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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I have added this link on why hindus are declining in the world and why hindus all over the world are degraded for one reason on other -- http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1131077479&type=articles.
--- Kong
Is Buddhism really a sect of Hinduism? Also how can a group of atheists be a branch of a religion? --rmhermen
The nastika schools are not branches of Hinduism; they are more a traditional Hindu conceptualisation and categorisation of their opponents. -- Simon J Kissane
That is not clear from the article but sounds correct. --rmhermen
Would it be possible to tease out the parts not specific to Hinduism as a religion, and move it to something like Ancient History of South Asia? I'm thinking of the parts about Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and about the Aryans. Or are they too integral to be seperated? --DanKeshet
Well, since Hinduism isn't, strictly speaking, "a religion", but more a cluster of religious beliefs, philosophical views, histories, and cultural practices, there may be no point in trying to differentiate between Hinduism as "a religion" and its historical-etc. context. -- kaleideion
Note that the Aryan invasion theory is presented as fact in older history books. I summarized the views of the expert community. Frankly, I don't even have a strong POV on the issue - other than that I'd like it to be explained as clearly as possible. Feel free to substitute "largely discredited" for "cast into doubt" if you don't like that phrase. Mkweise 20:21 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
Re: the latest edit, I think we should avoid implying that these are a dogma that defines hinduism, since many of these are disputed between Hindus, and groups that consider themselves "hindu" may subscribe to varying subsets of the nine points you listed. As it is, this sounds like the "Nine Commandments of Hinduism", which is just wrong. Thoughts? Graft
So, here's the 1966 "legal definition" according to the Supreme Court.
As this is now a long page, maybe it would be good to give the Astika their own page, separate from this one? Yngwin 16:47 16 May 2003 (UTC)
See this diff for a large deletion by Ndpandit. The section didn't read well, and seems to me to be dubious (although I'm not knowledgeable in this area), but it could do with reviewing to make sure we didn't loose any useful information. -- sannse 14:18 17 May 2003 (UTC)
To the person who keeps inserting the "historical note" - wikipedia has a policy on maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. I suggest you read this policy. Your additional text is in no way neutral. It is severely biased to a particular historical perspective. If you wish to include this perspective, I suggest you (a) do it in a separate article, as I don't think one group's idiosyncratic view on Hinduism belongs in this article, and (b) do it in a way that is neutral - that is, describe who has this point of view on Hinduism, possibly why, and on what grounds this view is contested. As you have it, the passage is not in any way neutral. Graft 01:20 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Again I would appeal to the people who seek to hide history: Neutrality means listening to all viewpoints on a particular topic. The current topic is 'Hinduism'. There are many divergent views of the meaning of the word. It is important, in the interest of free thought, which is what an encyclopedia is all about, to see all points of view on a topic.
The action of deleting is both cowardly and offensive. Deleting a portion would mean that your theories cannot face up to the facts.
Please present you own viewpoint which might seem neutral to your good selves but to an unbiased observer is just another viewpoint.
These Wikis and other institutions have originated in the West in the spirit of free thought, free enterprise, individual liberties, and so on. Since this is based in the West, please respect these institutions. Christianity itself can be put up to ridicule in the West and people are free to think what they want about it. Why are you guys trying to prevent your little words from being presented from a different viewpoint ?
Many concrete and valid points have been raised which you would do well to address.
Listen, you simply do not understand wikipedia policy. Stop inserting that text into this article. It does not belong there. This is not a "free speech" wiki, where you can insert whatever you want. It -must- attempt to be neutral. The phrase "The RSS philosophy is rabidly Hitlerist" is not neutral. If you do not understand why this is inappropriate for wikipedia, i ask you NOT to edit wikipedia articles.
I agree that many concrete points have been raised which should be addressed. I disagree that they should be done in this article - it is not the subject of this article - and I disagree that they should be done in the form you have included them - it is not Wikipedia:neutral point of view, which is the explicit policy for articles on this site. If you can find a way to satisfy these, then I will be willing to work with you. If you are only unwilling to listen to my concerns, then I must conclude that you are not willing to work with others in the spirit of Wikipedia. Graft 15:51 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Accepted.
I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. I am used to people not understanding (or not being aware of) the six systems of Indian philosophy; this article is like a breath of fresh air. I have added articles on Ashtanga Yoga and Samadhi and I hope readers will improve them. David 23:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My Samadhi article seems to have been replaced by a nondescript (and insufficient) definition and its link removed. I no longer have access to the original text, so I cannot fix the article. David 21:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To User:Mkweise
1. As given clearly elsewhere in the main article page- Hinduism derives from Hindu- Sindhu- Indus and not Hindi as now added.
