Talk:Hinduism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Cremation

Do we have any citations for this newly added section ? Most of the addition is fine in my opinion (although it can use a bit of a trim); however I wonder if seemingly exact prescriptions such as the exception for "children under five" are really universal. I personally doubt that you could get 10 independent Hindus to agree upon the exact age before which cremation is not obligatory - most likely the number just reflects a particular author's or sect's reading. If so we should mark it as such. Abecedare 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, would be happy with just a rationale for why young kids (and the rest) are exempt. The only one I've heard is that children young enough not to have sinned don't need to be released from them by cremation, but I can't cite anything more authoritative than a backpacker's travelogue for it. Jpatokal 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The most mainstream and well-attested rationale for cremation has nothing to do with sin, and your "backpacker's travelogue" citation is enough to show how good the reference is. Cremation primarily has to do with the idea that the body is a mere vestment, clothing for the migratory soul, which like all temporal things decays and ultimately diffuses back into the earth from whence it came (the Upanishads go on and on about how the body comes from the earth through food and water, sustains itself by way of the air, how the cycle of birth and death continues while the soul passes on through). Through the course of a life, people develop 'attachments' (which are neutral; while they might lead us back to earth, they are not sins). But the souls need to move on to the next plane or to the next bodies they'll inhabit; burning the body serves a twofold purpose: to allow the soul to move on and take care of its future karmas in fresh existences and to remind the living that body is only a temporary abode and, while important during one's life, shouldn't be needlessly clung to as if it were the whole truth and nothing but.

Hence, children of 5 and under and saints (like yogis or sanyasis) needn't be cremated. However, yogis are buried (typically in lotus posture) because their bodies have remained pure and represent pure sattwa on earth; preserving the body in the ground is often the beginning of a temple ground for devotees to come and meditate in (like with enshrined Cathlic relics). Children just haven't had enough time to accumulate attachments, but you could still cremate them. [my main point with all of this was really that it's not as much about sin as attachment, or maya, and this is a very crucial difference which is key to the difference between systems like Hinduism and Buddhism and Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Islam]--69.203.80.158 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that children under 5 are NOT cremated...but there is really nothing magical about the figure "5" .... The rationale is that the "UPANAYANA" or Sacred thread ceremony has NOT YET been performed on the "unfortunate" boy.... Once UPANAYANA ceremony has been done, cremation has to be done, REGARDLESS of age.... I know this for sure, but I really dont have any "proofs", you will have to either take my word or read further... The "Anthyeshti" is where requirements about cremation are listed in Hindu texts ... Neither do I have any information on the minimum equivalent criteria for "unfortunate" female kid/baby/girl.... ~~Kumar

The only purpose of cremation is to dispose off a dead body most efficiently and with dignity. The rituals are intended to help the departed soul on its onward journey. [Let Buddhipriya find citations.] Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have done a disservice

I have changed any occurrence of '''<span style="font-size:120%">Lorem Ipsum</span>''' to the simple ====Lorem Ipsum====. I don't know if this is controversial or not, so I have asked here.--0rrAvenger 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally support the use of standard formatting, so I think this would be a good change. Removing overspecification of formatting such as font-size tags makes articles more standardized across Wikipedia, which is a good thing. Buddhipriya 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As an added side-effect, an [edit] button has been added as a result of the change.--0rrAvenger 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The original thought behind using the HTML tags was to keep the article's Table of Content to a "manageable" length. But the change, possibly introduced by me (though it's hard to remember for sure), was admittedly a kludge. I have now used the {{TOClimit}} template to achieve the same affect. Overall, I too think 0rrAvenger's change is an improvement. Abecedare 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I knew there was some good faith reason for it =). I have a suggestion: can we make it so that the ToC is defaulted not to show? That is, when the page is loaded, it starts up not shown, and a user must click "show" in order to reveal it. Hmm?--0rrAvenger 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am open to that, since it will avoid displaying the huge blank space that currently precedes the Etymology section. But, before we take that possibly non-standard step, perhaps we can look to see if any other FA-class article (that this page aspires to be) uses that strategy. Do you have pages in mind ? Abecedare 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am randomly clicking articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles and checking if any of them use a hidden Table of Contents. So far, none of the articles I picked have it hidden. In fact, consider The_Adventures_of_Tintin, where the ToC is one screen long. Another comparison, which may be more important: Bahá'í Faith. The Table of contents there is one screen long as well. However, they have an interesting novelty: the Bahaii faith template is parallel to the ToC, so as to not have a big blank space to the right of the ToC. Perhaps we could use that example?--0rrAvenger 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Along those lines, maybe we need a lead picture for this article. I'm checking articles on other religions:

• Bahá'í Faith- already explained above.
• Confucianism - There are 2 pictures in the lead. Context box has a space to its right. (On a side note: This isn't a featured article, but I would very much like to clean it up!)
• Taoism - Seems to be similar in format to our article here, but they have a picture of the Chinese character. It is a good article.

Synthesizing from these examples, perhaps we should put a picture where the template currently is, and then move the template down to be parallel with the ToC. Thoughts?--0rrAvenger 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Age of Hinduism ??

I would be leary of quoting from or referencing literature by non-indians or non-hindus as more often than not, such works smack of euro-centric bias. The overarching desire to claim some kind of link to origins of vedas and the VEDIC religion (I prefer the word vedic to hindu) as evidenced in advancement of the AIT. (No incontrovertible evidence has been produced to support the AIT, thats whole nother topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV (talk • contribs) May 2, 2007

Article claims early date for Hinduism origin ("early Harappan"), but then cites cognates (e.g. "Zeus") in Indo-European religions as support! If one argues that early Indo-European religion can be called "Hinduism" then of course Hinduism is very old, but the connection with early Harappan is then contradictory (assuming a sane theory of Indo-European expansion.)

Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It does say "earliest elements of Hinduism" so obviously most of modern Hinduism did not exist back then according to mainstream views. I admit the second sentence in the paragraph is awkward though. In recognition of these ancient elements, it is claimed that Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion. What it should say is that it a modern religion where some aspects of it are older than every other major religion in the world. Btw, when I clicked the cites, it didn't point me to a Zeus note but to some books! Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job, so Gizza, you know more than hindus about who they are? Hindus consider Vedas to be their basic texts and Upanishads as commentaries on them. The Vedas are at least 1500BC old by even euro-centric western scholars (if not a few more hundred years old). This alone makes hinduism the oldest living religion. Why you are so troubled by this? Who told you it is a modern religion? Where do you leran such kind of things. Is wikipedia a place for propagandists in the garb of fake civility? Read German philosophers, there are dozens of them who can tell you how old hinduism is, don't go to schools of other religions like Islam or Christianity to learn more about hinduism. Nobody doubts the idea that hinduism is the oldest religion, except perhaps this discussion page of our wikipedia??

the sentence is misleading. "elements" of any religion you care to name are a million years old, because the basic configuration of human spirituality remain unchanged. The sentence isn't false, it's just entirely devoid of content. Your "earliest elements" are "a bath and phallic symbols". I suppose you could unearth those in practically every culture on earth. dab (𒁳) 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Some aspects of the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions derive from Pagan traditions while others come from the Proto-Indo-European religion. Bear in mind that the "phallus" is the most important symbol in the Shaivite sect and is still held with high regard among other Hindus. There is no major modern tradition that reveres the Divine Mother or the feminine side of God as much as the Shakti worshippers. However, the point on Hinduism being the oldest religion does need some fixing. I think the second sentence, which uses spurious logic anyway, can be removed without breaking the flow of the paragraph. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second sentence. Like I said the flow hasn't been damged in any significant way from the removal. In a bloated article like this, it is better to remove dodgy claims altogether rather than "correct" them. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, dab, the 'Pashupati' figure, depicting a meditating figure in cross-legged position, surrounded by animals, is very reasonably being studied as a possible forebear of Shiva. So it's not just baths and phallic symbols. --68.173.46.79 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley as an Hindu civilization is a much larger claim. Since all references I found on the religion of Indus Valley says that no tangible evidence exists. I think we should keep religious emotions out of wikipedia, as well as original research. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^talk 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Abecedare, I intend to modify the intro of the article to read:

Hinduism is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage, it is also referred to as "Hindu Dharma" or "Sanatana Dharma" in some modern Indian languages.

Okay? Thanks.Kanchanamala 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a revival of an issue that was previously discussed at length and rejected. Is there some new basis for your desire to change the existing text? Specifically, is there some new WP:RS that you wish to cite? Buddhipriya 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, as a Hindu scholar, I find that the intro is not a balanced description, and is also not totally accurate. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been over the need to cite WP:RS before. If Adi Shankara himself was a Wikipedia editor he would be asked to provide citations for his views. I also do not particularly like the opening sentences, but for a different reason related to the footnoting. The sentence "Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in some modern Indian languages" bears a footnote which is not in fact a reference, just an elaboration: "such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada." I think this is a defect in the sourcing for the statement itself. I have increasingly come to want to see more footnotes to WP:RS supporting anything in the article that is subject to challenge. Buddhipriya 03:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. You are saying exactly what I said above quite some time ago. Thanks for supporting my contention. I shall remove the unsupported statement from the intro. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not support changing the text of the article without getting some agreement first. The point is that the sentences have been discussed at great length already, and simply changing them without discussing what would be better may not be an effective approach. Buddhipriya 04:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit by Kanchamala appears to have disrupted the connections between the references that were originally there and the current text. I will not revert the edit as others are probably more sure of which reference supports what. This seems to be a rehash of the prior debate on translation of the phrase. The current change simply imposes one view that was previously established as a minority translation on the article. Can editors who worked on the previous text please check the reference setup as it now stands? For the record, here is the text prior to her edit so the sourcing can be compared:

Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in some modern Indian languages) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law".

In an effort to preserve the original sourcing, I restored the footnoting as follows:

Hinduism is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent. In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law" or "ancient law".

This has the effect of adding the alternate translation. Other editors please check the sourcing as I did not work much on the prior version. And since translation seems to be of interest, I added the Conze version discussed previously on this page. The citation which she added from the Dhammapada translation was provided by me earlier in discussion on this issue.

What exactly is the real concern? Is it that this is a political catchphrase? If so, and if it is in dispute, should it be in the lead? Or should its use as a political slogan be made explicit? Buddhipriya 05:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the stable version of the lead since the recent changes (1) removed the Hindu Dharma nomenclature, (2) went into unnecessary details of alternate translations of "sanatan dharma" which clearly is a irrelevant diversion from the subject of this article.

If the contention is that "Hindu dharma" terminology is unsourced, it should be trivial to find reliable sources to attest to that fact.

Kanchanamala, can you please specify what objection you have to the current lead that have not been resolved earlier ? We have already discussed these issues in great detail in the past, but if an editor wants to raise some new point, please do so on the talk page first. Thanks. Abecedare 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Give a citation to support the statement that Hinduism is known as Hindu Dharma in some modern Indian languages, or else remove that statement. Also, it is a minor point, and does not deserve the prominence it has been given, and it certainly does not belong as part of the opening sentence of the article.

2. Give a citation to support the statement that 'Sanatana Dharma' is a comprehensive term accepted by all the traditions of Hinduism, or else remove that statement.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being specific - that makes it much easier to address the issues.

1. It is trivial to find sources attesting that "Hindu dharma" is a term used to refer to Hinduism in several Indian languages, and I'll provide them on the talk page in the next couple of days, if someone does not beat me to it. (I don't think this needs to be sourced in the article itself, since IMO it is as non-controversial a fact as सनातन धर्म being the spelling of Sanatana dharma, for which we therefore don't need to provide a source)
2. The article does not claim that "Sanatana Dharma is a comprehensive term accepted by all the traditions of Hinduism" so obviously this statement does not need to be sourced. The article only states that, "In contemporary usage Hinduism is also referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म), a Sanskrit phrase meaning "eternal law"." and many sources have been provided for the latter statement during the previous discussion and even the article contains a citation.

The reason for including the commonly used synonyms in the lead is the wikipedia manual of style guidelines on article layout Abecedare 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma are not synonyms of Hinduism, even as Catholicism and Protestantism are not synonyms of Christianity, and Sunni and Shia are not synonyms of Islam. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

Hinduism-a complex body of social, cultural, and religious beliefs and practices evolved in and largely confined to the Indian subcontinent and marked by a caste system, an outlook tending to view all forms and theories as aspects of one eternal being and truth, a belief in ahimsa, karma, dharma, samsara, and moksha, and the practice of the way of works, the way of knowledge, or the way of devotion as the means of release from the round of rebirths: the way of life and form of thought of a Hindu.

Compare this with the amateurish hodge-podge article in the Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster does not mention Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.

Webster's New World College Dictionary says, "Hinduism-a religion and social system of the Hindus." Do we need a citation to say that Hinduism is a comprehensive term which includes the traditions of all the Hindus? Why give any undue prominence or special mention to Sanatana Dharma or Hindu Dharma, terms not used by all the Hindus? They are like religious pork barrels added to the main bill.

