Talk:Hinduism

Hindutva

Why is there no mention of political Hinduism? The Hindu-Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (founded in the 1980s) is now the second largest party in India and is expected to become the largest in parliament by may 2014. RSS (Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh) has been converting millions of Muslims and Christians back to Hinduism. The Muslim population is stagnating and Hindu Indians have the highest birthrate in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer (talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This article deals with religion/spirituality, rather than what it's adherents are doing in 20th or 21st century. Justicejayant (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a two-sentence summary of the growth of "political Hinduism" in the 20th century, since I think it is a important enough part in the history of Hinduism. Given the lengthy history of Hinduism, not to mention the various other aspects the article needs to cover, I don't think we need to cover the individual electoral ups-and-downs in this article. So I have kept the description short; hope it does not read as too clipped as a consequence (feel fee to tweak). Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Order of precedence

I have removed this section from the article, since it presented a unduly rigid and algorithmic order of precedence for Hindu scriptures without attributing this ordering to any particular tradition or source. It also failed to distinguish between ordering of the these scriptures as per (some) theological traditions versus relative importance in practiced Hinduism. Of course discussing the latter topic would be WP:UNDUE for this article.

That said, the material in the deleted section, properly attributed and contextualized, could be useful in another article. So I'm leaving this note here to provide easy link to the deleted text. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

3 edit requests

1. The use of 200 year old scholars such as Oldenberg and Neumann, as well as Hindu nationalists like Radhakrishnan is problematic. Especially since the reference makes the exact opposite point than what is portrayed.

2. The reference is questionable for the phrase "although most Hindus, including the majority of Vaishnava and Shaivite Hindus abhor it."

3. Since the meat is eaten after the animal sacrifice, this should be mentioned. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a long article, it would be helpful to other editors if you would indicate the section, and if possible also the paragraph, in which you feel an edit needs to be made, for each of your points. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. For edit request 1, this section . For edit requests 2 and 3, this section.176.67.169.146 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some user above has called Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at the University of Oxford, as a problematic Hindu nationalist. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of the views of contemporary scholars on Radhakrishnan. Here is just one of an infinite amount of books that say Radhakrishnan was a Hindu nationalist. Then you are unaware of the concept of "Nationalist historians." See page 8 of Upinder Singh's A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Lastly, you are unaware that Radhakrishnan is famous for making dubious claims regarding Vedanta specifically. See the Wikipedia article Neo-Vedanta. Sucheta Mazumdar and Vasant Kaiwar's From Orientalism to Postcolonialism page 36. "....Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion.....Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement - "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "most universal and deepest significance" - is fairly typical."176.67.169.146 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So is anyone going to take care of these 3 edits?176.67.169.207 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC

It is fashionable for some to criticize noted scholars. But to characterize Radhakrishnan as a problematic Hindu nationalist is untenable. Sorry. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)