Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 2

Too many pages - too much vandalism

I think we have too many pages on Hinduism, while even the main ones (Hindu, Hinduism, Vedas, etc.) need improvement. I wish they were more presentable, with less focus on denominatory differences. Aupmanyav 06:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurukshetra war

This article requires massive expansion. deeptrivia (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

more Hinduism stubs

here's the proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/June#.7B.7BHindu-text-stub.7D.7D_and_.7B.7BHindu-temple-stubs.7D.7D Please vote!--Dangerous-Boy 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramayana in general and Hanuman in Specific

Somebody keeps editing the "Hanuman" article keeping a highly "whitewashed" (thats the only term) version of his birth and adventures. My specific issue is with the question of birth. I had read from several sources, that Hanuman was born through the union of Vayu and Anjana, thus making Vayu his biological father. The current story mentioned is that he was born through Dasaratha's Putrakama yagna, from which Vayu conveyed sacred pudding to Anjana. I had edited the article twice to mention both stories - finally, both are myths, and there are several stories and versions of the Ramayana - but someone keeps changing the article back to his/her "whitewashed" edition. I've noticed the same thing being done with the Ramayana. What do we do about it ?

Arun Athmanathan

Bhishma's previous life

I like the article on Bhishma, but I noticed it made no reference to the reason he had such a difficult life namely that he was cursed in his previous existence.

I'm not sure I'm confident enough to update the article myself (and also my sole reference is J.A.B. van Buitenen's translation), but does anybody else think the article should mention something of his previous life as Dyaus (one of the Vasus dieties that stole a sacred cow), and as a result was cursed to spend a long lifetime as a mortal man?

Mother Goddess Kali - Shodashi _ TRIPURASUNDARI

There is a wonderful article on Tripurasundari here on Wikipedia, Howerver once I had read it and learned that Tripurasundari is the Mother Goddess Kali TRANSFORMED, I read the lengthy yet incomplete article on Kali, and it mentioned nothing about her transforming herself into a red skinned youth whom Shiva then names Tripurasundari or Shodashi. Anyway I tried to contact Wikipedia so they could change it but I could not figure out how to actually contact them so I did this, which they reccommended. I am not equiped with the knowledge to properly edit the Kali article, but I wish someone could adda reference or a link to the Tripurasundari article. thank you from sonyasganjayoga@yahoo.com, peace & love.

goals

Fix up the Hinduism article and the Hindu article. Any more?--D-Boy 22:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SHALYA

Shalya a character from mahabharata was from uttara madra aka punjab so he can be added to the list of punjabis!

Uttara Madra was probably in trans-Oxiana. Of course, the Madras later settled in Punjab just as Kauravas settled lower down in Haryana. Aupmanyav 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhisma

I dont know if Bhishma was one of the ancient Vasus but there is a tale that in aformer birth he thre a snake in a thorny bush where it suffered for many dies before dying and later the same fate awaited bhisma as seen in the mahabharata

Hindu Unity

Just a little concerned about the wording on the specific threats section on teh article. Is it appropriate? A pak user was changing it around.--D-Boy 09:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and religion

Hindusim section needs NPOV: "The section is not factual. Of all the hindu population less that ten percent are vegetarians. Most of hindus are meat-eaters which includes beef. To represent that most hindus are vegetarians is to use wiki for meaningless propaganda. I really want to have a serious debate about this section before the section can be given a facelift. As a fellow-hindu, I feel that my religion is being hijacked by a few extreme elements. --C9"

I value vegetarianism but am a non-vegetarian (that means you can take me to be neutral in this respect). Whatever anyone says about it is that person's personal opinion. There has never been a census as far as I know. How did you get your ten percent? Aupmanyav 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Would anybody like to discuss the above statement on the Vegetarianism and religion page? It ideally needs an all-round approach from a number of different viewpoints within Hinduism. I follow a vegetarian tradition myself. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Would have joined the debate, but that page has too much of non-Hindu information. That sort of dissuades me. Aupmanyav 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not prepared to believe that some Hindus eat beaf. However, if some born Hindu do not follow religion can not be construed that Hindus are meat eater. It's unfortunate that Hindu religion is target of some perverts to project something which is not. When one talk about one of the most practised religion, one has to look in general and not exceptions. Come to India and show me those Hindus who are known to observe Hindu religion and eat beaf. It's painful to listen to such non-sense like less than 10% are veg. and rest are beaf eaters. How could one ascertain the that C9 is Hindu? swadhyayee 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jyotirlinga list:

Referring to Jyotirlingas (aka Dwadasa jyotirlinga), the divine light wherein Siva (one of the Hindu trinity) manifested Himself, the list can be more orderly. Point about Somnath, the first jyotirlinga is that the shrine is associated with Moon (Som) and the original shrine was plundered a dozen times by Muslim invaders like Mohammed Ghaznavi. A landmark there is that a ray from that point reaches the South Pole without touchng any landmass. Okay: Back to the topic. The order should be Somnath (Saurashtra), Mallikarjuna (Srisailam,) Mahakaal (Ujjain) Omakara (Mamalasewaram, island in the Narmada near Indore in MP), Vaijnath (Purli), Bheemasankaram (Dhakinya), Rameswaram (Setubandhu, southern tip of India), Nagesh (Daruka-van), Viswanath (Varanasi aka Kashi and Benaras) Tryambaka (Gautami banks, Kedranath (Himalayaa) Sivalaya).

The Siva abode of Pasupatinath in Nepal is adored along with the Jyotirlingas. My main concern is it is better to list the above shrines in this order, complying with a hymn to this effect. ukstranger Sunday, July 30, 2006; 3:51 pm

Would you kindly explain the strange behaviour of the ray which reaches from Somnath to South Pole without touching any landmass!! There are a trillion points on Indian coast where a direct line from South Pole would not cross any landmass. Somnath is about the one who is master of the moon, and not the moon itself. Yes, I agree, the best order is as given in the verse 'Saurashtre Somanathaya..' which has always been used by hindu to remember them. All jyotirlingas have the same importance. Aupmanyav 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Headcount?

when you read the article at the beginning it says that there are 900 million Hindus and that 890 million of them live in India, but later it says, after you add the values, that there are 908290056 Hindus...just noticed the inconsistency so i figured i would tell... 68.17.203.58 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am good with this kind of thing.  :-) There is no way to ever get an exact count (down to the last 56) because every second there are Hindus dying and Hindus being born. There should really be the word "around" or "about" in front of every number and then there would be no problem. Steve Dufour 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Babri Mosque

Now this page is under fire. It was great in January.--D-Boy 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote for censorship

An user [1] is conducting a survey on his talkpage to "understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence, Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles. .... Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source? Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses here." [2]

I see this as a badly veiled attempt at censorship. By censoring Koenraad Elst from the Ayodhya related articles, one of the most important authorities on the Hindu side of the Ayodhya debate would be effectively silenced. The whole conducting of such a "survey" on wikipedia is just a replaying of the old Galileo affair, IMO it reeks of censorship, hate-mongering and attempted character assasination. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link [3] of a chapter by Elst to see a similar example. Or this link [4]. The use or non-use of a source or quote must be decided case by case, and according to WP:NPOV both sides of a debate can be quoted, not only the Muslim/Marxist side. This however is just an attempt to censor the Hindu side of the debate. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship --Soparnos 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavenly Mother in Hinduism?

