Talk:Hinduism

a fusion of Arian and Dravidian cultures?

No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.

Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.

The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

I agree, we should instead add "fusion of different cultures", at least on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda

Added "multiple cultures", rest is described on article body anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And changed a direct quote. I've corrected the spelling. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Add "indo-aryan"? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The misconception that "Aryans" came to India has long been debunked. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is how everyone will act. The theory was made by 19th century, and today no one accepts it. So what is the point? You saw your talk page too, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'fusion' is not used by Lockard (source) in the book. I think this is definitely unnecessary to describe that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory in the lead. The word 'Fusion' indicates 50-50 share of Aryan and Dravidian cultures, but such kind of language is not used in the source. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, it seems like it has been only used for combining such thought, nothing else really. Sometimes we have to summarize ourselves though, but this seems huge claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding the Aryan migration, the statement that "no one accepts it" is plain nonsense. It's not accepted by some people, who don't seem to care about modern scholarship.
• Regarding "that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory", it's controversial for the same group of people. There is a broad scholarly concensus that Hinduism is the result of a fusion of various strands of Indian culture, and a relatively recent fusion. See note 4, which mentions more sources. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism#Fusion for extensive quotes.
• Regarding the term "fusion", other terms being used are "synthesis" (Lockard 2007 p.52), "Hindu synthesis" (Hiltebeitel 2002), and "classical synthesis" (Samuel 2010).
• Hinduism being a "synthesis" or "fusion" of several strands of Indian culture, is such a basic and essential feature of Hinduism, and such a basic aspect of the scholarly understanding of Hinduism, that it's one of the essential facts to mention about Hinduism. Ask yourself a simple question: how do we explain the immense diversity of Hinduism? Rigth, here's the answer. If you think it's a "huge claim", you show a basic lack of knowledge about the history of Hinduism , and about modern scholarship on the history of Hinduism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So which one is it? Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse? The reason you are contradicting yourself, because you have never been to India, let alone travelled India. Secondly, I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory. This is similar to Paul B's misunderstanding of genetic studies. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. JJ has managed to find a single source in the form of Lockard to justify large chunks of additions to this article. The word 'Fusion' is not used in the context of Hinduism religion. JJ should read those quotes again. Also, Lockard is not reliable for this encyclopedia. JJ should consider reading his works thoroughly before calling him a 'universal scholar'. Moreover other stuff like North-east, Shramana and local traditions being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. No such quotations have been provided which were asked for in an earlier discussion. Also, terms like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" is a clean example of pov editing. Such negative terms are not supposed to be added in the lead of the article.

The lead of the article should be short and shall not include such mass information. The problem with these recent edits by JJ is that the controversial views are being presented as universal.

As far as Aryan-Dravidian issue is concerned, its a very controversial theory and completely opposite theories are also present which have been supported by some modern historians as well. Such aryan-dravidian content may be apt for articles like Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans, but its completely inappropriate for the lead of this article. Such kind of content will make this article confusing and will question reliability of our encyclopedia. In my opinion the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit. JJ should first discuss each content one by one before adding anything. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider the use of the term "vandalism" to be a personal attack and a breach of WP:GOODFAITH, and close to trolling. The term "Hindu synthesis" reflects a broad scholarly consensus. Regarding the quotes, I've pointed before to User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism where extensive quotes are given, though I doubt that you're serious willing to read those quotes. I get the impression that you're not willing to engage in discussion, but only searching for rhetorics to push your personal point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, honestly you might won't have any bad intention, but the way you are presenting is pretty strange, like JJ points. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling an editor a vandal after being blocked for doing just that is such a bad idea. I've given him 72 hours timeout to think about it. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Aryans and Dravidians is simply a linguistic fact. See Dravidian languages. There's nothing remotely controversial about it at all. This is part of the problem with discussions in this area. There is so much half-digested commentary on semi-garbled versions of supposed controversy that the real issues just get lost in the confusion. Yes, it's an over-simplification to say that Hiduism is a mix of "Aryan" and "Dravidian", (after all there's Munda too), but it's a fairly clear way of summing up the fusion of cultures. Even the anti-"Aryan Invasion" people don't dispute that Vedic culture expanded from the Indus to what we now call "India" as a whole, and that as it did so it absorbed local cults and traditions that were integrated into Brahmin-based religious practices. I fail to understand why phrases like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" are "negative". Only the real extremists whop believed the Vedas date from the Stone Age and the Dravidian languages were invented by a Brahmin dispute that there has been a mutual influence of Aryan and Dravidian traditions. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The page in current form, is not problematic at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Belated reply to 176.67.169.146

