Talk:Hinduism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Non-cremation in Hinduism

I moved this section to this page (WT:HNB) because it is a discussion about Hinduism in general and not about this article. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cremation and other death rites should definitely be added to the "Practice" section. Jpatokal 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else did, I went ahead and added it. As exceptions to cremation, the Japanese Wikipedia states "金が無い人、赤ん坊、妊婦、蛇に噛まれて", or "people with no money, babies, pregnant women and those bitten by snakes". True or false? Jpatokal 12:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Article size

I suggest that we should take efforts to reduce article size to around 40-45 Kb.--Indianstar 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article should be judged more on the quality of it's content than on it's size? Hinduism is such a vast subject to give an informative overview of. Is there a way to reduce the KB size without removing so much text? The old version which was counted as a featured article was here (I'm presuming the date is correct) for a comparison. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was 100Kb and it took five editors to try to reduce the article size and much as possible without removing valuable information. At the moment, the article lacks a fair bit of important information so it will be almost impossible to shorten the article to 40Kb. Gouranga, that old version, if we were to change back to it, will not be featured standard anymore. There are many problems with the old featured version, one of which is its emphasis on the astik philosophies. The standard of writing is also quite poor. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think it is not feasible to reduce this article down to 40-50K without loosing too much information. Indianstar may have arrived at the 45K number based on his experience editing the article on India (another huge topic) which is currently 43K and a Featured article ! That said, I think we should keep our goals reasonable, perhaps in the 65-70K neighborhood after inclusion of topics such as Tantra and the criticism section. Abecedare 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

broken reference

Reference/footnote #37 seems to be broken. I do not have much time right now to search history and get it back. It might be easier if someone knew the reference. EDITORS: PLEASE be careful before deleting a reference that has a refname attached to it. Make sure you do not orphan footnotes. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The ISBN quoted in the reference belongs to "A Popular Dictionary of Hinduism (Curzon Press 1994)" but I can't work out how to add this back into the current ref format. Any takers? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also added back another broken reference #96. Abecedare 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thailand Hinduism????

Article mentions Thailand as having high Hindu population! According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/th.html "Thailand — Religions: Buddhist 94.6%, Muslim 4.6%, Christian 0.7%, other 0.1% (2000 census)"

Jamesdowallen 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I was bold enough to remove it quickly. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

DaGizza, I just ran into an edit conflict. Will you please make sure that I did not ruin this page?Kanchanamala 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I didn't see you edit the main page or talk page. May you please tell me more specifically. I don't think you ruined any page. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gizza.Kanchanamala 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I have just (hopefully correctly) archived some of the stale discussions (inactive for more than a month or so) from this talk page into archive18. Hopefully this will spark new vigorous discussions to similarly improve the quality of this article. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good move, Saiva Sujit. I have learnt it the hard way that I should only say something which is directly related to improving an article. I'm glad the past is archived.Kanchanamala 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I believe this article is lacking a section on the (alleged) criticism of Hinduism (or its interpretation), including some topics on which frequent debate takes place such as the caste system, status of women, hindu zealots and ultra nationalists. I believe that the encyclopedic content and the neutrality of the article will improve if such a section is introduced. Do I have consensus to introduce this? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If so it would have to be done very carefully and from an informed perspective. Articles already exist, such as Criticism of Hinduism, Indian caste system and Women in Hinduism. It might be better to simply have a short paragraph linking to these other articles? Any other viewpoints? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This article can/should have a criticism section similar to the ones in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. If someone wants to take the lead in writing one up, that would be great and I am sure that other editors will help with critical appraisal and suggestions.

However any such addition is likely to be controversial. So instead of potentially edit-warring on the main article page, it would be better to draft on in a subpage, till a reasonable consensus is reached on the exact contents and wording. Abecedare 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Their is no need to write a new section on criticism. If you dig enough through the archives, especially around the time the article used to be a FA, you will find a fairly well-written criticism section that you can almost copy and paste. However, it is likely to be eroded and become non-existant in few months as thats just the way things go sometimes in Wikipedia. I used to try and prevent it but the "other side" was lot more stubborn than me. --Blacksun 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shruti and Smriti

While it is true that Smriti are non-Vedic in the sense that they do not include the Vedas, they are Vedic in the sense that (some of them) originated during the Vedic period, and they build upon/accept the authority of the Vedas. Since the adjective Vedic is almost always used in the latter sense (Vedic period, Vedic science, vedic mathematics, Vedic religion), I think, referring to Shrutis as non-Vedic may be inaccurate or at least confusing. However I may be wrong on this, so can others weigh in before making any changes in article-space ?
Also, the title "Many scriptures, many paths: attitude towards other beliefs" seems too long, especially for the Table of content. Any thoughts on alternate section title ? Abecedare 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about post-Vedic? It therefore doesn't imply there are no Vedic influences in the Smriti. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that is accurate either, because (parts of) the Mahabharata (a smriti) were probably composed earlier than some of the Upanishads. As far as I understand the difference between Shruti and Smriti has more to do with the Shruti's primacy as a theological source, rather than the their chronological order of composition; not to mention that dating any of these is a minefield. Perhaps we can can simply title the sections Shruti and Smriti with the explanations left to the the following paragraphs and the main articles. Abecedare 06:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I cancelled vandalism on the article. TwoHorned 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the article: "Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law") is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent" contains a polemical entry in the form of a reference to some topics which are more related to politics than to Hinduism itself. TwoHorned 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

TwoHorned, I don't think that claim is controversial or disputed by mainstream sources (unlike the Aryan claim(s) ). AFAIK, the currently recognized form of Hinduism did develop on the Indian subcontinent. The only (minor) controversy I am aware of is on the question of whether Hinduism was a sole product of the Aryan population or if it contains aspects of the "indigenous" beliefs too.

PS: I have removed the three Guenon refs that you added because the Reference section lists only those books/article that were actually used in writing the article and are cited in Notes. Abecedare 18:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, The Vedas themselves claim the artic origin of the anciant rishis, be it symbolic or not...
• Removing these references is non sense. In any Wikipedia article, the references can point to pieces of work not cited in the article, but which shed some light on the subject itself. I put them back. TwoHorned 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia's Manula of Style (emphasis added), "Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article." I noticed that you are currently working on an article on René Guénon, which is great; however inserting her references indiscriminately is not desirable. Regards. Abecedare 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then from Wikipedia's Manula of Style I can put them in a "further reading section". TwoHorned 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can. I don't plan to revert your good-faith edit but I do question the requirement for a further reading section in this article. I'll try to initiate a discussion on that general topic later to invite a broader input from editors. Regards. Abecedare 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is an English word. There is no equivalent of it in Sanskrit. The word Sanatana Dharma is a modern coinage using two Sanskrit words, and some Hindus refer to their spiritual tradition(s) by that name. Hinduism includes all the spiritual traditions of India[n origin], though some Jainas, Bauddhas, Sikhs, and who knows who else, do not like to be called Hindus nor have their spiritual traditions known to be part of Hinduism. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanatan Dharma is not modern in any way, it is still older than other religions. Dharma was the original word and later as the same word was used by Budhdhism/Jainism, they made it Sanatan Dharma. Still it is much older to call it modern. There is hardly anything about hinduism that can be called recent or modern.

