Talk:Hinduism

You can contribute at Hinduism related collaboration of the week. Any registered wikipedian can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles. Voting also indicates interest in contributing during the weekly collaboration cycle. Every Friday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for a week to potential contributors.

Template:WP1.0

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

m

Typo

First paragraph "Conversion" persons --> person's

Religion is spelled wrong in first sentence.

The article still includes numerous mechanical and grammatical errors. I just now corrected the first third of the article (if you'll accept the corrections). Chain27 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to give the Manual of Style a look before you start making these kinds of changes. For example, Wikipedia favors logical quoting, but in your edits you have moved punctuation inside quotation marks. Ilkali (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology - A pespective

I would suggest adding the following to the article.

Some argue that the term in itself is an attempt to give one term to "that many-sided and all-enfolding culture which we in the West have chosen to call Hinduism" Jan Gonda, Visnuism and Sivaism, Munshiram Manoharlal. 1996, ISBN 812150287X p. 1. cited by Welbon, G.R. (Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 1, 98+100. Mar., 1975.). "Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta: A Study in the Mysticism and Theology of Saivism". Retrieved 2008-05-04. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Thanks Wikidās ॐ 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly correct. There is nothing like 'Handu'. That is a kashmiri surname. Persians called Indus, its people and its beliefs as Hendu, the region as Hapta-Hendu. Is it a typo? Then say that the word re-entered with the Delhi Sultans. It was not coined by them. Aupmanyav (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the article uses the phrase "religious tradition"

This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21#Religion versus set of beliefs. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism not a religion

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Hinduism is not a religion. Please see, 'http://www.bjp.org/history/htv-jag.html', 'http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/supremcourt.htm' and 'http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1412/is%20Hinduism.htm'. Shouldn't you guys consider this?

Um why? There is no policy on Wikipedia that states the Supreme Court of India has absolute authority on all Hinduism-related matters. We rather summarise from a host of reliable sources. Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also this is very clearly a decision taht only applies within a certain context. From your own reference:

Whether a particular speech in which reference is made to Hindutva and/or Hinduism falls within the prohibition under sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 is, therefore, a question of fact in each case.

It is talking about whether a speech was asking people to vote on religious grounds. The court found that in this context the speech could be encouraging people to vote for candidates with an Indian cultural outlook, which is legal. In other words the ruling states that Hinduism can be used in a way not meaning religion, not that it doesn't ever mean a religion. In in the reference itself it is clearly used that way, e.g.:

The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way... none of your links work. --59.93.201.20 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

hard to read?

i was just interested in learning a little bit of general information about the religion but i found the introduction hard to gain information from, i thought that it was very clutterd with overly complicated words. i know i should read the whole article but like most i dont have that much time on my hands. if somebody could make the introduction a little bit easier to read and understand about what it is and its main points so that general unknowlagable people can eaisly understand it i would be greatly thankfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.52.60 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could try the Simple English version, though after a quick look I wouldn't say that it was much easier. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've simplified the lead a bit. There are still some complicated sentences but your feedback on whether its readibility has improved is welcome. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is an improvement. There is a limit to what can be done because this is a complex subject that needs comprehensive coverage. I am not sure whether an encyclopedia is the easiest way to get a little bit of general information on a topic, or even if that should be its aim. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about your second point. I think an encyclopedia is to provide general/introductory information on a topic. That is one reason why Jimbo Wales encourages students not to cite Wikipedia but to conduct their research by using detailed books, journals and reliable websites. It is also why articles such as this need to follow WP:SS. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the opening needs to be changed... quite drastically... The second paragraph has two or three lines simply listing countries that have large Hindu populations... this is not only boring, but veers offtrack from discussion of Hinduism to discussion of demographics... A simple statement that the world has a billion or so Hindus, with a majority living in India and Nepal, is enough. Links or later paragraphs in the body of the article will tell aspiring sociologists where else they can look.

It's important to discuss scripture, but there's hardly any mention of the major basic tenets of Hinduism in the introduction! All I learn about Hinduism's outlook is that it has something to do with dharma, which is a vague law or set of laws. Here's an example of what I think would be better -

"Hinduism is an extremely diverse set of beliefs and practices which often defies easy categorization. However, most practitioners generally follow or accept the centrality of dharma, both practical and spiritual law or harmony, the existence of some kind of superpower or God (expressed in many forms), and a variety of means of attaining liberation/moksha from the cycle of birth and rebirth through various ritualistic Vedic, meditative and devotional yogic, and in some cases more esoteric tantric, practices."

Look, I wrote this off the cuff. But I think it does a decent job of, in one regular and one long sentence, of condensing at least the general approach of Hinduism. Add in a bit about scriptures divided into Shruti and Smriti, with the Vedas-Upanishads, the epic poems and 'histories', various sectarian Agamas or sect-specific works (like Yoga Sutras or Devi Mahatmya), and of course the Bhagavad Gita, and you're done... what say [all of] you? Am I on the right track here? What I'm offering may still be dense, but I believe it's more focused on the question of what "Hinduism" is than the current intro. --59.93.220.63 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about the demographics sentence. There have been suggestions previously that a separate demographics section be made in line with other religion articles. We could move this sentence (and add a bit more detail) to such a section, which would create space for an introduction into the key concepts in Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reduce history and conversion and you might bring it down to 65 kb. I think it is enough to say that there are a billion in India, Nepal; perhaps we can add Mauritius with 52% hindus (Adherents.com). Aupmanyav (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Smaarthism, not Smartism

In the 'Denominations' section, under the 'Society' heading, we now have, "However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism". It should be spelt 'Smaarthism', not 'Smartism', just so that people get the pronunciation right and 'Shaktism' should be spelt 'Shukthiism (or at least Shakthiism)'. I also suggest that to get the pronunciation right, a 'h' is added wherever it is required. e.g.'Gayathree' instead of 'Gayatree'

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Some of your pronunciations don't seem to fit, e.g gāyatrī, गायत्री has no "h") -- Q Chris (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to echo Q Chris... when it comes to Sanskrit most people should stick with IAST (standard Sanskrit transliteration system for English).... gayathree and smarthism and shakthiism would all have aspirated 't's for readers of that system... (if you know Bengali or Hindi/Urdu, the 't's would sound like the 't's in "thaali" (platter, plate) or "thak gayaa" (got tired). And shukthiism would make a lot of people, not familiar with transcriptions, say "shuk" like "I shook the treebranch"! --59.93.193.97 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

There is no such thing or religion. The word Hindu is an European word to describe the people who lived East of the Indus river. The word was a derivative of a word used by Arab traders to describe these pople as Indu.

This is same as European "scholars" and explorers such as Columbus calling the natives of the American continent Indians. There is no such thing either. The natives of America do not call themselves Indians. They call themselves varioulsy Mohawk, Haida, Algonquin and Sioux etc. The Europeans thought they had discovered India (based on Indus river) when they arrived in the Americas.

The word Hinduism is a word coined by simplistic European "scholars" including Mayo who used this word to describe the collection of ideas written and practiced in the Indian sub continent. This collection of work included scientific treaties such as the Vedas and Purans and logical and philosophical treaties such as the Upandishads or the Shastras. For example Kautilyas Arthashastra is a treatise on Economics. This cannot be called Hinduism just like the work of Adam Smith on the Wealth of a Nation cannot the called Europeanism. Vatsyana's Kama Sutra is a manual on Sex and not some doctrine.

In one of the Purans there is description of time measurements starting from the smallest division to hours, days, years, millenniums and eons. The smallest division of time was Nimesh and the next was Palak which is equivalent to the time it takes to bat your eye. The hour was called Ghatika. This is the science of measurement of time and it cannot be called Hinduism. You can change a measurement system just like pounds are changed to Kilogram or miles are changed to Kilometers.

There was a reason why this word Hinduism was coined by Europeans. In their desire to rule or colonize the world this word was coined to dismiss all the ideas of the Indian sub continent. One English "scholar" wrote that all the written knolwedge of India (and Arabia) will fill one bookshelf in the British Library. This is same as one Cola company dismisses the product of another Cola company with disdain in their advertisement with an aim to dominate the market.

The word Hindu or Hinduism does not exist in the Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramyana, the Purans, the Sutras, the Shastras or in the Geeta. Of course English pepole do not call themselves Angrez which is the word used by people in India to describe them. The word Hindu also easily groups them for Colonial purposes so that they can be classed as conquered people to be separated from the ruling class.

Now the religion part of it. There is no such religion either. This is simplistic and does not make any sense. Once an Ameican traveller was asked by an African native what tribe do you belong to? The American said, I do not belong to any tribe, I am an American. The people in India do not practice any religion as practiced by the people in the Jordan valley or the decendants of Abraham. The people in India practice Dharma which means a way of life or simply lifestyle. This way of life is adjusted according to the exsiting level of knowledge and science. Of course we now know that the Sun starts it suothern journey on December 21 and not on January 14 as earlier known. So you adjust your life accordingly. The bottom line is that Dharma is not religion. Religion is controlled by a hierarchy and it has doctrines and edicts and a religious leader. Dharma is basically life style and even a Television personality or a Yoga instructor can be a leader of lifestyle depending on her knolwedge. For example most people in India try to follow a vegetarian diet. This is based on the idea that it is more environmentally friendly as you consume less food and allow other species to live. As you can clearly see the Western diet such as eating sea food has now in hundred years led to the collapse of all ocean life and scientists expect (Journal of Science) that there will be no fish to catch in the ocean by 2050.

I will leave you with a scientific view contained in the Brahmasutras which says that the earth is round and its ecosystem is indivisible (land, oceans, atomosphere etc.) and life on earth manifests itself in those that look for nutrients (Chara) and those that draw nuturients directly from the earth (Achara). A balance is needed between plant life and other forms of life as they depend on each other. This is a pure scientific observation and not some ism.

It is true that the common people in India do practice old and bizarre life styles but this is mainly because of illiteracy. They are victims of misinterpretation. Even literate and educated people with a doctorate can be vitimized becasue most of the old text is written in Sanskrit and very few people understand the language. Because the lnaguage is not used commonly, even priests recite them by rote and cannot interpret the texts well.

However recognizing that there is a market place, the word Hinduism has been adopted by modern people who are able to earn a living by creating a consolidated and simplistic model just as one could open a museum of Indians (natives of America) and make some money from the visitors or make a Cowboys and Indians movie and make some money from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.138.213 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Half of this is true, half of this is bullshit, and the whole thing ignores the fact that there is an entity which "Hinduism" refers to, a definite and real system of teachings which all fall under a Vedic/Vedist rubric... Vaishnavs and Shaivaites and Tantrics and Yogis and Bhaktas of all stripes have always considered themselves a part of a special umbrella to the exclusion of the followers of "Baudha Dharma" and "Jaina Dharma" and "Lokayata". Where's that part in your spiel?! I'm with you on the idea that "Hinduism" may not be the best name, but it's happened that way. Most English speakers (and speakers of non-Indian languages) aren't going to suddenly call it "Veda Dharma" or "Arya Dharma" (by which names the Vedic system has been referred by its own followers thousands of years ago...)... or "Santana Dharma" for that matter...

As for TV personalities may have thought patterns and rituals or practices that mirror Hindu practice but so might Christians... as for yoga teachers, well, DUH, Yoga is one of the six Astika (meaning following the Vedas) schools of philosophy!!!! You're wrong. Also, this has been discussed before. --59.93.193.97 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion, not Religious Tradition

Hinduism is not a "religious tradition." I can find thousands of verifiable sources that call Hinduism a religion. Nikkul (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism are not described as religious traditions. They are described as religions. Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "religious tradition" wording was sourced. And, based on my own readings, it made sense. As far as I'm aware, various segments of what the western world calls "Hinduism" do not identify as "Hindu" in the sense that Protestants and Catholics alike identify as "Christian." Hinduism, I believe, is sort of an umbrella term that has been used to encompass a wide variety of rather disparate religious traditions on the Indian subcontinent. Moreover, many Hindus would regard Christians, Muslims, etc. as Hindus in a sense, because these Hindus assimilate other--and, in their view, ostensibly distinct--objects of worship into their belief system as Ishta-devas (so you could also argue that, in a sense, Hinduism is a conglomeration, not only of disparate Indian faiths, but also of widely varying faiths all around the world). But I needn't ramble on, because I'm going to WP:AGF for whomever added the "religious tradition" phrasing, and trust that if you would like a decent explanation of that phrasing, then you need only to head down to the library and pick up the source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's a huge talk page post about this very topic, immediately before this section. Interesting that you didn't comment on it directly. Anyway, I've reverted to the previous, sourced version that calls it a religious tradition. If other sources call it a "religion," and if you uncover significant controversy in this regard, then feel free to introduce the controversy into the article itself (making certain, of course, to cite your sources). Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte is very much correct here. In fact if you look near the top of the page currently, I point specifically to which archives. I'll copy my message from there.

