Talk:Hinduism/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Addition of Indonesia- specifically Bali?

Could we please add at least one link or mention of Indonesia- specifically the island of Bali (majority Hindu) somewhere at the top of the article? I believe there's approximately 4 million self-identified Balinese Hindus- considerably more than Singapore- not to mention large numbers of ancient temples. Hinduism in Indonesia originated from Indian traders, and Hindu descendants of the Majpahit/Matarram Empire of Java fled in the face of Islamic persecution and succession wars to neighbouring Bali- although Balinese Hinduism is quite divergent from Indian Hindu practice.Starstylers (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess Hinduism in Indonesia should be wikilinked. Any other articles that you think of? Hinduism in Bali is a redirect. Wikidās ॐ 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the sentence in the lead that lists all the Hindu countries should be moved out of the lead and into and new section called "Demographics". We can mention Indonesia and Bali specifically once there and I suppose Hinduism, particularly the Hindu kingdoms of South East Asia also deserve a mention in the History section. At least one but maybe two sentences. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayans are not hindus, why the picture of their temple?

Swaminarayans are not hindus even if they say so. It is like Ahmadiyyas among muslims. Swaminarayans say their most recent teacher is God and push the Hindu Gods in the background. They should be forth-right like the Bahais and say that they are not hindus. I would request the temple picture to be replaced. Aupmanyav (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need a loot of wikicharm to convince us that someone who claim to be Hindu is not a HIndu... ;-) Have a look at Bhagwan Swaminarayan sources --Wikidās ॐ 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An infinite amount of wikicharm. Trips (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a Hindu sect or not, Bhagwan Swaminarayan shouldn't have the Category:Hindu gods. That is quite a biased statement especially every guru these days is considered to be the Supreme God by its devotees. Note that every other famous guru doesn't have this category (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara, Swami Vivekananda, etc.). Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this, though the Swaminarayans do seem to pitch this higher than most other sects. Whereas most are content to go with "a Guru is God to his followers" they teach "our Guru is God". In their temples a murti of swaminarayan takes the prime position, whereas Krshna, Shiva, etc. are at the sides. I would anticipate a lot of resistance to removing the category "Hindu Gods" from the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is certain that they are a sect in Hinduism. Maybe talk on category can be continued at a respected page... Wikidās ॐ 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the category on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article from Category:Hindu gods to Category:Hindu gurus, since there are unlikely to be any third party reliable sources showing that Hindus recognize him as one of their gods. If you look at the others who are in Category:Hindu gods, it's obviously a mistaken use of the category. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayans don't put other gods in the background. Some people even regard Bhagwan Swaminarayan as an incarnation of Vishnu. It would be like removing the Hindu gods cat on Krishna. I have a suggestion. There should be two cats. One for major Hindu gods and one for minor ones such as Bhagwan Swaminarayan. This avoids conflict because facts are being used rather than opinions. The cat that we have right now can have two sub sections, minor gods and major gods.    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But where is a reliable third party source on Hinduism that says he is a Hindu god, minor or major? Many, many sects see their Guru as God, or as Vishnu - which I think is noteworthy and honourable, but doesn't that make them a Hindu god according to WP:RS. More accurate would be a category that was something like 'Gurus who's followers see them as God'. Obviously that's too wordy, but would at least be accurate. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Juthanil has made Bhagwan Swaminarayan a Hindu god again. I won't revert, but it certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia policy or consensus, since it's not a widely held view. If anyone wants to add the Category:Hindu gods to my userpage, I also won't revert :-o . ~ priyanath ^talk 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was nice of you! First take a look at the article's sources. They are from a third party, a college professor. The source is reliable since the facts are found in a published book.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are many articles like this, why not make two sub categories?    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I suggested the category 'Gurus who's followers see them as God', which would have the advantage of actually being accurate, since it's not a widely held view in Hinduism that Bhagwan Swaminarayan is God. ~ priyanath ^talk 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. Many articles would fall into this category which can be a sub category of Hindu Gods    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC) The religion however has many followers. Some newspaper stated that there were 24 million followers around the world    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I really do not think that be a minor or major god discussion is relevant to the question at hand. Some may consider him god, some do not. That does not constitute a definition of Hindu god, or demi-god or a minor god. It is common to worship one ones guru as a Gurudeva, or Saksad Hari, that does not make him 'Hindu god'. Guru-deva category will do... I guess Wikidās ॐ 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

making this split, many articles will be affected, such as Lakshman. Many Hindus don't worship him as god.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidas, the Hindu gurus category is entirely accurate, the Hindu gods clearly is not. Period. ~ priyanath ^talk 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before we do anything, I would like to share a quote taken directly from another editor on the talkpage of the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article, "The above statement could be made for any article in the category for Hindu gods, all come from religious communities who view such entities as Gods or Goddesses - religious communities do not have to be neutral. As editors, we must be neutral and allow relevant information into the articles. I see no reason why this particular article should be singled out from other Hindu beliefs or deities. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)" I think we should jut respect the beliefs of others and keep things that way. Categories are meant for finding certain articles. What if someone wanted to find the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article through the Hindu Gods cat.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism itself is a very complicated religion. Anyone can claim any important historic person to be god. Wen te British entered India and tried to convert Hindus, some Hindus initially accepted and attempted to add the Christian God into the Hindu religion because of its flexibility and tolerence, but eventually there was enough resistence from other Hindus that he was not added to hinduism.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about respect for the beliefs of others. Many sects see their Guru as God or Vishnu. I personally have a great deal of respect for those who do. This discussion is about whether the man is widely held by Hindus to be a Deity or God. He isn't. That category should be removed. ~ priyanath ^talk 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The point is, if Swaminarayan is listed as a "Hindu god" then so should Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara, Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai Baba, Tulsidas, Sri Aurobindo, Madhavacharya and many other gurus. Okay, so if all of them have the category added then it is not as POV. But it would then make these gurus have the same "status" as Vishnu, Rama, Ganesha, Surya, Saraswati, Lakshmana, Rudra, Shesha. These are deities which are mentioned in either Vedic, Epic and/or Puranic texts. Many Hindus won't consider most of these gods to be the "Supreme God" but their status as devata/devi (god, demi-god, deity whatever you want to call it) is undisputed. As Wikidas and Priyanath say, a Guru-deva category is most accurate. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English - Page 133In Hinduism, the true guru is God — ‘guru-deva.”. John A. Grimes 1996

