![]() | 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Do we have any citations for this newly added section ? Most of the addition is fine in my opinion (although it can use a bit of a trim); however I wonder if seemingly exact prescriptions such as the exception for "children under five" are really universal. I personally doubt that you could get 10 independent Hindus to agree upon the exact age before which cremation is not obligatory - most likely the number just reflects a particular author's or sect's reading. If so we should mark it as such. Abecedare 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It is true that children under 5 are NOT cremated...but there is really nothing magical about the figure "5" .... The rationale is that the "UPANAYANA" or Sacred thread ceremony has NOT YET been performed on the "unfortunate" boy.... Once UPANAYANA ceremony has been done, cremation has to be done, REGARDLESS of age.... I know this for sure, but I really dont have any "proofs", you will have to either take my word or read further... The "Anthyeshti" is where requirements about cremation are listed in Hindu texts ... Neither do I have any information on the minimum equivalent criteria for "unfortunate" female kid/baby/girl....
~~Kumar
The only purpose of cremation is to dispose off a dead body most efficiently and with dignity. The rituals are intended to help the departed soul on its onward journey. [Let Buddhipriya find citations.] Thanks.
Kanchanamala
03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have changed any occurrence of '''<span style="font-size:120%">Lorem Ipsum</span>''' to the simple ====Lorem Ipsum====. I don't know if this is controversial or not, so I have asked here.-- 0rrAvenger 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I knew there was some good faith reason for it =). I have a suggestion: can we make it so that the ToC is defaulted not to show? That is, when the page is loaded, it starts up not shown, and a user must click "show" in order to reveal it. Hmm?-- 0rrAvenger 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am randomly clicking articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles and checking if any of them use a hidden Table of Contents. So far, none of the articles I picked have it hidden. In fact, consider The_Adventures_of_Tintin, where the ToC is one screen long. Another comparison, which may be more important: Bahá'í Faith. The Table of contents there is one screen long as well. However, they have an interesting novelty: the Bahaii faith template is parallel to the ToC, so as to not have a big blank space to the right of the ToC. Perhaps we could use that example?-- 0rrAvenger 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Along those lines, maybe we need a lead picture for this article. I'm checking articles on other religions:
Synthesizing from these examples, perhaps we should put a picture where the template currently is, and then move the template down to be parallel with the ToC. Thoughts?-- 0rrAvenger 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be leary of quoting from or referencing literature by non-indians or non-hindus as more often than not, such works smack of euro-centric bias. The overarching desire to claim some kind of link to origins of vedas and the VEDIC religion (I prefer the word vedic to hindu) as evidenced in advancement of the AIT. (No incontrovertible evidence has been produced to support the AIT, thats whole nother topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV ( talk • contribs) May 2, 2007
Article claims early date for Hinduism origin ("early Harappan"),
but then cites cognates (e.g. "Zeus") in Indo-European religions
as support! If one argues that early Indo-European religion
can be called "Hinduism" then of course Hinduism is very old,
but the connection with early Harappan is then contradictory
(assuming a sane theory of Indo-European expansion.)
Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Indus Valley as an Hindu civilization is a much larger claim. Since all references I found on the religion of Indus Valley says that no tangible evidence exists. I think we should keep religious emotions out of wikipedia, as well as original research. Thanks Wiki San Roze talk 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, I intend to modify the intro of the article to read:
Okay? Thanks. Kanchanamala 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Bingo. You are saying exactly what I said above quite some time ago. Thanks for supporting my contention. I shall remove the unsupported statement from the intro. Thanks. Kanchanamala 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in some modern Indian languages [1]) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law". [2]
In an effort to preserve the original sourcing, I restored the footnoting as follows:
Hinduism is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law" [3] or "ancient law". [4]
This has the effect of adding the alternate translation. Other editors please check the sourcing as I did not work much on the prior version. And since translation seems to be of interest, I added the Conze version discussed previously on this page. The citation which she added from the Dhammapada translation was provided by me earlier in discussion on this issue.
What exactly is the real concern? Is it that this is a political catchphrase? If so, and if it is in dispute, should it be in the lead? Or should its use as a political slogan be made explicit? Buddhipriya 05:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Give a citation to support the statement that Hinduism is known as Hindu Dharma in some modern Indian languages, or else remove that statement. Also, it is a minor point, and does not deserve the prominence it has been given, and it certainly does not belong as part of the opening sentence of the article.
