Talk:Hinduism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

God: Both Principle and Person

Hinduism is sometimes called a polytheistic religion, but strictly speaking, this is not accurate. Mainstream Hinduism believes in One God, but asserts that the One God can appear to humans in multiple names and forms.

I have some issues with this [sub]section. Firstly, I'd rather have the title be Concept of God, or Nature of God, or something that is not so essay-like. Secondly, I think the use of "Mainstream Hinduism" and "strictly speaking..not accurate" to be too vague, as well as too directed.I would prefer it to read more like, "in fact, Hinduism is a vast multitude of theistic [and non-theistic]? philosophies ranging from purely monistic philosophies to polytheistic. Though at large, Hindu philosophy may significantly vary, the personal experience of Hinduism is inherently specific, and well-defined, either by means of a preceptor or family/social traditions.

Please tell me what you think. I am not very satisfied with the way it is now, but I just threw my wording together. The source will likely need to be changed, but this is positive, as Bhaskarananda does not tend to present non-vedantin ideas.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should change the title. And I do not really like the word mainstream.__Seadog ^♪ 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I still find that 'mainstream' (which probably the writer of the lines meant to describe an educated westernized urban dweller leaving out hundreds of millions of people in the villages and smaller cities) and 'monotheistic' in the article. 'not accurate', who has given the writer of the lines the authority to decide what is accurate and what is not? I want to add that the range from 'monistic' to 'polytheistic' HAS to be EXPANDED to include 'ATHEISM' for people like me who do not believe in God/Gods and believe that 'Brahman' is a force/substance without consciousness constituting matter/space/time in the universe. The reality is that hinduism has never limited personal beliefs. (Eko Sat, Vipra bahudha vadanti; Tunde Tunde Matirbhinna). Stop this conspiracy to reduce hinduism to an Abrahamic religion (you are monotheistic, we are also monotheistic, so what is the difference?).

PLEASE ANSWER, do hindus believe that Shiva, Vishnu, or Brahma to be the sons of Aditi like Indra, Surya, or Agni. Why do we invoke many Gods and Godesses separately before beginning any pujas/yagnas if they are one? Why does the SECOND verse of the FIRST hymn of the FIRST book of RigVeda asks Agni to COME TO THE YAGNA WITH ALL GODS if they are one(Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers. He shall bring. hitherward the Gods. - Griffith's translation at Sacred-text.com, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01001.htm)? Aupmanyav 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ps - The article says, 'Although Hindus may worship deities other than their chosen ideal from time to time as well'. That would mean that we are polytheistic (also). Do we not say Indrayasswaha, Suryayasswaha, Agneyasswaha, etc. Why separately if we are monotheistic?

Namaskar Aupmanyavji. Thank you for your comment. I did include non-theistic philosophies in my list, but was shy to do so, as that is more like vijnanavadin's nastika philosophy, and was not sure if they should or should not be included. Abhihi mujko bolnahai, hum bhi koshur bhatta hain. The reason why the concept of mainstream in Hinduism seems so accurately to discribe "an educated westernized urban dweller" is because, as I mentioned before, if you look at the references, you will see them filled with Vedanta, and all bhasyas from Bhaskarananda, the English-speaking sage of Seattle. I also do not like the idea of comparing Hinduism to semitic/Abrahamic religions, as if they were some sort of benchmark of refinement.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Really pleaseant to know that you too are a kashur bhatta. Hinduism is not Vedanta only. And who has certified Bhaskarananda, the English-speaking sage of Seattle, as a sage of hinduism? There have been other English-speaking sages in India like Shivananda, Chinmayananda, and even Sri Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. If hinduism accepted the Nireeshwar Samkhya of Kapila and the Vaisesika of Kanada as two of the orthodox darshanas, why should hindu atheism should not be accepted by Wikipedia? Don't worry about my slightly abrasive style of writing, I am always very friendly. Tell me when I get my facts wrong. Aupmanyav 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskarji. While I do pay respects to Shri Bhaskarananda, and do not by any means question his or others' claims of any kind of attainment on his part, I was being sort of facetious in naming him the "English-speaking sage of Seattle", in reference to how Hinduism has been written from the POV of "an educated westernized urban dweller". I did not know that Samkhya was a nastik darshan, as my only exposure to Samkhya comes from the Gitartha Samgraha. I am more than open to including atheistic philosophies in the Hindu schools of thought. However, I feel that Hindu thought is not actually any of these philosophies, but instead the very openness to these philosophies, and what I've desired Hinduism to represent, since I registered here. Unfortunately, there is an unbalanced POV here to Advaita-Vedanta, or more specifically Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Sampradaya, which, I believe is evident from simply glancing at the references used in citations.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 08:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Saiva Suj, IMHO, hindu thought is actually all of these philosophies. Aupmanyav 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav,

I admit that I am not knowledgable to answer your question. I am just trying to give a lead. I believe, Bhagawan and Ishwar are referred in different context. Bhagawan as explained in pre-Adhyay pages of Jnaneshwari Geeta by Sastu Sahitya Mudranalaya Trust is: The providerof six things (Padarth) Aishwarya, Dharma, Yash, Laxmi, Vairagya and Moksha or one who knows about origination of all beings, Pralay, Birth, Death also Vidhya and Avidhya. There is no explanation for Ishwar. I believe Bhagawan is also explained in Chhandogya Upnishad.

Regarding inviting all Gods, I believe you are referring to inviting all Devatas. Devatas are not Gods but administrative officers (to understand one may perceive them as bureaucrates of God). They are blessed with some or other specific power.

I am not trying to claim anything here, I am trying to learn more by further discussion. Pl. bear with me. swadhyayee 05:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Swadhyayee. The majority of Hindus do believe in a number of Devatas ("gods") which is embedded in stories like the Ramayan and Mahabharat but acknowldge that there is only one Bhagawan or Ishwar ("God") which depending on their denomination/faith and guru could be Vishnu, Shiv, Mother Goddess, Ganesh, Surya, Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, Brahman, Forces/Energy or something above all of these. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense, since when Mohammad and Jesus have become Gods for hindus, Gizza? Aupmanyav 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. I have heard of renditions of Dash Avatar replacing Balarama or replacing Buddha with Jesus. I think that there are people who have become Hindus, with roots in Christian tradition that see Christ as an avatar. Muhammad is not considered an avatar/devata or whatever by Hindus at all, because he is not even thought as such by Muslims. However, there may certainly be Hindus who regard the Quran as either shruti or smriti.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Allah instead of Mohammed. There are North Indian sects which have tried to unify Hinduims and Islam and I am referring to those like Sai Baba. I am also referring to Smarta Hindus, not necessarily Advaita, who consider that every religion is preaching to the same God. Famous example: Mahatma Gandhi.