One of the 6 posible meanings of the Sanskrit word 'sanaatana' given by Monier Williams New Dictionary is 'ancient'. Why insist on not preferring it? Why? Did Vaidya, writing not too long ago, use it just casually? Are we interested in improving the article or not?

Taking note of the word Hindu, Monier Williams New Edition (1899) Dictionary says, (fr. the Persian ...), and about Hindu-dharma, "the Hindu religion," and cites its own earlier 1st edition (1872) for it. The Dictionary is also careful to say about Hindu-sthana, "the country of the Hindus, Hindustan (properly restricted to the upper provinces between Benares and the Sutlej."

Wikipedia has to decide whether it wants to accept Hinduism as a comprehensive term comprising the traditions of all the Hindus, or let it be hijacked by some Hindus who like to call their traditions Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Monier-Williams is a dictionary, not a theological compendium. Their privileging of caste as a defining feature is in and of itself a revealing facet of their mindset. If you look at a majority of Hindu scriptures, caste is not defined the way they present it to be (ie. Viveka Choodamani, Upanishads, Bhakti sutras, the Tantras, Yoga Sutras, etc.). Sanaatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma are given special mention because a lot of Hindus today are trying to retroactively give the Vedic tradition a native appelation which is free from the nomenclatural difficulties imposed by a Persian/British naming system. Sanaatana is interpreted as perennial or eternal because the whole point of 'Veda' is that the knowledge is not reified and realized in books, but is eternally applicable, beyond human time spans, so ancient is a silly and misdirected translation which doesn't capture the essence of the intended name. "Benares and Sutlej" as the geographical boundaries of Hinduism is, as your citation implies, a perspective inherited from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It makes no sense when most Indians from the Himalayas to the tip of the peninsula define themselves as Hindu. --69.203.80.158 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, whatever you have said above, I don't buy it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I cannot agree with your explanation. If you and Buddhipriya do not come up with citations, I should be quite justified to revise the opening statements. Then again, even if you were able to find citations [which I hope you do], the opening sentences would still need to be rephrased. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanmala... I cannot be as indelicate and unsophisticated as you, simply deriding everything anyone else says and claiming it's all nonsense, particularly without addressing some of the concerns I may have with what he/she has said. As for your statements, Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayata have been separated off from the Vedic tradition, which has always been the primary means of identifying 'Hinduism', since people have cared to classify different streams! Even thinkers/sages (whatever you look at them as) like Madhvacharya distinguished orthodox (astika) schools from the heterodox (nastika) schools! As for your reliance on the Monier-Williams dictionary, in spite of the occasional re-editing of the text, it still remains a product of an extremely Eurocentric (read: biased) scholarship. It was Monier-Williams' contention that all Indology and Sanskritology be used to convert Indians (of Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist persuasions) to Christianity. Thus, while I do not advocate excluding the M-W dictionary from use as a reference, I would suggest that other sources be conferred for 'authoritative' interpretations of what Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma, Veda Dharma, Arya Dharma, Yoga Dharma, etc.) in fact comprises.

Other qualms: "Hinduism-a religion and social system of the Hindus." <--- That's a stupid definition. It utilizes the word being defined to define the selfsame word, insofar as Hinduism is a derivation of Hindu. The best and most widely accepted understanding of Hindu is as specifically related to Vedist traditions, including Yoga, Samkhya, Bhakti, and a lot of forms of Tantra. Also, the Merriam-Webster dictionary forgets to mention yoga, which is an extremely central aspect of the Hindu tradition (just think of yoga's origin in the Upanishads, the Gita, and the Yoga Sutras and its role in devotional and Tantric Hinduism, as well as Advaita). So how reliable can the Merriam-Webster definition in fact be? Even a Sanskritist as lauded as Wendy Doniger was castigated by both the Indian AND Euro-American scholarly community for her unreliable and outright perverted reading of Hinduism in her Britannica article, which was soon removed. So how can you so confidently, and without scruple, accept the word of dictionaries and 19th-century scholarship and criticize others? --128.59.26.54 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism

There is no discussion of Vaishnavism, Shaivism or Shaktism in the article. This basic information should be in the introduction. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is in the denomination section, which does have the basic information. And as the section already mentions, for most Hindus denominations are a minor issue compared with other religions. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism were considered disticnt religions untill their merger in later centuries. But this article doesn't seem to highlight this at all. ([[1]]). It would be historically inaccurate not to mention this. Can any editor please explain the reason?Wiki San Roze ^talk 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki San Roze - you chose a very strange citation... mainly because it is a speculative and brief discussion of the ontological status of 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism' in toto and does not mention Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism (VS&S for short). VS&S, by the way, were never really considered 'religions' until Judeo-Christian notions of what a religion ought to be came into the picture (single book, single set of doctrines, single God, single this, single that)... VS&S all rely on a common core of holy books, metaphysics, ethics, song tradition, with divergences when it comes to certain regional or sectarian specifics. You also fail to note that Shiva, for instance, is the necessary partner of Shakti, while Vaishnavs have a varied tradition which in some cases acknowledges Shiva as an equal or alternate viewpoint, or in others as a subordinate deity. Thus, the interwoven-ness of VS&S ineluctably point to the singularity of a tradition which people happen to call Hinduism, but would better be described as Vedism (faiths, philosophical complexes, practices, which all strictly or at least largely follow, and acknowledge their descent from, a Vedic tradition). --69.203.80.158 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that it would be the faith. But we are using here the word Religion in English and what it means in English. I'm very sorry if it sounds like inciting religious debate. If need be I can show you more journal articles on this subject, personally I would not love to though. All I am expecting is a simple sentence or something clarifying this facet of Hinduism. Something like Some historians and scholars concider that Vaishnavism and Saivism were different religions in the past, but under contemporary Hinduism, these division are sects. Missing this would be an historical error in the subject. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

May I request an admistrator to make the changes specified above based on this Journal article provided there is no objection or concern raised. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Can the to following sentence over here: However, academics categorize contemporary Hinduism into four major denominations: Vaishnavism,Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism. The denominations differ primarily in the God worshipped as the Supreme One and in the traditions that accompany worship of that God. The following be added: However, these denominations were considered to be separate religions before 14th century. ([2] [3]).

