this page. Also, this Islamist's views are given undue weight on the article and I suggest doing away with this "krocpot". A short history of conversion into Hinduism still needs to be added, since the Rishi's themselves engaged in it. The Huns, Meitei's, Indonesians, Cambodians, et. al. all converted so it is not a closed door. Baka man  16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Is this ready to move to the article? I get the impression that most people are happier with this than the current version. If so we should do it!''' -- Q Chris (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just moved it to the main article. Google books seems to be giving only a very limited preview of books related to caste system, so I guess citations for the part that talks about caste can be added later as these are available. Desione (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happier with the above section than with the current version, so I'd vote to change it. Although I'm not against it being improved further if some sources are found. If the section gets any longer than what is above it will eventually give undue weight to the topic. Maybe a more detailed examination could be written elsewhere? Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect page?
On another note - what are people's thought's about Semi-protecting the page in order to avoid all the reverting of edits by anon users every day? The article seems plagued by minor vandalism, unsuitable changes and test edits etc... over the past few months. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, we should do it, there has been lot of vandalism recently.

Lokesh 2000 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. I concur with GourangaUK's observation. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a classical candidate for long-term semiprotection. At its current stage, the article has practically ceased to profit from anonymous contributions. I'll sprotect it, let me know if there are objections. dab (𒁳) 12:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I see semi-protecting a page means only registered users can add and change it right? All this succeeded in doing was preventing me from removing this racist crap when I saw it... i'm sure 99% of the people that read this website are not registered; and of them, (hopefully :S) most are capable of and concerned enough to remove this when they see it. Vandals, having an incentive to be registered, can't be stopped with semi 'protection'. Even so, id ont know the situation, but if this was being continually vandalised semi protection is a deterrent; i'd vote fully protecting. Updates and changes are important but u could always just discuss what to change, unprotect, change, protect again, no? 81.107.100.78 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC) tom

Schools
✅ by someone. Let it be so. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Other schools (for example, Dvaita Vedanta) and other (bhakti) schools, understand Brahman as a Supreme Being who possesses personality." in "Concept of God" is ambigious.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of how it is currently written, perhaps it might be better to say "Many Hindu sects do not see God as an impersonal force or presence but rather as possessing personality and an existential status fully (or at least in part) independent of living souls dependent on him/her/it. These include such broader schools of thought as Dvaita Vedanta and many bhakti schools." --69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Scripture

 * Scriptures given WP:UNDUE weight by their mention in Lead. All points are not summarized. Thus, the lead is not as defined in WP:LEAD : "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How are you asserting that scriptures are given undue weight? Half of the history of Hinduism involves major figures commenting on major scriptures, particularly the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita. The Vedas are key to defining the entire entity known as Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma/whatever because all of the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy refer back to them. The Upanishads were also extremely important to the development of modern Hinduism and at least SOME of the seminal ideas of Buddha and Mahaavira. Every single sect, sub-sect and school of Indian religion (not just Hindu) has one, two, or more major scriptural works, so mentioning Tantras and Agamas is, imho, in order. Lastly, the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas are cornerstones of Indian storytelling and philosophical allegory: most Hindus are taught axiomatic Hindu thought via the medium of itihaasa. --69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I still find devoting a para to scriptures in lead is WP:UNDUE. FA Islam and FASikhism do not devote a para in lead for scriptures.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here. If you look at the archives, I brought up this point a couple of times. If it has to stay, scriptures in the lead should be summarised into one sentence. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 08:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sikhism deals with all of them. Islam is present and in the lead has the section Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet, and regard the Qur'an and the Sunnah (words and deeds of Muhammad) as the fundamental sources of Islam.. Sunna/Quran are scriptures. Also, I dont think its the scriptures or conversion that is keeping this from FA status, its mindless prose and philosophizing that is. Baka man  23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The philosophical detail has been cut back from the article recently. I believe only a few small things are needed to make the article pass FA, namely citations and a solid copyedit. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Read carefully. FA Islam and FASikhism do not devote a para in lead for scriptures. Yes scriptures should be discussed in the lead but just in a line or 2. Not a para.

The Hinduism article also has a para dedicated solely to the Scriptures.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I misread, but since Hinduism is fairly unorganized, scripture gains more meaning. Baka man  22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Baka, just my two cents. Digging into Hindu philosophy, I have always found that Hindu philosophy is highly organized and deep as compared to any other philosophical set. IMHO, one should not confuse diverse with unorganized. Thank you. Desione (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean that practice is unorganized, not philosophy, I agree with you on this. Baka man  17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad that we agree for once :-). Although, I am not very clear on how practice of Hinduism is disorganized. Perhaps you can clarify further. From what I have seen visiting various temples in India, the practice seems to be highly organized (and ritualistic) and ultimately derived from Philosophy. Desione (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Itihasa

 * The word "Itihasa" can be roughly translated as history, its mention in "Devas and avatars" is unneccessary. Replaced with "Itihasa" with Indian epic poetry, where Itihasa redirects. I hope this is what the author of the sentence meant. The term again appears in Scriptures and theology. Need a citation for Itihasa to mean epic poetry, if the editors want to keep it. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Need a citation for Itihasa to mean epic poetry, if the editors want to keep it." <-- http://worldlibrary.net/eBooks/HimalayanAcademy/SacredHinduLiterature/dws/lexicon/i.html The link here provided is the definitions section provided by Hinduism Today, a well-distributed and accredited magazine devoted to all things Hindu. I haven't prowled through books, but itihaasa is a common term applied to the epic poetry of India and I think it's cussid to demand a reference on this; BUT so be it.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Satisfied with ref.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Events