ईश्वर अल्लाह तेरो नाम, सब को सन्मति दे भगवान

Ishwar Allah tere naam, Saab ko Sanmti de Bhagavan Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, currently we have four streams in hinduism (Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, and Smartas). The main deities of any of the first three can provide the six padarthas, Smartas have access to a larger number of equal Gods. There are Advaitists who may not accept any. Any writing by Jnaneshwar is venerable, but it is still one of many. Explanations and heirarchy differs from one enunciator to the other, and none can be termed as official. To differ on explanation in Hinduism is not considered blasphemy, it is considered natural. Ramanuja differed from Sankara, Madhva differed from Ramanuja, Nimbarka differed from Madhva, Vallabha differed from Nimbarka, Chaitanya differed from Vallabha. Hinduism does not participate in factional quarrels. We venerate all, just as we venerate Archemedes, Gelileo, Kepler, Einstein, and Bohr in science. No problem if their theories are proved wrong with time, but they were researchers of religion. Again, as I have written earlier, hinduism gives freedom of personal belief. What it requires from all is fulfillment of a persons 'dharma'. It is your choice what you understand by Brahman, Bhagawan, or Ishwar. This post also is for discussion and not a judgement. Aupmanyav 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav,

I fully agree with you with regards to "differ on explanation in Hinduism is not considered blasphemy.. and we venerate all, just as.. also Hinduism gives freedom or personal belief".

Nice explanation.

Late Pandurang Shashtri Athavale said that he accepted Mohmad and Jesus as two Avtars and held an event to say "Rudris" on birth day of Mohamad and he asked his follower to visit churches on Good Friday or Christmas(?). I too had visited a church once along with few Swadhyayees but he never tried to replace Balaram or Buddha. I believe, he considered "Buddha" as an Avatar. From then onwards, followers of Pandurang Shashtri might say that Mohmad and Jesus are Avtars after Dasha Avatars. swadhyayee 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, with all that there is a practical side also. Hindus should not blindly venerate everything. If Venerable Panduranga Shastri Athavale or Mahatma Gandhi accepted Jesus or Mohammad, that does not make it binding on me to follow the suite. Ramakrishna also did the same and in my humble opinion they are at fault. Since I am an atheist, I dispute that there is anything that is dictated by God. Verses in Vedas were written by our Sages (including my progenitor, Upamanyu) whose names and geneologies are clearly mentioned in the Vedas. If Christians and Muslims accept that Bible or Qur'an are human creations, I will accept them. Further, since there is no God (IMV), there is no question of Jesus being a son of God or Mohammad being a messenger of God, will the christians and muslims be able to bring down these two honorables from their exalted pedestals? Shruti is only an artistic expression about the coming of some valuable thought in contemplation. Vedas have been called 'Apaurusheya' (must have been written by someone better than just humans) to honor the sublime wisdom contained in them (like in Nasadeeya Sukta. Four or five thousand year after it was written; I, a man of science in 21st century, cannot think of changing even a word of it). I do not think the attempt to change Dashavataras has succeeded, and Buddha still remains one. If someone has converted to hinduism then s/he should follow one of our ways, otherwise what was the need to convert? Saibaba (no one knows whether he was a hindu or a muslim) claims to be a Bhagawan, but then so am I (So'ham). I am not bound by what he said. Thanks for bearing with me. Aupmanyav 13:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Aupmanyav,

I don't intend to push Pandurang Shashtri's claim of two more avatars. My statement was in response to Saiva_Sujit's comment in the discussion. I was just providing the general information. I fully agree with your views that since someone declare something, I may or may not accept the things.

Regarding "Apaurusheya", I feel it means "contributions of many" and not "contributions of superiors than humans". Certainly, such contributions are results of contemplation of sages. Again my understanding is based on Pandurang Shashtri's explanation.

swadhyayee 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Apaurusheya" as none found it proper or desired to take credit for further contributions. swadhyayee 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to push Venerable Panduranga Shastri Athavale because I am taught by my tradition and religion to respect scholars. Though I have not studied his writings, I have read his mention in Lokmanya Balgangadhar Tilak's books, and that is enough for me. As for 'apaurusheya' we may all have our own explanations. Aupmanyav 10:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

?, I hope you are not seeing my comments offensive. What I stated was my understanding of "A-paurusheya". If our understanding differ, it's ok with me. I am sceptical of Tilak mentioning Shashtriji as probably Tilak should be too senior and Shashtriji came to light after 1956-1970. swadhyayee 11:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right about Shastriji of the Swadhyayee Mandal. But Tilak did mention a Panduranga Shastri, a Vedic scholar. Of course, I take no discussion comments as offensive. Aupmanyav 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming back to the main discussion here, are the editors agreed that the following statement is not correct and the necessary changes be made? Please let people know if there are objections.

The lines in contention: Hinduism is sometimes referred to as a polytheistic religion, but strictly speaking, this is not accurate. Mainstream Hinduism believes in One God, but asserts that the One God can appear to humans in multiple names and forms.[7] Aupmanyav 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. It's funny; I started this section, and even I forgot the original text to be edited, so danyavaad, Aupmanyav! Based on my first comment, I would like to propose it say something like, "Hinduism, though sometimes referred to as a polytheistic religion, actually includes a vast body of varied theistic and atheistic philosophies, ranging from a dualism between the Self and God, to a monistic ever-present union with God, all unified under the banner, "Ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti", meaning "One truth; brahmanas in many different ways, teach or describe it."

I know it's a little awkward, but how is the content?

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 14:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would put it in this way without mentioning whether hinduism is considered polytheistic or monotheistic:

"Hinduism has all kind of theistic philosophies, polytheist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, and does not even exclude atheists." Aupmanyav 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have we come to a come conclusion here? It appears that Magicalsaumy has edited this section already. Perhaps we should come to a consensus on exactly what we want to present here, with the exact phrasing that we'd like to use. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If Magicalsaumy has edited the section, without participating in the on-going discussion, it is not correct and should be considered as vandalism. There was ample time for him to respond. Aupmanyav 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I don't agree with the word "God" being used as a way to westernize Hinduism. While I understand that the Hindus/Indians don't want to be seen as backwater by the 1st world western nations, thousands of years of religious texts and histories can't (or shouldn't) be tossed just to fit in. I find it unsettling that anyone would want to change their beliefs to make others comfortable. Brahma or Brahman is not God. God doesn't even exists within the contents of Hindu literature (although Buddha implied towards him as the "Ruler of the worlds"). I think that the title should be reworded also to something similar to "concept of God" and its content with God in quotations, so as not to be mistaken literally. MPA 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, there can be a many Gods hinduism, one God hinduism, one God/Brahman hinduism, and a non-God/Brahman hinduism. Aupmanyav 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we request for check user for the sock-puppet of annonymous mischievous editor.

