Talk:Hinduism/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Hinduism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

The vote:

Votes in favor of HeBhagawan's version:

I don't really know anything about it, but he requested I vote and I think his wording looks good. - Mike | Talk 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I should note upfront that I was also asked to vote. This version seems more encyclopedic to me because it doesn't border on original research, while presenting multiple perspectives more clearly. Caste is associated with Hinduism, here's why/how, and here's the controversy about the matter. Sounds good.PelleSmith 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee's version is good, but it doesn't talk about caste-system in present days. While I agree that caste system is dwindling now, it still exists. utcursch | talk 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The only problem with this version is that it is a bit lengthy. Practically all the sections in the article must be trimmed down a bit if it will have a chance of surviving FAC. Gizza^Chat ^© 05:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally agree with some of the strong feelings about caste being presented here, especially Baka's version. But I think HeBhagavan's is by far the most NPOV and encyclopedic, which is what Wikipedia is about. Any trimming and shortening would be helpful, though. ॐ Priyanath 05:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
______
______
______

Votes in favor of Swadhyayee's version:

Arjun, I have no strong opinion one way or another I feel though that Swadhyayees gives a more round approach and better suits the article. Good job to both however.
Users may be interested in a quote section I will have on User:Bakasuprman/Hinduism#Quotes indicating parts of scriptures that reject the caste system. The caste system is a socio-economic phenomenon not a religious phenomenon. If hebhagwan's or priyanath get their way, at least compare to a more secular system like serfdom or Chinese/Japanese economic systems, which provide better comparisons.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've read each of them and this just seems the more balanced to me. I agree with Bakasuprman, religion did not make the caste system hereditary and was more what humans used to enforce power and to stay in power. Note that a king's son would generally be a king in any society (Kshatriya) or the son of a Vaishya would likely be involved in mercantile businesses as well, as they would learn from their father, carry on business etc. This happened in EVERY society, although it may be more strict in medieval Hindu society. This entire concept is now disappearing in India and should be presented as such. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
'or whether you are speaking on behalf of Swadhyayee'. I strongly object to HeBhagawan making this kind of accusations to a suggestion by another editor, and for just this reason, I vote for Swadhyayee. A person who has this kind of unwarranted mentality is not a fit person to write on Hinduism. These edit wars have started only after HeBhagawan 'INTRUDED' in the page. We had disagreements earlier also but they did not end up in this way. Aupmanyav 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, please see WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Many editors have had disagreements with HeBhagawan but have respectfully discussed their problems with each other and he has cooperated well (Ask Raj2004 and Priyanath). There is no reason to get hostile. See User_talk:Priyanath/archive1#God_as_Divine_Accountant for an example of how HeBhagawan has been civil. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

_______
_______

I have moved the discussion between Swadhyayee and Gizza here. Apologies for confusion.

Votes in favor of Gauranga's version:

_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______

Any other versions:

Votes in favor of Priyanath's version:

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 04:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is sort of funny, but I'm changing my vote to support Priya's version. I still like my own version, but his has the great merit of being short while still addressing 1) what is caste, and 2) what is the current state of the caste system. HeBhagawan 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______

Votes in favor of Bakaman's version:

I would go with either mine or Swadhyayee's.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think, that by putting it to vote we have blown the issue out of proportion only to satisfy HeBhagawan. I object voting on petty matters yet if I have to vote, I would vote for Bakasuprman as it is full of sense and ref. also brief and non-controversial. I had just removed two paras which I felt to be irrelevant and lowering the qualtiy, I have not given any version and would not like it to be called my version and voted for the same. swadhyayee 18:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
_______
_______
_______
_______

If people want to, we can have a runoff vote between the top two. Or not. Whatever you want.HeBhagawan

That seems to be the best thing to do. When are we going to have the vote? Aupmanyav 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of competing for an acceptable phrasing, let us please instead create a list of ideas that we can all agree on should be conveyed. I think this will make life much more easier, and less side-choosing, hard feelings, etc. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yama and Niyama

Namaskar. I mentioned this earlier, but I would like to include this. Especially for the Westerners who are exposed to the "Ten Commandments" etc. it may serve as an effective parallel. Obviously, it should be pointed out that Yama/Niyama are not Commandments, but an important(?) constituent of dharm. This may provide a keen insight into Hindu behaviour. Also, if this were to be included, vegetarianism as well as Ahimsa (obviously) would be swallowed up. Again, I realize that this we are suffering from the length issue, however, I think that this is the ideal place to put information on Yamas and Niyamas.

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaiva,

I agree that it is slightly awkward to use "it,' but I think all the alternatives are even more awkward. "That" sounds really awkward in English (though it sounds fine in Sanskrit. Sanskrit has "this" and "that," but doesn't have a word that corresponds exactly to the English "it." So, when forced to choose among several bad alternatives, I choose the least bad, which I think is "it." Or maybe "It." HeBhagawan 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding yamas and niyamas, again I agree with everything you say. It would be useful to have them there. I believe that the yamas and niyamas are originally from Patanjali's yoga sutras, which are discussed in the Raja Yoga section. One idea would therefore be to discuss the yamas and niyamas in that section. But the downside is that then Raja yoga would be much longer than all the other sections on yogas. So maybe they should have their own section. The key will be to make it short. Maybe we should simply give a list of the yamas and niyamas without commentary (except a sentence or two to explain what they are. Tell you what: Why don't you draft something in your sandbox, like I did before posting my section on monasticism. Then show it to us, and we can comment on the wording, length, etc. HeBhagawan 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaste HeBhagawanji, I do agree that the most commonly used set of 10 yamas, 10 niyamas are of the Yoga Sutras, but I believe that there are many more variants, and that indeed, these are from smriti. I would not agree to adding it to the Raja Yoga section as it is not confined to Raja Yoga, and also, as you say, it would disproportianately elongate that section with respect to the other "chosen" yogas.

This brings up my other question: why have we chosen those four yogas as being the multiple ways of attaining the goal? I understand that it is spoken of in Gita and Vivekananda's writings as such, however, Japa, Kundalini, to some extent Hatha, Nadopasana, etc. They are all there too. I would like to remind all the difference between yoga and upaya. For instance, what of Anupaya, where there is no yoga, no practice whatsoever? Perhaps we can change the wording, so as to bring it to a higher level/view. Instead of discussing what Raja Karma Bhakti and Jnana Yoga are, perhaps we should say the path of yoga consists of ..., the path of ... consists of ... . If I remember the Gita accurately, this is an important theme of the second chapter, discussing action vs inaction, after Arjuna explains his hesitation in the first chapter.

My point: while I can understand that we can exclude some of the innumerable yoga available to us, we should at least include japa yoga (in that section), as Bhishma himself considers it the greatest dharm to the praises of That, after Dharmaraj asks "Ko dharma sarva dharmãnam bhavatha paramo mathaha"

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the yogas: You are right. There are plenty more yogas. In my view, the labels are not the most important thing; the most important thing is just to show that there are multiple paths to the goal, and to give examples of a few of those paths. At the very beginning of the section on the yogas, notice that the section does not say "Four ways to reach the goal, " and that it does say "Paths one can follow to achieve the spiritual goal of life include. . . . From this, readers will understand that there are more yogas, but that the four described are just some common categories. As for japa yoga, I usually think of that as being a practice that can be applied within any of the other yogas (Even jnana yogis use what is essentially japa (e.g., "So 'ham," "Neti neti") But I suppose one could also think of it separately. But we should definately work on incorporating more of the yogas into the article on yoga, which is probably viewed by more people than the Hinduism article. Jay Maheshwar! HeBhagawan 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar HeBhagawanji. I guess what I wanted to stress that yoga isn't the means, but ... the way of the means? Very good in pointing out vedantiṇs chant soham and neti neti. I probably woudn't called that vedanta practice jnana yoga though vedanta and jnana yoga some times are confused for each other because of Shankaracarya's esteem for it. You are also good to point out that it does say include etc, but I guess I find it awkward that it is enumerated by the TOC.

