Talk:Hinduism

You can contribute at Hinduism related collaboration of the week. Any registered wikipedian can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles. Voting also indicates interest in contributing during the weekly collaboration cycle. Every Friday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for a week to potential contributors.

Template:WP1.0

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Religion versus set of beliefs

Recently User:Deeptrivia modified the first sentence from Hinduism is a "religion" to "refers to the set of diverse religious beliefs and practices". I don't for a moment dispute that the second statement is accurate, but I think it might be preferable to keep the former formulation as the first sentence of the article, for the following two reasons:

• A overwhelming number of contemporary reliable sources do classify Hinduism as a religion (consider national census or worldwide survey etc.) albeit one that is more of a conglomeration than most other major world religions.
• The first sentence of the second paragraph already says, "itself a conglomerate of different beliefs and traditions.", so repeating the same in the first sentence may be undesirable.
• Consider the viewpoint of a reader who knows nothing about what "Hinduism" is and comes to the wikipedia page. Such a reader may read "Hinduism is a set of diverse religious beliefs and practices" on this page and then, say (I am making this up; please don't nitpick on this specific example :-) ), "Tantra is a set of diverse religious beliefs and practices" on another page and not realize that there is a significant categorical difference between the two! IMO it is better to first orient the reader to the broad subject of the article, and then delve into the details and nuances.

I am stating my thoughts here in order to invite other opinions, and not as a rigid marker of my position. Please chime in with your thoughts and comments. Regards. Abecedare 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be more than one point involved here. Wording for this section will be difficult because the question of what Hinduism is is complex and different WP:RS define it in different ways. It is correct to say that many sources call it a religion. On the other hand, the very existence of "Hinduism" as a logical category is questioned by some WP:RS that consider it to be a relatively recent intellectual construction intended to sum up a complex of cultural, religious, and sociological issues. Gavin Flood tackles this issue in chapter one of An Introduction to Hinduism, making the statement that "Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas incorporated by the term 'Hindu', it is a problem arriving at a definition." (p. 6) He goes on to say: "I take the view that while 'Hinduism' is not a category in the classical sense of an essence defined by certain properties, there are nevertheless prototypical forms of Hindu practice and belief." (p.7) He goes on to discuss "prototype theory" as defined by George Lakoff, which is a sort of fuzzy-set theory. A similar approach is used by some academics who study tantra, which is another nebulous subject. Clearly religion is one component of Hinduism, but it is not the only component. Particularly when looking at Western impressions of Hinduism, many of them are based not upon Hindu religious practices, but upon philosophical ideas, chiefly the avaita vedanta concepts popularized in the West by missionaries such as Swami Vivekananda and other Western-looking writers. Popular Western associations with meditation and yoga have very little to do with temple practices or formal devotion, but probably many attendees at yoga classes think of themselves as being "attracted to Hinduism". I do not have an answer on how to edit the article, but instead of trying to come up with language from scratch, a survey of sources may be helpful. Buddhipriya 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion will take us into many yugas. Hinduism doesnt mean anything and everything under the moon. Its much simpler to call it a religion. Let the reader go to pages like Samkhya Sutra, advaita and Yoga to decide for themselves what Hinduism is.Bakaman 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a complex question. However I do not agree that Hinduism is best defined as "a religion". Axel Michael's book Hinduism: Past and Present, has almost as the first statment: "As a matter of fact, Hinduism is not a homogeneous religion at all, but is rather a potpourri of religions, doctrines, and attitudes toward life, rites and cults, moral and social norms." (p. 3) Michaels discusses the controversies on how to define Hinduism in detail in his opening chapter and notes that: "(S)ome maintain that Hinduism as a coherent religion, is a Western construct." (p. 12)

John Keay, in discussing Gupta period history from c300-500 CE makes the comment: "Hinduism as a religion with specific doctrines and practices was still unrecognisable. Arguably it still is." (India: A History, p. 147). Buddhipriya 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, I agree with everything you said above, but right now I am veering towards Baka's position that the details of how Hinduism is defined is a very complex issue which is better dealt with elsewhere than in the first sentence of this article. I know that the subject of "definition" is a perennial and important academic topic, but we may be better off describing Hinduism than attempting to define it in this ~4000 word overview article.

