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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I've read through many of the angry diabtribes above, which I'm not going to bother to summarize. There are a few things I'd like to say.... one, writing long letters in Hindi does not help with a dialogue. I'm lucky enough I can read and speak it, but others can't. Since this is an English Wikipedia, I think it would be wise to follow an English-posting policy. But... onto the issues at hand:
"IDOL WORSHIP": A long while ago, about two or three years in fact, when the Hinduism page was being torn up and overhauled, we tackled this issue. Unfortunately, the term 'idol', which has no equivalent in Sanskrit or Sanskrit-derived languages, is one that was taught the Indian populace by the British government, which naturally taught Indians their English. No, 'murti' does not carry the denotative slants (outside of 'object used for worship') that 'idol' does, like: " A false god. , one that is adored, often blindly or excessively, and something visible but without substance. [A similar word, used by Urdu-speakers, would be but.]
This is quite a sad fate for Hindu philosophy and worship in the English-speaking mind... a far more neutral term which carries the same general understandings as murti, in English, would be icon, a word whose use I and only a few others have advocated using. Hopefully, its use will grow. For those who insist that because Indians in India use the word idol and have for a century or more that it is therefore stripped of its highly misleading connotative values, I'm sorry, it doesn't do the trick. In spite of a high literacy in English in India, most Indians don't bother to understand the word 'idol' as used by non-Hindu English speakers across the globe. So, idol-worship...
let's define what murtipuja is first... it is typically the veneration of an object as a symbol or meditative conduit to a higher principle or ideal. This is what an icon is. Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself... is this any different from monks in a Catholic church in Venice, during the plague, walking in a cavalcade, holding up a painting of the Madonna and Child, and attributing their escape from the plague to the powers of that icon and thenceforth naming it the "Nikopeia" (bringer of victory)? I don't think so. But the Catholic community would repulse any attempts to call their veneration of icons 'idol-worship.' As a Hindu, as an American, and as an educated man, I find it crosses the line of 'offensive' by Wikipedia standards to continue utilizing the phrase 'idol-worship' when it is, on a religious level, equivalent to calling a black man a 'nigger'.
POLYTHEISM:
I'm not going to list how many places and people I've visited and known in India, or how many books I've read, because there are definitely thousands and perhaps many millions of people who could say they've done more than me. However, let me say this... I have never met a villager, a sadhu, a jogi, a brahmin, from any sect TO DATE, in any area of India or out here in the States, who's espoused a purely polytheistic viewpoint. What does this mean? One can admit of many gods and goddesses, but the declaration of a religious viewpoint as being polytheism would be countervailed by a statement that "ant mein, Bhagavan ekhi hain" (In the end, God is one.)
Whether you talk about Vedantic schools (advaita is sort of monist, but its more than monist, because monism brings to mind a 'seed' monad, which advaita doesn't espouse; the dvaita schools bring it down to Vishnu or the object of bhakti).... yoga.... Tantra.... whatever it might be, practicing Hindus have almost universally looked at the world, the multifarious gods and goddesses, as emanating or deriving their existence from some sort of para-entity, or single uber entity. This may or may not be interpreted as monotheism... while Vaishnavs could very well be called monotheists, advaitists don't have a theistic God-concept, an entity with form, attributes, personality, like Judeo-Christian ideologies do. Here we bring in ideas like 'monism'.
I'd like to see more balance when it comes to calling Hinduism anything from polytheism to monotheism. That's the kind of simplistic statement that obscures more than it clarifies. In addition, the sort of out there polytheism, where there's no para-entity (to use my layman's definition), like with Greek religion, was pretty much over since the coming of the first Upanishads. I think, however, its a cheap ploy to constantly bring up the Nasadeeya Sukta, which comes only in the tenth mandala of the Rig Veda, and claim that Hinduism's never been polytheistic. Hinduism very definitely came from polytheistic roots; the nasadiya represents one of many viewpoints which was being coalesced into a great cultural tradition.
I think one or two of you may be hyperventilating and reacting to a sort of perceived anti-Hindu platform or the lesser Hindu influence which, in the case of trying to keep this article balanced and fair, DOESN'T exist. Please chill, y'all. And keep it in English (or translate on the page) for those who don't understand Hindi. This goes to another annoying habit of Indians who think that knowing Hindi is tantamount to being more Hindu or Indian... it doesn't prove s--t. I'm sorry. Some of you guys are really making me squirm with your long debates, bringing in personal faith and viewpoints... for f--k's sake this is an encyclopedia! Keep your personal faith out of this. I had to learn this the hard way when some guys and I first took the HINDUISM page to FA status...
Anyway... I don't want to sound like a bitter dude... I think the work y'all are doing is great... hopefully, you'll be able to do it in a slightly more copacetic atmosphere. Peace~ -- LordSuryaofShropshire 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've mentioned in my post, 'idol' carries the idea of an 'insubstantial object,' a 'fruitless' sort of worship of a false God or the veneration of an object as the Godhead itself in its entirety. This has NOTHING to do with the way Hindus worship their murtis and do puja... Note something I wrote: "Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself..." This goes to what you spoke about... but 'idol' is still an extremely inappropriate term and icon is a lot more fair. Personally, I wish we could just use murti and avoid usage of Judeo-Christian terms like "idol" and "icon" all together... the latter two have too much baggage. Nothing you've written has changed my conviction that idol is the wrong terminology to use.
And please... DO NOT make assumptions about what I have and haven't participated in... DO NOT assume you know who I am... DO NOT assume where in India or outside I haven't been... DO NOT assume you know my religious or non-religious backgrounds.... if you have a hint of understanding about international standards of academic debate, you'll try to keep in mind that ad hominem (or against the individual) is the WRONG way to go. It's very UN-wikilike and I will call a moderator if you do it again. I point to this comment of yours: "It seems that you might not have participated in such a ceremony" .... it's not terrible, but it's not good either. Stick to the conversation at hand.
As for your comments on polytheism: Would you call the Catholics polytheists because they separately, in turn, venerate the "Father," and the "Son," and the "Holy Ghost"? A tripartite Godhead? No. Polytheism accepts no 'para' or uber entity. It doesn't matter how much you talk about a temple having multiple deities... the very fact that Hindus will worship all and sundry without casting aspersions on any particular deity, or saying one is true or the other false, and that most Hindus find it much easier to go to a Church and worship than for Christians to attend a mosque or a temple, is a testament to this philosophical idea. Max Mueller himself found problems with a simple 'polytheism' label not even for later, or 'classical' Hinduism (which we're well past now), but even for early Vedic Hinduism, calling them 'panentheists'. Even a colonial-bred indologist had enough discernment in his head to oversimplify. I think we shouldn't either.
As for the Hindi part, the whole point I was making with the 'Hindi' reference, as a Bengali myself, was that it is bogus for people to start spouting in Hindi on an English wikipedia page just because the article has to do with Hinduism. So yes, I know. I haven't argued that polytheism didn't form an important part of Hinduism, particular in its early stages and also in its persisting forms of worship. But the nirguna and saguna forms of brahamaNa, the debates surrounding it, and the major sects of Hinduism (Shaivaite, Vaishnav, Shakta, Smarta) attest to its importance... they don't appeal to an ULTIMATELY polytheistic viewpoint... they accept multiple gods and goddesses as emanations of a singular godhead or 'uber'-entity.... that's a far cry from the sort of basic polytheism you're so wedded to. And I'm not even taking into account Yogic and Tantric sects. Peace~ -- LordSuryaofShropshire 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Shantam Papam Nashanam! Pl. sign your comments. In spite of lot of checking of history, it's difficult to pin-point whose comments are this and who is replying whom. If possible, if comment is made to a particular editor, pl. address it to him so others understand the debate. Are the entire long comments are of one person? swadhyayee 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is an endless debate without single conclusion about multi-God or one God in Hinduism, I think that the editors need additional study before emphasizing their views. I believe, Hinduism is believing of one God in multiple forms as suits to an individual. The editors here seems to be confused by mixing philosophy based on knowledge and rituals or way of worship of Hindus. The knowledge or the Jnan advocate one God in any form that suits to an individual. This belief is acknowledged by almost all Hindus in spite of their worshipping their own preferential deity. There may exist a special bond amongst people worshipping one deity but there is no seclusion from worshippers of other deities. Let me clear that Devtas or Devis are never considered to be God. People worship Ganesh as Vighnaharta. Laxmi for being blessed for wealth. Saraswati for being blessed for knowledge. No one will ever claim that these Devtas or Devis they worship for Moksha. Devtas or Devis are believed to be provider of material comforts.
Regarding the word "idol", if a knowledgable editor from us tell that the world "idol" has poor connotations, I think we should readily jump and accept his contention and make necessary change. I was one of those who objected of the word "idol" to be changed to "icon" but agreed instantly when the editor explained the fact. However, I am strongly of the view that our words should be used and let the world know our words like Murti, Puja, Devtas, Devis etc. We have contributed a lot to English dictionary. When Britishers accepted our words, why do our own editors resist?
