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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I have reverted these recent edits which were (1) unnecessary details and repetitions for this already lengthy article, (2) unsourced and (3) partially OR and POV.
Incidentally
Vinay Jha (
talk ·
contribs) (and his prior accounts
Winai Zhaa (
talk ·
contribs),
59.94.47.127 (
talk ·
contribs),
User:59.94.45.209,
59.94.44.198 (
talk ·
contribs) etc.) has already been told about wikipedia's policies
WP:V,
WP:OR,
WP:FRINGE,
WP:RS etc. See discussions on
Talk:Surya Siddhanta, and
Talk:Vedanga Jyotisha in particular.
Abecedare
06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article does not seem to cover penis worship at all. I found some links online. [1] Hope this helps.
Though this ritual is more popular in peninsular India, it is still prevalent in the north too. For instance, I have read about the great Penis temple in Amarnath, Kashmir. Anwar 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hindus do not "worship" penises. The Lingam is symbolic and is meant to represent Shiva. [2](UTC)-- Jesucristo301 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The actual characterization of the deity commonly referred to as "Shiva-linga" is jyotir-linga. The word 'linga' in Sanskrit means symbol. The image of Jyotir-linga represents in a concrete ('murta') form the intangible appearance of the spirit ('cit') as flame ('jyoti') in creation. That phenomenon happens in the Shiva aspect of Narayana, hence Shiva-linga. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This section of the discussion should be removed due to it's lack of credibility as evidenced herein.The user making this claim has been discredited as anti-Hindu and has displayed attitudes characterizing him as such by the aforementioned user Abecedare, his source's (sic) claim has been refuted various times.-- Jesucristo301 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just made an edit to the definition of the term deva and wanted to upgrade the sourcing to MW related to the Note, but in doing so ran into the problem of named references, which make maintenance of the article difficult. In this case, glossing the sourcing to MW on the word deva will require disconnecting that note from the general vague MW name and putting in a more specific note. Because disconnecting this note in this way raises the general issue of use of named notes, I would like to draw attention to this issue here. Some people like them, others do not. However there seems to be no disagreement that use of named notes can produce collateral damage in multiple places in an article if one instance of them is edited. They also result in non-sequential numbering of Notes, which makes it difficult to work backward from the Notes section to locate all uses of a particular source without putting the text of the article into a word processor. For these reasons, rather than using a named note, in this particular instance I will use a gloss plus a page citation, making the note unique. Any comments on this issue? Buddhipriya 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
In the lead: Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.
"Large Hindu populations" is very subjective, something that can be twisted around the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I suggest we create an official cut-off, so the number of countries can be limited. A particular number (eg.10 million) for countries with large populations where Hinduism is a minority and a particular percentage (>50%) for nations (with smaller populations) where Hinduism is the majority. Note that this paragraph will most likely be moved to a future "Demographics" section when we get the time. Gizza Discuss © 02:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There is only one Hindu country, and that is the Indian subcontinent. Countries where the percentage of Hindus among the overall population is significantly large, should not be referred to as Hindu countries. Also, we should recognize countries by the percentage of Hindus, and not by sheer numbers.
Kanchanamala
05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me elaborate. There is only one Hindu 'country', and that is the Indian subcontinent. Bharat, that is India, has a secular government. Nepal is Hindu. Pakistan is Islamic. Bangladesh is Muslim. The ancestors of non-Hindu "Indians" on the Indian subcontinent were originally Hindus. The ancestors of Parsis came to India from Persia, and they have always been exemplary Indians. Thanks. Kanchanamala 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Gizza. To repeat what I have said above, countries where the percentage of Hindus among the overall population is significantly large, should not be referred to as "Hindu countries". Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please add any sources you find to the following list:
To Abecedare (Not an edit war): You know I have consistentently avoided any edit war, even when I found I was in the right. But as you want to discuss some points,I must answer (it is not an edit war). Many authors translate 'Dharma' as 'Law', without realizing that it often leads to misinterpretation, because Dharma had nothing to do with man-made laws, and it was always considered to be eternal, i.e,'Sanatana'. Not a single instance can be cited fron entire Indian history when any political power exercised any right in deciding the content of Dharma. I,therefore, introduced a small clause to remove ambiguity :"'Dharma meant 'Divine Law' which even kings could not change." If you want source, the best definition was provided by Bhishma in Mahabharata before his death, which I will not elaborate at present for want of space. It was not an unnecessary detail. Secondly, I did not add a single unsourced reference here. Samkhya defined as an atheist philosophy is a modern view of some authors, e.g., Sen Gupta, who was already cited. I added the view of Gita, citing the verse also, which showed that Samkhya was quite opposite of what Sen Gupta says. You have quoted WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS policies , which implies that that Gita cannot be quoted as a reliable source of concepts crucial to Hinduism ! Thirdly, I had requested DAB to close the discussion on Surya Siddhanta because it was growing unnecessarily long. He has asked me to contribute to that article, taking care of Wiki guidelines. I was new to Wiki and did not know many of Wiki policies then. Whatever I had added to Surya Siddhanta was totally verifiable and sourced, but I had planned to add the referwences and complete the incomplete sections step by step, but DAB deleted everything before I could finish. I asked him to reconsider, and he asked me to continue editing Surya Siddhanta, but in a responsible way. But I now find that many editors are quoting this episode as my irresponsibility. Hence I must clarify the misgivings created by the fundamental complaint of DAB against me due to my following statement "it will mean that constants of modern astronomy were known to ancient Surya Siddhantic scholars with a high degree of precision" . I did not refute these allegations, abecause I did not want to hurt DAB, and therefore my image was tarnished. See the version of Surya Siddhanta before I touched it (or after DAB removed my "error"), the article says :
Now see my final version (of 13:22, 7 July 2007,which DAB deleted). Although I never remove the versions of other editors even if they are lopsided, I had to replace the whole para quoted above with the following :