Provided no one has any objection to this statement. Sorry if I am wrong! Thanks Wiki San Roze ^talk 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to sourcing the article from web site abstracts such as this. We should be upgrading the source quality by relying more heavily on academic books. Aside from the problem with sourcing, the statement seems overbroad and seems to mis-state what Smarta worship involves. Buddhipriya 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry once again, since I realise that issues as this is indeed sensitive when it comes to faith that one holds so dear. But these are published journals. A full access would be possible with institutional network access. I am under an impression that journals hold higher credibility over books. I leave it to others to comment and decide on it. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations are to a one-paragraph abstract of a journal article. Is this the strongest reference on the subject? Buddhipriya 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, full articles can be accessed as I mentioned if you have an institutional access through these links. Home internet usually doesn't alow full articles to be viewed unless you have a subscription. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:EL: "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." Buddhipriya 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, you are right that linking to subscription sites as external links is usually to be avoided, since an average wikipedia user will not gain from that weblink. However, that guideline does not apply to using such sources as reliable content sources. Indeed, as a matter of course, we use "books" as sources while writing wikipedia articles and in order to access them an average reader will have to either spend money or pay a trip to the library.

As Wiki San Roze stated, academic articles in reputable peer reviewed journals would indeed qualify as reliable sources on wikipedia; and in some cases may be considered even better than books since the peer review process is (ideally) more adversarial and hence stricter than the editorial oversight that a book addressed to "commoners" may receive. That said, one needs to be careful when using "primary academic sources" on wikipedia since, (1) they can be hard to interpret correctly without having in depth knowledge of the topic and context and (2) a journal article may represent a novel view of a single author and not the academic consensus, which wikipedia usually aims to communicate. Therefore, we should use such sources with caution and try to look for "review articles" from prominent academics in the field, whenever possible.

Hope my on-the-one-hand / on-the-other-hand argument is decipherable. :-) Abecedare 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki San Roze, can you please specify how exactly the two articles that you linked to support the thesis that, "However, these denominations were considered to be separate religions before 14th century" by providing pertinent quotations? That will help us decide if and how the issue should be discussed in the Hinduism article.

I have browsed through the Comparative Studies in Society and History article (aside: it does make interesting reading!) and have not found any mention of Saivism, Vaishnavism, and Skatism as being "separate religions". Indeed that article refers to Saivism et al as "communities" on page 633; "sects" on page 637 and also quotes Monier-Williams, "About the division between Saivism and Vaishnavism, Monier-Williams insists (1993:97) that they 'are not opposite or incompatible creeds. They represent different lines of religious thought. . . quite allowable within the limits of one and the same system' ". The closest that the author gets to your stated point is on page 648, where he says:

"What I am suggesting here is that many modern scholars, especially those who work principally with Sanskrit sources, may have unconsciously absorbed some of the self-imposed cultural isolation of premodern Sanskrit literature and then concluded that there was no Hindu awareness of the Muslim Other. As a consequence, they may also have assumed that the Hindus had no clear contrastive awareness of their own religious identity.

Whatever the reason for the scholarly acceptance of the idea that there was no religious Hindu self-identity before 1800, the evidence against this view in vernacular Hindu literature is clear and abundant. The bulk of this evidence takes the form of texts composed by the popular religious poet-singers of North India, most of them members of non-Brahmin castes. This literature does precisely what Sanskrit literature refuses to do: it establishes a Hindu religious identity through a process of mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim Other. In practice, there can be no Hindu identity unless this is defined by contrast against such an Other. Without the Muslim (or some other non-Hindu), Hindus can only be Vaishnavas, Saivas, Smartas or the like. The presence of the Other is a necessary prerequisite for an active recognition of what the different Hindu sects and schools hold in common."

The above quote, IMO, is more an argument for existence of a "Hindu religious identity" before the term Hindu/Hinduism was coined (which by the way is the central thesis of the paper) in the 18th century, rather than an argument for Vaishanism, Saivism, Shaktism being distinct religions.

The "Social Anthropology" paper is not available to me online, but I can get it from the library if needed. It would save me a trip though :-), if you could instead provide fair-use extracts from the article that support the statement you propose to add. Thanks. Abecedare 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If a solid reference is found about the sects existing as "separate religions" before the 14th century, a sourced date will need to be added regarding when the denominations first emerged. From general knowledge, I believe the first person to recognise the different sects was Adi Shankara, who lived a few centuries before this anyway. On another note, if only a couple of reliable sources can be found, it may suggest it is not a very notable fact and is perhaps better to add in the Hindu denominations article, particularly when the information on this page is already quite excessive to put it mildly. Only the bare essentials should be presented here. If it is to be added, I prefer it being mentioned in the "History" section where a bit more context is provided. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the different sects are any more or less seperate now than they were 1000 years ago? It seems to be missing the point to infer that they "came together" at some stage in the 14th C? The philosophy and scriptural background (which unifies the groups more than anything else) is much more ancient than 14th C. Gouranga(UK) 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had posted this question on 22nd May and got no replies. This article was part of a presentation by Prof Malkin and used it in the sense of VS&S. Anyways, I think Hindu identity issue is the right explanation. I appologise to have read it with prejudice. Thanks for the people who pointed me wrong. I think Hindu identity is an interesting topic for non-Hindus (am a humanist) like me to read. May be this article can mention about it, before more people get misled like me. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Age of Hinduism: reference