I was questionning the second part of the sentence, not the first. TwoHorned 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Twohorned, I agree with you statement somewhat and also find the second part of the sentence fairly vague considering that it doesn't differentiate Hinduism from Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The problem is however, can you think of a better opening sentence. We should think of a better opening sentence and only replace the old one when consensus has been established. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been further discussion on this topic on my talk page. It seems that TwoHorned's point is that Hinduism did not necessarily originate in the Indian subcontinent, but possibly originated in the Arctics. Abecedare 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TwoHorned, I can't see why you find the second part of the opening sentence, highlighted by you at the top, objectionable. Your objection has baffled me. Anyway, as suggested by Gizza, let me proffer an opening sentence.

The term Hinduism comprises all the spiritual traditions that have originated in India, though some followers of Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and so forth, do not like their traditions to be considered as part of Hinduism.

What do you say guys? Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, according to Hindu mythologic scriputres, and in particular the Vedas, the anciant Rishis were coming from outside the land known today as India, northern. OK, it's mythology, but, in an article about Hinduism, may be we can let the Vedic scriptures speak a little by themselves. I was just pointing that. Moreover, as you all knwo, the "oral" period, prior to Vyasa is undetermined in length. Moreover, all the disputes about "Hinduism rose inside India" (NAIT) is rooted in extremely modern political considerations, which are foreign to orthodox Hinduism. So may be can we try something like this:

Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law" ) refers to a spiritual tradition which, according to vedic scriptures, has its roots undetermined both in space and time. With its foundations in the Vedic civilization, it has no known founder, being itself a conglomerate of diverse beliefs and traditions. It is considered the world's "oldest extant religion," and has approximately a billion adherents, of whom about 890 million live in India, placing it as the world's third largest religion after Christianity and Islam. Other countries with large Hindu populations include Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Just a proposition. Feel free to modify it as you like. TwoHorned 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current version, since I think the phrasing "refers to a spiritual tradition which, according to vedic scriptures, has its roots undetermined both in space and time." creates obfuscation, where none is desired/required. I'll cut-n-paste discussion from my talk page that indicates that the Arctic origin of Hinduism is a fringe theory, which while worthy of being discussed in the proper context, should not determine the lead sentence of the main article. Abecedare 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<cut-n-paste begins>

---

Dear Abecedare,

OK, thanks for your note. I do think that, on a subject as vast as Hinduism, there is room for a "further reading" section. Please note that some of the references given in the "References" section are extremely oriented: Frawley for instance, who is nothing else than a charlatan. Also, please consider the problematic first sentence of this article. Orthodox Hinduism states the "Northern" origin of the anciant Rishis. That may be symbolic, of course, but at least this should be mentionned. All the stuff about NAIT is rooted into political considerations that were foreign to Hindus during millenaries.

Regards,

TwoHorned 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert on the Aryan theories, but as far as I understand, irrespective of where Aryans came from or originated, it is currently widely accepted in academia that Hinduism in its current form developed in the Indian subcontinent (note: not necessarily India) sometime around 2500-1000 BCE. Some readings of Vedas are interpreted to indicate that the people who authored them came from colder climes. But then again, according to orthodox Hindu beliefs Veda's themselvesare apaurusheya (not of human origin) and timeless. However, the intro. sentence is not meant to indicate the religious view of the origins but rather the mainstream academic views. Of course, my understanding of the acdemic consensus may be incorrect, or possibly I am misunderstanding your question itself. To clarify, are you saying that Hinduism (note : not Aryans) originated in the Arctic region ? If so, perhaps we can invite inputs from some editors more knowledgeable than mein this area and correct the first sentence if required.

I accept that not all references in the article are as high quality as one would wish, especially since the article is on a topic that has been a subject of so much study and scholarship; for example, here is an incomplete bibliography of just primary texts on the subject. However, on wikipedia we have to depend upon lay/volunteer editors to access, read, and add sources and that is always a work in progress. In fact, the large size of the corpus of primary and secondary sources on Hinduism, is one reason I am (moderately) opposed to adding a further reading section to the article. IMO it may be better to include primary sources in Bibliography of Hindu scriptures and perhaps create another list for secondary sources, if needed. However, these are half-baked ideas yet ... Abecedare 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Academic texts can be mentionned, of course, but why not stand also on texts written by Hindu Saints ? Second, the question of chronology in Hinduism is not solvable. May I recommend you to read the first chapters of Guénon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines on this subject ? The "oral" transmission anterior to Vyasa is completely undetermined in length. And, yes, you're right Vedic text themselves are apurusheya : why not mention that ? Also, quite an interesting point: didn't Tilak himself write a book called "The Artic home in the Vedas" despite all the known relations between Tilak and Savarkar w.r.t. NAIT ? TwoHorned 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I see your point. The POV of Hindu saints and religious figures is mentioned in the correct context when discussing of Hinduism's theology, beliefs, denominations, practices etc. Their view of how the religion views itself and its teachings is clearly relevant. However the dating and history of a religion is an academic topic and hence needs scholarly citation; and Vedas being considered apaurusheya belongs in the Veda section and not in the history section. I know that Arctic origin of vedas has been proposed, but AFAIK it is not widely accepted. I may be wrong on this though, so I'll ask other editors who have worked on the Aryan theory article to chime in. Abecedare 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have avoided getting into the discussion about Aryan theories, but I did look up what J. P. Mallory had to say about the Artic theories in his mainstream book In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson: 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1). The Arctic claim is so unusual that Mallory begins his chapter on "The Indo-European Homeland Problem" with these sentences:

"We begin our search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans with the deceptively optimistic claim that it has already been located. For who would look further north than Lokomanya Tilak and Georg Biedenkapp who traced the earliest Aryans to the North Pole? Or who would venture a homeland further south than North Africa, further west than the Atlantic or further east than the shores of the Pacific, all of which have seriously been proposed as 'cradles' of the Indo-Europeans? This quest for the origins of the Indo-Europeans has all the fascination of an electric light in the open air on a summer night: it tends to attract every species of scholar or would-be savant who can take pen in hand. It also shows a remarkable ability to mesmerize even scholars of outstanding ability to wander far beyond the realm of reasonable speculation to provide yet another example of academic lunacy." (Mallory 1989, p. 143)

The reference to Tilak's monograph takes place in a paragraph where Mallory mentions various major camps among the theories, saying "Some scholars struggled to maintain a middle course, others provided comic relief.... Cokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak provided the world with an entire monograph marshalling all the available mythological evidence to prove that the Aryan homeland was the North Pole.[note 38] This incredible theory gained at least one supporter when George Biedenkapp, flushed with enthusiasm for Tilak's hypothesis, produced his own book summarizing the Indian savant's work in German and added further evidence of his own. The Icelandic linguist Alexander Johannesson conconcted another bizarre theory that related Indo-European roots to bird calls (Proto-Indo-European *ker- was imitative of a raven), grunts, and loud natural sounds which, according to him, could best be heard on the shores of the Baltic Sea." (p.269)

[note 38]"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth, for example, poems that indicate a home in the north where a day and a night lasted six months each, the Pole star rises to the zenith, and so on. A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." (p. 277, note 38)

