![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This could help the length problem and even more importantly, help make table of contents shorter. It is definitely something that is criticised and their is quite a few arguments against those criticisms too. At the same time, their is a chance that it would end up being longer. I can make a sandbox for it and post here if people want me to spend effort on it. Feedback please. Also, constructive criticism on what more can be cut back on would be helpful. I already feel very bad about taking out the "maya" concept but then again it probably would not make much sense to a newbie in the form it was. ( Blacksun 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
I dont agree with the lead in and the core part where Hinduism is referred to as Indo-Aryan religion. Why? Because as I do more and more research, I keep running into articles both of Indian and Western scholars (published very recently) that vehemently call the entire theory a fabrication. Yes it should definitely be mentioned but I am not sure if this is accepted as universally for Wikipedia to pass it as a fact. It seems like a very hotly contested theory academically. Also, the featured version did not have such an outright acceptance of one theory over the other. As such, I will remove the term. If you do not agree, give me good reasons for why Wikipedia should accept one theory as a fact. Trust me, I am not doing this out of emotional or any other type of affilation to one theory over the other but purely academically. However, I will LEAVE it in origin of hinduism as it definitely belongs there as one of the schools of thought. But, I do not believe that wikipedia is supposed to give authority to one theory which is not hotly contested by scholars. ( Blacksun 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
Please give your opinion on this as the introductory paragraph:
'Hinduism (Devanāgari: हिन्दू धर्म), also known as Sanatana Dharma (सनातन धर्म) and is an religious tradition which developed in India from the interaction of indigenous beliefs and those of Vedic Aryans. Both traditions have no beginnings in history, thus making Hinduism the longest practiced major religion. Hinduism expects its adherents to be unwaivering in one's duty (Dharma). Hinduism is surprisingly tolerant in the matter of personal beliefs making it impossible to define Hinduism, which range from polytheism to monism, and even atheism. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world with approximately 900 million adherents, most of whom live in India. Nepal is the only nation in the world with Hinduism as its state religion.'
The reason why Hindu, Hinduism pages are not as good as Christianity and Islam is that we want to give it our own color. Aupmanyav 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
distinguishing two groups "Aryans" vs. "proto-Hindus" is needlessly controversial and purely speculative. The "proto-Hindus", if you have to define them, are the Indians of maybe AD 200-800 when the contemporary interpretations began to emerge. About "proto-Vedic" religion, there can only be speculation, offtopic to this article. Of course the connection between Vedic religion and contemporary Hinduism are tenuous, but there is, without doubt, a connection. This is a matter of terminology, and "Hinduism" is such a huge umbrella term that in some definitions it includes Vedic religion. "Hinduism" means just about "any religious tradition native to the Indian subcontinent". The intro absolutely has to make clear just how extremely heterogenous the term is, no matter what. There can be no talk of Hinduism being "monolithic". It is treated as a single "world religion" by convention, but that's rather like treating "Abrahamism" like another single world religion. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, if you want to discuss this origin stuff, you may want to come to Vedic religion, or even Indo-Iranians. However, your use of "Proto-Hindus" is completely idiosyncratic, and your date of 6000 BC well into the Neolithic. Yes, the standard assumption is that historical Vedic religion came about by syncretism of several components, just like every other religion on Earth, but we cannot know the details. This is not the article for all that. All I ask of this article is that there be a (brief!) "Origins" section pointing to Vedic religion. dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, you seem to have some very far out ideas. First of all, go and read our Aryan article. You seem to use "Aryan" to refer to Proto-Indo-Europeans. Please don't do that, use PIEans. Discussion of Proto-Indo-European religion and all sorts of speculations surrounding it is offtopic on this talkpage and you should drop it. Come to Talk:Proto-Indo-European religion if you have any suggestions. Then, " Indo-Aryans" by definition are all speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, including Hindi, Urdu, Bengali etc. etc. There is no such thing as an "Indo-Aryan religion". If you take that term to refer to religions practiced by Indo-Aryans, Hinduism itself would first and formost be an "Indo-Aryan religion", but to a lesser extent also Islam and Christianity. It is stupid to try to classify religions by language of their adherents. Religion is not language. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
oooh think some of you can spend your time to find a replacement image for the "brahman boy" image on the article? I can't find anything and that is up for deletion (soon).( Blacksun 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC))
Now that I am back after registering my replies to some nasty messages in Talk:Hindu page, I pick up the gauntlet about describing Hinduism as a 'religious tradition based on Vedas'. Somebody has a big mental block about Hinduism being Aryan only and not acknowledging the contribution of the thousands of traditions of the other inhabitants of India. Would the people who insist on this description, please tell me whether the Aryan religious concepts were accepted in toto by the people of India or there was some give and take? If there was some, what was given and what was taken? Why have people accepted this errorenous description of Hinduism? I am looking forward to some answers to my querries? Changes, of course, after discussion.
'Vedic Religion: Modern Hinduism grew out of the knowledge described in the Vedas.' My perennial complaint. How can you take hinduism to belong to Aryans only, knowing well that all their Gods were replaced by Gods foreign to them. Why is somebody intent on discounting the influence of indigenous thought in Hinduism?
No horse was killed in 'Ashvamedha', it had become symbolic even in the RigVedic time. Aupmanyav 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What I understand of Hinduism is that 'Dharma' and 'Personal Belief' were clearly bifurcated. The sages understood that what is important is the way we act in the society. So no moving away from Dharma and the concept of three debts, etc. There is no harm in different people having different personal beliefs. This is freedom of thought, helps us to go further, and removes of conflicts (the Vaishnavites and Shaivites did some time indulge in it). This was, I would say, a well-planned strategy and available only in Hinduism. Even Buddhism ties you to Buddha-mind. Any views? Aupmanyav 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why should we do that when Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do not want this. Why impose ourselves on them. Even the Constitution says that they are Hindus 'only in law', but 'not in religion'. If they are to be considered Hindus, then show the number of Hindus at 900 million + 376 million + 23 million + 4 million = 1,303 million. That would be gratifying, why count Hindus only at 944 million as in the article (figures from www.adherents.com). The correct things to say would be that Hindus do not consider Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs any different from themselves; and philosophy and many beliefs are common. Nobody can have objection to that. What we think is our choice. Your views? Aupmanyav 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Another point: I find the mention of Mahanirvana Tantra in the Smriti section. We do not need to mention it since it is a Buddhist text.
The following statement is from Bakker. H., "The Challenge of Churchless Christianity: An Evangelical Assessment", International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 29, p. 179, 2005.
'A peculiar manifestation of this belief is evident amongst some Hindus who accept foreign beliefs but still identify themselves as followers of Hinduism.'
This is a biased statement and should not be included in the Hinduism page. What does the author mean? Do these hindus accept Jesus as their sole savior and as SON of God? Which God? Shiva, Rama, Krishna? Not showing disrespect to beliefs of other people is certainly a Hindu trait, but this certainly goes beyond that. Aupmanyav 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
'Hinduism does not evangelize as do Christianity and Islam. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [4] That is to say, it rather depends upon the Hindu society whether they consider a non-Hindu, who has got a dīkṣhā into a Hindu sect, as a Hindu or not.'
This is a fallacious statement. The link (Jha, Dwijendra N. "Looking for a Hindu Identity". Pages 10, 39, 40) does not contain anything against conversion. On the countrary, it mentions 'Vratyasoma' rite by which non-Aryans could be converted to Aryans. The Arya Samaj has the 'Shuddhikaran' rite with which it has converted thousands of non-Hindus to Hinduism. In Sanatan tradition there is no bar at all. No one can dispute the statement of a person that he accepts the wisdom he found in the hindu scriptures or stop the person from worshipping any of the hindu Gods, and there are a lot of Shiva or Krishna worshippers who were formerly non-Hindus. Aupmanyav 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what branch of Hinduism you talk about Those who are in the Smarta school lean towards non-conversion. Vaishnavites believe otherwise. Ramanuja converted one Jain Hosayala emperor Vishnuvardhana to Vaishnavism.
