![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I moved this section to this page (WT:HNB) because it is a discussion about Hinduism in general and not about this article. Thanks Gizza Chat © 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we should take efforts to reduce article size to around 40-45 Kb.-- Indianstar 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Reference/footnote #37 seems to be broken. I do not have much time right now to search history and get it back. It might be easier if someone knew the reference. EDITORS: PLEASE be careful before deleting a reference that has a refname attached to it. Make sure you do not orphan footnotes. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Article mentions Thailand as having high Hindu population! According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/th.html "Thailand — Religions: Buddhist 94.6%, Muslim 4.6%, Christian 0.7%, other 0.1% (2000 census)"
Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
DaGizza, I just ran into an edit conflict. Will you please make sure that I did not ruin this page? Kanchanamala 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gizza. Kanchanamala 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just (hopefully correctly) archived some of the stale discussions (inactive for more than a month or so) from this talk page into archive18. Hopefully this will spark new vigorous discussions to similarly improve the quality of this article. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Good move, Saiva Sujit. I have learnt it the hard way that I should only say something which is directly related to improving an article. I'm glad the past is archived. Kanchanamala 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article is lacking a section on the (alleged) criticism of Hinduism (or its interpretation), including some topics on which frequent debate takes place such as the caste system, status of women, hindu zealots and ultra nationalists. I believe that the encyclopedic content and the neutrality of the article will improve if such a section is introduced. Do I have consensus to introduce this? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that Smriti are non-Vedic in the sense that they do not include the Vedas, they are Vedic in the sense that (some of them) originated during the Vedic period, and they build upon/accept the authority of the Vedas. Since the adjective Vedic is almost always used in the latter sense (Vedic period, Vedic science, vedic mathematics, Vedic religion), I think, referring to Shrutis as non-Vedic may be inaccurate or at least confusing. However I may be wrong on this, so can others weigh in before making any changes in article-space ?
Also, the title "Many scriptures, many paths: attitude towards other beliefs" seems too long, especially for the Table of content. Any thoughts on alternate section title ?
Abecedare
05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I cancelled vandalism on the article. TwoHorned 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article: "Hinduism ( Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law") is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent" contains a polemical entry in the form of a reference to some topics which are more related to politics than to Hinduism itself. TwoHorned 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism is an English word. There is no equivalent of it in Sanskrit. The word Sanatana Dharma is a modern coinage using two Sanskrit words, and some Hindus refer to their spiritual tradition(s) by that name. Hinduism includes all the spiritual traditions of India[n origin], though some Jainas, Bauddhas, Sikhs, and who knows who else, do not like to be called Hindus nor have their spiritual traditions known to be part of Hinduism. Thanks. Kanchanamala 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
TwoHorned, I can't see why you find the second part of the opening sentence, highlighted by you at the top, objectionable. Your objection has baffled me. Anyway, as suggested by Gizza, let me proffer an opening sentence.
What do you say guys? Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a proposition. Feel free to modify it as you like. TwoHorned 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the current version, since I think the phrasing "refers to a spiritual tradition which, according to
vedic scriptures, has its roots undetermined both in space and time." creates obfuscation, where none is desired/required. I'll cut-n-paste discussion from my talk page that indicates that the Arctic origin of Hinduism is a fringe theory, which while worthy of being discussed in the proper context, should not determine the lead sentence of the main article.
Abecedare
17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
<cut-n-paste begins>
Dear Abecedare,
OK, thanks for your note. I do think that, on a subject as vast as Hinduism, there is room for a "further reading" section. Please note that some of the references given in the "References" section are extremely oriented: Frawley for instance, who is nothing else than a charlatan. Also, please consider the problematic first sentence of this article. Orthodox Hinduism states the "Northern" origin of the anciant Rishis. That may be symbolic, of course, but at least this should be mentionned. All the stuff about NAIT is rooted into political considerations that were foreign to Hindus during millenaries.
Regards,
TwoHorned 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare,
Academic texts can be mentionned, of course, but why not stand also on texts written by Hindu Saints ? Second, the question of chronology in Hinduism is not solvable. May I recommend you to read the first chapters of Guénon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines on this subject ? The "oral" transmission anterior to Vyasa is completely undetermined in length. And, yes, you're right Vedic text themselves are apurusheya : why not mention that ? Also, quite an interesting point: didn't Tilak himself write a book called "The Artic home in the Vedas" despite all the known relations between Tilak and Savarkar w.r.t. NAIT ? TwoHorned 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have avoided getting into the discussion about Aryan theories, but I did look up what J. P. Mallory had to say about the Artic theories in his mainstream book In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson: 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1). The Arctic claim is so unusual that Mallory begins his chapter on "The Indo-European Homeland Problem" with these sentences:
"We begin our search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans with the deceptively optimistic claim that it has already been located. For who would look further north than Lokomanya Tilak and Georg Biedenkapp who traced the earliest Aryans to the North Pole? Or who would venture a homeland further south than North Africa, further west than the Atlantic or further east than the shores of the Pacific, all of which have seriously been proposed as 'cradles' of the Indo-Europeans? This quest for the origins of the Indo-Europeans has all the fascination of an electric light in the open air on a summer night: it tends to attract every species of scholar or would-be savant who can take pen in hand. It also shows a remarkable ability to mesmerize even scholars of outstanding ability to wander far beyond the realm of reasonable speculation to provide yet another example of academic lunacy." (Mallory 1989, p. 143)
The reference to Tilak's monograph takes place in a paragraph where Mallory mentions various major camps among the theories, saying "Some scholars struggled to maintain a middle course, others provided comic relief.... Cokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak provided the world with an entire monograph marshalling all the available mythological evidence to prove that the Aryan homeland was the North Pole.[note 38] This incredible theory gained at least one supporter when George Biedenkapp, flushed with enthusiasm for Tilak's hypothesis, produced his own book summarizing the Indian savant's work in German and added further evidence of his own. The Icelandic linguist Alexander Johannesson conconcted another bizarre theory that related Indo-European roots to bird calls (Proto-Indo-European *ker- was imitative of a raven), grunts, and loud natural sounds which, according to him, could best be heard on the shores of the Baltic Sea." (p.269)
[note 38]"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth, for example, poems that indicate a home in the north where a day and a night lasted six months each, the Pole star rises to the zenith, and so on. A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." (p. 277, note 38)
Buddhipriya 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion, but I have little to contribute, mainly because I have yet to find a satisfying scholarly treatment of the origins of Hinduism. I could write extensively on my personal take of the issue, but that isn't what these talk pages are for. I'll just note that (a) not having read Bongard-Levin's book, I'm not aware of any "extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth" pointing to Arctic origins; (b) I have no idea what "oral transmission anterior to Vyasa" could mean in relation to issues of fact (as opposed to Puranic myths and mystical fantasies erected thereon); and (c) there is no evidence (textual, archaeological, etc.) to trace the Hinduism of pujas, temples and idols any further back than about the start of the Common Era. An overwhelming majority of Hindus don't know a word of the Vedas. If anyone is reading scripture on the bus back home from work, it's probably the Gita. And so on. Far too much ink, liquid and electronic, is spent on "high philosophy" and hoarily ancient origins (the hoarier the "better") as if these could illuminate popular Hinduism in the rank and file. IMHO. Sorry, I wound up ranting anyway.