A suggestion would be to say something like, "Hinduism ... is a religion^[1]" and then add in a footnote "[1] Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc. For a survey of the issue see, Review article XYZ." Of course, we need to find a specific source which discusses this issue in detail and from a neutral point of view (i.e, one that surveys that various opinions, rather than proposes its own definition). Gavin Flood does something along those lines, in the "Introduction: Establishing the boundaries" in the "Blackwell companion" - but there probably are even more focussed sources. I would like to avoid surveying the issue ourselves in the article or footnote, because there are so many divergent and nuanced opinions on the topic, and discussing those will divert us from the main topic of the page. Abecedare 21:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to add some citations to establish a baseline of WP:RS so we can all review the same raw data together. I agree that whatever is said in the lead needs to be kept simple. Here is another quote that covers the same ground, with some background on the colonial influence on all of this. Romila Thapar notes the controversial idea that "Hinduism" is a recent Western concept in the Introduction to her book Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Discussing the British colonial period she notes the British interest in things Indian as driven by practical matters: "In the course of investigating what came to be called Hinduism, together with various aspects of its belief, ritual and custom, many were baffled by a religion that was altogether different from their own. It was not monotheistic, there was no historical founder, or single sacred text, or dogma or ecclesiastical organization - and it was closely tied to caste. There was therefore an overriding need to fit it into the known moulds of familiar religions, so as to make it more accessible. Some scholars have suggested that Hinduism as it is formulated and perceived today, very differently from earlier times, was largely born out of this reformulation. In India, diverse and multiple religions were practised, with royal patronage extending to more than one." (p. 3) Of the formulations which you suggest, I would put the text that you suggest for a footnote into the lead, and citations can be given for each component in footnotes, as well as a review article citation: Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of beliefs and practices", "sociological category" etc. Personally I do not think that religion is the key issue in defining Hinduism. I find the sociological and anthropological factors to be more broadly relevant. The reflexive definition based on religion tends to cause the reader to overlay their own understanding of religion into the term, which is what Thapar is talking about. Buddhipriya 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think Abecedare has a great solution. Buddhipriya in regards to this quote "It was not monotheistic, ... organization" evidence to refute that statement abounds. I do not have access to JSTOR on a regular basis (semi monthly) but this paper in the Numen seems to refute much of Thapar's views on Hinduism. Thapar is a Marxist. She has a rather vested interest in portraying everything as a class struggle, and all beliefs as opiates of the masses. However, the face of Hinduism is still changing. BAPS has been described as the new face of Hinduism[3] and Hinduism in Indonesia is represented by Parisada Hindu Dharma, a group while not dogmatic, is organized and proselytizes extensively.Bakaman 21:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a choice between reinforcing simplistic but problematic (probably not too far from wrong) definitions vs. being sophisticated and accurate at a cost of adding two or three more words in the lead. deeptrivia (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple is better. Hinduism doesnt define everything between venus and mars either. There (as attested by the link in Numen) is a shared belief in the Vedas at the core.Bakaman 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple is better indeed. See however Simple vs. Simplistic. deeptrivia (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<arbitrary deindent> I have no objection to using the proposed "footnote" text (or deeptrivia's original addition) in the lead itself if that is what is the consensus. But I do feel that we should not use individual references for each use, since that approach will recreate the problem we faced earlier with the whole Sanatan/Vaidic/Aryan Dharma issue, as each new editor will want to insert his/her own favorite formulation based on his/her own favorite (reliable) source. I am certain that you all appreciate that there are scores (if not hundreds!) of such sources with their own nuanced formulation, and that will either mean that (1) the first sentence of the article becomes a conglomeration of definitions, or (2) if we decide to pick say 5 definitional phrases, we will have endless battles on whether the Thappar, Witzel, Sarvarkar or Flood definitions are the most noteworthy.
Therefore my suggestion is that we find one reliable source which reviews the whole issue in detail and use it as a citation (I am thinking something analogous to the article Who Invented Hinduism, but that addresses "What is Hinduism", from a definitional rather than descriptive angle). This approach will also avoid any charges that we are violating wikipedia's policies against synthesis. Does that make sense ? Abecedare 22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a diverse set [...] should in fact be a solution to the problem of scores of sources and nuanced formulations. The way I am looking at it, this description automatically includes all those diverse definitions, beliefs, etc., with no more room for anyone wanting his/her favorite view added. deeptrivia (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Isn't a set of beliefs and practices part of the definition of religion itself? Hence, the only difference it seems to be making is that Hinduism is very diverse. Now I only skimmed through the discussion above, so if someone has mentioned this please tell me. While I believe the article hasn't explicitly defined Hinduism as diverse, the diversity of Hinduism is explained throughout the page. This is perhaps another reason why I support moving the "Core concepts" paragraph into the lead, because it discusses this distintive feature and is very introductory in its nature. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes but calling it a religion is more representative of what it is considered. Look at ghits for instance. Hinduism+religion = 3 million, Hinduism+diverse set of beliefs = a paltry 787k. I'm going out on a limb and suggesting this is a cultural difference. Both deeptrivia and Buddhipriya are most probably from India, while abecedare and I are not. I think this may be the cultural gap that is not letting us see eye to eye on this. Many Indians call it a way of life/rules. Those of us not connected to India view it as a religion. I dont think these last assumptions are incorrect.Bakaman 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya isn't of Indian origin from my knowledge nor do I think Deeptrivia is currently living in India (though I may be wrong there). :) Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of where deeptrivia is in the world, however as a third generation American, I have seen many Indian Americans with those views "oh, way of life/all paths to god/ all rivers to the ocean" and can make a general statement that those with strong ties to India have such views. However it helps to be frank with ones origins. Mine are from Kolkatta, epicenter of Hindu revivalism.Bakaman 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be going a bit off-topic. I don't either confirm or deny the correctness of Baka's guess with regrads to my origins ... I prefer to maintain an air of mystery :-) Abecedare 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think however that ones origins and the type of Hinduism (or being an outsider) are an integral part of ones developed views. My experience with Hindu revivalism leads me to view Hinduism as a religion, albeit much more loose and accepting than Abrahamic religions. Others, especially those from India, where Hinduism is omnipresent, view it as a way of life. That was why I made that assertion of the cultural gap in this discussion. Views as a religion far outnumber those that view it as a collection of diverse beliefs encompassing everything from x to y.Bakaman 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yeah, Wikipedia gives editors the right to remain anonymous. Lets not go into the origins issue any further. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha :), just as this interesting conversation itself shows, there is a diversity of views even on what Hinduism is (which is a good thing). This diversity has always existed, and recognising it is central to Hinduism. deeptrivia (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There are three distinctive elements to define a religion: dogma, cult and moral. The three are certainly present in Abrahamic religions. In Hinduism or Taoism for instance, cult and dogma are present, but the "moral" part does not seem to share the characteristics found in semitic religions. For this reason, it's better to name Hinduism or Taoism under the more general term of "Tradition", than of "religion", which is much applicable to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. TwoHorned 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say Hinduism and Taoism don't have systems of morality: they're rife with them. Just taking Hinduism, ahimsa and duty and filial piety and reverence to the gods (or God) and the manes are all elements of the faiths. Furthermore, it is almost beyond dispute that, at the very least, the Vedic elements of Hinduism share a hoary ancestry with Iranian faiths (like Zoroastrianism) and, reaching back further still, the Mesopotamian religious contexts, which in turn have deep connections with Greek and hence Christian traditions/religions (I am collapsing tradition and religion here). Thus, both 'genetic' linkages and self-evident systems of morality would characterize Hinduism, if the term be accepted, as a religion/faith. Beyond all this, I think all this talk about "Hinduism" obfuscates the reality of a long-standing tradition of people, all the way back to Shankaracharya's time, constantly referencing a great body of thought-and-praxis linked inextricably with the Vedic tradition, one which subsumed the six orthodox schools of philosophy and several less 'formally defined' schools like Bhakti and various Tantric/sects.... names included "Veda Dharma", "Arya Dharma", "Arsha Dharma", "Yoga Dharma", and more recently, "Sanatana Dharma". I think it would be overstating the issue to say that 'Hinduism' defined the essence of a new entity; rather, it may have more securely delimited the boundaries of an entity which pre-existed the Persians and against which the Buddhists, Jainas, and Charvakas defined themselves and were defined by. The evidence speaks more loudly than the accusations of historical revisionism. This is not to say what we call Hinduism isn't a very complicated, occasionally frustratingly protean concept, but it is more religion than vague, new-fangled cultural construct. --69.203.80.158 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with 69.'s argument. My personal experience shows that the moral is taken more seriously in Dharmic religions. After all, one definition of Dharma is morality. Concepts like Ahimsa and Vegatarianism pertain more to morality than with cult or dogma IMO. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus has so far (Note:Consensus can change) agreed that Hinduism is diverse and a religion. Furthermore, regardless of how we define religion and Hinduism, reliable sources moreorless state that Hinduism is a (diverse) religion. So what should we do about the sentence that sparked this discussion? Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to either the three-elements-to-define-religion idea, or the assertion that Hinduism is completely devoid of morals. Talking about sources, it appears that sources interested in describing the concept with any serious academic rigor often prefer not calling it "a" religion. Examples Britannica 1911 Britannica Encycl. Mystica, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps we can put a note after the word "religion," where we say that religion isn't the most accurate way to describe Hinduism, but rather a set of beliefs or a way of life. It remains however, that anybody with a superficial knowledge of Hinduism will call it a religion since most but not all of its characteristics resemble a religion. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>
A quick survey of tertiary references and dictionaries (just going through a database; too lazy to type out complete bibliographic information for references but can do so if desired):