• "Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse?" - It's not a matter of "homogenization"; that's not what's being meant with "fusion" or "synthesis", as far as I can see. It means that groups of people have adapted to Brahmanical ideas, but it does not mean that all Indians have, or have ever had, exactly the same religious faiths and beliefs.
• "I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory." - I have a serious problem understanding what's being said here. From what I understand about it, Indo-Aryans migrated to (north-western) India, bringing with them their language and religion, approximately around 1500 BCE. Indian had been populated then for millennia already. When the Indo-Aryans moved further east, into the Ganges Plain, around 1000 BCE, they changed to an agrarian way of living, founding one of the earliest "states"/kingdoms of India (Kuru kingdom), adapting their religious system and introducing the Varna-system to "manage" their new-born kingdom and its various cultural and ethnic groups.(Samuel 2010) This system worked remarkably well to provide stability, though another variety developed at the central Ganges Plain, where Buddhism and Jainism developed at about 600-500 BCE, and kshatriyas had the hisghest status. When Buddhism became the "state religion" of the Mauryan empire and subsequent states and empires, the Brahmanical/Vedic religion was further developed, to incorporate shramanic elements, and local cults and religions, of Dravidian origin. This "synthesis" worked, remained part of norhtern Indian culture, and spread further south and east. It was only at the 8th century that Buddhism lost its position at the highest royal courts, and was replaced by the Brahmanical/Hindu religion.

As far as I can see, India is a very complicated society, with an incredible rich and varied history. As a relative outsider, I can afford the luxury to rely on scholarly sources. I really have a hard time trying to understand why other editors don't rely on the same sources, but instead cling to specific, partisan interpretations of Indian history and religion. There's no reason, to my opinion, to ignore this diversity and richness. Be proud of it! But please, be also realistic: "reality", or history, may not be as "simple" or "monolithic" as you think.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What diversity and richness Joshua Jonathan? If you actually travelled to India from North to South, you would know that Hinduism is for the most part exactly the same, except for maybe the styles of the temples and idols. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to JJ and others for such an uncivilized behavior. But I just want to raise a valid point.

Among the recent additions by JJ to the lead is: "From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35][36]" This sentence is exactly contrary to another theory which says Hinduism is indigenous to South India. Why is such a controversial sentence being added to the lead of this article?

In an earlier discussion, JJ was asked to provide proper quotations from the sources. But unfortunately still I can't see much here. All these points regarding religions of Indus valley, Adivasis, local traditions, and north-east India being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. They are confusing for this article. And such points are disputed also. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after facing so many reliable sources he has tried to make as neutral point as he could. But anyways, if we hatch out all of the information from lead, what should be written on the body.. Can you compose your own version in your commons/sandbox? It would be far better idea, so we can know what you want. Just like JJ did composed his own sandbox for a version, and details. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Firtly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India. That's not to say that many of the features we identify as part of pan-Indian "Hinduism" are not indigenous to the South, and indeed may have originated there. That's what the whole "fusion of Aryan and Dravidian" concept means. This is part of the problem with this debate. We have the IP insisting that the whole Aryan-Dravidian difference is a chimera, and now we have another editor insisting that Hinduism is indigenous to the (Dravidian) south. If so, where did the Vedas come from? So in reality there is no contradiction at all between the views you describe. Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture cvomes from the North is poorly sourced? It's pretty much accepted by all sources, even Hindutva ones. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

