Talk:Hinduism

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Hinduism is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Mislabeled article also may be offensive

This article deals with Hinduism from an Indian prespective. The descriptions of the religion, imagery, cultural descriptions, people, architecture, scripture etc. are all South Asian. This is distinctly different from Hinduism which is a religion also followed by Asian communities outside of the Indian subcontinent such as Nepal and South East Asian communities such as those in Bali. Hindus do not follow a caste system or wear bhindi these are Indian customs. The mandir shown is an Indian style and is distinctly different from Pagoda style temples like Pashupatinath in Nepal. The definition of Hinduism is by an Indian Court and not a real definition. Notably this article makes no mention of Nepal which is the only Hindu state and kingdom of the last remaining Hindu King who is considered to be an incarnation of Vishnu.

The gyatri mantra is to not be spoken or written in public (think printing a picture of allah). It is passed down among male members of a brahmnin family. I've put a warning on the page since I assume westerners dont care.

Just out of curiosity, don't you see a contradiction between the caste exclusionism evident in your above statement regarding the gayatri mantra and your claim that non-Indian Hindus do not follow a caste system? Graft 21:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Complete utter rubbish. The gayatri mantra is said all over the place. Have you never attended a havan?--198.3.8.1 07:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

You will find the Gayatri in hundreds of places on the Internet. The reason no one prints Allah's picture is because there isn't one. By your argument, no one should print the Gayatri in a book either?
Please do not dump whatever personal offenses you take into a featured article. Bring them to the talk page.
Get a User Id.

--ashwatha 21:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brahmin is a priest. Caste in Nepal used to be defined by skin color and was later changed by the king to be based on family occupation. Today it is defined based on racial make up i.e. Tamang, Rai or Limbu may be a separate caste. If you read the Wikipedia articles on them you will see that they are racial groups. That the system is regualry changes is enough to show it is not a part of Hinduism. Caste system is as part of Hinduism as Being balck or white is part of Christianity. Same religion, different cultures that dont usually inter-marry. Same thing.

The gayatri mantra is an oral tradition, there is no single mantra. If you want to be accurate, you should mention that. Though similar, it is not the mantra my family has passed down.

As far as my memory serves me right, there were such restrictions regarding the utterance of Gayathri mantra in the past and Ramanujar or someone else was the first person to enunciate the mantra from atop a gopura in Sri Rangam so that non-brahmins could hear that. But, definitely the restriction is close to being not there in modern times except for an occasional weak cribbing by some orthodox brahmins. -- Sundar 10:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem continues

I wrote two months ago in Talk:Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism/archive4) : Images on Hinduism, for example Image:Sadhu(www.kamat.com).jpg, are not under the GNU Free Documentation License. Image page says: "This image is not licenced under the GFDL. It is under a non-commercial-use only licence." Doesn't this prevent republishing Wikipedia? Tero 16:02, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

See also a message by Jimbo (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/12153). Should this page be added to copyright violations?

Idol / statue

statue A three-dimensional form or likeness sculpted, modeled, carved, or cast in material such as stone, clay, wood, or bronze.

idol An image used as an object of worship.

icon- a usually pictorial representation (a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians)

I think that in the usage of terminologies, common practice of usage should be respected, especially in the area where the usage originates or has maximum usage. In India, everyone uses the word idol only to mean the concrete form of deities, not statues( see meaning) and not icons( they have a Russian/ Byzantine context of use).

The argument that idol means a false God has no validity because in India we use idol to mean representation of God. I don't think it is right to choose terminologies solely on the basis of how the West views the same terms. As an illustration is the recent inclusion of so many Indian words in British dictionaries. KRS 06:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that Indian usages derive from mocking British and Muslim attacks on religious practices. People speaking English and referring to murtis as 'idols' in India are a small minority, and the majority of English-speakers in the world do not use idol in the cheery, objective sense; to worship an idol either means fanatical devotion to a celebrity or belief that a statue, stone, a picture, is God and that it in and of itself is God. This condescending and completely mistaken view of Hinduism is bolstered by use of the word idol, and most Hindus outside of India are offended to hear the word idol being used to address their practices. We're talking about the English-speaking world, and in that sense, Hindus comfortable in a majority-Hindu setting in India are not faced with nearly the same challenges of bigotry and ignorance that are inherent in the term idol. It is a completely inappopriate usage. "icon" is not limited to the eastern church alone since its usage has been adopted as an "image" or "representation" used for religious worship, seen as symbolic of the entity, principle or idea being venerated, as opposed to an idol which is not a representation but IS ITSELF the object of worship. That is completely offensive to any Hindu told that predominant English understanding of the idol in religious concepts and for this reason in English it is completely POV. Icon or, better yet, murti, is much more 1) accurate in describing Hindu pracitce/belief and 2) NPOV. --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:17, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

One note: to pretend that westerners, i.e. the majority english speakers, especially non-Hindus, do not use idol in a derogatory, wholly ignorant and subjective manner is to be living in 'unreality.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:26, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

1. The etymology of a word cannot dictate its usage. By this same token, the word Hindu itself has to be rejected because of its origins. All dictionaries define an idol as an image worshipped as God. This is not derogatory and is the maximum used word in this context.

2. The English speaking population in India is NOT a minority. And all media refer to idols only. For example, many a time there is a news item that mentions idols of Ganesha (or other Gods) were stolen from a temple, they don't say statues of Ganesha or icons of Ganesha.

Can anyone else give their views on this so that a consensus can be reached? KRS 03:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Please maintain politeness and decorum in your wording. to pretend that and living in unreality are unacceptable phrases that address the person rather than the issue. KRS 03:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

KRS, I don't know if you live in India or not, but the vast majority does not speak English: it very much is a minority tongue. As for idol and its usage, the majority of English speakers in the world use it in a derogatory sense to put down Hindu practices, unfortunately with no basis whatsoever. This is not about ancient etymologies but current usage. If you know Hindustani, then you'll know that the equivalent of idol is not murti but the Urdu boot and no Hindu would apply this term to his or her murti. This is about people in the West deriding 'Idol-worship' and not understanding that Hindus do not worship the statues themselves but venerate them as representations of higher principles.

The English media in India does not represent the world english speaking population, and you failed to address the issue that they use the words in a country where they were taught English by christian rulers who called them idolatrous in the worst sense of the word. But of course, Hindus don't believe such nonsense and so used the term without problems. But it is not something that can honestly be said to convey the proper meaning, and its usage both in the past and the present is wrong.

The full dictionary meaning is -

An image used as an object of worship.

A false god.
One that is adored, often blindly or excessively.

Something visible but without substance.