I do not know very much in depth about Hinduism. However I understand that the concept of an aspect of God as Heavenly Mother could be found in it. The reason I mention this is because there is an article on "Heavenly Mother" which has been started by some Mormons and they are looking for information from other religions. If you are interested in helping them please check it out. Wishing you the best. Steve Dufour 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism in Indonesia

I think we should separate Hindu Revival in Indonesia and Agama Hindu Dharma. Agama Hindu Dharma should concetrate on the philosphical concepts on Balinese Hinduism and Hindu Revival in Indonesia should be renamed to Hinduism in Indonesia and concentrate on the history of hinduism in indonesia and its current influence and position.--D-Boy 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy in articles "Balinese caste system" and "Kshatriya"

In the article "Kshatriya" under the heading "Non-Indian" it is stated that about 40 percent of the total population of Bali comprises of Balinese Kshatriyas. But in the article "Balinese caste system" Sudras are said to make up more than 90% of Bali's population. I am not so deep into the caste topic but something seems wrong to me. Any clues?

Article about Rta should be expanded.Devapriya 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pallavas--how did they dispose of their dead

219.65.115.77 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)R. Narasimhan219.65.115.77 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)There is no mention of how the pallavas disposed their dead. Obviously, their custom should have been to throw the bodies for the vultures in an enclosed area, maybe on the top of the nearby hills. When the Pallavas disappeared, these enclosed areas were converted into temples, possibly the followers of Zoroastrians--Indian version.Thus the arrival of hill top temples.

The Thirukkazugukundram temple near Mamallapuram is an example, where the eagles were coming in search of bodies every day; and the temple priests fed them with rice!

R. Narasimhan narsi@vsnl.com

Neutrality Dispute

I would like to voluntarily state that I am a non-practicing NRI Hindu. I am not associated with RSS, HSS or any other organization that has openly stated its association with Hinduism.

History of Hinduism

Hinduism has evolved over centuries or even Millenium. Hindu Puranas (The 18 Puranas)have to be read as historic recordings over various Millenia. Hindu puranas talk about Pralaya or destruction of whole civilization many times over. The order of creation explained in Hindu texts broadly matches the present day theories of evolution (first creation of matter from energy, and then over billions of years, creation of single cell life forms, intelligence or budhi tathwam or Mahatathwam as it is called and then the various sensory organs and the media like direction air and sound or sight adnlight or selse of touch and skin etc. and then to higher level of life forms). The scriptures have also kept track of the time evolved. We are presently in the second Parardha (an eighteen digit number) of the Padma Kalpa. The first creation was in Brahma Kalpa when the big bang occured and the universe was created. There are 14 Manvanthara in each Kalpa and in each Manvanthara there are 71 cycles of Chathur Yuga (Kritha yugam, Thretha Yugam, Dwapara yugam , and Kali yugam.)At the end of each cycle of Chathur Yugam, there is loss of civilization either in part or in full. Many inventions will be lost. But vague indications of achievements may be left behind as stories. The puranic recordings show continuity. All of them talk about Vedas being handed over from generation to generation through oral or verbal transmission. Only a handful of people carried this message. Many times over the vedic messages or meanings have been lost or misinterpreted. Vedas themselves are like Wikipedia, and written or verse narrated / created by a number of saints or rishis. Upanishads are explanation of the Truth in the Vedas by the desciples of the Rishis. The Epics and Puranas are examples of practice of Vedic rituals and beliefs. These should not be read in bits and pieces. They have to be taken together. According to Hindu scriptures, destruction of civilization takes place when ever the natural balance is totally disturbed. en we will ealise that Archeological excavations may not be in a position to guage the antiquity or age of these scriptures. Do we have methods today to go deep enough over milleniums. Do we believe that material used over 10 or 12 Millenium will still be available as materials or utensils even after the earth has been subjected to numerous floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other pressures. Many organic materials have been converted to Hydrocarbons. Why we cannot accept the dates and history given in the Puranas.

I suggest that we write two versions side by side 1) based on the historic evidence collected through excavations or as interpreted by with todays' limited knowledge and 2) based on the evolution and antiquity explalined in the Hindu scriptures and also the time frame indicated there-in from begining of creation to present date. Hindu scriptures are the oldest social or religious information we have about humanity. This may also be History of human civilization and not of Hindus of today. Who knows as to whether Hinduism started in present day Americas or Africas and not in India. Humanity will develop enough expertice and knowledge one day to correctly guage the age of earth. K.N.R.--K.N.Ramanathan 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst and banning of books

Two users (User:Hornplease and User:Lkadvani) are advocating that the works of Koenraad Elst should be banned on wikipedia.

Many of Koenraad Elst's works are on Indian politics and contemporary issues and conflicts of Hinduism and were published in India. I certainly agree some quotes are just not appropriate for an article, and that Elst was misquoted in some articles. But the entire tone of Hornplease's and Lkadvani's discussions shows more an inclination towards censorship and systematic bias, than an interest in neutrality, balance and reason. --Bondego 13:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this editor - for whom this is among the first edits - has posted several similarly accusatory posts elsewhere which I have replied to, I direct the interested reader to my responses [5], [6], and [7]. ::Hornplease 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Raja Yoga controversy

Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jyotisha:

Just now I have seen the comments by the so called scientists who have opposed about the introductin of Jyotisha in Indian Universities.

I have just a small question.

How for they know about the Jyotisha sastra. They simply believes what ever the westerners said. They never tried to understand the old sacred books of Hinduism.

What the scientists know is not even a pin prick of the universe. Our old sages know much more thant what the present scientists know.

Just take one example. There was a sage called Narada. He used to travel whereever he liked. He used to move in just seconds. I am not telling that it is a magic. It is the art of travelling at the speed of light. That art we haven't know till now.

Why so for. Just let them travel to Himadri and meet the sages who are there for years together. They know all these arts.

Just because you don't believe, don't say that it is not true.

And one more thing. How many scientists are there. Hardly a handful. What about the remaining crores of people who believes these things.

I am ready to discuss these things with any scientist ont he earth.

