Talk:Criticism of Hinduism

Truth

Hinduism is the only religion in the world that intrinsically still preaches and promotes Racism aka Casteism. I understand that Hindu parents covertly train their children to coerce other caste children. --m 07:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Be a little courageous if you are honest and not cheating your own mind. Can you complete the sentence with information on what racism hindu parents teach and what kind of coercion they teach their kids? Also, racism of what kind? If you are talking about casteism then you should say some like Brahmins hate Vasihya's, Vaishya's hate Brahmins, shudra hate everybody something like that. While you won't be able to prove it, but you can at least make your statement a bit more meaningful/understandable. -skant

As a child born in a Hindu family, I can say that the claims made by 'm' are wrong. As a matter of fact, most children learn about the caste system through their school books. 203.200.95.130 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to second the above commenter. I was born in a Hindu family, and didn't learn about the caste system until I studied India in 9th grade. It's only after that I asked my parents what caste we were, and they said it really didn't matter. Later I found out we were historically Brahmins, but noone cared anymore. Everyone in my family has married people and socializes with people with whom we are completely unaware of or unconcerned about their caste.

m, Please continue to spread vile hatred and vitriol with absolutely ZERO basis or knowledge. I'm the world needs more of this for sure. 70.50.202.73 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the guy above me. I ah half Brahmin (the high caste and half lingayath(one of the working castes). Most Hindus despise the caste system, which was actually devised by the rich to keep the poor poor. This was in a time, though, when the rich were the religious leaders and kings and Hindu scriptures were still being written, so the rich influenced the scriptures to include this system which mad the life for poor people harder. So, in fact, the caste system is not truly a religious system, but just a plan devised by greedy, egotistic ancient rich people to increase their level in society and to lower the level of the poor and working-class people.--71.197.182.95 (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Duty

Hello All,

I'm a devout and proud Hindu myself, but I feel it a necessary duty to discuss all the problems of Hindu society to protect the integrity of my religion.

Such an article will infact tackle propaganda and false notions about Hinduism head on.

I know that some contributions will be strongly disputed, but it is the duty of all Hindus, I firmly believe, to address the toughest issues with candour and a commitment to the truth based on factual knowledge. I feel we all owe it to Lord Vishnu to become better Hindus.

Jai Sri Rama! - Nirav Maurya.

Recently my owner ( I stay on ground floor in a rented house) arragned a house warming ceremony on successful completion of the first floor and he invited all the neightbourhood. No one attended because he was a Dalit (Schedule Caste). All the people out here who are very much concerned about their religion and the ill affects of casteism, kindly take a note of this. The truth of the matter is that whatever Hindiusm teaches (good or bad), on the ground, Hindus find ways to hate each other. All talk about caste/varna is not that glaring problem in India is nothing but misrepresentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

dC- Criticism: If Hinduism praises the "supreme personality of Godhead" as Visnu, woudldn't recognizing the teachings of the Buddha be hypocritical since he preaches the atheistic viewpoint of no-self. The Buddha teaches that the self is a construct of mental aggregates and that the highest truth is the eternal mind with no self defining personality. The highest truth in Buddhism is a type of selflessness, while the Hindus believe in a supreme personality with respect to the Godhead. These two views seem to directly dispute one another, yet the Hindu's recognize the Buddha as a manifestation of the supreme God Visnu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.253.114 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

anti-criticism of hinduism

This page is not "criticism of hinduism". This page is "anti-criticism of hinduism".

There are more text in defending hinduism than criticising it. What little criticism there is, is so vague that it is not possible to understand it. Perhaps the author thinks that everyone is familiar to the issues of "criticism of hinduism" but I'm not and this article does not help me at all.

Example:

• Hinduism is criticise for being polytheistic

What so wrong about polytheistic? Why the assumption that polytheistic is bad? The article is lacking in details about the "negative Cognition" of polytheistic.

• Many contemporary Hindus are criticized for their intensive ritual ceremonies and seeking boons for sometimes material advancement.

Is the criticism about the rituals? The superstitions? Or the desire for material well being? The article does not make clear. Also it does give us the grounds on which any of the three possible arguements stands on.

• Social oppression

This should be more flesh out. The article spend more energy on defending the views of the contemporary views of Hindus than on the actual Social oppression itself. An article on criticism should explain more on the details of the criticism.

• Hindu fundamentalism

There is very little in the article about fundamentalism.

• Conversions from Hinduism

Why is this a criticism of Hinduism?

• Hindu renaissance

Why is this a criticism of Hinduism?

Come on! Show some professionalism in your article. user:Ohanian 29 Nov

This article was created barely a month ago. For sure, it needs lot of work and polish. By the way, I am responsible for the first 2 points you raised. The criticism was written by someone else and I just changed to say clarify that it is incorrect because it is not polytheistic and that the criticism is not valid since it's viewed from the framework of Abrahamic religions. I didn't write to suit the article's title but just to correct the errors. --Pranathi 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Pranathi

Dear Pranathi,

I don't know who exactly you are referring your comments to, but as creator of this article I'll address some of it.

Calm down and don't rush to judgments on this article, becoz it has barely been started. I put in some material to start things off, but it needs a lot more conditioned and responsible content.

(1) Conversions from Hinduism - are an issue becoz after you take out the politics, you get some real issues about problems with Hindu theology and society. Its a controversial area that must be talked about (with facts alone), just because its a real issue.

(2) Hindu renaissance - is NOT a criticism, BUT the result of mounting criticism. Obviously we need to talk about what efforts Hindus have made to do away with social and theological evils.

(3) Social oppression - obviously some edits have reflected an inabiility on the part of the user to adhere to the purpose of this article. Nobody should dilute the real evil of untouchability and caste abuse, and nobody should forget that Hinduism doesn't condone any of it.

(4) Polytheism - how do you desire to explain the existence of thousands of deities, plus a supreme Trinity as monotheism? However, you are correct that the viewpoint must not be of AbrahamicPOV, but obviously its a criticism.

I always knew that the ride to making this a good article would be bumpy. Not all editors will adhere to the purpose, or NPOV.