This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21#Religion versus set of beliefs. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"oldest religion" once again

sigh, I don't know how many times we've been over that. "Oldest religion" is as meaningless a term as "oldest language". I know that many popular blogs and cheap journalism like to tout Hinduism as "the oldest religion", but we are trying to be an encyclopedia. There is no shortage of academic sources on the history of Hinduism, so there really isn't any excuse to rely on less encyclopedic sources. dab (��) 08:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you seem to be using a strawman here because the sources cited aren't popular blogs or cheap journalism. Trips (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

what is it these sources say? Look, you cannot give a date for the "age of Hinduism". That's nonsense. You can give a date for the age of the Bhakti movement (700 years or so), an age for the Puranas (1200 years or so), or an age of the Yoga Sutras (2200 years or so), but it is patently silly to try and give an "age of Hinduism". Certainly not in the lead, and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, not a single religion. We can give a date for historical Vedic religion, but then this isn't the article on historical Vedic religion. We don't claim Freemasonry is aged 5000 years because they worship Isis. Please try to keep this encyclopedic. dab (��) 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a general statement even used in 'Encyclopedia' Britannica, referring specifically to the umbrella term that is Hinduism, which this whole article is on. Why isnt a date posted on the historic Vedic religion article anyway, and to suggest Freemasonry is 5000 years old because of worship of Isis is synthesis and Freemasonry is not the same as continuously practiced ancient Egyptian religion.Trips (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

you are revert warring. Please remove the inferior sources again, Britannica is enough. All your sources do not go beyond the fact that "Hinduism is sometimes characterized as the oldest something or other", which is what the revision you reverted already stated. The Britannica defines Hinduism as "the beliefs and practices of Hindus, as expressed in a series of characteristic doctrinal, ritual, social, narrative, and poetic forms." I am happy with that definition, no problem. It further has "Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India." that's fine too. No cheap hype there. The Britannica defines Brahmanism as "a religion of ancient India that evolved out of Vedism", and Vedism it defines as "the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 BC from the region of present-day Iran". That's the EB for you. Nothing wrong with that. If you have no objections, I'll replace the current disaster with these straightforward definitions. Thus, according to the Britannica, Hinduism in the wider sense is post-Vedic (say post 600 BC), and in the narrower sense is post-Buddhist, say post 200 BC). Of course it has ("continuously") evolved beyond recognition since those days, but these are the historical traditions included in the term. dab (��) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the wording in the Britannica source is "Hinduism, one of the oldest continuous religious traditions in the world and the predominant religion of India" The New Encyclopaedia Britannica - Page 927. None of the sources mention "sometimes" either. I am only reinstating sources which you believe you opinion alone overrides. Trips (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"In recognition of these ancient sources, present-day Hindus often assert that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion." Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions" [3] -Page 434Hinduism is both the oldest and most diverse of the world's religions": How to Prepare for SAT II - Page 90 "Hinduism is the oldest and perhaps the most complex of all the living, historical world religions" [4] Joel Beversluis (2000). Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality (Sourcebook of the World's Religions, 3rd ed). Novato, Calif: New World Library. ISBN 1-57731-121-3. - your statement "evolved beyond recognition since those days" can not be correct, since most traditions do carry forward on the same basis of the mantra initiation of the Rig Veda - all other observations are quite external. --Wikidās ॐ 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with "present-day Hindus often assert that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion", that's spot on. Anything else is collecting soundbites, and needs to go from the lead, and needs to be attributed in the article body. If you can agree to an encyclopedic rephrasing of your point, this doesn't need to be difficult. The current EB has ""Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India." can we please rely on that instead of some random edition of 35 years ago which contained a soundbite you happened to like? I can use google myself, thanks. If you want to discuss notions of the "age of Hinduism", feel free to compile a coherent account based on scholarly sources at History of Hinduism, but don't attempt to tout WP:SYN stunts on this article's lead. This article is important, people! We cannot allow its lead to degenerate into cheap rhetorics. dab (��) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created oldest religion as a place where this, hm, discourse, can be reflected on-topic. dab (��) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trips, stop reverting. I have explained on what grounds I object to your revision. I do not insist on a fixed revision but am open to WP:DR. Propose a compromise phrasing or drop it. dab (��) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view many points of view needs resolving in the intro. One of them is that its oldest religion, second is that this is the view that hindus maintain, third is that some do not consider hinduism a religion and yet another view is that there are many religions that are united under one label of Hinduism - each of these has a foundation in common source - Vedas. Wikidās ॐ 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

indeed, there are "many views". Which precludes us from giving one in Wikipedia's voice, that's my entire point: this isn't Hindupedia, we have a WP:NPOV policy. Any discussion of detail belongs to the article body or a sub-article per WP:LEAD. dab (��) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that all of the views that have RS should be reflected in the lead and only that will have a NPOV. As far as I see dabs and Tripping Nambiar express one view each. Please propose a combination of the views here. It has nothing to do with Hindupedia so no need to put down one view over the other, its absolutely natural that Hindus will have a say about Hinduism and that it has to be reflected in the lead. Wikidās ॐ 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

{{huh}}? Where on earth did you get the idea that "all of the views that have RS should be reflected in the lead"? We would end up with articles that are all lead, no body. No, the burden is on you to establish that this "oldest religion" meme is lead-worthy in the first place. My proposal includes mentioning it as a gesture of good faith, I do not think it is at all notable. Unlike Trips, I do not advocate any view at all. I am willing to report that many Hindus are infatuated with the idea of adhering to "the oldest religion". I do not think the concept is meaningful and consequently have no view on it (viz., I think it is not even wrong), except that it is of dubious encyclopedicity. dab (��) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the principle here is consensus, not 'proof', as any reliable source is the proof, to use it or not is based on the consensus. The lead in my opinion should reflect the fact that its the oldest religion, because omitting this information is just POV. Wikidās ॐ 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

of course. But, there is no consensus that "oldest religion" is even a meaningful concept, let alone that Hinduism "is" that. There is no "fact" that Hinduism is the oldest anything, that's just a pious sentiment. Go figure how many of the editors pushing for the inclusion of this statement as "fact" are themselves Hindus, and how many are neutral without personal stakes in the matter. I thought so. We are not "omitting" any information, we are attributing it. "Many Hindus insist Hinduism is 'oldest'". There. You surely can also find some 19th century Orientalist enthusiasts insisting Hinduism is 'oldest', but that's hardly lead-worthy. dab (��) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

soundbite vs. fact

in what sense is Hinduism "the oldest religion continuously practiced"? Look at the other contestants. The most promising are Zoroastrianism (Zoroaster assumed to have lived around 1000 BC) and Judaism (the oldest core of the Pentateuch assumed to date back as early as the 10th century BC). It follows that "Hinduism" can only ever contest for being the "oldest religion continuously practiced" in whatever sense it predates 1000 BC. Now, the only bits of Hinduism accepted to predate this date are the family books of the Rigveda. These are commonly accepted to date to around 1500 to 1200 BC. The entire statement boils down to whatever role the Rigvedic family books (not the entire Rigveda) have in Hinduism. The Rigveda, however, reflects Vedism, specifically separated from Hinduism proper by the EB. It immediately follows that we cannot reflect the "oldest" claim as "fact". We can state it's a popularly repeated claim, that's all. Touting all of Hinduism as a "continuous tradition" is either a truism (since all traditions necessarily have some continuity going back to the Lower Paleolithic), or silly. It is remarkable that the Gayatri Mantra is aged more than 3,000 years, but that hardly "dates Hinduism" any more than the use of ancient Hebrew terms like Amen or Hallelujah dates Christianity. Hinduism in the EB's "narrow sense" begins in the Mauryan period anyway, end of discussion. dab (��) 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE: the continuity or discontinuity between Vedism and Hinduism is indeed a matter of debate. Here is a reference:

• Oberhammer, Gerhard (ed.), Studies in Hinduism. Vedism and Hinduism. (1997); review: Indo-Iranian Journal 45 (2002), 59-75. Pertinent quotes from the review:

Firstly, the adequacy of the nomenclature – Vedism and Hinduism – we use needs to be clarified if we are to prevent the perception that such terms represent a unity of doctrine and practice lying beneath them.

investigating the historical relations between both and demarcating the discontinuities and continuities which must be found when Hinduism is regarded as having absorbed Vedism within itself or transformed it into a different cultural process than what it originally might have been.

Vedism managed in various ways to keep a hold on Indian thought and imagination

this is a complex debate, and belongs on history of Hinduism. It cannot be fit within the lead of this article. Avoid WP:SYN. I have made perfectly clear that the statement I oppose cannot be presented as fact. If you want to further participate in this, research academic literature and present your sources. As too often, I have the impression I am the only one actually doing this, opposing revert-warriors content to base their opinion on blogs and googled soundbites. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. In terms of continuous tradition, both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism of course ultimately continue prehistoric traditions, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Indo-European, and so on into the Stone Age. In this sense, all traditions are co-eval, "continuously" descending from Proto-World. dab (��) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The way to measure old is not by when it started, but how long it survived. The oldest man is not the first man to walk the earth but the longest surviving one. Hence, Hinduism is the "oldest" religion. Also, I think Britannica is much more respected than Meeriam Webster. Nikkul (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To be proper you really better define to what the word 'Hinduism' refers. You can use it to refer to anything you want and for example EB (one of the editions of it) refers to it in a different meaning to what the world was originally referring to. Not just one mantra of Rig Veda, ie Savitri/Gayatri Mantra that is continues. The rites and pantheon did not change, Vishvamitra is still worshipable and Vishnu too; of course if by definition you accept Vedism as different to Hinduism - you will arrive at some strange conclusion. Show me a tradition in modern Hinduism that does not claim to be based on the Rig Veda or Vedic knowledge? Its obviously one tradition, just as well still practiced in such a wide range of practices, just as it was 15k before. Wikidās ॐ 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dab is arguing that its hard to compare age of religions for various reasons, but that argument does not belong in this article. It is easily overridden by many sources which do indeed make the comparison, assuming that religion can be comparatively aged and that Hinduism is most certainly the oldest major world religion. Trips (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

statement of fact

Current lead as it stands:

Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Hinduism is the oldest major world religion.

Lets hear comments here - it is a mere statement of fact that one RS states it. Wikidās ॐ 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose expanding it to include: Hinduism is not only one of the numerically largest but also the oldest living major tradition on earth, with roots reaching back into the prehistory. (Page 1 of A Survey of Hinduism ISBN 0791421090 By Klaus K. Klostermaier - he is the leading specialist in the field). To clarify dabs questions Vedic Hinduism is the term used to describe Vedism. I have started a discussion on the Vedism page as to rename it to this name. See The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion By John Corrigan article on Hinduism by J Macdaniel. I will be adding this references to the article as well. Wikidās ॐ 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We can easily find more refs than Merriam-Webster for the "oldest major world religion" statement. So it doesn't have to be solely attributed to Merriam-Webster. Trips (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You must make your case clearly Trips, I suggest placing revised version with references here. Additional references will help the case of removing single source quotation. However nobody can disagree that Merriam-Webster states this. Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand with your version, lots of the sources were textbooks which also included Aryan invasion, and others that skim the topic too briefly, probably not credible refs. Trips (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the 3rd paragraph of the lede.

Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India. Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Hinduism is the oldest major world religion.

Hinduism is not only oldest living major tradition on earth, it is one of the numerically largest, with roots reaching back into the prehistory. It is formed of diverse traditions and types and has no single founder.

The types, sub-traditions and denominations taken together add up to Hinduism qualifying as the world's third largest religion following Christianity and Islam, with approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal. Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and Canada.

that's just cheap editorializing. If you want to throw about sources on "oldest religion", do it at history of Hinduism, not in the WP:LEAD of this article. Wikidas, do you actually know anything about "the field" at all, or do you just call Klostermaier "the leading specialist" because you happened to google a soundbite from him that happened to serve your purpose at this moment? See also here. Anyway, I repeat that the "oldest religion" shtick isn't false, it is not even false, by virtue of being unencyclopedic crap without any clear definition. Now please keep this stuff out of the lead, or consider sitting back and let the grown ups write this article. dab (��) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claims are OR and smell like your are using words like: 'unencyclopedic crap' - without even checking your sources. Klostermaier is the leading specialist in HInduism thus his view counts. Dvaita dispute the concept of Hinduism itself so a bad one from your side. Wikidās ॐ 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

you are not listening. I invite you to cite Klostermaier at History of Hinduism, where your discussion belongs. If you have a source for the idle claim of "leading specialist in Hinduism", I invite you to cite it at Klostermaier's article. I challenge to put your money where your mouth is and back that up before you indulge in further edit warring. The man has a degree in philosophy for crying out loud. --dab (��) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dabs, when you call oxford handbooks and leading oxford professors or lecturers in Hinduism

bogus, it does not project a nice image of your editorship. You are an experienced editor you should know better what is encyclopedic. Do not revert until we reach a consensus here. We have consensus of two editors for the above. Wikidās ॐ 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is bogus. You cherry pick soundbites out of context and obsess about touting the topic in the lead. I do in fact know better than you, by all appearances. You don't even have a semblance of a case, and answer none of the points raised. You are just revert-warring at this point. If you want to keep up a pretense of good faith, put up a {{disputed}} tag (as I have done and have been reverted. Removing cleanup tags is disruption.). You should know Wikipedia well enough to realize that playing stupid or WP:ICANTHEARYOU doesn't buy you the revision you want. The best you can achieve is an article riddled with warning tags, locked down for everyone, with everyone pissed off over the time wasted because some idiot tried to dodge the proper process. --dab (��) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Me and Tipps have a consensus on the second paragraph and I have added a small revision here-> diff - it is based on the very good sources, so clearly not 'bogus' and we clearly do follow of proper process of arriving at consensus. I would not call other users edits 'bogus', especially if such high quality sources are used, please assume good faith. Your edits while based on sources appear as your own, {{syn}} or a minority view, not as a consistent representation of good sources. Certainly do not have a consensus. It makes sense to you, but we feel its POV pushing. We are not using 'soundbites', its is sound and complete summary of a good secondary source (read a few pages of it first, its not an 'article' it is a summary of Klostermaier's book), who is not ' modern day hindu' and its exactly on the subject, very important source, it is backed up by a number of other sources - I will give a full range today. Its is a predominate academic view and if you have another view - add the alternative sources and maybe it can be accommodated in the lede as a different point of view on the subject, it is clearly a minority view as there is a very small number of sources that will divorce Vedic religion and Hinduism. It is of course based on definition of Hinduism, what is yours? Talk to us rather then just reverting the edits, instead of asking others, do it yourself and follow the proper process. Wikidās ॐ 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your change -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās, Tipps: if you'll allow me to point out the obvious, Wikipedia is not the place for "Mine is bigger than Yours" type arguments. no one would object to the statement that Hinduism is an ancient faith, or that it has a large number of followers, but comparative terms like 'numerically largest' and 'oldest' are just begging for contradiction. let me point out, for instance, that jainism is at least as old as hinduism, and that babylonian and egyptian faiths, as well as the faiths of many indigenous peoples, may be far older. also, please remember that 'consensus' is not strictly a consensus of editors, and is clearly not a consensus of some editors over other editors. consensus in the Wikipedia sense means consensus about the topic by experts, with consensus by editors over presentation issues.