Reference #3:Kenoyer, J. M. "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization" pages 180-183. Oxford University Press 1998 Although I couldnt fishout the book, I managed to find a comentary on his other article and it says Kenoyer deciphered the Indus script and found to close to Near Eastern relgions but no direct mention to Hinduism. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should probably finish reading the entire book, Wiki San Roze. Kenoyer, first of all, has not deciphered the entire Indus script: he has made convincing arguments for the idea that they are logo-syllabic and that he's deciphered a few of the glyphs. Secondly, he has made a connection to the Mesopotamian civilization because it is well known that Indus Valley 'polises' had active trade relations with Mesopotamia and that their script may connect to them, insofar as the Mesopotamian system influenced their use of written characters. However, Kenoyer also makes the additional assertion that the actual language being represented by the Indus script is in fact Dravidian. I assume you know that Dravidian is a name used to refer to the set of languages which predominate in the southern half of the Indian peninsula (though evidence of Dravidian languages have been found northwards). As such, Kenoyer is actually making an argument for the continuity of Indus Valley culture with later Indian history, which would actually support the conjecture that the Pashupati seal, the great bath of Mohenjodaro, a hoary proto-yogic/Hindu culture existed which would later be transmitted to, or at the very least influence, the Aryan civilization which flourished (and who either brought with them or composed upon arrival the Vedas). --69.203.80.158 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention, many scholars (from all sorts of fields) are uncomfortable with the terms 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' because these names have a loaded history. The funny thing is that the Persians in fact called anyone who lived in India 'Hindus' because of the Indus river! When careful scholars talk about 'Hinduism', they are careful to define it, and the usual definition involves the 'Vedic' tradition (Upanishads, Yoga, Tantra, Bhakti, etc.). For that reason, even if in fifty years scholars do find links between Indus Valley culture and Hinduism, they'd probably end up talking about the syncretism between Indus Valley cultural forms and beliefs with later Vedic peoples. --69.203.80.158 06:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I didn't quite realize the context until I checked out the article... I still stand by what I've said about the book, which is that we can't cite Kenoyer as proof-positive either FOR or AGAINST the Indus Valley civilization's connection with Hinduism, although his findings would actually strengthen that argument (NOT, I must add, make it solid, because there are still many lacunae unexplained)... however, I would think the bold statement that Hinduism has its roots in the Indus Valley Civilization, an unsupported statement in the introductory paragraph of the article, needs to be removed, unless it were amended to state that there is even speculation of such an origin, though the argument is still suspect: tracing certain elements or traditions back to an ancient date doesn't justify saying the religion is actually that old... in that case, it's easy to date Judaism back to the very first ritual slaughter of a ram, which would probably help it date back to 5000 BCE! --69.203.80.158 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again am sorry if I'm indeed sound anoying. I do not intend that. Connection with Hinduism to Indus Valley goes back to the Bull-like figure seal. I would like to agree that the Bull-like figure is Rudra and hence Shiva, but painfuly enough I will also have to see the wider sense of wikipedia, which entitles us to state what is being accepted by historians and scholars and when there is no consensus (or majority), we will have use words such as 'sugestion'/'probably' and so on. The issue on the Bull-like seal has already been dealth in another wikipedia article. Every religion finds it roots to very olden age philisophy, but those ancient philosophies cant be called the same religion. Anyways, thats my POV, but the issue is we need to stick on to whats beeing accepted as fact amongst scholars and historians. Appologies if I did hurt anyone's feelings. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The roots of Hinduism, much as with the roots of life are steeped more in theories than in solid facts - thus the arguments continue, each with their own pov. Gouranga(UK) 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am taking for granted that there is a consensus that there is indeed sugestions but no direct evidence of connection between Indus V civilisation and Hinduism. If I dont here back I will change the sentence into a more acceptable format, which won't hurt an Hindu nor a scholar. Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The correction made after the above discussion has been reverted along with the other reverts. Can someone explain that please? Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am taking for granted that there is no objection in removing the Indus V entry once again. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Page is unprotected, falling back to last stable version

I reverted to the last stable version of the article that I could find, which was as of May 21. That was prior to edit wars, protection of the page, and various vandalism episodes. I made this change not because I think there is any particular content issue, but simply because the page lost track of controlled editing along the line and I would like to see if we can try again for a more orderly process. Buddhipriya 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

idolatry?

A user persistently keeps on adding commentary accusing Hinduism of being idolatrous. Apart from the fact that Idolatry is defined as a sin, it is incorrect when reliable sources deem it as Hindu iconography. While the words are similar, iconography has a more artsy and positive context while idolatry is defined as a sin.Bakaman 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Our "good faith crusader for truth" went running to the ANI board to file a report, which is why I made this.Bakaman 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion about that here in the past: Talk:Hinduism/archive16#IDOL_WORSHIP_AND_POLYTHEISM_.28Debate.29. Murti is the most accurate term, just as icon is used (rather than 'idol') by certain Eastern Christian sects to describe an image that helps idealize an aspect of God. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

'Idolatry' is most commonly used as a POV word used to denigrate worship practices of 'other' religions. One person's icon or murti is another's 'idol'. Some fundamentalist Christian sects accuse other Christian sects of idol-worship for having images of Christ and images of saints. See Buddhas of Bamyan for an example of a reaction to another religion's 'idols'. Or [4] to see American evangelist Pat Roberston condemning Hinduism as 'evil' because of its 'idolatry'. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I added 'idol-worship' instead of the more ill-sounding 'idolatory'. I also added that Hinduism's aspects are in sync with paganism, which is again no longer a taboo word. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I removed 'idol-worship' - it's still a loaded POV term. Until consensus is reached here to change the text to a POV loaded version, we should keep the encyclopedic and NPOV version. Note that Idol worship just redirects to Idolatry. They mean the same thing, and are both used as an insult by members of certain religions. Also note that the same discussion occurred on the Paganism article's talk page, with the result that Pagans removed the term 'idol worship' because it's a Christian POV term. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people like using the word idol-worship, in a well-meaning way, because the term has become a neutral one in India, where obviously the vast majority of people are Hindu. But since Wikipedia is an international, web-based resource, iconography should be preferred, in all cases, over idolatry or idol-worship, unless specific reference is being made to historical viewpoints (say, to Mughals referring to Hindu temples as being filled with buts, or British bigots deriding 'idols')... indeed, as an Indian, I am all for slowly effecting a change in India itself... with more non-Indians visiting and working in India, and more Indians traveling abroad, in sum, with India's steady globalization, terminology should be updated to reflect cosmopolitanism rather than slavish 'Commonwealth' English. --69.203.80.158 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Idol-worship" is a clear well known term. Iconography is not. I do not think that most English speakers know the term Murthi. To summarize, "idol worship" should be used, in spite of the negative connotations that it has for some people. Andries 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible argument. In that case, the term 'nigger' should have been retained back in the 50's when people were less familiar with more new-fangled phrases like "African-American". Idolatry propagates unfairly a completely biased viewpoint of Hindu (and, by the way, Buddhist) spiritual practices. In fact, I just thought of this, if "idol-worship" is a clear, well-known term, and "iconography" is not, then we should go and change the entire Catholicism article (and all related ones). If you can argue your case there, I'm sure "Hinduism" and "Hinduism-related" article editors would be more willing to oblige. Oh, and one more thing, this is an encyclopedia where anyone unaware of the term "iconography" can click on the clearly-marked blue link which the word iconography, in staple brackets, becomes. --69.203.80.158 23:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, may be an encyclopedia in the 1950s should have used the word nigger. I have never heard of the term iconography in relation to Hinduism. Idol worship is much more usual. Andries 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, many writers are adopting the term 'icon' in their description of Hindu religious figures. By the way, see an Encyclopedia Britannica article: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-342372/lingodbhavamurti and a BBC news piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2929863.stm. Both refer to Hindu figurines and symbols as 'icons', not 'idols'. While you may bring counter-examples in other or the same venerable educational and news sources, the fact is that the use of the term iconography is growing in reference to Hinduism and Wikipedia's offensiveness and Point-of-View (POV) policies reject 'idolatry' as a genuine means of referring to Hindu religious symbols. Also, I would refer you to a simple search on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-5430948-7291363?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Hindu+iconography&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go . The point is not whether idol has more usage than icon, but that idol is offensive, inaccurate, and strongly biased in its perspective while icon is not. While you might argue that both of the words 'idol' and 'icon' carry Christian usage into a Hindu domain, the problem is that the English language itself is loaded with Christian terminology and many English words are loaded with Christian or Christian-influenced etymologies. The best policy is to err on the side of neutrality of expression, where icon neither judges nor condemns, while idol merely condemns. As a college student in the states, I hear far more professors and students using the term iconography than idol-worship or idolatry, since they'd be smacked down in an instant if they did so in a context of supposedly objective study of Hindu religious symbols. And my last point, the majority of editors in Wikipedia have already established iconography as the term to use over idolatry... LordSuryaofShropshire fought this war three years ago with others. --69.203.80.158 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that iconography is a less widely known term that idol worship is not a strong enough argument to counter the fact that it has negative connotations, and hence is POV. There are many words in this article that someone with little knowledge of Hinduism is likely to have never heard of. If we use idol worship, we will have to explain the misconceptions it suggests which will make this already long article even longer. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the article Iconography, which describes how different religions use "icons", NOT "idols". Iconography clearly is the accepted word to use in this encylopedia to describe religious use of....icons. The Idolatry article on the other hand talks about the sin and evil of idol-worship.