You can put up whatever sign you want: NPOV dispute, factual accuracy, content, but the simple fact remains that this article needs expansion.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Rama, I did not write the above - only responded to the user:Ohanian's comments and added cleanup tag per his comment. To make it clearer I tagged his name to his comments to seperate them from mine. BTW, what seems as polythiesm is actually monistic theism or monism. --Pranathi 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

First of all I know nothing of Hinduism. But I do know a badly written article when I read one. My points are.

1. Since this article is entitled "Criticism of hinduism", it should talk about criticism of hinduism in a professional manner. It is not professional to have 90% of the article defending hinduism.

2. Readers and writers should not assume that just because Hinduism is criticised for X that implies that the criticism must be correct (or true). A criticism can be completely 100% WRONG and still be a criticism. So the authors of this article should try their best to explain each criticisms professionally first. If the authors have further information which shows the criticism to be incorrect then that can be put in a new subsection entitle "rebuttal"

3. If you are afraid that the readers might take each and every criticism in the article as being correct then you should put in a warning.

Polytheism:

Yes I agree that it has its own troubles like creating different factions in the society based on the dieties they worship.

As far as Polytheism is concerned, you got to understand Hinduism first. Its not a religion first of all rather its a way of life. When you mention its a way of life, it means that the individuals who are follow Hinduism, creates their own God in the any form whatever it may be like the nature/tools that they use for their bread winning etc., Since these help in their living, they want to thank these and hence to have a reference to what they are thanking they personify and adore them as super natural ones and worship them. So is there anything wrong in having various different Gods? - Kalai

Warning

This article provides knowledge of the current known criticisms of religion. A criticism is a point of view of a critic. General criticism of a subject are the general point of view of the critics of the said subject. Readers are warned not to insinuate that any criticism written below as being correct (or wrong) merely because it has appeared in this article. Readers are reminded that a criticism is still a criticism even if it later turns out to be wrong.

In short, this article only lists the criticisms and their supporting arguments. It should be treated as the general point of view of the critic(s) which may or may not turn out to be correct.

4. Your response is

(1) Conversions from Hinduism - are an issue becoz after you take out the politics, you get some real issues about problems with Hindu theology and society. Its a controversial area that must be talked about (with facts alone), just because its a real issue.

You should then talk about the following in subsections

• criticism of Hindu theology
• criticism of Hindu religious influence on society

5. Your response is

(2) Hindu renaissance - is NOT a criticism, BUT the result of mounting criticism. Obviously we need to talk about what efforts Hindus have made to do away with social and theological evils.

I don't like to put this to you BUT "Criticism to Hinduism" is the wrong article to talk about "efforts Hindus have made to do away with social and theological evils."

6. Your reponse is

(4) Polytheism - how do you desire to explain the existence of thousands of deities, plus a supreme Trinity as monotheism? However, you are correct that the viewpoint must not be of AbrahamicPOV, but obviously its a criticism.

I'm still dont understand why in general polytheism is worse than monotheism? If the criticism is that Hinduism is polytheism, then explain why this is bad. Let the people who criticism Hinduism for being polytheism explain why polytheism is bad. You may disagree with their explanations but a criticism is still a criticism even if it is 100% incorrect.

Personally I'm atheist so I am extremely interested to hear why Polytheism is worse than monotheism. To me it sounds like "One Santa Claus is good but 10 Santa Clauses is bad".

Ohanian 10:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points... This is a young page, but never too early to clean it up. On the charge of polytheism, I don't know what the argument is for it being bad. BTW, polytheism is more like many Gods than many Santas. Apart from having no argument, it's a misconception on Hinduism from some that are not very familiar with the religion. I can charge that say Christianity is polytheistic beacuse there are numerous saints and angels that are revered but it won't be valid in any sense. I don't think untrue statements should be presented in this page - it is not about a separate rebuttal - that is for defending possibly true charges or viable charges when seen from a particular POV. I would eliminate this section entirely and possibly point to another page such as 'Common Misconceptions about Hinduism'.

Also I'd like to differentiate social ills like bride burning from religion. The ill is taking dowry (which is present in all religions) but has been taken to the extreme among Hindus and an added dimension of greed has led to murders. I'll try to make changes soon.. based on Ohanian comments as well. --Pranathi 01:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu Fundamentalism

Is "re-establishing a caste-based system of apartheid and untouchability, and brahmin domination" a goal of Hindutva/Hindu Nationalism at all? I recently read about an RSS campaign against untouchability and caste based discrimination (possibly aimed at enhancing their vote bank in north india, but that's besides the point.) deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Its the allegation/criticism of their political opponents and critics. The leftists, Dalit politicians and many Muslims and others seem to believe this is true.

Rama's Arrow 04:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

RSS may be doing anything stupid but it doesn't teach casteism nor it teaches any hatred. No hindu scripture taches hate or racism. The primary text of hindus, the Vedas are too good to be criticized by anyone. Their are traditions that can be criticized, but very little of religious text can be criticized for any flaws. Religious text of hinduism is considered as one of the best even by most people, including philosophers like Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Schilling, Max Muller etc. Caste system is more of a political grouping of medival times than religious grouping. In a temple nobody even asks your caste. Two important things asked while doing rituals are Gotra and place where you live. Gotras are shared between all of hindus. Gotra tells which family tree they belong to. and a Brahmin and a Shudra may belong to family tree of same sage or Rishi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

As alluded to on Wikipedia:Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but "Criticism of religion X" articles are usually created because adherents make it impossible to treat criticism in any detail on the main articles. Also, "Criticism of X" articles are of course meant to report on notable criticism, not internet ramblings. Criticism of Islam has a centuries old history, and the article is meant to present that, the opinions of various theologians over time, rather than being a playground of Wikipedians for bashing Islam. That's difficult to enforce because many people Don't Get It, but in principle makes for a legitimate article. dab (ᛏ) 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

