Talk:History of Hinduism/Archive 1

Untitled
The goal is to make it like the History of Buddhism article. --Dangerous-Boy

NPOV dispute: Hinduism and the rise of Buddhism
Bodhidhamma and HKelkar agree to disagree on this setion. Both have provided their POV as well as other users have provided their POV.

According to HKelkar the references he has provided to proove authenticity, credibility of this section is clear enough to accept that Buddha was an avatara reincarnation of Vishnu.

According to Bodhidhamma these references are not valid enough to proove it. Bodhidhamma follows 1. perceptionoonhujjhohoifgogjlktotr hibytyf yhutyrufyt0iru9u8tj], 2. [[inference and 3. valid testimony to accept any concept/belief/fact/philosophy. According to this We have different perception, hence tried to infer from the sources provided by HKelkar . Which accrding to Bodhidhamma does not logically [A=B, B=C hence A=C] establish link to the provide any proof to the claim that Buddha was an Avatara of Vishnu which demands valid testimony

Hence need NPOV.

Also no one has provided any information about other two sentences, hence need NPOV.

1. A substantial Buddhist community that rivalled the Hindus would remain in Pakistan until the Islamic conquests. Please refer WP:NOR. 2. With the ascent of the Gupta Dynasty, many Buddhists were returned to the Hindu fold in India Please refer Shunga Empire WP:NOR.

Hence I would request neutral party to get involved and provide their opinion. Until then, my request, NPOV status should be maintained.--Bodhidhamma 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist history would be axed from this page
"According to some Hindu beliefs Buddha was the ninth Avatara of Vishnu" How could practicing budhhist person's beliefs are less important than those who are not buddhist?

As I have described in following thread please come up with valid references or delete this section. Do not use weasel words. Every sentence and word you provide in any encyclopedia/wikipedia has to be validated/prooven in case there is a dispute please refer weasel verifiable. Again I use this path to proov my POV, perception,inference and valid testimony and expect other to follows the same. No hypocrisy please.


 * Buddha is discussed as an avatar of vishnu in Agni Purana, Varaha Purana, Bhagavata Purana,, Garuda Purana, Matsya Purana. So, i am removing your objection for the moment from the article.nids(&#9794;) 23:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nidhi- again I am not talking about your purana's I respect your puranas cause you believe in it even though I do not believe it. This is 21st century. Science believes in perception,inference and valid testimony. Please read the questions properly and try to answer them. If you do not understand/have knowledge keep yourself away. This is wikipedia and everyone has a right to present their views. Please site the reference if you have about Buddha Purana and the document should be validated by buddhist scolars. --Bodhidhamma 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please learn to distinguish between belief and fact. The Buddha/Vishnu thing is listed in the article as a point of written scripture. None of us are making any statements about actual truth here. The truth is that it is written in Pauranic scripture.Belief is not the issue here at all.Hkelkar 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please understand other POV. If I say our community believes in something contradictory to the religion you follow, whos belief would have more credibility? If buddhist believe that Buddha wasnt an avatara of vishnu, how can you publish others views as beliefs who do not even practice that religion? Has buddha ever said in any documents that he is an avatara of Vishnu? Has any Buddhist monk ever wrote that Buddha was Avatara of vishnu? then how it matters what others who does not follow that religion say? (Yes, I have a "birth certificate" from village office. Stupid arugument !!!::All this is irrelevant. We are not talking about Buddhism here but it's connection with Hinduism. IF you have any documented evidence that Buddha/Vishnu connection is disputed then plz cite. Until then, the fact remains that the Puranas say that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu and it is stated as such. Removal of this is, therefore, a vandalism of sourced edit. We are not here to debate theology but report the facts.Hkelkar 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

''Everyone knows Budha has born to Hindu parents. So, what evidence you need to understand "Budhist History" is part of "Hindu History".''

The idea of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is hinted at in the Buddhist texts as I understand it. The Buddha is described as a "Maha-Purusha" in the Digha Nikaya, in Pali: Lakkhana Sutta and here the Buddha is described as having the 32 signs of a great man or maha-purusha. In other suttas, it is said that he is a maha-purusa. The idea of the Mahapurusha is found in the Vedas in the Purusha sukta, which is sang as a paean to Vishnu.

In Buddhism, the Purusha idea is similar to the Vedic one found in the Purusha Sukta. An example is in the Anupada Sutta, where Buddha calls Sariputra, his true son born of his speech.

The idea of Buddha not only as a "Mahapurusha" but as Vishnu is also found in Buddhist texts like the Buddha Charita by Ashvaghosha where Siddharta's wife, Yashodhara is called in another name for Laxmi or the Goddess of wealth, who is generally considered the consort of Vishnu.

The Buddha is shown as superior to Brahma the creator and shown bowing down to him in Buddhist scriptures, only Vishnu and Shiva are considered superior beings. Also, the Buddha's emphasis on the characteristic of 'truth guna', sat, as amongst all deities, only Vishnu is 'sat' truth and is wholly identified with teaching and protecting the Dharma, sharana too is identified with the Buddha and is a characteristic of Vishnu in Vedic tradition. It is also because of this that Buddhism had such a huge following in India so quickly.

It is one of the great tragedies of Indian history that Buddhism fizzled out in India because Buddhists and Hindus are cousins really, but that's how it is now...

Actually, I went to Korea once about 5 years ago and talked to many Buddhists in Seoul. Most of the monks there are aware of these origins of Buddha/Vishnu (they refer to Vishnu simply as "deva").Hkelkar 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

HKelkar,I appreciate your efforts. But I feel, you are contridicting with your own words. Are you saying it is a hindu belief or "Fact". Also I am saying that I never found any document to clearly describe Buddha as Vishnu's avatara. All the message you have written is irrelevant as it is still unable to describe how buddha can be called Visnhu's Avatara? There is no documentation which specifically says "Buddha is an Avatara of Vishnu". For example Garuda purana can be pointed as a document describing Garuda as an avatara of Vishnu. Again refernce to purusha theory you are describing here is completely wrong. Please read sankhya philosophy to understand what "Purusha" means. Sankhya philosophy does not believe in GOD or the extreme creator/destroyer. The purusha you are talking about in reference to Buddha is actually reffered to Kapila's concept of purusha (Tejas, Rajas and Tamas.) In Kapila's concept Rajas is inteprrted as Purusha which is basically element with trishna causing the universe to go in a dynamic from its static state and not Vishnu or Shankara or Brahma. Those are vedic interpritations of Purusha and not buddhist. --Bodhidhamma 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are rehashing old arguments that have been adequately refuted. Try to think of some new ones.Hkelkar 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. HKelkar, If you cannot proove it please remove those comments from the article. Dont continue with irrelavent arguments. There is no such proof that Buddha can be called as Vishnu hence This line should go so the other lines which are not possible to validate. Give proper reference insted of vadic jargon. Again, I follow this path perception,inference and valid testimony to validate any concept. If it does not fit in it, the concept should be scrapped

We had our own perception, we tried to infer we have difference in opinion which demands valid testimony since niether you nor I have any document which specifially mentions Buddha as an avatara, this line remains baseless hence it should be axed. --Bodhidhamma 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Might want to read WP:SNOW.Hkelkar 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguing with you is clearly a waste of my time.Bottom line is that any vandalism of this article and a joint RfA will be filed against the vandal.Hkelkar 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again you are accusing and threatening others. Please do not continue with your atocratic tactics. Please accept that, we have difference in opinion, we agree to disagree. I would get third party involved and try to resolve this discussion in peaceful manners. As I said people get angry when they do not have answer and those who do not have answers are mostly hypocrites --Bodhidhamma 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Buddha is mentioned in many hindu scriptures as an avatara of Lord Vishnu (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatara_of_Vishnu, Buddha in Puranic Scripture). Do not forget to see the references at the bottom. Not only that, Buddha is reported as an avatara of Lord Vishnu even in buddhist scriptures. I will try to get you the references as soon as possible. Please also note that there is a Wiki policy that not everything has to have sources if the matter is common knowledge. You must remember that most hindus are not Buddha-haters but Buddha-lovers, like Gandhi, Radhakrishnan, and a nobody like myself. How does it matter if some medeaval puranas mention him as an anti-avatara. Please also tell me why what hindus think about Buddha has to be validated by Buddhist scholars? Aupmanyav 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rama is considered as an avatara of Buddha in Laos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pra_Lak_Pra_Lam). Aupmanyav 11:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * People who say budh history is not a hindu history,should delet the irani people page,(grater iran)greek kingdom page.Present the irani people are muslim and the whole of central asian people are reffred as irani people due to ther culture laungauge from ancient time to present.The greek living in western part of ancient india are referred as indo greek and they are mention in the greek people history page.Although they were religiously some time hindu or budh samething about kushan rulers.why double stander. when writing hindu history one has to mention only the king who where hindu by religion and when writing Iraini history or greek history then one follow both religion past,present and culture.Hindu and budh is not a diffrent religion atlest in india.If someone say budh is ncarnation of vishnu then what is the problem.I haven"t goen through such a childish talk people asking for reffrences and relibale sourse of what,God, of some people"s faith on budha for saying him incarnation of vishnu can enything be proved related to god or faith.--Nkatyan (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please give explnation why History of buddhism should be part of Histoy of Hinduism?
I have deleted the part related to buddhism as it is not part of history of Hiduism. Please do not delete the thread without explaning. Please provide references. Mr. Kelkar. Please come forward with your explanations before deleting anything. Give me one Hidu Kings name who ruled the region you are saying part of Hindu(?) Kingdom? The regions you are showing were ruled by either Buddhist Kings or Jain Kings. Shuga was the only Brahmin King, you will find more information at Shuga Dynasty.

Unless you define "Who the Hindu is?" this article is useless and meaning less.

May I use Mr Kelkar's words here?

This article is, as it stands, complete hatemongering nonsense. It is full of unsourced rubbish and weasel words. I am warning all parties that if they persist in using wikipedia as a soapbox to express false views I will bring admins into this matter and file a full request for arbitration. Please cooperate to build an objective and useful article that presents the facts without POV

Thanks
 * The history of Hinduism and Buddhism in India are inextricably intertwined. One cannot mention one without mentioning the other. Buddhism evolved from Hinduism in India into a separate religion.If you remove pertinent information any further it will be vandalism and treated accordingly. Plus, I also ask Dhammafriend here to look at WP:Sockpuppetry again.Hkelkar 13:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Kelkar, Unless you come up with valid, credible references I would not allow you to publish Histoy of Buddhism as a Part OF history of Hinduism. Those are two diffrent religions. Please give explanation. Why do you think Buddha was Vishnu's avatara? Is there any proof? Is there any document to support your claim?

About DhammaFriend. We are Dhamma Brothers one lives in Germany and other in USA. If it pleases you please go forward and complain to Wikipedia. But I will not allow you to provide false information to the world.
 * And I will get you censured for putterring garbage like your meatpuppet Dhammafriend.
 * As for definition of a Hindu, look at Hindu.Hkelkar 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That definition is incomplete and it is always difficult to address somebody as Hindu. Can you explain what is Shiva Lingam in more details ? Truthlover 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Truthlover As geranly thought shiv ling or ligiam is not varshiping privet part of shiv.In hindi ling is sometime used for reffrence of somethin or to a group.Hindi for male(man) is purush ling and for female (women)sthri ling.so ling mean gender not pravite part here.Shiv is said adi dev adi mean old and ther are avidance of shiv worship from pre history time.No wender then people worshilped shiv as stone and in recored history time when shiv by imagin get mythical story the worship of shiv as primitive form still exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Kelkar. Please stop threatening others. What you can do, others also can do with you. That is not what I want to proove.

Please come up with valid references before you add Buddist Histoy to Hindu History. Unless you provide proofs I will not allow you to publish wrong information.


 * Hkelkar you are doing personal attacks agains others. As well as be polite in your language. Don't use always threatening words. Truthlover 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The central concepts of Buddhism such as Nirvana, Moksha, cycle of births etc. were adapted from Hinduism for the common masses by Gautama Buddha. Buddhism's history MUST be included, as its very creation was due to a rennaissance in the thought of Buddha. He rejected the absolute authority of the priests and condemmned their ill-practices.


 * Just as Protestantism must be mentioned in the history of Christianity, so must Buddhism be mentioned in the history of Hinduism. IAF
 * But I have objections to these sentences which does not have any credible evidence/proofs/references
 * 1. "According to some Hindu beliefs Buddha was the ninth Avatara of Vishnu."

