Jump to content

Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

User:Vinay Jha's edits

I have reverted these recent edits which were (1) unnecessary details and repetitions for this already lengthy article, (2) unsourced and (3) partially OR and POV.
Incidentally Vinay Jha (talk · contribs) (and his prior accounts Winai Zhaa (talk · contribs), 59.94.47.127 (talk · contribs), User:59.94.45.209, 59.94.44.198 (talk · contribs) etc.) has already been told about wikipedia's policies WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS etc. See discussions on Talk:Surya Siddhanta, and Talk:Vedanga Jyotisha in particular. Abecedare 06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Penis worship

This article does not seem to cover penis worship at all. I found some links online. [1] Hope this helps.

Though this ritual is more popular in peninsular India, it is still prevalent in the north too. For instance, I have read about the great Penis temple in Amarnath, Kashmir. Anwar 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is usually called phallic worship, and has been present in most ancient civilization, as described in Phallus. Shiva linga, a form of Shiva worship, represents such phallic worship. For online references, this and this can be consulted. The problem is where to mention it? Probably in a section on iconography and idols?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayan, Fertility goddesses and phallic iconography have been a feature of all religions/faiths/cultures whose roots stretch far enough into history and I am sure we can find scholarly citations for these features but referring to them as simple "vagina worship" or "penis worship" is inflammatory, and a perfect example of trolling.
Unfortunately Anwar has exhibited such behaviour before (see Talk:Hinduism#Snake_worship for just one example), so I find it hard to "assume" good faith about his conduct. Abecedare 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Anwar, can you give citations that so called "Penis worship" in it's exact meaning as you say was popular in Hinduism at any point of time or at least the practice is still prevalent in North India as you claim? Or at least provide one reference for Penis Temple in Amarnath? There is nothing to mention in this article. Trolling and nonsense don't find place in Wikipedia. Gnanapiti 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Anwar, not much is known about the pre-islamic polytheistic arabia. But if its true that Kaaba is a pre-islamic place of worship, than its highly likely that the Black Stone represents a similar thing.--nids(♂) 10:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Anwar has made his prejudice towards Hinduism and India known to the Wikipedia community on many instances. I do not even take him seriously because he is just a cleverly camouflaged troll and I personally have better things to do with my time.--Blacksun 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hindus do not "worship" penises. The Lingam is symbolic and is meant to represent Shiva. [2](UTC)--Jesucristo301 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The actual characterization of the deity commonly referred to as "Shiva-linga" is jyotir-linga. The word 'linga' in Sanskrit means symbol. The image of Jyotir-linga represents in a concrete ('murta') form the intangible appearance of the spirit ('cit') as flame ('jyoti') in creation. That phenomenon happens in the Shiva aspect of Narayana, hence Shiva-linga. Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This section of the discussion should be removed due to it's lack of credibility as evidenced herein.The user making this claim has been discredited as anti-Hindu and has displayed attitudes characterizing him as such by the aforementioned user Abecedare, his source's (sic) claim has been refuted various times.--Jesucristo301 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of named references

I just made an edit to the definition of the term deva and wanted to upgrade the sourcing to MW related to the Note, but in doing so ran into the problem of named references, which make maintenance of the article difficult. In this case, glossing the sourcing to MW on the word deva will require disconnecting that note from the general vague MW name and putting in a more specific note. Because disconnecting this note in this way raises the general issue of use of named notes, I would like to draw attention to this issue here. Some people like them, others do not. However there seems to be no disagreement that use of named notes can produce collateral damage in multiple places in an article if one instance of them is edited. They also result in non-sequential numbering of Notes, which makes it difficult to work backward from the Notes section to locate all uses of a particular source without putting the text of the article into a word processor. For these reasons, rather than using a named note, in this particular instance I will use a gloss plus a page citation, making the note unique. Any comments on this issue? Buddhipriya 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindu countries

In the lead: Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.

"Large Hindu populations" is very subjective, something that can be twisted around the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I suggest we create an official cut-off, so the number of countries can be limited. A particular number (eg.10 million) for countries with large populations where Hinduism is a minority and a particular percentage (>50%) for nations (with smaller populations) where Hinduism is the majority. Note that this paragraph will most likely be moved to a future "Demographics" section when we get the time. GizzaDiscuss © 02:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article needs a demographics section eventually, where this information will be (somewhat) expanded upon; so I am not concerned about fiddling with this list in the lead at present. Perhaps, in the meantime, we can search for and list references for demographics information here on the talk page. I guess we will need statistics for worldwide Hindu population and the population in several countries; we can also mention growth rate if we can get that number. Anything else that would be useful/available ? Abecedare 02:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


There is only one Hindu country, and that is the Indian subcontinent. Countries where the percentage of Hindus among the overall population is significantly large, should not be referred to as Hindu countries. Also, we should recognize countries by the percentage of Hindus, and not by sheer numbers.Kanchanamala 05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The only country where Hinduism is official relgion is Nepal, and yes, that should be mentioned in the Demographics section. General population of Hindus, growth rate and percentages are all needed. Btw to let everyone know why I was prompted to discuss this, an anon recently added the Philippines, a country which I think would have a low number, percentage and growth rate of Hindus compared to other countries. GizzaDiscuss © 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Mauritius, Nepal, and India have Hindu majorities. The only Hindu country is Nepal. Countries to be listed should be at least 10% Hindu, or have over 5 million. I think that may be a good proposal.Bakaman 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me elaborate. There is only one Hindu 'country', and that is the Indian subcontinent. Bharat, that is India, has a secular government. Nepal is Hindu. Pakistan is Islamic. Bangladesh is Muslim. The ancestors of non-Hindu "Indians" on the Indian subcontinent were originally Hindus. The ancestors of Parsis came to India from Persia, and they have always been exemplary Indians. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in that historically, it is the Indian subcontinent that was Hindu. However, the Demographics section will mainly be referring to modern nations. We can perhaps have one sentence on history, where before the partition, Hindus were spread all over the subcontinent. GizzaDiscuss © 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Gizza. To repeat what I have said above, countries where the percentage of Hindus among the overall population is significantly large, should not be referred to as "Hindu countries". Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

References for the (future) Demographics section

Please add any sources you find to the following list:

Perhaps the CIA Factbook would be a reliable source for populatation statistics. Regarding Adherents.com the sourcing looks dubious, but by population numbers (not percentages) the USA ranks 8 in number of Hindus. Buddhipriya 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification by User:Vinay Jha

