Talk:Hinduism/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

RfC: Explain temples and pujas in lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is not to include the sentence in the lead, with reasoning from there needing to be more context, to undue weight. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Per this revision, explain temples and pujas by inserting well-sourced 1 sentence in the lead:

During the 8th century CE, the Buddha was replaced by one of the Hindu gods in most royal circles, ushering in monumental temples and elaborate pujas.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

sources:

• Inden, Ronald (1998), "Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship.", in JF Richards (ed.), Kingship and Authority in South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Raju, P.T. (1992), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

• Support - As nominator. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Many deities and figures to talk about, having more or as huge importance as Buddha, if we include any in lead, it would provide more weight. That's why better not to have any on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - "explain" temples and puja? I suppose the claim is that they came from Buddhism? That would be extremely controversial and contradict a whole lot we know about temples before the 8th century. In any case, this should be discussed in the body first before any attempt is made to change the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - agree with Kautilya3 that this poiint should first be mentioned in the body of the article. And then, if so, it needs some more context, about the waxing of Hidyuism and the waning of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as discussed in March 2015 (see Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#buddhism_in_lead_section), arguments against inclusion:
  • a literature review of various encyclopedia entries on Hinduism shows the weight given to Buddhism in leads of the article and articles as a whole. None of them mention this claim relating to Buddhism, temples and pujas.
  • Raju p. 31 does not support the statement at all. It only states that Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta were instrumental for the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in the 8th century. The statement in question is a WP:FRINGE by Ronald Inden.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the RfC question is clearly not neutral - I can tell which way the nominator leans without reading the survey. Also, even if the wording is kept the way it is, at the very least it should be the diff linked to, not the revision page.
• Oppose - I may well be biased at this point owing to the non-neutral RfC question. However I'll try to be fair. The linked material should not be included because 1) it's undue as this is an article on Hinduism not Buddhism; 2) it's badly placed, being a statement on history when the rest of the sentences around it that have nothing to do with history; 3) it doesn't do what VictoriaGrayson says it does, i.e. "explain temples and pujas"; 4) it's even clearly wrong, since there are plenty of royal circles in e.g. China or Rome that did not replace Buddhism with Hinduism. The sentence can be included in the article, but it must be appropriately clarified, and in the history section, not the lede. Banedon (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I think it can be added in lead. Some editors are saying that why Buddha should be mentioned here, but according to Hindu literatures Buddha was one of incarnation of God Vishnu, so mentioning something related to Buddha is may not be irrelevant here. Specially Buddha is latest incarnation of Vishnu.--Human3015^TALK  17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I think that the mention of Buddha, Christianity and Islam in the lead is WP:UNDUE. With say that is one of the major religions is enough. If we keep the statement about Buddha, it should be linked to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism per WP:LINK. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The note at the end of the sentence would have the following info:

Ronald Inden states: "Before the eighth century, the Buddha was accorded the position of universal deity and ceremonies by which a king attained to imperial status were elaborate donative ceremonies entailing gifts to Buddhist monks and the installation of a symbolic Buddha in a stupa [...] This pattern changed in the eighth century. The Buddha was replaced as the supreme, imperial deity by one of the Hindu gods (except under the Palas of eastern India, the Buddha's homeland) [...] Previously the Buddha had been accorded imperial-style worship (puja). Now as one of the Hindu gods replaced the Buddha at the imperial centre and pinnacle of the cosmo-political system, the image or symbol of the Hindu god comes to be housed in a monumental temple and given increasingly elaborate imperial-style puja worship."

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:Hindu temples are modeled on the Mahabodhi temple, but thats not the point here. The point is this quote of Ronald Inden.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

All that probably should go into the article on temples. I don't know all that much about the history of temples. But the impact of the decline of Buddhism on Hinduism is worth talking about, as JJ said. But once gain History of Hinduism might be a better place to do this. Once we have the material sorted out, it can be summarised here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: Why do you keep calling well-known scholars, now Ronald Inden, fringe? I am happy to toss Raju which someone else inserted in the past revisions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta were instrumental for the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in the 8th century" is not a scholarly statement, but a religious POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)

I agree. Someone else inserted Raju in the past, and I assumed they checked it. The issue is calling well-known scholar Ronald Inden fringe.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

He gave link to WP:FRINGE, which you don't appear to have read. FRINGE means departs significantly from the mainstream view. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me nuance myself. Raju says that there was an orthodox revolt against Buddhism and Jainism in the eight century, and that Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta staged this revolt. To say that "Adi Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta were instrumental for the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in the 8th century" is an overestimation of their role; rather, the later tradition ascribed this role to them in explaining the decline of Buddhism, whereas social-economic factors, that is, the regianalisation and feudalisation of India, "caused" this decline. The Vedic and Puranic traditions simply better suited the ruling powers, which seems to be what Inden is saying. That's not fringe. NB: Inden (1998) was published by Oxford University Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: and Redtigerxyz have a habit of calling mainstream positions fringe. For example see here.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool down, Vic. But anyway: 88 citations for "Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship." Not bad. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that Inden was FRINGE. I was merely explaining what FRINGE means. I don't even have access to the book. So I have no idea what is in it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See also Holt (2008), The Buddhist Viṣṇu: Religious Transformation, Politics, and Culture, p.14-15. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JJ's last couple of comments.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement is called a fringe, not Inden. The sentence, as it is now, is presented as a fact; rather than an opinion of Inden. To prove this particular idea is mainstream, please provide other references by other scholars that endorse this statement. There is list of 7 encyclopedia/dictionary entries on Hinduism in Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#buddhism_in_lead_section that does not feature this idea. Please provide couple of entries on Hinduism that have this idea. Please note that we are strictly discussing the statement inclusion in the LEAD, so that the second list of references is requested.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any explanation why this statement by Indien should be regarded as fringe. The fact that 7 encyclopedia/dictionary entries don't mention it does not make it fringe. Is there any info in those encyclopedias that contradicts Inden's statement? Anyway, this is what Holt says:

• "The second part of this strategy became explicit after the eight century CE when the theories and ideologies of kingship in India shifted from Buddhist to Vaisnava and Saiva rationales. Kane's reading of the sociopolitical dynamic between the Brahmanical and Buddhist communities in earlier phases of Indian political history is in accordance with the analyses recently offered by Ronald Inden." (p.12)
• "By the time of the eight century, when the political transformations from Buddhist to Hindu ideologies noted above were occurring" (p.14-15)

NB: Holt's book is published by Columbia University Press. See further also:

• William J. Duiker, Jackson Spielvogel The Essential World History p.227-228
• Vinay Lal Buddhism’s Disappearance from India:

"It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic, @JJ: You are right, neither Raju nor Inden are fringe and both are respected scholars. Yet, I just looked at Raju 1992, page 31 and don't see the support for proposed sentence for the lead. Did I miss something? I wonder if you are reading Inden out of context, and the sentence you propose really reflects what Inden has written in multiple publications? Large Hindu temples were built long before the 8th century, extensively in many places, such as in the Gupta Empire period. They were built in earlier centuries in what is modern India and in southeast Asia. Earliest evidence trace to BCE linga temple in Andhra Pradesh, by the Cholas, and by many others. One of the caves of the intricate Badami cave temples with Hindu deities, including Harihara (half Shiva, half Vishnu) were complete in late 6th century under the sponsorship of Deccan Hindu kings. Does the proposed sentence then reflect the mainstream view on Buddha -> Hindu deity and "ushering in monumental temples" summary sentence you propose for the lead?

Assuming you revise and clarify the proposed sentence further, please consider if it is WP:DUE for the lead? Would @JJ's discussion on Buddhism-Hinduism-Jainism relation, revised to reflect what Inden and others assert to be the central role of Adi Shankara and others in Hinduism, be better in the history section somewhere? (see Ronald Inden, Imagining India, Indiana University Press, ISBN 978-0253213587, pages 106-107) Indeed, some Buddhist writers have a different view on Adi Shankara and related Hindu philosophers, which too needs to be summarized for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2016

Sanatan Dharma is the dominant religion. Rename/re-title the article to keep the original name "Sanatan Dharma", use Hinduism as the other name. Name "Hinduism" is evolved term over hundreds of years from derogatory Persian word "Hind", meaning black/slave. It is a given derogatory term, not the established by followers of Sanatan Dharma. The indigenous people called themselves as "Arya Putra" and their religion as the "Sanatan dharma". Kapishmohole (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Majora (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

Please change Prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include (but are not restricted to), the four Puruṣārthas, the proper goals or aims of human life, namely Dharma (ethics/duties), Artha (prosperity/work), Kama (emotions/sexuality) and Moksha (liberation/freedom)

To

Prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include (but are not restricted to), the four Puruṣārthas, the proper goals or aims of human life, namely Dharma (ethics/duties), Artha (prosperity/work), Kama (desires/emotions) and Moksha (liberation/freedom); Yellowgram (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The article on Kama seems to say it mostly connotes sexual desire. Stickee (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yuckyhulas7890 edits

@Yuckyhulas7890: Have you read WP:V policy page? Have you also read page 31 of the Vijay Nath source cited, in Social Scientist, Vol. 29, No. 3/4? That page mentions Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism, but it does not mention Smartism. You also re-inserted back a website adherents.com in the main article, which is non-RS. Why? Please note that this article is not your personal blog, content must be reliably sourced, and you must respect civility guidelines. You have edit warred with three editors in recent days, and edit summary such as "Anyway, I'm removing it as 2 editors commenced to cry" is inappropriate and show WP:NOTHERE attitude. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the assertion that Hinduism is a way of life!

By any definition or standard Hinduism can be viewed only as an organised religion like any other religion (Islam, Christianity etc), at least in it's modern shape and outlook. Mrigendrakumarprajapati (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please explain a little bit more. "way of life" is a compromise toward "sanatana dharma." "Religion" is a western term. And not necessarily "organised." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Way of life" is a perfect description of what Hinduism is! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Iskcon.org and Himalayanacademy.com are unreliable.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Images

Regarding to this edits: Bold editing and Revert. I think pictures can be useful. As an old proverb says, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

MOS:IMAGES — “Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals.”

WP:Image use policy — “The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.” -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tobby72: The article already has 25 images. The questions are [1] whether more images add value, or distract; [2] do new images inform, or misinform the reader on a complex article such as Hinduism; [3] does the selected image represent the topic in an NPOV manner, or does it distort by emphasizing a POV; and [4] is there inherent original research in selecting a particular image, and [5] is the image WP:UNDUE and contentious. We have tried to address this issue, in past, by first proposing images on this talk page, and using grids of images (temples/deities for example). The collection now reflects that effort. If you wish to propose one or more images, post each image here, along with your pitch on the five issues above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Vic's "corrections to content" & MSW's reversion

@Joshua Jonathan: I corrected various errors to the article in with this edit. The errors include using unreliable websites such as himalyanacademy.com, as well as incorrect information regarding Smarta as pointed out elsewhere.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vic: You questioned iskcon.org and himalyanacademy.com. Both are gone, replaced with books published by WP:RS publishers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Which you did after my edit. Your version of the article still has various flaws I corrected with academic sources such as Gavin Flood.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vic: If you look at the edits to the lead and sections of this article, over the last 6+ months, you will see your foot prints. What are you specifically disputing with the new hat tag? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Vic's edit changed the lead, and removed a substantial part of Hinduism#Denominations. Making such huge changes may work better with an explanation and carefull proceeding, explaining all the changes one by one. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Vic's proposal for the lead

I can't judge at the moment how much was changed here. Maybe the changes are good, I don't know; I'll have to compare carefully. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So, which small part of info did you leave out? Or is it all the same, but in a different order? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Denominations

See Hinduism#Denominations

Smarta

You [MSW] do not accurately represent sources. See HERE for example.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I reread the sources, including The Tantric Body book by Flood. It seems you are inadvertently misinterpreting sentences out of their context. Where is Flood concluding what you are? The deity Ganesha is important in the Smarta tradition, widespread in Hinduism, but hardly mentioned in key texts of Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakti traditions. Smarta tradition has been important to Hinduism, and many of the Bhakti movement sants came from the Smarta tradition, as did Madhvacharya, Ramanuja, etc. On denominations or lack thereof, Lipner is a good source. If you have some other disputes relating to this article, which justify the dispute hat, please identify. On Smarta tradition, let us continue our discussion in Talk:Smarta Tradition, where others can join in. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In this article, you do not represent Flood 1996 correctly. Flood 1996 says:

• page 17 "There is also an important tradition of Brahmans called Smartas"
• page 56 "The Brahmans who followed the teachings of these texts were known as Smartas"
• page 113 "Brahmans who followed the puranic religion became known as smarta".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Yes, once again, the word Smarta has two meanings and context-based uses. It does refer to Smarta Brahmins in one context, but it also refers to the broader Smarta tradition in another. The former usage was to historically distinguish between Shrauta Brahmins (Shruti-based) and Smarta Brahmins (Smriti-based). In the denominations section, we need to focus on the latter sense of the word. That sentence on page 17 needs to be read in the context set on page 16, which is Brahmanical systems. The sentence on page 56, goes with the context set in pages that precede it (the discussion of Shrauta is on page 52-55, and Flood is contrasting the two). You are misinterpreting and over-generalizing the sentence on page 113. Ask yourself, what were non-Brahmins who followed the puranic religion become known as? Then look for an answer in Flood, or another WP:RS. You will find the answer in 2nd para of page 154, but read also pages 155-168. It is you who seems to be inadvertently misrepresenting Flood 1996. Perhaps @Joshua Jonathan can take a look at those pages, and make a WP:3O call. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

To be continued indeed at Talk:Smarta Tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of other denominations

So, why the removal of the other denominations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131202231922/http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus1-6/SMART.txt to http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus1-6/SMART.txt
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.philoshistorydepartment.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/8/7/12870319/ancient_indian_social_history_some_interpretation_by_romila_thapar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150214082038/http://www.philoshistorydepartment.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/8/7/12870319/ancient_indian_social_history_some_interpretation_by_romila_thapar.pdf to http://www.philoshistorydepartment.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/8/7/12870319/ancient_indian_social_history_some_interpretation_by_romila_thapar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead reorganization

@VictoriaGrayson: I liked a bit of your proposed re-ordering, but reverted your major change to the lead because it injected too much tantra into the lead. That is undue. The current lead summary on Sruti and Smriti is better, than the one you proposed. Similarly, the "Starting in the early centuries of common era, newly revealed tantric texts centering on Vishnu...." is undue in the lead. The dating, role and importance of Tantras in early 1st millennium CE lacks broad scholarly consensus. We should not plug it into the lead of an overview article on Hinduism (the main article states something else, lead should summarize the main). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hindu temples are constructed by the tantras (agamas). Hindu temple ritual is tantric. Tantra must be mentioned.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: In main article, yes. In the lead, no. Tantra is a complex topic, means and implies many things. Temple-related tantra/agamas are design manuals (see their Kriya-padas), Tantra also means techniques/theory/system in any art/science, as well as certain intimate rituals in some contexts. Perhaps you can start by improving the Hinduism and Buddhism sections of the Tantra article. It is in bad shape. We can then link and summarize that discussion in the main of this article, thereafter wordsmith a mention of tantra in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tantra is simply a class of literature. Tantra is a mainstream word spoken in Hindu temples in front of little kids. It is not the fault of Hinduism that the word tantra equals sex for westerners.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed. You already know I admire your efforts and knowledge, you are totally or partially right most of the times. So, I apologize on behalf of the westerners who might care, but we can't right great wrongs in this wiki article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are the one censoring info because it "implies many things" not me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: See if this lead is acceptable to you.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Still the same issues. How does the main article support your new lead? Why is tantra/srauta/etc so prominent in your proposed lead version, but there is so little in the main article about it? The emphasis of something in the lead should roughly reflect that something's importance as persuasively described in the main article, with WP:RS. If you think Tantra is so central to Hinduism, why not start by improving the Hinduism and Buddhism sections of the Tantra article (see, no censorship, :-), just invitations)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

How about I eliminate mention of tantra?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: See ALT1 in your sandbox lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

Hi I would like to add to the beliefs section of the Hinduism article where it mentions the lack of consumption of beef: in some states, like Maharashtra it is illegal to have any beef products, and even where it is not illegal, there are many instances of people being beaten or killed for having beef. A cow's milk however is a popular beverage. I feel that I am "authorized" to say this because I live in Maharashtra, in Mumbai and am living under these laws 116.72.133.208 (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Emma. 116.72.133.208 (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Nobody is "authorized" to say anything on Wikipedia, what you "know", what you "have heard" or what you have "read somewhere" are all unacceptable as such information cannot be verified.
You must cite reliable sources to back up every part of your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

Aausmaa (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. No edit request made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Late-Classical Hinduism - Puranic Hinduism

This section, in the current version, has too much Buddhism in it.

Quote from current version

Quote: From the fifth century to the thirteenth, Śrauta sacrifices declined, and initiatory traditions of Buddhism, Jainism or more commonly Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism expanded in royal courts.[436] Shaivism dominated in the subcontinent and greatly expanded in southeast Asia, with elements of Shaktism subsumed within Shaivism.[437] In most kingdoms of some regions, during the 8th century CE, the royal sponsorship and pujas of Buddha was replaced by one of the Hindu gods such as Vishnu, monumental Hindu temples were built and the practice of elaborate imperial-style pujas of a Hindu god emerged.[438][note 33] Various classes of Vajrayana literature developed as a result of royal courts sponsoring both Buddhism and Saivism.[440] The Mañjusrimulakalpa, which later came to classified under Kriyatantra, states that mantras taught in the Saiva, Garuda and Vaisnava tantras will be effective if applied by Buddhists since they were all taught originally by Manjushri.[441] The Guhyasiddhi of Padmavajra, a work associated with the Guhyasamaja tradition, prescribes acting as a Saiva guru and initiating members into Saiva Siddhanta scriptures and mandalas.[442] The Samvara tantra texts adopted the pitha list from the Saiva text Tantrasadbhava, introducing a copying error where a deity was mistaken for a place.[443]

I suggest we mention Buddhism and Jainism dynamic in one sentence, trim out "copying error" and the rest, replace in one or two sentences each on Puranic Hinduism with temple building, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Advaita-nondualism, Alvars/Vishishtadvaita-bhakti. @VictoriaGrayson:, @Kautilya3: Any comments/concerns? The article's prose part is 30 pages long, and notes/references/sources are another 30 pages, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft replacement

Srauta rituals declined in India and were replaced with Buddhist and Hindu initiatory rituals for royal courts.[436] Over time, some Buddhist practices were integrated into Hinduism, monumental Hindu temples were built in South Asia and Southeast Asia,[440a] while Vajrayana Buddhism literature developed as a result of royal courts sponsoring both Buddhism and Saivism.[440]

The first edition of many Puranas were composed in this period. Examples include Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana with legends of Krishna, while Padma Purana and Kurma Purana expressed reverence for Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti with equal enthusiasm; all of them included topics such as Yoga practice and pilgrimage tour guides to Hindu holy sites. Early colonial era orientalists proposed that the Puranas were religious texts of medieval Hinduism. However, modern era scholars, such as Urs App, Ronald Inden and Ludo Rocher state that this is highly misleading because these texts were continuously revised, exist in numerous very different versions and are too inconsistent to be religious texts.

Bhakti ideas centered around loving devotion to Vishnu and Shiva with songs and music, were pioneered in this period by the Alvars and Nayanars of South India. Major Hinduism scholars of this period included Adi Shankara, Maṇḍana-Miśra and Sureśvara of the Advaita school, Abhinavagupta of Kashmir Shaivism, and Ramanuja of Vishishtadvaita school of Hinduism (Sri Vaishnavism).

Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525062716/http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/National%20Report.pdf to http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/National%20Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016141533/http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/cso/file/2011VolIIPC.pdf to http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/cso/file/2011VolIIPC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611142934/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "called the oldest religion in the world"

Note that I'm only challenging the sources. 1st is a "Religion for Dummies" by two authors well known in the media as the "God Squad", who also wrote Bad Stuff in the News: A Guide to Handling the Headlines. Nice guys I'm sure but not religion historians.

2nd is a book by Anthony Stevens (Jungian analyst), even less qualified for this.

3rd - D.S. Sarma - who has written quite a bit about Hinduism but history of religion isn't his field either.[1]

4th - Merriam Webster, seems to be the dictionary in the sources, not an RS.

5th Klaus Klostermaier - excellent source.

6th. Gary Laderman - religious historian but of American religion.[2]

and finally Turner's book 'Encyclopedia of relationships across the lifespan[3], not a reliable source for this subject either, he's not a religious historian and the book isn't about religious history.

I'd suggest dumping all but Klostermaier and finding sources by religious historians.

I only came here because at Timeline of religion an editor is using these sources and apparently dating Himduism to 9831 BC. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, everything but Klostermaier needs to go, and a claim like "oldest religion" needs sources. Probably wouldn't hurt to add the qualifier living, since whatever was going on at Göbekli Tepe might've been older. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, posted this to Talk:History of Hinduism as well, which has an interesting statement about it perhaps being one of the youngest religions. And I agree about the qualifier. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Klostermaier is far trom excellent... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Back to the paltop, which worls much better than a mobile phone. The whole statement "Hinduism has been called the oldest religion" is undue, of course; originally it said "Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world." I think that the Australian Aboriginals have better credits for such a claim. Apart from that, at best one can say that Hinduism contains elements, or roots, which presumably go back several thousands of years. But is that a meaningfull statement? The Jewish religion also contains elements that go back several thousands of years; so what? It's a "mine is bigger than yours" statement. Nevertheless, I don't object to keeping it in the lead, because it evocates an appealing sense of ancientness, especially together with the comment on "Sanatana Dharma." Though, of course, we might also reagrd this "sense of ancoentness" as a token of Orientalism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Source amnesia, but I've seen arguments that determining the age of modern Hinduism (particularly the Advaita Vedanta, Smartist, and Shaivite branches) from the religion of the authors of Vedas is akin to determining the age of modern Judaism (particularly the Haredi, Conservative, and Reform movements) from the Jahwist or Deuteronomist sources (depending on whether one goes with the Documentary hypothesis or Supplementary hypothesis). Potentially undue for the lede, but I'm a touch curious (not enough to do the work myself) if it'd unseat the due weight of the oldest religion claim. Well, as far as the lede is concerned. The counter would make it all the more appropriate in the article: the fact that people argue against it proves it is noteworthy (just not necessarily lede material). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: doesn't the wording 'has been called' suffice by implying it to be the view of some? Perhaps, a further qualifier as "one of the oldest" would improve it? I concur with @Doug Weller. Klostermaier is the best WP:RS in that list. I will update the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

That wording is enough to satisfy me, especially since I'm too apathetic to actually look for the counter sources. Was just suggesting in case anyone feeling more active was of a similar mind. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Doug Weller don't worry about the sources that called Hinduism as the oldest religion.There are many good sources in google books like this -> [ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mq9UAVT9FqcC&pg=PA12&dq=hinduism+oldest+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizxviXyYzOAhWMKY8KHSmKBC8Q6AEIHjAE#v=onepage&q=hinduism%20oldest%20religion&f=false] and another good source is History of India by the Government of India says that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the World. Hinduism origins date back to Mesolithic, Indus Valley Civilisation and Vedic Period. Not only India but many countries like America accepted this theory to some extend.So kindly don't argue for sources infact there are many good sources.Please add this source to article as page was protected.223.182.2.147 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Anybody can self-publish a book like that one, self-published through iUniverse. Even a "retired Telecom Engineer & a Marketing consultant" like the author. We don't use retired telecom engineers and marketing consultants as sources for history. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Mesolithic? Why not the neolithic, or even the paleolithic, like the Aboriginals in Australia - who's religion arguably is much older... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Questioning of authority

I've corrected again a statement on the "questioning of authority" in Hinduism. The emphasis in this source is on the central role of authority and revealed truth in Hinduism; the questioning of authority is mentioned as the exceptions on this authority:

"Sources of authority play an important part in Hindu culture [elders and priests; sruti; Vedas; Tantric texts; revelation] This grounding of religious life in the experience of a person believed to have unique access to truth - a sage, guru, saint, medium or avatara - is a pervasive feature of Hinduism.

Yet powerful instances of questioning and debate are also present in the Hindu tradition as a persistent challenge to the most authoritative texts and persons; they could even be said to be typical of Indian theological discourse."

"Indian theological discourse", of course, is only a subset of Hinduism; to present this as an essence of Hinduism, while the text emphasises the role of authority, is a misrepresentation of this source. And we don't do internal links to other parts of an article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Your own quoted sentence says "questioning and debate are also present in the Hindu tradition as a persistent challenge to the most authoritative texts and persons."
• You are attempting to cherrypick a couple of words in 2 pages of material, where the book's section is literally titled "Authority and Questioning".
• The whole point of the section is questioning authority:

Yet powerful instances of questioning and debate are also present in the Hindu tradition as a persistent challenge to the most authoritative texts and

persons; they could even be said to be typical of Indian theological discourse. A proleptic discourse in the speculative tenth book of the Ṛg Veda asks about the origins of the universe: ‘What covered in, and where? And what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Who really knows and who here can declare it, whence it was born and whence fl ows this creation?’ (Ṛg Veda 10.130). This process of questioning foreshadows a constructive method of dialectical refl ection that is seen again and again throughout Indian history (Brereton, 1999). The Upaniṣads challenged their Vedic heritage through narratives that involved questioning between generations, as in the father–son discussion of Uddālaka and Śvetaketu; between husband and wife, as in the conversation between Yajñāvalkya and Maitreyī; between teachers and pupils as in the questioning of Pippalada; and between different castes or members of the court, as in the dialogue of Yājñvalkya the sage and King Janaka, or the kṣatriya Agatasatru and the brahmin Gargya – who begins as the teacher and ends up as the pupil. This ethos of questioning even extends into the world of the gods, as when the abstract divinity of Brahman establishes its superiority over Agni, Indra and the other Vedic gods by questioning them. In the later Śiva Purāṇa, Śiva establishes his superiority over Viṣṇu and Brahmā by questioning.them, and Viṣṇu subsequently admits Śiva as his guru. Such interrogation gives a name to the Kena Upaniṣad which repeatedly asks kena, ‘by what’ power or reason is something the case, while in the conversations between Nachiketas and Yama in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, and Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gītā, questioning appears as a way for the guru to test the pupil, encour aging repeated criticism of the supposed authority’s inferior answers, in such a way that the pupil eventually arrives at a ‘true answer’. Doubts of many kinds play a persistent role in the Mahābhārata, and in later Kṛṣṇa literatures such as the Gītagovinda of Jayadeva, one sees challenge transformed into outright criticism from Kṛṣṇa’s lover Rādhā – yet this criticism is welcomed and encompassed within the dynamics of devotion. This affi rmation of debate refl ects the vigorous intellectual culture that was patronized by many royal courts. Stories of kings questioning holy men are found even beyond Hindu texts, as in the Buddhist ‘Questions of King Milinda’, and the multi-religious discussions in which theologians were asked questions by the Muslim Emperor Akbar. This give and take of debate was refl ected in the thesis-objection-response structure of classical philosophical and theological treatises, which were themselves subject to the tacit inquisition of commentators. Authority was not destabilized by questioning; rather it was mediated through it in an intellectual culture that tended to develop ideas collaboratively, and according to the shared logic of natural reason. In each of these cases questioning is not used as a way to end a relationship and reject authority outright. Rather it is a way to deepen understanding, sustain relationships and expand

the Hindu tradition in new directions

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging neutral editors @AAP ka Lawyer, Adiagr, AKS.9955, AmritasyaPutra, BengaliHindu, Bharatiya29, Calypsomusic, Crawford88, Dharmadhyaksha, HemaChandra88, Karthikndr, Sdmarathe, Shrikanthv, Strike Eagle, Unbiasedpov, VarunFEB2003, and Yogesh Khandke:VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, when you talk about important aspects of Hinduism, it's the reverence to authority which should be mentioned. Although, rejection and questioning of authority is not discouraged, it's merely an aberration. You are trying to make it a salient point. The key words in the sourced content is, 'Sources of authority play an important part' and 'Yet powerful instances of questioning and debate are also present'. Crawford88 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I Think this is a matter of interpretation in English, And I agree with (talk) ,even one of the ancient veda had different versions of it! when we think about questioning authorities, and also there is extreme acceptance of authority is present too (and is usually asked for until one reaches certain degree of knowing ) and continues doubting and questioning without ever making any effort of knowing is also discouraged, so i do not think it can be either this or that , would leave it to some one who could balance out the sentence as both are accepted and present but in there own notions equally Shrikanthv (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonathan: Actually what Joshua did is practically correct because in Hinduism what all sages and priests expect is to blindly follow what they say (not question them) but whether actual references exist or not (I don't know) is a matter of concern. (I being a follower of Hinduism know this) So my suggestion would be rather neutral, lets keep parts of the both the revisions in the article in extremely clever English so that it doesn't trigger further disputes. I have another suggestion: why not remove the whole disputed part from the article (that should satisfy both sides and settle the dispute too!) Well, this is all my personal opinion but the decision lies on community consensus. Please ping me Thanks! VarunFEB2003 10:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a rather complex issue. My impression, from reading The Argumentative Indian as well as my direct experience, is that submission to authority is the norm in the Hindu culture but questioning was accepted. Typically, the questioner had to earn the "right" to question through learning and social/spiritual influence. Otherwise they would get ostracised. The very fact that The Argumentative Indian needed to be written shows how much authority exists in Hinduism. So the Hindu questioning is not full "freedom of thought," and it would be wrong to paint it that way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: From the quote you provided from page 14 of Frazier, I have struck out the OR in square brackets above. We must stick with what the source says, not the stereotypes or personal opinions, as that will lead to endless edit wars. @Victoria Grayson is more right on this one, if we read Frazier's pages 14-15 and 321-325. We do need a bit of wordsmith-ing to better summarize Frazier and for NPOV. @Others: please provide additional WP:RS with page number(s) for consideration, or we need to work with the Frazier source @VG and @JJ are referring to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@VG: note the term also; you skipped the preceding part, which started with the central role of authority and revealed truth. If you want to include the questioning of authority, you'll have to start with the central role of authority, where-after you can mention the also. This applies to both the article itself, and the lead. Crawford88 seems to agree with me here, though he doesn't seem to realize this. Note also that the paragraph ends with "In each of these cases questioning is not used as a way to end a relationship and reject authority outright. Rather it is a way to deepen understanding, sustain relationships and expand the Hindu tradition in new directions." This is relevant info, which provides a context for this questioning.

And, as noted before, we don't do internal links to sections within the article. I get the impression that you want to over-emphasize this questioning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

PS1: Note also how my edit changed the paragraph on authority, from VG's version

"A central theme of Hinduism is the questioning of authority."

to

"Authority and eternal truths play an important role in Hinduism. Religious truth is revealed by sacred texts, which are revealed by sages, gurus, saints and avatars. But there is also a tradition of the questioning of authority."

This is more faithfull to Frazier's text, including both authority and the questioning of it. I've also added the first part to the lead, and added additional info the section on authority. This is also more in line with what VarunFEB2003 and Kautilya3 noted above, that authority does play a central role in Hinduism, and that questioning this authority appears within an established context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

PS2: the list of "neutral" editors which were pinged above is disappointing one-sided. I'd rather call it WP:CANVASSING. I'd appreciate it if proper Wiki-policies were followed here, that is, discussing the issue, instead of calling in the subsidiary forces.

PS3: Ms Sarah Welch, the "the OR in square brackets" above are abbreviations of terms and instances which were mentioned in this text by Frazier. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors is not even remotely canvassing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING (emphasis mine): "This page in a nutshell: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!". The list you pinged is not small; people like Ms Sarah Welch, Kautilya3, Abecedare, Sitush and Titodutta, to name a few, are suspiciously missing from this list, while some of the editors you pinged never contributed to this article, but are obviously not "neutral editors." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sitush's behavior reached even mainstream news articles regarding Wikipedia. That you think such an editor should be involved, indicates a lack of judgement on your part.
• WP:Canvassing is about leaving neutral messages on people's talk pages. I merely pinged people on this talk page.
• Let's ask @Montanabw: if my pinging above counts as canvassing. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you ask and admin? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Your latest edits were a major improvement, and indeed addressed much of the NPOV concern I had noted above. I have reworded a bit, because "obedience to..." is not same as "sources of...". Frazier supports the latter, and other changes I made. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Popping by due to the ping. My take is that pinging 17 people was a bit over the top, but also I think the canvassing rules are rather useless and inconsistently enforced -- IMHO the cure for pinging people on one side is to just ping more people on the other side. Plus- when someone is mentioned in a conversation you are supposed to ping them as a courtesy, so they know they are being talked about. So Joshua Jonathan could have pinged the people he mentioned. Or post a message at a project page informing participants of the discussion. Or if you really want random observers, file an RfC. My take is that yeah, it's close to canvassing, but it's also not worth the ANI drama. You two are both good editors, so just be nice, and focus on the content and the sources. Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Mauritius

Why should the lead mention that Hinduism is "found most notably in India, Nepal, and Mauritius" (emphasis mine)? Because it has the relatively third largest Hindu population in the world (48,5%)? How many people know where Mauritius is? The Hindu population at Mauritius numbers about 600,000 people; many countries have more Hindus (Bangladesh 13,500,00; Indonesia 4,259,000; et cetera). So, what makes Mauritius notable, in comparison to those other countries? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The percentage. What makes Hinduism notable in India or Nepal, for that instance? Crawford88 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Percentage and number, I guess? Look, if there are good arguments to include Mauritius in the lead, no problem. But it's not clear to me why Mauritius should be mentioned. Actually, I think that only India should be mentioned, since it has by far the largest number of Hindus in the world, 40x the number Nepalese Hindus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mauritius is undue. India and Nepal suffices. Nepal is worth a mention given Hinduism is the predominant religion there. May be even Bali (Indonesia) for the same reason and for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahimsa, vegetarianism and other food customs

The article says and I quote "Some Hindus from certain sects - generally Shakta,[310] and Hindus in regions such as Bali and Nepal[311][312] practice animal sacrifice.[311] In contrast, most Hindus, particularly the Vaishnava abhor and vigorously oppose animal sacrifice.[313][314]" I did not see any statistics in the cited reference that support the words "most Hindus" . Also the words "Abhor" and "vigorously oppose" are not supported by the references. These are clear case of WI:POV. I look forward to comments from other editors. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have witnessed mass animal sacrifice in south India during Bonalu. Its the equivalent of Christians saying grace before eating. There is no shame in it.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: I have added quotes and a third WP:RS. The "abhor" (footnote of [313]) and "vigorously oppose" (9th last line, page 102 of [314]) is clearly supported. The most Hindus and Vaishnava parts too are supported in Fuller, and Andrew Nicholson source is stating the same when he writes, "the acceptance of the principle of nonviolence has been so thorough that animal sacrifice among Hindus today is uncommon". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The cited references do not say anything about " abhor" and vigorously oppose". These are strong words. Please provide references to corroborate. Now you will find organizations like the late Narendra Dabholkar's AnddhaShraddha Nirmulan andolan ( superstition elimination movement) campaigning against animal sacrifice but that still does not add up to "most hindus". Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: I have already provide page numbers with line number/etc above, where the sources use the words "abhor" and "vigorously oppose". Your recent edits and above comments suggest that you have not bothered to carefully check sources, despite AGF efforts. Please note that competence is required from you for constructive collaboration. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: when I see references, images and even videos that show animal sacrifice taking place in all parts of India and include former Maharajas as well, it is difficult to digest the words, "abhor " and "vigorously oppose". Also I looked at the Fuller and Anderson references and did not see the strong language that you say is there to support your argument. If I was not for constructive collaboration then we would be engaged in an edit war on the page rather than discussing it on the talk page. Competence on Wikipedia includes NPOV and those words do not signify NPOV. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Are you alleging that you are unable to read the words "abhor" in footnote of [313] and "vigorously oppose" around the 9th last line of page 102 of [314] (ref number correspond to your starting comment above)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be explained that the animals are eaten for food after the "sacrifice".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: My apologies for not finding the phrases earlier. However, The two citation clearly refer specifically to Vaishnavism and in case of Fuller (on page 102) to Vaishnavism in Gujarat. In a nutshell, Vaishnavism ≠ Hinduism and Gujarat ≠ India. Thanks to the internet now it is easy to find reliable sources on most topics. previously, I also thought that vegetarianism was the norm among the Hindus. Now I know better ! Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Yes, I agree. I believe in Nepal they sacrifice so many buffalos in a single day that not all animals can be eaten. But in most other cases the dead animal is cooked and eaten as "prasad"Jonathansammy (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: The old phrasing in the article clarifies with "particularly the Vaishnavas abhor...". I am fine mirroring the Nicholson's wording on animal sacrifice in Hinduism, which is more general. While you are free to hold whatever opinions / wisdoms / prejudices / beliefs you wish, we must stick with WP:RS in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Gallery/ies with Hindu Deities

Would it be helpfull to have a gallery, or galleries, with Hindu gods? The broad and colorfull array of Hindus gods may be the first "thing" that comes to mind for most people when thinking of Hinduism. It may also be helpfull in providing quick access to relevant articles.