I would suggest to create a separate sub-category Category:Swamminarayana Faith Gods for all forms worhsiped in that tradition. I would add however another category Guru-deva to it as well, as they do not deny him his status of Guru-deva. That reflects reality best, as both can be subs to hindu Gods. Wikidās ॐ 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What Im going to say is backed by references from the article. Swaminarayan preached Sanatana Dharma - modern day Hinduism - and the Swaminrayan Sampraday he formed is based on vedic principles. The main (centre) deities in a Swaminarayan temple are that of Narnarayan Dev, Laxminarayan Dev, Radha Krishna Dev etc. - are these not Hindu deities. Then how can anyone claim that Swaminarayan is not a part of Hinduism? Lord Swaminarayan himself in a meeting with the Lord Bishop of Calcutta in 1825 told him that he is a form of Krishna - this is from the Williams book - a neutral reference. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara, Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai Baba, Tulsidas, Sri Aurobindo, Madhavacharya - non of these people have claimed to be god. Further, there is a direct reference to this (Swaminarayan being god) in the in 2 prominent Hindu scriptures - Brahma Purana and Vishwaksena Samhita. The Indian Express Newspaper (which has wide circulation across India) says that there are around 20 million followers of Swaminarayan around the Globe and around 1000 Swaminarayan Mandirs. This is a sizeable amount of people that consider him god. There are others who dont. However, there are people who dont consider Ram, Krishna, Allah or Jesus god - does that mean we cannot classify them as god? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Um sorry but you partially wrong. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu claimed to be the golden avatar of Krishna (ie. God) and said this was prophecised in the Bhagavata Purana. Madhavacharya claimed to be an avatar of Hanuman/Bhima and thus god (not God but still god). So did Shirdi Sai Baba claim to be an incarnation of God. Many other gurus like Shankaracharya were probably worshipped as a form of God by their followers later on. Also you should note that Allah and Jesus are indeed considered Gods but not Hindu gods. That is why a new category is needed to distinguish what kind of "Hindu god" the Hindu gurus that claim to be god or God really are. A Category:Swaminarayan God category is perfect for this reason. Swaminarayan has not been the only guru to say he was prophecised in the Vedic and Puranic texts so he doesn't deserve any special treatment. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. However, there is also the question of strength - a large following should also be recognised. Could you pl. confirm if any of the above have a following of over 20 million and over a thousand Mandirs around the world dedicated to them? These numbers are strong .. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)May I also add that the Worlds biggst temple (which is located in India), worlds biggest temple outside India, Biggest temple in Europe etc are all Swaminarayan temples - and the land for the 1st Swaminarayan temple was gifted by the British Government - this has been possible becoz his followers beleve he is god - To say that he is a guru and not god would be POV of non followers. Such a following indicates that he is consicdered a form of god by a sizeable amount of Hindus. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"who is worshiped as a god in Hinduism" and "who is a god in Hinduism" are two different things. Hinduism does recognize Allah, Christ, Buddha, etc as gods as well, however they are not (except maybe in the case of Buddha up to a certain extent) "currently" worshiped as gods in Hinduism. So the point is not whether Swaminarayan "is a god", but whether he is "worshiped as a god" and by how many?. What matters is the relative importance of a figure as god rather than the figure being a god/non-god. Where does Swaminarayan fit in with Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Kali, Buddha, Gandhi (many consider him a god as well), etc. Personally, I haven't met too many swaminarayan followers although given the size of their temples I am sure there are quite a few rich swaminarayans out there. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan as Hindu God? Way forward

To summarise there above discussion, there seem to be two proposals for change, and I can think of a number of other alternatives.

1. Create a new category Category:Gurus who's followers see them as God, which would include Bhagwan Swaminarayan and others.
2. Create a new category Category:Swamminarayana Faith Gods, would this have more than just Bhagwan Swaminarayan?
3. Leave the Category:Hindu gods category on the article.
4. Remove the Category:Hindu gods category but don't create any special replacement.
5. Leave the Category:Hindu gods on this article, allow its use for gurus seen as God and create a new Category:Traditional Hindu gods to cover Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, etc.

Personally I think option one is best.

I don't like option two for two reasons, firstly it makes it look as though Swaminarayan followers are not Hindus and I don't think this is a valid claim. Secondly I think it may be a category with one member, which is rather useless.

Option three is just wrong, I don't think that anyone outside the Swaminarayan order would count Bhagwan Swaminarayan as a Hindu God. They would of course recognise that for disciples a guru is God, but that is not the same. If this were allowed then other groups would add the category to their gurus, making it a useless category. == Option four is fairly logical, but I think that we may need to compromise with the Swaminarayans by creating some new category. As mentioned they are a fairly large order and have a lot of prestigious temples. They certainly feel that Swaminarayan is God in some sense more than a guru being God just to devotees.

Option 5 is what I would go for if forced to leave the Category:Hindu gods category on Bhagwan Swaminarayan. It leaves us with a category with a misleading name (i.e. does not follow common usage of "Hindu God"), but at least there is a distinction. This would, of course, be a massive editing task.