 * "Three key events underpinned the nascence of a new epoch in Hindu thought. These were the Upanishads, Mahavira (founder of Jainism) and the Buddha (founder of Buddhism)." Are Mahavira and Buddha events???--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Three key events. You forgot to remark that 'the Upanishads' too are not an event. We can just rewrite the sentence, right? Three major movements underpinned the naisance of a new epoch of Hindu thought: the advents and spread of Upanishadic, Jaina, and Buddhist philosophico-religious thought throughout the broader Indian landmass." Or whatever.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

✅ by per suggestion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

References for History

 * References needed for last para of History.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yajna

 * Yajna mentioned as main in practices and described in rituals and ceremonies. Is Yajna a practice or ritual or ceremony????--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yajna is all three: it is a practice, a ritual, and a ceremony. Yajna is the practice of Vedic fire rituals made manifest. It is an easily identifiable ritual. Ceremony in this context is really just a synonym for ritual.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Yajna link should in "Rituals" as it is discussed there.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could qualify Hindu rituals as either Vedic in origin or Tantric. I think that this would be a very informative distinction. Śaiva Sujīt (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrimage

 * Pilgrimage and festivals is written with many cases of WP:UNDUE: examples: "the two principal ones being Kalighat and Kamakhya." ; if the Shakti Peethas are discussed why not jyotirlingas or ashtavinayak etc. Festivals are arranged in any manner, not chronological.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the different yatras should not be listed. That would be better suited in a Yatra article...if there is one. Śaiva Sujīt (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Denominations

 * Denominations like Saura (Hinduism) and Ganapatya are not explained, while a ref has been made to them in the quote.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Denominations like those worshipping Surya and Ganesha as the ultimate form of Godhead are not nearly as widespread and popular (by numbers) as those venerating Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti... not to mention those who believe that "God" is a misnomer and that the ultimate reality is nirguna brahman. The article is, as you implied in your first bullet-point, meant to be introductory and summary.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They may not be widespread now but denominations that Adi shankaracharya talks about. They must be included in a sentence as minor denominations. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

 * "Estimates of the number of lacto vegetarians in India (includes inhabitants of all religions) vary between 20% and 42%." in Ahimsa and vegetarianism. Many of them can be Jains, not neccessarily hindus. "Some Hindus avoid onion and garlic, which are regarded as rajasic foods." Never heard this about Hindus, Jains do practice it. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The number of Jainas in India is tiny. At most a few percentage points of the total (let's take an average of 30%) are Jainas due to sheer numbers. As for onion and garlic, the fact you haven't heard about it is surprising, being that you seem to know a lot about Indian religion. Ayurvedic and Yogic literature abound with statements regarding sattwic diets (diets that accord with the guna of balance/purity/simplicity) which adjure against the eating of onion and garlic. Hindus very much follow such dietary regimens if they are orthodox. Indeed, many Hindus who are otherwise non-vegetarians will, on holy days, maintain a strict observance of sattwic diet, which proscribes the eating of, yes, onion and garlic. --69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't have the time to reply to all of Redtiger's comments, but I would like to reiterate the onion and garlic point. A significant proportion of the Hindus I know don't eat either of these. Of course, my personal experiences are not WP:RS but rather WP:OR. However, I hope you don't remove such a sentence, assume good faith and patiently find/wait for a source for that sentence. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added fact tag. Abstainance from onion and garlic on holy days is ok. But the sentence does not say it. Need a ref for them to be rajasic. I think "on holy days" should be added in the sentence or if it is on regular basis, some hindus avoid onion-garlic, need a ref for that. The sentence is not Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs a reference, but similarly to DaGizza I come across this very regularly. A number of Vaishnava schools avoid onions & garlic in their diet. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For examples, Hindu widows (at least in West Bengal) do not take onion (at least those who chose to maintain the religious tradition).--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of vegetarians, mostly women, in Hindu families.

I have added a couple of refs supporting the sentence. There are two more "citations needed" in the section, but I could not figure out what part(s) of the statements are being challenged. Can someone clarify the issue, so that appropriate refs can be found and added ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add
"Shaktism is, along with Saivism, Vaisnavism, and Smartism, one of the four primary schools of Hinduism."
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.3.106 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing like Smartism. Smarthas are just a sect among Brahmins. --New kid on the Block

Why the article uses the phrase "religious tradition"
This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism not a religion
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Hinduism is not a religion. Please see, 'http://www.bjp.org/history/htv-jag.html', 'http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/supremcourt.htm' and 'http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1412/is%20Hinduism.htm'. Shouldn't you guys consider this?


 * Um why? There is no policy on Wikipedia that states the Supreme Court of India has absolute authority on all Hinduism-related matters. We rather summarise from a host of reliable sources. Thanks <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also this is very clearly a decision taht only applies within a certain context. From your own reference:


 * Whether a particular speech in which reference is made to Hindutva and/or Hinduism falls within the prohibition under sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 is, therefore, a question of fact in each case.


 * It is talking about whether a speech was asking people to vote on religious grounds. The court found that in this context the speech could be encouraging people to vote for candidates with an Indian cultural outlook, which is legal. In other words the ruling states that Hinduism can be used in a way not meaning religion, not that it doesn't ever mean a religion. In in the reference itself it is clearly used that way, e.g.:


 * The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects.  -- Q Chris (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way... none of your links work. --59.93.201.20 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Smaarthism, not Smartism
In the 'Denominations' section, under the 'Society' heading, we now have, "However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism". It should be spelt 'Smaarthism', not 'Smartism', just so that people get the pronunciation right and 'Shaktism' should be spelt 'Shukthiism (or at least Shakthiism)'. I also suggest that to get the pronunciation right, a 'h' is added wherever it is required. e.g.'Gayathree' instead of 'Gayatree'


 * See Naming conventions (Indic). Some of your pronunciations don't seem to fit, e.g gāyatrī, गायत्री has no "h") -- Q Chris (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to echo Q Chris... when it comes to Sanskrit most people should stick with IAST (standard Sanskrit transliteration system for English).... gayathree and smarthism and shakthiism would all have aspirated 't's for readers of that system... (if you know Bengali or Hindi/Urdu, the 't's would sound like the 't's in "thaali" (platter, plate) or "thak gayaa" (got tired). And shukthiism would make a lot of people, not familiar with transcriptions, say "shuk" like "I shook the treebranch"! --59.93.193.97 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism
There is no such thing or religion. The word Hindu is an European word to describe the people who lived East of the Indus river. The word was a derivative of a word used by Arab traders to describe these pople as Indu.