If others declare that Surya Siddhantic year is just 1.4 seconds away from modern value, they are scientific (although this view cannot be supported by any source, either the text or any translation,including that of Burgess who was a high grade scholar). But when I showed that Surya Siddhantic tropical as well as sidereal years had a much greater difference (e.g,115 seconds in the case of tropical year and 207 seconds in the case of sidereal year )from modern values,I was charged of "pseudoscience" , "Original Research", etc. Since DAB was spending his valuable time upon unpaid research, I did not want to point out his mistakes in the open, and asked him to discuss the matter privately, but he chose to humiliate me in the talk pages, and I did not answer in same coin. The present article on Surya Siddhanta contains "Original Research", "Blatant Lies", "Unsourced or felsely sourced statements" , 'Pseudoscience and extravagant claims", which I vainly tried to correct. I said that Surya Siddhantic year has 115.6 seconds of difference from modern value, the article (wrongly) says that only 1.4 seconds of difference is there. Hence this article is making 83 times more extravagant and pseudoscientific claims than I am being charged of. Many Wiki administrators are half my age, but some have used terms like "nonsense", "garbage" for me , and addressed me impolitely.(cf. precession (astronomy)), where many readers are asking for Newtonian formulae in a simple manner for a long time which no editor was providing(cf.talk page of that article), which I had started contributing, but was stopped midway with an abuse, and I kept silent) I never complained. You must have heard of Hindu tolerance, but you are not able to see it when it stands before you. I am an ardent admirer of Jesus Christ, and while reading Wiki articles acout Christianity, I found many of them being devoid of a single reference. But I did not object, because I knew the statements, though unsourced, were true. As for Vedanga Jyotisha, I found that lopsided account was there, hence I restored the balance, and asked DAB to give his views about my edits. I hoped he will ask me to insert citations wherever he would deem fit. But he deleted my whole contribution, without discussing anything, although I had mentioned that I was adding the view of a long line of mainstream indologists, including Colebrooke. Sourcing needs time, and my user page informs you that I am presently busy in an international conference on monsoons. Hence I will be away from Wiki till 31:7:2007, and if the present unkind behaviour continues, I will be forced to leave Wiki. Unwarranted personal attack is the last thing a scholar should think of. Academic discussions should maintain some decorum. I never added anything unverifiable anywhere in Wiki, but my contributions were deleted before I could finish. Even some oral traditions I referred to in Surya Siddhanta (but did not elaborate) has been published twiced under the joint editorship of heads of departments and professors of three reputed universities of India, which I had to mention at proper sections according to my plan which I am not in a mood to implement now. DAB and others must have heard of only two versions of Surya Siddhanta, none of which has ever been used in actual practice by any almanac maker of India. I wanted to add a brief account of all known versions which could me traced and verified. But I cannot contribute anything under present circumstances, and many Wiki editors will heave a sigh of relief to hear it. I do not mind humiliation. But constant deletions and reverting makes it impossible to contribute anything. If you thought I must add extra citations, I would gladly would have done that at a short notice. But I think I am unwanted in Wiki. Not only all my contributions but me too should be deleted from Wiki for good. Now you will say that I am wasting space on Wiki talk pages. One needs a single sentence to level just or unjust charges on a person, but clarification needs some space. How many editors have cared to read the original texts related to indology is not the point. The point is that of intolerance. I think tolerance is the other name of Hinduism, which I am exhibiting all along. Be mindful that I have no association with the passangers of any hindutva bandwagon, who are doing more harm to Hinduism and to scholarly research than the trigger-happy attitude of some Wiki administrators who delete a thing and discuss it later, which means you slap a person and put forth your arguments later. I have seen how opinions of other editors are managed behind the screens in an edit war. I do not need such managed votes. Have your way. If Wiki misinforms the public, knowingly or unknowingly, the loss is not mine. Good Bye for 10 days. VinJha, 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Scriptures and theology section. In contrast to the scriptural canons of some religions, the Hindu scriptural canon is not closed in the sense that there is little theological quarrel between Hindu denominations although these denominations may view God and their notions in a different form or sense. The first sentence is making two distinct point that weakly related to each other: 1) Scriptural canon not closed 2) Little conflict between denominations. Before the section was compressed, these points at least had separate sentences if not separate paragraphs. They may have been in different sections. I suspect the citation only sources the second point in the sentence. Someone can check that.
According to memory, the point mentioned previously was that more Hindu scriptures can still be created because Hindus seek to find the truth in new ways, or something along those lines. It wasn't to do with different sects getting along with each other. Gizza Discuss © 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Continuing from Talk:Hinduism/Archive_18#Boon and Hindu.
I'll leave it to others to decide how to deal with boons (since I know little about this). But it would be nice if boon in an article such as Arjuna could at least be linked to a section of an article, however small. -- Chriswaterguy talk 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a comma in the first sentence somewhere? -- 66.169.9.118 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yama is enumerated as first of the eight parts (angas) of Yoga in Yogasutra-2.29 ; therefore, definitions of these eight parts, including Yama, of Yoga logically occur in YS-2.29 in commentaries. Five types of Yamas (Yamāḥ in plural) are discussed in the next sutra whose commentaries define these five parts such as Ahimsa, Satya, etc there (YS-2.30). I corrected the citation in my last edit, and then I corrected the number of correct sutra in my next edit (17 Aug,2007). A term may occur many times in a text, but we should cite the definition from where that term has been properly defined by reliable commentators. This important thing was missed by DAB because he does not read the sources in detail and relies upon shortcuts. Instead, he called me silly (cf. Edit summary). By learning case or gender one cannot become a scholar, good editing requires thorough education, but abusing needs no education ! Some editors do not allow improvement of Wiki articles. Cf. WP:CIVILITY. - Vinay Jha 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I gave the article a read-over specifically with regard to sourcing, and noticed some things which may be areas for improvement.
1) Quite a few of the notes are of the type: "Jones (1982)" which is so general that verification of the statements is difficult. At a minimum I think we should try to upgrade these sources to include page numbers.
2) Some Notes such as #83 ("arcye viṣṇau śīlā-dhīr. . . narakī saḥ") do not provide any edition or versification detail at all, making these citations dubious, particularly since they are quotations from Puranic or scriptural sources with no intervening academic review, thus suggesting that they are WP:OR. Other examples of direct quotation of scripture such as #45 "'My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.' (Bhaktivedanta 1997, ch. 11.54)" include adequate sourcing, but still may involve significant WP:POV issues because while they may reflect the views of a particular teacher, they may or may not be generally true.
3) Some of the Notes, e.g., (#69 "Rigveda is not only the oldest among the vedas, but is one of the earliest Indo-European texts." contain only unsourced statements which themselves are subject to challenge. Another example is the very first note, #1: "Hindu Dharma" in modern Indian languages such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada." Perhaps true, but who said so?
4) There is some overreliance on web sites to source things, rather than using stronger academic sources, e.g. #70, "Hinduwebsite.com explaining the yajnas. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." I think we should move toward upgrading such web links with more solid academic sourcing. Some of the sources clearly fail to meet the tests for WP:EL and WP:RS, such as #27: "Manifold Mahadevas Nature Spirits. Blessingsconucopia.com. Maureen Grace Burns, Blessings Cornucopia. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." These sorts of dubious web sites should be expunged from the article immediately if they fail to meet the tests for inclusion of such links
5. Some of the sourcing is from dubious authorities that are controversial, such as David Frawley. If vague uses of Frawley to source things as in #7: "Frawley 2001" were phased out in favor of stronger sources that are less open to debate, the article would have more credibility.
