![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
Hi,
Suggestions and comments welcome at the following discussion [ here] please. Thank you. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why does this section exist. This is clearly a violation of Neutral POV. Articles must be written with neutral point of view, but not with a purpose to glorify. Desione ( talk) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
In globalization, Caste = Religion and there is NO Hinduism. 4thaugust1932 ( talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
In Indian Cookery (1969), E.P. Veerasawmy states "The ordinary fats that are used in Western countries, such as dripping, suet, margarine, etc., are quite out of the question amongst the Hindus, and seldom used by the Mohammedan."
I understand the first two, but why margarine? The Margarine article seems to indicate that its composition has changed since those days, so is this still the case? Should something about this go in the Food section? Paul Magnussen ( talk) 18:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this user does not understand how to use Wikipedia, and he does not respond on his talk page as he probably doesn't know it exists! I think that he will continue to revert Ian.thomson's edits. I propose we attempt to get the message through to him in some way (maybe by creating a user page for him with an explanation of how to behave on Wikipedia) or, as I think we could get nowhere at the moment with him, report him on the edit-warring noticeboard or somewhere similar. Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone who knows how to edit articles knows how to use talk pages," is a generally true statement, but is not always the case. I said this because he does not respond on his talk page and he, as far as I know, has never directly said anything to another user. It is possible that he knows only how to edit articles, and not about the talk pages. I understand your points, but it does actually seem that he is unaware of what he is doing (see his contributions). If we can't get through to him, then I suggest that the best course of action is to report him - he might notice a temporary ban... Ther's no point prolonging this revertion of edits anymore - he's had enough warnings. Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK then. Tell me if he starts editing this article again. Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Again we have a Christian poster who thinks that Hinduism is fair game for unequal treatment. This poster calls removing the category "Criticism of Hinduism" censorship. Come back when you have added "Criticism of Christianity" to the Christianity article and "Criticism of Islam" to the Islam article. If and only if they and other religion articles have such category links would I consider it reasonable to have it here. --
Q Chris (
talk) 05:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I am a Hindu, and I think any criticism of Hinduism should be welcomed. Kanchanamala ( talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The richest temple as mentioned in a picture is no longer Tirupati, but Ananthapadmanabhaswamy temple of Thiruvananthapuram. Vivekmv ( talk) 08:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Please provide citation. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sreepadmanabhaswamytemple.com/richest-temple-in-india-sree-padmanabhaswamy-temple-trivandrum.html Écrivain ( talk) 13:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be an acceptable reference. The suggested emendation deserves consideration. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed a few things have "Unreliable Source" written next to it, plus i wanted to add a few sources that are not listed. help? -- Lee522 ( talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I'm pretty sure my religion is Hindu not Hinduism, i don't call other religions like Christians and say who is Christianism god!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthkdesai ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Citation 14 by G. Laderman needs to be fixed. Please remove "in the world." written before the author's name. Also, the Judaism is making an uncited claim that it is the oldest surviving religion in the world. The editors there are pretty adamant about this issue. They are claiming that nobody disagrees with this on the talk page and hence it must be true. Is voting the current norm on WP?-- 70.64.86.187 ( talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Error in citation 14 has been corrected. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim by Judaism is quite wrong, the citation they provided is quite okay, but the source clearly states it deals with religions in the Middle East alone and not the world. I'm heading over to their talkpage now. Écrivain ( talk) 10:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes to the article since some sources did not say what was claimed. Moreover some tantric Shivas do not accept the authority of the Vedas. This is mentioned in the "Tantric Body" by Flood and also on the Shaivism wikipedia page. Snowcream reversed my changes saying "Ronald Inden's notes are not universally accepted." This is blatantly false. It is hard to find an encyclopedic treatment of Hinduism that does *not* cite Inden. Moreover as Snowcream was the editor that pushed the fringe theories of Buddha's birthplace saying "Wikipedia articulates all significant perspectives," I find this the height of hypocrisy. CO2Northeast ( talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In the archives there seems to be vehement opposition to the use of "Sanātana Dharma" by multiple people. One source merely says that Sanātana Dharma is a frequently used expression **in** Hinduism, and says nothing about calling Hinduism Sanātana Dharma. The other texts are nationalist political texts. Since this is a modern political term that would be unfamiliar to most Hindus, why is it in the first line of this article? Ecragnol ( talk) 05:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
As stated above, the sources do not support what is in the lead. For example "A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals" merely states that sanatana dharma is a frequently used expression within Hinduism. Yet the sentence uses other phrases from this source to imply the source calls Hinduism sanatana dharma. CO2Northeast ( talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please include the influence of ancient Tamil religion in this article as a lot of important deities that is worshipped in hinduism today such as Shiva,Durga,Indra,Muruga and etc were initially worshipped by the tamils/Dravidians even before the start of vedic civilisation.Shiva statue(in the conceptof Trimurti)which is found in the ruins of indus valley civilisation were the proof of this statement.Even in Tamil Nadu,statues of these deities found in the oldest form before the arrival of vedic hinduism in Tamil Nadu.Later all these deities were absorbed by the sanskrit rituals,which introduces new philosopy based on these deities thus destroying the original concept/philosophy that is followed by the Dravidians.It is also noted that Vedic Hinduism enters Tamil Nadu only in 5th century,where there is a lot of native religion text were written in Tamil before the arrival of Vedic Hinduism in the Tamil country.-- Tan Meifen ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you please provide some citations for the statements you have made. It would help. Kanchanamala ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"Followers of the Bhakti movement moved away from the abstract concept of Brahman, which the philosopher Adi Shankara consolidated a few centuries before, with emotional, passionate devotion towards the more accessible Avatars, especially Krishna and Rama.[42]" Does anyone have the material in relation to Adi Shankara? SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The citation suggests that the observation is made in a published work. How can one object to it even though it is unacceptable to you and me? Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that this is based on this Vivekenanda quote from the reference "Hinduism a way of life": “From the high spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy, of which the latest discoveries of science seem like echoes, to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a place in the Hindu's religion.” This is clearly talking about Hinduism in the inclusive sense, seeing Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. as parts of the Hindu religion. Since the rest of the article assumes the normal definition I will remove this also. -- Q Chris ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I will be doing some changes to improve order of content and look. Any suggestions/edits welcome.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 16:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Does it sound alright to move material on Dharma in Objectives of human life section?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the gnosticism claim in the article really supported by the references? AssociateLong ( talk) 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
For this reason, though there are parallels between the beliefs of some Hindus and gnosticism, I think it is more likely to mislead than inform -- Q Chris ( talk) 11:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This sentence (the first) is either grammatically or factually incorrect:
Hinduism is the predominant and indigenous religion[3][4] of the Indian subcontinent.
Hinduism is the predominant religion on the Indian subcontinent but it is not "the ... (only) indigenous religion of the Indian subcontinent", as this sentence suggests. Both my attempts to correct this were reverted, so we're going to have to work this out somehow. Evanh2008 ( talk) ( contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Dropdown box at the end of the page is a bit out of place.The other two "Hinduism topics" and "Religion" should be there for obvious reasons but i doubt the point of having the mk gandhi dropdown box.He was not a very important figure for the religion,he was merely a follower of the religion.Thanks. Ayanosh ( talk) 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the deal with the recent insertion of copyrighted ISKCON images? BrahmanAdvaita ( talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Under the history section, the sentence beginning ' The beliefs and practices... ' overlaps with the relevant picture, thus making it hard to read. Thanks! 94.196.118.147 ( talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is the mention of the term "Sanatana Dharma" removed from the article. This is the expression which defines the Hindu religion in the most correct manner. Sanatana Dharma is the term used in the ancient scriptures, it's the eternal truth and path of righteousness, the embodiment of all good values and behaviour and goal of human life one can follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.185.6 ( talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The deletion of the word "Sanātana Dharma" is quite justified. It is certainly not found in any ancient scripture as referring to Hinduism. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
BrahmanAdvaita blocked as a sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Third largest religionIt might be nice to have a source for this sentence, although I understand it is linked to another Wikipedia article. BrahmanAdvaita ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Hinduism is not an indigenous religionPlease correct the first sentence of the article. Hinduism is not an indigenous religion. Kulke and Rothermund, in A History of India 4th edition, note:
Perhaps I've misread your meaning. -- 174.7.29.185 ( talk) 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Snowcream's reversionHe suggests the sentence I added is "inserted out of place." I don't feel that way. BrahmanAdvaita ( talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
|
I would like to make a revision to the section discussing Yoga. In particular, I would like to discuss how the Hindu practice of yoga has psychological benefits, as well as a comparison between modern day and traditional Hindu psychology. My proposed revision is as follows: "The practice of yoga in Hindu tradition also has psychological benefits, allowing one to develop control over their mind and body. Rather than adapting the sick or mentally ill mind (the primary focus of modern psychology), traditional Hindu psychology focuses on enhancing the normal and healthy mind through the practice of meditative techniques such as yoga." I would like to make this revision for a class assignment. Thank you. Kozars ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References Raman, V. V. (2012). HINDUISM AND SCIENCE: SOME REFLECTIONS. Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science, 47(3), 549-574. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01274.x
Jesus is the real God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.123.210 ( talk) 18:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If they are called so then it is a very serious mistake. Aryans probably had not gone to the Indo-Gangetic plain or South India during this time, and the indigenous Gods and Goddesses (Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesh, and Kartikeya) along with the village deities must have reigned supreme as they do now. Who remembers the temporary ascendency of the Aryan Gods and Goddesses? Aupmanyav ( talk) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Historical Vedic Religion is what you find in the Vedas. Aupmanyav ( talk) 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not think Wikipedia likes wrong information on its pages. Aupmanyav ( talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In Indian religion what matters is initiation. Initiation in a marga of a Dharma such as some Guru initiating a disciple or anyone accepting him as a Guru in some Bhakti marga, etc. 202.138.106.1 ( talk) 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Shih. I do not have a guru. I have never been initiated. I do not follow bhakti marg. Actually I am an atheist and advaitist. Do I not remain a hindu? 59.178.61.185 ( talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This section was removed with the comment:
Deliberate and hypocritical topic of "Conversion" added to Hinduism article. Hinduism is the last religion to believe in conversions. Wiki page for "Christianity", "Jews", "Muslims" dont speak about Conversions, while they waged wars for religious convers)
On balance I believe that it is useful because the attitude to conversion is different to other religions. I also think it contains useful information. I have therefore restored it. -- Q Chris ( talk) 13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear All
While searching for Sanaatan Dharma on wikipedia, the query redirects itself to Hinduism which should not be the case.