As for Hindu, it is a term that has naturally been accepted into scholastics both East and West without fear of offense. Hindus both in the west and east largely have accepted the term, whereas many Hindus abroad of India dislike the term idol as used by non-Hindus; a tiny population of English speakers in media in India does not bear on the larger understanding. It is utterly inappropriate and offensive, especially in the West, as opposed to the sheltered Hindu majority land of India. By the way, you are obviously very conservative, so I am sorry to have offended you, but I stick by my assertion that the you will find no respectable journalist or scholar in the West using the term idol to describe Hindus. Any book by an eminent non-Indian (which means the vast preponderance of English-speakers) will not use the word. It smacks of Western bigotry and religious intolerance. Find me a respectable American newspaper that uses the term 'idol' neutrally. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:51, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

What Christian, in India or abroad, would accept a crucifix being called an idol? No one. But they are no different in any real sense from similar images or statues in India in Hinduism. The former are called icons, sacred images, the latter 'idols'. This is propagated by much Indian media. But there are plenty of objectors, and as I said above, any respectable writer in English media or academia will not use the term for its horrible connotations and denotations.--LordSuryaofShropshire 05:08, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

KRS, I have lived in India for ~20 years, and I've always heard and read the term "idol" used for both the stone "statue" as well as the metal image. After reading this, I discovered to my shock today that the dictionary (M-W, Am. Heritage) meaning does seem to have negative connotations. Needless to say, the Indian media refers to 'idols' with no hint of malice, but I think I agree with LordSurya that outside India, it will be misunderstood. As such, it may be a good idea to look for an alternative word/description. Just my two paise. Ambarish Talk 07:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I am also surpised that such a deep negative connotation exists. However, I still think that the first meaning of the word is the one in maximum use and hence 'idol' is good enough. Also, my print dictionary doesn't mention false God at all, maybe only a few online dictionaries use this meaning. So maybe we should try to agree on what dictionaries to refer. Maybe you are aware, in Tamil Nadu we use the term vigraham(is it Sanskrit), do you know whether it is equivalent to murti? We may have to use that also to be more democratic. Maybe LordSuryaofShropshire will know. The balance anyway seems to be tilting against the use of idol:-(KRS 11:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I still think that the first meaning of the word is the one in maximum use. It doesn't seem so; perhaps in India, but not in the whole world put together. Which print dictionary do you use? The online ones I mentioned are identical to their print counterparts - Webster's and Am. Heritage. I just referred to the OED, and I quote:

An image or similitude of a deity or divinity, used as an object of worship: applied to those worshipped by pagans, whence, in scriptural language, = false god, a fictitious divinity
Applied polemically to images or figures of divine beings and saints, and, more generally, to any material object of worship in a Christian church.
Any thing or person that is the object of excessive or supreme devotion, or that usurps the place of God in human affection.
A person so adored.

Yes murti is indeed the Hindi (originally Sanskrit, also used in other Indian languages) term corresponding to vigraham (Tamil, also orig. Skt.). I think using murti is fine, because it's after all a Tamil word as well, albeit used less often. Ambarish | Talk 04:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, check out the first paragraph of the idolatry article. - Nat Kraus e 08:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Though both Hindus and Christians pray to statues as representatives of something else, when Christians worship the statue of Virgin Mary it is an expression of piety, when Hindus worship a statue of Krishna they are called idolaters and stone worshippers. It is just another example of Christian double standards, and it is unfortunate that we have to spend time discussing this.--SV 02:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe the negative connotation of 'idol' originates in (and is limited to) the Judao-Christian culture. There is a well-known story in the Old Testament about how Moses came down from the mountain after communing with God and found his followers worshipping a golden calf. (I won't go into the details of the story.) This negative connotation is a classic example of cultural baggage. Don't know if there's an article on that but there should be. --Smithfarm 16:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been argued in another article, not directly about Hinduism,that there was a consensus here that the word 'icon' should be used. I don't see consensus here. Further, my own opinion is that the word in use should be idol, as generally used in India. It is also the word most commonly used outside India also when describing Hindu objects of worship. The wider English speaking world that see it in a negative light, would continue to see it in a negative light whatever the word that is used. Imc 21:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for help on interfaith dialogue

I need help from Hindus in an attempt to speak of a common ground among believers. Are there any Hindus here who could either help me or direct me to a group where I might find knowledgeable and mature Hindus willing to help me for a while explore the feasibility of a universalist Wiki type project on core universal truths such as possibly eternity, sacrificial love, and soul? Tom - Talk 06:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"caste is illegal"

Here is a sentence in this article:

"caste plays a significant role in Hindu society, although it is now losing favor and is illegal in India."

This doesn't make sense - discrimination based on a person's caste is certainly illegal; but what does it mean to say that caste itself is illegal? --ashwatha 17:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. This article 1 (http://wcar.alrc.net/mainfile.php/For+the+affirmative/15/) says that 'The Constitution has made caste illegal and abolished it in 1950'. However, I could not find any material that could help me confirm that fact. I have even searched the website of the Constitution of India. I've mailed a query to the Legislative Department. Let's see if we can get it cleared.Jam2k 21:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is not caste that is outlawed, but certain types of caste based discrimination. Relevant information can be found at this url; http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india/India994-15.htm#P2394_516084

Imc 21:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

exactly; my point is that the sentence "caste is illegal" doesn't make sense at all. What does it mean? That you can't claim yourself to be a member of a certain caste? Of course you can. There are so many organizations catering to particular castes. What is illegal is discriminating against a person based on his/her caste (excluding affirmative action measures introduced to help historically underpriveleged castes). --ashwatha

Though pretty late in the thread, I can definitively say that caste by itself is not illegal in India. In fact, the Tehsildars issue certificates (I hold one.) for one's caste so that they can avail some benefits (like reservation in educational institutions) if they belong to a backward or scheduled community. -- Sundar 10:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look

There is a debate which is causing some trouble on the God article. Please have a look @ Talk:God#Brahman and see if you can add your wisdom to our debate. Cheers, Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 16:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Karma and Sin

The aspect of Karma in Hinduism is not written well and needs to be updated. If anyone who has a substantial knowledge of karma and can write well, please revise the Karma article from a Hindu point of view. Also if someone can write on the Hindu aspect of sin, that would be great. Raj2004 14:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Well, I consulted references and wrote the article. Raj2004 18:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Population Mistake

In CIA world fact book [1] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#People) hindus make 13.28% of world population which results in 850 million people. And even more intrestingly the Page (on hinduism on wikipedia) says 96% of hindus live in India now if I take statistics from Page of India Population of india is 1065 Million Hindus make 80.5 Percent (According to that Page) which result in 857 million. If they are 96% of the population Even this wont make 1.05 billion figure! At best it is below 890 million. Even by using Indias population and 96% argument Thanks with regards Zain 09:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Read closely; 96% of all Hindus in the world live in India - that does not mean that 96% of India's population are Hindu. Clear? All that is telling you is that the number of Hindus in India make up 96% of the Hindu population in the world. I don't know why you want that to come out as 1.05 billion (!).

tattvam asi

I would like to see an article created on tattvam asi (or tat tvam asi), but I'm not sure if I feel comfortable writing it. Would anyone here be willing? I'd be willing to help, of course. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 13:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Buddhist Influences

I am a senior in High School and i have written my senior research paper about Buddhist influences on the Hindu faith. There was no current information on the topic that i could find so i posted my entire paper. If there are any questions on the information that is posted, the references are as follows:

Edmonds, I. G. Hinduism. New York: Franklin Watts, 1979.