A more general issue is that in reading over the article closely I realized that the mental model is that Hinduism is one entity and thus is described over and over using singular verb forms ("it is...") rather than being viewed as a composite entity or collection of social and religious traditions. Consider the multifactorial approach of Michaels, 2004, pp. 21, who says "Examined closely, Hinduism consists of three Hindu religions and four forms of Hindu religiosity, which can occur in all Hindu religions. (For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term Hinduism from now on for the totality of the Hindu religions and their religious forms.)" Michaels analysis permits the segmentation of Hindu beliefs and practices in ways that clearly differentiate between things like Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism, folk religions, and recently-founded religious sects. I feel that the discussion we recently had regarding whether Hinduism is a religion was one helpful dialog on this larger issue. The connection to sourcing is that many of the sources are from specific sectarian viewpoints, and may in some cases be overgeneralizing.
It is true that Hinduism is "multifactorial" as Michaels says. However, the essential thing to remember is who the audience is for this article: generally the audience will be people who don't know anything whatsoever about Hinduism and want a quick sketch. Michaels' analysis is great for a publication meant primarily for scholars or those with a special interest in Hinduism, but it is too much for those who want to learn one or two things in 10 minutes. HeBhagawan 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to do some editing of the sourcing on the article along the lines discussed above, and would appreciate dialog with other editors regarding these views. Buddhipriya 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines of the article is totally inappropriate. Would you please consider relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it? Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, some of us involved in improving the article on Hinduism are like a group of editors riding in a car, and you, amongst us, are at the wheel. It is not an easy task to drive a juggernaut. But, of course, you have been doing great. At a time when discussions were heated, you did very well, and since we had to have some resolution for the time being, your efforts made it possible for me to say that the issue was very well resolved in the article. I am confident that all of us, your fellow editors, have been appreciative, and thankful to you indeed.
Now, things have cooled off, and since improving the article is an ongoing process, I have broached the matter once again. Right before saying to you [at 09:47] that the issue was very well resolved, I also repeated for Buddhipriya [at 02:24] what I wished you to consider. I still wish you to consider it, and I hope you will revisit that passage.
If we temper the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines by relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it, the article will be more balanced. That's my submission. If you can do it, then please consider doing it. Thanks. Kanchanamala 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
there is no reason to rehash the debate unless new evidence is presented. The arguments are all there in the talk archives, and the solution reached is fair. What we are missing completely (or, Hindu denominations is missing), are rough demographics of Hinduism: which sects account for what fraction of Hindus? Until we have that, there is no way to judge how prominent these vociferous Hindu reform movements really are, and consequently, how notable the Sanatana Dharma neologism should be considered within Hinduism. -- dab (𒁳) 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What references, Abecedare, and what arguments, Dbachmann? The prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines is not proper. Why not improve the article by making it more balanced? Why is it such a problem to relegate the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" to another paragraph? You guys virtually have the article, and I am not in any mood to fight. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
added quotes from "Bannanje Govindachar" in the swastika section, explaining the meaning behind the symbolism. -- Jayaram Uparna 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
'Jayaram, Gnananapiti, mattu Sarvagnya, bhale bhale. yen saadhyavaagatto maadi' [Wow J, G, and S. Please do whatever you can.] Hinduism, protected by Sanskrit, lives in Kannada and in all the other Indian languages. Even as the European languages are accepted in Western studies done in English, all the Indian languages should be accepted in Indian studies done in English. Thanks. Kanchanamala 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections
Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).
This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.
Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 04:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
---I would vote to keep all the references together; don't split them up. I fear that it may make it more difficult to edit for people who want add footnotes if you split them up. Relatively few people will read the footnotes, and those who do will not have any problem finding what they need without the split. HeBhagawan 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
---I will need some time to understand the proposal. I had a look on refs. and citations. Refs. are certainly a long list. I believe, HeBhagawan's view should be considered carefully as he had been a very active editor. However, could I pl. know what is the proposal for spliting refs. and what would be the advantage? The subject itself is enormous and this article can not be shaped in the way some other articles appear of lesser theme.
swadhyayee
20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to change law to 'divine(religious) law' in introductory para, but was reverted. Then I linked Dharma, so that many readers might not be misled by the lopsided translation of Dharma as law. But this simple linking was also reverted. Now I am not going to touch that introductory para in Hinduism again ; let dharma be translated as law or as skin (dermos in Latin, which contains the body, as dharma contains life and society ; cf. its root dhr ). I will not object to anyone translating dharma even as leather or leather-jacket ; I have had too much of futile controversies and I do not want to generate new ones. Vinay Jha 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Vinay, the Sanskrit word 'dharma' has been widely translated by writers as 'law' even though it is simply incorrect. The word 'dharma' from the root 'dhrn dhaarane' means [any] principle which is adopted or held by anyone. "dhaaranaat dharmetyaahuh". Don't mistake me if I ask you not to despair. When certain rules of Wikipedia are followed literally, then accuracy can get ignored even if (according to my friend Buddhipriya) it is pointed out by Adi Shankaracharya. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Though 'law' is not the equivalent of 'dharma', which is more like 'what aught to be done' (suggested), I can think of no better word in English. Aupmanyav 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The Union government of India officially admitted in late 2007 that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Ram or the other idols in Ramayana. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Archaeological Survey of India too rejected the claim of the existence of the Ram Sethu bridge in the area where the project was under construction. [4]
A day later, the affidavit was withdrawn under pressure from Hindu fundamentalist parties. [5] However, the State government of Tamil Nadu continue to maintain its official stance and refused to review the project. [6] [7]
Please add the above timely verdict in a separate section called Fact and Fiction. Anwar 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Anwar Miya, lack of any evidence is not, in any way, denial of the existence of Rama or of the bridge mentioned in the Ramayana. Thanks. Kanchanamala 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because it is the "current flavor of the day" in Indian politics doesn't mean it should be added to the article. How many such controversies do you want to add to this article? 24.5.120.23 09:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Anwar Miya, Ram is not dependent on historicity. It is a myth of hindu culture. Whether Ram was a historical person or not, the story still guides us in our actions in life. I am an atheist, but the story still is very dear to me. If you take it historically, can Mohammad's visit to seven heavens on the flying white horse and meeting the earlier prophets be termed as history? Or whether Adam and Eve were historical (it is proved wrong by modern science. The Mitochondrial Eve existed 140,000 years ago, and the Y-chromosomal Adam (from whom all humans descend) existed only 60,000 years ago (check the relevant pages on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam). Did God mention this in the Torah, Bible or Qur'an? Aupmanyav 13:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently User:Deeptrivia modified the first sentence from Hinduism is a "religion" to "refers to the set of diverse religious beliefs and practices". I don't for a moment dispute that the second statement is accurate, but I think it might be preferable to keep the former formulation as the first sentence of the article, for the following two reasons:
I am stating my thoughts here in order to invite other opinions, and not as a rigid marker of my position. Please chime in with your thoughts and comments. Regards. Abecedare 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is easy to resolve this difficulty in defining Hinduism. The word for Religion in many Indian Languages including the two oldest, Sanskrit and Tamil is "matam". Matam means opinion. It is due this concept of matam that there is a bewildering array of beliefs and theories some which do contradict others, for eg., some Upanishads even question the existence of God. So a definition that Hinduism means "right to matam" and out of this right to matam a network of beliefs, concepts and rituals, some which may contradict others, is embodied in Hinduism would be succinct and can cover Hinduism wholly.
