Talk:Hinduism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

IDOL WORSHIP AND POLYTHEISM (Debate)

I've read through many of the angry diabtribes above, which I'm not going to bother to summarize. There are a few things I'd like to say.... one, writing long letters in Hindi does not help with a dialogue. I'm lucky enough I can read and speak it, but others can't. Since this is an English Wikipedia, I think it would be wise to follow an English-posting policy. But... onto the issues at hand:

"IDOL WORSHIP": A long while ago, about two or three years in fact, when the Hinduism page was being torn up and overhauled, we tackled this issue. Unfortunately, the term 'idol', which has no equivalent in Sanskrit or Sanskrit-derived languages, is one that was taught the Indian populace by the British government, which naturally taught Indians their English. No, 'murti' does not carry the denotative slants (outside of 'object used for worship') that 'idol' does, like: " A false god. , one that is adored, often blindly or excessively, and something visible but without substance. [A similar word, used by Urdu-speakers, would be but.]

This is quite a sad fate for Hindu philosophy and worship in the English-speaking mind... a far more neutral term which carries the same general understandings as murti, in English, would be icon, a word whose use I and only a few others have advocated using. Hopefully, its use will grow. For those who insist that because Indians in India use the word idol and have for a century or more that it is therefore stripped of its highly misleading connotative values, I'm sorry, it doesn't do the trick. In spite of a high literacy in English in India, most Indians don't bother to understand the word 'idol' as used by non-Hindu English speakers across the globe. So, idol-worship...

let's define what murtipuja is first... it is typically the veneration of an object as a symbol or meditative conduit to a higher principle or ideal. This is what an icon is. Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself... is this any different from monks in a Catholic church in Venice, during the plague, walking in a cavalcade, holding up a painting of the Madonna and Child, and attributing their escape from the plague to the powers of that icon and thenceforth naming it the "Nikopeia" (bringer of victory)? I don't think so. But the Catholic community would repulse any attempts to call their veneration of icons 'idol-worship.' As a Hindu, as an American, and as an educated man, I find it crosses the line of 'offensive' by Wikipedia standards to continue utilizing the phrase 'idol-worship' when it is, on a religious level, equivalent to calling a black man a 'nigger'.

POLYTHEISM:

I'm not going to list how many places and people I've visited and known in India, or how many books I've read, because there are definitely thousands and perhaps many millions of people who could say they've done more than me. However, let me say this... I have never met a villager, a sadhu, a jogi, a brahmin, from any sect TO DATE, in any area of India or out here in the States, who's espoused a purely polytheistic viewpoint. What does this mean? One can admit of many gods and goddesses, but the declaration of a religious viewpoint as being polytheism would be countervailed by a statement that "ant mein, Bhagavan ekhi hain" (In the end, God is one.)

Whether you talk about Vedantic schools (advaita is sort of monist, but its more than monist, because monism brings to mind a 'seed' monad, which advaita doesn't espouse; the dvaita schools bring it down to Vishnu or the object of bhakti).... yoga.... Tantra.... whatever it might be, practicing Hindus have almost universally looked at the world, the multifarious gods and goddesses, as emanating or deriving their existence from some sort of para-entity, or single uber entity. This may or may not be interpreted as monotheism... while Vaishnavs could very well be called monotheists, advaitists don't have a theistic God-concept, an entity with form, attributes, personality, like Judeo-Christian ideologies do. Here we bring in ideas like 'monism'.

I'd like to see more balance when it comes to calling Hinduism anything from polytheism to monotheism. That's the kind of simplistic statement that obscures more than it clarifies. In addition, the sort of out there polytheism, where there's no para-entity (to use my layman's definition), like with Greek religion, was pretty much over since the coming of the first Upanishads. I think, however, its a cheap ploy to constantly bring up the Nasadeeya Sukta, which comes only in the tenth mandala of the Rig Veda, and claim that Hinduism's never been polytheistic. Hinduism very definitely came from polytheistic roots; the nasadiya represents one of many viewpoints which was being coalesced into a great cultural tradition.

I think one or two of you may be hyperventilating and reacting to a sort of perceived anti-Hindu platform or the lesser Hindu influence which, in the case of trying to keep this article balanced and fair, DOESN'T exist. Please chill, y'all. And keep it in English (or translate on the page) for those who don't understand Hindi. This goes to another annoying habit of Indians who think that knowing Hindi is tantamount to being more Hindu or Indian... it doesn't prove s--t. I'm sorry. Some of you guys are really making me squirm with your long debates, bringing in personal faith and viewpoints... for f--k's sake this is an encyclopedia! Keep your personal faith out of this. I had to learn this the hard way when some guys and I first took the HINDUISM page to FA status...

Anyway... I don't want to sound like a bitter dude... I think the work y'all are doing is great... hopefully, you'll be able to do it in a slightly more copacetic atmosphere. Peace~ --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I like you post (though I have read only the first two or three paragraphs at the moment, and I am sure that the rest also will be equally interesting). But let me make a point now. After 'Pranapratishtha', an icon does not remain just an icon. It has to be considered like a living God, who would get up at a certain time which beautiful music (Ustad Bismillah Khan would wake up the God with his shehnai), then He would take a bath, offered breakfast, give darshana to his devotees and listen to their grieviances, would retire, will be offered lunch, retire again for rest, would wake up in the evening, will put on another dress, give darshana again and again listen to His devotees, will be offered dinner, and then retire for the night in his sleeping attire. This is supposed to be done, in spite of all other things, be it an earthquake or a flood. So I suppose use of the word 'idol' may not be wrong. The same happens with 'shaligramas' in households. The householder or the spouse have to do this without fail, that is why very few people undertake this type of worship. The same is true of Agnihotras, who also cannot leave their daily routine. Please correct me if I am wrong. Aupmanyav 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As for polytheism, forget Nasadeeya Sukta, forget that many Gods are invoked in the Vedas, forget that most regions and even villages have their special Gods, but consider what hindus do today. Go to a temple and you have different enclosures for different Gods/Godesses. In one you would have Sri Rama in the other you would have Sri Krishna, another could have a Durga, and go a little further you would have a shrine of Santoshi Mata, or a shrine of Ganesha or Hanuman. When hindus perform puja ceremony, each and every God is invoked SEPARATELY, one by one, Ganesha first, with full procedure, first cleaning yourself bodily and mentally to be fit enough to perform the ceremony, then cleaning and decorating the earth where their seat would be placed, then placing the seat and decorating it, then when the God/Godess is supposed to have come, you clean their feet with water, offer them water for cleaning their mouth, welcome them with a tilak on their foreheads, shower on them rice and flowers, offer them fruits, help them to take their bath with ganga water, milk, sugar, honey, curd, and refined butter, offer them yagnopavit, put on them Sandal paste, put on them perfumes, offer them new clothes, decorate Abir (Yellow) and Gulal (Red) powder, then offer them food and water to drink, then you offer them betel nuts, and then at last ask them to participate and bless the ceremony. At the end of the ceremony (Purnahuti) they would be thanked profusely and politely asked to return to their abodes (Visarjana). It is just like you would treat honored guests to a function. Hundreds of millions of hindus do that and would not think their ceremony complete without it. You still think 'bhagawan ek hai'? Some is a father, some is a mother, some is a son, some is a brother, some is a servant to another God or Godess (as Hanuman is for Rama). They are all different. I would request you not to put all hindus in one basket. Of course, it is perfectly OK if you and many others have a particular kind of view (Bhagawan ek hai). There is no 'ism' that you would not find in hinduism, and from the last century, you have to include even the increasing number of atheists in the fold because many hindus are that now. It does not matter, since we have the concept of a 'nirguna brahman' which can cater to them also. As regard your mention of hindi-knowing people to be more hindus, that is not correct and based on prejudice. What if they do not know Hindi or Sanskrit, they can use any other of the 20 or 30 sister languages in India or a foreign language if they live in some other country in their life or in their ceremonies. My family and I visited Dwarika and Somnath recently, there were devotees from all states of India and some from foreign coutries also, including Nepal, and what stops them if they are from Europe or America, or Fiji or Guyana, or Maldives or Srilanka, or from Malaysia or West Indies, or South Africa or Kenya. Hindus are hindus. With regards. Aupmanyav 20:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in my post, 'idol' carries the idea of an 'insubstantial object,' a 'fruitless' sort of worship of a false God or the veneration of an object as the Godhead itself in its entirety. This has NOTHING to do with the way Hindus worship their murtis and do puja... Note something I wrote: "Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself..." This goes to what you spoke about... but 'idol' is still an extremely inappropriate term and icon is a lot more fair. Personally, I wish we could just use murti and avoid usage of Judeo-Christian terms like "idol" and "icon" all together... the latter two have too much baggage. Nothing you've written has changed my conviction that idol is the wrong terminology to use.

And please... DO NOT make assumptions about what I have and haven't participated in... DO NOT assume you know who I am... DO NOT assume where in India or outside I haven't been... DO NOT assume you know my religious or non-religious backgrounds.... if you have a hint of understanding about international standards of academic debate, you'll try to keep in mind that ad hominem (or against the individual) is the WRONG way to go. It's very UN-wikilike and I will call a moderator if you do it again. I point to this comment of yours: "It seems that you might not have participated in such a ceremony" .... it's not terrible, but it's not good either. Stick to the conversation at hand.

As for your comments on polytheism: Would you call the Catholics polytheists because they separately, in turn, venerate the "Father," and the "Son," and the "Holy Ghost"? A tripartite Godhead? No. Polytheism accepts no 'para' or uber entity. It doesn't matter how much you talk about a temple having multiple deities... the very fact that Hindus will worship all and sundry without casting aspersions on any particular deity, or saying one is true or the other false, and that most Hindus find it much easier to go to a Church and worship than for Christians to attend a mosque or a temple, is a testament to this philosophical idea. Max Mueller himself found problems with a simple 'polytheism' label not even for later, or 'classical' Hinduism (which we're well past now), but even for early Vedic Hinduism, calling them 'panentheists'. Even a colonial-bred indologist had enough discernment in his head to oversimplify. I think we shouldn't either.