Am I going to be helpful in understanding of Multi God or One God concept and God and Devtas? swadhyayee 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, sorry, I couldn't understand you. I believe, God is Nirgun Nirakar and Sagun Sakar too. Nirgun Nirakar God creator of n' number of forms can also take a form to fulfill "Yada, Yada hi Dharmsya, Glanir Bhavati Bharat". Wikipedia is going to be for common people and not for Mandan Mishra and Shankaracharya, so there is no need to worry about presenting half thing. Any day, Hinduism on Wikipedia will be open for correction. Assuming a 100% perfect article is created, any moment any one will change it. I have not learnt Sanskrut and I have not heard on Vipra Bahudha Vadanti so I am not able to understand what you desire me to understand. swadhyayee 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji,,
If you modify your own message after a lapse of time within which somebody might have viewed it, you are expected to write in edit summary that you are revising your comments so as to enable for a 2nd reading. Aupmanyavji, isn't it too much to say that what others think are personal beliefs of a person? Even if they are personal beliefs, they may be beliefs of many and not one. I think, no one could claim that one knows entire Hinduism or one is authority in Hinduism and beliefs or knowledge of others are not part of Hinduism. Isn't Hinduism too wide a thing to describe? There are people who believe Nirgun Nirakar, there are people who believe Sagun Sakar and there are people who believe in both. I think, majority of Hindus venerate Sagun Sakar Bhagawan. Acceptance of other beliefs is Hinduism. swadhyayee 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There is too much detail. Bhakti/Karma Yoga both have a good amount of information. Any extra detail can go to the Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga pages. Gizza Chat © 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
'Raja Yoga is mainly concerned with the mind, its modifications and its control.' That is what Swami Shivananda says about it. How is it different from Jnana Yoga? Perhaps someone would elaborate. Aupmanyav 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The article says 'RigVeda is theoretically the most sacred and supreme scriptural authority.' IMHO, theoretically is superficial here. I suppose there is no doubt in any hindu mind that the book is the most important for us. So, one could say so practically also. I suggest that the word theoretically be removed. Aupmanyav 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I love it, foundation or basis is the perfect word to describe the Vedas. They are no longer studied as much as before but all Hindu concepts are traced back to them. Gizza Chat © 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav is absolutely right. Very few have read the Vedas but the principles are in the Hindu mindset.
Raj2004 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Could the first paragraph be changed to the follwing, perhaps it reads better. I have made no additions or substractions in the content, only a rearrangement.
'The word 'Hindu' is derived from 'Hapta-Hendu' of the Avesta, the sacred scripture of Zorastrians of Persia (Vendidad: Fargard 1.18). It corresponds to 'Sapta-Sindhu' (the land of seven rivers), the northwestern part of Indian subcontinent. Sindhu (Sanskrit: सिन्धु) literally means a river, Sea, or a large body of water. Sindhu is the Indian name of River Indus which finds extensive mention in the Rig Veda of the Indo-Aryans, which hindus adopted as their most important scripture. The term 'Hindu' was used by Persians for people who lived in the Indian subcontinent around or beyond the Sindhu.'
As for the second paragraph, I think it may not be necessary (except for our linguist friend Cygnus_hansa), and perhaps could be dispensed with in the interest of need for shortening length of the article. :) Aupmanyav 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha, somebody sure has reservations about Aupmanyav's type of atheistic Nirguna Brahmanism? Aupmanyav 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, I don't know who you are referring to, since the phrasing you quote pre-dates the recent discussion listed above. (see
diff) and was not an attempt to leave atheism out. Please assume good faith - it helps in resolving the debates that are bound to arise.
That aside, I have updated the phrasing in the article as per the most recent discussion - since I didn't hear any objections. You'll note that the word atheism links to the Atheism in Hinduism article, and so I don't think that topic needs further caveats, clarifications or expansion here since it is dealt in detail in an article of its own. Abecedare 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Aupmanyav I do. I don't think Advaita conceives of an atheistic Nirguna Brahman. Adi Sankara, if I recall correctly, found the concept of a personal God limiting, as defining God with features. That's why he conceived of Nirguna Brahman. any other ideas?
Raj2004 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is there Hindi in the intro? It should only be sanskrit.-- D-Boy 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There are pages for our resident philosophers to edit. Samkhya Sutra, Mimamsa Sutra, etc. Please do take a look, its more worth your effort to write pages on these things so that normal people understand what you guys are talking about and can use some sort of reference to explain things. Do note that (if my area of the world is representative) about .0001 of Hindus have heard of Mimamsa/Samkhya/nirguna. Baka man 06:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Baka, Sankhya, Mimansa etc. are matter of study for other than average. Normally, students of philosophy and Sanyasis or those who want to be Sanyasis can devote the time needed. Our philosophy expound in thousands of pages. We can just list these sort of things in this article. In seperate articles too, we can just describe but can't provide philosophy of these scriptures. DaGizza, temple and Puja are relevant in this article. I agree with you that focus of this article should be on philosophy but I feel only basics of philosophy could be included. swadhyayee 07:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DaGizza, that active organisations have a certain number of followers. Collectively they are in thousands but % wise they are low, yet have impact on society. I was actively associated with Swadhyay Parivar. The followers may be 500-600 in suburb of Mumbai whose population is more than 1.2 million. This remains the fact, in spite of large section of this population are Hindus. In villages they may be 5 to 200/300 in population of 1500 to 2500. My personal feeling is one's religious mindedness in daily life is contended with lighting a "Deepak" before deities or some sort of Puja; Listening discourses on Bhagawat, Geeta or Ramayan and following rites. Mostly religious minded people either get attached to any such organisation or form a small organisation of their own. These groups can't have a place in Hinduism beyond some reference at the most. At the same time, they can not be ridiculed as they follow some sort of Hindu philosophy.
Aupmanyavji, as far as I know, Baka is not from Gujarat nor he is Gujarati. swadhyayee 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes DaGizza is right. Those Hindus who do not get contended with their in-house ritualistic Puja and desire to protect the society from evils of materialistic life and enjoyment of sensual objects, come out and attach themselves for spread of religious doctrines. Many of them desire to do something and take the means to create some organisation or nurture some existing organisation. Mostly, close deciples of some teacher/Swami get themselves involved in spread of teacher/Swami's activities. The claim of DaGizza that most Hindus through out the world are not very religious is subjective depending upon how you define religion. People practice religion within their individual limits. Some keep the limits very low and flexible whereas some keep it high and rigid. Those whose limits are low and flexible could be seen as bit less religious. swadhyayee 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, What Baka says is Baka's experience. From what I have heard of Swadhyay Parivar after financial frauds and violence coming to light, Hindus in foreign countries want to be in their own society. The meetings of this religious group is social gathering for them. For those whom principles and sanctity in religious organisation like Swadhyay Parivar was of prime importance left Swadhyay Parivar whereas for those whom leaving Swadhyay Parivar meant to be secluded from their own Hindu society sticked to Swadhyay Parivar. They shield their eyes to the wrong and help in covering or justifying wrongs. Now, Swadhyay Parivar has started stating that the killers of Pankaj Trivedi were not Swadhyayees in spite of all 10 of arrested people being staunch Swadhyayees and 3 of them being from close circle of Jayshree Talwalkar (Didi) the head of Swadhyay Parivar. My point is their association is purely for remaining in Hindu society for social enjoyment then religious objectives. A lot of them want to be in some or other religious activities to protect their children from evils of west.
The fact remains that there are lot who join in such organisations/activities to improve their social image and gain social status. I have seen people join this type of organisations for getting their offsprings married. I have seen people joining to increase their business. Sorry, if I am out of topic.
One more thing, those who keep their limits low or flexible, I mean that those who wants to be flexible in observing religious dictates are seen bit less religious. Like veg. Hindu converting to Non-veg. or people resorting to drinks are seen as less religious even though they may be more religious than their counter parts. swadhyayee 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Namaksar, all. Aupmanyavji, I personally would leave the labeling of unorthodox organizations or people as heretics to some of the other traditions, that have grown quite fond of such labeling. As per Baka's original statement, I am all in favor of providing as much information to those respective articles on the shat darshanas as per normal wiki practice. I also agree with Gizza that the
Hinduism article is better fitted as it is today with less emphasis on its difficult philosophies. I would advocate that instead of everyone here picking their favorite Hindu orgs, as there indeed are several, and placing a convenient link to them here, creating a seperate list of hindu org's article, that we may reference from here but populate there, with as many as we can scavange.