2.Most Hindus refer to themselves as Hindus, though they do identify themselves with sects. Anyway, this does not justify the stance taken in the intro.
3.What is given in the intro second para about gurus is a detail that does not deserve such priority in intro.
4. Religions originate 'in' places, not 'on' places. (And please don't use the word dammit at a well meaning, unknown person)
To User:Lir
Some of your edits are justified. But there is some cut and paste which does not fit and some incorrect info. Please do edits slowly.
KRS 18:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the points KRS makes above. The current introductory paragraph is not neutral.
1. 1. To say that term Hinduism was coined by the British is ridiculously simplistic; you may as well say that it was coined by Iranians or Arabs because they used it first. The term evolved because of a complex interplay between Indians, Persians, and British/Europeans. As did the name of the country 'India', or the language 'Hindi'. And most Hindus do in fact refer to themselves as Hindus, especially in English.
2. I'd dispute that the term Dharma literally means 'Path' or 'Way'. The Sanskrit word 'path' literally means path or way! If Dharma has any English word as its literal equivalent, it is 'Duty'. Neither 'Path', nor 'Way' appear in the Capeller translation of the word Dharma.
Imc 20:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Help.... neutral parties!! (from the Village Pump)
(Now I know exactly why people leave. If this (sort of edit war) continues,I will not be able to spend necessary time, money and effort on this page. Which leads to a sense of futility and self-introspection as to why one is here at all) KRS 18:11, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ive been editing there, I didn't even see an edit war. Whats the war over? I hope Im not involved... Lirath Q. Pynnor
Have done a bit of rearranging- put disputed points with a bit of rewording in overview along with other points on Hinduism elsewhere to make a consolidated overview. first intro para is only facts now. KRS 19:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Important points raised before-
1. Have checked in many books, for eg. Romila Thapar's- Hinduism definitely did not derive from Hindi,the language only the word Hindu.Moved origin reference to overview para.
2. Yes, Hindus, do identify themselves as sects, but they also identify themselves as Hindus. This sentence has gone into the overview in a modified form.
3. Nomenclature as Sanatana Dharma is one viewpoint of many, hence have moved it to overview para.
So intro para is now only fact, not disputed viewpoints. All viewpoints have gone into overview. (There are lots of viewpoints about Hinduism)
4. Grammar- on and in- I don't know and I don't care, so am leaving it.
Extra additions
4. Introduced new subheading for legal definition.
5. Merged later addition of scriptural overview(not relevant in the beginning) with pre- existing scriptural paras to create new sub heading.
KRS 19:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hinduism is not a religion but a group of interrelated religions. This is what scholar David V. Barrett wrote in his book the 'The New Believers' I agree with it, because, I think the various sects of Hinduism differ too much from each other to be considered one religion. Andries 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I know Hinduism has a concept of heaven and hell (swarga and naraka), but couldn't find any info on this page. I went to Hell and found various religional interpretations, but no Hinduism. Jay 13:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Jesus Christ page says that Jesus is considered as an avatar by some Hindus. Any idea which Hindu groups are these ? Jay 18:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is there a list of Hinduism-related topics ? Jay 06:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello all, thought I would contribute something to the discussions.
There is an excellent book "Who is a Hindu?" by Koenraad Elst, it is available online
Who is a Hindu?.
Legal definition of Hindu (quote from book above):
'Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that “the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion”.1 The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this “legal Hindu”, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:
“(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
“(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
“(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.'
(From chapter 3)
rmhermen: About your question regarding Buddhism and Hinduism, another quote from the above book,
'We must compare the Buddhist ethical ideal with the (identical) standard of Brahmanhood expected of the Brahman born; we must contrast the Buddhist monastic system with the Brahmanical orders; the doctrine of Anatta with the doctrine of Atman, and here we shall find identity.'
(From chapter 10)
Comment- Hinduism could not have been derived from Hindi, half the Hindus do not have Hindi as the mother tongue.
Comment- If someone identifies himself with a sect, it does not mean he is not a part of a larger group. A student can belong to a class/grade, while he belongs to a school. Mkweise, when someone says "Hare Krsna", it is a given that he is a Hindu, it does not have to be mentioned separately.
-- SV
You are referring to the members of ISKCON, they are not the only ones who chant "Hare Krishna"; many Hindus do so when they pray. And ISKCON teaches the Hindu bhakti philosophy. ISKCON philosophy -- SV 04:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) what is an ancient persecution of hinduism?
All organizations have their share of scandals. ISKON certainly does. But behind all that is a very good organization. The books which they hand out are full of meaning and important truths. I highly suggest you read them.