“How the World Worships: For Billions of People, the World’s Great Religions Offer Hope, Spiritual Guidance, and Meaning to Life.” Scholastic Update. Dec. 6, 1996: v 129 n7 p. 8(6). Student Edition. The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 2 Dec. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.

Jacobson, Doranne. “Hinduism and Buddhism: A Shared Heritage.” Calliope. Jan. 2000: v 10 i5 p. 26. Student Edition. Gale Group. Newark High School, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.

“Major Non-Christian World Religions.” World Almanac and Book of Facts. Annual 2002: p. 943. Student Edition. The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 2 Dec. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.

Perry, Marvin, et al. History of the World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1995.

Rao, P. Venugopala. “Science and Dharma.” World and I. Ap. 2001: v 16 i4 p. 150. Student Edition. Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.

Renou, Louis, ed. Hinduism. New York: George Braziller, 1962.

Hi Morgan, for the moment, I have moved your additions to the talk page. This is not meant to rever your changes - however,

* the changes will need to be wikified and formatted with different sections and external references (you have already provided references above)

* this article is already too long. The wiki standard for maximum size is 32 KB, but this article is already 47 KB!

I would suggest having your additions in a separate article, say something likt "Buddhist Influences in Hinduism", and linking to it from this article. --ashwatha 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Morgan's addition------------

BUDDHIST INFLUENCES IN HINDUISM

The Aryans arrived in the Indus Valley around 1500 B.C. They came to India in search of land and animals and stumbled upon the Indus Valley and its people. Although they were warlike nomads who brought no physical mark on the Indus Valley such as art or architecture, they did bring with them their Vedic religion, which mixed with the philosophies and culture of the natives. Eventually the Hindu faith was no longer fulfilling the needs of the lower astes of Indian people and a new religion was formed from Hinduism known as Buddhism. Buddhism eventually disappeared in India as a separate faith, but not entirely. It left Hinduism with a few Buddhist principles. Therefore, Hinduism as it is practiced today, is the product of ancient Aryan beliefs, Indian customs, and Buddhist influences. Unlike most religions, Hinduism has no single founder. Vedism, the Aryan religion, was considered the earliest form of Hinduism, but as time progressed the Upanishads were written, and a more modern Vedic religion aroused, known as Hinduism. This form of Hinduism was founded around 500 B.C. Although some of the Vedic “framework” was lost, the Vedas were still important because they were some of the few sacred texts consulted. The Vedas contain magical prayers, cosmic speculation, and possible myths of the origin of the universe. They also contain teachings and commentaries. A large part of the Vedic religion that was passed down to the Hindu religion is the sacrificing of food. They sacrificed plants and sometimes animals. The Vedic religion was also the first of all to develop mythology. There were three major gods: Indra, the protector, Agni, the god of fire, and Soma, the god of plants and liquor. Hindus also worshiped natural spirits of wind, water, rain, and sky, as well as powerful gods such as the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer. The Vedas ideas of form combined with the culture of the natives and brought structure to Hinduism. The Indus Valley peoples and the Aryans developed a caste system. The caste system is Hinduism’s way to distinguish society into stages of existence as a Hindu. The castes included brahmin or priests as the highest order, then warrior nobles known as the kshatriya, then there were the vaisya or the common people, and lastly there were the sudra who were also known as the laboring class. The Hindu caste system was rigid and people of one caste could not move to another caste, marry a person from another caste, or even associate with a person of a different caste outside of daily tasks or else they would risk “spiritual pollution”. After Hinduism had formed, it became a way of life for the people of the Indus Valley. It not only guided them through daily life via their dharma, but it also led them through spiritual matters. The Ancient Hindu faith consists of several characteristics, one of which is the concept of a cycle of life, or reincarnation, controlled by karma. A person’s karma, caste, and dharma are closely related. A person’s caste was determined by the amount of net good karma a person had. Karma is simply the total tally of good and bad deeds over many lifetimes, which are recorded in a “cosmic account book”. It determines the number of life cycles a person has and what they are reincarnated as. The greater their good karma, the higher in the caste system they were. If a person had committed terrible crimes, even as a priest, the highest caste, they could potentially come back as something as low as a worm. This cycle of rebirths is also compared to a wheel known as “samsara,” or “the wheel of life”. Each person’s soul is part of a Universal Spirit known as Brahman. Every Hindu’s “duty and desire” is to return to Brahman, to attain eternal bliss, by cleansing their soul of all impurities. A person can only escape the cycle of rebirths by gaining good karma. This is not simply doing good deeds, but also having pure thoughts and having complete devotion. Once a person’s soul, or atman, is completely pure, it can be sent to Brahman and Brahman will remain pure. Each caste contains a different dharma. A dharma is like a spiritual tradition, duty, and custom. It is important in obtaining good karma. It teaches that tradition overrides all and should always be done that certain way. A person’s dharma should not be questioned, only accepted. Dharma is considered the “’maintenance’ in the right path,” and a “moral obligation,” to a Hindu as stated in Hinduism. Another characteristic of ancient Hinduism is that worship of the gods became the central focus of Hindu practices. Gods known as Shiva (Siva), Vishnu (Visnu), and Brahma would be presented with flowers and scents. They even bathed, dressed, fed, adorned, and worshiped the gods through various measures such as fire and song. Brahmin performed complex rituals during these ceremonies. A Hindu prince by the name of Siddhartha Gautama, who later became known as “the Buddha,” was not satisfied with his religion. He sat under a fig tree for 49 days and gained enlightenment through intense meditation. Gautama discovered the four noble truths while in his meditative state. The truths are that every living thing suffers, suffering is attributed to desire, suffering stops when there is no more wanting, and living a proper life will bring a person to the state of Nirvana, which is a state of bliss and tranquility. The only way to escape the never-ending cycle of rebirths is to reach a state of Nirvana, or “not wanting”. The complex rituals and unending cycle of rebirths tired the Hindus and as the Buddha preached his word in India, the Hindus began to follow, especially those of lower castes. This religion appealed to those of lower castes because the state of Nirvana could be achieved within one lifetime. Since Buddhism was an individual religion, extreme meditation was needed to achieve “self-understanding”. “Buddhism emphasizes equality, compassion, and personal spiritual achievement." Some of the Buddha’s teachings are similar if not the same as Hindu beliefs. Both religions contained aspects in common, but they also were at variance with their concepts of heaven and hell, reincarnation, the caste system, and animal sacrifice, which made them different religions in their own. Buddhist’s thoughts on heaven and hell are that Buddhists believed that heaven was reaching the state of Nirvana and everything before Nirvana, life on Earth, is hell because there is constant suffering. Ancient Hindus believe only in the good and bad lives as directed by karma. There is no heaven or hell (Edmonds 15). Buddhists believe in both heaven and hell whereas ancient Hindus believe in neither. Although both Hindus and Buddhists believed in reincarnation, their ideas of it vary slightly. The Buddha’s believe that reincarnation is not for becoming pure. Rather, they thought that it was to gain self-understanding. The Hindus thought reincarnation was due to bad karma, and it was necessary for freeing one’s self from evils to become one with Brahman again. Buddhism rejected the caste system. The caste system, set up by the Hindu faith, segregated the people into levels of importance on the Hindu ladder to Brahman. This greatly conflicted with Buddhist views of equality, compassion, and personal spiritual achievement. Buddhist’s belief in equality of all beings led them away from animal sacrifices. Some Buddhists will not eat meat due to their strong beliefs of the holiness of animals. The ancient Hindus however, sacrificed animals and presented them to the gods as gifts. Eventually Buddhism faded as a separate religion in India. It did not, however, vanish completely from India; it left considerable marks on the ancient Hindu faith. Hinduism’s views of reincarnation, the caste system, heaven and hell, and even animal sacrifice were changed. Hinduism’s views of reincarnation absorbed the shorter-term characteristics of Buddhism while keeping its characteristics of Brahman being the universal pure spirit. Ancient Hinduism required complex rituals be performed with the help of a Brahmin, but by the influences of Buddhism, a pure soul has to be attained through yoga instead of the complex rituals aided by Brahmin, otherwise, reincarnation is inevitable. Many people do not agree with the caste system, however, it is still in effect in India today. People born into a particular caste will remain in that caste throughout that lifetime they will serve. Discrimination against a person who isn’t of the same caste is now outlawed by the Indian Constitution, but was very common before this as certain castes had to ring bells before entering certain places because it was impure to see people who were in a lower caste. Today’s Hinduism has engrossed some of the Buddhist thoughts of heaven and hell also. Ancient Hinduism did not contain hell. It only contained Brahman, which is a heaven-like state of pureness. Hinduism today contains both heaven and hell, like Buddhism does, the only difference is that Yama, the judge of the dead, can send a soul to either for a temporary time. Ancient Hindus sacrificed animals to the gods as gifts for them. Now many Hindus are vegetarians and believe that animals have souls. They believe some gods are in the forms of animals. Hindus now consider cows one of the most sacred animals for their milk and giving of life. It is a serious spiritual crime to kill a cow and even riots occur if someone were to kill one, even in an accident. The Aryan’s Vedic faith and the Indus Valley people’s customs blended and formed the religion of ancient Hinduism. From this religion came Buddhism, which eventually disappeared as a separate faith in India, but changed Hinduism into what is practiced today. “Hinduism gradually absorbed a number of important Buddhist teachings and attitudes”. Currently practiced Hinduism formed from the ancient Aryan faith of Vedism, customs of the Indus Valley natives, and the completely separate faith of Buddhism.