To Abecedare (Not an edit war): You know I have consistentently avoided any edit war, even when I found I was in the right. But as you want to discuss some points,I must answer (it is not an edit war). Many authors translate 'Dharma' as 'Law', without realizing that it often leads to misinterpretation, because Dharma had nothing to do with man-made laws, and it was always considered to be eternal, i.e,'Sanatana'. Not a single instance can be cited fron entire Indian history when any political power exercised any right in deciding the content of Dharma. I,therefore, introduced a small clause to remove ambiguity :"'Dharma meant 'Divine Law' which even kings could not change." If you want source, the best definition was provided by Bhishma in Mahabharata before his death, which I will not elaborate at present for want of space. It was not an unnecessary detail. Secondly, I did not add a single unsourced reference here. Samkhya defined as an atheist philosophy is a modern view of some authors, e.g., Sen Gupta, who was already cited. I added the view of Gita, citing the verse also, which showed that Samkhya was quite opposite of what Sen Gupta says. You have quoted WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS policies , which implies that that Gita cannot be quoted as a reliable source of concepts crucial to Hinduism ! Thirdly, I had requested DAB to close the discussion on Surya Siddhanta because it was growing unnecessarily long. He has asked me to contribute to that article, taking care of Wiki guidelines. I was new to Wiki and did not know many of Wiki policies then. Whatever I had added to Surya Siddhanta was totally verifiable and sourced, but I had planned to add the referwences and complete the incomplete sections step by step, but DAB deleted everything before I could finish. I asked him to reconsider, and he asked me to continue editing Surya Siddhanta, but in a responsible way. But I now find that many editors are quoting this episode as my irresponsibility. Hence I must clarify the misgivings created by the fundamental complaint of DAB against me due to my following statement "it will mean that constants of modern astronomy were known to ancient Surya Siddhantic scholars with a high degree of precision" . I did not refute these allegations, abecause I did not want to hurt DAB, and therefore my image was tarnished. See the version of Surya Siddhanta before I touched it (or after DAB removed my "error"), the article says :

"The average length of the tropical year as 365.2421756 days, which is only 1.4 seconds shorter than the modern value of 365.2421904 days (J2000). This estimate remained the most accurate approximation for the length of the tropical year anywhere in the world for at least another six centuries, until Muslim mathematician Omar Khayyam gave a better approximation, though it still remains more accurate than the value given by the modern Gregorian calendar currently in use around the world, which gives the average length of the year as 365.2425 days.
The average length of the sidereal year, the actual length of the Earth's revolution around the Sun, as 365.2563627 days, which is virtually the same as the modern value of 365.25636305 days (J2000). This remained the most accurate estimate for the length of the sidereal year anywhere in the world for over a thousand years. "

Now see my final version (of 13:22, 7 July 2007,which DAB deleted). Although I never remove the versions of other editors even if they are lopsided, I had to replace the whole para quoted above with the following :

"The average length of the Surya Siddhantic tropical year as 365.24353736662808641975308642 days is 115.65377667 seconds longer than the modern value of 365.24219878125 days. This estimate remained the most accurate approximation for the length of the tropical year anywhere in the world for at least another six centuries, until Muslim mathematician gave a better approximation, though it still remains more accurate than the value given by the Julian calendar, which gives the average length of the tropical year as 365.25 days.
The length of the Surya Siddhantic sidereal year is 365.258756481481481 days, which is longer than the modern value (365.2563612258) by 3 minutes 27 seconds. The Surya Siddhantic sidereal year is therefore declared to be inaccurate."

If others declare that Surya Siddhantic year is just 1.4 seconds away from modern value, they are scientific (although this view cannot be supported by any source, either the text or any translation,including that of Burgess who was a high grade scholar). But when I showed that Surya Siddhantic tropical as well as sidereal years had a much greater difference (e.g,115 seconds in the case of tropical year and 207 seconds in the case of sidereal year )from modern values,I was charged of "pseudoscience" , "Original Research", etc. Since DAB was spending his valuable time upon unpaid research, I did not want to point out his mistakes in the open, and asked him to discuss the matter privately, but he chose to humiliate me in the talk pages, and I did not answer in same coin. The present article on Surya Siddhanta contains "Original Research", "Blatant Lies", "Unsourced or felsely sourced statements" , 'Pseudoscience and extravagant claims", which I vainly tried to correct. I said that Surya Siddhantic year has 115.6 seconds of difference from modern value, the article (wrongly) says that only 1.4 seconds of difference is there. Hence this article is making 83 times more extravagant and pseudoscientific claims than I am being charged of. Many Wiki administrators are half my age, but some have used terms like "nonsense", "garbage" for me , and addressed me impolitely.(cf. precession (astronomy)), where many readers are asking for Newtonian formulae in a simple manner for a long time which no editor was providing(cf.talk page of that article), which I had started contributing, but was stopped midway with an abuse, and I kept silent) I never complained. You must have heard of Hindu tolerance, but you are not able to see it when it stands before you. I am an ardent admirer of Jesus Christ, and while reading Wiki articles acout Christianity, I found many of them being devoid of a single reference. But I did not object, because I knew the statements, though unsourced, were true. As for Vedanga Jyotisha, I found that lopsided account was there, hence I restored the balance, and asked DAB to give his views about my edits. I hoped he will ask me to insert citations wherever he would deem fit. But he deleted my whole contribution, without discussing anything, although I had mentioned that I was adding the view of a long line of mainstream indologists, including Colebrooke. Sourcing needs time, and my user page informs you that I am presently busy in an international conference on monsoons. Hence I will be away from Wiki till 31:7:2007, and if the present unkind behaviour continues, I will be forced to leave Wiki. Unwarranted personal attack is the last thing a scholar should think of. Academic discussions should maintain some decorum. I never added anything unverifiable anywhere in Wiki, but my contributions were deleted before I could finish. Even some oral traditions I referred to in Surya Siddhanta (but did not elaborate) has been published twiced under the joint editorship of heads of departments and professors of three reputed universities of India, which I had to mention at proper sections according to my plan which I am not in a mood to implement now. DAB and others must have heard of only two versions of Surya Siddhanta, none of which has ever been used in actual practice by any almanac maker of India. I wanted to add a brief account of all known versions which could me traced and verified. But I cannot contribute anything under present circumstances, and many Wiki editors will heave a sigh of relief to hear it. I do not mind humiliation. But constant deletions and reverting makes it impossible to contribute anything. If you thought I must add extra citations, I would gladly would have done that at a short notice. But I think I am unwanted in Wiki. Not only all my contributions but me too should be deleted from Wiki for good. Now you will say that I am wasting space on Wiki talk pages. One needs a single sentence to level just or unjust charges on a person, but clarification needs some space. How many editors have cared to read the original texts related to indology is not the point. The point is that of intolerance. I think tolerance is the other name of Hinduism, which I am exhibiting all along. Be mindful that I have no association with the passangers of any hindutva bandwagon, who are doing more harm to Hinduism and to scholarly research than the trigger-happy attitude of some Wiki administrators who delete a thing and discuss it later, which means you slap a person and put forth your arguments later. I have seen how opinions of other editors are managed behind the screens in an edit war. I do not need such managed votes. Have your way. If Wiki misinforms the public, knowingly or unknowingly, the loss is not mine. Good Bye for 10 days. VinJha,11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, as I stated in my edit summary, I do believe that your edits were made in good faith, but you really need to read and understand wikipedia's content policies on
  • Verifiablity and reliable sources to understand why Gita is not considered to be a reliable source for the Hinduism article (!) and the reason why unsourced content like "But in Mahabharata, it is clearly mentioned that sapta-sindhus flowed towards the East, which clearly implied the seven great Himalayan rivers of North India with Kaushiki in the East and Saraswati the West, others being Yamuna, Ganges,Gomati, Gaghra (Sarayu), Gandak. In this region, summer monsoon and melting of Himalayan glaciers create a sea ('sindhu') like continuous spread of waters which had awed Megasthenes." is unacceptable.
  • Neutral point of view and original research, to see why unattributed edits like, "Those who cannot imagine that individual soul and God can be the same infer that refusal of Samkhya to distinguish between the two makes it an atheistic philosophy, but an atheistic philosophy cannot be called the culmination of knowledge by Lord Krishna himself." fail the test.
I am afraid that unless you understand and ingrain these policies, your edits will likely be reverted on different articles, which I am sure cannot be a pleasant experience for you. Also as you'll see from the discussions above, we are currently attempting to make this article more succinct to fall in line with wikipedia's size standards, and therefore your edits which added 2K to the article, were considered by me to be unnecessary details. Abecedare 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Vinay Jha's Reply To Abecedare : This talk page is already too long. I am posting my answer to your talk page. VinJha, VinJha 12:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