ॐ नमःशिवाय
Śaiva Sujīt
सुजीत ॐ
06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I am in agreement with Baka and you than any dis-agreement. I am also in agreement with Saiva_Sujit. swadhyayee 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Hinduism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sexuality was never seen as a taboo nor was it revered to any great extent in ancient India. People just realised that it was a part of life kama. It only became a taboo when the Muslim kings and British arrived and now India is seen as one of the most sexually intolerant and fearful countries in the world. Gizza Chat © 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea of discussing this would not come to a good mind. We are not here to give other than philosophicy or rituals. Not even Kamasutra. The moment such topics come, focus from philosophy will be lost. Today, the gentleman! has come with this one topic, tomorrow one may ask to discuss about menstruation, un-natural sex, gay, lesbian, oral sex, extra-marital relationships, key-clubs etc. in Hinduism. I don't think, such things are discussed in Hindu philosophy. Kamsutra is in no way religious scripture. It's a topic of art. When you talk about any matter, you talk about essential parts and not dirt. I don't think that the proposal has any good motives. We should not be carried away from apparent good language of a proposal. How many of the current editors have thought of contributing in sexual articles or articles of pervert practice? If no one, why did it not occur to us? Those who want to sublimate in spiritual life, keep themselves away from such topics and thinking, that is Hinduism. Is the matter discussed here is individual or a social practice? Hinduism states that even the intercourse should only be restricted for objective of procreation only. This is what is being told by our sages. Our sages have told about "Sanyam". I do not know, how Saiva_Sujit and Aupmanyavji favour this discussion? Even someone here now, when the article is almost over, is suggesting to incorporate conversion to christainity, someone suggest to bring Ninan nuisance here. I don't see the intentions of such proposers or supporters to be bonafide. Is someone interested in seeing that this article do not duly shine?
swadhyayee
12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry Aupmanyavji, my comments were out of views in my memory that you have been compromising and supporting than fiercely resisting. I think, we have to protect the plantation from goats. There is no prejudice against you. swadhyayee 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said that sex for procreation of one child. Regarding 60 thousand sons, I feel that the mathemetical terminology could be different then and the figures in thousands were many folds more than actual as we count today. I have heard so or read so. Other possibility is a teacher considered his pupils to be his sons. Our Gotras indicate this. I don't state anything of my own. I must have heard it or read it in Manusmruti like things. When they want sex pervert thing to be discussed, I just said that the sages advise sex to this limit. If, you see the contribution of the proposer, he seems to be interested only in disgusting subjects. swadhyayee 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, to see the tendency to number of editors to beat around bush and not state firmly what is one feeling about a thing. When we talk about Hinduism, we have to talk about Hindu ideology or just mention some im-practability or changes. I don't think, any sages or socialites would have bothered to talk about some pervert acts of individual. In Hinduism, no one was to think about sex for 1st 25 years of life which is advocated for study like arts and spiritual quest. Even after the period of Brahmacharyashram was over, one could marry only after his teacher gave permission was the rule. Let's pl. not mix Kama-Sutra and Philosophy. Here the topic is religion - a topic to project ideas of purpose of human life. Tomorrow, someone would ask what does Hinduism say about toilet habits? Do we have this type of thinking in our philosophy? Is it significant? Idiots will come out with any suggestions, how much should we respond? See the contribution of proposer, his all contributions have nothing to do with sublimation of a human being or any way important. He talks about size of penis of Indians being small. WHY DO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND WASTE TIME AND ENERGY IN DISCUSSING SOMETHING BROUGHT OUT BY SUCH PERVERTS ON THIS PAGE? DO WE NOT FEEL TO SHOW HIM THE DOOR? swadhyayee 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry couldn't understand what you try to say. swadhyayee 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where did you get this from "It is vaidika thought to not condone or to forbid masturbation but instead dismiss it (for brahmacaris) as a distraction from their brahmacarya dharma of studying, etc.". While you write in this manner, it is difficult to understand which side of fence you are? My question is, is it purposeful? (Purpose means beneficiary). If, I give an analogy, one who does not want to go to a prostitute, why should he know the customs of prostitutes? We are here to learn Hinduism for decent people and gain more decency and not just play around with any dirt. The proposer has stated that penis of Indian males is smaller. How do we know it is true? I don't know in what way it helps a person to know this? What is the aim or such contributor? I don't think, it is purposeful. How this information if true will be used to belittle the Indians? Do they know that Indian brains are bigger? Do they know that most of the Indians are loyal to wife? Do they know that un-married don't stay together? Without marriage, Indians don't procreate, the parents don't seperate and deprive the offsprings of essential love of father. These are the things, Indians can show to westerns and help them in improving their societies. This is purposeful. We should know, what we are upto and ridicule any attempt to deviate from our supposed objectives. swadhyayee 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
God: both principle and person
Hinduism has been perceived by some as polytheistic, and its devotees are typically quite open to reconciling multiple gods and goddesses, often from quite different traditions, into a single 'Vedically'-based worldview. However, its many divergent sects and philosophical schools culminate in beliefs ranging anywhere from panentheism to more devotional brands of monotheism. For instance, Advaita Vedanta holds that there is one originating source, cosmic spirit, or godhead (depending, again, on one's sect within the overall school), which may manifest in the material world in multiple forms.
I think this section may be worse than before. It has grown more awkward with more passive voice, and seems to ramble towards the end of the paragraph. It may actually lead the reader to confuse Advaita with monotheism. Also, this title has not really improved. Perhaps we could rename it to, "Nature of the Divine"?
ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
<reset indenting>
Here is the 'original' version
[3]. ;here is the version after the anon IP edits.
[4]; and here is the diff
[5]. Of course not all the intermediate edits are dur to
User:68.173.46.79, nor are all the changes undesirable. We can pick and choose which ones we wish to retain.
Abecedare
04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
'which may manifest itself to humans in multiple forms': A recent correction in the topic. Even this is not correct. Brahman does not manifest itself to humans because humans (and for that matter all animals, vegetation, or inert substances also) are themselves manifestation of the Brahman. Brahman is beyond need to manifest itself. Aupmanyav 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list of categories for Hindus on en-wiki? I am working on hi and es wiki for categorizing. Kingrom User talk:Kingrom 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Kingrom: [6] ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Many reference links in this article point to an existing link by name (like <ref name="xxxx">... </ref>). While removing text containing reference links please make sure you copy over the primary reference link to the next link that points to it. This information can be obtained by looking at the references section. Multiple references to the same link looks like this:
A broken link is hard to fix if not found quickly. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
'However, those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu.' Where is the citation? Perhaps Swami Bhaskarananda thinks so, but that would be his personal opinion, not everybody is required to go by that. Aupmanyav 07:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism view is, one must follow one's birth religion, as it is as easy to follow as mother's milk to digest. swadhyayee 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, What is difference in "Dharma" and religion? What does "Truth" mean? In Hinduism, it is said that one has to follow one's religion of birth as it is as easy to digest like mother's milk. Nothing can be wrong in pure religion. Wrong could have been pushed in religion which a religionist may not accept that the same is religious doctrine. swadhyayee 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, everyone take religion as English word for Dharma. Aupmanyavji, mother's milk analogy is not mine but of sages or some sage. Whenever, I come across ref., I will give. The ref. should be in Geeta or Manusmruti. Religion is a compound of various duties. Duties towards The Creator, duties towards other lives like humans, animals and nature. Duties towards weak be it child, woman or energyless males. There are commandments in religion to keep the humans self controlled. Disputing the existent and well accepted notions is no Panditya. Since you have been disputing the advocacy of practicing one's birth religion, you might have come across shortfall of some religion but it does not give you right to say that one has to evaluate one's religion before following. One always does answer to one's call of conscientiousness. This is what is use of one's own intellect. I do not know and I do not wish to comment on freedom in other religions. Sect religion may be rigid.
You have not answered what is truth? "Truth" when referred in "Tatvamasi" etc. means free from birth, decay and destruction. Ever existent, before evolving of the world, during existance of world and after destruction of world which is "chaitanya". Though, I am strong believer of practicing truth, I do not agree with you to limit meaning of truth your way.
Aupmanyavji, The Shashtras encourage "Samvad" not "Vivad". "Samvad" means "Samyak Vad" one which leads to assimilation. With due apology.