I understand that you're pushing for your faith here, and I respect that. that kind of interest can do wonders for an article if applied correctly. but please keep it within encyclopedic limits. Hinduism is not going to gain or lose anything because of it's portrayal in Wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because one world religion is older then the other is does not make it better. One just need to be clear and transparent about it. The simple statement of WP:RS that this is the oldest of world religions or major traditions is sufficient to stress the point. WP:CON makes it very clear that we need to arrive at consensus. And you are not quite right - it is not that consensus is different views that agree as in different verifiable and otherwise reliable sources. Consensus is when a few editors do not object to a statement and in this case it means we should find a middle ground, state a statement of primary view on Hinduism and then mention, possibly in the body of the text rather then in the lede, that this view is not shared by some other academics such as ... sources go here.... (waiting to have a WP:RS from contesting editors). First of course the widely accepted view that Hinduism is the oldest living world religion as it states: "oldest living major tradition". Jainism is a tradition, not major, that is distinguished sometimes from Hinduism. You may think that you can compare the two but can not say that Jainism is a major living tradition or is "oldest living major tradition", that is Hinduism; however points of agreement between Jainism and Hinduism are extraordinarily extensive, and some do include Jainism and lately Buddhism in Hinduism. We are not suggesting that in this article or the lead, however this view may be reflected as a minority view in the body of the article, just as a minority view that Vedic Hinduism is not Hinduism expressed by Dabs. While there are no hard-and-fast line of demarcation between the Jainism and Hinduism in the views of many, it is a widely accepted fact that Babylonian faith is not a living faith, certainly not a world religion. Please do not mistake us for being zealous hindus, we just want to call things right names, and yes this is the purpose of Wikipedia, "oldest living major tradition" is the right name.

If reliable sources found that contradict the above, we should consider them for this article. Wikidās ॐ 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās - I think you're missing the point in what I said. oldest is a comparative; old is not. the only reason to say oldest is to draw some sort of relation to other faiths, which is problematic in this context, and particularly so in the lead. now I am not averse to some phrasing of this sort, but it would have to be impeccably sourced (Merriam/Webster is not appropriate - it's a third-hand source - and the other source you gave does not use 'oldest' as an analytical subject but as introductory glue in a work that talks about other things). Find me a respectable source that says "Hinduism began at such and such a time, Jainism began at..., judaism began at... (etc.) therefore Hinduism is the oldest living religion" and I'll cede your point completely. but please don't try to stuff a comparative in there as a fact without going the extra mile to make it ironclad.

If nothing else, realize that Dab is also trying to produce an accurate article here. he wouldn't be objecting if he didn't have questions about it. rather than trying to bowl him over by being insistent, try making a convincing argument. he strikes me as someone who will respond to reason if you give it to him. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

reaching forward for a consensus

We need to be reasonable. There are two sides to the story and we can find a middle ground. At least we should try.

I agree that Dab is trying to produce an accurate article. Thus we need to balance the views, find correct wording and please understand that I do not reject views that dab presents, except when he rejects the commonly accepted norms as 'bogus'.

Following are the references that support the use of the word oldest. There is nothing wrong with using it. 1. Diana Keuss, Learning and Teaching Scotland (2005), Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies (PDF), p. 5, retrieved 2008-06-26, 2. Vaz, P. (2001), "Coexistence of Secularism and Fundamentalism in India", Handbook of Global Social Policy: p. 124, retrieved 2008-06-26, Hinduism is the oldest of all the major world religions. {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help), 3. Beteille, A. (1998), "The Indian heritage--a sociological perspective", The Indian human heritage: p. 87 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help), 4. Eastman, R. (1999). The Ways of Religion: An Introduction to the Major Traditions. Oxford University Press, USA., 5. Klostermaier, K.K. (1994). A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. pp. p. 1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), 6. Dimensions in Religion: Teacher's Resource Book - p. 15 "the oldest of the living traditions, has no 'founder'", 7.' New York Times Almanac 2004, John W. Wright, p. 489 "Hinduism is the oldest of the world's great religions." 8. Sociology in Our Times - p. 540, by Diana Elizabeth Kendall, Kendall - 2000 "We begin with Hinduism because it is believed to be one of the world's oldest current religions", 9. Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions. p. 119 "world's oldest living civilization and religion" 10. The Volume Library: A Modern, Authoritative Reference for Home and School p. 1938"Hinduism - The third largest religion and the oldest major religion." 11. How to Prepare for SAT II: World History - p. 90, Marilynn Hitchens, Heidi Roupp - 2001, "Hinduism is both the oldest and most diverse of the world's religions, easily mutable and readily able to incorporate new ideas."

(not this one?? (0.) The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism - p. xvi 2001 - "It's the world's oldest religion, going back to the very dawn of history."}

But definitely this one (12.) "It is also recognized as the oldest major religion in the world". Encyclopedia of Relationships Across the Lifespan - p 359 Jeffrey S. Turner

I will be adding only the major ones to the article. Lets hear a more balanced view. I have already balanced it significantly. Lets see how far we can go without claiming that earth is flat (or that Vedism is a separate religion or that Jeffrey S. Turner is a 'modern day Hindu who asserts it' ). Wikidās ॐ 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have serious reservations about including a statement to this effect in the lead. There are several problems with using such a statement.

• 1. There is no clear definition of what "religion" is in this sense. I know the majority of independent observers have stated that Hinduism has changed as much if not more than most of the other major world religions. On that basis, what we might reasonably say that "Hinduism" is the oldest name still ascribed to a currently extant religion, but that statement isn't really saying much. Also, is it older than, say, Shamanism, which has also been described as a religion? I tend to think no, and I think the majority of experts in the field would agree. It might take me a while to find sources though. This however highlights the fact that there isn't a single universally agreed upon definition of religion, making the use of such a statement without qualifiers as to what the definition of religion is at best dubious.
• 2. Also, such a statement would have to be further qualified with something to the effect of "of which we today have clear evidence". After all, we would want to indicate that we are basing this on scientific evidence. There is some evidence to indicate that Paleolithic religion can be substantiated by external evidence as being older than Hinduism, so such a qualifier would be required there.
• Taking both of those into account, I think that, while it might make sense to say in the lead something to the effect that many Hindus claim it is the oldest religion, there is nowhere near unanimity in the scientific community to say anything more than that. Particularly since, as per the Paleolithic religion page, the first evidence of the unusual burial of a shaman occurred 30,000 years ago, well before the 7500 or so years which Hinduism can be dated back. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John - there is no single definition of the word religion - the word religion should be substituted for religious tradition in relation to Hinduism, see also consensus record on this Talk page. Paleolithic religion of South India is related to Hinduism as claimed by some. Wikidās ॐ 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't entirely agree with that either, I'm afraid. Although I'm stunned the Shamanism in Siberia page doesn't yet reference Mircea Eliade's book on Shamanism, drawn from study of primarily Siberian shamans, it could well be that that religious tradition may be older. And, from what I remember of Eliade's book, it too tends to adhere to a generally common set of beliefs, much as Hinduism or any other religious tradition. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, your research is most welcome at the "oldest religion" article. I have no idea why you want to cram this stuff into the lead of this article. Obviously, all religious tradition ultimately goes back to the Middle Paleolithic. It is patently nonsensical to refer to such remote prehistoric traditions as "Hinduism". Hence the point is really moot. I fail to see how this "oldest religion" meme can be of any encyclopedic interest. Paleolithic religion of India is related to Hinduism in exactly the same way Paleolithic religion of Arabia is related to Islam, or the way Paleolithic religion of Italy to Roman Catholicism. It's a truism. Now I have never objected to mentioning the meme "Hinduism is oldest" in the lead, so please stop trying to misrepresent my position. Currently, we have Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups,[6][7] or as "oldest living major tradition"[8][9][10]. There is nothing wrong with that, except in terms of style. Five footnotes. "Oldest" repeated twice over. Anyone reading this will go "oh, we get it, they had some Hindus pushing this and they ended up with an awkwardly redundant statement with obsessive referencing. Poor Wikipedia.". This article will never become a high value encyclopedia article (let alone featured) as long as we allow zealot adherents like Wikidas to damage encyclopedic style in this way. But I'll say again that I have no objections to the statement ''Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups or as "oldest living major tradition" -- I just wonder what it is doing in the article lead. Do we see "Christians often present Christianity as the only true religion and the one path to salvation" in the lead of Christianity? It's a true statement, and yet has no place in any encyclopedia article, go figure. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your research or speculation, and ideas of unpublished analysis and synthesis of published material clearly serves to advance a position in your article on "oldest religion" (possibly short for O.R.. It is clearly that if you to write properly such an article the claims should be part of the respective articles of all religions and NRMs (if they are not OR) you are listing. I have no idea why you want to separate and compare all the incomparable items in this synthesis of published material of that article. Obviously, you are wrong, and not all religious tradition ultimately go back to the Middle Paleolithic. What a clear misunderstanding of major religions traditions that we have. All world religions have a founder or founders, bar one. Its clear from the lead of the article and you patently nonsensical in your denial of this, yes pre-historic traditions are called "Hinduism" and there are clear elements of Paleolithic religion in the present days Hindusims as well. Anyway, good thing about Wiki is that even if we disagree, we will come up with a decent compromise that will reflect the consensus, and that is our goal. Wikidās ॐ 12:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

my compilation at oldest religion was a quick survey of sources. I have since improved it further and moved it to Urreligion. It is a perfectly encyclopedic topic. It is painfully obvious that you are attempting to shoot it down not out of concern for encyclopedicity but in the interst of your single-topic interest of touting Hinduism. Look, "Hinduism" isn't even a native term. It is what the Muslims in India called anything that wasn't Islamic. So you shouldn't be surprised "Hinduism" has no single founder. Sheesh, if you go to Talk:Muhammad you'll find no shortage of Muslim editors clamouring that Islam is the one eternal true religion and hence has no founder. The current world religion of Hinduism is essentially (99%?) Vedanta, re-modelled into Pauranic Hinduism and partly transformed by the Bhakti movement. It would be perfectly accurate to consider Adi Shankara the founding figure of all that. Obviously, Shankara had earlier traditions, just like every other religious founding figure in world history. I am sorry, but you clearly have no idea of religious history. "It's the world's oldest religion" may be a satisfactory phrasing for "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism", but certainly not for Wikipedia. Don't you realize how your sources tend to cluster around the "Hindu zealot blog" and the "Hinduism for Dummies" pop-literature poles? Wikipedia doesn't aim to belong to either. I have also reviewed your Klostermaier reference now. Lol, it is published by "SUNY Press", and on the same page 1 also claims that Hinduism is the "numerically largest" religion. Wow. If you are so fond of Klostermaier, why aren't you revert-warring for the claim that "Hinduism is the numerically largest religion" along with "oldest", since both claims are found right next to one another in KK's book? dab (𒁳) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hinduism" isn't even a native term - well I agree with you on that, its obvious. All your obvious statements are not being disputed. Sometimes you misunderstand and I guess that where it comes from. You should read sources right, it said one of numerically largests traditions (as to distinguish it from obscure cults or therms that are listed in your article). Yes, there are difficulties in defining "Hinduism" - I would welcome discussion and a separate section on this, as it seems to be the theme common to many sources. I do not object to "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups,[6][7] or as "oldest living major tradition"[8][9][10] " - it appears to reflect sources and satisfy me in this regard. Wikidās ॐ 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

then why did you stage such a hubbub over nothing at all? Are you bored or something? dab (𒁳) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (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.

Requested move

• Historical Vedic religion → Vedic Hinduism —(Discuss)— clarity and consistency with Hinduism article. --Wikidās ॐ 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article is named as if Vedic Religion is an alternative to Hinduism. However, "Vedic religion is seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest extant form." ("JSTOR: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1984 ), pp. 234-236". www.jstor.org.). That is is the main reason for the move. Wikidās ॐ 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from WP:RM by User:JPG-GR) oppose, bogus suggestion per article talkpage. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Historical Vedic religion#Requested move by User:Wikidas)

DBachmann: "Vedic" in popular Hindu usage means "cool" ?

DBachmann, is the air around Zurich warming up too fast, or are you on psychedelic substances ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jan Gonda, until his death in 1997, was for many decades the acknowledged doyen of European Indology and a prolific writer on many aspects of Hinduism. He contributed two volumes on Hinduism for a comprehensive series on ``The Religions of Mankind. His major divisions are as follows:

I. Veda and Older Hinduism

1. Vedic (and Brahmanic) Hinduism

2. Epic (and Puranic) Hinduism

II. Younger Hinduism

"Hinduism: A Short History". www.oneworld-publications.com. Retrieved 2008-07-06.