rudra
04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As rudra points out, it is just a matter of separating historical studies from mythology and from mysticist authors. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, by definition applicable to all religious traditions, however disparate, that originate in India. It "originates" with the onset of sources, viz. the Vedas, although what we know as "typical" Hinduism today originates in the early centuries CE. We can very well discuss Puranic mythology, as mythology, and we can discuss the various tenets of mysticist authors of the various Hindu reform movements (Tilak, Aurobindo and what not), as 19th century "romanticist" ( Viking revival style) currents. Just don't conflate things. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
<cut-n-paste ends>
How is it possible to separate "mythology" from "history" in the framework of sacred scriptures ? Why not mention the Vedic passages in question without interpretation ? About Vyasa, I was mentionning the well known fact that, before the formal written transcription of Vedas, an extremely long period of oral transmission existed. So how can stand "history" and chronology in such a complex framework ? To my opinion, a simple mention of both the Vedic texts and the academic theories would be neutral POV. TwoHorned 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the opening sentence proferred by me above is comprehensive, precise, and 'neutral' (not parochial). It is also brief and elegant for a first or opening sentence. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is support for the term Vedic religion rather than Hinduism, which is a more geographical term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV ( talk • contribs) May 2, 2007
Abecedare and other fellow editors: The article is on Hinduism and not on "Sanatana Dharma". As I have pointed out above, 'Hiinduism' is an English word, and 'Sanatana Dharma' is no Sanskrit equivalent of 'Hinduism'. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the page Idol Worship, and it says
Some of this seems questionable to me: most worship with which I'm familiar is not worship of the object, but of the deity it represents or the indwelling spirit it houses.
Could someone with knowledge of Hinduism take a look at this article and see if it's accurate?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is considerable usage of IAST and Unicode text throughout the article. While it might make it look "authentic", it also makes it look cryptic, very unreadable and user unfriendly. I would like to remove IAST/Unicode versions of the words and replace them with normal English equivalents. The suggestions proposed here are excellent. I think this article is the best place to showcase ideal usage of IAST/Unicode text. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realized, or thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols?so many pegs to hang the spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is necessary for everyone, but those that do not need it have no right to say that it is wrong. Nor is it compulsory in Hinduism.
At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 17
We are to become divine by realizing the divine. Images or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of our spiritual childhood. But on and on we must progress. We must not stop anywhere.
We can no more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing. By the law of association, the material image calls up the mental idea, and vice versa. This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he worships. He will tell you that it helps to keep his mind fixed on the Being to whom he prays. He knows as well as you do that the IMAGE is not GOD and is not omnipresent.
After all, how much does omnipresence mean to the whole world? It stands merely as a word, a symbol. Has God superficial area? If not, when we repeat that word ?omnipresent,? we think of the extended sky or of space, that is all
At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 16 210.19.225.8 10:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Kumar
P.S. One more time, let me proffer an opening sentence which is both accurate and elegant:
Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, the latest version of the first two sentences read very well indeed. However, may I make a few suggestions:
1. Instead of "in several modern Indian languages" let us replace the word 'several' and say "in some modern Indian languages".
2. Citation # 1 is not a citation. Let us say 'citation needed' in the article.
3. Instead of "In contemporary usage Hinduism is often referred to as" let us replace the word 'often' and say "Hinduism is also referred to as".
4. Instead of "Sanskrit Sanatana Dharma" let us remove 'Sanskrit' and just say "Sanatana Dharma".
5. Since 'dharma' does not mean law or philosophy, and since 'dharma' is also accepted as a word in English, let us say "eternal or perennial dharma".
Thanks. Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. By the way, modern scholarship has come a long way since the days of Vaman S. Apte and Monier Monier-Williams. As for the word 'dharma', it has long since been incorporated into the English language as an English word. It does not need any translation in that language.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
sanaatana does not mean 'eternal'. It means 'age-old', something which has prevailed over a long period of time, like a dharma which has been adopted by people over a long period of time. Example: "Speak 'satya', speak [what is] pleasant, don't speak a 'satya' which is unpleasant, and don't speak an 'anrita' which is [even though] pleasant - this dharma is 'sanaatana' ". Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare and Buddhipriya:
1. I shall always share with you what I think should be there in the article. You decide what can and what will go into the article. Of course, I shall also help find citations to the best of my ability.
2. 'sanaatana', primal [S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948]. Cp. 'sanaat', from of old [Monier-Williams Dictionary]. My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.