North to south, simple as that. Since it was all part of Hindu civilization, obviously no hindutva and outsiders would deny, those who claims against these agreements(of both sides) are having obvious bad faith and hidden agenda. We are done with this one. Yoondaue will have to show his own page version(that he will make in sandbox) and the ip you mentioned must show the email, sources, to which he referred, he hasn't presented yet though. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

PaulB, according to Flood, "The actual term 'hindu' first occurs as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus." See page 6 of Introduction to Hinduism.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It comes from "Sindhu" which refers to the Indus river. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Paul B

Firstly the word "Hindu" comes from the "Indus", so I don't see how "[H]indus-ism" can be indigenous to South India.

The theory I am referring to is Indigenous Aryans which simply says that Hinduism is indigenous to both North and South India. The only difference b/w north and south as already discussed above is linguistic. Read this. Just because Hinduism is prominent in both North and South India doesn't make it a fusion of aryan and dravidian cultures. Actually the Hindus of south India follow the same religion. They get married with the help of Brahmins doing Sanskrit rituals. Their religious scriptures are also Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana which are originally Sanskrit texts. They also follow caste system and various Brahmin communities form an integral part of south Indian society.

Why do you think the claim that Vedic culture comes from the North is poorly sourced

Firstly there is nothing like non-vedic Hinduism. Hinduism is vedic everywhere from Kashmir to South India. The point I am referring as poorly sourced is that Hinduism is From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", and its societal divisions, spread to southern India.[35] Presence of such content in the lead is like accepting the agenda of Dravidian politics that Hinduism used to be an alien religion for south India at a time and it got spread in south in some later age. The opposite theory says the history of Hinduism in south goes as long as it goes in case of north.

@ Bladesmulti

I am not going to create any sandbox. As I have already suggested, the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit and JJ should first discuss each point one by one.

@ JJ

Your edits indicate that Hinduism is not a specific religion but a mixture of religions. As per your edits, this mixture contains dravidian, mongoloid, adivasi, north-east, austric elements. Then let us know what does Hinduism take from these multiple traditions so as to term them as "among the direct roots of Hinduism"? You should give some description of that. Wikipedia is not that kind of encyclopedia that someone find a source and write an entire article on that basis of that. Certain points like this need to be discussed.

My opinion:- Hinduism is very much a specific religion. Just because Hinduism is also found among the south Indians, Mongoloid people of Nepal, Bali and austric-speaking people of India, doesn't mean that that these traditions are the direct roots of Hinduism. They have inherited religion from the Hindu faith. Hinduism doesn't inherit anything significant from them. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to present your idea through a sandbox, than i am highly wondering that how you want this article to be looked like. Just check the archives or this same page, we had number of issues on which we have worked on, reverting to a old version is complete loss, and not a progress. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Bladesmulti

It won't be a complete loss as everything would still remain in the record. Th article would look like this. The lead should remain short and there should not be any section named "Roots of Hinduism" as there already exist a similar section 'History'. If JJ has anything to add, he should discuss one by one. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has got policies; one of them is WP:BOLD. If you want to change them, propose changes. But to discuss edits one-by-one because you've got a problem named WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that's not how Wikipedia works. My edits are referenced, by reliable sources, reflecting commonly accepted mainstream scholarship, verifiable to anyone who's simply willing to read those sources. If you think that your opinion or personal understanding of Hinduism reflects the current scholarly insights on Hinduism and its history, surprise us, and give some very good reliable sources which we have overlooked. Otherwise, your opinion is not even WP:OR, but just that: your personal understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, JJ has already discussed them. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lede is supposed to sum up the whole article. Your comments about the "indigenous Aryans" concept just indicate the utter confusion of what you are saying. The "indigenous Aryans" argument simply claims that Vedic culture developed in India (though of course what counts as "India" is rather fluid). It's completely irrelevant to the Aryan/Dravidian distinction, since it presupposes that Vedic culture emerged in North India, probably in the Indus Valley and then spread from there. After all, the Vedas are written in Sanskrit - Indo-Aryan - not Dravidian. So by definition Dravidian peoples have to have been assimilated to Sanskrit-based texts at some point don't they? As I say, even the OIT people accept this. No-one disputes that Hinduism is native to India. You are arguing against a straw man. Indeed it is clear that you don't even understand the point that you are addressing. The fact that you link to an article on genetics just indicates how confused you are. Genetic differences and similarities between the various peoples of India have no bearing on the point at issue. How could they? Paul B (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In mainstream scholarship, the Aryan Migration Theory is on its deathbed. David Gordon White cites 3 scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion is derived from the Indus Valley Civilizations. See pages 28 and 29 of Kiss of the Yogini. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead conflicts with what 4 mainstream scholars say, when it contrasts the Vedic religion with the Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White's Kiss of the Yogini cites 3 different scholars who say Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White explicitly says its "quite artificial" to make a distinction between Vedic tradition and IVC. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I really appreciate your efforts! Thanks; they're inviting to further inquire into these topics. And, doing so, what I read at White is not that "Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization", but that "the religion of the Vedas was already a composite of the indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations." (White p.28) Nice that you mention this; I'd mentioned something similar in regard to popular beliefs and the Yaksha cults in the Hinduism-article:

"The Vedic texts were the texts of the elite, and do not necessarily represent popular ideas or practices.(Singh 2008 p.184) The Vedic religion of the later Vedic period co-existed with local religions, such as the Yaksha cults.(Samuel 2010)(Basham 1989 p.74-75}}[3]"

Essentially, what White is saying (as far as I understand him), is that there was no "pure" Vedic religion, but that the Vedic religion already was a "composite". Which is actually not surprising, is it, when you think about? People interact, and adapt to new environments, including cultural. The moment we are discussing here, we are also interacting, and changing our minds. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Paul B

The "indigenous Aryans" argument simply claims that Vedic culture developed in India (though of course what counts as "India" is rather fluid). It's completely irrelevant to the Aryan/Dravidian distinction, since it presupposes that Vedic culture emerged in North India, probably in the Indus Valley and then spread from there.

I am sorry but the "indigenous Aryans" doesn't say suggest that Vedas originated in Indus valley.

After all, the Vedas are written in Sanskrit - Indo-Aryan - not Dravidian. So by definition Dravidian peoples have to have been assimilated to Sanskrit-based texts at some point don't they?

I disagree with you here. The recent genetic studies rejects "Dravidians" to be a different race. There is no term like Dravidian peoples. Its all about languages. Dravidian languages are of unknown origin. And the theory of spread of Aryan languages to south becomes absurd when we talk of Sinhalese and Maldivian language which are Indo-Aryan languages. If Aryan languages got spread to Sri Lanka and Maldives to that extent that today a vast majority of these countries speak Aryan languages, then how South India remained untouched by this language change? How did this happen that Hinduism religion got completely assimilated to South Indian population, without change in language? Anyone who tries to find answers for such questions can get confused if he considers Hinduism to be a religion of North India.

But actual reality is that Hinduism belongs to South India as much as it belongs to North. It need not to be spread to South India as it exists there from ancient time as long as it exists in North.

The words like 'spread' may be appropriate for southeast Asia whose history is quite clear that its people practiced animism before the arrival Hindu kings and culture which actually spread the religion in this Mongoloid region whose people are racially different from Indians.