The article's title is deceptive: this was supposed to be an article on criticism of Hinduism, but in fact, the article reads like "Glorification of Hinduism" or at best, "Rebuttal of criticism of Hinduism". Most of the article is devoted to responses to criticism and asserts that these responses are true, while the criticism, which is given a very sketchy treatment, is false. There must be something wrong either with WP:NPOV or with this article. Pecher ^Talk 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. We better do something about it. Amir85 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. It reads like an instruction manual to Hindus how to deal with criticism. Each criticism gets about a line or two, and then the article embarks on a wordy 'rebuttal' (in the indicative). That's clearly not as it should be, just look at Criticism of Islam or Criticism of Christianity. dab (ᛏ) 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No decent criticism of Hinduism, minor efforts to justify it according to the history of the caste system, no evidence presented that traditional Vedantic was also a suppressive device in general, like Roman Catholicism, that claimed access to secret knowledge, etc. Also no Criticism of Buddhism website in existence, welcome efforts to help me create it- I could upload a link if others willing to contribute... Also need philosophical arguments against Hinduism, yoga, etc- ie. aspects of fatalism, tendency to gravitate towards 'absolutes', magical thinking as it's basis, etc, etc. Members of the public voice their concerns over failure of administrative authorities to keep websites biased again, this is repeated problem with religion on all wikipedia sites and in regards to biographies. Members of the public need to argue for greater mediation in the creation of unbiased websites.

Part of the difficulty in "critiquing" a "religion" like "Hinduism," is the variability of religion and religious life itself: "Hinduism" represents a class of sects noted anciently as being of the region of the Indus river. Until this day there seem to be no apparently non-regional "orthodoxies" within the modified worships of thousands of local deities. One yogi writer, whose name escapes me at the moment, noted that Hinduism consists of scripture(s), temple(s) and deities: there are no "orthodox" priests and administrative overseers like a Pope or prelate. Consequently one may worship Lakshmi, while another invokes Ganesha, Krishna, or Shiva on the same holiday. To the untrained mystical eye, even, stories of Baby Ganesha seem suspiciously like transmogrified tales of Baby Jesus -- possibly a kind of Asian response to early Christian missionaries. Insofar as the "casteism" of the region: are those castes not similar to or the same as the castes given us by our own general observations as we progressed (DNA-wise) out of Central Africa to the far ends of the Earth? Blackness and Whiteness are at opposite spectral ends and each may have an occasional claim to be at the top of the evolutionary progressions: those occupying the bodies of such tints usually seem quite willing to claim the superior station, usually without merit -- as within the relative "orthodox" castes or sects of Christianity or Judaism themselves. 71.51.75.154 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Defence

It's interesting that the author placed a defence for each section and I think that's an okay idea because it gives you both sides and not just one biased side, even though this article is suppose to be biased. Well other than the caste system which is now gone and the status of woman, which is the same as men, I can't think of any other criticism with Hinduism. The contrasting of Hinduism with the other 'major' religions is interesting because it implies something about polytheism and monotheism but you should if you are going to keep that section compare the contrasting and contradicting beliefs of each religion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism

--Greasysteve13 09:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion

The article seems to do a lot of answering criticism. The article content does not match the title. If we were to change the title to "Reponding to Hindu Critics", that would not be an appropriate encylopedia article. This is why I have nominated the article for deletion. --Janus657 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An article of this calibre cannot just be deleted by PROD-tagging. I have deprodded and put up for a vote. ImpuMozhi 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconding this articles deletion

Article is full of apologists and attempts to explain the benefits of discriminating and stratification of society.

Should either be completely re written or deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.164.187 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cited references

The removal of a ciation to a published book (Keay, pp. 53-54.) took place in this edit: [2]. That edit also had the effect of disrupting the new References section which I added in order to try to bring the article into line with format standards at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout because the removal of the only footnote on the page eliminates the reference to the book entirely. I object to the removal of WP:RS and request opinion from other editors on this matter. Buddhipriya 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now that a subsequent edit restored the citation. However there were a number of other changed to text that did not have citations supporting them. If we are to upgrade this article we can only do so by following WP:RS. I would recommend that any editor who objects to an unsourced statement either place a fact tag on it, move it to the talk page for discussion, or if you feel it is significantly damaging, cut it. Raising the bar on citation quality may shorted the length of the article, but will improve quality. Also, for guidelines on the use of web sites please note that WP:EL disallows many types of site. Buddhipriya 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh you did catch that, disregard my message then, but Buddhipriya I noticed that you didn't place a fact tag on the devadasi section before you removed it. It was not damaging to the article at all, but very relevant to a article that is criticism of practices of religion. Correct my perceptions if they're wrong, but it seem the only edits going on are to remove or counter criticism of this religion, which is the whole purpose of the article. See Criticism of Christianity if you need a comparison. Having said all that, I think we can work together on this by discussing on the talk page and coming to a decision, which is the best way to do these thing. Thank you have a good day.--Kathanar 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Please note currently the reference that I added to Keay, pp. 53-54 only supports the statement that "The Hindu system of varnas identified four varnas in Indian society." Please do not modify that sentence to add material to it, as that would cause the citation to Keay to appear to support the additional material. See this edit. If you feel that additional material regarding this issue should be in the article please add it as an independent sentence with WP:RS as citations. I see that you have raised the issue of the dharmashastra more than once. Is this point of particular importance to you? If so, please help me understand what issue is that you feel needs to be included. If I clearly understand why you feel it is important to the article, perhaps I can assist you in finding a reference for it if you do not yourself have one handy. I would be very happy to assist with reference searches if it would help reduce the number of reversions taking place.