The word Hindu, as many of you would be aware, is a distortion of the word Sindhu which basically signifies a geographical region. This also has been the primary source of confusion why people define Hinduism as a way of life and Hindus as inhabiting a particular region.
However, the systems, beliefs etc belong to what is known as Sanaatan Dharma (which means eternal or universal law). None of the scriptures like Upanishads, Mahabharat etc use the word hindu. But the people who are called hindu today derive their faith and beliefs from these sacred texts. These texts, which elaborate the Sanaatan Dharma, are the fountainhead of the way the Hindu people live.
It is indeed appropriate to disengage the two. As an example, suppose your neighbor is a foreigner whose someone whose is not easy to pronounce. Often times, you will start calling them a name which is convenient to you or that person will change their name altogether. It is very similar case here.
Thanks and Regards
Cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital1981 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Upanishads and Mahabharata do not use the word India, but that is the name in English that we have selected for our country. It is because of common usage and is not an abuse. Aupmanyav ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
India is the country's name in English, and Bhārat is the name in Hindi. English and Hindi are the two official languages of India, for use between the States and the Union, and between the States. Users of Hindi have given currency to India. In the ancient literature of India, Bharata-khaņďa refers to the Indian subcontinent, and Bhārata-varșa includes all the neighboring regions where India's native heritage spread. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If we search for word Hindu, it is mentioned that quote The Brihaspati Agama (dated?)says:
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् । तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।। "The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan, with the हिंदु (Hindu) mentioned in word हिंदुस्थानं (Hindusthan)."[4][5]
The usage of the word Hindu was popularized for Arabs and further west by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus[6] and the Persian term Hindū referring to all Indians. By the 13th century, Hindustān emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus".[7] unquote
However if we search for work 'Hinduism', the definition is different - as derived from word 'Sindu'.
Since the we have the reference of the Sanskrit Sloka from a very old literature "Brihaspathi Samhitha", we should go by that definition only. There is no proof for saying the word Hindu is derived from word 'Sindhu', as mentioned in http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/ataglance/glance.shtml - There is no reference mentioned over there.
Request Wiki to correct the information mentioned for 'Hinduism'. I could not edit as the page is protected. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Srinuvvv (
talk •
contribs) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the above source [Bŗhaspati Āgama] is spurious. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is flooded with some unwanted images which are out of context.It Would look good if they are removed.Some lines have been removed which do not have a valid supporting authoritative source from Vedic Scriptures e.g.Kapaalikas which do not belong to Hinduism Srisharmaa ( talk) 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything that Hindus practice is part of Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Bhagavān Śrī Ādi-Śańkarācārya was a proponent of the Advaita school of Vedānta. The Wikipedia article here is on Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Advaita is one school of Vedānta. Hinduism is a modern comprehensive term which includes the philosophies and practices of all Hindus. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If any cited source, Indian or Western, looks unacceptable, it should be debated on its own merits. We should not be prejudiced against all non-Indian scholars. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion. Please don't give up. Take up statements in the article which you find objectionable, preferably one at a time, citing sources. I'm sure other users will respond, and let the chips fall wherever they do. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OM symbol , which is a integral part of hunduism , is written different way in different languages. Why to use Devanagiri alone ? Karthikeyan.pandian ( talk) 10:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Om is a Sanskrit letter and term [omityekākśaram brahma], and Devanāgari is the script of Sanskrit. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hindus were not forced to convert to Islam. This is very fallacious and propaganda instigated heavily by anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim Hindutva fanatics, historically supported by the British Empire and now radical elements within the Indian state. Islam came by sufis, traders, and other people who taught through love, peace, intellect, and wisdom. Under the Muslim kingdoms and dynasties Hindus were given freedoms to practice their religion. If Muslims forcefully converted people then 80% of India would not be Hindu. The Catholics forcefully converted people in Spain, Portugal, and the Americas. This is why those areas are 99% Catholic-Christian. This article is totally biased against Muslims and spreads propaganda about Islam. The Muslim perspective is totally neglected here and the Muslim point of view is not allowed to be expressed, because fanatic Hindutva liars and anti-Muslim Western-supremacist bigots who run this page are spreading lies against Muslims. Even the most conservative minded kings allowed Hindus to practice freely. 1000+ years of Muslim rule in India has proven that Islam was not spread by force, but it was spread by peace, love, and tolerance. Individuals like Khwaja Moinuddin Chishtii, Ali Hujwiri, and many others spread Islam in this region and people converted by their own choice. Please stop the Islamophobia and anti-Muslim propaganda within this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 ( talk • contribs)
The above unsigned comments are not supported by history a wee bit. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please remove (through Persian) words from Etymology. and also indo-European
Sakam24 ( talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Please remove references to Oldenberg and Neumann, who were born over 150 years ago. Please rely on more modern scholars. Also I see this same sentence repeated in other Wikipedia articles as well. Thanks! ObamaisGreat ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think so too. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. Keep whatever reference you wish. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If you click on this link, you will see you are misrepresenting the reference in multiple ways. ConfusedSapien ( talk) 17:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Tantra is as much Hindu as Yoga is. Need to include Tantra too in as much detail as Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.198 ( talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hinduism is a comprehensive term, and mention of Tantra in the article would be reasonable. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
the article says very little about reincarnation. I think it should b larger. Reincarnation is very important in Hisduism. - thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.221.51 ( talk) 15:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Festivals Chetti Chand Source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheti_Chand) Viranjali ( talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
just i want person who is the founder of hinduism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.25 ( talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no founder of Hinduism per se. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
religions are prosparity and peace hinduism had many gods and goddesses that were human.some were open minded and some were mental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryman3 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There is only one God in Hinduism. That one God is worshiped in the form of as many deities (devatā) as the worshipers choose. Every deity represents the one God (deva) [deva eva devatā]. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hindū Dharma or Hinduism (Sanskrit: हिन्दू धर्म, is often referred by its practitioners as Sanātana Dharma, सनातन धर्म; Vaidika Dharma, वैदिक धर्म; or Vedic Tradition) is the spiritual, philosophical, scientific and cultural system that originated in Bharatavarsha (the Indian subcontinent), that is based on the Vedas, and it is the oldest of all living religious traditions still practiced today. A Hindu, as per definition, is an adherent of the spiritual practices, yoga, philosophies and scriptures of Hindu Dharma. 182.71.183.195 ( talk) 05:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
They whet to the gange river and bathed in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.30.116 ( talk) 00:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the literal meaning of PurANaH (given here as "of ancient times" ), I beg to differ. Infact the etymology of the word "PurAN" (पुराण) is पुरे नवः इति पुराणः ("purE navaH iti purANaH") meaning "that which is new in the city(pura)", as this texts are of relatively newer origin and later than the other tradtional texts of Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.168.197 ( talk) 07:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Apte's dictionary quotes Nirukta as "purā navam". Both Apte and Monier-Williams give the meaning of purāņa as ancient. Kālidāsa uses purāņa (old) and nava (new) as having opposite connotations ["purāņam-ityeva na sādhu sarvam, na cāpi kāvyam navam-ity-avadyam" - Mālavikāgnimitram, I.2]. I am not aware of the claim made by the unsigned user. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure Lokesh. Translation: Everything [sarvam] is not good [na sādhu] just because [ityeva] it is old/ancient [purāņam], nor is [na cāpi] a literary work [kāvyam] something not to speak of [a-vadyam] because it is [iti] new [navam]. Kanchanamala ( talk) 01:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Include a swastik and aum are probably the two signs of hinduism. but on any new thing is happening swastik is written not aum,
Please replace aum by either an aum or swastik or swastik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HinduSwastika.svg
Should be added in the right corner.
The icon swastika represents the message that "everything is all right" [su+asti]. Om is one letter, made of three letters 'a', 'u' and 'm', and it represents the ultimate reality brahma [om-ityekākśaram brahma (iti+eka+akśara)]. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: "omityekākśaram brahma" - Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā, VIII.13. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
With this new wikipedia update, i can't really format or put the texts well, kindly format the following lines:-
One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts. [11] These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics. [12] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas. [13]
Into this manner:-
One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts.[11] These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics.[12] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas.[13]
Capitals00 ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
With this edit Yoonadue removed this note: "Heinrich Zimmer: "[T]he history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."(Zimmer 1989, p=218-219)". He gave the following edit summary: "removed recently added note, it talks about Indian philosophy, not about Hinduism religion". This is an artificial distinction. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yoonadue ( talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You say that this quote supports the main text. Can you explain how? Please re-read the quote. It tells about 'Indian philosophy', but not specifically about Hinduism. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing this article and correcting errors in syntax, word usage, spelling and punctuation, and improving the writing style where needed, while making an effort not to change meaning. I have come across a sentence that I think is unclear and poorly written, but I hesitate to correct it because I am not sure what the original writer intended. If someone knows the subject matter or the reference, could he or she take a look at this sentence and try to improve it? It is the second sentence in the first paragraph. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Before this edit by Joshua Jonathan, the lead of the article said: Among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6]. That content was fine and well-sourced which talked about the roots of Hinduism religion.
But the present version of the article's lead after a series of edits by Joshua Jonathan says :-
Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5], among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India.