Morgan, there was mention of Hell long before Buddhism. It was mentioned in the Puranas as Naraka and Lord Yama is the judge. I would say Buddhist doctrines influenced Advaita. Brahman can be also be described as Saguna Brahman or God with form, such as Siva, or Vishnu. Raj2004 01:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Debate on Talk:Pantheism

Hello, we are having a polite debate / discussion on Talk:Pantheism about different sects of Hinduism (particularly Smartism and Arya Samaj) and their relationships with pantheism / Panentheism. The discussion is very esoteric and weighty, but both I and my partner are polite and thoughtful, and I think some additional input might be helpful. Thank you for your time, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 17:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this article

sadly, this article is very, very, far from being encyclopedic or even factual. It's a sermon. An eulogy. I made a few edits, but they do very little. The Vedas don't condone discrimination? Varna has nothing to do with skin color? I believe that many Hindus believe so (and this may of course be asserted), but that's just because most Hindus have never actually read the vedas, or if they have, they didn't bother to translate. The Rigveda, for example (9.73.5) talks about the blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right that many Hindus believe that varna refers to skin colour. One of the meanings of Varna is colour in sanskrit. But the Hindu religious teachers and scholars do not believe that the word has been used in that sense. The varnas in vedic times were not hereditary as is seen in many stories. Many of them who believe taht varna is colour only seem to have political reasons for it, and they are not practicing Hindus (for example Dravidian political parties)

Coming to your second point that most Hindus have not read the Vedas, they have neither read the Constitution of India for that matter !!

Translations of Upanishadic part has been done extensively and are published also. But Bhagavad Geeta suffices to common Hindu. The karma kanda, which involves rituals is practially extinct (Tantric part replacing it) and hence its translations may be accessible to only Scholars. Lastly Vedas themselves say that the spiritual realisation is something which one has to attain and not just study. Hence they term even the reading of Vedas secondary when it comes to actual practice of it (apara vidya and para vidya)

And i dont know about the vedic sentence you are referring to and in what context that is being said. The interpretation of the 3 - acharyas is what which will be acceptable to scholars i believe.

The puranic Hinduism which is generally in practice has Krishna who is dark coloured as their hero, and who cares what Indra likes may be the question common devout Hindu may ask ;)

Ramashray 12:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with attributing the belief that varna has nothing to do with skin color/ethnicity to specific schools or thinkers. I am only objecting to assertive statements "varna has in fact nothing to do with skin color". The problem is generally the ahistoricity of Hindu culture, i.e. people refuse to examine the history and emergence of their religion and are quick to say it's "eternal" etc. The "origins" section does in fact not talk about origins at all. It would have to briefly gesture at Aryan Invasion theory vs./combined with Indus Valley Civilization. Also, Soma should be mentioned, and the decline of the vedic pantheon (Indra is not mentioned in this article!). dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many Hindus in India believe that in the name of examining history, their religion has been derided. Arun Shourie's book "The eminent Historians" is full of such facts and their implications.

In the Mahabharata, (which is considered as Iti-ha-aasa by hindus) it is mentioned that "Yeshah Dharmaha Sanatana". Hence many hindus believe that their religion is eternal. Nevertheless hindu religion's history is something which is not objected to in scholarly circles. But when you get to public and want to teach young kids about "Soma", alleged beef eating etc. people get irritated. Moreover remember that these topics have been used by politicians etc. to create unrest in the society.

