Talk:Hinduism

Template:WP1.0

Concept of God

I disagree with the statement that, "In Hinduism the concept of God is complex and depends on a particular tradition." In fact, Hinduism is based on a fundamental concept of God called "Brahman" (not the Brahmin caste). "Brahman" or "that which is" is said to be beyond imagination and experience. It is also said to be beyond existence -- for it is what created existence in the first place. It is said to be "Nirguna" or featureless since it is everything. There is in fact, a page on Brahman on Wikipedia, which is not featured here at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.104.137 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on Typology

Below is the section added from a reliable source to the article. Discussion is welcomed - this section does not deal with History of Hinduism but rather with types of Hinduism making it clear for anyone as to the structure to the variety. (Oxford Handbook on religion and emotion 2007)

Typology

There are six major types or traditions in Hinduism and a number of minor forms. Of the major types the oldest is Hindu folk religion, which is represented in the worship of local deities or other sanctified forms. It is normally handed down in oral tradition and there is an emotional element that plays a considerable role it it. Second major part is Vedic Hinduism, which is based or recorded in Hindu scriptures, specifically Vedic texts of which the most important one is Rig Veda. The third type is Vedantic Hinduism and is related to Upanishads. The yogic Hinduism forms the forth type and is often represented, but not limited to the yogic sūtras of Patanjali. The last two traditions are based on tapasya, or austerity as an element of its practice. The firth type of Hindu tradition is dharmic Hinduism, sometimes referred or called as a daily morality, while this type is widespread today, it speaks a little about specific beliefs of people. The six type of Hinduism is refereed as bhakti or devotionalism.

Comment on the Introduction

Hi, I would like to comment on the introduction. I absolutely disagree with the point Hinduism is a religion. Hinduism is a way of life i.e. the Sanathana Dharma (सनातन धर्म).

To support this statement, I would like provide an example, every religion Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism,Islam, Judaism, Jainism and others were started by a man. Christianity was started by Jesus Christ, Buddhism was started by Buddha, Sikhism was started by Guru Nanak, Islam by Prophet Muhammed, Judaism by Moses, Jainism by Mahavira and so on.

Is it possible to give a name of a man / woman who started the Sanathana Dharma (सनातन धर्म) / Hinduism ?

--Ramka001 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) ramka001

I totally agree

RAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.141.164.89 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The attempt to define Hinduism as "a way of life" is one of the many attempts to define Hinduism and it should not be extended to mean "Hinduism is not a religion". This last view is totally biased and is an uncivilized attack on Hinduism and deeply hurts people who belong to this great religion. The perception that Hinduism is "a way of life" is due to the fact that the term "Hinduism" signifies "the religion + culture of the Hindu people". Because of the "culture" component, definition of Hinduism is difficult and the article also discusses this amply. The people who define Hinduism as "a way of life" are only half right. They have focused only on the "culture" component and some people are trying to wrongly extend this definition to mean that "Hinduism is not a religion". The arguement that "it has no founder" does not hold because "it has no founder" only means that you do not know about the founder. If you do not know wheter the chicken came first or the egg, would that mean that their existance is less real? Secondly, comparing with other religions and trying to show that one religion is lesser that other on this basis is also a flawed arguement because it is not expected that all religions should be exactly alike. If they were all alike, would there be more than one religion? Having a divine origin rather than a human founder can be regarded as a greater claim to being a religion. If we start declassifying religions on some arguement or other, there is no shortage of people who think that only their religion is a "religion" and all others are "not religion". These arguements are totally against NPOV. It seems that these arguements are aimed at diluting the perception and identity of a religion and have nothing to do with being informative. In fact almost all religions claim divine origins and the adherents of most of those religions themselves claim that the "human founders" are respected mediums rather than being the founder. Actually it is much more complex and I only want to show that these arguements do not deserve serious consideration, we had better devote our energies to more meaningful and agreeable purposes. We must also understand that the attempt to define Hinduism is itself mischievious and intended to produce more mischief. Do you guys assume that other religions HAVE a real, all inclusive definition? Do you think that defining other religions will be "not difficult"?117.198.50.182 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the varna(caste system), formulated by the great legislator Manu, was admirable. He saw clearly that men are distinguished by natural evolution into four great classes: those capable of offering service to society through their bodily labor ( Sudras); those who serve through mentality, skill, agriculture, trade, commerce, business life in general (Vaisyas); those whose talents are administrative, executive, and protectiverulers and warriors ( Kshatriyas); those of contemplative nature, spiritually inspired and inspiring (Brahmins). "Neither birth nor sacraments nor study nor ancestry can decide whether a person is twice-born (i.e., a Brahmin);" the Mahabharata declares, "character and conduct only can decide." Manu instructed society to show respect to its members insofar as they possessed wisdom, virtue, age, kinship or, lastly, wealth. Riches in Vedic India were always despised if they were hoarded or unavailable for charitable purposes. Ungenerous men of great wealth were assigned a low rank in society.

