Talk:Hinduism

a fusion of Arian and Dravidian cultures?

No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.

Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.

The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

I agree, we should instead add "fusion of different cultures", at least on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda

Added "multiple cultures", rest is described on article body anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And changed a direct quote. I've corrected the spelling. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Add "indo-aryan"? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The misconception that "Aryans" came to India has long been debunked. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is how everyone will act. The theory was made by 19th century, and today no one accepts it. So what is the point? You saw your talk page too, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'fusion' is not used by Lockard (source) in the book. I think this is definitely unnecessary to describe that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory in the lead. The word 'Fusion' indicates 50-50 share of Aryan and Dravidian cultures, but such kind of language is not used in the source. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, it seems like it has been only used for combining such thought, nothing else really. Sometimes we have to summarize ourselves though, but this seems huge claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding the Aryan migration, the statement that "no one accepts it" is plain nonsense. It's not accepted by some people, who don't seem to care about modern scholarship.
• Regarding "that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory", it's controversial for the same group of people. There is a broad scholarly concensus that Hinduism is the result of a fusion of various strands of Indian culture, and a relatively recent fusion. See note 4, which mentions more sources. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism#Fusion for extensive quotes.
• Regarding the term "fusion", other terms being used are "synthesis" (Lockard 2007 p.52), "Hindu synthesis" (Hiltebeitel 2002), and "classical synthesis" (Samuel 2010).
• Hinduism being a "synthesis" or "fusion" of several strands of Indian culture, is such a basic and essential feature of Hinduism, and such a basic aspect of the scholarly understanding of Hinduism, that it's one of the essential facts to mention about Hinduism. Ask yourself a simple question: how do we explain the immense diversity of Hinduism? Rigth, here's the answer. If you think it's a "huge claim", you show a basic lack of knowledge about the history of Hinduism , and about modern scholarship on the history of Hinduism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So which one is it? Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse? The reason you are contradicting yourself, because you have never been to India, let alone travelled India. Secondly, I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory. This is similar to Paul B's misunderstanding of genetic studies. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. JJ has managed to find a single source in the form of Lockard to justify large chunks of additions to this article. The word 'Fusion' is not used in the context of Hinduism religion. JJ should read those quotes again. Also, Lockard is not reliable for this encyclopedia. JJ should consider reading his works thoroughly before calling him a 'universal scholar'. Moreover other stuff like North-east, Shramana and local traditions being the direct roots of Hinduism are still very poorly sourced. No such quotations have been provided which were asked for in an earlier discussion. Also, terms like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" is a clean example of pov editing. Such negative terms are not supposed to be added in the lead of the article.

The lead of the article should be short and shall not include such mass information. The problem with these recent edits by JJ is that the controversial views are being presented as universal.

As far as Aryan-Dravidian issue is concerned, its a very controversial theory and completely opposite theories are also present which have been supported by some modern historians as well. Such aryan-dravidian content may be apt for articles like Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans, but its completely inappropriate for the lead of this article. Such kind of content will make this article confusing and will question reliability of our encyclopedia. In my opinion the article should be reverted to the previous version of this edit. JJ should first discuss each content one by one before adding anything. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider the use of the term "vandalism" to be a personal attack and a breach of WP:GOODFAITH, and close to trolling. The term "Hindu synthesis" reflects a broad scholarly consensus. Regarding the quotes, I've pointed before to User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism where extensive quotes are given, though I doubt that you're serious willing to read those quotes. I get the impression that you're not willing to engage in discussion, but only searching for rhetorics to push your personal point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoonadue, honestly you might won't have any bad intention, but the way you are presenting is pretty strange, like JJ points. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling an editor a vandal after being blocked for doing just that is such a bad idea. I've given him 72 hours timeout to think about it. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Aryans and Dravidians is simply a linguistic fact. See Dravidian languages. There's nothing remotely controversial about it at all. This is part of the problem with discussions in this area. There is so much half-digested commentary on semi-garbled versions of supposed controversy that the real issues just get lost in the confusion. Yes, it's an over-simplification to say that Hiduism is a mix of "Aryan" and "Dravidian", (after all there's Munda too), but it's a fairly clear way of summing up the fusion of cultures. Even the anti-"Aryan Invasion" people don't dispute that Vedic culture expanded from the Indus to what we now call "India" as a whole, and that as it did so it absorbed local cults and traditions that were integrated into Brahmin-based religious practices. I fail to understand why phrases like "Hindu synthesis" and "emphasis on the status of Brahmins" are "negative". Only the real extremists whop believed the Vedas date from the Stone Age and the Dravidian languages were invented by a Brahmin dispute that there has been a mutual influence of Aryan and Dravidian traditions. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The page in current form, is not problematic at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Belated reply to 176.67.169.146