As for the Hindi part, the whole point I was making with the 'Hindi' reference, as a Bengali myself, was that it is bogus for people to start spouting in Hindi on an English wikipedia page just because the article has to do with Hinduism. So yes, I know. I haven't argued that polytheism didn't form an important part of Hinduism, particular in its early stages and also in its persisting forms of worship. But the nirguna and saguna forms of brahamaNa, the debates surrounding it, and the major sects of Hinduism (Shaivaite, Vaishnav, Shakta, Smarta) attest to its importance... they don't appeal to an ULTIMATELY polytheistic viewpoint... they accept multiple gods and goddesses as emanations of a singular godhead or 'uber'-entity.... that's a far cry from the sort of basic polytheism you're so wedded to. And I'm not even taking into account Yogic and Tantric sects. Peace~ --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User Aupmanyav's reply to User LordSuryaofShropshire: Aupmanyav 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH YOU, in that case perhaps it would be better to use the original word 'murti'. I hope you are keeping in mind the difference between a consecreted 'murti' (Prana Pratishtha) and one which is not. Images or 'murtis' in household are not consecreted. They would not require the same procedures as a consecreted image does. A consecreted image is God/Godess Him/Herself. I am least concerned with what a catholic priest does in Venice or in Venezuela, that does not worry me. As the Islamic God directed in Qur'an with reference to Kafirs, 'To you your faith, to me mine'. Why should the two be compared? You said 'let's define what murtipuja is first... it is typically the veneration of an object as a symbol or meditative conduit to a higher principle or ideal.' Let me put before you that multitude of hindus do not consider a 'murti' just that. You also said 'Now, it is beyond a doubt that many people in India and without put great stock in the image or statue itself..', then there should be no need for further debate. Let us honor the belief of all these hindus in this article.

Again, regarding polytheism, you start with a comparision between Catholics and Hindus, of which there is no need at all. Why hindus worship 'all and sundry' hindu Gods and Godesses because many of them are polytheists. I do not understand any reason why a hindu should go to a church for worship unless he is thinking of converting to christianity. How does it matter If Max muller called hindus pantheists, he had no authorioty in hinduism. He said many other things which also are disputed now. There are various views in the hindu fold, Madhva advocated worship of Krishna only, Adi Sankara advocated worship of six. Colonial-bred indologists or socialists-inclined indologists or any other person may say whatever he/she may want. But finally, it is a hindu's right to choose what he/she would believe. He/she is under no obligations to anyone, not even to the great acharyas of hinduism.

You are a bengali, bengali is truly one of the most beautiful languages of India, many bengalis are followers of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Bibekanondo, but hinduism is even more than them. Polytheism was important to hinduism in its early stages and it is so even now. The debate on saguna and nirguna brahman has no priority over it. I believe in equal space to all beliefs of hinduism. I am not wedded to polytheism, I am an atheist, but would resist the tendency of one ideology to dominate over any other. And why are you not taking into account Yogic and Tantric or even Aghora tantra? They also are a valid part of hinduism. In the end, allow me take the offending part of my last post back. Regards. Aupmanyav 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Shantam Papam Nashanam! Pl. sign your comments. In spite of lot of checking of history, it's difficult to pin-point whose comments are this and who is replying whom. If possible, if comment is made to a particular editor, pl. address it to him so others understand the debate. Are the entire long comments are of one person? swadhyayee 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is an endless debate without single conclusion about multi-God or one God in Hinduism, I think that the editors need additional study before emphasizing their views. I believe, Hinduism is believing of one God in multiple forms as suits to an individual. The editors here seems to be confused by mixing philosophy based on knowledge and rituals or way of worship of Hindus. The knowledge or the Jnan advocate one God in any form that suits to an individual. This belief is acknowledged by almost all Hindus in spite of their worshipping their own preferential deity. There may exist a special bond amongst people worshipping one deity but there is no seclusion from worshippers of other deities. Let me clear that Devtas or Devis are never considered to be God. People worship Ganesh as Vighnaharta. Laxmi for being blessed for wealth. Saraswati for being blessed for knowledge. No one will ever claim that these Devtas or Devis they worship for Moksha. Devtas or Devis are believed to be provider of material comforts.

Regarding the word "idol", if a knowledgable editor from us tell that the world "idol" has poor connotations, I think we should readily jump and accept his contention and make necessary change. I was one of those who objected of the word "idol" to be changed to "icon" but agreed instantly when the editor explained the fact. However, I am strongly of the view that our words should be used and let the world know our words like Murti, Puja, Devtas, Devis etc. We have contributed a lot to English dictionary. When Britishers accepted our words, why do our own editors resist?

Am I going to be helpful in understanding of Multi God or One God concept and God and Devtas? swadhyayee 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not use the terms murthi or deity, instead of idol? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, that is the one thing that Aupmanyav and LordSurya agreed on, that is better to use the word murti instead of idol. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee. If what you describe as 'Jnana' advocating one God disregards 'Brahman' (wherein you say 'Aham Brahmasmi', 'Tat Twam Asi', 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma', what God?), then it is only half hinduism and it is not 'Jnana'. I suppose Wikipedia would not like to present only half or a part of Hinduism. The conclusion should be 'Vipra bahudha vadanti', this is right for some people, that is right for some other people, none is wrong. That is basic Hinduism. Aupmanyav 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, sorry, I couldn't understand you. I believe, God is Nirgun Nirakar and Sagun Sakar too. Nirgun Nirakar God creator of n' number of forms can also take a form to fulfill "Yada, Yada hi Dharmsya, Glanir Bhavati Bharat". Wikipedia is going to be for common people and not for Mandan Mishra and Shankaracharya, so there is no need to worry about presenting half thing. Any day, Hinduism on Wikipedia will be open for correction. Assuming a 100% perfect article is created, any moment any one will change it. I have not learnt Sanskrut and I have not heard on Vipra Bahudha Vadanti so I am not able to understand what you desire me to understand. swadhyayee 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, :), there is no further to understand for you, what you understand is wholly correct. How can I dispute the personal beliefs of a fellow hindu? Yes, 'sharanagati' (total surrender to the deity) is the remedy for all worldly ills. Aupmanyav 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji,,

If you modify your own message after a lapse of time within which somebody might have viewed it, you are expected to write in edit summary that you are revising your comments so as to enable for a 2nd reading. Aupmanyavji, isn't it too much to say that what others think are personal beliefs of a person? Even if they are personal beliefs, they may be beliefs of many and not one. I think, no one could claim that one knows entire Hinduism or one is authority in Hinduism and beliefs or knowledge of others are not part of Hinduism. Isn't Hinduism too wide a thing to describe? There are people who believe Nirgun Nirakar, there are people who believe Sagun Sakar and there are people who believe in both. I think, majority of Hindus venerate Sagun Sakar Bhagawan. Acceptance of other beliefs is Hinduism. swadhyayee 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, thanks for telling me about how to revise a post, I did not know that. I do not know why you are (I think) perturbed when I talk about personal beliefs. It does not entail a slight to anybody. I also have my personal beliefs. It really does not matter if only one person has similar views or a hundred million have similar views. I quite agree that my type of views are not common in Hinduism and most do believe in polytheism, monotheism, or weak monism (which accepts the existence of a God). I am a strong Brahmavadin. Sure, no one, not even a scholar (I am not one) is likely to know all that hindus may believe. But all that can be covered in just a few words that 'Hinduism gives freedom of personal belief'. This sentence compresses all these various beliefs into it. We all have our personal beliefs and are entitled to them. So, where is the disagreement? Aupmanyav 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Revised Aupmanyav 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Raja Yoga/Jnana Yoga sections

There is too much detail. Bhakti/Karma Yoga both have a good amount of information. Any extra detail can go to the Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga pages. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have still not understood what Raja Yoga is, if it is not Jnana Yoga or Hatha Yoga. To me it is a word that has been picked up by the modern gurus who are selling their merchandise in India and in foreign countries. Aupmanyav 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mahaṛṣi Patanjali is not a modern guru. Also, Raja Yoga can be considered as very analagous to the Dhyana Yoga as described in the Bhagavad Gita. I am sure you know that Raja Yoga is not Hatha Yoga, but is intertwined with Jnaana Yoga. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What does one do in Dhyana, one thinks and tries to understand, so it is the same as Jnana Yoga, is it not? Aupmanyav 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. I do not follow Yoga or Vedanta, nor can I be considered an authority on the Yoga Sutras. As I understand from a Śaiva point of view, Dhyāna is remembering and contemplating His or One's own nature, while Jñāna Yoga is studying śastras. This does indeed empower Dhyāna moreso, however it is the Vedantin point of view that Karma Yoga in the form of seva also empowers the practice of Dhyān. Thus, they are indeed related, but distinct. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sujit, IMHO, there is no difference. Even when one studies sastras, one always thinks whether they match with what we find in life, we contemplate, this can be done only with full dhyana, one-minded concentration, otherwise we would not understand sastras. Aupmanyav 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

'Raja Yoga is mainly concerned with the mind, its modifications and its control.' That is what Swami Shivananda says about it. How is it different from Jnana Yoga? Perhaps someone would elaborate. Aupmanyav 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, Dhyana Yoga is the process of maintaining awareness on Brahman, while Jnana Yoga is process of knowing Brahman. The reason why these two must be separate is because they can exist on their own: one may contemplate on an apple, a tree, the universe, their own notion of God, without jnana, and they will be carried to that realization. Similarly, one may realize God without that prolonged awareness, by simply bringing into reality that intellectual knowledge; that is Jnana Yoga. For example, think of a wild theoretical physicist who solves the ultimate question and proves, beyond all (of his own) doubts, that God exists, and that he is God; that is the essence of self realization with jnana yoga. The reason why you may be thinking of the two as one, is because almost no one practices Dhyan without practicing Jnan and vice versa. Patanjali makes it clear that a major obstacle in meditation is not having the accurate Jnana. Note, this will not ultimately deter in the end, as Rsis were able to be carried to that point with nothing. Practicing Dhyan without Jnana is like reinventing the wheel, but it is possible, because they are distinct. On that same note, most Hindus do not practice Jnana by themselves with the serious hope of self realization. You must see that the idea of moving useless intellectual knowledge into ones actual reality by one's own limited intellect is a strange thing to even conceive of. Thus, that movement of intellectual knowledge to realized knowledge happens through Dhyan. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 22:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rig Veda, theoretically?