Based on that Dab is clearly overheated, and should get to the lake more often:-) Wikidās ॐ 11:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So far two in favor of move to Vedic Hinduism. --Wikidās ॐ 11:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory sentence

Following sentence is defamatory and malicious in nature. "Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or are based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India.[4] Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.[5]"

This sentence does not make logical sense either. First there is no such thing a Brahmanism, Word Brahmanism is a slur used by Christian evangelists for Hinduism because they try to project Hinduism as a religion of Brahmins and not the rest of the Hindu society. Similarly Vedism is also an invented word and does not make sense. Second sentense "post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions " is even more ridiculous, since it implies that there was change in cultural traditions in india after the buddhism. I recommend removing the whole sentence as it is based on invented words like Brahmanism and Vedism with malicious intent. Sindhian (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following as an example of insert replacing the statement above, that is not justifiable:

The term Hinduism is used as an umbrella designation for all traditions that declare allegiance to the Veda, however tenuous the actual connection with that body of writing might be, and however old or recent the particular branch might be. Hinduism is a family of religions, a vast and heterogenous tradition without a common leader, a common center or a common body of teachings. Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism. (K. Klostermaier, K. "Hinduism: A Short History". www.oneworld-publications.com. Retrieved 2008-07-06.), ("JSTOR: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1984 ), pp. 234-236". www.jstor.org.)

Sindhian, Let me know if this wording can be an acceptable replacement, or provide your version. Wikidās ॐ 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to debate. Klostermaier says "There is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between ``Vedism, ``Brahmanism, and ``Hinduism." Which implies that words Brahmanism and Vedism are created by western and marxist scholars. In the current context this term is very controversial and considered malicious in nature as it is used to build hate against a section of Hindus (Brahmins). It is like calling catholic religion as popism or christianity as Biblism or Judiasm as Zionism(all these isms can be percieved as slurs). My understanding is that if there is a single denominator for Hinduism from ancient time to present it is the reverance in Vedas. Although all hindus believe Vedas were superceeded by Upanashids which are called Vedanta (summary of vedas or literally end of vedas). This change is important because the Upanishads were considered to explain and conclude the knowledge of Vedas. It is also incorrect to say that Hindus do not have a common leader. Advait sect which forms the bulk of Hindus have four supreme leaders in 4 different geographical regions called Shankaracharya who preside over an religious institution called maths. Simailarly Dvaits and other sects have their religious heads and institutions. Just like Christianity has different sects divided by philosophical difference over the interpretation of bible, hindus have different sects divided by interpretation of upanishads and Vedas. Therefore to keep it simple and short I would suggest replacing the paragraph with following:

The term Hinduism is used as an umbrella designation for all traditions that declare reverance to the Vedas and belief in Upanishads. Like Christianity, Hinduism as a term can can be applied to a number of religious sects which are seperated by philospohical differences over the interpretation of its holy books i.e Vedas and Upanishads (See Hindu Philosophy) Each sect may also have its own Purana not accepted by other sects. Most of the Hindu sects can be classified between monistic Advaita and theistic Dvaita schools. Sindhian (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You said that there is a single denominator to Hinduism, yes its true. You said that all Hindus believe Vedas were superceeded by Upanashids - that is not so, some traditions are vaidic - see Shrauta. Interesting to notice how you compare Zionism with Brahmanism, not that much but it has its connotations. Actually first Moguls, were exploiting hate against brahmins because of degraded version of cast system. Theory of arian invasion and separation of Vedism into a separate religion is credit to British Raj researchers, only sometimes used by Marxists. Wikidās ॐ 14:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Zionists were a political movement, but these days Zionism is an anti-semitic slur used to imply the the "jewish conspiracy". Similarly brahmanism was invented by britishers and missionaries to create a rift in hindus. I also don't agree with your sentence "Moguls, were exploiting hate against brahmins". This is not true as there is no evidance of hate against brahmins in Mughal period. anti-brahminism is a missionary introduced doctrine. In any case that is not important. Most europen colonizers had a habit of magnifying the evils of their colonies. While it is true that there was castism in Indian society but one could argue that some form of castism was there in almost all developed or non tribal societies. In japan there were Samurais and Peasants and Samurai's have a record of exploiting and mistreating peasants. for example samurai had a right to kill any peasant who he felt was disrespectfull. Samurais would raid peasents and rape and pillage them.

Similarly most of the european society was divided into Nobles and peasants. There are so many movies which show the discrimination of these peasants by nobles. Sindhian (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Shrauta are a fringe group just like GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS, so we should not consider that as a major diviation from what I said . Sindhian (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still request you to remove the references to Brahmanism and Vedism. It does not make sence to use these clearly controvercial words in the headlines of a religion. definitionof Hinduism like other religions should be based on what its adherants believe it is and not what its critics believe it is. Sindhian (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Brahmanism and Vedism are just terms refering to periods of Hinduism, I agree that they many not be the best terms used. Please propose your option of the lead and we can take a vote on it. Unlike Christianity, there is much more tolerances to different schools of thought in Hinduism, which is good. Do you have a proposal? Post it here and we will have a look at it. Wikidās ॐ 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the wiki article on Christianity and compare it with Hinduism you will see that Hinduism Article looks like a mess. Like Christianity, Hinduism too is a complex religion so it is impossible to put all information of hinduism in a single article. What should be covered in the main Hinduism article is only things which are common to most of the Hindu sects and are not controvercial.

I would like to contribute to this Article and try to make it better but I see it has been locked and only some editors are allowed to edit, which I feel is odd. Please give me access to the article and I can help.

Coming back to the article I don't understand the justification of the following sentence in the heading of Hinduism.

Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism.[4],[5] Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, is at its roots.[6][7]

What is the purpose of this sentense. No body in India and most of the world thinks Vedic religion was an alternative to Hinduism. There is no such controversy at present. It is a refutation by a western historian of a erronous belief of some western historians more than 80 years back. Very few people have heard of the invented and meaningless terms of Brahmanism or Vedism.

Similarly the sentense "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition"

Why is said as "often presented"? Who is presenting it as such ? Or is it only a few people are presenting it as such and rest do not agree? Is there a controversy arround this? Is it wrong to just say "Hinduism is one of the oldest religious tradition". This is complicating a simple senten which could havebeen written as "Hinduism is one of the oldest living religious tradition".

Similarly "Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism,[21] panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization.[22]" creates more confusion than provides information. This could have been written in a much simpler way Sindhian (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

it does not meet the following good article attributes.

It is not well written: (a) the prose is not clear. For exapmle it says": "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition" in the lead section. therefore creates confusion about Why is said as "often presented"? Who is presenting it as such ? Or is it only a few people are presenting it as such and rest do not agree? Is there a controversy arround this? This is complicating a simple sentence which could havebeen written as "Hinduism is one of the oldest living religious tradition"

(b) it does not comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation For exaple it has two of the following sentenses in the lead section : Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism.[4],[5] Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, is at its roots. This is a clear attempt to inply a POV and to introduce an unneccessary contradiction. It is not factually accurate and verifiable: For example : Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the sectarian Agamas, the Purāṇas, and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.[14]

There is a implied POV that Tantras are more prominant than rest of the scriptures, which is incorrect. Bhagavad Gītā and Ramayana are the most prominant of other scriptures. There are a lot of other inaccuracies which need to be corrected.

It is not broad in its coverage: (a) it does not addresses the main aspects of the topic properly ;[3] and (b) it does not stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). For example "Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Canada and the USA."

What does this have to do with the topic of Hinduism and how can this be justified in the lead section of hinduism.

It is not neutral: it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. For example The Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the puruṣhārthas. They are:kāma: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment Artha: Material prosperity and success .

This is again an implied POV with intent of bringing disrepute. It is not stable: it has changed a lot in recent times and lot of implied POV with malicious intent are added. A group of editors have taken over the page and have stopped others from editing by locking it over.

Please see the talk page of the article. Sindhian (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks that after a few edits by you we are back on track to feature article, are we? It all looks makable. Just a question of actual work of doing it? Wikidās ॐ 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not exactly know about Harappan beliefs apart from Mother Goddess and the purported Pashupati. That does not seem to be Vedic in any sense. IMHO, by Harappan times, the admixture might have already taken place (taking that Aryans may have come in before 3,000 BC. We have to account for not only the Mahabharata but the 'Battle of Ten Kings' also) and the Aryans may have started worshiping local deities as they do now. Therefore it is not correct to call it 'historical Vedic religion'. I too, find it derogatory to the indigenous belief (though perhaps I may belong to the Aryan stock. Our forefathers accepted the indigenous Gods). Aupmanyav (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example of delibrate defamatory propaganda against hinduism

The Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the puruṣhārthas. They are:

kāma: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment Artha: Material prosperity and success Dharma: Correct action, in accordance with one's particular duty and scriptural laws Moksha: Liberation from the cycle of samsara[45][46]

Please pay attention first to the order in which it is written. It is trying to imply that The first goal of life of a Hindu is to indulge in Sensual pleasure and enjoyment and second is to get Material prosperity and success.

Besides the meaning of kama is out of context. Calling Kama "Sensual pleasure and enjoyment" as well as putting it on the top of the list amounts to inducing a false meaning Please look at [5] for the correct definition as follows. "The householder strives to fulfill the four purusharthas, "human goals" of righteousness, wealth, pleasure and liberation. While taking care of one's own family is most central, it is only part of this dharma's expectations. " Sindhian (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you planning to change it or what? We are all waiting for the actual "editing time". Wikidās ॐ 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

wow. can you say "paranoia". What strikes me in the passage quoted is primarily that it needs formatting, and that someone didn't know how to spell puruṣārtha. The listing order was perfectly justified, viz., in increasing importance, and directly referenced to a quotable source. As it turns out, the Mahabharata (12.161) listing order is dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa -- mokṣa being named last because it is the highest goal, the parama-puruṣārtha. We can, of course, adopt this order, forcing us, like the Bilimoria (2007) reference, to say that the list gives "highest, lowest, and intermediate importance". Not exactly reader-friendly, but there you are. You would have been most welcome to silently amend the order, cite the relevant literature, and correct the spellings, in an edit such as this. Such would have established you as a useful and knowledgeable editor. Instead, you opt for making political noise about "defamation", citing some page you googled on experiencefestival.com. That's so much easier than actually researching stuff, isn't it? And it gives you a warm feeling of being a Defender of the Faith against the infidel "defamers" of Hinduism, isn't that great. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First I must ask you to stop resorting to Ad hominem. I will put a warning on your talk page because you are calling me a “Paranoid zealot” which is clearly not acceptable. I am a serious contributor to this site as much as you are. And you should stop name calling and defaming other editors and focus on the topic.

Coming to your superficial observations of Formatting and Spelling. Spelling for Sanskrit words have not been standardized yet so it is not a big deal. But I can let you change the spellings and formatting as you feel right.

Now coming to the important point of ‘Purusartha’,

1. It is your own interpretation and claim that “The listing order was perfectly justified, viz., in increasing importance” You don’t have a reference to prove that these objectives are indeed listed in increasing importance order. Do you? Therefore the whole claim is a fallacy of necessity

2. Therefore based on you interpretation ‘Kama’ (which according to you is interpreted as: "Sensual pleasure and enjoyment") is a more important objective than “Dharma’. No Hindu scholar or a religious leader has ever said that. In fact the statement is not supported by the general theme of Hindu texts which always put Dharma as the most important objective of a person.

3. Therefore the right interpretation is that Dharma is the most primary objective and Moksa is the concluding objective, Kama and Artha being the intermediate objectives neccesary to support the family and live a happy life.

4. The interpretation I have provided is supported by at least following references.

a. [6]

b. [7]

c. One of the greatest Hindu scholars Swami Dayanand Saraswati explains Purusartha’as following “Dharma occupies the first place in the four categories of human goals, because the pursuit of security, artha, and pleasures, kama, need to be governed by ethical standards. Artha, striving for security, comes second, because it is the foremost desire of everyone. Everyone is obedient under the doctor's scalpel precisely because everyone wants to live. Granted life, one then wants to be happy, to pursue pleasures, kama. I want to live and live happily; and both pursuits, the struggle for security and the search for pleasure, must be governed by ethics. The last category is the goal of liberation, moksa, ranked last because it becomes a direct pursuit only when one has realized the limitations inherent in the first three pursuits. ” [8]

