Talk:Hinduism

You can contribute at Hinduism related collaboration of the week. Any registered wikipedian can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles. Voting also indicates interest in contributing during the weekly collaboration cycle. Every Friday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for a week to potential contributors.

Template:Bounty expired

Template:WP1.0

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Suggestions and problems

Schools

• "Other schools (for example, Dvaita Vedanta) and other (bhakti) schools, understand Brahman as a Supreme Being who possesses personality." in "Concept of God" is ambigious.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Let it be so. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of how it is currently written, perhaps it might be better to say "Many Hindu sects do not see God as an impersonal force or presence but rather as possessing personality and an existential status fully (or at least in part) independent of living souls dependent on him/her/it. These include such broader schools of thought as Dvaita Vedanta and many bhakti schools." --69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Scripture

• Scriptures given WP:UNDUE weight by their mention in Lead. All points are not summarized. Thus, the lead is not as defined in WP:LEAD : "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• How are you asserting that scriptures are given undue weight? Half of the history of Hinduism involves major figures commenting on major scriptures, particularly the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita. The Vedas are key to defining the entire entity known as Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma/whatever because all of the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy refer back to them. The Upanishads were also extremely important to the development of modern Hinduism and at least SOME of the seminal ideas of Buddha and Mahaavira. Every single sect, sub-sect and school of Indian religion (not just Hindu) has one, two, or more major scriptural works, so mentioning Tantras and Agamas is, imho, in order. Lastly, the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas are cornerstones of Indian storytelling and philosophical allegory: most Hindus are taught axiomatic Hindu thought via the medium of itihaasa. --69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I still find devoting a para to scriptures in lead is WP:UNDUE. FA Islam and FASikhism do not devote a para in lead for scriptures.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you here. If you look at the archives, I brought up this point a couple of times. If it has to stay, scriptures in the lead should be summarised into one sentence. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism#Scripture deals with all of them. Islam#Qur.27an is present and in the lead has the section

“ Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet, and regard the Qur'an and the Sunnah (words and deeds of Muhammad) as the fundamental sources of Islam. ”

. Sunna/Quran are scriptures. Also, I dont think its the scriptures or conversion that is keeping this from FA status, its mindless prose and philosophizing that is.Bakaman 23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The philosophical detail has been cut back from the article recently. I believe only a few small things are needed to make the article pass FA, namely citations and a solid copyedit. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully. FA Islam and FASikhism do not devote a para in lead for scriptures. Yes scriptures should be discussed in the lead but just in a line or 2. Not a para.

The Hinduism article also has a para dedicated solely to the Scriptures.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I misread, but since Hinduism is fairly unorganized, scripture gains more meaning.Bakaman 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Baka, just my two cents. Digging into Hindu philosophy, I have always found that Hindu philosophy is highly organized and deep as compared to any other philosophical set. IMHO, one should not confuse diverse with unorganized. Thank you. Desione (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean that practice is unorganized, not philosophy, I agree with you on this.Bakaman 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that we agree for once :-). Although, I am not very clear on how practice of Hinduism is disorganized. Perhaps you can clarify further. From what I have seen visiting various temples in India, the practice seems to be highly organized (and ritualistic) and ultimately derived from Philosophy. Desione (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Itihasa

• The word "Itihasa" can be roughly translated as history, its mention in "Devas and avatars" is unneccessary. Replaced with "Itihasa" with Indian epic poetry, where Itihasa redirects. I hope this is what the author of the sentence meant. The term again appears in Scriptures and theology. Need a citation for Itihasa to mean epic poetry, if the editors want to keep it. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Need a citation for Itihasa to mean epic poetry, if the editors want to keep it." <-- http://worldlibrary.net/eBooks/HimalayanAcademy/SacredHinduLiterature/dws/lexicon/i.html The link here provided is the definitions section provided by Hinduism Today, a well-distributed and accredited magazine devoted to all things Hindu. I haven't prowled through books, but itihaasa is a common term applied to the epic poetry of India and I think it's cussid to demand a reference on this; BUT so be it.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied with ref.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Events

• "Three key events underpinned the nascence of a new epoch in Hindu thought. These were the Upanishads, Mahavira (founder of Jainism) and the Buddha (founder of Buddhism)." Are Mahavira and Buddha events???--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Three key events. You forgot to remark that 'the Upanishads' too are not an event. We can just rewrite the sentence, right? Three major movements underpinned the naisance of a new epoch of Hindu thought: the advents and spread of Upanishadic, Jaina, and Buddhist philosophico-religious thought throughout the broader Indian landmass." Or whatever.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done by per suggestion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

References for History

• References needed for last para of History.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yajna

• Yajna mentioned as main in practices and described in rituals and ceremonies. Is Yajna a practice or ritual or ceremony????--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yajna is all three: it is a practice, a ritual, and a ceremony. Yajna is the practice of Vedic fire rituals made manifest. It is an easily identifiable ritual. Ceremony in this context is really just a synonym for ritual.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Yajna link should in "Rituals" as it is discussed there.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could qualify Hindu rituals as either Vedic in origin or Tantric. I think that this would be a very informative distinction. Śaiva Sujīt (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrimage

• Pilgrimage and festivals is written with many cases of WP:UNDUE: examples: "the two principal ones being Kalighat and Kamakhya." ; if the Shakti Peethas are discussed why not jyotirlingas or ashtavinayak etc. Festivals are arranged in any manner, not chronological.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fully agree that the different yatras should not be listed. That would be better suited in a Yatra article...if there is one. Śaiva Sujīt (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Denominations

• Denominations like Saura (Hinduism) and Ganapatya are not explained, while a ref has been made to them in the quote.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Denominations like those worshipping Surya and Ganesha as the ultimate form of Godhead are not nearly as widespread and popular (by numbers) as those venerating Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti... not to mention those who believe that "God" is a misnomer and that the ultimate reality is nirguna brahman. The article is, as you implied in your first bullet-point, meant to be introductory and summary.--69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They may not be widespread now but denominations that Adi shankaracharya talks about. They must be included in a sentence as minor denominations. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

• "Estimates of the number of lacto vegetarians in India (includes inhabitants of all religions) vary between 20% and 42%." in Ahimsa and vegetarianism. Many of them can be Jains, not neccessarily hindus. "Some Hindus avoid onion and garlic, which are regarded as rajasic foods." Never heard this about Hindus, Jains do practice it. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• The number of Jainas in India is tiny. At most a few percentage points of the total (let's take an average of 30%) are Jainas due to sheer numbers. As for onion and garlic, the fact you haven't heard about it is surprising, being that you seem to know a lot about Indian religion. Ayurvedic and Yogic literature abound with statements regarding sattwic diets (diets that accord with the guna of balance/purity/simplicity) which adjure against the eating of onion and garlic. Hindus very much follow such dietary regimens if they are orthodox. Indeed, many Hindus who are otherwise non-vegetarians will, on holy days, maintain a strict observance of sattwic diet, which proscribes the eating of, yes, onion and garlic. --69.203.80.158 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't have the time to reply to all of Redtiger's comments, but I would like to reiterate the onion and garlic point. A significant proportion of the Hindus I know don't eat either of these. Of course, my personal experiences are not WP:RS but rather WP:OR. However, I hope you don't remove such a sentence, assume good faith and patiently find/wait for a source for that sentence. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added fact tag. Abstainance from onion and garlic on holy days is ok. But the sentence does not say it. Need a ref for them to be rajasic. I think "on holy days" should be added in the sentence or if it is on regular basis, some hindus avoid onion-garlic, need a ref for that. The sentence is not [[WP:OBVIOUS}] in meaning. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs a reference, but similarly to DaGizza I come across this very regularly. A number of Vaishnava schools avoid onions & garlic in their diet. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For examples, Hindu widows (at least in West Bengal) do not take onion (at least those who chose to maintain the religious tradition).--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of vegetarians, mostly women, in Hindu families.

<deindent>
I have added a couple of refs supporting the sentence. There are two more "citations needed" in the section, but I could not figure out what part(s) of the statements are being challenged. Can someone clarify the issue, so that appropriate refs can be found and added ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add

"Shaktism is, along with Saivism, Vaisnavism, and Smartism, one of the four primary schools of Hinduism."

Austerlitz -- 88.72.3.106 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing like Smartism. Smarthas are just a sect among Brahmins. --New kid on the Block

Typo

First paragraph "Conversion" persons --> person's

Religion is spelled wrong in first sentence.

Etymology - A pespective

I would suggest adding the following to the article.

Some argue that the term in itself is an attempt to give one term to "that many-sided and all-enfolding culture which we in the West have chosen to call Hinduism" Jan Gonda, Visnuism and Sivaism, Munshiram Manoharlal. 1996, ISBN 812150287X p. 1. cited by Welbon, G.R. (Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 1, 98+100. Mar., 1975.). "Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta: A Study in the Mysticism and Theology of Saivism". Retrieved 2008-05-04. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Thanks Wikidās ॐ 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the article uses the phrase "religious tradition"

This is why - Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21#Religion versus set of beliefs. Both consensus and reliable sources determined the decision so there is no reason why it should be changed without discussion. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism not a religion

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Hinduism is not a religion. Please see, 'http://www.bjp.org/history/htv-jag.html', 'http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/supremcourt.htm' and 'http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1412/is%20Hinduism.htm'. Shouldn't you guys consider this?

Um why? There is no policy on Wikipedia that states the Supreme Court of India has absolute authority on all Hinduism-related matters. We rather summarise from a host of reliable sources. Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also this is very clearly a decision taht only applies within a certain context. From your own reference:

Whether a particular speech in which reference is made to Hindutva and/or Hinduism falls within the prohibition under sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 is, therefore, a question of fact in each case.

It is talking about whether a speech was asking people to vote on religious grounds. The court found that in this context the speech could be encouraging people to vote for candidates with an Indian cultural outlook, which is legal. In other words the ruling states that Hinduism can be used in a way not meaning religion, not that it doesn't ever mean a religion. In in the reference itself it is clearly used that way, e.g.:

The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

hard to read?

i was just interested in learning a little bit of general information about the religion but i found the introduction hard to gain information from, i thought that it was very clutterd with overly complicated words. i know i should read the whole article but like most i dont have that much time on my hands. if somebody could make the introduction a little bit easier to read and understand about what it is and its main points so that general unknowlagable people can eaisly understand it i would be greatly thankfull.