• 
  Shiva
• 
  Parvati
• 
  Shakti
• 
  Ganesha (son of Shiva)
• Vishnu
  Vishnu
• Krishna (avatar of Vishnu)
  Krishna (avatar of Vishnu)
• 
  Brahma
• 
  Kali
• 
  Dattatreya

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Galleries distract. There is also the issue of NPOV issues in picking candidates, given there are so many. There is also NPOV issues in picking versions/iconography, again because there are so many (e.g. Dattatreya has two major versions and several minor ones). We already have a section with link to the Hindu deities article, we also have a few images in a grid plus some separately in this article. Nice choice of pics, by the way. May be some of these should replace what is already in some of the articles related to them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudos, Hinduism is no longer exclusively the Vedic religion.

Nice introduction. Years back I tried to impress this but I was outnumbered by people who said Hinduism is the Vedic religion. The current introduction is excellent. Hinduism is a mix of many traditions. I appreciate the change. Aupmanyav (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Notable in?

@Koodfaand and Rantemario: you have been edit-warring over the lead sentence, but it does not appear that you have even read the sentence in full. The sentence is talking about where Hinduism is "notable". It is not about Hindus or even about where Hindus might be in majority. Your additions of Maritius and Bali are entirely WP:UNDUE. (They are mentioned in the last sentence of the lead, correctly.) The two citations that have been added say nothing about Hinduism, only about Hindus (who are still not in a majority in Mauritius.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

Please change, "Hindu society has been categorised into four classes, called varnas." to "Paralleling the abundance of spiritual texts, the caste system is comprised of thousands of different castes. Those castes form a hierarchy and are then split into four general classes, or varnas, which are mentioned in the Vedas. There is also a fifth category called the outcastes." This change causes a deeper understanding of how the caste system works and that there are not only four castes - there are thousands. This comes from the Hinduism chapter of the 2016 textbook "Religions in the Modern World." This chapter from pages 42-72 is written by David Smith, and I specifically looked at page 47. Ashleymarie2016 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't find any discussion of caste on page 47. Please provide a Google Books url, or a quotation.

Personally, I don't see a problem here, because varna is a concept of Hinduism, but "caste" (jati) is a social phenomenon. See Caste system in India for a full discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ashleymarie2016: Welcome to wikipedia. The change you propose does not "cause[s] a deeper understanding of how the caste system works", nor is the source or mainstream scholarship stating the "thousands are mentioned in any Hindu spiritual texts". The article should mention varna and caste system, and does so about a dozen times, citing multiple sources and various views per WP:NPOV guidelines. It also links the reader to the main article, with a summary in this article. That suffices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Origin discussion

Something that seems worth discussing (but as I am not an expert I am not inclined to edit myself at this time):

What most people in the West do not comprehend well is that mankind's faith systems used to be largely paganistic. That is to say that there was really no such thing as religion in prehistoric times, per se, but rather people simply believed in a world filled with gods and spirits. Each tribe had their particular deities that they focused on but this did not preclude the deities of other tribes. The advent of faiths like the Abrahamic religions represented a fundamental shift, the birth of religion, the idea that "My beliefs preclude your beliefs" or "My god precludes your god". When the Muslims and later Christians came to India, they found that India still followed the pagan philosophy. My understanding is that there was no such "religion" as Hinduism at that time. Rather from the perspective of the Abrahamic Muslims/Christians, they saw the subcontinent as filled with a bunch of pagans whose practices somewhat intertwined. So they projected the idea of a "religion" onto India and the Indians gradually re-stated their beliefs to be more palatable to the Westerners. That is, they began to articulate explicitly a notion that all of their gods were in fact aspects of one supreme God. In reality, of course, if you were talk talk to your average Indian villager and describe this notion, they probably would say "I don't know what you are talking about. I just worship my local gods." So in a real sense Hinduism is less a "religion" and more a collection of "pagan" beliefs practiced in southern Asia (like the pagan beliefs of our ancestors). Not to say these are any less valid beliefs than the Abrahamic "religions" but it is worth describing this distinction as I think it is important (i.e. to avoid trying to cast Hinduism into the mould of the Abrahamic faiths as though paganism is somehow more primitive or less legitimate than the "religions" that came out of the Middle East).

As I say, I am not an expert in Hinduism so probably better that somebody more knowledgeable edit than me.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@MC/141.131.2.3: Without intending to offend, your comments read as a hypothesis or stereotype or prejudice or wisdom or opinion or extrapolation or a projection of your personal fears or misunderstandings or wish or insights. I doubt you have read Sanskrit or Pali or Prakrit or Indic texts, given your "collection of pagan beliefs" comment. Your speculations, wrong or right as they may be, and similar views may be good for a blog. They are not for wikipedia where we limit ourselves to summarizing mainstream already published reliable sources, within other community agreed content policies and guidelines, to the best of our abilities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The term "Hinduism" was indeed coined in the 19th century by Raja Rammohan Roy. It is unfortunate that the etymology section doesn't cover this. What existed prior to that is rather complex, a variety of beliefs co-existing, in multiple layers accumulated over millennia. The "pagan" layer still exists, dating back to the Vedic times, but also a lot of layers on top of it. It defies any kind of easy description. However, the pre-colonial Hindus stopped at "my God is better than your God". They never went to the extreme of saying, "your God doesn't exist". The Abrahamic faiths are quite unique in this regard. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Christianity is a 14th-century word, while the word Islam came to mean a religion in 19th-century (it meant submission), it was called Mahometry (15thcentury), Muhammadism (17th century), Islamism (18th century)... according to Douglas Harper. That is just the nature of any language, including English. @Kautilya3: The word Hinduism can be traced to 1786, in Williams Jones essay (?). If you have mainstream WP:RS that are not yet summarized, please add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(add) The term Boudhism (later revised to current Buddhism) was coined in 1801, Tauism (now Taoism) in 1839, Confucianism in 1862, according to Lionel Jensen, a professor in East Asian Studies; (fwiw, Yong Chen agrees). It is not mainstream scholarship, and rather fringe, to suggest or imply that just because these English words were coined then, therefore Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, or etc did not exist before 19th or another century, or what existed prior was rather this or that. But, rather than forum-y discussion, if someone has mainstream RS that state something different, by all means summarize it with cites and page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you are failing to distinguish between (a) labelling or relabelling of notions that had prior existence and (b) the coinage of terms to define or postulate new notions. The terms "Christianity" and "Islam" may have been relatively recent labels but the notions they were labelling were long in existence, often under different labels. "Buddhism" is just an English translation of Bouddha matham in Sanskrit. These labelling/relablling phenomena are of no relevance to our issue. In the case of "Hinduism", "Confucianism" and "Taoism", the notions were invented by Europeans due to their need to delineate boundaries. But the boundaries didn't exist earlier, and, without boundaries, it is hard to delineate what was inside them. Something was there, but what exactly? More importantly, what did the supposed followers of these "isms" think of the boundaries and what was inside the boundaries?

My position is that what existed earlier was a culturally coherent complex of beliefs, with higly variable levels of identification and bounding. For example, von Steitencron shows instances of Shaivites regarding their religion as being firmly delineated from the rest of the complex that we now call Hinduism. At the other extrme, the British census takers in the 19th century were driven to the wall tring to classify citizens that identified themselves as "Hindu Muslims". So, it is quite impossible to identify something called "Hinduism" prior to the coinage of the term. William Jones could see such a thing because he was focused on texts, especially legal texts, rather than the practice. But we know that those texts had hardly anything to do with Hinduism in practice. So, Jones coined "Hinduism", if he really did, for an idea that he invented himself. And this idea came to have a significant attraction to Hindus themselves, who were beginning to see themselves through the European eyes. So Jones wasn't observing Hinduism, he was creating it.

We should also not forget the tyranny of the census and the drive for numbers in a popular democracy. So, religions are now highly politicised in a way that they never were before. So, the Hindus voluntarily gave up the bounaries that von Steitencron identifies. They were probably doing a little bit of that already under the Muslim rule. But modern democracy was a much bigger railroad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3,

Extended content

Everything you allege about Hinduism is somewhat and in different ways true for Christianity / Islam / Buddhism / etc as well. If you dig into their history, Sunni clerics have long called Shia people as apostates and non-Muslims, and vice versa (see the Sufi, Ahmadiyyas, Bahai, etc debates). Catholics and Protestants and etc have questioned whether the other is really a Christian, for very valid reasons. They went to wars over all this. Atheists question fellow Atheists. Endless are the questions, which is good thing. If just having a Pali Canon or Mahayana sutras validates Buddhism existed, Bible validates Christianity existed, why not the Vedas / Upanishads / etc for Hinduism? There are many explanations for the "Hindu Muslims", one being that many of those Muslims didn't understand Islam or had never read Quran and Hadiths, had converted because of socio-economic pressures, or felt pressured to call themselves both, or because the Islamic marriage laws requires conversion (Sharia does not recognize Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/etc male - Muslim female marriage, conversion is mandatory before such a marriage would be legal/acceptable e.g.). Something similar applies to others: few Buddhists / Hindus / Jains / Christians have actually read their scriptures or know whether their practices are consistent with the faith they identify with.

This is getting forum-y, and not the purpose of this talk page. Your views are not mainstream nor accurately reflect those who study Hinduism or comparative religions. We may disagree, and others may disagree with us both. The best we can do in this article is to stick with the WP:RS, WP:NOR and other wikipedia content guidelines. We can continue such discussions privately by email. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course, this whole section is FORUM-y, but nothing I have said here is new. It is already in the article. The article doesn't say anywhere that Hinduism is a well-defined set of beliefs, either then or now. Hopefully, it will never be.

The point of "Hindu Muslims" is that these people didn't see being "Hindu" and "Muslim" at the same time was in any way conflicting, which tells us something about what "Hindu" meant or didn't mean. I don't think this has anything to Quran or Hadith. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Or what "Muslim" meant or didn't mean!! I don't think this has anything to do with Vedas or Upanishads or Buddhist Canons or Bible etc either. :-) If you are fluent with Sanskrit, read their Mimamsa Hindu school texts. They were discussing this, in a very different context, at least 1,500 years ago!! Yep, I too hope that the article never becomes one sided. Your watch, and amazing volunteers like you, keep it closer to being more NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ms. Welch, the prejudice you are expressing is exactly why I think discussing this aspect of Hinduism is important. The label Hinduism was created precisely because of this prejudice, the idea that paganism is somehow primitive and less evolved than Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. You are attempting to apologize for Hinduism by recasting it to be something more like the Abrahamic faiths which it is not. The point is that it is OK that many people in India and many other parts of the world practice pagan beliefs. These beliefs do not have to be recast into something they are not just so that you can feel more comfortable with them. Let them be what they are.

To tell the truth, one thing that interests me about the Hindu belief systems is that they have integrated (and indeed are to a great extent based on) the belief system of the ancient Indo-Europeans. So to a great extent the Hindus can be seen as practicing the faith of our ancestors which I find fascinating. To deny those pagan beliefs as you are is to deny our own heritage, which is a shame.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@MC: Indeed, Hinduism and Paganism and others are each interesting in their own ways. Please see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/ManuGC.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/highlights/2001/india.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6170E/x6170e09.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525062716/http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/National%20Report.pdf to http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/National%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

About Hindu and hinduism

Wikipedia what u said about the word Hindu and hinduism is not correct completely wrong.hindu means it's not a religion. Its a name of the place.The word Hindu is not derived from sindu. It's not correct.Hindu means the land between Himalayas and indu mahasagara ( Indian ocean) is called as Hindu.its not a religion it's a geographical location only.please don't misguide the people.please change the information in your site. Sandkund (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sandkund, I am new here myself, but if I am right, one has to provide references to add a sentence into any wikipedia article. If you find good references online, I will add that sentence here. To know what a reliable reference/source is, please read the matter at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - Dona-Hue (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't add sentences just because you find a source that says something. You need to follow WP:WEIGHT, and for that you need to first read and understand the sources that have been cited here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note also that this is not the place to grind your axe on Muslim invasions and alleged atrocities. There are other pages such as Persecution of Hindus etc. where you can do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay Kautilya3, I will discuss things on this page first. Can I add the name Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to the list of names in the section where Prabhupada, Swami Rama, Paramahamsa Yogananda and others are mentioned (the section is titled, "Popularity in the West")? Can I add "the" to a sentence to correct the grammar (there are many such sentences)? -Dona-Hue (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to claim that Maharshi Mahesh Yogi propagated "Hinduism". I don't think it would be appropriate. Even some of the names that are there already seem dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

He did propagate meditation with Hindu Mantras, right?-Dona-Hue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not replied even after 4 days, so that means you don't have any valid objection to that name being added, right?-Dona-Hue (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In the lead, it says that there is, "no founder" for Hinduism, but I am unable to see what the reference says - can somebody tell us what the reference used there says? I want to change it to, "no single founder", because it doesn't make sense right now. Can we use any of the Bhagavad Geethas available online as a source/reference in this article?-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Bhagavad Gita: probably not, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And, Dona-Hue, please specify who are supposed to have been "founders" of Hinduism, backed by reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

The problem with Hinduism is that it doesn't exist. It was invented as a word and a concept by 19th century British scholars in order to describe the many religions of India. But really there's no such thing as Hinduism.PiCo (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Don't worry about there being no founder for Hinduism - most religions don't have a founder. PiCo (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC) PiCo You are making this discussion WP:FORUMy with your WP:OR commentary. Religion is a perception of people who follow/believe it. Its existence only depends upon the people who have faith in it. If they believe in it, it means that that religion exits. And there are a lot of people who believe in Hinduism. In my opinion, every religion is invented. Whether one has a founder or not, makes no difference. But that's my opinion and my opinions don't do any help to this article or this discussion, so as yours. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Indeed, Tyler Durden. PiCo: WP:RS do state many major religions to have a founder (Buddha: Buddhism, Muhammad: Islam, etc). But a religion or belief system need not have a founder. You are of course entitled to your personal opinion / prejudice / wisdom that "there is no such thing as Hinduism", others are entitled to their personal opinion / prejudice / wisdom that "there is no such thing as Christianity / Islam / Buddhism / or whatever" after seeing the diversity, contradictions and gross inconsistencies among the followers claiming to be Christians or whatever, but as Tyler states this is forum-y. See discussion in the sections above and in this article's talk page archives. We just need to stick to summarizing published reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I stated facts, not opinions. Judaism has no founder (Moses was not the founder), Jesus of Nazareth didn't found Christianity (he had no intention of starting a new religion or even of reforming Judaism), and Buddha had no thought of a religion, merely of a way of achieving release from the world of illusion. On topic, Hinduism never existed before the British attempted to group all the religions of India together in an effort to study them. PiCo (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Please see WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061228214808/http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/february04/features/elephantjogs.htm to http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/February04/Features/ElephantJogs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Anmolbhat concerns about the lead summary

@Anmolbhat: what are your concerns, and which reliable sources are those concerns based on? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:

How can Hinduism be orthodox Hinduism contains both Orthodox and non orthodox So writing Hinduism as Orthodox is not acceptable

Secondly The origins and authors of Hindu sacred texts are largely unknown. What proof you want . Everyone knows this But if you want some proofs Here it is :

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8d8ZDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Theorigins+and+authors+of+its+sacred+texts+are+largely+unknown.&source=bl&ots=g78AX_LQm6&sig=yIbLgMw8BI10DcMEm9qakulBS0c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin186l2bjUAhXINY8KHS4vC1IQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=Theorigins%20and%20authors%20of%20its%20sacred%20texts%20are%20largely%20unknown.&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmolbhat (talk • contribs)

• Anmolbhat: The lead is a summary of the main article, not a place to add whatever you or someone feels strongly about. Please see wikipedia community agreed WP:LEAD guidelines, and explain how and why what you propose meets those guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ms Sarah Welch Here is Wikipedia page which clearly don't mention any Founder of Hindu texts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_texts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmolbhat (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• It does not matter what other wikipedia articles or wiki sister projects state. Hymns of Rigveda contain rishi names, which most scholars believe were the poet-authors of those hymns (see Witzel's notes on this, or Jamison & Brereton's recent work on it at page 88 e.g.). We do know the author names of many important Sutras, such as the Yogasutras, Brahmasutras and others. Yes, the authors of many Hindu texts, just like many Buddhist/Jain texts, are unknown or disputed, given their Indian tradition that it is eternal ideas which matter, not the impermanent writers. Regardless, it is undue to include all this in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: There is no evidence in history of several people creating any piece of literature which is exactly same. Either the subject or language is bound to differ. However Vedas contain several Suktas (hymns) which are attributed to two or even hundred and thousand Rishis. No sane person can, thus, consider these Rishis to be authors of these mantras. For example refer the following from Sarvanukramanika (list of Vedic Rishis) which name more than one Rishis for Rigvedic mantras: 5.2, 7.101, 7.102, 8.29, 8.92, 8.94, 9.5, 5.27, 1.100, 8.67, 9.66, 9.16 (Aarshanukramani).

In fact Gayatri Mantra containing only 24 alphabets is supposed to have 100 Rishis! And Rigveda 8.34 has 1000 Rishis.

How 1000 people can together ‘create’ 3 small sentences is a mystery that only non-vedic pseudo-intellectuals can explain!

b. Some argue that Katyayana – the author of Sarvanukramanika – was unconfirmed about Rishis of some mantras because the historical tradition had broken by his times. Hence he attributed these mantras to more than one Rishi and used ‘Vaa’ or ‘Or’ to assert that one of these Rishis authored that particular mantra.

However this argument only shows escapism. If indeed Sarvanukramanika is unreliable, why to give references from this book in first place to justify that Vedas were authored by Rishis whose names are listed in book?

Let me give an additional example to counter this logic. The book Nirukta by Yaska described meanings and deeper insights of several mantras and is considered to be older than Sarvanukramanika. Acharya Shaunak who wrote Brihaddevata draws heavily from Nirukta. Now Brihaddevata was amply used by Katyayana to write his Sarvanukramanika.

Nirukta 4.6 states that Trit Rishi discovered meaning of Rigveda 1.175 Sukta. Brihaddevata 3.132 − 3.136 also states the same. However Katyayana lists several Rishis of the mantra and joins their names with ‘Vaa’ or ‘Or’. This means that use of multiple names of Rishis is not because of breakdown of historical tradition but deliberate to emphasize that several Rishis introspected on the mantra/ sukta.

Nirukta 1.4 clearly states that ‘Vaa’ can be used not only to list ‘exclusive alternatives’ but also ‘collection’. Same is also explained in Vaijayanti Kosh.

What more, ‘Vaa’ has been used in a different context by Katyayana himself in Sarvanukramanika. In Paribhasha Prakaran 12.2 he clearly writes that ‘Vaa’ implies that in addition of Rishi of previous verse, there is an additional Rishi for this new verse. To know more, refer Anukramani of Rigveda 3.23, 5.27, 8.2, 9.98. Interestingly, if we look into Aarshanukramani of Shaunak for Rigveda 9.98, he uses ‘Cha’ meaning ‘And’ for name of Rishi where Katyayana has used ‘Vaa’ in his Sarvanukramani.

Similarly if we see Sarvanukramanika 8.92 and Aarshanukramani 8.40, we see that wherever Katyayana has used ‘Vaa’, Shaunak has used ‘Cha’. Also check 1.105 of Sarvanukramanika.

Hence, THE SAME HYMN/ SUKTA OF VEDAS HAS MORE THAN ONE RISHIS in several cases implying that RISHIS CANNOT BE AUTHORS OF VEDAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmolbhat (talk • contribs)

I respect your freedom to believe in whatever you wish. For this wikipedia article, please review and respect WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:WWIN guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: This is not my personal view .This is what Hinduism is and I am respecting Every rule of Wikipedia. AnmolBhat (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit, Arya Samaj and Sant movements are Hindu but not considered Sanatana Dharma because Sanatana Dharma reflects a ritualistic or "orthodox" form of Hinduism, while Arya Samaj and Sants don't agree with many of those ritualistic aspects. Therefore, you shouldn't portray Sanatana Dharma to be the same as Hinduism. If you don't like the word "orthodox" and can think of a more appropriate term instead, then you may change that. Foreverknowledge (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

AnmolBhat: We disagree about what the hymns of Rigveda state, and a lot of things. You can't cite unacceptable non-RS sources, or ignore WP:LEAD etc guidelines. Please don't edit war with multiple editors. Go to WP:DRN or WP:ANI, if you want to pursue this dispute further. Foreverknowledge: please read the source. Don't edit this article based on your personal (mis)understandings, opinions, prejudices or wisdoms. See AnmolBhat's personal comment and question on orthodox. Not only is there a dispute between you two, the basis of your allegations is unclear to me. We disagree on Sant movements, Arya Samaj etc. Per wikipedia guidelines, we must stick to summarizing WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not based on my personal opinion, misunderstanding, etc. Please read sources #7,8,&9 in the following article which don't equate Hinduism as synonymous with Sanatana Dharma and thus it contradicts AnmolBhat's cited source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San%C4%81tan%C4%AB Foreverknowledge (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The article clearly says that "some practitioners and scholars refer to it as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal tradition," or the "eternal way," beyond human history". So what's the issue anyway? I'm not getting a faintest idea of what's happening here! --- Tyler Durden (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at the link and sources I mentioned. Would it be correct to say "some practitioners and scholars refer to Christianity as Catholicism"? Of course not. Catholicism represents one branch of Christianity. Similarly, Sanatana Dharma is a branch of Hinduism. The current wording of the lead is therefore incorrect. Foreverknowledge (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Arya Samaj etc

@Foreverknowledge: I have reverted this edit of yours because we must avoid unreliable sources, and WP:OR on any sources you do find. The source must make the conclusion that you wish to imply, because of the wikipedia community agreed policy: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Further, you are requested to cooperate with the WP:LEAD and WP:BRD guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism and Animism

The article does not mention any animistic practice or rituals in Hinduism. For example, there is nothing on revered rivers such as the Ganges, or revered mountains such as Kailash,worship of stones such as Shaligram, belief in the holiness earth, wind, fire, water and the sky.In contemporary times,people perform rituals on newly purchased equipment or automobiles.All of the above fall under the the term, animism and I think this should be included in the article for sake of the completion of the article.I will of course contribute to it with reliable sources but other editors can help too.I just found a book which expands on the above Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• No OR. The only mention of animism I could find: Gottlieb states on page 135 about animism in Thailand before Buddhism came along; on page 197, "it is often said that for animism the Church substituted the cult of saints"; on page 484 a mention of influences of indigenous animism in Bali on Hindu ideas adopted there; on 394 and 490, where it has nothing to do with Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism. You may be misunderstanding Animism; please see this. FWIW, the article already mentions tribal Animism subsumed within Hinduism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think it warrants some discussion even if only to discard it. Here is some discussion for the Vedic religion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah and Kautilya for your responses.Sarah,I am not stuck on the word Animism.All I would like to see included in the article is the mention of the worship of rivers(primarily the Ganges but actually all rivers are revered), mountains(Kailash), trees(Tulsi, Banyan etc), stones(Shaligram),animals (e.g.the cow), objects such as weapons,tools(at navratri), account books(Diwali),cars in modern times.All of the above are performed by Hindus even today.Please suggest ideas,heading etc.for this section.I am sure we can find tons of references without falling into the OR trap.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonathansammy: The article already mentions rivers, etc, but yes we should mention linga/shaligram/tools etc as you suggest, with RS cites such as the one Kautilya3 suggests of course. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3: good source. It explains the two views while discussing Vedism/Hinduism and Animism. I will read the section to get the context, then may be add a few sentences. Feel free to save me the effort!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is a tendency to "deify" in Hinduism, much more so in the old Vedic religion. To give the simplest example, "mother is god" (mathru devo bhava). This does not mean that God is being seen through mother (though that is also possible). But it is seeing divinity, i.e., something worth worshipping, in motherhood itself. Rivers, cows, and the earth itself are also seen as mothers, and hence divinities. I am not sure if this amounts to animism or not, but I would note that it is not the object itself that is being deified, but some abstract principle behind it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Household shrines

I think it would be a good idea to add a household shrine image to the article near the ritual section.i could find the following pictures. Feel free to add your own choice.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• The challenge with images is NPOV, given the diversity in beliefs and regional practices. I added an image of a Hindu shrine with offerings, from Vaishnavism, since it is one of the largest traditions, and we already have images of other traditions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the images.However, the shrine you have is of a temporary set up for a specific Pooja and the other is of a temple. The two pictures above are of permanent household shrines with various Gods such as Krishna (as Balkrishna or baby Krishna crawling), Goddess Annapurna, Khandoba, Shivaling etc.I believe these pictures reflect Hinduism as it is practiced today with reverence for many Gods and saints.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate for you or anyone to become a spokesman and allege what is true for most of 1 billion Hindus, claim "Hinduism as it is practiced today with reverence for many Gods and saints"! Exceptional claims such as these need high quality, peer reviewed sources. FWIW, polytheism and polycentric from Julius Lipner and others is already in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism and Animism

The article does not mention any animistic practice or rituals in Hinduism. For example, there is nothing on revered rivers such as the Ganges, or revered mountains such as Kailash,worship of stones such as Shaligram, belief in the holiness earth, wind, fire, water and the sky.In contemporary times,people perform rituals on newly purchased equipment or automobiles.All of the above fall under the the term, animism and I think this should be included in the article for sake of the completion of the article.I will of course contribute to it with reliable sources but other editors can help too.I just found a book which expands on the above Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• No OR. The only mention of animism I could find: Gottlieb states on page 135 about animism in Thailand before Buddhism came along; on page 197, "it is often said that for animism the Church substituted the cult of saints"; on page 484 a mention of influences of indigenous animism in Bali on Hindu ideas adopted there; on 394 and 490, where it has nothing to do with Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism. You may be misunderstanding Animism; please see this. FWIW, the article already mentions tribal Animism subsumed within Hinduism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think it warrants some discussion even if only to discard it. Here is some discussion for the Vedic religion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah and Kautilya for your responses.Sarah,I am not stuck on the word Animism.All I would like to see included in the article is the mention of the worship of rivers(primarily the Ganges but actually all rivers are revered), mountains(Kailash), trees(Tulsi, Banyan etc), stones(Shaligram),animals (e.g.the cow), objects such as weapons,tools(at navratri), account books(Diwali),cars in modern times.All of the above are performed by Hindus even today.Please suggest ideas,heading etc.for this section.I am sure we can find tons of references without falling into the OR trap.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonathansammy: The article already mentions rivers, etc, but yes we should mention linga/shaligram/tools etc as you suggest, with RS cites such as the one Kautilya3 suggests of course. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3: good source. It explains the two views while discussing Vedism/Hinduism and Animism. I will read the section to get the context, then may be add a few sentences. Feel free to save me the effort!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is a tendency to "deify" in Hinduism, much more so in the old Vedic religion. To give the simplest example, "mother is god" (mathru devo bhava). This does not mean that God is being seen through mother (though that is also possible). But it is seeing divinity, i.e., something worth worshipping, in motherhood itself. Rivers, cows, and the earth itself are also seen as mothers, and hence divinities. I am not sure if this amounts to animism or not, but I would note that it is not the object itself that is being deified, but some abstract principle behind it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Household shrines

I think it would be a good idea to add a household shrine image to the article near the ritual section.i could find the following pictures. Feel free to add your own choice.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• The challenge with images is NPOV, given the diversity in beliefs and regional practices. I added an image of a Hindu shrine with offerings, from Vaishnavism, since it is one of the largest traditions, and we already have images of other traditions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the images.However, the shrine you have is of a temporary set up for a specific Pooja and the other is of a temple. The two pictures above are of permanent household shrines with various Gods such as Krishna (as Balkrishna or baby Krishna crawling), Goddess Annapurna, Khandoba, Shivaling etc.I believe these pictures reflect Hinduism as it is practiced today with reverence for many Gods and saints.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate for you or anyone to become a spokesman and allege what is true for most of 1 billion Hindus, claim "Hinduism as it is practiced today with reverence for many Gods and saints"! Exceptional claims such as these need high quality, peer reviewed sources. FWIW, polytheism and polycentric from Julius Lipner and others is already in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindu -Islam Syncretism

Should there be anything on this topic in the article? Islam dominated India for more than five hundred years. There was confrontation but also tolerance and acceptance of many Islamic saints or pirs by local Hindus.The book here describes many shrines where this happens[4]. I should be able to find more references that talk about this. Let us discuss.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please find those references and better quality mainstream, peer reviewed sources published by University presses. The foreword writer of your source is an author that publishes with Gyan Publishing House, which is WP:PUS for wikipedia. I don't think stuff such as and based on "though Islam is proclaimed to be monotheistic, faith on other supernational powers - angels and evil spirits is very common" etc from your source is WP:Due in this article. Hinduism and Islam did interact. It is debatable who influenced whom and how much: whether Sufi and Pir were the primary result of exclusive syncretic influence of Indian religions such as Hinduism on Islam, or vice versa? or both, or neither? Further is Sunni and Shia mainstream Islam, or is Sufi (see p. 65 of this; we don't want to misrepresent mainstream Islam or other religions through this article)? Is Sufi saint worship in Islam, Hindu polytheism (see pp. 205-208 of this)? How much was the influence? WP:RS that discuss these would be helpful. See the archived discussions of this talk page on Hinduism and Islam as well, because syncretism content would need NPOV discussion of as you mention "confrontation" as well. @Joshua Jonathan:

The book I cite is from Mittal publications.Does having any remote connection to Gyan disqualifies a book? Do we disqualify all books by Asghar Ali Engineer from being cited.I look forward to your comments.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

any thoughts, given your past interventions in this article on creating a compromise text on Hindu-Muslim interactions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, but also an invitation for Wiki-clashes... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pilgrimage to the family deity temples

Ms. welch, I do not know why you removed mention of Kuladevata, or Kul devi .This is an important part of Hindu culture.Here are some references to that tradition[5], [6],[7],[8],[9],[10] Let me know if you need additional references.

It need not be in the pilgrimage sub-section,however it should come under rituals or religious practice.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Because you did not cite a source with a specific page number(s). These new sources mention kuldevi, but they are not discussing "kuldevi pilgrimage". Some mention pilgrimage to goddess/Devi etc, which the article does mention. Family-tradition devi and devata is already in the article in another section. We can add the word Kuldevi there, where it is more appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The last sentence in the lead says"The majority of Hindus reside in India, Nepal, Mauritius and Bali in Indonesia".For the sake of better clarity, I propose we change the sentence to "Hindus form the majority of the population in India, Nepal, Mauritius and the island of Bali in Indonesia.Hindus form Significant minorities of the population in Bangladesh,Pakistan and in many countries in the Caribbean,the Middle-east,East Africa, North America and Western Europe."If necessary,mention can be made of specific countries such as USA, UK etc. in the geographic areas mentioned above.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - more informative and relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support more detailed. Capitals00 (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Relevant source missing to support claim. Its looking like promotion of Hinduism.--Anandmoorti (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Anand Moorti, the lead does not need sources.It is an abstract or summary.The sources should be in the body where demographics are discussed.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been corrected by Ms Sarah Welch.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

PIE relationship

I'll avoid being bold since I'm sure this is controversial but just wanted to offer a thought ...

For me, as a Westerner, one interesting aspect of Hinduism is its relationship to the Proto-Indo-European religion. Specifically, Hinduism can in part be seen as the last remaining vestige of the religion of our ancestors (with the other branches long having been replaced by Christianity, Islam, etc.). Granted, Hinduism has contributions from other ancient faith systems besides the PIE faith too. I just wonder if that aspect is not worth bringing out more, not only in the sub-sections but even in the lead. Not that I am suggesting this is the most important thing about Hinduism obviously but still an interesting aspect.

Just a thought ...