Now the question is whose interpretation should we believe in, yours or the scholars and teachers of hinduism. Therefore you are trying to push your opinion and not a fact which is against wikipedias policy of NPOV. Sindhian (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

what is your point? I just stated that your preferred listing order is arguable, I was just asking you to try and not turn a trifle into a vitriolic wikidrama. You will observe that my sample edit of what you should have done instead of embarking on a hostile rant does give your proposed listing order, so I don't quite see what you want. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you still are refusing to see the point that you have been proven wrong. Your arguement has no creditable references and is an delibrate attempt to discredit Hinduism. Sindhian (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa is a correct listing. Translation smells like OR, needs proper source that is acceptable to hindu sensitivity. I propose - wealth (artha), pleasure (kama), and spiritual liberation (moksha). Dictionary of world philosophy - Page 152 A. Pablo Iannone Wikidās ॐ 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I propose the following definition "dharma, Righteous conduct; artha, acquisition of wealth; kama, satisfaction of material desires; and moksa, liberation from material existence. Sindhian (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The very section heading looks like ad hominem. I see Sindhian has 'warned' Dab -- I draw people's attention to this [9]. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You really don't understand what ad hominem is Sindhian (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. In the light of this, I suppose the proper course of action would be banning Sindhian's account under WP:DISRUPT. Investing time and good faith in talking sense to this user is clearly a waste of time. It is difficult enough to deal with bona fide religionists who actually do make an effort to respect policy (such as Wikidas). No need to make this more difficult by pampering trolls. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the translations "righteousness", eros, ethikos and "liberation" are taken directly from the source cited, whch is both academic and by an Indian author. Please note that "citing sources" means that the claims made should actually be drawn from the source cited. You can't cite a source, and then "propose definitions" of your own. If you want to discuss these terms in detail, do it at the dedicated article. Regarding ad hominem, "Sindhian", I was commenting on your on-wiki behaviour, I have no interest in judging your personality. Just try to behave constructively, and we'll get along fine. Continue your present vein of WP:WL/WP:DRAMA and you will elicit the corresponding reactions. Wikidas, you seem to labour under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is interested in being "acceptable to Hindu senstivities". It isn't. It is exclusively interested in properly reflecting academic mainstream. See also Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. All points made there apply to Hinduism and every other religion just as much as to Islam. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me. I am not doing anything wrong. I am also not appealing on the basis of Hindu sensibilities. I demand an unbiased and NPOV article on Hinduism. As I proved above you were pushing an unverified claim which discrediting the Hinduism Sindhian (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While i do not dispute dabs admin function, I would prefer if it was not mixed up with editing function to make it clear. "Sindhian" has some point, maybe not well expressed and/or perceived - we need to look for sources for that section that are NPOV or contrast a few views on the issue, as there are

many. Wikidās ॐ 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not using any "admin functions" here. I am telling Sindhian that he is far out of line, as he could be told by any bona fide editor. The admin part simply involves clicking the "block" button, and I'll leave that to others. The fact remains that with his current behaviour, Sindhian has no business being here. Let him find some discussino forum to spill his vitriol istead. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Sindhian has no case, at all. Wikidias, while I do not doubt that you are editing in good faith, and are slowly coming to terms with the basics of Wikipedia policy, you would do well to take a step back and edit articles with which you have no emotional involvement. I am doing the same: I have no interest in Hinduism other than of a purely academic/encyclopedic nature. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw your Edit on 'Dating the Bible'. You seem to write very favorably on Christianity and at the same time seem to have a grudge against hinduism? What is the secret there ? ;-) Sindhian (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Typology Section

Thanks for enabling the edit previlages. I have made only a few changes although I feel a lot can be changed. Because I want to be able to manage the discussion.

I also object to the typology section it says " It is normally handed down in oral tradition and an emotional element plays a considerable role it." The reference to this sction is again an insignificant western scholar. This is a ridiculous commentry on a great religion by a Western scholar who does not seem to understand Hinduism well. Sindhian (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This sentence can be reworded It was normally handed down in oral tradition before the written tradition of the Vedas". Wikidās ॐ 13:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

petty piety

Wikidas, with edits such as this, you are doing no-one a favour, least of all Hinduism, or the image of Hindu editors on Wikipedia. We state that Hinduism originated in India because after years of zealots pestering the article, we want to be really up front that Hinduism is absolutely native, indigenous to India. Get it? Not imported by Aryan invaders, but perfectly native to sacred Indian soil. But trust that right after we make such concessions, another Hindu zealot comes along and finds yet another way to find fault with the phrasing, because, hey, in spite of being absolutely indigenous it is, of course, western infidel propaganda to imply that Hinduism has ever "originated" at all, being eternal. I hope you will understand that it is perfectly impossible to make any progress in terms of encyclopedicity if we have to quibble over such childish paranoia at every corner. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It may be worth noting that many Hindus believe it to be eternal, with appropriate references, but this is a belief rather than an encyclopaedic fact. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Originate is a bad word if you state that religion has no founder and you do not know when exactly to pin point the start of it. Its not 'originated', rather belongs to and from Wikidās ॐ 13:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You can say potatoes originated in the Americas and modern Wheat in Mesopotamia without knowing exactly when and by who. I don't have a strong opinion either way, changing it would be OK with me too. "From" is OK, but "belongs to" -- well certainly the centre of mass and spiritual home is in India but to an extent it also belongs to Nepal, Indonesia, and followers in many other countries. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Vedas are full of references to Indian rivers therefore they were developed in India. 2.Even if we agree to controvercial Aryan Invasion, vedas are historically dated after the aryan invasion that is after the so called Aryans reached India. 3. Some of you are saying that Hinduism is a post vedism religion which means it originated in India. So where is the problem. Sindhian (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let see... centered on ... Wikidās ॐ 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I could certainly go with that. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"centered on India"? That doesn't even mean anything. Hinduism is the religious mainstream native to India. Sheesh, we have enough good references here, this is getting as bad as Talk:India in terms of quibbling for the sake of quibbling. Don't you guys have any article you actually want to improve? --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we want to change that unless there is a strong reference which proves otherwise. Sindhian (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are objectionable controversial sentences being included

We were supposed to discuss and improve this article. I see a some users pushing their POV's and statements which are not backed by good references. This is serious violation of Wikipedias NPOV. Followig are the Controvercial and biased sentenses which are being pushed without proper justification or a proper reference.

• Hinduism is a family of religions, a vast and heterogenous religious tradition without a common leader, a common center or a common body of teachings.

Why is this statement required, Christianity has sects which don't have a common leader, simi;larly muslims don't have a common leader so do noy buddhists. Hinduism has a common body of teaching in Vedas, Upanishids and Gita. What do you mean by common center. Hindus have common places of pilgrimage.

• The term Hinduism is used as an umbrella designation for all traditions that declare allegiance to the Vedas.

There is no declaration of allegiance but belief and reverance

• Early forms of Vedic religion are seen, not as an alternative to Hinduism but as its earliest form, and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism.[5][6] The Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India is at its roots.[7][8]

The refutation for this sentence was given. But why it should be included is not discussed.

• Hinduism has often been stated to be the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups,[9][10], and as the "oldest living major tradition".[11][12][13]

Unnecessary prefixes to the sentence. reduces the quality.

• Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the sectarian Agamas, the Purāṇas, and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.[15]

again re-introduced without reason Sindhian (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism has often...

This was a direct quote from the source. I accept that author had to rewrite this first chapter:-) mainly because some people objected... but its the source. Find a better decent source then talk. "that declare" can be changed to "aligned".

Early forms of Vedic religion are seen, not as an alternative to Hinduism but as its earliest form, and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism.[5][6] The Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India is at its roots.[7][8]

Do you understand what is stated? It states that Hinduism has the early stage. Are you suggesting that there were not stages to any Religion (even in Islam there are stages and developments and schisms.)

Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the sectarian Agamas, the Purāṇas, and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.

Lets omit the Tantras and Agamas - there is no reason to have in the lead. Wikidās ॐ 20:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point about omitting the Tantras and Agamas. They don't hold the status that the other text mentioned do. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Another incorrect statement

Sannyasin Dharma recognizes, but renounces, kāma, artha and dharma,

Statement says that a Sanyasin renounces Dharma, which is to say Swami Vivekanand, Shankaracharya etc had renounced dharma. There could be nothing more factually incorrect than this

Some editors who have a strong anti-hindu POV are messing up the Hinduism article. They are pushing POV's which complies to their political or theological stand. Why isn't discussion been followed on controveresies? Why are un-nessasary adjectives being added to sentenses.

Above all Hinduism is a religion(belief system) and not a political party. Like every religion its teachers, scholars and adherants define and interpret what Hinduism is, because ultimately they believe in it. Communists, colonial historians or Christian missionaries cannot define it or interpret it for Hindus

Sindhian (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that only adherents of a religion can interpret it for other adherents, but good scholars can interpret it for other people. In an encylopedia, we need to present all significant points of view, and just as we wouldn't look keenly on an article about a company solely written by employees of that company, any religious article should reflect not just what believers think but the views of other reliable sources. This article should not read as though it was written by Hindus for Hindus. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC

Likewise, all views on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism NEED TO BE WRITTEN BY OUTSIDERS!! have the same treatment across the board. This is a HUGE problem in academia these days. In fact, "Invading the Sacred" beautifully describes how emit scholars of the Abrahamic faiths are plentiful and relied upon for info on their respective religions but ONLY for Hinduism, etic scholars are used!! why? This is a calculated plan to discredit and denigrate Hinduism and India by the likes of Michael Witzel & Wendy Doniger!! In fact, this rampant prejudice is so prevalent these days that even if emit scholars of Hinduism (from India) suggest changes and/or provide info, they are summarily dismissed! This HAS TO STOP! The christianity article on this SHITipedia reads like it was factual and sacrosanct! It is absolute garbage and the mythology of the Abrahamic faiths aren't even called that. They are simply stated as matter of fact. Whereas for Hinduism/India, sentences always begin with, "Hindu mythology says..." or "according to scholarly consensus, ...the converse is true...". It is totally unfair and uncalled for.

Doug, this is a no-brainer for anyone familiar with this project's goals and purpose. It isn't necessary to even react to such stuff. Sindhian is just troll, in the classical, non-inflationary sense of the term. WP:DFTT. --dab (𒁳) 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By making article anti-hindu it makes it unstable. Stable article will mean that there is common denominator. In this case it will be reliable sources that are acceptable to both Hindu readers and non-Hindu editors. This will be the result of a consensus. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to create articles that are offensive to 1billion people who are more likely to read it then anyone else. If you go and do it on Islam or Judaism - I wonder how long you will last. Ah?? Lets look for the middle ground that is factual and sourced please. Wikidās ॐ 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to be with being anti-Hindu, it is because Wikipedia is an encylopedia. That means that you can't exclude sources/statements just because some Hindus don't like them. The article on Solomon for instance includes the view that he might not have existed or if he did not have been much more than a chieftain. Articles on his temple suggest it may never have existed. NPOV, which is policy and not optional, requires that all significant views be represented. Was I wrong to upset someone from Pakiston on Indus Valley Civilization because I put back the mentions of India that he removed? That probably upset him. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that will upset millions of people. Are you saying they should be censored? Are you really saying you are going to oppose anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint on Hinduism? Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly need NPOV I think that everyone agrees with that. I think that Wikidās was saying that he thought the article was biased against Hinduism, not that there should be a positive bias in favour of it. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are reliable sources and we can not reject a reliable source, however the core is consensus. Its the main and prime principle and you can not just bypass it and start including off the wall comments from some academic site, we are working together here, do not forget it, so NPOV is acceptable and is based on consensus. Wikidās ॐ 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand him to say that any source that might be offensive to some Hindus, even if a significant view, should not be used. If I'm wrong, sorry. Doug Weller (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No that is incorrect. We support freedom of speech and expression and fully behind all the policies of Wikipedia. We firmly believe that freedom of expression in combination with general requirements as to the academic sources, pier reviewed, and in combination with fundamental requirement of consensus, will produce an excellent article on Hinduism, provided there is mutual respect and no discrimination based on religious belief or affiliation of the editors. Please refrain by addressing other editors in such a manner. Wikidās ॐ 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

where did you get the idea that there is a "freedom of expression" on Wikipedia? There isn't. Wikipedia is a private website, which grants you editing access for a single purpose: to write encyclopedic articles. Anyone who is found to use their access for other ends may have their editing privilege revoked immediately. There is no "right" to edit here. Quoting WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."