Raj2004 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Aupmanyav, generally, the question of conversion is a non-issue for many Hindus. Smartas, who follow Advaita philisophy, are more liberal than Saivites and Vaishnavites. because they are not fixated on one concept of God. If you ask a Madhva, they seem to denigrate Lord Shiva in order to demonstrate Vishnu's supremacy. A smarta thinks Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of Brahman. Hence, the conversion issues are less important for them. I agree that this page is for all Hindus but you have to be clear. Also if you are an atheist, that's may be Hindu in the broad sense in terms of culture, not religion. You may be following the Charvaka school which was known even at the time of the writing of Upanishads. Even in Lord Krishna's time, there were atheists. There's a specific verse, in the Gita which states that the demoniac think creation is a simply a creation of lust, instead of a supreme personal God. Gita:16:8: "According to them nothing is ultimately real in this world. It is Godless and without any moral basis. Being born of sexual union, what else but lust can be said to be its cause?"
Raj2004 10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Aupmanyav: I didn't mean to state that you were an atheist. Many state that Hinduism includes atheism. I was trying to clarify. sorry for any misunderstanding.
Raj2004 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, I am sorry. I don't know Hindi or Sanskrit. What does Sarva Khalvidam Brahma mean?
and what does "Kasmai Devaya Havisha Vidhema". I am not disappointed. Everyone has their own opinion. Even to call Vishnu is an idea from your culture is your opinion. In my culture, Sriman Narayana or Ishwara is not just an idea. For me, Sriman Narayana is All and more! Krishna for me is a not a culture hero but what humans should aspire to.
Regards,
Raj2004 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Cygnus, that's what I thought. Advaiatans recognize a personal God as Saguna Brahman.
Raj2004 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is his response:
Raj: 'Brahman' (i.e., me or you) is Saguna, otherwise the universe would not have been created. The 'gunas' have not been fully comprehended by the only object created by it that is capable of comprehending it (human mind), though acheivements of the human mind are commendable. At the moment we know that 'Brahman' sort of frolicks (Maya) for reasons unknown to human mind. An electron changing into a positron with a cosmic fart (emmission of a nutrino). Another cosmic fart (emmission of Gamma Ray) and positron changes back into an electron. This sort of thing has gone on at least for the last 14 billion years every attosecond (that is the smallest time interval that I find on the internet, 10 raised to power -12 of a second). That leaves many things unexplained and human mind continues its search with the string theory which is supposed to be better, nine strings in all. One thing is certain; mercy (al-Rahim), bountifulness (al-Rehman), and 'gunas' like that which human mind has usually associated with it are not in contention. They are more of a physical sort. Also there is an indeterminacy associated with it. 'Brahman' tries to shield its secrets from prying minds. Thanks, your query makes me think. Aupmanyav 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But Advaita recognizes a personal God. As the Ishvara article states: "Since Brahman is without attributes (it is the subject of meditation and not worship), it is a concept even beyond God. For them, Ishvara is Brahman which is manifested upon the material world due to a complex illusionary power called Māyā. Ishvara can be given all positive attributes (Saguna Brahman) like being worshippable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, merciful, etc but the ultimate reality remains Brahman and nothing else. The other sub-schools tend to identify Brahman with Ishvara to various degrees, and in turn Ishvara is indentified with their favorite deity or
Ishta-deva like Vishnu or Krishna.
Raj2004 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
dear friend, I hope you were not intending to be sarcastic by that comment and meant it in good faith.
regards.
Raj2004 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me of a single instance where the word 'dalit' is mentioned in Shruti or Smriti. All present-day dalits belong to some caste, except the avarnas/Chandalas of history whom Manu described as 'fruit of adultery, incest and crime'. I cannot fault Manu for being tough on Chandalas, he was a law giver. He can be excused for creating stiff laws in the interest of orderliness. If the sociologist uses the word 'dalit' for disadvantaged castes, it is understandable. The word has also been used by clever politicians, christian missionaries and muslims, who claim to be their saviors and to sow dissension in Hindu soceity. The word is not from any Hindu scripture and we should not use it. Aupmanyav 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
'Kṛiṣhṇa’s incarnation was preceded by Lord Rāma’s, sometimes dated at over 5-6000 BCE, or even more than a million years ago in the Tretā Yuga according to the Rāmāyaṇa Epic. Many Hindus believe that their religious tradition was fully formed by the time of Lord Rāma, the seventh incarnation of Lord Viṣhṇu. Modern Indology dates the roots of Hinduism to about 1500-1300 BCE, based on linguistic and literary dating of the Ṛig Veda and is supported by Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. However, the validity of both the dating and the hypothesis is questioned by some nationalist Hindu groups.'
I have objections to the above. There is no reson to mention a date for Rama which would be totally arbitrary. Similary 'the date by which Hinduism was fully formed'. Now what does that mean? Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Basaveswara, and even Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana, etc., all left their mark on Hinduism. It is a dynamic religion. Giving dates is useless. Go back as far as you can either in the indigenous thought or in the Aryan thought, there is no beginning, two rivers which later mingled, like the Ganges and the Yamuna. These are aboriginal philosophies. Aupmanyav 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The origins of Hinduism are difficult to define unlike Christianity.
Raj2004 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
'Though linguists and historians haven't reached a consensus'. I am surprised that there should be a controversy. What other word than 'Sindhu' or Avestan equivalent 'Hendu' gave rise to the word 'Hindu'? The oldest site related to Harappan civilization is Mehrgarh dated at 7,000 B.C. The second paragrph under this heading is totally superflous and could be dispensed with. Aupmanyav 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I find the word 'Hundu' in etymology. Is 'handu' or 'hondu' also mentioned? I would be interested to know where people have seen this word mentioned? Why are we talking about medival texts? Etymology concerns much older period, at least Alexander's time. Aupmanyav 10:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I know in Holland, the Hindu community is broadly divided into "Arya Samajis" and "Sanatan Dharmis". People adhering to many other such movements, although call themselves Hindus, differentiate their religious beliefs from Sanatan Dharma. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to call all Hinduism 'Sanatan Dharma.' What do you guys think? deeptrivia ( talk) 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please shorten the unnecessary long and emotional criticism and its replies section. Cygnus_hansa 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am very unhappy with the blind cleanup. Many important sentences that should have been there are lost. Some such sentences I am readding. Also, I don't like the excuse that "there is an entire separate article on ....". This is an essay on Hinduism, not a collection of links and phrases which direct to hundreds of info pages but itself contains no proper information. Cygnus_hansa 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The intro para states Hinduism's other names are Sanatana Dharma and Vaidik Dharma. But, as far as I know (and I know a lot), it is not Vaidik Dharma, but "Arya Vaidik Dharma". The word "Arya" is used not as a racial term but a meaningful term. It ,means Noble and it is the cultural connocttions that are important here. I am going to change the opening line after some time, if anyone has any comments please post it. -- Shishir Rane 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to be overrun by some sort of "Hindu monotheist" campaign, inserting "monotheism" in all possible and impossible places. I realize that monotheistic thought is an important part of Hinduism. However, polytheism and pantheism are just as important. It irks me that the campaigners seem to consider polytheism as somehow inferior, and to take pride in the assertion that "Hinduism is monotheistic, too". Yes, it can be. Yes, that should be mentioned prominently. But no, "Hinduism is a monotheistic religion" as the first phrase of the intro is misleading, or outright false, and in striking contradiction to Hinduism#Denominations. It is false that polytheism is incapable of postulating an "Ultimate Truth", it may just do so by way of multiple divinities, which is precisely what much of Hinduism does. There appear to be recent iconoclastic movements, like Arya Samaj, adherents of which appear to try and morph Wikipedia articles on Hinduism according to their views. dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That said, I do think you will find it difficult to make a case for "atheist" Hindus. I consider myself an atheistic Hindu. Yes there are atheistic Hindus who believe in much of philosophy but not the rituals. Dab try not to impose your opinions everywhere.
