From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Former featured article Hinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.

jainism - chasing idealism not possible for humans[edit]

Jainism has influenced Hinduism negatively. The Vedas still have a very pragmatic view on life as reflected in its religious practices, as time passed Jainism and other ahimsa religions have negatively influenced Hinduism to the extreme non practical way of life with ascetism and penance. This may have given rise to Buddhism which dominated India, somehow radical Jainism took hold and drove Hinduism to it's current state, millions of Gods and disenfranchised believers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is only meant for discussing the content of the article. Please refrain from other discussions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Replace Krishna pic with female deity[edit]

Anthromorphic icons (murti) for gods and goddesses in Hinduism
Krishna holding flute.jpg
Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg
Durga Mahisasuramardini.JPG
A powerful deity in her own right, Shri Lakshmi herself.jpg

Entire page is male oriented.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Gentle Saraswati or fierce Kali? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the image with Durga.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: how about a 2x2 grid, of Krishna, Shiva, Shakti (Durga) and Laksmi - that should show the diversity and cover their major 'denominations'? Or we can make it 2x3, with pre-7th century images of Harihara and Ardhanarishvara too to show that they have long nurtured the idea in all their gods and goddesses are alternate aspects and representations of Brahman. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
But why are males on top?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: We can put them side by side. Shiva, Shakti; Laksmi, Krishna? The last row could be Harihara, Ardhanarishvara - if the consensus develops to include them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Category name[edit]


Category:Category name has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. AusLondonder (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead - Buddha royal circles[edit]

There seems to be potential edit war on the lead. With these edits,[1][2] I would say that these edits are not required on the lead because similar source[3] says that Buddha was not venerated anymore. And along with that, Buddha is not a deity of Hinduism, his adoption is similar to Mahavir Jain of Jainism. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I find that there was similar recent dispute with the lead on Brahma, pinging @Kautilya3:, @Iṣṭa Devatā:, @Redtigerxyz: to look this one. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It was removed in c. March 2015 after Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#buddhism_in_lead_section. A consensus needs to be built first for the statement to be readded in the lead, following the WP:BRD cycle. Also, it was agreed in Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#Discussion_of_history_para_in_lead that history be left out entirely, until a consensus is built on the talk first about the contents of the history para in the lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding history in the lead, I don't see any agreement to remove it, only a suggestion from you. I do remember, though, repeated campaigns by an army of sock-puppeteers to remove this info from the lead and the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Explain temples and pujas in lead?[edit]

Per this revision, explain temples and pujas by inserting well-sourced 1 sentence in the lead:

During the 8th century CE, the Buddha was replaced by one of the Hindu gods in most royal circles, ushering in monumental temples and elaborate pujas.[1][note 1]

VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Raju 1992, p. 31.
  2. ^ Inden 1998, p. 67, 55.


  • Inden, Ronald (1998), "Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship.", in JF Richards, Kingship and Authority in South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press 
  • Raju, P.T. (1992), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited 


  • Support - As nominator. VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Many deities and figures to talk about, having more or as huge importance as Buddha, if we include any in lead, it would provide more weight. That's why better not to have any on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "explain" temples and puja? I suppose the claim is that they came from Buddhism? That would be extremely controversial and contradict a whole lot we know about temples before the 8th century. In any case, this should be discussed in the body first before any attempt is made to change the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - agree with Kautilya3 that this poiint should first be mentioned in the body of the article. And then, if so, it needs some more context, about the waxing of Hidyuism and the waning of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as discussed in March 2015 (see Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#buddhism_in_lead_section), arguments against inclusion:
    • a literature review of various encyclopedia entries on Hinduism shows the weight given to Buddhism in leads of the article and articles as a whole. None of them mention this claim relating to Buddhism, temples and pujas.
    • Raju p. 31 does not support the statement at all. It only states that Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta were instrumental for the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in the 8th century. The statement in question is a WP:FRINGE by Ronald Inden.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