I personally think that the topics you are mentioning about Soma, decline of importance of Indra etc. are must for an encyclopedic main article on Hinduism. Of course there can be sub-articles on the same !!

May i refer a book "The spiritual Heritage of India" by Swami Prabhavananda, which is quite exhaustive and encyclopedic on all these concepts !

Ramashray 14:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

definitely. I'm just saying the "Origins,..." section does not treat any origins at all, and should link to some places. Also, we definitely need an article on the effects you mention (widespread suspicion that historical discussion equals ridicule). Never fear, I'm not trying to make this into an article on Vedic religion. The Rigveda is treated on Rigveda and "Aryan invasion" on Aryan invasion. People just need to find their way from here to there. dab (ᛏ) 14:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dbachmann, Regarding the Rig Veda quote: The Rig Veda line you have mentionned has also been interpreted as meaning the sun which at dawn takes the night (black cover of the earth) away from the earth. "Tvac" also means surface of the earth, as is also written in the old Sanskrit dictionary by Monier-Williams: surface ( of the earth ) , i , 145 , 5 ; x , 68 , 4 AV. vi , 21 , 1 TBr. i , 5 , 5 , 4 ([2] (http://homepages.comnet.co.nz/~r-mahoney/mw_dict/t.html.gz), under "tvac"). So this could simply refer to the sun at dawn, that takes the night away. Also, light and dark have been used as symbols by all religions in the world. And also, for example, the Irish called the vikings "dark" after they were invaded by them. Dark and light are often used symbolical.

Also, the Rig Veda translations in English are old and not perfect, and because of the old age of the Rig Veda, even those who are able to read the text in Sanskrit are not able to interpret everything correctly. Unfortunately, many false claims and assumptions have been made of all kind, by all kind of people.

For a very good overview of different interpretations that have been made on the Rig Veda, please see Misinterpretations of Rigvedic history (http://voi.org/books/rig/ch8.htm), a chapter from a book by Talageri.

Rig Veda has also this line about Indra: “Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame.” (Rg-Veda 2:13:12)

About Indra, Indra was a popular god worshipped in south india, and Indra is an important god in the tamil epic Silappadikaram and generally in South Indian literature (Tholkapiam, Purananuru, Paripadal Aingurunuru and Pattupaddu, (all of the Sangam period), also Seran Senguttuvan, and Illango Adikal) Because Shiva and Indra are similar, some people think that Indra and Shiva are basically the same god.

In the older part of the Rig Veda, there is no allusion to caste, but there is one that I know of in the younger part of the Rig Veda (RV 10:90:12), where the four castes are compared to the body of a man. In the Rig Veda, the word Varna is not used to describe caste, it means "lustre" in the Rig Veda.

Also, it is a religious text, and unfortunately no human religion has been entirely free from discrimination. Discrimination and the institution of caste has existed in all religions, the European system of aristocracy, priesthood, and king as the upper castes and farmers and merchants as the lower castes has also existed in Europe. And articles like Judaism and Islam also dont't focus on discrimination, which also exists in their religions. Also, untouchability is not mentionned in the Vedic texts.

I would like to make more comments, but unfortunately I don't have time at the moment. I highly respect most of your contributions, but unfortunately I think your comment from above is not fair and balanced. --Machaon 18:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have added an edited section here from the article. It is somebody's person opinion with no sources cited. It is very offensive, and is more suitable for discussion:

Monotheism and Hinduism: Most Westerners and the vast majority of Christians see Hinduism as a pantheistic or polytheistic religion. Hinduism is definitely a monotheistic religion and is represented in the concrete symbols of the Hindu Trinity. The many aspects of God are given a variety of names in Hinduism. Each 'God' will roughly correspond to how Christians, Muslims, and Jews all conceive of the same God but in different ways. These 'Gods' are invoked as intercessors on behalf of the faithful in much the same way that Christians, for instance, will pray for intercession from Mother Mary, Jesus, and others called Patron Saints of certain causes. St. Anthony is the Patron Saint of Lost Objects, so his name is often invoked during efforts to locate some object. One rather simple way to understand the usage of the 101 names of God in Hinduism is to use a human being as an example of a single entity that has many facets. A grown woman, for instance, has a name, e.g.Mary, but she is also called mother, sister, wife, daughter, cousin, aunt, grandmother, co-worker, neighbor, colleague, friend, laborer, driver, social director, enforcer, etc. Each of these terms describes but one aspect of the whole entity we call Mary. These aspects are distinct but not separate so they do not represent unique entities. They are parts of a larger whole. In this way, God is called by many names in Hinduism, but those names are merely descriptive of the many aspects of the single entity that many call God. A child may not even know his/her mother's 'name'. The neighbor or colleague may know her only as Mrs. Someone. No single person can know or describe the unique entity that is Mary. This parallel is appropriate for a number of reasons. In all monotheistic religions, God is seen as all powerful and unknowable. We cannot know his entirety. We cannot even name him effectively. Yahweh, Allah, God, Higher Power - these are all attempts to identify that which we see as the Supreme Being, the uknowable, ineffible I AM. To a small child, his/her mother is only a source of nourishment and comfort. As the child grows and learns more, he/she is able to identify more facets of 'mother' but he/she will never know all the facets as they are unknowable. In this regard, God is both known and unknowable. God is known by the attributes with which we label him - in the West we call God Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and yet we are unable to define God in any more specific terms other than our feeble attempts at labeling the knowable aspects of him. So, to the common Hindu, the facets of God that are embraced are seen as the aspect(s) of the whole that can be understood or identified. There is no attempt to go farther than that. To better-educated Hindus, the facets are seen more like the Christian Saints. These aspects are knowable, anthropomorphic, and less than the Whole. The Christian Saints are humans who have performed miracles, are people through whom God spreads His message. They, like all humans, are part of the Supreme Being and like all humans who seek union with God, the saints are seen as residing in Heaven with God, parts of the Whole. Further, Christ-centered religions often seek to make each member of the religion a messenger for God (evangelism) and the religion. Hindus have no concept of this and do not seek converts. Rather, Hinduism is inclusive of prophets like Jesus and many consider him to be an Avatar - an incarnated God or His manifestation as a divine messenger who walks on Earth among Men. So Hindus do not seek to separate themselves from their fellows in their search for union with God. They see their religion as a method to attain Nirvana or redemption from the cycle of birth and death(which can be loosely defined as Heaven) by embracing all worthy prophets without regard to the label that prophet may put on himself. 5/25/05

Objections

Disclaimer: I haven't read the article line-by-line. I've just glanced through the article. So, correct me if I've got some things wrong. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. Is Hinduism commonly called sanatana dharma?