To all editors of Hinduism,

I suggest we all request for check user to find out sock-puppet of mischievous annonymous user to include non-Hindu rascality in Hinduism. swadhyayee 01:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay swadhyayee, do you have any leads on who you think is a sock-puppeter and a potential sock puppet, As it will be hard to just guess and check since there is so much more important work that we could be doing. So please share any ideas.__Seadog ^♪ 16:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to nefarious links included by anonymous editor suggesting something like, Hinduism has roots in Christainity. I had removed the links and met no objection. The anonymous editor placed the matter for inclusion on discussion page. It was strongly opposed by all. The discussion was over. I removed the nefarious links from talk page as it is subversive way of pressing viewers to see the nefarious links. After few days, Abecedare is striving to have them on talk page. If, one is honest enough, one should drop the insistence for inclusion of nefarious links even on talk page. I keep on removing, he keeps on reverting. He gives me a 3RR notice. I appeal and Baka comes with Wikipedia policy. Abecedare removes the links but seeks admin community view. The extra ordinary interest of Abecedare in having nefarious links on talk page tend me to believe that the original anonymous editor could be sock or meta-puppet of Abecedare. One need to see the striving of Abecedare to support the malice of anonymous editor. The behaviour of Abecedare otherwise good editor is highly un-becoming. swadhyayee 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

plz change the color of 'aum' symbol to saffron and change the photo of Lord ganesha with some other photo of lord Ganesha.plz do it soon as they are not looking good.

I do not see what is wrong with the Aum pictures...Also the Ganesha picture is not exactly supposed to be a beautiful painting of him rather it is depicting a Ganesha Murti which describes the context.__Seadog ^♪ 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

aum symbol in black looks very bad.saffron is auspicious color in hinduism. Lord Ganesh's murti doesnt look like familiar/popular form. it is not looking good and might affect reader's view about hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvabhaum (talk • contribs)

I understand that black is considered to be a bad colour but when write Aum with a pen or type the symbol onto a computer is it not black (or blue)? But we'll try to find another saffron Aum. Also why don't you take a digital photo of your Ganesh murti at home if you have one and if it looks. Then you can upload it onto Wikipedia and place it on this article and on Ganesha. You can help us out. One of Wikipedia's policies to BE BOLD! Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Brahman: different forms

shock to see u have confused between bramha and bramhin/brahmin. Bramha is the creater of universe and Bramhin is a caste. Brahmin section is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvabhaum (talk • contribs)

(aham brahmāsmi) means I am Brahma and not "I am Brahman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvabhaum (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out...If you believe a section is wrong try talking to some of the editors to get feedback. I am relitivly new to the subject of Hinduism but I have never contributed to that section of the article. Also go ahead and take a look here you can look at some other pictures of OM and let us know if any of these images would better suit the article.__Seadog ^♪ 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

this one is better http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Golden_Aum.png or even using saffron color instead of black in the existant pic. i am confused over brahmin and brahma. pl can some expert comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvabhaum (talk • contribs)

Yes I have already put that pic at the bottom of the article...I think we should hold off of changing the black ones since there is currently no saffron colored pics and the black Aum is of high quality. From what I know of Studying Hinduism Brahma is the creator aspect of Brahman and Brahmin is a Hindu Caste. I hope this clarified some of your concerns.__Seadog ^♪ 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there are three distinct concepts (I'll use shortcut definitions for easy reference only):

• Brahman ( ब्रह्म ): The Godhead
• Brahma (also Brahmā ) ( ब्रह्मा ) : One of the trinity along with Vishnu and Shiva
• Brahmin (also Brāhmaṇa) (ब्राह्मण) : The priestly varna and also a caste

There is confusion on how to spell these in both Devanagari and in English (I am not claiming that the above listed spelling are the definite ones !), especially on other Hinduism related pages. See for example, this disambiguation page. So if someone can comment knowledgably on this issue, that would help bring clarity.
Sarvabhaum: Can you please sign your comments on the talk page using ~~~~ . Welcome to wikipedia and the Hinduism page! Abecedare 19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I could have not said that any better my self. Brahman the Godhead and Brahma the creator figure of the trinity and of course Brahmin the priestly caste. If you would notice Sarvabhaum the the man in the Godhead and the min in the caste. Those little tags at the end seperate a large distinction between the two.__Seadog ^♪ 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would give you a clear clue. The God-head is Brahman, the caste is Brahmana, Brahma is as given. But please note that many a times Brahman is shortened to Brahma without any change in meaning, as in 'Ayamatma Brahma' (This soul is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), or 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' (all creation is Brahman). Context helps. Aupmanyav 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the English renditions of the words; they are clear in Sanskrit. You are right that there are alternate spellings of the three words in English (sometimes confusingly reflecting different Sanskrit grammatical cases). In my opinion, the best way to avoid confusion when writing in English is to consistently use these spellings in the article:

• Brahman ( ब्रह्म ): The Godhead
• Brahma (also Brahmā ) ( ब्रह्मा ) : One of the trinity along with Vishnu and Shiva
• Brahmin (also Brāhmaṇa) (ब्राह्मण) : The priestly varna and also a caste

The spellings I crossed out are not incorrect, but it is a good idea to use one spelling for each word. However, when the words are used in a Sanskrit quotation (such as 'Ayam ātmā Brahma'), of course you have to retain the way it is in the original Sanskrit. If you are curious as to why the verse is 'Ayam ātmā Brahma', rather than 'Ayam ātmā Brahman,' it is because of grammar. It is not really an alternate spelling. Brahma is the nominative case of the nominal stem 'Brahman.' Therefore, 'ayam ātmā Brahman,' would be ungrammatical in Sanskrit. But when writing in English, there is generally no need to change the form of a word depending on its role in the sentence the way you have to do in Sanskrit. HeBhagawan 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree perfectly with you, that is the best way out. Aupmanyav 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but do not understand why we are spelling "Brahmana" as "Brahmin". ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that we are spelling "Brahmana" as "Brahmin", but rather that we are transliterating ब्राह्मण as Brahmin rather than Brahmana (AFAIK both are correct).

Google has 325000 hits for the Brahmana and 1.4 million for the Brahmin. Of course not all those hits refer to the varna/caste, but at least it indicates that Brahmin is an acceptable (and possibly preferred) spelling.