Buddhipriya 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion, but I have little to contribute, mainly because I have yet to find a satisfying scholarly treatment of the origins of Hinduism. I could write extensively on my personal take of the issue, but that isn't what these talk pages are for. I'll just note that (a) not having read Bongard-Levin's book, I'm not aware of any "extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth" pointing to Arctic origins; (b) I have no idea what "oral transmission anterior to Vyasa" could mean in relation to issues of fact (as opposed to Puranic myths and mystical fantasies erected thereon); and (c) there is no evidence (textual, archaeological, etc.) to trace the Hinduism of pujas, temples and idols any further back than about the start of the Common Era. An overwhelming majority of Hindus don't know a word of the Vedas. If anyone is reading scripture on the bus back home from work, it's probably the Gita. And so on. Far too much ink, liquid and electronic, is spent on "high philosophy" and hoarily ancient origins (the hoarier the "better") as if these could illuminate popular Hinduism in the rank and file. IMHO. Sorry, I wound up ranting anyway. rudra 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that the quotation which included the reference to Bongard-Levin was from the extended citation I gave to J. P. Mallory. I have not read Bongard-Levin either. The purpose of providing the quotes from Mallory was to establish that Mallory discusses the Arctic theory within a few words of phrases like "academic lunacy", "comic relief", and "bizarre". Buddhipriya 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As rudra points out, it is just a matter of separating historical studies from mythology and from mysticist authors. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, by definition applicable to all religious traditions, however disparate, that originate in India. It "originates" with the onset of sources, viz. the Vedas, although what we know as "typical" Hinduism today originates in the early centuries CE. We can very well discuss Puranic mythology, as mythology, and we can discuss the various tenets of mysticist authors of the various Hindu reform movements (Tilak, Aurobindo and what not), as 19th century "romanticist" (Viking revival style) currents. Just don't conflate things. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Buddhipriya, Rudra and dab. Your thoughts mirror my opinions on the topic. Abecedare 08:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

<cut-n-paste ends>

How is it possible to separate "mythology" from "history" in the framework of sacred scriptures ? Why not mention the Vedic passages in question without interpretation ? About Vyasa, I was mentionning the well known fact that, before the formal written transcription of Vedas, an extremely long period of oral transmission existed. So how can stand "history" and chronology in such a complex framework ? To my opinion, a simple mention of both the Vedic texts and the academic theories would be neutral POV. TwoHorned 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, the opening sentence proferred by me above is comprehensive, precise, and 'neutral' (not parochial). It is also brief and elegant for a first or opening sentence. Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Import of 'Hinduism'

I think that there is support for the term Vedic religion rather than Hinduism, which is a more geographical term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyourPOV (talk • contribs) May 2, 2007

Abecedare and other fellow editors: The article is on Hinduism and not on "Sanatana Dharma". As I have pointed out above, 'Hiinduism' is an English word, and 'Sanatana Dharma' is no Sanskrit equivalent of 'Hinduism'. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking For Assistance

I'm looking at the page Idol Worship, and it says

Idol worship is most prevailant in Hinduism, the oldest practised religion of the world.

Special features

1. Generally, the idols are in pairs, that is a God accompanying a Goddess. For example, Shiv-Parvati, Brahma-Saraswati, Radha-Krishna etc., those in italics being the male counterparts.

2. Idols may not be necessarily have human resemblance as is common in Greek and Roman cultures but can be any inanimate object like the Shivlinga which is a stone structure resembling, approximately, a hemisphere mounted on a cylinder. Fire (Agni) is also worshipped as God.

3. Animals and plants also have idol status, like the cow, basil shrub, banyan tree, the Ganga etc.

4. The various avataars (form in which the Gods and Goddesses came down in earth from heaven to salvage the human race) are also worshipped, like Ma Durga is an avataar of Parvati, Ram is an avataar of Vishnu etc.

5. Even devils have been idolised, like Ravana (the villain of the epic Ramayana) etc. However, they are not worshipped, they are condemned.

Mythology

Hindu religion and idol worship are intricately interwoven with mythology, for example: In the epic Ramayana, the earth is the mother of Sita, wife of Ram(an avataar of Vishnu) and Pawan (wind) is the father of Hanuman, the greatest loyalist of Ram.

Thus wind and earth have godly status and have been given human forms.Hanuman is himself an ape.

Myths

People often regard Hinduism as a religion of many gods and goddesses. But the Rigveda (one of the four vedas; vedas are to Hindus what the Quran is to Muslims, and the Bible is to the Christians; the main religious document) states clearly that God is ekam wa adityam (one and unparalleled); the idolic Gods are just various manifestations of Him.

Conclusion

Idols are a means of identifying an abstract divinity. It is also a tribute to various natural forces sustaining our existence. They are symbolic of the great personages that have walked on this earth during different ages. They are the brainchild of a vivid imagination of the religious Gurus and Pundits to simplify to the layman follower, the abstract concept of divinity.

Some of this seems questionable to me: most worship with which I'm familiar is not worship of the object, but of the deity it represents or the indwelling spirit it houses.

Could someone with knowledge of Hinduism take a look at this article and see if it's accurate?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article you mention above is a poor 'duplicate' of Idolatry. I have since re-directed the page back to the main link. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage of IAST and Unicode in article body text

There is considerable usage of IAST and Unicode text throughout the article. While it might make it look "authentic", it also makes it look cryptic, very unreadable and user unfriendly. I would like to remove IAST/Unicode versions of the words and replace them with normal English equivalents. The suggestions proposed here are excellent. I think this article is the best place to showcase ideal usage of IAST/Unicode text. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue. I hope you will hold off on removal of any IAST pending better agreement on overall standards for use of IAST. I have been trying to raise this issue here. as you note. I see a great deal of inconsistency in IAST use but it has been difficult to get people to focus on the issue. Because there was an objection by one editor to having a policy discussion on the IAST talk page, and the current language pages for Indic articles appear to be defunct, I am retaining some discussion threads about this at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. I think it is time to reactive the policy question at a larger level. There is also frequent confusion about the role of Unicode tags. The purpose of the IAST tag is to specify which of the many transliteration systems for Devanagari is being used, not to specify a computer encoding method (Unicode). IAST may be implemented either in ASCII or in Unicode encodings, as is noted in the discussions in the threads on the pages I have noted. I am going to try to get the policy pages reactivated and assemble these frequent questions in one place. I think the best thing would be to revive Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and begin to refactor old threads pertaining to IAST usage. If at least one person agrees with this, I will try to work on it. Buddhipriya 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

About Idol worship, this is what Vivekananda has to say

The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realized, or thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols?so many pegs to hang the spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is necessary for everyone, but those that do not need it have no right to say that it is wrong. Nor is it compulsory in Hinduism.

At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 17

We are to become divine by realizing the divine. Images or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of our spiritual childhood. But on and on we must progress. We must not stop anywhere.

We can no more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing. By the law of association, the material image calls up the mental idea, and vice versa. This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he worships. He will tell you that it helps to keep his mind fixed on the Being to whom he prays. He knows as well as you do that the IMAGE is not GOD and is not omnipresent.