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to elucidate my meaning: Karma Yoga, for instance, should not be defined as "the path of right action". Firstly, because Yoga is not really a path but a process. Paths imply a kind of exclusion, which is reserved for other concepts in Hinduism. Secondly, calling Karma Yoga (specifically) as even the process of right action is incorrect. This is a vedanta/samkhya notion, and inaccurate. Karma Yoga to other Hindus means Yoga/Contemplation in action. The Karma Yoga that is spoken of in this article has a different name, and I will try to remember it...a literal samskrita reference to being detached to the fruits. I will make the change (if okay), once I remember its proper name. Also, I would like to change the wording away from "the path of *" to "the process of *", though I would appreciate a better word than process, as I think it's a little dry. Yoga's etymology in samskrita i believe involves union, and i think from that perspective it is translated as unionization? Please, someone, provide an accurate translation of yoga.

Please excuse the pickiness. This is our dharma we're revealing ;)

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Saiva, I appreciate your comments. I hope others will comment too. Don't worry about being picky--it's all part of making the article better, so good job! Yogas: Path vs. Process vs. something else: Unfortunately, you will not find a single English word that fully translates "yoga." The verbal root has a basic meaning "to join." But of course we can't use that because it would require a lengthy explanation. Personally, I think "path" is fine. As a native English speaker, I am very accustomed to hearing "path" used to mean "process." It is an extremely common metaphor. A process is what you use to help you accomplish a goal. A path is what you use to help you get to your destination--ie, your goal. People like metaphors because they are concrete illustrations that are easy to conceptualize. If someone says the word "path," the picture of a physical path or road (marga) appears in your mind, but based on the context, you will understand when it is being used as a metaphor to mean "process."

Here's the problem with using 'union': First, you'll tick off some of the dwaita-vaadiis who don't want union. They will accuse you of trying to promote nirvikalpa samadhi as the highest goal, which many of them do not accept. Seocond, "yoga" is used to mean many things beyond its basic meaning of "union" or "joining." It is actually used to mean "process" or "method," despite the literal meaning of it's root. It is sometimes used to refer to the goal of spiritual life (which, at least for some, is union) and sometimes it refers to a method one can follow to achieve the goal. I think that if we were going to change "path" to anything, it should be "method." But I don't really think that even that is better.

These are just my personal views, though. I won't get in your way if most others want to change it. HeBhagawan 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My points don't directly address Śaiva Sujīţ thoughts, but since they deal with the same section I'll place them here.

Perhaps we can use this instead of subsections to ensure that the four yogas are not listed or numbered in the TOC, which as Śaiva Sujīţ points out, perhaps creates the impression that these are 'the 4 yogas.

I think the sentence (which is uncited) "Bhakti yoga is prescribed for people of emotional temperaments. Karma yoga is prescribed for people of more outwardly active temperaments. Raja yoga is recommended for meditative people." sounds unencyclopediac, but I cannot think how to rephrase it if one indeed wishes to make this point. Any suggestions ?

I think we should make the point that the Yogas/paths/processes (personally, I prefer path) do not have to employed exclusively (that is more than one process can be used) once in the introductry paragraph of the section, and then not hammer it repeatedly in the subsections, such as "As with the other yogas, raja yoga may be combined with bhakti yoga, karma yoga, or jnana yoga to create a customized path suitable for an individual aspirant.", "although Hindus of the Vedanta school may incorporate elements of bhakti yoga and the other yogas into their spiritual practices as well."

Stylistically I think it is preferable to mention the mainstream view before quoting the exceptions. Thus, I would invert the order of the sentences (and perhaps rephrase) in the following paragraph:

"A few schools believe that only one or two of these paths leads to salvation. For example, some followers of the Dvaita school hold that Bhakti ("devotion") is the only path. A large number of Hindus, however, believe that although one particular path may be best for them, another path may be better for another person, and any path—if followed sincerely—can lead to God."

The term "westerners" that is used several times on the page sounds condescending to me (as would the terms easterners, orientals etc.) especially since in the page it is often preceded by "although". (Note: I am not arguing that the term is formally inaccurate). Any suggestions how to avoid it while getting the point across ?

I apologize for intruding with the style issues, in the middle of a philosophical debate. But I hope you'll agree that ours aim of making the article accurate and clear match! Abecedare 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Abecedare,

I like the idea of using a big font instead of those headings, that is a very effective solution, and exactly what I'd hoped for.

I don't like that statement either for two reasons: firstly, it is indeed unencyclopedic, and secondly, it implies that wrong definition of yoga as a path, i.e. exclusive. "Hindus with an emotional disposition find appeal in bhakti yoga". Still, it seems like original research.

The reason I think that path implies exclusion: To get to Chicago, I could take the I-43S or I could take the I-94S. It is illogical for me to take a few miles down the I-94 and a few miles down the I-43, as the idea of them as paths implies parallelism.

That whole paragraph seems like OR, especially the "-if followed sincerely-"

The two mentions of "westerners" are dealing with Hatha Yoga == Yoga. Perhaps it could be rephrased as something like, "With the increasing popularity of the therapeutic benefits of Hatha Yoga, many incorrectly take the samskrita word Yoga, to mean exclusively, Hatha Yoga." With this phrasing, westerners has been replaced with "many" but specifically He who has been exposed to the popularity of Hatha Yoga...(silly Westerners :D ...)

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Saiva and Abe,

Fonts are not my specialty. Feel free to tinker with them, and I'll let you know what I think afterwards.
I actually do have a citation for the emotional/rational distinction. But if it sounds unencyclopedic to you guys, then I don't object to you removing it.
OR--Not sure I understand what Saiva means here.
westerners: Maybe you are right. However, my citation for that statement is actually from a book written by a westerner. I don't have a problem with Saiva's alternate wording, however.

HeBhagawan 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check the edits I made according to the above discussion (before I saw HeBhagawan's comments though!). Note that the sentences

"An individual, or sect of Hinduism, may prefer one of yogas according to their inclination and understanding, for instance some followers of the Dvaita school hold that Bhakti ("devotion") is the only path to salvation. However, typically, practice of one yoga does not exclude acceptance of the other yogas."

and

"With the increasing popularity of the therapeutic benefits of Hatha Yoga, the sanskrit term Yoga is often interpreted in the narrow sense of Hatha Yoga. However yoga encompasses a broader meaning in Hinduism"

that I added are simply placeholders and don't sound satisfactory even to me. I would welcome their editing.

To address HeBhagawan's points:

* The font used for the Yoga titles has not been changed. The main effect is that they are no longer numbered and included in the TOC. Is that OK in your opinion ?

