Talk:Dayananda Saraswati

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dayananda Saraswati[edit]

This article needs to be a redirect page, directing to a disambig, which can differentiate between the 2 men, Swami Dayananda and Dayananda Saraswati (they are both swami's named Dayananda Saraswati). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. Arundhati bakshi 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? Both redirect back here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15 years late, but this is done now. Avindratalk / contribs 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva and the Arya Samaj[edit]

In reference to the passage: i think this leads one to draw the conclusion that dayanand was the 'father' of the Hindutva movement and that the Arya Samaj is a Hindutva organization. (!) Regardless that the claim is sourced, it's about as accurate (and as loaded) as saying "Wagner provided the emotional and aesthetical climate necessary for the rise of National Socialism in early 20th century Germany". Ruthven's book(let) should be taken for what it is, A Very Short Introduction. Connecting the 'elevation of the Vedas' to 'nationalism' is a leap, and his reading of the 'myth of the Aryavartic kings' is simply wrong, based more on what he (and Hindutva leaders) wants to see in it rather than what's actually there. Besides, he isn't exactly famous for taking a NPoV ['Islamofascism', etc.]. (And I noticed that one particular user made sure this reference got spread around in every possible place relating to Dayananda...) It may be the case that members of the Arya Samaj are also members of Hindutva groups, but the Arya Samaj as an organization is most certainly not. The passage as it reads now borders on an association fallacy. Therefore, I think the statement should be adjusted to something like:

The ideology of Dayananda has been used to support the Hindutva movement of the 20th century.

...which I think is fair to both those for and against Dayananda.Varoon Arya 02:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across an author which flatly contradicts the claim of Ruthven. Here is a peer review of her work:
The author (Olga V. Mezentseva) puts in doubt the view that Dayananda's teaching were the embrio of the ideology of "Hindu communalism". Dayananda subjected to criticism (from rationalistic positions) the four religious systems: Puranism (this was his term for traditional Hinduism), Jainism, Christianity ans Islam seeking to demonstrate the discrepancy of their theory and practice with the norms of morality, the principles of logical reasoning and information and findings constituting scientific knowledge. He proceeded from the assumption that his teaching were God's word "correctly understood", originally set forth in the Vedas but later subjected to significant distortions. Although criticisms of Islam occupied an insignificant place in his constructs the very intention of exposing "weak points" in religious systems in conditions of a multiconfessional country was fraught with certain complication. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to tie up the name of Dayananda with the idea of superiority of the Hindu on the basis of which the ideology of communalism was developed later. Speaking of the "Aryan community" in ancient times the reformer repeated, in reverse, the Christian thesis that "there exist neither a Hellene, nor an Israelite" implying that the "Aryan world" comprised all collectives of the ancient world irrespective of race. His attempt to rationally demonstrate the verity of a particular teaching served as a warning to subsequent generations of reformers. (Re: Olga V. Mezentseva, A World of Vedic Truths: The Life and Teaching of Swami Dayananda)
Mezentseva's work is based on an actual examination of the works of Dayananda, and not 20th century Hinduvta interpretations of the same. I will be looking for the book itself so it can be quoted, but I think this is already enough to give a solid counter-point to Ruthven and would like to include it in the near future.Varoon Arya 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>I found the reference material for the book. The original title is Mir vediiskikh istin: Zhizn i uchenie Svami Daiianandy, O. V Mezentseva, IFRAN (1994); ISBN-10: 502017548X; ISBN-13: 978-5020175488 (Also, in case you're interested, Ms. Mezentseva is a member of the Soviet Institute of Philosophy.)Varoon Arya 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Anon. Comment[edit]

"SWAMI DAYANANDA WAS FIRST TO GAVE THE CONCEPT OF "SWARAJ""

I took this out of the article, as it borders on vandalism. However, the point is worthy of discussion and possible inclusion if true. Aryaman (☼) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Early Life[edit]

Last para of ealry life stats:


"why would Dayananda expect God to appear? he was questioning him. he had no faith.... A Brahmin who looses faith in God is no longer a Brahmmin."

Is this intended or act of vandalism? संजय (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it that he had not faith that so called idol is not god go and read vedas and then come for discussion on it --Sandeep (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

assesment for wikipedia hinduism[edit]

references need major clean up. his philosophy and legacy need proper coverage (Sidsahu (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I had added new references and cited contents if some user or contributer have any objection on this work of mine i will request him/her that please discusses hear before making any changes as all the content is cited and tried to managed properly. --Sandeep 09:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Inconsistencies[edit]

The birthname is given at the top as Mul Shankar, but as Dayananda Mulshankar in Early life.