The article text as referenced by Keay establishes that there is a varna system, so there is no disagreement on that point. An additional point that you appear to consider important is the statement that "The Hindu system of varnas in classical Indian legal texts of the Dharmashastra, most notably that by Manu" identified four varnas in Indian society. If you feel that the references to dharmashastra and Manu are important, would it be helpful for me to try to find a citation to support it? Or can the details of the development of the varna system be dealt with in the detail article? Which do you feel is the best approach? I added some references to Flood to support the point that these ideas were important in both the Dharma Shastras and the Dharma Sutras. Do you feel that these references support the point you wanted to make, or have I misunderstood? Buddhipriya 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as "dharmashastra and Manu" I did not add that material. I have only been trying to prevent edits and removal of the article which will help promote the hindutva agendas of certain editors of Wiki. Even when the article is about the criticism of hinduism, they will try to neutralize any such valid critique and will vandalize a article until it loses it original purpose. I have no problem with Hinduism myself, I think it is far too complicated to be listed under one umbrella as it as absorbed numerous positive traditions and practices (I must say especially in the southern part of India). My problem is the not owning up to of the abuses while making mountains out of mole hills of other faith traditions who do acknowledge their own shortcomings. This gutting of the purpose of this article and a point of comparison could be for someone trying to say the southern system of slavery in the US was unfortunate and might have been abused, but hey it was originally supposed to be a positive system with all the "darkies" happyily content to serve their masters in a organized society. A more closer example is the apartheid system of south africa and you have a ruling elite pressing the natives and others into servile positions and praising the organized society they had. Do you see the danger of allowing the edits that have been going on? I understand these people might have (religious) pride issues and such, which leads them to have issues with any criticism, but it is not right to whitewash history and events just to make themselves feel better. Wikipedia is about the truth and not just trying to throw roadblocks whenever you can to prevent it. I do appreciate your approach though, I apologize if any of my reverts have done anything to your edits, I am trying to prevent other elements from poisoning the article. Thank you and as far as the dramashastra and Manu it does sound interesting if any references can be found. Have a good day.--Kathanar 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Efforts of Christian Missionaries

As fas as I know, the Christian Missionaries were not the first people to take steps to abolish Mandatory Sati in the Later medieval ages. So I'm rephrasing the below line.

This was banned due to the efforts of Christian missionaries, along with reform Hindu movements and activists organizations.

"Religious component is"

There seems to have been an edit war for a long time over this particular clause. Here are a few references; we can consider how best to integrate the implications into the article.

• Kerala Christians and the Caste System, C. J. Fuller Man, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Mar., 1976), pp. 53-70. From the abstract:"Christian sects, however, should not be regarded as castes. Between the Christian castes, though, unlike the Hindu castes, individual social mobility can occur under certain conditions. Christian and Hindu behaviour concerning the rules of caste and pollution are almost identical, although Christians could sometimes act as pollution neutralisers. But the most important qualification is that Christians have no concept of bodily pollution."
• Ritual Pollution as an Integrator of Caste and Religion, Edward B. Harper, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23. First lines: "Beliefs about ritual purity.. form someof the most all-pervasive themes in Hindu culture. They form the basis of 'orthoprax' Brahmanism... Brahmanic concepts concerning pollution relate the Indian system of social stratification to the Hindu religious system."
• De Tocqueville in India: An Essay on the Caste System, Nur Yalman, Man, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 1. This is a review of Dumont's landmark book on caste, perhaps the foremost work on the subject. The paraphrase that introduces the relevant section says "Dumont acknowledges the caste-like features, but observes that while trapped in a Hindu caste framework, their ultimate values and ideology are turned in another direction."

I think there is sufficient material to be able to write at least a sentence indicating the differences between caste-like features in Hinduism and other Indian religions. Hornplease 07:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If people do not stop reverting each other and tackle this issue here, I will issue a WP:RFPP. Hornplease 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Question of Neutrality

Hello Everyone,

I made a few additions and corrections to this article today, and I just wanted to acknowledge it.

As part of the editing that I did of the article in question, I simply reworded some paragraphs such that they point to what the criticisms are, while providing both the criticism and in some cases the defence, with the intention of allowing the reader to make up their own mind. I may have failed at maintaining neutrality. If you think so, please feel free to correct this. My only request is that when you make corrections, please put aside as far as possible all your feelings about the matter, and take the position of communicating facts - in this case communicating what the criticism is while hinting that it's a perspective not fact. Criticisms are always perspectives. Facts have no emotion attached.

Here's an example of information being reported: John Doe was killed at 2:31pm. His head was sawed off by Osama Bin Laden's deputy and son, Alphonse Bin Osama [this is a made up name]. Here's what I call "sensationalist written-diarrea": At 2:31pm, John Doe was slaughtered like an animal (halal style) by Osama Bin Laden's deputy and son, Alphonse Bin Osama. I'm sure you can guess which to avoid :) I know I don't need to write all the stuff above, but this is a sensitive topic and I know a lot of us get heated about it, so I'm trying to just bring it up as a reminder to everyone (not just you) that we need to improve the quality of this article. Please do edit it.

Here are a few side thoughts: I am a Hindu. I am a Brahmin, and I don't think it means much because I believe in 'meritocracy' (a philosophy based on rank and rewards issued for merit). I've seen people who are far more talented than myself, who have worked much harder than me, and who have attained far greater accomplishments than me, and to step on them by saying "Oh, I'm Brahmin, so regardless of achievement you are inferior to me by blood and birth". I cringe at the thought of stepping on people and their earned achievements in that way. I also cringe at the thought of being stepped on that way.

I don't buy that the caste system is a problem created by religion. I think it's a system created by an old and bygone society that our society is perpetuating and maintaining, and because it doesn't fit in today's time it is a problem. This is a cultural and societal problem that is maintained by us, and is mistakenly blamed on Hinduism itself. It's important that we distinguish this and take ownership of how we are the problem, and that as a society (together) we have control of it.

On a different and deviating note, I feel that Hinduism is a way of life. Change the way of life and gather a following/social consensus around that new way of life and the result is that you change the face of Hinduism (Yes, this is obviously far easier said than done). The caste system isn't that different. I think some changes are needed in how we implement the caste system, like creating a horizontal ranking, rather than a vertical one that hurts peoples' pride and self-confidence. A major issue is the question of "what do you replace the present and outdated caste system with?". Another issue that people in India and abroad have to cope with are the factors that promote, maintain and perpetuate the present system. Here's an example, the politicians in India are maintaining bills/ acts in the constitution that requires universities to have quotas for different castes with the intention of giving lower castes access to education (as usual they're doing it for the votes - and I don't think I stated that last sentence very clearly). The intention behind that bit of law is great, but it violates the concept of meritocracy, and reduces chances for the most talented people to move further. It serves some people well, but on the whole and in the long term I personally don't think it works towards creating a country that produces the highest quality of product and people. Such laws perpetuate and provide incentive for people to maintain the present caste system. Before we can make any changes to the caste system, we really need to address the factors promoting its existence, and deal with them. The caste system would have been ditched a long time ago if it weren't for factors perpetuating it.