This is same as European "scholars" and explorers such as Columbus calling the natives of the American continent Indians. There is no such thing either. The natives of America do not call themselves Indians. They call themselves varioulsy Mohawk, Haida, Algonquin and Sioux etc. The Europeans thought they had discovered India (based on Indus river) when they arrived in the Americas.

The word Hinduism is a word coined by simplistic European "scholars" including Mayo who used this word to describe the collection of ideas written and practiced in the Indian sub continent. This collection of work included scientific treaties such as the Vedas and Purans and logical and philosophical treaties such as the Upandishads or the Shastras. For example Kautilyas Arthashastra is a treatise on Economics. This cannot be called Hinduism just like the work of Adam Smith on the Wealth of a Nation cannot the called Europeanism. Vatsyana's Kama Sutra is a manual on Sex and not some doctrine.

In one of the Purans there is description of time measurements starting from the smallest division to hours, days, years, millenniums and eons. The smallest division of time was Nimesh and the next was Palak which is equivalent to the time it takes to bat your eye. The hour was called Ghatika. This is the science of measurement of time and it cannot be called Hinduism. You can change a measurement system just like pounds are changed to Kilogram or miles are changed to Kilometers.

There was a reason why this word Hinduism was coined by Europeans. In their desire to rule or colonize the world this word was coined to dismiss all the ideas of the Indian sub continent. One English "scholar" wrote that all the written knolwedge of India (and Arabia) will fill one bookshelf in the British Library. This is same as one Cola company dismisses the product of another Cola company with disdain in their advertisement with an aim to dominate the market.

The word Hindu or Hinduism does not exist in the Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramyana, the Purans, the Sutras, the Shastras or in the Geeta. Of course English pepole do not call themselves Angrez which is the word used by people in India to describe them. The word Hindu also easily groups them for Colonial purposes so that they can be classed as conquered people to be separated from the ruling class.

Now the religion part of it. There is no such religion either. This is simplistic and does not make any sense. Once an Ameican traveller was asked by an African native what tribe do you belong to? The American said, I do not belong to any tribe, I am an American. The people in India do not practice any religion as practiced by the people in the Jordan valley or the decendants of Abraham. The people in India practice Dharma which means a way of life or simply lifestyle. This way of life is adjusted according to the exsiting level of knowledge and science. Of course we now know that the Sun starts it suothern journey on December 21 and not on January 14 as earlier known. So you adjust your life accordingly. The bottom line is that Dharma is not religion. Religion is controlled by a hierarchy and it has doctrines and edicts and a religious leader. Dharma is basically life style and even a Television personality or a Yoga instructor can be a leader of lifestyle depending on her knolwedge. For example most people in India try to follow a vegetarian diet. This is based on the idea that it is more environmentally friendly as you consume less food and allow other species to live. As you can clearly see the Western diet such as eating sea food has now in hundred years led to the collapse of all ocean life and scientists expect (Journal of Science) that there will be no fish to catch in the ocean by 2050.

I will leave you with a scientific view contained in the Brahmasutras which says that the earth is round and its ecosystem is indivisible (land, oceans, atomosphere etc.) and life on earth manifests itself in those that look for nutrients (Chara) and those that draw nuturients directly from the earth (Achara). A balance is needed between plant life and other forms of life as they depend on each other. This is a pure scientific observation and not some ism.

It is true that the common people in India do practice old and bizarre life styles but this is mainly because of illiteracy. They are victims of misinterpretation. Even literate and educated people with a doctorate can be vitimized becasue most of the old text is written in Sanskrit and very few people understand the language. Because the lnaguage is not used commonly, even priests recite them by rote and cannot interpret the texts well.

However recognizing that there is a market place, the word Hinduism has been adopted by modern people who are able to earn a living by creating a consolidated and simplistic model just as one could open a museum of Indians (natives of America) and make some money from the visitors or make a Cowboys and Indians movie and make some money from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.138.213 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Half of this is true, half of this is bullshit, and the whole thing ignores the fact that there is an entity which "Hinduism" refers to, a definite and real system of teachings which all fall under a Vedic/Vedist rubric... Vaishnavs and Shaivaites and Tantrics and Yogis and Bhaktas of all stripes have always considered themselves a part of a special umbrella to the exclusion of the followers of "Baudha Dharma" and "Jaina Dharma" and "Lokayata". Where's that part in your spiel?! I'm with you on the idea that "Hinduism" may not be the best name, but it's happened that way. Most English speakers (and speakers of non-Indian languages) aren't going to suddenly call it "Veda Dharma" or "Arya Dharma" (by which names the Vedic system has been referred by its own followers thousands of years ago...)... or "Santana Dharma" for that matter...