The note at the end of the sentence would have the following info:

Ronald Inden states: "Before the eighth century, the Buddha was accorded the position of universal deity and ceremonies by which a king attained to imperial status were elaborate donative ceremonies entailing gifts to Buddhist monks and the installation of a symbolic Buddha in a stupa [...] This pattern changed in the eighth century. The Buddha was replaced as the supreme, imperial deity by one of the Hindu gods (except under the Palas of eastern India, the Buddha's homeland) [...] Previously the Buddha had been accorded imperial-style worship (puja). Now as one of the Hindu gods replaced the Buddha at the imperial centre and pinnacle of the cosmo-political system, the image or symbol of the Hindu god comes to be housed in a monumental temple and given increasingly elaborate imperial-style puja worship."

VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:Hindu temples are modeled on the Mahabodhi temple, but thats not the point here. The point is this quote of Ronald Inden.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
All that probably should go into the article on temples. I don't know all that much about the history of temples. But the impact of the decline of Buddhism on Hinduism is worth talking about, as JJ said. But once gain History of Hinduism might be a better place to do this. Once we have the material sorted out, it can be summarised here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: Why do you keep calling well-known scholars, now Ronald Inden, fringe? I am happy to toss Raju which someone else inserted in the past revisions.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta were instrumental for the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in the 8th century" is not a scholarly statement, but a religious POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talkcontribs)
I agree. Someone else inserted Raju in the past, and I assumed they checked it. The issue is calling well-known scholar Ronald Inden fringe.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
He gave link to WP:FRINGE, which you don't appear to have read. FRINGE means departs significantly from the mainstream view. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me nuance myself. Raju says that there was an orthodox revolt against Buddhism and Jainism in the eight century, and that Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta staged this revolt. To say that "Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta were instrumental for the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in the 8th century" is an overestimation of their role; rather, the later tradition ascribed this role to them in explaining the decline of Buddhism, whereas social-economic factors, that is, the regianalisation and feudalisation of India, "caused" this decline. The Vedic and Puranic traditions simply better suited the ruling powers, which seems to be what Inden is saying. That's not fringe. NB: Inden (1998) was published by Oxford University Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kautilya3: and Redtigerxyz have a habit of calling mainstream positions fringe. For example see here.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool down, Vic. But anyway: 88 citations for "Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship." Not bad. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that Inden was FRINGE. I was merely explaining what FRINGE means. I don't even have access to the book. So I have no idea what is in it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
See also Holt (2008), The Buddhist Viṣṇu: Religious Transformation, Politics, and Culture, p.14-15. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JJ's last couple of comments.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The statement is called a fringe, not Inden. The sentence, as it is now, is presented as a fact; rather than an opinion of Inden. To prove this particular idea is mainstream, please provide other references by other scholars that endorse this statement. There is list of 7 encyclopedia/dictionary entries on Hinduism in Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#buddhism_in_lead_section that does not feature this idea. Please provide couple of entries on Hinduism that have this idea. Please note that we are strictly discussing the statement inclusion in the LEAD, so that the second list of references is requested.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any explanation why this statement by Indien should be regarded as fringe. The fact that 7 encyclopedia/dictionary entries don't mention it does not make it fringe. Is there any info in those encyclopedias that contradicts Inden's statement? Anyway, this is what Holt says:
  • "The second part of this strategy became explicit after the eight century CE when the theories and ideologies of kingship in India shifted from Buddhist to Vaisnava and Saiva rationales. Kane's reading of the sociopolitical dynamic between the Brahmanical and Buddhist communities in earlier phases of Indian political history is in accordance with the analyses recently offered by Ronald Inden." (p.12)
  • "By the time of the eight century, when the political transformations from Buddhist to Hindu ideologies noted above were occurring" (p.14-15)
NB: Holt's book is published by Columbia University Press. See further also:
"It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet."
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).