H.K.Kishore Teacher, Kennedy School, 3/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh India 522002 Ph: +91 863 2212799 Mobile: 9441915774

Mahavishnu/Vishnu

I was considering whether it would be appropriate to merge the Mahavishnu and Vishnu pages together. I know that there is a difference between Vishnu and Mahavishnu: Mahavishnu being the Supreme Brahman figure, yet perhaps we could put a secondary heading about the Vaishnav Mahavishnu in. To be honest it is not the best of ideas, but most of the things to put in the Mahavishnu article are in the Vishnu article, so please give any suggestions as how we can do this without repeating information too much. Please reply on my user page Bhaveer 18:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Randalmataji Article

I have not been aware of any article about Ravirandal maa (a Kuldevi and Goddess from Gujarat). The Goddess, as you may have heard is worshipped by many Gujarati people in the boy head shaving "Balmuwara" ceremony/ when many hold "matajina lota" , and Randalmataji is also the consort of Suryanarayan Bhagwan. If any of you are familiar with Ravirandalmaa, please leave a message on my user talk User_talk:Bhaveer. (I am more than happy to write the article myself). Bhaveer 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Saivism

Wikipedia description on Saivism includes irrelevant information on vaishnavism. Although saivism accepts vedic texts, this article portrays it as vedic (brahmanical) religion. The article on saivism needs a MAJOR cleanup. You may want to refer pages published by saiva siddhantha kazhakams.

BKWSU Raja Yoga versus Classical/Patanjali Raja Yoga

Hi.

I have a problem here delineating what is classically known as Raja Yoga, e.g. Patanjali, Vivekananda etc and the spiritist practises used by the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University which involves meditating on the channelled entity or spirit they call Shiva after the Hindu God, the channelling of so-called "Shiva" through BK adherents, and the use of channelled messages spoken through their founder and current medium as the new "Gita".

Now, it is perfectly clear that what the BKs are teaching is entirely novel and the use of identical terminology is entirely confusing. But how to qualify this on the wiki? Unfortunately the Western academics demanded by other editors - whether sociological or Christian theologists - are entirely unqualified to comment on the differences.

• Does anyone know if any experienced Hindu academics or yoga specialists have analysed the BKs and their practise?

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BKs maintain that they are not hindus. Why should then a hindu take the trouble of analysing what they believe, let them. Aupmanyav 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some articles which may be of interest regarding the Brahma Kumaris:

• Brahma Kumaris: A New Religion?
• The Brahma Kumaris as a ‘reflexive Tradition'

The BK organisation originates in India and claims to follow a Vedic system as I understand it. Cheers, 86.136.94.22 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vedic metal up for deletion!

!--D-Boy 16:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Hindu tagging

I have left some messages regarding tagging of WP Hindu at the talk page of the project. Need some response from you guys. -- Lost^(talk) 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Hinduism_Barnstar

help support!--D-Boy 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism and the Sikh Panth

this article is having khalistani problems lately.--D-Boy 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraivan temple

This article needs the attention of this project. Please make the necessary modifications. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Hinduism_WikiProject_Award

barnstars are nice.--D-Boy 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dharma

If I'm not mistaken, Dharma (and related names) is sometimes a Hindu name and is used for males. If this is correct, it should be mentioned in Dharma and Dharma (disambiguation) IMHO and probably also Dharma and Greg (since it's a female in that case) Nil Einne 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One would not name a child 'dharm'. Perhaps, one may have a name that includes dharm such as the tatpurusa dharmraj, used to identify Yudistir. I am not, at least, familiar with dharm as a common name, at all. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not a common Indian/Hindu name. It was used an American sitcom for a female character and that is as far as it goes. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I watched that show. her name is supposed to refer to the concept. she says so in the show. even does yoga.--D-Boy 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub proposal

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/December#.7B.7BSikh-bio-stub.7D.7D.2C_Category:Sikh_religious_figures please provide input.Bakaman 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shaivism or Saivism

which one are we going with here?--D-Boy 05:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Śaivism, next Shaivism, not Saivism. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Here is my proposal:

• For terms (like Moksha, Puja, Shaivism)
  • Use simplified transliteration in general.
  • In addition if the term is defined in the article (as opposed to being only a part of a long list; for instance see "Indra, Agni, Soma, Varuna, Mitra, Savitri, Rudra, Prajapati" in "Devas and Devis" section) we should spell it out in IAST (or IPA) to give the user a pronunciation guide; and also in devanagiri.
  • This additional information should be added at the point where the term is defined, and not necessarily where it is first used, for instance "Brahman" should be spelled out in IAST etc in the "Brahman" section, even though the term is first used in the introduction.
• For shlokas/mahavakyas etc:
  • Simply use IAST since it may too redundant to provide the simplified transliteration too. A casual reader will anyway be interested only in the Englist translation, while an interested reader will care to know the pronunciation which only IAST/IPA provides.

Your comments? (I realize that ideally these conventions should be settled on on a project-wide basis, but it may be easier to reach a working consensus here). Abecedare 05:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I support all of your proposals. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the simplified transliterations. Can we have a box at the top of the article, like the one that says "this page contains indic text" and links to the article with instructions on how to enable it etc., that would say "this page uses IAST transliterations", that links to an article with the pronunciation guide / compatability instructions? Simply providing a transliteration for sacred sanskrit mantras is a boon to all readers, but making that transliteration simple, and dumbed down is not necessary, in my opinion. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, you'll note that I do propose using IAST for shlokas/mantras etc. Are you suggesting that we use IAST for each occurrence of any word on Indian origin ? Abecedare 08:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

IAST means we would always have write Krishna as kṛṣṇa, Ganesha as gaṇeśa, Rishi as ṛṣi Parvati as Pārvatī and Pingala as piṅgala. I have five reasons why I think Simplified is better to use:

1. It takes me a long time to search for these symbols in the symbols box when on the editing page.
2. It will take a long time for people who do not understand IAST to learn it. It is like learning a quarter of a new script. I don't think non-experts should be required to learn IAST when reading the Hinduism article. The only requirement should be an interest in Hinduism.
3. It looks ugly. The only ugly letter in simplified IMO is "chh," but it is rare.
4. The names of the articles on Wikipedia are not spelt in IAST but in simplified. It is a hassle to do this [[Shiva|Śiva]] instead of this [[Shiva]]. If you want articles names to also use IAST, bear in mind that nobody will type in the search box śaktī when it is easier to type Shakti.
5. Those with old computers or browsers will have squares appearing where any letter with diacritics is meant to appear ane we can't tell them to update because most of the people seeing this article don't edit on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that that we should italicize English characters for our terms and at the same time use Sankrut fonts for important terms, Mahavakyas etc along with them. When you go on tour and see any terms or Mahavakyas in Sanskrut fonts, you can read them and know that it is "Tatvamasi". The pleasure of being able to read in one's own language particularly if the place is secluded or of heritage is beyond description. Let Wikipedia be instrumental in learning a cent of our mother language. I will stress that there is a world beyond West and you all as well our new generation are going to visit India and Vedic institutes were you are likely to come across Mahavakyas in only Sanskrut font. What's the point of exclusion of Sanskrut fonts? Pl. don't make the Wikipedia only for Westerns. India has plenty of computers and internet users. swadhyayee 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, I think that simplified transliteration (using English fonts in italicized manner) is must to make one understand that the word is from original language at the same time make the reader understand the pronunciation. swadhyayee 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Abecedare's & DaGizza's suggestions are good and acceptable. swadhyayee 02:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, Why do you spell this way?