After all, how much does omnipresence mean to the whole world? It stands merely as a word, a symbol. Has God superficial area? If not, when we repeat that word ?omnipresent,? we think of the extended sky or of space, that is all

At the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Complete Works, 1: 16 210.19.225.8 10:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Kumar

scope of the term 'Hinduism'

P.S. One more time, let me proffer an opening sentence which is both accurate and elegant:

The term Hinduism comprises all the spiritual traditions that have originated on the Indian subcontinent, though some followers of Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and so forth, do not like their traditions to be referred to as part of Hinduism.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source supporting the above statement, which seems very likely to offend members of those other religions, none of whom, to my knowledge, think of themselves as practicing Hinduism? It would be helpful if you would cite references for your views. Buddhipriya 03:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

that would be "Dharmic religions", which at least in English use is not identical to "Hinduism". "Hinduism" comprises all religious doctrines native to India that have no specific founder (other than the Vedic rishis maybe), as opposed to Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism which are attributed to individual founders (Buddha, Mahavira, Nanak). Of course the various Hindu reform movements also have founders, but these are emphatic about not starting a new religion, but claim to go represent an even purer form of "original" ("eternal") Hinduism. At the end of the day, it's a matter of conventin: Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are not included in the term Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Wiki pages are not a reliable source per WP:RS and I am still interested in seeing a reliable book reference for the statement "The term Hinduism comprises all the spiritual traditions that have originated on the Indian subcontinent", which would seem to say that Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism could be called Hinduism. Dab's reply added the qualifying clause "that have no specific founder" which is a different definition than the one raised above. Sorry, I am old-fashioned and like to look things up in books. By asking for book references I am hoping to find good additions for my own library. The issue now seems settled for purposes of the article so this is not important to pursue. I made a couple of language tweaks because in my view the equation of Hinduism with "Sanatana Dharma" is not a simple linguistic synonym, but rather a complex of ideas associated with Hinduism and also with Buddhism. Perhaps it is sort of like a slogan ("Burger King: Think Outside The Bun"). If it were a book title, it would be the part following the colon ("Hinduism: The Eternal Dharma"). Buddhipriya 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

it'a a matter of convention. This is really a terminological debate and as such not very interesting. The 1911 Britannica has

"HINDUISM, a term generally employed to comprehend the social institutions, past and present, of the Hindus who form the great majority of the people of India; as well as the multitudinous crop of their religious beliefs which has grown up, in the course of many centuries, on the foundation of the Brahmanical scriptures."

The current Britannica has,

"Hinduism: the beliefs, practices, and socioreligious institutions of the Hindus (originally, the inhabitants of the land of the Indus River). Introduced in about 1830 by British writers, the term properly denotes the Indian civilization of approximately the last 2,000 years, which evolved from Vedism, the religion of the Indo-European peoples who settled in India"

and, in the "Saint" article,

"Hinduism in a wider sense encompasses Brahmanism, a belief in the Universal Soul, Brahman; in a narrower sense it comprises the post-Buddhist, caste-ordered religious and cultural world of India. The Indian religions are by and large mystical in character; hence, even in early Hinduism ascetics were highly honoured."

you can go on collecting such definitions, and you will see a general consensus emerging that Buddhism is not considered part, but an offshoot of Hinduism (or, as in the last example, together with Hinduism an offshoot of "Vedism"). If you want to claim otherwise, the burden of providing sources would rest on you. Likewise, the debate whether "Vedism" should be considered part of or ancestral to Hinduism is pure terminology, and as such a matter of definition and not a factual controversy. EB has "the last 2,000 years", but a lot of Hindu Wikipedians would be up in arms against this; but we can easily extend this to 3,000 or even 3,500 years if we say that "Vedism" can also be considered part of Hinduism". It is only if you want to go even past the 3,500 years that the factual controversies will begin. dab (𒁳) 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead section is to explain the principal concept in a straightforward manner. Overall, the term "Hinduism" is normally used in a more restrictive sense than "Dharmic religion", which has a separate article. Addhoc 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, if your last comment was in response to me, please note that I agree that Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. That's why I quoted the Dhammapada, above. My comments were intended to question the identification of Buddhism as a form of Hinduism which was implied by the original statements by Kanchanamala, above. That is, I was not questioning your forumulation, I was questioning her formulation. Buddhipriya 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, the latest version of the first two sentences read very well indeed. However, may I make a few suggestions:

1. Instead of "in several modern Indian languages" let us replace the word 'several' and say "in some modern Indian languages".

2. Citation # 1 is not a citation. Let us say 'citation needed' in the article.

3. Instead of "In contemporary usage Hinduism is often referred to as" let us replace the word 'often' and say "Hinduism is also referred to as".

4. Instead of "Sanskrit Sanatana Dharma" let us remove 'Sanskrit' and just say "Sanatana Dharma".

5. Since 'dharma' does not mean law or philosophy, and since 'dharma' is also accepted as a word in English, let us say "eternal or perennial dharma".

Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that points 1 and 3 are clearly improvements and I just made those edits to the article. Regarding point 4 I adjusted the wording to make it a more complete sentence. Regarding 5, I tend to agree that the translation of "dharma" as "law" does not give the complete picture, and the problem of how to translate the word "dharma" would make a good article in itself. I think for purposes of an English encyclopedia article we need to decide if it is OK for the word to go untranslated (which is fine with me) or if we should provide a translation. If so, I would go with "law" because I know it to be common for this specific context, or one of the other variants we can cite with a WP:RS. "Dharma" takes up two pages in Apte's A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary (pp. 522-23) giving 22 different basic meanings for the word. The second one listed is "Law, usage, practice, custom, ordinance, statute." I am unable to find any definition in Apte that it means "philosophy" and offhand I don't recall ever hearing it used to mean that, except in the Western phrase Perennial philosophy which did not arise in India and is a rather broad attempt to generalize a similar idea for a Western audience. I don't much like using the term "perennial philosophy" in the lead. I would prefer to cite it somewhere else as a Western concept as the article says it originated from a Latin phrase developed in the West. The Wiki article is not a reliable source in any case. The article on Perennial philosophy says that the term was used by Coomaraswamy, but I don't recall seeing it and I am ignorant of most of his work. Buddhipriya 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. By the way, modern scholarship has come a long way since the days of Vaman S. Apte and Monier Monier-Williams. As for the word 'dharma', it has long since been incorporated into the English language as an English word. It does not need any translation in that language.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the text that was in the article, I see that the reference to the Oxford source was footnoting both "eternal law" and "perennial philosophy", but I suspect that only "eternal law" was in the text we started with. So I removed "perennial philosophy" pending clarification of the citations. Regarding the use of Apte and Monier-Williams, if you know of additional Sanskrit dictionaries that are considered academic standards, please cite them here. The third one I use is Macdonell. We are required to cite WP:RS and for definition of Sanskrit terms I think those three are currently considered to be reliable sources. Buddhipriya 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, Buddhipriya. They have been widely used. MW is the most comprehensive, and several scholars have collaborated on it. I rarely have to consult a dictionary, but when I do, I consult MW. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

sanaatana does not mean 'eternal'. It means 'age-old', something which has prevailed over a long period of time, like a dharma which has been adopted by people over a long period of time. Example: "Speak 'satya', speak [what is] pleasant, don't speak a 'satya' which is unpleasant, and don't speak an 'anrita' which is [even though] pleasant - this dharma is 'sanaatana' ". Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation Kanchan. The Sanskrit word which does mean eternal is ananta, literally "without end." MW seems to confirm this as well. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Anthony Macdonell. A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary. sanātana (sanā-tana) a. everlasting, eternal, perpetual, permanent. p. 333 See also: sanā (indeclinable) "from of old" (V.) p. 333. Kanchamala, can you please cite a source for your interesting alternative? It may be attested somewhere, but where? See also Monier-Williams for sanā and sanāt as Vedic usage, with essentially the same definition for sanātana [1] Buddhipriya 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Monier-Williams defines Sanatana:

• "eternal, perpetual, everlasting, primeval, ancient ...". See [2] (bottom of first column).