The article says 'RigVeda is theoretically the most sacred and supreme scriptural authority.' IMHO, theoretically is superficial here. I suppose there is no doubt in any hindu mind that the book is the most important for us. So, one could say so practically also. I suggest that the word theoretically be removed. Aupmanyav 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to describe the Vedas because Hindus regard it as very sacred but not that many people have read it or try to understand it. The majority of Hindus study newer texts like the Bhagavad Gita which are supposed to tell the "essence of the Vedas." Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Though Hindus consider Ṛg Veda as the most sacred and supreme scriptural authority, only paṇḍits study it, and most others study more easily understood smṛitis." ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Saiva here, basically I have actually read the Rig Veda and understand it, but it does seem a whole lot different from the Upanishads or even the Bhagavad Gita for example. Well thats my opinion. — Seadog 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "Among such texts, the Vedas are the most ancient, and form the foundation of Hindu philosophy." ? By calling them the "foundation" we cover not only the point that the Vedas form the basis for Hindu thought, but also the fact that they have been variously interpreted, summarized and expanded. Abecedare 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I love it, foundation or basis is the perfect word to describe the Vedas. They are no longer studied as much as before but all Hindu concepts are traced back to them. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Foundation, again, it is not the only source. A building is built on many stilts. So is hinduism. If Vedas provide Brahman, other native beliefs provide Vishnu, Shiva, Mother Godess, and a host of other deities. Exclusivity, my friend, is not a characterstic of Hinduism. Aupmanyav 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly one a hundred thousand of our one billion may have read Valmimki's Ramayana, but that does not matter, because we have read Tulsi's Awadhi Ramayana, Kambana's Tamil Ramayana, Madhava Kandali's Assamese Ramayana, Krittivasa's Bengali Ramayana, Thunchaththu Ezhuthachan's Malayalam Ramayana, Balarama Das' Oriya Ramayana, Ranganatha's Telugu Ramayana, Premanand's Gujarati Ramayana, Narahari's Kannada Ramayana, Sridhara's Marathi Ramayana. Similarly people may not have read the Vedas but the principle's propounded in them pervade hindu mindset. We are born into it, and that makes a difference. Aupmanyav 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav is absolutely right. Very few have read the Vedas but the principles are in the Hindu mindset.

Raj2004 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Could the first paragraph be changed to the follwing, perhaps it reads better. I have made no additions or substractions in the content, only a rearrangement.

'The word 'Hindu' is derived from 'Hapta-Hendu' of the Avesta, the sacred scripture of Zorastrians of Persia (Vendidad: Fargard 1.18). It corresponds to 'Sapta-Sindhu' (the land of seven rivers), the northwestern part of Indian subcontinent. Sindhu (Sanskrit: सिन्धु) literally means a river, Sea, or a large body of water. Sindhu is the Indian name of River Indus which finds extensive mention in the Rig Veda of the Indo-Aryans, which hindus adopted as their most important scripture. The term 'Hindu' was used by Persians for people who lived in the Indian subcontinent around or beyond the Sindhu.'

As for the second paragraph, I think it may not be necessary (except for our linguist friend Cygnus_hansa), and perhaps could be dispensed with in the interest of need for shortening length of the article. :) Aupmanyav 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I already reomoved a paragraph in between the two remaining because it was about the word "India" was derived which should only be in the India article, not here. We should probably remove the second paragraph too. As you say only linguists would find it interesting. Perhaps we can add an extra sentence or two in order to compensate for the removal of the second paragraph? Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The linguistic argument cannot be done away with. Cygnus_hansa 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In the democratic environment of Wikipedia, 'the linguistic argument should not be done away with' sounds better. Aupmanyav 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

polytheism to monotheism or even monism

Ha, ha, somebody sure has reservations about Aupmanyav's type of atheistic Nirguna Brahmanism? Aupmanyav 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we can allow your own specific Hindu atheist views. We can definitely mention the Sankhya and Mimansa atheism. What we can say somewhere in the article that "Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta can be interpreted atheistically", which I have read in academic books. We would also need a source for something which may sound controversial otherwise. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, I don't know who you are referring to, since the phrasing you quote pre-dates the recent discussion listed above. (see diff) and was not an attempt to leave atheism out. Please assume good faith - it helps in resolving the debates that are bound to arise.

That aside, I have updated the phrasing in the article as per the most recent discussion - since I didn't hear any objections. You'll note that the word atheism links to the Atheism in Hinduism article, and so I don't think that topic needs further caveats, clarifications or expansion here since it is dealt in detail in an article of its own. Abecedare 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Aupmanyav I do. I don't think Advaita conceives of an atheistic Nirguna Brahman. Adi Sankara, if I recall correctly, found the concept of a personal God limiting, as defining God with features. That's why he conceived of Nirguna Brahman. any other ideas?

Raj2004 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I am not pointing at anybody and I am not asking for a change. These are not my views, they have been recorded in many hindu scriptures. I am just amused that how we had the knowledge and how it has come to be covered with theism (not that everybody can understand, so no problem with theism too). Kena Upanishad (1-5) said "Know that alone to be Brahman, not that which people adore here". Aupmanyav 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindi?

Why is there Hindi in the intro? It should only be sanskrit.--D-Boy 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there, why not Tamil or Bengali? Aupmanyav 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it should probably be Sanskrit. — Seadog^Talk 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this already been rectified? I was looking but could not find the Hindi you are talking about. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

philospohical discourse

There are pages for our resident philosophers to edit. Samkhya Sutra, Mimamsa Sutra, etc. Please do take a look, its more worth your effort to write pages on these things so that normal people understand what you guys are talking about and can use some sort of reference to explain things. Do note that (if my area of the world is representative) about .0001 of Hindus have heard of Mimamsa/Samkhya/nirguna.Bakaman 06:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes the Hindus "in your area" Hindu then? It would be good if you can list some ideas on what non-guru Hindus do. I like the amount of philosophy in this version though. It is not as much as two years ago in the Featured version. This version has common Hindu stuff like Puja and Temples. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baka, Sankhya, Mimansa etc. are matter of study for other than average. Normally, students of philosophy and Sanyasis or those who want to be Sanyasis can devote the time needed. Our philosophy expound in thousands of pages. We can just list these sort of things in this article. In seperate articles too, we can just describe but can't provide philosophy of these scriptures. DaGizza, temple and Puja are relevant in this article. I agree with you that focus of this article should be on philosophy but I feel only basics of philosophy could be included. swadhyayee 07:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream is like BAPS, Chinmaya Mission, Swadhyaya Parivar, HSS. Those are definitely the big four where I live. ISKCON is quite big here too. I was referring above about the long discussions on the talk pages which arent really adding to the page itself. I encourage the people knowledageable on philosophy to add to Mimamsa Sutra (been fallow for 4 months). What makes people Hindu is a belief in the Agamas, Murti puja, Ramayan, Gita, Mahabharat (for more in-depth people like me a bit of Rigveda). LAst but not least Hindu-tattva.Bakaman 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baks, I surmise that you live in Gujarat (BAPS is the local flavour there, elsewhere, it is heresy). Main Stream hinduism is not BAPS, not Chinmaya Mission, not Swadhyaya Parivar, not RSS. Like its Brahman, it is neti, neti. It worships a host of deities, though it is not against considering the 'alpha males' among them as emanations of one (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva). It also realizes that non-living and living (including him/herself), all have a common material. So it is Polytheist, monotheist, and monist, all at the same time. If you are a polytheist, it will convincingly argue against polytheism, if you are a monotheist, it will effectively argue against monotheism, and if you are a monist, it will give you a whole list of points why you should not be a monist. IMHO, it is naturally iconoclast. Do you get what I mean? Aupmanyav 07:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Aupmanyav) Yes, I agree with you Swadhyayee that only the basics of Hindu philosophy should be added. I think you misunderstood me because I never said that Puja and temples are not relevant. I said they should be included as well as the non-philosophical stuff.

To Baka, what you say is mainstream in your area is Hindu_reform_movements and organisations, which may be the case. I think most Hindus still don't strongly follow any of these types of organisations. Out of all of the Hindus I know in Sydney, Australia I know one family which is (sort of) part of ISKON and nobody else is affiliated with any particular movement. So in that sense, I don't think we should focus on these contemporary movements especially since there are too many to talk about. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Gizza, there have been many such movements in Hinduism all the times, in the end they tend to peter out, even Buddhism and Jainism. Aupmanyav 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DaGizza, that active organisations have a certain number of followers. Collectively they are in thousands but % wise they are low, yet have impact on society. I was actively associated with Swadhyay Parivar. The followers may be 500-600 in suburb of Mumbai whose population is more than 1.2 million. This remains the fact, in spite of large section of this population are Hindus. In villages they may be 5 to 200/300 in population of 1500 to 2500. My personal feeling is one's religious mindedness in daily life is contended with lighting a "Deepak" before deities or some sort of Puja; Listening discourses on Bhagawat, Geeta or Ramayan and following rites. Mostly religious minded people either get attached to any such organisation or form a small organisation of their own. These groups can't have a place in Hinduism beyond some reference at the most. At the same time, they can not be ridiculed as they follow some sort of Hindu philosophy.