Hinduism means "right to matam" and out of this right to matam a network of beliefs, concepts and rituals, some which may contradict others is embodied in Hinduism . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.135.165 ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism is ONE religion in the sense that there is mutual recognition: worshippers of say Mariamman do recognize and accept Rama as a valid version of God and vice versa. Likewise, worshippers of say Mariamman do recognize that worshipers of Rama do have salvation and vice versa. So, it is ONE network.
Let us look at the arguments that refute this ONEness: they say ok, these beleifs from X are different from Y, so they are distinct. Please show me a singe son or daugher among Hindus who has exactly identical version of religion as their Mom or Dad: no you cannot. Hinduism is individualistic to the core. If a Hindu wants to create a new version of God, he or she is welcome to. This person may or may not be able to market it to others and that version of God may die with this person. When I say "version of God" it could be a physical, conceptual, ritual or differing in any way. In fact, I personally have a version of God that will die with me: Just like how the cells of our body do NOT know that they are part of a higher being, our souls do NOT know that we are part of a higher network of souls (which may be termed as God). Some may say no this is nothing new - this is nothing but collective consicoiusness outlined in ancient Hindu texts. The newness is that just like how the cells do not need to think about the higher network, each individual do NOT need to think about the higher level network of souls. Now because I have a drastically different version of God, no Hindu is going to excommunicate me. So, there is ONEness in Hinduism that arises through this concept of "right to opinion/matam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.35.79 ( talk) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
<arbitrary deindent>
I have no objection to using the proposed "footnote" text (or deeptrivia's original addition) in the lead itself if that is what is the consensus. But I do feel that we should not use individual references for each use, since that approach will recreate the problem we faced earlier with the whole Sanatan/Vaidic/Aryan Dharma issue, as each new editor will want to insert his/her own favorite formulation based on his/her own favorite (reliable) source. I am certain that you all appreciate that there are scores (if not hundreds!) of such sources with their own nuanced formulation, and that will either mean that (1) the first sentence of the article becomes a conglomeration of definitions, or (2) if we decide to pick say 5 definitional phrases, we will have endless battles on whether the Thappar, Witzel, Sarvarkar or Flood definitions are the most noteworthy.
Therefore my suggestion is that we find one reliable source which reviews the whole issue in detail and use it as a citation (I am thinking something analogous to the article
Who Invented Hinduism, but that addresses "What is Hinduism", from a definitional rather than descriptive angle). This approach will also avoid any charges that we are violating wikipedia's policies against
synthesis. Does that make sense ?
Abecedare
22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
<deindent>
A quick survey of tertiary references and dictionaries (just going through a database; too lazy to type out complete bibliographic information for references but can do so if desired):
OK, my take after brushing through the above list is that while several references do refer to Hinduism, simply as a religion, many don't (and some make a point of saying that Hinduism is not a religion in the usual sense used for Abrahamic faiths; see for example
Encarta). So what should we do ? My proposal is that we use the phrase "religious tradition" in the lead and then add a footnote of the form I suggested earlier, i.e., "Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc. For a discussion on the topic, see Flood, Gavin, "Establishing the boundaries" in Flood (2003), pp. 1-17."
I am voting for "religious tradition" because (1) it is short, sweet and simple without (hopefully) being over-simplistic, (2) emphasizes the traditional as opposed to dogmatic aspect of Hinduism, (3) often comes up in the above survey, and (4) as some others (including me) have said earlier, we can clarify in the succeeding sentences that this tradition itself consists of a conglomeration of diverse set of beliefs and practices. Thoughts ?
Abecedare
06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I must acknowledge that this has been one of the most pleasurable, enlightening and fruitful discussions I have had on this page with enthusiastic participation, knowledgeable comments, considered listening and a complete absence of trolling or histrionics. Its worth noting that the final solution we arrived at is different from the position any of us started with (see my opening comment, for example). So here is my personal thanks to deeptrivia, Gizza, Baka, TwoHorned, Buddhipriya, and our anon. friend 69.203.80.158. Ok I'll stop gushing now and touch wood. Abecedare 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Let me add my two cents. Soon after I joined Wikipedia, I realized that edit wars were nonproductive, more often than not, they being a clash of egos. I have also found virtual turf wars to be very unpleasant, and I decided to avoid them. I am one of those users of Wikipedia who just wish to improve it. I am interested in following the guidelines of Wikipedia, but with some commonsense. Not all secondary sources of information are good. I like to use my discretion. In matters related to India, especially Hinduism, I have found scholars trained mainly in Western education to be seriously handicapped and misinformed, even though I have found most of them to be very sincere. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
23:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This message is for two horned (?). If there is anything that cannot be trifled with in hinduism, it is morality and duty (Dharma). One can be an atheist or one can be a polytheist, that is acceptable, but a person without 'Dharma' is a chandala, the most despicable. Surely, your knowledge of hinduism is very inadequate. Aupmanyav 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 59.178.52.36 09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is simpler than that, Vodyanoi, just ask people if they consider themselves to be hindus or not. Of course, differences in beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions will be there, because that IS hinduism. Hinduism is not bound to a person or a book. It is dynamic and will change in every age. Aupmanyav 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
'a complex of religious and philosophical beliefs and practices sharing a common Vedic heritage. 69.203.80.158 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC). I find this objectionable. Sure, hinduism shares the Vedic heritage but also many others. I do not know why people have this Vedic fixation? Hinduism is not solely from the Vedas. (see my post towards the end of the page) Aupmanyav 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Another small problem with the article is that it says pakistan is one of the countries with a large hindu population, this is untrue from everything i have read, they do have a hindu population, albeit small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.199.241 ( talk) 21:06, 10 November 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I have reverted these recent edits which were (1) unnecessary details and repetitions for this already lengthy article, (2) unsourced and (3) partially OR and POV.