I reiterate that, as HeBhagawan stated above, the spelling choices are motivated only from the point of consistency and not correctness, because multiple choices are correct. Abecedare 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindu iconography

I have created a new article Hindu iconography since I did not find any other wikipedia article on this topic (let me know if there is one). Currently its content is largely cut-and-pasted from Themes and symbols with a few more stub-sections added. Please feel free to expand, correct, re-organize and add references to the new article ! I hope that once the article is well-developed, we can shorten the Themes and symbols section on the main page. Abecedare 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I added a template to it.__Seadog ^♪ 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Seadog. I'll also try to add category information to the article. Will appreciate any help in developing it - I am loath to 'own' an article :-) Abecedare 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Great start to the article so far Abecedare! Keep up the good work! Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

SrmadBhagawadGeeta

Is not SrimadBhagawadGeeta contained in Mahabharat, which in turn is contained in SrimadBhagawat Purana? I find no mention of SrimadBhagawat Purana, where perhaps it should have been mentioned. Mahabharat is not a separate book. Aupmanyav 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bhagavad Gita is contained in the Mahabharata. No. The Bhagavat Purana is separate from the Mahabharata.

Raj2004 02:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the links: Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata purana (also known as Śrīmad Bhāgavatam). As I understand it, they are distinct 'documents'. Abecedare 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Raj and Abecedare. Appreciate the input. Aupmanyav 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC

You're welcome. Raj2004 10:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question: are all the Puranas attributed to Shri Vyaasa? ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 11:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is something to understand clearly. 'Vyas' is diametre, IMHO it is used in the sense of an expander of a story or an editor who collects publishable material. Probably there have been many 'Vyasas' through the ages when our scriptures and puranas were transmitted orally. 'VedaVyas' is fiction and represents these 'Vyasas' collectively. Even now we have the caste in Brahmins called 'Vyas'. I would also mention a related generic name 'Shuka'. 'Shuka' means parrot. These personages recited the collections of 'Vyasas'. In the same vein, we have 'Soot'. Soot is a thread, and the manager of a thread in a discussion or a performance was called 'Soot' as we call the conductor of a play as 'Sutradhara' (one who carries the thread). 'Sutradharas' are there in Indian dance/drama performances like Kathakali in Kerala (dance and story), Jatra in Bengal (do not know much about it but it must be similar), Padh in Rajasthan (illustration and story), Pandavani in Chhattisgarh (dance and story), Alha-Udal in Madhya Pradesh (dance and story), etc. Aupmanyav 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav,

My feeling is Maharshi Ved-Vyas was one person and his contributions are almost total. He could have been assisted by his students/deciples and his organisation could be like an institute or university. It is said that all the thinking is vomit of Vyas, means Vyas has thought (and contributed to scriptures) every possible thing under the sky. To convince, let's take example of Shakaracharya who died at the age of 32 but was an authority at very tender age (13 ?) and probably wrote Shankar-Bhashya then. It's possible for intellectuals like Maharshi Ved-Vyas or Shankaracharya to provide enormous contributions. Maharshi Ved-Vyas could have lived a very long life considering the longevity claim of those times. His work could have been expanded or made easy to understand by his qualified "Shishyas".

You mean "Shukla" or "Shuka"?

Since Purans are not considered to be authentic scriptures, it could not be gifts of Maharshi Ved-Vyas who can be equated with a great scientist. I believe Purans are stories of "Chamatkars" to discipline un-educated or low-intellectuals and/or draw them to spirituality or rather righteous living.

No claims, just trying to learn.

swadhyayee 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The general belief is that all eighteen puranas were composed by Veda Vyasa. But it is possible to believe Aupmanyav's view. Perhaps Veda Vyasa's disciples helped write the Puranas.

Raj2004 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All views are welcome and valuable. I wrote what is mine. It is recorded that Maharshi VedaVyas (going by your view) asked his four desciples the job of compiling one Veda each. Puranas are many things, for educated and for uneducated, for wise and for dumb, and as you rightly said, they are the source of guidance for all hindus for righteous living. Aupmanyav 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is this blue-blooded Aryan?

Hinduism - Core concepts - 'Modern Hinduism evolved from the ancient Vedic tradition'. Vedic tradition certainly a part of hindusm but can you attribute the whole of hinduism to Vedas? What about Rama and Krishna who find no mention in RigVeda? What about Vishnu and Rudra who are lesser Gods in Vedas (there is no mention of Shiva or Shakti. Of course, no mention of Bhairava, Ganesha, or Hanuman also). Was India bereft of any religious tradition before the coming of Aryans? How come, that Aryan Gods are today known as lesser Gods in hinduism? Who was the winner in the war of faiths? It were the indigenous Indian traditions. Are you trying to produce some synthetic hinduism? I thought the Aryan madness was gone with Hitler. Aupmanyav 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats what evolved means. It is like how we evolved from the apes. There are no red-haired monkeys or gorillas that can talk. Evolved means that Hinduism developed from the Vedas. It does not mean that Hinduism is completely Vedic. Otherwise the Puranas, Ramayan, Mahabharat, Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads are nothing. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you agree that Hinduism is not completely Vedic. That is what I am bothered about. Aupmanyav 14:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in presuming that Vedas are older than other scriptures or Avatars. Lord Krishna has mentioned Vedas in Srimad Bhagawad Geeta. Which make me inclined to believe that Vedas are prior to Avatars. My belief is Aryans were strict followers of our religion and with their migration to Bharat, the religion has natural growth here. I not versed with Non-Vedanti theories but I feel the very existence of Non-Vedanti theories could be the existence of Vedas. I would like to learn from the discussion. swadhyayee 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The Vedas are older than the rest of the Hindu texts. Both Westerners and Hindus believe this. The Vedas are like a tree trunk and the other texts are like many branches. All of the Astik views came from the Vedas but of course are not only the Vedas. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Both, the Vedic tradition and the indigenous thought are very old. Some scholars like Tilak opine that Vedic tradition is older than the last ice-age (some 18000 years). Avataras are probably an assimilation of deities worshipped in different areas in India, Rama from Awadh, Krishna from Braja, NriSimha from Andhra Pradesh, Buddha from North Bihar, Parasurama from Gujarat, Vamana could be from Kerala since Bali was a Kerala king. I do not know which are the places venerated for Matsya, Kurma, Varaha avataras. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor can help. Both the traditions were contemporary and strong. Unfortunately, the number of migrant Aryans was small (coming from Afghanistan and Central Asian arid regions) as compared to the indigenous population which is as bountiful as ever. Perhaps that is the reason indigenous thought prevailed; and Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti became the prime deities in India. Aupmanyav 14:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar Aupmanyavji. Aryan-Invasion Theory has been discredited severely recently, and is discarded by most Hindu thinkers as another Western ill-concoction. Also, Rudra is presented, not Shiva in the Vedas. As far as Bhairava, you and I both know that Bhairava, Svacchandanath, Srikanthanath, are of the Tantrika Parampara, which unfortunately is not presented in Hinduism. Remember that we are in Kali Yuga, and things are not as they were in Sat Yuga.