Aupmanyavji, as far as I know, Baka is not from Gujarat nor he is Gujarati. swadhyayee 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to all- Im in the middle of the US, no I'm not Gujju, I'm Tamil. Outside of India, Hindu orgs represent a majority of Hindus. Do refer to Parisada Hindu Dharma, Unione Induista Italia, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh and BAPS (the fastest growing Hindu org on the planet). O and Aupmanyav nobody that does seva for Hindu Dharma is a heretic. Just because BAPS and Swadhyayee engage in hero-worship does not lessen their worth. Pandurang S. Athavale's knowleage on Hindu scriptures is quite amazing.Bakaman 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think outside of India Hindu orgs represent the majority of Hindus. It is true that most Hindu converts are part of an organisation (but even some converts are not affiliated with anything) but most Hindus throughout the world are 1) not very religous and therefore 2) won't be associated with a particular movement. I recently went to a Sai Baba Mandir and while I respect him and his followers, I don't consider him to be above any of the other Swamis. Compared to Christianity where Catholics and Protestants are rigouously defined, the boundaries are more blurry in Hinduism as a whole. Look at List_of_Hindu_temples (note it is incomplete) and see that most temples are not connected with a particular organisation. However, I'm not saying that these organisations are bad in any way, just that modern Hinduism isn't based around these few movements. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DaGizza on this one. — Seadog^Talk 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes DaGizza is right. Those Hindus who do not get contended with their in-house ritualistic Puja and desire to protect the society from evils of materialistic life and enjoyment of sensual objects, come out and attach themselves for spread of religious doctrines. Many of them desire to do something and take the means to create some organisation or nurture some existing organisation. Mostly, close deciples of some teacher/Swami get themselves involved in spread of teacher/Swami's activities. The claim of DaGizza that most Hindus through out the world are not very religious is subjective depending upon how you define religion. People practice religion within their individual limits. Some keep the limits very low and flexible whereas some keep it high and rigid. Those whose limits are low and flexible could be seen as bit less religious. swadhyayee 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Swadhyayee to the discussion. — Seadog^Talk 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Swadhyayee that defining "religious" is subjective but I was using that point for my main argument which was most Hindus even outside India aren't involoved in a particular organisation like Baka is saying. I tried to argue that using your description Hindus who "keep the limits low and flexible" would not be part of a special movement. I don't follow any particular pundit or swami. I definitely have preferences because I may agree with some more than others but I believe all knowledgeable gurus/pundits/swamis are entitled to have their own opinion and that I will gain a deeper understanding of the shastras if I listen to as many as possible. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, What Baka says is Baka's experience. From what I have heard of Swadhyay Parivar after financial frauds and violence coming to light, Hindus in foreign countries want to be in their own society. The meetings of this religious group is social gathering for them. For those whom principles and sanctity in religious organisation like Swadhyay Parivar was of prime importance left Swadhyay Parivar whereas for those whom leaving Swadhyay Parivar meant to be secluded from their own Hindu society sticked to Swadhyay Parivar. They shield their eyes to the wrong and help in covering or justifying wrongs. Now, Swadhyay Parivar has started stating that the killers of Pankaj Trivedi were not Swadhyayees in spite of all 10 of arrested people being staunch Swadhyayees and 3 of them being from close circle of Jayshree Talwalkar (Didi) the head of Swadhyay Parivar. My point is their association is purely for remaining in Hindu society for social enjoyment then religious objectives. A lot of them want to be in some or other religious activities to protect their children from evils of west.

The fact remains that there are lot who join in such organisations/activities to improve their social image and gain social status. I have seen people join this type of organisations for getting their offsprings married. I have seen people joining to increase their business. Sorry, if I am out of topic.

One more thing, those who keep their limits low or flexible, I mean that those who wants to be flexible in observing religious dictates are seen bit less religious. Like veg. Hindu converting to Non-veg. or people resorting to drinks are seen as less religious even though they may be more religious than their counter parts. swadhyayee 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Raply to swadhyayeee - The new swadhyay is messed up I agree, but still major religious figures like Srila Prabhupada, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Swami Ghananda, Pandurang Shastri Athavale, and Gedong Bagus Oka have inspired revivial in Hinduism. Swadhyay went bad after didi came.Bakaman 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The religiosity of a person also depends on his age. A young person may not care much, as he grows older, his beliefs change. As for the various Gods and Babas springing up like toads in rains in the recent days, I would like to ask as to who is not a God in Hinduism? Remember 'Tat Twam Asi' (You are that). Kalki would come only at the end of the yuga only 427,000 years from now, There is no space for any other in the interregnum. If anybody tries, that is heresy. Aupmanyav 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaksar, all. Aupmanyavji, I personally would leave the labeling of unorthodox organizations or people as heretics to some of the other traditions, that have grown quite fond of such labeling. As per Baka's original statement, I am all in favor of providing as much information to those respective articles on the shat darshanas as per normal wiki practice. I also agree with Gizza that the Hinduism article is better fitted as it is today with less emphasis on its difficult philosophies. I would advocate that instead of everyone here picking their favorite Hindu orgs, as there indeed are several, and placing a convenient link to them here, creating a seperate list of hindu org's article, that we may reference from here but populate there, with as many as we can scavange. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Saiva. The discussion was becoming off-topic but you returned to the Baka's orignal comment. To Swad. & Baka, I never said Hindu orgs are a bad thing. I am proud that so many exist. I was meant to say that they are definitely not the only thing. To Aupmanyav, saying one's religiousity increases with age is a bit stereotypical. I know some people who were very religious early on in their lives and don't care as much now. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, I am in agreement with Baka and you than any dis-agreement. I am also in agreement with Saiva_Sujit. swadhyayee 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I like how the article is at the moment. it's simple, mentions the common scriptures, customs, and traditions. It's not overly wordy and it's not too long. it's always better to keep the article simple because nonHindus are always confused about hinduism. Also, in American mainstream Hinduism, not many people join those organizations. They mostly go to temple for festivals and hold a function. can't speak about hare krishnas but they're in their own world.--D-Boy 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good. Everyone is in agreement. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See sections Islam#Contemporary_Islam and Judaism#The_present_situation . something like that could be accomodated.Bakaman 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Baks, 'Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Swami Ghananda, Panduranga Shastri Athavale, and Gedong Bagus Oka'. I know about SrilaPrabhupad, I have heard Swadhyayee talk about Panduranga Shastri Athavale and even visited the website. Who are the rest of illustrious persona, not that I am much concerned about them. Aupmanyav 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do visit Swami Ghanananda and Gedong Bagus Oka ( I created the hindi wiki page on her as well). Ghananda was the foremost Hindu missionary to Africa, and Gedong Bagus Oka started Parisada Hindu Dharma Indonesia. Thanks to the seva from her and other figures (Ketut Wiana, I Putu Sukreta Suranta, etc) the % of Hindus in Indonesia has gone from 1% up to 6%.Bakaman 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Baks, I would surely visit their websites. Thanks for the information. Aupmanyav 18:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Hinduism

