Talk:Hinduism

Continuation of Aryan discussion above

In mainstream scholarship, the Aryan Migration Theory is on its deathbed. David Gordon White cites 3 scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion is derived from the Indus Valley Civilizations. See pages 28 and 29 of Kiss of the Yogini. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead conflicts with what 4 mainstream scholars say, when it contrasts the Vedic religion with the Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White's Kiss of the Yogini cites 3 different scholars who say Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization. David Gordon White explicitly says its "quite artificial" to make a distinction between Vedic tradition and IVC. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I really appreciate your efforts! Thanks; they're inviting to further inquire into these topics. And, doing so, what I read at White is not that "Vedic religion derives from Indus Valley Civilization", but that "the religion of the Vedas was already a composite of the indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations." (White p.28) Nice that you mention this; I'd mentioned something similar in regard to popular beliefs and the Yaksha cults in the Hinduism-article:

"The Vedic texts were the texts of the elite, and do not necessarily represent popular ideas or practices.(Singh 2008 p.184) The Vedic religion of the later Vedic period co-existed with local religions, such as the Yaksha cults.(Samuel 2010)(Basham 1989 p.74-75}}[3]"

Essentially, what White is saying (as far as I understand him), is that there was no "pure" Vedic religion, but that the Vedic religion already was a "composite". Which is actually not surprising, is it, when you think about? People interact, and adapt to new environments, including cultural. The moment we are discussing here, we are also interacting, and changing our minds. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

North to South sentence

Hi JJ. Instead of citing 49 pages for Samuel, can you provide specific quotes? Also, some aspects of Hinduism spread from South to North, such as the bhakti movement. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring to your recent edit, you will be adding note for all? You know this article is already very huge. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, good point! I'm referring to the initial "Brahmanic synthesis". I'll provide specific quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

During breakfast, I've been scrolling through Samuel. It does not provide "easy" soundbites; actually it should be read as a whole (it's a very good book; I can really recommand it). Samuel describes the developments of Indo-Aryan/Vedic religion and culture in the western and central Ganges plain, and how these developments took somewhat different trajectories in those two areas. The western area gave birth to the "Brahmanic cultural complex", the central area to Buddhism and Jainism. These two complexes spread south, the "Bcc" developing into what we now call Hinduism (and I'm really starting to think that we can't see those two "cultural complexes" as separate uinverses: they are closely intertwingled, up to the disappearance of Buddhism from India. But that's my personal thought):

"By the first and second centuries CE, the Dravidian-speaking regions of the south were also increasingly being incorporated into the general North and Central Indian cultural pattern, as were parts at least of Southeast Asia. The Pallava kingdom in South India was largely Brahmanical in orientation although it included a substantial Jain and Buddhist population, while Indic states were also beginning to develop in Southeast Asia." (Samuel (2010) p.199)

Not the best quote yet, but it shows the direction. Note, also, that this is not only about "religion"; it's also about population-growth, changing societies, and the organisation or division of society. North-India developed the first urban centers (the so-called "Second Urbanisation"); the "models" invented there spread to other parts of the subcontinent. Best regards, and thanks for the invitation to further inquire on the topic. I'll search for more later; work is waiting now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nanda Empire had Pakistan, Shimla. 5th-4th Century BCE old empire Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are (still? in the sense of "since centuries") Hindus in Afghanistan; I've met some myself. That's a nice irony: the Greater India concept originates in the spread of this Brahmanical-Buddhist (Buddhist-Brahmanical? ;) ) cultural complex, that is, in the acknowledgement that parts of India and Sout-East Asia once were not in the fold of this BBCC, the precessor (singular! but that's my interpretation, though based on Samuel (2010)) of contemporary Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Greater India is the true India for thousands of years, it was relevant even till 15th century. Not really after that though. What is BBCC? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I used to many (). "Brahmanical-Buddhist cultural complex" (or "Buddhist-Brahmanical cultural complex", depending on your preferences. But that last remark is a joke; don't take it serious). You know, I think that nobody who's studying Indian culture will deny that India had an immense influence on the rest of Asia. Your remark "Not really after that though" is interesting; it reminds me of Turkey, which was a mighty empire until the 16th century, just like India; then it lost power and territory to Europe, in an incredible short span of time. I guess that this same "loss of power" is the fuel for this narrative about the ancient roots of Hinduism. Nobody is denying, though, that Hinduism, or the Indian culture, has very ancient roots. But it's too simple too equate it all to one source, or "pure origin"; history is simply (...) too complex for that. Carl Jung, the psychologist, visited Africa in the beginning of the 20th century. He was vividly aware of the richness of the African culture, and the "loss of soul" which was dawning because of the forces of modernization. And you know, this same "loss of soul" is also an issue in the western world; that's a major reason why there is so much interest in the west in Buddhism and Hinduism. Unfortunately, we can't let go of our intellectual background: analytical, critical, dissecting. It leads to a "disenchantment" of the world. India is also confronted with modernization and "disenchantment", in the aftermath of colonial suppression. It explains the strong disputes, I think, at the Wikipedia-pages. I'm sorry for that; and yet, I too can't let go of this background, because critical thinking also gives insight and understanding. In the end, I think, it comes down to living with uncertainty and 'loving thou neighbour'. That's Christian, but it's also Hindu, isn't it? And it's also Buddhist. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarity

Hi,

IMHO Can the article be made simple and easy to read and understand for anyone who wants to understand Hinduism. I would suggest that the basic, common features of the different Hindu traditions (or at least most of them) practised across South Asia (including comparatively nondescript states and regions) should be spoken of first, like the Description, the Etmology, the History and the Religious practises and beliefs. Then the rest of the details should be mentioned.

Also Veda Vyasa and Adi Shankara Acharya who had major roles to play in the growth of Hinduism (by compiling the Vedas and writing the epic including the Gita and by founding the four Maths or monasteries and countering Buddhism across South Asia, respectively) aren't spoken of much. Most of the sources are secondary but I am sure that Hinduism can be understood more by quoting about Shanatana Dharma from the Vedas and the epics themselves. Also many scholars, from Adi Shankara to Swami Vivekananda, including others, have written commentaries about Vedanta. Even these could help the reader understand Hinduism. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is correct, we haven't spoken not even a single time about any one like Vashistha, Parashara, Vyasa, Badarayana. They are from 4th millenium BCE - 2nd millenium BCE, Badarayana being 500 BCE though. There is a need to highlight each of them. And then, even the modern scholars. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to give sources plus a short contextualization for "The same hymn also speaks of the concept of monotheism". It looks like an interpretation to me; and even if this is the common understanding in either Hinduism itself, or by scholars, it should be referenced, otherwise it might be seen as WP:OR. The contextualization is also relevant in regard to the self-understanding of Hinduism, because it gives very relevant information about the understanding of the Vedas in later Hinduism (or Vedanta, to be more precise - which of course is (part of) Hinduism). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Jainism and Buddhism are no less part of Hinduism or Indian traditions than Shankara and Ramanuja. Originators of those traditions are also Hindu avatars. By the way, it may not be proper to give too much prominence to Shankara in this article on Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)