File:England flag large.png
अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey
21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
dab , read this [1] once to understand concept of God in Hinduism correctly. Hindus don't need to run any Monotheistic campaign. At the same time, you shouldn't run campaign to falsly present Hinduism as polytheist. It may look polytheist to ignorants but it is not. At the end of the day, even an illiterate Hindu kid who worship many deities in a remote village speaks and understand popular lines like "Ishwar ek hai" (God (Brahman) is ultimately one). So, please try to understand concept of God in Hinduism before starting a Polytheistic campaign - Holy Ganga 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्य" - ekam sad vipuraa bahudha vadantya
Truth is One, but sages call it by many names.
This was/is an inherent part of
Hinduism which teach that the many forms of God, i.e., Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi merely represent aspects of a single or underlying divine power or Brahman (see articles on
Nirguna Brahman and
Saguna Brahman).
-
Holy Ganga
talk
15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Teachings of even the greatest of sages are their personal opinions. If one suits you, fine, otherwise you have to find your own truth. If any encyclopedia, hindu web-site, or scholar does not understand this, they have not understood Hinduism. That is why there are matantaras (differences of opinion), otherwise we would have had our own Bible or Qur'an. How come Sankara said there is nothing else in this world but God whereas Madhva said God and Jiva are essentially different? Other Acharyas diferred from both of them. Aupmanyav 12:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You also must have wondered at the phenomena. All the major Gods in Hinduism are dark. Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Krishna. Ganesha, though he is mostly shown as fair, but the elephants head indicates he also should be taken as dark and so are Parvati, Kali and so many other godesses. Only Brahma and the lesser Gods may be fair. Does that tell a story? Aupmanyav 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
At most it, should be a paragragh. Not 3 paragraphs. -- Dangerous-Boy 18:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard you cannot convert to Hinduism and that you must be born into it. But what is to stop someone from becoming Hindu? How can you tell someone, "Your not Hindu, becasue you were not born into it. You do everything a Hindu must do, but you still are not one"?
Could somebody please explain "Hinduism is considered Monotheistic by many", who are "many" ? Amir85 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
1. It doesn't provide anything to address or even mention that Hinduism is purely Monotheism. The only thing it says is "...Hinduism is both monotheistic and polytheistic believing in one God as well as some demigods and is based on scriptures and evolving proven spiritual and mystical experiences of many individual souls..."
2. The provided link is a pro-Hindu website which attacks Christianity and Islam. "...When religion becomes organized, man ceases to be free. It is not God that is worshipped but the group or the authority that claims to speak in his name. It is not faith, but just social idolatry. God is not like a father in a patriarchal society, who has His favorite children to whom He communicates. This idea seems rather archaic and crude. Hinduism believes in behavior than belief and experience over authority. In the words of S. Radhakrishnan, Prophetic religion is severe, militant, uncompromising, intolerant, while mystic religions are renouncing, and peaceful. He further asks, " Is it an accident that Hitler and Mussolini, have been brought up in Roman Catholic societies, where it is blasphemous to criticize infallible authority?" (For information on Monotheism and its discontent and Crusades and Jihad, refer to chapters on Glimpses VI and Conversion and God Wars: The triumph of the jealous God)..." repudiating one of the main pillars of WP which is neutrality. Amir85 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have an interesting observation on this subject. Hinduism in its highest form is truly a monotheistic religion. In what basis is that statement made? Well, I have noticed (and read) that many Hindu saints who have realized God proclaimed the statement "I am He" with full divine insight. For example, when Sri Ramakrishna had realized the Ultimate Truth, he proclaimed that Brahman alone exist. Moreover, highly spiritual advanced souls pay homeage to the universal spirit without form. Paramahansa Yogananda also made similiar statements. Please take note that these people are not ordinary religious souls. They have reached the pinnacle of their evolution and are talking about truths from their own experiences. They could realize the unity of creation and experience their bliss without any prejudices or disagreements with other religions. Sri Ramakrishna also recognized the validity of the Muslim, Christian and Buddhist faiths. Paramahansa Yogananda also showed the West the similiarity of the Christian teachings with Hindu thought. It is correct to view Hinduism as BOTH a monotheistic AND a polytheistic religion. However it is not correct to view Hinduism as either this OR that. If one feels comfortable in viewing Hinduism as a polytheistic religion, continue to do so! It does not mean that the follower has a wrong understanding of Hinduism! He may have a lower level of understanding of Hinduism but that does not make him wrong! That is what makes Hinduism a great religion. It gives the devotee freedom to express the way one prays to God according to his/her understanding of complex spiritual truths. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Vasanas is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. I suspect someone who watches this page might be able to write at least a stub on this topic. If you can, please do (and delete the topic from the various requested articles pages it appears on). Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
in case you didn't know, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review has been created. please start suggesting articles for it. -- Dangerous-Boy 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
the Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week is now created. feel free to use it. -- Dangerous-Boy 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You may upload important and high quality pictures at Wikimedia Commons. [3]
Also, Try to make more and more good quality Hinduism related pictures as Featured Pictures by submitting them here.
You may support or oppose Featured picture candidates by voting here. - Holy Ganga 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Trying to a get a concensus on this. Your input is appreciated. I'm trying to move the naming and transliteration formating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic).-- Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice new pictures but really dont forget to cite things when you make claims like "oldest", "second richest" etc. And please use good citations - not random sites. -- Blacksun 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the title should be 'The four pursuits of life' instead of 'The four objectives of life'. Minor play of words but makes a difference I suppose.
Moreover, I have also added another interpretetion about the pursuits which is as follows:
Another perspective on these (i.e. dharma, artha, kama, moksha) is that arth and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.
I have objections to the following statement in etymology: 'Until about 19th century the term Hindu implied a culture and ethnicity and not a religion. When the British government started periodic censuses and established a legal system, the need arose to define Hinduism as a distinct religion, along the lines of Christianity or Islam. Some scholars, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, defined it as a religion based on the Vedas, using the analogy of the Bible being the basis of Christianity and the Qur'an being the Muslim scripture.'
There is no reason why (the hell) all people in India after 8th or 10th Century when muslims had established their suzerainty in parts of India, would be known as Hindus. This statement is fallacious and only warms the hearts of the Hindutvavadis (I am also one of them, but do not go this far in absurdity). It is already mentioned in the opening paragraph that Hinduism is also known as 'Vaidika Dharma', there is no need to repeat the last line in etymology. The biblical or the quranic analogy is so very inadequate. Vedas are Hinduism, but Hinduism is not just Vedas. Hinduism is already defined in the opening paragraph. My suggestion is to remove the whole paragraph. It only adds to the length of the article. I would like to know what other readers think about it. There has been unnecessary controversy about all people being known as Hindus, let us avoid it.
Aupmanyav
10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't affect this article as such, but I'm hoping for a third-party look at the International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness article which, by use of the Hinduism temp[late, claims to be part of Hinduism. Sfacets 04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the spelling of Yuga should be Yug, as it is pronounced with no emphasis on G. Also name of lord Ram should be spelt as Ram and not Rama as it is pronounced normally since Ram is also pronounced without any emphasis on M. This is true for most of the sanskritn words spelt in English.
Please let me know if this can be considered !