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I have added this link on why hindus are declining in the world and why hindus all over the world are degraded for one reason on other -- http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1131077479&type=articles.
--- Kong
Is Buddhism really a sect of Hinduism? Also how can a group of atheists be a branch of a religion? --rmhermen
The nastika schools are not branches of Hinduism; they are more a traditional Hindu conceptualisation and categorisation of their opponents. -- Simon J Kissane
That is not clear from the article but sounds correct. --rmhermen
Would it be possible to tease out the parts not specific to Hinduism as a religion, and move it to something like Ancient History of South Asia? I'm thinking of the parts about Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and about the Aryans. Or are they too integral to be seperated? --DanKeshet
Well, since Hinduism isn't, strictly speaking, "a religion", but more a cluster of religious beliefs, philosophical views, histories, and cultural practices, there may be no point in trying to differentiate between Hinduism as "a religion" and its historical-etc. context. -- kaleideion
Note that the Aryan invasion theory is presented as fact in older history books. I summarized the views of the expert community. Frankly, I don't even have a strong POV on the issue - other than that I'd like it to be explained as clearly as possible. Feel free to substitute "largely discredited" for "cast into doubt" if you don't like that phrase. Mkweise 20:21 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
Re: the latest edit, I think we should avoid implying that these are a dogma that defines hinduism, since many of these are disputed between Hindus, and groups that consider themselves "hindu" may subscribe to varying subsets of the nine points you listed. As it is, this sounds like the "Nine Commandments of Hinduism", which is just wrong. Thoughts? Graft
So, here's the 1966 "legal definition" according to the Supreme Court.
As this is now a long page, maybe it would be good to give the Astika their own page, separate from this one? Yngwin 16:47 16 May 2003 (UTC)
See this diff for a large deletion by Ndpandit. The section didn't read well, and seems to me to be dubious (although I'm not knowledgeable in this area), but it could do with reviewing to make sure we didn't loose any useful information. -- sannse 14:18 17 May 2003 (UTC)
To the person who keeps inserting the "historical note" - wikipedia has a policy on maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. I suggest you read this policy. Your additional text is in no way neutral. It is severely biased to a particular historical perspective. If you wish to include this perspective, I suggest you (a) do it in a separate article, as I don't think one group's idiosyncratic view on Hinduism belongs in this article, and (b) do it in a way that is neutral - that is, describe who has this point of view on Hinduism, possibly why, and on what grounds this view is contested. As you have it, the passage is not in any way neutral. Graft 01:20 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Again I would appeal to the people who seek to hide history: Neutrality means listening to all viewpoints on a particular topic. The current topic is 'Hinduism'. There are many divergent views of the meaning of the word. It is important, in the interest of free thought, which is what an encyclopedia is all about, to see all points of view on a topic.
The action of deleting is both cowardly and offensive. Deleting a portion would mean that your theories cannot face up to the facts.
Please present you own viewpoint which might seem neutral to your good selves but to an unbiased observer is just another viewpoint.
These Wikis and other institutions have originated in the West in the spirit of free thought, free enterprise, individual liberties, and so on. Since this is based in the West, please respect these institutions. Christianity itself can be put up to ridicule in the West and people are free to think what they want about it. Why are you guys trying to prevent your little words from being presented from a different viewpoint ?
Many concrete and valid points have been raised which you would do well to address.
Listen, you simply do not understand wikipedia policy. Stop inserting that text into this article. It does not belong there. This is not a "free speech" wiki, where you can insert whatever you want. It -must- attempt to be neutral. The phrase "The RSS philosophy is rabidly Hitlerist" is not neutral. If you do not understand why this is inappropriate for wikipedia, i ask you NOT to edit wikipedia articles.
I agree that many concrete points have been raised which should be addressed. I disagree that they should be done in this article - it is not the subject of this article - and I disagree that they should be done in the form you have included them - it is not Wikipedia:neutral point of view, which is the explicit policy for articles on this site. If you can find a way to satisfy these, then I will be willing to work with you. If you are only unwilling to listen to my concerns, then I must conclude that you are not willing to work with others in the spirit of Wikipedia. Graft 15:51 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Accepted.
I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. I am used to people not understanding (or not being aware of) the six systems of Indian philosophy; this article is like a breath of fresh air. I have added articles on Ashtanga Yoga and Samadhi and I hope readers will improve them. David 23:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My Samadhi article seems to have been replaced by a nondescript (and insufficient) definition and its link removed. I no longer have access to the original text, so I cannot fix the article. David 21:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To User:Mkweise
1. As given clearly elsewhere in the main article page- Hinduism derives from Hindu- Sindhu- Indus and not Hindi as now added.