• "Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse?" - It's not a matter of "homogenization"; that's not what's being meant with "fusion" or "synthesis", as far as I can see. It means that groups of people have adapted to Brahmanical ideas, but it does not mean that all Indians have, or have ever had, exactly the same religious faiths and beliefs.
• "I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory." - I have a serious problem understanding what's being said here. From what I understand about it, Indo-Aryans migrated to (north-western) India, bringing with them their language and religion, approximately around 1500 BCE. Indian had been populated then for millennia already. When the Indo-Aryans moved further east, into the Ganges Plain, around 1000 BCE, they changed to an agrarian way of living, founding one of the earliest "states"/kingdoms of India (Kuru kingdom), adapting their religious system and introducing the Varna-system to "manage" their new-born kingdom and its various cultural and ethnic groups.(Samuel 2010) This system worked remarkably well to provide stability, though another variety developed at the central Ganges Plain, where Buddhism and Jainism developed at about 600-500 BCE, and kshatriyas had the hisghest status. When Buddhism became the "state religion" of the Mauryan empire and subsequent states and empires, the Brahmanical/Vedic religion was further developed, to incorporate shramanic elements, and local cults and religions, of Dravidian origin. This "synthesis" worked, remained part of norhtern Indian culture, and spread further south and east. It was only at the 8th century that Buddhism lost its position at the highest royal courts, and was replaced by the Brahmanical/Hindu religion.

As far as I can see, India is a very complicated society, with an incredible rich and varied history. As a relative outsider, I can afford the luxury to rely on scholarly sources. I really have a hard time trying to understand why other editors don't rely on the same sources, but instead cling to specific, partisan interpretations of Indian history and religion. There's no reason, to my opinion, to ignore this diversity and richness. Be proud of it! But please, be also realistic: "reality", or history, may not be as "simple" or "monolithic" as you think.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What diversity and richness Joshua Jonathan? If you actually travelled to India from North to South, you would know that Hinduism is for the most part exactly the same, except for maybe the styles of the temples and idols. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Onkar Karambe

Changes by Onkar Karambe are introducing barely coherent sentences and material cited to unreliable websites. For example we have "The word hindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda as a Sindu". What does that even mean? Or "the theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan" This is assertion, not summary of the views of reliable sources, and, of course, it is very badly written and difficult to follow. It is cited to an online Pdf file [3] by someone called "Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja" Who? Paul B (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica? Lack of page numbers?

