Talk:Hinduism and Judaism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some points

Whoever wrote this article in 2005, probably had a lot of unsourced points, and small article, so the decision was obvious delete, as per it was noted. Although when i looked into this subject, recently, i found many of the the important and notable points which had to be mentioned in the similar article, so given a start. Historically, it seems like Judaism might have been 2nd/3rd oldest religion in India, others being Hinduism, Zoroastrianism(covered Gujarat). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice work Bladesmulti, keep going on. Will help you in expanding the article

KLS 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs)

Narayana

BM, what on earth do you think you're doing? Narayana is considered the supreme being by some sects of Hindus; Shaivites consider Shiva to be the supreme being. Refusing to recognize that is a pretty serious NPOV violation. I do not have the time or the patience to copy sources here, but read the Hinduism article, which says it pretty clearly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have source about Hinduism recognizing any other god than Narayana to be 'supreme god', and speaking it as imposition for whole religion. You can let us know about it here. There is no Deadline. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the linked articles for god's sake. Or at least the sources in them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: For the umpteenth time, will you read the linked stuff and discuss the issue here or not? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Narayana is highly considered as Supreme God among Hindus.. There is no other name for Supreme God, if there is, let me know. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Read this, for starters. And this. Not fantastic sources, but it proves my point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proves nothing, first source is not talking about Hinduism but only a sect, not the whole religion, 2nd source doesn't even include the word "supreme god", once again, we are talking about Hinduism as whole religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What? The first source says Shiva is the supreme god for a sect of Hindus. Therefore, Narayana is not the supreme god for that sect of Hindus. Therefore, Narayana cannot be the supreme god for all Hindus, because he is not for that sect, and that sect is still a hindu sect. QED. Or are you now trying to say Shaivites (which are not simply a trivial sect, but a very major one) are not Hindus? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Narayana is not limited with one sect, according to reliable sources he is the supreme god of hindus, for whole religion. Keep your WP:OR to yourself, and stop claiming "favorite" to be supreme. Till now you have provided no reliable source that would claim Shiva to be anything bigger than the favorite god of shaivaites. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Hinduism and Judaism and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

As Narayana is the Supreme Being according to one major sect and one of five according to another major sect, but not at all for the two other major sects, it is no more possible to assert that Narayana is the Supreme Being for the whole of Hinduism than it is to say that either Shiva or Devi is. The statement "Narayana is highly considered as Supreme God among Hindus.. There is no other name for Supreme God" is POV. The article must treat the major sects equally. Until it does, imo the tag is very well justified. Stfg (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Stfg, much thanks for playing straight. BM, what have you to say now? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Stfg, sorry, but there are no five sects, you have clearly no clue about this whole subject. Also, no one has written "There is no other name for Supreme God" in whole article, I am not sure which article you are talking about, at least not this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the one that asked for the third opinion, not me; if you are now disrespecting the same, that is rather shabby behaviour. In any case, you have not responded to my last statement above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Already did about 10 times, till now I have seen no reliable source from you. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I did provide two sources above, one of which even you admitted was legitimate. In any case, your statement above is remarkably POVish; are you denying that Shaivites are Hindus, and that their opinions matter? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One of them is not talking about the whole religion, other one doesn't even mention anything like "supreme god". So clearly you have provided no sources about your claim. What you did, it is similar to saying like "go google.com, my point proved". Bladesmulti (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a clear misunderstanding of NPOV; the source does not have to say that Shiva is the supreme god for all Hindus. The source says Shiva is supreme for some; therefore, Narayana cannot be supreme for all. If you want more sources, there are plenty; this, for example, explicitly says that Vishnu is the supreme god for Vaishnavism, ergo implying that he is not for any other sect. [1] shows (again) that Shiva is the supreme god for some Hindus, and also that Parvati is the supreme being in some schools. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources not working or I don't have access, consider sending a screenshot, after uploading the pic to tinypic.com , Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time for that, the name of the book is "The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India." Search for that in google books, and go to page 223. Or in the book "Meeting God: Elements of Hindu Devotion," go to page 134. Alternatively, you could search both books for the word "supreme," and scroll through until you come to these results. In any case, a picture on tinypic is not RS, and if you request verification, it will not help; so I do not intend to waste my time with that. I have given you the book, the page, and a link; there is only so much I can do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked for a screenshot of your sources, probably such page or content doesn't even exist that you are claiming. You can't even provide a quote, which speaks enough. For one more time, I would like to remind you that the source must claim any other god to be supreme, than Narayana, for whole Hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bollocks. I gave you a book, a link, and a page number, and if you cannot utilize those it's not my bloody fault. Just to prove that your accusations are ridiculous, I will provide the quotes;