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Hinduism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need a separate page on Masturbation in Hinduism? The topic is already covered by the Wiki article on Masturbation. Aupmanyav 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not a porn site, this is definitely something far (eons, parsecs) from Hindu pracices. The only notable thing connecting Hinduism and this nasty stuff may be Kama Sutra.Bakaman 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaste Bakaji, While I can understand your discomfort with this topic, it is not unreasonable to provide information on it. For instance, you and I, both as Hindus and Humans, would consider murder reprehensible, however, as wikipedians, we must be ready to provide an article about Hindu views on murder, talking about ahinsa, etc. should we need to. Unfortunately, I do find some mistakes in CyberAnth's reference to Tantrika practices/views on masturbation. There is no siva-yogini involved in masturbation, and is a means to anything, but instead a wasteful indulgence. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article section on Hinduism, as it stands, came from the main article, masturbation. I hope through Hindus' assistance to correct the false information and beneficially add to it for the sake of chronicling human knowledge in this area. CyberAnth 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The people to whom Kama Sutra belongs are not likely to experience any discomfort in discussing masturbation, or sodomy, or lesbianism. That is besides the point. Sujit, As I mentioned in my post above, the topic is already there in the Wikipage on Masturbation. Why do we need a separate page on 'masturbation in hinduism'? CyberAnth knows that such an article 'might not be peaceful, and be conflict-ridden' as he mentioned at a user's talkpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lyrl). Is it scholarship, or slandering, or pornography, or seeking conflict, what does he want? Aupmanyav 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav is right that the topic is already discussed at Masturbation#Religious_views. My guess is that CyberAnth (and others) plan to expand on the topic (i.e., "Religious views on masturbation", not "Masturbation in Hinduism" alone) and break it out in an article of its own. If there is enough reliably sourced material on the subject, clearly, this is a wise move and I don't see why it should be considered pornographic or filthy in the least. Abecedare 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Abecedare has read my intent accurately. Please know that I strongly share your disdain for pornography and that I very much agree that this article is beneficial to human knowledge. CyberAnth 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality was never seen as a taboo nor was it revered to any great extent in ancient India. People just realised that it was a part of life kama. It only became a taboo when the Muslim kings and British arrived and now India is seen as one of the most sexually intolerant and fearful countries in the world. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, that sounds like some very interesting information that might be added to the article. CyberAnth 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps what Indians abhor is exhibitionism, and not sex. We believe sex belongs to the bedroom. Aupmanyav 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea of discussing this would not come to a good mind. We are not here to give other than philosophicy or rituals. Not even Kamasutra. The moment such topics come, focus from philosophy will be lost. Today, the gentleman! has come with this one topic, tomorrow one may ask to discuss about menstruation, un-natural sex, gay, lesbian, oral sex, extra-marital relationships, key-clubs etc. in Hinduism. I don't think, such things are discussed in Hindu philosophy. Kamsutra is in no way religious scripture. It's a topic of art. When you talk about any matter, you talk about essential parts and not dirt. I don't think that the proposal has any good motives. We should not be carried away from apparent good language of a proposal. How many of the current editors have thought of contributing in sexual articles or articles of pervert practice? If no one, why did it not occur to us? Those who want to sublimate in spiritual life, keep themselves away from such topics and thinking, that is Hinduism. Is the matter discussed here is individual or a social practice? Hinduism states that even the intercourse should only be restricted for objective of procreation only. This is what is being told by our sages. Our sages have told about "Sanyam". I do not know, how Saiva_Sujit and Aupmanyavji favour this discussion? Even someone here now, when the article is almost over, is suggesting to incorporate conversion to christainity, someone suggest to bring Ninan nuisance here. I don't see the intentions of such proposers or supporters to be bonafide. Is someone interested in seeing that this article do not duly shine? swadhyayee 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, it is unfortunate that you are counting me as a supporter. I was the first to point out that it is not correct and that the topic is already covered on a Wiki page. Makes me wonder if it is just some prejudice against me? Aupmanyav 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar Swadhyayeeji. I am not in favor of a major association of Masturbation with Hinduism, but if they are creating an article or even a section of an article with it, then I think we should contribute what we can, to accurately represent Hindu Dharma. I edited the section here, striking out most of what I thought was irrelevant. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Aupmanyavji, my comments were out of views in my memory that you have been compromising and supporting than fiercely resisting. I think, we have to protect the plantation from goats. There is no prejudice against you. swadhyayee 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to know that we are both on one side. However 'Hinduism states that even the intercourse should only be restricted for objective of procreation only' may not be correct. The normal blessing to a hindu women always is 'Shata Putravati Bhava' (May you have a hundred sons). In Hindi we say 'Dudhon Nahao, Pooton Phalo' (May you be prosperous enough to bathe in milk, may you be laden with sons like trees laden with fruits). There was always a backlog and every hindu householder and his wife had to work overtime to accomplish that. Few succeeded, like Gandhari, some overdid it, like Maharaja Sagar (with sixty thousand sons), Daksha succeeded only partly (with 28 daughters). We have not yet counted daughters. Between two sons there must have been one or two daughters. So, I do not think hindus ever subscribed to once-in-a-year sex whatever the sages said. Thanks. Aupmanyav 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said that sex for procreation of one child. Regarding 60 thousand sons, I feel that the mathemetical terminology could be different then and the figures in thousands were many folds more than actual as we count today. I have heard so or read so. Other possibility is a teacher considered his pupils to be his sons. Our Gotras indicate this. I don't state anything of my own. I must have heard it or read it in Manusmruti like things. When they want sex pervert thing to be discussed, I just said that the sages advise sex to this limit. If, you see the contribution of the proposer, he seems to be interested only in disgusting subjects. swadhyayee 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this part of the discussion, well I have no clue on what the exact stance would be on this subject. As from reading various texts and philosophy there is nothing exactly stated about this. So I honestly wouldn't know what to do, is there anyone who knows? — Seadog^Talk 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sex is an act of kama and dharma in grhastha. However, it is important to realize that this is not the topic. The topic here is masturbation. It is vaidika thought to not condone or to forbid masturbation but instead dismiss it (for brahmacaris) as a distraction from their brahmacarya dharma of studying, etc. It may be seen as kama for grhasthas and for retirees, and generally not performed by sannyasins but this is very subjective. From a tantrika perspective, sex may kama or as dharma for grhasthis as well, but it can also fall under kramacarya. This is called kama-kala which is maintaining awareness on the conjunction of siddha and yogini, however this is not limited to sexual intercourse. When the yogini, form, is united with the siddha, sight, this is also called kama-kala. There is no siddha-yogini in masturbation. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On a different note, I am reminded of Acarya Abhinavagupta's concluding verse of the fourth chapter of his Gitartha Sangrah (His commentary on the Bhagavad Gita): "विधत्ते कर्म यत्किञ्चिदक्षेच्छामात्रपूर्वकम् | तेनैव शुभभाजः स्युस्तृप्ताः करणदेवताः ||" vidhatte karma yaktiñcidakṣecchāmātrapūrvakam // tenaiva śubhabhājaḥ syustṛptāḥ karaṇadevatāḥ. He is saying that your mind and sense organs flow towards the objective world, so instead of wasting your time, trying to subdue and control your mind and sense-organs, get that thing that you want; enjoy it: then you will be clear to meditate. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say masturbation was unknown in ancient India, the brahmacharis were busy in their studies and physical exercises (I have tried it myself, you can control the urge with pushups and situps), grahasthas had full access to normal sex with one or more wives. That is why there is hardly any mention in books. Though the discussion hardly belongs to this page. Aupmanyav 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, to see the tendency to number of editors to beat around bush and not state firmly what is one feeling about a thing. When we talk about Hinduism, we have to talk about Hindu ideology or just mention some im-practability or changes. I don't think, any sages or socialites would have bothered to talk about some pervert acts of individual. In Hinduism, no one was to think about sex for 1st 25 years of life which is advocated for study like arts and spiritual quest. Even after the period of Brahmacharyashram was over, one could marry only after his teacher gave permission was the rule. Let's pl. not mix Kama-Sutra and Philosophy. Here the topic is religion - a topic to project ideas of purpose of human life. Tomorrow, someone would ask what does Hinduism say about toilet habits? Do we have this type of thinking in our philosophy? Is it significant? Idiots will come out with any suggestions, how much should we respond? See the contribution of proposer, his all contributions have nothing to do with sublimation of a human being or any way important. He talks about size of penis of Indians being small. WHY DO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND WASTE TIME AND ENERGY IN DISCUSSING SOMETHING BROUGHT OUT BY SUCH PERVERTS ON THIS PAGE? DO WE NOT FEEL TO SHOW HIM THE DOOR? swadhyayee 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is in fact an important distinguishment between Hinduism and most conservative, repressive, Western and/or Abrahamic religions. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry couldn't understand what you try to say. swadhyayee 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes me too Saiva what do you mean, please clarify. — Seadog^Talk 04:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaste Swadhyayeeji and Seadogji. I only meant that I think this is not a topic to be dismissed as the Hindu views on sexuality, etc. are very distinct from the more repressive views of the Western religions/traditions. If you mean for me to clarify exactly how it is less repressive, etc, please look at my above comments. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where did you get this from "It is vaidika thought to not condone or to forbid masturbation but instead dismiss it (for brahmacaris) as a distraction from their brahmacarya dharma of studying, etc.". While you write in this manner, it is difficult to understand which side of fence you are? My question is, is it purposeful? (Purpose means beneficiary). If, I give an analogy, one who does not want to go to a prostitute, why should he know the customs of prostitutes? We are here to learn Hinduism for decent people and gain more decency and not just play around with any dirt. The proposer has stated that penis of Indian males is smaller. How do we know it is true? I don't know in what way it helps a person to know this? What is the aim or such contributor? I don't think, it is purposeful. How this information if true will be used to belittle the Indians? Do they know that Indian brains are bigger? Do they know that most of the Indians are loyal to wife? Do they know that un-married don't stay together? Without marriage, Indians don't procreate, the parents don't seperate and deprive the offsprings of essential love of father. These are the things, Indians can show to westerns and help them in improving their societies. This is purposeful. We should know, what we are upto and ridicule any attempt to deviate from our supposed objectives. swadhyayee 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What I said before about vaidika thought, it is my understanding of vedant, etc. but unfortunately, I do not have any scripture to cite. If you consider my following statements about the role of sex as kama and dharma in grhasthāshram, you might be able to understand why I feel that masturbation is nothing but a petty distraction to brahmacaris. Also, I have no idea who said what about whose penis sizes. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I suppose the editors agree to edit out such extraneous insertions, if any, and concentrate on hinduism? Aupmanyav 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again

God: both principle and person

Hinduism has been perceived by some as polytheistic, and its devotees are typically quite open to reconciling multiple gods and goddesses, often from quite different traditions, into a single 'Vedically'-based worldview. However, its many divergent sects and philosophical schools culminate in beliefs ranging anywhere from panentheism to more devotional brands of monotheism. For instance, Advaita Vedanta holds that there is one originating source, cosmic spirit, or godhead (depending, again, on one's sect within the overall school), which may manifest in the material world in multiple forms.

I think this section may be worse than before. It has grown more awkward with more passive voice, and seems to ramble towards the end of the paragraph. It may actually lead the reader to confuse Advaita with monotheism. Also, this title has not really improved. Perhaps we could rename it to, "Nature of the Divine"?

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Saiva Suj: You have the peculiar antipathy towards the passive voice that prescriptivist, Latin-inclined English scholars had in the 19th century. But I'm sure the recent edits will be seen as somewhat better than before. Peace --68.173.46.79 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr.NewYork'er, I think my roots in that antipathy originate in my inclination towards Paanini's Sanskrit, obviously more complex and wondrous than Latin though I have studied both. I think that the general rhetoric of encyclopedias also hold passive voice in disdain. Personally, I feel that the presence of passive voice indicates poor planning while writing...or typing. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous editors have made it worse, the current version talks about "Upanishadic" and "Post-Upanishadic" which is very confusing. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The recent changes have degraded the quality of the article, and furthermore, adds/replaces major content without being discussed. I would like to revert them. Please tell me if you favor/oppose this. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you proposing to revert (1) the recent changes in the "God:both principle and person" section, or (2) all the edits by the anon. user ? Personally I support the former option, but not the 2nd, since I found some of his/her edits quite good (for example, [1], [2]). Aside: I hope the IP editor registers and becomes a regular collaborative participant here, since IMO he/she has some good ideas to improve the page. Abecedare 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been huge changes made to this article, including the loss of citations and shift in content, without any discussion. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

<reset indenting>
Here is the 'original' version [3]. ;here is the version after the anon IP edits. [4]; and here is the diff [5]. Of course not all the intermediate edits are dur to User:68.173.46.79, nor are all the changes undesirable. We can pick and choose which ones we wish to retain. Abecedare 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another useful link: diff of 'before' and 'current' versions. (Note: the changes in intro are mainly reordering of sentences) Abecedare 04:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

'which may manifest itself to humans in multiple forms': A recent correction in the topic. Even this is not correct. Brahman does not manifest itself to humans because humans (and for that matter all animals, vegetation, or inert substances also) are themselves manifestation of the Brahman. Brahman is beyond need to manifest itself. Aupmanyav 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the second part is actually a Dvaita, or more specifically Vishishtadvaita belief because mulitiple forms mean avatars. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch! Any specific suggestions on what we should replace the second sentence by ? The aim should be to present a concise (i.e. one sentence), but accurate description of a school of thought, which illustrates how the Hindu conception of God does not fall into neat classes like polytheism, monotheism etc. Abecedare 11:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We can say 'Advaita comes in two shades, worship Brahman at the practical (Vyavaharika) level, but no worship at the absolute (Parmarthika) level.' That is what, I suppose, Sankara opined. Aupmanyav 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

cats

Is there a list of categories for Hindus on en-wiki? I am working on hi and es wiki for categorizing.Kingrom User talk:Kingrom 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kingrom: [6] ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the issues with my sig. I meant categories for Hindus in article space.Kingrom