See also the Eastern Christianity template. Eastern Christianity makes rich use of....icons. One of the links in their template is Iconography. Not idol-worship, not idolatry, but Iconography. See for yourself: Template:Eastern_Christianity

Iconography is more academic for those reasons - it explains Hinduism, and other religions usage of icons clearly and scientifically, without POV and negative connotations.

Now, here's a typical example of how the term 'idol' is used in a POV way to attack Hindus:

"Of all of India's problems, one stands out from the rest. That problem is idol worship. It is said there are hundreds of millions of Hindu deities. All this has put a nation in bondage to spiritual forces that have deceived many for thousands of years." — Pat Robertson, popular American evangelist

'Idol' is equivalent to 'false god' in many Abrahamic religions, so by it's nature it is POV, and is used by those wanting to promote a specific POV - namely that worship of religious symbols they don't agree with is evil. Hindus do not see their murtis as false gods, but as representing God or some aspect of God. Thus they should be termed icons and not idols in this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of Idoltry is as follows: It is usually defined as worship of an image, idea or object, as opposed to the worship of a supreme being. Now the second part of the sentence doesn't apply to Hinduism. As mentioned on this page on a number of occasions with references, Hindus worship an image, idea or object as a path a way to worship the Supreme Being, not to oppose the worship of the Supreme Being. Wikipedia is not a reliable source but linking this page to that one implies that what Hinduism incorporates. It is not even POV, it is plain wrong. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the redirect from Idol worship to idolatry. Andries 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that "idol worship" is still seen by members of Abrahamic religions to mean, or imply, "false idols" and therefore "idolatry". It's still a POV loaded term. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, it is the term that is the clearest and most widely known and thus has the largest explanatory value for most readers. Andries 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV supersedes all other policies. See merriam webster's definition here (of idolatry)

1. the worship of a physical object as a god
2. immoderate attachment or devotion to something

The article cannot suggest that Hindus are obsessed with an attachment to the murti. That is both incorrect and opprobrious.Bakaman 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, 'icon' and 'iconography' are NPOV. That's the whole point. You also need to read up on Iconography — it's far more widely used than you claim, and is the most academic term. Your claim that 'idol' has the "largest explanatory value for most readers" is true only if you are talking exclusively about Abrahamic religion adherents who believe that Hindus are devil-worshipers, oops, I meant idol-worshipers, my bad. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy way to solve this folks, what do the reliable sources say?--0rrAvenger 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition for idol in the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth edition, includes Christians and Jews extend the term to include any deity other than their own.[5] Since this encyclopedia is written for everyone, not just Christians and Jews, then we must use a term that is universal and not exclusive to one POV. There just happens to be a really good term that fits that description. It is the word icon.

The definition for idol in the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, includes A false god [6]. Obviously, idol is not the appropriate term for this article. It may be appropriate for an article about Christian Criticism of Hinduism, but not for the Hinduism article. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional point: while the term idol has different uses, the connotation in this context is clearly one of false god and any deity other than their own, as the two definitions above show. I believe both are Reliable Sources. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"most widely known and thus has the largest explanatory value" - Andries ... very simple rebuttal... "most widely known"? perhaps... perhaps more so than icon or iconography... but think of English-speakers... most have been raised Catholic or Protestant (Christian)... Catholics accept iconolatry, and so understand the term icon... Protestantism in part defines itself against iconolatry, and hence most Protestants do tend to understand that they are against the sorts of 'icons' in place in Catholic churches... I would contend that those learning English and, by default, learning much of its Christian history, would at one point or another come across the term 'icon'. But, the more important point is to be made against "largest explanatory value"... if by explain I am to think, Andries, that you would mean explaining 'truths' or 'facts' or things accepted to be 'reasonable,' then by its very nature, as ably explained in the foregoing comments, "idol", "idol-worship", and "idolatry" not only have no explanatory value, but in fact militate against a true, factual, and/or reasonable explanation!!! Hence, idolatry is to be stricken as fallacious and inappropriate to a discussion of Hindu practices. --69.203.80.158 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, terms such as deity worship, murthis and icons are much more appropriate here. To describe the practices of Hinduism as idolatory and still claim that the article reads as NPOV would be grossly incorrect. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my oppinion to say that hindu's practice idolatry would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Peace.--James, La gloria è a dio 11:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Free speech

See [7]

I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. Some editors strongly believe idolatry is a negative word (exactly as propagated by Abrahamic religions) and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the vivid paintings used by the Russian Orthodox Church, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (in flesh and blood) (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, rats, snakes,...) under the care of appointed minders and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope/context of iconography or moorti worship. There is no question of malice in the choice of words.

Idolatry is the core pillar of Hinduism. God is believed to manifest himself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), trees (like banyan), flora (like lotus) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, buffaloes, monkeys, rats, et al). For instance, the rat temple in Rajasthan [8] attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings. This is nothing to be ashamed of and brushed under. It is part and parcel of the rich Indian heritage.