On what basis you are saying this? Why Mahavira (Jain founder) is not considered Avatara? What is the criteria to declare a person an avatara.? There are no supporting documents to claim that Buddha was an avatara of Vishnu? Niether He nor any of the monks ever wrote that. Milinda's Prashna' is an authorative document in these matters. All buddist refer to this document.
 * 2. "With the ascent of the Gupta Dynasty, many Buddhists were returned to the Hindu fold in India, as Hindus adopted many of the teachings of the Buddha such as non-violence to all life, vegetarianism and proper treatment of fellow men." This sentense to completely wrong/fabricated. Please read Sunga Empirefor reference. Buddhist did not return but they were made to do so by killing/torturing/burning the monks.
 * 3. "A substantial Buddhist community that rivalled the Hindus would remain in Pakistan until the Islamic conquests. Now this sentnce is again fabricated. How one can one claim that without specific data? On what basis this claim is made. What about buddhist those are in laddakh? Those were in deccan/orissa?
 * For all these reasons I would like to get this paragraph out of this page. This is totally against the thoughts the rising Buddhist Movement in India.
 * We will not deny you publishing information related to buddhism but that has to be validated/prooved, Based upon perception,inference and valid testimony, A Buddhist way accepting/denying any philosphy/history.--Bodhidhamma 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Boddhidhamma you are stuck at the avatara point. For the time-being just remove it from your mind. Now what about Nirvana, Moksha, and Cycles of birth ? You will surely agree that these ideas existed before Gautama Buddha, and therin lies the reason why Buddhism must be included in the History of Hinduism. IAF
 * On what basis you are saying this? Why Mahavira (Jain founder) is not considered Avatara? What is the criteria to declare a person an avatara.? There are no supporting documents to claim that Buddha was an avatara of Vishnu? Niether He nor any of the monks ever wrote that.


 * IAF. I am not stuck at that point. I like to get every point resolved one by one. If you start arguing on each and every point at the same time you cannt not have valuable conversation and turns out to be nonsence. This is what I follow: Identify the disputed section. Divide the section in different separable points and argue every point one by one by referncing previous points and reliable supporintg resource to that point.:-) --Bodhidhamma 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was really unfortunate that Mahavira was not taken as an avatara of Lord Vishnu (actually perhaps being the elder contemporary of Buddha, he should have been taken in as the ninth avatara and Buddha the tenth, in that way people would not have to wait for Kalki). I hope future puranas take care of that (after all puranas have been written in various times by various people). I also hope that the later puranas would also consider the strong candidature of Guru Nanak, Sant Kabir, and Mahatma Gandhi. It is something like Nobel Prize, Einstein came out with the theory of Special Relativity in 1905, but that was recognized in 1921. And, plese note that their are various kinds of avataras, there are amshavataras and leela avataras, etc. And if you go by 'advaita', all humans, all animals, all vegetation, all stones, are avataras of the universal substrate, the Brahman, you too are (Tat twam asi). No one can have any claim on how hindus consider their religion. We would not need any approval from Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh jathedars. That is solely our business. We are not forcing you to anything. Aupmanyav 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

...I don"t know from where you get all this thing.Hindu is a modern term for people living in south asia.Present it is reffered to a specific people and there religion.Hindu is not a Religion as budha naver said he is preaching a religion how can he? as there is no word for religion in india(hindu\budh\jain\sikh, religion.--Nkatyan (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reign of Shivaji is really off-topic
I like Shivaji as much as the next fellow, but what's the relevance here? The section Reign of Shivaji never even mentions Hinduism. Can someone edit to specify the connection to the History of Hinduism? Otherwise, this section should be deleted. --Nemonoman 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WIthout him, Hinduism would probably would have become like zohorastism in India and today India would be and Islamic republic. --Dangerous-Boy 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this speculation, then you should include it in order to clarify the reason for including the topic at all. Frankly, I think your speculation is very doubtful. Hinduism had survived for several centuries before Shivaji, survived throughout India, including areas where Shivaji had no direct influence, survived greater oppression (in my view) from Christian invaders.

Your comments seem to suggest that Hinduism is a very fragile faith, easily overwhelmed by Islam. Based on its history as I understand it, the opposite is the case. Hinduism influenced Indian Islam signficantly.

Further (despite attempts to revise his history), Shivaji's government was very inclusive and ecumenical.

Shivaji was a great hero, and of incalculable importance to Indian history...but this point, no one has established his relevance to this article. Surely you can come up with more reason for him to be included than 'Hinduism would probably have become like zohorastism'. --Nemonoman 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said Hinduism was fragile. Shivanji was fighting Aurangzeb.  He was a hardcore muslim.  The muslim rulers before him were much more liberal.  IF there was no shivanji, there still would have been fight for Hinduism's survival because utlimately Hinduism have become like zohoarastinism in iran.  I just haven't gotten around to write the stuff about him.  I mostly emulated the article around the buddhism one. --Dangerous-Boy 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been studying the interactions of Shivaji and Aurangzeb for more than 22 years, and my novel based loosely on the early years of that conflict comes out next year  [Title and publisher removed, described below by Dangerous Boy as offensive self-promotion] . So I'm fairly familiar with the period.

You are voicing a point of view that is rather fashionable these days. It's my considered view, and the view of many historians, that there was a strong political component to Aurangzeb's actions, and that the most repressive of his activities was focussed on stifling Shivaji's rebellion, not to stamping out Hinduism. Hinduism thrived in other parts of Aurangzeb's empire, and his main allies were Hindu.

I would suggest that without some SPECIFIC tie in, the Shivaji section is IRRELEVANT to the history of Hinduism.
 * Or it is good enough at the most for a small paragraph in the article. Shivaji fought with Aurangazeb for 22 years out of the Hindu history of something like 9000 years (remember, Mehrgarh with possible Harappan and Hindu culture in Baluchistan). We should not loose perspective. Aupmanyav 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above mentioned topic "Reign of Shivaji" needs either more information to be added in or should be completely removed. As discussed it needs mention of how Shivaji stimulated the unity of Hindus for the fight against Muslim Mughals. It also needs a perspective into Shivaji's life- being a devout worshipper of Shiva and also on how he saved a Muslim princess' life. --Venkgo 09:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That I suppose belongs to the individual page on Shivaji. Though as a hindu, Shivaji and Pratap are very important to us. Aupmanyav 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Section needs rework
My comments about Shivaji above apply also to the "Islamic Invasion" and "Goa Inquisition" sections.

The "Islamic Invasion" describes primarily the spread of ISLAM in the subcontinent. The relevance of this passage to Hinduism is not clear.

The link to Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them is ham-handed and suggests extreme POV. That book's scholarship is extremely doubtful and not accepted by most mainstream scholars.

There are PLENTY of specific, highly documented examples of Hindu temple destruction by Aurangzeb and other Mughals, however. If that's what you want the section to be about, use THOSE examples.

Also what is the point of the GOA INQUISTION section as relates to Hindu History? It's got its own article, which should probably be referenced. In the 3000+ year history of Hinduism, it's a footnote at best.

Except for the Bhakti movement, did nothing notable happen between 13th and 20th Centuries in the History of Hinduism??

Do you really need a Westerner to write this section? Holy cow! --Nemonoman 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. I saw what you did on the Aurangzeb and most people seemed to be disagreeing with.  I don't know whether you're trying to start trouble of some kind.  The goa inguistion is important.  Most Hindus don't know anything about it.  Also wikipedia is not about promoting your book.  please refrain from that.  Also, many people would disagree with about shivanji's role in Hinduism.  I don't think we need a westerner to write this section since many of us are westerners.--Dangerous-Boy 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks. I haven't been disinvited to participate so insultingly before. Makes me feel like a real Wikipedian.

I saw what you did on the Aurangzeb and most people seemed to be disagreeing with.

Please specify your concerns. On my talk page please, or the Aurangzeb talk page, since I will no longer be watching this page.

I might point out the numerous concerns about your own edits as seen on your talk page.

If you think the History of Hinduism is the place to promote your agenda, so be it. I assumed that some scholarship might be helpful, but you clearly prefer none. Thanks for your invitation to butt out, which I accept. I'm outty. Have a good time. PS at some point, you might want to consider investing in a book on basic English grammar. --Nemonoman 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Except for the Bhakti movement, did nothing notable happen between 13th and 20th Centuries in the History of Hinduism?': Why should you belittle Bhakti movement in this way, if not only in ignorance. Bhakti movement was not something in a vaccum, it had its philosophy and criticism (tarka - I suppose there were great proponents of 'tarka' in Bengal). I follow 'gnana' but it would not be 'gnana' to dismiss Bhakti in this way. Aupmanyav 08:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Searching for Hinduism roots and dating Vedas and Rama
Hinduism is a direct descendant of the Vedic Religion as well as that of the other indigenous religious beliefs. The Vedas date to 6000 BC (B.G.Tilak - Aditi Period). Harappan civilization (if it was Hinduism) is eqally old (Mehrgarh in Balochistan dates from 7000 BC). We cannot date the story of Rama which is not Aryan but from indigenous religious beliefs in any way that I know of. The tradition, most probably, was oral before being put in Sanskrit form by Valmiki. Aupmanyav 11:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ... putting the composition of the Vedas 8000 years ago means that the ultimate ancestor of Vedic Sanskrit, Proto-Indo-European, would have to have been spoken about 11,000 - 12,000 years ago. Which is basically impossible - Proto-Indo-European contains pretty solid reconstructions for words such as "wheel", and others related to metal work. These innovations did not occur until much much later. --Krsont 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is true. I do not find any break in either the Aryan or the Hindu traditions though many successive changes are present. The Aryan tradition may belong to last inter-glacial period (Avesta mentions a deluge by snow). It was an oral tradition and there were additions throughout the ages, the language and location changed repeatedly, till the time RigVeda was codified, location and language then changed again. Nothing much can be said about the indigenous Hindu tradition till now. Basically I believe both to be aboriginal traditions, like those of the Australian aboriginals. Would you hesitate to date the Australian tradition to be more than 10,000 years old? Then, why this hesitation in case of Aryans or Hindus? Why should these traditions date just from 1500 B.C.? After all, Homo Sapiens Sapiens came to India more than 60-70,000 years ago. Aupmanyav 08:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * most Indians are basically descendents of the people who settled India 60,000 years ago, just as the Australian Aboriginals are basically the descendents of the people who settled Australia 70,000 years ago, and most Europeans are basically the descendents of the people who settled Europe 50,000 years ago. You can discuss this at human migration or mtDNA. This has nothing to do with texts, language, traditions or Hinduism. Simply nothing. So why burden this talkpage with such offtopic tangents. dab (&#5839;) 12:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hinduism is the belief and culture of the descendants of those people. Aupmanyav 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * of some of their descendants. a very silly point. it is also the belief of some of the descendants of Homo habilis, of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and of Archaeothyris. What does this have to do with Hinduism again? dab (&#5839;) 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism, just Vedic?
I have been able to change (with peoples' consent) information on Hindu and Hinduism page which says that Hinduism derives only from the Vedas. Actually Hinduism is the belief of many traditions of people in India in which the Aryan tradition also got assimilated. Aryans perhaps started coming to India before 3000 B.C. after their initial contact with Indian people (Hindus) in Uttarapatha (Central Asia). The Madras of Punjab came from Uttar Madra and Kauravas came from Uttar Kuru (please find information on relevant Wiki pages). These Aryans assimilated completely with the Indian people and no pure blue blood Aryan is to be found now. So Aryan heritage is just one part of the Hindu mix and not the whole of it. Hinduism is not just Vedic, it is Tamil, Harappan, Sindhi, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, etc. also. Hindus and assimilated Aryans demoted the Aryans Gods and worship Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti today. Thanks Aupmanyav 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead.--D-Boy 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with Hindu pages are the Neo-Aryans. Hinduism is Aryan, Aryans were Indians, Hinduism is monism. Hinduism is more than what you think, and Aryans were more than what you think, India is more than what Aryans were. Please come out of your narrow view points and let us make Hinduism pages without bias, informative and a delight to read. Aupmanyav 04:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * O_O? Are you talking to me?--D-Boy 07:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you a Neo-Aryan? Well, in general, not particularly to you. You accepted my suggestion for a change, you do not seem to be a Neo-Aryan. Regards. Aupmanyav 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * what steaming, undiluted gibberish. dab (&#5839;) 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Steaming, undiluted gibberish! I was trying to turn away people from their Aryan fixation. BTW, would you care to reply to some points I have raised in talk:Vedas, or you would also give the standard answer, 'not accepted by most scholars, monority view'? I humbly want to ask if it is OK not to consider facts and dismiss them summarily as minority views, no progress can be made this way. Aupmanyav 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't ascribe to Hinduism being purely Aryan. Sure Aryan ideas formed the core and even the led the social set up while they dominated the ganges but after that I beleive it got really transformed in the gangetic plains with the rise of the Buddhist political power and influence etc. Add to this the syncretism and ideas and philosphies that flowed in across the greco and persian realms past the decline of the power of the north and the transfer of power from the gangetic plains to the southern tips and the fading of buddhism and onto islamic rules and british political policies etc etc. Again these were long historically processes spanning centuries not any overnight action and lacking a single source or even central political authorities like the pope or the caliphs I am not even sure it began to crystallize until the British tried to organize it to understand it. That all being said, this is Wikipedia and that means No original research we can only source information from sources that have actually been peer reviewed and accepted by the majority view of academia or in a pinch due to not too much information being available I suppose be reasonably reviewed or authentically sourced, since majority view may not be formed on something that has not been heavily exposed as yet to the rigors of analysis so we walk a fine line here.--Tigeroo 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Aryans who did affect Hinduism greatly; and Buddhists, Greeks, Persians, Islam, and British, who had a minimal affect on Hinduism; but you did not mention the bulk of people residing in India before the Aryans with their myriad Gods and Goddesses including Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti; who are at the core of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"So Aryan heritage is just one part of the Hindu mix and not the whole of it. Hinduism is not just Vedic, it is Tamil, Harappan, Sindhi, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, etc. also."