3. dharma, prescribed conduct [Monier-Williams Dictionary], right conduct [Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997], essential function [The Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1981]. My take: adopted conduct.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 13:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with the request that if further discussion is to be held on this point only solid references should be brought forward and not opinion. I do not understand the point made by quoting Radhakrishnan in the remark:
'sanaatana', primal (S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948). Cp. 'sanaat', from of old (Monier-Williams Dictionary). My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.
The verse being quoted does not apply "sanātana" as an adjective to "dharma", but rather as an adjective to "puruṣa". If we are still examining the phrase "sanātana dharma" this is not an example of a passage that uses that phrase. It is an example of the use of the alternate phrase "śāśvatadharma" which is another one that is often translated as "eternal dharma".
Here is the Sanskrit for the verse being quoted:
tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā | sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me || 11.18b ||
I am referring to p. 48 of S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, (HarperCollins Publishers: New Delhi, 1993 reprint edition). That is a reprint of the George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948 edition which you cite.
Radhakrishnan translates this verse as
"Thou are the undying guardian of the eternal law. Thou are the Primal Person, I think."
There is a specific note for śāśvatadharmagoptā reading "the undying guardian of the eternal law." The adjective śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) is here compounded with dharma, and goptā (defender, protector), so the translation "eternal law" is based on śāśvatadharma, and the following sanātanas which is applied as an adjective to the following puruso is translated by Radhakrishnan as "Primal" in his phrase "Thou art the Primal Person, I think."
Compare Winthrop Sargeant's translations which are of two forms. The first version is his interlinear translation which parses each word, and the second version is more free to convey the sense:
- tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā |
- Interlinear version: thou the imperishable, eternal law defender |
- Free version: You are the imperishable defender of the eternal law; |
- sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me ||
- Interlinear version: primaeval thou spirit understood of me ||
- Free version: You are the primeval Spirit, I believe ||
Sargeant's lexical note on śāśvatadharmagoptā identifies it as a Tatpuruṣa compound meaning "defender of eternal law": śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) + dharma (law, righteousness, virtue) + goptā (defender, protector). His note on sanātanas defines it as "primaeval, ancient" and his translation attaches it as an adjective to the following puruṣo. (p. 470. Winthrop Sargeant. The Bhagavad Gita. State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1994. ISBN0-87395-831-4.)
Compare the version by Swami Chidbhavananda, which also provides interlinear lexical notes. (Swami Chidbhavananda. The Bhagavad Gita. Sri ramakrishna Tapovanam: 1997. p. 596)
"You are the imperisable Guardian of the Eternal Dharma. You are the ancient Purusha, I deem."
Here the lexical notes parse śāśvatadharmagoptā as "protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanaḥ as "ancient".
Here is Swami Sivananda's version:
"Thou art the imperishable protector of the eternal Dharma; Thou are the Primal Person, I deem."
Here the lexical notes translate śāśvatadharmagoptā as "Protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanas as "ancient". (p. 270. Swami Sivananda. The Bhagavad Gita. The Divine Life Society: 1995, 10th edition) ISBN 81-7052-00-2.
What is the point of all of this debate?
Buddhipriya 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- "That is called sanatana-dharma... if we take these two words... Sanatana means eternal. That is called sanatana. And dharma, dharma means occupation, characteristic. Dharma does not mean some superficial ritualistic ceremonies. Dharma means the characteristic. That is real meaning. Dharma is not a kind of faith. Dharma is characteristic. Sanatana-dharma means sanatana characteristic, eternal characteristic." [6]
- Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Vedic faith (now Hinduism) is the umbrella faith of all the others. However, because there is near-concrete and irreversible classification of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, the term "Sanatana Dharma" has been coined to hark back to the original sense of the term that, all 4 of these adherents are actually the branches and manifestations of one faith system only. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
So, you are continuing using Indian_Air_Force as your signature!!! swadhyayee 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, by saying that the modern moniker 'Sanatana Dharma' is the Indian [Sanskrit] equivalent of the English word 'Hinduism', we are excluding all the other traditions including the Smarta tradition, the Shrivaishnava tradition, the Madhva tradition, the Gauda tradition, and the Arya Samaj tradition. By the way, Sanatana Dharma, as a Sanskrit moniker, is not there in the most comprehensive dictionary of Monier-Williams. Moreover, are we saying that Hinduism does not include the traditions of those Hindus whose dharmas are not 'sanaatana'? What about those Hindus who give up all the dharmas? After all they are Hindus too [Bhagavadgita XVIII.66]. By equating Hinduism with Sanatana Dharma, why let one group of Hindus misappropriate the word 'Hinduism' ? Why not we just say, "Hinduism comprises the spiritual traditions of all the Hindus. Those traditions originated on the Indian subcontinent. ... and so on." Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In following up on a suggestion about a potential edit to Ganesha I posted a question about formats for the See also section that has drawn some interesting discussion about the role of the See also section versus navigation templates. I am wondering if anyone else would like to take a look at the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#See also and repetition of links in article. Action item for the Hinduism article might be to rethink the organization of the See also section. Buddhipriya 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it common practice to capitalize the monotheistic Hindu god amongst Hindus? Might this not be mistaken as being the Judeo-Christian God? Should it be changed instead to Brahman, akin to how the Islamic monotheistic deity is referred to as Allah? Chiss Boy 08:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hindi is NOT Sanskrit's heir to canonicity in Hinduism! If anything, its heavy infusion with Arabic and Persian elements would disqualify it and languages like Bengali or Marathi would be more appropriate. But these are IRRELEVANT issues! Sanskrit is the only language with any claim to ultimate canonicity in Hinduism, being the language intimately connected with the Vedas, Upanishads, the epics, Yoga Sutras, Nyaya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, etc etc etc Lots of Apabhramsa-derived languages (IE Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, etc) and 'Dravidian tongues' (Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Tulu, etc.) are used as vernacular tongues for the transmission of and practice of Hindu belief or devotional elements.