-- MC

That's certainly an interesting thought, and it's likely that Hinduism was originally influenced by some form of primitive religion (whether Indo-European, Indo-Asian, whatever...), however, as the "PIE faith" was "reconstructed" using significant analysis of other faiths' texts, in particular using Vedic mythology, the issue is that you'd have a sort of feedback-loop, so to speak. It's natural that PIE looks similar to Hinduism, since the concept of PIE was created from Hinduism (and a few other faiths' mythologies). In order to draw a link between the actual PIE religions and Hinduism, we would need actual evidence of what the PIE religions consisted of, rather than a modern attempt at understanding by way of comparative analysis.

I don't personally feel there's much of a place for PIE in this article, unless it had a quick mention for the fact that it has borrowed from Hinduism. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I also thonk that it is an interesting thought, but so is Wasechun's comment about why PIE resembles Hinduism. Besides, I wonder if it is correct; western thought has also preserved PIE elements. Christmas trees (neo-Platonic) mysticism are two elements that come to my mind. Note also that Zoroastrism is still alive in Iran; they celebarte the winter equinox there, much to the dislike of the Islamic clergy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

To the suggestion that the PIE religion looks similar to Hinduism because the PIE faith is derived from the Vedic texts, this is not really an accurate description. Reconstruction of the PIE religion is derived from the relationship of Hinduism to the Greek, Roman, German, Slavic, Persian, etc. religions. There are far too many similarities to be a coincidence. Granted, the PIE faith is reconstructed so one cannot be precisely certain about every last detail. But to suggest that the basic outline of the PIE religion is not well established is whitewashing centuries of well-established research by some major figures in anthropology and linguistics.

The discussion of Christmas trees and mysticism of course is part of the point I was making. But there is a major difference between a secular symbol like a Christmas tree (which is not actually part of Christianity at all; rather it is just a tradition used by some Christians) and the fact that Hindus still hold some of the same beliefs, even some of the same deities, as our PIE ancestors (with of course many modifications through the millennia). So saying that the PIE faith is equally reflected in modern Europe and India I think is grossly misleading. There are obviously PIE influences throughout Eurasia but India certainly reflects our ancestors' faith far more.

Again, not a primary point of the article but seems to me a significant piece of information that is at least worth mentioning.

-- MC

Just to make my point clearer, as it obviously got a bit lost in translation; I was not questioning the validity of the linguistics research, or even the analysis of the comparative mythology, but rather stating that since the method of comparative mythology relies on examining extant texts, it's natural that the results resemble the texts, seeing as that's the point of the method. It's important to note that this method of analysis is a method of studying similarities between different mythologies, but not a way of deriving a previous, dead faith. It may indicate possible features of an unknown ancient religion, but does not state these to be true.

Regarding the "centuries" of research, this idea is certainly old, but even in the field, only the past few decades can be considered valid. And the majority of this research contradicts the current "reconstruction" of the hypothesised ancient PIE faith.

Incidentally, there are a number of faiths that claim to have survived in tact and continuously since ancient times (the Orphic tradition is a nice example of this), and while a lot of it must be taken with a pinch of salt, it goes to show that Hinduism is not the only modern religion that could be seen as a direct descendant of a proposed ancient faith. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 12:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but one must distinguish between fringe claims and established fact. The Orphic religion, for example, is essentially an ancient dead religion that perhaps has been revived by some small groups. You can find many revivals of ancient religions practiced by fringe groups. But that is rather a different thing from religious traditions practiced continuously by established ethnic groups for millennia. It is rather like saying, because the modern Santa Muerte cult has been known to practice human sacrifice, that human sacrifice has been part of Mexican religion since the time of the Aztecs. There are perhaps certain grains of truth there but mostly it is a false statement. Even if the modern practice is somehow inspired by the ancient practices, arguing that the two are part of a continuous tradition is a gross distortion. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The difference between claims and established fact is exactly my point. We know certain things about the roots of religion to be fact; the academics studying comparative linguistics and mythologies derive these word and idea roots to study the connections between what we know as fact, without stating that these proto-words and proto-ideas are facts themselves, or even connected to the same belief system; while PIE reconstructionists claim these are indeed facts, and derive a hypothesized single early religion from it.

As for these small groups, my point was that the Orphic Tradition in particular claim to have an unbroken descent where each initiate has learned from a previous initiate since ancient times. Personally, I don't believe that, but the point is that this would be an example of a ancient belief surviving through to this day, if there was proof that it was true. Using patterns to infer something is always risky as the further you go back in time, the more inaccurate your prediction becomes - hence why comparative linguistics produces more likely roots, as the evolution of language is well understood. PIE scholars are aware of these limitations, the reconstructionists seem to ignore them - or even the fact that many names which are in commmon use today have only been assigned to Gods over the past century or two (Danu is a particularly hilarious example). Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

Madisonbayles2005 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You spelled things wrong

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kara in Hinduism

is minor part of gross religion Shrikanthv (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Shrikanthv: It is a new, entirely unsourced article. Before merger request, ask for sources there. It probably deserves an AfD treatment if RS are not forthcoming. Merge templates are inappropriate here. Just wastes time of many editors who watch this article, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur Shrikanthv (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose There is nothing worth merging in the source that isn't already in the much better target article Kara (Sikhism). Just redirect it there. Mduvekot (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114070555/http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/HISTORYINDIA-BurtonStein.pdf to http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/HISTORYINDIA-BurtonStein.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This page shouldn't mention Hindu Religion as an Indian religion. This is not a country specific religion. There may be more people who follow Hindu religion. But there is Nepal which is the Hindu religion dominated country.

The author should mention in a way that Hindu religion was originated from Indus like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3801:1A00:206D:302A:C2EB:CE7F (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Pilgrimage -Kumbhamela

For sake of completion,the place where a Kumbhamela is held should also mention the river associated with it.Taking a dip in the river at that place is central to the Kumbhamela experience.Let me know your thoughts on the topic.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I support adding it with a WP:RS. Perhaps in a refn note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Household shrine

Most Hindu families have a household shrine ..Depending on the economic status of the family, the shrine could be located within a separate room but more commonly in the kitchen Household shrine and the daily worship of the images and pictures in that shrine is the central aspect of popular Hinduismm.There are tons of reliable sources on the subject.I believe we should have either a separate section or at least add more material on the topic. ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Didn't you propose and discuss this previously? such as here. The article already mentions this. You may want to reread the context in those two sources. We can't do OR/synthesis beyond what the source is stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember that but that was mainly about adding an image of a household shrine rather than adding content in form of text.As I said before,in most Hindu households, worship of their Gods and saints happens in front of the household shrine rather than at a temple.The references I cite are just two of the hundreds of books and peer reviewed journals on the subject.Let me know your thoughts on the topic and then we can go from there.thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous books and articles in peer reviewed journals on many aspects of Hinduism, which we condense in this article in a few sentences. In the same way, this article mentions household shrines both in individual and festival context. If there something that we haven't stated about household shrines which numerous secondary and tertiary sources are stating, that would be welcome. Note that both of the above are WP:Primary accounts. Stephen Huyler visits a person, summarizes his observations in a memoir-style in that chapter. Thomas Moore, which you list as co-author, mentions in his introductory review that the memoir book has a "coffee table" anecdotal quality. Similarly, Tracy Pintchman is summarizing a regional / Tamil home context. We need to be careful in avoiding OR:Synthesis. As for your sweeping claims about whatever you made previously or make now, please avoid them. Not only is it difficult to believe you have visited 100+ million homes, or even 1% of them, we can't summarize personal wisdom / prejudice / opinions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have looked through the article, and it appears that the only mention of home shrines are:

Some devout Hindus perform daily rituals such as worshiping at dawn after bathing (usually at a family shrine, and typically includes lighting a lamp and offering foodstuffs before the images of deities) [...]

and

Bhakti is practiced in a number of ways, ranging from reciting mantras, japas (incantations), to individual private prayers within one's home shrine, or in a temple or near a river bank, sometimes in the presence of an idol or image of a deity.

Given that this is one of the primary means of worship (Bradshaw, 2013, Cole & Kanit, 2010, BBC, Hindusim Today), I don't think it could be considered undue weight to give it a little bit more attention in this 12,800-word article. The use of home shrines in worship isn't given much mention in the Worship in Hinduism and Puja (Hinduism) pages, either.

Also, the photo of a "home shrine" is actually a setup for a festival (like this one, eg. Henn, 2014, Murdoch, 1991, Häberlein, 2007). Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wasechun tashunka: Some of these such as Hinduism Today are weak sources, with unclear peer review process. If it is "primary means", every scholarly encyclopedia would include it. Perhaps you would find a few scholarly encyclopedia and then identify what is it that they state that this wikipedia article doesn't. You probably missed that this article has long included a home shrine for festive occasions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ms Sarah Welch, there are two aspects I'd like to discuss. To begin with, in terms of the photos presented, the "rituals" section states Most Hindus observe religious rituals at home, therefore, I believe there should be a photo of a permanent home shrine to illustrate this. I'm not sure what you mean by a home shrine for festive occasions, as there is a distinction between a permanent home shrine and temporary festival shrine, which need not be in the home. I don't much like Hinduism Today, but my intention was to demonstrate that this point was understood in a range of sources. However, could you explain why the other sources I pointed to would be considered unreliable, in your view?

With regards to the text, the article mentions that people may worship at a home shrine, but it does not provide any description of what a Hindu home shrine may consist of. I believe that Jonathansammy's proposal above was, for the most part, an improvement on what's currently there. This same Huyler title is already accepted as a citation in the article so I'm not sure why you would dismiss this as a primary source, especially since it does not count as a primary source as the authors are describing a foreign culture in a detached manner. I believe Pintchman is a decent source, if somewhat region-specific, but this could be solved with further citing - not a reason to dismiss an addition entirely. As for encyclopaediae referencing a home shrine, would Lochtefeld, 2002, Cush, et al., 2012, or Klostermaier, 2014 be suitable? All three authors are already cited in the article. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We can use primary sources when due and if we attribute/quote it carefully without interpretation. We can't generalize from a particular case or a passing remark because that is OR:Synthesis. Thank you for identifying the three tertiary sources. Lets take the first one. Lochtefeld, page 51. I see articles on Arati, Archana etc. Now, what is it that its states about 'home shrine' that you want included? Or did you intend to link another page? if so, please recheck and identify the page numbers you have in mind. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

household shrine with Deities and Holy persons worshipped by the a family

household shrine with Deities and Holy persons worshipped by the a family

My argument was actually that those two citations were not primary sources.

Regarding the three encyclopaedic sources, some relevant quotes include:

The deity may be present in many forms, such as a picture, statue, symbol [...] Arati is arguably the single most common act of Hindu worship, performed daily in Hindu homes and temples throughout the world

— Lochtefeld, 2002 (The section on the Grhya Sutras, which would deal specifically with home worship, is sadly excluded from the online preview)

Domestic altars are the focus of daily worship for the majority of Hindus. In each Hindu household there is a space set aside for the family shrine. In smaller houses, a corner of the kitchen [...] is made into a shrine containing small images of one or more gods and goddesses. [...] If space is at a premium the home shrine may simply consist of a picture of the family's chosen deity. In larger, richer houses there may be a separate shrine room containing an elaborate altar [...] Worship in the home is an important part of most people's daily religious life. While many people do not visit the temple on a daily basis, some only on special occasions, they would almost certainly offer a brief prayer at their domestic altar

— Cush, et al., 2012 (section author: Lynn Foulston)

The Hindu home [...] plays a central role in Hinduism. [...] from the earliest times essential rituals could only be performed in a family setting. The Veda prescribes a number of ceremonies that a brahmin has to perform daily in his home. [...] Every Hindu home has either a room or part of a room reserved for worship, and members of the family often spend a considerable amount of time doing Puja at home.

— Klostermaier, 2014

Of course, there are also plenty of reliable, non-encyclopaedic sources... Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 21:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I had previously proposed one these images of permanent Hindu home temple /household shrine /family altar to go in the article.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

They are primary sources. A report of observations from a home, or a village, or a test tube, or a sample study is WP:Primary. Wasechun tashunka, are you looking at snippet version or online versions without page numbers or context? I have these sources. The Grhya Sutras article in Lochtefeld is on page 262, I don't see home shrine or altar mentioned. I am puzzled by your claim. It is as expected about rites-of-passage etc. I have revised the Bhakti section based on the above comments. Jonathansammy: We already have had the home shrine image, with offerings. Images are meant to help understand the content, not be albums. One suffices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ms sarah welch, I propose we should add one of the above images because the one we have in the article with Krishna as the central figure is a temporary shrine for a particular festival and not a permanent household shrine.if you find another image on commons of a permanent shrine then feel free to add that.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

One suffices. Festival arrangements and shrines are more common. I don't see support in any sources identified so far for "permanent household shrine" classification. For those reasons, I oppose your proposal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well,one finds family altar,household shrine,and home shrine mentioned in so many sources that i am surprised that you oppose it.Have a look at these books ,,thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Jonathansammy: The article has already summarized household shrines in the Bhakti section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ms Welch, we are now talking a little bit at cross purposes here.I am just asking for the picture of shrine with Krishna for Vishu festival to be replaced with a regular home shrine.even in this image you can see the "permanent shrine" at the back of the Krishna murti.A better picture of that will serve the purpose too.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The picture that has been in this article for quite a while is better. For why, please see above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to argue on this anymore but it does leave a gap in the article.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific Consistency

Hello, I want to add the following content under a new sub-topic under "People and Society," after the subtopic "education." Could anyone please review it?

If one reads the Vedanta, it shouldn't come one’s surprise that "the undeniable similarity between the Vedanta and Science, lies in the spirit of inquiry" (Ramanuja, 84). Anindita Niyogi Balslev, an Indian philosopher notices that the "creation hymn" of the Vedas begins with the question "Kutah ayam visrsti?" Meaning, "Where from this creation?"(Balslev, 881). The Brahmasutra follows suit, attributing to the opening line "Atato Brahm jignasa" or inquiry into the ultimate reality (Ramanuja, 85). Jonathan B. Endellman explains that even the Shrimad Bhagvatam, that was composed sometime between the 9th and the 11th century C.E, "is designed in a manner that suggests relationship between science and religion," indicating to the fact that it puts a lot of emphasis on the study of nature to be a necessary precondition to understand the creator. The greatest minds of the time had indulged into answering questions related to all aspects of life, be it the human body or any other natural phenomena. The Vedanta are probably the first writings examining the complexities of the neural system. The Upanishadas (derived from the Vedas), mentioned "nasato vidhyate bhavo," meaning from non-being, being cannot arise. Isn’t this just another way of stating Mathias Schielden and Theodore Shwann's Cell Theory? Only that the Upanishadas were written tens and thousands of years before Schielden and Shwann were even born. Moreover, the Shrimad Bhagvatam and the Garbhopnishada, delve into the matter of formation of an individual. "To obtain a [suitable] body, the individual, dwelling in a particle of male semen, is made to enter the womb of a woman by means of its karma and divine providence (Shrimad Bhagvatam, Daivanetren. a: 3, 31, 1)," construes the process of 'daivanetren', meaning how the 'atman' or 'caitanyam', leave the sperm of the male and enters female's womb to gain physical form, in other words the process of fertilization. It might also be to one’s surprise that the mention of evolution and interrelation of species dwelling on the planet, what we now call “Darwinism” was an idea already pondered upon by Vyasa in the Shrimad Bhagvatam, in the form of Vishnu’s multiple incarnations and their evolution form the Kurma or the turtle to Buddha, a human who guided mankind to the path of righteousness and dharma. Not only this, almost all the mentioned Hindu scriptures acknowledge the concept of "many worlds" or "lok" for example " swarg lok," "paatal lok," Vaikunth, "Brahm lok," and the like, many of which are even said to inhabited, a concept that is of no wonder now, with the advancements in the scientific technology. This concept was never even touched upon by any of the contemporary religions, majorly because it “is antithetical to religious quest, or as that which renders this world to be characterized as pointless (Balslev, 882).

However, it is true that some aspects of the Vedanta and the Shrimad Bhagvatam, have certain lurid descriptions of things beyond gross matter that defy the principle of nihil ultra, but at this point, it is important to keep in mind the very nature of these texts. These texts, like any other religious texts, seek to enable mankind to see beyond the phenomenal world. Varadraja V. Raman notes that as far as one is dealing with the phenomenal world, the concept of “nihil ultra,” might seem to be true, but when human consciousness is taken into account, there are “subtle and intangible entities like thought and value, meaning and aesthetic experiences that transcend logico-mathematical explanations” (Raman, 86). This, even if we do think about logical explanations, are not completely explainable, if we ignore the realm of spirit. Vedantic revelations unmask, along with the physical complexities, the spiritual potential of the human brain and lead one to the feeling of “advaita” or oneness with the Almighty. This can be achieved by losing one’s own identity, by rising above the ‘gyanendriyas,’ namely kaam (lust), krodh (rage), mad (ego), lobh (greed) and moh (attachment). This, however, cannot be achieved without having a clear knowledge of nature and natural phenomena, and hence, the Vedas, and all the mentioned texts (that are derived from the Vedas), emphasize on the importance of “tattva gyaan” or “knowledge of the phenomenal world” or “knowledge of the phenomenal world,” through "hearing, contemplation and intellection," which according to the Vedanta is "Apara Vidhya" or "Lower Knowledge" with "Higher Knowledge" (Para Vidhya), being identifying the "Parabrahm" (Almighty), within oneself (Balslev, 882). And besides, with the advent of Quantum Physics, one has known that the “Fundamental” Laws of Physics are not applicable probability clouds of electrons, black holes and singularities.

Skeptics and non-believers would also question the credibility of the Hindu scriptures as being padlocked to criticism and assessment in the early, orthodox Hindu society, but the presence of the Samkhya school of philosophy, rules out this argument. The Samkhya philosophy, is a more skeptical philosophy that constantly argues with the Vedic philosophy to establish a concept of “dwait” or distinction between the self and the Almighty, by the metaphor of “purusha” and “prakriti.” which although, might be true when it comes to macroscopic level, has no significance at the quantum level, where distinctions between the observer and the observed become negligible. It is to be noted here, that the Samkhya school is not an atheistic school.

Vkhat1 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't cited any source Anmolbhat (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and this is a part of my assignment. Could you Please guide me as to how I can cite a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkhat1 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vkhat1: See this[11] on how to cite sources and for information on reliable sources see WP:RS I hope it helps Anmolbhat (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317151629/http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egyptmyth/g/henotheism.htm to http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egyptmyth/g/henotheism.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/file/Vivekananda.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

Please change the following:

The Sanskrit word dharma has a much deeper meaning than religion and is not its equivalent.

to

The Sanskrit word dharma has a much broader meaning than religion and is not its equivalent.

While it's definitely true that dharma and religion are by no means equivalent, I feel this wording does not do it justice. To call dharma 'deeper' than religion is a highly subjective claim. 'Deeper' seems to imply that it denotes a more significantly spiritual experience. I don't think that's the kind of subjective value judgement Wikipedia needs. 'Broader' is a less loaded and better fitting in the context of the article. Fulaxi (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Hello and good what every time of day it is to you. My name Is Ganesha'sPupil. I am in deep fond of Hinduism, for that is the religion that I followed and trough up by my parents since i was a child. I follow the ways of all 4 of the Vedas consisting of Rik, Samar, Raju, Atharava Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. I really want to educate the other culture of my religo. What I think that this article is missing is the reason behind Hinduism and why it is true and the true stories and of the Solar system such as , Sani, Guru,Suriya,Ragu,Khetu,etc. I hope to be very useful and I sincerer hop my request can be accepted. I hope to be a valid member to the Wikipedia team. Thank you for your time. Ganesha'sPupil (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Opening line

It is written in opening line that "Hinduism has been called the oldest Religion" I want to replace phrase "has been called" with "is". If someone disagree please tell me reason. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not by everyone. The 'has been called' implies some uncertainty, or that this is a view of some/many but is not universal. That phrasing is more NPOV than using "is". Read the archive of this talk page, particularly about whether Hinduism is a modern construct/invention just like other religions. I suggest you leave it alone. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Ms Sarah Welch is saying.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Me too. The religion of the Aboriginals in Ausralia is arguably thousands of years older. Actually, I think that that line, and the accompanyingnote, should be removed, since it is a leftover of pov-pushing. But as it is now, it is acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We should remove it. We could get complaints from the Animists out there! --regentspark (comment) 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I just don't understand how the current phrasing is relevant, seeing as it's incorrect and isn't even coherent with other pages on this website. According to Wikipedia's History of Hinduism, it appeared in 1900 BCE. By then, the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt had come and gone, and it established divine kingship and extensive mythology. The Great Pyramid of Giza (completed 2560 BCE) is quite a bit older than the earliest Vedic text (c. 1700–1100 BCE). Ancient Mesopotamia (and its equally well developed beliefs) had also been around for over 1000 years. And that's just counting complex, organized religions practiced by "refined" civilizations. The Lion-man, carved out of a mammoth tusk, is an indication of a religion dating back 35 to 40 thousand years ago. The sentence should be changed to "oldest still practiced religion", or something to that effect. In fact, that's what the Religion page's section on Indian religions does, and also what 2 of the 5 authors quoted in the note specify. Kloick (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One could argue that it is the oldest religion still in practice in the world even if the sources in the footnotes, from academia, insist on it being the "oldest religion".
As far as aboriginal beliefs and animistic traditions are concerned, one should distinguish cultural traditions passed on over centuries since an impossible to determine date and a religion like Hinduism with its set of texts, practices and philosophical works that have carved a whole civilisation over millennia.
Saying that the beliefs of the aboriginals of Australia predate Hinduism is unfair as these beliefs can't be dated because of a lack of textual proofs while Hindu beliefs having been put down on paper by the 2nd millenium BC can be dated at this date even if the beliefs predate the writings. Manish2542 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Academics have also said that "Hinduism," the conception of the variety of those Indian religions constituting one religion, arose only in the 19th century. And the texts you're referring to come from the Vedic religion, have been reinterpreted by later Indian traditions, and even more or less rejected by some Indian traditions, like certain strands of Shaivism. And some argue that Hinduism contains elements of the IVC-religion(s), which predate the Vedic texts ("cultural traditions passed on over centuries"). So, many arguments; the statement "has been called" does justice to the sources pro-oldest, sources which contradict this, and to a widespread and important conception by Hindus, who perceive their religion as being very ancient. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The oldest Vedic writings date to around 800BCE a far cry from the 2nd millennium BCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:F40F:200:259C:3DC9:E57D:A556 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead change

Link to the edit

@Kautilya3: The Upanishads are a layer of the Vedas, which are mentioned. If you really want to mention the Upanishads, then you should mention all the other layers of the Vedas.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. But, whatever it is, you need to be careful when you change the longstanding lead and be completely transparent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't agree the Upanishads are a layer of the Vedas?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No. And, you are edit warring again. You never change. I am outa here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and VictoriaGrayson: there is more than just Upanishad in these recent edits. "Tantra introduced icons, puja and temple building into Hinduism", is too subjective to be included on lead, I support removal. — MapSGV (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, VG is misrepresenting and POV pushing, as usual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Padoux says "The Hindu worship, the pūjā, for instance, is Tantric in its conception and ritual process, the principles of Hindu temple building and iconography are Tantric, and so on.".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem enough to draw such conclusion. MapSGV (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you want me to paraphrase closer to Padoux?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you paraphrased it is still subjective to keep on lead. MapSGV (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Describe this edit summary. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about @Ms Sarah Welch: who was indef blocked.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am watching this article much before that editor got active here and I never saw this sentence ever before. MapSGV inserted nothing only removed and you called his edit "originally by indef blocked editor". Do you have any other explanation? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV reverted to the lead created by MSW, who is an indef blocked editor.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The lead is mostly stale and similar to the versions before Ms Sarah Welch' s first edit to the article. Sarah Welch may have attempted to WP:OWN this article but it is still a work of different editors. I also think that lead is better without this sentence per WP:UNDUE. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires sources which dispute Padoux, which noone has yet provided.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I will, but issue is with WP:LEAD. How important this sentence is to include in lead? D4iNa4 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Its important. Even a temple pujari will tell you his pujas are from the agama.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand Vic's point, but it may be helpfull to start with adding this info to the main body of the article, and then to the lead. It may also good to take a look at the source. Vic added the following:

Tantra introduced icons, puja and temple building into Hinduism.

References

Padoux p.2 does not explicitly say that puja, icons and temples originated with Tantra; it says that Tantra "permeated the whole Hindu world". And this is what Puja (Hinduism) says about the origins of puja:

According to scholars,[15] one of the earliest mentions of pūjā is in the Grihya Sutras, which provide rules for domestic rites. These Sutras, dated to be about 500 BC, use the term puja to describe the hospitality to honor priests who were invited to one’s home to lead rituals for departed ancestors. As with vedic times, the general concept of puja remained the same, but expanded to welcoming the deity along with the deity's spiritual essence as one's honored guest.[15] The Puranic corpus of literature, dating from about 6th century CE, contain extensive outline on how to perform deity puja (deva pūjā). Deity puja thus melds Vedic rites with devotion to deity in its ritual form. As with many others aspects of Hinduism, both Vedic puja and devotional deity puja continued, the choice left to the Hindu.

Not exactly the same, is it? Furthermore, Lopez, Asian Religions in Practice: An Introduction, p.32, also the origins of puja further back in time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting Wikipedia? Thats meaningless. Quoting an actual book would be useful.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The information is too subjective and your source was clearly not enough for drawing such a large conclusion. Whatever above user said is not a hoax, we will need to discuss this in lengths but still it's too much for lead. — MapSGV (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this removal, "introduced" could be replaced by "influenced" or "permeated." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexis sanderson and the diversity of Hinduism

According to Capitals00, tis article, TOLERANCE, EXCLUSIVITY, INCLUSIVITY, AND PERSECUTION In Indian Religion During The Early Mediaeval Period, by Alexis sanderson in the online magazine Sutra Journal is an unreliable source. I don't know about this journal, but Alexis sanderson is a respected author, and a such, reliable, also in an online journal.

Apart from that, it's relevant that the notion of Hindu unity is even older than the 12th century. Certainly not a fact to remove from thus article! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hinduism is founded in the Upanishads (often referred to as the "Veda" by the indigenous writers). No Hindu sect went so far away from the Upanishads as to disown them. The sects that disowned them were Buddhism and Jainism. They developed their own texts with equivalent status. So the 12th century "unification" of Hinduism was in reality a reunification, rediscovering the common ground of all the Hindu sects. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Also the information is published on an online blog,[12] not a peer reviewed source or a third party source. Being respected is not enough since a lot of authors share their different views on different blogs and forums, because they are rid of scrutiny of publisher, (WP:UGC#Exceptions)) that's why we can't use this online blog for these unusual claims. Use reliable sources for the information and otherwise it is still WP:UNDUE because the author is himself talking about "use of the word" that is already covered on Hinduism#Etymology. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You all should have the competence to understand this article was originally published in In Honoris Causa: Essays in Honour of Aveek Sarkar, edited with a foreword by John Makinson (Allen Lane, 2015), pp. 155–224. I don't know why anyone is citing sutrajournal.com.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, I didn't know the full article was on academia.edu. Javierfv1212 16:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Victoria Grayson: I have re-inserted the info, with the correct source. Thanks, Vic!

@Kautilya3: see Lingayatism," and the other sources in the article on the development of the notion of a collective identity in Indian religions; see also the history-section.

@D4iNa4:

• regarding WP:RS:

• "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."
• "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." - no exceptional claim here, and anyway, an established scholar published by an established publisher.

• regarding WP:UNDUE: you seem to miss the point here. Sanderson is not discussing the etymology of the word "Hindu," but the development of the notion of an unified identity underlying the diversity of Hinduism. This is relevant, because other authors have argued that such a notion developed only as late as the 19th century; Sanderson, Lorenzen and Nicholson argue that such an unity developed much earlier.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What did you correct? I still see sutrajournal.com here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I added the correct reference, with an url to the online journal. For academia.org, one needs a password. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid the text that has been added is still excessively focused on texts. The leaders of the sects generally take extremist or fundamentalist positions. They want their sects to become independent religions. But one can't take what the texts say as representing reality. The followers listen to them, but politely ignore what they say and go back to their old ways. This happens all the time. So, just enumerating what the texts say serves no purpose whatsoever. This amounts to pseudo-history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a good methodological concern, which is also a matter of debate within scholarly studies. Some scholars have, therefore, as far as I know, swifted from textual studies to field studies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hinduism is a "dharma"?

Parashar30 changed the lead sentence from Indian religion to Indian Dharma, without any citation, discussion or edit summary. I am surprised that this has been accepted! I have reverted it now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Providing a quote:

It is perhaps sufficient to quote the words of Bankimchandra Chatterji, the well-known author and patriot who, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, declared that

• [T]he word dharma has been used with different meanings. Several of the meanings have no use for us. The meaning in which you now used the word dharma, that is simply a modern translation of the English word Religion. It is no indigenous thing. (in Brekke 1999: 207; italics in original)

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sharp; hadn't noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

[Transcluded from Talk:Hindu] @Ms Sarah Welch and Joshua Jonathan: recently I ended up researching for the Hindustan article and consulted new HISTRS that weren't known to me earlier. It appears that "Hindu" as an ethonym is just as old as "Hidustan" (like "India") was a geonym. The geonyms arose from the ethonym, not the other way around. Or, put more plainly "Hindustan", "Hind" were the lands inhabited by "Hindus", not the other way around. Originally, the Persians faithfully called "Hindu" whatever the Indians called "Sindhu". We know two instances, Saptha Sindhava and the Sindhu country. (The later day Sanskrit meaning of "Sindhu" as a large body of water was probably unknown to the Persians. The original meaning of "Sindhu" had nothing to do with water. The Persians probably had their own name for the Sindhu river. We see it being called Darya or Mihran in the 7th century.) So the idea that "Hindustan" meant the land beyond the Indus is not evidenced.

From the Sindhu country, the term got extended to the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia because these lands were inhabited by "Hindus". We don't know when this ethnic meaning arose, but clearly between 262 CE (when Hindustan meant Sindh) and 700 CE (when we see "Hindu" being cultrual Indian). Here is a source that verbalises this well:

For the Muslims, the notion of 'Hind' and 'Hindustan' initially signified an entity, not in a geographical or political meaning, but in the religious sense of a land where idolatrous Hindus lived (Wink 1999:319-20).

I think we need to revise this article as well as Hinduism in the light of this information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Amended. Kautilya3 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Indeed! Please go ahead and update, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So we have proven that the term Hindu which is clearly derived from the term Sindhu is of Indo-Aryan non-Persian origin. The Persians did call India Hindu or Hindustan, but the origin of the term is Indo-Aryan so why "Old Persian cognate" in the origin root when the later paragraphs clearly state what Persians used it as geographical term but origin is still the Indo-Aryan term Sindhu.JayB91 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. But "cognate" is a stronger relationship than being "derived". There was a "sound change" from "s" to "h" that occurred in Iranian but not Indo-Aryan languages. Therefore the Iranians pronounced "sindhu" as "hindu" but otherwise it is the same word. (As far as I can tell, there was no word called "hindu" in Iranian at the time of Darius I. They were just using the Indian name, but pronouncing it in their own way. Does that make it clear? It is no different from "Vanga" in Sanskrit being pronounced as "Bongo" in Bengali.) "Cognate" is how this relationship is described. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We can use the term cognate in the second para where Persian geography is explained; But the first line? It should be the origin (root) of the term while explaining Etymology. "The word Hindū is derived from Indo-Aryan/Sanskrit root Sindhu." is good enough to explain the origin of word. Whether it is cognate of Persian term can be described later. JayB91 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Practices

Especially regarding the Bhakti’s worship it should be mentioned that it contradicts with the faith’s religious scripts as idol worship and imaging of God are prohibited per Vedas. Source: Yajurveda 32:3; Yajurveda 40:8; Yajurveda 40:9. These changes may also apply to any other mentioning of idol worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E9:D3D0:1780:8CA3:537F:A0E1:91F2 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mokṣa and Moksha

Why are there two similar sections, on Mokṣa and Moksha in this article? Mooshika1 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

These two edits by Smatrah added a criticism-section. It was copied as a whole from Criticism of Hinduism, including maintenance tags, a reflist, See also-section, and a reference-section; very sloppy editing, raising questions about the motives of this editor. 'Criticism of religion' is a wild-card for bashing religions; the relevance of such articles is dubious, which also applies to such sections. The "criticism" ityself consists of:

• A few bits of info on the caste-system, without any criticism. The caste-system is a sensitive topic; to do justice to it in just a few lines is complicated, let alone to give criticisms. The fact that the same user removed info from the Criticism of Hinduism article which said that "it is also found among Indian Christians, Indian Muslims, Sikhs and others" is not a good sign, in this respect.
• Criticism of idol-worship, stating "Western criticism of Hinduism as superstitious idolatry are based on the religious texts of Abrahamic religions which denounce and condemn the practice of creating Idols and Worshiping them." No source for this statement is given; instead, the Bible is quoted. WP:OR pur sang, and clear pov-pushing.

All in all, I doubt the intentions of this editor; the goal does not seem to be to give relevant info, but to do some Hindu-bashing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NB: I have to admit that Christianity#Criticism and apologetics and Islam#Criticism also contain criticism-sections; yet, they are of a general nature. There's a difference between presenting general, long-standing criticisms of a religion, and actively criticising a religion via Wikipedia... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear!

• If you think that I am wrong you should improve it rather than section blanking. Section blanking is termed as vandalism.
• First you said that I am cherry picking. Now you are alleging against my intentions. Firstly clear your argument otherwise it seems that you are doing in bad faith.
• 2ndly, if you think that adding criticism section is dubious then kindly help by removing these sections at Christianity and Islam also. I have already explained it on your talk page but you did not respond.
• Sensitive issues? I don’t think that a criticism section should contain comparison with other religions. If not should we write that idol worship is supported or rejected in Hinduism on the article of criticism of Christianity.