 * As for TV personalities may have thought patterns and rituals or practices that mirror Hindu practice but so might Christians... as for yoga teachers, well, DUH, Yoga is one of the six Astika (meaning following the Vedas) schools of philosophy!!!! You're wrong. Also, this has been discussed before. --59.93.193.97 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion, not Religious Tradition
Hinduism is not a "religious tradition." I can find thousands of verifiable sources that call Hinduism a religion. Nikkul (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism are not described as religious traditions. They are described as religions. Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "religious tradition" wording was sourced. And, based on my own readings, it made sense. As far as I'm aware, various segments of what the western world calls "Hinduism" do not identify as "Hindu" in the sense that Protestants and Catholics alike identify as "Christian." Hinduism, I believe, is sort of an umbrella term that has been used to encompass a wide variety of rather disparate religious traditions on the Indian subcontinent. Moreover, many Hindus would regard Christians, Muslims, etc. as Hindus in a sense, because these Hindus assimilate other--and, in their view, ostensibly distinct--objects of worship into their belief system as Ishta-devas (so you could also argue that, in a sense, Hinduism is a conglomeration, not only of disparate Indian faiths, but also of widely varying faiths all around the world). But I needn't ramble on, because I'm going to WP:AGF for whomever added the "religious tradition" phrasing, and trust that if you would like a decent explanation of that phrasing, then you need only to head down to the library and pick up the source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, there's a huge talk page post about this very topic, immediately before this section. Interesting that you didn't comment on it directly. Anyway, I've reverted to the previous, sourced version that calls it a religious tradition. If other sources call it a "religion," and if you uncover significant controversy in this regard, then feel free to introduce the controversy into the article itself (making certain, of course, to cite your sources). Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cosmic Latte is very much correct here. In fact if you look near the top of the page currently, I point specifically to which archives. I'll copy my message from there.
 * This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo
Under Definition, Hinduisms should be Hinduism's

First paragraph "Conversion" persons --> person's

Religion is spelled wrong in first sentence.

The article still includes numerous mechanical and grammatical errors. I just now corrected the first third of the article (if you'll accept the corrections). Chain27 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to give the Manual of Style a look before you start making these kinds of changes. For example, Wikipedia favors logical quoting, but in your edits you have moved punctuation inside quotation marks. Ilkali (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"oldest religion" once again
sigh, I don't know how many times we've been over that. "Oldest religion" is as meaningless a term as "oldest language". I know that many popular blogs and cheap journalism like to tout Hinduism as "the oldest religion", but we are trying to be an encyclopedia. There is no shortage of academic sources on the history of Hinduism, so there really isn't any excuse to rely on less encyclopedic sources. dab (��) 08:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you seem to be using a strawman here because the sources cited aren't popular blogs or cheap journalism. Trips (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * what is it these sources say? Look, you cannot give a date for the "age of Hinduism". That's nonsense. You can give a date for the age of the Bhakti movement (700 years or so), an age for the Puranas (1200 years or so), or an age of the Yoga Sutras (2200 years or so), but it is patently silly to try and give an "age of Hinduism". Certainly not in the lead, and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, not a single religion. We can give a date for historical Vedic religion, but then this isn't the article on historical Vedic religion. We don't claim Freemasonry is aged 5000 years because they worship Isis. Please try to keep this encyclopedic. dab (��) 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a general statement even used in 'Encyclopedia' Britannica, referring specifically to the umbrella term that is Hinduism, which this whole article is on. Why isnt a date posted on the historic Vedic religion article anyway, and to suggest Freemasonry is 5000 years old because of worship of Isis is synthesis and Freemasonry is not the same as continuously practiced ancient Egyptian religion.Trips (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you are revert warring. Please remove the inferior sources again, Britannica is enough. All your sources do not go beyond the fact that "Hinduism is sometimes characterized as the oldest something or other", which is what the revision you reverted already stated. The Britannica defines Hinduism as "the beliefs and practices of Hindus, as expressed in a series of characteristic doctrinal, ritual, social, narrative, and poetic forms." I am happy with that definition, no problem. It further has "Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India." that's fine too. No cheap hype there. The Britannica defines Brahmanism as "a religion of ancient India that evolved out of Vedism", and Vedism it defines as "the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 BC from the region of present-day Iran". That's the EB for you. Nothing wrong with that. If you have no objections, I'll replace the current disaster with these straightforward definitions. Thus, according to the Britannica, Hinduism in the wider sense is post-Vedic (say post 600 BC), and in the narrower sense is post-Buddhist, say post 200 BC). Of course it has ("continuously") evolved beyond recognition since those days, but these are the historical traditions included in the term. dab (��) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, the wording in the Britannica source is "Hinduism, one of the oldest continuous religious traditions in the world and the predominant religion of India" The New Encyclopaedia Britannica - Page 927. None of the sources mention "sometimes" either. I am only reinstating sources which you believe you opinion alone overrides. Trips (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "In recognition of these ancient sources, present-day Hindus often assert that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion." Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions"  -Page 434 Hinduism is both the oldest and most diverse of the world's religions": How to Prepare for SAT II - Page 90 "Hinduism is the oldest and perhaps the most complex of all the living, historical world religions"   - your statement "evolved beyond recognition since those days" can not be correct, since most traditions do carry forward on the same basis of the mantra initiation of the Rig Veda - all other observations are quite external. -- Wikidās ॐ 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with "present-day Hindus often assert that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion", that's spot on. Anything else is collecting soundbites, and needs to go from the lead, and needs to be attributed in the article body. If you can agree to an encyclopedic rephrasing of your point, this doesn't need to be difficult. The current EB has ""Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India." can we please rely on that instead of some random edition of 35 years ago which contained a soundbite you happened to like? I can use google myself, thanks. If you want to discuss notions of the "age of Hinduism", feel free to compile a coherent account based on scholarly sources at History of Hinduism, but don't attempt to tout WP:SYN stunts on this article's lead. This article is important, people! We cannot allow its lead to degenerate into cheap rhetorics. dab (��) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created oldest religion as a place where this, hm, discourse, can be reflected on-topic. dab (��) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trips, stop reverting. I have explained on what grounds I object to your revision. I do not insist on a fixed revision but am open to WP:DR. Propose a compromise phrasing or drop it. dab (��) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view many points of view needs resolving in the intro. One of them is that its oldest religion, second is that this is the view that hindus maintain, third is that some do not consider hinduism a religion and yet another view is that there are many religions that are united under one label of Hinduism - each of these has a foundation in common source - Vedas. Wikidās ॐ 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * indeed, there are "many views". Which precludes us from giving one in Wikipedia's voice, that's my entire point: this isn't Hindupedia, we have a WP:NPOV policy. Any discussion of detail belongs to the article body or a sub-article per WP:LEAD. dab (��) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that all of the views that have RS should be reflected in the lead and only that will have a NPOV. As far as I see dabs and Tripping Nambiar express one view each. Please propose a combination of the views here. It has nothing to do with Hindupedia so no need to put down one view over the other, its absolutely natural that Hindus will have a say about Hinduism and that it has to be reflected in the lead. Wikidās ॐ 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * huh? Where on earth did you get the idea that "all of the views that have RS should be reflected in the lead"? We would end up with articles that are all lead, no body. No, the burden is on you to establish that this "oldest religion" meme is lead-worthy in the first place. My proposal includes mentioning it as a gesture of good faith, I do not think it is at all notable. Unlike Trips, I do not advocate any view at all. I am willing to report that many Hindus are infatuated with the idea of adhering to "the oldest religion". I do not think the concept is meaningful and consequently have no view on it (viz., I think it is not even wrong), except that it is of dubious encyclopedicity. dab (��) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that the principle here is consensus, not 'proof', as any reliable source is the proof, to use it or not is based on the consensus. The lead in my opinion should reflect the fact that its the oldest religion, because omitting this information is just POV. Wikidās ॐ 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * of course. But, there is no consensus that "oldest religion" is even a meaningful concept, let alone that Hinduism "is" that. There is no "fact" that Hinduism is the oldest anything, that's just a pious sentiment. Go figure how many of the editors pushing for the inclusion of this statement as "fact" are themselves Hindus, and how many are neutral without personal stakes in the matter. I thought so. We are not "omitting" any information, we are attributing it. "Many Hindus insist Hinduism is 'oldest'". There. You surely can also find some 19th century Orientalist enthusiasts insisting Hinduism is 'oldest', but that's hardly lead-worthy. dab (��) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