Best Regards
Gurudatt 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
'Smartism, in contrast, believes in all religions being the same and leading to a pantheistic God'. All religions or all denominations of Hinduism? Was Sankara aware of the exclusivism of Abrahamic religions? Do the present-day Smartas agree to the view above? Read the differences between Hinduism and Christianity as mentioned by Chandrashekharendra Saraswati Swamigal at http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm. He also said 'All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, by holding out the temptation that people can attain salvation only if they embrace that new faith' ( http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-godisone.html). In view of that can we say that Hinduism and Christianity or Islam are same? Is it not Adharma? Aupmanyav 12:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
List of Hindus is up for deletion!-- Dangerous-Boy 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I commented out the following statement: Vaishnavism has 580 million followers, while Shaivism has 220 million followers. citation needed.
We cannot leave statements needing sourcing in a featured article. Can anybody try to find stats for these? Circeus 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Its amazing how fast the quality of the article has dropped. Ignoring everything else, lets look at criticism section:
Seriously, you guys should just go ahead and remove the criticism section instead of having this drivel. -- Blacksun 07:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
All new and improved notice board. It's easier to edit and request. enjoy!-- Dangerous-Boy 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism in western filosophy terms can be considered a: "Panentheistic or Pantheistic and Polytheistic Monism" or "Monistic Polytheism" there's no other ways for describe Hinduism as a Whole, then there are many "ways" like Vishnavism or Shaivism that can be considered forms of Henotheism, Henotheism means preminent devotion to a particular Divinity that can be considered supreme but not excludes the existence of a plurality of Deities, however this supreme God it's part of Brahman (for me the use of Divinity/ies-Deity/ies-God/s-Goddess/es It's indifferent because there's no term to define Braman or The One, the supreme Reality or Divine Energy etc...). For example this sentence about Smarta in the article about polytheism is completely wrong:
Polytheistic views should be carefully distinguished from religions such as Smarta Hinduism, which present multiple divinities as different aspects of the same God. Rather than being polytheistic, Smarta Hinduism is a form of inclusive monotheism, where many deities are viewed as just different names for the single monotheistic God
This is about have no understanding of what is Monism or what is Brahaman... the terms Monotheism or Inclusive Monotheism are completely wrong and unsuitable and reflects an abramitic point of view. Moreover there's a misconception of what is Polytheism... "Hard Polytheism" as described here in Wikipedia and not only here never be existed in the Ellenistic-Roman World (maybe only in the Northern/Germanic World between indo-europeans, with its doctrine of the Ragnarok), even Homerus speaks of "The One" (not with the doctrinal evolution of Neo-Platonism of Late Antiquity) and all greek and hellenistic-roman philosophers had a monistic point of view, and from sources however we know about the diffuse awareness of the existance of a unique reality or divine energy comprehensive all divinities. So Hard Polytheism is an invention of Monotheism as Idolatry as described by monotheists with their lies and slanders, but this is another topic, I can't argue now.
I have noticed that lately there's a tendency to use the term Monotheism for Hinduism in Wiki and in other contexts and this is very irritant, because is a falsification of what is Hinduism and it's propagated the idea that monotheism is the more evolved form of religiosity, and Hinduism is more acceptable if "sell out" as a "Monotheistic" religion... in fact Monotheism is an involution not an evolution. (Ex. see the paradox of the angels, spiritual beings created by GOD and not divine beings, deities emanated from The One and existed from eternity). Moreover the crusade against Polytheism "sell out" as a degraded form of religiosity, that in reality never been as described as a plurality of separated divine energies but a plurality of divine beings part of a unique reality or energy.
Hinduism is NOT Monotheism is Monistic Polytheism and also the Hellenistic-Roman Religion and others of the indo-europeans.
Porphyrius, Julian The Great (and not The Apostate) and others had always defended polytheism or better the Monistic Polytheism from the attacks of the galileans (christians).
Greetings
-- Antioco79 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. It depends what tradition of Hinduism you belong. You can't label everything Hinduism. You have to define what tradition you belong to. A strict
Madhva follower only worships Vishnu as the supreme God. Only Smarta Hinduism views different deities as different aspects of Brahman. A better term is theistic monism where there is only one entity Brahman, which has different aspects.
Furthermore, would you say that Christianity is polytheistic? No. Christians believe in God being one, with three different persons.
Furthermore, you say the Smarta view is wrong. I myself am a follower of the Smarta tradition. Ramakrishna followed this tradition although his favorite deity is Kali. He tried all religions and came to the same conclusion, that God is one with different aspects.
Raj2004 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I Haven't said that Smarta view is wrong, I have written that the definition of Wikipedia is wrong... and I haven't said that Christianity is Polytheistic... but do you have read what I have written? You say: Only Smarta Hinduism views different deities as different aspects of Brahman It is NOT true, every follower of any way of the Sanata Dharma knows that Brahman is comprehensive of a plurality of deities that are part of it or if you prefer are aspects of it, that doesn't mean that a deity don't have its own individuality also being part of The Absolute-Infinite, The One, Brahman, The Supreme Divine Energy or Essence, The All etc... name it as you prefer, in Hinduism (or better in its many manifestations) there's not only ONE GOD like the Abramitic Religions in conformity with the western mentality (unlike the GOD of Islam or Hebraism, Christian Trinity can be approached to this point of view but in concrete Christian Teology brings some paradoxes and isn't the same thing). So Hinduism as a Whole (there's no unique way or defined dogmas I know it) is a Monism and a Panentheism or a Pantheism (depends) and this is also a Polytheism, a particular form of Polytheism, not as "Hard Polytheism" (the existence of H.P is opinable historically), is a Polytheism 'cos as I said deities maintain their own inviduality and at the same time they are part or are aspects of The One, multiplicity and unity (not uniqueness) at the same time, is a slight difference isn't Monotheism tecnically and theologically considered.
So Hinduism is a Polytheistic Monism or (it's the same) a Monistic Polytheism or more specifically a Monistic and Panentheistic (or Pantheistic) Polytheism.
It seems that many westerners are allergic to the word "Polytheism" considering it only in the way of a never existed (maybe only Asatrù) "Hard Polytheism", I have demonstrated that the reality of Sanata Dharma is more complex and cant't be used a completely wrong and false term like Monotheism to describe it, there's the need of a plurality of terms and one of those is rightly Polytheism.
Sanata Dharma doesn't need a Justification or a Ennobling to the eyes of westerners with the usage of the term Monotheism, S.D. is yet noble. There's no need of a put in squares, There's no need to bring Hinduism in the chains of western abramitic concepts, to feel it more closer, because western world have repudiated its ancient culture, adopting abramitic culture, and now want to enslave other cultures chaining them at its point of view and its vision of what is "The Truth". Hinduism is the last bastion of the Indo-European culture and I don't tolerate that it can be faked by the cultural colonization of the abramitic west.
Greetings -- Antioco79 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, I think you have misundertood what I wrote. You can say that Smarta Hinduism a form of monism, where Brahman has many aspects but is only one. A polytheist thinks that the two gods are different so your statement, I think, is incorrect. I didn't say Christianity is polytheistic. Your definition may make even Christianity polytheistic. If you ask a Saivite, they think Siva is only Brahman and no one else.
http://www.sroutasaivasiddhanta.org/2-1.htm , for example.
The same goes with Madhva followers:
http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html#othergods As that site states, "Homage is sometimes paid to other deities, but these deities are never considered the equals of Vishnu, nor are they worshipped in the same spirit. Vaishnavas can be said to be monotheists, since they believe that there is only one Supreme Lord or Infinite Being—Lord Vishnu. Therefore, Vaishnavas always keep the worship of Vishnu and His attendants at the forefront of their religious practice.
Some Advaitins consider all deities including Vishnu to be forms of the Saguna Brahman (the Brahman with attributes), but this belief is not universal to all Advaitins, whether or not they be Vaishnavas." Smartas follow Advaita philosophy, for the most part.
To say Smarta Hinduism is Santana Dharma is wrong. Please also see,
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/10-11_pub_desk.shtml
Thank you.