For those unfamiliar with the Yugas, "It is said that Kaliyuga could not begin as long as Lord Shri Krishna was touching this Earth with His holy feet and it was only after He left this mundane world that Kaliyuga commenced." And so, in Mahanirvana Tantra, Devi questions,

"At present Kaliyuga holds sway and causes the destruction of Dharma and prompts people to commit wicked deeds, immoral and false acts. Now influence of Vedas has gone, Smrites have also been drowned in forgetfulness and the names of various Puranas which are full of history and point to various paths will not remain known and consequently the people will turn against virtuous acts. The people of Kali will become rudderless, vain, full of Sin, voluptuous, greedy, cruel without feelings of pity and will become haughty and accustomed to using unkind words. The people of Kaliyuga will keep company of low persons, will try to acquire the wealth of others, speak ill of others, act viscously and will become wicked. In trying to forcefully get another's wife these people will have no fear of sin. These persons will always remain poor, dirty and diseased. The Brahmins will not perform the daily Sandhya and will act like Shudras. Prompted by greed they will try to earn their living by performing forbidden acts and commit sins. They will be liars wicked persons vain, have evil tendancies and sell their daughters and will be opposed to tapas and vrat. They will flout the rubes with regard to eating and drinking and will always denounce the Shastras and virtuous men. 0 ! Lord of jagat, who among these people will read stotras and understand yantras and under the Kaliyuga perform Purashacharans. Men of Kaliyuga will be of very evil tendencies and will be sinful persons. How will they be reduced?"

The Blessed Sadasiva goes on to explain the means of attaining liberation from bondage, and establishes the Panchadeva Upasana. I am sure that you know, but for the benefit of others, this explains the worship of the Panchadevas, i.e., Ganesh, Vishnu, Surya. Shiva and Devi with the Ganpatya, Vaishnava, Saura, Shaiva and Shakta Agamas. This was not the way of the original Vaidika Parampara as it was in earlier yugas, but is the roopa of Hinduism as it is in this age.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, I belive in Aryan migration, rather than invasion and I do not think the theory is discredited. Tilak has given clear reasons why Aryans should be considered foreigners (see the Wiki discussion pages for Vedas and its history). Hindus had a presence in Afghanistan and trans-Hindu Kusha region. In Vayu Purana that is mentioned as Kumuda-dvipa or Kusha-dvipa (grass land, Central Asian steppes, that is why Hindu-kush). Mahabharat mentions the very handsome Kumuda warriors on swift horses who followed Drishtadyumna and sided with Pandavas. Even Alexander's historians mention a tribe as Komdoi (information available from Wiki page on Puranas). Here Aryans met Indians and merged with them seemlessly. Indians accepted the wisdom of Vedas. Later probably because of the advent of surrounding tribes, some of these Aryans migrated to India (I do not rule out small skirmishes). But many people have settled in India without any conflict (Parsis, Jews, early christians and muslims). They just form another group. Many tribes migrated/invaded India even after the Aryans, like Scythians, Parthians, Greeks, Kushanas, and Huns. They were also absorbed. Aupmanyav 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tilak was a fighter not a thinker. There is no such thing as Aryans, Dravidians, etc. Out of India Theory is more probable than AMT. Note that Valmiki is known to be South Indian, yet he wrote Sanskrit. The western historians have shoved and compressed Hindu history into a little box, when it is timeless. The "Aryans" are merely a sub-shoot of the same group of Africans that emigrated from Africa eons ago, and became another race out of the many. India did not turn scythian, hun, greek, or Persian after their "invasions". If nothing they absorbed the invaders into adopting Hinduism and Indian tongues. See Pamheiba and other Manipuris and Ahom kingdom for more recent examples. The Ahom's are akin to SE asian tribes, but slowly adopted Oxomiya and Hinduism over Ahom (language) and Buddhism. Pamheiba converted to Hinduism and Manipur followed suit in the early 18th century.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Tilak was a fighter not a thinker." I have no study on Tilak but I know that he has written commentary upon Shrimad Bhagawad Geeta which in my opinion would not be possible without some philosophical study. swadhyayee 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bakaman, Lokmanya BalGangadhar Tilak was both, a fighter as well as a thinker. The first to say 'Swarajya hamara janmasiddha adhikar hai, aur hum ise le kar rahenge' and writer of such books as Geeta Rahasya; Orion, The Antiquity of Vedas; and Arctic Homes in Vedas. He was also the editor of the Pune newspaper, 'Kesari'. Whatever you may say about that great man, it would be insufficient. The only thing is that he was not a conceited scholar. He believed that Aryans hailed from a region close to North Pole because the there is clear evidence for that in the Vedas, for example, the dawn lasting for 30 days (the ushas, 30 sisters), which cannot happen anywhere else. Aupmanyav 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to be discussing about Aryans etc. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. There is strong evidence and flaws in both theories as shown on their respective Wiki pages. This is a problem that regularly occurs here. Hinduism-editors start talking about Hinduism here instead of how to improve the article. If anybody wants to discuss their philospohical views, they can start a blog, or go to a Hindu online forum. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, can I finally take it that the fellow editors accept that Hinduism is not derived only from Vedas and there is an equally strong inheritance from other indian traditions, and make the necessay changes in the article where it is mentioned that Hinduism is derived only from the Vedic tradition?? If there are objections, please let me know of them. Aupmanyav 12:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Aupmanyav, My knowledge is very limited but to me, Hinduism and Vedas can not be seperated. I have not seen any explanation here that how Hinduism is detached from Vedant? I would like to learn whether there is any particular school which outrightly reject Vedant? To me, what one follows is different thing. To me, Vedant is something that flows from Vedas. My belief is all that is thought is somehow related to Vedas or could be seen in Vedas. I could be totally wrong and would like to have additional knowledge. The beauty of Hinduism is appreciation of thinking of all schools. Islam has certain things like believing God in any form as "Napak", Hinduism does not have so. Dayanand Saraswati did go against idol worship which as I understand was to balance excess idol worship in his times but Hinduism do accept human form of God and prefer idol worship. What I am trying to stress is that there is no fundamental dis-agreement. The beliefs could differ but I do accept that there is unity in diversity. I shall be grateful to understand any part of Hinduism which is detached from Vedant.