Please think after being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 12:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• 1 & 2: It's up to you to do some serious editing, if you think that the caste-system should be mentioned. Just mentioning it is not enough. The source on idol-worship is from 1832... And be carefull with allegations of WP:VANDALISM and WP:BADFAITH.
• 3: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for removing similar sections at other pages.
• 4: I can't make sense of what you're writing here. Your additions didn't contain comparisons with other religions.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

vegetarianism and ahimsa

Christianity is the only religion that teaches self suffering and forgiveness because jews were not in power and subservient to roman. Psychological way to deal with powerlessness. Vedas teach taking up arms and war against evil. Gandhi was inspired by christianity (ahimsa). Hinduism does not strife to go global as christianity as there was an element of evil in jesus that made him go global its gods way of exposing evil.(snake). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.78.191 (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Hinduism is the world's oldest and third largest non Abrahamic religion originated from Indian subcontinent. How can hidusism is an indian religion, even nepal is a hindu state, Suriname, Bali. Hinduism is followed around the world. 200 million followers are outside of India. Please correct it. It is a biased and manipulated sentence and definition of Hinduism. 103.199.147.254 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@103.199.147.254: Indian religion means that the Hindu-traditions originated in India c.q. South Asia; it does not mean that Hinduism is cofined to India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Lipner

@Ms Sarah Welch: as far as I can see, Lipner does not state that

Yet regardless of whether they have or have not read the Vedas, the basic beliefs and the cultural way-of-life of the Hindus, their "whole life's orientation", can be broadly traced to the Vedas, states Lipner.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

JJ: Please see the 2nd para on page 16, with the context in the para before? The 'their whole life's orientation" ... "the Vedas" part is significant, and directly supported. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What he states is:

A great many Hindus have been, and are, quite unfamilair with these sacfred utterances; they have never had a copy of the Veda at home or read from it (as Christians and Muslims might do from the Bible or Koran, respectively). This does not mean that their whole's life orientation cannot be traced to the Veda or that it does not in some way derive from it. But it does put the Veda in perspective.

Denying that the basic beliefs cannot be traced to the Vedas, etc. (a double negative, isn't it?), is not the same as positively stating that the basic beliefs are derived from the Vedas. Not much of reincarnation in them, for example... He is responding to the 'claim' inherent in the term "Vaidika Dharma," that Hinduism is equal to the Vedic dharma; in effect, he says it is not. So, to state then that their "whole life's orientation", can be broadly traced to the Vedas is effectively acknowledging this claim, which is not Lipner's intention. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Given the context Lipner sets up, I read Lipner a bit differently. You do have a point. I am okay with quoting Lipner exact, which is what I have now done. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I think this is an acceptable treatment of a contentious point. However, I feel that a lot of space has been spent on just a term, to appease the traditionalists perhaps, but without adding any substance. We need to state something about what aspects of the Veda are adhered to in Hinduism. (I personally treat Upanishads as separate from the Vedas, and if I remove the Upanishads, there isn't much left that is still relevant in the Vedas.) In any case, some substance is needed in this section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch:

Lipner's views are intentionally elongated more than necessary.

The basic beliefs of Hinduism like reincarnation are indeed mentioned in Vedas. And let me tell you Vedas were not meant to be kept as a copy in homes. Vedic texts including Upanishads evidently suggests that Vedic way of life was much more than the Vedas for they placed later Vedic texts next to the vedas.

The author believes that Sanatana is opposed to dynamic nature. However Bhagavata Purana calls Dharma eternal and also dynamic. This shows the author has possibly misunderstood the term.

As for the Vaidika term, the author disagrees with equivalence of Hindu way of life and the literal meaning of Vaidika - a way of life which is solely based on the veda. (However the author doesn't explain the authority of later Vedic texts). The author claims that this doesn't mean a Hindu can not be identified in a cultural sense. Second point, the author claims many Hindus question the authority of Vedas (Which I believe is a zealous claim; who are these Hindus if not Nastika) or at least bypass the parts of Veda. However this doesn't mean that their life's orientation cannot be traced to Veda. However this put Vedas in perspective ie Vedas are subjected to various ways in which they are thought about.Onkuchia (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Reincarnation is mentioned in the Vedas? I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you need to drop the stick and move on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

They probably refer to the Upanishads. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan: Reincarnation is mentioned in the Mandala X of Rig Veda. I'm afraid you've not read Veda. Onkuchia (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

JJ: Allow me to set aside Onkuchia's unusual comments and focus on the article (see my comment to @Onkuchia in the above section). I focus instead on the recent additions. We need to be careful with Sanderson. The two part paper is discussing some 500-1000CE Vaidikas views on the tantric Shaiva/Vaishnava/Shakta traditions (Kalamukhas, Pāñcarātrika, etc) particularly in the context of Kashmiri scholarship. In part 2, he is summarizing and quoting from Jayanta’s play Āgamaḍambara, which is a 9th/10th century gentle satire written in Kashmir. We can't rely on fiction or satire or plays or drama or such literature by Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc authors as the view of the respective religion. Sanderson's commentary is worth mentioning, but after distilling it and with due balance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Vaidika dharma

Copied from User talk:Kautilya3#Help: Hinduism article

Hello Kautilya,

Could you please look into this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=851304870&oldid=851301762&diffmode=source

The edit was reverted for mysterious claims. The editor claims its redundant and its already covered in the lead, but I don't think it is covered in the article and yet the edit was reverted.

Need your assistance. Onkuchia (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead includes "following the Vedic period", which covers everything that you were adding as necessary per WP:LEAD. Capitals00 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What's more, the article also says:

Indologist Alexis Sanderson also argues that, before the arrival of Islam in India, there was no Indian term which corresponds to "Hinduism". According to Indologist Alexis Sanderson, "Sanskrit sources differentiated Vaidika, Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śākta, Saura, Buddhist, and Jaina traditions, but they had no name that denotes the first five of these as a collective entity over and against Buddhism and Jainism."[99]

It's quite obvious that Hinduism is far more than just the 'Vedic dharma'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The contested addition:

The earliest self-designation of Hinduism was Vaidika dharma, the Vedic dharma, before the words 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' were accepted.

References

Is it only Klostermaier who says so? I've found only a fw sources on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of dharma to mean "a religion" is a very very modern thing. See my post at Talk:Hinduism/Archive 31#Hinduism is a "dharma"?. Indians did not have a concept of "a religion" of any kind. Even Muslims, when they came, were referred to as Tajikas (Arabs) or Turushkas (Turks), using ethnic labels, not religious labels.

So Vaidika dharma, even if it appears somewhere, doesn't mean the "Vedic religion". It simply means the Vedic way of life or the Vedic system of conduct or something generic like that. The concept of a "a religion" and consequently "Hinduism", only arose after the British rule started, according to Robert Frykenberg. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Some quotations:

First, India. The term 'Hinduism' is, in my judgment, a particularly false conceptualization, one that is conspicuously incompatible with any adequate understanding of the religious outlook of Hindus. Even the term 'Hindu' was unknown to the classical Hindus.[46] 'Hinduism' as a concept certainly they did not have. And indeed one has only to reflect on the situation carefully to realize that it would necessarily have been quite meaningless to them.

Note carefully what this is saying. Hindus did not have the need for a term like 'Hinduism'. They had no use for it. If you think about it, it is obvious that they didn't need it! Nobody can say it better than that.

Indeed, it is still not clear today. The census of India, 1941, gave up the attempt of previous British censuses (1931, 1921, and on back) to enumerate Hindus exactly. The census offices reported that they had been forced into a realization that the boundaries of Islam and Christianity were reasonably clear but that those of the Hindu community were not. They could draw a line discriminating Hindus from Christians and Muslims on the one side, but it was not possible to draw one discriminating them from animists on the other[53]. This on the practical, operational side is an unwitting empirical confirmation of my theoretical point, that the concept of a religious system, whether ideal or sociological, is here alien and invalid.[54] It is a Western (and Muslim) concept, which Westerners (and Muslims) have tried to impose upon their understanding of India; but it does not fit. There are Hindus, but there is no Hinduism.[55]

You are telling me that the Hindus used a term for this thing that did not even exist!

My objection to the term 'Hinduism', of course, is not on the grounds that nothing exists. Obviously an enormous quantity of phenomena is to be found that this term covers. My point, and I think that this is the first step that one must take towards understanding something of the vision of Hindus, is that the mass of religious phenomena that we shelter under the umbrella of that term, is not a unity and does not aspire to be. It is not an entity in any theoretical sense, let alone any practical one.

This is not strictly true. It wasn't understood in 1964 that there were indeed medieval efforts like Unifying Hinduism which tried to tie together the various strands of Hinduism and distinguish it from Buddhism and Jainism. This is the context where a term like "Vaidika dharma" could have been used. But this was an elite intellectual exercise. There is no way that ordinary Hindus woke up one day and started calling themselves Vaidikas. It wasn't a practical word.

Thus it was that modern ‘Hinduism’ – or, to be more precise, belief in an all-embracing and monolithic ‘Hindu community’ – came into being. This kind of ‘Hindu consciousness,’ as commonly defined today, is really a relatively recent development. It became necessary, in Romila Thapar’s view, ‘when there was competition for political and economic resources between various groups in a colonial situation’ and ‘a need to change from a segmental identity to a community which cut across caste, sect and religion.’[16: Romila Thapar, 'Imagined Religious Communities?'] What emerged out of the socio-cultural, socio-economic, socio-political, and socio-religious reform movements that grew up during the nineteenth century was a growing sense of community which, in turn, became increasingly self-conscious about its fears and ever more aggressively militant about its aspirations.

So, it was in the 19th century that a 'Hindu community consciousness' came into being and that was when a term like 'Hinduism' became necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

References

@Capitals00 and Kautilya3: The traditional understanding of Vaidika dharma is different from that of "Vedic religion". Vaidika dharma includes the practices based on the Veda samhitas (mantras) and Brahmana (explanations) like Brahmana Upanishads Puranas and other Smriti texts).

Adi Shankara has collectively used "Vaidika Dharma" in the second verse of 'Viveka Chudamani'. I don't think traditional Hindus view sectarian terms distinct from Vaidika fold. The contrary claim is a recent invention. So let's differentiate between traditional and modern designations. Onkuchia (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, find a scholarly source that presents evidence. Then we can discuss it. "Beginner's guides" and "encyclopedias" are not good enough, particularly when they are being contradicted by scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I also wonder about all those Hindus, the vast majority, something like 95% of them, who never read the Veda nor heard it. How in heaven did they follow the "Vaidika dharma"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Klaus K. Klostermaier is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture. He's not a school history teacher.

Onus on those who claim Vaidika dharma term was opposed to Vaishnawa or Shiva terms. I've read loads of Upanishadas and Smriti texts and I failed to find any differentiated usage of Vaidika and other sectarian terms in order to suggest their distinctness. Vaidika dharma encompasses Veda and the texts based on Veda. Do you wonder why ancient Hindus called Puranas fifth Veda?

Today's traditional Hindus too hold the same view. Onkuchia (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I know who Klaus Klostermaier is. But that is not the point. The sources you have provided give no information about who called it "Vaidika dharma", when did they call it, what did they mean by it, and perhaps also an explanation of why that term never caught on. As a student of history, I expect at least that much from a good source. And, we do need such good sources for writing about historical matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the onus, see the Alexis Sanderson quote above. Hinduism is much more than Vedic religion. Klostermaier is not the best source; see his support of Aryan indigenism. NB: the Vivekachudamani wasn't written by Shankara. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Frank Morales, Radical Universalism: Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?:

One set of antonymous Sanskrit terms repeatedly employed by many traditional Hindu philosophers were the words vaidika and avaidika. The word vaidika (or “Vedic” in English) means one who accepts the teachings of the Veda. It refers specifically to the unique epistemological stance taken by the traditional schools of Hindu philosophy, known as shabdapramana, or employing the divine sound current of Veda as a means of acquiring valid knowledge. In this sense the word “vaidika” is employed to differentiate those schools of Indian philosophy that accept the epistemological validity of the Veda as apaurusheya, or a perfect authoritative spiritual source, eternal and untouched by the speculations of humanity, juxtaposed with the avaidika schools that do not ascribe such validity to the Veda. In pre-Christian times, avaidika schools were clearly identified by Hindu authors as being specifically Buddhism, Jainism and the atheistic Charvaka school, all of whom did not accept the Veda.

Schools, plural. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:

And Alexis is the supporter of Aryan invasion. So he's not the best source on orthodox native beliefs. As I can he tried to interpret minor conflicts between sects as the conflict between vaidika and avaidika. Moreover nowhere does he cite any ancient Hindu scripture that would support his claim.

Anyway Vaidika literally means founded on or derived from Veda. Later Vedic texts are also part of Vaidika Dharma and were regarded as the fifth Veda in both Buddhist and Hindu scriptures.

Vaidika as an alternative name in Orthodox Hindu circle is supposed to be reflected in the beginning.Onkuchia (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, we are not going to play the game of the which scholars are acceptable to the traditionalists, the Rajiv Malhotra way. I would be willing to add some discussion of vaidika dharma as well as sanatana dharma in the Etymology section, provided I am given precise historical information, along with reliable sources.

In my own view, "Hinduism", coined by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, is a brilliant term, far better than any of the other alternatives being bandied about. It basically says that it is the "religion of Hindus", without making any effort to define or characterise what that means. Hindus are free to believe in whatever they want to believe in, just the way they have been doing eternally. That freedom of thought and freedom of belief is an essential part of Hinduism. We don't want any revisionist neo-scholars trying it to define it for us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

We should try to keep the vaidika dharma discussion in one place, if possible. This article is way too long and jargon-y already. Let us not make it worse. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The authority of Klaus who has studied Hinduism for years should not be the matter of debate. He's been quoted and admired by scholars such as Kim Knott, Jessica Frazier. This debate is more about traditional indigenous appropach rather than the perception through the lens of Aryan invasion theory. @Kautilya3: According to you, short introductions are not good sources (It's not the only quoted source though), you're apparently okay with "very short introduction" by Knott which is cited in the article. Anyway back to the main point:

A peer-reviewed journal on Asian studies attests that ancient Hindus called their religion Vaidika dharma.

Historical evidence suggests that at least as far back as the fourth century A.D. Hindus were referring to their religion by the term Vaidika dharma or a variant thereof.

References

And I think there's already a separate article "Historical Vedic religion" to talk about modern concept of Vedic religion. Onkuchia (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Author? Title? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously we have no idea. We only have snippet views, for what they are worth. In any case, this author interprets the word dharma occurring in fourth century Vishnu-Purana as religion. If you ever doubted that scholars can do "POV pushing", here is a prime example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Note the anachronistic use of the term "Hindus" in this context; who exactly is the (unknown) author referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The paper doesn't interpret Dharma as religion. It just points out the term used by ancient Hindus to refer to their usual way of practices or beliefs.

Is it necessary to have acceptance of "Wikipedia editors' individual views" while considering a peer-reviewed journal by scholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkuchia (talk • contribs)

Which scholar? Please provide an author-name and a title. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Obviously those who have not given up their Nija Dharma, adherence to Vedic texts. Thats quite evident.Onkuchia (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Vedic scholars, you mean. How about the average people of that time, and their folk-beliefs? Still waiting for the author and the title, by the way; I'm curious to find out how many publications have cited this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Sanderson, Tolerance, Exclusivity, Inclusivity, and Persecution in Indian Religion During the Early Mediaeval Period - part I:

the middle ground saw in Śaivas and Pāñcarātrika Vaiṣṇavas proper, that is to say, in those who had taken initiation (dīkṣā) into these soteriologies and practised their special rites, only variants of observance applicable to specific communities added to the ancient bedrock of Vaidika religion without detriment to the latter; and this view came, as we shall also see, to be accepted not only by the orthoprax but also by many, perhaps even most, of the initiated themselves [...] this sense of the greater unity that came to be called Hinduism.

Tolerance, Exclusivity, Inclusivity, and Persecution in Indian Religion During the Early Mediaeval Period - Part Two:

For the Vaidikas, then, there certainly was no Hinduism as defined in our opening paragraph, since they looked with abhorrence on all systems, including the Vaiṣṇava Pañcarātra and the varieties of Śaivism, that deviated from their definition of orthopraxy

So, according to Sanderson the term Vaidika Dharma, in a medieval context and in a narrow sense, does not refer to what later came to be known as Hinduism, but to a narrow conception of what were acceptable religious views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:

about the recent change by you Let me tell you one thing. You clearly show your bias in favor of non-traditional view. You've been misquoting the author's words to give it a new meaning. You take utmost care not to invalidate your own views while presenting indigenous understanding and for that you rely on misquoting others.Onkuchia (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't confuse a specific, narrow understanding of Hinduism with the whole of the Hindu-tradition. Ther's more to Hinduism than only the Vedas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: you seriously need a second reading on Hinduism. Refer the books authored by traditional practicing Gurus.

Anyway I'm specifically talking about your bias perspective on the recent changes in Vaidika Dharma. Is there any reason why you refuse to include author's original words "based on the teachings of Veda". And also the author is talking about the pre-christan usage of Vaidika against Nastika traditions like Charvaka. Why do you want to make it a relatively modern term by introducing Christianity and islam words, which is not the intention of the author? Onkuchia (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I apologise for being somewhat harsh, but I know what you're doing.

One wonders how exactly Lipner's views are in accord with the indigenous, mainstream understanding of Hinduism... It's a big question as Vaidika section is introduced in the indigenous understanding.

Tagging @Utcursch: Kindly share your views on this discussion.Onkuchia (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Onkuchia: Please tone it down a notch and avoid snide remarks such as "You seriously need (...)" or "I am afraid you have not read the Veda" (because editors need to refer to secondary scholarship, not read primary texts in an archaic language). It would help if you provided complete source details that Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan repeatedly asked for with "Which scholar? Please provide an author-name and a title". If you don't have it because you are looking at snippet views on google, please admit it. The full source for:

Quote:"In this paper this view is controverted and it is established on the basis of historical evidence that at least as far back as the fourth century A.D. the Hindus were referring to their religion by the term vaidika dharma or a variant thereof."

is Arvind Sharma (1985), Did the Hindus have a name for their own religion', The Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia, Volume, 17, Issue 1, pages 94–98 (it is on page 95). Prof. Sharma's publication is WP:RS. We can include a summary from the Sharma source as well as scholarly sources that disagree with Sharma on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: And also your recent addition (Alexis quote) in Vaidika Dharma is problematic as his views like Shaivism not being part of Vaidika Dharma are far from the indigenous understanding. All these views are appropriate in the Western understanding. (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) [added by Onkuchia)

@Onkuchia: please review and reconsider both Sanderson and JJ again. Sanderson's context is antinomian Shaivism/Vaishnavism/Shaktism. In simple English, this refers to those who reject moral, religious, or social norms. More specifically, the tantric explorers of Hindu history.... those ancient/medieval rebels who experimented with drugs, booze, sex outside marriage, wearing or carrying skulls to beg food, smeared cremation ashes (tattoos?) and bodily fluids on their skin to remind themselves or others that body is transitory or just to offend others for their complex karmic-exchange beliefs, perform tantric dancing and rituals, and so on. Sanderson is not stating, "Shaivism not being part of vaidika dharma", Sanderson is stating that there were many Vaidikas who rejected those with antinomian beliefs/behavior. Sanderson's views resonate with the mainstream scholarship on this. All this is relevant to the question "was Hinduism tolerant to everything in its past?" and "are there limits to tolerance and liberties in a civil society?" We should reflect on whether some or any of this belongs in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia, on the contrary, it is your idea of Hinduism that is the western understanding. It is a borrowed ideology. It has nothing to do with the Hindu tradition. Here is Arvind Sharma, the same author you quoted without knowing:

In this part I shall develop the following six points: (1) that the Western hermeneutics of the word religion is conceptually foreign to India; (2) that its foreignness consists in the double implication of the word religion (a) that one may adhere to only one religion at a time or what may be called singular or unilateral religious participation and (b) that religion is separate from and separable from culture; (3) that this foreign concept of religion was institutionalized in India during the colonial period; (4) that the introduction of this foreign concept met with both acceptance and resistance in India; (5) that the tension generated by this dual reaction was foundational for the development of Hindutva ideology, which might not have arisen in a purely Indian context and that therefore (6) the hermeneutical approach of the West to the category of religion, and its application to India, is in a large measure responsible for the appearance of Hindu nationalism, specially as denoted by the word Hindutva.

Sharma also copiously quotes from Wilfred Cantwell Smith, including the passages I quoted above. Please read the full papers and understand what they say. Do not do random Google searches and produce snippets that agree with your POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

@Ms Sarah Welch: Could you please explain why all this was reverted by Kautilya3? I don't see any reason to censor this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=851844802&oldid=851830206

"There's enough Klostermaier. Don't push it"

However all I can see is long paragraphs of Alexis and Lipner. Who's pushing it? Is there really a neutral point of view?

Well, I'm not pushing it. I am quoting the authors' exact words in accordance with the context (you can verify it), and correcting intentionally misquoted words.Maybe for this reason he has tagged me with ARBIPA sanctions alert.Onkuchia (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you please stop using those lines, and properly indetn your comments? And ask Kautilya3 why he reverted you, not MSW.

Interesting comment by Monier-Williams (1891), Brāhmanism and Hindūism : or, Religious thought and life in India, as based on the Veda and other sacred books of the Hindūs:

The second phase of Indian religious thought may be suitably called Brahmanism. The Brahmans themselves would reject such a title. They call their religion Arya-dharma, 'the religion of the Aryas' (or Vaidika-dharma, or Rishi-sam-pradayo dharmah, Patanjali I. i. i). They of course regard it as the only true religion, and have no difficulty in including all other religions — such as Muhammadanism and even Christianity — under it.

So, according to Monier-Williams, it's the Brahmans Brahmins who use the term Vaidika dharma. But in a loose sense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Its the Brahmins. And what are you trying to prove? Brahmins can be any Mimansaka, Shiva or Vaishnava etc. Historical writings of Vedic scholars are quite evident to show that Smriti was a part of Vedic way of life. Indeed, Hinduism is more than the Veda texts but it is also true that Vaidika Dharma is more than the Vedas. It includes all the texts derived from it. It's well-known that 16 Sanskaras of Brahmins are not mentioned in Vedas yet they're crucial parts of Vaidika way of life. All this is in accord with the meaning of Vaidika - derived from it.

And how does your Monier words become the ground to censor the meaning of Vaidika in Sanskrit? I expect the explanations for reverting my edits from anyone who agrees with it. No hard feelings. But I do feel one specific viewpoint is being restricted as much as possible. Onkuchia (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Vedism, Brahmanism, Hinduism terms and their differences — all these are colonial inventions.Onkuchia (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

However the understanding of Hinduism without name or unity, contrary to my understanding, appears in line with colonial tendencies. I'm also not one of those who interpret Vedic way of life based on biblical practices (Lipner's comparison of Veda and Bible, which is cited in the article).

John Strachey wrote in 1888 —

The most essential thing to remember about India - that there is, there was never an India or any sort of unity physical political religious;no Indian nation

Good points by Arvind Sharma but they don't conflict with his view that Hindus identified their way of life (Vedic way in which thoughts or practices were believed or executed) with the Vaidika Dharma or its variant.

As for the Hindu nationalism, Alberuni witnessed it centuries before the colonial era. (Refer Alberuni's India vol.I). I can't fathom what it has to do with colonial era.

But now you know the author. So I guess you'll now show willingness to accept his "peer-reviewed" article. Regards.Onkuchia (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Frykenberg, Robert E. (2008), "Hindutva as a Political Religion: An Historical Perspective", in R. Griffin; R. Mallett; J. Tortorice (eds.), The Sacred in Twentieth-Century Politics: Essays in Honour of Professor Stanley G. Payne, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 178–220, ISBN 978-0-230-24163-3}}
• Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (1964) [first published by Fortress Press 1961], The Meaning and End of Religion, Mentor Books, ISBN 978-1-4514-2014-2
• Smith, Wilfred C. (1981), On Understanding Islam: Selected Studies, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-082580-0

Vaidika dharma subsection proposal

Proposal

@Onkuchia, Kautilya3, and Joshua Jonathan: and others: In the interest of a more stable article that better reflects scholarly sources, and in the interest of the wikipedia's goals as well as the wikipedia readers, I urge that we postpone further edits to that section. Let us discuss here the proposals for the redrafted Vaidika dharma section, the relevant sources and try to reach a consensus.

Current version

The word 'Vaidika' in Sanskrit means 'derived from or conformable to the Veda' or 'relating to the Veda'.[71] Traditional scholars employed the terms Vaidika and Avaidika, those who accept the Vedas as a source of authoritative knowledge and those who don't, to differentiate various Indian schools from Jainism, Buddhism and Charvaka. According to Klaus Klostermaier, the term Vaidika dharma is the earliest self-designation of Hinduism.[72][73] According to Sanderson the term initially did not refer to what today is called Hinduism in a broad sense, but to a more narrow definition of acceptable, authoritative texts from which religious practices could be derived, thereby excluding certain traditions like Shaivism from the orthodox fold. [74][75]

The terms Vaidika dharma mean a code of practice that is "based on the Vedas", but it is unclear what "based on the Vedas" really implies, states Julius Lipner.[69] The Vaidika dharma or "Vedic way of life", states Lipner, does not mean "Hinduism is necessarily religious" or that Hindus have a universally accepted "conventional or institutional meaning" for that term.[69] To many, it is as much a cultural term. Many Hindus do not have a copy of the Vedas nor have they ever seen or personally read parts of a Veda, like a Christian might read the Bible or a Muslim might read the Quran. Yet, states Lipner, "this does not mean that their [Hindus] whole life's orientation cannot be traced to the Vedas or that it does not in some way derive from it".[69]

Lipner further states that though many religious Hindus implicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas, this acknowledgment is often "no more than a declaration that someone considers himself [or herself] a Hindu." Nevertheless, while some Hindus challenge the authority of the Vedas, this implicitly acknowledges its importance to the history of Hinduism.[69]

My concerns: this section does not harmoniously flow with the subject, this mainspace article. It starts out as being out of place. It also does not quite reflect the Sanderson's 3-part publication. Sanderson sets his context to be the historic antinomian Shaiva etc traditions, and later repeats himself with specifics, likely for emphasis. He writes, "However, the absence of a name does not entail the absence of a corresponding concept. There is evidence, as we shall see, that by the end of the first millennium of the Christian era [...] a complex entity corresponding to Hinduism as opposed to Buddhism and Jainism, excluding only certain forms of antinomian Śākta-Śaiva observance". We should not generalize. Here is a revised draft:

Revised draft

Hinduism has been referred to as the Vaidika dharma.(70a) The word 'Vaidika' in Sanskrit means 'derived from or conformable to the Veda' or 'relating to the Veda'.[71] Traditional scholars employed the terms Vaidika and Avaidika, those who accept the Vedas as a source of authoritative knowledge and those who don't, to differentiate various Indian schools from Jainism, Buddhism and Charvaka. According to Klaus Klostermaier, the term Vaidika dharma is the earliest self-designation of Hinduism.[72][73] According to Arvind Sharma, the historical evidence suggests that "the Hindus were referring to their religion by the term vaidika dharma or a variant thereof" by the 4th-century CE.[73a]

According to Alexis Sanderson, the early Sanskrit texts differentiate between Vaidika, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Saura, Buddhist and Jaina traditions. However, by late 1st-millennium CE, Indic consensus had "indeed come to conceptualise a complex entity corresponding to Hinduism as opposed to Buddhism and Jainism excluding only certain forms of antinomian Shakta-Shaiva" from its fold.[74] Some in the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy considered the Agamas such as the Pancaratrika to be invalid because they did not conform to the Vedas. Some Kashmiri scholars excluded the esoteric tantric traditions from Vaidika dharma. [74][75] The Atimarga Shaivite ascetic tradition, datable to about 500 CE, challenged the Vaidika frame and insisted that their Agamas and practices were not only valid, they were superior to those of the Vaidikas.(75a) However, adds Sanderson, this Shaiva ascetic tradition viewed itself as being genuinely true to the Vedic tradition and "held unanimously that the Śruti and Smṛti of Brahmanism are universally and uniquely valid in their own sphere, (...) and that as such they are man’s sole means of valid knowledge (...) of all actions".[75a]

The term Vaidika dharma means a code of practice that is "based on the Vedas", but it is unclear what "based on the Vedas" really implies, states Julius Lipner.[69] The Vaidika dharma or "Vedic way of life", states Lipner, does not mean "Hinduism is necessarily religious" or that Hindus have a universally accepted "conventional or institutional meaning" for that term.[69] To many, it is as much a cultural term. Many Hindus do not have a copy of the Vedas nor have they ever seen or personally read parts of a Veda, like a Christian might read the Bible or a Muslim might read the Quran. Yet, states Lipner, "this does not mean that their [Hindus] whole life's orientation cannot be traced to the Vedas or that it does not in some way derive from it".[69]

Many religious Hindus implicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas, this acknowledgment is often "no more than a declaration that someone considers himself [or herself] a Hindu." Some Hindus challenge the authority of the Vedas, thereby implicitly acknowledging its importance to the history of Hinduism, states Lipner.[69]

I would prefer a shorter version, but given the serious angst and accusations in some of the comments above on this talk page, let us start with something that may address the concerns of Onkuchia and others. I welcome suggestions and alt versions, verifiable in RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinions & discussion

• Support - I like the explanation on the position of the 'antonomian' (a short, explanatory note?); it lays bare the thensions within the conceptual framework, thereby avoiding the impression that Hinduism is a monolithic phenomenon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think it is way too detailed for an introductory section. My original objection is still not satisfied: we are not yet explaining what is Vedic about Hinduism and what is not. All that we are stating are a whole bunch of opinions, which don't add to any understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• How about three changes: [i] we convert the text I just colored bold & purple above into a ref note, with added sentence or two clarification inside that ref note about 'antinomian' in Sanderson; [ii] a sentence or two to better explain the differences / historic asymmetric tension between the tantrikas and vaidikas; [iii] add a ref note at the end of the 2nd last para that explains the ancient links to modern Hindu practices such as cremation, symbolism of Agni in rites-of-passage ceremonies, the veneration of the cow, etc? Of course, were we to reach any consensus on these or another set of changes or a combination, we must support the changes with the appropriate peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot more we can write, such as the concepts of Brahman, Atman, axiology, etc in Vedic literature to clarify what is Vedic about Hinduism traditions, but why repeat what is covered in other sections of this article? May be a line or two in the ref note would suffice? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hinduism and religious forms

I have taken out the following sentence from the lead, "It includes a number of Indian religious traditions[1][2][3][4][5] with a "wider sense of identity"[6] and a "family resemblance",[7] as different from Jainism and Buddhism,[8] and (since medieaval[9] and modern times) Islam[10] and Christianity.[11][12][13]" This is a confusing sentence and OR:synthesis, and not what the cited source [1] (John Corrigan's The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion), [12] (Axel Michaels's Hinduism: Past and Present) etc are stating. For example, Michaels uses the phrases "four forms of Hindu religiosity" and three "Hindu religions" such as Shaivism/Vaishnavism/etc, but we cannot rephrase that as "number of Indian religious traditions with a wider sense of identity". Michaels discusses the religiosity in his Chapter 5, and the removed sentence did not reflect what he is stating there. June McDaniel is discussing emotions in Hinduism's context primarily, and does not imply this overreaching synthesis. FWIW, we already mention the denominations in the lead which is what the sources are talking about, as well as the puja etc Michaels mentions in Chapter 5 (maybe, we can add daana/hospitality/etc he includes but please consider that this is a bit too much fluffy detail for the lead). Let us discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Medieval period

@Dbachmann:, I don't see why this addition of the medieval period is necessary. What part of the source justifies this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 - Ajeyaajeya edits

10 november 2018 User:Ajeyaajeya changed diff

Hinduism is an Indian religion and dharma, or a way of life, widely practised in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Southeast Asia.

into

Hinduism is often classified as an Indian religion and dharma, or a way of life, widely practised in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Southeast Asia and is brought into other countries where people who follow the practices migrate. However, scholars have said that Hinduism is not a religion , some say it is more than a religion . Also, a term for "religion" does not exist in many parts were Hinduism is practised .

References

I reverted him 11 november 2018, edit-summary

Non-encyclopedic; using the lead to develop an argument.

Ajeyaajeya undid the revert, edit-summary

you cannot randomly undo without giving reasons, see my references and refute that before deleting the contents made

I gave reasons, which I will explain below; before that, note WP:BRD. Also note WP:LEAD: the lead summarizes the article.

• "Often classified": what are the other classifications? The lead starts (usually, when possible) with a definition; when you want to give a qualified definition, you'll have to explain why.
• "and is brought into other countries where people who follow the practices migrate." - what part of the article does thgis summarize? Also, it's incorrect; Hinduism gained attention, and influence, in the west, due to missionary activities and western converts.
• "However" - here begins the building-up of an argument. What argument? Which scholars say so? All scholars? And if it is not a religion, what is the problem with the term religion, and then what is it really?

• According to Acharya Shree Yogeesh, the first source, Hinduism is a culture, to which belong many religions: sanatana dharma, Buddha dharma, et cetera. That's a well-known point of view, but the limitations in the usage of the umbrelaa-term "Hinduism" are well explained in the article.
• The second guru, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, says

Hinduism is not a religion as there is no one book or papacy, it's just a geographical identity and that anyone, irrespective of belief, born on this piece of land is Hindu.

Yeah, right; pure Hindutva.

• The third source, Sadhguru, is summarized as

Being Hindu is a way of life, not a religion.

Well, that's already in the lead, and has been discussed a couple of times.

• "some say it is more than a religion" - the webpage is being blocked in my configuration of Firefox; bad sign... but Opera helps. Anyway, what they write is also reflected in the lead:

Hinduism is more than a religion. It is a culture, a way of life, and a code of behavior. This is reflected in a term Indians use to describe the Hindu religion: Sanatana Dharma, which means eternal faith, or the eternal way things are (truth).

• "a term for "religion" does not exist in many parts were Hinduism is practised" - what that magazine says, quoting a, Ashis Nandy:

Though we call Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism religions, in South Asia and, I would suspect, even in East Asia they were not religions in the Western sense. There is no word in any Indian language which is a synonym of religion.

That's a legitimate point, which is also already covered in the Wiki-article: "The Sanskrit word dharma has a much broader meaning than religion and is not its equivalent."