soundbite vs. fact
in what sense is Hinduism "the oldest religion continuously practiced"? Look at the other contestants. The most promising are Zoroastrianism (Zoroaster assumed to have lived around 1000 BC) and Judaism (the oldest core of the Pentateuch assumed to date back as early as the 10th century BC). It follows that "Hinduism" can only ever contest for being the "oldest religion continuously practiced" in whatever sense it predates 1000 BC. Now, the only bits of Hinduism accepted to predate this date are the family books of the Rigveda. These are commonly accepted to date to around 1500 to 1200 BC. The entire statement boils down to whatever role the Rigvedic family books (not the entire Rigveda) have in Hinduism. The Rigveda, however, reflects Vedism, specifically separated from Hinduism proper by the EB. It immediately follows that we cannot reflect the "oldest" claim as "fact". We can state it's a popularly repeated claim, that's all. Touting all of Hinduism as a "continuous tradition" is either a truism (since all traditions necessarily have some continuity going back to the Lower Paleolithic), or silly. It is remarkable that the Gayatri Mantra is aged more than 3,000 years, but that hardly "dates Hinduism" any more than the use of ancient Hebrew terms like Amen or Hallelujah dates Christianity. Hinduism in the EB's "narrow sense" begins in the Mauryan period anyway, end of discussion. dab (��) 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE: the continuity or discontinuity between Vedism and Hinduism is indeed a matter of debate. Here is a reference:
 * Oberhammer, Gerhard (ed.), Studies in Hinduism. Vedism and Hinduism. (1997); review: Indo-Iranian Journal 45 (2002), 59-75. Pertinent quotes from the review:
 * Firstly, the adequacy of the nomenclature – Vedism and Hinduism – we use needs to be clarified if we are to prevent the  perception that such terms represent a unity of doctrine and practice lying  beneath them.
 *  investigating the historical relations between both and demarcating the discontinuities and continuities which must be found  when Hinduism is regarded as having absorbed Vedism within itself or  transformed it into a different cultural process than what it originally  might have been.
 * Vedism managed in various ways to keep a hold on Indian thought and imagination

this is a complex debate, and belongs on history of Hinduism. It cannot be fit within the lead of this article. Avoid WP:SYN. I have made perfectly clear that the statement I oppose cannot be presented as fact. If you want to further participate in this, research academic literature and present your sources. As too often, I have the impression I am the only one actually doing this, opposing revert-warriors content to base their opinion on blogs and googled soundbites. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. In terms of continuous tradition, both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism of course ultimately continue prehistoric traditions, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Indo-European, and so on into the Stone Age. In this sense, all traditions are co-eval, "continuously" descending from Proto-World. dab (��) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The way to measure old is not by when it started, but how long it survived. The oldest man is not the first man to walk the earth but the longest surviving one. Hence, Hinduism is the "oldest" religion. Also, I think Britannica is much more respected than Meeriam Webster. Nikkul (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be proper you really better define to what the word 'Hinduism' refers. You can use it to refer to anything you want and for example EB (one of the editions of it) refers to it in a different meaning to what the world was originally referring to. Not just one mantra of Rig Veda, ie Savitri/Gayatri Mantra that is continues. The rites and pantheon did not change, Vishvamitra is still worshipable and Vishnu too; of course if by definition you accept Vedism as different to Hinduism - you will arrive at some strange conclusion. Show me a tradition in modern Hinduism that does not claim to be based on the Rig Veda or Vedic knowledge? Its obviously one tradition, just as well still practiced in such a wide range of practices, just as it was 15k before. Wikidās ॐ 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dab is arguing that its hard to compare age of religions for various reasons, but that argument does not belong in this article. It is easily overridden by many sources which do indeed make the comparison, assuming that religion can be comparatively aged and that Hinduism is most certainly the oldest major world religion. Trips (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

statement of fact
Current lead as it stands: "Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Hinduism is the oldest major world religion."