I refuse to believe this. Perhaps that is a technical and more appropriate definition. But referring to that as a "common" name is not proper. I think there may be millions of "hindus" who've never heard of the name. I've been educated in a school run by Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam for 12 years and have only come across sanathana dharma as a set of values (among many others) that Hindus follow. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reading the intro again, I get the meaning of the phrase. But, this shows the level of "common awareness" that the name has! -- Sundar 11:32, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

2. Cow or a bull?

The picture claimed to be a "cow in Delhi" looks like a bull to me. I can't confirm without looking at the genitals though. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

3. POV?

The article appears to be POV. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Following are my observations on Hinduism: -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism was not an organised religion with well-defined tenets as the article seems to indicate.

This holds good atleast if you consider the vast majority of people whom you refer to as "hindus". Have you ever lived in villages of south India? Most people there did not know the existence of Vedas, Bhagvad Gita etc at all! Thanks to the mass media, they're now aware of the characters like Shiva, Vishnu etc Most people used to worship village deities like Ayyanar (in Tamil Nadu), who were referred to as Guardians of the village and the method of worship was entirely different from any of the Vedic rites. The majority wouldn't have known that a language called Sanskrit existed and there were hymns in them. They used to sacrifice fowl, goats, and even place arrack as a token of worship! Only in recent times that they have started worshipping the "hindu" gods. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism did have a caste system and still has.

There is a tendency to glorify everything of our past heritage, which need not be. Religions evolve over time and would've had some weird practices which may not be considered reasonable in the current context. There is no problem in accepting them. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vedic form of hinduism is practised in south India only by a significant minority of hindus.

But the article talks only about that form of hinduism. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've been raised as a practising Hindu and was taught a lot of hindu moral values throughout and hence I admire hinduism for many things, most importantly, it being not too organised a religion. Currently, I am an atheist, though. -- Sundar 11:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sundar makes some good points here. The central thing to realize (and our article does not do this justice) is that Hinduism, the religion, is different from Hindu culture. Hinduism as an organized religion encompassing the entire Indian subcontinent (and that is what we westerners think when we use the term) was founded by Shankaracharya. Why doesn't the article mention him?

As Sundar implies, you can belong to a culture without being religious or even being aware of your culture as a discrete entity. The entire concept of "Hinduism" as a "world religion" is only a couple centuries old, but the Hindu culture goes way, way back. --Smithfarm 16:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit transliteration, help wanted!

Sanskrit: एकम् सत् विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति

Transliteration: Ekam Sat Viprāha Bahudhā Vadanti

English: "Truth is One, though the Sages know it as Many."

— The Rig Veda (Book I, Hymn CLXIV, Verse 46)

I am not an expert in Sanskrit nor Hinduism, but I'm interested in writing systems. So I am addressing to all of you :-) Is the Devanagari text and/or Roman transliteration corect? Shouldn't विप्राः be transliterated as Viprāḥ ? Meursault2004 14:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd consider ha a legitimate transliteration for visargha; that's the way it's pronounced. But I don't know anything about formal rules for transliteration systems. But your way is probably more precise. Graft 04:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Hinduism, what is a human?

Can you please help me to identify the place in the Wikipedia where the Hindu understanding of what is man/humanity is explained? I will be watching this page. Tom Haws 18:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I asked Raj2004, one of the Hinduism editors, for a response to my proposal for Human. You can read his response on my user page.

To simplify his words (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), there seems to be three different philosophies. One (advaita, or non-dualism) is that man actually is God, which can be called by various names, usually Brahman or Shiva. Qualified non-dualism is the idea that man is a manifestation or spark of God. The third, dualism, is that man is the creation of God, either Vishnu, Brahman or Shiva. --Goethean 19:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a great beginning, Goethean. And I do hope that there are some watching who can guide us as we seek to translate these concepts into ideas that can be succinctly expressed in English. My first follow-up question would be this: Which of the following statements would all of Hinduism participate in?

Humans are an incidental physical element that clothes or houses a fundamental non-physical element.
Humans are eternal souls dwelling in physical bodies.
Humans are souls of God living temporarily in the world.

Thanks. Tom Haws 20:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

None of those - since at least advaita vedanta does not admit the existence of a creation separate from God. Since all three of your statements require a physical reality divorced from god and/or man, they don't qualify. Graft 20:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How's this?

4. Humans appear to the unenlightened to be a creation separate from God. However, in truth, they are fully divine. --Goethean 20:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does that work for dualism (Dvaita)? We can do this! Tom Haws 20:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that #3 worked for dualistic Hinduism. --Goethean 21:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, a Hindu-centric definition of human must mention reincarnation (karma) and, critically, the concept of Dharma. Hindus believe that the soul undergoes reincarnation. Souls which have entered a human form have a special Dharma, different from animals - to bust out of the wheel of death and rebirth. As my teacher, Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, is fond of saying: "there are 8.4 million life forms, only one of which is the human." And only the human has this special Dharma, or power, to "bust out" or transcend reincarnation/karma by realizing God. The difference between Advaita and Dvaita has no bearing on the definition of human - it has to do with what realizing God actually means. --Smithfarm 06:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. So in the Human article (and please don't go there to edit and talk about this at this time), what could we say that Hindus believe humans are? It sounds like the concept of soul is obvious. But we need a short statement that 1) hopefully could mesh with Christianity and Islam in terminology and maybe even partially in concept and 2) could be meaningful to an English speaking atheist. Here's another try. Tom Haws 03:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

%. Humans are souls of God (or divinity) with a potential unique among living things to realize their divinity. Tom Haws 03:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You're not going to be able to reconcile these things. Advaita vedanta is monist- it believes god and human are one single entity. Dvaita (dualist) vedanta says that god and man are separate. There is considerable disagreement between them on this point, and it treads into abstruse and difficult philosophy. Graft 05:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing, Tom! I won't edit the Human article (the thought hadn't even crossed my mind!). Let me say I like your proposed definition. Although Hinduism is a completely different culture from Western (Judao-Christian, and to a certain extent, Islamic) culture, and uses completely different concepts, I guess since this whole Wikipedia is basically Western, couching the Hindu "definition" in terms familiar to Westerners is a valid endeavor. I see nothing wrong with your definition. And I'm coming from an Advaita standpoint! (Remember, even according to Advaita we remain in duality until we actually realize.) Still if somebody objects there could be two alternate definitions, like this:

Hindu - Advaita definition: No such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is a misunderstanding of reality. Only God exists.