2. Give a citation to support the statement that 'Sanatana Dharma' is a comprehensive term accepted by all the traditions of Hinduism, or else remove that statement.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sanatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma are not synonyms of Hinduism, even as Catholicism and Protestantism are not synonyms of Christianity, and Sunni and Shia are not synonyms of Islam. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says:
Compare this with the amateurish hodge-podge article in the Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster does not mention Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.
Webster's New World College Dictionary says, "Hinduism-a religion and social system of the Hindus." Do we need a citation to say that Hinduism is a comprehensive term which includes the traditions of all the Hindus? Why give any undue prominence or special mention to Sanatana Dharma or Hindu Dharma, terms not used by all the Hindus? They are like religious pork barrels added to the main bill.
One of the 6 posible meanings of the Sanskrit word 'sanaatana' given by Monier Williams New Dictionary is 'ancient'. Why insist on not preferring it? Why? Did Vaidya, writing not too long ago, use it just casually? Are we interested in improving the article or not?
Taking note of the word Hindu, Monier Williams New Edition (1899) Dictionary says, (fr. the Persian ...), and about Hindu-dharma, "the Hindu religion," and cites its own earlier 1st edition (1872) for it. The Dictionary is also careful to say about Hindu-sthana, "the country of the Hindus, Hindustan (properly restricted to the upper provinces between Benares and the Sutlej."
Wikipedia has to decide whether it wants to accept Hinduism as a comprehensive term comprising the traditions of all the Hindus, or let it be hijacked by some Hindus who like to call their traditions Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous user, whatever you have said above, I don't buy it. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, I cannot agree with your explanation. If you and Buddhipriya do not come up with citations, I should be quite justified to revise the opening statements. Then again, even if you were able to find citations [which I hope you do], the opening sentences would still need to be rephrased. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no discussion of Vaishnavism, Shaivism or Shaktism in the article. This basic information should be in the introduction. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I agree that it would be the faith. But we are using here the word Religion in English and what it means in English. I'm very sorry if it sounds like inciting religious debate. If need be I can show you more journal articles on this subject, personally I would not love to though. All I am expecting is a simple sentence or something clarifying this facet of Hinduism. Something like Some historians and scholars concider that Vaishnavism and Saivism were different religions in the past, but under contemporary Hinduism, these division are sects. Missing this would be an historical error in the subject. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Can the to following sentence over here: However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism. The denominations differ primarily in the God worshipped as the Supreme One and in the traditions that accompany worship of that God. The following be added: However, these denominations were considered to be separate religions before 14th century. ( [2] [3]).
- "What I am suggesting here is that many modern scholars, especially those who work principally with Sanskrit sources, may have unconsciously absorbed some of the self-imposed cultural isolation of premodern Sanskrit literature and then concluded that there was no Hindu awareness of the Muslim Other. As a consequence, they may also have assumed that the Hindus had no clear contrastive awareness of their own religious identity.
- Whatever the reason for the scholarly acceptance of the idea that there was no religious Hindu self-identity before 1800, the evidence against this view in vernacular Hindu literature is clear and abundant. The bulk of this evidence takes the form of texts composed by the popular religious poet-singers of North India, most of them members of non-Brahmin castes. This literature does precisely what Sanskrit literature refuses to do: it establishes a Hindu religious identity through a process of mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim Other. In practice, there can be no Hindu identity unless this is defined by contrast against such an Other. Without the Muslim (or some other non-Hindu), Hindus can only be Vaishnavas, Saivas, Smartas or the like. The presence of the Other is a necessary prerequisite for an active recognition of what the different Hindu sects and schools hold in common."