@ JJ

You are yet to describe what elements of Dravidian, Mongoloid, Tribal, Austric and Harappan are found in Hinduism so as to describe it as a fusion of all these cultures. -Yoonadue (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Local cults and deities. See Wendy Doniger, "Other sources: the process of "Sanskritization", Encyclopædia Britannica. and Nath 2001 p.31-34. see also above, "From what I understand about it". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, your reply is so incoherent, it is almost pointless to respond to it, since it is clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You are responding to claims that no one has made, and that haven't been relevant for decades. No-one is saying that "Dravidians" are a different "race" for "Aryans". It would be like saying that the French are in some meaningful sense a different "race" than the Germans. That's completely irrelevant to the fact that as a linguistic community they obviously have a distinct ethno-linguistic origins. Likewise Dravidians are ethno-linguistically distinct from Indo-Aryans. And equally obviously Sanskrit texts originated in Sanskrit speaking communities. Most Indigenous Aryan models do indeed place the Vedic peoples in the Indus, though there are some who want to believe they originated in the Ganges. The reasons for wanting this are transparently religious, and are not supported by any significant independent commentators. Your comment about Sinhalese is as ludicrous as asking why English is spoken in Australia, but not in France, which is a lot nearer. See Mahavamsa. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The words Aryan and Dravidian and the concept of them being exclusive date back to the nineteenth century. Arya was the word for 'noble' and Dravida was the word for 'South India' in the ancient world and not names for any race or culture. Hinduism was a synthesis of the classical (Sanskrit) and the folk. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@ JJ

Why does this article now contain so much of repetition content? The same stuff is present in the lead as well as the section "Roots of Hinduism".

@ Kanga Roo in the Zoo

This folk + classical Sanskrit theory doesn't have that acceptability that it should be described in the lead of this article. Reading the notes provided by JJ, I came across much stuff which seemed ridiculous, for example, this from Vijay Nath about Siva and Vishnu:

"Visnu and Siva, on the other hand, as integral components of the Triad while continuing to be a subject of theological speculation, however, in their subesequent avataras" began to absorb countless local cults and deities within their folds. The latter were either taken to represent the multiple facets of the same god or else were supposed to denote different forms and appellations by which the god came to be known and worshipped. Thus whereas Visnu came to subsume the cults of Narayana, Jagannatha, Venkateswara and many others, Siva became identified with countless local cults by the sheer suffixing of Isa or Isvarato the name of the local deity, e.g., Bhutesvara, Hatakesvara, Chandesvara."[2]

Narayana and Venkatashwara, which are widely accepted as forms of Vishnu are described as local Tamil deities. It would be better for us to discuss the reliability of these Dravidian historians and writers. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

North to South sentence

Hi JJ. Instead of citing 49 pages for Samuel, can you provide specific quotes? Also, some aspects of Hinduism spread from South to North, such as the bhakti movement. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring to your recent edit, you will be adding note for all? You know this article is already very huge. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, good point! I'm referring to the initial "Brahmanic synthesis". I'll provide specific quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

During breakfast, I've been scrolling through Samuel. It does not provide "easy" soundbites; actually it should be read as a whole (it's a very good book; I can really recommand it). Samuel describes the developments of Indo-Aryan/Vedic religion and culture in the western and central Ganges plain, and how these developments took somewhat different trajectories in those two areas. The western area gave birth to the "Brahmanic cultural complex", the central area to Buddhism and Jainism. These two complexes spread south, the "Bcc" developing into what we now call Hinduism (and I'm really starting to think that we can't see those two "cultural complexes" as separate uinverses: they are closely intertwingled, up to the disappearance of Buddhism from India. But that's my personal thought):

"By the first and second centuries CE, the Dravidian-speaking regions of the south were also increasingly being incorporated into the general North and Central Indian cultural pattern, as were parts at least of Southeast Asia. The Pallava kingdom in South India was largely Brahmanical in orientation although it included a substantial Jain and Buddhist population, while Indic states were also beginning to develop in Southeast Asia." (Samuel (2010) p.199)