Goranga, you have provided really good piece of thinking. swadhyayee 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Saiva, mother's milk analogy is an advice/opinion of sages but no commandment. swadhyayee 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Baka, I know "sameh priya part" of Ch.XII of Geeta and I accept Geeta in totality. The discussion here is to be a Hindu one has to be born Hindu or not. I accept and I do not say that only born Hindus can follow Hinduism. I am just trying to say the modesty of our sages. Hinduism advocate to revere all religions alike. In fact, in purest form all religions could not be different from each other. Whether you venerate Krishna in Krishna form or Shrinathji form or Mahavir form or any other form is not material. When I go to Jain's temple, I try to see Krishna in Mahavir. What is important is behaviour of a person. Though being Hindu, I strongly believe that a Muslim offering 5 Namaz is far better than a pseudo-Hindu. I whole heartedly revere the 5 Namazi Muslim. swadhyayee 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
HeBhagawan Aupmanyavji, Pl. strike out "A 5 times namazi may be a saint...." swadhyayee 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very very much, Aupmanyavji. swadhyayee 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please use this take page for discussing the religion only. All Hinduism related topics should go to WP:HNB (hinduism notice board). Look at WP:INB for example, I hope our project can be as efficient as that one. Baka man 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not participating in all discussions. Plenty of them go above my head but I presume they start with article matters but go to rational part which is seen as off-topic. I am not against Baka, Gizza or Abecedare but I think some of the discussions might be helping in removing the short comings of the article. It has it's pros and cons. swadhyayee 03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to do? Is the size for article or article & talk pg. together? Do you feel, I am solely responsible for off topic discussions? swadhyayee 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure Baka as I told you many discussions go above my head but probably I find the discussion to begin with proposal to incorporate something new or make change or remove. The discussion begins with content views. It may be going off topic. You should not get over irritated. My experience is general community don't take interest in discussion related to a particular article. I left message for CyberAnth discussion to many Indian editors, no one responded. It happened with HeBhagawan also once. Don't you learn something from philosophical discussions? Should we just push our knowledge here and not learn anything? I am not against you but my feeling is as Gizza was telling this might not work. If, you transfer discussion, it may be missed by editors here. swadhyayee 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Gizza, I looked at the intra-link. I don't think it is in context. Naturally this discussion can not be part of article and nor it is becoming part of article. Neither any of things (at least I state) are personal opinions but deep rooted facts/Hindu beliefs of about the facts of past. Since, some of the things I say are out of your knowledge or alien to you cause your irritation. I still think, that you all western youngsters here should be open to know things which you have never known as you possess interest in Hindu religion and culture. swadhyayee 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not taken part in Aryan discussion but both Gizza and Arjun, Aryan is not un-related to Hinduism. The term "Arya" was a reference to well cultured Hindu. It was a word worth taking pride. South Indians are known as "Dravidians". It's believed that Hindu civilisation has it's roots in "Aryans" community. I thing the history was challenged here. I am not sure about correctness of history. I wish that U.S. born Indian editors here, should be open to know something new coming to them from this off topic discussions. Slowly, they make them to understand their counterparts in India. Though, not against DaGizza or Baka, my experience is you can get anything done or prevent others from doing something in the name of some or other Wikipedia policy. The page is meant for discussion of content views. When a particular discussion is not of interest to any editor, he should keep away as each one of us do when we do not have knowledge of the topic. I think there would be dis-advantages of moving some of the discussions from here. I feel, the editors should have student's attitude over being scholarly. This also, since the topic is raised here, the answers are bound to be here. swadhyayee 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion itself is getting off-topic since it is not concerned with improving the Hinduism article - which is the sole purpose of this talk page :-) (as correctly pointed out by Gizza). While I respect the opinions cited in this and earlier discussion, they are better placed on a forum such as [7], or at WP:HNB. I don't think we need to debate about the past use of the page; lets just try to keep it more focussed in the future. Abecedare 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right DaGizza, Similar was case of disgusting proposal of CyberAnth. I understand your concern is for discipline. Agree with your views of Aryan off topic discussion.
I agree with Abecedare that the present discussion too becomes off topic. swadhyayee 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not taking it personally. I do not want to drag someone else so I only quote me. swadhyayee 02:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, Could you kindly be specific, what you want me to look? swadhyayee 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this still in dispute (and if so what is the specific objection) or can we remove the NPOV tag ? I recall this issue was raised earlier but perhaps got overlooked. Abecedare 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to take a "super-review" (I just made the name up!) of the article. What I hope this does is that all the active editors here will discuss the article in detail section by section. The first section is the part before Etymology, ie. the first three paragraphs. What I ask of everybody is to read those three paragraphs and comment only on those 3 paragraphs. This means suggesting what should be added, what should be removed, what isn't explained clearly etc. This IMO is the best way to achieve consensus on all issues in the article. Gizza Chat © 05:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments on first three paragraphs:
To get the ball rolling, here are my views: Overall I am quite satisfied with the introduction, and the following comments are only minor cavils. For instance,
Again I emphasize that the above issues are only minor (except possibly the first), and we should not get stuck debating them, since I at least can live with the status quo. Abecedare 09:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I oppose to removal of Sanskrut fonts for important terms. I don't think that the Wikipedia has to be western. There is world beyond West. I believe that our new generation would always love to see Sanskrut script as it is our script. swadhyayee 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I also have to dis-agree with you that some Hindus think Hinduism as a way of life instead of a religion. Religion and way of life are inter-woven. The conscienceness of living a righteous life itself is Dharma or "Dharmacharan". If, you change the article like Aupmanyavji suggests, you will change the entire article and make it a forum for debate by so called Pandits than commons can understand Hinduism. swadhyayee 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Pl. don't seek remedy to please Aupmanyavji. The accepted interpretation of "Dharma" in English is religion. A word can have number of connotations. You can't pick up the just 1st literal interpretation of a word and ignore the general understanding. You see his user page, his beliefs are different from mass. What is religion? Isn't it a constitution for a way of life?; Live this way for your and social good or is in consonance with the preaching of The God or Rishies? Even if Aupmanyavji's beliefs may be right his way, it can not be accepted as authentic and shared by most Hindus. swadhyayee 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I agree with you that Hindus are concerned with good deeds in addition to worshiping God. I am not aware that Christains are not so. The preaching of Krishna to Arjun was known as "Kul-Dharma". If, the Kul-Dharma is not mentioned, we can mention it at appropriate place. Dharma, Religion and duties are one and same thing. We should not try to find difference in them. If someone finds difference in them, let him have it to himself. swadhyayee 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made some slight changes in the second paragraph ( diff) so that the Vedas are associated more closely with the Vedas rather than the Smritis, and because AFAIK Vedas and Upanishads are considered the foundation of Hindu philosophy. Abecedare 03:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, What you said about Christains is also there (probably as exception) even in Hinduism. At the time of Jnanodaya, the remaining "Karmas," fruits of which were not riped and delivered get destroyed. This is just for your knowledge. swadhyayee 07:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If I may correct, Hindu Dharma and Hindi are not connected to each other. swadhyayee 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
swadhyayee you are correct, Hindu and Hindi are not in connection with each other. — Seadog_MS 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
well, if I may ask, what language is "Hindū Dharma"? It may be argued that "Hindu Dharma" is Sanskrit, but I was under the impression that "Hindū Dharma" (long ū) was Hindi? dab (𒁳) 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone has claimed that Sanskrut can be written in other than Hindi script. I think Hindi is either Sanskrut script or very similar to Sanskrut script. I have never seen or heard that Sanskrut can be written in any other script. Even today, we may be able to write Hindi or Tamil or Marathi in English script. It would not mean that the script of these languages is English. From the History, we believe that the people living on banks of Sindhu river were later known as Hindu/Hindus. The religion, their thinking in the matter of religion and way of life became Hindu Dharm. Dangerous-boy, you can say, Sanatan Dharm is most appropriate term. The Dharm followed by Hindus is Hindu Dharm. Let's keep this platform free from any linguistic hate. Though my mother tounge is not Hindi, I say that Hindi is national language of India from where Hindus originated or where Hindus migrated and made their base. While allowing promotion of our national language, my own mother tounge loses predomination but I think we should keep ourselves away from regional or linguistic mean mindedness. swadhyayee 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, my comments were directed at Dangerous Boy. swadhyayee 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That discussion above has diverged somewhat. I honestly don't think any reason to have the translation of Hinduism in another language when the article is in English. The huge discussion is ridiculous. There are many translations for Hinduism in Sanskrit. It can Sanatan Dharma, Vaidik Dharma, Arya Dharma ... We should be trying to improve the article, not worrying about whether or not we should have a Sanskrit translation or Hindi translation. Who wants to remove it and move on? If you want to keep it, 1. explain why 2. tell which language and script (probably Sanskrit in Devanagari) and then we move on. This is wasting so much time. Enough! Gizza Chat © 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, You are confusing now. I think, the discussion was about writing Hinduism Sanskrut terminology in Sanskrut Script which looks like Hindi. There was no talk about translation of the article. There are sufficient views to have it. Now why do you want others to give you reasons, why to have it? I had informally given some reasons. If, someone gives the reasons, you are not satisfied, you are going to ridicule the reasons. I think, someone is making big fuss to remove terminology in Sanskrut along with English. swadhyayee 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, there is no proposal to change the name of the article "Hinduism" to a Sanskrut word like "Sanatan Dharm" etc. "Hinduism" is most appropriate. swadhyayee 09:51, 24 December 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I've read through many of the angry diabtribes above, which I'm not going to bother to summarize. There are a few things I'd like to say.... one, writing long letters in Hindi does not help with a dialogue. I'm lucky enough I can read and speak it, but others can't. Since this is an English Wikipedia, I think it would be wise to follow an English-posting policy. But... onto the issues at hand:
"IDOL WORSHIP": A long while ago, about two or three years in fact, when the Hinduism page was being torn up and overhauled, we tackled this issue. Unfortunately, the term 'idol', which has no equivalent in Sanskrit or Sanskrit-derived languages, is one that was taught the Indian populace by the British government, which naturally taught Indians their English. No, 'murti' does not carry the denotative slants (outside of 'object used for worship') that 'idol' does, like: " A false god. , one that is adored, often blindly or excessively, and something visible but without substance. [A similar word, used by Urdu-speakers, would be but.]