Reference #3:Kenoyer, J. M. "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization" pages 180-183. Oxford University Press 1998 Although I couldnt fishout the book, I managed to find a comentary on his other article and it says Kenoyer deciphered the Indus script and found to close to Near Eastern relgions but no direct mention to Hinduism. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again am sorry if I'm indeed sound anoying. I do not intend that. Connection with Hinduism to Indus Valley goes back to the Bull-like figure seal. I would like to agree that the Bull-like figure is Rudra and hence Shiva, but painfuly enough I will also have to see the wider sense of wikipedia, which entitles us to state what is being accepted by historians and scholars and when there is no consensus (or majority), we will have use words such as 'sugestion'/'probably' and so on. The issue on the Bull-like seal has already been dealth in another wikipedia article. Every religion finds it roots to very olden age philisophy, but those ancient philosophies cant be called the same religion. Anyways, thats my POV, but the issue is we need to stick on to whats beeing accepted as fact amongst scholars and historians. Appologies if I did hurt anyone's feelings. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am taking for granted that there is a consensus that there is indeed sugestions but no direct evidence of connection between Indus V civilisation and Hinduism. If I dont here back I will change the sentence into a more acceptable format, which won't hurt an Hindu nor a scholar. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The correction made after the above discussion has been reverted along with the other reverts. Can someone explain that please? Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to the last stable version of the article that I could find, which was as of May 21. That was prior to edit wars, protection of the page, and various vandalism episodes. I made this change not because I think there is any particular content issue, but simply because the page lost track of controlled editing along the line and I would like to see if we can try again for a more orderly process. Buddhipriya 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A user persistently keeps on adding commentary accusing Hinduism of being idolatrous. Apart from the fact that Idolatry is defined as a sin, it is incorrect when reliable sources deem it as Hindu iconography. While the words are similar, iconography has a more artsy and positive context while idolatry is defined as a sin. Baka man 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, many writers are adopting the term 'icon' in their description of Hindu religious figures. By the way, see an Encyclopedia Britannica article: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-342372/lingodbhavamurti and a BBC news piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2929863.stm. Both refer to Hindu figurines and symbols as 'icons', not 'idols'. While you may bring counter-examples in other or the same venerable educational and news sources, the fact is that the use of the term iconography is growing in reference to Hinduism and Wikipedia's offensiveness and Point-of-View (POV) policies reject 'idolatry' as a genuine means of referring to Hindu religious symbols. Also, I would refer you to a simple search on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-5430948-7291363?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Hindu+iconography&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go . The point is not whether idol has more usage than icon, but that idol is offensive, inaccurate, and strongly biased in its perspective while icon is not. While you might argue that both of the words 'idol' and 'icon' carry Christian usage into a Hindu domain, the problem is that the English language itself is loaded with Christian terminology and many English words are loaded with Christian or Christian-influenced etymologies. The best policy is to err on the side of neutrality of expression, where icon neither judges nor condemns, while idol merely condemns. As a college student in the states, I hear far more professors and students using the term iconography than idol-worship or idolatry, since they'd be smacked down in an instant if they did so in a context of supposedly objective study of Hindu religious symbols. And my last point, the majority of editors in Wikipedia have already established iconography as the term to use over idolatry... LordSuryaofShropshire fought this war three years ago with others. -- 69.203.80.158 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The article cannot suggest that Hindus are obsessed with an attachment to the murti. That is both incorrect and opprobrious. Baka man 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Easy way to solve this folks, what do the reliable sources say?-- 0rrAvenger 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See [7]
I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. Some editors strongly believe idolatry is a negative word (exactly as propagated by Abrahamic religions) and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the vivid paintings used by the Russian Orthodox Church, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (in flesh and blood) (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, rats, snakes,...) under the care of appointed minders and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope/context of iconography or moorti worship. There is no question of malice in the choice of words.
Idolatry is the core pillar of Hinduism. God is believed to manifest himself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), trees (like banyan), flora (like lotus) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, buffaloes, monkeys, rats, et al). For instance, the rat temple in Rajasthan [8] attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings. This is nothing to be ashamed of and brushed under. It is part and parcel of the rich Indian heritage.
It should be noted that iconography is only a small subset of the vast fabric of idolatry in Hinduism. Instead of getting unnecessarily neurotic over terminology, this subject must be a collaborative work to raise Wikipedia usability.
Also, may I remind that this is a encyclopaedia. So there is no room for political correctness. What may be offensive to some, may be informative to others. On a personal note, I don't think there is anything evil about animal or devil worship either. So let us get rid of the stereotypes and stick to matters of fact. Now voodoo worship is also considered acceptable.
Anwar 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So in the same way, the words "Pagan" and "Idol-worship" are no longer used in the derogatory sense, but purely in an academic or in an objective sense.