Reading the present version-
Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5]- Again this sentence is India-specific, not relevant for this article's lead. The source still lacks inline citation/footnote/annotation which is very important for this content.
among the direct roots of Hinduism are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India - What about the earlier version describing "the direct roots of India/Indian culture"? Very recently, you have changed direct roots of India to direct roots of Hinduism. Moreover, the content still lacks inline citations which support the newly added content that Dravidian and tribal culture are among the direct roots of Hinduism. The one footnote which is present there doesn't point to the newly added content to even a small extent. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It does not seem proper for any user to remove a well-referenced statement. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Yoonadue : It's up to you explain why this is not relevant. The topic is
Hinduism and the lead of this article (after recent edits by you) is saying Although India is portrayed as..... From where does India enter this topic? Why do you think that its relevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times? Why such kind of focus on India in this article's lead. India is a diverse country, secular by law and is inhabited by sizable population of numerous other religious groups like Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists etc. As per me, it is totally irrelevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times.
In the very next words, the article starts describing the direct roots of Hinduism which is very much apt for this title. But the very recent addition to that is "among direct roots of Hinduism are dravidian culure and tribal culture of India". Why don't you provide the inline citations/quotes/footnotes so that it can be verified that which words of the book mentioned by you as reference supports this statement. Reading WP:Verifiability:-
"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
After seeing that one quote provided by you, I have strong doubts that the sources really say that Hinduism's direct roots include dravidian culture and tribal cultures. Hence you must provide quotes from the book which support this statement. Otherwise, it is likely to be removed.
That one quote provided by you is : "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."
This quote doesn't hit the mark as it doesn't talk about dravidian/tribal culture being the direct roots of Hinduism. Please note that Indian philosophy and Hinduism are not synonymous. - Yoonadue ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply by JJ -
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Yoonadue:
The references are given; you can check them out. This is the fourth time you say there are no references; try to understand Wiki-make-up, or just stay away if you're not able to understand it.
I have never said that there are no references. The point is that references are poor and lack full quotes for important content (dravidian and tribal roots). You must give exact wordings which according to you support the content. The pages of books are too lengthy, but we are unable to know which quote from the book you are referring to.
You're persistent remarks on this are WP:DISRUPTIVE.
Yes, there is disruptive editing going on, but thats not from my side. You definitely understand what I am asking for again and again but you are ignoring it saying that references are there. I know that references are there, but which which quote supports the added content?
The quote from Zimmer is clear: Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism) is the result of the interaction between various cultures.
Read it again :- "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and experience."
It talks about crises of interaction between Aryan and Dravidian thought. It nowhere directs to any dravidian roots of Hinduism, what you are claiming from this quote.
Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism)
Now,you should provide reliable source to support Indian philosophy and Hinduism are synonymous. As far as we know, Indian philosophy comprise of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Carvaka, Shramana and other traditions. And hence both terms are not synonymous. Why do u think 'India' and 'Hindu' are same despite of the fact that major religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are born in India and they form important part of Indian history? - Yoonadue ( talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I will do as suggested. Thanks Qwyrxian & JJ. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
On Indian philosophy I recommend Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's work "Indian Philosophy" published by George, Allen & Unwin. Kanchanamala ( talk) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan
I have removed that content related to dravidian and tribal being the direct roots of the Hinduism. It would be better that you come with the quotations which directly support that content first. - Yoonadue ( talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it may be detailed and clearer for you, but what about sources? JJ was supposed to come with quotations, but he hasn't provided so far. Atma-jnana point is completely unsourced. It can't be placed in the article. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Removal of Mauritius is right as it doesn't come in Indian sub-continent. Mauritius is already mentioned in demographics section. Moreover, Hindu population in Mauritius is actually migrant from the sub-continent.
Why don't you make edits one by one rather than mass reversion to a particular version? - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the first sentence in this section: I edited the sentence to improve the sentence structure, but I still think the sentence is vague. Hinduism's openness? (Now "its openness") Openness to what? CorinneSD ( talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
If I can be of any help about Hinduism, feel free to ask me. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on my knowledge of Hinduism, and the connotation of the word "open" as per Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary, and the context, may I suggest "openness to new ideas". Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not read the cited book, but I did take the title into consideration. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"Sociology of Fate": Karma [Fate] is a unique article of faith in Hinduism. We believe that if the result of an act [as you sow] is not fully experienced [so shall you reap] in one's life, then the soul will have to be reborn (punar-janma) as many times as it takes to fully enjoy or suffer the result. Now, thinkers in other religions would have other ideas about this. I, therefore, suggested "new ideas". Kanchanamala ( talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not reincarnation, but rebirth, and that for the sake of Karma. Anyway, good luck, pal. Kanchanamala ( talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
CorinneSD, my friend, no offense taken. On the contrary, you were interested in checking the cited source, and I wished you good luck. Kanchanamala ( talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Mushrooms should be added to the list of foods that ISKCON members avoid. http://content.iskcon.org/culture/food/ states that Mushrooms along with onions and garlic are not encouraged. Please make this changes if they can.
Thanks
Breadinglover ( talk) 05:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Goodfaith17 I cant understand why do we need all this stuff related to caste system on this page when there exists an article on caste system. Article Hinduism is not meant to have all the content based on caste system as there exists an article caste system in India. Brief description on castes is already present in the article, rest can be left for the main article. - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of political Hinduism? The Hindu-Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (founded in the 1980s) is now the second largest party in India and is expected to become the largest in parliament by may 2014. RSS (Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh) has been converting millions of Muslims and Christians back to Hinduism. The Muslim population is stagnating and Hindu Indians have the highest birthrate in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed this section from the article, since it presented a unduly rigid and algorithmic order of precedence for Hindu scriptures without attributing this ordering to any particular tradition or source. It also failed to distinguish between ordering of the these scriptures as per (some) theological traditions versus relative importance in practiced Hinduism. Of course discussing the latter topic would be WP:UNDUE for this article.
That said, the material in the deleted section, properly attributed and contextualized, could be useful in another article. So I'm leaving this note here to provide easy link to the deleted text. Abecedare ( talk) 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Three edit requests:
176.67.169.207 ( talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Please be careful in your paraphrasing:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Kanchanamala ( talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that, to the right of the box with the table of contents, there is a large blank space. I was wondering if it would be possible to add a picture or two in that space. CorinneSD ( talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Several quotations from sacred texts appear with different formats: single vs. double line spacing, italicized or not, amount of indentation. A simple edit would improve page quality IMHO. JeanEva Rose ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The two sentences that i had changed, from :- "The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India that may have" to "the early evidences for prehistoric religion in India that are noted", as previously it had been discussed too, this change was newly made, last month, the source [2] itself presents nothing like "earliest" nor it's presenting any doubts.
Other one is about the 30 million/5 million estimates, they might be higher now, these stats were from 2008. The year should be mentioned? Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there are two basic perspectives on the roots of Hinduism:
To me it's clear that there is a broad scholarly consensus for the view that Hinduism is a synthesis. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, which contradicts the popular and/or orthodox understanding of Hinduism, but that's no reason to leave out of this article such a fundamental understanding of the origins of Hinduism. In response to this discussion, I have provided extensive quotes at User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hinduism has 100 gods. 50.201.104.10 ( talk) 16:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There is only one God in Hinduism. The Hindu word for God is Näräyaņa. Hindus conceive of, and represent, and worship God in numerous forms called deities (devatā). Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
>[Th]e history of Indian philosophy has been characterized largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasive Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience. The Brahmans were the principal representatives of the former, while the latter was preserved, and finally reasserted, by the surviving princely houses of the native Indian, dark-skinned, pre-Aryan population."[73][note 12][note 13][note 14]
this part has been thoroughly debunked and is just rubbish.
>No evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains.[3][4][5] The ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia,[6] although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley.[7] According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence for a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found.[8][9][10] At best, there is evidence of small-scale migrations approaching South Asia.[11][12
this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
more importantly:
>Around 1800 BCE, signs of a gradual decline began to emerge, and by around 1700 BCE, most of the cities were abandoned. In 1953, Sir Mortimer Wheeler proposed that the decline of the Indus Civilization was caused by the invasion of an Indo-European tribe from Central Asia called the "Aryans". As evidence, he cited a group of 37 skeletons found in various parts of Mohenjo-Daro, and passages in the Vedas referring to battles and forts. However, scholars soon started to reject Wheeler's theory, since the skeletons belonged to a period after the city's abandonment and none were found near the citadel. Subsequent examinations of the skeletons by Kenneth Kennedy in 1994 showed that the marks on the skulls were caused by erosion, and not violent aggression.[79] Today, many scholars believe that the collapse of the Indus Civilization was caused by drought and a decline in trade with Egypt and Mesopotamia.[80] It has also been suggested that immigration by new peoples, deforestation, floods, or changes in the course of the river may have contributed to the collapse of the IVC.[81]
= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Collapse_and_Late_Harappan
this is just racist drivel. why is it on here as fact?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.67.10 ( talk) 00:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
19th century Indologists hypothesized an Aryan invasion and forceful conquest of north-India by the Aryans.(Klostermaier 2007 p.18) Contemporary scholars find it more likely that is was a gradual migration of Aryan tribes.(Micaels 2004 p.33-34)(Possehl 2002 p.154) According to Possehl, there may have been a "complex pattern of movement"(Possehl 2002 p.154), with seasonal migrations back north into Central Asia and south into India, but also settlement of Indo-European peoples who "preserved their own heritage".(Possehl 2002 p.154)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Improve this section
This section, needs to be improved, the first line of the section is really unsourced, and if i removed it, the section will start lacking it's real meaning. You probably know about it, give your try :) . Bladesmulti ( talk) 06:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I refer to this sentence in the article: "The word Sindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda." In what way is this piece of info on Sindhu river relevant to the topic? -- Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] ( talk) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
I understand that Zimmer is provocative, and also not completely in line with the idea of a "fusion", where he speaks of "reassertion". So I have re-removed most of it, but reatained a few quotes which illustrate the "fusion". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
See [] for a possible compromise, moving part of the info to a note. The statement on Neo-Vedanta, though, is important; neo-Vedanta dominates the popular view of Hinduism. Hinduism is as contingent and historical determined as any other religion or culure. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Now it's time to mention the new section, about which i was just talking to other user, named "abecedare", I was talking about adding a new section called "influence on other religions", same way Judaism's influence is highlighted on the page of Judaism. It would be a good idea? We can add like :-
and merge the other sections like "Conversion", "Spread of Hindu practices" to it? Bladesmulti ( talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Would have simply edited directly if unlocked.