2.Most Hindus refer to themselves as Hindus, though they do identify themselves with sects. Anyway, this does not justify the stance taken in the intro.
3.What is given in the intro second para about gurus is a detail that does not deserve such priority in intro.
4. Religions originate 'in' places, not 'on' places. (And please don't use the word dammit at a well meaning, unknown person)
To User:Lir
Some of your edits are justified. But there is some cut and paste which does not fit and some incorrect info. Please do edits slowly.
KRS 18:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the points KRS makes above. The current introductory paragraph is not neutral.
1. 1. To say that term Hinduism was coined by the British is ridiculously simplistic; you may as well say that it was coined by Iranians or Arabs because they used it first. The term evolved because of a complex interplay between Indians, Persians, and British/Europeans. As did the name of the country 'India', or the language 'Hindi'. And most Hindus do in fact refer to themselves as Hindus, especially in English.
2. I'd dispute that the term Dharma literally means 'Path' or 'Way'. The Sanskrit word 'path' literally means path or way! If Dharma has any English word as its literal equivalent, it is 'Duty'. Neither 'Path', nor 'Way' appear in the Capeller translation of the word Dharma.
Imc 20:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Help.... neutral parties!! (from the Village Pump)
(Now I know exactly why people leave. If this (sort of edit war) continues,I will not be able to spend necessary time, money and effort on this page. Which leads to a sense of futility and self-introspection as to why one is here at all) KRS 18:11, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ive been editing there, I didn't even see an edit war. Whats the war over? I hope Im not involved... Lirath Q. Pynnor
Have done a bit of rearranging- put disputed points with a bit of rewording in overview along with other points on Hinduism elsewhere to make a consolidated overview. first intro para is only facts now. KRS 19:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Important points raised before-
1. Have checked in many books, for eg. Romila Thapar's- Hinduism definitely did not derive from Hindi,the language only the word Hindu.Moved origin reference to overview para.
2. Yes, Hindus, do identify themselves as sects, but they also identify themselves as Hindus. This sentence has gone into the overview in a modified form.
3. Nomenclature as Sanatana Dharma is one viewpoint of many, hence have moved it to overview para.
So intro para is now only fact, not disputed viewpoints. All viewpoints have gone into overview. (There are lots of viewpoints about Hinduism)
4. Grammar- on and in- I don't know and I don't care, so am leaving it.
Extra additions
4. Introduced new subheading for legal definition.
5. Merged later addition of scriptural overview(not relevant in the beginning) with pre- existing scriptural paras to create new sub heading.
KRS 19:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hinduism is not a religion but a group of interrelated religions. This is what scholar David V. Barrett wrote in his book the 'The New Believers' I agree with it, because, I think the various sects of Hinduism differ too much from each other to be considered one religion. Andries 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I know Hinduism has a concept of heaven and hell (swarga and naraka), but couldn't find any info on this page. I went to Hell and found various religional interpretations, but no Hinduism. Jay 13:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Jesus Christ page says that Jesus is considered as an avatar by some Hindus. Any idea which Hindu groups are these ? Jay 18:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is there a list of Hinduism-related topics ? Jay 06:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello all, thought I would contribute something to the discussions.
There is an excellent book "Who is a Hindu?" by Koenraad Elst, it is available online
Who is a Hindu?.
Legal definition of Hindu (quote from book above):
'Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that “the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion”.1 The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this “legal Hindu”, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:
“(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
“(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
“(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.'
(From chapter 3)
rmhermen: About your question regarding Buddhism and Hinduism, another quote from the above book,
'We must compare the Buddhist ethical ideal with the (identical) standard of Brahmanhood expected of the Brahman born; we must contrast the Buddhist monastic system with the Brahmanical orders; the doctrine of Anatta with the doctrine of Atman, and here we shall find identity.'
(From chapter 10)
Comment- Hinduism could not have been derived from Hindi, half the Hindus do not have Hindi as the mother tongue.
Comment- If someone identifies himself with a sect, it does not mean he is not a part of a larger group. A student can belong to a class/grade, while he belongs to a school. Mkweise, when someone says "Hare Krsna", it is a given that he is a Hindu, it does not have to be mentioned separately.
-- SV
You are referring to the members of ISKCON, they are not the only ones who chant "Hare Krishna"; many Hindus do so when they pray. And ISKCON teaches the Hindu bhakti philosophy. ISKCON philosophy -- SV 04:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) what is an ancient persecution of hinduism?
All organizations have their share of scandals. ISKON certainly does. But behind all that is a very good organization. The books which they hand out are full of meaning and important truths. I highly suggest you read them.