Lets hear comments here - it is a mere statement of fact that one RS states it. Wikidās ॐ 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose expanding it to include: Hinduism is not only one of the numerically largest but also the oldest living major tradition on earth, with roots reaching back into the prehistory. (Page 1 of A Survey of Hinduism ISBN 0791421090 By Klaus K. Klostermaier - he is the leading specialist in the field). To clarify dabs questions Vedic Hinduism is the term used to describe Vedism. I have started a discussion on the Vedism page as to rename it to this name. See The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion By John Corrigan article on Hinduism by J Macdaniel. I will be adding this references to the article as well. Wikidās ॐ 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We can easily find more refs than Merriam-Webster for the "oldest major world religion" statement. So it doesn't have to be solely attributed to Merriam-Webster. Trips (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You must make your case clearly Trips, I suggest placing revised version with references here. Additional references will help the case of removing single source quotation. However nobody can disagree that Merriam-Webster states this. Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand with your version, lots of the sources were textbooks which also included Aryan invasion, and others that skim the topic too briefly, probably not credible refs. Trips (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the 3rd paragraph of the lede.

"Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Hinduism is the oldest major world religion."

"Hinduism is not only oldest living major tradition on earth, it is one of the numerically largest, with roots reaching back into the prehistory. It is formed of diverse traditions and types and has no single founder. The types, sub-traditions and denominations taken together add up to Hinduism qualifying as the world's third largest religion following Christianity and with approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal. Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and Canada."

that's just cheap editorializing. If you want to throw about sources on "oldest religion", do it at history of Hinduism, not in the WP:LEAD of this article. Wikidas, do you actually know anything about "the field" at all, or do you just call Klostermaier "the leading specialist" because you happened to google a soundbite from him that happened to serve your purpose at this moment? See also here. Anyway, I repeat that the "oldest religion" shtick isn't false, it is not even false, by virtue of being unencyclopedic crap without any clear definition. Now please keep this stuff out of the lead, or consider sitting back and let the grown ups write this article. dab (��) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claims are OR and smell like your are using words like: 'unencyclopedic crap' - without even checking your sources. Klostermaier is the leading specialist in HInduism thus his view counts. Dvaita dispute the concept of Hinduism itself so a bad one from your side. Wikidās ॐ 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you are not listening. I invite you to cite Klostermaier at History of Hinduism, where your discussion belongs. If you have a source for the idle claim of "leading specialist in Hinduism", I invite you to cite it at Klostermaier's article. I challenge to put your money where your mouth is and back that up before you indulge in further edit warring. The man has a degree in philosophy for crying out loud. --dab (��) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dabs, when you call oxford handbooks and leading oxford professors or lecturers in Hinduism

bogus, it does not project a nice image of your editorship. You are an experienced editor you should know better what is encyclopedic. Do not revert until we reach a consensus here. We have consensus of two editors for the above. Wikidās ॐ 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is bogus. You cherry pick soundbites out of context and obsess about touting the topic in the lead. I do in fact know better than you, by all appearances. You don't even have a semblance of a case, and answer none of the points raised. You are just revert-warring at this point. If you want to keep up a pretense of good faith, put up a disputed tag (as I have done and have been reverted. Removing cleanup tags is disruption.). You should know Wikipedia well enough to realize that playing stupid or WP:ICANTHEARYOU doesn't buy you the revision you want. The best you can achieve is an article riddled with warning tags, locked down for everyone, with everyone pissed off over the time wasted because some idiot tried to dodge the proper process. --dab (��) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Me and Tipps have a consensus on the second paragraph and I have added a small revision here-> diff  - it is based on the very good sources, so clearly not 'bogus' and we clearly do follow of proper process of arriving at consensus. I would not call other users edits 'bogus', especially if such high quality sources are used, please assume good faith. Your edits while based on sources appear as your own,   or a minority view, not as a consistent representation of good sources. Certainly do not have a consensus. It makes sense to you, but we feel its POV pushing. We are not using 'soundbites', its is sound and complete summary of a good secondary source (read a few pages of it first, its not an 'article' it is a summary of Klostermaier's book), who is not ' modern day hindu' and its exactly  on the subject, very important source, it is backed up by a number of other sources - I will give a full range today. Its is a predominate academic view and if you have another view - add the alternative sources and maybe it can be accommodated in the lede as a different point of view on the subject, it is clearly a minority view as there is a very small number of sources that will divorce Vedic religion and Hinduism. It is of course based on definition of Hinduism, what is yours? Talk to us rather then just reverting the edits, instead of asking others, do it yourself and follow the proper process. Wikidās ॐ 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your change -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidās, Tipps: if you'll allow me to point out the obvious, Wikipedia is not the place for "Mine is bigger than Yours" type arguments. no one would object to the statement that Hinduism is an ancient faith, or that it has a large number of followers, but comparative terms like 'numerically largest' and 'oldest' are just begging for contradiction.  let me point out, for instance, that jainism is at least as old as hinduism, and that babylonian and egyptian faiths, as well as the faiths of many indigenous peoples, may be far older.  also, please remember that 'consensus' is not strictly a consensus of editors, and is clearly not a consensus of some editors over other editors.  consensus in the Wikipedia sense means consensus about the topic by experts, with consensus by editors over presentation issues.