Besides, why the hell must we pander to the definitions laid by the Catholic Church of the Middle-Ages ? Arey Garv se bolo, "We are pagans !" Swabimaan se bolo, "We worship idols!". Anyway, any westerner that you meet (except the Pope) will respect that. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
What is objectionable with this extract? Hinduism is sometimes considered to be a henotheistic [5], but such a view oversimplifies a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning idolatry, polytheism, [6] pantheism, monism and even atheism. For instance, the Advaita Vedanta school holds that there is only one causal entity ( Brahman), which manifests itself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al). [7] The rat temple in Rajasthan [8] attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings while snake worship is more popular in south India. [9] Many scholars consider the Samkhya school of thought to have had atheistic leanings.
All links are produced from mainstream websites. Snake worship is not some obscure occult practice. There are plenty of motion picture films in Tamil praising the omnipotence of the Snake God. Anwar 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Anwar, here are some of the problems with your edit:
I assume that you didn't appreciate these finer points earlier and therefore repeated ( [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) added the disputed content in spite of reversions by sevral editors. But now that these reasons have been explained to you in detail, I hope you will desist from repeating your disruptive editing. Abecedare 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph has poor narrative flow due to the inclusion of various nominal definitions (e.g., Hindu Dharma and Sanatana Dharma). It thwarts a reader straight away from getting to the fact of the matter that it is a religion and that it originated from India and so on.
Hence, the introductory paragraph would read beautifully for the layperson (or anyone else) if we got straight to the point, as follows:
"Hinduism is a religion that originated from the Indian subcontinent."
This then should be connected to the second paragraph which begins "With its origins in the Vedic civilization..."
The elaboration about Hinduism being known as Hindu Dharma and the Sanatana Dharma and its meaning as the 'eternal law' etc. should be moved to the Etymology section.
This makes for a crisp, to-the-point introductory statement about what Hinduism is, where it sprang from, and its significance. This is what an introductory statement should embody -- never let it get bogged down by lengthy etymological definitions. Save that for the etymology section which interested readers can refer to later if they wish to further explore definitions and etymology. AppleJuggler 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world that originated from the Indian subcontinent.
It is the world's oldest extant religion, and has approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal, and a large population in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.
![]() | 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Do we have any citations for this newly added section ? Most of the addition is fine in my opinion (although it can use a bit of a trim); however I wonder if seemingly exact prescriptions such as the exception for "children under five" are really universal. I personally doubt that you could get 10 independent Hindus to agree upon the exact age before which cremation is not obligatory - most likely the number just reflects a particular author's or sect's reading. If so we should mark it as such. Abecedare 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It is true that children under 5 are NOT cremated...but there is really nothing magical about the figure "5" .... The rationale is that the "UPANAYANA" or Sacred thread ceremony has NOT YET been performed on the "unfortunate" boy.... Once UPANAYANA ceremony has been done, cremation has to be done, REGARDLESS of age.... I know this for sure, but I really dont have any "proofs", you will have to either take my word or read further... The "Anthyeshti" is where requirements about cremation are listed in Hindu texts ... Neither do I have any information on the minimum equivalent criteria for "unfortunate" female kid/baby/girl....
~~Kumar
The only purpose of cremation is to dispose off a dead body most efficiently and with dignity. The rituals are intended to help the departed soul on its onward journey. [Let Buddhipriya find citations.] Thanks.
Kanchanamala
03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have changed any occurrence of '''<span style="font-size:120%">Lorem Ipsum</span>''' to the simple ====Lorem Ipsum====. I don't know if this is controversial or not, so I have asked here.-- 0rrAvenger 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I knew there was some good faith reason for it =). I have a suggestion: can we make it so that the ToC is defaulted not to show? That is, when the page is loaded, it starts up not shown, and a user must click "show" in order to reveal it. Hmm?-- 0rrAvenger 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am randomly clicking articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles and checking if any of them use a hidden Table of Contents. So far, none of the articles I picked have it hidden. In fact, consider The_Adventures_of_Tintin, where the ToC is one screen long. Another comparison, which may be more important: Bahá'í Faith. The Table of contents there is one screen long as well. However, they have an interesting novelty: the Bahaii faith template is parallel to the ToC, so as to not have a big blank space to the right of the ToC. Perhaps we could use that example?-- 0rrAvenger 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Along those lines, maybe we need a lead picture for this article. I'm checking articles on other religions:
Synthesizing from these examples, perhaps we should put a picture where the template currently is, and then move the template down to be parallel with the ToC. Thoughts?-- 0rrAvenger 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be leary of quoting from or referencing literature by non-indians or non-hindus as more often than not, such works smack of euro-centric bias. The overarching desire to claim some kind of link to origins of vedas and the VEDIC religion (I prefer the word vedic to hindu) as evidenced in advancement of the AIT. (No incontrovertible evidence has been produced to support the AIT, thats whole nother topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV ( talk • contribs) May 2, 2007
Article claims early date for Hinduism origin ("early Harappan"),
but then cites cognates (e.g. "Zeus") in Indo-European religions
as support! If one argues that early Indo-European religion
can be called "Hinduism" then of course Hinduism is very old,
but the connection with early Harappan is then contradictory
(assuming a sane theory of Indo-European expansion.)
Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Indus Valley as an Hindu civilization is a much larger claim. Since all references I found on the religion of Indus Valley says that no tangible evidence exists. I think we should keep religious emotions out of wikipedia, as well as original research. Thanks Wiki San Roze talk 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, I intend to modify the intro of the article to read:
Okay? Thanks. Kanchanamala 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Bingo. You are saying exactly what I said above quite some time ago. Thanks for supporting my contention. I shall remove the unsupported statement from the intro. Thanks. Kanchanamala 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in some modern Indian languages [1]) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law". [2]
In an effort to preserve the original sourcing, I restored the footnoting as follows:
Hinduism is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law" [3] or "ancient law". [4]
This has the effect of adding the alternate translation. Other editors please check the sourcing as I did not work much on the prior version. And since translation seems to be of interest, I added the Conze version discussed previously on this page. The citation which she added from the Dhammapada translation was provided by me earlier in discussion on this issue.
What exactly is the real concern? Is it that this is a political catchphrase? If so, and if it is in dispute, should it be in the lead? Or should its use as a political slogan be made explicit? Buddhipriya 05:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Give a citation to support the statement that Hinduism is known as Hindu Dharma in some modern Indian languages, or else remove that statement. Also, it is a minor point, and does not deserve the prominence it has been given, and it certainly does not belong as part of the opening sentence of the article.
2. Give a citation to support the statement that 'Sanatana Dharma' is a comprehensive term accepted by all the traditions of Hinduism, or else remove that statement.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sanatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma are not synonyms of Hinduism, even as Catholicism and Protestantism are not synonyms of Christianity, and Sunni and Shia are not synonyms of Islam. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says:
Compare this with the amateurish hodge-podge article in the Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster does not mention Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.
Webster's New World College Dictionary says, "Hinduism-a religion and social system of the Hindus." Do we need a citation to say that Hinduism is a comprehensive term which includes the traditions of all the Hindus? Why give any undue prominence or special mention to Sanatana Dharma or Hindu Dharma, terms not used by all the Hindus? They are like religious pork barrels added to the main bill.
One of the 6 posible meanings of the Sanskrit word 'sanaatana' given by Monier Williams New Dictionary is 'ancient'. Why insist on not preferring it? Why? Did Vaidya, writing not too long ago, use it just casually? Are we interested in improving the article or not?
Taking note of the word Hindu, Monier Williams New Edition (1899) Dictionary says, (fr. the Persian ...), and about Hindu-dharma, "the Hindu religion," and cites its own earlier 1st edition (1872) for it. The Dictionary is also careful to say about Hindu-sthana, "the country of the Hindus, Hindustan (properly restricted to the upper provinces between Benares and the Sutlej."
Wikipedia has to decide whether it wants to accept Hinduism as a comprehensive term comprising the traditions of all the Hindus, or let it be hijacked by some Hindus who like to call their traditions Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.
Thanks. Kanchanamala 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous user, whatever you have said above, I don't buy it. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, I cannot agree with your explanation. If you and Buddhipriya do not come up with citations, I should be quite justified to revise the opening statements. Then again, even if you were able to find citations [which I hope you do], the opening sentences would still need to be rephrased. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no discussion of Vaishnavism, Shaivism or Shaktism in the article. This basic information should be in the introduction. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I agree that it would be the faith. But we are using here the word Religion in English and what it means in English. I'm very sorry if it sounds like inciting religious debate. If need be I can show you more journal articles on this subject, personally I would not love to though. All I am expecting is a simple sentence or something clarifying this facet of Hinduism. Something like Some historians and scholars concider that Vaishnavism and Saivism were different religions in the past, but under contemporary Hinduism, these division are sects. Missing this would be an historical error in the subject. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Can the to following sentence over here: However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism. The denominations differ primarily in the God worshipped as the Supreme One and in the traditions that accompany worship of that God. The following be added: However, these denominations were considered to be separate religions before 14th century. ( [2] [3]).