The sources being used here are definitely not WP:RS, though they do reflect a legitimate understanding. But to present that understanding, we rely on WP:RS secondary sources, not YouTube videos from yogis. And we don't use the lead to develop an argument; see WP:NPOV. And you apparently missed note number 1:

Hinduism is variously defined as a "religion", "set of religious beliefs and practices", "religious tradition", "a way of life" (Sharma 2003, pp. 12–13) etc. For a discussion on the topic, see: "Establishing the boundaries" in Flood 2008, pp. 1–17.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Though a user had reverted it to saying "hinduism is an Indian religion" version. It cites no sources & does not meet WP:RS. In addition, I am not sure why reliable sources does not include youtube in this case, while many wiki pages have youtube as references. The wiki user User:Joshua Jonathan keeps reverting it to what they feel to be true. There seems to be a biased unacceptance to various sources already listed in previous discussions in the talk page. I do not see what the obsession is in reverting and calling Hinduism a religion (see previous discussions in this page). From the discussions it is clear that there are multitude of explanations for hinduism as understood by English speaking world. And hence to maintain WP:NPOV of WP:LEAD. The current version is clearly biased(References: see this talk page discussion). Ajeyaajeya (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggets you read the full Wiki-article, not just the first half of the first sentence. I also urge you to familiarie yourself with Wiki-policies. "Hinduism is an Indian religion" is sourced; see note 1 and note 2. Read WP:RS to understand why we do not accept YouTube-talks from guru's as reliable sources. The nuances of Hinduism ss being a religion or a dharma are extensively explained in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Hinduism is not limited to religion and philosophy as projected by this article. Just to clarify what I mean: A Sari, which is worn by women in India, is considered a "Hindu dress", although it has no religious or philosophical context. Hinduism is more like "a way of life" in its entirety, where religion may or may not be part of it. There is Hinduism, which is religious, and there is Hinduism, which is non-religious (atheist). This definitely needs to be adressed in the lead sentence in my point of view. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Then find WP:RS, write them in the article and only then you may change WP:LEDE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea of a "religion" is a modern construct. What gets included in "religion" and what doesn't is a matter of common usage and practice. I would contest the idea, though, that "sari" or any other form of dress is part of religion. Sari is worn by people of all religions in South Asia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Finding rs is not the problem here. It's just not that easy to consolidate everything into few sentences. This discussion may serve to better understand all viewpoints for a consensus edit.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is an interesting perspective quoted from a RS:

Hinduism in toto, with various contradicting systems and all the resulting inconsistencies, certainly does not meet the fundamental requirements for a historical religion of being a coherent system; but its distinct entities [the so called “sects”] do. They are indeed religions, while Hinduism is not. What we call “Hinduism” is a geographically defined group of distinct but related religions, that originated in the same region, developed under similar socio-economic and political conditions, incorporated largely the same traditions, influenced each other continuously, and jointly contributed to the Hindu culture. (von Stietencron 1989:20) Parpola, Asko. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization (S.4). Oxford University Press.

--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've made some changes with the Stietencron-quote in mind.

Thanks. I don't think "and are widely practised in India and parts of Southeast Asia" is correct. Hinduism is practised everywhere. There are many Hindu temples around the world.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am not happy with pushing von Steitencron to the lead definition in this manner. The lead definition has to reflect the scholarly consensus, not just one particular view. Moreover, I also think von Steitencron overstates his case. Yes, if you read the Saivite texts or Vaishnavite texts, they sound as if they are separate and almost exclusive religions. But how many people practised their version of the "religions"? Where is the evidence? How many royal inscriptions over the millennia declare the kings to belong to one of these religions? This is a standard mistake of taking religious texts to be representing realities, whereas they are really ideologies. So, no way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

+1. The lead must reflect the main article per WP:LEAD, and as Kautilya3 states the scholarly consensus as discussed in the main article. Unreliable sources such as non-scholarly websites, youtube, twitter, khanacademy, etc are unacceptable. Just picking a book and starting to plug it in an encyclopedic article's lead is inappropriate. Further, for a key article of a major subject area such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, etc we need to be careful before we start repatching a stable lead without persuasive wiki-policy based reasons and without substantial RS-based edits to the main article. To state Hinduism or Jainism or Buddhism or Judaism or Islam etc is not a religion reflects someone's prejudice/wisdom/opinion, it does not reflect the vast majority of mainstream scholarly sources. As always, this is not what wikipedia article talk pages are for, and let us ignore WP:FORUM-like gossip per WP:TALK guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

JJ: I checked the Heinrich von Stietencron source. His cautious view surely does not belong in the lead sentence of this mainspace article of Hinduism, nor will you find it in the lead sentence of any tertiary source / encyclopedia. Those views do belong in the definition section of the main article where von Stietencron has been one of the scholars already cited. I urge the involved editors to read the archives of this talk page because we have discussed this many times over the years to reach a difficult compromise/consensus. There is no need to repeat the arguments. If there is something new in the scholarly sources that the past discussions missed, please list the scholarly sources with page numbers and those alleged ignored views. We can then discuss them to further improve this article if and where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I can live with RS statements, where it is explicitly said, that this version has wide consensus: "Hinduism is a religion". Otherwise, I think we have a serious NPOV problem at hands.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Enough RS have been already cited. Please read them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The historians have carefully evolved, over centuries, something called the historical method, which has been reportedly adopted by all social sciences at the present time. However, they don't practise it as well as historians do. Dealing with history necessarily involves treating sources that date back to long times gone, and we do not know the full context in which those sources appeared. The historians always interrogate the sources and look for multiple forms of corroborations before declaring something to be a fact. That is why we have a page on WP:HISTRS, describing what kind of sources are acceptable for history. von Steitencron's views represent a theory, which has sufficient grounds to be taken seriously and examined further by scholars. But I would like to see an honest-to-goodness historian and a WP:SECONDARY source that states it as a fact (without attributing it to von Steitencron as his view) before I can accept it for the prime time. As I pointed out von Steitencron is only analysing ideological texts, and he has not produced corroborations from other kinds of sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead-revert is fine with me. I tried to give in to Ajeyaajeya, but after doing so, also realised that the Stietencorn-statement conflicts with the 'internal unity' statements. Also, it's probably not what they intent to communicate, namely that HInduism is millennia-old, and the original "religion" of India, et cetera. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hindus had no name for their religion.

The word "Hindu" as we know is a recent invention and the word "Religion" in modern sense is alein to them. As we know India has been a country of History and passing of history and tradition to future generations. Instead of word Hindu the word "Sanatan" is more relevant as it shows th nature of culture rather than a word for practice of culture. And everyone refer to their culture in India as " my dharma is Sanatana that is my religion is ancient." Includents.h (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; already included in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

non-indian hindu group

Should add about Tenggerese people of Indonesia ,Kalasha people of pakistan who practises ancient hinduism.

Also more datas about Cham hindus of Vietnam should be included. Jishnusavith (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Demographics

The % of Hindus in Newzealand is 2.11% which is higher than the % of Hindus in Belize which is 2%.So Belize should be replaced by Newzealand Jishnusavith (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I replaced it Reginasinclairs (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hinduism oldest religion?

I believe there is proof that Judaism is actually the oldest religion in existence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.187.243 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Second Temple Judaism begins in the 6th century BC, along with its Monotheism. "Pre-exilic Israel was polytheistic; Asherah was probably worshiped as Yahweh's consort, within his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria, and a goddess called the Queen of Heaven, probably a fusion of Astarte and the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, was also worshiped. Baal and Yahweh coexisted in the early period, but were considered irreconcilable after the 9th century. The worship of Yahweh alone, the concern of a small party in the monarchic period, only gained ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period, and it was only then that the very existence of other gods was denied."

Even Religion in ancient Rome was older than Judaism. Dimadick (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Bhoomi Devi Temple, Chendia, Karnataka India 2013.jpg
• Close up view of Bhutanatha temple at Badami, Karnataka, India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

I have important contributions to add. Clan Member (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

Remove the redundancy in the title of the first section. "Etymology" by itself already signifies "origin of the name". 93.136.190.55 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

travesty?

Adding my 10 cents worth here because the Hinduism page is an affront to intelligence, civilization and sensibility; I would like to remind the reader that the term Hinduism was imposed on the people of India by those who could not understand the spiritual practices of the nation. Consequently all discussion about Hinduism is a sharing of opinions devoid of any real facts or usefulness. As referred to in the article, a more correct description is Sanatana Dharma which is another topic few people seem to understand so I shall tell you, Sanatana Dharma is a way of life designed to best ensure the continuity of humanity on this earth and provide the entire population with spiritual sustenance. To rename Sanatana Dharma as Hinduism denigrating a spiritual tradition based on verifiable facts to just another belief system is an absolute travesty. (Suanqu (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC))

Please see my reply to you] at the Help Desk. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for such changes. If and when the majority of English-language sources begin referring to it as Sanatana Dharma instead of Hinduism, Wikipedia will follow suit. It will not do so before that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

From Bhakti(Worship) section need to delete Bolded text. Sampraday create sub-traditions, Context "Sub-Traditions such as Swaminarayan" doesn't make sense here. All Hindu one way or other pray at home. Among Vaishnavism sub-traditions such as Swaminarayan, the home shrines can be elaborate with either a room dedicated to it or a dedicated part of the kitchen. The devotee uses this space for daily prayers or meditation, either before breakfast or after day's work. Sanatandharmaway (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No Criticism section on this page?

This page about a major religion lacks a criticism section. Need to add how Hinduism gave rise to caste system in India. Manusmriti, widely regarded to be the most important and authoritative book on Hindu law and dating back to at least 1,000 years before Christ was born, "acknowledges and justifies the caste system as the basis of order and regularity of society". . Also no mention of Saffron terror .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281D:5FC6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

References

There is a separate article about Criticism of Hinduism, but it currently redirects to Anti-Hindu sentiment. Jarble (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism as a development of Astika philosophies

Recent edits by User:Bajirao1007 misrepresent Lockard and Nicholson: this edit changed

Scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions,

into

Scholars regard Hinduism as a development of the Astika philosophies of Ancient India, which sought to prove & understand the Vedas. Astika philosophies include six systems (shad-darśana) – Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta. Hindu traditions grew out of a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions,

There are several problems with this edit:

• it removed sourced info ("fusion," as stated by Lockard; see also note 15)
• misrepresentation of Lockard and Nicholson:

• Lockard, note 3:

Lockard 2007, p. 50: "The encounters that resulted from Aryan migration brought together several very different peoples and cultures, reconfiguring Indian society. Over many centuries a fusion of Aryan and Dravidian occurred, a complex process that historians have labeled the Indo-Aryan synthesis." Lockard 2007, p. 52: "Hinduism can be seen historically as a synthesis of Aryan beliefs with Harappan and other Dravidian traditions that developed over many centuries."

• Nicholson (2013) p.2:

The thesis of this book is that between the ywelfth and sixteenth century ce, certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachngs of the Upanishads, epics, puranas, and the schools retrospectively known as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.

I corrected Bajirao1007's edit, edit-summary "reinserted and corrected info," which was reverted by Bajirao1007, edit-summary

Its widely well known that Astika philosophies are synonymous with “Hindu philosophy”. They’re all systematically similar and rest assertion on the Vedas since their conception, and have always had that general theme. It doesn’t matter when the idea of a “shad darshana” came about, as it was a later compilation of ancient philosophies which shared an obvious theme. And it still entails what Hinduism is. Take it to the talk page if you have any disagreement.

Obviously, Bajirao1007 doesn't understand what Lockard and Nicholson state, not do they care to understand whay they state; this is an obvious example of pov-pushing in disregard of the sources.

Subsequent edits added two sources:

Scholars regard Hinduism as a development of the Astika philosophies of Ancient India , which sought to prove & understand the Vedas. Astika philosophies include six systems (shad-darśana) – Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.

I can't verify what Clarke p.28 states, but is is still in disregard of Lockard and Nicholson.

Notes

References

I reverted Bajirao1007 again, edit-summary "Misrepresentation of Lockhard and Nicholson"; this was reverted a second time by Bajirao1007, edit-sumary "Bring it to the talk page." @RegentsPark: could you take a look here? This editor is obviously WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

“The thesis of this book is that between the ywelfth and sixteenth century ce, certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachngs of the Upanishads, epics, puranas, and the schools retrospectively known as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy“

The term shad darshana is a medieval term which was used by Vedantans to describe Hindus which is correct. However you’re blatantly playing ignorant.

1) The Astika schema still pre-dates and laid the foundation for that categorization of a shad darshana

2) Even the term Hinduism itself is a later term that applies to the religion as a whole. Just because it is a later term doesn’t contradict the point of the page. This page is to give an overview as to what Hinduism is ; including what it stands to be today of course. Bajirao1007 (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of your reply. Do you actually undestand what those sources say? They say that Hinduism developed as a fusion or synthesis of several Indian traditions, between ca. 500 BCE and ca. 300 CE; and that only in late medieaval times came several separate philosophical traditions to be regarded as being part of an unified whole (note your assertion that "They’re all systematically similar" as an illustration of this idea; obviously you're pushing a pov, instead of adequaely summarizing relevant sources). Those sources do not say that Hinduism is a development of the astika philosophies of ancient India. You're ignoring those sources, messing-up the notes and references. At best, you can add additional information, at the appropriate place in the article, when properly sourced. That is, correctly represented, and verifiable: please provide a quote for Clarke, so we can verify it. I can only access this summary, which says

it contains an array of diverse practices and apparent beliefs within six major schools of Hinduism.

and this little bit:

There are six schools of Hinduism, all of them recognising the authority of the Vedas as sacred texts.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've cleaned-up a part of Bajirao1007's mess, edit-summary (mine)

ce, to restore correct order of notes and references; attribution; added maintenance tags (failed verification, source needed, not in source). NB: WP:LEAD summarizes article; Clarke is not mentioned or explained in the article. NB2: the Nicholson-cite was copied from Hindu philosophy without attribution.See talk

• split-off Bajirao1007's addition as a separate sentence, thereby placing the notes and references, which they neglected, at their proper place again;
• attributed the sentence to the source, namely Clarke;
• added a "failed verification" tag for this sentence; Clarke's book is unaccessible, and no quote has been provided;
• added a "source needed" tag for the phrase "which sought to prove & understand the Vedas."
• added a "not in source" tag for "which sought to prove & understand the Vedas. [...] Vedanta," but removed it again diff; Nicholson 2013 p. 2-5 does mention the six astika schools separately, though this is not the main concern of this section of his book.

Note that WP:LEAD summarizes the article; Clarke, and the statement attributed to him, are not in the article. Note also that the Nicholson reference, <ref name=andrewoverview>,

Astika philosophies include six systems later formalized as the shad-darśana – Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.

was copied from the lead of Hindu philosophy:

Hindu philosophy refers to philosophies, world views and teachings that emerged in ancient India. These include six systems (shad-darśana) – Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.

without proper attribution, and adding a statement ("Scholars regard Hinduism as a development of the Astika philosophies of Ancient India, which sought to prove & understand the Vedas diff) which is not in the Hindu philosophy page, nor in Nicholson.

References

Note also that Hinduism includes much more that the six astika schools, as clearly explained in the Wiki-article. This editor seems to be unaware of this, or wishes to ignore it.

All in all, sloppy pov-pushing with an annoying disregard for the sources and the contents of the Wiki-article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I was able to access Clarke; as expected, he does not support Bajirao1007's statement. Clarke p.28 writes:

There are six schools of Hinduism, all of them recognising the authority of the Vedas as sacred texts. Each of these schools provides a distinctive philosophical viewpoint to understand the world.

That's it. And not even correct; there are six philosophical schools of Hinduism, not six schools of Hinduism en toto. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject

I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council - WikiProject Mysticism. Since Hinduism has been viewed as a religion where mysticism is important, I wonder whether any readers would be interested in starting this WikiProject? Vorbee (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Correct the spelling of Karma you written kama it's wrong spell 196.159.11.228 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Kama is intentional. El_C 23:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Dearth of Hindu scholars

The majority of scholars cited aren’t Hindu and are primarily from the West. This lends itself to bias. Bajirao1007 (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Who said so??? We can add good references from scholars and traditional resources also. All we need is time and good references.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Both messages are signed, so it's clear who said what, right? And we prefer secondary sources over primary sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention of authority of Vedas

For anyone to be a follower of Sanatan Dharma(Hinduism) you need to accept the authority of Vedas. In the article there is a mention of Hinduism being just a collection of different beliefs of Indian subcontinent.

This is partly true and seems to be an outsider view of Sanatan Dharma. Buddhists are not Hindus because they reject Vedas and so is true for Jainas. Please include adequate information.

--Ashishkafle (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

See Hinduism#Vaidika dharma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It is agreed that vedas or sruti is the supreme authority by Hindus. Many acharyas such as Adi Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa and philosophers such as Vivekananda and Aurubindo have asserted that fact. I am developing the section to elaborate more on the order of precedence of authority in Hindu scriptures. They are Sruti followed by Smriti, Purana, Sishtachara and finally Atma tushti. The last one is not agreed by few sages. Even Lord Krishna in Gita mentions that those who oppose Smriti and Sruti is no vaishnava. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia to assert 'eternal truths'. Also, be aware that the authority of the Vedas is merely nominal; in actual practice, they have a minimal role. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It may appear that vedas are not authority in actual practice. My friend, I understand your point but it is not true. This article is about Hinduism. The definition and practice of Hinduism cannot be based on wikipedia or some supreme court judgement. Give me some time, I will add the reliable references. The authority of vedas is such that if any sloka of Gita contradicts Veda, then that part has to be discarded. Unfortunately, we have provide references on Hinduism by some professor or researcher in western universities rather than people who actually follow Hinduism via any of its Darshanas or Vedanta schools. I will check with some reliable contemporary acharyas to find out valid references. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Scriptures

@Bsskchaitanya: as noted at your talkpage, I think your additons diff diff on the order of authority of the scriptures is problematic, for several reasons:

• it's not concise, and hard to follow
• the information is WP:UNDUE, at least for a general overview article like this one
• it gives links which do not explain what you state: "the order of precedence regarding authority (Pramāṇa) of scriptures in Hinduism" - Pramāṇa is about "means of knowledge, and states nothing (as far as I can see) about the order of precedence of scriptural authority
• it's hardly sourced;
• it uses WP:PRIMARY Sources
• sources can't be verified:

• Rajadharma in Mahabharata
• Ancient Indian legal philosophy
• Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal

The info can be condensed to

That order of precedence as mentioned in Bhavishya Purana (Brahmaparva, Adhyaya 7) is as follows: Śruti (Vedas), Smṛti (Dharmaśāstras), Śiṣṭa Āchāra/Sadāchara (conduct of noble people) and finally Ātma tuṣṭi (self satisfaction)

And then, still, is this the 'general' view of Hindus on the precedence of scriptural authority? Please find WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources to make your point. And consider starting a Sources of dharma article, and/or adding a concise section on this topic at Hindu texts, instead of elaborating it here. Thanks, and succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I have noticed the changes made by you. Good that article has been created for sources of Dharma. There dharma means Sanatana Dharma (The word hindu/hinduism is an exonym). However, it seems you have deleted Apastamba's list of sources. Purana is considered by him as the antepenultimate authority. Also, its not just achara but Sistachara (conduct of good people). I will try to elaborate the article "sources of Dharma". I need your help in validating that part.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: it gives links which do not explain what you state: "the order of precedence regarding authority (Pramāṇa) of scriptures in Hinduism" - Pramāṇa is about "means of knowledge, and states nothing (as far as I can see) about the order of precedence of scriptural authority

For any explanation given by an acharya or an interpretation of a religious text, it is necessary to have sastrapramana/vedapramana/srutipramana etc... If it doesnt satisfy that condition, then it will not be accepted. The same has been considered by Vedanta acharyas in Prasthanatrayi. So, it is pramana only. Thats is what many meant by supreme authority of vedas in Hinduism.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: And then, still, is this the 'general' view of Hindus on the precedence of scriptural authority? Please find WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources to make your point'.

Would you elaborate on this?? didnt get your point.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apart from all these, I feel most of the references are from western scholars rather than traditional and/or original references. I mean instead of directly referring something from a smriti or gita or upanishad or by a Hindu scholar, the references are from books written by western scholars. I feel it is silly to prove each and every trivial aspect of Hinduism (eg: sruti meant vedas, smriti meant itihasa, gruhyasutras, dharmasutras, dharmasastras, etc). I hope in future more references are quoted in wikipedia articles on Hinduism by native scholars. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference errors

I moved a number of extensive notes into a notes-list, but this caused multiple reference errors; see here. I've moved those references out of the reflist, and 'parked' them above the reflist; how do we solve this? Ping User:Neel.arunabh, since he noticed these errors. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: It looks like you've mostly fixed those issues on your own, all I see now is two Harv errors from shortened footnotes without a long citation. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: but moving those notes out of the noteslist is not the way it's supposed to be solved, is it? Ot is it acceptable, out of pragmatism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: List-defined references only barely support nested ref tags, with a limit of one nested tag per list. The easiest fix is to move the definition to the article itself instead of using list-defined refs for the notes. The other option would be to rewrite the notes to not use nested footnotes and use {{harv}} and no subnotes instead. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: I see. I moved those long notes out of the body of the article, precisely because they are so long. Well, I'll leave it to the pragmatic solution ("houwtje-touwtje"); as my MSc-thesis supervisor said: "Als het niet gaat zoals het moet, dan moet het maar zoals het gaat." Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: done! Errors are fixed; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Change the word Religion to Dharma. Explanation: Religion is a particular system of faith and worship(Google Dictionary) while Dharma is the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order(Google Dictionary). Both the words contradict each other as the word Dharma means the eternal law like gravity. You don't have to believe in gravity because we have realized it's existence. Similarly, you cannot declare something a belief and a law at the same time. I request you to please have a look at this matter as this is degrading the oldest culture on this planet. Also, I would like to know the source of the definition you have published in the website. There is no such thing as Hinduism. There is Sanatan Dharma. I request you to consult proper sources like Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. You can read about him in the Wikipedia. He represents the true culture of Bharat and I, as a Bhartiya would like to change the name and the definition of Hinduism to what Sadhguru says in the below link -

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jbUHzLNkOiM&feature=youtu.be

Please have a look at the below video- START FROM 15:10 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lRxmg213lBc

Thank you for your consideration. 142.68.164.137 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done Please provide reliable sources to support your claim. Zoozaz1 04:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit discussion: Move diversity and Unity section to under Beliefs

I suggest moving Diversity and Unity section to under Beliefs section to improve the flow of the article. The section also refers to them as beliefs. Vinay84 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - makes sense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Vedism and Brahmanism

@Balolay: regarding this revert, edit-summary

Completely unsourced claim. Even the main Article is named "Historical vedic religion". Brahmanism developed later after fusion had already occurred as stated in the article

according to Jan C. Heesterman (1987), Vedism and Brahmanism, MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion, Vedism refers to the oldest form of the Vedic religion, brought to India by the Indo-Aryans who migrated around 1500 BCE. Brahmanism refers to the further developed form:

It is loosely known as Brahmanism because of the religious and legal importance it places on the brāhmaṇa (priestly) class of society.

NB: with "Brahmanism" Heesterman also seems to refer to the Smarta tradition. According to Witzel (1995). "Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state", this change in emphasis on the status of Brahmins took shape at the Ganges basin in the Kuru kingdom around ca. 1000 BCE. The article on the Vedic religion explains that the "Hindu synthesis" was a 'response' to the decline of Brahmanism during the time of the Second Urbanization. And of course there are plenty of references and notes in this one sentence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Joshua Jonathan for the elaborate response. I have therefore changed it to the original article name which encompasses all these terms! RegardsBalolay (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Therefore? The "historical Vedic religion" refers to the oldest form; the form which fused with other Indian traditions is way younger.

• Samuel 2008 p.194: "The Brahmanical pattern"
• Flood 1996 p.16: "The tradition of brahmanical orthopraxy has played the role of 'master narrative'"
• Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12: "Brahmanical synthesis"

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Claim of legal defintion

I found this section under "Legal definitions" highly problematic.

The definition of Hinduism in Indian Law is: "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large".

When I searched for this definition, I only get results regarding a book by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, but no Indian law, which leads me to believe, that this type of definition was favoured by a wikipedian to be made Indian law. It would be helpful if someone could cite the actual law in here.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Jeffery D. Long, Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, entry "Hinduism," refers to the Supreme Court, 1995. And Doniger p.20; source-number 17; don't know which source she used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The court calls this "the distinguishing feature" of Hinduism. Does it follow that this is a legal definition? --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In my language, a legal definition would be written into law. There are Yogis such as Jaggi Vasudev, who don't accept Vedas as authorative texts. Curiously he is one of those greatly celebrated "Hindu" intellectuals today. Something is very wrong with this 1995 SC observation.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Meru tantra

diff: which tantra? There isn't even a Wiki-article on that text. The two sources are not WP:RS;

• Hindu, PediaPress, that is, an old version of Hindu.
• shwetankspad.com ( April 30, 2015), Who is a Hindu? What is Hinduism? - blog, not WP:RS.

Halbfass India and Europe: An Essay in Philosophical Understanding, p.192, calls it an "obscure" text, with an early usage of the term Hindu by a 'Hindu-source'. In that respect it's interesting, though. The text was inserted at Hindus at 16 april 2010 diff, and removed at 21 september 2010 diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

{{subst:trim|1= I want to change that the first king of the world is mahasamat and some other sources. Prove that budhissm religion is oldest than hinduism

Buddhism religion is oldest than Hinduism Kinggeku rukin (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Hinduism

I added current and important/integral parts of Hinduism in this page but Joshua Jonathan has undone everyone's including my added information even though I have added citations and sources that are credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit gives undue attention to the Swaminaray-tradition. The references you gave are lacking pagenumbers. Which source qualifies the Swaminaraya tradition as the fifth-largest Hindu-denomination? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that one Hindu denomination within the Swaminarayan branch is the largest Hindu organization with countless others as well as the largest in the UK us and Africa clearly explains how Swaminarayanism is one of the largest traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 05:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the oxford university book Swaminarayan Hinduism talks about Swaminarayan theology and metaphysics as well as the prevalence and significance of the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. A further source of theology is swami paramttatvadas's book Swaminarayan Theology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide sources which qualify the number of adherents. Please also provide sources which view Swaminaraya as a major denomination within Hinduis. Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism, p.142, mentions it only once, as a subtradition of Pushtimarg, Shuddhādvaita, which falls within Vaishnavism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayanism may have come from vashinavism but it does not believe in the following of Krishna but instead it believes in Swaminarayan/Sahajanand Swami thus is separate from vashinavism. Also Many Swaminarayan sects are the largest in the world, for example baps has over 3,850 centers and has many temples in UK and USA. The Original Vadtal gadi also have many mandirs and following and thus is one of the largest Hindu sects in the world Tilakny (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition. I notice that all your sources are books/article on Swami Narayan Hinduism. But this is an article on Hinduism. So you need to find sources on Hinduism that give coverage to the Swami Narayan sect. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple of WP:SPAs active at the moment, all pushing to present the Swaminayaram-tradition as a major, independent tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

But these books on Swaminarayan Hinduism talk about the new age of Hinduism and as the next major Hindu sect/tradition thus it is logical to add Swaminarayanism as a major part of Hinduism, if you do not agree with it being the fifth major part of Hinduism I will comply but you have to agree that it is a large part of Hinduism I general and deserves to be on this article. If you do not like that Swaminarayanism is the fifth major part of Hinduism, I can revert that cheers! Tilakny (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Although for its impact on hinduism I strongly believe we should include it in the history of Hinduism and the akshar Purushottam vedanta as it is a new vedanta and is a major part as well Tilakny (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In what way have the various Swaminarayan sects impacted the wider non-Gujarati Hindu communities? Sources? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The Swaminarayan sects have many temples and people from various places and countries in many different organizations within Swaminarayan, also they are like I previously said one of or not the largest sects in the UK and US and a major denomination in India as well. In terms of humanitarian services they have walkatons and many different health related or environmental related services like blood drives etc. Tilakny (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Also the akshar Purushottam vedanta is the newest accepted separate vedanta and is accepted by the pundits and acharayas in kahsi and the world Sanskrit conference also recognized it as a separate vedanta, thus affecting many different types of people Tilakny (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you guys agree or disagree with the whole edit or some parts please lmk so then I can change it and contribute to the article Cheers! Tilakny (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys i have changed a few things and have added edits please lmk if you find this more accurate and if i should change a few things, Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you really don't understand diff what it means to gain WP:CONSENSUS. You additions are WP:UNDUE, sectarian pov-pushing. I've reported ou for prolonged edit-warring. This addition should suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok I was going to change a few things if you guys wanted it to be shown in a different way but I guess I was just violating rules. Anyways Cheers and goodbye Tilakny (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Radhakrisnan on diversity

The addition diff diff of this quote

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan mentions that "While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits", a Hindu is ready to admit different points of view rather than believe in a "self certifying" absolute authority.

References

to the Hinduism#Diversity-section is WP:UNDUE. It's not a scholarly observation on diversity, but an opinion on religious tolerance. And an inadequate one, given the anti-Muslim sentiments in India, or the existence of religious movements like Swaminarayan. Radhakrishna represents a neo-Vedanta point of view, trying to present Hinduism as all-inclusive and tolerant. Not to mention the fact that the source is a lecture from 1926. It's a primary source from another era; the quote does not belong here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's message on Hinduism reverted

Arbitrary subheader #1

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan mentions that "While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits", a Hindu is ready to admit different points of view rather than believe in a "self certifying" absolute authority.

Joshua Jonathan you have removed the above paragraph from India's former president Dr.Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's article "Hindu view of life" which has been published in Journal of American Oriental Society and cited by 605 other journal articles. This journal article is a WP:RS. I do not see any talk page reference that you have made regarding before removing this scholarly source referenced text from Wikipedia. The text aptly provides the right view to the Diversity section that "Hinduism is ready to admit different points of view" instead the paragraph has been edited with a point of view that "Hinduism is not a religion but umbrella of religious phenomenon in India". It is this point of view that is being contrasted and shown in the correct light by the text that has been removed. Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is an accomplished professional and needs no introduction on the subject of Hinduism. I would have no hesitation to place the text back and mark it as a dispute. Please get third opinion in the forum rather than removing the text. Thank you. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are more references on the point diversity of Hinduism does not mean fragmentation and disunity:

In short, Hinduism has historically exhibited a marked tendency toward pluralism -- and plurality -- a trend that did not reverse in the centuries before colonialism but, rather, accelerated through the development of precolonial Indic early modernity.

Although Hinduism is associated with one region of the world -- South Asia -- it is a global religion in two senses of the term. It has provided a religious complement to the diaspora of Hindus around the world and thus contributed to pluralist cultures in such disparate places as contemporary Fiji and England. Moreover throughout its history Hinduism has embodied the spirit of pluralism.

Goethe was not the only one who was struck by the formlessness mentioned earlier. Indeed, Postmodernism looks as if it could have been created for India because it makes no attempt to produce one order, construct one principle, where perhaps there is none. (The difference between this and Western religious Postmodernism is that, in India, people are not subject to any "heretical imperative".

Quoting Dr Karan Singh -- In general, religions need to project more universal principles. Hinduism has a strong tradition of pluralism.

Julius Lipner has reminded us that India has its own approach to definitions, allowing us to see them as 'bahurupa' many formed or in Jain terminology, anekanta, not-single-ended. This multiplicity need not signify fragmentation and disunity. Louis Dumont was one of the first to suggest that what may appear to be radically different forms of religious life,..., can all act as complementary components of a coherent religious culture. Parallel paths and structural oppositions link many of the different aspects of Hindu culture, furnishing a range of options which accommodate the diverse aspects of Indian society. Difference can be as binding as sameness.

References

‌Jaykul72 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you could answer to the thread I posted above on this issue (which seems to have escaped your attention initially diff), instead of developing an argument about your opinions on unity; a topic which is treated extensively in the second subsection, which is about unity. And please quote correctly; the article does not state

Hinduism is not a religion but umbrella of religious phenomenon in India

Rather, it states

Hinduism does not have a "unified system of belief encoded in a declaration of faith or a creed",[36] but is rather an umbrella term comprising the plurality of religious phenomena of India.[105]

The first half of Radhakrashnan's statement, "While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits" seems to be in line with statement of the Wiki-article; yet, at second thought, the popular definition of Hinduism as acceptance of Vedas, and the large amount of sectarian texts arguing against other sects, already makes clear that within Hinduism too there's a lot of boundary marking.

As for the second half of the statement, "a Hindu is ready to admit different points of view rather than believe in a "self certifying" absolute authority," this is an ideal, not a reality; see the thread above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

* The referenced article has 605 citations - any reason why it is not a scholarly observation on hinduism?

* Anti-muslim sentiments and Swaminarayan - I am not able to make a connection with this text. Please educate me.

* Neo-vedanta point of view and trying to represent a point of view - The article is a WP:RS we present what WP:RS states

* Article publication date matters not the when it was said. Most recent book citation - S Radhakrishnan (2012). The Hindu view of life. New Delhi: Element, An Imprint Of Harpercollins. We can take this to Reputable Source Noticeboard or do an RfC here?

Jaykul72 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's from a lecture from a neo-Vedantin from 1926, presenting a personal point of view from a philosopher, not a sociological study or something like that.
• As for the willingness "to admit different points of view," there seem to be a lot of Hindus who are quite willing to "believe in a "self certifying" absolute authority." Look at the Hindutva stance regarding the ancient origins of Hinduism. Not exactly much room there for diverging views, right? And they claim to be the arch-Hindus...
• It's reliable for Radhakrishnan's opinion, not for the academic study of Hinduism. It's as primary as can be.
• And yes, 1926 is outdated: WP:AGE MATTERS. Three generations of academics have died since then, and the world has changed tremendously.

Note also that Flood states '[Hinduism does not have a] "unified system of belief encoded in a declaration of faith or a creed", whereas Radhakrishnan states that "Hinduism sets itself no such limits," as if the absence of such a unyfying creed or statement of faith is intentional. it's not; it just does not exist because there is note just one, uniform 'Hinduism'.

Radhakrishnan's quote is simply WP:UNDUE there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that only the first half of the statement is correctly quoted; the second half, "a Hindu is ready to admit different points of view rather than believe in a "self certifying" absolute authority" is an incorrect citation of "[the] Hindu thinker readily admits of other points of view than his own and considers them to be just as worthy of attention," combined with a conclusion which is not present in the source.

Radhakrisnan's statement "While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits" is about "intellectual beliefs," which he contrasts with intuition, experience, and inward realization, stating: "Religious experience is of a self certifying character. It is svatassiddha. It carries its own credentials." That's definitely about ""self certifying" absolute authority," and not about being "ready to admit different points of view." Pure WP:SYNTHESIS, arguing the opposite of what Radhakrishnan is agruing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree that the cited source S Radhakrishnan (2012). The Hindu view of life. New Delhi: Element, An Imprint Of Harpercollins. is WP:RS or not? If you do not, I am willing to put this dispute into Reputable Sources Noticeboard. Jaykul72 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand that you are misrepresenting the source? Including the year of publication, which is 1926. Even if it's a reliable source, your usage is WP:SYNTHESIS. You're making things up. You wrote (bold mine):

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan mentions that "While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits", a Hindu is ready to admit different points of view rather than believe in a "self certifying" absolute authority.