I am not sure I understand: categories of Hindus? Maybe if you could give us some examples of what you're looking for, we could find it for you. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I took care of him, I think he meant Category:Hindus and subcats.Bakaman 18:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done & thanks, Baka! ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to editors: Regarding ref links

Many reference links in this article point to an existing link by name (like <ref name="xxxx">... </ref>). While removing text containing reference links please make sure you copy over the primary reference link to the next link that points to it. This information can be obtained by looking at the references section. Multiple references to the same link looks like this:

22. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h} Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary

A broken link is hard to fix if not found quickly. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to us. It is definitely better to keep that in mind, before we lose the original ref's in history! ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversion

'However, those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu.' Where is the citation? Perhaps Swami Bhaskarananda thinks so, but that would be his personal opinion, not everybody is required to go by that. Aupmanyav 07:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable statement, as he is saying that "those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu". Swami Bhaskarananda is a renowned Swami of the Ramakrishna Maṭh. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, you are right. The sentence needs to be sourced - I have tagged it accordingly. As I read it, the sentence is not attributed to Swami Bhaskarananda currently.Abecedare 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism view is, one must follow one's birth religion, as it is as easy to follow as mother's milk to digest. swadhyayee 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayeeji, I love that analogy. However, I think that Hindus also permit conversions to and from Hinduism "ekam sat..." etc. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard you can only be born into hinduism and everyone is born hindu.--D-Boy 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the general Hindu belief but not everybody believes in it. Say that to the gora Hare Krishnas! Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope its not general. Please do explain that "general belief" to Indonesians where the Hindu percentage has gone from 2% to by some high estimates 9% and PHDI estimates around 6% Hindu. Do try to explain that. Or try Swami Ghanananda and Satuguru Bodhinath Veylanswami. ITs a misconception, not a belief.Bakaman 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu scriptures do not talk about religion at all, they talk about 'dharma', which as you know is different. Further, Lord Rama said, 'Satyam Nasti Param Padam' (Nothing is higher than truth). Now if a person in a certain religion realizes that what has been told is not the truth, then the person cannot be compelled to follow it even if it may be the religion of birth. Secondly, a person who embraces hinduism may not be a hindu for a particular sect or belief, they are free to consider the person as a non-hindu, while there may be other sects and beliefs who may not be against it. It cannot be one person's or sect's fiat. Aupmanyav 13:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, What is difference in "Dharma" and religion? What does "Truth" mean? In Hinduism, it is said that one has to follow one's religion of birth as it is as easy to digest like mother's milk. Nothing can be wrong in pure religion. Wrong could have been pushed in religion which a religionist may not accept that the same is religious doctrine. swadhyayee 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of you and Sujit to honor me by calling me 'ji', but it is not really necessary. 'Dharma' is duty/righteous action. Religion is akin to 'Mata' (belief). Again 'mata' is passive, it does not encourage you to fight as religion does. The mother's milk analogy might not be wholly correct. What if there are major differences between what the 'mother's milk' says and what the person considers the truth? All religions do not have the freedom to form one's own views as Hinduism has. Aupmanyav 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: According to Hinduism was Brahmaji born a Hindu? No, he learnt the science of sanatana-dharm through a process of austerity and prayer (the particular form of which depends on which scripture you read) and he is the oldest Hindu in this universe. If the first teaching of Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita is you are not this body you are an eternal soul, then how can anyone argue you have to be Hindu only according to your current material body which is but a temporary flash in the pan of your spiritual reality? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, everyone take religion as English word for Dharma. Aupmanyavji, mother's milk analogy is not mine but of sages or some sage. Whenever, I come across ref., I will give. The ref. should be in Geeta or Manusmruti. Religion is a compound of various duties. Duties towards The Creator, duties towards other lives like humans, animals and nature. Duties towards weak be it child, woman or energyless males. There are commandments in religion to keep the humans self controlled. Disputing the existent and well accepted notions is no Panditya. Since you have been disputing the advocacy of practicing one's birth religion, you might have come across shortfall of some religion but it does not give you right to say that one has to evaluate one's religion before following. One always does answer to one's call of conscientiousness. This is what is use of one's own intellect. I do not know and I do not wish to comment on freedom in other religions. Sect religion may be rigid.

You have not answered what is truth? "Truth" when referred in "Tatvamasi" etc. means free from birth, decay and destruction. Ever existent, before evolving of the world, during existance of world and after destruction of world which is "chaitanya". Though, I am strong believer of practicing truth, I do not agree with you to limit meaning of truth your way.

Aupmanyavji, The Shashtras encourage "Samvad" not "Vivad". "Samvad" means "Samyak Vad" one which leads to assimilation. With due apology.

Goranga, you have provided really good piece of thinking. swadhyayee 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, mother's milk analogy is an advice/opinion of sages but no commandment. swadhyayee 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes mother's milk is a very good analogy. Swadhyayee uses it very well to give examples of his viewpoint. — Seadog^Talk 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with swadhyayee. Chapter 12 of the Gita is clear on what makes a good Hindu. Do refer to Sloka 11 and all others ending in sa me priyah. One merely needs to be devoted to attaining unification with the Brahman, and 36 other qualities. O also dont refer to me as "ji" either (this goes for everyone), compared to most of you, I'm pretty young and I rarely return the favor (not out of disrespect, just I'm not used to it), so dont make me feel bad lol.Bakaman 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Baka, I know "sameh priya part" of Ch.XII of Geeta and I accept Geeta in totality. The discussion here is to be a Hindu one has to be born Hindu or not. I accept and I do not say that only born Hindus can follow Hinduism. I am just trying to say the modesty of our sages. Hinduism advocate to revere all religions alike. In fact, in purest form all religions could not be different from each other. Whether you venerate Krishna in Krishna form or Shrinathji form or Mahavir form or any other form is not material. When I go to Jain's temple, I try to see Krishna in Mahavir. What is important is behaviour of a person. Though being Hindu, I strongly believe that a Muslim offering 5 Namaz is far better than a pseudo-Hindu. I whole heartedly revere the 5 Namazi Muslim. swadhyayee 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Geeta does not say whom to rever and whom not. This would be my decision based on what they say and how I would take it. But that does not mean that I would fight with them. I would co-exist happily. If I have problems with what is believed in some other religion or some other tradition, I would not rever them. That word is too demanding. A 5 times namazi may be a saint or a terrorist. Aupmanyav 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Edited Aupmanyav 13:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan Aupmanyavji, Pl. strike out "A 5 times namazi may be a saint...." swadhyayee 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very very much, Aupmanyavji. swadhyayee 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to all editors

Please use this take page for discussing the religion only. All Hinduism related topics should go to WP:HNB (hinduism notice board). Look at WP:INB for example, I hope our project can be as efficient as that one.Bakaman 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

D-Boy and I once tried that. We said anything related to Hinduism but not to this article should be discussed on the WikiProject WP:HINDU talk page. But it didn't work and I have doubts this one wil; too. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly support Baka's sentiments. In fact this is not even a forum to discuss Hinduism per se, but rather the Hinduism article. So hopefully we can focus our discussion on proposed improvements to the article and back our opinions by concrete citations. Abecedare 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

... and to practice what I preach,and back up my opinion, here is a quote from Wikipedia help pages: "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject, even though they may seem inextricably linked." (Emphasis added) Abecedare 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not participating in all discussions. Plenty of them go above my head but I presume they start with article matters but go to rational part which is seen as off-topic. I am not against Baka, Gizza or Abecedare but I think some of the discussions might be helping in removing the short comings of the article. It has it's pros and cons. swadhyayee 03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that WP:HNB should become the spot for all discussions on Hindu topics not related to this main article. In fact I was bold enough to remove the off-topic discussions to the HNB.Bakaman 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done Baka! I was too lazy to ever enforce this. Swadhyayee, please see the top box fourth bullet point on this page. It is very important to understand this since it is a fundamental Wikipedian concept. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Is the size for article or article & talk pg. together? Do you feel, I am solely responsible for off topic discussions? swadhyayee 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are discussing about this article then it goes here. All other Hinduism discussions (including our long chats on philosophy) go to WP:HNB.Bakaman 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Swad. I never said you were responsible solely for off-topic discussions! Many people here occasionally get carried away and start talking about something related to Hinduism but not to this article. Those discussions need to go to WT:HNB Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure Baka as I told you many discussions go above my head but probably I find the discussion to begin with proposal to incorporate something new or make change or remove. The discussion begins with content views. It may be going off topic. You should not get over irritated. My experience is general community don't take interest in discussion related to a particular article. I left message for CyberAnth discussion to many Indian editors, no one responded. It happened with HeBhagawan also once. Don't you learn something from philosophical discussions? Should we just push our knowledge here and not learn anything? I am not against you but my feeling is as Gizza was telling this might not work. If, you transfer discussion, it may be missed by editors here. swadhyayee 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Swad it is very important that you read THIS. You said general community don't take interest in discussion related to a particular article. Sorry but on Wikipedia discussion has to pertain to the article. And everyone I know here except for people on this page do only discuss about the article. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is NOT a FORUM. There are other places on the internet where you can talk about Hinduism in general. This is a very good site for discussion on Hinduism. You also said Should we just push our knowledge here and not learn anything? On Wikipedia, you can learn about Hinduism only by reading our articles, not by discussion. On the discussion pages, you can learn about how Wikipedia works but not about Hinduism. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You also said people might miss the discussion. It is not very difficult to go to WT:HNB. Just click and all non-Hinduism article related discussions are there. Thank you. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, I looked at the intra-link. I don't think it is in context. Naturally this discussion can not be part of article and nor it is becoming part of article. Neither any of things (at least I state) are personal opinions but deep rooted facts/Hindu beliefs of about the facts of past. Since, some of the things I say are out of your knowledge or alien to you cause your irritation. I still think, that you all western youngsters here should be open to know things which you have never known as you possess interest in Hindu religion and culture. swadhyayee 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am personally a little light on this, I don't think that our discussions are light years away from the article. Meaning that most of them seem as though they drift — they do concern the article. Such as how conversion, idol worship and polytheism should be approached in the article. We just all have to be careful not to go too far and lose sight of what we are trying to do here, and that is work our best on the article. — Seadog_MS 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The topics that aren't related to the article have already been transferred by Baka in case you don't know. In the past it has been much worse. I remember once there was a discussion here about what is an Aryan. For some strange reason it wasn't on Talk:Aryan but here! Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember the Aryan that in my opinion was out of place by being here. — Seadog_MS 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not taken part in Aryan discussion but both Gizza and Arjun, Aryan is not un-related to Hinduism. The term "Arya" was a reference to well cultured Hindu. It was a word worth taking pride. South Indians are known as "Dravidians". It's believed that Hindu civilisation has it's roots in "Aryans" community. I thing the history was challenged here. I am not sure about correctness of history. I wish that U.S. born Indian editors here, should be open to know something new coming to them from this off topic discussions. Slowly, they make them to understand their counterparts in India. Though, not against DaGizza or Baka, my experience is you can get anything done or prevent others from doing something in the name of some or other Wikipedia policy. The page is meant for discussion of content views. When a particular discussion is not of interest to any editor, he should keep away as each one of us do when we do not have knowledge of the topic. I think there would be dis-advantages of moving some of the discussions from here. I feel, the editors should have student's attitude over being scholarly. This also, since the topic is raised here, the answers are bound to be here. swadhyayee 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