Incidentally
Vinay Jha (
talk ·
contribs) (and his prior accounts
Winai Zhaa (
talk ·
contribs),
59.94.47.127 (
talk ·
contribs),
User:59.94.45.209,
59.94.44.198 (
talk ·
contribs) etc.) has already been told about wikipedia's policies
WP:V,
WP:OR,
WP:FRINGE,
WP:RS etc. See discussions on
Talk:Surya Siddhanta, and
Talk:Vedanga Jyotisha in particular.
Abecedare
06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article does not seem to cover penis worship at all. I found some links online. [1] Hope this helps.
Though this ritual is more popular in peninsular India, it is still prevalent in the north too. For instance, I have read about the great Penis temple in Amarnath, Kashmir. Anwar 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hindus do not "worship" penises. The Lingam is symbolic and is meant to represent Shiva. [2](UTC)-- Jesucristo301 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The actual characterization of the deity commonly referred to as "Shiva-linga" is jyotir-linga. The word 'linga' in Sanskrit means symbol. The image of Jyotir-linga represents in a concrete ('murta') form the intangible appearance of the spirit ('cit') as flame ('jyoti') in creation. That phenomenon happens in the Shiva aspect of Narayana, hence Shiva-linga. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This section of the discussion should be removed due to it's lack of credibility as evidenced herein.The user making this claim has been discredited as anti-Hindu and has displayed attitudes characterizing him as such by the aforementioned user Abecedare, his source's (sic) claim has been refuted various times.-- Jesucristo301 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just made an edit to the definition of the term deva and wanted to upgrade the sourcing to MW related to the Note, but in doing so ran into the problem of named references, which make maintenance of the article difficult. In this case, glossing the sourcing to MW on the word deva will require disconnecting that note from the general vague MW name and putting in a more specific note. Because disconnecting this note in this way raises the general issue of use of named notes, I would like to draw attention to this issue here. Some people like them, others do not. However there seems to be no disagreement that use of named notes can produce collateral damage in multiple places in an article if one instance of them is edited. They also result in non-sequential numbering of Notes, which makes it difficult to work backward from the Notes section to locate all uses of a particular source without putting the text of the article into a word processor. For these reasons, rather than using a named note, in this particular instance I will use a gloss plus a page citation, making the note unique. Any comments on this issue? Buddhipriya 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
In the lead: Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.
"Large Hindu populations" is very subjective, something that can be twisted around the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I suggest we create an official cut-off, so the number of countries can be limited. A particular number (eg.10 million) for countries with large populations where Hinduism is a minority and a particular percentage (>50%) for nations (with smaller populations) where Hinduism is the majority. Note that this paragraph will most likely be moved to a future "Demographics" section when we get the time. Gizza Discuss © 02:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There is only one Hindu country, and that is the Indian subcontinent. Countries where the percentage of Hindus among the overall population is significantly large, should not be referred to as Hindu countries. Also, we should recognize countries by the percentage of Hindus, and not by sheer numbers.
Kanchanamala
05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me elaborate. There is only one Hindu 'country', and that is the Indian subcontinent. Bharat, that is India, has a secular government. Nepal is Hindu. Pakistan is Islamic. Bangladesh is Muslim. The ancestors of non-Hindu "Indians" on the Indian subcontinent were originally Hindus. The ancestors of Parsis came to India from Persia, and they have always been exemplary Indians. Thanks. Kanchanamala 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Gizza. To repeat what I have said above, countries where the percentage of Hindus among the overall population is significantly large, should not be referred to as "Hindu countries". Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please add any sources you find to the following list:
To Abecedare (Not an edit war): You know I have consistentently avoided any edit war, even when I found I was in the right. But as you want to discuss some points,I must answer (it is not an edit war). Many authors translate 'Dharma' as 'Law', without realizing that it often leads to misinterpretation, because Dharma had nothing to do with man-made laws, and it was always considered to be eternal, i.e,'Sanatana'. Not a single instance can be cited fron entire Indian history when any political power exercised any right in deciding the content of Dharma. I,therefore, introduced a small clause to remove ambiguity :"'Dharma meant 'Divine Law' which even kings could not change." If you want source, the best definition was provided by Bhishma in Mahabharata before his death, which I will not elaborate at present for want of space. It was not an unnecessary detail. Secondly, I did not add a single unsourced reference here. Samkhya defined as an atheist philosophy is a modern view of some authors, e.g., Sen Gupta, who was already cited. I added the view of Gita, citing the verse also, which showed that Samkhya was quite opposite of what Sen Gupta says. You have quoted WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS policies , which implies that that Gita cannot be quoted as a reliable source of concepts crucial to Hinduism ! Thirdly, I had requested DAB to close the discussion on Surya Siddhanta because it was growing unnecessarily long. He has asked me to contribute to that article, taking care of Wiki guidelines. I was new to Wiki and did not know many of Wiki policies then. Whatever I had added to Surya Siddhanta was totally verifiable and sourced, but I had planned to add the referwences and complete the incomplete sections step by step, but DAB deleted everything before I could finish. I asked him to reconsider, and he asked me to continue editing Surya Siddhanta, but in a responsible way. But I now find that many editors are quoting this episode as my irresponsibility. Hence I must clarify the misgivings created by the fundamental complaint of DAB against me due to my following statement "it will mean that constants of modern astronomy were known to ancient Surya Siddhantic scholars with a high degree of precision" . I did not refute these allegations, abecause I did not want to hurt DAB, and therefore my image was tarnished. See the version of Surya Siddhanta before I touched it (or after DAB removed my "error"), the article says :
Now see my final version (of 13:22, 7 July 2007,which DAB deleted). Although I never remove the versions of other editors even if they are lopsided, I had to replace the whole para quoted above with the following :