Anyway... this needs further discussion and debate, and isn't going to be solved by me alone or my lone comments and thoughts.

Have a great day.

Best regards, Sarang Dutt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarangdutt (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Other religions

Caste among Muslims has been documented for a while, and a lot of their practices are unique (such as Muslims not being buried in the same graveyards or Mohammed's descendants being superior to others). Christians have both sect and caste and this complicates their situation even further. It is inaccurate to state that these were "pure" religions "polluted" by Hinduism as some have tried to state.Bakaman 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it state that, nor is it implied. The words are carefully chosen in line with what equally careful academics have stated. Relata refero (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Academics have noted that Dalit Christians/Muslims have unique modes of discrimination against dalits that have absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism. There is discrimination against dalits by all Indians, regardless of religion, and claiming that Christianity/Islam was polluted by Hinduism, as you claim some state is a falsehood that doesnt belong in the article.Bakaman 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything mentioning pollution. I do see, however, an academic citation. The relevant quotes in question include "..Even so, converts to both Islam and Sikhism seemed to carry with them the legacy of the caste system." I can provide additional citations for this quite mainstream approach. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, how is a "Brahminical" construction of Hinduism differ from the "scriptures"? Especially when the book you cite specifically says the opposite of what you cited it as saying? (I'm still laughing about that.) Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have provided citations to show that other religious communities (in India) are stratified in ways that have little to do with Hinduism. "Pollution" is a tagline of your claim that Hinduism's "legacy of caste" follows converts to other religions. What is obvious is that your version is a covert attack of Hinduism, claiming that it is these converts that brought caste into Indian Islam/Christianity.Bakaman 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that way, but your anger should more properly be directed at mainstream academia, not as an attack on me.

That they are stratified in ways that have "little to do" with Hinduism is possible. Yet the fact of stratification may be related. In any case, its not up to us to decide. Scholars have made the point quite explciitly. Please see my quote above. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahminical constructs refers to the misrepresentation of Hindu scriptures to retain Brahmin hegemony in India. The book also states that "the Indian caste system in the singular was largely a late nineteenth-century colonial reinvention of tradition". Jalal backs up the fact that the abuses of the caste system have little to do with Hinduism, and more with Indian society, which is notoriously hierarchical and clannish.Bakaman 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? The line you quote is followed immediately by "..this is not to say it was an artefact of colonial imaginings" and then says caste was in its "pristine form" "elaborated in the VEdic Age" and goes on to talk about caste in the Rig Veda and ends by saying "derived religious sanction from Hindu scriptures." To cite that very passage as support for a line that says the caste system is "not supported in the Hindu scriptures" is atruly admirable levels of absurdity. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Considering I did not write this page, I have no idea what the large jumbles of self-contradictory say in much of the page. I merely cite what is required and remove misrepresentations of any view from this page, adding RS's to make sure that this page moves up from its current condition.Bakaman 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reference was added by you. You can't disclaim responsibility that easily! Plus you reverted all the large jumbles back in. You're having a bad day. Relata refero (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jalal was added to the lead section, where it is claimed that the Caste system/Sati are mutated versions of Hindu traditions. Jalal backs that up, ergo the lead section of random websites is now in better shape.Bakaman 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Except Jalal doesn't back up the line. It was blatant misrepresentation. Also, you kept reverting the random OR essays back in. Relata refero (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jalal does back up the line by stating that the caste system is more complicated than it seems and that many assumptions are the results of colonialism, that economic oppression is omre potent than caste in some places (204), and that caste identity is rooted in "brahminical conceptions of the Hindu religion".Bakaman 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

..conceptions which she implies are the same as "the scriptures". The line doesn't say "of course, caste is a complicated problem, and in addition to scriptural warrant, there are complicating issues". To use Jalal saying "derived religious sanction from Hindu scriptures" as a source for a claim that caste has no backing in the scriptures is something quite unparalleled. Relata refero (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No lead, no structure

Despite several hundred edits, this article is still a rambling mess, and probably worse than the original version, which while being essayistic had the virtue of coherence. There's no lead because no context has been provided, such as who might have started it, for what reasons, etc. We need more than a collection of random potshots. There are, in fact, at least three types of sources, historically. One is the ancient criticisms of Brahmanical religion by Jains, Buddhists, Carvakas and other heterodox movements of over two millenia ago. A second is Muslim sources, describing their engagement with Hinduism during the medieval conquest of the subcontinent. A third, probably the most prolific (and the most pertinent in terms of what gets discussed in scholarly literature), is tracts by missionaries following the European incursion into India. None of this is even mentioned! From the standpoint of apologetics, the standard defence has been to absolve "Hinduism" (conceived abstractly) of any responsibility for social practices, which things like caste and Sati no doubt are. This is problematic, however, because one can't counter the essential claim that such things are Hinduism with a counterclaim that Hinduism is "something else" without also defining what that something else is. Accusation on one side and wholesale denial on the other cancel each other out, and all we'll have to show for that is a quote farm. No good. My suggestion would be to gather a set of sources first, and only then try to figure out what this article should be covering, and how. rudra (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. The additional problem being, of course, that most of the additions have come from quotefarms hosted by the appropriate sort of advocacy site, so checking the antecedents of every quote and its context in the original is pure murder. Such quotefarms tend to lean heavily on selective quotation of primary sources, as well... and that's its own little mess. Relata refero (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP notwithstanding, Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity bear looking at, with the reminder that this is the Criticism of Hinduism article, not the Defence of Hinduism against criticism article. rudra (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam is pretty bad as well, though not in the same way; there's criticism all right, but it consists mainly of Things Robert Spencer Doesn't Like. There have been some recent big changes on the page I haven't kept up with, because those discussions are even worse than these.