It should be noted that iconography is only a small subset of the vast fabric of idolatry in Hinduism. Instead of getting unnecessarily neurotic over terminology, this subject must be a collaborative work to raise Wikipedia usability.

Also, may I remind that this is a encyclopaedia. So there is no room for political correctness. What may be offensive to some, may be informative to others. On a personal note, I don't think there is anything evil about animal or devil worship either. So let us get rid of the stereotypes and stick to matters of fact. Now voodoo worship is also considered acceptable.

Anwar 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tulsi is not worshipped as the Supreme God, but as a devotee of God. I am not aware of any of the core traditions of Hinduism worshipping trees, rats or flowers as the Supreme God either? Deities such as Ganesha or Hanuman when worshipped as manifestations of God are not considered to be everday animals but divine beings. See articles such as Deva (Hinduism), Brahman and Ishvara for further details. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with Anwar saadat when he says "there is no room for political correctnes". Also, there is a difference inbetween worshipping the actual icon and worshipping the God it represents in front of the icon. The first case is a case of idotary. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, iconography is used for three dimensional objects. From Icon: "religious cults or religious cultures[1] have been inspired or supplemented by concrete images, whether in two dimensions or three." As for the rest of your comments, they have been answered above. Consensus here is obviously in favor of keeping the far more academic and NPOV (and less neurotic, it appears) term 'icon'. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Priyanath, I must say that I'm not sure about that reference to 'three-dimensional' in the icon article. Do you have a scholarly citation about this? That said, I'd just like to point out that I would strongly deprecate the use of the word 'idol', which sounds deeply inappropriate to my ears - image, or a link to murti, should be sufficient. However, icon is strongly associated with two-dimensional representation in the religious context. Further, iconodgraphy has a strict meaning - the traditional accoutrements of a religious image, for example - rather than the veneration of that image, so cannot be used as a replacement for idolatry. Where necessary, use a more exact phrase rather than an inaccurate or contested word. Hornplease 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A very cursory search finds two respected and notable authors referring to Hindu murtis(readily assumed to be three-dimensional) as icons and also to iconography. "What is important is that the deities as icons in temples mediate between the human world and a divine or sacred reality, and that the icon as 'deity' might be seen as a 'spiritualization' of matter." (Flood, Gavin, Introduction to Hinduism page 14). The book Development of Hindu Iconography is about... well, Hindu Iconography. According to Amazon, the author, "Dr. Jitendra Nath Banerja was an eminent historian and Indologist. He was Carmichael Professor and Head of the Department of Ancient Indian History, Calcutta University until his retirement in 1959." Both terms are academic, explanatory, NPOV, and encyclopedic. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That search was far too cursory. The Flood reference was a bit of a throwaway; he doesn't seem to use it again much. And you clearly didnt read what I wrote above... iconography is about the traditional accoutrements of a religious image, 2-d or 3-d. It cannot be used as a word representing the veneration of images. Hindu iconography discusses the fact that Shiva is usually shown with a snake coiled round his head, etc. Hence, both terms are quite inapplicable. Please. Hornplease 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Look here. 'Nigger' was an acceptable word, but later became a bad-word. On the other hand, 'Yankee' was a bad-word, but later became an acceptable word (Yankee Doodle went to town is Connecticut's National SOng).

So in the same way, the words "Pagan" and "Idol-worship" are no longer used in the derogatory sense, but purely in an academic or in an objective sense.

Besides, why the hell must we pander to the definitions laid by the Catholic Church of the Middle-Ages ? Arey Garv se bolo, "We are pagans !" Swabimaan se bolo, "We worship idols!". Anyway, any westerner that you meet (except the Pope) will respect that. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

• Iconography is a word primarily from art history; it is not correct to use it for the title of an article about religious practises. The article begins:"Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images." Hindu iconography is fine, but you need another title for an article on the uses etc. Personally I favour the very neutral term cult image- also academic and easy to understand; this article should be combined with the old content at idol worship for a general article (covering other religions, past and present). Cult images in Hinduism would be a good title to redirect/rename murti, if you want to. Both idolatry and idol worship are strongly negative terms to many people. Johnbod 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on Murti is well-named now, as the concept is difficult to translate into English as this discussion has demonstrated. Use of terms such as "idolatry" and "cult image" reflect POV issues by persons who do may not be familiar with the underlying issues. I hope people will not begin changing article names in response to this little flurry of debate. The term "iconography" is a general techincal term used widely in religious studies to refer to the symbolic use of images and plastic arts. Many books on Indology contain chapters or Appendices on iconography. Finding the right word to translate the term Murti is a challenge, because there is no precise translation into English for the conceptual issue. Some Western Indologists, such as Gavin Flood, use the term "icon", but the index to Flood (1996) makes the translation issue clear by having an index entry for murti which adds a "see also" entry to "icon of a deity". (ref: Flood 1996, p. 336.) A quick survey of a few texts may make the translation issue apparent. The index for Thomas Hopkins' "The Hindu Religious Tradition" has an entry for murti which he translates as "form" with a "see also" to "images". (Hopkins, p. 153) Buddhipriya 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree 1000%. Murti is an entirely different concept than what I read at Cult image and Idolatry or the loaded term idol worship. The terminology in this article, and in the other articles, has been well thought out and discussed in the past—here and by other academics. Let's keep, and let people become educated about Hinduism—that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with Murti, it was local editors above who were suggesting renames (i don't know what redirects there - there should be many things). But I think the current redirect from idol worship to idolatry a very bad idea indeed, and neither title is what is needed. "Cult image" is a neutral academic term. There is a strong need for a better general article on the subject, covering all religions. Johnbod 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with trying to make an article for "all religions" is that the use of a Murti in Hinduism may in fact not be the same as the use of images in other religions. That is part of the problem of definition. Further, not all statues of deities are technically murtis, under some strict ritual defintions, as in some cases only statues which have been ritually blessed in certain ways become embodiments of the divine. We have discussed this before in the parallel to the Christian concept of transubstantiation in which under certain conditions bread and wine may ritually become the body and blood of Christ. This transformation of status is the result of ritual actions. During festivals, part of the process of preparation of large parade murtis involves a similar blessing or transformation, which for a short period of time gives the murti a special character that it did not have while sitting in the shop. Buddhipriya 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but you can't just not have general articles like cult image and idol worship. Obviously more detailed articles should be referred to as "main article" etc, and there will be problems, but there always are. The practices/beliefs you mention just above were I think very similar to those in some other ancient religions also. Almost anything is better than a redirect to idolatry anyway. Johnbod 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there currently any specific action item such as a proposed redirection that is on the table at this time? I have lost track of what the original issue was and if there is any particular followup still being proposed. Buddhipriya 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect of idol worship to idolatry is under review here Johnbod 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I just looked at Idolatry and cut the entire section on Hinduism because it was unsourced except for one web link to a site that would fail the tests of WP:EL. I hope more Hindu editors watchlist the articles involved, and demand better sourcing in the future. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." If editors did nothing more than demand compliance with that policy, the problems with patent nonsense on Hinduism articles could gradually be reduced. Buddhipriya 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just use murti. John, buddhipriya and priyanath agree on that, and it seems fitting for wikipedia to educate the reader to what a murti is..Bakaman 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with using murti.--0rrAvenger 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, that's my preference, or a suitable phrase. Hornplease 06:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Murti it is. We should establish a general rule for this and other Hinduism pages that the Hindu/Sanskrit terminology is retained unless there is a clear and simple English translation which won't cause chaos when used. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In conjunction with this discussion I have been poking around and was a bit dismayed to find that some of the articles like Shilpa shastras and Prana pratishta, which are technical issues related to all of this, were in very sad shape. I have at least set up proper citation apparatus for those articles (and for Murti) in hopes that this spurt of interest may stimulate some of the editors to crack the books and add some citations that will spruce up those articles. Buddhipriya 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, moving somewhat off-topic, most articles in Category:Genres of Indian art are pretty stubby: Rajput painting etc, and generally Indian art is not well covered. The current account at History of painting is not good either. Johnbod 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Hindu deities - could do with some renovation. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Snake worship