Saiva, why do you spell "Brahmacharya" as brahmacarya. You are omiting "h". My earnest suggestion to you would be why should we fall in line with westerns to spell our words wrongly? Is there no difference in pronounciation of "Ch" and "C"? swadhyayee 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Brahmacarya was spelled with च and not छ. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, च is transliterated as, c and छ is transliterated as ch. If it is actually spelled with छ, then I am wrong altogether! ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He is writing in IAST instead of simplified transliteration. It is like his name - Saiva instead of Shaiva. I recommend using the simplified version because not only some of the editors here not familiar with it but most of the non-editors (people who only read Wiki articles) wouldn't be familiar with not and it will confuse them. words like rishi become rsi (with dots below "r" and "s"). Most people reading the Wiki-article won't know IAST and in old computers letters with diacritics appear as squares. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a useful resource with comparative tables: Romanization of Sanskrit. Abecedare 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, this reminds me of the discussion above of how were were going to do the transliteration of terminology, etc. I was thinking that Swadhayeeji was simply pointing out that I was spelling brahmacarya incorrectly, as in if the choices were ch and chh, I was choosing ch while I should have been choosing chh. By the way, did we ever conclude on what transliteration scheme we were going to use consistently throughout the article? ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Saiva that you did not know this. I thought you are trying to promote wrong western spellings. "Acharya" and "Brahmacharyashram" are spelled this way. Where as "Chhangogyaupnishad" is spelled this way. I saw what Abecedare shown, I don't think they show correct characters used here in India or may be what British use. I do not have Sanskrut or Hindi characters to mention here. How do I pick up Sanskrut or Hindi characters? swadhyayee 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayeeji, out of ch and chh I chose ch, but because I use the IAST system, which I feel is more accurate, and I thought what we had been using in the Hinduism article, I write it as c. If you would like to enable support for Indic fonts, I was shown this link: WP:INDIC. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

did u you read the dharmic naming coventions?--D-Boy 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:India/Ayyavazhi

Ayyavazhi in my opinion is a Hindu sect founded in Tamil Nadu. The followers disagree. Please see this discussion and the Ayyavazhi and offer your own opinion (not here but on the Talk:India/Ayyavazhi page). Thank you. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know it exsisted until I read it on wikipedia but I agree that it's a Hindu sect.--D-Boy 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Way of life for hindus as ordained by Upanishads

Hi All, I created an article Ideal way of life for Hindus as prescribed in Taittiriya Upanishad verses 9 and 11 of its first chapter and those include famous "MaatrDevo Bhava " which is so well known commandment for most of hindus. But somebody immediately placed Deletion Tag and marked the article for deletion citing it doesnot confirm to NPOV policy. But I fail to see what POV is seen in that article. I guess it is naming of article that evoked POV, but I'm not sure, I request editors to visit the article and let me know what makes it biased. It has some typo's and incorrect grammer since it is freshly written. I 'll improve it if its deletion tag removed. Thanks

Lokesh 2000 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed prod.Bakaman 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the article isn't written very well. The name of the article is awkward. Is there a better name you can use? Maybe it is better to move it into a section of the Taittiriya Upanishad page. The article needs to be set out as mentioned in WP:MoS. Some headings would be nice. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this is a fresh article and Lokesh 2000 plans to improve the writing (and hopefully add references) in future edits. However I do think that as it stands the title choice is arguable, and in my opinion either (a) the content should be moved to a Taittiriya Upanishad or, (b) at least the title changed to reflect that this is simply a way of life prescribed to Hindus according to 3 verses of the text.

(Should we move/copy this discussion to the Talk page of the article ? ) Abecedare 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a merger of Ideal way of life for Hindus with Taittiriya Upanishad and copied the above discussion to the article's talk page. Further discussion on the topic can be placed there. Abecedare 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideal way of life for hindus would not be complete with just Taittiriya Upanishad. Many more things would be added later. Why the merger? Aupmanyav 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Abecedarian wants to merge the content of the articles but I don't think the titles. If you see the Ideal way of life for Hindus page, the article only talks about Taittiriya Upanishad. So I think the information should be merged but not the names. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For now I have merged the contents of the articles under Taittiriya Upanishad with Lokesh's support. So the previous content of the article "Ideal way of life for a Hindu" (which discussed only the Taittiriya Upanishad POV) is a section in the main article and as per Wikipedia's policy for merged pages Ideal way of life for Hindus redirects to Taittiriya Upanishad. (By the way, all your help will be appreciated in cleaning up this article and making it encyclopedic)

Of course, if and when we create an article discussing the various ideal ways of life for a Hindu, as Aupmanyav suggest, we can undo the redirection. Abecedare 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob., I am game. Aupmanyav 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tantrika article

I am requesting help for the Tantra article. It is clearly marked as a Hindu article, yet it still has a section on Buddhist Tantra which already has its own article Vajrayana, and "neo-tantra" which also has its own article neotantra or somesuch. Tantra should be about tantrika parampara, however many of the editors working on that article are not familiar with the nature of Tantra. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I glanced through the article and didn't recognize the section you are referring to. Can you point out the specific Buddhist section ? (By the way, I know next to nothing on the topic; so perhaps can serve as a substitute for a "typical reader" towards whom the article should be aimed :-) ) Abecedare 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently, Tantrika_Parampara is a redirect to Tantra. The Buddhist and Neotantra have their own articles so I believe Hindu Shiva-Shakti Tantra should have its own article. That way, the main Tantra page can talk about all forms of Tantra. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversion

Gauranga, Brahmaji obtained Veda (knowledge) after tapas and because of that the 'dharma'. He cannot be termed as a hindu, we are. Religions did not come untill Akhenaten (I say this and only this is true). I do not believe in existence of soul, but in my view, those who do not know have many kinds of misunderstandings, religion is one of them.

Swadhyayee, it is for me to evaluate what I believe and for others to evaluate what they believe. I would not do the comparision for them. It may happen that my deduction of truth is different from their's. I believe in 'Tatwamasi' and I believe in 'chaitanya' in everything, even in a stone. If anyone differs, they are welcome to it. Of course, a christian or a muslim also is Brahman, Ekameva-Adviteeyam, only I think they have not understood a particular point, just as many hindus also might not have understood it.