Is this the sort of thing that should go to a vote? If so I would suggest that we hold the vote on this page and put a notice on the Talk:Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. Also, before voting are there any more options? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the break up of the Hindu Gods Cat into Traditional Hindu Gods - i.e. for universally accepted Gods such as Ram, Krishna, Shiva etc. and another cat Modern Hindu Gods for others. However, to be put into the second cat there must be some kind of criteria - else we would be inundated with articles (i.e. where only a small number of people believe a person is god should not come into this cat) - I suggest whos following is above a certain number (which can be decided) - can be put into this cat. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the Hindu god category split. SwamiNarayan is a Hindu god as much as Jhulelal or Ayyappan and regional deities or Ishta-Devas are. If the SwamiNarayan faith is within Hinduism, which it is, SwamiNarayan is a Hindu god, even if other Hindus might not consider SwamiNarayan as a divinity. Either that or a category called "God in the Swaminarayan faith", which will only have SwamiNarayan in it of course, assuming categorys are necessary at all. Trips (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A traditional and modern god cat would be both accurate and wouldn't have any POV. Newer gods can be added to the modern gods cat. Both cats can be sub cats within the present Hindu gods cat.    Juthani1   ^tcs 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it accurate as you can't divide Hindu gods on traditionality, and there is no "new-modern" divide in Hinduism. Additionally who would you classify as a "modern god" apart from SwamiNarayan, and what date, assuming we can date, will be the cut-off for older and modern. Trips (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that there is no divide within Hinduism, but I think that everybody can see the difference between Vishnu, Shiva, etc. and Bagwan Swaminarayan. It would certainly be possible to define traditional Gods as those un-datable from antiquity. The problem is, as it stands it looks as though Hindus would generally accept Swaminarayan as a God, like Vishnu and Shiva. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you will be able to resolve it without some POV changes. I would suggest changing the name of category to Hindu devatas and create new category Neo hindu gods which will include also Saibaba, Ramakrsna and the likes of SN. Wikidās ॐ 15:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a category "God-guru" for people like Saibaba, Swaminarayan, etc specially when a large majority of Hindus do not regard these figures as god. The concept of "god guru" is well accepted within Hinduism unlike the concept of "Neo god" / "traditional god" 67.169.0.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, Shri. Aupmanyav's dissertation needs no more than a passing chuckle. He is the new mutineer on the block. The earlier roster of greats reads such names as Ayyavazhi and Tenrikyo. My experience with the promoters of Ayyavazhi on the Indian religions page tells me not to bother arguing with such people, because it's like banging your head on a wall. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the perspective, IAF. You've saved me from giving myself a sore head. If the 'neo hindu gods' category gets created, I'll add it to your user page for enlightening me :-) ~ priyanath ^talk 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as per FAQ on official Swaminarayan website (see [[1]], Swaminarayan followers consider themselves as Hindus, follow Hindu practices, and consider vedas (and hence the gods listed in vedas) in high regard. Plus they also recognize other (better known) incarnations of god. So despite their unique dedication to their founder, one cannot say that they are not Hindus.

Secondly, their practice of worshiping their guru as god is not exactly unknown in Hinduism. So, I think the best category for Swaminarayan founder would be "god-guru" or something like that. Sai Baba and many others could be added to this category as well. The Sai baba group is probably better funded than Swaminarayan (but they probably don't spend as much in building temples). 67.169.0.250 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One can classify gods in Hinduism according to their relative importance and popularity. Brahma is important but not popular. Vishnu and Shiva are highly important and highly popular. Ganesh is somewhat less important, but highly popular. Swaminarayan hardly makes the list specially when Swaminarayan sect is only very recently becoming visible (mainly as a result of millions they spend building temples) and has no mention in Hindu literature. There are probably more people who regard Sai Baba as god then people who regard Swaminarayan as god. I think the best way to describe these figures is "god-guru". Just my two cents. Otherwise, be prepared to add your local Neem or Banyan tree to the list of gods in Hinduism as well (since there are probably more women in villages who worship the local Neem/Banyan tree than all of Swaminarayan and Sai Baba followers combined). 67.169.0.250 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, I would support the earlier suggestion that the image of Swaminarayan temple be removed and replaced with image(s) of Somnath, Kashi Viswanath, or any of the more popular and more important temples. The topic is better handled by keeping significant things significant and insignificant things insignificant. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is "grey" enough that I believe it will take some time to discern the proper categories necessary to categorize these various types of Hindu "gods" and/or "Gods." There are some good ideas above, but presently I remain neutral. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - 67.169.0.250 mentioned since there are probably more women in villages who worship the local Neem/Banyan tree than all of Swaminarayan and Sai Baba followers combined). According to the survey of a leading Indian newspaper, the followers of Swaminarayan number in excess of 20 million. I think there are not more than a billion hindus in the world today, which means tht 1 in every 5 hindus is a follower of Swaminarayan, hence his statement was uncalled for. has no mention in Hindu literature. - again wrong as Iv mentioned 2 above - there are others as well. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the scope of the existing category Hindu gods is confusing as it is clear from the discussion above. Maybe just remove the category? Wikidās ॐ 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If the 20 million were true it would be 1 in 50. The 20 million is not even supported by the reference [2] given, so I would treat it with a pinch of salt (the only number given in the article is not for Swaminarayan but the Satsang set up by Purushottam Thakur Anukulchandra. They make an extremely dubious claim of 20 crore or 200 million followers which is clearly indicated as self reported) -- Q Chris (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of the cat is discussed here: Cat Hindu gods to devas Wikidās ॐ 09:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Q Chris mentioned that there is not mention of 20 million followers in the article. If one reads the article carefully, the end bit is on Swaminarayan. It clearly mentions that there are a cumilative 2 crore followers of this faith. Now, for information, 1 crore = 10 million. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Oh, and your right 1 in 50, my maths is a bit week - thanks for the correction :) Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. I re-read it more carefully, I don't know how I missed that. I do think the claims in that article seem a little dubious, but you are right it is in the article. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Swaminarayan sect followers ARE Hindus. Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice By Robin Rinehart
2. Swaminarayan may or may Not be considered a god, by non-Swaminarayan Hindus. For NPOV, I think a cat like 'Gurus whose followers see them as God' in cat:Hindu gurus is fit for Swaminarayan, NOT Hindu gods cat. Another example is Sai baba and Ayyavazhi founder (Ayya Vaikundar, hope i spelt it right) who falls in the same cat.
3. I OPPOSE any split in Hindu gods cat and it's renaming as one intoduces jargon like deva or ambigious statements like "Traditional Hindu gods" and "Modern Hindu gods". What is traditional and modern is subject to interpretation.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all three points. No splitting of Hindu gods category. "Gurus whose followers see them as God" should be a sub-cat of Gurus. This is not a grey area at all. To demonstrate how utterly absurd some of the above suggestions are: one of the ideas for inventing a new category of Hindu gods, "neo-hindu gods", gets a total of 0 Google results. The other made-up category of "Modern hindu gods" gets a grand total of 8 google hits. ~ priyanath ^talk 13:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and I think its time to close this discussion. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, but would like to add that I support the "option 1" above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's not a big deal if that particular one is a god or not...We Hindus create gods or Prophets out of everyone, religion immaterial...Buddha is a primary Avatar of Lord Vishnu, Ravana is viewed as a tyrant, but he is also considered by the same authorities as one of the greatest authorities over various branches of knowledge...even his destroyer, Rama accepted that...Also, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Maharashtra, a Muslim Fakir is made a god. Just that Muslims were oppressive in India, so Allah was not made a Hindu god and Jesus never entered the masses of India. So, even he was not a god to Hindus. Had the Muslims been more softer, there were a very few like Tanisha of Golconda, reason immaterial, we would have seen Mohammed, the Prophet among the Avatars of Lord Vishnu!! This seems the major reason why Hinduism survived such long...It was never stagnant(always incorporating ideas!!) and India was never a single entity, unlike Persia, whose official religion fell from zenith to Nadir in no time. God knows what Hindus took from the Parsi refugees who fled from the ruins of Persia. Note that I am a South Indian Brahmin, the epitome of representation of the Muslim Kafir in the world, not of any other religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.133.148 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing more...why this debate over SwamiNarayan being a Hindu god? To be frank, no one catalogued the total 33 crore gods!! So, lay that to rest!! And who says Lord Vishnu is superior? Some say Durga, some say Shiva and whatever, and everyone has atleast source of authentic documentation in his support!! Three cheers to this vibrant and confusing religion, which has got no established supreme god, no scripture, no common traditions...Atleaast it has got an indigenous name, Sanatana Dharma...I think it is the only religion whose followers, a majority of then donot know the name of their religion!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.133.148 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hindu gods