Raj2004 14:01, 27 May 2006 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This could help the length problem and even more importantly, help make table of contents shorter. It is definitely something that is criticised and their is quite a few arguments against those criticisms too. At the same time, their is a chance that it would end up being longer. I can make a sandbox for it and post here if people want me to spend effort on it. Feedback please. Also, constructive criticism on what more can be cut back on would be helpful. I already feel very bad about taking out the "maya" concept but then again it probably would not make much sense to a newbie in the form it was. ( Blacksun 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
I dont agree with the lead in and the core part where Hinduism is referred to as Indo-Aryan religion. Why? Because as I do more and more research, I keep running into articles both of Indian and Western scholars (published very recently) that vehemently call the entire theory a fabrication. Yes it should definitely be mentioned but I am not sure if this is accepted as universally for Wikipedia to pass it as a fact. It seems like a very hotly contested theory academically. Also, the featured version did not have such an outright acceptance of one theory over the other. As such, I will remove the term. If you do not agree, give me good reasons for why Wikipedia should accept one theory as a fact. Trust me, I am not doing this out of emotional or any other type of affilation to one theory over the other but purely academically. However, I will LEAVE it in origin of hinduism as it definitely belongs there as one of the schools of thought. But, I do not believe that wikipedia is supposed to give authority to one theory which is not hotly contested by scholars. ( Blacksun 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
Please give your opinion on this as the introductory paragraph:
'Hinduism (Devanāgari: हिन्दू धर्म), also known as Sanatana Dharma (सनातन धर्म) and is an religious tradition which developed in India from the interaction of indigenous beliefs and those of Vedic Aryans. Both traditions have no beginnings in history, thus making Hinduism the longest practiced major religion. Hinduism expects its adherents to be unwaivering in one's duty (Dharma). Hinduism is surprisingly tolerant in the matter of personal beliefs making it impossible to define Hinduism, which range from polytheism to monism, and even atheism. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world with approximately 900 million adherents, most of whom live in India. Nepal is the only nation in the world with Hinduism as its state religion.'
The reason why Hindu, Hinduism pages are not as good as Christianity and Islam is that we want to give it our own color. Aupmanyav 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
distinguishing two groups "Aryans" vs. "proto-Hindus" is needlessly controversial and purely speculative. The "proto-Hindus", if you have to define them, are the Indians of maybe AD 200-800 when the contemporary interpretations began to emerge. About "proto-Vedic" religion, there can only be speculation, offtopic to this article. Of course the connection between Vedic religion and contemporary Hinduism are tenuous, but there is, without doubt, a connection. This is a matter of terminology, and "Hinduism" is such a huge umbrella term that in some definitions it includes Vedic religion. "Hinduism" means just about "any religious tradition native to the Indian subcontinent". The intro absolutely has to make clear just how extremely heterogenous the term is, no matter what. There can be no talk of Hinduism being "monolithic". It is treated as a single "world religion" by convention, but that's rather like treating "Abrahamism" like another single world religion. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, if you want to discuss this origin stuff, you may want to come to Vedic religion, or even Indo-Iranians. However, your use of "Proto-Hindus" is completely idiosyncratic, and your date of 6000 BC well into the Neolithic. Yes, the standard assumption is that historical Vedic religion came about by syncretism of several components, just like every other religion on Earth, but we cannot know the details. This is not the article for all that. All I ask of this article is that there be a (brief!) "Origins" section pointing to Vedic religion. dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, you seem to have some very far out ideas. First of all, go and read our Aryan article. You seem to use "Aryan" to refer to Proto-Indo-Europeans. Please don't do that, use PIEans. Discussion of Proto-Indo-European religion and all sorts of speculations surrounding it is offtopic on this talkpage and you should drop it. Come to Talk:Proto-Indo-European religion if you have any suggestions. Then, " Indo-Aryans" by definition are all speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, including Hindi, Urdu, Bengali etc. etc. There is no such thing as an "Indo-Aryan religion". If you take that term to refer to religions practiced by Indo-Aryans, Hinduism itself would first and formost be an "Indo-Aryan religion", but to a lesser extent also Islam and Christianity. It is stupid to try to classify religions by language of their adherents. Religion is not language. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
oooh think some of you can spend your time to find a replacement image for the "brahman boy" image on the article? I can't find anything and that is up for deletion (soon).( Blacksun 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC))
Now that I am back after registering my replies to some nasty messages in Talk:Hindu page, I pick up the gauntlet about describing Hinduism as a 'religious tradition based on Vedas'. Somebody has a big mental block about Hinduism being Aryan only and not acknowledging the contribution of the thousands of traditions of the other inhabitants of India. Would the people who insist on this description, please tell me whether the Aryan religious concepts were accepted in toto by the people of India or there was some give and take? If there was some, what was given and what was taken? Why have people accepted this errorenous description of Hinduism? I am looking forward to some answers to my querries? Changes, of course, after discussion.
'Vedic Religion: Modern Hinduism grew out of the knowledge described in the Vedas.' My perennial complaint. How can you take hinduism to belong to Aryans only, knowing well that all their Gods were replaced by Gods foreign to them. Why is somebody intent on discounting the influence of indigenous thought in Hinduism?
No horse was killed in 'Ashvamedha', it had become symbolic even in the RigVedic time. Aupmanyav 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What I understand of Hinduism is that 'Dharma' and 'Personal Belief' were clearly bifurcated. The sages understood that what is important is the way we act in the society. So no moving away from Dharma and the concept of three debts, etc. There is no harm in different people having different personal beliefs. This is freedom of thought, helps us to go further, and removes of conflicts (the Vaishnavites and Shaivites did some time indulge in it). This was, I would say, a well-planned strategy and available only in Hinduism. Even Buddhism ties you to Buddha-mind. Any views? Aupmanyav 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why should we do that when Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do not want this. Why impose ourselves on them. Even the Constitution says that they are Hindus 'only in law', but 'not in religion'. If they are to be considered Hindus, then show the number of Hindus at 900 million + 376 million + 23 million + 4 million = 1,303 million. That would be gratifying, why count Hindus only at 944 million as in the article (figures from www.adherents.com). The correct things to say would be that Hindus do not consider Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs any different from themselves; and philosophy and many beliefs are common. Nobody can have objection to that. What we think is our choice. Your views? Aupmanyav 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Another point: I find the mention of Mahanirvana Tantra in the Smriti section. We do not need to mention it since it is a Buddhist text.
The following statement is from Bakker. H., "The Challenge of Churchless Christianity: An Evangelical Assessment", International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 29, p. 179, 2005.
'A peculiar manifestation of this belief is evident amongst some Hindus who accept foreign beliefs but still identify themselves as followers of Hinduism.'
This is a biased statement and should not be included in the Hinduism page. What does the author mean? Do these hindus accept Jesus as their sole savior and as SON of God? Which God? Shiva, Rama, Krishna? Not showing disrespect to beliefs of other people is certainly a Hindu trait, but this certainly goes beyond that. Aupmanyav 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
'Hinduism does not evangelize as do Christianity and Islam. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [4] That is to say, it rather depends upon the Hindu society whether they consider a non-Hindu, who has got a dīkṣhā into a Hindu sect, as a Hindu or not.'
This is a fallacious statement. The link (Jha, Dwijendra N. "Looking for a Hindu Identity". Pages 10, 39, 40) does not contain anything against conversion. On the countrary, it mentions 'Vratyasoma' rite by which non-Aryans could be converted to Aryans. The Arya Samaj has the 'Shuddhikaran' rite with which it has converted thousands of non-Hindus to Hinduism. In Sanatan tradition there is no bar at all. No one can dispute the statement of a person that he accepts the wisdom he found in the hindu scriptures or stop the person from worshipping any of the hindu Gods, and there are a lot of Shiva or Krishna worshippers who were formerly non-Hindus. Aupmanyav 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what branch of Hinduism you talk about Those who are in the Smarta school lean towards non-conversion. Vaishnavites believe otherwise. Ramanuja converted one Jain Hosayala emperor Vishnuvardhana to Vaishnavism.