By using HINDI (where the Devnagari is identified as HINDI and not Sanskrit or, for that matter, Marathi) the page takes a political stance on the legitimacy of the Indian Republic (which is NOT ancient or medieval India, or 'Bharat' of yore per se, or a Vedist state) calling Hindi a national language. The Indian Republic is quite different from the India of the rishis, as is evidenced by the fact that a non-entity like Pakistan is now suddenly a political entity where no Pakistan existed before and Bangladesh (The so-called Land of Bengal) is really only one-half of what the kingdom of Vanga once was. My whole point is that Hindi cannot be cited as or implied to be canonical, as it was by placing it in the beginning paragraph. The majority of Hindus in the world don't even speak Hindi! (Please be smart about this, those who are about to argue... for 700 million Indians Hindi is at best a second language, then you have Nepalis, Baha Indonesians, etc.)-- 69.203.80.158 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Even as a native Hindi speaker, I agree. We should remove the terms marked with {{lang|hi}}. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions, for those more learned than me in Hinduism:
Atheism with 68 KB size is promoted as Featured article on 28-Apr-2007. I think if we reduce size by 20 KB and make article as summary, we should be able to make this as featured article.-- Indianstar 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The number 1 after the opening sentence refers to Notes. It does not refer to a citation. It gives the false impression that the opening sentence has a citation. If there is no citation, credible of course, to say that "Sanatana Dharma" is the Sanskrit equivalent of the English word "Hinduism",then that description should be removed. When we say reference, it should be a citation. Notes are out of place in this article, and should be removed. Thanks. Kanchanamala 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not true. It's not common knowledge. If there is no citation, then it must be removed. Thanks. Kanchanamala 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As requested, here are a couple of references:
Many more can very easily be found. Abecedare 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, here are a few more, perhaps even more unambiguous references:
Note that all these citations are from published works (not webpages) from reputable publishers. Hope that helps. Abecedare 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If some Hindus call their tradition 'Sanatana Dharma', then let the article just say so. Let it not say that 'sanatana dharma' is the Sanskrit for the English word 'Hinduism' which it is not, even though the words 'sanatana' and 'dharma' are two Sanskrit words. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Not so. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. Abecedare, if the mainstream is polluted, avoid it. I expect the article to reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which you don't mess. Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am tending to agree that the current sentence in the article that reads "Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law"[1] ) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent." perhaps should be reworded to make it more clear that while the phrase "Sanātana Dharma" is often treated as synonymous for "Hinduism" it is in fact a phrase which has broader usage.
As has been shown by the references already given, it is true that Hindus do often refer to their religion as the "eternal Dharma" ("sanātana dharma"). However that phrase also appears in Buddhist scriptures from time to time as a stock term. For example, in verse 5 of the Dhammapada in Pali we have (dhammo sanaṃtano):
न हि वेरेन वेरानि सम्मन्तीध कुदाचनं । अवेरेन च सम्मन्ति एस धम्मो सनंतनो ॥ ५ ॥
na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ | averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanaṃtano || 5 ||
"Never does hatred cease by hating, but hatred ceases by love, this is the ancient law."
(Reference: Devanagari of the Pali source text from p. 1; translation from p. 53. P. L. Vaidya. Dhammapada. The Vrajajivan Indological Studies, 42. (Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan: Delhi, 2005) ISBN 81-7084-286-7.)
The same verse of the Dhammapada is cited by Conze, who translates it as "Never can hatred be appeased by hatred; it will be appeased only by non-hatred. This is an everlasting dharma (eso dhammo sanantano, esha dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ)." p. 93.
Conze begins his chapter on the concept of "Dharma and Dharmas" with the sentence "What others call 'Buddhism', the Buddhists themselves call 'Dharma.'" (p. 92) (Reference: Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought In India: Three Phases of Buddhist Philosophy. (The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967 paperback edition). ISBN 0-472-06129-1.)
My opinion is that this example of crossover of the phrase into Buddhist scripture is due to the fact that Buddhism and Hinduism drew upon a common stock of ideas prior to their division as distinct schools, making it difficult to call some ideas "Hindu" as opposed to "Buddhist". They were in fact "Indic" ideas which found expression in both of those great religions.
Perhaps the term " Catholic" in the sense of "universal" could be considered in relation to this. Anglicans consider themselves to be "catholic" but they are not "Roman Catholic" (with a capital C).
Buddhipriya 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think both Buddhipriya and DaGizza raise good points with the examples of broader (i.e., Dharmic religions) and narrower (i.e., orthodox/traditional Hinduism) application of the term "Sanatana Dharma" in different contexts. So here are some possible ways to clarify the issue:
Any preferences and/or suggestions ? Abecedare 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Of the above alternatives I like the one that involves briefly mentioning the variations in meaning in an Etymology section or perhaps a small section in the article. I have been looking for other variations in use and found a broad use of the phrase by Aurobindo to include even Christian and Muslim teachings, see Minor, pp. 71-72., which quotes him as saying:
"This sanātana dharma has many scriptures, Veda, Vedanta, Gita, Upanishad, Darshana, Furana, Tantra, nor could it reject the Bible or the Koran; but its real most authoritative scripture is in the heart in which the Eternal has His dwelling. It is in our inner spiritual experiences that we shall find the proof and source of the world's Scriptures, the law of knowledge, love and conduct, the basis and inspiration of Karma-yoga."
(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor "Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-yogin" in: Modern Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita. (State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1986) p. 72. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 19; Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1972)
The phrase "sanātana dharma" was appropriated by Aurobindo as a rallying cry for nationalism in this passage:
"I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish."