Discussion not related to this article moved to Talk:Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Wikidās ॐ 06:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another incorrect statement

Sannyasin Dharma recognizes, but renounces, kāma, artha and dharma,

Statement says that a Sanyasin renounces Dharma, which is to say Swami Vivekanand, Shankaracharya etc had renounced dharma. There could be nothing more factually incorrect than this

Some editors who have a strong anti-hindu POV are messing up the Hinduism article. They are pushing POV's which complies to their political or theological stand. Why isn't discussion been followed on controveresies? Why are un-nessasary adjectives being added to sentenses.

Above all Hinduism is a religion(belief system) and not a political party. Like every religion its teachers, scholars and adherants define and interpret what Hinduism is, because ultimately they believe in it. Communists, colonial historians or Christian missionaries cannot define it or interpret it for Hindus

Sindhian (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that only adherents of a religion can interpret it for other adherents, but good scholars can interpret it for other people. In an encylopedia, we need to present all significant points of view, and just as we wouldn't look keenly on an article about a company solely written by employees of that company, any religious article should reflect not just what believers think but the views of other reliable sources. This article should not read as though it was written by Hindus for Hindus. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC

Likewise, all views on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism NEED TO BE WRITTEN BY OUTSIDERS!! have the same treatment across the board. This is a HUGE problem in academia these days. In fact, "Invading the Sacred" beautifully describes how emit scholars of the Abrahamic faiths are plentiful and relied upon for info on their respective religions but ONLY for Hinduism, etic scholars are used!! why? This is a calculated plan to discredit and denigrate Hinduism and India by the likes of Michael Witzel & Wendy Doniger!! In fact, this rampant prejudice is so prevalent these days that even if emit scholars of Hinduism (from India) suggest changes and/or provide info, they are summarily dismissed! This HAS TO STOP! The christianity article on this SHITipedia reads like it was factual and sacrosanct! It is absolute garbage and the mythology of the Abrahamic faiths aren't even called that. They are simply stated as matter of fact. Whereas for Hinduism/India, sentences always begin with, "Hindu mythology says..." or "according to scholarly consensus, ...the converse is true...". It is totally unfair and uncalled for.

Doug, this is a no-brainer for anyone familiar with this project's goals and purpose. It isn't necessary to even react to such stuff. Sindhian is just troll, in the classical, non-inflationary sense of the term. WP:DFTT. --dab (𒁳) 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By making article anti-hindu it makes it unstable. Stable article will mean that there is common denominator. In this case it will be reliable sources that are acceptable to both Hindu readers and non-Hindu editors. This will be the result of a consensus. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to create articles that are offensive to 1billion people who are more likely to read it then anyone else. If you go and do it on Islam or Judaism - I wonder how long you will last. Ah?? Lets look for the middle ground that is factual and sourced please. Wikidās ॐ 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to be with being anti-Hindu, it is because Wikipedia is an encylopedia. That means that you can't exclude sources/statements just because some Hindus don't like them. The article on Solomon for instance includes the view that he might not have existed or if he did not have been much more than a chieftain. Articles on his temple suggest it may never have existed. NPOV, which is policy and not optional, requires that all significant views be represented. Was I wrong to upset someone from Pakiston on Indus Valley Civilization because I put back the mentions of India that he removed? That probably upset him. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that will upset millions of people. Are you saying they should be censored? Are you really saying you are going to oppose anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint on Hinduism? Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly need NPOV I think that everyone agrees with that. I think that Wikidās was saying that he thought the article was biased against Hinduism, not that there should be a positive bias in favour of it. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are reliable sources and we can not reject a reliable source, however the core is consensus. Its the main and prime principle and you can not just bypass it and start including off the wall comments from some academic site, we are working together here, do not forget it, so NPOV is acceptable and is based on consensus. Wikidās ॐ 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand him to say that any source that might be offensive to some Hindus, even if a significant view, should not be used. If I'm wrong, sorry. Doug Weller (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No that is incorrect. We support freedom of speech and expression and fully behind all the policies of Wikipedia. We firmly believe that freedom of expression in combination with general requirements as to the academic sources, pier reviewed, and in combination with fundamental requirement of consensus, will produce an excellent article on Hinduism, provided there is mutual respect and no discrimination based on religious belief or affiliation of the editors. Please refrain by addressing other editors in such a manner. Wikidās ॐ 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

where did you get the idea that there is a "freedom of expression" on Wikipedia? There isn't. Wikipedia is a private website, which grants you editing access for a single purpose: to write encyclopedic articles. Anyone who is found to use their access for other ends may have their editing privilege revoked immediately. There is no "right" to edit here. Quoting WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."