Criticism of Christianity is a little better; though it also depends heavily in certain places on quotefarms like this one. Its acceptable in bits - at least those bits that haven't been written by whichever person wrote the delightful apologia that is Black Legend.

The truth is that these articles are probably never going to be excellent; but at least if we create a structure that is acceptable, like the Christianity article has, we have a head start on keeping crap out. Relata refero (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

The article still needs much improvement, including better wording and verified sources. A few inter-wiki links wouldn't hurt either. I have made a few minor edits to improve the clarity of the article, but it still needs much work. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 06:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, any links to varna should be directed to Varna in Hinduism, as Varna redirects to an article about a city in Bulgaria! --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 06:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

caste is defined by one's deeds and qualities in hinduism

in Bhagvad Geeta (4/13) lord Krishna says, "Four classes of people are created by me according to their Guna(qualities) and Karma(deeds)". present situation of castism is not according to the Dharma.it is based on birth while it should be on karma. so the society should be criticised not Hinduism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.178.196 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

above user is correct.cast system is misleaded by the society and the so called high cast for their own greed . but the system as said by the gita is a group of similar jobed family --Ashim nep (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but what the hell is this?

I was browsing the nicely constructed Hinduism page on Wikipedia and then saw a link leading to this article. However, this does not appear to be a criticism section. It's just all defense. I'm not even sure what of, since it just says "caste system" and then it goes on to say how it was never a part of Hinduism.

I can understand apologetics, but this is just way too much. There are no criticisms, just defense. I'm not saying I want to see it get railed or anything, but some actual information would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.67.48 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article isn't portrayed correctly or even contains correct information for the most part, but the caste system was never forced upon the public as a direct result of the religion; it was society that was to blame for the problems that arose with the caste system.Asherek (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've flagged the "Caste system" section as NPOV -- as anon above points out, it's just a lenghty defense that tries to "prove" caste has nothing to do with Hinduism. Jpatokal (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still not much to do with Hinduism and more to do with society. Are you going to suggest that we should start blaming the KKK on Christianity itself? Might be an extreme example, but it's along the same lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherek (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Weasel

This whole article needs alot of work to conform to wikipedia guidelines.

it is full of Weasel words

and POV from both sides. i would go ahead and edit out all the weasel words and phrases and POV but then there would be no article left...sigh.

please people, wikipedia is not a forum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb312 (talk) 00:52, 04 July 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy section

The "Erotic idols" section contains WP:SYNTHESIS. The quote of John Marshall just notes the nudity and eroticism in some Hindu motifs. He does not explicitly describe them as being sexually immoral, which seems a personal opinion and WP:OR (section was earlier called sexually immoral idols). Classifying Kali as an erotic motif is abstract. Her nudity is part of her fierce nature. None of the references in the section have explicitly criticized Hinduism for having "erotic idols". The some references do not have page numbers. Both references in the lead are sourced to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania books, but portrayed not as views of the institution, but a worldview and IMO could be WP:POV of one institution, does not "represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." (WP:POV quote).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Indian mythology is an inextricable jungle of luxuriant growths. When you enter it you lose the light of day and all clear sense of direction." from New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology is misrepresented s criticism: The full para reads: "Indian mythology is an inextricable jungle of luxuriant growths. When you enter it you lose the light of day and all clear sense of direction. In a brief exposition one cannot aviod over-simplification. But at least one can point out how, in the most favourable circumstances, paths may be traced leading to a methodical exploration of this vast domain." [3] p. 329. The Reasoning for scriptures by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is used as reference, only for the "complex logic" of Hinduism and does not explicitly reference the possible WP:OR: "Such complex concepts make critics to question the reliability of Hindu doctrines".

I would request User:Critic007 to quote the exact sentences on which his/her assertion that Erotic idols and complex mythology are criticized is based on. Also, who these critics are? Also, add page numbers for all references.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in no way able to reason the way User:Critic007 is thinking. Existence of nude/"erotic" figures in religious art/imagery only shows that the society allowed a great level of freedom of expression. What is there to criticize anyway. Perhaps an anti-freedom activist may criticize this : But that is just like the Church's "criticism" of Galileo. Such "criticisms" are not from a Neutral-POV; and are just modeled so to propel their own motives. Moreover, the argument that the Philosophy is "complex and does not conform to normal logic" is very biased POV. Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity is complex and its associated concepts of length contraction, time dilation wouldn't conform to what one can call "normal" logic. But that doesn't give you space to criticize but only to ponder in awe. Arjun^codename024 17:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced statements is vio of policy in wikipedia. If User:Redtigerxyz was a decent editor he should have removed only the statements which are specifically Undue (if any). There is no original research, all are taken from reliable books. Those who oppose religious doctrines or those who negatively analyze a religion is by definition a critic. If the statements about the sex cult is not true, then why Swami Sankarananda had specifically responded to the issue? I do not oppose the removal of the term "immorality" because the source does not specify it directly. However removing the whole is section is a clear vandalism. I have not specified the pages for some citations but the book "Mankind search for God" and "reasoning from scriptures" contains all those statements. Criticism of blind faith and sex cult is widely acknowledged, and hence is a worldview. (for examples search google with those terms) I am reverting the inappropriate changes. --Critic007 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also even a renowned scholar Wendy Doniger, who has served as president of the American Academy of Religion, has criticized Hindu ritual, including sexual, blood, and fringe elements in her book "The Hindus: An Alternative History".