Raj2004 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Aupmanyav, generally, the question of conversion is a non-issue for many Hindus. Smartas, who follow Advaita philisophy, are more liberal than Saivites and Vaishnavites. because they are not fixated on one concept of God. If you ask a Madhva, they seem to denigrate Lord Shiva in order to demonstrate Vishnu's supremacy. A smarta thinks Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of Brahman. Hence, the conversion issues are less important for them. I agree that this page is for all Hindus but you have to be clear. Also if you are an atheist, that's may be Hindu in the broad sense in terms of culture, not religion. You may be following the Charvaka school which was known even at the time of the writing of Upanishads. Even in Lord Krishna's time, there were atheists. There's a specific verse, in the Gita which states that the demoniac think creation is a simply a creation of lust, instead of a supreme personal God. Gita:16:8: "According to them nothing is ultimately real in this world. It is Godless and without any moral basis. Being born of sexual union, what else but lust can be said to be its cause?"
Raj2004 10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Aupmanyav: I didn't mean to state that you were an atheist. Many state that Hinduism includes atheism. I was trying to clarify. sorry for any misunderstanding.
Raj2004 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, I am sorry. I don't know Hindi or Sanskrit. What does Sarva Khalvidam Brahma mean?
and what does "Kasmai Devaya Havisha Vidhema". I am not disappointed. Everyone has their own opinion. Even to call Vishnu is an idea from your culture is your opinion. In my culture, Sriman Narayana or Ishwara is not just an idea. For me, Sriman Narayana is All and more! Krishna for me is a not a culture hero but what humans should aspire to.
Regards,
Raj2004 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Cygnus, that's what I thought. Advaiatans recognize a personal God as Saguna Brahman.
Raj2004 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is his response:
Raj: 'Brahman' (i.e., me or you) is Saguna, otherwise the universe would not have been created. The 'gunas' have not been fully comprehended by the only object created by it that is capable of comprehending it (human mind), though acheivements of the human mind are commendable. At the moment we know that 'Brahman' sort of frolicks (Maya) for reasons unknown to human mind. An electron changing into a positron with a cosmic fart (emmission of a nutrino). Another cosmic fart (emmission of Gamma Ray) and positron changes back into an electron. This sort of thing has gone on at least for the last 14 billion years every attosecond (that is the smallest time interval that I find on the internet, 10 raised to power -12 of a second). That leaves many things unexplained and human mind continues its search with the string theory which is supposed to be better, nine strings in all. One thing is certain; mercy (al-Rahim), bountifulness (al-Rehman), and 'gunas' like that which human mind has usually associated with it are not in contention. They are more of a physical sort. Also there is an indeterminacy associated with it. 'Brahman' tries to shield its secrets from prying minds. Thanks, your query makes me think. Aupmanyav 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But Advaita recognizes a personal God. As the Ishvara article states: "Since Brahman is without attributes (it is the subject of meditation and not worship), it is a concept even beyond God. For them, Ishvara is Brahman which is manifested upon the material world due to a complex illusionary power called Māyā. Ishvara can be given all positive attributes (Saguna Brahman) like being worshippable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, merciful, etc but the ultimate reality remains Brahman and nothing else. The other sub-schools tend to identify Brahman with Ishvara to various degrees, and in turn Ishvara is indentified with their favorite deity or
Ishta-deva like Vishnu or Krishna.
Raj2004 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
dear friend, I hope you were not intending to be sarcastic by that comment and meant it in good faith.
regards.
Raj2004 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me of a single instance where the word 'dalit' is mentioned in Shruti or Smriti. All present-day dalits belong to some caste, except the avarnas/Chandalas of history whom Manu described as 'fruit of adultery, incest and crime'. I cannot fault Manu for being tough on Chandalas, he was a law giver. He can be excused for creating stiff laws in the interest of orderliness. If the sociologist uses the word 'dalit' for disadvantaged castes, it is understandable. The word has also been used by clever politicians, christian missionaries and muslims, who claim to be their saviors and to sow dissension in Hindu soceity. The word is not from any Hindu scripture and we should not use it. Aupmanyav 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
'Kṛiṣhṇa’s incarnation was preceded by Lord Rāma’s, sometimes dated at over 5-6000 BCE, or even more than a million years ago in the Tretā Yuga according to the Rāmāyaṇa Epic. Many Hindus believe that their religious tradition was fully formed by the time of Lord Rāma, the seventh incarnation of Lord Viṣhṇu. Modern Indology dates the roots of Hinduism to about 1500-1300 BCE, based on linguistic and literary dating of the Ṛig Veda and is supported by Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. However, the validity of both the dating and the hypothesis is questioned by some nationalist Hindu groups.'
I have objections to the above. There is no reson to mention a date for Rama which would be totally arbitrary. Similary 'the date by which Hinduism was fully formed'. Now what does that mean? Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Basaveswara, and even Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana, etc., all left their mark on Hinduism. It is a dynamic religion. Giving dates is useless. Go back as far as you can either in the indigenous thought or in the Aryan thought, there is no beginning, two rivers which later mingled, like the Ganges and the Yamuna. These are aboriginal philosophies. Aupmanyav 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The origins of Hinduism are difficult to define unlike Christianity.
Raj2004 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
'Though linguists and historians haven't reached a consensus'. I am surprised that there should be a controversy. What other word than 'Sindhu' or Avestan equivalent 'Hendu' gave rise to the word 'Hindu'? The oldest site related to Harappan civilization is Mehrgarh dated at 7,000 B.C. The second paragrph under this heading is totally superflous and could be dispensed with. Aupmanyav 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I find the word 'Hundu' in etymology. Is 'handu' or 'hondu' also mentioned? I would be interested to know where people have seen this word mentioned? Why are we talking about medival texts? Etymology concerns much older period, at least Alexander's time. Aupmanyav 10:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I know in Holland, the Hindu community is broadly divided into "Arya Samajis" and "Sanatan Dharmis". People adhering to many other such movements, although call themselves Hindus, differentiate their religious beliefs from Sanatan Dharma. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to call all Hinduism 'Sanatan Dharma.' What do you guys think? deeptrivia ( talk) 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please shorten the unnecessary long and emotional criticism and its replies section. Cygnus_hansa 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am very unhappy with the blind cleanup. Many important sentences that should have been there are lost. Some such sentences I am readding. Also, I don't like the excuse that "there is an entire separate article on ....". This is an essay on Hinduism, not a collection of links and phrases which direct to hundreds of info pages but itself contains no proper information. Cygnus_hansa 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The intro para states Hinduism's other names are Sanatana Dharma and Vaidik Dharma. But, as far as I know (and I know a lot), it is not Vaidik Dharma, but "Arya Vaidik Dharma". The word "Arya" is used not as a racial term but a meaningful term. It ,means Noble and it is the cultural connocttions that are important here. I am going to change the opening line after some time, if anyone has any comments please post it. -- Shishir Rane 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to be overrun by some sort of "Hindu monotheist" campaign, inserting "monotheism" in all possible and impossible places. I realize that monotheistic thought is an important part of Hinduism. However, polytheism and pantheism are just as important. It irks me that the campaigners seem to consider polytheism as somehow inferior, and to take pride in the assertion that "Hinduism is monotheistic, too". Yes, it can be. Yes, that should be mentioned prominently. But no, "Hinduism is a monotheistic religion" as the first phrase of the intro is misleading, or outright false, and in striking contradiction to Hinduism#Denominations. It is false that polytheism is incapable of postulating an "Ultimate Truth", it may just do so by way of multiple divinities, which is precisely what much of Hinduism does. There appear to be recent iconoclastic movements, like Arya Samaj, adherents of which appear to try and morph Wikipedia articles on Hinduism according to their views. dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That said, I do think you will find it difficult to make a case for "atheist" Hindus. I consider myself an atheistic Hindu. Yes there are atheistic Hindus who believe in much of philosophy but not the rituals. Dab try not to impose your opinions everywhere.