Bakaji, Sri Krishna talks about 'dharma' and never about hinduism, that dharma which is for everyone and for all times. It is His 'Maya' and our ignorance which makes us a hindu, a christian, or a muslim. And thanks for moving the discussion to the notice board. Aupmanyav 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, You say you believe in "Chaitanya" but not soul. You only know what is the difference between "Chaitanya" and soul. Same thing, different names. "Chaitanya" within a body (human), I believe, we call it "soul". On Hinduism talk page, you found difference in "Dharma" and religion. Here you find difference in "Dharma" and "Hinduism". I think, that the article "Hinduism" include "Hindu Dharma". If we have to make an article on "Dharma" (your terminology), can we name the article as "Dharma" on Wikipedia pages? Isn't "Hinduism" an appropriate name? In my opinion, here we are not to debate on what is the ultimate truth. We are here to give broad outlook of Hinduism. May be un-intentionally but I feel you are trying to project yourself superior over others. What you say, even I know. But I think, this type of debate is not applicable for creation of this article.

On one side, you say you believe in "Tatwamasi" and "Ekmev Advaityam" at the same time you say you are staunch Hindu and find Islam and Christainity wrong. The point is we are not what we claim. If you feel you are "Chaitanya" and not "Aupmanvyav", the debate based on feeling of superiority can not exist. If I take what you say, I feel I will suffer of indigestion.

Aupmanyavji, can you tell me what is the meaning of "Pandit-Putra"?

Can we stay on ground and talk for article for commons than Mandan Mishra, Shankaracharya or Socratese? swadhyayee 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, as I have already mentioned, your truth may be different from mine, and Hinduism welcomes it, it is a search for truth. If I cut off my finger, it will still have chaitanya. Each of atoms contained in it will be just as activce. Simialrly each particle of an atom of a stone is constantly in a whirl, giving out energy/particles, taking in energy/particles, changing its properties, from a Baryon to a Boson to a Neutron, etc. That is its inherent property. And is atom a solid ball? No. The recent scientific research shows that it is none other than force, like Aurora Borialis, changes every nanosecond, so that we see a magnificient display, which is nothing more than that. That is what I understand as 'chaitanya'. Unless we understand a phenomenon, how would we be able to describe it in words. So a discussion is necessary. I have never wanted to change the name of the article, though it is well-known that 'dharma' and 'religion' do not mean the same. Who is not 'chaitanya', are you not? Why do you get this feeling in a debate that I feel superior to any body else? I am a hindu and I am just explaining my view which is not wrong according to scriptures. Yes, I do have problems with Christianity and Islam due to their exclusivity. My Hinduism does not believe in exclusivity. I can certainly co-exist with a christian or a muslim, even if he is a terrorist, because he also in reality is Brahman. IMHO, we are on good ground, by birth I am a 'pandit-putra', by profession, I was a shudra (service). What constitutes me will not always be 'Aupmanyav' but it will always be 'chaitanya'. Thanks. Aupmanyav 06:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.N. Oak

Perhaps you guys are more knowledgeable about him. Right now the article is quite unencyclopedic, and the criticism section contains a lot of fluff, and very little documentation on his actual theories.Bakaman 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Wikipedia, you have to have an article on him too! Compulsions of policy.:-( Aupmanyav 17:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Purana list

Hi. I was looking over the pages for specific mahapuranas, and I notice they have a box with links to the article on puranas and to each of the mahapuranas. I'm not a Hindu, so I'm just going from reading, but I understand there is some dispute as to whether the Siva purana is a mahapurana. (If I remember correctly, it would replace the Vayu purana.) Can the Siva purana be added to the box with the purana names, or would that be inappropriate? Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansat (talk • contribs).