it is undisputed that we want this article to be free of bias. Free of anti-Hindu bias just as much as free of pro-Hindu bias (a.k.a. WP:NPOV). We want a balanced account of Hinduism based on high-quality academic secondary sources. To say that listing the purusarthas in order of ascending importance is "anti-Hindu", however, is beyond silly. Especially since nobody insisted we stick to this particular listing order. Read Mbh 12.161 to see how the characters there disagree over the proper hierarchy of the three purusarthas. Building a case of "defamation" on something as far-fetched as that is trolling, or so pathetically paranoid so as to be indistinguishable from trolling. Something our Hindu editors need to understand is that the same rules apply for them as for everybody else, especially as for adherents of every other religion. So the Xenu article is offensive to Scientologists? Tough. So it is offensive to Muslims to omit the "PBUH" honorific in Muhammad? Too bad. The day we begin honouring such "sensitivities", we can close down the project. To be lectured on NPOV by an editor who isn't above touting Dayananda Saraswati as "One of the greatest Hindu scholars" in article namespace[3] is a joke. Saraswati is the founder of Arya Samaj, a contemporary movement of Hindu chauvinist fundamentalism. This isn't the first time we get our articles trolled by Arya Samaj fanboys, just look at the history of Ashvamedha. To call Saraswati "one of the greatest Hindu scholars" betrays an endearing ignorance of actual Hindu scholarship by intellectual giants such as Panini, Bhartrhari, Aryabhata, and dozens of other great names of the Hindu "golden age". dab (𒁳) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling Arya Samaj a Hindu Chaunistic movement is a fallacy without reason. You are saying this without reasonable reference. That makes it and your statement defamatory. in fact Arya Samaj is a well respected conteprorary Hindu movement. In fact Arya Samaj scholars are respected for their suopprt of secular and egalitarian system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. That is the essence of what I have said. I know, that Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, and its part of my point. Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, who are the 'we' you are referring to? And exactly what did I say that caused you to reply 'please refrain by addressing other editors in such a manner'? Doug Weller (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question ... if there is nobody around to support this view (which is a common sense view) then its just me. Can you see where you just separated different types of editors by their affiliation to a particular tradition. That is wrong I protest that it should not be done. We want to produce good articles, not to turn them into battlegrounds. Lets be productive and learn how to work with each editor who contributes right to build up a consensus.Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to separate different types of editors by affiliation to a particular tradition, but there are, for instance, nationalist editors like the one who tried to remove mention of India from the article in the Indus civilization. They really exist. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinguish editors who do hard and valuable work for the pedia, never mind their personal convictions, from drama queens and wikilawyers who disrupt the pedia for personal kicks and schoolyard pissing-contests. I don't care what your convictions are as long they don't show in your edits. If they do, you are doing something wrong and need to reconsider your approach. I admit Wikidas' good faith, but boy does he have a flat learning curve. If you continue in your present vein, Wikidas, you'll have a basic grasp of what Wikipedia is trying to do in another few weeks. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful, this is bordering on a breach of WP:NPA. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sindhian, you should know that the person who added that sentence was in fact a practising Hindu. Yes Sannyasis and Sadhus renounce Dharma because their only goal is Moksha. Swami Vivekanand and Adi Shankaracharya are not Sannyasis to be accurate; they are gurus (spiritual teachers). It is ironic that your misunderstanding of Hindu terminology is what is actaully to the religion and its followers. Surely you must be aware of the Sannyasis and Sadhus all over India. They live an ascetic way of life and thus do not follow Dharma. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be a practising hindu but you seem to know very little about hindusim. Show me a reference that Vivekanand or Shankarachaya did not take vovs of Sanyas. In fact adi shankarachariya was opposed and critisized for attending his mothers funeral because that is against sanyasis code of conduct. Sindhian (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen and respect your contributions to this article, DaGizza and Dab... but I must disagree... this is too controversial and complex a topic to be dealt with in a single sentence that seems to pronounce on the truth with complete authority. The fact is that sanyaasis do not renounce dharma: they renounce samsaara... a sanyaasi transcends the dharma that governs the world of materiality and mundane human pursuits, but there is a Dharma with a capital 'D', if you will, which governs the workings of the universe. Until a sanyaasi has achieved complete enlightenment, he/she cannot transcend that more universal Dharma... there are multiple layers within the term 'dharma' and your statements in the article need to be sensitive and cognizant of these or else suffer from gross inaccuracy. --59.93.174.39 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that there is no clear definition on what means to be practicing hindu or if Hindu guru who is a sannyasi is not sannyasi anymore... again sources are needed to create a neutral ground point of view. I propose addressing most of the issues in this article with reference to different views. Wikidās ॐ 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not agree to your conclusion Wikidas. The point here is simply that Sanyasis do not renounce Dharma but Samsaara . Another important fact is Dharma is a ancient Sanskrit word and Sanskrit words like any other ancient language words can have different meanings in different contexts. Sindhian (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to be sorry. There is an element of confusion (what conclusion?), in the sense of different uses of the word 'sannyasi'. If its kārma sannyas , then the person is not normally taking on the role of a guru. Another meaning of sannyasa is an initiation into an order of sannyasa, as it will be the case with swamis in Madvacharya or Adi Shankara traditions, they are given a staff (danda) and a new name, and not allowed to marry etc. but still can be someones guru and an acharya. Again there is new-sannyas introduced by Rajnesh (but its hardly applicable here and I would not consider it Hinduism proper). So guru can be a sannyasi, he is still a sannyasi, unless he took a vaidic kārma sannyas, then he does not perform some dharmic actions, such as lighting of fire or taking on shisyas, but other two types of sannyas that receive name Svami or Goswami do, except if its a different dharma, not grihastha dharma, but nyasi dharma. Again definition of the word dharma is critical to this, as it means different things to different people and according to different sources. Practicing hindu is another thing - needs clarification. Wikidās ॐ 10:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All 'Ashrams' have their 'dharma', Brahmacharya Ashram for study, Grihasta Ashram for raising a family, Vanaprastha Ashram for leaving the worries of the household, and Sannyasa Ashram for dissociating from all worldly activities in search of Moksha. A sannyasi should not come to a village or city and remain in the forest, it is his dharma (among many others). It is the realized, enlightened, who have understood Brahman (Brahma Veda Brahmaiva Bhavati), who would not be bound by any dharma, because their actions itself will be dharma. Somewhere the Upanishads say first leave duality, then leave the mind which got you to leave the duality, that is when one is realized. (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Main dieties

{{editsemiprotected}} There are actually 6 main dieties. There is a contradictory article, that states there are 6 main dieties linked to the main Hinduism artcile.