* The "westerner" bit is not really a major issue. My point is that since we simply want to say that the term Yoga is often interpreted more narrowly in common parlance than in the context of the article, we don't really need to specify that the mistake is being made by "westerners", which can be read to imply that Indians, Japanese, African's etc don't make that error (actually I wouldn't even call it an error). Of course if we include a direct quote from a source who uses the term westerners, we are obliged to leave it as is. Does that explanation make sense ?

And Śaiva Sujīţ:

* I think both HeBhagwan and I agree with you that path is not a perfect translation of yoga. The question is what word we should use instead ? I am not certain that process is necessarily better, although I'll be ok if that is the one settled on after the discussion here. HeBhagawan, correct me if I am misinterpreting your thoughts on this.Abecedare 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Should "medium" be a better substitute for "path"? My request to all would be to give a new edit summary when a new discussion take place. The present discussion take place under "Yam and Niyama" swadhyayee 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it's not true that one section of the Hindus believe that "Bhakti-Yog" is exclusive way of life to attain "Moksha". Hindu beliefs are based on Hindu scriptural dictates. People usually believe that the other two way of life are im-practicable or at least im-practicable for the believer. When we talk about belief, we must take in to account of belief of an at least slightly knowledgable person and not an opinion of less knowledgable person. If, the article contains any text contrary to Hindu scriptural dictates, it should be consider to suitably modify it. swadhyayee 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Swadhyayee on this. There is a section of Vaishnavas that believes that BhaktiYoga is the BEST path, but I'm not so sure that they believe it is the only true path.

On the other hand, regarding what you said about scriptures, Swadhyayee, you may be right as a general matter. However, Hinduism has many different scriptures, and people interpret them many different ways. And every sect has its own favorite scriptures which it emphasizes. My point is just that it's not always a simple matter to determine what is "contrary to Hindu scriptural dictates" becasue multiple interpretations are possible. HeBhagawan 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More on Yama, Niyama, and Yoga

Abe, You have correctly understood what I was saying. There is no perfect translation for yoga. Given the available alternatives, I personally prefer "path" (when used in the context we are talking about here). Many authors writing books on Hinduism in English have used the word "path," so it is not a novel idea. HeBhagawan 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. It is true that words from samskrit are hard to translate. If we were to say that the many yogas were many paths to arrive at our destination, Moksa, then it would seem that upon embarking on your journey, you find the "path" most suitable to you and follow it there. This statement would be correct if the path represented dharma. If it represents yoga, then it is not correct. One may freely perform many yogas in the same day, though one may (or should) only follow one path in his life, his dharma. ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ॐ नमःशिवय ॐ सुजीट,

Pl. Aap confuse nahin karo. Sab achchha achchha bolo. Is silsele me pahele bahas ho chuki hai, aap sach ho, par baat yahin khatam karo please. swadhyayee 15:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bhai-saab, mujko hindi bilkul nahi aathi hain. jara angrezi main baath keejie! ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ॐ नमःशिवय ॐ सुजीट, Itni Hindi to Kafi hai. Firbhi, aap kahte hai to: Pl. don't confuse. Say everything is good, very good. This was discussed earlier, you are right but pl. finish the topic here itself. swadhyayee 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Saahibji, main to bas mazaak kara ta. Firbhi, ye dusre laugo naaraj hoyenge. I think I missed the discussion earlier. What was the conclusion then? I am still averse to the use of path. ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, this discussion. My point was Geeta - the authentic scripture state only Jnan, Karma and Bhakti through which Moksha could be attained. All these mediums could be way of life of any individual depending upon one's liking and abilities formed from previous births. I had said that Raj Yog is a session bound action of disciplining mind, body and intellect. The out come of Raj Yog is acquiring of knowledge and hence it's a part of Jnan Yog. Somehow, Baka said that some ref. cited here stated Jnan, Karma, Bhakti and Raj Yog - mediums of attaining Moksha. I don't think that from Hindu point of view, the citation is authentic but I dropped when scripture like Geeta is overruled by some swami's book. swadhyayee 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. Now I remember what discussion you were speaking about. That is not what I am trying to discuss. And in that respect, I feel tha Raja Yoga is different from Jnana Yoga, but that is not my point. All that I am saying, and it's not a massively controversial issue, is that perhaps, we can use a different English word for "yoga" than "path". The reason being, I feel that path implies exclusion, and that path is more closely linked to "dharma".

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. My apologies, I only just noticed what you wrote in the previous section. I also was unfamiliar with the idea of creating a new discussion header, without a conclusion, and was confused at first.

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Saivaji, What word do the sources you are looking at use to translate "yoga" (in the context we are talking about)? HeBhagawan

That's the thing! I can't think of any time seeing yoga ever translated, other than in Vedantin writings. I've always read yoga, as yoga, with an understanding of yoga. I'm sure it has been translated many different ways: I found, at least, on sanskritdocument.org's dictionary, yoga=effort. This word also, I don't like. The proper meaning should be method, process, means, ...(?). Please provide suggestions, I feel as if you all understand that yoga is not exclusive, and hopefully, that you understand why path can be misconstrued as such. If we can't find a more suitable word, that's fine with me; I just feel that we can do better than "path".

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Though the word "Yoga" is used along with Bhakti, Karma, Jnan and Raj, it's connotations are different to a Hindu. Whereas Bhakti, Karma and Jnan is a thing to be practised through out life, Raj Yog is session bound actions to discipline mind, body and intellect. That would be same for any session bound actions - Yog to discipline mind, body and intellect. What you do in Yoga is an attempt to acquire a thoughtless situation. One tries to stabilise "Chanchal" mind. I think, in the later sense, "Yoga" has been accepted word in English. I have a dictionary with me which I purchased 50 years ago having Yoga's meaning as, "Hindu system of thought and self-control designed for uniting self with Higher Power. I think, some clarity of connotation of "Yoga" when used along with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti will suffice the need to avoid creation of confusion in the mind of reader. swadhyayee 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, your thinking that "path" implies exclusion is old-school Newtonian. You should consider the Quantum double slit experiment instead in which an electron travels along multiple paths simultaneously. And if a mere electron can do it surely a Hindu can too ! Oops, I just recalled my conversion to the no-smile cult ... I'll try to avoid another relapse :-) Abecedare 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Abecedare, luckily, I am a physicist and I know that Heisenberg's uncertainty principal applies to that which is not being checked. Relative to yourself, you are always at rest. :D ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 04:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Vote

Hello it is me Arjun again and I have a project that I would like to share. In my opinion this article is getting to long and is growing by the day. I am sure others feel this way. Some browsers have a very difficult time loading the page. Here is the project: We would try to remove some text without hurting the good and referenced facts. We can decide if there is any part of the article that is not neccasary. This idea is open to disscussions, please vote below. Thanks!--Seadog 19:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Arjun/Seadog, I think everybody agrees that we can remove text so long as it doesn't hurt the article. But the trick is to decide which things to remove. I think it would be more useful to make a proposal for exactly what sentences you want to remove, and then vote on that. Otherwise, everybody will vote "yes" that we should remove some stuff, but then there will be an uproar when you remove somebody's favorite part without discussing it first. Does this seem like a good approach? HeBhagawan 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree HeBhagawan, it would be a disaster if everybody started to take out parts they think should be taken out. That is why we will discuss any changes that we feel is necessary. Thank you.--Seadog ^♪ 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Gizza^Chat ^© 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
_____________
_____________

Oppose

_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________

Conversion

Anyone recall why the "Conversion" section is listed under the Goal of Life ?! That would be a weird goal indeed More seriously, would it be ok if I move it to the Society section ? Abecedare 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is in that section, it is a mistake. You can move it. HeBhagawan 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! I have moved it to the end of the Society section - feel free to move it around within there.