Hindu - Dvaita definition: Humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity. --Smithfarm 08:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the Advaita "definition" is not actually a definition. It's a negation. As I understand it, Advaita says this: once you realize, you no longer distinguish between "this" (e.g. one's own human body) and "the other" (e.g. the rest of the world); in other words, the appearance of duality ceases. That said, however, even the Advaitin says that this cannot be understood except by undergoing a profound transformation of being (realization). Moreover, presumably, realized souls would not bother to read our "definition", and certainly wouldn't be confused by it if they did. Still, there's no harm in having two definitions if somebody thinks it's necessary. --Smithfarm 08:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow! This is really great, Smithfarm. And this may be helpful. I appreciate your flexibility. I am going to see if I can use it at User:Hawstom/Chalkboard while I prepare for Human. Tom Haws 15:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Would anybody be able to provide quotes from one the great teachers of Hinduism (like Moses and Jesus in Christianity) that express these teachings in a way that would fit in this statement? The great spiritual teachers of the world's religions have defined humans in terms of divinity and soul. According to Moses, "God created man in his own image...of the dust of the ground...; and man became a living soul." According to Jesus, "the kingdom of God is within you." Tom Haws 16:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Number of followers

The article on major world religions states that Hinduism has 900 million followers worldwide, while this article states that it has 1.05 billion. I am suspecting that the sources (the one in this article has not been specified, BTW) are equally accurate, but I want to get it confirmed. If I'm correct, I suggest that we should change the wording from "1.05 billion" to "ranging from 900 million to 1.05 billion" in this article and maybe add a sidenote on the other article.--GatesPlusPlus 14:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism II article

Why is this article continued as Hinduism II? Is it a good idea to have such an article? - Nat Kraus e 06:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it wold be better to have a multi-tabbed article à la Wikipedia:Introduction. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 07:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is a very bad idea. Hinduism should be a summary, pointing to specialized article. If it grows too long, export stuff. dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having an article called "Hinduism II" is a terrible idea. If this article is too long, then some of the concepts can be descirbed in more detail in their own articles, but there is no reason to split this article into two halves. —Lowellian (talk) 03:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Individual concepts of sufficient length should be forked into independent articles. Creating Hinduism II just to shorten the article is ridiculous, and thoroughly unencyclopædic. Even if the Hinduism article becomes predominantly a catalog of links to articles for each related article it'd be better than the "Go here for a continuation of this article" idea. Not that WP is emulating other encyclopædiæ which shall remain nameless, but you'll never find any printed encyclopædia say "ok, we decided this article was too long, so we've started a new article called ArticleNameII to keep your attention." Bleh. Tomer ^TALK 04:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

"first"/"oldest"

neither is Hinduism the "first religion to spawn other religions", since "Hinduism" is a collective term, spanning many "religions". If anything, "Vedic religion", not generally referred to as "Hinduism", did spawn Hinduism. The Vedas are not the oldest "scripture" by any definition, already because they are not "scripture", as in, they were not written down until the Middle Ages. So the removal of these statements was justified. dab (ᛏ) 10:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not correct, Dab All scriptures started with an oral tradition. To say the Vedas are not scripture because they were not written down is a bad argument.

Raj2004

I'm not aware of the characteristics of a scripture. However, I'm in total agreement with Dab in that "Hinduism" is a collective term, spanning many "religions". In fact, I've been telling this time and again in this talk page that the current article equates hinduism with the Vedic religion. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 12:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

also, a "scripture" by any definition is something written. Of course scriptures start with oral tradition, but they only become "scripture" at the moment they are fixed in written form. That's not a bad argument, that's simply what "scripture" means. Of course the Vedas exist in written form today, too, but that happened much, much after the actual Vedic age. Anyway, this is terminology. The Shruti texts are, of course "sacred texts". More precisely, they are "shruti" (if we have that term, why not use it??). We do have Vedic religion, concentrating on the religion at the time of the composition of the Vedas. Hinduism is indeed a collective term, spanning many religions, so it is a bit misleading to say "Hinduism is the nth largest religion", that's a bit like saying "Abrahamism is the world's largest religion". dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Dab I may concede partially. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scripture) Vedas however, may be the oldest traditions. ( see definition of traditions in dictionary.com) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=traditions) Traditions are defined as a body of unwritten religious precepts and hence include oral traditions. Where is your evidence that the Vedas were written in the Middle Ages? They may have been written down much earlier, like 500 BC? or even earlier, such as 1500 BC? So you may not have evidence that the Vedas are not the oldest scripture. What would be a more neutral point of view is to say, that the Vedas are considered by many to be the world's oldest scripture and is accepted as revealed text by all Hindus. Or you can put in this: Nevertheless, the Vedas are considered to be the oldest religious traditions by many.

Hinduism may be a collection of basically two religions, Shaivism and Vaishnavism. Shaktism is really a sub-category of Shaivism and Smartism is a relatively later development. Raj2004 01:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Boo... Sam Spade 23:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We should fight for better causes. Subramanian ^talk 07:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

out of shape; what about a new effort?

I had not come here for some months, and this article is today in a, let me say, less fit shape. I was really proud when it became a FA, but it has since endured many additions and the text does not flow properly anymore. There is also the problem of redundancy and unecessary length. We should make an effort to push it to a new "featured" version. I suppose all the great people who contributed to that before are here to help, along with some new people. What do you think? Subramanian ^talk 07:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Sam Spade 08:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know if it is just me or if you also think this article needs work as it stands today. Sam? Subramanian ^talk 17:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'm on the verge of slapping a dispute header on it. It strikes me as anti-Hindu. I suggest you use the history to compare the featured article version w the present one, with an eye for improvements (and the lack thereof ;) Sam Spade 22:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Pracharak

We need a Pracharak article. Sam Spade 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

number problem with Geographic Distribution

The 1st paragraph states there are 3 million followers of "some form of Hinduism" in US.

The section describing geographic distribution states there are 1.5 million Hindus in the us.

Are we using different definitions of Hindu here?

images

Missing image
Jain-swastika.jpg
Image:Jain-swastika.jpg

are people serious about featuring two swastikas in the intro, the first of them a blown up thumbnail? I mean, I don't care, it just doesn't seem very appealing design-wise. dab (ᛏ) 07:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya, I agree with you Dab. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 07:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

can you edit, then? I'm already wading through this stuff on Swastika. dab (ᛏ) 08:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Sundar 08:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The OM is much, much more representative than the swastika for Hinduism. Considering also that the swastika was badly used in the past by the nazis and that is is not easily recognizable as a hindu symbol, shouldn´t it be further down on the article, rather than at the top? Subramanian ^talk 10:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it was added by an anonymous Jain on a mission to rehabilitate the swastika, and educate the Westerners. dab (ᛏ) 10:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sure. not a bad ideal, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a statement forum. Jainism would be the proper place for this.

please pay attention

when making edits, so that you are not burying recent vandalism. An anon had removed most of the "Vedic" and "Caste" sections. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya noted. This tells us that we need to check the complete recent history while editing articles that we were'nt following much. Otherwise one might inadvertently legitimise vandalism. -- Sundar 10:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

right. It wasn't you, btw, it was a minor edit by Raj ([3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=14573900&oldid=14554591)). It's nobody's fault, it's just that bad edits thus legitimized often go unnoticed for quite some time, and they pile up, so that it's often necessary to revert to a weeks old version, and re-insert the good edits manually. There's not much to be done, such is the fate of Wikipedia articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will state the obvious:

This article really needs a throughout rewrite and a cleanup. I lack the time to do this, but the "introduction" alone is five times longes than it should be and is very congested. Far away from brilliant prose. Subramanian ^talk 11:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) For Lord Siva´s sake, please check Buddhism. That standard is what we should strive for.