This is quite a sad fate for Hindu philosophy and worship in the English-speaking mind... a far more neutral term which carries the same general understandings as murti, in English, would be icon, a word whose use I and only a few others have advocated using. Hopefully, its use will grow. For those who insist that because Indians in India use the word idol and have for a century or more that it is therefore stripped of its highly misleading connotative values, I'm sorry, it doesn't do the trick. In spite of a high literacy in English in India, most Indians don't bother to understand the word 'idol' as used by non-Hindu English speakers across the globe. So, idol-worship...
let's define what murtipuja is first... it is typically the veneration of an object as a symbol or meditative conduit to a higher principle or ideal. This is what an icon is. Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself... is this any different from monks in a Catholic church in Venice, during the plague, walking in a cavalcade, holding up a painting of the Madonna and Child, and attributing their escape from the plague to the powers of that icon and thenceforth naming it the "Nikopeia" (bringer of victory)? I don't think so. But the Catholic community would repulse any attempts to call their veneration of icons 'idol-worship.' As a Hindu, as an American, and as an educated man, I find it crosses the line of 'offensive' by Wikipedia standards to continue utilizing the phrase 'idol-worship' when it is, on a religious level, equivalent to calling a black man a 'nigger'.
POLYTHEISM:
I'm not going to list how many places and people I've visited and known in India, or how many books I've read, because there are definitely thousands and perhaps many millions of people who could say they've done more than me. However, let me say this... I have never met a villager, a sadhu, a jogi, a brahmin, from any sect TO DATE, in any area of India or out here in the States, who's espoused a purely polytheistic viewpoint. What does this mean? One can admit of many gods and goddesses, but the declaration of a religious viewpoint as being polytheism would be countervailed by a statement that "ant mein, Bhagavan ekhi hain" (In the end, God is one.)
Whether you talk about Vedantic schools (advaita is sort of monist, but its more than monist, because monism brings to mind a 'seed' monad, which advaita doesn't espouse; the dvaita schools bring it down to Vishnu or the object of bhakti).... yoga.... Tantra.... whatever it might be, practicing Hindus have almost universally looked at the world, the multifarious gods and goddesses, as emanating or deriving their existence from some sort of para-entity, or single uber entity. This may or may not be interpreted as monotheism... while Vaishnavs could very well be called monotheists, advaitists don't have a theistic God-concept, an entity with form, attributes, personality, like Judeo-Christian ideologies do. Here we bring in ideas like 'monism'.
I'd like to see more balance when it comes to calling Hinduism anything from polytheism to monotheism. That's the kind of simplistic statement that obscures more than it clarifies. In addition, the sort of out there polytheism, where there's no para-entity (to use my layman's definition), like with Greek religion, was pretty much over since the coming of the first Upanishads. I think, however, its a cheap ploy to constantly bring up the Nasadeeya Sukta, which comes only in the tenth mandala of the Rig Veda, and claim that Hinduism's never been polytheistic. Hinduism very definitely came from polytheistic roots; the nasadiya represents one of many viewpoints which was being coalesced into a great cultural tradition.
I think one or two of you may be hyperventilating and reacting to a sort of perceived anti-Hindu platform or the lesser Hindu influence which, in the case of trying to keep this article balanced and fair, DOESN'T exist. Please chill, y'all. And keep it in English (or translate on the page) for those who don't understand Hindi. This goes to another annoying habit of Indians who think that knowing Hindi is tantamount to being more Hindu or Indian... it doesn't prove s--t. I'm sorry. Some of you guys are really making me squirm with your long debates, bringing in personal faith and viewpoints... for f--k's sake this is an encyclopedia! Keep your personal faith out of this. I had to learn this the hard way when some guys and I first took the HINDUISM page to FA status...
Anyway... I don't want to sound like a bitter dude... I think the work y'all are doing is great... hopefully, you'll be able to do it in a slightly more copacetic atmosphere. Peace~ -- LordSuryaofShropshire 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've mentioned in my post, 'idol' carries the idea of an 'insubstantial object,' a 'fruitless' sort of worship of a false God or the veneration of an object as the Godhead itself in its entirety. This has NOTHING to do with the way Hindus worship their murtis and do puja... Note something I wrote: "Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself..." This goes to what you spoke about... but 'idol' is still an extremely inappropriate term and icon is a lot more fair. Personally, I wish we could just use murti and avoid usage of Judeo-Christian terms like "idol" and "icon" all together... the latter two have too much baggage. Nothing you've written has changed my conviction that idol is the wrong terminology to use.
And please... DO NOT make assumptions about what I have and haven't participated in... DO NOT assume you know who I am... DO NOT assume where in India or outside I haven't been... DO NOT assume you know my religious or non-religious backgrounds.... if you have a hint of understanding about international standards of academic debate, you'll try to keep in mind that ad hominem (or against the individual) is the WRONG way to go. It's very UN-wikilike and I will call a moderator if you do it again. I point to this comment of yours: "It seems that you might not have participated in such a ceremony" .... it's not terrible, but it's not good either. Stick to the conversation at hand.
As for your comments on polytheism: Would you call the Catholics polytheists because they separately, in turn, venerate the "Father," and the "Son," and the "Holy Ghost"? A tripartite Godhead? No. Polytheism accepts no 'para' or uber entity. It doesn't matter how much you talk about a temple having multiple deities... the very fact that Hindus will worship all and sundry without casting aspersions on any particular deity, or saying one is true or the other false, and that most Hindus find it much easier to go to a Church and worship than for Christians to attend a mosque or a temple, is a testament to this philosophical idea. Max Mueller himself found problems with a simple 'polytheism' label not even for later, or 'classical' Hinduism (which we're well past now), but even for early Vedic Hinduism, calling them 'panentheists'. Even a colonial-bred indologist had enough discernment in his head to oversimplify. I think we shouldn't either.
As for the Hindi part, the whole point I was making with the 'Hindi' reference, as a Bengali myself, was that it is bogus for people to start spouting in Hindi on an English wikipedia page just because the article has to do with Hinduism. So yes, I know. I haven't argued that polytheism didn't form an important part of Hinduism, particular in its early stages and also in its persisting forms of worship. But the nirguna and saguna forms of brahamaNa, the debates surrounding it, and the major sects of Hinduism (Shaivaite, Vaishnav, Shakta, Smarta) attest to its importance... they don't appeal to an ULTIMATELY polytheistic viewpoint... they accept multiple gods and goddesses as emanations of a singular godhead or 'uber'-entity.... that's a far cry from the sort of basic polytheism you're so wedded to. And I'm not even taking into account Yogic and Tantric sects. Peace~ -- LordSuryaofShropshire 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Shantam Papam Nashanam! Pl. sign your comments. In spite of lot of checking of history, it's difficult to pin-point whose comments are this and who is replying whom. If possible, if comment is made to a particular editor, pl. address it to him so others understand the debate. Are the entire long comments are of one person? swadhyayee 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is an endless debate without single conclusion about multi-God or one God in Hinduism, I think that the editors need additional study before emphasizing their views. I believe, Hinduism is believing of one God in multiple forms as suits to an individual. The editors here seems to be confused by mixing philosophy based on knowledge and rituals or way of worship of Hindus. The knowledge or the Jnan advocate one God in any form that suits to an individual. This belief is acknowledged by almost all Hindus in spite of their worshipping their own preferential deity. There may exist a special bond amongst people worshipping one deity but there is no seclusion from worshippers of other deities. Let me clear that Devtas or Devis are never considered to be God. People worship Ganesh as Vighnaharta. Laxmi for being blessed for wealth. Saraswati for being blessed for knowledge. No one will ever claim that these Devtas or Devis they worship for Moksha. Devtas or Devis are believed to be provider of material comforts.
Regarding the word "idol", if a knowledgable editor from us tell that the world "idol" has poor connotations, I think we should readily jump and accept his contention and make necessary change. I was one of those who objected of the word "idol" to be changed to "icon" but agreed instantly when the editor explained the fact. However, I am strongly of the view that our words should be used and let the world know our words like Murti, Puja, Devtas, Devis etc. We have contributed a lot to English dictionary. When Britishers accepted our words, why do our own editors resist?