it is undisputed that we want this article to be free of bias. Free of anti-Hindu bias just as much as free of pro-Hindu bias (a.k.a. WP:NPOV). We want a balanced account of Hinduism based on high-quality academic secondary sources. To say that listing the purusarthas in order of ascending importance is "anti-Hindu", however, is beyond silly. Especially since nobody insisted we stick to this particular listing order. Read Mbh 12.161 to see how the characters there disagree over the proper hierarchy of the three purusarthas. Building a case of "defamation" on something as far-fetched as that is trolling, or so pathetically paranoid so as to be indistinguishable from trolling. Something our Hindu editors need to understand is that the same rules apply for them as for everybody else, especially as for adherents of every other religion. So the Xenu article is offensive to Scientologists? Tough. So it is offensive to Muslims to omit the "PBUH" honorific in Muhammad? Too bad. The day we begin honouring such "sensitivities", we can close down the project. To be lectured on NPOV by an editor who isn't above touting Dayananda Saraswati as "One of the greatest Hindu scholars" in article namespace[10] is a joke. Saraswati is the founder of Arya Samaj, a contemporary movement of Hindu chauvinist fundamentalism. This isn't the first time we get our articles trolled by Arya Samaj fanboys, just look at the history of Ashvamedha. To call Saraswati "one of the greatest Hindu scholars" betrays an endearing ignorance of actual Hindu scholarship by intellectual giants such as Panini, Bhartrhari, Aryabhata, and dozens of other great names of the Hindu "golden age". dab (𒁳) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling Arya Samaj a Hindu Chaunistic movement is a fallacy without reason. You are saying this without reasonable reference. That makes it and your statement defamatory. in fact Arya Samaj is a well respected conteprorary Hindu movement. In fact Arya Samaj scholars are respected for their suopprt of secular and egalitarian system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. That is the essence of what I have said. I know, that Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, and its part of my point. Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, who are the 'we' you are referring to? And exactly what did I say that caused you to reply 'please refrain by addressing other editors in such a manner'? Doug Weller (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question ... if there is nobody around to support this view (which is a common sense view) then its just me. Can you see where you just separated different types of editors by their affiliation to a particular tradition. That is wrong I protest that it should not be done. We want to produce good articles, not to turn them into battlegrounds. Lets be productive and learn how to work with each editor who contributes right to build up a consensus.Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to separate different types of editors by affiliation to a particular tradition, but there are, for instance, nationalist editors like the one who tried to remove mention of India from the article in the Indus civilization. They really exist. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinguish editors who do hard and valuable work for the pedia, never mind their personal convictions, from drama queens and wikilawyers who disrupt the pedia for personal kicks and schoolyard pissing-contests. I don't care what your convictions are as long they don't show in your edits. If they do, you are doing something wrong and need to reconsider your approach. I admit Wikidas' good faith, but boy does he have a flat learning curve. If you continue in your present vein, Wikidas, you'll have a basic grasp of what Wikipedia is trying to do in another few weeks. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful, this is bordering on a breach of WP:NPA. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sindhian, you should know that the person who added that sentence was in fact a practising Hindu. Yes Sannyasis and Sadhus renounce Dharma because their only goal is Moksha. Swami Vivekanand and Adi Shankaracharya are not Sannyasis to be accurate; they are gurus (spiritual teachers). It is ironic that your misunderstanding of Hindu terminology is what is actaully to the religion and its followers. Surely you must be aware of the Sannyasis and Sadhus all over India. They live an ascetic way of life and thus do not follow Dharma. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be a practising hindu but you seem to know very little about hindusim. Show me a reference that Vivekanand or Shankarachaya did not take vovs of Sanyas. In fact adi shankarachariya was opposed and critisized for attending his mothers funeral because that is against sanyasis code of conduct. Sindhian (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen and respect your contributions to this article, DaGizza and Dab... but I must disagree... this is too controversial and complex a topic to be dealt with in a single sentence that seems to pronounce on the truth with complete authority. The fact is that sanyaasis do not renounce dharma: they renounce samsaara... a sanyaasi transcends the dharma that governs the world of materiality and mundane human pursuits, but there is a Dharma with a capital 'D', if you will, which governs the workings of the universe. Until a sanyaasi has achieved complete enlightenment, he/she cannot transcend that more universal Dharma... there are multiple layers within the term 'dharma' and your statements in the article need to be sensitive and cognizant of these or else suffer from gross inaccuracy. --59.93.174.39 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that there is no clear definition on what means to be practicing hindu or if Hindu guru who is a sannyasi is not sannyasi anymore... again sources are needed to create a neutral ground point of view. I propose addressing most of the issues in this article with reference to different views. Wikidās ॐ 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not agree to your conclusion Wikidas. The point here is simply that Sanyasis do not renounce Dharma but Samsaara . Another important fact is Dharma is a ancient Sanskrit word and Sanskrit words like any other ancient language words can have different meanings in different contexts. Sindhian (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to be sorry. There is an element of confusion (what conclusion?), in the sense of different uses of the word 'sannyasi'. If its kārma sannyas , then the person is not normally taking on the role of a guru. Another meaning of sannyasa is an initiation into an order of sannyasa, as it will be the case with swamis in Madvacharya or Adi Shankara traditions, they are given a staff (danda) and a new name, and not allowed to marry etc. but still can be someones guru and an acharya. Again there is new-sannyas introduced by Rajnesh (but its hardly applicable here and I would not consider it Hinduism proper). So guru can be a sannyasi, he is still a sannyasi, unless he took a vaidic kārma sannyas, then he does not perform some dharmic actions, such as lighting of fire or taking on shisyas, but other two types of sannyas that receive name Svami or Goswami do, except if its a different dharma, not grihastha dharma, but nyasi dharma. Again definition of the word dharma is critical to this, as it means different things to different people and according to different sources. Practicing hindu is another thing - needs clarification. Wikidās ॐ 10:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Qualms with Introduction

"[without] a common center or a common body of teachings." This doesn't seem right at all! The Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, the adherence to concepts of dharma, the quest for moksha, the means of attaining such things through some form of yoga... terminologies shared by vastly different groups (like 'brahman', 'sadhu', 'sanyaas,' 'rishi', etc. etc. etc.). How has this been allowed into the article, particularly without a citation? And even with one person claiming such a thing, it would be a minority opinion... I would agree if the statement were that there is no 'leader' or titular head, there was no founder, and differences in metaphysics, ethics, and theologies of various sects are extremely vast, but there are common centers and cores, otherwise it would be retarded to call the whole thing a common 'family'!!!! This should be corrected by a regular member or I'll take it upon myself (with citations and in accordance with Wiki guidelines)... I will of course hold off in deference to the necessary discussions that will ensue. --59.93.174.39 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - I take the above as a call for vote! I hadn't read that before. The common centre I suppose is correct (there is no one place like Jerusalem or Mecca) but the common body of teaching is definitely suspect. I suppose that this could be a point of view for people who see Buddhism and Jainism as nāstika schools of Hinduism. Even so this is clearly a debatable position. I don't know how many Hindus hold this viewpoint but unless a citation can be found showing that it is a vast minority then I would say that this should be removed from the header section. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There is no contention on this point as its contradicting the whole other text if teachings are taken to mean texts. Wikidās ॐ 10:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas' campaign has rendered the lead an absolutely unacceptable, near-unreadable, cherry-picked mess. I have reverted to the last version that was halfway sane. dab (𒁳) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sure its only because you say so.. Wikidās ॐ 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

All other religion pages seem to have at least some form of section dedicated to criticism. But this page doesnt. Can we have some criticism on the page please, because right now it reads like an advert for the religion :). Some useful critique would come from actual historical records, the use of metaphors that obscure true meanings and evidence contrary to the concept of atman (soul). Just a bit of balance needed I think since some people will read it and take it all as fact, rather than mythology / philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Most or major religions sources are written by loyal followers or academics who are subscribing to the tradition. Sources on hinduism are not and majority of professors teaching Hinduism in the West are not Hindus, while the same can not be said about Islam or Christianity or Judaism. Bearing this in mind, there could be a criticism section, but present criticism that is embedded in all other sections should be then removed and placed there. Any other views? Wikidās ॐ 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There should indeed be a criticism section just as it should be on every opinion let alone religions. However, we can only discuss notable criticism of Hinduism and it so happens and most of it pertains to Hindu social practices, not its philosophy. I don't know where it went but this article had a criticism section for a long time before it was deleted. Most of the areas that we should cover are in Criticism of Hinduism, which would be a good starting point. The most notable criticisms are probably the caste system, certain social practices against women such as Dowry, Widow remarriage and Sati and Hindutva (Hindu nationalism).

As for the rest of the article, I don't think it presents the relgion as "fact." In general at least (there may be the odd exception which will need fixing) much of the information is presented as what Hindus believe. Having a quick glance, I see the article scattered with phrases like "According to the Upanishads/Puranas" and "Devotees believe that" so perhaps you can provide an example of where belief is disguised as "fact" in the text. Also remember that within the criticism section we can add a bit of counter-criticism and mention that some Hindu gurus have denounced the caste system etc. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Guys, I'm not sure how many of you may have seen it, but the template at the top of the page very definitely indicates that potentially the article could lose GA status. The recent additions and reversions do nothing but make the possibility of that happening increase, by indicating that the article isn't stable. I would very seriously suggest that any changes be discussed and agreed to or at least accepted by as many interested parties as possible on the talk page first. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If we want this article to meet GA criteria we need to ensure it meets Wikipedias criteria of NPOV. As of now too many un referenced and poorly referenced statements are being added. Untill that changes there is no point of supporting this as GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For example

Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India.[4] Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.[5]Bold text

WP:REDFLAGThis statement is misinterpretation of a poor referenceWP:QS. The reference provided for this statement does not prove the statement and infact is a misinterpretation of the reference.

The reference Britannica Encyclopedia says "The earliest literary source for the history of Hinduism is the Rigveda, consisting of hymns that were composed chiefly during the last two or three centuries of the 2nd millennium bce. The religious life reflected in this text is not that of Hinduism but of an earlier sacrificial religious system, generally known as Brahmanism or Vedism, which developed in India among Indo-European-speaking peoples." Therefore the statemnt being pushed qualifies as WP:OR and needs to be removed. Sindhian (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also an implied controversial POV that Hinduism is a religion of Brahmin casts. Reference provided for Brahmanism is wikipedia sub-article on Brahmin casts which is incorrect because Brahminism is based on Brahma (supreme God) and not brahmin caste. Please note there is an important difference between Brahman and Brahmin. Brahman is the word for Supreme God in Hinduism while as Brahmin is cast of priests in Hindus. The above statement provides a notorious twist that Hinduism is a religion of Brahmin casts by hyperlinking Brahmanism to a sub article on Brahmin casts. This statement seems to be based on slander and propaganda used by Christian evangelists to malign Hinduism. Therefore this is a defamatory sentence and qualifies as WP:UNDUE and in no way meets the guidelines of WP:NPOV.

I also want to emphasize that Britannica as a source is not neutral and is biased against non Christian eastern religions, please see [11]. Since even Britannica does not prove this sentence and there is no other independent reference to this controvercial statement. No other historian has supported this early 20th century seemingly anti-hindu POV and as a matter of fact this has been disproved by other independent western scholars [12]. Please remove this unless there is sufficient proof that this is supported by a majority of scholars from different perspectives. Sindhian (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

the GA bureaucracy has no chance of catching the issues with this article. It may be "good" on a purely formal basis, but it is very far from "good" in terms of coherence, quality of prose and expert knowledge. It is really irrelevant whether it keeps the "GA" tag, since that tag has long ago ceased to have any meaning in the first place. dab (𒁳) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Typology

Typology section is not accurate. There are no such types of hinduism. Reference provided for the section is based on a book which is focussed on 'emotion' in religions and therefore the author classifies or differentiates Hinduism according to that context. As a result typology as suggested by the reference is not generic in nature and is stated in narrow context. I am sure there are no other refernces which support this typology of hinduism. I suggest we remove this and replace with something more reliable. Sindhian (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

the division as it stands is referenced, but that's of course only one possible approach. I agree the section needs improvements, but we do need such a broad overview at the beginning in order to embark on such a notoriously wide topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this section, to demonstrate that one of the ways of looking at Vedism is a form of Vedic Hinduism. There are number of typologies of HInduism or views on Hinduism or Hinduisms, and to arrive at NPOV other opinions on it should be expressed, such as 'there is no such a thing' = possible view with attribution as well (sources? Sindian) --Wikidās ॐ 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

References section

The references section attracts dubious sectarian literature. It needs some critical review. The game is to slap a footnote on some rather pedestrian statement, citing your favourite author, and then list that author under "References". I have created a "Literature" section for monographs discussing "Hinduism" in context. For the "References" section, we need to make sure to only list works that are actually relevant as references to specific statements made in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've scanned the references cited, removing clearly gratuitous, undue or dubious items. This still needs work though. Highly dubious literature is cited side by side with serious publications, without giving the reader any hint as to which is which. Let's also try to pay attention to future additions of dubious "references". --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Encyclopedia

1. Using Britannica encyclopedia as a reference is against wikipedia’s policy WP:PSTSbecause encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources. Wikipedia guideline is to use reliable secondary sources.
2. Britannica encyclopedia also fails as a un-biased source WP:NPOV since was used for propaganda for British imperialism. Its pro-Christian and anti-eastern religion bias has been exposed and criticized by secular writers. Please see a detailed analysis.["The Lies And Fallacies Of

The Encyclopedia Britannica How Powerful And Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated A Famous Work Of Reference"http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html] [13]

Also please see the following narrative on Britannia on Hinduism which not only proves the blatant anti-hindu bias but also uses scandalous language against hinduism. "By that time, the main divinities of later Hinduism were worshipped. Rama, the hero of the epic poem, had become the eighth avatar of Vishnu, and his cult was growing, though it was not yet as prominent as it later became. Similarly, Rama’s monkey helper, Hanuman, now one of the most popular divinities of India and the most ready helper in time of need, was rising in importance. Krishna was worshipped with his adulterous consort, Radha. Strange syncretic gods had appeared, such as Harihara, a combination of Vishnu and Shiva, and Ardhanarishvara, a synthesis of Shiva and his consort Shakti." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that some of the articles of EB that are particularly sensitive were written by selected people, such as an article on Mohhamed. But some of the articles on other religions, such as Hinduism, are not very nice and full of unacceptable expressions and not very well sourced or have some outdated ideas and sources (AIT), possibly written with some intentional disregard. The above section is a good example of it above, very very POV. It would be nice to have a consensus on not using such POV sources. Of course all editors should agree to it. Can EB as per above be one such source? I would support removing it from the RS for Hinduism related articles. Wikidās ॐ 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides the Wikipedia policy is not to source from encyclopedias. Please see WP:PSTS. Dab is intentianally disregarding wikipedis WP:PSTS policy by providing his own commentory on questionable source WP:OR. Untill this is removed I am going to put a disputed tag on the article. Sindhian (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Delibrate attempts by Dab to push misleading POV

Dab is delibrately introducing incorrect and misleading information, For example he picked up this sentence from disputed EB ""Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India" and gave it a twist of its own by removing "a belief in universal soul, Brahman" and providing hyperlink of Brahmanism to Brahmin sub cast. Implying that brahmanism is only related to brahmins.

Earlier also he introduced incorrect and WP:OR on Purusartha leading to edit war and disruption of article. He has been introducing edits and reverting edits without discussion with no regard to discussion on talk page. I believe this is high time we take this to dispute resolution as we are not making any progress with such attitude of some editors and the article has become a mess. Sindhian (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that brahmanism as a term relates to brahmans as a varna, it has nothing to do with Brahman, except that the definition of the true brāhmaṇa is one who knows Brahman. Should or should we not include a reference to it another thing, but for the neutral POV I think we should, since that is something that people will read in older academic texts that talk about Hinduism. It should be noted however that the term should not be misused, as the caste system was entirely different or absent back then, and a more flexible varnasrama system was in place that spanned across not only Hinduism but also Jainism, Mahayana etc.Wikidās ॐ 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I object strongly to the latest edit of the introductory paragraphs. Encyclopedia Britannica though it may be, the sentence implies that only caste-centered belief systems are Hindu post-Vedic era! That's simply not true! In Hinduism were birthed Yogic, Tantric, and Bhakti-based belief systems which well before the last few centuries were disavowing caste... even the Upanishads questioned and at points outright condemned caste as a social construct. I will edit out this sentence if it isn't gone in the next day or two following some thoughtful debate. --59.93.222.70 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Dab is trying to push PoV, but yes, I'd definitely say that his knowledge about India's history is superficial (pseudo or placeboic, if you may). Casteism is definitely not the one and only aspect of Hinduism, but unfortunately westerners pin this attribute as the single most important aspect of Hinduism. At the risk of sounding communal, I daresay that of all religions, Hinduism is the richest and most advanced in philosophy and spirituality. This is, of course, because it is a pagan faith. It is closest to Human instinct much like the other natural inclinations to be polygamous and capitalistic.