Mr.DaGizza, I think, you should not object to discussion of Hinduism. You can remain away where ever you want to. The subject matter is Hinduism and the discussion is bound to be such which you may feel irrelevant and others feel relevant. Here, Aupmanyav wants to change a sentence of this article and how any discussion on the issue be considered outside of improving the article. Improving article should not be limited to lay-out or grammar or length etc. only. The justice has to be done to the subject also. Pl. bear with us if you feel we are going bit away from the subject. You are our senior and should encourage us. swadhyayee 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is DaGizza, you have forgotten to sign. I am in no way separating Vedas from Hinduism, they are inseparable. But the hinduism of vilages believes in many things. They do not know about Vedas or Vedanta. Have you heard of a God Jamru? That is the presiding deity of the villagers of Malana in Himachal Pradesh, they do not know any other God. Many villages in many areas have their own Gods or Godesses. Hinduism has no objection to that. This is from the indigenous Indian beliefs. Shiva, Ganesh, Hanuman, Ayyappa, and Yelamma also are such Gods and Godesses. Even Tirupati Balaji or Puri Jagannath seem to have non-Vedic origins. Elite/Sanskritized/educated hindus have assimilated them as avataras, bhairavas, or devis. But that may not be the beliefs of their worshippers. For them they are individual separate Gods and Godesses. Not everything in hinduism is derived from Vedas or Vedanta. This is what I want to be reflected in the article. Even now there is excess of idol worship, the teachings of Nanak or Dayananda who were influenced by Islam has not changed the thinking of hindus barring a few. Actually we do not see anything wrong with idol worship. Do the Sikhs and Arya Samajis not bow to photographs of the two? Aupmanyav 16:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pushing Hinduism in a Pre-disposed Direction

DaGizza,

It's not sufficient to have civil discussion and continue to bear dishonest mind. After the voting, HeBhagawan went to Priyanath on his talk pages and tried to persuade to retain his caste biased thing in the article. What is the use of voting? Who asked for voting? Was there any consensus for voting. Yet, after the voting, he had not removed the Dalit nonsense from the article. I saw it yesterday and has removed it. One should be open to change or bury one's desire when other views are stronger. The problem with HeBhagawan is that he has strong attachement to the article and act like a boss or class monitor. He has used all sort of gimmicks to get support for his inclusions. Initially, I had dis-agreements with HeBhagawan. Now Aupmanyav and Saiva_Sujit to have strong dis-agreements with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swadhyayee (talk • contribs)

Where has Saiva had a strong disagrement with him recently? I thought both of them have been getting along well lately. I do agree with you about this voting. It is going nowhere. It doesn't even say at the top that this vote is about the caste system. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: [[1]]

I don't see Saiva saying HeBhagawan is disrespectful or anything like that. He is just saying that the sentence "Hinduism is mainly monotheistic" is not well worded or not very true. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I copy paste the text which I feel refers to HeBhagawan by Saiva_Sujit.

"The reason why the concept of mainstream in Hinduism seems so accurately to discribe "an educated westernized urban dweller" is because, as I mentioned before, if you look at the references, you will see them filled with Vedanta, and all bhasyas from Bhaskarananda, the English-speaking sage of Seattle. I also do not like the idea of comparing Hinduism to semitic/Abrahamic religions, as if they were some sort of benchmark of refinement."

swadhyayee 07:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Saiva, considering that this discussion is about your disagreements with HeBhagawan, I would like you to clarify whether you are criticising HeBhagawan here. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, I did not intend that quote to serve as any useless criticism of anyone, including HeBhagawan. I do feel however, that there is avery strong tide towards Advaita Vedanta, but do not pin that to any particular editor. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 09:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article has a strong Advaita Vedanta bias. I think article should still lean towards Vedanta because out of the six darshans, Vedanta is definitely the most influential. But somehow we have to mention that there are other philosophies such as Sankhya, Mimansa, Nyaya etc.

I also think that this article has a guru's/swami bias. Out of the billion Hindus in the world, most do not know Sanskrit, most probably more than five mantras. Some would have read a translation of a holy text like Bhagavad Gita or an Upanishad but most Hindus' philosophical views are influenced by their local pundit. The average Hindu knows more about the mythology, like how Krishna or Kali killed evil demons than what Brahman is. They are more concerned having a good current life instead trying to attain moksha, even though that is meant to be the ultimate goal. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain that I can fully agree with either of those claims. I do not believe that Vedanta is the most influential, rather, it has been said that 99% of Hinduism today is Tantrik. Many Hindus in all sorts of environments daily perform sadhana by means of temple worship, but a growing majority are involved in sangams reciting Vishnu Sahasranam, or equally popularly, Lalita Sahasranama, etc. Bhajan is also definitely still very strong. A very large majority of Hindus consider themselves Vaishnawa or Shaiva, and among them, Vaishnawa is more prominent. This is not the same as Ishta Devata of Shri Adi Shankaracarya. These are sectarian divisions. Very few Hindus consider themselves Vedantin, though much of the literature exported to countries in an attempt to familiarize the world with Hinduism has been Vedantin, and this is largely because of the tireless effort of Vivekananda and the mission that he created. Also, moksha, under grhastha dharma is considered as about pertinent as death. It is the sanyasin mindset of Vedanta (Adi Shankaracarya intended Vedanta only for Sannyasi Brahmanas), that tells all to abandon everything and run towards moksha, but this is simply not even meant to be the way of Hinduism. Again, this is that Vedantin influence. I do agree that mythology is much better known to Hindus than the shat darshanas, however, you must think of it as a normal curve with the context of Kali Yuga. I hope I rambled about something halfway useful.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 10:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also find it very interesting that so much stress is put upon the shat darshanas. When I first read the article and the discussions, I was very surprised, as I've never seen it given such attention, "the six orthodox schools". Perhaps this is my Shaivite bias.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 10:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Saiva_Sujit,

I am quiet delighted to read your scholarly discussion. I agree with DaGizza also. I do not know about Tantrik so do not understand your claim that 99% Hinduism today is Tantrik. I don't think other than south Indians anybody would be reciting Lalita Sahasranama. Is temple puja a Tantrik matter?

What is the dis-agreement of Dwait and Adwait with the current article? I understand, Dwait is a belief where self at merging stage prefer to consider one's self as different from God and Adwait prefer to consider oneness with God. "Ahm Brahmasmi" like belief. However, I understand even believers of Dwait think that it's due to the grace of God, merging is possible. I would like to understand more from you. If, there is anything left out in the article, let's try to persuade all to include than leaving.

Further, was your ref. Western sage meant Swami Bhaskaranandji? Could you tell me more about Bhaskaranandji as I have no knowledge of Bhaskaranandji. I have seen HeBhagawan largely quoting Swami Bhaskaranandji. swadhyayee 10:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar Swadhyayee. I also enjoy discussing Hinduism, though I try my best to stray from intellectual debates. I am Koshur, and I chant Lalita Sahasranam; I think that it is as wide-spread as the worship of Devi.

If you look at the section above, you can see what I mean about the prominence of Tantra. Also, Temple puja is indeed tantrik; all the recitations are according to Tantrika Shastras.