The last paragraph of the Scriptures and theology section. In contrast to the scriptural canons of some religions, the Hindu scriptural canon is not closed in the sense that there is little theological quarrel between Hindu denominations although these denominations may view God and their notions in a different form or sense. The first sentence is making two distinct point that weakly related to each other: 1) Scriptural canon not closed 2) Little conflict between denominations. Before the section was compressed, these points at least had separate sentences if not separate paragraphs. They may have been in different sections. I suspect the citation only sources the second point in the sentence. Someone can check that.

According to memory, the point mentioned previously was that more Hindu scriptures can still be created because Hindus seek to find the truth in new ways, or something along those lines. It wasn't to do with different sects getting along with each other. GizzaDiscuss © 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Boons

Continuing from Talk:Hinduism/Archive_18#Boon and Hindu.

I'll leave it to others to decide how to deal with boons (since I know little about this). But it would be nice if boon in an article such as Arjuna could at least be linked to a section of an article, however small. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be possible after we compress the article further to have space for a sentence or two on boons. Considering this article has to follow WP:SS, which section do you suggest putting that sentence in? GizzaDiscuss © 07:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Request comma

Should there be a comma in the first sentence somewhere? --66.169.9.118 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote the first sentence, "Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in modern Indian languages) is a religious tradition that originated in the Indian subcontinent." It seems fine to me. Perhaps you are unaware that the information parentheses can be omitted when examining the flow of the sentence. While I can't see where a comma is needed, I'm glad to see you looking into the standard of writing of this article. In terms of quantity, it is almost complete with only a few missing sections and is generally well sourced. The quality of the prose is what I see as the biggest concern in the article especially since it is full of technical Hindu terminology. GizzaDiscuss © 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Yama

Yama is enumerated as first of the eight parts (angas) of Yoga in Yogasutra-2.29 ; therefore, definitions of these eight parts, including Yama, of Yoga logically occur in YS-2.29 in commentaries. Five types of Yamas (Yamāḥ in plural) are discussed in the next sutra whose commentaries define these five parts such as Ahimsa, Satya, etc there (YS-2.30). I corrected the citation in my last edit, and then I corrected the number of correct sutra in my next edit (17 Aug,2007). A term may occur many times in a text, but we should cite the definition from where that term has been properly defined by reliable commentators. This important thing was missed by DAB because he does not read the sources in detail and relies upon shortcuts. Instead, he called me silly (cf. Edit summary). By learning case or gender one cannot become a scholar, good editing requires thorough education, but abusing needs no education ! Some editors do not allow improvement of Wiki articles. Cf.WP:CIVILITY. -Vinay Jha 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

the context is this edit, where Vinay still thought that "yamāḥ is wrong." --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, Vinay. Your reason could have been much better summarized as, "Have changed reference from YS 30 to YS 29 since concept is first discussed in that sutra.~~~~" Cheers. Abecedare 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I could not make my point clear. I did not change the reference because YS.2.29 occurred before YS.2.30, but because commentators have described Yama in detail in the comments following YS.2.29. and not in comments following YS.2.30. I have still not learnt all editing tips and tricks because DAB unnecessarily wastes my time over trifles (charges, clarifications, abuses, etc). I have again received threats and abuses in Talk:Rgveda, although the discussion had ended. -Vinay Jha 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave the article a read-over specifically with regard to sourcing, and noticed some things which may be areas for improvement.

1) Quite a few of the notes are of the type: "Jones (1982)" which is so general that verification of the statements is difficult. At a minimum I think we should try to upgrade these sources to include page numbers.

2) Some Notes such as #83 ("arcye viṣṇau śīlā-dhīr. . . narakī saḥ") do not provide any edition or versification detail at all, making these citations dubious, particularly since they are quotations from Puranic or scriptural sources with no intervening academic review, thus suggesting that they are WP:OR. Other examples of direct quotation of scripture such as #45 "'My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.' (Bhaktivedanta 1997, ch. 11.54)" include adequate sourcing, but still may involve significant WP:POV issues because while they may reflect the views of a particular teacher, they may or may not be generally true.

3) Some of the Notes, e.g., (#69 "Rigveda is not only the oldest among the vedas, but is one of the earliest Indo-European texts." contain only unsourced statements which themselves are subject to challenge. Another example is the very first note, #1: "Hindu Dharma" in modern Indian languages such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada." Perhaps true, but who said so?

4) There is some overreliance on web sites to source things, rather than using stronger academic sources, e.g. #70, "Hinduwebsite.com explaining the yajnas. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." I think we should move toward upgrading such web links with more solid academic sourcing. Some of the sources clearly fail to meet the tests for WP:EL and WP:RS, such as #27: "Manifold Mahadevas Nature Spirits. Blessingsconucopia.com. Maureen Grace Burns, Blessings Cornucopia. Retrieved on 2007-06-25." These sorts of dubious web sites should be expunged from the article immediately if they fail to meet the tests for inclusion of such links

5. Some of the sourcing is from dubious authorities that are controversial, such as David Frawley. If vague uses of Frawley to source things as in #7: "Frawley 2001" were phased out in favor of stronger sources that are less open to debate, the article would have more credibility.

A more general issue is that in reading over the article closely I realized that the mental model is that Hinduism is one entity and thus is described over and over using singular verb forms ("it is...") rather than being viewed as a composite entity or collection of social and religious traditions. Consider the multifactorial approach of Michaels, 2004, pp. 21, who says "Examined closely, Hinduism consists of three Hindu religions and four forms of Hindu religiosity, which can occur in all Hindu religions. (For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term Hinduism from now on for the totality of the Hindu religions and their religious forms.)" Michaels analysis permits the segmentation of Hindu beliefs and practices in ways that clearly differentiate between things like Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism, folk religions, and recently-founded religious sects. I feel that the discussion we recently had regarding whether Hinduism is a religion was one helpful dialog on this larger issue. The connection to sourcing is that many of the sources are from specific sectarian viewpoints, and may in some cases be overgeneralizing.