Shudra - Kshudra

The cast system in Hinduism was,

Brahmana Kshatriya Vaishya Kshudra

It is Kshudra not Shudra. I am making this change in page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraagvaidya (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the text. Please somebody redirect Shudra to Kshudra because the real like is Shudra which is existing page. --Anuraag Vaidya 11:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kshudra is incorrect, please check Monier-Williams:

śūdra

• śūdrá m. (of doubtful derivation) a Śūdra, a man of the fourth or lowest of the four original classes or castes (whose only business, accord. to Mn. i, 91, was to serve the three higher classes
• in RV. ix, 20, 12, the Śūdra is said to have been born from the feet of Purusha, q.v

It should be transliterated as either shudra or śūdra. I would change back but the page is semi-protected. 192.17.144.235 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it. Perhaps Kshudra is a regional pronunciation? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, I referred to a regional pronunciation. In Marathi it is pronounced as Kshudra, same as in Modern Sanskrit. But we should obviously refer to Classical Sanskrit since these casts were formed in Classical Sanskrit stage. Anyways, thanks for clarification.--Anuraag Vaidya 08:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Chinese travelers have left us many striking pictures of Indian society. The Chinese priest, Fa-Hsien, wrote an account of his eleven years in India during the reign of Chandragupta II (early 4th century). The Chinese author relates: "Throughout the country no one kills any living thing, nor drinks wine. . . . They do not keep pigs or fowl; there are no dealings in cattle, no butchers' shops or distilleries. Rooms with beds and mattresses, food and clothes, are provided for resident and traveling priests without fail, and this is the same in all places. The priests occupy themselves with benevolent ministrations and with chanting liturgies; or they sit in meditation." Fa-Hsien tells us the Indian people were happy and honest; capital punishment was unknown. The Greek historians have left us many vivid and inspiring pictures of Indian society. Hindu law, Arrian tells us, protects the people and "ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave but that, enjoying freedom themselves, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess. For those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressheart1234 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Some confusion...

There seems to be some confusion as to the existence of God within the principles of Hinduism. Hinduism teaches that there is only one God. Only one. Regardless of a branch of Hinduism which one may affiliate with, this exists across the board. However, a concept of "yug" also exists, which refers to periods of time in the universe's history, for example : satyug, tretayug, and so on. In each yug of existence, Hindu's believe that God came, even several times,to earth to help humanity. However, God comes in different forms, which are represented through different models of God to which Hindu's oblige, for example, Ram, Krishna,Ganesh and so one, which are in essence (Vishnu, Brahma and Mahesh)- the supreme being, in different forms. Therefore, Ganesh is God, and Ganesh is also Krishna, and Ram and so on, as they are all the same God, yet in different forms in different times throughout history. When Hindus worship "Gods", they are not worhsipping multiple Gods, yet the same, and yet celebrating Gods glory perennially and eternally. Therefore, it can really be deduced that Hinduism is actually a monotheistic religion, and yet a lack of understanding, primarily through the fact that Hindu scriptures are in Sanskrit and Hindi, has eventuated misconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.5.12 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite confused. Hinduism teaches that God is only one. It's true, but this God who controls Panchamahabhuta. Panchamahabuta means a form of Five great powers, i.e. Agni (Fire), Vayu (Air), Aakash (Sky), Aap (Water), Prithvi (Earth, but here considered as Surface). These 5 elements are controlled by a God. God is a form of Tridev (Three people who are also considered as gods since they are formed from only 1 God). Those gods are, Vishnu, Shankara (Mahesh) and Brahma. These three gods always stayed in Heaven (Swarga) and to come on Earth to control crime and save huminity, they had to take an Avatar. Two of these gods, Mahesh and Vishnu had wives. Mahesh's son was Ganesha and Kartikeya. Krishna was Avatar of Vishnu and he was not related to Mahesh by any means. Therefore when people worship Ganesha, ofcourse they are not worshipping Krishna. Understanding Hinduism is not possible in some sentences, or some hours. It can take many days to understand hinduism. --Anuraag Vaidya 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the most ancient practice of worshipping the one God in India has been in the form of various deities ['devataa'] presented in male and female forms as a 'deva' or 'devi'. Thanks. Kanchanamala (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.55.45 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

we have an article on Hindu views on monotheism, you may want to contribute to that (with citations). Otherwise, please observe WP:FORUM. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia / propaganda ? ?