Radhakrishnan wrote

While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits [Hinduism uses intuition, experience, and inward realization] [...] [The] Hindu thinker readily admits of other points of view than his own and considers them to be just as worthy of attention [...] Religious experience is of a self certifying character. It is svatassiddha. It carries its own credentials.

That's not about unity in diversity, that's about religious experience (a western concept, popularized by William James) as a source of knowledge (a neo-Vedanta invention, stretching the meaning of anubhava). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

* Ignoring your neo-vedantin argument, because Wikipedia has no rule for that. Reliable sources need not be confirming to any point of view.

* If you believe that this book is 1926 hence it is not a reliable source, then would you as an experienced editor suggest that we take this argument to Reliable Sources Noticeboard?

* Other points can be parked for now. If this book passes as a Reliable Source, then the question whether there is any misrepresentation on not. Hope you agree? Jaykul72 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader #2

Take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you like; I just think that Radhakrishnan is outdated and undue, and your preferred text is WP:SYNTHESIS. I think you better rewrite it; as it is now, it just does not represent Radhakrishnan correctly. I've further delved into Radhakrishnan's text. He wrote:

[p.15] While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion from another, Hinduism sets itself no such limits [Hinduism uses intuition, experience, and inward realization] [...] Religious experience is of a self certifying character. It is svatassiddha. It carries its own credentials. [p.19] Christian theology becomes relevant only for those who share or accept a particular kind of spiritual experience, and these are tempted to dismiss other experiences as illusory and other scriptures as imperfect. Hinduism was not betrayed into this situation on account of its adherence to fact. The Hindu thinker readily admits of other points of view than his own and considers them to be just as worthy of attention. [p.20] By accepting the significance of the different intuitions of reality and the different scriptures of the people living in India (sarvagamapramanya), Hinduism has become a tapestry of the most variegated tissues and almost endless diversity of hues.

That's about religious experience (a western concept, popularized by William James) as a source of knowledge (a neo-Vedanta invention, stretching the meaning of anubhava); and, indeed, about unity in diversity. What Radhakrishnan argues that there is a unity in the diversity of India's religiosity, due to taking religious experience as it's basis.

• The literature on religious experience is vast, and Radhakrishnan's ideas are have been criticised, and are outdated. For an overview of criticisms on the notion of religious experience as a basis of knowledge, see Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Criticism and context, Religious experience#Criticism, and

• Anantanand Rambachan. The Limits of scripture. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 9, 113, 133, 151.
• King, Richard (1999), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Routledge
• Sharf, Robert H. (2000), The Rhetoric of Experience and the Study of Religion. In: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 11-12, 2000, pp. 267-87 (PDF)

• Regarding Christian theology and it's alleged dismissal of variegated religious experiences, Radhakrishnan's comment is totally obsolete and irelevant in the scholarly study of Christianity. See Vision theory of Jesus' appearances for the relevance of "religious experience" in the origins of Christianity. The literature on Christian origins is immense. Two good introductions are:

• Hurtado, Larry (2005), Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8028-3167-5
• Dunn, James D.G. (2005), Christianity in the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

• Regarding the acceptance of different intuitions, see the sectarian fights, also here at Wikipedia, over the correct understanding of the teachings of Swaminayaran, at Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Schisms. In general, the sectarian intellectual debates, stretching over two millennia, about the correct interpretation of the Vedic scriptures. Or, again, the "tolerance" displayed by the Hindu right. Again, Radhakrishnan's ideas are from another era.
• Regarding the tapestry, yes, that's correct, as extensively explained in this Wiki-article on Hinduism; see Hinduism#Sense of unity and Hinduism#Origins. But Radhakrishnan's ideas on the reasons of this diversity, here too, are outdated.

All in all, the idea of unity in diversity is already treated extensively in the Wiki-article; Radhakrishnan's ideas on religious experience as a unifying base are outdated and WP:UNDUE; and the text you want to add is WP:SYNTHESIS. At best, you could add some of it to Hinduism#Colonial period and neo-Vedanta, something like

Following western thinkers, Vivekananda and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan argued that anubhava, "religious experience," is an important means of knowledge. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the first president of the Republic of India, argued that the diversity of Hinduism is actually a display of a cohesive attitude of tolerance, which emerged by taking religious experience as an acceptable source of knowledge. According to Redhakrishnan, "By accepting the significance of the different intuitions of reality and the different scriptures of the people living in India (sarvagamapramanya), Hinduism has become a tapestry of the most variegated tissues and almost endless diversity of hues."

Notes

References

I think that this is better. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Indian words or mistakes?

• The emphasis on ritual and the dominant position of Brahmans developed as an ideology developed in the Kuru-Pancala realm, and expanded into a wider realm after the demish of the Kuru-Pancala realm.

- What does the word "demish" mean? :)

• With the growth of cities, which treatened the income and patronage of the rural Brahmins; the rise of Buddhism; and the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great (327-325 BCE), the rise of the Mauryan Empire (322-185 BCE), and the Saka invasions and rule of northwestern India (2nd c. BC - 4th c. CE), Brahmanism faced a grave threat to its existence.

- Threat? Or Treat? what does this line imply? ^_^

Thank you! Angus1986 (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Demish - demise, end? I've changed the sentence about Brahmanism diff. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IE expansion.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

The Oldest religion or way of life or culture is the "VAIDIK" Culture. The word "Hindu" arrive from the word as the pronunciation ambiguity of the word " Sindhu", but hindu dharm is referred to the actual vaidik culture. UmaWiki (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The request is unclear, and the source is not reliable – Thjarkur (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bhakti Section

Hello all, I’ve made some edits to the section on bhakti. Since the section currently only addresses one tradition, I’ve replaced the section with an explanation of aarti about which there is significantly more scholarship than there is about home shrines. It is both a temple and domestic ritual, and it is not yet discussed on this page in detail, so it is also useful in providing an overview of significant Hindu practices. I’ve also combined a sentence about practices in household shrines and community with the examples of practices to maintain brevity in the article. I’d also suggest that we illustrate this section in order to provide a visual for unfamiliar audiences and provide a signpost for those who are interested in learning more about aarti, since it is a common practice that many people may have come across. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I am promulgating that I have added a link to/section for criticism, in order to be consistent with the articles of other major religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and just before this I edited the Judaism page. Boris J. Cornelius (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great! Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism is a useless page without any substance; as long as that page isn't improved in any substantial way, I see no merit in adding an empty section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is just a mud-slinging page with no understanding of religion whatsoever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline of Hindu proportion

I found this book called Our Religions, The Seven World Religions Introduced by Preeminent Scholars from Each Tradition

On pages 22 to 24 it talks about how the number of Hindus has changed throughout the years.

The percentage of Hindus was 71.68 percent in 1911 and 70.73 in 1921.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=k-Jy1NcLyoMC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA6.w.5.1.3

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Our_Religions/k-Jy1NcLyoMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Our+Religions,+The+Seven+World+Religions+Introduced+by+Preeminent+Scholars+from+Each+Tradition&printsec=frontcover

CycoMa (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Considering to infobox is added to this article by sockpuppet user Eliko007 who is blocked, and without any previous discussion, I will remove infobox and will start discussion here. I am against adding infobox. Sometimes especially for complex topic's infobox is not needed and it can make even greater confusion, synthesis of published material and it is often under attacks and vandalism. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Note also that Template:Infobox religion redirects to Template:Infobox Christian denomination; the infobox was renamed a couple of years ago, and the editor in question used an old version which has not been vetted by the community. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problem in removing Infobox .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 08:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Case to case, if it is added on some other place it does not need to be added in all other places. Sometimes more troubles than benefits. Especially about big and complex topics as it is case here. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We already have the navigation sidebar, with plenty of info. The infobox is dubious, and it's info simplistic and anecdotical. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Change the wiki name from Hinduism to Sanatan Dharma. Redirect to Santana Dharma whenever somebody Google Searches Hinduism.

Change the wiki name from Hinduism to Sanatan Dharma. Redirect to Santana Dharma whenever somebody Google Searches Hinduism. King20012001 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No. See WP:COMMONNAME.Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@King20012001: Sanatana dharma is described at Sanātanī and for the reasons Chariotrider555 mentions, this article won't change its name. Wikipedia has no influence over what results you get when you use search engines such as Google. If you want to change Google search results, you'll need to contact them. --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Like we can name it sanatan dharma & edit it in page that popularly known as Hinduism. Something like this. King20012001 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

Change "Hindu texts" to "Vedic texts" (at the bottom of the first paragraph). Hindu is not an appropriate term and was given by outsiders who did not even know the true nature of the Vedic Dharma. Rajpatelman (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 12:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Persecution

As expected, this section is dubious:

• I've already removed two sources for the claim Hinduism has been one of the most persecuted religious community in the world after Christians in the world history. I can't access the third source, Kaplan, Sam (2005-12-01). ""Religious Nationalism": A Textbook Case from Turkey". Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 25 (3): 665–676. doi:10.1215/1089201X-25-3-665. ISSN 1089-201X., but I'll bet it doesn't mention Hinduism. But apart from that, and from the grammatical errors, the claim "one of the most persecuted religious [communities] after Christianity" is meaningless; how many religious communities are part of "one of the most," c.q. which religious communities have not been persecuted? And what exactly is the intent of this statement?
• Brass, Paul R. (2011-05-01). The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-80060-8. does not the support the claims of forced conversions and massacres, while the demolition of Hindu temples appears to be exaggerated, and an inversion of Hindu violence against mosques.
• "Most of the persecutions of Hindus happened in past due to Muslim conquest and penetration of Christian Missionaries for the religious conversions."

• Wink, André (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Vol. Volume 1: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries. Brill. pp. 45–179. ISBN 978-0-391-04173-8. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help): p.45-179 covers the second half of chapter II, The India Trade, chapter III, and a part of chapter IV. Mentions persecution of Zoroastrians, not of Hindus. P.198-200 gives a rather different understanding of the conquests than the rhetorics of violent subordination.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

'Hindu' word origin

The prominent belief that the word 'Hindu' is an exonym i.e, derived from Persians is wrong. In reality, the word 'Hindu' is a portmanteau i.e, derived from two words. These are Himalaya and River Sindhu. 'Hi' from Himalaya and 'indu' from river Sindhu. Harsh Batar (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Romani people and Hinduism

Gall, Timothy L, ed. (1998), Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life, 4. Europe, Cleveland, OH: Eastword, pp. 316, 318, says that

"'Religion: An underlay of Hinduism with an overlay of either Christianity or Islam (host country religion)'; Roma religious beliefs are rooted in Hinduism. Roma believe in a universal balance, called kuntari... Despite a 1,000-year separation from India, Roma still practice 'shaktism', the worship of a god through his female consort..." Shakespeare143 (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

Hinduism is a religion that started around 9th to 10th century from foreign invasion, India did not have faith and belief systems. India did not have gods. India had tools or deities: an energy form created for certain purposes we call these temples It's the foreign invasions that corrupted the Indian culture Over the time India started creating their own belief systems getting influenced by the foreign invaders

Sanathana dharma is not anywhere close to hinduism, it is not a religion, it is a method to live, Jeekay99 (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LearnIndology (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting my edits reverted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1023625255 Any expert on the subject please look on the above edit that i had did which has been repeatedly got undoes by a moderator who did not even checked them. And advised me to get it verfied by experts. Although i used most authentic sources possible. So please review my edit and help me get it reverted. RamTripathi33 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• undid .sorry for the typo RamTripathi33 (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@RamTripathi: No need as per WP:MOS, the concept has a separate article i.e. Hindu atheism. Also Wikipedia is not a reliable source .245CMR.•^👥📜 14:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

also you are not meant to copy paste another article into this. Just leave the link Hindu atheism in Hinduism#See also section. .245CMR.•^👥📜 14:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But people generally ignore see also section so what if i add a new section of these articles and give reference to original page? RamTripathi33 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this comment "Also people dont generally go to those articles to know hinduism briefly", If people are interested they will go there, we cannot push it in this article. .245CMR.•^👥📜 15:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But dont you think that this main article lacks something very special of hinduism that it recognises atheism and also it being the most pluralistic of all world religions which has no mention in the main article. RamTripathi33 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@RamTripathi33: Hinduism is so large that not everything can be incorporated into this one article. Atheism ideas are briefly explain in the article. Further info is meant to be provided in that separate article..245CMR.•^👥📜 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But at least keep refernce to the hindu shaddarshan or six schools of thought which are essential to understand the diverse practices. RamTripathi33 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Already covered in Hinduism#beliefs .245CMR.•^👥📜 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Picture representing the Trimurti

I think that the picture of the Hoysaleswara temple in Halebidu, should name the Trimurti in this order: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. We can’t recognize them on the picture, but they are always presented in this order: the creator, the sustainer and the destroyer.--Faunus (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Faunus: It is already mentioned, if you are referring to the picture in Hinduism#Beliefs section. .245CMR.•^👥📜 04:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is in Hinduism#Beliefs section. Actually, they are presented as Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. This is not the usual order. --Faunus (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Faunus: That is because Hoysaleswara is a Shaivite (Shiva-centric) temple . What about these images File:Brahma,_Vishnu_and_Shiva_seated_on_lotuses_with_their_consorts,_ca1770.jpg and File:Trimurti ellora.jpg .245CMR.•^👥📜 03:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of Hindus

@Naveen Ramanathan: There may well be 1.25 billion Hindus but the cited source says 1.033. You need to either find a different source or leave it at the 1 billion number. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Oldest religion

I don't think that hindu or sanatan religion is the oldest religion in india because oldest book in hindu dharm is rig Veda.the lenguage of rig Veda is devnagari script and dhamma script is older than devnagari script. wikipidia please correct this information this is my humble request Rajiv15071989 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It says "one of the oldest" if you check next line. Also it is based on reliable sources, which you didn't provided..245CMR.•^👥📜 05:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What is "dhamma script"? Pali? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism

The principle of non-violence to animals has been so thoroughly adopted in Hinduism that animal sacrifice is uncommon[417] and historically reduced to a vestigial marginal practice.[418].

This is a qualitative statement, Bengali Hindus, for example, alone account for around 145 million of the hindus, and they all observe that importance of animal sacrifice in the Shakta tradition.

Reply: Sources not given to support your claims.245CMR.•^👥📜 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

103.138.145.142 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hinduism is south Asian relegion

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   melecie   t 05:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Islam was first Religion

2003:F7:E70A:61ED:1CA4:100B:A428:2EBF (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aathish S | talk | contribs 12:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

Please correct the typographical error "Hindusim", which occurs once in the article, with the correct spelling "Hinduism". Neconnaitpoint (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done--RegentsPark (comment) 21:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

Rohtak 117.233.100.174 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiLinuz (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

Hindus believe in 4 achievements of life, Dharma, Aartha, Kama, and Moskha. But the reason Hindus follow non-violence lifestyle ( no animal killing for sacrifice/ flesh foods). Is because Moskha is only achieved by path of Non violence. ; Swaminarayan Vachanmrut; Gadadha-I-69. Dharma, Aartha, Kama can be achieved by path of violence, but for Moskha non-violence MUST be followed. Therefore, India or Bharat will become a meat free nation within 2-5 years. 64.53.205.192 (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Mock marriage in Hinduism

There is a custom in India that in certain situations a human being can marry a plant (tree or flower). Unfortunately I can't find any description of this ceremony. Can anybody help me, please? Thank you. Henriku (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Similarities in names between Mandaeism & Hinduism

I have noticed some terms or names in Mandaeism that are found in Hinduism or Hindi language such as a temple Mandi; angels Uthra, Shitil, Anush, Manda d-Hayyi, Abatur (also pronounced Avatar), Tamasha (ritual purification), Rishama (another type of ritual purification), Laufa and many more. Does anyone know if this is due to both Indians and Mandaeans living within the Parthian Empire and using similar terms or is there a historical connection between the two religions or peoples? Please weigh in with your opinions. thanks Mcvti (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

The use word philosophy on defining Hinduism is wrong 2409:4063:4C9D:408B:C22:CE93:3106:2381 (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

2409:4055:4E8B:9967:E518:7BE2:C3D9:D4BB (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Hinduism refers to living a way of life and teaches about the trio Bramha, Vishnu and Mahesh ( refers to as Birth, Living Life and death) The three faces of life

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hinduism is not polytheistic

Hinduism is belief in one God who can take many forms. Please remove anything with uses the word "Gods" as it is not coming directly from people who know this religion well. Instead, change it to "forms of God". Also, please remove the parts using the word "polytheistic" or the parts saying that Hindus can also be "atheistic" or "agnostic". Meenal Singla (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hinduism is essentially a group of different sampradays, that have different beliefs. Some believe that there are many god, some belive that there's one god with different forms, some believes there's essentially a single god and many belive in aethism too. A hindu has right to think in his own way and perceive the world as he understands. Anonymous Pekka (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no rigidity in hinduism, I.e. no set of rules and all. Like, diwali is celebrated across the continent but every part has it's own cause to celebrate Anonymous Pekka (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no authentic source to confirm if hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic, it's upon the follower to, he could choose to be atheistic too and still he would be considered as a hindu as long as he follows he's dharma and believes in karma Anonymous Pekka (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

We should implement Ram Swarup; Sita Ram Goel into the section "Concept of God" (and probably rename it to "Concept of divinity" or something like that):

Many other Hindus, however, view polytheism as far preferable to monotheism. The famous Hindu revitalist leader Ram Swarup, for example, points to the Vedas as being specifically polytheistic, and states that, "only some form of polytheism alone can do justice to this variety and richness."

Sita Ram Goel, another 20th-century Hindu historian, wrote:

"I had an occasion to read the typescript of a book [Ram Swarup] had finished writing in 1973. It was a profound study of Monotheism, the central dogma of both Islam and Christianity, as well as a powerful presentation of what the monotheists denounce as Hindu Polytheism. I had never read anything like it. It was a revelation to me that Monotheism was not a religious concept but an imperialist idea. I must confess that I myself had been inclined towards Monotheism till this time. I had never thought that a multiplicity of Gods was the natural and spontaneous expression of an evolved consciousness."

References

Thank you in advance.2001:4BC9:901:DB20:B41B:9C8C:9CDF:2B48 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I did not change the section title because of the other instances where 'Concept of God' is used. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Please change the word "Beliefs" to something more appropriate for Hinduism. Hinduism does not have a belief system. Purusharthas, Samsara, Moksha and so on are not beliefs. These are Darshanas, philosophies, with at least an attempt at arguments behind them. An example of a belief is "Mohammad is the only prophet." There are no arguments offered, and none are allowed. On the contrary, take a concept like "Samsara." There is no belief involved. It is part descriptive, part deductive, but the concept can be questioned, modified, even rejected, and one can still remain a Hindu. So changing the word "Beliefs" to "Concepts" or "Philosophy" will be more appropriate. Otherwise it sounds like an Abrahamic overhang. 103.102.120.198 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 06:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

History of Hinduism : Nepal

Unification of Nepal was not done by Rana Dynasty. Unification campaign was started by Prithvi Narayan Shah, of Shah dynasty, the King of Gorkha. Rana Dynasty came to power nearly hundred years later. Even during the rule of Rana dynasty, the ceremonial rulers were of the Shah dynasty.

Moreover, Nepal was not unified by hinduization. One could say that the unification led to hinduization, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.94.255.107 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Section on criticism and conversion

Please remove the paragraphs pertaining to conversion in the 21st century and 'Saffron Terror' in the 'See also' subpara. The Wiki pages of Islam and Christianity make no mention of anti Christian bigotry, evangelicals and Jihadism and a reply was given on the Islam Talk page stating explicitly that they have not added it since it is controversial. The parts pertaining to caste system should remain as it is a valid argument, Ghar Wapsi (which is voluntary afaik) is a fringe movement and it is hypocritical to keep it as the forcible conversion of Christians in the Middle East or Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh have not been mentioned OR the conversion of indigenous religion followers to Christianity too has not been mentioned on the article pertaining to Christianity.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam#Criticism%2C_persecution%2C_and_debates) YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. UncannyBeast (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the See also link, as it is no longer relevant to what remains in that section. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed it per above. What we saw on "criticism" has been already covered very well on Hinduism#Varnas and is WP:NPOV. The person who added this section recently had clearly missed it and failed to provide the correct balance. @Joshua Jonathan: I think you have already reviewed this section Hinduism#Persecution_and_debates enough times. Do you think that we should really retain it? Persecution is not uncommon, it happens with every other religion and "conversion debate" is a subjective section that can be transferred to Hinduism#Person and society. killer bee  03:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I won't object to temoving it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

About hinduism

In the first line, it is said that Hinduism is an Indian religion but from my understanding Hinduism is popular in countries like Nepal too. So better to write "Hinduism is a religion from Indian subcontinent" rather than saying it is only Indian EERAVRR (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The wikilink to Indian religion explains that the term applies to religions from the Indian subcontinent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

infobox debate

There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

classification of Hinduism as "way of life"

perhaps its best to just call Hinduism a religion and Dharma. both of these terms are uncontroversial, and widely agreed upon. calling it a way of life veers unfortunately into peoples personal views and opinions/interpretations of it, and that seems generally unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepherino (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Religion" is a western word, which does not fully convey what Hinduism is; "dharma" is the Indian word, which describes it better, but is not directly intelligible for western readers. "Way of life" gives a hint of what dharma means, in combination with "religion." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"way of life" is not a common translation for Dharma

on the wikipedia article for Dharma it says:

"Although there is no direct single-word translation for dharma in European languages, it is commonly translated as "righteousness", "merit" or "religious and moral duties" governing individual conduct.

In Hinduism, dharma is one of the four components of the Puruṣārtha, the aims of life, and signifies behaviours that are considered to be in accord with Ṛta, the order that makes life and universe possible. It includes duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and "right way of living".

In Buddhism, dharma means "cosmic law and order", as expressed by the teachings of the Buddha. In Buddhist philosophy, dhamma/dharma is also the term for "phenomena".

Dharma in Jainism refers to the teachings of Tirthankara (Jina) and the body of doctrine pertaining to the purification and moral transformation of human beings.

In Sikhism, dharma means the path of righteousness and proper religious practice and one's own moral duties toward God."

The only time "way of life" is even remotely mentioned in the wikipedia article on Dharma is as something Dharma includes, its clear its not a core indicator as to what it is.

I would argue that saying religion and Dharma and leaving it at that would be best, given no translation can possibly be made for Dharma, and giving readers the chance to try and understand what Dharma actually means would be best. But if I had to throw in a third definition, I would have to promote "universal order" as closest to what Dharma means

Josepherino (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

", the religious and moral duties governing individual conduct" instead of "way of life" would be fine too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

that feels a bit circular: its essentially just saying religion and religious law, neither of which properly encompass the full scope of Dharma. Maybe instead of: Hinduism (/ˈhɪnduɪzəm/) is an Indian religion and dharma, or way of life. We could put: Hinduism (/ˈhɪnduɪzəm/) is a Dharma, or a religious and universal order to which Hindus abide. this statement shows that although Hinduism is a religion, Dharma means more than that, and encompasses a sort of "way" that Hindus obey. Josepherino (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a very elegant solution! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Great! if you have the ability to edit lets make the change and see if it sticks: if the solution proves popular we'll keep it, if not, back to the drawing board I suppose! Josepherino (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

At second thought, I think we can't get rid of "Indian religion." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Saying "Indian religion" is essential. It's more like a core, referring to all Dharmic religions or those that have "dharma" as their foundation. I feel it should be retained for all the four Dharmic religions alike. Rasnaboy (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope. "Dharma" has nothing to do with India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be the consensus on here. There was a talk board to discuss it earlier, and I think this is the conclusion they came to. Though I don't think its a logical representation of the religions, for now we will have no retain it Josepherino (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The closest analogy to Hinduism in the west are the traditions of Abrahamic religions. There are many "sects" within Hinduism that exhibit the western definition of religion. ISKON, for instance. Whereas ISKON developed its own Vedantic philosophy, others have eschewed them. Just as Islam refers to the tradition of Abraham with an independent interpretation, these Hindu traditions too refer to some parts of the Hindu traditions. "Way of life" also does not adequately describe it---the Aghori's way of life is bound to be very different from an ISKON devotee. So it is important to list all of them together—religions, way of life, etc., etc. The reason we have this problem is because no one thought of these traditions as a single religion until recently. Chaipau (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• God Vishnu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

We've had this discussion before: Talk:Hinduism/Archive 31#Infobox. Apart from that, "Dharmic religion" is not the common name; the long list with texts is uninformative, and repeats the infobox on Hinduism; "leader" is not a "leaders title"; "Vedic Sanskrit" and "old Tamil" are only two of the hundreds of Hindu-languages (what about English?); "From early roots in the 8th millennium BCE" is misleading; and Buddhism as a separation from Hinduism is a gross mistake. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan@Arimaboss I think it would be great to have an Infobox. It is very helpful to view high level information in such infobox. And seems Islam, Judaism, Christianity pages have infobox, and I feel it is very useful. I guess what goes in there could be discussed. Asteramellus (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan @Arimaboss Also, I think Vedic Sanskrit is considered as original language in which core Hindu/Sanatana Dharma scriptures were written, I guess? And old Tamil also? I would say at least include Vedic Sanskrit and maybe old Tamil, but not the rest of hundreds of languages used in India e.g. Christianity infobox shows languages as "Koine Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, Vernacular" - was surprised it doesn't include English. Asteramellus (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan @Arimaboss sorry one more thought - Regarding Buddhism, isn't Buddha one of the Dashavatara (avatars of Vishnu)? Just thinking logically here, and not from scripture references - If we consider Vishnu as a God within the term Hinduism (in reality Sanatana Dharma), and Buddha is avatar of Vishnu, and if Buddhism considers Buddha as God and separate religion from Hinduism, won't it be considered as having some "roots" to Sanatana Dharma and considered as Separation from Hinduism? E.g. On Christianity infobox, it shows Judaism as Seperated from. Asteramellus (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan @Arimaboss I am very curious regarding what is being discussed here - "Buddhism as a separation from Hinduism". I think some Buddhist scholars and/or Hinduism scholars can give more insights from other good sources, but wanted to put this here from what I read in the book "A survey of Hinduism by Klaus Klostermaier" - In Part IV: Hinduism Encountering the "Other" - "During its early history many movements arose in India that broke away from mainstream Brahmanism—such as Jainism and Buddhism—movements that developed into major independent traditions." Asteramellus (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We already have a great infobox. The Buddha came to be regarded as an avatar of Vishnu centuries after the time of the Buddha, at a time when what we caal "Hinduism" had just emerged as a of Brahmanism, local religikns, and sramana influences. Brahmanism is not Hinduism; inform yourself better. Klostermaier is not reliable in this regard; he's got an Indigenous Aryanism bias. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks for the information. I am actually trying to inform myself better...by seeking good references from scholars here and elsewhere. Brahmanism is not Hinduism, but I had read in Britannica that "However, among practicing Hindus, especially within India, Brahmanism is generally viewed as a part of their tradition rather than as a separate religion" - though don't want to get into discussions about Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma and when/what/where it originated etc. If Klostermaier is not a reliable reference, do you know other good references that I can read?

Regarding the infobox itself, don't you think consistency will help? Other major religions have that. Why not for Buddhism, Hinduism? @Arimaboss attempt seems to be a great start.

Also, speaking about references, I had some questions in that other talk thread for few references you had cited - wanted your thoughts on those. Asteramellus (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

See Hindu synthesis; follow the references. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Sorry, I meant the references in the "other talk thread" - Klostermaier, Doniger, Parpola, Flood etc. Wanted your thoughts in that thread.

I plan to follow references at Hindu synthesis for my information. Thanks for that link.

Regarding the infobox, if you don't have any objections, I can add something to start with for Hinduism based on @Arimaboss and you can help with contents further. That will really help all major religions pages to have some consistency. Just checked your edits and seems you are a Buddhism scholar - maybe you can start the infobox for Buddhism page. Asteramellus (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Joshua that an infobox would not be very viable or useful on this page and will be a permanent magnet for over-simplified and POV claims about Hinduism's origins, beliefs and other attributes that are best explained in prose. A navigation template is a better fit for the lede since it leads the reader to more detailed information about the aspect of Hinduism they are particularly interested in rather than provide them with a short but grossly misleading "answer". Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Abecedare Thanks so much for coming and providing guidance. I guess I want to voice my opinion here. I understand your concern for origin (I really didn't even question origin concern). Maybe we don't include the origin field or just mention unknown or controversial for origin. That way it is more consistent with other major religions. But I see you are an admin, so want to respect your opinion. Just want to mention here that my points were just in response to original discussion. E.g for "Buddhism as a separation from Hinduism is a gross mistake" - If we consider it as a common knowledge that Buddha was a Dashavatara (regardless of from when he came to be known such), and Dashavatara are from Vishnu, isn't it a conclusion that Buddhism was a separation from Hinduism (i.e Sanatana Dharma). And I cited one of the reference for that. Also, saying "what about English?" - seemed little sarcastic because e.g. even Christianity don't mention English in infobox. Again thanks so much for taking time and give guidance here. Asteramellus (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "Hinduism"

Yoonadue-concerns

Hey Joshua Jonathan, the sentence "The term "Hinduism" was coined in around 1830 by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from other religious groups" is not supported by any of the 3 sources.[13][14][15] I don't think it would make sense to claim that "1830" was the year when the term was coined. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yoonadue: could you be more specific? Basically you're now repeating your edit-summary.

• Singh p.433 doesn't mention this indeed; no wonder, since his book threats Indian history until ca. 1200... According to this book it comes from Gavin Flood, An introduction to Hinduism; it's on page 6. Klostermaier p.17, though, states something resembling this, yet attributes it to the English...
• Doniger p.5: "The term "Hindu" was coined in opposition to other religions"
• Parpola p.1: "Introduction." That's not exactly supporting the statement either... But, page 5: "During the British period, in the nineteenth century, the term was adopted by those Indians who opposed colonialism, in order to disntinguish themselves from Muslims."

Next time, try better than just searching those sources for "Hinduism 1830." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like your edit ruined my original post. I have fixed that.

Page numbers would need fixing. We can use Doniger and Parpola, and instead say: "During 19th century, the term "Hinduism" was adopted by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from other religions." --Yoonadue (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Something went wrong there indeed; thanks for fixing. I've already removed Singh, and added Flood and Klostermaier, corrected the pagenumber, and corrected the statement diff. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Asteramellus-concerns

Hi @Joshua Jonathan- Came across this while reading this page for reference to my research. First, I feel citing all 4 references for that statement seems misleading to me. Reading this full sentence on wiki and then re-reading the 4 references seems to contrast either directly or indirectly the meaning of what these 4 authors have written. e.g
- Parpola has "The term was adopted by those Indians who opposed colonialism..." "In order to distinguish themselves from Muslims" - and before that has "But when the Persian-speaking Mughals conquered northern India in the sixteenth century, they called the country Hindustan and its people Hindu. During the Mughal empire, in the seventeenth century, the British, too, began to use “Hindu”" To me, feel currently written is not giving full context and changing the meaning - just a thought.
- Doniger has "The term Hindu was coined in opposition to other religions, but this self-definition through otherness began centuries before there was contact with Europeans (or, indeed, with Muslims). All of us identify who we are in contrast with who we are not, and the 'who we are not' changes all the time.'" – this too, to me, doesn't quite match the whole statement and also I feel what Doniger means is for term Hindu and not Hinduism and also, even for the term Hindu …. "opposition to other religions, but ....began....before there was contact with Europeans'"
- Flood has 1830 information, but says "to denote the culture and religion ....in contrast to other religion" – I feel currently written is a wrong projection of actual meaning here, but looking for your thoughts here after reading this piece again.
- Klostermaier also has 1830 information, but says "Englishmen coined the term"! Quite a contrast here. And it also says "The Muslims, who began invading India....used the term Hindu as a generic designation for non-Muslims Indians"! Again, quite a contrast here (if we ignore the word not having "-ism") from what is written. Asteramellus (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan not sure if you were able to look into my comments in this thread. You mentioned "discussed before", but not sure if it was discussed here or somewhere else. Didn't see your response, so I thought you were ok with my research. Do you have thoughts for my research? Asteramellus (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: I see your point, but I think the info is clear and self-explanatory: the term was coined around 1830 (by British, indeed), and appropriated by Hindus who wanted to distinguish themselves specifically from Muslims and Christians (and not some unspecified 'other religions'). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan thanks. The info may be clear and self-explanatory, but as I said before, not representing what all 4 cited sources say. Maybe splitting info and citing separately can help readers like me. It should not be hard to come up with a consensus for what the 4 sources. We can start discussing with one source at a time.

Current info says "The term "Hinduism" was coined in around 1830, and appropriated by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians."

Flood says "The actual term Hindu first occurs as a Persian geographical term…..Hindu…was used towards the end of eighteenth century by the British to refer to the people of Hindustan, the area of northwest India. Eventually, Hindu became virtually equivalent to an Indian who is not a Muslim, Sikh, Jain or Christian…….The -ism was added to Hindu …1830….to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmans in contrast to other religions…..the term as soon appropriated by Indians themselves……establishing a national identify opposed to colonialism".

So, reading Flood, I read this for term "Hinduism":

- Hinduism was coined around 1830 - as mentioned in the first part of the sentence.

- coined to denote the culture and religion and not "oppose colonialism and ...distinguish form Muslims and Christians"

- doesn't say anything about the term Hinduism and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians

- appropriated by Indians themselves to establish a national identity opposed to colonialism and not "those Indians who opposed British colonialism." -

Sorry for all the details for a few words sentence, but I feel misrepresenting a source is adding confusion for readers like me. I think current word choices (except for the first part of the sentence) misrepresents what Flood says. What do you think?