 Done Thank you! LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Should make mention of Proto-Indo-European religion - possibly in intro?

Proto-Indo-European religion is the ancestor to what is now hinduism so should probably be better reflected in the article. There isn't any mention except in the "See also" section at the end. Hinduism did not materialise out of nowhere - perhaps the links with other religions such as ancient Greek, Roman and Iranian before their swamping by Christianity and Islam could be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.47.230 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Perspective & World View

In the todo list, I replaced the text: Write and explain things from a neutral [NPOV] perspective with Attempt to explain Hindu perspective and Hindu worldview as well but not just Hinduism

Please note that [NPOV] has nothing to do with "Hindu perspective" and "Hindu worldview". The main reason this article exists is to explain Hinduism, Hindu worldview, and Hindu perspective. We can write about it in a neutral manner but "Hindu perspective and worldview" has nothing to do with NPOV. Thanks 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism

I would like to place this article, Karma in Hinduism for peer review. It is a good article that needs improvement.

Thanks,

Raj2004 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about Indian names

Hello, can someone knowledgeable about South Indian names tell me the following (to my discussion page):

1. The literal meaning of the name "Subramaniam"/"Subramanian"

2. The literal meaning of the name "Ramanathan"

Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1) This is not the right forum for going on fact-finding missions. People here are working on a page. Go elsewhere.

2) However, since you asked.... these names are both Sanskrit/Sanskrit-derived. "Ramanathan" means "Lord Rama" and "Subramanian" means "beloved of the Brahmins" and refers to the God Karttika (originally "subrahmaNya"). --59.93.217.98 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The most appropriate places to ask a question like this in the future are the WT:HNB and WP:RD. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Subramaniam is another name for Murugan (also known as Skanda, Kartikeya, Shanmugha, Aarumugam, etc.)

Ramanathan; 'Natha' means protector (e.g., Gananatha is another name for Ganesha, meaning the protector of the Gana), and Rama refers to Ramachandra of Ramayana. I don't know exactly what Protector of Rama would allude to though; perhaps it is just another name for Rama (perhaps Protector Rama?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.147.41 (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC) diss is fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.139.178 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction

Hello. I have recently looked at the introductory paragraph to this article and am surprised that it does not mention, even briefly, the Hindu concept of God or reincarnation or any other key beliefs. The pages from all other religions, from Christianity to Wicca and Rastafari do this, so why not Hinduism?. I would propose shortening the section on scripture at the begining and adding it something along the lines of :

Hinduism is a religion that originated in the Indian subcontinent. Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma (सनातन धर्म) by its practitioners, a Sanskrit phrase meaning "the eternal law."

Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, and as such Hinduism is often stated to be the "oldest religious tradition" or "oldest living major tradition." It is formed of diverse traditions and types and has no single founder. Hinduism is the world's third largest religion after Christianity and Islam, with approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 905 million live in India. Other countries with large Hindu populations include Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia (Bali), Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, and the United States.

Hindu beliefs vary widely, with concepts of God and/or gods ranging from pantheism to polytheism, with Vishnu and Shiva being the most popular deities. Other notable characteristics include a belief in reincarnation and karma, as well as personal duty, or dharma.

Hinduism's vast body of scriptures is divided into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered"). These scriptures discuss theology, philosophy and mythology, and provide information on the practice of dharma (religious living). Among these texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads are the foremost in authority, importance and antiquity. Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the Agama, the Purāṇas and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.

So, does anyone think we should change this to create a better overview for readers of the article. H(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with you that the key religious belief should be mentioned in the lead, but I think it needs to be re-written. Firstly, Hinduism's concept of God/gods is so vast that includes pantheism, monotheism, polytheism and even atheism, and putting only a few of these examples would misled the reader and be POV. For the sake of good writing, we shouldn't have a two sentence paragraph in the lead and it should be added to something else, or expanded. We should also avoid repitition because the scripture paragraph, which I believe is too detailed for the lead anyway, talks about Dharma and hence we would be mntioning the concept twice in brief succession. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The root term Dev means provide, Devta thus means Provider or actually Resource. The article thus states the incorrect mapping of Hindu term "Deva" or "Devta" to European/English term "gods". The matras recited at most occasions speak the term "Vraksho devta, prithvi devta, ....." meaning Trees are Devta, Earth is a Devta and not God or gods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.69.135 (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: "Hinduism, unlike the Semitic religions, lacks a structure, is not linear, has no single sacred text, is not organized by a church. Even the term Hinduism came into vogue only in the nineteenth century as a portmanteau word to cover a diversity of sects." [R. Thapar, 'Syndicated Moksha?', "Seminar" (Delhi), issue 313, September 1985]. "Radhakrishnan was aware of this and so carefully entitled his work not Hindu but Indian philosophy." ["Radhakrishnan, A Biography", Sarvepalli Gopal, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.63]. By the way, the Vedic 'devataa' is not the same as the 'devataa' (deity) worshipped as God. Thanks. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vedic-Aryan connection

many people say that the vedas are the foundation of indian religion. the religions of today have very little to do with the vedas i.e., the different deities and their functions. Very few if any worshipers of the vedic deities (excluding vishnu) are to be found today. It might be wise to discuss the idea that Hinduism as a religion originated in India and that the aryan invaders who brought in the vedas influenced but by no means created the religion. Evidence of this position is seen in various harrapan seals indicating siva, yoga, karma, and possibly even moksa as a developed idea. Also it may be wise to stress the psychological as opposed to historical world-view of Hinduism. I dont know maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.22.98 (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

External Link section

The external link section seems to have some formatting issues. Just a heads up. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link that was causing problems. For some reason there was a reference in this section.    World   ^tcs 21:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it and the update. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the Introduction

Hi, I would like to comment on the introduction. I absolutely disagree with the point Hinduism is a religion. Hinduism is a way of life i.e. the Sanathana Dharma (सनातन धर्म).