By the way, I didn't really doubt that it was at its earlier location in error. I left the note only because I thought the crowd here would appreciate the unintentional, nerdy, theological joke and I thought we all could use a giggle once in a while. Abecedare 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There shall be no more laughter. Only arguing. :D

Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am from America, where truly religious people never smile. You must be grave. That is a sign of piety. :D HeBhagawan 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wise words. I'm converted to the no-smile religion. Abecedare 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Hinduism is definitely a never ever smile religion. It is why we love to tell stories of how Bhagawan Krishna stole cheekily stole butter and even the clothes of the Gopis. :) Gizza^Chat ^© 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Schools of Hindu Philosophy section

Namaskar, I would like to see this section earlier in the article. I would like it to be somewhere in the top 5. Where do you all think it is best suited? Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaste, It could go just above the History section. HeBhagawan 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. I am going to put it there. Does anyone have any objections/suggestions? I am sure there are other sections that could be more wisely placed. ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization ?

This is yet only a half-baked thought, but how about consolidating the sections "God & the soul", "Goals of Life" and perhaps even "Schools of philosophy" under a "Belief" rubric ? Just to be absolutely clear, I am talking of moving sections, not rewriting them. The idea behind the thought is that if the main page is organizeed under major categorical headings, such as "Beliefs", "Practices", "Society", "Scriptures", "History" (not necessarily in that order), it will better guide a new reader to the topics of his/her interest (I doubt too many casual readers read the article end-to-end). The page already has a similar layout, but it perhaps can be improved. This is thrown out there to generate ideas and discussion. I don't intend to unilaterally implement this plan. Abecedare 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar, Abecedare. I am very much for this idea. I would like the TOC to be much shorter, or at least, with less top-level headings.

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear Śaiva Sujīţ ! I think it would be good to get a wider feedback before we attempt this change though, since many editors have devoted a lot of time and effort to this page, and may have strong feelings on the reorganization. In the meantime, if you have specific ideas please do list them here. I too will think this through and enumerate my ideas later today. Abecedare

I agree Saiva Sujit, The TOC is too long.--Seadog ^♪ 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions Seadog, on how to improve the TOC or reorganize the content ? Abecedare 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaste, Abecedare. Also I have never actually welcomed you so I will do it now. Welcome to the Hinduism project...Thank you for your contribs. Really I have no specific clue. It would be nice to not have any sub sections. This would dramatically shorten the TOC...I doubt anyone here will be willing to do that. The content in my opinion is very organized and thorough, may bee to thorough. If we could remove some text that is not needed that would be great.--Seadog ^♪ 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic

Namaskar. I apologize for this off-topic question. Has anyone seen the Kashmiri Wikipedia? Why do they use that arabic script instead of sharada? Also, and this is slightly more on topic, I just noticed the article on the English Wikipedia on Aum... in their devanagari they use O- and not the dipthong Au- is that correct? ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question on Kashmiri language, the truth is that the majority of Kashmiris, in both the Pakistan controlled and Indian controlled, and probably even in the Chinese controlled area are Muslims. Obviously Muslims prefer writing in a Arabic script instead of an Indian script, which means that now most "Kashmiris" woud prefer writing with Sharada script. On your Aum question, the famous symbol is derived from ओम (Om) and is also pronounced like that by modern Indians. But I think in Sanskrit it was written as औम because that is how it is supposed to be pronounced a-u-m. ॐ नमःशिवय Gizza^Chat ^© 07:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Conversion to Hinduism

Hinduism advocate that one must follow one's birth religion as the same is like breast feed, easy to digest (practice). It's improper to say that Hinduism claim that to be a Hindu one must be born Hindu. In other words, Hinduism does not advocate conversion to Hinduism. Thre is no bar to people voluntarily Hindu way of life. Lord Krishna's message of Geeta is a message to all human beings and applicable to all humans. No where in Geeta, Lord Krishna has said that the priniciples there in, if followed will give the resultant benefits, only to Hindus. swadhyayee 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Should a clarity be included? swadhyayee 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: this section is clear already. If you read it as a whole, I think it already addresses your concerns. HeBhagawan 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Naivedhya.

The editors here should be knowing that the offerings, mostly food or eatables prior to having been offered to The God is known as "Naivedhya". Once offered and taken back for distribution, it's called "Prasad". The meaning of "Prasad" is "Pratisad" (Something like reaction of God). There are plenty of people who do not know the term "Naivedhya" and often refer to "Naivedhya" as "Prasad" to the displeasure of knowledgables around. This one line inclusion has been removed by the very knowledgable boss with edit summery that "deleted some words that seem non-essential". I had placed this thing on talk page and there was no objection to this inclusion. I feel it is advantageous to have it included. May I expects editors to give their opinions? swadhyayee 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a very interesting piece of information you cite, which I did not know earlier. I am not sure if that nuance belongs on the main article; however I think it would be great if we could begin a wikipedia page which talks about terminology used in Hinduism and where such little known facts/terms are highlighted. Does anyone know if such a page exists, and if it is ok to have such a glossary hosted on Wikipedia? swadhyayee, perhaps you with your general knowledge about Hinduism should create such a page ! I'll be happy to contribute with editorial help. What do others think ? Abecedare 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what can I say when you say it's nuance? Then we should remove all Hindu terminologies from the article and move it to the new page. If you feel, this is little known fact, all I can say is pl. speak to some Sanyasees or priests or Brahmins from your circle. Is a reader going to go and read glossary without the word appearing in the article? Yes, the general knowledge of an Indian could surpass the general knowledge of Hinduism from a foreign country. swadhyayee 04:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a page called Glossary of terms in Hinduism where Sanskrit/Hindu words can be added. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you suggesting Mr.DaGizza? Removing all terminologies from the article and add it to glossary? I was talking about adding one sentence "Eatables offered to the God in pre-stage viz. before offering is referred to as "Naivedhya", after it is taken back for distribution is known as "Prasad". Do you object to this inclusion? swadhyayee 09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In general I won't object. Here I won't object if you can find places where to remove information. The page as observed by many others here is very big. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. swadhyayee 11:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, It seems that Swadhyayee understood you to approve of adding terminology and explanations of the terminology to the article (see his edits in the Puja section, where he added an explanation of "naivedya" to the discussion of prasad). However, it seems to me that you are approving of removing such terminology. Which did you mean to say--that he should remove such definitions to a separate glossary, or that he should add them to the main article? Personally, I am opposed to him adding to the length of the main article by incorporating non-essential terms and definitions. HeBhagawan 13:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre-offered food is called 'bhoga' where I come from. The direct translation of bhoga is 'enjoyment', and in this connection it means 'for the Lord's enjoyment'. I imagine there are many variations across the spectrum of Vedic based traditions. Ys, GourangaUK 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No and Yes Gouranga, "Bhog" is used by Vaishnavs. I don't know about others but "Naivedhya" is a term for pre-stage eatables to be offered to The God. If you are Gujarati, you would know that Gujaratis call "Nived" for yearly puja of Kuldevi. The items and quantity of "Nived" is fixed in each family and the ritual is rigorously followed. Even when the child is sent to school, a day is fixed for Puja and "Nived" is offered to Kuldevi. It is also known as "Kar" viz. duty or tax fixed by each family and the ritual is rigorously followed. Nice to listen the word "Bhog" from you. swadhyayee 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is more than one term used to refer to pre-offered food. Both Gouranga and Swadhyayee are right. Which is why I am in favor of leaving them both out of the article, and putting them instead in the Puja article. HeBhagawan 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added the terms Prasad and Naivedhya to the Glossary. Can others take a look at it to check my spellings of the terms, and possibly refine the definitions ? Also I saw that there is a a recent wikipedia page created for Naivedhya. It is only a stub and should be expanded if it is to be saved from deletion. Abecedare 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare, I checked the glossary. Just request you to consider writing "for" in place of "as" and re-check the Sanskrit character represent "dh" and not "gh" in the word "Naivedhya" in Sanskrit fonts. swadhyayee 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