• Encyclopædia Britannica: beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions
• Encarta: religious tradition
• The Concise Oxford English Dictionary :religious and cultural tradition
• The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: principal religious tradition
• A Dictionary of Sociology: belief-system, religious tradition
• A Dictionary of Asian Mythology: philosophical system
• A Dictionary of World History : system of religious beliefs and social customs, both a way of life and a rigorous system of religious law
• A Dictionary of Contemporary World History: religion
• The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable: religious and cultural tradition, diverse family of devotional and ascetic cults and philosophical schools
• World Encyclopedia: Traditional religion
• A Dictionary of Buddhism: religious tradition
• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions : major continuing and connected religions (Note: "religions", not singular "religion")
• The Oxford Dictionary of Islam: religio-cultural traditions
• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: religion
• World of Sociology, Gale: religion
• The Columbia Encyclopedia: religious beliefs and practices
• Bloomsbury Guide to Human Thought: collective term given today to the majority religion, philosophy and culture of the peoples of India
• The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: religious and philosophical traditions
• Philip's Encyclopedia: Traditional religion
• The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia including Atlas: Religion
• The Macmillan Encyclopedia: religious beliefs and institutions
• The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia: religious tradition
• The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin: religion
• Andromeda Encyclopedic Dictionary of World History: Religion
• Collins Dictionary of Sociology: religion
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice
• The Penguin English Dictionary : religious faith