Am I going to be helpful in understanding of Multi God or One God concept and God and Devtas? swadhyayee 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, sorry, I couldn't understand you. I believe, God is Nirgun Nirakar and Sagun Sakar too. Nirgun Nirakar God creator of n' number of forms can also take a form to fulfill "Yada, Yada hi Dharmsya, Glanir Bhavati Bharat". Wikipedia is going to be for common people and not for Mandan Mishra and Shankaracharya, so there is no need to worry about presenting half thing. Any day, Hinduism on Wikipedia will be open for correction. Assuming a 100% perfect article is created, any moment any one will change it. I have not learnt Sanskrut and I have not heard on Vipra Bahudha Vadanti so I am not able to understand what you desire me to understand. swadhyayee 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji,,
If you modify your own message after a lapse of time within which somebody might have viewed it, you are expected to write in edit summary that you are revising your comments so as to enable for a 2nd reading. Aupmanyavji, isn't it too much to say that what others think are personal beliefs of a person? Even if they are personal beliefs, they may be beliefs of many and not one. I think, no one could claim that one knows entire Hinduism or one is authority in Hinduism and beliefs or knowledge of others are not part of Hinduism. Isn't Hinduism too wide a thing to describe? There are people who believe Nirgun Nirakar, there are people who believe Sagun Sakar and there are people who believe in both. I think, majority of Hindus venerate Sagun Sakar Bhagawan. Acceptance of other beliefs is Hinduism. swadhyayee 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There is too much detail. Bhakti/Karma Yoga both have a good amount of information. Any extra detail can go to the Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga pages. Gizza Chat © 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
'Raja Yoga is mainly concerned with the mind, its modifications and its control.' That is what Swami Shivananda says about it. How is it different from Jnana Yoga? Perhaps someone would elaborate. Aupmanyav 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The article says 'RigVeda is theoretically the most sacred and supreme scriptural authority.' IMHO, theoretically is superficial here. I suppose there is no doubt in any hindu mind that the book is the most important for us. So, one could say so practically also. I suggest that the word theoretically be removed. Aupmanyav 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I love it, foundation or basis is the perfect word to describe the Vedas. They are no longer studied as much as before but all Hindu concepts are traced back to them. Gizza Chat © 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav is absolutely right. Very few have read the Vedas but the principles are in the Hindu mindset.
Raj2004 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Could the first paragraph be changed to the follwing, perhaps it reads better. I have made no additions or substractions in the content, only a rearrangement.
'The word 'Hindu' is derived from 'Hapta-Hendu' of the Avesta, the sacred scripture of Zorastrians of Persia (Vendidad: Fargard 1.18). It corresponds to 'Sapta-Sindhu' (the land of seven rivers), the northwestern part of Indian subcontinent. Sindhu (Sanskrit: सिन्धु) literally means a river, Sea, or a large body of water. Sindhu is the Indian name of River Indus which finds extensive mention in the Rig Veda of the Indo-Aryans, which hindus adopted as their most important scripture. The term 'Hindu' was used by Persians for people who lived in the Indian subcontinent around or beyond the Sindhu.'
As for the second paragraph, I think it may not be necessary (except for our linguist friend Cygnus_hansa), and perhaps could be dispensed with in the interest of need for shortening length of the article. :) Aupmanyav 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha, somebody sure has reservations about Aupmanyav's type of atheistic Nirguna Brahmanism? Aupmanyav 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyav, I don't know who you are referring to, since the phrasing you quote pre-dates the recent discussion listed above. (see
diff) and was not an attempt to leave atheism out. Please assume good faith - it helps in resolving the debates that are bound to arise.
That aside, I have updated the phrasing in the article as per the most recent discussion - since I didn't hear any objections. You'll note that the word atheism links to the Atheism in Hinduism article, and so I don't think that topic needs further caveats, clarifications or expansion here since it is dealt in detail in an article of its own. Abecedare 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Aupmanyav I do. I don't think Advaita conceives of an atheistic Nirguna Brahman. Adi Sankara, if I recall correctly, found the concept of a personal God limiting, as defining God with features. That's why he conceived of Nirguna Brahman. any other ideas?
Raj2004 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is there Hindi in the intro? It should only be sanskrit.-- D-Boy 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There are pages for our resident philosophers to edit. Samkhya Sutra, Mimamsa Sutra, etc. Please do take a look, its more worth your effort to write pages on these things so that normal people understand what you guys are talking about and can use some sort of reference to explain things. Do note that (if my area of the world is representative) about .0001 of Hindus have heard of Mimamsa/Samkhya/nirguna. Baka man 06:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Baka, Sankhya, Mimansa etc. are matter of study for other than average. Normally, students of philosophy and Sanyasis or those who want to be Sanyasis can devote the time needed. Our philosophy expound in thousands of pages. We can just list these sort of things in this article. In seperate articles too, we can just describe but can't provide philosophy of these scriptures. DaGizza, temple and Puja are relevant in this article. I agree with you that focus of this article should be on philosophy but I feel only basics of philosophy could be included. swadhyayee 07:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DaGizza, that active organisations have a certain number of followers. Collectively they are in thousands but % wise they are low, yet have impact on society. I was actively associated with Swadhyay Parivar. The followers may be 500-600 in suburb of Mumbai whose population is more than 1.2 million. This remains the fact, in spite of large section of this population are Hindus. In villages they may be 5 to 200/300 in population of 1500 to 2500. My personal feeling is one's religious mindedness in daily life is contended with lighting a "Deepak" before deities or some sort of Puja; Listening discourses on Bhagawat, Geeta or Ramayan and following rites. Mostly religious minded people either get attached to any such organisation or form a small organisation of their own. These groups can't have a place in Hinduism beyond some reference at the most. At the same time, they can not be ridiculed as they follow some sort of Hindu philosophy.
Aupmanyavji, as far as I know, Baka is not from Gujarat nor he is Gujarati. swadhyayee 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes DaGizza is right. Those Hindus who do not get contended with their in-house ritualistic Puja and desire to protect the society from evils of materialistic life and enjoyment of sensual objects, come out and attach themselves for spread of religious doctrines. Many of them desire to do something and take the means to create some organisation or nurture some existing organisation. Mostly, close deciples of some teacher/Swami get themselves involved in spread of teacher/Swami's activities. The claim of DaGizza that most Hindus through out the world are not very religious is subjective depending upon how you define religion. People practice religion within their individual limits. Some keep the limits very low and flexible whereas some keep it high and rigid. Those whose limits are low and flexible could be seen as bit less religious. swadhyayee 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, What Baka says is Baka's experience. From what I have heard of Swadhyay Parivar after financial frauds and violence coming to light, Hindus in foreign countries want to be in their own society. The meetings of this religious group is social gathering for them. For those whom principles and sanctity in religious organisation like Swadhyay Parivar was of prime importance left Swadhyay Parivar whereas for those whom leaving Swadhyay Parivar meant to be secluded from their own Hindu society sticked to Swadhyay Parivar. They shield their eyes to the wrong and help in covering or justifying wrongs. Now, Swadhyay Parivar has started stating that the killers of Pankaj Trivedi were not Swadhyayees in spite of all 10 of arrested people being staunch Swadhyayees and 3 of them being from close circle of Jayshree Talwalkar (Didi) the head of Swadhyay Parivar. My point is their association is purely for remaining in Hindu society for social enjoyment then religious objectives. A lot of them want to be in some or other religious activities to protect their children from evils of west.
The fact remains that there are lot who join in such organisations/activities to improve their social image and gain social status. I have seen people join this type of organisations for getting their offsprings married. I have seen people joining to increase their business. Sorry, if I am out of topic.
One more thing, those who keep their limits low or flexible, I mean that those who wants to be flexible in observing religious dictates are seen bit less religious. Like veg. Hindu converting to Non-veg. or people resorting to drinks are seen as less religious even though they may be more religious than their counter parts. swadhyayee 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Namaksar, all. Aupmanyavji, I personally would leave the labeling of unorthodox organizations or people as heretics to some of the other traditions, that have grown quite fond of such labeling. As per Baka's original statement, I am all in favor of providing as much information to those respective articles on the shat darshanas as per normal wiki practice. I also agree with Gizza that the
Hinduism article is better fitted as it is today with less emphasis on its difficult philosophies. I would advocate that instead of everyone here picking their favorite Hindu orgs, as there indeed are several, and placing a convenient link to them here, creating a seperate list of hindu org's article, that we may reference from here but populate there, with as many as we can scavange.