File:England flag large.png
अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey
21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
dab , read this [1] once to understand concept of God in Hinduism correctly. Hindus don't need to run any Monotheistic campaign. At the same time, you shouldn't run campaign to falsly present Hinduism as polytheist. It may look polytheist to ignorants but it is not. At the end of the day, even an illiterate Hindu kid who worship many deities in a remote village speaks and understand popular lines like "Ishwar ek hai" (God (Brahman) is ultimately one). So, please try to understand concept of God in Hinduism before starting a Polytheistic campaign - Holy Ganga 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्य" - ekam sad vipuraa bahudha vadantya
Truth is One, but sages call it by many names.
This was/is an inherent part of
Hinduism which teach that the many forms of God, i.e., Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi merely represent aspects of a single or underlying divine power or Brahman (see articles on
Nirguna Brahman and
Saguna Brahman).
-
Holy Ganga
talk
15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Teachings of even the greatest of sages are their personal opinions. If one suits you, fine, otherwise you have to find your own truth. If any encyclopedia, hindu web-site, or scholar does not understand this, they have not understood Hinduism. That is why there are matantaras (differences of opinion), otherwise we would have had our own Bible or Qur'an. How come Sankara said there is nothing else in this world but God whereas Madhva said God and Jiva are essentially different? Other Acharyas diferred from both of them. Aupmanyav 12:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You also must have wondered at the phenomena. All the major Gods in Hinduism are dark. Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Krishna. Ganesha, though he is mostly shown as fair, but the elephants head indicates he also should be taken as dark and so are Parvati, Kali and so many other godesses. Only Brahma and the lesser Gods may be fair. Does that tell a story? Aupmanyav 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
At most it, should be a paragragh. Not 3 paragraphs. -- Dangerous-Boy 18:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard you cannot convert to Hinduism and that you must be born into it. But what is to stop someone from becoming Hindu? How can you tell someone, "Your not Hindu, becasue you were not born into it. You do everything a Hindu must do, but you still are not one"?
Could somebody please explain "Hinduism is considered Monotheistic by many", who are "many" ? Amir85 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
1. It doesn't provide anything to address or even mention that Hinduism is purely Monotheism. The only thing it says is "...Hinduism is both monotheistic and polytheistic believing in one God as well as some demigods and is based on scriptures and evolving proven spiritual and mystical experiences of many individual souls..."
2. The provided link is a pro-Hindu website which attacks Christianity and Islam. "...When religion becomes organized, man ceases to be free. It is not God that is worshipped but the group or the authority that claims to speak in his name. It is not faith, but just social idolatry. God is not like a father in a patriarchal society, who has His favorite children to whom He communicates. This idea seems rather archaic and crude. Hinduism believes in behavior than belief and experience over authority. In the words of S. Radhakrishnan, Prophetic religion is severe, militant, uncompromising, intolerant, while mystic religions are renouncing, and peaceful. He further asks, " Is it an accident that Hitler and Mussolini, have been brought up in Roman Catholic societies, where it is blasphemous to criticize infallible authority?" (For information on Monotheism and its discontent and Crusades and Jihad, refer to chapters on Glimpses VI and Conversion and God Wars: The triumph of the jealous God)..." repudiating one of the main pillars of WP which is neutrality. Amir85 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have an interesting observation on this subject. Hinduism in its highest form is truly a monotheistic religion. In what basis is that statement made? Well, I have noticed (and read) that many Hindu saints who have realized God proclaimed the statement "I am He" with full divine insight. For example, when Sri Ramakrishna had realized the Ultimate Truth, he proclaimed that Brahman alone exist. Moreover, highly spiritual advanced souls pay homeage to the universal spirit without form. Paramahansa Yogananda also made similiar statements. Please take note that these people are not ordinary religious souls. They have reached the pinnacle of their evolution and are talking about truths from their own experiences. They could realize the unity of creation and experience their bliss without any prejudices or disagreements with other religions. Sri Ramakrishna also recognized the validity of the Muslim, Christian and Buddhist faiths. Paramahansa Yogananda also showed the West the similiarity of the Christian teachings with Hindu thought. It is correct to view Hinduism as BOTH a monotheistic AND a polytheistic religion. However it is not correct to view Hinduism as either this OR that. If one feels comfortable in viewing Hinduism as a polytheistic religion, continue to do so! It does not mean that the follower has a wrong understanding of Hinduism! He may have a lower level of understanding of Hinduism but that does not make him wrong! That is what makes Hinduism a great religion. It gives the devotee freedom to express the way one prays to God according to his/her understanding of complex spiritual truths. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Vasanas is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. I suspect someone who watches this page might be able to write at least a stub on this topic. If you can, please do (and delete the topic from the various requested articles pages it appears on). Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
in case you didn't know, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review has been created. please start suggesting articles for it. -- Dangerous-Boy 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
the Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week is now created. feel free to use it. -- Dangerous-Boy 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You may upload important and high quality pictures at Wikimedia Commons. [3]
Also, Try to make more and more good quality Hinduism related pictures as Featured Pictures by submitting them here.
You may support or oppose Featured picture candidates by voting here. - Holy Ganga 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Trying to a get a concensus on this. Your input is appreciated. I'm trying to move the naming and transliteration formating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic).-- Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice new pictures but really dont forget to cite things when you make claims like "oldest", "second richest" etc. And please use good citations - not random sites. -- Blacksun 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the title should be 'The four pursuits of life' instead of 'The four objectives of life'. Minor play of words but makes a difference I suppose.
Moreover, I have also added another interpretetion about the pursuits which is as follows:
Another perspective on these (i.e. dharma, artha, kama, moksha) is that arth and kama are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.
I have objections to the following statement in etymology: 'Until about 19th century the term Hindu implied a culture and ethnicity and not a religion. When the British government started periodic censuses and established a legal system, the need arose to define Hinduism as a distinct religion, along the lines of Christianity or Islam. Some scholars, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, defined it as a religion based on the Vedas, using the analogy of the Bible being the basis of Christianity and the Qur'an being the Muslim scripture.'
There is no reason why (the hell) all people in India after 8th or 10th Century when muslims had established their suzerainty in parts of India, would be known as Hindus. This statement is fallacious and only warms the hearts of the Hindutvavadis (I am also one of them, but do not go this far in absurdity). It is already mentioned in the opening paragraph that Hinduism is also known as 'Vaidika Dharma', there is no need to repeat the last line in etymology. The biblical or the quranic analogy is so very inadequate. Vedas are Hinduism, but Hinduism is not just Vedas. Hinduism is already defined in the opening paragraph. My suggestion is to remove the whole paragraph. It only adds to the length of the article. I would like to know what other readers think about it. There has been unnecessary controversy about all people being known as Hindus, let us avoid it.
Aupmanyav
10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't affect this article as such, but I'm hoping for a third-party look at the International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness article which, by use of the Hinduism temp[late, claims to be part of Hinduism. Sfacets 04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the spelling of Yuga should be Yug, as it is pronounced with no emphasis on G. Also name of lord Ram should be spelt as Ram and not Rama as it is pronounced normally since Ram is also pronounced without any emphasis on M. This is true for most of the sanskritn words spelt in English.
Please let me know if this can be considered !