Fifth paragraph of introduction: "pelgrimages" to "pilgrimages". Stvpnk
There should be "temple", before or below "worship" or Under "worship", what you think? Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Surely there is a better source than a BBC website. You should be ashamed for citing it 4 times. 107.16.116.72 ( talk) 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The correct first name for the reference "Stevens, Stevens (2001), Ariadne's Clue: A Guide to the Symbols of Humankind, Princeton University Press" is Anthony
24.254.238.231 ( talk) 20:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Mike
Check "literature"
24.254.238.231 ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Mike
Changes by Onkar Karambe are introducing barely coherent sentences and material cited to unreliable websites. For example we have "The word hindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda as a Sindu". What does that even mean? Or "the theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan" This is assertion, not summary of the views of reliable sources, and, of course, it is very badly written and difficult to follow. It is cited to an online Pdf file [6] by someone called "Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja" Who? Paul B ( talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Really? Encyclopedia Brittanica? There has to be a better reference than this anonymous source you cite 2 times. Also, why do half of your references lack page numbers? 62.210.201.162 ( talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, many of the books in the lead lack page numbers. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Most Hindus never have even heard of Advaita Vedanta or Adi Shankara. There are no Indian cinemas with Advaitic concepts. You guys are vastly overstating the importance of Advaita Vedanta. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So I am Munnuru Kapu (lower caste) speaking Telugu ("Dravidian"). Explain to me how my culture is different than any other Hindu, in any other part of India. You guys take western scholarship as gospel, when even Oxford scholars Alexis Sanderson and James Mallinson often point out fundamental errors in others' works. 176.67.169.207 ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Indigenous Understanding I don't think you should classify or dismiss Breaking India and Invading the Sacred as "indigenous understanding". Neither book is written from an indigenous perspective. And then you are linking both books to the concept of Sanatana Dharma, which is also not fair. Invading the Sacred has many non-indigenous contributors, and Breaking India has very little to do with Hinduism at all. If you want to make a section called "Critique of Modern Scholarship", that would make more sense. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The references say that Buddhism was outright dominant in royal circles before the eighth century, not merely coexisting. Buddhism was the dominant religion among royal circlees. Also Buddhism continued to be dominant in the Pala region past the eighth century, according to Inden. This is because of Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Kanchanamala, there is evidence that Zoroastrianism originated in India, but not present day India, and Gujarat has historical Zoroastrian traces, being a part of Sassanid empire as well. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a book Invading the Sacred which points out the flaws in modern Hinduism scholarship. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's discussed in the OUP book Teaching Mysticism by William B. Parsons: "Finally, the last part of the course would focus on the more complex and volatile debates surrounding the study of Hindu mysticism today, particularly in the United States. Here students could read the critiques of American scholarship on Hinduism, such as Invading the Sacred (Ramaswamy, de Nicholas, and Banerjee 2007), along with the equally powerful responses to these critiques by American scholars (see, e.g., Kripal 2001; Courtright 2004). Kripal, for example, has an entire website devoted to the discussion, critique, and defense of Kālī’s Child, which offers a fine resource for students to engage this complex debate" (p.18). There is also this review [7], which calls it a "tendentious volume". Essentially this is no different from believers in other religions attacking secular scholarship. There are numerous books by Muslim and Christian apologists defending the truths of their faith against secular scholars, often, as with Malhotra, these are financially suppoerted by wealthy businessmen linked to the faith in question. It's just that Hindu responses are of a distinctive and different kind from Christian and Muslim ones, because they are bound up with semi-extraneous issues such as colonialism and Abrahamic ideas of "pagan" religions, which get mixed up in the debate (hence the obsession with characterising critics as part of a "western" attempt to undermine, or even convert, Hindus. Even Muslims don't tend to make these accusations, because they know that secular scholarship is equally sceptical of Christianity). Unfortunately it would be very difficult to treat this encyclopedically without straying into OR. Paul B ( talk) 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why Joshua Jonathan does not present page numbers for his references? I am starting to think he is just making stuff up. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure Joshua Jonathan will provide the relevant quote from Hiltebeitel since there are no page numbers. I am confused whether its 2002 or 2013 though. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Vedic period
Since the issue is heatedly debated, there was reason why it was simply kept that "may have drawn upon elements", Because there can be too much to attribute if we tried. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
More direct quotes embedded in the article as "notes", would be extremely helpful. Also citing specific pages instead of a range of pages. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied from [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan# Hinduism - first temples
See http://books.google.com/books?id=PD-flQMc1ocC&q=temples+emerged#v=snippet&q=temples%20emerged&f=false Source writes "the first hindu temples emerged - Durga temple, Aihole, Vishnu temple - Deogarh. But the author is only talking about the first temples of this period, not about the temples like Koneswaram Temple(6th century BCE or older), Amarnath(3rd Century BCE), etc. Also the author is incorrect, because Durga temple, Aihole wasn't built during Gupta Empire. Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC) copied to Talk:Hinduism#First temples
Yes, that should be modified, if someone search "temple" on this page, it redirects to this section first, and it cites "first temple"(sounds overall), like explained before. Bladesmulti ( talk) 09:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the actual name of the book/reference, that is currently described as Nath, Vijay (2001), "From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition", Social Scientist 2001, pp. 19-50 Bladesmulti ( talk) 07:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.
Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.
The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras 82.38.161.217 ( talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda
Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti 82.38.161.217 ( talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda
Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. JJ has managed to find a single source in the form of Lockard to justify large chunks of additions to this article. The word 'Fusion' is not used in the context of Hinduism religion. JJ should read those quotes again. Also, Lockard is not reliable for this encyclopedia. JJ should consider reading his works thoroughly before calling him a 'universal scholar'. Moreover other stuff like North-east, Shramana and local traditions being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. No such quotations have been provided which were asked for in an earlier discussion. Also, terms like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" is a clean example of pov editing. Such negative terms are not supposed to be added in the lead of the article.
The lead of the article should be short and shall not include such mass information. The problem with these recent edits by JJ is that the controversial views are being presented as universal.
As far as Aryan-Dravidian issue is concerned, its a very controversial theory and completely opposite theories are also present which have been supported by some modern historians as well. Such aryan-dravidian content may be apt for articles like Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans, but its completely inappropriate for the lead of this article. Such kind of content will make this article confusing and will question reliability of our encyclopedia. In my opinion the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit. JJ should first discuss each content one by one before adding anything. - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologize to JJ and others for such an uncivilized behavior. But I just want to raise a valid point.
Among the recent additions by JJ to the lead is: "From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35][36]" This sentence is exactly contrary to another theory which says Hinduism is indigenous to South India. Why is such a controversial sentence being added to the lead of this article?
In an earlier discussion, JJ was asked to provide proper quotations from the sources. But unfortunately still I can't see much here. All these points regarding religions of Indus valley, Adivasis, local traditions, and north-east India being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. They are confusing for this article. And such points are disputed also. - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
PaulB, according to Flood, "The actual term 'hindu' first occurs as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus." See page 6 of Introduction to Hinduism. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Paul B
Firstly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India.
The theory I am referring to is Indigenous Aryans which simply says that Hinduism is indigenous to both North and South India. The only difference b/w north and south as already discussed above is linguistic. Read this. Just because Hinduism is prominent in both North and South India doesn't make it a fusion of aryan and dravidian cultures. Actually the Hindus of south India follow the same religion. They get married with the help of Brahmins doing Sanskrit rituals. Their religious scriptures are also Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana which are originally Sanskrit texts. They also follow caste system and various Brahmin communities form an integral part of south Indian society.
Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture comes from the North is poorly sourced
Firstly there is nothing like non-vedic Hinduism. Hinduism is vedic everywhere from Kashmir to South India. The point I am referring as poorly sourced is that Hinduism is From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35] Presence of such content in the lead is like accepting the agenda of Dravidian politics that Hinduism used to be an alien religion for south India at a time and it got spread in south in some later age. The opposite theory says the history of Hinduism in south goes as long as it goes in case of north.
@ Bladesmulti
I am not going to create any sandbox. As I have already suggested, the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit and JJ should first discuss each point one by one.
@ JJ
Your edits indicate that Hinduism is not a specific religion but a mixture of religions. As per your edits, this mixture contains dravidian, mongoloid, adivasi, north-east, austric elements. Then let us know what does Hinduism take from these multiple traditions so as to term them as "among the direct roots of Hinduism"? You should give some description of that. Wikipedia is not that kind of encyclopedia that someone find a source and write an entire article on that basis of that. Certain points like this need to be discussed.
My opinion:- Hinduism is very much a specific religion. Just because Hinduism is also found among the south Indians, Mongoloid people of Nepal, Bali and austric-speaking people of India, doesn't mean that that these traditions are the direct roots of Hinduism. They have inherited religion from the Hindu faith. Hinduism doesn't inherit anything significant from them. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Bladesmulti
It won't be a complete loss as everything would still remain in the record. Th article would look like this. The lead should remain short and there should not be any section named "Roots of Hinduism" as there already exist a similar section 'History'. If JJ has anything to add, he should discuss one by one. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In mainstream scholarship, the Aryan Migration Theory is on its deathbed. David Gordon White cites 3 scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion is derived from the Indus Valley Civilizations. See pages 28 and 29 of Kiss of the Yogini. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
Hi,
Suggestions and comments welcome at the following discussion [ here] please. Thank you. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why does this section exist. This is clearly a violation of Neutral POV. Articles must be written with neutral point of view, but not with a purpose to glorify. Desione ( talk) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
In globalization, Caste = Religion and there is NO Hinduism. 4thaugust1932 ( talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
In Indian Cookery (1969), E.P. Veerasawmy states "The ordinary fats that are used in Western countries, such as dripping, suet, margarine, etc., are quite out of the question amongst the Hindus, and seldom used by the Mohammedan."