Now, I am not talking about Advait VS Dvait, I mean about Vedanta in general, but yes, specifically Advaita Vedanta.

I have a book by Bhaskarananda from the Vivekananda memorial near Kanya Kumari. I do not know much about him other than he is either a member of or deeply affiliated with Vivekananda's Ramakrishna Mission, and has lived in Seattle, Washington for around 30 years or so. He is an Advaita-Vedantin. That is all that I know of him.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 11:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar, Saiva_Sujit. ॐ नमःशिवाय.

I am so sorry but honestly I am from Mumbai and do not know what is Koshur. I would love to know it. Thanks for explaining Tantrik. I felt "Tantrik" had some connection to "Atharva Ved" and The Vidhya was to remove evils or cause pain remotely to a person and obviously I could not have liking for the same. swadhyayee 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Koshur is a Kashmiri in Kashmiri language. I am also one. Aupmanyav 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and nice to know a pair of Kashmiris (Saiva_Sujit & Aupmanyav) like you. Just curious, are you both into or have studied philosophy or scriptures? swadhyayee 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar Swadhyayeeji. I am a devotee of Saivacarya Ishwar Svarup Shri Swami Lakshman Joo Maharaj Raina, and follow the Kashmir Shaiva Shastras. I have also studied Vedanta and Shaiva Siddhanta.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am already a siddha, who has answers to all questions and does not need a guru. My strings are Quantum Physics and BGTilak. Aupmanyav 12:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Saiva_Sujit ॐ नमःशिवाय. Glad to know your string (hope am using a correct word). I will learn of it, if it is on Wikipedia. ॐ नमःशिवाय

The problem is that Hinduism is like a rope with many strands. In practice, one system of belief--such as Tantra, Shaivism, or Adwaita--may overlap with other belief systems. Thus if you say that Hinduism is 99% Tantra, you may be right. Tantrik ideas can be found in many different schools of thought, regardless of whether those schools call themselves Tantrik or not. Similarly, Adwaitik ideas can be found in many schools of thought, regardless of whether those schools call themselves Vedanta-vaadis. Popular villiage Hinduism is different than educated Brahmanical / Sanskritik Hinduism. Yet they have commonalities too. That is why a major theme in Hinduism is unity in diversity. HeBhagawan 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. Good to see your activity again. By now, I have come to understand that nature of Hinduism that you are referring to. I am not really sure in what way Vedantin ideas are found in non-Vedantin thought. Perhaps you should be more careful with your terminology. Advaita != Advaita Vedanta != Hinduism. If you do not see why Hinduism as it is today is 99% Tantrika, please, as I told Swadhyayeeji, look at the section above. Now, The distinction you have made between "Popular village Hinduism" and "educated Brahmanical / Sanskirtik Hinduism", is a result of seeing things from Vedantin lens: Adi Samkaracarya's Vedanta was designed for Brahmana Sanyasins. If you are familiar with the way of Brahmanas of today, you will know that, while they still do study the Vedas with exhaustion, Pandits perform as per Tantrika shastras. As far as sanskritik Hinduism...I am really at a loss as to what you mean.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the books I cited in the article, I am only one person, and I have a limited number of books. I cite the books I have. I also cited from many books I got from the library. But I can't be the only one to bring sources to the article. I wish others would take the trouble to get some books of their own to cite. That way we would have more sources and we wouldn't have to rely only on the books I am able to procure. I have access to quite a few books, but there must be others with access to books as well. HeBhagawan 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaskar. Certainly there are many of us with books that are ready to be cited, however, in my case at least, I am hesitant to make drastic changes to the article, without discussing it first. I have felt that this article has been lopsided since I first read it, but had not been able to prove it, until I noticed the references.

ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome HeBhagawan! presuming after a thanks giving break. Your break gave us rest. "The problem is that Hinduism is like a rope with many strands". It's not the problem, it's the characteristic. swadhyayee 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, What I meant was that it's a problem in the sense that people become confused if they fail to recognize this unity in diversity. I'm glad you got some rest. HeBhagawan 01:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When are you going to have next break? swadhyayee 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello I welcome you both back, since it has been a while since I have conversed or collaborated with you two.__Seadog ^♪ 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Arjun. Seeing you busy in pursuit.. Would you just say us hi! or join us in fight too? swadhyayee 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaste to you Swadhyayee, what do you mean by fight? Just curious.__Seadog ^♪ 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NamasteArjun. With boss coming back, the fight is bound to be. Would you join, whatever it may be? swadhyayee 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Archival is done, I personally do not consider any of the discussions here fighting since it is the discussions here that lead to the results here. Any disagreements can be overcome by civil discussions, even though your or my idea won't make it into the article it dosn't mean we were wrong. Also I do not consider any wikipedian the boss of others, since if it were true it would be somewhat violating the owning policy. There is no user in control of a certain article. If any one here feels that there is please discuss. Cheers!__Seadog ^♪ 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, real sage talk. Wish that the wishes come true. Our friend has sufficient capacity to irritate me and I am very poor in controlling my irritation. swadhyayee 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, how does he irritate you? Please let us know sow maybe the problem can be fixed...I hope you do not think I am annoying you.___Seadog ^♪ 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not as easy as to fix a typo error on Wikipedia. Your tech ability to use Wikipedia tools won't be of use here. No certainly, you are not annoying me. swadhyayee 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to here that I am not annoying...I sometimes get people irritated by asking question after question. I would ask one here but I have none at the moment. I am going to log off for the night very soon.__Seadog ^♪ 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Any useful comments you may have would be appreciated. HeBhagawan 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right HeBhagawan, some off-topic has taken place here but anything is useful if they bring change in editors and consequent edit fights. Cheers. swadhyayee 02:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this sentence make sense?

3 Hindu Scriptures. The last sentence of the first paragraph reads: "Over many centuries, the teachings of the were refined by other sages, and the canon expanded."

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me there seems that there should be a word between "the" and "were": "Over many centuries, the teachings of the ____ were refined by other sages, and the canon expanded." Maybe "Hindu scriptures" fits in here.

Or else "of the" can be removed from the sentence: "Over many centuries, the teachings were refined by other sages, and the canon expanded."