It is true that Hinduism is "multifactorial" as Michaels says. However, the essential thing to remember is who the audience is for this article: generally the audience will be people who don't know anything whatsoever about Hinduism and want a quick sketch. Michaels' analysis is great for a publication meant primarily for scholars or those with a special interest in Hinduism, but it is too much for those who want to learn one or two things in 10 minutes. HeBhagawan 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to do some editing of the sourcing on the article along the lines discussed above, and would appreciate dialog with other editors regarding these views. Buddhipriya 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma

Abecedare, the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines of the article is totally inappropriate. Would you please consider relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it? Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, this issue was discussed thoroughly when you last raised it in March and the current consensus version was reached. The coda to the discussion was your stamp of approval, when you stated, "issue very well resolved in the article.Thanks"
Can you please clarify what has changed since then that merits re-consideration of the topic ? I fear, that unless some new references have come to light, we will just end up rehashing the old points and talking in circles. Regards. Abecedare 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, some of us involved in improving the article on Hinduism are like a group of editors riding in a car, and you, amongst us, are at the wheel. It is not an easy task to drive a juggernaut. But, of course, you have been doing great. At a time when discussions were heated, you did very well, and since we had to have some resolution for the time being, your efforts made it possible for me to say that the issue was very well resolved in the article. I am confident that all of us, your fellow editors, have been appreciative, and thankful to you indeed.

Now, things have cooled off, and since improving the article is an ongoing process, I have broached the matter once again. Right before saying to you [at 09:47] that the issue was very well resolved, I also repeated for Buddhipriya [at 02:24] what I wished you to consider. I still wish you to consider it, and I hope you will revisit that passage.

If we temper the prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines by relegating it to another paragraph without highlighting it, the article will be more balanced. That's my submission. If you can do it, then please consider doing it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, I certainly don't seek or claim ownership of the article. The right way to make a substantiative change to the article is not to appeal to me or any other editor, but lay down your arguments with references and then try to build a consensus. Cheers. Abecedare 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

there is no reason to rehash the debate unless new evidence is presented. The arguments are all there in the talk archives, and the solution reached is fair. What we are missing completely (or, Hindu denominations is missing), are rough demographics of Hinduism: which sects account for what fraction of Hindus? Until we have that, there is no way to judge how prominent these vociferous Hindu reform movements really are, and consequently, how notable the Sanatana Dharma neologism should be considered within Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What references, Abecedare, and what arguments, Dbachmann? The prominence given to the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" in the very opening lines is not proper. Why not improve the article by making it more balanced? Why is it such a problem to relegate the characterization "Sanatana Dharma" to another paragraph? You guys virtually have the article, and I am not in any mood to fight. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Swastika

added quotes from "Bannanje Govindachar" in the swastika section, explaining the meaning behind the symbolism. --Jayaram Uparna 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! Unfortunately, while I know your edits were in good faith, this is the main Hinduism article and should avoid excessive detail and commentary. See WP:SS and Wikipedia:Main article fixation. So I had to revert your edits. However, as long as you attribute those comments to a notable source, you can add it to Hindu iconography or Swastika itself. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As I stated in my edit summary and your talk page, your edits though undoubted well-meant were (1) unsourced and (2) unnecessary details for this article. You are welcome to contribute them to Swastika etc as long as you have a reliable source, but we need to be careful that we don't give undue weight to one scholar's interpretation. Finally, I noticed that the Bannanje Govindacharya is completely unsourced; if you are knowledgeable about the subject, please help improve that biographical article. Thanks. Abecedare 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Holy cow! :-) this article is hot!!! Within 5 mins my comments were edited out. I see your points. The difficulty here is that sri.Bannanje has 100s of hrs of discourse available, but in audio format, and that too in a predominantly kannada(language) commentary. Note here that he has had unparalleled research work and has dedicated his lifetime to study of spirituality...so his comments are not to be taken lightly. But i wonder how one can eke out this swastika comment from his commentaries and publish them in the swastika section. That is a challenging thing. These comments appear, in particular, in his commentaries on the Vishnu Sahasranama, Purushasukta etc. Any thoughts? --Jayaram Uparna 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Even I've heard Bannanje's commentaries in Kannada. Do you know of any available English versions of his commentaries? Sourcing Bannanje Govindacharya should not be of much difficulty as lot of information about him is available on the net. I'll work on that article. But I'm not sure how can I bring citations to his commentaries.Gnanapiti 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! It would be nice to see efforts to improve the Hinduism article radiate out to befit other articles too.
Jayaram Uparna, yes, this article is well-watched and needs to be given the amount of vandalism it sees everyday (your edits don't fall in that category!). As for sourcing Bannanje's commentaries: as far as I know we will need to have written published sources, preferably in English, in order to satisfy wikipedia's requirements on verifiability and reliable sources. Isn't there some published work, by Bannajee himself or some other scholar who quotes him, that can be used ? Abecedare 06:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not entirely true. There is no requirement for written sources; a published audio recording can be just as useful. There is likewise no requirement that sources be in English; indeed, in many cases (as, possibly, here) there are valid reasons why the best sources may not be available in English. You can cite his commentaries inside a ref tag just like you would cite anything else; it would be best, of course, if you could cite a specific time in a recording when the part being cited is spoken. There are formal citation formats for citing recordings if you want to look them up. In any case, there is nothing wrong with citing a published audio recording, if it otherwise meets the criteria for a good source. --Aquillion 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. You are right, there is even a {{cite audio}} template (it redirects to {{cite video}}). It might be useful to see for what purpose various pages use this template and if there are other examples of transcribing and translating audio recordings. Abecedare 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow... nice discussion.. just came here when I saw that Bannanje Govindacharya was linked here. And yes, Bannanje's scholarship is beyond question. And like Upparna says, hours and hours of Bannanje's discourses(audios) have been published. And it would be great if we can work out a way to actually translate them and use them in articles here. I have not come across any articles that have done this before, but I think with the right checks and balances and well intentioned editors, we can make an effort at perhaps setting an example. Like Upparna says above, the only catch is that almost all discourses are in Kannada. So if we ever get to a point where translations of the Kannada audio(into English) is required, I volunteer my services. Also, if someone can suggest a good freeware to snip bits of audio(the relevant section that we might cite).. maybe we can even explore options of uploading the relevant snippets accompanied by the translations. Of course, all this depends on what course this discussion takes and wiki policies and guidelines. I'll put this page on my watchlist. Sarvagnya 04:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok - thank god for being able to cite audio sources. Now i have to simply have to remember in which CD he speaks about the swastika and cite that here. He has numerous publications too , all of them in either chaste sanskrit or kannada. Detecting which cd he spoke in is a herculian task, but given its importance, i think it will be invaluable. Thanks for all your suggestions Jayaram Uparna 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

'Jayaram, Gnananapiti, mattu Sarvagnya, bhale bhale. yen saadhyavaagatto maadi' [Wow J, G, and S. Please do whatever you can.] Hinduism, protected by Sanskrit, lives in Kannada and in all the other Indian languages. Even as the European languages are accepted in Western studies done in English, all the Indian languages should be accepted in Indian studies done in English. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I still think that splitting them into two sections is a bad idea for reasons given in prior postings. I mention this again only because a request for comment was posted on my talk page. [3] I would also like to note that three different referencing issues were involved with this change, all of which should be discussed as separate topics: 1) Use of the dual system, 2) Use of named references, and 3) Use of Harvard reference templates. I strongly oppose 1 and 2. While I dislike the Harvard system in general, I can live with the use of some of the simpler Harvard book citation templates so long as they are confined to footnotes, not appearing the main body of the text, and do not use named references for their implementation. However given the choice I probably would not use them much. Buddhipriya 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Its a good idea to split into notes and citations sections. Cygnus_hansa 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