(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor, p. 68. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 10)
Buddhipriya 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the article on Perennial philosophy which may be worth reading as a European variant. Buddhipriya 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat what I have just posted above for Abecedare. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. The article should reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which we should not mess. Sanatana Dharma as representing all the traditions of Hinduism should be removed from the first or opening sentence because it is not true . Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, issue very well resolved in the article. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I moved this section to this page (WT:HNB) because it is a discussion about Hinduism in general and not about this article. Thanks Gizza Chat © 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we should take efforts to reduce article size to around 40-45 Kb.-- Indianstar 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Reference/footnote #37 seems to be broken. I do not have much time right now to search history and get it back. It might be easier if someone knew the reference. EDITORS: PLEASE be careful before deleting a reference that has a refname attached to it. Make sure you do not orphan footnotes. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Article mentions Thailand as having high Hindu population! According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/th.html "Thailand — Religions: Buddhist 94.6%, Muslim 4.6%, Christian 0.7%, other 0.1% (2000 census)"
Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
DaGizza, I just ran into an edit conflict. Will you please make sure that I did not ruin this page? Kanchanamala 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gizza. Kanchanamala 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just (hopefully correctly) archived some of the stale discussions (inactive for more than a month or so) from this talk page into archive18. Hopefully this will spark new vigorous discussions to similarly improve the quality of this article. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Good move, Saiva Sujit. I have learnt it the hard way that I should only say something which is directly related to improving an article. I'm glad the past is archived. Kanchanamala 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article is lacking a section on the (alleged) criticism of Hinduism (or its interpretation), including some topics on which frequent debate takes place such as the caste system, status of women, hindu zealots and ultra nationalists. I believe that the encyclopedic content and the neutrality of the article will improve if such a section is introduced. Do I have consensus to introduce this? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that Smriti are non-Vedic in the sense that they do not include the Vedas, they are Vedic in the sense that (some of them) originated during the Vedic period, and they build upon/accept the authority of the Vedas. Since the adjective Vedic is almost always used in the latter sense (Vedic period, Vedic science, vedic mathematics, Vedic religion), I think, referring to Shrutis as non-Vedic may be inaccurate or at least confusing. However I may be wrong on this, so can others weigh in before making any changes in article-space ?
Also, the title "Many scriptures, many paths: attitude towards other beliefs" seems too long, especially for the Table of content. Any thoughts on alternate section title ?
Abecedare
05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I cancelled vandalism on the article. TwoHorned 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article: "Hinduism ( Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law") is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent" contains a polemical entry in the form of a reference to some topics which are more related to politics than to Hinduism itself. TwoHorned 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism is an English word. There is no equivalent of it in Sanskrit. The word Sanatana Dharma is a modern coinage using two Sanskrit words, and some Hindus refer to their spiritual tradition(s) by that name. Hinduism includes all the spiritual traditions of India[n origin], though some Jainas, Bauddhas, Sikhs, and who knows who else, do not like to be called Hindus nor have their spiritual traditions known to be part of Hinduism. Thanks. Kanchanamala 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
TwoHorned, I can't see why you find the second part of the opening sentence, highlighted by you at the top, objectionable. Your objection has baffled me. Anyway, as suggested by Gizza, let me proffer an opening sentence.
What do you say guys? Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a proposition. Feel free to modify it as you like. TwoHorned 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the current version, since I think the phrasing "refers to a spiritual tradition which, according to
vedic scriptures, has its roots undetermined both in space and time." creates obfuscation, where none is desired/required. I'll cut-n-paste discussion from my talk page that indicates that the Arctic origin of Hinduism is a fringe theory, which while worthy of being discussed in the proper context, should not determine the lead sentence of the main article.
Abecedare
17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
<cut-n-paste begins>
Dear Abecedare,
OK, thanks for your note. I do think that, on a subject as vast as Hinduism, there is room for a "further reading" section. Please note that some of the references given in the "References" section are extremely oriented: Frawley for instance, who is nothing else than a charlatan. Also, please consider the problematic first sentence of this article. Orthodox Hinduism states the "Northern" origin of the anciant Rishis. That may be symbolic, of course, but at least this should be mentionned. All the stuff about NAIT is rooted into political considerations that were foreign to Hindus during millenaries.
Regards,
TwoHorned 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare,
Academic texts can be mentionned, of course, but why not stand also on texts written by Hindu Saints ? Second, the question of chronology in Hinduism is not solvable. May I recommend you to read the first chapters of Guénon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines on this subject ? The "oral" transmission anterior to Vyasa is completely undetermined in length. And, yes, you're right Vedic text themselves are apurusheya : why not mention that ? Also, quite an interesting point: didn't Tilak himself write a book called "The Artic home in the Vedas" despite all the known relations between Tilak and Savarkar w.r.t. NAIT ? TwoHorned 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have avoided getting into the discussion about Aryan theories, but I did look up what J. P. Mallory had to say about the Artic theories in his mainstream book In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson: 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1). The Arctic claim is so unusual that Mallory begins his chapter on "The Indo-European Homeland Problem" with these sentences:
"We begin our search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans with the deceptively optimistic claim that it has already been located. For who would look further north than Lokomanya Tilak and Georg Biedenkapp who traced the earliest Aryans to the North Pole? Or who would venture a homeland further south than North Africa, further west than the Atlantic or further east than the shores of the Pacific, all of which have seriously been proposed as 'cradles' of the Indo-Europeans? This quest for the origins of the Indo-Europeans has all the fascination of an electric light in the open air on a summer night: it tends to attract every species of scholar or would-be savant who can take pen in hand. It also shows a remarkable ability to mesmerize even scholars of outstanding ability to wander far beyond the realm of reasonable speculation to provide yet another example of academic lunacy." (Mallory 1989, p. 143)
The reference to Tilak's monograph takes place in a paragraph where Mallory mentions various major camps among the theories, saying "Some scholars struggled to maintain a middle course, others provided comic relief.... Cokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak provided the world with an entire monograph marshalling all the available mythological evidence to prove that the Aryan homeland was the North Pole.[note 38] This incredible theory gained at least one supporter when George Biedenkapp, flushed with enthusiasm for Tilak's hypothesis, produced his own book summarizing the Indian savant's work in German and added further evidence of his own. The Icelandic linguist Alexander Johannesson conconcted another bizarre theory that related Indo-European roots to bird calls (Proto-Indo-European *ker- was imitative of a raven), grunts, and loud natural sounds which, according to him, could best be heard on the shores of the Baltic Sea." (p.269)
[note 38]"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth, for example, poems that indicate a home in the north where a day and a night lasted six months each, the Pole star rises to the zenith, and so on. A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." (p. 277, note 38)
Buddhipriya 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion, but I have little to contribute, mainly because I have yet to find a satisfying scholarly treatment of the origins of Hinduism. I could write extensively on my personal take of the issue, but that isn't what these talk pages are for. I'll just note that (a) not having read Bongard-Levin's book, I'm not aware of any "extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth" pointing to Arctic origins; (b) I have no idea what "oral transmission anterior to Vyasa" could mean in relation to issues of fact (as opposed to Puranic myths and mystical fantasies erected thereon); and (c) there is no evidence (textual, archaeological, etc.) to trace the Hinduism of pujas, temples and idols any further back than about the start of the Common Era. An overwhelming majority of Hindus don't know a word of the Vedas. If anyone is reading scripture on the bus back home from work, it's probably the Gita. And so on. Far too much ink, liquid and electronic, is spent on "high philosophy" and hoarily ancient origins (the hoarier the "better") as if these could illuminate popular Hinduism in the rank and file. IMHO. Sorry, I wound up ranting anyway.