swadhyayee : I rechecked the spelling of Naivedhya and confirmed that it uses "dh" and not "gh" (I had to zoom in to make sure!). Thanks for pointing out that error possibility. Feel free to reword the definition on the glossary page if you think it will improve the clarity. Also if you have any other word suggestions for the page, I can help in spelling them - just leave a message at Talk:Glossary_of_terms_in_Hinduism or on my talk page if you prefer. Abecedare 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare for the pain you took and offer to include more. Thank you very much once again.

Tantra

Saiva, I feel the same way about Tantra (responding to your earlier comments). The people who have been working on that page are fixated on the sexual aspects. I don't advocate leaving that stuff out altogether, but it shouldn't be over-emphasized as they are doing. They present it as a central concept of Tantra, but it's not. HeBhagawan 02:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not, at all, as they're presenting it. Sexual intercourse has as much to do with Tantra as sight. In my interaction with Western Hindus, I always do my best to be very accepting, but some times they have a very narrow vision, which is acceptable, understandable, and harmless unless, they are very stubborn about it. One should have the humility of knowing the limits to his knowledge. ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also like how Westerners think the Kama Sutra is some Hindu holy book. WP:NPOV states that there shouldn't be a Western bias on non-Western articles. For that matter, there shouldn't be a Western bias on even Western related articles. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it or isn't a hindu holy book? I'll take that side bar off then.--D-Boy 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly "Kamsutra" is not a holy book. No idea whether it would be arts or science. swadhyayee 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to Ishvar at all. The only devatas I recall being mentioned is Indra. There are no mantras in the book. Nobody prays to it. I hope I've made my case clear. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments. The Kama Sutra is a book, but it is not a scripture. HeBhagawan 12:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. Kama Sutra may not be sruti, but it is not just a book. I don't think it can be classified as smriti either, however, and I think those are the only two options we have for that pane. I think it may be on par with Vedangas, though parallel.

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} सुजीट ॐ 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As a western Hindu, I have never considered the Kama Sutra a sacred text. Also I would be very disappointed if anyone started inserting western bias into the Hinduism article.--Seadog ^♪ 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu rubbish has no place even on talk page.

Self-published books are not acceptable as sources because of abuses like this. See Self-published sources, ॐ Priyanath 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to be joking. ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 04:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Next, let us include excerpts from writings from Marc Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias. Sorry for these caustic comments.

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On the practical level Hinduism is totally different. It is not based on any historically verifiable revelation of God. Thus objective verification of claims is out of place. On the practical level it can be anything from black magic, witchcraft to erotic orgy on one side, to bhakthi and submission and asceticism on the other.

I don't know why we were even bothering to find a better translation for "yoga" ... we should change the very definition of Hinduism!

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ॐ सुजीट

I can understand the pain that this IP giving you. There may be a lot of anti-Hindus propagating that Hinduism has it's root in christainity. They have taken Prahlad story and claim it to be their owns. swadhyayee 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it got anything with boss's invitation to contributors of Buddhism and Islam to take participation in Hinduism discussions? swadhyayee 05:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I apprehended outcome of idiotic actions. swadhyayee 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot appreciate the attitude of some people deleting a well cited and well written part from wikipedia. Let people have a chance to know contrasting arguments/opinions/evidences and let them decide what to accept and what to reject.

Namaskar. Perhaps, you could at least be a registered Wikipedia contributer so that we could more easily discuss contrasting arguments/opinions/evidences with you, before you include hate literature on an article about our religion. Should we start citing the "Da Vinci Code" or equally fictional sources on articles related to Christianity? ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} ॐ सुजीट 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy and page for people like you. WP:DFTT - Don't feed the trolls!. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I'm not sure what you are trying to say above, but it sounds angry. Take a deep breath. We're all friends here! HeBhagawan 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that these ideas seem to be copied from here [1]. "Professor" Ninan seems to have no standing. Fundamentalist rubbish from websites of no standing should be deleted outright. That goes for claims that the Kaaba was dedicated to Shiva just as much as for stuff emanating from Christians and Muslims. Paul B 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Paul Barlow, to support the truth. I wish to remove the link provided by you as it leads to false propaganda and could be advt. material. Someone write non-sense and it may sold more. The nonsense had the roots in link provided by you. We have known this. If you agree, pl. remove the link and oblige. swadhyayee 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

''It is not based on any historically verifiable revelation of God.'' Hohohohohohohohohohohohoho. The official version of Bible was accepted 300 years after the virgin-born Jesus who rose after death. All versions are different. First give some reason why I should believe in God who allows 9.11 and tsunamis. This is quite the best joke I have come across in recent days. What trash! Wikipedia, we understand the need for freedom of expression, but you need to do something about trolls. Sure, Paul, Kaa'ba was not a Shiva temple at any time. Let us be level-headed. Aupmanyav 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions on what to shorten down

It is advicable to cut down this article with 50% so that it will be easier for people to read it. That means a lot of drastical cuts. But information that is cut away is to be put it in sub-articles, so that nothing is lost.

I have some experience in writing articles. After reading the article through, I provide these suggestions.

From section "God & the soul" 50 % could be removed. (In sub-section "Brahman" more than 50%). The section should also start with a "main article" link
All Yoga sections in "The goal of life (jīvan-lakshya)" could be cut with at least 50%. Or even remove all separate Yoga sections. These detailed explanations are more than a mouthful for any casual reader.
"Practices", shorten 50%, move to sub-sections
"Society", also shorten 50%. For example, in "Ashramas (stages of life)", each of the stages could be described by just one sentence.

I don't think any article should be more than 40Kb. If you want to make this article shorter, obviously you must undertake necessary restructuring of the page. Trust me, it won't make the article worse at all, since all material is just on click away for those who are interested...