Just for reference (don't want to discuss this as part of this talk thread), what I read for term Hindu (which I think is described in more detail in the paragraph following this one):

- The term Hindu first occurs as a Persian term

- used by British to refer to people of Hindustan

- term became equivalent to an Indian who is not a Muslim, Sikh, Jain or Christian Asteramellus (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to read the sources again; will do so, but later. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Flood mentions "1830" and "appropriated [...] context [...] opposed to colonialism"; note the term "appropriated"; Parpola explicates this as "adopted by those Indians who opposed colonialism." I don't see a problem here; it's a short summary of the coinage of the term "Hinduism" by the British, and it's appropriation by Hindu nationalists, in opposition to colonialism, distinguishing themselves from Christians and Muslims. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I am very grateful for you taking so much time and giving guidance here. I understand your points. For currently written sentence, sorry, I still feel citing all 4 references to that single sentence is misrepresenting content of the 4 sources. Short on time, but I will find time to reread some of the paragraphs/chapters from the 4 references and understand more, and come back here. Also, just a quick note - in your response, don't you think using term "Hindu nationalist" (which seems to have some different usage these days) instead of what e.g Flood says "Indians themselves …. National Identity…." is changing meaning? How can we conclude and summarize (from what Flood says) that Indians are only Hindus? Did only Hindus considered the land as their nation or did only Hindus in India oppose British Colonialism - I guess this is opening a whole new research area for me. By "National Identify", I read it more like people of some country as a nation defending for themselves, and not related to only some religious people defending for their country - I will read more to understand the perspective during that time. Asteramellus (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You deserve my time than I'm giving you; but I'm a Wiki-editor, not a tutor. The point is that the term "Hinduism" is related to the question how old "Hinduism" is, and that question is related to Hindu-nationalism. Some people prefer to think that "Hinduism" is a millennia-old religion; in that context, it's relevant to know that the term "Hinduism" is only two centuries old. Which, fkr some, means that the concept of Hinduism, as an unified religious tradition, is also only two centuries old. It's a tricky subject-matter, and the sensitivies do warrant so many sources. I think that for the Wiki-article the sentence as it is is fine. For the detail of knowledge you're looking for a discussion about the content of a wiki-article will not suffice. I'll be happy to provide you with more info and sources with regard to your research at my talkpage; this talkpage is not the right place for that. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thapar source

In this edit, Nonameonlyusername added a double citation (sfnm) for Sharma (2003) and Thapar (1993), pp. 239-241. Thapar (1993), already present in the biblography, only has up to page 174. This must be some other Thapar source. Does anybody know? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

al-Hind

Could someone please help me with this? The citation given for this text: The Arabic term al-Hind referred to the people who live across the River Indus. is just Thapar 1993, p77 [16]. But Wink's books seem to refer to a region---al-Hind refers to a region, not a people. Arvind Sharma too mentions al-Hind refers to a region and not the people (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3270470, page 4). Could someone please verify this from the claimed source which is Thapar? Chaipau (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You are right that "Al-Hind" refers to the country, normally India. It was never used to mean people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The current content is terrible. Please don't bother fixing it, because I will be rewriting it entirely. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should we wait for your edits?

Also, what was India then, when people started using the term al-Hind? You seem to be projecting present-day prejudices to the past.

Chaipau (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Thapar article can be found in a journal:

• Thapar, Romila (1989), "Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity", Modern Asian Studies, 23 (2): 209–231, doi:10.1017/S0026749X00001049

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoting:

Its [the term's] more common occurrence many centuries later is in Arabic texts where the term is initially used neither for a religion nor for a culture. It refers to the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, the land across the Sindhu or Indus river. Al-Hind was therefore a geographical identity and the Hindus were all the people who lived on this land. Hindu thus essentially came to mean 'the other' in the eyes of the new arrivals.

Your edit summaries:

• al-hind referred to the "land beyond the Indus". This is definitely not the entire Indian subcontinent [17]
• Were they really called Hindus? Thapar actually meant that all people (Hindus and Buddhists) together were called Hindus.) [18]

It may be a good idea for you to limit your participation to the talk page, where it is disruptive enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thapar (2004) takes precedence over Thapar (1998). Thapar (2004) says:

in Arab sources, al-Hind (the land beyond the Indus).

The land beyond the Indus is not Indian subcontinent, which includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Sorry, al-Hind did not include Sri Lanka and Maldives. Later definitions of Hindustan, extended it to the Gangetic plains north of the Vindya mountains.

I am happy to disrupt your agenda, so no worries.

Chaipau (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, Thapar does not say the people of al-Hind were called Hindus. It is not clear from Thapar that these new arrivals actually used the word Hindu to denote the people of al-Hind. We need some specific evidence on when these people were called Hindus. Chaipau (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that the two of you are edit-warring to decide between

  In Arabic texts, al-Hind referred to the land beyond the Indus and therefore, all the people in that land were Hindus. [Chaipau]

  and

  In Arabic texts, al-Hind referred to the Indian subcontinent and all its people were called Hindus. [Kautilya3]

  This will probably be the lamest dispute that I have seen but I agree that Chaipau's wording is marginally better. When Thapar uses "Indian subcontinent" she doesn't mean to include North East India, Maldives, S. Lanka etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thapar did not insert "therefore". Even if she had, there are plenty of other sources that would conradict it. "Hindu" is not a derivative of "Hind" in Arabic. "Hindi" is. (This matters because "Hindu" acquired a religious sense, but "Hindi" did not.)

"Hindu" was a Persian term for the land. It is not too far-fetched to apply the term to the people as well. It looks like the Turko-Persians in Afghanistan/Khorasan were already calling the people of Indus land as "Hindus" before Al-Biruni's time. He is taking it for granted that it is a well-known term.

On the other hand, generalizing "Hindu" from the Indus people to all Indians could have followed the Arabic pattern. The Arabs didn't really have a specific eastern boundary for "Al-Hind". Even Southeast Asia was sometimes included. But that is another debate. Right now, I am opposed to "therefore". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I am OK with removing "therefore". But to be accurate, one should show the usage of Hindu for people in a more convincing manner. Arvind Sharma does not do it either. Hind/Hindu for land to Hindu for people is a pretty big jump and a milestone. It needs better evidence than some minor comment by howsoever big a scholar. If the Arabic/Persian writers did not use the word Hindu for people then it is significant, because we have the use of Hindu for people in the Gaudiya texts, and then the use of the word Hindu for people will be a self-designation. That is why I am opposed to using "called". Chaipau (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

By the 11th century, the Persian term for the Indus land was not just "Hindu", it was "Hindustan". So, "Hindu" was free to be used in the sense of "Indian", both as an adjective and a demonym. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though it is possible we still need some positive evidence for the use of the term Hindu for people.

Also, Hindustan in the Persian text referred to only the Northwest of (undivided) India. Thapar (2004):

hndstn, read as Hindustan, although it did not refer to the subcontinent but only to the north-west (in a Middle Persian Sasanian inscription of Shahpur I in the third century AD)

Hindustan might have included the Gangetic plains by the time the Mughals came, but it did not include any region south of the Vindyas. Chaipau (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good catch about therefore.

Btw, as Lecoq cautions, Hiduš was not a Persian term for all that lay East of Indus. Also, the Achaemnids used "Hiduya" to refer to the people of "Hiduš" as evident from DNe l. 13. And, as far as my knowledge goes, S. East Asia was never included in Al-Hind by Arab chroniclers. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a quotation from Al-Biruni's preface, which has been cited in a number of sources.

I have done and written this book on the doctrines of the Hindus, never making any unfounded imputations against those, our religious antagonists, and at the same time not considering it inconsistent with my duties as a Muslim to quote their own word at full length when I thought they would contribute to elucidate a subject. If the contents of these quotations happen to be utterly heathenish, and the followers of the truth, i.e. the Muslims, find them objectionable, we can only say that such is the belief of the Hindus, and that they themselves are the best qualified to defend it.

Another version. I don't know if it is the same passage or different (he is said to have written 146 books!):

I shall not produce the arguments of our antagonists in order to refute such of them, as I believe to be in the wrong. My book is nothing but a simple historic record of facts. I shall place before the reader the theories of the Hindus exactly as they are, and I shall mention in connection with them similar theories of the Greeks in order to show the relationship existing between them.

What I find interesting in the first version is that the religious sense is already present. For sure, Al-Biruni knew of Muslims living in "Hindustan" (Punjab and Sindh). Did he think of them as "Hindus" or "Muslims" or both? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The quotes are from successive paragraphs of Sachau's translation (1910) of al-Biruni's Kitab al-Hind. Though I need to check if the translation is correct. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Confusion of the etymology section

The etymology section of the page is very confused and has several issues. 1. "Hinduism" was first used by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816, but was then coined later in 1830? What? That's not how coining works. It would have been coined in 1816 with RRMR's use.

2. The section says: "It was only towards the end of the 18th century that European merchants and colonists began to refer to the followers of Indian religions collectively as Hindus". But there's no source for this, the next note goes on some cited tangents but says nothing on the claim it's next to.

3. The text preceding that sentence seems to imply the use of the word "Hindu" in a religious sense, in contrast to followers of some foreign barbarian religions evident as early as the 1400s, appearing in Rajtarigini and as a religious endonym in the Bhaktmala in the 1600s. But this idea is never developed or elaborated upon, instead a opposing sentence immediately follows, giving the text a fractured appearance, as if written by two people with opposing POVs just foisting on their constructions.

4. But then a modified version of the second sentence, this time with an actual source, appears. It's now just the 18th century, rather than the "end" of 18th century. The title of the source seems to indicate the study might support the view that "Hindu" as a descriptor of the followers of an Indian religion might predate colonial uses.

5. Amidst all this confusion, this specific section seems to want to claim that the non-Muslims in India followed what were different religions later categorised as one. But this is completely at odds the later sections are worded, treating Hinduism as a concrete thing that has existed for centuries, and not as a colonial construction which it is (claimed to be). If for example Hinduism was not a single religion, then it's nonsensical to say that it had "debate, not dogma" on various subjects—of course there will be only debate, it's different religions afterall.

6. All this seems to be due to poor synthesis and undue weight to specific sources. A rewrite is needed.

117.194.202.203 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is a mess. I think we need to cut out some of the sources on the basis of WP:HISTRS and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I will look through them and present some analysis here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like scholars have gotten used to doing online or electronic searching. So many of them don't know about the older spellings "Hindoo" and "Hindooism", or further older epithets like "Gentoo" (and possibly "Gentooism").

First of all Hindu mata and Hindu dharma are much older than the 19th century. It is possible that they would have likely encompassed Buddhism and Jainism as well, but only vaguely because those religions already had well-established names (Bauddha mata and Jaina mata respectively). So, the "Hindu" idenfication was only needed for people who weren't Buddhists and Jains.

For the English word "Hinduism" itself, Lorenzen says the following:

In 1816 Rammohan made this critical comment: “The chief part of the theory and practice of Hindooism, I am sorry to say, is made to consist in the adoption of a peculiar mode of diet.” In 1817, on the other hand, he claimed that “the doctrines of the unity of God are real Hinduism, as that religion was practiced by our ancestors, and as it is well known at the present day to many learned Brahmins.”[9] This puts the proponents of the British construction of Hinduism in the embarrassing situation of having to admit that an India-born Hindu seems to have coined the label for this supposedly British construct.

In the same paragraph, he mentions about a dozen occurrences he found in other sources around the same time. We don't know what happened around that time for this profusion of this supposedly new word, but none of them were apparently conscious of it being a neologism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Hindu

The term "Hindu" is of course Persian, but whether it was used to refer to the people has not been researched. The Greek equivalents "indos" and "indoi" were used by Herodotus. So I presume that the Persians were also using them. But despite extesive search, I could find no analysis of the issue. We should also keep in mind that the Persian usage was tied to the Indus valley. Even though the Greeks, Romans and Arabs generalised the term to whole of India, there is no evidence that Persians did so.

Between 600 and 1200 AD, several military conflict were fought between "Muslims" and "Hindus". It would be surprising if the term "Hindus" wasn't used during those times. But nobody has checked. By the time of Al-Beruni, we see a clear designation of "Hindus" in a religious sense ("our religious antagonists").

"Religious sense" here does not mean "followers of Hinduism". Al-Beruni didn't have a clear identification of Hinduism in those times. All that it meant was "natives" following their native religion and culture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Writers writing not directly on Hinduism has mentioned that it was not monolithic, nor did it form a single community (except for Brahminism, perhaps). Eraly writes: "To most Hindus, ill-treatment by Muslims would have seemed like any other caste or sectarian outage, maybe more virulent than anything within Hindu society, but not fundamentally different.".

He also quotes from European travelers from those times: "'The idolaters,' says Tavernier, 'have no union among themselves, and superstitions have introduced so strange a diversity of opinions and customs that they never agree with one another.' Writes Manucci: 'The inhabitants of these places differ in their customs, as well as their mode of life, the ceremonial at their temples, and the doctrines of their religion.' Despite the traditional brahminical endeavor to incorporate local and tribal deities into the Hindu pantheon, and the devotional bhakti movement tending to efface regional differences, Hindu gods in Mughal India remained mostly localized. The gods worshipped by one Hindu community were not worshipped by other Hindu communities." Chaipau (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think being "monolithic" is a requirement for a religion. The above observations are quite amateurish. I suggest you read the Wilfred Cantwell Smith monograph, which discusses these issues thoroughly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Read not as "monolithic" but "community". A religion has to have communities. Hinduism had local and disparate communities. These are extant observations, even if you consider them amateurish. They are depicting the "Hindu society" as they saw them and we are getting first hand views. Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"Community" here:

The reclamation of Hindus seems to have been a regular feature till the time of Al‐Biruni (c. AD 1024). "I have been repeatedly told" says the Muslim historian, "that when Hindu salves (in Muslim countries) escape and return to their country and religion, the Hindus order that they should fast by way of expiation, then they keep in in dung, stale and milk of cows for a certain number of days, till then they give them similar dirt to eat, and more of the like." The Devala-Smriti mentions fasts like those of Candrāyana and Parāka, and Padakricchra and the use of cow urine (gomutra) and cow dung (gomayam).

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is from Gavin Flood: "I shall use the term 'Hindu' to refer not only to the contemporary world religion, but with necessary qualifications to the traditions that have led to its present formation." What I find interesting here is that Flood is forced to define the religion in its contemporary setting and the different "traditions" that led to it.

Regarding colonialism, this is what he has to say: "The '-ism' was added to 'Hindu' in around 1830 to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmins in contrast to other religions" (p6) This definitely has the flavor of a "project" that started when well into colonialism. Why did it not happen in the Mughal times? What encouraged it? Chaipau (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Hindu identity

The section is also getting to the issue of "Hindu identity". This is a red herring. There is no doubt that a universal "Hindu identity" as we see it today arose during the colonial times. Prior to that, it was limited to those Hindus who were living or working in a Muslim-dominated environment, say, e.g., the Hindu troops in Mahmud of Ghazni's army, or the Hindu Rajputs in the Mughal Courts, or the Vijayanagara kings who saw themselves as defenders of the Hindu religion. But what does this any of this have to do with "Hinduism", the word?

There is a reference to D. N. Jha's essay, which to some extent conflates Hindu identity and Hinduism. The claim “The British borrowed the word ‘Hindu’ from India, gave it a new meaning and significance, [and] reimported it into India as a reified phenomenon called Hinduism.” is wrong when read at its face value. Lorenzen has disproved it conclusively. What I think Jha means is that the study of Hinduism or Hindu religion in prior times was something of a theological enterprise, not an everyday reality. In the colonial times, on the other hand, there was a constant grading of people into "religions" (as pigeonholes, say) and people thought it necessary to fit into one of those pigeonholes in order to go about their everyday lives. This is a sociological phenomenon, rather than a religious one. I think it should be removed from here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This sociological/political phenomenon should be mentioned and discussed. Because the Hinduism identity is an important phenomenon. One of the reasons the colonialists encouraged it was because it elevated potential allies against the vestiges of the persianised Mughal bureaucracy. Chaipau (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I did not find Lorenzen very convincing. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, explain why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It is largely a rhetorical work that makes a straw man argument. He claims "This Hinduism wasn't invented by anyone, European or Indian. Like Topsy, it just grow'd" whereas the claim is "the modern concept of “Hinduism” is the product of a complex colonial encounter between Hindus and Western administrative, orientalist, and missionary influences." He does mention the cusp when the search occurred ("Noteworthy to this period are Nathaniel Brassey Halhed's A Code of Gentoo Law), he failed to mention Halhed's other projects regarding the Bengali Alphabet and resurrect Sanskrit and Sanskritisation. What Halhed and others were trying to do was replace the Persianised Mughal bureaucracy with a Sanskritised local language and form an alliance with a local class. This was a collaborative effort that involved local Brahmin informants as well as the others King mentions. M Siddiq Khan writes: "Subsequently, to consolidate its hold on the province, the Company promoted the Bengali language. This did not represent an intrinsic love for Bengali speech and literature. Instead it was aimed at destroying traditional patterns of authority through supplanting the Persian language which had been the official tongue since the days of the great Moguls. Nevertheless, as a result Bengali flourished. Instrumental in the advancement of Bengali printing was the policy adopted by the Company of teaching Bengali to its employees. Notable English orientalists-Halhed, Carey, and Nathaniel Pitts Forster, for example-stoutly promoted the teaching of Bengali in its pure Sanskritized form." Thus the Bengali register Sadhu Bhasha emerged, in which the eventual Indian Anthem was written. And it was in Bengal that the term "Hinduism" first appeared and became popular as a name of this religion. Hinduism was not invented by anyone in particular, but it did not just "grow'd" either. The word "invention" here is used in the same way others use the term "Aryan Invasion Theory". Chaipau (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Lorenzen paper is interesting. I am used to seeing texts claiming Hinduism was invented this or then—always seemed nonsensical and absurd on the face of it. I have seen English texts talking about the Hindu religion from way before it was supposedly invented, one as early as the 1791, in an animal rights booklet by the Scottish intellectual and later French revolutionary John Oswald (activist), well before it was supposedly invented—

"Did we rightly understand the principles, and the true scope of Hindoo religion and legislation, which are established on the same basis, we should find that, to the gratitude and admiration of the human race, few legislators can exhibit so just a claim as the lawgiver of Hindustan. [...]

But there is one article which distinguishes, from all others, the doctrine of Burmah, and which raises, above all religions on the face of the earth, the sacred system of Hindustan. Satisfied with extending to man alone the moral scheme, the best and mildest of other modes of worship, to the cruelty and caprice of the human race, every other species of animal have unfeelingly abandoned.

Far other are the sentiments of the merciful Hindoo. Diffusing over every order of life his affections, he beholds, in every creature, a kinsman: he rejoices in the welfare of every animal, and compassionates his pains ; for he knows, and is convinced, that of all creatures the essence is the same, and that one eternal first cause is the father of us all(2)."

No doubt there are earlier texts, Oswald was a visitor to India and did not invent the word Hindu or the concept of the Hindu religion.

117.194.202.203 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Geographical term, not a religious

The text uses Flood, page 6 to make this claim. But, which geography is Flood referring to? He starts out by making a wrong claim (and he is not alone in doing this), viz., that the Persians called the land "beyond the Indus" as Hindu. They did not. Historians that studied the history of the Achamenids are unequivocal in stating that the Persians applied the term only to the land of Indus. And that land itself was called "Sindhu" in Sanskrit, and it is still called Sindh. The Persian term was Hindush. It was a province, with clearly defined boundaries. The Persians were doing no more than using the native name of the place, albeit applying their sound change *s > h.

So, how and when did "Hindu" refer to the "land beyond Indus"? As far as I can see, the generalisation was made by other people using their words derived from Hindu. The Greeks were using "indoi" and "india" to the whole of the subcontinent by the time of Alexander's invasion. The Arabs were also using Al-Hind and related terms by the time of prophet Muhammad to everything Indian. And these people did so based on cultural similarities. Julius Lipner writes:

This term seems clearly to have been derived from sindhu, and was both geographical and cultural, designating the land and peoples around and beyond the Sindhu riverine system.... However, the ancient Persian description was undiscerning: it lumped all those it tended to describe culturally into one heap, a practice that persisted when foreigners sought to name all those who lived on and beyond the riverine boundary.

(He is right about the "undiscerning cultural heap", but this heap was not found by the Persians, rather by other foreigners. Who is to say they were undiscering?)

Religion is part of culture and it was observed as such a part. Nobody highlighted anybody's religion in those days. Religion simply wasn't used as an identity, by anybody. Not the Indians, not the Persians, not the Greeks and not the Arabs. It is only after the advent of the "modern" religions: Christianity and Islam that religion got reified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

1830

Apparently the 1830 reference is from Doniger [19]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is no occurrence of "1830" in Doniger and also in Asko Parpola, his second source. In fact, there is much in these two sources that completely contradicts what the guy wrote. It is WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is not OR either, because the relevant text is in Flood, which somebody else seems to have added as a source. Flood says (page 6):

The '-ism' was added to 'Hindu' in around 1830 to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmans in contrast to other religions, and the term was soon appropriated by Indians themselves in the context of establishing a national identity opposed to colonialism,[5: W. C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 207, Frykenberg, 'The Emergence of Modern "Hinduism"', in Sontheimer and Kulke (eds.), Hinduism Reconsidered (Delhi: Manohar, 1991), pp. 30—1.]

It was quite difficult to get hold of the information from these two sources. But it turns out that the date they give is 1829. And both of them took it from the Oxford English Dictionary, which is certainly not a WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ism

Oxford English Dictionary meanings for the suffix "-ism":

• 1.a Forming a simple noun of action (usually accompanying a verb in -ize suffix), naming the process, or the completed action, or its result (rarely concrete); as in agonism, aphorism, baptism, criticism, embolism, exorcism, magnetism, mechanism, nepotism, organism, plagiarism, ostracism, syllogism, synchronism, volcanism. To this group in Greek belonged asterism.
• 1.b Applied to these, though with affinities to 2, are words in which -ism expresses the action or conduct of a class of persons, as heroism, patriotism, despotism, and the more colloquial blackguardism, busybodyism, desperadoism, priggism, scoundrelism; also the condition of a person or thing, as barbarism, deaf-mutism, orphanism, anomalism, mediævalism, parallelism; also Daltonism; with such nonce-words as bar-maidism, old maidism; all-roundism, cleverism, devil-may-care-ism, well-to-do-ism.
• 2.a Forming the name of a system of theory or practice, religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political, social, etc., sometimes founded on the name of its subject or object, sometimes on that of its founder. Such are Alexandrianism, Arianism, Arminianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Calvinism, Catholicism, Chartism, Christianism, Congregationalism, Conservatism, Epicureanism, Judaism (a1500), Latitudinarianism, Liberalism, Machiavellism, Mohammedanism, Platonism, Positivism, Presbyterianism, Protestantism, Puritanism, Puseyism, Quakerism, Quietism, Radicalism, Ritualism, Romanism, Socinianism, Taoism, Toryism, Wesleyanism, Whiggism.
• 2.b  More of the nature of class-names or descriptive terms, for doctrines or principles, are agnosticism, altruism, animism, atheism, bimetallism, deism, egoism, egotism, empiricism, evangelism, fanaticism, feminism, heathenism, hedonism, idealism, imperialism, jingoism, libertinism, monachism, naturalism, opportunism, pædobaptism, paganism, polytheism, realism, romanticism, sansculottism, scepticism, stoicism, theism, universalism.
• 3 Forming a term denoting a peculiarity or characteristic, esp. of language, e.g. Æolism, Americanism, Anglicism, Atticism, Devonshirism, Gallicism, Græcism, Hebraism, Hellenism, Latinism, Orientalism, Scotticism, Southernism, Westernism, etc. To these add such as archaism, classicism, colloquialism, modernism, newspaperism, solecism, sophism, witticism.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Chronological order

I think it will help to place the evidence in chronological order. I shall try to do that. Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I reverted your edit. O'Conell is specific that the contrasting communities are not mentioned as Muslim or Musulman. I have also added the quote from the article in the citation. Chaipau (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the topic of this page is Hinduism. Please avoid going off on tangents. There is plenty to say about the word Hinduism itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is how Flood phrases it for example:

though the term 'Hindu' was used in Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts in contrast to 'Yavana' or Muslim, as early as the sixteenth century.[6:O'Connell, 'The Word "Hindu" in Gaudiiya Vaisnava Texts', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93-3 (1973), pp. 340—4]

And, here is what O'Connell himself says in his abstract:

Most occurences [of "Hindu"] are in episodes of strained relationships between Hindus and Yavanas or Mlecchas, as the Muslims are called. The strains are usually resolved satisfactorily. The word 'Hindu' never appears in a purely intra-communal Hindu context and has no significance in the central religious concerns of the texts, the expositions of bhakti.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: in another part of the text the author writes:

In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and, for the most part, the eighteenth centuries the standard names for the non-Hindu group were 'Yavana' (Ionian; foreigner) and 'Mleccha' (barbarian). Bengali renderings of Pathan and Turk also appear, but not 'Muslim' or 'Musulman'.

Yavana alone was not used for Muslims, but also Pathan and Turk. Mleccha was used for Muslims, but it was also used for Kiratas. So your substitution all these labels by "Muslim" is inaccurate. You are cherry picking quotes O'Conell to show that the followers of Islam were called Muslims in the medieval times which is not at all the case. They were called by various names and Hindu and Muslim were not categories medieval writings used. This issue is germane to the debate on whether the Hindu identity had formed during the pre-colonial times or not. That is why it is important to be very accurate with the terms here and provide as NPOV-ised wordings as possible. You seem to be pushing a particular point of view instead.

You have now reverted my edits twice ([20], [21]) and removed the quote cited in your second edit. This constitutes edit warring.

Chaipau (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about any identities, Hindu or any other. This page is not about identities. So, please stop badgering.

Note that Flood does not use the Mleccha word, and he translates Yavana as Muslims. And, O'Connell himself is saying that those labels were used for Muslims. If you want to dissect Gaudiya texts, please go start a page on them. Not here, please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to care very deeply about identities here, despite your denial. "Muslim" was not a category used in the texts under discussion and we should not use it here. Simple. "Hindu was a term used to contrast against Yavana, Mlechha, Pathan, and Turk" is a factual statement. "Hindu was a term used to contrast against Muslims" is a loaded statement because it mixes present-day categories with medieval ones, and slyly introduces present-day definitions into the past. This is all the more problematic because this itself is the subject of discussion here. You are trying to push your POV slyly. Chaipau (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This will get fixed in my rewrite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how you can draft an article on "Hinduism" and its development without focusing on the development of the Hindu identity. And I do think that the Hindu identity, to some extent, had developed in opposition to the Muslim other (the names by which they were referred to, is interesting but irrelevant for our immediate subject) in late medieval India. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't see it, what am I to do about it? The onus is on you to explain how "identity" matters for religion. You can also read Al-Biruni who explains how the Hindus were practising their religion before any identities got made. You can also read Wilfred Cantwell Smith who explains how this has been the norm all over the world, the semitic religions being an exception. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Al-Biruni covers Buddhists and their modes of worship under the purview of Hindus; do you suggest that we include it here?

Somewhere above, you have written that people did not identify on the basis of their religion, which was apparently only a part of culture, until the advent of Islam/Christianity! We have multiple Buddhist texts of the early first millenia describing of the Persians as nothing but incestuos believers of a faith that had some similarities with the Vedic way; these denigratory descriptions are very routine in classical literature and as Silk/Macuch notes, the central identifier of Persians to their Chinese, Greco-Roman, and Indian neighbors laid in their practice of an immoral faith! There is a reason to read niche specialist works alongside broad-brush anthropological works from Cantwell Smith, Said et al irrespective of however good they and appealing they are. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, al-Biruni's use of the word Hindu to include Buddhist as well should be mentioned. Also, did he use the actual word Hindu or does he just use Hind? Arvind Sharma mentions that al-Biruni did actually distinguish between the Hindus and the Buddhists. When he did, what term did he use for Hindus (without the Buddhists)?

Welcome to the debate! Chaipau (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Biruni is only using terms like "doctrines of Hindus" and "theories of Hindus" without any discrimination. And, he certainly knew enough about Buddhism to identify it when he saw it. But scholars say there is surprisingly little about Buddhism in his Hind. See page. 38 of Latief. It would have been nice indeed to learn how Indians were mixing Hinduism and Buddhism in those days. But he wasn't able to find it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

When Biruni visited India Nalanda was still standing, so I am curious. Also, according to Doniger, before the British came, the people used to not identify solely by religion. And we know that at least Vaishavism tried to appropriate the Buddha into one of its ten avatars. So maybe Biruni too did not make too much of a distinction between them. And we do have today some in the tradition Ramakrishna tradition who frame the problem in the same way some Buddhists do. So I am curious if the Biruni actually uses Hindu to mean both Hindus of today and Buddhists. We do need more critical evidence here. Chaipau (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Exonym/Endonym

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but when you hover over the term 'exonym' in the third sentence of the article you get the definition for the term 'endonym'. The fourth sentence also refers to *another* endonym implying that there is a previous instance. Should the word exonym in the third sentence be replaced by endonym? 86.130.23.253 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Both exonym and endonym are discussed at the same article, Endonym and exonym, which is the target of the link. That does not imply that exonym should be replaced with endonym. General Ization ^Talk 20:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The first endonym indirectly referred to is Sanātana Dharma. General Ization ^Talk 20:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• A Russian Hindu girl.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

I wanted to request the addition of the topic of vedic tribes in this article. Vedic tribes is when families would be part of a vedic group out of the four different vedas. Since each veda stands for a different meaning, the families would practice their veda's beliefs in order for the betterment of their societies.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vedic-religion Saisathish912 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you have specific text in mind, write it out, and reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

“Can Muslims surpass Hindus in population numbers?” is this the matter of discussion here????

Wikipedia and it's editors really love to cite inaccurate and some 'not so good faith sources', like this source used in lead paragraph for validation of hindu population talks about indian hindu population not the hindu population of whole world. as this source states “muslims cannot surpass hindu population” the world muslims had already surpassed hindus, so it clearly talks about indian population of both faiths. Can we just stop using these totally unrelated and misguiding sources.

I removed that source before but that have been revered can anyone else remove it? i don't know how to cast consensus and don't even know if you have to cast a consensus before removal of sources, please guide. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Who is the first religion

Who is the first religion 2405:204:112E:F7AE:8282:937A:32B3:5440 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Animistic religions, probably dating back 300,000 years. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

“Can Muslims surpass Hindus in population numbers?” is this the matter of discussion here????

Wikipedia and it's editors really love to cite inaccurate and some 'not so good faith sources', like this source used in lead paragraph for validation of hindu population talks about indian hindu population not the hindu population of whole world. as this source states “muslims cannot surpass hindu population” the world muslims had already surpassed hindus, so it clearly talks about indian population of both faiths. Can we just stop using these totally unrelated and misguiding sources.

I removed that source before but that have been revered can anyone else remove it? i don't know how to cast consensus and don't even know if you have to cast a consensus before removal of sources, please guide. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Who is the first religion

Who is the first religion 2405:204:112E:F7AE:8282:937A:32B3:5440 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Animistic religions, probably dating back 300,000 years. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Any ideals where this topic should go "Buta Kola" (wiki article)?

~~Ed~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:B41C:C85A:C70C:2558 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hinduism in the United States

In the countries with the most Hinduism, the USA should be added on the list with 5.8% practicing the religion. Felixsto (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have looked into this. According to the Pew Religious Landscape Study the percentage of Hindus in the U.S. is 0.7% of the population. The article you linked, on the topic of Asian Americans, says the percentage of Americans who are Asian Americans is 5.8%. It then divides the religious affiliation of this 5.8% into a pie chart, showing that of this 5.8% of Americans who are Asian American, 42% are Christian, 26% Unaffiliated, 14% Buddhist, 10% Hindu, 4% Muslim, 2% Other, 1% Sikh. According to this data, if 10% of the 5.8% Asian Americans are Hindu, then 0.58% of Americans are Hindu Asian Americans. This is similar to the 0.7% given in the Religious Landscape Study. The 0.7% is a slightly higher %, this could be due to for example: (1) the figure changing over time or (2) 0.12% of Americans are Hindus but are not Asian. I hope this helps clarify the percentage of Hindus in the U.S. It seems 0.7% is the most accurate figure.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/ Snowpeek (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023. Remove anything that says Hindu"ism" is a religion. Its not.

Please Change:"Hinduism (/ˈhɪnduɪzəm/)[1] is an Indian religion or dharma, a religious and universal order or way of life by which followers abide.[note 1][note 2] As a religion, it is the world's third-largest, with over 1.2–1.35 billion followers, or 15–16% of the global population, known as Hindus.[2][3][web 1][web 2]"

And make it: Hinduism (/ˈhɪnduɪzəm/)[1] or Dharma, is a universal order or way of life by which followers abide.[note 1][note 2] It has 1.2–1.35 billion followers, or 15–16% of the global population, known as Hindus.[2][3][web 1][web 2]

"Hinduism" Does not excist, its not a religion since it has no book / no organization and no person who leads it. Its a Word coined by the brits after their infiltration and invasion of India. How can you be an atheist and religious? Because atheists in India who have a hindu father, are born hindus. Just like Jews. But Judaism has a book that organizes the religion. Hinduism does not. Gods in Hinduism were always known to have been created by humans, so they were nothing supernatural or godly, in our sense, either. They were ideals or spiritual figures for people to understand more easyly the concept that was being teached. Thats why they have a god for everything you can imagine.

95.116.169.253 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree that the defining quality of a religion is to have a sacred text, nor an organisation nor a leader(which the I would consider the vedas).

Religions can be categorised by their peoples practicing spiritual rituals.