What is objectionable with this extract? Hinduism is sometimes considered to be a henotheistic, but such a view oversimplifies a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning idolatry, polytheism, pantheism, monism and even atheism. For instance, the Advaita Vedanta school holds that there is only one causal entity (Brahman), which manifests itself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al). The rat temple in Rajasthan attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings while snake worship is more popular in south India. Many scholars consider the Samkhya school of thought to have had atheistic leanings.

All links are produced from mainstream websites. Snake worship is not some obscure occult practice. There are plenty of motion picture films in Tamil praising the omnipotence of the Snake God. Anwar 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, here are some of the problems with your edit:

1. Your sources, a national Geoographic article about one temple rather than a mainstream practice and a commercial tourism website hardly qualify as authoritative published sources on the subject of Hindusim.
2. Your edit misattributes the additional phrase "including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al)." to the "The Essentials of Hinduism" reference.
3. Your phraseology misrepresents the reverence towards plants and animals as GourangaUK pointed out before on this page.
4. Most importantly your edit places Undue weight on a relatively unimportant and non-universal aspect.
5. You raise a straw man arguments when you say (as in your edit summary) that "snake worship is not a shame". There are many aspects of Hinduism that are not the least bit "shameful" but still do not find mention in the page; for example Sita, Hanuman, Parvati, Indra, Narada are undoubtedly more important personages in Hinduism than the rats and snakes you mention, but are yet not significant enough to discuss in a summary style article. To recap: "not shameful" is not an inclusion (or exclusion!) criterion.

I assume that you didn't appreciate these finer points earlier and therefore repeated ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) added the disputed content in spite of reversions by sevral editors. But now that these reasons have been explained to you in detail, I hope you will desist from repeating your disruptive editing. Abecedare 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis of the issues and also request that if you wish to pursue these points, that you please take them up one at a time rather than making bulk edits that cover a wide range of issues at the same time. If you were to focus on one topic at a time, such as snake worship or something else, that point could then be examined using strong sources, that is, academic books, rather than relying on web sites, many of which have problems related to WP:EL and WP:RS. As the other editor mentioned, the wording of material can also influence semantics. For many of these points, a survey of several academic sources would probably turn up variations in language that can be explored on the talk page so shadings can be considered by multiple editors. Buddhipriya 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor introductory paragraph and what to do about it

The introductory paragraph has poor narrative flow due to the inclusion of various nominal definitions (e.g., Hindu Dharma and Sanatana Dharma). It thwarts a reader straight away from getting to the fact of the matter that it is a religion and that it originated from India and so on.

Hence, the introductory paragraph would read beautifully for the layperson (or anyone else) if we got straight to the point, as follows:

"Hinduism is a religion that originated from the Indian subcontinent."

This then should be connected to the second paragraph which begins "With its origins in the Vedic civilization..."

The elaboration about Hinduism being known as Hindu Dharma and the Sanatana Dharma and its meaning as the 'eternal law' etc. should be moved to the Etymology section.

This makes for a crisp, to-the-point introductory statement about what Hinduism is, where it sprang from, and its significance. This is what an introductory statement should embody -- never let it get bogged down by lengthy etymological definitions. Save that for the etymology section which interested readers can refer to later if they wish to further explore definitions and etymology. AppleJuggler 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I rather like these suggestions. We should try to get some new ouside editors with fresh eyes looking at this. Buddhipriya 06:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As a non-Hindu, I think I would be attracted to read the article further if it starts like this:

Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world that originated from the Indian subcontinent.

In the above sentence the thrid largest religion would instantly attract the interest of a third party reader. Since most people who will read about Hinduism will be the ones who don't know about it or carry a common western view that it is some obscure faith. I think soon after this it should continue with

It is the world's oldest extant religion, and has approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India and Nepal, and a large population in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.

This would out line the importance of Hinduism and its global presence, and then spelling out its theologies and history would be an obvious matter of interest to the reader. Thanks. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I support AppleJuggler's suggestions. I also wish to bring attention to the third paragraph which is about the scriptures. I feel the detail is too much for the lead and believe that replacing it with the "Core concepts" would be more beneficial. What are everybody's thought on this? Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of moving the details of Sanatana Dharma etc... further down into the etymology section. The scripture para does look a little out of place, but I believe the details of the scriptural basis should be given somewhere in the intro. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I too like the ideas proposed by AppleJuggler, Wikiliaty and Gizza. Perhaps an idea would be to mention the "history" and "demographics" in the first paragraph; the core concepts and practices in the second; and literature and schools in the third. That will also provide a better summary of the whole article as required by the Wikipedia Manual of style. Anyone, want to take a lead on making the proposed changes ? Abecedare 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We have many good ideas here. If we were to take them one at a time and implement them slowly, I bet we could get it done with a high level of agreement being reached on the talk page for each edit. I nominate AppleJuggler or one of the other outside editors to make one of their proposed edits, and then let us all have our say on that specific point. Once one is done, go on to the next. Would this be an agreeable way of working? Buddhipriya 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)