I understand the first two, but why margarine? The Margarine article seems to indicate that its composition has changed since those days, so is this still the case? Should something about this go in the Food section? Paul Magnussen ( talk) 18:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this user does not understand how to use Wikipedia, and he does not respond on his talk page as he probably doesn't know it exists! I think that he will continue to revert Ian.thomson's edits. I propose we attempt to get the message through to him in some way (maybe by creating a user page for him with an explanation of how to behave on Wikipedia) or, as I think we could get nowhere at the moment with him, report him on the edit-warring noticeboard or somewhere similar. Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone who knows how to edit articles knows how to use talk pages," is a generally true statement, but is not always the case. I said this because he does not respond on his talk page and he, as far as I know, has never directly said anything to another user. It is possible that he knows only how to edit articles, and not about the talk pages. I understand your points, but it does actually seem that he is unaware of what he is doing (see his contributions). If we can't get through to him, then I suggest that the best course of action is to report him - he might notice a temporary ban... Ther's no point prolonging this revertion of edits anymore - he's had enough warnings. Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK then. Tell me if he starts editing this article again. Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Again we have a Christian poster who thinks that Hinduism is fair game for unequal treatment. This poster calls removing the category "Criticism of Hinduism" censorship. Come back when you have added "Criticism of Christianity" to the Christianity article and "Criticism of Islam" to the Islam article. If and only if they and other religion articles have such category links would I consider it reasonable to have it here. --
Q Chris (
talk) 05:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I am a Hindu, and I think any criticism of Hinduism should be welcomed. Kanchanamala ( talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The richest temple as mentioned in a picture is no longer Tirupati, but Ananthapadmanabhaswamy temple of Thiruvananthapuram. Vivekmv ( talk) 08:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Please provide citation. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sreepadmanabhaswamytemple.com/richest-temple-in-india-sree-padmanabhaswamy-temple-trivandrum.html Écrivain ( talk) 13:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be an acceptable reference. The suggested emendation deserves consideration. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed a few things have "Unreliable Source" written next to it, plus i wanted to add a few sources that are not listed. help? -- Lee522 ( talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I'm pretty sure my religion is Hindu not Hinduism, i don't call other religions like Christians and say who is Christianism god!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthkdesai ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Citation 14 by G. Laderman needs to be fixed. Please remove "in the world." written before the author's name. Also, the Judaism is making an uncited claim that it is the oldest surviving religion in the world. The editors there are pretty adamant about this issue. They are claiming that nobody disagrees with this on the talk page and hence it must be true. Is voting the current norm on WP?-- 70.64.86.187 ( talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Error in citation 14 has been corrected. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim by Judaism is quite wrong, the citation they provided is quite okay, but the source clearly states it deals with religions in the Middle East alone and not the world. I'm heading over to their talkpage now. Écrivain ( talk) 10:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes to the article since some sources did not say what was claimed. Moreover some tantric Shivas do not accept the authority of the Vedas. This is mentioned in the "Tantric Body" by Flood and also on the Shaivism wikipedia page. Snowcream reversed my changes saying "Ronald Inden's notes are not universally accepted." This is blatantly false. It is hard to find an encyclopedic treatment of Hinduism that does *not* cite Inden. Moreover as Snowcream was the editor that pushed the fringe theories of Buddha's birthplace saying "Wikipedia articulates all significant perspectives," I find this the height of hypocrisy. CO2Northeast ( talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In the archives there seems to be vehement opposition to the use of "Sanātana Dharma" by multiple people. One source merely says that Sanātana Dharma is a frequently used expression **in** Hinduism, and says nothing about calling Hinduism Sanātana Dharma. The other texts are nationalist political texts. Since this is a modern political term that would be unfamiliar to most Hindus, why is it in the first line of this article? Ecragnol ( talk) 05:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
As stated above, the sources do not support what is in the lead. For example "A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals" merely states that sanatana dharma is a frequently used expression within Hinduism. Yet the sentence uses other phrases from this source to imply the source calls Hinduism sanatana dharma. CO2Northeast ( talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please include the influence of ancient Tamil religion in this article as a lot of important deities that is worshipped in hinduism today such as Shiva,Durga,Indra,Muruga and etc were initially worshipped by the tamils/Dravidians even before the start of vedic civilisation.Shiva statue(in the conceptof Trimurti)which is found in the ruins of indus valley civilisation were the proof of this statement.Even in Tamil Nadu,statues of these deities found in the oldest form before the arrival of vedic hinduism in Tamil Nadu.Later all these deities were absorbed by the sanskrit rituals,which introduces new philosopy based on these deities thus destroying the original concept/philosophy that is followed by the Dravidians.It is also noted that Vedic Hinduism enters Tamil Nadu only in 5th century,where there is a lot of native religion text were written in Tamil before the arrival of Vedic Hinduism in the Tamil country.-- Tan Meifen ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you please provide some citations for the statements you have made. It would help. Kanchanamala ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"Followers of the Bhakti movement moved away from the abstract concept of Brahman, which the philosopher Adi Shankara consolidated a few centuries before, with emotional, passionate devotion towards the more accessible Avatars, especially Krishna and Rama.[42]" Does anyone have the material in relation to Adi Shankara? SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The citation suggests that the observation is made in a published work. How can one object to it even though it is unacceptable to you and me? Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that this is based on this Vivekenanda quote from the reference "Hinduism a way of life": “From the high spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy, of which the latest discoveries of science seem like echoes, to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a place in the Hindu's religion.” This is clearly talking about Hinduism in the inclusive sense, seeing Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. as parts of the Hindu religion. Since the rest of the article assumes the normal definition I will remove this also. -- Q Chris ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I will be doing some changes to improve order of content and look. Any suggestions/edits welcome.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 16:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Does it sound alright to move material on Dharma in Objectives of human life section?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the gnosticism claim in the article really supported by the references? AssociateLong ( talk) 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
For this reason, though there are parallels between the beliefs of some Hindus and gnosticism, I think it is more likely to mislead than inform -- Q Chris ( talk) 11:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This sentence (the first) is either grammatically or factually incorrect:
Hinduism is the predominant and indigenous religion[3][4] of the Indian subcontinent.
Hinduism is the predominant religion on the Indian subcontinent but it is not "the ... (only) indigenous religion of the Indian subcontinent", as this sentence suggests. Both my attempts to correct this were reverted, so we're going to have to work this out somehow. Evanh2008 ( talk) ( contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Dropdown box at the end of the page is a bit out of place.The other two "Hinduism topics" and "Religion" should be there for obvious reasons but i doubt the point of having the mk gandhi dropdown box.He was not a very important figure for the religion,he was merely a follower of the religion.Thanks. Ayanosh ( talk) 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the deal with the recent insertion of copyrighted ISKCON images? BrahmanAdvaita ( talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Under the history section, the sentence beginning ' The beliefs and practices... ' overlaps with the relevant picture, thus making it hard to read. Thanks! 94.196.118.147 ( talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is the mention of the term "Sanatana Dharma" removed from the article. This is the expression which defines the Hindu religion in the most correct manner. Sanatana Dharma is the term used in the ancient scriptures, it's the eternal truth and path of righteousness, the embodiment of all good values and behaviour and goal of human life one can follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.185.6 ( talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The deletion of the word "Sanātana Dharma" is quite justified. It is certainly not found in any ancient scripture as referring to Hinduism. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
BrahmanAdvaita blocked as a sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Third largest religionIt might be nice to have a source for this sentence, although I understand it is linked to another Wikipedia article. BrahmanAdvaita ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Hinduism is not an indigenous religionPlease correct the first sentence of the article. Hinduism is not an indigenous religion. Kulke and Rothermund, in A History of India 4th edition, note:
Perhaps I've misread your meaning. -- 174.7.29.185 ( talk) 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Snowcream's reversionHe suggests the sentence I added is "inserted out of place." I don't feel that way. BrahmanAdvaita ( talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
|
I would like to make a revision to the section discussing Yoga. In particular, I would like to discuss how the Hindu practice of yoga has psychological benefits, as well as a comparison between modern day and traditional Hindu psychology. My proposed revision is as follows: "The practice of yoga in Hindu tradition also has psychological benefits, allowing one to develop control over their mind and body. Rather than adapting the sick or mentally ill mind (the primary focus of modern psychology), traditional Hindu psychology focuses on enhancing the normal and healthy mind through the practice of meditative techniques such as yoga." I would like to make this revision for a class assignment. Thank you. Kozars ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References Raman, V. V. (2012). HINDUISM AND SCIENCE: SOME REFLECTIONS. Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science, 47(3), 549-574. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01274.x
Jesus is the real God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.123.210 ( talk) 18:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If they are called so then it is a very serious mistake. Aryans probably had not gone to the Indo-Gangetic plain or South India during this time, and the indigenous Gods and Goddesses (Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesh, and Kartikeya) along with the village deities must have reigned supreme as they do now. Who remembers the temporary ascendency of the Aryan Gods and Goddesses? Aupmanyav ( talk) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Historical Vedic Religion is what you find in the Vedas. Aupmanyav ( talk) 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not think Wikipedia likes wrong information on its pages. Aupmanyav ( talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In Indian religion what matters is initiation. Initiation in a marga of a Dharma such as some Guru initiating a disciple or anyone accepting him as a Guru in some Bhakti marga, etc. 202.138.106.1 ( talk) 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Shih. I do not have a guru. I have never been initiated. I do not follow bhakti marg. Actually I am an atheist and advaitist. Do I not remain a hindu? 59.178.61.185 ( talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This section was removed with the comment:
Deliberate and hypocritical topic of "Conversion" added to Hinduism article. Hinduism is the last religion to believe in conversions. Wiki page for "Christianity", "Jews", "Muslims" dont speak about Conversions, while they waged wars for religious convers)
On balance I believe that it is useful because the attitude to conversion is different to other religions. I also think it contains useful information. I have therefore restored it. -- Q Chris ( talk) 13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear All
While searching for Sanaatan Dharma on wikipedia, the query redirects itself to Hinduism which should not be the case.