OK, my take after brushing through the above list is that while several references do refer to Hinduism, simply as a religion, many don't (and some make a point of saying that Hinduism is not a religion in the usual sense used for Abrahamic faiths; see for example Encarta). So what should we do ? My proposal is that we use the phrase "religious tradition" in the lead and then add a footnote of the form I suggested earlier, i.e., "Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc. For a discussion on the topic, see Flood, Gavin, "Establishing the boundaries" in Flood (2003), pp. 1-17."
I am voting for "religious tradition" because (1) it is short, sweet and simple without (hopefully) being over-simplistic, (2) emphasizes the traditional as opposed to dogmatic aspect of Hinduism, (3) often comes up in the above survey, and (4) as some others (including me) have said earlier, we can clarify in the succeeding sentences that this tradition itself consists of a conglomeration of diverse set of beliefs and practices. Thoughts ? Abecedare 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this solution. Great work of finding so many different sources. Many of them also make it a point of using traditions (plural form) for understandable reasons. I suggest that it would be a good idea to have it that way. deeptrivia (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of the references do use the plural form, but they seem to be a minority (PS: I cut-n-pasted each quote and did not intentionally change any pluralization). More importantly, if we choose to use "religious traditions", we will have to reword the lead sentence, as "Hinduism is a set of religious traditions ..." which sounds a bit kludgy to me. But I realize that there is one right answer to this issue, so we can certainly discuss it further if you feel strongly about it. Abecedare 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think we're good with the current solution. Thanks everyone for the cooperation and the enlightening discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty misunderstood: I did not mean Hinduism or Taoism are devoid of moral. What I meant precisely is that the word "Dharma" goes far beyond the notion of "morality" in the usual social sense. Morality is linked to the social behaviour of a community. "Dharma" denotes the righteous of behaviour for a human being to match that of the divine. It goes beyond social. TwoHorned 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To Abecedare, wonderful work on finding so many references and yes, nice proposal. To TwoHorned, perhaps we did misunderstand. Nonetheless, though this is going off-topic, how does Semitic morality differ to that of Dharma? Are you saying that Semitic morality is only social but Dharma is social and individual/with God? I still don't quite understand that point. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples: in China, metaphysical and social aspects of the tradition are separated into two different systems: Taoism and Confucianism. It does not mean that Taoism is devoid of law: but the "law" aspects in Taoism are directly related to metaphysical considerations, which is not the same than in Confucianism, where social aspects of the moral are predominant. The situation resembles to that of Hinduism: the notion of Sanatana Dharma has its roots in the intellectual part of the tradition. In anciant Roman and Greek "religions", the social aspect of moral is evident, being related to the "gods of the City". In Islam, you have both aspects: the Shariya has a social aspects, but its roots go in the direction of Tacawuff, according to the Hadith "Al Islam al din al fitrah" (Islam is the religion of the nature of Being): "Al din al fitrah" is probably the notion closest to Sanatana Dharma that can be found in Islam. Christianity has no moral of its own, as it comes directly from Roman canon. To sum up, things are not as simple as some may expect. TwoHorned 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Twohorned: The Manusmritis are a perfect example (in my opinion of the perversion) of social morality founded on what you refer to, with good reason I believe, the 'intellectual' moral base of Hindu thought. A good distinction might be what people call universal, categorical imperatives (a la Kant), the 'intellectual' or 'higher' morality, and the particular, social, conventional complex of moralities which may or may not claim to derive from the higher ones. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, all these faiths certainly have both aspects of morality; at the very least, they certainly claim to deal with all aspects of life. Indeed, I think Hinduism is one of the most practical religious complexes of all, with praxis (hatha yoga, ayurveda, artha shastras, even the dreadful attempt at dharma shastras, etc.) and 'theory' (Upanishads, though there's plenty practical advice in there, the Gita, same as with the Upanishads, etc.) both addressed with specifically moral teleologies in mind.