Fred-Chess 13:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred, If you are going to offer opinions on this page, it would be nice if you could state each time whether you are offering your own opinion, or whether you are speaking on behalf of Swadhyayee as his advocate. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that it is ethical to be an advocate and to offer your personal opinions on the same article. It could lead to a conflict of interest, because if you personally disagree with something your client says, you may not feel free to say so openly. People will suspect you of agreeing with him because he is your client, rather than because it is your personal opinion. My suggestion is that you don't get personally involved on pages where you are acting as an advocate. But if you decide to get involved you should definately make clear for each statement which capacity you are speaking in. And you definately shouldn't make edits in the main article if it could look like you are helping your client to avoid the 3-revert rule. I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, but I just wanted to give you a heads up, so that you can be a good advocate without appearing to have a conflict of interest. HeBhagawan 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

These are my suggestions to the editors of this article. I do see what it has to do with Swadhyayee or me being his advocate. If you want to use my advice or not is up to you. I wrote it with the intention of helping you improve the article. Those who work in that direction will benefit from my suggestions, I hope.

Fred-Chess 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism

In the FA review one editor of Wikipedia suggested that there should be a criticism of Hinduism section in the article so it could be in line with the Islam and Christianity article. I personally disagree with that idea...due to the length of the article. Any thoughts.--Seadog ^♪ 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar Pārṭa. I think we should focus on cutting the length of Hinduism down, and then add a criticism section, though I hope it can remain neutral.

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} सुजीट ॐ 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

hindus like to dance a lot in cermoney's that is part of there religon.

Wel-come to Wikipedia. In fact, I liked your above edit to Hinduism a lot. You have some novel idea to give. Unfortunately, your edits are reverted by someone. You are absolutely right in your edit. Hindus have attached festivals to their beliefs & way of life for spiritual sublimation. Hindus are fond of festivals. It is said "Utsav Priya" in regional languages. "Utsav" means festivals and "Priya" means fond of. "Priya" usually means "dear" but here it's meaning is "fond of". Celebrating festivals by singing, dancing or throwing colours reduce substantial stress, bring each other close thus keep people healthy and contribute to the harmony of the society. This is just to give you a lead if you desire to contribute to Hinduism. My suggestion and request to you would be to select a good nick-name and register yourself to Wikipedia. You do not have to give personal details for registering with Wikipedia. You can construct your user page and introduce yourself without giving your personal details. You can provide your abilities and hobbies.

Hope to see you soon on Wikipedia registered users' community.

Best of luck. swadhyayee 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

grhastha dharma

However, even kāma and artha are considered legitimate pursuits on the path to moksha, so long as they are performed responsibly. Thus it is said that artha and kāma are to be pursued like a river which is bounded by dharma and moksha on the two sides.

This does not make sense to me. "So long as they are performed responsibly" does not relate to "bounded by dharma and moksha" correctly, in these two sentences. Also, those four are all considered noble pursuits for the grihasthi/samsari. The relation that you are looking for is moksha on the horizon, with dharma monitoring the pursuits of kama and artha.

ॐ नमःशिवय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} सुजीट ॐ 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

wow, i just realized that I had been shortening va in Sivaya. apologies. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} सुजीत ॐ 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I had deleted the sentence "However, even kāma and artha are considered legitimate pursuits on the path to moksha, so long as they are performed responsibly." in an earlier edit because, we begin the subsection itself by saying that "Hinduism recognizes four legitimate pursuits in life" and kama and moksha are listed among the four. Therefore the repetition of the idea just one sentence later seems redundant to me. Do others have a view on this ?

I agree with Saiva that the river analogy does not sound right, but don't have an opinion on what it should say. I think we should not make up an analogy ourselves (that would perhaps border on OR), but rather quote/paraphrase what the source said - that is the reason I had tagged the sentence with a citation needed sign. Abecedare 16:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like 2 people disagree with me on this, so go ahead and revert my edit if you wish. HeBhagawan 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How does it look now? ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} सुजीत ॐ 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the moksha as horizon, and dharma monitoring kama/artha is not OR. It was mentioned as such by a scholar on History International. I will try to get more specifics, for a proper citation, later tonight. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīţ} सुजीत ॐ 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, I like your edit in the section and have an idea for minor rephrasing :

"Among these, dharma and moksha play a special role[89]: the pursuit of kama and artha is only noble when guided by the laws of dharma, with the ultimate goal of moksha at the horizon"

I'll leave it to you to make the final pick.

A clarification: I hope my comment about OR didn't come across as accusatory! I assumed that you/HeBhagawan would have a reference for the analogy and just wanted to make certain that we cited it (I know, preaching to the choir :-) ) Abecedare 17:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. Not at all. I appreciate your watchfulness. I also prefer the way that you've worded it; I felt that that part was awkward, but did not have the idea to reverse it.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I liked it better the way it was originally. But I'm not going to argue if you guys both like it better the way it is now. I don't think you are misrepresenting anything, so it's just a question of which wording is clearer. However there is one issue: The citation to Essentials of Hinduism does not quite support the current wording, so if you want to keep it the way it is now you should delete the citation to that book and, if possible, replace it with a citation to something else. Jay Maheshwar, HeBhagawan 02:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. I didn't realize you hadn't made the change Abecdare; I just made it, the way that you had worded it. HeBhagawanji, do you like the way it is now? Also, as far as the citation goes, I made sure to mark the part that simply refers to dharma and moksha as being special as from Bhaskarananda's Essentials, with the explanation of their roles as uncited (though I do have a citation ready for it). Also, I think that this more accurately represents the nature of grhastha dharm. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sufficiently vague?

["Ashramas (stages of life)Traditionally, the life of a Hindu was divided into four Āshramas ("phases" or "stages"). They are

Brahmacharya (the stage of a student) Gṛihastha (the stage of a householder) Vānaprastha (retirement--literally "living out in the forest") Sanyāsa (life as a monk).[90] The first quarter of one's life, Brahmacharya ("meditation, or study of the Brahman") is spent in celibate, controlled, sober and pure contemplation under a Guru, building up the mind for the realization of truth. Grihastha is the householder's stage, in which one marries and satisfies kāma and artha within one's married and professional life (see section on ashrams). Among the moral obligations of a Hindu householder are the duties to support one's parents, children, guests, priests (Brahmins), and monks(sanyāsis). Vānaprastha is gradual detachment from the material world. This may involve giving over duties to one's children, spending more time in contemplation of the Divine, and making holy pilgrimages. Finally, in Sannyāsa, one renounces all worldly attachments, often envisioned as seclusion, to find the Divine through detachment from worldly life and peacefully shed the body for the next life (or for liberation).[90]

Note: the word āshrama (or āshram) is also used to refer to a building which is devoted to religious activities. Usually monks or other spiritual aspirants reside in an ashram, and spiritual seekers may visit the ashram to study the scriptures, meditate, or worship. This type of āshram may contain a monastery or convent (math), a temple, library, and/or other facilities for spiritual practice and religious education."].

I feel the language is vague. 1) "satisfies 'Kama' and 'Artha' in one's married and professional life". How would a person not exposed to the term "Kama" understand the right connotation?

2) Grammatically here it implies that "Kama" is satisfied in professional life too and earth is satisfied in married life (???). From sentence framing point of view, it is in-correct.