---I would vote to keep all the references together; don't split them up. I fear that it may make it more difficult to edit for people who want add footnotes if you split them up. Relatively few people will read the footnotes, and those who do will not have any problem finding what they need without the split. HeBhagawan 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


---I will need some time to understand the proposal. I had a look on refs. and citations. Refs. are certainly a long list. I believe, HeBhagawan's view should be considered carefully as he had been a very active editor. However, could I pl. know what is the proposal for spliting refs. and what would be the advantage? The subject itself is enormous and this article can not be shaped in the way some other articles appear of lesser theme.swadhyayee 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dharma versus Law

I tried to change law to 'divine(religious) law' in introductory para, but was reverted. Then I linked Dharma, so that many readers might not be misled by the lopsided translation of Dharma as law. But this simple linking was also reverted. Now I am not going to touch that introductory para in Hinduism again ; let dharma be translated as law or as skin (dermos in Latin, which contains the body, as dharma contains life and society ; cf. its root dhr ). I will not object to anyone translating dharma even as leather or leather-jacket ; I have had too much of futile controversies and I do not want to generate new ones. Vinay Jha 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, the Sanskrit word 'dharma' has been widely translated by writers as 'law' even though it is simply incorrect. The word 'dharma' from the root 'dhrn dhaarane' means [any] principle which is adopted or held by anyone. "dhaaranaat dharmetyaahuh". Don't mistake me if I ask you not to despair. When certain rules of Wikipedia are followed literally, then accuracy can get ignored even if (according to my friend Buddhipriya) it is pointed out by Adi Shankaracharya. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Though 'law' is not the equivalent of 'dharma', which is more like 'what aught to be done' (suggested), I can think of no better word in English. Aupmanyav 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No Ram existed ever

The Union government of India officially admitted in late 2007 that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Ram or the other idols in Ramayana. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Archaeological Survey of India too rejected the claim of the existence of the Ram Sethu bridge in the area where the project was under construction.[4]

A day later, the affidavit was withdrawn under pressure from Hindu fundamentalist parties.[5] However, the State government of Tamil Nadu continue to maintain its official stance and refused to review the project.[6][7]

Please add the above timely verdict in a separate section called Fact and Fiction. Anwar 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, I fail to see what is so surprising or groundbreaking in the ASI statement, and more importantly its relevance to the Hinduism article. Feel free to summarize the content of the linked article at Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, where it will be pertinent. Cheers. Abecedare 19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither a news paper nor a central government's propaganda site. Thanks. Gnanapiti 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anwar Miya, lack of any evidence is not, in any way, denial of the existence of Rama or of the bridge mentioned in the Ramayana. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


This "editor" is clearly anti-Hindu. Historicity of Rama.--ॐJesucristo301 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is the "current flavor of the day" in Indian politics doesn't mean it should be added to the article. How many such controversies do you want to add to this article? 24.5.120.23 09:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anwar Miya, Ram is not dependent on historicity. It is a myth of hindu culture. Whether Ram was a historical person or not, the story still guides us in our actions in life. I am an atheist, but the story still is very dear to me. If you take it historically, can Mohammad's visit to seven heavens on the flying white horse and meeting the earlier prophets be termed as history? Or whether Adam and Eve were historical (it is proved wrong by modern science. The Mitochondrial Eve existed 140,000 years ago, and the Y-chromosomal Adam (from whom all humans descend) existed only 60,000 years ago (check the relevant pages on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam). Did God mention this in the Torah, Bible or Qur'an? Aupmanyav 13:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion versus set of beliefs

Recently User:Deeptrivia modified the first sentence from Hinduism is a "religion" to "refers to the set of diverse religious beliefs and practices". I don't for a moment dispute that the second statement is accurate, but I think it might be preferable to keep the former formulation as the first sentence of the article, for the following two reasons:

  • A overwhelming number of contemporary reliable sources do classify Hinduism as a religion (consider national census or worldwide survey etc.) albeit one that is more of a conglomeration than most other major world religions.
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph already says, "itself a conglomerate of different beliefs and traditions.", so repeating the same in the first sentence may be undesirable.
  • Consider the viewpoint of a reader who knows nothing about what "Hinduism" is and comes to the wikipedia page. Such a reader may read "Hinduism is a set of diverse religious beliefs and practices" on this page and then, say (I am making this up; please don't nitpick on this specific example :-) ), "Tantra is a set of diverse religious beliefs and practices" on another page and not realize that there is a significant categorical difference between the two! IMO it is better to first orient the reader to the broad subject of the article, and then delve into the details and nuances.

I am stating my thoughts here in order to invite other opinions, and not as a rigid marker of my position. Please chime in with your thoughts and comments. Regards. Abecedare 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be more than one point involved here. Wording for this section will be difficult because the question of what Hinduism is is complex and different WP:RS define it in different ways. It is correct to say that many sources call it a religion. On the other hand, the very existence of "Hinduism" as a logical category is questioned by some WP:RS that consider it to be a relatively recent intellectual construction intended to sum up a complex of cultural, religious, and sociological issues. Gavin Flood tackles this issue in chapter one of An Introduction to Hinduism, making the statement that "Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas incorporated by the term 'Hindu', it is a problem arriving at a definition." (p. 6) He goes on to say: "I take the view that while 'Hinduism' is not a category in the classical sense of an essence defined by certain properties, there are nevertheless prototypical forms of Hindu practice and belief." (p.7) He goes on to discuss "prototype theory" as defined by George Lakoff, which is a sort of fuzzy-set theory. A similar approach is used by some academics who study tantra, which is another nebulous subject. Clearly religion is one component of Hinduism, but it is not the only component. Particularly when looking at Western impressions of Hinduism, many of them are based not upon Hindu religious practices, but upon philosophical ideas, chiefly the avaita vedanta concepts popularized in the West by missionaries such as Swami Vivekananda and other Western-looking writers. Popular Western associations with meditation and yoga have very little to do with temple practices or formal devotion, but probably many attendees at yoga classes think of themselves as being "attracted to Hinduism". I do not have an answer on how to edit the article, but instead of trying to come up with language from scratch, a survey of sources may be helpful. Buddhipriya 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to resolve this difficulty in defining Hinduism. The word for Religion in many Indian Languages including the two oldest, Sanskrit and Tamil is "matam". Matam means opinion. It is due this concept of matam that there is a bewildering array of beliefs and theories some which do contradict others, for eg., some Upanishads even question the existence of God. So a definition that Hinduism means "right to matam" and out of this right to matam a network of beliefs, concepts and rituals, some which may contradict others, is embodied in Hinduism would be succinct and can cover Hinduism wholly.