--- This is one of the most ridiculuos statements I have read. What do you mean by Vedic ? What do you mean it is Marathi, Sindhi, Bengali, etc. Marathi culture, Bangla culture and other cultures developed from Aryan-Vedic cultures only. How can there be a developed culture before a parent culture and how can it be different from it. I guess some Hindutvavadis are trying extremely hard to portray Hinduism as monolithic religion which it is not, and Hindu people as a single race, which they are certainly NOT. It is not that there are people of only two origin here viz. Indo-Aryans and Dravidians. No, it is not. There are other different origins as well, in large numbers, esp. Indo-Scythians in Rajputs and Jats, Mongoloids in Assamese and Bengali, White Huns in Gujaratis, Caucasians in general, Iranian/Nurestani as well. So my request to certain fanatics is - Don't tamper with history for your own purposes.

-- N R S(talk to me, mail me   or award me a barnstar) 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't tamper with history for your own purposes. Any evidence?--Babub→ Talk 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But my friend, this is exactly what I am trying to portray that Vedic thought was not the only parent. You always need two. What about some 90% of the people who lived in Southern and Eastern parts of India? Do you mean to say that today's Hinduism has no influence of their beliefs? What about Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu who are only cursorily mentioned in Vedas (most probably later interpolations) but make the major Gods today in Hinduism. The people that make the population of India are of many origins, we know about Aryans, Scythians, Gurjaras, Ahirs, various Rajput clans, Greeks, Parthians, Pahlavas, Mongols, Kushans, and Huns. These people accepted Hinduism and settled in India. There may be many more before them who might have come to India but we do not know them as yet. And who says that Hinduism is a monolithic religion, it has many colours, polytheists, dualists, monists, karmakandis, and even Atheists (like me). (No, I am not looking for barnstars) Aupmanyav 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are Dravidians?
I have been asking this question in Hindu/Hinduism pages. Would anyone please let me know who are the people who may be termed as Dravidians, who called them dravidians. and where are they referred to in history (not by Christian missionaries or followers of Shri B. R. Ambedkar). Remember Wikipedia does not want opinions but proof. Aupmanyav 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * a lot south indians.--D-Boy 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A very general answer not satisfying Wiki requirements. Padmapuran mentions Dakshina and Dravidas separately (see talk:Hindu). Aupmanyav 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * simple. Dravidians are speakers of Dravidian languages. dab (&#5839;) 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dravidians are the South Indians of India from Tamil-Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. They are believed to be the direct descendents of the Indus-valley peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAF (talk • contribs)


 * Historically, they are the early inhabitants of India who were pushed southward during the Aryan migration. GizzaChat  &#169; 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you say that Indus Valley people were these dravidians, whose guess? Panchadravids include Gurjaras and Maharashtrians? Aupmanyav 02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan or Dravidian origin dispute

Can we get over this fixation and dispute about Aryan or Dravidian culture ? Hinduism is parcticed mainly in India and all those people who practice it outside India today have Indian lineage. Ther is no trace so far of practice of Hindu philosophy in any of the excavations in any part of the world. There are some similarities in practice of variety of gods (Greek mythology) or Fire worship (Zorashtrian)in some other part of the world and this can be just coincidence and independantly developed. Two different societiies can independantly develop such simple practices. I think we need to concentrate on other evidences, mostly drawn from the vedas and puranas themselves. The vedas / scriptures do not talk about Aryan or Dravidian culture. Puranas do talk about Jamboo Dweepam (Asia) and Bharatha Varsham, other similar divisions of continent of Asia and also other 6 continents. There would have been mention, in cse there were movement of people from to another. There is also mention that Manu of the present Manwanthara was a Dravida King (Sathyavratha). K.N.Ramanathan
 * That is no problem for hindus, Mr. Ramanathan, we are so thoroughly intermixed here, fair colour and thick lips, dark colour and thin lips, it is futile to trace origins. This was to silence those who delight in divide. But one cannot dispute the fact that many tribes from Central Asia came to India and adopted Hinduism, including the Aryans. It is certainly not coincidence or independent development. BTW, even the next Indra also is going to be a dravida, he being King Mahabali of Kerala. Aupmanyav 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Hinduism
Hinduism has evolved over centuries or even Millenium. Hindu Puranas (The 18 Puranas)have to be read as historic recordings over various Millenia. Hindu puranas talk about Pralaya or destruction of whole civilization many times over. The order of creation explained in Hindu texts broadly matches the present day theories of evolution (first creation of matter from energy, and then over billions of years, creation of single cell life forms, intelligence or budhi tathwam or Mahatathwam as it is called and then the various sensory organs and the media like direction air and sound or sight adnlight or selse of touch and skin etc. and then to higher level of life forms). The scriptures have also kept track of the time evolved. We are presently in the second Parardha (an eighteen digit number) of the Padma Kalpa. The first creation was in Brahma Kalpa when the big bang occured and the universe was created. There are 14 Manvanthara in each Kalpa and in each Manvanthara there are 71 cycles of Chathur Yuga (Kritha yugam, Thretha Yugam, Dwapara yugam, and Kali yugam.)At the end of each cycle of Chathur Yugam, there is loss of civilization either in part or in full. Many inventions will be lost. But vague indications of achievements may be left behind as stories. The puranic recordings show continuity. All of them talk about Vedas being handed over from generation to generation through oral or verbal transmission. Only a handful of people carried this message. Many times over the vedic messages or meanings have been lost or misinterpreted. Vedas themselves are like Wikipedia, and written or verse narrated / created by a number of saints or rishis. Upanishads are explanation of the Truth in the Vedas by the desciples of the Rishis. The Epics and Puranas are examples of practice of Vedic rituals and beliefs. These should not be read in bits and pieces. They have to be taken together. According to Hindu scriptures, destruction of civilization takes place when ever the natural balance is totally disturbed. en we will ealise that Archeological excavations may not be in a position to guage the antiquity or age of these scriptures. Do we have methods today to go deep enough over milleniums. Do we believe that material used over 10 or 12 Millenium will still be available as materials or utensils even after the earth has been subjected to numerous floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other pressures. Many organic materials have been converted to Hydrocarbons. Why we cannot accept the dates and history given in the Puranas.

I suggest that we write two versions side by side 1) based on the historic evidence collected through excavations or as interpreted by so called experts with todays' limited knowledge (all Hindu scriptures are in Sanskrit and there is no evidence in any excavation of sanskrit script being found in Mohanjadaro or Harappa or Saraswathi river bed)and 2) based on the evolution and antiquity explalined in the Hindu scriptures and also the time frame indicated there-in from begining of creation to present date. Hindu scriptures are the oldest social or religious information we have about humanity. This may also be History of human civilization and not of Hindus of today. Who knows as to whether Hinduism started in present day Americas or Africas and not in India. Humanity will develop enough expertice and knowledge one day to correctly guage the age of earth. K.N.R.--K.N.Ramanathan 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board"
 * Scholars do not know if the language of Indus valley civilisation was Sanskrit or not. The script remains undeciphered despite various claims. Aupmanyav 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Invasion Section
I propose the following text to replace the entirety of the current material in this section. Why? Because the section is badly written style-wise and I beleive the current material deals mostly by examples for which there are many exceptions and a more over-arching approach is required to summarize the 1000 or so years that I beleive it is attempting to cover. Please help me make the


 * Islamic rulers began to extend their rule across Hindu populated lands in the 8th century CE and Islam began to spread across the Indian-subcontinent over several centuries. Most converts were from Hinduism or Buddhism; the two dominant local religions. The prime drivers attributed to the conversions are: duress, political expediency, oppressive legal/ legislative climate, oppressive caste structure, jizya, Sufi missionaries, inter-marraige and immigration from other Islamic lands. Many of the new muslim rulers looked down upon Hindu Iconodulistic religious practices. and were to various degrees iconoclastic. In times of conflict they also took also took the liberty to sack Hindu temples, which were repositaries of significant wealth.

Also I do not beleive quotations from Will Durant, K.S. Lal or to a particular book are appropiate in the context of this section and article, because that would mean you would have to provide space to their critics, detractors, debates (the other side of the coin) which in this case just diverges from the article theme.

Which brings me the next point what is the point of this section vis-a-vis hinduism as a relgion and belief. At the moment this article reads just like a historical summary. Some things I can think of are which are more pertinent to the development of this section in this article:


 * Temple Destruction
 * Syncretism/ Reaction to a new moral code

--194.170.10.119 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can help improve the article, go ahead. Don't forget the citations and references when you do.  Why don't you obtain a user name and log in?--D-Boy 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Map
I find it strange that Philippines is shown to be having Hindu influence, which I do not think is correct; and Central Asian countries Uzbekinstan, Turkmenistan, Tajdhikistan left out. These are the countries where Aryans remained for a long time writing their RigVedic verses (perhaps RigVeda was codified there for the first time), and where they met with the Hindu thought for the first time. Aupmanyav 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kid, first get your basics right, then try to find things strange. Philippines is a country with a strong Hindu heritage. The people of Phillipines were Hindu until they were converted by Spaniards into Christianity. Kid, read this article- Hinduism in the Philippines. You'll know why Phillipines has a Hindu influence. As for Central Asian countries, yeah, we need to add them
 * (who wants to give you a barnstar ?)


 * -- N R S(talk to me, mail me   or award me a barnstar) 18:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Barnstars, at least I am not asking for them. I would agree about Hindu influence in Philippines, though the evidence is not very strong. They were certainly neighbours. Aupmanyav 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs references
The entire article needs a lot of references and sources. I'll add whatever I have.--Babub→ Talk 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism that began with Vedic religious practices is at the most 4000-4500 years old or in other words, it began about 2000-2500 B.C. Please remove all the extreme right-wing statements from that article. IAF
 * Babub, I disagree that Hinduism is 9000 years old. This is just false.


 * You are welcome to point out any such "extreme-right wing" stuff and even edit them :) Also, always give references. --Babub→ Talk 08:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not what you call "extreme-right wing stuff". It is simple. You need to understand that when the Aryans came to India they encountered a strong indigenous philosophy, the one which assimilated them and finally absorbed them (made them forget Indra and worship Shiva and Vishnu). So, the indigenous philosophy was older than the time when Aryans met it, first in Central Asia (Uttarapatha), and later in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Now, what date you give to coming of Aryans? They were fighting probably the Mahabharata War in 3,102 BCE. That is why it is no exaggeration to think that Hindu religion (indigenous philosophy) may be 9000 year old or more. Aupmanyav 13:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I do not agree with your views Aupmanyav and Babub. They are just not true. Both of you are on one extreme, while Dbachmann was on the other extreme. Vedic religious practices date to at the most 2000 BC, and not 4000 BC. When the Aryans came to India, Shiva DID NOT EXIST in the local pantheon or cult. The assimilation theory can be said about Kushans, Shungas etc. but not to the Aryans. IAF
 * I am in no way extreme. I merely insist that the academic mainstream is given prominence on Wikipedia, regardless on whether I agree with it or not. Most of the time, checking sources, I find myself convinced by the reasoning behind academic mainstream opinion. There are too many editors who obviously have no grasp of the concept of academia, and think they must be experts because they are from somewhere, which is of course an extremely stupid and rather dangerous mistake. IAF is right here, but it should be added that there were likely local predecessors of Shiva (not called "Shiva", obviously), and especially popular rituals such as those of the Atharvaveda may well have a strong indigenous (pre-Aryan) component. The 3102 BC date is purely legendary of course, calculated I believe in the 5th century AD. IAF's 2000 BC date is a reasonable upper limit. dab (&#5839;) 11:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dab, what makes you think that the local 'predecessor/s' was not called Shiva (which incorporated the Vedic Rudra) and does not the pre-ponderance of Vishnu and His avataras (especially Rama and Krishna) in Hinduism and His scant references in the Vedas point again to a pre-Vedic Vishnu? Same for Shakti. Aupmanyav 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * IAF, no assimilation with Aryans. So, did they remain separate, where are they now? And, if Shiva did not exist in India at that time, where did it come from? You do not accept it to be either Hindu or Aryan. Who destroyed Daksha's yagna, beheaded him, gave him a goat's head, and broke God Pusha's teeth? Hinduism was there before the Aryan thought joined it. I maintain that Aryan philosophy is extremely old and is older than the time when sun rose in Aditi (Punarvasu) on the day of Vernal equinox (6000 BC). The equinox is then clearly recorded to regress progressively to Mrigashiras, Krittikas, and Ashwini. Aupmanyav 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dab/IAF, Aryans were surely well settled in India around 1900 BC when River Saraswati had not disappeared. That is why some of them who lived in that region were known as 'Saraswats'. So can it be taken that Aryans came to India about 5000 years ago? Aupmanyav 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "think they must be experts because they are from somewhere, which is of course an extremely stupid and rather dangerous mistake" *sigh* I assume this refers to me and other editors who don't see anything wrong in citing Indian authors (they're not all evil,you know). Indian academia is also a pretty serious business. We have the largest number of universities in the world. I, personally, have no qualms in citing any author even if he be from Mars (to use dab's own words). No serious academic has *actually* challenged the accounts/theories by the authors I usually quote. They are pretty much mainstream here in India. If you think there was never any intellectual life ever in India before our colonial cousins came, see Students at Takshashila University, founded in Taxila (Ancient India) from around the 7th century BC, were given academic titles after graduating from one of its many courses. Nalanda University, founded in Bihar (India) from around the 5th century BC, also gave academic titles to its graduates, while also offering post-graduate courses
 * andThe ancient cities of Takshashila, Nalanda, Vikramasila, and Kanchipura in ancient India were greatly reputed centres of learning in the east, with students from all over Asia. In particular, Nalanda was a famous center of Buddhist scholarship, and as such it attracted thousands of Buddhist scholars from China, East Asia, Central Asia and South-East Asia, while also attracting many students from Persia and the Middle East.
 * from the University article.--Babub→ Talk 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Babub, forget Taxila, Nalanda, Vikramsila, and Kanchipura; they spoil the force of your argument. Aupmanyav 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just quoting, I'm not trying to argue anything here. --Babub→ Talk 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

no consistency
this page mentions hinduism to be the largest polytheistic religion in the world while hinduism page mentions hinduism to be monotheistic religion. can we be consistent here. nids 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

history section
changed the history section slightly. the astronomy is not supported by mainstream archeologists as the religious textbooks for sure, do not give exact locations of the stars in any of the text. You not only need the exact location of the stars down to the one hundredth of a degree, you need the correct conversion from the ancient units to current units, you need the exact time the event occured and the exact location. Not only that, the error is still quite wide. AS a result!!! it is impossible to predict the date of the birth of a certain god from religious textbooks that mention only one or two lines on the star position. And for sure, these religious texts are not using units of time that are even equivalent to our unit of time or even gives an exact location. 75.9.38.198 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Defination of Hindu?
Please provide defination of Hindu, before writing this article.