 * I understand that you're pushing for your faith here, and I respect that. that kind of interest can do wonders for an article if applied correctly.  but please keep it within encyclopedic limits.  Hinduism is not going to gain or lose anything because of it's portrayal in Wikipedia.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because one world religion is older then the other is does not make it better. One just need to be clear and transparent about it. The simple statement of WP:RS that this is the oldest of world religions or major traditions is sufficient to stress the point. WP:CON makes it very clear that we need to arrive at consensus. And you are not quite right - it is not that consensus is different views that agree as in different verifiable and otherwise reliable sources. Consensus is when a few editors do not object to a statement and in this case it means we should find a middle ground, state a statement of primary view on Hinduism and then mention, possibly in the body of the text rather then in the lede, that this view is not shared by some other academics such as ... sources go here.... (waiting to have a WP:RS from contesting editors). First of course the widely accepted view that Hinduism is the oldest living world religion as  it states: "oldest living major tradition". Jainism is a tradition, not major, that is distinguished sometimes from Hinduism. You may think that you can compare the two but can not say that Jainism is a major living tradition or is "oldest living major tradition", that is Hinduism; however  points of agreement between Jainism and Hinduism are extraordinarily extensive, and some do include Jainism and lately Buddhism in Hinduism. We are not suggesting that in this article or the lead, however this view may be reflected as a minority view in the body of the article, just as a minority view that Vedic Hinduism is not Hinduism expressed by Dabs. While there are no hard-and-fast line of demarcation between the Jainism and Hinduism in the views of many, it is a widely accepted fact that Babylonian faith is not a living faith, certainly not a world religion. Please do not mistake us for being zealous hindus, we just want to call things right names, and yes this is the purpose of Wikipedia, "oldest living major tradition" is the right name.


 * If reliable sources found that contradict the above, we should consider them for this article. Wikidās ॐ 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidās - I think you're missing the point in what I said. oldest is a comparative; old is not.  the only reason to say oldest is to draw some sort of relation to other faiths, which is problematic in this context, and particularly so in the lead.  now I am not averse to some phrasing of this sort, but it would have to be impeccably sourced (Merriam/Webster is not appropriate - it's a third-hand source - and the other source you gave does not use 'oldest' as an analytical subject but as introductory glue in a work that talks about other things).  Find me a respectable source that says "Hinduism began at such and such a time, Jainism began at..., judaism began at... (etc.) therefore Hinduism is the oldest living religion" and I'll cede your point completely.  but please don't try to stuff a comparative in there as a fact without going the extra mile to make it ironclad.


 * If nothing else, realize that Dab is also trying to produce an accurate article here. he wouldn't be objecting if he didn't have questions about it.  rather than trying to bowl him over by being insistent, try making a convincing argument.  he strikes me as someone who will respond to reason if you give it to him.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

reaching forward for a consensus

 * We need to be reasonable. There are two sides to the story and we can find a middle ground. At least we should try.
 * I agree that Dab is trying to produce an accurate article. Thus we need to balance the views, find correct wording and please understand that I do not reject views that dab presents, except when he rejects the commonly accepted norms as 'bogus'.
 * Following are the references that support the use of the word oldest. There is nothing wrong with using it. 1., 2. , 3. , 4. , 5. , 6. Dimensions in Religion: Teacher's Resource Book - p. 15 "the oldest of the living traditions, has no 'founder'", 7.' New York Times Almanac 2004, John W. Wright, p. 489 "Hinduism is the oldest of the world's great religions." 8. Sociology in Our Times - p. 540,by Diana Elizabeth Kendall, Kendall - 2000 "We begin with Hinduism because it is believed to be one of the world's oldest current religions", 9.  Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions. p. 119 "world's oldest living civilization and religion"  10. The Volume Library: A Modern, Authoritative Reference for Home and School p. 1938"Hinduism - The third largest religion and the oldest major religion." 11. How to Prepare for SAT II: World History - p. 90, Marilynn Hitchens, Heidi Roupp - 2001,  "Hinduism is both the oldest and most diverse of the world's religions, easily mutable and readily able to incorporate new ideas."


 * (not this one?? (0.) The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism - p. xvi 2001 - "It's the world's oldest religion, going back to the very dawn of history."}


 * But definitely this one (12.) "It is also recognized as the oldest major religion in the world". Encyclopedia of Relationships Across the Lifespan - p 359 Jeffrey S. Turner