This article has a major implied POV problem. It looks like it is TRYING to get Hinduism derecognized as a religion. Do you think that three citations are enough to decide that a religion is not a religion and a God is not real? Do you think academics or encyclopaedias or anyone else can decide these questions? These uncivilized academics need education. They do not know about things like "freedom of religion" and "civilized society". Such questions are way beyond the brief of an encyclopaedia.117.198.48.29 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you if you think academics cannot define Hinduism properly. Wikipedia is dicatated by its policies which tell us to summarise academic studies on Hinduism of all major perspectives. There are other websites which you can edit and go to that may be more suited towards your interpretation and aims. Note that the contentious "Is it a religion or not?" question was resolved after examining 20 or so citations, not three, though most of them do not appear within the article. The full discussion can be found somewhere in the archives. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How many religions (do you think) HAVE been defined properly by academics so far? Why do we have weasel terms in the article eg. "Sometimes referred to as a religion..."? If you guys are sure that 20 citations are enough to decide the recognition of a religion, and that an encyclopedia should do this, I suppose you guys know where this rule will take you.117.198.52.57 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

IP, If you really want to understand how we decide what content to include and present in this and other articles, read wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, and neutral point of view, and then help further improve this article. If instead you just want to use this page as a soapbox to rail how wikipedia is trying to get Hinduism derecognised as a religion, or prove that God is not real ... your time will be better spent on other fringe forums. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of Christianity is "Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a monotheistic religion[1] centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament." while the first sentence of Islam is "Islam (Arabic: ar-al_islam.ogg الإسلام; al-'islām (help·info); pronounced [ɪs.ˈlæːm][note 1]) is a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion originating with the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a 7th century Arab religious and political figure." Both of these definitions are close to perfect though Islam could also mention that its central tenets are in the Quran. Compare this with Hinduism, which has a plethora of religious texts and no one authoratative figure, and for that matter very few binding beliefs. We encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia's Hinduism related articles but you can no longer feed your personal agenda. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi DaGizza, Hi Abecedare. Thanks for revealing the reasons for the discriminatory treatment of Hinduism. And also for guiding me to the Wiki NPOV and reliable sources policies. I have taken a look. I must say that they are most educative, and far more developed than I ever expected. Anyway, this article violaltes the NPOV rules completely, and in a number of ways. Wikipedia does not make any assertions or suggestions regarding the validity of any religions. No sources are regarded as reliable enough for such a purpose. Academic sources are also not regarded as reliable for such a purpose. Any academic sources which make such assertions or suggestions should be regarded as unreliable and should be ignored. Such sources are obviously propaganda material, and not at all academic or reliable. Wiki editors do not have the right to override this policy under any circumstances and they are also not allowed to form a consensus to override this policy. On 4/7/07 a consensus and policy was formed to make a negative assertion on the validity of Hinduism. Based on this policy, a number of negative assertions have been made on the validity of Hinduism. There are about 12 places in the article where such an assertion has been made. It has been done in a deceptive way, and in a suggestive way. Implanting suggestions deceptively is considered most despisable, and a hallmark of propaganda materials. These negative assertions and suggestions have turned this encyclopedic article into a propaganda piece. What this 4/7/07 policy is doing amounts to making a halfway negative assertion on the validity of Hinduism. No Wiki editors have the right to make such an assertion or suggestion. This policy, and its consequences are both completely against Wiki NPOV rules. This policy should be abandoned immediately and all modifications in the article which conform to this policy must be removed. Wiki editors also do not have the right to form their own views by comparing religions, much less to assert the results of such a comparative analysis. I would also request that some uninvolved administrators take a look at this issue because of conflicts of interest issues here and because of some narrow minded editing and analyses being performed here.117.198.52.119 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)