Things you have written in this article are already covered in History of India. Please do not duplicate it.

Define who hindu is and then write History of Hinduism. Thanks

Those who worship Shiva Lingam i.e. Phallus are Hindus. In India we have seen such many Shiva Temples. All Hindu men and women religiously worship Lingam. When first time realised I was surprised but its their religion so lets accept. Don't be anti-Hindu but you can this good difinition to others. Truthlover 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Truthlover, Those who worship Lingams are not only Hindu(?). There are multiple sects. Mainly two. Those who worship Shiva are called shaivas and those who worship Vishnu are called vaishnavas. There is no clear defination of "Hindu". The only concern I have is how this is related to buddha who does not believe in Purusha Theory or "God"(Since Buddha never answered questions about "God" and he defined his religion based (partially)upon Kapila's Sankhya philosophy which does not believe in "GOD" but humans 5 senses and brain).


 * Authers of this article are trying to brand Buddha under Vishnu Family which I find untrue, baseless. Also they are unable to provide any reference/documentation related to this. Hence I request to remove History of Buddhism from History of Hinduism.


 * WP:TROLL. Enough said.Hkelkar 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Bodhidhamma be banned?

 * I am prepared to cooperate in whatever procedures are needed to collectively ban this user. His presence is disgusting.Hkelkar 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Bodhidhamma changed username to user:PakkaPunekarHkelkar 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut out Vimanas
Please cut out Vimanas, you make me laugh. You had the atom bomb also? What else? Be reasonable, this is 21st Century. Aupmanyav 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the Sarasvati river civilization
The Vedas describe the Sarasvati River as one of the centers of the Aryan culture. The river is dry but the ruins of that civilization remains. Images of Siva and other gods known today were found there, fire pits designed for the vedic rituals. Why isn't there any mention of that here?--tequendamia 13:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably you're talking about the Harrappans here. There is a lot of dispute regarding this between the Aryan Invasion Theory (asserting the European/Nazi point of view that Aryans were white and came to India and massacred the Harrappans) and the Out of India Theory (asserting the Hindu point of view that the Harrappans continuously evolved into Vedic and then Classical Hindu society). Interestingly, you just made a point that is supported by the Hindu Nationalists and opposed by the socialists :) .Hkelkar 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am more iterested in facts and evidence regardless their political implications.--tequendamia 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This should be an interesting debate. I personally support your assertion that the Saraswati people should be mentioned here.Hkelkar 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it accepted by all that their are Vedis (fire pits) in Harappa? If Shiva idols were found there, perhaps it was not Aryan, but indigenous Indian. It is not that just Aryans were fair, the inhabitants of northern India (Haryana, Punjab, Uttaranchal, Himachal, and Kashmir) also would be naturally fair. Which Saraswati? Perhaps Aryans named many rivers during their travels as their beloved Saraswati (originally a celestial river represented by the milky way) and the conduit of the water of life (Apah, which is not used just in the sense of water). Hari-rud in Afghanistan is another candidate (it is mentioned as Haroyu in Avesta, the sixth homeland of Aryans). Just some points. I do not dispute that the Saraswati valley (cannot say the same about Indus valley) was home to Aryans for a long period before its drying up. Aupmanyav 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but we should at least talk about the theoretical possibility that the Harrappans evolved continuously into the Vedic civ. We can mention it as one theory (bear in mind that AIT has been questioned and still is a theory).Hkelkar 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Along with AIT, there is an Aryan Migration Theory (without any major conflict). Why would there be a conflict if the Aryans and Indians merged in Central Asia and Aryans came to India after that? In India various people worship various Gods, Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Ganesh, Murugan, and others; they do not fight among each other. The worship of Vedic Gods and the observance of Vedic practices is diffused in all hinduism. Aupmanyav 11:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism section
Hi, I've given the Buddhism section a copy edit. Hope that's ok with everyone. Addhoc 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * take some issue with the unsourced claims in your edits to the Jain section, but your Buddhism edits seem ok to me.Hkelkar 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir, Please read the NPOV about the Buddhism section. Indian Buddhist monks have been fighting to get this "Avatara" tag from Buddha for years. Every time this issue has arised there have been furios demonstrations in Capital Delhi as well as other parts of India. This Section should be maintained as Disputed as long as the religios leaders do not come to a valid conclusion. Pointing "example the Bhagavata purana" also does not proove the NPOV as it is not a conclusive evidence/proof to this sentence. Unless both communities accept it, It should be maintained as disputed section. "Bhagavata Purana" is also a perspcetive of the writer and not general belief/fact that Buddha was an avatara. (Avatara concpet itself is unacceptable in buddhist teachings.)

Inserting Adi Shankaracharya comments are completely unacceptable as every indian either knows (If he has read documents about his life) or believes (If he hasnt read documents) that Adi Shankaracharya debated with monks and got them make sucide in boiling oil when they lost, until he lost himself. (That was the condition for their debate). I hope other users do not disagree with this.

Also the other WP:NOR should be removed.

Thanks.--Bodhidhamma 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Until there are sources, or tag remains per WP:NOR. None of your remarkable claims are sourced except for your rants and feverish raves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for missionaries.Hkelkar 16:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hkelkar, your bizarre comments are not relevant. Addhoc 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you are not ready to remove that unsourced sentence from wikipedia. If wikipedia is for NPOV why it should write such unsourced comments. Its better not provide information than providing wrong/disputed information.For Mr. HKelkar, why that Tab should remain when there is no reliabe source as per WP:NOR.

BTY. I am not a missionary. I am an IITB Mechanical engineering graduate and working for an MNC in USA for past 5 years. Bodhidhamma 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess what? I am an IITB Engineering Physics graduate (2002 Batch) working for a PhD in USA. What's yuor point? Besides, you had asserted as User:Dhammafriend, one of your sock puppets (see this RFCU), that you were a missionary in Germany. Those intercontinental flights must be faster than I thought, eh?Hkelkar 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that really is an amazing coincidence. That said, I don't believe Bodhidhamma or Dhammafriend are missionaries for any religion. Seeing Bodhidhamma has challenged sources without mentioning fighting, demonstrations or boiling oil, I have removed the sentence about Shankaracharya. Addhoc 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is I am not a missionary. Whats your point? About physics : Read Albert EinstineScience thrives for imagination but the knowledge we gain has to be based upon 1. perceptio 2. inference 3. valid testimony. Did you ever write references in your thesis? (no offence please, just a wondering?)

I dont understand when wikipidia works toward NPOV why you want to keep "avatara statement" here without any reason. Why it is so important to History Of Hinduism and it is not Biography of Buddha. About puppet thing let the truth speak for itself. I have had enough discussion about it. check RFCU)--Bodhidhamma 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you exactly want? Would a citation with page and verse no. from purana which says that buddha was considered to be an avatar of vishnu be fine for you.--nids(&#9794;) 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats how you should write religios controvertial documents dont you think so? How do we write references? Book/Article name:Published year:Page:Line Number. I wanted the complete Buddhism Section to be removed, thats my POV. But it is wikipedia's policy to work toward NPOV. So I am just asking to remove the avatara statement and other WP:NOR statements to be removed. (pls. refer to the NPOV dispute section above )--Bodhidhamma 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We are discussing mythology part here. How do you respond to Mohammed talking to god and Christ being son of god. You must be knowing that buddha too conceived of virgin birth. How will you explain that with your science. Or will you ask to remove that too.nids(&#9794;) 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "buddha too conceived of virgin birth". This is first time I am reading. Since I conside this as WP:NOR I wont comment on it, it will divert the discussion we are having. If you know where you have read that I would be delighted to read it. I wont comment on other religions belief as I respct what they believe in even if I have diff. POV and expect others to follow the same. Buddism is all about understanding the universe by ways of your 5 senses and analysing the information you gatherd by your brain and applying those 3 rules I have been saying again and again to have your opinion about it. I do not see any reason why I should believe in Avatara.--Bodhidhamma 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See here for the requested source and ask it to be deleted from there. As far as avatara thing is concerned, you are not asked to beleive in avatara, it is what is written in Puranas, and just reported here.nids(&#9794;) 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a discussion forum. Could you ensure your future postings are focussed purely on the article content. Thanks, Addhoc 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Addhoc, are you are pointing to any of my comments?? I just want to show that avatara thing is just a hindu beleif and this is pointed out in atleast five of the puranas. I dont see any reason that this should not be mentioned in the article.nids(&#9794;) 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that Bodhidhamma is steering this discussion off topic. If he wants to add a citatation needed tag to an individual sentence, then ok. But we shouldn't be debating his personal understanding of Buddhism. Addhoc 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what i am concerned with. He also keeps on removing navayana from Indian Buddhist Movement page. nids(&#9794;) 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Adhoc, I am sorry that I put all those latest comments which I accept were off the topic. I would add citation needed tags. Nidhish: againt I do not want to go off the topic but you are accusing of the things which I didnt do. I do not go all over the places and change/tamper/vandalise pages. I stick to one topic at a time. It is only hypocrites who have opinion about everything not me, I study before I talk. If I write any controvertial document against your religion, wont you ask me same questions to check the validity of the document?

Adhoc, I still didnt get answers from the writers Why Buddha's avatara is so important to History Of Hinduism that even after so much discussion it is not being removed? In my POV it is totally irrelevant/off the topic. --Bodhidhamma 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that it is YOUR POV, NOT NPOV. Unfortunately, wikipedia runs on WP:NPOV not your POV.Sorry.Hkelkar 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And What irresponsible/rubbish/Pro-Right wing Hindu(read pro-RSS) statements you have written without thinking that you are hurting other community's religious sentiments are NPOV? If you have NPOV why you are fighting with jains, buddhists, sikhs, christians, muslims, your own hindu castes users? Chaging their text/accusing users/vandalising thier pages/applying different rules to those pages and different rules to your pro-hindu pages? This is totally biased. I dont even feel that I should point all those pages here.It is useless. I dont have anything to say hereafter. If wikipedian wants to maintain its credibility, they will decide about the NPOV or you pay for your karma (ref sankhya). I refuse to argue with hyporites who just want to force upon others what they think. Its not that I cant continue, I do not see any point when people do not have holistic neutral view. Thanks for your time. If I have hurt anyone please accept my apologies. --Bodhidhamma 03:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if "Rubbish pro RSS" means "cited edits from reliable sources" then ok. It's better than the rabid missionary whack-job neurosis of quasi-Buddhist wikitrolls with nothing better to do than bother legitimate users from contributing to the article despite multiple admonishments from multiple users.Hkelkar 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Brahmins = "reliable sources"? Since when?


 * Prove that the sources are "Brahmin". Besides, why should whack-job quasi-Buddhists be reliable sources then?Hkelkar 04:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even Buddha sang praises of true 'Brahmans'. Aupmanyav 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute :Why Buddha Should not be considered as Avatara
Please Refer Samyutta Nikaya. It answers the question about buddha's thoughts about God. Since I do not have english printed version I would request you to refer this website buddhist philosophy

'Monks, that sphere should be realized where the eye (vision) stops and the perception (mental noting) of form fades. That sphere is to be realized where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades... where the nose stops and the perception of aroma fades... where the tongue stops and the perception of flavor fades... where the body stops and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the intellect stops and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That sphere should be realized'

Basically It says. Buddhism is religion of mind.

1. If the GOd indeed the creator of all living things, then all the things here should submit to His power unquestioningly. Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds

Also refer the Digha Nikaya which talks about rebirth (and not reincarnation). The concept of rebirth is completely different from reincarnation. This a brief dialog from Milinda Panha.

"Revered Nagasena," said the king, "is it true that nothing transmigrates, and yet there is rebirth? "Yes Majesty." "How can this be?...Give me an illustration." "Suppose your majesty, a man lights one lamp from another- does the one lamp transmigrates to the other?" "No your Reverence." "So there is rebirth without anything transmigrating!"