rudra
04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As rudra points out, it is just a matter of separating historical studies from mythology and from mysticist authors. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, by definition applicable to all religious traditions, however disparate, that originate in India. It "originates" with the onset of sources, viz. the Vedas, although what we know as "typical" Hinduism today originates in the early centuries CE. We can very well discuss Puranic mythology, as mythology, and we can discuss the various tenets of mysticist authors of the various Hindu reform movements (Tilak, Aurobindo and what not), as 19th century "romanticist" ( Viking revival style) currents. Just don't conflate things. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
<cut-n-paste ends>
How is it possible to separate "mythology" from "history" in the framework of sacred scriptures ? Why not mention the Vedic passages in question without interpretation ? About Vyasa, I was mentionning the well known fact that, before the formal written transcription of Vedas, an extremely long period of oral transmission existed. So how can stand "history" and chronology in such a complex framework ? To my opinion, a simple mention of both the Vedic texts and the academic theories would be neutral POV. TwoHorned 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the opening sentence proferred by me above is comprehensive, precise, and 'neutral' (not parochial). It is also brief and elegant for a first or opening sentence. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is support for the term Vedic religion rather than Hinduism, which is a more geographical term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV ( talk • contribs) May 2, 2007
Abecedare and other fellow editors: The article is on Hinduism and not on "Sanatana Dharma". As I have pointed out above, 'Hiinduism' is an English word, and 'Sanatana Dharma' is no Sanskrit equivalent of 'Hinduism'. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the page Idol Worship, and it says
Some of this seems questionable to me: most worship with which I'm familiar is not worship of the object, but of the deity it represents or the indwelling spirit it houses.
Could someone with knowledge of Hinduism take a look at this article and see if it's accurate?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is considerable usage of IAST and Unicode text throughout the article. While it might make it look "authentic", it also makes it look cryptic, very unreadable and user unfriendly. I would like to remove IAST/Unicode versions of the words and replace them with normal English equivalents. The suggestions proposed here are excellent. I think this article is the best place to showcase ideal usage of IAST/Unicode text. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realized, or thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols?so many pegs to hang the spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is necessary for everyone, but those that do not need it have no right to say that it is wrong. Nor is it compulsory in Hinduism.
At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 17
We are to become divine by realizing the divine. Images or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of our spiritual childhood. But on and on we must progress. We must not stop anywhere.
We can no more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing. By the law of association, the material image calls up the mental idea, and vice versa. This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he worships. He will tell you that it helps to keep his mind fixed on the Being to whom he prays. He knows as well as you do that the IMAGE is not GOD and is not omnipresent.
After all, how much does omnipresence mean to the whole world? It stands merely as a word, a symbol. Has God superficial area? If not, when we repeat that word ?omnipresent,? we think of the extended sky or of space, that is all
At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 16 210.19.225.8 10:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Kumar
P.S. One more time, let me proffer an opening sentence which is both accurate and elegant:
Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, the latest version of the first two sentences read very well indeed. However, may I make a few suggestions:
1. Instead of "in several modern Indian languages" let us replace the word 'several' and say "in some modern Indian languages".
2. Citation # 1 is not a citation. Let us say 'citation needed' in the article.
3. Instead of "In contemporary usage Hinduism is often referred to as" let us replace the word 'often' and say "Hinduism is also referred to as".
4. Instead of "Sanskrit Sanatana Dharma" let us remove 'Sanskrit' and just say "Sanatana Dharma".
5. Since 'dharma' does not mean law or philosophy, and since 'dharma' is also accepted as a word in English, let us say "eternal or perennial dharma".
Thanks. Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. By the way, modern scholarship has come a long way since the days of Vaman S. Apte and Monier Monier-Williams. As for the word 'dharma', it has long since been incorporated into the English language as an English word. It does not need any translation in that language.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
sanaatana does not mean 'eternal'. It means 'age-old', something which has prevailed over a long period of time, like a dharma which has been adopted by people over a long period of time. Example: "Speak 'satya', speak [what is] pleasant, don't speak a 'satya' which is unpleasant, and don't speak an 'anrita' which is [even though] pleasant - this dharma is 'sanaatana' ". Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare and Buddhipriya:
1. I shall always share with you what I think should be there in the article. You decide what can and what will go into the article. Of course, I shall also help find citations to the best of my ability.
2. 'sanaatana', primal [S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948]. Cp. 'sanaat', from of old [Monier-Williams Dictionary]. My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.