Here is how Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary defines it :

• "eternal, everlasting" (search on [3]; it will also give the MW definition).

Hope this settles the issue. Kanchanamala, I again request that you provide references for your claims in the future, since (with all due respect) "personal knowledge" carries little weight on wikipedia as has been pointed out to you on Ashvamedha and Hindu talk pages earlier. Abecedare 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare and Buddhipriya:

1. I shall always share with you what I think should be there in the article. You decide what can and what will go into the article. Of course, I shall also help find citations to the best of my ability.

2. 'sanaatana', primal [S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948]. Cp. 'sanaat', from of old [Monier-Williams Dictionary]. My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.

3. dharma, prescribed conduct [Monier-Williams Dictionary], right conduct [Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997], essential function [The Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1981]. My take: adopted conduct.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 13:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, I have to give you credit for never having pushed your point of view in the article itself or having edit-warred. Neither Buddhipriya, nor I, own this article and inclusion of new content depends solely upon the strength of evidence provided to support it, which on wikipedia means attribution to reliable sources. The main issue seems to be that you do not differentiate between what you think and what you know and is supportable by reliable sources in making declarative statements such as "sanaatana does not mean eternal"; also at times you seem to ignore evidence that does not support the case you are trying to make. For example:

• You use Monier-Williams dictionary for saying that 'sanāt' means "from old", but ignore that same dictionary's entry for "sanātana" on the same page which begins with "eternal". [4]
• You quote Monier-Williams dictionary for, "dharma, prescribed conduct" but do not point out that the actual entry starts with "that which is established or firm, steadfast decree, statute, ordinance, law; usage, practice, customary observance or prescribed conduct, duty; ...". (emphasis added)[5]
• By the way, my 1988 version of Merriam-Websters (as well as the current online version) defines "dharma" as follows: "1 Hinduism : an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law 2 Hinduism & Buddhism a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law b : conformity to one's duty and nature", although in this case it might be just a matter of using different editions.

I don't intend to discourage you from making/suggesting changes in the future, but it would help if you differentiated between your opinion and attributable facts. You are free to even question sources provided by other editors ("modern scholarship has come a long way since the days of Vaman S. Apte and Monier Monier-Williams") but your arguments will be taken more seriously if you back them up with citations rather than simple declarations of knowing better ("I rarely have to consult a dictionary"), which even if true but is really irrelevant on wikipedia. I urge you to read the wikipedia policy on verifiability to appreciate why that is the case, and hope you will continue to contribute constructively on this and other pages. Abecedare 18:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I must agree with the request that if further discussion is to be held on this point only solid references should be brought forward and not opinion. I do not understand the point made by quoting Radhakrishnan in the remark:

'sanaatana', primal (S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, XI.18, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948). Cp. 'sanaat', from of old (Monier-Williams Dictionary). My take: 'sanaatana dharma', time-honored dharma.

The verse being quoted does not apply "sanātana" as an adjective to "dharma", but rather as an adjective to "puruṣa". If we are still examining the phrase "sanātana dharma" this is not an example of a passage that uses that phrase. It is an example of the use of the alternate phrase "śāśvatadharma" which is another one that is often translated as "eternal dharma".

Here is the Sanskrit for the verse being quoted:

tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā | sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me || 11.18b ||

I am referring to p. 48 of S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, (HarperCollins Publishers: New Delhi, 1993 reprint edition). That is a reprint of the George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948 edition which you cite.

Radhakrishnan translates this verse as

"Thou are the undying guardian of the eternal law. Thou are the Primal Person, I think."

There is a specific note for śāśvatadharmagoptā reading "the undying guardian of the eternal law." The adjective śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) is here compounded with dharma, and goptā (defender, protector), so the translation "eternal law" is based on śāśvatadharma, and the following sanātanas which is applied as an adjective to the following puruso is translated by Radhakrishnan as "Primal" in his phrase "Thou art the Primal Person, I think."

Compare Winthrop Sargeant's translations which are of two forms. The first version is his interlinear translation which parses each word, and the second version is more free to convey the sense:

• tvam avyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā |
• Interlinear version: thou the imperishable, eternal law defender |
• Free version: You are the imperishable defender of the eternal law; |

• sanātanas tvaṃ puruṣo mato me ||
• Interlinear version: primaeval thou spirit understood of me ||
• Free version: You are the primeval Spirit, I believe ||

Sargeant's lexical note on śāśvatadharmagoptā identifies it as a Tatpuruṣa compound meaning "defender of eternal law": śāśvata (eternal, perpetual) + dharma (law, righteousness, virtue) + goptā (defender, protector). His note on sanātanas defines it as "primaeval, ancient" and his translation attaches it as an adjective to the following puruṣo. (p. 470. Winthrop Sargeant. The Bhagavad Gita. State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1994. ISBN0-87395-831-4.)

Compare the version by Swami Chidbhavananda, which also provides interlinear lexical notes. (Swami Chidbhavananda. The Bhagavad Gita. Sri ramakrishna Tapovanam: 1997. p. 596)

"You are the imperisable Guardian of the Eternal Dharma. You are the ancient Purusha, I deem."

Here the lexical notes parse śāśvatadharmagoptā as "protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanaḥ as "ancient".

Here is Swami Sivananda's version:

"Thou art the imperishable protector of the eternal Dharma; Thou are the Primal Person, I deem."

Here the lexical notes translate śāśvatadharmagoptā as "Protector of the Eternal Dharma" and sanātanas as "ancient". (p. 270. Swami Sivananda. The Bhagavad Gita. The Divine Life Society: 1995, 10th edition) ISBN 81-7052-00-2.

What is the point of all of this debate?

Buddhipriya 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Buddhipriya, what is the point of all this debate? Sorry.Kanchanamala 09:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta Swami also translates Sanatana as eternal. It it really a disputed point?:

"That is called sanatana-dharma... if we take these two words... Sanatana means eternal. That is called sanatana. And dharma, dharma means occupation, characteristic. Dharma does not mean some superficial ritualistic ceremonies. Dharma means the characteristic. That is real meaning. Dharma is not a kind of faith. Dharma is characteristic. Sanatana-dharma means sanatana characteristic, eternal characteristic." [6]

Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please visit the Dharmic Religion talk:page and see what is going on. Buddhism and Jainism have been called the protestant offshoots of Hinduism, whereas Sikhism was a martial cult to protect Hindus from the marauding Mughals. Their core fundamentals date back to Vedantic scriptures. None of the faiths are completely orthogonal and distinct from the other. All of our faiths must be united and have a sense of belonging to India.