After reading this and applying the rule of perception, inference and valid testimony one can surely understand, that buddhism does not believe in either "Extream Creator/GOD" or its reincarnation. Vishnu is considered as Extreame Creator. A=B, B=C hence A=C.

Since Bhagavat Purana is not an authentic Buddhist Document nor I could find any reference to buddha in bhagavat purana. Hence my request to remove the reincarnation/avatara statement from this page.

Thanks. --PakkaPunekar 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I had to change the user name From Bodhhidhamma to comply with wikipedia policy.
 * Note: PakkaPunekar was User:Bodhidhamma.Hkelkar 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at both references. I am not changing it. The reference user has given is not yet a published document and still a evaluation copy. ( I guess they have just started that work.)Also read the other reference and let the truth speak for itself.

The history of this article shows how desparately this user want to put this sentence (ref: propaganda and WP:NPOV). He changed the text from "Hindu belief" to Purana to "Bhagavat Purana" and gave those links which does not make wikipedia's varifible, reliable resources policy.--PakkaPunekar 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. Look at WP:Reliable sources more carefully. Religious beliefs are inherently partisan and so partisan sources can be linked as primary sources to cite a religious belief which this IS. Don't fake-cite please. I have lost all patience with this nonsense.Hkelkar


 * I am not arguing reliabel resources policy. Read the copyright notice in that evaluation copy. Also which Bhagavat Purana you think is correct and which is not? As far as I understand all copies should look same if they are translated from one document. (Atleast the chapters)Thanks--PakkaPunekar 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Different clerics have different translations. Clerics are not fax machines. Read about the history of copying the Bible, for instances. There are distinct differences between the King James Bible & the Gutenberg Bible because different clerics introduced slightly differring translations. The issue here is normative belief of Hindus, and Hindus normatively believe that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu. Buddhists may disagree. That does not belong here as we are discussing Hinduism vis-a-vis other religions.Hkelkar 01:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But you said Hindu belief/Purana/Bhagavat Purana. You did not specify which cleric's purana. For wikipedia it is factual error. What I am saying is, it is some greedy people's propaganda to call Buddha an avatara so that they can bring Brahmin broker system in Indian Viharas. (Its millions rupees business for them but it kills buddha's thought for which he lived all his life.) Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. --PakkaPunekar 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The same applies to you too. The fact is that many pseudo-Buddhists are trying to incite hatred against Hindus as a political stunt to gain publicity/power. Wikipedia is not a propaganda medium for them wither.Hkelkar 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But you said Hindu belief/Purana/Bhagavat Purana. You did not specify which cleric's purana. For wikipedia it is factual error. What I am saying is, it is some greedy people's propaganda to call Buddha an avatara so that they can bring Brahmin broker system in Indian Viharas. (Its millions rupees business for them but it kills buddha's thought for which he lived all his life.) Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda.

Also I would like to know Which Bhagawad Purana is more popular and reffered by Hindus, so that I can read it. (Yes it is easy since I am in US, If I was in India no one would have given it to me, since I am an ati-shudra.. verifiable?) No Personal attacks please. --PakkaPunekar 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah right! What a delusional statement! You can get copies of any Purana from the Bombay University Library, the JNU University Library in Delhi, the Presidency College Library in Calcutta, and a million other places where you could be a pink-skinned Martian and they wouldn't care.Hkelkar 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonder who pays you to tout this rubbish. The Pakistani ISI?Hkelkar 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The person who is arguing that the article should not mention Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is missing the point. Nobody is trying to argue that Buddha actually was and incarnation of Vishnu. In theological matters like this the arguments are as much on one side as on the other. What is important is that many Hindus believe Buddha to be an avatar, and this concept has impacted the History of Hinduism, which is what this article is about. So the reference should remain. The article should not report on what the nature of God is, but it should report on what people BELIEVE the nature of God is, and how that has affected histroy. Perhaps there could be a disclaimer along the lines of "The Bhagavat Purana states that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu, a belief which attests to the historical ability of Hinduism to embrace and absorb many diverse beliefs and traditions. Buddhists themselves, of course, do not generally accept this Hindu concept regarding Buddha." Or something like that. HeBhagawan 12:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not considered to be an avatara of Lord Vishnu by Buddhists, no contest. Considered to be an avatara of Lord Vishnu by Hindus, again no contest. People differ in their views on so many things. Aupmanyav 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

age needs source
the bald opening statement, "The History of Hinduism is a topic spanning over 9000 years" does not appear to be substantiated by anything in the article (except for an uncited estimate of the date of a historical Rama) and is not consistent with the Hinduism article. Doldrums 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you. An uncited estimate of the date of a historical Rama is not consistent with hinduism, because he did not establish Hinduism. Hinduism, if we go by Puranas must be older than that. Rama was preceded by Parusharama, Nri-Simha, Vamana, Varah, Kurma, and Matsya avataras. So actually we to find the date of Swayambhu Manu or beginning of Satya Yuga. Since his date cannot be found from independent sources, we have to look for other evidence. The best is that historians have not found any major change between the Mehrgarh civilization (approx. 7,000 BC) and Harappa civilization. Also they have not found any major anthropological changes from the Harappa civilization to the present. We could assume that same people are following nearly the same beliefs since that time. After all Harappa had the seals with the ascetic and the bull. There is no evidence of any other religion in this region or in south or east, so we can also say that Hinduism has been around from times immemorial. What would you choose between the two? If anyone else has a better guess, we could consider that also. Aupmanyav 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Doldrums, there has been no reply from you. Should I take it that you accept the above reasoning and the 9000 year date, and remove the citation that the date is dubious? Aupmanyav 06:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Garbled Introduction
HINDUISM '..is based on the Veda and indigenous beliefs and traditions of the various groups of people in India. It is rooted in the cultural elements of the Indus valley civilisation, and its foundations were laid in the Historical Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans, and other parallel and subsequent Indian civilisations. Some hold it to be the world's oldest existing major religion. Although Hinduism entails the worship of numerous Gods and Goddesses, it is a monotheistic religion, since it preaches that all Gods and Goddesses are manifestations of the one Supreme Being.'

First you say that Hinduism includes beliefs and traditions of various groups of people in India. Then you say it is rooted in cultural elements of the Indus valley civilization (what happened to the beliefs and traditions of East, West, and South India?), then you say its foundations were laid in Vedic religion (again what about beliefs and traditions of the rest of India?), then you say Hinduism entails the worship of numerous Gods and Godesses, and you end with 'it is a monotheistic religion'. There are people who would not agree that all Gods and Godesses are manifestations of any one Supreme Being, or you want to make it compulsory for every one to think your way, and believe that those who worship many Gods are wrong. Who are you, a new Adi Sankaracharya? Remember, even Sankaracharya's doctrine was not accepted by later acharyas. Contradictions upon contradictions! Aupmanyav 06:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take out the "9000 years old" part in the introduction. An encyclopedia should stick to the mainstream version of history. Alternate views should be presented in a different section clearly stating they are alternate views only. Alside from this, there are numerous inconsistencies in this page - too many to list. There is no clear demarcation between Hinduism and the obsolete Vedic tradition and how this change came about. I can go ahead and edit this article if I can do it. Shvushvu 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU and Hare Krishnas
This may be contentious but are the Brahma Kumaris and the Hare Krishnas notable enough to figure within the Hindu Reform movements? They both figure highly in the West, the Hare Krishna and a sankirtan revivalist movement and the Brahma Kumaris as a high profile radical revisionist movement that claims Shiva has incarnated and is speaking through their mediums, correcting the true Gita, that the Kalpna is only 5,000 years old and the Iron Age just about to end.

The Brahma Kumaris are a difficult one because although their language, cultural and ethic roots are certain Hindu, they claim that they are not Hindus but due to the Cyclic nature of time, their religion today will become Hinduism in the future. That Hinduism is an impure version of their practise. 195.82.106.244 12:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hare Krishnas (ISKCON), as a modern branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism have made a significantly large impact for Hindu culture on a global basis (especially in literary terms). 60,000 people (mostly from mainstream Hinduism) visit Bhaktivedanta Manor in England on Janmasthami, it's hardly a minority cult movement. In my opinion they definitely deserve a mention. GourangaUK 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Iskcon temple in Bangalore sees hundreds of thousands of visitors on Janmasthami. --BostonMA talk  19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to mention a cult in hinduism pages if they say they are not hindu. They are welcome to their philosophies. It only shows their pettyness if they say hinduism is impure. So, IMHO, they need to tell us if they are hindus or not, that should be the measure. If they gather a few hundred or a few thousand followers in the west, that is not relevant to nearly a billion hindus. Aupmanyav 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

With due respect to GourangaUK, the Hare krishna system is confused on many issues. They have to come clean on whether they consider themselves part of Hinduism or not. Since they are part of Hinduism by default, if they disagree with this, they should make a clear case and be consistent. Tap dancing from one foot to another depending on the situation is what they do now. Sometimes they are part of Hinduism, whenever the affiliation may provide some benefit. Otherwise, they are not. This attitude comes from the founder himself, who is well know for making contradictory statements. Hence, the ball is really in the Hare Krishna court. If they can make a clear admission that they consider themselves as part of Hinduism and can stand by it, then they certainly deserve a mention on this page. Shvushvu 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

removed map
have removed this map, which was created as a location map for the Indies and used in the article as a location map for "areas under Hindu rule", something the map was not designed to do, resulting in incorrect claims such as the Philippines under Hindu rule and the the modern boundary of Papua New Guinea demarcating the the boundary of Hindu rule in New Guinea. Doldrums 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, and I agree that "Hindu rule" sounds very blunt. However those areas, regardless of their political affiliations were historically influenced by Hinduism and the inhabitants of the areas shown in the map followed Hindu traditions and customs. Therefore it would be inappropriate to delete the map entirely. I'm sure you will appreciate the correction I made to the addition.

Darkness1089 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ummm.. making the caption more vague doesn't address the concerns raised at all. a map showing the distribution of adherents of Hinduism may be appropriate for this article, but the present map doesn't cut it. Doldrums (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is not about the demographics and population distribution of Hindus. This map shows the geographic regions where the philosophies of Hinduism does or has had a significant cultural, political, or economic impact. This map does not misrepresent anything IMO, however if you feel that the caption is vague, feel free to change it and whatever changes are made can be negotiated.

Darkness1089 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this map is that it is a map of the Indies. not a map of "Hindu influence" (whatever that is) or "Hindu rule. so the boundaries it shows have nothing to do with such influence or rule, as i've indicated above. you say the map does not misrepresent anything. i'm saying it does misrepresent the boundaries. you're welcome to create a sourced map of "Hindu rule", "Hindu influence" or whatever, and include it in the map. picking up an arbitrary map because it looks roughly like what a properly-made map would doesn't cut it. changing the caption wording won't help. i can make the caption precise - "A map of the Indies" but then it obviously won't have a place in this article. Doldrums (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

some cleanup
this article was in a horrible state, tagged for cleanup for ages. Of course, it is much more attractive to editors to edit-war over the precise phrasing of the lead of the Hinduism article than to invest actual work in writing encyclopedic material. After all, who reads more than article leads anyway, and if you can place a fews juicy soundbites there, why plod along elsewhere.

I have removed the cleanup note for now, because the worst issues have been mucked out now, but this still isn't anything like a good article of course, and would need a lot of further attention. dab (𒁳) 08:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you dab, this article needs some attention, and you did hell of a job cleaning it up. There is however one thing - history of Hinduism - and yet completely different issue - definition of Hinduism, I wonder what needs to go first? I take your point on the juicy soundbites:-) I have added a few here, with a hope that you will not just start reverting them... without discussion. Also other editors really helping to bring this article up to some decent level. Wikidās ॐ 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I suppose the job of giving a definition of Hinduism lies with the Hinduism article. I take the EB definition as a solid working basis: historical Hinduism spans Mahajanapada ("wider sense") or Mauryan ("narrow sense") times to present, while Hinduism-as-we-know-it (Puranas, Advaita, Bhakti) is a product of the Middle Ages. It is futile to quibble in which century "Hinduism proper" begins, and of course this article needs to give the full story, including the predecessor traditions (I am completely agnostic as to whether Mahajanapada Brahmanism should already be included in "Hinduism proper". It's anyone's choice). This is so as to take the burden of discussing those off the Hinduism article. Imho, Hinduism should focus heavily on post-Gupta Pauranic Hinduism, since that's what we usually mean by the term.

For the purposes of this article, I have structured the lead so as to reflect the article body. The periods we distinguish are: dab (𒁳) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) predecessors (IVC, Vedism)
 * 2) Maurya to Gupta "Golden Age"
 * 3) Middle Ages. This is where Hinduism takes its classical form, and we should probably put most focus on this period.
 * 8th to 12th c.: Shankara, Puranas, late classical Sanskrit literature
 * 12th-15th c. or so, Bhakti movements
 * 1) 15th-18th c. "Dhimmitude"
 * 2) 19th c., Hindu reivivalism
 * 3) post-partition/contemporary History.