Even in India, "secular" people (read:Hindu bashers) like Barkha Dutt, Arundhati Roy, M J Akbar,Amartya Sen and Communist parties are quite opportune to denounce India's largest faith as merely a casteist cult, if not anything lesser. Back in wikipedia, we have greats like Shri. Sindhutvavadin who are of the same stock. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Conventional western thinking assumes that all things can be and must be dissected, compartmentalized, and labeled in order for it to be understood. Hinduism by nature defies dissection, compartmentalization, and labeling and hence difficult to understand in the west and remains one of the least understood and most mislabeled entities in the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Call Dab & Cos sometimes factually questionable edits, pseudo-elitism. Trips (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original topic of the section, if what you say about the EB definition is correct, then the Brahmanism link should go to Brahman and not to Brahmin. If there are other sources that use the term Brahmanism in that way then the Brahmanism disambiguation page can also mention this point. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the links and verify for your self. I also have a book from Dr. Radhkrishnan and could not find the phrase "Evil and error are not ultimate. There is no Hell, for that means there is a place where God is not, and there are sins which exceed his love" Could the person suggesting that provide the page number Sindhian (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A new section - perspectives and definitions

Instead of fighting I propose new section that will first summaries view of traditionalists (Hinduism as defined by Hindus) and then a number of other views (Hinduism defined by others in all its variety). When reading World Religions Reader, Gwilym Beckerlegge pp. 205-208 as well other sources it became very clear - there is a commonly accepted view, that it is hard to define Hinduism. This notion in itself needs a separate section. No use call others trolls (some actions can be trollish of course), more important is to reach NPOV on such an important subject and include all valid perspectives. What perspectives are not NPOV? Lets compare them. Wikidās ॐ 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also understand that there is an agenda against Hinduism from British imperialists, Christian evangelist and communists. Can we use a al-azhar university scholars as a reference for Christianity. Al-azhar university has number of scholars every year declaring Christianity as Polytheistic and idolatrous. Why should we therefore take western and imperialistic scholars seriously on Hinduism? Sindhian (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess because some of them a practicing Hindus? Would that be good for you? But would you care to gather definitions of the Hindusims from reliable sources, that you are happy with? Wikidās ॐ 16:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayans are not hindus, why the picture of their temple?

Swaminarayans are not hindus even if they say so. It is like Ahmadiyyas among muslims. Swaminarayans say their most recent teacher is God and push the Hindu Gods in the background. They should be forth-right like the Bahais and say that they are not hindus. I would request the temple picture to be replaced. Aupmanyav (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need a loot of wikicharm to convince us that someone who claim to be Hindu is not a HIndu... ;-) Have a look at Bhagwan Swaminarayan sources --Wikidās ॐ 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An infinite amount of wikicharm. Trips (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a Hindu sect or not, Bhagwan Swaminarayan shouldn't have the Category:Hindu gods. That is quite a biased statement especially every guru these days is considered to be the Supreme God by its devotees. Note that every other famous guru doesn't have this category (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara, Swami Vivekananda, etc.). Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this, though the Swaminarayans do seem to pitch this higher than most other sects. Whereas most are content to go with "a Guru is God to his followers" they teach "our Guru is God". In their temples a murti of swaminarayan takes the prime position, whereas Krshna, Shiva, etc. are at the sides. I would anticipate a lot of resistance to removing the category "Hindu Gods" from the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is certain that they are a sect in Hinduism. Maybe talk on category can be continued at a respected page... Wikidās ॐ 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the category on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article from Category:Hindu gods to Category:Hindu gurus, since there are unlikely to be any third party reliable sources showing that Hindus recognize him as one of their gods. If you look at the others who are in Category:Hindu gods, it's obviously a mistaken use of the category. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayans don't put other gods in the background. Some people even regard Bhagwan Swaminarayan as an incarnation of Vishnu. It would be like removing the Hindu gods cat on Krishna. I have a suggestion. There should be two cats. One for major Hindu gods and one for minor ones such as Bhagwan Swaminarayan. This avoids conflict because facts are being used rather than opinions. The cat that we have right now can have two sub sections, minor gods and major gods.    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But where is a reliable third party source on Hinduism that says he is a Hindu god, minor or major? Many, many sects see their Guru as God, or as Vishnu - which I think is noteworthy and honourable, but doesn't that make them a Hindu god according to WP:RS. More accurate would be a category that was something like 'Gurus who's followers see them as God'. Obviously that's too wordy, but would at least be accurate. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Juthanil has made Bhagwan Swaminarayan a Hindu god again. I won't revert, but it certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia policy or consensus, since it's not a widely held view. If anyone wants to add the Category:Hindu gods to my userpage, I also won't revert :-o . ~ priyanath ^talk 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was nice of you! First take a look at the article's sources. They are from a third party, a college professor. The source is reliable since the facts are found in a published book.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are many articles like this, why not make two sub categories?    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I suggested the category 'Gurus who's followers see them as God', which would have the advantage of actually being accurate, since it's not a widely held view in Hinduism that Bhagwan Swaminarayan is God. ~ priyanath ^talk 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. Many articles would fall into this category which can be a sub category of Hindu Gods    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC) The religion however has many followers. Some newspaper stated that there were 24 million followers around the world    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I really do not think that be a minor or major god discussion is relevant to the question at hand. Some may consider him god, some do not. That does not constitute a definition of Hindu god, or demi-god or a minor god. It is common to worship one ones guru as a Gurudeva, or Saksad Hari, that does not make him 'Hindu god'. Guru-deva category will do... I guess Wikidās ॐ 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

making this split, many articles will be affected, such as Lakshman. Many Hindus don't worship him as god.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidas, the Hindu gurus category is entirely accurate, the Hindu gods clearly is not. Period. ~ priyanath ^talk 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before we do anything, I would like to share a quote taken directly from another editor on the talkpage of the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article, "The above statement could be made for any article in the category for Hindu gods, all come from religious communities who view such entities as Gods or Goddesses - religious communities do not have to be neutral. As editors, we must be neutral and allow relevant information into the articles. I see no reason why this particular article should be singled out from other Hindu beliefs or deities. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)" I think we should jut respect the beliefs of others and keep things that way. Categories are meant for finding certain articles. What if someone wanted to find the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article through the Hindu Gods cat.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism itself is a very complicated religion. Anyone can claim any important historic person to be god. Wen te British entered India and tried to convert Hindus, some Hindus initially accepted and attempted to add the Christian God into the Hindu religion because of its flexibility and tolerence, but eventually there was enough resistence from other Hindus that he was not added to hinduism.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about respect for the beliefs of others. Many sects see their Guru as God or Vishnu. I personally have a great deal of respect for those who do. This discussion is about whether the man is widely held by Hindus to be a Deity or God. He isn't. That category should be removed. ~ priyanath ^talk 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The point is, if Swaminarayan is listed as a "Hindu god" then so should Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara, Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai Baba, Tulsidas, Sri Aurobindo, Madhavacharya and many other gurus. Okay, so if all of them have the category added then it is not as POV. But it would then make these gurus have the same "status" as Vishnu, Rama, Ganesha, Surya, Saraswati, Lakshmana, Rudra, Shesha. These are deities which are mentioned in either Vedic, Epic and/or Puranic texts. Many Hindus won't consider most of these gods to be the "Supreme God" but their status as devata/devi (god, demi-god, deity whatever you want to call it) is undisputed. As Wikidas and Priyanath say, a Guru-deva category is most accurate. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English - Page 133In Hinduism, the true guru is God — ‘guru-deva.”. John A. Grimes 1996

I would suggest to create a separate sub-category Category:Swamminarayana Faith Gods for all forms worhsiped in that tradition. I would add however another category Guru-deva to it as well, as they do not deny him his status of Guru-deva. That reflects reality best, as both can be subs to hindu Gods. Wikidās ॐ 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What Im going to say is backed by references from the article. Swaminarayan preached Sanatana Dharma - modern day Hinduism - and the Swaminrayan Sampraday he formed is based on vedic principles. The main (centre) deities in a Swaminarayan temple are that of Narnarayan Dev, Laxminarayan Dev, Radha Krishna Dev etc. - are these not Hindu deities. Then how can anyone claim that Swaminarayan is not a part of Hinduism? Lord Swaminarayan himself in a meeting with the Lord Bishop of Calcutta in 1825 told him that he is a form of Krishna - this is from the Williams book - a neutral reference. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara, Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai Baba, Tulsidas, Sri Aurobindo, Madhavacharya - non of these people have claimed to be god. Further, there is a direct reference to this (Swaminarayan being god) in the in 2 prominent Hindu scriptures - Brahma Purana and Vishwaksena Samhita. The Indian Express Newspaper (which has wide circulation across India) says that there are around 20 million followers of Swaminarayan around the Globe and around 1000 Swaminarayan Mandirs. This is a sizeable amount of people that consider him god. There are others who dont. However, there are people who dont consider Ram, Krishna, Allah or Jesus god - does that mean we cannot classify them as god? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Um sorry but you partially wrong. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu claimed to be the golden avatar of Krishna (ie. God) and said this was prophecised in the Bhagavata Purana. Madhavacharya claimed to be an avatar of Hanuman/Bhima and thus god (not God but still god). So did Shirdi Sai Baba claim to be an incarnation of God. Many other gurus like Shankaracharya were probably worshipped as a form of God by their followers later on. Also you should note that Allah and Jesus are indeed considered Gods but not Hindu gods. That is why a new category is needed to distinguish what kind of "Hindu god" the Hindu gurus that claim to be god or God really are. A Category:Swaminarayan God category is perfect for this reason. Swaminarayan has not been the only guru to say he was prophecised in the Vedic and Puranic texts so he doesn't deserve any special treatment. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. However, there is also the question of strength - a large following should also be recognised. Could you pl. confirm if any of the above have a following of over 20 million and over a thousand Mandirs around the world dedicated to them? These numbers are strong .. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)May I also add that the Worlds biggst temple (which is located in India), worlds biggest temple outside India, Biggest temple in Europe etc are all Swaminarayan temples - and the land for the 1st Swaminarayan temple was gifted by the British Government - this has been possible becoz his followers beleve he is god - To say that he is a guru and not god would be POV of non followers. Such a following indicates that he is consicdered a form of god by a sizeable amount of Hindus. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"who is worshiped as a god in Hinduism" and "who is a god in Hinduism" are two different things. Hinduism does recognize Allah, Christ, Buddha, etc as gods as well, however they are not (except maybe in the case of Buddha up to a certain extent) "currently" worshiped as gods in Hinduism. So the point is not whether Swaminarayan "is a god", but whether he is "worshiped as a god" and by how many?. What matters is the relative importance of a figure as god rather than the figure being a god/non-god. Where does Swaminarayan fit in with Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Kali, Buddha, Gandhi (many consider him a god as well), etc. Personally, I haven't met too many swaminarayan followers although given the size of their temples I am sure there are quite a few rich swaminarayans out there. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan as Hindu God? Way forward

To summarise there above discussion, there seem to be two proposals for change, and I can think of a number of other alternatives.

1. Create a new category , which would include Bhagwan Swaminarayan and others.
2. Create a new category , would this have more than just Bhagwan Swaminarayan?
3. Leave the category on the article.
4. Remove the category but don't create any special replacement.
5. Leave the on this article, allow its use for gurus seen as God and create a new to cover Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, etc.

Personally I think option one is best.

I don't like option two for two reasons, firstly it makes it look as though Swaminarayan followers are not Hindus and I don't think this is a valid claim. Secondly I think it may be a category with one member, which is rather useless.

Option three is just wrong, I don't think that anyone outside the Swaminarayan order would count Bhagwan Swaminarayan as a Hindu God. They would of course recognise that for disciples a guru is God, but that is not the same. If this were allowed then other groups would add the category to their gurus, making it a useless category. == Option four is fairly logical, but I think that we may need to compromise with the Swaminarayans by creating some new category. As mentioned they are a fairly large order and have a lot of prestigious temples. They certainly feel that Swaminarayan is God in some sense more than a guru being God just to devotees.

Option 5 is what I would go for if forced to leave the category on Bhagwan Swaminarayan. It leaves us with a category with a misleading name (i.e. does not follow common usage of "Hindu God"), but at least there is a distinction. This would, of course, be a massive editing task.