If others declare that Surya Siddhantic year is just 1.4 seconds away from modern value, they are scientific (although this view cannot be supported by any source, either the text or any translation,including that of Burgess who was a high grade scholar). But when I showed that Surya Siddhantic tropical as well as sidereal years had a much greater difference (e.g,115 seconds in the case of tropical year and 207 seconds in the case of sidereal year )from modern values,I was charged of "pseudoscience" , "Original Research", etc. Since DAB was spending his valuable time upon unpaid research, I did not want to point out his mistakes in the open, and asked him to discuss the matter privately, but he chose to humiliate me in the talk pages, and I did not answer in same coin. The present article on Surya Siddhanta contains "Original Research", "Blatant Lies", "Unsourced or felsely sourced statements" , 'Pseudoscience and extravagant claims", which I vainly tried to correct. I said that Surya Siddhantic year has 115.6 seconds of difference from modern value, the article (wrongly) says that only 1.4 seconds of difference is there. Hence this article is making 83 times more extravagant and pseudoscientific claims than I am being charged of. Many Wiki administrators are half my age, but some have used terms like "nonsense", "garbage" for me , and addressed me impolitely.(cf. precession (astronomy)), where many readers are asking for Newtonian formulae in a simple manner for a long time which no editor was providing(cf.talk page of that article), which I had started contributing, but was stopped midway with an abuse, and I kept silent) I never complained. You must have heard of Hindu tolerance, but you are not able to see it when it stands before you. I am an ardent admirer of Jesus Christ, and while reading Wiki articles acout Christianity, I found many of them being devoid of a single reference. But I did not object, because I knew the statements, though unsourced, were true. As for Vedanga Jyotisha, I found that lopsided account was there, hence I restored the balance, and asked DAB to give his views about my edits. I hoped he will ask me to insert citations wherever he would deem fit. But he deleted my whole contribution, without discussing anything, although I had mentioned that I was adding the view of a long line of mainstream indologists, including Colebrooke. Sourcing needs time, and my user page informs you that I am presently busy in an international conference on monsoons. Hence I will be away from Wiki till 31:7:2007, and if the present unkind behaviour continues, I will be forced to leave Wiki. Unwarranted personal attack is the last thing a scholar should think of. Academic discussions should maintain some decorum. I never added anything unverifiable anywhere in Wiki, but my contributions were deleted before I could finish. Even some oral traditions I referred to in Surya Siddhanta (but did not elaborate) has been published twiced under the joint editorship of heads of departments and professors of three reputed universities of India, which I had to mention at proper sections according to my plan which I am not in a mood to implement now. DAB and others must have heard of only two versions of Surya Siddhanta, none of which has ever been used in actual practice by any almanac maker of India. I wanted to add a brief account of all known versions which could me traced and verified. But I cannot contribute anything under present circumstances, and many Wiki editors will heave a sigh of relief to hear it. I do not mind humiliation. But constant deletions and reverting makes it impossible to contribute anything. If you thought I must add extra citations, I would gladly would have done that at a short notice. But I think I am unwanted in Wiki. Not only all my contributions but me too should be deleted from Wiki for good. Now you will say that I am wasting space on Wiki talk pages. One needs a single sentence to level just or unjust charges on a person, but clarification needs some space. How many editors have cared to read the original texts related to indology is not the point. The point is that of intolerance. I think tolerance is the other name of Hinduism, which I am exhibiting all along. Be mindful that I have no association with the passangers of any hindutva bandwagon, who are doing more harm to Hinduism and to scholarly research than the trigger-happy attitude of some Wiki administrators who delete a thing and discuss it later, which means you slap a person and put forth your arguments later. I have seen how opinions of other editors are managed behind the screens in an edit war. I do not need such managed votes. Have your way. If Wiki misinforms the public, knowingly or unknowingly, the loss is not mine. Good Bye for 10 days. VinJha, 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Scriptures and theology section. In contrast to the scriptural canons of some religions, the Hindu scriptural canon is not closed in the sense that there is little theological quarrel between Hindu denominations although these denominations may view God and their notions in a different form or sense. The first sentence is making two distinct point that weakly related to each other: 1) Scriptural canon not closed 2) Little conflict between denominations. Before the section was compressed, these points at least had separate sentences if not separate paragraphs. They may have been in different sections. I suspect the citation only sources the second point in the sentence. Someone can check that.
According to memory, the point mentioned previously was that more Hindu scriptures can still be created because Hindus seek to find the truth in new ways, or something along those lines. It wasn't to do with different sects getting along with each other. Gizza Discuss © 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Continuing from Talk:Hinduism/Archive_18#Boon and Hindu.
I'll leave it to others to decide how to deal with boons (since I know little about this). But it would be nice if boon in an article such as Arjuna could at least be linked to a section of an article, however small. -- Chriswaterguy talk 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a comma in the first sentence somewhere? -- 66.169.9.118 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yama is enumerated as first of the eight parts (angas) of Yoga in Yogasutra-2.29 ; therefore, definitions of these eight parts, including Yama, of Yoga logically occur in YS-2.29 in commentaries. Five types of Yamas (Yamāḥ in plural) are discussed in the next sutra whose commentaries define these five parts such as Ahimsa, Satya, etc there (YS-2.30). I corrected the citation in my last edit, and then I corrected the number of correct sutra in my next edit (17 Aug,2007). A term may occur many times in a text, but we should cite the definition from where that term has been properly defined by reliable commentators. This important thing was missed by DAB because he does not read the sources in detail and relies upon shortcuts. Instead, he called me silly (cf. Edit summary). By learning case or gender one cannot become a scholar, good editing requires thorough education, but abusing needs no education ! Some editors do not allow improvement of Wiki articles. Cf. WP:CIVILITY. - Vinay Jha 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I gave the article a read-over specifically with regard to sourcing, and noticed some things which may be areas for improvement.
1) Quite a few of the notes are of the type: "Jones (1982)" which is so general that verification of the statements is difficult. At a minimum I think we should try to upgrade these sources to include page numbers.
2) Some Notes such as #83 ("arcye viṣṇau śīlā-dhīr. . . narakī saḥ") do not provide any edition or versification detail at all, making these citations dubious, particularly since they are quotations from Puranic or scriptural sources with no intervening academic review, thus suggesting that they are WP:OR. Other examples of direct quotation of scripture such as #45 "'My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.' (Bhaktivedanta 1997, ch. 11.54)" include adequate sourcing, but still may involve significant WP:POV issues because while they may reflect the views of a particular teacher, they may or may not be generally true.
3) Some of the Notes, e.g., (#69 "Rigveda is not only the oldest among the vedas, but is one of the earliest Indo-European texts." contain only unsourced statements which themselves are subject to challenge. Another example is the very first note, #1: "Hindu Dharma" in modern Indian languages such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada." Perhaps true, but who said so?
4) There is some overreliance on web sites to source things, rather than using stronger academic sources, e.g. #70, "Hinduwebsite.com explaining the yajnas. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." I think we should move toward upgrading such web links with more solid academic sourcing. Some of the sources clearly fail to meet the tests for WP:EL and WP:RS, such as #27: "Manifold Mahadevas Nature Spirits. Blessingsconucopia.com. Maureen Grace Burns, Blessings Cornucopia. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." These sorts of dubious web sites should be expunged from the article immediately if they fail to meet the tests for inclusion of such links
5. Some of the sourcing is from dubious authorities that are controversial, such as David Frawley. If vague uses of Frawley to source things as in #7: "Frawley 2001" were phased out in favor of stronger sources that are less open to debate, the article would have more credibility.