3. dharma, prescribed conduct [Monier-Williams Dictionary], right conduct [Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997], essential function [The Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1981]. My take: adopted conduct.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 13:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with the request that if further discussion is to be held on this point only solid references should be brought forward and not opinion. I do not understand the point made by quoting Radhakrishnan in the remark:
'sanaatana', primal (S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948). Cp. 'sanaat', from of old (Monier-Williams Dictionary). My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.
The verse being quoted does not apply "sanātana" as an adjective to "dharma", but rather as an adjective to "puruṣa". If we are still examining the phrase "sanātana dharma" this is not an example of a passage that uses that phrase. It is an example of the use of the alternate phrase "śāśvatadharma" which is another one that is often translated as "eternal dharma".
Here is the Sanskrit for the verse being quoted:
tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā | sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me || 11.18b ||
I am referring to p. 48 of S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, (HarperCollins Publishers: New Delhi, 1993 reprint edition). That is a reprint of the George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948 edition which you cite.
Radhakrishnan translates this verse as
"Thou are the undying guardian of the eternal law. Thou are the Primal Person, I think."
There is a specific note for śāśvatadharmagoptā reading "the undying guardian of the eternal law." The adjective śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) is here compounded with dharma, and goptā (defender, protector), so the translation "eternal law" is based on śāśvatadharma, and the following sanātanas which is applied as an adjective to the following puruso is translated by Radhakrishnan as "Primal" in his phrase "Thou art the Primal Person, I think."
Compare Winthrop Sargeant's translations which are of two forms. The first version is his interlinear translation which parses each word, and the second version is more free to convey the sense:
- tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā |
- Interlinear version: thou the imperishable, eternal law defender |
- Free version: You are the imperishable defender of the eternal law; |
- sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me ||
- Interlinear version: primaeval thou spirit understood of me ||
- Free version: You are the primeval Spirit, I believe ||
Sargeant's lexical note on śāśvatadharmagoptā identifies it as a Tatpuruṣa compound meaning "defender of eternal law": śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) + dharma (law, righteousness, virtue) + goptā (defender, protector). His note on sanātanas defines it as "primaeval, ancient" and his translation attaches it as an adjective to the following puruṣo. (p. 470. Winthrop Sargeant. The Bhagavad Gita. State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1994. ISBN0-87395-831-4.)
Compare the version by Swami Chidbhavananda, which also provides interlinear lexical notes. (Swami Chidbhavananda. The Bhagavad Gita. Sri ramakrishna Tapovanam: 1997. p. 596)
"You are the imperisable Guardian of the Eternal Dharma. You are the ancient Purusha, I deem."
Here the lexical notes parse śāśvatadharmagoptā as "protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanaḥ as "ancient".
Here is Swami Sivananda's version:
"Thou art the imperishable protector of the eternal Dharma; Thou are the Primal Person, I deem."
Here the lexical notes translate śāśvatadharmagoptā as "Protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanas as "ancient". (p. 270. Swami Sivananda. The Bhagavad Gita. The Divine Life Society: 1995, 10th edition) ISBN 81-7052-00-2.
What is the point of all of this debate?
Buddhipriya 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- "That is called sanatana-dharma... if we take these two words... Sanatana means eternal. That is called sanatana. And dharma, dharma means occupation, characteristic. Dharma does not mean some superficial ritualistic ceremonies. Dharma means the characteristic. That is real meaning. Dharma is not a kind of faith. Dharma is characteristic. Sanatana-dharma means sanatana characteristic, eternal characteristic." [6]
- Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Vedic faith (now Hinduism) is the umbrella faith of all the others. However, because there is near-concrete and irreversible classification of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, the term "Sanatana Dharma" has been coined to hark back to the original sense of the term that, all 4 of these adherents are actually the branches and manifestations of one faith system only. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
So, you are continuing using Indian_Air_Force as your signature!!! swadhyayee 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, by saying that the modern moniker 'Sanatana Dharma' is the Indian [Sanskrit] equivalent of the English word 'Hinduism', we are excluding all the other traditions including the Smarta tradition, the Shrivaishnava tradition, the Madhva tradition, the Gauda tradition, and the Arya Samaj tradition. By the way, Sanatana Dharma, as a Sanskrit moniker, is not there in the most comprehensive dictionary of Monier-Williams. Moreover, are we saying that Hinduism does not include the traditions of those Hindus whose dharmas are not 'sanaatana'? What about those Hindus who give up all the dharmas? After all they are Hindus too [Bhagavadgita XVIII.66]. By equating Hinduism with Sanatana Dharma, why let one group of Hindus misappropriate the word 'Hinduism' ? Why not we just say, "Hinduism comprises the spiritual traditions of all the Hindus. Those traditions originated on the Indian subcontinent. ... and so on." Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In following up on a suggestion about a potential edit to Ganesha I posted a question about formats for the See also section that has drawn some interesting discussion about the role of the See also section versus navigation templates. I am wondering if anyone else would like to take a look at the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#See also and repetition of links in article. Action item for the Hinduism article might be to rethink the organization of the See also section. Buddhipriya 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it common practice to capitalize the monotheistic Hindu god amongst Hindus? Might this not be mistaken as being the Judeo-Christian God? Should it be changed instead to Brahman, akin to how the Islamic monotheistic deity is referred to as Allah? Chiss Boy 08:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hindi is NOT Sanskrit's heir to canonicity in Hinduism! If anything, its heavy infusion with Arabic and Persian elements would disqualify it and languages like Bengali or Marathi would be more appropriate. But these are IRRELEVANT issues! Sanskrit is the only language with any claim to ultimate canonicity in Hinduism, being the language intimately connected with the Vedas, Upanishads, the epics, Yoga Sutras, Nyaya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, etc etc etc Lots of Apabhramsa-derived languages (IE Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, etc) and 'Dravidian tongues' (Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Tulu, etc.) are used as vernacular tongues for the transmission of and practice of Hindu belief or devotional elements.