To support this statement, I would like provide an example, every religion Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism,Islam, Judaism, Jainism and others were started by a man. Christianity was started by Jesus Christ, Buddhism was started by Buddha, Sikhism was started by Guru Nanak, Islam by Prophet Muhammed, Judaism by Moses, Jainism by Mahavira and so on.

Is it possible to give a name of a man / woman who started the Sanathana Dharma (सनातन धर्म) / Hinduism ?

--Ramka001 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) ramka001

I totally agree

RAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.141.164.89 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The attempt to define Hinduism as "a way of life" is one of the many attempts to define Hinduism and it should not be extended to mean "Hinduism is not a religion". This last view is totally biased and is an uncivilized attack on Hinduism and deeply hurts people who belong to this great religion. The perception that Hinduism is "a way of life" is due to the fact that the term "Hinduism" signifies "the religion + culture of the Hindu people". Because of the "culture" component, definition of Hinduism is difficult and the article also discusses this amply. The people who define Hinduism as "a way of life" are only half right. They have focused only on the "culture" component and some people are trying to wrongly extend this definition to mean that "Hinduism is not a religion". The arguement that "it has no founder" does not hold because "it has no founder" only means that you do not know about the founder. If you do not know wheter the chicken came first or the egg, would that mean that their existance is less real? Secondly, comparing with other religions and trying to show that one religion is lesser that other on this basis is also a flawed arguement because it is not expected that all religions should be exactly alike. If they were all alike, would there be more than one religion? Having a divine origin rather than a human founder can be regarded as a greater claim to being a religion. If we start declassifying religions on some arguement or other, there is no shortage of people who think that only their religion is a "religion" and all others are "not religion". These arguements are totally against NPOV. It seems that these arguements are aimed at diluting the perception and identity of a religion and have nothing to do with being informative. In fact almost all religions claim divine origins and the adherents of most of those religions themselves claim that the "human founders" are respected mediums rather than being the founder. Actually it is much more complex and I only want to show that these arguements do not deserve serious consideration, we had better devote our energies to more meaningful and agreeable purposes. We must also understand that the attempt to define Hinduism is itself mischievious and intended to produce more mischief. Do you guys assume that other religions HAVE a real, all inclusive definition? Do you think that defining other religions will be "not difficult"?117.198.50.182 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the varna(caste system), formulated by the great legislator Manu, was admirable. He saw clearly that men are distinguished by natural evolution into four great classes: those capable of offering service to society through their bodily labor ( Sudras); those who serve through mentality, skill, agriculture, trade, commerce, business life in general (Vaisyas); those whose talents are administrative, executive, and protectiverulers and warriors ( Kshatriyas); those of contemplative nature, spiritually inspired and inspiring (Brahmins). "Neither birth nor sacraments nor study nor ancestry can decide whether a person is twice-born (i.e., a Brahmin);" the Mahabharata declares, "character and conduct only can decide." Manu instructed society to show respect to its members insofar as they possessed wisdom, virtue, age, kinship or, lastly, wealth. Riches in Vedic India were always despised if they were hoarded or unavailable for charitable purposes. Ungenerous men of great wealth were assigned a low rank in society.

Some confusion...

There seems to be some confusion as to the existence of God within the principles of Hinduism. Hinduism teaches that there is only one God. Only one. Regardless of a branch of Hinduism which one may affiliate with, this exists across the board. However, a concept of "yug" also exists, which refers to periods of time in the universe's history, for example : satyug, tretayug, and so on. In each yug of existence, Hindu's believe that God came, even several times,to earth to help humanity. However, God comes in different forms, which are represented through different models of God to which Hindu's oblige, for example, Ram, Krishna,Ganesh and so one, which are in essence (Vishnu, Brahma and Mahesh)- the supreme being, in different forms. Therefore, Ganesh is God, and Ganesh is also Krishna, and Ram and so on, as they are all the same God, yet in different forms in different times throughout history. When Hindus worship "Gods", they are not worhsipping multiple Gods, yet the same, and yet celebrating Gods glory perennially and eternally. Therefore, it can really be deduced that Hinduism is actually a monotheistic religion, and yet a lack of understanding, primarily through the fact that Hindu scriptures are in Sanskrit and Hindi, has eventuated misconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.5.12 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite confused. Hinduism teaches that God is only one. It's true, but this God who controls Panchamahabhuta. Panchamahabuta means a form of Five great powers, i.e. Agni (Fire), Vayu (Air), Aakash (Sky), Aap (Water), Prithvi (Earth, but here considered as Surface). These 5 elements are controlled by a God. God is a form of Tridev (Three people who are also considered as gods since they are formed from only 1 God). Those gods are, Vishnu, Shankara (Mahesh) and Brahma. These three gods always stayed in Heaven (Swarga) and to come on Earth to control crime and save huminity, they had to take an Avatar. Two of these gods, Mahesh and Vishnu had wives. Mahesh's son was Ganesha and Kartikeya. Krishna was Avatar of Vishnu and he was not related to Mahesh by any means. Therefore when people worship Ganesha, ofcourse they are not worshipping Krishna. Understanding Hinduism is not possible in some sentences, or some hours. It can take many days to understand hinduism. --Anuraag Vaidya 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the most ancient practice of worshipping the one God in India has been in the form of various deities ['devataa'] presented in male and female forms as a 'deva' or 'devi'. Thanks. Kanchanamala (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.55.45 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

we have an article on Hindu views on monotheism, you may want to contribute to that (with citations). Otherwise, please observe WP:FORUM. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Concept of God

I disagree with the statement that, "In Hinduism the concept of God is complex and depends on a particular tradition." In fact, Hinduism is based on a fundamental concept of God called "Brahman" (not the Brahmin caste). "Brahman" or "that which is" is said to be beyond imagination and experience. It is also said to be beyond existence -- for it is what created existence in the first place. It is said to be "Nirguna" or featureless since it is everything. There is in fact, a page on Brahman on Wikipedia, which is not featured here at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.104.137 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shudra - Kshudra