To all else... I like this discussion... it's very germane... I've often played around with this in my head... my own gratuitous idea is that Hinduism be described something like: a complex of religious and philosophical beliefs and practices sharing a common Vedic heritage. --69.203.80.158 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:) Do we all agree to the solution, then? deeptrivia (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added "religious tradition." The link still goes to religion because I can't think of any place better. Unless, we link religious and tradition separately to their respective pages? Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gizza. I have added the footnote proposed above, to indicate that there are nuances to the issue. Abecedare 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I must acknowledge that this has been one of the most pleasurable, enlightening and fruitful discussions I have had on this page with enthusiastic participation, knowledgeable comments, considered listening and a complete absence of trolling or histrionics. Its worth noting that the final solution we arrived at is different from the position any of us started with (see my opening comment, for example). So here is my personal thanks to deeptrivia, Gizza, Baka, TwoHorned, Buddhipriya, and our anon. friend 69.203.80.158. Ok I'll stop gushing now and touch wood. Abecedare 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is true example of the capability of Wikipedia. Many argue that there is no such thing as consensus and Wikipedia is deterimined by a "pseudo-consensus" which is pretty much a vote . But this discussions shows is that if we follow vāda (See User:Buddhipriya#Words_to_live_by), consensus can be determined. Nobody is in disagreement now. Ongoing bickering looks so stupid when it is possible (as this shows) for people with different opinions to reach common ground. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution in place is a reasonable one. I also agree that if we only want to use one overview article, Flood (2003), pp. 1-17 is a good choice. I am grateful to Abecedare for having suggested that book. I suggest that the footnote be slightly reworded to make more clear that Flood's survey does not only use religion as a definitional component (currently the footnote reads: Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc.). Flood himself makes a strong case for the sociological and anthropological issues as a significant factor. But all of the examples in the footnote are religious in nature. Abecedare, do you agree that some edit to the footnote could reflect the more complex issues in a single sentence? Buddhipriya 08:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The footnote text was just a top-of-the-head creation and missed representing contrasting opinions. Perhaps we can add/substitute phrases from the above list, such as, "philosophical system", "beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions", "way of life" so that the sociological view is represented, and so that we have specific references available if someone challenges the use of a particular phrase in the future. I think we should avoid too long a description though, so that the footnote remains a guide to external resources and doesn't become a thesis in itself. Buddhipriya, please go ahead and make the edit as you see appropriate. We can always object later, if needed :-) Abecedare 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are to close to the subject to judge. I would like to add two points to this discussion. One, other systematic collections of faith are also called religions, christianity being a prime example. Two, it should matter most if those ascribing to these beliefs consider themselves united or divided. So, let's all take a step back and ask if the adherents consider themselves to be united in religion, or divided in different "beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions". Vodyanoi 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Let me add my two cents. Soon after I joined Wikipedia, I realized that edit wars were nonproductive, more often than not, they being a clash of egos. I have also found virtual turf wars to be very unpleasant, and I decided to avoid them. I am one of those users of Wikipedia who just wish to improve it. I am interested in following the guidelines of Wikipedia, but with some commonsense. Not all secondary sources of information are good. I like to use my discretion. In matters related to India, especially Hinduism, I have found scholars trained mainly in Western education to be seriously handicapped and misinformed, even though I have found most of them to be very sincere. Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Swastika