AH! My example was not about you! You take everyting so personal. I know what an Aryan is. My complaints are not direct towards you, they are directed towards everybody, including myself (I also get carried away sometimes or start a discussion topic here not relevant). And yes Aryan is not un-related to Hinduism but What is an Aryan is not very much related to this article. On this Hinduism article, we don't have space to explain what Aryan is. We might mention that the beliefs of the Aryans form part of Hinduism but we will have a link to Aryan, if someone wants to learn more about them. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, to everyone (not just Swad.) you can find many more examples in the archives. Once someone wrote "please check out the Rajput article." This notice is precisely what should be on the notice board, not on this page. One complete has HeBhagawan and Swad. apologising to each other. That for example, should have been done on their user talk pages. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion itself is getting off-topic since it is not concerned with improving the Hinduism article - which is the sole purpose of this talk page :-) (as correctly pointed out by Gizza). While I respect the opinions cited in this and earlier discussion, they are better placed on a forum such as [7], or at WP:HNB. I don't think we need to debate about the past use of the page; lets just try to keep it more focussed in the future. Abecedare 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right DaGizza, Similar was case of disgusting proposal of CyberAnth. I understand your concern is for discipline. Agree with your views of Aryan off topic discussion.

I agree with Abecedare that the present discussion too becomes off topic. swadhyayee 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not taking it personally. I do not want to drag someone else so I only quote me. swadhyayee 02:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have something for Swadhyayee, Gauranga, and Bakaman at WP:HNB, if they would care to look up. Thanks. Aupmanyav 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, Could you kindly be specific, what you want me to look? swadhyayee 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversion, dear friend. Aupmanyav 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of Caste section

Is this still in dispute (and if so what is the specific objection) or can we remove the NPOV tag ? I recall this issue was raised earlier but perhaps got overlooked. Abecedare 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see what is disputed. I will take it down since when I brought it up it got disputed and when it has not become a topic lately. — Seadog_MS 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Super-review of article

I have decided to take a "super-review" (I just made the name up!) of the article. What I hope this does is that all the active editors here will discuss the article in detail section by section. The first section is the part before Etymology, ie. the first three paragraphs. What I ask of everybody is to read those three paragraphs and comment only on those 3 paragraphs. This means suggesting what should be added, what should be removed, what isn't explained clearly etc. This IMO is the best way to achieve consensus on all issues in the article. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on first three paragraphs:

---

To get the ball rolling, here are my views: Overall I am quite satisfied with the introduction, and the following comments are only minor cavils. For instance,

1. We have yet to settle on a uniform "IAST - simplified transliteration" convention. (here is my proposal on the issue) Also should non-English terms, including Vedas, Upanishads be consistently in italics, as per the suggested Naming convention ?
2. Is there a particular reason why हिन्दू धर्म is labeled "Sanskrit/Devanagiri" in the first line ? I realize that technically that is accurate, since Sanskrit is the language and Devanagiri is the script, but I think we should follow whatever is the convention on other Hinduism/India related pages for simplicity.
3. Do the second and third paragraph need references ? I think not, because the ideas are expanded upon with citations in the remainder of the article and IMO the introduction is just the abstract. But maybe other editors have different opinions, and there may be a wikipedia guideline on this.
4. Overall IM O we should be wary of the temptation to increase the length of the introduction in order to provide greater coverage, or add caveats/qualifications to statements like "Most Hindus ...". After all that is what the rest of the article is for.

Again I emphasize that the above issues are only minor (except possibly the first), and we should not get stuck debating them, since I at least can live with the status quo. Abecedare 09:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was the type of feedback that I was after. I think this systematic analysis is the only way the article will ever improve. Now regarding each of your points,

• Excellent point to bring up. We will have to talk about this elsewhere. I supported your proposal. I also stated five reasons why IAST shouldn't be throughout the article. Lets see if anybody opposes your proposal.

• I think Sanskrit should be removed because the script is definitely Devanagari. But Sanskrit can be written in many script even though Devanagari is most common. I'll be bold enough to do it.

• I agree with what you say but any FA experienced contributer will tell you that there are never enough citations! Say if a sentence says "ABC" in the intro and later on that sentence is repeated but paraphrased and supported with a ref, it won't hurt to add and use the same ref in the earlier sentence. Having said that, it is not a major issue and be handled later on very easily.

• From my understanding of Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length, the length of the lead section is perfect. I suggest a slight alteration to that sentence you referred to. Most Hindus believe in a One Supreme Cosmic Spirit, which may understood in abstract terms as Brahman or that may be worshiped in many forms, represented by individual deities such as Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti. The first part of the sentence now allows monism (and even monistic atheism) to come into Hinduism and distinguishse Advaita and Dvaita more clearly.

I hope others can provide input just as Abecedarian has done. Thanks! Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick response (I don't want to hog the comments :-) ): I think both Sanskrit and Devanagiri were specified because 'Hinduism' was first translated into Sanskrit ("Hindu Dharma") and then spelled out in Devanagiri (हिन्दू धर्म) - so perhaps both are needed - hmm, I cannot make up my mind. I could not think of any other article where this situation arises, to check for precedence.

I agree with your response to my points (1), (3) and (4). Abecedare 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your response. This page is an exception because in other articles such as Ishvara, Vishnu ... the English and Sankrit words are the same. Any more comments by anybody? I might post a message to some of our regular editors. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

THE PAGE is in English, I do not see any need to give the name again in Sanskrit/Devanagari. Sort of unnecessary. Speed Breaker.

'Foundation of hinduism', in first paragraph and in second paragrah also, and later in Etymology too. Of course, Gizza loves it. The second paragraph says that Vedas are most ancient, we could add that they are most important also (most ancient and important). 'Foundation' carries the memory of Dasarajnya war with Aryans ranged on one side and Dravidians on the other. Does the other native beliefs had nothing to contribute to hinduism?

In the third paragraph, you could say something like this, 'Hinduism is a kalaedoscope as it does not does not interfere in the beliefs and practices of its adherents. However, it demands adherence to one's 'dharma' (duty and righteous action). It suggests many ways in which its adherents could understand self and life.' Aupmanyav 13:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Edited because of conflict. Aupmanyav 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to say somethign like the Vedas are Aryan texts when Puranas and later texts are also influenced by the local traditions, or Modern Hinduism has intergrated Vedic ideas with the local traditions? I liked the word foundation because it means Hinduism started with the Vedas but it now more than just the Vedas. I agree that we should add that the Vedas are most important. I don't understand your kalaedoscope point completely. I think the phrase "unity in diversity" fits Hinduism more than any other religion but even in Hinduism there have been sects in conflict with each other. I think 800 years ago, Shaivites and Vaishnavites were fighting each other in Southern India. Your dharma point is valid. Maybe we can say Some Hindus view Hinduism as a way of life instead of a relgion, hence focus on dharma (duty and righteous action) more than spiritual practices.