3) Earth does not mean only earning, it means spending also. It's strongly emphasized to use wealth in Hinduism. The most significant is earn and spend through means consonant with Hindu religious dictates. Consonant with Hindu religious dictates is something different from ethical. Earnings through means limited by Varnashram dharma means consonant with Hindu religious dictates. Earning through butchery or sale of living beings for butchery are in no way ethical earning in Hinduism. The deviation from religious dictate do cause imbalance of social order. When one not coming from caste of shoe-maker enter into trade of shoes for the money power is depriving shoe-makers of their ethical earning, which we see today. Practically, all tailor, shoe-makers etc. communities are deprived of their rightful earning due to making of ready-made garments and shoes by huge factories. This lead to make wealthy, wealthier and poor, poorer. Earning through gambling means is not considered to be ethical in Hinduism. Earlier generation, discouraged their offsprings to earn through stock-trade (trade of shares) which can throw someone give stress related diseasea and throw one on road overnight. Today, the parents want their children to make money through stock-trade and be wealthier overnight without hard working. Hinduism insist for regular work (Udhyam or Shram) involving physical activities and regularity. Acquiring wealth without hard work, ethical and religious limits lead to un-desirables be it adverse effect on one's health or one's behaviour and social order. The well explained visionary and praise worthy Hindu dictates in appropriated language should have a place in this article but Alas! whether our highly educated, native English speaking editors will have mind and intelligence to do so?

The earning through stock trade and commodity exchange shall render India of industries, particularly small and cottage industries providing ethical medium of earning to average less educated and less privileged Indian. "Varnashram Vyavastha" protected the societies from such evil effects. "Varnashram Vyavastha" prevented possibilities centralising of capital to few. The "Varnashram Vyavastha" ought to be a significant contribution to the theory of economy which the modern thinkers fail to envisage or deliberately avoid to provide boon to capitalist minds. The non-inclusion of these visionary Hindu dictates, help Non-Hindu economists to build their theories and state that Hinduism visionary dictates has it's roots in Non-Hindu theories like one claim we witnessed a day or two before about Vedas.

Is providing of meaning of "Ashram" as bldg. here relevant? It's more confusing. Just adding "also" is not sufficient to remove confusion. What's the point of adding confusion and trying to remove it by adding "also"? swadhyayee 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

swadhyayee and others: Please see my edits to the section. I have tried to address points 1, 2 and "ashram meaning" that Swadhyayee raised. I have also removed wikilinks to common English words like sober, celibate, contemplate, householder etc as they are used in the standard sense in this section; and corrected some other links. Comments and revisions are welcome. Abecedare 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Could something be done?

Oh my God! The time and energy it takes to come to the top of talk page or article. Whether some knowledgable can provide tool "Top" and "bottom" at the top and end of talk page to go back to respective zone with just a click of button. The time and energy now taken to go to different zone of the page is awful.

I am just shocked to see that to edit a particular topic of talk page, the tool "edit" is missing and you have to endlessly go up to select "edit" tool and go to the bottom of the topic to edit or add the content/reply.

Would some knowledgable help to overcome this tiring difficulties?

swadhyayee 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not wish to use the scrollbar, just use control-home or control-end to move to the top or bottom of a page. To edit a specific section, click the "edit" link next to the title of the section. There is no need to get worked up over such simple issues. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I will archive it to make it shorter...since it needs it anyway.__Seadog ^♪ 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much Knowledge Seeker and Seadog. swadhyayee 05:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV of Society >> Monasticism

This is not an accurate description. There are many, many "sadhus" in India, and as anyone of India will testify, most are not considered holy, or even respected. I think we should mention here that many of those who claim to be sadhus are fraudulent. As I doubt that Bhaskarananda has written about this, I can see why we haven't mentioned it. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the references of this article, I now see why Hinduism resembled Vedanta to me: apart from a few scholarly references and the token ISKCON references mixed in, all sources/references are from Advaita-Vedanta, specifically Ramakrishna Math, or from Upanishads (aka Vedanta). Is there some editor here who really likes Vedanta, and is equating it with Hinduism? Note: just because it's called Essentials of Hinduism does not mean that it's not actually Essentials of the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Sampradaya. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ॐ नमःशिवाय सुजीत,

Could Hinduism be something beyond Vedant? What's your objection? As I told you I have not read Tantra, I have also not read monasticism. HeBhagawad did put some text upon monasticism for discussion. I had read it and suggested some removal.

When you write anything on a particular subject like monasticism, the nature and objectives have to come in it, not the perversion as central theme. Perversion can come at the end in a line or two. What is significant is explaining of a thinkers' or sages' view of the base of such system. Whether Sadhus are not revered or are fraudulent become subjective matter. The reverence is attached to the real Sadhus and not to the people in disguise of a Sadhu. In any society, there would be gems and frauds. When we speak we have to speak of general state. Frauds are exceptions and in minority but their nuisance value may have larger effect. We are not here to make a Hindi movie whose central theme is a criminal.

I suggest, you put your objections for specific wording, we will discuss and think of removing if in-appropriate. I know monasticism is recently included section and we can not hope it's being perfect in every respect. swadhyayee 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said Swadhyayee! This article gives a bird's eye-view of the salient features of Hinduism of which the section Monasticism is one. The section deals with the principles and not monks per se. If anybody is interested to know about any monk/sadhu, he/she can look for it separately where criticism also could be found! – Apnavana 05:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

I agree with Swadhyayee and Apnavana that we are talking of the principals of Hinduism and therefore a detailed critique of Sadhus (or "Sadhus") is perhaps not relevant here.
However, we should make point (1) clear in the section Saiva mentions and also perhaps at other points in the article. For instance:

" Sādhus strive to treat all with respect and compassion, whether a person may be poor or rich, good or wicked. They also strive to be indifferent to praise, blame, pleasure, and pain."

appears to be a statement of fact, saying that Sadhus do indeed strive towards such behavior, which is certainly arguable. In my opinion, it should be restated as "Sadhus are supposed to treat ...", "Sadhus are prescribed to treat ..." or "According to Swami Bhaskarananda, sadhus strive ...". Any other suggestions ?

And as for the larger point that the article on Hinduism is dominated by the Vedanta philosophy: I don't have an informed opinion on whether that critique is valid (it well may be) or not. If Śaiva Sujīt or other editors have specific ideas to add other POVs to the article I will definitely encourage and support the effort - presuming of course that the edits are supported by verifiable and mainstream sources (i.e., not "scholarly" work like [2] :-)) Abecedare 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Abecedare has said. The only thing I can add is that a pseron who says he/she is a sadhu is not a sadhu just as someone is not a doctor if one says they are. I don't necessarily think we should write "Sadhus are meant to do..." because actual Sadhus do all these things. The actions determine who is a Sashu and not the words. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, I see your point; but in my thinking a sadhu would be analogous to a 'healer' while perhaps a (temple) 'priest' would be analogous to a doctor. My argument is that doctor and priests are professional titles and can be externally verified, while it is much more difficult to disprove a person's claim to being a sadhu or a healer.

So it may useful to specify that we are discussing the 'ideal' and not necessarily the qualities of "sadhus". Does the phrasing "A sadhu strives to ..." get the distinction across ? Abecedare 17:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Swadhyayee and DaGizza. Readers will understand that we are talking about ideal sadhus and that not all of them will live up to the ideals. This goes for almost every aspect of any religion: some people live up to the ideal and others do not. Because this happens so universally, I don't think there is any need to make a special mention of it. Actually, the section on sadhus originally did say "sadhus are expected to. . .", but somebody changed it. I don't think any harm was done in the change, since readers will understand that it is the ideal that is being described. HeBhagawan 01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me how it is now. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The right transliteration is sannyasi and not sanyasi - an additional n is required. – Apnavana 05:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Question (Possibly off-topic)

An anon user had placed the following note on the Talk page for discussion just over a week back:

"I wanted the following incorporated in the history Section.
In a radically different theory Ninan argues that vedic relegion and present day Hinduism are very different.^[1] He goes on giving evidences to show that when the Hinduism emerges in the first millenium AD, it took many concepts from St. Thomas Christians and infact the earlier Hinduism was a version of Gnostic christianity.
Reference
<deleted per Bakaman, Swadhyayee request >
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.43.195 (talk • contribs) and other anonymous IPs."