I agree, although it has made progress. It has some good content, what it needs now is organization, layout and stylistics checks. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True. Cound´t we use the Featured Version as a frame, and then incorporate any relevant information from its present form? Subramanian ^talk 12:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swastika

Image:Jain-swastika.jpg are people serious about featuring two swastikas in the intro, the first of them a blown up thumbnail? I mean, I don't care, it just doesn't seem very appealing design-wise.

dbachmann is a utterly offensive racist German who is NOT a hindu and knows nothing about Hindu culture. The swastika is the only non-syllabic holy Hindu symbol. This is as vile as a non-chrisitan Hindu complaining about the cross and then deleting images of the cross from Christian wiki pages. (imagine the hubris of a non-christian calling images of the "cross" as vandalism; then consider that dbachmann is doing exactly the same for the swastika).

Why is this German man dbachmann even concerned about Hinduism ?

He's got a hidden and very vile agenda. Deeply deeply offensive....

Please do not remove the swastika from this page. The religious, cultural, historic and contemporary significance for a billion indians is far FAR greater than what neo-nazi germans like wiki user dbachmann and others would have you believe. Be proud of your traditions.

In particular, vile racist dbachmann reflexively twitches when he sees the swastika. His native country of Germany is now trying to ban the symbol entirely in all Europe. That means no Jain or Hindu temples or scriptures or functions in Europe. This hysteria is fueled by people like dbachmann. Please do not listen to him.

Also remember that far-right organizations use the Christian cross and it was also used by the crusaders to slaughter millions of Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere. No one is trying to ban the cross because of that reason. Similarly because some racist organizations have used the swastika does not mean it's importance in both historical and contemporary India should be any means be trivialized.

dbachmann, you can go fark off. We don't like racists nor do we like your half-truths and unspoken slurs.

Please do not use language like this. We are an international enclyclopedia and our NPOV must encompass every culture's views. We also must respect each other as editors. Please stay cool. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be more polite in the future. However, the main point does stand. Also keep in mind that if I, as a non-Christian, were to go the Christian section of the wiki and complain that there were images of crosses on that page (because I personally found them offensive, no matter what 1.6 billion christians thought), then I would be roundly condemned by everyone for being a troll or insane. But that is exactly what dbachmann (a non-hindu) did to the Hinduism page by complaining both about the number and size of the swastika image. (he's also promoting a skewed view on some other related pages like swastika).All rational people will probably agree that this is not appropriate behavior. Willmcw: If you don't agree with this characterization, then please let me know.

Hey. Dab never asked for removal of all swastikas from this article, he simply asked whether we should have 2 swastikas one below the other. Also, he didn't term it as offensive, he simply said that having 2 of them doesn't look design-wise appealing. Any non-Christian can do a similar thing with Christianity. Understand that Dab is a scholar in Sanskrit more than you and me. Also, he appears to have studied Hinduism formally. There is no point in such wild accusations. Do you know how much he has contributed in bringing this article and Sanskrit to featured article standard? We don't differentiate people based on their faiths. As long as some one edits conforming to wikipedia policies of NPOV and follows encyclopedic standards, we don't care. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 05:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this is my bias: I´m a Hindu. But consider this:

the swastika was not removed. It was put at the (surprise) Swastika section.
try the most proeminent hindu sites and publications and the Om appears much, much more frequently than our holy swastika (yes, it is holy for me)
the opposite occurs in jain literature, but this is the Hinduism article.
the discrimination of teh much-maligned swastika is a very good cause, but this is an encyclopedia , not a place for grandstanding even if for a good cause.
- Therefore, I personally support that the Om symbol stays alone at the beginning (as it is by far the most proeminent symbol of Hinduism) and the swastika should receive a good, wide, insightful treatment at the Symbols section, or even one of its own.

But please note that:

The swastika is not the only silent symbol of Hinduism. The tilak, the shatkona and the banyan tree also stand as silent symbols, so the text under the swastika image is not accurate.
Even if consensus is to keep the swastika both at the top and below, a better image must be uploaded.

Finally, one of the pillars of Hinduism is tolerance. Calm down when accusing anyone else. You were not firm: you were preaching. Subramanian ^talk 13:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent swastika resource : http://www.gurudeva.org/resources/books/lg/lg_ch-07.html

thanks Subramanian, I see this article is in competent hands, no need for me to become involved. As I've said, I don't care if the swastika is featured alongside the Om, but if it is, upload a better resolution image (also, does it need to be black?). You may also want to look at Swastika where anon seems intent on confusing or equating Jainism and Hinduism. dab (ᛏ) 12:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dbachmann is a utterly offensive racist German who is NOT a hindu and knows nothing about Hindu culture.

I am

not German
not racist
not Hindu, spot on
have studied Sanskrit for six years
do know enough about Hindu culture to know when I'm bullshitted.
utterly offensive in general only to pov-pushing crackpots and foaming chauvinists (not exactly the Jaini ideal, is it? ahimsa to you too.)

both tone and factual accuracy of this contribution of our valued Jain anonymus is representative of his edits to article space, and I do not expect him to contribute anything useful in the future. Until he wisens up and starts behaving civilly, I'll just blindly revert him, provided I can be bothered. dab (ᛏ) 12:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The excitable contributor of the diatribe in the above section has been attempting to make a number of edits to the swastika article. These make a number of specific claims. One is that the left-facing form of the swastika is universally recognised in India as "evil" (his word) and that the form with the dots in the spaces is a "decorated" version, but that "formal" religious ceremonies only ever use the "undecorated" version. We would be grateful for any informed Indian contributors to comment on the validity or otherwise of these assertions. I am certainly not aware of the latter, and have only seen scanty support for the former view. Any comments, here or on the Swastika talk page would be welome. Thanks. Paul B 10:06 3 June 2005 (UTC)

vandalism?!

Who changed the hinduism article?! The links and templates are all gone and information is missing!

there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism ---Dangerous-Boy

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Hinduism"

Categories: Wikipedia featured articles