In Early life, 'his family went to a temple for overnight worship', and in the next sentence, 'While his family slept'. Spicemix (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is inconsistency in this article we will both try to remove. Mul Shankar is his childhood name and Dayanand was his later one. regarding the going to temple for overnight worship and sleeping..... it is when they went to the temple for overnight worship and after its completion it was a tradation to wait there untill morning so during that waiting the family slept... what is wrong in this ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Name:Mulshankar Karasandas Tiwari[edit]

At the bottom of the article is says, Full Name:Mulshankar Karasandas Tiwari. Is this significant or just stray text to be deleted?   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no this was his childhood full name.. so it is important --Sandeep (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Honorifics[edit]

Is the "swami" used in WP:RS, Google Scholar? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not...In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

swami is shows his level of achivement its something like calling some sir, i don't find anything wrong in that. --Sandeep (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to change current title and exceptions in WP:Honorifics clearly allow the current title. Mike Cline (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Swami Dayananda Saraswati → Dayananda Saraswati – Relisted. --regentspark (comment) 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC) per (1) WP:Honorifics, (2) [Google Scholar]/WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "Swami" is an honorific, not part of the subject's name.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

section Arya samaj[edit]

Some unsourced contents are added to this section which looks like allegation and must be sourced. I request the editor to cite the claim as i m unable to find any reference or i will proceed and remove those contents. --Sandeep (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Shouldn't this page be moved to Dayananda Saraswati (Arya Samaj)? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the founder of Arya Samaj would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Dayanand Saraswati" at least if judged by availability of independent, secondary sources, since I don't believe Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya) is as notable. This though is based on my memory of sources when I had rewritten the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam article some time back, and not a thorough survey. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

views on other religions[edit]

The section on his views on other religions is original research. I think that he would never accept other religions as acceptable except for those who accept vedas as authorotive and must have been dismissive of muhamod, jahweh. jeho- hooo-vah,isu masi etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.16.156 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

buddha[edit]

Many of current Buddhist teachings are not from Buddha himself, he gained most of his knowledge from the Vedas. Some are chinese buddhist interpreation of teachings and on many topics Buddha did not have "original source" teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.221.147 (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha - Arya Samaj[edit]

Buddha may have had the same religious belief system as the Arya Samaj and eventually later Buddhist texts may have diluted his purpose to keep the Vedas as the main religious reference as more original source books were added especially with a Chinese interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.221.147 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No! The Buddha never accepted the ultimate validity of the Vedas and also he has said that the vedas were authored by rishis which the brahmins of his time seem to accept as recorded in the Tripitaka scripture. He placed importance on self practice based on eightfold path and has given several meditative practises. The Theravada tradition (The tripitaka scripture) which is still a living tradition in India and elsewhere, which is ancient and authentic is preserved as the words of the Buddha. Later, several works were written. But, the theravada tradition is undisputably accepted in the Buddhist World including Mahayanic or Hinayanic divisions also. And the very famous 'Eightfold path or Arya-Ashtanga Marga (Samyak Drishti, Samyak Sankalpa etc...) and four Arya-Satya' were the main teaching of the Buddha which he said he discovered out of his own meditative practices which can be employed by any human being to get rid of the suffering. Of curse, Patanjali gave the Astanga marga (different than that of the Buddha) later than the Buddha. The words of the Buddha, the Tripitaka has been translated into various languages including Sanskrit and Chinese before 4th Century BC itself and has been translated into English and various other languages too which has deemed to be a very important project. So, Buddhism is not derived from the Vedas and also the scripture exists for Buddhism. The later divisions among the Buddhist groups which is condemned by Dayanand, has no references to Theravada BuddhismCSCM01 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

The "Early Life" section mentions his birthday as being either the 12 or 24 of february, and the sidebar reads the 21. I have filled it out as being either for now, could someone with more expertise come and confirm one or the other please? Xevus11 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dayananda Saraswati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanced[edit]

Unfortunately, the article is so romanced that it's difficult to distinguish between what may have been actual or legendary about this person's life. The assassination attempts and death sections, for instance. —PaleoNeonate – 01:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Contribution of Swami dayanand saraswati" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Contribution of Swami dayanand saraswati. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Contribution of Swami dayanand saraswati until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanand Saraswati[edit]

Swami Dayanand Saraswati was a indian philosopher 102.218.245.9 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views on other religions removal[edit]

2402:e280:3e1d:70d:b841:77ca:9036:8d8a and 2409:4065:d92:5df7:6ddb:b0:14c7:6fc9: Could you provide more context on why you view the existing citations are 'unverified' and why they should be removed? I'm concerned that this will have the impact of whitewashing, so I'm eager to understand your perspective(s). I've reverted your changes (back to the consensus version) until we reach new WP:CONSENSUS Mad Jim Bey talk 04:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I request for the removal of contents in 'Views on other religions' except the first paragraph. Much information is wrong or wrongly portrayed. For example: About Sikhism: Dayanand has not called Nanak as 'rogue', in the book 'Satyarth Prakash' authored by Dayanand.
And, Coming to Buddhism, Dayanand has never said "type of "salvation" Buddhism prescribes, is attainable even to dogs and donkeys". It is out of context! He has used the word not in the light of Buddhism. The sentence, without reference to Buddhism, comes in the chapter 9 of Satyarth Prakash.
So, the views here violates the "Neutral Policy" of Wikipedia. And it violates the authenticity. The section also promotes religious animosity. So, I request for its removal. 223.231.149.134 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good to use religious animosity in wiki article with false information[edit]

@Rasnaboy, Why have you included derogatory remarks on other religions? First of all: Dayanand has never called the Sikh guru as 'rogue'. And coming to buddhists, There is no mention of "attainable by dogs and donkeys". In satyarth prakash, chapter 9, Dayanand has used it for common atheists who believe in death as final end. There is not a mention of Buddhism. Please don't misrepresent Dayanand. 223.231.181.135 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit it I failed can some one fix it plsssss[edit]

Aaaaaaah!!!!!! THUNDRBolt (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit. Knitsey (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dayananda_Saraswati&oldid=1194063427"