Hinduism means "right to matam" and out of this right to matam a network of beliefs, concepts and rituals, some which may contradict others is embodied in Hinduism . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.135.165 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


This discussion will take us into many yugas. Hinduism doesnt mean anything and everything under the moon. Its much simpler to call it a religion. Let the reader go to pages like Samkhya Sutra, advaita and Yoga to decide for themselves what Hinduism is.Bakaman 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a complex question. However I do not agree that Hinduism is best defined as "a religion". Axel Michael's book Hinduism: Past and Present, has almost as the first statment: "As a matter of fact, Hinduism is not a homogeneous religion at all, but is rather a potpourri of religions, doctrines, and attitudes toward life, rites and cults, moral and social norms." (p. 3) Michaels discusses the controversies on how to define Hinduism in detail in his opening chapter and notes that: "(S)ome maintain that Hinduism as a coherent religion, is a Western construct." (p. 12)
John Keay, in discussing Gupta period history from c300-500 CE makes the comment: "Hinduism as a religion with specific doctrines and practices was still unrecognisable. Arguably it still is." (India: A History, p. 147). Buddhipriya 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, I agree with everything you said above, but right now I am veering towards Baka's position that the details of how Hinduism is defined is a very complex issue which is better dealt with elsewhere than in the first sentence of this article. I know that the subject of "definition" is a perennial and important academic topic, but we may be better off describing Hinduism than attempting to define it in this ~4000 word overview article.
A suggestion would be to say something like, "Hinduism ... is a religion[1]" and then add in a footnote "[1] Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc. For a survey of the issue see, Review article XYZ." Of course, we need to find a specific source which discusses this issue in detail and from a neutral point of view (i.e, one that surveys that various opinions, rather than proposes its own definition). Gavin Flood does something along those lines, in the "Introduction: Establishing the boundaries" in the "Blackwell companion" - but there probably are even more focussed sources. I would like to avoid surveying the issue ourselves in the article or footnote, because there are so many divergent and nuanced opinions on the topic, and discussing those will divert us from the main topic of the page. Abecedare 21:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am just trying to add some citations to establish a baseline of WP:RS so we can all review the same raw data together. I agree that whatever is said in the lead needs to be kept simple. Here is another quote that covers the same ground, with some background on the colonial influence on all of this. Romila Thapar notes the controversial idea that "Hinduism" is a recent Western concept in the Introduction to her book Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Discussing the British colonial period she notes the British interest in things Indian as driven by practical matters: "In the course of investigating what came to be called Hinduism, together with various aspects of its belief, ritual and custom, many were baffled by a religion that was altogether different from their own. It was not monotheistic, there was no historical founder, or single sacred text, or dogma or ecclesiastical organization - and it was closely tied to caste. There was therefore an overriding need to fit it into the known moulds of familiar religions, so as to make it more accessible. Some scholars have suggested that Hinduism as it is formulated and perceived today, very differently from earlier times, was largely born out of this reformulation. In India, diverse and multiple religions were practised, with royal patronage extending to more than one." (p. 3) Of the formulations which you suggest, I would put the text that you suggest for a footnote into the lead, and citations can be given for each component in footnotes, as well as a review article citation: Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of beliefs and practices", "sociological category" etc. Personally I do not think that religion is the key issue in defining Hinduism. I find the sociological and anthropological factors to be more broadly relevant. The reflexive definition based on religion tends to cause the reader to overlay their own understanding of religion into the term, which is what Thapar is talking about. Buddhipriya 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Abecedare has a great solution. Buddhipriya in regards to this quote "It was not monotheistic, ... organization" evidence to refute that statement abounds. I do not have access to JSTOR on a regular basis (semi monthly) but this paper in the Numen seems to refute much of Thapar's views on Hinduism. Thapar is a Marxist. She has a rather vested interest in portraying everything as a class struggle, and all beliefs as opiates of the masses. However, the face of Hinduism is still changing. BAPS has been described as the new face of Hinduism[8] and Hinduism in Indonesia is represented by Parisada Hindu Dharma, a group while not dogmatic, is organized and proselytizes extensively.Bakaman 21:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is ONE religion in the sense that there is mutual recognition: worshippers of say Mariamman do recognize and accept Rama as a valid version of God and vice versa. Likewise, worshippers of say Mariamman do recognize that worshipers of Rama do have salvation and vice versa. So, it is ONE network.