Some of her other scholarly criticism books are as follows

• The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology-criticizes hindu mythology
• Tales of Sex and Violence: Folklore, Sacrifice, and Danger in the Jaiminiya Brahmana-criticizes sex and sacrifices to God's

So the criticism is not original research, many books had acknowledged it. This is also not an sythensis. Because the above mentioned books directly criticize mythology and sex rituals. I will add more citations. Please don't take the criticism article mentally, Compared with criticism on Christianity and Islam this article is too short and many issues are not included. Probably the reason is because western world generally consider Hinduism as a blind faith and hence they don't want to touch this article. user:Arjun024's reasoning is invalid because all religions have some logic, but Hinduism's logic is considered as not confirming to normal logic used in other religions. Worship of Erotic idols is considered as a ridiculous practice by western world.--Critic007 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "Hinduism's logic is considered as not confirming to normal logic used in other religions." seems to be the view of just 1 critic, Wendy Doniger. Critics is over-simplification
2. Reasoning for scriptures just states facts and does not explicitly criticize Hindu mythology for being complex. Associating with the previous sentences is WP:SYNTHESIS
3. The Hindustan Times just the book was no. 1, not that it "criticized Hindu ritual, including sexual, blood"
4. John Marshall is just stating the facts and not explicitly saying that the depictions are immoral
5. The Encyclopedia of World Faiths just says that Shiva is also noted "for his eroticism.." that's not criticism
6. Mankind's search for God says Kali is nude and was offered human sacrifice. That's a fact, not criticism.

I request Critic007 to present quotes from the references that explicitly criticize Hinduism, not just facts that someone perceives as being immoral, ridiculous or illogical. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote from Critic007: "user:Arjun024's reasoning is invalid because all religions have some logic, but Hinduism's logic is considered as not confirming to normal logic used in other religions. Worship of Erotic idols is considered as a ridiculous practice by western world." - Here, your argument that Hindu logic do not conform to normal logic is highly predicated on the argument that the logic used in other religions conform to normal logic. Needless to say, this is a hugely biased POV. The worship of such idols may be ridiculed by the monotheistic world at the same time feeling nothing ridiculous about a God without a shape or image. The article as written by Critic007 is as if read from a Christian Church's website. Arjun^codename024 09:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Arjun024 what we need is a consensus in the matter. User:Redtigerxyz had pointed out some issues regarding the sources I used. I have accepted it and would try to add more convincing citations in future. However please note that criticism on irrationality and logic is not my own personal opinion, the reliable book The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology is the source. Criticism usually come from other religions nevertheless it is not the reason to conclude that those criticism are invalid.--Critic007 (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I went through the book The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology and confirm that some critics have indeed criticized Hindu mythology as being not akin to Christian doctrines about God(s), evil and sin. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are so rude in including certain texts.-:) I will be looking for more meat behind it.Thank you--Critic007 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on marshall's conclusion of linga as phallus is widely rejected by Hindu community. So how can you say it is not a criticism? It is not considered as a fact. See Lingam#Interpretation_as_phallus. Marshall's conclusion is indeed a criticism because worshiping a sex organ is immoral. I see many documents and books which oppose the proposal that Linga is a Phallic emblem--Critic007 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall's conclusion is not criticism. It is a disputed conclusion that is widely rejected by Hindu community. Marshall does not say "worshiping a sex organ is immoral". That may be your personal opinion, but Marshall does not say that. I have removed the section as there is no explicit criticism. Critic007, I advise you to incorporate the Phallic worship section in Lingam#Interpretation_as_phallus appropriately. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you ask a citation to prove that worshiping a sex organ is an indecent or immoral act.I have made a request for comments.--Critic007 (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My take is; calling something "immoral" depends on the beholder and should be avoided. Eating meat is "immoral" to a number of people in India; not to many in the west. Why should worshiping sex organ be projected as "immoral" ? Arjun^codename024 18:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Text

Philosophy

Complex mythology

Critics say that Hindu philosophy and mythology is very complex and does not conform to normal logic. Concepts including reversal of salvation in which men try to save the gods, coming down of Gods to earth in order to expiate their sin and thus regain lifeblood, removing the impurity of death from themselves by Hindu gods, and giving it to the men were considered as illogical, irrational and lacking common sense by critics. Hinduism teaches that the god Brahman includes three forms—Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. But Hindus do not think of a personal god with an individual existence. It is of noted that the Hindu Rig-Veda hymn, 10. 121, is entitled "To the Unknown God." Also Hindus believe that all natural objects possess a soul that never dies, that the soul experiences a virtually endless cycle of reincarnation, that the forms in which it is reborn are determined by deeds (Karma), that release from this “endless wheel” is possible only by extinguishing all physical desire, and that if this is achieved, the soul will merge with the universal spirit. New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology states: "Indian mythology is an inextricable jungle of luxuriant growths. When you enter it you lose the light of day and all clear sense of direction. In a brief exposition one cannot aviod over-simplification. But at least one can point out how, in the most favorable circumstances, paths may be traced leading to a methodical exploration of this vast domain"

Sexuality and Erotic Idols

Erotic sculpture found in Khajuraho lakshmana temple.

Renowned scholar Wendy Doniger, who has served as president of the American Academy of Religion, has criticized Hindu ritual, including sexual, blood, and fringe elements in her book "The Hindus: An Alternative History" which was #1 bestseller in the non-fiction category in India in 2009. She say that several passages in rig-veda promotes immoral sexual activities. She alleges that in Rigveda 10.62, it is implied that a woman may find her own brother in her bed. Her book mentions the Vedic devotee worshipping different Vedic deities to a lying and a philandering boyfriend cheating on his girlfriend. She also concludes that Dasharatha was addicted to sex when infatuated by Kaikai.

Archaeologist Sir John Marshall, speaks of " 'The Great Mother Goddess', some representations being pregnant female figurines, the majority being nude female figures with high collars and headdresses. . . . Next comes 'The Male God', ‘recognisable at once as a prototype of the historic Shiva’, seated with the soles of his feet touching (a yoga posture), ithyphallic (recalling the lingam or phallus cult), surrounded by animals (depicting Shiva’s epithet, ‘Lord of Beasts’). Stone representations of phallus and vulva abound, . . . which point to the cult of the lingam and yoni of Shiva and his spouse." Shiva is also noted "for his eroticism, as the bringer of fertility and the supreme lord of creation, Mahadeva." Worship is rendered to Shiva by means of the lingam, or phallic representation. As the Mother Goddess, Kali Ma (Black Earth-Mother) is depicted as naked to the hips and wearing adornments of corpses, snakes, and skulls. In times past, strangled human victims were offered to her by believers known as thugi, from which came the English word "thug."