A more general issue is that in reading over the article closely I realized that the mental model is that Hinduism is one entity and thus is described over and over using singular verb forms ("it is...") rather than being viewed as a composite entity or collection of social and religious traditions. Consider the multifactorial approach of Michaels, 2004, pp. 21, who says "Examined closely, Hinduism consists of three Hindu religions and four forms of Hindu religiosity, which can occur in all Hindu religions. (For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term Hinduism from now on for the totality of the Hindu religions and their religious forms.)" Michaels analysis permits the segmentation of Hindu beliefs and practices in ways that clearly differentiate between things like Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism, folk religions, and recently-founded religious sects. I feel that the discussion we recently had regarding whether Hinduism is a religion was one helpful dialog on this larger issue. The connection to sourcing is that many of the sources are from specific sectarian viewpoints, and may in some cases be overgeneralizing.
It is true that Hinduism is "multifactorial" as Michaels says. However, the essential thing to remember is who the audience is for this article: generally the audience will be people who don't know anything whatsoever about Hinduism and want a quick sketch. Michaels' analysis is great for a publication meant primarily for scholars or those with a special interest in Hinduism, but it is too much for those who want to learn one or two things in 10 minutes. HeBhagawan 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to do some editing of the sourcing on the article along the lines discussed above, and would appreciate dialog with other editors regarding these views. Buddhipriya 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines of the article is totally inappropriate. Would you please consider relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it? Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, some of us involved in improving the article on Hinduism are like a group of editors riding in a car, and you, amongst us, are at the wheel. It is not an easy task to drive a juggernaut. But, of course, you have been doing great. At a time when discussions were heated, you did very well, and since we had to have some resolution for the time being, your efforts made it possible for me to say that the issue was very well resolved in the article. I am confident that all of us, your fellow editors, have been appreciative, and thankful to you indeed.
Now, things have cooled off, and since improving the article is an ongoing process, I have broached the matter once again. Right before saying to you [at 09:47] that the issue was very well resolved, I also repeated for Buddhipriya [at 02:24] what I wished you to consider. I still wish you to consider it, and I hope you will revisit that passage.
If we temper the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines by relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it, the article will be more balanced. That's my submission. If you can do it, then please consider doing it. Thanks. Kanchanamala 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
there is no reason to rehash the debate unless new evidence is presented. The arguments are all there in the talk archives, and the solution reached is fair. What we are missing completely (or, Hindu denominations is missing), are rough demographics of Hinduism: which sects account for what fraction of Hindus? Until we have that, there is no way to judge how prominent these vociferous Hindu reform movements really are, and consequently, how notable the Sanatana Dharma neologism should be considered within Hinduism. -- dab (𒁳) 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What references, Abecedare, and what arguments, Dbachmann? The prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines is not proper. Why not improve the article by making it more balanced? Why is it such a problem to relegate the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" to another paragraph? You guys virtually have the article, and I am not in any mood to fight. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
added quotes from "Bannanje Govindachar" in the swastika section, explaining the meaning behind the symbolism. -- Jayaram Uparna 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
'Jayaram, Gnananapiti, mattu Sarvagnya, bhale bhale. yen saadhyavaagatto maadi' [Wow J, G, and S. Please do whatever you can.] Hinduism, protected by Sanskrit, lives in Kannada and in all the other Indian languages. Even as the European languages are accepted in Western studies done in English, all the Indian languages should be accepted in Indian studies done in English. Thanks. Kanchanamala 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections
Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).
This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.
Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 04:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
---I would vote to keep all the references together; don't split them up. I fear that it may make it more difficult to edit for people who want add footnotes if you split them up. Relatively few people will read the footnotes, and those who do will not have any problem finding what they need without the split. HeBhagawan 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
---I will need some time to understand the proposal. I had a look on refs. and citations. Refs. are certainly a long list. I believe, HeBhagawan's view should be considered carefully as he had been a very active editor. However, could I pl. know what is the proposal for spliting refs. and what would be the advantage? The subject itself is enormous and this article can not be shaped in the way some other articles appear of lesser theme.
swadhyayee
20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to change law to 'divine(religious) law' in introductory para, but was reverted. Then I linked Dharma, so that many readers might not be misled by the lopsided translation of Dharma as law. But this simple linking was also reverted. Now I am not going to touch that introductory para in Hinduism again ; let dharma be translated as law or as skin (dermos in Latin, which contains the body, as dharma contains life and society ; cf. its root dhr ). I will not object to anyone translating dharma even as leather or leather-jacket ; I have had too much of futile controversies and I do not want to generate new ones. Vinay Jha 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Vinay, the Sanskrit word 'dharma' has been widely translated by writers as 'law' even though it is simply incorrect. The word 'dharma' from the root 'dhrn dhaarane' means [any] principle which is adopted or held by anyone. "dhaaranaat dharmetyaahuh". Don't mistake me if I ask you not to despair. When certain rules of Wikipedia are followed literally, then accuracy can get ignored even if (according to my friend Buddhipriya) it is pointed out by Adi Shankaracharya. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Though 'law' is not the equivalent of 'dharma', which is more like 'what aught to be done' (suggested), I can think of no better word in English. Aupmanyav 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The Union government of India officially admitted in late 2007 that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Ram or the other idols in Ramayana. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Archaeological Survey of India too rejected the claim of the existence of the Ram Sethu bridge in the area where the project was under construction. [4]
A day later, the affidavit was withdrawn under pressure from Hindu fundamentalist parties. [5] However, the State government of Tamil Nadu continue to maintain its official stance and refused to review the project. [6] [7]
Please add the above timely verdict in a separate section called Fact and Fiction. Anwar 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Anwar Miya, lack of any evidence is not, in any way, denial of the existence of Rama or of the bridge mentioned in the Ramayana. Thanks. Kanchanamala 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because it is the "current flavor of the day" in Indian politics doesn't mean it should be added to the article. How many such controversies do you want to add to this article? 24.5.120.23 09:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Anwar Miya, Ram is not dependent on historicity. It is a myth of hindu culture. Whether Ram was a historical person or not, the story still guides us in our actions in life. I am an atheist, but the story still is very dear to me. If you take it historically, can Mohammad's visit to seven heavens on the flying white horse and meeting the earlier prophets be termed as history? Or whether Adam and Eve were historical (it is proved wrong by modern science. The Mitochondrial Eve existed 140,000 years ago, and the Y-chromosomal Adam (from whom all humans descend) existed only 60,000 years ago (check the relevant pages on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam). Did God mention this in the Torah, Bible or Qur'an? Aupmanyav 13:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently User:Deeptrivia modified the first sentence from Hinduism is a "religion" to "refers to the set of diverse religious beliefs and practices". I don't for a moment dispute that the second statement is accurate, but I think it might be preferable to keep the former formulation as the first sentence of the article, for the following two reasons:
I am stating my thoughts here in order to invite other opinions, and not as a rigid marker of my position. Please chime in with your thoughts and comments. Regards. Abecedare 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is easy to resolve this difficulty in defining Hinduism. The word for Religion in many Indian Languages including the two oldest, Sanskrit and Tamil is "matam". Matam means opinion. It is due this concept of matam that there is a bewildering array of beliefs and theories some which do contradict others, for eg., some Upanishads even question the existence of God. So a definition that Hinduism means "right to matam" and out of this right to matam a network of beliefs, concepts and rituals, some which may contradict others, is embodied in Hinduism would be succinct and can cover Hinduism wholly.
