Talk:Hinduism

Conversion

Do we really have to maintain an empty section called "Conversion"? and that too in an article on Hinduism? Nothing could be more oxymoronic. I have taken the liberty of removing the section and hopefully it will remain removed. There is only one god, everything and everyone is part of that god and vice versa. So there is no such thing as a conversion. This does not mean that one can not adopt Hindu practices. Anyone can as long as they don't think that they have "converted" to Hinduism as that will pretty much defeat the purpose of being a Hindu :-). The section titled "Spread of Hindu practices" seems relevant though and I hope it doesn't start talking about conversion in disguise.

History of Hinduism

The following discussion 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.

---

In this article the timeline or history of Hinduism is shown totally wrong.For a native Hindu this article seems like someone trying to prove that Hinduism was born just 5000 years ago.Most of the Indian scholars totally reject the claims of Aryan invasion theory.This article in wikipedia however seems to be completely filled up with references of foreign authors who are trying to prove Hinduism is just 5000 years old.Every Puranas in Hinduism,including the dates of epic like Mahabratha are scientifically proven by many authors and provided in many books.Why there is no references and data to show their claims?

This is just one reference trying to show that these are the version of Indian authors about the history of Hinduism & India

History of Hinduism from 3228 BC - 1947

(BC)

3139 The Mahabharat War,Start of Brihadrath dynasty of Magadh,Start of Yudhisthir dynasty of Hastinapur

3102 Start of kaliyug

2139 End of Brihadrath dynasty

2139-2001 Pradyot dynasty

2001-1641 Shishunag dynasty

1894-1814 Gautam Buddh

1641-1541 Nandas

1541-1241 Maurya dynasty

1541-1507 Chandragupt Maurya

1507-1479 Bindusar

1479-1443 Ashokvardhan

1241-784 Shung and Kanau dynasty

784-328 Andhra dynasty

509-477 Jagadguru Shankaracharya

328-83 Gupt dynasty

328-321 Chandragupt Vijayaditya

326 Alexander’s invasion

321-270 Samudragupt Ashokaditya Priyadarshin, or Ashok the Great

102BC-15AD Vikramaditya, established Vikram era in 57 BC

(AD)

25-85 Shalivahan, established Shalivahan Shak era in 78 AD

85-1192 There were several kingdoms of Rajpoot kings all over India. They ruled for 1,107 years.

1192-1757 In 1192, Mohammad Gori invaded Delhi (Hastinapur) the second time, defeated and killed Prithviraj Chauhan, and became the king. Since then several dynasties of Muslims ruled India for 565 years.

1757-1947 In 1757 English regime was established in Bengal.British ruled India for 190 years.

1947 India got Independence

Reference: Saraswati, Prakashanand (1 January 2001). The True History and the Religion of India: A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-1789-0.

Suryaputra Karna (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryaputra Karna: This is not a difference between Indian vs. Western authors. Rather it is a difference between tradition vs. academic scholarship. Academic scholarship is based on evidence and reasoning. Tradition is based on belief. Please don't mix up the two. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya a western scholar writing a book on india will get his information by speaking to people about their "traditions" and "culture" and "Faith",So thats your first line in the bin, next You talk about how Indians use faith as their education, this just proves how racist you are!

Whats does Indian vs western authors got to do with the term "tradition"? A indian historian that wants to write about his history is just as qualified as a western historian, alot of people have noticed that many indian scholars have been rejected which should never of been rejected, while western "lingustic scholars" some how are rebranded as Historians on alot of wiki pages on the history of india, witzel and the rest have never set foot on a archaeological site yet they seem to be the main show stoppers on everything indian history page, how can a lingustic scholar lead a history page when you yourself claim indias traditions and text are nothing more then myths?92.236.96.38 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)beesting

Whether an author is Indian or Western is totally irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is whether the author is scholarly and established their credentials in the scholarship by publishing in journals and academic books and whether they are accepted by other scholars. Editors need to follow the policies declared in WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. A professor at Harvard University has established his academic/scholarly credentials and counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 24 March 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.

Classical and Modern Hinduism

Elizabeth De Michelis (2005), A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, gives an interesting scheme for the influence of the west on "Modern Hinduism" (p.36 ff). She distinguishes "Claisscial Hinduism" (before the second half of the 18th century), which may still be found nowadays; and "Modern Hinduism," which can be further subdivided in "Modern Hindu Traditionalism" and "Neo-Hinduism." She also notes that early British Orientalists were "deeply sympathetic" to Indian culture, and played a major role in the revitalisation of this culture (p.42). Interesting source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

History of Hinduism - Sindhu Hindu

Is there anyone with knowledge about pre-Vedic history of Hinduism? The term Hinduism itself is a foreign concept i.e. from Muslims. Sanatana Dharma has come to refer to Hinduism with idol worship and later the inclusion of indigenous beliefs that were classified as Hinduism because they did not fit into any other religious denominations.

www.moresocialservicesplease.com has some articles that shows a different point of view. It is written satirically but may have some good info.

Anyone with expertise wants to write about the above?

Many new sects have formed that has effectively created a lot of confusion and some sects like Sai Baba were insipred by muslim philosophy and now mostly has Hindu followers. Buddhism has absorbed a lot of indigenous beliefs like chinese and I think the Theravada has only kept close to the original teachings of Buddha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.85.34 (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "pre-Vedic history of Hinduism"? There was no "Hinduism" at those times, unless you mean "Indian religions". And there's very little we know about it; even for the Harappan Civilisation it's a lot of guesswork, let alone pre-VC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)---

I agree, however "Hinduism" must have a common core that all sects must adhere to to be inclusive to Hinduism. That is what I was referring to . And that common core cannot conflict with the sects doctrine i.e. idol worship of priests, caste system, inclusion of muslim elements (sai baba) , etc.

@Joshua Jonathan: There is a broken sentence in this section: "Other practices from the Indus religion that may have continued in the Vedic period include" and nothing after that. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone want to know about true hinduism/Sanatana dharma please go through the book & references below rather than reading all the lies in this wikipedia page about hinduism. This page in wikipedia is just a western propaganda against Hinduism in general.If you observe this page, a real hindu living in India/Bharat cannot agree to most of what it says,especially the History of Hinduism section!!!.If anyone observe this page 95% of the articles data are quoted from books of foreign authors. (like eg - wendy doniger!!! )

Why not put the truth about Hinduism here where it is most accessible and so that other religions do not spread bs about hinduism If anyone want to know what really hinduism is and its true history better go through the links below rather than reading all these lies by western authors.

Reference:

• Saraswati, Prakashanand (1 January 2001). The True History and the Religion of India: A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-1789-0.
• http://www.hinduwisdom.info/index.htm
• http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/
• http://thetruehistoryandthereligionofindia.org/

Realhindu99 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I like H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati; he provides a very informative point of view on Hinduism, which remains largely hidden when you only read academical works. The link already is in the "external links" section, isn't it? All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOVFAQ#Religion has some useful suggestions, which would be good for us to follow here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)