Vegetarianism

Was 'compassion for all beings' and 'vegetarianism' not there in Hinduism before the advent of Buddhism and Jainism? Aupmanyav 10:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a very difficult question to answer. We'll probably have to do some research to find out. I think Anti-Hindu scholars may say that to try to show Hinduism as a barbaric religion. There definitely was "compassion for some beings." Vedic life in general is not terribly well known. Obviously cermonies like Ashwamedha existed and some people may argue the first transformation in Hinduism occurred when Buddhism and Jainism arose. GizzaChat © 10:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you testing our knowledge Aupmanyav? A person of your knowledge ask us this? I am Vaishnav. Have nothing to do with Jainism and Buddha. I believe, all Vaishyas and Brahmins (except coastal area Brahmins or may be Vaishya too) are veg. from long. I don't think any day in past we were non-veg. swadhyayee 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, Gautam Rushi, invented cultivation and I presume since his time, vegetarianism must have taken roots. swadhyayee 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What rubbish: "Gautam Rushi inventing cultivation"! Vedic age had fire-sacrifices and at least on larger yajnas, many animals would be sacrificed. This was the only meat allowed, and expected to be eaten by the Indo-Aryans. The slaughter of such animals was not consider a sin, because the Vedic religion was by its very nature ritualistic; it means that if things were done with proper rituals, they were automatically exempted from any sin that might be incurred otherwise (this later got into the philosophy of Mimamsa). This view is upheld in Manusmriti, Valmiki's Ramayana, Bhishma's talk to Yuddhishthira in Mahabharata and several other law books. Hunted animals was an exception, because sage Agastya had once "offered" all forest animals to Rudra, so eating hunted flesh was always allowed. However, commerical butchering of animals has always been condemned, calling it sinful. All the Vaishnava stuff evolved much after Buddhism and Jainism and certainly has been influenced by it. So saying "I am a Vaishnav, having nothing to do with Buddhism/Jainism" is misleading. Cygnus_hansa 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE MAGICALSAUMY, This is my knowledge and I have stated "I think". You have no business to term it as rubbish. What's your authority to say that Gautam Rushi did not invent cultivation? If, there was some ritual for non-veg. people to offer animals in Yajna and eat the sacrificed animals later, the same can not be construed that the only food was meat then. For your information, Smritis are nothing but constitution like we have Indian Penal Code. Today, being non-veg. is no crime does not mean morally it is correct to eat non-veg. (from Hindu perspective). Even today, if a person is dying for want of veg. food, he is allowed to take non-veg. as much one can put on a "Tulsi-Patra". You may differ with me but you have got to be enough polite. swadhyayee 15:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, in case you do not understand English, which I have come to suspect now, let me tell you that nowhere have I tried to contrue that flesh was the only food in Vedic ages. It seems you have misinterpreted my third sentence. It is only that I get really really pi**ed off with pseudoscience. Somewhere later down I have also put up a question on slyly selected quotations from Manusmriti. Cygnus_hansa 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MAGICALSAUMY, I saw your comments late as you have squeezed in. Don't bother about my English, in India we follow Britishers' English which is different from Yankees. Have I understood wrong that you tried to ridicule my modest contention that Gautam Rushi was behind invention of cultivation by using "what rubbish"? You have not been able to negative my contention or cite any other refs. against me. Just learn the mannerism. See the meaning of "rubbish" and understand the meaning of "What rubbish" if you claim to know English better than me. My objections are against your ridiculing Gautam Rushi having invented cultivation and not against your beliefs of Hindus being veg. or non-veg. I have never said that invention of cultivation meant there was no consumption of meat. I have very clearly stated that Vaishyas and Brahmins except from coastal regions were veg. from long and not non-veg. anytime. You have not addressed your comments to question raised by Aupmanyav, you have addressed your harsh comments against my contention of Gautam Rushi having invented cultivation. Pl. re-read your own comments and if you know English as you claim and feel wrong of using "What rubbish" without citing any refs. pl. strike out your "What rubbish" words. swadhyayee 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that just saying "what rubbish" is that offensive! I was against your mental conjecture that some Rishi invented/discovered cultivation, whereas it is very much well known that cultivation spread almost simultaneously among several Cro-Magnon Man communities across the world, almost at the same time prob. around 6000 BC. This led to a change from hunter-gatherers to settled people, later making towns and cities. And that too prob. the first cultivation was in Mesopotamia, not in the Aryan expanse. Also, about your comments about Brahmins (and Vaishyas), they are to be negated because Manusmriti explicitly says that if during Shraddha ceremony dinner, any Brahmin is invited, meat MUST be served before him (because it was considered a tasty food!), and one can manage with only vegetarian food only if Brahmins are not there. Because meat was a special food. In almost all world communities, guests are and have always been treated with special food (read meat). It is only after the influence of Jainism and peaceful Vaishnaite faith that (most) Brahmins became vegetarians. I will give supporting quotes soon, its just that I dont want to ruin my vacations just by gluing to the comp. Also, I very much know that the Indians, of whom I am a part, follow British English (although spoken form has a heavy native sing-song accent), since I was also schooled in an Indian school. My point about you had never ignored this fact.Cygnus_hansa 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In your view my English is not upto the mark and in my view your intelligence is not upto the mark to understand "what rubbish" is offensive, to understand that inventions of a kind can take place at two places simultaneously, to understand what the discussion is; And to understand that there is bound to be peculiar accent when one be it Indian or other speak any foregn language. What is the need of bringing accent part? Even the accent of a South Indian and North Indian would differ. There is nothing great if a person can speak fluent English after staying few years in Western countries as I am sure scavangers there too would be able to speak fluent English without any education. The discussion here is whether veg. part of Hinduism is effect of Jainism and Buddhism or not? Whether Brahmins were veg. or non-veg. is not for discussion. I have quoted Manusmruti which by all means is an authentic source to support the contentions of present discussion. If, you are referring to Shlok 123 of Ch. 3 of Manusmruti for serving meat to Brahmin during Shraddha, the meat referred there is from sacrifice of animals in Yajna and earlier Shlork 122 refer to Agnihotri Bramin not all Brahmins. Your strong opinions about cultivation are based on some history book of 21st century. Your answers become disgusting and you have still not shown decency of understanding "What rubbush" is offensive and striking out the same. swadhyayee 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I am sure scavangers there too" !- is it your casteism on display ? And by the way, "history book of 21st century" is not a slur - it is what is called a reliable source on wikipedia. 74.136.209.251 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"it is your castism on display" again a personal attack. Is that you Magicalsuamy? Pointing out a ground reality is alleged to be display of casteism. This is just to brush the ego of Indians going abroad and infatuate feeling of superiority over people of India. I don't mean to say that 21st history book is slur, I am just saying it may not have history of Gautam Rushi's work. swadhyayee 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Shloka 48 to 56 of Chapter 5 of Manusmruti condemn eating flesh, state flesh can not be eaten and appreciate who renounce flesh. Eating of flesh is discouraged by threatenings that the animal a human being eat, the same animal will eat the same human being in "Parlok" (hell or heaven) and he will be re-born many times as the same animal. In earlier shlokas what should be eaten and what not, which animals can be eaten and which not, which milk and food can be taken and which not is described. While concluding it is advocated that flesh should not be eaten. (See Shloka 48).

Aupmanyav, this is off-topic discussion started from your question. swadhyayee 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita gives direct reference to nonviolence and compassion [8] - and according to tradition accounts was spoken before the arrival of Buddhism into India. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The gita is at least 2000 years before Buddhism. Bakaman 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Swadhyayee, I am not testing anybody's knowledge. I am just contesting the popular view that Buddhism and Jainism did something which was unique which was not there in hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism carry the influence of Hinduism and not vice-versa. Buddha and Mahavira, both were born in this culture. That they gave more emphasis to certain aspects in their belief is not disputed. After all, we are the people who said Isavasyam Idam Jagat (the entire world is permeated by God), Ekatma Sarva Bhutantaratma (One Spriit is the inner spirit of all things), Ma himsyat sarva bhutani (Do not subject anything to cruelty). There are scores of references like this in Srimad BhagawadGeeta which I have not quoted. Aupmanyav 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that 'sarva bhutani' would include humans, animals, vegetation, and even inanimate objects. Aupmanyav 19:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The word literally means a 'being', and comes from the root bhav. Whether it is limited to sentient beings I am not sure. deeptrivia (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the Mahabharata (115:40) says:

“ The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts of the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it-all of these are to be considered meat-eaters. ”

deeptrivia (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

“ "Shloka 51 of Chapter 5 of Manusmruti describe 8 people who are killers. 1) Advisers in matter of flesh 2) Cutter 3) Killer 4) Seller 5) Buyer 6) Cook 7) Server and 8) Eater. ”