The word Hindu, as many of you would be aware, is a distortion of the word Sindhu which basically signifies a geographical region. This also has been the primary source of confusion why people define Hinduism as a way of life and Hindus as inhabiting a particular region.
However, the systems, beliefs etc belong to what is known as Sanaatan Dharma (which means eternal or universal law). None of the scriptures like Upanishads, Mahabharat etc use the word hindu. But the people who are called hindu today derive their faith and beliefs from these sacred texts. These texts, which elaborate the Sanaatan Dharma, are the fountainhead of the way the Hindu people live.
It is indeed appropriate to disengage the two. As an example, suppose your neighbor is a foreigner whose someone whose is not easy to pronounce. Often times, you will start calling them a name which is convenient to you or that person will change their name altogether. It is very similar case here.
Thanks and Regards
Cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital1981 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Upanishads and Mahabharata do not use the word India, but that is the name in English that we have selected for our country. It is because of common usage and is not an abuse. Aupmanyav ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
India is the country's name in English, and Bhārat is the name in Hindi. English and Hindi are the two official languages of India, for use between the States and the Union, and between the States. Users of Hindi have given currency to India. In the ancient literature of India, Bharata-khaņďa refers to the Indian subcontinent, and Bhārata-varșa includes all the neighboring regions where India's native heritage spread. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If we search for word Hindu, it is mentioned that quote The Brihaspati Agama (dated?)says:
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् । तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।। "The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan, with the हिंदु (Hindu) mentioned in word हिंदुस्थानं (Hindusthan)."[4][5]
The usage of the word Hindu was popularized for Arabs and further west by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus[6] and the Persian term Hindū referring to all Indians. By the 13th century, Hindustān emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus".[7] unquote
However if we search for work 'Hinduism', the definition is different - as derived from word 'Sindu'.
Since the we have the reference of the Sanskrit Sloka from a very old literature "Brihaspathi Samhitha", we should go by that definition only. There is no proof for saying the word Hindu is derived from word 'Sindhu', as mentioned in http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/ataglance/glance.shtml - There is no reference mentioned over there.
Request Wiki to correct the information mentioned for 'Hinduism'. I could not edit as the page is protected. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Srinuvvv (
talk •
contribs) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the above source [Bŗhaspati Āgama] is spurious. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is flooded with some unwanted images which are out of context.It Would look good if they are removed.Some lines have been removed which do not have a valid supporting authoritative source from Vedic Scriptures e.g.Kapaalikas which do not belong to Hinduism Srisharmaa ( talk) 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything that Hindus practice is part of Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Bhagavān Śrī Ādi-Śańkarācārya was a proponent of the Advaita school of Vedānta. The Wikipedia article here is on Hinduism. Kapālikas are also Hindus. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Advaita is one school of Vedānta. Hinduism is a modern comprehensive term which includes the philosophies and practices of all Hindus. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If any cited source, Indian or Western, looks unacceptable, it should be debated on its own merits. We should not be prejudiced against all non-Indian scholars. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion. Please don't give up. Take up statements in the article which you find objectionable, preferably one at a time, citing sources. I'm sure other users will respond, and let the chips fall wherever they do. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OM symbol , which is a integral part of hunduism , is written different way in different languages. Why to use Devanagiri alone ? Karthikeyan.pandian ( talk) 10:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Om is a Sanskrit letter and term [omityekākśaram brahma], and Devanāgari is the script of Sanskrit. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hindus were not forced to convert to Islam. This is very fallacious and propaganda instigated heavily by anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim Hindutva fanatics, historically supported by the British Empire and now radical elements within the Indian state. Islam came by sufis, traders, and other people who taught through love, peace, intellect, and wisdom. Under the Muslim kingdoms and dynasties Hindus were given freedoms to practice their religion. If Muslims forcefully converted people then 80% of India would not be Hindu. The Catholics forcefully converted people in Spain, Portugal, and the Americas. This is why those areas are 99% Catholic-Christian. This article is totally biased against Muslims and spreads propaganda about Islam. The Muslim perspective is totally neglected here and the Muslim point of view is not allowed to be expressed, because fanatic Hindutva liars and anti-Muslim Western-supremacist bigots who run this page are spreading lies against Muslims. Even the most conservative minded kings allowed Hindus to practice freely. 1000+ years of Muslim rule in India has proven that Islam was not spread by force, but it was spread by peace, love, and tolerance. Individuals like Khwaja Moinuddin Chishtii, Ali Hujwiri, and many others spread Islam in this region and people converted by their own choice. Please stop the Islamophobia and anti-Muslim propaganda within this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 ( talk • contribs)
The above unsigned comments are not supported by history a wee bit. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please remove (through Persian) words from Etymology. and also indo-European
Sakam24 ( talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Please remove references to Oldenberg and Neumann, who were born over 150 years ago. Please rely on more modern scholars. Also I see this same sentence repeated in other Wikipedia articles as well. Thanks! ObamaisGreat ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think so too. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. Keep whatever reference you wish. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If you click on this link, you will see you are misrepresenting the reference in multiple ways. ConfusedSapien ( talk) 17:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Tantra is as much Hindu as Yoga is. Need to include Tantra too in as much detail as Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.198 ( talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hinduism is a comprehensive term, and mention of Tantra in the article would be reasonable. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
the article says very little about reincarnation. I think it should b larger. Reincarnation is very important in Hisduism. - thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.221.51 ( talk) 15:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Festivals Chetti Chand Source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheti_Chand) Viranjali ( talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
just i want person who is the founder of hinduism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.25 ( talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no founder of Hinduism per se. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
religions are prosparity and peace hinduism had many gods and goddesses that were human.some were open minded and some were mental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryman3 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There is only one God in Hinduism. That one God is worshiped in the form of as many deities (devatā) as the worshipers choose. Every deity represents the one God (deva) [deva eva devatā]. Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hindū Dharma or Hinduism (Sanskrit: हिन्दू धर्म, is often referred by its practitioners as Sanātana Dharma, सनातन धर्म; Vaidika Dharma, वैदिक धर्म; or Vedic Tradition) is the spiritual, philosophical, scientific and cultural system that originated in Bharatavarsha (the Indian subcontinent), that is based on the Vedas, and it is the oldest of all living religious traditions still practiced today. A Hindu, as per definition, is an adherent of the spiritual practices, yoga, philosophies and scriptures of Hindu Dharma. 182.71.183.195 ( talk) 05:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
They whet to the gange river and bathed in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.30.116 ( talk) 00:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the literal meaning of PurANaH (given here as "of ancient times" ), I beg to differ. Infact the etymology of the word "PurAN" (पुराण) is पुरे नवः इति पुराणः ("purE navaH iti purANaH") meaning "that which is new in the city(pura)", as this texts are of relatively newer origin and later than the other tradtional texts of Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.168.197 ( talk) 07:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Apte's dictionary quotes Nirukta as "purā navam". Both Apte and Monier-Williams give the meaning of purāņa as ancient. Kālidāsa uses purāņa (old) and nava (new) as having opposite connotations ["purāņam-ityeva na sādhu sarvam, na cāpi kāvyam navam-ity-avadyam" - Mālavikāgnimitram, I.2]. I am not aware of the claim made by the unsigned user. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure Lokesh. Translation: Everything [sarvam] is not good [na sādhu] just because [ityeva] it is old/ancient [purāņam], nor is [na cāpi] a literary work [kāvyam] something not to speak of [a-vadyam] because it is [iti] new [navam]. Kanchanamala ( talk) 01:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Include a swastik and aum are probably the two signs of hinduism. but on any new thing is happening swastik is written not aum,
Please replace aum by either an aum or swastik or swastik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HinduSwastika.svg
Should be added in the right corner.
The icon swastika represents the message that "everything is all right" [su+asti]. Om is one letter, made of three letters 'a', 'u' and 'm', and it represents the ultimate reality brahma [om-ityekākśaram brahma (iti+eka+akśara)]. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: "omityekākśaram brahma" - Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā, VIII.13. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
With this new wikipedia update, i can't really format or put the texts well, kindly format the following lines:-
One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts. [11] These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics. [12] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas. [13]
Into this manner:-
One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts.[11] These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics.[12] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas.[13]
Capitals00 ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
With this edit Yoonadue removed this note: "Heinrich Zimmer: "[T]he history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."(Zimmer 1989, p=218-219)". He gave the following edit summary: "removed recently added note, it talks about Indian philosophy, not about Hinduism religion". This is an artificial distinction. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yoonadue ( talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You say that this quote supports the main text. Can you explain how? Please re-read the quote. It tells about 'Indian philosophy', but not specifically about Hinduism. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing this article and correcting errors in syntax, word usage, spelling and punctuation, and improving the writing style where needed, while making an effort not to change meaning. I have come across a sentence that I think is unclear and poorly written, but I hesitate to correct it because I am not sure what the original writer intended. If someone knows the subject matter or the reference, could he or she take a look at this sentence and try to improve it? It is the second sentence in the first paragraph. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Before this edit by Joshua Jonathan, the lead of the article said: Among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6]. That content was fine and well-sourced which talked about the roots of Hinduism religion.
But the present version of the article's lead after a series of edits by Joshua Jonathan says :-
Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5], among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India.
