Talk:Hinduism

Consistency needed for quotation format

Several quotations from sacred texts appear with different formats: single vs. double line spacing, italicized or not, amount of indentation. A simple edit would improve page quality IMHO.JeanEva Rose (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, quotations should not be in italics, or any other make-up, but only {{quote|[quote]}}. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is correct; WP:MOS does not allow special formatting for quotations; the only exception is that very long quotations can be put into the quote template so that they are indented. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Hinduism has 100 gods. 50.201.104.10 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. We need to use reliable sources, too. --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one God in Hinduism. The Hindu word for God is Näräyaņa. Hindus conceive of, and represent, and worship God in numerous forms called deities (devatā). Kanchanamala (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Preshistoric sentence, yoga estimates

The two sentences that i had changed, from :- "The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India that may have" to "the early evidences for prehistoric religion in India that are noted", as previously it had been discussed too, this change was newly made, last month, the source[3] itself presents nothing like "earliest" nor it's presenting any doubts.

Other one is about the 30 million/5 million estimates, they might be higher now, these stats were from 2008. The year should be mentioned? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blades, the change you made is simply ungrammatical. Also, in the cited source Possehl repeatedly discusses how specifically the evidence is disputed throughout the chapter and explicitly in the sentence, "The proposed historical links between the Indus Valley Civilization and later Indian civilization is a difficult, complex, sometimes contentious, even politicized topic". (Having just read ~100 pages on the topic a few hours back and rewritten the Religion section on the Indus Valley Civilization page, I can cite many more sources along these lines, if needed). Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but that is already added into the paragraph, it's not the "earliest" evidence, that's what i noted above. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the Periodisation section of the article, historical analysis of Hinduism almost universally begins at the IVC stage (with the evidence from the pre-Vedic era being tenuous and somewhat speculative). So I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey by disputing that the discussed evidence from IVC is not the earliest. Can you clarify? Abecedare (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct, may need to reword "for prehistoric religion in India that may have left its traces in Hinduism comes from the Mature Harappan culture (2600-1900BCE)" I guess, you got any suggestion? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blades, in hindsight and as Joshua's edit well demonstrate, claims of "earliest" (just as most such superlative claims) was (is?) just asking for trouble and you were right to challenge it. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Roots of Hinduism

It seems that there are two basic perspectives on the roots of Hinduism:

• An apparently broad scholarly consensus that Hinduism is a synthesis of various Indian traditions, and that this syntheses emerged after the Vedic period, at the beginning of the "Classical" or "Epic and Puranic" period, in the centuries around the beginning of the Common Era;
• The orthodox or popular Hindu view on the origins of Hinduism, which gives a central place to ancient origins via the Vedic religion.

To me it's clear that there is a broad scholarly consensus for the view that Hinduism is a synthesis. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, which contradicts the popular and/or orthodox understanding of Hinduism, but that's no reason to leave out of this article such a fundamental understanding of the origins of Hinduism. In response to this discussion, I have provided extensive quotes at User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside: The irony of course is that what you describe as the "orthodox or popular Hindu view on the origins of Hinduism" is itself largely shaped by 19th century scholarly analysis/critique, and the reform movements they engendered. (Have you read Dalmia & Stietencron's Representing Hinduism or Gauri Vishwanathan's, "Colonialism and the construction of Hinduism" on the topic ?) And of course, this was not even the first time "Hinduism" has undergone such a transformation: it arguably shifted in the opposite direction from Historical Vedic Religion to its more contemporary post-Vedic form under indigenous/Buddhist/Jain/in-grown influence.

Is there something specific you propose to add to the article to clarify these definitional issues? I have only glanced at them briefly but your recent and past edits to Colonial influences and Roots of Hinduism section already seem to speak on all this. Abecedare (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add more, but it's an "understanding in progress". I'm learning while I'm reading, and I was already surprised by Hiltebeitel's term of "Hindu Synthesis". I hadn't realised that "Hinduism" is so recently, and I hadn't realised what a huge cultural development shaped this "synthesis". Somehow it's like a moving picture in my imagination, and then I see those different strands of religious thinking (or understanding), how they meet each other, and what happens then: how the vedic Brahmans took over ideas, rejected others, but where themselves also changing qua status in and part of this developing culture. Some points which might be added, but which are not completely clear to me, is the spread of vedic/Brahmanic culture (when did it reach South India?), and the role of the smriti in the "Hindu synthesis" (see also Smarta Tradition and Bhagavad Gita). Anyway, I understand the appeal of this (modern) "orthodox" vision, but studying Hinduism becomes much more interesting when a realistic framework is being used, and presented, to understand its wide diversity. Just one example: the Bhagavad Gita. Is it 'unique in its synthesis of various schools of Yoga', or is it part of a 'solution' which made it possible to join Vedic-Brahmanic culture and popular worship into a joint culture, which made its appeal to monarchs, and its survival, more likely than the survival of Buddhism? That's an interesting question! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)