Best Regards
Gurudatt 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
'Smartism, in contrast, believes in all religions being the same and leading to a pantheistic God'. All religions or all denominations of Hinduism? Was Sankara aware of the exclusivism of Abrahamic religions? Do the present-day Smartas agree to the view above? Read the differences between Hinduism and Christianity as mentioned by Chandrashekharendra Saraswati Swamigal at http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm. He also said 'All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, by holding out the temptation that people can attain salvation only if they embrace that new faith' ( http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-godisone.html). In view of that can we say that Hinduism and Christianity or Islam are same? Is it not Adharma? Aupmanyav 12:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
List of Hindus is up for deletion!-- Dangerous-Boy 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I commented out the following statement: Vaishnavism has 580 million followers, while Shaivism has 220 million followers. citation needed.
We cannot leave statements needing sourcing in a featured article. Can anybody try to find stats for these? Circeus 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Its amazing how fast the quality of the article has dropped. Ignoring everything else, lets look at criticism section:
Seriously, you guys should just go ahead and remove the criticism section instead of having this drivel. -- Blacksun 07:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
All new and improved notice board. It's easier to edit and request. enjoy!-- Dangerous-Boy 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism in western filosophy terms can be considered a: "Panentheistic or Pantheistic and Polytheistic Monism" or "Monistic Polytheism" there's no other ways for describe Hinduism as a Whole, then there are many "ways" like Vishnavism or Shaivism that can be considered forms of Henotheism, Henotheism means preminent devotion to a particular Divinity that can be considered supreme but not excludes the existence of a plurality of Deities, however this supreme God it's part of Brahman (for me the use of Divinity/ies-Deity/ies-God/s-Goddess/es It's indifferent because there's no term to define Braman or The One, the supreme Reality or Divine Energy etc...). For example this sentence about Smarta in the article about polytheism is completely wrong:
Polytheistic views should be carefully distinguished from religions such as Smarta Hinduism, which present multiple divinities as different aspects of the same God. Rather than being polytheistic, Smarta Hinduism is a form of inclusive monotheism, where many deities are viewed as just different names for the single monotheistic God
This is about have no understanding of what is Monism or what is Brahaman... the terms Monotheism or Inclusive Monotheism are completely wrong and unsuitable and reflects an abramitic point of view. Moreover there's a misconception of what is Polytheism... "Hard Polytheism" as described here in Wikipedia and not only here never be existed in the Ellenistic-Roman World (maybe only in the Northern/Germanic World between indo-europeans, with its doctrine of the Ragnarok), even Homerus speaks of "The One" (not with the doctrinal evolution of Neo-Platonism of Late Antiquity) and all greek and hellenistic-roman philosophers had a monistic point of view, and from sources however we know about the diffuse awareness of the existance of a unique reality or divine energy comprehensive all divinities. So Hard Polytheism is an invention of Monotheism as Idolatry as described by monotheists with their lies and slanders, but this is another topic, I can't argue now.
I have noticed that lately there's a tendency to use the term Monotheism for Hinduism in Wiki and in other contexts and this is very irritant, because is a falsification of what is Hinduism and it's propagated the idea that monotheism is the more evolved form of religiosity, and Hinduism is more acceptable if "sell out" as a "Monotheistic" religion... in fact Monotheism is an involution not an evolution. (Ex. see the paradox of the angels, spiritual beings created by GOD and not divine beings, deities emanated from The One and existed from eternity). Moreover the crusade against Polytheism "sell out" as a degraded form of religiosity, that in reality never been as described as a plurality of separated divine energies but a plurality of divine beings part of a unique reality or energy.
Hinduism is NOT Monotheism is Monistic Polytheism and also the Hellenistic-Roman Religion and others of the indo-europeans.
Porphyrius, Julian The Great (and not The Apostate) and others had always defended polytheism or better the Monistic Polytheism from the attacks of the galileans (christians).
Greetings
-- Antioco79 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. It depends what tradition of Hinduism you belong. You can't label everything Hinduism. You have to define what tradition you belong to. A strict
Madhva follower only worships Vishnu as the supreme God. Only Smarta Hinduism views different deities as different aspects of Brahman. A better term is theistic monism where there is only one entity Brahman, which has different aspects.
Furthermore, would you say that Christianity is polytheistic? No. Christians believe in God being one, with three different persons.
Furthermore, you say the Smarta view is wrong. I myself am a follower of the Smarta tradition. Ramakrishna followed this tradition although his favorite deity is Kali. He tried all religions and came to the same conclusion, that God is one with different aspects.
Raj2004 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I Haven't said that Smarta view is wrong, I have written that the definition of Wikipedia is wrong... and I haven't said that Christianity is Polytheistic... but do you have read what I have written? You say: Only Smarta Hinduism views different deities as different aspects of Brahman It is NOT true, every follower of any way of the Sanata Dharma knows that Brahman is comprehensive of a plurality of deities that are part of it or if you prefer are aspects of it, that doesn't mean that a deity don't have its own individuality also being part of The Absolute-Infinite, The One, Brahman, The Supreme Divine Energy or Essence, The All etc... name it as you prefer, in Hinduism (or better in its many manifestations) there's not only ONE GOD like the Abramitic Religions in conformity with the western mentality (unlike the GOD of Islam or Hebraism, Christian Trinity can be approached to this point of view but in concrete Christian Teology brings some paradoxes and isn't the same thing). So Hinduism as a Whole (there's no unique way or defined dogmas I know it) is a Monism and a Panentheism or a Pantheism (depends) and this is also a Polytheism, a particular form of Polytheism, not as "Hard Polytheism" (the existence of H.P is opinable historically), is a Polytheism 'cos as I said deities maintain their own inviduality and at the same time they are part or are aspects of The One, multiplicity and unity (not uniqueness) at the same time, is a slight difference isn't Monotheism tecnically and theologically considered.
So Hinduism is a Polytheistic Monism or (it's the same) a Monistic Polytheism or more specifically a Monistic and Panentheistic (or Pantheistic) Polytheism.
It seems that many westerners are allergic to the word "Polytheism" considering it only in the way of a never existed (maybe only Asatrù) "Hard Polytheism", I have demonstrated that the reality of Sanata Dharma is more complex and cant't be used a completely wrong and false term like Monotheism to describe it, there's the need of a plurality of terms and one of those is rightly Polytheism.
Sanata Dharma doesn't need a Justification or a Ennobling to the eyes of westerners with the usage of the term Monotheism, S.D. is yet noble. There's no need of a put in squares, There's no need to bring Hinduism in the chains of western abramitic concepts, to feel it more closer, because western world have repudiated its ancient culture, adopting abramitic culture, and now want to enslave other cultures chaining them at its point of view and its vision of what is "The Truth". Hinduism is the last bastion of the Indo-European culture and I don't tolerate that it can be faked by the cultural colonization of the abramitic west.
Greetings -- Antioco79 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, I think you have misundertood what I wrote. You can say that Smarta Hinduism a form of monism, where Brahman has many aspects but is only one. A polytheist thinks that the two gods are different so your statement, I think, is incorrect. I didn't say Christianity is polytheistic. Your definition may make even Christianity polytheistic. If you ask a Saivite, they think Siva is only Brahman and no one else.
http://www.sroutasaivasiddhanta.org/2-1.htm , for example.
The same goes with Madhva followers:
http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html#othergods As that site states, "Homage is sometimes paid to other deities, but these deities are never considered the equals of Vishnu, nor are they worshipped in the same spirit. Vaishnavas can be said to be monotheists, since they believe that there is only one Supreme Lord or Infinite Being—Lord Vishnu. Therefore, Vaishnavas always keep the worship of Vishnu and His attendants at the forefront of their religious practice.
Some Advaitins consider all deities including Vishnu to be forms of the Saguna Brahman (the Brahman with attributes), but this belief is not universal to all Advaitins, whether or not they be Vaishnavas." Smartas follow Advaita philosophy, for the most part.
To say Smarta Hinduism is Santana Dharma is wrong. Please also see,
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/10-11_pub_desk.shtml
Thank you.
Raj2004 14:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)