The Vedic faith (now Hinduism) is the umbrella faith of all the others. However, because there is near-concrete and irreversible classification of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, the term "Sanatana Dharma" has been coined to hark back to the original sense of the term that, all 4 of these adherents are actually the branches and manifestations of one faith system only.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

So, you are continuing using Indian_Air_Force as your signature!!! swadhyayee 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, by saying that the modern moniker 'Sanatana Dharma' is the Indian [Sanskrit] equivalent of the English word 'Hinduism', we are excluding all the other traditions including the Smarta tradition, the Shrivaishnava tradition, the Madhva tradition, the Gauda tradition, and the Arya Samaj tradition. By the way, Sanatana Dharma, as a Sanskrit moniker, is not there in the most comprehensive dictionary of Monier-Williams. Moreover, are we saying that Hinduism does not include the traditions of those Hindus whose dharmas are not 'sanaatana'? What about those Hindus who give up all the dharmas? After all they are Hindus too [Bhagavadgita XVIII.66]. By equating Hinduism with Sanatana Dharma, why let one group of Hindus misappropriate the word 'Hinduism' ? Why not we just say, "Hinduism comprises the spiritual traditions of all the Hindus. Those traditions originated on the Indian subcontinent. ... and so on." Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Postscript:

1. In the opening sentence of the article, the statement about Hindu Dharma should be removed because it is not supported by any reference or citation. The so-called citation # 1 is no citation. It is somebody's "your opinion".

2. In the opening sentence, the statement about Sanatana Dharma should be removed because the citation does not support it. The citation looks very impressive, but it is deceptive.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 10:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, you guys are like some kind of frantic ourobouros or something, biting your own tail when your real prey is standing but inches away. I think the most common-sense understanding of Indian religion is furnished by Indian religionists themselves! Those astika traditions (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaishesika, Purva Mimamsa, Uttara Mimamsa) which either accept or clearly derive from the authority or tradition tout court of the Vedas are 'Hindu'... all Shiva, Krishna and Shakti sects (this includes most Tantrics, include the Nath sect of Matsyendranath) naturally fall under this rubric, since Shiva and Krishna are NATURALLY a part of the pan-Vedist tradition! Retroactive arguments citing the 'Pashupati' seal of Mohenjodaro or strenuous arguments about how Krishna or Devi are 'aboriginal' miss the point that the Vedist tradition was syncretic with more localized cults. It's sooooo simple people are drowning themselves in highfalutin philology which really means s--t if you'll pardon my French.

Reductionist theories about how Hinduism refers to anything of Indian origin smack of something almost willfully blind to reality. Buddhism, Jainism (and Lokayata) were clearly heterodox, nastika, anti- or a-Vedist (though it is silly to forget that 80% of Buddha's doctrines directly trace back to Upanishadic thought and terminology)... Sikhism represents a very unique faith, with its hands on every cooking pot of Indian dogma.... without a doubt steeped in Hindu cosmography, musical tradition, yogic practice, and saint paramparas, and yet imbibing much of Islamic sentiment and religious sacerdotalism at the same time....AND moving off into their own traditions, unique from anything seen before....

Summarily: Hinduism is the six orthodox schools, the Nath and Shakti-tantra traditions, and the Bhakti sects of the Vaishnava variety. Focusing on the "sanatana dharma" appelation yields a debate which is arguing vociferously over a name when no one has bothered to define exactly what it is they're naming!!! --69.203.80.158 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See also section and navigation issues

In following up on a suggestion about a potential edit to Ganesha I posted a question about formats for the See also section that has drawn some interesting discussion about the role of the See also section versus navigation templates. I am wondering if anyone else would like to take a look at the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#See also and repetition of links in article. Action item for the Hinduism article might be to rethink the organization of the See also section. Buddhipriya 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, See also should be minimized and relevant links should be worked into the article text. If See also is getting unreasonably large, it may be time to design a navigational template. You can find several samples at Category:History navigational boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we already have a Hinduism portal and a Hinduism template on this page, I am wondering what role the See also section really plays. My foray into Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#See also and repetition of links in article turned up some interesting related discussions about confusing the see also section with other types of navigation aids. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Buddhipriya 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it common practice to capitalize the monotheistic Hindu god amongst Hindus? Might this not be mistaken as being the Judeo-Christian God? Should it be changed instead to Brahman, akin to how the Islamic monotheistic deity is referred to as Allah? Chiss Boy 08:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question! Because the Hindu concept of divinity is complex, sometimes you do often see the concept of Ishvara (Lord) capitalized. However Brahman is not the name of a god, but the name of a philosophical concept. There is a god named Brahmā but he is a specific deva. The terms Brahman and Brahmā are often confused, particularly when simple English transliteration is used, which makes the diacritical mark go away. There is no single monotheistic deity in Hinduism that corresponds to Allah. It will be interesting to see what others think in regard to this question. Buddhipriya 08:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The question does not actually make sense. It is English convention to capitalize the first letter of all nouns and pronouns that refer to the divine. When you say "to capitalize the monotheistic Hindu god" you must mean to capitalize the name of a devata, which must be capitalizes anyway, as a proper noun. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindi and Hinduism

Hindi is NOT Sanskrit's heir to canonicity in Hinduism! If anything, its heavy infusion with Arabic and Persian elements would disqualify it and languages like Bengali or Marathi would be more appropriate. But these are IRRELEVANT issues! Sanskrit is the only language with any claim to ultimate canonicity in Hinduism, being the language intimately connected with the Vedas, Upanishads, the epics, Yoga Sutras, Nyaya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, etc etc etc Lots of Apabhramsa-derived languages (IE Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, etc) and 'Dravidian tongues' (Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Tulu, etc.) are used as vernacular tongues for the transmission of and practice of Hindu belief or devotional elements.

By using HINDI (where the Devnagari is identified as HINDI and not Sanskrit or, for that matter, Marathi) the page takes a political stance on the legitimacy of the Indian Republic (which is NOT ancient or medieval India, or 'Bharat' of yore per se, or a Vedist state) calling Hindi a national language. The Indian Republic is quite different from the India of the rishis, as is evidenced by the fact that a non-entity like Pakistan is now suddenly a political entity where no Pakistan existed before and Bangladesh (The so-called Land of Bengal) is really only one-half of what the kingdom of Vanga once was. My whole point is that Hindi cannot be cited as or implied to be canonical, as it was by placing it in the beginning paragraph. The majority of Hindus in the world don't even speak Hindi! (Please be smart about this, those who are about to argue... for 700 million Indians Hindi is at best a second language, then you have Nepalis, Baha Indonesians, etc.)--69.203.80.158 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even as a native Hindi speaker, I agree. We should remove the terms marked with {{lang|hi}}. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boon and Hindu

Suggestions, for those more learned than me in Hinduism:

• create Boon (Hinduism), even if only as a redirect. Arjuna mentions a boon but it isn't linked.
• Hindu is an adjective as well as a noun, so the adjective references should direct to Hinduism - of course, this can only be resolved by a disambiguation page, and also by changing links to Hindu into piped links ([[Hindu|Hinduism]] or [[Hindu|Hindu people]]). Hindu's current contents, about Hindu people, would be better moved to Hindu people, with Hindu as a disambiguation page. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how important it is to focus efforts on writing a separate article on boons for Hinduism... boons, wishes, genie-in-the-lamp, this stuff's so tangential to major world mythologies that it doesn't really deserve separate attention... Also, in Hinduism, boons are important only insofar as they drive folktale stories... they're not at all a major aspect of the faith... indeed, boons are not at all a part of Hinduism as much as they are a part of Indian folklore (just as boons aren't a big part of Islam but they figure as a narrative trope in the Arabian Nights). --69.203.80.158 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boons are of some relevance to Hindus as they often appear in mythological stories like the Ramayana. Creating a page on it however, is probably not high on anyone's list of priorities since there are plenty of other more important things we need to do. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boons do come up a lot, and their acquisition is a stock theme in Hindu literature. I don't see a need for a separate Wikipedia article on the subject. But I would not be surprised to find that some academic has done a paper on them (which I would enjoy reading). A name for Ganesha, by the way, is Varada (Boon-Giver = Vara+da), but the epithet varada is also applied to other deities as well (e.g., Vishnu Sahasranamastotra v. 49; MBH Shiva Sahasranamastotra v. 1), since the boon-giving function is a basic idea and probably cross-cultural, but I am ignorant of the facts. The occurance of the name Varada in the opening verse of the Shiva Sahasranamastotra is an indication that the name was considered important in association with Shiva. Buddhipriya 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be presumptuous and say that I believe you guys are only supporting my initial statements... bear with me briefly... let me quote buddhipriya: "stock theme in Hindu literature" (emph. mine)... and Gizza: "they often appear in mythological stories"... I know literature can be read two or three ways, but it's rarely if ever an important element in philosophical or theological discussions. The sahasranama stotra is a collection of a THOUSAND names.... and Varada is among at least hundreds of other names collectively distributed across the pantheon... what I'm contesting is not its admitted appearances and reappearances in all sorts of Hindu folklore and mythology, but its importance to Hinduism qua faith. Hence, if we were to go through with a page on boons, I would vote to have it fall under boon (Hindu mythology). Otherwise, it can lure those unfamiliar with the faith into the highly mistaken belief that boons are on a level with things like paapa, karma, dharma, yoga, dhyaan, shraddha, vishvas, etc. to Hindus/Vedists/Santanists.--69.203.80.158 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to decide (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)

Article Size & Making as Featured article

Atheism with 68 KB size is promoted as Featured article on 28-Apr-2007. I think if we reduce size by 20 KB and make article as summary, we should be able to make this as featured article.--Indianstar 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many editors tried this and we got close. There was a time when this page was 100kb+. However, after a while it becomes difficult to reach a consenus on what should be removed from the article because of differing opinions. Initially, copyediting and removing redundancies accounted for a drop of 20 kb or so. Now "important" content but not important enough for the main Hinduism page will need to be removed. Remember that at the moment, this page lacks vital sections, such as a criticism section. If you have the time, you may want to look at the past discussions at the archives, particulary the last two or three where many Hinduism editors tried to renovate the article. We were reasonably successful, but didn't manage make this article reach the ever so desirable Feature article status. Another problem with removing content is that sectarian biases develop because not all POVs are adequately presented. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need criticism section? Sikhism which is a featured article does not have criticism section? --Indianstar 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People have mentioned it in previous FACs and many active editors tend to agree that we need a criticism section, as saddening as it is for some of us Hindus. Sikhism is a relatively small and new religion compared to Hinduism. Other old and big religions such as Christianity and Islam have criticism sections. And some people want other sub-sections. One I remember is a section on sacred rivers like the Ganga. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More power to you if you want to try it. I can assist in some ways but it is a huge challenge and will require few weeks of work. On the bright side, the article did go through a FARC successfully which should arguably provide an idea of what can make it featured. --Blacksun 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These two links should help: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hinduism/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism. The main issues are length, writing quality, a few missing sections and possible philosophical/sectarians biases that may develop. At one time, there was a strong Advaita bias for example. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No citation for "Sanatana Dharma"

The number 1 after the opening sentence refers to Notes. It does not refer to a citation. It gives the false impression that the opening sentence has a citation. If there is no citation, credible of course, to say that "Sanatana Dharma" is the Sanskrit equivalent of the English word "Hinduism",then that description should be removed. When we say reference, it should be a citation. Notes are out of place in this article, and should be removed. Thanks.Kanchanamala 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's such common knowledge it hardly needs a citation. --69.203.80.158 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not true. It's not common knowledge. If there is no citation, then it must be removed. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, that it is not obvious. Certainly Sanatana Dharma is often used as a synonym for Hinduism, but some people seem to use it differently. A westerner who worships God in the form of a traditional Indian deity, believes in karma, reincarnation and strives for moksha but does not generally follow Indian cultural practices sometimes say they follow Sanatana Dharma but not Hinduism [7]. Similarly someone of Indian ethnic origin who does not follow the traditional spiritual path may still refer to themselves as Hindu, and see it as a cultural identity. This is particularly the case in the UK where many Hindus are the Ugandan Asians and their descendants [8] who would not often refer to themselves as Indian. That said the most common use of Sanatana Dharma is as a synonym for Hinduism [9][10][11] so you could argue it either way. A definitive citation would be nice, but I am not sure that there is such a thing. Maybe we should hedge our bets and say:

Hinduism (Often translated as Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law

- Q Chris 07:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As requested, here are a couple of references:

• "In modern Indian usage, santana dharma is often equated with ‘Hinduism’ as a name, stressing the eternal foundation of it." from "Santana dharma", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 2007
• "Hinduism,", Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007.

Many more can very easily be found. Abecedare 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually both of the references could be seen to imply that there is a subtle difference. The first says "is often equated with", which is not the same as "is synonymous with". Your Encarta reference says:

Hindus themselves prefer to use the Sanskrit term sanātana dharma for their religious tradition.

This is closer to saying that it is synonymous but is still not a clear, unambiguous statement. -- Q Chris 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here are a few more, perhaps even more unambiguous references:

• "Hindu: sanatana dharma ‘eternal tradition’" from Hinduism, in The Hutchinson Encyclopedia, Helicon Publishing Ltd. 2001.
• "Sanatana dharma: The name used by Hindus for Hinduism. [from Sanskrit: the eternal way]." from "Sanatana Dharma.", Collins English Dictionary, HarperCollins Publishers 2000.
• "Hinduism itself is also called Sanatana Dharma [the eternal dharma]." from "dharma" in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press 2004.

Note that all these citations are from published works (not webpages) from reputable publishers. Hope that helps. Abecedare 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that one classification of Hindu denominations, other than Vaishnava, Shaiva etc. is the Sanatan Dharm vs Arya Samaj classification. It is dominant in regions where there are large populations of Arya Samajis such as Punjab and the Netherlands (where Arya Samajis represent a large proportion of Hindu society). As an example, my parents regard themsleves as Hindus and follow the Sanatan Dharm denomination, who unlike the Arya Samajis, worship murtis. They are unfamiliar with the Vaishnava, Shaiva classifications. If you want sources for these assertions, I suggest the Arya Samaj webiste which should have some information since this from their perspective in a sense. The conclusion I derive from this is that Sanatana Dharma is not solely a Sanskrit synonym for Hinduism since in different contexts, in may have different meanings. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting point Gizza. A quick search seems to indicate that "Arya Samajis" used the term "Sanatana Dharma" to refer to traditional/orthodox Hinduism, which they were attempting to reform. As per the review of the book, "Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in Nineteenth Century Punjab" (Kenneth W. Jones), published in The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Feb., 1980), pp. 393-394 (Review author: Mark Juergensmeyer):

"The Arya Samaj was a new dharma, a set of religion-based social values which would serve as an alternative to the existing sanatana dharma - the orthodoxy of Hindu social values which had come to stand in opposition to the Aryas in Punjab society."