Regarding your point on Sanskrit/Devanagari, most non-Western concepts have their non-English translations. Personally I don't know why. I know that User:Dangerous-Boy is a supporter of this. If you ask him on his user talk page, he may give a good reason. If he doesn't, then we will remove it because it has no real purpose on English Wikipedia. Thank you for providing your opinion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, I oppose to removal of Sanskrut fonts for important terms. I don't think that the Wikipedia has to be western. There is world beyond West. I believe that our new generation would always love to see Sanskrut script as it is our script. swadhyayee 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, I also have to dis-agree with you that some Hindus think Hinduism as a way of life instead of a religion. Religion and way of life are inter-woven. The conscienceness of living a righteous life itself is Dharma or "Dharmacharan". If, you change the article like Aupmanyavji suggests, you will change the entire article and make it a forum for debate by so called Pandits than commons can understand Hinduism. swadhyayee 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

On the first point, I don't mind if the Sanskrit stays. It is only one line and if some people want it to stay, let them be happy. On your second point, I actually agree with you, but Aupmanyav suggested that we should have a sentence that talks about dharma as in duty, and right action. I don't want to write dharmy (duty) is the most important part of Hinduism, because not every Hindu would agree, only few will. But I think it is a valid idea to state Hindus are not only concerned with praying to God, like Christians are. Hindus also believe in doing good deeds, helping people. Lord Krishna says to Arjun in chapter 3 of the Gita that you should fight because of your dharm, duty as a soldier. Maybe we can leave it out in the introduction and mention it somewhere below. Note Swad, you actually disagree with what Aup said, not me. I was just trying to seek a remedy. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pl. don't seek remedy to please Aupmanyavji. The accepted interpretation of "Dharma" in English is religion. A word can have number of connotations. You can't pick up the just 1st literal interpretation of a word and ignore the general understanding. You see his user page, his beliefs are different from mass. What is religion? Isn't it a constitution for a way of life?; Live this way for your and social good or is in consonance with the preaching of The God or Rishies? Even if Aupmanyavji's beliefs may be right his way, it can not be accepted as authentic and shared by most Hindus. swadhyayee 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, I agree with you that Hindus are concerned with good deeds in addition to worshiping God. I am not aware that Christains are not so. The preaching of Krishna to Arjun was known as "Kul-Dharma". If, the Kul-Dharma is not mentioned, we can mention it at appropriate place. Dharma, Religion and duties are one and same thing. We should not try to find difference in them. If someone finds difference in them, let him have it to himself. swadhyayee 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made some slight changes in the second paragraph (diff) so that the Vedas are associated more closely with the Vedas rather than the Smritis, and because AFAIK Vedas and Upanishads are considered the foundation of Hindu philosophy. Abecedare 03:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Like you said, it is hard to distinguish "way of life" and "religion." What I was trying to do was to somehow mention the good duties aspect of Hinduism into the article. When I said this doesn't apply to Christians, I should clarify that they believe that an immoral person for 99% of his/her life who starts praying to Jesus Christ for the last 1% will go to heaven when in Hinduism the karm of your entire life probably has more importance. I will re-adjust that sentence Some Hindus focus more on dharma (duty and righteous action) than on spiritual practices. It will also need to be referenced.

To Abecedarian, I think grouping the Vedas and the Upanishads is not bad idea. Lets see how the others respond. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, What you said about Christains is also there (probably as exception) even in Hinduism. At the time of Jnanodaya, the remaining "Karmas," fruits of which were not riped and delivered get destroyed. This is just for your knowledge. swadhyayee 07:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick query here: Do editors feel that the third paragraph of the introduction can be improved, or do they feel that it needs to be changed ? If its the former perhaps we can move to other sections of the article for now (which IMO need more work). Trying to "perfect" the introduction "once and for all" may be a quixotic enterprise given the ever-changing nature of wikipedia! :-) Abecedare 06:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that it may not be perfect but definitely acceptable. I'll add the modified sentence about dharma which I hope Aup. and Swad. would be fine with. I also sent messages to Raj, Priyanath, Seadog, HeBhagawan and Saiva, all of which seem to be inactive today. We should try to do this as quickly as possible as you said. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

VEDAS were influenced by the other native traditions and the puranas were influenced by the vedic traditions. We cannot say how old the mix is, could be older than Harappan civilization for all we know. What can we say about which started first? It is like two rivers merging in Allahabad, where is their origin? Well, somewhere in the himalayas. IMHO, they can never be separated and should never be mentioned separately. Kalaedoscope also is 'unity in diversity', one gadget, a thousand views, I do not insist on a particular wording, whatever is accepted by the editors. Yes, there have been sectarian conflicts, some people branched off, but we chugh along.

I accept Swadhyayee's points, though there is only west beyond west (and east beyond east, these are only relative terms depending on where one stations oneself). For 'dharma' you can say that it is a way of life, but when you add contemplation about our existence and God, it becomes a religion. Aupmanyav is an equal participant to a discussion and is never pleased or displeased (because he is Brahman .-). Swadhyayee, please do not take it so seriously. Do you think Aupmanyav would ever want to damage the page in any way? Aupmanyav 11:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If your going to choose IAST or IPA, I'd go with IAST. everytime some does a transliteration with IPA, I see squares on both IE and firefox. what should stated in the articles is the vedas and what's it about. I don't aryan texts has to be mentioned. that could mention is it's own article. The Upanishads, gita, and the puranas should be mentioned. Hinduism is dynamic. one sect as different way of doing things than the other. one hindu believes in one god, another many, even some don't have a god. Abecedare is right about putting "Most Hindus...". We shouldn't put that. Also, the intro should short, simple, and precise.abhramic relgions have it easy. to describe hinduism in itself, in my opinion requires one to become enlightened like a buddha which probably isn't going to happen to me.--D-Boy 11:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

clearly, Sanskrit transliteration should be IAST when a term is introduced (and anglicized when the term just happened to be mentioned in prose). Do not get sidetracked by giving pronunciation information or alternative scripts for terms except in the article on the very term itself: for pronunciation of Sanskrit, send people to the IAST article, don't discuss it elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IPA was never in contention. IAST consists of Roman letters with diacritics hovering around. Many IPA symbols are squiggly curves. They both reveal the same amount of information about the pronounciation so it is obvious which one is simpler to learn. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

the difference is that IAST is specifically for Sanskrit :) since Hindu Dharma is Hindi, and Devanagari is the standard spelling of Hindi, I think it is fair to have "Hindi हिन्दू धर्म Hindū Dharma"' Sanātana Dharma otoh is Sanskrit, and the "सनातन धर्म" is really a gratuitous repetition (which is of course also fair enough to retain, no problem). dab (𒁳) 14:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may correct, Hindu Dharma and Hindi are not connected to each other. swadhyayee 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

swadhyayee you are correct, Hindu and Hindi are not in connection with each other. — Seadog_MS 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I do not get the direction of your discussion, I think Hindi is not the only Language connected with Hinduism, so many others also are. Aupmanyav 18:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed that the Hindi was to be removed and only the sanskrit was to remain? These rv's for a simple thing are getting annoying. I think Sanatana dharma is the only appropiate term. Otherwise, we might has well start adding tamil, and kannada, and so on. The Hindi should be removed.--D-Boy 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No language is related to Hinduism. It there is one, it is Sanskrit. Hindi should indeed be removed.-- Anupamsr|talk|contribs 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

well, if I may ask, what language is "Hindū Dharma"? It may be argued that "Hindu Dharma" is Sanskrit, but I was under the impression that "Hindū Dharma" (long ū) was Hindi? dab (𒁳) 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From the reading the gita and vedas, i've only found Sanatana dharma as the correct translation. Never heard of Hindu Dharma. Maybe the Islamic documented it as Hindu Dharma.--D-Boy 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has claimed that Sanskrut can be written in other than Hindi script. I think Hindi is either Sanskrut script or very similar to Sanskrut script. I have never seen or heard that Sanskrut can be written in any other script. Even today, we may be able to write Hindi or Tamil or Marathi in English script. It would not mean that the script of these languages is English. From the History, we believe that the people living on banks of Sindhu river were later known as Hindu/Hindus. The religion, their thinking in the matter of religion and way of life became Hindu Dharm. Dangerous-boy, you can say, Sanatan Dharm is most appropriate term. The Dharm followed by Hindus is Hindu Dharm. Let's keep this platform free from any linguistic hate. Though my mother tounge is not Hindi, I say that Hindi is national language of India from where Hindus originated or where Hindus migrated and made their base. While allowing promotion of our national language, my own mother tounge loses predomination but I think we should keep ourselves away from regional or linguistic mean mindedness. swadhyayee 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not hating any language. Swadhyayee, we are again on the same side. Though my mother toungue is Hindi, I am championing the cause of other indian languages whom I consider my mother's sisters (Masi). I have no objection to keep the Hindi version of Hindu Dharma (by long usage) or Sanatan Dharma, both of which denote the religion that we follow, it is just because Hindi has been selected as the first among equals and is our national language. As for Sanskrit, I suppose it can be written in any language, Bengali, Malayalam, Kannada, Tamil, even in English. If I am wrong, let other editors correct me. Here is an example, Satyam Shivam Sundaram. Aupmanyav 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, long u is in Sanskrit also, as in Usha, Ushma. Hindi or Sanskrit do not have the unstressed ai (Enter) or au (College), so we have to make do. Aupmanyav 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my understanding. Sanskrit is a spoken langauge. It can written many scripts such as Devangari, tamil script, Bramhi script, and so on. hope that clearly stuff up.--D-Boy 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyavji, my comments were directed at Dangerous Boy. swadhyayee 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets move on

That discussion above has diverged somewhat. I honestly don't think any reason to have the translation of Hinduism in another language when the article is in English. The huge discussion is ridiculous. There are many translations for Hinduism in Sanskrit. It can Sanatan Dharma, Vaidik Dharma, Arya Dharma ... We should be trying to improve the article, not worrying about whether or not we should have a Sanskrit translation or Hindi translation. Who wants to remove it and move on? If you want to keep it, 1. explain why 2. tell which language and script (probably Sanskrit in Devanagari) and then we move on. This is wasting so much time. Enough! Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! There is more discussion here on what-to-call-Hinduism, in-what-language and using-what-script than, say, has occurred on the Atal Bihari Vajpayee page in almost three years! I think it may be useful to again point out (as Bakaman had done earlier) that there are other pages on wikipedia besides Hinduism and also a world out other apart from Wikipedia.

(This is an off-topic comment, so please post replies - if any - on my Talk page and not here.) Abecedare 09:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

the funny thing is that "Hindū Dharma" has been in the intro for ages, and it was only as I (correctly) identified it as Hindi that it began being controversial. We can keep it or strike it, but if we keep it, we have to identify it as Hindi. dab (𒁳) 09:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, You are confusing now. I think, the discussion was about writing Hinduism Sanskrut terminology in Sanskrut Script which looks like Hindi. There was no talk about translation of the article. There are sufficient views to have it. Now why do you want others to give you reasons, why to have it? I had informally given some reasons. If, someone gives the reasons, you are not satisfied, you are going to ridicule the reasons. I think, someone is making big fuss to remove terminology in Sanskrut along with English. swadhyayee 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, there is no proposal to change the name of the article "Hinduism" to a Sanskrut word like "Sanatan Dharm" etc. "Hinduism" is most appropriate. swadhyayee 09:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a write-up on 'Introduction' on my User_talk:Aupmanyav#Introduction if anyone would like to visit it. Thanks. Aupmanyav 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)