- "What I am suggesting here is that many modern scholars, especially those who work principally with Sanskrit sources, may have unconsciously absorbed some of the self-imposed cultural isolation of premodern Sanskrit literature and then concluded that there was no Hindu awareness of the Muslim Other. As a consequence, they may also have assumed that the Hindus had no clear contrastive awareness of their own religious identity.
- Whatever the reason for the scholarly acceptance of the idea that there was no religious Hindu self-identity before 1800, the evidence against this view in vernacular Hindu literature is clear and abundant. The bulk of this evidence takes the form of texts composed by the popular religious poet-singers of North India, most of them members of non-Brahmin castes. This literature does precisely what Sanskrit literature refuses to do: it establishes a Hindu religious identity through a process of mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim Other. In practice, there can be no Hindu identity unless this is defined by contrast against such an Other. Without the Muslim (or some other non-Hindu), Hindus can only be Vaishnavas, Saivas, Smartas or the like. The presence of the Other is a necessary prerequisite for an active recognition of what the different Hindu sects and schools hold in common."
Reference #3:Kenoyer, J. M. "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization" pages 180-183. Oxford University Press 1998 Although I couldnt fishout the book, I managed to find a comentary on his other article and it says Kenoyer deciphered the Indus script and found to close to Near Eastern relgions but no direct mention to Hinduism. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again am sorry if I'm indeed sound anoying. I do not intend that. Connection with Hinduism to Indus Valley goes back to the Bull-like figure seal. I would like to agree that the Bull-like figure is Rudra and hence Shiva, but painfuly enough I will also have to see the wider sense of wikipedia, which entitles us to state what is being accepted by historians and scholars and when there is no consensus (or majority), we will have use words such as 'sugestion'/'probably' and so on. The issue on the Bull-like seal has already been dealth in another wikipedia article. Every religion finds it roots to very olden age philisophy, but those ancient philosophies cant be called the same religion. Anyways, thats my POV, but the issue is we need to stick on to whats beeing accepted as fact amongst scholars and historians. Appologies if I did hurt anyone's feelings. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am taking for granted that there is a consensus that there is indeed sugestions but no direct evidence of connection between Indus V civilisation and Hinduism. If I dont here back I will change the sentence into a more acceptable format, which won't hurt an Hindu nor a scholar. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The correction made after the above discussion has been reverted along with the other reverts. Can someone explain that please? Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to the last stable version of the article that I could find, which was as of May 21. That was prior to edit wars, protection of the page, and various vandalism episodes. I made this change not because I think there is any particular content issue, but simply because the page lost track of controlled editing along the line and I would like to see if we can try again for a more orderly process. Buddhipriya 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A user persistently keeps on adding commentary accusing Hinduism of being idolatrous. Apart from the fact that Idolatry is defined as a sin, it is incorrect when reliable sources deem it as Hindu iconography. While the words are similar, iconography has a more artsy and positive context while idolatry is defined as a sin. Baka man 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, many writers are adopting the term 'icon' in their description of Hindu religious figures. By the way, see an Encyclopedia Britannica article: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-342372/lingodbhavamurti and a BBC news piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2929863.stm. Both refer to Hindu figurines and symbols as 'icons', not 'idols'. While you may bring counter-examples in other or the same venerable educational and news sources, the fact is that the use of the term iconography is growing in reference to Hinduism and Wikipedia's offensiveness and Point-of-View (POV) policies reject 'idolatry' as a genuine means of referring to Hindu religious symbols. Also, I would refer you to a simple search on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-5430948-7291363?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Hindu+iconography&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go . The point is not whether idol has more usage than icon, but that idol is offensive, inaccurate, and strongly biased in its perspective while icon is not. While you might argue that both of the words 'idol' and 'icon' carry Christian usage into a Hindu domain, the problem is that the English language itself is loaded with Christian terminology and many English words are loaded with Christian or Christian-influenced etymologies. The best policy is to err on the side of neutrality of expression, where icon neither judges nor condemns, while idol merely condemns. As a college student in the states, I hear far more professors and students using the term iconography than idol-worship or idolatry, since they'd be smacked down in an instant if they did so in a context of supposedly objective study of Hindu religious symbols. And my last point, the majority of editors in Wikipedia have already established iconography as the term to use over idolatry... LordSuryaofShropshire fought this war three years ago with others. -- 69.203.80.158 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The article cannot suggest that Hindus are obsessed with an attachment to the murti. That is both incorrect and opprobrious. Baka man 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Easy way to solve this folks, what do the reliable sources say?-- 0rrAvenger 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See [7]
I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. Some editors strongly believe idolatry is a negative word (exactly as propagated by Abrahamic religions) and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the vivid paintings used by the Russian Orthodox Church, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (in flesh and blood) (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, rats, snakes,...) under the care of appointed minders and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope/context of iconography or moorti worship. There is no question of malice in the choice of words.