 * I will be adding only the major ones to the article. Lets hear a more balanced view. I have already balanced it significantly. Lets see how far we can go without claiming that earth is flat (or that Vedism is a separate religion or that Jeffrey S. Turner is a 'modern day Hindu who asserts it' ). Wikidās ॐ 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I would have serious reservations about including a statement to this effect in the lead. There are several problems with using such a statement.
 * 1. There is no clear definition of what "religion" is in this sense. I know the majority of independent observers have stated that Hinduism has changed as much if not more than most of the other major world religions. On that basis, what we might reasonably say that "Hinduism" is the oldest name still ascribed to a currently extant religion, but that statement isn't really saying much. Also, is it older than, say, Shamanism, which has also been described as a religion? I tend to think no, and I think the majority of experts in the field would agree. It might take me a while to find sources though. This however highlights the fact that there isn't a single universally agreed upon definition of religion, making the use of such a statement without qualifiers as to what the definition of religion is at best dubious.
 * 2. Also, such a statement would have to be further qualified with something to the effect of "of which we today have clear evidence". After all, we would want to indicate that we are basing this on scientific evidence. There is some evidence to indicate that Paleolithic religion can be substantiated by external evidence as being older than Hinduism, so such a qualifier would be required there.
 * Taking both of those into account, I think that, while it might make sense to say in the lead something to the effect that many Hindus claim it is the oldest religion, there is nowhere near unanimity in the scientific community to say anything more than that. Particularly since, as per the Paleolithic religion page, the first evidence of the unusual burial of a shaman occurred 30,000 years ago, well before the 7500 or so years which Hinduism can be dated back. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with John - there is no single definition of the word religion - the word religion should be substituted for religious tradition in relation to Hinduism, see also consensus record on this Talk page. Paleolithic religion of South India is related to Hinduism as claimed by some. Wikidās ॐ 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't entirely agree with that either, I'm afraid. Although I'm stunned the Shamanism in Siberia page doesn't yet reference Mircea Eliade's book on Shamanism, drawn from study of primarily Siberian shamans, it could well be that that religious tradition may be older. And, from what I remember of Eliade's book, it too tends to adhere to a generally common set of beliefs, much as Hinduism or any other religious tradition. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, your research is most welcome at the "oldest religion" article. I have no idea why you want to cram this stuff into the lead of this article. Obviously, all religious tradition ultimately goes back to the Middle Paleolithic. It is patently nonsensical to refer to such remote prehistoric traditions as "Hinduism". Hence the point is really moot. I fail to see how this "oldest religion" meme can be of any encyclopedic interest. Paleolithic religion of India is related to Hinduism in exactly the same way Paleolithic religion of Arabia is related to Islam, or the way Paleolithic religion of Italy to Roman Catholicism. It's a truism. Now I have never objected to mentioning the meme "Hinduism is oldest" in the lead, so please stop trying to misrepresent my position. Currently, we have Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups,[6][7] or as "oldest living major tradition"[8][9][10]. There is nothing wrong with that, except in terms of style. Five footnotes. "Oldest" repeated twice over. Anyone reading this will go "oh, we get it, they had some Hindus pushing this and they ended up with an awkwardly redundant statement with obsessive referencing. Poor Wikipedia.". This article will never become a high value encyclopedia article (let alone featured) as long as we allow zealot adherents like Wikidas to damage encyclopedic style in this way. But I'll say again that I have no objections to the statement Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups or as "oldest living major tradition"'' -- I just wonder what it is doing in the article lead. Do we see "Christians often present Christianity as the only true religion and the one path to salvation" in the lead of Christianity? It's a true statement, and yet has no place in any encyclopedia article, go figure. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your research or speculation, and ideas of unpublished analysis and synthesis of published material clearly serves to advance a position in your article on "oldest religion" (possibly short for O.R.. It is clearly that if you to write properly such an article the claims should be part of the respective articles of all religions and NRMs (if they are not OR) you are listing. I have no idea why you want to separate and compare all the incomparable items in this synthesis of published material of that article. Obviously, you are wrong, and not all religious tradition ultimately go back to the Middle Paleolithic. What a clear misunderstanding of major religions traditions that we have. All world religions have a founder or founders, bar one. Its clear from the lead of the article and you patently nonsensical in your denial of this, yes pre-historic traditions are called "Hinduism" and there are clear elements of Paleolithic religion in the present days Hindusims as well. Anyway, good thing about Wiki is that even if we disagree, we will come up with a decent compromise that will reflect the consensus, and that is our goal. Wikidās ॐ 12:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

my compilation at oldest religion was a quick survey of sources. I have since improved it further and moved it to Urreligion. It is a perfectly encyclopedic topic. It is painfully obvious that you are attempting to shoot it down not out of concern for encyclopedicity but in the interst of your single-topic interest of touting Hinduism. Look, "Hinduism" isn't even a native term. It is what the Muslims in India called anything that wasn't Islamic. So you shouldn't be surprised "Hinduism" has no single founder. Sheesh, if you go to Talk:Muhammad you'll find no shortage of Muslim editors clamouring that Islam is the one eternal true religion and hence has no founder. The current world religion of Hinduism is essentially (99%?) Vedanta, re-modelled into Pauranic Hinduism and partly transformed by the Bhakti movement. It would be perfectly accurate to consider Adi Shankara the founding figure of all that. Obviously, Shankara had earlier traditions, just like every other religious founding figure in world history. I am sorry, but you clearly have no idea of religious history. "It's the world's oldest religion" may be a satisfactory phrasing for "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism", but certainly not for Wikipedia. Don't you realize how your sources tend to cluster around the "Hindu zealot blog" and the "Hinduism for Dummies" pop-literature poles? Wikipedia doesn't aim to belong to either. I have also reviewed your Klostermaier reference now. Lol, it is published by "SUNY Press", and on the same page 1 also claims that Hinduism is the "numerically largest" religion. Wow. If you are so fond of Klostermaier, why aren't you revert-warring for the claim that "Hinduism is the numerically largest religion" along with "oldest", since both claims are found right next to one another in KK's book? dab (𒁳) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hinduism" isn't even a native term - well I agree with you on that, its obvious. All your obvious statements are not being disputed. Sometimes you misunderstand and I guess that where it comes from. You should read sources right, it said one of numerically largests traditions (as to distinguish it from obscure cults or therms that are listed in your article). Yes, there are difficulties in defining "Hinduism" - I would welcome discussion and a separate section on this, as it seems to be the theme common to many sources. I do not object to "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups,[6][7] or as "oldest living major tradition"[8][9][10]'' " - it appears to reflect sources and satisfy me in this regard. Wikidās ॐ 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * then why did you stage such a hubbub over nothing at all? Are you bored or something? dab (𒁳) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)