Really? Encyclopedia Brittanica? There has to be a better reference than this anonymous source you cite 2 times. Also, why do half of your references lack page numbers?62.210.201.162 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Write the sources down here, that requires page number. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of the over 300 references have page numbers. The "notes", which make general points, are different from the "references". As for the EB, it is a highly respected source, and two citations out of 327 is hardly excessive, so what is the problem? Paul B (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote that Encyclopedia Brittanica article? My understanding is that they went to an semi-open model, where the public has input. When making bold claims in the lead, shouldn't you use references that people can follow up on? Who the hell is the author? Also the King references in the lead lack page numbers. 62.210.201.162 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The public does not write EB articles. They can make suggestions or point out errors, which are then vetted by the experts, who can then make changes if they think it appropriate. The criteria of WP:RS is that a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which the EB does. I've no idea what you mean by "follow up on". The EB can be accessed. Its criteria and fact-checking systems are public. Some articles are single-authored, others are not. Single authorship does not make something more likely to be accurate. Again, what exactly is the problem? Paul B (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, the EB webpage clearly identifies the article's author - Ann G. Gold. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've added the author's names to those two refrences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the books in the lead lack page numbers. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"The popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by this neo-Vedanta"

Most Hindus never have even heard of Advaita Vedanta or Adi Shankara. There are no Indian cinemas with Advaitic concepts. You guys are vastly overstating the importance of Advaita Vedanta.176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Most Hindus don't give a shit about Advaita Vedanta. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not qualified to talk about Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Misreporting references

The references say that Buddhism was outright dominant in royal circles before the eighth century, not merely coexisting. Buddhism was the dominant religion among royal circlees. Also Buddhism continued to be dominant in the Pala region past the eighth century, according to Inden. This is because of Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think same way, they should also add jainism, which had been historically lowered by 8th century. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Jainism was ever dominant like Buddhism. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jainism is a much older tradition than Buddhism. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Should add "Jainism" on lead as well.. I also know that Hinduism co-existed with Zoroastrianism, and still does, which is older than both Jainism and buddhism. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the references specifically talk about Buddhism. You can't just add Jainism just because you feel like it. Jainism and Zoroastrianism were never dominant like Buddhism. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Parsis [Zoroastrians] emigrated to India when Islam was imposed on Persia, and brought their faith with them. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul B and JJ. What the heck is Dravidian culture?

So I am Munnuru Kapu (lower caste) speaking Telugu ("Dravidian"). Explain to me how my culture is different than any other Hindu, in any other part of India. You guys take western scholarship as gospel, when even Oxford scholars Alexis Sanderson and James Mallinson often point out fundamental errors in others' works. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An "Oxford scholar" is by definition "western scholarship", so you are not making any sense. Of course western scholars agree with one another and disagree with one another. That's how scholarship works, but "you guys", to appropriate your tern, create a fantasy of something called "western scholarship" to demonise, while, of course, appropriating any scholarship you want to agree with. I just said it's a simplification to refer to the absorption of non Indo-Aryan/Vedic traditions to create what we now call Hinduism. Your point is ridiculous because you are speaking from a position long long long after the process being described occurred. It's not a claim that "Aryans" and "Dravidians" are somehow alien cultures. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Western scholarship discredits itself. Mallinson attacks Singleton for not consulting primary sources. Sanderson attacks Muller-Ortega for the same reason. The problem is that most professors cannot read Indian languages. I'm glad you acknowledge all Hindus have essentially the same exact culture, which is something JJ doesn't seem to understand. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You discredit yourself by saying something as asinine as "western scholarship discredits itself". Western scholarship is an all encompassing term for, essentially, modern knowledge as a whole. I certainly do not want to belittle non-Western cultures, but it's laughable to complain that scholars debate with one another. That's how knowledge advances. And it's not a Western invention. Perhaps you should read The Argumentative Indian. Or does "Indian scholarship discredit itself" because Indians argue with each other too? I've no idea what "most professors cannot read Indian languages" is supposed to mean. Different professors are experts on different topics. Paul B (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

