User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism

Brahminism
This is going to be a future wiki page, or there's already one page with this content or title? I have read some scholarly suggestions that Druids share the roots from Brahminism. It can be added? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Bladesmulti. Thanks for your attention to this page. It's a reaction to this discussion. Can you tell more about those supposed Brahmin origins of the Druids? Regarding "the oldest religion", see Aboriginal Religions in Australia: An Anthology of Recent Writings. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Bladesmulti - Aboriginal? "1. The Vedic religion is the oldest religion in the world, dating back to at least 1 .7 million years. 2. Hinduism is 50,000 years old 3. The Vedic scriptures are the oldest known to man, dating back to at least 1 .7 million years."
 * "Shining Ones" By Philip Gardiner, reads that "Shaminism and Bon-po religion dates back to 50,000 BC, Hinduism is probably the oldest religion on the planet", Page 98.
 * In the book "M. M. Ninan, The Emergence of Hinduism from Christianity":

For an estimate, it's much older. Other than that, the topic is druids, read this: Similarities: Bladesmulti (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edward Vaughan Kenealy (1872), Enoch, the Second Messenger of God, Volume 1
 * James Orange (1840), History and antiquities of Nottingham
 * Martin Clayton,Bennett Zon (2007), Music and Orientalism in the British Empire, 1780s-1940s: Portrayal of the East
 * Largely held that Druids were Brahmins, and presented/professed same things too.

Reply by JJ
 * Gardiner is not exactly WP:RS
 * Ninan also is not WP:RS. Also, you left out some text from the quote:
 * "Here are a few statements which everyone has come across and have come to acceot as truth. These statements are directly taken from the web [...] Th fact is, that none of these claims can, even remotely, supported by any objective evidence. It is one thing to claim big, and altogether different to substantiate with evidence. (Ninan, p.2)"

It seems to me that the Vedic religion is not as old as some narratives may want it to appear, and that the Druid-Brahman connection is also more a narrative than fact. The real issue, I think, is the dominance of the west, and the way "we" westerners have uprooted Asian cultures, and the responses from Asian communities to this influence and disturbance. Do Asian communities need to establish their superiority to the west, or can they take pride in their own variety, and the way they have been influenced by historical intrusions? India is a great country, with an incredible rich history and tradition. There's no need, I think, to "homogenize" its past and rely on the Vedic-Brahmanic narrative to establish its own worth. But that's my opinion, from a white western male... Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Kenealy and Orange are far outdated
 * Some more links on Druids & Brahmans:
 * Druidism, was it Western Hinduism 18,000 years old?]
 * The Celto-Himalayan connection]
 * Well, Aboriginal theories are usually regarded at 10,000 BCE, which is not as old, already.
 * So how you will be adding druidic related quote or researches? You can take time . Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't. It's not the issue here; my point is that "Hinduism" has multiple origins, not just Vedic, and that the "Vedic-Brahmanic narrative", c.q. Neo-Vedanta, is a 19th-century construction which is dominating the popular understanding of "Hinduism".  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds about to be right, that's why it's so diverse, like every scholar/historian agrees. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit
I just read your generally well-written comment on the Talk page of the article on Hinduism in which you summarize two main views on the origin of Hinduism. I just wanted to point out a spelling error, just in case you want to correct it. You had written "concensus" (two times). The correct spelling is "consensus". Also, did you really mean to use the word "conquering" in the first line, "There are two conquering perspectives...."? Wouldn't "conflicting", "contrasting", or "different" make more sense? – CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. As you know, not being a native speaker, the nuances of English are not as easily acquired as the basics. "Its", instead of "it's", has stuck in my memory, though. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost stuck...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I had not guessed that you were not a native speaker.CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I take that as a HUGE compliment, thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yogi
I noticed a group of edits to the article on Yogi just now. I saw some problems with syntax (sentence structure) and verb forms. Normally, I would go ahead and either correct them or just revert, but since there were changes to the content of the article by this last editor, a few edits from the last one, I thought I would ask you to take a look at them and see if they constitute an improvement to the article. I know you are quite knowledgeable regarding Hinduism. If and when you determine what content should remain, you can either correct syntax and verb errors, or let me know and I will work on it. If you don't want to work on it, I will wait and see what happens. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

'''Copied to User talk:Joshua Jonathan. To be continued there!'''  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)