swadhyayee 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Deeptrivia, a stone also 'bhavati', without 'bhava' there would not be any stone. It seems to be created at a certain time by a certain process (all this being maya, illusion) and dissolves at another time by another process, but is in reality Brahman. Is anything ever created, except by 'Maya'? For Brahmavadins is there anything other than Brahman (apologies to Dvaitas, your views are as correct as mine). Did not Nri-Simha avatara appear out of a stone pillar? Aupmanyav 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes swadhyayee, you are starting to understand the technical side of wikipedia. — Arjun 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right, Aupmanyav. In fact, it could be anything with physical existence. That's where the Hindi word for physics (bhautiki) comes from. For the many other connotations, see here. I meant, whether Ma himsyat sarva bhutani was originally intended to cover all beings including the non-sentient beings, I am not sure, but it is highly likely. Also, Baudhayana (~800 BCE) defines a Mleccha as someone "who eats meat or indulges in self-contradictory statements or is devoid of righteousness and purity of conduct." deeptrivia (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cygnus_Hansa, you prove my point. In all probablity, Aryans were non-vegetarians. That they turned to vegetarianism must be the effect of an adjustment with a parallel philosophy, which I think was provided by the other native Indian beliefs. Hinduism came after the confluence of these two streams and many other smaller ones. Aupmanyav 06:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that Buddha never claimed to teach anything new. Many of his teachings end with 'esa dhammo sanatano' (this is the eternal dharma). It is held by many scholars that Buddha carried forward a long tradition, which had its roots in Samkhya (e.g., read this.) It is reasonable that his teachings significantly reflected the value system in which he was brought up ("Hinduism"), and formally trained (samkhya). deeptrivia (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With providing probabilities what are you trying to prove Aupmanyav? Manusmruti does state that animals offered to Yajna were for human consumption. I perceive that it was indirect way of controlling people consuming meat. Just imagine, how difficult was to organise an "Yajna". Without sacrificing in "Yajna" one was not supposed to consume meat as per Magicalsaumy's agreed contention. One of the Magicalsaumy's quote is "Manusmruti". Magicalsaumy has failed to note Shloka 48 to 56 of Chapter 5 of Manusmruti. What are you trying to say by two streams effect Aupmanyav? Are you trying to say that veg. is due to effect of Jainism or Buddha philosophy? If, it was so, there must reflect other advocacies of these two philosophies which is not. Hope you will agree that "Manu" era was much earlier than Buddha or Mahavir. I provide herewith summary of what Manu said in Chapter 5 of Manusmruti.

The suggestions are to "Dwij". "Dwij" as I understand means those who are born twice. The second birth is at the time of "Yajnopavit" viz. thread ceremony.

"Brahmins" should eat "Sanskarsuddha" meat upon one's discretion only once. It should be eaten in "Shraddha" and in "Madhupark" ceremony observing rituals and it should be only eaten when life is in danger due to some sickness. Shlok 27.

Prajapati has created all material as eatables to protect life so when life can not be saved unless consuming meat, meat should be consumed. Shlok 28.

Consuming meat for "Yajna" is "Daivvidhi" (divine) anything contrary (consuming meat only for nutrition) is Rakshasvidhi" (evil). Shlok 31.

"Dwij" knowledgable of rituals should not consume meat without danger to life as one who can not control desire to consume meat will be eaten by the same animals whom one ate. Shlok 33.

Hunter, killing an animal for livelyhood is not committing as much sin, as meat eater without cause is committing. Shlok 34.

Animals of "Ghee" or "Flour" should be made and used in traditional "Yajnas" which are not having foundation in Vedic doctrines but animals should not be killed for these "Yajnas". Shlok 37.

Those who belong to "Brahmacharyashram", "Gruhasthashram" or "Vanprashtashram" and have controlled (conquered) their sensual desires should not get involved in Hinsa not supported by Vedas even during life losing time. Shlok 43.

One who kills animals incapable to kill (Ahinsak Prani) are dead during their life time and never get happiness. Shlok 45.

A human who does not desire to control movement of animals, kill or cause pain to animals is desirous of eveyone's well being and so he gets enormous happiness. Shlok 46.

One who does not get involved in any Hinsa succeeds without much efforts in any meditation (Dhyan), any (Karma) deed or desires ("Dharanas"). Shloka 47.

Meat can not be recovered without killing animals and killing animals don't lead to heaven but is a cause of getting hell so meat should be renounced. Shlok 48.

One who does not abrogate rituals and does not eat meat as a ghost (Pishach) becomes dear to all and remains free from (grief causing) ailments. Shlok 50.

Shlok 51 already mentioned.

One who desires increasing one's flesh by consuming meat is greatest sinister of all sinisters. Shlok 52.

One who undertakes 100 yearly "Ashvamedh Yajnas" (every year 1 for 100 years) and one who renounce meat has equatable "Punya" (Punya is opposite of sin - Virtue?). Shlok 53.

"Vidwans" viz. sages/knowledgables say that the animals whom I eat here will eat me in in Parlok (heaven or) hell. Shlok 55,

Though there is no stigma in consuming meat, liquor or having sex as they are the activities of animals but renouncing them is earning good outcome (Mahafal or Mahaphal). Shlok 56.

Garlic, carrot, onion, mushroom and vegetables (like Tandalja Bhaji) produced with help of un-holy manure are not eatables for "Dwij". Shlok 5.

Gum (reddish liquid) oozing from tree or recovered from cutting of tree, Vadgunda and Bali made out of cow's milk should be avoided. Shlok 6. [Bali is produced from milk of lactating cow (when the calf is dependent upon cow for feed).].

Milk of cow whose calf is not more than 10 nights, camel, mare, sheep and menstruating cow desirous of intercourse and cow whose calf has died should be avoided. Shlok 8.

There are plenty of restrictions regarding eating meat of certain animals. Fish eating is totally condemned (Shlok 15) however exception of certain kind of fish is provided.

This all which one may consider orthodox is provided here to stress that Manu era is long past comparing Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism and Buddhism have influence of Hinduism and not Hinduism is influenced by Jainism and Buddhism. This applies to even Vegetarianism. Both Mahavir and King Siddharth - Gautam Buddha are born much later during time of Hinduism. King Siddharth had seen a funeral procession which disturbed him and he renounced his kingdom. Both Mahavir and King Siddharth undergone meditation, reference of which (meditation) could be sought in Vedas, Upnishads and Geeta. swadhyayee 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody want to amend This section accordingly to the agreements made above? Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the section is not at all necessary as it were Buddhism and Jainism which were influenced by Hinduism and not the other way round. Aupmanyav 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I do not think you are reading my posts correctly. My statement is very clear. Aryans basically were non-vegetarians. By two streams I mean (1) the Aryans worshipping Indra, Surya, Agni, etc. (2) Other native believers who were worshipping Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti. I was the first to contest on these pages that Buddhism and Jainism has had very little effect on Hinduism, and that the case is just opposite. Buddhism, Jainism, and later Sikhism have clear influence of Hinduism. You are basically repeating what was stated by me in a way which seems that I am contesting for the opposite. As for meat-eating among Aryans, I would quote only from the original, i.e., Vedas, and not even Upanishads. It is true, by the time of Manusmriti and Srimad BhagawadGeeta, Aryan beliefs had changed. But, perhaps it would require one day of searching. Aupmanyav 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, This discussion was started under IAF's Sikhism proposal. The question was not related to Sikhism discussion. All of a sudden you put this negative question without any context. I seperated this question.

Another thing, pl. don't take all my comments are directed at you.

In reply to your question, DaGizza made ref. to some views about effect of Buddhism and Jainism upon Hinduism.

Magicalsaumy rubbished my doubtful statement that Gautam Rushi invented cultivation. He did not put any counter theory that Gautam Rushi did not invent cultivation. Within me, I am pretty sure that Gautam Rushi invented cultivation and cultivation can not spread unless people turn to veg. food.