The cast system in Hinduism was,

Brahmana Kshatriya Vaishya Kshudra

It is Kshudra not Shudra. I am making this change in page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraagvaidya (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the text. Please somebody redirect Shudra to Kshudra because the real like is Shudra which is existing page. --Anuraag Vaidya 11:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kshudra is incorrect, please check Monier-Williams:

śūdra

• śūdrá m. (of doubtful derivation) a Śūdra, a man of the fourth or lowest of the four original classes or castes (whose only business, accord. to Mn. i, 91, was to serve the three higher classes
• in RV. ix, 20, 12, the Śūdra is said to have been born from the feet of Purusha, q.v

It should be transliterated as either shudra or śūdra. I would change back but the page is semi-protected. 192.17.144.235 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it. Perhaps Kshudra is a regional pronunciation? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, I referred to a regional pronunciation. In Marathi it is pronounced as Kshudra, same as in Modern Sanskrit. But we should obviously refer to Classical Sanskrit since these casts were formed in Classical Sanskrit stage. Anyways, thanks for clarification.--Anuraag Vaidya 08:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Chinese travelers have left us many striking pictures of Indian society. The Chinese priest, Fa-Hsien, wrote an account of his eleven years in India during the reign of Chandragupta II (early 4th century). The Chinese author relates: "Throughout the country no one kills any living thing, nor drinks wine. . . . They do not keep pigs or fowl; there are no dealings in cattle, no butchers' shops or distilleries. Rooms with beds and mattresses, food and clothes, are provided for resident and traveling priests without fail, and this is the same in all places. The priests occupy themselves with benevolent ministrations and with chanting liturgies; or they sit in meditation." Fa-Hsien tells us the Indian people were happy and honest; capital punishment was unknown. The Greek historians have left us many vivid and inspiring pictures of Indian society. Hindu law, Arrian tells us, protects the people and "ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave but that, enjoying freedom themselves, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess. For those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressheart1234 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

kshudra means small or of no consequence in Sanskrit. It has no etymological connection with shudra. --68.173.110.157 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Piligrimage is not mandatory"

This is my first entry. so pardon me if i dont sumbit this request correctly. While piligrimage is not manadatory, i would like to bring to the editors notice that as part of sanathana dharma ther are 4 phases brahmacharya/grihastha/vanaashrama and vridhashram and the people in 4th phase were expected to spend their time in holy places and live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarajants (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, but that's not pilgrimage; that's spiritual life. People in the last stage of release are not so much expected to gravitate towards holy places, as they will naturally do that (due to their increasing disinterest in the secular world). --Ludwigs2 04:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ludwigs2. If you look closely at the request put up by Nagarajants, you would find that he has omitted "Sannyasa" as the fourth phase and given a different name for the fourth phase of life. The article is written in a way that would suggest that Hindus traditionally move out of their homes in the fourth phase of life. There is no such tradition at present. No Hindu is expected to move out of his home when he becomes old. I think Nagarajants has put in this request because someone might be facing torture due to this article. I mean, some cruel person might be showing this article to some old Hindu person and trying to tell him to move away or give up his worldly possessions or something like that. I think we should immediately do something to prevent any such possibility. Can we take off that portion of the article?Civilizededucation (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

as far as I can tell this isn't in the article, it was just an editing suggestion. if you think something along these lines would be helpful, can you rewrite Nagarajants' request into a better statement? I don't know enough about Hindu pilgrimage to do it myself. --Ludwigs2 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. Nagarajants request does looks like an editing request at first glance. But I think there may be more to it because he has not followed up, and has presented his request in a rather confused sort of way. I think his request is related mainly to the “Ashramas” section and the linkage to “Pilgrimage and festivals” section is somewhat secondary. Since Nagarajants has not followed up his request, I would take up your suggestion to reword his request like this.- Wiki editors please take notice. Pilgrimage in Hinduism is not mandatory. The “ashramas” section starts with the word “traditionally”. This indicates that Hindus in the third phase of life traditionally spend their third phase of life in pilgrimages. Actually this is not so. People are expected to spend their time in holy place and live there in the fourth phase only. And the nomenclature of the four phases should be 1) Brahmacharya, 2)Grihastha, 3)Vaanashrama, 4) Vridhashram.- This is my version of his request. The sentence “Pilgrimage is not mandatory” is from the “Pilgrimage and festivals” section. I think he has stressed on this sentence due to some reason. Secondly, he has given a different name for the fourth phase. The article gives the name of the fourth phase as “Sannyasa” which can be translated as “life as an ascetic”. The name he has given can be roughly translated as “elderly life”. In this way, he seems to be avoiding the idea of pilgrimage,etc. in the fourth phase too. I can,t be sure, but I think we should reword the "Ashramas" section in a way where the concept of tradition is done away with, and we should also indicate that the concept of Ashramas has gone into disuse and nowadays Hindu people live their lifes according to their free will and personal preference only. Civilizededucation (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) Hi Ludwigs2, I have found a link The Four Ashrams which says, Today, only a few Hindus strictly follow all these four ashrams. I would like to know your views.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I was looking to get some opinions before embarking on edits to this section. Anyway, I propose to reword the Ashramas section in this way.-.

During earlier times, the life of a Hindu was divided into four Āshramas (phases or stages; unrelated meanings include monastery). The first part of one's life, Brahmacharya, the stage as a student, was spent in celibate, controlled, sober and pure contemplation under the guidance of a Guru, building up the mind for spiritual knowledge. Grihastha was the householder's stage, in which one married and satisfieed kāma and artha in one's married and professional life respectively (see the goals of life). The moral obligations of a Hindu householder include supporting one's parents, children, guests and holy figures. Vānaprastha, the retirement stage, was gradual detachment from the material world. This involved spending more time in religious practices and embarking on holy pilgrimages etc. Finally, in Sannyāsa, the stage of asceticism, they renounced all worldly attachments to secludedly find the Divine through detachment from worldly life and peacefully shed the body for Moksha [102] Nowadays, few Hindus follow these phases of life and mostly live their lifes according to their preference.

I know I don't have a strong citation or source to propose this edit. But I think there is sufficient reason to go through this edit.Civilizededucation (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already states that, "Traditionally the life of a Hindu is divided into four Āshramas" (emphasis added). If you have sources for the proposed additions then we can discuss the issue. Abecedare (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)