They are not "debating" each other. They are being criticized for fundamental lack of scholarship. There is a big difference. And what don't you understand about "most professors cannot read Indian languages"? That's why modern books, like Tantra in Practice, still have to resort to translations by Arthur Avalon. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just childish. Scholars constantly accuse each other of "lack of scholarship". So some book quotes an old translation? What is all this supposed to prove? It's just pointless ranting. The statement "most professors cannot read Indian languages" is meaningless. Most professors are not expected to be experts on Indian languages. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Most professors are not expected to be experts on Indian languages? LMAO. Paul B you are hilarious. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that two intelligent individuals like you stray from a reasoned discussion of specific content that I found interesting until the personal attacks started. IP address 176, I believe there are many professors at western universities who are well-versed in Hindi, Sanskrit, and other South Asian languages. There are also scholars of Hindu culture and religion who come from cultures other than "the West", but they only gain respect internationally if they follow high standards of scholarship. Paul, there may well be some people who do not understand the process of scholarly research, publication, and peer reviews, all leading to new understandings, interpretations and knowledge. If you want to, you might try explaining that in a bit more detail and give an example or two related to the article; then the IP 176 editor might understand what you are talking about. IP 176, read what Paul has to say and respond directly to that; be specific and support your ideas with facts and sources. You may have some valid points, but they get lost in the vague and emotionally-charged exchanges. I urge you both to continue the discussion in a different manner and tone. It could prove interesting.CorinneSD (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just not remotely clear what the IP is complaining of. Of course western universities are full of scholars who know Indian languages. They are also full of scholars who do not, because that is not their field of scholarship. Will there be teachers who comment on Hinduism without detailed scholarly expertise? Of course. A person teaching a module on World Religions, say, can't be expected to learn all the many Indian languages - plus Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic... Nowhere in the world can expect that degree of expertise for everyone all the time. It's not humanly possible. That's why specialisms exist. It's nothing to do with the "West". It's true anywhere. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(I'm sorry, but I don't know how to put the arrow to bring the comments back to the left margin.)

I agree that it is not clear what IP 176 is complaining about, but I think he/she may not be familiar with standards of academic scholarship. I meant to say, and was about to correct my statement before I saw your reply, (and Paul, I know you know this) that scholars and researchers only gain the respect of their peers (fellow researchers in their fields) if they follow accepted standards of scholarship and research, regardless of where they happen to live or from which culture they come. Discussion and disagreement among peers in a field and even with experts in other fields is a regular part of the process of finding, interpreting, and writing about knowledge. Paul is right. No researcher can be expected to know everything. For example, for a very long time, paleontologists disagreed about the relationship between extinct dinosaurs and modern birds and reptiles. With the discovery of well-preserved fossil bones of ancient animals that showed elements of reptiles as well as feathers, paleontologists realized that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds as well as reptiles. (I'm not an expert; only read about this.) I only offer this as an example to show that disagreement is a normal part of research and discovery in any field. IP 176, if you have a specific point you wish to make about Hindu culture or religion, or anything else, try to be clear and specific, and support your statement with facts and sources. It's also all right to ask questions. You may learn something new. It is counterproductive to ask "What the heck is...?" and say "You guys". It would be better to say,

• I don't understand what is meant by "....". I thought X was Y. or
• It's not clear to me what you mean by "...". or
• Could you explain what you mean by "...."? or
• Why do you say that X is Y? I thought.... CorinneSD (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Both in India and outside India scholars talk about issues citing primary and secondary sources without getting personal. I talk about, say, the Bible though I do not know Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The book Invading the Sacred

There is a book Invading the Sacred which points out the flaws in modern Hinduism scholarship. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.176.67.169.146 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan and the Lack of Page Numbers

Can someone tell me why Joshua Jonathan does not present page numbers for his references? I am starting to think he is just making stuff up. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be very precise in what you're commenting on. You too are making a personal attack here, by not assuming good faith. For Hiltebeitel (2002) I did not provide page-numbers, because I read it at Google-books. The 2002-edition there does not have page-numbers. For the rest am I very precise at providing references and page-numbers. So please refrain from this kind of accusations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's not the first time as I asked him to provide them and he did. It isn't always possible - I've had similar problems using Google Books. So if the IP has a grief I expect them to be precise and polite. This works both ways - why should we trust an anonymous editor who makes comments like this? Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)