"Although Shiva is worshipped throughout India, the South is particularly famous for its temples to this god. For many, he is the supreme deity, whose unimaginable power manifests itself of earth when and where he is needed." (emphasis mine, to make sure you do not miss the point.) This quotations comes from here, a link I already gave you. I have also added a full citation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, your sources should be verifiable. Copied that quote to google, can't find any results, I wonder though. But whatever you have pasted here, it doesn't speak about the whole religion, but only a sect. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you need to assume good faith on the part of Vanamonde93. I have done some research, and plenty of sources indicate that Shaivism is a monotheistic sect that worships Shiva, Shaktism is a monotheistic sect that worships Shakti/Devi, and Vaishnavism is a monotheistic sect that worships Narayana/Vishnu. Thus, they do not all consider Narayana/Vishnu the supreme being. Try these links: [2] [3] [4]. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is simple that we have to discuss about the whole religion, not just sects, it is simply off topic. Shaivism do worship all gods and goddesses, its just they have one more favorite god, but they don't claim superiority of one over other. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I am justified in saying that you are now engaging in tendentious editing, and I do not ordinarily throw around that accusation. The sources do NOT need to talk about all of Hinduism. Shaivites are Hindus; they worship a supreme god other than Narayana; therefore Narayana cannot be the supreme god for all of Hinduism. There is literally no further argument to be made here. This is further demonstrated by the fact that both other editors who have posted here have agreed with me completely. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

While ignoring to talk about the editor and focusing on the content, as usual, I need a source that says "xxx is the supreme god of Hinduism", other than Narayana. Then only I would consider. No WP:SYNTH and no WP:OR will be welcomed. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The source says exactly that, as the quote that I provided shows. Also, do not mess up the thread by posting in multiple places. There is a very good reason why the text does not appear in a google search; it has not been completely digitized, I typed out the quote by hand. The book does appear in a google search, if you had carried one out you would have discovered that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

But sources doesn't say that. Till now, haven't seen a source supporting so, and I don't think I have missed anything. All you have got is "shaivism consider shiva as supreme deity", which is not really the opinion of whole Hinduism. Considering that Narayana is before Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu. It makes as meaningful as 2+2=4 as well. Shaivism don't claim Shiva to be main form of Brahma, Vishnu, etc. So it is uncertain to assert that Shiva has the position of being claimed as 'supreme god'. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am quickly getting tired of this. The source I have provided shows that Shaivites believe Shiva, not Narayana, is the supreme god. Saying Narayana is "before" Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma is POVish, because nobody but a vaishnavite would say that. In any case, you are being remarkably obtuse here, and I find myself repeating arguments. The NPOV tag remains, because two editors besides myself agree that this is an issue. I am going to respond to the same argument ad infinitum. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "POVish" as long as it is backed by multiple reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Reply by JJ: So, the problem is in these edits? diff diff "Sects can be many, even minor group can be considered as sect, so avoid adding 'sect' unless you know the name.)" diff "Change the word "sect" if you want, the fact that many gods are considered supreme is undeniable."

• Did anyone try to rephrase the term "sect"?
• Regarding Blades' sources:
  • Ishar Singh. The Philosophy of Guru Nanak, Volume 1. Atlantic. p. 13. - speaking about twisting sources: the message at page 13 is that Guru Nak said that "God is One-the All-pervading", that there is a unity beyond all the different appearances. It says that the Vedic religion had many different gods, but developed the idea of a unity, as expressed in the Narayana Upanishad. Absolutely not acceptable as a source for this statement!
  • S. M. Srinivasa Chari. Tattvamuktākalāpa. Motilal Banarsidass Publication. p. 228. - '"...the supremacy of Narayana as para Brahman, as claimed by the Visistadvaitin."
  • {{cite book|title=The Indian Encyclopaedia: Meya-National Congress|author=Subodh Kapoor|page=5126|publisher=Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd - Sorry, inaccessible to me.