ॐ नमःशिवाय
Śaiva Sujīt
सुजीत ॐ
06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I am in agreement with Baka and you than any dis-agreement. I am also in agreement with Saiva_Sujit. swadhyayee 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Hinduism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sexuality was never seen as a taboo nor was it revered to any great extent in ancient India. People just realised that it was a part of life kama. It only became a taboo when the Muslim kings and British arrived and now India is seen as one of the most sexually intolerant and fearful countries in the world. Gizza Chat © 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea of discussing this would not come to a good mind. We are not here to give other than philosophicy or rituals. Not even Kamasutra. The moment such topics come, focus from philosophy will be lost. Today, the gentleman! has come with this one topic, tomorrow one may ask to discuss about menstruation, un-natural sex, gay, lesbian, oral sex, extra-marital relationships, key-clubs etc. in Hinduism. I don't think, such things are discussed in Hindu philosophy. Kamsutra is in no way religious scripture. It's a topic of art. When you talk about any matter, you talk about essential parts and not dirt. I don't think that the proposal has any good motives. We should not be carried away from apparent good language of a proposal. How many of the current editors have thought of contributing in sexual articles or articles of pervert practice? If no one, why did it not occur to us? Those who want to sublimate in spiritual life, keep themselves away from such topics and thinking, that is Hinduism. Is the matter discussed here is individual or a social practice? Hinduism states that even the intercourse should only be restricted for objective of procreation only. This is what is being told by our sages. Our sages have told about "Sanyam". I do not know, how Saiva_Sujit and Aupmanyavji favour this discussion? Even someone here now, when the article is almost over, is suggesting to incorporate conversion to christainity, someone suggest to bring Ninan nuisance here. I don't see the intentions of such proposers or supporters to be bonafide. Is someone interested in seeing that this article do not duly shine?
swadhyayee
12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry Aupmanyavji, my comments were out of views in my memory that you have been compromising and supporting than fiercely resisting. I think, we have to protect the plantation from goats. There is no prejudice against you. swadhyayee 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said that sex for procreation of one child. Regarding 60 thousand sons, I feel that the mathemetical terminology could be different then and the figures in thousands were many folds more than actual as we count today. I have heard so or read so. Other possibility is a teacher considered his pupils to be his sons. Our Gotras indicate this. I don't state anything of my own. I must have heard it or read it in Manusmruti like things. When they want sex pervert thing to be discussed, I just said that the sages advise sex to this limit. If, you see the contribution of the proposer, he seems to be interested only in disgusting subjects. swadhyayee 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, to see the tendency to number of editors to beat around bush and not state firmly what is one feeling about a thing. When we talk about Hinduism, we have to talk about Hindu ideology or just mention some im-practability or changes. I don't think, any sages or socialites would have bothered to talk about some pervert acts of individual. In Hinduism, no one was to think about sex for 1st 25 years of life which is advocated for study like arts and spiritual quest. Even after the period of Brahmacharyashram was over, one could marry only after his teacher gave permission was the rule. Let's pl. not mix Kama-Sutra and Philosophy. Here the topic is religion - a topic to project ideas of purpose of human life. Tomorrow, someone would ask what does Hinduism say about toilet habits? Do we have this type of thinking in our philosophy? Is it significant? Idiots will come out with any suggestions, how much should we respond? See the contribution of proposer, his all contributions have nothing to do with sublimation of a human being or any way important. He talks about size of penis of Indians being small. WHY DO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND WASTE TIME AND ENERGY IN DISCUSSING SOMETHING BROUGHT OUT BY SUCH PERVERTS ON THIS PAGE? DO WE NOT FEEL TO SHOW HIM THE DOOR? swadhyayee 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry couldn't understand what you try to say. swadhyayee 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where did you get this from "It is vaidika thought to not condone or to forbid masturbation but instead dismiss it (for brahmacaris) as a distraction from their brahmacarya dharma of studying, etc.". While you write in this manner, it is difficult to understand which side of fence you are? My question is, is it purposeful? (Purpose means beneficiary). If, I give an analogy, one who does not want to go to a prostitute, why should he know the customs of prostitutes? We are here to learn Hinduism for decent people and gain more decency and not just play around with any dirt. The proposer has stated that penis of Indian males is smaller. How do we know it is true? I don't know in what way it helps a person to know this? What is the aim or such contributor? I don't think, it is purposeful. How this information if true will be used to belittle the Indians? Do they know that Indian brains are bigger? Do they know that most of the Indians are loyal to wife? Do they know that un-married don't stay together? Without marriage, Indians don't procreate, the parents don't seperate and deprive the offsprings of essential love of father. These are the things, Indians can show to westerns and help them in improving their societies. This is purposeful. We should know, what we are upto and ridicule any attempt to deviate from our supposed objectives. swadhyayee 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
God: both principle and person
Hinduism has been perceived by some as polytheistic, and its devotees are typically quite open to reconciling multiple gods and goddesses, often from quite different traditions, into a single 'Vedically'-based worldview. However, its many divergent sects and philosophical schools culminate in beliefs ranging anywhere from panentheism to more devotional brands of monotheism. For instance, Advaita Vedanta holds that there is one originating source, cosmic spirit, or godhead (depending, again, on one's sect within the overall school), which may manifest in the material world in multiple forms.
I think this section may be worse than before. It has grown more awkward with more passive voice, and seems to ramble towards the end of the paragraph. It may actually lead the reader to confuse Advaita with monotheism. Also, this title has not really improved. Perhaps we could rename it to, "Nature of the Divine"?
ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
<reset indenting>
Here is the 'original' version
[3]. ;here is the version after the anon IP edits.
[4]; and here is the diff
[5]. Of course not all the intermediate edits are dur to
User:68.173.46.79, nor are all the changes undesirable. We can pick and choose which ones we wish to retain.
Abecedare
04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
'which may manifest itself to humans in multiple forms': A recent correction in the topic. Even this is not correct. Brahman does not manifest itself to humans because humans (and for that matter all animals, vegetation, or inert substances also) are themselves manifestation of the Brahman. Brahman is beyond need to manifest itself. Aupmanyav 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list of categories for Hindus on en-wiki? I am working on hi and es wiki for categorizing. Kingrom User talk:Kingrom 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Kingrom: [6] ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Many reference links in this article point to an existing link by name (like <ref name="xxxx">... </ref>). While removing text containing reference links please make sure you copy over the primary reference link to the next link that points to it. This information can be obtained by looking at the references section. Multiple references to the same link looks like this:
A broken link is hard to fix if not found quickly. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
'However, those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu.' Where is the citation? Perhaps Swami Bhaskarananda thinks so, but that would be his personal opinion, not everybody is required to go by that. Aupmanyav 07:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism view is, one must follow one's birth religion, as it is as easy to follow as mother's milk to digest. swadhyayee 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, What is difference in "Dharma" and religion? What does "Truth" mean? In Hinduism, it is said that one has to follow one's religion of birth as it is as easy to digest like mother's milk. Nothing can be wrong in pure religion. Wrong could have been pushed in religion which a religionist may not accept that the same is religious doctrine. swadhyayee 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, everyone take religion as English word for Dharma. Aupmanyavji, mother's milk analogy is not mine but of sages or some sage. Whenever, I come across ref., I will give. The ref. should be in Geeta or Manusmruti. Religion is a compound of various duties. Duties towards The Creator, duties towards other lives like humans, animals and nature. Duties towards weak be it child, woman or energyless males. There are commandments in religion to keep the humans self controlled. Disputing the existent and well accepted notions is no Panditya. Since you have been disputing the advocacy of practicing one's birth religion, you might have come across shortfall of some religion but it does not give you right to say that one has to evaluate one's religion before following. One always does answer to one's call of conscientiousness. This is what is use of one's own intellect. I do not know and I do not wish to comment on freedom in other religions. Sect religion may be rigid.
You have not answered what is truth? "Truth" when referred in "Tatvamasi" etc. means free from birth, decay and destruction. Ever existent, before evolving of the world, during existance of world and after destruction of world which is "chaitanya". Though, I am strong believer of practicing truth, I do not agree with you to limit meaning of truth your way.
Aupmanyavji, The Shashtras encourage "Samvad" not "Vivad". "Samvad" means "Samyak Vad" one which leads to assimilation. With due apology.