Reading the present version-
Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5]- Again this sentence is India-specific, not relevant for this article's lead. The source still lacks inline citation/footnote/annotation which is very important for this content.
among the direct roots of Hinduism are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India - What about the earlier version describing "the direct roots of India/Indian culture"? Very recently, you have changed direct roots of India to direct roots of Hinduism. Moreover, the content still lacks inline citations which support the newly added content that Dravidian and tribal culture are among the direct roots of Hinduism. The one footnote which is present there doesn't point to the newly added content to even a small extent. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It does not seem proper for any user to remove a well-referenced statement. Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Yoonadue : It's up to you explain why this is not relevant. The topic is
Hinduism and the lead of this article (after recent edits by you) is saying Although India is portrayed as..... From where does India enter this topic? Why do you think that its relevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times? Why such kind of focus on India in this article's lead. India is a diverse country, secular by law and is inhabited by sizable population of numerous other religious groups like Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists etc. As per me, it is totally irrelevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times.
In the very next words, the article starts describing the direct roots of Hinduism which is very much apt for this title. But the very recent addition to that is "among direct roots of Hinduism are dravidian culure and tribal culture of India". Why don't you provide the inline citations/quotes/footnotes so that it can be verified that which words of the book mentioned by you as reference supports this statement. Reading WP:Verifiability:-
"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
After seeing that one quote provided by you, I have strong doubts that the sources really say that Hinduism's direct roots include dravidian culture and tribal cultures. Hence you must provide quotes from the book which support this statement. Otherwise, it is likely to be removed.
That one quote provided by you is : "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."
This quote doesn't hit the mark as it doesn't talk about dravidian/tribal culture being the direct roots of Hinduism. Please note that Indian philosophy and Hinduism are not synonymous. - Yoonadue ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply by JJ -
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Yoonadue:
The references are given; you can check them out. This is the fourth time you say there are no references; try to understand Wiki-make-up, or just stay away if you're not able to understand it.
I have never said that there are no references. The point is that references are poor and lack full quotes for important content (dravidian and tribal roots). You must give exact wordings which according to you support the content. The pages of books are too lengthy, but we are unable to know which quote from the book you are referring to.
You're persistent remarks on this are WP:DISRUPTIVE.
Yes, there is disruptive editing going on, but thats not from my side. You definitely understand what I am asking for again and again but you are ignoring it saying that references are there. I know that references are there, but which which quote supports the added content?
The quote from Zimmer is clear: Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism) is the result of the interaction between various cultures.
Read it again :- "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and experience."
It talks about crises of interaction between Aryan and Dravidian thought. It nowhere directs to any dravidian roots of Hinduism, what you are claiming from this quote.
Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism)
Now,you should provide reliable source to support Indian philosophy and Hinduism are synonymous. As far as we know, Indian philosophy comprise of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Carvaka, Shramana and other traditions. And hence both terms are not synonymous. Why do u think 'India' and 'Hindu' are same despite of the fact that major religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are born in India and they form important part of Indian history? - Yoonadue ( talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I will do as suggested. Thanks Qwyrxian & JJ. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
On Indian philosophy I recommend Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's work "Indian Philosophy" published by George, Allen & Unwin. Kanchanamala ( talk) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan
I have removed that content related to dravidian and tribal being the direct roots of the Hinduism. It would be better that you come with the quotations which directly support that content first. - Yoonadue ( talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it may be detailed and clearer for you, but what about sources? JJ was supposed to come with quotations, but he hasn't provided so far. Atma-jnana point is completely unsourced. It can't be placed in the article. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Removal of Mauritius is right as it doesn't come in Indian sub-continent. Mauritius is already mentioned in demographics section. Moreover, Hindu population in Mauritius is actually migrant from the sub-continent.
Why don't you make edits one by one rather than mass reversion to a particular version? - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the first sentence in this section: I edited the sentence to improve the sentence structure, but I still think the sentence is vague. Hinduism's openness? (Now "its openness") Openness to what? CorinneSD ( talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
If I can be of any help about Hinduism, feel free to ask me. Kanchanamala ( talk) 04:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on my knowledge of Hinduism, and the connotation of the word "open" as per Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary, and the context, may I suggest "openness to new ideas". Kanchanamala ( talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not read the cited book, but I did take the title into consideration. Kanchanamala ( talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"Sociology of Fate": Karma [Fate] is a unique article of faith in Hinduism. We believe that if the result of an act [as you sow] is not fully experienced [so shall you reap] in one's life, then the soul will have to be reborn (punar-janma) as many times as it takes to fully enjoy or suffer the result. Now, thinkers in other religions would have other ideas about this. I, therefore, suggested "new ideas". Kanchanamala ( talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not reincarnation, but rebirth, and that for the sake of Karma. Anyway, good luck, pal. Kanchanamala ( talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
CorinneSD, my friend, no offense taken. On the contrary, you were interested in checking the cited source, and I wished you good luck. Kanchanamala ( talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Mushrooms should be added to the list of foods that ISKCON members avoid. http://content.iskcon.org/culture/food/ states that Mushrooms along with onions and garlic are not encouraged. Please make this changes if they can.
Thanks
Breadinglover ( talk) 05:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Goodfaith17 I cant understand why do we need all this stuff related to caste system on this page when there exists an article on caste system. Article Hinduism is not meant to have all the content based on caste system as there exists an article caste system in India. Brief description on castes is already present in the article, rest can be left for the main article. - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of political Hinduism? The Hindu-Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (founded in the 1980s) is now the second largest party in India and is expected to become the largest in parliament by may 2014. RSS (Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh) has been converting millions of Muslims and Christians back to Hinduism. The Muslim population is stagnating and Hindu Indians have the highest birthrate in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed this section from the article, since it presented a unduly rigid and algorithmic order of precedence for Hindu scriptures without attributing this ordering to any particular tradition or source. It also failed to distinguish between ordering of the these scriptures as per (some) theological traditions versus relative importance in practiced Hinduism. Of course discussing the latter topic would be WP:UNDUE for this article.
That said, the material in the deleted section, properly attributed and contextualized, could be useful in another article. So I'm leaving this note here to provide easy link to the deleted text. Abecedare ( talk) 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Three edit requests:
176.67.169.207 ( talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Please be careful in your paraphrasing:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Kanchanamala ( talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that, to the right of the box with the table of contents, there is a large blank space. I was wondering if it would be possible to add a picture or two in that space. CorinneSD ( talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Several quotations from sacred texts appear with different formats: single vs. double line spacing, italicized or not, amount of indentation. A simple edit would improve page quality IMHO. JeanEva Rose ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The two sentences that i had changed, from :- "The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India that may have" to "the early evidences for prehistoric religion in India that are noted", as previously it had been discussed too, this change was newly made, last month, the source [2] itself presents nothing like "earliest" nor it's presenting any doubts.
Other one is about the 30 million/5 million estimates, they might be higher now, these stats were from 2008. The year should be mentioned? Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there are two basic perspectives on the roots of Hinduism:
To me it's clear that there is a broad scholarly consensus for the view that Hinduism is a synthesis. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, which contradicts the popular and/or orthodox understanding of Hinduism, but that's no reason to leave out of this article such a fundamental understanding of the origins of Hinduism. In response to this discussion, I have provided extensive quotes at User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hinduism has 100 gods. 50.201.104.10 ( talk) 16:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There is only one God in Hinduism. The Hindu word for God is Näräyaņa. Hindus conceive of, and represent, and worship God in numerous forms called deities (devatā). Kanchanamala ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
>[Th]e history of Indian philosophy has been characterized largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasive Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience. The Brahmans were the principal representatives of the former, while the latter was preserved, and finally reasserted, by the surviving princely houses of the native Indian, dark-skinned, pre-Aryan population."[73][note 12][note 13][note 14]
this part has been thoroughly debunked and is just rubbish.
>No evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains.[3][4][5] The ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia,[6] although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley.[7] According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence for a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found.[8][9][10] At best, there is evidence of small-scale migrations approaching South Asia.[11][12
this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
more importantly:
>Around 1800 BCE, signs of a gradual decline began to emerge, and by around 1700 BCE, most of the cities were abandoned. In 1953, Sir Mortimer Wheeler proposed that the decline of the Indus Civilization was caused by the invasion of an Indo-European tribe from Central Asia called the "Aryans". As evidence, he cited a group of 37 skeletons found in various parts of Mohenjo-Daro, and passages in the Vedas referring to battles and forts. However, scholars soon started to reject Wheeler's theory, since the skeletons belonged to a period after the city's abandonment and none were found near the citadel. Subsequent examinations of the skeletons by Kenneth Kennedy in 1994 showed that the marks on the skulls were caused by erosion, and not violent aggression.[79] Today, many scholars believe that the collapse of the Indus Civilization was caused by drought and a decline in trade with Egypt and Mesopotamia.[80] It has also been suggested that immigration by new peoples, deforestation, floods, or changes in the course of the river may have contributed to the collapse of the IVC.[81]
= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Collapse_and_Late_Harappan
this is just racist drivel. why is it on here as fact?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.67.10 ( talk) 00:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
19th century Indologists hypothesized an Aryan invasion and forceful conquest of north-India by the Aryans.(Klostermaier 2007 p.18) Contemporary scholars find it more likely that is was a gradual migration of Aryan tribes.(Micaels 2004 p.33-34)(Possehl 2002 p.154) According to Possehl, there may have been a "complex pattern of movement"(Possehl 2002 p.154), with seasonal migrations back north into Central Asia and south into India, but also settlement of Indo-European peoples who "preserved their own heritage".(Possehl 2002 p.154)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Improve this section
This section, needs to be improved, the first line of the section is really unsourced, and if i removed it, the section will start lacking it's real meaning. You probably know about it, give your try :) . Bladesmulti ( talk) 06:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I refer to this sentence in the article: "The word Sindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda." In what way is this piece of info on Sindhu river relevant to the topic? -- Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] ( talk) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
I understand that Zimmer is provocative, and also not completely in line with the idea of a "fusion", where he speaks of "reassertion". So I have re-removed most of it, but reatained a few quotes which illustrate the "fusion". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
See [] for a possible compromise, moving part of the info to a note. The statement on Neo-Vedanta, though, is important; neo-Vedanta dominates the popular view of Hinduism. Hinduism is as contingent and historical determined as any other religion or culure. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Now it's time to mention the new section, about which i was just talking to other user, named "abecedare", I was talking about adding a new section called "influence on other religions", same way Judaism's influence is highlighted on the page of Judaism. It would be a good idea? We can add like :-
and merge the other sections like "Conversion", "Spread of Hindu practices" to it? Bladesmulti ( talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Would have simply edited directly if unlocked.