Several editors responded and the consensus was that such self-published and non-mainstream ideas are not appropriate for Wikipedia, let alone the main Hinduism page - a consensus that I whole-heartedly support. OK, given that background, here is the issue I have a question about: Swadhyayee twice deleted the anon user's note from the talk page (once, after I restored it) and replaced the original section title of "Present day Hinduism; influence of St. Thomas the apostle" with Anti-Hindu rubbish has no place even on talk page. I don't think this is appropriate on the following grounds:

With the deletion of the original proposals, all the responses are left dangling. This makes it impossible to understand the context of the discussion or the idea that was rejected. Another consequence of the deletion is that if the anon. user makes the same or related proposal again, we can't simply point to the earlier discussion, but would have to re-enter the debate again.
The original proposal was not incivil or obscene, so I don't know what would be the grounds for censoring it from the Talk pages. As I stated, I agree with its rejection, but I don't think an idea that is rejected should also be purged from the pages of history, ...ahem, wikipedia.
It is wikipedia's policy to Assume good faith and be civil and not label ideas that we simply disagree with, and that are not plain vandalism, as "rubbish". This of course does not prevent me (or others) from having personal opinions on the motivation of the anon user (or other editors), but I don't think we advance the project through such labels.

So can other editors please weigh in and express their thoughts on this, admittedly off-topic, issue ? I would appreciate your opinions, not only to resolve the minor dispute in this particular instance, but also to get a better understanding of wikipedia policy/culture. Thanks. Abecedare 06:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Abecedare. The purpose of anonymous user is un-holy. This was added in article and removed by me. The same was strongly supported by everyone. So the rubbish found a link here on talk page. I fail to understand your interest in stabling these pervert links here in the name of Wikipedia policy. Pl. Pl. do not restore the links, unless you get support. Your insistence for supporting gross wrongs of annonymous user will certainly not be well received. I wish that we request check user to find out who is annonymous user of this IP and who are his sock-puppets. swadhyayee 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "Hinduism is a degenrated form of Christianity" bakwaas should be on the article but it his comments on the talk page can stay. If you look at the discussion above, it looks confusing because we don't see the anon's comments. It just had people saying stuff like This definitely should not be on the page but if another Wikipedian sees this, he/she will have no idea of what is going on. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza,

I understand the sentiments and difficulties but it is subversive way to force someone to see the non-sense and project christainity over Hinduism. The links in no case should be allowed as it might be an advt. gimmick. Why when everyone is strongly against these links or contents, Abe.. is interested to support the anonymous mischief maker? swadhyayee 11:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee: please don't edit my talk messages again ! You are free to express your own opinion and I welcome your viewpoint, and I'll be happy to remove the anon. user's notes from my message if and once we have a consensus of views here. However by editing my comments you are not only violating Wikipedia policy and decorum, but also preventing other editors from forming an informed opinion. I don't think this is a major enough issue for you and me to enter into a point-by-point debate. I think both are views are amply clear, and it would be good to see if there is a general consensus on this point for my own future reference.

Context for others: Swadhyayee edited my message above and deleted the quote, which made the message meaningless and therefore I have restored it. Abecedare 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Were you the anonymous user who made the request? What's your interest in supporting mischievous links on talk page which is nothing but subversive way of pushing rascality? swadhyayee 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove entire discussion and Abecedare should be happy about it. The mischievous links indirectly making a part of Hinduism should be discouraged, else Hinduism will be all non-sense other religion propaganda. There may be plenty of non-Hindu rascals to write on Hinduism. swadhyayee 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee: Again, I request that you don't edit my talk messages.

Just to convince you of my good faith how about this as a compromise ? Let the editors here weigh in till Dec 1st (hopefully some of them will be back from Thanksgiving break by then :-) ), and if they too think that the content and /or references do not belong even on the talk page, I myself will delete it at that time. In the meantime let them have the complete information needed to form an opinion. Abecedare 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your point of insistence for having this? These links were removed long back without any objection. Even, if your actions are well intended, you create impression that the anonymous user was none else. Will you pl. wait till 1st Dec. for it's inclusion. Hopefully, by tomorrow evening you will know other views. Hope you will bear with me and co-operate in maintaining decency by keeping mischievous links off this page. swadhyayee 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete the refs - They totally fail WP:RS . Abecedare, please take a look at the links, they are little more than fantasies. They should be deleted on spot.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I agree that the links are hilarious rather than scholarly. My aim is not to carry water for the anon user, but rather to clarify the wikipedia norms for my own knowledge. I am only happy to delete the links if they detract from that aim. Thanks for the input. Abecedare 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The policies are at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posed my query on the Wikipedia Village Pump since that might be a better venue to discuss general policy rather than the Hinduism talk pages. Anyone interested is welcome to add to or follow the discussion there. Abecedare 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what was orginally being discussed. I know and agree that the links that were posted were garbage, however, it is highly unethical to censor one's statements in a forum discussion, such as this page. No one who can be deceived by such garbage would look at the discussion page. However, this entire argument seems moot, and non productive. Let us please move on. For the sake of consistency of the discussion page, let us leave whatever delusion that was quoted and rejected, here in the discussion. With the adequate context of the feedback of all us editors, the garbage will be rendered as, in fact, garbage. Onwards and Upwards.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there such a heated discussion over these links to Prof. Ninan's 'books' on this talk page, when those links have been put into articles all over Wikipedia? It would help if people instead could keep an eye on these articles that had these same absurd links, now removed: Vedas (now there's an article that needs help), Mahabali, Bhavishya Purana, Saint Thomas Christians, Prester_John. By the way, Ninan's book claims that "1. Hinduism did not exist before the second century, A D. 2. Sanskrit did not exist before the second century AD, 3. There were no “Hindu Temples” before the second century AD. 4. The name Krishna did not even exist before the third century AD.", and therefore Christianity is the true source of Hinduism. Absurd, of course, but you need to cite WP policies when removing the links to that book: Self-published books and No Original Research. ॐ Priyanath 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath, I agree with you. My simple query turned into a debate unrelated to the Hinduism topic, and therefore I moved it to the Village pump instead, which is a more apt forum for the underlying question.

More to the point, I think the WP:RS, WP:NOR and Self-published books are an easy argument for keeping the Ninan links off any Wikipedia article (unless, Brahman forbid, there is an article on "Prof" Ninan :-) ). By the way, I don't think WP:NOR is relevant to the issue since that only forbids wikipedia editors from doing "Original Research" here, not from citing OR assuming it is published by reliable sources. Anyway, we can also refer to the discussion on this talk page and validly claim that the sources and their claims have been discussed earlier and found inadequate. Abecedare 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (Corrected my error in understanding of NOR Abecedare 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

^ Ninan

[1] Ninan

[1]