Note though that the same JAS article starts with "The Arya Samaj is not a vital force in contemporary India, and in the sweep of newer religious movements it is difficult to remember why the Arya Samaj once loomed so large"; which (along with the above cited references) indicates that this usage of Sanatana Dharma is not mainstream. Also note that at least this Arya Samaj website equates Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma; to quote "This society, was formed, not as a new religion, but as a coming together of noble minded people who believe in Vaidik Satya Sanatana Dharma (commonly called "Hinduism")."

IMO the bulk of the cited evidence indicates that the terms Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma are used interchangeably in modern, mainstream usage. Abecedare 09:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If some Hindus call their tradition 'Sanatana Dharma', then let the article just say so. Let it not say that 'sanatana dharma' is the Sanskrit for the English word 'Hinduism' which it is not, even though the words 'sanatana' and 'dharma' are two Sanskrit words. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that the two terms are literal synonyms. The situation is rather analogous to India and Bharat referring to the same country in official and mainstream use even though, (1) those terms are etymologically distinct and, (2) some nationalistic sources use the term Bharat (or Akhanda Bharat) to refer to a larger geographical entity. Similarly Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma, are used to refer to the same religion by an overwhelming number of modern, mainstream sources as shown by the above references; and the fact that the terms have different origins is not really relevant IMO. Abecedare 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. Abecedare, if the mainstream is polluted, avoid it. I expect the article to reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which you don't mess. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I am tending to agree that the current sentence in the article that reads "Hinduism (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law"[1] ) is a religion that originated on the Indian subcontinent." perhaps should be reworded to make it more clear that while the phrase "Sanātana Dharma" is often treated as synonymous for "Hinduism" it is in fact a phrase which has broader usage.

As has been shown by the references already given, it is true that Hindus do often refer to their religion as the "eternal Dharma" ("sanātana dharma"). However that phrase also appears in Buddhist scriptures from time to time as a stock term. For example, in verse 5 of the Dhammapada in Pali we have (dhammo sanaṃtano):

न हि वेरेन वेरानि सम्मन्तीध कुदाचनं । अवेरेन च सम्मन्ति एस धम्मो सनंतनो ॥ ५ ॥

na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ | averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanaṃtano || 5 ||

"Never does hatred cease by hating, but hatred ceases by love, this is the ancient law."

(Reference: Devanagari of the Pali source text from p. 1; translation from p. 53. P. L. Vaidya. Dhammapada. The Vrajajivan Indological Studies, 42. (Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan: Delhi, 2005) ISBN 81-7084-286-7.)

The same verse of the Dhammapada is cited by Conze, who translates it as "Never can hatred be appeased by hatred; it will be appeased only by non-hatred. This is an everlasting dharma (eso dhammo sanantano, esha dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ)." p. 93.

Conze begins his chapter on the concept of "Dharma and Dharmas" with the sentence "What others call 'Buddhism', the Buddhists themselves call 'Dharma.'" (p. 92) (Reference: Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought In India: Three Phases of Buddhist Philosophy. (The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967 paperback edition). ISBN 0-472-06129-1.)

My opinion is that this example of crossover of the phrase into Buddhist scripture is due to the fact that Buddhism and Hinduism drew upon a common stock of ideas prior to their division as distinct schools, making it difficult to call some ideas "Hindu" as opposed to "Buddhist". They were in fact "Indic" ideas which found expression in both of those great religions.

Perhaps the term "Catholic" in the sense of "universal" could be considered in relation to this. Anglicans consider themselves to be "catholic" but they are not "Roman Catholic" (with a capital C).

Buddhipriya 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its nearsighted to forget that the Buddha derived most of his terminology and foundational metaphysics/moral codes from an Upanishadic (Vedantic/Vedist or Hindu) base. The attempt to act as if Hinduism is a distinct religion birthed alongside Buddhism neglects the real history of Indic religions, which is basically Vedist in juxtaposition to non-Vedist (primarily Buddhist and Jain, which are highly interconnected, and Sikhism, which shares so much that many Hindus still consider it a sub-sect). This is not to diminish the differences, but positing an "Indic" mother religion above and beyond a Hindu faith attempts to split a rather continuous tradition from the Vedas to the Upanishads (which heavily influenced the Buddha, who didn't found a new faith as much as he served as a starting point for others to found a new faith) to Shankaracharya under Buddhist influence along with the earlier Yoga Sutras of Vedist tradition plus the later burst of bhakti sects under Madhvacharya and Vallabhacharya plus Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. --69.203.80.158 03:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think both Buddhipriya and DaGizza raise good points with the examples of broader (i.e., Dharmic religions) and narrower (i.e., orthodox/traditional Hinduism) application of the term "Sanatana Dharma" in different contexts. So here are some possible ways to clarify the issue:

1. Remove reference to Sanatana Dharma from the intro, the footnote can then read "Hinduism is also sometimes called the Sanatana Dharma (Sanskrit: "eternal law"), Hindu Dharma, Vedic Dharma in ..."
2. Explain the whole deal in, say, the etymology section (suitably renamed). Something along the lines. In contemporary use, the term sanatana dharma (Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law)" is often equated with Hinduism¹, though it also used in broader² and narrower³ senses" with appropriate citation.
3. Only tweak the intro sentence, without going into details; for example something like ,"Hinduism (sometimes equated with Sanskrit: Sanātana Dharma सनातन धर्म "eternal law) ..."
4. Create a article "Sanatana Dharma" to explain the different possible uses; although I fear that such an article will either remain a perennial stub (since most content will be under Hinduism) or will tempt editors to make it a POV fork.

Any preferences and/or suggestions ? Abecedare 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Of the above alternatives I like the one that involves briefly mentioning the variations in meaning in an Etymology section or perhaps a small section in the article. I have been looking for other variations in use and found a broad use of the phrase by Aurobindo to include even Christian and Muslim teachings, see Minor, pp. 71-72., which quotes him as saying:

"This sanātana dharma has many scriptures, Veda, Vedanta, Gita, Upanishad, Darshana, Furana, Tantra, nor could it reject the Bible or the Koran; but its real most authoritative scripture is in the heart in which the Eternal has His dwelling. It is in our inner spiritual experiences that we shall find the proof and source of the world's Scriptures, the law of knowledge, love and conduct, the basis and inspiration of Karma-yoga."

(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor "Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-yogin" in: Modern Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita. (State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1986) p. 72. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 19; Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1972)

The phrase "sanātana dharma" was appropriated by Aurobindo as a rallying cry for nationalism in this passage:

"I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish."

(Quotation as cited by Robert N. Minor, p. 68. Minor's footnote says that his source for the quotation is Birth Centenary Library. II, 10)

Buddhipriya 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the article on Perennial philosophy which may be worth reading as a European variant. Buddhipriya 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I have just posted above for Abecedare. 'Hinduism', a modern word of recent origin, is intended to be inclusive of all the spiritual traditions of the Hindus. Most traditions are not referred to as "Sanatana Dharma". Moreover, Sanatana Dharma, like the Arya Samaj, is a tradition of recent origin. The article should reflect what is accurate, not what is popular. Also, Sanskrit is one language with which we should not mess. Sanatana Dharma as representing all the traditions of Hinduism should be removed from the first or opening sentence because it is not true . Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, issue very well resolved in the article. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)