The word religion is not a negative term as your language seems to imply. 211.30.188.61 (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Moved request to relevant page from talk:hindus – small jars tc 17:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This will clearly be a contentious change to the opening sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hinduism doesn't have one, ten or even hundred books. Instead, Hinduism have thousands of texts from which hundreds or more have been destroyed by invaders. Stop this nonsense of comparing different religions from each other, your sole purpose is to declare hinduism as a "wrong" religion. be respectful and civil. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

when did the user said Hinduism wrong religion ? its just that it we cannot define it in a word as "Hinduism" or "religion" as thses are western consepts Padmanabh Kharat (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

i support this user but with a change

"The word "Hinduism" refers to all philosophies from Indian sub-continent but generally used for "Bhakti Marg". The word was originated from western merchants and colonialists" Padmanabh Kharat (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

I want to change that its not an indian religion many people are offended by it in nepal .so, i hope you accept my edit request. 103.96.246.56 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Though I've changed it to South Asian, note that the linked article is titled Indian religions. Ideally, you should take this up on the talk page of that article.RegentsPark (comment) 15:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I think it is misleading to say it is "South Asian religion". I think it is appropriate to use maybe the other terms (Dharmic religion or Indic religion) used in the "Indian Religion" page. Wanted to see what you think. Asteramellus (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Though I can see the IP's point about Indian religions, I'll leave it to others to do whatever is appropriate.RegentsPark (comment) 00:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@DayakSibiriak I see you have recently edited on this page. Wanted to see what you think about this request/change. Asteramellus (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to the good thoughts of colleagues, I do not support here. Leave Indian religion. This term is harmonized with the articles Indian religions and Indian subcontinent. The Indian subcontinent, you know this, also includes Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other small countries. Look, in the article Buddhism it is also called an Indian religion. This is different from the concept of the Religions of India, where it is only about one country. DayakSibiriak (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@DayakSibiriak @Chronikhiles Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chronikhiles Hi - you had helped me on couple of other Hinduism related pages. Wanted to see what you think about this request/change here. Asteramellus (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed change: As the article for Indian religions clearly mentions, an Indian religion is one that originated in the Indian subcontinent, to which Nepal belongs. I don't see why a widely accepted scholarly term needs to be altered based on a misunderstanding of its definition. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 04:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Who are Inden, McDaniels, and Michaels? Why are their typologies prioritized on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmingweigh (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding a picture of "ॐ"

This is topic is based on Hinduism. But there is a no photo of "ॐ". While this denotes a major part of Hinduism. Anupom.001 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's very much there under the head "Definitions". Rasnaboy (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Why there is no infobox here while all other religion wikipages have infoboxes. I would like to discuss about it. Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ku423winz1Thanks for asking this. I also think it would help having infobox here like other religion pages. Seems there was a short discussion about this in past - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 31#Infobox. Maybe we can discuss here with everyone if you want to create a draft infobox. Asteramellus (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Prakṛti & Shakti

Hinduism mainly worships nature and power, in formless form and in corporeal form. 103.206.177.37 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sanatana dharma

@Kautilya3: thanks for the ping; looks like Hinduism was removed from my watchlist early this year, so I missed some significant changes. Could you further explain what you mean with diff "Describing" it as sanatana dharma doesn't mean that it is used as its name. This is misleading.? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Searching for the edits on "oldest religion" now:

• 6 july 2023 diff; this editor missed the info in the note, I guess.
• 6 july 2023 diff; worse, it was removed with a misleading edit-summary.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A description is not a name. If we describe fire as hot, it doesn't mean that "hot" has become a new name for fire!

There are also loads of narrow interpretations regarding naming issues in the lead as well as the etymology section. For example, it is said that "HIndu" is an exonym. But it is just a natural sound change of "Sindhu". Nobody in the Achamenid Empire would have thought they were giving their own name to Hindus! "Hindu dharma" is also witnessed since the 15th century (Vidyapati) and it was quite prevalent during the 16th-18th centuries.

The historians are clear that the "sanatana dharma" terminology came into being only in the 19th century, and that too in a rather confused way. The term itself is not sanatan.

There is an article by Arvind Sharma on naming that I don't have access to. But the chapter on "Dharma" in Modern Hindu Thought that goes into some of this. He glosses over the issue of how "dharma" came to mean religion, way back in the 4th century AD. Whatever happened to "moksha" (the last of the purusharthas)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, you are right but sanatana dharma has been used by some to denote Hinduism today. In https://www.jstor.org/stable/23497156, John Brockington writes:

In particular, there has been a tendency to read back into earlier periods the modern understanding of the term, which is heavily coloured by its use as an equivalent to 'religion'; even the apparently more precise sanâtana dharma to denote 'Hinduism';...

Chaipau (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The completion of that sentence, which you have omitted is "... contributes to this misunderstanding". To claim that all Hindus or even "many Hindus" have this misunderstanding is obviously derogatory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"...contributes to this misunderstanding" refers to the misunderstanding of the concept of the word dharma. Yes, the modern usage of both "Hindu dharma" and even more recent usage of "Sanatana dharma" obfuscates the meaning of dharma. Even so, Hinduism is increasingly been called Sanatana dharma today and this is happening in the context of nationalism. Wikipedia cannot ignore this usage, and in the lead should present this as a fact, which it is, and provide a critique in a (sub)-section. Chaipau (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hinduism has increasing been called sanatana dharma today". When we get a peer-reviewed source that says that, then we can talk. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not the issue. The issue is whether Sanatana dharma has been used to denote a religion. I have given one example above (Brockington). Here is what Arvind Sharma, who you have referred to yourself, has to say:

...Hindus are now widely known by a name they did not originally use themselves. The Hindus do have a name for their own religion—and it is sanatana dharma. (p.94)

Sharma further quotes Flood who mentions who started using Sanatana dharma to denote the religion and when---

Gavin Flood writes: 'The nineteenth-century Hindu reformers speak of Hinduism as the eternal religion (sanatanadharma), a common idea among modern Hindus today in their self-description.'" (p.96)

So the use of the term Sanatana dharma to denote the Hindu religion began with the reformers (those in Bengal who were trying to eradicate Sati, etc) as recently as the 19th century and what could be better than claiming the "reformed" religion was actually an "eternal" religion.

So there exists enough WP:RS to show that:

• Sanatana dharma is often used to denote the Hindu religion.
• The Hindu reformists were the first to use this name, and it began in the 19th century.

Chaipau (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Hindus do have a name for their own religion—and it is sanatana dharma." That is at once a definitive statement as well as a vague claim lacking conviction. If he is really arguing to take that position, he would have provided evidence for when "The Hindus" did this. In the context of the entire chapter, which is on dharma, this is really out of place. Did you see him explaining how dharma is supposed to mean religion? I am afraid this statement is WP:FRINGE and, in no way reflects the scholarly consensus. And, Flood's statement is stating sanatanadharma as a description, not a name. It is not relevant to the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is really represented by statemanent such as these:

Some Indians object to having a foreign term for their religion, preferring the Sanskrit expression sanātana dharma, "eternal law or truth," despite the fact that this expression was not applied to any religious system in ancient texts.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Oldest religion in the world

If Kaaba is 5000 years old then how can Hinduism be the oldest religion in the world According to the Kaaba islam should be the oldest religion in the world Mohammad Aqib 5222 (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hindu is not a religion.

In recent years, it is confirmed that Hindu is not a religion. there is no supporting proof for proving Hindu as religion. Also, Govt. of India has submitted affidavit in Honorable Supreme Court of India that Hindu is not a religion. Thus, pronouncing or categorizing Hindu as religion is justified. Aarya R P (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aarya R P I think you have a point (regardless of whether any government or court decides), but "Hinduism" is a commonly accepted term in western world for what the people who practice it call "Sanatana Dharma". I have seen some academics call it a collection of religions - with so many different philosophies, traditions/sampradayas/sects/sub-sects, beliefs etc. etc. along with scriptures. But, at the core of Sanatana Dharma, I think lies the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Purānas etc which forms the basis for all those sects/sub-sects etc. But, maybe you can contribute on the Hindu denominations page with some good sources supporting this. Asteramellus (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The term Hinduism is commonly accepted as religion by vast majority of indians, along with government of India, and other states like pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, all states consider it to be a religion. Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

hinduism buddhism jainism sikhism all these are brahmin religions, 6 out of 10 principle disciples of buddhism are brahmins, jainism also has brahmins like bhadrabahu, manatung, many chaupai in sikhism have been written by bhatra brahmins and the root of all these religions is om mantra with Swastika ! In buddhism, hinduism, jainism, kshatriya incarnations of ikshvaku dynasty are considered avtara purush and the Kulguru of every Ikshvaku Kshatriya is a Saptrishi Vasishtha gotri Brahmin! Gaur brahmin (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

buddhism is not part of brahmins 43.224.0.198 (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

yes Rajendraumale673 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hindu/sindhu word shows the Indus river of India and Avesta and Rigveda are written on this Indus river bank. Just like how many rivers originate from different places but they have to meet in the single sea, in the same way, the root of all the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent is single Om Mantra and Swastika! Gaur brahmin (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Swastika copied from buddhism 43.224.0.198 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

yes Rajendraumale673 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Worship of rivers is most important in India, and this is the part of Hinduism. Many times in Rigveda, Indus river has been worshiped, which has been called Hindu in Avesta. Gaur brahmin (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

I think its fourth largest religion not third largest Averaciousspeaker (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Averaciousspeaker Please offer reliable sources that support your proposed edit. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi,

  Hinduism is fourth largest resulting 15.2% of the total population not 15.7% .

  Please fix. It's fourth largest.

  1. Christianity - 31.1

  2. Islam - 24.9

  3. Atheist or non religion - 15.6

  4. Hinduism - 15.2

  please update from third largest to fourth largest.

  Thanks, Averaciousspeaker (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done You need to provide a reliable source. RegentsPark (comment) 14:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Either it is third largest or fourth largest religion in the world.

Please make the required changes.

On Wikipedia page 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism it says - Hinduism is third largest and on page 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups it says - fourth largest religion in the world.

Two pages of Wikipedia contradicts each other.

I believe the page no 2 is correct as it even shows the population in numbers for our reference. So it must be changed to worlds fourth largest religion.

Thanks, AS Averaciousspeaker (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Averaciousspeaker I think you are referring to the pie-chart where Hinduism is shown 4th? Asking because there, it show Irreligion as third - which is I guess not a religion! Asteramellus (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I think it needs to be changed either the pie chart or the main page.

Creating a lot of confusion.

The pie chart says the numbers are for the group followers.

And in the irreligion section we do see atheist etc mentioned.

Kindly do the needful change.

Thanks, Averaciousspeaker (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The graphic that you are quoting on that page shows "irreligion" as the third largest in the pie chart, which that page also doesnt consider in its "largest religions" list. Both pages call it third largest. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Oldest religion"

@Helheimrr: the sentence "Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world" originally read "Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world." I think you and me agree that that's incorrect. Yet, it is what a number of sources say, and it is also a popular (mis)conception; therefor, it's relevant. The nuance "has been called" is correct, and leaves room for nuances and explanations. But your proposal "the oldest religion still practiced" is factually and grammatically incorrect, and not what the sources say:

• "Hinduism" is not "the oldest religion"; there are religious traditions whichare arguably much older;
• "still practiced"; does that imply that there have been religions which are not practiced anymore, but which have existed longer, or which have an older date of origin?
• the sources bluntly state "oldest religion," or 'regarded as the oldest religion', not 'oldest religion still practiced.

This is your fourth attempt to change this sentence, disregardkng the sources; please stop your slow edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the oldest religion in the world is Judaism, which was instituted by God when he created the world 6,000 years ago. Achar Sva (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Let us deign to leave personal biases aside. I do not prioritise Wikipedia as my ultimate raison d'être, which may explain the 'slow edit-warring'.

Indeed, we both seem to concur that Hinduism is not the oldest religion in the world. I argue that, as one of the world's oldest religions, a description of Hinduism in this context is better suited if we were to append the modifier 'still practised' — which, as a matter of fact, is not grammatically incorrect. This addition improves the clarity of the sentence without introducing any textual inconsistencies or errors.

You make a correct inference in your second point, as there is evidence of prehistoric religions that predate Hinduism but are now extinct (as in Göbekli Tepe, Çatalhöyük, and Panga ya Saidi).

On the other hand, 'has been called' is unduly roundabout, fails to convey the aforementioned interpretation, and leaves the impression that Hinduism is widely regarded as THE oldest religion in the world, which is not the claim that most of these sources make — only that it may be the oldest religion in the world still in practice (common sense). @Achar Sva's assertion that 'everyone knows that the oldest religion in the world is Judaism, which was instituted by God when he created the world 6,000 years ago' is not found in broad consensus by the preponderance (and persons who choose to place their faith in science, and, thus, the confirmed fact that the Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago). I dare say that it does not befit the 'Enlightenment spirit' of Wikipedia. Akkshadha (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong with my assertion the sources bluntly state "oldest religion," or 'regarded as the oldest religion', not 'oldest religion still practiced. Of the five sources, one states "living," another one "surviving." So, "still practiced" is a correct paraphrase. Nevertheless, plain "oldest" is clearer. And "has been called" is a concession to conservative Hindus; not irrelevant here. But note that this piece of info is only in the lead; maybe we should turn it into a note for "sanathana dharma." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"Has been called the oldest religion" is a reasonable tradeoff for being faithful to the sources while still leaving space for the nuances about their being older religions that died out. Probably should be covered in the body in a bit of detail. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Britannica says that Judaism has "an oral tradition that is nearly 4,000 years old and written texts that may be older than the Sanskrit and Avestan texts of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism". It's wrong, but that's what it says. Achar Sva (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We could rephrase the introduction still for the sake of being concise and matter-of-fact, as I do not believe we are obliged to make concessions to conservative Hindus — or any political or religious persuasion — if only to maintain the compendious truth. I agree that the issue should be covered in the body as well.

@Achar Sva, Britannica states that Judaist oral traditions may be 'older than the Sanskrit and Avestan texts of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism' and is quick to mention that 'the ultimate answer to the question depends in good part on what is meant by the term religion and its evolution'. Helheimrr (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Britannica is wrong about Judaism - it CLAIMS to have oral traditions 4k years old but they're much closer to 2K, and the written texts are no older than the 8th century BC. Achar Sva (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

GITA-PURANs-VEDAS

Avithalani (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hindu views vs. Scholarly views

Arbitrary header #1

Hi all, I am concerned about the dichotomy created on this page between Hindu views and scholarly views. By having different sections with those labels, these groups are framed as opposites rather than a spectrum. Where are the Hindu scholarly views on this page? Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What are "Hindu scholarly views"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, the separate sections "scholarly views" and "Hindu views" mean that these are two mutually exclusive categories. However, Hindus are also scholars in universities and there is also scholarship within Hinduism. Erring on the side of Western bias, if we take the modern Western university we will find Hindu scholars in every department, including history, archeology, anthropology, religion, and philosophy. To find out what "Hindu scholarly views" on Hinduism are, we would need to first be clear of the relevant aspect within Hinduism, and then look to the literature within the relevant fields. Hemmingweigh (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not completely "mutually exclusive," but there are distinctive differences. The distinction is made here, in order to be able to also include Hindu views, which otherwise might be rejected at Wikipedia as 'non-scholarly'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your quick response. The actual sections I am questioning are currently under the "Definitions" heading. Let me break down some of the issues with this section, and further explain how the false dichotomy between "Scholarly views" and "Hindu views" is neither actualized nor useful here.

1.) Throughout the "Sanatan Dharma" and "Vaidika Dharma" subsections under "Hindu Views", specific scholars are named and neither scholarship about Hindus by Hindu scholars or Hindu scholarship is cited here. This means that even within the "Hindu views" section, non-Hindu scholarly views are represented. I would be open to suggestions about how to best reconcile the false dichotomy created and then not sustained in this section.

2.) If you read the "Hindu modernism" subsection, under the "Hindu views" subheading, you will find that it includes only information about modern Hindu figures, globalizing trends, etc. and not a definition of Hinduism. Thus, I propose moving this section after the third paragraph of the "History" section.

3.) "Legal definitions" includes only one definition, and that is from the Indian constitution. This needs its own subheading since the Indian constitution is in not representative of specifically Hindu views.

There is a lot more that I could get into, but I would like to resolve these issues completely before moving on. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and did 2 and 3. Still open to feedback on 1 since this issue is really tangled up in that section. Hemmingweigh (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hindu views should be taken if scriptural evidence is given though correct? 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure I understand your message. But to further clarify my point, I was suggesting that Hindu views are not a dichotomy with (or the opposite of) scholarly views, since the section headers implied that they are mutually exclusive. Hindu views should be included throughout this page, of course. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• r1: we give Hindu views on Hinduism as described by scholarly authors. Wether those authors are Hindu or not is hardly relevant here; see WP:RS.
• r2: the Hindu modernism section describes a contemporary Hindu-view on Hinduism which has been, and is, quite influential. That's why this subsectikn is at the Hindu views-subsection of the Definitions-section.
• r3: the constitutional definition is quite relevant for Hindus (and Hindu-editors); that's why it is included here.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hemmingweigh, Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. We might include some limited amount of WP:PRIMARY source views (here, "Hindu views"), but they can never be the main part of the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya 3, thanks for your response. The information you have shared about primary and secondary sources brings the false (or as I'm sure we can at least agree, unrealized) dichotomy into greater relief. If we reimagine the dichotomy as being between primary sources (representing Hindu views) and secondary sources (representing scholarly views from scholars who may or may not be Hindu) then the information under Hindu views should contain information from for example, Hindu texts rather than secondary and tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica-- which is currently sourced under Hindu views. As I'm sure you will agree the Encyclopedia Brittanica is not a primary source. After re-reading the responses to my question I am going to deliberate a bit more before taking on the task of improving this section, but wonder if you can more immediately help make the "Hindu views" section more representative of "Hindu views," if this dichotomy is worth upholding? Hemmingweigh (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, after carefully considering your response I believe my question is too broad to illicit an exact response. I have looked into the link you have shared and still feel that there is a lot of stylistic and readability issues in the definitions section which I won't get into just yet. That being said, let me be more specific in what I am asking so we can be productive. After reading the Hindu modernism section again, do you disagree with its new placement in the history section? Additionally, do you disagree that legal definitions should have its own subsection? Please note that I have never contested the importance of legal definitions for "Hindus (and Hindu-editors)" but do firmly dissent to the idea that any legal definition is only or primarily relevant to "Hindus (and Hindu-editors)" which I hope is not what you meant to say. Furthermore, my questions were about the false dichotomy of "scholarly" vs. religious views posited here, and I certainly was not questioning or assuming anyone's religious views, as I'm sure you are not either. Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained that all three subsections belong in the Definitions-section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes the "legal definitions" remains in the definitions section and I have not suggested the "Sanatan Dharma" or "Vaidika Dharma" section should be placed anywhere else. The "Hindu modernism," section does not contain any definition of Hinduism. If you feel strongly it should be in the definitions section, can you elaborate on why it should not be in the history section? If you are fine either way, I am happy with leaving it there. Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• I share some concern with this dichotomy. All our content should be based on reliable secondary sources, regardless of the authors' faiths. Certainly this article would be incomplete without explaining the faith's view(s) of itself; but pigeonholing scholarly sources into a dedicated section is hurting NPOV, not helping it. That content needs to be woven into the article thematically. I would suggest that dropping those two sub-section titles, and moving the content currently in "scholarly views" up into the first part of "definitions", would be a considerable improvement by itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Vanamonde93, thank you so much for offering a solution and further explaining the problem. I also concur that the two section subheadings of "Hindu views" and "Scholarly views" should be dropped and the scholarly views section can be moved up. This will definitely be an improvement from what is here now. Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• On how it's done on Judaeo-Christianity see Adam and Eve. The reason for such approach is explained at emic and etic. We do state which is the emic view about Adam and Eve, but Wikipedia sides with the etic view. If the question is "When will Wikipedia take Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Hindu mythology at face value?" then the answer is "Never!" Wikipedia does not cater to religious fundamentalists, but it is based upon mainstream Bible scholarship and mainstream religious studies. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good example of a page structured well, I'd say, with the caveats that a) scholarly views aren't pigeonholed into a section, and b) the whole page is related to a specific biblical narrative, rather than an entire religion/faith/philosophy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Since there is agreement here shall I go ahead and change the subheadings "Scholarly views" and "Hindu views" to etic and emic respectively and then we can all work on making sure that the content fits into these new headers over time? Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi tgeorgescu, thanks so much for your response. I was not asking the question about taking "mythology" at face value, but expressing a concern about the false and unrealized dichotomy between scholarly and Hindu views presented in the definitions section because readability, cohesion, and coherence are at stake. I also agree that if maintaining some sort of dichotomy is important to editors of this page, then an etic vs. emic views section is vastly more appropriate than what is here now. Thank you for this productive solution. Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Emic versus etic is even more a dichotomy, as if scholarly vkews are 'outsider'-views, which somehow are less authentic or authoritative. At Wikipedia, they're not; but they're presented here 'in contrast' because (presumably) Hindu-editors in the past have often objected to this scholarly approach, past the point of severe edit-warring and sock-puppetry. So, no, there is no consensus to use the terms etic and emic.

The Hindu modernism section is relevant because it presents a popular view on Hinduism, which stresses unity, both in the tradition itself and in the aim for experiencing, or realizing Atman-Brahman. This stands in contrast to the scholarly views, which see Hinduism as a 'conglomerate' of often contradictory traditions - and that's also why this scholarly stress om diversity was the last part in this section, because it unravels these popular views. But alas, I've moved this part to the start of the definitions-sections.

And note that the intro of the definitions-sections stresses that there is not a single definition of Hinduism. This may be awkward for people who prefer straight borders, but it's the way it is, es explained by scholars: Hinduism defies neat definitions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, After reading through the Wikipedia page on etic and emic I haven't found anything to support your statement that etic views are "somehow less authentic and authoritative" than emic perspectives. On the contrary, the page says that "An 'etic' account is a description of a behavior or belief by a social analyst or scientific observer (a student or scholar of anthropology or sociology, for example), in terms that can be applied across cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be 'culturally neutral', limiting any ethnocentric, political or cultural bias or alienation by the observer."

Can you provide literature that summarizes social sciences scholarship to reflect your view that etic views are "somehow less authentic and authoritative" (and thus the term etic or emic should not be used here?) Additionally, if you have this literature available to you, will you be updating the emic and etic page as well as the Christianity page to reflect the views you have presented here? If so, would you then be willing to do the work to make sure specifically scholarly views are presented in the "scholarly views" section and specifically Hindu views are presented in the "Hindu views" section, which is not currently the case? Lots of questions-- looking forward to your answers. Hemmingweigh (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote as if scholarly vkews are 'outsider'-views, which somehow are less authentic or authoritative, not that "etic views are..." etc. Etic-emic isn't applicable here anyway; they're both scholarly perspectives, with most scholarship taking an emic perspective view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit late to join, and there are a lot of details in the discussion, so please excuse me if I have overlooked something. I agree with @Joshua Jonathan that Hinduism defies neat definitions. I also think that any attempt to dividing the section into two supposedly binary categories will generate problems. If the sources fit the WP:RS, how we think they should be characterized, whether by way of the emic/etic, scholarly/Hindu, insider/outside binaries, is frankly beside the point. As I think both @Joshua Jonathan and @Hemmingweigh agree here that we should not be imposing categories onto sources. Perhaps I am missing something, but can't we just remove the categorization of "Hindu views" unless it is necessary? That seems a fair resolution, but I am joining late to this discussion and open to other suggestions and reasons why the removal of such categories may not address the actual issues people have in mind. Asteramellus (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Asteramellus, thanks for sharing your solution. It is very welcome. I want to quickly note that no one is contesting the neatness of definitions of Hinduism, so that is a strawman argument which distracts from the real issues at hand. The issue I have raised is that 1.) There is a false dichotomy between "Scholarly views" and "Hindu views in the definitions section, and 2.) That this dichotomy (which many acknowledge is unproductive,) has not been actualized. For example, specifically Hindu views are not presented in the "Hindu views" section but the Encyclopedia Brittanica is specifically named. I agree that imposing etic/emic categories onto sources could be potentially problematic, however this is also the problem with the current dichotomy. Simply deleting the header "Hindu views" is another welcome solution, which at least moves us forward into the realm of coherence.

Does anyone know how we should proceed if a majority of us are looking for collaboration and productive solutions and there is also simultaneously unilateral decisions/edits being made that ignore this talk page conversation? Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh I don't think recent edits are unilateral. There is just 1 edit based on conversation here (other edit is to remove a confusing subsection title from that edit)? Asteramellus (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Asteramellus, I think I am missing something. Could you explain to me the process of discussion here if you don't mind, and at what point we should make edits on the very section we are discussing? If the edits are the opposite of what someone has proposed, what is the purpose of discussing them on the talk page? Appreciate your time. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

The header "scholarly views" has already been removed, and "sanatana dharma" and "vaidika dharma" are specific Hindu views. "Hindu views" does not mean 'Hindu views as expressed by Hindu authors'; it means 'Hindu views on what 'Hinduism' is, as described by WP:RS'. These RS of course may have been written by Hindus (Arvind Sharma, for example), but are expressions of an academic discourse, not of an indigenous, religious discourse. For such an 'insiders view', see Hindupedia, for 3xample Origins (it will show you the difference between 'Hindu views' and 'scholarly views', in several respects). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The real difference, from Wikipedia point of view, is between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. (Please see those policy page sections.) Hindu practitioners, preachers etc. are PRIMARY sources. They can be used with caution, to a limited extent, if there is consensus about their use. The majority of Wikipedia content is based on SECONDARY sources, even if it is to discuss the so-called "Hindu views about Hinduism". If the SECONDARY sources are inadequate for that purpose, only then would we go to the PRIMARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya 3, thanks for your response. I don't think anyone has contested the use of primary sources. The question is, rather, why there is a "Hindu views" section on a page about Hinduism, as if scholarship on Hindu views are not presented throughout the article. There have been various solutions presented, including a few that remove the "Hindu views" header altogether and another that includes having "etic" and "emic" categories. Are you a proponent of keeping the "Hindu views" section in a Hinduism article? If so, should this framework be used in all other sections of this article? I don't see this mirrored in any other world religion article, but look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you, Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am in favour of keepin the "Hindu views" section. The reason for the section is not any overarching framework like "emic/etic" that you keep stating. It is merely a byproduct of how Wikipedia summarises the sources. If the source says "HIndus state" or "Hindus believe" etc., attributing those positions to "Hindus", we are obliged to do the same. If Hindus take positions that are not viable from a scholarly point of view (i.e., they are basically bogus), but they are still notable positions that everybody should know about, then we treat them in this way. Note that these are Hindu views on Hinduism, not Hindu views on God, or religion, or modes of worship etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya 3, thank you for clearly stating your views and answering my first question. I really appreciate it. I do agree that Hindu perspectives should be attributed to Hindus. I also agree that notable scholarly positions should be included. I do not agree that scholarly points of view are basically bogus, and perhaps you do not either. My second question to you remains, "If so, should this framework be used in all other sections of this article? I don't see this mirrored in any other world religion article, but look forward to hearing your thoughts." Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, you have stated that etic and emic terms should not be used here. Do you still agree with this view you have presented? If so, I continue to await a response to my questions trying to get at the heart of why you feel "etic" and "emic" should not be used here.

1.) Can you provide literature that summarizes social sciences scholarship to reflect your view that etic views [OR scholarly views] are "somehow less authentic and authoritative" (and thus the term etic or emic should not be used here?)

2.) Additionally, if you have this literature available to you, will you be updating the emic and etic page as well as the Christianity page to reflect the views you have presented here?

3.) If so, would you then be willing to do the work to make sure specifically scholarly views are presented in the "scholarly views" section and specifically Hindu views are presented in the "Hindu views" section, which is not currently the case?

Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hemmingweigh, the question for you to answer is: why should Hindu views on what Hinduism is, not be called Hindu views? And if Hindu views are not to be called what they are, then what should they be called? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not Hemmingweigh, but FWIW I would say the issue isn't with calling them Hindu views - certainly we should - but with segregating them from scholarly views on history or theology. Having read the emic perspective on a given subtopic, I don't believe the reader is well-served by needing to scroll up or down to find the etic perspective, even when both are written with scholarly sources. That's my view, anyhow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, I agree and am fine with simply removing the unnecessary header "Hindu views." Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, certainly Hindu views should be called Hindu views. This can be done in the sentence itself "Hindus believe..." which is the stylistic standard in Encyclopedias generally and in Wikipedia itself outside of this page. I haven't received a response to any of my questions from you. But I trust you will respond soon, allowing us to move forward productively. Best, Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your questions are not "productive," nor related to the question why Hindu views shouldn't be called Hindu views. I already told you that I didn't state that etic views are less authoritative; I stated (implicitly) that presenting scholarly views as outsider views (a mistaken understanding of what emic and etic mean) somehow makes them seem less authoritative. I also noted that etic and emic are both scholarly approaches, and can't be applied to distinguish Hindu views from scholarly views. Asking me to update other pages with a misunderstanding or misrepresentation is inappropriate, of course. And your third request is unclear, but making a distinction between scholarly views and 'indigenous'/religious/insider/non-scholarly views depends on the context; see Christ myth theory. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, thank you for finally addressing my questions. I am not clear on why you believe scholarly views are outsider views. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could state in one sentence why you want the "Hindu views" subheader to remain after all of the conversation that has supported deleting it. Please note that my questions were based on your reasoning for rejecting various solutions proposed by different editors here. For definitions of etic and emic, please see the hyperlinked page under the definitions section. Regards, Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's close this discussion

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3, @Vanamonde93 , @tgeorgescu, and @Asteramellus, hope you are all well. Let's close this discussion. The issue raised was about the dichotomy between "Hindu views" and "scholarly views" in the Definitions section. The specific edits that have been proposed is simply deleting the "Hindu views" subheader and moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection to the history section, since it does not contain any definitions. It seems that most of you are fine with these two discrete edits, can you please confirm here? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with those specific edits, yes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not, as already explained. There's no header with "Scholarly views," so you're arguing against a dichotomy which is not there. The Hindu-views section contains three subsection with specific Hindu-views on what "Hinduism" is; it's completely reasonable to contain three topics with the same subject under one header.

The Modernism-subsection explains how Hindu modernist view Hinduism; their view has strongly shaped modern views, c.q. definitions, of Hinduism. This section does not belong in the History-section, which only provides a very concise overview; it was specifically written for the Definitions-section. If to be moved (to which I object), it should be under the Unity versus diversity section, where the Hindu modernist views are also mentioned.

You are focusing on one subheader, but miss the overall structure and coherence of the article, repeating yourself, while ignoring the repeatedly raised issues with your arguments and point of view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh: Let me be frank: I don't know much about Hinduism. But I know perfectly well how to write about religion (Judaism, Christianity, New Age cults) at Wikipedia.

Anyway, my two cents are that you want to ghettoize highbrow research about Hinduism and fill the rest with lowbrow research about it. So, my take is not that we should make a difference about the religion or the ethnicity of the scholars, but it is very much a class issue: enlightened intellectuals (in the meaning of The Enlightenment) vs. nationalist pseudohistory which panders to resentment and prejudice. Myself, I am a capitalist internationalist ("And the world will be as one"). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh I am ok with removing the Hindu views subheader, but I am not sure about moving the Hindu modernism to History section. There is a section for "Main traditions", maybe a section can be created for Hindu modernism? I feel Hindu modernism (Hindu reform movements) is an important part of modern hinduism and is redefining or attempting to integrate (or relate) various philosophical, social, cultural, and so on - concepts with the traditional teachings of Hinduism. But it doesn't quite fit in the definition section. Asteramellus (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained that the Hindu modernism-section does not belong in the History-section, which only gives a concise overview. The Hindu modernism-section explains how Hindu-modernists viewed, and portrayed, "Hinduism" as a broad religious tradition with an underlyng unity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan yes thanks. And sorry, I had meant "doesn't quite fit...if we remove Hindu views subheader." Asteramellus (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Asteramellus, thank you so much for your response. So *yes* to removing "Hindu views" from the definitions section, and a *not sure* for moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection to the "History" section. That is much appreciated! User Joshua Jonathan proposed moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection to the "Unity and Diversity" section, which already has a "Hindu modernism and neo-Vedanta" subsection. Is that alright with you? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi tgeorgescu, thank you for your response. I'm afraid I don't understand your message. In your view, should we keep the "Hindu views" subheader in the Definitions section? Are you alright with moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection about a specific period of time into the appropriate place in the"History" section? Please let me know if you are a yes or no for these edits. Thanks in advance, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, at the time I raised the issue of the "Hindu vs. Scholarly views" there was a "Scholarly views" subheader which someone removed. Was that you? What I have written is an overview of the conversation and the proposed edits. If you insist on keeping the "Hindu modernism" section, can you please explain what you imagine the Definitions section is for, if not to provide definitions of Hinduism? Certainly it is not to provide information on what has influenced the definitions of Hinduism, which could easily become an entirely separate page on its own. The first proposed edit focuses on one subheader because that is what my proposed edit is about. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, thank you for clearly stating your view. It is much appreciated. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Closed

Hi @Asteramellus, @Kautilya3, @Vanamonde93 , @tgeorgescu, and @Joshua Jonathan just wanted to update you that this conversation is over. Thank you for your time and patience! Fortunately or unfortunately someone went in and made the changes before this conversation came to a close, so there is nothing more to do in terms of this conversation. Take care, Hemmingweigh (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion can be "closed" only when a CONSENSUS is reached, which is not the case here. If edits have been made that were to your liking, that does not guarantee that the content can't be changed back. Joshua Jonathan, did you mean to agree to the requested changes? I myself don't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I moved the Hindu modernism-section to the Unity and diversity-section, since some editors didn't seem to understand that it does not belong in the history-section, as they suggested; this left only two Hindu-views in the definitions-section. Since Sanatana-dharma and Vadhyika-darma are mentioned separately in the lead, I removed the Hindu views subheader - and not because I agreed with the arguments provided here. So, I don't object to insering that subheader again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, can you share what you edits you would like? Although I tagged you when proposing a close to the discussion, I did not receive a response. If you could share your perspective now, hopefully we can bring an end to this lengthy discussion. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kautilya3, since you have already started a different discussion on these sections, shall we consider this conversation closed with regard to the two edits that were discussed in this conversation? Hemmingweigh (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kautilya3, following up again so we may bring a close to this conversation. Are you opposed to removing the subheader "Hindu views" or the current location of the Hindu modernism section? What would you prefer instead? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would have preferred to the "Hindu views" subheader to stay. Given that it has been removed, we need to clean up its content which is now "exposed". I argued below that #Sanatana dharma has to go. It is modernist term without a historical basis. The Vaidika dharma section also probably needs to be cut down to size. I will get to it eventually. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024

Remove "Indian religion" in the first line. It perverts in western-ly fashion. Hinduism is Dharma only, exclusively. 132.147.145.6 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Oldest ?

If it's oldest religion then why it's lesser than the other religions or why it is only in india why not in other countries..? 2409:4055:4E8A:5E2D:0:0:B20B:850E (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a useless pov-statement; a recent edit changed that sentence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexei Michael (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Alexei Michael (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sanatana dharma

This section used to be buried under "Hindu views", and has now been elevated to a real section on "Definitions". But I don't see any definitions here, just propaganda. Ironically, the section even claims that Hinduism is not "dogma", while propagating precisely dogma. The last paragraph is the only one that makes any sense, and it has nothing to do with "definitions". I think this section should be removed altogether. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The entire section is propaganda. Chaipau (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with removing this section. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, a dictionary entry for Vaidika is not a proper citation for Vaidika dharma (Another endonym for Hinduism is Vaidika dharma.[web 1])

I think it should be kept; sanathana dharma is a relevant self-designation, after all. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)