added quotes from "Bannanje Govindachar" in the swastika section, explaining the meaning behind the symbolism. --Jayaram Uparna 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! Unfortunately, while I know your edits were in good faith, this is the main Hinduism article and should avoid excessive detail and commentary. See WP:SS and Wikipedia:Main article fixation. So I had to revert your edits. However, as long as you attribute those comments to a notable source, you can add it to Hindu iconography or Swastika itself. Thank you Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary and your talk page, your edits though undoubted well-meant were (1) unsourced and (2) unnecessary details for this article. You are welcome to contribute them to Swastika etc as long as you have a reliable source, but we need to be careful that we don't give undue weight to one scholar's interpretation. Finally, I noticed that the Bannanje Govindacharya is completely unsourced; if you are knowledgeable about the subject, please help improve that biographical article. Thanks. Abecedare 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! :-) this article is hot!!! Within 5 mins my comments were edited out. I see your points. The difficulty here is that sri.Bannanje has 100s of hrs of discourse available, but in audio format, and that too in a predominantly kannada(language) commentary. Note here that he has had unparalleled research work and has dedicated his lifetime to study of spirituality...so his comments are not to be taken lightly. But i wonder how one can eke out this swastika comment from his commentaries and publish them in the swastika section. That is a challenging thing. These comments appear, in particular, in his commentaries on the Vishnu Sahasranama, Purushasukta etc. Any thoughts? --Jayaram Uparna 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Even I've heard Bannanje's commentaries in Kannada. Do you know of any available English versions of his commentaries? Sourcing Bannanje Govindacharya should not be of much difficulty as lot of information about him is available on the net. I'll work on that article. But I'm not sure how can I bring citations to his commentaries.Gnanapiti 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! It would be nice to see efforts to improve the Hinduism article radiate out to befit other articles too.

Jayaram Uparna, yes, this article is well-watched and needs to be given the amount of vandalism it sees everyday (your edits don't fall in that category!). As for sourcing Bannanje's commentaries: as far as I know we will need to have written published sources, preferably in English, in order to satisfy wikipedia's requirements on verifiability and reliable sources. Isn't there some published work, by Bannajee himself or some other scholar who quotes him, that can be used ? Abecedare 06:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. There is no requirement for written sources; a published audio recording can be just as useful. There is likewise no requirement that sources be in English; indeed, in many cases (as, possibly, here) there are valid reasons why the best sources may not be available in English. You can cite his commentaries inside a ref tag just like you would cite anything else; it would be best, of course, if you could cite a specific time in a recording when the part being cited is spoken. There are formal citation formats for citing recordings if you want to look them up. In any case, there is nothing wrong with citing a published audio recording, if it otherwise meets the criteria for a good source. --Aquillion 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. You are right, there is even a {{cite audio}} template (it redirects to {{cite video}}). It might be useful to see for what purpose various pages use this template and if there are other examples of transcribing and translating audio recordings. Abecedare 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow... nice discussion.. just came here when I saw that Bannanje Govindacharya was linked here. And yes, Bannanje's scholarship is beyond question. And like Upparna says, hours and hours of Bannanje's discourses(audios) have been published. And it would be great if we can work out a way to actually translate them and use them in articles here. I have not come across any articles that have done this before, but I think with the right checks and balances and well intentioned editors, we can make an effort at perhaps setting an example. Like Upparna says above, the only catch is that almost all discourses are in Kannada. So if we ever get to a point where translations of the Kannada audio(into English) is required, I volunteer my services. Also, if someone can suggest a good freeware to snip bits of audio(the relevant section that we might cite).. maybe we can even explore options of uploading the relevant snippets accompanied by the translations. Of course, all this depends on what course this discussion takes and wiki policies and guidelines. I'll put this page on my watchlist. Sarvagnya 04:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - thank god for being able to cite audio sources. Now i have to simply have to remember in which CD he speaks about the swastika and cite that here. He has numerous publications too , all of them in either chaste sanskrit or kannada. Detecting which cd he spoke in is a herculian task, but given its importance, i think it will be invaluable. Thanks for all your suggestions Jayaram Uparna 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

'Jayaram, Gnananapiti, mattu Sarvagnya, bhale bhale. yen saadhyavaagatto maadi' [Wow J, G, and S. Please do whatever you can.] Hinduism, protected by Sanskrit, lives in Kannada and in all the other Indian languages. Even as the European languages are accepted in Western studies done in English, all the Indian languages should be accepted in Indian studies done in English. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I still think that splitting them into two sections is a bad idea for reasons given in prior postings. I mention this again only because a request for comment was posted on my talk page. [4] I would also like to note that three different referencing issues were involved with this change, all of which should be discussed as separate topics: 1) Use of the dual system, 2) Use of named references, and 3) Use of Harvard reference templates. I strongly oppose 1 and 2. While I dislike the Harvard system in general, I can live with the use of some of the simpler Harvard book citation templates so long as they are confined to footnotes, not appearing the main body of the text, and do not use named references for their implementation. However given the choice I probably would not use them much. Buddhipriya 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a good idea to split into notes and citations sections. Cygnus_hansa 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