Factual error/POV
"In the 16th to 18th centuries, Hindu history is mainly characterized by opposition to Islam (and to Christianity, in Kerala)." Which I believe can be attributed to user:Dbachmann. Apart from being uncited, it shows the current state WP is in, especially systemic bias due to the demographics of the majority of contributors, when nerdy 24/7 Wiki users speculate based on their POV and edit in statements like the above to significant topics. The specialists will come with time hopefully. Trips (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"and the Vedic religion of the priestly elite" Vedic religion being exclusive to a "priestly elite" is speculation as does not qualify as opening paragraph material. Trips (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This a very good argument indeed. There is no religion which is priests-only based. ;-) --Thirusivaperur (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
Please talk here about the dubious statements. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should break down the disputed statements. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * "that of Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, followed by the sacrificial Vedic religion of the priestly elite."

Discuss: How does this not accurately summarize the events in that time period (Mughal Empire, missionary incursions)? Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the 16th to 18th centuries, Hindu history is mainly characterized by opposition to Islam (and to Christianity, in Kerala)"


 * First point: Why should we keep this stuff? What is "Proto-Indo-Iranian culture"? Why do you connect the Vedic religion only to priests? Second point: What do you mean with "characterized"? This could mean one hundred things. You have to give more precised information an all of this stuff. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is at all disputed, but fair enough, you are asking for a source. Just use fact in such cases. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course they are disputed by 2 parties. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit regarding indo-european influence: not necessary to mention. The term "historical" implicate this statement already. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this comment related to the point on Early Modern history? The Vedic religion was a priestly sacrificial cult, that's why the article "connects it to priests". Please read the Vedism article. The counter movement to Vedism/Brahmanism was Shramana. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As always, when it comes to indian topics, you seem to have no idea. The vedism article doesn't say, that the historical vedic religion is a religion just of the priests. This is bullshit. Rituals were performed by priests, just like a priest in the church performs the holy mess.
 * Btw. Your disruptive and not explained deletions will be not accepted, too. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

um, you are aware, of course, that I've cleaned up this article from an absolute mess into something coherent? Hardly "disruptive". Try throwing around your weight someplace you have any in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And you are surely aware of that you are going to be blocked, if you don't stop the blanking of content. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

National mysticism?
What national mysticism was included within Hindu reform movements in India? I have never heard anything comparable to Nazi mysticism predominant as national mysticism in the religiously diverse peoples of India and also included within Hindu reformist movements. Trips (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is the hindutva. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hindutva didn't exist during the the reform period, it was Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Theosophilical society etc, and the removal of the caste system and rituals in Hinduism, which has nothing to do with "national mysticism". Trips (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * um, what? That's wrong in so many ways, I won't even answer it, already because you are clearly not here to learn, or to edit honestly. If you want to know, read up the relevant articles. Trips, Wikipedia isn't interested in your opinion. You are free to have an opinion, but please just keep it to yourself, or vent it on usenet. On Wikipedia, deliver encyclopedic material with a detached attitude, or walk away. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Detached attitude, ironic coming from the exemplar WP:OWNer, who owns articles he doesn't even know much about. Read carefully, what I mentioned is a significant part of the Hindu reform movements. Further, the mainstream Hindutva movement as we know it existed after partition and independence and after the major Hindu reform movements, that also I am 100% sure about, though the ideological seed was planted by Savarkar in the 20s. Also national mysticism is an uncommon word and looking it up, I found it is used primarily to describe Nazi mysticism. This is silly, we appreciate your construction of the article, but let others fix and improve upon parts of it, I believe that is the whole point of WP. Trips (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The theory, that all Indians came from India is, as far as i know, an idea by Hindutva. Please give references from other Hindu movements. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * what are you even talking about? You are not making any sense. Stop disrupting this article and find someting worthwhile to do with your time. --dab (𒁳) 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see, i'm not talking to you. It's a request to Trips. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

as countless users before, you will eventually learn that edit-warring won't give you the revision you want. The only way to build articles is step-by-step good faith WP:DR. Most people of your temper find this too geeky and walk away. Peace to them. How long will it take you to grasp this and make the choice to either play by the rules or stop wasting people's time with your ego? I would much prefer spending my time in pleasant encyclopedic debate with educated users, not with babysitting angry kids. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

this is unacceptable
So dab again became blocked for 24 h because he broke 3RR in an edit war - but to me it is easily understandable why he failed to be calm. The revision pushed by User:Thirusivaperur has made the following changes to the "Ancient India" section of the article. The version:


 * Hinduism in the narrow sense (to the exclusion of Vedism and Iron Age Brahmanism) is the new religious mainstream arising with the decline of Buddhism in India from the 2nd century BC. [A subsection heading and an Image] Mauryan India was dominated by Buddhism following Emperor Ashoka's conversion, but suffered a steady decline over the centuries, beginning as early as the 1st century BCE under the Sunga Empire, allowing the advent of a "golden age of Hinduism" during the Gupta period. Nevertheless, the Mauryan period saw an early flowering of classical Sanskrit Sutra and Shastra literature and the scholarly exposition of the "circum-Vedic" fields of the Vedanga.


 * There nevertheless remained a substantial Buddhist community living in the Indus basin until the Islamic conquest. Later Hindu scriptures, such as the Bhagavata purana, describe the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu.[Two references: "Srimad-Bhagavatam" by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust; sanatansociety.org ]

was replaced with the version:


 * Hinduism in the narrow sense (to the exclusion of Vedism and Iron Age Brahmanism) is the new religious mainstream arising with the decline of Buddhism in India from the 4th century. [A subsection heading and an Image] The Mauryan period saw an early flowering of classical Sanskrit Sutra and Shastra literature and the scholarly exposition of the "circum-Vedic" fields of the Vedanga. However, during this time Buddhism was patronized by Ashoka, wo ruled large parts of India, and Buddhism was also the mainstream religion 'til the Gupta empire period.


 * The Sangam literature (300 BC - 300 AD) is a mostly secular body of classical literature in the Tamil language. Nonetheless there are some works, significantly Pattupathu and Paripaatal, wherein the personal devotion to god was written in form of devotional poems. Vishnu, Shiva and Murugan were mentioned gods. These works are therefore the earliest evidences of monotheistic Bhakti traditions, preceding the large bhakti movement, which will given great attention in later times.

Viewed alone, the question whether Hinduism in the narrow sense arose in the 2nd BC or 4th century AD should not be that difficult. If you a reliable source that says 4th century add it, otherwise there is the fact-tag. But the proposed new version has apparently rewritten the whole article in the respect, which, considering that consensus was not searched before the change, is disruptive. (Imagine someone changing replacing the occurrences of "1st century A.D" with "1st century B.C." in the article on Christianity.)

What really makes the new revision unacceptable is the removal of content related to Buddhism. Asoka, who was previously said to have converted to Buddhism, is now said to have "patronized" Buddhism. More importantly, whereas the previous version pointed out that the "golden age of Hinduism" occurred during the Buddhist rule of India, the new proposed revision does not say anything on this, in fact, it moves the rise of Hinduism to the time after the Buddhist rule. The paragraph on "a substantial Buddhist community living in the Indus basin until the Islamic conquest" was apparently completely removed and replaced with two unreferenced sentences on Hindus monotheism.

The new revision would at least have to be reverted because it removed referred material without discussion. But dab's remark that it amounts to POV-Pushing is understandable. User:Thirusivaperur seems to be unable to accept that Hidiusm flowered under Buddhist rule. I could not claim that I am an expert on India, but from the work I've done on similar topics from Europe and the Middle East, I am inclined to consider this another case of the rise of religiously related nationalism that is the political plague of 21st century. The history of a nation is rewritten, so that the contributions other religions have made to that nation are reduced. Under wp:NPOV, this is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of confusion here, what User:Thirusivaperur, has proposed has the least bit to do with nationalism. Trips (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will shrink the "opinion" of Zara to the 3 real points, which were made:
 * 1) The significant rising of hinduism in 4th century AD. instead of 2nd c. BC
 * 2) content about buddhism-related stuff were deleted
 * 3) Asoka's "character change" from converted buddhist to buddhist patronizer

1.) The gupta's were the once, who made hinduism established in northern india. This was done by patronizing the Sanskrit language. Previous religions got lesser attention since then. Gupta's were the Hindu patronizers. So this is the time of the rise of "modern Hinduism" in India, which took place til the use of Sanskrit language was minimized in the later middle ages due to persian and other ethnicity's rulers.

2.) This article should present the History of Hinduism, NOT the "history of buddhism", or the "history of buddhism in India". Therefore very special related buddhism stuff were removed. I didn't look at the muslim part in the article so far, but it should be done either way.

3.) Of course Asoka was once converted to buddhism. But since then he had sent his buddhist monks to all parts of his empire. He wrote his beliefs into the edicts of ashoka, which reflect his buddhist identity. He patronized buddhism. Since he was buddhist by heart, there was nothing to mention about him regarding hinduism apart of the contemporary compiled Sanskrit literature of oral tradition. I know, many indians would like to see him as hindu patronizer, but he wasn't at all. These were only the Guptas and Pallavas in ancient days.

Large parts of these points can be seen here: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555715_9/hinduism.html --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Undersourced
This article is terribly undersourced. It is reflected in very poor for such a subject referencing. I believe that POV is closely linked to poor referencing. Can anyone outline in a nutshell the key issues or POVs that need to be sourced and accommodated to get to sourced NPOV. Dab, what would be your take on the items that you will consider the key POVs that are to be avoided? Wikidās ॐ 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to work on it. Note that this is the state I have found the article in a month ago. This topic is difficult enough, but it becomes near-impossible when the article is at the same time disrupted by editos making up for their cluelessness and lack of education in the subject by an ideological axe to grind. I find it appalling that the article was protected instead of dealing out blocks or restrictions to the parties acting disruptively. Clear lack of good admining. Wikipedia admins used to evaluate the situation and then kick out the trolls refusing to deliver. Now all we have is agnostic bureaucracy hampering expert editors and trolls alike. This is a problem. What Indologist would feel it worth their time to contribute to Wikipedia if their work is isntantly reverted by "confused desi" tech students, and Wikipedia adminship then asking them to educate these kids one at a time before progressing with the article. Sword-skeleton theory. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, we're still waiting for the experts. Thirusivaperurs version is a good revision and that should be the next step, more holes in speculative editing will be uncovered over time. Trips (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Thirusivaperur's version is not a good revision. The source he has given in the meantime (Encarta) makes a clear distinction between Classic and Modern Hinduism. Now take a look at his revision:


 * Hinduism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of similar religious traditions native to India. Historically, it has neither any particular founder nor any time-period when it formally came into being.
 * However, 'modern' or 'classical' Hinduism as known conventionally [Emphasis added] began to be formed as the decline of Buddhism in India from the 4th century CE gives rise to a religious mainstream reviving pre-Buddhist (Iron Age) traditions, which in turn consist of prehistoric religions such as that of the Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilization, followed by the historical Vedic religion.


 * and compare it with the previous one:


 * Hinduism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of religious traditions native to India. Historically, it encompasses the development of Religion in India since the Mauryan period as the decline of Buddhism in India from the 2nd century BCE gives rise to a religious mainstream reviving pre-Buddhist (Iron Age) traditions, which in turn hark back to prehistoric religions such as that of the Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilization, that of Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, followed by the sacrificial Vedic religion of the priestly elite.


 * The information that Hinduism has no particular founder should probably be kept, but there is no good reason to remove the link to Religion in India. But again, more importantly: Who knows 'conventionally' that modern Hinduism is the same as classical Hinduism? The Encarta certainly not. Here too, I get the impression that Thirusivaperur's editing is tendentious. And although he has replied to the factual issue and I was not completely right on the content, this impression persists. That there was a substantial Buddhist minority in India might not be that relevant in an article on Hinduism - but that Hindus regarded Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu is relevant. And personal attacks are in no way helpful to correct the impression of tendentious editing. Zara1709 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The distinction of "modern" and "classical" hinduism should be made, and FYI it was not my edit, where one may see, how consequent your disruptive behaviour is. You are blaming another person without any substance, just to discredit the others contribution. This is so funny to watch, whereas you haven't a single argument to keep your personal views about buddhism-related stuff in the hinduism article.
 * back to the factual conversation: We could keep the Buddha-Avatar story in the article, but it has to be in an appropriate context. You have to show sources, when and why this had happened to keep the "history" relevance. Otherwise it would be a normal religious related sentence. I just looked in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu article where it says, that in 13th century AD Buddha was included as an Avatar of Vishnu?! So where do you want to put it in the article for history of hinduism? --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not your edit? I still get the impression that you are not discussing this seriously. You did remove sourced content and you did not seek consensus for substantial edits like changing 2nd century BCE to 4th century CE. And you have yet to apologize for your personal attack against me. Zara1709 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a revert to a much better revision than the revision of the consensus of the good team (you and dba lol). --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you admit that already on July 19th you reverted to a previous version without seeking consensus about it? A version, which you still consider better, although, as you have admitted, it includes a blatantly false statement in its third sentence. There's nothing to laugh about here. I did not take notice of this article at all until you - instead of sorting out the factual issue - accused dab of vandalism on his talk page. I personally found that Dbachmann's concern about a POV warrior had some substance, but I did take care to to state this as barely my impression. (To describe religiously related nationalism as political plague was rather strong, but it was not aimed at anyone personally, unlike your comment.) You still have not taken any efforts to undo that impression, and you have neither apologized for your politically extremely incorrect personal attack against me. Zara1709 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu is certainly relevant. Trips (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

snipped further niceties under WP:DFTT. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How to file complaint against posters that have admin rights?
I have noticed a few posters who happen to be admins either a)try and revert edits made in good faith that do not subscribe to their POV or, b) revert such good faithe edits made, and c) try and block posters that try and bring a balanced view to POV laden articles. How does one make complaints against such admins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.111.183 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to Buddhism
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that every aspect of Hinduism was taken from Buddhism (except the Vedas of course). Vishnu's avatars are from Mahayana bodhisattvas. I know Advaita Vedanta was derived rather directly from buddhist philosophies and have sources that document that. Murthis also are from buddhism. Patanjali's yoga sutras are derived from buddhist teaching, as wikipedia acknowledges. Yoga predates even buddhism though, and have some sources that document that.Thigle (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Buddha was not a Hindu prince
Can someone please correct this? For God's sake, Hinduism did not even exist at that point. Thigle (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we something with this horrible sentence.
Vedism was the sacrificial religion of the early Indo-European-speaking peoples, who were claimed to enter into India from about 1500 BC from the Iranian plateau, via the Hindukush, and mixed up with the local populations even though there is no supporting archaeological, anthropological, genetical evidence for this.