Let us look at the arguments that refute this ONEness: they say ok, these beleifs from X are different from Y, so they are distinct. Please show me a singe son or daugher among Hindus who has exactly identical version of religion as their Mom or Dad: no you cannot. Hinduism is individualistic to the core. If a Hindu wants to create a new version of God, he or she is welcome to. This person may or may not be able to market it to others and that version of God may die with this person. When I say "version of God" it could be a physical, conceptual, ritual or differing in any way. In fact, I personally have a version of God that will die with me: Just like how the cells of our body do NOT know that they are part of a higher being, our souls do NOT know that we are part of a higher network of souls (which may be termed as God). Some may say no this is nothing new - this is nothing but collective consicoiusness outlined in ancient Hindu texts. The newness is that just like how the cells do not need to think about the higher network, each individual do NOT need to think about the higher level network of souls. Now because I have a drastically different version of God, no Hindu is going to excommunicate me. So, there is ONEness in Hinduism that arises through this concept of "right to opinion/matam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.35.79 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a choice between reinforcing simplistic but problematic (probably not too far from wrong) definitions vs. being sophisticated and accurate at a cost of adding two or three more words in the lead. deeptrivia (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple is better. Hinduism doesnt define everything between venus and mars either. There (as attested by the link in Numen) is a shared belief in the Vedas at the core.Bakaman 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple is better indeed. See however Simple vs. Simplistic. deeptrivia (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<arbitrary deindent> I have no objection to using the proposed "footnote" text (or deeptrivia's original addition) in the lead itself if that is what is the consensus. But I do feel that we should not use individual references for each use, since that approach will recreate the problem we faced earlier with the whole Sanatan/Vaidic/Aryan Dharma issue, as each new editor will want to insert his/her own favorite formulation based on his/her own favorite (reliable) source. I am certain that you all appreciate that there are scores (if not hundreds!) of such sources with their own nuanced formulation, and that will either mean that (1) the first sentence of the article becomes a conglomeration of definitions, or (2) if we decide to pick say 5 definitional phrases, we will have endless battles on whether the Thappar, Witzel, Sarvarkar or Flood definitions are the most noteworthy.
Therefore my suggestion is that we find one reliable source which reviews the whole issue in detail and use it as a citation (I am thinking something analogous to the article Who Invented Hinduism, but that addresses "What is Hinduism", from a definitional rather than descriptive angle). This approach will also avoid any charges that we are violating wikipedia's policies against synthesis. Does that make sense ? Abecedare 22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a diverse set [...] should in fact be a solution to the problem of scores of sources and nuanced formulations. The way I am looking at it, this description automatically includes all those diverse definitions, beliefs, etc., with no more room for anyone wanting his/her favorite view added. deeptrivia (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't a set of beliefs and practices part of the definition of religion itself? Hence, the only difference it seems to be making is that Hinduism is very diverse. Now I only skimmed through the discussion above, so if someone has mentioned this please tell me. While I believe the article hasn't explicitly defined Hinduism as diverse, the diversity of Hinduism is explained throughout the page. This is perhaps another reason why I support moving the "Core concepts" paragraph into the lead, because it discusses this distintive feature and is very introductory in its nature. GizzaDiscuss © 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes but calling it a religion is more representative of what it is considered. Look at ghits for instance. Hinduism+religion = 3 million, Hinduism+diverse set of beliefs = a paltry 787k. I'm going out on a limb and suggesting this is a cultural difference. Both deeptrivia and Buddhipriya are most probably from India, while abecedare and I are not. I think this may be the cultural gap that is not letting us see eye to eye on this. Many Indians call it a way of life/rules. Those of us not connected to India view it as a religion. I dont think these last assumptions are incorrect.Bakaman 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya isn't of Indian origin from my knowledge nor do I think Deeptrivia is currently living in India (though I may be wrong there). :) GizzaDiscuss © 22:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of where deeptrivia is in the world, however as a third generation American, I have seen many Indian Americans with those views "oh, way of life/all paths to god/ all rivers to the ocean" and can make a general statement that those with strong ties to India have such views. However it helps to be frank with ones origins. Mine are from Kolkatta, epicenter of Hindu revivalism.Bakaman 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we may be going a bit off-topic. I don't either confirm or deny the correctness of Baka's guess with regrads to my origins ... I prefer to maintain an air of mystery :-) Abecedare 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I do think however that ones origins and the type of Hinduism (or being an outsider) are an integral part of ones developed views. My experience with Hindu revivalism leads me to view Hinduism as a religion, albeit much more loose and accepting than Abrahamic religions. Others, especially those from India, where Hinduism is omnipresent, view it as a way of life. That was why I made that assertion of the cultural gap in this discussion. Views as a religion far outnumber those that view it as a collection of diverse beliefs encompassing everything from x to y.Bakaman 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yeah, Wikipedia gives editors the right to remain anonymous. Lets not go into the origins issue any further. GizzaDiscuss © 22:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha :), just as this interesting conversation itself shows, there is a diversity of views even on what Hinduism is (which is a good thing). This diversity has always existed, and recognising it is central to Hinduism. deeptrivia (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There are three distinctive elements to define a religion: dogma, cult and moral. The three are certainly present in Abrahamic religions. In Hinduism or Taoism for instance, cult and dogma are present, but the "moral" part does not seem to share the characteristics found in semitic religions. For this reason, it's better to name Hinduism or Taoism under the more general term of "Tradition", than of "religion", which is much applicable to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. TwoHorned 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say Hinduism and Taoism don't have systems of morality: they're rife with them. Just taking Hinduism, ahimsa and duty and filial piety and reverence to the gods (or God) and the manes are all elements of the faiths. Furthermore, it is almost beyond dispute that, at the very least, the Vedic elements of Hinduism share a hoary ancestry with Iranian faiths (like Zoroastrianism) and, reaching back further still, the Mesopotamian religious contexts, which in turn have deep connections with Greek and hence Christian traditions/religions (I am collapsing tradition and religion here). Thus, both 'genetic' linkages and self-evident systems of morality would characterize Hinduism, if the term be accepted, as a religion/faith. Beyond all this, I think all this talk about "Hinduism" obfuscates the reality of a long-standing tradition of people, all the way back to Shankaracharya's time, constantly referencing a great body of thought-and-praxis linked inextricably with the Vedic tradition, one which subsumed the six orthodox schools of philosophy and several less 'formally defined' schools like Bhakti and various Tantric/sects.... names included "Veda Dharma", "Arya Dharma", "Arsha Dharma", "Yoga Dharma", and more recently, "Sanatana Dharma". I think it would be overstating the issue to say that 'Hinduism' defined the essence of a new entity; rather, it may have more securely delimited the boundaries of an entity which pre-existed the Persians and against which the Buddhists, Jainas, and Charvakas defined themselves and were defined by. The evidence speaks more loudly than the accusations of historical revisionism. This is not to say what we call Hinduism isn't a very complicated, occasionally frustratingly protean concept, but it is more religion than vague, new-fangled cultural construct. --69.203.80.158 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with 69.'s argument. My personal experience shows that the moral is taken more seriously in Dharmic religions. After all, one definition of Dharma is morality. Concepts like Ahimsa and Vegatarianism pertain more to morality than with cult or dogma IMO. GizzaDiscuss © 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think consensus has so far (Note:Consensus can change) agreed that Hinduism is diverse and a religion. Furthermore, regardless of how we define religion and Hinduism, reliable sources moreorless state that Hinduism is a (diverse) religion. So what should we do about the sentence that sparked this discussion? GizzaDiscuss © 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to either the three-elements-to-define-religion idea, or the assertion that Hinduism is completely devoid of morals. Talking about sources, it appears that sources interested in describing the concept with any serious academic rigor often prefer not calling it "a" religion. Examples Britannica 1911 Britannica Encycl. Mystica, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Perhaps we can put a note after the word "religion," where we say that religion isn't the most accurate way to describe Hinduism, but rather a set of beliefs or a way of life. It remains however, that anybody with a superficial knowledge of Hinduism will call it a religion since most but not all of its characteristics resemble a religion. GizzaDiscuss © 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>
A quick survey of tertiary references and dictionaries (just going through a database; too lazy to type out complete bibliographic information for references but can do so if desired):

  • Encyclopædia Britannica: beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions
  • Encarta: religious tradition
  • The Concise Oxford English Dictionary :religious and cultural tradition
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: principal religious tradition
  • A Dictionary of Sociology: belief-system, religious tradition
  • A Dictionary of Asian Mythology: philosophical system
  • A Dictionary of World History : system of religious beliefs and social customs, both a way of life and a rigorous system of religious law
  • A Dictionary of Contemporary World History: religion
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable: religious and cultural tradition, diverse family of devotional and ascetic cults and philosophical schools
  • World Encyclopedia: Traditional religion
  • A Dictionary of Buddhism: religious tradition
  • The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions : major continuing and connected religions (Note: "religions", not singular "religion")
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Islam: religio-cultural traditions
  • Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: religion
  • World of Sociology, Gale: religion
  • The Columbia Encyclopedia: religious beliefs and practices
  • Bloomsbury Guide to Human Thought: collective term given today to the majority religion, philosophy and culture of the peoples of India
  • The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: religious and philosophical traditions
  • Philip's Encyclopedia: Traditional religion
  • The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia including Atlas: Religion
  • The Macmillan Encyclopedia: religious beliefs and institutions
  • The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia: religious tradition
  • The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin: religion
  • Andromeda Encyclopedic Dictionary of World History: Religion
  • Collins Dictionary of Sociology: religion
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice
  • The Penguin English Dictionary : religious faith