By using HINDI (where the Devnagari is identified as HINDI and not Sanskrit or, for that matter, Marathi) the page takes a political stance on the legitimacy of the Indian Republic (which is NOT ancient or medieval India, or 'Bharat' of yore per se, or a Vedist state) calling Hindi a national language. The Indian Republic is quite different from the India of the rishis, as is evidenced by the fact that a non-entity like Pakistan is now suddenly a political entity where no Pakistan existed before and Bangladesh (The so-called Land of Bengal) is really only one-half of what the kingdom of Vanga once was. My whole point is that Hindi cannot be cited as or implied to be canonical, as it was by placing it in the beginning paragraph. The majority of Hindus in the world don't even speak Hindi! (Please be smart about this, those who are about to argue... for 700 million Indians Hindi is at best a second language, then you have Nepalis, Baha Indonesians, etc.)-- 69.203.80.158 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Even as a native Hindi speaker, I agree. We should remove the terms marked with {{lang|hi}}. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions, for those more learned than me in Hinduism:
Atheism with 68 KB size is promoted as Featured article on 28-Apr-2007. I think if we reduce size by 20 KB and make article as summary, we should be able to make this as featured article.-- Indianstar 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The number 1 after the opening sentence refers to Notes. It does not refer to a citation. It gives the false impression that the opening sentence has a citation. If there is no citation, credible of course, to say that "Sanatana Dharma" is the Sanskrit equivalent of the English word "Hinduism",then that description should be removed. When we say reference, it should be a citation. Notes are out of place in this article, and should be removed. Thanks. Kanchanamala 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not true. It's not common knowledge. If there is no citation, then it must be removed. Thanks. Kanchanamala 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As requested, here are a couple of references:
Many more can very easily be found. Abecedare 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, here are a few more, perhaps even more unambiguous references:
Note that all these citations are from published works (not webpages) from reputable publishers. Hope that helps. Abecedare 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If some Hindus call their tradition 'Sanatana Dharma', then let the article just say so. Let it not say that 'sanatana dharma' is the Sanskrit for the English word 'Hinduism' which it is not, even though the words 'sanatana' and 'dharma' are two Sanskrit words. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Not so. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. Abecedare, if the mainstream is polluted, avoid it. I expect the article to reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which you don't mess. Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am tending to agree that the current sentence in the article that reads "Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law"[1] ) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent." perhaps should be reworded to make it more clear that while the phrase "Sanātana Dharma" is often treated as synonymous for "Hinduism" it is in fact a phrase which has broader usage.
As has been shown by the references already given, it is true that Hindus do often refer to their religion as the "eternal Dharma" ("sanātana dharma"). However that phrase also appears in Buddhist scriptures from time to time as a stock term. For example, in verse 5 of the Dhammapada in Pali we have (dhammo sanaṃtano):
न हि वेरेन वेरानि सम्मन्तीध कुदाचनं । अवेरेन च सम्मन्ति एस धम्मो सनंतनो ॥ ५ ॥
na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ | averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanaṃtano || 5 ||
"Never does hatred cease by hating, but hatred ceases by love, this is the ancient law."
(Reference: Devanagari of the Pali source text from p. 1; translation from p. 53. P. L. Vaidya. Dhammapada. The Vrajajivan Indological Studies, 42. (Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan: Delhi, 2005) ISBN 81-7084-286-7.)
The same verse of the Dhammapada is cited by Conze, who translates it as "Never can hatred be appeased by hatred; it will be appeased only by non-hatred. This is an everlasting dharma (eso dhammo sanantano, esha dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ)." p. 93.
Conze begins his chapter on the concept of "Dharma and Dharmas" with the sentence "What others call 'Buddhism', the Buddhists themselves call 'Dharma.'" (p. 92) (Reference: Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought In India: Three Phases of Buddhist Philosophy. (The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967 paperback edition). ISBN 0-472-06129-1.)
My opinion is that this example of crossover of the phrase into Buddhist scripture is due to the fact that Buddhism and Hinduism drew upon a common stock of ideas prior to their division as distinct schools, making it difficult to call some ideas "Hindu" as opposed to "Buddhist". They were in fact "Indic" ideas which found expression in both of those great religions.
Perhaps the term " Catholic" in the sense of "universal" could be considered in relation to this. Anglicans consider themselves to be "catholic" but they are not "Roman Catholic" (with a capital C).
Buddhipriya 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think both Buddhipriya and DaGizza raise good points with the examples of broader (i.e., Dharmic religions) and narrower (i.e., orthodox/traditional Hinduism) application of the term "Sanatana Dharma" in different contexts. So here are some possible ways to clarify the issue:
Any preferences and/or suggestions ? Abecedare 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Of the above alternatives I like the one that involves briefly mentioning the variations in meaning in an Etymology section or perhaps a small section in the article. I have been looking for other variations in use and found a broad use of the phrase by Aurobindo to include even Christian and Muslim teachings, see Minor, pp. 71-72., which quotes him as saying:
"This sanātana dharma has many scriptures, Veda, Vedanta, Gita, Upanishad, Darshana, Furana, Tantra, nor could it reject the Bible or the Koran; but its real most authoritative scripture is in the heart in which the Eternal has His dwelling. It is in our inner spiritual experiences that we shall find the proof and source of the world's Scriptures, the law of knowledge, love and conduct, the basis and inspiration of Karma-yoga."
(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor "Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-yogin" in: Modern Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita. (State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1986) p. 72. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 19; Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1972)
The phrase "sanātana dharma" was appropriated by Aurobindo as a rallying cry for nationalism in this passage:
"I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish."
(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor, p. 68. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 10)
Buddhipriya 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the article on Perennial philosophy which may be worth reading as a European variant. Buddhipriya 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat what I have just posted above for Abecedare. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. The article should reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which we should not mess. Sanatana Dharma as representing all the traditions of Hinduism should be removed from the first or opening sentence because it is not true . Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, issue very well resolved in the article. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)