Talk:Hinduism

Hinduism was a way of life

What's the relevance of this piece of info in the lead diff, and what part of the article does it summarize? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court in the year 1995, in case of Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo observed as follows:

"No precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu'. 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. The term 'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub-continent. It is difficult to say that term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry,..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.100.49 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So, this is about Hindutva as a way of life? And still, what's the relevance to the article? There's probably a good reason that someone wants it to be included, but it's not clear yet why. Could you explain? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The word Hindu itself is imprecise. The coinage of the word Hindutva is ridiculous. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked-up the link "Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal"; it's interesting. This is the intro:

"The following is the complete text of the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of the Ramakrishna Mission's petition to be declared a non-Hindu, minority religion, under the Indian constitution. For a full story on this, see Hinduism Today August, 1995, issue. The petition was denied. The court determined that the RK Mission is Hindu and there is no religion of "Ramakrishnaism" as claimed by them."

So, the relevant text would be that the Indian Supreme Court judged that "Ramakrishnaism" is not a separate religion. The court also judged that

""...The word `religion' has not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition."

And the part that contains "way of life":

"When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more."

So, what the Court says is that the Court is not able to give a definition of "Hindu religion", and that at best the Court may describe "the Hindu religion" as "a way of life". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many dogmas in Hinduism (including atheism) and so, if the Supreme Court of India rules that Hinduism is a way of life, it should be added in this article. I am going to re-introduce that sentence and reference shortly. What is your objection to it?—Khabboos (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source; it's uncontextualised; it's not clear what's the relevance; and it does not summarize any part of the article. And the Court did not "rule"; let me repeat myself:

In the case "Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal" the court determined that the RK Mission is Hindu and there is no religion of "Ramakrishnaism" as claimed by them. The Court also stated in this case that the Court is not able to give a definition of "Hindu religion", and that at best the Court may describe "the Hindu religion" as "a way of life".

That's what you can add - at the Ramakrishna Mission#Controversy section, after providing a contextualisation. Not in the Hinduism-article, since it is WP:UNDUE, and certainly not in the lead. It's not about Hinduism, it's about what the Court thinks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The really interesting part is: why did the RM request acknowledgement as a separate religion? The Ramakrishna Mission! Vivekananda! Was Vivekananda not a Hindu?!? That's shocking! - "The Hindu world was shocked in 1986 to learn that the RK Mission founded by Swami Vivekananda was opting out of the Hindu family to become "the cult or religion of Sri Ramakrishna" for political/economic reasons." Hinduism Today, august 1995, BREAKING NEWS AT PRESS TIME India's Supreme Court Denies RK Mission Non-Hindu Status See also Sanjeev Nayyar, August 2002, Why Did The Ramakrishna Mission Say They Are Not Hindus. What the "way of life" quote really is about is the way India deals with religion and minorities. Which is a very interesting topic on it's own, but not one that can be summarized in one single, decontextualized quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

I have just added another reference which has snaps of Aurangzeb's orders that were issued in Persian. If it is unacceptable, please tell me why? I read the matter at Social_web#Blogs_and_wikis and feel it is not at all a blog and can be used here.—Khabboos (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it not a blog? You can clearly see that it is a Blooger website so its a blog. AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like part of an exhibition, but it's not clear to me who's written this, and which sources are being used. There already is a source, apparently from a college; looks more trustworthy to me than aurangzeb.info/. Personally I almost always try to use books, and preferably academic books. Aurangzeb "Malik Kafur" "hindu temples" though gives only a few hits. So, I don't know; I noticed you took this source to RSN; that's good. And by the way: relax, just like I adviced AcidSnow. Enough conflict already in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a further look; the page is quite detailed. It also gives some links, but I can't determine so fast if they are reliable. What you can do, though, is add a note {{refn|group=note|See also [links]}}, to provide access to this further information.

It's not reliable another user has clearly explained why at the noticeboard. AcidSnow (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

C. eliot & lead

With this edit] Khabboos added the following quote:

"More than other religions, Hinduism appeals to the soul's immediate knowledge and experience of God. It has sacred books innumerable but they agree in little but this, that the soul can come into contact and intimacy with its God, whatever name be given him and even if he be superpersonal. The possibility and truth of this experience is hardly questioned in India and the task of religion is to bring it about, not to promote the welfare of tribes and states but to effect the enlightenment and salvation of souls." (Eliot, C. Hinduism and Buddhism. London. Vol 1, Introduction. 1921 quoted Spencer)

What's the use of this quote in the lead? It does not summarize any part of the article, it's outdated, and it's WP:UNDUE. The edit-summary is also splendid:

"I'm being bold with this edit, but if someone feels it shouldn't be in the Lead, please move it (but don't remove it)"

Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia-policies, instead of ordering other editors what to do. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not ordering anyone Joshua. You added the full quote to the mysticism article and so, I thought it should be imported into this article as well. You tell me what to do, since you seem to know the rules better. Please also reply to my question in the previous section (about the reference I used for Aurangzeb's orders).—Khabboos (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote is useful at the mysticism-article, since it provides, to my opinion, an example of a specific interpretation of Hinduism, namely Neo-Vedanta. But to use it here may be WP:UNDUE. The problem is, I think, that Eliot is not representative of the current understanding of Hinduism. It needs contextualization: how did westerners understand Hinduism in the 19th and early 20th century, how did this understanding influence (educated) Hindus, how has the understanding of Hinduism developed since then?

Did you read the section on "Definitions", including the notes? There's a lot of info there. Read also Pizza effect; it's interesting. And if you really want to read more: [King, Richard (2001), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Taylor & Francis e-Library]. A pdf can be found at the web.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is written in a published book does not mean that it deserves to be included in the article. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)