Is this the sort of thing that should go to a vote? If so I would suggest that we hold the vote on this page and put a notice on the Talk:Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. Also, before voting are there any more options? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the break up of the Hindu Gods Cat into Traditional Hindu Gods - i.e. for universally accepted Gods such as Ram, Krishna, Shiva etc. and another cat Modern Hindu Gods for others. However, to be put into the second cat there must be some kind of criteria - else we would be inundated with articles (i.e. where only a small number of people believe a person is god should not come into this cat) - I suggest whos following is above a certain number (which can be decided) - can be put into this cat. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the Hindu god category split. SwamiNarayan is a Hindu god as much as Jhulelal or Ayyappan and regional deities or Ishta-Devas are. If the SwamiNarayan faith is within Hinduism, which it is, SwamiNarayan is a Hindu god, even if other Hindus might not consider SwamiNarayan as a divinity. Either that or a category called "God in the Swaminarayan faith", which will only have SwamiNarayan in it of course, assuming categorys are necessary at all. Trips (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A traditional and modern god cat would be both accurate and wouldn't have any POV. Newer gods can be added to the modern gods cat. Both cats can be sub cats within the present Hindu gods cat.    Juthani1   ^tcs 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it accurate as you can't divide Hindu gods on traditionality, and there is no "new-modern" divide in Hinduism. Additionally who would you classify as a "modern god" apart from SwamiNarayan, and what date, assuming we can date, will be the cut-off for older and modern. Trips (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that there is no divide within Hinduism, but I think that everybody can see the difference between Vishnu, Shiva, etc. and Bagwan Swaminarayan. It would certainly be possible to define traditional Gods as those un-datable from antiquity. The problem is, as it stands it looks as though Hindus would generally accept Swaminarayan as a God, like Vishnu and Shiva. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you will be able to resolve it without some POV changes. I would suggest changing the name of category to Hindu devatas and create new category Neo hindu gods which will include also Saibaba, Ramakrsna and the likes of SN. Wikidās ॐ 15:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a category "God-guru" for people like Saibaba, Swaminarayan, etc specially when a large majority of Hindus do not regard these figures as god. The concept of "god guru" is well accepted within Hinduism unlike the concept of "Neo god" / "traditional god" 67.169.0.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, Shri. Aupmanyav's dissertation needs no more than a passing chuckle. He is the new mutineer on the block. The earlier roster of greats reads such names as Ayyavazhi and Tenrikyo. My experience with the promoters of Ayyavazhi on the Indian religions page tells me not to bother arguing with such people, because it's like banging your head on a wall. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the perspective, IAF. You've saved me from giving myself a sore head. If the 'neo hindu gods' category gets created, I'll add it to your user page for enlightening me :-) ~ priyanath ^talk 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as per FAQ on official Swaminarayan website (see [[14]], Swaminarayan followers consider themselves as Hindus, follow Hindu practices, and consider vedas (and hence the gods listed in vedas) in high regard. Plus they also recognize other (better known) incarnations of god. So despite their unique dedication to their founder, one cannot say that they are not Hindus.

Secondly, their practice of worshiping their guru as god is not exactly unknown in Hinduism. So, I think the best category for Swaminarayan founder would be "god-guru" or something like that. Sai Baba and many others could be added to this category as well. The Sai baba group is probably better funded than Swaminarayan (but they probably don't spend as much in building temples). 67.169.0.250 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One can classify gods in Hinduism according to their relative importance and popularity. Brahma is important but not popular. Vishnu and Shiva are highly important and highly popular. Ganesh is somewhat less important, but highly popular. Swaminarayan hardly makes the list specially when Swaminarayan sect is only very recently becoming visible (mainly as a result of millions they spend building temples) and has no mention in Hindu literature. There are probably more people who regard Sai Baba as god then people who regard Swaminarayan as god. I think the best way to describe these figures is "god-guru". Just my two cents. Otherwise, be prepared to add your local Neem or Banyan tree to the list of gods in Hinduism as well (since there are probably more women in villages who worship the local Neem/Banyan tree than all of Swaminarayan and Sai Baba followers combined). 67.169.0.250 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, I would support the earlier suggestion that the image of Swaminarayan temple be removed and replaced with image(s) of Somnath, Kashi Viswanath, or any of the more popular and more important temples. The topic is better handled by keeping significant things significant and insignificant things insignificant. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is "grey" enough that I believe it will take some time to discern the proper categories necessary to categorize these various types of Hindu "gods" and/or "Gods." There are some good ideas above, but presently I remain neutral. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - 67.169.0.250 mentioned since there are probably more women in villages who worship the local Neem/Banyan tree than all of Swaminarayan and Sai Baba followers combined). According to the survey of a leading Indian newspaper, the followers of Swaminarayan number in excess of 20 million. I think there are not more than a billion hindus in the world today, which means tht 1 in every 5 hindus is a follower of Swaminarayan, hence his statement was uncalled for. has no mention in Hindu literature. - again wrong as Iv mentioned 2 above - there are others as well. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the scope of the existing category Hindu gods is confusing as it is clear from the discussion above. Maybe just remove the category? Wikidās ॐ 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If the 20 million were true it would be 1 in 50. The 20 million is not even supported by the reference [15] given, so I would treat it with a pinch of salt (the only number given in the article is not for Swaminarayan but the Satsang set up by Purushottam Thakur Anukulchandra. They make an extremely dubious claim of 20 crore or 200 million followers which is clearly indicated as self reported) -- Q Chris (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of the cat is discussed here: Cat Hindu gods to devas Wikidās ॐ 09:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Q Chris mentioned that there is not mention of 20 million followers in the article. If one reads the article carefully, the end bit is on Swaminarayan. It clearly mentions that there are a cumilative 2 crore followers of this faith. Now, for information, 1 crore = 10 million. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Oh, and your right 1 in 50, my maths is a bit week - thanks for the correction :) Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. I re-read it more carefully, I don't know how I missed that. I do think the claims in that article seem a little dubious, but you are right it is in the article. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Swaminarayan sect followers ARE Hindus. Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice By Robin Rinehart
2. Swaminarayan may or may Not be considered a god, by non-Swaminarayan Hindus. For NPOV, I think a cat like 'Gurus whose followers see them as God' in cat:Hindu gurus is fit for Swaminarayan, NOT Hindu gods cat. Another example is Sai baba and Ayyavazhi founder (Ayya Vaikundar, hope i spelt it right) who falls in the same cat.
3. I OPPOSE any split in Hindu gods cat and it's renaming as one intoduces jargon like deva or ambigious statements like "Traditional Hindu gods" and "Modern Hindu gods". What is traditional and modern is subject to interpretation.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all three points. No splitting of Hindu gods category. "Gurus whose followers see them as God" should be a sub-cat of Gurus. This is not a grey area at all. To demonstrate how utterly absurd some of the above suggestions are: one of the ideas for inventing a new category of Hindu gods, "neo-hindu gods", gets a total of 0 Google results. The other made-up category of "Modern hindu gods" gets a grand total of 8 google hits. ~ priyanath ^talk 13:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and I think its time to close this discussion. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, but would like to add that I support the "option 1" above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Swaminaryan says Shri Krishna is God

I have moved a the last few comments here. Wikidās ॐ 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Radhakrishnan's comments

Wikidās ॐ, thanks for removing the encyclopedia Britannica crap from the lead. However I feel that the following comments attributed to Radhakrishnan should be added back into the lead:[Special:Contributions/67.169.0.250|67.169.0.250]] (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism is not just a faith. It is the union of reason and intuition that can not be defined but is only to be experienced. Evil and error are not ultimate. There is no Hell, for that means there is a place where God is not, and there are sins which exceed his love.

That quotation does not represent the beliefts of all Hindus. It is the view of one sect that has no place anywhere on this article. It is better to put that on Radhakrishnan's article. That quotation suggests there is no concept of hell and Hinduism is entirely monotheistic, which is wrong. It still has more value on the Bhagavad Gita article but it no way should it be added here. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say "It is the view of one sect" which sect are you referring to? The view that there is no (permanent) heaven/hell in Hinduism (as in the case of Christianity/Islam) is pretty much a universal concept within Hinduism - that is what salvation is all about: being free from cycle of birth/death, heavenly pleasures, or hellish torture and uniting with God/Brahman. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Along with Ramakrishnan's comments, the following might be helpful as well. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hindus can't conceive of a hell in the Christian sense either, a place from which God has withdrawn his grace. To Hindus God is literally omnipresent. How could there be any place in any dimension of any world where God isn't present? Hell worlds do exist in Hinduism, ... They are temporary states in which disembodied souls undergo expiation and purification

— Linda Johnsen, Idot's Guide to Hinduism, page 154

It is said experiences of heaven and hell are experienced in the existing birth itself, depending one's past karmas which could be good or bad. (auspicious or inauspicious) which Buddha termed as 'Kushal and Akushala'. There seems to be to no heaven or hell, but these are merely nomeclations of conditions, but not of places

— Shiv Sharma, Brilliance of Hinduism, page 129

According to Shanoo Bijlani [2] in Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, heaven is not a final destination. It is a halfway place where one enjoys oneself for a while before being reborn again on earth. The final aim is to attain moksha, freedom from transmigration

— Prof Devinder Singh Chahal, PhD, After Death Heaven or Hell? [16]

Only during human form can one accumulate good deeds than eventually lead to the liberation called moksha that stops the cycle. Good karma and bad karma do not cancel out each other and hence every one has to face consequences of all their actions. Hindus believe in haven and hell but think of it as temporary place before the soul is either united with the Supreme-being or returned to earth as another life form.

— Dr. Thayumanasamy Somasundaram, Hinduism's view on Dying, Death, & Grief page 2 [17]

Hindus maintain that heaven and hell are neither physical places, nor they are eternal. There is no thought of eternal hell in Hindu scriptures...There is no hell, but there is as we may speak, a purgatory (spiritual clinic) a temporary place in the astral world where souls low on the scale of spiritual development are required to remain for some time in order to be purified before they proceed forward to the higher regions of the astral world.

— Bansi Pandit

I find it appealing that the vast majority of Hindus do not accept the nonsensical concept of eternal hell (besides Madhvas sect, which is a rather large Vaishnava group that interprets 16th chapter of the Gita differently with perp. hell notion). However there is a concept of hells! Yes Hinduism is monotheistic from the point of view of Radhakrishnan, so maybe chopping it up and linking to Radhakrishnans page would be good. I just thought that we need to have discussion and consensus on this addition. (I have no objection to Radhakrishnan, since he was, after all, formally initiated by an acharya in line of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.) So as far as the consensus I would stand by Gizza's view that Radhakrishnans definition should be left in the lead. Wikidās ॐ 10:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Radhakrishna's comment is blatantly false. Both the Shiva Purana and Bhagavata Purana conceive of hell, for punishment, presided by Yama. Yes, But Madhva followers also had the greatest impact in Vaishnavism; it was their followers who brought on the Vaishnavite bhakti movement. Ramananda and Chaityana et al were inspired by the earlier Madhva bhakti movement in the south!

Raj2004 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read what the quote said: "No Hell (capital not hell or hells)" ie "No place where god is not". - that is the same as to say that there is no Hell of Abrahamic religions. Hells in Bhagavata and Shiva P.s are temporary and are short term. Completely different from Christian Hell. So its not blatantly false is it? It is your reading of it, but yes perpetual damnation is an accepted existence for tama-yogins of Dvaitas. Ramananda and Chaitanya did not borrow this theory of hell and it is usually shown as an example of exception to what is believed in Hinduisms (which was just the 180 degrees of what Sankaracharya said:-) as you would expect from Madhvacharya). Wikidās ॐ 13:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I agree that hell is temporary but to say no hell is false. You may have misinterpreted me. Only Madhva followers believe in eternal hell. However, Madhva followers were major players in the Vaishnavite bhakti movement, especially in Karnataka. They may have influenced Ramananda and Chaitayana. Ramananda was inspired by Ramanuja

Hope this clarifies.

Raj2004 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Yes it does. I have no further comments, but I would suggest that this reference (as reference not as quote) used in the section that talks on different views on what Hinduism is and how it is defined by different prominent hindu Philosophers or scholars. Wikidās ॐ 13:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Improving Lead Section

Populations

1. I see we have made some significant progrss in the lead section. To improve it further I suggest we remove the sentense "Other countries with large Hindu populations include Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States."

This sentense is unnecessary in the lead section. I don't mind if we move it somewhere down in the article but it cannot be justified in the lead section because a. It talks about Hindu poulation and not Hinduism b. The irrelevance of this sentense is one of the reasons suggested for good article reassesment. c. It is irrelevant to the topic and does not meet wikipedia criteria for lead Section as it does not establish context nor does it provide an overview of the article. Please see WP:LEAD08:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Scriptures

Too many scriptures are mentioned in the lead section. I suggest we replace the following sentense

"Among these texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads are the foremost in authority, importance and antiquity. Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the Agamas, the Purāṇas and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.[10] "

With "Among these texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads are the foremost in authority, importance and antiquity. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas"Sindhian (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dharmic Religion

In order to establish the context of Hinduism with other indian religions, it is important to add following to the lead section: "Hinduism is classified as one of the Dharmic Religions as it shares the beliefs of Dharma Karma, Rebirth and Moksha with Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism"Sindhian (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is good to mentioned the similarities between Hinduism with Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism but the phrase "Dharmic religion" is a neologism. It is better to go staight to the point and perhaps also say that all four religions originated on the subcontinent, because that is more informative. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Yes 'Dharmic Religions' is a neologism but it is as much a neologism as the term "Abrahmic Religions". these terms have been in use for at least 15 years.  In fact the two terms were created almost at the same time in order to classify different religions. Therefore it has become a important term. Since wikipedia is using the term "Abrahmic Religion" it should also use "Dharmic Religions". "Dharmic Religions" is now a very commonly used and established term. A google search on the term throws up 15,300 pages. Hundreds of books written by respected authors have a reference to the term. Besides most important in the absense of any better term for genere of these religions we have no choice but to use it. I also do not see any controversy surrounding the term. 

Besides the point is not to show all four religions originated in the subcontinent (which I feel is less important) but to show that four different religions are related in the sense that the fundamentals are the same but differ in interpretations. Just like Abrahmic religions. The fundamentals in this case being the concepts of Dharma, Karma and Moksha.

Besides most of the other encyclopedias have already accepted and included the term.

Sindhian (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)