---I would vote to keep all the references together; don't split them up. I fear that it may make it more difficult to edit for people who want add footnotes if you split them up. Relatively few people will read the footnotes, and those who do will not have any problem finding what they need without the split. HeBhagawan 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

---I will need some time to understand the proposal. I had a look on refs. and citations. Refs. are certainly a long list. I believe, HeBhagawan's view should be considered carefully as he had been a very active editor. However, could I pl. know what is the proposal for spliting refs. and what would be the advantage? The subject itself is enormous and this article can not be shaped in the way some other articles appear of lesser theme.swadhyayee 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some issues related to sourcing

I gave the article a read-over specifically with regard to sourcing, and noticed some things which may be areas for improvement.

1) Quite a few of the notes are of the type: "Jones (1982)" which is so general that verification of the statements is difficult. At a minimum I think we should try to upgrade these sources to include page numbers.

2) Some Notes such as #83 ("arcye viṣṇau śīlā-dhīr. . . narakī saḥ") do not provide any edition or versification detail at all, making these citations dubious, particularly since they are quotations from Puranic or scriptural sources with no intervening academic review, thus suggesting that they are WP:OR. Other examples of direct quotation of scripture such as #45 "'My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.' (Bhaktivedanta 1997, ch. 11.54)" include adequate sourcing, but still may involve significant WP:POV issues because while they may reflect the views of a particular teacher, they may or may not be generally true.

3) Some of the Notes, e.g., (#69 "Rigveda is not only the oldest among the vedas, but is one of the earliest Indo-European texts." contain only unsourced statements which themselves are subject to challenge. Another example is the very first note, #1: "Hindu Dharma" in modern Indian languages such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada." Perhaps true, but who said so?

4) There is some overreliance on web sites to source things, rather than using stronger academic sources, e.g. #70, "Hinduwebsite.com explaining the yajnas. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." I think we should move toward upgrading such web links with more solid academic sourcing. Some of the sources clearly fail to meet the tests for WP:EL and WP:RS, such as #27: "Manifold Mahadevas Nature Spirits. Blessingsconucopia.com. Maureen Grace Burns, Blessings Cornucopia. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." These sorts of dubious web sites should be expunged from the article immediately if they fail to meet the tests for inclusion of such links

5. Some of the sourcing is from dubious authorities that are controversial, such as David Frawley. If vague uses of Frawley to source things as in #7: "Frawley 2001" were phased out in favor of stronger sources that are less open to debate, the article would have more credibility.

A more general issue is that in reading over the article closely I realized that the mental model is that Hinduism is one entity and thus is described over and over using singular verb forms ("it is...") rather than being viewed as a composite entity or collection of social and religious traditions. Consider the multifactorial approach of Michaels, 2004, pp. 21, who says "Examined closely, Hinduism consists of three Hindu religions and four forms of Hindu religiosity, which can occur in all Hindu religions. (For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term Hinduism from now on for the totality of the Hindu religions and their religious forms.)" Michaels analysis permits the segmentation of Hindu beliefs and practices in ways that clearly differentiate between things like Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism, folk religions, and recently-founded religious sects. I feel that the discussion we recently had regarding whether Hinduism is a religion was one helpful dialog on this larger issue. The connection to sourcing is that many of the sources are from specific sectarian viewpoints, and may in some cases be overgeneralizing.

It is true that Hinduism is "multifactorial" as Michaels says. However, the essential thing to remember is who the audience is for this article: generally the audience will be people who don't know anything whatsoever about Hinduism and want a quick sketch. Michaels' analysis is great for a publication meant primarily for scholars or those with a special interest in Hinduism, but it is too much for those who want to learn one or two things in 10 minutes. HeBhagawan 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to do some editing of the sourcing on the article along the lines discussed above, and would appreciate dialog with other editors regarding these views. Buddhipriya 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dharma versus Law

I tried to change law to 'divine(religious) law' in introductory para, but was reverted. Then I linked Dharma, so that many readers might not be misled by the lopsided translation of Dharma as law. But this simple linking was also reverted. Now I am not going to touch that introductory para in Hinduism again ; let dharma be translated as law or as skin (dermos in Latin, which contains the body, as dharma contains life and society ; cf. its root dhr ). I will not object to anyone translating dharma even as leather or leather-jacket ; I have had too much of futile controversies and I do not want to generate new ones. Vinay Jha 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, the Sanskrit word 'dharma' has been widely translated by writers as 'law' even though it is simply incorrect. The word 'dharma' from the root 'dhrn dhaarane' means [any] principle which is adopted or held by anyone. "dhaaranaat dharmetyaahuh". Don't mistake me if I ask you not to despair. When certain rules of Wikipedia are followed literally, then accuracy can get ignored even if (according to my friend Buddhipriya) it is pointed out by Adi Shankaracharya. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma

Abecedare, the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines of the article is totally inappropriate. Would you please consider relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it? Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, this issue was discussed thoroughly when you last raised it in March and the current consensus version was reached. The coda to the discussion was your stamp of approval, when you stated, "issue very well resolved in the article.Thanks"

Can you please clarify what has changed since then that merits re-consideration of the topic ? I fear, that unless some new references have come to light, we will just end up rehashing the old points and talking in circles. Regards. Abecedare 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, some of us involved in improving the article on Hinduism are like a group of editors riding in a car, and you, amongst us, are at the wheel. It is not an easy task to drive a juggernaut. But, of course, you have been doing great. At a time when discussions were heated, you did very well, and since we had to have some resolution for the time being, your efforts made it possible for me to say that the issue was very well resolved in the article. I am confident that all of us, your fellow editors, have been appreciative, and thankful to you indeed.

Now, things have cooled off, and since improving the article is an ongoing process, I have broached the matter once again. Right before saying to you [at 09:47] that the issue was very well resolved, I also repeated for Buddhipriya [at 02:24] what I wished you to consider. I still wish you to consider it, and I hope you will revisit that passage.

If we temper the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines by relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it, the article will be more balanced. That's my submission. If you can do it, then please consider doing it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, I certainly don't seek or claim ownership of the article. The right way to make a substantiative change to the article is not to appeal to me or any other editor, but lay down your arguments with references and then try to build a consensus. Cheers. Abecedare 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

there is no reason to rehash the debate unless new evidence is presented. The arguments are all there in the talk archives, and the solution reached is fair. What we are missing completely (or, Hindu denominations is missing), are rough demographics of Hinduism: which sects account for what fraction of Hindus? Until we have that, there is no way to judge how prominent these vociferous Hindu reform movements really are, and consequently, how notable the Sanatana Dharma neologism should be considered within Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What references, Abecedare, and what arguments, Dbachmann? The prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines is not proper. Why not improve the article by making it more balanced? Why is it such a problem to relegate the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" to another paragraph? You guys virtually have the article, and I am not in any mood to fight. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No Ram existed ever

The Union government of India officially admitted in late 2007 that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Ram or the other idols in Ramayana. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Archaeological Survey of India too rejected the claim of the existence of the Ram Sethu bridge in the area where the project was under construction.[5]

A day later, the affidavit was withdrawn under pressure from Hindu fundamentalist parties.[6] However, the State government of Tamil Nadu continue to maintain its official stance and refused to review the project.[7][8]

Please add the above timely verdict in a separate section called Fact and Fiction. Anwar 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, I fail to see what is so surprising or groundbreaking in the ASI statement, and more importantly its relevance to the Hinduism article. Feel free to summarize the content of the linked article at Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, where it will be pertinent. Cheers. Abecedare 19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a news paper nor a central government's propaganda site. Thanks. Gnanapiti 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anwar Miya, lack of any evidence is not, in any way, denial of the existence of Rama or of the bridge mentioned in the Ramayana. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This "editor" is clearly anti-Hindu. Historicity of Rama.--ॐJesucristo301 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is the "current flavor of the day" in Indian politics doesn't mean it should be added to the article. How many such controversies do you want to add to this article? 24.5.120.23 09:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms.

The text "Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms." was added by User:Shaanm, with the comment

dont delete this! You guys only use a European view. This is an interpreation[sic] from an Eastern view. This is not vandalism.

I personally don't see that this adds anything that has not already been said. However, this guy's earnestness makes me think that for him it either:

• it has some subtle meaning that was not conveyed in the rest of the text, or
• that the rest of the text was not clear enough for him to see that what he has written has already been said.

I have looked and the only thing that I can think of is that this article does not explicitly state that in Advaita Vedanta God may appear in many forms. I have therefore added the sentence "Brahman may appear to people in various different forms or Ishvara, for example Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Indian traditions worship God [spirit] in God's different aspects of divinity ['devataa'] as variously seen in God's creation around us. Different concepts of divinity are visualised in male and female human and nonhuman forms and worshipped as deities ['deva' or 'devi']. One God is worshipped in many ways. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to Project Gutenberg - Hinduism Bookshelf

I would like to add an external link to Project Gutenberg's Hinduism Bookshelf. http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Hinduism_%28Bookshelf%29

Thanks, --Sankarrukku 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)