Not the best quote yet, but it shows the direction. Note, also, that this is not only about "religion"; it's also about population-growth, changing societies, and the organisation or division of society. North-India developed the first urban centers (the so-called "Second Urbanisation"); the "models" invented there spread to other parts of the subcontinent. Best regards, and thanks for the invitation to further inquire on the topic. I'll search for more later; work is waiting now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nanda Empire had Pakistan, Shimla. 5th-4th Century BCE old empire Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are (still? in the sense of "since centuries") Hindus in Afghanistan; I've met some myself. That's a nice irony: the Greater India concept originates in the spread of this Brahmanical-Buddhist (Buddhist-Brahmanical? ;) ) cultural complex, that is, in the acknowledgement that parts of India and Sout-East Asia once were not in the fold of this BBCC, the precessor (singular! but that's my interpretation, though based on Samuel (2010)) of contemporary Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Greater India is the true India for thousands of years, it was relevant even till 15th century. Not really after that though. What is BBCC? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I used to many (). "Brahmanical-Buddhist cultural complex" (or "Buddhist-Brahmanical cultural complex", depending on your preferences. But that last remark is a joke; don't take it serious). You know, I think that nobody who's studying Indian culture will deny that India had an immense influence on the rest of Asia. Your remark "Not really after that though" is interesting; it reminds me of Turkey, which was a mighty empire until the 16th century, just like India; then it lost power and territory to Europe, in an incredible short span of time. I guess that this same "loss of power" is the fuel for this narrative about the ancient roots of Hinduism. Nobody is denying, though, that Hinduism, or the Indian culture, has very ancient roots. But it's too simple too equate it all to one source, or "pure origin"; history is simply (...) too complex for that. Carl Jung, the psychologist, visited Africa in the beginning of the 20th century. He was vividly aware of the richness of the African culture, and the "loss of soul" which was dawning because of the forces of modernization. And you know, this same "loss of soul" is also an issue in the western world; that's a major reason why there is so much interest in the west in Buddhism and Hinduism. Unfortunately, we can't let go of our intellectual background: analytical, critical, dissecting. It leads to a "disenchantment" of the world. India is also confronted with modernization and "disenchantment", in the aftermath of colonial suppression. It explains the strong disputes, I think, at the Wikipedia-pages. I'm sorry for that; and yet, I too can't let go of this background, because critical thinking also gives insight and understanding. In the end, I think, it comes down to living with uncertainty and 'loving thou neighbour'. That's Christian, but it's also Hindu, isn't it? And it's also Buddhist. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@ JJ

Not the best quote yet, but it shows the direction. Note, also, that this is not only about "religion"; it's also about population-growth, changing societies, and the organisation or division of society.

If you are not been able to find best quotes related to religion, then it would be better to remove this objectionable sentence regarding north to south. The source should directly support the content and I don't think that the quote posted by you does that. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added references and notes. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read the newly added notes. But they are not much different from what you have mentioned here earlier in this section. Lets take Gavin Flood's note :

Gavin Flood: "The process of Sanskritization only began to significantly influence the south after the first two centuries CE and Tamil deities and forms of worship became adapted to northern Sanskrit forms."

It talks about Sanskritization in south. The same source says Sanskritization happened in North as well. But what about "spread of Hinduism"? It doesn't describe any spread of Hinduism religion to south India. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism was a way of life

What's the relevance of this piece of info in the lead diff, and what part of the article does it summarize? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court in the year 1995, in case of Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo observed as follows:

"No precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu'. 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. The term 'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub-continent. It is difficult to say that term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry,..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.100.49 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So, this is about Hindutva as a way of life? And still, what's the relevance to the article? There's probably a good reason that someone wants it to be included, but it's not clear yet why. Could you explain? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The word Hindu itself is imprecise. The coinage of the word Hindutva is ridiculous. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations are extremely bad

I chanced upon this article, and I find it difficult to follow many citations for two reasons.

The first issue is that some books/articles cited are not even listed in full. For example, (Samuel 2010 or Flood 1996)---it is not clear what this is---a book? an article? What is the title of the book? Publisher? Maybe somewhere among the list of citations there is more information, but this is not very professional. Many others do have proper citations (Knott 1998 for example) though.

The second issue is the multiplicity of some citations, potentially because of many editors. Some sources are cited multiple times often adjacent to each other. It may help to consolidate the citations and provide full citations where needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.61.47 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've added full book-titles to the note where "Flood 1996" etc. was used. Regarding the multiciplicuty, many pieces of information are potentially controversial, and therefor have a separate reference. That's also the reason why there are so many notes: some editors are not satisfied with "Cambridge University Press" etc., and prefer full quotes. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)