Talk:Hinduism

Order of precedence

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

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

3 edit requests

Three edit requests:

1. The use of 200 year old scholars such as Oldenberg and Neumann, as well as Hindu nationalists like Radhakrishnan is problematic. Especially since the reference makes the exact opposite point than what is portrayed.
2. The reference is questionable for the phrase "although most Hindus, including the majority of Vaishnava and Shaivite Hindus abhor it."
3. Since the meat is eaten after the animal sacrifice, this should be mentioned.

176.67.169.207 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Sure:

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

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

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

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

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

Please be careful in your paraphrasing:

• Radhakrishnan was called a "Hindu nationalist"; the use of a specific reference was called "problematic";
• The specific reference is Pratt (1996) page 90 note 58. It deals with the question whether the Buddha was influenced by the Upanishads. The note gives several points of view; only the pro-version is given in the article;
• User:176.67.169.146 gave links to underscore his remark; you answer with rhetorics ("It is fashionable for some to criticize noted scholars"), instead of responding to the arguments;
• I think that Radhakrishnan is a primary source;
• Read "Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, for some more remarks on Indian nationalism and the use of religion: "The inclusivist appropriation of other traditions, so characteristic of neo-Vedanta ideology, appears ont three basic levels. First, it is apparent in the suggestion that the (Advaita) Vedanta philosophy of Sankara (c. eight century CE) constitutes the central philosophy of Hinduism. Second, in an Indian context, neo-Vedanta philosophy subsumes Buddhist philosophies in terms of its own Vedantic ideology. The Buddha becomes a member of the Vedanta tradition, merely attempting to reform it from within. Finally, at a global level, neo-Vedanta colonizes the religious traditions of the world by arguing for the centrality of a non-dualistic position as the philosophia perennis underlying all cultural differences."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit 1: All the observations in the article are valid. Edit 2: Food habits are cultural. Also, in religious places and events, meat is not used. Even with Muslims in India, that is true. Edit 3: Animals are not sacrificed, and no meat is eaten after the sacrifice as it were. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)