Hinduism means "right to matam" and out of this right to matam a network of beliefs, concepts and rituals, some which may contradict others is embodied in Hinduism . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.135.165 ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism is ONE religion in the sense that there is mutual recognition: worshippers of say Mariamman do recognize and accept Rama as a valid version of God and vice versa. Likewise, worshippers of say Mariamman do recognize that worshipers of Rama do have salvation and vice versa. So, it is ONE network.
Let us look at the arguments that refute this ONEness: they say ok, these beleifs from X are different from Y, so they are distinct. Please show me a singe son or daugher among Hindus who has exactly identical version of religion as their Mom or Dad: no you cannot. Hinduism is individualistic to the core. If a Hindu wants to create a new version of God, he or she is welcome to. This person may or may not be able to market it to others and that version of God may die with this person. When I say "version of God" it could be a physical, conceptual, ritual or differing in any way. In fact, I personally have a version of God that will die with me: Just like how the cells of our body do NOT know that they are part of a higher being, our souls do NOT know that we are part of a higher network of souls (which may be termed as God). Some may say no this is nothing new - this is nothing but collective consicoiusness outlined in ancient Hindu texts. The newness is that just like how the cells do not need to think about the higher network, each individual do NOT need to think about the higher level network of souls. Now because I have a drastically different version of God, no Hindu is going to excommunicate me. So, there is ONEness in Hinduism that arises through this concept of "right to opinion/matam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.35.79 ( talk) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
<arbitrary deindent>
I have no objection to using the proposed "footnote" text (or deeptrivia's original addition) in the lead itself if that is what is the consensus. But I do feel that we should not use individual references for each use, since that approach will recreate the problem we faced earlier with the whole Sanatan/Vaidic/Aryan Dharma issue, as each new editor will want to insert his/her own favorite formulation based on his/her own favorite (reliable) source. I am certain that you all appreciate that there are scores (if not hundreds!) of such sources with their own nuanced formulation, and that will either mean that (1) the first sentence of the article becomes a conglomeration of definitions, or (2) if we decide to pick say 5 definitional phrases, we will have endless battles on whether the Thappar, Witzel, Sarvarkar or Flood definitions are the most noteworthy.
Therefore my suggestion is that we find one reliable source which reviews the whole issue in detail and use it as a citation (I am thinking something analogous to the article
Who Invented Hinduism, but that addresses "What is Hinduism", from a definitional rather than descriptive angle). This approach will also avoid any charges that we are violating wikipedia's policies against
synthesis. Does that make sense ?
Abecedare
22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
<deindent>
A quick survey of tertiary references and dictionaries (just going through a database; too lazy to type out complete bibliographic information for references but can do so if desired):
OK, my take after brushing through the above list is that while several references do refer to Hinduism, simply as a religion, many don't (and some make a point of saying that Hinduism is not a religion in the usual sense used for Abrahamic faiths; see for example
Encarta). So what should we do ? My proposal is that we use the phrase "religious tradition" in the lead and then add a footnote of the form I suggested earlier, i.e., "Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc. For a discussion on the topic, see Flood, Gavin, "Establishing the boundaries" in Flood (2003), pp. 1-17."
I am voting for "religious tradition" because (1) it is short, sweet and simple without (hopefully) being over-simplistic, (2) emphasizes the traditional as opposed to dogmatic aspect of Hinduism, (3) often comes up in the above survey, and (4) as some others (including me) have said earlier, we can clarify in the succeeding sentences that this tradition itself consists of a conglomeration of diverse set of beliefs and practices. Thoughts ?
Abecedare
06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I must acknowledge that this has been one of the most pleasurable, enlightening and fruitful discussions I have had on this page with enthusiastic participation, knowledgeable comments, considered listening and a complete absence of trolling or histrionics. Its worth noting that the final solution we arrived at is different from the position any of us started with (see my opening comment, for example). So here is my personal thanks to deeptrivia, Gizza, Baka, TwoHorned, Buddhipriya, and our anon. friend 69.203.80.158. Ok I'll stop gushing now and touch wood. Abecedare 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Let me add my two cents. Soon after I joined Wikipedia, I realized that edit wars were nonproductive, more often than not, they being a clash of egos. I have also found virtual turf wars to be very unpleasant, and I decided to avoid them. I am one of those users of Wikipedia who just wish to improve it. I am interested in following the guidelines of Wikipedia, but with some commonsense. Not all secondary sources of information are good. I like to use my discretion. In matters related to India, especially Hinduism, I have found scholars trained mainly in Western education to be seriously handicapped and misinformed, even though I have found most of them to be very sincere. Thanks.
Kanchanamala
23:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This message is for two horned (?). If there is anything that cannot be trifled with in hinduism, it is morality and duty (Dharma). One can be an atheist or one can be a polytheist, that is acceptable, but a person without 'Dharma' is a chandala, the most despicable. Surely, your knowledge of hinduism is very inadequate. Aupmanyav 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 59.178.52.36 09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is simpler than that, Vodyanoi, just ask people if they consider themselves to be hindus or not. Of course, differences in beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions will be there, because that IS hinduism. Hinduism is not bound to a person or a book. It is dynamic and will change in every age. Aupmanyav 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
'a complex of religious and philosophical beliefs and practices sharing a common Vedic heritage. 69.203.80.158 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC). I find this objectionable. Sure, hinduism shares the Vedic heritage but also many others. I do not know why people have this Vedic fixation? Hinduism is not solely from the Vedas. (see my post towards the end of the page) Aupmanyav 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Another small problem with the article is that it says pakistan is one of the countries with a large hindu population, this is untrue from everything i have read, they do have a hindu population, albeit small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.199.241 ( talk) 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)