Tell me what you think, because there could be something I'm not seeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander (talk • contribs)

I think you're right. There might have been a word between "the" and "were" before which is no longer there. Both of your proposals sounds good, but I suggest "of the" because in the article's current state, we need to shoren as much as possible! Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing "of the" seems best to me. Good catch. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 11:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Good catch! Om namah Shivaaya HeBhagawan 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch indeed!__Seadog ^♪ 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari Question

I am sorry for this off-topic question, but it may be important. I have been using the Hindi Wikipedia to input Devanagari characters. When adding the i-matra (not ī), I have noticed two behaviours: when at work, the matra is placed upon the preceding consonant, however, at home, the matra is placed on the next consonant. For example, in my signature (ॐ नमःशिवाय), at work, I see, "Namaḥśivāya", but at home, I see, "Namaḥśaviāya". Please tell me which way it is displayed on your screens. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I say this could be important is because of the devangari we use for sanskrita terms: they could be appearing different to different viewers. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 07:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I may be able to help you on this, since I too had been 'fooled' into making mistaken edits on wikipedia by this issue (See [2], [3]). I think the problem is that the Indic scripts (or rather 'right-to-left' scripts) are not properly installed on your home computer. The solution for correcting that is here (I am assuming that you are using Windows XP. IIRC the problem does not appear when using Internet Explorer 7 as opposed to Firefox) Hope that works ! Abecedare 08:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedian page on Indic scripts, which is Wikipedia:Enabling_complex_text_support_for_Indic_scripts#Check_for_existing_support. Do the test mentioned on the page with both of your computers. One of them probably hasn't been updated in Indian scripts. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you all. It's much better now. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 13:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Try using the IAST template.--D-Boy 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast/Varna

To me the varna section seems to be fine. Can we remove the NPOV tag?-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have entered the minefield and edited the Varna and caste system section. :-) Hopefully though my edits (see diff [4]) will be non-controversial. Here are my reasons:

• I stated that the caste system, as currently practiced, is typically hereditary, since otherwise it is not clear (to a reader who doesn't already know the answer) where the difference between varna and caste lies.
• I deleted a paragraph that IMO was mis-formatted and redundant.

Also I think we need to add a reference for the statement "What varna a person was in was based on occupation", although I have not added a {{Fact}} tag to it. Abecedare 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the varna section has been trimmed sufficiently to have no POV statements. We should remove the NPOV tag. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pativrata Dharma

Hi all, I think we should include a small write up about pativrata dharma or atleast a mention of it in this article. This feature of treating ones husband as God seems to be unique in Hinduism as it is not found in any other religion. Many great pativrata's of yore still inspire the minds of devout hindus. Such a high status is given to these great ladies in Hinduism that, it is told, mere remembrance of them would purify one's sins. One more thing we could do is to have a sub template under hinduism template listing links to articles of famous pativrata's. I could find only Sukanya and Anusuya in wikipedia. We should have articles about all pativrata's and their links in a subtemplate. please let me know your opinions. Lokesh 2000 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

'Lokesh, If we have a write-up on Pativrata, than why not Putra-Dharma" (Shravan), "Atithi Dharma" "Ahimsa and protection of cows etc.", "Panch-Yajna" and so on. So far as "Pati-Vrata" if, to be included seeing it as unique, the same may be seen ridiculous for a western woman. Another point is how many women today resemble the legendaries? I am not ridiculing your point, I am just discussing further. swadhyayee 02:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Swadhyayee: If we include pativrata dharma, then we would have to include the rest as well. The result would be too much detail for this article in my opinion. But it could certainly be in a linked article within the Hinduism project. HeBhagawan 03:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, I was just thinking from the perspective of opportunities that hinduism gives to its followers to attain divinity by allowing them to utilize any humane emotion like love toward husband etc. many hindu's have attained devinity by following Pativrata,Atithi,Putra Dharma's. We should note that they have not worshipped any specific devata. I felt this aspect is not even implicit in the article. On the issue of pativrata's, I thought they are accorded great status in purana's and other smriti's considering popularity of them among indian folk.If we can't include these aspects in the article, we should atleast have links to them form main article or from hinduism project. Lokesh 2000 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Lokesh,

This is my view. "Purans" are not considered to be authentic scriptures so also may go for "Smrutis". To me, "Smrutis" are constitutions. The famous amongst them is "Manusmruti". I revere "Manusmruti" yet I am not inclined to accept everything "Manusmruti" suggests. Article like "Hinduism" can not be based on "Puranas" or "Smrutis". As I understand it is claimed that whatever is not in "Geeta" is useless knowledge but the editors will not agree to this. Further, when you make a long article like "Hinduism", you have to willingly let go comparatively less significant matters. When you take all points for inclusions, you will find that what you initially considered to be must for inclusion could be avoided. I am just giving my views. You may pursue for your points here with other editors. I have no objection to inclusion or non-inclusion. The claims that some legendaries attained "Moksha" by just following their duty towards their husbands or parents may not be substantiated by authentic evidences. If you can point out that "Moksha" can be attained by just sticking to one duty towards husband seeing them as "God" from authentic "Shashtras", I think it has a place here. I am sure western women may laugh at it and where do we have husbands like Ram? swadhyayee 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lokesh, Pativrata dharma, or considering husband with the devotion equal to God is intrinsic to Hinduism, though I would not like to include it in the main Hinduism page. It can be put in any related article on hindu women or relationships. If the christians or muslims laugh on it, I give two hoots for that. It is our culture. The test of the relationship is when the husband is cruel or afflicted with some disease. Even in such a condition a hindu woman has to prove herself true. Aupmanyav 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Wiki link?

• HinduWiki

An anonymous user just posted this link - what does everyone think - should we link to another wiki site from this one? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It is by definition not reliable. Also it just seems to mirror an older version of the main page, circa August 2006 - so we may as well link to a historical version of this page itself !

Interesting note: There have been ~2000 edits on the Hinduism page since then: don't know if that reflects positively or negatively :-) Abecedare 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No I do not think so either.__Seadog ^♪ 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Iconography

You'll note that I have deleted the "Themes and Symbols" section from the main page (see older version here). I had branched off the section into a new Hindu iconography page a few days back, which now has expanded and improved content (thanks especially to Seadog and GourangaUK !), and was featured in the "Did you know" section of Wikipedia's Main Page earlier today.

Instead I have replaced the section by a shorter text in the Hindu iconography sub-section on the Hinduism page (where I believe it is better placed, since it follows discussion of "Puja" and "Worship of God through images"). In that text, I have tried to highlight only the origin and significance of the symbols in general (as I understand the topic), and listed a few examples. I have tried to avoid going into a detailed discussion of individual symbols since I think that is better left to the specialized page on the topic. Also I have retained only the Swastika image instead of the three images of Aum, Swastika and Yantra - since the Aum symbol already appears on the page and Yantra is not as universally recognized (correct me if I am wrong here).

The upshot: The main page is shorter by 2KB + 2 images + 3 lines in TOC, while the topic itself is better covered on wikipedia by the specialized page! Of course, further improvements can and should be made. It would be especially useful if someone can add appropriate references. Abecedare 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, and thanks for letting us know it was on the main page!__Seadog ^♪ 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Aum in saffron color

I have filled up saffron color in the original Aum symbol but I am not able to upload it.Sarvabhaum 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)