OK, my take after brushing through the above list is that while several references do refer to Hinduism, simply as a religion, many don't (and some make a point of saying that Hinduism is not a religion in the usual sense used for Abrahamic faiths; see for example Encarta). So what should we do ? My proposal is that we use the phrase "religious tradition" in the lead and then add a footnote of the form I suggested earlier, i.e., "Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc. For a discussion on the topic, see Flood, Gavin, "Establishing the boundaries" in Flood (2003), pp. 1-17."
I am voting for "religious tradition" because (1) it is short, sweet and simple without (hopefully) being over-simplistic, (2) emphasizes the traditional as opposed to dogmatic aspect of Hinduism, (3) often comes up in the above survey, and (4) as some others (including me) have said earlier, we can clarify in the succeeding sentences that this tradition itself consists of a conglomeration of diverse set of beliefs and practices. Thoughts ? Abecedare 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this solution. Great work of finding so many different sources. Many of them also make it a point of using traditions (plural form) for understandable reasons. I suggest that it would be a good idea to have it that way. deeptrivia (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of the references do use the plural form, but they seem to be a minority (PS: I cut-n-pasted each quote and did not intentionally change any pluralization). More importantly, if we choose to use "religious traditions", we will have to reword the lead sentence, as "Hinduism is a set of religious traditions ..." which sounds a bit kludgy to me. But I realize that there is one right answer to this issue, so we can certainly discuss it further if you feel strongly about it. Abecedare 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I think we're good with the current solution. Thanks everyone for the cooperation and the enlightening discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I've been pretty misunderstood: I did not mean Hinduism or Taoism are devoid of moral. What I meant precisely is that the word "Dharma" goes far beyond the notion of "morality" in the usual social sense. Morality is linked to the social behaviour of a community. "Dharma" denotes the righteous of behaviour for a human being to match that of the divine. It goes beyond social. TwoHorned 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
To Abecedare, wonderful work on finding so many references and yes, nice proposal. To TwoHorned, perhaps we did misunderstand. Nonetheless, though this is going off-topic, how does Semitic morality differ to that of Dharma? Are you saying that Semitic morality is only social but Dharma is social and individual/with God? I still don't quite understand that point. GizzaDiscuss © 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are some examples: in China, metaphysical and social aspects of the tradition are separated into two different systems: Taoism and Confucianism. It does not mean that Taoism is devoid of law: but the "law" aspects in Taoism are directly related to metaphysical considerations, which is not the same than in Confucianism, where social aspects of the moral are predominant. The situation resembles to that of Hinduism: the notion of Sanatana Dharma has its roots in the intellectual part of the tradition. In anciant Roman and Greek "religions", the social aspect of moral is evident, being related to the "gods of the City". In Islam, you have both aspects: the Shariya has a social aspects, but its roots go in the direction of Tacawuff, according to the Hadith "Al Islam al din al fitrah" (Islam is the religion of the nature of Being): "Al din al fitrah" is probably the notion closest to Sanatana Dharma that can be found in Islam. Christianity has no moral of its own, as it comes directly from Roman canon. To sum up, things are not as simple as some may expect. TwoHorned 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Twohorned: The Manusmritis are a perfect example (in my opinion of the perversion) of social morality founded on what you refer to, with good reason I believe, the 'intellectual' moral base of Hindu thought. A good distinction might be what people call universal, categorical imperatives (a la Kant), the 'intellectual' or 'higher' morality, and the particular, social, conventional complex of moralities which may or may not claim to derive from the higher ones. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, all these faiths certainly have both aspects of morality; at the very least, they certainly claim to deal with all aspects of life. Indeed, I think Hinduism is one of the most practical religious complexes of all, with praxis (hatha yoga, ayurveda, artha shastras, even the dreadful attempt at dharma shastras, etc.) and 'theory' (Upanishads, though there's plenty practical advice in there, the Gita, same as with the Upanishads, etc.) both addressed with specifically moral teleologies in mind.
To all else... I like this discussion... it's very germane... I've often played around with this in my head... my own gratuitous idea is that Hinduism be described something like: a complex of religious and philosophical beliefs and practices sharing a common Vedic heritage. --69.203.80.158 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:) Do we all agree to the solution, then? deeptrivia (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added "religious tradition." The link still goes to religion because I can't think of any place better. Unless, we link religious and tradition separately to their respective pages? GizzaDiscuss © 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gizza. I have added the footnote proposed above, to indicate that there are nuances to the issue. Abecedare 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I must acknowledge that this has been one of the most pleasurable, enlightening and fruitful discussions I have had on this page with enthusiastic participation, knowledgeable comments, considered listening and a complete absence of trolling or histrionics. Its worth noting that the final solution we arrived at is different from the position any of us started with (see my opening comment, for example). So here is my personal thanks to deeptrivia, Gizza, Baka, TwoHorned, Buddhipriya, and our anon. friend 69.203.80.158. Ok I'll stop gushing now and touch wood. Abecedare 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is true example of the capability of Wikipedia. Many argue that there is no such thing as consensus and Wikipedia is deterimined by a "pseudo-consensus" which is pretty much a vote . But this discussions shows is that if we follow vāda (See User:Buddhipriya#Words_to_live_by), consensus can be determined. Nobody is in disagreement now. Ongoing bickering looks so stupid when it is possible (as this shows) for people with different opinions to reach common ground. GizzaDiscuss © 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the solution in place is a reasonable one. I also agree that if we only want to use one overview article, Flood (2003), pp. 1-17 is a good choice. I am grateful to Abecedare for having suggested that book. I suggest that the footnote be slightly reworded to make more clear that Flood's survey does not only use religion as a definitional component (currently the footnote reads: Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition" etc.). Flood himself makes a strong case for the sociological and anthropological issues as a significant factor. But all of the examples in the footnote are religious in nature. Abecedare, do you agree that some edit to the footnote could reflect the more complex issues in a single sentence? Buddhipriya 08:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. The footnote text was just a top-of-the-head creation and missed representing contrasting opinions. Perhaps we can add/substitute phrases from the above list, such as, "philosophical system", "beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions", "way of life" so that the sociological view is represented, and so that we have specific references available if someone challenges the use of a particular phrase in the future. I think we should avoid too long a description though, so that the footnote remains a guide to external resources and doesn't become a thesis in itself. Buddhipriya, please go ahead and make the edit as you see appropriate. We can always object later, if needed :-) Abecedare 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we are to close to the subject to judge. I would like to add two points to this discussion. One, other systematic collections of faith are also called religions, christianity being a prime example. Two, it should matter most if those ascribing to these beliefs consider themselves united or divided. So, let's all take a step back and ask if the adherents consider themselves to be united in religion, or divided in different "beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions". Vodyanoi 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Wow. Let me add my two cents. Soon after I joined Wikipedia, I realized that edit wars were nonproductive, more often than not, they being a clash of egos. I have also found virtual turf wars to be very unpleasant, and I decided to avoid them. I am one of those users of Wikipedia who just wish to improve it. I am interested in following the guidelines of Wikipedia, but with some commonsense. Not all secondary sources of information are good. I like to use my discretion. In matters related to India, especially Hinduism, I have found scholars trained mainly in Western education to be seriously handicapped and misinformed, even though I have found most of them to be very sincere. Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This message is for two horned (?). If there is anything that cannot be trifled with in hinduism, it is morality and duty (Dharma). One can be an atheist or one can be a polytheist, that is acceptable, but a person without 'Dharma' is a chandala, the most despicable. Surely, your knowledge of hinduism is very inadequate. Aupmanyav 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)59.178.52.36 09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is simpler than that, Vodyanoi, just ask people if they consider themselves to be hindus or not. Of course, differences in beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions will be there, because that IS hinduism. Hinduism is not bound to a person or a book. It is dynamic and will change in every age. Aupmanyav 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

'a complex of religious and philosophical beliefs and practices sharing a common Vedic heritage. 69.203.80.158 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC). I find this objectionable. Sure, hinduism shares the Vedic heritage but also many others. I do not know why people have this Vedic fixation? Hinduism is not solely from the Vedas. (see my post towards the end of the page) Aupmanyav 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Another small problem with the article is that it says pakistan is one of the countries with a large hindu population, this is untrue from everything i have read, they do have a hindu population, albeit small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.199.241 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the person here. Pakistan does not have a large population of hindus. Aupmanyav 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism/Archive_21&oldid=1136355638"