Goranga, you have provided really good piece of thinking. swadhyayee 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Saiva, mother's milk analogy is an advice/opinion of sages but no commandment. swadhyayee 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Baka, I know "sameh priya part" of Ch.XII of Geeta and I accept Geeta in totality. The discussion here is to be a Hindu one has to be born Hindu or not. I accept and I do not say that only born Hindus can follow Hinduism. I am just trying to say the modesty of our sages. Hinduism advocate to revere all religions alike. In fact, in purest form all religions could not be different from each other. Whether you venerate Krishna in Krishna form or Shrinathji form or Mahavir form or any other form is not material. When I go to Jain's temple, I try to see Krishna in Mahavir. What is important is behaviour of a person. Though being Hindu, I strongly believe that a Muslim offering 5 Namaz is far better than a pseudo-Hindu. I whole heartedly revere the 5 Namazi Muslim. swadhyayee 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
HeBhagawan Aupmanyavji, Pl. strike out "A 5 times namazi may be a saint...." swadhyayee 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very very much, Aupmanyavji. swadhyayee 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please use this take page for discussing the religion only. All Hinduism related topics should go to WP:HNB (hinduism notice board). Look at WP:INB for example, I hope our project can be as efficient as that one. Baka man 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not participating in all discussions. Plenty of them go above my head but I presume they start with article matters but go to rational part which is seen as off-topic. I am not against Baka, Gizza or Abecedare but I think some of the discussions might be helping in removing the short comings of the article. It has it's pros and cons. swadhyayee 03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to do? Is the size for article or article & talk pg. together? Do you feel, I am solely responsible for off topic discussions? swadhyayee 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure Baka as I told you many discussions go above my head but probably I find the discussion to begin with proposal to incorporate something new or make change or remove. The discussion begins with content views. It may be going off topic. You should not get over irritated. My experience is general community don't take interest in discussion related to a particular article. I left message for CyberAnth discussion to many Indian editors, no one responded. It happened with HeBhagawan also once. Don't you learn something from philosophical discussions? Should we just push our knowledge here and not learn anything? I am not against you but my feeling is as Gizza was telling this might not work. If, you transfer discussion, it may be missed by editors here. swadhyayee 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Gizza, I looked at the intra-link. I don't think it is in context. Naturally this discussion can not be part of article and nor it is becoming part of article. Neither any of things (at least I state) are personal opinions but deep rooted facts/Hindu beliefs of about the facts of past. Since, some of the things I say are out of your knowledge or alien to you cause your irritation. I still think, that you all western youngsters here should be open to know things which you have never known as you possess interest in Hindu religion and culture. swadhyayee 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not taken part in Aryan discussion but both Gizza and Arjun, Aryan is not un-related to Hinduism. The term "Arya" was a reference to well cultured Hindu. It was a word worth taking pride. South Indians are known as "Dravidians". It's believed that Hindu civilisation has it's roots in "Aryans" community. I thing the history was challenged here. I am not sure about correctness of history. I wish that U.S. born Indian editors here, should be open to know something new coming to them from this off topic discussions. Slowly, they make them to understand their counterparts in India. Though, not against DaGizza or Baka, my experience is you can get anything done or prevent others from doing something in the name of some or other Wikipedia policy. The page is meant for discussion of content views. When a particular discussion is not of interest to any editor, he should keep away as each one of us do when we do not have knowledge of the topic. I think there would be dis-advantages of moving some of the discussions from here. I feel, the editors should have student's attitude over being scholarly. This also, since the topic is raised here, the answers are bound to be here. swadhyayee 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion itself is getting off-topic since it is not concerned with improving the Hinduism article - which is the sole purpose of this talk page :-) (as correctly pointed out by Gizza). While I respect the opinions cited in this and earlier discussion, they are better placed on a forum such as [7], or at WP:HNB. I don't think we need to debate about the past use of the page; lets just try to keep it more focussed in the future. Abecedare 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right DaGizza, Similar was case of disgusting proposal of CyberAnth. I understand your concern is for discipline. Agree with your views of Aryan off topic discussion.
I agree with Abecedare that the present discussion too becomes off topic. swadhyayee 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not taking it personally. I do not want to drag someone else so I only quote me. swadhyayee 02:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, Could you kindly be specific, what you want me to look? swadhyayee 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this still in dispute (and if so what is the specific objection) or can we remove the NPOV tag ? I recall this issue was raised earlier but perhaps got overlooked. Abecedare 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to take a "super-review" (I just made the name up!) of the article. What I hope this does is that all the active editors here will discuss the article in detail section by section. The first section is the part before Etymology, ie. the first three paragraphs. What I ask of everybody is to read those three paragraphs and comment only on those 3 paragraphs. This means suggesting what should be added, what should be removed, what isn't explained clearly etc. This IMO is the best way to achieve consensus on all issues in the article. Gizza Chat © 05:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments on first three paragraphs:
To get the ball rolling, here are my views: Overall I am quite satisfied with the introduction, and the following comments are only minor cavils. For instance,
Again I emphasize that the above issues are only minor (except possibly the first), and we should not get stuck debating them, since I at least can live with the status quo. Abecedare 09:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I oppose to removal of Sanskrut fonts for important terms. I don't think that the Wikipedia has to be western. There is world beyond West. I believe that our new generation would always love to see Sanskrut script as it is our script. swadhyayee 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I also have to dis-agree with you that some Hindus think Hinduism as a way of life instead of a religion. Religion and way of life are inter-woven. The conscienceness of living a righteous life itself is Dharma or "Dharmacharan". If, you change the article like Aupmanyavji suggests, you will change the entire article and make it a forum for debate by so called Pandits than commons can understand Hinduism. swadhyayee 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Pl. don't seek remedy to please Aupmanyavji. The accepted interpretation of "Dharma" in English is religion. A word can have number of connotations. You can't pick up the just 1st literal interpretation of a word and ignore the general understanding. You see his user page, his beliefs are different from mass. What is religion? Isn't it a constitution for a way of life?; Live this way for your and social good or is in consonance with the preaching of The God or Rishies? Even if Aupmanyavji's beliefs may be right his way, it can not be accepted as authentic and shared by most Hindus. swadhyayee 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, I agree with you that Hindus are concerned with good deeds in addition to worshiping God. I am not aware that Christains are not so. The preaching of Krishna to Arjun was known as "Kul-Dharma". If, the Kul-Dharma is not mentioned, we can mention it at appropriate place. Dharma, Religion and duties are one and same thing. We should not try to find difference in them. If someone finds difference in them, let him have it to himself. swadhyayee 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made some slight changes in the second paragraph ( diff) so that the Vedas are associated more closely with the Vedas rather than the Smritis, and because AFAIK Vedas and Upanishads are considered the foundation of Hindu philosophy. Abecedare 03:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, What you said about Christains is also there (probably as exception) even in Hinduism. At the time of Jnanodaya, the remaining "Karmas," fruits of which were not riped and delivered get destroyed. This is just for your knowledge. swadhyayee 07:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If I may correct, Hindu Dharma and Hindi are not connected to each other. swadhyayee 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
swadhyayee you are correct, Hindu and Hindi are not in connection with each other. — Seadog_MS 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
well, if I may ask, what language is "Hindū Dharma"? It may be argued that "Hindu Dharma" is Sanskrit, but I was under the impression that "Hindū Dharma" (long ū) was Hindi? dab (𒁳) 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone has claimed that Sanskrut can be written in other than Hindi script. I think Hindi is either Sanskrut script or very similar to Sanskrut script. I have never seen or heard that Sanskrut can be written in any other script. Even today, we may be able to write Hindi or Tamil or Marathi in English script. It would not mean that the script of these languages is English. From the History, we believe that the people living on banks of Sindhu river were later known as Hindu/Hindus. The religion, their thinking in the matter of religion and way of life became Hindu Dharm. Dangerous-boy, you can say, Sanatan Dharm is most appropriate term. The Dharm followed by Hindus is Hindu Dharm. Let's keep this platform free from any linguistic hate. Though my mother tounge is not Hindi, I say that Hindi is national language of India from where Hindus originated or where Hindus migrated and made their base. While allowing promotion of our national language, my own mother tounge loses predomination but I think we should keep ourselves away from regional or linguistic mean mindedness. swadhyayee 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Aupmanyavji, my comments were directed at Dangerous Boy. swadhyayee 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That discussion above has diverged somewhat. I honestly don't think any reason to have the translation of Hinduism in another language when the article is in English. The huge discussion is ridiculous. There are many translations for Hinduism in Sanskrit. It can Sanatan Dharma, Vaidik Dharma, Arya Dharma ... We should be trying to improve the article, not worrying about whether or not we should have a Sanskrit translation or Hindi translation. Who wants to remove it and move on? If you want to keep it, 1. explain why 2. tell which language and script (probably Sanskrit in Devanagari) and then we move on. This is wasting so much time. Enough! Gizza Chat © 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
DaGizza, You are confusing now. I think, the discussion was about writing Hinduism Sanskrut terminology in Sanskrut Script which looks like Hindi. There was no talk about translation of the article. There are sufficient views to have it. Now why do you want others to give you reasons, why to have it? I had informally given some reasons. If, someone gives the reasons, you are not satisfied, you are going to ridicule the reasons. I think, someone is making big fuss to remove terminology in Sanskrut along with English. swadhyayee 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, there is no proposal to change the name of the article "Hinduism" to a Sanskrut word like "Sanatan Dharm" etc. "Hinduism" is most appropriate. swadhyayee 09:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)