I have two objections. It is weasel worded and far too long a sentence. I understand that the Aryan migration is a controversial hypothesis in some quarters and no one wants to get into unnecessary conflict. However, it is an import claim and should not be left unattributed. How about changing it to something like this:

Vedism was the sacrificial religion practised in the north of the subcontinent from around 1500BC. According to the academic consensus, this religion was introduced by Indo-European-speakers, who enter India from the Iranian plateau, via the Hindukush. However, many non academic authors reject this view, suggesting that this is unsupported by archaeological, anthropological, genetic evidence. Drunkenmask (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Arjun024, I'm very new so happy to be corrected, but I have to ask why you revert my edit. DM (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

J Krishnamurti
Is portrayed in the "Neo-Hinduism" (?) section as an exponent of Hinduism. This runs contrary to his pronouncements for 60+ years. Added the Template:Dubious to prompt either the inclusion of proper sources, or his removal from the list. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed J. Krishnamurti entry. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed again. Almost a year later, no citations, discussion or any proof was forthcoming. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of South Asia(INDIA)
There should be a new artical did realy Muslim conqust india or south asia, as they did in Arub Parsia egypt.India is stiil the ancient india with there tradition and religion.Muslim naver able to conquest the whole india.This will be intersting to know why one time super power in army ,culture parsia wiped out by the pepople who where there subjuct.And india stude fram.Old civelizetion from egypt, to assriya, parsia,to greek,roman collapsed.old tradition and religion wiped out how hindu still exist and why.--Nkatyan (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

proto-indo-european roots
I have added a section that discusses the influence of proto-indo-european religion and society in creating Vedism. I have also changed the statement that Old Indic languages stemmed from a divine source as comparative lingustics seem to point to an origin common with many Eurpoean languages instead (i.e. Proto-Indo-Eurpoean). Before that, the page seemed to read as though Vedic civilization emerged from the ruins of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilization or that was native to India. What I added points to foreign influences in the establishment of Vedic culture, in lieu with perspectives held by the academic mainstream. I realize that the origin of Hinduism is very politically charged, and so if anyone shall find my rebasing of Hinduism upon Proto-Indo-European religion deficit in any way and decide to change it back to the intra-national perspective, I would really appreciate it if you would give me a message and tell me your reazons why. VNNS (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You provided no sources. Ecragnol (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Griefing
This article has had major griefing as of October 9th.

Someone who has Wikipedia editing skills please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cknight70 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ and the person responsible blocked. Elockid  ( Talk ) 18:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Periodisation
Is anyone able to check Muesse's periodisation? "Classical Period (coincident with the Axial Age) (800–200 BCE)" looks odd. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a note.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Course assignment
Rodgerss16 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Context
I've removed this piece of "info":
 * "The spread of Hinduism to the west is taken out of its context of origin. For this reason little attention has been paid to its Indian roots. The spread of Hinduism to the West can be contributed with the West's interest in mysticism and modernity. Many Western critics of Christianity have began to explore religions such as Hinduism." (source: Altglas, Véronique. "The Global Diffusion And Westernization Of Neo-Hindu Movements: Siddha Yoga And Sivananda Centres." Religions Of South Asia 1.2 (2007): 217-237. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.)

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "the spread of Hinduism" taken out of its context? I guess you mean that the Yogic practices which are promoted by Sivananda Centres and Siddha Yoga are taken out of their context. And that's only two movements, which promote a specific aspect of Hinduism c.q. Indian culture. You can't generalize that to "Hinduism".
 * "for this reason" - that's not an explanation. Why was it taken out of its context? How? By who? The explanation is that those teachingswere adapted to a western context of "religious individualism, inner-worldly orientations, relativism and subjectivism about beliefs, and pragmatism." (Altglas p.217) (With other words: 'leave me alone in my beautiful backyard with my peacefull Buddha-statues, and don't bother me with the pain of the world.' Aaargh!!!! that's not spirituality, that's hedonism. Become a Hotei or a Hakuin, smash the Buddha-statues, tear down the fench, and get into the world to help those who are in pain! (sorry, personal comment. what's it like to see children sleep at the street? Does yoga help to comfort those kids?)
 * "The spread of Hinduism to the West can be contributed with the West's interest in mysticism and modernity" - and how is that to be contributed to "the West's interest in mysticism and modernity"? It's like saying "The selling of oranges is to be contributed to the interest in buying oranges". And "the West's interest in modernism" is a non-sensical statement; is there some place ouside "the West" where modernism is propagated, and "the West" took it over?
 * "Many Western critics of Christianity have began to explore religions such as Hinduism" - "many" is vague; what are "western critics of Christianity"?; what is "begun to explore"?
 * "religions such as Hinduism" - what other religions, besides Hinduism? And what is "the religion Hinduism"? "Hinduism" is extremely broad! This "info" is meaningless, unless you provide a context: everbody knows there's a huge interest in the west in yoga and meditation.

Moving info
The Hinduism article contains quite detailed info on the history of Hinduism. I'm going tot ry to move some of it to this article. To do so, I've "synchronised" the periodisation of both articles. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

harvnb
why harvnb? diff  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To have one-level footnotes as far as possible. We can turn pop-ups for one level, not beyond that. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I copied the sources from Hinduism and cleared the conflicts. The following citations are still missing:
 * Gombrich 1996 - first edition of Gombrich 2006? what about page numbers?
 * nath 2001 - ✅
 * Zimmer 1989 - Reprint of Zimmer 1951? page numbers match?
 * King 1999 - There is a King 1999-B, but is it the same?
 * Scheepers 2000
 * Roosen 2006
 * Sharf 1995-A - same as Sharf 1995?
 * I still can't get sfn blue-links to work. I suspect the 2-level footnotes are blocking them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the blue-links to the full citations are working. Flood 1996 and Michaels 2004 (the two crucial ones!) don't work. I have no idea why. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * YES!!!! The table! That's the problem. It used to be a template, but thanks to a banned user that templated was removed.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what that table-template used to be. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironic. When we want a reference to become harvard, it doesn't become one. When we don't want it, it becomes one automatically! These computers! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, according to Template:Harvard citation, citation automatically becomes harvard, but other forms of cite don't. Will you learn that, Joshua Jonathan? :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No sir, I'll first have to study on that. I'm an old man; I function on routine.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actual Period
Hello all! This article talks about everything except origins of Hinduism. As I was reading, I came to know about iron age, vedic culture and everything else but got confused about origins of Hinduism reading this. Can anyone please help me out here? I want to know origins of Hinduism (year and place) Rachnajainrj (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "After the Vedic period, between 500-200 BCE and c. 300 CE", northern India.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on History of Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131202231922/http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus1-6/SMART.txt to http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus1-6/SMART.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150214082038/http://www.philoshistorydepartment.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/8/7/12870319/ancient_indian_social_history_some_interpretation_by_romila_thapar.pdf to http://www.philoshistorydepartment.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/8/7/12870319/ancient_indian_social_history_some_interpretation_by_romila_thapar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "called the oldest religion in the world"
Note that I'm only challenging the sources. 1st is a "Religion for Dummies" by two authors well known in the media as the "God Squad", who also wrote Bad Stuff in the News: A Guide to Handling the Headlines. Nice guys I'm sure but not religion historians.

2nd is a book by Anthony Stevens (Jungian analyst), even less qualified for this.

3rd - D.S. Sarma - who has written quite a bit about Hinduism but history of religion isn't his field either.

4th - Merriam Webster, seems to be the dictionary in the sources, not an RS.

5th Klaus Klostermaier - excellent source.

6th. Gary Laderman - religious historian but of American religion.

and finally Turner's book 'Encyclopedia of relationships across the lifespan'', not a reliable source for this subject either, he's not a religious historian and the book isn't about religious history.

I'd suggest dumping all but Klostermaier and finding sources by religious historians.

I only came here because at Timeline of religion an editor is using these sources and apparently dating Himduism to 9831 BC. Doug Weller  talk 13:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Clean up or blatant misrepresentation

 * My revision
 * "In the century from 1760 to 1860, India was divided into numerous kingdoms; the "lesser Mughals" following Bahadur Shah I, the Kingdom of Mysore, Hyderabad State, Maratha Confederacy, Rajput Kingdoms, Palaiyakkarar states, North-Eastern states, Himalayan states, as well as the territories held by the British East India Company. From 1799 to 1849 the only major stable and independent empire in India was the Sikh Empire, which had a secular character, with a large number of Hindu and Muslim subjects living in peace. The first Anglo-Sikh war and second Anglo-Sikh war marked the downfall of the Sikh Empire; making it among the last areas of the Indian subcontinent to be conquered by the British. The entire subcontinent fell under British rule (partly indirectly, via Princely states) following the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

Vs.


 * Original
 * "In the century from 1760 to 1860, India was once more divided into numerous petty and unstable kingdoms - most of them being subjects of the British Empire: the "lesser Mughals" following Bahadur Shah I; the Kingdom of Mysore; Hyderabad State;Maratha states;Rajput states,Polygar states,North-Eatern states,Himalayan states....and so on as well as the territories held by the British East India Company. From 1799 to 1849 the only major stable and independent empire in India was the non Hindu Sikh Empire although it had a secular character with a large number of Hindu and Muslim subjects living in peace. The Sikh Empire, unlike the other lesser Indian kingdoms and states was not under the paramountcy of the British Raj.  The entire subcontinent fell under British rule (partly indirectly, via Princely states) following the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

Please explain which parts are "blatant misrepresentation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.224.242 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Blatant misrepresentation" is what called your edit summary. We can see the changes made in your edit fine. No need to reproduce the text here. You need to explain why you want to make the changes you have made. Start from why remove "petty and unstable", "subject to the British Empire" etc. Justify each change. The current text is unsourced and by no means perfect. But I don't see your text being any improvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , here are my reasonings:


 * petty and unstable
 * 1) I removed it because it is value-laden judgement without reference. Per my understanding of wiki policy, I do not believe the burden for citations fall on me; and unreferenced claims and judgements can be removed. Since you undid it, I did search for any peer reviewed source which verifies "petty and unstable", but I could not find any peer reviewed source or journal which makes this claim.
 * 2) If you do manage to find a source, I can easily rebuttal. Per acting Governor-General Charles Metcalfe after surveying and analyzing the conditions in India in 1806 wrote: "India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta" - clearly there was still a local power which until 1806 was not "petty and unstable". Here is the source.