Hindu scholar Swami Sankarananda disagrees with Marshall’s interpretation, stating that originally the venerated stones, some known as Sivalinga, were symbols of "the fire of the sky or the sun and the fire of the sun, the rays." He reasons that "the sex cult . . . did not originate as a religious cult. It is an after-product. It is a degeneration of the original. It is the people who bring down the ideal, which is too high for them to comprehend, to their own levels." As a counterargument to Western criticism of Hinduism, he says that, based on Christian veneration of the cross, a pagan phallic symbol, "Christians . . . are the votaries of a sex cult."

Phallic worship

Some Western scholars including David James Smith and Monier Williams alleges that Shiva linga represents male sex organ or phallus. Worship is rendered to Shiva by means of the lingam. Archaeologist Sir John Marshall, speaks of a " 'The Male God', ‘recognisable at once as a prototype of the historic Shiva’, seated with the soles of his feet touching (a yoga posture), ithyphallic (recalling the lingam or phallus cult), surrounded by animals (depicting Shiva’s epithet, ‘Lord of Beasts’). Stone representations of phallus and vulva abound, . . . which point to the cult of the lingam and yoni of Shiva and his spouse."

The view of lingam as phallus has been debated by several scholars and philosophers. Hindu scholar Swami Sankarananda disagrees with Marshall’s interpretation, stating that originally the venerated stones, some known as Sivalinga, were symbols of "the fire of the sky or the sun and the fire of the sun, the rays." He reasons that "the sex cult . . . did not originate as a religious cult. It is an after-product. It is a degeneration of the original. It is the people who bring down the ideal, which is too high for them to comprehend, to their own levels." As a counterargument to Western criticism of Hinduism, he says that, based on Christian veneration of the cross, a pagan phallic symbol, "Christians . . . are the votaries of a sex cult."

References

Although the view of lingam as phallus has been debated by several scholars and philosophers none of the debaters have really considered the Hindu worship of Lingum as a worshiping a symbol of power of destruction. As Hindu religion is so old that the burden of mythology is so enormous that the true reasons for worshipping the Lingum are long forgotten. If we study the Hindu mythology which unfortunately is not in written form anywhere and has been transferred from generations to generations by means of elaborate storytelling, we actually can relate the Lingum to a nuclear power source for which the technology existed at that time. ( or so is proudly said by every Hindu) Here are some thought provoking questions relating to Lingum worship 1. Why the shape is exactly similar to the nuclear power plant dome found anywhere today? 2. Why no Hindu will complete the 'Pradakshina' (A ritual of circling the temple by walking around it) of a Lingum and only allowed to do so only in Half circle mainly never to cross the part where the water from the lingum is let out of the temple. 3. Why the Lingum is constantly cooled by water stream (Called Abhiskeka in Hindu religion, Lingam is the only place of worship where it is done no other deity has this Abhisheka!) We do have similarity in modern nuclear power plant where we do exactly the same thing to the Dome and never cross the heavy water due to radiation.) 4. The story in Hindu mythology where king Rawana won the Jyotirlinga (a source of power Literal meaning – Jyoti = flame) from god himself and since god didnot wat to give the technology to Rawana(as Rawana being evil)his son Lord Ganesh tricked Rawana and the technology never went to Rawana. As we see now how well it fits? Hindus take pride today in claiming that in entient times they had all sorts of weaponry which come very close to today’s nuclear weapons at least in their description of destructive power(Reference Mahabharata- Narayanastra: capable of destroying all vegetative life for many years, however given the fact that Indian method of transferring knowledge to next generation was only vocal all the knowledge is lost, which sounds reasonable as the Hindu culture dates back well before Buddha and Christianity. There is a possibility that Lingum worship has a very different reasons and background. It would be very inappropriate for anybody to link it to sexuality based on some art forms of Khajuraho which can very well be an art form when there was no paper and painting discovered. This is an important point of view when crating an unbiased and complete understanding of Hindu religion. Unfortunately there are no references to this as the thinking is based on the stories in Hindu mythology and of course there can be a biases as I am a devote Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyentorne (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is phallic worship section relevant

phallic worship (using male sex organ in worship) is done by Hindus. But most hindu scholars disagree with the interpretation of phallus as Lingum. Is the section relevant to the article? I included it but some editors disagree with it stating that phallic worship is not a criticism. I would like to get some fresh blood in the discussion. please give comments after reading the above discussion Critic007 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

* Comment. I am rather puzzled by the existence of the articles criticising specific religions. I think the paragraph starting, 'Renowned scholar Wendy Doniger, who has served as president of the American Academy of Religion, has criticized Hindu ritual...' is not particularly fair or relevant and should be removed. It seems to be based on a US-centred POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Hinduism and other religions may not be criticism of either

Just stumbled upon this article - this certainly needs a lot of work to get to a good shape. The second line of opening paragraph reads: " ... Hindu philosophy and mythology is very complex and does not conform to normal Christian logic".

I propose that the difference between the logic (or whatever parameter) of one religion to another may not be one's praise and other's criticism. On first glance these are just the properties of the respective religions. Criticism needs to be defined here - let me make a quick start point for definition of criticism:

If a proven and inherent property of any religion is giving cause to suffering to anyone (weather its to the adherent of the religion or not), say without following the principle of natural justice, it can be criticism.

May I request the people better in knowledge than me to refine the definition. After this task, we should be able to do justice in the betterment of the article._M_ (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Caste system

The section on the case system contains no criticism at all. It in fact appears to criticise the caste system for not being hindu enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

I have no expertise here. However, reading the article, I see that it has no criticism in it, and many, many dubious facts with it, along with attacks of other religions, including my own. In addition, the word "Whore" appears, which should never be in Wikipedia, or in any other encyclopedia for that matter unless there is a very good context.

This article appears to be unsalvageable. I think a total rewrite is in order. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an ip address currently editing the article that seems to be trying to help add relevant content yet seems incapable of actually obeying any wikipedia policies in doing so. IrishStephen (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. Should I watch it, and go from there? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and decapitate the hydra. Let's hope the heads don't come back! -Tinkerttoy (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The deed is done. I gave that b---- some ^{[citation needed]}. B---es LOVE ^{[citation needed]}.