Fifth paragraph of introduction: "pelgrimages" to "pilgrimages". Stvpnk
There should be "temple", before or below "worship" or Under "worship", what you think? Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Surely there is a better source than a BBC website. You should be ashamed for citing it 4 times. 107.16.116.72 ( talk) 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The correct first name for the reference "Stevens, Stevens (2001), Ariadne's Clue: A Guide to the Symbols of Humankind, Princeton University Press" is Anthony
24.254.238.231 ( talk) 20:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Mike
Check "literature"
24.254.238.231 ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Mike
Changes by Onkar Karambe are introducing barely coherent sentences and material cited to unreliable websites. For example we have "The word hindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda as a Sindu". What does that even mean? Or "the theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan" This is assertion, not summary of the views of reliable sources, and, of course, it is very badly written and difficult to follow. It is cited to an online Pdf file [6] by someone called "Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja" Who? Paul B ( talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Really? Encyclopedia Brittanica? There has to be a better reference than this anonymous source you cite 2 times. Also, why do half of your references lack page numbers? 62.210.201.162 ( talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, many of the books in the lead lack page numbers. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Most Hindus never have even heard of Advaita Vedanta or Adi Shankara. There are no Indian cinemas with Advaitic concepts. You guys are vastly overstating the importance of Advaita Vedanta. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So I am Munnuru Kapu (lower caste) speaking Telugu ("Dravidian"). Explain to me how my culture is different than any other Hindu, in any other part of India. You guys take western scholarship as gospel, when even Oxford scholars Alexis Sanderson and James Mallinson often point out fundamental errors in others' works. 176.67.169.207 ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Indigenous Understanding I don't think you should classify or dismiss Breaking India and Invading the Sacred as "indigenous understanding". Neither book is written from an indigenous perspective. And then you are linking both books to the concept of Sanatana Dharma, which is also not fair. Invading the Sacred has many non-indigenous contributors, and Breaking India has very little to do with Hinduism at all. If you want to make a section called "Critique of Modern Scholarship", that would make more sense. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The references say that Buddhism was outright dominant in royal circles before the eighth century, not merely coexisting. Buddhism was the dominant religion among royal circlees. Also Buddhism continued to be dominant in the Pala region past the eighth century, according to Inden. This is because of Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Kanchanamala, there is evidence that Zoroastrianism originated in India, but not present day India, and Gujarat has historical Zoroastrian traces, being a part of Sassanid empire as well. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a book Invading the Sacred which points out the flaws in modern Hinduism scholarship. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's discussed in the OUP book Teaching Mysticism by William B. Parsons: "Finally, the last part of the course would focus on the more complex and volatile debates surrounding the study of Hindu mysticism today, particularly in the United States. Here students could read the critiques of American scholarship on Hinduism, such as Invading the Sacred (Ramaswamy, de Nicholas, and Banerjee 2007), along with the equally powerful responses to these critiques by American scholars (see, e.g., Kripal 2001; Courtright 2004). Kripal, for example, has an entire website devoted to the discussion, critique, and defense of Kālī’s Child, which offers a fine resource for students to engage this complex debate" (p.18). There is also this review [7], which calls it a "tendentious volume". Essentially this is no different from believers in other religions attacking secular scholarship. There are numerous books by Muslim and Christian apologists defending the truths of their faith against secular scholars, often, as with Malhotra, these are financially suppoerted by wealthy businessmen linked to the faith in question. It's just that Hindu responses are of a distinctive and different kind from Christian and Muslim ones, because they are bound up with semi-extraneous issues such as colonialism and Abrahamic ideas of "pagan" religions, which get mixed up in the debate (hence the obsession with characterising critics as part of a "western" attempt to undermine, or even convert, Hindus. Even Muslims don't tend to make these accusations, because they know that secular scholarship is equally sceptical of Christianity). Unfortunately it would be very difficult to treat this encyclopedically without straying into OR. Paul B ( talk) 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why Joshua Jonathan does not present page numbers for his references? I am starting to think he is just making stuff up. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure Joshua Jonathan will provide the relevant quote from Hiltebeitel since there are no page numbers. I am confused whether its 2002 or 2013 though. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Vedic period
Since the issue is heatedly debated, there was reason why it was simply kept that "may have drawn upon elements", Because there can be too much to attribute if we tried. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
More direct quotes embedded in the article as "notes", would be extremely helpful. Also citing specific pages instead of a range of pages. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied from [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan# Hinduism - first temples
See http://books.google.com/books?id=PD-flQMc1ocC&q=temples+emerged#v=snippet&q=temples%20emerged&f=false Source writes "the first hindu temples emerged - Durga temple, Aihole, Vishnu temple - Deogarh. But the author is only talking about the first temples of this period, not about the temples like Koneswaram Temple(6th century BCE or older), Amarnath(3rd Century BCE), etc. Also the author is incorrect, because Durga temple, Aihole wasn't built during Gupta Empire. Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC) copied to Talk:Hinduism#First temples
Yes, that should be modified, if someone search "temple" on this page, it redirects to this section first, and it cites "first temple"(sounds overall), like explained before. Bladesmulti ( talk) 09:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the actual name of the book/reference, that is currently described as Nath, Vijay (2001), "From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition", Social Scientist 2001, pp. 19-50 Bladesmulti ( talk) 07:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.
Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.
The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras 82.38.161.217 ( talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda
Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti 82.38.161.217 ( talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda
Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. JJ has managed to find a single source in the form of Lockard to justify large chunks of additions to this article. The word 'Fusion' is not used in the context of Hinduism religion. JJ should read those quotes again. Also, Lockard is not reliable for this encyclopedia. JJ should consider reading his works thoroughly before calling him a 'universal scholar'. Moreover other stuff like North-east, Shramana and local traditions being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. No such quotations have been provided which were asked for in an earlier discussion. Also, terms like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" is a clean example of pov editing. Such negative terms are not supposed to be added in the lead of the article.
The lead of the article should be short and shall not include such mass information. The problem with these recent edits by JJ is that the controversial views are being presented as universal.
As far as Aryan-Dravidian issue is concerned, its a very controversial theory and completely opposite theories are also present which have been supported by some modern historians as well. Such aryan-dravidian content may be apt for articles like Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans, but its completely inappropriate for the lead of this article. Such kind of content will make this article confusing and will question reliability of our encyclopedia. In my opinion the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit. JJ should first discuss each content one by one before adding anything. - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologize to JJ and others for such an uncivilized behavior. But I just want to raise a valid point.
Among the recent additions by JJ to the lead is: "From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35][36]" This sentence is exactly contrary to another theory which says Hinduism is indigenous to South India. Why is such a controversial sentence being added to the lead of this article?
In an earlier discussion, JJ was asked to provide proper quotations from the sources. But unfortunately still I can't see much here. All these points regarding religions of Indus valley, Adivasis, local traditions, and north-east India being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. They are confusing for this article. And such points are disputed also. - Yoonadue ( talk) 14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
PaulB, according to Flood, "The actual term 'hindu' first occurs as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus." See page 6 of Introduction to Hinduism. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Paul B
Firstly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India.
The theory I am referring to is Indigenous Aryans which simply says that Hinduism is indigenous to both North and South India. The only difference b/w north and south as already discussed above is linguistic. Read this. Just because Hinduism is prominent in both North and South India doesn't make it a fusion of aryan and dravidian cultures. Actually the Hindus of south India follow the same religion. They get married with the help of Brahmins doing Sanskrit rituals. Their religious scriptures are also Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana which are originally Sanskrit texts. They also follow caste system and various Brahmin communities form an integral part of south Indian society.
Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture comes from the North is poorly sourced
Firstly there is nothing like non-vedic Hinduism. Hinduism is vedic everywhere from Kashmir to South India. The point I am referring as poorly sourced is that Hinduism is From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35] Presence of such content in the lead is like accepting the agenda of Dravidian politics that Hinduism used to be an alien religion for south India at a time and it got spread in south in some later age. The opposite theory says the history of Hinduism in south goes as long as it goes in case of north.
@ Bladesmulti
I am not going to create any sandbox. As I have already suggested, the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit and JJ should first discuss each point one by one.
@ JJ
Your edits indicate that Hinduism is not a specific religion but a mixture of religions. As per your edits, this mixture contains dravidian, mongoloid, adivasi, north-east, austric elements. Then let us know what does Hinduism take from these multiple traditions so as to term them as "among the direct roots of Hinduism"? You should give some description of that. Wikipedia is not that kind of encyclopedia that someone find a source and write an entire article on that basis of that. Certain points like this need to be discussed.
My opinion:- Hinduism is very much a specific religion. Just because Hinduism is also found among the south Indians, Mongoloid people of Nepal, Bali and austric-speaking people of India, doesn't mean that that these traditions are the direct roots of Hinduism. They have inherited religion from the Hindu faith. Hinduism doesn't inherit anything significant from them. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Bladesmulti
It won't be a complete loss as everything would still remain in the record. Th article would look like this. The lead should remain short and there should not be any section named "Roots of Hinduism" as there already exist a similar section 'History'. If JJ has anything to add, he should discuss one by one. - Yoonadue ( talk) 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In mainstream scholarship, the Aryan Migration Theory is on its deathbed. David Gordon White cites 3 scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion is derived from the Indus Valley Civilizations. See pages 28 and 29 of Kiss of the Yogini. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)