 * subject to the British Empire


 * Being in the lead, it is not chronologically accurate. British rule came in phases. Per the source above: 1758-1795, it was a rising power; 1795-1806-18, it was a major power along with the Marathas; 1818-1849, it was the dominant power (with regional Sikh Empire in the Northwest); and absolute power from there forward. My paragraph simply follows the chronology (but I welcome improvements): local kingdoms along with the British --> British rule of almost all of India except Sikh Empire --> And total British rule from the defeat of the Sikhs. It follows an accurate chronology. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC))


 * If you want to improve the text, please use a recent history text, or even other Wikipedia pages, e.g., History of India, and summarise them. "Petty" means small (when applied to states), and we know that 560 of them were still there when India got independence. Granted that some of them weren't petty. But the fact that the gradually came under the paramountcy of the British is important. Given that this is History of Hinduism, some more space spent on the Maratha Empire would be appropriate. As for the Sikh Empire, one look at the infobox make it clear that it became unstable after the death of Ranjit Singh. Neither was it "secular," being under the control of the Sikh Khalsa and having killed all its Hindu Wazirs and alienating Gulab Singh, whose consequences we are still living with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)




 * 1) Again, "petty" is a generalized term, it does not meet modern scholarship. It is a value laden term you are trying to defend, and you will not find a reference that backs it; again this adjective/word does not meet modern scholarship. As such, it is your POV. (Unless you find a reference).
 * 2) Who is trying to degrade British paramountcy? It is mentioned on 3 of the sentences. More mentions, just becomes unscholarly embellishment. My paragraph clearly mentions their rise in phases.
 * 3) Ranjit Singh died in 1839, his rule is almost as long as his empire. He ruled for 40 years, and the remaining 10 saw its decline. I don't know where you are going with this.
 * 4) As you can see above, I did not put "secular", it was already there. It is a false accusation. I did not remove it, because the main article mentioned it.
 * Now, instead of going in circles, give me a paragraph you find satisfactory or let me put back my content. I clearly answered the reason why I removed those unreferenced judgments. The current content can't stay, since it has spacing, red link, grammar unreferenced judgements and spelling errors. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC))


 * I have said above how to rewrite the paragraph to make it an improvement. Alternatively, you need state what your concerns are with the existing text, and we can discuss what is to be done about them. The only concern you have expressed so far is that you don't like the term "petty" when applied to states. But "petty kingdom" is quite standard terminology in the scholarly literature . So I think this is a non-issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Early colonialism
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan/History of Hinduism End of copied part
 * 1) Isn't the History of India and history of Hinduism intertwined?
 * 2) Can you improve that paragraph, which has red links, spelling errors, grammar and unreferenced judgement? (68.194.224.242 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC))


 * regarding my revert: I don't doubt the accuracy of your edit, and the intrinsicate value of it, but it's really WP:UNDUE for an article on the history of Hinduism. I also don't see the connection with the hisopry of Hinduism; it's only about the history of states, not about social or religious history. How did these states influence the development of Hinduism? Did they? Information like this should be very short, not an issue on its own.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will contribute a section on the impact on Hinduism. But I agree that the section that was deleted was overweight and so is the current expanded section on the Maratha Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The section itself is about colonialism. That is why the Portuguese and British were mentioned. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Sorry, that doesn't address the points that JJ raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you guys propose something? At least try to improve that paragraph, instead of keeping a paragraph that has red links, spelling errors, grammar and unreferenced judgement. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Removing red links and spelling errors shouldn't be a problem; the "unreferenced judgement" is unclear to me.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "India was once more divided into numerous petty and unstable kingdoms"
 * India was always divided, so "once more divided" is unreferenced judgement.
 * "petty and unstable kingdoms" is a generalized term - As mentioned above, the Maratha Empire was not petty. Per acting Governor-General Charles Metcalfe after surveying and analyzing the conditions in India in 1806 wrote: "India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta" - clearly there was still a local power which until 1806 was not "petty and unstable". Here is the source.
 * (68.194.224.242 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC))
 * No, India wasn't always divided. The Moghul Empire was clearly a paramount power that integrated India.
 * As for the Maratha Empire, it had plenty of internal divisions of its own and we often call it a "confederacy." Nevertheless, one exception does not break the rule. I have mentioned earlier the humongous number of states that resulted from the disintegration of the Mughal Empire. So "petty and unstable" is an acceptable description as far as historical gneralities go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) The Mughal rule was mainly in Northern India, even in its core areas, the Sikhs, Hindu Jatts, Hindu Bengali Rajas, Sutlej river and Himalayan area (present day Himachal or Uttarakhand) and Rajputs maintained nominal control to full independence. The Mughals ruled only parts of Central and Southern India, but even that was very brief under Aurangzeb, with Marathas and South Indian states giving resistance.
 * 2) Marathas became a confederacy only after 1760s to effectively manage the large empire. A confederacy does not make a state any less weaker. I think you failed to understand the definition, in this case, as mentioned, it was done to be more effective. Confederacy's still have uniformity of power.
 * 3) Regardless, I have no problem with "In the century from 1760 to 1860, India was once more divided into numerous petty and unstable kingdoms" - if a valid reference is provided, as of now, the dates and adjectives are just your point of view. Please provide a reference for those adjectives and dates, and lets fix that paragraph with that reference. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC))
 * I said that the Mughal Empire was a "paramount power", which is not the same as saying that it ruled the entire country.
 * So, you are agreeing that there was no "Maratha Empire" after 1760, but you think the "Maratha confederacy" amounts to an empire. Modern scholars don't even believe that they formed a confederacy. For example, Burton Stein, p.193:
 * When we have to summarise a large amount of material in a short paragraph, we have to use our own words. You may not find the same sentences in any other source. Your concern is basically whether "petty kingdoms" is applicable to the states in this period. See this book for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When we have to summarise a large amount of material in a short paragraph, we have to use our own words. You may not find the same sentences in any other source. Your concern is basically whether "petty kingdoms" is applicable to the states in this period. See this book for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now, how about presenting a paragraph. I still have my reservations, but I will concede for the greater good. Provide a paragraph that is free of grammar errors, spelling errors, red link, and spacing errors; and add it. (I am not going to be the one who does it, my work has already been reverted.) (68.194.224.242 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611142934/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913125923/http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/ to http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114070555/http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/HISTORYINDIA-BurtonStein.pdf to http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/HISTORYINDIA-BurtonStein.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictures
too much, too much... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it is done. Sorry! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

‎Vijayanagar Empire
Same for the section on ‎Vijayanagar Empire: too much. Please trim it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  17:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it is done. Sorry! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
 * There's still a lot of detail in it, which may be WP:UNDUE for this article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hinduism in the views of visitors to India
the section you created, "Hinduism in the views of visitors to India" diff diff, is really irrelevant for this article - or any article on Wikipedia. It's completely arbitrary which views should be included, from the thousands of people who have given their impressions. Specifically, what's the relevance of this definition of Sooraj mass, the solar month, by Colebrooke from a source from 1785? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a quote on Vedic Astronomy which H.T.Colebrooke had obtained from a Brahmin. As you rightly say, there are 1000s of such quotes in the historical books of visitors to India which provide valuable source of information. If not here, what would be a suitable page to capture such anecdotal evidence obtained by primary sources. Jaykul72 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not on Wikipedia. You can try Wikiquote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Japanese Hinduism" and Shintoism/Japan
I found a journal article that mentions extensively how Hinduism/Buddhism has impacted Shintoism significantly, and the author (scholar Nobumi Iyanaga) actually argues to refer to Medieval Shintoism as "Japanese Hinduism" due to Hinduism's influence. The article is here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44171458.pdf

He starts off the article by saying:

"As the title indicates, this paper proposes a new understanding of early medi eval Shinto thought by interpreting it as a form of "Japanese Hinduism."2 By the phrase "early medieval Shinto," I mean to designate a certain number of texts that are usually categorized as "Ryõbu Shintõ" or "Ise Shintõ" Since there is no unanimity, even among specialists of Shintõ, concerning the classifica- tion of texts in these categories,3 it is safer to assume that they roughly belong to the early medieval period, that is between the Insei and the Nanbokuchõ ìif itŠŘ periods. The suggestion that Shintõ is a form of "Japanese Hinduism" may appear odd at first, but it is precisely this sentiment of "oddity" that I would like to stress, in order to use it as a "heuristic guide" to assist us in articulating a new perspective on the ideological background against which Shintõ thought developed. To begin with, I would like to call attention to a passage that struck me when I first read it. It is the beginning of the Yamato Katsuragi hõzanki ÀfPlPÍSLilfE, a Shinto text that can roughly be situated in the mid- or late thirteenth century." He mentions that the Yamato Katsuragi hozanki, a Shinto text from roughly the mid- or late thirteenth century, has a passage that discusses a creation myth. This creation myth comes from Hinduism he says. He mentions how in this text there is a rendered name of Vishnu, a Hindu deity.

He also mentions about how Buddhist Devas were influential in early medieval Shintoism.

He mentions that in 1060, Seison (disciple of the Ono-ryu, Ningai, 951-1046) wrote about the transmission of the Shingon school. That text is called Shingon fuho san'yosho. Iyanaga describes a passage that relates to Esoteric Buddhism and Tantrism, and Iyanaga says that "The most important aspect of this excerpt is that it provides for the first time the fundamental idea that Japan is the "Country of the Origin of the Sun."

Iyanaga also mentions how there are some deities common to both Hinduism and Shintoism, but they have different names.

He concludes by saying: " It is thus possible to think of Tantric Buddhism as a

"specifically Hindu form of Buddhism" - and conceive of Hinduism (or perhaps a certain, "tantricized" form of Hinduism) much in the same way, as a "specifically Hindu form of Buddhism." On the other hand, early medieval Shintõ may also be understood as a "specifically Japanese (or 'Japanized'?) interpretation of (Japanese) Tantric Buddhism." If we were to combine these statements, would it not be possible to think of Japanese medieval Shintoism as a "form of 'Japanese Hinduism'?"

There is much more info in the article, so maybe someone could add that information. I think it would be worthwhile to include a statement about the connection between Hinduism and Shintoism in the lead section. What are your thoughts on this article and the interaction between Hinduism and Shintoism?Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gulf of Cambay
Can I add the following under the Prehistory subsection?:

"The excavations of some structures beneath the Gulf of Cambay are estimated to be more than 11,000 years old and have similarities with the Indus Valley Civilization sites of Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa, and other Indus Valley sites. Thermoluminescence of the pottery shards recovered at some locations in the gulf reveal even more ancient dates, with some as old as 31,270±2,050 years. One theory is that the Indus Valley Civilization was part of a much older civilization. This theory is supported by the discovery of ruins by marine archaeological expeditions in the late 1990s off the coast of ancient river channels 20-40 meters below the surface in the Gulf of Cambay. "

Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It is off-topic. The same goes for another proposal you made below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "New evidence is presented suggesting that certain sites in the Indus Valley and in other parts of India were first established during and possibly even before the last ice age based on their alignments to previous locations of the North Pole." Serious? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

HARV errors
There are a number of Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation messages in the Citations section of this article. I had to enable a setting in my preferences to allow these error messages to be visible, but I do not remember how I did it now.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Indian Migration to Australia
Can I make a subsection called "Indian Migration to Australia" under the "Pre-Vedic religions (until c. 1750 BCE)" section, and then can I add the following under the "Indian Migration to Australia" subsection?:

"A genetics research report in 2013 revealed that a substantial gene flow from India to Australia occurred around 4,230 years ago. " It is likely that this migration was related to many changes in the archaeological record of Australia, which included a sudden change in stone tool technologies and plant processing, with microliths appearing for the first time, as well as the first appearance of the dingo in the fossil record. Some scholars have noted similarities between Hinduism in India and the religious beliefs of the Australian Aborigines, and have noted similarities in linguistics and culture between Indians (particularly Indian tribes) and Aborigines.

Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Utterly fringe. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The genetics report is highly reputable and so is Bulu Imam. Bulu Imam is a very esteemed environmental activist working for the protection of tribal culture. So I think at least it would be good to include the information from the genetics report and Bulu Islam.Shakespeare143 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I said above that this is off-topic. This has nothing to do with Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Kumud Merani refers to genetic studies on the origins of Dingo's, stating that they were imported into Australia ca. 4,000 years ago; he isn't referring to human genetics. Nor is the date "2013" mentioned anywhere at that page.
 * "Microliths" are not mentioned at that page; microliths were known long before 4,000 years ago in Autsralia.
 * The page does not mention "Hinduism."
 * You're making things up, "based" on a very poor source. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback on my proposed edit change. I think that the SBSHindi source and the genetics report are reliable. SBSHindi is part of Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which is partly funded by the Australian government. The page mentions "Hindu". It also says "we go beyond the science and speak to the people who believe that Indian settlers who arrived on Australia some 4000 years ago, left behind more than just a trace of their DNA – in the art, languages and spiritual symbolism of indigenous Australia". Also, the genetics report from 2013 says people migrated, mentions microliths, and is published on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. It can be found here: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803. I think that the mention of Dingo's was mentioned to indicate that they believe that the Dingo's came to Australia from the migration. I think it would be a good idea if I included the genetics report source in the proposed edit change. Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Pugach et al. (2013); interesting. Obviously, your first two sentences should be referenced by this source. Yet, it's a genetic study, not archaeological or historical, and the link is presented very tentatively (emphasis mine): "The fact that we detect a substantial inflow of genes from India into Australia at about this same time does suggest that all of these changes in Australia may be related to this migration." 4200 years ago is obviously IVC/Dravidian; note that the genetic comparison was done with Dravidina people. Or some relation with Austroasiatic: the Birhor people speak a Munda language. "Hindu" is mentioned by Prem Mishra; anachronistic speculation, no more than that, unless IVC-people reached Australia (they traded with Mesopotamia per ship, after all), and some aspects noted in Australia were preserved in Vedic culture. But anyway, 2200 BCE is long before Hinduism, so irrelevant for this article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Mishra is a scholar, and I think it would be good to include what he says in this article because it is relevant to the migration. The source I included does mention how it is possible that the migration was composed of Hindus. Are there any sources that mention how the migration was not composed of Hindus (or that there is no possibility of the migrants being Hindus)? I think I remember reading that Hinduism is much older than 2200 BCE, with aspects of modern Hinduism coming from the IVC as well as from other indigenous peoples of the subcontinent.Shakespeare143 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Invention of Hinduism
Should the article say that Hinduism was invented by the British in the 18th century? Achar Sva (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it looks like you have never received a welcome message. Pity. Can you please go through these basic guidelines now? The policies tell you what this article (or any other article) should say or shouldnt' say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hindu Religion
This is for Assignment 58.145.184.239 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Starting date
Should it be mentioned that Hinduism might be as early as 2300 BC? https://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism Temp0000002 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No, of course not; please read what this Wiki-article says about Hindu synthesis. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  02:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the following lines in Prehistory section

 * References
 * Notes
 * Subnotes

In which of these sources can I actually find that the roots of Hinduism may date back to 10000 years. Including such a statement doesn't seem correct given that it can be misinterpreted in many ways, and is more of a conjecture than a theory or fact. Sk.griffinix (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point, but sourced and explained by Doniger. See also first alinea of the first section. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)