Idolatry is the core pillar of Hinduism. God is believed to manifest himself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), trees (like banyan), flora (like lotus) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, buffaloes, monkeys, rats, et al). For instance, the rat temple in Rajasthan [8] attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings. This is nothing to be ashamed of and brushed under. It is part and parcel of the rich Indian heritage.
It should be noted that iconography is only a small subset of the vast fabric of idolatry in Hinduism. Instead of getting unnecessarily neurotic over terminology, this subject must be a collaborative work to raise Wikipedia usability.
Also, may I remind that this is a encyclopaedia. So there is no room for political correctness. What may be offensive to some, may be informative to others. On a personal note, I don't think there is anything evil about animal or devil worship either. So let us get rid of the stereotypes and stick to matters of fact. Now voodoo worship is also considered acceptable.
Anwar 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So in the same way, the words "Pagan" and "Idol-worship" are no longer used in the derogatory sense, but purely in an academic or in an objective sense.
Besides, why the hell must we pander to the definitions laid by the Catholic Church of the Middle-Ages ? Arey Garv se bolo, "We are pagans !" Swabimaan se bolo, "We worship idols!". Anyway, any westerner that you meet (except the Pope) will respect that. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
What is objectionable with this extract? Hinduism is sometimes considered to be a henotheistic [5], but such a view oversimplifies a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning idolatry, polytheism, [6] pantheism, monism and even atheism. For instance, the Advaita Vedanta school holds that there is only one causal entity ( Brahman), which manifests itself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al). [7] The rat temple in Rajasthan [8] attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings while snake worship is more popular in south India. [9] Many scholars consider the Samkhya school of thought to have had atheistic leanings.
All links are produced from mainstream websites. Snake worship is not some obscure occult practice. There are plenty of motion picture films in Tamil praising the omnipotence of the Snake God. Anwar 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Anwar, here are some of the problems with your edit:
I assume that you didn't appreciate these finer points earlier and therefore repeated ( [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) added the disputed content in spite of reversions by sevral editors. But now that these reasons have been explained to you in detail, I hope you will desist from repeating your disruptive editing. Abecedare 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph has poor narrative flow due to the inclusion of various nominal definitions (e.g., Hindu Dharma and Sanatana Dharma). It thwarts a reader straight away from getting to the fact of the matter that it is a religion and that it originated from India and so on.
Hence, the introductory paragraph would read beautifully for the layperson (or anyone else) if we got straight to the point, as follows:
"Hinduism is a religion that originated from the Indian subcontinent."
This then should be connected to the second paragraph which begins "With its origins in the Vedic civilization..."
The elaboration about Hinduism being known as Hindu Dharma and the Sanatana Dharma and its meaning as the 'eternal law' etc. should be moved to the Etymology section.
This makes for a crisp, to-the-point introductory statement about what Hinduism is, where it sprang from, and its significance. This is what an introductory statement should embody -- never let it get bogged down by lengthy etymological definitions. Save that for the etymology section which interested readers can refer to later if they wish to further explore definitions and etymology. AppleJuggler 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world that originated from the Indian subcontinent.
It is the world's oldest extant religion, and has approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal, and a large population in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.