Blades, Narayana is another name for Vishnu (The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p.90), resulting from a fusion in Indian religious thought of Narayana with Vishnu (The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, p.123). Maybe Vaishites regard him as "supreme God", others don't. Advaitins definitely don't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with this edit, or rather the content this edit tried to change. The definition of sect bothers me very little, so long as it is consistent. Portraying "Narayana" as the supreme god is absolutely unacceptable; it is a NPOV violation on so many different levels. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "NPOV" here. And Narayana is another name of Vishnu, but doesn't means that it is all vishnu or there is no specific identity of Narayana as supreme god.[5]. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oaky Blades, you the definitions of edit-warring. Three editors oppose you, your first source is about Sikhism, the second source says it's a claim, and the third source is unaccessible. Stop it right here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the content has been remained for ages. 2nd, In my opinion, all 3 editors haven't pointed to even a single source that considered any other god as the supreme god. Than Narayana. And this book by Prof. Jitendra Dhoj Khand. Supreme God: Body, Will, Wisdom, and Work. writes that "In addition, Narayana is the Supreme God. He is the truth, reality, light and soul of all beings.... In Mahabharata: Brahma, Rudra, and Indra together with all other Gods and seers worshipped the divine Narayana, the greatest of Gods." It is clearly impossible to remove all that, especially when the content has remained on this page, nearly since its creation. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Blades, it's not about considering "any other god as the supreme god". That's alredy your personal interpretation. It's about the correct use of sources, and careful reading. Regarding your new sources:

• Prof. Jitendra Dhoj Khand. Supreme God: Body, Will, Wisdom, and Work. Dorrance Publishing. p. 44.: "In addition, Narayana is the Supreme God. He is the truth, reality, light and soul of all beings.... In Mahabharata: Brahma, Rudra, and Indra together with all other Gods and seers worshipped the divine Narayana, the greatest of Gods." - I don't know what this is, but it's not a scholarly work. Definitely not WP:RS.
• Sabapathy Kulandran. Grace in Christianity and Hinduism. James Clarke & C. p. 178. - This is about Madhvacharya, a main proponent of Dvaita: "The Supreme God is Vishnu or Narayana". Miscitation, WP:OR
• D. Nath. History of the Koch Kingdom, C. 1515-1615. Mittal publications. p. 110. : "Narayan' the name of the supreme god of the Hindus." - references a source called Supra. Which source is this? A passing comment, not a substantial reference.

Concluding: POV-pushing, WP:OR and edit-warring. One more time, and you're done at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Still no reason to remove it, because it has been attributed. There was clearly no WP:OR or povpushing, but correct representation of sources. "In the Mahabharat, Narayana figures as the supreme god in connection with the creation of the Universe.", "Man, mind; the male deity, a title of Narayana, the Supreme Being and soul of the universe; every male said to have sprung from him.", per Indian Encyclopaedia, Volume 1, genesis publishing. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tattvamuktākalāpa reads that as per Purana, Narayana is the supreme God.[6] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• This one explains everything.
• "[Mahanarayana Upanishad] The Veda and the Upanishads recognise only one supreme Lord, Shree Hari Narayana, who pervades this universe, rather the multiverse; indeed. He is everything and there is no 'other'." per Manoniyantran: Vedic Views and Ways of Mind Control[7] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No progress

• Wow, I went to bed last night (UK time) and I wake up to this! Thank you Torchiest and Joshua Jonathan for pitching in to help. @Bladesmulti: this was a nice try (and a fine example of "ignoring to talk about the editor and focusing on the content", lol), but the words "Narayana is highly considered as Supreme God among Hindus.. There is no other name for Supreme God" are your words posted on this talk page in this edit, and the article at that time had the statement "in Hinduism, Narayana is acknowledged as supreme god". POV. As for five sects, what I actually said was "five according to another major sect"; referring to the fact that Smartism, as I'm sure you well know, recognises five deities as "personifications" of the Supreme Being.