I am not aware about Mahaprabhuji's era along with time of Mahavir and Buddha. Yet, Mahavir was 24th Tirthankar so Jainism must be much older. So I have not replied his claim about Vishnavism.

My comments aim to answer all and provide some information I have.

It's better that we concentrate on DaGizza's proposal of super review para wise. We could discuss your question when we come to veg. part in article. You should wait till then to raise your question. DaGizza is proposing for super review and people keep on editing the way they want. If, a new comer does so, we can understand but editors aware of DaGizza's proposal also do so.

I feel the intentions behind your questions are not clear so questions without context raise doubts about your intentions. I have seen you trying to prove your superiority over others.

Your these comments also not make clear what you want to say.

::Cygnus_Hansa, you prove my point. In all probablity, Aryans were non-vegetarians. That they turned to vegetarianism must be the effect of an adjustment with a parallel philosophy, which I think was provided by the other native Indian beliefs. Hinduism came after the confluence of these two streams and many other smaller ones. Aupmanyav 06:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

We are completing the article. Let's channelise our energies in one direction to make final changes. Again, my request to you would be to remain on ground and talk related to article. What you talk about higher philosophy is not relevant here. I know most of the things you say but I don't think we should confuse others with higher philosophy unless it is needed for some proposals. You placed your question on talk page of Hinduism where it has been brought to our attention that only matters related to article should be discussed.

With due apology, Pandit-Putra is used sarcastically for a worthless child of a Pandit. A knowledgable son of a Pandit is known as Pandit. It's an abusive term. So pl. don't use this term. swadhyayee 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultivation was "invented" during the Neolithic Revolution, and was the driving force that led to all Bronze age civilizations. Civilized life was made necessary because of agriculture required cooperation on a bigger scale than hunting. It required granaries for storing food for off season, etc. Indus Valley Civilization had an extensive irrigation network. Somehow, Gautam rishi doesn't fit into these theories. deeptrivia (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A small, but significant, addition : "Civilized life became both possible and necessary..."

Also, civilized here is used not as an antonym for barbaric, but as the opposite of nomadic. (I know all this is far off topic and getting further. :-) ) Abecedare 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let us forget these little tiffs. I had to bring the line to the attention of Cygnus_Hansa and other proponents of 'Vedic only' theory. IMHO, it is disrespectful to Tamils and many others who do not agree that they have Aryan descent but are part of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 18:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In the chapter just before this one, whence the quotes are taken, there is an entire explicit chapter which says that sacrificed meat of certain animals is allowed. Why were the verses from that chapter cleverly avoided here?Cygnus_hansa 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Magicalsaumy, the discussion here is whether Jainism and Buddhism influenced Hinduism in respect of veg. habit of Hindus? It's not whether Hindus consumed meat or not? I have already said in beginning, "Manusmruti does state that animals offered to Yajna were for human consumption." The concluding part is more important in any writing not what is written in between. The discussion itself is long and what you claim I have cleverly avoided is irrelevant if you use your mind. swadhyayee 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We must also keep in mind that Manusmriti is just the point of view of Manu, and contains many extremist ideas which run contrary to mainstream principles of Hinduism, and that many of these "laws" were never implemented anywhere. Any book written in Sanskrit 2000 years ago doesn't become automatically a sacred book that ought to be followed, nor an authenitic picture of Hindu society of that time. For example, (XII. 4.)

“ If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces. ”

Although we know Indian society was discriminatory, such things are still clearly just personal opinions of Manu, and we have had several counter opinions. We agree that Hinduism is not a monolithic religion, and while Manu did have some ideas that he wrote in his book, they were not binding on anyone. deeptrivia (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Deeptrivia, The point here is whether the veg. part of Hinduism is effect of Jainism or Buddhism or not? In other words, Hindus were non-veg. prior to Jainism or Buddhism came into existence. The fact is Jainism and Buddhism are later religions and have effect of Hinduism or they are branches of tree of Hinduism.

Could there be not simultaneous revolution in cultivation in east and west? In east, Gautam Rushi may be behind the invention of cultivation. Are your refs. history written by Westerns?

Regarding Manu, Manu was no ordinary person/institute. If, I mistake not Bhagawan Krishna referred to Manu in Srimad Bhagwad Geeta so Manu should be earlier than Mahabharat war viz. 2000 years. My feeling from what I have heard is, lot was added to Manusmruti later. Here, the ref. of Manusmruti was to prove that veg. concept was inherent in Hinduism prior to the time of Buddhism and Jainism and veg. was no influence of these two religions upon Hinduism. Regarding putting lead in ears etc. the same may or may not literally mean so. It could be some sort of terminology. Like today, life sentence in India does not mean sentence through out life of a guilty but sentence for 14 years. Even the lawyers today in India, make note of their fees in Shillings which currency is not operative in India.

Aupmanyav, if you wanted to prove against Vedic only theory, why not talk straight? How does discussion on this question about effect of other religions on veg. going to change the minds who believe in Vedic only theory?

Magicalsaumy, will you kindly strike out "what rubbish" from your comments? swadhyayee 02:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that the Buddhists and Jains only enhanced some concepts found in Hinduism. That would mean vegetarianism and peace would have become more widespread among Hindus once Mahavir and Gautama came. In the Vedas, there is strong evidence of praising the cow and some weaker evidence of compassion for all beings. But Buddhism and Jainism must have made it a more prominent idea in Hinduism. For example, Ashoka's conversion did have massive impact. But like Swad. said it is better to review the article formally. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, make clear what you mean. My appeal to all is, we discuss article para wise as suggested by you and effect necessary changes. We should channelise our enegies to improve the article "Hinduism". If, we discuss hypothetical questions, we will never be able to finalise the article. swadhyayee 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

'If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces'. There can be no greater proof that Manusmriti is heavily interpolated. The Vedas were compiled by a shudra, VedaVyas, and many of the venerated scholars of Vedas were shudras, like Vidur and Valmiki, and so were the writers of some Upanishads, like Satyakama Jabali. Aupmanyav 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should have a page for a hindu free-for-all. :-) Aupmanyav 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DaGizza. Buddhism and Jainism drew their philosophies out of already existing philosophies ("Hinduism"), but they emphasized on some things more strongly. Official patronage meant a wider rangle of people were now following these principles. "Hindu" kings, in general, as far as I know from history, did not put in much effort, compared to the likes of Ashoka, in spreading religious values. deeptrivia (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject saivism

It looks dead.^T*^E*^H Kingrom 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

huh? it's actually be more active. people actually joined. before it was worse.--D-Boy 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism

Hi,

Some random guy recently created Hindu extremism. It is primarily an attack page. Moreover it makes no sense to have this article when we already have articles on Hindutva. Do voice your opinions at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)