Guys, I wouldn't bother pressing this much further here. Progress isn't being made. If this goes on, WP:ANEW seems like the place to go. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Stfg, You referred it like I had added it to the main page. Till now, I don't see any reason for rejecting the multiple reliable sources that refer him so. No one has talked about it.. Just saying that "this sect think different" is not even a clue. You haven't named the "five sects", that you have claimed already.

There is no way to deny that major hindu scriptures such as Vedas, Upanishads refer Narayana as the supreme God.

I would suggest you to learn the wikipedia policies before you advise about them. There was no edit warring, but sure the removal of sourced content. Well not by me, but other editor, which is obviously the violation. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read my words and don't misrepresent them. I mentioned the views of four major sects, not five. One of the four sects recognises five deities as "personifications" of the Supreme Being. The rest is as Torchiest described above. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What was "one of the five" then? And No worries if you agree that it is 4 sects. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. I didn't say "one of the five", though. My exact words were: "As Narayana is the Supreme Being according to one major sect and one of five according to another major sect". That means according to another major sect, Narayana is one of five supreme beings. That is the only possible meaning with that grammar, actually, but now I understand how the misunderstanding arose. I have always understood that there are four major sects. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now sounds much better. Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad we've cleared that up. --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gavin Flood's book also says that in Puranas, Upanishad, Narayana is the Supreme God, [8], Page 120-121, although he uses terms like "highest deity", "supreme deity", same meaning. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg:, @Torchiest:, @Joshua Jonathan:; we seem to be getting absolutely nowhere with this. Although the content has now been changed thanks to the weight of our numbers, I think this marathon demonstrates that Blades is unable to understand exactly what NPOV means, specifically the idea that Wikipedia accurately reflects all significant views among reliable sources. His editwarring is borderline, but he is definitely guilty of source misrepresentation, not assuming good faith, POV pushing, tendentious editing, and a degree of OR. He also requested a third opinion, and proceeded to dismiss the same after it was provided by stfg. I think we would be justified in seeking enforcement of discretionary sanctions against him, at least on a temporary basis. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

All you have done till now is WP:CANVASSING the uninvolved editors, unecessary tagging, and yes you did edit warring over that. I haven't been alleged of source misrepresentation, only alleged of using a 'alleged' unreliable source. Instead of bragging about the editors, try proposing that what type of edit you want. Read WP:BATTLEFIELD. You didn't even knew that this subject is notable and you went for a failed AFD, look at yourself before you point on others falsely, after canvassing. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I wasn't aware this page was subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. But in any case, sanctions are a last resort, and I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet. @Bladesmulti: the three of us that he pinged above aren't uninvolved. Anyway, I'm glad to see you looking for an approach that recognises the different positions of the sects. I don't know about the details, but imo that's the right way to go. --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes we must believe on WP:BRD. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Furthermore, since it has been proven that Joshua's own source tells that Narayana is supreme God, per Upanishad, Mahabharat and 'some purana'. I think we can write something like this:-

"According to a number of Hindu scriptures, Narayana is considered as the supreme god. However, later this belief became largely limited with the Vaishnavism sect."[9](also page 120) Instead of adding "In Hinduism, Narayana is considered as supreme god." Bladesmulti (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously more can be added about the concept of Judaism's God as well. I will be going to make a subsection for that, because this article has to be enlarged anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you said that I did not specifically repudiate your claim that all Hindus worship Narayana as the supreme being, I will do so now. Here are two sources. This source says "Śaivism, also written Shaivism and Saivism, is the branch of Hinduism that worships Siva as the Supreme God." This source says (on page 52) "Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism each adhere to the strong belief that their god/goddess alone is the Supreme Being". Before that is says "Shaivism (followers of Shiva)" and "Shaktism (worship of Devi, female power)". Thus, not all Hindus think Narayana is the supreme god. Therefore, the opinion of one sect cannot preside as the opinion of the entire religion. So, Narayana is not the supreme god of Hinduism; he is one of the gods view as such. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg: This page is subject to discretionary sanctions, because it very definitely falls under the category of "India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (emphasis mine). More importantly, I do not believe his behaviour on this page is sufficient for AE, but what changes that is that Blades was taken to ANI once before, and the only reason he was not given a site ban is that multiple senior users agreed to mentor him. I am unsure where those mentors currently are, but regardless, he was informed at ANI that his behaviour would be under the microscope, which changes things, don't you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of them. And I've already warned Blades to stop it. I guess he got the point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I missed that part; a lot of people offered to mentor him, starting with 74. Anyhow, if you are watching him, it's alright. Moreover, he has calmed down since I first proposed AE, so I do not now plan on seeking anything. JJ, are you able to monitor this guy's prodigious output, though? He has a very high content edit rate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying. I get anxious, once and a while. But he owns me, and he knows. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues

Torchiest, then how about:- "According to a number of Hindu scriptures, Narayana is considered as the supreme god. However, later this belief became largely limited with the Vaishnavism sect.[10] While Shaivism sect worships Shiva as supreme God.(your source)" Bladesmulti (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: Regarding your proposal:

• "According to a number of Hindu scriptures, Narayana is considered as the supreme god." - this statement is too general. It needs context
• "However, later this belief became largely limited with the Vaishnavism sect." - this statement is incorrect. According to Flood, the Pancharatras worshipped Narayana. Their tardition merged into Vaishnavism. So you can't say that "this belief became largely limited with the Vaishnavism sect" - it never was a general beleif of all Hindu-traditions.

Blades, I think there are several issues here. You're trying to compare Judaism's monotheism with Hinduism. For this purpose, Narayana is introduced.

1. It's clear that Narayana is not "the supreme deity" of "Hinduism" in general; other Hindu-traditions regard other deities as such.
2. Narayana has this epithet in Vaisism, in which Narayana has been fused with other deities and traditions. The development of Vaisism is a complex history. If it is to be compared to Judaism, then it should be a comparison of the development to monotheism - Judaism also developed out of a polytheistic culture.
3. A general Hindu equivalent of "monotheism" is the idea of a "supreme Godhead", "Brahman", whatever, beyond all appearances. This idea is supported by many contemporary Hindu-traditions.
4. Such comparisons should be based on WP:RS, that is: scholars who've made these comparisons. Any comparison made by us is, by definition, WP:RSWP:OR.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

See User:Bladesmulti/Concept of HJ gods, if it works better. More sources can be added for referring about upanishads, mahabharat, if flood's source isn't enough Bladesmulti (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@JJ: I suspect you meant to say "Any comparison made by us is, by definition, WP:OR." --Stfg (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Briliant! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

lost ritual practises of jacob similar to the hindu rituals to shiva

The God of the old testiment instructed jacob to fullfill a ritual to him, The ritual demand by the god of the O/T was to "Anoint" a small stone up right pillar with two substances.(OIL) & a (Drink offering?)....

"and jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillow, and set it up for a pillar,and poured oil upon the top of it" Genesis 28:16-19 (KJV)

"and jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him,even a pillar of stone : and (he poured a offering thereon)?, and He poured oil thereon" (Genesis 35:14)

"THIS STONE which i have set for a pillar shall be GODS HOUSE" (Genesis 28:22)

The stone is called "stone of bethel" i.e Bethel=(god)to which jacob surved! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_(god) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(god)

For hindus they state that this ritual is very much like the practise of shiva ritual worship, EG The pouring oil and a drink offering (MILK) over a stone up right pillar, they also claim that gods energy resides within this pillar blessing the location when anointed.

It's more then suitable for this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.38 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have any source, comparing 2 of them, post here. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No source comparing the two have ever been documented & never will be Hint Hint!:)

A interesting documentry now banned in the uk made by a british biblical scholar had some interesting touches on india via the jews, but it did not go down to well with the church.

The clip of The documentry and write up can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fpxmc Good luck finding the whole series, its banned on youtube and replaced with the american cheesey watered down version of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvdsN4pHcw which is nothing like the orginal at all.